Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA Feasibility Analysis of a Proposed Coal Fired Thermal Power Station at McGrath, Ak Draft 5-1997A Feasibility Analysis of a Proposed Coal Fired Thermal Power Station at McGrath, Alaska for MTNT, Limited and McGrath Light and Power P.O. Box 309 McGrath, Alaska 99627 FINAL DRAFT - May 3, 1997 by J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska in association with Parsons Power Group, Inc. Reading, PA Northern Economics, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 March, 1997 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 List of Figures Figure 1 Alaska and vicinity Map Figure 2 McGrath City Map Figure 3 Photos of the City of McGrath Figure 4 Power Plant Site Plan Figure 5 Power Plant Floor Plan Figure 6 Power Plant Perspective Figure 7 Simplified Steam Thermal Cycle Figure 8 Combined Turbine Set Performance Curve Figure 9 Turbine Performance Curve - Back-pressure unit Figure 10 _— Electrical One-Line Diagram Figure 11 Heat & Mass Balance - full load Figure 12 Photo of comparable power plant Figure 13 _— District Heat Layout Figure 14 Map of Winter Haul Route Figure 15 Photos of winter haul route Figure 16 Proposed project Construction Schedule Figure 17 Employment Projections (1990 - 2005) Figure 18 Population Projections (1990 - 2005) List of Tables Table 1 - Details of the City of McGrath Table 2 - Summary of proposed power plant & District Heating Table 3 - Summary of First Cost of Construction Table 4 - Summary of Project Budget Table 5 - Energy Demand Estimates Table 6 - Payroll Deduction Rates Table 7 - First Five Years PCE Calculations Table 8 - Comparison of Expenses in Year 5 Table 9 - Net Present Values of three Development Options Table 10 - Sensitivity Matrix J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 Table Of Contents acknowledgments preface 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.0 4.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Scope 2.2 Intent PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of McGrath & its Electric Utility 3.1.1 The Villages 3.1.2 The Electric Utility - McGrath Light & Power 3.1.3 Existing District Heating in McGrath The Concept of a Coal Fired Community Energy System for McGrath The Power System and District Heating 3.3.1 Power Plant Systems 3.3.2 District Heating Systems Coal Fuel and Limestone supplies 3.4.1 Location of Resources 3.4.2 Proposed Methods for Hauling 3.4.3 On-the-ground Reconnaissance of the Haul Route 3.4.4 Consultations with Winter Haul Experts Methods for Design, Construction, and Commissioning 3.5.1 Project design, Planning and Permitting 3.5.2 Mine Development 3.5.3 Winter Haul Route Development 3.5.4 Power Plant Construction 3.5.5 District Heating Construction 3.5.6 Commissioning of the Power System Expected Operating Profiles for Power Plant 3.6.1 Special Requirements of a Demonstration Project 3.6.2 Plant Availability 3.6.3 Special Requirements for plant operations and maintenance 3.6.4 Alternative fuels concepts FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Methodology 4.1.1 Community Impact Model 4.1.2 Financial Models J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 4.2 Assumptions 4.2.1 Electrical Demand Forecast 4.2.2 Diesel Alternative - Option 1 4.2.2.1 Operations and Maintenance 42.2.2 Labor 4.2.2.3 Fuel 4.2.2.4 Capital Costs 4.2.3 Coal/Diesel Alternative - Option 2 4.2.3.1 Operations and Maintenance 4.2.3.2 Labor 4.2.3.3 Fuel 4.2.3.4 Capital Costs 4.2.4 Coal (Stand Alone) Alternative - Option 3 4.2.5 Power Cost Equalization 4.2.6 District Heat 4.3 Analysis Methodology and Results 4.4 4.5 5.0 5.1 5.2 6.0 7.0 4.3.1 Diesel Alternative - Option 1 4.3.2 Coal and Diesel Alternative - Option 2 4.3.3 Coal (Stand Alone Entity) Alternative - Option 3 4.3.4 Net Present Value Analysis Sensitivity Analysis 4.4.1 Benefit Cost Analysis Financing Alternatives 4.5.1 Anticipated Financing Plan 4.5.2 Potential Funding Sources CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations REFERENCES APPENDICES 7.1 Cost Estimate 7.1.1 First Cost Of Construction 7.1.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs 7.2 System Performance Analysis 7.3. Project Component Descriptions 7.4 Economic Feasibility 7.4.1 Community Impact Model 7.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Labor 7.4.3 Income Statements 7.4.4 Cash Flow Statement 7.5 Winter Haul Route 7.6 District Heating System J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 iv acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance in the formulation of this report. Mr. Ignatti Petruska for his patience in guiding on the reconnaissance of the winter trail when the thermometer dipped to -30 and -40 deg F. Ms. Judy Vanderpool, for securing the use of a good snow machine. Mr. Carl Propes, CEO of MTNT, Limited, for his assistance in securing field data on McGrath, and excellent input the region economy and Erma Doggett, accountant for MTNT, Ltd, for providing financial numbers, and Mr. Norm Phillips of DOYON, Limited for his assistance in past work on the Little Tonzona Coal Deposit, and his friendly support in the feasibility analysis. Mr. Marty Bushue, General Manager of McGrath Light and Power, for his assistance in securing data on the utility. Mr. Goog Anderson for his help in issues of local contracting and lively discussions on McGrath. Mr. Don Harris for his helpful ideas on the development of energy projects, as well as numerous other McGrath residents, for their concerned comments. Mr. Glen Hanway, Mayor of the City of McGrath for his assistance in laying out the district heating system and discussing utility locations and his support for the feasibility project. Mr. E. Odin Strandberg, PE (retired) for his many discussions of hauling wood, fuel and heavy equipment in the McGrath and Iditarod region. Mr. Sam Brice, for taking the time to thoroughly discuss haul contract dynamics and his recent experiences in over-land haul and remote construction activities. A preface and note to the reader: This project has been shepherded through an ordered development by a diverse group interested in using small scale fluidized bed combustion of low rank Alaskan coal to address energy needs of rural Alaska. The heart of the project is the fluidized bed combustor, a very durable, clean burning and versatile device to combust coal. Throughout the project description and feasibility phase of the project, the Donlee Technologies combustor was used as the basis of design. Throughout the project analysis period, the team felt the project was technically feasible based on extensive project description work and the parasitic power consumption characteristics provided to the team in late 1994 by the manufacturer, Donlee Technologies. However, in late February 1997, new much higher parasitic power numbers were received from Donlee. These figures raised the operating horsepower of the combustor from 112 hp to between 175 and 200 horsepower. The economic implications of this large rise in power requirements are far reaching for economic feasibility, and make the project only marginally technically feasible. The project manager directed that the already completed performance and economic modeling should not be redone, but rather the existing results reported, and this notification of last minute changes be made a part of the project report. Therefore, the following report does not include these new parasitic power characteristics. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A regional energy project that will make use of an Alaskan low rank coal deposit to create power and heat for the City of McGrath Alaska, has been analyzed for feasibility. McGrath is a rural Alaskan community of 500 people situated on the Kuskokwim River in the southwestern Alaska interior This project consists of 1) a coal fired cogeneration power plant in McGrath, Alaska, 2) the development of the Little Tonzona River coal deposit into a producing open pit mine, and 3) development of a winter haul route to transport this coal to the McGrath power plant. The feasibility considered two options for the McGrath Light and Power as follows: Option 1. Diesel. Continue with present operation of internal combustion diesel engine generator sets. Option 2. Coal/Diesel. Construct the new coal fired power plant and a district heating system for McGrath. Option 3. Coal/Stand-alone. Evaluate the construction of a new coal fired power plant, without the ongoing debt burden that would be a part of Option 2. This third option was evaluated to provide a site-nonspecific analysis for the coal fired power plant concept for those wishing to consider the plant for other locations. Feasibility criteria for the successful option require that a net present value of all future costs, when added together must be a positive number, and larger than any competing option. As an integral part of the analysis, it is assumed that all but $1.0 Million of first cost of construction would be granted, and the $1.0 Million would be provided by McGrath Light and Power (ML&P). All downstream operating costs would be borne by ML&P. The project develops one approach for employing an Alaskan low rank coal deposit in a long term energy solution for rural Alaska. The project employs a proven coal combustion technology for energy conversion, and applies this to support a critical need of McGrath, that of regional energy self sufficiency, linking community energy solutions to local employment. The project develops a regional coal resource at Little Tonzona River, which is about 90 miles from McGrath, to yield a producing surface coal mine. A winter haul route is envisioned to transport 20,000 tons of mined coal to McGrath every other year. The winter haul operation will be accomplished by contractors who specialize in winter transport over snow roads. In McGrath, Alaska, a coal fired power plant will be constructed that produces both electricity and heat energy. These two commodities will be sold to the customers of McGrath Light and Power, the utility that will own and operate the power plant. Electricity will be delivered through existing transmission and J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 2 distribution wires, while the heat will be conveyed to customers via a hot water medium in a buried two pipe heating distribution system that would be constructed in conjunction with the power plant. This community energy system would provide a large portion of McGrath’s energy needs over a project lifetime of 30 years, and would greatly reduce the amounts of heating fuels that are presently purchased outside of and brought into the community at great expense. The system employs a steam rankine cycle comprised of a small steam turbine/electrical generator set with one megawatt gross power output and a steam/hot water heat exchanger to transfer heat from the exhaust steam coming out of the back end of the turbine set into a pumped hot water heating medium. Clean burning fluidized bed combustion technology is used in the coal combustor, where the coal is burned under conditions that minimize the formation and emission of environmental pollutants. This concept of clean, reliable combustion, in a system that has an acceptable overall thermal efficiency and which allows a community to make beneficial use of an indigenous energy resource is the kernel concept of the McGrath project. Earlier project description work established a design and construction cost estimate for the project of $5,562,805. A more detailed cost estimate has been formulated for this feasibility report by the same team of engineers, and the cost estimate has increased to $10,887,680. Major changes are in increased costs for site work and building, the combustor, and the district heating system (through increasing capacity from 5 to 10 Million BTU/hr). A total project development budget has also been calculated, which would include all mine, haul route and power plant/district heating system expenses and this estimate is, with a 10% contingency, $13,822,882. Coal Resource and Winter Haul Route: Work accomplished by Doyon, Ltd., establishes the presence of adequate coal reserves at Little Tonzona River. Also, evaluation of the winter haul route in previous studies and on-the-ground reconnaissance of the route in December 1996 established the feasibility of winter haul of coal. While there is concern that costs in some years could be high due to freak weather it should also be noted that other times costs could be lower because unusually good weather creates excellent haul conditions. Feasibility of the Project for McGrath - The Option 2 Coal/Diesel alternative proposes the construction of the coal fired power plant, development of the Little Tonzona Mine and the winter haul route. This option, with the proposed Donlee circulating fluidized bed combustor, is not economically feasible using criteria developed in the last team meeting held on January 24 and 25, 1996. What is the next step for McGrath’s energy system development? One primary issue noted in the analysis is the very high parasitic power the circulating fluidized bed combustor requires. This raises fuel consumption of J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 3 the plant dramatically, lowers the overall efficiency, and causes difficulties in designing for system black start. Consideration should be given to finding other types of combustion equipment to lower requirements for parasitic power, and in finding alternate fuel resources in the region to supplant the coal supply. The project configuration examined in this feasibility report is only one of a number of energy system configurations fueled by local energy resources that are possible for rural Alaska. Other small scale fluidized bed combustion systems which have lower parasitic power are to be considered as a replacement for the combustor used in this study, and the use of other indigenous fuels, specifically biomass and peat are being included for consideration, all to reduce costs of operation. Also, there is new data just now becoming available on small scale coal fired power plants operated unattended in the lower 48 states, which might be applicable to this project. It is important to keep the results of this analysis in correct context. Costs tend to be high for coal based power projects, and the McGrath coal fired power plant is no exception. But these coal and alternate fuel projects promise long term operation at stable fuel prices, with systems that are enduring and long lived; this alone is a good reason to continue the search for alternative fuels based rural community energy systems. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION In early 1994, Doyon, Ltd. began to pursue a project to construct a coal fired power plant to produce electricity and district heat for the community of McGrath, Alaska. Championed by Doyon, Ltd. in association with the U. S. Department of Energy, the project has been carried forward to a nearly complete Project Description (conceptual design) phase. The project has seen contributions by the following entities: Doyon, Ltd., owner of the coal resource at Little Tonzona River MTNT, Ltd., owner of McGrath power utility McGrath Light and Power (ML&&P), electric utility Donlee Technologies, Inc., fluidized bed combustor manufacturer University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (UNDEERC) U. S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology Center (US DOE - FETC) Parsons Power Group, Inc. also known earlier as Gilbert Commonwealth, Inc. Engineering Consultants State of Alaska, DCRA, Division of Energy J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc., Engineering Consultants (JSSCE) University of Alaska Fairbanks Mineral Industries Research Laboratory (MIRL) In its present status, the McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant project has been thoroughly described in three separate reports, referenced below: e Project Definition Study of a 500 kWe Fluidized-bed Facility for Electrical Generation in McGrath, Alaska, DOE Contract No. DE-AC21-94MC31166, January 1995, by Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc. d/b/a/ Parsons Power. (Reference 1) e Project Definition Study of a 600 kWe Fluidized-bed Facility for Electrical and District Heat Generation in McGrath, Alaska, DOE Contract No. DE-AC21- 94MC31166, January 1996, by Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc. d/b/a/ Parsons Power. (Reference 2) e An Interim Evaluation of a proposed Coal Fired Thermal Power Station at McGrath, Alaska, for Doyon, Ltd., October 19, 1996, by J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Reference 3) The conceptual design and planning work reported in these three publications was discussed during a two-day meeting held in Fairbanks, Alaska at the offices of Doyon, Ltd., on January 24 and 25, 1996. Hosted by Doyon, Ltd. and co-chaired by UNDEERC representative Mike Jones and Doyon representative Norman L. Phillips, Jr. this meeting provided a forum for federal and state entities to hear presentations by Mr. Mike DeLallo of Parsons Power describing the project and its estimated cost of planning, design and construction. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 5 UNDEERC prepared a project “position paper” (Reference 4) as a result of this meeting and a polling of all project participants. This paper, now complete, formalizes the understandings reached during the January meeting and includes a definition of the next steps that must occur in the life of the McGrath Energy project. One of the actions defined in this position paper was that a limited amount of design work is necessary to finalize the project description, which includes a design concept and construction cost estimate, among other necessary project description elements. Another necessary action is to determine the feasibility of the project. Rightfully, this should be established before detailed design or construction. While it would be ideal for the feasibility of the project to be expressed by a single ratio number where if this number is greater than 1 the project could be considered feasible, this has not proven to be possible for the McGrath project. Given the complex Alaska bush economy, the question of the validity of a regional energy project will always separate into at least two major justification routes. First, the utility owning the project must over the lifetime of the project receive an acceptable rate of return on investment. Second, and equally important, is that the citizens of the region benefit from the project. Indeed, as a bounding condition, an energy project that allows the owning utility to reap extensive financial gain, but at the expense of the community’s air quality, might seem attractive to the utility, but ultimately would not be good for the region. In another hypothetical condition, a project might spawn numerous local jobs, allow residents to secure long term good paying jobs, increase the money supply in the community, and result in improved quality of life and community air quality, and in short, be good for the region, while at the same time cause the serving utility to suffer financially. This “good” project would not be attractive to the serving utility. So, to develop the question of feasibility further, the following different “levels of thinking’ about project feasibility criteria are stated: e The internal rate of return the utility (McGrath Light and Power) will receive, as a result of agreeing to proceed with the project, and investing $1.0 million of its own money. e The balance that will exist between the benefits and costs to the community the project. Here the community is interpreted to mean the four villages that comprise MTNT, Ltd., McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai, and Telida, and one additional settlement, Medfra. Benefits are increased jobs, increased money supply in the region, and other positive attributes the coal project will provide. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 6 e The practical feasibility of the design, expressed as a net present value of all future costs and revenues. A key element in the feasibility analysis is that both the financial impact on the ML&P and the community at large must be considered. Some will say that the project should be judged on its impact on the utility only, and indeed, it may be that state and federal criteria for acceptance of the project for funding may be based solely on the utility cost structure. However, one may reasonably assume that if ML&P undertakes a project more costly than its present operation, but one which provides an over-riding positive economic benefit to the region, that a portion of these regional benefits could be contributed back to ML&P. This might serve to balance the burdens of the project between the community and the serving utility. These introductory discussions on a feasibility process point out the complexities of establishing feasibility of projects in the Alaskan bush. The work reported herein responds to the issues of technical and financial feasibility and community benefit, from the eyes of both the Utility, McGrath Light and Power, and from the community of McGrath at large. 2.1 Scope This document completes the description of the McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant project and establishes the economic feasibility for the proposed coal fired power plant/district heating system construction based on the inferred coal resource at Little Tonzona River. This feasibility is cast as the net present value of all revenues and expenses, employing a discount rate for McGrath Light and Power. The impact of the project on McGrath and the surrounding region where MTNT, Ltd. has influence is also assessed. 2.2 Intent Prior to delving into the analysis and its results, it is instructive to review the goals of each of the participants in the project: Goal of the U. S. Department of Energy - to develop and demonstrate a new generation of distributed power generation systems that can utilize indigenous resources, specifically coal, biomass and natural gas that would be considered for a facility to be sited in rural Alaska. Goal of the State of Alaska DCRA Division of Energy - to develop cost effective, appropriate energy solutions that can see practical and economic application in many parts of the State of Alaska to maintain or lower the costs of power generation. Goal of the residents of McGrath, Alaska - to secure low cost and long term energy sources for the foreseeable future using local and regional community manpower in combination with state and federal assistance. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 7 McGrath Light and Power and other prospective funders may use this report to decide if they will pursue funding for the project. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 The City of McGrath & its Electric Utility 3.1.1 The Villages The four villages of McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai and Telida and the settlement of Medfra are grouped in a remote region of Alaska some 220 miles to the northwest of Anchorage, Alaska (Figures 1 & 2). The Alaska Range separates these five villages from the relatively temperate Cook Inlet Region of Alaska where Alaska’s largest city, Anchorage, is located. Two hundred sixty miles separates the villages from the second most populous area of Alaska, the Fairbanks region (See Table 1). A total of about 750 people live within these four villages, and a significant portion of the residents are Alaska Natives. The Native residents are members of the village corporation, MTNT, Ltd., which has ownership of lands surrounding McGrath and the other three villages. The regional Native corporation, Doyon, Ltd. also owns land in the region. All village corporation members are also shareholders in Doyon, Ltd. Under the terms of the Alaska Native Land Claims Act, MTNT, Ltd., the village corporation, owns the surface rights for its lands, while Doyon, Ltd., the Regional Corporation, owns subsurface rights for these lands. MTNT, Ltd. effectively controls the lands around the population centers and has land selections with good grade timber stands along the Kuskokwim River. Doyon, Ltd. land selections include areas with mineral and coal deposits, and extend geographically from the McGrath region to areas east to the Alaska/Canada border. Alaskan Native village corporations tend to serve Native shareholders in community-level issues, while the regional corporations (Doyon) tend to deal with regional concerns and investments. The different levels of corporate Native organization are designed to work cooperatively, which is especially evident in this project. Coal deposits are located on Doyon lands, and Doyon has been the leader in promoting this regional energy project to benefit the village corporations and the communities they serve. MTNT, Ltd., the village corporation, owns and operates the electric power generation and distribution system for McGrath, McGrath Light and Power. This entity would construct and operate the proposed coal fired power plant and district heating system. Photos of McGrath are included in Figures 3A through 3E. McGrath Light and Power’s rate payers are the vast majority of the citizens of McGrath, a large percentage of whom are shareholders of both MTNT and Doyon. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. oo BARROW oe woe vor sey BARTER ISLAND KAKTOVI S\o ALASKA ak o\S = ° - Y = oats 2 AS} m ~ si a NOME oT YUKON. . “7 e. McGRAT MEDFRA PAXAMt. McKINLEY u ¢—=——LITTLE TONZONA MINE BERING SEA I> ee ANCHORAGE . vatpier J BETHEL CORDOVA NIKOLAI SEWAROp F GULF OF ALASKA nd cern oe “= RWS Ca 4 Pee 7 / FIGURE 1 — ALASKA ARI! S' eo 4g . o ies PI |_| | | Lendl) ae McGRATH iT & POWER ELE 'DISTRIBUTIO! INDUSTRIAL PARK SUB. U.S.S. 1961 OAL HAUL ROUTE NORTH MAIN TOWN ACCESS a k vt Skoxwiu ®* KUsx View SUBD, CRANBERRY RIDGE R' GRATH 2ND ADDITION FIGURE 2 — McGRATH CITY MAP McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Table 1 - Details of the City of McGrath Commercial {Comunity | Village |Population |& Homes Facilities |Facilities McGrath | 533) 196 9] 9 |Takotna 78) 18) 8] 7 Nikolai 114) 39 8) 7 Telida | 26 4) 2 0 Location 62 deg 58 min N 155 deg 37 min W Elevation 344 feet Commercial/Institutional | McGrath School Facilities Iditarod Area School District McGrath Airport - Division of Aviation State of Alaska Flight Service Facility - Federal Aviation Adminstration US Fish and Wildlife - Innoko National Wildlife Refuge State of Alaska - Public Safety - Troopers Alaska Commercial Company - General Store Takusko House - Lodging Facility Division of Forestry - Fire and Natural Resources State of Alaska Division of Family and Youth Services - State of Alaska Fish & Wildlife Protection - State of Alaska Water Transportion Seattle to Bethel (at the mouth of Kuskokwim River) Pacific Alaska Lines (PAL) West 400 Class Ocean-going 8000 T barge Travel time 16 to 18 days Bethel to McGrath on Kuskokwim River Kuskokwim Transportation Co. 300 to 500 T barge Travel time 5 to 17 days Air Transportation McGrath Airport 6,000 foot paved runway capable of handling Hercules Aircraft (45,000 Ib carrying capacity) Southern Air Cargo, Anchorage, AK J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Aerial View of downtown McGrath, Alaska, showing the school, and business district View from the airport ramp of the McGrath Airport. View is to the west. FIGURE 3 A — VIEWS OF McGRATH, ALASKA View of MTNT, Limited and McGrath Light and Power Offices in downtown McGrath A Southern Air Transport unloading freight in McGrath during summer of 1995. Significant amounts of goods and freight are carried around the Alaskan interior by these aircraft. Other competing lines fly Douglas DC-6 and Curtiss C-46 aircraft regularly in the region FIGURE 3 B — VIEWS OF McGRATH, ALASKA View of one of the diese! electric prime movers in the McGrath Light and Power plant View of the Limestone Quarry site nearby McGrath, named Noir Hill. A road has been constructed from McGrath to the site, and a crusher, owned by the City of McGrath is located at the site. FIGURE 3 C — VIEWS OF McGRATH, ALASKA View of McGrath, Alaska looking north east. Appel mountain is in the background, and the community’s VORTAC navigation site is in the foreground. Coal fired power plant site is in middle right of photo. Winter haul route traverses the photo left to right in middle of photo, on other side of the river. Aerial view of McGrath, Alaska showing FAA buildings, and business area of the town. Kuskokwim river embraces the town on all sides. River flows from right to left FIGURE 3D — VIEWS OF McGRATH, ALASKA Aerial view of Nikolai, Alaska looking northwest. White blaze is the current snow machine trail to the Medfra Crossing. Mountains to the north obscured by snow in this photo. FIGURE 3E — VIEWS OF McGRATH, ALASKA McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 16 The City of McGrath operates under a City Council/City Manager form of local government. The City’s responsibities include street maintenance, solid waste disposal, land management and platting, water and sanitary sewer, and public safety. The City of McGrath has no sales or property tax, but residents pay fees for water and sanitary and solid waste service. Most of the capital for installation of the public utilities has been by outright grants from the State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Two community issues --_high unemployment and very high fuel energy costs - -are aspects of McGrath community life addressed by the McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant project. The economy of the community is stable. Discussions held in July and August of 1996 with a number of community members indicate that employment opportunities are seasonal and fluctuate from year to year based upon those projects underway in the region. The contracting community in McGrath has, for the time being, been reduced by the departure of two companies, Anderson Heavy Equipment and Takotna Construction. However, McGrath’s residents are benefiting from jobs at the nearby Nixon Fork Mine. Other area projects, such as Donlin Creek mine development, and the upcoming airport improvement projects in McGrath and Nikolai, are likely to create temporary employment. All freight, including fuel oil, comes to McGrath either by cargo aircraft or by river barge. In 1996 ML&P purchased fuel oil in bulk for $1.59 per gallon for use in its diesel generators; individual users paid $2.25 per gallon for quantities of heating fuel under 500 gallons (Reference 5). 3.1.2 The Electric Utility - McGrath Light & Power After MTNT, Ltd. was formed, the village corporation purchased the town’s power generation and distribution systems. The concept is to provide public utility service under a private, for-profit electric utility structure. Named McGrath Light and Power (ML&P), the organization is closely linked to its parent organization MTNT, Ltd. They share accounting, management, space, and resources. Headed by a general manager, who in turns serves a 5-person board, ML&P board members are appointed by MTNT, Ltd. for their knowledge of proper business practices, needs of the region, and to represent utility customers. ML&P operates a total of 5 internal combustion Caterpillar diesel engine generator sets situated in an insulated metal building located in the center of McGrath. The sizes are shown below: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 17 McGrath Power Plant Engine Generator Capacities Generator Capacity speed | yr aquired Set Number kw) m 3 250 1200 1969 4 200 1200 1969 5 600 1200 1979 6 670 1200 1989 7 425 1200 | 1983 ML&P serves the City of McGrath electrical customers, numbering at present over 200 customers. During the winter, peak loads can be as high as 800 kWe. The utility typically operates unit 6 during the winter and unit 7 during summer months. Unit 5 serves as a back-up unit. Units 3 and 4 are rarely run. All units can be synchronized and operated in parallel, should the need arise. Details of utility loads and plant operation are further described in References 1 and 2. 3.1.3 Existing District Heating in McGrath McGrath Light and Power has a contract with the U. S. Government to provide waste heat to the Federal Aviation Agency complex located at the northwest end of town. This contract has been in effect for 15 years. Although FAA has decommissioned much of the housing in McGrath, it is expected that the remaining buildings will be maintained and in U. S. Government hands for the foreseeable future. A connecting buried insulated piping system conveys heating water to the FAA load, with one pipe for hot water supply and another pipe for returning water. Heat is transferred by a hot water medium. Heat exchangers to transfer engine jacket water to the circulating water, and pumping equipment are positioned in the power house. The buried piping is ductile iron pipe with tyton push joints, encased in an insulating concrete enclosure. This assembly does not appear to be in danger of failing from corrosion (by virtue of the use of non-corroding ductile iron); however, there is concern for the tyton push joints, which are apparently not mechanical constrained. Thus, if the system is allowed to cool, there could be the danger of a joint pulling apart as the pipeline cools. 3.2 The Concept of a Coal Fired Community Energy System for McGrath The proposed McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant project consists of three separate activities: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 18 ¢ Development of a near-surface coal deposit into a producing mine. The Little Tonzona coal deposit is located some 90 miles east of McGrath on the north slope of the Alaska Range. The deposit is massive and is on land selected by Doyon, Ltd. Doyon has done three separate mine development studies (References 6, 7, and 8) to prepare capital and operating cost estimates including projected mine development and mining plans and the costs for these activities. The reports also define a probable haul cost and provide a lump sum cost per ton of coal delivered in McGrath for use in the feasibility study. e¢ Creation of a winter haul route for transporting this coal to McGrath. In 1993, Doyon, Ltd. retained Brice, Incorporated, a respected freight hauling and heavy rural construction contractor to prepare a winter access road reconnaissance study between the mine site and McGrath, Alaska. (Reference 9) e Construction of a coal fired power plant in McGrath. Preliminary design has been accomplished for a coal fired power plant with siting in the City of McGrath and this work is detailed in References 1, 2 and 3. This power plant consists of e acoal-fired circulating fluidized bed combustor that generates heat an unfired boiler that transfers this heat into a steam medium a steam turbine electric generator set e heat exchanger equipment to transfer heat byproduct into a hot water district heating medium e power plant buildings and coal handling buildings. e Construction of a District Heating System in McGrath One of the advantages of the rankine steam cycle employed in the design is that both heat and electricity are available within the power plant. The design of the McGrath power plant will allow the plant to generate both heat and power in varying quantities to respond to requirements of its customers. McGrath is built relatively compactly, and homes are generally positioned close together. While a good percentage of residents heat with wood, some homes use heating oil, which is very expensive in McGrath. Both of these facts make possible the implementation of a community district heating system to make good use of the power plant’s heat and electricity commodities. A district heating system which is part of the proposal consists of directly buried piping that is encased in water-impervious thermal insulation. This piping conveys heating water to and from buildings; and within each building the heating water provides space heating and domestic hot water. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 19 This project as configured uses a natural resource fuel, Little Tonzona Coal, that occurs within the McGrath region to satisfy a large portion of McGrath’s energy requirements. The coal is produced locally with a high percentage of local labor. Thus, the project increases local employment and reduces the amount of money leaving the community for the purchase of diesel oil and heating fuel. 3.3. The Power System and District Heating 3.3.1 Power Plant Systems Introduction The heart of the cogeneration power plant will be a coal-fired (oil fired startup capability) circulating fluidized bed combustor with a superheat boiler for full load service of 18,000 lb. of steam per hour. The power plant will cogenerate electricity and district heating, with a coincident combined capacity of 800 kWe electrical output and 8.91 Million BTU/hour of district heat. The power plant is fully backed up with the existing diesel generator facility to provide electric power without disruption in service. A 125 kWe diesel generator to supply power during peak demand periods and for in-plant black start capability is also a part of the power plant. Evolution-wise, this design is the third generation of work accomplished by Parsons Power Group, Inc. and J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Reference 1, 2, and 3) A detailed technical Description is included in Appendix 7.3 General Design Philosophy This is a highly reliable modular fluidized bed combustor power plant that will co-fire coal and limestone. It will replace the present diesel oil fired system that is currently the town’s primary generation, and has the potential to handle solid waste and other bio-mass fuels. The existing diesel generation system will remain for back-up during unscheduled and maintenance outages. An auxiliary oil-fired fire tube boiler will provide backup for district heating and electrical generation. This boiler will supply 200 psig, 500 deg F steam into the steam header, and will be sized at 10,000 lb./hour. Its use will be for peaking and to assist in bringing the coal combustor back on line. One new diesel generator will be included at the new power plant to provide power during peak demand periods. Initially the new diesel generator will operate only during winter months to support approximately 1% of the annual electrical demand and will serve as an in-plant black start unit. Because of the high parasitic power requirements of the combustor, it is expected that when all power is lost, this generator will be started and used to fire the oil fired boiler, which in turn will allow the steam turbines to be started. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 20 The larger generators in the existing plant will be needed to pick up the town load, feeder by feeder. Steam turbines will then be synchronized in, and the combustor restarted. Once operation of the combustor is stabilized, the steam generation rate will be increased and the load transferred to steam turbines until the back-up generation can be unloaded and secured. It is noted that good design dictates that a plant be able to boot-strap back on the line without resorting to remote start and synchronizing from several different locations. In this case, however, because of the very high parasitic power requirements of the combustor as well as the mediocre performance of steam turbines/coal fired boilers in picking up loads in a dead transmission system, there does not appear to be any alternative to employing the old plant for this. The district heating will support an initial 5 MM Btu/hr. load progressing to the full output of 10 MM Btu/hr. Equipment selection, including supply and return piping will support the fully developed district heating load. Coal will be burned in an atmospheric fluidized-combustion unit and heat will be transferred to a steam generator fitted with a superheater section. This will be a commercially available multi-pass fire tube boiler equipped with soot blowers and a superheater section and economizer. The facility's material handling systems will support continuous operation with long-term storage of coal and limestone at a site nearby. On-site coal and limestone thawing is provided prior to crushing and transferring to an in-house storage silo. No. 1 Arctic diesel oil is to be the startup fuel and auxiliary power fuel. Design Criteria e Municipal solid waste (MSW)/biomass co-firing is considered an option only. The facility's material handling system will not include on-site storage. Manual loading of pre-sorted MSW into a compactor/shredder will be completed on an as-needed basis only. e Pre-heating of combustion air to provide a minimum 35°F inlet temperature. e The design steam pressure and temperature is 200 psig and 500°F. e Pressure safety and relief valves for release of steam will be accompanied by suitable silencing equipment. e The "design coal" is Little Tonzona Coal, a sub-bituminous C, located approximately 90 miles from the site. e Delivery of coal and limestone will be by truck, up to 40 ton capacity. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 21 e Coal and limestone will be supplied from nearby storage piles. The coal unloading, thawing, crushing and loading into silo storage will be based on a 3-day coal cycle and a 45-day limestone cycle. e The project will include the utilization of ash conditioning for long term enhanced storage. Material handling will include provisions for ash conditioning and storage for a biannual removal back to the mine. e The plant’s control system will include simple, discrete-control devices with secure and direct connection into a power plant network that responds to the safety and demonstration requirements of the project. e The project scope will include monitoring to measure O2, CO, NOx, SO9, and opacity. e Cogeneration of hot water for district heating is included. e An auxiliary oil-fired fire tube boiler is included to provide both peaking and backup for district heating and electrical process steam. e The existing oil-fired diesel generator sets located in McGrath will provide "emergency" and maintenance electrical backup requirements. e Electrical tie-in to the existing Transmission and Distribution (T&D) network. e The site is to be in the center of the City of McGrath, as shown on Figures 2 and 4. e Design incorporates modular or skid-mounted components for complex assemblies. This will minimize costs of remote erection and system integration. e Awater treatment process to produce high quality boiler water from City water is required. e Building and facilities are sized for storage of all maintenance items, consumables, chemicals, and materials handling equipment. Discussion of Project Design The power plant is enclosed in a combined facility, with one housing surrounding all the power and heat generation equipment and auxiliaries, and an attached coal thawing and warm storage building. (See Figures 2 and 4) It is envisioned that the coal hauling company will store coal at a location near the power plant. One such location is shown in Figure 4, although there are a number of sites in the community that could work well. It will be a task in the design phase of the project to locate this site in accordance with the sensitivities and desires of the community at large. The current location is J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. ACCESS ROAD FUTURE AIRPORT APRON ACCESS ROAD ~ NEW POWER PLANT FACILITY WAR DEVELOPMENT BY SOA DIV OF AVIATION LIMITS OF WORK UNDER PROJECT FUTURE ACCESS ROAD FUEL SUPPLY PIPING 10,000 GALLON DIKED FUEL STORAGE TANK WOODED AREA ROADWAY CLEARING LIMIT ——w — _ BURIED WATER SERVICE — BURIED SEWER SERVICE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FIGURE 4 - POWER PLANT SITE PLAN McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 23 adjacent to the power plant and represents maximum ease of access to coal while minimizing coal-handling labor. Key operating characteristics of the power plant are included in Table 2 and remain very similar to those developed in the earlier project description reports. (References 1, 2, and 3) The present design places the coal warming building immediately adjacent to the power plant (See Figures 5 and 6). Some key design elements that assure ease of operation and minimize operating costs are: Heating floor coils are included under the coal warming area. This allows coal or other solid fuel to be thawed and excess moisture drained out prior to the fuel being processed and stored. It also gives the coal-handling crew the ability to deliver good consistency coal to silos. A floor-level coal hopper is provided to allow a Bobcat vehicle to push coal into the floor level hopper rather than having a loader scoop, raise and dump the load. This will save labor and reduce dust. Figure 7 presents a simplified schematic of the rankine cycle. Coal/MSW/Bio- mass is introduced into the coal combustor, which is a vertical cylinder lined with fire brick and partially filled with an inert sand. Air is blown into the bottom in a fashion to fluidize the sand, or keep it airborne. When an oil-fired-start-up burner heats this swirling mass of sand and air, small particles of coal and limestone are introduced through a feed chute and when in contact with the sand in the oxygen-rich atmosphere, it combusts and liberates heat and products of combution. This hot gas mix is drawn through the unfired boiler, where heat from the hot gases is transferred to a steam medium. The steam is invited to expand through steam turbines for the production of power. As shown in Figure 7, there are two turbines connected to the same generator. Turbine ST-2 is what is known as a backpressure turbine, in that it expands the 200 psig steam down to 25 psig pressure, which is then passed through a heat exchanger to transfer its remaining heat into a circulating district heating medium, which is water. This is the cogeneration aspect of the project, where steam is used to make both electricity and heat. When the equivalent of 10 million BTU/hr. of steam is being passed through this turbine, it will generate about 275 kWe of power. Steam Turbine ST-1 is a condensing turbine, with the capability of producing 750 kWe of power with its throttle at normal full open. The dual turbine arrangement is an important part of the design, since it allows the district heating load and the City’s electrical load to be satisfied at all times of the year (summer and winter) without the need to bring generators on or take them off. This is key to attaining true unattended operation. It is done through clever arrangements in turbine speed control governors, such that any J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - 3/21/97final draft 24 Table 2 McGrath Light and Power Coal/Oil Fired Cogeneration Power Plant ELECTRICAL Generator Ratings: (single electrical generator rated at 1,000 KWe) steam turbine no. 1 (condensing) steam turbine no. 2 (backpresssure) Internal Comb Diesel Station Power Voltage Primary Power Distribution Primary Breaker Secondary Breaker Annual Production (net) Annual Production (gross) Power Station Electrical Output (net) dual steam turbine/electric generator set Internal Combustion Diesel engine generator INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL Plant Control Combustor/boiler, turbine, electrical and district heating Materials handling system Power Station Heat Output (net) district heating energy MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Coal combustor system Internal Combustion Diesel Engine Generator Set Boiler System Steam Conditions Flow Pressure Temperature Thermal Output Feedwater Temperature Feedwater Heaters Primary Fuel Coal HHV Feed Rate (maximum) Feed Rate (minimum) Secondary Fuel (Options) MSW HHV Feed rate Ignition /diesel Fuel Oil HHV Diesel feed rate (maximum) 750 KWe 350 KWe 125 KWe 480 volts 2400 volts 4 circuit miles 2 circuit miles 2,940,000 KWe-hr/yr 3,659,000 KWe-hr/yr 800 Kwe 125 Kwe micro-processor based programmable logic controller (PLC) or Distributed Control System (DCS) discrete controllers with PLC./DCS Interface PLC controls 8.91 x 10“6 BTU/hr Donlee circulating atmospheric fluidized bed combustor Caterpillar Model 3304, 125 KWe 18,000 lb/hr 200 psig 500 deg F 240 deg F 1 - deareator Little Tonzona Creek Coal 6,700 to 6,800 BTU/Ib (as received) 2.0 Tons per hour 0.8 Tons per hour Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 4,990 to 7,000 BTU/Ib <15% (by weight) of Coal Feed Rate 18,500 BTU/Ib 10.1 gpm @ 125 Kwe J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - 3/21/97final draft 25 Diesel feed rate (average) Sorbent Type Feed rate (maximum) Feed rate (average) Ash Production Fly Ash % of Total Bottom Ash % of Total Boiler Auxiliary Equipment Boiler Feed Pump Lift Channel Fan Cooling Bed Fan Reagent Fan Primary Air Fan I.D. Fan Ash Re-injection District Heating System Thermal Output (hourly rate) Thermal Output (annual delivered energy) Supply Temperature Supply Pressure Return Temperature Flow Air Quality Control So2 Particulate Liquid Storage Capacity Process Water Deaerator Storage Potable Water Water Treatment Facilities Power Cycle Heat Rejection Type Materials Handling Systems Coal Handling System Coal Transport and Storage 4.6 gpm @ 60 Kwe McGrath Limestone 125 lb/hr @ 1.0 Ca/S Ratio) 63 lb/hr @ 1.0 Ca/S Ratio) 367 1b/hr (maximum) 99% Minimal Electrical Drive Electrical Drive Electrical Drive Electrical Drive Electrical Drive Electrical Drive Electrical Drive 10 MMBTU/hr (nominal) 31,635.8 MBTU/yr 240 deg F 75 psig 160 deg F maximum: 379.4 GPM average: 169.2 GPM 70% SO2 removal with limestone sorbent double chamber bag house 1,500 gallons 10 minutes 300 gallons pretreatment for boiler feedwater deliver waste water to municipal sewer treat all plant water and coal pile run-off Air Cooled Glycol System or Air Cooled Condenser -Designer’s choice 50 ton truck based Front end loader J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - 3/21/97final draft 26 Sorbent Handling System Limestone Delivery and Storage Limestone Transport and Storage MSW Handling System (Optional) MSW Delivery and Storage MSW Transport CIVIL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS Site Plot Area Power house Primary Foundation Design Stack Height Building Code Standard Coal Storage MSW Storage Ash Storage Vehicles Water Supply Sanitary Sewer 25 ton truck based Front-end loader Pre-sorted owner delivered Shredder and hoist (139’-7” x 69’-1” x 43) (approximate) Concrete spread footings, slab on grade, building perimeter wall 80 feet UBC seismic zone 2 on-site dead storage, 20,000 Tons 144 ton 3 day supply in coal warming shed no on-site storage conditioned ash - 2 year storage 1 Dozer, 1 Bobcat, 1 10 yard dump Primary - municipal water Secondary - on-site well Primary - municipal sewer service J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc NV1d YOO14 INVId Y3IMOd - S UND wh-,625 ELEVATED COAL SILO BOILER STACK COAL UNLOADING FACILITY NOTE: HEIGHT OF POWER PLANT SECTION NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 6 - PERSPECTIVE OF NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANT COAL LIME STONE COAL COMBUSTOR BOILER FEED WATER PUMP Ur ELECTRICITY HOT GASES ST-2 ELECTRICAL GENERATOR STEAM TURBINE : USEFUL HEAT STEAM @ 25 PSIG pena (P)- J AR CONDENSER STEAM/HOT WATER HEAT EXCHANGER WATER CONDENSATE STORAGE FIGURE 7 SIMPLIFIED STEAM THERMAL CYCLE McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 30 and all load conditions throughout the year may be accommodated by these two turbines. By bringing the 10,000 Ib. per hour oil fired boiler on line, extremely high loads such as the 800 kWe experienced in the winter of 1996 can be accommodated by these two turbines. While actual operating methods are more thoroughly discussed in section 3.6, this design gives the operator the flexibility to handle extraordinary system peaks without having to synchronize in the old diesel plant engine generators. Interesting turbine curves are provided to show the interplay between back- pressure steam flow in turbine ST-2 and power generation loads in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 10 presents the electrical schematic for the connection of the new power plant into the existing transmission and distribution system for McGrath. The costs for tying in from transformers provided as a part of the project are to be the responsibility of McGrath Light and Power. Figure 11 presents the heat and mass balance for the power plant at its normal peak load. Figure 12 shows a photo of a comparable power plant installation in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, which houses an 18,000 lb./hour steam combustor of the type proposed for McGrath. The plant in Pennsylvania is approximately the same size as the one envisioned for McGrath, and many of the components would be the same as those proposed for McGrath. 3.3.2 District Heating Systems As discussed in Section 3.3.1, 25 psig saturated steam is an important commodity within the power plant. This medium is used for all in-plant heating systems. The heat content of the steam is created by expanding boiler header steam through a steam turbine to produce electrical energy as it expands and lowers the pressure of this header steam to 25 psig under a saturated condition. This 25 psig steam is routed through a steam/hot water heat exchanger to create a clean hot water medium which in turn is circulated in the buried piping network throughout the town for use by district heat customers. The buried piping consists of two individually pre-insulated pipes, laid in the same trench, to a depth to top of pipe of about 3 feet. The project envisions that an “axially restrained pipe” design be used for the project to eliminate the need for expensive concrete anchors and expansion joints. Branch lines, which are smaller diameter pipes to serve each home, are employed and will consist of flexible pre-insulated piping. These pipes may be placed in the trench and backfilled with existing materials without special preparation or compaction. A district heating system service area has been established which encompasses the majority of the downtown proper and areas immediately to the south of downtown. The City of McGrath Composite Facility is included in the district, J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. HEATBALS.XLS, turbine curve March 21, 1997 plot of turbine set throttle steam flow (Ib/hr) vs. total electrical output (KWe) 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 i beck prespure steam flo (Ib/hour) 8,000 turbine throttle steam (Ib/hr) ~ no steam flow through back 6,000 7 - ———.-—rressure turbine 4,000 2,000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 electrical output (KWe) J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 8 Turbine Performance Curve HEATBALS.XLS, heat balance calculations Heat Balance Calculations September 12, 1996 800.0 on no Design | 4 | total 11,775 Ib/hr ine performance curve in-plant 926 Ib/hr 700.0. |} ——__"#___ — — / dearator 1,210 Ib/hr i dist htng 9,645 Ib/hr 595 KWe system load 600.0 |— _ i _ ol allie 750 KWe generation 7 output Condensing ae Turbine 1 | Power Generation (KWe) > 8 °o | | Back-pressure —|_ Turbine 2 100.0 +- - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Back pressure turbine Steam Flow (Ib/hr) Figure 9 - Turbine Perfomance Curve - Back-pressure unit ST-2 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 1 FOR 1 FOR 2 fu OO [™ u..-------.4 0.125 MW; NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANT Pa Hd ' 1 1 1 1 I prop yt Fd | 1 1 \ it | NEW LINE CIRCUIT it (Jooai | (4ooai BREAKERS TO REPLACE FUTURE 1. it | BYPASS Sw rl | EXIST. UNITS THAT ARE 1 | ii | \ NO LONGER OPERABLE 1 1 1 ! L-4-- aan L$ axed —— tf 200A 200A 8000ASC t t 8000ASC 1/0 Cu 1/0 Cu 180A $ ' 180A PTS ‘T ba KWHD 2400 D-120/208 GNDY: ers T KWHD (3) 75 KVA 1200A_Bus 1200A 1200A 1200A ( 250mva ( 250MvA ( 250MVA AC STORE sc sc sc STATION! SVC 2/0 Cu No.6 Cu | NO.6 Cu 205A 75A 75A Gen 6 Gen 7 Gen 3 670 Kw 425 Kw. 250 Kw SWGR 1/0 Cu 260A Bus GENERATOR 1 STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR 2 DIESEL GENERATOR PLANT DISTRIBUTION BOARD 1200A 1200A ¢ 250MVA ¢ 250MVA sc sc 1/0 Cu NO.6 Cu 100A 75A Gen 4 Gen 5 200 Kw 600 Kw SWGR FILE:PLNT1LIN.DWG FIGURE 10 — ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAM NX MSW COAL BIN cere SHREDDER if {_ Cd | COMBUSTOR @ 6) op TO FROM COOLING BED COOLING BED HEAT RECOVERY (c FEEDER | BOILER Li-4 L -------+- t 14.7 P 15.3 P { -65 F 35 F 5.51 H ; | 23,922 W_ anal ee 1 | leg F leg SCAH PRIMARY AIR FAN i | COOLING BED FAN \ | LIFT CHANNEL FAN ' | (0) ASH REINJECTION FAN | | 125 HP \ as as | t NORM PEAK 1,418 W ———————— TR = HI_PEAK 4.897 W sae EMERGENCY 10,878 W 500.0 F 1,267.4 H 7,866 W 19,642 W y 1,000 PW(Capac! (Capacity) 11,775 W 11,775 W CAP ~<a CONDENSING PRV 3” HG ow 115.1 F OP 40 P 1144.5 H 9 F (— 323.9 F 8,349 W ew DESUPERHEATER 1198.7 H 1111.5 H 3 25,Psis 8,349 W } STEAM OPTION 2 [= 885 W HEADER AIR COOLED CONDENSER HX-2 ——) TO SPACE HEATING aw CONDENSATE PUMP 85.0 F 526,573 W CIRCULATING PUMP OPTION 1 — GLYCOL WATER HEAT EXCHANGE LOOP | 9,092.5 WH "DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM | — ed A BF PUMP GLYCOL HEATING MEDIUM ’ COAL HANDLING Se poe” 0.697 WH 209.9 H 19,642 W 27,434 W 1D FAN 50 HP Lice | | | | 367 W ASH DISPOSAL 4 - H CHIMNEY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SUMMARY STEAM TURBINE POWER: 750 KW AUXIWARIES: 155 KW NET ELECTRICAL POWER: 595 KW DISTRICT HEAD LOAD: 3,006 KW TOTAL NET OUTPUT: 3,601 KW NET COGEN EFFICIENCY: 31.25 % NET COGEN HEAT RATE: 10,918 BTU/HR-KW ee AIR ----- SOLIDS —-—-—--— COMBUSTION PRODUCTS ——————_ WATER/STEAM —s—s— WATER/GLYCOL P ABSOLUTE PRESSURE, psia F TEMPERATURE, °F H ENTHALPY, btu/Ib w TOTAL PLANT FLOW, Ib/hr Pw ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION, KWe WH DISTRICT HEAT FLOW, BTU/hr x 1073 + STEAM TURBINE LEAKAGES AND SEALS NOT MODELED. STEAM AIR EJECTOR NOT MODELED. » ENTHALPY REFERENCE POINT IS NATURAL STATE AT 32.018°F AND 0.08865 psia. HX=1 DH HEAT EXCHANGER 5. HX-2 PLANT HEAT SERVICE HX. FIGURE 11 — HEAT & MASS BALANCE (NORMAL PEAK) The Lebanon, Pennsylvania Veteran’s Administration Hospital employs a Circulating Fluidized Bed combustor manufactured by Donlee Technologies, which is due to go into operation in the near future. The Combustor burns high sulfur coal and has the same BIU input as that envisioned for the McGrath Coal Fired Power Picnt FIGURE 12 — PHOTO OF COMPARABLE POWER PLANT McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 36 and there is built-in capacity to extend service to the HUD housing area in the future. Figure 13 shows a layout of the heating district. Each building will have an exterior enclosure mounted above grade which will include shut-off valves and the energy meter. Inside the building will be heating piping and a limited number of narrow cross-section radiators and convectors for heating. A portion of the houses to be served will require new heating systems; others will have existing baseboard heating that may continue to be used. Funds are included in the project cost estimate both to extend district heating to homes and to modify heating systems in homes to accept the district heating. In each house, small and compact heat exchangers will transfer heat into the heating system. This energy is metered by measuring water temperature drops between entering and leaving water streams, and water flow rates. As these parameters are constantly changing, the metering equipment integrates these variables over time to yield accurate energy consumption figures. After reading the meters each month, the utility will compute and send out bills for the energy each customer uses. The power plant is designed with adequate back-up systems so that there will effectively not be any interruption of service throughout the heating system. However, each year during a scheduled shut down of power plant systems, heating service may be shut off for as long as 3 weeks. 3.4 Coal Fuel and Limestone supplies 3.4.1 Location of Resources A key part of the project is a near-surface deposit of low rank coal near the Little Tonzona River, about 90 miles east of McGrath. Extensive work has been accomplished by Doyon, Ltd. over the last two years. Two reports have been produced that establish coal quantities available and the extent of mining required for coal extraction at this Little Tonzona River site (Reference 6 and 7). While these reports state that the Little Tonzona River site has adequate coal reserves to fuel the McGrath power plant over its expected lifetime, additional exploration is recommended, “...(1) because the coal seams are quite variable; (2) because rock and coal strengths must be determined to insure success of the selected mining techniques; and (3) to better define the coal quality, stripping ratios, and area required for the first year’s mining... Based on these two Behre Dolbear reports, the availability of adequate quantities of useable coal is a primary assumption of the feasibility analysis. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. AREA OF DISTRICT HEATING SERVICE 4 NEW ACCESS ROAD FOR Lot AIRPORT APRON PROJECT H NEW POWER PLANT FACILITY D COAL STORAGE PILE e = LOCATION . A 4 . | 2 SX = -— , 4 Loe]: McGRATH SCHOOL cI S Oh wfoleteteistere/s [sis alr erocKn \2 yak McGRATH LIGHT gl & POWER PLANT FIGURE 13 - DISTRICT HEAT LAYOUT CITY OF McGRATH file:9609dh8.dwg WATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND OFFICES ee eee ee et =p McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 38 3.4.2 Proposed Methods for Hauling There has been extensive work on estimating the cost of hauling the coal from the mine site to McGrath, and this is reported in Reference 6 and further refined in Reference 7, two Behre Dolbear reports. In January 1993, Brice Incorporated personnel flew the proposed haul route in a light plane. Two separate routes were identified: Route 1 - McGrath - Medfra - Nikolai - Little Tonzona Route 2 - McGrath - Farewell Landing - Farewell Lake - Little Tonzona Brice recommended the Route 1 through Nikolai, (See Figure 14) because of “,..overriding logistical advantages Medfra and Nikolai would provide....” The report noted the presence of extensive wetlands areas. During 1993, there was extensive snow cover, and Brice reported the following: “Many of the creeks in this area had open water at the time of our aerial reconnaissance, most likely a result of the higher than average snowfall accumulation this winter.” Behre Dolbear personnel had extensive discussions with people knowledgeable of the area and used this information along with the Brice report to further develop cost estimates for hauling. These haul costs were combined with coal mining costs to establish a cost for coal delivered in McGrath, Alaska. A value of $51.99 per ton of coal delivered to a stockpile site within the City of McGrath is used for this feasibility analysis. This is the price Behre Dolbear projected for a coal haul/stockpile contract, with the Doyon Royalty removed and some modification to the Behre Dolbear costing to reflect savings identified after completion of reporting. The feasibility analysis also assumes the following: e The power plant will be located at a site adjacent to the McGrath School and that coal will be stockpiled near the power plant. e A total of 20,000 tons of coal will be stockpiled at the site, which translates to a physical stockpile size of 100 feet by 300 feet dimension at the base, 20 feet high, with 2:1 side slopes. e Hauling over the Route No. 1 (Medfra), with haul route per Figure 14. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. RIZE R28 W “East Boundary T29S T 228 T34N T34Nn LITTLE TONZONA RIVER COAL PROJECT EXPLANATION Doyon Land LT Little Tonzona Coal Seam MTNT - Doyon land NH Noir Hill Limestone quarry [| Deficiency Lands NF Nixon Fork lode gold deposit VM Vinasale Mountain lode gold deposit FIGURE 14 - MAP OF WINTER HAUL ROUTE McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 40 3.4.3 On-the-ground Reconnaissance of the Haul Route As a part of the feasibility analysis, a field trip was taken in December of 1996 to traverse the winter trail route from McGrath through Medfra to Nikolai. A party of three, comprised of the guide, Mr. Ignatti Petruska of Nikolai, the CEO of MTNT, Ltd., Mr. Carl Propes, and Jim Strandberg of J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc., traveled by snow machine to view first hand the condition of the trail. Figure 15A through 15D shows scenes from this haul route taken both in summer 1996 and in December 1996 during the field trip. Temperatures became quite cold during the reconnaissance, hovering near -35 to -40 degrees F throughout the period. The December trip, accomplished over a two day period allowed the party to establish the condition and character of the trail route preferred by Brice, Inc., which is summarized below: e At the time, compacted snow cover was 14 inches; the trail was easily traveled with only limited signs of open water. e There were no signs of excessively steep centerline or cross slopes on the trail, and it appears that heavy equipment could easily traverse the route. Upon construction of a snow/ice road, the alignment should allow for coal haulers to safely negotiate the route at speeds of 15 to 25 miles per hour. e There are two major river crossings along this alignment, at McGrath and at Medfra. Both of these crossings were completely frozen at the time of the snow machine reconnaissance, and it appears that crossings could be easily constructed. During this same field trip, the route from Nikolai to the Little Tonzona Mine site was also reviewed from fixed wing aircraft. The area just to the east of Nikolai will require some careful routing to avoid lakes and to minimize creek crossings, but from about 20 miles east of Nikolai to the mine site, a route exists on flat high ground without any major creek crossings. This should yield an excellent winter haul route and facilitate easy snow road construction. The route should probably not be placed directly through Medfra or Nikolai. To avoid any detrimental noise or air quality problems, the trail should veer off about a mile from each community. It should be noted that previous studies had not included any actual on-the- ground reconnaissance of the route. Rather, these studies relied on anecdotal evidence of trail conditions collected from miners who had used the trail for overland haul in recent years. 3.4.4 Consultations with Winter Haul Experts Another part of this review included interviews with a number of persons with experience in winter haul techniques on the trail regarding their experiences and recommendations for implementing the route. The following were consulted and gave their thoughts: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. View of McGrath, Alaska from on the Kuskokwim River at approximate crossing point View of Winter trail near Grayling Creek FIGURE 15 A - PHOTOS OF WINTER HAUL ROUTE Guide Ignatti Petruska, of Nikolai with Carl Propes, Chief Executive Officer of MINT, Limited on the winter haul route, approximately one third the distance between McGrath and Medfra, Alaska FIGURE 15 B — PHOTOS OF WINTER HAUL ROUTE Aerial view of mine location on the Little Tonzonc River. Photo taken during summer 1995 Aerial View of Haul Route at a typical small stream crossing. Micro terrain variations typically do not exceed 8 feet, and can easily be filled in with snow. No icings noted during December snow machine reconnaissance. FIGURE 15 C PHOTOS OF WINTER HAUL ROUTE Aerial view of the community of Medfra, Alaska. The Kuskokwim River is in the background. Photo taken in October 1996. Pancake ice is barely visible in river. Aerial view of the Kuskokwim River at Medfra. Winter haul route will cross the river nearby this point. The winter trail is barely visible in the foreground FIGURE 15 D PHOTOS OF WINTER HAUL ROUTE McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 45 Mr. Sam Brice, Vice President, Brice Inc. - experience in Alaskan construction and a hauling contractor with many overland haul projects Comments: Mr. Brice feels the winter haul process is feasible, but emphasizes the care needed at river and lake crossings. His firm has lost several Cats in long over-water hauls where a small section of weakened ice was not detected and inadvertently crossed. Mr. Kelly Painter, Wilder Construction - experienced Alaskan contractor who accomplished most recent overland haul from McGrath through Medfra to Nixon Fork mine in 1992 and again in 1995 Comments: The trip from McGrath to Medfra in 1992 made by Wilder Construction included an extensive Cat train that included all-wheel drive haul trucks. The travel, in March, was accomplished easily and without incident. Mr. E. Odin Strandberg, Sr., retired Alaska gold miner - extensive experience in winter haul of mining equipment, including one very large Cat train from Nenana to McGrath, with the last leg on the proposed route between Medfra and McGrath Comments: Winter hauls are quite feasible, but areas that need special attention are river crossings. Any route should minimize over-water operations, as numerous Cats and heavy equipment have been lost in the region. A locally known phenomenon called “Black Fish Lakes” are a hazard. A particular type of small fish ball up and swim strongly in one area, and concentrated fecal material induce heat producing anaerobic digestion which warms water enough to create either open water or weaken ice. He also discussed the concept of a shorter over land haul to Medfra, with barging down river to McGrath during summer months, as a possible scenario to be considered. Mr. Goog Anderson, owner, Anderson Heavy Equipment - recent resident of McGrath with extensive experience in winter haul in the McGrath area including experience on the McGrath to Medfra route Comments: Costs for maintenance of winter haul routes can vary significantly. While winds, snow, and warm conditions can cause maintenance costs to be high, the concept of winter haul is practically feasible. Mr. Rod Gunderson, District Superintendent, (West) Highway Operations Division, Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories Comments: The Canadian Government regularly constructs winter snow and ice roads to connect communities in the Northwest Territories together. This practice has been optimized over the years, and extensive design and operations and maintenance criteria has been developed and is presently in use. Specialized equipment is in use in the region to construct ice bridges across bodies of water and to efficiently gather snow and construct a smooth J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 46 snow embankment. The Highway Operations people have criteria for different types of snow roads. Specifically, roads for the wheel loads envisioned for the Little Tonzona haul will require more construction than that for light autos. However, this practice is commonly applied where roads are constructed to serve mines. References 10, 11, 12 and 13. 3.5 Methods for Design, Construction, and Commissioning The project will be developed on the basis of a design document set, which is used for a combination of bidding and negotiating in conformance with the rules and regulations of the funders. Currently, the funders are presumed to include the State of Alaska, U. S. federal government, and MTNT, Ltd. A project budget that includes all required capital costs has been developed as a part of this project. The Construction Cost Estimate, included as Table 3 presents costs for construction contracting for building the power plant and the district heating system. More details for these estimates are included in Appendix 7.1.1 Construction Cost Estimate. In addition, an overall project budget has been developed, and is presented as Table 4 - Project Budget. This develops all costs associated with the development of the power plant, including mine and haul route permitting and owner’s costs associated with the project. The basis for this costing is the agreed-to funding participation of project team members, as defined at the January 24 and 25, 1996, meeting held in Fairbanks and discussed in Section 2.0. 3.5.1 Project Design, Planning and Permitting Design Services A multi-discipline design group will be selected to accomplish the design of the power plant and the district heating systems. The design will be multi-part, consisting of drawings and specifications for the following work elements: Site Clearing and Earthwork Building foundations and building Power plant District Heating System A split such as this, while increasing administrative costs, will allow for local contractors who have earthwork equipment to have a good chance at securing the earthwork parts of the project. Bidding McGrath Light and Power will advertise the project in phases. They will also receive sealed bids and preside over a bid opening to select the responsive low bidders. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Project Table 3 - Summary of First Cost of Construction 47 Item Power plant District Heating Total DIRECT COSTS ‘Power Plant Construction Civil/Structural/Architectural Work | [Land Cost \Mobilization/D bilati _Sitework 'Boiler/Turbine Generator Building Construction Equipment Rental Coal Pile Effiuent Treatment Building L Coal Pile Area preparation Sub-total 2,172,800 2,172,800 [Mechanical Work | |Combustor/Boiler | Steam Turbine |Balance of Plant Equipment |Material Handling Systems | [sub-total 3,792,940 3,792,940 Piping Work |Supply Steam System | | Feedwater System | Condensate System | RV Vent System | |Condensate Return Service/Instrument Air | |GlycolWater System ‘Fuel Oil System |Water Systems |___|Building Services/Fire Services Miscellaneous Instrumentation Sub-total 272,780 272,780 |Electrical Work | Transmission & Distribution Work | Equipment ____Electrical Bulks | & C | Sub-total 464,260 464,260 6,702,780 $ 6,702,780 Direct Cost - Power Plant Construction T T 'District Heating System Construction _Main Distribution Piping-complete: $ 1,530,385 $ 1,530,385 | |Branch/Runout Piping-complete: 424,451 424,451 ____ [Customer Connections-complete: 228,132 228,132 | Customer System Retrofit-complete: 150,000 150,000 | In-Plant Equipment Costs-complete: 129,380 129,380 $ 2,462,349 $ 2,462,349 L | Direct Cost - District Heating System Construction } | J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Project 48 INDIRECT COSTS Power plant District Heating | Total | | I |A/E Engineering (estimated at 6%) $ 402,170 $ 139,978 $ 542,148 | | | |Construction Management 75,000 incl! w/ pwrpint 75,000 | |Freight 331,200 279,374 574,589 | |In-land freight U.S. materials to export port 50,000 $ 50,000 | ‘Barge Charges 56,000 $ 56,000 | I |Labor Camps 40,000 * 26,930 66,930 | T Start-up W/0 &M 122,436 122,436 | Spares 179,460 |* 20,000 199,460 | | : | | | [Sub-total - Indirect Costs $1,133,830 | | $ 588,719 $ 1,686,564 | | | | 1 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 7,836,610 $ 3,051,067 $ 10,887,677 7 Le I J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Project Table 4 - Summary of Project Budget 49 Amount ($ | | Task ($) ($) | Total ($) | in |Cooperative Research and Developmenet Agreement 500,000} _______|Not included in budget totals ill_|Feasiblity determination a [Complete analysis of O & M costs |__|b_|determine feasibility | ___|e [project administration | subtotal - feasibility determination allow $ 100,000 | | i | ‘IL [Design [ a_|Environmental permitting | | |___mine - [see /tem V Mine Development] | [power plant $ 75,000 | |b [Geotechnical program |__ reconnaissance 0 |_| [building site drilling 35,000 ic Design 542,148 d_|Assemble funding package 45,000 € [project administration 25,000 subtotal - design phase $ 722,148 IV | Bidding Phase 1a |Advertise for bids $ 10,000 | |b [Review and Award | 10,000 ___|¢ [project administration | 10,000 |_| _|subtotal - bidding phase $ 30,000 V_|Mine Development [permitting & development 0 bonding 0 | purchase of new equipment $ 1,543,000 | ___|__ [contingencies | subtotal - mine development $ VI | Construction Phase Construction Contract - Power plant $ 6,702,780 | |Construction Contract - District Heating Sys 2,462,349 | Construction Management 75,000 | Freight 574,589 |__|Facilities during construction 66,930 |__ |Operator training 12,500 | [Project administration 25,000 |__| _|subtotal - construction | [$9,919,148 | J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Project | | Amount ($) | Total($) | t T |VII| Owner Costs at Startup/1st year’s operation | | |Start-up Spares $ 199,460 | | | _|Plant Certification 15,000 |__| [Training 12,500 [| |project administration 25,000 |_| subtotal owner's start-up costs | $ 251,960 | | | I | | |___|Subtotal - proposed project budget without contingency $ 12,566,256 | | ] ] Project contingency | 10% $ 1,256,626 i |] |TOTAL - PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET | $ 13,822,882 | | J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 51 Construction The most likely scenario of these three separate activities (design, bidding and construction) unfolding and being completed has been developed (See Figure 16) that should yield an operating power plant in McGrath at the end of a 2-year construction period. Interaction with other work: A coordinated construction effort will be required. There are activities planned for McGrath, the schedule of which is currently inconclusive, that could influence the cost and ease of installation. In one specific instance, the State of Alaska’s Division of Design and Construction is in McGrath to construct an aircraft apron, and this construction is scheduled for calendar year 1998, which is also when earthwork operations for the power plant and district heating system will occur. An idea that bears further work is for some coordination between the two projects in order to reap savings for each project. Costs for gravel materials are unlikely to be affected, since the Division of Design and Construction is using materials costs nearly the same as those used in the power plant estimate. 3.5.2 Mine Development The Little Tonzona mine site is situated about 90 miles east of McGrath. The analysis done to date by Behre Dolbear & Company envisions that heavy equipment will be brought to the mine in Year 1 of the project and stored until summer months when development activities and the stripping for and mining of coal is begun. Coal will be mined and stockpiled at the mine site during this summer interval. Early in Spring of year 2, the winter haul road would again be constructed and the coal would be hauled to and stockpiled in McGrath. 3.5.3 Winter Haul Route Development Reconnaissance and Route Selection In Year 1, a route will be selected and mapped on 1 inch to the mile USGS maps. Permitting A permitting submittal will be crafted to establish the winter haul route permit. Typically, this permit will include a detailed route, and specific requirements for the construction and maintenance of the haul road to protect against environmental damage. Trail Development and Clearing During Year 1, the trail will be developed into a winter haul route. For the trail from McGrath to Medfra, no clearing will be required as this is an existing trail in good condition. From Medfra to Nikolai, only a narrow snow machine trail exists. It should be widened to the required width for winter haul. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. SCHED3.XLS, proj sch ACTIVITY Completion of CRADA _ Determine Project Feasibility Consultation period _ Design and Permitting _ Bidding _ Construction barge delivery primary mats _ Steel erection _ bldg exterior closure/heat __Power plant systems _ start-up process _ MINE DEVELOPMENT _ __ permitting | _development __hauling and stockpiling Commissioning First Year Operation J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Project Schedule March 21, 1997 Figure 16 - Proposed Project Construction Schedule McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 53 Portions of the route from Nikolai to Little Tonzona have been cleared for travel by snow machine. The road’s alignment should follow the existing trail as closely as possible, but it may vary to avoid lake crossings and stay on higher, well-drained ground. Initially this will involve route surveying via helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, and follow-on clearing of the alignment by heavy equipment. It is important that route survey and on-the-ground placement of construction survey markers be done to avoid unnecessary clearing activities, when the cat skinner is “given his head.” As mentioned in 3.5.2 above, the clearing activity will need to be accomplished in year 1 to allow for the first year mine development activity. This will ensure that the winter haul route is available to mobilize mine development machinery. 3.5.4 Power Plant Construction Construction Contract 1 - Earthwork - turn-key general contractor to accomplish earthwork in preparation for foundation construction. Construction Contract 2 - Building Foundation and Building - turn-key general building contractor. Construction Contract 3 - Power Plant systems installation - project packager who purchases primary components of power plant, integrates the components, submits integration documentation for approval, constructs and starts up operation of power plant systems. 3.5.5 District Heating Construction Construction Contract 4 - District Heating System installation - turn-key general earthwork/utility contractor to install, test and start up hot water district heating system. In estimating this portion of the work, two alternatives were viewed. Option 1 accomplishes construction with a turn-key contractor. Option 2 accomplishes construction using a local construction entity formed by McGrath Light and Power and employs primarily local labor. Option 2 maximizes the positive impact on the community and would be achievable with proper fiscal and work load control by the general manager of McGrath Light and Power. This has been used as the basis for the construction cost estimate (See Appendix 7.1.1) 3.5.6 Commissioning of the Power System It is anticipated that the power plant and district heating construction would occur during the same time period. Throughout this period, people involved in construction would be designated as operating employees so that construction activities would be dovetailed into a training program to emphasize the theory of the rankine cycle, electrical power, plant safety, and fuels handling. In J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 54 addition, these construction personnel should also be trained in actual steam plant operation, probably through tours of on-the-job training at steam plants in Fairbanks where climate and coal handling conditions parallel those expected in McGrath. By the time the plant and district heating systems are nearing completion and are in the start-up phase, these same persons should be the primary start-up crew, assisted and advised by representatives of the combustor manufacturer. Commission is expected to involve basic hydro testing of pressure vessels, system-by-system blow down and cleaning, individual equipment component check-out, and a start-up and testing program that yields base-line “finger- print” data on the plant’s operating characteristics at its start-up. 3.6 Expected Operating Profiles for the Power Plant 3.6.1 Special Requirements of a Demonstration Project To satisfy the needs of both McGrath Light & Power and the Department of Energy, the power plant will need to be operated in demonstration mode for at least 3 years, with the following major activities: e Detailed data logging of plant operating parameters e Reducing and analyzing this data and forming performance reports e Collection of costs of operation e Extended periods when power plant systems are removed from service for inspection e Operation of power plant systems at specific loads for extended time durations 3.6.2 Plant Availability Demonstration Phase: Initially, plant operation will be closely monitored, and various parts will be periodically taken off line for inspection and to record the performance of systems. There will likely be some minor disruptions of service as the plant’s instrumentation and control systems are tested. When the plant is off-line, ML&P’s existing diesel generation will provide electricity, and the steam boiler in the power plant will provide district heating service. Normal Operations Phase: After the demonstration period, it is expected that the power plant will operate continuously throughout the year, except for a scheduled annual shut down period in the middle of the summer to accomplish preventative maintenance and repair work. During this time, diesel power generation equipment will generate electricity, and the district heating system J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 55 will be shut down. A small heating boiler will heat the water in the district heating lines at a near operating temperature, but all services to buildings are to be shut off. 3.6.3 Special Requirements For Plant Operations And Maintenance Operations The coal fired power plant is a base load generation facility that can provide the design load for district heating of 8.91 x 106 BTU/hr of heating, and 595 kWe of electrical power, when the combustor is firing at its rated 18,000 lb./hour of steam flow. This energy output is about 66% of the required space and domestic hot water heating required by the community. There is a relatively short period of time when system loads exceed capacity, and the design provides oil-fired boilers and standby peaking electrical generators to supply the necessary additional peaking energies. First costs for the power plant are minimized, and the smaller sized coal based combustor/boiler/steam turbine systems will be sized to match the median plant loads that occur the majority of the time. The arrangement of the cogeneration power plant allows electricity and heat loads to be met by different combinations of operating equipment. The operator has at his disposal the combustor, the oil-fired steam boiler, and the standby electrical generation provided by the existing power plant. Peak loads can be met by following two paths: Path 1: Fire the combustor at 100%, providing 18,000 Ib./hour of steam output, providing steam to the turbines to generate 595 kWe of electricity and full design district heating load. Make up the deficit of electricity (200 kWe) through synchronizing in peaking diesel generators. Path 2: Fire the combustor at 100% and the steam boiler at a rate to provide steam so the steam turbines produce the full 800 kWe of electrical demand and also satisfy the district heating load. The decision of how to operate the plant rests with operators and the utility manager. However, it is likely that Path 2 will be preferred, since it is easier to bring the oil fired boiler on line than it is the start up a diesel and synchronize it on line. Certainly Path 2 will be the better approach under unattended plant operation. Staffing for Operations The feasibility assumes that the plant will be designed for unattended operation. This is a profound change in the concept of operation of power systems, and the question of appropriateness of leaving a steam boiler and complex power generation system unattended is not trivial. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 56 The analysis assumes that unattended operation will be achieved through a program of initial and ongoing plant operations training. The plant is staffed around the clock for the first three years. Years 1, 2 and 3: Demonstration phase 1 full time power plant operator (day shift, swing shift, graveyard shift, 7 days per week around-the-clock attendance) 1 mechanic/coal handler (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) ul district heat maintenance repair-person (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) The plant staffing allows for the detailed data collection and monitoring normal during a demonstration project. The three-year time period will allow operations staff to gain confidence in the system design and its safeguards. It is expected that the log of plant operations and the number of times where operator intervention is required for continued plant operation will be periodically reviewed to determine when operations can be shifted to unattended operation. A three year period is projected for this confidence building time, and while this could be shorter in duration with a successfully operating design, it is expected that there will be some “kinks” to be worked out, principally in the stability of control systems and in the achievement of reliable coal feed from silos, which will consume this labor budget. During this time period the plant management will gain valuable experience and practice in outage management. The design of the system incorporates an oil-fired steam boiler and a diesel generator with black start capability. With these components, the plant can be brought back on line quickly after an outage to generate enough header steam to fully load the condensing turbine, thus allowing immediate return to service electric power generation. The combustor requires extensive horsepower to start up and involved procedures to create a heated fluidized bed that will combust coal. Therefore, coal-based steam generation is expected to take additional time and the services of the black start generator to come back on line. Years 4 and 5 1 day shift power plant operator (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) 1 swing shift power plant operator (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) 1 mechanic/coal handler (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) 1 district heat maintenance repair person (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) This is a transition time. One additional plant swing shift during weekdays is provided, and the district heat maintenance repair person is a 40 hour per week person. This is provided to cover labor costs associated with completion of unattended operation and the installation of all the district’s heating meter systems. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 57 Years 6 - 30 1 day shift operator (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) 1 mechanic/coal handler (40 hours per week, 8 hour shifts) 1 district heat maintenance repair person (20 hours per week, 4 hour shifts) This is the extended life time for the project, and it is expected that the plant will operate unattended. Coal will be handled successfully, thawed, crushed and placed in the silos correctly with a consistency and moisture content that allows for continuous feeding into the combustor. Also, the necessary level of maintenance and inspection will be fully implemented by plant management so that plant control systems operate and all safety and alarm systems remain fully operational to yield an acceptable outage schedule. Of great concern here is not only whether the plant operate through the entire range of loads, but that in the event of a distribution line short, the plant will shut down correctly, and that it can be safely and quickly restarted to restore power and heat production. Training Budgeting in the first cost of construction includes a training budget of $73,700, which provides for the full training of 4 staff members in basic steam system operation at the start of the project. Additional funding is included in operating budgets for 20% of this amount every 3 years for recurring training for new staff. Coal Handling - The design incorporates a generous coal unloading building and other design elements that will contribute to trouble free operation. Coal will be “mined” from the stockpile located adjacent to the power plant and brought into the coal unloading building. The coal pile will reside there for 12 to 18 hours. Heating floor coils will thaw the coal, and excess moisture will drain out of the pile. After this retention time, the coal will be moved to the crusher inlet using a small Bobcat-type blade. Coal will be crushed to 1/4 inch nominal size and conveyed into the storage silo. It is expected that coal unloading will occur every other day during very cold periods and every 4 days during warm periods. Equipment is sized to allow a full load of crushed coal to be placed in silos in an 8 hour shift, with an allowance made for start-up and clean-up. 3.6.4 Alternative Fuels Concepts One of the issues facing the team has been the reliability of the coal fuel supply, as well as its cost. The coal is situated some 90 miles from McGrath and will need to be accessed every 2 years in a winter haul program. As discussed earlier in section 3.4, the winter haul process, while being regularly J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 58 applied both in Alaska and Canada, still is dependent, year to year, on climate and snow pack conditions and actual costs of haul will also vary. One of the advantages of the combustor type selected for the project is fuel flexibility. The power plant would be able to consume a wide variety of organic fuels, including peat, municipal solid waste and biomass, all of which are available in significant quantities in the McGrath region. Typically, the combustor can be fitted easily with fuel delivery components to handle any of the above-mentioned fuel types. The handling, storage, and conditioning of these fuel stocks will, however, entail additional expense from that included in the cost estimate. For the purposes of this study, the fuel flexibility characteristic of the system is noted for others who may wish to develop fuel sources. Earlier work has been accomplished to develop budgets for inclusion of municipal solid waste as a fuel for the project. (References 1 and 2) This work is noted here for the reader. 4.0 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 4.1 Methodology 4.1.1 Community Impact Model As was presented in Section 2.0, feasiblity of the project must include an assessment of the effect the coal power plant would have on McGrath and surrounding areas. This “impact” is generally assessed in terms of population, the income of residents, and the financial condition of local governments. A computer based economic model developed by Northern Economics is employed to make this impact assessment. This model incorporates economic inputs and calculates additional employment or income. The part of the model that simulates movements of population, the “cohort survival demographic module,” considers migration of people in response to economic opportunities. The economic section of the model then responds to this change in population. The recursive nature of the model permits each module to affect the other. Projected changes in state and federal revenue sharing, transfer payments, capital budgets and other programs are included in the model. Outputs of the community impact model include the effects of a proposed development on the local labor force, employment by industrial sector, population (including school age children), infrastructure, per capita income, and fiscal effects on local governments. Additional information on the community impact model is presented in Appendix 7.4.1. The City of McGrath has experienced a decline in the number of total jobs available in the community over the past 5 years due to the loss of jobs at the FAA station and associated losses in other supporting jobs in the community. Reductions in J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 59 state government spending have also had an effect although these effects are masked by the substantial reduction in FAA jobs. The model projects that the total number of jobs will decline further in the next few years until the number of support jobs reaches equilibrium with the present number of basic jobs in the community. Figure 17 shows the anticipated decline in available state government funding and the lag in the economic response of the community to the loss of FAA jobs resulting in additional losses in local employment over the next 7 to 8 years. Under the present situation the total number of jobs is expected to decline to about 130 by 2002-2003 and then begin to increase slowly. The coal alternative provides 20 additional jobs in the community during the peak year of construction for the power plant and coal mine in 1998. In subsequent years the number of jobs created by the coal alternative ranges between 8 to 20 with the higher number created by mining and coal hauling activities that occur every other year. The average of 12.3 additional jobs between 1999 and 2005 during operation of the coal power plant and the mine represents an increase of about 9.3 percent over the number of jobs in the community with the diesel alternative. The model projects that the population in McGrath will also decline further in the next few years in association with the decreasing number of jobs in the community. After reaching this population nadir in about 1998, the model anticipates that the community will begin to grow at a slow rate, increasing about 35 persons by 2005 under the diesel alternative and 50 persons under the coal alternative (see Figure 18). This population increase occurs even with continued declines in employment because of different responses to unemployment by Natives and non-Natives and different birth rates between these two groups. Previous research by social scientists in rural Alaska has documented that migration rates for these two groups differ markedly in response to unemployment. Non-Natives migrate at substantially higher rates as unemployment increases. After the population outmigration for non-Natives stabilizes, the higher fertility rate for Native females results in a population upturn, even though employment continues its slow decline for several more years. In either case this population growth is relatively minor, reaching an annual growth rate of about 1.5 percent for the coal alternative and about 1 percent for the diesel alternative. The total population in 2026 with the diesel alternative is expected to be about 650 persons. The additional power plant, mining, and support sector jobs resulting from the coal plant will result in slightly greater growth rates over the next 30 years with McGrath’s population approaching 700 by 2026. 4.1.2 Financial Models Financial pro formas were developed using information obtained from McGrath Light & Power, MTNT Ltd., the Reference 1 and 7 reports, and details generated from Part I of this project. The purpose of the financial models is to assess the net income over the life of the project. Initially two alternatives were selected for examination: 1) a baseline case using existing diesel power generation and 2) an J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. NECALCS.XLS March 21, 1997 200 180 HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT AND COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR DIESEL AND COAL ALTERNATIVES (1990 - 2005) 160 140 120 —¢— Diesel Alternative 100 —#- Coal Alternative Jobs 80 60 - 40 20 0 0 ~ rr) ® ° nN o 0 3 a 3 8 3 ri 8 a a @ ° ° 3 3 3 ° D rH > > o d ri > o> ® r=} r= ° 5 3 ° = = = = = = = = = = aq q q q aq ro Year J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page Figure 17 - Employment Projections (1990 - 2005) March 21, 1997 540 HISTORIC POPULATION AND COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR DIESEL AND COAL ALTERNATIVES (1990 - 2005) 520 500 480 a ea 5 —¢e— Diesel Altemative g —#- Coal Alternative & fe = 460 - 440 420 400 o xc N oO t+ wo g Ee o Q o — N a t wo @ Q a a QD coy a a a o Qo Qo So o o o o o o o o o o o @ =) o Oo o So So = = = = - = = = = = N N N A N A Year J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 18 - Historic Population Projections (1990 - 2005) McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 62 alternative case using a new coal fired power plant with district heating capabilities and the diesel plant as backup to the coal plant. Subsequently a third alternative of a stand-alone coal facility was added to the preliminary findings of the first two alternatives. 4.2 Assumptions In order to determine the feasibility of the proposed coal plant and the effects on the community of McGrath, several assumptions were made. The following paragraphs describe the assumptions for the diesel alternative, the coal alternative with the diesel plant, a stand-alone coal facility, estimations for Power Cost Equalization (PCE) projections, and district heat participation. 4.2.1 Electrical Demand Forecast Demand for electricity is a function of population, infrastructure needs, reliability of service, and availability of alternatives. Approximately 50 percent of McGrath residents currently heat with wood that is available in the area either for free or a small fee. For purposes of this study, demand for electricity is based on historical usage and population projections derived using the Community Impact Model. Table 5 depicts energy demand for the first five years of the project under the diesel and coal with diesel alternatives. The table includes line items both for power generated and power sold under selected alternatives. This energy demand forms the basis for the revenues and expenditures which will be developed later in this report. Table 5 - Energy Demand Estimates Baseline 1996/97 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Diesel Alternative Population 492 501 506 511 514 518 Electricity generated (MWH) 3,274 3,334 3,367 3,400 3,420 3,447 Electricity sold (MWH) 2,910 2,963 2,993 3,022 3,040 3,064 Coal Alternative Population 492 501 510 519 523 530 Electricity generated (MWH) 3,274 3,334 3,394 3,454 3,480 3,527 Electricity sold (MWH) 2,910 2,963 3,016 3,070 3,093 3,135 4.2.2 Diesel Alternative - Option 1 Distribution system operations and maintenance are assumed to be the same for either alternative. Upgrades to the existing distribution system of approximately $50,000 per year have been built into the repairs and maintenance line item for both alternatives based on previous years’ expenditures and engineer’s estimates for upgrades and improvements in the future. See Appendix 7.4.3 for details. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 63 4.2.2.1 Operations and Maintenance Estimated repair and maintenance cost for the existing diesel plant equipment is based on 1996 expenditures. Discussions with NC Machinery indicate an estimated life of 10,000 hours between top overhauls and 20,000 hours between major overhauls for the generator types currently in use at McGrath Light and Power. Future costs of repairs and maintenance to this equipment are based on historical hours of operation, previous expenditures escalating at the inflation rate, and the assumed hours of operation are based on the energy demand projections derived from the Community Impact Model. Fixed administrative and overhead expenses are based on McGrath Light & Power, Inc.’s 1996/1997 budget figures obtained from the Chief Executive Officer of the MTNT, Ltd. on January 23, 1997. One-third of the general manager’s time has been allocated to the operation of the power plant and the rest of this person’s time has been allocated to other elements of the ML&P operation. 4.2.2.2 Labor The number of employees for the diesel alternative are assumed to remain constant. Increases to wages and salaries are linked to the estimated inflation rate of three percent over the projected 30-year time period. Deductions for payroll taxes and other employee benefits are estimated at the current rate structure and applied to the base wages of workers for the entire 30-year period. See Table 6 for deduction rates and Appendix B - Labor Details for deduction amounts. Table 6 - Payroll Deduction Rates |__ Rate | |Fica Rate | _7.65%| | ESC | 1.22% $24,400 | |Futa 0.80% $7,000 | Life Insurance $ 0.26 per $1000 Disability (optional) $ 14.70 | per/employee/mos. ‘Dental (single) (1) $ 19.03 | employee and spouse | $ 33.74 | | employee and family |$ 65.92 | Medical (single) $ 150.41 | | employee and spouse | $ 359.44 employee and children (no spouse) | $ 297.09 employee, spouse, children $ 506.12 |Worker's Comp | plant employees |$ 463 per $100 | clerical office employees $ 0.55 per $100 | SEP/IRA (2) 3%) per gross earnings | Notes: (1) MTNT & ML&P pay 100% of employee and 75% of the dependent's cost. (2) Employees with 2 years seniority - contribution by employee is pre-tax. (Annually decided by board of directors, this is the maximum possible contribution; there is no minimum.) J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 64 4.2.2.3 Fuel Diesel fuel costs are estimated at $1.59 per gallon (Reference 14) delivered fuel for the first year and increases to the fuel costs are linked to the estimated inflation rate of three percent over the projected 30-year time period. One gallon of fuel is assumed to provide 138,000 Btu’s of energy. Fuel consumption in future years is based on current efficiency factors for the diesel generators and projections for energy demand. The diesel plant also provides waste heat under contract to the FAA as well as several MTNT-owned buildings. 4.2.2.4 Capital Costs There are no new capital costs associated with the diesel alternative. Depreciation and interest on the existing debt service is included in the plant income statement pro formas. Top overhauls and major overhauls to the existing equipment are assumed to maintain the existing equipment for the 30-year time period. These costs are built into the repairs line item under plant expenses in the year they are incurred and assumed not to require debt service (See Appendix 7.4.3 - Diesel Plant Alternative Income Statement). Additional capital costs are not required for the diesel alternative but increasing fuel and repair and maintenance costs result in increasing expenses for ML&P. The company faces several constraints in raising its rates to address these rising costs including oversight by the Alaska Public Utility Commission, ownership by MTNT, Ltd., whose shareholders account for a substantial portion of the utility’s customer base, and the limited household income in the community. After discussing these issues with MTNT, Ltd. management it was agreed that the analysis would assume rate increases are implemented and approved whenever the utility’s net profits as a percent of total revenues falls to or below 5 percent. 4.2.3 Coal/Diesel Alternative - Option 2 Distribution system operations and maintenance are assumed to be the same for either alternative. Upgrades to the existing distribution system of approximately $50,000 per year have been built into the repairs and maintenance line item for the plant based on previous year’s expenditures and engineers estimates for upgrades and improvements in the future. This assumption on the existing distribution system is the same employed for the diesel alternative. 4.2.3.1 Operations and Maintenance Repairs and maintenance for the coal plant equipment are based on engineer’s estimates of life expectancy. The number of hours required for maintenance escalates over time at one percent per annum to account for increases in maintenance as the equipment ages. The hourly labor rate increases at the three percent inflation rate and the cost of repair parts increases at five percent to account for inflation and the increased expenses associated with older equipment. Several sinking funds have been established in the income statements to accrue funds for anticipated major repairs or replacement at years 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. These are included in the Repairs line item under plant expenses. At the end of 30 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 65 years a significant portion of the plant is expected to need replacement with the costs approaching $1 million. The first annual contribution to a sinking fund for this replacement activity occurs in year 13. Contributions are delayed until after year 12 when the last payment is due on the existing debt service for the diesel plant. This approach minimizes losses and avoids rate increases to local consumers that would otherwise be necessary early in the project life. 4.2.3.2 Labor The coal alternative is estimated to require six employees for the first three years of operation, drop to four persons in years four and five, and can be maintained by three persons in the remaining years. In addition, one-third of the general manager’s time has been allocated to the power plant and two-thirds of the general manager’s time has been allocated to other elements of McGrath Light &. Power. Increases to wages and salaries are linked to the estimated inflation rate of three percent over the projected 30-year time period. Deductions for payroll taxes and other employee benefits are estimated at the current rate structure and applied to the base wages of workers for the entire 30-year period. See Table 6 for wage deduction rates and Appendix 7.4.2 for deduction amounts. 4.2.3.3 Fuel Coal is assumed to be obtained locally from the Little Tonzona Mine site at a cost of $51.99 per ton. (Reference 15) The coal has an approximate heating value of 6,800 Btu’s per pound. Doyon Ltd. is the owner of this proposed mine and information on the mine is contained in Reference 7. However, the report is proprietary and additional information on the mine is not available for the public record. The coal plant in its current design will use limestone with the coal at a cost of $25.00 per ton. Diesel fuel to supply peaking capacity and an auxiliary oil-fired boiler for district heating are estimated at $1.59 per gallon. One gallon of fuel is assumed to provide 138,000 Btu’s of energy. Increases to the fuel costs are linked to the estimated inflation rate of three percent over the projected 30-year time period. Fuel consumption in future years is based on projected energy demand and conversion factors for the power plant and district heating system. Given the limited data available to the public on the mine and the delivered cost of coal, section 4.4 of this report provides a sensitivity analysis of the pro formas to varying costs of coal. It is not anticipated that coal can be delivered to McGrath for less than the $51.99 per ton cited above. However, marketing of the coal to other users in the region may enable the coal mine to achieve these costs. 4.2.3.4 Capital Costs The coal plant is assumed to cost $10.89 million (See Table 3 and 4), most of which is supplied by grants. This analysis assumes that MTNT, Ltd. will obtain a $1 million loan from a bank, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), or other financial institution. A low interest loan or loan guarantee by the State of Alaska may also be possible. This loan is the only amount of the capital cost not provided by grants. The loan is amortized over 15 years and a straight line J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 66 depreciation schedule for the plant is based on a 30-year life for the facility. (See Appendix 7.4.3 - Coal with Diesel Alternative Income Statement). 4.2.4 Coal (Stand Alone) Alternative - Option 3 The purpose of this alternative is to allow the reader to determine costs that are associated with the coal plant alone. Operation of the coal plant without an alternative source of power generation is not practical. However, other communities may entertain the possibility of installing a similar facility and their costs for a backup power source could be added to this alternative to evaluate the viability of developing a coal fired power plant. This alternative is based on the City of McGrath population and expenditure patterns so caution should be used in comparing these results to other communities. Engineers estimate the coal plant would need to be shut down for periodic repair and maintenance during the year which would require an alternative source of power. The Coal (Stand-Alone) Alternative does not include revenues or expenses from activities outside of the coal power plant, nor does it include administrative expenses associated with distribution and revenue collection. The pro forma does include some indirect or administrative expenses such as insurance coverage that is directly related to the plant. The assumptions for operations and maintenance, labor, fuel, and capital costs are the same as those listed for the Coal with Diesel Alternative minus the activities associated with the diesel plant operation. Additional details can be obtained by reviewing Appendices 7.4.3 and 7.4.4 for the Coal (Stand-Alone) Alternative. 4.2.5 Power Cost Equalization The existing diesel plant and the proposed coal fired alternative that would be operated by McGrath Light & Power meet the requirements for a participating utility under the terms of the Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE). The program covers a utility’s eligible power costs that are more than 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour but no higher than 52.5 cents per kilowatt hour. (Reference 17) Eligible power costs include all allowable costs, except return on equity. The PCE rate is determined by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) and is subject to legislative funding approval. Fiscal year 1995 was the fifth year in which the PCE program experienced a funding shortfall. APUC estimates funding for fiscal year 1996 will be at 85 percent of eligible power costs (Reference 17). Funding for the PCE program is from the Power Cost Equalization and Rural Electric Capitalization Fund (PCE/REC) and the General Fund. The PCE/REC Fund is anticipated to be exhausted in three more fiscal years. Additional funding for this program will then be dependent upon General Fund contributions. Discussions in recent years have suggested that the General Fund would be unable to support this program given declining oil revenues. Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association (ARECA) has suggested that the governor hopes to draft a long-term solution to PCE and has proposed an endowment, perhaps with matching federal funds (Reference 18). According to J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 67 ARECA, the governor feels PCE assistance is a high priority and legislators understand the importance of the program and providing electric services to rural customers. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) predicts that the state will need to support infrastructure in rural Alaska (Reference 19). In order for schools, water systems, and sewer systems to be properly maintained, it will be necessary to make sure electricity is available and affordable. AVEC anticipates that PCE funding will not fall below $15 million. For purposes of this study, the PCE funding assumption is 85 percent for year 1 and slowly declining thereafter. Year 30 is assumed to be funded at the 50 percent level (See Table 7). Table 7 - First 5 years PCE Calculations Diesel Alternative Baseline Case Alternative Case |1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Possible contribution | after fuel calculations (cents per kWh) $ 0.2133 | $ 0.2467 | $ 0.2445 | $ 0.2414 | $ 0.2416 $0.2416 Assistance (700 | kWh/customer/month and up to 70 | | kWh/resident/month for | | | community facilities) | kWh 1,276,848 1,281,399 1,294,188 1,306,976 1,314,649 1,324,880 | Percent contribution | 100.0% 85.0% 83.8% 82.7% 81.5% 80.3% | Dollar Value L$ 272,384 | $ 268,674 | $ 265,286 | $ 260,766 | $ 258,881 $257,108 I Coal Alternative Baseline Case Alternative Case |1996/1997 ‘Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ] Possible contribution | after fuel calculations (cents per kWh)| $ 0.2133 | $ 0.3570 | $ 0.3570 | $ 0.3570 | $ 0.3570 0.3570 Assistance (700 | kWh/customer/month and up to 70 kWh/resident/month for | community facilities) kWh 1,276,848 1,281,399 1,304,419 1,327,438 1,337,668 1,355,572 Percent contribution | 100.0% 85.0% 83.8% 82.7% 81.5% 80.3%} Dollar Value [$272,384 | $ — 388,841/$ 390,393 $ 391,753|$ 389,201 |$ 388,765 | J Note: Baseline case PCE assistance listed as $282,000 in Appendix Tables. Differences due to fiscal year versus calendar year calculations. 4.2.6 District Heat The district heating component of the project will provide a source of space heating for both residences and businesses in the area. The number of customers signing J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 68 up for the district heat service will be a function of the reliability of the system and the cost to provide as compared to other heating sources. Recent information suggests that 50 percent of the community relies on wood for space heating. In essence, district heating customers will want the service only if the associated fees are comparable or less than they currently pay for space heating. We have \ly assumed that customers wishing to sign on for district heating will take a few years Yul Mi to reach maximum levels. District heat revenues are priced at 75 percent of the — °”) r ve estimated heating cost by diesel to encourage customers to sign up for the service. ( wn? ak In the first year, 50 percent of the available district heat customers will generate (\ Go") revenues to McGrath Light and Power. The percent of customers will escalate by 10 percent per year and in year six is assumed to be at 100 percent of available district heating demand. Note that the district heat system does not reach all of the community so the district heating system never meets 100 percent of the community’s total heating load. 4.3 Analysis Methodology and Results Two financial evaluation methods were used in assessing this project. The income statement listed in Appendix 7.4.3 allows for accumulation of funds over time to account for anticipated expenditures in future years. Sinking funds were set up to accumulate monies for anticipated expenditures for repairs in future years. The cash flow statement listed in Appendix 7.4.4 isa similar analysis, however, expenses are accounted for in the time period they occur. For instance, under the cash flow assessment the entire cost of a major overhaul would be shown in a particular year while the income statement would set aside funds each year for the repair. The two evaluation methods yield slightly different results in the financial analysis. Table 10 lists the net present value for each of the alternatives under the income statement and cash flow evaluation methods. Internal rate of return or IRR is an evaluation similar to the net present value. IRR generally involves a capital outlay and a future stream of income. In the case of each alternative, the IRR formula does not generage a useful number and the net present value concept is a better evaluation technique. All alternatives are based on the City of McGrath’s population and expenditure patterns and may not be applicable to other communities. 4.3.1 Diesel Alternative - Option 1 Production cost of electricity, as measured by the total expenses divided by the amount of energy sold is $.301 per kilowatt hour for the base year under the diesel alternative. The cents per kilowatt hour figure is for break even only, with no return or profit to the company. Actual cost per kilowatt hour paid by McGrath residents is lower due to Power Cost Equalization contributions. Table 8 depicts the breakdown of costs per kilowatt hour by administrative, labor, repairs and maintenance, and fuel at year 5 of operation and shows the comparison of costs in a snapshot in time. (This is not the basis for feasibility.) High start-up costs in the J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 69 beginning years of the coal plant operation make comparison to diesel less meaningful. The five-year time frame was chosen for comparison to more accurately contrast the plant alternatives when they are under full operation. Table 8 - Comparison of Expenses in Year Five Option | 1-Diesel 2-Coal/Diesel | _3-Coal | | | | Stand-alone Oil L$ 0.132 | $ 0.020 Coal and Limestone | 0.145 | $ 0.145 Royalties ($2.00 perton) | | 0.005 | 0.005 Consumables | | 0.006 0.006 Repairs & Maintenance $ 0.033 0.026 0.024 Plant Labor Expenses L$ 0.036 0.070 | 0.064 | |Administrative Expenses $ 0.129 0.147 0.010 | | Sub-total $ 0.329 0.420 | $ 0.253 District Heating Credit 0.02 0.077) 0.077) |Total Cost ($/KWHe) L$ 0.309 | $ 0.343 | $ 0.176 In the income statement sinking funds were set up to accumulate monies for anticipated repairs to the diesel generators (both top and major overhauls), line distribution, and tank farm upgrades. Appendix 7.4.4 shows expenses for major overhauls to the primary generator every 20,000 hours or 3.77 years. Under the cash flow assessment the entire cost of the major overhaul would occur in year 4 while the income statement would set aside funds each year for the repair. Net present value as measured by net operating income on the income statement for the diesel alternative is $869,000 while the net present value as measured by cash flow on the cash flow statement for the diesel alternative is $1,437,000. The IRR formula does not generate a useful number since there is no capital outlay for the diesel alternative. 4.3.2 Coal and Diesel Alternative - Option 2 Production cost of electricity as measured by the total expenses divided by the amount of energy sold is $.483 per kilowatt hour for the first year under the coal with diesel alternative. This figure is for break even only, with no return or profit to the company. Actual cost per kilowatt hour paid by McGrath residents would be lower due to Power Cost Equalization contributions or could be lower due to other grants for plant capital. Table 8 depicts the breakdown of costs per kilowatt hour by administrative, labor, repairs and maintenance, and fuel at year 5 of operation. High start up and additional labor costs in the beginning years of the coal plant operation make comparison to diesel less meaningful. The five-year time frame was chosen for comparison to more accurately contrast the plant alternatives after sufficient time has elapsed for reliable operations. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 70 Sinking funds were set up to accumulate funds for anticipated repairs to the diesel generators (both top and major overhauls), upgrades to line distribution, tank farm upgrades, and anticipated major repairs to the coal plant at years 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 including a $1 million dollar sinking fund set up for replacement of some plant components in year 30. Major repairs are anticipated for the coal plant at years 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. Net present value as measured by the income statement for the coal with diesel alternative is a negative $2,.814,000 while the net present value as measured by the cash flow statement for the coal with diesel alternative is a negative $2,687,000. The IRR formula is not meaningful since the income stream for the coal with diesel alternative is negative using the assumptions previously laid out in this report. 4.3.3 Coal (Stand-Alone Entity) Alternative - Option 3 The coal (stand-alone entity) alternative was chosen to assess the cost of the coal plant by itself. This alternative does not include provisions for back-up electrical generation, distribution of energy, or administrative costs for delivering the product to the customer. The purpose of examining this alternative is for other communities to assess the financial condition of the coal plant added to whatever system they currently have in place for electrical generation. Engineers estimate the plant would need to be shut down for periodic repair and maintenance for approximately one month during the year which would require an alternative source of power. The alternate source of power has not been included with this alternative, nor have distribution costs or administrative costs for revenue collection been included. Insurance for the plant and debt service on $1 million capital outlay have been included with the administrative portion of the coal (stand-alone) alternative. Production cost of electricity as measured by the total expenses divided by the amount of energy sold is $.317 per kilowatt hour for the first year under the coal (stand-alone) alternative. This figure is for break even only, with no return or profit to the company. Figure 20 depicts the breakdown of costs per kilowatt hour by administrative, labor, repairs and maintenance, and fuel at year 5 of operation. High start up costs in the beginning years of the coal plant operation make comparison to diesel disputable. The five-year time frame was chosen for comparison to more accurately contrast the plant alternatives when they are under full operation. Sinking funds were set up to accumulate monies anticipated for major repairs to the coal plant at years 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 including a $1 million dollar sinking fund set up for replacement of some plant components in year 30. Major repairs are anticipated for the coal plant at years 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. Caution should be used in assessing the net present value of the coal (stand- alone) alternative since this plant option is not considered practical given that there is no alternate energy source and administrative and distribution costs J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 pe have been avoided. Net present value as measured by the income statement for the coal alternative is $3,545,000 while the net present value as measured by the cash flow statement for the coal alternative is $3,313,000. 4.3.4 Net Present Value Analysis The present value method of evaluation compares the value of future cash flows expected from an investment to the initial cash outlay for the investment. There are two basic concepts to consider in evaluating the impacts of the present value calculation. The first concept is that there is an inverse relationship between the present value and the discount rate selected (i.e. a higher discount rate results in a lower present value). The second concept to consider is the effect of the discount rate over time (i.e., the present value of a dollar received twenty years hence is much less than a dollar received in five years). Net cash flows are the difference between forecasted cash inflow received from the investment to the expected cash outflow of the investment. In theory, the discount rate should reflect the opportunity cost of capital. The desired rate of return (discount rate) on money for this project is 8 percent. An advantage of net present value is that it considers the time value of money. A disadvantage is the subjectivity in determining expected annual cash inflows and expected period of benefit. Reliability of the net present valuation decreases as the time period increases. Table 9 summarizes the net present value determinations using two accounting methods: the income statement and the cash flow method for all three alternatives. Caution should be used in viewing the Coal (Stand-Alone) alternative. The NPV is based on a $1 million investment of capital for the project while the total capital investment for this project is $10.89 million. Engineers estimate the plant would need to be shut down for periodic repair and maintenance during the year which would require an alternative source of power. The alternative source of power has not been included with the Coal (Stand-Alone) alternative nor are general and administrative expenses included. All alternatives are based on the City of McGrath population and expenditures and may not be applicable to other communities. Table 9 Net Present Value of three Development Options i ie Alternatives 5 | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | | | Diesel |__Coalwith Diesel | __Coal (Stand Alone) | Income Statement Method $ 869,117 | $ (2,814,872) $ 3,545,867 |Cash Flow Method L$ 1,437,276 | $ (2,687,074)| $ 3,313,479 | A general rule is that if the net present value of a project is negative, the project should be rejected. Since the net present value of the coal with diesel alternative of this project is negative given the assumptions described in the previous paragraphs, a determination was made to perform sensitivity analysis for several of the components of the project to determine how that might affect the net present value. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 72 4.4 Sensitivity Analysis Table 10 is a matrix of the sensitivities performed and the effects on the net present value of the project for each. The last column of the table shows the variance of the net present value from the base case evaluation for each of the sensitivities. Table 10 - Sensitivity Matrix ____ Sensitivity Description _| Net Present Value | Variance |_| | | |Base Case $ (2,814,872) __ 1|Increase the price of coal by 10% ($57.19/ton) $ (3,444,645)| $ (629,773) |_ 2 | Increase the price of coal by 20% ($62.39/ton) |$ (4,074,418)| $ (1,259,546) | 3|Eliminate royalty payments of $2 per ton $ (2,628,109); $ 186,763 |_ 4 Increase fuel prices by 0.5% per annum L$ (2,817,088)| $ (2,216) 5| Decrease market penetration of district heat to 75% $ (3,451,071)| $ (636,199) __6/Assume debt service on existing plant is forgiven L$ (2,569,885)| $ 244,988 |_7|Assume additional labor costs in first 5 years subsidized | $ (1,914,629); $ 900,243 8 Assume interest rate on debt service reduced to 3% $ (2,586,884)| $ 227,988 9 Assume PCE contribution goes away in 5 years $ (5,439,496)| $ (2,624,624) | 10/Assume O&M cost savings at coal plant of 5% $ (2,756,479)| $ 58,393 — 11|Assume district heating at 10% reduced levels L$ (3,101,865)| $ (286,992)) As can be seen from the table, implementation of any of the sensitivities producing a positive variance would not allow the coal with diesel alternative to achieve break-even. If all of the potential changes producing positive variances were accomplished, and none of the potential changes producing negative variances occurred, the net present value would still be a negative $1.19 million. Only under very favorable circumstances would this alternative become viable for McGrath Light & Power. 4.4.1 Benefit Cost Analysis Benefit-cost analysis is a method of evaluating competing uses of resources in a comprehensible fashion. Some benefit-cost analyses are extremely comprehensive including environmental and social benefits and costs. This analysis focuses on the traditional efficiency evaluation of investments. Environmental and social benefits and costs are not included in this analysis for several reasons. Information needed to address these issues is not available from existing sources and resources are not available to undertake such a comprehensive study. There are significant differences of opinion within the economics profession on the proper manner to measure many of the social and environmental parameters. This methodology assesses the benefits and costs of a project and reduces them to a common dollar denominator. As such, benefit-cost analysis may appear to not address the possible alternative uses of resources in other projects. Costs are defined relative to their opportunity cost, which is “the benefits forgone by not using these resources in the best of the available alternative investments that J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 73 cannot be undertaken if the resources are used in the project.” In theory, the use of a discount rate employed in benefit-cost analysis also reflects the opportunity cost, or next best use of capital. The traditional approach to benefit-cost analyses focuses on changes in economic activity a project is expected to produce over time. This typically requires identification of all changes (benefits and costs) and summing these results with and without the project. Measurement of these changes is generally difficult and usually requires a number of simplifying assumptions. Economic costs differ from financial costs. A primary difference is that capital costs are not amortized over time in economic analysis. Costs are incurred in the year of expenditure, and not in the year in which payments are made. For example, bonds may be used to finance plant construction and payments to bond holders will be made over a period of time to retire the debt. Financial analysis considers the year in which the payments are made. Economic analysis places the entire construction cost on the year the funds were expended. The time value of funds is accounted for by discounting expenditures in any given year back to the current year with the use of an appropriate discount rate. Benefits for this project are equal to net consumer benefits - the difference between existing benefits and new benefits associated with the alternatives. In this case, the benefit/cost ratio associated with retaining the existing plant are much higher than the benefit/cost ratio of taking on the coal power plant with diesel alternative, 3.34:1 and a 0.05:1 respectively. Benefit/cost ratios less than unity (1:1) are generally rejected. Reducing the desired return on capital (discount rate) to 5 percent still does not yield a positive benefit/cost ratio to the community for Option 2. 4.5 Financing Alternatives Capital contributions from the City of McGrath, MTNT, or McGrath Light & Power have not been identified for the coal fired power plant. Grants were considered a possible source of construction monies but the availability of funds is currently scarce. A $1 million loan guaranteed by the state is assumed to be available for capital construction funds. The Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) generally accepts applications for funds once a year. The department advertises in March of each year with a solicitation period of 60 to 90 days. The term and interest rate are negotiable and dependent on several factors: the financial feasibility of the project, the average weekly bond rate, and the impact on the associated community. The interest rate can range from 0 to 6.5 percent with terms of 10 to 20 years. Other options available for financing this project include the Municipal Bond Bank Authority using a revenue bond. The annual percentage rate would be slightly less than other lending institutions and the Bond Bank Authority will finance up to 100 percent of the project. The project must be financially feasible for this type of funding. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 74 Another option includes financing through the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). AIDEA will finance up to 80 percent of the project for terms of up to 25 years. All of the projects in which AIDEA participates are required to meet certain criteria. They must e be financially feasible; ¢ improve the economy of the state; e provide or maintain jobs for Alaskans; and e clearly demonstrate ability to meet debt payments. Other lending institutions may be interested in participating in this project and their involvement would be required to obtain AIDEA financing. The requirements of each private bank or other lending institution are specific to the organization and the particular program in which they participate. 4.5.1 Anticipated Financing Plan At this time the $1 million loan from the Alaska Division of Energy is the only long- term financing anticipated if the project goes ahead. Private banks may have a role in providing a short-term construction loan or loans while the power plant and coal mine are being built. However, the negative net present value of the coal with diesel alternative does not portend an ability for the project, as presently defined, to be financed by MTNT from traditional sources so additional details are not provided. 4.5.2 Potential Grant Sources Legislative grants for development funds through the State of Alaska are always a possibility to continue the development of this small power concept. Federal grants could also be made available, probably from the federal government’s Low Rank Coal program, which is a part of the Federal Energy Technology Center. The City of McGrath, McGrath Light and Power, and its parent, MTNT, Ltd. would need to work in a coordinated fashion with their legislative representatives or the governor’s office and with the U. S. Senate/House congressional representatives for funds. Both federal and state energy groups can continue the common interest approach that has carried this project to its present feasibility status. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Sal! Conclusions A note to the reader: Throughout the project analysis period the project was felt to be technically feasible based on the long standing parasitic power consumption characteristics provided to the team in late 1994 by the manufacturer Donlee Technologies and the extensive project description work accomplished to date. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 75 However, in late February, 1997 new much higher parasitic power numbers were received from Donlee. These figures raised the operating horsepower of the combustor from 112 hp to between 175 and 200 horsepower. Such a large rise in power requirements has far reaching implications for economic feasibility, and makes the project only marginally technically feasible, where technically feasible means a practical concept which may be implemented with commonly available technical expertise. The project manager directed that the performance and economic modeling accomplished to date should not be re-accomplished, but rather the existing results reported, and this notification of last minute changes be made a part of the project report. The remaining text provided is final reporting which does not include these new parasitic power characteristics. Project Overview The economic feasibility analysis for the McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant project envisions two discrete scenarios that McGrath Light and Power can embrace. Option 1. Continue the present operation with diesel engine generator sets as prime movers. Option 2. Construct a new coal fired cogeneration power plant near the city center, and an associated district heating system. Make use of existing installed diesel equipment to provide black start and peaking support for the project. Another option was added late in the project, to establish the cost of a coal- fired power plant at other locations in Alaska. Option 3. Construct a new coal fired cogeneration power plant and associated district heating system, with costing structure including only coal plant costs, but excluding any existing equipment owned by McGrath Light and Power. This analysis option is not included in the deliberation or economic feasibility process for McGrath, but is provided to allow the results of the study to be useful for consideration of the design concept at other locations in Alaska. Characteristics of the New Coal fired Power Plant Under Option 2, the proposed community energy system will consist of an assembly of a coal fired fluidized bed combustor and fire tube boiler capable of steaming at 18,000 pounds of steam per hour, a supplemental oil-fired boiler, and dual steam turbines connected to a 1 megawatt electrical generator. A diesel engine generator set will also be included at the new power plant location for in-the-plant black start capability, and for peaking service. This assembly of equipment will allow for the simultaneous production of electricity J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 76 and district heating hot water. Both commodities will be sold by McGrath Light and Power to its customers. Flexibility and redundancy will be built into the plant’s component assemblies and control system, to allow response to all load conditions, even when there is a failure of critical components. The configuration of boilers and turbines will allow the plant to operate around the clock without regularly needing to bring peaking generators on line. The oil-fired boiler proposed will provide peaking capacity for steam generation and also will be used during black starts. The coal handling system has been designed for trouble free operation, through inclusion of a warming building with floor coils and a coal crushing/storage silo design that will encourage smooth, uninterrupted coal flows into the combustor under all conditions. The district heating component of this energy system is proposed to cover a major portion of the town proper, and includes the city center and an area near the City’s water treatment plant. Total peak loads for district heating, if all potential customers elect to connect to the system will be near 9 million BTU/hr. It is expected that connection to this district heating system will occur over a period of 5 years, as the system is installed, brought into operation, and people decide to connect. The combustion systems envisioned for the power plant are clean burning and are in full compliance with Department of Environmental Conservation rules for power plant emissions. This allows construction of the power plant at a site near the center of town without detrimental environmental effects. The use of district heating in the community will reduce the use of wood and oil in individual boilers, stoves and furnaces, which tend to be less clean burning than the fluidized bed combustor equipment. For this reason, the community’s air quality during extremely cold weather should improve with coal fired power plant operation. The development of the coal reserve at Little Tonzona Creek and establishment of a winter haul route between Little Tonzona Creek and McGrath are integral parts of the project. The mine has significant quantities of coal and its location and quality must be confirmed in a next step known as the reserves confirmation program. A winter haul route between Little Tonzona Creek and McGrath has been identified and is presented in Appendix 7.5. This route appears practical for the hauling of coal. Costs of Construction The following table defines the expected costs for construction and operation of the power plant: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 COAL FIRED POWER PLANT DEVELOPMENT COST work element | | amount ($) _|total amt ($) : t | | | Feasiblity determination | |$ 100,000 Design | 722,148 | ‘| Bidding Phase | 30,000 | Mine Development | 1,543,000 | Construction Phase | | 9,919,148 Owner Costs at Startup/‘1st year's operation $ 251,960 |Subtotal - proposed project mages without contingency $ 12,566,256 [Project contingency | |$ 1,256,626 contingency at 10% of TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET WITH CONTINGENCY T L$ 13,822,882 Schedule The project is expected to require 3 years from the start of permitting and design to the beginning of operation. A detailed construction and development schedule is included in the body of the report. Organization for the Power Project The project will require the coordinated actions of several groups for the operation of the cogeneration power plant. Key players will include the following: Activity |Responsibility Electric power generation ML &P District heat generation 'ML & P Coal mining ML & P Contract Coal hauling ML & P Contract Coal Pile Management & Storage|ML & P Contract In town Coal Delivery ML & P Contract Water supply - primary City of McGrath Water supply - emergency ML & P [City of McGrath Presently the City operates the water and sewer systems, employing two technicians for this activity. McGrath Light & Power employs a total of two power technicians for operation of the diesel-fired power plant and electrical distribution line. With the coal fired power plant, there will be additional full time employees for plant operation. In addition, there will be a need to contract out every other year for the coal haul, with contract amounts in excess of $600,000. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 77 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 78 Key to the project is close cooperation between the City and McGrath Light and Power, especially in the provision of water and sewer service to the power plant. Introducing power plant wastes into the sewer system will not only eliminate a waste water disposal situation, but will help the City maintain warm temperatures in its sewage lagoons, and provide a boost for revenues. The Mining and Hauling of Coal The Little Tonzona Coal Deposit appears to be a viable, long term source of fossil fuel for the McGrath power plant. A viable winter haul route between the mine site and McGrath also appears to be present. Winter haul road design and operation is common in Alaska and in northern Canada, and application of these techniques to the McGrath project is reasonable and feasible. Construction of a winter snow road will require the presence of adequate snow pack along the alignment, and there may be some years when the hauling of coal will either be difficult or not possible. Thus the plan to stockpile 20,000 tons of coal (a two year supply) at McGrath is appropriate and a project requirement. Haul costs can be expected to vary from year to year, and this cost will depend on the durability of the snow pad surface (a direct result of weather history over the winter and during the haul process) and amounts of snow pad maintenance required. The concept of hauling every other year appears to be viable, but there is concern that freak weather conditions in a year where coal stockpiles in McGrath are depleted could cause fuel shortages. While several experts in winter haul advised that winter conditions can occasionally be overpowering and difficult for a haul operation, the Canadian Highways winter haul road manager said that with proper equipment, winter haul can be reliably accomplished. Power Plant Operations Tariffs: The assumption is that the tariff for electricity produced by the power plant will remain the same for either the diesel plant or the coal plant. The cost of district heat energy has been set at 75% of the cost of heating fuel energy at the fuel price for which McGrath Light and Power purchases it. This is assumed to be a reasonable price that to cover in-plant production costs and return on sales while providing an incentive to connect into the district heating system. Operating Scenarios: The existing diesel plant operates unattended, and it is projected that after first 5 years of operation the coal plant will also operated unattended. The first five years will see the coal plant staffed around the clock, with this staffing gradually reduced as confidence is gained in the safety of the control system. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 79 For the Coal Plant, an acceptable level of remote alarm and annunciation for unattended operation is provided. However, unattended operation will be embraced only after the power plant has amassed a blemish free operating record where operator intervention has shown not to be needed. The Coal Plant will require a new class of training and expertise for power plant management and operators. As the power plant includes ASME pressure vessels operating at 200 psig, there is always a danger of boiler explosions if safety controls fail or if the plant were operated incorrectly. Only good technical training for operators and correct maintenance can minimize these potential hazards. Nothing is stated outright in the pressure vessel construction and repair codes about unattended operation, nor does the States boiler inspector have jurisdiction. Rather, the matter rests between the insurance carrier of McGrath Light and Power and the technical management of the power plant. The feasibility assumes that after a 3-year period, unattended operation will be achievable, but with critical alarms connected to a beeper worn at all times by a ML&P representative. Technical Expertise in McGrath The Coal Fired power plant will require not only skilled operators, but also skilled preventative maintenance providers, and team members for scheduled yearly shut down inspections, upgrade and renovation. The population of McGrath includes a number of technically-minded individuals who could be available to provide support services to power plant operation. For the project to be successful, McGrath Light and Power will need to be pro-active and persistent in staffing and training. After a considerable number of interviews and discussions with people in the McGrath work force, it was concluded that there is an adequate pool of local residents who could be trained in steam plant operation. Acceptance of the Project by the Community A questionnaire was mailed to all 68 of the residents in the district heating service area asking about an interest in connecting into a district heating system. Of the 48 people who responded, 40 indicated they would be interested in connecting to district heat, and the remaining 8 were not in favor. Several requested additional public meetings to discuss the project, but the majority opinion appears to be for pursuing, building and operating the district heating portion of the Coal Plant. Some expressed concern over storing a large quantity of coal in the community, which is a subject that could be discussed during future public meetings. This question can be left as an implementation issue since there is some flexibility in the design that would allow the storage pile to be placed at other less prominent locations. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 80 Economic Feasibility A financial opportunity for a utility - is the coal fired power plant attractive to McGrath Light and Power? In the meetings of January 24 and 25, 1996, discussions were held that defined a level of financial participation by funders and these agreements are a foundation for this analysis. The funding arrangement agreed to which is the basis for this feasibility analysis envisions the federal government and the State of Alaska covering all aspects of first cost of construction except for a $1.0 million investment that McGrath Light and Power would make. All future operating costs would be borne by McGrath Light and Power. Expected Costs for Electricity Each of the thirty years of plant operation will present a different cost of operation and revenue stream. For the Option 2 Coal Plant, early years will be shaped by the high costs of round-the-clock labor. In mid years costs will be at their lowest, and from years 20 to 30, funds will expended in response to a higher maintenance and repair profile common to an aging plant. A snapshot of costs are provided for year 5 of the study period for both the diesel and coal options: Option 1-Diesel | 2-Coal/Diesel| _3-Coal | | Stand-alone Oil $ 0.132 | $ 0.020 Coal and Limestone 0.145 | $ 0.145 | |Royalties ($2.00 perton) | 0.005 0.005 Consumables | 0.006 | 0.006 |Repairs & Maintenance §$ 0.033 0.026 0.024 |Plant Labor Expenses $ 0.036 0.070 0.064 Administrative Expenses | $ 0.129 0.147 0.010 Sub-total $ 0.329 0.420 | $ 0.253 District Heating Credit | 0.02 0.077 0.077 ‘Total Cost _($/KWHe) i$ 0.309 | $ 0.343 | $ 0.176 | In this year 5 time period, the price for coal-generated electrical energy is comparable to that for diesel ($0.309 /dKWHe - delivered kilowatt hours, diesel versus $0.343/dkWHe for the Coal Plant). However, other years see very high costs tagged on the coal plant. If all revenues and costs of operation are added together for each year using time discounting formulae that convert future costs to “net present values,” the options fare as follows: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 81 { | Altematives | | | Option 1 | Option 2 Option 3 | | Diesel |___Coal with Diesel Coal (Stand Alone) _| [Income Statement Method | $ 869,117 | $ (2,814,872), $ 3,545,867 [Cash Flow Method L$ 1,437,276 | $ (2,687,074)| $ 3,313,479 | Over its 30 year lifetime, the coal fired power plant yields a net deficit. Therefore, not including any recognition of community-wide benefits back to the utility, for the demonstration project case © average costs over project lifetime for electricity for the Option 2 Coal power plant will be higher than for that the Option 1 Diesel alternative e the net present value sum of all revenues, costs of operation, and power cost equalization subsidies will be higher for the Option 1 Diesel alternative than that for the Option 2 Coal power plant. A large positive value indicates profitability; a negative value indicates losses. There are several concerns that do not reflect in the analysis, but which could cause unforeseen higher costs during future operations: e There are uncertainties for the cost of coal fuels. The lengthy winter trail route for coal haul and known variations in weather from year to year will likely induce cost variations from year to year for the contracting entity hauling coal, which will reflect through to coal contract bid prices. e Costs for labor also are somewhat uncertain. The analysis projects around the clock staffing of the facility over the first three years of operation. After that staffing is scaled back until in year 5 when only day time attendance is projected. Achievement of this low labor profile will be dependent on the proper training of staff and the success of the plant’s automatic control system design and shake-down. Nth Unit Analysis Other parties have stated their interest in feasibility of the project under an “Nth” unit scenario. If the financial scenarios for Option 3 - Stand-alone coal plant are modified to an Nth unit arrangement, namely no round the clock power plant staffing no existing diesel power plant debt burden assurance of stable delivered coal price support for unforeseen maintenance and repair then, the feasibility of the project is as follows: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 82 |Nth unit cost scenario | 3 Option Stand-alone Coal Plant T T | |Net Present Value of all $ 4,127,640 | Operating Costs for Project Life | This analysis indicates a strong positive net present value for project costs, and thus that the project is feasible. However, it must be noted the scenario does not include any indirect overhead or existing power plant burden, which will be a part of almost any rural community energy project. Also, the analysis assumes unattended operation from power plant start up. These costs will need to be reflected in any development scenario. Thus this Nth unit feasibility must be viewed with caution. A similar analysis of the Option 2 - Coal/Diesel Plant where diesel power plant debt burden is included, but with all other Nth unit conditions met, (reduced manning, stable coal price and M & O costs), it yields a revised net present value for the Option 2 of - $1,425,813. The magnitude of this negative value indicates the option remains unfeasible. Community-wide Benefits of the Coal Plant The analysis shows that under the scenario set by the project team in January of 1996, and expressed as Option 2 above, construction and operation of the Coal Plant would e strongly influence the economy of the region surrounding McGrath, by creating 20 jobs during construction, and between 8 and 20 jobs throughout the life of the project. These jobs would be high quality positions, revolving around operations of a technically complex power station and the mining and hauling of coal. e reduce the amount of funds that directly flow out of the community for the purchase of and hauling in of diesel and heating fuels. The funds would instead flow into a coal mining and hauling contract paying salaries to local residents. e improve the quality of life in the community, through the reduction in quantities of and reduction in concentrations of stack gases from power generation and building heating appliances. e implement a community wide energy system that offers reliable electrical power and district heating and domestic hot water heating. This utility service, to be provided by McGrath Light and Power, should find good acceptance by residents who now purchase expensive heating fuel or, with significant effort cut, gather and haul wood for space heating. e through implementation of convenient electric and district heat service, the community should appear attractive to people seeking a place to settle and J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 83 enter the Alaska bush economy. The construction of the district heating lines, with stub-outs for empty lots, should stimulate some economic benefit in the community, and increase the customer base for the utility. The need to transfer some of these benefits back to McGrath Light & Power This project appears to have significant benefit for the MTNT region, but it will also impress new responsibilities and higher costs of operation of McGrath Light & Power to the extent that under normal operation the utility will lose money. Given this situation, it may be logical to transfer some of the positive benefits that McGrath Light and Power brings to the area through its initiative and good will, to offset these increased responsibilities and costs. While McGrath can continue to exist reasonably well with its present government/utility structure, benefit transfer of this type brought about by the Coal Power Plant project may require more government. Specifically, transferal could be accomplished through an agreement between the City of McGrath and McGrath Light and Power, where-in the City would collect money from its citizens in some fashion, most likely in the form of taxation. Alternatively, a surcharge could be added to the heating or electricity bills to achieve a benefit contribution level that the rate payer feels is equitable, which is perhaps more direct than the aforementioned property tax route. The difficulty here is that not all citizens will benefit equally from the coal plant, and it is difficult to construct a tax levy that is equitable to all. Also, it is important that these benefit contributions not result in hardship to citizens who, while receiving benefit from the coal plant, live only partially on a cash economy. Traditionally these subjects have been difficult in small communities such as McGrath, where many live on a partial subsistence basis, and even a small tax levy (by urban standards) can impose severe burdens on personal budgets. On the other hand, with heating oil prices very high, most residents in the district heating service areas will see major savings in their heating costs as a direct result of the coal plant. Those residents who convert to district heating _ from oil or wood heat will see a great reduction in the amount of cash and/or physical exertion necessary just to live. For these reasons, while benefit transfer will likely be difficult and controversial, if truthfully and clearly presented to the residents of McGrath, it could find majority approval. Conclusion on feasibility The revised preliminary design, while significantly increasing the first cost of construction, provides for necessary redundancy and for warm spaces and equipment to allow year-round operation with a satisfactorily high level of availability. Also, automation equipment now on the market will allow, after a 3 year time period, for the power plant to function in a safe, unattended J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 84 operating mode. State boiler inspectors and insurance underwriters contacted all indicated that unattended operations are acceptable. While definable in terms of cash value, the significant intangible benefits to the community that center around improvement in the quality of life for residents and jobs creation cannot be readily transferred to the utility to defray the higher costs of operation. Further, the cash value of benefits does not appear to be large enough to offset the present losses projected for the utility under the coal plant scenario. For this reason, the direct economics of the project to McGrath Light and Power do not look attractive, and the project must be deemed unfeasible in its present form. Even if costs that are directly attributable to the demonstration project as well as the risk of unexpected costs can be removed from the analysis for the coal plant, which effectively places the project in a “Nth unit” cost structure, the coal fired power plant still appears to be unfeasible for McGrath. How does the project relate to potential regional energy developments? There are several mining developments being considered in the McGrath area, each of which could require significant quantities of electrical energy. However, these developments all require power supplies in the range of 25 to 30 megawatts, well beyond the capability of the small power technology developed for McGrath. For this reason, it is considered unlikely that this system could play a part of the power solution for these developments. 5.2 Recommendations Future Actions by McGrath Light and Power The project should not be pursued under the present funding scenario, since it is clear that McGrath Light and Power could not operate the power plant and return a profit to its stockholders. If problems in the combustor design can be worked out and more funding assistance in operations costs be secured, the project would be an excellent public works project and would deliver significant quality of life and economic improvements to the region. For this reason, McGrath Light and Power should continue as a primary member of the project development team and should push for additional funding to reduce to acceptable levels both its costs and the risk of taking on the project. Reducing the risks would help ensure that shareholders receive a reasonable rate of return on investment and revenue. Future Actions by the Project Development Team Bearing in mind (1) that the Coal Plant is a demonstration project that requires significant expense to construct and to place in operation, and (2) that the high J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 85 early-year operating costs (years 1 to 5) are directly attributable to the demonstration nature of the project, the Coal fired Power Plant project’s funding scenario should be reexamined by the project development team. Recommendation: Arrange for a ceiling to be placed on the amounts of labor that McGrath Light and Power would need to pay from year 1 to 5, with the remainder being covered by either the federal government or by the State of Alaska. The cost for coal also significantly impacts the economic feasibility. Of concern to a small utility such as McGrath Light and Power is the chance of unforeseen weather conditions causing cost of delivering the coal to McGrath to go very high. Recommendation: Arrange for a ceiling to be placed on the amount that McGrath Light and Power would need to pay for coal with the remainder being covered either by the federal government, the State of Alaska, or the owner of the deposit, Doyon, Ltd. Existing Diesel Plant has a significant debt service, which is presently being covered by revenues generated by the utility. Under the present operating scenario, McGrath Light and Power will need to carry both this existing debt and the new debt it assumes in coal plant operation. The existing diesel plant will not see extensive use under coal plant operation, but would still need to be present to act as standby generation if the demonstration project fails. Recommendation: Arrange for this debt service to be covered under supplemental funding. The new very high parasitic power requirements for the Donlee Combustor are believed to be characteristic of the circulating fluidized bed combustor design, and as such may render this type of equipment unsuitable for use in small power systems of 1 megawatt. Recommendation: The combustor portion of the design should be reviewed and alternative approaches to fuel burning considered for the McGrath project. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 86 6.0 REFERENCES 1. Project Definition Study of a 500 kWe Fluidized-bed Facility for Electrical Generation in McGrath, Alaska. DOE Contract No. DE-AC21-94MC31166, January 1995, by Gilbert /Commonwealth, Inc. d/b/a/ Parsons Power. (Reference 1) 2. Project Definition Study of a 600 kWe Fluidized-bed Facility for Electrical and District Heat Generation in McGrath, Alaska. DOE Contract No. DE-AC21- 94MC31166, January 1996, by Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc. d/b/a/ Parsons Power. 3. An Interim Evaluation of a proposed Coal Fired Thermal Power Station at McGrath, Alaska, for Doyon, Ltd., October 19, 1996, by J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4. Energy & Environmental Research Center, Status of the Conceptual Design Study for a 600-kWe Coal fired Cogeneration Plant in the Village of McGrath, Alaska, compiled by Michael L. Jones, John H. Pavlish, and Everett A. Sondreal, July 1996 5. Project conversation - Jim Strandberg with Marty Bushue, General Manager McGrath Light & Power, November 1996 6. Evaluation and Conceptual Mine Plan for the Little Tonzona Coal Deposit, Dunn-Behre Dolbear, Inc., February 1993 7. Economics of Mining Coal at the Little Tonzona Prospect for use as fuel for a Power Plant at McGrath, Alaska, Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc., March 1996. 8. Little Tonzona River Coal Project - Environmental Permitting Timeline and Cost Estimates, Terra Nord Natural Resources Consulting, February 1993. 9. Little Tonzona River Coal Project Winter Access Road Reconnaissance Report, Brice, Incorporated, January 1993. 10. Personal conversations Jim Strandberg with Mr. Rod Gunderson, District Superintendent, (West) Highway Operations Division, Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, Canada. 11. Adam, Kennety M., Ph.D., Environmental Studies No. 4 - Building and Operating Winter Roads in Canada and Alaska, Templeton Engineering Company, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, 1978 QS-8162- 000-EE-A1 12. Environmental Guidelines for the Construction, by Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. Yellowknife, N.W.T. and Sentar Consultants, Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Department of Transportation, Government of the Northwest Territories, October 8, 1993 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 87 13. Personal Conversations with Mr. James W. Rooney, President, R & M Consultants, Inc., Anchorage, October, 1996 14. J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Memorandum dated November 22, 1996. 15. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Memorandum dated February 17, 1997. 16. State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs - Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program - Fiscal Year 1995. 17. Personal communication Barbara O’Hara - Alaska Public Utilities Commission - November 11, 1996 18. Personal communication Eric Yould, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association - January 27, 1997 19. Personal communication Charlie Walls - Alaska Village Electric Cooperative - January 26, 1997 20. Lyn Squire and Herman van der Tak, Economic Analysis of Projects World Bank Publication 1975, pp. 15-16. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 5/3/97 7.0 Appendices J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.1.1 First Cost Of Construction Estimate J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 7.1 COST ESTIMATE The following presents the capital cost estimates for the McGrath coal-fired cogeneration power plant, with all tables and figures provided at the end of this section. The conceptual capital cost estimate for a new coal-fired power plant with district heating is provided in Table 7-1. Cost estimates for district heating were developed by J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.The cost estimate addresses material and labor costs for the scope of work identified for the AFBC design process. Included in the costs are all direct and indirect costs necessary to construct an operational facility for commercial operation including a contingency but excluding escalation and financing (AFUDC) costs. The conceptual capital cost estimate was prepared per task level for major construction activities and summarized by major construction discipline: civil/structural work, mechanical equipment and piping, insulation, electrical systems, and instrumentation and control work. 9.1 CAPITAL COST METHODOLOGY The approach used for estimate preparation was to define the scope of the coal-fired facility and to quantify the significant commodities and work activities. Quantity development was accomplished by takeoff from layout drawings or parametric development from other engineering furnished data such as an equipment list and electrical one-line diagram for conceptual development as well as information from similar estimates and studies prepared for others. Major equipment cost estimates were based on and/or scaled from the following vendor furnished budget cost information.. il Combustor/Boiler and associated equipment 2. Turbine/Generator Set 35 Condenser/Deaerator 4, Air Cooled Heat Exchanger 35 Material Handling System for Coal and Limestone 6. Boiler Chemical Feed ds Potable Water Hypochlorite Feed System 8. Ash Conditioning System 9, District Heating System 10. Auxiliary Oil-Fired Boiler Estimates of labor requirements are expressed in manhours.to which composite wage rates are applied to determine total labor cost. Composite wage rates and productivity data are calculated from wage rate and fringe benefit information for the Anchorage, AK area. Material cost for bulk commodities and equipment are determined from in-house manufacturers' price lists or vendor quotations. Other sources of data include published estimating literature, commercial pricing services, and Contractor Association Literature. Parsons Estimating/Cost Engineering Guidelines have been established. These require checks and reviews of the estimates with the responsible engineering and management personnel for adherence to scope and reasonableness of quantities and rates. Indirect cost (detailed engineering, construction management, temporary facilities, and owner's costs) will be included as a percentage of direct costs based on historical data from similar projects or as directed by McGrath Light & Power. Freight charges for inland, ocean, air transportation was estimated from lower 48 states export port to McGrath, AK. The final estimate product consist of a complete capital cost assessment for the base plant with separate material and labor values for process/category as defined by the previously mentioned code of accounts. Coal-fired facility includes: 1. Sitework - includes grading, roads, coal receiving and unloading area, miscellaneous outdoor equipment foundations, and water well. 2. Buildings and Structures - construction of the boiler and control building, coal thawing building, fan and baghouse housing, steam turbine annex, and related work. 35 Mechanical - erection of steam turbine generator, atmospheric fluidized bed combustor with cyclone, heat recovery/steam generator, district heating pump and heat exchanger, auxiliary oil- fired boiler, baghouse, material handling systems, peaking diesel generator, ash conditioning, and auxiliary equipment. 4. Electrical - installation of work associated with the steam turbine generator, AFBC, including distribution transformer and breakers for connection by ML&P, , instrumentation, and controls. The Boiler/Turbine Building is pre-engineered, metal framed with external intergrated construction with walkways and equipment platforms and has a total of 9,590 square feet. Also included is a coal thawing area. The building is located above the 100 year flood plane with the design and elevation taken into account with the thermal envelope designed to correspond to the McGrath conditions. The building will be placed on thawed ground with concrete footings and vapor barriers and supplied with heating, plumbing, lighting, and fire protection. COMPUTERIZED FORMAT In order to provide maximum efficiency in the assimilation and management of project cost data, it is anticipated that the respective cost estimate will be accomplished in a computerized format. This will provide both for the maintenance, presentation and documentation of estimate, details, and for the flexibility essential to the organization of such details into meaningful cost summaries. CONTINGENCY Contingency costs, applied as a percentage to costs not fully supported by either vendor quotes, site specific data, or design detail, is based on typical experience at other projects for estimates performed at the conceptual design stage. A value of $827,000 was defined but not included in Table 7-1. This value includes $638,700 on bulk materials, $120,000 on equipment, and $68,300 on indirects. LABOR COSTS It is assumed that Federal Davis-Bacon labor rates will apply. Costs will be developed by using composite rates for the work items. Anchorage, AK craft wages will be used with allowances for fringe benefits, and contractor distributable costs such as supervision, field and home office support, construction equipment, small tools and expendables, overhead, and profit. . 9-2 An $8,000 per month lodging/camp allowance is included in the estimate to provide for skilled craft workers brought to the site from Anchorage. The premium time/productivity adjustment included in the estimate is based on working six, ten hour days a week. Although there is a productivity loss for working extended hours, no adjustment was included in the estimate for that factor. FREIGHT Freight charges for inland and ocean transportation from lower 48 states were independently estimated from export port to McGrath, AK. The total estimated weight for equipment and supplies transported to the site was defined at 1,518,000 Ib. Based on equipment size and weight, a determination of the number of transports was made. For truck transportation from the lower 48 states using Tocoma, WA as a reference FOB to Anchorage, AK a total of 52 loads was estimated at a cost of $155,700. Air transport was assumed from Anchorage to McGrath via Southern Air Cargo with an estimated 14 loads at a cost of $175,500. SUMMARY Following the completion of the AFBC coal-fired and power distribution facility configuration, a report of the capital estimates was prepared. This report, Table 7-1 shows the assumptions and exclusions used. Table 7-1 is initiated with a summary of major costing categories defining a Total Estimated Project Cost of $10,887,680 in 4th quarter 1996 dollars. Following the summary, details of each estimate category is defined so that the reader has a full appreciation of what components or items of work are included. In this way, this information will be more easily updated and/or compared to other studies and estimates. Capital cost of equipment is presented separately in Table 7-1 for the District Heating System including all materials and labor. The estimate covers the aux. boiler, , heat exchanger and pump, distribution piping, and complete user connections and retrofits. Indirect costs of engineering, travel, freight, start-up, & spare parts are also included. Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 DATE : DATE : DATE : DATE : 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] CIS/A [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [X] uc a SS SESS MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS COST cost TOTAL COST LSS SS ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION SUMMARY CIVIL. / STRUCTURAL / ARCHITECTURAL WORK (JSS FAX OF 4/22/97) R1 LAND COST R1 MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION R1 SITEWORK BOILER / TURBINE GEN. BLDG. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RENTAL CIVIL / STRUCT. / ARCH. WORK SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL WORK BOILER CONDENSING TURBINE, B.P.TURBINE, DIESEL GEN. BALANCE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS MECHANICAL WORK SUBTOTAL PIPING WORK SUPPLY STEAM SYSTEM R1 MAIN STEAM TO DISTRIBUTION FEEDWATER SYSTEM R1 BOILER FEEDWATER SYSTEM CONDENSATE SYSTEM R1 STEAM TO ECONOMIZER RV VENT SYSTEM CONDENSATE RETURNS SERVICE / INSTRUMENT AIR GLYCOL WATER SYSTEM FUEL OIL SYSTEM WATER SYSTEMS R1 DRAINS & C.P. RUN-OFF R1 BUILDING SERVICES / FIRE SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUMENTATION PIPING WORK SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL WORK TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION WORK EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL BULKS | &C ELECTRICAL WORK SUBTOTAL DIRECT CONSTR. COST - TOTAL DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM AUXILLARY BOILER & HEAT EXCHANGER DISTRICT HEATING PIPING DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM SUBTOTAL DIRECT CONSTR. COST ( W/ DISTRICT HEATING ) PAGE 1 2,929 $ 3,212 $ 13,056 $ 164 480 $ 13,536 $ ; 3,427,070 $ 108,190 $ 295,970 $ ; 5,981,890 $ 5 9,004,910 $ 80,000 265,090 1,751,570 54,000 1,692,400 904,300 76,770 753,600 6,350 8,180 2,720 5,770 1,720 3,990 5,110 9,210 14,130 1,840 2,570 9,990 INCLUDED W/BLDG INCLUDED W/BLDG 36,610 140,610 113,800 41,560 101,330 2,921,690 8,860 13,280 2,150,660 $ 22,140 $ 148,450 48,670 36,270 132,480 365,870 $ 10,280 12,020 4,880 6,510 4,150 6,180 11,170 17,940 25,860 5,060 5,230 19,900 35,410 164,590 $ 12,580 31,660 124,050 168,290 $ 720,890 $ 28,050 3,023,020 $ 28,050 $ 748,940 $ 80,000 273,950 1,764,850 54,000 2,172,800 1,840,850 952,970 113,040 886,080 3,792,940 16,630 20,200 7,600 12,280 5,870 10,170 16,280 27,150 39,990 6,900 7,800 29,890 72,020 272,780 153,190 145,460 165,610 464,260 6,702,780 129,380 2,921,690 3,051,070 9,753,850 Parsons Power Group 03/20/97 CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS DATE: 19-Jan-96 [X] SUMMARY PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DATE : [X] C/S/A DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : DATE : [X] MECHANICAL WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS DATE: 20-Mar-97 [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [x] uc FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ITEM TOTAL MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS COST cost cost INDIRECT COSTS AVE ENGINEERING 6% 402,170 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 75,000 FREIGHT-TRUCK / AIR TO ALASKA * 1 ALW 331,200 INLAND FREIGHT-U.S. MATERIALS TO EXPORT PORT 1 ALW 50,000 R1 BARGE CHARGES 7 DAYS 56,000 56,000 CONTRACTOR'S MARKUP INCLUDED LABOR CAMP 1 ALW 40,000 STARTUP WO&M SPARES 1 ALW 179,460 179,460 INDIRECT COSTS - TOTAL 4,133,830 DIRECT & INDIRECTS SUBTOTAL 10,887,680 CONTINGENCY NOT INCLUDED TOTAL PROJECT COST 4th QUARTER 1996 $ $ 10,887,680 PAGE 2 Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ESTIMATED : EVS CHECKED : APPROVED : REVISED : EVS ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS ain RS a A LR AEA A NE A A AE AN AMON IEE Same SR RRR nea eh ee Yea mE Se eR CIVIL / STRUCTURAL / ARCHITECTURAL WORK (JSS FAX OF 1/22/97) LAND COST R1 PURCHASE PRICE FOR LAND LAND COST SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION R1 MOB. & DEMOB. MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION SUBTOTAL SITEWORK R1 ALLOWANCE (JSS FAX OF 1/22/97) R1 COAL PILE AREA BAG HOUSE & COAL RECLAIM HOPPER SUPPORT WOOD PILES (COMPLETE) CONCRETE CAPS (COMPLETE) SITEWORK SUBTOTAL BOILER / TURBINE GENERATOR BUILDING R1 ALLOWANCE (JSS FAX OF 1/22/97) EQUIP. SUPPORT STEEL R1 ARCHITECTURAL WORK BOILER / TURBINE GEN. BLDG. SUBTOTAL CONSTR. EQUIPMENT CRAWLER LOADER BACKHOE, DOZER 70 TON CRANE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL CIVIL / STRUCT. / ARCH. WORK SUBTOTAL 1LS 1 ALW 10 EA 15 CY 1 ALW 12 TN 1 ALW 1 ALW 6 MO PAGE 3 164 164 233 233 397 $ $ $ 03/20/97 DATE : 19-Jan-96 [X] SUMMARY DATE : [X] C/S/IA DATE : [X] MECHANICAL DATE: 20-Mar-97 [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [xX] vc TOTAL MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL COST COST CosT 80,000 80,000 $ 80,000 $ $ 80,000 INCLUDED W/BLDG $ $ $ 253,140 253,140 TO BE FURNISHED BY COAL SUPPLIER 10,000 10,000 1,950 8,860 10,810 265,090 $ 8,860 $ 273,950 1,732,930 1,732,930 18,640 13,280 31,920 INCLUDED W/BLDG. ALLOWANCE 1,751,570 $ 13,280 $ 1,764,850 INCLUDED IN ABOVE INCLUDED IN ABOVE 54,000 54,000 54,000 $ $ 54,000 2,150,660 $ 22,140 $ 2,172,800 $ Parsons Power Group 03/20/97 CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS DATE : 19-Jan-96 [X] SUMMARY PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED: DATE: [X] CIS/IA DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED: DATE: [X] MECHANICAL WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS DATE: 20-Mar-97 [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [X] vc FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ITEM TOTAL MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS COsT COST COST RA SRNR A RRS ER RETRAIN SS AS RS DES RE SEES R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BOILER PACKAGE CONSISTING OF* COMBUSTOR W/CYCLONE * BOILER AND ECONOMIZER * COOLING BED PIPING & TUBES* SUPERHEATER* STARTUP BURNER SOOTBLOWERS* CONNECTING DUCTWORK* COMBUSTION AIR FAN, 125 HP INDUCED DRAFT FAN, 75 HP INLET AIR HEATING COILS (AEROFIN) AIR COMPRESSOR W/RECEIVER STACK W/PLATFORM AND LADDERS BAGHOUSE BALANCE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT - B.O.P. * BED CLEANING SYSTEM EXPANSION JOINTS DUCTWORK PLATFORMS AND LADDERS SLIDE GATE VALVES FLYASH REINJECTION SYSTEM SUPPORT STRUCTURES VALVES AND DAMPERS SAND INJECTOR LIME INJECTOR FEED WATER PUMP BOILER VENDOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN * SUBTOTAL TURBINE DUEL STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR SET, 1 Mw* (CONDENSING & BACK PRESSURE ON A COMMON SHAFT) INCLUDES: TURBINE CONTROL SYSTEM, SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR, SPEED REDUCER, PRESSURE LUBRICATION SYSTEM, BASE PLATE, SWITCHGEAR, RELAYING & METERING INLET VALVING SYSTEM VIBRATION / TEMPERATURE MONITORING VENDOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN DEAERATOR SKID W/PUMPS * CONTROL PANELS AIR COOLED HEAT EXCHANGER AIR COOLED CONDENSER DIESEL GENERATOR SET - 125 KW* SUBTOTAL PAGE 4 1 aaaaaa kh to aD: iy ks ee ee ey ae lie cs ee SESSSESS ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW ALW LT 1,700 1,284,000 95,420 1,379,420 48 18,000 2,690 20,690 48 21,000 2,690 23,690 16 1,400 900 2,300 44 26,000 2,470 28,470 160 26,000 8,980 34,980 240 115,000 13,470 128,470 201,000 37 2,080 2,080 23 1,290 1,290 100 5,610 5,610 135 7,580 7,580 23 4,290 1,290 NOT REQUIRED 28 WB.O.P. 4,570 1,570 25 WIB.O.P. 4,400 1,400 3 WIB.O.P. 170 170 5 WIB.O.P. 280 280 10 WB.0.P. 560 560 INCLUDED 2,645 $ 1,692,400 $ 148,450 $ 1,840,850 675 525,000 37,890 562,890 W/TG PKG W/TGPKG W/TGPKG W/TG PKG 13,000 13,000 29,000 29,000 13,000 13,000 24 46,300 1,350 47,650 W/ITG PKG W/TGPKG W/TGPKG W/ TG PKG WITG PKG W/TGPKG W/TGPKG W/ TG PKG 128 250,000 7,180 257,180 40 28,000 2,250 30,250 867 $ 904,300 $ 48,670 $ 952,970 Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED: DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ———— ITEM R1 R1 R1 NO. DESCRIPTION BALANCE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT ( B.0.P. ) BOILER M/U WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, 2.0 GPM TREATED WATER PUMPS TREATED WATER STORAGE TANK, 1500 GALS. HYPOCHLORITE FEED SYSTEM POTABLE WATER HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK, 200 GAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYS. (EQUIP. ONLY) WELL WATER STORAGE TANK, 300 GALS. BOILER WATER SUPPLY CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK, 10000 GALS. W/ PUMP BALANCE OF PLANT EQUIP. SUBTOTAL GRIZZLY SECTION W/ 4" X 4" OPENING OVER RECLAI 6 X 6 RECLAIM HOPPER BELT FEEDER, 40 TPH, 65' LONG MAGNETIC SERARATOR FEED HOPPER ABOVE CRUSHER CRUSHER, 40 TPH SET OF HAMMERS CRUSHER DISCHARGE CHUTE TRANSFER CHUTE TO FLOP GATE FLOP GATE, MOTORIZED TRANSFER CHUTES TO COAL & LIMESTONE SILOS 166 TON CAPACITY COAL SILO BIN VENT FILTER FOR COAL SILO 55 TON LIMESTONE SILO BIN VENT FILTER FOR LIMESTONE SILO BUCKET ELEVATOR, 30 STPH CUT-OFF GATES INSERTABLE DUST COLLECTORS AIR CANNONS ON SILOS BIN ACTUATORS UNDER SILOS SAFETY DEVICES / SWITCHES ENGINEERING, (MECH-STRUCT-ELECT) FREIGHT ASH CONDITIONING SYSTEM* MATERIAL HANDLING SYS. SUBTOTAL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS TOTAL DATE : DATE : DATE : DATE : TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS SS PAGE 5 MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS (FMC BUDGET PROPOSAL 9/17/96) * CONSISTING OF: (INCLUDES S/S LINERS) eh oh od ob od A) od oh od ob Od ob ok oe 8 ok ok cok oh oe ce ky ok, RS) ok > SEs BESSeE > = pe 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 MATERIAL COST 80 45,000 48 4,000 24 2,000 24 5,000 24 2,000 60 5,000 16 1,000 250 6,770 120 6,000 646 $ 76,770 2,200 673,000 W/ABV. WI/ABV. W/ABV. WI/ABV. W/ABV. WI/ABV. W/ABV. WI/ABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WIABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WI/ABV. WIABV. WI/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. 40,000 160 40,600 2,360 $ 753,600 6,518 $ 3,427,070 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] C/SIA [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [xX] ve LABOR TOTAL COST COST 4,490 49,490 2,690 6,690 1,350 3,350 1,350 6,350 1,350 3,350 3,370 8,370 900 1,900 14,030 20,800 6,740 12,740 $ 36,270 $ 113,040 123,490 796,490 W/ABV. WIABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. WIABV. WIABV. WIABV. WIABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. WIABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. WIABV. WI/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. W/ABV. WIABV. W/ABV. WIABV. 40,000 8,990 49,590 $ 132,480 $ 886,080 $ 365,870 $ 3,792,940 Parsons Power Group WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION REVISED : EVS DATE : DATE : DATE : DATE : TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 MATERIAL COST 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] CISIA [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [xX] vc LABOR cosT TOTAL COST | Seeman cnet nae NN AR NEESER RE RS Re LR PIPING WORK R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 SUPPLY STEAM SYSTEM (500 DEG. F, 215 PSIG) 4" C.S.SCH. 80 PIPE FITTINGS & WELDS 4" FLOW NOZZLE 4" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 4" HANGERS - SPRING 4" X 3" THK. CAL.SIL. INSUL W/AL.JKT. 1 C.S.SCH.80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 1 600# GATE VALVE, SW ( @ STM.HDR.) 1 HANGERS - RIGID ROD 1 HANGERS - SPRING 1X2" THK CAL-SIL. INSUL W/AL.JKT. ALLOWANCE FOR SYSTEM VENTS, DRAINS & INSTRUMENTATION CONNECTIONS & VALVES BLOWDOWN 1 ALW HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL SUPPLY STEAM SYSTEM MAIN STEAM TO DISTRIBUTION 6" PIPE A106 30 LF 3" PIPE A106 20 LF 1" PIPE A106 20 LF 6" FITTINGS 3 EA 3" FITTINGS 4EA 1" FITTINGS 2EA 6" SUPPORTS 3 EA 3" SUPPORTS 4EA 1" SUPPORTS 2EA 6" VALVE 1 EA 3" VALVE 3 EA 1" VALVE 1 EA 6" X 3" THK. CAL.SIL. INSUL W/AL.JKT. 30 ELF 3" X 3" THK. CAL.SIL. INSUL W/AL.JKT. 20 ELF 1" X 2" THK CAL.SIL. INSUL W/AL.JKT. 20 ELF ALLOWANCE FOR SYSTEM VENTS, DRAINS & 1 ALW INSTRUMENTATION CONNECTIONS & VALVES BLOWDOWN 1 ALW HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL SUPPLY STEAM SYSTEM FEEDWATER SYSTEM 2 1/2" C.S.SCH. 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 30 LF 2 1/2" FLOW NOZZLE 1 EA 2 1/2" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 7EA 2.1/2" X 1 1/2" THK. CAL.SIL. INSUL W/ AL. JKT. 75 ELF ALLOWANCE FOR SYSTEM VENTS, DRAINS & 6 EA INSTRUMENTATION CONNECTIONS & VALVES HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL FEEDWATER SYSTEM PAGE 6 c nn n o8nus83nui8 FESSneses 5 - nn BRwonasBouwad -s aN 8 $ =< =) Qoesnanoaonuaw BustBwas N ab 214 $ 888es 70 100 $88e 370 2,080 170 2,190 110 170 1,240 2,020 670 220 10,280 $ 5 —~SC«2,020 $ 280 1,010 2,020 220 4,880 $ 2,620 1,840 470 1,150 2,990 160 570 1,630 2,860 1,170 320 16,630 1,220 180 1,440 160 420 1,510 2,190 4,540 370 4,970 2,850 20,200 1,160 Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS FILE: MWe1AFB _WK3 DATE : DATE : DATE : DATE : 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS MATERIAL COST re anne SRE RR NNR eR ERNE RR NR oN NS Ee Sat A ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION BOILER FEEDWATER SYSTEM R1 1 1/2" C.S.SCH. 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS LF R1 FITTINGS 6 EA R1 SUPPORTS 7EA R1 WELDS 26 EA R1 1 1/2" GATE VALVE 6 EA R1 1 1/2" CONTROL VALVE 1 EA R1 2” & UNDER X 1 1/2" THK CAL.SIL. INSUL. W/AL.JKT. 60 ELF R1 ALLOWANCE FOR SYSTEM VENTS, DRAINS & 1 ALW R1 INSTRUMENTATION CONNECTIONS & VALVES R1 HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL FEEDWATER SYSTEM CONDENSATE SYSTEM 2 1/2" C.S.SCH.40 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 2 1/2" FLOW NOZZLE 2 1/2" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 2 1/2" X 1 1/2" THK. CAL.SIL. INSUL W/ AL. JKT. ALLOWANCE FOR SYSTEM VENTS, DRAINS & INSTRUMENTATION CONNECTIONS & VALVES HYDROTEST 1 ALW aB8ai8 SESRG SUBTOTAL CONDENSATE SYSTEM STEAM TO ECONOMIZER SOOT BLOWER & HRB R1 3/4" C.S. PIPE 100 LF R1 1/2" C.S. PIPE 100 LF R1 3/4" FITTINGS 10 EA R1 1/2" FITTINGS 10 EA R1 3/4" SUPPORTS 8 EA R1 1/2" SUPPORTS 8 EA R1 3/4" VALVES, STRAINERS, TRAPS 1 LOT R1 1/2" VALVES, STRAINERS, TRAPS 1 LOT R1 2 1/2" VALVES 1 EA R1 1 1/2" VALVES 3 EA R1 3/4" X 2" CAL.SIL. INSUL. W/AL JKT (PER.PROT.) 100 ELF R1 HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL STEAM ECON/SOOT BLR BOILER RELIEF VALVE STACKS (THRU ROOF) INCLUDES PERSONNEL PROTECTION 8 C.S.SCH.40 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 100 LF 3 C.S.SCH.80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS (DRN) 100 LF 12" DIA. DRIP PANS W/DRAIN CONN. 4EA 8 HANGERS - RIGID ROD 8 EA 3/4" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 15 EA 8" X 3" CAL.SIL.INSUL. W/AL JKT (PER.PROT.) 30 ELF 3/4" X 2" CAL.SIL. INSUL. W/AL JKT (PER.PROT.) 30 ELF PAINTING 200 SF BLOW-OUT 1 ALW SUBTOTAL RV VENT SYSTEM PAGE 7 13 13 7 52 6 3 12 6 4 116 $ Raa’ a 74 $ = = Ah wmouoo aBoau 2 = o o 24 10 11 20 10 12 199 $ 440 250 200 1,800 2,500 210 320 50 5,770 $ 210 50 5,110 $ 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] C/S/A [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [Xx] uc LABOR TOTAL cosT COST 730 1,170 730 980 390 590 2,920 2,920 340 2,140 170 2,670 670 880 340 660 220 270 6,510 $ 12,280 1,290 1,530 220 470 280 660 790 1,030 1,350 1,910 220 270 4,150 $ 5,870 510 760 510 720 280 320 560 710 450 530 220 280 620 1,490 280 220 600 510 1,410 1,800 2,480 220 270 6,180 $ 10,170 4,780 6,350 1,290 1,500 1,350 1,430 560 2,460 620 1,150 1,120 1,620 560 760 220 290 670 720 11,170 $ 16,280 Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS DATE : PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DATE : DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : DATE : WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS DATE : FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ITEM TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 2" & UNDER C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 300 LF 1 600# GATE VALVES, SW 9 EA 3/4" TRAPS, STRAINERS & VALVES @ DRAINS 9 EA 2" & UNDER HANGERS - RIGID ROD 27 EA 2" & UNDER X 1 1/2" THK CAL.SIL. INSUL. W/AL.JKT. 410 ELF HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL CONDENSATE RETURNS SERVICE AIR / INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM 2" & UNDER C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 600 LF 3/4" 600# GATE VALVES, SW 30 EA 3/4" QUICK DISCONNECT HOSE CONNECTIONS 12 EA 2" & UNDER HANGERS - RIGID ROD 50 EA 3/8" OD SS TUBING/SUPPORTS 400 ELF 1/2" PRV 12 EA PAINTING 310 SF PNUEMATIC TESTING 1 ALW SUBTOTAL SERVICE/INSTR. AIR GLYCOL WATER SYSTEM 2" C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS (U/G) C & W 100 LF 2" C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 20 LF 2 600# GATE VALVES, SW 2 EA 2" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 2 EA 2" X3" CAL.SIL.INSUL. W/AL JKT 30 ELF HEAT TRACING 20 LF HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL GLYCOL WATER SYSTEM FUEL OIL SYSTEM 2" C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS (U/G) C&W 80 LF 2" C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 80 LF 2 600# GATE VALVES, SW 4EA 2" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 12 EA HYDROTEST 1 ALW SUBTOTAL FUEL OIL SYSTEM WELL, SERVICE, & POTABLE WATER SYSTEM 3 C.S.SCH.40 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 40 LF 2" C.S.SCH 80 PIPE, FITTINGS & WELDS 500 LF 3 CS GATE/CHECK VALVES, BW 4EA 2 & UNDER 150# GATE VALVES, THRD 14 EA 3/4" QUICK DISC. & VALVES HOSE CONNECTIONS 14 EA 2" HANGERS - RIGID ROD 75 EA HYDROTEST/STERILIZE 1 ALW PAINTING 500 SF WATER CLOSET W/ROUGH-IN 1 EA SERVICE SINK W/ROUGH-IN 1 EA DRINKING FOUNTAIN W/ROUGH-IN 1 EA SHOWER/EYEWASH W/ROUGH-IN 1 EA SUBTOTAL WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 120 20 72 19 82 6 319 gxesas N oo wao88 8! eotsaod § “” 8 “ 354 $ $ 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] CIS/A [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [Xx] ve MATERIAL LABOR cosT cosT a a ee RS SR ot ER AE RR RECA am SRR ee om cane CONDENSATE RETURNS & BLOWDOWN SYSTEM 1,740 1,800 10 4,190 1,440 30 9,210 $ 3,480 1,950 2,500 2,440 3,000 110 14,130 $ 120 410 110 170 1,840 $ 820 230 2,550 1,400 1,570 1,330 2,630 100 180 INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. 9,990 $ 6,750 1,120 4,050 1,070 4,610 340 17,940 13,490 2,530 670 1,970 4,050 1,690 1,120 25,860 2,530 220 510 5,060 2,020 1,800 510 5,230 790 11,240 620 1,970 2,980 19,900 TOTAL COST 8,490 2,920 4,060 5,260 6,050 370 $ 27,150 16,970 4,480 1,270 4,470 6,490 4,690 1,170 3,260 170 1,090 2,600 $ 29,890 Parsons Power Group 03/20/97 CLIENT: DOE - METC ESTIMATED : EVS DATE: 19-Jan-96 [X] SUMMARY PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DATE: [X] CIS/IA DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : DATE : [X] MECHANICAL WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS DATE : 20-Mar-97 [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [X] ve FILE: MWe1AFB _WK3 ITEM TOTAL MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS COST COST COST ns BUILDING DRAINS R1, LIFT PUMP/HOLDING TANK SEPTIC SYSTEM 1 EA INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 2" POLETHYLENE PIPE U/G 375 LF INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 4" POLETHYLENE PIPE U/G 75 LF INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 4C.l. PIPE/FITTINGS 338 LF INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 FLOOR DRAINS, FLOOR SINKS & TRAPS 1 ALW INCLUDED W/BLDG. SUBTOTAL DRAINS & C.P. RUN-OFF $ $ BUILDING SERVICES & FIRE SERVICES R1 ELECTRIC HEATERS 12 EA INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 ROOF EXHAUST FAN 3 EA INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 PENTHOUSE ROOF EXHAUST FANS 2 EA INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 LAVATORY EXHAUST FAN 1 EA INCLUDED W/BLDG. R1 FIRE PROTECTION 1 ALW INCLUDED W/BLDG. SUBTOTAL BLDG.SERVICES $ $ MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUMENTATION DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTER 4 EA 64 6,000 3,600 9,600 PRESSURE TRANSMITTER 6 EA 72 7,200 4,050 11,250 PRESSURE INDICATOR 16 EA 12 1,520 670 2,190 TEMPERATURE TRANSMITTER W/ CAPILLARY 4 EA 64 5,600 3,600 9,200 TUBING & BULB TEMPERATURE INDICATOR 12 EA 12 1,440 670 2,110 TEMPERATURE CONTROLLER W/ CAPILLARY 3 EA 48 4,800 2,700 7,500 TUBING & BULB FLOW TRANSMITTER 4 EA 48 4,800 2,700 7,500 1/2" SS 304 TUBING/SUPPORTS 500 LF 90 2,250 5,060 7,310 INSTRUMENT SUPPORTS 1 ALW 100 2,000 5,620 7,620 INSULATION ALLOWANCE 1 ALW 60 800 3,370 4,170 TESTING / RECALIBRATION 1 ALW 60 200 3,370 3,570 SUBTOTAL MISC. INSTRUMENTATION 630 $ 36,610 $ 35,410 $ 72,020 PIPING SYSTEMS TOTAL 2,929 $ 108,190 $ 164,590 $ 272,780 PAGE 9 Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC. PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 FILE: MWe1AFB _WK3 ITEM R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 NO. DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED : EVS CHECKED : APPROVED : REVISED : EVS DATE : DATE : DATE : DATE : TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS RN SS ELECTRICAL WORK TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION WORK ( BY McGRATH LIGHT & POWER STAFF ) EQUIPMENT LEASED LINE EQUIPMENT : (INCL ) REMOTE START(5 ) DIESEL GENS. REMOTE INDICATION AT DIESEL GEN BLDG REMOTE INDICATION OF DIESEL GEN AT POWER PLANT TRANSFORMER, 1000KVA, 4160-2400 TRANSFORMER, 225KVA, 4160-480V 2400V FUSED CUTOUT SW. W/100A FUSES SWITHCHGEAR (2-BKR.) TRANSMISSION LINE W/ POLES, ARMS & INSULATORS 1/C #2 ACSR CABLE TERMINATIONS EQUIPMENT MOTOR CONTROL CENTER 480V (7 VERT. SECT. ) SKVA UPS TRANS. & DIST. SUBTOTAL POWER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 480/277V POWER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 208/ 120V TRANSFORMER 480- 208/120V 10KVA TURBINE CONTROL SYSTEM (INCL W/ TURBINE GEN) GENERATOR SWITCHGEAR AIR COOLED GLYCOL COOLER CONTROLS VIBRATION MONITORING BOILER/SUPERVISORY CONTROLS (PLC SYSTEM) ELECTRICAL BULKS 1 & C CABLE TRAY ( POWER ) 12°X6" HDG STEEL LADDER 6"X6" HDG STEEL LADDER CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS CONDUIT ( POWER ) 2" RGS 11/2" RGS 1"RGS 3/4" RGS CONDUIT SUPPORTS WIRE & CABLE ( POWER ) 1/C 1/0 MCM SKV 1/C 350 MCM 600V 1/C #2 600V 1/C #4 6O0V 1/C #8 600V 1/C #10 600V TERMINATIONS ( POWER ) 1/C 1/0 MCM SKV 1/C 350 MCM 600V 1/C #2 600V 1/C #4 600V 1/C #6 600V 1/C #10 600V EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL 1 ALW Sasses sf NOnNWa= a eee ANNA A = SS5S5Seees > 5 100 LF 150 LF 15 EA 200 LF 200 LF 300 LF 600 LF 100 EA 300 LF 300 LF 600 LF 300 LF 1,000 LF 5,000 LF BQSasr eT ess PAGE 10 120 RBS8RB 120 B8aRRo GRRSRVS $ 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 MATERIAL COST 20,000 17,200 10,500 60,000 2,610 140,610 28,000 15,000 1,600 1,800 2,400 W/TURB W/TURB W/TURB W/TURB 65,000 5 «143,800 1,350 1,890 740 470 720 1,000 1,080 1,140 720 260 1,550 190 180 100 70 LABOR 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] CIS/A [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [X] uc TOTAL COST 2,760 1,100 2,210 3,680 1,450 $ 12,580 4,090 2,340 1,400 1,870 1,870 1,870 4,670 1,870 4,670 7,010 $ 31,660 3,330 5,380 3,270 2,690 3,330 6,310 5,840 1,050 1,400 1,290 470 1,170 4,670 2,800 1,230 1,750 1,400 1,230 2,630 COsT 32,760 21,100 18,030 12,710 63,680 4,060 $ 153,190 32,090 17,340 3,000 3,670 4,270 1,870 4,670 1,870 4,670 72,010 $ 145,460 4,680 7,270 1,480 4,010 3,170 3,800 7,030 6,840 2,130 2,540 2,010 1,610 6,220 1,320 Parsons Power Group CLIENT: DOE - METC PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 ESTIMATED : EVS CHECKED : APPROVED : REVISED : EVS DATE: DATE: DATE : DATE : SP A SPSS SA SS ORS RS ne RS ITEM LIGHTING AIRCRAFT OBSTRUCTION LIGHTING SYSTEM R1 FIXTURES 400W HPS PENDANT MTD R1 FIXTURES 400W HPS WALL MTD R1 FIXTURES 400W HPS STANCHION MTD R1 FIXTURES FLUORESCENT R1 FIXTURES EMERGENCY W/2 HEADS & BATTERY PACK R1 FIXTURES EXIT W/ BATTERY PACK R1 RECEPTACLES 120V 20A DUPLEX W/ BOX R1 CONDUIT 1" RGS R1 CONDUIT 3/4" RGS R1 CONDUIT SUPPORTS R1 1/C #10 600V WIRE R1 1/C #12 600V WIRE R1 LIGHTING & RECEPTACLE TERMINATIONS R1 PAGING & COMMUNICATIONS R1 HANDSET / AMPLIFIER R1 SPEAKER R1 CONDUIT 1 1/2" RGS R1 CONDUIT 3/4" RGS R1 CONDUIT SUPPORTS R1 16/C SPECIAL PAGING CABLE R1 2/C #12 SPEAKER CABLE R1 PAGING TERMINATIONS GROUNDING GROUND ROD 3/4"X 10° 1/C 500 MCM SDBC CABLE 1/C 4/0 SDBC CABLE 1/C #4 SDBC CABLE CADWELD CONNECTIONS MECHANICAL CONNECTIONS HEAT TRACING ELECTRIC HEAT TRACING FIRE DETECTION DETECTORS & ALARMS NO. DESCRIPTION 12"X6" HDG STEEL LADDER 6"X6" HDG STEEL LADDER CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS CONDUIT (1&C) 11/2" RGS 1"RGS 3/4" RGS CONDUIT SUPPORTS WIRE & CABLE (1&C) SIC #14 600V 3/C #14 600V 1 PR #16 TW SHLD TERMINATIONS (1 & C ) #12 & SMALLER ELECTRICAL BULKS | & C SUBTOTAL ELECTRICAL WORK TOTAL TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS A A RN A ER RNA Se RR ESS a CABLE TRAY (1&C) 100 LF 100 LF 15 EA 250 LF 400 LF 500 LF 50 EA 1,000 LF 1,500 LF 2,000 LF 600 EA 1 ALW S5 = E88e8Ssne8aea aoSS Soonennessecses 888 au S 888 Ba PAGE 11 57 50 15 88as8 RaS 150 60 100 17 105 235 03/20/97 19-Jan-96 [X] SUMMARY [X] CISIA [X] MECHANICAL 20-Mar-97 [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [x] uc MATERIAL —_ LABOR TOTAL cost COST COST 1,040 990 600 590 620 888 15,000 INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. INCLUDED W/BLDG. Seesaa 4,430 INCLUDED W/BLDG. 3,330 2,920 880 3,390 4,440 5,260 2,920 2,100 2,050 3,040 8,760 3,510 5,840 990 350 180 2,100 6,140 13,730 2,123 $ 41,560 $ 124,050 $ 3,212 $ 295,970 $ 168,290 $ 4,370 3,910 1,480 3,980 5,060 5,860 3,420 2,500 2,490 3,640 9,060 18,510 165,610 464,260 Parsons Power Group PROJECT: McGRATH LIGHT & POWER CHECKED : DESCRIPTION: ALASKA 1 MWe FBC FACILITY APPROVED : WORK ORDER NO 430013-00000 REVISED : EVS CLIENT: DOE - METC FILE: MWe1AFB_WK3 a nc SSSR GS SR A RR OPO TP SRNR SS EE SEES ESTIMATED : EVS DATE : DATE : DATE: DATE : 19-Jan-96 20-Mar-97 03/20/97 [X] SUMMARY [X] CIS/A [X] MECHANICAL [X] PIPING [X] ELECTRICAL [x] vc ITEM TOTAL MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MANHOURS Cost CcOsT COST SR DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM BOILER WORK R1 AUXILLARY BOILER, 10,000#/HR, 200 PSI, 500 F 1 EA 160 73,330 9,350 82,680 AUXILLARY BOILER PIPING, CONTROLS 1 ALW 160 3,000 9,350 12,350 R1 HEAT EXCHANGER & ACCESSORIES 1 ALW 160 25,000 9,350 34,350 AUXILLARY BOILER SUBTOTAL 480 $ 101,330 $ 28,050 $ 129,380 DISTRICT HEATING PIPING (COSTS SUPPLIED BY J.S. STRANDBERG) * DIRECT COSTS MAIN DISTRIBUTION PIPING - COMPLETE qier 1,530,390 1,530,390 BRANCH/RUNOUT PIPING - COMPLETE 1 LT 424,450 424,450 CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS - COMPLETE TCT 228,130 228,130 CUSTOMER SYSTEM RETROFIT - COMPLETE LT 150,000 150,000 DIRECT DISTRICT HEATING PIPING SUBTOTAL $ = 2,332,970 $ 2,332,970 INDIRECT COSTS AVE ENGINEERING 1LT 139,980 139,980 TRAVEL, ROOM/BOARD 1c 26,930 26,930 FREIGHT cy 279,370 279,370 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1LT START-UP 15h 122,440 122,440 SPARE PARTS 1LT 20,000 20,000 ABOVE INCLUDES: LABOR TO INSTALL, SURVEY/LAYOUT TRENCHING/BACKFILL, FREIGHT, & CONTINGENCY INDIRECT DISTRICT HEATING PIPING SUBTOTAL $ 588,720 $ 588,720 DIRECT/INDIRECT DISTRICT HEATING PIPING TOTAL $ 2,921,690 $ 2,921,690 PAGE 12 DISTHTG6.XLS, PROJECT COST SUMMARY District Heat Construction Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Summary - DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM September 30, 1996 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 CONTRACTOR INSTALL _| LOCAL CONSTRUCTION | 4 DIRECT COSTS Estimate Item CREWING Main Distribution Piping-complete: $ 1,571,146 | $ 1,530,385.15 |Branch/Runout Piping-complete: | 499,449.81 424,451.13 Customer Connections-complete: i 228,132.26 228,132.26 Customer System Retrofit-complete: | 150,000.00 150,000.00 included in power plant estimate In-Plant Equipment Costs-complete: | Estimated Total Direct Cost 2,448,728 | 2,332,969 T INDIRECT COSTS | AJE Engineering (estimated at 6%) | |$ 146,924 | $ 139,978 | |Room & Board | | 126,893 | 23,426 [Travel Costs | | 22,776 | 3,504 Freight 279,374 | 279,374 Construction Management incl with power plant _| incl with power plant | Start-up Costs 122,436 122,436 Spare Parts 20,000 20,000 | I | | Sub-total - INDIRECT COSTS $ 718,403 | $ 588,719 TOTAL - ALL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS $ 3,167,131 $ 2,921,687 EXPECTED DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION 111.6 133.9 \(working Days J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 1 print date, time: 5/6/97,9:06 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant November 8, 1996 COST SUMMARY - distr piping Feasibility Project SUMMARY i SUMMARY 1 |CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION __ : _ . _ | ____JOPTION 2|LOCAL CONSTRUCTION CREWING _ Service 1 ; a : ane 7 _ Servico Distribution Connects | fale z Connects Mains on/Demobilization $ 10,000.00 30,000.00 40,000.00 | [$5,000.00 2 Ee ee ee _ ee i Labe [piping installation $ 107,657.81 ___ 344,887.78 _ 452,545. 60 | _ $ 83,733.85 | field superv. & inspection | $ 23,666.84 | 94,731.76 | | 118,398.60; __ {field superv. & insp _ 27,310.93 $131,324.66 | 439,619.54 | | 570,944.20 | ~ |subtot _[L_ 111,044.78 _ 453,470.84 | 19,698.70 65,942.93 ___ 85,641.63 - Overhead and Profit 16,656.72 68,020.63 | $151,023.35 |$ 505,562.47 656,585.83 | __|Sub-total : |$— 127,701.50|$ 521,491.47 | 2,460.8 8 10,269.5 | an-hrs _|piping _ 2,460.8| «9,370.5 304.4| «1,578.9 1,973.3 - _ 455.2 | 2,254.4 : 2,855.2 __9,387.6| | 12,2428 : ee ee 9/ 11,624.9 14,540.9 45,113.75 |$ 266,614.06 “311,727.81 | ont | 45,113.75 |$ 319,936.87 | 4,511.38 26,661.41 | 31,172.78 | _ : _ 4,811.38 31,993.69 ~- 49,625.13 293,275.47 | | 342,900.59 | —__|sub-te _ ~ 49,625.13 | 351,930.56 _ 365,050.62 jolole Gravel materials _|$ ee _ 131,010.93 i 131,010.93 | _ Gravel materials _ Piping Materials | 48,779.42 ~ 153,294.83 | | 202,074.25 Piping Materials | Freight Costs: — __ 47,718.86 231,655.01 279,373.87 __|Freight Costs: 10,000.00 50,000.00 60,000.00 Allowances for valves, special fitting | 108 a $ Sub-total - | _ [$106,498.29 565,960.76 672,459.04 Sub-total $ $ : ~ 131,010.93 48,779.42 ~ 153,294.83 47,718.86 231,655.01 10,000.00 50,000.00 106,498.29 565,960.76 ~ 131,010.93 202,074.25 279,373.87 60,000.00 672,459.04 67,245.90 "739,704.95 A alalaalaea Mark-up ~ 10,649.83 56,596.08 67,245.90 | Mark-up ————S—=*|«SA0% 10,649.83 56,596.08 |Sub-total 117,148.11 622,556.83 739,704.95 Sub-total 117,148.11 622,556.83 Other Costs _ _ | __ iz —_ Other Costs _ _ : Camp and Travel Costs = — __ _ __|Camp and TravelCosts | | a _ _ CampCosts 25,364.73 101,627.94 126,802.68 Camp Costs Z 3,035.41 19,490.93 23,426.34 travelcosts - 4,552.72 | ‘18,223.28 | | ~ 22,776.00 travel costs _ | 588.64 2,915.36 | |$ 3,504.00 elalaleale eae 29,917.46 | 119,751.22 149,668.68| |_| Sub-total . _| 4,524.05 | 22,406.20 | $ —_—26,030.34 | $ 357,714.05 | $ — 1,571,145.99 1,928,860.04 TOTALS _ $ 303,998.78 |$ —1,630,386.16 | #|$ 1,834,383.94 4922/6693 11,615 | Total Length | 6,693 234.74| |$ 166.07 Unit Cost of installation _ Tt 61.77 | $_ 228.66 1,928,860.04 | . _ : — | tf ___1,834,383.94 ee ot J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 1 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:08 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant November 8, 1996 COST SUMMARY - distr piping Feasibility Project —_—- oe a OPTION 1 [CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION . OPTION 2|LOCAL CONSTRUCTION CREWING Additional Analysis work accomplished on 12/14/96 by JSS, to establish costs for four areas of __ [Additional Analysis work accomplished on 12/14/96 by JSS, to establish costs construction construction Receiver —- - me — OO ae Total number of service connects: | _ 53 _ Total number of service connects: ; 53] 6,749.32 - - Total cost per service connect: $5,735.83 - 21 _ ‘Additional Services _ - _ a $141,735.76 - Additional Cost t [$120,452.35 ING ADDITIONAL SERVICES | - _ j _ - ee ee | $ 499,449.81 |$ 1,671,145.99 e TOTALS __|$ 424,461.13 | $ — 1,630,385.15 Service Coi ns | | Coe __ = Area es |e 195,730.33 |__|Downtown No. Services | Total Cost_ 29] ~ 166,338.96 114,738.47 i [Midtown aan 17 $97,509.04 47,245.25 | |BStreetArea | 7 $40,150.78 “141,735.76 1V_|South McGrath 2a |S 120,452.35 499,449.81 sub-total 74 $424,451.13 Distribution Mains - Length 2990.5) 701,978.72 1 [Downtown 2990.5 683,767.03 | 462.5 108,565.51 __|Midtown 462.5 [ 105,748.95 842.5 197,765.28 Ill_|B Street Area 842.5 192,634.58 2397.74 562,836.47 IV_|South McGrath 2397.74| ___ 548,234.59 6693.240 1,571,145.99 sub-total 6693.24 1,530,385.15 Total Cost of Construction . Total Cost of Construction _ Downtown 897,709.05 | [Downtown _|$ 850,105.98 Midtown : : 223,303.98 i__|Midtown : 203,258.00 B Street Area __ Z 245,010.53 lil_|B Street Area 232,785.37 South McGrath : i 704,572.23 IV_|South McGrath TOTALS | P | 2,070,695.79 TOTALS J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 2 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:08 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, COST SUMMARY - distr piping OPTION 1 CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION Duration of Project 10 months 2 consequtive years 6 days/wk 10 hrs/day Mark-ups Overtime Calculation 1.166667 Distributable Costs 1.25 Installation Crew 1 For installation of 2 inch diameter and larger piping (steel) McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant Feasibility Project ee rate item ($/hr) Equipment Rental: Excavator} sss | $_ 40.00 | 10 yd dump $ 30.00 tracked dozer $60.00 loader : $ 45.00 compactor __| $15.00 welder $ 15.00 trencher | $20.00 | small tracked dozer | $ 30.00 small backhoe $ 30.00 {small compactor | $7.50 | Installation Crew 2 For installation of pipe smaller thai November 8, 1996 in 2" diameter (copper) TC rate ($/hr) [marked up rate ($/hr) | a 1 welder | $ 33.00 | $ 48.13 2 plumber 33.00| $ 96.25 ff $$ - - | $= === | $ * . __|laborers __|$ 28.00 |$ 81.67 1___|laborer _ _ 24.00/ $ 35.00 apprentice pipe fitter $ 24.00 |$ 35.00 _ _ __|pipe fitter $ 33.00 |$ 96.25 = _ insulator _|$ 33.00 | $ 48.13 i= — totals $ 309.17 subtotal - labor 3 - _ _ $ 131.25 manhours/crewhour __7 manhours/crewhour 3 crewhours/day 10 crewhours/day 10 |manhoursiday | ___70) manhours/day 30 Equipment | duration | rate operator modified Equipment duration | rate | modified | ratio rate rate |__ratio — rate _ _| ($/hr) ($/hr) $/hr ($/hr) a = [compactor 1 20 20.00 [compactor| _[ 14 15| 15.00 | _ welder ~ 7 1 | 15 15.00 itrencher ie 20| 20.00 Excavator ji 40 34 74.00 small tracked dozer 0.25 | —-30 7.50 10 yd dump 0.25 30) 30.00 small backhoe 0.25 30 7.50 tracked dozer 1 60; 60.00 tools, misc) 1 5 5.00 1 small tracked dozer 0.25 30 30.00 Zz _ tools, misc 1 10 10.00 - _ - 7 sub-total equipment rental rate __|$/crewhour | $_ 239.00 __| total equipment rental rate _ [ $_ 55.00 total - labor and equipment rate —_[$/crew-hour $_ 548.17 total - labor and equipment rate $ 186.25 GRAVEL MATERIALS GRAVEL MATERIALS _ |Total Length of Trench pipe size materials cost totals - gravel materials pipe size materials totals - gravel materials’ (in) length (ft) |($/foot trench) ($) (in) length (ft) ($) J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 1 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:12 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, COST SUMMARY - distr piping McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant Feasibility Project November 8, 1996 _ 2 | 1,083 [$17.65 jt $19,106.41 0.75] 1102[$ - - 7 [$ : 25) 2,520 |$ 18.15 —__ | 45,738.24 4 1,339/$ - __ | | = _ 3 __768|$ 18.79 - 14,422.57 1.25] 1614|$ - _ =] 4, s«|__—«,083|$ 21.09 = - 22,837.49 15 866 |S - _[ — : - 6 1,240 |$ 23.31 $28,906.22 a - s_ - subtotal ~ 6693.24 $131,010.93 subtotal | 4922, | Cd [| _{¢ i PIPING MATERIALS _ PIPING MATERIALS _ _ Total Length of Trench —— {| _ _ Lt ee pipe size Piping | totals - piping materials pipe size _ Piping | __ totals - piping materials _ (in) _ length (ft) |($/foot trench) | ($) (in) length (ft) |($/foot trench) ($) _| 2 ~ | 1,083 | $14.47 _ $15,667.73 0.75 1,102 | $7.63 $ 8,413.00 2.5 | 2,520 | $17.58 [ | $44,287.95 1 1,339/$ 898; $ 12,027.02 [8 768 |$ 20.69 _— $15,888.40 1.25 - 1,614 [$ 11.36 - $18,334.13 4| ~ 1,083 | $ 26.68 $ 28,889.38 | 15 __| 866 | $ 11.55 | $ 10,005.28 __ 6 1,240 |$ 39.16 ft $48,561.36 - _ [subtotal 6,693 _ $153,294.83 subtotal 4,922 | = $48,779.42 sub-total - pipe and gravel materials - _ $ 284,305.75 | sub-total - pipe and gravel materials - i$ 48,779.42 Labor Analysis IN-THE-TRENCH LABOR & Equipment IN-THE-TRENCH LABOR & Equipment Total length of pipe per day 60 Total length of pipe per day 60 _ J Crew hours /LF ____|___0.167 Crew hours /LF 0.167 7 _ - a manhours/LF 1.167 manhours/LF 0.500, J Costilinealfoot | $ 91.36 ‘Cost/lineal foot [S$ 31.04 Cost - in-trench Labor $ 344,887.78 Cost - in-trench Labor $ 107,657.81 Cost - Equipment _ $ 266,614.06 Cost - Equipment $ 45,113.75 Total Cost ( in-trench labor and equipment) $ 611,601.84 ‘Cost _ $ 152,771.66 Manhours 7,808.8 Manhours 2,460.8 Crewhours - _ E 1,115.5 Crewhours| _ 820.3 duration - days 111.6 duration - calendar days _ 82.0 On-site field supervision, surveying, and pipe manufacturer representative . item loaded rate [hours - _ field supervision _ 60] 1,115.5 | $ 66,932.40 manufacturer's representative 60 557.8 | $ 33,466.20 | _ sub-total - hrs 1,973.3 surveying control _ 60 300.0 | $ 18,000.00 | - sub-total - $| $ 118,398.60 allocation — 1,578.9|$ 94,731.76 394.4 | $ 23,666.84 TOTAL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR PROJECT: $706,233.60 $176,438.41 $ 882,672.01 Working Days available _ _ Freight Analysis _ _ Freight Costs Year 1 Year 2 Total Length of Trench June 20 June 20 pipe size Freight 1... _| July 20 __ [July 20 (in) length (ft) [(S/LF) August 20 August 20 0.75 1,102 | $ 6.00 $ 6,614.50 September 20 September 20 1 1,339 | $ 7.50 10,039.86 a 1.25 1,614 | $ 12.00 19,371.02 80 | 80 1.5 866 | $_ 13.50 $ 11,693.48 subtotal 4922) $ 47,718.86 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 2 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:12 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant November 8, 1996 COST SUMMARY - distr piping Feasibility Project [Room &Board | [- —_ ; _ __|NumberofDays | | 7 111.6 2) 1,083|$ 15.00); ee $ __ 16,240.95 | ____|Total days, counting weekends | | _ 130.15 25) __2,520 | $ 22.50 _ | _ 56,695.68 - Number of Men 13 3 768 | $ 30.00 [| | 23,032.62 | No. mandays 1,691.90 4 _ 1,083 | $ 48.00 ft _ 51,971.04 Unit Cost for Camp — [| | $75} 6] s|_~—s*1,240 | $67.50 a $ 83,714.72 _____|¢0st - room and board $ 126,892.68 subtotal 6693 | st $ 231,655.01 Travel Costs j _] some rough calculations made by JSS on 1/22/97 about freight weights round trips per man ft 4 total weight of piping. (pounds) 186,249 [ airline cost|_ 338 1100000 _____|number of men 13 1,286,249 ___|number of round trips _ 52 40000 [sub-total [ ____17576| 32.15623115 traveltime| 2|_hours/rt 104 | travel rate: __50| $/hr rate _ 5200 ____}Total Travel Costs — | $ 22,776.00 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 3 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:12 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, COST SUMMARY - distr piping McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant Feasibility Project November 8, 1996 OPTION 2. LOCAL CONSTRUCTION CREWING item | Equipment Rental; |Excavator| Duration of Project 10 months \W0yddump 2 consequtive years tracked dozer 6 days/wk loader 8 hrs/day compactor! Mark-ups welder | Overtime Calculation 1.166667 trencher Distributable Costs 1.25 small tracked dozer small backhoe - . smallcompactor | $__7.50 Installation Crew 1 For installation of 2 inch diameter and larger piping (steel) _ Installation Crew 2 __ For installation of pipe smaller than 2" diameter (copper) _ Lp rate (S/n) __[over-time factor a ee rate ($/ihr) [overtime factor {ete 1 ___|welder | __—-25.00/$ 36.46 a ee plumber 25.00/$ 72.92 a Se 4 Sime = ace = aa = |$ a | = $ : = _ | so | [ _ = 2s | 2 laborers 20.00| $58.33 [ __ 1 |laborer - 20.00 $ 29.17 | | 1 apprentice pipe fitter __ 23.00} $ 33.54 ia . _ _0| | : 2 pipe fitter - 25.00) $ 72.92 a 0. 1 insulator 25.00} $ 36.46 _ 0 totals 7 $ 237.71 subtotal - labor _3 al $ 102.08 Manhours/crewhour | 7 manhours/crewhour 3| crewhours/day 10} crewhours/day 10 manhours/day _70 manhours/day 30 Equipment ‘duration | rate | operator modified Equipme: duration | rate | modified | ratio rate | rate . __fatio rate a _ _ ($/hr) ($/hr) ($/hr) compactor | ; 1 | 20 20.00 | : compactor! 1 15| 15.00 | _ 7 welder 1 15 _ | 15.00 trencher 1 20) 20.00 |Excavator 1 40 34) 74.00 |small tracked dozer 0.25 30 7.50 _ 10 yd dump 0.25 | __ 30) 30.00 small backhoe _ 0.25 30) 7.50 _ tracked dozer 1 _ 60 _ 60.00 tools, misc) 4 5 5.00 ‘small tracked dozer 0.25 30 30.00 | | _ =| _ |tools, misc i 10 10.00 —_ | __ sub-total equipment rental rate —_|$/crewhour $239.00 total equipment rental rate _ $ 55.00| _| total - labor and equipment rate _|$/crew-hour $ 476.71 total - labor and equipment rate _ ] $ 157.08 GRAVEL MATERIALS GRAVEL MATERIALS Total Length of Trench _ |_pipe size _|materials 7 totals -materials pipe size materials totals -materials (in) length (ft) (in) length (ft) J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 14 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:13 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant November 8, 1996 COST SUMMARY - distr piping Feasibility Project 21,083 | $17.65 $ 19,106.41 0.75 1,102/$ - __ ie : [_ 25, —s«|_—s2,520|$ 18.15 45,738.24 | 1 1,339/$ - - i i a 38 7 768 | $ 18.79 | 14,422.57 1.25] | 4,614/$ = _ i - | 4 | 1,083 | $ 21.09 | 7 22,837.49 — 1.5) eee |S - __ : 6 1,240 | $ 23.31, $ 28,906.22 _ $ : subtotal | 6693.24 s = 131,010.93 subtotal | 4921.5 _ _ $ oo PIPING MATERIALS | _ PIPING MATERIALS oe TotalLength of Trench | | __ [ _ _ - pipesize | Piping a pipe size ____|Piping __|pipe/mat'ls _ - (in) | length (ft) (in) length (ft) _ ea : [ 1,083 | $ 14.47 $ 15,667.73 0.75) 1,102|$ 7.63 so $8,413.00 _ 2,520 | $17.58 | ‘$44,287.95 4 1,339|$ 8.98 s - | $12,027.02 __ 768 | $ 20.69 $ 15,888.40 1.25 1,614 | $ 11.36 | $ _ S$ 18,334.13 “| 1,083 | $26.68 $ 28,889.38 15 eee |$ 11.55; S$ $ 10,005.28 1,240/$ 39.16) —_ {s 48,561.36 — - 7 _ [subtotal - 6693.24 $ 163,294.83 subtotal 4921.5 _ s- 48,779.42 Sub-total - pipe and gravel materials _ | $ 284,305.76 | sub-total - pipe and gravel materials | $ 48,779.42 | Labor Analysis IN-THE-TRENCH LABOR & Equipment - IN-THE-TRENCH LABOR ee Total length of pipe perday 50 _ _ Total length of pipe per day 60} ff Crew hours /LF 0.200 Crewhours/LF | 0.167 _ manhours/LF 1.400 manhours/LF 0.500) Costilineal foot - $ 95.34 Costilineal foot s_ 26.18 Cost - in-trench Labor $ 318,207.79 Cost - in-trench Labor = i _ $ 83,733.85 | Cost - Equipment | _| $ 319,936.87 Cost - Equipment i |$ 45,113.75 Cost _ $ 638,144.66 Cost _|s 128,847.60 Manhours ai 4 __ 9,370.5 Manhours 2,460.8 Crewhours } 1,338.6 Crewhours| 820.3 duration - days | 133.9 duration - calendar days 82.0 On-site field supervision, surveying, and pipe manufacturer representative | _ a _ - item _ iL loaded rate {hours _ _ field supervision 60 1,606.4 | $ 96,382.66 : - manufacturer's representative 60 803.2 | $ 48,191.33 _ sub-total - hrs _ 2,709.6 surveying control _ — 60) 300.0 | $ 18,000.00 sub-total - $| $ 162,573.98 allocation ft _ 2,254.4 | $ 135,263.06 Za 455.2 | $ 27,310.93 TOTAL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR PROJECT: $ 773,407.72 $ 186,158.53 LL _ i$ 929,566.25 Working Days available Freight Analysis - Freight Costs Year 1 Year 2 Total Length of Trench __ _ June 20 June 20 pipe size Freight _| July 20 July _20| (in) length (ft) [(S/LF) z August 20 ‘August 20 0.75 1,102 |$ 6.00 $s 6,614.50 Septembe: 20) September 20 1 1,339 | $ 7.60 ___ 10,039.86 _ 1.25 1,614 | $ 12.00 19,371.02 80 80 1.5 866 | $ 13.50 $ 11,693.48 subtotal 4922 - 7 $ 47,718.86 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 2 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:13 AM DISTHTG6.XLS, McGrath Coal Fired Powerplant November 8, 1996 COST SUMMARY - distr piping Feasibility Project Room & Board I i. im ii _ - - Ll lL [Number of Days ie 133.9 7 1,083 | $ 15.00 | i ~ 16,240.95 ll Total days, counting weekends | 156.18 2.5 2,520 | $ 22.50 a 56,695.68 Number of Men _ 2 aio 768 | $ 30.00 ail, ii 23,032.62 _____|No. mandays i 312.35 4 1,083 | $ 48.00 | oii 51,971.04 - Unit Cost for Camp iT. $75 6; 1,240|$ 67.50| $ 83,714.72. I cost - room and board hh $ 23,426.34 subtotal | 6693 Ail $ 231,655.01 | Travel Costs J round trips per man _ _ 4 airline cost! | 338 | __|number of men di oi _ tt _4| | ____|number of round trips _ 8 il ____| sub-total _ 2704 a travel time| | 2 hours/rt 16 |travel rate: | _50} $/hr rate 800 Total Travel Costs _ $ 3,604.00 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 3 print date, time: 5/6/97, 9:13 AM McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.1.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 83 OMANA2.XLS, labor cost analysis McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility January 28, 1997 “COAL PLANT 7 j ' ot Plan _Opimech | TOTAL - Operating | cos! nanie | Sik _8| 160.00 8] 16000; 7|_~—S—«s68| 3,360.00| —8| 160.00 5| 800 ~_8| 460.00| SS 8} 160.00 6} 160.00; _—7| ~—__—‘168| 3,360.00 8| 160.00 __5|e00{ | te0.00f 5 8! 160.00 8| 160.00 7 168] 3,360.00 8| 160.00 5| 800 8! 160.00 5 8| 160.00 “8| 460.00 5| 80] 1,600.00 | 8] 160.00 5| 800] _—*8| 160.00 5 8| 160.00 8| 160.00 5| 80] 1,600.00 8| 160.00 5|___ 800 8| 160.00 5 8| 160.00 : 5| 40| 800.00 8| 160.00 5| 800 4] 80.00 5 8| 160.00 > § 40} 800.00 8| 160.00 5 800]; 4 80.00 5 8! 160.00 : 5| 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5] 800 4| 80.00 5 8] 160.00 : 5 40] 800.00 8] 160.00 5| 800] 4] 80.00 5 8] 160.00 : 5 40| 800.00 8| 160.00 5 800 4| 80.00 5 8| 160.00 : 5| 40] — 800.00 8| 160.00 5] 800 4] 80.00 5 8] 160.00 : 5 40/ 800.00 8| 160.00 5 800 4 80.00 5 8| 160.00 : 5| 40] _ 800.00 8| 160.00 5| 800 4] 80.00 5 8] 160.00 : 5| 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5] 800 4] 80.00 5 8] 160.00 : 5| 40| 800.00 8] 160.00 5] 800 4] 80.00 5 8} 160.00 : 5 40} 800.00 8| 160.00 5) 800 4 80.00 5) 8] 160.00 : 5 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5{ 800 4|__ 80.00 5] 400| 2,000 104,000 8] 160.00 5 5| 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 | 800 4] 80.00 5| 400] 2,000 104,000 8| 160.00 5 40| 800.00 8| 160.00 5[ 800 4|__ 80.00 5] 400| 2,000 104,000 8| 160.00 : 5 40} 800.00 8| 160,00 5 800 4 80.00 5 400 2,000 104,000 20 : 8| 160.00 5 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 A) 4| 80.00 5| 400] _ 2,000 104,000 21 5 8| 160.00 : 5 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5{ 800 4] 80.00 5| 400] 2,000 104,000 22 : 8] 160.00 : 5 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5{ 800 4] 80.00 5] 400] 2,000 104,000 23 : 8] 160.00 : § 40} 800.00 8] 160.00 5 800 4 80.00 5| 400 2,000 104,000 24 : 8] 160.00 = 5 40} 800.00 8] 160.00 5 800 4 80.00 5 400 2,000 104,000 i= 25 : 8] 160.00 : 5 40} 800.00 8| 160.00 5 800 4 80.00 5 400 2,000 104,000 | ___26| _ : 8| 160.00 : 5 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5| 800 4| 80.00 5|_400| 2,000 104,000 an -_ 8] 160.00 : 5 40} 800.00 8| 160.00 5|___ 800 4] 80.00 | 400] 2,000 104,000 [ 28 =| 8] 160.00 : 5 40] 800.00 8| 160.00 5|____800 4[ 80.00 5 400] 2,000 104,000 29 a 8] 160.00 : 5 40| 800.00 8| 160.00 5 800 4 80.00 5 400 2,000 104,000 30 : 8] 160.00 : 5] 40} 800.00 8| 160.00 5 800 4 80.00 5 400 2,000 | $ 104,000.00 J. S. Strandberg Consutting Engineers, Inc. Page 1 print date, time: 2/11/97, 9:55 AM OMANA2.XLS, coal fired plant analysis Operations and Maintenance for the coal fired power plant a Fuel Storage and Delivery __ {___|coal handling and storage _|___|erusher _ conveyors silos fuel oil storage and delivery system| fuel transfer pump fuel day tank coal feeding and metering combustor combustor supports insulation air delivery systems ash removal systems ash storage system heat exchanger (unfired boiler) feedwater storage feedwater treatment safety relief valves blowdown valves and tank boiler speed governor safety shut down turbines electrical generators switchgear emergency generator electrical distribution (exterior to the plant) | transformers EE J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Analysis of Operations and Maintenance Costs Periodic Renovation of Power Plant Systems October 31, 1996 Page 1 6 10 ye 15 20 yr2 | maj rpr $) = ta ~~ at 24 en) 10 2,500 2,500 | 2,500 2,500 10,000 8 500 15 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 25,000 2 50| 30; 2 100) 30 10,000 4 100 10 750 750 2,500 2 50| 15 750 750 8 250) 30) + 2,500 15 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 30 2,500 2 250 15 20,000 8 500 10 2,500 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 8 250 10 2,500 2,500 5,000 5,000 7,500 2 50| 10) 2,500 2,500 5,000 5,000 7,500 1 50 30 10,000 8 500 15 2,500 5,000 7,500 7,500 10,000 4 50 15 1,000 5,000 2 50} 30 2,500 24 1000 15 20,000 20,000 20,000 200,000 [— 4 500) 30 5,000 2 50| 30 2,500 2 50 15 2,500 16 1000} 15 25,000 150,000 8 250 30 7 5,000 46 500 10 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 25,000 2 100 30/ a | | 25,000 5a a a ae ae ee print date, time: 2/11/97, 9:57 AM OMANA2.XLS, coal fired plant analysis Analysis of Operations and Maintenance Costs | Recondition October 31, 1996 Perlodic Renovation of Power Plant Systems -yearsto | yr 10 _jyt25 yr 30 i Maj tpr maj rpr_ trict heating heat transfer and p |___|pressurization pumps Ce et ree a fi | jheatexchangers |__|auxiliary boiler [System Controls Ji [_ | tl 1 Air Compressor ll i 8 | 250 10 2,500 2,500 | 2,500 2,500 | 5,000 | [__|Air dryer ; 2 100]. ——+10 500 500 i 500 | Control Valves _ 8 125] «15 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500| _—-2,500| Valve Operators I} 4 125) 15 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 | 2,500 Field Transmitters a) 4 200 15 2,500 2,500 Panel Mounted Controllers 2 50) 15 2,500 ___ 2,500 | __|Programmable Logic Controllers 8 100) 10 7,500 7,500_ 7,500 Building Systems il Grounds 30 10,000 Standby Water Well 1 15 2,500 2,500 Community Water Supply 1 30 Community Sewage Disposal 1 30 Building exterior closure 6 250) 15 10,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 Building Heating and Cooling System 8 250 15 25,000 25,000 Building Light and Power Systems 4 100) 15 5,000 5,000 15,000 ‘Coal Storage Pile containment drains 4 50} 10) 2,500 2,500 2,500 drainage treatment and discharge 8 250) 15 5,000 5,000 Unschedule repair event (1 per year 80 5000) 10,000 15,000 20,000 100,000 and one at year 10, 15, 20 and 30) mS TOTALS 319 $ 14,750 TOTALS $74,500 |$ 166,500|$ 146,250|$ 152,500 | $ 1,083,750 Design and Administration % 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Design and Administration Costs $ $ 18,625/$ 41,625/$ 36,563/$ 38,125 $ 270,938 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ $93,125 |$ 208,125|$ 182,813|$ 190,625 | $ 1,354,688 Percent of Expenditure Locally % 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.30 TOTAL EXPENDITURES LOCALLY $ $ 46,563 |$ 83,250|$ 91,406|$ 95,313|$ 406,406 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Page 2 print date, time: 2/11/97, 9:57 AM OMANA2.XLS, coal fired plant analysis Analysis of Operations and Maintenance Costs Assumptions - 50% ‘of the annual shut down labor is is provided by existing staff, which is dget | fe that shut down will encompas S$ a one month period each summer, eneration and standby oil fired boiler must operate during this time. _ ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS required during yearly shutdown ROOM & BOARD . - assume 30|days duration _ $ 100.00 |cost per day _ 10|hour days |calculate the cost per hour for Room and board = $ 10.00 |cost per hour TRAVEL COSTS assume 5S}round trips| | $338 |cost per airline ticket $1,690 |total travel cost [calculate the cost per hour for travel 160 |manhours worked $ 10.60 |cost per hour OVERTIME ASSESSMENT - for specialty contractors assume 10|hours/day | [ 6|days/week| 60| hours/week 20|hoursWweek overtime 1.17 |factor increase in rate! J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Annual Maintenance Shutdown October 31, 1996 - Labor _|loaded wage so Amt_ (8) 19,102 49,293 19,486 19,681 ___ 19,878 ~~ 20,076 ~ 20,277 20,480 20,685 | 20,892 21,101 21,312 | _2010 13 180 21,525 2011 14 182 21,740 2012 15 183 21,957 2013 16 185 22,177 2014 17 187 22,399 2015 18 189 22,623 2016 19 191 22,849 2017 20 193 23,077 2018 21 195 23,308 2019 22 197 23,541 2020 23 199 23,777 | 2021 24 201 24,014 2022 25 _ 203 24,255 2023 26 205 24,497 [2024 27 _ 207 24,742 | 2025 | 28 _ 209 24,990 2026 | 29 211 25,239 2027 30 __ 213 25,492 Hourly Rate assumptions $/hr-loaded _| Escalation Rates \operating staff -__|Labor 1.01 contract specialty labor $/mhr 85.00 |Parts 1.05 contract specialty labor (with OT) $/mbhr __ 99.17 | Consumables a gal/min gal cost per yr _ Water | 1 525600 | $5,256 _|Chemicals | - $10,000 [Sewage Disposal [| 525600 | Oi] $5,266 print date, time: 2/11/97, 9:57 AM Page 3 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.2 System Performance Analysis J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 84 We PreRAS( Te Powe . ans€0.ON . Co, 166K For \Smib/itn _ LOo-oa.w COmGASTORs oon. . O.5 <0 reewens ; O. B+ PRR pwr fe mx + B . . . Co LOB K +.002 AFTER. ower Curve For. PeeasiTle wee. 2 2 F F = re J.S. STRANDBERG a . - . ~ . Consulting Engineers, Inc. 9009- FS lofis Ae. a See moe 1 DATAOU!.XLS, cogen output - run 7 with plant station power and heating — McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant run no. 7 - 10/16/96 combustor size mib/hr - stm [MONTHLY SUMMAR November 5, 1996 JAN MAR MAY JUN JUL AUG JBLATOTHT 11283.4 8775.3 6467.3 6839.2 9981.8 ~19318.2 |HPSTMFT 11784.9 9165.4 6754.7 6098.8 10$26.6 2 11821.3 IOSPRHTFT 0.0) 0.0) 0.0) 0.0 0.0 11553.8 10221.1 11589.5 101171 11653.8 10221.1 11689.5 101171 f 6582.4 5626.1 6613.8 4060.3 3788.9 4061.7 911.2 806.1 914.0) 11553.8 11589.5 10221.1 374.4 312.8) 313.1 279.8 273.4 274.3 261.2) 315.1 375.2 14398.1 12265.4 11700.4 9560.0] _ 8623.0) 8694.2 9693.5) 11834.7 14427.7 47651.1 45397.5 37170.6 33457.4 33733.4 37610.7) 45918.5) 55979.3 606.0 68.4 0.0) 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 621.9 6914.7 666.7 0.0) 0.0 0.0} . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0} 7095.4 0.391 0.378 0.344 0.284| 0.223 0.194 0.226 0.288] _ 0.347, 0.391 0.278 0.298) 0.362 0.541 0.941 1.385, 0.906 | 0.523 0.355, 0.278 0.040) 0.005 0.000) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.041 TONS 1,074.5 914.6 873.2 714.9 643.5 601.7 648.8 723.4 883.2 1,076.7 1/16/97 add in tons of coal consumed per unit time period gallon of fuel 4,366.2 J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. allons of fuel with conv losses Page 1 5,821.6 print date, time: 1/16/97, 11:12 AM McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.3 Project Component Data J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 85 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-1 7.3: PROJECT COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS 7.3.1 STEAM TURBINE-GENERATOR FOR POWER PLANT WITH DISTRICT HEATING Electrical load data from McGrath Power and Light for the 1994 calendar year indicates a system peak load of 700 kWe had been reached during winter high demand periods. During both 1995 and 1996 the peak demand has grown to reach 800 kWe. To assure generating capacity sufficient to meet this peak, the following steam turbine-generator is recommended: System peak demand Condensing turbine generator 750 kWe Backpressure turbine generator 350 kWe Diesel-generator capacity 125 kWe *Maximum district heating pumping power estimated at 15 to 20 kW. With a power plant duty of 1000 kWe and 10 x 10© Btu/hr peak district heating load as a basis, discussions with steam turbine vendors were held to choose an effective configuration for the application. Based on the relatively large steam flow required to satisfy the peak district heating load and the potential for relatively large electrical load savings, a dual turbine configuration driving a single generator was selected. The smaller, less efficient turbine rated at approximately 350 kW (shaft) is a back- pressure type turbine exhausting at approximately 40 psia (25 psig). The exhaust steam is used in an in-plant heat exchanger to generate the district heating hot water. The larger, more efficient turbine rated at approximately 750 kW (shaft) is a condensing type. The condensing turbine expands the steam to approximately 3" HgA where it exhausts to either a water/glycol or air cooled condenser. 7.3.2 CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTOR This section describes the circulating atmospheric fluidized bed combustor (AFBC) and its operation and a firetube boiler system designed to produce steam at 200 psig and 500°F. The steam produced is used to drive a steam turbine for power generation and district heating. The steam from the backpressure turbine is used for district heating purposes. Donlee Technologies, Inc., York, PA, is the manufacturer of the described system. 7.3.2.1 Fluidized-Bed Combustor System The Fluidized Bed Combustor is an atmospheric circulating FBC operating at a temperature range of only 1500°F - 1800°F. Coal mixed with limestone is gravity fed into the combustor. Municipal waste can also be fed into the combustor through a shredding system that is connected to a separate chute in the combustor. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-2 The combustor package (shown in Figure 7-1) includes the following principle components: Main fluidized bed Hot cyclone (particle separator) Sluice Hot cyclone (particle Separator) Adjacent fluidized bed heat exchanger Air distribution system Waste shredding system Oil or gas start-up burner Bed cleaning system Air blowers The bed of inert particles, typically sand and coal ash, is fluidized with combustion air. Using an oil burner, the unit temperature is increased to the operating temperature. Coal mixed with limestone is then fed to the combustor. The adjacent fluidized bed heat exchanger provides temperature control by heat extraction from the combustor. Hot flue gas from the combustor passes to the firetube boiler. 7.3.2.2 _AFBC Operational Description The AFBC operates as follows: At the operating temperature a mixture of coal and limestone along with combustible waste is fed into the combustor. These materials are rapidly dispersed in the fluidized inert bed. The coal and waste are burned and the limestone calcined. Sulfur dioxide produced in the combustion process is captured by the calcined limestone. Flue gas, flyash (fine particulate material) and some other solids pass into the cyclone where solids are separated from the gas stream and are returned to the main bed of the combustor via a partitioned, sealed sluice chamber adjacent to the main bed. Non-combustible material that settles on the bottom of the fluidized bed passes through slots in the air distribution system and is removed by the bed cleaning system. The temperature difference between the main bed and the combustor is minimized by maintaining the proper fluidized bed mean particle size and gas superficial velocity which, in turn, provides the desired mean suspension density and degree of turbulence and mixing. The refractory lined freeboard, rather than a watertube wall, provides, along with the significant amount of recirculating solids, a superior temperature uniformity as well as resistance to erosion. The design allows the excess heat generated in the combustion process to be extracted by a heat exchanger located in an adjacent cooling bubbling bed. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 7- Fluidized Bed Combustion System McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-4 Combustion temperature in the main bed is precisely controlled by changing the solid recirculation rate between the main and cooling bed. The advantage of the design includes high turndown, easy scale-up, excellent temperature control and a process less sensitive to particle size variations in the fuel. Advantages and Characteristic Features of the Fluidized Bed Combustor System: e A major portion of the combustion air (primary air) is introduced under the main fluidized bed and the remaining air (secondary air) is injected above the bed. The secondary air is comprised of the lift channel air and the cooling bed air. e The excess heat generated during the combustion process is extracted by the heat exchanger installed in the cooling bed adjacent to the main bed. e Solids with a larger particle size that are carried out of the main bed are recirculated, after capture in the hot cyclone, back to the main bed via a partitioned air sluice. e High sulfur capture efficiency is achieved by adding limestone to the combustor and precisely controlling the temperature in the main fluidized bed. e NOx emissions are substantially lower by virtue of substoichiometric combustion in the main bed and well-controlled, low combustion temperatures (1500°F vs. 2800°F in a pulverized coal combustor). e The operating parameters result in long particle residence times and adequate gas residence times. This combination results in high combustion efficiency and extremely low carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emission levels. e The special design of the air distributor permits non-combustible materials to be periodically or continuously removed from the main bed. 7.3.2.3 Advantages of AFBC Technology The AFBC technology as developed has a number of advantages: e Control of the combustion temperature is by means of cooled solids recirculated from the adjacent cooling bed. Alternate AFBC systems rely heavily on heat transfer to combustor watertube surfaces to achieve combustion temperature control. In many instances, erosion of these watertube surfaces has been experienced. The AFBC system has no reliance on combustor freeboard heat transfer surface whatsoever, so that even if waterwall construction of the combustor is used as a means of reducing capital costs, suitable protection against erosion can be easily provided without affecting the process performance. e The adjacent cooling bed is fluidized velocity of less than 2 ft/s. thus, the conditions necessary for erosion and/or corrosion of the heat transfer surfaces are not present. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-5 ¢ The adjacent cooling bed is mechanically and physically integrated with the combustor and is therefore more cost effective. e The combustor operates at a relatively low superficial velocity (12 to 15 ft/s) which provides the desired gas and particle residence times. This means that the height of the unit is determined solely by physical arrangement of the hot cyclone and not by process requirements. e The process control systems are simple and straightforward. Steam pressure/fuel feed rate and SO2 emission/limestone feed rate controls, system draft control, steam temperature control and boiler water level control are common to all AFBC boilers. The only other process control loops for this design are: - lift channel air flow which varies the amount of solids through the adjacent cooling bed in order to control the combustor temperature, and - main bed air flow to obtain the desired excess air level. e At 5:1 or greater, turndown ratio. e Fuel flexibility is maximized. 7.3.3 MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEMS The materials handling systems consist of common coal and limestone receiving, storage and conveying and ash transport, storage, and unloading systems. They are described in the following sections. 7.3.3.1 Coal and Limestone Handling System The elements of the coal and limestone handling system are described in Figure 7-2 and in the following sections. Design Criteria The coal and limestone handling system design is selected to meet the environmental concerns as well as current regulations and standards for noise and dust emissions. In addition, the coal and limestone handling system is designed to meet the requirements of the fluidized-bed boiler burning the type of fuel and sorbent selected for the McGrath plant. Coal Thawing A coal thawing building will be provided to store and thaw the coal before the coal is crushed and transferred to the coal storage silo. This is to allow the coal to be conveyed and crushed before entering the inside coal storage silo. The building will include a heated concrete floor with a floor drain system to store and thaw the coal. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. UNLOAD COAL/LIMES TONE RECLAIM HOPPER W/ 4" X 4" GRIZZLY BELT FEEDER 40 TPH CRUSHER 40 TPH BUCKET ELEVATOR 40 TPH FLOP GATE COAL SILO LIMESTONE SILO 166 TON 55 TON CAPACITY CAPACITY V/S FEEDER V/S FEEDER 1500 - 4500 LBS/HR 40 - 200 LBS/HR FEED TO COMBUSTOR Figure 7-3 COAL/LIMESTONE FLOW SCHEMATIC BY FRONT END LOADER OVERSIZE McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-7 The coal will be delivered by truck and unloaded into the thawing building. The thawing building will store coal for an expected three day peak load. The coal will be heated to 50°F in the coal thaw building where a front end loader or bobcat will be utilized to transport thawed coal into the reclaim hopper for transfer to the crusher and storage silo. A glycol heater (300 Mbtu/hr), air to air heat exchanger, and associated ventilation equipment will be provided in the coal thawing building to insure the proper number of air changes for operation of the front end loader or bobcat inside the enclosed building. The building will be a metal sided heated building with proper insulation and vapor protection. Coal will be stored in piles 3-5 feet high to allow quick thawing (one day) and to ease the transfer operation to the reclaim hopper. Two overhead, insulated doors will provide access for the coal delivery trucks and front end loader or bobcat. The building will be 60 ft wide x 60 ft long x 25 ft tall to accommodate the 25 ton coal delivery trucks. The reclaim hopper will be installed at one end of the building, at floor level (a high point - to prevent the hopper from collecting floor drainage). Reclaim Hopper The reclaim hopper will be fabricated from ASTM A36 steel and will have a Type 316 stainless steel liner, polished to a 2B finish. The following design parameters are considered in the design of the reclaim hopper: e Rectangular discharge opening. e Minimum valley angles 55 degrees. e Fabricated steel grizzly with 4 x 4 inch openings. Coal Storage Silo The coal in the plant will be stored in a steel fabricated silo with a net capacity of 166 tons, equivalent to 3 days supply, based on the expected 3 day peak load. The coal storage silo will be fabricated from ASTM A-36 steel. The silo will be 15'-0" diameter x 33' high (straight side) with a conical bottom (52’ overall height). The conical bottom will have a 70 degree sloping side. To further improve coal discharge flow from the silo, an air cannon and bin activator will also be provided. The silo outlet will have a manual rack and pinion gate. Coal Conveying System The conveying system is configured using a totally enclosed belt feeder and bucket elevator with insertable dust collectors at all transfer points. This type equipment was selected to reduce the fugitive dust and to provide a spillage-free operation. The conveying system will be designed based on the following design parameters: ° Coal size: 4” x 0 with occasional 3” lumps ° Conveying capacity: 40 t/h J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-8 Boiler feed coal size: 1/4” x O e Coal size reduction: reversible hammermill Coal Drying The coal conveying and handling system will result in crushed coal with fines being stored in the coal silo. The characteristics and surface moisture content of the coal could present coal flow problems in the silo. Therefore space has been allowed for the addition of a coal dryer upstream of the crusher. However, before any preliminary design for coal drying is begun, a test of the coal for flowability will be performed to determine what problems which might be expected without drying and how much drying may be required in order to correct such problems. Coal Handling System Description Subbituminous coal, 4” x 0, will be delivered to the plant by 25 ton dump trucks. The trucks will discharge the coal onto the thawing floor in the coal thawing building near the reclaim hopper. A front end loader or bobcat will reclaim coal from the thawed pile into the reclaim hopper. The hopper will have a 4” x 4” grizzly, 55 degree valley angles (minimum), and an 18" x 18" discharge opening. The coal from the reclaim hopper will be conveyed by an enclosed belt feeder which will discharge into the feed hopper for the crusher. A magnet separator will be provided on the belt feeder to protect the crusher from tramp iron. The crusher will reduce the coal size from 4” x 0 to 1/4” x 0. The coal will discharge by gravity through a chute to an enclosed bucket elevator which will elevate the coal above the coal and limestone storage silos to a transfer chute feeding a flop gate. The flop gate will discharge the coal into a 166 ton capacity coal storage silo. The belt feeder, crusher, and bucket elevator will have a maximum feed rate of 40 TPH. This will allow filling of the silos in approximately five hours, including setup time. The coal silo will be provided with a vent filter and exhauster to ventilate methane from the silo and to capture dust from air displaced during silo filling. Coal from storage silo will be discharged via a variable speed screw feeder and variable speed rotary airlock feeder through a chute by gravity into the combustor feed bin along with limestone. 7.3.3.2 Limestone Handling System The limestone handling system described in the following sections. Design Criteria The limestone handling equipment will be selected to meet the requirements of the fluidized-bed boiler. Limestone Characteristics The limestone is assumed to be locally supplied. Other high CaCO3 limestones may be substituted with similar resulting flow rate requirements. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-9 Limestone Deliveries The 1" x O limestone will be delivered by 25 ton trucks. The amount of limestone to be delivered to the site is based on the maximum limestone usage required. The 1" x O limestone will be discharged from the delivery truck near the reclaim hopper which is common to the coal handling system. Maximum limestone consumption will be 144 lbs/hr and average consumption will be 84 Ibs/hr. Based on anticipated load, the maximum 45 day consumption will be 55 tons. The limestone deliveries will therefore be scheduled on a one and a half truck per month average basis. This schedule will be adjusted as required based on demand. Limestone Storage Silo The 1" x O limestone will be stored in a steel fabricated silo with a net capacity of 55 tons. This will provide 45 days storage. The limestone storage silo will be fabricated from ASTM A-36 steel. The silo will be 10'-O" diameter x 17' high (straight side) with a conical bottom (29 feet overall height). The conical bottom will have a 70 degree sloping side. To further improve discharge flow from the silo, an air cannon and bin activator will also be provided. The silo outlet will have a manual rack and pinion gate. Limestone Handling System Description The limestone will be discharged from truck into a temporary storage pile located near the receiving hopper common to the coal handling system. A front end loader or bobcat will reclaim limestone from the pile and discharge into the receiving hopper. During periods of limestone handling, the crusher hammermills will be changed for limestone crushing. The crusher with the limestone hammermills will reduce the size of the limestone from 1” x 0 to 1/8” x 0. The limestone handling flow path will be the same as that for coal, with the hammermills in the crusher switched to handle limestone instead of coal (a one day per month requirement) and with the exception that at the flop gate, the limestone will be diverted to the limestone storage silo (separate storage of limestone and coal). The limestone will be conveyed from the storage silo via variable speed screw feeder and a variable speed rotary airlock feeder by a gravity chute to the combustor feed bin where the coal and limestone will enter the combustor as a mixture. 7.3.3.3 Ash Handling System Design Criteria The ash collected downstream of the cyclone in a baghouse is considered as fly ash. Bed ash is collected at the bottom of the cyclone and from the combustor bed. The quantity of bed ash generated by the combustor is minimal, approximately 1% of total J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-10 ash generated. The bed ash is accumulated in a 55 gallon drum that can be periodically emptied. For equipment selection and design purpose, 100% of the total ash generated is considered as fly ash. This assumption is based on test results experience. Slight changes in system operation can cause a shift in the split of ash quantities. This design provides adequate margin by assuming 100 percent of the ash as the fly ash system, and less than 5 percent as the bed ash. The design conveying capacity is based on this assumption. Fly Ash System Design Criteria Based on the ash and sulfur content in the coal, the limestone chemistry, Ca/S ratio, and sulfur capture, the fly ash generation rate is approximately 370 lb/hr at full load operation. Fly Ash System Description A rotary valve and screw feeder system will be used to convey fly ash from the baghouse hoppers to the fly ash conditioning system. The baghouse will have a collecting hopper discharging fly ash through a 12 inch slide gate into a fly ash valve. The baghouse will be elevated and include provisions for dry loading the trucks. The baghouse hoppers will be designed to store ash for 24 hours. The system will be complete with local control panel and vent piping to the filter. 7.3.3.4 Ash Conditioning Equipment Residue from the baghouse is conveyed to the ash conditioning silo. A rotary valve and feed screw feeds ash to the Hydrator at a controlled rate. The solids fall through a pool of water at the top of the Hydrator and settle to form a slurry cake. The slurry from the Hydrator is removed at the bottom by an extruder, where the slurry is compressed into pellets. The pellets are conveyed to a dumpster, where they are cured for one or two days before being removed to the outdoor storage area. Once a year (or whenever required), the pellets are reclaimed from the storage area and trucked to the coal mine for disposal. The Hydrator is designed to process 340 Ibs/hr of fly ash. This will require 375 lbs/hr (0.75 gpm) of water. The Hydrator is an exclusive design of Wormser Systems, Inc. 7.3.4 BALANCE OF PLANT SYSTEMS 7.3.4.1 Steam Turbine Generator Set The steam turbine selected for this application is a dual series model consisting of two turbines connected to a common, double shafted generator. Each turbine independently handles a different steam path to efficiently extract power and deliver process steam to the district heat system. The smaller turbine rated at approximately 750 kW (shaft) is a back-pressure type turbine exhausting at approximately 40 psia J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-11 (25 psig). The exhaust steam is used in an in-plant heat exchanger to generate the district heating hot water. The larger, more efficient turbine rated at approximately 750 kW (shaft) is a condensing type turbine and is sized to handle the full 100 percent load should the back-pressure turbine be inoperable. The condensing turbine expands the steam to approximately 3" HgA where it exhausts to a water/glycol cooled condenser. Turbine steam conditions are as follows: Flow Temperature Pressure (PPH) (Deg, F) Inlet Steam 19,642 500 200 psig Condensing Turbine Steam 7,866 500 200 psig Exhaust Steam 7,866 115 3 in HgA Backpressure Turbine Steam11,775 500 200 psig Exhaust Steam Li7is 324 25 psig For performance and cost estimation a Coppus Murray Model K2G7, 8 stage design, operating at 5,300 RPM was selected. The steam turbine package includes the following: Stainless steel nozzles Trip valve Mechanical overspeed trip system Kingsbury tilting pad thrust bearing Sleeve type journal bearings Bearing Lubrication System Turbine bearings are lubricated by a pressurized oil lubrication system. The system is complete with shaft driven oil pump, auxiliary oil pump, oil coolers, oil filters, valves, instruments, reservoir, and piping. Speed Reducer A Lufkin parallel shaft speed reducer is supplied. Base Plate The turbine, speed reducer, and generator will be mounted on a common heavy structural steel base plate. Turbine Control J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-12 The turbine control system has complete automatic synchronizing capability and consists of the following: Woodward 505 Microprocessor based turbomachinery controller Woodward TA20 P actuator with Murray power cylinder Gauge board with steam indicators for inlet, first stage, extraction, and exhaust steam. Electronic pressure transmitters. Magnetic pickup. 7.3.4.2 Condensate and Feedwater Systems The function of the condensate system is to condense the turbine exhaust and transfer the condensate from the condenser hotwell to the deaerator. Surface Condenser The steam turbine is directly connected to a surface condenser operating at 3 in Hga. The condenser is two pass designed for a cooling medium flow of 1200 GPM ata temperature rise of 20°F. Condenser is built in conformance with ASME code, with admiralty brass tubes and steel shell and tube sheets. The condenser is mounted on a self supporting skid with all accessories factory mounted and piped. The complete package includes: Control panel Air removal package 1 minute hotwell Exhaust silencer Atmospheric relief valve Two 100% condensate pumps Inlet expansion joint The function of the feedwater system is to transfer feedwater from the deaerator through the boiler and economizer. The system consists of two 100% capacity motor driven boiler feed pumps and one condensing deaerator. The deaerator is provided with inlet/outlet isolation valves. The deaerator is a combined feedwater storage tank, feedwater preheater and oxygen removal system. The storage tank is ASME construction and is equipped with safety relief valve, level controls, and the water steam spray assembly. The return condensate from the condensate pumps enters the deaerator where it is preheated, oxygen is removed and stored as boiler feedwater. The feedwater pump is of the centrifugal type and is designed to operate at 240°F water temperature and at high pressure for boiler applications. The feedwater pump is designed with special impellers, seals and shafts. The pump is mounted directly below the deaerator. The feedwater pump is equipped with a 20 hp electric motor. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-13 The amount of feedwater circulating through the economizer and the boiler will be determined by a feedwater control valve located at the feedwater pump discharge. Full load feedwater flow will be approximately 22,000 lb/hr. Feedwater flows through the economizer where heat will be extracted from the boiler exhaust gases, the feedwater temperature will rise and the exhaust gas temperature decrease after which it is delivered to the boiler. 7.3.4.3 Condensate Cooling System The purpose of the condensate cooling system is to provide cooling medium to the condenser. Cooling medium for the condenser will be a mixture of 50% water and 50% ethylene glycol entering at 85°F. Air Cooled Glycol Cooler and Controls The cooler will be designed in accordance with ASME code, Section VIII. It will consist of the following: One set of tube bundles made up of horizontal carbon steel tubes with aluminum fins located on top of a supporting structure and air plenum. Two axial fans. Temperature control system with PLC controller and sensors. Complete freeze protection package for winter operation. The cooler will be located next to the plant air intake openings to utilize the heat rejected by the cooler to heat the incoming air. Air Cooled Condenser and Controls An alternate scheme is available to the designer, which entails a direct cooling of the condensing steam by a tempered outside air stream. This concept, termed an “air cooled condenser” is used in other parts of central Alaska where winter temperatures drop very low, and can offer potential savings in operating costs. Such an approach will be similar in cost to the glycol heat exchanger concept. The decision of which approach to apply is left to the project designer. 7.3.4.4 Diesel Generator and Black Start Procedures A new diesel generator will be installed at the power plant to be a central element in providing a true in-plant black start capability, and to provide power during peak demand periods when electric demand exceeds the steam turbine generator output. It is anticipated that the diesel generator will operate as a peaking unit only at demand periods during the coldest winter months representing approximately 3% of annual load demand. As discussed in the body of the report, this generator would need to be employed in a black start process as follows: J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-14 1. All power is lost, both steam turbines kick off line and spin down. 2. Operators ensure that all breakers are open, and proceed to start the diesel. 3. Motor control centers and lighting panels are brought on line to restore lights and plant power, and to start purge cycle fans for the combustor and the oil fired boiler. 4. The oil fired boiler is lit off, and header steam rate is increased to restart the condensing turbine, which is then paralleled with the diesel. The coal fired combustor is then started up at low load in parallel with the oil fired boiler. 5. Header steam is desuperheated to pressurize the 25 psig header, and primary district heat circulating pumps are restared. 6. Using remote start capability, one of the existing plant prime movers are started up and placed on line, and after warmed up, town load is picked up feeder by feeder. Note that an alternative approach would be to pick up loads with the 750 Kwe condensing steam turbine in conjunction with the oil fired boiler. This is possible, especially where town loads are not large, however, such a large increase in load is bound to cause instability problems in the boiler water level and as such probably should not be depended upon for basic operations design. 7. As loads stabilize, the second backpressure steam turbines is brought back on line and the two diesels are secured and after cooldown are shut down. The diesel generator is a Caterpillar, Inc. Model 3304 rated at 125. The generator and associated auxiliary equipment are skid mounted and come complete with the following: 2400V Generator Controls Radiator Connections Muffler Connection Fuel Line Hookup 7.3.4.5 Water Treatment System Potential Water Sources Three potential water sources were considered -- river water, on-site well water, and city water. Analyses of the river water and typical well water are included in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. City water is treated river water which is distributed in the city of McGrath. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table NORTHERN TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 3330 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 (907) 456-3116 - FAX 456-3125 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 277-8378 + FAX 274-9645 Doyon Limited Report Date: 07/30/94 201 First Avenue Fairbanks AK 99701 Date Arrived: 07/25/94 Date Sampled: 07/25/94 Time Sampled: 0700 Attn: Mr. Phillips Collected By: = MDL = Method Detection Limit Our Lab #: F140471 * Flag Definitions Location/Project: McGrath B = Below Regulatory Min. Your Sample ID: River H = Above Regulatory Max. Sample Matrix: Water Comments: Date Date Method Parameter Units Results * MDL Prepared Analyzed EPA 150.1 pH at 25 C Unit e.2 07/26/94 EPA 160.1 Total Dissolved Solids mg/1 182 1 07/29/94 EPA 160.2 Total Suspended Solids mg/l 210 5.6 07/28/94 EPA 180.1 Turbidity NTU 110 0.02 07/27/94 EPA 200.7 Aluminum mg/l 1053 0.061 07/26/94 07/26/94 Barium mg/l 0.237 0.007 07/26/94 07/26/94 Calcium mg/l 49.1 0.019 07/26/94 07/26/94 Iron mg/l 9.74 0.011 07/26/94 07/26/94 Magnesium mg/l 15.4 0.019 07/26/94 07/26/94 Manganese mg/l 0.234 0.006 07/26/94 07/26/94 Potassium mg/1 4.22 0.51 07/26/94 07/26/94 Silicon mg/l 23-3 0.056 07/26/94 07/26/94 Sodium mg/1 3.46 0.078 07/26/94 07/26/94 Strontium mg/1 0.345 0.009 07/26/94 07/26/94 EPA 300.0 Chloride mg/l 0.50 0.06 07/26/94 Nitrate-N mg/l 0.10 0.03 07/26/94 Sulfate mg/l 63.9 1.30 07/26/94 EPA 310.1 Alkalinity as Caco3 mg/l 110 2 07/26/94 Bicarbonate Alkalinity (as mg/l 110 a 07/26/94 Caco3) mg/l Lo! 0.5 07/26/94 Table 7— (Cont'd) NORTHERN TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 3330 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 (907) 456-3116 « FAX 456-3125 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 277-8378 « FAX 274-9645 Doyon Limited Report Date: 07/27/94 201 First Avenue Fairbanks AK 99701 Date Arrived: 07/25/94 Date Sampled: 07/25/94 Time Sampled: 0700 Attn: Mr. Phillips Collected By: - MDL = Method Detection Limit Our Lab #: F140473 * Flag Definitions Location/Project: McGrath B = Below Regulatory Min. Your Sample ID: River-Dissolved H = Above Regulatory Max. Sample Matrix: Water Comments: Date Date Method Parameter Units Results * MDL Prepared Analyzed EPA 200.7 Silicon mg/l 3.47 0.056 07/26/94 07/26/94 L =~ < & § Table 7- R ' =. > NORTHERN TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 3330 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 (907) 456-3116 - FAX 456-3125 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 277-8378 - FAX 274-9645 Doyon Limited Report Date: 07/30/94 201 First Avenue Fairbanks AK 99701 Date Arrived: 07/25/94 Date Sampled: 07/25/94 Time Sampled: 0700 Attn: Mr. Phillips Collected By: - MDL = Method Detection Limit Our Lab #: F140470 * Flag Definitions Location/Project: McGrath B = Below Regulatory Min. Your Sample ID: Well H = Above Regulatory Max. Sample Matrix: Water Comments: Date Date Method Parameter Units Results * MDL Prepared Analyzed EPA 150.1 pH at 25 C Unit Val 07/26/94 EPA 160.1 Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 744 4H a 07/29/94 EPA 160.2 Total Suspended Solids mg/l 4.0 2.0 07/28/94 EPA 180.1 Turbidity NTU 23 0.02 07/27/94 EPA 200.7 Aluminum mg/l <MDL 0.061 07/26/94 07/26/94 Barium mg/l 0.401 0.007 07/26/94 07/26/94 Calcium mg/l 200 0.189 07/26/94 07/26/94 Iron mg/l Si.27; 0.011 07/26/94 07/26/94 Magnesium mg/l 26.9 0.019 07/26/94 07/26/94 Manganese mg/l 7.23 0.006 07/26/94 07/26/94 Potassium mg/l 2.94 0.51 07/26/94 07/26/94 Silicon mg/l 6.9 0.056 07/26/94 07/26/94 Sodium mg/l 4.97 0.078 07/26/94 07/26/94 Strontium mg/l Lek? 0.009 07/26/94 07/26/94 EPA 300.0 Chloride mg/l 2.32 0532 07/26/94 Nitrate-N mg/l 2a2d 0.06 07/26/94 Sulfate mg/l Zia 0.65 07/26/94 EPA 310.1 Alkalinity as Caco3 mg/l 637 1 07/26/94 Bicarbonate Alkalinity (as mg/l 637 2 07/26/94 caco3) EPA 415.1 Toval oO: ic Carbon mg/l 6.8 0.5 07/26/94 4 oof 27 Table 7— (Cont'd) NORTHERN TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 3330 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 pect, Ne FAX 456-3125 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA $9503 (907) 277-8378 + FAX 274-9645 Doyon Limited Report Date: 07/27/94 201 First Avenue Fairbanks AK 99701 Date Arrived: 07/25/94 Date Sampled: 07/25/94 Time Sampled: 0700 Attn: Mr. Phillips Collected By: - MDL = Method Detection Limit Our Lab #: F140472 * Flag Definitions Location/Project: McGrath B = Below Regulatory Min. Your Sample ID: Well-Dissolved H = Above Regulatory Max. Sample Matrix: Water Comments: Date Date Method Parameter Units Results * MDL Prepared Analyzed EPA 200.7 Silicon mg/1 6.76 0.056 07/26/94 07/26/94 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-19 Analyses show that the river water is high in turbidity (110 NTU), total suspended solids (210 mg/1), and metals such as iron (9.74 mg/l) and aluminum (10.3 mg/1). It is reported that this is typical of the river during the warmer months as ice melting contributes to high river flow, and therefore high turbidity. River water also contains a moderate amount of silicon (23.3 mg/l with 3.5 mg/1 dissolved), hardness (186 mg/1 as CaCo3), and alkalinity (110 mg/1 CaCO3). Analyses show that well water, while low in total suspended solids (4 mg/1), is high in total dissolved solids (744 mg/l), hardness (610 mg/1 as CaCO3), and alkalinity (637 mg/l as CaCO3). Metals such as iron (5.27 mg/1) and aluminum (below detection limit), and silicon (6.9 mg/1 with 6.8 mg/1 dissolved) are lower than river water. City water is river water which has been treated to remove suspended solids and reduce metals concentrations. City water also has been disinfected for potable use. For this study, city water was selected as the primary source, well water was chosen as the backup plant water source.. Water Supply System Water will be supplied from the city service, nominally rated at 30 gpm and 50 psig. However, expected daily water requirements will be less than1.0 gpm average. The water will provide plant service water, boiler makeup water and potable water. Water will be stored in a nominal 300 gallon pressurized tank which will supply the plant service water system consisting of hose stations for wash downs. Water will also be provided to the boiler makeup water treatment system and the potable water system. Boiler Makeup Water System Steam rate is approximately 18,000 pounds per hour or equivalent to 36 gpm. All steam condensate is to be returned to the boiler. Boiler makeup water rate will be 2.5 gpm or less based on 2% or less steam losses and approximately 1 gpm boiler blowdown to control boiler water quality. Makeup water treatment equipment will be sized for 3,600 gallons per day capacity (2.5 gpm @ 24 hours). However, the treatment system will be operated at a higher flowrate to fill a treated water storage tank of nominally 1,500 gallons. Treated water pumps will periodically add treated water to the deaerator based on deaerator storage tank level. Based on water analysis, the treatment system will consist of ion exchange softening and dealkalization. Two trains of equipment will be provided for redundancy. The softeners and dealkalizers will be regenerated with brine from a brine dissolving tank. Salt will be manually added to the brine tank from bags. A small caustic solution tank and metering pump will also be provided for regeneration of the dealkalizer. Regeneration wastes will be sent to the plant wastewater treatment system. Potable Water System J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-20 McGrath city water will supply all potable water requirements. In-plant tank storage will be provided to account for potential supply interruptions.. Boiler Chemical Feed Systems Two boiler chemical feed systems will be provided, one a sodium sulfite solution system for oxygen scavenging, and one a phosphate/blend solution for scale control. Each system will consist of a solution tank with mixer and dual metering pumps. Solutions will be made up manually. Water Treatment Chemical Storage Water treatment chemicals such as salt, caustic, hypochlorite, sulfite, phosphate, etc. will be provided in bags, drums or carboys. Sufficient quantity of chemical will be provided for at least three months supply. Sampling System A water and steam sampling system will be provided to determine water and steam quality from strategic points throughout the cycle to determine effectiveness of treatment. 7.3.4.6 Wastewater Treatment System Industrial wastewater from plant operations will be collected, treated in an on-site system, and discharged to the city water treatment facility. Wastewater sources include miscellaneous in-plant drains, water treatment wastes, contaminated yard | drains, and material storage area runoff from coal, limestone, and ash storage areas. The system design assumes that flow equalization capacity will be provided for yard drains and material storage area runoff to substantially reduce peak flow rates. Estimated maximum design flow rate is 27 gpm. Effluent limitations will be established in a Part I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which will be obtained by application to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The treatment system will be designed to meet USEPA effluent limitations established for the steam electric power generating point source category under 40CFR Part 423. The treatment system will also be designed to meet water quality-based effluent limitations resulting from application of the Alaska Water Quality Standards. The system is a conventional approach of pH adjustments. Filtration is an option if experience indicates that a higher degree of suspended solids removal is required to meet effluent heavy metal concentrations. Wastewater from the raw waste sump will be pumped to the agitated first stage neutralization tank at a 27 gpm rate. Wastewater pH will be adjusted to approximately 6.0 in this tank by the addition of sodium hydroxide. The wastewater will then flow to the second stage neutralization tank, where additional sodium hydroxide will be added to increase the pH to approximately 8.5. Feeding of sodium J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-21 hydroxide to each tank will be controlled by pH cells in the respective tanks. Each neutralization tank will have a capacity of 110 gallons, providing 15 minutes retention time each at the design flow of 27 gpm. Potential effluent limitations on heavy metals may require the system to be operated at pH 10.0, instead of 8.5. This would be provided by adjusting the pH setpoints in the first and second stage neutralization tanks. As a result, a final pH adjustment tank will be provided to lower the pH to within the effluent limits of 6.0 to 9.0. Adjustment of pH will be provided by addition of sulfuric acid. Tank capacity of 40 gallons will provide 5 minutes retention time. 7.3.4.7 Heating and Ventilation Heat generated by the boiler will provide normal heating for the boiler room. An exhaust system will transfer warm boiler air into the turbine building, auxiliary boiler room, and fan building to provide heat to these areas. Backup and auxiliary heating will be supplied by unit heaters located throughout the power plant. Ventilation, when required will be accomplished by exhaust fans mounted in the buildings to provide air movement. 7.3.4.8 Air Preheater Coils The possibility of extremely low ambient air temperatures (-60°F) requires the installation of primary air preheater coils. The low temperatures can cause mechanical failure of equipment and freezing problems in the boiler. The coils will be installed in the air intake of the combustion air fans. The air preheater system will consist of air to water/glycol heating coils, transfer pump, steam to water/glycol heat exchanger and all piping and controls. 7.3.4.9 Fire Protection The fire protection system consists of a combination of hose stations, wet sprinkler systems, preaction systems, and detectors. The wet sprinkler system is installed throughout the boiler and coal and storage handling areas. The preaction systems are installed at the turbine generator bearings and lube system. Source of water for the fire protection is the McGrath City water system, and it is envisioned that fire flows would be provided from the City of McGrath system. Hose stations are installed throughout the plant and fire extinguishers will also be installed throughout the plant. Smoke detectors will be installed in appropriate locations. The above is a description of a basic fire protection system to be used for cost estimating. The fire protection system design must be reviewed for compliance to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and state and local fire codes during actual design of the system. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-22 7.3.4.10 Auxiliary Boiler An oil fired auxiliary boiler is furnished to provide backup to the coal combustor and district heating system. The boiler will provide backup steam if the power plant is required to shut down and unable to furnish steam for the turbines and district heating system. In addition, it will provide back-up space heating within the plant should main cycle system operation be interrupted. The boiler is a Cleaver Brooks Model or equivalent packaged steam boiler rated at 10 MMBtu. The boiler utilizes No. 1 fuel oil as fuel. It is a four-pass, horizontal, fire tube boiler. The following items are included with the boiler: hot water connections, dip tube, low water cut off, pressure and temperature gauges, ASME code safety relief valves, temperature controls. Also included are main power fusible disconnection switch, control circuit transformer, alarm bell, combustion safeguard control, fuel oil pump set, and blend pump. An indoor 500 gallon fuel oil day tank will also be included for serving both the auxiliary boiler and the diesel generator. 7.3.5 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 7.3.5.1 Main Electrical Power Source The total connected electrical load of the Fluidized-Bed Facility is estimated to be approximately 300 kVA. Taking into account the operating status of the various electrical loads, it is our estimate that the facility will require approximately 155 kW of auxiliary power to operate, as defined in Table 7-3. The source of the main supply will be a tap between the load side of the generator breaker and the step-down transformer. (The most probable location will be at the generator breaker, so that minimal changes will be necessary when the transmission system is increased from 2400 volts to 4160 volts.) The tap will be connected to a fused disconnect switch which, in turn will feed a 225 kVA, 3 phase, 4160 to 480 volt outdoor transformer. The low side of the transformer will supply a motor control center. This motor control center will be the source of power for the Fluidized-Bed Facility. It will supply all the auxiliary load, shown in Table 7-3, for the boiler, turbine-generator, and the physical plant. The output of the steam generator will be transmitted through the generator breaker to an approximately 1000 kVA 4160-2400 volt transformer. (This transformer will be removed when the transmission system is upgraded to 4160 volt system) The output of the transformer will be connected to a two breaker “medium voltage switchgear”. The line side of the medium voltage circuit breakers will be connected to the transmission lines. An additional set of “medium voltage switchgear” will be installed at the existing generating station to upgrade the existing transmission line “switchgear”. The output of the diesel generator will be transmitted through the motor control center at 480V. The generator and its excitation and regulation equipment will be designed to operate synchronized with one or more of the existing McGrath Light and Power generators or to supply the entire City of McGrath's load by itself. The method of operating the generator will be determined by McGrath Light and Power depending on the system J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. TABLE 7- AFBC POWER PLANT LOAD LIST P ITEM | —__-LOADDESCRIPTION | ~—OHP__—i|:« OPERHP | pt |PrimaryAirFantCi‘dSC(;S:SCCiéi [2 Cooling Bed Fan] 10] 7 | 3 LiftChannelFan CT CST Po 4 D.Fan nn tC‘idT:C(S:SC CD sa__s[ReagentFan 8 (‘C$SLSOOOCédSC(;‘CWCCC‘*zC sb_s*[Bed Material ReinjectionFan | CTC sc__—*([BaghouseFlyashReinjectionFan | STC Sd____—*|Boiler/Economizer Fly Ash ReinjectionFan [| SC se___—([Baghouse ReinjectionRotaryValve [| CTC Total ofitems5[ 25] — 17.5) pressor Materials Handling Systems Reclaim Hopper Screw Conveyor Continuous Bucket Elevator Coal Bin Screw Feeder Limestone Bin Screw Feeder Bucket Elevator Coal/Limestone Crusher Coal/Limestone Rotary Valve Spare Crusher (Optiona Bin Vent Filters (2 operationa Flyash Rotary Valve Ash Conditioning Screw Conveyor iti Equipment Flyash Dry Unloading Spout Glycol Air Cooler Fan 1 Glycol Air Cooler Fan 2 Circulating Water Pump Condensate Pump 1 ondensate Pump 2 oiler Feed Pump 1 oiler Feed Pump 2 ransfer Pump 1 Transfer Pump 2 Economizer Sootblowers (2 Operational) Ventilation Loads 31 Lighting and Miscelaneous Electrical Load District Heat Pump 1 District Heat Pump 2 7 11 14 15 17 24 Blo & = 9° ° s 3 a = o Ss @ oO 27 S = ° MO} JUL, ~ NI si} fala N b ES TOTAL CONNECTED HP TOTAL OPERATING HP 208.11 CONNECTED/OPERATING KW 271.02 155.25 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-24 electrical loading conditions and the heating requirements. The recommended loading would be to base load this generator with one of the diesel generators either very lightly loaded, or in a standby position. Since the source of the electrical supply to the Fluidized-Bed Facility is from the transmission lines through the stepdown transformer, the existing diesel-generators from McGrath Light and Power will provide the necessary backup auxiliary power when the Fluidized-Bed Facility is not generating electricity. This will be accomplished through the medium voltage switchgear breakers supplying the transmission lines at the Fluidized-Bed Facility. When the Fluidized-Bed Facility is not "on line,” the power to supply the City of McGrath, will come from the existing McGrath Light and Power facility, as is the present situation. The Fluidized-Bed Facility, when not generating electricity, will assume the posture of a "commercial user" via the medium voltage switchgear from a transmission line. 7.3.5.2 Electrical Codes and Standards The following codes and standards were considered and will be utilized in the detailed design: ° NFPA70 National Electric Code e NEMA Electrical Equipment Construction Standards e UL Electrical Equipment Design Standards e IES Lighting Systems Design Standards e ANSIElectrical Equipment and Design Standards e IEEE Electrical System Design Standards e ASTM Electrical Material Standards 7.3.5.3 Electrical Materials and Methods 1. General Equipment utilized in the power distribution system will be in conformance with ANSI, IEEE, NEMA, and UL standards. Design and installation will be in conformance with NFPA standards. 2. Raceways a. Rigid conduit: Galvanized steel for all feeders, all exposed runs less than eight feet above floor, all embedded in concrete or underground. b. EMT may be used for branch circuits and communications raceways up to one inch size. Compression connectors and couplings for all EMT. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-25 c. PVC Schedule 40: Service entrance raceways for power and communications. d. Flexible conduit for connections to motors, transformers and other equipment subject to vibration. Liquidtight for damp or wet locations. Bonding jumpers as required. e. Cable Tray: Cable tray will be used where economically feasible. Cable tray will be ladder type galvanized steel appropriately sized for the application. 3. Conductors a. 5 kV Class Service and Feeders: Single conductor stranded, 133 percent insulation level, shielded - Type EPR or Type CCLP. b. 600 Volt Class Feeders, Branch Circuits, Control Circuits and Alarm Circuits: Type THWN (or THHN) stranded for #10 AWG and smaller, Type THW stranded for #8 AWG and larger. c. Communications Circuits: Special cables as required by the system; telephone, computer, etc. d. Conductor material: Copper for all conductors. e. Splices and Terminations: 1. 5kV Class: Premolded rubber splice and termination kits specifically designed for the conductors installed. 2. 600 volt Class: UL-type factory fabricated metal connectors and lugs. 4. Boxes and Fittings a. Outlet boxes: Galvanized steel for concealed work, cast metal for exposed work. b. Junction and pull boxes: Galvanized steel with screw-on flat covers. 5. Wiring Devices a. Receptacles: Grounding type duplex, 20 Ampere, 125 volt specification grade - NEMA 5-20R. b. Special Outlets: Single heavy-duty receptacle of poles and rating required. 6. Grounding J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-26 Grounding methods will be in accordance with 1996 edition of National Electric Code except that raceways will not be considered as the grounding conductor. All raceways will be provided with a separate equipment grounding conductor. 7.3.5.4 Service and Distribution This section specifies the service entrance, switchboards, panelboards, transformers, fuses, and motor control equipment. Design and installation will be in conformance with applicable codes. All motors in this facility are smaller than 100 hp and will be served at 480 volts. The magnitude of current flow is not severe, and insulation requirements are substantially less. The proposed system includes a building supply voltage of 4160 volts, stepped down to 480 volts for the motors. To provide 120 volts for lighting, receptacles, and miscellaneous small power loads, small transformers rated 480 to 208/120 volt, 3-phase, will be furnished. Transformers insulated with mineral oil are generally the least expensive type. However, oil-immersed transformers need to be located outside the building with oil containment or in a fire-resistant vault for safety reasons. It is more economical to utilize dry, air-cooled transformers when the primary voltage already exists inside the building. Any cost advantage for oil-filled units is more than offset by the cost of a vault or oil containment. Liquid-filled transformers using modern, less flammable fluids and completely sealed dry transformers are considerably more expensive than dry-type ventilated units and are usually used only where environmental contamination is a major concern. The step-down transformer is recommended to be the air-cooled, ventilated dry type, because it eliminates the need for a vault and can be located indoors. Where numerous low-voltage motors are located in a building, motor control centers (MCCs) are utilized for motor starting and power distribution. MCCs are normally utilized for motor starting. An MCC is a steel enclosure with plug-in compartments for the individual combination starters. For small motors, up to six starters can be located in a single vertical section that is 20 inches wide and 15 inches deep. The advantages are a saving in wall space (compared to mounting individual starters connected to a trough) and the ease of replacing a starter that needs maintenance or repair. Low voltage combination motor starters are available with either fused switches or circuit breakers as a means of disconnection and over current (short circuit) protection for the motor and the associated wiring. Starters with circuit breakers are recommended to prevent the possibility of single phasing and to avoid the necessity of maintaining a supply of spare fuses. The most commonly used power wiring method for power plant facilities utilizes insulated conductors in metal raceways; rigid steel conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable tray. Experience has shown this system to have a high degree of reliability at a moderate cost. This is the method that will be utilized in the facility. Initial cost savings can often be realized by using aluminum conductors rather than copper conductors in the larger sizes at both the 5 kV and 600 volt levels. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-27 Disadvantages of aluminum are that the conductors must be larger than copper to achieve the same current-carrying capacity thereby requiring larger raceways, and that aluminum terminations require greater care and maintenance to prevent failures. Therefore, copper conductors are recommended because of the need for high reliability. The boiler turbine/ generator will have a large number of indicating and protection devices that require associated control wiring. These low-voltage control cables could be run in conduits or in exposed cable tray. For reasons of economy and flexibility, a system comprising of both conduit and cable trays is recommended. Design choices are summarized as follows: 1. Medium Voltage Switchgear a. The medium voltage switchgear shall consist of an outdoor non-walk-in enclosure containing circuit breakers and the necessary accessory components. The assembly shall be a self-supporting and pad mounted on a level concrete pad. The Design Voltage shall be 5 kV nominal. b. Each circuit breaker compartment shall be designed to house a horizontal drawout metal-clad circuit breaker 2. Incoming Service a. Primary main switch rated 100 amperes with current limiting fuses. b. Primary Transformer: 225 kVA air-cooled dry type mounted in a ventilated NEMA 12 enclosure - factory connected to primary switch. 4160 volt delta primary, 480 volt grounded wye secondary. Transformer will be furnished with 4 - 2 1/2% taps, 2 above and 2 below nominal primary voltage. 3. Transformers a. General purpose ventilated dry-type, 80 degrees C rise, 480 volt delta primary, 120/208 volt wye secondary, standard taps. b. Two 15 kVA transformers for separate mounting. One 10 kVA transformer mounted within motor control center. 4. Panelboards Dead front NEMA 1 enclosure with bolt-on, single pole and two pole molded case circuit breakers, with thermal-magnetic trips. Panelboards will be equipped with ground bus. 5. Motor Controls J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-28 a. Circuit breaker type combination magnetic starters in low voltage motor control center for 480 volt motors. Motor control centers will conform to NEMA Standards with NEMA type B wiring. Starters located in MCC will control 480 volt motors from 1 to 100 HP. b. Manual starters, wall mounted, for single phase 120 volt motors. 6. Wiring Materials and Methods a. Insulated conductors in metal raceways. b. Copper conductors. ce. Control wiring run in conduit/cable tray. 7.3.5.5 Lighting Systems Design of interior lighting systems including exit and emergency lighting will be in accordance with IES recommendations. Installation will be in conformance with the National Electric Code and National Electric Safety Code. 1. Exit Signs: Minimum six-inch red letters, with minimum 3/4-inch stroke stencil face, down light panels, two lamps - 50,000-hour lamp life, self contained emergency battery source. 2. Battery-powered Emergency Units: Self-contained lead-acid type with charger and quartz lamps. 3. Lamps: Fluorescent: F40, energy saving, cool white. Incandescent: As required for specific luminaire, 120 volt. High Pressure Sodium or Metal Halide lighting fixtures will be used in areas where general lighting is required. Repair and maintenance work areas will be provided with task lighting. 4. Ballasts: Fluorescent: High power factor, Class P automatic reset, energy saving type. High Pressure Sodium or Metal Halide: To suit lamp operating characteristics. 5. Lighting Control: Offices and Control Rooms: Local switching. Boiler and Compressor Area: Switched at panelboard by circuit breaker. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-29 6. Lighting Levels: Based upon reasonable conformity to IES recommendations and operating requirements. The design maintained light levels as follows: Work Area Footcandles Control Room 75 Boiler Area 20 Note: Parabolic fixtures to minimize glaze on VDT screens plus switching control to provide three light levels (25/50/75 FC). The common types of lighting sources are incandescent, fluorescent, mercury vapor, metal halide, high-pressure sodium, and low-pressure sodium. Incandescent fixtures are very inefficient and have short lamp life. They are normally used only for aesthetic reasons or where a fixture will not remain energized for long periods of time. Low-pressure sodium fixtures are very efficient, but their mono-chromatic (yellow) color characteristics make them unsuitable for most applications. Fluorescent fixtures are most commonly used in areas with low ceilings because of their low glare and high level of comfort. The HID family of lamps (mercury, vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium) are most often used outdoors, or indoors when the spaces have high ceilings. Of the three, mercury vapor is the least efficient, metal halide has the shortest lamp life, and high-pressure sodium is the most efficient but produces a yellowish color. Because color discrimination is not considered to be of high importance in the turbine/ generator and boiler area, high pressure sodium (HPS) fixtures are recommended in those locations. Fluorescent fixtures are recommended in the other indoor locations, with parabolic lamps used for glare reduction in rooms with CRT screens. Exterior fixtures are recommended to be metal halide. Incandescent and fluorescent fixtures can be readily controlled by local manual snap switches, because their full light output is reached almost immediately. HID fixtures require a warm-up period, and if they are momentarily de-energized, they require an even longer period to restart and reach full illumination levels. Therefore, the control of the HPS lights in the compressor and boiler area should be protected against inadvertent operation. It is likely that they will remain energized 24 hours a day. Exterior lights should be controlled automatically by photocells or time switches for reasons of economy, and also for preventing the re-strike problem. To guard against the problem of re-strike time after a momentary outage of the power supply system, some of the HPS fixtures in the fluidized-bed facility will be equipped with auxiliary incandescent quartz lamps that are controlled to be energized during the re-strike and warm-up time of the main lamps. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-30 Emergency lighting can be powered by a standby generator set, a central battery source, or by distributed battery units located in the related lighting fixtures. The size and nature of facility does not appear to justify the expense of a standby generator set or a central battery system. Therefore, this report recommends the use of self-contained emergency lighting units which include the batteries, controls, and lamp heads all in one package. 7.3.5.6 Remote Indication Since the Fluidized-Bed Facility will require generation backup, provisions for starting and loading the existing diesel-generators presently installed at the McGrath Light and Power facility will be made within the control room of the Fluidized-Bed Facility. Indication of volts, amps, kilowatts, frequency and power factor will be transmitted for each diesel generator to the Fluidized-Bed Facility and will be displayed in the Facility control room. 7.3.6 STRUCTURES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS The powerhouse is designed as a rigid framed steel structure to provide an open area inside the building allowing for maximum versatility in the arrangement of the boiler and related equipment. The turbine/generator building is also steel framed and will tie into the rigid framed boilerhouse structure. All buildings have flat roofs (at different elevations), decked with steel ribbed decking covered with insulation and built-up roofing. The building exterior will be sheathed in insulated metal siding with thermal break construction throughout. Design Criteria Earthquake - Zone 2 Flood Plan requirements at 4 ft above ground level Wind (Minimum basic) - 90 m.p.h. Occupancy Importance FactorI- 1.15 Snow Exposure Coefficient - Use 0.9 (locals advise very little wind in winter - snow remains where it falls) Snowfall - Use 160" (snow referred to as light - use 12": snow 1" water) = 70 p.s.f. Ground Snow Load Roof snow load - Ibs per square foot (p.s.f.) - 70 x 0.9 x 1.15 = 72.5 p.s.f. Access to Site - 300 Ton Barge Limestone availability - local. Site is not on perma-frost. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-31 Materials, Codes and Standards Steel Structures All structural steel shall conform to ASTM A36. Shop connections shall be welded or high-strength bolted using A325 bolts. Field connections shall be bolted with ASTM A325 high strength bolts. All structural steel shall be shop painted with inorganic zinc. All platform grating shall be galvanized steel grating with a minimum depth of 1-1/4 inches. Foundations Foundations for the building will be conventional spread footings for all building supports, built on thawed inorganic foundation soils, with a minimum of 4 feet of non-frost susceptible compactible gravel resting on undisturbed native soils free of high moisture content or organics. Floor slabs will be 6 inch thick reinforced poured concrete, and a perimeter reinforced concrete footing wall will also be provided. Insulation will be placed vertically along this perimeter wall. The finished floor of the power plant will be built up approximately four feet about surrounding ground surfaces to be at or above the 100 year flood level. The finished floor of the coal unloading area will be 8 feet above existing ground level, to allow the inlet to the crusher to be at the correct height for coal handling operations. Concrete and Reinforcing Steel All concrete shall be air-entrained and have a 28 day strength of 3000 psi. Reinforcing steel shall comply with ASTM A615, Grade 60. General All structures, stairways, platforms, ladders, handrail, means of ingress and egress, etc., shall conform to the requirements of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSHA). Codes and Standards The following codes and standards shall apply: American Society of Civil Engineers, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE 7-93. American Institute of Steel Construction, "Specification for Structural Steel Buildings" and the AISC "Code of Standard Practice. "Specification for Structural Joints using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts. American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1, "Structural Welding Code." J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-32 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 301, "Specification for Structural Concrete for Buildings." Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 7.3.7 MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS Work covered by this Section will include mechanical systems, insulation, controls and testing of systems incorporated into the construction of the Facility. These outline specifications follow the CSI format for mechanical systems and list the individual pieces of equipment by systems. Certain sections within the outline specifications will cover more than one specific type of equipment. To find each piece of equipment, first identify the mechanical system to which the equipment relates. Neola Mechanical Specifications Sections Section 15050 Basic Mechanical Materials and Methods Section 15205 Turbine Generators Section 15250 Mechanical Insulation Section 15300 Fire Protection Section 15480 Compressed Air Section 15555 Boilers Section 15750 Heat Transfer (District Heating) Section 15950 Controls Section 15990 Testing, Adjusting and Balancing 7.3.7.2 References The latest edition of the following codes, standards, and specifications shall govern work to be performed: ANSI American National Standards Institute ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials ISA Instrument Society of America MSS Military Standard J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-33 NEC National Electric Code NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NFPA National Fire Protection Association UL Underwriters Laboratory UBC Uniform Building Code UFC Uniform Fire Code UMC Uniform Mechanical Code UPC Uniform PlumbingCode 7.3.7.3. Description Section 15050 Basic Mechanical Materials and Methods 12 General: This section specifies the basic requirements for mechanical materials and installation methods common to all sections within the Facility. Included in this section are pipe, pipe fittings, pipe specialties, valves, gauges, pipe hangers, pipe supports, anchors, and specific pipe identification and color coding. Also covered in this section are electrical requirements for common motors furnished as part of a mechanical equipment package. Refer to Electrical Section for special motors. Steam: a. Pipe: Seamless steel, Schedule 40 or 80, ASTM A53 or A106, butt-welded joints. b. Fittings: Forged steel, ANSI B16.11. c. Supports: Roller assembly, MSS Type 41 and 43. d. Valves: Steel, 150 lb. e. Identification: Orange. Condensate: a. Pipe: Black steel, Schedule 40, ASTM A53 or A106, butt-welded joints. b. Fittings: Forged steel, ANSI B16.11. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-34 ic d. e. Supports: Roller assembly, MSS Type 41 and 43. Valves: Steel, 125 lb., flanged ends. Identification: Brown. 4. Plant Air and Instrument Air: a. e. Pipe: Black steel, Schedule 40, ASTM A53 or A106, threaded joints. Fittings: Threaded ANSI B16.11. Supports: Clevis, MSS Type 1. Valves: Bronze 125 lb., threaded. Identification: White. 5. Fire protection water (above ground): a. e. Pipe: Black steel, ASTM A53, A106, or A120, 2" and smaller branches - Schedule 40, 2" and larger headers - Schedule 10, 4" and larger risers - Schedule 40. Fittings: Grooved, or threaded. Supports: Adjustable swivel pipe rings, MSS Type 6. Valves: Cast iron, 195 lb. flanged, OSY gate. Identification: Red. 6. Pressure Gauges: a. case. Type: General use, ANSI B40.1, bourden tube, 4-1/2-inch diameter, steel Range: Water - 0 to 100 psi Steam - 0 to 400 psi Air - 0 to 200 psi 7. Thermometers: a. b. Type: Mercury filled, tube and capillary, nine inches long with adjustable joint, cast aluminum case. Range: Water - 30 to 250 degrees F. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-35 8. 1 Steam - 100 to 800 degrees F. Electric Motors: a. Construction: NEMA Standard MGl, general purpose, continuous duty. b. Temperature Rating: 40 degrees C. and 50 degrees C. maximum for continuous duty at full load Class A Insulation). c. Bearings: Ball or roller, with shaft seals. d. Enclosure Type: Open-drip-proof for indoor installation. e. Starters: NEMA 1 enclosure, magnetic. f. | Disconnect Switches: Fusible, general duty non-fusible for two horsepower and smaller. Section 15205 Turbine Generator General: The Facility will house two turbine generator and associated equipment. The associated equipment includes the condenser, condensate pumps, and air cooled glycol cooling system. Steam Turbine (2) a. Capacity: 18,000 lbs steam/hr b. Steam Temperature: 500 degrees F c. Steam Inlet Pressure: 215 psig d. Steam exhaust pressure: 3 inches Hga, condensing turbine 25 psig, backpressure turbine e. Stages: 8, condensing turbine 1, backpressure turbine f; Nozzles and blading: Stainless Steel Condenser a. Cooling medium inlet temperature: 85 degrees F b. Cooling medium temperature rise: 20 degrees F c. Tubes: Admiralty brass tubes J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-36 d. Shell and tube sheets: Carbon steel 4. Condensate Pumps: a. Type: End suction, centrifugal with temperature rating of 120 degrees F water. b. Capacity: 60 gpm. c. Motor: 3 horsepower, 480 volt, 3 phase. 5. Air cooled glycol system a. Tubes: Horizontal carbon steel tubes with aluminum fins. b. Fans: Two axial fans driven by a 12 hp motor. Section 15250 Mechanical Insulation 1. Piping Insulation: Piping systems containing hot fluids will be insulated with fiberglass piping insulation, ASTM C547, Class 2 for temperatures up to 500 degrees F. Thickness of insulation will be determined by pipe size and fluid temperature. Jacketing material will be ASTM C921, Type I. 2. Equipment Insulation: Equipment requiring insulation will receive flexible fiberglass blanket insulation, ASTM C553, Type I. Thickness of insulation will be determined be equipment temperatures. Section 15300 Fire Protection The Facility will be designed with proper fire protection. Pipe sizing will be determined by using either the pipe schedule tables in NFPA 13 or by an accepted computerized hydraulic calculated program. Section 15480 Compressed Air 1. General: Plant compressed air will be supplied by a centrifugal high pressure-high volume air compressor. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-37 Section 15555 Boilers Le General: The Facility will house one coal-fired fluidized-bed boiler, one oil fired auxiliary boiler, and associated equipment. The associated equipment includes the deaerator and boiler feed pump. Coal-Fired Boiler: Type: Unfired fire tube boiler with superheat section and economizer, with soot- blowers Capacity: 18,000 Ibs./hr. Steam Pressure: 215 psig Steam Temperature: 500 degrees F. Feedwater Temperature: 240 degrees F. Exit Gas Temperature: 300 degrees F. Main Steam: Four-inch connection. Deaerator: a. Type: Packaged unit elevated on steel support structure, with storage tank, steam/water atomizing system, and level controls. b. Capacity: 10 minutes storage. Boiler Feed Pump: a. Capacity: 36 gpm. b. Motor: 20 lb/hr horsepower, 480 volt, 3 phase. c. Oil-Fired Boiler Type: Hot water, four pass, horizontal fire tube. d. Capacity: 10 mm Btu e. Water Temperature: 245 degrees F Section 15750 Heat Transfer, District Heating i. Heat Exchanger a. Type: Shell and tube J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix Page 7.3-38 b. Steam flow: 9654 lbs/hr c. Steam temperature: 324 degrees F d. Steam pressure: 40 psia e. Hot water inlet temperature: 180 degrees F f. Hot water outlet temperature: 240 degrees F 2. District Heat water pump a. Type: Horizontal Centrifugal Pump b. Capacity: 300 gpm ec. Motor: 25 hp Section 15950 Controls 1. Boiler Controls: The coal fired boiler manufacturer will furnish a local control module at the burner front. In addition a primary free-standing control panel will be furnished and installed in the control room having duplicate control capabilities, plus monitoring and metering equipment, indicating lights, and alarm annunciation. The turbine manufacturer will furnish a primary free-standing control panel to be installed in the control room having monitoring and metering equipment, indicating lights, and alarm annunciation. The oil fired boiler manufacturer will supply power fusible disconnection switch, control circuit transformer, alarm bell and combustion safeguard control. Section 15990 Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing The testing, adjusting, and balancing of mechanical systems and equipment in the Boiler/Compressor Facility will be completed by an independent, certified Testing and Balancing (T&B) Engineer contracted by the General Contractor specifically for this purpose. Using the AABC handbook as a guide, the (T&B) Engineer will prepare a documented report outlining all procedures followed, maintenance data utilized, testing accomplished, adjusting required with final set points established, and completed balancing summation. Listed in the report will be results obtained, plus final system schematics for facility operators use. At completion of the testing, adjusting and balancing, the mechanical equipment will receive full lubrication, belt checks, and clean filters. Included in the services of the (T&B) Engineer will be two days of time for demonstrating the mechanical system performance, and to train maintenance personnel on troubleshooting procedures. J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.4.1 Community Impact Model J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 86 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Community Impact Model Northern Economics previously developed a community growth model that incorporates economic and demographic components to project future population and employment. Work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs required the firm to use this model for almost 130 Alaska native communities throughout the state to estimate the effects of identified transportation projects in each of the ANCSA villages. The community impact model is composed of an economic module and a cohort survival demographic module. The model incorporates economic inputs and calculates additional employment or income from an internally derived multiplier effect. The cohort survival demographic module incorporates migration in response to economic opportunities and the economic module responds to changes in population. The recursive nature of the model permits each module to affect the other. Projected changes in state and federal revenue sharing, transfer payments, capital budget, and other programs are included in the model. Outputs of the community impact model include the effects of a proposed development on local labor force, employment by industrial sector, population (including school age children), infrastructure, per capita income, and fiscal effects on local governments. This model has been employed for petroleum developments, mining projects, and major infrastructure and transportation improvements. This model has been modified and calibrated for the community of McGrath and the proposed coal plant construction in order to estimate population growth, income and other measures of economic activity. Cohort Survival Population Module (CSPM) The cohort survival population module employs standard cohort-survival techniques with Native and non-Native components to account for the different birth, death, and migration rates among these groups. The model uses the cohort (age group) data provided in the 1980 census and these are adjusted with the 1990 census data for later years. Each racial component of the different age groups has a different probability of surviving to the next age group (cohort survival), and each model year results in a change in the number of persons in each age group. Similarly, the different age cohorts for females, Native and non-Native, have varying rates for the number of births per cohort member. These birth and survival rates are from the Alaska Department of Labor.’ The CSPM projects total population for McGrath based upon the referenced survival/fertility rates and the model. Modem medicine has increased the probability of survival for each cohort in rural Alaska, particularly for the very young and the elderly. Birth rates are declining but not as rapid as the increasing rates of survival which, if not affected by other forces, would lead to increases in total population each year. Total population is affected by the availability of employment in a community. People leave the community if unemployment reaches significant levels. These levels vary for Native and non-Native populations. The migrating population is primarily in the 18-29 age cohorts with some lower levels of migration in older cohorts. If increases in the number of jobs reduces the unemployment level beyond a certain percentage people ' Alaska Department of Labor, 1991. Population Projections Alaska 1990-2010. J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 -1 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project are expected to migrate to the community. These in-migrants would include some older cohorts that are retuming to the community from which they previously moved. The limited research that has been conducted on Native migration in response to employment opportunities indicates that Native migration from rural communities is principally undertaken by young females who traditionally have limited opportunities in the rural work force. An unpublished U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS) document identified this trend in six of ten rural communities studied extensively from secondary sources. The two larger communities in the study, Barrow and Kotzebue, did not experience this out-migration, nor did two small communities. MMS researchers with extensive time series data for communities in westem Alaska corroborate this finding, but suggest that the data for the MMS study of ten communities did not account for the eventual return of some migrating females to the community. This information is used to estimate out-migration rates for the 18-29 age cohorts in each community based upon the employment opportunities and the annual male/female ratio for the community. Half of these females return as 30-39 cohorts. Household size for these retuming females is assumed to be equal to the average household size for the community. Non-Native populations are influenced more by employment opportunities than Native populations. Moreover, non-Native populations in rural Alaska are more transient and tend to be single or recently married, and employment opportunities have a greater influence than survival/fertility rates. The average statewide survival and fertility rates are used for the non-Native population in McGrath. Economic Module The economic module is driven by three primary factors: e Population growth in the community; e State of Alaska revenues; and e Basic industry sectors. The model depicts a basic economic pattem in smaller Alaskan communities where transfer payments and State funding of local goverment and non-governmental entities are major income sources. Transfer payments such as Social Security, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other benefits are directly related to community population. State grants and revenue sharing are proportional to the State’s aggregate revenues. Also contributing to a community’s revenue stream is the basic industry sector which, in many rural communities, is composed of fishing, fish processing, mining, manufacturing, trapping, crafts, and timber related activities. Federal and state goverment employment, as well as the portion of local government, non-profit organizations, and construction industry supported by state or federal funds are also considered basic industries in rural Alaska. Revenue coming into McGrath from these basic sectors J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 -2 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project further circulates through the local economy as trade and services acquired with those revenues, and creates additional personal income. Projections for State income and expenditures are derived from projections by the Alaska Department of Revenue? These revenue projections are disaggregated into estimates of operating and capital expenditures; dividends, interest, and rents; transfer payments; and other factors based on average percentages for these categories over the past 5 years. Per capita income estimates are initially derived from the 1980 census and later calibrated to the 1990 census estimate. The economic module calculates per capita income in all other years based upon an internally generated estimate of total personal income in the community divided by the population estimate calculated in the demographic module. When the number of households in the community exceeds the number of available jobs, income for the members of unemployed households is reduced to a lower level that approximates unemployment compensation and other transfer payments. Statewide Gross State Product (GSP) data by industry sector were obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for years during the 1980-1994 time period.* These data were used to derive a gross sector product and employment data from the Alaska Department of Labor were used to estimate the average value of one job in the sector (i.€., statewide gross sector product divided by statewide total sector employment). Additionally, the percentage contribution of each industrial sector to the GSP was calculated. This statewide percentage was applied to McGrath’s gross personal income to estimate the gross product for each sector in the community. The gross product for each sector was divided by the average statewide value of one job in that sector, adjusted for the difference between statewide and community-specific average annual wage, yielding an estimate of equivalent employment for each sector in McGrath. This methodology was used for the trade and services and locally-supported construction. The major portion of construction employment in rural Alaska is supported by State spending. The economic module assumes that over the long term, State capital project expenditures in a rural community can be reasonably approximated at the regional level as a per capita average. Thus, multiplication of the statewide per capita capital budget and the community population yields an estimate of total state-supported construction funding for McGrath. In any specific year the amount of such expenditures can be less than or greater than the average. Division of the total amount of construction funding by the average value of a construction job (statewide gross sector product divided by statewide total sector employment) is used to estimate the number of construction jobs in a community. Local government in McGrath is supported by State grants and other sources. There is no local revenue source. In this situation the economic module assumes that the city will continue to receive the same nominal level of funding (on a per capital basis) for ? Alaska Department of Revenue, 1996. Spring 1996 Revenue Sources Book. US: Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1995. Regional Economic Information System. Regional Economic Information System (CD-ROM). J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 -3 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project local goverment in the future as they presently do. Population estimates are multiplied by the per capita funding level to obtain the funding level available for local government. Local government employment is estimated by dividing this funding level by the average value of a local government job. Parts of state government and federal government employment are associated with providing services to the public (e.g., postal service) and employment in these agencies change at the same rate as population. Other parts of federal and state govemment employment, as well as mining, fishing, and other sectors cannot be estimated by the economic module. Future employment levels for these sectors are based on professional judgment and information obtained from the community or other sources. J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 - 4 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Comparison of Model Results to Other Estimates Population Figure 1 shows a comparison of population estimates calculated by the model to the annual estimates made by the Alaska Department of Labor (ADOL). The cause of the large population increase between 1981 and 1982 is unknown. The divergence in 1993 and 1994 is due to the employment losses at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) office in McGrath. As these jobs were lost employees and their families moved from the city. The series of columns noted as Impact Model Estimate employs the cohort survival technique to estimate population growth with employment in the community changing as a function of population related demand for goods and services in those relevant industry sectors. As stated above, the model cannot predict when external shocks to the community, such as the FAA staff reduction, will occur. The model can, however, estimate the effect of such employment changes on McGrath’s population. Figure 1 Comparison of Population Estimates for Community Impact Model and Alaska Department of Labor 100 p88 8 Year [==] Impact Model Estimate —€-DOL Population Estimate Employment is an often used measure of economic activity in a community. However, analysis of employment data at the small community level is problematic and ADOL only provides data on an aggregated regional level. McGrath is included in a subarea J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1-5 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project designation (Census Statistical Area 412) that includes Farewell Landing, McGrath, Medfra, Nikolai, Sterling Landing, Telida. In addition to the aggregation issue, ADOL employment data are only available for persons that are covered under the State’s employment security program. The data provided by ADOL omits the self-employed (including fishers, trappers, artists, and other similar professions) and uniformed military that can represent a substantial percentage of the employment opportunities in smaller communities in westem Alaska. These problems notwithstanding, the model integrates employment and cohort survival population techniques to estimate population. Figure 2 shows the model's population estimate when ADOL employment estimates for the year are integrated into the model. This figure demonstrates that the linkage between employment and population in McGrath, as estimated in the model, is fairly accurate over the time period, and results in population estimates that are very close to ADOL’s population estimates. Figure 2 Comparison of Population Estimates With and Without Employment Data 600 40 i ; : : | x aT EF w aa ° Al ia i LE PL et ee) 2ife28 €2 88 85 88 8 8 8 Year [== impact Model Estimate = Estimate wemployment change —8—DOL Population Estimate | Employment The model also generates employment estimates based on population growth, projected state budget estimates, previous employment levels, and a number of other factors. Figure 3 compares the Alaska Department of Labor's employment estimate for CSA 412 with the estimate that the impact model calculates using ADOL population J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 -6 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project estimates for that year. The model is relatively close for 1992 through 1994 but overestimates employment in 1995. This overestimate is primarily due to the model's assumption that the community's receipts from the State of Alaska vary each year depending on the portion of the State’s total population that McGrath represents. Operating and capital funds are allocated on a per capita basis in the model. Expenditures for capital improvements by the state were very high in 1995 but McGrath did not receive a proportional share of the expenditures which resulted in the model estimating more construction jobs than actually occurred. Figure 3 Comparison of Alaska Department of Labor and Community Impact Model Employment Estimates 200 180 160 140 120 EIADOL Employment Estimates for CSA 412 1 Impact Model Estimate Employment 3 Per Capita Income Per capita income is another measure of economic activity that is often used when discussing the quality of life in a community. However, annual estimates of per capita income are not available for McGrath. The closest measure are estimates developed annually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area which includes approximately 40 communities and three census subareas.‘ Figure 4 compares the BEA’s per capita income estimate for the census area with that * U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Measurement Division, 1995. Regional Economic Information System (CD-ROM). J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 - 7 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project calculated by the model for McGrath. The per capita income estimates for McGrath are higher than the BEA’s estimate for the census area through 1991 which is not unexpected given the relatively high number of federal and state government jobs in McGrath. The anticipated loss and actual loss of federal jobs results in lower per capita income in the community beginning in 1992. Figure 4 Comparison of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Community Impact Model Per Capita Income Estimates $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 4 $10,000 + BEA Per Capita Income Estimates for Yukon- Koyukuk Census Area $8,000 + Impact Model Estimate $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 s 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Year Model Projections The Community Impact Model can provide a number of outputs for evaluating the effect of the proposed coal-fired power plant on McGrath. This section compares the effect of the coal-fired and diesel alternatives on population, employment, and total community income from 1990 through 2005. Population The City of McGrath has experienced a decline in its population over the past 5 years due to the loss of jobs at the FAA station and associated losses in other supporting jobs in the community. The model projects that the number of jobs will decline further in the next few years until the community reaches equilibrium with the number of job losses that have occurred. After reaching this population nadir in about 1998 the model anticipates that the community will begin to grow at a slow rate, increasing about 35 persons in the following 7 years under the diesel altemative and 50 persons under the J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1-8 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project coal altemative. In either case this population growth is relatively minor, reaching an annual growth rate of about 1.5 percent for the coal alternative and about 1 percent for the diesel alternative. The population growth shown here is primarily affected by previous research that shows fewer Native persons migrate from a community in times of high unemployment. The out-migration of non-Natives is high in the near term but levels off after an equilibrium is reached with the number of available jobs. Native migration is affected to a lesser degree and the normal population growth of this group begins to increase the total population in the community after non-Native migration lessens. Figure 5 Comparison of Population Projections for Diesel and Coal Alternatives 540 alee —*- Diesel Alternative —8-Coal Altemative Persons weaeeaefeeieagge:e Year J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 -9 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Employment Population and employment losses in McGrath have primarily been associated with the loss of federal jobs in the community in the past few years. Reductions in state goverment spending have also had an effect although these effects are masked by the substantial reduction in FAA jobs. Figure 6 shows that the anticipated decline in available state govemment funding, and the lag in the economic response of the community to the loss of FAA jobs will result in additional losses in local employment over the next 7 to 8 years. The coal altemative provides 20 additional jobs in the community during the peak year of construction for the power plant and coal mine in 1998. In subsequent years the number of jobs created by the coal alternative ranges between 8 to 20 with the higher numbers created by mining activities every other year. The average of 12.3 additional jobs between 1999 and 2005 during operation of the coal power plant and the mine represents an increase of about 9.3 percent over the number of jobs in the community with the diesel alternative. Figure 6 Comparison of Employment Projections for Diesel and Coal Alternatives 200 180 160 +-—- 410 to OR AD haere Nera ee pee ae eee —* Diesel Alternative 400 ete aa a Jobs 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 - 10 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Income Total income in the community has been declining since 1990 due to reductions in federal and state goverment spending with associated job losses. Figure 7 shows that the model anticipates total community income will decline until about 1998 when an economic equilibrium is reached and the local economy will start to grow again. Continued restraint on federal and state government spending will moderate increases in community income. The coal alternative is anticipated to generate about $900,000 more in community income during the peak construction year of 1998, and $300,000 to $600,000 during operations with the higher number occurring during the years of coal mining. Figure 7 Comparison of Total Community Income for Diesel and Coal Alternatives $9,000,000 $8,000,000 NN goes $7,000,000 4------~--- $6,000,000 $5,000,000 oveeeveeneonnen —*- Diesel Alternative —#-— Coal Altemative $4,000,000 }-—-----~ $3,000,000 4---~-—-- $2,000,000 +~-~--~ = 2 2 $2222 22:2 8228 2 € 8 & & Year Summary The coal altemative is anticipated to produce an additional 322 person-years of employment in McGrath over the two years of construction and 30 years of operational life, in comparison to the diesel alternative. The coal alternative should also result in about $11.9 million in additional income to the community during this time period due to the additional employment and local purchases associated with the coal alternative. J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.1 - 11 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.4.2 Operations and Maintenance Labor J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 87 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Power Plant Employees Wages/Salaries: Plant Workers General Manager Subtotal Wages/Salaries Employer Expenses: FICA Esc FUTA Tax Total Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) SEP/IRA Benefits Total Worker's Comp. Insurance Subtotal Expenses Total Salary & Expenses Coal Alternative Power Plant Employees Wages/Salaries: Plant Workers General Manager Subtotal Wages/Salaries Employer Expenses: FICA ESC FUTA Tax Total Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) SEP/IRA Benefits Total Worker's Comp. Insurance Subtotal Expenses Total Salary & Expenses ML&P Employees Wages/Salaries: Line Workers Office/Administrative Workers General Manager Seasonal Workers Subtotal Wages/Salaries Employer Expenses: FICA Esc FUTA Tax Total Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) SEP/IRA Benefits Total Worker's Comp. Insurance Subtotal Expenses Total Salary & Expenses J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Baseline Case Altemative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 $ 67,270 $ 69,288 $ 71,367 $ 18,333 $ 18,883 $ 19,450 $ 85,603 $ 88,171 $ 90,817 $ 6,352 $ 6543 $ 6,739 $ 803 $ 827 $ 853 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 7,286 $ 7,501 $ 7,722 $ 1316 $ 1,336 $ 1,356 $ 2,568 $ 2,645 $ 2,724 $ 3,884 $ 3,981 $ 4,081 $ 3,215 $ 3,312 $ 3,411 $ 14,385 $ 14,794 $ 15,215 $ 99,988 $102,965 $106,031 Baseline Case Altemative Case 1996/1997 Year1 Year2 $ 34,000 $262,833 $270,718 $ 18,333 $ 18,883 $ 19,450 $ 52,333 $281,717 $290,168 $ 3,883 $ 21,354 $ 21,999 $ 397 $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 131 $ 243 $ 243 $ 4,411 $ 22,886 $ 23,531 $ 1,056 $ 4,203 $ 4,269 $ 1,570 $ 2,585 $ 2,602 $ 2,626 $ 6,788 $ 6,871 $ 1,675 $ 12,273 $ 12,641 $ 8,712 $ 41,947 $ 43,043 $ 61,046 $323,664 $333,212 1996/1997 Year1 Year2 $ 24,000 $ 24,720 $ 25,462 $ 12,000 $ 12,360 $ 12,731 $ 36,667 $ 37,767 $ 38,900 $ 6,000 $ 6,180 $ 6,365 $ 78,667 $ 81,027 $ 83,457 $ 5,851 $ 6,027 $ 6,208 $ 711 $ 711 $ 7114 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 6759 $ 6935 $ 7,116 $ 1,770 $ 1,788 $ 1,807 $ 2,180 $ 2,245 $ 2,313 $ 3,950 $ 4,034 $ 4,120 $ 1,657 $ 1,706 $ 1,758 $ 12,366 $ 12,675 $ 12,993 $ 91,033 $ 93,702 $ 96,451 Year 3 $ 73,508 $ 20,033 $ 93,541 6,941 879 131 7,951 1,378 2,806 4,184 3,514 15,648 109,189 PAHPPPHPHHARO Year3 $ 278,840 $ 20,033 $ 298,873 $ 22,178 $ 1,290 $ 243 $ 23,711 $ 4,337 $ 8,966 $ 13,303 $ 13,020 $ 50,034 $348,907 Year3 26,225 13,113 40,067 6,556 85,961 6,394 711 197 7,302 1,827 2,382 4,209 1,810 13,321 99,282 PPPGPHPHPHHAPH PHOHH Year 4 75,713 20,634 96,347 7,149 906 131 8,186 1,400 2,890 4,290 3,619 16,095 112,442 PAPHPGPHPHHHAPRH GHG Year4 $192,815 $ 20,634 $213,449 $ 15,839 $ 992 $ 187 $ 17,018 $ 3,185 $ 6,403 $ 9,588 $ 9,041 $ 711 197 7,494 1,847 2,454 4,301 1,865 13,659 102,199 POPPHAHHHPHHH PHOHA $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PPGHPHGPHPHGHHAH PHHGE Year 5 Year 6 Year7 77,984 $ 80,324 $ 82,734 21,253 $ 21,891 $ 22,548 99,238 $102,215 $ 105,281 7,364 $ 7,585 $ 7,812 934 $ 962 $ 991 131 $ 131 $ 131 8,428 $ 8678 $ 8,935 1,422 $ 1,445 $ 1,469 2,977 $ 3,066 $ 3,158 4,399 $ 4512 $ 4,628 3,728 $ 3,839 $ 3,955 16,555 $ 17,029 $ 17,517 115,793 $119,244 $122,798 YearS Year6 Year7 198,599 $122,583 $ 126,260 21,253 $ 21,891 $ 22,548 219,852 $144,474 $ 148,808 16,314 $ 10,721 $ 11,042 992 $ 69 $ 695 187 $ 131 $ 131 17,493 $ 11,546 $ 11,868 3,234 $ 2,160 $ 2,194 6596 $ 4,334 $ 4,464 9,830 $ 6495 $ 6,659 9,312 $ 5,796 $ 5,970 36,635 $ 23,837 $ 24,496 256,488 $168,310 $173,304 Year5 Year6 Year7 27,823 $ 28,657 $ 29,517 13,911 $ 14,329 $ 14,758 42,507 $ 43,782 $ 45,095 6956 $ 7,164 $ 7,379 91,196 $ 93,932 $ 96,750 6,783 $ 6987 $ 7,196 711 $ 711 $ 711 197 $ 197 $ 197 7,691 $ 7,895 $ 8,104 1,868 $ 1,889 $ 1,911 2,527 $ 2,603 $ 2,681 4,395 $ 4,492 $ 4,592 1,921 $ 1,978 $ 2,037 14,007 $ 14,365 $ 14,734 105,203 $108,297 $111,484 Year 8 Year 9 $ 85,216 $ 87,772 $ 23,224 $ 23,921 $108,440 $111,693 $ 8047 $ 8,288 $ 1,022 $ 1,053 $ 131 $ 131 $ 9199 $ 9,472 $ 1,494 $ 1,519 $ 3,253 $ 3,351 $ 4,747 $ 4,870 $ 4073 $ 4,195 $ 18,020 $ 18,537 $126,459 $130,230 Year8 Year 9 $ 130,048 $ 133,950 $ 23,224 $ 23,921 $153,272 $ 157,871 $ 11,374 $ 11,715 $ 695 $ 695 $ 131 $ 134 $ 12,199 $ 12,540 $ 2,229 $ 2,265 $ 4598 $ 4,736 $ 6827 $ 7,001 $ 6149 $ 6,333 $ 25,175 $ 25,875 $178,447 $183,745 Year 8 Year9 $ 30,402 $ 31,315 $ 15,201 $ 15,657 $ 46,448 $ 47,842 $ 7,601 $ 7,829 $ 99,653 $102,642 $ 7,412 $ 7,635 $ 711 $ 711 $ 197 $ 197 $ 8320 $ 8,543 $ 1,934 $ 1,957 $ 2,762 $ 2,844 $ 4695 $ 4,801 $ 2,099 $ 2,162 $ 15,114 $ 15,506 $114,767 $118,148 Appendix Page 7.4.2 - 1 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Power Plant Employees Plant Workers General Manager Subtotal Wages/Salaries Employer Expenses: FICA ESC FUTA Tax Total Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) SEP/IRA Benefits Total Worker's Comp. Insurance Subtotal Expenses Total Salary & Expenses Coal Alternative Power Plant Employees Wagesalaries. Plant Workers General Manager Subtotal Wages/Salaries Employer Expenses: FICA ESC FUTA Tax Total Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) SEP/IRA Benefits Total Worker's Comp. Insurance Subtotal Expenses Total Salary & Expenses ML&P Employees Wages/Salaries: Line Workers Office/Administrative Workers General Manager Seasonal Workers Subtotal Wages/Salaries Employer Expenses: FICA Esc FUTA Tax Total Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) SEP/IRA Benefits Total Worker's Comp. Insurance Subtotal Expenses Total Salary & Expenses J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Baseline Case 1996/1997 67,270 18,333 85,603 6,352 803 131 7,286 1,316 2,568 3,884 3,215 14,385 99,988 Baseline Case 1996/1997 PPAPDPBPHPGHPHPAPHGA HAG 34,000 18,333 52,333 3,883 397 131 4,411 1,056 4,570 2,626 1,675 8,712 61,046 1996/1997 PPHPDHPHAHHHAHH HHH 24,000 12,000 36,667 6,000 78,667 5,851 711 197 6,759 1,770 2,180 3,950 1,657 12,366 91,033 PPAPDPHPHPGHPHAHGH PPGHH Year 10 $ 90,405 $ 24,638 $115,044 $ 8537 $ 1,085 $ 134 $ 9,753 $ 1,545 $ 3,451 $ 4,997 $ 4,321 $ 19,071 $134,114 Year 10 $ 137,968 $ 24,638 $ 162,607 12,066 695 134 12,891 2,302 4,878 7,180 6,523 26,595 PPHRPPHPHPGOOH 3 5 Year 10 $ 32,254 $ 16,127 $ 49,277 $ 8,063 $ 105,721 7,864 711 197 8,772 1,981 2,930 4,911 2,226 15,909 121,630 PPPHPHDPHPGPOHOD Year 11 $ 93,117 $ 25,378 $118,495 $ 8,793 $ 1,118 $ 131 $ 10,042 $ 1,572 $ 3,555 $ 5,127 $ 4,451 $ 19,620 $ 138,115 Year 11 $142,107 $ 25,378 $ 167,485 12,428 695 131 13,253 2,340 5,025 7,364 6,719 27,337 $194,822 Year 14 PPPHPPHGHOO $ 33,222 $ 16,611 $ 50,755 $ 8,305 $ 108,893 $ 8,099 $ 71 $ 197 $ 9,008 $ 2,006 $ 3,018 $ 5,023 $ 2,293 $ 16,324 $125,217 Year 12 $ 95,911 $ 26,139 $ 122,050 $ 9,057 $ 1,152 $ 131 $ 10,340 $ 1,600 $ 3,661 $ 5,262 $ 4,584 $ 20,186 $ 142,236 Year 12 $ 146,370 $ 26,139 $ 172,509 12,801 695 131 13,626 2,379 5,175 7,554 6,921 28,101 $200,611 Year 12 PPHPHHPHHOOR $ 34,218 $ 17,109 $ 52,278 $ 8,555 $112,160 $ 8,342 $ 711 $ 197 $ 9,251 $ 2,031 $ 3,108 $ 5,139 $ 2,362 $ 16,752 $ 128,912 Year 13 $ 98,788 $ 26,923 $125,711 9,328 1,187 131 10,646 1,629 3,771 5,400 4,722 20,768 146,480 PAPHPGHHAHAG Year 13 $ 150,762 $ 26,923 $ 177,685 13,185 695 131 14,010 2,420 5,331 7,750 7,128 28,889 $206,573 Year 13 PAAPDAHAHHGAA $ 35,245 $ 17,622 $ 53,846 $ 8811 $115,525 $ 8,593 $ 711 $ 197 $ 9,501 $ 2,057 $ 3,201 $ 5,259 $ 2,433 $ 17,193 $ 132,717 Year 14 $101,752 $ 27,731 $ 129,483 $ 9,608 $ 1,223 $ 131 $ 10,962 $ 1,658 $ 3,884 $ 5543 $ 4,864 $ 21,369 $ 150,851 Year 14 $155,284 $ 27,731 $ 183,015 13,581 695 131 14,406 2,461 5,490 7,952 7,342 29,700 $212,715 Year 14 PPAPPHPHPHOOH $ 36,302 $ 18,151 $ 55,462 $ 9,076 $118,990 $ 8,851 $711 $ 197 $ 9,759 $ 2,084 $ 3,297 $ 5,382 $ 2,506 $ 17,646 $ 136,637 Year 15 $ 104,804 $ 28,563 $ 133,367 9,897 1,261 131 11,288 1,688 4,001 5,689 5,010 21,987 155,354 PPPAHPHGPGOGHAD Year 15 $ 159,943 $ 28,563 8,159 7,562 30,535 $219; Year 15 PAHAPAHAAOA N $ 37,391 $ 18,696 $ 57,125 Year 16 $ 107,949 $ 29,420 $ 137,368 10,193 1,299 131 11,623 1,720 4,121 5,841 5,160 22,624 159,992 PPRPGHGHOHOD Year 16 $ 164,741 $ 29,420 $ 194,161 14,408 695 131 15,233 2,548 5,825 8,373 7,789 31,395 $225,556 Year 16 PPHAHADHHHOHSH $ 38,513 $ 19,256 $ 58,839 $ 9,628 $126,237 $ 9,390 $ 711 $ 197 $ 10,298 $ 2,141 $ 3,498 $ 5,639 $ 2,658 $ 18,595 $ 144,832 Year17 Year18 Year 19 $111,187 $114,523 $117,958 $ 30,302 $ 31,211 $ 32,148 $141,489 $145,734 $150,106 $ 10,499 $ 10,814 $ 11,139 $ 1,339 $ 1,379 $ 1,421 $ 131 $ 131 $ 134 $ 11,968 $ 12,324 $ 12,690 $ 1,752 $ 1,785 $ 1,819 $ 4245 $ 4372 $ 4,503 $ 5996 $ 6157 $ 6,322 $ 5315 $ 5.474 $ 5638 $ 23,280 $ 23,955 $ 24,651 $ 164,769 $169,689 $174,757 Year17 + Year18 Year19 $ 169,683 $174,774 $180,017 $ 30,302 $ 31,211 $ 32,148 $199,986 $205,985 $212,165 $ 14,840 $ 15,285 $ 15,744 $ 65 $ 69 $ 695 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 15,665 $ 16,110 $ 16,569 $ 2593 $ 2,640 $ 2,688 $ 6,000 $ 6,180 $ 6,365 $ 8593 $ 8820 $ 9,053 $ 8023 $ 8,264 $ 8512 $ 32,281 $ 33,194 $ 34,134 $232,267 $239,179 $246,299 Year17 Year18 Year19 $ 39,668 $ 40,858 $ 42,084 $ 19,834 $ 20,429 $ 21,042 $ 60,604 $ 62,423 $ 64,295 $ 9917 $ 10,215 $ 10,521 $ 130,024 $133,925 $137,942 $ 9671 $ 9,961 $ 10,260 $ 711 $ 711 $ 71 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 10,579 $ 10,870 $ 11,168 $ 2,171 $ 2,201 $ 2,232 $ 3,603 $ 3,711 $ 3,823 $ 5,774 $ 5,912 $ 6,055 $ 2,738 $ 2,820 $ 2,905 $ 19,091 $ 19,602 $ 20,128 $149,115 $153,527 $158,071 Appendix Page 7.4.2 - 2 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case Power Plant Employees 1996/1997 Year20 Year21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Wages/Salaries: Plant Workers $ 67,270 $121,497 $125,142 $128,896 $132,763 $136,746 $140,848 $145,074 $149,426 $153,909 $158,526 $ 163,282 General Manager $ 18,333 $ 33,112 $ 34,105 $ 35,129 $ 36,182 $ 37,268 $ 38,386 $ 39,538 $ 40,724 $ 41,945 $ 43,204 $ 44,500 Subtotal Wages/Salaries $ 85,603 $154,609 $159,247 $164,025 $168,946 $174,014 $179,234 $184,611 $190,150 $195,854 $201,730 $207,782 Employer Expenses: FICA $ 6,352 $ 11,473 $ 11,817 $ 12,171 $ 12,537 $ 12,913 $ 13,300 $ 13,699 $ 14,110 $ 14,533 $ 14,969 $ 15,418 Esc $ 803 $ 1,464 $ 1,509 $ 1,555 $ 1,602 $ 1,650 $ 1,700 $ 1,752 $ 1,805 $ 1,860 $ 1,916 $ 1,974 FUTA $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 Tax Total $ 7,286 $ 13,068 $ 13,456 $ 13,857 $ 14,269 $ 14,694 $ 15,131 $ 15,582 $ 16,046 $ 16,524 $ 17,016 $ 17,523 Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) $ 1,316 $ 1,854 $ 1890 $ 1,928 $ 1,966 $ 2,005 $ 2,046 $ 2,088 $ 2,131 $ 2,176 $ 2,222 $ 2,269 SEP/IRA $ 2,568 $ 4,638 $ 4,777 $ 4921 $ 5,068 $ 5,220 $ 5377 $ 5538 $ 5,704 $ 5876 $ 6,052 $ 6,233 Benefits Total $ 3,884 $ 6492 $ 6668 $ 6848 $ 7,034 $ 7,226 $ 7,423 $ 7,626 $ 7,836 $ 8051 $ 8274 $ 8502 Worker's Comp. Insurance $ 3,215 $ 5,807 $ 5,982 $ 6161 $ 6346 $ 6536 $ 6732 $ 6934 $ 7,142 $ 7,357 $ 7,577 $ 7,805 Subtotal Expenses $ 14,385 $ 25,368 $ 26,106 $ 26,866 $ 27,649 $ 28,456 $ 29,287 $ 30,143 $ 31,024 $ 31,932 $ 32,867 $ 33,830 Total Salary & Expenses $ 99,988 $179,977 $185,353 $190,891 $196,595 $202,470 $208,521 $214,754 $221,174 $227,786 $234,597 $241,612 Coal Alternative Baseline Case Power Plant Employees 1996/1997 Year20 Year21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Wages/Salaries: Plant Workers $ 34,000 $185,418 $190,980 $196,710 $202,611 $208,689 $214,950 $221,398 $228,040 $234,882 $241,928 $249,186 General Manager $ 18,333 $ 33,112 $ 34,105 $ 35,129 $ 36,182 $ 37,268 $ 38,386 $ 39,538 $ 40,724 $ 41,945 $ 43,204 $ 44,500 Subtotal Wages/Salaries $ 52,333 $218,530 $225,086 $231,838 $238,793 $245,957 $253,336 $260,936 $268,764 $276,827 $285,132 $293,686 Employer Expenses: FICA $ 3,883 $ 16,216 $ 16,702 $ 17,204 $ 17,720 $ 18,251 $ 18,799 $ 19,363 $ 19,944 $ 20,542 $ 21,158 $ 21,793 Esc $ 397 $ 65 $ G69 $ 69 $ 695 $ 695 $ 695 $ 695 $ 695 $ 695 $ 695 $ 695 FUTA $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 $ 131 Tax Total $ 4,411 $ 17,041 $ 17,528 $ 18,029 $ 18,545 $ 19,077 $ 19,624 $ 20,188 $ 20,769 $ 21,367 $ 21,983 $ 22,618 Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) $ 1,056 $ 2,738 $ 2,789 $ 2,842 $ 2,896 $ 2,952 $ 3,010 $ 3,069 $ 3,130 $ 3,193 $ 3,258 $ 3,324 SEP/IRA $ 1,570 $ 6556 $ 6,753 $ 6955 $ 7,164 $ 7,379 $ 7,600 $ 7,828 $ 8,063 $ 8305 $ 8554 $ 8811 Benefits Total $ 2,626 $ 9,294 $ 9,542 $ 9,797 $ 10,060 $ 10,331 $ 10,610 $ 10,897 $ 11,193 $ 11,498 $ 11,812 $ 12,135 Worker's Comp. Insurance $ 1,675 $ 8,767 $ 9,030 $ 9,301 $ 9580 $ 9,867 $ 10,163 $ 10,468 $ 10,782 $ 11,106 $ 11,439 $ 11,782 Subtotal Expenses $ 8,712 $ 35,102 $ 36,099 $ 37,127 $ 38,185 $ 39,275 $ 40,397 $ 41,553 $ 42,744 $ 43,971 $ 45,234 $ 46,535 Total Salary & Expenses $ 61,046 $253,632 $261,185 $268,965 $276,978 $285,232 $293,733 $302,489 $311,508 $320,797 $330,366 $340,221 ML&P Employees 1996/1997 Year20 Year21 Year22 Year23 Year24 Year25 Year26 Year27 Year28 Year29 Year30 Wages/alaries: Line Workers $ 24,000 $ 43,347 $ 44,647 $ 45,986 $ 47,366 $ 48,787 $ 50,251 $ 51,758 $ 53,311 $ 54,910 $ 56,558 $ 58,254 Office/Administrative Workers $ 12,000 $ 21,673 $ 22,324 $ 22,993 $ 23,683 $ 24,304 $ 25,125 $ 25,879 $ 26,655 $ 27,455 $ 28,279 $ 29,127 General Manager $ 36,667 $ 66,224 $ 68,211 $ 70,257 $ 72,365 $ 74,536 $ 76,772 $ 79,075 $ 81,447 $ 83,891 $ 86,407 $ 89,000 Seasonal Workers $ 6,000 $ 10,837 $ 11,162 $ 11,497 $ 11,842 $ 12,197 $ 12,563 $ 12,940 $ 13,328 $ 13,728 $ 14,139 $ 14,564 Subtotal Wages/Salaries $ 78,667 $142,081 $146,343 $150,733 $155,255 $159,913 $164,711 $169,652 $174,741 $179,984 $185,383 $190,945 Employer Expenses: FICA $ 5,851 $ 10,568 $ 10,885 $ 11,212 $ 11,548 $ 11,894 $ 12,251 $ 12,619 $ 12,997 $ 13,387 $ 13,789 $ 14,202 ESC $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 §¢ 711 $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 $ 711 FUTA $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 $ 197 Tax Total $ 6,759 $ 11,476 $ 11,793 $ 12,120 $ 12,456 $ 12,803 $ 13,159 $ 13,527 $ 13,905 $ 14,295 $ 14,697 $ 15,111 Insurance (Life, Health, Dental) $ 1,770 $ 2,265 $ 2,298 $ 2,332 $ 2,367 $ 2,404 $ 2,441 $ 2,480 $ 2,519 $ 2,560 $ 2,602 $ 2,646 SEP/IRA $ 2,180 $ 3,937 $ 4,055 $ 4,177 $ 4302 $ 4,431 $ 4564 $ 4,701 $ 4,842 $ 4,988 $ 5,137 $ 5,291 Benefits Total $ 3,950 $ 6,202 $ 6353 $ 6509 $ 6670 $ 6835 $ 7,005 $ 7,181 $ 7,362 $ 7,548 $ 7,740 $ 7,937 Worker's Comp. Insurance $ 1,657 $ 2,992 $ 3,082 $ 3,174 $ 3270 $ 3368 $ 3469 $ 3573 $ 3,680 $ 3,790 $ 3,904 $ 4,021 Subtotal Expenses $ 12,366 $ 20,670 $ 21,228 $ 21,803 $ 22,395 $ 23,005 $ 23,634 $ 24,281 $ 24,947 $ 25,634 $ 26,341 $ 27,069 Total Salary & Expenses $ 91,033 $162,751 $167,571 $172,537 $177,651 $182,918 $188,344 $193,932 $199,689 $205,617 $211,724 $218,014 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.2 - 3 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.4.3 Income Statements J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 88 Appendix 7.4.3 Income Statements Financial assessment of any given project is not necessarily limited to one evaluation method. This appendix depicts the income statements of the project alternatives and differs from the cash flow statements in Appendix 7.4.4 in that monies are accrued over time to account for large expenditures anticipated in future years. The cash flow statements differs from the income statement approach in that expenses occurring in one period are accounted for in that one period. Caution should be used in evaluating the Coal (Stand-Alone) Alternative. Engineers estimate the plant would need to be shut down for periodic repair and maintenance during the year which would require an alternative source of power. The alternative source of power has not been included with the Coal (Stand-Alone) Alternative nor are general and administrative expenses included. All alternatives are based on the City of McGrath population and expenditures. McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Revenues Residential Service Commercial Service Waste Heat revenue Rental income Interest income Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil Repairs Maintenance Plant labor Payroll taxes Employee benefits Worker's comp. insurance SUBTOTAL Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages Payroll taxes Employee benefits Worker's comp. insurance Engineering Study Training/Recruitment Consultationllegal/professional Advertising Donations/Contributions Insurance Office supplies Equipment rental Telephone/Utilities Depreciation Travel expense Dues/subscriptions/licenses Miscellaneous Intercompany G&A Interest Expense SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME Baseline Case Alternative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year2 Year3 Year 4 YearS Year 6 Year 7 $ 324,025 $ 329952 $ 33326 $ 3658 $ 38514 $ 341,148 $ 364,410 $ 367,202 $ 629,115 $ 640,623 $ 647017 $ 653,410 $ 657,246 $ 662,361 $ 707,524 $ 712,946 $ 55,080 $ 56,732 $ 57,926 $ 50155 $ 60,422 $ 61,726 $ 51,068 $ 52,452 $ 6,050 $ 6,232 $ 6418 $ 6611 $ 6809 $ 7,014 $ 7,224 $ 7,441 $ 10,200 $ 10,506 $ 10,821 $ 11,146 $ 11,480 $ 11,825 $ 12179 $ 12,545 $ 2,520 $ 2596 $ 2,673 _$ 2,754 2836 _$ 2,921 $ 3,009 3,099 $ 1,026,990 $ 1,046,641 $1,068,101 $ 1,069,614 $ 1,077,307 $_1,086,995 $ 1,145,414 $ 1,155,684 $ 379,962 $ 409,300 $ 416,787 $ 420947 $ 425,106 $ 427,602 $ 430900 $ 434,257 $ 31,992 $ 93,052 $ 94,040 $ 96,059 $ 96,107 $ 97,187 $ 55,200 $ 56,346 $ 5,760 $ 7,72 $ 7,987 $ 8195 $ 8441 $ 8,695 $ 8955 §$ 9,224 $ 79,000 $ 88171 $ 90817 $ 93541 $ 96347 $ 90,238 $ 102,215 $ 105,281 $ 12,792 $ 7,501 $ 7,722 $ 7951 $ 8,186 $ 8,428 $ 8,678 $ 8,935 $ 9,204 $ 3,981 $ 4,081 $ 4,184 $ 4,290 $ 4309 $ 4512 $ 4,628 $ 8,100 $ 3,312 $ 3,411 3514 3,619 $ 3,728 _ $ 3,839 _$ 3955 $ 526,810 $ 613,042 $ 624816 $ 633,300 $ 642,097 $ 649,277 $ 614329 $ 622,626 $ 75,000 $ 81,027 $ 83457 $ 85961 $ 88540 $ 91,196 $ 93932 $ 96,750 $ : $ 6935 §$ 7,116 $ 7,02 $ 7,494 $ 7,691 $ 789 $ 8,104 $ = $ 4,034 $ 4120 $ 4,209 $ 4301 $ 4395 $ 4492 $ 4,592 $ - $ 1,706 $ 1,758 $ 1,810 $ 1865 $ 1,921 $ 1,978 $ 2,037 $ 10,020 $ 10,321 $ 10,680 $ 10949 $ 11,278 $ 11,616 $ 11,964 $ 12,323 $ 3,400 $ 3,502 $ 3,607 $ 3,715 $ 3,827 $ 3,942 $ 4,060 $ 4,182 $ 5,400 $ 5,562 $ 5,729 $ 5,901 $ 6,078 $ 6,260 $ 6448 $ 6,641 $ 996 $ 1,026 $ 1,057 $ 1,088 $ 1,121 $ 1155 $ 1,189 $ 1,225 $ 1,800 $ 1,854 $ 1,910 $ 1,967 $ 2,026 $ 2,087 $ 2149 $ 2,214 $ 22, $ 22,866 $ 23,552 $ 24259 $ 24986 $ 25,736 $ 26508 $ 27,303 $ 3,000 $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 $ 3,377 $ 3,478 $ 3,582 $ 3,690 $ 2,520 $ 2596 $ 2,673 $ 2,754 $ 2,836 $ 2,921 $ 3,009 $ 3,099 $ 3,060 $ 3,152 $ 3,246 $ 3,344 § 3,444 $ 3,547 $ 3,654 $ 3,763 $ 117,324 $ 126,081 $ 118810 $ 111,822 $ 111,812 $ 111,782 $ 111,238 $ 109,765 $ 16,620 $ 17,119 $ 17,632 $ 18,161 $ 18,706 $ 19,267 $ 19,845 $ 20,441 $ 1,240 $ 1,277 $ 1316 $ 135 $ 1,306 §$ 1,437 $ 1,481 §$ 1,525 $ 600 $ 618 $ 637 $ 66 $ 675 $ C6 §$ 716 $ 738 $ 75,336 $ 77596 $ 79,924 $ 82322 $ 84791 $ 87335 $ 8995 $ 92,654 $ 64572 $67,525 $ 59436 $ 50736 $ 41379 $ 34393 $ 26872 $ 18,775 $ 403,088 $ 437,886 $ 429,792 $ 421,589 $ 419930 $ 42085 $ 420988 $ 419,822 929,898 $ 1,050,928 1,054,608 1,054,979 _$ 1,062,027 _$ 1,070,132 _$ 1,035,207 _$ 1,042,447_ $97,092 $ (4,287) $ 3493 _$ 1463 $ 15,280 $ 16863 $ 110117 $ 113,237 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 1 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 369,296 $ 371,391 $ 373,485 $ 375579 $ 378,372 $ 381,164 $ 38396 $ 386,74 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 717,012 $ 721,078 $ 72514 $ 729,211 $ 734,632 $ 740,064 $ 745,476 $ 750,897 Waste Heat revenue $ 55,080 $ 53877 $ 5534 $ 56857 $ 53680 $ 55284 $ 56937 $ 58638 $ 60,391 Rental income $ 6,050 $ 7,664 $ 7,894 $ 8,131 $ 8375 $ 8,626 $ 8885 $ 9151 $ 9,426 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 12,921 $ 13,309 $ 13,708 $ 14,119 $ 1454 $ 14979 $ 15,428 $ 15,891 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 3,192_ $ 3,288 $ 3,387 3,488, 3593 $ 3,701 3,812 $ 3,926 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,026,990 $ 1,163,962 _$ 1,172,304 $ 1,180,711 _$ 1,184,452 _$ 1,195,050_$ 1,205,719 $ 1,216,462 $ 1,227,280 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ 379,962 $ 437,585 $ 440,081 $ 442576 $ 445072 $ 447,568 $ 450896 $ 454223 $ 457,551 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 57,527 $ 58,742 $ 59,995 $ 44,284 $ 45,613 $ 46,9381 $ 48,391 §$ 49,842 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 9,501 $ 9,786 $ 10,079 $ 10,382 $ 10,693 $ 11,014 $ 11,344 $ 11,685 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 108,440 $ 111,693 $ 115044 $ 118,495 $ 122,050 $ 125,711 $ 129483 $ 133,367 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 9199 $ 9,472 $ 9,753 $ 10,042 $ 10,340 $ 10,646 $ 10,962 $ 11,288 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 4,747 $ 4870 $ 4997 $ 5127 $ 5,262 $ 5,400 $ 5543 $ 5,689 Worker's comp. insurance $ 8,100 4073 4195 4321 4451_ $ 4584 4722 $ 4864 $ 5,010 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 631,072 $ 638899 $ 646,76 $ 637853 $ 646110 $ 665371 $ 664810 $ 674,432 Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages $ 75,000 $ 99653 $ 102,642 $ 105,721 $ 108893 $ 112160 $ 115525 $ 118990 $ 122,560 Payroll taxes $ . $ 8,320 $ 8543 $ 8,772 $ 9,008 $ 9,251 $ 9501 $ 9,759 $ 10,024 Employee benefits $ : $ 4095 $ 4801 $ 4911 $ 5,023 $ 5,139 $ 5,259 $ 5,382 $ 5,509 Worker's comp. insurance $ : $ 2,099 $ 2,162 $ 2,226 $ 2,293 $ 2,362 $ 2.433 $ 2,506 $ 2,581 Engineering Study $ 10,020 $ 12,693 $ 13,074 $ 13,466 $ 13,870 $ 14,286 $ 14,715 $ 15,156 $ 15,611 Training/Recruitment $ 3,400 $ 4307 $ 4436 $ 4569 $ 4,706 $ 4848 $ 4993 $ 5,143 $ 5,297 ConsultationNegal/professional $ 5,400 §$ 6841 $ 7,046 $ 7,257 $ 7,475 $ 7,699 $ 7,930 $ 8168 $ 8,413 Advertising $ 96 § 1,262 $ 1,300 $ 1,339 $ 1,379 $ 1,420 $ 1,463 $ 1,507 $ 1,552 Donations/Contributions $ 1,800 $ 2,280 $ 2349 $ 2419 $ 2,492 $ 2,566 $ 2,643 $ 2,723 $ 2,804 Insurance $ 22,200 $ 28,122 $ 28966 $ 29835 $ 30,730 $ 31,652 $ 32,601 $ 33579 $ 34587 Office supplies $ 3,000 $ 3,800 $ 3,914 $ 40382 $ 4153 $ 4,277 $ 4406 $ 4538 §$ 4,674 Equipment rental $ 2,520 $ 3,192 $ 3,288 $ 3,387 $ 3,488 $ 3,593 $ 3,701 $ 3,812 $ 3,926 Telephone/Utilities $ 3,060 $ 3876 $ 3993 $ 4112 $ 4236 $ 4363 $ 4,494 $ 4629 $ 4,767 Depreciation $ 117,324 $ 107,717 $ 86393 $ 8,997 $ 85907 $ 67,24 $ 39986 $ 39,151 $ 39011 Travel expense $ 16,620 $ 21,0564 $ 21,685 $ 22336 $ 2300 $ 23696 $ 24407 $ 25139 $ 2589 Dues/subscriptions/licenses $ 1,240 $ 1,571 $ 1,618 $ 1,666 $ 1,716 $ 1,768 $ 1,821 $ 1876 $ 1,932 Miscellaneous $ 600 $ 760 $ 783 $ 806 $ 831 $ 85 §$ 881 $ 908 §$ 935 Intercompany G&A $ 75,336 $ 433 $ 98,206 $ 101,24 $ 104283 $ 107411 $ 110633 $ 113952 $ 117,371 Interest Expense $ 64572 $ 11,793 $ 4,252 $ 2,208 $ - $ -_ $ -_ $ - $ : SUBTOTAL $ 403,088 $ 419,40 $ 300541 $ 40630 $ 413578 $ 404590 $ 387,301 $ 306,917 $ 407,448 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 929,898 $ 1,050,540 $ 1,038,380 $ 1,053,069 _$ 1,051,431 _$ 1,050,700 $ 1,042,761 $ 1,061,726 $ 1,081,880 NET OPERATING INCOME $97,002 $113,422 $ 13392 $ 127,642 $ 133,021 $ 14430 $ 162%8 $ 154736 $ 145,400 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 2 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 38884 $ 302334 $ 305126 $ 397,919 $ 400013 $ 402,107 $ 404,201 $ 406,296 Commercial Service $ 620,115 $ 754964 $ 761,74 $ 767,162 $ 772584 $ 776650 $ 780,716 $ 784,783 $ 788,84 Waste Heat revenue $ 55,080 $ 62196 $ 64056 $ 6971 $ 67944 $ 69976 $ 72,069 $ 74,225 $ 76,445 Rental income $ 6,050 $ 9,708 $ 10000 $ 10300 $ 10609 $ 10927 $ 11,25 $ 11592 $ 11,940 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 16368 $ 16859 $ 1736 $ 17886 $ 18,422 $ 18975 $ 19544 $ 20,131 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 4044 $ 416 $ 4290 $ 4419 $ 4551 _ $ 4688 $ 4829 $ 4973 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,026,990 $ 1,236,124 $ 1,249,154 $ 1,260,214 $ 1,271,360 $ 1,280540 $ 1,289,810 $ 1,209,174 $ 1,308,634 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ 379,962 $ 460,878 $ 463374 $ 467534 $ 470861 $ 474189 $ 476685 $ 479,180 $ 481,676 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 51338 $ 52878 $ 54464 $ 56098 $ 57,781 $ 59,515 $ 61,300 $ 63,139 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 12,035 $ 12,306 $ 12,768 $ 13,151 $ 13,546 $ 13,952 $ 14,371 $ 14,802 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 137,368 $ 141,489 $ 145,734 $ 150,106 $ 154609 $ 159,247 $ 164025 $ 168,946 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 11,623 $ 11,968 $ 12,324 $ 12,690 $ 13,068 $ 13,456 $ 13,857 $ 14,269 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 5,841 $ 5996 $ 6157 $ 6,322 $ 6,492 $ 6668 $ 6848 $ 7,034 Worker's comp. insurance $ 8100 $ 5,160_$ 5315 $ 5,474 _ $ 5,638 $ 5,807_$ 5,982 $ 6161 $ 6346 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 684,243 $ G603417 $ 70445 $ 714868 $ 725,403 $ 735505 $ 745,742 $ 756,212 Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages $ 75,000 $ 126,237 $ 130024 $ 13392 $ 137,942 $ 142,081 $ 146343 $ 150,733 $ 155,25 Payroll taxes $ - $ 10,298 $ 10579 $ 10870 $ 11,168 $ 11,476 $ 11,793 $ 12120 $ 12,456 Employee benefits $ 7 $ 5,639 $ 5,774 $ 5,912 $ 65 $ 6,202 $ 6353 $ 6509 $ 6,670 Worker's comp. insurance $ - $ 2,68 $ 2,738 $ 2,820 $ 2905 $ 2,992 $ 3,082 $ 3,174 $ 3,270 Engineering Study $ 10,020 $ 16,079 $ 16,562 $ 17,058 $ 17,570 $ 18,097 $ 18,640 $ 19,199 $ 19,775 Training/Recruitment $ 3,400 $ 5,456 §$ 5,620 $ 5,788 $ 5,962 $ 6141 $ 6325 $ 6515 $ 6,710 ConsultationlegaV/professional $ 5,400 $ 866 $ 8925 $ 9,193 §$ 9,469 $ 9,753 $ 10046 $ 10347 $ 10,657 Advertising $ 996 $ 1,508 $ 1,646 $ 1,696 $ 1,746 $ 1,799 $ 1853 $ 1,908 $ 1,966 Donations/Contributions $ 1,800 $ 2,888 $ 2,975 $ 3,064 §$ 3156 $ 3,251 $ 3,349 $ 3,449 §$ 3,552 Insurance $ 22,200 $ 35,624 $ 3,693 $ 37,794 $ 38,928 $ 40,096 $ 4,299 $ 42537 $ 43814 Office supplies $ 3,000 $ 4814 $ 4959 $ 5,107 $ 5,261 $ 5418 $ 5,581 $ 5,748 $ 5,921 Equipment rental $ 2,520 $ 4044 $ 416 $ 4,290 $ 449 $ 4551 $ 4688 $ 4829 $ 4973 Telephone/Utilities $ 3,060 $ 4910 $ 5,058 $ 5,209 $ 5,366 §$ 5527 $ 5,603 §$ 5863 $ 6,039 Depreciation $ 117,324 $ 37,250 $ 3250 $ 34262 $ 3334 $ 28,072 $ 27,769 $ 26876 $ 26,675 Travel expense $ 16,620 $ 26,670 $ 27,470 $ 28,204 $ 29143 $ 30,018 $ W918 $ 31,846 $ 32,801 Dues/subscriptions/licenses $ 1,240 $ 1,900 $ 2,050 $ 2,111 $ 24174 $ 2,240 $ 2,307 $ 2376 $ 2,447 Miscellaneous $ 600 $ 963 $ 992 $ 1,021 $ 1,052 $ 1,084 $ 1,116 $ 1,150 $ 1,184 Intercompany G&A $ 75,336 $ 120,892 $ 124519 $ 128,254 $ 132,102 $ 136,06 $ 140,147 $ 144352 $ 148,682 Interest Expense $ 64572 $ $ $ $ -_$ -_$ -_ $ -_ $ : SUBTOTAL $ 403,088 $ 416, 68 425; 8 $ 436, ort $ 447,754 $ 454862 $ 46730 $ 479532 $ 492840 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 929,898 2 1,100,921 3 1,119,415 : 1,141,126 126 _$ 1,162,621 $ 1,180,355 _ $ 1, 202,805 _ $ 1,225,274 _$ 1,249,061 NET OPERATING INCOME $97,092 136,208 $ 129,739 119,068 $108,738 $ 100,185 $ ‘87,005 _ 3 73,900 $ 59573 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 3 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 409,088 $ 411,881 $ 414673 $ 417,46 $ 444733 $ 44843 $ 451,30 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 794270 $ 799,692 $ 805,114 $ 81053 $ 863,478 $ 870,661 $ 876,408 Waste Heat revenue $ 56,080 $ 78,732 $ 81,088 83,514 86,013 88,587 $ 91,238 $ 93,969 Rental income $ 6,050 $ 12,208 $ 12,667 13,047 13,439 13,842 $ 14257 $ 14,685 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 20,734 $ 21,357 21,997 22,657 23,337 $ 24,037 $ 24,758 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 5,123 _ $ 5,276 5,435 $ $ 5939 $ 6117 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,026,990 $ 1,320,246 $ 1,331,961 $ 1,343,780 $ 1,365,707 $ 1,439,742 $ 1,454566 $ 1,467,330 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ 379,962 $ 484172 $ 487,500 $ 490827 $ 49415 $ 497,483 $ 499978 $ 50413 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 65,033 $ 66,984 68,994 $ 71,063 73,195 $ 75,391 $ 77,653 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 15,246 $ 15,703 16,174 $ 16,660 17159 $ 17,674 $ 18,204 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 174014 $ 179,234 184,611 $ 190,150 $ 195,854 $ 201,730 $ 207,782 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 14,694 $ 15,131 15,582 $ 16,046 $ 16,524 $ 17,016 $ 17,523 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 7,226 $ 7,423 $ $ $ 8,274 $ 8,502 Worker's comp. insurance $8100 $ 6536_ $ 6732_$ 6934 $ 7142 $ 7357_$ 7577_$ 7,805 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 766,921 $ 778,708 790,749 $ 803,052 $ 815623 $ 827,641 $ 841,607 Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages $ 75,000 $ 159913 $ 164711 $ 169,652 $ 174741 $ 179,984 $ 185383 $ 190,946 Payroll taxes $ oi $ 12,803 $ 13,159 $ 13,527 $ 13,905 $ 14,295 $ 14,697 $ 15,111 Employee benefits $ : $ 6835 $ 7,005 $ $ $ $ 7,740 $ 7,937 Worker's comp. insurance $ - $ 3,368 §$ 3,469 $ $ $ $ 3,904 $ 4,021 Engineering Study $ 10,020 $ 20,369 $ 20,980 $ 21,609 $ 22,257 $ 22,925 $ 23,613 $ 24,321 Training/Recruitment $ 3,400 $ 6911 $ 7,119 $ $ $ $ 8012 $ 8,253 Consultation/legal/professional $ 5,400 $ 10,977 $ 11,3006 $ 11,646 $ 11,995 $ 12,55 $ 12,725 $ 13,107 Advertising $ 996 $ 2,025 $ 2,085 $ $ $ $ 2347 $ 2,418 Donations/Contributions $ 1,800 $ 3,669 $ 3,769 $ $ $ $ 4,242 $ 4,369 Insurance $ = 22,200 $ 45,128 $ 46,482 $ 47876 $ 49313 $ 50,792 $ 52316 $ 53,885 Office supplies $ 3,000 $ 6098 $ 6,281 $ $ $ $ 7,070 $ 7,282 Equipment rental $ 2,520 $ 5,123 $ 5,276 $ $ $ $ 5939 $ 6,117 Telephone/Utilities $ 3,060 $ 6,220 $ 6,407 $ $ $ $ 7,211 $ 7,427 Depreciation $ 117,324 $ 26175 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Travel expense $ 16,620 $ 33,785 $ 3479 $ 3584 $ 36918 $ 38025 $ 399166 $ 40341 Dues/subscriptions/licenses $ 1,240 $ 2521 $ 2596 $ $ $ $ 2,922 $ 3,010 Miscellaneous $ 600 «=«¢ 1,220 $ 1, $ $ $ $ 1,414 §$ 1,456 Intercompany G&A $ 75,336 $ 153,143 $ 157,737 $ 162,469 $ 167,343 $ 172,363 $ 177,534 $ 182,860 Interest Expense $ 64572 $ -_$ -_$ $ $ -_ $ -_$ : SUBTOTAL $ 403,088 $ 506,272 $ 494438 $ 509,209 $ 524423 $ 540094 $ S625 $ 572,860 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 920,898 $ 1,273,193 _$ 1,273,146 _$ 1,200958 $ 1,327,475 _$ 1,355,717 _$ 1,383,875 _$ 1,414,467 NETOPERATINGINCOME $ 97,092 $ 47,053 $ 58815 $ 43,822 28,232 $ 84025 $ 70,600 $ 52,863 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 4 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Revenues Residential Service Commercial Service Waste Heat Revenue District Heat Revenue Rental income Interest income Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES Plant Expenses Fuel costs oll Coal Limestone Royalties ($2.00 per ton) Consumables Repairs Maintenance Plant labor Payroll taxes Employee benefits Travel expense (training) Worker's comp. insurance SUBTOTAL Administrative Expenses Salarles/wages Payroll taxes Employee benefits Worker's comp. insurance Engineering Study Training Consultation/legal/professional Advertising Insurance Donations/Contributions Office supplies Equipment rental Telephone/Utilities Depreciation Travel expense Dues/subscriptions/licenses Miscellaneous Intercompany G&A Interest Expense SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME BaselineCase Alternative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 $ 324,025 $ 329,952 $ 335,880 $ 341,807 $ 344,441 $ 349,051 $ 373,485 $ 378,372 $ 629,115 $ 640,623 $ 652,131 $ 663,640 $ 668,754 $ 677,705 $ 725,145 $ 734,632 $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ : $ - $ 125,461 $ 155,580 $ 184,442 $ 212,280 $ 241,747 $ 270,934 $ 274,192 $ 6,050 $ 6,232 $ 6,418 $ 6611 $ 6,809 $ 7,014 $ 7,224 $ 7,441 $ 10,200 $ 10,506 $ 10,821 $ 11,146 $ 11,480 $ 11,825 $ 12,179 $ 12,545, $ 2,520 $ 2,596 $ 2,673 $ 2,754 $ 2,836 $ 2,921 $ 3,009 _$ 3,099 $ 1,026,990 = 1,115,370 _$ 1,163,504 $ 1,210,398 $ 1,246,601 $ 1,290,263 $ 1,391,976 $ 1,410,281 $ 379,962 $ 45,585 $ 46,722 $ 54,123 $ 63,035 $ 72,986 $ 83,734 $ 95,134 $ 496,345 $ 503,721 $ 511,098 $ 518,474 $ 525,850 $ 533,226 $ 540,602 $ 11,381 $ 11,551 $ 11,720 $ 11,889 $ 12,058 $ 12,227 $ 12,396 $ - $ - $ - $ 19,364 $ 19,640 $ 19,915 $ 20,191 $ 20,512 $ 21,127 $ 21,761 $ 22,414 $ 23,086 $ 23,779 $ 24,492 $ 31,992 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 14,065 $ 14,065 $ 5,760 $ 33,912 $ 35,421 $ 36,999 $ 38,648 $ 40,371 $ 42,172 $ 44,054 $ 79,000 $ 281,717 $ 290,168 $ 298,873 $ 213,449 $ 219,852 $ 144,474 $ 148,808 $ 12,792 $ 22,886 $ 23,531 $ 23,711 $ 17,018 $ 17,493 $ 11,546 $ 11,868 $ 9,204 $ 6,788 $ 6,871 $ 13,303 $ 9,588 $ 9,830 $ 6495 $ 6,659 $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 $ 3,377 $ 3,478 $ 3,582 $ 3,690 $ 8,100 $12,273 $ 12,641 $ 13,020 $ 9,041_$ 9,312 $ 5,796 $ 5,970 $ 526,810 $ 991,655 $ 1,012,102 $ 1,045,051 $ 983,461 $ 1,011,121 $ 901,011 $ 927,928 $ 75,000 $ 81,027 $ 83,457 $ 85,961 $ 88,540 $ 91,196 $ 93,932 $ 96,750 $ i $ 6,935 $ 7,116 $ 7,302 $ 7,494 $ 7,691 $ 7,895 $ 8,104 $ $ 4,034 $ 4120 $ 4209 $ 4,301 $ 4395 $ 4492 $ 4,592 $ - $ 1,706 $ 1,758 $ 1,810 $ 1,865 $ 1,921 $ 1,978 $ 2,037 $ 10,020 $ 10,321 $ 10,630 $ 10,949 $ 11,278 $ 11,616 $ 11,964 $ 12,323 $ 3,400 $ 3,502 $ 3,607 $ 3,715 $ 3,827 $ 3,942 $ 4,060 ¢$ 4,182 $ 5,400 $ 5,562 $ 5,729 $ 5,901 $ 6078 $ 6,260 $ 6448 $ 6,641 $ 996 $ 1,026 $ 1,057 $ 1,088 $ 1,121 $ 1,155 $ 1,189 $ 1,225 $ 22,200 $ 57,866 $ 59,602 $ 61,390 $ 63,232 $ 65,129 $ 67,083 $ 69,095 $ 1,800 $ 1,854 $ 1,910 $ 1,967 $ 2,026 $ 2,087 $ 2,149 $ 2,214 $ 3,000 $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 $ 3,377 $ 3,478 $ 3,582 $ 3,690 $ 2,520 $ 2,596 $ 2,673 $ 2,754 $ 2,836 $ 2,921 $ 3,009 $ 3,099 $ 3,060 $ 3,152 $ 3,246 $ 3,344 § 3,444 $ 3,547 $ 3,654 $ 3,763 $ 117,324 $ 159,415 $ 152,144 $ 145,156 $ 145,145 $ 145,116 $ 144571 $ 143,098 $ 16,620 $ 17,119 $ 17,632 $ 18,161 $ 18,706 $ 19,267 $ 19,845 $ 20,441 $ 1,240 $ 1,277 $ 1,316 $ 1,355 $ 1,396 $ 1,437 $ 1,481 $ 1,525 $ 600 $ 618 $ 637 $ 656 $ 675 $ 696 $ 716 $ 738 $ 75,336 $ 77,596 $ 79,924 $ 82,322 $ 84,791 $ 87,335 $ 89,955 $ 92,654 $64,572 $127,525 $ 117,805 $ 107,376 $ 96,186 $ 87,258 $ 77,678 $ 67,398 $ 403,088 $ 566,219 $ 557,544 $ 548,693 $ 546,316 $ 546,446 $ 545,681 $ 543,570 $ 929,898 $ 1,557,873 $ 1,569,646 $ 1,593,744 $ 1,529,777 $ 1,557,567 $ 1,446,693 $ 1,471,498 A] =e 97,092 $__ (442,504) $ (406,143) $ (383,346) _ J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. (283,176) _$ (267,300) $ 4717) $ (61,217) Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 5 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 381,164 $ 386,749 $ 390,239 $ 395,126 $ 398,617 $ 404,201 $ 407,692 $ 413,277 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 740,054 $ 750,897 $ 757,674 $ 767,162 $ 773,939 $ 784,783 $ 791,560 $ 802,403 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ : $ 276,054 $ 279,777 $ 282,104 $ 285,362 $ 287,689 $ 291,412 $ 293,739 $ 297,463 Rental income $ 6,050 $ 7,664 $ 7,894 $ 8,131 $ 8,375 $ 8,626 $ 8,885 $ 9,151 $ 9,426 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 12,921 $ 13,309 $ 13,708 $ 14,119 $ 14,543 $ 14,979 $ 15,428 $ 15,891 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 3,192 $ 3,288 $ 3,387_$ 3,488 3,593 $ 3,701_ $ 3,812 $ 3,926 TOTAL REVENUES $1,026,990 “$ 1,421,049 $ 1,441,914 $§ 1,405,243 $ 1,473,632 _$ 1,467,007 $ 1, _$ 7,521,382 _$ 1,542,385 Plant Expenses Fuel costs oll $ 379,962 $ 107,085 $ 119,516 $ 132,372 $ 145,610 $ 159,194 $ 173,096 $ 187,291 $ 201,759 Coal $ 547,978 $ 555,354 $ 562,730 $ 570,106 $ 577,483 $ 584,859 $ 592,235 $ 599,084 Limestone $ 12,565 $ 12,734 $ 12,904 $ 13,073 $ 13,242 $ 13,411 13,580 $ 13,737 Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ 20,466 $ 20,742 $ 21,017 $ 21,293 $ 21,568 $ 21,844 $ 22,119 $ 22,375 Consumables $ 25,227 $ 25,984 $ 26,764 $ 27,566 $ 28,393 $ 29,245 $ 30,123 $ 31,026 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 14,065 $ 14,065 $ 14,065 $ 36,921 $ 36,921 $ 69,277 $ 69,277 $ 69,277 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 46,021 $ 48,077 $ 50,226 $ 52,472 $ 54820 $ 57,274 $ 59,839 $ 62,520 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 153,272 $ 157,871 $ 162,607 $ 167,485 $ 172,509 $ 177,685 $ 183,015 $ 188,506 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 12,199 $ 12,540 $ 12,891 $ 13,253 $ 13,626 $ 14,010 $ 14,406 $ 14,813 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 6827 $ 7,001 $ 7,180 $ 7,364 $ 7,554 $ 7,750 $ 7,952 $ 8,159 Travel expense (training) $ 3,800 $ 3,914 $ 4,032 $ 4153 $ 4277 $ 4,406 $ 4538 $ 4,674 Worker's comp. insurance $ 8,100 $ 6,149 $ 6,333 _$ 6,523 $ 6719 $ 6,921 $ 7,128 $ 7,342 $ 7,562 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 955,656 $ 984,132 $ 1,013,311 $ 1,066,015 $ 1,096,508 $ 1,159,984 $ 1,191,716 $ 1,223,493 Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages $ 75,000 $ 99,653 $ 102,642 $ 105,721 $ 108893 $ 112,160 $ 115,525 $ 118,990 $ 122,560 Payroll taxes $ - $ 8,320 $ 8543 $ 8,772 $ 9,008 $ 9,251 $ 9,501 $ 9,759 $ 10,024 Employee benefits $ - $ 4695 $ 4801 $ 4911 $ 5,023 $ 5,139 $ 5,259 $ 5,382 $ 5,509 Worker's comp. insurance $ - $ 2,099 $ 2,162 $ 2,226 $ 2,293 $ 2,362 $ 2,433 $ 2,506 $ 2,581 Engineering Study $ 10,020 $ 12,693 $ 13,074 $ 13,466 $ 13,870 $ 14,286 $ 14,715 $ 15,156 $ 15,611 Training $ 3,400 $ 4307 $ 4,436 $ 4569 $ 4,706 $ 4848 $ 4,993 $ 5,143 $ 5,297 Consultation/legaVprofessional $ 5,400 $ 6,841 $ 7,046 $ 7,257 $ 7,475 $ 7,699 $ 7,930 $ 8,168 $ 8,413 Advertising $ 996 $ 1,262 $ 1,300 $ 1,339 $ 1,379 $ 1,420 $ 1,463 $ 1,507 $ 1,552 Insurance $ 22,200 $ 71,168 $ 73,303 $ 75,502 $ 77,767 $ 80,100 $ 82,503 $ 84,978 $ 87,528 Donations/Contributions $ 1,800 $ 2,280 $ 2,349 $ 2.419 $ 2,492 $ 2,566 $ 2,643 $ 2,723 $ 2,804 Office supplies $ 3,000 $ 3,800 $ 3,914 $ 4,032 $ 4,153 $ 4,277 $ 4,406 $ 4538 $ 4,674 Equipment rental $ 2,520 $ 3,192 $ 3,288 $ 3,387 $ 3,488 $ 3,593 $ 3,701 $ 3,812 $ 3,926 Telephone/Utilities $ 3,060 $ 3,876 $ 3,993 $ 4112 $ 4,236 $ 4,363 $ 4,494 $ 4629 $ 4,767 Depreciation $ 117,324 $ 141,051 $ 119,727 $ 119,330 $ 119,330 $ 100,577 $ 73,319 $ 72,485 $ 72,345, Travel expense $ 16,620 $ 21,054 $ 21,685 $ 22,336 $ 23,006 $ 23,696 $ 24,407 $ 25,139 $ 25,893 Dues/subscriptions/licenses $ 1,240 $ 1,571 $ 1,618 $ 1,666 $ 1,716 $ 1,768 $ 1,821 $ 1,876 $ 1,932 Miscellaneous $ 600 $ 760 $ 783 $ 806 $ 831 $ 855 $ 881 $ 908 $ 935 Intercompany G&A. $ 75,336 $ 95,433 $ 98,296 $ 101,245 $ 104,283 $ 107,411 $ 110,633 $ 113,952 $ 117,371 Interest Expense $64,572 $58,102 $ 48,109 $ 43,465 $ 38,501 $ 35,580 $ 32,484 $ 29,202 $ 25,723 SUBTOTAL $ 403,088 $ 542,156 $ 521,067 $ 526,562 $ 532,450 $ 521,952 $ 503,110 $ 510,850 $ 519,445 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 929,898 S 1,497,813 $ 1,505,200 $ 1,539,873 _$ 1,598,465 _$ 1,618,460 $ 1,663,094 $ 1,702,567 $ 1,742,938 NET OPERATING INCOME $97,092 $___ (76,763) $ (63,286) $ (84,630) _$ (124,832) $ (131,454) $ (155,133) _$ (181,185) $ (200,552) J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 6 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case Revenues Residential Service Commercial Service Waste Heat Revenue District Heat Revenue Rental income Interest income Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil Coal Limestone Royalties ($2.00 per ton) Consumables Repairs Maintenance Plant labor Payroll taxes Employee benefits Travel expense (training) Worker's comp. insurance SUBTOTAL Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages Payroll taxes Employee benefits Worker's comp. Insurance Engineering Study Training Consultation/legaV/professional Advertising Insurance Donations/Contributions Office supplies Equipment rental Telephone/Utilities Depreciation Travel expense Dues/subscriptions/licenses Miscellaneous intercompany G&A Interest Expense SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1996/1997 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 ‘Year 22 Year 23 $ 324,025 $ 417,465 $ 423,050 $ 428,635 $ 433,854 $ 439,137 $ 444,484 $ 449,897 $ 455,375 $ 629,115 $ 810,535 $ 821,379 $ 832,222 $ 842,356 $ 852,612 $ 862,994 $ 873,503 $ 884,139 $ 55080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ : $ 300,255 $ 303,978 $ 307,702 $ 311,181 $ 314,703 $ 318,268 $ 321,876 $ 325,528 $ 6,050 $ 9,708 $ 10,000 $ 10,300 $ 10,609 $ 10,927 $ 11,255 $ 11,592 $ 11,940 $ 10,200 $ 16,368 $ 16,859 $ 17,365 $ 17,886 $ 18,422 $ 18,975 $ 19,544 $ 20,131 $s 2,520 $ 4,044 $ 4165 $ 4,290 $ 4419 $ 4551_$ 4,688 _ $ 4,829 _ $ 4,973 31,026,990 “$1,558,376 _$ 7,570,431 $ 7,600,513 $7,620,304 $7,640,353 _$ 7,660,664 _$ 7,601,241 $ 7,702,086 $ 379,962 $ 206,792 $ 230,564 $ 245,692 $ 261,032 $ 276,572 $ 292,302 $ 308,215 $ 324,301 $ 603,564 $ 608,044 $ 612,524 $ 617,004 $ 621,484 $ 625,964 $ 630,444 $ 634,924 $ 13,840 $ 13,943 $ 14,045 $ 14,148 $ 14,251 $ 14,354 $ 14,456 $ 14,559 $ 22,542 $ 22,710 $ 22,877 $ 23,044 $ 23,211 $ 23,379 $ 23,546 $ 23,713 $ 31,957 $ 32,916 $ 33,903 $ 34,920 $ 35,968 $ 37,047 $ 38,158 $ 39,303 $ 31,992 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 66,173 $ 66,173 $ 66,173 $ 5,760 $ 65,323 $ 68,253 $ 71,316 $ 74518 $ 77,865 $ 81,364 $ 85,023 $ 88,848 $ 79,000 $ 194,161 $ 199,986 $ 205,985 $ 212,165 $ 218,530 $ 225,086 $ 231,838 $ 238,793 $ 12,792 $ 15,233 $ 15665 $ 16,110 $ 16,569 $ 17,041 $ 17,528 $ 18,029 $ 18,545 $ 9,204 $ 8,373 $ 8,593 $ 8,820 $ 9,053 $ 9,294 $ 9,542 $ 9,797 $ 10,060 $ 4814 $ 4,959 $ 5,107 $ 5,261 $ 5,418 $ 5,581 $ 5,748 $ 5,921 $ 8,100 $ 7,789 $ 8,023 $ 8,264 $ 8512 _$ 8,767 _$ 9,030_$ 9,301 $ 9,580 $ 526,810 $ 1,239,175 $ 1,278,441 $ 1,309,431 $ 1,341,012 $ 1,373,188 $ 1,407,349 $ 1,440,729 $ 1,474,720 $ 75,000 $ 126,237 $ 130,024 $ 133,925 $ 137,942 $ 142,081 $ 146,343 $ 150,733 $ 155,255 $ - $ 10,298 $ 10,579 $ 10,870 $ 11,168 $ 11,476 $ 11,793 $ 12,120 $ 12,456 $ - $ 5,639 $ 5,774 $ §,912 $ 6,055 $ 6,202 $ 6,353 $ 6,509 $ 6,670 $ - $ 2,658 $ 2,738 $ 2,820 $ 2,905 $ 2,992 $ 3,082 $ 3,174 $ 3,270 $ 10,020 $ 16,079 $ 16,562 $ 17,058 $ 17,570 $ 18,097 $ 18,640 $ 19,199 $ 19,775 $ 3,400 $ 5,456 $ 5,620 $ 5,788 $ 5,962 $ 6141 $ 6325 $ 6515 $ 6,710 $ 5,400 $ 8,665 $ 8,925 $ 9,193 $ 9,469 $ 9,753 $ 10,046 $ 10,347 $ 10,657 $ 996 $ 1,598 $ 1,646 $ 1,696 $ 1,746 $ 1,799 $ 1,853 $ 1,908 $ 1,966 $ 22,200 $ 90,153 $ 92,858 $ 95,644 $ 98,513 $ 101,468 $ 104,512 $ 107,648 $ 110,877 $ 1,800 $ 2,888 $ 2,975 $ 3,064 $ 3,156 $ 3,251 $ 3,349 $ 3,449 $ 3,552 $ 3,000 $ 4814 $ 4959 $ 5,107 $ 5,261 $ 5,418 $ 5,581 $ 5,748 $ 5,921 $ 2,520 $ 4,044 $ 4165 $ 4,290 $ 4419 $ 4551 $ 4,688 $ 4,829 $ 4,973 $ 3,060 $ 4910 $ 5,058 $ 5,209 $ 5,366 $ 5,527 $ 5,693 $ 5,863 $ 6,039 $ 117,324 $ 70,583 $ 68,583 $ 67,596 $ 66,668 $ 61,405 $ 61,102 $ 60,209 $ 60,008 $ 16,620 $ 26670 $ 27,470 $ 28,294 $ 29,143 $ 30,018 $ 30,918 $ 31,846 $ 32,801 $ 1,240 $ 1,990 $ 2,050 $ 2111 $ 2,174 $ 2,240 $ 2,307 $ 2,376 $ 2,447 $ 600 $ 963 $ 992 $ 1,021 $ 1,052 $ 1,084 $ 1,116 $ 1,150 $ 1,184 $ 75,336 $ 120,892 $ 124519 $ 128,254 $ 132,102 $ 136,065 $ 140,147 $ 144,352 $ 148,682 $64,572 $22,035 $ 18,126 $ 13,983 $ 9,591_ $ 4935 _ $ - $ - $ : $ 403,088 $ 526,575 $ 533,622 $ 541,837 $ 550,263 $ 554,503 $ 563,848 $ 577,975 $ 593,246 $929,898 _$ 1,765,750_$ 1,812,064 _$ 1,851,268 _$ 1,891,275 _$ 1,927,691_$ 1,971,197_$ 2,018,704 _$ 2,067,966 “$97,092 “$ (207,374) $ (232,633) $ (250,754) $ (270,971) $ (287,338) $ (310,532) $ (337,463) $ (305,879) Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 7 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 460,920 $ 466,532 $ 472,213 $ 477,963 $ 512,810 $ 519,054 $ 525,374 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 894,905 $ 905,801 $ 916,831 $ 927,995 $ 995,652 $ 1,007,776 $ 1,020,047 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ : District Heat Revenue $ - $ 329,225 $ 332,967 $ 336,754 $ 340,587 $ 344,467 $ 348,394 $ 352,369 Rental income $ 6,050 $ 12,298 $ 12,667 $ 13,047 $ 13,4389 $ 13,842 $ 14,257 $ 14,685 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 20,734 $ 21,357 $ 21,997 $ 22,657 $ 23,337 $ 24,037 $ 24,758 Miscellaneous $2520 $ 5123 $ 5276 $ 5435 $ 5598 $ 5766 $ 5939 $ 6,117 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,026,990 1 1,744,600 1 2) 1,895,873 1,919,457 _$ 1,943,350 Plant Expenses Fuel costs oll $ 379,962 $ 340,552 $ 356,963 $ 373,528 $ 390,239 $ 407,092 $ 424,081 $ 441,203 Coal $ 639,404 $ 643,884 $ 648,364 $ 652,844 $ 657,324 $ 661,804 $ 666,284 Limestone $ 14,662 $ 14,765 $ 14,867 $ 14,970 $ 15,073 $ 15,175 $ 15,278 Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ 23,881 $ 24,048 $ 24,215 $ 24383 $ 24550 $ 24,717 $ 24,885 Consumables $ 40,482 $ 41,697 $ 42,948 $ 44,236 $ 45,563 $ 46,930 $ 48,338 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 66,173 $ 66,173 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 92,847 $ 97,028 $ 101,400 $ 105,971 $ 110,750 $ 115,748 $ 120,973 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 245,957 $ 253,336 $ 260,936 $ 268,764 $ 276,827 $ 285,132 $ 293,686 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 19,077 $ 19,624 $ 20,188 $ 20,769 $ 21,367 $ 21,983 $ 22,618 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 10,331 $ 10,610 $ 10,897 $ 11,193 $ 11,498 $ 11,812 $ 12,135 Travel expense (training) $ 6,098 $ 6,281 $ 6470 $ 6,664 $ 6,864 $ 7,070 $ 7,282 Worker's comp. insurance $8,100 $ 9,867 _$ 10,163 $ 10,468 $ 10,782 $ 11,106 $ 11,439 $ 11,782 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 1,509,331 $ 1,544,572 $ 1,609,558 $ 1,646,091 $ 1,683,290 $ 1,721,168 $ 1,759,741 Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages $ 75,000 $ 159,913 $ 164,711 $ 169,652 $ 174,741 $ 179,984 $ 185,383 $ 190,945 Payroll taxes $ - $ 12,803 $ 13,159 $ 13,527 $ 13,905 $ 14295 $ 14697 $ 15,111 Employee benefits $ - $ 6,835 $ 7,005 $ 7,181 $ 7,362 $ 7,548 $ 7,740 $ 7,937 Worker's comp. insurance $ : $ 3,368 $ 3,469 $ 3,573 $ 3,680 $ 3,790 $ 3,904 $ 4,021 Engineering Study $ 10,020 $ 20,369 $ 20,980 $ 21,609 $ 22,257 $ 22,925 $ 23,613 $ 24,321 Training $ 3,400 $ 6911 $ 7.119 $ 7,332 $ 7,552 $ 7,779 $ 8,012 $ 8,253 Consultation/legal/professional $ 5,400 $ 10,977 $ 11,306 $ 11,646 $ 11,995 $ 12,355 $ 12,725 $ 13,107 Advertising $ 996 $ 2,025 $ 2,085 $ 2,148 $ 2,212 $ 2,279 $ 2,347 $ 2,418 Insurance $ 22,200 $ 114,204 $ 117,630 $ 121,159 $ 124793 $ 128,537 $ 132,393 $ 136,365 Donations/Contributions $ 1,800 $ 3,659 $ 3,769 $ 3,882 $ 3,998 $ 4118 $ 4,242 $ 4,369 Office supplies $ 3,000 $ 6,098 $ 6,281 $ 6,470 $ 6,664 $ 6,864 $ 7,070 $ 7,282 Equipment rental $ 2,520 $ 5,123 $ 5,276 $ 5,435 $ 5,598 $ 5,766 $ 5,939 $ 6,117 Telephone/Ulilities $ 3,060 $ 6,220 $ 6,407 $ 6,599 $ 6,797 $ 7,001 $ 7211 $ 7,427 Depreciation $ 117,324 $ 59,509 $ 33,333 $ 33,333 $ 33,333 $ 33,333 $ 33,333 $ 33,333 Travel expense $ 16,620 $ 33,785 $ 34,799 $ 35,843 $ 36,918 $ 38,025 $ 39,166 $ 40,341 Dues/subscriptions/licenses $ 1,240 $ 2,521 $ 2,596 $ 2,674 $ 2,754 $ 2,837 $ 2,922 $ 3,010 Miscellaneous $ 600 $ 1,220 $ 1,256 $ 1,294 $ 1,333 $ 1,373 $ 1,414 $ 1,456 intercompany G&A $ 75,336 $ 153,143 $ 157,737 $ 162,469 $ 167,343 $ 172,363 $ 177,534 $ 182,860 Interest Expense $ 64,572 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - SUBTOTAL $ 403,088 $ 608,681 $ 598,919 $ 615,824 $ 633,237 $ 651,172 $ 669,646 $ 688,673 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 929,898 $ 2,118,012 $ 2,143,491 $ 2,225,382 _$ 2,279,329 $ 2,334,463 $ 2,390,814 $ 2,448,414 NET OPERATING INCOME $97,002 “$ (394,808) $ (398,891) $ (459,106) $ (491,000) $ (438,589) $ ai 357) $ (605,064) J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 8 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case Alternative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year7 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 329,952 $ 335,880 $ 341,807 $ 344,441 $ 349,051 $ 373,485 $ 378,372 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 640,623 $ 652,131 $ 663,640 $ 668,754 $ 677,705 $ 725,145 $ 734,632 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ - $ 125,461 $ 155,580 $ 184,442 $ 212,280 $ 241,747 $ 270,934 $ 274,192 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,096,036 $ 1,143,590 $ 1,189,888 $ 1,225,475 $ 1,268,503 $ 1,369,564 $ 1,387,196 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ 379,962 Coal $ 496,345 $ 503,721 $ 511,098 $ 518,474 $ 525,850 $ 533,226 $ 540,602 Limestone $ 11,381 $ 11,551 $ 11,720 $ 11,889 $ 12,058 $ 12,227 $ 12,396 Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ - $ - §$ - $ 19,364 $ 19,640 $ 19,915 $ 20,191 Consumables $ 20,512 $ 21,127 $ 21,761 $ 22,414 $ 23,086 $ 23,779 $ 24,492 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 57,165 $ 14,065 $ 14,065 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 33,912 $ 35,421 §$ 36,999 $ 38,648 $ 40,371 $ 42,172 $ 44,054 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 281,717 $ 290,168 $ 298,873 $ 213,449 $ 219,852 $ 144,474 $ 148,808 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 22,886 $ 23,531 $ 23;711 '$ 17,018 $ 17,493 $ 11,546 $ 11,868 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 6,788. $ 6,871 $ 13,303 $ 9,588 $ 9,830 $ 6,495 $ 6,659 Travel expense (training) $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 $ 3,377 $ 3,478 $ 3,582 $ 3,690 Worker's comp. insurance $ 8,100 $ 12,273 $ 12,641 §$ 13,020 $ 9,041 $ 9,312 $ 5,796 $ 5,970 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 946,069 $ 965,380 $ 990,928 $ 920,426 $ 938,135 $ 817,277 $ 832,794 Other Expenses Insurance - plant $ 35,000 $ 36,050 $ 37,132 $ 38,245 $ 39,393 $ 40,575 $ 41,792 Depreciation $ 23,058 $ 22,527 $ 22,009 $ 21,503 $ 21,008 $ 20,525 $ 20,053 Interest Expense $ 60,000 $ 58,369 $ 56,640 $ 54,807 $ 52,865 _$ 50,805 $ 48,623 SUBTOTAL $ 118,058 $ 116,946 $ 115,781 $ 114556 $ 113,266 $ 111,905 $ 110,468 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 1,064,127 $ 1,082,326 $ 1,106,709 $ 1,034,982 $ 1,051,401 $ 929182 $ 943,262 NET OPERATING INCOME $ 31,910 $ 61,264 $ 83,179 $ 190,494 $ 217,102 $ 440,382 $ 443,935 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 9 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Revenues Residential Service Commercial Service Waste Heat Revenue District Heat Revenue TOTAL REVENUES Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil Coal Limestone Royalties ($2.00 per ton) Consumables Repairs Maintenance Plant labor Payroll taxes Employee benefits Travel expense (training) Worker's comp. insurance SUBTOTAL Other Expenses Insurance - plant Depreciation Interest Expense SUBTOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 $ 324,025 $ 381,164 $ 386,749 $ 390,239 $ 395,126 $ 398,617 $ 404,201 $ 407,692 $ 413,277 $ 629,115 $ 740,054 $ 750,897 $ 757,674 $ 767,162 $ 773,939 $ 784,783 $ 791,560 $ 802,403 $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - §$ - $ - $ - $ = $ : $ 276,054 $ 279,777 $ 282,104 $ 285,362 $ 287,689 $ 291,412 $ 293,739 $ 297,463 $ 1,008,220 $ 1,397,272 $ 1,417,423 $ 1,430,018 $ 1,447,650 $ 1,460,245 $ 1,480,396 $ 1,492,991 $ 1,513,142 ——— So eee SS SSE — = = $ 379,962 $ 547,978 $ 555,354 $ 562,730 $ 570,106 $ 577,483 $ 584,859 $ 592,235 $ 599,084 $ 12,565 $ 12,734 $ 12,904 $ 13,073 $ 13,242 $ 13,411 $ 13,580. $ 13,737 $ 20466 $ 20,742 $ 21,017 $ 21,293 $ 21,568 $ 21,844 $ 22,119 $ 22,375 $ 25,227 $ 25,984 $ 26,764 $ 27,566 $ 28,393 $ 29,245 $ 30,123 $ 31,026 $ 31,992 $ 14,065 $ 14,065 $ 14,065 $ 36921 $ 36921 $ 69,277 $ 69,277 $ 69,277 $ 5,760 $ 46021 $ 48,077 $ 50,226 $ 52,472 $ 54820 $ 57,274 $ 59,839 $ 62,520 $ 79,000 $ 153,272 $ 157,871 $ 162,607 $ 167,485 $ 172,509 $ 177,685 $ 183,015 $ 188,506 $ 12,792 $ 12199 $ 12,540 $ 12,891 $ 13,253 $ 13,626 $ 14,010 $ 14,406 $ 14,813 $ 9,204 $ 6,827 $ 7,001 $ 7,180 $ 7,364 $ 7,554 $ 7,750 $ 7,952 $ 8,159 $ 3,800 $ 3,914 $ 4,032 $ 4,153 $ 4,277 $ 4406 $ 4538 $ 4,674 $ 8,100 $ 6149 $ 6,333_ $ 6,523 $ 6719 $ 6,921 $ 7,128 $ 7,342 $ 7,562 $ 526,810 $ 848,571 $ 864,616 $ 880,939 $ 920,405 $ 937,314 $ 986,888 $ 1,004,425 $ 1,021,734 $ 43,046 $ 44337 $ 45,667 $ 47,037 $ 48448 $ 49,902 $ 51,399 $ 52,941 $ 19,592 $ 19,141 §$ 18,701 $ 18,271 $ 17,851 $ 17,440 $ 17,039 $ 16,647 $ 46309 $ 43,857 $ 41,257 $ 38501 $ 35580 $ 32,484 $ 29,202 $ 25,723 $ 108,946 $ 107,335 $ 105,625 $ 103,809 $ 101,879 $ 99,826 $ 97639 $ 95,311 $__957,517_$ 971,951 _$ 986,564 $ 1,024,214 $ 1,039,193 $ 1,086,714 $ 1,102,064 $ 1,117,044 $ 430,755 $ 445,473 $ 443,454 $ 423,436 $ 421,052 $ 393,683 $ 390,927 $ 396,098 Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 10 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 417,465 $ 423,050 $ 428,635 $ 433,854 $ 439,137 $ 444,484 $ 449,897 $ 455,375 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 810,535 $ 821,379 $ 832,222 $ 842,356 $ 852,612 $ 862,994 $ 873,503 $ 884,139 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - §$ - §$ - District Heat Revenue $ : $ 300,255 $ 303,978 $ 307,702 $ 311,181 $ 314,703 $ 318,268 $ 321,876 $ 325,528 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $_1,528,256_$ 1,548,407 _$ 1,568,559 _$ 1,587,301 _$ 1,606,453 _$ 1,625,747 _$ 1,645,275 _$ 1,665,042 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ 379,962 Coal $ 603,564 $ 608,044 $ 612,524 $ 617,004 $ 621,484 $ 625,964 $ 630,444 $ 634,924 Limestone $ 13,840 $ 13,943 $ 14,045 $ 14148 $ 14,251 $ 14,354 $ 14,456 $ 14,559 Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ 22,542 $ 22,710 $ 22877 $ 23,044 $ 23,211 $ 23,379 $ 23,546 $ 23,713 Consumables $ 31,957 $ 32916 $ 33,903 $ 34920 $ 35,968 $ 37,047 $ 38,158 $ 39,303 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 64,787 $ 66173 $ 66173 $ 66,173 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 65,323 $ 68,253 $ 71,316 $ 74518 $ 77,865 $ 81,364 $ 85,023 $ 88,848 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 194,161 $ 199,986 $ 205,985 $ 212,165 $ 218,530 $ 225,086 $ 231,838 $ 238,793 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 15,233 $ 15665 $ 16110 $ 16569 $ 17,041 $ 17,528 $ 18029 $ 18,545 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 8,373 $ 8,593 §$ 8,820 $ 9,053 $ 9,294 $ 9,542 §$ 9,797 $ 10,060 Travel expense (training) $ 4,814 $ 4959 $ 5,107 $ 5,261 $ 5,418 $ 5,581 $ 5,748 $ 5,921 Worker's comp. insurance $ 8,100 $ 7,789 $ 8,023 $ 8,264 $ 8512 $ 8,767 _ $ 9,030 $ 9,301 $ 9,580 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 1,032,383 $ 1,047,877 $ 1,063,738 $ 1,079,980 $ 1,096,617 $ 1,115,047 $ 1,132,514 $ 1,150,419 Other Expenses Insurance - plant $ 54,529 $ 56,165 $ 57,850 $ 59,585 $ 61,373 $ 63,214 $ 65,110 $ 67,064 Depreciation $ 16,264 $ 15890 $ 15,525 $ 15,168 $ 14819 $ 14,478 $ 14,145 $ 13,820 Interest Expense $22,035 $ 18126 $ 13983 $ 9,591 $ 4,935 SUBTOTAL $ 92,828 $ 90,181 $ 87,357 $ 84343 $ 81,126 $ 77,692 $ 79,255 $ 80,883 TOTAL EXPENSES $1,125,211 $ 1,138,058 $ 1,151,095 $ 1,164,324 $ 1,177,743 $ 1,192,738 $ 1,211,769 $ 1,231,303 NET OPERATING INCOME $ 403,045 $ 410,349 $ 417,463 $ 423,067 $ 428,710 $ 433,008 $ 433,506 $ 433,739 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 11 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 460,920 $ 466,532 $ 472,213 $ 477,963 $ 512,810 $ 519,054 $ 525,374 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 894905 $ 905,801 $ 916,831 $ 927,995 $ 995,652 $ 1,007,776 $ 1,020,047 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - §$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ - $ 329,225 $ 332,967 $ 336,754 $ 340,587 $ 344467 $ 348,394 $ 352,369 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,685,049 $ 1,705,300 $ 1,725,797 $ 1,746,545 $ 1,852,929 $ 1,875,224 $ 1,897,790 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ 379,962 Coal $ 639,404 $ 643,884 $ 648,364 $ 652,844 $ 657,324 $ 661,804 $ 666,284 Limestone $ 14,662 $ 14,765 $ 14,867 $ 14,970 $ 15,073 $ 15,175 $ 15,278 Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ 23,881 $ 24,048 §$ 24,215 $ 24,383 $ 24,550 $ 24,717 $ 24,885 Consumables $ 40,482 $ 41,697 $ 42,948 $ 44,236 $ 45,563 $ 46,930 $ 48,338 Repairs $ 31,992 $ 66,173 $ 66,173 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 $ 95,277 Maintenance $ 5,760 $ 92,847 §$ 97,028 $ 101,400 $ 105,971 $ 110,750 $ 115,748 $ 120,973 Plant labor $ 79,000 $ 245,957 $ 253,336 $ 260,936 $ 268,764 $ 276,827 $ 285,132 $ 293,686 Payroll taxes $ 12,792 $ 19,077 $ 19,624 $ 20,188 $ 20,769 $ 21,367 $ 21,983 $ 22,618 Employee benefits $ 9,204 $ 10,331 $ 10,610 $ 10,897 $ 11,193 $ 11,498 $ 11,812 $ 12,135 Travel expense (training) $ 6,098 $ 6,281 $ 6,470 $ 6,664 $ 6,864 $ 7,070 $ 7,282 Worker's comp. insurance $ 8,100 $ 9,867 $ 10,163 $ 10,468 $ 10,782 $ 11,106 $ 11,439 $ 11,782 SUBTOTAL $ 526,810 $ 1,168,779 $ 1,187,609 $ 1,236,030 $ 1,255,853 $ 1,276,199 $ 1,297,087 $ 1,318,538 Other Expenses Insurance - plant $ 69,076 $ 71,148 §$ 73,282 $ 75,481 $ 77,745 $ 80,077 $ 82,480 Depreciation $ 13,502 $ 13,191 $ 12,888 $ 12,591 $ 12,302 $ 12,019 $ 11,742 Interest Expense SUBTOTAL $ 82,577 $ 84,339 $ 86,170 $ 88,072 $ 90,047 $ 92,096 $ 94,222 TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. $ 1,251,356 $ 1,271,948 $ 1,322,200 $ 1,343,925 $ 1,366,245 $ 1,389,183 $ 1,412,760 $ 433,693 $ 433,352 $ 403,597 $ 402,620 $ 486,683 $ 486,041 Appendix Page 7.4.3 - 12 $ 485,030 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.4.4 Cash Flow Statement J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 89 Appendix 7.4.4 Cash Flow Statements Financial assessment of any given project is not necessarily limited to one evaluation method. This appendix measures the cash flows of the project alternatives and differs from the income statements in Appendix 7.4.3 in that expenses occurring in one period are accounted for in that one period. This method of evaluation allows the reader to track fund flows by activity and in this appendix the activities are Plant, Investing, and Financial activities. The income statement differs from the cash flow statements in that monies accrue over time to account for large expenditures anticipated in future years. Caution should be used in evaluating the Coal (Stand-Alone) Alternative. Engineers estimate the plant would need to be shut down for periodic repair and maintenance during the year which would require an alternative source of power. The alternative source of power has not been included with the Coal (Stand-Alone) Alternative nor are general and administrative expenses included. All alternatives are based on the City of McGrath population and expenditures. McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative BaselineCase Alternative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 329,952 $ 333,245 $ 336,538 $ 338,514 $ 341,148 $ 364,410 $ 367,202 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 640,623 $ 647,017 $ 653,410 $ 657,246 $ 662,361 $ 707,524 $ 712,946 Waste Heat revenue $ 55,080 $ 56,732 _$ 57,926 $ 59155 $ 60422 $ 61726 $ 51,068 $ 52,452 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,027,308 $1,038,188 $1,049,104 $1,056,182 $1,065,235 $1,123,002 $1,132,599 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (409,300) $ (416,787) $ (420,947) $ (425,106) $ (427,602) $ (430,930) $ (434,257) Repairs $ (31,992) $ (56,332) $ (69,568) $ (70,152) $ (102,267) $ (57,114) $ (77,031) $ (14,441) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (7,725) $ (7,957) $ (8,195) $ (8,441) $ (8,695) $ (8,955) $ (9,224) Plant labor/expenses $_(109,096) $ (102,965) $ (106,031) $ (109,189) $ (112,442) $ (115,793) $ (119,244) $ (122,798) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (576,322) $ (600,343) $ (608,483) $ (648,257) $ (609,203) $ (636,160) $ (580,720) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (93,702) $ (96,451) $ (99,282) $ (102,199) $ (105,203) $ (108,297) $ (111,484) Consultationlegal/professional $ (18,820) $ (19,385) $ (19,966) $ (20,565) $ (21,182) $ (21,818) $ (22,472) $ (23,146) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (22,866) $ (23,552) $ (24,259) $ (24,986) $ (25,736) $ (26,508) $ (27,303) Office supplies/equip./utilities $ (8,580) $ (8,837) $ (9,103) $ (9,376) $ (9,657) $ (9,947) $ (10,245) $ (10,552) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (17,119) $ (17,632) $ (18,161) $ (18,706) $ (19,267) $ (19,845) $ (20,441) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (4,775) $ (4,918) $ (5,066) $ (5,218) $ (5,374) $ (5,536) $ (5,702) Intercompany G&A $__ (75,336) $ (77,596) $ (79,924) $ (82,322) $ (84,791) $ (87,335) $ (89,955) $ (92,654) SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (244,279) $ (251,546) $ (259,030) $ (266,739) $ (274,680) $ (282,858) $ (291,282) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (748,002) $ (820,601 1,889) $ (867,514) $ (914,997) § 33,8 9,01 f Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 $ 206,707 $ 186,299 $ 181,590 $ 141,185 $ 181,353 $ 203,984 $ 260,597 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Rental income $ 6,050 $ 6,232 $ 6418 §$ 6611 $ 6,809 $ 7,014 $ 7,224 $ 7,441 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 10506 $ 10821 $ 11,146 $ 11,480 $ 11,825 $ 12,179 $ 12,545 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 2,596 $ 2,673_ $ 2,754 $ 2,836 $ 2,921 $ 3,009 $ 3,099 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 19,333 $ 19,913 $ 20510 $ 21,126 $ 21,760 $ 22,412 $ 23,085 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service-includes interest $ (184,333) $ (184,333) $ (159,955) $ (135,577) $ (135,577) $ (135,577) $ (108,981) $ (49,099) Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) $ (184,333) $ (159,955) $ (135,577) $ (135,577) $ (135,577) $ (108,981) $ (49,099) CASH FLOW $94,655 $41,707 $ 46,257 $ 66,524 $ 26734 $ 67,535 $ 117,415 $ 234583 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 1 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 369,296 $ 371,391 $ 373,485 $ 375,579 $ 378,372 $ 381,164 $ 383,956 $ 386,749 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 717,012 $ 721,078 $ 725,145 $ 729,211 $ 734632 $ 740,054 $ 745,476 $ 750,897 Waste Heat revenue $55,080 $ 53877 $ 55345 $ 56857 $ 53680 $ 55284 $ 56937 $ 58638 $ 60,391 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $1,140,185 $1,147,814 $1,155,486 $1,158,470 $ 1,168,288 $ 1,178,155 $ 1,188,070 $ 1,198,037 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (437,585) $ (440,081) $ (442,576) $ (445,072) $ (447,568) $ (450,896) $ (454,223) $ (457,551) Repairs $ (31,992) $ (65,715) $ (30,943) $ (31,661) $ (8,375) $ (123,542) $ (8,885) $ (27,756) $ (28,589) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (9,501) $ (9,786) $ (10,079) $ (10,382) $ (10,693) $ (11,014) $ (11,344) $ (11,685) Plant labor/expenses $_ (109,096) $_(126,459) $ (130,230) $ (134,114) $ (138,115) $ (142,236) $ (146,480) $ (150,851) $ (155,354) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (639,260) $ (611,039) $ (618,431) $ (601,943) $ (724,039) $ (617,274) $ (644,175) $ \653,178) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (114,767) $ (118,148) $ (121,630) $ (125,217) $ (128,912) $ (132,717) $ (136,637) $ (140,674) Consultationlegal/professional $ (18,820) $ (23,841) $ (24,556) $ (25,293) $ (26,051) $ (26,833) $ (27,638) $ (28,467) $ (29,321) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (28,122) $ (28,966) $ (29,835) $ (30,730) $ (31,652) $ (32,601) $ (33,579) $ (34,587) Office supplies/equip./utilities $ (8,580) $ (10,869) $ (11,195) $ (11,531) $ (11,877) $ (12,233) $ (12,600) $ (12,978) $ (13,367) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (21,054) $ (21,685) $ (22,336) $ (23,006) $ (23,696) $ (24,407) $ (25,139) $ (25,893) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (5,873) $ (6,049) $ (6,230) $ (6,417) $ (6,610) $ (6,808) $ (7,012) $ (7,223) Intercompany G&A $__ (75,336) $__ (95,433) $ (98,296) $ (101,245) $ (104,283) $ (107,411) $ (110,633) $ (113,952) $ (117,371). SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (299,958) $ (308,895) $ (318,100) $ (327,581) $ (337,347) $ (347,405) $ (357,765) $ (368,436) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (748,002) $_(939,218) $ (919,934) $ (936,531 29,52 61,385) $ (1, )) $ Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 $ 200,967 $ 227,879 $ 218,955 $ 228946 $ 106,903 $ 213476 $ 186,130 $ 176,423 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Rental income $ 6,050 $ 7,664 $ 7,894 $ 8,131 $ 8,375 §$ 8,626 $ 8,885 $ 9,151 $ 9,426 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 12,921 $ 13,309 $ 13,708 $ 14,119 $ 14543 $ 14979 $ 15,428 $ 15,891 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 3,192 $ 3,288 $ 3,387 $ 3,488 $ 3,593 _ $ 3,701 _ $ 3,812 $ 3,926 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 23,777 $ 24491 $ 25,225 $ 25,982 $ 26,762 $ 27,564 $ 28,391 $ 29,243 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service-includes interest $ (184,333) $__ (29,138) $ (29,138) $ -_ $ -_$ -_$ - $ -_ $ : Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) $ (29,138) $ (29,138) $ - §$ - § - $ - $ - $ - CASH FLOW $ 94,655 $195,606 _$ 223,232 $ 244,180 $ 254,928 $ 133,665 $ 241,040 $ 214521 $ 205,666 see J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 2 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 388,843 $ 392,334 $ 395,126 $ 397,919 $ 400,013 $ 402,107 $ 404,201 $ 406,296 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 754,964 $ 761,741 $ 767,162 $ 772,584 $ 776650 $ 780,716 $ 784,783 $ 788,849 Waste Heat revenue $__55,080 $ 62,196 $ 64,056 $ 65,971 §$ 67,944 $ 69,976 $ 72,069 _$ 74,225 $ 76,445 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,206,003 $ 1,218,130 $ 1,228,260 $ 1,238,447 $ 1,246,639 $ 1,254,892 $ 1,263,209 $ 1,271,590 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (460,878) $ (463,374) $ (467,534) $ (470,861) $ (474,189) $ (476,685) $ (479,180) $ (481,676) Repairs $ (31,992) $ (74,378) $ (30,330) $ (78,908) $ (81,275) $ (10,927) $ (67,018) $ (11,592) $ (91,476) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (12,035) $ (12,396) $ (12,768) $ (13,151) $ (13,546) $ (13,952) $ (14,371) $ (14,802) Plant labor/expenses $_(109,096) $__ (159,992) $ (164,769) $ (169,689) $ (174,757) $ (179,977) $ (185,353) $ (190,891) $ (196,595) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (707,284) $ (670,869) $ (728,899) $ (740,045) $ (678,639) $ (733,008) $ (696,035) $ (784,549) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (144,832) $ (149,115) $ (153,527) $ (158,071) $ (162,751) $ (167,571) $ (172,537) $ (177,651) Consultation/legal/professional $ (18,820) $ (30,201) $ (31,107) $ (32,040) $ (33,001) $ (33,991) $ (35,011) $ (36,061) $ (37,143) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (35,624) $ (36,693) $ (37,794) $ (38,928) $ (40,096) $ (41,299) $ (42,537) $ (43,814) Office supplies/equip./utilities $ (8,580) $ (13,768) $ (14,181) $ (14,607) $ (15,045) $ (15,496) $ (15,961) $ (16,440) $ (16,933) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (26,670) $ (27,470) $ (28,294) $ (29,143) $ (30,018) $ (30,918) $ (31,846) $ (32,801) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (7,439) $ (7,663) $ (7,892) $ (8,129) $ (8,373) $ (8,624) $ (8,883) $ (9,150) Intercompany G&A $__ (75,336) $__ (120,892) $ (124,519) $ (128,254) $ (132,102) $ (136,065) $ (140,147) $ (144,352) $ (148,682) SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (379,428) $ (390,748) $ (402,409) $ (414,419) $ (426,790) $ (439,532) $ (452,656) $ (466,173) TOTAL EXPENSES $_ (748,002) $ (1,086,711) _$ (1,061,617) $ (1,131,308) _$ (1,154,464) $ (1,105,428) $ (1,172,540) _$ (1,148,690)_$ (1,250,722) Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 $ 119,292 $ 156,513 $ 96,952 $ 83,983 $ 141,211 $ 82,353 $ 114518 $ 20,868 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Rental income $ 6,050 $ 9,708 $ 10,000 $ 10,300 $ 10,609 $ 10,927 $ 11,255 $ 11,592 $ 11,940 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 16,368 $ 16,859 $ 17,365 $ 17,886 $ 18,422 $ 18,975 $ 19,544 $ 20,131 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 4,044 §$ 4,165 $ 4,290 $ 4419 $ 4551 $ 4,688 $ 4,829 $ 4,973 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 30,120 $ 31,024 $ 31,955 $ 32,913 $ 33,901 $ 34,918 $ 35,965 $ 37,044 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service-includes interest $ (184,333) $ -_ $ -_ $ -_ $ - $ -_ $ - $ -_ $ : Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ : CASH FLOW $ 94,655 $ 149,412 $ 187,537 $ 128907 $ 116896 $ 175111 $ 117,270 $ 150,484 $ 57,912 eS EE J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 3 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 409,088 $ 411,881 $ 414673 $ 417,465 $ 444,733 $ 448,433 $ 451,393 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 794,270 $ 799,692 $ 805,114 $ 810,535 $ 863478 $ 870,661 $ 876,408 Waste Heat revenue $55,080 $78,732 $ 81,088 $ 83514 $ 86013 $ 88587 $ 91,238 $ 93,969 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,282,091 $ 1,292,660 $ 1,303,301 $ 1,314,014 $ 1,396,798 $ 1,410,333 $ 1,421,771 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (484,172) $ (487,500) $ (490,827) $ (494,155) $ (497,483) $ (499,978) $ (504,138) Repairs $ (31,992) $ (94,220) $ (38,421) $ (13,047) $ (130,279) $ (13,842) $ (138,213) $ (14,685) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (15,246) $ (15,703) $ (16,174) $ (16,660) $ (17,159) $ (17,674) $ (18,204) Plant labor/expenses $_(109,096) $ (202,470) $ (208,521) $ (214,754) $ (221,174) $ (227,786) $ (234,597) $ (241,612) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (796,108) $ (750,145) $ (734,803) $ (862,267) $ (756,270) $ (890,462) $ (778,639) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (182,918) $ (188,344) $ (193,932) $ (199,689) $ (205,617) $ (211,724) $ (218,014) Consultation/egal/professional $ (18,820) $ (38,257) $ (39,405) $ (40,587) $ (41,805) $ (43,059) $ (44,351) $ (45,681) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (45,128) $ (46,482) $ (47,876) $ (49,313) $ (50,792) $ (52,316) $ (53,885) Office supplies/equip./utilities $ (8,580) $ (17,441) $ (17,965) $ (18,504) $ (19,059) $ (19,630) $ (20,219) $ (20,826) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (33,785) $ (34,799) $ (35,843) $ (36,918) $ (38,025) $ (39,166) $ (40,341) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (9,424) $ (9,707) $ (9,998) $ (10,298) $ (10,607) $ (10,925) $ (11,253) Intercompany G&A $__ (75,336) $ (153,143) $ (157,737) $ (162,469) $ (167,343) $ (172,363) $ (177,534) $ (182,860) SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (480,097) $ (494,438) $ (509,209) $ (524,423) $ (540,094) $ (556,235) $ (572,860) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (748,002) $ Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Rental income $ 6,050 $ 12,298 $ 12667 $ 13,047 $ 13439 $ 13842 $ 14,257 $ 14,685 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 20,734 $ 21,357 $ 21,997 $ 22657 $ 23,337 $ 24,037 $ 24,758 Miscellaneous $2,520 $ 5,123 $ 5,276 $ 5,435_$ 5,598 $ 5,766 _ $ 5,939 $ 6,117 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 38156 $ 39300 $ 40479 $ 41694 $ 42,944 $ 44233 $ 465,560 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service-includes interest _$ (184,333) Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) CASH FLOW $ 94,655 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 4 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case Alternative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 329,952 $ 335,880 $ 341,807 $ 344,441 $ 349,051 $ 373,485 $ 378,372 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 640,623 $ 652,131 $ 663,640 $ 668,754 $ 677,705 $ 725,145 $ 734,632 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ : District Heat Revenue $ = $ 125,461 $ 155,580 $ 184442 $ 212,280 $ 241,747 $ 270,934 $ 274,192 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,096,036 $ 1,143,590 $ 1,189,888 $ 1,225,475 $ 1,268,503 $ 1,369,564 $ 1,387,196 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (45,585) $ (46,722) $ (54,123) $ (63,035) $ (72,986) $ (83,734) $ (95,134) Coal $ (496,345) $ (503,721) $ (511,008) $ (518,474) $ (525,850) $ (533,226) $ (540,602) Limestone $ (11,381) $ (11,551) $ (11,720) $ (11,889) $ (12,058) $ (12,227) $ (12,396) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ - $ - $ - $ (19,364) $ (19,640) $ (19,915) $ (20,191) Consumables $ (20,512) $ (21,127) $ (21,761) $ (22,414) $ (23,086) $ (23,779) $ (24,492) Repairs $ (31,992) $ (50,100) $ (50,100) $ (50,100) $ (50,100) $ (50,100) $ (7,000) $ (7,000) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (33,912) $ (35,421) $ (36,999) $ (38,648) $ (40,371) $ (42,172) $ (44,054) Plant labor/expenses $ (109,096) $ (323,664) $ (333,212) $ (348,907) $ (249,096) $ (256,488) $ (168,310) $ (173,304) Travel expense (training) $___(3,090) $ (3,183) $ (3,278) $ (3,377) $ (3,478) $ (3,582) $ (3,690) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (984,589) $(1,005,037) $ (1,037,985) $ (976,396) $ (1,004,056) $ (893,946) $ (920,863) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (93,702) $ (96,451) $ (99,282) $ (102,199) $ (105,203) $ (108,297) $ (111,484) Consultation/legal/professional $ (18,820) $ (19,385) $ (19,966) $ (20,565) $ (21,182) $ (21,818) $ (22,472) $ (23,146) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (57,866) $ (59,602) $ (61,390) $ (63,232) $ (65,129) $ (67,083) $ (69,095) Office supplies/Equip./Utilities $ (8580) $ (8,837) $ (9,103) $ (9,376) $ (9,657) $ (9,947) $ (10,245) $ (10,552) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (17,119) $ (17,632) $ (18,161) $ (18,706) $ (19,267) $ (19,845) $ (20,441) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (4,775) $ (4,918) $ (5,066) $ (6,218) $ (6,374) $ (5,536) $ (8,702) Intercompany G&A $ (75,336) _$ (77,596) $ 79,924) $ (82,322) $ 84,791) $ (87,335) $ 89,955) $ (92,654 SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (279,279) $ (287,596) $ (296,162) $ (304,985) $ (314,072) $ (323,433) $ (333,074) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (748,002) $ G 263,869) $ G 292, 633) $ G1 334 147) $ a 281 381) $ (1,318,129) $ (1,217 379) $ a 253,937) Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 (167,832) $ (149,042) $ (144,259) $ (65,905) $ (49,625) 152,185 $ 133,260 INVESTING ACTIVITIES Rental income $ 6,050 6,232 $ 6418 $ 6611 $ 6,809 7,014 7,224 7,441 $ $ $ $ Interest income $ 10,200 $ 10506 $ 10821 $ 11,146 $ 11,480 $ $ 12,179 $ 12,545 Miscellaneous $2,520 $ 2596 _ $ 2,673_$ 2,754 $ 2836 $ 2,921 $ 3,009 $ 3,099 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 19,333 $ 19913 $ 20510 $ 21,126 $ $ 22,412 $ 23,085 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service (includes interest) _$ (184,333) _$ (271,736) $ (247,358) $ (222,980) $ (222,980) $ (222,980) $ (196,384) $ (136,502) Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) $ (271,736) $ (247,358) $ (222,980) $ (222,980) $ (222,980) $ (196,384) $ (136,502) CASH FLOW $ 94,655 $__ (420,235) $ (376,487) $ (346,728) $ (257,759) $ (250,845) $ (21,786) $ _ 19,843 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 -5 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues : Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 381,164 $ 386,749 $ 390,239 $ 395,126 $ 398617 $ 404,201 $ 407,692 $ 413,277 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 740,054 $ 750,897 $ 757,674 $ 767,162 $ 773,939 $ 784,783 $ 791,560 $ 802,403 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ = $276,054 _$ 279,777 _$ 282,104 $ 285,362 _$ 287,689 $ 291.412 $ 293,739 $ 297,463 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,397,272 $ 1,417,423 $ 1,430,018 $ 1,447,650 $ 1,460,245 $ 1,480,396 $ 1,492,991 $ 1,513,142 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (107,085) $ (119,516) $ (132,372) $ (145,610) $ (159,194) $ (173,096) $ (187,291) $ (201,759) Coal $ (547,978) $ (555,354) $ (562,730) $ (570,106) $ (577,483) $ (584,859) $ (592,235) $ (599,084) Limestone $ (12,565) $ (12,734) $ (12,904) $ (13,073) $ (13,242) $ (13,411) $ (13,580) $ (13,737) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ (20,466) $ (20,742) $ (21,017) $ (21,293) $ (21,568) $ (21,844) $ (22,119) $ (22,375) Consumables $ (25,227) $ (25,984) $ (26,764) $ (27,566) $ (28,393) $ (29,245) $ (30,123) $ (31,026) Repairs $ (31,992) $ (7,000) $ = (7,000) $ (100,125) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (208,125) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (46,021) $ (48,077) $ (60,226) $ (62,472) $ (54,820) $ (57,274) $ (59,839) $ (62,520) Plant labor/expenses $ (109,096) $ (178,447) $ (183,745) $ (189,202) $ (194,822) $ (200,611) $ (206,573) $ (212,715) $ (219,040) Travel expense (training) $ (3,800) $ (3,914) $ 4,032) $ (4,153) $ (4,277) $ (4,406) $ (4,538) $ (4,674) SUBTOTAL $ (626,810) $ (948,591) $ (977,067) $ (1,099,371) $ (1,029,095) $ (1,059,588) $ (1,090,707) $ (1,122,439) $ (1,362,341) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (114,767) $ (118,148) $ (121,630) $ (125,217) $ (128,912) $ (132,717) $ (136,637) $ (140,674) Consultation/legal/professional $ (18,820) $ (23,841) $ (24,556) $ (25,293) $ (26,051) $ (26,833) $ (27,638) $ (28,467) $ (29,321) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (71,168) $ (73,303) $ (75,502) $ (77,767) $ (80,100) $ (82,503) $ (84,978) $ (87,528) Office supplies/Equip./Utilities $ (8,580) $ (10,869) $ (11,195) $ (11,531) $ (11,877) $ (12,233) $ (12,600) $ (12,978) $ (13,367) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (21,054) $ (21,685) $ (22,336) $ (23,006) $ (23,696) $ (24,407) $ (25,139) $ (25,893) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4636) $ (5,873) $ (6,049) $ (6,230) $ (6,417) $ (6,610) $ (6,808) $ (7,012) $ — (7,223) Intercompany G&A $__ (75,336) $ (95,433) $ (98,296) $ (101,245) $ (104,283) $ (107,411) $ (110,633) $ (113,952) $ (117,371 SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (343,004) $ (353,232) $ (363,767) $ ae Bn simemne : 1581605 ; eedeste TOTAL EXPENSES $ (748,002) $ (1,291,595) $ (1,330,299) $ (1,463,138) $ (1,403,7 3) 445, ) ,488,! ( 531, Cy 3.718) Net Plant Activities 260,218 105,677 87,124 $ (33,120) $ 43,937 $ 14,862 $ (7,618) $ (38,612) $ (270,576) |VESTII 1 Rental income $ 6,050 $ 7,664 $ 7,894 $ 8,131 $ 8375 $ 8,626 $ 8,885 $ 9,151 $ 9,426 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 12,921 $ 13309 $ 13,708 $ 14119 $ 14543 $ 14979 $ 15,428 $ 15,891 Miscellaneous $2,520 $ 3,192 $ 3,288 $ 3,387_$ 3,488 $ 3,593 $ 3,701_ $ 3812 $ 3,926 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 23,777 $ 24,491 $ 25,225 $ 25,982 $ 26,762 $ 27,564 $ 28,391 $ 29,243 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service (includes interest) _$ (184,333) _$ (116,541) $ (116,541) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) $ (116,541) $ (116,541) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,4038) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) CASH FLOW $94,655 $12,914 $ (4,926) $ (95,298) $__(17,483) $ (45,779) $__ (67,456) $ (97,624) $ (328,735) J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 6 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 IT VITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 417,465 $ 423,050 $ 428635 $ 433,854 $ 439,137 $ 444,484 $ 449,897 $ 455,375 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 810,535 $ 821,379 $ 832,222 $ 842,356 $ 852,612 $ 862,994 $ 873503 $ 884,139 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - § - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ : District Heat Revenue $ : $ 300,255 $ 303978 $ 307,702 $ 311,181 $ 314703 $ 318,268 $ 321,876 $ 325,528 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,528,256 $ 1,548,407 $ 1,568,559 $ 1,587,391 $ 1,606,453 $ 1,625,747 $ 1,645,275 $ 1,665,042 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (206,792) $ (230,564) $ (245,692) (261,032) (276,572) $ (292,302) $ (308,215) $ (324,301) Coal $ (603,564) $ (608,044) $ (612,524) (617,004) (621,484) $ (625,964) $ (630,444) $ (634,924) Limestone $ (13,840) $ (13,943) $ (14,045) (14,148) (14,251) $ (14,354) $ (14,456) $ (14,559) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ (22,542) $ (22,710) $ (22,877) (23,044) (23,211) $ (23,379) $ (23,546) $ (23,713) Consumables $ (31,957) $ (32,916) $ (33,903) (34,920) (35,968) $ (37,047) $ (38,158) $ (39,303) Repairs $ (31,992) $ - $ - $ - - (182,813) $ - $ - $ : Maintenance $ (6,760) $ (65,323) $ (68,253) $ (71,316) (74,518) (77,865) $ (81,364) $ (85,023) $ (88,848) Plant labor/expenses $ (109,096) $ (225,556) $ (232,267) $ (239,179) (246,299) (253,632) $ (261,185) $ (268,965) $ (276,978) Travel expense (training) $ (4814) $ (4,959) $__(5,107) (5,261) (6418) $ (5,581) $ (5,748) $ (5,921). SUBTOTAL $ (626,810) $ (1,174,388) $ (1,213,655) $ (1,244,644) $ (1,276,225) $ (1,491,214) $ (1,341,176) $ (1,374,556) $ (1,408,547) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (144,832) $ (149,115) $ (153,527) (158,071) $ (162,751) $ (167,571) $ (172,537) $ (177,651) Consultation/legal/professional $ (18,820) $ (30,201) $ (31,107) $ (32,040) (33,001) (33,991) (35,011) (36,061) (37,143) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (90,153) $ (92,858) $ (95,644) (98,513) $ (101,468) $ (104,512) $ (107,648) $ (110,877) Office supplies/Equip./Utilities $ = (8,580) $ (13,768) $ (14,181) $ (14,607) (15,045) (15,496) (15,961) (16,440) (16,933) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (26,670) $ (27,470) $ (28,294) (29,143) (30,018) (30,918) (31,846) (32,801) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (7,439) $ (7,663) $ (7,892) (8,129) (8,373) (8,624) (8,883) (9,150) Intercompany G&A $_ (75,336) 120,892) $ (124,519) $ (128,254) 132,102) $ (136,065) $ (140,14 144,352) $ (148,682) SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (433,956) $ (446,913) $ (460,259) $ (474,004) $ (488,163) $ (502,746) $ (517,766) $ (533,237) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (748,002) $ (1,608,345) $ (1,660,568) $ (1,704,902) $C 750,230) $C 979,377) $4 843,922) $ (1,892, 322) $ (1,941 784) Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 (80,089) (112,160) (136,344) (162,839) $ (372,924) $ (218,175) $ (247,047) $ (276,742) INVESTIN \VITIES Rental income $ 6,050 9,708 $ 10,000 $ 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 $ 11,592 $ 11,940 Interest income $ 10,200 16,368 $ 16,859 $ 17,365 17,886 18,422 18,975 $ 19544 $ 20,131 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 4,044 $ 4165 $ 4,290 4,419 4,551 4688 $ 4829 $ 4,973 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 30,120 $ 31,024 $ 31,955 32,913 33,901 34,918 $ 3,965 $ 37,044 Fl ic TIVITIES Debt Service (includes interest) _$ (184,333) (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ : - - Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ - - - CASH FLOW $94,655 (137,371) $ (168,539) $ (191,792) $ (217,328) $ (426,426) $ (183,258) $ (211,081) $ (239,698) J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 7 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal with Diesel Alternative Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 LANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 460,920 $ 466532 $ 472,213 $ 477,963 $ 512,810 $ 519,054 $ 525,374 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 894905 $ 905,801 $ 916,831 $ 927,995 $ 995,652 $ 1,007,776 $ 1,020,047 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - § - $ =i - $ - § : District Heat Revenue $ : $ 329,225 $ 332,967 $ 336,754 $ 340587 $ 344467 $ 348394 $ 352,369 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,685,049 $ 1,705,300 $ 1,725,797 $ 1,746,545 $ 1,852,929 $ 1,875,224 $ 1,897,790 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) $ (340,552) $ (356,963) $ (373,528) $ (390,239) $ (407,092) $ (424,081) $ (441,203) Coal $ (639,404) $ (643,884) $ (648,364) $ (652,844) $ (657,324) $ (661,804) $ (666,284) Limestone $ (14,662) $ (14,765) $ (14,867) $ (14,970) $ (15,073) $ (15,175) $ (15,278) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ (23,881) $ (24,048) $ (24,215) $ (24,383) $ (24,550) $ (24,717) $ (24,885) Consumables $ (40,482) $ (41,697) $ (42,948) $ (44,236) $ (45,563) $ (46,930) $ (48,338) Repairs $ (31,992) $ - $ (190,625) $ - $ =|'$ - § - $ (1,354,688) Maintenance $ (6,760) $ (92,847) $ (97,028) $ (101,400) $ (105,971) $ (110,750) $ (115,748) $ (120,973) Plant labor/expenses $ (109,096) $ (285,232) $ (293,733) $ (302,489) $ (311,508) $ (320,797) $ (330,366) $ (340,221) Travel expense (training) $___ (6,098) $_ _—(6,281) $ _—*(6,470) $ _—*(6,664) $ (6,864) $ (7,070) $ _—(7,282) SUBTOTAL $ (626,810) $1,443,159) $ (1,669,025) $ (1,514,281) $ (1,550,814) $ (1,588,013) $ (1,625,891) $ (3,019,152) Administrative Expenses Salaries/wages/benefits $ (75,000) $ (182,918) $ (188,344) $ (193,932) $ (199,689) $ (205,617) $ (211,724) $ (218,014) Consultation/legal/professional $ (18,820) $ (38,257) $ (39,405) $ (40,587) $ (41,805) $ (43,059) $ (44,351) $ (45,681) Insurance $ (22,200) $ (114,204) $ (117,630) $ (121,159) $ (124,793) $ (128,537) $ (132,393) $ (136,365) Office supplies/Equip./Utilities $ (8580) $ (17,441) $ (17,965) $ (18,504) $ (19,059) $ (19,630) $ (20,219) $ (20,826) Travel expense $ (16,620) $ (33,785) $ (34,799) $ (35,843) $ (36,918) $ (38,025) $ (39,166) $ (40,341) Misc. (dues, licenses, adv.) $ (4,636) $ (9,424) $ (9,707) $ (9,998) $ (10,298) $ (10,607) $ (10,925) $ (11,253) Intercompany G&A $ (75,336) _$ (153,143) $ (157,737) $ (162,469) _$ (167,343) $_(172,363)_$ (177,534) $ (182,860) SUBTOTAL $ (221,192) $ (549,172) $ (665,585) $ (582,491) $ (599,904) $ (617,839) $ (636,312) $ (655,340) TOTAL EXPENSES 3 (748,002) _$ (1,992,331) _$ (2,234,610) _$ (2,096,772) _$ (2,150,718) _$ (2,205,852) _$ (2,262,204) _$ (3,674,491) Net Plant Activities $ 260,218 $ (307,282) $ (529,310) $ (370,975) $ (404,174) $ (352,924) $ (386,980) $ (1,776,701) INVESTING ACTIVITIES Rental income $ 6,050 $ 12,298 $ 12,667 $ 13,047 $ 13,439 $ 13,842 $ 14,257 $ 14,685 Interest income $ 10,200 $ 20,734 $ 21,357 $ 21,997 $ 22,657 $ 23,337 $ 24,037 $ 24,758 Miscellaneous $ 2,520 $ 5,123 $ 5,276 _ $ 5,435 $ 5,598 $ 5,766 $ 5,939 $ 6117 Net Investing Activities $ 18,770 $ 38,156 $ 39,300 $ 40,479 $ 41,694 $ 42,944 $ 44233 $ 45,560 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service (includes interest) _$ (184,333) $ - $ -_ $ - $ -_ $ - $ -_ $ : Net Financing Activities $ (184,333) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - § - § 7 CASH FLOW $94,655 $__(269,126) $ (490,010) $ (330,495) $ (362,480) $ (309,979) $ (342,747) $ (1,731,141) J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 8 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case Alternative Case 1996/1997 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 329,952 $ 335,880 $ 341,807 $ 344,441 $ 349,051 $ 373,485 $ 378,372 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 640,623 $ 652,131 $ 663,640 $ 668,754 $ 677,705 $ 725,145 $ 734,632 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - §$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ : $ 125,461 $ 155,580 $ 184442 $ 212,280 $ 241,747 $ 270,934 $ 274,192 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,096,036 $ 1,143,590 $ 1,189,888 $ 1,225,475 $ 1,268,503 $ 1,369,564 $ 1,387,196 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil : $ (379,962) Coal $ (496,345) $ (503,721) $ (511,098) $ (518,474) $ (525,850) $ (533,226) $ (540,602) Limestone $ (11,381) $ (11,551) $ (11,720) $ (11,889) $ (12,058) $ (12,227) $ (12,396) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ - $ - $ - $ (19,364) $ (19,640) $ (19,915) $ (20,191) Consumables $ (20,512) $ (21,127) $ (21,761) $ (22,414) $ (23,086) $ (23,779) $ (24,492) Repairs $ (31,992) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (33,912) $ (35,421) $ (36,999) $ (38,648) $ (40,371) $ (42,172) $ (44,054) Plant labor $ (109,096) $ (323,664) $ (333,212) $ (348,907) $ (249,096) $ (256,488) $ (168,310) $ (173,304) Travel expense (training) $ (3,090) $ (3,183) $ (3,278) $ (3,377) $ (3,478) $ (3,582) $ _ (3,690) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (888,904) $ (908,215) $ (933,763) $ (863,261) $ (880,970) $ (803,212) $ (818,729) Other Expenses Insurance - plant $___ (35,000) $ (36,050) $ (37,132) $ (38,245) $ (39,393) $ (40,575) $ (41,792) SUBTOTAL $ (35,000) $ (36,050) $ (37,132) $ (38,245) $ (39,393) $ (40,575) $ (41,792) TOTAL EXPENSES $_ (923,904) $ (944,265) $ (970,894) $ (901,506) $ (920,363) $ (843,786) $ (860,521) Net Plant Activities $ 172,132 $ 199,326 $ 218,994 $ 323,969 $ 348140 $ 525,778 $ 526,676 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service ($1 million, 6%, 20 yrs) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) Net Financing Activities $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) CASH FLOW $ 84,730 $ 111,923 $ 131,591 $ 236,566 $ 260,738 $ 438,375 $ 439,273 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 9 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 381,164 $ 386,749 $ 390,239 $ 395,126 $ 398,617 $ 404,201 $ 407,692 $ 413,277 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 740,054 $ 750,897 $ 757,674 $ 767,162 $ 773,939 $ 784,783 $ 791,560 $ 802,403 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - §$ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ = $276,054 $ 279,777 _$ 282,104 $ 285,362 $ 287,689 $ 291,412 $ 293,739 $ 297,463 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,397,272 $ 1,417,423 $ 1,430,018 $ 1,447,650 $ 1,460,245 $ 1,480,396 $ 1,492,991 $ 1,513,142 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) Coal $ (647,978) $ (555,354) $ (562,730) $ (570,106) $ (577,483) $ (584,859) $ (592,235) $ (599,084) Limestone $ (12,565) $ (12,734) $ (12,904) $ (13,073) $ (13,242) $ (13,411) $ (13,580) $ (13,737) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ (20,466) $ (20,742) $ (21,017) $ (21,293) $ (21,568) $ (21,844) $ (22,119) $ (22,375) Consumables $ (25,227) $ (25,984) $ (26,764) $ (27,566) $ (28,393) $ (29,245) $ (30,123) $ (31,026) Repairs $ (31,992) $ - §$ - $ (93,125) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (208,125) Maintenance $ (6,760) $ (46,021) $ (48,077) $ (50,226) $ (52,472) $ (54,820) $ (57,274) $ (69,839) $ (62,520) Plant labor $ (109,096) $ (178,447) $ (183,745) $ (189,202) $ (194,822) $ (200,611) $ (206,573) $ (212,715) $ (219,040) Travel expense (training) $ (3,800) $ (3,914) $ (4,032) $ (4,153) $ (4,277) $ (4,406) $ (4,538) $ (4,674) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $ (834,506) $ (850,551) $ (959,999) $ (883,485) $ (900,394) $ (917,611) $ (935,148) $ (1,160,582) Other Expenses Insurance - plant $ (43,046) $ (44,337) $ (45,667) $ (47,037) $ (48,448) $ (49,902) $ (51,399) $ (52,941) SUBTOTAL $ (43,046) $ (44,337) $ (45,667) $ (47,037) $ (48,448) $ (49,902) $ (51,399) $ (52,941) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (877,551) $ (894,888) $ (1,005,666) $ (930,522) $ (948,842) $ (967,513) $ (986,547) $ (1,213,522) Net Plant Activities $ 519,721 $ 522,536 $ 424,352 $ 517,129 $ 511,403 $ 512,884 $ 506,444 $ 299,620 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service ($1 million, 6%, 20 yrs) $_ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) Net Financing Activities $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) CASH FLOW __ 432,318 $ 435,133 _$ 336,949 $ 429,726 $ 424,001_$ 425,481 _$ 419,042 $ 212,217 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 10 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 PLANT ACTIVITIES. Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 417,465 $ 423,050 $ 428,635 $ 433,854 $ 439,137 $ 444,484 $ 449,897 $ 455,375 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 810,535 $ 821,379 $ 832,222 $ 842,356 $ 852,612 $ 862,994 $ 873,503 $ 884,139 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - § - § - $ - $ - § - $ - District Heat Revenue $ = $ 300,255 $ 303,978 $ 307,702 $ 311,181 $ 314,703 $ 318,268 $ 321,876 $ 325,528 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,528,256 $ 1,548,407 $ 1,568,559 $ 1,587,391 $ 1,606,453 $ 1,625,747 $ 1,645,275 $ 1,665,042 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) Coal $ (603,564) $ (608,044) $ (612,524) $ (617,004) $ (621,484) $ (625,964) $ (630,444) $ (634,924) Limestone $ (13,840) $ (13,943) $ (14,045) $ (14,148) $ (14,251) $ (14,354) $ (14,456) $ (14,559) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ (22,542) $ (22,710) $ (22,877) $ (23,044) $ (23,211) $ (23,379) $ (23,546) $ (23,713) Consumables $ (31,957) $ (32,916) $ (33,903) $ (34,920) $ (35,968) $ (37,047) $ (38,158) $ (39,303) Repairs $ (31,992) §$ - $ - §$ - $ - $ (182,813) $ - § - $ : Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (65,323) $ (68,253) $ (71,316) $ (74,518) $ (77,865) $ (81,364) $ (85,023) $ (88,848) Plant labor $ (109,096) $ (225,556) $ (232,267) $ (239,179) $ (246,299) $ (253,632) $ (261,185) $ (268,965) $ (276,978) Travel expense (training) $ (4,814) $ (4,959) $ (6,107) $ (6,261) $ (5,418) $ (6,581) $ (5,748) $ (5,921) SUBTOTAL $ (626,810) $ (967,596) $ (983,090) $ (998,952) $ (1,015,194) $ (1,214,643) $ (1,048,874) $ (1,066,341) $ (1,084,247) Other Expenses Insurance - plant $_ (54,529) $ (66,165) $ (57,850) $ (59,585) $ (61,373) $ (63,214) $ (65,110) $ (67,064) SUBTOTAL $ (54,529) $ (56,165) $ (57,850) $ (59,585) $ (61,373) $ (63,214) $ (65,110) $ (67,064) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (1,022,125) $ (1,039,255) $ (1,056,801) $ (1,074,779) $ (1,276,015) $ (1,112,088) $ (1,131,452) $ (1,151,310) Net Plant Activities $ 606,131 $ 609,152 $ 511,757 $ 512,612 $ 330,437 $ 513,659 $ 513,824 $ 513,732 FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service ($1 million, 6%, 20 yrs) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) Net Financing Activities $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ (87,403) $ - §$ - $ - CASH FLOW 418,728 $ 421,750 $ 424355 $ 425,210 $ 243 $ 513,824 $ 513,732 J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 11 McGrath Coal-Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Coal Alternative (stand alone entity) Baseline Case 1996/1997 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 PLANT ACTIVITIES Revenues Residential Service $ 324,025 $ 460,920 $ 466,532 $ 472,213 $ 477,963 $ 512,810 $ 519,054 $ 525,374 Commercial Service $ 629,115 $ 894,905 $ 905,801 $ 916,831 $ 927,995 $ 995,652 $ 1,007,776 $ 1,020,047 Waste Heat Revenue $ 55,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - District Heat Revenue $ - $ 329,225 $ 332,967 $ 336,754 $ 340,587 $ 344467 $ 348,394 $ 352,369 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,008,220 $ 1,685,049 $ 1,705,300 $ 1,725,797 $ 1,746,545 $ 1,852,929 $ 1,875,224 $ 1,897,790 Plant Expenses Fuel costs Oil $ (379,962) Coal $ (639,404) $ (643,884) $ (648,364) $ (652,844) $ (657,324) $ (661,804) $ (666,284) Limestone $ (14,662) $ (14,765) $ (14,867) $ (14,970) $ (15,073) $ (15,175) $ (15,278) Royalties ($2.00 per ton) $ (23,881) $ (24,048) $ (24,215) $ (24,383) $ (24,550) $ (24,717) $ (24,885) Consumables $ (40,482) $ (41,697) $ (42,948) $ (44,236) $ (45,563) $ (46,930) $ (48,338) Repairs $ (31,992) $ - $ (190,625) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (1,354,688) Maintenance $ (5,760) $ (92,847) $ (97,028) $ (101,400) $ (105,971) $ (110,750) $ (115,748) $ (120,973) Plant labor $ (109,096) $ (285,232) $ (293,733) $ (302,489) $ (311,508) $ (320,797) $ (330,366) $ (340,221) Travel expense (training) $ (6,098) $ (6,281) $ (6,470) $ (6,664) $ (6,864) $ (7,070) $ (7,282) SUBTOTAL $ (526,810) $(1,102,606) $ (1,312,061) $ (1,140,753) $ (1,160,576) $ (1,180,922) $ (1,201,810) $ (2,577,949) Other Expenses Insurance - plant $__ (69,076) $ (71,148) $ (73,282) $ (75,481) $ (77,745) $ (80,077) $ (82,480) SUBTOTAL $ (69,076) $ (71,148) $ (73,282) $ (75,481) $ (77,745) $ (80,077) $ (82,480) TOTAL EXPENSES $ (1,171,682) $ (1,383,209) $ (1,214,036) $ (1,236,057) $ (1,258,667) $ (1,281,888) $ (2,660,429) Net Plant Activities $ 513,367 $ 322,091 $ 511,762 $ 510,488 $ 594262 $ 593,336 $ (762,638) FINANCING ACTIVITIES Debt Service ($1 million, 6%, 20 yrs) Net Financing Activities $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CASH FLOW $ 513,367 $ 322,091 $ 511,762 $ 510,488 $ 594262 $ 593,336 $ (762,638) J.S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix Page 7.4.4 - 12 McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project - FINAL DRAFT - 3/21/97 Appendix 7.5 - Winter Haul Route J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 95 GI? .D-6, \DR E e ALASKA & 1:63 360 SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) we ow RaW : ,(MEDFRA fi-6) RAW) KR OODWw. 000 FELT 55°30 an fi ja NORTH JOUNDARY | SEWARD MERIDIA) % x TT TY] Osu 5 " i» Ss i s } ce ‘ne i i 3.290 000 — Feet 4 MILES: ROAD CLASSIFICATION 21000 FEET 18000 5 KILOMETERS: 15000 Dit eeeeen eae URS ur 1329 ALASKA N6300—W15530/15X30 1954 MINOR REVISIONS 1973 MEDFRA (A-6), URVEY z2,OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 OLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST 10 \ <= etl, se 155°30 Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey Control by USC&GS and USCE Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs taken 1952-1954. Map not field checked Universal Transverse Mercator projection. 1927 North American datum 10,000-foot grid based on Alaska coordinate system, zone 5 1000-metre Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 5, shown in blue Land lines represent unsurveyed and unmarked locations predetermined by the Bureau of Land Management Folio K-19, Kateel River Meridian Swamps, as portrayed, indicate only the wetter areas, usually of low relief, as interpreted from aerial photographs 4 \ \ iN ‘. 8 S 23g" zc a fg s| /s a ei CONTOUR INTERVAL 100 FEET 5 5 DASHED LINES REPRESENT 50 -FOOT CONTOURS: & Is NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 'F APPROXIMATE MEAN DECLINATION, 1954 FOR SALE BY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701, DENVER, COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092 A FOLOER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST 1. 29S. 6989000m.| iS—v 'vasOaW) HOV VIII - | Oo . 3 3 =? 28 of ee 5S 9 snk “he ane & i x 2 = - 8 3 Z 7 Le ; els WE ee ‘ 48 18 : ~ : | ; RVAL 100 FEET Nt S0-FOOT CONTOURS ~AN SEA LEVEL 1.275. 1. 28S.|, 1. 26S. rs. _ 3290000 wri Ss ‘ se [VEYA 4 lai 4a Sa 5K cP Ee wo Do - 154°30° T420 000 FEET ! Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey Control by USC&GS and USCE Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs taken 1953 - 1955, field annotated 1954. Map not field checked Universal Transverse Mercator projection, 1927 North American datum 10,000-foot grid based on Alaska coordinate system, zone 5 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 5, shown in blue Land lines represent unsurveyed and unmarked locations predetermined by the Bureau of Land Management Folio K-19, Kateel River Meridian Swamps, as portrayed indicate only the wetter areas, usually of low relief, as interpreted from aerial photographs NATION: FOR SALE FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701, DEt A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGR \ _.” NY » Oe “BS . ae & 18 qo ; STARS (MC GRATH C-1) * SCALE. 163360 1 == z é $ Ss 3 2 g 3 ° g & g McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant Feasibility Project Appendix 7.6 - District Heating System J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. 91 FINAL LOAD SUMMARY McGrath School t_.. 2 7,100,000 | 3.2E+0| School District Office Bldg. | — 275,000 | 823.0E+6 ‘School District Warehouse | _ 224,000 | 670.4E+6 ‘School District outbuilding | 40,320 | 120.7E+6 frame Church in 710,000 | 329.2E+6 frame house 4 76,560 | 229.1E+6 frame - Chamai Building | 281,600 | 842.7E+6' ‘frame house 84,480 | 252.8E+6 log - church 92,400 | 276.5E+6 frame house 73,920 | 221.2E+6 frame house 42,240 | 126.4E+6 frame house 36,200 | 105.3E+6 log house 24,200 | 72.4E+6 FAA load 785,730 | _2.4E+9 Log - Public Radio Station 119,608 | 368.5E+6 Log shop - Public Radio Ste 31,460 | 94.2E+6 frame house 38,720 | 115.9E+6 frame house 24,750 | _74.1E#6 frame house 49,500 | 146.1E+6 frame house 49,500 | 148.1E+6) frame house 58,080 | 173.8E+6 air terminal and restaurant! 198,000 | 592.6E+6 McGulres Roadhouse 165,000 | 493.8E+6 ‘|McGrath L & P power-hous¢ 247,500 | 740.7E+6) Fish & Game Building 360,000 1.1E+9 IMTNT Offices 73,020 | 221,2E+6 Vanderpool building 132,000 | 395.0E+6 ‘Vanderpool building 125,400 | 375.3E+6 IAC store 290,400 | 869.1E+6 |] a} a} a] ro] no) | a} | a] = ol || }no| BS) a] | |) a) a) a) a) oe Sub-total Area 1 - Downtown §,209,688 | 15.4E+9 67,500 | 202.0E+6 66,000 | 197.5E+6 44,000 | 131.7E+6 52,800 | 158.0E+6 47,520 | 142.2E+6 47,520 | 142.2E+6 26,400 | 79.0E+6 95,370 | 285.4E+6 95,370 | 265.4E+6 ‘old log building log church - old Z 95,040 | 284.4E+6 frame house ; _ 67,760 | 202.8E+6 -|frame house 2 86,240 | 258.1E+6 frame house f 41,580 | 124.4E+6 Page 1 FINAL LOAD SUMMARY 1,019,880 660 55 36,300 | 108.6E+6 1,035 0.4% 605 1.27 760 55 41,800 | 125.1E+6 1,191 0.5% 697 1.46 1,008 55 55,440 | 165.9E+6 1,580 0.6% 924 1.93 576 55 31,680 | 94.8E+6 903 0.4% 528 1.10 704 55) 38,720 | 115.9E+6 1,104 0.4% 645 1.35 1,920 55 105,600 | 316.0E+6 3,010 1.2% 1,760 3.68 924 55) 50,820 | 152.1E+6 1,448 0.6% 847 1.77 Sub-total - Area Ill - B Street 6,552 360,360 1.1E+9) 10,271 4.1% 6,006 12.6 AREA IV - South McGrath 48 frame house 40 24 1 960 55 52,800 | 158.0E+6 1,505 0.6% 880 1.84 E 1 49 _|frame house 40 30 il 1,200 55 66,000 | 197.5E+6 1,881 0.7% | 1,100 2.30 0.79 2 50 __|frame house 40 25 1 1,000 55) 55,000 | 164.6E+6 1,568 0.6% | 917 1,92 0.66 3 51 iframe house 80 48 1 3,840 50) 192,000 | 574.6E+6 5,472 2.2% 3,200 6.69 2.29 4 52__|frame house 48 24 2 2,304 45 103,680 | 310.3E+6 2,955 1.2% 1,728 3.62 1.24 5) 53 _|City of McGrath Water Trea|_ 180 60 1.5 16,200 35 567,000 1.7E+9) 16,161 6.4% 9,450 19.77 6.75 6 54 Water treatment system heating 400,000 1.2E+9 11,401 4.5% 6,667 13.95, 4.76 i 55 __|frame house 24 40 2 1,920 55 105,600 | 316.0E+6 3,010 1.2% 1,760 3.68) 1.26 8 56 __|frame house 24 24 1 576 55 31,680 | 94.8E+6 903 0.4% 528 1.10 0.38 9| 57 _|frame house 24 24 1 576 55) 31,680 | 94.8E+6 903 0.4% 528 1.10 58 __|frame house 24 24 1 576 55 31,680 | 94.8E+6 903 0.4% 528 1.10) 59 log cabin 24 40 1 960 55 52,800 | 158.0E+6 1,505 0.6% 880 1.84 60 _|framehouse 24 40 1.5 1,440 55 79,200 |_237.0E+6 2,257 0.9% | 1,320 2.76 61 log cabin 24 66 1 1,584 §5 87,120 | 260.7E+6 2,483 1.0% 1,452 3.04 62 frame house 24 24 4 576 55 31,680 | 94.8E+6 903 0.4% 528 1.10 63 __|frame house 24 24 2 1,152 55) 63,360 | 189.6E+6 1,806 0.7% 1,056 2.21 64 frame house 24 24 2 1,152 55 63,360 | 189.6E+6 1,806 0.7% 1,056 2.21 65 frame house 24 24 2 1,152 55, 63,360 | 189.6E+6 1,806 0.7% 1,056 2.21 66 frame house 24 24 1.5 864 55 47,520 | 142.2E+6: 1,354 0.5% 792 1.66 67 repair garage 24 60 1 1,440 60 86,400 | 258.6E+6 2,463 1.0% 1,440 3.01 68 log cabin 24 80 1 1,920 55 105,600 | 316.0E+6 3,010 1.2% 1,760 3.68 Sub-total - Area IV - South McGrath 41,392 2,317,520 6.9E+9: 66,054 26.2%| 38,625 80.8 Sub-total - Complete District Heat Development! 163,074 8,907,448 | 26.5E+9 252,527 100.0%} 148,457 310.6 | Assessment of remaining housing within the City of McGrath Area 142 __|Additional heated buildings 40 24 1.5 92,016 50 4,600,800 | 13.8E+9 131,131 Page 2 TOTAL ALL McGRATH HEATED BUILDINGS 255,090 13,508,248 | 40.3E+9 383,658 DISTRICT HEATING LOAD (MMBTU/HR) 10.0 8.0 6,0 4.0 2.0 | 1- PLOT OF DISTRICT HEATING LOAD (MMBTU/hr) vs OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE (deg F) LOAD EQUATION: DHL = 5.45 - 0.0775*0AT OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE (deg F) 60 80 FIGURE 7.6 - 1 SYSTEM DISTRICT HEATING LOAD TYPICAL SECTION