The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA2809'\ ALASKA POWER' --AUTHORITY ~.Ib A-r o~ ) - - - """I, DATE DUE - -. - - - - .... D~mco,Inc;,.38-293 - - - ARLIS Alaska Resources Library &InformaUo n Services Anchorage,Alaska ARLIS Alaska Resources l~ihrary &InformatIOn ServICes AnenUflae.AIMka - I-.' o W.., oa: a.en OC' ~...zI-i=Owww...I:E-w·00-a:...Iem>:::) ]:0. «z I--en :::)en zo-I-o ~ Qo £c...z·-o w....:::» Q- w %o fn o Z c( Q Z ~.o £c CJ ~ (J C III •Zo-J-a.-~o fn W Q t-o W .~. o IE G- o >I---....-ID-fn c( W U. o-~.ozo CJw o .... c( t- Z W ~ Zo ~->zw o CJ Z-oz c( z-u. o· T\\ 14d5 .51) Ad3 ~\o~9Eo1 ---_.._.__..._-------_.---------1 J I 1 ))I } )) 3375500044127 9 )IJ I J 1 I )] I\) INTRODUCTION o PURPOSE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS o PARTICIPANTS IN SUSITNA PROJECT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1 ,--)-,1 --1 l 1 )»l'c 1 )t ~J PURPOSE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS o INFORM PUBLIC OF ,...'CURRENT PROJECT STATUS ..UPDATED PROJECT FEASIBLITITY ...UPDATED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -FINANCING OPTIONS o RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE INCLUDED AS APPROPRIATE IN FINAL SUSITNA ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY UPDATE REPORT ' PARTICIPANTS IN SUSITNA PLANNING AND .DEVELOPMENT o ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY . o FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION o RESOURCE AGeNCIES. o ADMINISTRATION o LEGISLATURE o PUBLIC J •• ,J J I .J J •I ,I .'jl I I i -]1 I J J }1 J J)t l lJ -}l )j t PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BACKGROUND AND SCHEDULE o PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION o BACKGROUNND PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT HISTORY COST STATUS o SCHEDULE PROJECT DEVELOPNJENT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION o TOTAL PROJECT COSTS RAILBELT AREA MAP. •N FAIRBANKS DEVIL CANYON ..~~.•:-..VER .WATANA~ :.TALKEETNA -I - - - - - - - 1 -,-,~)11 I )C I -1 J -1 C j j } PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ORGANIZATION YEAR TYPE OF STUDY U.S.BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 1953 PAM SITE IDENTIFICATION U.s.BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 1961 FEASIBILITY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION 1974 UPDATE USBR 1961 KAISER (FOR STATE OF ALASKA)1974 PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1975 FEASIBILITY REPORT U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1979 UPDATED 1975 REPORT 0> PROJECT HISTORY o POWER AUTHORITY ASSUMED PROJECT o FEASIBILITY STUDY STARTED o FEASIBILITY STUDY COMPLETED o FERC LICENSE FILED o REVISED LICENSE INFORMATION FILED o LICENSE APPLICATION ACCEPTED o STARTED SETTLEMENT PROCESS o AGENCY CO ....MENTS RECEIVED o POWER AUTHORITY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FILED 1979 1980 1982 FEB 1983 JUL 1983 JUL 1983 NOV 1983 DEC 1983 JAN-FEB 1984 -J -J J -J J J J .~-it ,~ COST STATUS -WHAT? .FY80-FY84 FY85 BUDGET $000 $000 '""'", -, MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING STUDIES & FERC SUPPORT 15,608 42,186 33,590 8,812 15367., 7,968 -CONTINGENCY 1,280 -- TOTAL 92,664 32,147 7 COST STATUS -WHO? FYSO-S4 FYS5 BUDGET $000 $000 FEDERAL AGENCIES 1,~41 330 - STATe AGENCIES 16,340 CONTRACTORS 74,0'23 5,900 25,917 ,""", - CONTINGENCY TOTAL 1,280 92,664 32,147 t COST STATUS -WHEN? FY 80 $000 15,328 81'5,636 82 18,100 .- -83 25,600 84 28,000 TOTAL 92,664 FY 85 ,BUDGET REQUEST 32,147 SUSITNA PROJECT SCHEDULE 1980 1985 1990 "1995 2000 2005 1"I I I ""1 I "1 I I I""I I I I FEASIBILITY STUDY FERC LICENSING ENGINEERING (WATANA DAM) CONSTRUCTION (WA TANA DAM) ENGINEERING (DEVIL CANYON) CONSTRUCTION (DEVIL CANYON) ,( 1996 .'2003 ,J I I J !J J .)J ,)J J )1 »j 1 1 1 J i ..J 1 J J 1 l .j j PROJECT LICENSE SCHEDULE o FERC DRAFT EIS ISSUED o NEED-FOR-POWER HEARINGS o FERC FINAL EIS ISSUED o ENVIRONMENTAL &DAM SAFETY HEARINGS o SIGN INITIAL POWER SALES AGREEMENTS o INITIATE DETAILED DeSIGN o FERC LICENSE ISSUED MAY 1984 JULY 1984 DEC 1984' APRIL 1985 JUNE 1985 JULY 1985 MAR 19871. 1"\ 1 COULD BE EARLIER DEPENDING ON LENGTH OF HEARINGS ~. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (MILLIONS -1983 $) o WATANA .. o .DEVILS CANYON _. o TOTAL PROJECT " $3,750 1,620 $5.370 o POSSIBLE COST REDUCTION FROM DESIGN REFINEMENTS -$292 (NOT CONSIDERED IN FEASIBILITY) J I t J j t i I J J J •• .~~I ,I J }.....1 ).)]1 J )1 .1 .J ).~ j j ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY o DEMAND FORECAST.-,,'-',",.-. .0 EXISTINGGENERATION .0 ALTERNATIVES TO MEET DEMAND GAS COAL HYDROELECTRIC SUSITNA NON~SUSITNA OTHER o OPTIMUM GENERATIO~PLANNING o CONCLUSIONS J JI DEMAND FORECAST o METHODOLOGY USED TO.DETERMINE FORECAST o FACTORS AFFECTING FORECAST o CONCLUSION (FORECAST) ell J 1 ~,I I·J J .1 J II -1 j ;J J J ]'I J ]J } I"'::: METHODOLOGY OF DEMAND FORECASTING MAN-IN-RAllBELT OPTIMIZEDPETROLEUM \.ARCTIC ~ELECTRICITY \GENERATIONOIL-~REVENUE ECONOMIC DEMAND ,PLANNING,PRICE ,FORECAST I MODEL MOD~L MODELFORECAST(PETREV)(MAP)(REO COOP) FACTORS AFFECTING DEMAND FORECAST' o OIL PRICE FORECAST' o PETROLEUM REVENUE FORECAST o GROWTH FORECAST ••I J )J J J ..1 ]I J J }• j 1 )1 }li j ]).·11 )) 'OIL PRICES. o SHERMAN H.C.LARK ..NO SUPPLY DISRUPTION (REFERENC.ECASE)' o ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE"DOR 1983MEAN.'.-,-. 1 )1 ALTERNATIVE OIL PRICE PROJECTIONS 60 •-:8 40,... (1'). CO CD ~ •W (J_. £C 2011- ..J·0 I I DaR MEAN -----SHCA-NSD ~ / /" "/ "/ /ttl ~""-'. V J/"" ~ ~~/ ''''" ~ "I 7' - - - - o 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 9 - ALTERNATIVE ·OIL PRICE PROJECTIONS 60 ..~~ 50 .....•-.a.a "'-40.- (W) CD CD 30,... l!~ 20 / / / / ,/ I I I / / II &/' <:>9 7 / //Q~1~/~,.. I "","~'bq /"/"","'""'('l~ /'/'"~ .~/~~.F'~.j ....""- "",":t "'fJ6~ /....-~~.~"7 -~~~-""'"SR..L------'...__._--~------- 10 o 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 STATE PETROLEUM REVENUES FORECAST OF ANNUAL .CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL FUND 12000 11000 10000 tn 9000 Z 0 8000--l '-I-~.7000 I UJ 6000 I:r<..I 5000..I 0 Q 4000 3000 2000 ·1000 ) / / j "INCLLDING REAL .--/AND NOMINAL INFLATION ~V --V ~/ ~-EXClUDING REAL ./l.--AND NOMINAL INFLATION......~..... a 19831985 1990 1995 YEAR 2000 2005 2010 SOURCE:MAP MODEL. 21 POPlLATION GROWTH FORECAST 800 -.------,.---.......---------,----...------.........------, 700 -I-----+----+-----t---..------,I--------b.o.Il~-~ (JJ 600 I""~0 Z c(en ::)5000 :%:f\~\~eE.\..\l- .400 .....Z 0-I- llI(300-oJ ::) Q. 0 ~~Q. 200 100 -+---I------+----+----I------l------i 2005 2010200019951990 O-+---t-----+----+----I----~----l 1982 1985 YEAR SOURCE:MAP MODEL '""~._.1_,..~ 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000-.c:4000~ (!)-3000 0 Z c( ~2000 W 0 >-1500 (!) a:w 1000Z W 750 500 ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST !-:~[~:.UTILITIES FORECAST __----I AVG.4.7%~----I ~----~ I ~ I /~-----+------.I ~FERENCE CASE .I~ Y ---.......•-._-I FORECAST / AVG.~.i% I /'-- I I /I I ! /I /I I /HISTORIC DATA I PROJECTED DATA AVG.10.1%I I /I I -- 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEARS 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 .~,]t I I J )I J I ,)I I I _J ~) J ·'D )~JB )1 Bl l I\) .J>, » EXISTING GENERATION o ·RAILBEL T CAPACITY (RETIREMENT) o LOCATION o DEMAND VS RESOURCES EXISTING RAILBELT CAB\CITY/AFTER RETIREMENT· l\l U1 SIMPLE CYCLE GAS (i). COMBINED CYCLE GAS® COAL-STEAM ® HYDRO@) .TOTAL <D 20 YEAR LIFE ®30 YEAR LIFE ®30 YEAR LIFE @)50 YEAR LIFE 1984 664 317 70 46 1097 1993 373 317 60 46 796 J J ~J .~~I ,I J J J J .~)D ~.~ RAILBELT .GENERATION RESOURCES DEVIL CANYON .~?~1~1-«1"ER WATANA oJ .TAlKEETNA LAKE ZEHNDER CHENA FMU ..,~-. •N *.EXISTING POWER PLANTS ·1~~S~~SED PLANTS ...... - 26 ~ ~ PEAK POWER DEMAND I GENERATION RESOURCES 2500 Irl'i---l'----1'-....,.----T'-....,.----T'----,------.--....,.----I 'i I 2000 J I I I I I I ~I I PEAK DEMAND I -~ pLus RESERVE I 1500 t I I I I ~I I J"oI!'F I I PEAK DEMAND ~<1000>i , GENERATION RESOURCES 500 I I I I I •! }I I I o I I I ,I I I I I 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR 2005 2010 2015·2020 ~ I I !11 I j " ')I )~~..il c Z <C :Ew C l-e W.w £c W --(JII.-:E UJ a:: e(Q I- CJ (.) 0 w W ..I a::~ l-e(-WII. -.£r-0 a:: Q ~a::w U'J ti-<e ~ -W 0 >t- Z (.):c 0 >0 0 0-0 ~- F'"e:c Z CC W I-::.J <C r i - 28 29 _. """ 1 -.J 1 1 -l~Jl·)1 }l (,)o GAS FIRED TURBINE -PLANT TYPES o SIMPLE CYCLE ...85 MW -29%EFFICIENCY o COMBINED CYCLE-·237 MW ~41%EFFICIENCY •DUAL SIMPLE CYCLE TURBINES DRIVING A THIRD WASTE HEAT STEAM TURBINE c.>..... GAS FIRED TURBINE - FUEL AVAILABILITY o PROVEN RESERVES (OGCC.3.5 TCF)eXHAUSTED BY ,1998 o RECOVERABLE UNDISCOVERED (DNR.,2.04,TCF)EXHAUSTED BY 2007 o AFTER 200,7 -COOK INLET GAS SUPPLIED BY TAGS OR OTHER SOURCE !J J .1 ]I J ,.,1 t J J I ,1 ]1 ill )))lJ })) U) N NORTH SLOPE GENERATION a NORTH SLOPE GAS ELECTRIC GI:NERATION-TRANSMISSION TO RAILBELT -REPORT BY EBASCO 1983 -NOT ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE -QUESTIONABLE RELIABILITY -SERIOUS TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES ·NATURAL GAS FUEL PRICE FORECASTS CD 1983 1993 COOK INLET GAS NORTH SLOPE GAS 2.32 3.02 4.22@ UJ (.) 1 I CD BA'SED ON CURRENT'ENSTAR CONTRACT .@ BASED ON DELIVERY TO FAIRBANKS (ANGTS) OR KENAI (TAGS) I 8 ,J J ...J i )J 1 ))t J J ""I J -1 ,))'-'j 1 1 J l'-J 'll J }1 I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS o GAS FIELD-LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT o TRANSMISSION OF GAS o POWER PLANT o TRANSMISSION OF EN'ERGY - - 35 ...,.. .~ - Ien I-z <C ...I 0- W:;e.0- i5~ 1-1-en zQ<C W...I'C.0--LL ...I <Coo •Ll- La. W tP.-.' 10 t') l-e .~ :E. oo N UJ->I--(J c(.a.c (J :E ::::» :E-...a..o o - 36___=__~..~...«_m._'_-..... U)..... COAL FIRED STEAM PLANTS - FUEL AVAILABILITY o NENANA MINEABLE BASE IS 451 MILLION TONS o BELUGA RESOURCE IS 1.8 -2.4 BILLION ,TONS o MODEST QUALITY 7500 -1800 BTU/LB )J J J II I I ,I I .It it 1 1 111 ..)B 11)) COAL PRICE FORECAST )J 11 \)l N REAL INCREASE 1983 1993 1993 ..2050 NENANA COAL<ID 1.72 2.17<P 1% BELUGA COAL@ 1.86 2.17 CD '1% CD ASSUMES WORLD MARKET (1983 $ /MMBTU ) (2)BASED ONCURRI:NT CONTRACTS (ADJUSTED)* @BASED ON 5 ..1OMILLIONTPY EXPORT *ADJUSTED FOR PRODUCTION LEVELS AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS ->..J CJ ~a:i$z w 0 I-Z W-ZZt(u..w W (J :E 0 0 a-z:E .J 0 I-0 !!'!!lI.J Z -Z Q w <U) .J >.J U)0 w w a.-:E-QD:u.cc tnWZ fUIJi\.J-«w ~<>z0-0 a:-Z U :E a-t- W 0 '"'""0 0 0 -- - -0 c( z-I-a:~tn··-tn I-w c :» 0 >Z tn )~-l-I-I-W tn C tIJ Z tIJ Z :::»0 CJ ..J w-I:tIJ Z Z W e w - ::::2 l-e a ~..J z' en c( _. u. .-a:c 0 0 0 ~>,-:I: - STUDIES OF HYDROELECTRIC SITES IN RAILBELT ORGANIZATION YEAR U.S.BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 1967 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 1969 U"S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1975 ALASKA POWER ADMINIS:TRATION 1980 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ,..·1982 TYPE STUDY INVENTORY INVENTORY .FEASIBILITY INVENTORY FEASIBILITY II II ,J J ,.I !I I I I I ~, 1 J J JJ j 111 1 1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC AL TERNATIVE 11) SUSITNA PROJECT, WATANA PHASE DEVIL CANYON PHASE -1020 MW -600 MW ASSUMES BRADLEY LAKE AND GRANT LAKE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED NON-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVES o ASSUMES BRADLEY LAKE AND GRANT LAKE ARE CONSTRUCTED o CONSIDERED 91 POTENTIAL SITES IN ·RAILBEL T o REJECTED 26 SITES -NOT ECONOMICALLY VIAQLE o REJECTED 20 SITES WITH SIGNIFICANTENV,RONMENT·ALIMPACT o 46 SITES EVALUATED WITH TRANSMISSION LINKS FOR ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS·-18 ·SITES REJECTED . o 28 SITES CATEGORIZED BY SIZE AND RANKED BY ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS o 10 SITES SELECTED FOR DETAILED COST ESTIMATES _I .J ~.! "' I 1 J .1 I I i 1 ~I J D ]1 ]J 1 )1 -]i 1 j 1 J 1 j \J,\ TEN SELECTED SITES SITE RIVER CAPACITY COST (MW)(MILLIONS) SNOW SNOW 50 255 BRUSKASNA NENANA 30 238 KEETNA TALKEETNA 100 477 CACHE TALKEETNA 50 564 BROWNE NENANA 100 625 TALKEETNA 2 TALKEETNA 50 500 HICKS MATANUSKA 60 529 CHAKACHAMNA CHAKACHAMNA 330 1,480 ALLISON ALLISON CREEK 8 54 STRANDLINE LAKE BELUGA 20 126 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES - > .FAIRBANKS """" - !-I I ---JJ 1 I i J 1 ) SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ~~:I5• o CONSTRUCTION OF: SITE .CHAKACHAMNA KEETNA 'SNOW CAPACITY.(MW)· ,330 100 ·50 ON LINE DATE 1993 '1997 2002 t o SUPPLEMENT CAPACITY SHORTFALL WITH THERMAl-GENERATION . o TOTAL SYSTEM COST OF $7.04 BILLION VS $5.7 FOR SUSITNA(PRESENT WORTH) + NON-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC AL TERNATIVES o CHAKACHAMNA IS KEY PROJECT DUe TO CAPACITY o .ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SELECTS BECHTEL TO·DO DETAILED REPORT o BECHTEL REPORT COMPLETED MARCH 1983 ...J J ..•.J ].·..1 •I j I t '.1 , ]1 ~J }1 .1 ci J...J)1 ).1 1 JJ I t I'U A ~ACUA···IJlltd A nCTA·11 DCDnDT"••".,..11 ,Vi,,.,,..,.....,....,..r".,. (BECHTEL MARCH 1983) o ..330 MW CAPACITY o 10 MILE POWER TUNNEL . o 50 FT.DAM WITH FISH PASSAGE o 'POWER HOUSE ON TIDEWATER AT MCARTHUR RIVER o $1.44 BILLION CONSTRUCTION COST (1983 $) o SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO 70.000+SALMON o ADDITIONAL FISHERIES STUDIES REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION 'TO CHAKACHAMNA SYSTEM FLOW (JULY,PRE-PROJECT)" UPPER MCARTHUR 3% BLOCKADE GLACIER 20% OTHER TRIBUTARIES 7% 100%- MEAN NATURAL FLOW (JULY)17390cfs - - ,~ ,-. - UPPER MCARTHUR 7% BLOC.'AGE GLACIER 42~' CONTRIBUTION TO CHAKACHAMA SYSTEM FLOW (JULY,PROJECT FLOWS) 100% MEAN REPORT FLOW (JULY)8290cfs --_._--<-_._----48 1982 CHAKACHAMNA SOCKEYE - CHILLIGAN RIVER 38,&80 McARTHUR CANYON 690 IGITNA RIVER 2.780 DAM SITE ,~ lOWER 'CHAKACHATNA TRIBUT ARIES .SLOUGHS AND SIDE CHANNELS 2.280 MIDDLE TFHBUTARIES 2,7640. McARTHUR TRIBUTARIES' .6.630 1982 ESCAPEMENT 18.600 1982·UPPER COOK INLET COMMERCIAL HARVEST 3.200,000 .- CHAKACHAMNNA· CONTRIBUTION 5% lIIiJII, 49 1 1 1 ~')1 J -)})1 ) -{:> ~ N.0..N-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC,-"".'. ..'. ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS o CHAKACHAMNA HAS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS o ALTERNATIVE HYDRO WITH CHAKACHAMNA NOT ECONOMI~ALLY .ORENVIRONMi:NTALLY COMPETITIVE WITH SUSITNA -$7.04 VS $5.7 BILLION o VALIDATED RESULT OF ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION 1'980 RAILBELT STUDY PRINCIPAL FINDING.:.,,'. .-,. •THERE ARE NO HYDRO GENERATION OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO GENERATE POWER IN SUFFICIENT QUANITY TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SUSITNA PROJECT.- OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO MEET ·DEMAND . o DIi;SEL"EVALUATED AS THERMAL ALTERNATIVE o ALTERNATIVE RI;SOURCES ...BATTELLE A~TERNATIVES STUDY PEAT. REFUSE GEOTHERMAL WIND AND SOLAR o CONSERVATION PRICE INDUCED PROGRAM INDUCED. J '..J ..~..,J ..1 J J .1 ..1 J I J )J 1 1 J ))i )11 )1 -,1 OPTIMUM GENERATION PLANNING .. (OGP) o INPUTS TO OGP MODEL' o OGP COMPUTER ANALY$IS o ADDITIONAL GENERATION REQUIRED -ALTERNATIVES NON-SUSITNA SUSITNA o COMPARISON OF CAPACITY BY ALTERNAT.IVE.'."-'-.-'.'..-'. o COMPARISON OF CAPACITY/DEMAND BY ALTERNATIVE o ALTERNATE ENERGY DEMAND AND DELIVERY o CONCLUSIONS o SENSITIVITY II' J \l• .INPUTS TO OGPMODEL o AVAILABLE TYPES OF GENERATION o .UNIT COSTS - . '.I o·FUEL COSTS o OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS o LOAD ·PROJECTION o LOAD SHAPE o LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY o ECONOMIC PARAMETERS ~ 01..... »11 .~I J .~...1 .11 J t I .]j _cJ j I -1 II i 1"1 )I j 1 J)'-I)1 OPTIMUM GENERATION PLAN (OGP) COMPUTER ANALYSIS o CONSIDER ANNUAL PEAK LOAD AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS o SELECT NEW RESOURCE FROM AVAILABLE OPTIONS o CONDUCT ECONOMIC LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF PLAN o COMPARE PRESENT WORTH OF VARIOUS PLANS TO DETERMINE LOWEST COST PLAN WITH AND WITHOUT SUSITNA ADDITIONAL GENERATION NON SUSITNA PLAN YEAR 1988 1991-92 1993 1993 1994-97 2000-2002 2000 2006-08 2011-15 2014-19 2020 RESOURCE BRADLEY &GRANT SCGT ·CCGT DOUBLE CIRCUIT SCGT COAL DOUBLE CIRCUIT COAL COAL SCGT COAL CAPACITY (MW) 97 168 237 345 KV 336 400 230 KV 400 400 420 200 LOCATION KENAI COOK INLET COOK INLET ANCH/FBKS COOK INLET BELUGA BELUGA-ANCH NENANA BELUGA COOK INLET BELUGA _I I .1 .1 J I J I .1 I .1 I J J .J J 1 )1 J g J ~J j 1»1 1 J 1 I· I Ir; ADDITIONAL GENERATION SUSITNA PLAN IIJ\ YEAR ... 1988 1993 1993 1996-99 2002 2012-14 2016 2017-20 RESOURCE BRADLEY &GRANT WATANA DUAL TRANSMISSION SCGT DEVIL CANYON SCGT CCGT SCGT CAPACI.TY(MW) 97 539 345 KV 252 1620 252 237 336 LOCATION KENAI SUSITNA ANCH /FBKS COOK INLET SUSITNA· COOK INLET .COOK INLET COOK INLET COMPARISON OF CAPACITY BY ALTERNATIVE \11 {I. EXIST.CAPACITY: (1984) RETIREMENTS: (TO 2020) ADDITIONS: HYDRO: COAL: GAS TURBINE: CAPACITY: (2020) LOAD: EXCESS % SUSITNA ALT. 1097 MW 1302 MW 1717 MW o MW 1077·MW 2589 MW 1724 MW 50% NON SUSITNA ALT. 1097 MW 1386 MW 97 MW 1400 MW 1230 MW 2438 MW 1724 MW 41% );1 I )•;)J ,.j 1 j ))J I 1 J J ]j 1 --j-j ] COMPARISON OF CAPACITY /DEMAND BY ALTERNATIVE 3000 I Iii i • l-r------~-I y-__-II-==--=,--t-- c.~-II~ 1000 r I ~ct P~""P-I I I SYSTEM II ICAPACITY11-11-J6JITH 2000 SUSITNA ~ :=E 201620002008 YEAR 1992 O '"I'I . 1984 SUSITNA ALTERNATIVE-ENERGY DEMAND &DELIVERIE.S ~ J WAT NA & DEVIL ANYON -O ~~TH_=ER__.............HY;;",;;;D;.;;..,;;;;R._.O__'______' 1980 2000 2020 YEAR' .I:10...------.----..,..-------.---;=. "oo 8.----+-~--t---.,...---.f--~o... I Q. W 61--·--+--\-----+-~~-___t (.) ::). Q o 4r-------:::~~~~-___jt_-1~. ~ >CJa:2 W Z W LEGEND •COAL-FIRED ~OIL &GAS-FIRED NON-SUSITNA ALTERNATIVE-ENERGY ·IDEMAND &.DELIVERIES 0 ...·......EX......IS.......T........1N~G .....I ........PLiiiiiiiio";A",;,,,,;.,;,NN~D ....;..;.HY.;.",;;;D;",;",;.RO.;;;..a 19~0 2000 2020 Y·EAR ;;.10 CJoo 8 f-.--~--+-----I----,A..Io.... Iaw 6 f----+-~--+---,,;C.~ CJ :::) Qo 4£:l-----~~~~~ a. >~2~~~"'-':::"'-~ W Z W -. LEGEND _COAL-FIRED ~OIL &GAS-FIRED ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY CONCLUSIONS (TO YEAR 2050 ). WITH SUSITNA WITHOUTSUSIT'NACD ~ PRESENT WORTH COST COST SAVINGS $5.7 BILLION $1.1 BILLION® $6.8 BILLION :I ,t I !J J --~t}t .•)li ~1 -1J t }1 01 <0 b SENSITIVITY ANALYSES OBJECTIVE:DETERMINE THE SENSITIVITY OF THE RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO ASS.UMED CHANGES... IN ONE OR MORE KEY VARIABLES II SENSITIVITY ANALYSES KEY VARIABLE· AVAILABILITY OF COOK INLET GAS -IF UNLIMITED REAL ESCALATION OF FUEL COSTS .-.COAL AT 0%1'983-2050 -ALL FUELS.AT 0%2020-2050 UTILITIES LOAD FORECAST . -USED THROUGH 2000 CD BASE CASE SAVINGS CHANGE IN SAVINGS CD (MILLIONS) ..$281 -$950 -$120 +$1900 $1060 MILLION !)J 1 •I ,~.1 J .1 J !J J .~ - - -- enw ::) ...I ~ C ...Io:r:enw'C. :r: I- THRESHOLD VALU.ES.. ~- KEY VARIABLE OIL PRICE FORECAST CONSTRUCTION COST REAL DISCOUNT RATE THRESHOLD VALUE $27.45/BARRELIN 1999 . ,1.6%ESCALATION THEREAFTER 33%INCREASE 5.3% a I ,)J I \1 I I J t I .~.J I ~I , ""'" -W 0 I-~<«£r "C 0-a:a.Q. ~~::J ...I< ..J I- ,'~Z«wz:iI-0 z-0ZI-en<a:wW-CJ >:)-z en:i.u.-w en-I--Z Z'&I."0 W 0 Zl~C 0 --za:w :)-l-e( !'~-:)<~>en f-lUenena:Z - W 0 0 0 ISSUE .IDENTIFICATION o .FEASIBILITY HEARINGS o REVIEW OF APPLICATION o FERC SCOPING MEETINGS o BOARD MEETINGS o AGENCY WORKSHOPS J )I cJ J ,t I J .}•I J -1 )t J ,}]J J ~TATIJS OF ENVIRONMENTAL .....• • • •"-"'.............................-....•"-'"•'IIl'._ •'-'""'"'.'Ill'..--_ PROGRAMS o FISHERIES AND HYDROLOGY ,. o WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION o ·CUL TURAL RESOURCES o SOCIOECONOMICS o RECREATION o LAND USE FISHERIES AND HYDROLOGY o POPULATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF FISH o CHANGE$IN AQUATIC HABITAT FLOW PATTERN WATER QUALITY. o PROJECT EFFECTS ON NAVIGATION o.DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION PLAN I "']I )••!J ...~I I B - - "~------,----~._.----.~---------------- 1983 SUSITNA CHINOOK DEVIL CANYON (FISH BARRIER)I . I I I• TRIBUTARIES 100%<>====~.. MILL AND RETURN DOWNSTREAM 25%. TALKEETNA - 91.200 YENTNA TOTAL ESCAPEMENT UNDETERMINED SUS1TNA CONTRIBUTION COOK INLET UPPER.COOK INLET COMMERCIAL HARVEST 19,000 .-1983 SU~ITNA SOCKEYE TALKEETNA SLOUGHS 97% MILL AND RETURN DOWNSTREAM 30% 71.000 DEVIL CANYONj.WISH BARRIER) I I I .".--...I TRIBUT ARIES 0%~""',: CHUliTNA YENTNA 10~J.400 .... ..... - - TOTAL ESCAPEMENT _. 175000., / COOK INLET UPPER COOK INLET COMMERICIAL SUSITNA HARVEST 4,800.000 CONTRIBUTION 10-30% 1983 SUSITNA PINKS DEVIL CANYOfi (FISH BARRIER) I TRIBUTARIES 95%•SLOUGHS 5% - - TALKEETNA MILL AND RETURN DOWNSTREAM 25% TOTAl ESCAPEMENT 150,000 YENTNA 60,700 EVEN YEAR RUNS X10 CHULJTNA"-----_ COOK INLET UPPER COOK INLET COMMERCIAL HARVEST 80,000 SUSITNA CONTRIBUTIONS 80-90% 1'983 COHO DEVIL CANYON (FISH BARRIER) I I I - YENTNA< 8,900 TRIBUTARIES 98%~~ .15,200 .-.--,--SLOUGHS MILL AND RETURN DOWNSTREAM 40% TALKEETNA ..- SUS'TNA CONTRIBUTION 50% 1983 SUSITNA CHUM DEVIL CANYON (FISH BARRiER) I I MAINSTEM·13% - - - - MilL AND RETURN DOWNSTREAM 40% ~=:::::>SLOUGHS 44% 266.000 YENTNA __~ 10,800 """'-_~ TRIBUTARIES 43%(;::~ TOTAL ESCAPEMENT 290.000 COOK INLET UPPER COOK INLET COMMERCIAL HARVEST 1,100,000 SUSITNA CONTRIBUTION 80%-90% I""'" I I . HABITAT TYPES! LIFE STAG~ES HABITAT TYPES o·MAIN STEM o SIDE CHANNEL o TRIBUTARIES o SLOUGHS LIFE STAGES o ADULT ACCESS AND SPAWNING o EGG INCUBATION o JUVENILE REARING SPAWNING HABITAT PR·EFERENCES BY SUSITNA RIVER.SALMON SPECIES PINK CHUM SOCKEYE COHO CHINOOK PREDOMINANT SPAWNING HABITAT TRIBUTARIES SLOUGHS AND TRIBUTARIES SLOUGHS (IN MIDDLE REACH) TRIBUTARIES TRIBUT ARIES ,.1 J D J .l J J J J ,I t c" )1 1 )]j ·1)))J })l 'I )]J J PROJECT CHANGES .IN AQUATIC HABITAT o CHANGES IN 'FLOW PATTERNS DISCHARGE/STAGE RELATIONSHIP o ACCESS TO SPAWNING AREAS SLOUGHS TRIBUT ARIES o CHANGES IN AQUATIC HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS AND USE CONTRIBUTION TO SUSITNA RIVER FLOW TRIBUTARIES 1% CHUUTNA19% RIVER PARKS HIGHWAY BRIDGE 3%TRIBUTARIES ~....-..t DEVIL CANYON (FISH BARRIER) t---tGOLD CREEK 10%TALKEETNA RIVER :11%TRIBUTARIES SUSITNA STATION 100% ""'" COOK INLET - M~ONTHLY MEAN SUSITNA RIVER FLOWS 30 GOLD CREEK NATURAL-(J) ~ 0 0 200 0 ~~~:~:JE:2.... ~,....... 10 ./..... ~.........",.,.,-----_.-----.",./~ 0 ..J ~ 0- 60 PARKS HIGHWAY:~(J)BRIDGE~ 0 0 400 0 ?'-"-_~WITH:ROJEL,z ~20 ~ 0 ..J ~ 0 NATURAL en 120 SUSITNA STATION.....~ 0 0 0 80 ~0.... Z ~WITH PROJEC7 ~.40 0 :-"'-."..J -----------1.~ 0-a N D J F M A M J J A S MONTH OF THE YEAR - THALWEG PROFILE SLOUGH 8A 15+0010+005+000+00 12,000 cIs--------------:,;;.0 -...._. 550-+1------..J -5+00 .F~O~~g,'§QQ..£~W~~$_S!JBf~g::~ 16000 cIs-~---~---------------~--------~---------- 560-1 7 ~60 clL-- zo t- ~555 w --J W W:>a: t- --Q) .e!- STREAMBED STATION (feet) 1 J )1 J I J \I t S J J I_]1 ,... .- PEAK .ESCAPEMENT ~ SLOUGH ACCESS SOCKEYE PINK CHUM ACUTE 81 81 81 82 82 82UNRESTRICTED838383 WHISKERS 8,000 a 0-0 138 0 •!10,000 0 00 -.alA -0 11 8,000 0 35 2 0 0 6-117S:A 7,860 ·411 12.500 68 28 459 66 0 238 6 260 ~i 18,000 10 12 300 20,000 2 0 169 11 -214 411-6,700 -893 131 459 248 7 238 1.58 18,000 0 0 0 24,000 0 0 0 0 0 a ~ 2;0 20,000 2 14 21,500 0 64 30 ~0 7 63 ~1 20,000 38 274 23,000 53 64 736 197 1 319 2:2 20,000 0 0-0 0.22,500 0 0 0 114 HABITAT ·SELECTION AND REARING BY SUSITNA RIVER JUVENILE SALMON SPECIES PINK CHUM SOCKEYE • COHO· CHINOOK- PREDOMINANT REARING HABITAT NONE SLOUGHS UPLAND SLOUGHS UPLAND SLOUGHS/SMALL TRIBUTARIES SIDE-CHANNELS AND TRIBUTARIES FRESHWATER REARING PERIOD NONE UP TO 3 MONTHS ONE YEAR ONE TO TWO YEARS ONE YEAij J •OVER WINTER IN MAINSTEM J J J t ,J J J I ! - -(J) .... ..". .- .... 7000 6000 - C\J C\J ~ C\J a N 5000 (.Q ~ -« OJ «4000 ... (.Q (/) Io ~ ~3000 (/) Z I (/) LL LL 2000 f- ~I !1000 ~ I I TOTAL NUMBER OF SLOUGHS SPAWNING SALMON -e----. I / I I / I / / I / / I /, a / / /.-._.~--.----e----e----g 1321/_-~_---...--_---41~ e--e / / / /e 1983 ~e--.--.--e--• 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 FLOW AT GOLD CREEK IN AUGUST ex 1000 cfs) MAINTAINING SLOUGH PRODUCTION USING INSTREAM FLOW REGULATION 25 -C/)z ~0 20-VALUE OF ENERGY.....J .....J FOREGONE-----------.....~ Z- E:I7 15C\I OJ (j) T""'- W :J .....J«10 >!!l"!! .....J« ::>~ zz«5 o..l....fl.:::::::::::::::::::::=-.:;.---.------,.-----,-------.--.----,.----,..----,---- 8 I 000 10 1000 12 1000 14 1000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22 1000 MINIMUM AUGUST /MID-SEPTEMBER FLOW AT GOLD CREEK (cfs) - .- a->:;:) ~l-e(-w ...I =a1<C c~::::»z<-a z 0-'C w ~.ceWa:~:E:;:)wI-~-~a:~ ,- 0«trJ z<C a:z u.ww-w :E;:a-ce 0 -~~c-w w~. ~tn 0 0 AMOUNT OF RESERVOIR FILL-IN IN 100YRS.-WATANA AREA CONTAINED BELOW DASHED LINE INDICATES APPROXIMATE VOLUME AND LOCATION OF SEDIMENT AFTER 100 YEARS 4 PERCENT OF VOLUME FILLED WITH -SEDIMENT IN 100 YEARS I 10 iii APPROXIMATE 100-YR. SEDIMENT DEPOSIT I I I 20 30 40 MI.L~S .-::::;:::. I j J ••~J .~J I J .1 J J .- t/) w t/)CJ~. Z zzc( 0 0 ::I:-0t-_.-l-e t--Z 0«0 w (.).., "'-C'.0CJa:z a.--I-t->::I:t/)I--«><-~ 3=w ~Z 0 0 FREQUENCY OF NON-NAVIGABILITY OF DEVIL CANYON -TALKEETNA REACH RESULTING FR'OM LOW FLOW CONDITIONS PERCENT OF TIME FLOW LESS THAN 6,500 cfs MONTH NATURAL CONDITIONS WATANA ALONE WATANA - DEVIL CANYON MAY 31.0 10 10 10 JUNE 0 0 3 10 JULY 0 0 0 0 AUGUST 1.5 0 0 0 SEPTEMBER 8.6 5 0 0 '.J .•~)j I .1 },I )J J i .J J --,}11 I I I 1 ]]]] FiSHERiES AND HYDROLOGY CONCLUSIONS 1.NO ANADROMOUS FISH ABOVE DEVIL CANYON 2.ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF SUSITNA RIVER FISH USE MIDDLE RIVER REACH 3a OF FISH USING MIDDLE RIVER REACH,MOST ENTER TRIBUTARIES 4.SEVERAL THOUSAND SOCKEYE AND CHUM SPAWN IN SLOUGHS AFFECTED BY PROJECT FLOWS FISHERIES AND HYDROLOGY CONCLUSIONS 5.JUVENILES REAR IN AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT FLOWS 6.CHINOOK JUVENILES REAR IN SIDE CHANNELS AND TURBID SLOUGHS 7.MINIMAL EFFECTS ON BOAT TRANSPORTATION 8.POTENTIAL FOR DELAY IN FORMATION OF RIVER ICE AND FOR ICE FRONT TO BE DOWNSTREAM OF DEVIL CANYON .1 I J !I I )B I )I I I J ._~~].))i .JJ)J 1 j I II I FISHERIES AND HYDROLOGY CONCLUSION 9.LESS MIDDLE RIVER EROSION o RIVER BED ARMORED WITH LARGE COBB~ES. REGULATED RIVER WILL BE LESS CAPABLE OF MOVING BED MATERIAL• .0 BANK EROSION A FUNCTION OF FLOOD STAGE AND ICE JAMS.PROJECT WILL REDUCE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF EACH. FISHERIES AND HYDROLOGY CONCLUSION 1 O.LOWER RIVER SEDIMENT DEPOSITION o CHULITNA CONTRIBUTES MOST LOWER RIVER SEDIMENT LOAD.REDUCING SUSITNA PEAK FLOWS WILL REDUCE CAPACITY OF RIVER BELOW CONFLUENCE TO REDISTRIBUTE SEDIMENTS. I I J 1 J .1 I i J J I ..J J J }j I '8 !.•tIl )]J 'I'll ~I I~~O"~"~~A"'I""IVVILULlrl::ex V I:.UI::11-\1 IUI~ o HABITAT LOSS o MOOSE IMPACTS o CARIBOU IMPACTS o BLACK AND BROWN BEAR IMPACTS o DALL SHEEP LICK o LOSS OF RAPTOR NESTS o DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION PLAN AREA OF HABITAT LOST OR MODIFIED (ACRES) WATANA RESERVOIR DEVIL CANYON RESERVOIR PROJECT FACILITIES AND BORROW PITS.. ..'". TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS ACCESS CORRIDORS TOTAL 36,500 7,900 4,900' 10,500 1,100 60,900 J J I .1 ]J I J ~ 1 1 )1 ·1 1 II I 1 .. I MOOSE IMPACTS o POPULATION CENSUS o BROWSE VEGETATION INVENTORY o MONITORING OF PREDATORS o CALF MORTALITY STUDY o COMPUTER MODELING WINTER LOCA TIONS OF RADIO-COLLARED MOOSE IN PROJECT AREA ".*. * ~J.1\'11' 1\' • I * * *.•* •'.1\' A D F &G (1977~82)LOCATIONS AND RELOCATIONS 1\' LEGEND -WATANA DAM -DEVIL CANYON DAM o 5 10 MILES, SCALE /...... ~.~ "::>(~~ "I;" ,Q ;41 /~ /0 ltv() _~I ••M )J J )I !J J "I 1 I 1 J J J 1 )-I J j 1 A D F &G (1983) DENALI HWy--- -WATANA DAM -DEVIL CANYON DAM o .5 10MILES E I SCALE DISTRIBUTION OF MOOSE WITH HOME RANGES OVERLAPPING THE IMPOUNDMENTS I'4,• X:-~ C;) Q:~ .", Q.. 4J o~ ./q ·0 MONTH ADF&G - MOVEMENTS OF RADIO-COLLARED CARIBOU ALASKA RANGE DEVIL CANYON DAM --. I ,HIGHWAY, LAKE LOUISE U,n~IlI.'{~ ~. ~, C),-,j:. )J J l _J )J !I u.- .~. -(..l ~<I~ 0.. .....=e--a:<c UJ 03 U) ::) -~U).-z 3=w (.) ()z 0.....cc -I-~D «.......I cC$::) a. 0 ~a. 0(J« •..1 """In - HOME RANGES'OF FEMALE BLACK BEARS ,. t N ~ RESERVOIR o 5 10 MILES [ SCALE A 0 F &G (1980-83) )l ,j ]J J ~J ••• -.-)-1 1 )1 -1 1-1 1-);"->~i .£ CONCLUSIONS -WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION o LOSS OF MOOSE HABITAT o LOSS OF BEAR HABITAT o NELCHINA CARIBOU HERD CROSSES IMPOUNDMENT AREA ON SOME MIGRATIONS o UPPER SUSITNA ...NENANA CARIBOU SUBHERD ... RANGE CROSSED BY ACCESS ROAD o 2 OR 3 NESTING PAIRS OF BALD EAGLES DISPLACED TO NEW NEST SITES CULTURAL RESOURCES o COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION A"CT DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL RESOUR,CES DEFINITION OF CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION PLAN ~j L..I ""I I _.t 1 ~1 1 ---1 1 1 11 J j CONCLUSION-CULTURAL RESOURCES o SITES OR DISTRICT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTERS SOCIOECONOMICS I ,J J .1 J .J t i }J )11 i1 ---1 )J 1 1 l 1 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT PROJECTIONS o HOUSEHOLD,BUSINESS AND PUBLIC SECTOR SURVEYS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES o INTERTIE CONSTRUCTION WORKER SURVEYS o SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEYS FALL 1983 CANTWELL TALKEETNA TRAPPER CREEK POPULATION 193 .281 196 NATIVE 18%5%0% HOUSEHOLD SIZE 2.38 3.16 3.2 CHILDREN 0.6 0.9 0.95 UNEMPLOYMENT OCT.83 24%14%20% VACANCY OCT,,83 t 36%28%11% ANGLERS 67%48%53% HUNTERS 56%29%42% I I ..•~)I S I J t .J )11 1 C]-1 j ]}'~ INTERTIE CONSTRUCTION WORKER SURVEY VARIABLE CANTWELL.TALKEETNA TOTAL... I , o TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKERS 45 43 88. oPERCENT NONMOVER 6.,7 34.9 20.5 oPERCENT MOVER 35.6 48.8 42.0 oPERCENT WEEKLY COMMUTER I 57.8 16.3 37.4 "oPERCENT UNION 71.,0 0.0 36.4 oAVERAGE AGE 35.8 35.7 35.,8 oPERCENT OF NONLOCAL WORKERS WITH DEPENDENTS PRESENT 14.,3 21.4 17.1 oAVERAGE NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS PRESENT PER NONLOCAL WORKER 0.3 0.5 0.4 oREMAIN IN COMMUNITIES AFTER 13.3 47.6 29.9 JOB ENDS SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL DEMOGRAPHIC ECONOMIC IMPACTS 1990 MAT SUBOROUGH .IWITHOUT-PROJECT IWITH-PROJECT POPULATION EMPLOYMENT POLICE MANPOWER HOSPITAL BEDS PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN SECONDARY SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERAL FUND REVENUES SERVICE AREA FUNDS (x 1 000) SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDS 47,246 7,85'7 52.4 60.5 5,911 5,036 $39,068 $5,186. $57,972 48,639 8,856 54.1 62.3 6,117 5',211 $40,220 $5,229 $62,523 REVISED PROJECTIONS 1983 F.O.A. J J J J J I I I ]J J 1 ))}j ---1 ----]-1 ---J j J -)]-.21 J SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL....._·.·O~~.•.......~-~~......~••.~··Mp·C-~UI:M \:i11J.\t'MI\I I:\lUNUMI\I I J.\-I :::. 1990 TALKEETNA WITHOUT..PROJECT WITH-PROJECT POPULATION EMPLOYMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN ADDITIONAL SCHOOL ROOMS (AT 1/25) SECONDARY SCHOOL CHILDREN ADDITIONAL SCHOOL ROOMS (AT 1/21) *NOTDETERMINED,NO DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IN TALKEETNA 457.." 57 ,49 652.. 86 1.16 74 1.18 CONCLUSION -SOCIOECONOMICS o MINIMAL IMPACT AT THE BOROUGH LEVEL o SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SMALL ADJACENT COMMUNITIES o CONFLICTS BETWEEN RESOURCES.·USER GROUPS J ,5 'J J J J J J !I J I j .1 ~ I J 1 1 J -1 J 11 J))1) RECREATION o FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE USERS o HIKERS AND CAMPERS o PUBLIC ACCESS ROUTE AND MANAGEMENT o REFINEMENT OF RECREATION PLAN CONCLUSION-RECREATION". o POST PROJECT:PUBLIC ACCESS WILL IMPACT FISH AND WILDLIFE WHILE PROVIDING .RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ,j I .J .1 ~J I I ,J .~J J 1 i J tna:w,....,z ==~11""\'lo 0 C Z....<C ...I I- ~-Zw·tn 0 W C <CZ~en <C c ...I <C:::)Z U.-0 0 I C -!i tn Z Z~CJ <C«-I-...I tn -a....I :Eztn I- <C w u.Z ...I 0 0 W 11-0 z :E tn <C 0 a. 0tn0-~...IW-...I W0m0>0 :)0 w <C a....I c 0 0 0 0 ,~ "0 O<~ 1-1-"1« ,~1-~ «;.«;.'f" G~ PROPOSED ROAD PROPOSED RAILROAD EXISTING RAILROAD EXISTING ROAD LEGEND D~N-4L/Ii/GIiW ...-1 }' t TO FAIRBANKS .(150 MILES) 4- ~'t" 0~ ~ +OJ-tq t-Q o~~~~ +-t-t-~ t-" ~/TO ANCHORAGE .#(150 MILES) J J J )j J I I J .I J J !I ~ J j ~1 J j I J lJ D-APPAOXIMATE AREA REQUIRED FOR MITIGATION PAOMGRAM CANDIDATE MITIGATION LANDS-FEDERAL OWNERSHIP CANDIDATE MITIGATION STATE/BOROUGH OWNERSHIP EXISTING STATE/FEDERAL PARKS &REFUGES O>/t., ~ LEGEND-oo I I POTENTIAL MITIGATION LAN~,I J~.1 I j 0 10 20 30 40 ~OMILES I J SCALE SUSITNA AREA LAND OWNERSHIP O'10 20 30 40 50 MILES I i SCALE •INCLUDES SELECTED lANDS c::J ~ CJ C:J LEGEND FEDERAL ..NATIVE * STATE c:J lEGISLATIVELY DESIGNATED AREA STATE SELECTED CJ MIXED -lAND OWNERSHIP IS TOO COMPLEX TO DEPICT AT THIS SCALE. BOROUGH *OWNERSHIP IS AT lEAST 60%PRIVATE WITH REMAINDER STATE.BOROUGH/'JATIVE I ..].J J 5 I I J j J ~~1 1 }J J ]1 1 CONCLUSION ..LAND USE o DEVELOPMENT O'F ACCESS ROUTE BY PROJECT LEADS·TO DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ON ADJACENT LANDS REMAINING ISSUES. o .FISHERIES AND HYDROLOGY DEVELoPMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLANS LOWER RIVER STUDIES ICE DYNAMICS o WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION SELECTION OF MITIGATION LANDS DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLANS )~J ~J .~I J.J ~)1 I )I j j I ]11 1 .~ REMAINING ISSUES o SOCIOECONOMICS WORKER.TRANSPORTATION SHIFT /ROTATION AND ACCOMODATIONS FISH AND WILDLIFE USERS'ANALYSIS o.LAND USE DETERMINE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY tJ)Q ~ Z Wt-o 0 ~ w-I-...w ~ C.tn en tn tn Z 0 0QZ_. Z 0 t- CJ :)-I:l. U.t-O ,M!'I/ a.tnZUi.0 U.Z 0 .0 0-CJ0 tn _. tn Z tn W -::)-tnZ00 .......>«r:r:z ...0 ::)<C,<C Z Z 0 z z 0-tn U.«0-u.0 0 0 0 ~, 143 POTENTiAL SOURCES OF FUNDiNG I II' )J 1 )1 j 1 J I J » ~ .f;>. » o STATE CONTRIBUTION o TAX EXEMPT DEBT o RURAL ELECTRIFICATION, ADMINISTRATION GUARANTEED LOAN o TAXABLE DEBT "z-cz :::::» LL LLo enwoa= :::::»oen ~«-I- Z W I-o C. zo-I-:»m-a: I-z O' (J W l- e( I-m >to--~aw o oz ~ IJ.. Zo-l- e( N-...J-CD e( I-m w l- e( a:: o oz ~ IJ.. I- Z W Z e( ~. a:wa. o - 1448 )\J ~--l li it ); J j J .... .f>. .s:.-o POTENTiAL SOURCES OF FUNDiNG TAX EXEMPT DEBT o REVENUE BONDS LEVEL DEBT SERVICE V ARIABLE RATE BONDS CREEPING COUPON BONDS PUT BONDS INSURED BQNDS o TAX EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER o GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS o LEVERAGED LEASE C' Z-C Z ~ U.o owo D:a 0- ..I <C-t- Zw bc. z c(o .J Q W W... Z c(a: ~ ~ zo-ti·a: t-tn-Z-:Eo< zo-t( u-u.-a: t-o W ...J W .J<a::::» £c o - ~z ~--~~z ~ lL ~lL ex: (:)wc.<0- (1)(J)...J J-'< aIJ -z (.) C~ w ex: en .:E w t- ~.0 w :E Ir r:a z 0 :E W 0 <0::)Q m ...J (.) ~~. a. c:>w w w W ...J ...J ...I CD J-CD ern 112'<<< ~><x -x ><<cr < •.J I-a.~ f-<a 0 0 -ct t- ,-.-1--:Z ILl ~l-eo ,~ ~ - ~.,__~,,--,__._=__...__--~---___...:1...:...44=_D..~_._"_mtrnr.....'l,",'LiIill _ FINANCING OPTIONS SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS OPTION A :TAX EXEMPT REVENUE BONDS COMBINED WITH STATE EQUITY AND RATE STABILIZATION FUND OPTION B:REA GUARANTEED LOAN AND TAX EXEMPT . REVENUE BONDS (50/50)COMBINED WITH STATE·EQUITY AND RATE STABILIZATION FUND It J I l J ".J l t j »1 )}~'.Ii ,. ,~ FUNDING REQUIREMENTS (MILLION NOMINAL DOLLARS) WATANA DEVIL CANYON TOTAL -4 .$=>.m OPTION A TAX -EXEMPT BONDS eQUITY RSF TOTAL OPTION B TAX -EXEMPT BONDS .REA LOANS EQUITY RSF TOTAL 6,075 7,049 13,124 . 2,400 ~-2,400 1,013 463 1,476 9,488 7,512 17,000 2,736.7,049 9,785 .2,332 --2,332 2,700 --2,700 888 463 .L 351 8,656 7,512 16,168 ENERGY COST COMPARISON 50....• ::::::.. RATE STABILIZATION fUND Lil OPTION A 5 45 25 20 40 35 30 LEAST -COST THERMAL \..,,.",..,."..... ~..~..FULL FUNDING WITH ;........'_____..,..,..,.. TAX EXEMPT BONDS]I ~~,•. /~'II.'I.I'"-_......_. I ~..-~....._---------."~..,..,...OPTION B.-~ /~~~~tii£;::1;;l;;i'~-.. ~..,~"wi""";;::;lUI15-1\i!_;R:;i!~1.{t~~i.'·'~ :111 11 • ••1'"10 z-> <!Ja: W Z W.c u..~o~..... ...-0- CJ) O-J 0«'zw-..J:; «0 CJ)zw -Jo J: ~ 201020052000 01 I i I I I I • I I Iii I I 1996 YEAR 1 I~ 1,-,)•• I s j J ) r )1 I Ia •i J 11 I ,J ]lit J ]t COMPARISON,;OF STATE EQUITY AND RSF CONTRIBUTIONS' (IN 'MILLION DOLLARS) .... -1:0. CD NOMINAL DOLLARS EQUITY RSF TOTAL IN 1983 DOLLARS EQUITY RSF TOTAL OPTION A $2,400 1,013 $3,413 $1,519 396 $1,915 OPTION B $2,700 888 $3,588 $1,707 347 $'2,054 450..,-----------------------...., 10%OF OIL..AND GAS REVENUES (DOR MEAN) 400 350 300 encr:250<-I -Ia Q ~ ~200 d Qz zo :i 150-I ~ 1QO 50 STATE CONTRIBUTION REQUIRED FOR WATANA - 1985 1990 YEAR 1995 2000 YEARLY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FINANCING OPTIONS A AND B 149 l l )J J j])1 1 1 )1 1 ) ..... 01o» iSSUES NEEDING RESOLUTION BEFORE SUSITNA PROJ~CT PLAN OF FINANCE .CAN BE FINALIZED A.ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT o ACCEPTABLE POWER RATES o PUBLIC SUPPORT o EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITMENT .... 01om ISSUES NEEDING RESOLUTION BEFORE SUSITNA PROJECT PLAN OF FINANCE CAN BE FINALIZED B.VALID POWER SALES CONTRACTS C.TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF SUSITNA REVENUE BONDS D.ABILITY AND WILLINGESS OF REA TO GUARANTEE DEBT IN MEANINGFUL AMOUNTS J J .1 11 ,-..•I l t J .J J j 1 ~---))OJ i )-}]J-j 1 .-} ..... (1Jo () iSSUES NEEDING RESOLUTION BEFORE SUSITNA PROJECT PLAN OF F"INANCE CAN BE FINALIZED" E.WILLINGNESS OF THE STATE TO ESTABLISH A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE TO SUPPORT THE PROJECTS FINANCING" (PROPOSED MAJOR PROJECTS FUND) F.WILLINESS OF THE STATE TO ALLOW THE USE OF ITS -MORAL OBLIGATION-TO SUPPORT PROJECT FUNDING NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED G.WILLINESS OF RAILBEL T UTILITIES (AND ULTIMATELY RAILBELT CONSUMERS)TO PAY A PREMIUM PRICE FOR SUSITNA ENERGY NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED AND VALIDATED