HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachments to SEAPA Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project Grant ApplicationS E A PPL
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT - ROUND VII
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A. COSTS AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS
B. RESUMES
C. MAP SHOWING INTERCONNECTION OF PROJECTS
D. GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
E. RESOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATING LOCAL SUPPORT
1 k j,
S E A P A �—
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
SURFACE AREA, ACRES
400 2400 2100 1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 400
u u
a q
390 g-.o- -, __ :_ 1360 COSTS AND BENEFITS
3
CAPACITY I J
=;NIORMA-,LSERVgREL330 320
ANALYSIS FOR
AREA
2soMINIMUM RESERVOIR —Y80 aINCREASING STORAGE
>E�271.5
J J
W 2,a 240 W AT SWAN LAKE
200 L— _ .
0 30 60 90 IN 150 100 210 240 270
CAPACITY, 1000 ACRE-FEET
Tao of po•pxi !t N�. AO--..
/ �frunhM •rt
ja P',
�,yfry'yY� 5h i0M0 I
/--AfdvnaJ bye
Jdari+,ro)
aw•�al
/Y
Prepared by:
Eric Wolfe
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
December 2012
1900 First Avenue, Suite 318, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 • P (907) 228-2281 • F (907) 225-2287 • www.seapahydro.ora
COSTS AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR
INCREASING STORAGE AT SWAN LAKE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
Page No.
Executive Summary .......................................................................
1. Introduction.....................................................................................
2. Swan Project Description................................................................
3. SEAPA System Characteristics....................................................
4. Benefit (Value) Analysis..................................................................
5. Cost Estimation and Schedules......................................................
6. Costs, Benefits, and Recommendation ...........................................
AVERAGE ARCH 'TRESSES FOR 1 S FEET :N CREASE IN RESSER'.+3IE2 LEVEL
360. -240. -12a 12E, Z40. W.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 2 December 2012
1
Swan Lake Ogee Spillway 8lot
Q
2
Warm Weather Exampia—KPULoad DeCreaSe—KPUGeneration Increase
10
3
TvaeL8ke Reservoir Operation and Winter Load Timing
11
4
Swan Lake Reservoir Guide Curves for Reservoir Elevation 330&345ft
14
5
TyeeLake Reservoir Guide Curves for Case with & without SVVLIncrease
15
0
SEAPASystem Load and Total Area Hydro Generation Capability
19
7
Future 8E/\PASystem Excess Hydro Generation Available tOFill Large
Swan Reservoir
21
8
Swan Lake Project L8ndBoundory[W@p
23
0
(}bernneyerGotes
25
Table
Title P&qt
No.
Summary Table
5
Attribute Table
8
1
Simple Storage Benefit Comparison
13
2
Swan Generation for Case 33Oftand 345ft
13
3
TveeWinter & Summer Generation for Two Cases
15
4
Additional Generation Schedule @tTvee
16
b
Ty8eGeneration with Added Summer Component
16
O
Historic Generation and Precipitation for Swan Lake and KpU Hydro
17
7
8E/\PAArea Hydro Conditions
10
O
Future Spill and Diesel Generation
20
S
3U-Ye8rAverage Energy Available toDisplace Diesel
22
10
Proposed Reservoir Full Pool Elevations and Corresponding PMF Elevations
24
11
License Amendment Schedule
24
12
Dam Elevations and PK4FElevations
25
13
Construction and Engineering Costs
26
14
Benefit and Cost Summary
27
15
Raise Option Attributes vs. Full pon| Levels
28
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 3 D8oennher2012
Appendices and References
Appendix Title
Al
Swan Lake Hydraulic Model
A2
Tyee Lake Hydraulic Model
B1
Swan Lake USGS Gage & CAI Report Synthetic Inflows
B2
Tyee Lake IECo Design Criteria
B3
SEAPA Case Study Load- Resource Tables
C1
Swan Lake Survey Plat
C2
Boundary Map
References
Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/southeastIRP.html
McMillen Engineering Feasibility Study
http://www.seapahydro.org/current reports.htm
Swan Lake FERC License 2911
Ketchikan Public Utilities, Bailey Dispatch Center Operating data, 1990 to 2012
Tyee Lake Operations Data, 2007 to 2012
KPU Power Supply Planning Study, RW Beck, 1996
Swan-Tyee Economic Analysis, Commonwealth Associates, Inc., March 2006
Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Environmental Studies
http://www.Iongviewassociates.com/swanlake.htmI
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 4 December 2012
Executive Summary
SEAPA is a nonprofit Joint Action Agency that delivers wholesale power to the municipal utilities
of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan in Alaska.
SEAPA has conducted preliminary engineering, license amendment, and system integration
studies in the pursuit of expanding the Swan Lake reservoir. After one year of effort and an
expense of SEAPA funds totaling $375,000, we continue to promote expanding the reservoir at
Swan Lake. The expanded reservoir will add additional water for winter hydro generation that
will displace up to 10,000 MWh of diesel generation on an average basis, during larger water
years up to 12,000 MWh of diesel generation will be displaced.
The Swan Lake Storage Increase Project (`Project') is not meant as a complete solution to the
long-term diesel exposure forecasted for the SEAPA region, rather the Project is part of an
overall plan to integrate and enhance existing and proposed projects. This additional storage
will enhance future run -of -the -river and limited storage projects proposed for the region that
otherwise would not displace enough future diesel generation to justify construction and
operating costs.
This report identifies the 15 ft raise option as the best alternative for increasing storage capacity
at Swan Lake. Within the analysis, a preliminary engineering review identifies a FERC factor of
safety limit relating to dam strength that curtails cost effective raise options above 23 ft. The
dam could be modified for more than 23 feet, but construction costs to accommodate the factor
of safety will greatly exceed the added generation benefit. As shown in the Summary Table
below, the analysis investigated three dam height increases, 10 ft, 15 ft, and 20 ft; these
increases would raise the full pool level from the existing 330 ft level to 340 ft, 345 ft, and 350 ft
respectively.
Reservoir Full Pool Option
330
340
345
360
Active Storage (ac-ft)
86,000
100,500
107,600
114,600
% Increase in Storage
0%
17%
25%
33%
Increased Generation (Annual average in MWh)
Case C-Whitman + 20 yr. limited Power Purchase
0
5,677
7,463
8,820
Case D- Whitman + PP+ 2030 Generic Hydro
0
6,613
9,955
12,871
Case E-Whitman + 2030 Generic
0
6,358
8,814
10,872
Case F-2030 Generic
0
5,298
7,397
9,677
Construction & Engineering Cost ($M)
0
6.00
10.60
16.50
License Amendment & Permitting ($M)
0
0.78
1.17
1.29
Total Project Cost ($M)
0
6.78
11.77
17.79
Value of Annual Displaced Diesel (15 kWh/gal $4/gal fuel
0
$1,120,000
$1,920,000
$1,973,333
cost)
Annual Financing Charge (50% of Total project Cost, 30
$0
$257,232
$446,526
$674,732
year term, 6.5%)
SEAPA Additional Sales, case C ($68/MWh)
0
$386,022
$507,511
$599,736
Benefit/cost = (SEAPA Sales -Case C/Finance)
1.5
1.1
0.9
Summary Table - Benefits and costs for the 10 ft (340), 15 ft (345), and 20 t t350/ raise
options. PP means Power Purchase; Kake is included in resource load balance of all case
studies; the generic hydro has an annual output of 50,000 MWh (50 GWh/yr).
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 5 December 2012
While the 1Oft raise option poses less financial risk toGEAPA because costs are lower, this
option displaces 60Y6 |eSa diesel generation than the 15 ft option. When all other option
attributes (see Attribute Table) are considered, including cost, the 15 ft option is the best
reservoir increase option.
Option Attribute
345
350
Refills with average inflow if drafted to El 272 ft using
excess generation of 2.7 aMW from June 15 to Nov 15
Yes
no
Relies on above average inflow to refill
No
yes
Dependent on case D and E to realize benefit over cost
No
yes
Provides flexibility to integrate future hydro pLoj �cts
yes -better
yes -best
Attribute Table - Reservoir raise attributes vs. full pool levels of 345
0 25%increase in storage impmvea8EAPA system hydro operations flexibi|ity
a Shifts between 7.000 WYVVh to 10.000 MVVh on an average basis of 8unnnner
excess hydro generation (spill) to winter generation over the course of a 30-year
period starting in2O16;the range represents future possible scenarios
w Benefits just cover the costs if the State of A|enk8 assists at o level of 50Y6
funding for the construction, engineering, and licensing costs. Benefits assessed
by increased winter 8EAPA ao|ea at $88/MVVh. If displaced d|en8| generation is
the measurement bar, the project hes8banefitovert0ta|ooatretiVof2.1�
e 8EAPAiScurrently inthe license amendment process; filing ofthe amendment
Initial Consultation Document is scheduled for March 2013; filing the license
amendment ioscheduled for January 2O14
a Project is consistent with the mjorfind|ngaofthe2O11SE|RP
o Business plan for |PP - enhances hydro based |PPproposals
o 8EAPAsystem has a storage deficit - key finding of8E|RP
o Enhances the already funded and partially complete Whitman
Project
o Load forecasts include Koke and therefore this project assists with
the future integration of the kaka-Petersburg |nbartie
SEAPA staff recommends pursuing the 15 ft option under the following future scenario:
At least one new hydro resource, inaddition to Whitman, tob*constructed by
2030; if this occurs' then adding storage at Swan will both displace future winter
diesel generation and increase 8EAPA revenue such that the benefits outweigh
the costs. Bythe end ofMay 2O13.agency feedback from the Initial Consultation
Document submittal will help us to better estimate forthcoming Project settlement
CuatS. Depending on the settlement costs, and from observing real progress on
Whitman, and from initial feedback regarding the GEAP/\ led RF(J (Power
Purchase) initiative, we will be able make o final determination as to whether we
should proceed with the Project. If the Project is to proceed, then under most
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 6 Deoonrbmr20/2
forward conditions, the reservoir will be expanded to a new nominal full pool
elevation of 345 feet.
Section 1
Introduction
SEAPA hydro generating stations, Swan Lake and Tyee Lake, supply the majority share of
electricity for the interconnected region: Ketchikan-to-Wrangell-to-Petersburg, Alaska. This
region is experiencing a significant shift in load type. Historically (pre-2005 for Ketchikan and
pre-2007 for Petersburg and Wrangell) winter loads were less than summer loads, as summer
loads included significant fish processing while winter loads were held low by relatively
inexpensive fuel oil - sourced space heating.
Winter loads have greatly increased and have surpassed the slowly growing summer loads,
while fuel oil prices have steadily climbed such that heating is now more cost effective using
hydro -sourced electricity. Diesel fuel generated electricity is now four times more expensive
than SEAPA wholesale energy. As winter loads continue to increase and exceed hydro
capacity, use of diesel generation for space heating compounds the problem as diesel fueled
generators are significantly less efficient than oil fired boilers. Winter demand has grown such
that even with the combined resources of Swan Lake and Tyee Lake, Ketchikan must rely on
supplemental diesel generation in late winter and early spring. Additionally, as Petersburg and
Wrangell winter loads increase, a capacity shortfall will occur, especially when temperatures
drop to near 0 OF. The projected trend is for increasing levels of winter and spring diesel
generation.
During the winter, sharp reservoir draw -down occurs because turbine discharges greatly exceed
reservoir inflows. Later in the spring and summer, snow melt recharges the reservoirs. Later in
the fall, Tyee and Swan Lake are subject to spill as wet season inflows exceed storage capacity
even though the reservoirs were essentially empty the previous spring. This cycle of diesel
generation followed by spill events will be the pattern for the foreseeable future. Increasing
reservoir storage is one way to "shift" excess hydro capacity as spill to displaced diesel
generation later the following winter. The Swan Lake reservoir was selected as a potential site
for construction of additional storage as it may provide a cost effective method to gain up to
33% in active storage.
Section 2
Swan Project Description
2.1 Project Characteristic and History
The Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC License No. 2911, referred to as `Swan Lake' or
`Swan' herein) is located on Revillagigedo Island at the head of Carroll Inlet, about 22 miles
northeast of the city of Ketchikan. Primary facilities include a 174-foot tall concrete thin arch
dam, a 2,217-foot long, 11-foot diameter power tunnel, and a powerhouse with two generating
units having a combined nominal generating capacity of 25 MVA. Swan Lake has an estimated
average output of 76,000 MWh', and 86,000 ac-ft of active storage if the entire operating range,
from reservoir elevation 271.5 feet to elevation 330.0 feet is utilized. Of principal interest in this
Simple average of 2001 to 2009 generation corresponds with the recent D. Hittle evaluation.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 7 December 2012
report are the dam, reservoir, and the hydraulic passage as increasing storage at Swan Lake
affects these project components.
Near the end of project construction, the State of Alaska under the department of the Alaska
Power Authority, assumed ownership of the project from Ketchikan and began commercial
operation in June 1984. Ownership transferred from the State to The Four Dam Pool Power
Agency in 2002, and SEAPA assumed ownership when the FDPPA was restructured in 2009.
During preliminary licensing, RW Beck considered the inclusion of Grace Lake into the project
but this was quickly dropped as the combined project (22.5 MW + 25 MW) was too large for
even long-term load forecasts. At that time, FERC expressed concern that the limited storage in
Swan Lake may necessitate future development of Grace Lake. In issuing the license, FERC
disagreed with the Department of Interior regarding the risk of limiting the capacity of Swan
Lake. FERC stated the small increase in captured inflow (5%) from a potentially larger licensed
capacity at Swan Lake would not eliminate a future need for additional hydroelectric resources,
including those of Grace Lake which increased project output by 70,600 MWh2.
In 1996, a KPU Power Planning study reviewed Grace Lake options but did not move forward
with this large expansion. Misty Fiords federal designation as a National Monument (1978)
precludes hydroelectric development within monument boundaries, so KPU chose not to further
pursue Grace Lake options. Also, the postponement of plans for the extraction of molybdenum
from Quartz Hill probably had an impact on the preliminary planning of Grace Lake.
To summarize, major Swan Lake attributes such as capacity and storage have always been
discussed within the context of load characteristic and whether or not Grace Lake would be part
of the Swan system. At this time it is quite uncertain that a land exchange could be executed
that would allow the Grace Lake project to move forward. In light of that large legislative hurdle,
this analysis assumes no additional water will be available from Grace Lake. One thing we do
know is that a larger Swan Lake reservoir will make integration of a future Grace Lake project
easier rather than more difficult.
Swan Lake dam is not symmetric meaning the left and right abutments do not both have rock
extending above the dam. The dam height stops at elevation 344 ft which is grade level on the
right abutment. A parapet wall 3.5 ft higher than the dam completes the structure. The dam
could have been constructed higher, but this would require building up a concrete abutment
block that would act much like the rock on the left side of the dam (looking downstream). We
have not reviewed original dam design intent correspondence, but it is easy to speculate that
dam height determination was impacted by: Ketchikan loads at the time had little to no heating
component, State capital cost curtailments of the 1983-84 time frame, and the fact that the
project was large for the long-term needs of Ketchikan if diesel fuel costs did not escalate to a
high degree. As it turned out, diesel costs did not escalate but fell in real terms. Swan Lake
was not fully dispatched in front of diesel until the year 2000 as evidenced by the low annual
output and significant project spill up to 2000. Hindsight shows that RW Beck sized the dam
well for the conditions of the period.
Now 32 years later as SEAPA staff reviewed storage options, one idea was to increase storage
by adding a rubber dam to plug the existing open ogee spillway. This cost-effective option
would not increase structural concrete on the right abutment, and would have a limited scope
' FERC Order Issuing License (2911), 7-17-1980, page 3.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 8 December 2012
license amendment process. Passing high spill flows, which occur during the probable
maximum flood (PMF) were thought to be accomplished by deflating the dam. A preliminary
engineering review quickly dismissed this option as the rubber dam cannot pass the same PMF
flows for a given flood elevation, and rubber dams are prone to snagging large root -ball type
flood debris. Changing the rubber dam to a traditional roller gate configuration was not a
solution as too much water backed -up behind the dam during the PMF causing over -topping of
the existing parapet wall. The McMillen Engineering feasibility report referenced in Section 5
suggests Obermeyer type control gates be placed in the existing ogee spillway to pass PMF
flows reliably. Figure 1 shows the spillway slot where the Obermeyer gates would be installed.
Figure 1- Swan Lake Ogee Spillway Slot
Section 3
SEAPA System Characteristics
3.1 Last in Dispatch Order
SEAPA's hydroelectric projects are dispatched last in the region's hydroelectric resource stack.
This is because the Power Sales Agreement (PSA) between SEAPA and the member utilities
stipulates that hydroelectric plants existing before the construction of the Tyee Lake and Swan
Lake projects should be fully utilized (original municipal benefit preserved) before the members
are required to purchase SEAPA energy. The effect of this requirement is that shifts in weather
have a dual impact on SEAPA operations. As shown in Figure 2, suppose an unforeseen early
warm front hits the area in April, overall load decreases (impact 1), and KPU (as does PMPL
with Blind Slough) increases generation because more water is available (impact 2); this has a
double reduction effect in reducing the net load to SEAPA. If this warm front were to occur
during the November to January period, spill would occur because SEAPA fills reservoirs for the
winter heating season, and SEAPA has no outlet for the sudden surplus in hydroelectric energy.
Therefore, additional storage provides greater operational flexibility that mitigates the combined
effects of inflow uncertainty coupled with the PSA directed dispatch order.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 9 December 2012
Figure 2 - Warm, wet weather decreases KTN load and KPU
increases hydro generation, a double reduction in load to
SEAPA.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 10 December 2012
3.2 Load Not Coincident with Inflows
Over the course of the year, inflows are not coincident with loads; larger inflows occur when
loads are low, and lower inflows occur when loads are high. Examples of coincidence and non -
coincidence:
Coincident -
a) Spring run-off and high, early summer irrigation pumping
b) Late season fish processing and early fall precipitation
Not Coincident —
a) Winter freeze-up and space heating
Because our load profile is shifting towards winter space heating, our future loads will be even
less coincident with inflow. This means we are likely to have surplus hydro in the late fall for an
extended period. If a new hydroplant is constructed in the future, the spill and diesel cycle will
be repeated. Increasing storage at Swan Lake allows SEAPA to "shift" wet season spilled water
to winter heating capability. Figure 3 shows the relationship of inflow to load for the Tyee Lake
Hydro Project. Historic average annual inflow is approximately 117,000 ac-ft, active reservoir
storage is 52,000 ac-ft, or in terms of number of tank -fills of fuel, Tyee receives on average 2'/4
tanks (52,000*2.25 = 117,000 ac-ft). Note that in the model generated graph, the full range of
reservoir is used yet spill occurred in the October -to -November time frame. Even with future
load growth, SEAPA expects to spill during the October -to -November period at our Tyee facility.
As explained later in the report, increasing storage at Swan will reduce spill events at Tyee.
1400
1390
1380
1370
12160
1 350
E 1340
1 _G0
1320
W 1310
1300
1290
w
m 1280
1270
12h0
1250
111
Tyee Lake Hydro Operations !_
spill —
111flow= to 1st tank s Intl- tank
1/4 tank
\Winter
Very
Light Heavy
Loads Winter
Loads
tight to Moderate Loads
Heavy Loads _
1131 312 411 511 513l 6130 7130 8129 9128 1LV23 11127 12127
—Tyee Lake Reser,.Dir Elevation
Figure 3 - System load timing and seasonal inflows to Tyee Lake
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 11 December 2012
3.3 Plan consistent with the SEIRP
The recently completed Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan (`SEIRP')3 reviewed our
region's hydro capability, load profiles, economic activity, and population growth. This report,
which provides the foundation of future planning, emphasized reservoir storage as a critical
finding pointing to a regional storage capacity shortfall. This Project is consistent with that
report in calling for a cost-effective storage expansion at Swan Lake.
3.4 New Projects have a Stranded Portion of Output
Unless a new hydro project is offsetting existing thermal load (diesel), a portion of the output will
be underutilized. In Southeast Alaska this occurs during spring runoff or during the fall wet
season, or as with Tyee in the first 20 years of operation, may be underutilized for the entire
June through November period. The proposed additional storage at Swan would shift this
excess summer and fall output into the winter. The new Project would generate during the
summer and fall such that a reduced electrical output from Swan Lake would allow refilling the
larger reservoir. In the very near term, the new plant would be the Whitman project. As this
plant became fully utilized, then the next hydro plant would fulfill the roll of replacing the Swan
Lake "turn -down" thus avoiding stranding a portion of the under-utilized capacity of the newest
plant. At this time it is uncertain whether Whitman will be constructed, or if constructed, what
the generating capabilities will be. This analysis used six case studies to cover various
contingencies that include:
A -No resource changes
B-Just Whitman
C-Whitman + .5-4 MW variable Power Purchase (PP)
D-Whitman + PP + New Generic Hydro
E-Whitman + Generic Hydro
F-Generic Hydro only
These cases were analyzed for each raise option - 10 ft, 15 ft, and 20 ft.
Section 4
Benefit (Value) Analysis
Benefit (value) in this report means additional SEAPA sales at $68/MWh that result from
displacing future winter diesel generation. SEAPA expects to contribute 50% of the project
capital costs to license, design, and construct the dam modifications necessary to increase
reservoir storage. Benefits (SEAPA sales) then must accrue over the year to pay for the 50%
capital financing.
4.1 Simple Value of Storage
If 15 or 20 extra feet of water were to magically appear behind the dam at Swan Lake, how
much electric output does this extra water volume represent? This extra water will be available
for generation at Swan Lake because Swan output will be reduced during the summer and fall
to allow the larger reservoir to refill. The reduced output will be replaced first by increased
output from Tyee Lake, then from any new hydro resources that are brought on-line. Put
3 Available from the Alaska Energy Authority website.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 12 December 2012
another way, the larger reservoir captures spill that would have occurred at Tyee Lake, or a
future new plant.
Plant
Reservoir
Model Curve
Additional
Additional
Efficiency
Full Pool
Storage
Storage
Energy
Value
There ismuch more to the story than the values ofTable 1.This simplistic calculation does not
account for head benefits that accrue during the course of the year or show the benefits that
neGU|t from greater opemd|0ne| flexibility which absorb volatile Southeast Alaska |nOOvv8. An
important consideration is that increased storage at Swan Lake provides space to absorb spill
that would have occurred not only at Swan Lake, but at any of the region's interconnected hydro
projects. An 8SSurnpti0D has been made that extra summer generation is available now and in
the future which aU0vve normal inflows to refill the larger Gvv8n reservoir, this 8SSunnpUon is
covered inthe next sections.
Acase study was performed tounderstand the best reservoir increase option. Ten feet, fifteen
feet, and 20 feet raise options were compared to a base case where no modification to the dam
iSundertaken (full pool Of93Oftl Since each model case |slaborious inexplanation, the 15 ft
raise option (full pool of 345 ft.) is explained fully.
Adaily average generation and inflow nlOde14was used to quantify the effects of raising the full
pool elevation of Swan Lake. The original condition case is a reservoir with a full pool elevation
Of33Oft;the second case iS8full pool elevation Of345ft. Both cases used the same inflow, o
synthetic series developed as an expected condition for the Swan Basin ;" each case had the
SG[ne reservoir operational constraints as listed immediately below:
aminimu0 operating level of273ft.(271.5ft is the FERClicense limit)
an end target level equal to the start level (could not use next years water)
Swan Summer
Swan Winter
Swan
Start & End
Comparison of
Generation
Generation
Total
Swan Cases, 345
May 1 to Nov 30
Dec 1 to April 30
Generation
Elevation
Table 2 - Swan Generation for Case 330 ft and Case 346 ft
*Written by[TA in2006 for FDPPA (Terror Lake); modified for Swan and Tyee, and verified with actual
perform See, Appendix A1for details ofthe Swan Lake hydraulic model.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. (ntertie Gtudy2OO8. synthetic inflow correlated to rain data.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 13 Decondx+ 2012
As shown in Table above, Case 345compared toCase 33O has 8significant decrease in
summer generation (9'323 K8Wh), but significant inCn38Se in winter generation (10.980 MVVh).
Oma[@U GvvGn Lake annual generation is about the a80e M.5596 difference). Figure 4 Shovva
each reservoir guide curve (dotted line) that prioritizes generation in the winter months, vet
o|(owS the reservoir to refill (Sann8 starting and ending elevations). These guide curves were
developed by repetitive SinlU|8tiuno using a range ofhistoric inflows from the Falls Creek UOGS
gage.« Historic f|ovvn were corrected for the difference in drainage area that resulted from
project construction. Recent inflows were C3|Cu|Gted from Swan Lake operational data to
augment the historic data. From this inflow record we know the guide curve captures inflow
uncertainty to 1596 below expected inflow (05Y6 of the time generation will exceed the guide
curve generation va|ue).
The key to the expanded reservoir option isthat future Swan Lake generation is decreased ("a
turn down") from present operation (330 ft option) during the SuDlrnev months to 8U0vx the
proposed larger reservoir to refU, and it has been ooaunned 9.323 MVVh is ovoUBb|8 within the
evatenn to 8U0vv [ef|l during the summer. The extra winter generation /10.380 K8VVh> is then
available as a 100Y6 d|eaa! d|ep}8CerDen1 For the gain in winter genenat{0O, we must find
additional summer generation in the Gyehern. The first place to look ieTvee Lake, which has
been spilling every year during the summer and fall since 1884.
Figure 4 — Swan Lake generation and inflow -storage model (daily
average). Dotted lines deviate from guide curves when inflows
deviate from historical average. Solid lines are for the inflow case
at 15% below expected. During low inflow years (up to 16% less
than expected conditions) the reservoir will refill for winter
operation with a 9323 MWh turn down.
A hydraulic -generation nnodu| was used to verify that additional summer generation was
available at Tyee Lake. As with the Swan Lake model, both Tyee cases had to refill prior to the
6USGSGage 15U7UOOO.source details listed inAppendix 81�
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 14 Daoenvber2UY2
winter heating season, and both cases drafted to the same elevation (1,270 ft). Table 3 lists
both cases, which more than refilled (above the January start elevation of 1,365 ft), and both
cases have nearly identical winter generation levels; the principal difference is that the Tyee
case with additional summer generation converts 11,400 ac ft of spill to over 11,700 MWh of
generation. This exceeds the 9,323 MWh requirement of the Swan model and verifies that
existing excess Tyee capacity would be available and coincident with the Swan Lake "turn-
down" requirement.
Modeled Tyee Generation and Water Levels
Tyee Cases, 2013 (Base) and
Winter
Summer
Total
Start
End
Spill
future year with additional
Generation
Generation
Generation
Elev.
Elev.
summer generation
MWh
MWh
MWh
ft
ft
ac-ft
Base Case (2013 Expected)
73,136
46,421
119,557
1365.0
1378.5
11,632
2013 + Additional Summer
Gen.
73,136
58,133
131,269
1365.0
1376.7
224
difference
0
11,712
11,712
0
-2
-11,408
Table 3 - Tyee winter and summer generation for base case and
base + additional summer generation
A plot of Tyee Lake reservoir elevations for both model cases is shown in Figure 5. The model
is constrained to prioritize winter generation and to refill for the next winter heating season. The
inflow case is based on the original generation estimate provided as the basis for construction.'
Spill in the model occurs at elevation 1396 (all additional storage lost); in reality spill seepage
starts at elevation 1,387 and increases to visual spill through a restrictive log jam.
Tyee lake Hydro Operations- Reservoir Elevations
1400
1390 Additional su4imer
1380
1370 generation removes; most j
1360 of spill I
H 1350 j t
E 1340
1330 i
W 1320
> 1310
y 1290 I j
1280
1270 i
1260
1250
12/14 1/8 212 2/27 3123 4117 5112 6/6 711 7126 8120 9/14 1019 1113 11/28 12/23
Base Case —Base + Add'1 Summer Gen.
Figure 5 - Tyee Lake water levels for the two generation cases of Table 3
7 IECo Hydraulic Design Criteria for Tyee Lake, see Appendix B2.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 15 December 2012
Table 4 below lists increased nominal nn0nthk/ summer generation values which total to the
11,712 MWh and correspond to the dark trace for reservoir level shown in Figure 5.
Increased TyeeGeneration
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov bJ1@l
aMVV 2 2 2 4 4 2 --
MVVh 1440 1488 1488 2880 2976 1440 11,712
Table 4 - Additional Generation Schedule at Tyee to Refill the Larger
Swan Lake Reservoir
If the additiona{Tyee summer generation values of Table 4are added to expected 2013
generation levels at Tyee, the values of Table 5 result, which total to 131,269 MWh, justshy of
the expected case modeled value Of133.O2OMVVh. Please see Appendix A2for expected Tvee
generation details.
Expected 2013
Tyee Generation
Expected + Summer
Generation
Summer Total Gen. Case
Table 5 - 2013 Tyee Generation with Added Summer Component to
Refill Swan Lake
Tvaa Lake and 8vvon Lake, as mentioned b6fOro, dispatch last iOthe SEAPA ; spill at
these plants therefore represents total avoteno spill. The principal question in then, "How long
until summer load growth reduces GEAPA system excess hydro capability? Summer excess
hydro (spill) that would be used to refill the larger Swan Lake reservoir will be reduced in the
future due to load growth. but later in our planning window vve expect new hydro resources to be
brought into the system. New hydro resources will bring a component of excess summer
generation that will then be used to refill the expanded Gvvon Lake reservoir. The preceding
sections explained how excess capability at one hydro station within the 8EAPAoyStenn [Tye8
Lake) can be used to shift excess summer generation to winter generation using 8 larger Swan
Reservoir. To estimate the long-term value of the Swan reservoir exponainn, a system
approach is required. Our Svatenl approach will use monthly average hydro generation as
defined in section 4.3' and a reference case load forecast aa defined in Section 4.4. These
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 16 Daoanb*r20Y2
metrics will then be used to determine the extent of future excess hydro available for recharging
the expanded Swan Lake reservoir.
Swan Lake annual generation averaged for the period 1999 to 2011 was 74,964 MWh, but
during this same period the average spill at Swan Lake was 55,544 ac ft, (64% of the total
storage)! Converting the average spill volume to energy yields 14,435 MWh of under-utilized
water at Swan Lake; therefore the total available hydro generation at Swan Lake from 1999 to
2011 was 89,400 MWh. A check of the weather for this period indicates the region was slightly
wetter than average; the average precipitation at the Ketchikan airport from 1999 to 2011 was
166.3 inches; the historic average is 153.5 inches. Indexing$ Swan Lake generation and spill to
the historic average precipitation at the airport reduces the expected output of Swan Lake from
89,400 MWh to 82,506 MWh. KPU hydro generation was also indexed from the period average
of 77,167 MWh to 71,216 MWh.
Year
KPU Hydra
MWh
Swan Lake
Gen
MWh
Swan Lake
spill ac-ft
Swan Lake
Spill MWh)
Swan Lake
Total
(MWH)
PAKT
Rain
(in
1999
74,575
62,615
104,406
26,939
89,554
187
2000
76,858
81,644
16,963
4,377
86,021
170
2001
77,999
81,079
64,974
17,105
98,184
184
2002
65,083
73,349
61,752
16,256
89,605
154
2003
76,970
77,311
58,267
15,339
92,650
155
2004
71,429
80,174
19,050
5,015
85,189
156
2005
79,680
74,488
92,061
24,697
99,185
196
2006
79,790
80,312
4,499
1,137
81,449
162
2007
79,967
79,164
68,931
17,786
96,950
169
2008
83,681
65,625
113,079
29,177
94,802
165
2009
78,883
76,556
0
0
76,556
143
2010
75,839
74,345
33,530
8,471
82,816
150
2011
82,413
67,874
84,555
21,362
89,235
171
2012
11,338
Avg. 77,167
74,964
55,544
14,435
89,400
166.3
min 65,083
62,615
0
0
76,556
143
max 83,681
81,644
113,079
29,177
99,185
196
Average period precip. for KTN Airport (PAKT) inches => 166.3
Long term Historic average precip. for PAKT inches => 153.5
Table• • • • •. t
• KPU Hydro
8 Historic average precipitation at Swan Lake is 166 inches/year; the assumption is that when drier years
occur in Ketchikan, these years will correspond to drier conditions at Swan Lake and at the Ketchikan
Lakes and Silvis basins.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 17 December 2012
Table lists the regiOn'8 expected hydro capability. 8w@O Lake average generation K82,500
MVVh\ is shOvvD in Table as two numbers: 70'710 K8VVh which represents an average output
consistent with both hydraulic 00de|S and Table 8 values, and 11'700 K8VVh vvh/Ch is an amount
that represents the spill pOrti0n, evident in Table 0 that could be captured by the proposed
expansion. Tyae is entered as 133'800 K8VVh consistent with |ECo design and our modeling
work.
Existing and Proposed Hydro, Resources (Capacity and Energy)
`Capacity Energy(MVKh}
SEAPA Area Hydro Resources MW Low Expected
High
Existing
KPU Hydro corrected for avg. at KAPT.
13
65,083
71,216
83,681
Existing
Modeled SWL Inflows and sys. Dispatch
24
62,615
70,716
81,644
Existing
Modeled Tyee Inflows and System Dispatch
24
111,500
133,020
135,000
Existing
Transmission, Transformer, & Plant Losses
O
40,447
-12.224
-12,990
03
Energcurrently available for refill of the
Proposed
Swan �Lake Reservoir Expansion
0
5.600
11.790
28.0009
Building
Whitman
4
5.957
11.829
17.500
2017
Net hydro
60.9
249.264
294.142
828.356
Notes:
KPUHydro corrected to2Oyrs. ofKAPTrain gage horepresent an
average. `
SWL Lake output (70,716) is from a model to match the historic the remaining (spill) is
listed under Proposed - Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion. Only 7,500 MWh (future average available for refill) is
included in the resource total for the expected inflow condition. Minimum Swan expansion is due to head benefit
Tyee generation based on hydraulic
model
will be converted to displaced diesel if no spill from Tyee or Swan is available
The SBRP contained G reference case load forecast for the SEAPA region which was
developed by Black Q'Veatch (B&V). This reference Caaa (between the high and low c3aeu)
contained 8steep rise iDloads until 2O15'then 8constant .596escalation unU|2D3O; Gfter203O
an annual 8SCa|eti0D of .25Y6 was used. GEAPA modified the B&V load forecast for this
analysis to have @ uniform .596 annual load increase until 2050. The modified load forecast
includes Kake, but does not include k8eti8k8t|a. Load forecasts and hydro resources are shown
in Figure O' which also includes the low and high reg{on8l hydro generation cases. The ramp in
hydro capability is due to the addition of the Whitman and 8vv@n Lake Reservoir Increase
p28.0OOMVVhisthe amount ofenergy that would bespilled during high water years atSwan Lake. This
value has been met orexceeded in the past. This energy is phantom value however as during very
high years there is simply too much water available at all the hydro projects; this deluge overwhelms a
prudently sized hydro system.
Dmoendxpr�OY2
Sou����� A6��Pow�r�geng/ 18
SEAPA Control Area - Annual Resource -toad Balanm
380.000
360.000
340.1100
�28,356
7 320.00t3
300.000
" -
_ ... - :294,142
0 280.000
Hydro = 275;013,
2012 Lead= 275,188
25o,OC o
2011. 266,183
f°
3
24.264
C
2010, 250,873240.000
Q
220,000
2010
2015 2020 2025 2030
2035 2040 2045 2050
B&V Modified 2016 to 2050
B&V Load 2011 Fcst
Low Hydro
- + - E-.pected Hydro
-- High Hydro
r Actual Load tPa1Wh)
Figure 6 - Loads and resources for the SEAPA region
As shown in Figure 6, SEAPA regional loads have reached the expected or normal condition
hydro capability point of 275,013 MWh. During the next few years diesel generation will be
more and more likely to occur and to occur in ever increasing amounts. Even after Whitman
and the Swan Lake Reservoir Increase Projects are added, the expected case falls well short of
projected loads.
4.5 Future Excess Hydro (spill) Available for Swan Lake Storage
Future excess hydro as spilled energy depends on three factors:
1) Inflow volumes vary greatly depending on weather; this analysis uses
inflows that correspond to historical average generation.
2) Load Forecast — should reflect the economic trend which can deviate over
the long term; this analysis uses a modified (increased) B&V SEIRP
reference case load forecast.
3) A portion of the output from proposed (future) hydro projects cannot be
fully utilized unless there is year-round thermal generation to displace.
The SEAPA system at the present time is 99% hydro sourced, thus
stranded generation has to wait for load growth unless new storage
sources are developed that shifts summer excess hydro to winter
generation. This analysis uses the licensed but reduced Whitman plant
scheduled for 2015 and a limited storage "generic hydro' of 50 GWh
scheduled for 2030 as new resource additions.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 19 December 2012
Future system spill was calculated by subtracting future loads from the expected case hydro
value. Monthly tabulations of hydro resources are based on computer models and have been
verified with actual operations data. On a monthly basis, hydro resources, less loads, either
result in a surplus or a deficit. Winter surpluses were summed into the summer and then spilled
if summer loads did not consume the surplus; this is consistent with our actual reservoir storage
constraints. Winter deficits are counted as diesel generation. Presently our reservoirs are
empty by late spring and spilling by late fall.
► onthly total Energy thft)
YearJMont
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Oec
2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,771
8,771
8,771
0
0
2012
576
0
0
a
0
1.84
0
6,424
6,424
6,424
0
0
2013
1.261
0
0
0
213
1879
a
4.622
4.622
4,622
0
0
2014
2.209
0
30,11
0
3S9
2.621
0
3.430
3.430
3.430
210
1.289
2015
2.653
0
613
0
0
2.003
0
4.864
4264
4.864
0
1.$=.e
2016
2.812
0
1,266
927
0
2.002
0
3,924
3,924
3.924
0
3.D21
2017
Z968
105
1,406
1,052
0
2,103
0
1683
3.683
3,683
0
3.1N4
2018
1352
405
1.707
1,325
41
2.343
0
3,104
3,104
3.104
0
3,58�'
2019
3.511
i536
1.849
1,452
1^`
2,445
0
2,905
2,905
2.905
0
1744
2020
3.671
n68
1.992
1,580
269
2,549
0
2,704
2,704
2,704
0
3.914
2021
3.82,1
800
2,13_
1,709
384
2,653
0
2.511
2,511
2.511
24
4.091
2022
3.992
933
2.279
1.837
500
2 757
0
2,356
2.356
2,356
165
4.249
2023
4155
1.067
2.42'
1.966
F1f,
2.8152
0
2,201
2.201
2,201
107
d.416
2024
, 1'
1 .; "1
2.`:f,9
2.09b•
732
2.968
Q
2.044
2.044
2.044
a'.:l
4 _ � ':
Table 8 — Future Spill and Diesel Generation (red text is diesel
generation; black text is spill). Whitman Project projected to be
online in 2015.
A modeling period of 39 years was used to correspond with a 30-year financing plan. Figure 7
shows actual 2011 and 2012 SEAPA system spilled energy compared to the expected case
analysis spilled energy (solid black line). For 2011, the model projected a spill value of 26,312
MWh but actual spilled energy totaled 45,454 MWh. Actual 2012 spill was 53,796 MWh while
the expected case spilled energy for 2012 is 19,272 MWh; 2012 was a very high inflow year!
This comparison confirms the high case hydro capability previously listed in Table 7, and also
indicates the difficulty in predicting spill just one year into the future. Both traces (solid and
dotted) use the SEAPA modified reference case load forecast and average inflow hydro
conditions. The difference is the dotted line has Whitman and the generic hydro project
included; Whitman starts in 2015, the generic project starts in 2030. The result of this analysis
indicates there will be insufficient excess hydro to refill raise options 15 ft and greater if no new
hydro projects are brought on-line. If new projects are constructed, then system spill will be
available and then offset winter diesel. The generic hydro plant10 used in this analysis has an
annual output of 50 GWh from a run -of river configuration, comes on-line in 2030, and during
the first year displaces 16,052 MWh of diesel generation without the Swan Lake expansion. An
additional 10,000 MWh of diesel generation is displaced when the effects of the expanded Swan
Lake reservoir are taken into account.
10 Consistent with SEIRP and the recent Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development Grant Process to determine the best hydro alternative for Southeast Alaska.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 20 December 2012
Actual .and Future SEAPA System Spill -Energy (MWH)
-------------------------- -----
s
A 2012, 53,79a
}.
5O'OoO------------------
----------------------------------------------------
-------------- -----
Case A- No -- stem additions
ao
A 2011, 45,454
...... Case E-Whitman and 2030 generic Hydro
4
40.000
-- -
-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
A:** AlawatSEAPA Sail (MWh)
C
m
}
3o000
-------------- ------------------------------------
'------------------------ ---------- --
5W
JS
n/1
i
i E
-i •� �� rt
-J -J ID c-1
G 6 Q O G
r^J N fJ M t'V
-1 r,4 N N rn m m-T ui n m
N C4 CJ N N r'rl cz� m� IM (Y [t �t Sf C2' CS
C3 r7 O O O �7 O c7 LN O O tJ C3 G O
fV r^J •V N N •V �J f•J CV iV N lV N i+! IN
Figure 7 — Future SEAPA System Excess Hydro Capability
Available to Refill Large Swan Reservoir
4.6 Head benefit of increased storage capacity
Head (ft, m) is energy per cubic foot of water, the higher the dam, the more head. Power is the
product of head and flow. If there is no excess hydro generation in the system, the increase in
storage allows the Swan Project to experience greater head at the plant than would occur
without the increase in storage. To estimate the value of the head benefit, the same hydraulic
model of Section 4.2 was utilized. Inflow sequences that represent a range in Swan Lake
generation from 57,000 MWh to 86,000 MWh were entered into a hydraulic model for the 330 ft
case. These same inflows were then entered into a model with 345 ft as the maximum
elevation. The average gain in generation for the 345 case over the 330 ft case was 3,600
MWh.
4.7 Value Summary
Five system configuration cases that could represent the future were analyzed. Each case used
the modified B&V load forecast and expected hydro conditions.
Case A
No new hydro assets added to the system
Case B
A reduced Whitman Project added, 11,629 MWh instead of the
previous design value Hatch -Acres of 16,300 MWh
Case C
a reduced Whitman and a short term (15 year) power purchase
from an existing or proposed hydro project
Case D
Case C plus a future 50 GWh hydro asset commissioned 2030
Case E
Reduced Whitman plus the future 50 GWh hydro project, no RFO
(Power Purchase)
Case F
Generic Hydro as the only resource addition in year 2030, no
Whitman or RFO
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 21 December 2012
2016 to 2045 Spilled Energy Available for Swan Lake refill by Case
Raise Option
Case A
Case B
Case C
Case D
Case E
Case F
generation (benefit) using an expanded Swan La
The SEAPA business plan otthis time calls for either adding e new hydro project by the 2030
time frame, or entering into power purchase agreement. Perhaps both options may occur
where the new project supersedes the purchase agreement (Case D). Atthis time o reduced
Whitman Project is eU|| planned for construction and commissioning by the end of 2015.
Therefore it is most likely that Case C, or D, or E, will occur, and less likely Case A, status quo,
or Case B Oust Whitman) will occur. Under these assumptions the nlininnunn average annual
additional generation value for the 10 ft raise option is 4.414 K0VVh (Case C\ and the maximum
average value is 12.251 N1VVhwhioh is the estimated benefit for Case [} if the 20 ft option is
constructed. Section O cOD[@inS @ discussion of raise options and applicable Seaa studies.
Supporting data for the average values iSlisted inAppendix B3.
[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.]
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 22 Deoamber2O/2
Section 5
Cost Estimation and Schedules
There are two major categories of effort to construct additional storage at Swan Lake, the
license amendment, and actual construction.
5.1 License Amendment- Largely a Land Ownership Issue
This amendment will be a non -capacity amendment as no changes to powerhouse equipment
or hydraulic conveyance (pen-
stocks, tunnels) are planned.
Therefore amendment efforts
will be centered on land use
changes around the reservoir.
Around the reservoir, the
FERC boundary currently fol-
lows the 350 ft. elevation
contour; however the State
Lands boundary follows the
metes and bound courses
described in the Project's Ex-
hibit K drawings. The approxi-
mate boundary of State and
Federal Lands is shown as
shaded in Figure 8. In 1997
the US Forest Service (USFS)
lands around the Project were
conveyed to the State of
Alaska pursuant to the Alaska
Statehood Act of 1958. Two
parcels (U.S. Survey No.
11630) were conveyed as
described under Patent
Number 50-97-0286. Parcel 1
encompasses land below the Figure 8 - Parcel 2 of State Conveyance
powerhouse and Parcel 2 des-
cribes lands surrounding the
reservoir. The proposed reservoir increase only affects Parcel 2, which is listed in Appendix C
for further reference. At this time it is assumed the entire FERC Project boundary lies within the
State Lands area. To verify that the 350 ft option is contained within State Lands, a land survey
was conducted to verify where and to what extent elevation 350 ft falls outside of State Lands.
Results of the R&M land survey conducted during the summer of 2012 did indeed find project
lands outside of the existing DNR boundary. A map of this survey is listed in Appendix C. Even
though there will now be Project lands on the Tongass National Forest (25.8 acres), this parcel
is small and may not require a special use permit for project operations. A timber cruise and
sale will be required for inundated trees on USFS lands, and a cruise, sale, and harvest will
have to be carried out on inundated DNR lands. We do not expect to harvest trees in the zone
above full pool but below the probable maximum flood (PMF) elevation. Full pool and probable
maximum flood levels for the two options are list in Table 10.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 23 December 2012
Full
PMF
Reservoir Elevations
Pool
Elev.
ft
ft
Existing Reservoir
330.0
343.3
15 ft Raise Option
345.0
348.3
20 ft Raise Option
350.0
355.0
Table 10 - Proposed reservoir full pool and PMF elevations
'Trc-formal" consultation
Now through January 2013
and information
development
File Initial Consultation
March, 2013
October 2012 (supplemented
Document (iCD)
in January with 2012 study
results)
Joint Meeting,
April 2013
November2012
Site Visit
April 2013
Mid-September2012
Comments on lCD and
Mid-June2013
Mid -March
requests for information
Develop Information per
2014
N/A (or minimal since
requests
developed in 2012)
Draft Amendment
December20'14
June 2013
Final Amendment
lulu 2015
January 201=1
NL'I:AConsultation (F&KC)
Jul),2015-September
January2014-February 2015
2016
Amended I.icenseOrder
Late 2016
April 2015
Table 11 -License Amendment Schedule
The best case for the amendment process is shown in the right column of Table 11; a more
traditional case is shown in the left column. SEAPA hosted an Agency Meeting in May 2012 in
Ketchikan and asked for feedback as far as executing the SEAPA option. Agency response
was positive, as long as study plans could be submitted quickly. Study plans were submitted
quickly and a Tongass NF special use permit was issued such that environmental and cultural
surveys could be undertaken during the summer of 2012. These summer studies (Aquatic
(fish), invasive species, rare plants, wildlife, cultural) are now complete and the reports that will
make up the Initial Consultation Document are being prepared through January 2013. SEAPA
expects to submit the ICD by late February or at the latest mid -March of 2013.
5.2 Construction Cost
SEAPA contracted with McMillen Engineering to determine the cost and feasibility of 10 ft, 15 ft,
and 20 ft reservoir raise options. Their analysis indicated that the dam cannot be modified past
a 23-ft increase without infringement upon FERC mandated factors of safety. Review of the
spillway and computation of the probable maximum flood (PMF) for each option became a
limiting factor as well. The new structure however modified must pass the PMF. This
requirement eliminated most gate, and rubber dam options. The best option for reliable, cost
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 24 December 2012
effective, safe operation during flooding is an Obermeyer gate configuration. The sequence of
construction for Obermeyer gates is shown in Figure 9.
Start of Installation — Installing Gate Panel — Completed Gate
Figure 9 - Obermeyer Gate Construction Sequence
Review of the intake gate house and associated mechanical and electrical works indicated that
the gate house equipment room must be raised by the equivalent full pool raise amount (10 ft,
15 ft, or 20 ft).
Top of
Reservoir Elevations
Full
PMF
Top of
Parapet
Pool
Elev.
Dam
wall
ft
ft
ft
ft
Existing Reservoir
330.0
343.3
344.0
347.5
15 ft Raise Option
345.0
348.3
350.0
353.5
20 ft Raise Option
350.0
355.0
358.0
361.5
Table 12 - Dam and PMF Elevations
Additionally, the problematic right abutment must be built-up and a retaining wall constructed for
the 15 ft and 20 ft options. Powerhouse and penstock equipment will not need modifications.
The report is available from the SEAPA website www.seapahydro.org. McMillen estimated
construction and engineering costs for each option; these are listed in Table 13.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 25 December 2012
Item
Lake Raise Optionc
10 ft Lake
Raise
14 ft Lakt:
Rare
-fT Lake Rail
C oustntction Cost
5 4.1 14,105
S7,260,369
S 1 1,343._'2 3
Design Contimaenc� (10%)
S 413,410
S 726.037
S 1.134.32'
Constnuction Cost Subtotal
S 4,536,515
S 7.936.406
S 12.477.545
Field Chanee Order Contiu2encv (5*0)
�
S 206.20
S 36.3.01S
S 567A61
Total Con.str ction Cost
S 4,742,720
S 8-149,424
S 11044,746
Planning, Engineering and Design (15%)
S 6SG,477
S 1,197,961
S 1.871.632
Engineering Services-Duru' 19 Construction (5%)
S '26.8'26
$399.320
S 623.877
C'onstniction Supervision and :administration (8%')
S 379,413
S 667.954
S L043.577
Total Capital Cost
S 6,029,441
S 10,614.659
S 16,58 792
Table 13 - Construction and Engineering Costs
Costs for construction were based on:
Material costs located in Ketchikan and barged to site
Engineering News record for construction cost indexes
Davis -Bacon wages
+ 50%, -30% uncertainty with the median cost listed and
based on responsible bidding
• Costs include crew camp construction, mobilization, de-
mobilization, site clean-up, and gate commissioning
5.3 Construction Schedule
2014 2015 2016
Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ian Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul .Aug
Land Survey
Environmental Studies
Stage 1 Emir. Rpt
Agency Review of studies'
Amendment Process
Agency Site visit
Joint Agency Meeting
Create and file ICO
ICO Comments & Infor. Rgst
draft Amendment
file Amended License
NEPAConsuitation
Amended License order
Engineering
Phase A
FERC Dam Safety
Board of Consultants
Phase 8
Construction Management
Construction
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 26 December 2012
Section 6
Costs, Benefits, and Recommendation
Costs and benefits for increasing reservoir storage by 10 ft, 15 ft, or 20 ft are listed in Table 13
of this section. The option that overcomes cost and displaces the most diesel generation is the
nominal 15 ft raise option. Raising the reservoir 10 ft would be more financially conservative
because total project costs are lower, but the benefit is lower as well. The 10 ft raise option
carries minimal license amendment risk, which also shortens project schedule and reduces
project costs. All options require future system summer excess generation (spill) to allow refill
of the larger reservoir. The 10 ft option requires the least summer excess generation and
therefore carries the lowest risk that this excess generation will not be available. The 20 ft
option carries the most risk of refill failure because water in excess of average inflows is
required to meet the end of summer full pool operating constraint. The 20 ft option carries the
greatest benefit if the Lake Grace project were constructed.
Reservoir Full Pool Option
330
340
345
350
Active Storage (ac-ft)
86,000
100,500
107,600
114,600
% Increase in Storage
0%
17%
25%
33%
Increased Generation (MWh)
Case C-Whitman + 20 yr. limited RFO (PP)
0
5,677
7,463
8,820
Case D- Whitman + RFO (PP) + 2030 Generic
0
6,613
9,955
12,871
Case E-Whitman + 2030 Generic Hydro
0
6,358
8,814
10,872
Case F-2030 Generic Hydro only
0
5,298
7,397
9,677
Construction & Engineering Cost ($M)
0
6.00
10.60
16.50
License Amendment & Permitting ($M)
0
0.78
1.17
1.29
Total Project Cost ($M)
0
6.78
11.77
17.79
Value of Annual Displaced Diesel (15 kWh/gal
0
$1,120,000
$1,920,000
$1,973,333
$4/gal fuel cost)
Annual Financing Charge (50% of Total project
$0
$257,232
$446,526
$674,732
Cost, 30 year term, 6.5%)
SEAPA Additional Sales, case C ($68/MWh)
0
$386,022
$507,511
$599,736
Benefit/cost = (SEAPA Sales -Case C/Finance)
1.5
1.1
0.9
Table 14 - Benefits and Costs for Three Reservoir Raise Options: 10 ft, 15 ft, and 20 ft
Notes:
Timber harvest cost included in license amendment costs. 50% of total project costs assumed
reimbursed by the State of Alaska. Case A - no resource expansion, and Case B - just Whitman, do not
overcome costs for any raise option. Power Purchase (PP) option is price dependent and may not be
executed. Generic is a SEIRP term for an unnamed hydro project that fits system needs rather than
describes a specific resource. Increased generation uncertainty, -0% +5%, Construction cost uncertainty
is -30% to +50% on a portion of the $10.6M value.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 27 December 2012
The 15ft raise option strikes b@{GnCS between the main risk components that jeopardize
successful Project; these risks are now summarized:
License Amendment Risk. At this time only Kokanwe 8e|nlon are an
environmental issue; land use and boundary issues will be overcome. If
n3sSn/0ir restrictions are included as 8 mitigation nne8SurS, these restrictions
must not restrict generation flexibility to the extent project benefits are
significantly reduced. A project go/no-go decision regarding environmental
impacts will be made during the late spring of2O13. GEAPA may Or may not
need a special use permit for Tongaaa National Forest lands that would be
inundated; noininno| anaeo vvnu|d be inundated with the 10 ft option; the 20 ft
option would inundate approximately 25 @cnyo. Each option will require ONF<
timber harvesting with the CoSiS of the harvest yet undeternnined, the greater the
reservoir raise, the greater the harvest cost.
2. Design Risk. Dom and intake DoodU5C8tiOnS become more complex and more
costly eothe reservoir raise height increases. The lower the raise option the less
risk 8EAPA carries with regard to o ooatk/ design and FEFlC approval process.
The right abutment, where rock does not continue above the existing top of dam
elevation becomes problematic and increasingly more costly for raise elevations
that continue above 15ft.
3. Inflow Risk. This analysis used inflows that correspond toaverage generation
records and then indexed these recent 1999-2011 values down using an average
precipitation record from the Ketnhikan airport. The 10 ft option refills with
inflows less than average, the 15ftoption uses the average \oattain full pool
before the winter, and the 20 ft option cannot refill with average inflows.
4. Winter Delivery Risk. If excess Sunnnn8r generation is not avaikab|e. then extra
winter storage will not be available and project benefits will not be realized. The
uncovered finance costs will add topressures toraise GEAPA'ewholesale power
rate. SEAPA is confident that 3 aMW will be available from June to November if
any of the cases (C, O, E, or F) of the previous Benefits Section occur. These
cases one consistent with previous regional planning initiatives.
The reduced Whitman Project which is licensed and funded and the
SEIRP Business Plan, which is a Request for Offers (RFO) of power
Case C and energy. The business plan initiates a request for offers of power
and energy to be delivered to SEAPA from potential IPP sources. A
recent Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development grant funds this initiative.
A reduced Whitman and a limited 10 yr. to 15 yr. low capacity (1 to 4
MW) power purchase and construction of the 2030 generic hydro
project. This case was analyzed to ensure the Swan reservoir
Case D increase project is complementary to, instead of detracting from, the
combined benefits of proposed projects. The generic hydro project
for this analysis was a run -of river configuration with an annual
average output of 50 GWh.
Whitman and the Generic Hydro. The 10 ft and 15 ft raise options
Case E cover costs if the generic hydro project is constructed with the
inclusion of the reduced Whitman project.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 28 Deoembe/20Y2
203OGeneric Hydro, but noWhitman Project. Iffor some reason the
reduced output Whitman project is not Conatructed, then under this
scenario the 1Oftand 15 ft raise options will have enough excess
summer generation to refill the larger reservoir. The term of the
Case F construction bond ends in 2040, the generic plant would be
constructed in 2030. Only the 1Oftoption covers costs if only the
reduced Whitman project is constructed (n0 other new generation
|sources orpower purchase 8Qre8mente).
A summary of option attributes vs. reservoir full pool levels is listed in Table 15. The present
day Swan project full pool level is 330 ft.
Option Attribute
345
350
Refills with average inflow if drafted to El 272 ft using
excess generation of 2.7 aMW from June 15 to Nov 15
Yes
no
Relies on above avg. inflow to refill
No
yes
Dependent on case D and E to realize benefit over cost
No
yes
Provides flexibility to integrate Lake Grace Options
yes -better
ves-best
Table 15 - Raise Option Attributes vs. Full Pool Levels of 345 ft (15 ft
SEAPA would not consider any notion including the 10 ft option if all proposed prukaota for the
region (Whitman, Power Purchase Agreement, and the generic hydro) were considered unlikely.
Since the GEAPA business plan is to pursue the RFO and the generic hvdn}, and at this time
Ketohikencontinues forward progress with the reduced Whitman Project, ourbestupt}nnisthen
narrowed to the 15 ft increase. Table 15 lists attributes vs. full pool levels in a qualitative
manner with the only standout attribute of the 20 ft option being o greater flexibility in
conjunction with the proposed Lake Grace project. Lake Groce, as stated in Section 2, may
u|Unn8be|y be constructed, but GEAP/\ cannot justify selecting a 20 ft option on this very
uncertain outcome over the more concrete scenarios associated with the 15 ft option.
SEAPAstaff recommends pursuing the 15ftoption under the following future business climate:
Atleast one new hydro resource to be constructed by 2030|naddition to Whitman; if this
occurs, and there is no significant summer load growth such as the proposed Nib|euk Mine that
vvnu|d vvhO||y consume the new summer generation, then adding storage at Swan will both
displace future winter diesel generation and increase 8EAPA revenue such that the benefits
outweigh the costs. By the end of May 2013. agency feedback from the Initial Consultation
Document submittal will help us to better estimate forthcoming project settlement costs.
Depending 0nthe settlement costs, and from observing real progress on Whitman, and from
initial feedback regarding our Power Purchase initiadve, we will be able make e final
determination as to whether we should proceed with the project. If the project is to proceed,
then under most forward cOndiUono, the reservoir will be expanded to a new nominal full pool
elevation Qf345feet.
XfPlants/Swao Lake/Swan Lake Storage Increase Project/2013 0129 Cost and Benefit Report for Swan Lake Storage Increase Project - F I NAL.dom
Southeast Alaska Power Agency 29 Deoember2Dt2
prearroi � j
� :burg,€, s)
—,� Petersburg
I Scifistafion
111 British Columbia, Canada
/ j I
Tyee Lake i
y1 t. Hydro Site l
77,
Coffman rove
.., `L
T—g— Naeunaf F-,rzst= °'1 1 ` +�i :•� i
17
;n14 d I�
Meyeis�ruI
Tt}o )e Bay ` !_ (1�• •t 5_
P tSalr tick `ti `, \\ 1 .• e $ c + Hydro §ite y
�1JrM
t O `1l if .+ML' _ a IrrSI �`_'c•—..—.—
n} • O t ` .a rti .. �r— -
�flawoc'k F• _ _ �, Kasaall'� �� � \� 1 �l({" J t!- f II •'� '\� I
_—
+e
'A, Wf
Substation 1 rl
F
Ketchikan - Swan Lake - Tyee - Petersburg
t95438WTransmission Line
E a ,-our Dam poc pcv;*, Agency
PrcACAI, .,:.,.m�..wd....w..,r.. r..y",rra-�_ .F. r .-ua..mrza.•:<w.�,: � c w.� n.w:s :, •F:l�cs :ec' rea
RESOLUTION 2014-051**
THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA POWER AGENCY
Resolution Approving Alaska Energy Authority Round VII
Renewable Energy Grant Program Applications for SEAPA's Wind
WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Power Agency is a Joint Action Agency organized
pursuant to State Statute; and,
WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Power Agency oxvOo the Tvee Lake and 8vveD Lake
Hydroelectric Projects in Southeast A|oska, which provide renewable hydroelectric
power tOKetchik8n`Wrangell, and Petersburg; and,
WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Power Agency recognizes that additional FGnevvBb|e
resources will be needed in the future to meet loads in Petersburg, VVr8ngG||. and
KgtChihaR; and,
WHEREAS. the Southeast Alaska Power Agency recognizes that wind power is m
neOevv8b|e resource and desires to determine the feasibility of utilizing mind turbines to
supplement existing hydro resources that provide power and energy tothe communities
DfKetchik8O, PetorSbUrg, and Wrangell; and,
WHEREAS, the Southeast A|8Sha F/0vver Agency also recognizes that additional
iOtertigS may be built to Serve communities, including KohB and Met|aha1|a, and
additional generation resources may also be required to serve those loads; and.
WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Power Agency's Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion
Project is prjeCtedtOGdd25968ddiUOn@|atOrogeforvvinterhydrogen8[8dOn.diap\eCing
upto12'OOOK8VVhr3ofdiesel generation annually; and,
WHEREAS' during the 2013Aiask@ legislative session, the Southeast Alaska Power
Agency submitted @ funding request of$12.3 million dollars for direct legislative funding
consideration for its Svv@O Lake Reservoir Expansion Project to fund the project to
completion; and,
WHEREAS, funds were not awarded to the Southeast Alaska Power Agency from the
2013A|8eha Legislative session and 8 cost and benefit analysis has established the
benefits ofthe project; and,
WHEREAS, the A>8Sha Department of Commerce, [|OnlDluDity Q. Economic
Development appropriated $3 million dollars for Hydroelectric GtO[@ge, Generation,
Transmission & Business Analysis, of which funds of$578'OOO were allocated to the
Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project; 8nd.
WHEREAS, an !Oida| Consultation Document for the license amendment process has
been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Swan Lake Reservoir
WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Power Agency is in compliance with all federal, state,
and local laws including credit and federal tax obligations;
RESOLVED, that the Southeast Alaska Power Agency Board of Directors approves the
application for project funding from Round VI of the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable
Energy Grant Program in the amount of $175,483 of which the Southeast Alaska Power
Agency will propose a 5% match for a Wind Resource Analysis; and,
RESOLVED, that the Southeast Alaska Power Agency Board of Directors approves the
application for project funding from Round VI of the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable
Energy Grant Program in the amount of $4,000,000 for final design, permitting, and
construction of the Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project; and,
RESOLVED, that the Southeast Alaska Power Agency Board of Directors authorizes
Trey Acteson, its Chief Executive Officer, to sign the two stated grant applications,
commit to the obligations under the grants, and to act as an established point of contact
to represent the Southeast Alaska Power Agency for purposes of the stated grant
applications.
Approved and signed this 16th day of September 2013.
o fiver sen, Chairman of the Board
ATTEST ;,
Sam Bergeron, Secretary/Treasurer
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
SOUTHEAST ALASKA POWER AGENCY
1900 1"Avenue, Suite 318
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Ph: f907) 228-2281 • Pax: 1907) 225-2287
www.seapahydro.org
BOARD MEETING MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 16, 2013)
Approval of Resolution No. 2014-051 authorizing SEAPA staff to submit two (2) AEA
Renewable Grant Applications to the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Grant
Program, authorizing CEO to sign grant applications, commit to obligations, and act as
established point of contact,
DATE MOTION
ALTERNATE
VOTES:
9/16/2013
Clay Hammer Q�
Brian Ashton
I move to adopt Resolution 2014-051 authorizing SEAPA staff
to submit two renewable energy grants to the Alaska Energy
Jay Rhodes
Dick Coose
Authority for Round VII of the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable
Energy Grant Program, authorizing Trey Acteson, CEO, to
John Jensen Qr.c.Y
Joe Nelson
sign the grant applications, commit to the obligations under
a
the grants, and to act as an established point of contact for
Andy Donato
Bob Sivertsen
° +
the grants. - !
MOVED � - 2� �'
Charles Freeman/
Sam Bergeron
SECOND
FINAL VOTE:
I
AYES:
NAYS:
RESOLUTION
ALASKA ENDORSING AND URGING STATE FUNDING FOR THE SWAN
LAKE RESERVOIR
ROY+ EXPANSION
PROJECT;
fA �iE #Ii ESTABLISHING n 1 ..
}
EFFECTIVE r
TE
Resolution No. 13-2498
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska as
follows:
Section 1: The Ketchikan City Council endorses SEAPA's proposed expansion of the Swan
Lake Reservoir.
Section 2® The Ketchikan-City Council urges the State to provide $12.3 funding for the Project
in its FY 2014 Capital budget.
Section 3: A copy of this resolution shall be provided to Governor Parnell, Senator Stedman,
Representative Peggy Wilson and Alaska Energy Authority Executive Director Sara Fisher -Goad.
Section 4® This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by a duly constituted quorum of the City Council for the City of
Ketchikan on this 21 st day of February, 2013.
Katherine M. Suiter, City Cl�rk MMC
Resolution No. 13-2498
otlewoburg C °rough, Potegaburg, bleak
RESCLUMN ,`jM134
Q RESOLUTJON EMBO SHMQ THE GOOSE EXPANSM OF 7HE O'WAN LAKE
WHEREAS, the Petersburg Borough presently anticipates new business development,
including expansion of a seafood processing plant and relocation of a custom sawmill in the
next year; and
WHEREAS, all local economic development opportunities require a reliable source of
energy at reasonable cost; and
WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Integrated (resources Plan notes that there is a
shortage of hydro storage capacity in Southeast Alaska and that potential hydro projects with
storage capacity are more valuable than potential run -of -the -river hydro projects; and
WHEREAS, Southeast Alaska Power Agency's (SEAPA) proposed expansion of the
Swans Lake Reservoir (the Project) would directly contribute to increasing regional hydro
storage and maximizes the value of an existing hydro project; and
WHEREAS, the additional storage created by the Project adds operational flexibill-ty that
benefits the entire region, and shifts summer spill from the new Whitman darn project or the
existing Tyee facility to much needed winter hydro generation; and
WHEREAS, the project would displace up to 12,000 MWhrs of winter diesel generation,
which equates to a reduction of 800,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually; and
WHEREAS, another significant advantage of the Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion
project is that it needs no additional infrastructure (e.g., transmission facilities) to bring the
additional power to the existing power grid; the Project adds capacity at an existing darn that is
currently connected to an existing poorer distribution grid,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Borough Assembly of Petersburg, Alaska to
endorse SEAPA's proposed expansion of the Saran Lake Reservoir.
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Petersburg Borough Assembly urges the State to provide
12.3 million funding for the Project in its lY 2014 Capital budget.
Passed and Approved by fthe PetaQsbarg Sovough AssamMy on Mavch 4, 2013.
A copy of this Resolution shall be provided to Governor Sean Parnell, Senator Bert Stedman,
Senator Dennis Cagan, representative Beth Kertulla, representative Peggy Wilson, and Alaska
Energy Authority Executive Director Sara [fisher -Goad.
Muk'Jencen, RMayor
ATTEST:
Debra K. Thompson, Dephty Clerk
Res. 2013-8 Swam Lake Resen-roar Expansnan Pago:; 2 of 2 3/4/2013
CITY AND BOROUGH OF GELL, ALASKA
RESOLUTION NO. 03-13-1272
Section 1. That the City and Borough of Wrangell urges the State to provide $12.3
million funding for the Project in its FY 2014 Capital Budget.
Section 2. A copy of this resolution shall be provided to Governor Parnell, Senator
Stedman, Representative Peggy Wilson and Alaska. Energy Authority Executive Director
Sara Fisher -Goad.
Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
ADOPTED: March 26, 2013
David L. Jack; Mayor
ATTEST: �/ g,-.. = a.
$'4 o�Ou�n o ss�
Kith Flo s, Borough Clerk � 6 ug f
m
U :nee:noraEec a0,o,gn
h`aY30.2008
® °ar
Incerp)rater; ChY
m
June 15. i 903 a
a
e;
f. /a s k .�
',rer¢�es*qo
RESOLUTION NO. 2464
A Resolution of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Endorsing and
tW Wt-
S Fujh atat6 & fit-r-fl-te
for an Effective Date.
R EC I TIA LS
A. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan. pulp mill. closed in 1997, resulting in significant losses of
jobs, population, and school enrollment, from which the community has yet to
recover; and
B. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough presently suffers a higher rate of
unemployment than the statewide average; and
C. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough exercises areawide economic
development powers (adopted on November 5, 1990, by Ordinance No. 772-
Amended under the authority of AS 29.3 5.330(c)); and
D. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough- and City of Ketchikan are presently
pursuing economic development opportunities such as the construction of a mill
on Gravina Is -land for the processing of ore from the prospective Niblack Mine; and
L WHEREAS, economic development opportunities such as the prospective Niblack
miff require. a reliable source of energy at reasonable cost, and
F. WHEREAS, the Southeast Alaska Integrated Resources Plan notes that there is a
shortage of hydro storage capacity in Southeast Alaska and that potential hydro
projects with storage capacity are more valuable than potential run -cif -the -river
hydro projects.,- and
G. WHEREAS, Southeast Alaska Plower Agency's (SEAPA) proposed expansion of the
Swan Lake Reservoir (the Project) would: directly contribute to increasing regional
hydro storage and maximizes the value of an existing hydro project; and
H. WHEREAS, the Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion project enhances the already
-rn the u i funded (in part by $2.5 million grant from Borough) Whitman Lake hydro,
project and
1. WHEREAS, the additional storage created by the Project adds operational
EM
flexibility that benefits the entire region, and shifts summer spill from the new
Whitman dam project or the existing Tyee facility to much needed winter hydro
generation; and
J. WHEREAS, the Project would displace up to 12,000 MWhrs of winter diesel
generation, which equates to a reduction of 800,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually,
and
K. WHEREAS, another significant advantage of the. Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion
project is that it needs no additional infrastructure (e.g., transmission facilities) to
bring the additional power to the existing power grid; the project adds capacity at
an existing dam that is currently connected to an existing power distribution grid.
Ing if
5,119141WITTMIN, 01- 1' 11 11i I �! � I i , rr
I
Section 2. The Assembly urges the State to provide $12.3 funding for the Project in its
FY 2014 Capital budget.
Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be provided to Governor Parnell, Senator
Stedman, Representative Peggy Wilson, and Alaska Energy Authority Executive Director
Sara Fisher -Goad.
,-ADOPTED this 25t' day of February, 2013
AVST.
-,LT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott A. Brandt- Erichsen, Borough Attorney
EFFEC'nVE DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2013
ROLL CALL YES NO ABSENT
Bailey V
Moran 4
Painter 4
Phillips 4
Rotecki V
Thompson )f
Van Horn 4
Mayor (tie votes only)
4 AFRRMATIVE VOTES REQUIRED FOR PASSAGE