The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA250ALASKA R~sn"~'~r:S U·RrJ<1 A LAS K A POW ERA U THO R ~s"f'tartmen.,,,,,)e:teri~ ~.,,p <"0- Anchorage -Fairbanks Transmission Intertie ~-<~~ ,,>06''':"-:1 /Q'-?<-P \~,'(~.) 'J}.'1 Economic Feasibility Study Report December 1979 ~INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANV,INC.i ~~ROOERT W.RETHERFORO ASSOCIATES I:3,000,000 .\ "1"'"1..-:""'.Mt Torped...I 0 6OO \'''''''it .:.~-~;~~")uOTO+~4t'f ak.IlI.t")vun.n.a..lOke CM.Jc n"J,IUU1 .,-'I f.:.o KEY SCALE MAP .".~.'::~. ALASKA POWER AUTHORI Anchorage -Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Economic Feasibility Study Report December 1979 ARLIS Alaska Resources Library &Information SerVices Anchorage,AJaska ~INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY,INC.•:•ROBERT W.RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES DATE DUE ..........-- ·~..I- ~..-- HI GHSMI TH 45-220 ARLIS A ja:~h.a j,:.'",w'ces Library &.Info'-''-i8 t10l.'l ServIces AnCi.i.:lt;".;\:.,aska CONTENTS Chapter 5 6 7 8 CONTENTS TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN (Continued) 5.5 Conductor Selection 5.6 Power Transfer Capabilities 5.7 HVDC Transmission System 5.8 References SYSTEM EXPANSION PLANS 6.1 Generation Planning Criteria 6.2 Multi-Area Reliability Study 6.3 System Expansion Plans 6.4 References FACILITY COST ESTIMATES 7.1 Transmission Line Costs 7.2 Substation Costs 7.3 Control and Communications System Costs 7.4 Transmission Intertie Facility Costs 7.5 Cost of Transmission Losses 7.6 Basis for Generating Plant Facility Costs 7.7 Generating Plant Fuel Costs 7.8 MEA Underlying System Costs 7.9 Construction Power Costs for the Upper Susitna Project 7.10 References ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 8.1 Methodology 8.2 Sensitivity Analysis 8.3 Economic Analysis 8.4 References i i 5-3 5-4 5-4 5-5 6-1 6-4 6-10 6-12 7-1 7-4 7-5 7-5 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-8 7-9 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-8 r- I I \ CONTENTS 10.1 Present Institutions and Railbelt Ut il it i es 10.2 Alaskan Interconnected Utilities 10.3 References APPENDIXES 10-1 10-3 10-5 Appendix ,... A NOTES ON FUTURE USE OF ENERGY IN ALASKA A-I I"""B TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS ANAL YS IS PROGRAM (TLCAP) B.1 General Descr"j pt i on B-1-B.2 Computer Program Applications for Optimum Transmission Line Costs B-2 ~B.3 TLCAP Sample Outputs B-6 C MULTI-AREA RELIABILITY PROGRAM (MAREL)C-1P"". iii CONTENTS Appendix Page 0 DATA AND COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE AND GENERATING PLANTS 0-1 0.1 Data and Cost Estimates for Trans- mission Intertie 0-1 0.2 Data and Cost Estimates for Gene- rat i ng Pl ants 0-13 0.3 Data and Cost Estimates for Supply of Construction Power to Upper Susitna Project Sites 0-24 0.4 Alternative Generating Plant Fuel Costs 0-38 E TRANSMISSION LINE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROGRAM E-1 F TRANSMISSION LINE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS F-1 iv -i -, Table 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 5-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 TABLES Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area Utility Forecasts and Extrapolated Projections Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area Utility Forecasts and Extrapolated Pojections Combined Utility Forecasts for Ra il belt Area Load Forecast for Upper Susitna Proj- ect by Alaska Power Administration Load Demand Forecasts for Railbelt Area to Determine Statistical Average Forecast Peak Load Demand Forecasts for Railbelt Area with Range Limits for Sensitivity Analysis Conductor Size Selection Criteria Existing Generation Sources,Anchorage- Cook Inlet Area Existing Generation Sources,Fairbanks- Tanana Valley Area Load Model Data,Anchorage Area,Probable Load Forecast Case Load Model Data,Fairbanks Area,Probable Load Forecast Case Load Model Data,Anchorage Area,Low Load Forecast Case Load Model Data,Fairbanks Area,Low Load Forecast Case Loss of Load Probability Index for Study Cases IA and ID,Probable Load Forecast Case Loss of Load Probability Index for Study Case IB,Probable Load Forecast Case v Page 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-16 3-17· 5-6 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 6-18 6-19 6-20 6-21 Table 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 8-1 to 8-6x 9-1 9-2 9-3A and 9-3B A-I TABLES (Continued) Loss of Load Probability Index for Study Case IIA,Probable Load Forecast Case Loss of Load Probability Index for Study Case IA and 10,Low Load Forecast Case Loss of Load Probability Index for Case IB, Low Load Forecast Case Loss of Load Probability Index for Case IC, Probable Load Forecast Case Cost Summary for Intertie Facilities Present Worth of Intertie Line Losses, 1984-1997 Study Period Cost Summary for Generating Facilities Summary of Alternative Generating Plant Fuel Costs Alternative Costs for Construction Power Supply to Watana and Devil Canyon Hydropower Sites duri ng Con- struction of Upper Susitna Project Differential Discounted Value of Base Year (1979)Costs Alternative Disbursements of Capital Investment for Generation Expansion Allocation of Total Project Costs Between Participants to Alaskan Intertie Agreement Allocated Costs for Reserve Capacity Sharing and Firm Power Transfer MEA Statistical Summary -Past, Present and Future vi Page 6-22 6-23 6-24 6-25 7-10 7-11 7-12 p:.--:.:"., 7-13 7-14 8-9 to 8-21 9-14 9-15 9-16 and 9-17 A-4 - -I rI Figure 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 5-2 FIGURES Comparative Net Energy Generation Fore- cast for Combined Utilities and Indus- trial Load -Railbelt Area Projected Range of Net Energy Genera- tion Forecast for Combined Utilities and Industrial Load,Railbelt Area Projected Range of Net Energy Gener- ation Forecasts for Combined Util- ities and Industrial Load,Anchorage- Cook Inlet Area and Fairbanks-Tanana Vall ey Area Comparative Annual Peak Demand Fore- casts for Combined Utilities and Industrial Load,Railbelt Area Projected Range of Annual Peak Demand Forecasts for Combined Utilities and Industrial Load,Railbelt Area Annual Peak Demand Forecasts for Com- bined Utilities and Industrial Load, Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area and Fairbanks- Tanana Valley Area Peak Load Demand Forecast with Range Limits for Sensitivity Analysis~Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area Loads Peak Load Demand Forecast with Range Limits for Sensitivity Analysis~Railbelt Area Loads Nenana-Fairbanks-Tanana Transmission System Anchorage-Matanuska-Susitna-Glenallen- Valdez Transmssion System Cook Inlet-Kenai Peninsula Transmission System 230 kV Tangent Tower 345 kV Tangent Tower vii 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 4-12 4-13 4-14 5-7 5-8 Figure 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 7-1 FIGURES (Continued) Non-Coincident 1975 Peak Demands, Anchorage and Fairbanks Areas Independent System Expansion Plans. Anchorage and Fairbanks Areas,Probable Load Forecast Case Interconnected System Expansion Plan, Anchorage-Fairbanks Area without Susitna Project,Probable Load Forecast Case,Case IA and ID Interconnected System Expansion Plan, Anchorage-Fairbanks Area with Firm Power Transfer.Probable Load Forecast Case, Case IB Interconnected System Expansion Plan, Anchorage-Fairbanks Area with Upper Susitna Project,Probable Load Expansion Case, Case II Independent System Expansion Plan,Anchorage- Fairbanks Area,Low Load Forecast Case Interconnected System Expansion Plan. Anchorage-Fairbanks Area,Low Load Forecast Case,Case IA and 10 Interconnected System Expansion Plan, Anchorage-Fairbanks Area,Low Load Forecast Case with Firm Power Transfer, Case IB Case I -Alternative A and B Case I -Alternative C Case I -Alternative 0 Case II Construction Plan for Upper Susitna Project viii Page 6-26 6-27 6-28 6-29 6-30 6-31 6-32 6-33 6-34 6-35 6-36 6-37 7-15 - Figure B-1 D-l and D-2 D-3 D-4 FIGURES (Continued) Transmission Line Cost Analysis Program Methodology Nomogram Calculates Economy of Scale in Power Plants Estimates of Future National Gas Prices Estimates of Future Coal Prices ix Page B-4 0-45 and 0-46 0-47 0-48 ABREVIATIONS ac ACF alternating current annual cost of fuel LNG liquid nitrate gas LOLP loss of load probability AlA Alaskan Intertie Agreement AML&P Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Company MBTU Million British thermal unit MAREL Multi-Area Reliability,a computer program developed by PTI Matanuska Electrical Association,Inc.MEA aluminium conductor,steel reinforcedACSR APA Alaska Power I\uthority A.R.R.Alaska Railruad AVF average value factor MVA MW NESC mega vo It-amperes megawatts National Electrical Safety Committee bpd barrels per day NOx nitrous oxide BTII British thermal units C[A Chugilch Electric Association,Inc. CFC Cooperative Finilnce Corporation O&M DRV PCF operations and maintenance off-road vehicle Plant capacity factor dc di rect current P.l.point of intersection DOE EEl rFB U.S.Department of Energy Edison Electric Institute Federal Finance Bank PRS PTI REA power requirements studies Power Technology,Inc. Rural Electrification Administration FGD rOll flue gas desulphurization forced outage hours RI RWRA radio interference Robert W.Retherford Associates,Inc. FMUS ft gal Fairbanks Municipal Utility System feet gill]on SIC SCGT SIL single circuit simple cycle combustion turbine surge impedance loading GVEA GWh Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc. gigawatt-hours (million kilowatt-hours) TLCAP Transmission Line Cost Analysis Program,a computer program developed by IECO HEA Homer Electric Association,Inc. IIVIJC high voltage,direct current TLEAP Transmission Line Economic Analysis Program,a computer program developed by I ECO IAfAT Inter'ior Alaska Energy Analysis Team IECO International Engineering Company,Inc. IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers TVI television interference tpy tons per year TLFAP Transmission Line Financial Analysis Program,a computer program developed by IECD volt-amperes reactive United States Geological Survey United States of AmericaUSA USGS VAR Institute for Social and Economic Research thousand circular mils ki lovolts ISER kcmi 1 kV kVa kilovolt-amperes kW kilowatts kWh kilowatt-hours x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ARLIS Alaska Resoufces Library &Informatio.nSerVices Anch or ·~g·e·.·A;',~l<ac ",,-!l ';.'.l"1<...,....,!_.....,_:~:~.LTI-.-' • • CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents a determination of the economic feasibility for a transmission line interconnection between the utility systems of the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas.It includes an objective evaluation of the specific conditions under which the intertie is economically feasi- ble.An interconnection between the two previously independent power systems will reduce total installed generation reserve capacity,provide means for the interchange of energy,reduce spinning reserve require- ments,and provide the means for optimum economic dispatch of generating plants on the interconnected system basis.The later integration of the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project into the interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks power system would serve to increase the benefits already available from early operation of the intertie.The work described in this report was performed under the authority of the 26 October 1978 contract between the Alaska Power Authority and the joint-venture of International Engineering Company,Inc.(IEeo)and Robert W.Retherford Associates (RWRA). Alternative system expansion plans were developed and analyzed during this study for each of the following areas: •Independent Anchorage area •Independent Fairbanks area Interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks area (generation reserve sharing option) Interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks area (generation reserve sharing and firm power transfer option) •Interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks area (with inclusion of the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project) 1 - 1 This study confirms the economic feasibility of the Anchorage-Fairbanks transmission line interconnection as well as the possibility of an early implementation date for the project,prior to longer-range development of the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project.This study also establishes additional intertie benefits from the supply of construction power to the sites of the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project.It also evaluated potential benefits from firm power supply to Matanuska Electric Associa- tion's system at the intermediate Palmer substation of the intertie. Preliminary financial and management plans for the implementation of the project were developed and are presented in the last two chapters of thi s report. An Intertie Advisory Committee,composed of managers of Railbelt area utilities with the chairmanship of the Executive Director of the Alaska Power Authority,was formed.During the performance of this study three Intertie Advisory Committee meetings were held (4 December 1978,8 Jan- uary 1979,14 February 1979,and 18 May 1979)to review factors related to the intertie and to discuss preliminary findings of this study.The following Railbelt utilities were represented on the Intertie Advisory Committee: r.r.~·-·, •Anchorage Municipal light &Power (AMl&P) •Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) •Chugach Electric Association (CEA) •Fairbanks Municipal Utility System (FMUS) •Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)p-. I Homer Electric Association (HEA) •Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) The Consultants wish to acknowledge the valuable information,comments, and support received from the managers and engineers of the Railbelt utilities,and the Alaska Power Administration during the performance of this economic feasibility study. 1 - 2 CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this economic feasibility study is to determine the conditions under which a transmission interconnection between the util- ity systems of Anchorage and Fairbanks would be economically feasible. Following are the important aspects of work performed and the conclu- sions of this study. 2.1 STUDY SUMMARY A.Load Forecasts for Railbelt Area Load forecast is the basis for system expansion planning.The most re- cent load forecasts for the ut"ility servite areas in the Railbelt area were examined to establish the basis for projection of future trends. The sum of the most recent forecasts made by the individual utilities in the area has been selected as the upper growth limit to the forecast ranges for the Railbelt area.The median forecast prepared by the Alaska Power Administration,as a revision to the Susitna Project Market Study,was selected as the lower limit.The statistical average of these two forecasts was calculated and used in this study as the Il pro bable ll forecast. The long-range II pro bable ll load demand projections in MW for the load areas are: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Anchorage 573 977 1581 2402 3446 2 - 1 Fairbanks 153 231 338 477 663 Combined Area 749 1194 1896 2842 4054 B.Selection of Intertie Route Alternative transmission corridors considered in previous studies were analyzed as to access'ibility,cost of right-of-way,transmission line design,and environmental and aesthetic considerations.The preferred corridor described in the Susitna Report,along the Parks Highway from Anchorage to Fairbanks,was selected for the intertie route.It was selected because of its favorable length,accessibility,and environ- mental considerations.This corridor was further defined by preparing preliminary layouts.Field trips to important sites along this 323-mile line route were made to confirm the suitability at this corridor for the intertie. C.Transmission Line Design To provide a basis for intertie cost estimation,conceptual designs for 230-kV and 345-kV transmission lines and substations were made.The transmission Line Cost Analysis Program (TLCAP),a computer program de- veloped by 1EeO,was used to select optimum designs.The results fa- vored relatively long spans (1300 feet)and high-strength conductors. Tubular steel,guyed towers and pile-type foundations were selected for both the 230-kV and 345-kV lines as being well suited for Alaska condi- tions. D.System Expansion Plans To determine the intertie's economic feasibility,alternative system ex- pansion plans were prepared with and without the Anchorage-Fairbanks inter- tie.System expansion plans were developed to meet both the 'Iprobable ll and IIl ow ll load demand projections. 2 - 2 To assume a nearly constant level of power generation reliability (LOLP Index)for all system expansion plans,a multi-area reliability (MAREL) computer study was performed.Annual load models for both areas were developed.The load models indicate that there is little diversity between the loads in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. The 1984-1997 study period was selected to best suit system requirements. The earliest year when the interti~can be operational is 1984.Based on optimistic assumptions,the last generating unit of Upper Susitna Hydro- power Project will be on-line in January 1997. E.Facility Cost Estimates Cost estimates were developed for alternative system facilities to allow for economic comparisons.All costs were adjusted to January 1979 levels. Transmission line costs were calculated by using the TLCAP program.The same computer program calculated the line losses. To provide a means for optimum economic dispatch of generating units on an interconnected system basis,costs for control and communication sys- tems were included in the intertie cost estimates.Cost estimates for new generating plant facilities (gas-turbine units and coal-fired steam plants)were based on cost information in the Power Supply Study -1978 report to GVEA,prepared by Stanley Consultants.Appropriate Alaskan construction cost location adjustment factors were applied to derive spe- cific site cost estimates. Construction power costs for the proposed Susitna Project were calcu- lated.The results indicate a clear advantage for utilizing the intertie as a source of construction power. 2 - 3 F.Economic Feasibility Analysis The economic feasibility analysis of the intertie was performed by discounting two cash flows (independent and interconnected systems)to a common year and then measuring the project benefits by the net present worth value.Facility costs for those new generating plants not af- fected by the introduction of the intertie were excluded from the anal- ysis.The Transmission Line Economic Analysis Program (TLEAP),a com- puter program,was used to analyze the sensitivity of different escala- tion and discount rates on the capital costs of various alternatives. For principal investigations to establish definite feasibility analysis a 10%rate was used to di scount cash flow inconstant 1979 do 11 ars. G.Financial and Institutional Planning A preliminary financial plan for implementation of the transmission intertie on a progressive basis was developed.The probable composition of institutions and participating utilities for ownership,management, and operating responsibilities is reviewed in this report,and present arrangements and possible future requirements are discussed. 2.2 CONCLUSIONS The study shows that: •The 230-kV single circuit intertie,having a 130-MW line load- ing capability (Case IA),is economically feasible in 1984, based only on benefits due to reduction of generation reserve plant capacity (reserve sharing).The net present-worth or the benefits are $12,475,000.The benefits become marginal ($945,000)if intertie costs are increased by 25 percent.In the case of IIl oW Il load forecast scenario the benefits are $2,704,000. 2 - 4 .(""'" r ,.,.... I I, •An increase in benefits is obtained if the 230-kV single circuit intertie (double circuit after 1992),in addition to generation reserve sharing,includes firm power transfer capability (Case 18). The benefits are $24,054,000 or an increase of 93 percent over Case IA. Additional benefits due to supply of construction power to the Upper Susitna Project sites are $5,579,000. •The 345-kV single circuit intertie (Case IC)is not economically feasible in 1984 based on the two scenarios developed in this study:generation reserve sharing only and reserve sharing plus firm power transfer capability.In the second scenario the results are negative ($-426,000).Further studies are recommended to pursue the economic feasibility of the 345-kV intertie because from technical point of view the 345-kV voltage is more appropriate for the trans- mission distance between Anchorage and Fairbanks. •The 230-kV single circuit intertie with intermediate substa- tions at Palmer and Healy (Case 10)is economically feasible in 1984.The benefits are $20,344,000 including the power sup- plies to MEA system to Palmer and the proposed Upper Susitna HYdropower Project sites.If intertie costs are increased by 25 percent the benefits become $11,656,000. - - •The fully integrated interconnected system operation generates additional benefits which are not quantified in this study.These benefits coul d be due to: Decrease in spinning reserve requirements by reducing the on-line plant capacity for the combined system. Coordination of maintenance schedul ing which would improve combined system security and provide cost savings. Economies from optimum dispatch of generating units on the interconnected system basis.It is definitely recommended that a multi-area production costing simulation study be perfonned to establish these additional benefits. 2 - 5 •Expansion plans for the interconnected system with the proposed Upper Susitna Project were developed to detennine the effect of this project on the interconnected system expansion plans,the displacement of thermal generating units,and intertie transmis- sion requirements with Susitna Project. •If an early 230-kV transmission intertie is constructed in 1984, due considerations should be given for constructing the Anchorage- Susitna portion of this intertie for 345-kV and operating it tem- porarily at 230-kV. ,The average value of energy transfer cost (1984-2015)thru the 230-kV intertie is 8 Mills/kWh at 55 percent load factor when financed by 40/60%REA/FFB loan package and municipal bonds issued by Anchorage and Fairbanks. •This Intertie Feasibility Study is only a part of the over-all power system expansion plans for the Railbelt area.Further studies will be required to establish definitive characteristics for this transmission intertie.These studies should be closely coordinated with the future expansion plans of all utilities in the Railbelt area. 2 - 6 CHAPTER 3 LOAD FORECASTS FOR RAILBELTAREA r" I ,'i CHAPTER 3 LOAD FORECASTS FOR RAIlBELT AREA 3.1 ENERGY AND DEMAND FORECAST RANGE The basis for establishing a range of future load projections for the Anchorage -Cook Inlet and Fairbanks -Tanana Valley areas,together with a combined forecast for an interconnected system service area in the Railbelt,was obtained from an examination of previous forecasts11 com- pared in the Battelle Report of March 1978 (Ref.1).These were examined in relation to a combination of the most recent utility forecasts pre- pared for the REA and an August 1978 revision of previous forecasts for the Upper Susitna Project,issued by the Alaska Power Administration in December 1975 (Ref.2). A.Range of Energy Consumption Resulting from Battelle Study The Battelle study provides a compendium of previous forecasts and an analysis of assumptions intrinsic to their projections.It attempts to eliminate low probability scenarios and select a range of utility and industrial loads for the intertied Railbelt system.The following summary of annual energy consumption,excluding national defense and non- interconnected users,represents the definitive results of the Battelle study: 1974 1980 1990 2000 Annual Consumption-GWh Upper Range Limit Interval Growth Rate Lower Range Limit Interval Growth Rate 1,600 3,400 10,800 22,500 13.4% 15.3%10.2% 1,600 2,6008,500 16,000 8.4%9.6%4.0% 1/See Section 3.3 for references used in this chapter. 3 - 1 Battelle selected this energy consumption range after carefully evaluating the methodology used in several previous forecasts and relevant assumptions pertaining to economic factors.Two load studies were deemed most appro- priate to future load projections for the Railbelt.They are.in order of preference.the Upper Susitna Project Power Market Study by the Alaska Power Administration.and the report Electric Power in Alaska,1976-1995 (Ref 3.)by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER)of the University of Alaska. 1.Forecasts for Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area -From the several load forecasts corresponding to various growth scenarios of the ISER study,Battelle selected Forecasts 2 and 4 as most appropri ate for the Anchorage and Cook Inlet area.These forecasts assume limited petroleum development.which was considered to be the most likely prospect.The assumptions underlying the scenario for limited petroleum development are: •Petroleum Production will be 2 million bpd in 1980.and 3.6 million in 1990. • A natural gas pipeline will be constructed from Prudhoe Bay through Canada. •An LNG plant for natural gas from the Gulf of Alaska will be constructed. The assumptions regarding electrical energy consumption are: Moderate Electrification No Growth• • Sector Residential Commercial/Industrial Case 2 Growth as Usual 3 - 2 Case 4 Minimum Electrification - ,F"" The ISER study did not include new industrial consumption in forecasts, other than expansion of existing loads served by utilities.However,it did relate utility forecasts to economic scenarios,in which future energy consumption was quantitatively projected according to specified assumptions of petroleum development,population,aggregate income,saturation levels, and average usage per customer. In 1975 the Alaska Power Administration prepared forecasts for the po- tential power market of the Upper Susitna Project.The forecasts con- tained projections of industrial load for existing and possible future installations.Battelle modified these projections to include the follow- ing assumptions: •In addition to gradual expansion of existing refinery capacity, a new 150,OOO-bpd refinery will be built by 1983. •An aluminum smelter with a capacity of 300,000 tpy will be constructed,to be on-line by 1985. • A nuclear fuel enrichment plant,included in previous load projections,was deleted from future industrial load. •Industrial development in the interior region was assumed to be excluded from the load area of an intertied Railbelt system. A summary of industrial facilities included in the Battelle forecast for the Anchorage and Cook Inlet area is as follows: Existing Facilities Chemical Plant LNG Plant Refinery T-irnber Mills New Facilities Aluminum Smelter LNG Plant Refinery T-imber Mills Coal Gasification Plant Mining and Mineral Processing Plants New City 3 - 3 2.Forecasts for Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area - A similar evalua- tion by Battelle defined the most probable forecasts for the Fairbanks and Tanana Valley area.It assumed that industrial development in the interior region will consist largely of self-supplied mining operations in remote areas.Thus,load growth will be attributable only to utility customers in the service areas of the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS)and the Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.(GVEA). In the judgment of Battelle,the most likely consumption range for the Fairbanks area is bounded by the mid-range projections of the Upper Susitna Market Study,with mid-range forecasts prepared by the Interior Alaska Energy Analysis Team (IAEAT)(Ref.4)as the upper bound and the ISER Case 4 as the lower bound. 3.Combined Forecasts for the Railbelt -The Battelle energy and demand forecast range for the combined utility and industrial load of the Railbelt,encompassing the Anchorage -Cook Inlet and Fairbanks - Tanana Valley areas,is shown graphically on Figures 3-1 and 3-4,re- spectively.These are intended to serve as background comparisons with combined utility forecasts and the revised projections of the Alaska Power Administration for the potential market of the Upper Susitna Project. B.Forecasts by Utilities and the Alaska Power Administration The most recent Power Requirements Studies (PRS)of the REA utilities (Ref. 5)in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas were obtained,together with the most probable load forecasts,as projected for the Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Company (AML&P)and the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS). Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide tabulations of utility forecasts and extrapo- lated projections to the horizon year 2000,for the Anchorage -Cook Inlet area and the Fairbanks -Tanana Valley area,respectively.The Valdez -Copper Valley area is not included in the forecasts for the 3 -4 ~, Railbelt,as these load areas are assumed not to be interconnected with the intertied Railbelt system until after the completion of the Upper Susitna Project.As the PRS provided load projections for a base year and at two 5-year intervals,interpolations were made on the basis of assumed compound growth between reported values.On the further assump- tion that growth rates will decline progressively to the horizon year, extrapolations were made of net energy generation with growth rates declining from reported values at 5-year intervals to 2000.These growth rates were applied on the assumption that there will be no abrupt transition to low growth rates.Rather,growth will diminish in gradual steps as markets are saturated and the effects of conservation and price elasticity reflect in future energy consumption levels.Reportedload factors were interpolated for intermediate years and the trend extrapo- lated to the horizon year to obtain projections of annual peak demand. The utility forecasts were combined for the Anchorage -Cook Inlet area, the Fairbanks -Tanana Valley area,and the total Railbelt.Table 3-3 provides tabulations of net energy generation,load factor,and annual peak diversified demand.It is obtained by the application of coinci- dencefactors to the sum of individual I.;Iti 1ity peak demands.These load forecasts are shown on Figures 3-1 through 3-6,in comparison with load projections prepared in August 1978 by the Alaska Power Administration for the Upper Susitna Project,as revisions to previous power market forecasts evaluated as part of the Battelle study.A summary of the Alaska Power Administration load forecasts is given in Table 3-4.These forecasts include only utility and industrial load projections on the assumption that national defense installations will not be supplied as part of the interconnected system load.Since the Battelle forecasts also excluded load forecasts for national defense installations,direct comparisons can be made.The range of Alaska Power Administration load forecasts for peak demand and annual energy was as follows: The range of load forecasts exhibited this diverging spread from the 1977 base-year load level.The industrial load projected by Battelle was included in the Alaska Power Administration forecast range on a selective basis.The differential between the "high "and lI ex tra high "forecasts is an additional 280 MW of load,representing an aluminum smelter.The IIl ow "forecast excludes the load projected for the New City. C.Comparison and Selection of Forecast Range The forecasts of net energy generation for the Railbelt are shown on Figure 3-1.Curve 1 represents the combination of the most recent forecasts for municipal and REA utilities,as presented in Tables 3-1, 3-2,and 3-3.The forecast aligns closely up to 1990 with the upper bound of the Battelle forecast range.Beyond 1990 the divergence arises from the different assumptions made in regard to growth rates in the 1990-2000 period.The upper bound of the Battelle range exhibits an abrupt change of growth rate,from 15.3%to 10.2%,applied to total energy in the Railbelt,while the combined utilities forecast exhibits a more gradual transition to lower growth rates.Although many economic factors will contribute to lower overall growth rates in energy consump- tio,a reasonable approach to establishing an upper limit has been taken,in that individual utility forecasts were assumed to decline without abrupt change.This assumption is based on the fairly constant percentage expenditure from disposable income for energy needs,as determined by the study of future consumption patterns in Alaskan service areas (Ref.6),the results of which are given in an extract from the RWRA report (Ref.7)presented in Appendix A. Accordingly,the combined utilities forecast has been selected as the upper limit to the possible range of total energy forecasts for the Railbelt.The median forecast prepared by the Alaska Power Adminis- tration,as a revision to the Susitna Project Market Study,has been selected as the lower limit to the forecast range for the Railbelt. This recently prepared forecast exhibits lower growth than the 1975 3 - 6 r 1 r I r ( -I r" I forecast for the Susitna Project,and represents a prudent choice for a conservative growth scenario. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the relationship between.the combined utilities forecast and the range of forecasts prepared by the Alaska Power Adminis- tration.The effect of the aluminum smelter load can be observed as the differential between curves 2C and 3C on Figure 3-2,and curves 2A and 3A on Figure 3-3.The median forecast also excludes the aluminum smelter load but provides for a reasonable realization of the industrial potential in the Anchorage area.In setting the lower limit of the forecast range in the context of the considerable industrial growth potential of this area of Alaska,it is thought that the selected forecast range will provide a good test of the economic feasibility of establishing an interconnection in the Railbelt. A similar comparison of forecast demand can be made by reference to Fig- ures 3-4, 3-5,and 3-6.The combined utilities demand forecast is below the upper bound of the Battelle range until after 1985 and aligns in fairly close proximity until 1990.Beyond 1990 divergence occurs based upon the assumption discussed previously in relation to energy growth. The median demand forecast for the Susitna Project,prepared by the Alaska Power Administration,exhibits a growth characteristic that roughly par- allels the lower bound of the Battelle range between 1985 and 2000.As the low growth limit to the range of demand beyond 1981 selected for the interconnection study,it represents a moderately conservative view of overall growth potential. Pripr to 1981,the short-range combined utilities demand forecast is below the median forecast for the Susitna Project,approximately at Battelle mid- range.The demand forecasts for the Susitna Project may be observed in relation to the combined utilities demand forecasts of Figures 3-5 and 3-6.The selected range of demand forecasts represents a moderate to high expectation of a continued growth of the Railbelt economy through the end of the century,this being accentuated by the interconnection of utility systems in the area. 3 - 7 3.2 DEMAND FORECASTS FOR GENERATION PLANNING The range exhibited by load forecasts for the Railbelt Area is consider- able.Therefore,it remains to select definitive demand forecasts for generation expansion planning that are a reasonable representation of anticipated load growth under projected economic conditions. A.Selection of Peak Load Demand Forecasts The combined utilities forecast is appropriate to a high growth scenario that may not be possible under future economic constraints and prevail- ing trends towards greater conservation.The median forecast by the Alaska Power Administration does not include the entire industrial load potential that could be realized by a steady commitment towards economic growth in the State.It also specifically excludes the possibility of development of the aluminum smelter in the Anchorage area. The selection of the statistical average forecasts,given in Table 3-5, for peak load demand is consistent with the moderate to high expectation of continued growth in the Railbelt economy.The natural resources of Alaska,particularly oil and gas,will largely determine the extent of future growth possible within the State.A steady pressure for addi- tional domestic oil and gas supplies for the lower forty-eight will be engendered by the continuing energy crisis within the United States. The impact of additional exploitation of the North Slope on the State economy will be reflected in continued growth within the Railbelt. Thus,the conditions are present to ensure the realization of optimistic expectations for moderate to high growth of load demand. B.Forecast Range for Sensitivity Analysis In order to determine the effect of load growth on the economic feasi- bility of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie,a suitable range of load growth must be established for sensitivity analysis. 3 - 8 r The uncertainty associated with a load forecast increases with time,so the range of demand should also increase with time.The values given in Table 3-6 correspond to a range of load demand that steadily increases through time from a bandwidth of +1%in 1979 to +21%in 2000. The long-range load projections for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks- Tanana Valley areas are shown on Figure 3-7,with their corresponding range limits.The diversified demand for the combined areas of the Rail- belt is given on Figure 3-8,the peak load rising to approximately 4000 MW in the year 2000. 3 - 9 3.3 REFERENCES 1.Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,Alaska Electric Power: An Analysis of Future Requirements and Supply Alternatives for the Railbelt Region,March 1978. 2.U.S.Department of the Interior,Alaska Power Administration,~ Susitna River Hydroelectric Studies,Report on Markets for Project Power,December 1975. 3.University of Alaska,Institute for Social and Economic Research, Electric Power in Alaska,1976-1995,August 1976. 4.Interior Alaska Energy Analysis Team,Report of Findings and Recommenda- tions,June 1977. 5.Rural Electrification Association,Power Reguirements Study for: Alaska 2 -Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.,May 1978 Alaska 5 -Kenai-Homer Electric Association,Inc.,May 1978 Alaska 6 -Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.,May 1976 Alaska 8 -Chugach Electric Association,Inc.,May 1976 Alaska 18 -Copper Valley Electric Association,Inc.,May 1977. 6.E.O.Bracken,Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Power Demand Estimators,Summary and Assumptions for the Alaska Situation,June 1977. 7.Robert W.Retherford Associates,System Planning Report,Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.,January 1979. 8.U.S.Department of the Interior,Alaska Power Administration, A Report of the Technical Advisory Committee on Economic Analysis and Load Projections,1974. 9.Federal Power Commission,The 1976 Alaska Power Survey,Vol.1,1976. 10.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,South-central Railbelt Area,Alaska, Upper Susitna River Basin Interim Feasibility Report,December 1975. 11.U.S.Department of the Interior,Alaska Power Administration,Bradley Lake Project Power Market Analyses,August 1977. 12.Tippett and Gee,Consulting Engineers,1976 Power System Study, Chugach Electric Association,Inc.,Anchorage,Alaska,March 1976. 3 -10 .·~·I '~'1 ....J '~'I ....]~'1 ~1 '1 '~~l r~l •..~.])1 TABLE 3-1 ANCHORAGE -COOK INLET AREA UTILITY FORECASTS AND EXTRAPOLATED PROJECTIONS Anchorage Municipal Alaska 2 -Matanuska Alaska 5 -Kenai AlaskaB -Chugach Light and Power Comoany Electric Association.,Inc.Hrnr.~r Electric Assoc.,Inc.Kenai City Light System Electric Association,Inc. Net Lead Peak Net load Peak Net load Peak Net Load Peak Net Load Peak Energy Factor Demand Energy Factor Demand Energy Factor Demand Energy Factor Demand Energy Factor Defo1and Year (GWh)-ill.-~(GWhi .J!L (MW)(GWh).-.l!L (MW)(GWh).J!L ~(GWh).J!L ~ 1979 633.6 58.1 124.4 280.4 47.5 67.4 275.2 55.0 57.1 34.4 56.0 7.0 1.108.9 53.0 238.8 1980 699.4 58.1 137.5 332.8 47.0 BO.8 336.6 55.0 69.9 37.5 56.0 7.6 1.283.0 54.0 271.2 1981 770.6 57.9 151.8 395.1 45.5 97.0 411.6 55.0 85.4 40.8 56.0 8.3 1,467.8 54.0 310.3 1982 847.3 57.8 167.3 468.0 56.0 116.1 502.0 55.0 104.2 44.4 56.G 9.1 1.679.1 54.0 355.0 1983 929.6 57.7 183.9 559.3 45.0 )41.9 572.3 55.0 118.8 48.1 56.0 9.8 1.920.9 54.0 406.1 1984 1,017.5 57.E 201.8 668.3 44.5 171.4 652.4 55.0 135.4 52.1 56.0 10.6 2.197.5 54.0 464.5 1985 1.110.8 57.4 220.8 7~8.6 44.0 207.2 743.7 55.0 154.4 56.4 56.0 11.5 2,509.0 54.0 530.4 1936 1.209.5 57.3 241.1 954.4 43.5 250.5 847.9 55.0 176.0 61.1 56.0 12.5 2,810.1 54.0 594.1 eN 19H7 1,313.2 57.1 262.5 1,140.0 43.0 302.6 967.0 55.0 201.0 66.3 56.0 13.5 3.147.3 54.0 655.3Bae1,421.6 56.9 285.0 1,322.4 44.0 343.1 1,083.0 55.0 224.8 71.5 56.0 14.6 3.525.0 54.0 745.2 1939 1,534.2 56.8 308.5 1,534.0 45.0 389.1 1,213.0 55.0 251.8 77.0 56.0 15.7 3,.948.0 54.0 834.6-......1990 1.550.5 56.6 333.0 1,779.4 46.0 441.6 1,358.6 55.0 282.0 83.1 56.0 16.9 4,421.7 55.0 934.7 1991 1,769.8 56.4 358.2 2,064.1 47.0 501.3 1,521.6 55.0 315.8 89.5 56.0 18.2 4,863.9 55.0 1,022.2 1992 1.891.3 56.2 384.1 2,394.4 48.0 569.4 1.104.2 55.0 353.7 96.5 56.0 19.7 5,350.3 55.0 1,131.0 1993 2.014.4 56.0 410.5 2,705.7 49.0 630.3 1.874.6 55.0 389.1 103.5 56.0 21.1 5,885.3 55.0 1,244.1 1994 2,138.0 55;8 437.2 3/157.4 50.0 698.0 2,052.1 55.0 428.0 111.1 56.0 22.6 6.473.9 55.0 1,363.6 1:195 2,244.9 55.6 460.9 3,454.9 51.0 773.3 2,268.3 55.0 470.8 119.2 56.0 24.3 7,121.2 55.0 1.505.4 1996 2,357.1 55.4 485.7 3.904.0 52.0 857.0 2,495.1 55.0 517.9 127 .9 56.0 26.1 7,69().9 55.0 1,625.8 1997 2.475.0 55.2 511.3 4,411.5 53.0 950.2 2,744.6 55.0 559.7 137.3 56.0 28.0 8.306.2 55.0 1,755.9 1996 2,598.8 55.0 533 ...4.852.7 5(,.0 1,025.9 2.964.2 55.0 615.2 146.9 56.0 29.9 8.970.7 55.0 1.900.6 1999 2,728.7 54.8 568.4 5.337.9 55.0 1,107.9 3,201.3 55.0 664.4 157.2 56.0 32.0 9.688.3 55.0 2.048.1 '2000 2,865.0 54.6 599.0 5,871.7 56.0 1,196.9 J.457.4 55.0 717 .6 168.2 56.0 34.3 10,46304 55.0 2,211.9 G,owth ilates: Repcrtec Logi st ic Cune 3 18.7%(1977-1982) 19.5~{i983-1937) 22.3~(1977-1982) 14.0~(1983-1987) 8.8%(1977-1982) 8.3%(19&3-1987) 15.7~(1977-193C) 14.4~-(1931-198S) -------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------~-------------------_._----------------_._----------------------------~---Projected 5.0%(1995-2000)16.0%(1933-1992) 13.0%{1993-1997) .10.01 (1998-2000) 12.0~(1~08-:992) lO.C%(1993·1997) B.o;(1998-2000) 7.8%(1988-1992) 7.3'1(1993-1997 ) 7.0%(1998-2000) 12.G~.(1986-199a) 10.~(1991-1995) S.C~(1995-2COO) TABLE 3-2 FAIRBANKS -TANANA VALLEY AREA UTILITY FORECASTS AND EXTRAPOLATED PROJECTIONS Fairbanks Municipal Alaska 6 -Golden Valley Utilities System Electric Association,Inc. Net Load Peak Net Load Peak Energy Factor Demand Energy Factor Demand Year (GWh)(%)(MW)(GWh)(%)(MW)r;'\7' 1979 144.3 50.0 32.9 450.0 46.3 111.0 ~"'~ 1980 153.0 50.0 34.9 501.8 46.6 122.9 1981 162.2 50.0 37.0 559.5 46.9 136.2 1982 171.9 50.0 39.2 624.6 47.2 150.9 1983 182.2 50.0 41.6 692.6 47.3 167.1 1984 193.2 50.0 44.1 768.8 47.3 185.5 1985 204.7 50.0 46.7 853.4 47.4 205.5 1986 217.0 50.0 49.5 947.3 47.4 228.1 1987 230.0 50.0 52.5 1,050.0 47.5 252.3 1988 243.9 50.0 55.7 1,155.0 47.5 277 .6 1989 258.5 50.0 59.0 1,270.5 47.6 304.7 1990 274.0 50.0 62.6 1,397.6 47.6 335.2 1991 287.7 50.0 65.7 1,537.3 47.7 367.9 1992 302.1 50.0 69.0 1,691.0 47.7 404.7 1993 317.2 50.0 72.4 1,843.2 47.8 440.2 1994 333.0 50.0 76.0 2,009.1 47.8 479.8 1995 349.7 50.0 79.8 2,189.9 47.9 521.0 1996 367.2 50.0 83.8 2,387.0 47.9 568.9 1997 385.5 50.0 88.0 2,601.8 48.0 618.8 1998 404.8 50.0 92.4 2,809.9 48.0 668.3 1999 425.1 50.0 97.1 3,034.7 48.0 721.7 2000 446.3 50.0 101.9 3,277.5 48.0 779.5 Growth Rates: Reported 6.0%(1978-1990)11.5%(1977-1982) 11.0%(1983-1987) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Projected 5.0%(1991-2000) 3 -12 10.0%(1988-1992) 9.0%(1993-1997) 8.0%(1998-2000) '1 1 ,1 1 ]~-1 ---~-~Cl ~~ TABLE 3-3 COMBINED UTILITY FORECASTS FOR RAILBELT AREA Anchorage Cook -Inlet Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Combined Load Areas Net Load Peak 1 Net Load Peak 2 Net Load Peak 3EnergyFactorDemanc:i=-/Energy Factor Demand~j Energy Factor Demancj.:::./ Year (GWh)(%)U~W)(GWh)(%)(MW)(GWh)(%)(MW) 1979 2,332.5 56.1 475 594.3 47.6 142 2,926.8 55.3 605 1980 2,689.3 56.4 544 654.8 47.9 156 3,344.1 55.6 686 1981 3,085.9 56.2 627 721.7 48.0 171 3,807.6 55.6 782 1982 3,540.8 56.0 722 795.9 48.3 188 4,336.7 55.5 892 1983 4,030.2 55.7 826 874.8 48.3 207 4,905.0 55.3 1,012 1984 4,587.8 55.5 944 962.0 48.3 227 5,549.8 55.2 1,148 1985 5,218.5 55.2 1,079 1,058.1 48.4 250 6,276.6 55.0 1,302 1986 5,883.0 54.9 1,223 1,164.3 48.4 275 7,047.3 54.8 1,468w19876,633.8 54.6 1,387 1,280.0 48.4 302 7 ,913.8 54.6 1,655 1988 7,423.5 54.7 1,548 1,398.9 48.4 330 8,822.4 54.7 1,840......1989 8,306.2 54.9 1,728 1,529.0 48.5 360 9,835.2 54.9 2,046w 1990 9,293.3 55.0 1,928 ~,671.6 48.5 394 10,964.9 55.0 2,276 1991 10,308.9 55.2 2,133 1,825.0 48.5 429 12,133.9 55.2 2,511 1992 11,436.7 55.3 2,360 1,993.1 48.5 469 13,429.8 55.3 2,772 1993 12,583.5 55.5 2,587 2,160.4 48.6 507 14,743.9 55.5 3,032 1994 13,842.5 55.7 2,836 2,342.1 48.6 550 16,184.6 55.7 3,318 1995 15,208.5 55.9 3,105 ~,539.6 48.6 596 17,748.1 55.9 3,627 1996 16,575.0 56.1 3,372 2,754.2 48.7 646 19,329.2 56.0 3,938 1997 18,074.6 56.3 3,663 2,987.3 48.7 700 21,061.9 56.2 4,276 1998 19,533.3 56.5 3,947 3,214.7 48.7 753 22,748.0 56.4 4,606 1999 21,113.4 56.8 4,244 3,459.8 48.7 811 24,573.2 56.6 4,954 2000 22,825.7 57.0 4,569 3,723.8 48.7 873 265,49.5 56.8 5,333 Diversified Demand for Coincidence Factor:11 0.96 2/0.99 '}../0.98 TABLE 3-4 Sheet 1 of 2 LOAD FORECAST FOR UPPER SUSITNA PRillECT BY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION r- I TABLE 3-4 Sheet 2 of 2 LOAD FORECAST FOR UPPER SUSITNA PROJECT BY ALASKA POWER ADMI NISTRATION 1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 . 2.FAIRBANKS-TANANA VALLEY AREA POWER DEMAND AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (Excluding National Defense) r Peak Demand (MW) Ut i1ity Loads High 158 244 358 495 685 Median 119 150 211 281 .358 452 Low 142 180 219 258 297 Annual Energy (GWh) Ut il ity Loads High 690 1,070 1,570 2,170 3,000 Median 483 655 925 1,230 1,570 1,980· Low 620 790 960 1,130 1,300 3.COMBINED ANCHORAGE-COOK II~LET AND FAIRBANKS-TANANA VALLEY AREAS Peak Demand (MW) Extra high 810 1,588 2,272 3,186 4,548 r-High 810 1,308 1,992 2,906 4,268 i Median 568 752 1,085 1,515 2,057 2,775 Low 694 889 1,109 1,385 1,721 Annual Energy (GWh) Extra high 3,580 7,270 10,300 14,440 20,510 High 3,580 5,800 8,825 12,970 19,040 Median 2,343 3,325 4,795 6,740 9,190 12,400 Low 3,061 3,942 4,920 6,150 7,620 r' ..... I 3 -15 TABLE 3 - 5 LOAD DEMAND FORECASTS FOR RAILBELT AREA TO DETERMINE STATISTICAL AVERAGE FORECAST Anchorage -Cook Inlet Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Combined Load Areas Combined Alaska Power Statistical Combined Alaska Power Statistical Combined Alaska Power Stat i st ica 1 Ut il it i es Administration Average Util Hies Administration Average Ut i1 it i es Administration Avercge Forecast Median Forecast Forecast ~;edian Forecast Forecast ~1edian Forecest Year (~~W )Forecast (MW)(MW)(MW)Forecast (~~\Ii )(/iW)~forecast (11W)WtJ) 1979 475 546 511 142 139 141 605 685 645 1980 544 602 573 156 150 153 686 752 719 1981 627 648 638 171 161 166 782 809 796 1982 722 698 710 188 172 180 892 870 881 IS83 826 752 789 207 184 196 1012 936 974 w 1984 944 810 877 227 197 212 1148 1007 1078 1985 1079 874 977 250 211 231 1302 1085 1194 t--'1986 1223 937 1080 275 223 249 1468 1160 13111(J)1927 1387 1004 1196 302 237 270 1655 1241 1·;48 1988 1548 1077 1313 330 251 291 1840 1328 1584 1989 1728 1154 1441 360 265 313 2046 1419 1733 1990 1928 1234 1581 394 281 338 2276 1515 1896 100 '2133 1315 1724 429 295 362 2511 1610 2061JJl 1992 2360 1402 1881 469 310 390 2772 1712 2242 1993 2587 1495 2041 507 325 416 3032 1820 2.126 1994 2834 1593 2215 550 342 446 3318 1935 2627 1995 3105 1699 2402 596 358 477 3627 2057 2842 1996 3372 1809 2591 646 375 511 3938 2184 3061 1°0-3663 1925 2794 700 393 547 4276 2318 3297JJI 1998 3947 2049 2998 753 412 583 4606 2461 3534 1999 4244 2182 3213 811 432 622 4954 2614 3734 2000 4569 2323 3446 873 452 663 5333 2755 4054 "'I TABLE 3-6 PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECASTS FOR RAILBELT AREA ~J I TH RANGE LIMITS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Anch~rage -Cook Inlet Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Combined L02d Areas Lower ?eak Load Upper Lo\~er Pear-Load Upper LOI·/er Pea~Laad Up~er Range :Je<:~nd Range Range De:::and Range Range :>.;::;,,~,d Range Limit*Forecast**Lj~it Li~it*Forecast **Lif:1i t Limit *Forecast **Li~it Year ~(;·r··!)~~(:-f..l )---1!i!l ~(>~',!)~I'i,,",",,"I.' n79 508 511 514 140 141 142 641 615 649 1938 570 573 576 151 153 155 744 749 754 1931 635 638 641 163 166 169 790 7°~802J~ 1982 702 710 718 175 180 185 874 831 883 1933 765 789 813 188 196 204 949 974 999 w 1924 832 877 922 202 212 222 1031 1072 1125 I 1985 908 1267977104621823124411211194......1936 985 1020 1175 232 249 266 1212 1314 1416'-J 1937 1068 1195 1324 248 270 292 1310 1448 1586 1988 1156 1313 1470 264 291 318 1413 1534 1755 1939 1250 1441 1632 281 313 345 1523 1733 1943 1990 1350 1581 1812 300 338 376 1642 1896 2150 1991 1451 1724 1997 317 362 407 1760 2061 2362 1992 1562 1881 2200 337 390 443 1888 2242 2595 1993 1677 2041 2405 355 416 477 2021 2426 2831 1994 1800 2215 2630 377 446 515 2167 2627 3087 1995 1933 2402 2871 398 477 556 2319 2842 3365 1995 2070 ·2591 3112 420 511 602 2476 3051 3646 1997 2215 2794 3373 444 547 650 2644 3297 3950 1998 2365 2993 3631 469 583 697 2820 3534 4248 1999 2525 3213 3900 495 522 749 3004 3724 4564 2000 2697 3446 4195 522 663 804 3203 4054 4905 *Low load forecast case in this study. **Probable load forecast case in this study. - L:...J i. =-1---:== U~-Lc~_j::c-=:L~l~'::~ lib-I=1·=1":;: ,-~~1_1 ¢.t-I FF-1 .t-o- I----- . 200:'::1 1------.-- 20000 1974 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 30000 ~~L".:T_-J-..-~.-7'~~::;L~'~~~'~~~:~~--~:-:...~:.~~~'::~.~!.'~~-=~~:~~_"j'_..~:.("~~h"_-__---1 --._..---r---.----~--~------+.....-:~ .----=--.::=...:........·:C.:--=~::':::'~~i-..";'~.:..:__;:=_~__~:-::~::~_2 -..-:-~-;~~~~.'·~~:-r~.~'"~-+1-'-;-':...:-':__~~,~".~i~j--j----.',.. ,:~-.~.:;:::~:.~:r::rr=;:.......:+,-.h--r.---.'..1--..~~.......-:-:--=-.'!-~.,----3 .,---..........--,!.<-t·'-,-+i-+r-!-,lr 'r--t-)-.;:;-,f-I-i--'--;-!-r-t-"-,.;....;'-~_I_'--~'.1--::-:__:-.. ,.'I'...•:."/i I cH-+t /-HiT':+·~/If ,J..:.-'.~'-Y-:--:''=I=-~'-:-,-:=_;-'-.4.~.--.-;-;+[-~--l---llt-:-H·'.T I ~..IJ-H-H..J~~-'"-~,.-;--..~-------f·....-"... 'HEr='c ~~,~'~2 ~:~L-"~~;::'~~''l~I~:-· 5000 -=__!=u~l~~I_-~-"...-~I~~~_~k=?~I~.~~~_.:~----=1====r~~-"-~-~•.-........L."'1f~---~ 4000--'---f-------:-~"'l~=-:±-·.....0:-_-,~- _-'.-1~~~~~~_~__ --;f-:--=-~-''''';''''-Y .-F:-I .~.=::E:!=tt'~E":'::"'~4 -."'<-I I '000 __'--~--1 •--'·'r·II t~_.:..i'~.l1 /=':-.,~L .~~.~.,~--'=. ---i .. --=_::--....~--.:~~=1 ! •I J...,~.-........L;-•.:..~".;.::-~'.'-++:=.----l--'-F r=:=-.--....-.~~-..7 =:=;:-tJI-'-;'1 c.J.r r=ul=r :=:t-l 1''';:'',-=i=l:ti=-.~J;:.-----=--.I :--~~--:::::-_.--+--::-t _~...:..j I-t .-4·!:t~.f ...J::l±":;':1=t"';:!:+===-..'====-'-. CXXl.--;:::::::.-r .."+:H:I=:j:·.•r-f:.t:2 fl.".,I +.-.""T ~I--L~>-~lj ~..'...~I --~+H ~.-'i t -.+-~f-i-:i ~~~~:+~I~rtto~l~~£+fn ~~'ft -00.~;~"T ~i ~-HI*i I 1-~~~~~_~---:--_.-_:",,_~. I 000 ,~._.-H ~~:II I ITr I .."I •,.,,'I .•f +I j 900 r -_...,--_ :~t ~.~~~:,;,=Jc~~~;-'~-;~CE ::I g~:~:-:.-~-t-:~=~_';;~-t.~---=-=-ri-_-~-.~-••-~-+--...t,.,.II:--~-+---.-.~---'! 500 _'~~£-==4~n!kh--TI2T:ff#·t±l1ftt$tH1-I..~:..~I:': 40°1 -ir..=:--.~•~:.:.'.:':'~+:-;.-+::"F -:---=-----j'-....-·:1 ~~:.;~'~::±:I --=:-i:_C -'/-:".w ..~~=I.f:;-':1'-r :.~=. --:..~.-.1 i:i=s=j~.$~-.~~~-..---.:,--,,-=.;c."j -'-':---.."·iI·.--~l.~~t~;·:--=-~,,1__'-..::==:: . I ~,....,f--c--.-t---=-- I:tiM z: ~ ~ W % 0 I-«CO ~-.:w ~ tz .., >--< G) c ;0 IT1COMPARATIVE NET ENERGY GENERATION FORECASTS FOR COMBINED W UTILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL LOAD ~ RAILBELT AREA , T h-I-.h-H-..I I':I ITT1I I 1 I REVISIONS OF AUGUST 1978 tmmf:*fmRID1r=rL!++:;=rjlH'} !TIThttHt-1I00l...l....'..J...l..w...~....LJ....L-l--'-L.Ll---'-..;....:..........L.Ll.........w...J..J...'-"-'..l.-!-..L..::."'-'-'U 1 COMBINED UTILITIES FORECAST 2 UPPER BOUND -BATTELLE STUDY FORECAST,MARCH 1978 3 LO~ER BOUND -BATTELLE STUDY FORECAST,MARCH 1978 4 HEDIAN FORECAST -ALASKA PO~ER ADMINISTRATION,SUSITNA PROJECT MARKET STUDY, I -~=,-_.-..-:-:t---i"-J::.~ ~ ~ Cl, W Z 0 ~ C( It:......lIJ <.0 zw Cl... W Z 1-'---- ,., ....... G) c ;0 I"Tl W I N "1 ___··_r~.=~_ '-§:---E'--E'--'l--~--~---.._.-1----=-..:.:_:--~~:::--..:=-:-=:=::-:-:=-=-:':=:':j:===---- ..._:--=-~_co.:l~'.:.:;:~L~-~~d ~.=::~:.L·.:::-I:>';'7,:"~~_--=--.l -=:F"':--"-L-~_.--_:l&~:=-,=~-=-;.__..:"@"-f --'o-k I-"I --t·=-_·-:r:':::...---t=;:;-:ill--=i~-==-::~::=J===:=:-:+:::-=':·:;=1-:-=:::~:=!~-:-I~=-":_..I-.-I==--'-...-~:-~;=-::1---r--'.-r-------1=·..----_..1--,-_·_--,--·_-1--=-1 .....···1-·..-__t._,,__,.-,=:::r-=-_~~---~----:::'-_-.__~I--===r===!-§_./---_.,-t--..=,=--_.=--1::-:=--:::1 ---'-_::;+.~-L-I.::':~=':b:-_~--'~:~:·I,,:=~-::=L:~,:R~·::·:I:.=l;,;.:-mr.=-c I -¥t:o-:=1-:::.::-=t:::::::"':A=~=E=-=--I·:--f:.:_I;-:~:-:_~-:!;---..." =i _=JIiIiJ:;;-~-EB;~=rEI:~~:.._..~ ---l SA 1995 =-:o.t."..--,---=---._. 1990 2000 :-l -:-j ~ :=:jj:.';~==20ii0+-'+>-t-+-+T+--...--._-------1---,,-.. 1985 ::~~E-;i:.~Z!E-=~~~~ ._i;"-:...~._p q_k'----'---'---EfJ:=::=:5J-----------r=:::::J===:::-:-'-.!'--=::::::::::-r--:.-----._.....~r -•••"~-. - -__.n·....-"'.,..20000 --..•'.~.._.-'-.-',-.T"'~,=-j-==J..._._+..)---I i F =1--1·~ ->-~-==::=::-::~'----,---=r:;::~:---'--T ~. ., . "~••,.~--,---.--.•".....- ..:.--1----.-:--~':.~.1+-;-\":+":'"~~'I .'+--:,:<+f-r.;'-+~L':.'P-;-.T'j.;~·R= -:-~ri·,:i 'I l I~':'-'':h-r-~.I .l :-:'!j " •f I ;::'..'·-t·-----+---=:n __ . " .,'J I I IlL!'i.i j , ,.;H++l-t-t-.R I . ,'.J.f1'".1.'..-1"..,...._~•.•----;.--. f-:...,-+:-.,...,...",,,1"-.,:I-;-rl'T~r ,..:,,~..'I -.!,t''!"._..-.....,~~~:..."I ..~::,,:__I~!1------,·-· 1------1-'-..-~--,,'~'I"iT';";'."~·r-l"I 1,1 •.:~.-~"I::::.;.:.--r-·-i·-·-,---j··..·-----j4A ,,~.,....~~~......'-"'1.:'1 "'-"'..,..._~....,.,.....----:-::~k""--"'"--....--.:.=t:--:-.~"';;'.~-:.'";':-:.:~_:..L.:.:.=I=++.1-:f:-l---±:±-C:-~'J .l.I=;'.-_:~.;-.:!:.:-,-._---=--2000 -r--:'",=--..·2~·_·--'·,"1 .....-)..--_.-+'-,'.c:..:+--++..I--'-~"~"--.----.-.... 1:=''..:':'~.::_.•~.If.w::~-.:_:_:.~:";Tt-t='·~-~~·~I$t1=1f.t.~p~-·_-_·-·_.:"'.J<~:.::'l--:~_3F - +--'-I+'r--<','........,.'-';~-t';:..:~'ti ._._.~---,~~l-..-fu ,.+111 :..::.:---:~..-,--.~......I'~'-:':-=- f---..~1f1f"'.R#.'.I Hii-r .;-rH ItL .-ri';+:i~".·I-J;.J±L~....,,:~..~---ti----=:......,f---t .-.-..;;4F r-+4t-h=ji·'iiffiR=l,-1 +i--·jIH-r.-.-..+,.~~n:l·.........-r.7"7-'~ll!""-~T-...j"·1·f-.ILj...l ~-H ,,-",--.''IT..j....h...:.+--,-.'----._...I!:I .I r I _1.I l I ~'II I._ I ~.,I !.!.....I I \I , I L_~ 40000 1975 1980 30000~-~·i~~-- .,.I !'1',I',.I .~.;,..I :.-'--lI.I -+"-''1 --r--r--.--.~~_:"'-,-1--,.,.I . .-r--::=:.I _...~.. t=...._-- ::; -I=l:_-==E:=:_-I~ "...... GJc: ::0 fT1 W I W ·1 -- -f--- ~:. .;....:.._il .•.._ ~------_.~-..~..- 200 ~ I -,"--,...-:'~!_:-'I:-:.·~~~l~·-=. 100 i-!I:I ,!:-h i I;,--."PROJECTED-RANGE OF~~ 1/\UTILITIES FORECAST FOR ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AREA IF UTILITIES FORECAST FOR FAIRBANKS -TANANA VALLEY AREA NET ENERGY GENERATION 2/\EXTRA HIGH FORECAST}ALASKA POWER Acr~INISTRATION 2F HI GH FORECAST }ALASKA POWER AO'1INI STRATION FORECASTS FOR COMBINED 3/\HIGH FORECAST SUSITNA PROJECT MARKET STUDY 3F MEDIAN FORECAST SUSITNA PROJECT MARKET STUDY UTILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL LOAD 4A.MEDIAN FORECAST REVISIONS OF AUGUST 1978 4F LOW FORECAST REVISIONS OF AUGUST 1978 ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AREA AND SA LOW FORECAST FAIRBANKS -TANANA VALLEY AREA 2000 ..._---..1-- ::-- ~-!- .:;j=-=~~=--~~=t==i r·-.:I~~~='i 1000 900 800 1974 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 6000.,.,_:.,~"..:!"~,'~.-=rn ;,~:..:__.."1'~.:.;.o;=:,,:~==.:~~:';':O;_?7-",·:"",~;:~E.."::.'0.0<:..::"',~:f'::'::~~'.~~~'_. 5000 ~j:~\~.~-,:~-':O":~:~~.7;.·,~ijj/~J:.::~"-i~~~~'~~~~:h,::~:!~i:~~~~I~~;;~~:~;:~~~1~'~.~,:.~::~~'-"~>~:\i.~;.A' 4000 ~.:_-~~:·~:··:~PC'~~~~:~-::~'~r r::.~'O!::=~.'~':B=,:~~:~C~~~:=l L;E'-.~.~.~~.~~•.~_.~.::'.:::;•.. ,-....-.~4:--'-=1''W ,.'-::j::jr ldw·:¥:.::;£::-:.~.-,-+•.•.••--.~:~--..~.jH -""-:~~=r:P-::f~,c:m:ir\~:~_~~.'_.-+-.-_-+'_-~:..~~:...~..:~.--..~:~2 .l .•'_...,...--"::=rt 4=,•...,-<-.1 :~.1 ,..,·I+:;::1=!:.-+-,--L .~.•.-,$:._.-:--:~. 3000 ,-.....,.:.',±L.:.!:T ··!t·j"r-i-r:l::l±-.J:.r~';-,.;..~l"i·jj-m-K'~--4.'·~i-"'"'-'. '··+::-=-.:.:r-:._~:..:;:-t~i·:.r ~±E8.t=i=I-l:r$, '..T-\..!--.l-i+_'·~hii:.;..~f::.·.:_.·:-L:--:~4 . -..:.•' .f--.":·1-1-+'r-I+c-!.!~I+W-•fff+"W-l-'~l:-ill;--L.'-,-,!-J-+-1";";;r'--l--l--.--.....k±:::',.~.....y1-.'-.•._.'.•-.rt:I-t-..l-"-t !'I+--\,-i-i .•.-f -,-f-=~··1 d-+-+-. "'1t ~fffi'h-l'----.-.,..-.--.-..-..-..,}f--....,-,L.;--4 ~+i+1 I .T'-.,i Ii+'--.I I I!,I -HT " .-+,-:-t--:"-----..."...'.--.....-.-2000 . ..~,-'+-t-C7t'"-----r·:l ".,~t·'~r--"lir'.,....-:-TH·r-t -t:-;-t ~-~----r-..-'--- ~-:'.'~'~.~~C ·~~:~:]~:~:·mt~#:.-~::'·~"~:=~i~~:.r~~:.;:~~?~-:-=_::~.-:....1.::...: -....~;....~ r--·_.._e-3'·1_...·~.Rt::--·'ar=t=-:1+"-"-nr I~I=:=-:':;::~F:H"B:-1jIj~~~-'"--.:_..:.-:-:'..=--:_:--,.~=.~=-..-:_~.':s~.,~._~~_.<..'+-::=m .:;::;:::;.:.+-f~[_~,:,:4'"-t~_,~;·:t--=-·":_-'..'~~::,~--:_.:-..-:-:::7:~-":..':'! --------'-'-:~--'..~.r-~-r-~~q.t ....-9 -r ,".u:r--l:itl r '"--i--j~..-~,~.....--...;:-!'±p::--_Lj ~L:J;,In-~'.c:.'"+i..q::'~r ,~~,"T1:f""t:tm·+··.,·:-'."'::.':'::::-......:-. ,../.~i±i:±1 I.;....-H,-r-.!Ui---f---.'--'--..-...I ..•T'.?---'-......++-...1'"~. - ,. -.-....j -,-0''::_1"..7 r :l-~r--.........:.--++.Lj +,--:-1++ .Tt-<-t H--j '.'..._._--,-.._-p-.J.-,..Lrt-~""'-:;_":....-~.....~;:,r TH--H"!-,1---'------·-..-_..--.+-J---l I...,··~.__./'i '--1 H-'.•1 t -;--r;-, ,.I.i"'- ~ :I, w 0 Z <il :::!: N w.....0 ~ <ilw Il. oJ <il ::;) Z Z <il --:::J::1 -__I =1 --.-- "Tl...... G:>c;::....... Ft:i (...) I ../::> -'-I--1 :,r : ::;:-~I= --..."-r 'Hr'-r'....J.......H-,--~·t~-_·,..":'i-'---i-.. ~I , ..'.-r-'!t~--,--,...,..----t -.--+-=_.~__'_.-...:----1-_·_-c=.:':~----r --=-:::=+-:;"-1-===1=----__."...:-1- -~~::::..;~~~-_:-:.-....'=~~.:...- .'.~'-----__.-'----.____--r-----r-':L-=:"'--'-J,-===~_-----==.l -----.r---....t -=----.,- ---t-----~------§~~;-:=fr~-::=f'---:;:-~~.<i~~=--f ~=--~~(f==~~;l:~~-t;17-;-.;:~-j-~:-c-~---,-:~-j 100 E':-~-:~-..-=-=--'1-·-I -:-...---=-:-~~I:-~I -r -.=--'-'-'-.,--:---'.._---,-~:..-,.------f -.-.1-COM-PAR'A--T1V~~::..-=:-::i ,CO"BIH£t'UTILITIES FORECAST ANNUAL PEAl<DEMAND 2 UPP~R BOU'W -BATTELLE STUDY FORECAST.MARCH 1978 FORECASTS FOR CO'.\B1NED 3 L(,\..'~R BO~NlJ -e~TTELLE STuer FORECAST.IolA'lCH 1978 UTILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL LOAD 4 ~~('I~FOFECAST --~LASKA POIIER A~'"ISpnl~.'~.SUSITNA PROJECT "'Aq~n sruCY,REVISIONS OF AUGUST 1978 RAILBELT AREA zoo L--' ~ ~ I c ZW « ~ '"aN >0::N « l&J [L --I« =>zz« J97~1980 19B5 1990 1995 2000 :!~~~~~~_T:~='f~~tf~fs,~~~(~~~;~'~~~:S~~~;; '000 i:£-:,~I__:-:~::;~:e~;~:=~:i~~~;r~~~~~~~" =.:--...--r-;....~---;-::-::-'::"-.':."±--:.~~.::....,...~.;:.:)·+++t-t!,:"'I:.;:::rtJ:p-.........:.'..i i:f:.;T'r=:--~. --:.7++--':·,..,.-T-l-...·c·..-;i+tt-:-~~',:,r~,...•+#J:-W-4 1::t:!:~:rJJ.;)~'t1 t+:·~H++±"".>~,_.~......- 2000 ~-Ui~~~~~~~~.~~},~~.8£:~¥"ill~~~~-;~+~~~5C -·1 ...--I ...-.......::r-.r=.•.....;...H . -..../.~i.:-h::"-:;:-::;.!-:....::·~~iffi;-.·;:;...:';.:...-:...:-'.:--=±.:;:::.~ ....'~T·,'::"';"--=.'-..1 'c'f -1-·:t-;:-rt·.-i'-----+~......'- I-~-.--....::;:......::f-,--...-o.."':,i .V::.::.::.-·n.:;!~'~:t ,-·~i:Tr l -+i:q::f--l-··'!,~-+~..- '..o..1----1~:··~ll~~-c~-'o....'---~f(~/~:+ffRI'¥~~."tfP'H ','rl~o..f~t--~-·'~~~~~~[~~~~i~~~~~~~~~.·.·~~~~~ 500 <.~~.;T;~~:..>.:0:.'- :.~~:--._l:,;:,~:"'~~:~~_~7~!-~~:~:li;T ~~~.~~:~.~"~~;.::;t.F~.~:~~~~~.::E§~~*~~~:~.'~;,::~~...,._ 400 jr~~~~"··::;.~~=-..:-:·:.··:~:;~:··;;~·J.ir~~:~;~ic~1;.~:~'~~~~:~'--:~~:~lt~0?~~-..C;~::--~~~~~~~.~:~,~::.:~~; 300 ~.:+:.-~~=:~-,.c..c:::..;::;-=~;LLi+!J _,n':':~~::-~H)=.:!-;-AJ ~~~f':~:enf=ff~-.:....._....:- =----~'.~=~~l=~."--...H=Ut -,-.,....-'--:...;...-+$~ __~~,.L...--:-_...,_'~-rl+"T ~.I.-:....I;J.,,-r-;--~ -:--.-,...;+-'---:...,.-+-.:..;.-~.--+-+----7-TT .;i Lt i ...'.~~++' '._...- =-..:....'-:"';"'.,..y:"";+,,--H-;''+-;'11,:.,f++--~;.1 'T'.•.rt .iff'·:r"+T-±-"-T- ----:-'.~"""':.'--r'--'"_.....-:-"-1 ',--'.:.:-,..--.•';--:t-!r--..1'-_.•__..-- 200 ,.1 I",;I I ,'-r-'j I ,I I '7--r~~-- - =:-'=--=--.--.--:-<,.-=;:.::::.,""-::±::::..t:~.,--,-.~-..-.,--:::::=......"------+-.~-=:-,,-.:=,-C L.-;-=;:~:....,.......~±;.~Et t:!:.t:i-..--I-T--i-=m;.mIl'~~c '.-;'t-i:+.J:;":+c=;.:..'--;::::c --:-=...;:c~~'~:::-.-----~.:...;---::'--2 '._--ij '11''-.!±'.=E .~.!.H':t ,-+.-'-'-.,..'-=_...' ___--'--0 • •-....~......·-:":-iTJ:=F -4---'--,_ .T _:::d:.'r-.,............~:±E!::---.. - 1--...._'.-,....:4--....-,......+-l..-;...j..."';""•...;....;..++>'-,.•--.,,---H-.-t-~.'-l-..• .__c ,..:-:~ c ..~.:-..:.::±.:...._~_.',.p:::j::::j:-~-.I-:!:;..":-i--++t·i±!~-·tr!'···~::;:-..j-....r.;..j--:t .......=-r;:t:;...;;_'-:='::i:::=~I_:_.--=j'--..------..==.):~"w.:.i ..,I,..,---~;,.---:::t:::.--;'·HI-·.._..n.~..._or ,-r:::;-+"t-~---1-,-:.:':==::I I·,·~'-:--:;::':':==+I--~-_:loo~-i~~I_~~;~j~F:-r1T"l1t~UjJi~~ifi[fJtf!~f~~if~~~~F~~~ , C COMBINED UTILI TI ES FORECIIST .PROJECTED RANGE OF 2C EXTRII HIGH FORECAST}ANNUAL PEAK DEMAND 3C HIGH FORECAST ALASKA POWER ACfoIINISTRATiON FORECASTS FOR COMBINED 4C MEDIAN FORECAST SUSITNA PROJECT MARKET STUDY UTILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL LOAD 5C LOW FORECAST REVISIONS OF IIUGUST 1978 RAILBELT AREA ., ........ G) c:: ;::0 rr1 W I U1 w, en "T1 >-< G'lc: ;;0 rn 600 ::~~:~dJ1~m-~j:rilE~~U-!~aI§~~~r51~-~z~JF !=-~~:~J:-:::-.-.~:~.;~;::::'-~.::=::;:'~f------.*:::::~.~:?~:~':_..:'::~,~~.--I:::..;~i :~.::--~.=£.=-=...-j 300_-----t-o ..- -."--.-"'--"~...--r-·t·::-,:~-·:::--:.·t=·::~·.--I"..,..........-1 ...-...!IF==~..;....-='-'.~--..----==:±:-.:·~~:<·.:r-?~!~::...:--~::1::':.=::~~:..~.~ --....,---'r-.'-I-~.".,.~I"-~@'---'.-~.--1-~1 --.;....,------.•.h-'..j.-....._-.•-.---~I-·----I--~-i.,.---,--.r--!..r-..I ,-r ----.--I'-~··--_.--__l ---1---==-j 200 _.F-'~f--O _-:-'~:c.._...:...-~';;.'.'i-~-.'.:.~"--.:.....;-~.:_~~t~_~-:~~.:-~..:-~__.'_.__~~;I ::.-c.-~1 '-~:-..~~---I==_'-~~'::~=:~._.~-'-=.:J _"j ...=r ...._1.._._1_·_--1·~-··-f---_'·'_·:..",~~;:-_.::-_--~.--,~;-.-.:-=--":....._:~---:;~:-:--:.;===-...J::;::::-':-'=-~:..-:.:'-...:.::..;.:_ --.l'~,=:':.=.:L-:-=-'=---=.-----......-....-=--:-:::--~.....~..'-..'--'-f __..I . ...--,.-·--m-·,-"'-....-I ...=::::I ..-=-1 =-=-~:::..:...::;-===-~~~-.-4_--=--':-=""1.:':-.'.--_:,-:-:-=::,-=_-:·-..··-~l-~-=-----::~:--·:-:=..=.:---=-=----r::-:-:::.:-~...:::-=:. I---_.-~------i----',...---..,1-"..,--1--....j"-..~--'R~.-.-----I.......---_.--",-----,._._.!-:--..--'-~-_...---~..-_._.~-_._._-_.~----'--,._-- ,·:r.~.-~..i:'.~-;~'~i -~~~~~-.'::~~f3~:.~~.:;{-\:~J%;;~=:~~~~~~':'~~~'~~"'~~:.._:...~-:-r~~-:"~:_-=1 '---1·-..,-1 ..--.....1 ---1--I ·,1·--:..1-·-1--··'-'--::t=h--:-------l......l--I---_!.-..=i1001-'---'r--:~"-"'l".--,.t ::_.-----.1--------·----1·---'··,-,.-=1 lA UTILITiES FORECAST FOR P'~OjQRAGE"WOK INLET AREA 1F UTiliTIES FORECAST fOR F~IR9~';KS'TA.t;AN~V~LLEY AR~A ANNUAL PEAK DEMAND 2A EXTRA HIGH FCRECAST 1 AcASU POIl£R A'J'PUSTRATIOII 2A HIGH fORECAST }A~AS~~PC··~~q A~t~ISTRATION FORECASTS FOR COMBINED 3A HIGH fORECAST >.SUSITNA PROJECT ~~RKET STUDT 3F 'lEOlA';FORECAST SUSITN~PROJECT ~ARKET STUDT UTILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL LOAD /.itt "[DIAN ro.PECAST )RblSIOIlS OF ~UGUST 1978 !IF lO'"fORECAST RE\IISIC~S OF AUGUST 1978 ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AREA AND SA lC:"m;;[CAST fAIRBANKS -TANANA VALLEY AREA 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 6000 ,.:.···.·::c.:·.-:._'.:.,..c,.'.:.:'.::'._::.=.--.::.:'<.'-..~,~'.":'1';.:;',.-~';:'.:-:T~::-'a:F ,;0",_"•....;:.".;..:.,.;.;.:::.-:,:;,......":--+:'..::,.",'.:.."---F,:..__".',:.._...".:':..j 5000 ~:~~';~::'../::::,'.:.~.~/~~i:~~";."::...-.~:~F.'~.:"~f:::~~~~~~.-;;:~-f,§:[~:fL:·~~:·~:it~'c~~··:.:::,-~.:~~-::;,~.:~::::.~1A 4Ooof:"f»::::=~=--'-".':'-~·~c-:,~~c~._I:'-;-?~~:-~·_:''-~T.:~2~~?~~:E~~=i~~~.::r;·'~~~_~·_,."~-~-·:~_c:-::..t~~~::~ ~:.-.•1_,.•.--'.1"'-"·=~..'-_.-::::;-'T·"-,,-+-tJll ~.=f-t,"W i±h '-.;-++-.-+~I'-f-..--~: ..---I2A._:'_;H'~~--='~~=-=~.~"~:.~'.._~-~=~.~:i:-;±:~.--!-~2:::'~'~:_~~·~·~=~_~1=~-f~:~h==-~.:-.zt.·t.=~~~-~.:+~~~~~=~~.~~~..--=-:~-_-.._=:--~:-~·:~3A··-r=-·-..._."M--.1:..;2.TF'=.r,'--+-:.:..-'-,;,.t·:·.t-tc±~.:lJ.r::j::T."•...;..:,C'.;:r:;-..~---_1-::::-./·.---~~~~.::J'......-:""".3000 :-.-:-~t="~:-.::::::--.--:--.::~:~'--:=7 ;T1'':T:-~.:r;~-r-h':":_:-;:.::;.:;-;.:j -:p-:t:::d-rl-I:::p:r:- .-t-R=.;:1:+::,~,_....--,;..~=-..""';;'-::'.:.:~~..'--.~ ....·----r~·-.....F.f?·'-·"'··'ffi·-·'+--···-~+\"'--I¥fff-......,..+-n°+1--T--,.1 ·:::t·+~·'-I---':--'I::::~--'''··~''''··---.....'":=-=.-::=:--=-1".-'-'-::::..:-;-'~.:..:...r::;..:..;-t-.,~T T;::~"""""".'-rr:::"":..-',:r .t""p:1++-.--~H I~I H'~ct;:-==-~-.:..I':'::;'--::=:::::.'::'--':=:."':'::~~.......--..,...,..-;.•~,.:~..,.•~P,--r--"1 -d-i--l·H-··H,.I ..r ',"--IT;-'-+H·j·t,,·t·I ~I"'-"-----:----:;"r-"~""::-~_:'......_--"'--". '-----f----.,.;...-I-l-------:-::·, .'.' . .,-~.-!-+--r:...I-f-H+f'~.._..1 . .'...1--.----_...---.-;I·A f-.-~~-.;':-------.-'-;-+I..l--T"+.J~+t:t\±~;,.},+.f"f]tnt ~-+-.-~+r+I t·l.y.<'':;''~,-,------1.___""t"-----r 1----------~......------.--~--~I+_f__T+"~T r->---ft-'-r"~.....-+j-;.,..-J-.v~...,::::;;;-~·-,;..-""'f'1·:-'. -r-..;..o--·.-ro--'f--.._,-_:~-L,+--,-:..,'.!.'~1 --,..,..j f-+..,-'~'I-,, .I--"'~--'..L..l....'.'-',r---+--r--.._.__._.. 2000 ~.~t~~:~~:.I-~j:~~>~~~~l~~ff:U;f c~'F.~:-f.L~~:..r:;l-rf1f~'·~V:·~TT;:k2t'r~~:~~~~~~=~~<ff~~~:"~~.~l.~ .........c .T'~'-...,~_._.:IM ..:tr,..;.if,r.,-:.'--.-...r"..-l'f.."~..;:~~',-,--r"'"_.=-~-..-.._...-.------"-'---- - - -_~~...;.i.-l_••_":""'......&-... •,,'-+1 t--:+-.f·I:t··.~..:~~-··:,t ~,.•-J +...t .....·-:-+--~.~...--._.----.---___ .._._..-r::,.....:..:'::.'::tt:j::m..:4:.:r :j:':~;-,:-t.T::pr:~~-rl·4i~"t~~t:!!-r-'~-'-::...---'.-_.1.-.::::~--,...:.-.::....-..:...1 :::'-:::;;JSA ..-f-.-_..~...---.,,.'--,~-:--;-j'...,-..,..,•.•y"'"f-"""":'.:·t2r.,·~;!-~r,:i-..I-~.j-I ..,..--'--.------_.--_.-.,....~_r-::::"':·I"·'-r:.::t=.=.-;-:::::;-...~..,..,.rr-:lT;"+:...!.'---..--j-/__~.:.J.":'-""':':;:l.:.'1;,'--~i'-''>--r+'~T bc..~'-:-==:.:.1..=-...-----..-.----,-t=-==-t.....,t:-;-"'r:::r-H--it+1-+.-..-,-+.--.~..~:~II-i''l',,-~;±t'.'BE'·.++-~...--,.,......0---=.. --.•.._-----':~.-~::::~I·r+-~r7:';"::"--..·:.:u.Jrt--:;·r~E·..:.'.j'.:..,........,,.'.•.I-----i -__L.----"'---~,---'-'--'-h-L+,·Jl/'-:........1.--III ~:i'"(•-.,"~'-.'...... '~"..~::,-g;ff£~~~§~~~;:it:-~~~tz~~~t~3~:: ;'-"""~-":/..............~,:i~.::..:.-L':':~i:;'::;>~,:;~!;.,;'-=-F"j,,--,--:.:-":~:~:'::::;~:'~';.:~I '_~i '.·I.,·j ~ ~ w , 0z« N ::i; W UJ Cl )C« UJ Cl. ...J« :::>zz« 1979 198e 1985 .990 1995 2000 FIGURE 3-7 ------.._-.__..__..-..._-----------_.._---------;-----_.....-._---_...-..--- ----:.,..----~-~~-:-:-~--------------.------ PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECASTS WlTH RANGE L:r-,·:rTS FOR SENSITIVITY ANAL.YSIS ANCHORAGE·COOK INLET AND FAIRBANKS -TANANA VALLEY AREA LOADS hNCnORAGE -CC0~INLET FCRECtST FAIRBANKS -TASA,A V~LLEY FO~t:CAST ?E~K LOAD Dt:"IA.~il ~P;::OgA8LEI U??ER R~~GE LIMIT LC~ER RANGE LIMIT UPPER RANGE LIMIT LOWER RANGE LIMIT PEAK LOAD DEMAND (PROBABLE) [--- "r I._-- -_._--.. .._~_i':.:'! ......_•'.~"':.::-·-------'''-'f--.;,,...-,,.-...,.,..,.-- ;-'•.~~.:.--...:-.•4 .,-;I ........•-i:..... .._-._..--._.....-----_..~...-... •,f_•••••••.:":.=.:-::..':t-=-=_·:..:..:-..-:-.:'.:._.u_ •__•••N •••N • ._--- J ,__.•, --1-···._j :.:. .::-.':!::..; .__---.-._....-..---_.-.----.~ . I ..:..:::2.:..::.:.=c...:...._~=:-:---:-::::",.. ~:.....!:- I.._..._..._-_.-i."..- 800----···--.---;----.....-... 900 _._.--_.-----....-----...-.-. 5ea ~--'--~~---:----;--:-:--:---,-~ 5:::;._.-~----~ U'"''"""J..! ..__. _i._ 2.000 :--.f·-'m.---u.n__• . •.i..on'';,;..L.'~'....~-=_.,.....~i.-::.c:-.-,--..,....,.-'---,--.,.-- 3: :!: 300 :....:....:.:.: 100 ------'-1-------. ,. t-:"'!'.-.m·....''1";-':>-, ~1000 :-,..:.._--'-':..---,:_.~..~--------/ <:;; wa '"<700···--··_- .Ll C. ..J«::>zz q w N +:> 1979 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 .• __.___...-_'.:.,-.-__.-.i .~_.__ FIGURE 3 -8 ,---.-._.;----'--~i· W I 00 .,..... G')c= ';10 /"T1 PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECAST WITH RANGE LIMITS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RAILBELT AREA LOADS UPPER nA~GE ll~IT PEAK LOAD DE:'.A,~D (PROBABLE} lC~E~RANGE LIMIT --1 .'.... --~.:..---~~-__+_'_.-'-.-:.:------o------'...:......-~- -.i -._,_."11~'-1-.i _. !'~: -',:~~-"'~l:'~.~-1 ~~~i ~~;:~~~~:·r .~_~:.~0-1","';.=J-~=.,_---'''-.....__o T'--' _I --_.._--_.~_._I_. ...~-:-~T-: L '-..._-'--- i. 60:>----.... -_..----.-.--,....:-:--i -.-'-'---- 5eo -:-1.-"---~--,j - :-::.•.- I •._- aox.__.__~-~-L.-:"j -1 ~---.:.-=--~:?::............. 1OGO ~.------ 900 ;:...-=~. eoo ;-._..-=-=-~i 700 ; 5~OO ; ! 2000:T -_...--1 .--:------.:~~~_n b~'-..;'~--;;.~ W I N U"l :?; ::;: 0z<::.:; UJ 0 '"<::w ~ ...J <l: :::> Z Z <:: ,CHAPTER 4 SELECTION OF INTERTIE ROUTE r t ,-. I ,- t CHAPTER 4 SELECTION OF INTERTIE ROUTE 4.1 REVIEW OF EARLIER STUDIES A number of studies have considered the electrical interconnection of the Fairbanks,South Central,and Anchorage areas (Refs.1-8).The ·Susitna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report (Ref.2),here- after called Susitna Report,reviewed a number of alternative transmission corridors in considerable depth.None of the studies included a specific route for a transmission line.The Susitna Report provides an excellent inventory of topography,geology,soils,vegetation,wildlife,climate, existing development,land ownership status,existing rights-of-way,and scenic quality and recreation values by corridor segments of about 5-mile widths. 4.2 SURVEY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS Alternative corridors reviewed for this report were those along or near the Railbelt region between the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas.A recon- naissance (by USGS Quad's and local knowledge)~of routes connecting the,. Railbelt area to Glennallen was also made to provide a basis for estimating the cost of such a connection at a later date. 4.3 PREFERRED ROUTE FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE The preferred corridor described in the Susitna Report was further de- fined by making an actual prel-iminary layout of a def"initive route (with some alternatives)using engineering techniques.This preliminary routing provides a basis for refining cost estimates,displaying a definitive lo- cation for use in studying potential environmental impacts,and providing a specific engineering recommendation for use in right-of-way negotiations. 4 - 1 The preliminary line routing is shown on the accompanying maps,Figures 4-1,4-2,and 4-3,these being spatially related to the key map on the inside of the front cover of this report.These routes come from a working strip map of I"=1 mile (USGS Quad's.)on which these preliminary routes are drawn.The route was plotted by an engineer with nearly 30 years of experience with Alaskan transmission systems.It was also visually in- spected throughout much of its length over the Parks Highway from Anchorage to Fairbanks. The definitive line route was established within the preferred corridor, with due regard to the following restraints,insofar as they could be identified in this preliminary review: •Avoidance of highway rights-of-way,which are better locations for distribution lines that will be required to serve homes and enterprises served by the highway. •Avoidance of telephone lines,because of electrical interference problems.(An open-wire telephone circuit exists on the entire length of the Alaska Railroad right-of-way.) •Avoidance of aircraft landing and takeoff corridors,inclUding all lakes of sufficient size to accommodate small floatplanes. Where lines may cross landing patterns,at least 1/2 mile is allowed from the end of runways or lakes,so that special de- signs are not required. •Avoidance of highly subdivided land areas and dwellings. I Avoidance of crossings over developed agricultural lands. •Selection of routings that provide for minimum visibility from highways and homes. 4 - 2 )!w·~·' Pil-' • • Avoidance of heavily timbered lands. Selection of routes that provide for minimum changes in grade as the terrain will allow. /"""'. i f""< \ r •Parallel alignments with property lines are favored,if not pre- cluded by other considerations. •Avoidance of sensitive wildlife areas,if practicable,and co- operation in regard to construction and operating restraints where lines pass through such areas. •Alignments located in reasonable proximity to transportation corridors (roads,railroads,navigable waterways)so that con- struction,operation,and maintenance routines are not inordi- nately difficult. 4.4 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Principal engineers of the IECO-RWRA team made field trips by helicopter and surface transportation to important sites and typical structures of eXisting transmission lines in both the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. Particular attention was given to lines using designs developed especially for Alaskan conditions of muskeg swamp,permafrost,and flood plain. These designs have had more than ten years of successful service,and are the basis for more recent tubular steel structure designs now being installed on Alaska projects. Actual field records of Resident Engineers and Inspectors on Alaska trans- mission line construction projects were analyzed along with contractor bids for these projects to provide authoritative basic data on the actual man- hours,materials use,and dollar costs of completed transmission lines. 4 -3 4.5 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A.Description of the Environment 1.Point MacKenzie to Talkeetna -The corridor travels north along the east flank of the Susitna River Valley,an extremely wide and poorly drained plain.Heavy forests of bottomland spruce and poplar,interspersed with muskeg and black spruce,are typical.The soils vary from deep, very poorly drained peat to well-drained gravels and loams,with the well- drained soils being more abundant.Although permafrost is almost absent in this lower part of the Susitna Valley,the poorly drained areas are subject to freezing and heaving in the winter. A sizeable concentration of moose inhabits the lower Susitna River Valley.This valley also supports black and brown bear and a moderate density of water fowl. The proposed transmi ss i on 1i ne route generally follows a IItractor trail II (USGS designation)to three miles northeast of Middle Lake.Here,at the approach to the Nancy Lake area,an alternate route (A)may be used to avoid this area.The proposed route (B)is located in marshes and wetlands,between Papoose Twins and Finger Lakes,across the Little Susitna River.The corY'idor then travels northward along the east side of Lynx Lake,Rainbow Lake,and Long Lake where it crosses the Willow River.Here alternate routes (A)and (8)rejoin and intersect an existing 115-kV MEA transmission corridor at the Little Willow Junction and a proposed corri- dor to Anchorage on the east side of Knik Arm.Travelling north,the corridor crosses several major tributaries of the Susitna River including Sheep Creek and the Kashwitna River.In this area the terrain becomes more rolling,and the relative proportion of well-drained soils support- 1ng thick poplar-spruce forests is considerably greater than to the south. The corridor then travels some five miles east of Talkeetna to the Bart- lett Hills P.1.(point of intersection). 4 - 4 f""'\2.Talkeetna to Gold Creek -From Bartlett Hills P.I.the corridor crosses the Talkeetna River near the confl uence of the Talkeetna and Chulitna Rivers,where it follows the west bank of the Chulitna River at a mean elevation of 600 feet.Where the Chulitna River curves east- ward,the corridor travels northward,along the Susitna River Valley, through forested uplands,gradually rising to an elevation of 1000 feet. The uplands above,the valley support sparser forests,and increasing amounts of permafrost soils are encountered.At the 1000-foot elevation, one to three miles east of the Susitna River,the corridor crosses Lane Cr'eek,MacKenzie Creek,Portage Creek,Deadhorse Creek,and numerous other small tributaries of the Susitna River.It then crosses Gold Creek and the Susitna River,1-1/2 miles east of A.R.R.Mile 265,to the Susitna Junction,one mile east of A.R.R.Mile 266.At the Susitna Junction,the proposed Devil Canyon-Watana-Glennallen line meets the corridor. 3.Gold Creek to Glennallen -The corridor parallels the Susitna River to the proposed Devil Canyon damsite and then travels east to the proposed Watana damsite.The vegetation in the canyons varies from up- land spruce-hardwood to alpine tundra.Soils vary from poorly drained river bottoms to unstable talus.Permafrost occurs in this portion of the corridor.Some localized moose populations are crossed.The corridor passes through low lake areas west of Lake Louise until it intersects the Richardson Highway at Tazlina.From Tazlina the route follows the Richardson Highway into Glennallen. r-, r I.", r r <, 4.Gold Creek to Cantwell -The transmission corridor travels north some 1 to 3 miles east of the Alaska Railroad between elevation 1500 and 2000 feet.The timber density becomes successively less in this area. This portion of the corridor is a good bear and moose habitat.Shallow permafrost occurs in this portion.The corridor crosses several major and minor tributaries to the Chulitna River including Honolulu Creek, Antimony Creek,Hardage Creek,the East Fork of the Chulitna River,and the Middle Fork of the Chulitna River.The corridor area is of medium scenic quality and is not readily accessible,except at the Denali Highway Crossing. 4 - 5 5.Cantwell to Healy -The corridor rises to the 3200 foot level along the west side of Reindeer Hills and then descends into the Nenana River Valley.It follows the east flank of the Nenana River northward at the 2200 foot level,through sparsely timbered country.This is an area of high scenic quality especially in the canyons.The terrain varies from rolling hills and valleys to high passes and sharp ridges.Habitats of moose,bear,and Dall sheep are traversed.Bedrock is exposed in the canyons.The corridor crosses several tributaries to the Nenana River including Slime Creek,Carlo Creek,Yanert Fork,and Montana Creek,and the Nenana River itself.It also crosses the Alaska Railroad at the Moody Tunnel,near A.R.R.Mile 354 and the Healy River.The boundary of Mt.McKinley National Park is on the west flank of the Nenana River. 6.Healy to Ester -The corridor leaves Healy and crosses the Parks Highway near Dry Creek.It then roughly parallels the west side of the highway at elevation 1500 feet,crossing several tributaries to the Nenana River.It crosses the GVEA line 1-1/2 miles north of Bear Creek, the Alaska Railroad and the Nenana River at A.R.R.I~ile 383,and the Parks Highway.The route then parallels the GVEA line.The corridor crosses the Tanana River at the Tanana P.I.and follows the Tanana River flood plain for several miles until the route again crosses the highway where it travels on the west side of the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest. The route parallels the GVEA right-of-way the rest of the way to Ester. The Healy to Ester portion of the route passes through some private lands (mining claims,homesteads,etc.),as well as near the towns of Healy, Lignite,and Nenana.An archeological site exists near Dry Creek.Portions of the corridor are heavily forested and provide habitat for moose,caribou, and bear.Poorly drained areas in this corridor are subject to potential permafrost degradation and frost heaving. 4 - 6 B.Environmental Impacts Construction and maintenance of other Alaskan transmission systems has shown that most negative environmental impacts caused by a transmission system can be minimized.Golden Valley Electric Association,Matanuska Electric Association,and Chugach Electric Association have constructed and are operating several lines on poor soils and under harsh climatic conditions.Except for anticipated slight visual impacts,most environ- mental impacts caused by a transmission system would be far less than those of many transportation and communication systems.Specific areas to be impacted are discussed below. 1.Ecosystems -The major positive impact will be on human environ- ment,while adverse effects to the other ecosystems will be minimal.The route has been selected to avoid adverse impacts on these ecosystems wherever possible.The human environment will be benefited by the pro- vision of energy,vital to the growing state of Alaska.The development of many potential renewable energy resources will be made feasible by the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie.The project will contribute to the reduction in costs of electrical energy,improvement in reliability of electrical service,and enhancement of opportunities for renewable energy resources (such as hydro and wind)to displace non-renewable energy resources (such as gas and oil)for the generation of electricity. Alteration of vegetation patterns will affect wildlife.This corridor traverses many areas of moose concentrations,and moose should benefit from the introduction of brush resulting from regrowth on the clearing. Since the clearing must be maintained,this brush area will last for the lifetime of the project.Animals such as squirrels will suffer loss and displacement.However,their faster reproductive rates will allow their populations to adjust rapidly. 4 - 7 Construction itself will affect wildlife.Larger mammals may temporar- ily leave the area to return after the construction activity.Smaller animals will suffer individual losses,but should recuperate rapidly once construction is completed.The density of forest in portions of the corridor will allow animals to move only a short distance to avoid contact with construction activities. Vegetation suppression,by whatever method,will periodically remove cover from along the right-of-way.However,due to the surrounding cover of the uncleared forests,this impact will be insignificant. 2.Recreation -The corridor will approach several recreational and wayside areas in the lower Susitna Valley.The largest of these is the Nancy lake Recreational Area.The corridor will also approach the Denali State Park,but will be separated from the Park by the Susitna River. This corridor will provide access to areas previously difficult to reach. The largest such area is that south of Nancy lake to Point MacKenzie. Dense forest and muskeg limit travel. Further north the corridor parallels the east border of Mt.McKinley National Park,being separated by the Parks Highway,the Nenana River, and the Alaska Railroad. 3.Cultural Resources -The National Register of Historical and Archaeological Sites lists the following sites which will be approached by the transmission corridor:Knik Village,Dry Creek,and the Tangle lake Archaeological District.The line will be routed to bypass these areas. During construction and preconstruction surveys,other archaeological sites may be discovered which may be eligible for nomination to the National Register.This is a positive benefit of the corridor,as ar- chaeological and other cultural resources are often difficult to find in the great Alaska wilderness. 4 - 8 r J + r r 4.Scenic Resources -The southern portion of the corridor does not traverse any areas of good or high quality scenic values.The northern portion is,however,more scenic than the southern portion.In the north- ern portion the fairly continuous,moderately dense forest will provide ample screening from transportation routes.Further south,the forests are more intermingled with open muskeg.Glimpses of the transmission line will be seen from the highway or railroad through these muskeg areas. South of Nancy Lake the transmission corridor and the transportation cor- ridors diverge,and although cover becomes more sporadic,the line will no longer be visible from the transportation routes.The transmission line will not be visible from most of the Nancy Lake Recreation Area. As the Alaska Railroad and the transmission corridor approach Gold Creek,the valley becomes more confined,and screening becomes more difficult.However,it appears that the line can be concealed through most of this portion. The corridor passes through an area recognized as being of good to high scenic quality from Devil Canyon to Healy.The possibility of screen- ing throughout this area varies from moderate in the southern portion around Chulitna,to minimal in the Broad Pass and the upper and lower canyons of the Nenana River.Scenic quality will be impacted,the im- pact being a function of existing scenic quality and the opportunity for screening.The proposed line design will incorporate weathering tubular steel towers which blend well into the environment.Non-specular conductors might be used where light reflection from the line would cause unacceptable adverse visual impact.Impact in the Nenana Canyon will be high;impact on Broad Pass will be moderate to high;impact elsewhere will be moderate.Two favorable factors mitigate the impact somewhat: 1)the corridor is not visually intact as the Alaska Railroad and the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway have already reduced scenic quality some- what;and 2)the major views south of the canyons are to the west,toward the Mt.McKinley massif,whereas the transmission line corridor lies to the east of the transportation routes. 4 - 9 5.Social -Some economic impact can be expected,as flying services, motels,restaurants,and entertainment facilities receive business,not only from the transmission line workers,but from related personnel.Due to the high cost of a low-load tap on a high voltage line,the likelihood of use of the energy by small communities along the corridor is remote. However,in places where the demand could justify such a tap,it would provide a reliable source of electrical energy for growing communities. C.Special Impact Mitigation Efforts During Construction Right-of-way clearing will be accomplished by approved methods such as the hydro axe,and chips will be spread along the right-of-way.The line will be screened wherever possible.The towers will be designed to blend into the environment,thereby reducing visual impact. Movement of men and equipment during construction will be scheduled to avoid excessive damage to the ground cover.This is generally accom- plished by winter construction.The tower design will allow movement of men and equipment along the right-of-way centerline,thereby elimi- nating the need for an access road in addition to the transmission line cleat'ing. Major river crossings will be required over the Talkeetna River,Tanana River,Healy Creek,and the Susitna River.Minor stream crossings may be made either by fording or ice crossings.Special efforts will be made to avoid siltation of fish streams.Oil will be carefully handled to avoid spillage.Where larger quantities of oil are to be stockpiled, dikes will be constructed to protect against spills. Since most of the construction will occur far from communities,noise is not anticipated to be a problem.Suitable muffling devices will be used to protect men and wildlife from excessive noise. 4 -10 Prior to and during construction,special efforts will be made to consult with State historical and archaeological authorities,the Soil Conserva- tion Service,the Bureau of Land Management,the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,and the U.S.Forest and Wildlife Service,and any other agencies having jurisdiction over the construction area,in an effort to ensure sound environmental practices. 4.6 REFERENCES 1.Robert W.Retherford Associates,North Slope Natural Gas Transport Systems and Their Potential Impact on Electric Power Supply and Uses in Alaska,March 1977. 2.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska, Upper Susitna River Basin Interim Feasibility Report,(Appendix I, Part II (G)Marketability Analysis,(H)Transmission System,(I) Environmental Assessment for Transmission Systems,December 1975. 3.Kozak,Edwin,under the direction of J.R.Eaton,Performance Characteristics of a 350-Mile Electric Power Transmission Line (Fairbanks to Anchorage),A project in EE 494,Department of Elec- trical Engineering,University of Alaska,June 1973. 4.Ch2M-Hill,Electric Generation and Transmission Intertie System for Interior and Southcentral Alaska,1972. 5.Federal Power Commission,Alaska Power Survey,1969. 6.Alaska Power Administration,Alaska Railbelt Transmission System, working paper,December 1967. 7.The Ralph M.Parsons Company,Central Alaska Power Study,undated. 8.The Ralph M.Parsons Company,Alaska Power Feasibility Study,1962. 4 -11 \\,"\" o/~~~·<,..>£0;'"""-",,,,---,, E·~~:0;;II:".II ROBERT W.RETHERFORO ASSOCIATES ';0 ••INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY,INC.),J'CONSULTING ENOIN£ERS ~~, • C ,.,A.;ORRISON -KNUDSEN ..COMPANY .I?'A DI:SION OF :"KANS~~GLASS .CONTAINER,~~'~ 1ft?,,,~(~/~OO/,{,,N_..l,NJ1~~:C;;-~-\v:'''11t\\'I.-~L~~\\\~~~'\\K \J ))f"\ \ \~~\ NENANA-FAIRBANKS-TANANA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM /'(.-.:;:,;,. "-........., ? FIGURE 4-2 ~~~~~&l~rd~<;::T~OM~N'GULCHI~\~I - ~'~w,~It-"~I ROBERT W.RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES > •INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY,INC."CONSULTlNQ ENGINEERS ~~ :::!d._._~A MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY ~i'A DIVISION OF ARKANSAS GLASS CONTAINER CORP.~~ if ~IB{f;!J~lJ!((~j~~'dcier ~~~~=;1fi\t~~~~')\~~;~4i,'~~~[~~'~)~:~. ANCHORAGE-MATANUSKA-SUSITNA-GLENNALLEN-VALDEZ TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 1~/onJ t Cape ?:9si/o1 /'"............ [~j =.:3 :.:....;.;.:.:.:",~./. :;:;*......... :::::~.:.:.:.:.:.:.jI~..~ :::",..~~~ 6·6 . :~inilchi'c' ope N;~~";k.<·· a·.·.·.·;;;:1:'~~~y6 Vaney .'..'.:::::: E/rzobel /Slondc@ fit-I Perl ISland:"'"~ C~UGACH ISLANDS ~hifjlc hlo'ld Nord 151 nd •<).e~t AmOlul,/sJo'ld'}orlslond~ (J Eost Arrooluli Island71)95) Sv sand.!)0 f:orloo!h/ondo BARREN ISLANDS ., NG SOUND Cope -"-' dM'ddlelon Islond ROBERT W.RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEEltS A DIVISION 01'AltKANSAS GLASS CONTAINER CORP.m \\ COOK INLET -KENAI PENINSULA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM LEGEND A MORRISON -KNUDSEN COMPANY SCALE 1:1000,000 /ELEVATION IN METERS - - -EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES INTERTIE ROUTE _.-ALTERNATE INTERTIE ROUTE -••-NEW LINE SCHEDULED FOR CONSTRUCTION -···-"·-FUTURE LINE ~~(SUBMARINE CABLES :::::::::::::::::::UTILITY SERVICE AREA INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY,INC. CHAPTER 5 TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN CHAPTER 5 TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN 5.1 BASIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Experience in Alaska with both wood-pole H-frame,aluminum lattice guyed-X towers,and tubular steel guyed-X towers with high-strength conductors (such as Drake 795 kcmil ACSR)has demonstrated the excellent performahce of lines designed with relatively long spans and flexible structures. This general philosophy has been followed in establishing the input param- eters for the Transmission Line Cost Analysis Program (TLCAP)used to optimize line designs for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie study.Sample outputs of TLCAP and descriptions of the program methodology are found in Appendix B. The results of this computer analysis for 230-kV lines favor relatively long spans (1300 ft)and high-strength conductors (such as Cardinal 954 kcmil ACSR).This confirms the previous Alaskan experience and contributes substantially to a more economical design,as Chapter 7 will illustrate. 5.2 SELECTION OF TOWER TYPE USED IN THE STUDY Due to rather unique soil conditions in Alaska,with extensive regions of muskeg and permafrost,conventional self-supporting or rigid towers will not provide a satisfactory performance or solution for the proposed intertie.Permafrost and seasonal changes in the soil are known to cause large earth movements at some locations,requiring towers with a high degree of flexibility and capability for handling relatively large founda- tion movements without appreciable loss of structural integrity. The guyed tower is exceptionally well suited fOr these type of conditions. Therefore,the final choice of tower for this study was the hinged-guyed X-type design,which has been considered for both the 230-kV and 345-kV 5 - 1 alternatives.These towers are essentially identical in design to towers presently used on some lines in Alaska,which have proven them- selves during more than ten years of service.The design features include hinged connections between the leg members and the foundations which,together with the longitudinal guy system,provides for large flexibility combined with excellent stability in the direction of the line.Transverse stability is provided by the wide leg base which also accounts for relatively small and manageable footing reactions. The foundations are pile-type,consisting of heavy H-pile beams driven to an expected depth of 20 to 30 feet depending upon the soil conditions. Tower outlines with general dimensions for the two voltage levels are shown on Figures 5-1 and 5-2. 5.3 DESIGN LOADING ASSUMPTIONS According to available information and experience on existing lines, heavy icing is not a serious problem in most parts of Alaska.NESC Heavy Loading is presently used for all line designs throughout the Rail- belt region.However,there are locations where Light Loading probably could be used.Some line failures have occurred due to exceptionally heavy wind combined with very little or no ice.Such locations should be identified and carefully investigated prior to the final line design. In this study,NESC Heavy Loading or heavy wind on bare conductor (cor- responding to NESC Light Loading)was used,whichever is more severe. 5.4 TOWER WEIGHT ESTIMATION In order to arrive at realistic tower weights and material costs for the study,actual tower designs for both the 230-kV and the 345-kV 5 - 2 - '-, - /"'" r r 1 r alternatives were obtained from Meyer Industries of Red Wing,Minnesota (Ref.1).This company has designed similar towers for other lines in A1as ka. Based on these reference designs and additional manual calculations, tower weight formulas were developed to account for variations in tower weight due to changes in tower height and load as a function of the type of conductor used. 5.5 CONDUCTOR SELECTION Conductor size (see Table 5-1)was selected by the use of the Transmission Line Cost Analysis Program (TLCAP)which was specially developed by !ECO for this type of study.Given an appropriate range of conductor types and sizes,span lengths,and other pertinent data,TLCAP determines the most economical conductor-span combination. The program includes a sag-tension routine which calculates the con- ductor sag and tension for a given set of criteria.Using this informa- tion,the tower height and loads are then determined for each discrete span length.These values are then applied to the tower weight formula with the pertinent overload factors included. In the process of this analysis,the program also evaluated the effect of the cost of the power losses over a specified number of years.The power losses were minimized by varying the sending and receiving end voltages by ~10%and by providing required shunt compensation at both line terminals.Applicable material and labor costs,together with pro- jected escalation rates,were included to enable the program to calculate the total installed cost of the line.A discount rate of 7%per annum was used for the determination of the present worth of transmission line losses. 5 - 3 For this particular study,material and labor costs were obtained from lias built"cost information realized on recently completed (138-kV and 230-kV)lines in Alaska. 5.6 POWER TRANSFER CAPABILITIES Preliminary transmission line capabilities,based on surge impedance loading (SIL)criteria,were obtained from the National Power Survey Re- port (Ref.2).Additional investigations indicate that for the 230-kV alternatives (Cases lA,IB,and 10),the calculated intertie power angle is near 30 degrees.To improve the 230-kV intertie's steady state and transient transmission capability,series capacitors will be necessary. Interconnected power system studies should be performed to determine the final series and shunt compensation requirements.Such studies are out- side the scope of this work. 5.7 HVDC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Because of its asynchronous nature,the interconnection of two isolated alternating current Cae)systems by a point-to-point HVDC transmission link provides the desired power exchange without being prone to inherent stability problems.Furthermore,HVDC transmission can provide stabilizing power,and be very effective in damping system oscillations.While the state-of-the-art in HVDC technology is advancing,the resulting develop- ments are keeping pace with inflation. Preliminary investigations have shown that HVDe transmissi~n,using 180- kV mono-polar transmission and ground return,is competitive with single- circuit 230-kV ac transmission in the transfer 130 MW of power over 323 miles.However,if the point-to-point transmission link is required to supply intermediate locations with power (either initially or in the future)then it is unlikely that dc transmission can be competitive with an ac alternative. 5 - 4 , ) -I I ~ \ { r r 5.8 REFERENCES 1.Letter from ITT Meyer Industries to Robert W.Retherford Associates, Anchorage,Alaska,January 15,1979. 2.FPC Advisory Committee Report No.6,National Power Survey,Vol.II, p.IV2-12,1964. 5 - 5 TABLE 5-1 CONDUCTOR SIZE SELECTION CRITERIA Opt i mum ACSR Loa~1 Case and Vo ltage Line Length Conductor Per Ci rcuit A1ternat i vel/Interconnect ion (kV +10"10)(miles)(kcmil )(M~J ) I A &B Anchorage-Ester 230 sic 323 11c -954 130 I C Anchorage-Ester 345 sic 323 2/c -795 380 I D Anchorage-Palmer 230 sic 323 2/c -954 130 Healy-Ester CJ1 II A Anchorage-Devil Canyon 345 s/c'}.j 155 2/c -954 600 0'\ Devil Canyon-Ester 230 s/c~./189 11c -1510 185 Watana-Devil Canyon 230 s/c1/27 11c -2156 488 II Case I Alternatives exclude the proposed Susitna Project;Case II Alternative A includes the Susitna Project. £1 100%voltage support at both ends. 1/Two single-circuit lines on the same right-of-way. Note:sic =single circuit;11c =single conductor;2/c =two conductor bundle. ,J _:,.~.._J /.)'FL)_.i·C.·,1 .~.J ,J lc,c..•J,_."l 1 ....,1 _J ,.,J "Lj J } Ir-o- - - 230KV TANGENT TOWER 5 - 7 FIGURE 5-1 94.7' \......-----27'------11-010([------27'-------., 345KV TANGENT TOWER 5 - 8 FIGURE 5-2 - - - - CHAPTER 6 SYSTEM EXPANSION PLANS ..- i - CHAPTER 6 SYSTEM EXPANSION PLANS One benefit of transmission interconnection between two independent power systems is the reduction in the installed generating capacity that is possible,while maintaining the same electric power supply (generation) reliability level for both the independent and interconnected power sys- tems.To calculate this reduction in installed generating plant capacity (megawatts),generation expansion plans had to be developed for both the independent and the interconnected power systems. This chapter describes the actual process used in the generation expan- sion planning for the independent power systems of the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas,and for an interconnected Anchorage -Fairbanks power system.Generation expansion planning is a rather complex process.A brief description of the somewhat simplified method used in this Economic Feasibility Study is described below. 6.1 GENERATION PLANNING CRITERIA A.Generating Unit Data Existing generating unit data were obtained from the Battelle (Ref.1)and University of Alaska,August 1976 (Ref.2)reports.These available data were reviewed and updated using new information obtained by IECO-RWRA engineers during interviews with the managers of the Railbelt utilities. The updated existing generation unit data is presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. Preliminary information on near future (1979-1986)generation expansion planning,including probable generation capacity requirements,for the AML&P and CEA systems was obtained directly from the two utilities.More 6 - 1 detailed information on GVEA generation expansion plans was available in the review copy of the report Power Supply Study -1978 (Ref.3)and the Report on FMUS/GVEA Net Study (Ref.4). B.Installed Reserve Capacity At the present time,there is apparently no uniform pol icy as to the required installed generation reserve margins for Alaskan electric power utilities.By definition,the installed generation reserve capacity includes spinning reserve,"hot"and "cold"standby reserves,and gener- ating units on maintenance and overhaul work.No effort is made in this study to separate the installed reserve capacity into spinning and other types of reserves.Utilities in Alaska currently keep spinning reserves to the very minimum,mainly because of the no-load fuel cost incurred by the spinning reserves,and because most generating units in Alaska1s Railbelt area are quick starting,combustion turbine-type units.This situation may change in the future when new larger,slow starting, thermal power pl ants are constructed,exceptions being hydro pl ant units which can be started rather rapidly. To develop alternative generation expansion plans for this study,guide- lines for installed reserve generation capacity had to be established. A minimum of 20%reserve margin or the largest single unit at the time of peak system load was decided on as the install ed generation reserve guideline.In general,the 20%value is close to the actual installed reserve margin of most U.S.A.utilities.Recently,the Department of Energy's Economic Regulatory Administration reported the following for the 1978 winter peak load of the lower 48 states: "According to the forecast,total available power resources for the lower 48 states will total nearly 500,000 MW.Peak demand is anticipated at 380,000 MW,for a reserve of nearly 120,000 I~W or 31.5 percent.The lowest reserve -the 21.1 percent -will occur for the southeastern Electric Reliability Council,the DOE said,with the Mid-Atlantic Council experi- encing the highest reserve margin at 45.1 percent"(Ref.5). 6 - 2 - - - - C.Uni t Retirement Except for the Knik Arm Power Plant (CEA),no other generating units were reported for retirement by the Railbelt utilities during the 1980-1992 period.Later,to include the effect of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project and to obtain a better economic analysis,this study period was extended through 1997.An assumption was made that the generati~g units available from 1980-1992 will also be available from 1993 through 1997. Many of them,however,will serve as system standby reserve units. D.Generation Expansion Planning To'program the economic feasibility study and to establish transmission line interconnection benefits,generation expansion plans for the 1980- 1997 period were developed for: .... - • • • • • Independent Anchorage area system. Independent Fairbanks area system. Interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks system (intertie for re- serve sharing only). Interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks system (intertie for re- serve sharing and power transfer). Interconnected Anchorage-Fairbanks system (with Susitna Hydro- electric Project). I"""', Basically,generation planning includes three aspects:forecasting future loads (previously described in Chapter 3);developing generation reserve and reliability criteria (discussed later in this chapter);and determining when,how much,and what type of generation capacity is needed (which is discussed below). Generation timing and capacity were determined by the most probable load forecasts for the Anchorage,Fairbanks,and combined Anchorage-Fairbanks areas,as described in Chapter 3. 6 -3 Unit sizes for the alternative system expansion plans were determined by the ability of the power system to withstand the loss of a generating unit (or units)and still maintain reasonable system generation reliability. In determining unit sizes,due consideration was given to the valuable generation expansion planning data for the 1979-1986 period which was obtained by IECO-RWRA engineers from the Railbelt area utilities,and as the power system grows the economy of larger unit sizes. IECO-RWRA engineers determined the type of generation mix for the expan- sion plans based on: I Preliminary planning information obtained through interviews with Railbelt utilities. •Information available in the Battelle Report and Alaska Power Administration's January 1979 report draft (Ref.6). •The judgment of IECQ-RWRA power system planners. Most of the planned generation additions are baseload-type thermal steam power plants burning coal,gas,or oil as fuel.They are mixed with a few additional peaking-type combustion turbine generating units using natural gas or oil as fuel.It is assumed that in the later years of this study many existing combustion turbine generating units,presently used as baseload or intermediate units,will become peaking or standby uni ts. 6.2 MULTI-AREA RELIABILITY STUDY - - A.Purpose The PTI Multi-Area Reliability (MAREL)Computer Program is used for alternative generation expansion planning,mainly for its ability to maintain a nearly constant level of generation supply reliability in all cases.This approach provides a nearly equal reliability level as far as generation ability to meet the load is concerned.The MAREL program 6 - 4 - - r !' r- j "I gives reliability equivalence to both individual area and interconnected system generation planning alternatives.The MAREL program manual (Ref. 7)introduces this program with the following: liThe PH Mul t i-Area Re 1i abil ity Program MAREL determi nes the reliability of multi-area power systems.It has been written in FORTRAN IV for use on a PRIME 400 time-sharing computer. Reliability indices computed by the program include system loss of load probability (LOLP),LOLP values for the indivi- dual areas,probability of various failure conditions and probability that each transmission (intertie)link is limit- ing in the transfer of generation reserves from one area to another.II MAREL program results helped determine the effectiveness of a transmission line intertie between the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas,and established the amount of generating capacity needed to give the individual areas approximately the same LOLP as for the interconnected system.MAREL study results are also applicable to the alternative which includes the Upper Susitna Project.In this instance the study became a three area reliability study with the Susitna area having only net generation and no load. B.Reliability Index To perform individual and interconnected system reliability studies (MAREL), it was necessary to select a reference system generation reliab-ility index. As described above,the MAREL program uses LOLP calculation techniques for each study case.For each load condition the program user adjusts input data,specifically generator unit sizes,generator types,location of generating plants,and intertie capacities,to obtain generation ex- pansion plans of near equal reliability for various alternatives.The LOLP method is very much the adapted method used by U.S.A.utilities during the last 30 years.According to the IEEE/PES Working Group on 6 - 5 Performance Records for Optimizing System Design,Power System Engineering Committee (Ref.8): "This (LOLP reliability)index is defined as the long run average number of days ina peri ad of time that load exceeds the available installed capacity.The index may be expressed in any time units for the period under consideration and,in general,can be considered as the expected number of days that the system experiences a generating capacity deficiency in the period.This index is commonly,but mistakenly, termed the "loss of load probabil ity,(LOLP)".A year is generally used as the period of consideration.In this case, the LOLP index is the long-run number of days/year that the hourly integrated daily peak load exceeds the available in- stalled capacity." There is no standard value of LOLP which is used throughout the electric power industry.However,one day in ten years is a very much accepted value by the lower 48 utilities.Since to the authors'knowledge,LOLP index has not previously been used in Al aska,it was decided to use one day in ten years as reference LOLP index in this study.The use of this LOLP index may imply larger generation reserve margins than are presently used in Alaska,but an equal or even lower LOLP index is justifiable for Alaska for at least the following reasons: •In very cold climatic zones the loss of electric power may be more critical than in more temperate climates. •There is very little information on existing generation and transmission outage rates in Alaska.Therefore,there is more uncertainty about the study input data. •At.present.most of the power systems in Alaska are independently operated.In case of emergency,utilities cannot rely on help from neighboring utilities or power pools as can most of utilities 6 - 6 JllIIIIII I - - - - -in the lower 48.Therefore,a lower LOLP reliability index is justifiable. •Higher planned generation reserves may be needed to provide protection against possible unplanned delays in construction of new larger thermal units. c.Program Methodology r .... - A general description of the MAREL computer program methodology is con- tained in Appendix C.The particular program application to this study is IlPlanning of interconnections to achieve regional integration and more widespread sharing of generation reserves II (Ref.7).Briefly,the program models each area as a one-bus system to which all generators and loads are connected.Transmission interties between areas are modeled as having limited power transfer capabilities and specified line outage rates. The method assumes that each area takes care of its own internal trans- mission needs. D.Load Mode 1 Annual load models were developed for the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. Daily peak load data for 1975 were obtained from AML&P,CEA,FMUS,and GVEA.The Railbelt utility representatives agreed that 1975 was a typical year with normal weather conditions.The 1975 load models were converted into per unit system for the MAREL program.The computer program multi- plied this 1975 load model (input)by the respective study year peak loads to obtain annual load models for each year of the study.Forecasted annual peak loads and the per unit annual load models for the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas are shown in Tables 6-3 through 6-6.Annual demand curves indicating biweekly non-coincident peaks are shown on Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1 also indicates that there is very little diversity between the loads of the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. 6 -7 E.Generating Unit Data Information on existing generating unit data,as indicated in Tables 6-1 and 6-2,was used in the study.Unit base ratings were rounded off to the nearest megawatt in the study.Sizes for new generating units used in the expansion plans are indicated on Figures 6-2 through 6-8. Generating unit outage rates,which are required for calculating LOLP indexes,were obtained from the most recent Edison Electric Institute (EEl)report on equipment availability (Ref.9).The rates for combustion turbines were obtained from the actual operating experience of CEA and GVEA at the Beluga and Zehnder Power Plants.The EEl publication defines the forced outage rate as: Forced Outage Rate =FOH/(SH +FOH)x 100 Where FOH represents forced outage hours and SH represents service hours. Generating unit outage rates used in the MAREL study are indicated below: - -i - - - Unit Designation Combustion Turbine* Hydroelectric Plant Thermal Steam Plant (small units) Thermal Steam Plant (100-200 MW) Thermal Steam Plant (300 MW) Forced Outage Rate (%) 5.5 1.6 5.9 5.7 7.9 - - - *The Forced Outage Rate for combustion turbines was based on the follow- ing -information: •CEA experience at Beluga during 1977-1978 period,six units base loaded. 6 - 8 - - - Unit availability Scheduled maintenance Forced outage 87%of the time 8%of the time 5%of the time r-. I l Therefore,the calculated Forced Outage Rate equals 5.4%. •In 1975 GVEA experience at Zehnder Station,Units No.1 and 2 provides calculated Forced Outage Rates of 4.2%and 4%,re- spectively;however,these units were basically standby units. F.Generating Unit Maintenance The MAREL program automatically schedules generating unit maintenance within the specified restrictions.For the purpose of this study,it was assumed that no unit maintenance will be scheduled during the November- March winter season. G.Intertie Data The MAREL program models the transmission intertie by limiting intertie transfer capabilities and considering intertie outage rates.No load loss sharing method was used.This means that one area will share its generating reserves only up to the limit of intertie transfer capability or available reserves in the other area,whichever is limiting.The forced outage rates (on a per year basis)used in the study for trans- mission and line terminal equipment are indicated below: Note:The following outage rate was used for both 230-kV and 345-kV line terminals:36 hours/10 years. r - - Li ne VA ltage (kV) 230 345 Forced Outage Rate (per unit/100 miles) 0.00113 0.00225 - 6 - 9 6.3 SYSTEM EXPANSION PLANS A.Planning Study Period Based on generation planning criteria and the results of the MAREL re- liability study (previously described in this chapter),alternative gener- ation expansion plans were developed.The 1984-1997 period was selected for the alternative expansion plans for the following reasons: •1984 is the earliest year when the interconnected system can be operational. •The 1992-1997 period includes the Upper Susitna ,Hydroelectric Project,based on the optimistic assumption that Watana Unit No.1 will be on-line in January 1992. •The study period is long enough for the present worth economic analysis method,and includes most of the costs and benefits obtainable by the introduction of an intertie in 1984. To close ~he gap between the existing generation systems and the first study year (1984)of the intertie economic feasibility study,generation expansion plans for the independent Anchorage and Fairbanks areas for 1980 through 1983 were developed.Information on planned generation additions supplied by the generating utilities in the Railbelt area was used for this purpose. B.Independent System Expansion Plans Generation expansion plans for the independent Anchorage and Fairbanks systems were also needed to calculate economic benefits of the inter- connection.The planned generation additions consist of thermal base load and peaking units.They do not include the Upper Susitna Project (Watana and Devil Canyon Hydro Plants),which are only included in the 6 -10 - I""" I iI r ,.... ! interconnected system expansion plans.The independent Anchorage and Fairbanks generation expansion plans are indicated on Figure 6-2 for the probable load forecast case and Figure 6-6 for the low load forecast case. C.Interconnected System Expansion Plans Two cases of system interconnection were studied -Case I,direct inter- connection between Anchorage and Fairbanks (Ester),and Case II,inter- connection between Watana-Oevil Canyon with Anchorage and Fairbanks sys- tems.Under Case I the alternatives were developed as follows: •Case IA includes a single-circuit 230-kV transmission line having 130-MW power transfer capability allocated for reserve sharing only.This plan is shown on Figures 6-3 and 6-9 for the probable load forecast case and on Figures 6-7 and 6-9 for the low load forecast case. •Case IB includes one single-circuit 230-kV transmission line (1984-1991)and two single-circuit 230-kV transmission lines (1992-1997)having the following generation reserve sharing capabil it i es:100 MW (1984-1987),130 MW (1989-1991)and 190 MW (1992-1997).In addition,this alternative has a firm power transfer capability of 30 MW (1984-1987),supplying 14%of peak load in Fairbanks area in 1984,and 70 MW (1992-1997)supplying 18%of peak load in Fairbanks area in 1992.This plan is shown on Figures 6-4 and 6-9 for the probable load forecast case and on Figures 6-8 and 6-9 for the low load forecast case. •Case IC includes one single-circuit 345-kV transmission line having a total of 380 MW power transfer capability allocated for generation reserve sharing and for firm power transfer. The case is similar to Case IB (230 kV)except that only one 345 kV line is required during the 1992-1997 period.This plan is shown on Figures 6-4 (similar)and 6-10. 6 -11 •Case ID is the same as Case lA,except with intermediate switch- ing stations at Palmer and Healy.This plan is shown on Figures 6-3 and 6-11 for the probable load forecast case and on Figures 6-7 and 6-11 for the low load forecast case. Under Case II,only one solution was studied:two single-circuit 230-kV transmission lines from Watana to Devil Canyon;two single-circuit 230-kV lines from Devil Canyon to Ester (Fairbanks);and two single-circuit 345-kV lines from Devil Canyon to Anchorage. D.Reliability Indexes The results of the MAREL study show loss of load probability (LOLP) indexes for independent system expansi onpl ans and pl ans for an inter- connected system (with and without the Upper Susitna Project),and are indicated in Tables 6-7 through 6-12.As previously discussed in Subsection 6.28,the LOLP index of one day in ten years (0.1 day/year) was used as a reference standard throughout the study for comparing different alternatives.During the performance of the MAREL study the LOLP index was kept as close to the standard as reasonably possible. 6.4 REFERENCES 1.Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,Alaskan Electric Power, An Analysis of Future Requirements and Supply Alternatives for the Railbelt Region,Vol.I,March 1978. - 2.University of Alaska,Institute for Social and Economic Research, Electric Power in Alaska,1976 -1995,August 1976. 3.Stanley Consultants,Power Supply Study -1978 for Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc. 4.Alaska Resource Sciences Corporation,Report FMUS/GVEA Net Study, Vol.I,May 1978. 6 -12 - - - 5.Electric Light and Power,Capacity Can Meet Winter Peaks -DOE, November 1978. 6.Alaska Power Administration,Upper Susitna River Project,POWER MARKET ANALYSES,Draft,January 1979. 7.Power Technologies,Inc.PTI Multi-Area Reliability Program (MAREL), Computer Program Manual,September 1978. 9.Edison Electric Institute,Report on Equipment Availability for the Ten-Year Period 1967-1976,December 1977. ,-. I I -I i I i I 8.IlReliability Indices for Use in Bulk Power Supply Adequacy Evalua- tion'I,IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,Vol.PAS-97, No.4,July/August 1978. 6 -13 6 -14 TABLE 6-2 EXISTING GENERATION SOURCES FAIRBANKS -TANANA VALLEY AREA Unit Rat i ng Dependable Unit Year of Base Peak Capacity Name/Location Reference Install at ion Type (kW)(kW)(kW)Remarks--- FAIRBANKS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES SYSTEM (FMUS) iI""'"Fai rbanks Chena 1 1954 ST 5.000I! 'j 'I Fai rbanks Chena 2 1952 ST 2.000'~ Fai rbanks Chena 3 1952 ST 1,500 Fai rbanks Chena 4 1963 ST 20,000 Fa i rbanks Chena 5 1970 SCGT 5,350 7,000 Fairbanks Chena 6 1976 SCGT 23,500 Fai rbanks Diesel 1 1967 Diesel 2,665 Fairbanks Diesel 2 1968 Diesel 2,665 Fai rbanks Diesel 3 1968 Diesel 2,665 .GOLDfN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION (GVEA) Zehnder Sub.Unit 1 1971 SCGT 17,553 20,000 17,400 Peaking Service Zehnder Sub.Unit 2 1972 SCGT 17,553 20,000 17,400 Ii"'"'Zehnder Sub.Unit 3 1975 SCGT 3,500 }Leased to HEA i Zehnder Sub.Unit 4 1975 SCGT 3,500 (1977-1979) 1 Zehnder Sub.Units 1-7 1970 Diesel 12,900 Healy Unit-l 1967 ST 26,200 Healy Diesel 2,500 Northpole Unit 1 1976 SCGT 64,800 70,000 Northpole Unit 2 1977 SCGT 64,800 70,000 U.of Alaska Units 7&8 Diesel 5,100 Delta Diesel 500 ~lobi 1e Unit r i r f ,I""" 6 -15 TABLE 6-3 LOAD MODEL DATA ANCHORAGE AREA PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE ANNUAL PEAK LOAD IN MW (/983 -1997) 709.077.977.1080.1196.1313~1441.1581.1724.1881. 2041.2215.2402.2591.2794. INTERVAL PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD (26 INTERVALS /YEAR) .U333 .6667 .7404 .7500 .6571 .6346 .6122 .5865 .5481 .3353 .5224.3168 .5064 .4904 .5032 .4968 .5160 .5737 .5769 .6154 .~827 .8429 .8526 .91351.0000 .8301 DAILY PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF INTERVAL PEAK LOAD (260 WEEK DAYS /YEAR) 1.0000 .9769 .9731 .9t§36 .9500 .9462 .6962 .8731 .81S77 .8423 1.0000 .9308 .9663 .9663 .9615 .9615 .9519 .9519 .9423 .9375 I.OlHJO .9913 .9784 .9027 .9697 .9654 .9437 .9307 .9221 .8918 I.OUiJ().9829 .9487 .9359 .9017 .8889 .8889 .8846 .8333 ,.8034 1.0000 .9512 .9317 .9171 .9171 .9073 .9073 .9024 .9024 .8976 I.QuOD .9048 .9798 .9747 .9646 .9495 .9444 .9343 .9293 .9141 """"1.0000 .9686 .9634 .9529 .9529 .9476 .9424 .9372 .9058 '.9058 !.UOOU .9781 .9727 .9617 .9563 .9563 .9344 .9344 .9071 .9071 , •(i(}c)().9B83 .9883 .9825 .9825 .9708 .9708 .9649 .9591 .9415 l.I'lln\)•<)()40 ;9620 .9701 .9581 .9461 .9401 .9341 .9281 .9162 """1, •($\,'\1 ·'}?39 .9877 .9571 .9571 .9509 .9509 .9448 .9202 .8589 1 .0 ..'';')·')')38 .9814 .9689 .9565 .9379 .9379 .9379 .9255 .9255 I.,loO,l .9010 .9684 .9620 .9494 .9494 .9430 .9367 .9304 .9177 I .0001'.9804 .9739 .9739 .9673 .9608 .9542 .9542 .9477 .8824 !.l)000 .9073 .9745 .9554 .94.,90 .9490 .9427 .9427 .9299 .9299 , .II (wO 1.0')00 .9935 .9671 .9806 .9742 .9677 .9613 .9548 .9484 1.0000 ·')938 .9614 .9689 .9627 .9565 .9565 .9441 .9441 .9379 I •(HI il(l .9777 .9609 .9441 .9274 .9106 .8883 .8715 .6715 .8045 ,.11tHl$.9944 .9944-.9722 .9722 .9722 .9611 .9276 .9222 .9222 "'""'"l .11(:00 •()<)4B .9896 .9896 .9687 .9583 .9531 .9375 .9323 .8802 !•t~(~:'{).')Ha9 .9484 .9437 .9390 .9296 .9249 .9202 .9155 .9014 1 .ill IHi .9962 .9658 .9466 .9466 .9087 .7985 .7757 .7719 .8555 ~,\hltlO t •\I()()O .9887 .9662 .9549 .9511 .9474 .9398 .9361 .9323 J •\/lHII.l •'i754 .8632 .8596 .8421 .8386 .6386 .8386 .6386 .8175 I.OlH)(}.'HHO .9679 .9519 .9359 .9327 .9327 .9135 .865'11 .80415 I .0000 ·'i7ao .9730 .9614 .9614 .9575 .9575 .9537 .9421 .8340 ~ 6 -16 TABLE 6-4 LOAD MODEL DATA FAIRBANKS AREA PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE ANNUAL PEAK LOAD IN MW (1983-1997) 1%.~l~.231. 416.446.477. 249. 511. 270. 547. 291.313.338.362.390. r I r r ( r I INTERVAL PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD (26 INTERVALS /YEAR ~ 41.B7590.()1)900.73710.76040.57490.59710.56630.51110.43240,41130.38330.37470.3587 (l.:l5:3H0 .:3B080.41770.4201 0 ~43730.46190.53190.57490.89190;93370.9349 1 .00000.7690 DAILY PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF INTERVAL PEAK LOAD (260 WEEK DAYS /YEAR) : .O\lil\H).'i7480.94670.94670.94530.93130.89480.86540.B4290.8177 :.00VOO.9a670.92790.92790.90510.89980.88050.85940.82790.7891 1.00000.9(}330.96670 .94830,.94000.92330.90330.88000.86670'.8267 1.00000.97580.96120.94510.86910.83200.82390.81100.79000.6769 1.00000.93500.98290.95940.95300.94660.91880.90810.90170~8825 1.00000.99790.99590.98770.97940.95880.93620.90530.89300.8827 r.OnOOO.9U480.95010.93710;91970.89370.88070.87200.86120;8091 I .°,.I;J 00 .961170.96150.95190.93510.91590.88700.88220.87980~8558 1.00000.99150.99150.99150.97160.96870.93180.89200.88920'.8693 1.0(,001.00000.96120.93130.92840.92840.92240.90750.90450.8955 1.O~OOO.99040.99040.94550;92310.91990.91670.91350.87820J8558 1.00000.96720.95410.92790.92460.90490.89840.89510.87870~8721 l.onOOO.96920.96920.95890~95890.94520.94520.93150.92120~9041 1.00000.98960.97220.96870.95830.94790.93400.92360.92010.8507 1.00000.96770.93870.93230.91290.90320.90320.90320.87100~8677 1.110000.B7350.87060.86760.86460.85880.84710.84410.83820.8059 !.lHWOO.94440.90640.90640.89470.82750.82750.82460.81870.8012 1.00000.99720.97750.96350.96350.94940.93820.93820.91010.8904 1.00000.99470.96810.93090.92820.90960.90690.90160.88830.8856 1.00000.98B50.93300.91450.90990.89610.B8910.8845(}'86370~8568 1.00000.99150.98080.97650.94020.92950.92740.91880.9145O,9017 l.nOOOO.96690.91180.89260J88840.79890.73970.64460.61020.6088 1.00ao0.97710.91050.90790.90790.89340.88950.88550.86320~8434 1.(10C00.97110.86330.83050.81870.79630.79240.74510.73320.7201 I .1\\:000.99510.98160.97300.97170.95580.91650.08450.82430.6818 1.00000.99840.93930.92010.89940.88980.88500.84820.81310.7971 6 -17 TABLE 6-5 LOAD MODEL DATA ANCHORAGE AREA LOW LOAD FORECAST CASE ANNUAL PEAK LOAD IN MW {/983 -1997} 765.832.9.0'8.985.1.0'68.1156.125.0'.135.0'.1451.1562. 1677.18aa.1933.za7a.2215. INTERVAL PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD (26 INTERVALS I YEAR) .U333 .6667 .7404 .7500 .6571 .6346 .6122 .5865 .5481 .5353 .52241 .5160 .50641 .4904 .5032 .4968 .5160 .5737 .5769 .6154 .~827 .8429 .8526 .91351.0000 .8301 - - DAILY PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF INTERVAL PEAK LOAD (260 WEEK DAYS I YEAR)IO!l!l\ 1.0000 .9769 .9731 .9/538 .9600 .9462 .8962 .8731 .8577 .8423 1.0000 .9808 .9663 .9663 .9615 .9615 .9519 .9519 .9423 .9375 !.QUoO .9913 .9784 .9827 .9697 .9654 .9437 .9307 .9221 .8918 /III!!li 1.0000 .9829 .9487 .9359 .9017 .8889 .8889 .8846 .8333 ·.8034 t.OOOO .9512 .9317 .9171 .9171 .9073 .9073 .9024 .9024 .8976 1.0000 .9848 .9798 .9747 .9646 .9495 .9444 .9343 .9293 .9141 1.0000 .9686 .9634 .9529 .9529 .9476 .9424 .9372 .9058 '.9058 1.0000 .9781 .9727 .9617 .9563 .9563 .9344 .9344 .9071 .9071 1.0000 .9BB3 .9883 .9825 .9825 .9708 .9708 .9649 .9591 .9415 1 .0000 .9940 .9020 .9701 .9581 .9461 .9401 .9341 .9281 .9162 1 •(IO(;l'•'J939 .9877 .9571 .9571 .9509 .9509 .9448 .9202 .8589 I •(WilO .<)930 .9814 .9689 .9565 .9379 .9379 .9379 .9255 .9255 1.0000 .9810 .9684 .9620 .9494 .9494 .9430 .9367 .9304 .9177 I.Oll()O .9804 .9739 .9739 .9673 .9608 .9542 .9542 .9477 .8824 I.OUOI).9873 .9745 .9554 .9490 .9490 .9427 .9427 .9299 .9299 !.OOuo 1.0')00 .9935 .9871 .9806 .9742 .9677 .9613·.9548 .9484 ...." I.OO(}O .9')38 .9814 .9689 .9627 .9565 .9565 .9441 .9441 .9379 I •(loof!.n77 .9609 .9441 .9274 .9106 .8883 .8715 .8715 .8045, .ll\lna .9944 .9944 .9722 .9722 .9722 .9611 .9278 .9222 .9222 t.OCOO ·')')48 .9896 .9896 .9687 .9583 .9531 .9375 .9323 .8802 I.n"~'ll ·')1159 .9484 .9437 .9390 .9296 .9249 .9202 .9155 .9014 ,•Of:.11).9962 .9658 .9468 .9468 .9087 .7985 .7757 .7719 .8555 !.\)\)(l0 1.'1000 .9887 .9662 .9549 .91)11 .9474 .9398 .9361 .9323 I.ull(}().')154 .8632-.6596 .8421 .8386 .8386 .8386 .8386 .8175 """'!I .0000 .9840 .9679 .9519 .9359 .9327 .9327 .9135 .8654 •804:S 1.0000 .97:30 .9730 .9614 .9614 .9575 .9575 .9537 .9421 .8340 6 -18 TABLE 6-6 LOAD MODEL DATA FAIRBANKS AREA LOW LOAD FORECAST CASE ANNUAL PEAK LOAD IN MW (1983-1997) 188.2Z2.218. 232. 355. 377.398.42Z. 248. 444. 264.281.3iJiJ.317.337. ,"'" r I""'" I I ( INTERVAL PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF ANNUAL PEAK LOAD (26 INTERVALS /YEAR) O.B7590.69900.73710.76040.57490.59710.56630.51110.43240 .41150.38330.37470.3587 0.35380.38080.41770.42010.43730.46190.53190.57490.89190.93370.93491.00000.7690 DAILY PEAK LOADS IN P.U.OF INTERVAL PEAK LOAD (260 WEEK DAYS /YEAR) 1.00000.97480.94670.94670.94530.93130.89480.86540.84290~8177 I.OuOOO.9a670.92790.92790.90510.89980.88050.85940.82790.7891 I.OOOOO.99330.96670.94830~94000.92330.90330.88000.86670~8267 I.OOOOO.975BO.96120.94510.86910.83200.82390~81100.79000;6769 1.00000.98500.98290.95940.95300.94660.91880.90810.90170.8825 I .00000.99790.99590.98770.97940.95880.93620.90530.89300'.8827 1.00000.98480.95010.93710.91970.89370.88070.87200.86120.8091 1.00000.96870.96150.95190.93510.91590.88700.88220.87980~8558 1.00000.99150.9915e.99150.97160.96870.93180.89200.88920'.8693 1.0C001.00000.96120.93130.92840.92840.92240.90750.90450.8955 I.OOeOO.99040.99040.94550~92310.91990.91670.91350.8782018558 1.00000.96720.95410.92790.92460.90490.89840.89510.87870'.8721 l.00000.96920.96920.95890,.95890.94520.94520.93150.92120'.9041 1.00000.98960.97220.96870.95830.94790.93400.92360.92010.8507 1.00000.96770.93870.93230.91290.90320.90320.90320.87100~8677 1.00000.87350.87060.86760.86460.85880.84710.84410.83820;8059 1.00000.94440.90640.90640.89470.82750.82750.82460.81870.8012 I.OOOOO.99720.97750.96350~96350.94940.93820.93820.91010.8904 1.00000.99470.96810.93090.92820.90960.90690.90160.88£30~8856 1.00000.'J8850.93300.91450.90990.89610.88910.83450.86370'.8568 1.00000.99150.98080.97650.94020.92950.92740.91880.91450.9017 1.00000.96690.91180.89260JOB840.79890.73970.64460.61020~6088 !.00300.97710.91050.90790.90790.89340.83950.83550.86320.8434 I.OOOOO.97110.86330.83050~81B70.79630.79240.74510.73320.7201 I.OOOOO.'J9510.98160.97300.97170.955BO.91650.83450.82430~6B18 1.00000.99340.93930.92010.89940.88980.88500.84820.81310.7971 6 -19 TABLE 6-7 LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY INDEX (LOLP}l1 FOR STUDY CASES IA &I~I PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE Anchorage Fairbanks Study Independent Interconnected Independent Interconnected Year Expan si orJ l Expans i 0 nil Expansi oJ-I Expansi onil 1984 0.0262 0.0063 0.8193 0.0066 1985 0.0123 0.0275 0.1446 0.0242 198~1 0.0199 0.0113 0.2868 0.0236 1987 0.0247 0.0208 0.6795 0.0546 1988 0.0408 0.0698 0.1140 0.0278 1989 0.0290 0.0613 0.2318 0.0376 1990 0.0242 0.0625 0.0593 0.0652 1991 0.0184 0.0595 0.1550 0.1276 1992 0.0168 0.0259 0.0276 0.0269 1993 0.0539 0.0297 0.0586 0.0598 1994 0.0393 0.0296 0.1583 0.1358 1995 0.0307 0.0622 0.0373 0.0426 1996 0.0901 0.0568 0.0899 0.1014 1997 0.0676 0.0367 0.0441 0.0419 11 LOLP in days per year. 1:/230 kV sIc,130 MW reserve sharing only. 11 See Figure 6-2. if See Figure 6-3. ~f Starting in 1986 includes Bradley Lake Hydro Project. 6 -20 TABLE 6-8 LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY INDEX (LOLPt!! FOR CASE I~I PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE Anchorage Fa i rbanks Study Independent Interconnected Independent Interconnected Year Expansi oJ-I Expansi on:±.1 ExpansioJ.1 Expansio~1r- 1984 0.0262 0.0077 0.8193 0.0018 r""'1985 0.0123 0.0329 0.1446 0.0096 1986 0.0293 0.0220 0.2868 0.0152 1987 0.0288 0.0306 0.6766 0.0299r- 1988 0.0482 0.0799 0.1140 0.0300 1989 0.0330 0.0677 0.2318 0.0394 1990 0.0265 0.0680 0.0593 0.0670 1991 0.0193 0.0633 0.1550 0.0130 r 1992 0.0189 0.0644 0.0276 0.0227 1 1993 0.0546 0.0703 0.0586 0.0354 I"'"'1994 0.0427 0.0550 0.1583 0.0654 "\ 1,1995 0.0326 0.0991 0.0373 0.0369 1996 0.0931 0.0838 0.0899 0.0506 1997 0.0676 0.0520 0.044·1 0.0244 r r 11 LOLP in days per year. ~I 230-kV transmission system with reserve sharing and firm power trans- fer capability. 1/See Figure 6-2. il See Figure 6-4. 6 -21 TABLE 6-9 LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY INDEX (LOLP)-Y FOR CASE II~ PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE -Anchorage Fairbanks " Study Independent Interconnected Independent Interconnected Year Expansio~1 Expansi oJ-I Expansio~1 Expansi oJ-I -: 1992 0.0189 0.0476 0.0276 0.0972 1993 0.0546 0.0418 0.0586 0.0299 1994 0.0427 0.0235 0.1583 0.0244 1995 0.0326 0.0070 0.0373 0.0089 ~ 1996 0.0931 0.0226 0.0899 0.0207 1997 0.0676 0.1240 0.0441 0.0461 II LOLP in days per year. 1:..1 Includes interconnections between Devil Canyon-Anchorage (345 kV), Devil Canyon-Watana (230 kV),and Devil Canyon-Ester (230 kV). 11 Interconnected expansion for three area system:Anchorage,Fairbanks, and Upper Susitna (generation only).See also Figure 6-5. il See Figure 6-2. 6 -22 r '1 ',I rI Q ril r I r ,...... ! ,.... i TABLE 6-10 LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY INDEX (LOLPt!! FOR STUDY CASES lA'&I~I LOW LOAD FORECAST CASE Anchorage Fairbanks Study Independent Interconnected Independent Interconnected Year Expans i or2.1 Expansio~1 Expansior2.1 Expansio~1 1984 0.0262 0.0063 0.8193 0.0066 1985 0.0123 0.0275 0.1446 0.0242 1986 0.0199 0.0113 0~2868 0.0236 1987~/0.0134 0.0527 0.2697 0.0501 1988 0.0095 0.0068 0.0329 0.0035 1989 0.0724 0.0701 0.0741 0.0222 1990 0.0309 0.0376 0.1511 0.0207 1991 0.0350 0.0533 0.0061 0.0387 1992 0.0182 0.0334 0.0591 0.0502 1993 0.0359 0.0351 0.1207 0.0173 1994 0.0190 0.0264 0.2499 0.0264 1995 0.0129 0.0211 0.0340 0.0463 1996 0.0075 0.0601 0.0711 0.0152 1997 0.0393 0.0393 0.0207 0.0225 11 LOLP in days per year. '!:./230 kV sic,130 MW reserve sharing only. 11 See Figure 6-6. il See Figure 6-7. il From 1987,figures include Bradley Lake Hydro Project. 6 -23 1/LOLP in days per year. l/230-kV transmission system with reserve sharing and firm power trans- fer capabil ity. 1/See Figure 6-6. i/See Figure 6-8. 6 -24 TABLE 6-12 LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY INDEX (LOLPr!'/ FOR CASE ICJ./ PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE Anchorage Fa i rbanks Study Independent Interconnected Independent Interconnected Year ExpansioJ-1 Expansio41 Expansi oJ-I Expansio41 1984 0.0262 0.0063 0.8193 0.0066 1985 0.0123 0.0275 0.1446 0.0242 198~./0.0199 0.0113 0.2868 0.0236 1987 0.0247 0.0208 0.6795 0.0546 1988 0.0408 .0.0698 0.1140 0.0278 1989 0.0290 0.0613 0.2318 0.0376 1990 0.0242 0.0625 0.0593 0.0652 1991 0.0184 0.0595 0.1550 0.1276 1992 0.0168 0.0616 0.0276 0.0388 r'"1993 0.0539 0.0666 0.0586 0.0620 J 1994 0.0393 0.0511 0.1583 0.1198 1995 0.0307 0.0971 0.0373 0.0486 1996 0.0901 0.0830 0.0899 0.0699 r 1997 0.0676 0.0516 0.0441 0.0354 11 LOLP in days per year. ~I 345-kV transmission system with reserve sharing and firm power trans- fer capabil ity. 1/Se~Figure 6-2. il See Figure 6-4.The 345 kV (Case IC)is similar to 230 kV (Case IB) except that only one 345-kV line is required during the 1992-1997 period,instead of two 230-kV lines. ~I Starting in 1986 includes Bradley Lake Hydro Project. r 6 -25 I 2 345 6 7 8 9 \0 11121314151617181920212223242526 TIME (TWO WEEK INTERVALS) 1.0 i i 1 II , 0.9 l()0.8I'-en-~0.7« UJ Q. ...J 0.6«::>zz«0.5 ll.. 0 ::>0.4a: z 0 0.3 z« :E 0.2ILl 0 0.1 FIGURE 6 - I NON-COINCiDENT 1975 PEAK DEMANDS ANCHORAGE AND FAIRBANKS AREAS if I i I II I ....:·11_1 j- Hj"il"r'lr'"1.":..·..1·.,1".1 ..'....111"!,Ij j .•' .jl)11 II.,),,I I, i ~IIII i II II:::)III I II I II ,i ,!'~1'!II 1'1 II I I '1 1 1Ii'I 1 I I I I I ''I ~/,I 'I II \I \IIIIJ:! I Ii 1 I,I \I \ I I , \ I ,,,\i "i.I I I I ~:J I':I I I !I I I I I I I "'1 "'.'.I ,'.''.'""..1.I..I,i I J..,-1","'.,I \I III I .1I10...I l 'I 1.A'+t I I i I I I:'l-~.i!i!':i ,i I ;I I I'I I I .I)':I I !iii i I Titttf i I!I!I I I I :I III!I :I II II!I Ii!,i:III j'It[1I.F~.I I ~iBI.~~.1~~~dt1 I.II i.I II.II ill I I 1 111,j (f,rMu~1 rAlNIDI !dl~~"li I,!iii I.I '1'I !I ' 1 ii''I I I \[I .1 II!....••,1: I I.I.iii.:I i.I I!,'j'I 1 \)I I...t I ~I .1 "t '11 .J-,II.";1'1 •.t···1 '-':"["\"1-1-,I I :i I!i'I ii, I .:!.'i .'1 1,':'f TI':i j.,··1 ..1....1, I I I i +.:,"I...I 'I I.!i ··1·...T 1...i jiI.i I !i I~I t i ~-,1--·+:!,'I'I ['I .I 6 -26 """'"i -. "---1 ']'~-J -~~},0._,-cl -1 OJ 1--1 G) C ;;0 rr1 0'\ I N .-! 792 !t.~5.,.€9 1 10E~3 --JD:; -'nJ !:25 COAL r;,+10;)' FIGURE 6-2,~-------------------- 1994 I 1995 I /996 I 1997 i f99S! ANCHORAGE AREA P£AIl;AI +7 1- _...__.._---_.._._-_.•.__.._--'-- LE G EN D IN S7ALLED CAPACITY LESS LARGEST UNIT IN MW WNIT ADDI,I:>N INSi'ALLEO CAPACITY IN MW I?c""Z_co..'-'I 1 ;50:1 ,__~_,.c-I I""'3C':I ....j 'ZOl !i ----- I I --- -I-I --.--I---~---~1 ___--__.I_____-I ,----~___f----J' _____-1 - __A~_.'.•__"..~~.••_._ .'1':.. 818 ':00 ___J ~---~----~-,~~:-;-:-::-::=..-:-,---,~,~~--~---'------I:'-~-:--:--, -----I IX~ IBA-AD'~!+501 (CAlf +ZO-) ~NTL1 1'71 BRf,::lLZ 1-50:,16,47 It{TLti +old ~ll;~I'<"-IS:--1543".j AN<H 8 f7s1 BELU 9 ·m,t ___: ~ANC.H9 +78.}-....::-_.... ,,t'i,H 7 t7S;1 -----------1~3 --------=.Ju !);"I~,~75 ~Z,l;.l _1258 J-- -I \~j;-'.-4 t7i ~l --_.----- --->-~_..-J BE:":'!S ~St '/1~30 f---~"-,~:.9 --!1 9'67 1-- - ---_...J I-----J_____-J 1"~-5 o n n -------- 1979 :1960 1961 11982 f 1963 I 1984 I 1985 I 1986 I 1987 I 1983 I 1989 I 1990 1 199/I 1992 i 1993 IC·'JC I ~~':l'l $,'zl 600 I 5CCJ _sse j 'I 1 '".....j-c--~I j '"on_.n _n~_~-NOR.3~9!~=__ _AS<!.'.__L---:-,..:",''-u __n _:::-------~~-~~~::=-~------J-~'~----~--~P:::-'::e~"MANe .mm FAIRBANKS AREA. ~<) .:=.z:c 0~"--, :;eo: 36CC -,--,~ 5"~' 32(;: ~3000 :;- 2800 0'1 Clc:: C 25C'0 -J N """"-I c::Z~J8u.Ja. C 2200;z <:: >- t:20:)C uc::a.1800c:: U 0 1600w -J -J ~14:0 t.~ ='=Izoe INDEPENDENT SYSTEM EXPANSION PLANS ANCHOR.4GE AND FAIRBANKS AREAS PROBABLE LOAD FGRfCAST CASiC ~m n "T1»..... U')G":lrnc:: ;;C......rn »O"l l2'"I W...... C -j ;- -~':. - .f· ._"-: -~_.-._-; -------------7----,------- ~---------~~~~-,-.---+.:~-:·.-~i~-=~·-~f-=-"~~ _~,_IS.iS _! :_-,----,-_.,.---,---,--__--"FI GURE 6 -3 !j.j.!~...COAtf+tOO 2:32.'__~_-...J _1 --- I r::::~I~;~-~--H~IZe _::...:::...·j---~c:~---l·:=-~· SRADLZ >50 •.-. ."';--::.1...•/KNIK A -IS ~ ::E 0 m ~ 0 .j l<: ~ N w CO CL 0z ~ >- I- U <l: £l. <U 0 W ..J -J <l: l- ll) ~ INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM EXPANSION PLAN ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS AREA WITHOUT SUS/TNA PROJECT PROBABLE LOAD FORECASt CASE em -,I 0'--J __.J ---J -J .J J ].----)--,--I J ~--l --I k ~)·-~-l ~~~)) Or I 979--r-19-ilo TI98IJ-I98iTI9-S3-r-1984Ti985 1-1986 -iI987--[IS'8Sri989--r -'i99oT-199-,-r-1992 r 1993[-'99-4"-r-1995-Fls-gu'1997T -!998'j INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM EXPANSION PLAN ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS AREA WITH FIRM POWER TRANSFER PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE 6r~ C"">"Il )::0 ..... VIm fT1 c:: :;0 .....fT1 tD en, ~. 6-4 PEAK LOAD DEMAND 3'3~O 70 MW *COAL 300 REPLACES TWO PLANTS" COAL F2 100 AND COAL 5 200 ::;::-*TWO 230KVLINES (1992-1996) POWER TRANSFER **" COAl~.,..zoo 1828 147'2. ~ 15~4 UNIT DELETION 4- :-ss );,(~~l 600 200 ,---,----,--,--,-,-- 800 -,--..,--,---------~~------'----..l 400 ;..-~--,--_.-~-~--- IBOO ,....----,---,-, 220'') lOCO ~, 36CO - !600 2400 -, 32':)0 3400 -, 2S0C 1200 1400 - 2.000 -:._-..--~-~- FIGURE ~~----~~~--~E'::'T~:.-::::~-f-~-~=-=_~--_:~3 ~~;~J_"--.~~._-~i~~]~;:;:': <M !.m ",U'.T --__I"_m.~_~•__._:t--~1-100 CO~"fZ~_f"":Z<T:j ---- --C._.,.OW I -..-....•=--'-.---__.~"'-"""I~..__;~~,t,,~__3 _4.XoQ --~,--LL -0 C.A '"IT<_..-~,'m...r T_'", m ...'.ST'0 _._rc ._""., _ r-----.'THESS I __!,.,""m'.,•3800 INS7ALL..O CA~C 1 __,_,_--.--1 I."..,'~',I----/..ARGEST UNl.-----_I "I , , --..~ *1----~-..n I(M..l +5001 i 3010 ~ ,.Il~28'~J. I I----.....,r~"-""I-s~HORnl - - --,-,- -(OAe""CO :-~.,~:lI'ZOOi~,--me r---J ' ----------,n_~I I --,--__n_----~-"NOll.50 11 112S --J 3RAJL,+50:: "a'KA-lSl ",I •1928 .J I 1-i-----I II1628f--_--J ____...J 2600 ----" >:3CCJ 2 a <:(cO't ..J '"<:( '-"N OL '-0 0 Z <:( >- f- U ""a.. <:( u 0 ~ ..J <:( f- c') Z n ""TI ):It ....... (.I)Ci) IT1 c= ;;0 .......ITI..... 0'1 I (J'l .1 -i ~4.9 PEAK LOAD DEMAND 3407 [1."'(' •••I I I I-__,_---1",:",-----,----:;/'-~-- I I130001..L~_:, I I I I'-------.---/-------..---~---2~ ,Z528 ~ --'.I -,--i rATAN I .,.2.36 1 --~_.,.-1---...............,I I .----- I , I ---------,--- __;".J :j ,->-------------=-. -"~_._~.',-----_...--j.-.~ :~--:~,~r::-~~:~::~~:-~__ ~_., -f:_::--::L 38CO --- 3600 ---:----, 2600 3200 ------ zacc-----,-' -_.._--~'--'-~- UNIT DELETION ~:,l ,::::_:~:L I '1-'-F-"-+~'''-~rT-~•--.-".'Ie In UP ESUS IT N A R 0 J EO I:::~,o.-t--..i -:~-!2t~-F~~!~,[j '-±-'=:=-=-J~:"-~l-=-::'j II •.•!.._.i:•.jLr"·~-.-'~;::::;----T -,---.. '··--T" L -f1979 I 1980 I 1981 I 19'82 I 1983 i 1984 I 1985 I 1986T1987 I 1988 I 1989 I -1990-Tf99ITI9921 1993 ~3000 :=~I-S9 Lr a et 0 0'1 "J :<: <t w W C- O az et >- I- <.) c::: C- <t <.) a ILl "J -I et l- ll> Z INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM EXPANSION PLAN ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS AREA WITH UPPER SUSITNA PROJECT PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE 9/79 ••e,·)J J "I ,."",!),j .,-_,,) ~1 ,~-'}"~)'-~~1 ~--l "~'l ~~~~''i' ~-- FIGURE 6 - 6---- .._.._._._--_...._.__.._-_.__..- ___••_R..·'_'• LE G END INSTALLED CAPAC!". 4-C:-J ---~.------"._--_.- ~."n.'·l:.UNIT ADO (TlON ..-.--.---------~~~------=-=~:.:.------~._,,------.--_...---._-----._._~-::~=-:.~-._-_._-----_._------- ----------+------~--......I"'.1I..U,.~_.-.--..-.--;---"-----'---_..~--,_..--"..._- 3-.SC: 'TJ....... G') c: ;0 IT1 O'l I O'l ~1 ~t ZS 25 GUt i -30)0, 2;25 ANCHORAGE AREA Ul .-------.--' CCALFZ,llJO r 6~3 !-'-----! C0.4:"4 -tZC::i CoM:.;:""we: I IYl3,5 '-__.J reA:..2 "'20'); ANC1'i 9 ""7Si KNIK A -15~ eEL:!9 ~'t"7J --------1 NORT 3 ~6~!i Lu _.~_1_ .,-"----.--.-.-~--_-..--.---_-==L.=-=--___t=~~~-~·_._~--~-~~~---1 ~;":'----'--f-=--~~--=':-'--~--:--_:....:..:.+--=~_.'"-_.--,-------------, INSTALLED CAPACITY LESS ,, LARGEST UNIT .IN MW .-.----.-...~----+--------,--.- ___.._....__~'---.i......__~----------~-~--~-~_.(t.~{Hil -+l~·Cr·",n.......''''''''''11 ,----~':00 ___,-__•__,_._._..•...J._~.__ 60a ---.------------- seQ ~.C':-o 180e 2":":::;. 15:;0·· ~~I-----J -I ----~--1 r IS41 1 __-]----..1- 1143 I : I I r-----.I ,1:l'"!'J I,_n!...I ..J 1200 ."'...,m·I·H.-.."-----.I____~.--t .r 1243.L ..,J"o~·_~'~O_...l :"::-::'-==-::J-=.-c -_~---~----~- .I 3200 1400· Z6ce IceG 35:: 34CC 2200 2000 Z800 ::::; 0 <:::r.0 ..J <: ..oJ D- o Z <: >-.... w <: /l. <u a u..: ...J ...J <! !- (;-: Z ("")"::x::-..... Ln '"...,C ;;;0........, ::x::- O"l ~I........... 0 -... 3301 ~~~I ..3<..-.0; ~- , ~ -~~-:"---:::.;.=-=t=_:~~--~·_--:--:_=-:=-~----~---;=-~ '-r".--+--. ----+--- .j ___________-:{E G E -~:-NIT DELETION[-5g SC~3,U 2800 --------. 2600 ,.----.- 3200 3COO _::~L .__._..----i-I ~ I.i .1(01.4 ~OOilCCAl5 ~LG,3'lC' ----------- Z"C'I ..-,;•.PEAK 'LOAD DEMAND f .!--f '-""j::...1.-.-I --J~--"-t',--t ------·t ---;----+----~--:;-....::-~.~.-'-.~:.•••,.~-.•.:..~·i m~El~NG~Ei c••Eh~EJ~t~~_ct~;~FiIf;jtmj~-~-.!;~:!:---"~=~m;;:~~;.._.... °rI979-1-1980T'19ST-,-i982--rI983---1-198~q-1985T-r986-T-i987f!988'TI98s-t!99o-I-19911199fT!?93 I 1994 TI995-!1996 I.1997 r-'9-9y-] INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM EXPANSION PLAN ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS AREA LOW LOAD FORECAST CASE _.- :_-~-:;~=TO~;~:C~~-T--:;-~~:~~T~~~~~lF+:-~~~,-~~....··c~_••!>~~ 3.;()()--.:icco -:-_LARGEST 3: :::< 0\c <t 0 J ~W <tI'\)w CL 0 Z <t >-I- u <t CL <tu 0 W ....J;;, I- Ul Z ,.)cO••••)J ].".,c ••,,"C,.},<,J .1.:.1 ••)J ,..J -1 -cl -))~'~")~-1 ~C)~-l '~-~1 ~~~)~c',c~l Lc~C)c',~_.}L._) n "Tl ):»I-l (/)G) rn c= ;:0......rnco O"l Ico .. i,. ~i !3C1 US9S -1997] COAL S 200._--- FIGU~E 6-8----,---_. 70 MW r~I .l?C\ AND POWER TRANSF'ER .. 1001 eeA:.T3:>:J , ,I _ eoA,4 'ZOO' !'~AI +78~ ~~?!\'T 4 t69!, ··:r 2354 r- ~L_ ~-IOO ~oA.;.F2.: -"~...--..'._.__~z.z c~~j -.-_..•--.--'--.--_.-....__.._._-_.-.-- Z050 "j . .-,~__l __.__. ."-r----.,I I tl ,. I I "'I ~---._... J,-"":':"::':'--!____-l I __,-_J .-------I . r---.J I.wL.J~~.~__I I I.--r=-~-=-:Jr1850p!----I .....,---"';'-'-:---' ._._----~--_. ~- , ·----·~t-- ..---.----~---------------------'-~---_.~-_..- '=78 AIle"9; i i -:-=-'------i-..:.....:...----.:.;.I..:.-=:'--ii:~1=,;:~,r"""or".~ ------,",---.-_.-..------.-.. -._-_..,_._._," .:1.. '--l':':''':':'_:':_'':'_::':'_:':'!·':-:=-'-:-':I~~D\I;50 :r-:."'I --- ___leRAD'2;-501 ",-,; .1 --!--... i 1:-:'I V.","'""I-,.-----.---.,-----..-.i:---,.--r- .j" ---I -1 .- 1 ..---_c.-..--.:..------I-~l ...--._.-,.-----....:---=:.=.:.:.:..-~--._-----. INSTALLEC CAPACITY LESS LARGEST UNIT IN MW INSTALLs:C CAPACITY IN. -----.---- __-L._ 120M , ____J <,:JC --------··-~---c·----·--'---,---,-- °rr979--rT98o--f"9B,-n9132-I-i9133'-r':"19~4T":'ri"l3-5-j-~:9:~~+~~~7--'·i-·'9~·8~f:~-I9sflI990-ti~i992T';;l93-T·'994-1~1'995T-'996-1'997--TI9yaj INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM EXPANSION PLAN ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS AREA LOW LOAD FORECAST CASE WITH FIRM POWER TRANSFER -----------j ""_j :3.:~~jn--:-~iJt::[-i-~;-~------==-:....:.....••.~~ 'FIRM PO-...• AK LOAD NER RAN --_._--~- ; 600 ..:..-----~:.:-. 400 zoo----FAIRBANKS ..---• 1400 ~6C'O -------- ~ooo LEGEND 3800 2800 ~~--------,-.._-- 260C - 1000 ,_..:..---:----.-:.:..:.:::.:..:_.:..:....i.. 22CO 1800 :5200 -'-'-'-"'----i~~st;'ll-:~'T DELETION 1600 -------~--.---T-~~ 3400 --.-.. 1200 ~------.-_:-~~. ·t-··--i, 4000 I '.k'CH6 +1%1 UNIT ADDITION _-_'-__.L_.--:_:_ 2<;CC 2000 :?; :::; 0 <;t 0'1 0 -J '"<:; W ..u W 0 ;z: <,.. I- U ~ <;t u 0 w :::l<..... U) z ~il ~ FIGURE 6-9 ro J x co ~i{}-If.'~ ~ q: .....\11~ 1IJ+: ~ <J)~ ~~ (5~ IS> - X « 2 ~,'ffi...,::: <J) 9. ~ I ~. I I: IL. -.J~"~E n3~H) .I r\. 1L. 2 ~ t') ~~C) =t: ~~ ')«-. ~ ~ w·r~.()':~-(i ]~~~)~fry, r-i)r~I :-l:>H 6 -34 __.LCC'-,._~-)1 --")~)'---J --1 ~--~l )1 --1 I I 'GSA tl.VA 381345KV:!IO;/. Q--/--- ~"M_J. 3,15 KV TIL ~~l,,--~- fOOM- l323m.) 'OOM'Ml ~0'{J--/1 I '--..J L...J .-',-- ~ I l.yiO""rb I I .~~345l(1i~.~./.....·fl---. ~) I -"""----.~~-j: I ";0-ml i j i I ;(~- I "WI :-,r.U11 --=:<;,,1\/AFi o k: ANCHORAGE ESTER ." >-t I~ I I ~ I CASEl I!I Alt!2rnafiv!2 C 0 FIGURE 6-11 - ?tC\J 1~ , I ~I ~I I I ~ I_J 9.~ """'l ::tl9.I ~ L... - ~t}~~~Jr@ ~~i~,T~t'-'-..,.,~_~-[_-;3}3f6-_",,\,..::J!i'.._6 36L-_ -'----1 /-~-C-'l ""-J 1 "'-')-"'1 "1 l --1 1 1 230kV .\-../"-It J}/. ,,n'I ......~Ifl"='":':''='ESTER '(189m) (189m) 230KV ~J?Mf...;'£1 ...-:}- 230/<'/-;-/L (27m)I I (27m) 155 m) I I I I 271MVA I l230!345KV!I01.1 --,=~;;;;':''-''lplp:-V-+'-'--+'-'i ~t fl~ A ,\:CHORAGE j,o,"~j .",;,...,....--'4.5/<'/"'"I!..J:......--...,'_,_.........,;I'.~"'.J ...... t .:--..----~~----.'"":-/(155m)I i -'-=~~-9J~.I I ...(~"{J-/1"-'""'.,/i I ......r'__.•,'fA Co I-...."I c~'~.'..-l J.200 MVAR I -'-=,;eel""=----..."-C}/..~ 1 _·.,. I 0)1 W 'i 4X/80MVA DEVIL CANYON 230KV 9 ~I ~cn~h 1-1 666 3 X 343MVA WATANA CASE J[ ."....... I:i?c: ;;0 rn 0) I..... N CHAPTER 7 FACILITY COST ESTIMATES r-. ! ,- CHAPTER 7 FACILITY COST ESTIMATES 7.1 TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS The transmission line costs were obtained from past and current experience of the Consultants with the design and construction of transmission lines in Alaska.Cost data was escalated to 1979 levels and a factor of 1.46 (AVF =Average Value Factor)was applied to total costs to give an average value for construction in the area.The AVF includes a 10%addition for anticipated difficulty with the constraints associated with the selected 1 i ne route. A.Alaskan Experience Facility cost estimates for alternative transmission intertie designs are based on an in-depth analysis of pertinent Alaskan transmission lines that have been built and are now in successful operation.Analyses were made based on actual experience to develop material and man-hour costs, together with specific installation requirements for structures,con- ductors,and footing assemblies.In addition,typical right-of-way clearing costs and other costs associated with the solicitation and obtainment of right-of-way easements,permits,and environmental reviews were gathered to provide representative costs for estimating component items for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie. The first Alaskan transmission line capable of operating at voltages as high as 230 kV was the Beluga Line.It was constructed for Chugach Electric Association (CEA)in 1967 by City Electric,Inc.of Anchorage. This line traverses about 42.5 miles of undeveloped land,of which about 65%was muskeg swamp.No roads existed to connect the line right-of-way to any highway or railroad,requiring that access be by water (Cook Inlet - Susitna River),by air (helicopter),or by ORV (off-road vehicle).One major river crossing was required along the transmission line route. 7 - 1 The Beluga Line was constructed of aluminum lattice,X-shape,hinged-guyed towers and Drake (795 kcmil ACSR)conductor by the Contractor.Using one __ tower assembly yard at Anchorage,the Contractor made extensive use of helicopter delivery of men and materials with ORV equipment during winter weather to construct the line.This project was completed at a cost of about $50,000 per mile,including right-of-way clearing. The hinged-guyed,X-shaped tower proved successful and has since been used for the following lines described below. 1.Knik Arm Transmission Line -230 kV (Aluminum Lattice Towers, 795 kcmil Drake ACSR Conductor),1975.This line was built using Owner- furnished material by force account and contract methods.The Owner (CEA) installed the piling and anchors,and contracted for the right-of-way clearing,tower erection,and wire stringing.Piling and anchors were installed using ORV equipment to carry the power tool for installing anchors and the Del Mag-5 diesel hammer and welding equipment for the piling work.City Electric,Inc.accomplished the tower erection and wire stringing using helicopter and ORV equipment. - Summary of Actual Costs: Construction Cost Right-of-way Clearing Cost Right-of-way Solicitation Cost TOTAL (w/o Engineering) $/Mile 87,294 19,049 7,706 114,049 2.W-illow Transmission Line -115 kV (Tubular Steel Towers,556.5 kcmil Dove ACSR Conductor),1978.This line was built by contract using I Owner-furnished material.Right-of-way clearing was accomplished by one contractor and line construction by another (Rogers Electric -an ex- perienced Alaska contractor).This line contractor used a vibratory driver to install the 811 H-pile with great success.(This driver has since been used to drive 1011 H-pile for another line.In one case,the tool drove a 14 J1 H-pile for a sign support.The contractors are preparing 7 - 2 .... to drive more 14"piles for a new CEA line.)The introduction of the vibratory pole-driving technique,together with the application of the tubular steel,hinged-guyed,X-tower is expected to realize substantial cost savings on future transmission line projects. -., :T Summary of Actual Costs: Construction Cost Right-of-way Clearing Cost Right-of-way Solicitation Cost 'TOTAL (w/o Engi neeri ng) B.Material Costs $/Mil e 73,863 10,312 4,909 89,084 """I .- The estimated cost for the tower steel,as well as the physical character- istics were obtained from ITT Meyer Industries (Ref.1).The cost of stee 1,therefore,has 19'79 as the reference year. The cost of foundation steel was taken to be $0.31 per lb for WG Beam. This value is somewhat conservative,as the current market price is $0.22 per lb. Prices for insulators and conductors have a reference year of 1977;there- after,the price was escalated at 7 percent per year through 1979.The cost of right-of-way was based on actual average values paid by utilities in the same area as the proposed lines.Other factors used,that provide good indication of projected costs for the transmission line are: •Terrain Factor -This factor is used to correct the number of calculated towers per mile to actual towers per mile. •Line Angle Factor -This factor is used to increase the ef- fective transversal load on the tower,and accounts for the 30 design-angle for the towers. 7 - 3 •Tower Weight Factor -This factor is used to increase the total estimated tower weight,to account for heavy angle and dead-end towers. C.Labor Costs Labor costs were obtained from actual construction experience,obtained by the Consultants l construction records for transmission lines built in Alaska.This information included the cost of labor and a detailed breakdown of the man-hours required for every specific task included in the construction program.A multiplier of 1.33 was applied to the estimated cost of labor for this period,which then was multiplied by 1.1 as explained in 7.1 above to obtain the 1.46 AVF indicated above. - D.Transportation Costs An estimated unit cost of $100 per ton was taken to represent the trans- portation and shipping costs from the Pacific Northwest to the line route staging depot,including loading and unloading (Ref.2). 7.2 SUBSTATIONS COSTS For this report,the facility costs for substations were obtained from the U.S.Department of Energy 1978 version of the previous FPC pUblication IIHydroelectric Power Evaluation ll (Ref.3).As the values included in the publication are list prices,with 1977 as reference year,they were adjusted to 1979 values by using the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation Index (Ref.4).The cost of the substations includes the shunt compensation, required at both ends,for operation from no-load to full-load.No re- active power (VAR)compensation support from the source generators was considered in this study. 7 - 4 ---, 7.3 CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM COSTS Control and communications sytems costs are included in the intertie cost estimates.The system is necessary to provide effective control of power system operations,and economic energy dispatch throughout the inter- connected Anchorage-Fairbanks area.The cost estimates include a power line carrier type communications system,a digital supervisory control and data acquisition (SCAOA)system,and automatic generation control equipment. 7.4 TRANSMISSION INTERTIE FACILITY COSTS As previously discussed in Chapter 5,transmission line costs were calcu- lated using TLCAP.Computer printout sheets indicating input data and the calculated results for all five intertie alternatives are shown in Appendix B.Costs for substation facilities and the control and communi- cations system were added to the transmission line costs,thus obtaining the investment cost for the total intertie facilities.A cost summary for each of the five alternatives studied is presented in Table 7-1. Detailed cost estimates and supporting data are included in Appendix D. 7.5 COST OF TRANSMISSION LOSSES The Transmission Line Optimization Program (TLCAP)for the selection of the optimum span-conductor combination,includes the cost of demand and energy losses for long transmission lines.The loss components are opti- mized by varying the voltages at the receiving and sending ends.The program assumes 100 percent volt support at both ends.Table 7-2 presents the present worth (1979)costs of calculated transmission line energy and demand losses. 7 - 5 7.6 BASIS FOR GENERATING PLANT FACILITY COSTS Cost estimates were prepared for all new generating plants (five gas- turbine units and five coal-fired steam plants),and associated substation and transmission facilities which will be affected by the transmission interconnection.The costs for the facilities are summarized in Table 7-3. The most recent cost data and estimates available for both gas-turbine and coal-fired steam plants planned for the Railbelt area was used as a basis for the generating plant estimates.The three principal sources of cost data and information are included in the references at the end of this chapter.The Battelle study report (Ref.2)provided background information and specific factors to determine applicable Alaskan con- struction cost location adjustment factors.The Stanley Consultants report to GVEA (Ref.5)provided detailed cost estimates for both the 104-MW coal-fired plant at Healy and combustion turbines at the Northpole substation in Fairbanks.These estimates were then used to derive refer- ence costs for other gas-turbine and coal-fired units of different capacity at other Railbelt sites.The nomogram developed by Arkansas Power &Light Company (Ref.6)was used to determine the lOO-MW reference cost estimate from reported costs relevant to the l04-MW coal-fired plant at Healy. The same nomogram was then used to determine plant costs for unit ratings of 200 and 300 MW,taking into consideration economies of scale.Sub- sequently,the Alaskan construction cost location adjustment factors were applied to derive site specific cost estimates. Cost estimates for the associated transmission facilities were obtained from cost data developed during this study for the transmission intertie, the Stanley Consultants report (Ref.5),and typical costs experienced in recent Alaskan transmission projects. The cost estimates and supporting data are contained in Appendix D. 7 - 6 - - - - - 7.7 GENERATING PLANT FUEL COSTS Benefits in addition to those resulting from generation reserve capacity sharing will result from the supply of firm power over the intertie.An analysis was made of the relative generation costs for both independent and interconnected system expansions to determine the comparative economic advantage of firm power interchange.The fuel cost component of operating expenses is the salient factor which affects the economic comparison of alternative system expansions.Therefore,a year-by-year analysis of alternative modes of generation was completed for each period during which firm power transfer over the intertie is possible,as follows: Transmission lntertie Firm Power Transfer From To Duration Capaci ty %Power Loss]}Energy~7 %Energy Loss]} 1984 1992 1987 1996 4 yrs. 5 yrs. 30 MW 70 MW 6.9 6.9 145 GWh 337 GWh 1.05 1.05 ..... - - r ..... ,.... 1/Case lB. 2/Annual Transmission Capacity Factor of 0.55 assumed for analysis. Fuel costs were estimated utilizing the trend curves from the Battelle report for future natural gas and coal prices in the Rai"lbelt area.The energy loss component of firm power transfer over the intertie was considered,in estimating the total cost of fuel required to generate sufficient energy in one area to displace a block of energy otherwise generated by a local plant in an independently supplied area. A year-by-year analysis of the comparative cost of generation is given in Appendix D.Table 7-4 summarizes these costs.Although this analysis is germane to the confirmation of salient considerations regarding the economic feasibility of the intertie,this level of study of fuel costs is in no way a definitive substitution for a detailed year-by-year analysis of pro- duction costing for the multi-area interconnection. 7 - 7 7.8 MEA UNDERLYING SYSTEM COSTS The construction of transmission intertie with the intermediate substation at Palmer (Case 10)provides an opportunity for Matanuska Electric Asso- ciation (MEA)to purchase power at the intermediate substation at Palmer. Information in the System Planning Report (Ref.8)indicates the following MEA system expansion investment cost for transmission lines and substation facilities with and without the intertie: - Interconnected System Independent System Independent System $1,356,000 (1987) $6,646,000 (1987) $2,004,000 (1992) The above costs are in 1979 dollars,values were escalated by 10%from 1978 to 1979 level.These values were used in an economic analysis to obtain additional benefits for Case 10. 7.9 CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS FOR THE UPPER SUSITNA PROJECT Completion of the transmission interconnection,prior to the development of the Watana and Devil Canyon sites of the Upper Susitna Project will enable the supply of electrical energy for construction power.A tempo- rary wood-pole line to the sites will be supplied from a transmission tap along the intertie route,near the junction of the site access road with the main highway between Anchorage and Fairbanks.Generally,isolated diesel generation is used at such remote hydropower plant sites. A comparison was made of the relative costs of isolated diesel generation and energy supply to the sites via the tap-line.Table 7-5 shows alter- native cost streams through the construction period corresponding to the introduction of the Watana and Devil Canyon units to the interconnected Railbelt generation expansion,shown on Figure 6-5.The construction schedule,as outlined on page 94 of the Interim Feasibility Report (Ref.7), 7 - 8 - - - - was followed to establish the time frame for economic comparison of alter- native modes of construction power supply.Results of the economic com- parison indicate a clear advantage for utilizing the intertie as a source of construction power. 7.10 REFERENCES 1.Letter from ITT Meyer Industries to R.W.Retherford Associates, Anchorage,Alaska,January 15,1979. 2.Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,Alaska Electric Power: An Analysis of Future Requirements and Supply Alternatives for the Railbelt Region,March 1978. I"'" I.if 3.DOE,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Hydroelectric Power Evaluation (Final Draft),August 1978. 4.U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,IIBuRec Construction Costs ll ,Engineering News Record,22 March 1979. r 5.Stanley Consultants,Power Supply Study - 1978,Review Copy of Report to Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc. 6.Power Engineering,IINomogram calculates economy of scale in power plants",Volume 83,February 1979. 7.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,South-Central Railbelt Area,Alaska, Upper Susitna River Basin Interim Feasibility Report,December 1975. -I 8.Robert W.Retherford Associates,System Planning Report,Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.,January 1979. 7 -9 TABLE 7-1 COST SUMMARY FOR INTERTIE FACILITIEs!/ '""" Total Cost at 1979 Levels ($1000)1lI!I!I! Case IA Case 18 Case IC Case 10 Case II ::, 1.Transmission Line: Eng'g.&Constr.Supv.3~012 3~012 7~988 3~012 15~442 Right-of-Way 8~837 8~837 7~573 8~837 12~994 Foundations 8~445 8~445 12~160 8~445 22~966 IlI!I!I Towers 21~615 2l~615 33~990 21~615 64~974 '1 Hardware 477 477 477 477 1~096 Insulators 503 503 755 503 1~396 Conductor 10~761 10~761 17~663 10~761 36~946 IlI!I!I Subtotal 53~650 53~650 80~606 53~650 155~814 -, 2.Substations: Eng'g.&Constr.Supv.1~352 1~352 1~855 2~816 6~902 -, Land 57 57 46 81 185 Transfonners 1~703 1~703 3~291 1~703 11~917 Circuit Breakers 1~093 1~O93 1~323 1~953 6~410 -Station Equipment 1~223 1~223 1~933 1~345 4~375 Structures &Accessories 3~628 3~628 3~978 4~026 16~411 Subtotal 9~056 9~056 12~426 11 ~924 46~200 ~. 3.Control and Communications:IlI!I!I Eng'g.&Constr.Supv.125 125 125 165 200 Equipment 2~375 2~375 2~375 3~135 3~600 Subtotal 2~500 2~500 2~500 3~300 3~800 Total Baseline 1979 Costs 65~206 65~206 95~532 68~874 205~814 iIIll"I Y The interest and escal ation during the construction and other financial charges are excluded from the costs in this summary.These costs are not relevant for the economic analysis and they appear only in the financial analysis (See Chapter 9 for Case 10). 7 -10 -, ..... -, ..... I i TABLE 7-2 PRESENT WORTH OF INTERTIE LINE LOSSES 1984-1997 STUDY PERIOol1 -r I ..... .... Case IA &ID (230 kV) IB (230 kV) IC (345 kV) II A (230 &345 kV) Anchorage -Devil Canyon Devil Canyon -Ester Watana -Devil Canyon $x 1000 (l979) 5,410 7,071 6,429 11,476 7,076 2,708 ..... i - 11 Cost of losses,energy,and demand,escalated at 3%per year . 7 -11 TABLE 7-3 COST SUMMARY FOR GENERATING FACILITIE~/ (Costs at 1979 LevelJ./) II"!!! Install ed Cost Total Cost-Y Unit Name Code Jj TypJ./MW Thousand $$/kW Thousand $$/kW """ Northpole #3 NORT 3 SCGT 69 24 t 385 353 27 t 934 405 Bel uga #9 BELU 9 SCGT 71 33 t 548 473 42 t 498 598 ., Northpol e #4 NORT 4 SCGT 69 24 t 385 353 25 t 185 365 Anchorage PEAK A2 SCGT 78 22 t 620 290 23 t 400 300 I!IIIl1 Northpole #5 NORT 5 SCGT 69 24 t 385 353 25 t 185 365 .1 Anchorage #11 ANCH 11 Coal 104 99 t 084 953 105 t 636 1016 ~ Unit F2 COAL F2 Coal 100 130 t OOO 1300 151 t 980 1520, Unit No.5 COAL 5 Coal 200 200 t OOO 1000 212 t 245 1061 -Unit No.6 COAL 6 Coal 300 274 t OOO 913 292 t 250 974 Unit No.1 GEN 1 Coal 300 274 t OOO 913 292 t 250 974 Unit No.2 GEN 2 Coal 300 274 t 000 913 292 t 250 974 "'"'l l/Investment costs adjusted to January 1979 levels t excluding IOC. 2/Code name used in MAREL study. 1/SCGT -Simple cycle combustion turbine t "includes NO x removal equipment. COAL -Steam turbine t coal-fired with FGO equipment. i/Total cost includes substation and transmission costs. 2./The interest and escalation during the construction and other financial charges are excluded from the costs in this summary.These costs are not relevant for the economic analysis and they appear only in the financial analysis. 7 -12 - - - I"'" I I I '""" TABLE 7-4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE GENERATING PLANT FUEL COSTS $1000 (Escalated) Independent Interconnected Year System Operation System Operation 1984 1985 8,468 7,648 1986 9,324 8,498 1987 10,267 9,029 f""'. 1992 6,851 8,324 r""",,1993 7,212 8,654 1994 7,933 8,016 1995 8,654 8,745 1996 9,015 9,109 r~ 7 -13 TABLE 7-5 ALTERNATIVE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION POWER SUPPLY TO WATANA AND DEVIL CANYON HYDROPOWER SITES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF UPPER SUSITNA PROJECT 1/Negative sign indicates that resale value of generating plant exceeds cost of generation in final year. 7 -14 - - ~ I - FIGURE 7-1 , \. 1,r~t I (Source:Plan of Study for Susitna Hydropower Rood Feasibility Analysis by Alaska District U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Sep.1977) -./ UPPER SUSiTNA "Walarm Access Road I Proposed) TEMPORARY 69kV WOODPOLE LINE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE :,CAIIP"""I __-J ()~J 10 15 cOMlles .,flANSMISSION CORRIDOR ANCllOflAGE FAIRBANKS INTEFHlE RIVER MILES 120-290 CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR UPPER SUSITNA PROJECT: Ref.Interim Feasibility Report -P.94~US Army (Qrp~0f rnqin@~r§j ]?U@(.1975 Construction Period for Selected Projects: ~ I Watana Dam - 6 Years Devil Canyon Dam - 5 Years Total Period -10 Years (1 Year Overlap) SUGGESTED REVISED SCHEDULE: Ref.Chapter 6,Figure 6-5 First Unit On-Line.at Watana -Beginning Year 1992 Last Unit On-Lin~at Devil Canyon -End of Year 1996 Period of Overlap in Construction - 2 Years Due to Introduction of First Unit at Devil Canyon in 1994 7 -15 CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS -I r- I CHAPTER 8 ECONOM IC FEAS IB IL lTY ANAL YS IS An economic feasibil ity analysi s was perfonned to determi ne which system expansion plan provides the best use of available resources for supplying electrical power to the Railbelt area.Alternative system expansion plans and faci 1 ity cost estimates were developed in Chapters 6 and 7.In thi s chapter,the resul ts of the economic feasibil ity analysi s are presented. 8.1 METHODOLOGY This economic analysis uses the conventional present-worth model.Annual capital disbursement tables,on a year-by-year basis,were prepared for independent and interconnected system expansion pl ans.To eval uate these plans on an equal basis all capital disbursements were discounted to the 1979 base year and then totalized for each plan to obtain a single 1979 present-worth value for each pl an.The difference between the two present worth values is the net present worth or project benefits.This approach does not include additional capital disbursements after 1997.Such dis- bursements will be required later to replace retired facilities.However, the extension of the present-worth model over the whole life of the pro- posed intertie will not significantly affect the results of this feasibil- itystudy.The year 1997 was chosen as the final year of the study period to include the last unit of Upper Susitna Hydropower Project (Devil Canyon Unit No.4). Figures 6-2 thru 6-8 in Chapter 6 show that many plant additions for both independent and interconnected system expansion plans do not vary. Therefore,in this economic analysis,facility costs for the new generat- ing plants not affected by the introduction of the intertie are not con- sidered.Also excluded from the analysis are plant fixed operation and maintenance costs.The exclusion of these O&M costs will somewhat favor tfte independent system expansion alternatives. 8 - 1 Only capital costs are used to evaluate generation reserve capacity shar- ing benefits.This simplification is based on the assumption that an average operating cost of generation for reserve sharing is approximately the same in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas.To account for generating plant operating costs with reasonable accuracy,a multi-area production cost study would be needed.The multi-area production cost model simu- lates an economic dispatching of generating units in the system and com- putes expected fuel and variable O&M costs based on the energy (MWh)out- put for each unit,taking into consideration intertie transfer limits. Since such a study is outside the scope of the present work,a somewhat simplified method was used in this feasibility study.It is definitely recommended that a multi-area production cost study be performed as the next step to finalize this Intertie Economic Feasibility Study. 8.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A computer program was developed by IECO to analyze the sensitivity of different escalation and discount rates on the capital costs of various alternatives.This program,the Transmission Line Economic Analysis Program (TLEAP),provides the following outputs: •Tables indicating independent minus interconnected system costs,discounted to the base year 1979. •Separate tables indicating the discounted value of base year (1979)costs for the independent and interconnected systems. •Cost disbursement tables for alternative system expansion plans.These tables also include intertie line losses. Computer printout sheets indicating input data and calculated results for all alternatives included in this economic feasibility analysis are found in Appendix E. 8 - 2 - - - - - - ,.... I 8.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Tables included in this chapter and in Appendix E indicate economic ana- lyses for a range of annual escalation rates of 0%to 12%,and a range of discount rates from 8%to 12%.For principal investigations below, a 10%discount rate is used and cash flow for facil ities under conside- ration is expressed in constant 1979 dollars,only the fuel related energy costs are escalated.The 10%is regarded as the appropriate discount value for Opportunity Cost of Capital and is now required by the Office of Management and Budget (Ref.1)for economic analyses to determine benefits for all federal projects. For the purposes of the economic analysis,it is the discount rate cor- responding to the opportunity cost of capital which is used to calculate all present values of costs and benefits;the particular cost of in- terest actually paid on bonds or other obligations is irrelevant since it bears no relationship whatsoever to the project's internal rate of return.It is only a financial (or budgeting)parameter.Therefore, the interest during construction and other financial changes are ex- cluded from the economic analysis.These charges appear only in the financial analysis. A.Benefits Due to Generation Reserve Capacity Sharing (Case IA) Three cases were investigated to determine intertie benefits due to generation reserve capacity sharing alone;the 230-kV single circuit intertie between Anchorage and Fairbanks.In all cases 130 MW of power transfer capacity was allocated for generation reserve capacity sharing purposes.The economic analysis results indicate the following benefits due to intertie (differential of present worth): Load Intert ie Cost Reference Benefits ($x 1000) Forecast (Percent)Table (PW 1979) Probable 100 8-1 12,475 Probable 125 8-1x 945 Low 100 8-1-LL 2,704 ,.... 8 - 3 The above results indicate that the 230-kV intertie is economically feasible based on generation reserve capacity sharing alone. Sensitivity of the results to variations in escalation and discount rates are indicated in Tables 8-1,8-1x and 8-1-LL.Computer printouts indicating details are included in Appendix E. B.Benefits Due to Generation Reserve Capacity Sharing and Firm Power Transfer (Case 1B) Six cases were investigated to determine combined 230-kV intertie benefits due to both firm power transfer and generation reserve capacity sharing. These study cases have one 230-kV single circuit line during the 1984-1991 period and two single circuit 230-kV lines during the 1992-1997 period except for low load forecast case (Table 8-3LL)when the second 230-kV circuit is added in 1995.The economic analysis results indicate the following intertie benefits (differential of present worth): Load Intertie Cost Reference Benefits ($x 1000) Forecast (Percent)Table (PW 1979) Probable 100 8-3 24,054 Probable 125 8-3x 12,533 ~ Low 100 8-3-LL -2,626 ~ If the above intertie benefits are combined with the additional benefits due to supply of construction power to the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project site (see Section 7.9),the economic analysis results indicate the following benefits (differential of present worth): 8 - 4 - -I - Load Interti e Cost Reference Benefits ($x 1000) Forecast (Percent)Table (PW 1979) Probable 100 8-4 29,633 Probable 125 8-4x 18,112 ~ Sensitivity of the results to variations in escalation and discount rates are indicated in Tables 8-3,8-3x,8-3-LL,8-4 and 8-4x.Computer printouts indicating details are included in Appendix E. C.Benefits Due to Generation Reserve Sharing and Firm Power Transfer (Case IC) Two cases were investigated to deternline 345 kV intertie benefits due to both:generation reserve sharing only (first line)and genera- t i on reserve shari ng combined with fi rm power transfer (second 1i ne). These study cases consider one 345 kV single circuit line between Anchorage and Fairbanks.The economic study results indicate the following intertie benefits (differential of present worth): Load Intertie Cost Reference Benefits ($x 1000) Forecast (Percent)Table (PW 1979)r I Probable 100 8-2 -3,556 Probable 100 8-7 426 The above results indicate that the 345 kV intertie is not economically feasible based on the conditions specified in this study.Additional studies,including interconnected system production costing,may prove the 345 kV intertie feasible. Sensitivity of the results to variations in rates are indicated in Tables 8-2 and 8-7. details are included in Appendix E. 8 - 5 escalation and discount Computer printouts indicating D.230-kV Intertie with Intermediate Substations (Case ID) Four cases were investigated to determine additional benefits due to supply of power to the MEA System at Palmer substation,and construc- tion power to the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project.These cases include a 230-kV single circuit line between Anchorage and Fairbanks (Ester), with intermediate substations at Palmer and Healy.The economic anal- ysis results indicate the following intertie benefits: - Load Intertie Cost Reference Benefits ($x 1000) Forecast (Percent)Table (PW 1979) Probable 100 8-5 17,814 Probable 125 8-5x 9,125 """'" If the above intertie benefits are combined with the additional benefits due to supply of construction power to the Upper Susitna Hydropower Project sites (see Section 7.9),the economic analysis results indicated the following benefits (differential of present worth): ~ Load Intert ie Cost Reference Benefits ($x 1000) Forecast (Percent)Table (PW 1979) Probable 100 8-6 20,344 Probable 125 8-6x 11 ,656 Sensitivity of the results to variations in escalation and discount rates are indicated in Tables 8-5,8-5x,8-6 and 8-6x.Computer printouts indicating details are included in Appendix E. 8 - 6 r i r r E.Intertie with Upper Susitna Hydropower Project Only system rel iabil ity (MAREL)analyses and facil ity cost estimates were developed for this alternative system expansion plan (Case II~ Chapter 6).The economic feasibility analysis was not performed for this alternative because: •The methodology of this economic analysis is more appropriate for thermal generation systems.It is not applicable to a large mixed hydro/thermal generation systems.A multi- area production cost study~involving extensive analyses of optimum hydro operations in conjunction with thermal plants~would be required to obtain accurate results. • A draft copy of the Upper Susitna project report prepared by the Alaska Power Administration (Ref.2)was received by the Consultants in the course of this study.It includes revisions to unit ratings for the Upper Susitna Project used in the MAREL analyses (as described in Chapter 6).The new total installed capacity is 1573 MW~versus the 1392 MW installed capacity used in development of the expansion plans analyzed in this report. A study should be perfonned to accommodate the above revisions to the Susitna power ratings and change to the production economics due to major hydro substitution for thermal energy.The study should examine in detail the economic feasibil ity of Susitna hydropower,due to the displacement of large increments of thermal power. For reference,Figure 6-5 in Chapter 6 indicates the initial expansion plan developed for this study.This figure also indicates the thermal generating unit di spl acementby Upper Susitna Hydropower units. 8 - 7 MAREL study results indicate the following intertie requirements for maintaining the study criteria of equal reliability system expansion with introduction of Upper Susitna power: - - Period 1992 1993 1994-1997 8.4 REFERENCES Requirement One 345-kV SIC line to Anchorage One 230-kV SIC line to Fairbanks One 345-kV SIC line to Anchorage Two 230-kV SIC lines to Fairbanks Two 345-kV SIC lines to Anchorage Two 230-kV SIC lines to Fairbanks - - 1.Business Week,Economics,Pages 96-97,February 19,1979. 2.Alaska Power Administration,Upper Susitna River Project Market Analyses Report,March 1979. 8 - 8 "-1 "~'l '--1 --~--'-l -~1 J J 13 t.Llt;lJST 1'1 -~------~---_.~,:--_._.---_•••_----..--~~---_.~--~_._,••_._-_._--_._.__.--••'-'-'*••---- 11[.115"4 Pl);'ifl~AlJPlOln T 'f AtJCH(J"A,GE -FIIIR':Ji\;",,:>INTERTIE f:C0 !\U.':I C F I::AS I h TLIT 'f S Til in TAHLE 8-1 ---------,~.__....-.".--.._.._------_._.--_.•_.__.¥.-.-..._---_.•...----~_. CASE lA,230 kV GENERATION RESERVE SHARING ONLY ,---..~PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE--------,'. __·_____.0__•____•____________ I)jFH~ENlIAL 1)1SCOUNTF.I)v'AUiF OF 8!\SE YEAR (1979)COSTS INDFPHJOENI SYSTEM COSTS MINUS TNTERCO~NtCTEI)SYSTtM CUSTS ------_."_.---,--_.-.._.-._--~..---"._-~(IN $100U) ----------------------------~---------ESCALATIONRAltS-----------------------------------______ [)I Sll~ilf'J1 {).~.ill '.>%h7,7"1.HZ 9%lu:l;I 1%li'7-RATE -------------------------------.---------_.._-------B.~J 1 (;,'Il '\2,4'34 _\ ,,>!r,-'>,Cobc -11,(1'-12 -li.III','''-,>:,.,1'-17 -."fi,It)Q -':;"1,g(lf)-'">I "l"l2 H.L:'5 ,I j,175 3.i!(L·.!_"lj I -:1 ,;~01 -y,019 -1',,171 -2 5 ,i)q l)-51,7<;0 _l~i ,l))(.)-',,s,/.".$ 1'\,50 1 1 ,'-I I 4 3,927 b47 -3,)7~-n,20')- 1 ;J,1.)j -?l,l.$&-c!Y,lIilJ -.$<),179 -~,!),hOO (',,75 \1 ,h ,S lj ~,bli'1 ,riO 3 -2,32/J -b,9.,7 -1<.','">79 -1'J,2/>~-?1,191 -3/),':i IJ U -ll 7,II f\8 9,1)0 11,i"36 ..-_....5.?<;8 ;:>,.$1 /1 -1,321 -5,7'~2 -11,0 9 0 -1 7,lj ill>-?5,n71 -.$/1,01 .,-44,':>11'1,':<"],~i (J 2 0 '.:>,"b;,j 5,0 B 1 -371 '-4,'.:>1'11'1 -q,r,ld -\5,7/16 -25,O!~0 -31,<>0'.>-41,663I,,c:,0 I r',j H'l ("ij '1?,S,,,00 ')31 -:"Ij fj 1 -e,359 -lil,106 -21,102 -<'''dOl -38,(nd (0 ,,-1'>",'1 6,91'3 :j ,/1 l)1 1,:,H')-;,'130 -7,,0""-1<',b21 -IQ,<.'':i<'-27,I)Qq -.$/>,.$35.<1 ..I ) 1 ()"{:(I 1?,'1/5 7.1.9t 5,I 'f.\<"1 <,lLj -1,!J,'1 -5,1\41 -11,149 -17,/Fjn -."~,llqo -.$5,l1 tn J (),<,'i 1 ?.,5~;h i,U()Q ':i,"'j q 2,'J,,()-41:\4 -/1 ,/>.'-',?-9,147 -1''.>,hi.'-2~,9HI -.$1,4')11 111.,">0 !?,Iii 3 i1,I.;J f 6,,5;>il 3,/:>;,':i lll'.:i -5,<;'1\1 -8,411 -1'1,145 -21,0611 - 2 '/,I t\1 ex>1(J ,7 '5 12,79'1 1',1<3-'1 b,'ib7 /1,.$7 1 1,208 -2,5'5 /j - 7,159 -12,062 -1 9 ,27,'>·27,005 1 J ,\l tl 11.,"7'1 ",.?51 7,'-'tI 5,01'1 1,076 -1,'.>ljtl -5,421;\-11,202 - I 7,-I Hh -?4,4~2 J 1,2 ...12,Q,,'1 9,<;.49 1,1I5R 5,0>0 2,I:\ll 1 -:'95 -4,-flb -'1,6nQ -1'.>,1116 -2?,(~5!J I,D 11.'jO l~,O(JI <;,9 1,'-.$1\,309 6,20':\3,')66 301 -5,t-1:\{)-1',4.'12 -11.1,223 -21,05<JII•,')\;,(I,)'j I (\,2:(/)5,I 52 6,7'.:>2 4,2':>2 I,I'.>?-2,6)7 -',211'.-12,/03 -19,219 12.ill)13"i'l5 1 (I,)62 '1,129 7,21.>5 4,900 1,9'.>~- 1,('47 -b,OI1.1 -1 I t2S.$-17,4130 Note: In early years of the expansion plan capital requirements are higher for the independent system plan,but in the later years capital requirements are higher for the interconnected system plan.As-the discount rate increases,the sum of present worth decreases more for the interconnected system plan than for the independent system plan,therefore,the differential of the sums of the discounted values increases with the increase in the dis- count rate. Due to larger capital requirements in the later years of the expansion plan,the increase in the escalation rate causes a greater increase in capital costs for the interconnected system.As a consequence,'the differential of the discounted values (benefits)decre~se, Refer to'APPENDIX E for capital disbursement tables and tables of discounted values, );!- O:lr-..,., CXl I I-' :3 AUGUST 7'1 ,.-----------.._.-.._---~----~-_.-------..-~_.._.._-_.._---- At ASK A Pl.l\'~fi AI.l 1 HOf,(11 Y II "l CliO RAG t:.-F:.I R13 Ar,f<;SIN 1ERTI E E:C[1 ~II)~1I C F E A S I ,3r L 1 J Y S1 LJ f)Y .-"--"--~"--_..._~-_.._-------_. CASE lA,GENERATION RESER'~SHARING ONLY TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS INCREASED BY 25% PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE l)IFF ERE NTI AL D1"s c uUId c:0 YALUt 0F 8 II S (yt AR (1 9 79)COS TS INDEPE~DEN1 SYSTt:.M CUS1S MINUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COS1S (IN $\0\)0) TABLE.8-1X -----~--------------------------------ESCALATILJ~RATES-------------------~--------------------- [)I S C(1 Ut.r ,)%lJy'')i.6%7'7.8%9%1 0 ~1\%12% kAlE:----------------_...---------------------------------... H.I\O - 1,'j 1 (1 -11,771;-15,92/-Zll,e'l7 -2o,eo'!-53,741:\-lt2,019 -~1,642 -62,~bO -75,589 1'.2S -I,(i'jo -Ill,Mq I -liJ,>J')(l -14,~9tl -2':>,<.'53 -3I,9/J6 -39,H2/j -I.l 'I ,Or,IJ -S9,IVI -72.533 H.~O --,lilt -1!i,P48 -13,M24 -18,360 -2S,TbH -30,175 -""',125 -tlb,'::>77 -<;0,910 -t>~,9211 f./5 -'i;<.s -'-I,;>In -12,';47 -17,178 -22,35U -2d,lJl3lJ -5),710 -lJ'l,20b -5 I j,122 -h5,658 q •,Ill -/'1 -t',Ij t\'j -11,'111 -16,0')?-20,9 0 7 -<""i\hfl -35,1'111 -I)I ,q 3 7 -51,4S1 -h2,S;>/l '1.2'.>.-'ill -7.7l,1 -II,u32 -I'J ,97'1 -19,70'i -2S,.'i23 -31,962 -3'1,7/l1:>-lJK,(\,,~-')9,':>2'1 '1.SI)Ij I>to -!,(l7lJ -10,190 -1.'>,'1':>7 -11l,'J73 -2~,l"\ljd -30,207 -.H,MIA -~b,<ltlb -';:.6,6'56 'l./S 7 I £1 -1:>,1122 ·9,.s,\9 -12,<.182 -17,247 -22,£140 -?&,,)29 -35,-'00 -Q4,I02 -')3,903 10.00 lllj';-c.;.1<0.'>-1l,027 -12,I)')Ij -lo,17b -21,09')-26,'126 -33,7<;J/i -ij I ,p,')7 -51,26" 10.<''>I , 1 l)I -,>,<'I ()-7,"103 -11,171 -1'),107 -14,1'10 -25,idS -31,979 -.s'1,105 -lJf\,7St\ 10.'10 I,)01 -1',0':''1 -1,215 -II),BO -Ill,I)H/j -liI,SHr,-2'i,9,'1\-'il),<'3il -37,b':>l -46,,'>HI CO 1 I}•1 r;,I ,')Ij "-II,I )(.-b,'H'?'-9,"29 -13,llb -1 7,II]')-22,':12A -?t',~)7L1 -5S,OH2 -L13,99Q \ 1•'J ,J I ,7?I -'$,0'>2 -S,Yill -1I,7h'M -12,1"0·-lo,2Q I-\-21,1'1:-<.'b,'1IlS -3'i,191',-41,719....11.2')1,1i"'1 -3,1'::J'I -."S"d -B,0<./4 - I I,}OH -15,23.5 -19,41Ll -25,461 -31,9"5 -3(),652 0 1I •':>\)2,II 50 -2,7!('-1l,7911 -1,3':><:'-10,.:!6tJ -14,217 -11:\,b9,)-2 '1,0 Ob -30,2bQ -37,bl~ I I •-,":J 2,I bb -2,<'59 -",CbS -6,701 -9,06d -1.),21.18 -17,530 -2~,blo -2/i,/,18 -35,ob'5 11.(}().:,~91 -1,1i89 -,),/63 -b,079 -H,~07 -12,32':)-16,aI8 -21 dB 7 -27,03Q -B,798 Note: This case is similar to the case pres'entedin Table 8-1,except for the increa"se in intertie costs by 25 percent which caused an increase in capital requirements for the iaterconnected-system expansion plan.-For case analysis refer to note in Table 8-1. -l )::> OJr- J'Tl co I.... X J,J J .1 J ]2'J ".,,",.1 •,~..J J J J J ).~ ):~_.-'}CC,_~]''-')-1 -J ) 28 AUGUST 7'"'1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE·FAIRBANKS INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEAS1BILITY STUDY CASE lA,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING ONLY LOW LOAD FORECAST CASE TABLE 8-1-LL DIFFERENTIAL DISCOUNTED VALUE Of BASE YEAR (JQ79)COSTS INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS MINUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS <IN $1000) ------·-~~_·_----··--~---·--·--·----··ESCAlATIONWATES---·-----··-·--·~·-·--·-·----·-·--.-,-~.-. DISCOUNT 0'%4X 5%6X 7%fI%9%lOX ltt 12% R ATt::=::::=:--........_--------=====-----====:=====----.==='.:= 8.00 4,292 6,955 7,203 7,166 6,765 <,,904 4,475 2,351 -619 -11,605 8.25 1l,095 6,860 7 r1 6 7 7,206 6,903 6,167 4,695 2,964 232 -1,466 8.50 3,897 D,7SIl 7,114 7,22';7,014 6,396 5,272 3,523 1,016 -2,409 1:\.75 3,698 6,'038 7,048 7,225 7,100 6,593 5,607 4,031 1,73b -1,430 9.00 3,1l99 6,<'13 b,968 7.,207 7,163 b,759 5,90tl 1l,1I91 2,397 -5211 C/.25 3,300 6,379 b,876 7,172 7,203 6,897 6,165 4,90b 3,001 312 9.50 3,101 6,237 6,773 7,122 7.<.>24 7,008 6,392 5,278 3,552 1,083 <).75 2,902 6,01\8 6,660 7,058 7,225 7,095 6,':lA8 5,b10 4,053 1,791 10.00 <.>,704 5,933 b.537 6,981 7,209 7,159 b,753 5,904 4,507 2,442 10.25 2,507 5,772 6,406 6,892 7,1 77 7,201 0,891 b,163 4,917 3,037 10.50 2,~11 5,60b 6,267 6,791 7,lZ9 7,223 7,003 6,3 All 5,284 3,580 10.75 2,116 ~,435 6,121 6,681 7,068 7,226 7,090 0,",IH 5,613 4,0711 CO 11.00 1,923 5,261 5,969 6,561 b,q9~7,212 7,155 b,748 5,904 1l,522 11.2<;1,7 31 5,083 5,811 6,433 6,907 7,182 7,198 6,885 0,161 4,927 11.50 1,541 4,<)02 5,61l7 6,296 6,809 .7,136 7,222 0,997 6,385 5,290 I-'11.75 1,353 4,718 5,1.179 6,15 ~6,7 01 7,077 7,227 7,085 6,578 5,615I-'12.00 1,166 4,')32 5,308 6,004 6,584 7,005 7,.214 7 ,t 51 b,742 5,904 Note: In the early years of the expansion plan capital requirements are somewhat lower for the independent system expansion plan (less new generating capacity is required).In the later years capital requirements are lower for the interconnected system plan.As the discount rate increases,the sum of the present worth decreases more for the independent system plan,therefore,the differential of the sums of the discounted values decrease with the increase in the discount rate. The above analysis is applicable at the lower escalation rates.Due to marginal differences between capital requirements for both independent and interconnected expansion plans,at higher escalation rates the situation reverses,the differential discounted values (benefits) increase with the increase in the discount rate and decrease with the increase in the escalation rate. Refer to APPENDIX E for capital disbursement tables and tables of discounted values. -i :J=o l;lj r- rn CO I I-' Irr- 23 A1JGlJST 79 ALASKA PO_fHAUIHOH11Y ANCHU~AGE -FAIRHANKS INTERTIE I:.CUNO~\IC FEASlf3ILITY_ATUO_Y__ CASE IC,345 kV GENERATION RESERVE SHARING ONLY -PROBABLE LOAD.FORECAST._-__ TABLE 8-2 [IIFFfRcNTIAL fJ!SCOIJNTfll VALUt Of BASt:YEAR (1979)COSTS J NDH't.rjjJE.N!SYSH:.M eUSTS ~11 NU S INTERCONNEelEO SYSTEM CUSTS ( I I~:Ii I v V0 ) -------~------------------------------ESCALATION RATES----------------------------------------- D I SC()L'r~T OY.'.k SY.br.1%ill.9%lOr.Il %12% f'ATt ---------------_.-------....--------------....--------'--- 1".\10 -iJ ,f\i..b -10."09 -l.L279 -11">.167 -!9,t,Ol -2~,l>"1::!-2[J,4,;'1 -n.4i)1'-<-10,4':>0 -47,93iJ h.?C,-".1,79 - \['.S':>tI -12,6'13 - 1 ':>,II 1 2 -18.b9t\-22,51:33 -27,1C,0 -52,IJ 59 -31;.700 -45,893 M.'::>ll -4.i liHI -'1.eb~-12,<)51 -1:.J,b92 -11,rlY:i -11,':>')0 -25.9S':>-.sI,ll5tl -37,023 -43,93b CO d.7'::>-Ij."l12 -'-I.I)0 I -I 1 •.J fj"}-14,OOt:>-17,011 -20,514 -2 11.771 -29,ofl7 -.s,:>,415 -Ll2,059 ~}•0 l~-II,!3,j -h,"'':>9 '-I u.9')·,)-13,.)'>1 -11>.22':>-19.056 -2.5.6')8 -2{J.j7<'-3'i.8711 -40,259 .....9.2'>-S.'n ~-0 •..,IJ U -1(1,1l3t>-I?7('Po -IS.Ij 1'1 -ltl,734 -22,':>45 -27.111 -32,SCi?-3i:J,':>32 N '-I •'>(,-3,/qLl -M,143 -9,91',7 -12,154 -)4,7'>0 -17,{l{J2 -21,'::>75 -25,913 -30,9132 -30,57b ~.7'>-$,t,;{,::>-"I,70b -9,41'13 -11,':>68 -ILI,075 -17,llb.3 -20,001 -24.761 -?'-l,o?6 -35,289 I ;)•lt0 -3,':>~6 -1,'-ivl'.-'1.1)<12 -11,029 -13,423 -10,282 -19,069 -23,658 -21:1,328 -"$3,766 Ill.?'>-3,··56 -7,Olll -i),022 -lu,<)17 -12,,,02 -1':>,"35 -1"',17'1 -22,003 -27,08.3 -32,307 ll1 •S l}-3.3?5 -6,144 -il,22lj -IO,O?9 -12,210 -ILJ,825 -11,92R -21,':>93 -2S,892 -30,908 L;.7')-3,2?2 -0,l~'-4~-7,h47 -9,565 - I 1•°I,!:>-1".11l3 -17,11':>-20,021 -21.1,751 -29,567 I 1•I~,:-.,.127 -",15 H -1.iH3d -9,123 -11,lve -13,1',94 -10.335 -19,7u2 -23,651:1 -25,282 11.(:',...;,0 tJ (~-'J,0ot)-7.I iJ'i -~.704 -IO.59t)-12.1:l75 -1':>.':>46 -11l,RIC)-n.612 -27,051 1I •':>U -2,45'l -5,03u -b,d27 -5,30'::>-10,109 -12,285 -14,1:187 -17,973 -21,611 -25,871 I I •75 -2,'>'1'16 -5,38tJ -b,522 - 7,927 -9,6<15 -11,722 -14,210 -17,105 -20,6';,2 -2t.l,71l1 12.uiJ -2,,119 -5,159 -6,235 -7,508 -9,204 -11,166 -13,56'-1 -16,393 -1'1,735 -23,658 -I )::0 CDr- rrl CO I N J ,J _J ~J J J •J J "-J .~..-J .~-~I 1 ..~..)~--l h-l >~J 1 .)~l }-J -) 2:>l\lh~iJ:>T /9 t\lAS~;\Ptl"i'tK AilThORliy .!IN[~~J~;{·'i'-';!:.-F:"Ii-\{\s\~~".S I~,;TEl..?TIE r:C~'i~";IH·fiC FF.~.sISrLI1'!S~ttn'f CASE IB,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS FIRM Po\.ffiR TRA.~SFER PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE TABLE 8-3 ~. to.- lTl co I W AUGUS r 1'1 ,\LA$K.\Pl)'~tf{,llllHIWI1V ANCHUi,hGE -'1'All<1\/I"K5 INHR11E ~co~nMIC F~ASIHILlry SlUOY CASE IB,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS FIRM POWER TRANSFER TPJrnSMISSION LINE COSTS INCREASED BY 25% PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE I)IFF(RENTIAL I)ISCOUNTED VAlliE OF RASE.YEAR (In9)COSTS INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSlS MINUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS (IN $1(00) TAMLE e-.>x ----------------------------~---------ESCALArION RAT~S----------------------------------------- DISCr.ll;~.T !II,.4i..')%b%7%HI.9%10%I 1 %12% ~II r E ------_.......-_........------------------------------------- 1'>.00 12,:111 Q,1 I ~7 •~"6 S.Q2b 2.1)6 -1,'no -':>,769 -10,91\7 -17,202 -2<1,5tl!l ij.?5 IC,'Jb7 0,1181 '1,>\I 1 ':>,648 2,41 7 -Ilb':i -lJ,S91 -9,561.1 -1,,'199 -22,':>£'2 tl,:,O 12.Sl19 <'1,1.122 l:\,1.6£l b,233 3,65 JJ tll.l°-3,1.l13 -(\,211 -13,1176 -20,<;91 M.75 If!,'i 'I ()1l1 ,1'i>\H,t>P-l b,7f11 4,~'i i)I,315 -2,<Ill -h,9;><1 -11.,BO -1/\,7tl~ Q,('0 p,e,C;Q 1 U,(124 q,()..,I 7,2'10 ,,:>,011'5 2,133 -1,llOII -<;,700 -10,1\57 -16,990 <J,2'"12,,:,,,7 lol,o'l7 Q,q lJ I~",77 'r\';;,(,21 2,q ,)b -tIC,()-I~,'),7 -9,lJ';4 -1':>,310 9,"Ij 12,';"';lU,Q45 9,l13A (.l,2 ~i)(>,201 3,b :'ib lJ':itl -3,lj,~2 -1',119 -15,i\'.'l ';,7..,12,"1)11 11,1"11 1 0,I (I ,~Po,bu"b,7 L1 o IJ,,52,)1,:~1 0 -2,)8 ~-h.Ii /1 r.-Io?,190 Il'•{I (l 12,':>:5)11,.5 73 10,~q4 '1,OLl2"7,20,7 Ll,97S 2,121 -1,31:\7 -'),64U -10,]5J3 I l',,?S 12,e,Olj 11,5')1-1 1(),,.,61 9,LI ()7 7.nh 5,')87 2,887 -lJ43 -4,U9!-9,3':>4 OJ 10,')0 I;:>,111J6 11 ,72')lO,'i07 9,7ub 11,11:<5 b,16.5 3,t,10 451 -3,3'1'1 -B,036 If'.7';1 ?,;l;>I 11,;.q-;11,133 10,000 /'I,oOll b,704 IJ,29tl 1,2 0 9 -2,51>2 -b,7P,2 1 I.(10 12,)09 12,110"11,33[\III dl)1 8.995 7,212 4,q:'itl 2,102 -1,378 -:,,')oB ......II,'>')l?,~lJq 12,12')11,,)2l.l 10,619 9,35"7,bfl9 S,':>Ll6 2,1:\61 -4 I~ll -4,4S3.po : I •')0 12,2/'I.l 12,221:\1 1,/)Q2 lll,dh';)9,0'17 /'\,1 ~5 /:>,115 .5,';711 41.12 -3,371.1 1 I ,''''12,11?12,316 II,M'~4 1 1,I)9 1 10,011 ~,';:l52 6,6')0 4,256 Idf'>2 -2,348 12,Ii (l 12,09';12,.3'11 11,'HR 11,297 10,302 8,9L12 7,1 b 1 lJ,89t>2,U77 -1,374 -l 6; r-rn co I W X j ol ,,,I ,)J -',~j J •eel ,J J ).,J ,,j ~,)]J ~-1 -1 1 )]_.-..']J 'J 28 AUGUST 79 ALASKA PO~~R AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITy STUDY CASE IB,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS FIRM POWER TRANSFER LOW LOAD FORECA~T CASE DIFFERENTIAL DISCOUNTED VALUE OF BASE YEAR (1979)COSTS INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS MIN0S INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS (IN SIOOO) TABLE 8-3-U ····_·_--·_·_······.-··~_··_···_····--ESCAlATI0NRATES-···---·····-·--_·__·__·~··~.·----.-····· DISCOUNT O~4~'5~&X 7%8%9l lOX llX 12X RATE ::I==~=====::========~=====-~--===~::::===1:::=:c::;: 8.00 -729 4,879 0,790 8,952 11 ,H'5 14,152 17,258 20,7'55 24,&69 29,111 8,2'5 -99&4,430 6,279 6,373 10,739 n,40B 16,416 1'1,802 23,&11 27,892 8,50 -1,254 3,995 5,786 7,813 10,101l 12,688 15,601 18,881 22,569 26,711.1 8,75 -1,503 3,"75 5,309 7,271 9,4'10 11,993 111,8111 17,990 21,562 25,57& 9,00 -1,743 3,169 4,!l1l7 6,7118 8,896 11,321 111,055 17,129 20,S89 24,476 9,25 -1,976 2,776 4,401 6,242 8,522 10,&71 130318 16,297 19,6118 23,1113 9,50 -2,200 2,3'16 3,'169 S,752 7,767 10,042 12,606 15,493 18,738 22,385 9,75 -2,1.117 2,029 3,552 5,279 7,2H 9,1.131.1 11,918 11.1,7111 17,859 21,391 10,00 -2,626 1,674 3,11.19 1.1,821 6,711 8,846 11,253 13,962 17,00B 20,431 10,25 -2,828 1,331 2,759 1I,378 6,?09 8,278 10,609 13,2311 16,186 19,502 10.50 -3,023 q99 20381 3,9/J9 5,724 7,727 9,'187 12,530 15,390 18,603 10,75 -3,212 678 2,016 5,535 5,254 7,195 9,384 11,84'1 111,621 17,734 CO 11,00 -3,394 368 1,&&1.1 3,1311 1I,7Q9 &,680 8,802 11,1 <;10 13,876 16,894 11,25 -3,56<;1 67 1,322 2,747 4,500 &,182 Ar2~8 10,553 13,156 16,081 .....11.50 -3,739 -225 9'12 2,372 3,'l~1I S,700'7,6'13 9,'l36 12,Q60 15,294 (J1 11.75 -3,'102 -S03 613 2,009 3,52~5,234 7,165 9,339 11,785 14,533 12.00 -Q,060 -77e,3611 1,658 3,12Q 11,785 b,654 8,7b2 11,133 13,797 -I ~corrn CO I W I rr 23 ~l/~lJSl 79 ~L 1\S K tJ.f'\1 \>1 L~'1\II Tt i[)I,'I 1 y ANCHUkr'G::-FIIIRH.\NKS 1I\>HRIH. lCO~U~IC F~I\SIHILrIY STUDY CASE IB:,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS FIRM POWER TRANSFER &SUSITNA PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE TAUlE o-!J i)J r F t.k f:N TI A L DISCOUNTED VAlliE OF I::\ASf Yt:.AR (l'17Cl)COSTS I N[lF fOE '-WEN 1 SYSTEM cosrs MINUS r~TlRCO~NECT~D SYSTEM COSTS ( J ~J $1 000 ) ------------------~---------~---------ESCALArIu~HAltS----------------------------------------- I)I;,C(lu~n 0%L1%':>%b%1%P%'i%\<1%117-12t '"'A It --------------------_....-------------_....-_....-----_....--.... t'•t)()51,;J11b 32,2/?31,731 .Fl,/4ft 2'1.,2lj9 2/,1')1 ?4,564 20,71:\5 10,_51)3 10,791 ~.25 .5 I ,'J 5 1 5'>,5':>0 31,'10/\51,O/J I 2'1,079 ?r,7/~2 2'-5,1/!3 21,7(\3 17,SS2 12,330 I<.'){J 30,1l')C}32:,407 32,0';,/\31(31)?50,012 2t\,25'1 25,ti70 22,719 1(1,730 13,757 ('•7:'So,b 7 ~3?,114 3 5i',1f;3 31,S3Ll 3(),1~2q 2/\,7'14 ?",':>47 25,':)97 1'I,tU.O 1':>,164 "•{1 II ,~~I ,'I 7 H _,?,Ii t"(i 3?,;>i\')31,7.H,SI),7 c;1 29,2",H ?7,177 2iJ,Q1R ?'ll.P.H1J 1h,III->"> u.,-:,',u,,!7t>5(1,IJ~ij 3",~n,S 31,tJl?:.1,()IJ ?('<J ,h f\/)27,11:>1 2'),1<'7 21,"'hi)I 7,&q /1 'I.:>(J ~'J,n ,,!-\,S?,I:511 3,','I?1 32,PI,?<'1,501 30,(J72 <'1',,31)1 2':>,'1()4 22.,7 H'!IH,"':>? '/.7S 2'/,H".3 ~?,I,('I?3;:,Ll~)d 3",1 ill 31,531 ."0,I)?0 ?H,HOO 2tl,':>7 2 23,o"i.3 1'1,'14'-) I (J •I)0 24,h"V,351 5?,470 32,21:\1'31,133 30,146 2'1,?5'1 ?1 , I 41,2q,'l6LJ 20,973 1 (I .2':>'-Hi,,j/,1 1,,',2"4 32,117 to 3,:,',6'"3 I ,'J ()H S I ,()3/~?9,680 2',770 2':>,222 21,9QO i it •':>,j ,.,"',Ii to 3,),?1)iJ 5?,il~,1\32,"21'32,\1'-,7 31,292 30,Ob"?t<,51)':)2"i,'!?9 22,HI19 CO j I}•I"r:X I (j '.!1 ."",I I !)5(','L)/j 3?,!J b ':>52,11\2 31 ,':>20 30,illh 2f\,1'!H 26,SH'/23,702 )~•\I (I ?Ii,1 </2 !)(~'/iif)';!)(',~/4 32,'Pl'1 3,.,,c'1\":5 1, 7 2 I 5 (),7 ~5 ?'I,2"d 21,20'$24,':>01 11 ."':,c!I',II e,'1 'st."!'':)32,31 (I 3~,.:J(~b :52,3h"i ~~l,t..,'1",31,020 2'1,670 27,77.S 2'0,249 ~11.<,0 <'M,?I 1 .5 I ,1':>0 3<',2,,>2 32,lJ 7U :S;>,'!2 e,3?',VLlb 31,216 30,0"2 25,502 25,94/'1 0\1 I •75 2/,'11)1 31,bIb 32,I ill'3?,438 S2,1<6">32,1 72 31,0;,04 30,3 Q Q 21:1,7 0 0 21,,600 12.110 27,70'!31,'Jr>/:>32,1)37 S2,391 32,IH30 32,27":.31,10!J .30,715 2<1,21.10 27,207 -i ):::> o::::lr- TTl CO I +:> .)J.J -J ~.l .J .".~....J ,J J ,-.•-J ..J ",...J J ~"l -~~'),~'~'''-'''),."J ~J ')1 ?'~,-]}1 2';IIIJGUS I 74 ALA5KA Puwf:r.:IIIJlH[jhlIlv ANCHlJRM~l::-'FAIRI1ANr<S INTI:Hllf: teo fJO'.:I C F f:,\S I f'TLI n STU Dv . CASE IB,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS FIRM POWER TRANSFER &SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS INCREASED BY 25% PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE DfHf:RENTIALUISCOUNrE'1)VALUE OF 8ASE YEAR (1979)COSTS INDEPf~Df:NT SYSTEM COSTS MINUS I~TERCUNN[CTEU SYSTf:M COSTS (IN 'HOOD) TAHLt a-ax ------------------------~---_---------ESCALATIUNRATf:5-.--------------------------------------- OiSCOU~l .)%4~':i ::-;b%7'1.5%9'Y,10%II X 12% l?.\!F_-----=====----- -------------...--------------------- 1:'.00 II;,-!O!1 fo,0 h9 17,02 /1 1':>,523 1';,1142 10,1-1 /19 1,502 .3,350 -1,721 -7,835 M.?,C,pl,,,25 I",200 17,3?4 1 S,'/44 1'~,O,)5 I 1,S 71:l H,IJ2Q 4,1195 -31 q -/>,139 t,'"50 I /:j,71J 4 I l ,i,1141 I 7,',9p 16,352 14,579 12.<'60 Q,2<'1 5,S7/>1,00'/-II,':>27 I-J.7C,!h,t-,,3 PI,,,44 I I,/,142 16,o1lQ l':>,U/>':)12,H99 10,108 6,~,4/,\?,?6El -2,QQ5 <l.PO _.._"II'.,'-,,)9 --"-.1t',7t>1'J 11'1,1/03 17,015 IS,5Ib 13,490 1 C),!I I";7,S/>2 5,1.100 -I,':)42 'I.?5 Ill,4 b I'1",~3f\1/\,?'hO 17,515 15,4 ~II 1 11,0 'd 1 I ,5 </'i 8,471 4,',,118 -103 '-'•"0 ItI,V,5 Ib,'151 I II ,tl Yi II,':>1I1~lodl'!I!J,":I7.?ICtC'70 9,.Sell '),0""1,I11S 4./5 1l-',?57 In,007 111,"/'\/l 17,h29 10,/175 1,>,054 12,'J112 10,H4 6,l1bl 2,'~85 1 \l •iJ II 1 f<,1 I c 1 t"(.I(,b 111,7<'1)IH,(lllQ 16,497 15,":102 I '),'1'12 10,1:l'l2 7,613 3,5':>9 OJ l(j.~?1 7,'IIi Il 19,109 III,H35 PJ,211b 11,29 11 1':>,~lb 14,l)IJ 4 II,bU5 1:1,510 II,67 I .,1.,I t'•e,{I I / ,/1 <i "1°,1;6 I/I,'~'U 111,1.21 I 7,..,I,1.I Ib,291:\jtl,""11 12,271 'J,.;56 ",122 1 0 •7'.J 17, 7 (Il)19,14'1 1'1,004 P\,'17 II II,HOe 10,0':)0 1';,05b 12,iI'10 1 0,1')2 6,716.....I I •(III 17,".52 IQ,149 1 '~,I.'011 Itl,707 IM,llea Ih,472 tC,,4HO I .3 ,4 III 10,901 7,b':>5-..J IJ.25 17,39'1 1 <I,H5 19,11lI'\11l,1121 113,225 17,2011 IS,b91 11~,l)2R 11,hOS H,C,l l1 1 1.50 1',eLl2 19,109 19,131\11:1,416 18,llOO 17,':>37 11>,271 lu,S')]12,260 9,377 1 1•75 17,0110 19,072 19,1':>3 IR,9{H~113,';,53 17,7l11 16,621 1";,012 12,tHY;10,1 ell 1/.00 16,41')19,O?"4 I q,1 ";1.1 19,050 IIj,61::\1 1/J,GlIl 16,942 1'),4')2 15,464 10,905 -I ):> I:D..... IT1 co I -1::=0 X 23 II l!l;U:>l 7 Cj AlAS K II f'U W[H /II J 1 H 1I f<I T Y AN C Hl.'R\r;E.-'F II I fW A,,~K S I I'.T E R i H. FeD N U11 I C FEll::::I Ii I LI I Y S TlJ l)Y CASE ID,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING WITH INTERMEDIATE SUBSTATIONS PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE DIFFfRENfIAL DI5COUNlfu VALut OF HASE YFAR (1979)COSTS INDtf'E.~OENT SYSIEM CUSTS MINUS INltHCONNECTtD SYSTEM COSTS (IN 51u001 TAl:lLE e-c; ----------------------~----~----------ESCALAllnN I?Al[S----------------------------------------- DI sec'.!"T II %Qi::'>%hY.7"/.1)%9%I UY.1 I 7.127. ..A Ti:------------.......------------------------------------ !l.(i I)Ie,'-l b U 11,'>50 1 (>.<592 IS,2:,'}1 L Q31 1 I ,100 rI,1 1>f\Q,<)52 157 -'),122 I\.h I i\,q06 11,72'1 Ib,e')M I'),DIll IS,9;>Q I I ,735 8,967 '5,5/~I 1,363 -3,665 t\.~o 1t!,3~)11.1'1-,,,17,101 IS,9o.;.$lil,.$PLl 12,.HO 1/,721 I:;,Q70 c,SOil -2,21',0 /<.75 1;';',2U I p"I)<'6 17,Sh']b,<'t>'J I'~,>:\I 2 12,iiH9 IU,4~1 1,36?}"sg5 -963 q •,\il 1 .'1 , 1 'J 'I I",!/J H 17.':>21 11>,':>60 1'>.21 0 ]S,i~I },I I ,100 f\.I q F\Q,b2,)2/j'l g.e'?I ri,1 Ij Il 1";,'>,3 I 7,I v l]10,027 I ':>,')il n 13.'IO?11,129 H,9R'-l 5,001 1,IJ 7ti '}.so I rl • "I i>Ii:.,5'~~17,/j1>0 1 7,I)7,)1,:>,'}~2 1;.1,3')9 12,520 9,73<-1 0,525 2,I:>O~ 'I •I')17,q I t:l 11.'•IjJ 7 1/\,()O?1/,?92 ID,c''i~lQ,lliS 12,074 I u,Inti 7,QOO 3,61\0 1 0 •(,l!I 7,HI 4 Iii.q 7 b In,126 17,1/92 16,"<'tl 1'->,}02 13,SQ4 11 ,I 11 0 ",c2H 4,696 IU,?5 17.71)4 IH,5<'2 1 1\,23/1 17,6n 10,7 'I':>]'),')<'0 13,heO 11 ,123 '1,009 "',h60 1 (I •')(I 17,S1'9 1 ~.•')')..,1~,32'>\1,d3,)17.l)40 I'~,eql t Q ,.sSs 12.309 9,1Q7 b,';)7!J co !I!• I .,I 7 ,.I I (l 11\,':>7 h lH,Q02 17,QYfl,17,2b2 ]ll,207 l 1J,/59 1;>.H6t)10,4 Ll:~7,4311 I I ,,)n I 7,.S ,j"I h,'->I',':>Id,464 I R,I (I"17,uh 'J lo,4'if IS,I .,'I 13d70 1 1, 1 ()0 8,2S6 J I •<!'">\1,217 1",'->82 1 '\,513 I H,211-1 17,046 10,/05 1",'->21 1.S,(jl)'1 I I , 7 Iii 9,030.....1 1 •':>J I 7,.)r,C;I /:i ,'->{,q 1 H,S 4 il 10,.s07 I 1,,,04 I 7,u 09 1",H61 III •},i I 12,29Q 9,760co\] •7')10,9'19 1"."Ll7 IIl,S/2 1M,SA6 11,9S /.j 17,1:'32 It"176 14,733 12,HI-l':)10,450 12.vo 16,,,1 (1 )1;,':11 1•lR,St\3 HI,4':>1 18,oe2 17,43"11>,467 15,126 13,3S8 11,100 --i ~ OJr rr1 co I (J1 .J ,J J .J .J ~.....):-,..,}.-..1 I I -",,I ,.•,J .J "...1 -1 -1 1 c__eel 1 l 1 -J }1 J t!3 AUl,llS 1 III Al ASK A Pllwlt<AlIIIHJI<I I Y ANCHORAGE ~FAIR~ANKS IN1[R1IE ECONUMIC FEASIHILITY STUDY e CASE ID 7 GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS INTERMEDIATE SUBSTATIONS TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS INCREASED BY 25% PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE TABLE ft-Sx OIFFERI;:NTIAL DISCOUN1ED VAlU~OF BASE YEAR (lq7q)COSTS INDEPENDENT SYS1EM COSTS MINUS INTERCONNECTED SYSTeM COSTS (III/SI()OO) ------------------------.--.----------ESCALATI0N RAT~S----------------------------------------- 01 St:UUIIT 0%£1%~%1)%7%1:\%9Y.107-1U 124 kA J(------------_....-----------------_._----------------- h.Oll q,I~,)",772 5,£120 3,b63 l,lJ39 -1,31 9 -lI,of\c;J -",755 -15,011 -1c;J,!>63 .\.2~9,11\1 7,1)£13 ",7/'13 Il,LB 2,O~b -'j 77 -3,178 -7,6';1 -12r2t15 -17,783 ".~l)Q,197 .,,;>qll 6,121 £l,57~2,591:\125 -2,<lIS -b,bOl -11,022 -10,276 fI,70;.-q,211'5 7,,)211 b,tl36 £I,91\Q 3,1.'6 78<1 -2,OQ5 -~,h03 -q,~lq -l£1,83ij 9.no 9,1111.1 7,7 ·~o 0,129 ~,.~77 3,620 1,IH 7 -1,319 -ll,h'S')-1',,073 -13,/jh(> It.?.~"',)(1<)7,<)H 7,(1(11 '),740 tl,(l'l')2,Uoq -~HI.I -5,1S1.1 .7,')83 -12,15 9 4.S0 Q,l 1'1 1l,IOH ·7,2S2 b,I)lH L1,~35 2,5bfl 11.)-c,H<)q -6,'j/~b -10,912.,.75 <1,1"1')fI,2bQ"7,'1t\4 o,:sqS 1.l,9/J1)3,094 171 -2,01\1\-5,SC,Q -Q,7?5 1\1.00 9,12')1:\,til .:,7,697 o,bHb S,5SS 3,590 1,394 -1,31q -/J,b'?l -~,Sqq ll'•i''.>q,OH9 /'I,'j£ll)1,fl9.3 6,9<:'9 'j,o91 4,057 I ,9~2 -c,qO -3,736 -7,517 II'•':l ()Q,U /17 l',h03 A,Il72 ,,211 0,O~5 II,~qS 2,"38 100 -2,t1atl -6,'J92ex>Iii.'"k,94Q f:\,I b 7 1\""3 'j 7,II£l/~b,:~,)ll 4,907 3,0(,1 751.1 -2,OHI -5,"16 1I •(l J 13,9ilt>tI,I'Sti 8,~I\.~1,o5A o,6£lLi '),293 3,"55 1,372 -1..319 -4,589 ......11.2'-1 ~,Mhf\8,q~H 1-l,')lb 7,tlS()b,<)17 ~,b.,4 tl,020 1,9'>tl -~qb -3,707 1.0 1I •')I)t1,~C?5 '1,000 8,1136 8,031;1 7,1 70 '),9 Q2 1J,£I'5b 2,501:1 aa -2,1:170 11.1':1 1'1,7"18 9,063 8,74<'.8,201 7,tlOq 6,308 q,Bo7 3,029 737 -2,074 12.00 8,M17 9,109 8,835 8,3':11 7,620 b,b02 5,2'>2 3,520 1,.350 -1,319 );! tor /'T1 ex>I (.TI X 25 AU,ilIST I~ALf';jl<.A PU"Li?AlIH'(:flll Y A~Chu~tG[-FAIR0A~KS ]~ltR!lf ECUNUM!C ~EaSI~IL]TY STUOY CASE ID,230 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING ------"---------.-WITH-INTERMEDIATE SUBSTATIONS &SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE f)lFFr:RUJ1It,L DiSCUUN1EI)VALlIl::.OF HA5t YEAR (1979)·C0515 ]"11)fY l;i"[)t q s Y S Tt i'o UJ ~r s ~1I ~W:>r (~,t R [(1:\:1.1I:.C I i::.I)S Y ::;H M COS 15 (IN li j I)V()) T MilE B-b -----------------~--------------------c:SCALATIUNHAJ[S------------------------------~---------- ()TSCOu··J r t)k IJ%':>i:h O 'n H%Q%lOr.1 1 r.leX... r,(,1[-------------------------------------------_.....----- h •\}r.c I ,';I.')'l 1,361 ?O,t>'n 1 'I,I)I)Y Ill,I II 1 1("UII':>15,41)1:>1 (),?1 q 6,190 1,29b "0 r;'""I ,?:I r.21,1-1/<3 ;(1,1\7 7 1'1,'1'.14 I A,'.'I 11 16,h)"1/1,r.'0 ()1 1,1 I 1 7,501 2,6':>1 t'0 ':>r,"1,1.'Ll i'1,',t!U 21,u':>S 20,Iii?II','!'.))17,1':>6 11),1169 11,'16Ll 1),352 3,'137 hoi ')..?1 ,,11 t\2 \,ot>(j 21,?12 ?(l,1j30 I "!,?':)'I 17,hH 15,1197 12,76?'},)'1')~,156 '1 0 lHI (>1I,1j'l':>;>1,1?3 21,,;iHI ?0,1,').$19,~1\')jM,I)i\')16,lIfl">15,':>1.)lu,21\~6,31? 4.,,')r.'ll,700 2I,'l7I)?1,40':>?0,(\')/~14,t\HQ lH,il'l'l Ib,b'Sq ILl,2i H 11.172 7,407 (;•L.,~i ('(I,h $u c l ,I~u.$21,">6';'l1,033 2 I),1 "7 1 i",i'8 S 1 7,14 'I 14,Mil I 12,{JU~CI,IJ4:3 \)..7 c-'2<.1,:140 i'l,/Pl 21,"il7 21 , 1 '-11 ?ll,<.In'"1 '1,237 1 7,b2':i t(,,':>o.$I 2,7 'I 7 9,Ll23 In.l.l {,"'I ,S 'j :.)21,1\2"?1,71?21 d2q 21/,tJ 2 'I 19,':>,,2 11-1,069 16,0/)')1.3,').$'1 10dSO 1 ,J •c c;cll,1"4 r.'1,H 11\21,/02 2),I)<.Ii:'?(),;":31 1'1,tbO 11),Ll Fj I tb,h3u 14,237 1 1 ,2 ....6 00 11,.'""l <'(I ,n y<21,7'/"1 21,741 c'1,':>49 21,°I I 2 (I,1 3.s \1J,bo2 1/,13;;ILl,M93 12,0':>2 10.1':>19,M/\,)21,/()')2i,i1}/'\21,633 21,170 20,.31',1 19,<'1")I 7,(,t 2 1'),':>01)12,l:l31 I I •()0 1 '1,717 21,72.:.1 21,d.?/)21,701 21,.$0 0 ;>0,1'>06 1'1,')39 1 A,O':i 5 1t>,Ol:l':>13,'J611 N I I .2')I 0,c;':>1 21,o7e!?},£\21 21,7')3 21 ,(.SO 20,e05 19,1:337 18,463 lo,b2~14,2':>5a J 1 0 ~0 19,3('\2 21,t>10 ?I ,t\I)II 21,7"11 21,S33 20,9A/j ;>0,109 11\,1:\'42 1'1,129 14,904 11.7">19,2l)'i 2 I,':>.SQ 21,776 21,1\1':>'l1,019 2l,149 20,.357 1'-1,1'15 17,bOO 1~,5111 12.00 1 q,,,3/1 21,459 21,757 21,A2S 21,6[;'-1 21 ,290 2(1,5e2 19,510 1",051;16,08':> -I;x:.. cor- f"T1 co I 0"1 .c.~~-J ,..}J J ""}.J •J '.••<",.J ]J ,-J ",,~"J "~',,p~-J 'J ,.'1 '~-"l _.)...._C7J )1 J ~").\Ul>IIS I 79 ,\1.AS""P('\'lt",\1)[!iWH I Y hI~CI'\I)"'I\GE.-f ,q><!<M<r,$l'HERTl[ !;.(II'HWIC H:l.SltllLlIY SI()iJY CASE ID.230 kV.GENERATION RESERVE SHARING WITH INTEID-mCIATE SUBSTATIONS &SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER TRANSMISSION LINE COST INCREASED BY 25%. PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST CASE nlfeFt.PENTTAL DISCOIJNIED VAUlt.(J~eASE YEA~(197CJ)COSTS INDEPL~Dt.~T 5Y~TtM COSIS MJN~S IhTtRCUNHtcTED SYSTEM C~STS (P<bIOOO) TA~LE 8-bX ---------------------------~----------[SCALATIUNI~Arts----------------------------------------- f)1 SClIUI'JT OX li 4.,,%t>o.77.HI.9:4 10':1.Itt 1<'%I. f,A if ------.-..._.---_....-....---"'!"---------------------=-------- 6.00 12,0'10 \(;,');>,9 9,500 tI,032 6,I 0 tl 'i,006 b2CJ ~3,OHft -1,')78 -12,'HH, }"!.2':,1;:,IJ 1f-1 l),}";;Q,IlO2 d,4 S?b,6;:>q I,•.S2M 1,'l"I;-2,071~-0,5'11\-il,467 I'•':>(l II,q"a \lJ,9h7 10,07':;H,I:i04 7,111 IJ,'I'>1 2,234 -1,113 -,:>,I /"1 -IO,(JS9 Ii.i'1 1 1 •')c;j I 1 ,1 71:\10,~2b 'i,1'>0 7.'::>14 '),531 2,'171 -20.5 -II,Ub8 -I'J,719 4.PO 11,4i}';I I ,~I 1 1 (I ,'.)':>b 9,'j 70 H,OOI 6,089 5,b60 1>1>0 -.5,01 S -7,11115 G.2S 11 •,,';;2 1 1 ,I il7 1 (),I hI:>'-I,7 h 7 8,LiOO 6,600 '1,!'?i:'1,4/0 -2,012 -o,?30';;."(1 11 ,1',.5 11,')b!:\10,'1':>0 10,OLj()1j,f7i 7,()q I 4,9liO 2,(>LiI3 -I,Ob!,-5,077 ".1 S 11 ,1;>7 11,t,7.$1 1,1 2H IO,2'1c 9,II b 7,?Ilt,5,')(>2 2,'177 -16)-3,'Ill I 1(\.(11)11,n'">t>I 1 ,"Ttl II 11,(>1'1.)10,'::>?5 9,4!,i')7,971 6,069 3,obt>690 -2,'/(;0 lli.?5 1 \,'>19 11,/"Ii.l2 1 \,i'21 I u,?n 9,I S2 1\,5h 7 6,'JH3 4,He t ,4'17 -1,"1')2 Q:l lil.SO 1 I ,!J9 to 11,'H'6 11,':>114 ]0,92"10.006 1j,7.S1 7,Ob'"4,9?'-1 2,<'1>1 -1,014 1 U.I ')11 ,'I (J '/I I ,'/"1\11,0'il 1 1 ,(lqq 111,;><:;1:\9,Utl2 7,':>I 7 '::>,50b 2,985 -124 \ I •U()IldlM 1I,'I'Ii!11,145 11,2':>5 1 (J,IIIP"1 9,401 7,llLiO o,O'iO 3,1166 719 N 11.1.'>I I,?;2 lr',1l?7 11,'\2'1 11,.59')10,701 9,098 8,55b 6,"/>')4,.510 I,51 ~I--'11.50 11,1<"2 12,0£:0 11,091 11,'>20 10,6"14 9,'172 8,701.1 7,01.10 1.1,918 2,274 11.1':>11,11111 11,1)""I 1,q Ij b 11,6?'.'1 11,069 10,2,,>1.1 9,0'18 7,4i\9 '),491 2,990 Ir.OO 1<>,911 lr,O'51.1 1\,989 11.125 11,22"1 10,450 9,3b7 7,911 0,031 3,bob --I )= CI:Ir IT1 co I 0'1>< 23 i\(JGUS i 74 ALASKA PiJi'ii:R AUThORIIy ANCHORAGE -FAI~BA~KS INTEHTIE ECONOMIC FEAS!8ILITY SIUDY CASE IG.,345 kV,GENERATION RESERVE SHARING PLUS FIRM POWER TRANSFER'&SUSITNA PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER PROBABLE LOAD FORECAST DI~FERENTlftL UlscnIJ~T[D VALUE UF bASE YfAR (1979)COSTS rNDtPi:~UENT SYSTEM CUSTS MINUS lr.l[RCUN~tCTtO SYSltM CUSTS (IN ~10UO) TADlE 8-7 --------------------------------------[S[ALATION RAIES--~-------------------------------------- v~~%':>%h%1%b%4%lOX 11%12% (Xl N N ~,J i)IS COU~I T fd 1 r t~•\I I,i n.2':> h.')tI 8.7'-, Y.l)!j 9.;><:" Y.S '/•I 1 v.,) 1iJ.i':> 1 I).'~,) 1 (I.IS l 1 •d lJ 11.25 11.':>0 1 1.is 12.[.J • -1,~f!'4 -1,('i7 -1,1 c'2 -9/'1 -ij,jll -1213 -blb -r..,;I -:<2n -3i~'I -270 -2u':> -!L1b -Yl) -':>1 -I~ 1 :l -i),4C,,:> -''',"35 -S,nut -~,190 -<4,',02 -4,q50 -Y,v9! -:;,/no -.S,4 "" -~,17 j -2,'101 ·Z,.,4 7 -;.>,:004 -2,150 .....1,If 1 d -1 ,7,,~ -1,002 J -,1,i)~b -13,06 9 -1,':>32 - 1 ,r)".5 -6,')40 -b,\!6:, -:0,0:>1 -5,2<.1,' -i.l,BStJ -4,I~9 C -u,I il7 -3,R?S -3,':>17 -:',23)) -2,959 -2,IuS -2,..67 J -11,2 iH) -1(),51j'~ -Q,1192 -'J,2b8 -I),(,7':> -6,113 -1,5/9 -7,l)7 5 -6,':>'14 -6,159 -5,I(/Y -S,3U2 -1),917 -4,S54 -'.,210 -5,11.'"\0 -3,'::>Ii ! -I Ij,.~7 ':> -13,'-,4l) - 1 2,11j '> -11 ,'Iii 1 -11,261 -lu,':>fl2 -<.J,4jil -'l,q I -fl,7?3 -tl,16 11 -1,054 -I,1 ~I -6,oS I.I -0,201 -,:>,77; -'-,,301 -4,9(j.:J J -1 i:J ,lIb - 1 7,1 1 '~ -]h,1S'-f -1,>,249 -14,3F11 -13,':>'-,4 -12,7Ilb -I?,(11o -11,.Hl i -lll,<:>22 -9,976 -9,361 -1',777 -6,222 -7,b 'l 4 -7,1 '14 -6,719 J -22,':>Ill -21,5')/) -?O,21'i -14,128 -IR,090 -17,10') -1o,ISS -15,2S.') -I <j,;9S -15,':>70 -12,795 -12,0':>2 -11,34:' -10,069 -10,027 -9,417 -8,63tl ) -21,/60 -2b,3/j9 -24,499 -23,709 -22,417 -21,299 -20,174 -14,099 -IR,0 n -17,044 -16,IS"! -15,267 -1<.1,410 -13,604 -12,1:130 -12,095 -11,390 -53,000 -32,1 'Ifi -30,6u/:i -29,087 -27,b~1 -26,239 -24,'101 -<,;,034 -22,411 -21,2':>3 -20,141 -19,079 -ltl,ObLl -17,04'~ -16,169 -15,20') -14,442 ) -40,959 -39,013 -57,141; -35,363 -35,6':>3 -32,016 -30,449 -2b,949 -27,':>13 -20,159 -24,R25 -25,567 -22,565 -21,215 -20,115 -19,065 -18,0/:>0 J --l ):>0 tor-rn (Xl I -.....l ) CHAPTER 9 FINANCIAL PLANNING CONCEPTS ,..,., I r- I I ".,..., \ CHAPTER 9 FINANCIAL PLANNING CONCEPTS The approach taken towards the financial planning for the intertie faci- lities represents an initial effort to structure the financial package required to implement the Railbelt interconnection.The concepts in- cluded in this chapter are intended to be representative of the condi- tions under which funding would proceed but are in no way ~efinitive re- commendations.Rather,they are anticipated to stimulate discussion amongst the participants and increase the understanding of projected financial obligations. The proportionate allocation of total project costs between participants has been determined in relation to the tangible cost savings derived from the interconnection and represent an equitable division of the total finan- cial burden.The acceptance of these allocations by participants to an Alaska Intertie Agreement (AlA)will require individual utility financial positions to be evaluated.Provision has been made for projected debt ser- vice to be analyzed for each participant,to facilitate the evaluation of financial impact on individual utility operations.What follows is an ini- tial exploration of possible financial arrangements,which will serve as a starting point for successive evaluations by each potential participant as more definitive financial plans are evolved. 9.1 SOURCES OF FUNDS An initial appraisal of possible sources of funds has been made,to determine a combination which will be both financially advantageous and appropriate to the principal division of cost savings between REA and municipal utilities. 9 - 1 ~ The following sources were examined: •State of Alaska revenue bonds floated by APA •REA loans negotiated by APA and participants •FFB loans negotiated as part of REA loan package ~~ •CFC loans negotiated in conjunction with REA loans •Municipal bond issues by Anchorage and Fairbanks A.State of Alaska Revenue Bonds - As State of Alaska revenue bonds would be legally secured by project revenues,a complex formula for revenue generation would be required to arrive at an acceptable level of cash flow to repay the bonds.The formulation could be based on wheeling charges for power flow over the intertie but the number of participants and the differences between their operational requirements could prove an insupperableobstacle to the realization of a final agreement.It is thought that the issue of State bonds should be deferred from present consideration,until such time as a combined generation and transmission project is ready for funding.Within the confines of the Railbelt development,this would be appropriate when consideration is given to the financing of the first hydropower development of the Upper Susitna Project,together with its associated transmission facilities. Although APA bonds have been retained in the Transmission Line Financial Analysis Program (TLFAP),for analytical purposes,consideration has been given only to the remaining sources in these initial financial plans for implementation of the intertie.The transmission intertie facil iti es represent what may be regarded as the fi rst stage development of the ultimate transmission system that will be required for the Watana and Devil Canyon hydropower plants of the Upper Susitna Project. The financial sources discussed in the following sections were con- sidered for composite funding of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Interconnection. 9 - 2 !OIIIil, ,j t - --\ r B.Rural Electrification Administration (REA) The prospective participants,with the exc~ption of the Anchorage and Fairbanks municipal systems,are all REA utilities of the Alaska Dis- trict.Therefore,a combination of REA insured and guaranteed loans is assumed for the maximum amount of total project financial requirements allowed by federal regulations.REA loans are normally limited to 70 percent of total project costs;however,as OMB restrictions are ex- pected to affect future REA commitments for project funding,this 70 percent limitation was taken to be the magnitude of a loan package com- prising both REA and FFB loans.The percentage division between the two sources varies,recent past experience and future projections indi- cating a range of possibilities,with the FFB portion considerably larger than that of REA. In the present study,a range of between 20/80 and 40/60 for the combi- nation of REA/FFB loan funds has been assumed for analytical purposes, these percentages being applied to the 70 percent limit for the total loan package,as a proportion of total project costs. REA loans carry a 5 percent interest rate and have a repayment period of 35 years,the first three years of which require interest only. C.Federal Financing Bank (FFB) REA makes guaranteed loans through FFB as a source of supplementary fund- ing for REA utilities.Interest rates for FFB vary but are generally within the range of 9 to 9-1/2 percent.An average of 9-1/4 percent has been used in the financial analysis for this study.A s'illlilar 35 year repayment period to that for REA insured loans is normal,with the first three years of interest only also applicable. The combination REA/FFB loan package offers a means of financing 70 per- cent of project costs with a minimum of negotiation,as precedents have 9 - 3 been set for this type of financial arrangement.The goal of negotiation would be to maximize the REA loan portion and secure the best interest rate applicable to the FFB loan. - o.National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) CFC makes loans to REA utilities to supplement REA funds,although these loans are generally used for distribution type facilities.It is possible that a CFe loan could be obtained for a transmission project such as the Intertie but for purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that CFC funding will not be required.If at the time of negotiation there is a definite advantage to be gained by inclusion of a CFC loan portion with sufficiently attractive terms,the resultant impact on the financial plan can be determined. - E.Municipal Bonds Anchorage and Fairbanks municipalities both have the authority to arrange financing for a portion of the project by the issuance of tax-exempt, general obligation bonds.As separate bond issues would possibly be made, the bonding rate pertaining to Anchorage could differ from that of Fair- banks.A recent bond issue by the Anchorage Municipal Bond Bank to cover G &T expansion on the AML &P system realized a bond rate of 6.48 per- cent,with 20 year maturity bonds.A rate of 6.5 percent has been used in this study for the projected Anchorage bonds,with a somewhat more conservative level of 7 percent assumed for the Fairbanks bonding.Both sets of bonds were assumed to be of 20 year maturity. 9 - 4 9.2 PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATIONS BETWEEN SOURCES In the ultimate financial package for the Transmission Intertie,the final negotiated amounts for debt financing and bonding will be agreed to by APA and AlA participants.To arrive at the final allocation of total project costs between possible sources will require a concerted effort on the part of APA and AlA participants,in the successive ne- gotiations with REA and other federal funding agencies such as FFB,to- gether with the officials responsible for decisions relating to issuance of municipal bonds. To assist with an evaluation of financial positions in relation to pos- sible agreement on questions pertaining to proportional allocations between sources,the Consultants offer the following approach for fur- ther consideration. •A combination of REA and FFB funds would be used to finance a total of 70 percent of project costs.In order to examine the relative improvement of composite financial terms by changes to the percentage all ocat i on between the two sources over a range of combinations,the following allocations were evaluated: Allocation within loan package Allocation of total project costs Combination 20/80 14/56 REA/FFB -% 40/60 .28/42 •The balance of funding,30 percent of project costs,would be obtained from the following bond issues: Percentage allocation by municipality 9 - 5 General Obligation Bonds Anchorage Fairbanks 18 12 In preparing a financial plan to follow this approach the following analysis was completed u~ing computer programs TLFAP and COMPARE.The results of this analysis are contained in Appendix F,Sheets F-1 thru F-29. 1.An initial run of TLFAP was made with the following allocations and assumptions for funding terms and conditions: .~, ~ " Project Funding 14% 56% Source REA FFB Interest Rate 5% 9.25% Above loans have 35 year repayment period with interest only for first three years,during construction period. 18%AMU 6.5%•12%FMU 7.0%i / Above bond issues have 20 year maturity.-, 2.On the assumption that the overall financial terms can be im- proved by changing the proportions of the combination REA/FFB loan package,a second run of TLFAP was made with the following adjustments: Project Funding Source Interest Rate 28%REA 5% 42%FFB 9.25% All other components of project funding remained the same. It is of interest to compare the composite interest rate for project funding to determine the overall improvement in financial terms. The net effect was a decrease from 8.9 to 8.3 percent for the entire project funding,including all financial sources. 3.To translate this improvement into a present value for purposes of comparison of the respective loan packages,two runs were made using program COMPARE to determine the differential present value of future debt service associated with the two REA/FFB combinations.A net reduction of $1,472,000 in total financial costs was realized.These computations are shown on Sheets F-27 thru F-29. 9 - 6 ,..... , 9.3 ALLOCATED FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARTICIPANTS A.Basis for Assumption of Financial Obligation The approach followed to determine the allocated responsibility for finan- cial participation and debt service matched the proportions of total project costs to allocated cost savings derived from interconnection.The cost sav- ings to be realized from implementation of the transmission intertie are several,these being derived from: 1.Reserve capacity sharing,resulting in cancellation or post- ponement of in-service dates for certain generating units that would be required with ind~pendent system expansion.This in turn results in a reduction of total capital investment. 2.Improvement in overall economics of system operation,within the limits of potential power transfers over the intertie. 3.Reduction in capital expenditures for transmission expansion that would be required if the intettie were not built.A definite saving of this type would be realized by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)if their system could be supplied from the Palmer bus. 4.Reduction in the cost of construction power for the Susitna Project,by use of a transmission tap-line. Of the above cost savings,the first and third have been fully quantified in this study,the second would require a detailed computer analysis of the operational costs using a multi-area production costing program.In estimating the cost advantages of power transfer,a simplified analysis was made of the potential economies to be obtained from substitution of se- lected generation blocks on the basis of fuel cost only.This demonstrates adequately the potential for cost saving but is no substitute for a com- prehensive analysis of system operation.This would provide a breakdown 9 - 7 by year of the production cost for each unit on the system,whether inde- pendent or interconnected,and would include both fuel and 0 &M compo- nents.The simulation of economic dispatch for unjts on alternative sys- tems is essential for a definitive apportionment of the operational sav- ings between utility participants. Accordingly,the allocation of cost savings has been determined on the basis of reduction in capital investment by reserve sharing and the elimi- nation of certain expenditures by MEA for transmission expansion.The cost savings to the Susitna Project is not germane to the financial allo- cations between utilities and has been excluded from analysis. The cost savings from reserve sharing have been determined by segregating capital disbursements for generating units affected by interconnection between the respective utilities owning and operating the particular units.Table 9-1 indicates the annual capital disbursements by generat- ing utility for independent and interconnected system expansion,together with the cumulative present worth for each of the investment streams. Cost savings for each participating utility are given by the differential present worth between independent and interconnected investment streams. To these are added the cost savings to MEA for elimination of alternative transmission supply facilities by establishment of the Palmer bus.The cost savings are derived as follows: - - Part i cipati ng Utility Present Worth of Future Investment -$1000 Independent Interconnected Cost Savings AML&P CEA MEA GVEA 43,203 TOTAL 11,778 6,899 2,097* 43,203 63,977 *MEA Cost savings obtained from Section 8.3C on P.8-6. 9 - 8 ,-The large magnitude of savings accruing to GVEA (68%of total)should be subdivided between GVEA and FMIJS,as the municipal system will also benefit directly by association with GVEA and the continued purchase of power generated by GVEA will ultimately be reflected in the customer rates of the FMIJS service area.To approximate the division of savings,a long- term average ratio between -load forecasts for the two systems in the Fair- banks area was taken to be representative of relative magnitudes and re- sulted in the following apportionment: Percentage Allocation of Cost Savings GVEA 56 FMUS 12 - r- ! No further breakdown of allocated benefits was deemed appropriate at this stage;however,it may well be that other utilities such as Homer Elec- tric Association (HEA)may decide to assume a minor share of the responsi- bility for debt service of the total investment in support of the project. In which case non-generating utilities can participate on an elective ba~is and future analysis can take into consideration minimum funding participa- tion as a percentage of the total.The only utility which is not an imme- diate direct beneficiary of the intertie is CVEA.Although TLFAP contains a provision for later participation by this utility,it is not anticipated that CVEA will exercise this option prior to the connection of the Glennallen- Valdez system to the Railbelt system,following completion of the first stage development of the Upper Susitna Project. The assumption of financial obligation was taken to be directly related to the proportionate division of allocated cost savings.The basis for financial apportionment of total project costs is as follows: Part i ci pat i ng Utility Cost Savings $1000 Percentage Participation r AML&P CEA MEA GVEA FMIJS TOTAL 11,778 6,899 2,097 35,827 7,677 63,977 18 11 3 56 12 100 These values of percentage participation were used for financial analysis. 9 - 9 B.Allocation of Total Project Costs An attempt was made to relate the allocation of project costs between par- ticipants to physical facilities in sections of the intertie.Table 9-2 contains a division of total project costs on a percentage basis and a breakdown of percentage allocations between participants J to relate their percentage allocation of total project costs with projected potential ownership of physical facilities within their own service area. The allocation of costs was aided by considering the logical division of the total facility into three sections: Section From To Distance (Miles)%Total I Anchorage Palmer 40 12 II Palmer Healy 191 59 -, III Healy Ester 92 29 The costs included in Table 9-2 pertain to Case ID transmission facilities for the probable load forecast expansion,consisting of a single-circuit 230 kV transmission line with intermediate switching at Palmer and Healy. This also allows the realization of investment participation by MEA in the AlA to the extent indicated in Table 9-2,which corresponds to the allo- cated percentage for MEA.These costs are assumed to be largely asso- ciated with the Palmer substation.SimilarlYJ the costs allocated to FMUS are assumed to be related to the Healy-Ester line section,on a joint basis with GVEA. C.Allocation of Debt Repayment and Sinking Fund Payments The responsibility for loan servicing and payment of sinking fund install- ments is shared by utility participants,in direct proportion to the cost savings derived from the interconnection.A tabulation of the annual payments by each participating utility is given in Appendix F,Sheets F-13 through F-18.It should be noted that the annual payments do include the pro-rata share of payments to the municipal bond sinking funds tabulated on Sheets F-19 and F-20.The totals are given on Sheets F-21 through F-26. 9 -10 ., ""'"\ - 9.4 COSTS FOR RESERVE SHARING AND FIRM POWER TRANSFER An analysis was made of the relative costs of reserve capacity and firm power transfer for the two alternative financial plans.Tables 9-3A and B provide annual costs for reserve capacity and firm power transfer based upon the total debt service per year required for the two alter- native financial plans,including REA/FFB loan packages in two propor- tionate combinations. The division of costs between reserve capacity sharing and firm power transfer was made on the basis of the line capacity which was allocated to each specifc purpose.The total transfer capacity of the 230 kV single-circuit line is 130 MW,this being divided into 100 MW for re- serve capacity and 30 MW for firm power transfer.The annual costs for firm power transfer were converted into energy costs equivalent to wheeling charges for load factors of 40,55 and 70 percent and energy transfer of 105,145 and 184 GWh,respectively. The cost streams progressively diminish according to the magnitude of total debt service for the transmission interconnection facilities. The following summary tabulation provides an indication of the average va 1ues over the 32 year loan repayment peri od,fo 11 owi ng the interest only three year construction period. AVERAGE VALUES FOR RESERVE CAPACITY AND ENERGY TRANSFER r Combination REA/FFB Loan Package 20/80 40/60 Reserve Capacity Cost ($/kW/Yr) 43 41 Energy Transfer Cost Equivalent to Wheeling Charge Energy Cost -Mills/kWh r It may be observed that the average values correspond approximately to the actual values at the year 2003. 9 -11 - 9.5 FINANCIAL PLANS FOR FUTURE STAGED DEVELOPMENT The following is one possible way to plan for funding successive expan- sions and extensions of the projected interconnection of Railbelt utilities.., A.Interconnection Extension Between Systems The implementation of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie will cause Railbelt utilities to examine their system expansions in relation to those of other utilities,to determine mutual benefits of additional trans- mission facilities to firm ties between adjacent systems.The cost of associated facilities could be financed on a comprehensive basis,pos- sibly on more advantageous terms than if attempted by individual utilities or municipalities.The cost of such additions to utility systems could be met from a revolving fund administered by APA,on behalf of the participants. One possibility for application of major funds for system extension would be the interconnection of the CVEA system to the Anchorage end of the intertie.The participation of CVEA in the AlA would then be desirable, with possibly a small allocation for initial intertie facilities,prior to the determination of the timing and cost of the facilities to link the initial interconnection with the CVEA system at Glennallen.This could be implemented on a separate basis,or as part of an integrated plan for transmission of hydropower from the Susitna Project. B.Expansion of a Susitna Transmission System The implementation of the Susitna Hydropower Project would require that a comprehensive financial plan be followed for funding the generation proj- ect and associated transmission facilities.The large increments of power possible from the Susitna development would require the expansion of the initial intertie,to receive energy for transmission to Anchorage and Fai rbanks. 9 -12 - - .... As part of the comprehensive financial plan,the funding of transmission line and substation facility expansion through time could be arranged on the basis of total incremental funding,with partition of costs and finan- cial obligations between APA and utility participants,on a similar basis to that used for this initial approach to first stage financing of the transmission system interconnection in the Railbelt . 9.6 REFERENCES 1.International Engineering Company,Inc. Financial Planning Model 2.Moody's Bond Record 'Tax Exempt Bond Fields by Ratings· 'Tax Exempts Vs.Governments and Corporates· January 1979 9 -13 TABLE 9-1 ALTERNATIVE DISBURSEMENTS OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR GENERATION EXPANSION $1000 (1979) Anchorage Municipal Light &Power Chugach Electric Association Golden Valley Electric Association System Expansion System Extansion System Expansion Year --.-.Ew'Independent Interconnected Independentnterconnected Independent Interconnected 1979 1.0000 1982 0.9151 2,009 1983 0.8885 8,037 10,959 7,670 1984 0.8626 30,139 31,539 10,959 20,264 lD 1985 0.8375 37,172 31,539 ~1986 0.8131 21,127~ 1987 0.7894 7,152 2,009 1988 0.7664 8.-037 7,555 1989 0.7441 30,139 5,480 17,630 1990 0.7224 37,172 21,920 5,480 1991 0.7014 21,127 82,200 21,920 1992 0.6810 7,152 101,380 82,200 1993 0.6611 7,020 58,450 101,380 1994 0.6419 7,020 16,380 22,820 58,450 1995 0.6232 16,380 22,820 TOTAL pw 103,647 91,869 236,840 229,941 43,203 NOTE:Present worth obtained using 3%discount rate,equivalent to 7%cost escalation and 10%discount rate. J ..1 I ·.....1 I J .1 I _~I I I •J ---]--~]----~1 J -1 ----]'"--]-~------l -----I --J ----l C--l -1 ---1 ]J TABLE 9-2 ALLOCATIOn OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS BETHEEN PARTICIPMTS TO ALASKAN rr~TERTIE AGREEMENT A I A SECTIONAL INTERCONNECTION DIVISIONS Anchorage Palmer Healy Ester I Section I I Section II I Section III 40 M 191 M 92 r~ INTERTIE COMPONENTS PROJECT COSTS -1979 $1000 (%)TOTAL FACILITY \.0 6644 (10)15,282 (22)(78)Transmission Line 31,726 (46)53,652 I-'Substati ons:lJ1 Anchorage 3976 (6)3,976 (6 ) Palmer 717 (1)717 (1)1,434 (2) Healy 717 (1)717 (l)1,434 (2 ) Ester 5,080 (77,)5,080 (7) Control &Communications 1,450 (2)400 (1)1,450 (2)3,300 (5 ) TOTAL 12,787 (19)33,560 (49)22,529 (32)68,876 (lOO) AlA PARTICIPANTS ALLOCATIONS OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS t&l AM&LP (8)(10)(18) CEA (8 )(3)(11 ) MEA (3)(3 ) GVEA (36)(20)(56) FMUS (l2)(l2) TABLE 9.3A ALLOCATED COSTS FOR RESERVE CAPACITY SHARING AND FIRM POWER TRANSFER WITH FINANCIAL PLAN ALT.1 -20/80%COMBINATION REA/FFB LDAN PACKAGE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS Cost of Reserve Capacity Sharing and -Firm Power Transfer Based on Capacity Allocation 100 MW Reserve Total (Annual Cost of 30 MW Firm Power Transfer Debt Service Reserve Capacity)Annual Cost (Energy Char!e -Mills/kWh) Year (1979/$1000)($1000)($/kW/Yr.)($1000)(40%LFl (55 LFl (70%LF) 1984 8,670 6,669 67 2,001 19 14 11 "'"1985 8,523 6,556 66 1,967 19 14 11 1986 8,376 6,443 64 1,933 19 13 10 1987 8,229 6,330 63 1,899 18 13 10 ""'l! 1988 8,082 6 ,217 62 1,865 18 13 10 1989 7,934 6,103 61 1,831 18 13 10 -1990 7,787 5,990 60 1,797 17 12 10 1991 7 ,640 5 ,877 59 1,763 17 12 10 1992 7 ,493 5,764 58 1,729 17 12 9 -1993 7,346 5,651 57 1,695 16 12 9 1994 7,199 5,538 55 1,661 16 11 9 1995 7,052 5,425 54 1,627 16 11 9 1996 6,905 5,312 53 1,593 15 11 9 1997 6,758 5,198 52 1,560 15 11 8 ~ 1998 6,611 5,085 51 1,526 15 11 8 1999 6,464 4,972 50 1,492 14 10 8 ..., 2000 6,317 4,859 49 1,458 14 10 8 2001 6,170 4,746 47 1,424 14 10 8 2002 6,023 4,633 46 1,390 13 10 8 2003 5,876 4,520 45 1,356 13 9 7 2004 3,515 2,704 27 811 8 -6 4 2005 3,368 2,591 26 777 7 5 4 2006 3,221 2,478 25 743 7 5 4 2007 3,074 2,365 24 709 7 5 4 ~ 2008 2,927 2,252 23 675 6 5 4 2009 2,780 -2,138 21 642 6 4 3 2010 2,633 2,025 20 608 6 4 3 j 2011 2,486 1,912 19 574 6 4 3 ~2012 2,339 1,799 18 540 5 4 3 2013 2,192 1,686 17 506 5 3 3 -2014 2,045 1,573 16 472 5 3 3 I 2015 1,898 1,460 15 438 4 3 2 9 -16 CHAPTER 10 I NSTITUT roNAL CONS IDERATI ONS r I, .... ..- r """ CHAPTER 10 INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The Intertie Advisory Committee has proven itself most useful during this study.It has enabled initial discussions to be held between potential participants in the projected interconnection of Railbelt utilities via the Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie.This committee represents a sure,first step towards the formation of a continuing,viable,cohesive entity,through which the intertie can be built and the resulting benefits realized by the continued expansion and operation of the interconnected utility systems in the Rail belt. 10.1 PRESENT INSTITUTIONS AND RAILBELT UTILITIES The predominant pattern of ownership management and operating responsi- bility by public power organizations in Alaska is exemplified by the prospective participants to an Alaskan Intertie Agreement (AlA).In addition to REA and municipal utilities in the Railbelt,it is anticipated that both the Alaska Power Administration and the Alaska Power Authority would be parties to the AlA.The probable composition of institutions and participating utilities is anticipated to be: •Alaska Power Authority •Anchorage Municipal Light and Power •Chugach Electric Association,Inc. •Homer Electric Association,Inc. •Matanuska Electric Association,Inc. •Golderi Valley Electric Association,Inc. •Fairbanks Municipal Utility System •Alaska Power Administration The above group of utilities may be joined by Copper Valley Electric Association,Inc.at a later date,to extend the interconnected facilities to the Glennallen-Valdez system. 10 - 1 A.Statutes and Limitations The enabling legislation for the Alaska Power Authority (APA)is con- tained in HB 442 for the legislature of the State of Alaska.It provides for the establishment of power projects and the authorization to proceed with developments that wi 11 serve lito supply power at the lowest reason- able cost to the state's municipal electric,rural electric,cooperative electric,and private electric utilities,and regional electric author- ities,and thereby to the consumers of the state,as well as to supply existing or future industrial needs ll • APA would mainly act on behalf of the municipal and rural electric util- ities as a party to the AlA.Therefore,it is not presently anticipated that the authorized IIpowers to construct,acquire,finance,and incure debt ll would be required for the Intertie Project.Rather APA could integrate and coordinate the efforts of the other participants to the AlA,to ensure that an expeditious approach is maintained during the course of the proj ecL APA is in an excellent position to coordinate regional programs with its state-wide involvement.For example,such coordination may assist in the process of securing an abridgement of the two county rule for the transmission intertie.left unresolved,such existing statutes may otherwise constitute a roadblock to the realization of the benefits to be achieved by interconnection of systems of participating utilities over the large geographical area encompassed. B.Jurisdiction and Service Territories The Alaska Power Authority exerci ses juri sdi cti on over power proj ects in Alaska as a State entity.It parallels the Alaska Power Administration, which has federal jurisdiction in Alaska for the United States Department of Energy in Washington,D.C. Both State and Federal entities have statewide responsibility in Alaska. 10 - 2 - - - - "'"" flIII!I; i - The service territories of the municipal and rural electric utilities are shown on the maps of Figures 4-1,4-2,and 4-3 in Chapter 4.The confines of the Railbelt result in elongated geographical service areas. Such areas are particul arly appropriate in rel ation to the transmi ssion corridor for the intertie and enable the delineation of easements along the route to be made relative to existing transmission and distribution facilities in the area. 10.2 ALASKAN INTERCONNECTED UTILITIES To provide an identity for the utility participants to the AlA,it is suggested that the name Alaskan Interconnected Utilities (AIU)be adopted by the existing Ranbelt utilities to be included in the institutional and management plan for the implementation and operation of the intertie. A.Present Arrangements and Future Reguirements To a certain extent,the operating utilities in the Anchorage and Fair- banks areas have already evolved mutual interests.These interests now need to be augmented,to satisfy future operating requirements. Prior to interconnection,there would be a need to coordinate revised pl anning for system expansion,the schedul ed construction of facil ities, and the separate building programs of each utility.A Planning Sub- committee of the Intertie Advisory Committee,composed of technical staff from AIU,would be desirable in the near future if this program is implemented.This planning subcommittee could be empowered to resol ve joint pl anning probl emsaffecti ng participati ng members. Later on,an Operating Subcommittee would be required to determine oper- ating procedures and coordinate system planning policy,working towards centralized economic dispatch for the interconnected system.The need for communications facilities will also need to be addressed,together with the mode of overall system control and data acquisition for inter- connected facilities. 10 - 3 B.Evolution of Institutional Framework In any approach toward projecting institutional requirements for the establishment of the necessary framework to support the Anchorage- Fairbanks Transmission Intertie,it is essential to preserve a sense of perspective towards the future and allow for the possibility of integrating the presently conceived plans and concepts within a larger and more comprehensive institutional structure.This is par- ticularly appropriate to the task of system.interconnection,when successive expansions are necessary to accommodate the incremental additions associated with major generating plants. In the case of the Railbelt,the possible implementation of the major hydrop?wer developments of the Upper Susitna Project,would require that the institutional structure required for the transmission inter- tie be compatible with future institutional needs of the Susitna devel- opments.Thus,whatever institutional changes would be brought about by a program of hydropower development of the Susitna should represent only a transition between organizational requirements keyed to trans- mission system expansion without the facilities of the Susitna develop- ments and with the addition of major hydropower sources,such as Watana and Devil Canyon. The evolutionary approach to effecting this transition is preferable over an abrupt change of institutional structures and it is thought that,with the acceptance of a pattern of multiple participation in the planning,financing,implementation,and operation of the Intertie,a suitable mode of proportionate involvement can also be considered for applicability to other transmission facilities required for the Susitna Project.This division of fiscal and managerial responsibility can also be extended into the operation of the system. In this way a maximum of local utility participation can be achieved, with a financially beneficial allocation of total project costs between funding sources to arrive at a least financial cost package to multiple borrowers having pre-arranged sharing of debt-service obligations. 10 - 4 - - """l, - - - .... 10.3 REFERENCES 1.Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.Alaska Electric Power: An Ana1ysis of Future Requirements and Supply Alternatives for the Railbelt Region,March 1978. 2.University of Alaska,Institute for Social and Economic Research, Electric Power in Alaska 1976-1995,August 1976 • .... .... r ! r I 3.House Bi11 442 in the Legislature of the State of Alaska,Finance Committee,Tenth Legislature -Second Session • 10 - 5 APPENDIX Ai NOTES ON FUTURE USE OF ENERGY IN ALASKA! """' - r ..... I -I APPENDIX A NOTES ON FUTURE USE OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Power requirements studies analyzing historical data and forecasting future trends have been regularly accomplished for the REA-financed electric utilities in Alaska since they began operation.These studies and their forecasts over the years provide an interesting perspective as to the changes in use of electricity and the change in numbers of users,but do not fully account for the forces that produce these changes. It is observed that electrical uses increase as the dreary,manual rou- tines of everyday life are displaced by the equivalent electrically-powered devices.This allows the human effort to be directed elsewhere or elimi- nated.Electric lighting,water pumping (many Alaska homes have their own water systems)and heating,clothes washing,refrigerator,freezer, vacuum cleaner,dishwasher,cooking aids,radio and TV (education and recreation),lawn mower,chain saw,etc.,all direct electrical energy toward improving the quality of life and making human effort more pro- ductive. The typical Alaskan family is becoming more productive as a unit through an increasing percentage of the family partners entering the community group of wage earners.Increasing income allows the family to seek out new means of improving the quality of living. There are on the horizon a number of technological triumphs that will undoubtedly find uses in those communities where the families ~an assign some of their resources to enhancing their lives.The home computer with its implications of many more "ro bots ll to come and the electric car are just two of such items nearing the scene. These considerations certainly support the trends of electrical energy use that are being forecast and could well result in the forecasts being A - 1 exceeded,if the rising standards of Alaskan life are maintained into the future. The following paragraphs are a direct excerpt from a system planning re- port (see Ref.7 in Section 3)completed in early 1979 for the Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.of Palmer,Alaska.This electric system is the oldest REA-financed system in Alaska and the statistics cited which relate the use of electrical energy to the average family earnings over a period of 35 years of actual history and a forecast of 15 to 25 years are interesting indeed. *INTRODUCTION The accomplishment of long-range planning requires that data be estimated for future conditions and that technical answers for those conditions be evaluated in a prudent manner.Technical answers to a defined set of conditions can be readily developed using state-of-the-art methods.An occasional set of conditions prompts innovation when conventional methods appear limited;but,it is demonstrably clear that the estimate of future conditions is the single most significant factor affecting the ultimate value of a long-range plan. It will be noted in the following System Planning Report a great effort was made to provide accurate and detailed historical data.A better understanding of the nature of electrical consumers and their actual performance amidst the set of observed environmental restraints (political and natural)is bound to be enhanced by such data.It is believed that forecasts of future conditions will also benefit in sufficient measure to make the effort a bargain. *Excerpted from MEA System Planning Report,January 1979 -see Chapter 3, Ref.7. A - 2 - - - """'I ! r- I I ! The understanding of a long-range plan in the context of the whole growth of a community or region and in terms more useful to the consumer of electricity and his representatives is believed extra difficult today because of environmental concerns,high inflation and other cost aberrations. To provide some perspective that is intended to illuminate the broad impact and position of the MEA electric supply system on its service area a tabular listing of significant MEA statistics is included herewith on the following page,Table A-I. This table contains the 35-year history of MEA and a 20-year forecast based on the data in the Long-Range Plan.The numbers listed may surprise the reader at first inspection but this simple listing of historic factual data and related future estimates serves to demonstrate the power- ful influence of electricity on the quality of life and the productivity of the MEA service area. A - 3 (I)The year of operation -MEA first energized its system on January 19,1942.Level I,II,and III refer to the Load Levels of the December ~1978 Long Range Plan.The years in parenthesis are estimated dates ~men these levels might be reached. (2)The total average number of consumers with LPs and their average monthly energy (kWh)use. (3)The average number of consumers (w/o LPs)and their average monthly energy (kWh)use. (4)Miles of line at year end. (5)Average number of consumers served per mile of distribution line -Columns (2)divided by Column (4). (6)Cost of purchased power -at Levels I,II and III these are estimates developed by RWR from miscellaneous sources.These forecast are believed to be consistent with other elements of the forecast. (7),(8),and (9)For levels I,II and III the figures resulted from a generalized forecast of costs using the investments i~Gicated by the Long ~ange Plan escalated at 7%per year,the operating costs per consumer escalated @ 7%per year and the purchased power costs of Col- umn (6).It Has also assumed that there would ~e 10%losses of energy and that VEA margins would be 10%of Gross Revenue. (10)The estimated average family income is developed from old payroll records,the "Statistical Abstract of the U.S."(Public by Bureau of the Census)1977.and "The Alaska Economy,Year-End Performance Report 1977"(Published by Alaska Department of COfi1merce and Econo- mic Development).Future income estimates made by escalating 1977 nUMbers at 1.08 per year which is the approximate average growth rate of income for the last 35 years. (11)Column (9)divided by Column (10)multiplied by 100. -i ):> OJrrn ):> I f-' .J .J ,.J ]J ~...J cJ J ]..1 .1 "' ...~..J '~c,••,1 APPENDIXB TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSTS PROGRAM (TLCAp) APPENDIX B !--TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM (TLCAP) B.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Transmission Line Cost Analysis Program (TLCAP)calculates the in- stallation,operation,and maintenance costs of a transmission line using a detailed unit cost model.It also automatically determines the "op timum" span and conductor size combination.Applications include the following: •Voltage Selection -TLCAP examines the relative economics of various voltage levels. r ! •Span and Conductor Optimization -Span and conductor are opti- mized simultaneously to provide a matrix of present worth costs. Sensitivity of present worth costs to assumed discount rate is al so automati ca lly i ncl uded. •Tower Type Selection -TLCAP compares the cost impact of alter- nate tower types. B.2 COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATIONS FOR OPTIMUM TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS Choosing the most economical voltage level and other line parameters for any projected transmission line is a complex problem.It requires the simultaneous consideration of a multitude of interrelated factors.each of which will have a decided influence on line performance and the installed and operational costs of both the line and the overall system. The installed cost of a line increases rapidly with the voltage used. For typical single-circuit ac lines,the cost increase is approximately in direct proportion to the increase in voltage.On the other hand,the load carrying capacity of a line increases with the square of the voltage, B-1 but this is partially offset by the increase in phase spacing and the resultant increase of line impedance. Another factor affecting the load carrying capacity and line cost is the size of the conductor and the number of conductors per phase.Since the installed cost of the conductors may constitute as much as 28%of the total line cost,the selection of the conductor is an important decision in any line design. For EHV lines,conductor size selection is first governed by two basic electrical requirements -the current carrying capacity and the corona performance in terms of corona loss radio interference (R.I.)and tele- vision interference (T.V.I.).As the line voltage increases,the corona performance becomes more and more the governing factor in selecting con- ductor size and bundle configuration. If consideration is given to the electrical aspects alone,there is an optimum solution as to the size and number of conductors for each voltage level and load carrying requirement.However,the size of the conductor affects the loads on the structures supporting it,as well as the sag, tension,span length,and tower height and weight.All such factors influence the total cost and economics of the line.Hence,both the electrical and mechanical aspects must be considered together in order to arrive at a truly optimized overall line cost.Often a solution which is entirely satisfactory from the electrical viewpoint alone will be in conflict with the mechanical requirements.This is particularly true at locations where heavy ice loading is encountered.For example,a small conductor in a bundle of three may meet all the electrical require- ments but may be entirely unsatisfactory mechanically due to excessive sag and overstress.This results in higher towers or shorter spans with more towers per unit length of line than would a larger conductor in a bundle of two.A large number of conductor and phase configurations must usually be tried before an optimum solution is found for a specific vo ltage 1eve 1. B-2 - - - ,-. I I The voltage level for any given line should be chosen on the basis of its effect on the system to which it will be connected.This may re- quire medium-or long-range estimation of load flow.For example,it may be more advantageous to build a single 750-kV line instead of two 400-kV lines.Each solution has its own impact on the system with respect to reliability,stability,switching over-voltages,transfer of power,and possibly the cost of future expansion.In other words,the line should be custom designed to meet present and future needs of the system within which it is to operate.It should also provide for the lowest overall cost in terms of investment and operation.Without proper attention to future needs,the "l owes t initial cost solution"for a line between two given points may not necessarily be the most desirable or satisfactory one. In addition to the variables mentioned above,there are numerous other line parameters that must be considered to properly evaluate and compare the various solutions.A few of the more important ones are: • • • • • • • • Conductor material,size,and stranding. Tower types,such as rigid or guyed,single or double-circuit, ac or dc,metal or wood. Foundation costs. Wind and ice load criteria,and their effect on tower cost through transverse,vertical,broken-wire,and/or construction loads. Number and strength of insulators. Insulator swing and air gap. Applicable material and labor costs. Investment charges,demand,and annual energy loss charges. r To accurately assess all the complexities and interrelationships,and to integrate them into a totally coordinated design that will produce a line of required performance at minimum cost,a carefully engineered computer program was developed by IECD.Program methodology of TLCAP is shown on Figure C-1.Briefly,program elements include: B-3 TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM (TLCAP) METHODOLOGY FIGURE B-1 ITower Design Studi esl \If Tower Weight Estimation· Algorithm -- Right-of-Way costlElectrical&Mechanical Performance Specification \11 \II \II '----' Unit Materi al &_ITransmission Line Costl~System Economic Labor Costs -1 Analysis Program -Parameters /1\I 1\ Transportation Costs]Inflation Ratesl \If \I \II Input Detailed Optimum Span & Data Design &Conductor Cost Summaries Capital Cost Summaries Summaries B - 4 .- ,,- I :l •Conductor Selection - A large variety of conductor sizes and strandings are on file for automatic use by the program.De- pending upon line voltage and load,the program determines the minimum power and energy losses for each conductor studied . •Insulation Selection -The program calculates the incremental cost differences caused by changes in the insulator length, which together with other studies of system performance indi- cates the best insulation for each voltage level.To ensure maximum transmission capacity,the minimum possible phase spacing is used with each type of tower,considering clearance to tower steel and insulator swing. •Tower Selection and Span Optimization -The installed cost of towers represents a large portion of the total line cost.There- fore,this item is given special and careful consideration in the calculations.The installed cost of a tower is usually a function of the weight of the steel used.A considerable dif- ference in weight between different tower configurations can be experienced,even in cases where the loads are identical.If to this variable,the variations in loads due to conductor size, bundling,and climatic criteria are added,it becomes evident that correct tower weights can only be determined by an actual tower design in which all the variables are properly considered. Therefore,the optimization program is complemented with a tower design program.Appropriate foundation and insulation costs are added to each tower solution to obtain the total installed cost per tower location.This information is then used by the opti- mization program to determine the optimum span length (the span that results in the lowest tower cost per unit length of line) for each conductor configuration being considered. In processing these criteria,including a present worth evaluation of annual energy loss and other time-related charges,the optimization pro- B - 5 gram arrives at a long-range minimum cost solution for each voltage level investigated.However,as previously mentioned,the final evaluation of the adequacy of a line should be based upon its pr~sent and future effect on the system as a whole.Therefore,the lowest cost solution for a select number of conductor configurations,with their specific electrical characteristics,should be tried in a few additional system study runs to obtain a proper basis for a final decision. B.3 TLCAP SAMPLE OUTPUTS Sample outputs of the TLCAP computer program are shown on the following pages.The output cases are listed below: •Anchorage -Fairbanks,230 kV (Case IA). •Anchorage -Fairbanks,230 kV (Case 18). •Anchorage -Fai rbanks,345 kV (Case IC). •Anchorage -Devil Canyon,345 kV (Case II-I). •Devil Canyon -Ester,230 kV (Case II-2A). •Watana -Devil Canyon,230 kV (Case II-3A). E -6 ....... ~~l 1 ~~1 ~-1 )~~~J ~"~) INTEkNAJIn~AL ENGINE~RING co.INC SAN FRANCISCO C~lTFORNIA TRANSMISSION LINE COST ~NALYSIS P~OGRAM vtRSION 1:23 FEB 1Q79, ~ tti I '-l ANCHORAGE-FAIRBAN~S INTERTIE CASE IA 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPtIMIZATION DATE:12 APR 79 TIME:9:29:47 •••••••••••••••••• •• •INPUT DATA ••••••••••••••••••••• SYSTFM tCONOMIC FACTORS STARTING YEAR Of STUDY fNOING YEAR or STUDY HASE YEAR FOR ESCALATION ~ll\l(I"'·I.iM CIRCUIT LlJADING AVERAGE CIRCUIT LOADING DEMAND COST FACTOR t~FHG~cns!fACfQR v 1\R C(is T F I\.CT 0 R CAPITAL COSf/DISCUUNT RATt: MINTMIIM MAXIMUM NlJMFlfR OF INTERVALS Oll.M CUST FACTOf( RIGHT OF wAY COST FACTOR RIGHT OF WAY CLEARING COST I~TEf(EST DURING CONSTRUCTION FNGINEERING fEF INPUT VALUE 1979 1996 1977 136.8 ~1VA 41.0 MVA 73.0 $/Kw 13.0 MILLS/KWH 0.0 $/KVAR 7.0 PFRCENT 10.0 PERCENT I 1.5 %CAP.COST 715.0 $/ACRE 1430.0 $/ACRE 0.00 %INST.CST 11.00 %INST.CST REFERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT -------------~---------- 1992 191/2 1979 1979 191\4 198tJ 198q 1979 1979 1q79 A~[HOR~GE-FAIRRA~KS INTfRTIE CASE II 730 KV TRANSMISSION LINF COST A~ALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:12 APR 7q TIME:q:2q:~7 __A •••••••*•••••,. * *I"lPUr DATA * lONI'UC TOR DATA---------------------.._-.-------------.. **._.*****••••*****. GROUNf)wIRE DAlA SPAN DATA ._._-------------._------_._-_.----~.--- IJ:j I 00 fIj tJ '1 '1 F ~;.)f 1<f'l-1 I S[ (n'J~UC .)P SPAL PH; VULIAG VllLTnG VA'<IAJIU'i LI.'_E F""I'Uf_'·J(Y Ff.I'i ...EAr,'Ic'<LOSSFS L1:>l1,.LF·,GTH PU"ER F .\(rnR IN t r.I HE i-<I)ATA 1 0.0 IN 230 i'V 10.00 PCT 00 CPS C),OO KIN/MI 323.00 MTLES \ O,qs NUMBER PER TOwER DIAMETER wI:.!GH 1 o 0.00 IN 0.0000 LBS/Fl MINIMIIM MAXIMUM INTERVAL 1200.FT 1&00.FT 100.0 FT ---------------~---------._---_._----_._- '10'I My'RAP,f .'L L Ii ATE K~ll'f'~'J"f.:A Plf .'·LL f)1!iUd ION A\[·if.Gf RA P,F ~LL kATF A'YF.'<A::;f f'AT'.FALL 1l1iIiArIO~1 "1AX P~I)1 St'll.,f ·\LL I./A IE .~~X I ..)'..S t H1 "F ...l l.I)\j RAT I 0 III AvERAGF ~tJt "FALL ,UdE A'YFR"I,f SIIi "FALL I1I.JI<ATION Rt L AT I Vf A K .'Pi S I TY 1.IM IN/Hi-< I liRS/VR 0.03 IN/HR b3b HRS/VR 1.1l7 IN/HR 1 HRS/YR 0.13 IN/HR 2b~HRS/YR 1.000 i-,.,I ],.1 ,., 'c',.,1 J 1 )J J _J -J e,1 -)1 ]--1 ~"'--l --.-----J ')'--'-"-l ,-"-'."----']---l )1 ')-,')~--)"J )-1 ANCHUPAGE-FA!RHANKS INTERTIF CAst IA 230 KV TRANSMISSION lINt COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZAtION DATE:12 APR 79 TI~E:q:?9:47 *********••*.***** ** *INPUT DATA * ** ****************** SAG/TENSION DESIG~FACTORS -------------------------- 0:; I \0 EVERYDAY STRESS TEMPERATURE ICE A~D WiND T~MPEHATURE HIGH WIND TFMPERATURE EXTREME ICE TEMPERATURE MAX DESIGN TfMP fOR GND CLF.ARANCE EDS TFNSION (PCT UTS) NESC CONSTANT TOIAL NUHRER OF PHASES PtlASF SPACfNG CONDUCTOR CONFIGURATION FACTOR GROUND Ctf Af~MJCf NO.OF INSULATURS PER TOWfR INSULATOR SAFETY FACTOR STRING LENGTH I,VEE.OR COMAINATION F-OUNDATI(JN TyPE TERRAIN FACTOR LINE ANGLE FACTOR TOwER GROUNDING TRANSVERSE OvERLOAD FACTOR VERTICAL OVERLOAD FACTOR LONGI rUDINAL LOAD MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE WEIGHT lowER WEIGHT FACTOH TOWER WEIGHT ESTIMATION ALGORITHM ----.-.-..---.------------------- 4.0.DEGREES F O.DEGREES F /l0.DEGReES F 30.OEGfoIEES F 120.DEGREES F 20.PE.RCENT 0.31 LBS/FT TOWER DESIGN 3 20.0 FEET 1.Ol 28.0 FEET 4B 2.S0 6.5 FEET 3 1I 1.06 PER UNIT .0116£1 o 2.50 1.50 1000.LtiS 0.11 TOIIIS/TOWER 1.02 ICE AND WTN~TENSIUN (PCl UTS) HI~H wIND TENSION (peT UTS) EXTRE~E ICE TENSION (peT UTS) ICE THICKNESS WITH WINO WIND PRESSURf WITH ICE HIGH WIND EXTREME ICE DISTANCE BETWEEN PHASES: Dl D2 D3 D4 05 Do 50.PfRCENT 50.PE RCENT 70.PERCENT 0.50 I/IIOffS 4.00 LEiS/SQ.F-T. 9.0 l8s/sa.FT. 0.50 INCHES 20.00 FT ?O.OO FT 40.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT TOWER TYPE q:2l0KV TOWER TW =O.OOOlo*TH**?-J.09797*TH**O.333l -0.OIl911}*EFFVDl • O.17J67*fffTUL t O.OO~10*TH*EfFTDL t O.OOlbO*TH*tffVUL t 18.37911 KTPS ANCHORAGE-FAIR~ANKS INTEKTIf CASE lA 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION .~ATE:12 APR 7q TIH[:9:29:47 -****.*_._*******. ***'INPIJT DATA ** .**.~..*•••••**.** CONDUCTUR SUMMARY ••••**••••*•••••• ID ';IJ'1RER NAME:. --------- 21,j (,RflSIJE AK I;]:;J 2:'f GRE T I 21:>FLAMINGOt-'27 GA"J',fT0 2H S TIL T n STARLING )f)Rtfh;IrJG )I CUCKOO 3.?DRA"r B TERN .S4 CO"DOR 35 MALLARD 3i:>RiJl)l)Y 51 C A'J AR Y 31'.PAll 3?CARDJraL SI7ECKCM) 636.0 631>.0 boo.O 666.0 11 ':\.0 715.0 715.0 795.0 7'15.0 795.0 7'15.0 795.0 '100.0 QOO.O 9~t1.0 Q511.0 TEMP.CUEF. STRANDING UNIT WEIGHT OUT.DIAM,TOTAL AREA MOf)UlUS A\YHA*E-6 (AL/S T)(LbS/FT)(INCHES)(SiJ.IN.)(fFlE:b PST)PER OF-G F-------.------.......----------.----------------------- 261 7 0.F\7:'0 0.9900 0.5/-109 I I ,00 10.3 30/19 O,9fll:\0 1.0190 0.1>1511 I 1•50 9,7 24/7 0.Fl5QO 1.0000 0.5'114 IO.~5 10.7 261 7 0.91iJO I ,0 III 0 0.001\7 II.UO 10.3 24/7 0,9210 1,0360 0.1>3LlIl 10.55 10.7 2hl 7 0.'1R50 1,0510 0.b55:'II .00 10.3 30/\9 1.1\10 1.081\J 0.6901 1 j •.$0 9.7 241 7 1.02110 1,092 0 0.7053 IO."~1 0 • 7 26/7 I.OQ40 1.101::\0 0,7261 1 I,00 10.3 115/7 0.89hO 1.0630 0.61>76 9.40 I 1•'i :'111 7 1.0211 0 1.0930 0.70')3 10.11'5 10.9 30/19 1.23:'0 1.\1100 O.76hR I I •50 9.7 1151 7 1.0150 1.1310 0.7069 '1.40 11 .5 ')/H 7 1.1'590 1.1620 0.7'18'>10.55 10.9 ll'5l 7 1.0750 1.1650 O.ROII 9,40 11.') 5111 7 1.22QO 1.1960 O,fltl64 10,85 10,9 J J ]J -J )J oJ c __,J J ...._,1 ..1 .1 ,..-__.J J .J <.,__c--) 1 '"~}~-1 J -"-~}J J -~]-))J ) ANCHURAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERTIF CASE Ii 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CO~DUCTOH OPTIMIZATION DATE:12 APR 7~TI~t:9:29:47 ****••••_.*.****** ••INPUT DATA •• 2';000.0 0.0335 0.62811977 790.O,Ill'S2 0.4113 2.03Ll7 31')00.0 0.0551 0.609/1977 870.0.1447 0.4060 2.0136 23700.0 0.0555 0.640/19/7 810.0.1399 0.4118 2.629Ll 2/1200.0 0.03/~3 0,609/1 9 77 1\20.0.1373 0.4042 2.6347 2<'<;00.0 0.0.547 0.62711917 fl40.0.1320 0.4006 2.61.l!)0 eMlnO,O 0.0 Y,5 0.608/1977 850.0.12<)4 O.40SQ 2.6'153 3'~6()0.0 0.0312 0.612/1917 1\60.O,12ep,0.3992 2.')01>1 21100.0 0.0366 0.63611977 900.0.1214 0.3992 2.5502 31?00.O 0.0375 0.622/1977 910.0.1172 0.34 Q 2 2.5450 2?'lOO.0 0.03'J2 0.677/1977 1'90.O.IIRR 0.4060 2.S71:>6 2H'}OO.O 0.0368 0.6~SI1977 901l.l).Ill?O.1I0Q?2.5"i'j5 ~1l11 00.0 0.0592 0.599/1977 910.O.1162 0.3928 2.5181', 2'J1~00.O 0.0374 0.1',76/1977 935.o.to 82 0.39;:>8 2.50110 32300.0 0.0592 0.63311 977 950.o•I 0.'10 0.3928 2.5027 26900.0 0.03R5 0,671/1977 970.0.0998 O.Hll9 2.5027 34200.0 0.0/101l 0,63211977 990.0.0987 0.3902 2.4816 If)'J!j'jfH:R Nh~E------...... ?ll r;"nSfH AK ti::J ?S F GHl T I ?b FLhMTNGO~ I-':>1 I~ANI~E 1 ?i\S1 TL T ;>9 SlARLI1'1G ~O REn"ING 51 CUCkOO ~2 DRAKE B HRN 34 ((l"J()Of./ ~S MALLARD 36 RU(Jny ~7 CANARy VI RAIL 39 CARO!NAL ULT.TENS.GfOM.MEAN STPfNGTfl(LAS)RADIUS(FT) ••••••••••*••••••••• CONDUCTOR SlJr~MAHY .*••••••••••••••• THE:.RM.LIMIT PRICE($/LR)(AMPERES) AC RESIST. AT 25 DEGC IND.REt<CT.CAP.REACT. (OHMS/HILE)(OHMS/MILE)(MOHM-MILES) ------~~---._._------------------- A~CHORAGE-FAIRriAN~S INTE~lIF CASE IA 2~0 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COS 1 A~ALYSIS AND C()~DUCTOR OPTIMIlA1ION DATE:12 APR 79 TI~E:9:29:47 .*'.'*'••j~••'.*"••INPUT OATA ••• *****••**••***•••• UNIT MATERIALS COSTS INPUT VALUE REfERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT-------------.._----.--- PRICE OF lor;ER MAIERIAL P~ICE OF CO~CRETE PRICE OF GROUND ...IRE INSIALLED COSI OF GROlJtWING SYSTEM 0.9":>7 $/LB 0.00 $/CLJ.YO. 0.000 $/LH 0.00 $ITOWER 1979 1977 1977 1977 td I f-l N TOw F"'S FT lH' Tnwf R ASSEtlRI Y FOUNDATION SETUP FO\jNDATION ASSP1HLY FOUNDATION lXCAVATION PRIn OF MISCELLANEOUS HARD"ARE 1751.$ 0.4'>5 $/LB O.$ 4140.00 $!TON 0.00 $/CU.YO. 290.00 $/TOWE.R 1979 1979 1919 1979 1979 1977 IJNIT LAHOR COSIS RFFFRENCE YEA~LABOR COSI SIR I '.G GR(I II Nf)wI Rf STRING LAHOf!MARKUP 24.00 $/MANHOlJR 0.0 ~/MIU. 4.2 PER UNIT 1979 1en7 IINI I TRANSPORTAl ION COSIS .-~._---~-~-------------- TOwER FOUNDATION caNCREll fOUNDATION SlEEL CO'lf)UCTOR GROU~D '~IRE INSULATOR HARO"ARF 100.0 $/TON 100.0 $/Yf) 100.0 $/TON 100.0 SITON 100.0 $/TON 100.0 i/TON OR $IM*.3 100.0 $/TON j ,.,l J ,J J j •.•J .J J .,}.)"I J ,))J J J J J .~.J "~~)~---l ) --,-..,~-.~'}) A~CHURAGE-FAIR8ANKS INTER1IE CASE IA 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALVSIS AND COND0CTQR OPITMIZAfION DATE:12 APR 79 TIME:9:29:47 *****-**•••*****•••***-*-*************** * * * * AUTOMATIC CONDUCTOR SELECTION ALL QUANTITIES PER MILE * * * * ••******.***•••*********************** CAPITAL COST/DISCOUNT RATE OF 7.00 PERCENT--------------------.---------------------- PRESENT wOKTH ~---------_.~---------------.-----~--_. CWdJUCTlJR INSTALLED COST LINE LOSSES OK.H COST LINE COSl ...-.-........----------------------_..-.------------------------..------------.-------------_......--------- Nn.KCH SPAN(FI)MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION INSTALLATION ENGITDC SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SlJRT01AL TOTAL ---------------------..------------.-..-...---.------------------------------- t;;:; I 3'1 95l.l.1300.681 /17 ••383l.l.8479h.9328.166104.32600.3?84.20198H. J-l tJ-.l y:;79")•1300.64664..5721.82616 •9088.160089.39120.3151 •20<'35<1. 3':>795.1 1100.6537S.3684.82031.90?3.160113.3'1120.~lbl.20?39". 3l '100.1300.67?99.3772.84608.9307.16l.l986.31.1"43.3257.?0;>7A4. 3q <j ')/1 •1 ',0 ()•695')2.3f12f\.84673.9,14.167367.32600.3322.?032811. 37 900.1400.68697.3766.84494.929l.l.166251.34"43.3?94.20408"'. 3'~7<JC,.1500.66FJ79.36/19.82176.9039.16171:\£1.391?0.3206.?Oid 09. 3('79S.1300.6'.:15':.FJ.368'.:1.83/l93.922B.162364.39523.31'15.20501'.2. 30 715.1300.03510.3615.82301.'1053.158471\.l.l4166.31 12.20':.756. 3(;71".1"00.bl.lc'OLl.3')76.H1729.8990.1"1\4911.l.l4166.3122.2057Hl. ~4 7Y').130O.h5807.3659.84359.9279.163104.39')9Q.3209.205913. 32 FI';•1401)•66784'.3669.83683.9205.163342.39523.3'?c6.201,091. 3'"1 9"/1.1500.711\43.3870.85337.95f\7.170437.32600.3397.?06453. 3,\95 1,•1500.701~6.3831 •86787.9547.170300.32997.33 71.cOb;,!)r. 3<1 9,,1!•1<'00.70386.4035.87082.9579.171080.3?600.331\5.20nb'). 3 i 900.1500.70983.3807.85172.9369.169331.545l.l3.3369.207242. 3 ',79".1 l.l 0 O.6723'5.3653.84291\.9273.16l.l459.39599.3248.207500. 3"795.1600.69124.3735.82979.9128.1649b6.39120.3282.207367. 30 7 I "•1500.65702.3580.81896.9009.160187.Lll.l166.3167.207520. 35 79':;.1200.66809.3916.8'5020.9352.165176.39120.3254.20754.9. 37 '100.1200.69631.3977 •86926.9':;62.170096 •3454,.3361 •207<J99. 29 71S.1300.64091.3'593.83h83.920':>.160573.l.l480l.l.3150.20P,527 • 24 636.1200.'58648.3345.82481.9073.1':>3'548.52193.297<;.20871':l. 3<'79".1500.61'181'13.3701.84257.92b8.160109.39':>23.3295.?OP,926. 3h 900.UOO.f)949Q.3780.86&82.9'.:13':l.169496.36096 •3351.20P,Qt!2. A~CHURAGE-FAIR8ANKS INTERTIF CASf IA 230 Kv TRANSMISSION LINE COST A~ALYSIS AND cn~DUCTnR OPTIHIZATIO~ DATE:12 APR 79 Tl~E:Q:29:47 *********.*-************,.**** * * COST OUTPUT PER MILt PRESENT VALUt WATE 7.00 PERCENT * * *.*.~**.*.*••••****~.*••*.**** CONDuCTOR MII"IBt.R = 9511.KCMIL 1300.FT SPAN 39 87.7 FT TOwFR INSTALLfD COST MATfRIAL TRANSPORTATION INS TALLA TION TOTAL lWt AKIlCJ ..~(llJ AI-,I I TY (OST($)TONNAGE COSTr$)COSf($)COST($) ~-------------.---....._----------_._..._.-..-..----------------------------- 0:1 CQN[lUC r ORI 1511110.fT 14086.9.73 973.182'>7.3331 1:>. f-J GR(lLl~J1J'"I fiE o•FT O.0.00 O.O.o•.j::>, I'JSIIL h Tf1h:S ?07.UNITS 1313 •1•111 2114.1'5'>7. ItARI',';AI<E 1429.0.1l7 47.11177. TOl'irfiS 4.3 lJlHTS 381:\70.20.31 2031.26019.I:>h421. FOU',llh!lOllS IJ.3 UNITS 3327.'538.22280.?b14'S. RIGH!(IF ..AY 13.ACRES 91;>0.111;>41.n3b1. IOC /lNGlr~f!:Rl'JG 9328.9321J. -------------------._...-------------------_........-- TOTllS 61:\147.31.65 3834.84}96.16610Ll. PRESE.NT VALUE ($) LOSS ANAl.YSTS DEMAND LOSSES ENERGY LOSSES TOTAL LOSSt.S---_.'._--------------------------__"'___"'_4_"__----------~-RESISTANCE LOSSES 2458R.7992.32'>80. CORO~,A LOSSES O.19.19. ---------.~--_._~------------------------ TOTALS 24<:'RR •8011.32600. J ,),J J J ",I J ,)}""",},)""",J )J J -)-----1 ~-'l ~"."}."1 _.)1 ')) tt1 I I-l VI INTERNATIO~AL fNGI·NfERING co.INC SAN FRA~CISCO CALIFORNIA TRANSMISSION LIN[COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM VERSION I:23 FEB lQ79, ANCHORAGE-FAIReANKS INTfRTIE CASE 18 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINt COST ANALYSI!AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATtON PATE:12 APR 79 TIME:9:37:07 *********•••*••••• **•INPUT DATA • •**•••*•••*,••••,*** SYSTFM ECONOMIC FACTORS-.....-.__....•...._--- SIARTING VtAR O~STUDY ENOING VFAR Of STUDY BASE YEAR FOR FSCALATION MAXIMUM CIRCl:JIT LOA\)ING AVEf~AGE CIflClJIT LOADING DEMAND COST fACTOR ENfRGY COST FACTOR VAR CUST FACTOR CAPITAL COST/DISCOUNT RATE: MINIMUM MAX I r~UM NUMAfH OF INTERVALS 0&1'1 COST FACTOR RIGHT OF ~AY C~ST FACIDR RIGHT OF wAY CLEARING COST [NTtREST PURING CONSTRUCTION ENGINc.ERING FH INPUT VALUE 1979 Iq9b 1'177 13b.8 MVA tJ9.2 MVA 73.0 $/KW 1.5.0 rHLlS/KWH 0.0 $/KVAR 7.0 PE:.RCENT 10.0 PERCENT 1 I.S %CAP.COST 715.0 $/ACRE 11./30.0 $/ACRE. 0.00 X INST.CST 11.00 %INST.CST RlFER!NCE V~AH FOR IN~UT................•....... ll1qi! lIJ'12 lq7q lq79 19111.l llHI~ lQa", 111711 lq7~ 191CJ ANCHORAGE·FAIR~AN~S INTrRTI~CASE Ie 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AhD CONDUCTO~OPTIMIZATION DATE:I?APR 79 TIME:9:17107 _•••••••••••-••*.* • *• INPUT DATA * * LON I)UC,r)f.I DAi A ~----··-.-----~_~..~W_.__~...__.~ •******~•••*.*~*.* GROIJND~IRE DATA SF'lAN DA TA ._.~__.~__._.~p_.¥.~._M._..~_e . to, I-' 0\ "lI";)f q f'ff,PHASf CU,'JDlJCTOR SPAC Hie; VOLrflGf VIJLTAGf VArnAliON L r ~t.F q,(J Ut t;C y FAJ""EAIHtR LOSSES LINE LF'IGTH POlitI<FACiOR "tATtH:Y [lATA I n.u IN 230 KV 10,00 PCT 60 CPS 0,00 KW/M! '23.00 MILES 0,9';) NUMbEl<PE.R TOWER DI Ar~E.TfR WEIGI--jT o 0,00 IN O.COOO LBS/FT MINIMUM MAXIMIJM INTERVAL 1200.FT 1600.FT 100,0 FT ---·----~·_·--._~._..~_e __.._~~ MAXlMJ'1 RAINFAll IHH 'H¥lMU!"RAINFALL Olll<AT!U"J AvERAGF RAINFALL NArE AVE>1/,GE RAINFALL iJllfiATIO'J MAXIMJ~SNolirALL PATE t>1AXIMrJM ~NO~~ALL DUI~AtrON AV~RAGr 5NO~FAbL RA1~ AVERAGE SNO~FA6L OUkAT!ON M~LATIve AIM DCNSITY 1.18 IN/HI< 1 HRS/YR 0,03 tN/H~ tJ311 HRS/Y~ 1.87 IN/HI< 1 HRS/YR 0.13 IN/HM 264 HRS/YR 1.000 .J '.~.,J J ,J cJ •J J J J -J J J "I J .,~~',) -1 -~)--'1 NC-'-'l J 1 1 A~CHORAGE·FAIHBANKS INTERTIE CASE IA 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALySIS AND CO~DUCTOR OPTI~IZATIUN DATE:12 APR 79 TIME:Q:31:07 ***.*••*•••••*~**. •••• II-IPLJT OATA •• •••'.***••**•••**** SAG/T~NSION DESIGN FACTORS .---.-..--------------..-- bJ I t--' -..J EVrRYDAY SlRESS TEMPERATURE ICF AND WIND TEMPERATURE HIGH ~IND lEMPtRATURE ~X1Rf~t ICE lfMP~RATURE MAX nESIGN TtMP FOR GND CLEAHANCt EDS lENSION (PCT UTS) NESC CONSTANT TOTAL NUMRER OF PHASES PHASt SPACING CONDlICTOR CONfIGURATION FACTOR GRIlUND CLEARANCE ND'OF INSIJLATORS PER TOWER INSULA Tor,SAFETY FACTOR STf.'ING LENGTH I.VEE.OR COMBINATION HlIIWH T [ON TYPf Tf'~RhIN FACTOR LINF ANGLE FACTOR IO ...FR ljROUNOING TRANSVERSE OVERLOAD FACTOR VERTICAL OVERLOAD FACTOR LONGITUDINAL LOAD MISCELLANEOUS HARD~AR~WEIGHT TO~FH ~EIGHT FACTOR TO~ER wEIGHT FSTIMATION ALGORITHM-_._-----.--._---..-----------_.- 40.DEGREES F o.DEGRFES F 40.DEGRFES F 30.DEGREES F 120.DEGREES F 20.PERCENT 0.31 L8S/FT TOwER DESIGN 3 20.0 FEfT 1.02 28.0 FEfT 48 c?50 6.5 FEET 3 4 1.06 PE.R IJNI T .0864 o 2.~0 1.50 1000.LflS 0.11 TONS/TO"E.R 1.02 ICE AND WIND TENSlON (PCT UTS) HIGH WIND TENSION (PCT UTS) EXT~E~E ICE TENSION (PCT UTS) ICE THICKNESS wITH WIND wIND PRESSURE wITH ICE HIGH wIND EXTREME ICE. DISTANCE BETwE.EN PHASES: DI t>2 In D4 05 Db ')0.PERCENT 50.Pf:RCfNT 70.PERCENT 0.50 [tJ(HES 4 •0 0 l.~S/ S r~•FT. 9.0 l.BS/SQ.FT. O.~O INCHES 20.00 fT 20.00 ET tlO.OO FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT TOWER TYPE 9:230KV TOWER TW =0.000Ih*TH.*2 -3.09797.TH ••0.3333 •0.08943·EFFVOL • 0.775hl.tFFTOI t O.00510.TH*EFfTDL t O.OUlb~*TH*EFFVDL t 1~.~lqI7 ~1~S A~CHORAGE~FAI~nANKS 1NTERTIE CASE 16 230 KV TRANS~lSSlON LINE COST A~ALVSIS ANu CONDUCTOR CPTI~llATION DATE:12 APR 79 TI~E:9:37:07 .******•••*******.• INPUT DAT,/.•••••••••••••*.***** • CONDUCTOR SUMMARY ****••****••••*** t:d I I--' 00 TO NU'',fjER 2:.) 2':> 2h 27 ?'"J ?9 3 r) 31 3~ 33 31 3':> 3;, 3/ 3>\ 39 NAt"E GkOSREAK F GFi f T FL~MING[J r,Ar~f,F r sri LT SlAPLING FiU,,;I r,G (IJeKOI") DkhKE rUHJ CUNl'OR HALLARD PUDOY C AoJAtl Y RAIL CARDINAL SIlUKCM) 6,6.0 1>36.0 666.0 61:>6.0 715.0 715.0 715.0 795.0 795.0 795.0 79').0 795.0 900.0 9UO.0 9'::>4.0 Q54.0 TEMP.COfF. STRANDING UNIT wEIGHT OUT.DIAM.TOTAL AREA MODl1LtJS ALPHhE·6 (AL/ST)(L[lS/FTJ (INCHES)(SO.lN.)(EF/E6 PSIl PER [)EG F -------_...._--------_......--------..-_..----------------.. 261 7 0.8750 0.9900 0.580'1 I 1•;)0 10.3 30/19 0.9880 1,0190 0.6134 I I •30 9.7 241 7 0.8590 1.0000 0.5914 10.5')10.7 261 7 0.91i\O I .0 III 0 0.6087 1I •00 10.3 2111 7 0,9210 1.0360 0.b3ll8 10.':15 10.7 ?61 7 0.9850 LOSIO 0.6S35 I I •00 I ()•~ 30/19 1.1110 1,0510 0.6901 11 .30 9.7 241 7 1.0240 1.0420 0.7053 10.':>5 10.7 261 7 1.0940 1.1080 0.7261 II •00 10.3 ll51 7 0.8960 1.0630 0.6676 9,llO 11 .5 5111 7 I .021~0 1 .0930 0.7053 10.115 10.9 30119 1.2350 1.1400 0.7onE>.I I •30 9.7 451 7 1.0150 1.1310 0.7009 9.40 11,5 'i lJ/7 1,1590 1,1620 0.7955 IO.i1'::>10.9 451 7 1.0750 1.1650 0.8011 9.ll0 11 .5 541 7 1.2290 1.1960 0.8464 10.85 10.9 .......J I .J ..),J ••,e .._.J <.•)J ....-J c_•..} ""'. j f j *..•..,I _J '~")~'J -)")~"-"1 '1 ')"'"~J ..,.~}1 1 ANCHORAGE·FAIRBA~~5 INTE~TIE CASE IB 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST A~ALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:12 APR 79 TIME:9:37:07 ********.*.*.*.*** *• *INPUT DATA ••*••***•••••••••••** CONDUCTOR SUM~ARY •••••••••••••*.** Ae ~ESTSr. lJL T.TENS.(;EllM.MEAN THfRM.LIMIT AT 25 DEG C IND.RlACT.OP.REACT. III NUflhER NAME STRI::NGTH(LBS)RADIUS(FT)PRIC£($/LB)(AMPERES)(OHMS/M ILU (OHMS/MTLl)(MOHM-Inu 5) ----.._-------_.-------------------.-----------..-------.----------_.-....---------...-------..... 24 GROSHfAK 25000.0 0.0335 O.62A/I 977 790.0.11<52 0.4118 2.6347 ?S EGRET 31500.0 0.0351 0.00'111'177 870.0.1447 0.4060 2.6136 26 FL.\MINr.O 2.3700.0 o.o.n':>0.640/1977 1'\10 • 0.1399 0.4118 2.6294 b:;j n GHJNf.T 2b200.0 0.0343 0.bOq/1 Q 77 820.0.1373 0.40'12 2.6347 I ?i\ST!L1 ?5"iOO.0 0.0347 0.62711'177 840.0.1.320 0.4066 2.61100 I--' 1.0 ?9 ST A~LING 28100.0 0.0.35':>0.608/1977 11')0.0.1294 0.40':>0 2.6453 "30 fH DId NG 34600.0 0.0372 0.612/1977 860.0.1<'88 0.3492 2.5661 31 CUCKOO 27100.0 0.0366 0.636/1'177 900.0.1214 0,3'1'12 2.S502 32 Dh'AKE 31200.0 0.0375 0.622/1 '177 910.0.1172 0.399('2.54">0 33 TF ~r'J 22'100.0 0.0.552 0,677/1'177 890.0.11Ri>O.40hll 2.5760 54 C(J~d)O~21\500.0 0.0368 0.03">/1977 900.0.1172 0.4002 2.5<)55 V;MAL L AIH)31:<400.0 0.03'12 0.5'19/1 9 77 910.0.1162 0.3428 2.5186 36 RUODY 2':>400.0 0.0374 0.676/1977 935.0.10H?0.3'I?B 2.501::10 57 CMjA"y 32300.0 0.039.:'0.633/1977 950.0.1040 0.3928 2.5027 3'3 RAIL 26900.0 0.0385 0,671/1'177 970.0.0998 0.394'1 2.5027 3'1 CARDINAL 34200.0 0.0 1.04 0.032/1977 990.0.0987 0.3902 2.i!816 ANChORAGE-FAIR~ANKS INTERTIf CASE IR 250 K~TRANSMISSION LINE COST A~ALYSIS AND CO~OUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DArE:12 APR 79 TIME:9:37:07 ****•••••-••••**** ** * * INPUT DATA * * tp I N o wnT MATERIALS COSTS PRICE OF TU~lR MATERIAL PRICE OF CONCRETE PRICE OF GHOUND WI~E INSTALLED COST Of GROUNDING SYSTEM TOWER SETUP I o~~n~ASSE t1RL Y r[)UNIHrrOr-..St.TUP FOUNOA TION ASSEHBl Y FOUNDATION EXCAVATION PRICE OF MISCELLANEOUS HARD~ARE UNIT LAROR COSTS REFERFNCF YEAR LABOR COST srRI'<l;(;IWUND wlf<F STRING LABOR MARKUP lINIT TRANSPORTATION COSTS TOwER FOUNDA TION CONCRE H FOUN[)ATIUN STEEL CONDUCTOR GROUND WIRE. INSULATOR HARDWARE *•••*•••~****.**** INPUT VALUE 0,957 $/LR 0,00 $/CU.YD. 0.000 $/U3 0,00 $lTowER 17')1.$ 0.4:'')ilLS 0,$ 4140,00 S/TON 0.00 S/CU.YD. 290.00 '!;/TowER 24.00 $/~~Mn1OUR 0,0 $/"1Ill' 4.2 PtR UNIT I 00 • 0 $IT 0 r~ 100.0 $/YD 100,0 Jil10N 100.0 $/TON 100,0 i/TON 100.0 $/TON OR $/M**3 100.0 $/TON REFERENCE YEAR fOR INPUT -.-------------.--.~-.-- 19H 1977 1977 1977 1979 1979 1919 1979 1979 1977 1979 1917 J "."". ""...•,),)J .c ..J ",l cJ II "~C)-",';'-~']J '-,--)1 r---)~~-)1 1 ')'l ANCHORAGE-FAIRbANKS INTERTlE CASE IB 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:12 APR 79 TIME:9:37:07 **********.*•••*****•••••••••••••***** •• * AUTOMATIC CONDUCTOR SELECTION ALL QUANTITIES PER MILE •• * •*.******•••*****AA ••-A.**.****.*•••***** CAPITAL CDST/OISCOUNTRATE OF 7.00 PERCENT PRESENT WORTH _____________R __•_____________________ C()i\'llJC TOR INSTALLED COST LINE:.LOSSES Oi'.~\COS T LINE COST -.._---...-----------..----.----..-._----------------------------------------...---------------_...-------_. ~Jl)•KCM SPAN(FTl MATERIALS TRANSPORTATTON INSTALLATION HJGIIDC SlH:JTOTAL SUllTOTAL SU8TUTAL TOTAL --------------...---------------------.-----------.........-------------------..---- ttl 39 '1<"j.1300.6R Ill]•3834.84796.9328.166104.3'5856.32H4.205244. I N 37 900.1300.67299.377 2.H460R.9307.161l91:\6.37993.P57.206235. I--'3"79 ...1 30 n •6461>4.3721 •112616.90R8.160089.43028.3151.206267. 35 7'15.1l.l00.6537').3684.112031.9023.160113.43028.31 b I • 206302. ~9 9SIl.1400.69552.3828.84673.931lJ.167367.3511')6.3322.206')l.l5. 57 900.1400.68697.3766.84494.9294.166251.37993.3294.207538. 3 ..795.I')on.66879.361:\9.82176.9039~161784.43028.3206.208017. 32 79<:'.1300.6S5S8.5685.831193.92;>8.1t>2361l.434611.3195.209027. 39 9<"1·.Ison.718/13.3870.85337.9387.170437.3')856.B97.209/)P,9. 3/1 795.130 ().6SR07.3659.AlJ359.9279.163101l.1l354S.3209.209558. 38 954.1300.70136.3£131.86787.9547.170300.36293.3371.209963. '>2 7 0 5.IIlOO.6678 11.3669.83683.920':>.163342.43lJ68.3226.210036. 30 715.1300.63510.3615.1:\2301.9053.158478.l.l856 I.31 12.210151. 30 715.1400.h4201l.3,<:'76.81729.1\990.1581l98.48')61.3122 •210182. 39 <)54.1200.703116.4033.87082.9'579.171080.35RC,6.3385.210321. 37 900.1500.70'11:\3.3i107.1:',5172.9369.169351.37993.3369 •210693. 34 795.1400.67235.3/)53.81~298 •9273 •161l459.IH':>Wi.321l8.211251. 55 79').\600.69124.3735.82979.912i1.164966.4302H.3282.211275. 37 900.1200.69631.3977 •A6926.95h2.1700'16.37993.336 I.211450. 3'i 19').1200.66889.3916.85020.95S2.165176.43028.32')4.211Ll57. 30 71')•1500.6':>702.3580.81896.9009.160187.41\')61.3167.211915. 36 ~OO.1300.69499.3780.86682.9535.169/l96.39701.33S1.212547. 51\954.1400.7<>348.3e.6 I.87234.959/).173039.36293.3440.212771. 32 795.1500.68883.3701.8425?9268.166109.431l68.3295.212871. 29 715.1300.64091.3593.83M3.9205.160573.49222.3150.212944. AN(HORAGE-FAIR~A~KS INTFRTIE CASE IA 230 KV TRA~SMISSION LINt COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:12 APR 7q TIMt:9:37:07 .****.*.~•••***.*k*.***_.***** "• * " COST OUTPUT PER MILE PRESENT VALUE RATE 7.00 PERCENT """""*******.*.***.**~*.**,****~*~~* CDNDUCTOR NUMHfR = q~4.KCMIL 1300.FT SPAN 39 87.7 FT TOwER________~._,~._~~__w ~_ INSHlUl;'COST MA TE:.R I AL TRANSPORTATION INS TALLA T ION TOTAL hR~AKll(J.,~,(WANIITY COS1($)TONNAGF COST($)COS1($)COST($) ----------------------------.....------...-------------------------------- 0:1 I C(HJDIJC TnR 1~840.FT 14086.9.73 973.18257.33316.N N GR(lLJ~'D ..I ~t O.FT v.0.00 O.o.O. J N;llIL A T();~S 207.UNITS 1313 •1•14 244.1557. H!,fif)"ARf 1429.0.47 4 7•1477. TO ..Ft-iS 4.3 UNITS 38870.20.31 2031.26019.66Q21. F ()l)ti!)A T IO'JS 4.3 UNITS 3327.~38.2221'\0.26145. RIGHT OF ;~AY 13.ACRES 9120.18241.27361. I DClf NG "'IH:RING 9328 •9328. ......_-------------_._---.--.---...._--...------_.......- TOTALS b8147.31.6~3831.1.81.1790.166104. PRF.SfNT VAlUf ($) .~---..~----------------------------------.------------------------Ll15S ANALYSIS I)fMAND LDSSE.S ENfRGY LOSSE.S TOTAL LOSSES -----------------~..----------------------------------...--- ~ESISTANCE LOSSfS 21.1588.1121.19.35837. CORO"'A LOSSES O.19.19. --------.~-.~-----~.--------------------- TOTALS 24588.11268.35856. ,i'I~-~.:),....], :c .J .J ,J.,~.c):,......J J J ,J.I· -)"-'~"')._))~'l ')~)..•..._.))")~) INTERNATIONAL ENGINEE~lNG CO.INC SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA TRANSMISSION LTNf COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM VE~SION 2:02 AUG 1979, ANCHOPAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERTIE CASE I-C 34~KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:15 AUG 79 TIME:14:06:42 ••••*••*••••••••** ••• INPUT DATA •• OJ N W SYSTEM ECONOMIC FACTORS RASE YEAR FOR PW ANALYSIS EIJI)I %YUR OF STUDY ~ASt YEAR FOR FSCALATION MAX1MU~CIRCUIT LUADING AVF~AGE CIRCUIT LUA01NG nE~A~D lOST FACIOR ENERGY cnST FACIOR Vf.R cosr FACTIJR CAPITAL cnSf/UISCOUNT RATE.S: n~M COST FACTuR RIGHT OF WAY COST FAcrOR RIG tn 0 F wAY CU:AR ING CUS T !NTEPl:SI DURING CO~ISTRlJCTlON Fr,Glt,EERPIG H:F *.*.*****••••*-**. .INPUT VALUE 1979 19n 1'/77 168.11 MVA 58.9 t~VA 73.0 $/KW 13.0 MILLS/KWH 0.0 $/,<VAR 7.0 PERCENT 10.0 PERCENT 1.5 'l:CAP.COST 715.0 $/ACRE 1430.0 :h/ACRE 0.00 r.P'ST .CST 11.007.INSLCST REFERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT 1984 19R4 \n9 19.79 19811 19811 19f14 1984 1979 1979 A~CHURAGE-FAIABANKS INTfRTIE CASE I-C 3u5 Kv TP4NS~IS~IO~LI~E COST ANALYSIS A~D CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:15 AUG 79 TI~E:lu:06:u2 *****J***********. * 1<INPUT DATA* * *.J******.********* CONDUCTOR DAU ._-------~------------------~------------ GPO lJlJ 0 wIRE DAT A SPAN DATA tXl N .j:::> 'IIU~f3E ~PtR PflASE CUNllllr.r DR SPAL I 'Jr. VOL I A'.;1' VOLTAGF VAPrATIU~ LINt t=AlOUHl(Y FAI R..E AI f~I:IJ Lli SSE S LINE LFNGTH PU"U~FACTOR 2 t 6.{I 311') to.on ___.~___h () 1.70 323.00 O.Q':> I ~I KV 1-'0 lPS ~W/~I MILES NUM~ER PER TOwER O!AMETER wEI GH T o __o.00 IN 0.0000 LRS/FT MINIMUM MAXIMUM INTERVAL 1000.F:T 1600.FT 100.0 ;:T WE.ATHE~DATA ----------------------.------------------ MAXI ~1 UfA RAI fJ FA LL RATt I •18 IN/HR MAXI fA U"1 RAIN F ALl.I)IJ RATI £IN I HRS/YR AVERAGF RAINFALL RAIE 0.03 PI/HR AVE'HeE RApn"ALL LJ I JIJ ~.r1U~b3b HRS/YR MAXIMUM SNOwFALL RATF 1.f\7 IN/HR fAAXIMUfA 5~OftFALL DUkATIUN 1 fIRS/YR AV(=?AGr 5 IJ 0 ...F /J.LL RAT f ',; ."---0.1 3 .IN/HR' AVFRAGE Sr,OwFALL 1)1If-/AT TU"J ~h'j HI'S /YR RELA,T[VE AIR ()[NSITY 1.000 ,J cJ J ,).1 ,I "'-"J J J ,I ].J .....,j ~l C·~-l )1 ") A~CHGRAGE-FAIPBANKS INTERTIE CASE I-e 14~KV TQANS~ISSIO~LINE COST ANALYSIS A~U CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:IS AUG 79 Tl~~:lu:O~:q2 •••".A ••••**'.*.* •• * UJPU r DA T II """•••••*****.******* SAG/TENSIUN ~ESIGN FACTORS OJ N tn EVERynAY STRESS TEMPERATURE ICE A~O wIND Tf~PFRATURE Hl~H WI~D IE~PEQATUR~ EXTREME ICE TE~PERATURE ~AX UF51GN TEu~FOR GND CLEARANCE Ens r~~SI~N (~ll UTSJ NfSC CU~STANT In 1 AL NIJ/~RER OF PHAS~S PHASE.SPACING cnNDUCToR CONFIGURATION FACTOR GROIINf'J CLE ARA"JU Nrl,OF INSULAT~PS PER TOWER I ~S I !L AHlfl S AF E T Y F AC r 0 R S TR 1'1 r,L E !H,J r1 I,VEE,UR C(I~~r\INA r IUN F (J I)tl,lJ ATI U'J T y P E TfPRAPJ FACTI)R LINE ANGLE FAClnR 10 ..F R GRI)UNDI ~J I, TRArISVERSE OvF RLOAD F-ACTOR VEkT rrAl r1Vf~L!JA{)FACTOR LW JGITI)r)J ~J All UA i) "1 I SCE!.L A~JF.UI'S HAf.![)WAkE WE I GHT TnljER wEIGHT FArTOR TUWER WEIGHT ESTTMATION ALGoRITHM 1.10.DEGREES F O.DEGREES F llO.DE(;Rf!::S F 30.DEGRF ES F 120.DE.GRE~S F 20.PERCENT 0.31 UJ SI F T TOwER DESIGN 3 27.0 F~ET 1.00 32.0 FEET 72 2.50 9.5 FEET 3 1.1 1.06 PER UNIT .01\61.1 o 2.50 1.50 1000.LBS O.II TONSITowER 1.02 ICE AND WIND TENSION (PCT UTS) ~IGH WINO TENSION (PCT UTS) EXTREME ICE TfNSION (PCT UTS) ICE THICKNESS wITH WIND WIND P~ESSURE WITH ICt HIGH WINO EXTREME ICE DISTANCE BETWEEN PHASES: 01 02 03D4'-- D5 06 50.PERCENT SO.PERCENT 70.PERCENT 0.50 INCHES ll.OO lAS/So.FT. 9.0 lBS/SO.FT. 0.50 ItJC~ES 27.00 FT 27.00 FT 5£1.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT Tn~Fk TYPE 10:3U5KV TOWER 1~=0,oon41.T~I".?-O.992111*TH ••0.bOOO -O.10!71*EFFVOL - 0.273~5.tFf TUL +0.OOS03*TH*EFFTOL •0.00181*TH*EFFVOL • 20.77701 ~TPS A'iCHOi'AGE-FAIREjANKS INTERTlr:CASE I-C 345 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS ANi)CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:I5 AUG 79 T p~E:Iii:06:Ii 2 ~_ .----_.__..-_._-.----.__._,._- ****************** * I ~i P IJT D AT A * ** ****************** CONDUCTOR SUMMARY *****.**••******* TO NU"HHR NflME-..._----- ?Ci STMiL Pi r, tc 30 r~E [11,I ~H; 31 CUCI\OU N ~2 I)I!AKE 0"1 3.3 H RN 3 'j CONDOR 35 IQl.LflIW '"IIUrJlJY 37 CA~IARY 311 RflJL Vi CH<DIr'AL lJO ORTOLAN T~HP.COEF. STRANDING UNIT WEIGHT OUT.DIAM.TOTAL AREA MODULUS ALPHA*E-6 SIZHKCM)(AL/ST)(LflS/FT)(INCHES)(SQ.IN.)(EF/e6 PSI)PER DEG F ---------------.--------------------------------------------- 715.0 261 7 0.91\50 1.0510 0.6'535 I 1 .00 10.3 715.0 30/\9 1• 1\ \ 0 1.013 10 0.6901 11.30 9.7 795.0 2/JI 7 1.02/JO I.ono 0.7053 10.')5 10.7 7'1').0 261 7 1.09UO I •10 i\0 0.7261 II .00 10.3 795.0 lj')l 7 0.1:\960 1.0630 0.6676 9.UO II .5 79').0 5ll!7 1.02/JO 1.0930 0.7053 10.85 10.9 795.0 _.....30/19 1.2350 1.1400 0.7668 _.,______-T-I1 .30 9.7 '100.0 lI51 7 I .0 I SO I •13'0 0.7069 9./JO 1I .5 900.0 S/Jj 7 1•1590 I.l620 0.7985 10.115 10.9 9S/I.(\/.lSI 7 1.0750 1.1650 0:p,0I I 9./J0 I I .5 9'j/J.0 SOl 7 1.2290 1.1960 0.8u6U 10.85 10.9 11)3~.O /J51 7 1.16')0 \.2130 0.8678 9.UO 11 .5 .~------ i cJ ,I .J I ~I ,J ,J ~)-l J ANCHORAGE-FAIRbANKS I~TEHTIE CASE I-C las KV TQANS~ISSION LINE COST A~ALYSIS A~O cnNOUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:IS AUG 79 TI~E:lLi:Oo:a2 **.*******t:*••**•• -_.__._------_.-_.--,""-- .. INPUT (jATA* *.... .............................. CONDUCTOR SUMMARY .......*.. Ae RESIST. I.!LT.TENS.GEOM.MEAN THFRM.LIMIT /IT 25 OEG C IND.REACT.CAP.REACT. 10 N!J'11"JE.R NAME S Hi E ~H;TH (LR S)PADIUS(FT)PPICE($/LfJ)(AMPE.RES)(OHMS/MILE)(OHMS/MILE)(MOHM-MILES)...._-----...-------------------------..........---.....-...-..---------------------------,--------------- tx:I 29 SlI1RLIN(;21<1lJ().0 0.0355 0.608/1977 850.0.129Li o.aoso 2.6/J':>3 30 Rff)wING 3a/,lJO.o 0.0572 0.012/1977 R60.0.128A 0.3992 2.5661 II CUCKOO 27100.0 0.0360 0.036/1977 900.O.lela 0.3992 2.5502 N 3<'['\RIIKE 31200.0 0.0375 0.622/1977 910.0.1172 0.3992 2.5£150 ""'-l l S H.P·)22900.0 0.0352 0.677/1977 890.O.11 !HI o.aOhO 2.5766 3l [1j'JIJ[1fi 21<<'00.0 0.056tl 0.63",/1977 900.0.1172 0./J002 2.5555 ~s MilL L A R I)31'\IJ ()O.()0.03'12 O.5Q9/1977 910.0.1162 O.3<J?8 2.5 Pl6 36 R II f)I)Y ?511 ()O.()0.0374 0.076/1977 ens.0.10tl2 0.3928 2.5080 37 CANARy 32300.0 0.05 9 2 O.b33/1'I77 950.0.1040 0.3'-128 2.5027 3A RAIL ('noUO.O 0.OSA5 0.671/1977 970..0.0998 O.)'-ILi'-l 2.5027 39 [APLJII~IIL 3/J;:>0a • 0 O.OLiOLi 0.632/1977 990.0.0987 0.3'-102 2.Li1l16 ao ORTULAN 213900.0 0.0£l01 0.670/1977 1020.O.092/j 0.3902 2.£11';158 ANC~DDAGE-FAIR~ANKS INTEQTIE CASE I-e 345 KV TPANS~ISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMTZATION DATE:15 AUG 79 Tl~E:14:06:4 * * II~PUT DATA *• OJ N CO UNTT ~ATFRTALS COSTS PRICE OF TUWER ~ATERIAL pqICE UF CONCRETE PRICE OF G~0UND WIRE P~STAlLElJ cnST OF GROll,'JDING SYSTEM TI)VI F:f~SF HI P TO"fR ASSUWL Y FOUND Ar r Ulj SE TuP FOUNDATIU~ASSEMBLY F nu'J[)A T r u ~J F Xr A V A T I 0 ~~ p q J CE 11 F II I SU_Ll AN E0US H ARLJ WAR E IJN IT LABORCOST S Rff-FIi ENe F::Yf AR L AA0 Pr.o ST STfdlJG Gf<OIJN()!'J!RE STRINe;l_ARUR MARKUP IINr,j l'lANSPORTATlflN COSTS --~-----------------~---- TOl~F R FOUNDATION CONCRETE ~-0 LJ "J I)ATION S TEE L CONDIJC TOR (,PO!lrif)wIP~_ I NSIJL h rOf< liAf<lJ,.;ARE it ••••**•••******•• INPUT VALUE 0.957 $/lB 0,00 $/CU,YD, 0,000 $/ll:l 0,00 $ITOWER 1751,$ 0,455 $/LB 0,$ 4140.00 S/TON 0.00 "t/CU,YD, 290.00 $/TQwER 24.00 $/MANHOUR 0.0 'SIMILE 4 ,?PER Ur~I T 131.0 $/TON 131,0 $/YD 131.0 $ITON 131.0 $/TON 131,0 $/Tor~ 1~I,O $/TON OR $/~**3 131,0 $/TON REFERENCE yEAR FOR INPUT 1979 1977 1977 1977 1979 1979 1979 1 ''H9 1979 1977 1979 1977 J cl cl "_c"I'.~I .>".1 ,.J f c,-c__•,I .1 ,I .,J I I ~1 -1 7 -,-~-J -,-,)]1 1 ANCHOPAGE-FAI~8ANKS INTERTIE CASt l-C 345 KV TRANSMISSIUN LINE CDST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATf:IS AUG 79 TIMt:14:06:42 *.**•••••***••••••*••••••••••••~~.***~ • *. * AUTOMATIC CONDUCTOR SELECTION ALL QUANTITIES PER MILE ........ ••••*••***••*~••••••**•••*.*~••••~*.*. CAP I TAL COS T/I)r SC[)l'fH PAT E UF 7•0 0 PEP CENT PRESENT WORTH ($) -----_._----.-----._----------------._-----_._------~--------------------.---------------------------------- CO"Ji)UCTDR INSTALLEO CU~T LINE LOSSES 08.M COST LINE COST----...-.-------------------_._-------------~--------------~-----....-..-------------------------------NO.KCM SPAN(FTJ MATE:.RIALS TRANSP.INSTALL.ENGINE£R,IDC SUBTOTAL SU~TOTAL SUHTOTAL TOTAL-----------.....----------.---_..--------------------_._-----...._------------O:l 35 795.1 30u.105"53.64112.1 1001:\6.24730.O.249551.46122.3372.29QQUb. .55 FIS.I uno.II (I (13'1.10/11'1.5 •101Hlu9.2U791.250162. .---".,.. 46122.299665.N O.3381. ~30 71 S.I 300.10'>622 •6257.10936A.24337.O.2455f\U •52150.3319.3010S3. 3')7"'').12 (10.1[177'-19.11557.112490.24953.O.2S1 H9.46122 •3403-3tJI32'J. 30 71S.I ~00.1073;:4.1',2')3.108105.2 1n55.O.2460b/).52150.3325.301S J I. 37 900.1300.II 2!l1 2.h':>79.11264A.2552 11.O.257563,41403.3481.302(.1(.17. 32 70S.130 ().IOCl?5S.1139'J.111472.24953.O.252100.'47191.3407.302703. -~,---.-~-~-_..-._---._.3<;7'1",.1'>00.1130;:>1.6S,)lJ,1081>17.25101.O.253289.46122.3U23 •302f\3Ll. H 954.I .5 00•114706.67\.0.11~0811.2')79S.O.260295.39129.3517.30 c,<'J I • 37 q (1 0•1200.1115"S.6608.I1 1J49Ll.25574.O.2')f',061.41403.3487.302'1::'1• 3°9 'J /J •1200.I 13?<'p,.f-736.11491').2'>/0\37.O.260716.39129.3523.3rJ3367. 30 715.120 ().IOS?32.63~6.1117R7.2LlS69.O.24792Ll.52150.3350.30 3u,)/!. 31.l 7'-1').IS 0 ()•I 0'-1 SlI1.11337.111931.250 lJI.O.25261\7.47'190.3 1J1 5.303.,91. 32 795._1200.I ()HI 21 •6 IJ3</.I I .511 t)P,•25083.o.253111.47191.3420.303722. 29 7I .,•1300.1059')').6199.110R7.'l.2 115 34.O.2117':>65.",3308.3345.304219. 34 •74').1200.to·/9'11.6369.11377 11.25095.O.253229.47590.3422 •30424". 30 715.1':>00.110237.6310.107A"7.2461:\5.o•24'10'15.52150.3366.30l.l61 I • 32 79').1 I.l 0 O.11 I ClO<;.6432.I 10 I,1'\fl.2'>182.O.2':>4106.47191.3434.304731. 37 0/)0 •I Q 0 0••11')1,79.I--t,3 I •11202 1J.25777.O.?bOI12.41403.3515.305029....._--.__._-.-?q 715 •I 20 (I.Jnl.l/o\b~.hcl.lb,1128/f1.?Ll63C1.o•241\632.533013.3360.30530Q. .3q {)')IJ •ltJ 00.11761'0.1--765.11 2 'J 13.20054,o.?6?913.39129.3553.3O':>59U • 29 7I r;•I Q 00•I0 i\II eo.6233.1101 lJ 3.?lI730.O.?49545.533011.337 2.306;>2')• 34 795.140 ().112220.f,386.11132.??5?"!?•o•1'':>5220.47')90.3449.30b2~Q. 35 79e,.I I0 (i •11J8P.31.to 11 fl.116?63.25499.O.1'57312.u6122.3477.306911. 37 900.I 10 ()•I 1I SCi 0 •6 ~I 3 ()•1177f'J,).25970.O.?b?06S.41403.3')41.307009. A~C40QAGE-FAIRRANKS INTF.HTIE CASf I-C 3lJ5 KV TPA~5MISSION LINE CCST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOH OPTt~IZATION DATE:15 AUG 79 TI~E.:14:06:u2 •••***•••*.*.~*.**•••*~•••••** *•------'-- COST UUTPUT PEP ~Il E • PPESE 'J r VALUe RATE • *7.00 PERCENT • *• -------~-------_..._-- *•••*,.."'••••••••••••• CONDUCTOH NIJMPER = 795.KCMIL 1300.FT SPAN 35 89.3 FT TowER ----._-------,---_. !NSTALLFD COST MATEPIAL TRANSPORTATION L~REf,.1<.[)0 wr,QUArq lTY COSf(!»TONNAGE COST($) ...------------------_...----_.....---------------------- C0 'Jf)UC r (1 f<3161:'0.FI 3')171,19.56 2~63. o::l GRO[INn"THE o•FI .-O.0.00 u. I NSIIL AI nHS 310.UNITS 2582.1 .70 llBO. H"h>n.,ARF lR7u.a.lll 62. w ro ...u<s 11.3 UNITS tJ3/:1Zt.l •-?33.Ii 1 -11377.- 0 Frll.l';llA I TONS LJ.3 UNITS beRO.to 15. R 1 Gfl I OF WAY (107FT)1 3.ACRES 121 I)7.---------------------------------- SUll-TOIALS IUl/j97.55.15 8497. IDC tNGPJF[PING INSTALLATION CUST($) 3.3947. O. £19735. 420511. 18565. 141.1301 • TOTAL COST(S) 71681 • o. 3062. IQ36. 131Q36. /J93119. 3073?• 294b9S. O. 3211lb. TOTAL 327111. PRE SUJI i'<0RTH IDC ENGINEE.RING IOR253.6482.1100B6.2?1l1J21. O. 2/J730. TOTAL 21195SI. PRfSFNT WORTH ($) -------------------_._-----------------~--------------------------LOS S MH LYS r S RESISTANCE LUSSES COkO/llA lussrs:INSIJLATORS CON[)UCTOI< If!TALS DfMANO LOSSES 25uR3. 1624. 27107. ENERGY LOSSES 111 U u 1 • 31115. 11130. lQOI5. TOTAL LOSSES 3Q9211. 476H. 11l30. 116t22. ,J 1 I J )_I j J I J J I .J .i ,),I --1 ~-,--~J 1 -]..._-]1 1 1 INTE~NATIO~AL ENGINeERING co.INC SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA TRANSMISSlrN lI~E COST ANALYSIS PROGPA~ VERSION 2:02 AUG 1979, ANCHORAGE-DEVIL tANYON CASE II-I 34'5 KV TRANSMISSIlHI LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMTZATlljN; DATE:IS AUG 79 TIME:15:56:14 *•••*******••••***•• I ~JPllT DA TA * *.tI**•••••••**.**.** • c:o W I-' SYSlfM lCONOMIC FACTORS INPUT VALUE REfERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT••~w __._..-_ R ASE .YE AR F (I R F'..AN AL Y5 IS. f ;H1l'J G YfAR (W 31 UC'Y RASf YEAR FUR FSCALATION ~AYIMUM CIRCUit LO~UTNG AVEL/AGE CIRCUIT LOAUING f)[MA:'JI1 COS T r AC rOt< f~fRGY COST FAcTnR VAP cos T F l>.CTlIP CAPITAl.COST/UTSCOU,,<T R~TES: 197'1 1997 1977 631.6 MVA 3(17.4 MVA 73.0 $/KW 13.0 MILLS/KWH 0.0 $/KVAR 7.0 PERCENT 10.0 PERCENT 1992 1992 1979 1979 191'\4 198(1 198(1 (1)<'~1 COST FACTOR RI(;I1T Of "AY COSI FACTOR R!(;HT OF ~AY CLEARING CUST INrEQESl UURING CONSTRUCTION f "J (~I 'l E.f RI ',G FEr 1.5 '1.OP.COST 715.0 $/ACkE l/no.o $/4CRE 0.00 %INST.CST II.00 %INST .CST 19E\4 1479 1979 ~~CHORAG~-D~VTL CA~YON CAS~11-1 3u5 ~y TgA~S~ISSIJN LINE COST A~ALYSIS AND Cr~~UCT0R OPTIMIlATION DATE:IS AUG 7q TI~t:lS:~6:1~ t***************~~ **INPUT [)AlA * *••*******.***~***. CON1')UClOR OATA -----------------------.-----------------GROLJNO"IRE DATA SPAN DA TA c:l W N IIlIJMBE·'l PER PHASe. CUNDUCTORSPACING V'Jl TAGF: VOLT'GE VARIATIUN II 'J E Hll (Hi F~,C y FAP"E,,\THf:'<lUSSFS LINf L.p,r;TI-1 PDr<t.R FAClnR WEAlHER DATA 2 11'.0 IN 3115 I\V 10.00 "CT bl)CPS 1.70 iO<lMI 155.(\0 ~ILF:S O.oS NUMBER PER TC1wFR OIAMETER wEIGHT a 0.00 IN 0.0000 LBS/FT MINIMUM i"IAXIMUM INTERVAL 1000.FT 16\)0.FT 100.0 FT ~---------------------------------------- MAXP'UM [<AINFALL fJ,\H'1• 1 ~IN/H~: MAXIM~'1 '<ATNFALL IlLJI<ATTLJ"J 1 "RS/YR AVHAGF PA!r-.Ft.LL.iH IE 0.03 I ,~II.Q AVERAGF RfdNFALL I)IIr<A1 TU"J b3h HRS/YR "1AX I.vy"s~'Jn,;F AI.L ,;'ATF.1•R7 I ~J I HR ~"'t."I·~J~SI;O,;r ALL /)lII<AT1UN 1 HRS/yR AVf',AGF sr,[1,.,F ALL I,AIE O.1.5 1',/I-'R AVF 'i'(;E Sr,n,.,FAl L DIIRATIII'J Cbf.,i f1f'3/YR RELATIve.AIR OriJSITY 1 ,000 .1].1 ,..1 .,....,J ].J J ,~I ,I J ..J .".....1 ]~<1 ]-]---1 i'i .I 'J '···-1 1 ..._..]1 A~CHOqAGE-DEVIL CANYON CASE Ir-I ~as KV IRANSMISSIO~LINE COST ANALYSIS ANO CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:15 AUG 70 TI~~:lS:56:1ti ~.*••*~••*.*.*.*•• * * * INPl.'j DATA ** *.**•••••••~••***•• SAG/TENSIU~DESIGN FACTORS OJ ww [VERynAY STRESS Tf~PERATURE let A~H)"INn TL/-'PEHATURF HIGH wI~D TFMPERATURf I.XIREME jrE TfMPERATuRE MAx DFSTGN T~~p ~nH GNU CLEARANCE E [)S TF ~.S I O,'J l peT lIT S ) ~~fSC CO~,STANT TOTAL NUMA~R OF PHASES PHASE SPAC I N(, CONDUCTOR C~NFIGU~ATI0N FACTOR GROIJNf)r:LEARA~jU ~Hl.UF INSUL ATURS PFR TOv-ER IN:jLJU TOf<SAFE I Y Fr.C TOR STfn;~G LFNl;TH I,VEE,OR CUMtiTNr.TION FI1UN[)ATIorJ TYF'E 1 F id)A I,.·!F ACT U P LINF A~~LE FACrOR IOl'iFR G'H:U",f)[~H; TRANSVl~Sf OVFRLUAD FACTOR vERT ICAl.nVFh'L uAD FACTOI-< LON GI TUf)PH.L LUAD MIS CElL At<F.IJ 0 S t1 AR[)wAIi F.WE.r GHT TOYiEfi hEIf-HI FACIOK TOw':P WUGHT f.SrI'·iATIUN All~OI-<ITf.1I~ ----.-._--~---------------------- ao.[)EGREES F O.f'lEGf?EtS F IJO.DE.GREES F 30.[)EGRf:ES F 120.[)tGRf'ES F 20.PERUN T 0.31 LdS/FT TOWER DESIGN 3 27.0 FEET 1.02 3?0 FEU 72 2.S0 '1.S FEET 3 £I 1.06 PER UNIT .Oflt>/J o 2.~0 1.50 100u.U.lS o .11 TO~jSlTowER 1.02 ICE AND WYN[)TENSION (peT UTS) HI~H WIND TENSION (PCT UTS) EXTREME ICE TENSION (PCT UTSJ ICE THICKNESS wITH WIND wIN[)PRESSURE wITH ICE HIGH WIND EXTREME ICE DISTANCE BETwEEN PHASES: 01 02 03 lJll 05 D6 '50.PERCENT 50.PERCENT 70.PERCENT 0.50 INOiES £1.00 U1S/SQ.FT, '1.0 LRS/SQ.FT. 0.50 INCHES 27.00 FT 27.00 fT 5£1.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT T0wfR TYPf:10:3lJ'iKV TOWER T,-/=r).{)I!OIj~'TH"2 -O.QQ2111*TH**O.bOUO -O.10371*F.FFVDL- O.273~~'lF~TOL +0.0U'i03*TH*EFFTDL +O.OOlBl*TH*EFFVDL + ?()•7 i 7 (11K J P S ANC~ORAGE-OEVIL CANyON CASE 11-1 345 KV I~ANS~ISSION LINE COST ANALVSIS A~,O C0~OUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:IS AUG 79 T[ME:IS:56:14 ****•••**6A******* ""!"JPlJT D"T/\" ""***~******.******* CONDUCTOR SUMMARv *-***.*.*****••** 10 NU'1fH.R STRANDING SIZE(KCM)_(AL/ST) OJ w .j::> 29 30 31 32 B 34 ~5 30 37 38 39 IJO ~JAr-'E SHRllNG PEn,.,ING ClICKf1Q Di,h K E HR~ C U'-;j,np ,'.j A l.l ~R t1 PlIf'UY CA 'J A P Y RATL CARUTrlAL DPTOL.\N 71r:,.0 715.0 795.0 79';.0 7'15.0 7 4 r:,.0 7'-15.0qUo.n QOO.O Q54,O 9~/~•0 10.B.O 261 7 30/19 t!.41 7 261 7 1151 I 541 7 .30/19 451 7 SIJI 7 451 7 e,IU 7 451 =, TEMP.COH. UNIT wEIGHT OUl.DIAM.TOTAL AREA MODULUS ALPHA-E-6 (LRS/FT)(INCHES)(sa.IN.)·(EF/E6 PSI)PER DEG F --------------------------------------------- 0.91'.50 1,00,10 0.65~S 11 .00 10.3 1.1110 1.0810 0.6901 11 .30 9.7 1.02ll0 1.0920 0.7053 10.55 10.7 1.0<)40 1.101'0 -_..--0.7261 11.00 10 •.3 0.8 9 60 1.0630 0.6676 9.40 1 I .5 1.0240 1.09~0 0.7053 10.85 10.9 l.n50 1.III 00 0.7668 11.30 9.7 1.0150 \,1310 0.7069 9.40 11•':; 1.1590 1.1620 0.7985 10.85 10.9 1.0750 I •16r:,0 a.ROII ._.-".--...'.- 9.40 II .5 1.t!.290 1.1960 0.8464 10.85 10.9 1.1650 1.2130 0.8678 9.40 I I .5 .__..-._.---- J J J J .J J J J .~~J ~~I .1 J J 1 --J -]]J ---1 '--~-J 1 ---~J -1 J -1 1 MI.[HORAG[-UE'vIL CANYON CAS~11-1 54')KV TRA~SMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONGUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:I~AUG 7~TIM~:1~:5b:14 *~.*~•••*****••~*. *1'J Pi'l DAT A •**'.*•••**~**.*••• CONDUCTUR SUMMARY .****A.****•••••• 2F\100.0 0.03')';O.b01:\/1977 8~0.O.129£l 0~4050 2.6453 34600.0 n.0372 0.b12/1 0 77 860.0.1258 o •3992 2.5661 27100.0 0.0366 0.63t>/1977 000.0.1;>14 0.3<-/92 2,5502 31;>00.0 0.0375 O.()221 1 977 q I (\.0.1172 0.3902 2.5450 22Q(IO.0 0.0352 0.677/1 0 77 890.0.lltJ8 0.4060 2,5766 2W';uo.O 0.OS6tJ 0.63':>/1977 900.0.1172 0./.1002 2.5555 3KiJ ,)n.0 0.0392 0.')0'-//1 0 77 010.0,I 162 0,3928 2,~11\6 2')UlJO.O O.OH/.I 0.071::>11977 93'5.0.101:\2 0.39213 2.5080 32.300.0 0.0392 0.6B/1977 950.o.10/.10 0.392/:1 2.5027 2boOO.0 0.03RS O.b71/j077 970.-_.."----_.,--0.0998 0.39/.19 2,'j027 3/-I?I)().0 0.0404 0.032/1977 Q90,O.OQtJ7 0.3902 2.4816 2dQ1l0.0 O.O/H)l 0.67U/l 9 77 1020.0.0921,/0.3'-/02 2.4658 lD NI1'1RER NAME.--------- OJ 29 SIAPlPJG 30 RI:Pl>l"G 31 cur"nuw32DRh"Ec:..n 33 1 E ~ni 311 Cu'.![;nR Vi ~'A I.L h"I) 30 RlIDUY.,,7 CflNA'n 3'3 PAll 39 (A R,)r NAL 40 OkTllLAN ~LT.TENS.GEOM.MEAN SlRE~:GTH(LBS)RADIIJS(FT) THFRM.LP'IT PRICE($/LR)(AMPERES) AC RESIST. AT 25 OEG C -IND.REACT.CAP.REACT. (OHMS/MILE) (OHMS/MILE)(MOHM-MILES) ANCHO~AGE-OfvIL CANYON CASE 11-1 345 KV TRANSwlSSro~LINE COST ANALYSIS AN0 CONDUCTOR OPTt~IZATION DATE:IS AUG 79 TIM(:15:56:11.1 *.*.************** ~------------------~--------------- PWl'T Oil T A * * * ~.**************** * * "NTT ~1ATF.RIALS COSTS I'JPUT VALUE RF.FERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT P~IC[OF TOWER ~ATERIAL PRICE OF CONCRET( PRICE OF GROUND WTRE PISThLLF.D COST OF GROlJNDING SYSTEM 0.957 $/LB 0.00 $/CU.YD. 0.000 $/LB 0,00 ~ITOWER 1979 1977 1977 1977 OJ W 0'1 Tn><F R SF TtIP TO"E fi ASS F M P,L Y rOU'JD/lTTON SETUP FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY F 0:J~JI)h TI ()~j F XCAVAT ION PRICl lIF MISCFLLANEOUS HARDWARE 17')1.$ O,ass .'li/Ltl O.~ I.II/~O,OO $/TON 0.00 'li/CU.YD. 290.00 $/TOwEP 1 0 79 1979 1979 1979 1919 1977 urnr LAhOR COSTS REfERENCE YF.AR LAHOR COST SH/TNG GRnlINO~JRE STi<TrJG Lo\l4 OR ~'ARI'.lJP 21.1.00 $/MANHOUR 0.0 $/"1ILE 1.1.2 PER I)N!l 1979 1977 UNIT TRANSPORTATION COSTS TOwE R FOlJNI)ATTON CONCRETE f()LJ'JIJAT!ON STEEL CO~WuC TOR G'~ll"r~n wIRf: JNSIILATn~: tiAi-\IJ"llkE 225.0 $/TON 225.0 $/YD 225.0 $/TON 225.0 ;j,/TON 2;>5.0 $/TON 225.0 $/TON OR $/M**3 225.0 tilTON --,_._-~-".-._--~_.-.__.------_.----_.-. ],)J J ,.,"-~j J J .J ,~__ccel ")"---1 --I .--]---I .-._-,-~-1 ---'I "1 -1 -~l A~CHCRAGE·OEVIL CANYON CASE IT-I 5wS KV lRA~SMlSSION LINt COST hNALYSrS ANO C0NDUCTOR OPTr~rZArrON DATE:IS AUG 79 TIME:15:56:la ******.*.************************.**** ••• * AUTOMhTIC CONDUCTOR SELECTION ALL QUANTITIES PER MIL: • 11 * * *********************************.**** CAPlTAL cosr/[)rSCOlJi~T RATE.OF 7.00 Pf:.RCI'.NT PRESENT WORTH ($) ---------.----------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------- CONDUCTOP INSTALLED COST LINE.LOSSES O&M COST LINE COST ---------------------------------------------------------------.-----------_..--_..._------------------- \/0.KC'I SPIN(F\),LHERIALS TRANSP.P'STALL.E~'GINEfR.IDC SlJlHOT AL SURTDTAL SUfHf1TAL TOTAL ------------------_._---------------...---------------------------..--- OJ 39 954.I 5 ()0•I1 I HOb.roHJ7.IOo~\)3.2",10Ij.o•253320.103751.31j 2.3 •3(0 1)911 • W 39 954.1200.113228.6733.109119.25199.O.25u279 •1037')1.3a36.361466. '-J UO 10 .3 ~.I "I)()•1177R2.6835.I t I I il 9.25934.O.2616'17.96912.353/).362145. 39 ot,t!.14(10.117620.f,71:>3 •IOS670.25306.O.25S558.10.3751.,as I.362560. ao lOB.I .3 ()()•120 1120.1,1'062.109426.;>6038.O.;>6;>74/.96912.3551 •363209. 57 '1vo.13PII.112At2.h':J77.100B5.24830.O.2':>OSS3.109h95.3386.363634. 37 900.12 ()o.11 HilS.f,bOb.108671.2 1)'<33.O.;>5159W.1091,95.3WOO.364689. 40 10,L I 100.II oR9 G •f,<103.lILJ3110.2019b.O.204337.96<112.3572.364821. 37 'H)0•I 40 (j •115117°.6029.lo')ltn.25024.O.252')16.10969<'.3412.365623. 59 9')4.I I ()(I •113H3.hBS.:;'.11<'1158."CSf,H.O.2S8700.1037')1.3496 •36')947. 38 9')4.1<'00.tl11 Q 94.h6')5.110421.2S';28.o.;>S7S9H.IOSI3R.3 1j 1\I • 366218. 311 954.1300.I I I';I ()•I>1,7 ['..IOd644.25h II.O•2'J8aae!.IOSI3f\.3492.367073. .sq 9~~.!SO \I •12]1\1'0.hl'-q2.10':i'iR5.20.,779.O.£l1>0134.1037')1.,515.367400. 40 lOS 3-ILiOu.!?llhR 3.6 GR2.IOK9t-\2.2647 L o.207111.96912.3610.367639. 31'Osq.11 (1 \l •l1LJ23i.ro152.113/"106.2';il09.O.260438.IO,)I.~8.3519.36q096. 37 000.I In 0 •IIISkO.h72d.112411.£l'-,579.O.2",60 9 1l.10 0 1>95.)i16 I • 3692':13. 35 795.I 3 II I)•IOK?')3.('11 PO.10ljibh.?Ij 0 19.O.242978.123194.321\3.369455. 35 79'1.1400.111)059.1,':)/:\1)•102%2.24 OljR.O.24~O69.123194.32A':I.369saA. 37 quo.I')OU.119B9S.h755.1050130.2S l j90.O.2":>7no.109695.3470.370391. 3P 9SLl.IW()O.1?161)5.b7 9 u.1 ()lllll?•2002 -~.O.262001.105 I 3P.3sa9.3712bR. 35 7<.lS.IS()I).I I .)oc 1•t,S'H<•10172?2/1343.O.24<;040.123194.3319.372154.. 3')7'!').IcoO.In??"').b'lSS.107oD3.2 1l3qQ.O.i'LJ<j70S.1231 GIJ.3320.372::>20. 32 7'J ').1300.I ,\'1?')S •65°5.10')2iO.2ll2'1 l j.O.2ilSIS3.I?,Wh75.3313.313\41. 36 9110.12 ()II •113 119i1.h'l/Jb.110037.2')30 9 •O.25531\0.IIWSq'1.34')1.3733M'}. 34 79').130 I).I O<Jl,111.b 'H4.IOSS2Q.21lB7.().<'4S,)78.I £la/HiS.3319.373781. ~~C~UOAGE-OfVIL CANYON CASE 11-1 345 Kv rRANS~ISSJON LINE COST ANALYSIS A~O CONDUCTO~OPTIMIZATION DATE:15 AUG 71 TI~E:15:56:1~ ***_*********t*t******••*.**** ** *COST OUTPUT Pt~MILE * *PRESf..,>r VAUIE RATE * *7.00 PE"CENI * I>**••**.**••*t~**.*********,*.*** CONDUCTOR NUMREP =Y? 954.KCMIL 1300.FT SPAN 9~.7 FT TOWER OJ ~ !NSTALU:I)COST t5Pr.Ai\nl)W"J CONoucro>< G~OUi';O;.TRE 1 N S II L A III ~S HA f!f)y,HiE T(1·;thS F OlI~'~"A I I ij'JS RIGI-I liF b><AY (113FI) :'UH-IOiAL~ IDC ENt;I NFE:.~I ~IG PPESE'II b><ORTH IDC ENGINfERING I1UANTITY 31obO.FT O.FT 310.UNITS 4.3 UNITS ~.3 UNITS 1 II •ACRES MATERIAL C051($) /)34/~9 • o. 443/). 321<J. 1542b"i. 10790. 2'?IRI. 25133~o. 11~706. TRANSPORTATION INSTALLATIO"l TOTAL TONNAGE COSl($)COSf($)COST($)----_...--------------.------------------ 19./J7 ~380.5826~.12609/~. 0.00 o.o.o. 1 .70 82~.5260. 0.47 107.3326. 3'i.79 B052.90323.252640. 1744.72256.84790. 19697.411177. -----------..._....._---------.. 57.43 15107.2~0540.513987. o. 56539.------- TOTAL 570526. 6707.------.--'-----,-106803.228216. o. 25104. ----,--- TOTAL 253320. PRESENT WORTH ($) LOSS ANALYSIS RESISTANCE LO~SES COKO\A I USSfS:INSIILATOR$ CONnUCTOf.? lOT ALS DF.~'ANn LOSSES 5~177. 690. <;31\7 2. ENERGY LOSSES 4t1061\. 14 tHl. 31 ~. ~9R79. TOTAL LOSSES 101<'45. 21q~. 31 3. 1057<;1. J ....1 .....1 J J ...J J .__J J I ,,,1 ..J J .1 J -1 -~J ~~~l ~1 ~--)']- 1 J INTER~ATI~\AL E~GINEERING co.INC SAN F~A~CISCU CALIFORNIA TRANS~ISSIO~LINE COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM VE<;>SION 2:02 AUG 1979, DfVIL CANYON-ESTER CASE II-?A 230 ~V TRANSMISSIUN LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:16 AUG 74 TI~E:1~:14:31 ****••***••*****•.•••INPIJT DATA •• t:l:l w '" SYSTEM ECONUMICFACTORS ••*.*••••••••••••~.* INPUT VALUE REFERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT RASE YEAR FOR pw ANALYSIS ENfJ J NL~Y[AR OF STUDY RASE YEAR FUR ESCALATION MAxr'1IJ~'CIRCUIT L(JADING aV~RAGE CIPCUIT LUADING f)c.M h 'J [)Cn ST FA C TO 1< F~tRGY cnST FArl0R vaR COST FACTiJP CAPITaL COST/UlSCOUNT RATES: 01>'1 COST FACTOR RIGHT OF ~AY cnST FACTOR R rr::H T r)F ..AY Cl EAR I NG COS T r:n ...DES T /)IJ K J IJ G CON S TRUe T ION P,GINEFRII"G FtF 1974 ]'1 0 7 1477 1<:)4.7 MVA I <:)CJ2 I 0 7• I MVA 1<:)<:)2 73.0 $/KW _.-_.._-_...-197'1 13.0 MILLS/KWH 1979 0.0 $/KVAR 19~4 7.0 PERCENT 198£1 10.0 PERCENT 1913£1 1.'5 'Yo CAP.COST ---.----.1984 715.0 $/ACRE 19H ILJ30.U :Ii/ACRE 1979 0.00 'Y.INST.CST 11.00 ~INST.CST [1 F "r L C ,\"Y,-1"-:::S H RCAS E I I - 2A 230 KV TCA~5vISSIUN LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONnUC10R OOTIMIlATION ATE:16 AUG 7"1 Tl'1E:.,13:1~:31 --"- ........***••-**. * *I"IPUT DATA * .._--------._-----.-_.- COIJOUCTOR [JATA ~---------------------------------------- *.*••**••*'4*****.* GROUNn"IRF.nATA •__••0__'__-_ SPAN DATA OJ +:0o NtJMliF:=l PFR PHA~f CO,,!!)IJC TUR SPAC T~d; V (11_T A::;F VUlTft~~VARIATIUN L J 'J (...;:;>t n IJ E IJ C Y FAr~~EATH[;:;>lOSSfS LPU:L~'Jr,TH PU"f-R F ,~[T 0" WUTHER nATA 1 11.0 IN 230 ~,v 10.(11)PCT (,0 CPS 0.00 1\";1"1 P3 0 .00 MllES 0.QS "!UMBER PEP.TO"FR DIAr-1EIF.R WEIGHT a 0.00 IN 0.0000 LBS/FT MINIMUM MAXIMUM INTERVAL looe.FT IUOO •.FT 100.0 FT ------------------~---------------------- MAXP',,1M RAlr~'ALL RATF 1 •1 I'I"-/HK MAxIMu v RAr~FAlL 1)IJRftTTO'J I H"S/yq AVf-YAGf raINFAll RuF 0.03 l'-:I"R Av!,:'!!:',RftlNFAll IJURATION b36 H,'<S/YR MAXIM-j'1 S~J()"F ALL RA TF I •R7 l';/HR MAXI'1J"SNO"FALL DURA rro"!I HRS/yR AvERftGF:5 'J 0 ,.F ALL RAIf,>o.I 3 1 ':l"ii-/. .\vE.=?"~;F 5"0I'.FALl f)IJR ft r I U"J 26'1 hRS/YR RElATIV[AI"lJtI~S [lY I.I)a 0, •I ,J J )I i I I I J I I C~l 1 -1 -j ~--l ~---l 1 DEVIL C'~YON-ESTER CAS~II-2A 230 KV lRANS~lSS10N LINE COST ANALYSIS AND Cn~DuCIOR OPTI~IZATION DAlE:16 AUG 79 TI~E:13:14:31 **'*t***~.~*.,.,** --INPIIT DATA - -.*.***••***.~.**** SAr./T~NS10N ~ESJr,N FACTORS {Xl ~..... fV(RYDAY STRESS TfMPERATURE IrE ANU WINO Tt~PERATURE HIGH WIND TEMPERATURE EX1~[Yt ICE TEMPERATURE. M4x IJf:SI(~'j U:~H)~'tJl'I GND CLEARA'lCE tns TFNSln~(PlT UTSI r,f:st CONS rAN T lOT AL NIJM8E.R Of PHASES PHASE SPACING cn~nUCTnk CONFIGURATION FACTO~ GRUiI'ln CLf ARA"ilr Wl.OF Jr,~WLAH1RS PER Tn"F.R INSIJLAlOI'I SAFFTY FACTUR S lRT :,r;l.t 'H;TH I,vtL ()~CO~lbI1IATION fnlJ~H)J\T10'J TYrE. TFtJRATN FACTOR LTNE ANGLE FACTOR Tn ...fR (;ROIJNDING lRANSVfRSF nvFtJlUAD FACTOR VERlICAL OVERLUAD FACTOR UWGPUlliNAL UJAO ..,I SCtl l At,fUIIS HAHOwAR(wE I GHT lOwF::R I'IfIGHT fAClUI'I TOwER wETGHT ESTJM41IUN ALGORITHM ---._----------~----------------- 1.10.DEGREES F O.DEGREES F lJO.DE.GREES F ~O.DEGREES F 120.f)tGRfES F 20,PEPCENT 0,31 UlS/FT TiJ~ER DESIGN 3 20.0 FEET 1 .02 28.0 FEET 41\ 2.50 6.'5 FEfl 3 lj L 06 PER UNIT .Ofl6/.l o 2.50 1.50 1000,Lt3S O.1 ITO NS /Tll wF.:R 1 .02 ICt AND ~IND TENSION (PCT UTS) HIGH WIND TENSION (PCT UTSI EXTREME.ICt TENS10N (PCT UTS) ICE THICKNESS wITH W1ND ~INn PRESSURE wITH ICf. ~I I GH WIN f) EXTREME ICE DISTANCE BET~EEN PHASES: D1 02 03 D11 D5 Db 50.PERCENT SO.PERCENT 70.PERCENT 0.50 INCHES 4.00 lHS/SO.FT. 9.0 UJS/SQ.FT. 0.50 INCHES 20.00 FT 20.00 FT /.l0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT T0~ER TYPE.9:230KV TO~ER TW =O.00016~TH-.2 -3.0~797-TH*-0.3333 -0.OR943*EFFVDL - O~273b7~F.fFTUL t O.00510-TH-tFFTDL •O,00160*TH-fFFVDL • 1fl.37 q l?KIPS ---------- -.-.-. DEvIL CANYON-ESTER CASE II-2A ~30 ~V TRANSMISSIO~LINE COST A~JALYSIS AND Cr,NDUCTnR OPTIMIZATION ___.DATE:_16 AUG 79 TIME:.__13:11I:31~_~_ -----~_.._-_.-------- I ~J PUT l)A TA ..t."".t.*.*.*** *•* * *.**t.****.~..*~*""** CONDIJC TOR SlJ'1MARY **.*.*•••*••••**• ..'--'----_.--------."-",-.---._----_._-----..--~--_._._--~-------_.--~.---_.-. TEMP.COn. STRANDING UNIT WEIGHT OUT.DIAM.TOTAL AREA MODULUS ALPHA*E-6 10 NlI'1REP NAME ...~.-.----SIZUKCM)(ALlST)(LBS/FT)(INCHES)(SIJ.IN.)__(H/E6 PSI)PER DEG F---------------------------------------------------------------'.---------- 3'5 ~:ALL A q D 7YC,.O 30/19 1.2350 1.11I00 ---0.766(1 ------11.30 9.7 0::1 ~b I-ILlfllJY 000.0 £l51 7 1.0150 1.1510 0.7069 9.110 I I .5 37 CANARY 900.0 5V 7 1.I C,90 1.16?0 0.7985 10.85 10.9 ~ 3':\QAT I °54.0 lIS1 7 I .0750 1.10')0 O.ROII 9.1I0 11.5 N 3'1 CAC?[)HJAL qC,Ll.("l sal 7 1.2?90 1.1%0 O.RlIhil 10.85 10.9 1I0 f)RT(IL A N 10.n.0 '1')1 7 1.1650 1.2130 0.8678 9.£lO 11.5 /n CURLEI',-__.__.0-I o:n.1"I 5111 7 1.5310 I.?1I60 .0.9169 10.8'5 10.9 1I2 RLIIE.J AY I I 13.0 451 7 1.25:'0 1.2')90 0.93110 <:i.110 I 1•S u 3 Fl>.jCH III~.O 51111 9 1.4~10 1.2930 0.98119 10.50 10.8 /J a RlJ 'I TTr,r.II Y?(l 1I51 7 1.311110 1.3020 t".00 I 0 9.1I0 I I •S 115 G'iACI<:l~-11 Q 2.a 511/19 I.S350 1.3330 1.0':>52 10.30 10.8 Ilb KI I r ~RN 127?0 £l51 7 1.1I31.10 1.'1I')0 1.06flO 9.110 11.5 1I7 Pt!~.ASANT 127?0 5/l I I 9 1.63')0 1.3820 1.12')6 10.30 10.8 4f:l IJH-'f'F.R I :5 5 I •0 £l51 7 1.5220 1.31:\50 I.USO 9.£l0 I I .5 1I9 "APTrN 1351.0 ';4/19 I.B70 1.IJ2UO 1.19';9 10.30 10.8 50 RI1f-1uLINK 1431.0 u51 7 1.1>130 1./J270 1.2020 9./J0 I I .5 ')I PLr)vrcR 1 1I")I.a 'jIJl I q 1.8/JOO 1.11650 1.2663 10.30 10.8 ,c,~NUTHATCH iSla.o lIS1 7 1.7(l~0 l.u6bO 1.261'10 9.1.10 I I .5 ')3 PAPL<OT 1510.()5 1J I 19 1.9420 1.S060 1.3366 10.30 10.8 5/1 I_AP~.ING 1')<lO.()aSI 7 1.7920 I.S020 1.3350 9.£lO 11 •S 55 F N..CPN 1590.0 511/19 2.0iJ/J0 I.S/ISO 1./J076 10.30 10.8 J ,.___,~J J j )J ..]J .J .,.J fJ -1 ---J -)-1 '--~~l '1 1 -'I -") DEvIL caNYON-ESTER caSE II-2A 2JO KY TPANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:16 AUG 70 TIME:13:14:31 *.*,.*••*~***._*.* DEVIL CA~YON-ESTER CASE 1I-2A 230 KV TQA~S~IS3ION LINE COST A~ALYSIS A~D CO,DUCIQR OPTI~IZATION ._...DATE:16 A!J{;7q TI ~E:I 3 :Il.l :31 •••**•••**••***_•• * * INPUT DATA * * UNIT MATERIALS COSTS ****•••*****.**,** INPUT VAlliE ----------_...---REFERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT to +:0 +:0 PRICE OF TUW[R MATERIAL PPIa OF Ct'NCREH. PRICt o~G~OUND ~IRE I'lSTALLED enST OF GROUNDING SYSTEM Tn ..F I~SE TUP Tn ...F R ASS F ~1 RLY Fll'"lf)'''TI u~':SF TUP FI)I)N[)h T 1 ON "'SSE"'113L Y FOUr.IDA TION E;(CAVAT ION "PIC!:OF MISCFLlANEOUS HARDWARE UNIT LAfH')R COSTS RE~EPENCE YFAR LA~OR COST STRI~G G~nUNO ..IRE S TI\J r~r,L ARlIQ MARKlJP UNIT TRANSPORTAl ION COSTS --~----._---------------- 0.9S7 'Ii/LA 0.00 $/(1).'1'0. 0 0 000 $/Li-J 0 0 00 $/TowER 1'151.$ O.iJ55 $/Ltl O.~ /JllIOoOO '!iITON 0.00 $/CUoYD. 290.00 :llITOlo/ER 2iJ.OO $/MANHOUR 0.0 $/MII.E 4 0 "PER UN IT 1919 1977 1917 1977 19H tq'fq t q7</ I q7</ 1919 I q 77 tq79 I q71 1';- •T1')\0.EfI F[lIJ"Dh T ION CONCR!:n: F 0 IJ fl DATI 0 N S1 EEL cm,I!JUC TOR GRllIIN[)WIRE I fJSULA TOR HARIJWARE 225.0 $/TnN n').o $/YD 225.0 $1l0N 225.0 $ITON 225.0 $ITON 225.0 S/TON OR $/M**3 225.0 $/T(1"J J .....•.)J )..01 ••.1 ........J .1 J .1 ..J J ~--1 ~-l ~-1 -~'J 0'""'-1 --"1 __'_<-"1 -~·1 1 ..)~1 1 D~YTL CA~YO~-ESTEP CASE Ir-~A 23Q ~v TQA~S~lSSrON LIN~COST ANALYSIS A~O CO'IOUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:16 AUG 70 rrM~:13:1~:51 ••••*••*.~*.*•••••••*.*••••••***.**••* * * * AurOMATIC CONnUCTOR SELECTION ALL ~UANT1.TIFS PER MILF * * * *•••••••••••••••••**•••.•••••••••**-**•• CAPITAL COST/DISCOUNT RATE OF 7.00 PERCENT PRESENT WORTH ($) -~--~-------~---------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIL C6NYO~-~STER CASE II-2A ?}O KV TQANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSTS AND CONQUeTOR OPTIMIZATION DhTE:16 AUG 79 TIMt:13:14:31 ****~***.*****~••••••*••••••*. ~ ~ ~ ~ CO~T OUTPUT PER "1ILE. PRESE"JT VALUE.RATE 7,00 PERCENT ~ ~ ~ ~ •••••••••••*••••••A •••••***••• 1<jIO.KCMIL CON f)UCT0 ,~N[I MR E R = 13UO.FT SPAN 53 84.9 FT .TOWfR ... c:c ~ O'l INST ....LLfD COST B REA K f)0 W1-1 CO',[1UC TnR GROI,r-,n"ITRr 1 'I S UL A H'RS HAK[J.,Akt Tn~,rR~ ~OUNlH r IONS RIGHT UF WAY (101FT) SUtl-TOrALS IDC ENGINEERING QUANTI TY 1:;1\40.FT n•Fl 207.lir-J!TS 4.311NITS 4.3 UNITS 1 2 •ACRE.S MATERIAL C05T($) /J9'-171. O. <'957. 3219. 91 U0 tl. 7493. 1989'). 174')44. TRANSPORTATION INSTALLATION TOTAL TONNAGE COS1($)COST($)[OS1($) ------------------------------------_.... 1<j.38 3/J61.1J5797.Q9229. 0.00 O.O.O. 1•I 4 51J9.3507. O.IH 107.3326. 21 •1 1 4750.b021J7.156006. 121 1•50178.51\1182. 17667.37')62.-_..._--------------------- 31\.10 10078.1751\89.358511. O. 39/J36. ------- TOTAL 39HIJ7. PRESE.NT "ORTH_ J DC ':;- E"JGINE"ERING ..77500.1J/J75. .~~---------~-----.-_.._-.-----------.-._-- --_.._------------------- 7720Q.159183. O. 17510. TOTAL 1761,'=13. PRESENT WORTH ($)...__.--------------_._----~-----------------.-------------------- LI1SS ANALYSIS RESISTANCE LUSSES CORONA LOSSES:INSULATORS cop.muc T01-1 1 n TAL S DErHND LOSSES 13781. O. 13781. ENEf~GY LOSS!:S 1245'=1. 0. 1 • 1~460. TOTAL LOSSES 262/JO. O. 1. 262/Jl. J J ,I J l "J J J J J -1 --]._.')----'1 ---~l ·"-1 ~'1 ·--1 ~·1 .1 <~'-l 1 INTE~NATID~AL ENGINEtRING co.INC SAN FRANCISCO CALrFO~NIA TPANSMTS~InN LIN~COST ANALYSIS PROGRAM vEqSION ?:O?AUG 197~, walANA-DtV!1 CANYON CASE II-3A 230 ~V !RANS~ISSION LINt COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:I~AUG 79 TIME:16:29:16 **~.**.**••**.-**** ~ INPUT DATA** * *****.************OJ +::. -....J SystEM ECONOMIC FACTORS INPUT VALUE REFERENCE YEAR FOR INPUT !-lASt.yF A.R FOR fe'"ANAl.YS IS F cW,[,JG 'r F.A R (1 F S T tJ f)y ',,\Sf::yFtl'<.Fur,fSCAI.ATION MA~IMUM CIRCUIT LOAUING aVFFiaGE Cli,ClJIT LOAOING nFMA~n COST FArTOW F\~~GY cnST FftCTnk V'\>!CII$1 f AlTIIO CAPPAL CiJST/iJTSCUUNT RATF.S: 1979 19 Q ] 1977 514.0 MVA 2R2.7 MVA n.o 3i/KW 13.0 MILLS/KWH 0.0 j;/KVAR 7.0 PERCENT 10.0 PEF;CENT 1992 19n 1979 1979 19f\l! 1984 19M r:(\,~'COST FACIUR RIG,j]OF ....Ay cnST FACTOR RiGHT OF ~AY CLFAkJN~COST Ti,Tt.'-ILST f)llf<Tr,r.COI\iSTHUCT rON FNGI '!d:R tr,r;Ff F 1.':>%CAP,COST 71,:>.0 $IACRF I 430.O';j,I ACRE 0.00 I.INST.CST 11,00 "INSr.CST I 91'1 lj 1979 1979 ~~!~~A-DtvIL CA~YON CASE II-3A 230 ~v rR~~S~ISSION LI~E COST ANALYSIS AND C0~DUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DhTE:1~AUG 79 TIY~:16:29:16 **••AA ••••••••***. ~ INPUT DATA ~ ••**A.*•••••~••••• ((1 o,IlUCW"OA TA -----------------------------------------GROUNOI'<IRF::DATA SPAN OA TA OJ ~ 00 "lIJ '1:1 t R PPI PHASl CO'jl)iICTOR SPACIIJG Vl.IL 1 tt::;~ V()LiA,~::-VARIt.q[)1J L r '\J E ~:.<t..{~U f \)Cy FAI~~~AIHtR LUSSES Ll',E ~Ft;r;TH PU1iER FACTlW I-EATHi:-RPATA 1 a•0 1 N 230 "v 10.00 "(T b I)C?S a•0 0 ~,./','I 27.0;)~~lLES 0.0 e, NiJMHFR PFR TOWER r)IAME:TER WEI GH T o 0.00 IN 0.0000 LAS/FT MINIMUM MAXIM!)M INTERVAL 1200.FT 1600.FT 100.0 FT ----------------------------------------- MAX[~JM R,r~FALL RATE '1 AX1 ....j"fH T'\FilL L IJ!1.<ATTON Avr~A~f RAI~FALL RATE AvE><'c,F PAp.FALL DI/fiAITur~ MAXI"JM SNO ..i:-ALL RAfE MAXI"J'l $l\in",FAlL fjIIR/lTTON A v E ,n :;I'5 :J (1 "F II I L RAT f AV ERA:;r:S -.J n '"F A '-L IJ IJ i,ATI UI, RELATIVE ATR IJEI,SITY I.!R I"'/f;;< 1 f".)S/".~ o•0 ~I'.I"R tJ,h h;;>S/Y~ 1.87 PU,ii'/ 1 HRS/Y", O.13 I"I ...,~ ;>""Hr<S/Y~ 1 .0"0 J .1 J j .J J l •.1 ,J J J ••J J ~-~l _.--1 c----l J ~---]<>----1 1 1 ] ~aTANA-SEV1L CA~iON CASE II-3A ?30 KV luA~S~ISSIO~L I~E COST A~ALVSIS A~U Cn~DUCTOR OPTIMIZATION DATE:1<;AUG 79 TP'E:16:29:16 ••*.**••**••***~** * p,priT ()A T A * **••It**.*'t****~**•• ~,\r;nr_NSTlJN OESrr;N FACTORS co .po 1.0 [V~RYnAY SrRESS TF~PERATURE I [t.,HJLl "P.0 T t.'11-F k A r LJ K E H I Gf<"T r.J D r E ~\P f RAT URf t.XTKF~t.ICf TFMPERATURE "AX UfSTl,'J TP"I'~o,",(,riO CLEARANCE. f n S iF;,S !n \i (P CT {iT S ) i'l t ~'1 C r:(J ~J S TAr-J T TOT AL NIJMRER OF PHASES PHASE SPt,C I Nt; C[)i'v I)IJ C TOR CO 1'1 FIG UP ATI O!.J FA C TOR GROllrJl)r.LfARA~JCF :,0.UF TUSUl.A Tf.1r.>S PFR TOWFR I ~!Sill 0 TiHI SA F F rv F ACT 0 f./ STr-?I\;r;Lt~\L~TH I,v f F,"J !<[('I M tl I NAT TON F()'.I'!i)A r I U'J r YPt I F I,u A r ,'J F AL T I)R LINE ANGLE FACToR TO"F 1<GRI)I IIJI)I Nt, !u 0 ',J S Vi'C!:,F ill!F"L U AD F ACT 0 R v f:'i r I r A L n VF ~'l II A[)rAe TDP Lnr,GIT,jf)l'IAL LIJ~.i) ~I.T SCtLL MJF!!II:,r-iA,,m,,,AI<t."E TGHT TO',EH "f[C;HT FACTOR TOWER ~tIGHr ~~Tr~ATION ALGURITHM 4(J.DEr.'-IEeS F O.DEr."EES F 40.DeGREES F 3 i).()fGRFES F 120.OEGRfeS F 20.PEYCENT 0.31 LBS/FT lOwER DESIGN :3 20.0 FEET 1 .O? 2R.0 FEFT 41\ 2.50 1,.5 FEET 3 iJ 1.06 PER UNIT .081,11 o 2.')0 1 ."0 1000.(fiS 0.11 TONSITO~ER I .O? ICE AND WIND TENSION (peT UTS) HIGH wIND TENSION (PCT UTS) EXTREME ICE TENSION (PCT UTS) IrE THICKNESS wTTH WIND wINO PRESSUPE wITH rCE HTGH WINlJ unREME ICE OTSTANeE BETwEEN PHASES: DI 02 03 OiJ ~C; 06 SO.PERCENT 50.PERCENT 70.PERCENT 0.50 !tJCHES /J.OO LAS/SO.fT. 9.0 LBS/SO.FT. 0.50INOiES 20.00 FT 20.00 FT /JO,OO FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT 0.00 FT T[)\.FI<TYPF q:'230KV Trll'lER Tw =o.nOOlh*TH**2 -3.09797*TH**0.:B33 -O.OA9113*E,FFVOL - li.<,75hl'lHTI:L +O.OOSIO*Ttl*tFFTDL t O.OOIt>O.tTH*E:FfVOL + lR.'Q91?KIPS rlATANA-DEVIL CANYON CASE II-3A 230 KV lRANSMISSION LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOH OPTIMIZATION DATE:15 AUG 79 TIME:16:29:16 *************.**** ** * * INPUT DATA * * 1.l1600.0 o•0 I~A~0.b64/1077 1300.----0.0649 0.3670 2.312b 'i 3<'\)I)•0 0.0501:\0.630/1977 1320.0.0602 0.3622 2.2862 43ROO.0 0.Oil 0 7 0.06011977 1340.0.0623 0.3638 2.2915 'i6000.0 0.0521 0.6~0I1Q77 1360.0.0612 0.3580 2.2704 'i~hOO.O 0.O~·5L1 0.b7~11977 1440.0.0560 0.3S48 2.2387 I:d/JOO.O O.O~AH _0.67S/1977 1610.0.OLl?5 0.34l.l3 2.1b48 50'?(jO.0 0.0S70 0.69911977 1.600.O.OLlBO 0.31~80 2.1806 10 "i1)'1RER r-JAMF----..-.--- to <:;2 !-:UTHATCI1 53 PAo~qT 54 LAP"r~,G U1 55 F /l L Cn~,0 So CtllJ"Ak ";7 RLII!:RIRD 'iB I{1 ;'I ULT.TENS.GEOM.MEAN STR!:r-JGTI1ILRS)RADIUSlFT) ****••**.********* CONDUCTOR SUMMARY ***********_.**** TI1ERM.LIMJT PRICEl$/LB)(AMPEPES) AC RESIST. AT 25 DEG C IND.REACT. (OHMS/MILE) (OHMS/MILE) CAP.REACT. (MOHM-MILES) ]-.1 J .-.J J .J ,)J J J J I ~I ~-l ~ATA~A.nEVIL Cr.NYON CASE II·~A 2jO KV TQA~SMISSTON LINE COST ANALYSIS AN~cnNDUCTQR OPTIMIZATION DATE:15 AU~79 TIME:16:~9:16 t*If ••*••••*••••••• ••• I"JfJUT DATA • • •.,*•••*•••~~*•••*~* CO~WIJCTOP SUMMARY ****ltl-1t.".*••••*. OJ U1 I-' Ii)'J1j "ilE.R '>2 53 5q 'J') "ih"1<,c\ Nr.:,'E NUTHAICH PAPiWT LAPwJ/.Jr. ~AI enr,. r:IPII\"~ Kl Iltfj I ,,0 ~II'J s r zt (KCM) l'i I 0.0 1510.0 1':;90.0 1<;90.0 17.'\0.0 ~1"1>.0 2\1>'1.0 TEMP.COEF. STRANOltJG UNIT wEIGHT OUT.DIAM.TOTAL AREA MODULUS ALPHAflE-6 (4L /S Tl (LAS/FT)(INCHES)(SQ.IN.)(fF/E6 PSI)PER otG F-------""'------.-""'-.-----_w __""'___--...------..-------_.-- 1(')1 7 I.lO~O 1.1J0bO 1.?6RO 9.1l0 11 .5 ')1lI19 1.91J20 1.5060 1.331)-0 10.30 10.8 1151 7 1.1920 1.5020 1.3350 9.1l0 I 1•'j 54/19 2.0lj1lO I.')4">0 1.4076 10.30 10.8 84/19 2.071..l0 I •h 0 <'0 1.51<:>0 9.05 I 1.3 84/19 2.5120 1•.7620 1.1'12110 9.05 I I .3 "121 7 2.501.10 1.75'10 1.7760 9.25 12.0 ~~TAN~-~EVIL CA~YON CASE Ir-3A 230 Kv TPANS~rSSrON LINE COST ANALYSIS AND CONDUCTOR OPTIMIZATION CATf:15 AUG 79 TIMl:16:29:16 ****************** *INPUT DATA * * *****~****.**~**** * * Wd T MAT F:R I AI S C[l S TS INPUT VALUF REFERENCE.YEAR FOR INPUT PfllCf nF TO~tg MATERIAL ~qlCt OF CONCRlTE fiR I CE:lJF Gf<nuNl)...I fiE I~ISTALLEll cr.,:;T OF GPOUNDING SYSTEM 0.957 "/U~ 0.00 'f./CU.YD. 0.000 $/Lf3 0.00 $/TOWER 1979 1917 1977 1977 OJ U1 N Tr""EI-'SETlle' Tn"F-:R ASSf.t1RI Y Fflljl,J[lAT TON Sf TUP FflUNUATIUN ASSE.MRLY FnlJ·'I)A'TiJ~j FXCAVATION PRICl OF MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE 1751.$ 0.£155 $/LH O.,~ /JIIIO.OO $/TOIll 0.00 $/CU.YD. 290.00 $/TOWER 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1977 UNIT LAbOR COSTS HEH RF Nc't:YE.A R LABOR COS T STRP,G GrilllJND >'lIRE STh'TN(;LARl1R MARKIJP ~._...._-_.-_."..--------- 2£1.00 $/MANHOUR 1979 0.0 $/MILE 1977 /J.2 PER UNIT UNIT TRANSPORTATIUN COSTS --------_.-.-.----......--.- r n.',Ffi F n ,-PH!ATI fl N (O~.CR E.T t FOlJN[lATTON STFEL [rlNPUC TOk GRUllfH)wIRE. [NSIIlATOf, f1 AR [''"A f.i E 225.0 2?5.0 2?5.0 22S.0 2C'J.O 2?'J.0 225.0 lilTON lilY!) $ITON $/TON $ITON $/TON $/TON "-~-'_.--------._------------ OR S/M**3 ,J ....J ,),~J J ~c_J J ,J ,....·.l .J J ,.1 .1 J J 1 -.-~-1 "~]l 1 1 ) ~,rANA-nEVIL CANYO~CASt 11-3A ?30 ~W T~A~SMISSION LI~E COST ANALYSIS A~J CONDUCTG~OPTI~IZ'TION JATf:I~AUG 79 TI~E:16:29:16 ***.****.****.~**.**.**t*****.***.**-** *'*'AUTOMATTC CONDUCTnR SfLFCTION ALL ~U'NTITltS PF~MILE *' *'*'**.******••*•••***********••***••••••• CAPITAL cnST/DISCUUNT pATf OF 7.00 PERC~NT --,--~-----..--,------------~-----_._-------- PRESENT WORTH ($) -------------------------------_..._------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONDUCTOR I ~.S TAL LE[)COS T LINE.LOSSES 0&1-1 COST LtNE COST ----------~------~-----~--~-~---~----------------------------_.------------------------.----.---------- c:c ~ll •KCM SPA'J(F"T)"1ATf..RI.\LS rRA"lSP.HJSTl\I.L.E"JGI"lE,FR.IDe Sl./t3TOTAI.SlJATnTAL SUClTOTAL TOTAL ------------------.-----------------_.....----------------_.---..-------- CJi 57 2156.1.30 (1.AOCji)9.<;100..'IOll19.19;>/)0.O.19113 1J9 •III 0 ')II 0 •2/)?6.337515.w ~7 21S6.11I00.92123.C;1<;~.Jq92R.19/19.3 •o.196698.]1l0540.2658.339896. 57 2156.12 (1 0.90137.5212 •P.27~9 •19,92.O.19770()•1400;40.21:>72.340911. t;13 21 t·7.I 5 n (j.92'115.'>120.IJ2?HI'\•1971j0.O.199603.1112049.2697.344350. ';7 <"'~S i-:.1 SO O.9-:'7t,9.'i26;•1\01KI'\.19 9 311.O.2011')5.140540.2718.344413. SR 21 b 7•1200.t:J2?54.51 9 9."'4?21.l.1991P.O.201640.1 112049.2725.346414. 5'"1 21b 7.!q 0 t J •9':>°f\9.'in 1.1\;>3.;5.201'-/0.O.203/34.142049.2753.348537. '57 ?ISh.ltlOU.I flO 1 b'J.Cj lJ 17 •"'lUI.20')1I1.o."I)72 7/1.1·1I 0':1 II 0 •21301.3'50615. ':J6 171\0•1.5 0 (),1-\2 7/)IJ.461 11.78631 •1826A.o.1811.;.36.16/)266.2491.353093. ')6 171;(\.1400.H'-IQ~1.1I70'!.779bb.11l439.o.181>06/).1662b6.2514.3541\46. 58 2167.IS0\l.1 o.()h 7?'53/\1•/\911.20i\l9.O.?1001lL 1420lj9.2839.354971. c;.h 171<O.120U.A ;Il~1•ij/92.Rl02 9 •18620.o.181890.166266.2539.356695. 53 1 S I ().1 -'(t~)•71'JOfl •/~475.77209,I 7",10 •o.171>693.1790')5.;>388.3")8137. S6 1 7AO.1 ~()\;.AKObM.479';.7KO/"0.1879 9 •O.18'1701.10t,266.2')64.358530. S3 I r,I <).i 4n 0.79192.1I41'\6.76292.1 7S9 7.O.I 77.56H •179055.21100.359023. 53 I S I O.I ~O{).R]7t.O.4')4~.7hOH7.IlP.b.3.O.180255.179055.2436.361"7<16" ':)3 I <:;I 0 •12 (1 O.7<lOR3.ij/)37.1'10041'1.18014.o.1817132.1790~5.2457.363294. 55 1S90.1300.790':,1'..{J':lbo.77S 111 •11728.O.17'1894.]P,2109.2417.36:S420. r:;.R 21 f,7.In[)(}.lObS,)?S<;9'/.P,4RLl7.211'>70.o.?IR667.14('04Q.29~5.363bTl • ~b I 7;J,(\•"1 t')()Ij.'120/1.IJ9?7.71'7M 1.ltJ33h.O.195\15.166<'66.21,37.364017. 55 15 J O.I i.j (1 0 •P-U7'/".IJ5KO.766lJ2.17 H21 •o.179855.182109.2430.:Sb43B. S3 l'i I ".\,,0 ().R~1 ',!-\.4 0 1l,/.7 6St?1 •182',lh.O.1811bn.1790';>5.21195.366174. 'is I S9 'I.1 ')0 [).H3 1J 00./itl fll.7bil~3.1 ~09/J.O.IA?':;RU.182109.21167.361164. 5?ISIl1.\200.uqo;•1.183.7 14 11'J.1700/J •o.171590.193430.2319.31>7338. 55 1 S'io.1,'00.RO')t,O.fll?<1.P.0 ~"3.I 1:l21 9.O.183H4/).11'\2109.2484.3684:;9. hArd~A-DEYIL CA~YON CASE Ir-3d 230 Ki rgA~sMI5SION LINE COST A~dLYSrS A~O CONDUCTOR OPTI~IZATION DATl':IS AUG 79 TIME:16:?9:16 (OST OIJTPUT >'1:4 "1ILE j.JPlSUJT VAlllf RA TE 7.00 PERCH)T •• • ••••••••••••*••••••••A ••*.t ••••• • cnN!"'UC TnR 111I~1RER = 2156.KCMTL 1300.FT SPAN ':>7 87.LJ FT TOiol!'R OJ tTl -l:» !NSTALLfL)COST BRE.AKf)UWI~ eDr.Due T(1;1 GROI11JD"TRE I ~JStIL A I (lKS HMd)...Af.:F Tfl ,;F "S F (lIP J[!A 1 I UN S HIGHI ur wAY (104FT) Sllb-rnlhLS IOC E'''JGlr'Et.PING PRESENI ~ORTH IDC E"lGTNElPING OUMHITY 158/.0.FT ().FT 2l'7.UNITS !I.'S UNITS 4.3 UNITS 13.ACRES MATERIAL C05T($) 09050. O. 2957. "5219. qH')/Jl. 7493, 20/J61. 2017?7. 89569. TONNAGE 19.90 0.00 1•III 0.47 22.1\6 ll4.")7 TRANSPORTATION [05T($) ll1116. O. ~119 • 101. 51u4. 121 1• 11487. 5100, INSTALLATION COSH!) 4I\Q/JO. O. 63832. 50178. 18110. 181119. 80419. TOTAL COSTeS) --'.-.-- 122u66. O. 3507. 3320. 107522. 58ij82. 38050....---- 39llB3. O. 113377.------- TOTAL 1131110. 11508Q. O. 19260.------- TOTAL 19t13119. PRrSENT WORTH ($) ---~-~-----~-_._---~---------------------_._----------------------LOSS A~JALYSTS DE MANn lOSSES ENERGY LOSSES TOTAL LOSSES RFSISTANCF lOSSES COHn"A Lussrs:!'JSUI ATf1-<5 I..flr,i)UC TnR 731119. O. t>6721. O. o. 1U05110. O. o. TOTALS l381 q •60721.140540. .J J J 1 ).J '"J J J APPENDIX C MULTI-AREA RELIABILITY PROGRAM (MAREL) - MULTI AREA RELIABILITY PRCGPJIM (!'IAREL) SCHENECTADY,NEW YORK 12301 APPENDIX C l3ULIEl'lli PTI/103 Page I of 3 518374-1220 SUMMARY I?RCGRAM ELEMENTS lIND MODELS 'ltle Multi-Area Reliability Program (MAREL)computes the Loss of Load Proba- bility (LOLP)reliability index for electric generating systems of several areas interconnected by a transmission network without any restrictions on the network tOp:llogy.'!he program permits the study of large IXJwer IXJOls and reliability councils as well as individual utilities imbedded in an ex- tensive interconnection.'ltle program is intended to be used in the design and analysis of generation systems and the interconnection capability re~ quirements needed to share reserves among the interconnected areas.The program may be used for as many as six or seven interconnected areas modeled directly.A greater number may be accommodated by developing equivalent systems.The output includes area and total system LOLP indices as well as data or the probable causes of failures and their locations in the network. The program structure is flexible so that load and capacity models may be as detailed as required and at the same time,the complex evaluation of the individual area reliability levels may be performed with efficiency. The structure of MAREL is shown in block form on Figure 1.Input data may be provided for each case or partially supplied by saved case files.'1:'ne program structure is set up to analyze one year at a time under the control of the user.This facilitateS the development of system expansions inter- actively or with a series of runs on a batch basis without the risk of the p:lssibility of using excessive computer time. INPtIr Ci'iPAi:!TY: IDI\D TIE MAINTENl\NCE PRXiAAM CONTI'DL CAPACITY:- PROBABILITY TABLES MULTI AREA RELIABILITY EVAWATIW I~I (~~j-V LOAD MODELS OUI'PtIr SAVE FILES WJlU<ING FIlES FIGURE 1 STRUCTIJRE OF MULTI AREA.RELIABILITY PR(X;RAl1 C - 1 1 £'TI/lO) • • • Page 2 of 3 Loads are modeled by area with distributions of peak loads for each 'season'of the year.A season may be of whatever length is appropriate for the study,weeks, months,or longer intervals. Capacity Models are developed for each area for each season of the year and are available capacity-probabil- ity density tables. Maintenance Outages are simulated either by adding the capacity on outage to the appropriate area and season load model or by modification of the proper capa- city-probability table.Maintenance may be prescheduled and input or done automatically within MAREL by an algorithm designed to level available area generation reserves over the year. •Transmission Interconnections are modeled by the use of a linear flow network which models the limitations on individual tie line transfer capabilities considering their forced outage rates (if desired)without restric- tions on the network configuration or topology. PF.C.GAAM APPLICATIONS • • • • • Program Controls are set by the user to establish the fineness with which the loads and capcities are rep- resented and to set tolerance levels on the LOLP com- putations to save unnecessary computer effort and cost. Program Output may include area load and capacity models as well as maintenance schedules,three sets of both seasonal and annual area and sjstem LOLP indi~es,the prObabilities of various failure modes.'lliat is,the program automatically calculates area LOLP values as though the area were isolated and then two separate LOLP values with the actual interconnection.'lliese two LOLP indices represent the extremes of possible operating policies concerning the sharing of generation reserves, (I)sharing only available reserves,and (2)sharing load losses up to the transfer limitations imposed by the network.Pailuremode probabilities show the prob- abilities and locations-of failures caused by generation shortages or transmission limitations as well as com- binations and indicate the probabilities that each individual tie may be limiting.These data are useful in developing reliable system designs. System Size is not restricted except by limits on accep- table computational effort and cost.Past PTI system studies have included two interconnected reliability councils represented by nine or ten areas and incor- porating approximately 500 units for a total of 100,000 row of generation. Generation reliability level analysis which includes the effects of the interconnected system for the expansion planning of individual utilities and power pools. Planning of interconnections to achieve regional inte- gration and more widespread sharing of generation reserves. --, 1 •Evaluation of the reliability benefits of strengthening ties vis-a-vis additions to generation reserves. C - 2 PrI/103 • • • Page 3 of 3 Assistance in locating weak portions of a system in order to locate new bulk power facilities for maximum reliability improvement. Analysis of the reliability benefits of new joint- ly-owned plants located remotely or within one system's territory. Evaluation of the ability of individual utilities to re- liably survive the postponement of new plant additions in their own and interconnected systems. AV]HLABILITY AND SUPPORT MABEL is available for use at PTI for studies by individual utilities or groups of systems.It may also be leased for installation on a client's computer.The lease entitles the user to: •Complete set of source code for all modules including all MABEL activities and subroutines. ..- FOR FURTHER WFDRMATION 1/78 •Engineering and program reference manuals. •Installation on a suitable PRIME 400 computer at the client's site and a training seminar. Installation on other computers is feasible but will only be done on the basis of charging for the time and expense required • Since PTI is a consulting engineering organization and uses MAREL in studies for clients,the program is continually being enhanced and updated. While updates are not included in the MAREL lease price,PTI will offer all significant MABEL improvements to lessees at add-on prices. PTI can assist MABEL users in the development of system equivalents where their use is attractive to the user. Contact:C.K.Pang,Senior Engineer or A.J.WOOd,Principal Engineer Power Technologies,Inc. P.O.Box 1058 Schenectady,N.Y.12301 Tel.(518)374-1220 Telex 145498 POWER TECH SCH c -3 MULTI-AREA RELIABILITY PROGRAM (MAREL) SAMPLE OUTPUT SHEETS FOR TWO-AREA RELIABILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 Note:The following other outpu~sheets (35 cases)are on file with Alaska Power Authority under a separate cover: •Independent System Expansion Plans (years 1984 through 1996) •Interconnected System Expansion Plans (years 1984 through 1996) •Interconnected System Expansion,Three-Area Realiability Study with Susitna (years 1992 through 1996) •Interconnected System Expansion Plans,with Firm Power Transfer (years 1984 through 1987 and 1992 through 1996) C - 4 .-. I ********i>,*****~f *"""J(;'f tf *i-t ~f **t(-.x- **t~1(. t,**¥r*.',r t.*t,*n ~ "****************t,* ******;+.~ t~*****t,* **************7,*****~t *t,* **+,*,~***~r -'"~.t.i+~~ ~;~"* ****t,*******~,.;>< ********~,***t.*7,* ****~~***~:.-'X-';',***,.*t,.)<t,.)C*'X-f~~~ 7'*7:~~~ 7~·~r '!'\~~~t',.~~*~~-i~7,.y, 7~·~r ****?;.****H**?;-?f*~>1**y,'l, :-~-.-~..~~~;, ~."....'l..':., ~~~~~~§......... '.' r.********************************* co- -- C - 5 n O"'l POWER TEcmroLOGIES.INC. I-WLTI-AREA RELIADILITY PROGRAM: MULTI-AREA RELIADILITY PROGIlAlr -MABEL-- ----VERSION :NOVE~mER 15,1978 ---- ----PO'\~R TECHNOLOGIES,INC.---- ****************************01 -18 -1979 ** ********~***************** BTU D Y CASE: **************************************************************************** ******ANCrroRAGE -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE,ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ** ******2-Al1EA RELIADILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979 ** *************************************************~~***************************** ,""""",J "J ,"",j ~;"",j .J ))J J .,,}J ,,),,,I )J ;J .~)"~)")--))"--J ')-l --J -]}-1 POWER TECHNOLOGIES.INC. MULTI-AREA RELIADILITY PROGRAn' ***~*******************;~***********~*********************************************ANCHORAGE -FAIRn~~KS TRANSMISSION INTERTIEECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ** ******2-hRF..h RELIADILITY STUDY -YEAR 1969 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979 ** ******************:r.************************************************************* YEAR OF STUDY =1989 PROBABILITY T9RESHOLD =0.10E-07 FAILURE PROB.THRESHOLD =0.20E-08 n PROD.RATIO FOR LOAD LEV.: ....... ROUNDING IDl STEP SIZE '" 0.0100 1 MAX.NO.OF AnEAS WITH NEGATIVE M.-\.RGIU TO DE EXANINED =2 MAX.OF CAPAC lIT STEPS '"50 -----SYSTErI DATA --- NO.OF AREAS OR BUSES =2 NO.OF AREAS WITH GENERATION:2 NO.OF AREAS WITll LOADS NO.OF LINES WITll OUTAGES NO.OF FIRM LINES = : 2 1 o n co POWER TECITNOLOGIES.INC. MULTI-AREA RELIADILITY rnOGRAM' AJICnORAGE -FAIRllANKS TRANsmsSION Il'ITERTIE ECONOMIC "FEASIBILITY 2-AllEA IlELIAllILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/13/1979 ----DATA Fon LInES WITH OUTAGES ---- ---AVAILAnLE CAPACITY Pfi03AIlILlTY --- LINE NO.1.LINK NO.3 TIE FROU AREA 1 .Menon -TO-AREA 2 FAIIlBA LEVEL CAPC FOR>CAPC REV)PROBABILITY ' 1 2 (; 130 o 130 0.004000 0.996000 -TIME USED IN crus :INCREMENT"2 •ELAPSED ,J;"2 )J )",)J ]}'.J ))~J J ,) ,~,}-)}'''J )~)J l )1 l'~-) POWER TECH:VOLOGIES.INC. MU1..T 1-APJ.:A nEL I All 1LI TY rnOGRJ\M I GENEIlATOn UNIT DATA Fon ANCHORAGE-FAI1U3ANKS STUDY '1'\:0 lillEA SYSTEU JANUARY 15 1979 SumtARY OIl CAPAC I TY.PEAK LOAD AND MA I NTENANCE ;AItEA ANCHOR. SEASON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 C} mSTALLED CAP AC I TY (Mlil 1747 1741 1747 1747 1747 1747 1747 1747 1747 PEAK LOAD CMW)1200 882 789 752 729 725 826 886 1441 INSTALLED RESERVES n MW 547 865 958 995 .1018 1022 921 861 306 \D PERCENT 45.58 98.07 121.42 132.31 139.64 140.97 111.50 97.18 21.24 CAPACITY ON MAInTENANCE C)I1\'{)0 135 227 256 286 287 188 122 0 RESERVES AFTER MAINTENANCE ; MH 547 730 731 739 732 735 733 739 306 PERCENT 45.58 82.77 92.65 98.27 100.41 101.38 88.74 83.41 21.24 UNIT RETInEMENTS AND INSTALLATIONS I NO.mlIT CAPCMli>F.O.R.nET/INST SEASON DATE 1 COAL 2 200 0.057 INST 1 1/1989 POWER TECmWLOGIES,IIIC. ~1ULT 1-AR..t.:A REL I AD ILI TY PROGRAM' GEnERATOR UnIT DATA FOR ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS STUDY TWO AREA SYSTE1'l JANUARY 15 1979 SUMMARY ON CAPACITY,PEAK LOAD AND :rIAINTENANCE ;AURA FAIRBA.c SEASON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7'8 '} IRSTALLED CAPACITY ow>335 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 n PEAK LOAD (ffi{)274 177 135 119 112 130 136 166 313 I ~ 0 INSTALLED l1ESERVES l1W 111 203 250 266 273 255 249 219 72 PERCENT 40.51 117,51 185.19 223.53 243.75 196.15 183.09 131.93 23.00 CAPACITY ON lIAINTENAIlCE om)0 14 55 72 100 65 54 25 0 RESERVES AFTER MAINTENANCE : Hl"III 194 195 194 173 190 195 194 72 PERCENT 40.51 109.60 144.44 163.03 154.46 146.15 143.38 116,87 23~OO UNIT RETIRENENTS hND INSTALLATIONS : rIO.U1HT cl\Ponn F.O.R.RET/INST SEASON DATE ))j ,),C >",,1 )-',~",l J I ,;",j '",~,j ,J ,J _~.J J )1\"}J .~'~}:-.-}')-)"._.•<»'--~J J l ) POWER TECITNOLOGIFS,INC. HULTI-AREA RELIABILITY PROGRAM CENEIlATOn UlflT DATA FOR ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS STUDY THO AIlEA SYSTEM JANUARY 15 1919 SillII1l\RY ON CAPAC I TY AND PEAK LOAD BY AREA AREA ANCHOR FAIRBA----------_.- n I PEAK LOAD SEASON 9 9 t-' I-' iNSTALLED CAPACITY <MID AT AIlIlUAL PEAK 1747 385 ANNUAL PEAK LOAD (friO{)1441 .313 InSTALLED IlEstnvES (MlO 306 72 RESERVES I N PERCENT OF JlJINUAL PEAK LOAD 21.24 23.00 ARE.4.HE I GIlTED AVERAGE Uli I T FOR (PEnCEHT>5.46 1.42 AREA ANNUAL AVEILt\GE I'n I NTENAnC:~(PEilCENT)9.65 ll.ll POll'E!l TE.CrrnOLOC I ES •INC. TWLTI-AREA RELIABILITY pnOGRAM: CENEIlATOR UNIT DATA FOR ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS STUDY THO AnEA SYSTEM JANUARY 15 1979 -----SUJ11lfARY BY AREAS---- AREA NO.OF UNITS CAP.nn-/) n ,..... N 1 ANCHOR 2 FAIIIDA 36 24 1747 385 SEASONAL IlESEfiVES IN PERCENT OF PEAK LOADS AFTER MAIHTIWANCE OF UNITS FOR TIlE TOTAL SYSTEn .SEASON RE~ER\'""ES ORDER SEASON RESERVES----------------------------- 1 44.M~4 1 9 21.5G07 2 07.2521 2 1 44.6404 3 100.2164 3 2 81.2021 4 107.1132 4 6 80.60R2 1)107.6100 5 7 96.4.·657 6 lCO.IB71 6 3 100.2164- 7 96.4G57 7 4 107.1182 B aa.6832 8 5 107.6100 9 21.tl507 I)6 106.1871 J ~j )J c ..••},J 2).J J J J I )J ..J _.J ) POWER TEC~~OLOGIES.INC. i'IULTI-AnE;\RELIABILITY PROGRAM' )"J 1 )J )l CF:NEMTOR UNIT DATA Fon ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS STUDY THO i\IlEA SYSTEM JANUARY 1:1 1979 MAINTENANCE smmi\l\Y BY MW AND PERCENT OF TOTAL AREA CAPACITY I ***END OF pnOGnAM MNTCE *** TIm:USED IN crus THrE USED IN crus INCREMENT = INCREl'IENT = 2.ELAPSED = 0.ELAPSED = 4 4 t,**AREA 1 ft.1lcnOR nJ\s NO UNITS ON *** ~;f:*HAlNTEHAHCE FOR SEAspns·:1 9 fI'** ***AREA 2 FAIRnA nAS NO UNITS ON *** C -11 CJ )-"I ,~--)1 1 .,f,-,~.---]_.,--]i~'.,1 l <1 1 POllER TECnNOLOGIES.INC. 1'1ULTI-AREA RELIAIHLITY PROGRAJIf M:cnOMCE -FAII1BMII<S TRANSMISSION IftTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-A.REA IlELIAllILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -l/U/1979 ---LOSS OF LOAD PROllABILITY AT VARIOUS AREAS --- ~ ()"I AT AIlEA PROllAllILITY ISOLATED PRODABILITY WInI LLS PROBABILITY WITHOUT LLS 1 J\NCnOn 0.149268E+00 0.79B471E-01 0.676829E-01 2 FAIRllA 0.190494E+01 0.90967~E-Ol 0.394379E-Ol SYSTEU O.915377E-01 0.915377E-Ol NOTE :LLS =LOAD LOSS SHARING *****ALL PRODADILITIES ARE IN DAYS/PERIOD ***** PO~~R TECa~OLOGIES,INC. ffULTI-AItEA RZLlAIHLITY PROGRAM' ANCHOMGE -FAIRDANKS TRAl'fSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-AnEA RELIADILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979 PRODABILITY OF MINI~ML CUTS --- n CIIT PRODADlLITY CUT MEMBERS(LINXS) 2 0.570032E-03 1 3 3 0.116904E-Ol 2 3 ....... 0'\ 1 0.792771£-01 2 *****ALL ~RODf~ILITIES ARE IN DAYS/PERIOD ***** c,l hi 01 '~CL_J ,,J )J eel )eel "l ~dJ ,J •, '}--~)'D 1 ~~1~--1"-"]-)'J 1 "-~l "1 POWER TECnNOLOGIES,INC. JlWLTI-AREA RELII\BILITY PROGRAM I MICIIOMCE -FAlIUli\NKS TRANSl1lSSION IlITERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-AnEA HELIAIHLITY STUDY -YEAR 1909 :INTEnCONNECTED -1/151'1919 --MWlHAL CUTS AND DEFICIENT NODES(AREAS)--- CUT PRODADILITY NODES(ARE!\S)IN DEFiCIENT REGION n -------------------------------------------~- 1 0.79277 fE-O 1 1 AllClIon 2 FAIRBA ~ --...J 2 0.510032E-03 1 ANCIIon 3 0.116904E-Ol 2 FAIIIDA *****ALL PRODADILITIES ARE IN DAYS/PERIOD ***** POllER TEClmOLQGIES.INC. ;'ill!.TI-J\REl\.P..ELIABILITY PROGRAM AUCIIOMCE -FAlnBANRB TRANSMISSION INTERTIE ECOnOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-AREA RELIABILITY 81UDY -YEAR 1989 :INTmlCONNECTED-1/15/1979 PIlOEAI3ILITY TIIAT EACH LINE IS LIMITING --- n LUfE LINK DESCRIPTION TOTAL ARE A TO ARE A PRODADILITY FORWARD DIRECTION REVERSE DIRECTION ....... 00 1 3 t ANCHOR TO 2 FAIRDA 0.t22604E-Ol 0~116904E-01 0.570032E-03 *****ALL PROnABILITIES ARE IN DAYS/PERIOD ***** '",'J J _.1 _J .1 I J .1 .F J ,),J ---1 -'J -C~--l C__]1 ] ., ~>C""]"]1 . 1 1li::;",:..] POWER TECID10LOGIES,INC. MULTI-AREA RELIABILITY PROGRAM:: ANCnORAGE -FAIRDANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-/IIlEA RELIADILITY STUDY - .YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979 ISOLATED SITUATION -SUMMARY: AREA LOLP IN DAYS/PEnrOD BY SEASONS.' n A.Il.EA AREA sEAsON ANCIIOIt FAlMA------------------\.0 1 0.0021 0.3096 2 0.0000 0.0071 3 0.0000 0.0000. 4 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 "l 0.0000 0.0000 8 0.0000 0.0000 9 0.1472 1.5DB2 YEAR O.1493 1.9049 .?OWER TECilliOLOC I FS • I l'TC • HULTI-AREA RELIAI3ILITY PROGRAM" AlfCIIOnAGE -FAIRDANKS TRANSMISSION Il'ITERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-AREA RELIABILITY STUDY -YEAR 198«):INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1919 ISOLATED SITUATION -SmIHARY : EXPECTED H1{-DAYS LOSS BY SEASONS. AflEA AREA SEASON ANCHOR FAInDA ------------------- n I 1 0.09 7.45 N 2 0.00 0.140 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 6 0.00 0.00 7 0.00 0.00 B 0.00 0.00 9 3.87 44.23 YEAR 8.9548 51.3091 0<1 .I .__",J J J c.c.J .1 .1 'it J J .1 J 'J --1 "~-]1 J -....~'J <-".,---'-j i PO~~TE~P~OLOGJES,INC. r::-JLTI-AIlEA nELI1\BILITY PROGRAM' ArICI!OMGE -FAIRB;\.NKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-J\IlEA IlELIJ\nILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15.11979 PO,,'ER TECIrnOLOGIES.INC. MULTI-ArtEA nELIADILITY PROGRMfI AllClIOMCr..-FAIIIDANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-i\nEA IlELI/illILITY STliDY -YEAR 198():INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979 INTERconNECTED UITII LOAD LOSS SIIARING AREA LOLP IN Di\YS/PERIOD DY SEASONS. AIlEA AREA n SEASON ANCHon FAlIUlA--_.------------- N 1 0.000<1-0.0020 N 2 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.()O00 0.0000 4 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 7 0.0000 0.0000 8 0.0000 0.0000 9 0.0794 0.0890 YEAR 0.0798 0.0910 J I .J ,I ~J ""-i,1 J v.~.l ••,.J .....1 I .1 J 1 1 1 J J 1 1 -1 1 J POWER TECHNOLOGIES,INC. lWLTI-A.m:A RELIABILITY PROGRAM: ANcnOMCE -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-i\REA RELIABILITY STUDY -YEAR 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979• INTERCONNECTED WIm NO LOAD LOSS SHARING AREA LOLP IN DAYS/PEfiIOD BY SEASONS. n AREA AREA SEASON ANCnOR FA I lillA_._-------------..... N W 1 0.0003 0.0017 2 0.0000 0.0000 3 0.0000 0.0000 4 0.0000 0.0000 5 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 "1 0.0000 0.0000 8 0.0006 0.0000 9 0.0673 0.0378 YEAR 0.0677 0.0394 POWER TECmWLOGIES.INC. MULTI-AltEA RELIABILITY PROGItAM: M;CnORi\CE -FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-AREA IlELIABILITY STUDY·-YEAn 1989 :INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1979 ---SYSTEM RESULT STJmfARY IN PER UNIT -- PROnABILITY OF SUCCESS EVENTS PROr3ABILITY OF FAILU11E EVENTS ..0.999648E+00 =0.352068E-03 PRonABILITY OF NEGLECTED UNSPECIFIED EVENTSla 0.270125E-08 n SUM OF TIlE ABOVE 3 PROBABILITIES ...0.100000E+Ol N -+:0 PROBABILITY OF UNCLASSIFIED FAILURE EVENTS =0.620649E-09 ******************************************************NOTE:TIIE sun OF TUE FIIlST 3 ~roST BE 1.0000 ******'HTIlIN REASONABLE TOLERANCE.*** *************************************************** DEFINITION OF EVENTS : SUCCESS :ALL LOADS SATISFIED. FAILURE :orm on ~IOI1E AREA LOADS NOT SATISFIED. UNSPECIFIED :NOT IDENTIFIED AS EITHER SUCCESS OR FAILURE. UNCLASSED FAILURE :CAUSE OF FAILURE NOT ESTABLISHED. CAUSE OF FAILURE IS INDICATED BY MINI~~CUTS. TOTAL ELAPSED TUlE IN CPUS =20 *****END OF PROGRAM MAllEL ***** .J .J -']J .1 J __J .,J ,_~"I J ;~J ...J 1 AlfCaORAGE -FAIRBANKS TRA.NSmSSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIDILITY rAGE 0001 1 .5224 .5160 .5064 .~1351.0000 .8301 390. .9014 •C~r;5 .9323 .G175 .fi045 .8340 .5353 .0526 .64.,23 ·.9375 .8918 .C934 .0976 .9141 .9038 .9071 .9tt15 .9162.mm9 .9255 .9177 .lW24 .9299 .94C4 .9379 •GO·l·5 .9222 .llD02 362. n r )')? •~JIl.-~o&J ·9:~23 .91~5 .7719 .9361 .O:W6 .1l6G4 .9421 .9204 .9'~77 •92,)<} •%'1·8 .(H41 .n"n5 .5401 .84·29 .fin? .94,23 .9221 .G3:~3 .9024 .9203 .9050 .9071 •9f)l)1 .92B1 .9Z02 .9255 338. .9t:i4!2 .51.165 .6327 .8731 .9319 .9301 .lln46 .9024 .9343 .9372 .9:l1·1 .96109 .9341 .%·1·3 .9:179 .9:Hi7 .94,27 .9613 .94"1·1 .671a .92'(0 .9375 .9202 .773.7 .9:ND .c~n6 .9135 .%31 313. .6122 .6134 •1l%2 .9G19 .9'l.·37 •finll!) .9073 .9444 .9424 .934..4 .970a •9~,O 1 .%09 .9:l79 .9430 .9G1,~ .9127 .0677 .9ih'ia .eea3 .9611 .%31 .9249 .79B5 .9474 .B336 .9321 .%75 291. 1313. 1441.1531.1724.1881. .634·6 .3769 .94G2 .96lfi .9654 •CllP.? .9073 .91,9:) .9476 .95G3 .9703 .94ul .9509 .9379 .9494 .9603 .9<:·00 .97'1<3 .9563 .9106 .9722 .95r.:l •921)() .90a? .9Gl1 .C3fi6 .9327 .9575 270. 2 14 1933 O.5E-05 2 9o 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 ? ?a a 9 9 9 9 9 9o0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1030.1196. 2591. .75CO .6571 .5160 .5'137 .9533 .9500 .9663 .9615 .9827 .9697 .9359 .9017 .9171 .9171 .9747 .964:6 .9529 .9G29 .9(J17 .<JGG3 •ct2:m •9r,2::i .9701 .9GCl .%71 .%71 .96P.9 .9565 .9620 .I)'!.'J<!. .9739 .9673 .9:354 •9·t9~ •')8,7 1 ,l)~~J .9Gfo9 .9(.27 .9411 .9274 .9722 .9722 .9C')(1 .9637 .9<:37 .9300 .9~6n ,9'163 .9662 .934<) .3596 .C4·21 .9519 .9359 .9614 .9614 0.0 249. 50 o 0.2E-01 ANcrroa~CE -FAInnA!~~~SMISSION INTEfiTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 2-AREA Il.ELIADILI1'Y STUDY -YF..AIt 1996:INTERCONNECTED -1/15/1919 2 1 000 0 0 0 0 0o000100000 o 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 1996 O.lE-07 0.010.10 2 1 2 1 ANCllOIlFAI nBA 1 2 2'o 0 0.004009 2 130 130 0.996000 LOAD DATA II{PER UNIT INTERVAL DURATION CURVE TWO AItEA SYSTEH JAnUARY 15 19?9 1 1 1 2 10 26 1 0.01 1.,00 1 1 1 1 1 1 223 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 AilCIIOR 20 731.077.971. 2041.2213.2402. .0333 .6667 .7404 .4904 .:032 .4960 1.0000 .9769 .9731 1.0000 .93~3 .9663 1.0000 .9913 .9704 1.0000 .9829 .9407 1.00JO .9312 .9317 ~OOOO .9340 .9793 I.COOO .96C6 .9G34 1.0030 .9781 .9727l.coao .9nC3 .9~83 l.e030 .99~O .9n20 1.0000 .99n9 .9877 1.0000 .99JD .9n14 1.00JO .9310 .9631 1.0000 .9604 .9739 1.0000 .gn73 .9743 1.C0001.C~OO .993J 1.00J0 .9933 .9H14 1.0000 .9777 .9~09 1.0000 .9944 .9944 1.00~O .99(3 .9C96 1.0000 .9339 .9404 1.0000 .9962 .96S3 1.00001.0000 .~un7 1.0000 .9754 .U032 1.0000 .9340 .9679 1.0000 .9730 .9730 2 FAIMA.20 196.212.231. n N U1 15 0.0:15 15 0.055 19 0.055 32 O.orm 37 0.055 12 O.O:i5 73 0.055 21 o.o[m 73 0.055 15 0.055 15 a.eGG 54 0.0:)5 I)0.055 G·~0.055 6D O.C55 63 0.CG5 68 0.03[; 8 0.055 20 0.055 24 0.055 n Nm ARCllORAGE -FAIRBAr{Y-S 'I'R/triSMISSWN nrrERTIE ECONOmC FEASIBILI1Y ?16.~46.~77.511. O.:)7:;90.69900.73710,76040.574900591 HL 56630.51110.43240 J 411513.38330.37470.3587 O.353C~.33~m).41770.420 10.43730.46190.53 FlO.G7490.G9190.93310.934~1.00000.7690 1.GoonG·.9?4~~.9~670.94670 .l}4·~30.93130.W>4nO.8654·0.n~,~90.6177 1 •<;"JC a 093670092790.92700.005 10.c')!)ga .£3:)(;0.G:i9'~O •l3:!790 .?Be)1 1.CO:)"O.993:~O.96670.94[.:10 .94000.92330.903:30.i!WJ00.C6G70.e267 1.CG~Ja.97~~~~.06120.9~~10.C6910.C320~.~~3C)0.Cl100.7c)O00.6769 1 .l:0000.935~O .93290.%940.95300.94560.9WBO.903 10.90170.6fi25 I.OO:JOJ.9l)7()O.99590.9B770.979<!O.9:iCEO.93620.90~30.Of)300.CC21 I.COJCO.9n~n3.95010.93710.91970.8c)370.CC~70.87200.U6129.£091 1.nCJCO.96G70.%150 ,95 190.93,')10.91500.oneoo.n~220.n79a~.855D I.OOJ00.99150.Q91~O.99150.97160.96e70.031n9.8~200.fln020.8693 1.00J01.0GGCO.95120.93130.92~40.92810.92340.907~O.901~0.8955 1.CC'I;;J.990<·0.9')0'10.9~·3,')0.92310.91990.1)1670,91350.g"B20.fl55U 1.O('J~'J.967~".%410.02(1)0.92160.90490.[iJB00.G%10.me70.8721 1.0C~CO.96920.96020.95u~o.95n90.94G20.94J23.931G0.92120.9041 1.00~~~.~G9GO.97220.96870.95330.94790.93100.92360.92010.0507 I.OOJCJ.96770.93U70.93230.91290.90J20.90320.90320.U7100.8677 1.GOOOO.373~O.C7060.06760.C6460.85C33.84710.81110.83B20.8059 1.OO::KJO.<)·~.-:~o.9CMO.90;O~O.[/)470.r,27GO.n:.:7GO.n::N60.Ell B70.no 12 1.rooco.99'l20.977~O.96350.963G0.940~o.9nD20,93320.91010.8904 I.COO~O.99~?O.96810.93C90.92820.90960.90690.90160.nnD30.8836 I.COOCO.93~JO.93300.9145B.90990.89610.DC)lo.cn4n0.86370.8568 I.C01CO.991Go.9aDc~.97650.9~~20,929GO.92740.91C39.91450;9017 1.COJC0.96690.91ICO.892Go.cne~o.79890.73970.64460.61020.60B8 I.C01CO.97710.910GO.<)079Q.90790.89340.88~50.88~50.n6320.8434 I.COJGJ.9?110.B6330.83050.CI870.79fi30.79240.74510.73320.7201 1.C0CCO.99510.9B160.97300.97170.95530.916GO.08450.D2430.6818 1.COJGO.900t"O.93930.92010.B99·!HL 8n.{)~m.3B;)00.84320.G1310.7971 GZrmItATCH unIT DJ\TA FOR ArlCIIORAGE-F1\.IIillIlIHCS STUDY TI.'O AIlE1\.SYSTEH JANUAIty 15 1979 I I 1 -2 1 1.0E-12 MlCHon 44 12 1.() 1 AHCIl 1 2 MIcn 2 3 Men 3 4 fl.1:CII 4 5 ."lIcn 5 6 Ar:cn 6 7 AHCf!7oM:CI17S 9 Mlcn 8 10 BELU 1 11 L~LU 2 12 llELU 3 13 IlELU 4- 14 n:'-:LU 5 15 BF.LU 6 16 m:LU 7 17 I~E.LU n 13 nEna I 19 p·~ml 2 ~o m.IUl 3 PAGE 0002 J ..._~J ,._.1 J c.-'I J .1 .,1 J ---1 -~'1 -1 1 ~--l '--I '--]-]I ...~.1 1 -1 -1 ) MCnOMGE -FAII\BANKS TItANSMlSSIOn INTERTIE ECONomc FEASIBILITY 21 INTL 1 14 0.055 22 InTL 2 14 0.055 23 INTL 3 19 0.055 24 COOP 1 8 0.016 25 COOP 2 8 0.0t6 26 K1:IT A 15 0.059 R .1/1986 27 IIiTL 4 71 0.035 23 lIlTL 5 71 O.OJa 29 INTL 6 71 0.OJ5 30 11111.7 71 0.055 31 HQ;:Erl 1 O.OJ:) 32 EKLlITH 30 0.016 33 nau 9 71 O.OG:)N 1/1986 34 i\l';(;1J 9 70 0.05::;N 1/1985 3J ..;r'CJI1 0 104 0.057 If 1/1986 3&COAL 1 200 0.0:::;7 N 1/1937 37 AIICIJ11 10<1·0.OJ7 n 1/1993 33 COAL 2 200 0.OJ7 N 1/19G9 39 COAL 3 200 0.057 N 1/1990 40 COl'lL 4 200 0.0:)7 N 1/1991 41 CO'\L 5 200 0.057 N 1/1992 n 42 I'CAKi\l 78 0.C55 N .1/1993 43 CEll 1 300 0.079 N 1/1994 4.J.GEH 2 3CO 0.079 N 1/1996 N 45 PEAKI\2 78 0.055 N 1/1995 '-J -99 COOP 1 COO?2 EKLU'rn -99 1 9 -99 .FAlflDA 26 12 1.0 1 CITErJ 1 5 0.059 2 cm:n 2 2 0.059 3 cnr~N 3 2 0.059 4 CIIEN 4 20 0.059 :)CHEH 5 ::;0.0::;:; 6 CHEN 6 24 0.0;J5 7 lJlES 1 3 O.29G G DIES 2 3 0.295 I)DIES 3 2 0.295 10 ZEBU 1 17 0.055 11 ZEEI'l 2 17 0.0;:;::; 12 ZEml 3 4 C.OG:) 13 ZEHU 4 .1-0.0::;::; 14 ZU:HDi 3 0.295 IG ZEl!HD2 :3 0.:<:05 16 ZElliiD3 3 0.20:i 17 ZElmn4 2 0.295 In ZEl:ND5 2 0.::'95 19 IJE!\L 1 26 0.059 20 UEAL D 3 0,,295 PACE 0003 AIl'CIIOIl4.GE -FAIRnANKS TR.ANSMISSION INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PAGE 0004 . n Nco 21 n:mT 1 22 HOi'.T 2 23 U;.LASK ~5 COALFI ~7 COl\.LF2 2/3 COALf3 -1)9 -1)9 1 l} -99 65 0.055 6()0.055 {j 0.295 100 0.057 N 100 0.057 N 100 0.057 N 1/1988 1/1992 1/1995 ..".:1 J .1 ).....J _J ••I J ...1 ~....J :.1 I I APP~NDIXD DATA AND COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSr11ISSION .; INTERTIE AND GENERATING PLANTS ,,,,.,, ! APPENDIX D DATA AND COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE AND GENERATING PLANTS 0.1 DATA AND COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE A.Cost Summary and Disbursements for Intertie Facilities Total Cost at 1979 Levels -$1000 Case IA Case IS Case IC Case 10 Case II 1.Transmission Line: Eng'g.&Constr.Supv. Right-of-Way Foundations Towers Hardware Insulators Conductor 3,012 8,837 8,445 21,615 477 503 10,761 3,012 8,837 8,445 21,615 477 503 10,761 7,988 7,573 12,160 33,990 477 755 17,663 3,012 8,837 8,445 21,615 477 503 10,761 15,442 12,994 22,966 64,974 1,096 1,396 36,946 Subtotal 53,650 53,650 80,606 53,650 155,814 9,056 12,426 11,924 46,200 2.Substations: Eng'g.&Constr.Supv. Land Transformers Circuit Breakers Station Equipment Structures &Accessories Subtotal 3.Control and Communications: Eng'g.&Constr.Supv. Equipment Subtotal 1,352 57 1,703 1,093 1,223 3,628 9,056 125 2,375 2,500 1,352 57 1,703 1,093 1,223 3,628 125 2,375 2,500 1,855 46 3,291 1,323 1,933 3,978 125 2,375 2,500 2,816 81 1,703 1,953 1,345 4,026 165 3,135 3,300 6,902 185 11,917 6,410 4,375 16,411 200 3,600 3,800 Total Baseline 1979 Costs 65,206 65,20695,532 68,874 205,814 Capital disbursements for each of the above cases are given on following computation sheets,these being identical to those later used for f"inancial planning purposes with selected alternative. 0-1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT DISBURSEMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE CASES IA &IB 1.TRANSMISSION LINE fNGINEfRIN&AND CONSTRUCTIUN SUPERVISION RIGHI Of"fjAY fOllNIlAIIIlN:l l()WE~S HARDwARE INSULATORS CONDUCTOR SUB-TOTAL 2.SUBS TA Tl ONS ENGINEtRING &CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION LAND TRANSFORMERS CIRCUIT BREAKERS STATION EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES &ACCESSORIES 1981-1 452 o o o o o o 270 57 o o o o 1961-2 7':>3 U09 II o o o o 2902 270 o o o o o 1'182-1 o 002~ o o oo o ooca 270 o 341 219 2115 72b 1982-2 '392 o UIlO o o o II 2b72 270 o 590 383 428 1451 1983-1 0'13 o til 1l'1 'HiT 72 7~ 1614 163116 135 o 596 383 428 11151 1983-2 723 \I Il 11888 405 428 9147 225'11 135 o 170 109 122 o TOTAL 3012 8837 "11/1'1 21615 477 503 107&1 53050 1352 57 1703 1093 1223 3028 SUB-TOTA~3c7 3.CONTHO~AND COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEtRING AND INSTALLAtiON SUPERVISION 0 EQUIPMENT 0 270 o o 1800 o o 3128 o o 2993 0,4 95y ~37 71 11125 9050 125 2375 ----------------------------------------------------------------------SUB-TOU~ TOTAL TOUL FOR YEAR o 779 o o 3233 4012 o 1:11128 o o 5800 14226 1004 2t:!342 o 1119& 2110211 11&907 2500 b520b b520b CAPITAL INVESTMENT DISBURSEMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE CASE IC SUH-TOTAL 417 1.rRANSMISSION LINE fNr.INE~RING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPt:.RVISICI'I III(;I1T OF "'AY FUUNl)A r IUNS TO·IFHS "'AiW~AHE I NSIJL A1 ORS CO,jllUC TOil SUlj-TUTAL 2.SUBS TA 11 ONS t:.NGINEt:.~ING &CONSTRUCTION SUf't':~Vl::iIUN I.M,I) I H ANSFlIHMERS ~IHCuIT K~tAKERS STATION E~UIP~ENT ST~UCTU~ES ~~CCESSORIES 1981-1 1198 o o o o o o 11'18 371 Ill> o o o o 1961-2 1997 18'n o o o o o 3690 371o o o o o 371 1982-1 o 5b80 o o o o o 5680 371 o 0':i8 2&5 387 79b 247b 1982-2 1038 o 3283 oo o o 4322 371 o 1152 lib! &77 1591 11254 1963-1 1837o 8877 15290 72 113 2&119 28844 1tlbo 1152 11&3 671 1591 4068 1983-2 1917 o o 16b95 405 bll2 150111 3&&12 16& o 329 U2 19J o 840 TOTAL 7988 7573 121&0 33990 477 755 176b3 80bOb 16S5 4b 3291 1323 19H 3978 - J.CONTHOl AND COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEEIIING AND INSTALLATION SUP~~V!SION 0 EQUIPMENT 0 o o o o o o 54 950 71 11125 125 iH5----------------------------------------------------------------------SUB-TOTAL TOT.&L TOTAL FOH YEAR o lb15 o o 42bl 587& o 8150 o 0-2 o 6575 16731 10011 3391& o 1119b 39009 72925 2500 95532 95532 CAPITAL INVESTMENT DISBURSEMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION INTERT1E CASE 10 ---------------------------------------~--------------------------._-- ...- - 1.TRANSMISSTON LINE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCT rON SUPERYISION RIGHT OF WAY fOUNOATtONS towf"!! HARDwARE INSULATORS CONDUCTOR SUR-TOTAl 2.SUBS TA HONS ENGINfERING &CONSTRUCTION SUPERYIS10N LAND TRANSFORMfRS CIRCUIT BREAKERS STATION EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES &ACCESSORIES SUR-TOTAL 3.CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS ENGINFERING AND INSTALLATTON SUPERVlsrON EQUTPMENT SUB-TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL FOR YEAR 1152 o o o o o o 1152 56J 81 o o o o o o o 1096 o 11:181-2 153 2201:1 o o o o o 21:162 563 o o o o o 563 o o o 3525 IIn21 o 662A n o o o o 6628 563 o Jill 19t ?bl:l 805 2369 n o o o 11:18?-? 1i92 n ??1I0 o o o o 2672 S63 o ';96 b811 1111 1610 o o o b"i96 15"i9? 11:183-1 b93 o to I t>''i 9727 7? 75 Iblll 1834b ?8? o O:;l:Ib b811 1171 IblO 3642 71 12511 1325 2:3313 o 123 o o IIAOA 1100; 1I2A 9147 2251:11 ?82 o 170 195 135 o 782 911 188t Ins 25348 118661 TOTAl 3012 8837 114 11"i 21blS 471 503 10761 'i3bSO 2816 81 1103 11:I5J 1345 4026 119211 BOO 68A111 b8A711 CAPITAL INVESTMENT DISBURSEMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE CASE II .... - 1.TRANSMISSION LINE ENGINEl~ING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPEflVISIO"l RIGHT OF WAY fOUNDhfIONS 10,,[,,3 HA><O ..AHE 1 ~'SULA TORS L\JNDuC TuH SUB-rOTl,L 2.SUfiS!ATIO/~S t~GI~EE"lNG &CONSTRUCTION SdPI:.KV!S!ON LAc,D !i<A'JSFllflMEfiS CIRCUIT 8RtAKERS STAIION EQUIPMENT STHUCIUR~S &ACCESSORIES 1981-1 2316 o o o o o o 2310 1360 185 o o o o 1981-2 3861 3249 o o () o () 71l}'1 1380 o o o o o 1982-1 o '1740 I> o o o o 1380o 2383 1282 875 3282 1<;82-2 2007 o 0201 o o o il 8208 1380o I;171 2244 1531 6564 1'183-1 3552 o 16765 29238 164 209 551.12 55471 690 o 4171 2244 1531 b5611 1983-2 .5100 o I) 35130 932 1187 314l}4 72'164 690 o 1192 6111 1136 o TOTAL 151142 12994 229M 6119111 10'16 1396 3&946 1558111 6902 185 11917 6410 11.515 16411 SUB-IOTAL 1505 3.CONTRUl A"'O COMMUNICATIONS tN~rNEtRING AND INSTALLATION SUPERvlSIUN 0 EQUIPM~Nl 0 1380 o o 9203 o o 158'10 o o 15200 86 14110 2960 114 2160 116200 200 3600----------------------------------------------------------------------SUB-TOTAL TOTAL lUTH FOR YEAR o 3882 o o 8489 12371 0-3 o 18948 o o 211099 113047 1526 72197 o 78198 15039b 3800 205814 205814 B.Case IA &IB,Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie,230 kV sic Transmission System,323 Miles 1.Cost Summary TIL Cost @ $166,104 per mile Anchorage Substation Ester Substation Control and Communications System TOTAL 2.Anchorage Substation Costs $53,652,000 3,974,000 5,080,000 2,500,000 $65,206,000 - 1 138-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 138-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 4 13.8-kV,12-MVAR Shunt Reactor Bank Structures and Accessories 4 13.8-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 4 13.8-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 4 10 -48 MVA,138/230-kV Autotransfonner Structures and Accessories 2 230-kV Circuit Breakers Structures and Accessories 4 230-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories Land 2 acres TOTAL D - 4 $86,000 108,000 11 ,000 38,000 420,000 315,000 154,000 119,000 31,000 64,000 1,020,000 538,000 338,000 ~407,000 70,000 232,000 23,000 $3,974,000 - - 3.Ester Substation Costs 1 138-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 138~kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 3 13.8-kV,12~MVAR Shunt Capacitor Bank Structures and Accessories 3 13.8-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 4 10,46 MVA,138/230-kV Autotransformer Structures and Accessories 3 230-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 9 230-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 3 230-kV,16-MVAR Reactor Structures and Accessories Land 3 acres TOTAL $86,000 108,000 11,000 38,000 265,000 198,000 116,000 89,000 984,000 516,000 507,000 613,000 157,000 528,000 474,000 356,000 34,000 $5,080,000 - C.Case IC,Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie,345 kV sic Transmission System,323 miles 1.Cost Summary TIL Cost @ $249,551 per mile Anchorage Substation Ester Substation Control and Communications System TOTAL 0-5 $80,606,000 6,195,000 6,231,000 2,500,000 $95,532,000 -1 2.Anchorage Substation Costs Land 2 acres 1 13.8-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 1 13.8-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 5 345-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories - $86,000 108,000 11,000 38,000 112,000 84,000 39,000 30,000 8,000 16,000 1,936,000 725,000 653,000 340,000 114,000 330,000 882,000 660,000 23,000 138-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 1 13.8-kV 16-MVAR Shunt Reactor Bank Structures and Accessories 4 Ul -48-MVA,138/345-kV Autotransformer Structures and Accessories 2 345-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 138-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 4 10 -33-1/3-MVAR,345-kV Shunt Reactor Structures and Accessories TOTAL $6,195,000 3.Ester Substation Cost 1 138-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 138-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 1 13.8-kV,15-MVAR Shunt Capacitor Structures and Accessories 1 13.8-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 13.8-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories $86,000 108,000 11,000 38,000 132,000 100,000 39,000 30,000 8,000 16,000 - 0-6 ~ i 3.Ester Substation Cost (Continued) 4 10 -48 MVA,138/345-kV Autotransformer Structures and Accessories 2 345-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 5 345-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 4 10 -33-1/3-MVAR,345-kV Shunt Reactor Structures and Accessories ~Land 2 acres TOTAL- $1,936,000 725,000 653,000 340,000 114,000 330,000 882,000 660,000 23,000 $6,231,000 D.Case 10,Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie,230 kV sic Transmission System,323 miles 1.Cost Summary TIL Cost @ $166,104 per mile Anchorage Substation Palmer Substation Healy Substation Ester Substation Control and Communications System TOTAL $53,652,000 3,976,000 1,434,000 1,434,000 5,080,000 3,300,000 $68,876,000 2.Anchorage-Palmer,230 kV sic Transmission System,40 miles r TIL Cost @ $166,104 per mile Anchorage Substation Palmer Substation Control and Communications System TOTAL D - 7 $6,644,000 3,976,000 717,000 1,450,000 $12,787,000 3.Palmer-Healy,230 kV sic Transmission System,190.5 miles - TIL Cost @ $166,104 per mile Palmer Substation Healy Substation Control and Communications System TOTAL $31,726,000 717,000 717,000 400,000 $33,560,000 4.Healy-Ester,230 kV sic Transmission System,92 miles JlI!I!!l I TIL Cost @ $166,104 per mile Healy Substation Ester Substation Control and Communications System TOTAL 5.Anchorage Substation Costs 1 138-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 1 138-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 4 13.8-kV,12-MVAR Shunt Reactor Bank Structures and Accessories 4 13.8-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 4 13.8-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 4 10 -48-MVA,138/230-kV Autotransformer Structures and Accessories 2 230-kV Circuit Breakers Structures and Accessories 4 230-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories Land 2 acres TOTAL 0-8 $15,282,000 717 ,000 5,080,000 1,450,000 $22,529,000 $86,000 108,000 11,000 38,000 420,000 315,000 154,000 119,000 31,000 64,000 1,020,000 538,000 338,000 407,000 70,000 234,000 23,000 $3,976,000 - - 0-9 8.Ester Substation Costs (Continued) Land 3 acres 3 230-kV,16-MVAR Reactor Structures and Accessories 9 230-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories $157,000 528,000 474,000 356,000 34,000 I TOTAL $5,080,000 E.Case II,Anchorage -Upper Susitna -Fairbanks Intertie 345 kV 2-s/c Anchorage-Devil Canyon 155 miles 230 kV 2-s/c Devil Canyon-Ester 189 miles 230 kV 2-s/c Watana-Devil Canyon 27 miles 1.Cost Summary - -, 78,529,000 66,790,000 10,495,000 23,160,000 10,109,000 11,339,000 1,592,000 3,800,000 $205,814,000TOTAL Anchorage -Devil Canyon TIL @ $506,640 per mile*$ Devil Canyon -Ester TIL @ $353,386 per mile* Watana -Devil Canyon TIL @ $388,698 per mile* Anchorage Substation Devil Canyon Substation Ester Substation Watana Substation Control and Communications System *Includes two single-circuit lines.-, D -10 -2.Anchorage Substation Cost 2 138-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 9 345-kVCircuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 2 138-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 18 345-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories $23,160,000 $172,000 216,000 23,000 76,000 8,516,000 3,404,000 2,938,000 1,528,000 408,000 1,191,000 2,647,000 1,984,000 57,000Land5acres TOTAL 345-kV,200-MVAR Shunt Capacitor Structures and Accessories 2 7 10 -210.5-MVA,138/345-kV Autotransformer Structures and Accessories ,-, \ - 3.Devil Canyon Substation Cost 3 345-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 6 345-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories 7 10 -90.3-MVA,230/345-kV Autotransformer Structures and Accessories 6 230-kV Circuit Breaker Structures and Accessories 12 230-kV Air Disconnect Switch Structures and Accessories Land 4 acres $981,000 509,000 138,000 399,000 3,418,000 1,466,000 1,015,000 1,224,000 210,000 703,000 46,000 TOTAL $10,109,000 o -11 ~4.Ester Substation Cost $.-2 138-k V Ci rcuit Breaker 172,000 , Structures and Accessories 216,000 2 138-kV Air Disconnect Switch 23,000 Structures and Accessories 76,000 7 10 -65-MVA,138/345-kV Autotransformer 2,086,000 .-, Structures and Accessories 1,253,000 6 13.8-kV Air Disconnects 46,000 Structures and Accessories 96,000 6 13.8-kV Circuit Breaker 232,000 Structures and Accessories 181,000 6 13.8-kV,6-MVAR Capacitor 264,000 Structures and Accessories 200,000 9 230-k V Ci rcuit Breaker 1,523,000 Structures and Accessories 1,838,000 ~ 18 230-k V Ai r Disconnect Switch 314,000 Structures and Accessories 1,055,000 2 230-kV,80-MVAR Capacitor 968,000 Structures and Accessories 727,000 ~Land 6 acres 69,000 TOTAL $11 ,339,000 - 5.Watana Substation Cost 3 230-kV Circuit Breakers $508,000 Structures and Accessories 613,000 - 6 230-kV Disconnect Switch 106,000 Structures and Accessories 348,000 Land 17 ,000 TOTAL $1,592,000 IiI'i'I\ ~ - D-12 - ,- -, 0.2 DATA AND COST ESTIMATES FOR GENERATING PLANTS B.Cost Estimates and Disbursements for Generating Plants Note:Only specific units affected by interconnection of Anchorage and Fairbanks systems are considered: 1.Northpole #3 (NORT 3)69 MW SCGT in Fairbanks Area. This unit is necessary for independent system expansion. Will not be required if interconnection assured. Rating -68.6 MW (net)Combustion Turbine Fuel -Distillate from North Pole Refinery Ref.Table B-1,Appendix B of Stanley Consultants Review Report For 1983 Installation: Unit Cost = NO x Cost Subtotal Assoc.Transm.11 TOTAL $31,482,000 1,387,000 $32,869,000 or $476/kW 4,783,000 $37,652,000 or $546/kW See Also:P.45 of GVEA Power Supply Study -1978 by Stanley Consultants &P.28 -Table 10 Escalation Rates. Period 1983-1980 1980-1979 Labor (~20%) 1.085 1.095 GNP Deflators Material (~80%) 1.07 1.08 Composite 1.075 1.085 i " Summary of Costs: Facil ity 1979 Baseline Costs Gas-Turbine Unit $24,385,000 or $353/kW Assoc.Transm.3,549,000 Total Capital Investment $27 ,934,000 or $405/kW Disbursements -$1000 Pre-Operational Period 1st Year (1983)2nd Year (1984) Gas-Turbi ne Unit 7,315 (30%)17,070 (70%) Assoc.Transm.355 (10%)3,194 (90%) Total Facilities $7,670 $20,264 II Relocation of facilities and expansion of existing Northpole substation. o -13 2.Beluga #9 (BELU 9)71 MW RCGT in Anchorage Area. This unit will be postponed for one year by interconnection, from beginning year 1985 to 1986. This unit will draw on Beluga gas reserves for fuel supply. Design of unit is assumed to be simple-cycle,similar to existing units on Chugach System -Ref.Beluga Units 1,2,4,6,&7. Estimated Cost of Unit: From Reference Cost Estimate for NORT 3 at Fairbanks Cost at Bus-bar of 69 MW unit $353jkW By comparison for 71 MW unit $350jkW Now applying Alaskan construction cost location factors from Battelle Report,Table 6.3,P.6.12 Appl icable factor from Fairbanks to Beluga =i:~2 =1.35 Estimated Cost =$473jkW or $33,548,000 Disbursements: Pre-Operational Period Independent Expansion Interconnected Expansion Proportion of Total Investment -$1000 1st Year 1983 1984 30% 10,064 2nd Year 1984 1985 70% 23,484 Associated Transmission Facilities: Transmission Line (allow 50 miles)@ $126,000jm"ile Total Cost of Line Facilities =$6,300,000 Substation Additions at Beluga and Knik Arm =$2,650,000 Total Transmission Line and Substation Facilities =$8,950,000 Disbursements: Pre-Operational Period Independent Expansion Interconnected Expansion Proportion of Total Investment -$1000 Transm.&Substations Total Facilities 1979 Baseline Costs 1st Year 2nd Year 1983 1984 1984 1985 10%90% 895 8,055 o -14 $42,490,000 ..... \ 3.Northpole #4 (NORT 4)69 MW SCGT in Fairbanks Area. This unit is necessary for independent system expansion. Will not be required with an interconnected system. Scheduled In-Service Beginning Year 1990 Unlike NORT 3,no transmission additions will be required,with completion of relocation and expansion of the substation. Considering only cost of unit with assoc.transf.and swgr. For 1979 Baseline Cost Levels: Total Capital Investment =$25,185,000 or $365/kW Disbursements: Pre-Operational Period GT unit,transf.&swgr. 1st Year (1988) 7,555 (30%) 2nd Year (1989) 17,630 (70%) 4.Anchorage Peaking Unit #2 (PEAK A2)78 MW SCGT This unit is required for both independent and interconnected systems but in-service date is advanced one year with intertie. Basing cost of addition on Northpole Unit 4 installation - i.e.SCGT unit with associated transformer and switching. Estimated cost based on rating,with allowance for scale. For 1979 Baseline Cost Levels: 69 MW GT Unit Total Cost =$25,185,000 78 MW GT Unit Total Cost =$28,080,000 or $365/kW or $360/kW Now applying Alaskan construction cost location adjustment factor from Battelle Report Table 6.3 P.6.12 Applicable factor from Fairbanks to Anchorage =1/1.2 =0.83 Total Capital Investment =$23,400,000 or $300/kW Disbursements: Year 1 2 Independent 1994 1995 Interconnected 1993 1994 o -15 %Total 30 70 Cost - $1000 7,020 16,380 5.Northpole #5 (NORT 5)69 SCGT in Fairbanks Area. This unit is necessary foY'independent system expansion. Will not be required with an interconnected system. Scheduled In-Service Beginning Year 1997 The addition of this unit completes the expansion for the inde- pendent systems of the Railbelt Area,the time frame is such that for interconnected expansion,with the staged increments of hydro capacity from the Susitna development,the last unit at Devil Canyon would be on-line beginning year 1997. Similar to NORT 4,no transmission additions are assumed to be required,such that power would be delivered from the expanded Northpole Substation to the existing system. Considering only cost of unit,with associated transf.and swgr. For 1979 Baseline Cost Levels: - Total Capital Investment =$25,185,000 Disbursements: or $365/kW 1st Year (1995)2nd Year (1996)Pre-Operational Period: GT unit,transf.&swgr. o -16 ($1000) 7,555 (30%)17,630 (70%) 6.Anchorage #11 (ANCH 11)104 MW Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Plant. This unit will be required for independent system expansion but will be postponed,with interconnection,from in-service 1988 to 1993. Cost estimate for this plant is based on Healy Unit 2 estimate prepared by Stanley Consultants,with applicable Alaskan con- struction cost location adjustment factor. From Stanley Consultants Report to GVEA,Appendix A,P.A-I. For 1984 Installation Date (1978 Cost Levels): Healy Unit 2 Plant (Without FGD): - Plant and Equipment Contingency Total Construction Cost Eng'g.,Legal &Overhead TOTAL Escalating @ 10%to 1979 Cost Level Total Baseline 1979 Cost without FGD = $102,924,000 or $990/kW 3,088,000 $107,012,000 or $1029/kW 14,982,000 $121,994,000 or $1173/kW $1290/kW $134,160,000 Now Including Cost of Desulphurization: Associated Transmission Facilities: Assuming relatively short transmission line with substation facil- ities required,for connection to existing AML&P transmission system in Anchorage area. - Plant and Equipment Contingency Total Construction Cost Eng'g.,Legal &Overhead TOTAL Escalating @ 10%to 1979 Cost Level Total Baseline 1979 Cost with FGD = $111,174,000 3,335,000 $114,509,000 16,031,000 $130,540,000 $143,520,000 or $1069/kW or $1101/kW or $1255/kW $1380/kW r " Cost Estimate for Transmission Line: Transmission Line (allow 30 miles)@ $126,000/mile Total Cost of Line Facilities =$3,780,000 o -17 Cost Estimate for Substation Facilities: Equipment Contingency Total Construction Cost Eng'g.,Legal &Overhead TOTAL Escalating @ 10%to 1979 Cost Level Total 1979 Baseline Cost Summary of Costs: $2,700,000 203,000 $2,903,000 377,000 $3,280,000 $3,608,000 WO/FGD W/FGD Coal-Fired Plant (104 MW) Transmission Line Substation Facilities TOTAL $134,160,000 3,780,000 3,608,000 $141,548,000 $143,520,000 3,780,000 3,608,000 $150,908,000 Now applying Alaskan construction cost location adjustment factor from Table 6.3 P.6.12 of Battelle Study Report: From Healy to Anchorage -Location Factor =1.7/2.42 =0.70 Applying this factor,Total Costs =$99,084,000 $105,636,000 or =$953/kW $1016/kW Disbursements -$1000 Coal-Fired Plant (ANCH 11) Pre-Operational Year: Independent Interconnected 1979 Baseline Costs %Total WO!FGD W!FGO l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 2 8 30 37 20 3 1,878 7,513 28,174 34,747 18,783 2,817 2,009 8,037 30,139 37,172 20,093 3,014 Associated Transmission Facilities 5. 6. 1986 1987 1991 1992 D -18 20 80 1,034 4,138 1,034 4,138 7.Coal-Fired Unit F2 (COAL F2)100 MW in Fairbanks Area. This unit will be required for both the independent and inter- connected system expansions,with generation reserve sharing only. However,with both reserve sharing and firm power transfer,it is replaced,together with COAL 5,by a 300 MW unit (COAL 6). This unit will be very similar to ANCH 11,which in turn was based on the Healy Unit 2 Plant,as reported by Stanley Con- sultants.The unit costs will be increased proportionately, to allow for the change of unit size from 104 MW to 100 MW. This has been economically scaled using the nomograph (Figures 0-1 and D-2)in this appendix. For Generating Plant COAL F2: Plant Cost Estimates:1979 Baseline Cost Levels Without FGO With FGD $120,000,000 $130,000,000 or $1200/kW or $1300/kW Associated Transmission Facilities: Assuming a plant site location at or near Healy,the trans- mission line and substation requirements are similar to those required for Healy Unit 2.Reference Stanley Consultants Review Report to GVEA,Appendix A,P.A-I: Transmission Facility Costs: 1979 Cost Levels (1.1 x 1978 Costs) Transmission Substation Line Facilities- r"'"i Equipment and Material Contingency Construction Cost Englg.,Legal &Overhead TOTAL o -19 $15,510,000 465,000 $15,975,000 2,455,000 $18,430,000 $3,348,000 100,000 $3,448,000 102,000 $3,550,000 -, Disbursements -$1000 Coal-Fired Unit (COAL F2): 1979 Baseline Costs Pre-Operational Year:%Total WO!FGD W!FGD l.1986 2 2,400 2,600 2.1987 8 9,600 10,400 3.1988 30 36,000 39,000 - 4.1989 37 44,400 48,100 5.1990 20 24,000 26,000 6.1991 3 3,600 3,900 Associated Transmission Facilities: 5.1990 20 4,400 4,400 6.1991 80 17,580 17,580 8.Coal-Fired Unit 5 (COAL 5)200 MW in Anchorage Area. This unit will be required for both the independent and inter- connected system expansions,with generation reserve sharing only. However,with both reserve sharing and firm power transfer,it is replaced,together with COAL F2,by a 300-MW unit (COAL 6). The cost estimate for this generating plant was obtained by scaling costs from a base reference of 100 MW to 200 MW,using the nomograph (Figures 0-1 and 0-2)contained in this Appendix.Then Alaskan construction cost location adjustment factors were used to determine the cost relevant to the Beluga site in the Anchorage Area. From Healy to Beluga -Location Factor =2.75/2.42 =1.14 For Generating Plant COAL 5 Plant Cost Estimates: 1979 Baseline Cost Levels ($1000) Healy Site Beluga Site ~ .) Without FGD With FGD $165,000 or $825/kW $175,000 or $875/kW D -20 $188,000 or $940/kW $200,000 or $1000/kW Associated Transmission Facilities: Assuming a section of transmission line and substation facilities, for connection to existing transmission system in Anchorage area. - Transmission Line (allow 50 miles) Total Cost of Line Facilities ~ Substation Terminal at Knik Arm ~ @ $174,000/mile $8,700,000 3,545,000 I"'" j I 9. Total Transmission Facilities $12,245,000 Disbursements -$1000 Coal-Fired Unit (COAL 5) 1979 Baseline Costs Pre-Operational Year:%Total WO/FGD W!FGD 1.1986 2 3,760 4,000 2.1987 8 15,040 16,000 3.1988 30 56,400 60,000 4.1989 37 69,560 74,000 5.1990 20 37,600 40,000 6.1991 3 5,640 6,000 Associated Transmission Facil ities: 5.1990 20 2,450 2,450 6.1991 80 9,795 9,795 Coal-Fired Unit 6 (COAL 6)300 MW in Anchorage Area. This unit will not be required either for independent or inter- connected system expansion for generation reserve sharing only. However,with reserve capacity sharing and firm power transfer, it will replace both COAL F2 and COAL 5. The cost estimate for this plant has been derived from the cost for the reference 100 MW plant,using the nomograph (Figures 0-1 and 0-2)contained in this Appendix.This enabled consideration of economies of scale obtained when the unit capacity is changed from 100 to 300 MW and the differential costs associated with the two sites,according to the Alaskan construction cost location adjustment factor,similar to that developed for COAL 5. o -21 Plant Cost Estimates: 1979 Baseline Cost Levels ($1000) Healy Site Beluga Site Without FGD With FGD $200,000 or $667/kW $240,000 or $800/kW $228,000 or $760/kW $274,000 or $913/kW Associated Transmission Facilities: Assuming a section of transmission line and substation facilities, for connection to existing transmission system in Anchorage area.- Transmission Line (allow 50 miles) Total Cost of Line Facilities = Substation Terminal at Knik Arm = Total Transmission Facilities Disbursements -$1000 Coal-Fired Unit (COAL 6) @ $240,000/mile $12,000,000 6,250,000 $18,250,000 1979 Baseline Costs Pre-Operational Year:%Total WO/FGD W!FGD """. 1.1986 2 4,560 5,480 2.1987 8 18,240 21,920 3.1988 30 68,400 82,200 4.1989 37 84,360 101,380 5.1990 20 45,600 54,800 6.1991 3 6,840 8,220 Associated Transmission Facilities: 5.1990 20 3,650 3,650 6.1991 80 14,600 14,600 o -22 - 10.Coal-Fired Unit 2 (GEN 2)300 MW at New Site in Anchorage Area. This unit is required for both independent and interconnected systems but in-service date postponed one year with intertie.' For Generating Plant COAL 6: It is assumed that site will be near to previous plant location at Beluga,in sufficient proximity to assume cost basis to be identical, with difference only in the time frame for construction. Cost estimate for plant and associated transmission facilities are then identical to that for COAL 6. Disbursements -$1000 Coal-Fired Unit (GEN 2) 1979 Baseline Costs Pre-Operational Year:%Total WO/FGD W/FGD Independent Interconnected 1.1989 1990 2 4,560 5,480 2.1990 1991 8 18,240 21,920 3.1991 1992 30 68,400 82,200 4.1992 1993 37 84,360 101,380 5.1993 1994 20 45,600 54,800 6.1994 1995 3 6,840 8,220 Associated Transmission Facilities: 5.1993 1994 20 3,650 3,650 6.1994 1995 80 14,600 14,600 o -23 0.3 DATA AND COST ESTIMATES FOR SUPPLY OF CONSTRUCTION POWER TO UPPER SUSITNA PROJECT SITES The requirements of the combined Rai"lbelt area generation expansion,with inclusion of both Watana and Devil Canyon power from the Susitna develop- ment,schedules Unit 1 from Devil Canyon in January 1995,only 3 years after the first unit goes on line at Watana Damsite.Assuming as a first construction schedule that of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,the con- struction periods are 6 and 5 years,respectively,for Watana earthfill dam and the concrete arch dam at Devil Canyon.Thus,with the generation staging of the plan for interconnection,the total construction period would be 11 years,with pre-operational construction periods of 6 years for Watana and 5 years for Devil Canyon.There would be concurrent con- struction during 2 years. Prior to the first unit on-line at Watana,construction power would be required for 6 years at Watana and 2 years at Devil Canyon.It is assumed, for purposes of analysis,that separate provision would need to be made for the full construction power needs at both sites.From estimates by the Consultants:-, Connected Load Watana Devil Canyon 4000 kW (estimated at 3750 kW) 3400 kW (estimated at 3350 kW) Operational Assumptions for Both Sites: 6 months/yr intensive operation @ 0.65 LF 6 months/yr light loading @ 0.30 LF Corresponding to construction planning assumptions of U.S.Corps of Engineers. Figure 7-1 of Chapter 7 shows the recommended sites at Watana and Devil Canyon for the Susitna development and the routing of the tap line to the sites from the transmission tap station,located on the main transmission corridor for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie.The tap line can later be used also for a subtransmission circuit for distribution in the area, following the completion of the construction program. o -24 ~, - - A.Alternative 1 -Cost of Construction Power by Diesel Generation (This will constitute benefits for B/C analysis) .- Basic Assumptions: 1.Diesel units purchased for Watana will be used for a period of 6 years and then sold at depreciated value . 2.Diesel units purchased for Devil Canyon will be used for a period of 5 years and then sold at depreciated value. 3.No provision will be made at Devil Canyon for tapping 230-kV line from Watana once energized,due to prior purchase of diesel units for construction power. -Diesel units will be installed 6 units at Watana 5 units at Devil Canyon in multiples of 675 kW net/unit. 4050 kW net capacity 3375 kW net capacity (. ~ (. From previous construction power estimates for diesel unit installations: 1979 Cost =$700/kW Installation for Watana construction power units would be made in 1985, ready for service in January 1986. Escalating @ 7%through 1985 -Cost Level =$1050/kW. Installation for Devil Canyon construction power units would be made in 1989,ready for service in January 1990. Escalating @ 7%through 1989 -Cost Level =$1377/kW. Cost of Diesel Installations: -, Watana Devil Canyon =$1050 x 4050 =$4,252,500 =$1377 x 3355 =$4,647,375 This capital investment would be disbursed in 1985 and 1989,respectively, for Watana and Devil Canyon. D-25 Cost of Diesel Operation During Construction Basic Assumption:Maximum Coincident Demand =Connected Load This,incidentally,introduces a measure of maximum loading which tends to compensate for an initial lower estimate of construction power requirements by a factor equivalent to projected diversity. Average Energy Usage Per Year: Watana Devil Canyon 3750 (0.65 +0.30)8760 kWh =15,603,750 kWh 2 Say 15.60 GWh/yr for 6 yrs. 3350 (0.65 +0.30)8760 kWh =13,939,350 kWh-2- Say 13.94 GWh/yr for 5 yrs. Operating Characteristics of Diesel Units: Fuel Rate Assumed -13 kWh/gal (diesel fuel) Base Price for Diesel Fuel -41.2 i/ga 1 (1977 actual) Plus 5%Allowance for Lube Oil -43.3 t/gal To be escalated @ 11%to 1980 and 7%thereafter. - O&M for diesel units estimated at 5%of total cost of incremental generation. Year Watana Dam Year Devi 1 Canyon """"I 1986 $1,118,500 1987 1,198,100 ~ 1988 1,280,800 1989 1,371,200 w 1990 1,468,000 1990 $1,311,800 1991 1,569,400 1991 1,402,400 1992 1,501,300 1993 1,607,300 -1994 1,708,800 D -26 DIESEL GENERATION OPERATING COSTS Diesel Fuel Including Lube Oil O&M Total Operating Cost Year tlgal mills/kWh (mills/kWh)(mills/kWh) ,..1977 43.3 33.3 1.7 35.0 1978 48.1 37.0 1.9 38.9 t""""1979 53.3 41.a 2.1 43.1 1980 59.2 45.5 2.3 47.8-1981 63.3 48.7 2.4 51.1 1"""'.1982 67.8 52.2 2.6 54.8 1983 72.5 55.8 2.8 58.6 .,....1984 77.6 59.7 3.0 62.7 1985 83.0 63.8 3.2 67.0 1986 88.8 68.3 3.4 71.7 -1987 95.1 73.2 3.6 76.8 1988 101.7 78.2 3.9 82.1 1989 108.8 83.7 4.2 87.9 1990 116.5 89.6 4.5 94.1 I'f'-, 1991 124.6 95.8 4.8 100.6 1992 133.3 102.5 5.2 107.7 1993 142.7 109.8 5.5 115.3 1994 152.6 117.4 5.9 123.3 r"'"'. I ~ """"i !D -27 Depreciated Value of Diesel Units: Basic Assumption of 15-Year Service Life. Assume Straight-Line Depreciation 1.Watana Installation Installed Cost (new)=$4,252,500 (1985) Depreciation/Year =283,500 Depreciated Value (1991)6-Year Period =$2,551,500 2.Devil Canyon Installation - - -Installed Cost (new)= Depreciation/Year = Depreciated Value (1994) $4,647,375 (1989) 309,825 5-Year Period =$3,098,250 Discounted Value of Benefits (Diesel Generation Alternative) Base Year 1979 (Discounted @ 7%) Construction Operating Total Cost Present Value Year PWF 'Cost ($)Cost ($)($)($) 1979 1.00000 1985 0.66634 4,252,500 4,252,500 2,833,611 1986 0.62274 1,118,500 1,118,500 696,535 1987 0.58200 1,198,100 1,198,100 697,294 1988 0.54393 1,280,800 1,280,800 696,666 1989 0.50834 4,647,375 1,371,200 6,018,575 3,059,482 1990 0.47509 2,779,800 2,779,800 1,320,655 1991 0.44401 -2,551,500 2,971,800 420,300 186,617 1992 0.41496 1,501,300 1,501,300 622,979 1993 0.38781 1,607,300 1,607,300 623,327 1994 0.36244 -3,098,250 1,718,800 -1,379,450 -499,968 TOTAL PW'10,237,198 (-sign denotes assumed resale value) o -28 - - B.Alternative 2 -Cost of Construction Power by Temporary Tapline (This will represent costs for S/C analysis) Basic Assumptions: 1.Same loading conditions and time frame as per Alternative 1. 2.Sequence of temporary construction as per previous assumptions. 3.Reuse of substation equipment possible after construction program completed but no salvage value on line material.(Note:Possible reuse as distribution line to recreational areas.)Assume resale value of substation equipment to be depreciated value based on 25-year life of facilities. 4.Cost of power based on wholesale rates in Railbelt area. From previous estimates for line and substation facilities: Construction Costs: 69-kV subtransmission line $3,200,000 (1985 level) Susitna tap station +Watana substation facilities Baseline cost level =$26.50/kVA (1979) Escalating @ 7%to 1985 (6 yrs) Construction Cost =$40/kVA (1985) Total Construction Cost =$400,000 =$47,250 =2,750 :::5,000 $55,000TOTAL 69/4.16 kW,5 MVA,Substation at Devil Canyon (1979 levels) Transformer $45,000 fob factory (Virginia) Allowing 5%for shipping and handling,etc. At jobsite cost Fused Disc.Sw. Structure,Conc,pad,etc.r"" j o -29 Construction Costs: Equi prnent Labor Desi gn TOTAL 60% 30% 10% $55,000 28,000 9,000 $92,000 or $18.4/kVA (1979) Escalated at 7%from 1979 levels. Substation would be installed in 1989. 12,800 13,300 14,000 Total O&M Costs ($) 13,200 13,800 14,400 15,200 16,000 16,800 440 460 485 $/M 330 345 360 380 400 420 Year 1992 1993 1994 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1989 Construction Cost =$36.2/kVA Total Construction Cost =$181,000 o -30 29 MTotal { 40 MTotal Note:That due to overlap in construction schedules for Watana and Devil Canyon the capacity of the Susitna tap station will need to be doubled by addition of second 5 MVA transfer.This will be moved to spares inventory after 2 years. O&M For Temporary Construction Power Line Maintenance 69 kV Wood Pole line -Approximately 40 miles long (11 +29 M) -- Cost of Construction Power Supplied over Temporary Line Facility Based on information from RWRA 2/1/79 Wholesale rates for Railbelt area,with combination of Susitna Hydropower and large coal-fired plant feeding interconnection. .... Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 Rate of Change Wholesale Rate (mill s/kWh) 17 18 20 22 Cost of Energy (mills/kWh) Bus-Bar Substation Note:1977 Cost Levels ~ I ~ ! 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2000 8% 7% 5% 24 26 28 30 32 34 37 39 42 45 47 50 D -31 27.3 31.0 33.2 36.2 30.2 33.5 36.6 39.1 Conversion of Total Energy Rate to 2-Part Tariff Assumption:100 MW Power Transfer at 0.6 LF is 525.6 GWh/yr. Total Revenue 50/50 Revenue From:Equivalent Tari ff Bulk Rate for Bulk Rate Demand Energy Demand Rate Energy Rate Year (mills/kWh)($1000)($1000)($1000)($/kWh)(mi 11 s/kWh)-l 1979 17 8,935.2 4,467.6 74.5 8.5 1980 18 9,460.8 4,730.4 78.8 9.0 1981 20 10,512.0 5,256.0 87.6 10.0 1982 22 11,563.2 5,781.6 96.4 11.0 1983 24 12,614.4 6,307.2 105.1 12.0 1984 26 13,665.6 6,832.8 113.9 13.0 1985 28 14,716.8 7,358.4 122.6 14.0 1986 30 15,768.0 7,884.0 131.4 15.0 1987 32 16,819.2 8,409.6 140.2 16.0 I!O!!j 1988 34 17,870.4 8,935.2 148.9 17.0 1989 37 19,447.2 9,723.6 162.1 18.5 1990 39 20,498.4 10,249.2 170.8 19.5 1991 42 22,075.2 11,037.6 184.0 21.0 1992 45 23,652.0 11,826.0 197.1 22.5 1993 47 24,703.2 12,351.6 205.9 23.5 1994 50 26,280.0 13,140.0 219.0 25.0 Allow 5%adder for line and substation losses -assume the resulting rates are applicable to price construction power. o -32 Cost Estimate for Construction Power -Assuming same loading as for diesel generation a lternat i ve. L Watana Damsite (3750 kW,15.6 GWh/yr) ~ Demand Rate Energy Rate Construction Power Costs Year ($/kW)(mills/kWh)Demand ($)Energy ($)Total ($) 1986 138.0 15.8 517,500 246,480 763,980 1987 147.2 16.8 552,000 262,080 814,080 1988 156.3 17.9 586,125 279,240 865,365 1989 170.2 19.4 638,250 302,640 940,890 1990 179.3 20.5 672,375 319,800 992,175 1991 193.2 22.1 724,500 344,760 1,069,260- 2.Devi 1 Canyon Damsite (3350 kW,13.94 GWh/yr) Demand Rate Energy Rate Construction Power Costs-Year ($/kW)(mills/kWh)Demand ($)Energy ($)Total ($) 1990 179.3 20.5 600,655 285,770 886,425 1991 193.2 22.1 647,220 308,074 955,294 1992 207.0 23.6 693,450 328,984 1,022,434 1993 216.2 24.7 724,270 344,318 1,068,588-1994 230.0 26.3 770,500 366,622 1,137,122 r D -33 Depreciated Value of Substation Facilities Basic Assumption of 25-Year Service Life Assume Straight Line Depreciation -~ .... 1.Watana Substation Installed Cost (new) Depreciation/Year Depreciated Value =$27.6/kVA (1985) =$138,000 =$5,520 =$104,880 (1991)(6-year period) 2.Devil Canyon Substation Installed Cost (new)=$36.2/kVA (1989) =$181,000 Depreciation/Year =$7,240 Depreciated Value =$144,800 (1994)(5-year period) 3.Susitna Tap Station/Watana Bus Tap Installed Cost (new)=$262,000 (1985) Depreciation/Year =$10,480 Depreciated Value =$167,680 (1994)(7-year period) To transfer 5 MVA facility from Susitna Tap to Watana. Cost of removal and transfer =$30,000 (1991) Cost of second 5 MVA step-down facility at Susitna tap. In 1989 for Supplementary power to Devil Canyon =$343,400 Depreciated value after 2 years =$315,900 o -34 .... - - o -35 DERIVATION OF INPUT COST DATA FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO OBTAIN BASELINE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TWO CONSTRUCTION POWER ALTERNATIVES o -36 - r -, r I l -I P"'" I : I I r I r I r L-I ! r-, I SUMMARY BASELINE COSTS (1979) ASSOCIATED WITH TWO CONSTRUCTION POWER ALTERNATIVES $1000 (1979) (Independent)(Interconnected) Diesel Tapline Year Generation Supply 1985 2,835 267 1986 695 483 1987 697 481 1988 696 478 1989 3,055 752 1990 1,324 902 1991 187 734 1992 623 430 1993 623 419 1994 -50o.Y 304 1/Negative sign indicates net resale value predominates over costs. o -37 D.4 ALTERNATIVE GENERATING PLANT FUEL COSTS The year-by-year analysis of comparative fuel costs follows: - A.First Period (1984-87)-Firm Power Transfer of 30 MW,145 GWh The determination of relative economic advantage to either system,of a firm power transfer,would require a detailed analysis,necessitating production costing of economically dispatched units for the Anchorage and Fairbanks systems.It is a reasonable measure to delete the comparison of marginal advantages accruing for this year of operation. Year 1984 1985 Interconnected System Expansion The number and type of generat- ing plants is identical to that for each system operating inde- pendently. ANCH 9 -78 MW SCGT is added to AML&P system,obviating the need for both NORT 3 and BELU 9. Independent System Expansion Each independent system would be supplied by operational units on basis of economic dispatch to meet individual area needs. Two units are required in Anchorage area,ANCH 9 - 78 MW SCGT and BELU 9 - 71 MW RCGT,together with NORT 3 -69 MW SCGT unit at the Northpole Station in Fairbanks. , - - As a first approximation,the relative generation cost advan- tage may be determined by estimating the respective fuel costs associated with the generation of 145 GWh of energy by either ANCH 9 or NORT 3,taking into consideration different primary fuel costs and thermal efficiencies.The unit ratings are sufficiently close to justify this analytical approach,on the basic assumption that equivalent energy would be generated during the year by the two units.An adjustment would then be made to allow for the differential cost of supplying line losses in the transmission intertie,which would amount to 1.5 GWh/yr. o -38 -i - Comparative Fuel Costs: ANCH 9 -78 MW SCGT From Battelle Report (see Figure 0-3) See Figure 0-1 Trend Curve for HR8444 New Gas with 8%inflation and escalation 1985 Fuel Cost =$3.60/MBTU Net Heat Rate =14,500 BTU/kWh Annual Cost of Fuel (ACF) to generate 145 GWh: ACF @ 0.21 PCF~/=$3.60 x 145 x 14,500 =$7,569,000 NORT 3 -69 MW SCGT From Stanley Consultants Report P.21 1978 Fuel Cost =$1.98/MBTU Escalating @ 10%per year!/: 1985 Fuel Cost =$3.86/MBTU For distillate from North Pole refinery From Table 6,P.22: Net Heat Rate =15,130 BTU/kWh Annual Cost of Fuel (ACF) to generate 145 GWh: ACF @ 0.24 PCF~/=$3.86 x 145 x 15,130 =$8,468,000 The total cost comparison is in favor of ANCH 9 generation to supply Fairbanks. Total cost of generation,including loss component =$7,648,000. 1986 BELU 9 -71 MW SCGT is added to CEA system,the inter- connection having served to delay the in-service of the combustion turbine by one year. It is assumed that this unit will be operated for supply to CEA system only during first year of operation. ANCH 10 -104 MW coal-fired plant is added to AML&P system for both independent and interconnected system expansions.KNIK A -15 MW thermal power plant (CEA)is also retired from both expansions. ~i ! l r, The relative economic advantage is attributable to the fuel cost differential between distillate for NORT 3 generation and Beluga gas for generation by either ANCH 9 or BELU 9.Selecting ANCH 9 as in the previous analysis for 1985: 1/7%inflation +3%escalation. 2/PCF =Plant Capacity Factor. o -39 Comparative Fuel Costs: ANCH 9 -79 MW SCGT 1986 Fuel Cost =$4.00/MBTU Net Heat Rate =14,500 BTU/kWh Annual Cost of Fuel (ACF) to generate 145 GWh: ACF @ 0.21 PCF =$8,410,000 NORT 3 -69 MW SCGT 1986 Fuel Cost =$4.25/MBTU Net Heat Rate =15,130 BTU/kWh Annual Cost of Fuel (ACF) to generate 145 GWh: ACF @ 0.24 PCF =$9,324,000 The cost comparison is once again in favor of ANCH 9 generation to supply the equivalent amount of energy over intertie,as would otherwise be generated locally in Fairbanks. Total cost of ANCH 9 generation,including transmission loss =$8,498,000. 1987 This is the first year of operation of COAL 1 -200 MW coal-fired plant on the Anchorage system.As this would be the first year of operation for the first major coal-fired plant in the Railbelt, for either independent or interconnected expansions,it would be thus common to the two alternatives.The relative cost advantages would then again be determined by consideration of the relative generation cost for ANCH 9 and NORT 3. Comparative Fuel Costs:- ANCH 9 -79 MW SCGT 1987 Fuel Cost =$4.25/MBTU Net Heat Rate =14,500 BTU/kWh Annual Cost of Fuel (ACF) to generate 145 GWh: ACF @ 0.21 PCF =$8,936,000 NORT 3 -69 MW SCGT 1987 Fuel Cost =$4.68/MBTU Net Heat Rate =15,130 BTU/kWh Annual Cost of Fuel (ACF) to generate 145 GWh: ACF @ 0.21 PCF =$10,267,000 Total cost of ANCH 9 generation,including transmission loss =$9,029,000. o -40 - B.Second Period (1992-96)-Firm Power Transfer of 70 MW,337 GWh Year 1992 Interconnected System Expansion .Interconnected operation obvi- ates the need for COAL 5 -200 MW unit in Anchorage area and COAL F2 -100 MW unit in Fair- banks area.Comparable genera- tion is maintained by COAL 6 - 300 MW unit in Anchorage area. Independent System Expansion COAL 5 would have to be added to Anchorage system and COAL F2 to Fairbanks. Comparative economic advantage is determined by relative magnitude of fuel costs,for either COAL 6 or COAL F2,to generate same energy. Comparative Fuel Costs: •COAL 6 -300 MW •COAL F2 -100 MW From Battelle Report (see Figure 0-4) Fuel Cost in 1992 Net Heat Rate ACF to generate 337 GWh $2.60/MBTU 9,500 BTU/kWh $8,324,000 $1.90/MBTU 10,700 BTU/kWh $6,851,000 The comparative advantage in this case moves to the use of Healy coal.However, as with interconnection,the unit COAL F2 will be eliminated in favor of the ~economies of scale associated with the COAL 6 unit.Without production costing, it is not possible to determine the overall economic advantage of introducing COAL 6,so for pr~sent analysis it is assumed that no economic energy transfer is possible.However,as a first approximation,the fuel costs for this year will be entered into economic analysis to consider the effect of the differential. ,...., I I D -41 1993 ANCH 11 -104 MW coal-fired unit added to AML&P system in this year for interconnected ex- pansion,after an interval of five years following the in- service date for same unit with independent expansion.PEAK A1 - 78 MW combustion turbine also in- service from beginning of year. PEAK A1 -78 MW combustion turbine in-servi~e from beginning of year,for independent ex- pansion of Anchorage system. - - Of interest in this year is a comparison between the cost of energy generation for ANCH 11 and COAL F2 using the same source of fuel,Healy coal.Thus,the relative advantage of either generating at the existing plant site at Healy or in the vicinity of Anchorage may be examined for similar capacity units having the same thermal efficiency,to determine the economies of energy transfer by intertie. Comparative Fuel Costs: •ANCH 11 •COAL F2 Cost of Healy coal in 1993 $2.4/MBTUV $2.00/MBTU~/ Net Heat Rate 10,700 BTU/kWh 10,700 BTU/kWh .., ACF to generate 337 GWh $8,654,000 $7,212,000 Once again the comparative advantage lies with the generation of energy at the Healy site.However,with interconnection the need for COAL F2 disappears in favor of the economies of scale attendant on COAL 6.It may be noted that the cost differ- ential in favor of Healy disappears if the COAL F2 site would be moved away from Healy for environmental reasons to say Nenana.In this case,the cost of generation would be approximately the same whether coal were transported either to Anchorage or Nenana,as the transmission loss,associated with ANCH 11 (104 MW)generation and transfer over the intertie,would be compensated for by the slightly higher heat rate to be expected with the 100 MW unit of COAL F2. 1/Delivered to Anchorage plant site. 2/Delivered to Healy plant site. o -42 - .-1994 As GEN 1 -300 MW coal-fired generating plant added for both independent and interconnected system expansions,the previous combination of ANCH 11 and COAL F2 can again be examined to determine the differential cost of fuel. Comparative Fuel Costs: •ANCH 11 •COAL F2--Cost of Healy coal in 1994 $2.5/MBTU $2.2/MBTU (Minemouth Generation,FOB Tipple) Net Heat Rate 10,700 BTU/kWh 10,700 BTU/kWh ACF to generate 337 GWh $9,015,000 $7,933,000 r It may be noted that due to divergence of fuel cost trends after 1993,for coal delivered to either Anchorage or Nenana,rather than minemouth,the economic ad- 'vantage moves progressively towards generation at an Anchorage location,with transfer of the equivalent energy over the intertie.However,in 1994,it is possible to transmit energy generated economically at Healy to Anchorage over the intertie. Total cost of COAL F2 generation,including transmission loss =$8,016,000. 1995 COAL F3 -100 MW coal-fired plant is introduced to the Fairbanks area and PEAK A2 - 78 MW combustion turbine is added to the AML&P system. Interconnection results in the postponement by one year of the 300 MW GEN 2 in the Ancho rage a rea. GEN 2 -300 MW coal-fired plant is introduced to the Anchorage area with independent system expansion but the 78 MW com- bustion turbine PEAK A2 is not required in addition to the large coal-fired plant.COAL F3 is added to the system in the Fairbanks area. -I -r As COAL F3 is common to both the independent and interconnected system expansions,it is of interest whether the gas-fired PEAK A2 in Anchorage could economically displace the equivalent energy generated by the coal-fired unit COAL F3 in the Fairbanks area. o -43 Comparative Fuel Costs: Cost of New Gas in 1995 (HR 8444 -8%infl.+esc.) Cost of Healy Coal in 1995 (Minemouth Plant,FOB Tipple) Net Heat Rate ACF to generate 337 GWh •PEAK A2 $7.70/MBTU 14,500 STU/kWh $37,626,000 •COAL F3 $2.40/MBTU 10,700 BTU/kWh $8,654,000 There is a definite economic advantage to coal generation at Healy and energy transfer over the intertie to displace gas-fired generation in Anchorage. Total cost of COAL F3 generation,including transmission loss =$8,745,000. 1996 GEN 2 -300 MW coal-fired plant is introduced to the Anchorage area,the inter- connection serving to post- pone its in-service date by one year. PEAK A2 -78 MW combustion turbine is introduced to the AML&P system in Anchorage. In this final year of analysis,it is of interest to compare the relative economic advantages of coal-fired generation at either the Fairbanks (Healy)or Anchorage (Beluga)sites. Comparative Fuel Costs: Cost of Beluga Coal in 1996 Cost of Healy Coal in 1996 Net Heat Rate ACF to generate 337 GWh •GEN 2 $3.3/MBTU 9,500 STU/kWh $10,565,000 •COAL F3 2.5/MBTU 10,700 BTU/kWh $9,015,000 Once again it is more economical to generate in the Fairbanks area and transfer energy south over the intertie to Anchorage. Total cost of COAL F3 generation,including transmission loss =$9,109,000. o -44 - FIGURE 0-1 NCXTK)~Jram ca cu ates exxJr iUliiY U SCOt=? iri pc)wer pants By JAMES McALISTER,Arkansas Power &Light Co, Historically,the ~er unit cost of larger power plants has been less than that of smaller plants,The proportionality was examined in some detail in the article "Economy of Scale in Power Plants"in the August 1977 issue of POWER ENGI- NEERING Magazine,p,51, The basic equation is: (C,/C7 )(MW 1/MW2 )P Where: C,,cost of plant 1 C~cost of plant 2 MW I capability of plant 1 MW"capability of plant 2 P proportionality factor For many years,this proportionality factor averaged about 0.6,which led to the so-called "Six-tenths Power ·Law,"However,as explained in the article referred to above,extended project schedules and inflation cause the factor to increase This nomogram solves the equation and permits a cost comparison of plants of different sizes.It assumes, of course,that they are essentially identical in construction technique, design and time frame,and that the only significant difference is in size, Example:A 200-MW plant can be .built for $200 million,Find the cost of a similar 1000-MW plant. Solution:(1)Connect unit ratings of 200 MW and 1000 MW on the MW1 and MW 2 scales,and mark intersec- tion with Reference Line X.(2)Align this point with assumed scaling fac- tor P =0,6 and extend to cut Reference line Y.(3)Connect this point with 0.2 on C 1 scale and extend to C 2 scale.Read answer as $0,53 billion,eND To obleln en extra copy 01 this article, circle 206 on Reader Service Cerd -.--_._._---_------_.__._--- ""'"I Billiolls o(dollars 1.5 1.0 y 0.53 0.5 0,4 0.5 0.3 UJz ::J 0.2UJuz 1.0 UJa: Ii 0.130 UJa:0.120 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.134 0.144 1500 x 1500 1000 500 400 MWI 104 POWER ENGINEERING/FEBRUARY 1979 o-45 M"'!i1Willl cilpdhlilly BilllOIlS oj dollars FIGURE D~2 wz 500 ....J MVVI 1500 1000 400 300 100 x MW~ 100 1500 0.120 0.130 0.1 1.0 1.5 y wz :J wuzwa: Ii UJa: 1.5 1.0 0.53 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.175 0.165 0.1 M"'!olWdlllolPdlll'llly BiliiOI1S 01 dolliHS MVVI X MW:,C1 y C7 -1500 100 0.1 -1.5 0.12 0.13 1000 1.0 - UJ 0.53z 500 _J 0.5 ~ 400 0.4 300 0.5 0.3 """'1\ UJz 0.24::J UJ 0.2uz 1.0 UJa: Iiwa: 1.5 -100 1500 0.1 I P~_(MW2 )-l(1 -\MW l 0 -46 -, FIGURE 0-3 RW RETHERFORD ANCHORAGE(6l / ISER ......RAIL BELTI2' BELUGA/CH UGACH ABSENT PALNG'10I I I ~ POSSIBLE LIFE BELUGA FIELD COMMITIED RESERVES ALASKA PIPELINE WELL HEAD<7J BELUGA/CHUGACH WITH PALNGI91 HR 8444 NEW GASl') 8%INF.&ESC. 5%INF. AVER.REFINERY CRUDE OIL ACQ. PRICE~ 0.5 ,.... :::l ~ CCI.-E E 1.0 "-in ~ I0.11<----__--'1 ..--..1 ---'-1 ---"-,--'-I 11--__--' 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 YEAR I""'" \ !,ESTIMATES OF FUTURE NATURAL GAS PRICES (Source:Battelle Final Report 'Alaskan Electric Power',March 1918/Figure 6-6) D-47 FIGURE 0-4 10..------------------------------, 5 HEALY COAL FOB NENANA 1.0 :J..... CO E E "'-<I) 0.5 INTERIOR ALASKA ENERGY ADVISORY TEAM - FAIRBANKS HEALY COAL ANCHORAGE FMUS \A EXPERIENCE/'/: \y/ GVEA HEALY EXPERIENCE BELUGA \ INTERIOR ALASKA ENERGY ADVISORY TEAM -HEALY 0.1 L-------I'--------'-------'-.......L -L__--:--L.-.__---J 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 YEAR ESTIMATES OF FUTURE COAL PRICES (Source:Battelle Final Report 'Alaskan Electric Power',March 1978IFigure 6-7) D -48 APPENDIX E .TRANSMISSION LINE ECONOMIC ANALY$IS PROGRAM (TLEAP) APPENDIX E TRANSMISSION LINE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROGRAM (TLEAP) TABLE 8-1 CASE IAr- TABLE 8-1x CASE IA TABLE 8-1-LL CASE IA TABLE 8-2 CASE IC TABLE 8-3 CASE IB TABLE 8-3x CASE IB TABLE 8-3-LL CASE IB-TABLE 8-4 CASE IB TABLE 8-4x CASE IB TABLE 8-5 CASE ID TABLE 8-5x CASE TD TABLE 8-6 CASE ID f"'"TABLE 8-6x CASE ID TABLE 8-7 CASE IC .- I - E-1 2,AUGUST 79 ALASKA POwER AU1HO~ITY ANCHORAGE -'FAIR8A~KS INT[RTIE ECONO~IC FtASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 8-1/ DISCOU~TEO V~lUE OF BASE YE.'\~(1979)INDEPEIIlDENT SYSTEM cosTs 1'"$1000 ______________________________-__________ESCALATION RATES-------~------------------------------- DISCOU'iT li%41.5%6X 7Y.8%9X 10%11%12% qATl:======-=======:--_...._---------=======-------==============------------------------------------------------- 1.l.{\O <':1,.,'I 7;>3SQ,I09 31'>,~,971',427,474 :1{,'!,977 516,903 "ibti,712 62~,909 689,048 758,730 1).25 239,~h'>340,'>35 3BO,203 411,69"4S9,(l19 50 11,160 555,18 1j 6JO,8~'!672,263 71~0,046 11.50 .'23'j,"59-1 331:1,.,81 371,075 L108,193 4 1J /:1,493 IJ92,967 542,0"8 596,209 655,972 721,910 0.75 229,')56 B 1,I 1.10 5t>,5.5131>3'~8,960 431\,209 41:\1,513 529,292 '>82,005 6110,159 701.1,309 9.ll!)<'2!j ,'1 'j 7 323,90·:j 3'55,321\389,9137 428,211 a70,386 516,903 568,213 621.1,flOH 687,225 9,25 2d:,2b2 311:>,~6h 5<.11,lj95 3Rl,206 4113,'107 4"'1,':'76 50'.1,1'170 5sa,820 b09,905 67{l,641 '1.'J1J 21'j,79.'1 31 (,1,U 2·~33",<17R Y/Z,787 409,1)70 <.1£19,013 .:193,181 541,812 ':i95,430 6')4,51.11 'i.7')2 I I ,<.I 'J I 503,30r,332,471 31,4,5!1 5 3Y9,,,,'11 43':\,fl67 4Pl,fl24 5Z9,111 ')131,375 631\,909 10.00 2ul,217 2 CJ t:J,1''I2 325,201 356,530 390,981 428,'141 47u,789 516,903 567,/24 625,729 lV.25 205,093 29U,591 31i1,2C,9 3/~8,736 382,312 419,.5v5 '160,066 S04,97H '><'4,464 bOB,9ab 10."(1 IQQ,076 21'4,'.161 511,'I/J5 341,156 37S,R83 409,932 1l/l'!,b44 493,390 541,581 594,667 I U•15 I QS,162 21':<,49U 30l.i,ii!0 .B3,7l:13 365,6 1;6 400,820 439,51.)482,129 529,065 ')80,7')7 lTl I 1•I;I)l'/1,3 'J8 272,bf,7 2q6,~57 326,611 351,71 /.1 391,959 42 Q ,065 471,185 51b,903 567,244 11.25 1/:,,7,fd I 261,('3<1 292,076 q 9,I)32 31j9,960 383,345 420,U91 1I60,5ab 50r;,0/i'j 551.1,114 1 1 .:;0 I !j 'I,I)(18 261,53l'2;>'''',963 312,13 1.12 342,<117 374,965 /lIO,lAI 450,204 1193,')96 5111,35') N I I • 7S lOll,/ll6 256,112 2Ali,i)13 506,23il B5,071:\36b,HII 401,728 440,11.l<.J 111\2,429 ,)2/i,Q55 1<'.00 117,03~25,),953 27Q,220 299,H02 321,936 35f:1,lHl2 392,'!23 430,372 471,57 /.1 516,903 UISCOU~TED VALUE Of ~ASf YI:AR (1979)INT~RCONNECTED SYSlEM COSTS IN 'li1000 _________________________________________ESC~LATION RATES--------------------------------------- DISCOUNT 0%47-5%b·t.7'1.liZ 9%10%I I %12% ~ArE ---...---.:::===;::::--_..._--====================:::::=====:::::-------=======:::::::::::::::=--------------------- ~,00 253,560 351,1->7'.1 390,1IH;1.133,136 l.i81,019 5Vl,3ll9 595,859 61:>0,105 '35,1:\7 Ij 1-\15,988 1-\.2':>228,I'll 3i.l3,035 380,:160 i.JZ2,18b llhtl,691j 520,531 578,278 642,5911 714,202 793,8Q9 fl.':>!)222,9ilO 354,"S/J ~71,O28 lJlI,S73 4Si>,758 507,104 563,IRa 625,633 69':>,151 772,510 Ij.15 217,°22 52h,S28 St,I ,'J 13 3 401,2 11 4 IJ4<,,180 494,092 548,560 609,207 676,699 751,797 9.00 215,011 .5 I I:J ,t,'J"353,01')391,509 453,969 081,482 534,389 595,284 65f1,1l25 731,731:> 9.2':1 201.',242 311,000 3'.14 ,II IIJ 381,656 1123,091j 1.169,200 520,656 571,860 6111,509 712,30a 9.50 2U3,blli 305,"1<2 336,072 372,257 412,551 457,1.112 507,3l.l6 502,914 624,731 1:>93,"79 9.7S I 'lq,t 12 290,51\5 527,'!HO 363,160 IJ 02,32"1 1145,925 4911,(j"5 51.18,a29 b08,474 675,2111 10.I)0 19l1,JiI ~2S<J,'.l01 320,1,>9 35il,.Bi>392,1.112 1131.1,788 ilBl,93A 53a,38q 592,720 657,51:>9 10.?S !'lO,II07 2ec,625 312,511 ,~/lr),776 31'2,796 423,988 £169,012 520,779 577,450 o4tl ,1.144 10.50 IHh,3/3 27 t,0 11.5 50S,11k.:B 7,lIl1 'i73,lIoH 1115,513 1158,05 /j 501,':;85 ')1:>2,bLl9 623,847 1 (I •7">1 Me,"5 t>/j 2b4,bSb 297,<:IIJ3 32'!,412 3b4,illB ~O3,354 1.1 /10,6')2 49a,192 0.,1.18,300 007,]60 I 1• u0 I 7 P,,Ij"9 20~,4e.,S 2<)0,979 321,"'12 55':l,t>3H 3'13,1199 1.155,.,93 1.tt12,3Rt>5.311,5H9 597,166 11.25 17 Ij,0 b 2 257,i.l34 21:14,218 314,d02 347,119 383,938 42/I,tlb7 410,3"'5 ')70,900 577,048 11 •sn 171,000 2S1,51\7 271,054 .306,6:~4 531\,1.'51 374,661 41 /.1,461 aS8,1:>8i>,)07,H19 56c?,3A9 11.1">Ibl,1I21 24'),901\211,2hl 299,4i:12 BU,826 305,0"'9 40 /J,36':l a4/,30'1 49",132 <,lI8,1711 12.00 165,Q;n 2 l 1{1,39i 26",0'11 i9<,,5~t\325,03<>3'.:>0,923 394,56<1 4)6,38(>4f\2,1'>27 531.1,.389 J J J ,~~I J .J ','.,.J J j J J ,J .J -~-~~1 l.3 AUGUST 79 -]-~~l "-1 ALASKA POwER AUTHO~IIY ANCHORAGE -FAINBANKSINTfRTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 5Tu01 1 )} TABLE 8-1 CAPITAL DISBURSEMENTS ~~fUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS ~---'IN---$IOOO-fOR"~------~.--IN~$(OOO FOR .. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS ALTERNATIvE SYSl~M EXPANSIONS ~-~-~--......-.---.--.-.--.--------.---I NDE PE NOE N TIN TERC ONNEC TE 5---'--'-I NOEPc NOr:III 1 COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 ESCALATtD $ HHfRCONNEClED ESCALAltD $ --_.._._---~---~--.'.' ITl ·w 1919 19,.,0 1 qf<1 ll,001 . _ 1952 2,\},19 1£1,2211 1983 26,06b 4b,9b7 .!91"\L1_-81 ,9112 J 1,51') 19d~37.172 32.062 198b 21,127 492 1987 7.1~2 2,412 1988 7.555.8,473 1989 23,110 30,549 1990 .2 t ,920 .__.____.43,038 ._~_ 1991 82,?OO 4:~,411 1992 101,380 e9,69Q 1993 5R,1I">O 10R.723 199£1 29.840 75,13£1 1'~q5 16,31\0 23,106 1996 27019q7---~......---.--254 ---._.-.--------..-.~.~.~¥'u -----.-- 1979 1980 1981 )9132-".....---~---~--.1Qa5 198LJ 1985 \9136 19tH 191'18 19t19 199Q 19q1 1992 \9'H t9qq 1'.1'15 t9c~/) 1 q~n ADDITIONAL DISBURSEMENTS IN $1000 FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INDEPE~DENl INTERCONNECTED cosrs -579 COSTS -$79 SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS IN S1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY DIESEL Gr:NE~ATION INlERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 23 AUGUST 79 ALAS_A PO~EH AUTHORITY ANCHO~4GE -FAIRBANKS INTERTIE ECQ~O~IC FEASIBILITY STUDY DISCOUNTED VALVE OF BASE YEAR (1979)INOEPENOENI SYStEM COSTS IN $1000 TABU:8-IX ~___________~_~_______________~___~______ESCALATIUN ~ATES--------------------------------------- DISCOUNT Or.4%,5%6%7"1.84 9%10%11%12% HAlt:-------=======---------------------==============----------------------------_...._-------------------------------------_.- /'..00 2/J 4.47 i'35ll,109 388,978 427;474 469,977 ')16,903 568,712 6~S,909 689,048 758.736 ti.25 2~<),~b5 3ll6,235 3dO,203 II 1 7,695 LlS9,079 50ll,760 555,184 610,839 072,263 740.0110 11.,0 ?3 ,j •~0 I~330,')81 371,675 '.106,193 1~48,1l93 Ll92.967 5ll2,Oll8 S90,209 655,972 721.910 b.75 229,556 331.lllLl 363,.Sil6 39i1,Y60 1I313,209 ll81,513 529,292 582,005 640,1')9 704,309 9.(10 2 2'~,':I Ij 7 323,90il 3C,':i.328 389,91'.7 4213,217 470,.51'16 516,903 568,213 624,808 687,225 9.25 220.262 310,068 347,~95 381.206 1.l18,507 Ll59,570 50<1,870 5S<I,820 6U9,903 070,6111 9 •.,0 21"lgfj 31 \),I)2 4 339,1i7B 372,757 /~09.(j 70 449,073 <l95,181 541,812 595,430 65/1,541 9.75 211,IlSI 305,568 332,471 36/~.,5i1S :,99,i397 438,867 481,824 ".;,29,177 581,375 638,909 10.UCl 207.217 Z9b,1j92 32".;,,267 350,530 390,981 1121:\,9/~7 470,189 S10,903 507,724 623,729 1l!.?S ",).,,0 </3 290.591 318,2S9 3,P.l,730 3fl2.312 1.l19,305 llbO,0t>6 50Ll,97tl 55Ll,46Ll 608,986 10.',0 199,076 2t\Ll,401 H!.ell!3 31.l1,l5o 373,81:\3 I.109;932 1149.bIl4 493,39()5Lll,'-.IH 594,667 I CI • 7<j 1'I5'\/)2 21/j,uQi./50Li,010 333.783 305,686 400,820 1.l39,513 482,129 529,Ob5 580,757 1 I •lJ 0 IYI.3'HJ 272,b!'!7 29;;,357 320,b11 3,7,711~3'11,95'1 429,66'5 47 I ,18 "i ')16,903 567,2411 rn I I •;~';!Ij 1 ,b ..~I 26/,O3~292,076 31Y,b32 349,'160 383.3ll3 iJ20,091 1160,S4t>SU'),084 ".;,54,1111 1I .50 11:l4.008 201,'-.30 285,963 312,1:\42 511c,1I17 374,903 I.lID,781 450,20ll Ll93,S96 541,3':15 .,p.I I .7';180,47&256,172 2!HJ.013 300,231.j 33'),078 366,811 1.101,728 llll 0,149 Ll'32,IJ29 528,955 12.00 177,n!d 2')0,'153 274,220 299,HV2 327.936 351-\,882 3<J2,923 1.130,372 Ll71,574 ".;,16,903 DISCUUNTED VALUE OF BtlSE YEAR (1979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 ____________~____________________________ESCALATION RATES--------------------------------------- DISCOUNT 0%4%5%6%7%87-9%10'-11 %12% RATf:.============::..:--------------=======---------------------=======------------------------------------------------- 8.UO 245,1183 36S,Hf\7 40 /J,90S Ll4B,371 496,755 ')50,701 610,731 677,551 751,908 834,625 8.25 2'-10,411 3S7,120 39S,0,)3 1.131,2<)3 4811,33.2 536,706 595,008 659,893 732,OI\LJ 812,379 5.S \)235,098 341:',629 .HI<:>,.j99 Ll20.553 472,201 525,llJ3 579,773 642,786 712,882 790,8311 d.l,)229,939 .-5110,386 370,233 tJ16,139 460,559 S09,997 56S,009 626,211 6911,281 7b9,967 9.00 224,92tJ 332 ,H~Q 367,2LlS 400,040 41.19,213 iJ97,254 550,701 610,ISO 671:>,259 7119,753 9.25 220,061 :'>2'1.1)29 ,58,527 396,211.,431:1,212 uBlj,900 S36,832 594,')86 658,798 730,171 <J."l0 2IS,332 311,09/j 350,1)67 38b,7411 iJ27,5113 1172.922 523,3f18 579,500 641,81b 711.197 9.75 210.737 ~0C,j,78q 541,d59 377,527 1.l17,19S 461,306 510,353 564,877 625,.1.177 692,811 1 \1.0 I)2.<)0,272 30<',095 333,894 3613,51)5 (jOl,IS7 1150,042 Q97.715 550,701 609,581 67Q,99Q 10.25 201,933 29S,I:IU7 320.162 359,Q07 397.419 4.,9,116 485,Ll58 536,956 591.1,172 6<j7,7211 10.';0 197,711.j 28<1,12\1 316,6')>1 351.480 387.9'1\1128,517 473,~72 S23,628 579,,233 640,985 10.15 195,6HJ 2H~~.b2o 311,372 31.l3.512 37K,B02 1118,2311 Ll62,042 510,703 SoLI,71.18 62Q,756 11.U\1 11:19,620 276,319 30(j,c'Hl 335.37"369,905 1l0tl,251 !J50,857 Q9/:\,\61 550,101 609,022 11 .25 \I-\S,749 27(1,1'13 297,~29 321,67b 301,268 391\,576 440.00S 486,007 537,078 593,766 11.50 Idl,97il 26'1,2<12 29v,757 320,197 Y:i2,8B5 31'19,180 IJ29,1l76 474,211 523,8&5 578,970 11.75 178,310 251:1,41:>1 251.l,277 312,9-"5 31.l1.l,7110 380,059 Lll Q ,258 /~62,765 511,OllB 56Q,1120 t2.00 I 1(j.7/12 25<',M43 277,90.>.'vc"!Hq 33b,/:Illll 311,200 l109.j41 451,b59 1198,612 550,701 .:.1 J ....1 -}c •.J J LJ.•J _J .J J ..1 ..1 J J ,I 1 l '-C-1 J o~'})1 Z:S Alll~tIS'79 ALASKA POlfEri AllHHlRlly ANCHO~AG£~FAIH~A~KS INI[~TIE ECO~OMIC FEAS19ILI1Y STUDY TABLE 8~lX ~_.__._----._._,-------_._-_."._,--'''-~_.. FUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS ---~------.---i 1'<$-1000·FOR'--- ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM ExPANSIONS CAPITAL OIS8URSE~ENTS "'~--.---------------~--,-------------IN -'$1 000'FOR AlTER~ATIVE SYSTEM tXPANSIONS NDEPEI'IOENT COSTS ~$79 INTERCONNEC IEO------I NDEP(ND[N T COSTS -$79 ESCALArED $ INTERCONNECTED ESCALATEO $ rT1 U"1 1979 198() 1 'Hit 191:'2 lQ83 19M4 IC!>J,) 19/'b l<lk7 1908 191'9 1990 lqql 19'-12 Iq'-l~ lq-/Il 19<1'5 .19'16 lq91 2,009 26,006 81,9<-1C' 57,172 21,121 7,1 ",2 7,555 23,110 21,920 ~?,2I)O 101,3'\0 ')!i,1l50 29,~'JO 10,3130 5,014 17,7ts5 5~,709 11,515 32,062 £192 2,iJ12 8,415 30,54~ £I3,lJ3R IJ3,iJll 1:\9,oQ4 108,123 75,15'1 23,106 210 254 ADDITIONAL DISBURSEMENTS IN $1000 FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY 1919 19~O 19~1 1982 1983 19134 1985 19110 lQ~7 1981:\ 19~9 l'NO 19q1 1992 1993 19q1l lQ<)<; 19 Q b 19''17 INOEPEnDUJ r INTEkCO;~NECTED C05TS -i79 COSTS -179 DIESEL GENERATION INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 COSTS ~~7q 28 AUGUST 7q ALASKA POwER AUTHORITY A~CHORAGE •FAIRBA~KS INlE~TIE ECONOMIC fEASIBILITY STUDY TABLEs-t-ll DISCOUNTED VALUE Of BASE YEAR (197Q)INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 a _______••••_________________••_______•__ESCALATION RATtS-----··------------···----------------- DISCOUNT 0%4%5%6%7"1.H%9%lOX lU 12% RATE ============:;:============;:-------=====================-------=====:=-----------...-- 8.00 238,103 373,719 418,575 1.168,876 52':1,259 588,1.132 65'1,178 738,366 826,958 926,017 8.25 232,028 363,6'11 /J07,220 456,025 510,725 "71,998 6/J0,bl0 717,398 803,2'14 899,327 8.50 226,llJ2 353,981 3Qo,227 1l/.l3,51l6 496,654 ':>56,OQ':I 622,6/J3 697,112 780,403 873,513 8.7':1 220,437 344,5711 385,583 /J31,5/J3 483,037 540,704 605,258 677,485 758,2511 848,542 9.00 214,906 335,/J 70 375,276 419,884 469,854 525,1107 588,432 65H,/J92 136,fB2 824,384 9.25 209,545 3;>6,648 365,293 40~,';93 4C,7,U90 511,386 572,147 640,112 716,099 801,012 9.50 20lJ,3/J7 318,101 35",624 397,b59 114/J,732 497,424 556,382 622,322 696,03'j 778,396 9,75 199,306 509,820 3/j 6,257 3H7,069 432,76/J 4113,906 5111 ,121 60",102 676,616 756,510 10,00 19/J,417 301,795 337,182 376,811 1421,173 470,816 526,345 588,432 657,1l19 73':1,328 10,25 189,676 294,019 328,390 366,873 409,946 458,158 512,037 572,292 639,625 714,825 10,50 I1l5,076 28b,482 319,869 357,;>44 399,070 44':1,859 491l,lilt 556,665 622,007 694,978 10,75 180,6114 279,176 311,611 347,914 381:1,'jB 433,965 484,761 541,531 604,950 675,763 I 1 ,00 176,284 272,093 303,607 338,1173 378,324 422,442 471,762 526,871.l 588,432 657,159 11 .25 172,01\2 26",226 295,R1.l9 330,110 368,431 411,278 459,170 512,677 572,435 639,1/j1.l I'T1 11.50 168,001.1 2"/'\,':>67 288,526 321,616 358,8143 400,460 4116,'no 491l,925 556,942 621,697 11.75 1611,046 252,110 281,033 313,381 349,550 3<>'9,977 435,148 485,602 541,934 601.l,800 12,00 160,203 ?4S,84t>273,961 305,.398 31.10,541 3/Q,816 423,693 1.172,694 527,39/j S8fl,1l32 O'l DISCOUNTED VALUE OF BASE yEAR (979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 ._._.___•••~____~._•••______._.______._._~SCALATION RATES---------·------·---------------------- DISCOUNT OX 4%5%6%7"1.8%9%10%IU 12% RATE ----------------_._--=======----...--==============--------------=======-----------------------..------------------ 8.00 233,811 366,765 411,372 461,709 SI8,/j9':>582,528 654,703 736,015 827,576 <no,b22 8.25 227,934 556,831 400,054 448,819 503,821 565,831 63'j,714 714,434 803,062 902,7'13 8.50 222,245 347,227 389,113 tl36,361 489,641 549,699 617,372 693,')89 779,387 875,922 8.75 216,739 357,940 378,536 U24,319 475,937 ':5'14,112 599,6'51 673,455 756,522 A49,972 9.00 211,407 328,957 36H,308 412,077 462,6'11 519,OU8 '51l2,528 654,001 73'1,435 821.l,909 9.25 i?06,245 320,269 358,417 401,421 I.lU9,887 501l,llt19 565,982 635,206 713,098 800,700 9.50 201,246 311,864 3411,851 390,537 437,50fl 490,416 549,990 617,044 692,482 777,313 9.75 196,I.lOll 303,732 539,':>97 580,011 /J25,';"H,476,fll1 534,531.l 599,492 672,562 7511,718 10.00 191,113 2'15,1'163 330,645 36'1,830 413,963 463,b'j7 SI9,~92 582,':>28 653,512 732,886 10.25 187,169 281',,247 321,984 3"9,981 a02,709 450,937 50'),146 '566,130 634,707 711,788 10.50 182,765 280,876 313,602 350,453 391,941 438,636 4Ql,178 '>50,276 616,723 691,398 10.75 178,498 273,741 30<;,490 341,233 581,465 tl26,739 U77,671 53tl,948 S'l9,337 671,689 I 1 .00 174,361 266,833 297,"639 352,312 571,331 1.l15,230 464,607 "20,116 582,528 652,637 11.25 170,351 260,11.l4 290,038 323,677 561,524 404,097 451,971 505,792 506,275 634,217 11.50 166,463 253,666 282,67'1 315,319 352,034 393.324 439,748 491,928 ')50,557 616,407 11 .75 102,693 241,392 275,551.l 307,228 342,8119 582,900 427,922 478,511 535,356 S99,184 12.00 159,031 241,311.l 268,653 299,3914 533,957 372,1:111 1.l16,479 465,543 520,652 582,528 J J I "..,..,).,J J J J j J ",.J " ALASKA PUwER AUTHORITY ANCHa~AGE •FAI~8ANKS INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASt8ILI1Y STUDY TABLE e-l-U ..~~] 28 AUGUST H }/.,.~)l 1 1 J --Fe)-})J CAPITAL DISBURSEMENTS IN 51000 FOR ALT[RNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS ·FUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS IN SlOOO FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS INDEPENDENT INT~RCONNECTED COSTS.579 COSTS·S79 INDEPENDENT ESCALA ltD 5 INT!:::RCONNECTED ESCALATED 5 fT1 'I 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19811 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19911 1995 1996 1997 18,629 5e,823 16.380 2.600 23,435 78,550 130,300 131,780 79,950 30,375 17,630 lI,011 14,228 lIb,967 11,515 32,Ob2 lI92 lIb3 IUb lIl0 2,9A6 23,799 78,892 130,bZ3 132,084 80,216 23.090 2S11 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19B1I 19R5 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19 Q 1 19Q2 1993 19911 1995 1996 1997 ADDI1IONAL DISBURSEM[NTS IN SlOOO FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM I NDEPENOENT I NTERCOJ-lNEC TED COSTS •$79 CUSTS -$79 SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION PO~ER COSTS IN 51000 FOR ALTERN ATlVE MODES OF SUPPLY DIESEL GENERATION INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -579 COSTS -579 23 AUGU:>T 1'1 ALASI\A puWF H,AlJHIOR I TV ANCHO~AtE -FAIRBANKS INTlRTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDV. DISCQUNTED VALUE OF BASE YEAR (197"!}INDEPENDENT SYSTc~COSTS IN $IOuO TABLE 8-2 ______________________~_::ESCALATIO~RArES----~~--------------------------------- 014%5%b%7%8%9%10%11%12% ..., 00 DISCOUNT KATE. t<.vO ".25 ~.':Jo !:l.75 ~.1)0 'I •.?"; '!.':>Il "1.75 I I)•II (f 10.25 1,i.'"'0 Ju.7,) I J •I)0 11.;:>" I I •,,() 11.75 12.II () ======= 251,4~2 2 J o,071 2'11'),illll 235,760 2~0,n23 226,015 221,~.55 2Ib,IR? ?12,Sl.lq 2 ')8,<l,<, 2(i3,tLSll I<)Q,l'lLl I 'IS,7td 191,fHIJ It\fl,,lU2 lli/J,tI21 I i',(l,M.53 ======= 367,521 350,1'9 3,>o,9 Q IJ, 545,088 .5.5 5,1103 .327,"136 32.G,b7e 313,024 306,166 300,('96 293,615 287,309 21H,177 27,>,2J 1 C'b'l,407 26,,7':>9 25/\,263 -------------- <104,713 3 0 5,342 586,242 571,404 36tl,1:l19 360,Ll1:\0 352,377 .54a,'>0.5 336,850 529,412 322,182 315,152 308,H6 .SOI,609 29~,205 21'H,91a 2"2,1"15 -------------- 1I1!''l,007 435,<43vI,2'l,2 C.,13 41'>,51\2 40'>,791 396,ino 387,42 9 .378,659 571),099 361,801 5')5,736 3lJ5,tl9a 33tl,27t1 350,fl69 325,660 316,6t>1 509,H47 ===:::== 491,538 1179,H211 I~bi",4'}4 1I57,1117 lj /16,705 ll.5b,29Q a20,190 1116,38a 1l0b,i)~3 597.~911 3HB,598 379,1"'5':> 571,361 :565,lOll 3')5,on 347,273 339,oH6 -------------- 542,088 528,991 516,28.3 503,91.l"l 491,979 480,358 469,077 4';>8,123 &47,/186 Inl,1511 427,119 417,370 lj07,89a 39l:\,6911 31l9,71.j"l 381,05'> .57 2,6011 ==:==::= 59H,088 583,1I 1,7 509,2£1.5 555,401 5a2,08':1 ~29,I 10 Slb,SI<' '>0 /"cBlI 492,412 111:\0,88tl 46t1,689 ll5H,fi17 4411,2S6 431,996 428,021'\ 418,5111 408,928 -------------- 660,126 6'13,7'>"1 627,885 612,1l87 597,5atl 583,054 ')68,tl88 '>55,338 '>lIZ,OAR 529,226 ';>16,738 ~04,613 Ll92,837 481,401 470,292 1159,499 IJ1I9,01a -------------- 728,~/~8 7 I 0,550 b92,818 61,>,0IS 658,9?9 6112,7l14 027,041 bll,B04 591,018 582,008 'ibtl,759 555,217 '>42,081:\ 529,5ao S10,960 50ll,956 a93,256 =======801l,970 7811,529 764,711 7115,1I95 720,861 708,78"1 691,260 67l1,255 657,757 6111,7118 626,213 611,134 596,1I9a 5B2,2/19 568,a911 S55,0<'11 542,088 DISCOUNTED VALUE OF BASE YEAN (1979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 ___________•ESCALATIUN RATES--------------------------------------- 0%4%57.6%77.fl%9%10%1 U 12%D ISCLlU~H RATt b.(1 0 tI.25 0.'>0 1:1.75 9.00 9.25 "1.50 q.75 IO.IJO Ib.2'> Ill.SO 1('.7') 11.Ii () II.2S 11.'>0 11.75 1.1'.C!0 ==:::=== 256,328 2')0,150 245,332 <,ull,U69 2.s4,9~5 229,9;>'7 2<'5,1':19 220,ab7 215,90') ?11,a71 2l'7,159 C02,966 1 "I8,fj«15 1'/4,921. 191,lIb2 liH,50,! un,b"2 =~====:: 37B,590 369,il93 360,863 5S2,489 :sa u ,563 336,476 526,h21 .521,389 311.1,I III 307,16B 300,563 <,9.s,7~4 281,3.34 2131,097 275,036 26'1,147 bd,422 -------------- 1I1 7,t)9 I 407,995 .39R,299 5H8,/:I9a 379,169 370,91t> 362,524 553,986 3115,t:l92 33fl,03S 330,40b 322,'199 51,""H~'':> 30tl,011 3\)c,030 29';>,1~5b 21:\9,02i1 -------------- 402,074 4"0,8a2 439,950 1.12"1,368 ''119,lin /.I09,2011 399,563 590,207 3/:1 1,129 372,518 .5b3,1t>~ 355,/jb2 347,401 339,~75 531,9H 324,"'1:17 317,ll-15 -------------- 511,139 1198,522 486,289 474,lI29 462,927 1I'>1,775 4QO,9511 '130,1I'>9 420,276 1.110,396 IIOO,BOI::! 591,502 5112,!l69 315,100 565,186 3"6,919 348,89 0 -------------- 56';>,71~6 551,575 ~37,B3q 5?4,5£'a .511,614 a99,097 486,9.,9 475,180 463,767 1I52,090 4 111,..,<12 1I31,5 1 .3 /l21,592 /jll,5!)9 402,054 392,778 385':7<10 -------------- 626,509 610,597 ')tI':>,1 77 5130,252 '>6S,740 551,703 53t1,0I:ll 524,B5,) 512,081 1I99,663 487,017 475,952 11611,C;9Q 455,')'12 1I1I2,915 1I.3?,5"i I 422,i19? =====:~ 694,110 67b,2118 658,9iJ3 6 /,2,173 625,922 610,170 5911,901 580,099 '>6';,7 /Jo 5'>1,828 538,551 ~£''l.239 51£,,~40 ')01/,i?19 1I88,265 476,665 '16'>,/.lOT -------------- 769,298 7119,256 72"1,8110 711,030 b92,803 b75,1111 6~8,023 b41,1I30 b(?'j,3116 60'1,7':)1' 594,630 579,967 56'),11I6 ~SI,9~2 ':1.38,'j 7 ° 525,':188 512,991 ======= 852,901l R30,1I22 808,b1l7 787,554 767,120 747,321 728,136 709,51111 691,523 074,055 657,121 6ll0,702 0211,780 609,3110 5911,3b5 579,£138 Sb5,1iJb J J J J j J J ~J J , 23 AUGUST 7"1 ; ALASKA PO~EW AUT~OWITY ANLHUNA~E -fAIR~A~KS INTERTIE t~U~U"IC FE.~I~ILIIY STuDy ~-~l C'-"'---J )"~~~-l -. -~--"-,-,---_._~-------,---,-----,-- )l TA6LE 8-2 --"..-,--_._._._.,---_._-_.• C~Pl TAL.D IS13URSEMEN TS IN ~1000 FUR ALTERN4TI~E SySTEM tXPA~SIONS FIlEl COMPONENT OF OPERAII",CCOSTS.------INS}000--FOR ALTtRNATlvt SYSTEM EXPANSIONS __c ,",.-·_·_ INVEPENOtNI COSTS -n9 --PlTERCONNECTED COSTS -H9 INDEPHIDENT ESCALATED $ INTERCONNECTED ESCALATED $ -__-_._.-._~-----_.-- rr1 .1 \0 1 eH4 14HO 14~1 19132 191:\3 19f.\IJ 1 9 /:<5 I'Jl5o l<jh7 1968 1489 19'10 1991 1992 j493 199 11 1995 \9'16 \9'11 (j,~12 2,009 18,056 26,ebb 7~,bO/J ______..~1,9i12 ..11,326 _.~__..__...._ 37,172 51,tlBb 21,127 -528 T,i52 2.319 7,555 8,~2q 23,110 30,bOIJ 21,920 /J3,042 82,200 4J~463 10t,3~O 89,973 SK,/J50 108,q~H 29,8~O 75,587 23,935 23,3£17 17,b30 £199 /J73 1979 191'j0 1931 19f\2 19;J3 j9t\£I 191:\'5 198b l<1fl7 191:\8 \91}9 1990 1941 1</92 19'H 1994 1 <J</'j 1996 1997 ADDITIUNAL DISBURSEMtNTS IN S1000 FOR UNOERLYJNG TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INDEPENOENt INTERCONNECTED CUSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS --IN $1000 ~OR . ALTERNATIVE MODeS OF SUPPLy DIESEL GENERATION r~TERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -i79 COSTS -$7q 23 /lIJl;USl /q ALASKA Pu~ER AUTHORTTY ANCHORAGE -FAIRBA~KS INTERIIE ECOhOMIC fEA51RILITY STUDY TABLE 8-3 DISCQUNTED VALUE OF BASE YEAR (1079)INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 _________________________________________~SCALAIION RAIES--------------~------------------------ OISCQilll;f OY.4%5~b%7"1.8%9%10%11%In: ...AIE.=======:::=====-------=======-----------------------------------=======------------------------------------------ t<.110 11':>(',iI;1l b Ub,Btl7 70~,Q32 7l1,231~852,5H6 95S,Oh ll 1,020,007 1,120,021 1,23':>,993 1,356,869 11.25 ,H 0,':iSH 1>32,1;0 bQc,oll':J 7':i Q ,2In 1:13?,1l<;'6 913,013 1,001,606 1,099,020 1,206,11U 1,323,827 1-1.')0 430,93'3 017,i:l13 b76,P.Ob 7111,/01 A13,080 891,S78 977,1:\92 1,072,784 1,I 77,086 1,291,712 i<.7'5 IJ 21,574 605,1'17 661 ,IJ 0 I 724,6b7 794,2 112 870,7112 9SlI,8U4 1,047,287 1,1<18,1l82 1,<'60,512 9.00 l.l1?,1l58 ')90,3211 646,ll15 708,101 775,023 850,48 1j 932,1139 1,022,507 1,121,u711 1,<'30,199 9.25 f.l:1 .$,Srt2 <,77,12f.631,P,31'691,987 758,109 1:130,787 910,058 998,420 1,0911,838 1,;:>00,71111 o.SO 3'?lJ,9Y:'56'1,292 'Jl/,I:>':>!1 b7b,312 1Ill),7Po 7"/:.111,032 All 0 ,IJ P,I 97'j,006 1,061-\,9118 1,172,120 9.7",;>'10,<)22 ':;;')1,7 0 9 bOS,b'i4 obl,Ob5 727",929 793,004 Ilb8,IHlR 9"2,2111 l,01l3,7In 1,1411,300 1 (1.00 371"\,7,,23 55 0 ,6110 ~9 V,4 <"j b ll0,225 7 (1 1,':i 3:j 7711,B8S 8lj~,863 9~0,107 1 ,01 9,3 I 7 1,117,258 10.2':>37,),7.>31 527,804 ':J77,Yj3 1:>31,787 t>91,S83 7<;7,260 1\29,386 901:1,51:13 995,530 1,090,971 10.,0 7",,2,5,,8 51b,282 5t>ij,I:>_~O 1:>17,757 676,003 740,113 1\10,1141 887,650 972,400 1,065,414 I O.7'i 35l.l,<J1~5(1'i,Ob5 ':>52,2 Ill:>I:>\J 11,061 660,959 723,430 792,011 867,290 9119,907 1,0110,564 rrt I I •l)lJ 7,,·-l7,5<)?Ij'J4,139 I)II 0,11:\1\">90,1/j9 hl~6,260 701,196 774,081 847,1165 928,031 1,016,399 11.25 )-'1 ,),~'-i [j 41U,SO 1 1.)2",,,,1.18 571,791 651,'152 691,308 756,635 828,218 900,752 Q92,899 I 1•I.)('3~"5,~/q '-1 7 ~,III 1 ">17,010 51:>5,171.1 61d,025 676,022 739,658 809,1172 886,052 'HO,OIlI ......11•Ie:,520,S ..2 iHd,U49 505,1:183 552,!:!l:l9 60lj,I~,,7 661,056 723,136 791,231 865,91.S 9117,807 Q 12.00 519dln '-lS3,218 1195,0110 51-l(l,925 591,2/:)">6116,:~8b'107,055 773,/.l80 8116,318 926,177 U!SCOUNTEO VALUE OF BASE YEAR (1979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 -~ ____________~____________________________ESCALATION RATES--------------------------------------- DISCOUNT 07.ll%5%6%7"t.87.9~10%11%In KATt:.=======-------=======--------------=======----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.00 42';,liS b23,';51 b~t>,1:l99 756,982 83lJ,/.l93 920,195 1,01<1,9111 1,119,573 1,235,172 1.362,807 8.25 1115,8'!-0 6Vi3,S7Q 670,250 7.$i\,1173 flLS,9111 897,313 989,1178 1,091,297 1,203,7112 1,327,880 I:\.~O 4()1:>,320 594,02,65 11,080 720,lj98 793,933 875,1 00 9611,786 1,063,852 1,173,242 1.293,990 8.75 397,U2b '579,890 6311,312 703,0 I~0 771~,529 8':J3,533 9/JO,1:l15 1,037,212 1,1113,6uO 1,261,101 9.00 3/{7,Q Oo ';1:>10,/57 023,115 6f1b,Otl3 755,l:>lllj 1:\7,,2,590 917,541 1,011,350 1,114,906 1,229,183 9.25 37 q,21)'-1 'SSe,lill 60b,e87 669,610 737,380 812,251 8911,942 9B6,2/J2 1,087,1115 1,198,201 9.':10 3711,060 539,l:lil2 595,1:\1:\0 653,606 n9,s9Q 792,<196 872,995 961,861 1,0">9,933 1.J68rl27 9./5 362,351 52"1,256 579,,,81 638,056 702,~25 TB,307 1;51,680 938,186 1,033,639 1,138,930 10.00 Vi<.l,269 514,91:\3 566,27 'J 622,9 1J5 b8'i,':J1I2 7511,666 IBO,976 915,192 1,008,\06 1.110,582 10.25 3i.1b,il\J7 503,071 ">S3,01l9 008,(1)9 6tl9,233 736,555 810,B63 892,859 983,310 1.083,055 10.50 3~H,75R Ijq \,'Ill 9 5110,192 S95,9/lS 653,:S/l1l 71R,957 791,323 871'\6';9">9,226 1,056,323 1 ()•15 Bld15 'P-\u,22~527,...,93 5~0,110 b3T,9;J!701,1;55 772,Btl 850,089 935,832 l,f)30,360 I 1•II 0 3211,O75 I-lb o ,?71 51';,')40 56b,621 623,001:\bFJ5,2V,75~,689 819,612 913,106 l,lJQ5,1112 1 1.2'5 317,1.125 I-l'jB,620 SO~,123 S53,S;;)7 600,453 669,081 73,:>,960 809,715 891,027 980,6411 11.5l1 ~10,1('6 1IL1!',2bo :.j92,230 54lT,755 5911,303 6",3,H8 718,535 790,379 869,573 951:1,844 11•75 30),llk8 1I3R,11'\9 1I!J!,052 528,35 i J 51'\0,')44 631-\,112 701,597 771,586 8118,72t>93l,720 le.VO 2'1b,q;q~Ll211,38",1170,179 Slt>,29it 567,16')623,270 685,131 753,321 828,111:15 9111250 ". ,J •J J J J ~'"__.J "",J --~1 ~""~)··~···I ~--J <~-l ._,'1 1 -j )""j 2-S AU(,lIST 1'1 ALASKA PI.l~[R AUt fHll.'J 1 y ANCHO~~GE -FAIRHA~~S INJ~kTI[ ECONO~IC FEASIHILJTv STUDY TA8LE 6-5 --~--,----"---~---,-~_.._-~-------------------- CAPITAL DISBURSEMENTS ...I~$100U FDA' .ALTERNATIVE S'ST~"EXPANSIUNS -_.._,---,-_._--_._----- fUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS ....IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIvE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS I~DEPENDENT INTERCONNECTED COSTS -~7q COSTS -~79 ".INDEPENOENT .ESCALATED $ INTERCONNECTED ESCALATED $ rn .......... 19"19 1980 19«1 19t\2 1ge3 1 91HI 1985 lQPt> 1987 1'l1"'l I 9i',Q l'lllO 19')I 1 0 92 1993 1994 I'NS 199b 1997 2,OU9 2b,0'>6 81,Q'L? H,I 72 27,727 33,5';2 106,555. 11~5,210 9£1,71:>0 I 19,LJ 75 101,3':\0 S8,45ll 29,8 f~0 23,9.~5 17,1:>~0 4,011 lLJ,228 J.l6,9t>7 11,';51 .32,0 9 7 b,006 211,1l10 90,673 135,9110 11';,716 1 Uri,?/) H9,0911 108,723 75,134 23,lOb 270 254 8,4b8 9,324 10,.267 6,851 7,212 7,933 a,6511 9,015 7,648 8,1l98 9,029 8,324 8,b54 B,Ult) 8,745 9,J 09 ADDIllO~JAL DISi;URS[~l[NTS IN $1000 FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INDEPENDENT INTERCONNECTED COSTS -~79 COSTS -$79 SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POwER COSTS IN $10UO FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY DIESEL GENERATION INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 1979 1980 1981 191)2 1983 19~J.I 19 H5 ~"__.__._"~..._.._....._._... 1986 14H7 19/itJ 191-\<1 199(\ 1<1'11."------19<12 19 Q J l<l'J1l 1</°"- 144(, lQ~l 23 AUGUST 79 ALAS~A POwER AUTHORITY ANCHO~AGE -FAIRBANKS INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 8-3x OISCOUNTED VALUE OF·~ASE YEiR (\97'1)INDfPE~D~NT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 -----------------------------------------ESCALATTON HATES--------------------------------------- DISCOUNT 0%£I~5:1:6%7%B%9%10%117.12% RATt --------------==============--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.UO <!5 (I,'HI 1 O<lb,M07 701:\,932 777,234 852,386 935,Ooll 1,02b,007 1,120,021 1,23':,,993 1,356,869 .".<'5 IIljO,SC;8 t>32,139 692,6<15 759,218 832,i.l50 913,013 1,001,606 1,099,020 1,20b,llli 1,323,827 M.50 IJ.SIJ,938 t>17,·'\13 67n,80b 7lJl,701 813,080 891,578 977,892 I,U72,78<.1 1,177,086 1,291,712 tl.7'i 0<'1,,711 605,877 obl,lll)l 72i.l,ob7 7 9 1j,2lJ 2 1:l70,7IJ2 9'i4,844 1,0£17,287 1,111F:l,882 1,201l,512 't.!.'!)'Hi',ljS8 S90,320 oIJt>,ilI5 708,101 77';,923 8';0,IJ8IJ 932,1l39 1,022,507 1,121,1l7IJ 1,230,199 4.2';LlO.3,S!j?')77,121:\tdl,831>b91,9F:l7 758,109 B30,71",7 (110,658 998,420 1,091.1,838 1,200,7Qll (,1.')0 yllj,9,'1 56<1,292 b17,0511 67b,)I2 7 IJO,7IH 811,032 H/39,481 975,00b I,068,9111'1 1,172,120 9.75 Ho,5<'2 ')')1,799 60.5,054 661,Ob3 723,929 79.5,00'1 86~,8f\8 9",2,£'L11 1,01l~~,78~1,144,300 10.()0 .~7p"3"3 ')39,b40 590,'1211 046,225 707,,)3'!77lJ,885 /WI3,8b5 930,107 1,019,.517 1,111,2')8 10.25 370,357 527,P,0<.l 577,353 031,7/'17 b91,5H3 757,260 829,386 908,583 995,':>30 1,090,971 10.')0 3b2,558 510,282 56t.1,630 617,737 076,063 7110,113 810,441 887,650 972,L100 1,065,L11L1 10.7S 3~IJ,q18 50'),063 552,246 60IJ,061 660,959 723,ll30 792,011 867,290 9Q9,907 I,OllO,56L1 1I .00 3117,')'-12 '1'1,J,13°540,llil3 59(j,7ll9 bll6,2bU 707,196 174,081 t\tJ7,ll85 921'1,031 1,016,399 lT1 I 1 ."':>34l),3Q'J q~3,,)('1 ':>2H,q,'H)577,791 631,9')2 b91,39P,750,635 828,218 900,752 992,899 J I •'i (1 333,379 4 7 .~,I IJ 1 ,)17,OIt-5b5,114 611:\,025 076,022 73 9 ,058 809,472 886,052 970,Olll I--'I I •75 326,';IJ2 <163,0<:<9 505,1383 552,1'1/19 b04,fJb7 bol,056 723,136 791,231 865,913 911/,807 N 12.00 319,876 1J53,21tl iJ9'),OIJO 54U,925 591,265 6 1Jb,486 107,055 773,480 tl1l6,318 926,177 .- DISCUUNTED VALUE OF BASE YeAR (1979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN ~ldOOO _~._._.__~_______________________________ESCALATION RATES--------------------------------------- .-----615·c OUN 1 0%U%5%6%7%8%94 10%11%12% RATE --------------==::====-------=======--------------===::===----------------------_....------------------_...._...._---------------- 8.00 Ll31\,030 037,754 701,006 772,207 8')\),250 936,ll95 1,0:.H,776 1,137,008 1,2,3,195 1,381,433 8.25 IJ28,091 622,058 b84,8311 753,570 tl29,539 913,ll78 1,006,197 1,108,585 1,221,613 1,5L16,31.19 1l.':>0 4111,029 007,'191 668,51J!.735,<109 809,1J26 891,129 9tH,365 1,080,995 1,190,963 1,312,303 Ij.75 Q09,0")')5<13,739 052,715 717,B80 71",9,1'92 869,427 957,255 1,054,211 1,161,211 1,279,261 9.00 3<;19,iiY9 579,p,°1 037,334 700,1'105 770,919 I3/H;,351 933,843 1,028,207 1,132,.531 1,2'17,190 9.2'>391,l1l5 566,431 622,390 684,209 752,1l88 827,881 911,1011 1,002,957 1,104,292 1,216,058 9.50 3112,37t.1 553,.~49 607,867 668,OtH 734,582 807,99b 889,026 978,457 1,077,Ob7 1,18",834 9.75 373,908 5l1l1,631 593,751 652,41IJ 717,183 788,079 P,o-".,-,H 954,624 1,050,6.>1 1,1';6,490 10.00 3b5,''''0 52>\,268 5~0,t)3n 637,18'1 700,277 7b9,910 846,742 931,491.1 1,024,957 1,127,996 10.25 3S7,831l 516,e4..,56b,h O I t>2?,3Rl 683,tl47 751,673 826,1.199 909,026 1,000,021 1,100,325 10.')0 3'iO,u(Q SOil,5')7 ';').5,123 60)1,991 601.1371'.133,951 800,831 8t\7,199 97S,HOO 1,073,1.150 10.75 VL?,')57 49),HId 5ill,113 59f~,OOI 052,S55 716,726 787,71'3 865,991 9'::i2,269 I,01l7,54b 11.00 33'),?2.~'-182,131 52t1,ii50 ')!l0,399 037,2b5 699,984 769,l tH 84'),38.3 929,408 1 ,021,988 11.2').328,O!l5 1171,376 516,'12tl 567,172 622,59tl 61:13,709 751,089 825,35-'90-',195 997,352 11 .SO 321,135 llbO,913 ",0'),324 554,S09 608,328 007,lHI7 733,51.10 805,893 885,b09 973,1l15 11 .75 31IJ,no LI'io,733 IJ 9 11,U i.lO 541,7</'"59'-1,4')5 652,503 716,1I~0 7B6,97t.1 86'1,031 950,'1';6 12.00 3u 1,782 <tIJO,!'\2tl <.11:13,002 529,b2~">80,963 037,51.11.1 699,89S 70(\,SIB RIJIJ,2IJI 927,552 ,)j _~I _~-J -1 )J J --,-~J ~--,~")).)-')))-}1 2J .aUGl1S179 ~LAS~A PU~ER AUtHORIty ANCHUHAGE -FAI~HA~KS INJE~TI[ ECO~OMIC FEASI8lLITY STUDY TABLE 6-5X CAPITAL DIS8URSEME~TS I~'!il000 FOR ALT~RNATJVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS FUEL COMPO~ENT OF OPERATING CUSTS Jll $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS I~DEPENDENl INT[RCON~ECTED CUSTS -$79 COSTS -!7Q INOEPEIIIOENT ESCALATED $ INTER£UNh~CTED ESCALATED $ I'Tl ..... W 1979 198u 19-'!1 19~2 19f\3 19R1j 19t\'j 191\0 19t17 1988 1'1,,'1 1'i00 1 \)<}1 19'12 19<13 1994 19</5 1'I9b lq'H 2,009 2b,bl>b 81,9'~2 .)7,172 27,727 .B,552 106,555 l u 5,21G ql~,700 11 0 ,lj7S 1(l1,3~O "R,/~"O 29,8!.10 23,935 17,h.SO 5,01£1 17,785 ·58,709 11 ,551 32.097 6,006 24,420 90,b73 135,940 115,71b lU,19t{ e9,b94 108,723 75,134. 23,100 270 254 8,4b8 9,32'1 10,267 6,851 7,212 7,933 8,654 Q,015 7,64P, 8,498 9,029 8,321.1 ____. .11,654 8,01b 8,7U5 9rl 09 ADOITION_L DISBURSEMEN1S IN $1000 FOR UNDERLYING TMANSMISSION SYSTEM INDEPfNDENT INTERCONNECTED COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 1919 19!30 19F1l ~_~.1982 ..._.. 1983 19~Q 19H5 19lib 19"7 19/:18 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 I Q 05 199b 19<.J7 SUSITNA CONSTRUC.TION POwER COS1S _.I~$1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY DIESEL GENERATION INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 COSTS -$7q ----_.--._--_.__._..-_~--_.•.._.._.. --_..'---...-_..----------------_.--------"-- 28 AUGUST 7tJ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE -FAIRHANKS INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY UBLE8-l-LL DISCOUNTED VALUE OF BASE YEAR (19]q)INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS IN SIOOO •••••___•__••_••____._••_•••__•__.~__·_··ESCALATION RATES--~-··__·_··---··_--_·---·--·--·-·-··-· DISCOUNT OX 4t St 0%]X 8X en lOX 11%12X RATE ============:==================;=::=================================== 8.00 237,090 3S2,1.I1.19 389,81.11)1.131,531.1 1.177,1)81 529,713 587,311 b51,1.111.1 722,720 802,024 8.25 232,020 343,007 379,955 420,1l60 1l05,585 515,830 571,777 031.1,027 703,208 780,253 8.50 22b,529 335,031 370,3bO 409,721.1 1.155,568 502,380 55b,724 017,180 684,1.117 759,104 8.75 221,11)2 326,713 301,055 399,312 41l1,917 489,349 542,134 000,855 bob,IS3 738,734 9.00 21b,009 318,642 352,029 389,210 1130,621 476,710 527,992 585,DB 048,454 718,939 9.25 210,977 310,812 343,274 379,'123 419,607 1l61.1,'155 511.1,283 '509,698 631,302 699,759 1).50 206,090 303,214 ]311,779 369,921l 409,043 452,')72 500,992 551.1,8 B 611.1,678 681,172 9.75 201,31.12 295,81.10 320,537 560,709 398,739 441,01.19 1l88,105 ')40,1.121 598,"64 003,157 10.00 196.730 288,683 318,539 351,709 388,7 IH·429,872 475,608 526,448 582,943 645,090 10.2')192,250 281,735 310,777 3113,O93 379,045 419,031 463,1l87 512,899 567,798 628,769 10.50 187,896 274,990 303,242 334,674 369,636 408,':114 451,732 1199,7')9 553,112 612,359 10.75 183,605 268,41.11 295,9<,A 326,503 360,50b 3'18,310 440,528 1.187,015 538,A71 596,447 I 1•00 179,552 262,082 2813,827 .H8,572 351,611':>388,1.10'1 1.129,26'>1.171.1,653 525,059 581 ,018 11 .25 175,555 255,906 281,932 310,872 31.15,01.11.1 378,801 418,':131 462,661 511,663 56b,054 fT1 11.50 171,609 21.19,908 275,257 303,396 331.1,690 36'1,1.I7b 1.I0B,II':1 451,02b 1.198,667 551,51.11 I 1•75 167,890 241.1,081 eb8,734 296,138 326,591 360,425 3'18,000 439,736 I.IBb,ObO SH,1.I63 12.00 164,216 238,1.120 262,419 289,0139 318,722 351,639 3813,195 428,781 1.173,827 523,806..... .j:::. DISCOU~TED VALUE OF BASE.YEAR (1979 )INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN 51000 •.•.__._~___.~-w •••-.-.--.__.-.---••---·-ESCAl.TION RATES--···········----··---···------··-----·· DISC.OUNT OX 4%SX oX 7%8X 9X 10%11%12% RATE :===========::c=======:1:============================::::::================ 6.00 iB8,419 j47,':109 383,0<>9 1122,':>82 1.16b,':1e6 ':>15,562 570,0':13 b30,0':19 098,037 772,913 8.25 233,022 339,177 373,675 1.112,087 451.1,81.10 502,1.129 555,362 611.1,225 67'1,657 752,361 8.50 2n,7B3 331,036 361.1,';;71.1 1.101,911 Il 1.13,/161.1 1.189,698 51.11,122 5'1tl,~9'1 661,81.18 732,1.150 8.75 222,695 323,138 355,71.17 392,01.11 1.132,1.128 1.117,3')6 527,320 582,865 61.11.1,591 713,158 9.00 217,753 315,1.171.1 31.1/,182 3tl2,1.168 1.121,725 1.165,38'1 513,939 567,904 627,865 6'14,463 9.25 212,'153 308,036 338,873 373,182 III I ,JI.IS 453,781.1 500,'165 553,1.101 611,651.1 b76dl.l6 9.50 208,290 300,8113 330,810 561J,172 1.101,276 1.11.12,550 1.188,380 539,31.10 595,91.10 658,787 9.75 203,759 293,1:\11 322,913':1 355,1.131 391,508 1.131,61'1 1.176,187 525,707 580,705 641,766 10.00 199,356 287,009 31'),390 31.16,91.18 38<',032 1121,026 1.161.1,355 512,1.186 565,'135 625,265 10.25 195,07A 280,1.105 308,018 338,716 372,836 410,153 1.152,/178 1.I'1'1,b65 551,612 009,208 10.50 190,919 273,992 300,861 330,725 363,913 1.100,786 1.11.11,74')I.IB7,229 ':137,722 593,756 10.75 186,876 267,761.1 29:\,912 322,908 355,252 391,11':>1.150,9111.1 1.17S,106 ':124,2.,0 571:1,713 I I •00 182,9116 261,71S 287,161.1 315,1J37 31.10,dlj'j 5B1,729 1.120,1.I0~1.163,1.163 'Jll,1B3 561.1,121.1 1I .25 179,121.1 255,ln9 280,bl0 308,125 338,685 372,6Ill 410,2'13 1.152,108 1.198,500 54'1,974 11.50 175,1.107 250,130 27 11,21.15 301,025 330,761 363,776 1.I00,1l22 1.11.11,0'10 1l86,20B 536,21.17 11.75 171,792 21l1l,584 20A,v62 2'11.1,129 323,068 35S,191 390,81.11 1.130,3'17 474,274 522,'130 12.00 168,276 239,191.1 262,055 287,431 315,597 31.16,eSb 381,':141 420,019 1.162,091j 510,010 J ,e,l ,_c.'-91 '._c.__J J J J J ,J ),,--,_.1 ALAS~APOwER AuTHORITy ANCHOR"GE •FAIRBA~KS INTERTIE Eta~O~IC FEASIBILITY STUDY ---"-1 28 "U[;US T 79 Cl 1 CY~'l 1 )1 T"BLE 8-3-LL -1 CAPITAL DISBURSEMENTS FUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS IN 51000 FOR IN 51000 FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS INDEPENDENT INTERCONNECTED INOrPENllENT INTERCONNECTED COSTS·SH COSTS·$79 ESCALATED 5 ESCALATED 5 1979 1980 1981 u,0 11 1982 lLl,?28 1983 1~,b29 Ilb,4b7 19BLl 58,B25 .11,':151 1985 10,3130 32,097 8,£108 7,6£18 1980 526 9,324 8,t198 1987 £195 10,2b7 9,029 1988 430 19B9 o,bOO 5,890 1990 33,955 22,306 1991 116,630 90,119 1992 122,100 123,363 TTl 1993 72,8S0 73,001 199t1 37,275 70,091 1995 7,555 286 8,bStI 8,7t1S 'I"-'199b 1,7,630 270 9,015 9,109U1 1997 2':14 1979 1980 191H 1982 19/'3 1984 1965 1980 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 19')2 19'1'5 1991l 19'1';) 1946 1997 ADDITIONAL DIseURSEMENTS IN S1000 FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INDEPENDENT INTERCONNECTED COSTS·579 COSTS·579 SUSITN"CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS IN S1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY DIESEL GENERATION INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS·S79 COSTS •S79 23 Atlt;US I 1'l AlAS~A PO~tW AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE -FAIM8AN~S INTEHTIE ECONOMIC FEASlijTLI1Y SIUDY tABLE 8-4, DISCOU~TEO VALUE OF MASE YEAR (1914)INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 '-'-_-=::.:::_-_-::.--.:::.:..::.::._______________::..:.-----------ESCAL A1 I UN RAT ES-----------------------.:.--------------- DISCOLJ'H 0%4%57-6%7%8%9%10%11%12% ..A It -------=======-------=======-------========----------------------------------------------------------------_._----------- 6.00 '~tJ(),()?b ",60,560 725,022 '193,213 1:10<'1,761 9':d,Qa9 1,041>,"25 1,1IlB,507 1,200,188 1,383,148 8.2'1 '1 ,;'/,q S 3 o<l'j,_~bS 1(\7,,)37 771l,e72 649,''175 9,$1,"10 1,021,701 1,l20,81.111 1,2<:'9,800 1,349,"37 ~.C)o.oJ d i),1I.l';l I'd I),7711 /:>90,'-107 7"7,(13f'./-524,753 90 0 ,b91 997,57 l1 1,091.1,1':)6 1,200,280 1,310,886 8.7"><J 30,hl1<l 01b,579 675,218 759,1:>9 l1 1:110,516 81i1;,1191 97Q,122 1,061:1,<:'20 1,171,002 1,285,lb3 9.liO 1121 ,31 1 00c,16!'J b59,950 722,112<1 741,927 1:l07,Po72 9"1,32Q I,OQ3,010 1,143,726 1,254,340 9.2"'.+1 ?,?.62 511 0 ,32<.1 0'1<',101'1 700,1115 77 5,790 847,822 929,158 1,018,5011 1,116,632 1,224,387 '1.':>\1 a I,'3,45 ()<:"76,"'''>0 630,000 690,I~S2 7~6,IIJR 13<:'1:-,32'1 907,606 9'14,1'>80 1,090,297 1,195,276 9.I":3')<1,1'\61 ':>td,">21 61b,601 07'1,920 73tj,qP,7 tlO9,360 886,647 '171,5Ib 1,004,696 1,166,981 I 0 •I)I)3";/},SOI'':>':>1,131 60r',QI<.1 05'1,t\UI:-1<'2,29<:'7'10,913 860,261.1 9'-1/:1,942 I,U39,805 1,139,477 10 •.-:''::1 ~7e.,3hIJ ')3'1,070 58<),002 011",101 700,Oil7 772,967 AIJO,l.j38 927,087 1,015,603 1,\12,737 10.':>0 370,430 521 ,327 "70,639 630,7i\7 690,239 75","08 827,151 905,782 992,008 1,086,739 11).75 >0<:,,700 515,1193 5611,(l19 610,855 674,856 738,519 808,389 885,0"9 'n..9,179 1,061,1I';8 I 1•\}(l ,':>5,161 C,OtJ,75 a ':)51,732 003,292 6';i9,!'>55 721,987 79U,I33 864,899 9110,916 1,036,872 IT1 1 J •<'S ~u 7 ,>1?5 119~~,qlb 539,167 ')UO,OK({611'J,30/:l 70<:,,897 772,36'1 !:lW),285 92'5,259 1,012,961 I I •">!t \'IU,h':)q 1l1::I",3S1l S2i\,I 16 577,252 631,119 690,236 7"'),01:11 820,200 901.1,190 989,702 .....I I •7",5~3,69i.l JJ73,C1 66 516,761:1 ">04,713 017,~i)5 67l.j,991 738,2')5 807,624 883,091 967,075 0'\12.uO ~c'6,Ii'lll 463.043 "0'1,715 ""2,520 603,85'-1 660,14'1 7?1,1:l17 189,555 863,71.15 945,062 f)I SCOLJilTEO VALUE OF dASt:Yt:AR (197'1)INTERCONNECTt:D SYSTEM CUSTS IN $1000 •___________________________•____________t.SCAL.ATION RATES------------------·----------·--------- OISCOIJNT OX LI%Sf.6::<:7%.8%9%.10%112:127. ~AT t ==============---...---=======:=:===========---------------------=======---------------------------- i'l.Ou 112/\,1\20 621:\,09l~691,H91 162,4611 IlliO,512 926,799 1,022,162 1,127,522 1,2Q3,886 1,372,357 t\.2S LJlli,917 h13,1l15 675,129 7Ll3,El31 1<19,7 0 6 903,768 996,':)58 1,099,061 1,212,.:'54 1,337,207 /:1.50 <l1l9,2<i0 591',,307 oSIi,d1l9 725,735 799,681 881,408 971,704 1,071,437 1,181,SS6 1,303,099 13.7'1 "'/9,052 S8L1,136 6115,035 70H,160 780,liP 1:\59,097 947,575 1,01l4,6Z's 1,151.,762 1,269,999 9.00 5(1),I1B 5'10,30(\627,1:>71 6'II,OR8 761,176 838,6l!1.924,1117 1,018,592 1,122,841 1,237,875 9.25 5>'I ,'~"5 ':>';)b,H71 612,74Ll 67lJ,503 742,7LJ8 815,139 901,,98 9Q3,31t'1,094,766 1,206,693 9.~0 313,~b2 5113,1-\12 "913,239 1>58,340 724,tiLl7 79B,252 879,305 968,776 1,067,509 1,176,4211 9.75 30", 0 I 'I 531,119 '~8lJ,143 642,733 7U7,1l5b 778,9311 857,848 9114,944 1,041,0112 1,147,037 10.00 3<:"6,875 516,781 570,41.13 6?7,,:)19 690,"59 7bO,167 837,005 9<:'1,798 1,015,341 1,111\,504 10.25 3<Ji\,<.1S7 SOD,7Ro S57,120 612,733 0711,139 741,933 816,/58 899,316 990,382 1,090,797 10."U 3"1,2"Ll a 9'J,1<:'II "I.I'!,11:I1 ,,91:l,360 658,182 72 11,216 797,01\6 817,477 966,139 1,063,889 Ill.75 3,Q,7S9 LJi\,~,711(l 531,5"15 5f\1I,390 otJ<:"b7.~706,991'1 777,973 856,261 9L1(>,590 1,037,756 11.00 5<'0,4,,5 r.J7?,lSI,'J19d51 570,ou8 027,':>91'>b90,?6"759,399 IHS,64b 914,712 1,012,371 11 .2')H'J.307 Ll62,03U S07,1l')7 ':)':)7,6(\2 012,'./in 6711,001 741,549 81",615 897,480 987,712 11.5\)312,'-1"8 1I51,"9rt 'J95,;184 5(llJ,7b<:'591:\,o9/J b':itl,190 725,805 796,149 875,1i8f1 903,754 11.75 5ll 'i,733 (lLlI,Il'-l9 '1!:\,1,021\552,275 5t1L1,K'lO 642,819 706,7S1 777,229 851.1,901 '1ilO,47b 12.vn ?9Q,11-I6 4H,':>70 t.I73,ole,"20,130 "71,3h9 6?7,874 690,17,S 7"8,bllO 834,SOil 917,8"6 l j ,J I J ~J L J ....J J ,I .~~.~.~~"o-~._)---'1 ~l ".""1 )4"e)J 1 23 A\Il'~ISt 7'1 ALAS ...A PU ..FR AuTH(JH(lY A"ICti'JI</"(;1:-F A I RiiA!IIK5 IN H.R 11 [ ECONO~IC ~tASI~[LItY STUDY TABLE 8-CI CAPITAL DISdU~SEME~TS {I..$1000 FOR ALTERNAlivE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS FUEL COMPON~NT OF OPERATING COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALT~RNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS INDtPtNDENT INTERCUN~ECTED CUSTS -$79 CUSTS -179 IN/JEPE"<DENT ESCALATED $ INTERCONNEr.;tf::O ESC ALA rED $ ...., ..... ........ 1979 )9KO I 'H I 191:\2 )'183 1,!1)4 IOR5 1986 191:17 1'l813 19M'! 1990 1 '191 19q2 )LJq~ 1994 1995 1'1<16 1'.197 2,009 26,66b 8t,9i.12 37 , 1 72 27,727 33,552 106,555 li.15,2JO' 91.,760 11'1,IJ1'-; 101,3t\0 5t\,1l50 29,84U 23,9)'; 11,630 4,011 14,228 46,967 11,551 32,(J97 b,006 24,£120 90,673 1 5':>,91j 0 115,716 1 1'),191.' &9,694 1013,723 75,Ui.l 23,10h 210 2~4 8,468 9,324 10,267 6,1351 7 t?12 7,935 8,654 9,015 7,646 8,498 9,029 8,324 8,65(J 8,016 8,745 9,109 ADOI TIn~JAL DISBUfiSEMElns IN $1000 FOR UNDE~LYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SUSITNA CONST~UCTION PowtR COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY INUEPENnE~r INTERCONNECTED COSTS -~79 COSTS -179 DIESEL GfN[RATION INTERTI~TAPLJNE COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 1919 IQi\O 1981 1982 19H3 191'4 19/:15 19i1o )Qi<7 19f18 19tJ9 14'}l) 1'1'1) 1992 199 ~ 1'1<)4 19'1'; 199/) I 9 t ), 6,646 2,004 1,356 2,835 69';, /j97 696 3,055 1,324 187 623 623 -500 267 483 481 lI78 752 902 734 L150 <J19 301J lJ Aur.us T 1'1 ALASKA PU~fH AUIHO~l'Y ANCHORAGE --FAI~BANKS INTENT IE E[8~O~IC FEASIHILJIY STUDY UISCUUNTED VALlIE OF 8ASE yEAR (1979)INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 TABLE 8-11X -~-~---~-~---------~~-~~---~-------------ESCALATION HATES--------------------------------------- D ISCOiHJT 04 Q'l.5%6X 7%H~97-lOr.11%12t (-<ATE -------====:=::======:-------=======-------==============----------------....------_...._------------------------ '1.uO Qbu,P2b ~oJ,.56b 723,"2~795,215 ~jI)9,'61 953,9Q9 I,OQo,':>25 I,LQH,307 1,260,181:1 1,383,148 0.2')Q'~9,'-153 04',.~1)5 707,031 7 14 ,.872 8Q9,U75 '131,510 1,021,701 1,120,8411 1,229,800 1,3IJ9,537 i:\.5q Lj .'I!),1119 !'3«,774 090,907 757,058 1-\29,153 909,697 997,574 I,091~,15b 1,200,2.86 1,316,886 d.15 4.3!j,604 01(,,579 075,2113 759,69Q I:lIO,576 IHli),lj91 974,122 1,0611,22U 1,171,602 1,255,163 '1.nu 'J21,311 c02,76M 6"09,956 722,H21~7°1,'~27 667,872 '1':>1,524 I,OIJ5,OI0 1,11l3,·126 1,25IJ,3i10 9.2')Ij \2 ,i:'6 2 SRQ,.'>29 6iJ';,]0>1 706,Il I5 7 H,790 1',47,,.,22 929,158 l,uIH,'iOQ 1,116,1)32 1,2211,387 9.':,iJ Ill''>,~Sl)";,70,25U 63lJ,60U 09U ,ll':>2 7"b,J4fl tl2/:!,3?lJ 907,oOb 9'1IJ,b1i0 I,IJ90,2 9 1 1,195,276 9.15 ~9,j,'Ib 7 r,6~,:'21 016,601 b'71~,920 131i,9ij7 809,360 l:lf\I),6/~7 971,,:>lb 1,064,696 1,166,981 I ()•0 [l V-<I:>,SUH "51,I.$i 1102,914 1)"9,501:1 122,292 190,91"3 8b6,2&11 9 'HI ,992 1,0,9,1\05 1,139,477 10.2';378,3bIJ 53''',IJ 7u 559,002 611';,101 7(1),047 772,'167 846,438 927,087 1,015,6031,112,737 I I),So 370,/J50 ':>27,.527 576,634 630,7fl7 090,259 75,:>,508 1'>21,151 '105,782 992,068 1,086,739 10.7':-)t),),7no 51'),1:\93 564,1)1'1 0]6,,,55 674,I:J,)b 73/-'.,519 130b,389 111:15,OS9 969,179 1,061,458 11•(,(j :'>.,,:>,1 hi SOtJ,7"i9 551,132 60~,292 659,·~F\5 "12 1,9 fl 7 790,155 864,R'/9 946,916 1,036,872 rr1 1 1,"'i VJ7,62S ';95,916 'i5'!,167 590,081'1 bllS,Hlr\"105,1397 712,369 54<;,285 925,259 1,012,961 II,5(\)IJ (I,oh9 IJfl3,3':i<l 52/\,I \6 "77,232 631,\19 690,230 7S':>,vel 1:120,200 90Q,190 989,702....11.7e,3B,694 Q75,06b 510,768 564,115 b17,50S b71~,991 758,255 807,629 8/:13,691 967,075 (Xl 1<'.00 5<'b,H9ll 1163,Ull)505,71':>':>52,520 60),85Q boO,11J9 721,877 7119,S55 863,74':>945,062 "------~. 01SCOUNTE:.D VALUE OF !-lASE YeAR (197 0 )Itl,TERCONNE.CTEO SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 -----------------------------------------ESCALATIUN RATES---------------------------------------o ISC-OLiNT or.'0;5%6%7%8%9~10%I 1%12% RATE ====:========::=======-------==============-------=======------------------------------------------ l:\.liO 1~41,1,4 01<2,297 7(16,,91;777,090 851>,269 °1J3,IOI 1,0 ·,9,025 1,111IJ,'/S7 1,261,909 1,390,984 8.2')431.121:1 627,099 6R9,71,75fl,928 1:l35,1l?1 910,932 1,015,278 1,116,349 1,230,125 1,355,676 8.50 Il 2 I ,,1\)(,612,3.33 t>73,5\\740,7u6 815,174 1:l97,436 988,283 1,081:\,580 1,199,277 1,321,1l12 8.7"41 \,'iilO ,:>07,01:15 657,576 723,00S 795,511 87,:>,';91 96ll,015 1,001,622 1,169,333 1,288,159 9.00 402,742 5~Q,U1l2 b41,Fl93 105,509 716,411 1:\51J,376 9ljO,llIJ9 1,05S,lj48 1,140,206 1,255,882 9.25 393,796 510,1l'-JI 62h,8{~1 689,102 751,8'16 1'133,769 917,')611 1,010,o:n 1,112,045 1,224,5£19 9.50 Hi5,ti95 'lS7,S!9 h12,225 672,1:101:1 75 0 ,/150 1'113,752 b9':>,336 985,353 1,084,643 1,194,131 9.7')310,631 5J~·.,514 59H,01il 6.,7,091 722,315 79J.J.,305 b73,71~6 961,383 1,058,034 1,164,597 IU.foO 3bH,3Q6 532,060 5Hll,199 641,/51'.705,2'JiJ 71,:>,411 852,771 93tl,IOO 1,032,1'/3 1,135,918 10,2"1 300,3"1l 51'4,Q62 S70,169 62b,135'j 68t'>,15)l57,052 832,394 915,4flll 1,00"1,093 1,108,066 \0.50 "l,52,'~1'7 ')OH,19\557,711 612,566 672,b70 759,210.1:112,':>94 893,511 91:12,Ill'I,Ubl,016 J 0,75 "l,45,VOIJ /.19/,,744 545,015 ':>911,281 657,OIJR 721,869 193,553 872,11>2 959,027 I,0511,7112 11.00 .B7,0 15 .,/:3':>,611 ')32,068 51:1 /1,5 H ')611I,eS5 705,014 774,653 851,1l18 936,OIIJ 1,029,217 I 1 .2':>3.H',lJ26 1J71~,780 520,1>.,9 ':>71,261 627,01\3 688,629 756,lnH 831,?57 913,6':>4 1,1)04,419 I I .50 323,iJ28 'loll,i'4 l l ')OH,91ti 558,310 012,12U 672,699 738,810 811,663 891,925 980,325 1J.75 3Ib,6111 453,9 0 3 ljQ7,616 SllS,718 598,7')2 657,210 721,635 792,617 810,807 9')6,912 le.OO >'('9,919 /.IQ'I,OI9 <t86,i61 S33,LJ h':i 5\35,107 642,1119 7 (l Ij,9 3~77 l l,103 8~O,280 '134,158 I ~l J .J ,.J )J ---1-.c----)_._-,~-l 1 )] i!3 AI)\i\JJ i i'l ALASKA "0I~1:"l AI.l1'~U"'IIY ANCHUUAGE -FAIHKANKS !NIEWTIE ECONOMIC FEhSIHILIIY SlUDY TABLE 8-lIX CAPIl~L DrSBURSEME~TS IN .6tOOO FOR ALTER~ATIVE SYSTEM EXPA~SIONS FUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS IN S1000 fOR ALTERNATIvE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS INOEPENOENl INTERCO~~ECIEO COSTS -~79 COSTS -$79 IND~PENf)ENT ESCALATEiJ :I> INTfRCONNECTEO ESCALIITEO ~ I"T1 ..... ~ 1979 19(1U 191:\1 19f\2 191'\3 19R1l 191'·5 19Ko 19R7 \4f18 19R9 1990 1991 19'12 1993 \<I')il 19<15 19'16 19</7 2,009 26,666 tll,9lj2 37,172 27,727 55,5'>2 luo,5'-,,; li6,210 4'1,760 11<1,'175 \01,550 ';tI,I.l'SO 29,8ilO 23,935 17,630 5,014 17,71;5 58,709 11,551 32,097 6.000 2<1,'120 90,673 155,91l0 115,716 113.1 9 8 il'l,b9/J lOH,723 75,131l 23,106 210 254 8,1l68 9,32£1 10,267 6,8~1 7,212 7,</33 5,6511 9,015 7,b48 8,£I 'HI 9,029 A,324 8,6511 A,016 8,745 9,109 ADOI TIiH,JAL DISAlJRSE"1ENl S HI $1000 FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POwER COSTS lr~$1000 fOR ALTERNATIVE MOUES OF SUPPLY I~UEPENDENT INTEHCUNNECTEO COSTS -$79 COSIS -179 1979 \ql:\O IqAl 19R2 19115 1 'H<lj 191:\'5 196-0 19117 191:\8 \<I/:''1 1 ',/90 J 99 I 1992 1993 1994 19<,15 199b 1947 b,6£16 2,00£1 1,356 DIFSEL GENERATIUN INTERTIE lAPLINE COSTS -$]9 COSTS -$79 2,835 267-------------695 -------..---..--~-------------483 697 481 69b 478 3,055 752 1,3211 902 \87 73£1 623 ..------430 623 £119 ~500 304 23 AUG'JST 79 QL~S~A puwt~AUrHO~llY ANChORAGE -FAIRAANKS INTE~TIE ~CuNOMIC FtASIHILITY STUDY TAMLE 6 ..5 J J )J ~J t,J ,~J ...1 J J I .l J ~~-1 -1 1 1 1 I Z3"'UGUST7~ALAS'l.A PO"t!~Altlfil'RI TV ANCHURAGE-FAIN"AN~S INIERTIE ECONUMiC F~ASI9ILITt STUDY TABLE 8-S CAPITAL DISBURSE~fNTS IN $lOOQ FOI< ALTEA~ATIVE SysrEMEXPA~SIONS FUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS IN $1000 FOK ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS INDEPENDENT INTERCONNECT~O COSTS -$79.COSTS -$79 1 NDI::.PEIIIDEN T ESCALATED $ INTERCONNECTED ESCALATE.D $ f'T1 N.... 197'1 1°1:\0 1 '1;:\1 191'2 19t\.$ 19~'! 1 9 fl.':; 1'1/'1b 191:\7 19f\R 1'W9 19'10 1 9r~1 I 'I '}C 1993 1994 1'195 1<)96 1'197 2,00'1 2b ,t)OO .._.__...~1,qtj2 37,172 21,121 1,152 7,')':15 23,110 21,920 82,2110 101,3':\0 ':18,450 29,840 23,935 l1,b)O 4,b21 15,5911 1.18,1:\14 11,515 32,Ob2 492 2,1.172 Ihll73 30,5Ll9 £13,031:\. 45,411 89,0'14 10l:\,72.3 lS,134 23,IOb 270 254 ADDITIONAL DISBURSEMENTS IN $1000 FUR UNDERLYING TRANS~ISSION SYSTEM SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POwER COSTS IN $1000 FOR AL1ERNATlvE MODES OF SUPPLY I~uEPENDfNl COSTS -'79 IN rt.RCll:llNI:C TtD COSTS -$7'1 DIESEL GENE~ATION COSIS -$79 INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$lq 1979 1980 1481 19M2 1985 191'04 19'3':1 1'1~t:> 1'11'\7 I tlh8 191:\9 1'1'10 1qq1 19'12 1943 19'HI 1995 j9 Q n j'l97 b,6L16 2,·01.14 1,~56 --_.--------------------_.-----"- 25 AUGUST 7'1 ALAS~A Pow~R AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS INTERTIE ECONUMIC FEASI8ILITY STUDY DISCOU~TED VALUE OF BASE YEAR (1979)INDEPENDENT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 TABLE 8-5X --________~______________________________ESCALATION RATES-----------------------------~--------- DISCOUNT 0%4%5%6X n 8%9%10%11%127:: "A TI:-------====:==-------=====================---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.(10 2')5,770 373,662 411,1107 1.1':)3,201 49'l,48.S 550,738 607,502 670,367 739,985 fl17,076 1"1.25 2':>0,311 305,ISt.I 401,tl91:\41.12,573 1.187,00.$531,1.160 592,662 653,783 721,456 796,37& ~.':ill ?q S,,)()1 3"ib,KI'9 392,063 432,25.S lJ7b,072 52t.i,575 S7fJ,265 637,698 703,481 776,307 K.75 2.~<:),l'd7 3IJtl,I'S9 383,693 422,233 46'-1,1378 ';12,069 5611,e95 622,094 6Bb,OS9 1S6,845 ()~tIO 2 Vj,,;13 3'l1,0'"37'~,9111)412,501 q54,009 lIQ9,9:S0 5S0,7.38 606,95l1 66q,1511 737,972 '1.2'>22Q,'121.l 533,47t.1 366,51<1 <103,049 <It.l3,IJ55 48B,11.l5 537,580 592,26<1 65e,1SlI 719,666 '-/.50 nS,167 326,104 3:'1i,2H9 3<:)3,"-'1/,1 IJ.B,e05 tHo,704 52 'J,R(l8 578,007 636,1:\1.l3 701,909 '1.75 220,537 315,9<10 350,295 31:\11,':147 423,25u 465,593 512,1.108 56<1,170 621,402 684,682 I O.(l0 2Ib,030 311,975 3112,Sc?0 370,279 413,579 I.lSI.l,R03 500,36'1 ')50,738 600,417 667,'166 10.2S 211 ,/,<J 3 305,203 .B4,973 367,1\50 1.l01l,IR3 4<1l1,322 <lB8,678 537,b91:\591,873 b51,7l16 10.':>(.2ll7,371 29b,61B 327,b31 3S9,b6'l 3'15,05l1 1.l34,1112 1I77,325 525,037 517,754 636,00 1\ 10.1"?(~3,212 2'12,213 320,!~92 3S1,711 386,11:12 421.l,2S0 1.166,297 512,71.12 564,0£17 620,723 rn I I .,.,i)199,101 2i'..,,~1'3 513,<;50 31.l3,975 317,559 1.l11.l,61.l0 Ll5~,,)84 500,801 5'S\l,738 &05,1:\90 I I •c'5 1'1':),215 279,922 300,1 0 ':1 336,4')3 369,178 405,300 445,176 <189,202 537,514 591,lIfl9 I I .50 191,371 274,U25 300,232 32':1 ,138 361,030 396,223 <135,063 477,936 52S,261 ')77,50b .N 1I •15 11~7,62b 26H,2Hb 293,d 1J3 322,021.l 3S3,108 387,H9 425,236 46b,989 513,069 5&3,927 N le.pO Id.S,'ITT 262,702 287,b21 315,105 31.l5,1.l04 37H,I:J21 415,681.l 456,353 501,225 550,738 DISCULJNTELl VALl!E OF tlASE YEAR (1979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COSTS IN ilOOO DISCUUfl.1 ~Art 0.00 8.2:' 8.50 1:\.75 9.00 9.25 9.S0 9.75 I Ii •,)0 10.25 IO.':JO I u.15 1 I •lJ 0 11.25 11.50 11.75 12.(10 --------------_--------------------------ESCALATION RATES-------------------------------~------- 0);I.l%5%6%7"1.8"1.9"1.10%11%12"1. ==========-===========-------==============--------------------------------_..----------------------------- 2 IJ o,61":1 SOb,i;\{\9 lIO'1,9RR lI119,539 1.l98,t)lIli 552,057 612,191 &79,121 753,596 fl36,lI39 2 1JI,130 358,111 5'16,115 438,IB'I 485,56H 538,037 596,4111 661,43/4 733,141 814,15'1 2.~'),l:\v4 3<19,595 3f\6,S42 Ij27,678 473,471.l Sell,1I50 SAl,180 644,299 711.1,509 792,582 23\1,6:~2 341,335 311,257 <117,21.14 <161,150 511,280 560,390 627,6'17 695,878 171,683 225,00'1 333,320 368,251 <107,121.1 lI50,383 1.196,513 552,057 611,60'1 677,828 151,lI38 220,7t>9 325,S4~359,":114 397,3 I 0 1~39,360 486,137 538,164 590;018 660,337 731,825 21S,9i1{\317,Q96 351,037 387,790 42t1,670 47 1j,136 52<1,695 SBO,906 643,388 112,821 211.-s ill 3111,till .342,811 378,554 418,3ll 2 462,11'19 511,637 566,258 626,9bl 69l1,lI06 200,'-10'5 303,'161 33<1,828 369,593 1I08,('1.l4 451,21.3 1.198,enS 552,057 611,039 676,560 202,')')lj 2'1",(>57 327,080 360,1:\97 3913,1.1/'.6 440,26':>486,b96 S38,281:\595,603 659,262 190.521.l 21:\'-1,95~319,",59 352,1.l58 389,019 1.l29,o<l6 47 1J,187 524,930 580,639 6l12,lI95 190,213 21'.-3,1.l46 312,2':17 34'1,267 3]9,832 1.l19,34.3 lIb3,235 511,988 566,128 62&,240 l'IlI,eI5 271,124 305,161 336,310 370,910 I~09,_~4&452,029 49'1,429 ')52,057 610,lI79 IH6,327 270,9tilJ 2'18,282 328,5'17 362,261 399,b l J5 441,157 4tH,246 538,410 595,196 1I~2,546 26">,U\9 2'11,596 321,1 02 353,R60 390,23\1 430,607 475,427 525,173 51l0,375 17/,;,86A 25'1,2211 21:15,IC>1 31.$,1\23 3£1':>,r04 381,091 lI20,369 463,960 512,332 566,001 175,290 2">3,')92 278,792 .3 (lI"1 51.1 .S!>7,78";,37"2,220 'lIU,1I32 452,833 lI99,il75 ·552,057 ~t J }J I J ~J .~..1 J J ~-l -'~"'"'-l "."--1 --<-<1 ]1 ":-"1 "<1 ~I -1 Z:5 A~,:,,':;T TO 1I1.1\5 ...A Plh.EI.'AlInHH'fTV Ar-.ql(Jt-lA(;t -f4PHH'''''''S Plll:.HTlE II:.CUr..U"11C "F!::ASIBIL I TV STUDY uau:8"'S)( CAPIT~L OISBUHSEMF.~TS 1'1i UOOO FOH ~LT~RNATIVE SYSTtM EXPANSto~S FU~L tO~PONENT OF OPERATING COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTr.RNATIV~SYSTEM ~XPANSIONS INL>EPI:~:OENT INT("COi~NEC H.D COSTS -~7Q COSTS -$79 JlliDtPE,NDENT ESCALATI:D $ INTE.RCONNECTED ESCALATED ". 1"1"1 N W 1979 1 'HI 0 I q~1 1'1£12 Iq~3 \91'4 I~!"" 1<)>\1:) 1 91H 191:lt1 11/liq 1 Q(J l' 19'1\ 1 'I 'I ~ lWI3 I q 'I 'I 1"14';) IqQt/ 1<147 2,009 ~O,bi)b ~1,942 "37,1/2 c?I ,J r.T 7,1';)7. 7,<;'-;5 i?J,lIO 21,920 ,.,?,2''\() 1()1 ddlJ .,8 ,I~"() ?9,fltJO iB,9;':i 17,6'0 5,0111 17,71:lS ';8,7l1Q 1I ,':II C; 32,Obi? 49Z (!,1172 a,tl73 30,549 !.l ~,11 ,1:1 «~I q 11 89,h9.'J I (18,7i'J, 7'>rL311 2,StlUb 270 i?~u ADl)I T I'P-AL DIStWHst~'ENT S iN $1000 FIJH UNO~~LYltjG lHANSM[SSION SYSTEM 1~~EPt~n~Nl IN1ERCUN~~CIED CU~TS •~7q coSTS·~79 S0SITNA CONSTRUCTION POwER COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MOOES OF SUPPLY OIfSfL GfNERAfIUN INIERTlt TAPLINE COSTS •$7~COSTS -$79 11#79 19110 I Qii I Iqiic? 14113 Iq~.:J Iq~':l I'll'l/:l 141\7 1'1"1', 1-J.-\4 14"l\J 11./'1\ IQ<.ll 1"1 ....3 LY~4 1'#°'> 1'./4(;> lqt:ll b,bY/> 2,004 1,356 l5 "Uf~U:>T 79 ALASKA PU"l~AUTHURITY A~CHOR~GE ~FAIRHANKS INTERTIE ECONOMIC FEASlcliLITY STUDY---,-----------_..-...._---_. TABLE 8-6 DISCOUNTED VALUE OF ~iSE YEAR (1979 J INOtPE~Ol:NT SYSTEM COSTS l.N $1000 ___~___~_________________________--------ESCALATIU~RATES--------------------------------------- DISC(lI"H 04 1I%5%6%7'1.8%9~'lOX llX 12% fJ J\!r.-------==~:::===-------=======---------------------=======---_._---------------------------------------------------------- t'•ll{.('bl,O?7 3Hl,V19 £I19,!~02 461,1100 501:\,9U 56(1,(H3 6113,607 002,1I11 155,044 831,230 11.':>'">"'....";~bb 57?,3b6 'HI<),7.su 451,0;>.3 496,1'£13 5iJ7,1I1;!'i 60~,5112 665,'>85 75f.!o,247 810,239 h.">[)lSi},0')7 36"5,<)50 1I (>0,3'14 1l1lO,,)9f.!o litiS,127 534,401 581:\,925 6119,258 716,017 789,885 1.\.7.,2£1£1,795 3">S,lIi9 ~'11,2.?2 1I30,'1013 1I73,752 .,21,698 574,11I0 65S,£l14 6'18,335 770,14& 'I.I)0 23'1,676 3117,.'151 "51'12,300 LJ20,515 1I62,/00 ">09,3&7 560,'173 &16,0.,1 681.181 751,002 9.?<,2$'.'09"34U,13"573,7')0 1110,905 1I')1,91:\0 lIQ7,3'111 5117,610 1:>03.137 6611,538 732,43<' '1.'>(\;>20,>,Ub '>32,63b .SoS,5.'12 1I01,5bH 41~I ,')62 4115,769 "311,638 581i,663 01l8,389 714,1I17 9.7')22'),127 525,3iJ o 557,25')!,92,Ll97 1I.S I ,I~112 LI 7 Ij ,1I 79 522,0 i13 5711,613 632,717 1:>96,937 1".00 22lJ,S.~"31b,251 5119,3110 .383,bill ~21,610 463,51,3 '509,1\13 560,973 617,500 079,976 10.25 .210,(lh2 311,)6!~3111,661 57'),1111 1I1£>,"057 1I52,tl02 497,936 ')1I7,730 602,7111 663,515 lu.-:,O 211,]\)7 ~OtJ,bbO Bil,190 3&6,786 ~u2,77/J /J!l2,5111 1180,1I00 .,311,870 588,1I00 647,538 Iv.75 207,lJb6 29~,11I0 326,925 35R,&'11 395,75~1I32,1I')9 1175,194 522,381 57L1,Q88 632,028 11 .O!)20,.536 291,790 319,~60 ~50,fi20 584,9i'l'~1I2.?,081i 1l1,lI,307 510,.?")1 5&0,973 616,971 rTJ I 1.2",1'/9,312 28~',025 312,9<1/1 34~~,107 37o,lJ59 1I15,195 1I53,130 498,468 .,1I7,8117 60£>,351 I I •e.,I)I 'j'),392 279,1,20 .'lOb,.~0 3 355,724 3b8,171 1I03,963 1I/J5,4,0 1I87,020 535,099 '>88,154 N 11• 7 '-,lCJI,')/~?.i 3,110 299,'79'1 32/i,lJ 114 360,112 39<1,'190 1I33,401 1.j75,fJ'I7 522,7111 574,366 +:0'12.00 11\7,R51 26M,OBI:!293,1I71 321,41~2 552,275 386,2&1'1I23,750 1.l6,,>,089 510,682 560,973 I;I SCUUN TF.I>VALlJE OF BASE HAR (1979 )INTERCONNECTED S~STEM COSTS IN $10110 _________________________________________tSCALATION RATtS--------------------------------------- I)I SCChJN T 11~1I ,;5%&%7'1.84 9'1.10%II t 12% RATt.-------===:::==-------=======-------=============~----------------------------------------------------_._--------- 8.00 239,':>fi2 559,652 39M,725 1~1I2,27 7 1I90,812 "/~1J,8/HI 605,121 672,193 7£16,8511 829,93/.1 6.25 2311,223 350,!H1 5 388,1:151 1I31,175 478,325 530,8119 589,342 6511,466 726,9116 807,588 8.-:'0 22/i,'lc'3 5~2,37B 57<."1,289 4,20,411 1.16&,223 517,245 574,05.,637,294 707,b65.785,948 ~.1r;223,771 334,131):no,olo 1I09,97<'o 1I"1I,~93 501l,061 ">59,2 /n 620,658 688,989 7&11,990 'I •0 I)?IR,n'l 320,128 361,012 399,861 4113,121 1I91,282 5411,888 hOll,S39 670,896 7/.14,690 9.25 213,929 31~,56o 3S2,2Blj 3qO,il51 1.j32,095 1I78,895 530,976 ';)8B,91'1 655,367 725,025 9.S0 209,?16 3111,1'<311 343,1\18 380,53"1121,4011 406,586 517,1191 575,782 63b,381 705,97Q 9./5 20 'J,611 305,525 B5,&1}4 311 ,SOb 411,056 4"",242 501l,418 559,110 619,'120 687,514 10.00 2 f)0,190 (''1o,1I 31 327,631.j 362,355 400,981 111l3,951 1I91,71.l1l 51111,868 603,967 069,625 10.25 195,Ao~259,')1I6 519,900 353,060 391,227 1.155,001 479,1I5S 531,100 SBtI,504 652,289 10.50 I'll ,bt">~28(',no,'""s12,,93 S1I5,237 .s1:l1,7611 1I22,380 1I6"7,.,37 .,17,B2 .,75,,>13 635,486 10.75 IH7,,,>,,b 27b,37.3 305,107 537,0.,8 372,':>fi3 412,U78 Ij ')5,979 .,01l,769 ""8,'180 619,198 I 1 .0 U 1M3,nIh 27 U,(.72 Z9d,031.j 329,11'1 ~b3,b711 1I1)2,01\3 1~1I'1,768 1I92,t 98 5/~lJ,nfl8 603,407 11.25 179,701 ?td,'JS3 29 I ,I/)7 321,i~13 355,029 392,H~5 4B,ti'l3 1I80,00S ,,>.)1,223 588,096 11 .5 n 176,011 256,IlI0 284,Q9Q 313,93 ~346,,,38 382,971~1I23,341 1I&8,178 517,969 573,250 11• 7 e.,172,30(1 2.,2,237 2Hi,On 50b,b7l!)38,493 313,1:l1l2 4 I 3,105 4"6,'lOll 505,114 558,852 12.00 Ib~,HI7 2110,b29 271,nil 29Q,t>.l7 nO,.,H5 3611,977 /~03,108 411S,572 1~92,044 5411,888 ..._c.~C J ..J ,._-~J .J ,..,...1 ..._....1 j ",I .cJ ..J J ..1 I ..J I ~~~--1 2~4UGlIST 1'f b-~Ol 1 AL 1151\/\PI.I ...tc.R /I'.ITt-uPT TY ANCtWri"Al.t.-fAIRHANKS INI(RTIE FCONOMIC FEASI~IliTY SlUOY 1 TABLE 6-0 } 4PITAL OISHURSE~ENTS IN 'HOOO FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTl~EX~A~SIONS fUEL COMPONENT OF OPERATING COSTS "1/11 S]OOO"FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIO~S hUEPE~D~NT.INTERCUNNECTED COSTS -J79 COSTS -$79 INDEPENOENT E~CALATED $ IrJTERCOl'<NcC fE.D ESCALATED $ I'T1 N U1 197 0 1'~I'0 191"I Il/H2 19~3 Q{H~ 191i5 \91\6 1 'H37 191'1\ 19H9 19 1)l) 1'191 1'192 19'13 \9 Q ll 1'1'15 1946 1'1')1 2,OU9 20,66b "'1,9LJ 2 ~7.l72 21,121 7,152 7,555 23,110 21,920 lie,200 \I)I di:lO 51\,4':JU "9,840 23,955 17,630 £1,621 15,59/1 4R,~\711 11,':115 32.002 lj92 2.472 8,£113 30,51~9 tl3,03R tl3,411 89.69 /J 10i'.723 7';,Uti 23.106 270 c'5ll ADDITIONAL UIS8URSEMlNTS INS1UOO FOR U~DERLYING TRANSMISSIO~SYSTE~ SUSlfNA CONSTRUCTION POwER COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE.MODfS Of SUPPLY I~OfPtNDENT INTERCONNECIED COSTS -"q COSTS -$79 DIESEL GENFRAlrON INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 1979 1980 191:11 19£12 1'-,11;3 198£1 191:15 191<6 19h7 1 'H~8 .1 qh9 19'10 19"11 1'192 \993 19'14 j90" 1 9(/() \'19" 6,6 1J 6 2,00ll 1.356 (;),855 695 697 696 3,055 1,32£1 187 623 623 -~Ol) 267 ll83 £181 478 752 902 7!>ll £130 £I1Q 3lJ4 25 AUGtlSr 79 ALASKA PU~F~AUTHURIlY ANCHUHAGE -'~AIR~ANKS JNTERllE ECONOMIC fEASI~Il lTY STUOY..__~_ .--_.--_..•_,".-----"-------_._------_.-_.__._.- DISCOUNrED vALUE Of BASE YEAR (1979)P';OEPE;'·/DENT SYSTE"-COSTS IN $1000 TABLE 8-bX _________________________________________ESCALATION RA1ES--------------------------------------- o I SC0Ut~r 0%4%'>%6%7"4 8%9%10%IlX 12% RAI~==============-------:::::;:=========-------=======-------=======----------------------------------- fi •1.1 0 261,021 381,01<)LlI9,LJ(l2 4bl,,o.f16 SCJtI,'115 "611,973 618,607 61:\2,1.111 7':13,01.14 P,31,230 /:).2"2'-;'),:166 372,~bb iJ.t\<),75'J lISl,Ofl5 Ll96,tl43 5t17,IJ8B 605,'>42 66.,,5113 75l1,247 1-\10,239 1:\.')0 2<;(i,O'>7 3t>3,9"i!-uOO,51lll 4l10,"0/1 1.1/:15,127 53!.j,1101 5f\1',925 649,2':>8 716,017 789,885 f.•/5 2Ji~,7()5 Y;'-,,7i'19 391,i2;>43il,'1{)!'l Ij 7 5,15 i 521,69/:1 574,71JO 633,419 691'.,.555 770,146 9.l.;0 2"1,0,':>/6 31.17,HSI 382,360 lI2U,515 462,706 "09,367 560,973 611:1,051 61\1,181 751,002 9.25 <'SLJ,6q,~340,130 573,7'>0 4 1'),905 lJS I,<till'4Q7,394 547,010 603,137 bbll,"3H 732,432 9 •.,0 229,8'10 .3 52,h'S b '36';,jR2 401,561l II III ,~h2 i'b5,169 53l1,638 588,663 bll8,389 IllI,417 4.75 2?:5,li!1 325,3lJ6 3'"'1,250 !''J2,497 1.131,4i.12 474,1.179 "22,043 574,613 63d,717 09b,937 I u • 0 ()120,<;3'1 311-\,257 34'J,5l1o 31:13,6111 /l21,hIO 4b3,513 509,1113 .,/:>0,'173 617,S06 679,976 10.2",;>I to,lib;>311,jb4 341,1,61 3 75,I I 11 412,057 4"2,662 '.197,'1_S6 '>47,730 b02,141 663,515 1 \'.SO 211,1('7 !J ()'1 ,"00 331J,lQO 366,/tit>llO2,774 lJ4<,,514 IPH"Ll 00 ')54,870 St\/\,IlO6 bll7,538 Iii./c:;;>{,7,'!b6 2Yf,1 11O 326,92~3<;0,691 593,753 432,459 475,194 522,31l1 S7L1,48~632,028 I I •ii 0 2i;5,356 <,<.11./96 314,H60 550,~20 3f14,4/la 422,681;llb4,307 510,2~1 ~bo,<)73 616,971 J'T'l 11.25 1"9,j12 2115,h25 312,980 343,167 376,459 413,193 1153,730 49/3,lj6B Sill,Bill 002,351 II.S{1 lY5,.S92 27Y,620 300,303 33'::i,724 368,171 403,963 4£15,450 487,020 535,099 588,154 N 1I • 7'=>191,573 273,776 294,7 4 9 321:1,4/:14 360,112 5'11~,990 433,461 475,897 522,714 57ll,366 C'I J2.0n I II 7,1\S I 26f\,ORI.\243,471 321,442 352,275 386,267'423,750 I~65,089 510,682 560,973 D!SCUUt,TED VAlliE OF IHSE HAR (1979)INTfRCONNECTflJ SYSTEM COStS IN $1000 _________________________________________ESChLATloN RATES--------------------------------------- f)I SC nIJ "J r u%4%5%6r.7%B%9%10%IU 12% 17 A Ti:==::=========== ======= -------=======-------=======-------------------------------------------------------- H.ilO i:'~I\,QH7 37P,431j 4[J9,~91 45S,f\53 S02,b04 ,57,307 617,978 611':;,499 760,622 84.1,175 8.2'>243,~"iI 361,'=>67 399,'132 442,051 490,214 ~!j3,lbO 602,088 6b7,6S7 11.10,"95 B21,706 h.~()238,-)69 352,971 39U,268 431,79()4"18,009 529,450 511b,691 650,371 7t!1,196 799,944 8.75 232,1:1'1')344,b~2 31'.O,M90 421,251:\466,I 77 510,161 ':>71,769 633,622 702,403 778,865 '1.uo 2r.7 ,771 530,5 11[)37 I ,ti 0 'I llll,04ll 4';£J,705 S03,278 557,307 611,H2 684,194 758,445 9.25 222,f\/l2 32M,ooli 362,'JH4 401,138 4Ll3,':>aO 490,78£1 543,2f11:l 601,662 &66,':>51 738,6&2 9.50 ?1/:I,u55 5.?1,ObR ~SLl,1J26 591,5;:>8 4~;:>,791 478,678 529,691:1 "B6,lI15 649,452 719,4911 9.15 213,'100 313,672 3 i lo,122 3f12,205 422,326 il66,'933 .,16,"21 571,636 632,1j80 700,918 10.il ()?\l1:\,>l78 3 (Ii),493 338,065 373,1')9 412,174 1.15':;,':>In 505,74l1 5"7,307 b16,810 682,916 10.25 ;>1!L1 ,'l P.3 29 0 ,522 BO,?llO 3bLl,381 402.525 4l1<.J,494 /l91,3':>3 ~45,41!j 601,243 665,1.166 1('.'=>0 2'.\0,21 ()t!Q2,7'.)i.1 322,61.16 3,",",861 592,769 433,776 419,33">529,9'11 586,14':1 648,551 10.75 196,0"7 286,1112 31'),27LJ 31H,"9i!5H5,495 lI23,377 461,677 516,815 ':>71,')05 632,152 I I •\I 0 142,018 ?.79,79H 306,11':>339,')6';314,'1<)4 413,d1:\7 ll"0,""3J&7 ·5()ll,202 557,307 616,252 11.?5 1~8,OQl 273,598 301,103 331,7/1 365,75b 403,1l9':> ..1145,394 1191,908 5£13,537 600,833 11.'.>0 llii.l,271 .267,574 294,412 3?ll,204 357,277 393,991 434,746 479,9BI 530,HIO 585,880 I 1 .7 S I",'';,SSS 2bl,721 287,tI';3 516,1:I5S 3"'1,uiH 3f111,766 112L1,413 46b,408 517,223 571,376 12.0C!170,900 dSo,u3il 2'"1;'!f;2 ,09,718 341,047 37':>,HI I ,q4,583 il5/,l78 ':;Oll,652 557,307 •I c.J \,"0·.'•........•.,·.··-1 l.""••,,·1 , " ,--1 -'1 -1 --1 '1 1 1 -1 ---~'l :1 1 -~-1 23 AU(;UST 7<./ALASKA POhfR AUlflORJtV ANCHUH~Gt -fAl~HA~KS jNtfHflE ~CU~OMIC FEASI~ILIIY STuDY --_.-~-_._."-~.----"-_. TABLE 8-bX ~APITAl DrS8UNSEME~TS,-----..-.-to,;~I 000 FOR ALTtR~AIlvE SySTEM EXPANSIOo,;S FUEL COMPONf~T or OPERATING COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE SYSTtM tXPANSIONS JNDEPE"Dt~l INTERcu~NtCrED COSTS -$79.COSTS -$79 INDtPENlJENT ESCALATED $ INTtRCONNFC TED ESCALATED $ rn N....... 19,9 1980 1 '/ill 191!2 19iB 191'\4 19 ti'j 19116 19/17 1965 19f\9 1 '-)'H) 1991 1'1'12 1'1"13 Iq9ll 1995 19'16 1947 2,009 2b,l:>b6 !:II ,'lit <' 37,172 21,127 l,152 1,555 23,110 21,920 HZ,21)0 101 ,5tH) 5R,II')0 29,13 '10 23,9.51) 17,630 5,0\4 \7,755 58,709 11,515 32,061 492 2 ,/J7 2 1:1,473 30,5(19 1.13,03R 43,ill I a9,69IJ IOti,723 1':1,1311 23,lOb 270 25<1 ADDITIUNAl DISblffiSEMENTS IN $1000 FOR UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS IN $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF SUPPLY t"'" 0:- ""'I5'~~g.=:~~o ~~ ""'I 0'>ll~'-I;;o ('I)a ('I)•rn~jl)0 ..... l1)g s::CIJ lJ1 ~ri lr."(j)('I)~rp rn ""'I S. (j rprn \979· 1960 1981 19112 19H3 19,'1<1 191\5 19f1b \987 19~fl 1914 'I 19'10 1<}91 19<.12 1 q(l,~ 1'l()11 19'1':1 19'10 1997 Ir-.liEPEU[\[NT COSTS -119 6,6ilb 2,004 UdERC01iNE:.CTE:.D COSTS -$79 1.350 DIEStL GE:.NERATIUN COSTS -$79 2,1,nS b9S 697 69b 3,O~5 1,32~ \I;7 6<'3 623 -500 INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 267 ~B3 ~Bl ~78 752 902 734 430 419 304 23 AUGuST 79 ALASKA PO~ER AUTHO~lTY ANCHGHAbC -~AIRDANKS JNT£~TIE ~CUNOMIC FEASIHILIIY STUDY DISCOUNTED VALUE ~F BASE YEAH (1979)INDtPENDEMT SYSTEM COSTS IN $1000 TABLE 8·7 -----------------------------------------FsCALATION ~AI~S--------------------------------------- DISCOUNT 0%47-5%6Y.7'X.8%9%10i,In 12Y. RATE =======---------------------======-=-------------------------------------_...._-...------------------------------------------------- 1:\.(11)2h5,401 1105,640 £I41,1I09 1.11:13,553 ')24,729 581,084 637,'155 700,932 770,069 8£17,886 B.25 279,50?591J,lJ2o 1.131,253 472,01S 51 I,139 561,095 022,£102 t1H3,633 7':J1,£I23 826,£167 '\.'00 213d12 5bS,4!7 1~21,.5 32 461,OP(\")04,9IH 553,511-1 607,512 600,0")4 732,758 805,699 d.75 267,i.!tll)376,782 411,096 450,320 495,055 5 LH),3£12 592,1>69 050,575 7111,65/J 785,559 9.ve ?01,1:125 3011,334 LlV2,53b 1I39,'140 481,':>50 ':l21,551 ':l713,459 6511,71:!1 697,092 766,027 'f.?5 256,~1?360,125 3'13,2 1.2 429,859 1l70,s51 515,13/J 564,607 014,4511 060,054 747,082 9.S0 250,950 352,11~0 31:\4,'.06 1.120,065 459,UH8 503,078 551,2711 /J011,580 665,523 728,703 'i.7e:,2uS,7311 344 ,~91 375,820 410,551 'IlIe,937 491,370 538,280 ~qO,142 6LJ7,ll80 710,872 I I)•01)2,,0,6")7 330,H51 367,1414 401,)06 '~3tl,()8/\4t\0,00O S25,659 576,127 /)31,911 ,,93,570 lO.r',)25';,716 329,':>21 3S9,563 ~92,322 4<'8,730 1161'1,950 515,/J05 562,520 61/),798 676,779 10•')lJ 230,'106 522,39)y.,1,'n7 5H5,')90 LlI9,(i~4 4511,227 501,500 549,3013 b02,126 660,483 10 • 7 ':>226,2t!3 31'),461 3115,tlU9 51S,102 '.I 09,t>S 1 447,805 489,935 ~36,477 SR7,tlH2 64IJ,66/J 1I •()0 2?],b03 30/1,7 18 .3)0,$5 /1 36b,B51 '.IOI),SI3 1'37,'075 1.178,706 524,015 'J7~,U51 629,306 I'T1 11.2")<'17,223 502,\':>11 329,!O2 3';1',1\213 3'11,629 /.Ie7,ln2 1.l67,791.1 511,911 5bO,018 bl/J,396 -1-.11•')0 ?1<,,1~'11:\29~,/77 322,1)50 .3S1,020 3H2,995 411:1,265 1157,190 ':l00,151 51.17,572 0,99,917 N 1 I.15 2LII\,6hb 289,'107 51S,ItHJ 343,ll39 574,59'0 4{Jh,'n5 446,H8Ll 485,726 534,899 585,855 00 12.00 20ll,SJ:i2 283,521~501:l,S15 536,0':)9 30b,430 39Q,9?4 43b,lIb8 477,623 522,587 572,197 DISCOUNTED VALUE OF.BASE YEAR (1979)INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM CUSTS IN $1000 ----_____________________________________ESCALATIUN RATt::S--------------------------------------- DISCUUNT 0%£Ii.5%6r.7"1.8%97-107-11%12% ,(A Tt ---.-...._-=======-------=======--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'•l'tl 2 H h,QO'i lllll,13S 1.l5V,105 lI94,593 5ll4,lO/J 599,201 060,<;02 728,1>92 tlOIJ,529 888,8115 I:\.2S ('1\0,578 400,1I01 43'-/,322 IHI2,56/!530,679 584,209 .. 643,756·709,982 783,021 865,479 1:1.-;0 2 14,'.134 391,O1"!428,tl04 lI70,900 '517,665 '"J69,678 621,521 691,853 "7b3,365 842,847 8.75 26>1,'~07 381,'-/72 418,lld 1.159,SHB S05,01l2 5S5,591 611,79-7 6711,285 7!l3,7<10 820,922 9.011 202,,,71 "73,130 1I0B,876 ljllf\,oI6 492,1'>05 ')41,932 596,5119 657,258 72iJ,723 799,681 9.2e:,251,0 II 0 304,S61 399,325 i437,972 480,955 528,688 581,767 6'40,753 70b,293 719,098 Q.SO 2')1,5613 356,237 390,057 1.27,64 /•1169,111 9 51"i,hIl4 567,/J33 624,754 688,430 759,152 9.75 2'~6,251 34H,156 381,062 1117,b211 458,248 503,380 553,53'1 609,242 b71.l14 739,821 1 0.0 l)2'n,083 3 '.1(),311 372,HI 1.I07,fl99 LJI~7,411 1191,302 5LlO,0')1I 5911,zOO 651.1,327 721,083 10.25 236,000 332,092 5b3,!:l5L1 390,401 '.30,(\94 IJ79,57f:',526,979 579,614 63~,051 702,918 10.50 2 H,176 .$25,294 355,624 3139,299 1126,081:1 46!:l,203 511J,296 S65,1.l61 /)22.268 685,307 10.75 2(>0,<127 .5111,108 3117,b32 3110,'10<1 lI10,782 1157,164 501,990 5r,1,7/~1~606,961 608,231 11.00 221,ril0 311,121 :S:S9,f\71 571,7t>!1 407,166 446,lISI lI90,0')O 'J38,lI31 592,1 1£1 651,671 11.25 211,318 301l,545 332,B2 363,381 3 Q 7,fl30 1136,053 478,1163 525,515 577,713 635,611 11.50 212,950 2'-17,754 525,<JO"l 355,237 S8d,706 425,9<;9 lIb7,217 512,982 '>b3,741 620,032 11.7"1 ;:>08,1>99 291,350 517,~1'~4 3 i I7,3.2S 3"79,9/)3 410,1e:,9 lI5.o,30 I 500,819 550 ..U~q '604,920 12.00 2')'1,56 '1 ?1:\5,126 510,<jllO .;3<1 ,6 1lO 371,414 I.IOo,6 1n 411':1,70 11 lI(\9,013 537,029 590,'-'58 ,,~",~J.~],..~,.J ..J ....1 c',1 ,....c_.l ,ii J 1 ...-]1 I --J "].~.J 1 .j ....]-·1 "]~J 23 AUGUS'79 AI.ASi<.A POIOt-R AIHI~llln 1 y ANCHuNAGt -FAIW"A~~S INTfATIE ECONOMIC FEASJ~IlITf STUDY TABLE "·7 CAPITAL DIS~URSEMENTS 1\1 $1000 FOR ALTERNATIVE SySTtM E~PA~SIONS FUll COMPONENT Of OPERATING COSTS IN S1000 fOi( ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM EXPANSIONS INOEPfNDENT I~TEMCONNECTEO COSTS -~79 COSTS -$79 INDEPENDeNT ESCAl.AltO $ INTERCONNECT!:::!) ESCALA Tl:::D $ JTI I" N 1.0 1979 19~O 19f\1 1<Ji32 1983 19f1£l 19(15 19H6 I 'H17 1911/j 191'9 1990 1491 1992 1993 19'111 19 9 5 19Yb 1947 2,009 2o,6no fll ,9 Ij 2 )7,112 21,127 7,1'5? ·7,5~'5 23,1 1 (l 21,9~t' 82,200 101,HlO 58,11'50 29,1\'-10 23,0.5'3 11,030 4,872 IR,056 1<',t,Q£I 11,326 31,RHo 328 2,31 9 fl,'529 50,bOIl LJ5,092 43,<163 fi9,9 n 101\,91'.1'1 '5,31)7 25,3/17 :~99 473 "8,461'\ 9,5211 lu,267 6,A5\ 7,212 7,933 8,65£1 9,0\5 7,648 8,498 9,029 8,324 8,654 8,016 8,7/J5 9,1 09 ADDITIONAL.DISRURSEMENfS IN $1000 FO~ U~DERLYING TRANSMISSION SYSTEM H~I)E PENDU~T l;~T tRC UNNEC TEO COSIS -$79 CUSfS -i79 SUSITNA CONSTRUCTION POWER COSTS Hi $1000 FOR . ALTERNA TI V~[)-fS·OF SUPPLY ". DIESEL ~fNERATioN INTERTIE TAPLINE COSTS -$79 COSTS -$79 1979 19130 191'<1 1902 1983 19~1j 19W5 1 'Hi(, 1987 19h1l 141'\9 19 9 0 19°1 1992 1995 I 9 'HI 199') 19</6 19'17 2,835 /;195 697 696 3,05S 1,524 187 623 623 -50\) 2&7 403 481 478 752 Q02 73LJ 4.$0 1119 30£1 APPENDIX F TRANSMISSION LINE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - ("""': " I APPENDIX F TRANSMISSION LINE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ANCHORAGE-FAI RBANKS INTERCONNECTION SEM1-ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTIE FACILITIES (TLFAP) 1979 BASE-LINE AND ESCALATED COSTS F-1 II)AUGUST 79 )-1 -.~1 --1 -~l 1 A~CHOPAr,t -f4IRdANKS INTERCUNNECTION SFMT-ANNUAl OTSAURSEMENTS FOR TRANSMISSION INTERTTE FACILITltS COSTS INflATEn FRnM 1979 BASELINE 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---.-------------------------------------------------------------.---- ---.----------------.--------------------------------_...-------------_.-- "I W LT'Ilf NO 172.0 17l.J.O 176.0 17Pt.O 1/:10.0 18?0 184.0 186.0 189.1) 190.0 1 q 1•(1 ?00.0 202.0 204.0 206.0 208.0 21(1.0 21 1 .0 215.0 21b.0 217.0 218.0 219.0 220.0 2n.0 224.0 22&.0 nA.O 2~0.0 232.0 234.0 e'3S.0 1.TPANS'·llSSTuN L I"lf t"JGRG 1'.cnt\Jqr".S'II-'Ft-'V. R T(,H T II F ~J 4 '( Ff1U"JDhTTU"J5 rn fRS I-iA nwARF TNSlll.A TOkS cnNI)lJ(l nR SU~-TtlTAl ?S'If~~1 fl.r T WIS ENGRG ii.((V,sr.S\JPERV. LAND TRAIliSFUP>.1fRS CTRCUTl >;pf-aKFRS STATION f~Ul~MtNT STRUCTURfS It ACCESSORIES SURTnTAl 3.(O~T ROL.h"lD cnM -lUf\j I CA TI ONS fNGINF:E.QPIG AND l'ISTAlLATTllN SLJPfRVISTL)'i tQUTI-''''1fNr SUR-TUTAL TOTAL SU~·'Af.iY f1f-PQTCE f:SC4LATJON AT A.n~PA 1981-1 IJ,2 o o o o o o 4<,2 Ci63 tI 1 o o o o 644 o o o 109h o 191:11-2 7fH 2298 o o o o o ~08t c;!:'b o t1 o o o 586 II o o !Jbhh 1 4 1 1982-1 () 71bQ o o o o o 7169 bOq o 'b8 422 291 /HI 2562 o () o 9130 734 1982-2 l.J40 o 256<; o o o o ~005 b31J o b7n 769 r.dO 1 Po 11 44111 o o o 741Q A21J lq83-1 AIO o 1212 11379 8U 813 IPt88 ?l4b2 329 o b97 AOO 5':11 lA84 4201 83 14b7 11:)50 ?7273 3 Q oO 1983-2 87q o o 144b4 493 520 11129 ?l4Be; 343 o 207 238 164 o q51 11 II 22Bq 2110~ 30A3Q S4Q2 TOTAL B05 91106 97}7 25843 577 60A 13017 b2653 306'1 81 lq43 2229 1535 415b6 1341 R 197 H')6 3953 A002Q 11 150 - I~ """' ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERCONNECTION ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL PLANS 70%PROJECT FUNDING WITH REA/FFB LOAN PACKAGE 114%-REA LOM @ 5%.35 YEARS (20%)l ALT 1 l-56%-FFB LOAN @ 9\%.35 YEARS (80%lJ . 128%-REA LOAN @ 5%.35 YEARS (40%)l l-42%-FFB LOAN @ 9\%.35 YEARS (60%2J ALT.2 30%PROJECT FUNDING WITH AMU/FMU BONDS 18%-AMU BONDS @ 6~%.20 YEAR MATURITY 12%-FMU BONDS @ 7%.20 YEAR MATURITY F-4 1t>AUGUST 79 A,,«rl(1RAGf -I"AtR~A"''''S T~lE.RCO~""[CTION 20-80 RlA-FFB Fu~nING snU~C[S AND P.TEQr:ST on"T'4G CU"lSlRlICTI(lN l 1 'liE 101H-1 1~"1 ..2 IQ82-1 1082-?1e;83-1 lq83-2 TOTAL ~O "U 0 , 0 FUN DI (~G S u /.1"r t <; 1101,0 APA tHli.n 0 0 0 0 (}0 0 4()?Q QfA LOAN 153 <;13 no?1039 38111 4318 11203 403,0 (FC lflA~!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UIlIl,O FFIj l(lAI>f 614 20'53 5(j/je;415'5 15273 17270 t1u81U 40<:;.0 A"'U sHuqr 1 ffi"lOAN 197 b60 17~1 1:B5 (jQ09 5551 It1t101l /jOb,O F ~'ll SH[jQ I r f"i"l LOAN 132 '~/j 0 1168 p,90 32n HOI 9603 llO"',/)------------------_._------------------------------------------------- llOQ,O TnTAl 10910,.3bol>Q730 7 ill Q 272B 308}9 80024 £110,0 '111,(1 l'JT!:.REST lill'·dr,G (I)'1STR1)CTlnr, '112,0 APA .,fll,fl f)0 0 0 a 0 0 413,0 REA LOAN ;>10 3/~o£l 124 ?2b 4bO lJI4,O CF(lflA'Il 0 fJ 0 0 0 0 0 415,0 FFlj lfl/l ....14 7b 24 9 1.171 e;21 Ibn 31.1 0, 41b,O A"'lI SH(lqr Tf"'M lOhN 10 53 173 321'0 bUO lIb '\23bb '117,0 ~"'U SHURT rF!<M LiJA>.J 7 35 1 I b 211'\Q27 775 1578 1.1<'0,0 .------------------------------_..------------------------------------ Q21,O TO 1 ~L .3'~171.1 <:,72 1081 211?31'138 7809 1.122,0 10 AlJGLlS1 7</ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS TNTE.R(ONN[ClION 20-80 REA-Ff~ DfHT TARLE At\il) '"T"1 COMPuSITE INTERfST RA Tl I U1 LI'.,if 1981-1 19H1-2 IqH?-1 1982-2 Iq83-1 1 q83-2 TOTAL "JO 430,0 l nE~T AS5 11 ""fl)H'f EACH UTILITY Q32.0 A"4L 6 P 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 1l3Q,n CfA I 1 n 0 0 0 0 11 1l3b,O >1f A ~I)0 0 0 0 3 43R,O HE A 0 \)0 0 0 0 0 4l.j2,O PolUS 12 0 (l 0 0 0 12 '11.14,0 GVE:.A "i6 0 n (l 0 0 50 QUb,O (VEA 0 (l 0 0 0 0 0 "IlT.O I.II.IR,O QIl9,O lJo,o,o DE.AT AS~ltMFU hY FArH UTILITy Q'5Z.o A""'L ~fJ Iq7 bbO 1751 133,UQOq 5551 It1L10Ll .:I5/l,O CfA 121 1.103 1070 Alt>3000 3392 8803 Q';b,O MEA .33 I 1 I)2q2 U3 A18 925 2L101 £l5R.0 HE A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.102,0 F""US 1.32 l.j40 II bA R90 321'5 3701 Qb03 IJbtJ,fJ GVf:A hILI 2053 54/j9 tJl';~15273 17270 l.Iu81t1 Ubb,O CVE ~(I ()0 0 0 0 0 lJbA,O ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 470,0 T(lTAl DEbT loqb 3boo 97.30 7Qlq 27273 30839 80021.1 '17;;>,0 "7/l.0 Q7b,n 510;0 (O>1POSIT[IN1F~fST PA Tl 0.089 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,089 J J ]]_J I j )J J J .1 ~I .1 _J I I I 1 -,)-1 -1 ],~-)J ])1 .-..1 16 AUGUST 7Q A~CHnRAGE •FAIRBANKS INTERCONNECTION 110-&0 REA-H8 FUNDING SOURCrS ANO INTEREst fHIRtNG CQt.JSH<UCTION Ll"<F 1981-1 1981-2 191:12-1 IQ82-?1983-1 19133·2 TOTAL NO 1100.0 FUNL)H,r:SOIIf./CI:S 1101.0 APA ti(1I~D 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 1102.0 !'lEA L(1A"J '07 1027 2725 2077 7636 863<;22407 403.0 (FC LOA>.l n 0 0 (1 0 0 0 4011.0 FFR LOMI !lb(1 l'5l10 40R7 511 b 11115<;Il9~3 H610 110'5.0 AMU SHOJ.lT TFf.i"l iJHJ 197 001)17':>1 133<;11909 5'5~1 11111011 1I0b.0 F"!IJ SH()J.i1 J PIM lOA'~I 50?11110 II bA f\90 5273 HOI 9603 408.0 ---------------------------------------------------.--------------_..- 1109.0 TO TAL 109b 3bbb 9730 71119 27273 308H 800211 1110.0 1111.0 pnERt:ST IJlinll,'~(U'~SHIU(TION 1112.0 llPA AflNf"I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1113.0 REA LflA"J I~21 b7 127 2119 II':)?920 4111.0 (Fe.LOA"-'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 415.0 FFIj L(lAN 1 I ,7 187 3~4 b91 12~<;21)':)11 1I1b.(I AMU SHUQT TF~'"LOAIIj 10 fj'173 3lR 040 II b 3 2366 417.0 P1U SHIH~T Tff.i""lOA~J 7 35 I I b ?II'/.127 775 1'578 1120.0 ------------~----------------------------------------------------.-_.-421.0 TOTAL 31 165 ";43 1027 lOOb 3645 11118 422.0 "T1 Ib Al/GUST FI ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS INTERCONNECTION 110-&0 REA-HBI 0'1 DEBT TABLE.Ar~n COMPOSITE INTEREST RATE LI NE:l Q 81-1 Iq~I·2 lq~2-1 Iq82-?1983-1 1983-2 TOTAL "JO 1130.0 %nfRT ASSII'~ED !H EACH UTILITY 1132.0 AIIoIL g,~111 ()0 0 0 0 18 1.1311.()CfA I I 0 0 0 0 0 I I 113b.0 Mf A 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 43R.O I-IfA 0 o c-O 0 0 0 0 1.11.12.0 f-"IUS 12 0 0 n 0 0 12 11<14.0 6VEA 5b 0 0 0 0 0 56 11116.0 CVEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11117.0 11118.0 11<19." 11'50.0 DEAT ASSU~fU BY EACH UTILITY 1I~2.0 A"IL lI.P 197 boO 1751 133'5 <1909 5551 1111.1011 11511.0 CfA 121 1103 1070 816 3000 3392 8803 115b.0 "4[A 33 110 292 223 818 92"i 21101 1151".0 hEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1102.0 FMUS I 32 1140 l1b8 8QO 3273 3701 9&03 IItll.l.O GVEA bl/.1 2053 5411q "1,<;I ~i?7 3 17270 11118111 116&.0 (VEA n 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilb8.0 ---.------------.-----_.------.----------._--------.'------------------1.170.0 InTAl Dftj T 1096 3bbb '1730 71119 77273 30859 800211 102.0 1171.1.0 47&.0 'ilO...O COMPOSITE INTEREST RA l[0.063 6.0 o~o 0 ...0 0.0 0.0 0.083 15 AUGUST 79 ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS INTtRCONNECTION 20-80 REA-FFB DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE LINE 1984 1985 198b 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 NO 152.0 APA 154.0 SINKING FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15b.0 INTEREST DUE:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158.0 -.-----.-.---------------------------------------~--.-----------.-------------------------------------------1bO.0 S.FUND+INTEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I b I .0 Ibb.O REA Ib8.0 REPAVMENT 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 171.0 OUTSTANDING 10853 10503 10153 9803 9453 9103 8753 8403 8052 7702 7352 7002 172.0 INTEREST DUE 560 543 525 508 490 473 455 438 420 403 385 3b8 1711.0 ----.-------------.-------~-------.---------------------------------------.--------------------...----------17b.0 DEBT SERVICE:910 893 875 858 840 823 805 788 770 753 735 718 177.0 182.0 CFC 1811.0 REPAYMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -n 188.0 INTEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.190.0 ----._----------------------..------------------------------------------~-------------------------------...--..J 192.0 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193.0 198.0 FFB 200.0 REPAYMENT 1400 11100 11100 11100 1400 11100 1400 1400 11100 1400 1400 1400 202.0 OUTSTANDING 431113 112013 110612 39212 37811 361111 35011 33610 32210 30809 29409 28008 203.0 INTEREST 111115 401b 3886 3757 3627 31198 3368 3238 3109 2979 2850 2720 204.0 -------_.--.-------..----------------._-----------------~----------..---------.--------------------.--.--.-.20b.0 DEBT SERVICE 55116 5416 5287 5157 5028 11898 47b8 4639 4509 4380 11250 4121 207.0 212.0 AMU 214.0 SINKING FUND 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 216.0 INTEREST DUE 936 936 q36 936 936 936 936 93b 936 93b 93b 93b 218.0 --------.-----------------------------..----------------------------------------------------------------.---220.0 S.FUND+!NTEREST 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 221.0 228.0 FMU 230.0 SINKING FUND 23/1 234 2311 234 234 2311 234 234 2311 2311 234 234 232.0 INTEREST DUE 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 672 234.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------- 236.0 S.FUND+INTEREST 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 q06 906 906 906 250.0 TDTAL REPAVMENTS OR 251.0 S.FUND PAYMENTS 2356 235b 2356 2356 2356 2356 2356 2356 235b 2356 235b 2356 253.0 TOT INTEREST DUE 6314 bl67 6020 5873 5726 5579 5432 5285 5138 (1991 11843 4696 255.0 ----------------------------_.---------------------------------.-------------------------------------------- 257.0 TOTAL DEBT SERVI 8670 8523 8376 8229 8082 7934 7787 7640 7493 7346 7199 7052 J I ~J .J i ),I .·.·.1 cl I J ..J J I J J ,I ...J-t 1 1 1 -1 1 J -J )]]I ))1 15 AUGUST 79 ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS INTERCONNECTION '10-60 REA-HB DEBT SERVICE SCHEOULE LINE 198'1 1ge5 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 NO 152.0 APA 15'1.0 SINKING FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ()0 156.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158.0 ------------------------------------------..---------.-------------------._--------------------------------- 160.0 S.FUND-tINTEREST 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a a 0 161.0 166.0 REA 168.0 REPAYMENT 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 171.0 OUTSTANDING 21707 21006 20306 19606 18906 18206 17505 16805 16105 15405 1'170£l I£1004 172.0 INTEREST DUE 1120 10e5 1050 1015 980 9£l5 910 875 840 805 770 73S 174,0 _____________________________________________________________________w'.__________________________________'·_. 176.0 DEBT SERVICE 1821 na6 17'51 1716 16111 lo£l5 1610 1575 1540 1505 I£l70 I£l35 177.0 182.0 CFC 184.0 REPAYMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 "Tl 188.0 INTEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L·190.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_..-OJ 192.0 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193.0 198.0 FFB 200.0 REPAYMENT 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 202.0 OUTSTANDING 32560 31510 30459 29409 28359 27308 26258 25208 211157 23107 22057 21.000 203.0 INTEREST 3109 3012 2915 2817 2720 2023 2526 2£l29 2332 2235 2137 2040 204.0 -----------------------------------------------------.-------------~---------------------------------~-.-.-.200.0 DEBT SERVICE 4159 £1062 3905 3868 3771 3673 3576 3479 3382 3285 3188 3091 207.0 ~ 212.0 4MU 214.0 SINKING FUND 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 210.0 INTEREST DUE 936 936 936 936 '136 936 936 930 936 (no 936 'no 218.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..--~-.220.0 S.FUNDtINTEREST 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 221.0 228.0 FMU 230.0 SINKING FUND 234 23£1 2311 2311 23£1 23£1 2311 234 23£l 234 234 234 232.0 INTEREST DUE 672 672 672 672 b72 072 672 072 672 672 672 072 234.0 -------------------------------------------_.------------------------------------------------~---._------...230.0 S.FUNDtINTEREST Cl06 90b 906 906 906 '100 90b '106 906 906 900 900 250.0 TOTAL REPAYMENTS OR 251,0 S.FUND PAYMENTS 2350 2356 2356 2356 2356 2350 2350 2350 2356 23S6 2350 2350 253.0 TOT INTEREST DUE 5838 5706 5573 5£1£11 5309 5177 SOilS /.1913 4780 £lo£l8 £l510 4384 255.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...-- 257.0 TOTAL DEBT SERVI 8194 8001 7929 77Q7 7605 7533 7£101 7208 7136 70011 0872 6740 15 AUGUST 79 A~C~O~AGE -FAI~BANKS INTERCONNECTION 20-80 REA-FFB DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE LINE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200/.1 2005 2006 2007 NO 152.0 APA 15~.0 SINKING FU'W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15b.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158.0 ------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------IbO.O S.FUND+INTEQEST 0 0 0 0 ()0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b \,0 Ib6.0 RU Ib8.0 REPAYMENT 350 .350 350 350 350 350 .350 350 350 350 350 350 171.0 OUTSTANDING b052 b302 5952 5b02 5252 ~901 ~551 ~201 3851 3501 3151 2801 172.0 INTEREST DUE 350 333 .315 298 2110 2b3 2~5 228 210 193 175 158 17/.1.0 -----------.------------------------------_._------------------------------------------------------------...-176.0 DEBT SERVICE 700 hR3 065 b/.lll 630 613 595 <;78 5bO 5/.13 525 508 177 •0 182.0 (FC 18~.0 REPAYMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187,0 OUTS TANDI'Hi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "188.0 INTEREST"I)0 \i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.190.0 ...--------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------------------~---------l.O 192.0 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 193.0 198.0 FFB 200.0 ~EPAYMENT I~OO 1~00 1/.100 1/.100 I~OO 1~00 1/.100 1~00 I~OO It/OO It/OO 1400 202.Q OUTSTANDING 2b608 25208 23807 22/.107 21006 19606 1820b 16805 15~05 1~00~1260~11203 203.0 INTEREST 2591 2/.1bl 2332 2202 2073 19£13 181~Ib8~15511 1/.125 1295 116b 20/.1.0 ----------~--------'-------------------------.------------------------_._-------_.---._----------....-------.-20b.0 DERT SERVICE Hql 3802 3732 3603 3~73 B/.I~321~308/.1 2955 2825 2b9b 25bb 207.0 212.0 AMU 21/1.0 SINKING FUND 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 371 0 0 0 0 216.0 INTEREST DUE 936 93b 930 936 936 936 H6 936 0 0 0 0 218.0 ---------------.---------------.--------..-----------------.-----------.---~---------------.-.-----------.-.220.0 S.FUND+INTEREST 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 0 0 0 0 221.0 228.0 F"'U 230.0 SINKING FUND 23/.1 2.3~23/.1 23~23~23~23/.1 23~0 0 0 0 232.0 INTEREST l)UE 672 672 b72 b72 672 b72 672 b72 0 0 0 0 23~.0 ---------------------~-----------------~--------------.--------------------------------------------.--------23b.0 S.FUND+JNTEREST q06 906 900 90b 906 906 906 90b 0 0 0 0 250.0 TOTAL REPAY"'E"OTS OR 251.0 S.FUND PAY"ENTS 23'56 2356 2350 2356 2356 2356 2356 235b 1751 1751 1751 1751 253.0 TOT INTEREST DUE /.I5~q /.11102 /.125"><l108 3961 381/.1 30b7 3520 1765 1617 11170 1323 255.0 -------------_._---------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-------,---257.0 TOTAL OEtn S~Rvr b90S b758 6bl1 b4b~b317 6170 6023 587b 3515 HbS 3221 3074 J J I J .J ,)J J "~]~.•)]J J J J J ".~>J -,J -,]1 -'--··1 <-,-1 .....'J -'--),.•...].•.-..]1 ·~·l -]'.)1 15 AUGUST ]q ANCHORAGE -FAIHHA~KS r~T~RlONNECTION 40-60 REA-FFB DE8T SERVICt SCHEOULE LIN!:1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20o",200S 2006 2007 NO 152.0 Af.'A 15i1.0 SINKif><G FUND 0 0 0 0 °0 0 0 C 0 0 0 1'>6.0 INfER!:ST DuE 0 0 u 0 I)0 0 0 II 0 0 0 158.0 --.-----.-..------..-------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------.--- 160.0 S.fUND+TNTERESf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i;0 0 0 161 .0 166.0 REA 168.0 REPAYMl:Nl 700 7(I 0 700 7\10 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 171 .0 OUTSTANDING 13504 1?6011 11904 1 1203 10503 91103 910.3 81103 7702 7002 6302 5602 172.0 )NTERt:n DUE 700 665 630 ':>95 560 5c5 490 1155 Ll2Q 385 350 315 1711.0 --------------------------.------------..-------------------------------.-.--------------------_._----------1 7b.0 DEAT SERVICE I<JOO 1365 1330 129"1260 In<;1 190 IIS<;1120 1085 1050 1015 177.0 182.0 UC 18i1.0 REPAYMENT U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187.0 OIJTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I)0 0 0 -n 188 .•0 INTEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I190.0-"-------------------------"------------~--------------------------------------------------------~------------0 192.0 DEAT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 (j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193.0 198.0 FFB 200.0 REPAYME:NT 1050 1050 1050 1050 10.,0 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 202.0 OUTSTANDING 19956 IH90/:>17855 16805 1575':>!1l70Ll 13654 126011 1155.3 10503 911S3 61103 203.0 INlER~ST 19113 1846 1749 1652 IS<;ll 1457 1.360 1263 1166 1069 972 87tl 204.0 ------------------------------------------~--------------------.----------------------------------------.---206.0 DEAT SE:RVICE 2993 2896 n99 2702 ;:'60<;2508 2L110 2313 2216 21 19 2022 1925 207.0 212.0 AMl! 21i1.0 SINKING fUND 371 311 371 371 .371 371 371 371 0 0 0 0 216.0 INTEREST aUF 93b 93h 936 9.3/>93'/>936 936 936 CJ 0 0 0 211l.0 -------------------------------------------~----.-------------------------------------------------------.--.220.0 S.FlINO+PdERE:sr !307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 1307 0 0 0 0 221.0 228.0 PiU 230.0 SINKING FUN!)2.34 2.311 2 .3i~2311 c34 ?.311 2311 234 n 0 0 0 232.0 INTfRfST DUE 672 672 672 672 h72 672 672 672 0 0 0 0 23i1.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------236.0 S.F UNO +r ~l Tt RE ST 91lb 906 906 906 901,906 906 'lOb 0 0 0 0 250.0 TOTAL REPAYMENTS OR 2')1 .0 S.FUND PAYMENlS .2356 2356 2.356 ;>356 235b 23%2.356 2356 175 I 1751 1 7S 1 1751 253.0 TOT INTEREST DlJE 11252 <J120 3987 385<;372'3 .359 I 3459 3327 1586 IJ.l5L1 1322 1189 255.0 --------------------._-----------------------------------~-------.-------------------.-----------...----~.--257.0 TorAL UEBT SE:RVI 6601:\6i175 63113 />21 1 6079 5947 <;815 S682 3337 32011 3072 29110 1 '5 AiJGlJST 7Q A~CHORAGf -FAIRBANKS INTE.RCONN!:.CTIUN 20-80 Rt4-fFB DERT SERvICE SCHEDuLE LI"E 200ft 2009 2010 20 II 2012 eOl3 201<4 201'5 NO 1~2.0 APA 15/l.0 SINK ING FlH,O (1 0 0 0 0 0 ()0 15/:>.0 INTEtlE.:iT DuE.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158.0 ._~---------------------------~-----------------------------------------160.0 S.~lJNDt fI<TfcR!:S T 0 0 a 0 ()0 0 0 161 .0 166.0 RCA IbB.O REPAyMPH 350 ~')O 350 V;O 35 \).~50 350 3S0 I 71 .0 OliTSTANDI"IG 2,,51 210 I 1751 1400 1050 700 350 0 1 72.0 INTEREST DuE 140 123 10':1 81\70 'H 3S 18 174.0 ------------------.---------------~~.-------_.--------.----.-------.----176.0 Dl:~H SfcRVICf.tl911 4n 455 438 4(>0 IJ O~38':>~b8 177.[) 182.0 CFC 184.0 RU'AY"'ENT 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 187.0 DliTSTANf'ING iJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'T1 188.0 INTEREST ()0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 190.0 --------------~--------------.---------.-------_.-------------------------'......In.o DE~T SERVICI:0 0 I)0 0 0 0 0 193,0 198.0 FFR 200.0 REPAYMENT I/~00 1400 II.fOO 1400 1400 1/l00 1400 1400 202.0 OUTSTANDING 9f<03 BQ03 7002 5b02 4eOI 2BOI IQOO 0 203.0 INIERI:ST 1036 9u7 777 6Q/l 518 31:\9 ZS9 130 20U.0 -~-------.-------------,------------_.-----------_._--_.--------------~--20b.O DEAT StRVICE 2437 2307 217~2041l Iq19 1789 IbbO 1530 207.0 212.0 AMI) 211.1.0 SINK]NG FUNI)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216,0 ]NTERfST I)Ut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------220.0 S.FlJND+INTfRtST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221.0 228.0 FMU 230.0 SINK I NG FL",f)0 0 l)0 0 0 0 0 232.()INTEREST nUl:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23/1.0 ------------------.-------------~---------------------------------------236.0 S.FUNDtI"TERfST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250.0 TOTAL REPAY~FNTS OR 251.0 S.FUND PAYMENTS 1751 I 7 ~I 1151 17':>I 1751 I 7 ':>1 1751 1751 253.0 lOT ]NHREST DUE 117b 102Q 8112 BS ')88 441 2Q/l \47 255.0 ------------------.._---------------------------------------------------257.fJ TOTAL IJtt'T StRV]?9n 271:\0 2633 2uBb 2:B9 2192 2045 189B J J J J J J J )~",_J J I J ,.'~J ,,)cJ ,..1 -1 J 1 1 -1 )1 1 1 15 AUGUST 79 ANCHORAGE -FAIRRANKS INTERCONNECTION £10-60 REA-HB DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE LINE 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NU 152.0 APA 15£1.0 5I Nt<!t,G FIJND 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 15b.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158.0 -----------------------------.------------------~-----------------------1bO.0 S.FUNDtINTEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161.0 166.0 ~EA 168.0 REPAYMENT 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 171 .0 OUTSTANDING 4901 4£101 3501 2801 <'101 1400 700 0 172.0 INTEREST DUE 280 £145 210 175 140 105 70 35 174.0 -------------------~----------------------------------------------------17b.0 DEBT SERVICE Q80 Q45 910 875 840 805 770 735 171.0 182.0 CFC 184.0 REPAYMENT 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 187.0 OUTSTANDING 0 ()0 0 0 0 0 0"188.0 INTEREST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I -.:i .190.0 ---._-------------------------------------------------------------------N 192.0 DEtlT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0() --193.0 198.0 FFA 200.0 REPAYMENT 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050202.0 OUTSTANOIt-.JG 7352 6302 5252 4201 3151 2101 1050 0 203.0 INTEREST 777 680 ':183 486 389 291 194 97 204.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------206.0 DEAT SERVICE 1828 1730 1633 1536 1439 1342 12£15 1 147 207.0 212.0 AMU 214.0 SINKING FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218.0 -----------------_._----------------------------------------------------220.0 S.FUNDtINTEHST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0221.0 228.0 FMU 230.0 SINKING FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0232.0 INTHlfST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0234.0 ----------------------------------------_.------------------------------230.0 S.FUNDtINTER~ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250.0 TUTAL REPAYMENTS OR 251.0 S.FUND PAYMENTS 1751 17':11 1751 1751 1751 1751 1751 1751253.0 TOT INTEREST DUE 1057 925 793 6b1 529 390 264 132255.0 -----------------_._----------------------------------------------------257.0 TOTAL DEBT SfRVI ;:>808 2676 2':144 2/j I 1 2279 2147 2015 1883 IS A\IGUSl 7'1 A~CHURAGE -FAI~8AN~S INTtRCONNECTION 20-"0 REA-fFH DEBT REPAY"IENT A"lfl SP>iKING FUND ALLOCAlIO"l '3Y lITILITY LI'lf !'1RtJ 19~5 1980 1'187 19R8 I 'HI 9 19QO 19·9 I 19q2 1993 19911 1991) NO 3':>2.0 A"L t'.p ~e,ll.O flEPAYMfl'd A,'1UUNT tJ24 ll.?11 ll21.1 1.121.1 tJ2iJ 1.12iJ 1.121.1 1.121.1 1.124 iJ21.1 1.121.1 1.121.1 .351\.u ()UTSTA!\f)I"lb <H70 4571.1 ll.379 1.1181.1 ".39119 37'13 3598 31.103 3207 3012 2811 2bil 3bO.0 INTf.RF.ST DuE I 1 .3 7 1 110 I0 8'~10")7 1031 1001.1 978 951 92':>R91l 872 111.15 36 t.0 362.0 CEA 361.1.0 REPAYMENl AMUIJld 25"259 2<;9 25'1 259 '?5Q 259 2C,9 259 259 2C,9 259 .368.0 otiT ST1\'Ii DI "l (;2'11')27'1')2070 2"><;7 2iJ37 2318 2199 2079 1960 1811 1 1721 Ib02 370.0 P.JTfI<EST Dlif bQ'i 678 ob2 6iJ6 t>~0 bll.l 'j97 581 565 51.19 c,n SI7 37 t.0 372.0 MEA 371.1.0 R~PAYMUJl Hl01.INT 71 71 7 I 7I 7 I 7I 71 71 71 71 71 71 378.0 OUTSTA~WINli 7<:/S 702 730 6<:/7 6b')632 bOO 567 535 502 I.Ib9 1.1.37 380.0 INTEREST [lIIE I~Q \1:\5 181 171>172 167 ltd 15Q 151.1 150 11.15 11.11 ." 381 .0 1 3H2.0 HtA......381.1.0 RH'AYM[N 1 AMUUNT 11 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0w388.0 au TS I AND I r~(;v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390.0 INTERfST flUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H1.0 a02.0 ~MUS 1.101.1.0 REPAH1tNT Afl0UNT 28~,?83 283 283 283 283 283 2f13 283 2f13 283 283 1.108.0 OUTSTANOING ~l1\O 30S0 291'1 2789 265'1 2529 23Q9 2268 2U8 2008 1878 1748 1.110.0 INTfREST l)uF..758 71.10 722 705 bR7 669 b52 b31.1 b17 59q '581 '5b4 1111.0 1.112.0 GVEA 1.111.1.0 ~Ef>AY"'tNT AMOUNT 131'1 1319 131 q 131 Q I.H q 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 131 q 1319 a1b.o CUMULAlTVE 131q 263~395tl 5277 b591:>7915 9235 10551.1 11873 13192 11.1512 1'5831 1.118.0 OUTSlANDING 11.1/:13''1 11.1231 130211 130 It>12ll0Q IIR01 11191.1 10586 9979 'H71 87bl.l 8156 1.120.0 I"JTERF.ST fluE ~':>31:>31153 B71 3211q 3200 3121.1 301.12 2959 2877 2795 2712 2b30 1121 .0 1.122.0 CVEA lf21.1.0 REPAYMtNT AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.126.°CUMlILA1IVf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a2a.o OUTSTANfl!'lG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.130.0 INTEREST flUF.t)()0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J J J I I J I I I .]],I .1 ..,J J J '-\'1 -]~'.1 1 l -~)'I ')....],~'1 'l I 1 15 AtlGUST 79 MKHORAGE.FAIRBANKS INTERCONNECTION 40.00 REA-HB D~~T REPAYMENT AND SINKING FUND ALLOCATION BY UTILITY LINE 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 \992 1993 1994 1995 NO 352.0 AML !(.P 354.0 REPAyr-IENT AMOUNT 424 424 421.l 424 1.l24 424 421.l 424 421.l 424 424 4211 3')8.0 OUTSTANDING 6')37 0284 603?5779 55??':>2711 5022 4769 4517 4265 11012 37&0 300.0 .INTEREST DuE 1051 1027 1003 979 956 932 908 884 R60 R37 813 789 361.0 362.0 CEA 3611.0 REPAYMf,NT A""OUNT 259 259 259 ?59 259 259 259 259 254 259 259 259 36R.0 OUTSTANDING 3995 5840 3686 3532 3378 3223 3069 2915 2760 2606 2452 2298 370.0 INTEREST DUE 6112 628 613 599 584 569 55':>540 526 511 1197 1182 371.0 372.0 Io1EA 374.0 REPAYt-'ENT AMOUNT 71 71 7I 71 7I l'71 'II 71 71 7I 71 378.0 OUTSTANDING 1089 10117 1005 963 921 879 837 745 753 7 II 669 b27 380.0 INTEREST DUE 175 171 167 163 1':>9 155 151 147 1113 139 135 132 381.0 "'T1 382.0 HEAI.......3811.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 0 0 0 ()0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -+::>388.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390.0 INTEREST DUf'0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391.0 1102.0 FMU5 1104.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 1108.0 OUTSTANDING 11358 4190 4021 31\53 36135 3516 33118 3180 3011 28113 2675 250b 1110.0 INTEREST DUE 701 685 669 653 637 621 60')590 574 558 5112 52b 1111.0 412.0 GVEA 1114.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 1319 1319 1314 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1319 1116.0 CUMULATIVE 1319 2638 3958 5277 6596 7915 9235 105511 11873 13192 14512 15831 418.0 OUTSTANDING 20337 19551 18766 17980 17195 16409 15624 14838 14053 13267 121182 11&9b 1120.0 INTEREST DUE 3269 319')3121 3047 2973 2899 2825 2751 2677 2603 2529 21155 1121.0 1122.0 CvEA 424.0 REPAYM~NT AMUUNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.0 CUMlJLA TJ VE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 t)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 .l'IGlJST 79 ANCHDRAGE -FAIRBANKS INHRCONNEC1ION 20-80 RU-Ff8 Q~BT REPAY~ENT AND SINKING FUND ALLOCATION BY UTILITY LI NE 1'1'1b 19'17 1'1'18 IQ'Iq 200\)2001 2002 2003 200i.l 2005 2006 2007 NO 352.0 AI1L "P 354,0 REPAY~ENT AMOUNT 424 424 424 424 424 424 424 42U 315 31S 315 315 35B,O OUTSTANDING 2426 2231 2036 1840 16115 1450 125')10')'1 </73 887 BOO 714 300.0 IN1EREST r)uE 1:\19 7'12 70b 73'1 713 /;>B7 660 63U H8 2'11 265 231'1 361.0 362.0 CEA 364,0 REYAYt-iUH AMOUNT 25'1 25'1 2S9 2c;q 2C,'1 25'1 259 25'1 193 1'13 193 193 361'1.0 llUTSTANOIIIJG 148.5 1363 1244 1125 1005 B86 767 647 5'15 542 489 436 310,0 INTfRfST DUE ':>Otl 484 '168 452 436 420 403 387 1'14 178 162 1116 371,a 372,0 !"EA 374.0 REPAYMENT A'1CJUNT 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 53 53 53 53 378,0 OUTSTANDING 404 372 339 307 i!7i:l 242 20'1 177 162 148 133 11'1 380.0 INTERfST our 136 132 128 123 II Q I III 1 I 0 106 53 11'1 411 40 381.0....,382.0 HI:A !384.0 REP o\,YMUJT AMOlJ"H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -' <.Jl 388.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 390.0 INTEREST DuE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3'11,0 '~02.0 PlUS 1.104,0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 21B 283 21'13 283 283 283 283 283 210 210 210 210 408,0 OUTSTANDING 1618 1487 1.357 1227 1097'967 830 700 649 5'11 534 470 410.0 INTEREST DUE S46 528 51 I 4'13 475 4')8 440 422 212 1'111 170 159 4 I I .0 412.0 (;VEA 414.0 REPAnttNT o\,;'lOUNT 1519 1319 131 'I 131'1 131 'I 1319 13 I 9 131'1 980 'lao 980 980 411:>.0 CUMULATTvE 1715 U 1811bq 1971'19 21108 22427 23746 25065 26385 27365 283115 29326 3030b 418.0 OUTSTANDING 754'1 6'141 b.B3 ')726 ')1 18 4511 3903 32'16 5027 275'1 24'10 2221 420.0 INTEREST OUE 2541:1 2465 2383 2301 2218 2136 2054 1'171 QAB 'lOb 823 74 I 421.0 422.0 CHA 424.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.0 CUMULA1IVF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430.0 INTEREST QUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J .J ]1 J j ,J "'•.....",J J I J ] 1 1 J 1 --~-]-J 1 1 )1 1 ]1 1 15 AUGUST 79 ANCrlORAGt •FAIRRA~~S TNTtRCONNECTION 1l0-bO RU.~FFB DE~r REPAY~ENT AND SINKING FUND ALLOCATION BY IJTILITY LJ:-.lE 199t>1997 lq9B t9q9 2000 2001 2002 2003 200£1 2005 2006 2007 NO 352.0 A"'L 8.P 354.0 REPAY~ENT A~lllJtn 42'~424 £l2Li Q2Q £124 Q24 42Q 424 315 315 315 315 358.0 OUTSTANDING 3507 3255 3002 2750 2497 2245 1992 1740 1596 1453 1309 116b 300.0 Jo'lTEKEST DUF.765 7£1?718 694 b70 646 623 599 285 262 238 21Li 361.0 362.0 CEA 36Li.0 flEPAYIoIENT A"'fJUNT 259 259 259 259 254 259 259 259 193 193 193 193 368.0 OurSTANDING 21£13 1989 tf\3S 1680 1"26 1372 1217 1063 976 888 800 712 370.0 INTEREST DUE £168 4"3 439 424 £110 395 380 366 174 160 145 1 31 371.0 372.0 MEA 374.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 7 1 71 71 "ll 71 71 71 71 0,3 53 53 53 378.0 OUTSTANDING 585 5£12 ')00 458 416 374 332 290 266 242 218 194 380.0 INTEREST DUE 128 124 120 1 16 112 lOB 104 100 4B 44 40 3b " 381.0 I 382.0 HEA ....;.,384.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'1 388.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 (j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 0 0 0 391.0 402.0 FMUS 404.0 REPAYMENT AMO~NT 283 283 283 ?f:l3 283 283 283 283 210 210 210 210 408.0 OUTSTANDING 2338 21 70 2001 lAB 166";"1496 1328 1160 1064 9b8 873 777 410.0 INTEREST DllE 510 494 478 £163 £147 431 415 399 190 174 159 143 411.0 412.0 GVEA 414.0 REPAYMENT A~OUNT 1319 1319 1319 1319 IH9 1319 1319 1319 980 9RO 980 980 416.0 CUMULA T1 VE 17150 18469 19789 21108 22£127 23746 25065 26385 27365 28345 29326 3030b 418.0 UUTSTAtlOING 1091 1 10125 93LiO 8')55 7769 6q84 61q8 5413 496b Li520 4073 3627 420.0 INTEREST DIJF 23Rl 2307 223)2159 20135 2011 1937 18.63 888 814 740 bob 421.0 422.0 CVE.A 424.0 RfPAYM!:.NT AIo10llNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42b.0 CUMIJLATIVf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4128.0 OuTSTANDING ()0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430.0 INTEREST DUf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 1<,AUGUST 79 ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS t~TERCONNECTION 20-80 REA-FfB D~BT REPAY~ENT A~n SIN~ING FUND ALLOCATION 8Y UTILITY LI"'E 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2011.1 2015 NO "J52.0 A"lL ~p 351.1.0 REPAYMENT A.,OU"lT 315 315 315 315 51S 315 315 315 358.0 OUTSTAl'iOING 628 S41 1155 369 282 196 110 23 360.0 INTEREST I)UE 212 185 159 132 106 79 53 26 361.0 362.0 CEA 364.0 REPAYME.NT AMLllHJT 195 193 I<H 193 193 193 193 193 36A.0 OlJTSTANf)!NG 3RI.I 331 27"225 17.3 120 61 14 370.0 INlEREST DUE 12<1 I 13 Q7 1'.1 65 49 32 16 371.0 372.0 ..,EA 374.0 REPAYMENT A'''OIlNT 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 378.0 OUTSTANDI1IJG 105 '10 76 61 117 33 18 4 380.0 INTEREST I)UE 35 31 26 2?PI 13 9 4 381.0 ."382.0 HEAI.....::.38'1.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ......388.0 OUTSTANDING II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390.0 INTEREST nUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391.0 1102.0 F"lUS 1104.0 REPAYMENT AMUUNT 210 210 210 210 2\0 210 210 210 408.0 OUTST ANDP,G t.lla 361 503 246 188 131 73 16 410.0 INTEREST OUt I 4 1 1211 lOb 88 71 53 35 18 411.0 1112.0 GVEA 414.0 REPAYMENT AMUUNT 980 980 980 9ao 'lao 980 980 980 41b.0 CUMULATIVE 3128b 32266 332/17 311227 35207 36181'.37168 38148 418.0 l1UTSTANDING \953 168'1 1416 111.17 878 610 341 73 420.0 IN1FkEST DUt b<;Q 576 1.194 412 329 247 16<,82 421.0 1122.0 CVEA £124.0 REfJAYME NT AMOIINT 0 0 0 0 ()0 0 0 1126.0 CUMULA TIVE 0 0 0 ()()0 0 0 (128.0 L!UTSTAHI)I"-'G ;)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430.0 INlfRfST flUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J ,)I ","c,,1 J ),,'J J <J ,I J I 'J ,cl 1 '··~·1 1 -1 -1 1 1 ~15 AUGUST 79 ANCHORAGE.FAIRAANKS INT~RCONN£CTION UO-bO kEA-FFB DE8T REPAYMENT AND SINKING FUND ALL a CAT ION BY In I LIT Y LI'IIE 2008 ~009 ?OIU 2011 2U12 i?013 2014 2015 NO 352.0 AML &P 3'::>4.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 315 31S 515 315 31S 31.,515 315 3':1A.0 OUTSTANDING \022 879 735 59?448 305 161 17 360.0 INIERFST DUE 190 1/:>7 143 1 19 95 71 U8 24 3b 1,0 362.0 eEA 364.0 REPAYt-lENl AMOUNT 195 193 195 193 195 193 193 193 361\.0 OUT S TAN I)PI G 62')557 449 3Q2 274 186 98 11 370.0 INTEREST DUE 11 6 lu2 87 73 58 44 29 15 37\,0 372.0 MEA 374.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 53 53 55 53 53 53 53 53 378.0 OUTSTANDING 170 146 123 99 7'::.51 27 3 380.0 INTEREST out 32 28 24 20 16 12 1\4 381.0 "382.0 HEAI -'"384.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 388.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5'10.0 INTEREST DUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391.0 402.0 FMUS 404.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 401\.0 OUTSTANDING 681 5A6 490 394 299 203 107 12 410.0 INTERE.ST DUE 127 111 95 79 6S 4fl 32 16 411.0 412.0 GVEA 41 1j.O REPAYMENT AMOUNT 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 416.0 CUMULi TTVE 3\286 32266 33247 34227 35207 36188 37168 38148 411'1.0 OUTSTANDING 3180 27 34 2281 1841 1394 947 501 54 420.0 INTEREST DUE 592 ':118 444 370 29/:>222 148 74 421.0- 422.0 CVEA 1.124.0 REPAYMENT AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.0 CUMULATIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428.0 OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lj30.0 INTEREST [lur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ~AtlGllS 1 7'1 ANCHORAGE -FATR8ANKS I "lTtRCONNE(T TON 20-80 REA-HB STN~ING FUND 'CCU~UlATIONS LIIiE 1911 <!I'Hlr:;198b 1987 1988 19Rq 1990 1991 \992 1993 fC'9/i 199'5 NO 500.0 APA 502.0 S.fl)'JD f>i~r 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50&.0 INIF:RFSI lh fllND \)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 506.0 TnlAl 1'J F Lit·lf)l'.)0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ')20.11 ''''II 522.0 S.Ful'.ll fI'Al HI HI HI 371 571 HI HI 371 371 371 371 371 ')2Q.O PJTFh'fSl nt,f IINf"'!,)eQ 'ill 77 lOt>131 170 20&2&3 283 '52'5 371 '526.0 rn r Al IN F II'H)371 16h IIR7 11>3'"21 I?21,21 3162 3759 /I 3'5 3 500b 5703 &1145 ')50.0 F'111 SP.O S.FU"ID PM!2 3'~2511 23~25Q 2311 23Q 23Q 23Q H4 234 23/1 234 55Q.0 INTfRFsr (HI fU"Il)I)I b 311 53 B 94 11 7 1112 108 196 227 259 536.0 I n I AL IN F 11'11)c'"\<l liRe.;755 1040 I 3'~7 167b 2027 2403 280b 323&3b~7 4190 "'TI I I-' ~ LINE 19'1b 1'1'17 199R 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 11/0 '500.0 APA 502.0 S,FUNI'PMl II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50Q.0 I N I [R E SIn.,f'll Nn II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ')06.0 Tn!AL I ~I r II'J,)I)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 520.0 AMU 5n.0 s.Fl./NIJ "I-'T 371 HI .311 HI HI 371 HI 371 52Q.0 INTFfHST rHi fUND IJ\q I'70 ')25 583 bQ')711 7R2 85b 526.0 TOIAL IN F 11.11\727,,,/\(\76 11972 9'126 1 09 /J2 .12024 13117 \II II 011 "dO.O FMU 532.0 S.FUND f'~'T 23<1 231l 2~<1 23Q 234 2311 nll 2311 ')34.0 INrER~ST 0"FIJ"JD 2Q,3 :5.)0 570 lII2 <157 SOb 557 &13 53,6.0 TOTAL IN FU"If)il718 ~21:l2 ')B8b 65H 7224 19b1l 8756 9003 ,J ,J •J J ]J ,,]J J ].J I ...J J ".....) 1 1 --~-,----1 ))1 1 1 'J -, I')At/G1iST 74 A~CHORAGE -~At~~ANKS T~TtRCONNECTION lIO-60 REA-FFB SINKING FUNO ACCUMULATIONS L I~E lq~~1985 P~86 1987 1988 \9f\9 1990 1991 1992 199J 199ij 199'5 NO 500.0 AP.A 502.0 S.FIIND PI-IT U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOIl.n INTERr:ST (l~J HI"J()V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOb.O TOT AL HI F I J "J lJ 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'if'0.0 AMIJ '>.?2 .0 S.FUNlJ P'"HI HI HI HI HI 371 371 HI 371 'HI ,HI 371 52/J.O INTERfST (IN f-IIIloO Il 21J 50 77 100 137 170 20b 243 283 325 HI 526.0 IOUl IN F'J"II)HI 70b 1I fl ,Ib35 2112 21>21 3162 3739 £1353 500b 5703 bU4'i 530.0 F"'j"J1'532.0 S.FUNO P'11 23~23£1 23£1 2.s IJ 23£1 234 234 2.s£l 23£1 l34 2Jij 234 N 534.0 INTfI<FST (1,,/f-IINn 0 16 3£1 'l3 73 qa 1\7 1£12 Ib8 19b 227 25q 0 53b.0 TO'AL J N FUfJl)<?,~£18<;7<;3 10J.lO 13£1 ,1676 2027 2403 2806 3236 3b97 UI90 LINE IQ9()19q7 tq9a-19qq 2000 2001 2002 2003 NO 500.0 APA 502.0 S.FlJNfl PMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 504.0 HIT E Rf ST n N F II ND (l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOb.O Tr!TAL IN I'IJND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 520.0 A"1t1 522.0 S.FUNt)pl-n 371 371 HI 371 HI 371 .s71 371 524.0 INTEREST (1N FIJND ~\q ij70 525 581 1,45 711 782 85b 52b.0 TOTH IN FUND 72 S')807t:o 8':,72 q9<?b 10942 12024 13177 \4404 '>30.0 FMU 532.0 S.FUND p ..,q 2J~l.s4 23£1 ?3/J 234 234 23/J 234 53/J.0 PJTERfST nrJ f-IINO 2Q.s 330 370 /JI?457 '506 557 613 53b.0 TOTAL iN rUND lI711i 528l 58M o<;H 72?/J 79M 8756 9b03 15 AUGUST 79 20-80 RtcA:-f"fB U"IE 198Ll 19<15 1986 1987 19~8 19f\9 1990 1991 1992 1993 199'1 1995 "JO 551.0 CUM.PRIN/S,FUNo-2350 !l 712 7067 9423 11779 14135 10490 188'16 21202 23558 25914 28209 5'52,0 CUM.INTEREST 6314 12LJ81 18501 2!l373 30099 35678 41 109 46HQ 51532 56522 61366 66062 553,0 _______________•__.~_•••_________4 __•_________________----------------------------.------------------------- 554,0 CUM.DEBT SERVIC ~b7()17192 25508 33796 411'178 49812 57600 65240 7273!l R0080 87279 94331 555.0 550.0 -NOTE:THE SINKING FU~D ~EPAYMENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 557,0 THI'.FACT THAT ItIoHREST IS ACCRUING ON THE FUND, 558.0 THE TOTAL OF THIS LINE,TrlEREFoRE,wILL NOT MATCH THE 559.0 TOTAL PROJECT COST 560.0 560.5 CUMULATIVE PRINCIPAL AND SINKING FU"JD PAYMENTS 561.0 APA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 562.0 RI'.A 350 700 1050 1400 1751 2101 2451 2801 3151 3501 3851 4201 503,0 CFC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 564.0 FFB 1'100 2801 4201 5602 7002 8LJ03 9803 11203 126011 IllOOLJ 151105 10805 565.0 AMU 371 7Ll2 I I I 3 1484 1855 2226 2597 2968 3339 3710 4081 41152 566,0 FMU 23iJ lI6B 703 937 I 171 1405 Ib40 1874 2108 2342 2577 28 II-n 507.0 ------------------...-----------------------------------------------..--.----------------------.------------I N 568.0 TOTAL 2356 4712 7067 9423 11779 14135 16490 188'16 21202 23558 2591'1 28269--'569.0 570,0 INTEREST ON SIN~ING FUNDS 571 .0 APA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 572.0 AMU 0 24 7'1 151 257 395 565 771 101 !l 1290 1622 19'13 573.0 FMU ()16 50 103 171>270 387 529 09B 894 1121 1379 574,0 ------~--------.--_.------------------------.----.----------.--------~-----------------------.._------------575,0 TOTAL 0 4\124 254 433 665 952 1300 171 1 2190 2742 3372 571>,0 57R.O GRAND TOTAL 2351>4752 7192 9677 12212 14799 17'143 2014b 22913 25748 28050 31041 ~J I ~l J .J ,~~",}'J J J J ....1 ~J .) ···1 ~~l'e...._.."}-'e'l '~]~·l .....I 1 ".-J ·-1 ') 15 AiJGuST 7G 20-80 RU-FFH Ll'lE I GG o 19q7 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2001.1 2005 2006 2007 '10 551.0 CUM.PRI'I/S,FUND*30625 3291'1 3533 7 37692 1.10048 4211011 1.111760 1.1 7 116 48866 50617 52367 511118 552.0 CU~1.I~TEREST 7 Ob 11 75014 79269 83377 137338 91153 911820 98340 1001011 101722 103192 1011516 553.0 -------------------.---------~---~---------------------------------------------~----------------------.--.--5511.0 CU~1.DEAl SERVIC 1012~b 107995 11460b 121070 In387 113557 139579 11151155 148970 152338 155559 158633 555.0 556.0 *NOH:THE SINKING FU'ID REPAYMENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 557.0 THE FACT [HAT INTEREST IS ACCRUING ON THE FUND, 558.0 THf TOTAL OF THIS LINE,Hif f<EF ORE,~ILL NOT ~ATCH THE 559.0 TOTAL PROJECT COST 560.0 560.5 CUMULATIVE PRINCIPAL AND SI~KING FUND PAYMENTS 561.a APA 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 562.0 REA uS51 4901 5252 5602 5952 6302 6652 7002 7352 7702 8052 81103 563.0 CFe 0 a a a a a a 0 a a 0 0 504.0 FFH lR206 191,06 21006 221107 23807 25208 2660B ?8008 291109 30609 32210 B610 565.0 A~U 4A23 5194 5565 5936 6307 6678 70119 71120 7420 71120 71120 7420 566.0 FMU 301.15 3279 35111 37118 3982 4216 4451 1~685 4685 4685 11685 4685..,.,567.0 --------.------------------------~---------------------------------------.----._.---------------------..--..I N 568.0 TOTAL 3062')32981 35337 37692 400118 4211011 111.1760 117116 118866 50617 52367 54118w569.0 570.0 INTEREST ON SINKING FUNDS 571.a APA a 0 0 a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 572,0 AMU 241 1 2R82 311 07 3990 11635 5346 6128 69811 69811 6984 69811 6984 573.a F~U 1 b 73 2003 2373 2785 32112 37118 4305 11918 4918 4918 4918 11918 5711.0 --~-_._--.------.----.----------~--.-.-.-~.~---.------------------------------------------------------------ 575.0 TOTAL 1l081.1 41\85 5779 677t1 7H77 90911 101133 11902 11902 11902 11902 11902 576.0 578.0 GRAND TOTAL 311709 37865 41 11 tl Lillllb7 1.1792')51498 55193 59018 b0768 62519 64269 66020 J .]...,~....]J J ..-1 J ••J ,I '~--l t -~J ,~---l '1 "}.--~-" J -1 -----J I ) 15 AUGUST 7?lIO-60 REA-FFB LINE NO tq9b 1997 1'198 1999 2000 <'001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200&2007 --------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------~---------------------- ----.---------.*.--------.-------------------------------------------------------------------_._----_._----- *NOTE:THE SINKING FUND REPAYMENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT INTEREST IS ACCRUING ON THE FUND. THE TOTAL OF THIS LINE,THEREFORE,wILL NOT MATCH THE TOTAL PROJECT COST INTEREST ON SINKING FU~DS APA 0 AMU 2411 FMU 1673 o 6984 4918 o 16805 o 25208 7420 4685 54118 11902 66020 54118 97195 1513U o 6984 4918 11902 o 1&105 o 24157 7420 4b85 52367 52367 96005 &4269 148373 o b984 4918 o 15405 o 23107 7420 4&85 11902 50617 50&17 94684 &2519 145300 o 6984 4918 11902 o 14704 o 22057 71120 4&85 lI8866 93230 488&& &0768 14209& o &984 4918 11902 o 14004 o 21006 7420 4&85 47116 4711& 91644 59018 1387bO o &128 4305 o 13304 o 19956 7049 4451 447&0 l:\8317 10433 447&0 5'5193 133077 9094 o 534b 3748 o 12&04 o 1890b &678 421& 112404 811859 42404 '51498 lC72b3 7877 o 4b35 3242 o 11904 o 17855 &307 39R2 4004l:\ 81268 q7925 4004l:\ 121316 b774 o H90 2785 37&9<' 77544 o 11203 o 1&805 5936 3748 37b92 444b7 11')237 5779 o 3407 2373 353.11 73689 35337 IH llb 10902& PAYMENTS o 10503 o 15755 55&5 3'>14 o 2882 2003 4885 32981 32981 69702 37865 102683 4084 </&207 AND SI~KI~G fUND o 0 9103 9803 o 0 13b"i4 14704 4823 ')1 </4 304')3279 30b25 65'::182 30b25 34709 PRINCIPAL CUM.PRIN/S.FU~D* CUM.INTEREST CUM.DEAT SERVIC TOTAL GRAND TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE APA REA efC FFB AHU fHU 551.0 552.0 553.0 554.0 555.0 55&.0 557.0 558.0 559.0 560.0 5&0.5 5&1.0 562.0 5&3.0 564.0 5&5.0 5&&.0 567.0 5&8.0 569.0 570.0 571.0 572.0 573.0 574.0 575.0 57&.0 578.0 ." I N .j:::l. It:>o\UGUST 7q 20-110 REA-FFB LIi-lE NO 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201£1 2015 -----------.-----------------------._._----------------------------.---- ----------------------------------------------------_.-------------.---- *NOTl:THl SINKING FUND RtPAYMENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT INTERESl IS ACCRUING ON THE FUND. TH[TOTAL OF THIS LINE.THEREFORE,~ILL NOT MATCH THE TOTAL PROJECT COST AND SINKING FUND o 0 8753 9103 o 0 .35011 36411 7420 7420 1161\5 11685 o 6984 4918 11902 o 11203 o 4L1814 7420 4685 68122 80024 68122 109809 177931 o 6984 4918 11902 o 10853 o L13413 7420 4685 66371 78274 66371 109662 176034 o 6984 L19111 o 10503 o L12013 7L120 4685 11902 76523 64621 6<1621 109368 173989 o 698£1 L1918 o 1015.5 o <10612 7£120 46115 11902 62870 7L1773 62870 108927 171797 o 6984 119111 o 9803 o 39212 7420 4685 11902 73022 61120 61120 108339 169459 o 6984 4918 11902 59369 71272 ')9369 10760£1 106973 PAYMENTS I) 9£153 o 37811 7420 11685 o 69t:l4 49\8 11902 57619 69521 576\9 \06721 1643110 11902 55868 67771 ')5868 \05692 11:>1')60 FUNDS o 6984 4911:\ PRINCIPAL CUM.DlBT SERVIC CU~.PRIN/S.FUND* CUM.INTEREST TOTAL TOTAL GRAND TOTAL CUMULATIVE APA REA CFC FFt:l AMU FMU INTEREST ON SINKING APA AMU FMU 55\.0 552.0 553.0 5">£1.0 555.0 556.0 557.0 558.0 559.0 560.0 560.5 561.0 562.0 563.0 564.0 565.0 566.0 567.0 568.0 569.0 570.0 571.0 572.0 573.0 574.0 575.0 576.0 578.0 "'T1 I N U'I J J J _J ,----__~J '~-'-i-J 1 ___01 I I'J j I ,I J ]......]I ~.....J 1 'j ·-1 '}'.1 '~]J ]'~I 15 AUGUS T 79 1I0-bO REA-FFB LINE NO 200H 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 <'Dill 2015 --*--------------------._----------.-----------~---_.-----_.------.-...- *NUTE:TH~SI~KING FUND REPAYMENTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT INTEREST IS ACCRUING ON THE FUND. THE TOTAL OF THIS LINE,THERffORE,~ILL NOT MATCH THE TOTAL PROJECT COST 11902 ON SINKTNG FUNDS t) 6984 4918 o 0964 4918 11902 B00211 o 22407 o 33610 7420 4685 68122 170075 68122 101953 o 6984 4918 11902 o 21707 o 32560 7420 4685 7B2711 66371 168192 66371 101821 o 6964 4918 o <'1006 o 31510 7420 4685 11902 76523 64621 166 I 77 611621 101556 o 6984 /J918 11902 o 20306 o 301159 7420 1I68S 74773 62870 1011030 62870 101160 o 698Q 49111 11902 73022 o 19606 o 29409 7420 4685 61120 1617'>1 b1120 100631 o 6984 4918 11902 71272 '>9369 99Q70 ';9369 159340 PAYMENTS o 1890b o 28359 7420 1I685 o 6984 11918 119U2 57619 99177 57619 69521 l'}b796 5<)868 911252 S5868 AND SINKING fUND o 0 17505 18206 o 0 26258 27308 71120 7420 4685 1I685 67771 IS4120 PRINCIPAL CU~.PRIN/S.FUND* CUM.INTEREST CUM.DEAT SERVIC GRAND TOIAL TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE APA HEA CFC HB A""U FMU INTEREST APA AHU FMU 551.0 5~2.0 553.0 5~1I.0 555.0 5~6.0 557.0 558.0 559.0 500.0 500.5 561.0 502.0 503.0 501l.0 505.0 566.0 567.0 5MI.0 509.0 570.0 571.0 572.0 573.0 5711.0 575.0 576.0 578.0 ", N C'l .... ".... I,, - ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERCONNECTION FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE REA/FFB LOAN PACKAGES (COMPARE) F-27 PRESENT VALUE COMPARISON OF REA/FFB COMBINATION LOAN PACKAGES Discounted @ 14 Percent AlT.1-20%REA@ 5%/80%FFB@ 9 1/4% ;>0 AII~"JS 1 35 YEAR AMORTIZATION74INTERESTONLY I I J ..32 YEAR REPAYMENT PERIOD L l·.~YEAR II 1 "1 4 5 b 7 ~9 10 11 Nli 1100.0 AOJiJSUf\"Fill SfRVICF.FOR; 1102.0 LOAN I (REA)I)17 92 51)b ~IO BIn 875 115a 8110 823 80S 788 1104.0 L nAN :2 (FFB)0 10/'1 595 n81 4Q9b llA811 11772 1I1>5q lI511l 4434 43U 4110 81;>.0 -------------------------------------------.---------.----------------_...-_.-----------.--......-------_.--815.0 TnTAL jl 1;>'i oAb 21>39 <;901 5717 50117 5517 5387 '5257 5127 4q97 1\20.0 DJSCl,III\T,n VAlllf "10 0 '>2M 178 I 34'17 3000 257!>2205 11188 Ib17 1383 1182 112<'.0 PR[St'!1 'v ~I II E.c'l-dh1 0 0 (\t)(\0 0 0 0 0 0 ., I N 00 L J 1,1;12 1 "\1<l (Ii I b 17 18 19 i?O 21 22 23 "JI) 1\00.0 AOJUSTfI)DF.I!St"VTU FUP: 'I(l;>.()LOAN ,(REA)770 753 735 718 700 bIB bb5 b1l8 &30 bn 595 '578 1I04.ll L [l A'J 2 (FFB)f~Oq {3QI1<;3(11)HbO ~blJ6 353<;31123 Hl1 ~IQ8 30Bb 29711 26&1 1\1;>.0 ---.---------------------.-----------------~---------.--.--------------------.-----~.------.-......---...---111').0 T01 Al 'H\6M <!7\/\1I60/\fjll 7 P,03 118 lI;>IB 1I088 :sq';iR 362q 3bqq 3509 3lI39 ~20.1)I)I ;j [,li I ,T F!1 V ~I ,'F 1 I)II)/\03 no h~7 5,4 1I')')31\7 3;>8 279 23&200 Ib9 112?0 PRE S~~'T ,AL"f 11 0 0 0 0 I)0 I)0 0 0 0 Ll "'Fe 24 <:'5 26 n ;>11 2'1 '0 31 32 H 34 35 "JO 'I ()O.I)AilJIJS IFI'I'F '1 T SftJvTCF FUR: lIu2.n L!lA',1 (REA)"I,"<,,J ~"i''i ':>OR lJQI)lJn 45')lIjR <l;>0 llO3 3115 31>8 II I)'j •tl l n '\\1 ?(FFB)?{'I"2657 ?5?4 2ul;>?2QQ 21b7 2075 1962 111';0 1738 1625 1513 1112.[\--------.-----------------------------------.------------------------.--------------------..---------------- '1\'>.0 IIlT~l '304 ~1 {Q 31)1I9 2Q(C/27QO 2boO 25,0 21100 2270 2140 2010 1680 R20.n I)IS[UII',T!'."v ~l ~If IlJ I 120 101 H')71 /:>0 ">0 lJ I 34 2/\;>3 19 1\2;>.0 PPt"iE",r '.~L II F 0 I)II n 0 (\0 0 0 0 0 0 J I J -..I I I J .J J J J Ie.J I J ,J I ,J ---1 e-l -1 ---]~---l --1 1 C---l ----,-~]_-I I PRESENT VALUE COMPARISON OF REA/FFB COMBINATION LOAN PACKAGES Discounted @ 14 Percent Ll"lf ?u 2<;20 27 28 2q 30 ]l 32 B 3Q .\'5 NO 800.0 AOJUSTfO ()ff'T SFPVTCI'"FUR: 802.0 UlAN I (REA)1120 1085 1050 1015 q80 q1l5 Ql0 1175 840 805 770 73'5 BOll.O LOAN 2 (FFB);JOb'?IQ77 '89.\11109 1725 1&1l0 155b 11172 nil 7 1303 1219 113'5 812.0 ---~----------------,------------_._------------~--------------------------------------------.~_.--------_.--1\1<;.0 TOTAL 311\<'3()b3 2q43 2824 2705 2':>8&2'1&0 2347 2228 2108 1989 1870 fl20.0 OIscnur-.;,u'VAL uF IH lit>Qa 82 09 511 118 40 34 28 23 19 '1\i?2.0 PRESt:NT v Alilf U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0