HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment B - D Hittle Report to SE Conference - SEAPA Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering Grant ApplicationofiflumEngau
I'll IF
- - - ��,
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for
The Southeast Conference
Juneau, Alaska
by
I
t,
��
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineers and Cur.ulhmts
May 2009
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update
DRAFT REPORT
May 5, 2009
Prepared for
The Southeast Conference
Juneau, Alaska
by
N1ASINC.
Engineers and Consultants
In association with:
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update i Draft Report
Table of Contents
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Section 1 — Introduction and Conclusions
Introduction.....................................................................................
StudyApproach..............................................................................
Status of Transmission Development in Southeast Alaska .............
Conclusions....................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Alternative Route Assessment.......................................................................................................
2-2
Northern Route Alignment ... ................ ......................... ................................. ........... ........
2-2
Evaluation of Alternative Routes.......................................................................................
2-6
Transmission Line Design Concepts for the KPI...........................................................................
2-7
Recommended System Voltage.......................................................................................
2-7
Overhead Transmission Line Design Concepts................................................................2-7
ConceptualDesign....................................................................................2-7
PhysicalLoading .......................... ......... .....................................................
2-8
Foundations and Structure Support...........................................................2-9
Electrical Clearances to Grade................................................................
2-10
Conductor Selection................................................................................
2-10
Rightof Way Clearance...........................................................................
2-11
Access Road Construction Standards.....................................................
2-12
Raptor (Eagle) Protection........................................................................
2-13
Substation and Switching Station Concepts...................................................................
2-13
SubmarineCables ......... .............................................................................. ...................
2-15
Buried Cable Underwater Crossing (Directional Bore) ....................................................
2-17
Fiber Optic Communication Cable..................................................................................
2-17
PowerFlow Analysis......................................................................................................
2-18
Detailed Route Evaluation...........................................................................................................
2-19
KPI Alternative Route Descriptions ...................................... ...........................................
2-21
NorthernAlternative...........................................................................................
2-21
Center -North Alternative ....................... ........................................... ..................
2-23
Center -South Alternative...................................................................................
2-25
Section 3 — Permitting Requirements and Environmental Issues Overview
Introduction......................................................................................................
Permitting......................................................................................................
... 3-1
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update ii Draft Report
Estimated Cost of Environmental Studies and Permitting..
National Environmental Policy Act Process .......................
Section 4 — Estimated Costs of Construction
Introduction...............................................................
Cost Differential of 138-kV Compared to 69-kV................
Table of Contents
........................... 3-16
.....................13-17
... 4-1
Introduction............ .... .......... ..... .............. .................................... ..................................... ......
5-1
Permitting and Environmental Studies... ........... ........ .........................................................
5-1
Engineering Related Activities.......................................................................................................
5-1
Selection of Project Team.................................................................................................
5-1
AlignmentDefinition........................................................... ...............................................
5-2
EngineeringSurvey..........................................................................................................
5-2
Preliminary Engineering...................................................................................................5-3
Geotechnical Investigations..............................................................................................
5-4
FinalDesign... ................................... ...............................................................................
5-4
Initiate Construction and Material Procurement Contracts ....... .........................................
5-4
ConstructionActivities...................................................................................................................
5-5
Total Project Development Schedule.............................................................................................
5-5
Section 6 — Power Supply Evaluation and Economic Analysis
PowerSupply Evaluation............................................................................................................... 6-1
Overview........................................................................................ ............................ 6-1
Power Requirements........................................................................................................ 6-2
Petersburg and Wrangell...................................................... ............................... 6-3
Ketchikan..............................................................................................
Kake.................................................................................................
Availability of Hydroelectric Energy...................................................................
TyeeLake Project.................................................................................
Potential New Hydroelectric Generation Facilities .............................................
Use of Oil -Fired Generating Facilities. ........ ......................................................
Economic Analysis of Intertie..........................................................................................
Introduction and Assumptions...........................................................................
Projected Cost of Existing Diesel Generation....................................................
KPIAnnual Costs..............................................................................................
Operations and Maintenance Costs .....................................................
Administrative Costs.............................................................................
Cost of Purchased Power
............... 6-5
............... 6-6
............... 6-9
............... 6-9
......... I... 6-10
.............6-11
............ 6-11
...........
............................................................................................... 6-19
Estimated Savings with the KPI...................................................................................... 6-19
Section 7 — Other Factors
Integration with Southeast Alaska Intertie System......................................................................... 7-1
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update iii Draft Report
Table of Contents
1
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Power Flow Analysis
Plan Profile Sheets for KPI
Submarine Cable Costs and Specifications
IPEC-Kake Service Area — Historical Statistics
Detailed Analytical Tables
Proposed Development Concept of Cascade Creek Project
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update iv Draft Report
Table of Contents
Table 2-1
Estimated Comparable Costs of Development for Each Route ........................... 2-5
Table 3-1
Tongass National Forest Land Use Designations Crossed by the KPI ................
3-3
Table 3-2
Summary of Agency Requirements and Associated Costs ..................................
3-6
Table 3-3
Example of EIS Schedule for the KPI................................................................
3-11
Table 3-4
Estimated Acres of Disturbance to Vegetation Types and Streams ..................
3-12
Table 3-5
Estimated Costs for the Preparation of an EIS and Permitting the KPI .............
3-17
Table 4-1
Estimated Right of Way Clearing and Road Construction Requirements ............
4-3
Table 4-2
Estimated Comparable Costs of Development and Construction ........................
4-3
Table 4-3
Estimated Cost of Project Development and Construction — Center -South .........
4-5
Table 4-4
Estimated Cost of Project Development and Construction — North Sub. Cable ...
4-7
Table 4-5
Estimated Cost of Project Development and Construction — Northern w/Bare ....4-9
Table 6-1
2008 Energy Loads.............................................................................................
6-3
Table 6-2
Petersburg and Wrangell — Projected Energy Requirements ..............................
6-5
Table 6-3
Ketchikan Public Utilities — Projected Energy Requirements ...............................
6-6
Table 6-4
IPEC — Kake Service Area — Projected Energy Loads ........................................
6-8
Table 6-5
Estimated Hydroelectric Energy Generation from the Tyee Lake Project ............
6-9
Table 6-6
Projected Variable Cost of Power Production with Diesel Gen. — Kake.............
6-14
Table 6-7
Kake — Petersburg Intertie, Estimated Annual 0&M Costs ................................
6-18
Table 6-8
Estimated Annual KPI Administrative Costs ......................................................
6-18
Table 6-9
Projected Cost of Power and Savings with the Intertie — Kake ..........................
6-20
Figure2-1 KPI Routes...............................................................................................................
Figure 2-2 Row Easement Issue 01...........................................................................................
Figure 2-3 Row Easement Issue 02...........................................................................................
Figure 2-4 Tangent HP Wood Pole Designed at 138-kV............................................................
Figure 2-5 Typical Tangent Wood Pole Designed at 138-kV.....................................................
Figure 2-6 Proposed Configuration of the Kake Substation and the TWP Int, Facility ........ 2-15
Figure 3-1 Land Use Designations............................................................................................
Figure 3-2 Inventoried Roadless Areas. ....... ........................................................... .......... ......
Figure 3-3 Anadromous and Resident Streams.........................................................................
Figure3-4 Vegetation Types......................................................................................................
Figure 3-5 NEPA Process Overview. .................................................................................. 3-18
Figure 6-1 Annual Energy Sales in Kake by Customer Class ............................................... 6-7
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update v Draft Report
N901MR71
In January2009, the Southeast Conference retained D. Hittle & Associates, Inc. (DHA) to
conduct an update of the feasibility study of the proposed transmission line between Kake and
Petersburg (the "Kake — Petersburg Intertie" or "KPI"). The previous study of the KPI was
completed in July 2005 as a follow-on study to the Southeast Alaska Intertie Study prepared for
the Southeast Conference in 2003 (the "2003 Intertie Study"). The 2003 Intertie Study provided
an overview of a complete electrical transmission system in Southeast Alaska with emphasis on
two initial transmission interconnection segments between: (1) Kake and Petersburg and, (2)
Juneau, the Kennecott Mining Company — Greens Creek Mine (KMC-GC) on Admiralty Island
and Hoonah. The transmission line between Juneau and KMC-GC was completed in 2006.
The KPI will be used to transmit hydroelectric power to IPEC's electric system in Kake, thereby
offsetting diesel generation in Kake. It is also possible that the line could be used at some point
in the future to transmit electrical energy generated at locations north of Kake into the Southeast
Alaska grid and potentially into the transmission system in northern British Columbia. As such,
the KPI would be an integral part of the eventual Southeast Alaska transmission system.
The 2005 KPI study evaluated several routes for the KPI and identified two primary route
alternatives, a northern route generally located on the north end of Kupreanof Island (the
"Northern" route) and a southern route that crosses the Wrangell Narrows near the Tonka log
transfer facility and proceeds west across Duncan Canal (the "Center -South" route). Both routes
were expected to follow existing logging roads for the majority of their lengths, however, the
southern route was preferred because of a generally more protected location, a shorter length,
less scenic visual impact and a lower estimated cost of construction. The northern route of the
KPI was considered to be along a more likely route for a year round maintained road between
Kake and Petersburg. Following completion of the 2005 KPI study, the Southeast Conference
Intertie Steering Committee recommended the Center -South route as the preferred route.
The primary purpose of this latest study of the KPI is to update cost estimates for the alternative
routes particularly with regard to the renewed proposal on the part of the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) to build a year round road between Kake and
Petersburg. The road would follow essentially the route previously defined as the Northern route
for the KPI. With both the KPI and the proposed road proposed to be located within the same
corridor, the concept of jointly permitting both projects has been suggested. Further, depending
on the timing of road development, the road could provide access for construction and
maintenance of the KPI.
The emphasis of the study update has been on updating the cost estimates of the Northern route
and the Center -South route. Among the alternatives considered in the 2005 KPI study was a
route that could provide electric service to a proposed mining facility on Woewodski Island. The
2005 study concluded that a tap line off the Center -South route of the KPI would be the lowest
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-1 Draft Report
Introduction and
Conclusions
cost alternative to supply the Woewodski mine load if it were to be needed. Development of the
mine has not proceeded as quickly as previously thought and electric service to the mine is not
presently a priority. Nevertheless, the potential to serve new mining loads or other large power
users in the vicinity of the KPI could be an important factor for economic development in
Southeast Alaska at some point in the future.
With regard to the KPI, a number of issues have been raised that will affect the potential routing
and configuration of this line. Although most of these issues were known to some degree at the
time of the 2005 KPI study, the potential impacts of recent developments have been more
thoroughly assessed in this study in preparation of permitting and final design activities. Among
these issues are:
® Continued discussion and evaluation of a potential year -around road between Kake and
Petersburg;
® Proposals by various entities to develop new hydroelectric projects in the general vicinity
of Petersburg;
® Recent experience of the Southeast Alaska Power Agency' (SEAPA) with regard to
construction of the Swan — Tyee transmission line and its expected completion later in
2009;
® Studies and investigations of the possibility of constructing a transmission line from the
Tyee Lake project to interconnect with the BC Hydro transmission system;
® Increases in the power requirements of the SEAPA members that could affect the amount
of power available for sale from SEAPA to the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative
(IPEC), the electric utility that serves Kake;
® Increases in the worldwide price of metals and the effect this may have on materials
needed for new transmission lines;
® Significant increases in oil prices that affect the cost of power production in Kake;
® Reductions in power requirements in Kake due to the closure (potentially temporary) of a
seafood processing facility.
These issues have all been considered in the update of the KPI cost estimates and economic
analysis. One of the primary purposes of the KPI study update is to provide the needed
information for the Southeast Conference to identify the recommended route and configuration
of the KPI. The economic analysis conducted as part of the study update estimated the benefits
in reduced power production costs in Kake over a 20-year period if the KPI were constructed.
1 Formerly the Four Dam Pool Power Agency.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-2 Draft Report
Introduction and
Conclusions
To accomplish the objectives of the KPI study update, the primary tasks undertaken have been
to:
(1) provide an updated assessment of the three primary route alternatives previously
identified for the KPI;
(2) determine the potential benefits in jointly permitting the proposed road project and the
KPI,
(3) estimate the capital and operating costs associated with each route alternative;
(4) evaluate and define power supply requirements and regional generation capability in the
region;
(5) outline permitting and environmental issues associated with development of the KPI;
(6) evaluate load flows and electrical system configuration requirements to assure the
reliable operation of the interconnected regional system;
(7) estimate the costs of power in Kake with and without the inclusion of the KPI route over
a multi -year forecast period.
For the purpose of the economic analysis included in Item 7, it has been assumed that KPI
construction costs will be funded with grants, pursuant to the plans of the Southeast Conference.
Although the capital costs are expected to be mostly grant funded, the annual costs of operating
and maintaining the KPI as well as funding a reserve for long-term renewals and replacements is
to be borne by the users of the KPI.
It should be noted that the economic analysis conducted as part of the KPI study update looked
only at the cost of power production in Kake by the proposed transmission system. The cost of
power production is typically the most significant component of an electric utility's revenue
requirement; however, there are other costs that figure significantly into the basis for electric
rates that are charged to retail customers. Although the cost of power production may be
reduced through alternative means of power supply, other costs may continue to keep retail rates
at a high level. The State's Power Cost Equalization (PCE)2 program also affects how much of
the benefit of lower production costs ultimately reaches the electric consumer. Aside from the
estimation of power production costs, the KPI study update has not attempted to evaluate retail
electric rates in Kake or elsewhere in Southeast Alaska.
JII r
Primarily, the KPI study update evaluated the Northern route in more detail with regard to the
proposed location of the Kake to Petersburg road. The transmission line is to be located for the
most part within the 300 foot wide road corridor which, when combined with the more rugged
terrain of the Northern route, requires that the line have more angles, turns and adjustments than
a typical cross-country route would have. Current costs of transmission line material and
construction labor have been used to develop revised cost estimates. A detailed evaluation of the
2 The Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program subsidizes retail electric rates for residential customers and public
facilities in qualifying communities. The funding of the PCE program is granted by the State legislature on an
annual basis and no guarantees can be provided with regard to its continuation in the future.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-3 Draft Report
Introduction and
Conclusions
power flow requirements was conducted to determine the recommended voltage for the KPI. In
addition, the economic analysis for the KPI was updated to determine the level of benefits that
could be realized with the KPI. The three route alternatives that were evaluated as part of this
study update are summarized as follows:
Northern Alternative — (60.2 miles total length, one marine crossing) Generally located at
the north end of Kupreanof Island. For the most part, this route follows the most likely
route of a permanent road between Kake and Petersburg as defined in the Southeast
Alaska Transportation Plan (SATP) dated August 2004. There are two options related to
this alternative, one involves a 3.1 mile submarine cable crossing just north of the mouth
of Wrangell Narrows. The other option involves a proposed directional bore and
installation of a pipe to house power cables under Wrangell Narrows near Petersburg.
® Center -North Alternative — (57.5 miles total length, one 0.6 mile long marine crossing)
Connects to the existing Tyee transmission line south of Petersburg, crosses Wrangell
Narrows, proceeds west across and then north on the Lindenberg Peninsula through the
Petersburg Creek -Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness where it intersects with the route of the
Northern Alternative. Also referred to as the Wilderness Route.
Center -South Alternative — (51.8 miles total length, two marine crossings totaling 1.6
miles) Originates at the same location near Petersburg as the Center -North route but
continues northwest toward Kake across Duncan Canal avoiding the Wilderness area.
In conducting the KPI study update, the technical review included consideration of the line route,
system configuration, design criteria, permitting requirements and cost. The estimation of cost
factored in the experience of several specialists familiar with transmission line construction in
Southeast Alaska. A detailed preliminary design of the KPI system was developed using
specialized computer design software.
In conducting the economic analysis for the KPI Study, terms and conditions of existing
contracts and agreements have been acknowledged to assure that the analysis appropriately
models the commercial environment in which the KPI will operate. The question then becomes,
is the KPI economically justifiable from the perspective of IPEC and its ratepayers3. Many
transmission and power supply studies in the past have looked at economic viability from a
regional or possibly even a "societal" basis. As previously indicated, it has been assumed that
the KPI will be grant funded and will have no capital recovery component associated with its
future cost structure.
This study has been prepared in association with two other firms. Commonwealth Associates,
Inc. was responsible for the review of overhead transmission routes and cost estimates; and Tetra
Tech EC reviewed the environmental documentation and permitting process and prepared an
estimate of the cost and time to conduct the necessary environmental studies, complete the
3 KWETICO, as the potential future owner/operator of the KPI will also need to determine economic justification,
however, this justification will be based on the estimated impacts on IPEC's ratepayers, the ultimate end -users of the
KPI.
4 This assumption has been provided by the Southeast Conference.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-4 Draft Report
Introduction and
Conclusions
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and obtain the necessary approvals and
permits needed to construct the KPI. D. Hittle & Associates had primary responsibility for the
power supply and economic analyses and for overall coordination of the study effort.
It should also be understood that the KPI Study is a feasibility assessment. The technical
information and cost estimates presented in this report are subject to change as more additional
studies are conducted and more information is obtained. Actual design of the KPI, if pursued in
the future, will provide much more detailed specification of the system components, routes and
configuration and allow for greater precision on estimating costs. The actual cost of constructing
the KPI, however, will be subject to a number of factors including market conditions at the time
bids for material and construction services are requested.
�111iili'
Since completion of the 2005 KPI study, the primary developments with regard to transmission
system improvements in Southeast Alaska are the completion of the Juneau — Greens Creek
transmission line and the resumed construction of the Swan — Tyee Intertie (STI). The STI,
owned by the Southeast Alaska Power Agency, will interconnect the Wrangell, Petersburg and
Ketchikan electric systems and will allow for better utilization of the hydroelectric generating
plants in the interconnected system. All clearing and placement of foundations was completed in
2008. Structures and conductor will be installed in 2009 with expected completion of the project
in late 2009. The STI will be approximately 57 miles in length and entirely of overhead
construction with no submarine crossings. It is being constructed for 138-kV nominal voltage
but will be operated initially at 69-kV. The total cost of the STI is estimated to be about $115
million.
Alaska Electric Light & Power (AELP) completed construction of the 69-kV Juneau — Greens
Creek transmission line in late 2005. This line is owned by KWETICO but it is operated by
AELP as the agent for KWETICO. The Juneau — Greens Creek transmission line allows for the
use of surplus hydroelectric energy, when available, to offset diesel generation at the Greens
Creek mine. Relatively recent studies have been conducted to determine the feasibility of
extending the Juneau — Greens Creek transmission line to Hoonah.
In 2007 a detailed feasibility study of a transmission interconnection between Southeast Alaska
and British Columbia was conducted by Hatch Energy for the Alaska Energy Authority. The
AK -BC transmission line is proposed for the Bradfield Canal area and would connect the
Southeast Alaska system at the Tyee Lake hydroelectric project to the BC Hydro system at a
location dependent on construction of a new transmission line in British Columbia. A
transmission interconnection with BC Hydro could provide access to power markets outside
Southeast Alaska for the output of regional hydroelectric generation.
Several entities have proposed to construct new, relatively large, hydroelectric facilities in the
Thomas Bay area near Petersburg. These proposed projects include the Cascade Creek project,
the Ruth Lake project and the Scenery Lake project. In order for these projects to connect to
load centers, interconnection with the SEAPA transmission system in the general vicinity will be
needed. The sponsors of these projects have proposed to interconnect with the KPI at locations
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-5 Draft Report
Introduction and
Conclusions
in the Petersburg area, or alternatively, construct their own transmission lines to connect to the
SEAPA system.
The following conclusions are offered with regard to the KPI study update. Although these
conclusions are offered at this point in the report, it is important to understand the assumptions
and other factors described in subsequent sections of this report that contribute to the
conclusions.
The recommended voltage for the KPI is 69-kV. This voltage more than accommodates
the Kake electrical requirement. This voltage would not necessarily accommodate the
estimated power loadings if a transmission interconnection between Kake and Sitka is
eventually developed or if the proposed new hydroelectric facilities in the Thomas Bay
area are developed.
2. The recommended overhead conductor for the KPI is 336 ACSR. Submarine cables
should be 3-phase, copper conductor bundled cables. A 24 strand fiber optic
communication line is recommended to be included for the length of the KPI and will be
bundled in to the submarine cable.
3. Forest Service roads exist along the majority of the length of most of the proposed routes.
Construction of the KPI adjacent to these roads, to the extent possible, should provide for
lower costs of construction and maintenance. Single wood pole structures are preferred
for placement along roads.
4. Overall, both the Northern and Center -South routes include similar environmental
concerns which are recommended to be addressed through the NEPA process through an
EIS. The estimated cost to prepare an EIS and permit the KPI is approximately $1
million, of which $120,000 is the estimated cost of applying for and obtaining the
necessary permits. An EIS process could be conducted in slightly less than two years. If
the Northern route is to be permitted jointly with the proposed Kake to Petersburg road
project, the EIS period would potentially be longer because of the more complex
environmental issues related to the road.
5. The estimated costs of developing and constructing the KPI, including all direct and
indirect costs, range between $29.9 million for the Northern Alternative with a
directionally bored underwater crossing of Wrangell Narrows and $38.5 million for the
Northern Alternative with a submarine cable crossing. The estimated cost of the Center -
South route is $37.9 million which is about 25% higher than the estimated cost for the
same route prepared in 2005. Transmission material and construction costs have
increased significantly since 2005. The estimated costs of the submarine cables are
noticeably higher than they were in 2005. Economic conditions nationally and globally
could potentially have a significant effect on transmission construction labor and material
costs when the KPI is actually constructed.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-6 Draft Report
Introduction and
Conclusions
6. The estimated cost of the directional bore alternative could be higher depending on soil
conditions at the bore location. Investigational surveys will need to be conducted to
ascertain the conditions and better determine the cost of the boring work.
7. Energy generation capability is projected to be available from the Southeast Alaska
Power Agency's Tyee Lake hydroelectric project to sell to IPEC for use in Kake if the
KPI is constructed. A power sales contract will need to be negotiated with the Southeast
Alaska Power Agency if power is to be sold to either IPEC.
8. Assuming that construction and development costs of the KPI is grant funded and that
reasonable power supply contracts can be arranged, IPEC should be able to realize
savings in its costs of power supply in Kake with the KPI when compared to continued
diesel -fueled power generation.
9. The annual costs to operate, maintain and administer the KPI can be reasonably
recovered through charges for transmission services or, bundled in with the delivered cost
of power.
10. The estimated net present value in savings to IPEC over the 20 year period 2013-2032
with the KPI is $9.9 million. If the annual costs of operating and maintaining the KPI
were paid by others, either by including the KPI as a resource in the existing regional
electric system or by wheeling revenues from other users of the line, the net present value
benefits to IPEC over the first 20 years with the KPI would increase to $15.0 million.
11. With the KPI, IPEC may be able to offer economic incentive rates in Kake, with certain
limitations, to encourage new commercial activity. The economic incentive rates could
be tied to the cost of purchased power with a nominal margin.
The route alternatives for the KPI are shown in Figure 2-1.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 1-7 Draft Report
Section 2
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and Technical
Characteristics
The Petersburg - Kake transmission Intertie ("KPI") will interconnect the community of Kake on
Kupreanof Island to the interconnected electric systems of Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan.
Petersburg and Wrangell are currently interconnected to and purchase most of their respective
power supplies from the Tyee Lake hydroelectric project owned by the Southeast Alaska Power
Agency5 (SEAPA). The Swan-Tyee Intertie, presently under construction, will interconnect the
electric systems of Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan upon its expected completion in late
2009.
The KPI will be used to transmit surplus hydroelectric power purchased from SEAPA to IPEC's
electric system in Kake, thereby offsetting diesel generation in Kake. It is also possible that the
line could be used at some point in the future to transmit electrical energy generated at locations
north of Kake into the Southeast Alaska grid and potentially into the transmission system in
northern British Columbia. As such, the KPI would be an integral part of the eventual Southeast
Alaska transmission system.
The most recent detailed study of the KPI was conducted in 2005 (the "2005 KPI Study") by the
D. Hittle & Associates team. Prior to the 2005 KPI Study, the KPI was studied as part of the
2003 Southeast Alaska Intertie Study prepared for the Southeast Conference by D. Hittle &
Associates and in 1996 with a feasibility study prepared by R.W. Beck, Inc. for the State of
Alaska, Department of Community Affairs, Division of Energy (the "1996 Feasibility Study").
The 1996 Feasibility Study was a follow-up to the 1987 Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie
Study prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by the Harza Engineering Company (the "1987
Intertie Study").
Following completion of the 2005 KPI Study, the Center -South route was selected as the
preferred route by the Kake — Petersburg Intertie Steering Committee. Since the 2005 KPI
Study, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities ("D®TPF") has continued its
consideration to build a road to connect Kake and Petersburg. The proposed route of this road is
similar to the proposed Northern route for the KPI. The purpose of this current KPI study
update, therefore, is to re-examine the construction and operating and maintenance costs for this
Northern route, to update costs of three routes in the 2005 KPI Study — Northern, Center North
and Center South — and to provide a comparison between the alternatives.
This study relies heavily on the 2005 KPI Study in which each of the alternative routes was
defined with regard to specific location, topography, availability of adjacent USFS roads,
vegetation, marine crossings, and general construction requirements. As part of this current
study, conversations were held with USFS staff in order to determine if any new forest service
5 Formerly the Four Dam Pool Power Agency.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-1 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
roads have been constructed or retired since the 2005 study was completed. This information
was factored into the revised cost estimates for the alternatives.
At the present time, SEAPA is constructing a transmission line to interconnect Ketchikan's
electric system with the Tyee-Wrangell-Petersburg (TWP) electric system. This new
interconnection will provide Ketchikan with access to the surplus generation capability of the
Tyee Lake hydroelectric project. Although Kake's power requirements from the Tyee Lake
project are expected to be subordinate to the requirements of Petersburg, Wrangell and
Ketchikan, current forecasts indicate that sufficient energy should be available to supply Kake's
load for several years into the future. When the transmission interconnection to Ketchikan is
completed, additional hydroelectric resources could be available to supply Kake's power
requirements in the future.
1, . �, •' � . 1
Given the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities' (DOTPF) interest in
building a road from Kake to Petersburg, the primary task of this study was to complete a
detailed review of the 2005 study focusing on the Northern Route and to update the costs of
other routes so a current comparison of the alternatives could be made. A secondary part of the
study was to determine which voltage level best meets the system's needs for future
consideration. This future consideration is to consider an interconnection of hydropower
generation at Takatz Lake on Baranof Island, the Thomas Bay area and other locations.
The scope of services included reviewing the 2005 study's assumptions as to the terrain,
availability of existing roads along the potential KPI routes and the resulting costs and
conclusions. Because the major focus of this study is on the Northern Route it does not include a
review of the route associated with serving the potential mine on Woewodski Island.
1►tiS'�T.�"�i�:7i1Tf7�� �t)'3'i�iC��i
On Figure 2-1, the routes being considered in this study are shown. In the 2005 study the
Northern Route was estimated to be 66 miles long. With the route proposed for the road from
Kake to Petersburg the length of the transmission line is now anticipated to be 60.2 miles. This
includes a 3.1 mile segment from Petersburg to Kupreanof Island which would use a high
voltage underwater marine cable.
Once the Northern Route reaches point S2, until it reaches Kake there are no optional sub -routes
for this alternative. However two alternatives were considered in routing the line from
Petersburg Substation to point S2. While both alternatives are described below, the primary
differences are how and where the line crosses the Wrangell Narrows and the impacts through
the Kupreanof community.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-2 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Alternative 1:
This alternative is consistent with the option developed in the 2005 study. In this option the line
would start at the Petersburg Substation where the TWP transmission line terminates. Starting at
the substation, a 2.2 mile long overhead section of line would follow an existing gravel road
generally in an east-northeast direction to Frederick Sound. The line would be located behind
Petersburg and somewhat south of the airport. At Node S1, a submarine cable termination
facility would connect the overhead line to the 3.1 miles long submarine cable.
Between Nodes Sl and S2 the submarine cable would be placed in a trench to a water depth of
approximately 100 feet. At the shore ends the cable would be placed in split pipe or conduit for
protection. The cable for this crossing would generally be placed in somewhat deeper water to
avoid anchor areas, fishing grounds and the dredging channel. The Wrangell Narrows entrance
is a very busy channel and it will be important to place the submarine cable in deeper water to
avoid much of the marine traffic and activity. The submarine cable is proposed to come ashore
near Node S2 on Kupreanof Island, near Prolewy Point. Potentially the termination point would
need to be north of the mouth of Five Mile Creek due to less favorable shoreline conditions south
of Five Mile Creek.
Alternative 2:
In this alternative the line proceeds from the Petersburg Substation north along Mitkof Highway
to near the narrowest point of the Wrangell Narrows. At this point the line would turn west and,
via a directional bore, using underground cable, cross under the Narrows, a distance of
approximately 1400 feet. This approach would cross under the Wrangell Narrows well below
the expected dredge depth. From this point P1, on Figure 2-1 it would return to overhead
construction, turn and go north approximately 1.7 miles to point P3. Here again it would cross
under Petersburg Creek, via directional bore, for a distance of approximately 800 feet. At this
point, node P4, it would go overhead to node S2, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles. It
appears there are a number of property parcels with private ownership on both sides of the
Wrangell Narrows and Petersburg Creek. This could be beneficial in negotiating for easements
and placement of the cable termination structures.
The advantages of this sub -route are:
Significantly lower costs for the underground/underwater cable; both initially and if it
were necessary to replace a section in the future. It is estimated the cost of this sub -route
will be approximately 50% less than the cost of the submarine cable included in
Alternative 1, above. This could amount to a savings of approximately $3 million to $4
million.
Splitting the underground/underwater section into two pieces reduces the cost of
replacement if one section were to go bad.
The route will result in the closer placement of the distribution substation to the potential
ferry landing near Kupreanof for the road development which will reduce the cost to get
electric service to the ferry terminal and other loads near Kupreanof.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-3 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
® The distribution substation should be able to be placed more in the center of the
Kupreanof area load, resulting in better reliability and/or a lower investment cost to get
the same level of system reliability.
The disadvantages of this route are:
® It goes through Kupreanof, which enjoys its pristine natural environment and has
historically resisted the development of roads and reluctant to support the development of
electrical distribution facilities in the area.
® There would be four overhead to underground terminations for the transmission facilities
instead of two on the route described in Alternative 1.
Part of the route, from node Plto node P3, would be outside of areas easily accessible,
especially for unexpected maintenance.
In a meeting on January 13, 2009, with staff from the Alaska DOTPF, the study team was told
the State expects to receive a 300-foot wide reciprocal easement from the USFS for the road
from S2 to Junction Seal Point (approximately three miles west of S5). The distance of the road
is approximately 47 miles. CAI has reviewed the route between these two points and believes, in
general, the transmission line and road can be constructed within this width. CAI is also
confident the line and road can be designed and built within an easement with an average width
of 300 feet between the two terminal points of the road project. Using an "average width"
approach would allow the Alaska DOTPF to get easements wider than 300 feet in some areas,
some of which are described below, in exchange for easements narrower than 300 feet in other
areas. In this way the total easement width would average 300 feet across the total project
length.
There are three primary reasons the road and transmission line may not fit within 300 feet in any
specific section. They are:
® The road has a number of switch back type turns. The most efficient way to construct a
transmission line is on a straight line. It is also difficult to turn a transmission line when
the inside angle of the line is less than 60 degrees. The specific problems encountered
are shown on Figure 2-2. In these situations it may be necessary to get easements beyond
the 300 feet to facilitate the construction of the road and the transmission line.
® It may also be necessary, at a limited number of locations, to have guying extend beyond
the 300 foot width. The greatest risk of this is where there are steep side hills on the
outside of a significant angle. This is shown in Figure 2-3.
® The third concern is associated with the steep side slope section of the Northern Route.
From S2 to S2a, there will be a potential difficulty in placing the transmission line —
structures and conductors — in locations where it would not be damaged if blasting is
required to expand the road.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-4 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
The other KPI alternatives reviewed in this study are:
• Center -North Route — (57.5 miles total length, including one 0.6 mile long marine
crossing) Connects to the existing Tyee transmission line south of Petersburg, crosses
Wrangell Narrows, proceeds west across and then north on the Lindenberg Peninsula
through the Petersburg Creek -Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness where it intersects with the
route of the Northern Route. The Center -North Route is also referred to as the Wilderness
Route.
• Center -South Route — (51.8 miles total length, two marine crossings totaling 1.8 miles)
Similar to Center -Center route but crosses Duncan Canal at a point farther south on the
canal. This route was defined in previous studies as the Southern Route and is also
referred to as the Tonka-Duncan Canal route.
A map of the routes prepared for the 2005 study separated each route into multiple segments
noted by identifying nodes. These are shown on Figures 2-1, respectively. The lengths of each
segment were then determined and used to establish a cost estimate for each route. These cost
estimates were updated as part of this study.
The updated cost estimates were made using cost data from previous studies, data from
Southeast Alaska utilities, regional power agencies, and local contractors. In addition, CAI's
general experience with 69-kV transmission line design and construction was also used in the
estimates. The approach used was the same between all three alternatives. This provides a
consistent estimating approach applied to the different routes.
The results of the cost estimate are shown in Table 2-1. It should be noted that the estimated cost
of the Center -North route has not been updated at this time since the ability to permit this route
through the wilderness area is considered very unlikely. Cost estimates are discussed in more
detail in Section 4 of this report.
TABLE 2-1
0n
Route Alternative
Center-
(Northern
Northern
South
w/Sub Cable
w/Dir. Bore
Overhead Line
$
16,913
$
19,137
$
19,389
Clearing and Road Construction
3,615
1,520
1,520
Submarine Cables
8,138
8,850
-
Directional Bore Crossings
-
-
1,710
Switchyards and Substations
1,868
1,521
1,521
Subtotal - Direct Costs
$
30,534
$
31,028
$
24,140
Indirect Costs
$
2,443
$
2,482
$
1,931
Contingency (15%)
4,946
5,027
3,911
Total Costs
$
37,922
$
38,537
$
29,982
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-5 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
The 2005 study estimated that the cost of the Center — South route was the lowest of the
alternative routes. The Northern route with the directional bore across Wrangell Narrows is now
estimated to be the lowest cost alternative. This route is significantly lower cost than the
Northern route with the submarine cable, however, it may be that crossing Wrangell Narrows
and constructing overhead Iines near Petersburg Creek and the community of Kupreanof proves
to be noticeably more difficult to gain necessary permits and approvals. When compared to the
Center -South route, the Northern route with the submarine cable still remains the highest cost
alternative due to the cost of the submarine crossing, the longer length of the route and the
generally more rugged terrain it crosses.
The majority of the land involved along the potential routes is federal land administered by the
USFS. Some State land would also be crossed for certain alternative routes. Near Kake, the
routes cross private property and tribal lands owned by the Village of Kake. Marine crossings
are across bodies of water governed by the State of Alaska. During this study CAI staff
reviewed property ownership adjacent to Kake. As part of this effort it was determined the
Sealaska Corporation owns a large section of the land the line would cross as it nears Kake.
In this study, CAI staff reviewed the work completed as part of the July 2005 study. Where
changes were noted, most specially for the Northern Route, the route information including cost
was updated. For the 2005 study, two CAI engineers, knowledgeable in transmission design and
construction practices of Southeast Alaska spent one week in the field to gain first-hand
information with regard to the general project vicinity. This field evaluation involved aerial
reconnaissance of the area, driving USFS roads, meeting with local officials, and documenting
various alternative routes. The process attempted to capture all reasonable routes that would be
further studied and screened for viability. Also, as part of the 2005 study, several meetings were
held in Kake and Petersburg to discuss the project and hear from the community leaders,
merchants, and utility personnel.
The 2005 study team reviewed the area from both the air and ground traveling by fixed wing
aircraft, helicopter and standard wheeled vehicles. They reported the existing road system was
in excellent condition and would provide a suitable corridor to facilitate construction and
maintenance of a transmission line. Since the 2005 study the USFS has made some changes to
its road system within the study area. It has closed some of the roads, removing bridges and
allowing the vegetation to grow on the roads. To build the transmission lines in these sections it
will be necessary to restore the bridges, at least for construction and to brush out the roadway.
The road base should still be suitable for use during construction.
During the work for the 2005 study, specific attention was given to the observation and study of
proposed submarine cable locations. The initial study effort was to minimize the marine
crossings and where required, to study the location and determine the use from a commercial
fishing, sport fishing, types of commercial vessel traffic, tides, dredging activity, and depth of
water.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-6 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Recommended o
A load flow analysis was conducted as part of this study to evaluate the impact of alternative
operating voltages on overall system performance. The results of this load flow study are
provided in Appendix A. It is clear from the results of the load flow study that the Kake load
alone, even with a reasonably high level of growth, can be reliably served by a system operating
at 69-kV6. However, when considering that in the future an interconnection of up to 20 MW of
generation at Takatz Lake may be made at the Kake end of the KPI, it becomes clear a 69-kV
solution would be inadequate. If it is expected that the Takatz Lake project will be
interconnected to the KPI within the first half or two-thirds of the line's life, it is recommended
that the overhead sections of the line be constructed at 138-kV, at a minimum.
Since it is not certain as to whether or not the Takatz Lake project or other potential regional
hydroelectric projects would be interconnected to the KPI at this time, it is recommended the line
be built and operated at 69-kV.
Overhead Transmission Line Design Concepts
Conceptual Design
The conceptual design envisioned for the KPI would use single wood pole, 69-kV structures with
a vertical post insulator combined with horizontal post insulators. This design will be able to
take advantage of existing roads for construction and maintenance and has been used
successfully for other transmission applications elsewhere in Alaska. The average span length is
estimated to be 350 to 400 feet. The only segments of the KPI which are considered a candidate
for H-frame long span construction are where no roads presently exist. The conductor
considered is 336.4 kcmil 30/7 ACSR/AW "Oriole/AW". For the Northern Route, the
assumption is the vast majority of the line would be constructed as single pole, since the road
would be built in tandem with the transmission line. See Appendix B for preliminary examples
of typical line layout for the Northern Route and for the Center — South Route as defined in the
2005 study.
For the Center -South route, the opportunity exists to follow logging roads for much of the length
(the roadless section varies for the different alternatives but is estimated to be approximately
25% of the total line length). Following existing roads will provide access advantages during
construction and will minimize the need for clearing. A short span road -side power line will also
provide future maintenance advantages due to easy access and smaller structures. An example of
the single wood pole design is shown in Figure 2-4.
6 It is estimated that a 34.5-kV operating voltage for the KPI could adequately serve total loads in Kake up to about
2 MW. This would serve the existing load but would not provide for much commercial growth in the future.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-7 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Physical Loading
Typical physical loading criteria and associated overload capacity factors used for overhead
transmission line designs in Southeast Alaska at lower elevations consist of combinations similar
to the following criteria. The following load cases were used to develop the typical line
segments for the preliminary layout of the Northern Route. Load Cases 1, 2 and 3 are required
by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) for design of overhead transmission lines. Load
cases 4, 5 and 6 are based on local utility experience. Although these load cases sound quite
severe they do not appear to significantly change the design outcome and do not have a
significant cost penalty. For structure strength, this study has considered load cases 4, 5 and 6 in
addition to the NESC required load cases for its feasibility assessment.
There have been reports of high ice loading in some locations along the alternative routes of the
KPI, particularly at the south end of Mitkof Island. During final design, a meteorological
specialist may be consulted as to specific local ice conditions and whether or not certain sections
of the line should be built to accommodate higher ice loadings. The length of any areas requiring
higher strength construction than that contemplated for the majority of the KPI is not expected to
be extensive.
1. NESC Heavy - Method A.
NESC Heavy loading consists of a 4 pounds per square foot (PSF) wind (40 MPH)
applied to the structure and supported facilities with the conductors and cables coated by
%2 inch radial ice which is assumed to weigh 57 pounds per cubic foot. For this case,
conductor tensions are to be consistent with an ambient temperature of 0° Fahrenheit.
Additionally, a constant of 0.3 pounds is to be added to the resultant of the wind and
weight related loads (for the purpose of developing conductor design tensions only).
Overload Factors which are applicable to the NESC Heavy Method A load case applied
to wood structures are 2.5 for wind related loads, 1.5 for weight related loads and 1.65 for
wire tension related loads. When using these Overload Factors for wood, a strength
reduction factor of 0.65 is to be used. Guys shall use a strength reduction factor of 0.9.
The applicable Shape Factor is 1.0 for cylindrically shaped components, 1.6 for
components with flat sides.
2. NESC Extreme Wind
For structures which exceed, or support facilities which exceed a height of 60 feet above
ground or water level, an extreme wind condition is to be considered.
NESC Extreme Wind loading for the Juneau/Hoonah region is generally considered to be
120 MPH nominal design 3-second gust (NESC Figure 250-2b). In accordance with the
NESC, conductor tensions are to be consistent with an ambient temperature of 60' F. In
Southeast Alaska the temperature criteria has typically been based on 40' F. Overload
Factors that are applicable to the NESC Extreme Wind load case are 1.0 for wind, weight
and tension related loads. For wood structures evaluated using these Overload Factors, a
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-8 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
strength reduction factor of 0.75 is used. Guys are to utilize a strength reduction factor of
0.9. The applicable Shape Factor is 1.0 for cylindrically shaped components and 1.6 for
components with flat sides.
3. NESC Extreme Ice with Concurrent Wind Loading
For structures which exceed, or support facilities which exceed a height of 60 feet above
ground or water level, an extreme wind condition is to be considered.
NESC Extreme Ice with Concurrent Wind Loading consists of a 6.4 pound per square
foot (PSF) wind (50 MPH) applied to the structure and supported facilities with the
conductors and cables coated by't/2 inch radial ice (NESC Figure 250-3C).
Overload Factors applicable to the NESC Extreme Ice with Concurrent Wind Loading
case are 1.0 for wind, weight, and tension related loads. For wood structures evaluate
using these Overload Factors, a strength reduction factor of 0.75 is used. Guys are
utilized to a strength reduction factor of 0.9. The applicable Shape Factor for
cylindrically shaped components is 1.0 and 1.6 for components with flat sides.
4. Extreme Ice
The NESC Extreme Ice case is based on 1.5 inches radial ice (57 pounds per cubic foot)
at 30' F with no wind. This load case would be applied with a 1.0 Overload Capacity
factor for wood structures for wind, weight and tension related loads while using a
strength reduction factor of 0.75 for wood and 0.9 for guys.
5. Extreme Combination Ice and Wind
This load case is based on 1 inch radial ice (57 pounds per cubic foot) at 0° F in
combination with a 4 PSF (40 mph) wind. This load case would be applied with a 1.0
Overload Capacity factor for wood structures for wind, weight and tension related loads
while using a strength reduction factor for wood of 0.9 and 1.0 for guys.
6. Combination Snow and Wind
This load case assumes 2 inches radial snow (37 pounds per foot) at 30' F in combination
with a 2.3 PSF (30 mph) wind. This load case would be applied with a 1.0 Overload
Capacity factor for wood structures for wind, weight and tension related loads while
using a strength reduction factor for wood of 0.75 and 0.9 for guys.
Foundations and Structure Support
The soils in Southeast Alaska vary from muskeg to rock and everything in between. Earlier field
work has indicated that much of the Center — South route of the KPI is glacial till and colluvial,
acceptable for standard direct embedment foundations. The 1987 Intertie Study was based on
cross-country construction and the report estimated the mix of soils at 75/15/10 percent for
normal, rock and muskeg soils, respectively. However, even in the areas considered normal the
top 3 feet to 5 feet of material is organic and has essentially no lateral strength capability.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-9 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
The preliminary design for the KPI as defined in this study is based on standard embedment
depths plus an additional 2 feet (10% of pole length + 2 feet is normal + 2 extra feet depth for a
total of 10% of pole length + 4 feet) for tangent structures in normal soils. Structures located in
rock and guyed structures are assumed to be embedded at standard embedment depths (10% + 2
feet). Pole structures located in muskeg can be stabilized using a wood raft at ground line with
side guys or by construction of a foundation system using either driven H-piles or by using a
culvert embedded at a depth required for lateral stability and the pole placed inside the culvert.
It is anticipated short -span construction will generally work along the roads the line will follow;
the mix of soils will be about the same as suggested in the 1987 Intertie Study report, 75/15/10
percent for normal, rock and muskeg soils.
Most sites will require imported granular backfill hauled to the site. Poles located off the road by
more than 20 feet will require an access work pad created by extending the road fill to the site.
Where the distance from the road makes this impractical, temporary matting would be used to
gain access to the site during construction. If the distance is extreme, helicopter access would be
considered. In the road -less sections near Duncan Canal, it is assumed a staging area would be
constructed and access to structure sites would be by helicopter.
A diagram of the typical pole embedment is shown in Figure 2-4.
Electrical Clearances to Grade
Minimum clearances above grade for conductors are required by the NESC based on line voltage
and land use under the line. The NESC required clearance must be maintained under either of
two conditions: 1) the conductor sagging at its maximum operating temperature (2200 F
minimum), and 2) under the NESC Heavy loading district requirement of inch radial ice at 30'
F (without the 4 psf wind). The vertical clearance for 138 kV lines above roads and lands that
can be traversed by trucks is 20.4 feet and the vertical clearance for communication conductors
(ADSS) above roads and streets is 16 feet, per NESC rules 232B 1, 232C 1 a and 232D4.
Engineering judgment should be used to determine if clearances in addition to the minimum
required by NESC should be applied. This should be considered in specific area with access to
unusually Large vehicles or special conditions such as extreme snow depths. In addition to the
basic clearance requirement, it is generally prudent to add a plotting margin (2 to 4 feet) to
compensate for irregular terrain not identified in the survey, side hills, plotting errors,
construction variables and other contingencies. For the purpose of the preliminary layout, the
basic ground clearance for the transmission line has been assumed to be 25 feet minimum with
the conductor temperature at 220' F final sag and 20 feet minimum with conductor at 30' F final
sag and %2 inch radial ice for the communication conductors.
Conductor Selection
For this study 336.4 kcmil Aluminum Cable Steel Reinforced (ACSR) conductor was used in the
overhead line sections. This is consistent with the findings of the 2005 study. In the 2005 study
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-10 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
three conductor sizes were considered: 336, 266, and 4/0. All three conductor sizes are adequate
to meet the expected maximum electrical load at Kake.
The existing TWP transmission line uses 336.4 ACSR conductor and, therefore, the two systems
can share a common stock of spare conductor if 336.4 ACSR conductor is used for the KPI.
Further, the terrain traversed by the KPI is rough and much of it will be difficult to reach for
timely maintenance. The additional mechanical strength of the 336 ACSR conductor could be
helpful in reducing the amount of maintenance required over the life of the KPI. A third point is
that if the full plan for the Southeast Alaska transmission system is completed, the Sitka — Kake -
Petersburg transmission interconnection may require the additional capacity of the 336 ACSR
conductor.
Right -of -Way Clearance
Right-of-way width is often established based on conductor blowout. However, essentially the
entire line length of the KPI is undeveloped and therefore blowout of the conductor is not a
consideration. Clearing and maintaining of the right-of-way will be a major cost item during
initial construction and for future maintenance. This issue requires a compromise between the
initial cost of removing danger trees and the amount of maintenance that will be required on an
annual basis and following extreme weather conditions.
Reliability of the line will be of major concern to IPEC, KWETIC® and the SEAPA. The line
will be designed to withstand anticipated extreme weather conditions; however, it will not be
designed to withstand the impact of falling trees. In the areas where tall trees exist, reliability of
the line is directly related to the extent of clearing. From strictly a reliability standpoint any tree
that could potentially strike the line when falling should be removed. Based on the fact that
some line sections will be located in areas where there are 100, to 150, tall trees, the width of
clearing would calculate to be upwards of 300 feet depending on the selected route. A narrower
right-of-way requirement will be acceptable in other areas.
Where the line is placed near roads the road itself will provide approximately 50' of cleared
width on the roadside. Also, much of the area along the route of the KPI has been clear-cut in
the recent past. Areas that have been clear-cut, even as long as 35 years ago, have much shorter
trees, often less than 40 feet in height. Fast growing scrub trees such as alder may require
clearing within the right-of-way along existing roads. Typical pole placement and clearing
requirements along existing logging roads are shown in Figure 2-5.
Based on an objective of minimizing future maintenance costs suggested clearing criteria for the
KPI would be to:
® Cut all trees within 50' from centerline. Low growing brush would not be cut.
® Cut all brush in the immediate vicinity of structures.
® Remove all trees that could strike the line if they fall.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-11 Draft Report
INSIDE XMSN LINE ANGLE LESS THAN 60'
Y
r
y
INSIDE XMSN LINE ANGLE LESS THAN 60' CORRECTED BY INCREASING ROW WIDTH
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE ROW EASMENT
O,KAKE, AK TO PETERSBURG, AK ISSUE 01
DW DAM
ACL SB 02 09
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. /
Jackson, Michigan / Mount Vernon, Washington APPROVED REV. � O/Q4� FIGURE 2-2 SH. 1
engineers nsaltents onstracticn management
300'
GUY WITHIN 300' ROW WIDTH ON LEVEL GROUND
UU 1 Lh I LINUJ CSC I UINU JUU F-\UVV VVIU I F-I UIV JLUI-"L
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE ROW EASMENT
KAKE, AK TO PETERSBURG, AK ISSUE 02
UK �. DATE,
SB 02/09
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. APPROVED REV.
Jacksorsncons, Michigan / Mount Vernon, Washington �a Figure 2— SH, 1
engineeultants construction management
GL
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
KAKE, AK TO PETERSBURG, AK
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. APPROVED
Jackson, Michigan / Mount Vernon, Washington CLS
engineers consultants const—ti" management
02/09
')HOWN
ffl 11 a101T.T.TtA I Ii ,..
Rv. NO.1
REV. 0
FIGURE 2-4 1 SH. 1
CONDUCTOR 336 KCM ACSR
COMMUNICATION 24 STRAND ADSS
HORIZONTIAL SPAN: 350'
ON EXISTING LOG ROAD
6 ACRES/MILE
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
TYP. TANGENT WOOD
POLE
�� / }
KAKE, AK TO PETERSBURG, AK
DESIGNED AT 138
kV
M.
�.
OAV-
OPERATED AT 69
kV
ACL
SB
42 49
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Jackson, Michigan / Mount Vernon, Washington
APPROVEDCLS
REVNO4 JDA'�
FIGURE 2-5
SH. 4
engineers ..Heats o A-ctian management
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Access Road Construction Standards
USFS logging roads are built to different standards than Alaska DOTPF arterials and collector
roads. In areas of muskeg, the logging roads are typically built on top of the significant layer of
organic material. In this manner, the road "floats" on the muskeg underlayment and continues to
settle over time. The DOTPF removes the muskeg underlayment before building its roads. In
areas of Southeast Alaska where the DOTPF is building new collector roads and arterials on
existing log haul roads, such as on Prince of Wales Island, the cost of the road construction is
indicated by DOTPF to be nearly as high as new construction because of the need to remove the
organic underlayment along so much of the route.
It is proposed that where existing logging roads do not exist, an access road of some type would
be constructed alongside the KPI route. Three types of access roads have been considered:
DOTPF Pioneer road, modified logging road and access trail.
DOTPF Pioneer Road
The Northern route alternative assumes that the DOTPF would build a pioneer road prior to the
transmission line being constructed on any given section of the project.
The typical DOTPF standard for an island collector road is a 22 foot -wide, paved road surface
with a 2 foot wide shoulder. An island arterial road is a 22 foot -wide paved road surface with a 7
foot -wide shoulder. The posted speed on the collector road is 30 mph while it is 35 mph on the
arterial.
The DOTPF indicated it is unlikely that a road of this type would be constructed in time to be
used for constructing the transmission line. However the first step in development of a DOTPF
road would be to construct a pioneer road for general access. The Pioneer road would be similar
to a typical USFS logging road. The cost estimate included in this report anticipates the pioneer
road is built by DOTPF prior to the construction of the line. It is possible, even potentially
preferred, that the construction of the transmission line would follow nearly immediately after
completion of the road segments. This would provide the opportunity for the transmission line to
be completed no later than one construction season after the road is finished.
Modified Logging Road (Included as part of the transmission line development)
The Center — North and Center — South routes have roadless sections. In these areas it is
proposed that a road would be constructed as part of the transmission line construction project.
This road would be used for future maintenance.
The typical access road would be built with a 60 foot -wide right-of-way, a total 14 foot -wide
road with a 10-12 foot -wide gravel covered surface and road bedding made with typar or filter
fabric. The road would be similar to typical USFS logging roads but would probably be
constructed to a lesser standard. The USFS typically uses a 60 foot wide right of way for its
Source: Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan dated September 2004, Figure A-1.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-12 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
standard log haul road but prepares a slightly larger road surface than is expected for the
construction of the transmission line.
Access trail (Included as part of the transmission line development)
The Center — North route goes through a Wilderness area. It is proposed that access be provided
for ease of construction and future maintenance. However since a Wilderness area would require
access to be controlled, a narrower, less intrusive access trail would be constructed. It is
proposed that where existing logging roads do not exist, an access road be constructed alongside
the entire KPI route, except in the Wilderness Area where a narrower, less intrusive access trail
is to be constructed.
Raptor (Eagle) Protection
Southeast Alaska is home to many eagles and therefore the line design must consider raptor
(eagle) protection. The electrical industry standard for raptor protection is currently based on
"Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996". This
publication suggests that 60 inches between conductor phases as well as 60 inches to all
grounded parts will provide a safe design for large raptors such as eagles. The conductor phase
spacing of most 69-kV lines exceeds this recommended dimension. However the length of the
insulator should also be considered since the base of the insulator is a different potential than the
conductor. The typical 69-kV insulator, 36 inches to 42 inches in length, does not meet the 60
inch minimum distance, so it might be necessary to use longer 138-kV insulators to meet the
raptor guideline.
It should be noted, 69-kV insulators have been used without problems related to raptor fatalities.
Historical performance is considered to have similar significance, in this case, as the published
guidelines. In Alaska a shield wire is seldom used and the base is not typically grounded the 69-
kV insulator are thought to meet the spirit of the raptor protection.
Substation and Switching Station Concepts
For the Center — South and Center — North routes a new switching station is proposed to be
constructed at node T that will tap into the existing TWP 138-kV/69-kV transmission line. For
this report, the substation is designated as substation Sub-T, the location of which is shown in
Enlargement A of Figure 2-1. At Kake, a substation facility to connect to IPEC's existing 12.47-
kV distribution system will need to be constructed. It is recommend that these new facilities be
configured as shown in Figure 2-6.
To ensure continued system reliability for the existing Petersburg electrical system, a breaker for
the Kake exit at Sub-T is recommended. Circuit problems on the new KPI will then only affect
the Kake load. Similarly, a second breaker is proposed for the Petersburg exit at Sub-T such that
circuit problems north towards Petersburg will be isolated from affecting the Kake load. For
initial Sub-T exit to Wrangell a motor -operated disconnect switch is recommended.
Initially, the unplanned loss of the interconnection to Wrangell will cause an outage for both
Petersburg and Kake with or without a third breaker at Sub-T. Therefore, it is not prudent to add
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-13 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
the expense of a third breaker at this time. However, if the Sitka — Kake Intertie is built at a later
date, Sub-T should be expanded into a three -breaker ring bus. With two independent sources of
supply one will suffice if the other is lost so the added reliability of a full ring bus at Sub-T
becomes prudent. Designing the new Sub-T for future expansion into a three breaker ring bus is
a nearly zero cost plan to minimize the future costs for when, or if the Sitka — Kake Intertie or
another similar development is built.
The Kake substation is expected to be constructed at a suitable site near Kake, potentially up to
five miles outside the town. It is proposed to be configured as:
• A single 69-kV/12.47-kV power transformer,
• Protected by a high -side fused disconnect,
• A distribution class plus or minus 10 percent voltage regulator,
• Two (2) 12.47-kV feeders
• IPEC's generating units will be interconnected with the TWP system but will not
generally be used at the same time that power is being delivered from Tyee Lake
Submarine cable termination yards will be needed on both ends of each cable crossing. The
submarine cable termination yards are expected to require relatively small areas that will serve
as the interface between overhead sections of the line and submarine cables. They will generally
be located near the shoreline but behind the existing tree lines to limit visibility from the water.
The termination yards will contain lightning arrestors and risers that connect the overhead
system to the submarine cable. Disconnect switches would also be installed to allow for the
electrical isolation of the cable for maintenance and testing. A typical termination station is
shown below in Figure 2-6.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-14 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
FIGIRE
-. .;
Submarine Cables
All three of the route alternatives will require either submarine cables or buried underwater
crossings of marine waterways. Cables to be used for the KPI submarine crossings would be
similar to the crossing between Douglas Island and Young Bay installed during the summer of
2005. The cable would be a single -armored, 69-kV, 3-phase, 500 kcmil copper conductor,
dielectric submarine cable with bundled fiber optic communication lines. The bundled cable will
be about 6.5 inches in diameter (7.9 inches for 138-kV cable), however, the exact cable
specification will not be known until final design is complete. A diagram of the submarine cable
as currently proposed is included in Appendix C.
An important factor in specifying the submarine cable will be the determination of potential
extensions of the KPI to Sitka or other load centers beyond Kake. For the Center -South Route, it
is expected that both the Wrangell Narrows and the Duncan Canal crossings would be placed at
essentially the same time with the same cable laying equipment. This should reduce the
mobilization costs which are quite significant.
Two separate submarine cable crossings will be needed for the Center -South Route. The first
crosses Wrangell Narrows about eight miles south of downtown Petersburg and is about 0.6
miles in length. Tide movements are indicated to be very limited at this location and the waters
are generally calm. The second crossing is about 1.2 miles in length and crosses Duncan Canal
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-15 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
between points about 1.75 miles south of the mouth of Mitchell Slough on the east and about 2.5
miles south of Indian Point on the west side of Duncan Canal.
From NOAA charts the water depth at the Wrangell Narrows crossing appears to increase
uniformly from 0 feet at the shoreline to 110 feet near the center of Wrangell Narrows. The
nautical charts show a bottom that consists of mud and rocks. No evidence of steep terrain or
large rocks, that might cause suspensions in the submarine cables, has been detected. However,
a thorough submarine topographical survey and subsurface profile needs to be accomplished to
determine the best route for the submarine cable. This will identify areas to be avoided such as
shipwrecks, large rocks, rock outcroppings, etc., that could cause suspensions and damage to the
cable. This survey may be conducted utilizing a multi -beam sonar system such as the Reson
Seabat 8101. If deleterious conditions are suspected, additional information should be obtained
with a side -scan sonar system.
Based on the information presently available, no obvious problems are anticipated with the cable
installation at Wrangell Narrows. The cable should be buried approximately 1 meter in depth at
both shores, out to a depth of 10 feet below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Either direct
burial or placement in a duct with a thermal backfill may be utilized. Due to the large amount of
boat traffic through Wrangell Narrows, burial for the entire length is recommended.
The water depth at the location of the Duncan Canal crossing is approximately 100 feet at
maximum. No particular problems are anticipated with this crossing except that the timing of
placing the cable should be coordinated so as not to interfere with the crabbing season in the
Canal.
Both of these submarine crossings were surveyed as part of the 1987 Intertie Study8. Findings
related to these surveys are:
"The crossing on Plate 5 [Wrangell Narrows] is a bowl -shaped depression as deep as 110
feet. Most of the alignment is soft bottomed except the eastern approach to Mitkof
Island. Slopes on the east approach vary between 10:1 (6°) and 2:1 (27) whereas those
in the west approaching the Lindenberg Peninsula of Kupreanof Island are more gentle,
varying between 14:1 (4°) and 3:1 (18°). There do not appear to be any obstacles to
construction at this crossing. Wrangell Narrows is a busy thoroughfare for ship traffic,
both commercial and recreational. Tanner crab fishing occurs from mid -January to mid -
February and salmon trolling lasts from May through the first week in June."
"Crossing 6.5 [Duncan Canal], Plate 6, is bowl -shaped in cross section with a fairly
gentle west approach to Kupreanof Island, 11:1 (5°), and a steeper approach to the
Lindenberg Peninsula, 6:1 (9°). Echograms indicate the crossing is probably floored by
soft sediments and its deepest point is approximately 100 feet. The very near shore parts
of the approach sounded with lead line may be hard bottom. There are no submarine
8 Crossings 6.1 and 6.5, Appendix A, Transmission Line Submarine Crossings — Oceanography/Meteorology,
Alaska Power Authority, Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study, Harza Engineering Company, October
1987. Note that the eastern landing of the Wrangell Narrows crossing as surveyed for the 1987 study appears to be
slightly north of the presently defined location.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-16 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
cables in Duncan Canal. Construction in Duncan Canal may be delayed if emplacement
is planned during the commercial crab fishing season. Dungeness crab fishing season is
split with a summer season from May through September, and a winter season from
October through January."
For the Northern route, it is proposed that the submarine cable be terminated to the southeast of
Sandy Beach Park in Petersburg on city -owned land. The cable would be extended from the
beach to a depth of approximately 180 feet and turn northwest towards Kupreanof Island.
Generally, the depth of placement would be in the range of 150 to 200 feet. The cable would
need to be placed sufficiently north of the entrance to Wrangell Narrows to avoid the dredging
area but to the south of an underwater disposal area north of Petersburg.
The cable would terminate on Kupreanof Island in the general vicinity of Prolewy Point but due
to beach conditions in this area, the termination location may need to be moved north to the area
of Five Mile Creek. An underwater survey will be needed to determine the best location for the
submarine cables.
Another option that could potentially be used for the crossing of Wrangell Narrows for the
Northern route alternative is underground cable installed in a pipe to be placed by means of a
directional bore beneath the sea bottom. It is expected that the length of the crossing would be
about 1,400 feet in length. A second, shorter crossing of about 800 feet in length beneath
Petersburg Creek could also be needed to minimize the impact of the transmission line near the
mouth of Petersburg Creek. Directional bores are commonly used in the utility industry for
placing pipes and conduits beneath rivers and other bodies of water.
The buried cable option would require that a 10 inch diameter bore be made below the channel
and an HDPE pipe be installed in the boring. Power cables and fiber optic cables would be
pulled into the pipe. The cost of the directional bore is highly dependent on the quality of soils
in which the bore is made. If there is a heavy consistency of cobbles and boulders or large
alluvium over 4 inches in diameter without much sediment to provide cohesion and this
consistency can't be avoided at any depth, the directional bore option may not be possible. Rock
itself will not necessarily prevent the boring from being accomplished but could increase the
cost. It will be necessary to conduct soil evaluations early in the process if this alternative is
considered viable.
It is expected that a 24 strand fiber optic communication cable will be included in the KPI
design. Initially, the fiber optic system will be used for control of the KPI system. For the
overhead portions of the line, the fiber strands will be bundled within an aerial cable. For the
submarine crossings, the fiber -strands will be an integral part of the bundled cable design. The
terminations of the fiber optic cable will need to be connected to local communication systems at
a later date. The termination and interconnection facilities have not been included in the
preliminary design included in this study.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-17 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
The engineering consideration for the transmission design of the overhead fiber optic cable was
divided into three principal categories, system planning, electrical design of system components,
and the mechanical design of the line. For the purposes of the KPI preliminary design, ALCOA
"ADSS" 24 strand aerial cable has been selected. A 24 strand fiber cable is more than sufficient
to meet the communication needs of control and data collection of the system operation. In
addition extra fiber would be available for commercial and system voice communication. There
is a very slight difference between 12 and 24 strand fiber. We recommend at the time of
construction the volume of traffic and system needs be re-evaluated. The transmission structures
are sized to support the 24 strand ADSS.
Space has been allocated in the preliminary design of the KPI structures to install fiber optic
ADSS cable. Sag and tension is to be obtained from cable manufactures in the form of computer
hardware and software programs. The cable manufacturers will usually prepare such data and
provide consultation concerning the design data parameters for the project. It is our
recommendation that the fiber optic cable installation meet Heavy Loading and Grade B
construction.
ADSS cables tend to vibrate at more than other cables of comparable size, due to their lighter
weight. Also the "soft" nature of their jackets and internal construction requires special
consideration. A special damper, called the Dielectric Damper, has been developed specifically
for application on ADSS cables which should be considered for installation on this project.
As part of the KPI Study, a power flow analysis was conducted to evaluate several factors with
regard to the operation of the KPI. The power flow analysis developed computer models of the
interconnected electric systems to identify the desired system configuration, recommended
system enhancements, and identify special provisions that might be needed for reliable and
economic system operation. A system modeling database was obtained that includes available
generation resources, existing transmission facilities, and each proposed alternative transmission
route's electrical characteristics. In addition to the loads on the system, the modeling included
potential generation at Takatz Lake and Thomas Bay. Qualitative consideration was also given
to the possibility of interconnecting this line further north in Southeast Alaska.
An important element of the power flow analysis was the determination of the recommended
KPI voltage and the recommended conductor size. The analysis also defined the substation
improvements needed in Kake and the switchyard facility that will be needed at the
interconnection of the KPI with the existing TWP transmission line near Petersburg.
The following planning criteria were used in the analysis:
® Under normal system conditions, voltages at load serving facilities should range from a
maximum of 105 percent of nominal system voltage to a minimum of 95 percent.
® Maximum voltages for the KPI transmission buses should not exceed 110 percent of
nominal system voltage during energizing procedures when no load is being served.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-18 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Minimum voltages may sag to as little as 85 percent of nominal as long as there is no
danger of voltage collapse for the non -load serving intertie transmission buses under
heavy system load conditions.
Facility loading should not exceed 100 percent of normal system seasonal ratings as
specified by the manufacturers of the submarine cables, or for overhead transmission
system, as determined based on standard conductor loadability.
After reviewing the existing and forecast loads, generation possibilities and associated expected
costs it is recommended the line be built for 69-kV. If the Takatz Lake project or other
generation is installed that exceeds 10 MW of power deliveries over the KPI, a higher voltage
should be considered. Designing and building the line for higher voltage provides for
substantially increased flexibility for future system needs at a marginal price premium.
All of the routes being evaluated follow USES roads to the extent feasible. These roads will
facilitate construction and maintenance of the line by providing ground access to the area. In
remote regions, construction crews and materials are usually transported by helicopter which
contributes to higher overall construction costs. An alternate approach for constructing the KPI
in areas where roads do not presently exist is to construct an access road along the transmission
line. This is the approach considered for the Center — North and Center — South Alternatives.
As previously indicated, a number of previous studies have been conducted to evaluate potential
route alternatives for the KPI. The 2005 and 2003 studies relied extensively upon the results of
previous studies, incorporating newer information and updating previous cost estimates primarily
using various cost escalation factors. The 1996 Feasibility Study was intended to define the
design and routing criteria, estimate costs, provide a brief environmental review and assess the
economic and financial feasibility of an intertie between Petersburg and Kake. It was based on a
3-phase AC overhead system with submarine crossings of major water bodies. The 1996
Feasibility Study included a review and summary of the earlier reports and included
consideration of the Kake Coastal Management Program, Public Hearing Draft dated April 1984.
The 1996 Feasibility Study did not include any field work or visits to the project area and relied
solely on work from previous studies tempered with consultation and input from local utility, and
various state, federal and local governmental agency personnel. Earlier reports which included
site reviews were the 1984 Ebasco9 and 1987 Intertie Study reports. The 1984 Ebasco study
included fairly extensive field work and analysis of construction conditions for a Petersburg to
Kake Intertie and included a number of drawings highlighting features along suggested routes.
The 1984.Ebasco report provides a reasonable description of the terrain and soils along the
preferred Southern route.
9 Tyee-Kake Intertie Project, Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Volumes I and II, prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority by Ebasco, Inc., 1984.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-19 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Changes have occurred since the 1984 Ebasco report relative to the number of logging roads and
the amount of logging and clearing that would be required along the route. The 1984 Ebasco
report suggested a floating camp in the Duncan Canal area with material hauling using
helicopters in the roadless section of the route, a distance at the time of approximately 20.5
miles. The roadless section of the route identified in the 1984 Ebasco report, which is essentially
the same as the current Center — South Route, has now been reduced to approximately 13 miles.
The 1987 Intertie Study report included bathymetric surveys of the proposed submarine cable
crossings and included a compilation of public and agency comments received at the time of the
1987 Intertie Study.
All of the earlier studies concluded that the southern (now the Center — South) route was
preferred, absent detailed environmental analysis. The 1996 Feasibility Study, which considered
two routes along the currently defined routes of the Northern Route and the Center -South Route,
concluded: "...the southern route is preferred based on public comment, agency comment,
previous study findings, and engineering and environmental judgment." All of the earlier
reports emphasized the need to conduct environmental studies prior to selection of a specific
route.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-20 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
KPI Alternative Route Descriptions
As indicated previously in this report, three routes are included in this study's effort. This is
down from the ten route alternatives when the 2005 study started its effort. The three
remaining routes are:
1. Northern Route (adjacent to a DOTPF road)
2. Center — North Route (Wilderness Route)
3. Center — South Route
A map showing these route alternatives is provided as Figure 2-1. Reference to this map and the
Node points (e.g. T, T1, S3, K) shown on it should be made to better understand the route
descriptions which follow.
Northern Route
The Northern Route is about 55.2 miles long (assuming that the line terminates about 5 miles
outside of Kake) and generally traverses the north side of Kupreanof Island along the proposed
route of the Kake — Petersburg road as proposed in the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan.
The Northern Route originates at the Petersburg substation where the TWP transmission line
terminates. A 2.2 mile long overhead section of line would exit the substation and follow an
existing gravel road generally in an east northeast direction to Frederick Sound. This line would
be located behind Petersburg and somewhat near the airport. At Node S 1 on Frederick Sound, a
submarine cable termination facility would connect the overhead line to a 3.1 mile long
submarine cable to be located northeast of the entrance to Wrangell Narrows.
Between Nodes S 1 and S2 the submarine
cable would be placed in a trench to a water
depth of approximately 100 feet. At the shore
ends the cable would be placed in split pipe or
conduit for protection. The cable for this
crossing would generally be placed in
somewhat deeper water to avoid anchor areas,
fishing grounds and the dredging channel.
The Wrangell Narrows entrance is a very busy
channel and it will be important to place the
submarine cable in deeper water to avoid
much of the marine traffic and activity. The
submarine cable is proposed to come ashore at
Node S2 on Kupreanof Island, at a point near
Prolewy Point, potentially north of Five Mile
Creek.
From Node S2, the route follows north along
the Frederick Sound shoreline on the east side
Photo 1 Typical submarine cable termination facility.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-21 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
of Kupreanof Island and then cuts west to Node S3 located near the south end of Portage Bay.
About half of the total 24.2 mile length of this segment is in an area where there is no logging
road. It is assumed, however, that DOTPF would construct a pioneer road in this area prior to
the start of the transmission line. Along Frederick Sound the route is situated on a fairly steep
slope in a heavily forested area with numerous small streams and wash areas coming down off
the hillside.
Maintaining the transmission line and future DOTPF road within a limited width ROW will be a
challenge. It is anticipated that sections of this segment will require a wider width ROW than the
300 foot width discussed. However, as described above it is believed the overall ROW width
can average 300 feet.
Between Nodes S3 and S4, approximately 3.4 miles of the total segment length of 8.2 miles will
be along existing USFS roads. It is assumed that the DOTPF will build a pioneer road prior to
the start to transmission line construction along the remaining 5.7 miles of the route where
currently there is no road. This is largely a muskeg area and during the field reconnaissance in
2005 the depth of the muskeg was measured at between four and six feet at a point
approximately three miles east of Node S4.
Between Nodes S4 and S5, the entire segment length of 12.2 miles will be alongside existing
USFS roads. Clearing requirements along this segment will be limited to only 2.0 miles through
forested areas. Access to this
segment of the route will be good
from Kake.
The 10.4 miles long segment
between Nodes S5 and K (Node K is
the termination of the route at the
substation in Kake) will be entirely
along existing USFS roads. Some
clearing will be needed along 7.2
miles of the segment length although
much of this area has been
previously logged and only scrub
trees exist. Several locations would
be suitable to place a new substation
in Kake although enough level
ground is not readily available at the Photo 2 Typical logging road and terrain on Kupreanof Island.
site of the existing power plant. The substation could be located just north and west of the
airport runway. Access to IPEC's distribution circuits would be relatively straightforward from
this location.
From Node S3 to Node K in Kake, the Northern Route is the same as the Center -North Route.
The description for this section of the route is provided in the description of the Center -North
Route.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-22 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
Center North Route
The proposed route of the Center -North Route begins at a tap of the 69-kV TWP transmission
system at a point
approximately eight miles
south of Petersburg. The
route crosses Wrangell
Narrows, traverses west
and north on the
Lindenberg Peninsula to a
point just south of Portage
Bay and then proceeds west
to Kake. A significant
feature of this route
alternative is that
approximately nine miles
passes through the western
edge of the Petersburg
Creek — Duncan Salt Chuck
Wilderness. The Center -
North Route has a total Photo 3 Looking west across Wrangell narrows towards the log transfer facility.
length of 56.9 miles of
which 38 miles is along existing USFS roads. A single 0.6 mile long underwater crossing of
Wrangell Narrows is included in this alternative.
The route starts at Node T, which is located about 4,800 feet from the water at this point. An
overhead line will be constructed from Node T that crosses the highway and then parallels the
highway to a point near the former Alaska Experimental Fur Farm. The line would then proceed
west from the highway to a point near the water where the overhead line would connect to the
submarine cable that crosses Wrangell Narrows. A relatively narrow, 60 foot right-of-way could
work in this area although a 100 foot right-of-way would be desired. Land ownership at this
location is either State of Alaska or USFS.
At this point, Node T1, a submarine cable termination structure would be constructed where the
bundled, 3-phase submarine cable and fiber optic cable is connected to the overhead line. The
submarine cable will leave the structure through an 8 inch diameter schedule 80 PVC duct that
will be placed in a trench that reaches the mean low water (MLW) line. From there, the cable
would be placed in a split duct casing and buried in a trench to a point where the water depth is
about 100 feet.10 The location of the cable across Wrangell Narrows is out of the commercial
shell fishing area and the area normally dredged. A warning sign onshore on both ends of the
cable will alert marine traffic to a buried power cable. Wrangell Narrows is a very active marine
10 Due to the high level of marine traffic in Wrangell Narrows and the relatively shallow crossing depth, it may be
preferable to bury the submarine cable along its entire length. This would greatly reduce the potential damage to the
cable from ship anchors and other
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-23 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
environment where pleasure and commercial vessels travel year around. It is also a fly path for
both commercial and pleasure aircraft.
The submarine cable will exit
the west side of Wrangell
Narrows in a similar fashion
and connect to an overhead line
at Node T2. This will be at a
point near the existing Tonka
log handling facility. A
submarine cable termination
structure, comprised of
lightning arresters and a steel -
pole riser for the overhead -to -
underground transition, will be
constructed near the shoreline
Photo 4 Looking north up Duncan Canal toward the Wilderness Area. but sufficiently inland to limit
Existing logging road is in the foreground. Location of Node T10 is in its visibility from the water and
center of picture. to stay above the tidal zone.
Between Nodes T2 and T3, a
distance of about 1.5 miles, the line will be located just off the existing logging roads in a heavily
forested area. Right-of-way clearing will be needed in this area. Between Nodes T3 and T4,
approximately 6.2 miles of the route is in a forested area requiring right-of-way clearing and 1.8
miles is in a muskeg area needing only minimal brush clearing. Between Nodes T4 and T5
(including T10), the route passes mostly through heavily forested areas with part of the existing
USFS road on a steep hillside. Clearing will be needed on the uphill side of the road in this area.
The entire length of the route between Nodes T2 and T5 is adjacent to existing USFS logging
roads.
The route between Nodes T5 and S3 is primarily located in the Wilderness area. From aerial
reconnaissance it appears that an old trail exists near where the line is proposed to be placed. It
is proposed that the right-of-way be cleared to a minimum width of 60 feet and a maintenance
trail would be built alongside the line. Through this section of the route, the ground is generally
level and the forest cover is relatively light. Approximately 4.7 miles of the route between
Nodes T5 and S3 is located in forested area and 6.7 miles is in muskeg area, none of which is
along existing USFS roads.
At Node S3, the route of the Center -North Route connects with the Northern Route. Between
Nodes S3 and S4, approximately 3.4 miles of the total segment length of 8.2 miles will be along
existing USFS roads. It is proposed that an access road be built along the 4.8 miles of the route
where currently there is no road. Relatively easy access to clear and build roads will be available
along this section of the route. During the 2005 field reconnaissance the depth of the muskeg
was measured at between four and six feet at a point approximately three miles east of Node S4.
Between Nodes S4 and S5, the entire segment length of 12.1 miles will be alongside existing
USFS roads. Clearing requirements along this segment will be limited to only 2.0 miles through
forested areas. Access to this segment of the route will be good from Kake.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-24 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
The 10.4 mile long segment between Nodes S5 and K (Node K is the termination of the route at
the substation in Kake) will be entirely along existing USFS roads. Some clearing will be
needed along 7.2 miles of the segment length although much of this area has been previously
logged and only scrub trees exist. Several locations would be suitable to place a new substation
in Kake although enough level ground is not readily available at the site of the existing power
plant. The substation could be located just north and west of the airport runway. Access to
IPEC's distribution circuits would be relatively straightforward from this location.
Center - South Route
The Center -South Route is 51.8 miles long and will require two marine crossings: a 0.6 mile long
crossing of Wrangell Narrows and a 1.2 mile long crossing of Duncan Canal. This route
alternative is the same as the Center -North Route from Node T at the tap point to the existing
TWP transmission line to Node T4 near Duncan Canal. It is also the same as the Center -North
Route from Node S5 near Kake to Node K at the termination of the route in Kake. In total, the
length of these common segments is 21.3 miles. Reference is made to the description provided
for the Center -North Route as it pertains to the common segments.
Between Nodes T4 and T6, a 1.2 mile long segment is in a road less area. An access road would
be built in this area adjacent to the line where half the length is in forested terrain and half is in
muskeg. A submarine cable termination yard will be constructed at Node T6 where the 1.2 mile
long submarine cable across Duncan Canal will connect to the overhead line. It is proposed that
the bundled, 3-phase submarine cable have a similar approach to the water as was described
previously for the Wrangell Narrows crossing. From field reconnaissance, the proposed location
of the submarine cable across Duncan Canal appears very good although tidal currents and
fishing vessel traffic may potentially be an issue that might require trenching of the cable along
the entire crossing. The submarine cable would be connected to the overhead line at Node T7 at
a similar cable termination facility as placed at Node T6.
The segment of the line
route between Nodes
T7 and T8 is 10.3 miles
long, entirely in an area
where there is no
existing logging road.
About 6.7 miles of the
line is in an area of
muskeg requiring very
little clearing. An
access road is proposed
to be built adjacent to
the line along the entire
length of this segment.
During the 2005 field
reconnaissance the
muskeg depth was
measured and found to
Photo 5 Probing the depth of muskeg between Nodes T7 and T8.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-25 Draft Report
Transmission Line Route Alternatives and
Technical Characteristics
be approximately six feet deep. Although an attempt has been made to try and locate the line in
higher ground in this area, it will still be a relatively difficult area to build the access road due to
the extensive muskeg.
Between Nodes T8 and T11, the route follows the existing logging road for 3.4 miles and will be
placed in a generally forested area without a road for 1.3 miles. The access from Kake will be
good along this section of the route making road construction relatively straightforward. The
route segment between Nodes T11 and S5 is 13.0 miles long and is adjacent to an existing
logging road along the entire length. This segment is in a well logged over area and will require
only minimal clearing of brush and small trees. Access from Kake is very good along this
section of the route.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 2-26 Draft Report
Section 3
A comprehensive feasibility study of the Kake - Petersburg Intertie (KPI) transmission line
was completed by D. Hittle & Associates in July 2005 which summarized the work
conducted from the early 1980s to 2005. Ten route options were initially considered which
were later reduced to four primary options. Of the four route alternatives considered within
the 2005 feasibility study, three were carried forward for detailed environmental and
permitting review and analysis: 1) the Central -North Route (which passes through the
Petersburg Creek —Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area), 2) the Central -South Route (which
was the Southeast Conference Steering Committee's preferred route alternative), and 3) the
Northern Route, (which follows the alignment of a road proposed for construction by the
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) (Figure 2-1). The
Steering Committee is now considering permitting the Northern Route in conjunction with
the development of the road proposed by DOTPF.
The 2005 study included an assessment of the permitting and regulatory process needed to
carry the KPI to completion. The primary emphasis of this section of the report is to review
the permitting and environmental process to determine what permitting activities would be
expected for the KPI transmission line. This review and determination includes:
® review of the overall strategy of the permitting and regulatory process of this project
through completion of the selected route,
® determine whether substantial changes have been made since 2005 in regards to permits
or environmental concerns, and
® determine if there are any substantive differences between the three main route
alternatives in regards to permitting and potential environmental concerns.
Also discussed are considerations that may arise as a result of building the transmission line
on the Northern Route in conjunction with the development of a permanent road proposed by
the Alaska DOTPF.
Changes to the Permit Requirements and Regulations Since 2005
Few changes have been made to the permitting requirements since the comprehensive
feasibility study was conducted in 2005. The permits discussed within the 2005 feasibility
study are still valid for the KPI; however, some additional permits and plans have been
included which will be required regardless of the selected route. Some changes to the cost of
permitting and regulations have occurred. An updated cost estimate is presented in Section 4
— Cost Estimates.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-1 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Process Overview
Land Use Designations (LUDs) within the Tongass National Forest have changed since 2005
due to the new Land and Resource Management Plan adopted by the USFS on January 2008
(USFS 2008). The majority of the KPI would pass through lands designated as Timber
Production and Modified Landscape. Additional LUDs crossed include Old -Growth Habitat,
Scenic Viewshed, and Semi -Remote Recreation. A large portion of the Center -North Route
would pass through lands designated as Wilderness and Wilderness National Monument.
These LUDs are used to preserve areas that are essentially unmodified and to provide
opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The LUDs crossed by each of the three
route alternatives are listed in Table 3-1 and are shown in Figure 3-1.
The USFS has identified a Transportation and Utility System (TUS) LUD on Kupreanof
Island. This LUD is overlaid on top of preexisting LUDs. During the period prior to
construction, the management prescriptions of the initial underlying LUD would remain
applicable. However, upon initiation of project construction and operation, the management
prescription of the TUS LUD would apply. This means that the TUS LUD represents a
"window" through the underlying LUD in which road and/or utilities can be built, regardless
of whether the prescription of the underlying LUDs do not permit transportation or utility
projects (USFS 2008). The Northern Route and the Central South Route generally follow the
TUS LUD (Figure 3-1). Therefore, initial review of the project would need to consider each
alternative's conformance to the underlying LUD prescriptions, but if either the Northern or
Central -South Routes are chosen for construction, then the prescriptions of the TUS LUD
would apply upon construction of the KPI.
Much of Kupreanof Island and the southern portion of Mitkof Island include inventoried
roadless areas (Figure 3-2). The Northern Route crosses three inventoried roadless areas:
North Kupreanof (211), a small portion of Missionary (212), and along the western edge of
Five Mile (213). The Center -South route crosses the South Kupreanof (214) roadless area
west of Duncan Canal. The Center -North route crosses a small section of the Lindenberg
(216) inventoried roadless area. This proposed route also crosses the Petersburg Creek -
Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness area to the north of this roadless area. All of these
inventoried roadless areas offer relatively unmodified habitat important to fish and wildlife
resources, are important to local subsistence, and provide recreational opportunities.
As stated above, the Northern Route and the Center -South Route fall within a TUS LUD
which would allow for the construction of the KPI through these roadless areas. However,
the impact that the KPI would have on these roadless areas would still need to be assessed
because the prescriptions of the TUS LUD would remain secondary until project construction
has been initiated.
Kake-Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-2 Draft Report
cu
a)
c >
00
(D '�
=CT U
N O
n- a
mY 4,
>=
o o
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
t�
C
d
Q
�
d
4Z
x
X
X
X
X
X
O®®
z 0:
a
.Q
L
u`
®
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
X
x
x
x
o �
z
L
o
�
f°
m v
>
>
1
c
0
O
+'
a)
C
i}
O -C
'h� G
.L
m
�yy
7
cn
Q
i
Y
tB
n
N i
4
O
n
O
=
ay
ay
_O
O bA
GD
C
'X
E p
L
C
O
ca
O
y
� .tr
a) O
O
C
O
O
cu
N
L
aJ
is
a) �
O X
+a�c)
®v
-Cc
E L
m
E
>
O
CL
L
O
Q. .O
C
L+tr-A+
O
�
L
CL
-0
to
=
LQ
0 O
1
o
Qn
a3
Q 'a
Vf
y
M
u
O
y.,
,� >,
"O cn d!J
-0 C
?i Q
•� v
t6
�A
O
®
C
Vi QJ
O
.> a7
4-
yN
> N
Y
a-+
_
"O
Q)
N
m
L
+�+ W
a} ._
i
cn -C
i y
'� tJ
n
NU
C
aJ
O
>
+o
Q
o
O
a
m
�
N-I-
L
O
_
O--
Zl-
0
L
m=
t m
m
CT m
L
O
m -Z
z m
O n
m
Y
>
o
o
Y
4-;
OA m
m
L O mL
w
,1-,
u
U
V 4-
C w
-a
-0•L
•L
Q
aj
E
L
O
WO
u
n
aj L
00
m m
ai
wO
C
O
+w
C
w C
=
'CNCU
+O'
O
OA
> >
m
E_
C
C
��-+ _h
O U
m
im-+ N
'6_ i
L- +�
O
>
c 4-
a—
N
.m
r_
m
v
C
C
O
O
ca
O
t6 > O
30
Q
a)
m
E
m
O
d
m
a°
a o
o_
N
O
Q
:o
L
v
70
O
•C7
QJ
u
m
m
n E
3
a)
®
®
1—
J
.1-C-+
;+
a
cn
.a;
H
in
-0
CLbb
cu
Q
Q
-0
-txo
V9
m
}
�_
y
C
y
O
F' =
H
[n
to CC
>
Y
L
.-
®
Ln
8
!—
tf
0
Q
a�
ry
v
w
co
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Process Overview
Environmental and Permitting Issues Common to all Alternatives
The analysis of permits and regulation requirements discussed in the 2005 comprehensive
feasibility study remain valid for the KPI because few changes have been made to the
process since 2005. Permits and regulations which would be applicable to the KPI are
described below. Additional permits and plans which will likely be required are listed in
Table 3-2.
Each alternative considered for the KPI would require a submarine cable crossing of the
Wrangell Narrows. The Northern Route would cross the Wrangell Narrows at its mouth, while
the two central routes would cross near the old experimental fur farm south of Petersburg.
Because of the potential disturbances in this major shipping channel, these submarine
crossings would require coordination with the Alaska Marine Highways, cruise ship
companies, freight haulers, and other entities. In addition, a Section 10 and Section 404 permit
would be required from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), due to Project -related
work within navigable waters and wetlands. Also, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) would need to be notified of the position of the underwater cables.
Each of the alternatives would cross anadromous and resident fish -bearing streams (see
Figure 3-3). Although transmission line structures would be designed and positioned in order
to avoid stream impacts, the access roads would cross a number of streams. These crossings
would be required to follow standard road building Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
be engineered in such a way as to reduce potential impacts to aquatic resources. Any activity
which crosses a waterbody designated as important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of
anadromous fish would require a Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit from the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) as well as a permit from the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) under the Fishway Act and Anadromous Fish Act. If dredging is required within a
waterbody designated as important for the spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous
fish in order to bury the underwater cables, then a Recreational Suction Dredge Permit from
the ADF&G would be required.
The Tongass Forest -wide Standards and Guidelines provide protection to various species and
their habitat. For example, specific guidelines apply to the protection of bald eagles. The
Bald Eagle Protection Act provides for special management for the bald eagle. Management
of bald eagle habitat is in accordance with the Interagency Agreement established with the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to maintain habitat to support the long-term nesting,
perching, and winter roosting habitat capability for bald eagles. The USFS coordinates with
USFWS for bald eagle habitat management. These standards and guidelines are provided in
the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). Threatened and Endangered, Forest Service
sensitive listed, and species of concern include wolves, Sitka black -tailed deer, moose, black
bears, river otters, American marten, red squirrel, fishers, wolverine, northern flying squirrel,
Kake-Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-4 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Process Overview
northern goshawks, spruce grouse and ptarmigan, numerous species of ducks and geese,
trumpeter swans, marbled murrelets, and great blue herons, all of which are known to be
present on both Kupreanof and Mitkof islands.
Kake-Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-5 Draft Report
al
hD
O L
c L
cu
O "a -0 N
+,
Xz
�'y N
p
a Y
c
m
w
O
m >` Q L
>�
Y Ln
L c
d
a m
a <n U w a O `n �O
o m
p o0 -0
c
m Y
a �_ O_ \ a a >
U to
bCD
Y •L Y
O S Ln
0
a N Y L m 0 0cu
C a Y
a d0 O
C
Ln
an
toQ O
c Ln 0 0 0 •Q L p Ln
U m LYi,
O O
d
E
a
a)
v c o a m
o= Q y a Y a
V '� +` Y
O
c
+'
a c 'O cn -a
CL a
m L C 0 a)m O Ln ate-+ O_ 'O
u
-O = >S Ln NO
NM
p \ cn
•A O 'O O
O
2
O `� w
Q C �' C w t
U
N .`ten N
u
�,� L
Q L m 0-
CA
m
w
Z 3 Q
—°�� 0- QJ (U Ln
p a t o Z
Q °0 p
`m
41
tl0 o
a�i Lj-U
M i
U—
@ a U
Y
m
c 'O v=- a O
o
a a Ln m V)
a o m=
a o a a-
+� O +_
>B
v
a) -0 >
z a; In a .>
1- U
Z
L
>
H
C T m m t _
O O
a m a-0 a N
Oc
p L>
o
m to
Q
.�
O
YO O ,., O
c v, m c v- > m
a >, •a
N a
Fa
O mLn
m 0 0 'O
C) a U '= m A m a p -p
c m a ,n a
LL ;_, c.) is
c
U a)
'a
O a Ln O C tOE C
'6 m OU ^ '�
m 0.
a
O. m U 3
'6 N
L <f ,y. y-
0 U
d
6
C YO N a cu
U
i7
YC Q •- vi >� O
a O �i N bD a s
m to U to Y L O a
p M u
v C
a Q L O•
CL
L
U bD _c
d Z a �-
w m� m
L N �
a 0 ,m, c CD =
a CL Y a U a [L Q
-c Lu v- '_ c p 0 >_ a a_
m E o
L
c Y a p
V-
O
p
Cl- U to m= m 4-
Z O L O. L Q Y m {.L m m
d Y i, m U
d Y
U
d
d _ L
OY
w a O oaD
a
O
=
z
a M z y a o W a
6
-
a j:,
�D
�'�' O Y a i m QJ O -C S
b0 CO ucA
Y
Y LL
w
a p
� Z
m a Y i
E
an d
U
Q
U
d 'Q
Y
�+- a vi
O a -O a �-- al .r m
:4, t o c C) E �u -O a
a
a m
>-
Y
0
-+ i3 a i i> V
i L m N U a-OL
Ln 0
C
o
>
Ln
In E
®
3 c
to O c- > U .L O+ a C,
a
a V+
L
O.
7 fl
C C C
U< O "c
O-
•U
i L L
O z Y U O�
hD
C
qD a)
O
ya
V
a o o
a O_ }, Y m i_ m Q) a '~Czi t/'1 Y
c U m Y o- E m 3
m m
m L
®
a a
Ea
A> 'O
W
w Q
O
C C
m
U
V a O O O
pY L
O a
'a
LnOO
L tz
o 0m °°O
O OU 0a—
aLn
E
O
CCa
Z o
a-'O ? CA O
-
Q >
L O
O
Y ma N Ln C
O cn
QyO
O Y Q
d
U U O
Y V1 LL O a
Co
O
%-
p
O
o C =
µm-
Na
YOto6
d
+a
,
m m V)
6 Q E a > O
,
+'!)
m
aZo
O0Y a)
bD
N
pU
o _
O
>t
CN
NO
a
M Z
d m
QuQQ0-
U
m
a m w O. O_ Li -0
U
a
O
L)
u
i
T
+,
C
U
aj
Ln
V
a
a
Y
a s
Q
a
to
d
N t
a:
d c
L
C
a
Y
Lnw
r
o
s
a Y
a
L
Z a a
'a a)
wa
LL
a
a
C
m otLo
o
L
\
c d
J L d
o
)
L
d
C
Ln
LU
p O
U c V C
_
am+
haD
'C
O_ C
O
a •6 E
7
c
a
CU
O a
Ln .N N a
>
E
tw
Q
U U
> a
N O v— Y
a
C
m
+'
m
a
L
E N
+�-•
-c
Z
•>
Q
L
LL Q w
!
LL
\
w
a
d
L.L.
D d
Z
ro
co
a)
O
C -O Y
O
C +�
O
m
7 'A
(n a.+
,N
t
C
ca
CD
U Y
o
o m
to
c
E C
(At
T Zn o
a
o
v
�,
-0
�
O
C,-+�
O
O
O- tfbn
} C @
+�
0) C
}''
N
++ 'O
a o '-
Y
L
O
0
'C
N
O
G
w N
3
p
A
C
O_ •`n
X
`n O
O cB
++ U
1� C
co
O
+�,,
O
— va
N a- Q. a.+
cn
N
N aJ
O
,
—Ln
3 N
O Q
.L
ca E
CL 2
c.
'n O
E
O O
Q
O :�.,
O Q
N N E
O
O
N
O
F+
N
_T y
L C
a)
C
O Y
'�
a%
V1
U v�j :]�
'a Y—
CL
C
O Y
N
Gl
C
i O C
N '�' T 1-
3
O -6
O
t0 vi
E
W a O a_'
W N
M > C
c6
qa ai
fV
cc
O
U
tl
OL
N
O_
Oa)
.
L
�
Q
w
�
Ca
6 pd
Cmm
N
O
m
NO
mLA
O Q�
=O
N
.
N
3 ao *'
o °Y
a)
`° y
o
"a i
Q
O
O
E
'6
c
IC m
E U
L
co
O_0
m L
U aJ
U yj
+U-' N "O
C N N
-
_Q
y O
v-
O
Ln In
4=
c
O
Q. N
m 'O
cu
d Q "O
- 0)
E
C (J
U N C
4- _0 U w
N
N
m
N C
_N
ZS
vi
'p m C d
m,
A W
tC O
4-
N
O U
p
00 C
aO-'
O O
U
C -p E U
v-
N
— +'
M O
O_
O
�
'G
O
O
tn.
:B
cu O
L
N
O
,-+
= O
�
of
L N(- y
(B (Q
cB +�.+
Y 4-- $
O a3
L L
� 'n
"E '�
N O
Q l.l")
!O
"O
.F >j 0O
> Z
L
O_ 'n
"O
N
N O "6 d
U ut
U O O
N O
3 L
O N
Q o
o o
a O v
o o
c
ti
a) v w
OL `—°
cCo c
_N
`� (v Q
0-
�
Z �-+
U 'n U
U O. N
'n Q
F-
O- U
U m
N
U A -a Z
cn Q
cn iE
3
'n (-
i!} O
L
m +_
c T
'='
0
a,
Q) a) r aj
E
w
-0
a) c o a
}
H
U L
y
m �"-2�
Q
C)U
Lu p .C
F U 2
i
m
C
M
O
+_'
In
7
u
U
O U
®�-+
!6
m
O_
T N
O
L
a)
Q_
a)O
d
C
S
-0 C
V) d
m
Ln
-Fa
(D
L
a) o
+�
w C�
Q
a
(A
L a
v
T Baj
TO
a)
a
®
o'
a)
v c
w +,
L
U
a
N
U O- c
aA
L W p
CO
U
C p
0 `n a--'
Q
(6f-+
O-
C
CCC
G
0 w iLn
CL
(B
to
O p
ca
a� m
n O
L
p
N
an
a)C +_+ U
Ll-
cr
N
C
a)O a
V
a
Y
v
d
>
'o to O
N O'71
U
U
Q v71
J W m Q.
�
0
O
v—
O
C
O
N
O
N
U
vt
U
0 to
0 an
C
a)
a)
a)
co
C
G
UL E
U
L
U
L I
L
N
a)L
Q a)
Q
Q
Q
O
O
la-O
m
ad
a)c
cc
CC"O
m
'Q
O
CG
U
N
[6
C6
Q
Q
0
c:
M
V
to
Q
m
Z
z
z
Lj-
Li -
to
O
O
O
O
O
O
n
V
H
B
1
C
�
�
m
0mW
c
C
rr
G
cc
G
CC
C Y
CC
G
C
0vi
N
N m
C)m
a)
O_
aY
N
41
Ln
O d
O J
O=
O
0
O _u-
tf
0
0_
0
Of
co
v
L
Q O
cLa
Q O -0O
=3
O
>
bD
a) >
'�
O C
O C
C
Ur y> LO —
u a) LO
i a) m
Q 0 CO a)
>, Y "O Y ,O� Y '.O
m V a)
0) O �
a)
QI C a
L 0) C
SA
U 5-
L L=
L N C N
Y Y N O Y Q L C Q
.0 C
Y 0 Q
Y (t1 Q
ate)
O
+In+
¢O �
>
O "O
> O- "6
O
}J
M
�E
L
Q m 0- aM O a
m
«'O- C-
M
®
U
.0
E Lw
CLS
c Ln
a
LY
a
N
LO
L U
m
O 'Q tea-+
O
CL
E O> mC U Q'
O
M O
u
O _
C O `o -
� E
f
®
O Q
ai YO- +L
N
vY
o
hD
OcDr U
N O
Z
7 L E �
to 3 O ,�
•L E C O E
N �i
L tB
� N Lri
L @
c o
> Q 3 3 z o O
E a"
Q nci
E ai
a% Q Y_
�a-- U N �
E L_ C N U N Y
L C O- 0 O C -O C ra Ln
U
i U
Q) Y 'L
C
i U
a) Y 'L
C
O C Ln bD
•N LO Y O m L O>
.Q
N O
N O
u5 a) i C
O>>
i v- "Q
O N E
a)
N
N
Y >, to Q.
-C
aL+ >.VI Q
a) tD 'O
O O
L N M O E
O
O
O
C C
U CL O a
Ln a Q t Ln a) Q LL
z
Z
z
p- La o
I- m o
4j
U
CL
L
L
Lvo
C
Lw
C
Q
C
N
N
�
L
�
L Y
O
Q
Q Q
Y
>
1
+-'
C
C
> N
a) U>
a) V O
E
O
O
->
Y C
Y C Y
N
aLs
L
v
>
>
s
U
�' U >
L
CL
L
Ln
L
O
E E
E E
U
Y L pp N
O
a
'L L
•L L
v Q
U a�
Q
LO
Q
S
U
o
2
Y C
0- O S
LZ O O
v
Y L
+
a) +'
C n0
v m
a)
N
C
Q a
a) C
C
Y C
O`er U C
O `.+= U M:
®
Y
C
� E
O
a)
Calf)E
�II
C J
C
C
C
a
L
Y
_
U
Q
Q
(S
O
a)
-0
-0
)
L
a:
CO
a)
CO
Y-0
N
O L
C +'
O L a
CD•�
e1
(p f>6
M
LZA N
M
ba N
O
E O
La
O m C �'i '6
O C t"i •(n
C>
O
C
Y
c
Y
y L O C C
O
�' L O C -a
O
Q C
C
C
CIO a)
L Y
fn L =' N
a)
Ln
a) m
u
ss o
a o
c°
O s v ate) u
U Y Y Ln Q
a co u
U Y Y (n (d
C
O
Y
(L$
y
a)
Y
C
L
aU)
N
�
4,
UQ
L
O
=
c
o
o
�
CC
C
0
0
®
>
m
>
o-
>
o
+�
L°
<
cu
n
C
c0
£
Y
0C
o
Q
L
o
E
C
U
C
Q
Y
al
a
w
Lv
bD
N_
S
E
®
(}
7
m
E
C
L
7
Y
L
a)
L
L
m
v
d
Ln
d
Y
Y
C7
Y
tf
O
Q
NNa)
L.L
i
00
co
CY)m
a)
E E
a) C:
a .°
W
L
0
m
vs
O
E
v
w
o
0
U
= O
u
u
c O
O i
}y
Z
o
O
L U
o
w o
O
w
o 0
CC
N G
U
N
+� o
L
O O a
O = N
> n O =
+� O :ram O
= O_ _ a-
6 N
0 N Q
O
Y
L OL
�L
Ul
-
w
� � (6 cB
(U
Q
OJ O a
� N
O = a Ln
N =
E
N � L
L
y 0 i+ _
0 U = :3
B O O
U U
O = N
c
G u N
u0
O
L
Y
Q�
E
_
C
Y
(u�
d
m
U
C
a• 0
i
C
tod
L
O
Q
L 0
C
O. 'L
Q Q
Qs
� Y
�
L
� E
@ L
0
a n
E0
1p
co
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
Typically, Right -of -Way (ROW) and Conditional Use Permits need to be filed with any federal
or state agencies whose lands are crossed by projects of this nature. However, the road along the
Northern Route would not require these special use permits as long as the route remains within
the general corridor agreed upon within the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest
Service, DNR, and DOTPF (Forest Service Agreement No. 06MU-11100100- 15 1; State of
Alaska Agreement No. ADL 107516). The transmission line would likely enter into a similar
Memorandum of Understanding with the USFS and DNR, which would act as a ROW or
Conditional Use Permit. If this is not the case, then a ROW Special Use Permit would be issued
by the Forest Service.
Planning and zoning reviews by local governments would be conducted, which could result in
the need for some developmental permits required by Kake, Petersburg, or Kupreanof
authorities. Additional requirements would include a review and analysis of the presence or
potential presence of cultural sites under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
A timber settlement agreement with the USFS for sale of harvested timber would also be
required.
Since a portion of the KPI, regardless of the alternative considered, would pass through federal
lands under the jurisdiction of the USFS (Tongass National Forest), the KPI would need to
undergo the NEPA process, regardless of the route chosen. Even with the inclusion of an
identified Transmission Utility System designation, it is unlikely that the KPI could proceed by
conducting an Environmental Assessment because each of the alternatives has the potential to
cause significant adverse impacts to various resources.
It is assumed that additional analysis would be required for the construction of the proposed
permanent road under the Northern Route which would include crossing scenic viewshed
adjacent to Fredrick Sound as well as inventoried roadless areas. Therefore, it is recommended
that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for the KPI. The steps necessary to
meet NEPA procedural requirements are presented in Table 3-3 as a series of tasks. It is
estimated that the EIS process could be completed within 18 to 20 months and would require
some field work for specific resources. Estimated costs for conducting an EIS are presented in
Table 3-4.
In conjunction with the NEPA process, the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service
would require the completion of a Biological Assessment (BA) to address species listed under
the Endangered Species Act. In addition, USFS sensitive listed species are those wildlife, fish,
and plant species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as
evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers, density,
or habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). As part of
the NEPA process, USFS activities will be reviewed (i.e., Biological Evaluation [BE]) to
determine the potential effect on sensitive species and determine how impacts to these species
will be minimized or avoided (FSM 2670.32). The BA and BE are often combined into one
document.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-10 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
ScheduleExample of an EIS .
Task
Task Name
Week
1
Prework Meeting/Field Orientation
Detailed Review of Existing Data
1
Prework Meeting/Field Orientation
3
GIs Data Received from Forest Service, ADNR, ADFG
4
Meeting with various agencies as appropriate
5
2
Public Scoping
Prepare Scoping Notice/Notice of Intent
6
Forest Service Approval
10
Mail Scoping Document and Publish Notices
11
Public Scoping Period
13
Public Meetings (assume Petersburg, Kake, Juneau)
14
Prepare Scoping Report
17
3
Field Work and Special Studies
Field Preparation/Logistics
20
Fish/Watershed/Stream Characterization
22
Geology/Soils
22
Heritage Resource and Sacred Sites Inventory
22
Scenery/Visuals
22
Sensitive Plant Field Surveys
22
Subsistence
22
Transportation and Utilities
22
Wetlands Inventory Surveys
22
Wildlife/Habitat Field Surveys
22
Complete Final Field Reports
27
4
EIS Chapters 1 and 2
Prepare Chapters 1 and 2
23
Review Due (Forest Service and cooperating agencies)
26
5
Preliminary Draft EIS
Prepare Affected Environment Sections
23
Prepare Environmental Consequences Sections
28
Submit PDEIS
32
Review of PDEIS Due (Forest Service and cooperating agencies)
34
6
Draft EIS
Revise PDEIS (Incorporate agency comments)
48
Review of DEIS Due (Forest Service and cooperating agencies)
53
Respond to Forest Service and cooperating agencies Comments
55
Assemble Camera -Ready DEIS
57
7
Biological Assessment/Evaluation
48
8
Response to Public Comments
Public Comment Period
61
Public Meetings (Kake, Petersburg)
65
Draft Responses to Public Comment
69
Review of Responses Due (Forest Service and cooperating agencies)
72
Final Response to Comments
74
9
Preliminary Final EIS
Revise DEIS
76
Review of PHIS Due (Forest Service and cooperating agencies)
81
10
Final EIS
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-11 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
Revise PHIS
83
Review of HIS Due (Forest Service and cooperating agencies)
86
Assemble Camera -Ready HIS
88
11
Administrative (Project) Record
Preparation and issuance of Record of Decision
90
FA %17i r:11'111111d111111.111110
Table 3-4 lists the estimated impacts to select environmental resources related to each of the
three route alternatives, while Figures 3-3 and 3-4 displays this information graphically. During
the NEPA process, the route alternatives would be modified in order to reduce environmental
impacts to the greatest extent practical; therefore, these numbers are only displayed for general
comparative purposes and do not represent a final impact analysis.
Table 3-4
-A ' I f t. *Ale li• t
Number of Bearing StreamsCrossed by Route
Category
Resource
Route Alternative
Northern
Center-
North
Center -
South
Productive Forest Land
(acres)
Productive Old Growth
344
326
380
Young Growth
250
256
431
Unproductive Forest
Land (acres)
Forested Muskeg
304
257
142
Other Unproductive Forests
350
350
128
Non -Forest (acres)
Non -Forest
147
177
119
Total Impact to Vegetation
1,395
1,379
1,239
Number of Fish Bearing
Stream Crossings'
Class I Anadromous
32
34
35
Class 11 Resident
22
19
13
Total
Fish Bearing Stream Crossings
54
153
48
1 Based on TNF stream layer which likely overestimates the number of fish bearing streams; would need to be
compared to ADF&G anadromous stream catalog and field verification.
Note: Estimates were based on an assumption that the cleared ROW would be 200 feet wide; however, the ROW
would likely be greater or less than 200 feet in some areas depending on topography and vegetation cover.
Center -North Route
The Center -North Route passes through lands designated as Wilderness and Wilderness National
Monument (Petersburg Creek —Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness). Wilderness areas are a TUS
"Avoidance Area." Transportation and utility corridors may be located in the Wilderness only
after an analysis of potential TUS opportunities has been completed and no feasible alternatives
exist outside the Wilderness (USFS 2008). As stated in the 2005 feasibility study, it would take
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-12 Draft Report
. 4#
E
�
�
�
__m,__, __ __— _ +_'d
W N N
c6
� (1) N
L
N Z c
o Cry w
N N O o
C O
cam_ )
Q
llC^ � L
O
N Q
elf
U'
N
N m
N G` a
H w
W
1` d zN N
C9 N Oro
r N N `� o
N
• r�
N e
r
N
P
l d'
r
N
r
r
N M
It
N
m
�^ N
}
O
� � N
c
N
o N LO
N > c F-
c Q Q
m �_ w
On
M E U) z
r 0' N N
N z U U
�r
600Z Al..Igaj 9 pxw ssajpea�soeugaivalui mngsjayad-a�e)4\600Z s{oaima\:a
R
1
l
N
oU)
C
J � O
w
w
` o
ZI U U
� H
600Z tiemga=l 9 pxwsweails\sdeLiAagjalui-6ingsialad-ONI
a
t
r.. i
r y
P'-
`6
m
U_ z D X
Cca
C
y N
ca a
Y
Q
C (n Z
Z U U
ann7 AJBMa@4 a
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
an act of Congress to place a transmission line in a portion of the Tongass National Forest
designated as Wilderness. Due to the fact that there appears to be at least two other feasible
alternatives which generally follow corridors already designated under the 2008 Tongass Land
Management Plan as a TUS LUD, it would be very difficult to justify constructing the
transmission line along this route alternative. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended to
be carried forward and will not be further analyzed in this review of permitting requirements.
Northern Route
Permitting the Proposed Road and Transmission Line Intertie Jointly
The Northern Route would, for the most part, follow the alignment of a road proposed for
construction by the Alaska DOTPF. The Steering Committee is considering assessing the road
and transmission line under one NEPA analysis. Typically, multiple actions assessed under one
NEPA analysis are connected actions. Under section 1508.25[a][1] of NEPA, actions are
considered connected if they 1) automatically trigger other actions that may require the
preparation of an EIS, 2) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken either before
them or simultaneously, and 3) are interdependent parts of a larger action and are thus dependent
on that action for their justification. As these two actions would not necessarily be considered
connected actions, the Purpose and Need Statement of the EIS would need to clearly justify the
rationale for analysis of these two actions on a simultaneous basis.
There would be multiple advantages and disadvantages to analyze these two actions
simultaneously under NEPA. A joint NEPA analysis would result in a more transparent
disclosure of impacts, reduce the costs of NEPA by conducting a single analysis, and aid the two
projects in minimizing impacts by overlapping both their ROW and possibly the timing of
construction. The disadvantages would include the difficulty in timing the two actions
simultaneously, the risk of connecting these two actions in case one does not go through to final
construction or is not approved, and the increased area of impact caused by a road compared to a
transmission line alone.
Route Comparison
Each route alternative proposes some level of road building —either permanent road or an access
road. The Northern Route includes approximately 20.1 miles of new road construction (14.4
miles between segment node S2 and S3, and approximately 5.7 miles between segment node S3
and S4) with the remainder of the ROW following existing roads. The Center -South route would
require approximately 10.3 miles of new road construction between segment nodes T7 and T8.
Each alternative would pass through a Scenic Viewshed LUD; however, the Northern Route
would pass through 7 miles near the Frederick Sound compared to the 2 miles crossed by the
Center -South Route near the Wrangell Narrows. The route through the Scenic Viewshed would
generally fall within an area designated as a TUS LUD. Therefore, as stated above, upon
construction of the KPI, this Scenic Viewshed LUD would transfer over to a TUS LUD,
resulting in a land management prescription applicable to the construction and operation of a
transmission line. Although the land management prescriptions would transfer over to a TUS
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-13 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
LUD upon construction, initial analysis would still need to evaluate the project's impact on the
Scenic Viewshed, as well as develop mitigation measures to minimize the impact on this
viewshed (particularly to marine traffic within Fredrick Sound).
The use of the Northern Route for an overhead utility corridor could increase the potential
impacts on avian resources. There are a relatively high number of eagle nests along the shoreline
adjacent to Fredrick Sound. The overhead utility poles and line could result in a long-term
adverse affect on avian species, due primarily to the increased potential for collisions and to a
lesser extent electrocution; therefore this route alternative may require additional mitigation
measures to reduce the possibility of these adverse affects.
Construction of a road or transmission line along the Northern Route could be complicated due
to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) designated Unit P-02, located along the
coastal plain and foothills north of Prolewy Point. This DNR Unit is being managed to protect
scenic views and protect habitat values, as well as being selected under NFCG 298 for the
purpose of Community Expansion for the incorporated city of Kupreanof. According to DNR's
Area Management Plan, this area is subjected to heavy weather which would limit water access
to vessels and complicate construction activities and project design. The area is heavily used by
marine life including marine mammals and waterfowl, and dense kelp beds are found along part
of the shoreline which provide protected fish habitat. The high usage by wildlife species in this
area could result in the necessity for additional mitigation measure aimed at preventing adverse
environmental impacts.
The Northern Route would include one approximately 3.1-mile submarine cable crossing
between segment nodes S1 and S2, whereas the Center -South route includes two submarine
crossings totaling 1.8 miles (0.6 mile at Wrangell Narrows and 1.2 miles at Duncan Canal).
Each of the submarine crossings would require additional information in order to verify the exact
route locations for burial. With the use of bathymetric surveys to identify potential obstructions,
the submarine crossings can be finalized. The timing of construction of these cable crossings
would likely need to be done during the March/April period to avoid potential impacts to crab
fisheries. It may also include a marine mammal monitoring plan during this phase of the project.
Unlike the other route alternatives, the Northern Route would pass through the city limits of
Petersburg which could result in additional local permitting requirements and/or potential public
scoping/concerns not present in other alternatives.
For the purpose of assessing the possibility for a shorter submarine cable crossing, a
modification to the Northern Route (West -North) has been proposed which would reduce the
length of the submarine crossing of Wrangell Narrows by crossing at a constriction in the
Narrows just west of Petersburg with a directional bore under Wrangell Narrows. This modified
route would then follow along the Kupreanof Island shoreline, crossing Petersburg Creek at its
mouth and then rejoin the original route of the Northern Route at node S2. The issues related to
this modification would include the crossing at the mouth of Petersburg Creek (which could
impact sensitive aquatic resources), passing the line through the jurisdictional limits of
Kupreanof and passing the line through the state-owned lands along the shoreline north of
Petersburg.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-14 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
The West -North directional bore alternative is proposed to cross beneath Petersburg Creek.
Petersburg Creek offers good sport fishing for king, Coho, and sockeye during much of the year,
and has relatively high recreational use. This route would cross or directionally drill under Coho
Creek and Petersburg Creek, both anadromous streams and both subject to potential impacts to
water quality and hydrology during construction.
Although we believe it would be possible to construct this portion of the route and there would
be cost savings between the current Northern Route and this modification due to a shorter
submarine crossing, there would be increased review and coordination needed from state and
federal agencies to fully assess potential impacts to the fishery in this area which may impact the
construction schedule considerably. There are other issues associated with this route in that
Kupreanof has expressed that they do not want a line or road through the community, as well as
crossing a Alaska DNR-owned parcel just north of Prolewy Point which is managed for scenic
views, marine mammals, and waterfowl. Although there may be significant cost savings
associated with this route, its permitting could be more difficult than the other Northern Route
alternative.
J �I
Route Comparison
In addition to the submarine crossing of the Wrangell Narrows, the Center -South Route would
require a 1.2-mile submarine crossing of the Duncan Canal between nodes T6 and T7.
According to DNR's Resource Management Plan for this region, there are important starry
flounder nurseries and fishing grounds as well as shrimp trawl fishing areas within the vicinity of
this cable crossing. Fishermen who rely on the Dungeness crab fishery also indicate that the
Duncan Canal is a very important crab nursery and rearing habitat. The DNR may require the
cable to be buried along its entire length in order to protect the habitat, fishing grounds, and
integrity of the cable itself. Dredging and burying of the cable could result in additional short-
term impacts to aquatic resources, and permits could be required to allow for the dredging
activities.
An important waterfowl flyway, the Duncan Canal Salt Chuck Waterfowl Habitat, is located due
west of the Duncan Canal crossing. A utility corridor within or near this flyway could have an
adverse effect on the safety of the waterfowl using this flyway. The potential for service
interruptions would also be greater if the power lines are within the flight path of these birds.
ADF&G staff recommended that the alignment be moved south, closer to the bluffs of the nearby
plateau, so that the poles would be below the primary flyway height. A potential realignment of
the line in this area should be reviewed during final alignment design with members of ADF&G
and DNR Office of Habitat and Permitting staff to ensure avoidance and minimization of
waterfowl conflicts.
As stated above, the Center -South Route would pass through 2 miles of a Scenic Viewshed LUD
near the Wrangell Narrows crossing; however, this route would generally fall within an area
designated as a TUS LUD. Initial analysis of the Project would need to take into account the
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-15 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
impact that the line would have on this Scenic Viewshed even though the prescriptions of the
LUD would convert over to the TUS once construction was initiated.
•� •I'll! M 'Ili ill 4 r
Cost estimates to permit the Northern Route and Center -South Route have been updated from the
2005 study. These estimates assume that an EIS will be prepared that focuses on these two
routes but with the understanding that other routes previously proposed will be assessed during
the NEPA process; therefore, the estimated costs provided in Table 3-4 are for conducting an EIS
that would analyze a range of alternatives, including the two discussed in detail here. It also
takes into account that the proposed road would be analyzed jointly with the Northern Route of
the KPI, as well as other yet to be defined alternatives that could be proposed under scoping.
Table 3-2 outlined some general costs associated with filing fees, bonding, annual fees, meeting
costs, etc. for obtaining the various permits that would be required for the KPI project; however,
a more detailed cost estimate would need to be developed once a preferred route is selected and
approved. Based on past experience with permitting of the Swan -Tyee Intertie, which is similar
in length and has required the same type of general permitting needs, the costs of applying for
and obtaining the various permits would likely range between $90,0004120,000, but does not
include the costs of preparing any of the engineering drawings that would be required for some
of the permits.
Overall, both the Northern and Center -South routes include similar resource concerns which are
recommended to be addressed through the NEPA process through an EIS. Differences between
the two primary route corridors stem from the shorter overall ROW length (51.7 miles), fewer
miles of proposed road building (10.3 miles), and a shorter length of submarine crossings (I.8
miles) of the proposed Center -South route.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-16 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
Table 3-5
2�W
Costs Associated with Permitting the KPI Transmission Line Project
EIS
Task
I
Task Name
Project Initiation/Work Plan/Prework Meeting/Field Orientation/N01
Estimated
Costs by Task
$32,000
2
Scoping and Public Involvement
$36,000
3
Field Work and Special Studies (Roll -up Total)
$402,000
Field Preparation/Logistics
40,000
Fish/Watershed/Stream Characterization
65,000
Geology/Soils
25,000
Heritage Resource and Sacred Sites Inventory
50,000
Scenery/Visuals
15,000
Sensitive Plant Field Surveys
25,000
Subsistence
22,000
Transportation and Utilities
9,000
Wetlands Inventory Surveys
55,000
Wildlife/Habitat Field Surveys
28,000
Complete Final Field Reports
68,000
4
EIS Chapters 1 and 2
$35,000
5
Preliminary Draft EIS
$180,000
6
Draft EIS
$52,000
7
Biological Assessment/Evaluation
$10,000
8
Public Meetings and Response to Public Comments
$42,000
9
Preliminary Final EIS
$66,000
10
Final EIS
$42,000
11
Administrative Record (Record of Decision)
$15,000
Estimated Costs for Conducting EIS
Estimated Permitting Cost Associated with Selected Route
Estimated Environmental and Permitting for KPI Project
$912,000
$120,000
$1,032,000J
'• 11,11IFF111lp�11111:11�11111�+��
Figure 3-5 diagrams the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process as implemented by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service Handbook, 1909.15,
page 13 of 15; Approved: June 29, 2004).
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-17 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
FIGURE 3-5
Pro posd Action
EI S Required May Fit i na C aegory
(C hEpter 20) for E rclus ion
Notice of intent Does Not Fit USDA or Forest FitsUSDAor Forest Service
® Service Category or There Are Category aid Tyre AreNno
Extraordinary Cirwmstaices ExtraDrd rary Circumstances
(Chapter30) (ChMter30)
S coping
Scopirgand
Environmental Environmental Analysis
Analysis
1
Draft E IS Significant Effects Ncod for E IS
MayOccrr Unccrtdn
C ctegorically
FinalE IS Excluded
E nNi ronmaital
Assessment
(C hepter 40)
Record of Decision
(Chapter 20)
Findirg of No Signifi rant D�cisi m Memo
Impact & Decision Notice If Required
(Chapter40) (Chaptar 3q
I mIi menta ion
L- DMonitoring
Under NEPA, if a project is not allowable under a categorical exclusion and there is uncertainty
regarding the potential impacts, the project proponent can conduct an Environmental Assessment
(EA). In some cases, if a corridor is a designated utility corridor, an EA could be considered
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-18 Draft Report
Permitting Requirements and
Environmental Issues Overview
adequate to verify that a proposed transmission line project is compatible with that designation.
However, under the current NEPA implementation protocols of the U.S. Forest Service, the EA
and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes are becoming more similar and the
threshold for what could be significant is dropping". The U.S. Forest Service recommends that
a proponent expect their project be analyzed under the EIS process, thus removing the
uncertainty of the overall process.
" Personal communication D. Rogers, U.S. Forest Service with J. Gendron, CH2M Hill; July 20, 2005.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 3-19 Draft Report
#a
Costs to develop and construct the KPI have been estimated for the Northern and Center — South
alternatives. The cost estimate is based on an estimate of the required material quantities as
determined from a preliminary design12 of the selected overhead sections of the line, planned
underwater crossing configurations, and substation and switchyard requirements. Labor costs
have been estimated based on recent experience on similar projects as well as discussions with
individuals familiar with transmission line construction in Southeast Alaska. The estimated unit
costs of materials are based on quotes from vendors and recent experience with similar
construction projects.
The estimated costs of the KPI alternatives as provided in this section of the report include all
estimated costs of engineering and design, permitting, materials, equipment and construction.
Primary components of each line (e.g. overhead lines, submarine cables) are identified separately
in the cost estimate. Since the design of the KPI is still preliminary, a contingency factor of 15%
has been applied to all costs. As design proceeds and more precision can be used in estimating
the costs, the contingency included in the total cost estimate can possibly be lowered. In any
major project of this type, however, the actual cost of construction can vary significantly from
the engineer's estimate due to market conditions for the materials and services needed at the time
of procurement. As an example, metal prices were approaching historic all time highs in 2008;
with the current economic slowdown the prices have fallen some. Currently there is a high
degree of uncertainty associated with cost estimates. With the economic stimulus package
recently passed by the United States Congress, prices for transmission materials and labor could
actually increase due to an increase in spending on transmission infrastructure nationally.
Alternatively, if the stimulus package is unsuccessful in meeting its intended purpose prices for
labor and material could potentially fall significantly.
The cost estimates included in this report are based on the routing and technical information
described in Section 2. Primary characteristics of the line are 69-kV, single -pole construction
alongside existing roads. A 24 strand fiber-optic communication line is included along the entire
length of all alternatives. Submarine crossings are to be made with single 3-core, 69-kV, 500
kemil copper dielectric cables with a single layer outer shield and steel armor 13. The 24 strand
fiber-optic communication line is to be bundled into the cable. It is expected that KWETICO,
the potential owner of the transmission lines, will contract for all services of permitting, design,
construction and construction management. The estimated costs of these services are included in
the total cost estimate. Details of the submarine cable estimate and specifications of the cable
are shown in Appendix C.
12 A preliminary design of the overhead portion of the Center — South Route and selected overhead portions of the
Northern Route was prepared using PLS-CADD design software. The PLS-CADD software is an interactive tool
that assists the engineer selected the needed structures. From this preliminary design the required material quantities
have been derived. The PLS-CADD graphical layout drawings for the Center -South Route and the selected sections
of the Northern Route are provided in Appendix C.
13 The cost differential for 138-kV, 750 kemil conductor size cable has also been estimated.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-1 Draft Report
Estimated Costs of
Construction
In addition to the estimated direct costs of construction, indirect cost items have also been
estimated. Included among the indirect costs are the estimated costs of permitting, engineering,
surveys, structure staking, owner's administration, construction management and contingencies.
For the purpose of this estimate, the owner's administration cost is assumed to be 4% of the total
direct costs and the construction management cost is assumed to be 4% of the total direct cost.
The estimated cost of permitting is based on the costs shown in Section 3 of this report. The
assumed contingency amount of 15% has been applied to all direct and indirect costs. The
estimated cost of the submarine cables has been provided by a supplier of submarine cable
installation services. The total cost of the submarine cable as estimated by the supplier is
estimated to include an embedded contingency amount. Additional contingencies are not
included in the cost estimate prepared as part of this report.
The cost estimate for each route alternative includes the estimated cost of constructing an access
road along the transmission line route in areas where logging roads do not exist. If the Center -
North Route that traverses the Wilderness Area were to be pursued, a smaller, access trail would
be expected. Clearing of trees and brush will be needed along the right of way for each route;
however, in areas where the line will be built along existing roads, the clearing requirement will
be greatly reduced. The estimated net cost of clearing is $10,000 per acre, assuming the sale of
merchantable timber. For the Northern Route where the amount of merchantable timber is
estimated to be greater, the net cost of clearing is estimated to be $8,000 per acre14
The estimated cost of access road construction is $200,000 per mile in forested areas and
$230,000 per mile in muskeg areas. This cost includes clearing of a 60 foot -wide right-of-way, a
total 14 foot -wide road with a 10 to 12 foot -wide gravel covered surface and road bedding made
with typar or filter fabric. Access in the Wilderness Area is proposed to be provided via access
trail. The cost of the trail is estimated to be 75% of the access road or $150,000 for forested
section and $172,500 for the muskeg sections, both on a per mile basis.
The total area to be cleared and the length of road and trail construction for each route alternative
are shown in the following table.
14 Specific estimates for the value of merchantable timber are very preliminary at this point. The value of timber to
be removed from the right of way is subject to market conditions at the time of removal. Depending on the market
conditions, it may be more cost effective to leave timber along the side of the right of way rather than remove it.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-2 Draft Report
TABLE 4-1
Area to be Cleared (acres)
Access Road Construction (miles)
Forested Area
Muskeg Area
Total
Access Trail Construction (miles)
Forested Area
Muskeg Area
Total
Estimated Costs of
Construction
Route Alternative
Center- Center -
South North Northern
90 77 236
5.7 5.7 13.0
7.5 2.0 9.3
13.2 7.7 22.3
- 4.7 -
6.7 -
- 11.4 -
The estimated total construction costs for each alternative are summarized in the following table.
Preconstruction costs related to permitting, environmental studies and final design are not
included in the costs shown in Table 4-2.
TABLE 4-2
Estimated Comparable Costs of Construction for Each Route
($000)
Overhead Line
Clearing and Road Construction
Submarine Cables
Directional Bore Crossings
Switchyards and Substations
Subtotal - Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Contingency (15%)
Total Costs
Route Alternative
Center- Northern Northern
South w/Sub Cable w/Dir. Bore
$ 16,913
$
19,137
$
19,389
3,615
1,520
1,520
8,138
8,850
-
-
-
1,710
1,868
1,521
1,521
$ 30,534
$
31,028
$
24,140
$ 2,443
$
2,482
$
1,931
4,946
5,027
3,911
$ 37,922
$
38,537
$
29,982
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-3 Draft Report
Estimated Costs of
Construction
As shown in Table 4-2, the lowest cost alternative is the Northern Alternative with the
directional bore while the highest cost alternative is the Northern Alternative with the submarine
cable. The estimated cost of the Center -South Alternative shown in Table 4-2 is slightly lower
than the cost of the Northern route with the submarine cable. The Center -North route is
proposed to pass through the Petersburg Creek —Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area and as such,
the approval of this route is considered difficult at best. The estimated cost of the Center -South
route shown is somewhat higher than shown in the 2005 study 15. Reasons for the higher
estimated cost in this current study are much higher submarine cable material, installation and
freight costs, higher labor costs overall and higher material costs for other components in the KPI
system.
Detailed cost estimates for the route alternatives are shown in Tables 4-3, 4-4 and 4-5.
Costs have been developed for a single wood pole 69- kV transmission line. If a decision is
made to increase the voltage level to 138-kV it is estimated that on average the pole length
would increase by approximately 7 feet and in some cases the pole class would be one class
larger. The conductor and guying would essentially remain unchanged. Insulators for a 69-kV
line would normally be shorter and cost less, however the raptor protection guidelines
recommend no less than 60 inches of insulator length so it may be that the same insulators would
be used for either 69-kV or 138-kV. Also all labor for constructing the line, road building,
clearing, etc. would remain the same. Based on these assumptions, the estimated cost increase
for constructing a 138-kV line compared to a 69-kV line would be approximately 7%.
The cost difference associated with the substation related portion of the project will be from the
need to provide higher insulation and the purchase of equipment such as power circuit breakers
and transformers rated for 138-kV vs. 69-kV. The cost increase of the material and equipment is
estimated to be approximately 25%. However, the labor cost is estimated to remain the same,
making the overall cost increase of building the substations at 138-kV instead of 69-kV
approximately 10%.
The estimated cost differential for 69-kV submarine cables compared to 138-kV is about 13% for
the Northern Route and 8.5% for the Center -South Route. The cable manufacturer recommends
that for 138-kV submarine cables the conductor size be increased to 750 kcmil compared to 500
kcmil for 69-kV cables. In total, if the submarine cables were sized at 138-kV, the estimated
cost of the Northern Alternative would be $1,100,000 higher than shown in Table 4-2. The cost
of the Center -South route would be $625,000 higher if 138-kV submarine cables were used
instead of 69-kV.
15 The Center -South Route in this study is the same as defined in the 2005 Study. The estimated cost of the Center -
South Route alternative in the 2005 Study was $30,217,000.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-4 Draft Report
Estimated Costs of
Construction
Center -South Alternative
2009
Estimated Cost
Overhead Line
Material and Freight
Poles
$
1,217,000
Conductor
1,099,000
Insulators
625,000
Guys and Hardware
451,000
Fiber Optic Cable (ADSS 24 Strand)
406,000
Subtotal - Materials
$
3,798,000
Labor
$
8,465,000
Incidental and Other Direct Costs
Camp Cost / Food / Lodging
$
1,354,000
Rockdrills and Blasting Materials
339,000
Equipment and Tools
677,000
Fuel and Maintenance
677,000
Barge and Landing Craft
181,000
Air Transportation
113,000
Helicopter Use
451,000
Mobilization and Demobilization
677,000
Bond and Insurance
181,000
Subtotal - Incidental and Other Direct Costs
$
4,650,000
Subtotal - Overhead Line
$
16,913,000
Clearing and Road Construction
Clearing with Timber Credit
$
864,000
Road Construction - Forested Areas
1,095,000
Road Construction - Muskeg Areas
1,656,000
Subtotal
$
3,615,000
Submarine Cable - Wrangell Narrows T1-T2
Cable - 3-500 kcmil copper bundled, 69-kV, 24 fiber strands
$
1,218,800
Installation
2,125,000
Marine Survey
75,000
Shipping
350,000
Termination Facilities
300,000
Subtotal
$
4,068,800
Submarine Cable - Duncan Canal T6-T7
Cable - 3-500 kcmil copper bundled, 69-kV, 24 fiber strands
$
1,218,800
Installation
2,125,000
Marine Survey
75,000
Shipping
350,000
Termination Facilities
300,000
Subtotal
$
4,068,800
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-5 Draft Report
Kake - Petersburg Intertie
Petersburg Tap Switchyard
Estimated Costs of
Construction
Civil Site Prep & Foundations
$
158,000
Ground Grid and Fencing
68,000
Bus Works
45,000
Control Cable and Conduit
41,000
SCADA and Control Interface
43,000
Sectionalizing Switch (2) (5)
112,000
Breaker & CT (1) (2)
198,000
Relaying, PT
36,000
Revenue Metering
47,000
Station Service and battery
77,000
Installation Labor
180,000
Shunt Reactor and Disc SW
-
Subtotal
$
1,005,000
Kake Substation
Civil Site Prep & Foundations
$
136,000
Ground Grid and Fencing
45,000
Bus Works
34,000
Control Cable and Conduit
33,000
SCADA and Control Interface
40,000
Fuses/Switches
40,000
Transformer-69/12.5-kV, 2.5 MVA, Relaying, LA, etc.
272,000
Voltage Regulators/Bypass Switches
34,000
Recloser/Disconnect Switch
34,000
Relaying PT
36,000
Installation Labor
91,000
Station Service and Battery
68,000
Subtotal
$
863,000
Total Direct Costs
$
30,533,600
Indirect Costs
Construction Management (4% of Direct Costs)
1,221,300
Owners Administration (4% of Direct Costs)
1,221,300
Subtotal - Indirect Costs
$
2,442,600
Contingency -15%
4,946,000
Total Project Cost
$
37,922,200
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-6 Draft Report
Estimated Costs of
Construction
TABLE 4-4 (Page 1 of 2)
Estimated Cost of Project Construction
Kake - Petersburg Intertie
o.
2009
Estimated Cost
Overhead Line
Material and Freight
Poles $ 1,482,000
Conductor 1,064,000
Insulators 768,000
Guys and Hardware 503,000
Fiber Optic Cable (ADSS 24 Strand) 393,000
Subtotal - Materials $ 4,210,000
Labor
$
10,350,000
Incidental and Other Direct Costs
Camp Cost/ Food / Lodging
$
1,413,000
Rockdrills and Blasting Materials
312,000
Equipment and Tools
703,000
Fuel and Maintenance
703,000
Barge and Landing Craft
178,000
Air Transportation
89,000
Helicopter Use
486,000
Mobilization and Demobilization
533,000
Bond and Insurance
160,000
Subtotal - Incidental and Other Direct Costs
$
4,577,000
Subtotal - Overhead Line
$
19,137,000
Clearing and Road Construction
Clearing with Timber Credit
$
1,520,000
Road Construction - Forested Areas
-
Road Construction - Muskeg Areas
-
Subtotal
$
1,520,000
Submarine Cable - Wrangell Narrows S1-S2
Cable - 3-500 kcmil copper bundled, 69-kV, 24 fiber strands $ 3,750,000
Installation 4,000,000
Marine Survey 100,000
Shipping 700,000
Termination Facilities 300,000
Subtotal $ 8,850,000
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-7 Draft Report
Kake - Petersburg Intertie
Petersburg Tap Switchyard
Estimated Costs of
Construction
Civil Site Prep & Foundations
$ 72,000
Ground Grid and Fencing
36,000
Bus Works
33,000
Control Cable and Conduit
22,000
SCADA and Control Interface
18,000
Sectionalizing Switch (2)
77,000
Disconnect Switches
36,000
Breaker & CT
99,000
Relaying, PT
38,000
Revenue Metering
47,000
Installation Labor
90,000
Station Service and Battery
90,000
Shunt Reactor and Disc SW
-
Subtotal
$ 658,000
Kake Substation
Civil Site Prep & Foundations
$
136,000
Ground Grid and Fencing
45,000
Bus Works
34,000
Control Cable and Conduit
33,000
SCADA and Control Interface
40,000
Fuses/Switches
40,000
Transformer-69/12.5-kV, 2.5 MVA, Relaying, LA, etc.
272,000
Voltage Regulators/Bypass Switches
34,000
Recloser/Disconnect Switch
34,000
Relaying PT
36,000
Installation Labor
91,000
Station Service and Battery
68,000
Subtotal
$
863,000
Total Direct Costs
$
31,028,000
Indirect Costs
Construction Management (4% of Direct Costs)
1,241,100
Owners Administration (4% of Direct Costs)
1,241,100
Subtotal - Indirect Costs
$
2,482,200
Contingency -15%
5,027,000
Total Project Cost
$
38,537,200
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-8 Draft Report
Estimated Costs of
Construction
(PageTABLE 4-5
Petersburg Intertie
2009
Estimated Cost
Overhead Line
Material and Freight
Poles
$
1,517,000
Conductor
1,090,000
Insulators
787,000
Guys and Hardware
515,000
Fiber Optic Cable (ADSS 24 Strand)
403,000
Subtotal - Materials
$
4,312,000
Labor
$
10,500,000
Incidental and Other Direct Costs
Camp Cost/ Food / Lodging
$
1,413,000
Rockdrills and Blasting Materials
312,000
Equipment and Tools
703,000
Fuel and Maintenance
703,000
Barge and Landing Craft
178,000
Air Transportation
89,000
Helicopter Use
486,000
Mobilization and Demobilization
533,000
Bond and Insurance
160,000
Subtotal - Incidental and Other Direct Costs
$
4,577,000
Subtotal - Overhead Line
$
19,389,000
Clearing and Road Construction
Clearing with Timber Credit
$
1,520,000
Road Construction - Forested Areas
-
Road Construction - Muskeg Areas
-
Subtotal
$
1,520,000
Underwater Crossings - Wrangell Narrows, Petersburg Creek
Conductors - 6,600 ft., 69-kV, 500 kcmil
$
140,000
Installation Mobilization
315,000
Directional Bore and HDPE Conduit Installation
840,000
Cable Pulling
75,000
Conduit - 21200 ft., 10" SDR-11 HDPE Pipe, Misc. Materials
90,000
Shipping
50,000
Termination Facilities
200,000
Subtotal
$
1,710,000
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-9 Draft Report
Kake - Petersburg Intertie
Petersburg Tap Switchyard
Estimated Costs of
Construction
Civil Site Prep & Foundations
$ 72,000
Ground Grid and Fencing
36,000
Bus Works
33,000
Control Cable and Conduit
22,000
SCADA and Control Interface
18,000
Sectionalizing Switch (2)
77,000
Disconnect Switches
36,000
Breaker & CT
99,000
Relaying, PT
38,000
Revenue Metering
47,000
Installation Labor
90,000
Station Service and Battery
90,000
Shunt Reactor and Disc SW
-
Subtotal
$ 658,000
Kake Substation
Civil Site Prep & Foundations
$
136,000
Ground Grid and Fencing
45,000
Bus Works
34,000
Control Cable and Conduit
33,000
SCADA and Control Interface
40,000
Fuses/Switches
40,000
Transformer-69/12.5-kV, 2.5 MVA, Relaying, LA, etc.
272,000
Voltage Regulators/Bypass Switches
34,000
Recloser/Disconnect Switch
34,000
Relaying PT
36,000
Installation Labor
91,000
Station Service and Battery
68,000
Subtotal
$
863,000
Total Direct Costs
$
24,140,000
Indirect Costs
Construction Management (4% of Direct Costs)
965,600
Owners Administration (4% of Direct Costs)
965,600
Subtotal - Indirect Costs
$
1,931,200
Contingency -15%
3,911,000
Total Project Cost
$
29,982,200
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 4-10 Draft Report
01
The KPI construction cost estimates provided in Section 4 include the estimated costs of several
activities prior to actual construction. Included among these activities are preliminary design,
geotechnical surveys, permitting and environmental studies, and final design. The actual time
required to perform these activities and when they would be performed will depend on a number
of factors. An example development schedule has been prepared to indicate what activities
would be performed and what the activity duration would be for development of the KPI.
An integral part of the development of any project requiring a significant degree of grant funding
is the pursuit and approval of funding sources. The time required for this effort cannot be
reliably predicted. In addition, there will be a number of permits and approvals needed to
construct the Interties as indicated in Section 3 of this report. The time required to obtain the
necessary permits is often influenced by the degree of public support or opposition to the
projects. Further, various commercial arrangements will be needed to allow for the effective
utilization of the KPI. Such arrangements would include power sales agreements and contracts.
The preparation of certain information needed in the permitting process, such as route diagrams
and technical descriptions, will necessitate that certain engineering work be accomplished fairly
early in the process. The expected duration of permitting activities for the KPI is approximately
two years. In order to expedite the development process, it would be recommended that
preliminary engineering and route alignment activities be conducted concurrently with early
permitting work and environmental studies.
The project development approach outlined below is based upon construction being undertaken
by a contractor(s) using plans and technical specifications prepared by an engineering firm
experienced with overhead transmission line design. Major equipment and materials would be
obtained by KWETICO with installation performed by a construction contractor. An
engineering firm, working as the Owner's Project Engineer would manage and oversee specialty
engineering services. Various activities related to the engineering function of project
development are described in the following paragraphs.
Selection of Project Team
Typically owners select a Project Manager (with appropriate experience) and contract with
specialty firms to provide the required services. Engineering and related specialty areas include:
® Project Management
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 5-1 Draft Report
Example Project
Development Schedule
® Preliminary and Final Engineering
® Engineering survey
® Geotechnical Investigations
® Easements, Land Rights, property survey
® Logging and Clearing Specialist
® Construction Specialist
The engineering team would be charged with developing and implementing a detailed work plan,
schedule and budget to accomplish the Project on schedule and within budget.
Alignment Definition
One of the first tasks required to move the Project forward will be to refine the conceptual design
and the selected route. Construction, operation and maintenance issues will be discussed in
detail with the owner and the owner's operating personnel to identify project requirements.
During this phase a transmission line design engineer and other specialists would initiate a
detailed review of the route identifying any routing concerns or route improvements. This work
will require coordination with the environmental and permitting specialist knowledgeable with
the area. Incorporating input from the various specialists, a specific alignment will be selected.
Selection of the specific alignment will consider:
® Specific site locations of Tap, Substation, Submarine Crossings
® Alignment of logging road
® Potential alignment of DOTPF road to Kake
• Location of clear -cuts, size of trees
• Geotechnical investigation of route and substation sites
® Terrain elevation differences
• Environmental or cultural avoidance areas
® Location of eagle trees
® Location of good soils for structure stability
® Visual Concerns
® Land ownership
Engineering Survey
An engineering survey will be obtained once a specific alignment is identified in the field and
tied down with specific coordinates. The engineering survey will locate physical features in plan
and determine elevations along the alignment within the defined corridor. Plan/profile drawings
will be developed from the field survey.
There are several types of surveying methods which could be utilized on a project such as the
Interties. One which may prove economical while also providing great flexibility in allowing
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 5-2 Draft Report
Example Project
Development Schedule
adjustments during preliminary design without requiring follow-up visits for additional surveys
is LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging).
LIDAR, in summary, uses a laser and receivers mounted generally on a helicopter to scan an area
from low altitude and collect survey data. The helicopter has airborne global positioning system
(GPS) capability and also ties into ground stations established at about every 25 mile radius. The
laser sends out several thousand pulses per second and the returns are collected by the receivers
mounted on outriggers.
The data is collected as a series of X,V,Z points tied to a reference grid such as State Plain
Coordinates. The huge amount of data collected in the field is filtered and reduced into separate
files such as ground, existing structures, existing wires and vegetation. These files can then be
imported into design programs such as PLS-Cad. In PLS-Cad, the designer can create a surface
wire -frame model from which profiles can be cut once the alignment is established. Because of
the very dense coverage, (points are separated by a couple of feet within a 200` to 1,000` wide
corridor) the surface model will result in very precise profiles. Refinements may be made to
enhance the alignment following a review of the plan/profile drawings.
A similar effort will be necessary for the substation sites where new or revised stations will be
necessary. This will most likely be accomplished with standard ground based surveying
methods. This will provide the engineers with data necessary to begin cut and fill calculations
and to proceed with plot plans and complete foundation designs.
Preliminary Engineering
Depending on the selected route, much of the preliminary engineering work needed for the KPI
has been accomplished. The objective of the preliminary design task is to finalize design criteria
and to complete sufficient design calculations to determine the general layout and sizing of major
facility components. Preliminary engineering will proceed simultaneously with the alignment
definition phase. The preliminary design phase will include additional system studies and
discussions with the owner's operating personnel to refine and determine:
• System protection plan
• One -line drawings of system
® Equipment and conductor sizes
® Voltage drop and power flow
® Appropriate insulation
® Need for reactors
® Preliminary station layouts
Preliminary engineering will also determine all of the detail design parameters and will result in
issuance of a Basis of Design documenting design requirements for the line and substations. The
line related Basis of Design would include matters such as:
® Codes and Standards
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 5-3 Draft Report
Example Project
Development Schedule
• Clearance requirements (horizontal and vertical)
® Conductor tension limits
® Sag/tension data
• Physical loading requirements
• Overload capacity factors
• Grounding requirements
® Clearing requirements
• Right-of-way constraints
® Framing requirements
• Guy and anchor requirements
A similar Basis of Design would be developed for the station related work.
Geotecnical Investigations
Subsurface soils investigations will be required at the major equipment locations (substation,
termination locations and tap points). Experienced geotechnical personnel will review the entire
route and observe road cuts and perform excavation of test pits along the route. Using the data
collected tempered with experience, a subsurface profile will be developed identifying the
subsurface profile and key avoidance areas.
19tMI! 1=
Final design will involve the completion and documentation of design calculations, special
analysis, development of construction drawings, development of construction and material
specifications, and development of final material lists. During final design, specific pole
locations, framing, pole size, guy leads and anchor types will be determined for each structure
along the alignment. Locations will be staked and field reviewed. For the substation equipment
and where needed for line structures the foundations, grounding, and fencing will be sized and
designed as appropriate.
Initiate Construction and Material Procurement Contracts
This function would involve the preparation of bid documents and specifications for vendors and
suppliers to base bids for materials and construction services. Much of the material needed for
the overhead portions of the Intertie can be obtained relatively quickly. The submarine cables
would require a longer lead time and in particular, delivery of the cables and arranging for
installation could require more than a year. Flexibility in the schedule with regard to the cable
procurement could significantly affect the delivered and installed cost of the cable.
In general, it is expected that the procurement of materials and construction services would be
conducted through the solicitation of bids and award of contracts to vendors and contractors
early in the year in which construction is expected to commence. The first year of construction
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 5-4 Draft Report
Example Project
Development Schedule
activity is not expected to require significant material deliveries so a full year of lead time on
material manufacturing and delivery would be allowed for in the schedule.
A two-year or three-year construction duration is expected for the KPI. A three-year project is
shown below. It is possible it could be compressed into two years, but the decision should be
delayed until the final route is known and the design complete or at least significantly underway.
The major activities to be undertaken in each year are as follows:
Year I
® Construct needed access roads and trails
® Where existing roads exist and would allow the following, complete:
Year 2
o Alignment clearing
o Construction of work pads, as required
o Construction of other key components, as appropriate
Pole setting or line construction
Where new roads were built in year I
o Alignment clearing
o Construction of work pads, as required
o Construction of other key components, as appropriate
Year 3
® Completion of overhead line construction
® Installation of submarine cables
® Substation and switchyard construction
The actual time required to install the submarine cables is quite short, possibly just a few days.
As such, they can be installed at anytime in the last year of the construction period, potentially at
the very end of the process just before energizing the new line.
Assuming that funding were available, or at least reasonably assured, and arrangements needed
to proceed with the KPI were approved, it is estimated that a three to four year development and
construction schedule could be accomplished for the KPI.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 5-5 Draft Report
Overview
Hydroelectric generating facilities and diesel generators provide nearly all of the electric power
generation in Southeast Alaska 16. Elsewhere in Alaska, natural gas and coal are used to provide
a significant portion of the electrical power supply; however, these fuels are not commercially
available in Southeast Alaska. The State and federal government, as well as certain communities
and utilities have developed the existing hydroelectric generating plants in Southeast Alaska.
Hydroelectric facilities require specific site conditions and generally have high initial
development costs. The effective costs of hydroelectric development can be made even higher
by the need to construct projects larger than the present electric loads require. This can create a
surplus energy generation capability from hydroelectric plants, sometimes for a significant length
of time.
The availability of diesel fuel, the ease of installing diesel generators in a wide range of
capacities and relatively low initial costs have made diesel engine generators the generator of
choice in most remote locations including Southeast Alaska. The operating and maintenance
(O&M) expenses associated with diesel generators, however, often make them more costly than
hydroelectric generation plants in the long run. Potential interruptions in fuel delivery, the
susceptibility of fuel prices to wide variation, noise and air pollution issues are other negative
aspects of diesel generation. Where available, hydroelectric generation is preferred to diesel
generation.
The primary purpose of the KPI will be to transmit power generated at the Southeast Alaska
Power Agency's (SEAPA) Tyee Lake hydroelectric project to Kake where diesel generation is
the only source of power supply. At the present time, significant additional hydroelectric energy
capability is available at the Tyee Lake project. Another significant benefit of the KPI would be
that new hydroelectric projects could potentially be developed in the interconnected area. With
the KPI and the Swan-Tyee Intertie, a much larger regional power supply system would exist
that would allow for better utilization of existing generating resources as well as encourage
development of the most cost effective new hydroelectric facilities available in the region.
The electric power requirements of all the interconnected load centers involved with the KPI are
important to the evaluation of the KPI feasibility. Projections of power requirements have been
compiled for Kake, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan, all of which currently rely upon the
output of the Tyee Lake project or will be connected to Tyee Lake through the construction of
new transmission facilities. In the past two years, the high price of fuel oil has encouraged
16 In the past, pulp mills in Ketchikan and Sitka used production waste materials as a boiler fuel to drive steam
turbines.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-1 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
residential, commercial and government facilities in Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan to
covert to electric space heating systems. This has resulted in higher electric loads in these
communities, a trend which is expected to continue in the near future.
The KPI will be used to transmit hydroelectric energy that is either surplus to the needs of the
interconnected SEAPA members (Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan) or from interconnected
hydroelectric plants to be built in the future17. Consequently, it is important to evaluate the
availability of the surplus generation and identify potential new hydroelectric resources that can
be developed to economically provide additional energy to the interconnected systems, as
needed, in the future. Although transmission lines are generally very reliable, power deliveries
over the KPI will need to be considered interruptible. As such, local generation sufficient to
supply loads if the transmission lines are down due to unplanned outages or maintenance will
continue to be needed in Kake.
It is also important to note the commercial and contractual arrangements that are in place that
could potentially limit the availability of power resources for sale to other utility systems. For
example, the Tyee Lake project is owned and operated by the SEAPA and its output is sold to
Petersburg and Wrangell pursuant to the SEAPA Power Sales Agreement. Petersburg, Wrangell
and eventually Ketchikan when it is interconnected, will always have first priority to the output
of the Tyee Lake Project pursuant to the Power Sales Agreement.
Power Requirements
Electric power requirements have been projected for KPI interconnected utilities for a ten-year
projection period. For Kake, the power requirement projections are based on assumed growth
rates applied to recently experienced loads. Power requirements for Ketchikan, Petersburg and
Wrangell have been compiled from previously prepared SEAPA planning studies. The existing
loads of the utilities are shown in Table 6-1.
" Other existing hydroelectric facilities used to supply power to Petersburg and Ketchikan are fully utilized.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-2 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
TABLE 6-1
2008 Energy Loads (MWh)'
Energy Sales (MWh)
Energy Reqs. 3
Peak
Firm Non -Firm z Total
(MWh)
(kW)
Petersburg 41,752 - 41,752
47,768
9,020
Wrangell 23,160 2,598 25,758
28,192
4,100
Ketchikan 154,803 - 154,803
164,805
29,000
IPEC -Kake 1,753 543 2,296 2,608 485
1 Data shown for Ketchikan is for 2007.
Z Non -firm, or interruptible energy sales can be curtailed under certain circumstances. Sales shown are to
the Silver Bay sawmill in Wrangell and to Kake Seafood's in Kake.
Energy requirements are the summation of total generation and total power purchases.
The basis for and assumptions used in preparing the projected power requirements for each of
the load centers are described in the following paragraphs.
Petersburg and Wrangell are both municipally owned electric utilities interconnected with each
other by the Tyee Lake transmission line.
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMPL) provides electric service to the residents and
businesses of Petersburg and the surrounding area. In its fiscal year 2008, PMPL sold 41,752
MWh of electric energy to its 1,374 residential, 393 harbor, 302 small commercial, and 33 large
commercial electric customers. Energy sales to a large seafood processing facility in Petersburg
represented approximately 14 percent of PMPL's total energy sales in 2008. Total revenues
from sales of electricity in 2008 were $4,787,753 representing average unit revenues of 11.5
cents per kWh. The total system peak demand was 9.0 MW and total energy requirements were
47,768 MWh in 2008.
PMPL owns and operates the 2.0 MW Blind Slough hydroelectric project with an average annual
energy generation capability of approximately 11,500 MWh. PMPL fully utilizes the output of
its own hydroelectric facility each year and purchases power from Tyee Lake to supply its
remain4 power supply requirement. PMPL has 6.6 MW of reliable diesel generation
capacity' . Diesel generation is the most costly of PMPL's power supply resources and is
typically only needed when the Tyee Lake project is unavailable due to maintenance or repair
activities.
18 Although PMPL has 10.1 MW of installed capacity at its diesel powerplant, 3.5 MW of this capacity is in poor
condition and unreliable.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-3 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
Total PMPL energy requirements in the past few years have increased moderately, with an
average increase of 4.8% per year between 2004 and 2008. In the near future, total energy
requirements are forecasted to increase slightly at an average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent
for the medium growth rate scenario. Contributing to near tern load growth is a significant
conversion to electric space heat by residential and commercial electric consumers in Petersburg.
Wrangell Municipal Light c& Power
Wrangell Municipal Light & Power (WMLP) provides electric service to the residents and
businesses of Wrangell and the surrounding area. In its fiscal year 2008, WMLP sold 23,160
MWh of electric energy to its 1,059 residential, 496 small commercial, eight large commercial,
one industrial and one municipal electric customers. An additional 2,655 MWh of interruptible
energy was sold to the Silver Bay sawmill in 2008. Total energy sales to the sawmill represented
approximately 10.3 percent of WMLP's total energy sales in 2008. The combined energy
requirements of two seafood processors represented another 5.7 percent of WMLP's total energy
sales in 2008.
Total revenues from sales of electricity in 2008 were $2,504,891, excluding revenues from
interruptible sales, representing average unit revenue of 10.8 cents per kWh. Energy sold by
WMLP to the sawmill is purchased from SEAPA at a reduced, interruptible rate. The total
system peak demand was 4.1 MW and total energy requirements were 28,114 MWh in 2008.
WMLP owns and operates 8.4 MW of diesel generation capacity. Typically, WMLP supplies its
entire power supply requirement from the Tyee Lake project although some diesel generation is
used when the Tyee Lake project is unavailable due to maintenance or repair activities. WMLP
and PMPL purchase power from Tyee Lake through the SEAPA.
Total WMLP energy requirements in the past few years have remained relatively steady although
a fairly significant increase in retail energy sales occurred in 2008, primarily as a result of
conversions to electric space heat by residential and commercial customers. In the near future,
total energy requirements, net of interruptible energy sales, are forecasted to increase slightly in
2009 and each year thereafter as conversions to electric space heat continue to be realized in the
community. The Silver Bay sawmill closed its operation in 2008 and was sold to a new owner
which has indicated it intends to reopen the mill after modifications to the facility are made. No
interruptible power sales to the sawmill are included in the forecast of WMLP energy sales for
fiscal year 2009 but energy sales are assumed to resume in 2010 and continue thereafter.
Forecasted Power Requirements
Electric loads in Petersburg and Wrangell have been projected recently with regard to studies
conducted in conjunction with a SEAPA bond issue. Loads in Petersburg are assumed to
increase at average annual rates of 0.5%, 0.0% and 2.0% for medium, low and high forecast
scenarios, respectively. Loads in Wrangell are assumed to increase at average annual rates of
0.5%, 0.0% and 1.0% for medium, low and high forecast scenarios, respectively. In the medium
and low load growth scenarios no energy sales are assumed to be made to the sawmill in
Wrangell. For the high growth scenario, it is assumed that energy sales to the sawmill will be
5,000 MWh per year.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-4 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
Forecasted loads for Wrangell and Petersburg are summarized in the following table.
TABLE 6-2
Petersburg and Wrangell
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Energy Requirements (MWh)
Petersburg 1
51,100
52,400
53,700
54,500
54,380
Wrangell
29,220
29,490
29,760
30,030
30,180
Total
80,320
81,890
83,460
84,530
84,560
Less: Petersburg Hydros
(11,500)
(11,500)
(11,500)
(11,500)
(11,500)
Less: Minimal Diesel 4
(1,300)
(1,300)
(1,300)
(1,300)
(1,300)
Net Requirement on Tyee 5
67,520
69,090
70,660
71,730
71,760
1 Assumes average growth in energy requirements ranging from 3.75% in 2009 to 1.0% in 2014 and each
year thereafter.
2 Assumes average growth in energy requirements ranging from 5.0% in 2009 to 0.5% in 2014 and each
year thereafter. Assumes 2,500 MWh energy sales to sawmill in each year.
3 Estimated average annual generation from PMP&L's Blind Slough hydroelectric project.
4 Estimated diesel generation needed for backup and maintenance purposes.
5 Projected net energy requirement of PMP&L and WIVIL&P on the Tyee Lake hydroelectric project.
,.r
Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU), a municipally owned electric utility, is the second largest
electric utility system in Southeast Alaska. KPU obtains the majority of its power supply from
KPU-owned hydroelectric projects and the Swan Lake project, a SEAPA project. In most years,
KPU's electric loads exceed the available hydroelectric generation capability and diesel
generators must be used to supply the net power requirement. The SEAPA is presently
constructing the Swan-Tyee Intertie to gain access to the surplus generation capability of the
Tyee Lake project19. The electric requirements of KPU will affect the net generation available to
Kake from the Tyee Lake project.
KPU provides electric and telephone service to the residents and businesses of Ketchikan and the
surrounding Ketchikan Gateway Borough and provides water service within the city limits. In
2007, KPU sold 154,803 MWh of electric energy to its 5,677 residential, 1,091 commercial, 14
industrial and 523 other electric customers. Of the total energy sales in 2007, approximately 40
percent, 44 percent and 13 percent were to residential, commercial and industrial customers,
respectively. Total revenues from sales of electricity in 2007 were $14,795,312 representing
average unit revenues of 9.6 cents per kWh. The total system peak demand was 29 MW and
total energy requirements were 164,805 MWh in 2007.
KPU owns and operates 11.7 MW of hydroelectric generating capacity at three separate facilities
located relatively close to Ketchikan and 23.0 MW of diesel generation capacity located in its
19 Construction of the Swan — Tyee Intertie is expected to be completed in late 2009.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-5 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
Bailey Powerplant. The average annual energy generation capability of the KPU-owned
hydroelectric facilities is approximately 74,000 MWh. In general, KPU fully utilizes the output
of its own hydroelectric facilities each year and purchases power from Swan Lake to supply its
remaining power supply requirement. Diesel generation, which is the most costly of KPU's
power supply resources, is used as needed to supplement the output of the KPU hydroelectric
facilities and Swan Lake.
With completion of the Swan — Tyee Intertie, KPU will purchase power from the Tyee Lake
project to supplant nearly all of its expected diesel generation in the near to mid future. Electric
loads are assumed to increase at average annual rates of between 2.5% per year in 2009 and
1.0% in 2014 and thereafter. KPU's forecasted electric requirements are summarized in the
following table.
TABLE 6-3
Ketchikan Public Utilities
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Energy Requirements (MWh) 1
173,100
175,700
178,300
181,000
181,770
Less: KPU Hydro 2
(74,000)
(74,000)
(74,000)
(74,000)
(74,000)
Less: Swan Lake 3
(75,800)
(75,800)
(75,800)
(75,800)
(75,800)
Net Requirement 4
23,300
25,900
28,500
31,200
31,970
Assumes average growth in energy requirements ranging from 2.5% in 2009 to 1.0% in 2014 and each
year thereafter.
2 Estimated annual energy generation from KPU-owned hydroelectric projects assuming average
precipitation levels.
3 Estimated annual generation from the Swan Lake hydroelectric project assuming average precipitation
levels.
4 Projected net energy requirement to be provided from diesel generation, new hydro project generation
or the Tyee Lake hydroelectric project.
Electric service is provided to the residents and businesses of Kake by IPEC. In 2008, there
were 246 residential customers, 65 commercial customers and 10 public facility customers in
Kake. Average monthly energy consumption of about 366 kWh per residential customer in 2008
is significantly lower than that experienced in larger cities in Southeast Alaska. In Ketchikan,
Petersburg and Wrangell, average monthly energy consumption is approximately 1,000 kWh,
920 kWh and 725 kWh, respectively 20. The low residential energy consumption in Kake is a
reflection of the high retail cost of power, which averaged 60.3 cents per kWh21 to residential
20 Based on 2007 sales data for residential customers.
2' The effective rate to residential customers was lowered by the State's Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program to
approximately 22 cents per kWh in 2007 for the first 500 kWh purchased each month. Although the PCE program
provides a significant subsidization of residential power costs, it also provides an incentive to limit power
consumption to 500 kWh per month or less. It should also be noted that the funding of the PCE program is granted
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-6 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
customers in 2008. Commercial rates are also in this range and undoubtedly function to
significantly limit electrical consumption by commercial customers.
The number of electric customers in Kake has dropped about 12.0% since 2000, although total
customers served has remained relatively constant between 2005 and 2008. Total annual energy
sales remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2003 mostly due to interruptible sales,
however, energy sales to residential and commercial customers have declined steadily through
2008. In 2004, the closure of Kake Seafoods, a seafood processing facility, contributed to an
overall 32% drop in energy sales in Kake in 2004. Kake Seafoods restarted operations briefly in
2006 but is presently not in operation. In total, the interruptible energy sales rate in Kake was
about 40 cents per kWh in 2008. While in operation, Kake Seafoods had purchased a significant
amount of interruptible energy from IPEC. Annual energy sales by customer class for the period
2000 through 2008 are shown in Figure 6-1.
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
s
s
N
2,500,000
T
m
Gf
W 2,000,000
t6
C
C
Q 1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
FIGURE 6-1
Annual Energy Sales in Kake by Customer Class
(kWh)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ®Public Facilities ❑Interruptible
For the purpose of this analysis assuming the KPI is built, the number of residential customers
served in Kake is assumed to increase 3% per year beginning in 2011. This is a higher rate of
by the State legislature on an annual basis and no guarantees can be provided with regard to its continuation in the
future.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-7 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
growth than would be expected without the KPI, reflecting increased economic activity in the
community with lower power costs. Commercial and public facility customers served in Kake
have been assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 1 % per year. Energy use per account
is assumed to increase approximately 1.0% per year for residential customers; however, higher
rates of increase in energy consumption would be expected for commercial customers with lower
electricity rates. In general, it is assumed that commercial energy consumption in Kake would
increase to levels experienced in the early 2000's after the KPI becomes operational. Without
the KPI, there has been little indicated that would cause a significant increase in electric energy
requirements.
If the KPI and other factors22 contribute to the lowering of IPEC's retail rates, electric
consumption could increase even further. There may also be opportunities to sell additional
energy to customers that may be using their own generators at the present time, however, the
amount of energy that this would represent is not known.
With the KPI, IPEC may be able to offer an economic incentive power sales rate to new
commercial/industrial customers that might encourage economic development in the Kake area
and increase energy sales. The economic incentive rate would be tied to the incremental cost of
purchased power over the KPI and could be significantly lower than IPEC's current interruptible
rate. The impact of an economic incentive rate on Kake energy sales cannot be predicted and
consequently, is not reflected in the analysis at the present time.
The projected power requirements for Kake are summarized in the following table.
TABLE 6-4.
IPEC - Kake Service Area
Projected Energy Loads and Capacity Requirements with the KPI
Historical
Projected
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Energy Sales (MWh)
Residential
1,150
1,111
1,080
1,099
1,119
1,167
1,215
1,264
1,314
1,365
Commercial
550
534
525
534
543
553
562
606
654
705
Interruptible 1
1,152
431
543
549
554
560
565
571
577
1,153
Public Facilities
125
147
148
142
145
148
151
155
158
161
Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Sales
2,976
2,224
2,296
2,324
2,362
2,427
2,493
2,S95
2,702
3,384
Increase % Z
29.9%
-25.3%
3.2%
1.2%
1.6%
2.8%
2.7%
4.1%
4.1%
25.3%
Station Service/Own Use
88
83
81
34
34
35
36
37
39
49
Street Lights
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
Losses
212
177
152
160
162
167
171
178
185
231
Total Generation (MWh)
3,355
2,563
2,608
2,597
2,637
2,708
2,779
2,889
3,005
3,743
Loss % of Gen. a
6.3%
6.9%
5.8%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
Peak Demand (kW)
920
496
485
593
602
618
634
660
686
855
Loadfactor 4
41.6%
59.0%
61.4%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
22 IPEC has indicated that it could potentially
restructure rates to
be community rather than
total utility
based. This
would potentially allow for lower rates in Kake relative
to IPEC rates if the KPI were constructed.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update
6-8
Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
1 Assumes interruptible sales will remain relatively constant in the near future but will increase to 2006 levels in 2015.
2 Increase in total sales over previous year.
3 Distribution losses and energy unaccounted for. Projected losses based on recent experience.
4 Ratio of average demand to peak demand on an annual basis. Projected loadfactor based on recent experience.
Availability of Hydroelectric Generation
Based on the foregoing projections of power requirements and the generating capabilities of the
existing hydroelectric facilities, the net hydroelectric generation available for sale to Kake can be
estimated. It is important to note that hydroelectric generation capability is shown as an annual
average. Actual generation can vary significantly from year to year based on local precipitation
and other factors.
The generating capability of the 22-MW Tyee Lake project is presently committed to Petersburg
and Wrangell. The Swan-Tyee transmission Intertie, currently under construction, will provide
Ketchikan with access to generation from the Tyee Lake project that is surplus to the needs of
Petersburg and Wrangell. Generally, it has been estimated that under average water conditions,
the annual energy generation capability of the project is about 128,000 MWh.
Hydroelectric generation is highly variable from year to year depending on local precipitation
and other environmental conditions. As previously indicated, the average annual estimated
energy generation capability of the Tyee Lake project is 128,000 MWh. Under dry, low water
conditions23, the energy generation is estimated to be 112,700 MWh whereas it could be as high
as 154,800 MWh.
The following table summarizes the energy generation available from the Tyee Lake project
assuming average annual energy generation of 128,000 MWh from the project.
TABLE 6-5
Estimated Hydroelectric Energy Generation Available
From the Tyee Lake Project — Medium Growth, Average Water
Lake Tyee Generation 1
Energy Requirements 2
Petersburg/Wrangell
Ketchikan
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2019
12 8, 000 12 8, 000 128,000 128,000 128,000 12 8, 000
67,520 69,090 70,660 71,730 71,760 75,220
23,300 25,900 28,500 31,200 31,970 41,240
Net Energy Available 3 37,180 33,010 28,840 25,070 24,270 11,540
1 Assumed generation for purpose of this analysis. Actual generation will vary from year to year.
Z Based on medium growth scenario, see Tables 6-4 and 6-5. Assumes completion of Swan-Tyee Intertie in 2009.
23 Alternative energy generation estimates are typically derived using the lowest and highest measured streamflow
data of record at the project location.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-9 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
3 Estimated annual generation from the Tyee Lake project available to Kake.
As shown in the previous table, the net energy generation available from the Tyee Lake project
in 2013 is 25,070 MWh assuming average water conditions and medium load growth in
Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan. This is more than enough energy to meet the projected
energy requirement of 2,889 MWh in Kake in the same year. By 2019, available energy from
Tyee Lake is estimated to drop to 11,540 MWh and, as loads continue to increase in Petersburg,
Wrangell and Ketchikan, the available energy from Tyee Lake will continue to decline. Further,
in dryer than average conditions, the available energy from Tyee Lake will be less than shown in
Table 6-5, potentially by as much as 16,000 MWh in any particular year. If energy generation is
not available from Tyee Lake, IPEC will need to use its diesel generators in Kake to supply the
necessary power requirement or purchase power from other utilities. As loads continue to grow
in the interconnected region, however, new hydroelectric generation facilities could be
constructed. The cost of power from these new facilities will potentially be higher than the cost
of power from the Tyee Lake project.
It is also important to note that the estimated surplus energy capability of the Tyee Lake project
is sufficient to supply the loads of potential mining loads in the area for a few years.
Potential New Hydroelectric Generation Facilities
A number of new hydroelectric projects have been studied that could serve the Petersburg,
Wrangell, Ketchikan, and Kake areas. Costs of these projects, as well as other factors including
location, generating capacity, interconnected loads and the availability of better alternatives have
precluded development of these projects. The development of a transmission interconnection
system could make development of some of these projects economically and technically feasible
at some later date. Hydroelectric projects that have been identified, the community they are
closest to, and their estimated capacity and annual energy generation, include the following:
® Tyee Lake Third Turbine24 — Petersburg/Wrangell; 11.5 MW, 6,000 MWh annually
® Cascade Creek Project25 - Petersburg; 70 MW; 200,000 estimated MWh annually
• Ruth Lake — Petersburg; 20 MW, 70,700 MWh annually
® Scenery Lake —
Petersburg; 30 MW, 128,700 MWh annually
® Sunrise Lake —
Wrangell; 4 MW; 12,200 MWh annually
® Anita - Kunk Lake — Wrangell; 8 MW, 28,200 MWh annually
® Virginia Lake
— Wrangell; 12 MW, 42,700 MWh annually
® Thoms Lake —
Wrangell; 7.3 MW, 25,600 MWh annually
® Whitman Lake
— Ketchikan; 4.6 MW, 19,600 MWh annually
® Connell Lake —
Ketchikan; 1.9 MW, 11,640 MWh
24 A third turbine at the Tyee Lake project would not provide much additional annual energy generation. Rather,
this turbine would allow for greater operational flexibility and greater capacity output at certain times.
25 The Cascade Creek project, as proposed by Cascade Creek LLC, is one component of the larger Thomas Bay
hydroelectric project identified by Hosey & Associates in a study for the City of Petersburg dated December 1985.
The Cascade Creek project is the Swan Lake portion of the overall Thomas Bay potential development.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-10 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
® Lake Grace26 — Ketchikan; diversion. to Swan Lake project, 72,200 MWh annually
Mahoney Lake — Ketchikan; 9.6 MW, 45,600 MWh annually
Triangle Lake27 — Metlakatla; 3.9 MW, 16,900 MWh annually
Of the projects indicated in the preceding list, several are farther along in the development
process than others. The City of Ketchikan is presently working to license the Whitman Lake
project so that it can be designed and constructed. In the past five years, the Cape Fox
Corporation has undertaken licensing and design activities with regard to the Mahoney Lake but
has been unable to secure necessary power sales agreements to support further development of
the project at the present time. Cascade Creek LLC is pursuing development of the 70-MW
Cascade Creek project and has indicated an interest in marketing the power output of the project
to Canadian interests. This would require development of significant new transmission lines
interconnecting the TWP system to BC Hydro. The City of Petersburg, the City of Wrangell and
Angoon have filed preliminary permit applications for the Ruth Lake project.
Use of Oil -Fired Generating Facilities
Although it has been indicated that only hydroelectric generation would be transmitted over the
KPI, power generated at diesel power plants in Petersburg or Wrangell could be transmitted just
as well. The use of diesel generators from outside Kake, however, would need to acknowledge
the additional cost associated with transmission losses as well as the cost differential between
surplus hydroelectric power and diesel generation. In some cases, it could be less costly to
purchase out -of -area diesel generation than run local generators. This will need to be factored in
to the contracts for power supply services.
Introduction and Assumptions
An economic analysis has been conducted to determine if the benefits to be realized with the KPI
are greater than the costs of operating the KPI and purchasing power from hydroelectric
resources. Benefits will be achieved through the offset of diesel generation costs at Kake. Costs
related to the KPI are direct costs of operations and maintenance (O&M), certain incremental
administrative and general (A&G) costs of KWETICO, renewals and replacements (R&R) and
the costs of purchasing power from SEAPA to serve Kake loads.
In preparing this analysis, several assumptions have been made. The most significant of these
assumptions are:
26 The Lake Grace project is located within the Misty Fjords National Monument and would require an act of
congress if a hydroelectric project were to be developed.
27 A relatively short overhead and submarine transmission system would be needed to interconnect the electric
systems of Ketchikan and Metlakatla Power & Light.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-11 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
® Capital costs of the KPI are to be grant funded meaning that there will be no capital
recovery component associated with the KPI.
• Base year (2009) delivered fuel prices are $3.25 per gallon in Kake decreasing by 10% in
2010 and increasing by 3% per year thereafter28. Since fuel prices are highly variable and
subject to radical changes, the impacts of alternative fuel price assumptions have been
considered in a sensitivity analysis.
® O&M and A&G costs will escalate at the assumed annual inflation rate of 2.5% per year.
® Existing generation capacity will be maintained for emergency backup in Kake.
Resulting net O&M costs will be significantly lower than if the generating units were
operated to supply full load.
® KWETICO, the assumed owner of the KPI will contract with others to provide
maintenance on the KPI systems. Administrative costs associated with ownership and
operation of the KPI will be minimal.
• A reserve fund will be established to collect monies for major maintenance and repairs in
the future. The reserve fund will also serve as a self-insurance fund since transmission
lines are generally not insurable.
® The cost of purchased power from SEAPA will be inclusive of all transmission and
delivery charges to the point of delivery, expected to be at the new switchyard
interconnection point near Petersburg.
® Energy losses over the KPI will be 2% of the transmitted power to Kake, based on
engineering estimates.
The economic analysis estimates the power production costs for Kake that will be offset if the
KPI is constructed. These "benefits" are then compared to the costs of power purchases and KPI
operation to determine if the benefits of the KPI exceed the costs. To be economically feasible,
it would generally be necessary to show that the KPI will need provide positive benefits on its
own, i.e. the costs of the KPI will be borne entirely by the users of the line and not melded in
with other transmission lines. To protect the interests of electric consumers, the total costs
incurred by IPEC must be lower with the KPI than without to show economic justification for the
KPI.
It should be noted that costs of operation that are the same with or without the KPI are not
included in the analysis. Examples of these costs are capital recovery on existing generation
plant and fixed O&M charges.
Projected Cost of Existing Diesel Generation
IPEC owns and operates diesel generators in Kake to supply the full power supply requirement
of the local community. Total installed generation capacity is 2,585 kW in Kake supplied with
three generating units. The primary cost in operating the diesel generators is the cost of fuel,
28 IPEC's actual cost of generation fuel for its Kake operation averaged approximately $3.79 per gallon in 2008.
The price of the last fuel purchase in December 2008 was $3.28 per gallon.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-12 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
which represented well over half the total power production costs in IPEC's system over the past
three years.
Without the need to operate their diesel generators except in emergency situations, IPEC should
be able to reduce the O&M costs associated with the diesel generating units. The need for
maintenance activities, lubricants and other consumables will be substantially reduced and
maintenance and operating personnel can be assigned to other activities. Based on a review of
IPEC's production costs, it is estimated that the variable O&M cose9 is about 3.0 cents per kWh.
In addition to the offset of fuel and O&M costs, IPEC will benefit from the extension in
operating life of its existing generators in Kake if the KPI is constructed. Without the KPI,
continued regular operation of the existing generators would require their eventual replacement
or major overhaul. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been assumed that without the KPI,
IPEC will install a 1,000-kW replacement generator in 2015 and another 1,000-kW replacement
generator in 2020 at a present day cost of $400,000 per unit. With the KPI, the cost of these new
generators would be avoided.
The cost of generation fuel is a critical factor in the cost of power production for IPEC. Fuel
prices in Kake in December 2008 were reported at $3.28 per gallon, somewhat lower than the
average fuel price of $3.79 per gallon incurred in 2008. It is not known if fuel prices will stay at
the current high level, however, it is not expected that they will decrease significantly.
Consequently, for the purpose of this analysis, the price of diesel fuel has been assumed to be
$3.25 per gallon in Kake in 2009, reduced by 10% in 2010 and increased by 3.0% per year
thereafter. This long-term increase assumption allows for the increase in fuel prices at a rate of
0.5% per year over the assumed rate of general inflation of 2.5% per year.
The following tables show the projected variable cost of power production over the next ten
years at Kake, based on continued use of oil -fired generation. It is important to note that the
variable cost of production is not the full cost of power production, but rather is the cost that
could be directly avoided if the KPI were constructed.
29 Power production costs are often characterized as variable, those costs that are directly associated with each unit
of operation, and fixed, costs that are not avoidable. The costs of operations personnel are considered fixed for
IPEC's Kake service area.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-13 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
TABLE 6-6
IPEC — Kake Service Area
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Energy Requirements (MWh) 1 2,597 2,637 2,708 2,779 2,889
3,005 3,743
Fuel Price ($/gallon) 2 $ 3.25 $ 2.93 $ 3.01 $ 3.10 $ 3.20
$ 3.29 $ 3.39
Power Production Cost ($000)
Fuel Cost 3 $ 616 $ 563 $ 596 $ 629 $ 674
$ 722 $ 926
Variable O&M 4 78 81 85 90 96
102 130
Subtotal $ 694 $ 644 $ 681 $ 719 $ 770
$ 824 $ 1,056
Replacement Cost 5 -
- 35
Total Production Cost $ 694 $ 644 $ 681 $ 719 $ 770
$ 824 $ 1,091
(C/kWh) 26.7 24.4 25.1 25.9 26.7
27.4 29.1
1 See Table 6-4.
2 Assumes decrease in fuel prices of 10% in 2010 and annual increases of 3% thereafter.
3 Based on average fuel usage of 13.7 kWh per gallon.
4 Estimated variable C&M cost of 3.0 cents per kWh based on IPEC identified production cost items
of miscellaneous power
generation expenses, generator overhaul and maintenance expenses, maintenance supervision and
maintenance salaries
and miscellaneous. Does not include generation salaries and costs associated with maintenance of structures. Assumed to
increase annually at the assumed rate of general inflation.
s A 1,000 kW diesel generator is assumed to be added as a replacement unit in Kake in 2015.
KPI Annual Casts
A number of regular maintenance activities will be needed to inspect the KPI condition and
make necessary repairs. Generally, these activities will be relatively minor, particularly in the
early years of KPI operation. Structures, guys, insulators, conductors and submarine cable
terminations will need to be inspected visually and a program to regularly clear trees and brush
from the right of way will need to be established. It is expected that KWETICO, as owner of the
KPI, will contract out the regular inspection and maintenance activities to local utilities or other
providers of this kind of service.
The final design of the KPI is expected to include relatively short "ruling spans" which should
reduce maintenance costs and the likelihood of damage due to various environmental factors.
Further, a significant portion of the KPI is expected to be located adjacent to USFS roads which
will make access much easier and keep maintenance costs lower than would be experienced if
the KPI were located in remote locations. Much of the route of the KPI will include a full
service access road to provide regular access for maintenance.
All of the planned, regular maintenance activities for the KPI will be scheduled during the
summer months when access to the line is not restricted by weather conditions. Periodically,
access to the KPI will be needed in the winter to make repairs to the line necessitated by damage
caused by falling trees or other factors. If the KPI were located adjacent to roads maintained all
year, winter time access will be relatively straightforward. Indications from local residents
would indicate, however, that snow cover in the general vicinity of the proposed KPI routes will
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-14 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
not generally be a significant deterrent to winter access, even on the KPI access road which is not
expected to be plowed in the winter. Consequently, the annual cost of maintenance for the KPI
is not expected to be noticeably different for the KPI located adjacent to year around maintained
roads or along the planned maintenance road.
Depending on the availability of maintenance equipment in Kake, it may be necessary to
purchase certain maintenance vehicles and equipment for workers to use when maintenance is
needed. Included in this equipment inventory would be two all -terrain vehicles, two trailers, two
flatbed trucks, and two maintenance buildings. The estimated cost of this equipment is $975,000
and one set would be stationed on the Lindenberg Peninsula while the other is stationed in Kake.
Arrangements with IPEC may make it possible for KWETICO to rent necessary equipment from
IPEC as available.
Following is a proposed operation and maintenance (O&M) program for the KPI. The cost
estimates assumes a standalone O&M contract for the KPI. The costs assume that the O&M
contract will be multi -year contracts (2 — 3 years minimum) and intermittent line outages will be
made available in the spring or summer to coincide with inspection periods. The primary O&M
activities are:
® Visual (on ground) Inspections
® Helicopter Inspections
• Thermographic Survey
® Climbing Inspections
• Right -Of -Way Maintenance
Repair of defects, if noted during any of the above inspections, is not included in the routine
yearly maintenance program but would be corrected based on either cost-plus or a negotiated
price with the contractor. A contingency is included to cover these costs. Typical defects
include: damaged insulators, loose hardware, bent or pulled anchor rods, erosion, damaged
conductor, etc.
Access to the Northern Route is proposed to be available by the construction of a pioneer road or
alternatively the permanent road proposed by DOTPF. The Center -South route will also have
access roads; however a short section (3.5 miles) is isolated by water and will require boat or
helicopter for access. It may be advantageous to keep a 4-wheel drive vehicle in this section; it
could hold minor repair material and provide transportation for workers. Major repairs would
still require barges to transport materials and heavy duty line construction equipment.
Annual Inspection and Maintenance Program
Visual (on ground) Inspection
The predominate activity in the O&M program is the regular visual inspection of the line. The
visual inspections would be completed by journey line workers and would include minor
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-15 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
maintenance tasks accessible from the ground, such as tightening loose guys. Binoculars will be
used to inspect the poles, insulators, and appurtenances not accessible from the ground.
The proposed O&M program is based on providing a visual (on ground) inspection of 150
structure sites each year. The 150 sites would be selected to generally include each structure
type on the line. The 150-site rotation combined with the proposed climbing inspection (of 25
sites each year) would result in all structure types undergoing a detailed inspection (climbing or
visual) every 6 years.
Climbing Inspections
Included in the O&M program would be a climbing inspection of 25 structures each year. The
sites would be selected to generally include a structure from each structure type on the line. The
site rotation would result in all structure types undergoing a climbing inspection every year and
all structures on the line being climbed once every 40 years. Climbing inspections will be
undertaken while the line is de -energized.
Climbing inspections will include a thorough visual inspection of the structure and all
appurtenances. The climbing inspection team will also be required to perform routine
maintenance. The inspection will require observing and recording the condition of the structure
including: guys, anchors, poles, insulators, insulator hardware, conductor attachment hardware
and dampers. The observations will include checking the condition of all bolts, nuts and cotter
keys.
The inspection program will need to carefully select the structures to be climbed based on the
previous year's findings.
Helicopter and Thermographic Survey
A helicopter review of the right-of-way and the line should be completed occasionally since
certain items will be easier to spot from the air than ground. The survey should be completed by
an experienced line -worker and should include a review of the conductor, insulators, structures,
structure sites, and right-of-way conditions. A thermographic inspection could be completed
with the helicopter inspection.
After the line is energized and placed under load, a thermographic survey of the line and all
connections on the line should be performed. A thermographic survey uses the infrared light
spectrum (heat), to create photographs or digital records. This tool identifies loose hardware,
damaged wire, loose jumpers, etc. which tend to heat above adjacent system ambient
temperatures. This survey can easily be preformed from a helicopter. The helicopter and
thermographic survey is proposed to be preformed every five years.
Right -Of -Way Maintenance
Second growth vegetation grows rapidly in Southeast Alaska. Alders, prevalent in the area, have
been known to grow five feet or more per year. Right-of-way maintenance will be minimal the
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-16 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
first five to ten years, primarily dealing with tree falls and erosion control. By year five, routine
right-of-way maintenance will be needed annually.
Spare Materials
Most materials used on the KPI will be long -delivery items. It has been assumed, as part of the
construction contract, sufficient spare materials for routine maintenance and one or two small
catastrophic failures will be purchased and stockpiled. These materials will include spare wood
poles (appropriate sizes), conductor, hardware, insulators, compression dead-end, guy wire, guy
materials, dampers, armor rods, anchor rods and other minor materials. Occasionally the spare
materials will be replenished.
Renewal and Replacement Due to Catastrophic Failures
In addition to routine maintenance, certain catastrophic failures can occur periodically. Based on
the experience of other transmission lines in the area, these failures could include landslides,
avalanches, and tree strikes. The costs of repairing damages caused by these events can vary
greatly depending on a number of factors.
Landslides and avalanches occur frequently in Southeast Alaska. Support structures (pole line)
are not designed to withstand forces caused by these events. The routing of the KPI provides the
primary avoidance mechanism for landslides and avalanche. Where the KPI is routed on steep
slopes, the probability of a tree strike is also increased. Trees that fall may roll downhill and hit
poles or guy wires and would likely do severe damage. Mid -span conductor hits would do less
damage. A catastrophic failure should be expected every three to five years.
The estimated costs of maintaining the KPI are expected to increase somewhat over time as
clearing requirements increase and the system gets older. The estimated costs of O&M for the
KPI are provided in Table 6-7. Basic assumptions used in the development of the O&M estimate
include the following:
® The existing Forest Service roads will be maintained by the USFS. For the Northern
route alternative, DOTPF will maintain the year round road between Kake and
Petersburg.
® The values represented for "Tree Trimming" are the costs to remove and manage the
danger trees that are expected to be an issue in the early years. In the later years
management of growth in the vicinity of the KPI will be the focus.
® IPEC has standby generation in Kake which should be maintained to support scheduled
and unscheduled circuit outages. The standby generation will also minimize the need for
costly outage restoration in bad weather or emergency response and increase reliability.
® The road network will permit access to most of the structures year around.
® The proposed design of the KPI has focused on minimizing O&M costs by providing
maintenance personnel the use of a road network that will allow access to the KPI. The
KPI has been located adjacent or close to the road network to facilitate ease of
construction and access for O&M.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-17 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
TABLE 6-7
Kake - Petersburg Intertie
Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20
Maintenance of Equipment
$ 30,000 $
Tree Trimming
55,000
Overhead Line Inspections
20,000
Regular Repairs/Replacements
25,000
Submarine Terminal inspections
10,000
Switchyard Maintenance
10,000
Miscellaneous
20,000 _
Total
$ 170,000 $
Unit Cost (C/kWh) 1
4.3
1 Unit cost of O&M assuming energy sales of
4,000 MWh to Kake.
Administrative Costs
35,000 $
60,000
25,000
35,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
195,000 $
4.9
45,000 $ 60,000
70,000
80,000
30,000
35,000
45,000
45,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
230,000 $
260,000
5.8
6.5
KWETICO, the presumed owner of the KPI will incur certain expenses related to policy
oversight, accounting, general administration and management. These costs would be expected
to be paid by all users of the transmission systems. The following table provides the estimated
administrative costs for the KPI based on the current budget for KWETICO associated with the
Juneau -Greens Creek transmission line.
AdministrativeTABLE 6-8
Estimated Annual KPI
Annual USFS Road Easement Fee
$ 10,000
Submarine Cable Easement Fee
10,000
Directors and Officers Liability Insurance 2
4,500
General Liability Insurance z
5,000
Accounting and Audit Expenses 2
5,000
Legal Fees 2
5,000
Miscellaneous
10,000
Contingencies
10,000
Total
$ 59,500
Unit Cost (C/kWh) 3
1.49
Based on KWETICO currently projected costs.
2 Assumes cost sharing with Juneau -Greens Creek transmission line.
3 Unit cost assuming 4,000 MWh sales to Kake.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-18 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
O&M and administrative costs are expected to be recovered through charges to IPEC and to
other users of the KPI that are directly proportional to the power transmitted. The charges could
be included as part of the wholesale cost of power. In addition to O&M and administrative costs,
a charge related to the accrual of reserve funds to pay for major repairs to the KPI should be
included in the costs charged to IPEC. These costs are not expected to be significant in the early
years of KPI operation and are in lieu of a depreciation charge. The reserve fund charge is also a
means for "self -insuring" the KPI since transmission lines are generally not insurable.
As a basis for the amount of this repair and replacement (R&R) reserve that should be
established, the estimated cost of a major repair or replacement of a significant system
component can be used. It can also be reasonably assumed that with a new system, the timing of
such a major repair or replacement would be several years in the future. For the KPI, a reserve
requirement of $1.0 million has been estimated based on the cost of a major submarine cable
repair. Annual deposits of $54,000 for the KPI would be needed to build up the reserve fund
balance to these amounts within 15 years with accrued interest at 3% per year.
Cost of Purchased Power
With the KPI, power is expected to be purchased from the Southeast Alaska Power Agency
(SEAPA) by IPEC for use in Kake. At the present time, the SEAPA firm power sales rate to its
members is 6.8 cents per kWh. This rate could decrease somewhat in the future but is expected
to remain relatively constant for the next few years. Discussions with SEAPA management
indicate that power could possibly be sold to IPEC at a rate that is comparable to the existing
firm power sales rate. A major consideration, however, are the tax implications to the SEAPA if
power is sold to entities that are not municipally -owned utilities. If sales of power to IPEC were
to negatively affect the interest rate benefits presently realized by the SEAPA, the power sales
rate to IPEC would potentially need to be higher than the current firm power sales rate.
There is some possibility that IPEC could purchase power at an interruptible power sales rate
because of the possibility of interruption in availability30. SEAPA has sold power to certain
customers on an interruptible basis in the past at lower rates than the firm power sales rate. For
purposes of this study, it has been assumed that power can be purchased from the SEAPA by
IPEC at 6.8 cents per kWh through the projection period. This cost would include delivery
charges to Petersburg31
Estimated Savings with the KPI
Based on the foregoing, the cost of power to IPEC with the KPI has been projected. This cost
includes the cost of purchased power and the costs of KPI O&M and administration. The costs
with the KPI have then been compared to the costs without the KPI to determine the net savings
30 As indicated previously and shown in Table 3-8, it is expected that the full power requirement of Kake can
regularly be supplied from the Tyee Lake project for several years to come, but cannot be fully guaranteed.
" Energy losses from Tyee Lake to the KPI tap point near Petersburg are also expected to be effectively included in
the power sales rate. Since the metering point for power sales to Kake is to be at the tap point, energy losses
between the tap point and Kake will need to be included as a cost to IPEC.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-19 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
to IPEC associated with the KPI. The cost of power with the KPI and the estimated savings in
Kake are shown on an annual basis in the following tables assuming that the KPI is constructed
and begins operation in 2013.
TABLE 6-9
r4j
IPEC — Kake Service Area
Energy Requirements (MWh) 1
Energy Purchased (MWh) 2
Purchased Power Price ((/kWh) 3
Annual Costs with KPI ($000)
Purchased Power 4
KPI Operation & Maintenance 5
KPI Admin & General 6
KPI Renewals & Repalcements'
Total Annual Costs with KPI
Unit Cost ((/kWh) s
Savings with KPI ($000) 9
Savings ((/kWh)10
NPV Savings (2013-2032) ($000)
Discount Rate
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2,889
3,005
3,743
3,864
3,992
4,097
2,947
3,065
3,818
3,942
4,072
4,179
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
$
196
$
204
$
255
$
263
$
271
$
279
153
157
161
165
169
278
66
67
69
71
72
74
54
54
54
54
54
54
$
469
$
482
$
539
$
553
$
566
$
685
16.2
16.0
14.4
14.3
14.2
16.7
$
301
$
342
$
552
$
605
$
663
$
612
10.4
11.4
14.7
15.7
16.6
14.9
$ 9,927
4.0 %
1 See Table 6-4.
2 Includes estimated transmission losses of 2% between Petersburg and Kake.
3 Estimated price of power purchased from the Southeast Alaska Power Agency.
4 Estimated cost of power purchased from the Southeast Alaska Power Agency.
5 KPI 0&M cost as shown in Table 6-7 fully allocated to IPEC. Assumes O&M costs increase annually at the
assumed rate of general inflation.
6 KPI A&G cost as shown in Table 6-8 fully allocated to IPEC. Assumes A&G costs increase annually at the assumed
rate of general inflation.
Annual deposit to KPI R&R fund to establish a $1.0 million balance in 15 years with accrued interest at an
assumed 3% interest rate. Cost is fully allocated to IPEC.
8 Total Annual Costs divided by Total Energy Requirement.
9 Total Production Cost for the diesel generation case (see Table 6-6) less Total Annual Costs with KPI.
10 Savings with KPI divided by Total Energy Requirements.
As shown in Table 6-9, the estimated savings to IPEC in 2013, the first year assumed for KPI
operation is $301,000. Table 6-9 also shows that the average charge for electric service in Kake
could potentially be reduced by 10.4 cents per kWh with the KPI32. Annual savings with the KPI
12 Due to the effects of the State Power Cost Equalization program, any savings in IPEC's cost of power due to the
KPI would not necessarily show up in reductions in the effective charges for residential electric service. Rather, the
amount of subsidy from PCE provided to IPEC would be reduced.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 6-20 Draft Report
Power Supply Evaluation and
Economic Analysis
are expected to increase each year primarily due to assumed increases in the cost of diesel fuel
that the KPI will offset. In 2022, the projected savings are 19.4 cents per kWh. Over the first
twenty years of KPI operation, 2013-2032, the net present value of savings to IPEC with the KPI
is $9,927,000, assuming a 4% discount rate33.
If other utilities or power producers such as Cascade Creek LLC, were to use the KPI, the cost to
IPEC could be reduced significantly. If costs are allocated proportionate to total kWh
transmitted over the KPI and the Cascade Creek project were transmitting its full output over the
KPI, Cascade Creek would be obligated to pay the vast majority of the annual operating costs for
the KPI. Additionally, if the KPI were to be owned and operated by SEAPA, the operating costs
of the KPI could potentially be bundled into SEAPA's operating costs. If all the costs of
operating and maintaining the KPI were paid by others, the estimated net present value savings
to IPEC with the KPI over the first 20 years of KPI operation would be $15,045,000. This level
of benefits is 52% greater than the base case.
A significant benefit to IPEC with the KPI will be the ability to establish economic incentive
rates for new large commercial/industrial electric consumers. As long as regular retail energy
sales remain relatively stable in Kake, the fixed costs of IPEC's distribution system and the KPI
will be recovered through normal rates. Consequently, an economic incentive rate based on the
incremental cost of purchased power (6.8 cents per kWh in the above table) plus a nominal
margin could be established 34. This rate would need to be negotiated on a case by case basis and
should have a time limit to it (e.g. 5-10 years), but could be used to attract new commercial
activity to the Kake area.
Economic incentive rates have been used in recent years by Sitka and other utilities. Sitka has
surplus hydroelectric generation capability and has recently implemented an interruptible energy
sales rate to commercial customers to encourage greater electricity sales. The interruptible
energy sales rate is less than the normal commercial energy rate.
The savings estimated for IPEC's Kake service areas could, but would not necessarily be
transferred directly through to a reduction in rates for electric service in Kake. IPEC presently
charges the same rates for all of its service areas35 based on the combined costs of the entire
system. The estimation of IPEC's power rates is beyond the scope of this study. The State's
Power Cost Equalization program would also affect how much of the Intertie provided savings
would be realized by residential consumers in Kake 36. The PCE program is funded each year by
the State legislature and its funding magnitude as well as its continuation is uncertain.
33 The discount rate for IPEC is based on IPEC's assumed interest earnings rate. The net present value savings is
calculated to 2010.
34 The Southeast Alaska Power Agency would also need to be involved in any discussions of additional energy
purchases for economic incentive purposes if a special interruptible energy purchase rate were to be pursued.
35 IPEC has indicated that it may need to establish rates in each service area based on the cost of service in the
respective areas, at the request of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
36 Essentially, the PCE program provides a subsidy to residential electric consumers. The amount of the subsidy is
based on the local cost of power production. According to the program formula, if the cost of power production
decreases, as it does when fuel prices drop, the magnitude of the subsidy would also decrease. The amount of the
subsidy is also a function of the legislatively approved contribution to the program each year.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update . 6-21 Draft Report
N+ 1
M
The KPI is an important part of the previously defined Southeast Alaska Intertie System.
Initially, the KPI will serve as a component of the southern Southeast Alaska Intertie System that
will interconnect the communities of Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, Kake and Metlakatla.
The KPI will offer the potential of providing transmission service to mining loads on Woewodski
Island. Eventually, the KPI will serve as a vital link in the transmission interconnection to Sitka
and eventually to Juneau. The connection to Sitka could offer additional hydroelectric resources
to the southern Southeast Alaska communities.
Kake - Petersburg Intertie Study Update 7-1 Draft Report
r.M19AM� V19.11
The Kake electrical system is primarily operated as a 12.47 kV system with most of its load being
connected single phase at 7.2 kV. The Kake electric system is powered by one of three 800 kW,
4160 volt, oil -fired diesel generators. Presently only one unit is operated at any one time, but
operation is cycled so that each of the units is equally exercised during the year. When the Kake freezer
plant was in operation the peak Kake load reached 1000 kW, but since the freezer plant ceased
operations the peak summer load has been about 640 kW. Because of the high cost of oil and the
additional cost of ferrying oil to Kake, residents are presently paying about 60 cents per kWhr for
electrical energy. It is hoped interconnecting the Kake community to Petersburg and hence to the
Tyee Lake and Swan Lake Hydroelectric Plants, the cost of electrical energy can be dramatically
reduced so the Kake community can once again experience healthy economic growth.
The Tyee Lake hydroelectric project provides electricity to the communities of Wrangell and
Petersburg via a 138 kV transmission line presently being operated at 69 kV. Tyee Lake is not
operating at capacity and has surplus energy available to support this proposed system expansion.
When the Petersburg to Kake line is completed, surplus from Tyee will be available to supply
energy to the Kake community, thereby offsetting the expensive diesel generation presently being
used. Even more capacity will be available when the current construction project to connect the
Tyee Plant with the Swan Lake plant is completed. Additionally, lower cost hydroelectric energy
from Tyee Lake and Swan Lake could permit residents to convert to electric heat and further reduce
the consumption of oil by the Kake community. Reducing oil consumption for both electrical
generation and community heating should significantly improve the economics of the community
and provide the additional benefit of reducing green house gas emissions.
It is expected Kwaan Electric will serve as owner/operator of the new transmission line to Kake. The
initial capital costs for the Petersburg to Kake Intertie are expected to be covered by a grant from the
State of Alaska and ongoing operating and maintenance costs will be recovered from the rate payers.
There remain expectations the current Intertie segments, including the new Petersburg to Kake line,
will be expanded further within the Southeast Alaska Intertie Project to include additional segments
north and west of Kake to the proposed 20 MW hydroelectric project at Takatz Lake near Sitka on
Baranof Island. The major challenge of this expansion will be the high cost and technical feasibility
of the nearly sixty mile marine crossing presently envisioned for the next segment. To the North the
ultimate Southeast Alaska Intertie Project would potentially continue from Takatz/Sitka to Angoon,
Hoonah and finally connect to Juneau. To the east extending from the Tyee Plant, there is a concept
to interconnect to the BC Hydra electric system in British Columbia, Canada.
Three additional hydroelectric projects are envisioned by as early as 2015; Ruth Lake (20 MW),
Cascade Lake (45 MW) and Scenery Lake (30 MW). These three projects would be located on the
mainland in the vicinity of Thomas Bay, slightly north of Petersburg. The interconnection concept
for these three projects would focus on an approximately 3 mile submarine crossing under Frederick
Sound from the mainland to a point near Petersburg. The projects would connect across the sound
into the Tyee to Petersburg Intertie, which would be upgraded to operate at 138 kV.
to
Appendix A
Power Flow Analysis
Route Selection for the Transmission Intertie
In the 2005 Kake-Petersburg Intertie Study, CAI identified six alternative routes connecting the
Petersburg electric system to Kake. The new road planned from the Petersburg vicinity to Kake has
caused the reevaluation of the routes to consider the impacts of building the northern route along the
planned new road. This will reduce costs for construction and future maintenance of the proposed
transmission line to Kake. The north route was described in the previous report as the Northern
Route; some minor adjustments in the routing have been made in this study to conform to the route
of the proposed new Petersburg to Kake road.
The Northern Route as shown on the Route Map in Appendix B would start at the existing
Petersburg Substation at node S and proceed north via nodes S1, S2, P2, S3, S4, S5 and hence on to
the Kake Substation at node K.
Near Petersburg, as shown in the Appendix B Map, two alternatives are under consideration for
connecting the Petersburg Substation with point S2 on Kupreanof Island. The first alignment as
described in our previous report extends from Petersburg Substation eastward to point S 1 and then
crosses under Frederick Sound via a 16,600-foot marine cable to point S2 near the northern mouth
of the Wrangell Narrows. The second alignment extends north from Petersburg Substation to point
P; crosses under the Wrangle Narrows via a 1600 foot directional bore to Point PI on Kupreanof
Island; it the leads northward to Point P3. From P3 it crosses under the Petersburg Creek via a 900
foot directional bore to Point P4 near the Kupreanof community and finally it follows the new
proposed road to point S2.
The proposed new Kake Substation is configured as a single distribution transformer with a primary
fused disconnect, distribution class plus or minus 10 percent voltage regulator, and two 12.47 kV exits,
as shown below.
After reviewing the current loads, load forecasts, generation possibilities and associated expected
costs CAI continues to recommend the Petersburg to Kake Intertie be initially operated at 69 kV.
This voltage level meets all current load serving requirements. However, when considering
potential generation and system interconnection unknowns, CAI recommends the overhead portion
of the line be designed and constructed for 138 kV. This provides maximum flexibility for future
system needs.
C:\User Vohn\DocumentsULHeb-DHAULHeb-DHAULHeb\Southemt Conference\KakePetersburg2009\CAIData\KPI System Study Report.docx A-2
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
s
.A:
SUTSTAMN
f
2500 KOLA
69 -1147 kV
69 kV Intertie Concept
Appendix A
Power Flow Analysis
The 69 kV intertie is attractive because the planned interconnection point in the Petersburg electric
system is presently operating at 69 kV. Thus, only one 69-12.47 kV transformer located at the new
Kake Substation would be required for this concept. In order to maximize the future supply capability
to Kake, CAI also recommends the Kake Substation include a voltage regulator on the 69-12.47 kV
transformer and room for a future 600 or 1200 kVAr load -side capacitor banks. The losses are
roughly four times those for 138 kV operation, but remain reasonably low for Kake loads as
presently envisioned from 640 to 1000 kW. The cost of 69 kV submarine cable is roughly 50 to 60
percent less than the cost expected for 138 kV marine cable. Other than a small increase in
construction costs for the taller and stronger structures for 138 kV overhead construction this
concept performs in a manner identical to the 69 kV Intertie concept. The wider 138 kV spacing
will provide greater safety for large birds and consequently reduce line maintenance.
138 kV/69 kV Intertie Concept
We have considered a 138 kV/69 kV concept where the intertie is constructed with overhead
transmission lines designed for 138 kV but operated at 69 kV. The most important advantage of a
138 kV Intertie is in keeping with the ultimate future operation of the Southeast Alaska Intertie
Project. This concept follows the pattern already set by the existing Tyee to Petersburg Intertie
C:\UsersVohn\DocumentsULHeb-DHAVLHeb-DHAVLHeb\Southeast Conference\KC ePetersburg?009\CAIData\KPISystem Study Report.docx A-3
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Appendix A
Power Flow Analysis
which is constructed for 138 kV operation, but presently operated at 69 kV.
Under this concept the project would utilize 69 kV marine cables for the submarine crossings in
order to avoid the higher cost of 138 kV submarine cable systems. When the Petersburg to Kake
Intertie is converted to 138 kV, the submarine crossings will be replaced with 138 kV submarine
cables. Based on current information and projections, it is likely the 69 kV system will be adequate
for 10 to 15 years. Because this is initially less costly and is in keeping with the present and near -
future needs of the Kake community, CAI prefers this concept to a full 138 kV intertie solution.
CAI reviewed and continues to recommend the following planning criteria.
• Under normal system conditions, voltages at load serving facilities, such as the Kake
12.47 kV system, should range from a maximum of 105 percent of nominal system voltage to a
minimum of 95 percent.
® Maximum voltages for the Intertie transmission buses should not exceed 110 percent of
nominal system voltage during energization procedures when no load is being served.
• Minimum voltages may sag to 85 percent of nominal on the Kake 69 kV bus as long as there
is no danger of voltage collapse for the non -load serving intertie transmission buses under
heavy system load conditions.
• Facility loading should not exceed 100 percent of normal system seasonal ratings as
specified by the manufacturers of the submarine cables, or for overhead transmission system,
as determined based on standard conductor loadability.
Our review confirms that the load capability provided to Kake by the preferred Northern Route is
limited by voltage constraints and not by thermal limitations of transmission facilities for the
presently planned Petersburg to Kake Transmission Intertie Project.
Upon review CAI confirms 69 kV as the recommended operating voltage for the Petersburg to Kake
Transmission Intertie. This recommendation is based on a combination of factors, including
economics, anticipated future system needs, technical feasibility, and consistency with other sections of
the Southeast Alaska Intertie Project.
The first major objective for this design is to service existing and anticipated future load in the Kake
community. For this purpose, CAI examined the ultimate loading capability of the preferred
Northern route at 69 kV. Initially the recommendation included a new 69 kV feeder and breaker at
the existing Petersburg Substation and a 69-12.47 kV, 2500 kVA transformer at Kake Substation
equipped with a 12.47 kV voltage regulator capable of plus or minus 10 percent voltage regulation.
For the initial installation, we do not see a need for capacitors at the Kake Substation.
CAI continues to recommend the 336 ACSR conductor for this project. Using Westinghouse
transmission and distribution ratings as a conservative normal system rating, the 336 ACSR
conductors are capable of 530 Amps or 63 MW at 69 kV. The present intertie segment, Petersburg
to Wrangell, uses 336 ACSR and, therefore, the two systems can share a common stock of spare
conductor if the 336 ACSR conductor is used for this project. Next, the terrain traversed by the
C:1UsersUohn\DocumentsULHeb-DHAULHeb-DHAULHeb\Southeast Conference\KakePetersburg2009\CAIData\KPI System Study Report.docx A-4
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Appendix A
Power Flow Analysis
Petersburg to Kake Intertie is rough and the additional mechanical strength of the 336 ACSR
conductor should reduce the amount of maintenance required over the life of the intertie. A third
point is that if the next stage of the plan for the Southeast Alaska Intertie Project is completed, the
Takatz to Kake Transmission Intertie may require the additional capacity of the 336 ACSR conductor.
For the submarine cable CAI is recommending, as a minimum, 4/0 Cu XLPE solid dielectric for a
69 kV cable. For the 3.1 mile crossing in Frederick Sound just outside the mouth of the Wrangle
Narrows the cables would be laid individually at the bottom of the sound. With individual lays, the
3.1 mile marine cable is capable of carrying 300 Amps or 35 MVA at 69 kV. For the second 69 kV
alternative, for both the 1600 and 900 foot directed bores, the cables would be triplexed within
conduit. The triplexed cables are capable of carrying 260 Amps or 31 MVA at 69 kV. If a 138 kV
submarine cable is selected, CAI recommends a 300 mm2 Al XLPE 3-core cable. The 138 kV cable
would be capable of carrying 430 Amps or 102 MVA at 138 kV.
The power flow simulations show the proposed transmission system can support the Kake
community at 69 kV for load levels of up to 8600 kW, which is well in excess of envisioned need
for the community. This maximum load level is less than 28 percent of the 31 MW thermal
capability of the triplexed 4/0 submarine cables. At 8600 KW, the 69 kV side of the Kake Substation
drops to the study defined limit of 85% of nominal voltage. For this load level, the Kake Substation
capacity would also need to be increased.
Based on the 2007 Hatch Acres, `OAK — BC Intertie Feasibility Study, Table H-4," the Kake load,
even with an allowance for faster electric growth due to conversion from oil to electric heating
systems using the cheaper hydroelectric energy, is expected to grow from about 640 kW in 2009 to
about 1000 kW by 2033. Even if one or two major facilities like the freezer plant were attracted to
the Kake community by the cheaper hydroelectric energy we would not expect demand to exceed
2000 kW by 2033.
!'�• '� III 1
CAI's study included the potential impact of feeding power from the future 20 MW Takatz Lake
Hydroelectric Project through the Intertie to Tyee and hence onto BC -Hydro via the future AK -BC
Intertie. This part of the study tested the capability of 69 kV operation, if the generation at Takatz
was constructed.
For this analysis, CAI considered the injection, at Kake, of 10 MW and 20 MW from a conceptual
generator at Takatz. For this energy injection to be useful and feasible, it would be necessary for the
SE Alaska to BC Hydro intertie to be completed. For both the 10 MW and 20 MW injection
scenarios, the electric system operated within all thermal and voltage constraints. The one
significant impact occurred due to system losses. With Takatz dispatching 10 MW to BC and with
the intertie operating at 69 kV the total system losses actually dropped by about 0.5 MW; however,
at 20 MW we saw system losses go up by 4.2 MW, effectively consuming 21 percent of the energy
being sent from the Takatz Plant. This level of losses is likely to be unacceptable.
It is expected that the proposed future intertie facilities will sell power to BC -Hydro from North of
Kake at levels exceeding 10 MW; then CAI would recommend the intertie be upgraded to operate at
138 kV. New system studies should be perfonned at such time to investigate an expansion in
C:\Usem\John\DocumentsULHeb-DHAULHeb-DHAULHeb\Southeast Conference\KakePetersburg2009\CAIData\KPI System Study Report.docx A-5
Comm6nwealth Associates, Inc.
Appendix A
Power Flow Analysis
greater detail.
C:\UsersUohn\DocumentsVLHeb-DHAULHeb-DHAVLHeb\Southeast Conference\KakePetersbwg2009\CAIData\KPISystem Study Report.docx A'U
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.