Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APA2576
1. . [}:{]fA\00~/A\ 0 ~®&®©© j Susitna Joint Venture Document Number J ----~------·---------------~ I 1 I I I I . I I I l f '-· - ,1, L Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL SUSITNi\ TRANSJ\11SSION SYSTEM STATUS SUMMARY VOLUJ\1\E TWO APPENDICES DRAFT DECEMBER 1983 IWlZA·EIASCO SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE ..___ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY_._.. I .. • t' ' .... ' ' ; . . ' •. l . . 0 • I • ~ ' 0 ' '"' I l l • r r r [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ l [ l t '· 1 ..... l /1 ~ -~ "I ' y .. , .~ ::'· ' ·-: ~- '\ ' SUSITNA TRANSMISSION £YSTEM VOLUME TWO '.. " •'!~>· APPEN0,1CES· DRAFT DECEMBER 1983. '..... -. IWUA···EBASCO SUSITNA' JOINY VENTVR E . r r l r I I I ( [ I [ [ l 1 1 VOLUME 2 TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS Section APPENDIX A -REVIEW OF ESTABLISHED METEROLOGICAL DESIGN P A.Rl\.METERS A.l METEROLOGICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS A. Temperature B. Heavy Wind c. Ice D. Wind and Ice E. Snow F. Avalanche Exposure A. 2 CONCLUSIONS A. Design Criteria 1. Temperature 2. Heavy Wind 2A. Extra Heavy Wind 3. Ice 4. Wind and Ice B. Load Combinations References PAGE A-1 A-1 A-3 A-5 A-5 A-6 A-6 A-7 A-7 A-7 A-7 A-8 A-8 A-8 A-8 A-9 APPENDIX B -REVIEW OF ESTABLISHED STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION B-1 B. 1 STRUCTURES A. Loading B. Structure Types -Design Considerations B.2 FOUNDATIONS A. Geologic Conditions and Foundation Materials B. Slope Stability Considerations C. Permafrost B.3 SOILS INVESTIGATIONS A. Phase I -Preliminary Investigation B. Phase II -Detailed Investigation B.4 FOUNDATION TYPES A. Pile Foundation B. Rock Anchor C. Grillages D. Pole Foundations B.5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS References . ~ B-1 B-1 B-1 B-3 B-3 B-6 B-6 B-7 B-7 B-7 B-8 B-8 B-8 B-9 B-9 B-9 B-11 [ [ ( f l [ [ [ [ ( [ r L. [. Section APPENDIX C -230 KV ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PERFORMANCE C.l INTRODUCTION C. 2 CALCULATED RESULTS AND ANALYSIS A. Ground Gradient B. Electrostatic Induction Effects C. Electromagnetic Effects D. Radio Noise E. Television Interference F. Audible Noise C.3 CONCLUSIONS References APPENDIX D -3Lt>5 KV ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PERFORMA..~CE D.1 INTRODUCTION D.2 RADIO NOISE A. Signal Strength B. Transmission Line RI Characteristics C. Interference Levels D.3 TELEVISION INTERFERENCE (TVI) A. Criteria B. Signal Strength and Performance D.4 .AUDIBLE NOISE A. Criteria B. Characteristics and P:~rfon~:tance D t• .::> ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS A. Criteria B. Electrostatic Effects -Calculations and Results C. Electromagnetic Effects D.6 CONCLUSIONS References Tables 1 through 8 Figures 1 through 11 APPENDIX E -230 KV AND 345 KV RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CLEARING DIAGRAMS E.1 INTRODUCTION E.2 SUSPENSION STRUCTURES E.3 ANGLE STRUCTURES E.4 EVALUATION E.5 CONCLUSIONS ii PAGE C-1 C-1 C-2 C-2 C-3 C-5 C-5 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 D-1 D-1 D-4 D-6 D-7 D-8 D-9 D-9 D-10 D-12 D-13 D-13 D-15 D-15 D-16 D-18 D-18 D-20 E-1 E-1· E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 [ [ [ [ [ lr -.!... r t -~ r li l l l l l Section APPENDIX F -COST DATA FOR POTENTIAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM REFINEMENTS F.1 INTRODUCTION F.2 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL PROJECT REFINEMENTS A. Cl.T -Cost Comparison B. C2Tl -?reposed Project Refinements c. C2T2 -Proposed Project Refinements D. C2T3 -Cost Comparison E. C2T4 -Cost Comparison F. C2T5 -Cost Comparison F.3 POTENTIAL PROJECT REFINEMENTS Figures 1 through 9 APPENDIX G -LAND FIELD SERVICES REPORT ON DIRECT AND INDIRECT LAND ACQUISITION COSTS -10/26/83 APPENDIX H -SUMMARY OF SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM COSTS FOR FERC APPLICATION SCHEME H.1 INTRODUCTION Tables Hl and H2 APPENDIX I -POWER SALES AGREEMENT -LETTER OF INTENT PAGE F-1 F-1 F-1 F-3 F-4 F-9 F-14 F-15 F-17 H-1 H-1 R-3 APPENDIX J -ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM STUDY, TASK 7, VOLUME ONE SUPPLEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND STEADY STATE ANALYSIS iii [ r . ~ r· [ r . . ~-· [_ [~ L. L. l .l,;. ,• ' ' l ~- 1. 2. 3. 4. s. VOLUME 1 OF 3 TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Introduction Engineering Considerations Study Approach Alternative Rout~ Descriptions Technical Considerations 6. Economic Considerations 7. Environmental Considerations 8. Summary and Recommendations Appendix M -Agency Comments Appendix N Utility Comments Appendix p -Public Participation Appendix R -Environmental Resource Descriptions for Transmission Route Alternatives Appendix S -Environmental Inventory Support Data South Study South Study South seudy South Study South Study North Study North Study Area Area- VOLUME 3 OF 3 RESOURCE MAPS Will()W Subarea . -Anchorage Subarea Area Area~ Palmer Subarea Area -Healy Subarea Area-Healy Subarea Area -Fairbar;.ks Subarea . l.V -f f [ r: £ [· E [ [ ~ \;, ' ' APPEBDIX A REVIEW OF ESTABLISHED HETER.OLOGICAL DESIGN PAJWfETEKS It t [ f If [ [ [ [ [ [ [ l LJ... 0 w cr: ::> ~ 0:: w a.. \l REVIEW OF ESTABLISHED METEROLOGICAL DESIGN .PARAMETERS 1. 0 METEROLOGICAL DESIGN P .t\BA..'fETERS - ·-r': .• '-"- Temperatures Temperatures experienced encountered 1.n Alaska along the exhibit northern an extreme sections range. of the transmission line corridor are illustrated by the curves shown in the figure below presenting data observed at Fairbanks. I _1 80 A :...(fl r. JWV' ~b ~ -N' .• v I :..r/ / ~ V' 1-v.l .-.. ~-~N /~ / ~ "" vv~ l ·~ RECO-":Dt/G'H" i ,, w ,/ v '-~ -"' ~ ~ t ~~ I / ,.. 1 \ .;; . [\J\ / y v·~ ~ / ~ • \IV\ r~ """-~ ~\ ,.,... 0 ~j ~ ('\4 r._R£E'ZING(32°F) .. J 60 40 ,. / /"; I' ~MeAN ANNUAL TEMP.f r'r\ "'\\ . ' L / // I A (25.7° F) 'll. "-~\ i\_~\. / / NORMAL H/G~ / / /J I I~ " ~ ~~'\ /rl ZeRO ~~ - ~ / _/ \ \.' ~,""" / v /· r. 20 0 ---FAIRBANKS AIR TEMPERATURE " ""-,.. . .,..- ::E -20 w ~ / ~1 \r PREPARED !Y t C. HORTMAN ~ INSnTUTE OF WATER RESOURCES, ., v~ 1\~ .__ -....,., - }-NORJAL' LIOW IM UNIVERSITY OF' AI.. AS I< A, I .N FAIRBANKS, Al..AS KA. ~ If~ NORNAL RECORD HIGH -AND L.OW I I '1 \ReCORD Low 1 II" 1 19~1 -nTO 1931-JAN. 197-4 -40 fj..A tt'~ ( f~OW NATIONAL WEATHER SE'PIVICE RE COPIDE'D -~ ~ ... ~~ AIR T£WP. AT FAIRIIAHKS :tNTERNAT'l. AIPIP'ORT) v ~ 1 ~ -60 --··-Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun._. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Oec. Jan. Feb. Mur. The recorded rang~; of tem.!:'erature is from a record low of -65 °F in winter to a .record high of 95°F in summer~ C/41/7A R4 A-1 ·~t~~·~~r--··-~·--~·---·-----~·--~ ... ,."·~~-·--~~-·---------·· 0 r If.··.· t r: [ . ~.~.' l r. r: [ [ .0 The extremes of temperature in any month are observed by noting, for example, that in January there is a record low of -65 °F and a record high of 46°F. The following table based on a Northern Technical Services Study Report published in October, 1980 presents results of the temperature study tabulating maximum. and minimum projected temperatures for Anchorage, Fairbanks, Summit and Talkeetna • Maximum 25 Year Location Period Anchorage 97.1 Fairbanks 108.9 Summit 104.3 Talkeetna 100.9 Temperature (oF) 50 Year 100 Year Period Period 99.0 100.5 111.2 112.9 107.0 109.1 102.6 103.9 Minimmum Temperature (°F) 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year Period Period Period -54.9 -58.4 -61.9 -84.3 -87.8 -91.3 -64.8 -67.8 -70.7 -87.1 -92.4 -97.6 Data bases for these temperatures were annual temperatures over a 27 year span for Anchorage$ 31 years for Fairbanks, 8 years for Summit and 12 years for Talkeetna. Based on the 50 year recurrence temperatures, a minimum extreme temperature of -80°F and a minimum mean annual temperature of -40°F have been selected as acceptable levels. The following limiting criteria is selected for conductor tensions for design against aeolian vibrations: 0 0 0 C/41/7A R4 25% Rated conductor strength initial at minimum mean annual temperature of -40°F; 20% Rated conductor strength final, at 40°F based on the analysis of 5 to 15 MPH wind occurrence, and Maximum 120°F conductor temperature is assumed for ground conductor clearance. A-2 \) ·] [ f. ~ . ,~ r r! ' '1 [ i; r r: [' . [ ' ' L [ . . r· I .l.. [' . ' -" . [ [ ;:;.c1 [' :::...: L' :::,..; l . I ~ ~ t! . " :\ 1 B. Heavy Wind Key stations for wind data are lacate.~d in Anchorage, Talkeetna, Summit, Healy and Fairbanks. These stations have fairly lengthy records of wind observations. None have recorded unusually severe winds. It is known that severe winds occur through and at the mouth of the Nenana Canyon in the vicinity of Healy. During initial operations of the Healy-Fairbanks 138 kV line, three .towers in the vicinity of Healy were lost due to high wind;s. To gain additional data, Northern Technical Services (NORTEC), set up four wind-recording stations to gather short-term data on wind and weather conditions. Computer analysis of long-term readings was used to extrapolate the more detailed short-term wind data available into long-term expected wind-velocity extremes. submitted recommended design wind velocities. Results of the study The following table . summar1.zes these heavy wind studies conducted by NORTEC showing the computer extrapolated extreme one minute average wind • Location Anchorage Fairbanks Healy Summit C/41/7A R4 WIND SPEED 25 Year Period 87.0 70.9 114.4 69.2 A-3 (MPH) 50 Year 100 Year Period Period 92.0 95.7 75.0 78.1 118.2 124.9 72.0 74.2 [ [ . ' " [ [ [ - r~ r·, ·~ [' r: [' ,. [ , L ' [ . ... [' ' ' l ' ' L [ . l ' ! ~· • j Data bases for these wind speeds were annual extreme winds over a 27 y.eai:' period for Anchorage, 31 years ft">r Fairbanks, 2-1/2 years for Healy and 7 years for Summit. The confidence limits are 99% for three locations and 95% for Healy. Tlle table shows extreme wind speeds of 118,.2 MPH at Healy and 92.0 at Ancho;-ag~ at 33 feet above the ground surface for a 50 year mean recurrence.. These wind speeds can be adjusted for an average c.onductor height of 60 feet by using the following relationship: vx = VBASE [ Hei::Iht B!se] 1/7 Thus~ Height For Anchorage 92 [*] 1/7 = 100.2 MPH For Healy 118.2 [*] 1/7 = 128.7 MPH Therefo.re, the t~ansmission lin~~ ~hggld be designed f~'Jr a heavy wind of 100 MPH along the whole corridor except Nenana Gorge and Windy Pass areas where the design wind speed will approach 130 MPH. A design speed of 1~0 MPH has been adapted for additional reliability and difficult maintenance operations in this area • The wind pressures on towers based en these speeds will be further increased by a gust factor of 1.3. C/41/7A R4 A-4 r r:: r: [ [ [ [ r .• ~ ,._ --~.' 4 .""' _..,... C. Ice Existing transmission lines in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and from Healy to Fairbanks have nnt experienced any unusual icing problems. Climate and topography generally do not favor formation of heavy glaze or rime ice since during most of the year it is either too hot, too cold or too dry for heavy icing to occur. This is markedly different from conditions in some mountainous areas along the Gulf of Alaska where temperature and moisture conditions favorable to heavy icing are quite common. The available data also indicates that possibilities are remote for simultaneous occurrence of maximum wind and maxim,um icing. Heaviest winds occur from November to 1-iarch when air temperatures are well below freezing. NORTEC's study estimates a maximum annual extreme accumulation of radial ice for a 50 year recurrence period of 0. 59 inchas in the Anchorage area and 0.3 inches along the line route up to Fairbanks. Therefore, a heavy radial ice ~riteria of 0. 75 inches is recommended. This loading will develop enough vertical and longitudinal structure capability for construction and stringing. D. Wind and Ice A review of the NORTEC study, considering maximum wind speeds at 33 feet above ground occurring simul taneC<usly with freezing precipitation for a 50 year recurrence, shows a maximum wind speed of 74 MPH at Sunuuit. Therefore, structures designed . accordance J.n Electric Safety Code (NESC), overload factors combination. C/41/7A R4 will be heavy load conditions with adequate for . maxJ.mum A-5 with National the appropriate wind and . J.ce [ r [ [ [ l l E. Snow Annual precipitation in Alaska varies greatly from five inches per year in the high arctic regions to 200 inches per year in some coastal areas. Much of the precipitation is in the form of snow. Based on snow data available, maximum snow accumulation well under 10. feet is expected over the entire route, except for occasional areas subject to drifting. Guyed steel X-frame type structures selected as the standard 345 kV tangent structure will be structurally adequate to handle snow depths up to 10 feet. F. Avalancne Ex£0sure A reconnaissance study of snow avalanche eKposure was prepared for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie in September, 1981 by Arthur I. Mears, Inc. The transmission alignment studied parallels the Susitna, Chulitna and Nenana River Valleys extending 150 miles northward from southcentral to interior Alaska and is therefore applicable to this project.. The avalanche-prone areas occur primarily on the west side of the Talkeetna Mountains and north through Nenana Gorge, Moody and Montana Creeks. Clear evidence for avalanche activity in the form of destroyed or damaged trees is visible on photographs within the mountains along these areas. Conclusion of the study indicates that all types of avalanches are possible within this area, ranging from high velocity avalanches of dry snow, to slow moving wet snow avalanches. Therefore, total avoidance of all high exposure levels is most desirable, but this may not be possible at all locations. An acceptable level of risk based on safety and economics must be determined in areas where avoidance is not possible. C/41/7A R4 A-6 r: ·[ [ l l l l l 2.0 CONCLUSIONS No specific recommendations have been provided by ACRES ., on meterological conditions to be used for Susitna transmission lines' design, except that zones related to climatic loading were which are: Not~al, Heavy Ice and Heavy Wind. The suggested following meterological criteria which recognize Normal and Heavy Wind Zones is recommended for Susitna transmission lines based on previous relate( studies. These criteria are consistent with that used on the Intertie line outlined by Commonwealth Associated in their 1981 report on design criteria and are as follows: A. Design Criteria I. Temperatures o Maximum for checking ground clearances.~·••e••••••120°F 0 Maximtllll extreme .............................. ., •••.• 100°F o Minimum extreme ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••. -80 °F 0 .Minimt!IIl annual mean •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..•• -4o-F 0 Everyday • ..... • ... • • • • ..... •. • .. • • .. • • .. •. • ..... •. • .40oF 2 • Heavy Wind A heavy wind of 100 MPH is recommended as the loading condition on the lines based on the maximum recorded wind along the major portion of the proposed routes with adjustments to average conductor heights. This wind load translates to 25 lbs. per square foot of pressure for conductors, and approximately to the same value for the structures because of their tubular shape. C/41/7A R4 A-7 [ r~- r· ' <) [~ [. [" r ' ~ [~ l -l f. (_ r~ ,. t. I_ l ,, l l» l 0 2A. Extra Heavy Wind An extra heavy wind of 140 MPH is recommended for the sect ion around Nenana Gorge and Windy Pass. The actual design (whether the special heavier structures or standard structures with reduced spans wi 11 be used in these areas) will be based upon the results of an econouic study to be made during the design phase~ 3. Ice Because no heavy ice has been recorded in the area, only· a moderate ice condition will be considered. For this loading criteria, 0. 75 inches radial ice without wind is recommended. 4. Wind & Ice The NESC Heavy (1/2 inch ice, 4# Wind) loading conditions shall be used for ice loading criteria. substantiated This criteria . l.S by ·the Nortec study since the maximum wind speed with freezing precipitation is in the range of up to 40-44 MPH and ice accumulation in a range of 0.5 -0.6 inches. B. Load Combinations Load Combinations for Each Zone will be: Normal Case -Loads 1, 2, 3, 4 Heavy Wind Case -Loads 1, 2A) 3, 4 C/41/7A R4 ' .. ~" l ....... :-=t. t. ,_ l '· '' 1. REFERENCES Terrain Analysis of the North and South Intertie Power Transmission Corridors, R&M Consultants, Inc., November 1981. ' 2. Electric Power Engineering in an Arctic Environment, J.R. Eaton, R.P. Merritt, E.F. Rice, IEEE Publication F75 523-1. 3. NORTEC Meterological Hindcast Study for Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage Fairbanks Intertie Project, October 1980. 4. A Reconnaissance Study of Snow Avalanche Exposure on the Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie. Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., September 1981. 5.. Geotechnical Investigation Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Transmission Line Route, Commonwealth Associates, Inc., August 1982, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 6. Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie -Structure Study, Commonwealth Associates, Inc., September 1981. 7. Achieving Reliable Transmission in Subarctic Conditions, Joseph Van Gulik-Van Gu.lik & Associates, T&D Magazine, October 1980. 8. Unusual Structures for Alaska Transmission, D.Su LaRue, Matanuska Electric Association, R.J. Montambo, ITT Meyer:Industries, R.W. Retherford, Robert W. Retherford Associates, T&D Magazine, October 1979. 9. Alaskan Tieline Passes Initial Hurdle, Lytle G. Miller, Gilbert/Commonwealth, David R. Eberle, Alaska Power Authority, Electric World, Feb·rut:.ry 1983. 10. Copper Valley Electric Association, 110-mile Soloman Gulch to Glenallen 138 kV T/L, D.A. Griemsmdnn, R.H. Sayre, Hi-Tension News, Ohio Brass Company. 11~ Anchorage-F~irbanks Transmission Intertie, Basic Design Criteria, Commonwealth Associates Inc., SeptemDer 1981. C/41/7A R4 A-9 I \"J 1 I f [ r r [ 1: [ [ 1: [ 1: 1: I" lj J ~ .. J l_j IJ l L APPENDIX B IEVIEW OF ESTABLISHED ST.RUCTOE ABD !'OUHDATIOB DESIGR PAIWIETERS r~ ' ' r i I ' .I r·~ \' I I r·, I' 1: J' ~~ I~ ~~ I: I" ,J I., '-l I. t~ IJ t~ l~ REVIEW OF ESTABLISHED STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS 1.0 STRUCTURES A. Loadings The loading types to be considered can be divided into the following eight categories: 1. Combined wind and ice loading (NESC Heavy Load) • 2. Extreme wind loading in any direction. 3. Heavy vertical loading due to ice. 4. Longitudinal loads due to tension in wires. 5. Construction and maintenance loads. 6. Longitudinal capability to resist cascading failure. 7. Permafrost considerations. 8. Seismic loading. B. Structure Types -Design Considerations Alaska has extensive regions of muskeg and permafrost where seasonal changes in the active layers of soils cause large earth movements. In the subarctic regions, freezing to considerable depths followed by thawing contributes to soil instability and results in large displacements of foundations. Thus, conventional self-supporting rigid towers are not suitable for Alaska. Ten basic structure types wer,e analyzed for the Intertie for life-cycle costs, constructability, reliability and visual impact. C/41/7B R4 B-1 The type of r, r- "' r~ r1 [\ I , ... ,--, I_- I~ [' ,- I, ,. '~ L~· I~ 1.1 ~~~ l structure selected as most suitable to meet the requirements of the Intertie was the hinged-guyed steel X-tower. Tangent towers of this X design frame were developed specifically for Alaska and have performed satisfactorily during the last ten years. However, the previous struc- tures until the Intertie were designed for lower voltage l-evels than 345 kV. The design features include hinged connections between the leg members -and the foundations which together with the longitudinal guy system provide for necessary fle::dbility to accommodate foundation movement due to soil conditions. Transverse stability is provided by the wide leg base which also results in low foundation loads. The structures can withstand transverse forces without the aid of the guys. Additional advantages of the X-type structure are the following: 0 The X-type structure provides for less visual and . env1.ron- mental impacts than other structures c Therefore, the line blends in better with its surrounding than lattice towers; o Towers could be stored in remote areas with less concern for vandalism or deterioration; 0 C/41/7B R4 The structures selected need a . . m1.n1.mum of field labor. A typical tangent structure consists of only six major compo- nents with bolted connections. This is a big advantage as construction and maintenance labor costs are very high . l.U Alaska. Access with machinery to most area$ is only possible during winter days with short daylight periods, but while the surface is firmly frozen; and B-2 ,, o The X-towers are relatively insensitive to guy and foundation heaving. Fore and aft guys are attached in pairs to a yoke arrangement located about 4 feet above ground which is attached to the anchor through a single guy. Heaving of any combination of foundations or guy anchors can be identified by the inclination of the guy yoke plate and insulator . . strings or changes ~n sag. Whenever excess.~ve heaving which may be around 1 foot . the occurs, ~n a season, foundations and guys can be easily adjusted. Self.-supporting single-pole structures will be used for a sect ion of the line and where. the steep slopes require extreme leg differential length and very long guys. Three-pole guyed structures are used for heavy angle and dead-end applications. All towers will be built of unpainted, corrosion-resistant weathering steel. Weathering steel over several years turns to a dark brown color which is aesthetically more appealing than galvanized steel. 2.0 FOUNDATIONS A. Geologic Conditions and Foundation Materials Available soils and foundation data include: o Detailed soil surveys from the Soil Conservation Service for part of the lower Susitna Valley and the iinmediate Fairbanks C/41/7B R4 area; B-3 ! ,, r~ r r~ r: r~ r~ r, ~~ L' r. J: I: 1 .. IJ '-~ t~ t~ t~ L 0 General geologic and permafrost maps from the USGS: 1:250,000 scale reconnaissance level interpretation of soil types prepared by the Resources Planning Team of the Land Use Planning Commission; o Data from route studies for existing transmission lines and highways; and o An environmental assessment including a regional permafrost map and strip maps showing general soil types for the corridors. A generalized terrain analysis was conducted to collect geologic and geotechnical materials data for the transmission line corridors for the Intertie between Willow and Healy and described qualitatively. When evaluating the suitability of a terrain unit for a specific use, the actual properties of that unit were verified by on site subsurface investigation, sampling and laboratory testing. The geotechnical investigation of the Intertie Transmission Line Route was carried out by Commonwealth Associates and Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and submitted to the Powar Authority in August, 1982. The material types encountered were grouped into the following classification$: o Peat -Soft, compressible material containing greater than 50% organic material by volume; 0 Fines -Fine=grained soils, some clay; predominantly soft silt with o Gravel -Silty sand, gravel and in places amounts of cobbles and boulders; C/41/7B R4 B-4 r r [ r~ r· L. L '~ L 0 0 0 The . ma~n Till -Sand or gravel with cobbles and bo:ulders up to 10 feet in diameter; Talus -Unsorted or poorly sorted rock waste at the base of a clif£ or ste.ep slope, commonly broken out of the bedrock by frost action; and Bedrock -Highly fractured and closely jointed bedrock. three types of materials along the transmission line are designated as: 0 0 0 Good material, which is defined as materials which permits augered excavation and allows installation of concrete without special form ~ork; Wetland and e.ermafrost material, which requires additional design details providing additional depth; and Rock material, is defined as material in which drilled-in anchors and concrete footings can be used. Based on aerial, topographic and terrain unit maps, the following foundation conditions were noted: 0 C/41/7B R4 For the Southern Study Area -Mostly wetland, some rock and good foundation materials are present in this area in a very small proportion. Silty loamy loess over thick deposits of very gravelly and stony glacial drift. Generally free of permafrost. A few small isolated masses of permafrost occur at high altitudes. B-5 r '' L ( L L L. '~ 0 0 For the Central Study Area Rock foundation and good materials were observed in most of this study area. Rough mountainous land with rocky slopes, deep mountain valleys in very gravelly drift with thin layer of loamy and silty loess. Generally underlain by discontinuous permafrost. For the Northern Study Area -The major part of this area is the wetland and permafrost materials. Some areas have good soil and rock materials,-silt loam and micaceous loess over shattered bedrock of mica schist. Generally underlain by · numerous isolated masses of permafrost. B. Slope Stability Considerations Discontinuities in the bedrock, combined with the steep topography create the potential for slope failures in mountainous locations of the line route. The effects of guy and tower loading on slope stability will have to be considered in tower location selection and detailed foundation design on a one-to-one basis. C. Permafrost Discontinuous permafrost un:Jerlies most of the route north of about the ~alkeetna River. Permafrost and seasonal frost require special found- ation considerations. Structures in permafrost areas will be supported · below the annual frost zone, in the underlying permafrost zone using piles to transmit structure loads through the annual frost zone. The danger caused by deep seasonal frost is frost jacking forces which result in large vertical movements during freeze-thaw cycles. Perma- frost causes excessive settlements caused by thawing of foundation materials. Foundations will be designed to withstand these frost jacking forces and excessive settlements. C/41/7B R4 B-6 L '<' ~ \-"" "' ' 3.0 SOIL INVESTIGATIONS To select and detail design the most economical type of foundation for a specific tower location, soil conditions at that site must be known. A soils investigation program will furnish this needed information. Soil borings will be performed which will define the type of soil pre- sent and its strength in resisting the forces on the tower. The cost of a soil boring program is sm.all compared to the line cost per mile. The primary purpose of soil borings is to assure an adequate and safe foundation. It is intended that geotechnical exploration and design services necessary will be completed in two phases: A. Phase I -Preliminary Investigation In Phase I, test boring and geophysical survey locations will be selected using existing subsurface data.. A limited number of boring locations will be initially selected along the transmission line cor- ridors to verify the terrain units. B. Phase II -Detailed Investigation In Phase II, additional borings will be selected to provide specific des~gn information and to provide additional data for terrain unit map- ping. Borings wlll average depths of 35 to 40 feet and drilling geo- logic logging and sampling will be carried out. In addition, geophy- sical surveys will verify permafrost conditions at selected locations established by the Mapping and Boring Programs. Eventually~ a compre- hensive laboratory testing program will be performed using field sam- ples and a detailed geotechnical report will be prepared. This report will show graphic logs of borings, boring locat.ion plans, subsurface profiles, and define the foundation materials and design criteria. C/41/7B R4 B-7 r [~ r· r I r I L L L L ! L l L. 4.0 FOUNDATION TYPES The foundation types that can be used along the transmission line are d:{vided into four basic types: A. Pile Foundation Most of the tubular steel, hinged-guyed tower and three-pole design dead-end structures will be supported by pile-type foundations, consisting of heavy H-pile beams ·driven to variable depths depending upon the soil conditions. This type of footing is _considered when a good 'bearing stratum does· not occur at normal footing depth, or at a reason~ble distance below. Piling will be cut to suitable lengths around 20 to 25 feet and then driven with a vibratory hammer with welds used to splice the piling v.-'"hen necessary. Pile minimum driving resista'nce will be specified by the fOl.\ndation report and driving continued with additional splices until an adequate bearing is achieved. Selected ·piles will be· tested to verify that sufficient bearing capacity and uplift resistance have been achieved. Guy anchors used will be of the hydraulically installed screw-type anchor. B. Rock Anchor lhis type of footing is specified whenever good quality rock is en- countered near the ground surface. A hole is drilled into the rock material and the concrete piers are groutad into the rock hole with reinforcing bars. Permissible bearing values with this type of footing are found to be high. The entire hole can be drilled using the small diameter drill bit without casing. This type of hole is easy and quick to drill and presents little or no problems. The minimum depth of these holes is approximately 8 feet and the entire hole is grouted to ensure adequate anchoring below the maximum frost depth. Guy anchors will use a similar type of grouted anchors in rock. C/41/7B R4 B-8 [ r~ I r r· [ r I . f ... · I I L, '~' . C. Grillages Piles will not be driven into frozen gravel or till. In these frost zones, if bedrock is fragmented and not suitable for use of rock anchors, then a grillag;e type foundation ~i.ll be used. The grillage type used will consist of a fabricated pedestal grillage made up of s te~l shapes such as anglee, channels, etc.. The grillage foundation will be placed deep er.Lough to be founded below the active frost zone and will be placed on ii bedding layer of gravel. D. Pole Foundations Foundations for cantilever pole-·type structures will be required to resist high overturning moments, therefore, a large diametE!r cast-in place reinforced concrete augered piers can be used when the terrain is generally free of permafrost. It is possible that only angle and terminal poles with highest overturning moments may require this type of foundations. For tangent po~.es, closely driven 4· or 5 steel "H" piles under each pole working a~ a unit will resist the acting moments. These piles may be field welded to a base plate which 7 in turns can be bolted to the bottom base plate of the pole to produce a moment resistant connection. 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS It is intended that most construction activity which will take place in winter will be performed using special winter Off-Road Vehicles (ORV). Enviromn~ntal restrictions prohibit heavy construction vehicles on the fragile vegetation and tundra unless the ground is frozen and covered with a compacted snow base. In addition, many wet locations will not be accessible by vehicle at all. It is therefore cons ide red that C/41/7B R4 B-9 [ [~ [~ r· I '\!:,~. , f" !! .. .. r· r " t ~ !! •. I t. ~ .... I ~ . I. L. L. t~ l~ ~ L"> construction activity will be supported by heavy load carry!' ng capacity helicopters like Boeing Vertol A-·107 that can lift up to 10,000 or 11,000 pounds. Hydraulic vibratory hammers on tracked vehicles can be used to drive the 8 or 10 inch steel "H"' piles 20 to 25 feet with additional pile sections welded until necessary driving resistance is obtained. The connection of the structure with the foundation piles is considered to be a friction type, enabling to make height adjustment for frost heaving. Structures can be assembled horizontally on the ground and then p·alled into vertical position using a hinged connection between the piling and structure legs. Thf'.! tower can be erected with greater ease using the waist section as the attachment point. At inaccessible locations the foundation can be prepared as required and a heavy load carrying helicopter can fly the assembled structure to the site where a 4 or 5 man crew can bolt it to the piles in a relatively short time. C/41/7B R4 B-10 \ 1 ~ c. I I I I I I I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. REFERENCES Terrain Analysis of the North and South Intertie Power Trans- mission Corridors, R&M Consultants, Inc., November 1981. Electric Power Engineering in an Arctic Environment, J .R. Eaton, R.P. Merritt, E.F. Rice, IEEE Publication F75 523-1. NORTEC Meterological Hindcast Study for Alaska Power Authority Anchorage/Fairbanks Intertie Project, October 1980. A Reconnaissance Study of Snow Avalanche Exposure on the Anchorage/Fairbanks Transmission Intertie, Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., September 1981. Geotechnical Investigation Anchorage/Fairbanks mission Line Route, Commonwealth Associates, Wilson Inc., August 1982. Anchorage/Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Commonwealth Associates, Inc., September 1981. Intertie Trans- Inc., Shannon & Structure Study Achieving Reliable Transmission in Subarctic Conditons, Joseph Van Gulik, Van Gulik & Associates, T&D Magazine, October 1980. Unusual Structures for Alaska Transmission, D.S. LaRue, Matanuska Electric Association, R.J. Montambo, ITT Meyer Industries, R.W. Retherford,. Robert W. Retherford Assoc., T&D Magazine, October 1979. Alaskan Tieline Passes Initial Hurdle, Lytle G. Miller, Gilbert/ Commonwealth, David R. · Eberle, Alaska Power Authority, Electric World, February 1983. Copper Valley Electric Association, 110-mile Glenallen 138 Kv T/L, D.A. Griemsmann, R.H. News, Ohio Brass Company. Soloman Gulch to Sayre, Hi-Tension C/41/7B R4 B-11 '-~t=· !! ·•·· .................. ~. , "-"'"'-'--~--. ..._,_..._....~ . ..,.,._-~.--.....'-····~ '' . - . n -~ .. , •""' ,, • ' ,.,0, .• >-"I ~', r . - 'f l'l I I~ 1"1 ; I 1~1 ·I~ l' I~ I~ --~1 L l I~ .1~ L IJ I~ [ L APPEIIDIX C 230 D' EBVIllO!DIEN".rAL EFFECTS AIID PEKFOBIWICE .· l l ' . ' ' ·'·-.,... .~ tl I . . 1 I [ [ I~ [ L L 230 kV ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PERFORMANCE 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report discusses the environmental effects of a 230 kV transmis- sion system constructed on corridors with one and two 230 kV circuits. The following are considered in che analysis: 0 Ground Gradients 0 Electrostatic Induction Effects 0. Electromagnetic Effect$ 0 R~dio Noise 0 Television Interference 0 Audible Noise All calculations were done considering the following circuit configura- tion: 0 0 0 C/41/70 R4 Phase Configuration • Phase spacing • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . Flat • • . 22 ft. Shield wire spacing from i cf tower •• 17 ft. C-1 ,, [ ( [ [ [ [ 1., - I , L L I' ~~ '··,, ,, 0 Minimum conductor height above gr·ound • • • 25 ft. 0 Mean conductor height above ground. • . . . 40 ft ~. 0 Conductor and shield wire separation. • . • 27 ft. Separation of two circuits . parallel. 90 ft. 0 J.n . . 0 Right-of-way f")r one circuit. . • • • • • 120 ft. Right-of-way for two circuits . 0 J.n parallel ............. e.~ ••••••• e •••••••••••• 210 ft. 0 Conductor ••••••.... 1-954-Kcmil 45/7 ACSR 0 Shield wire • • • • • • • . . • 3/8 EHS Because of the circuit separation, coupling effects of the second cir- cuit are insignificant, and valu~s calculated within, ~nd at the edge of ROW for the single cir\!uit corridors~ will be the same for the two circuit corridors. 2.0 CALC1JLATED RESULTS AND ANALYSIS A. Ground Gradients u 0 C/41/7C R4 The ground gradients were calculated considering the 25 ft. NESC minimum conductor height. 1he calculated results are: Single Circuit Maximum under the line .•••••••• 3.78 kV (rms)/m Edge of ROW ••••••••••••• ~······0.85 kV (rms)/m C-2 I [ [ [ [ [ L l L L L L 0 0 Double Circuit Phase sequence ••••..• ~ •••••.••• ABC ABC Maximum under the line ••••••••• 3~84 kV (rms)/m Edge of ROW ..•• 10 ••••••••••••••• 0. 88 kV ( rms) / m Gradient guidelines as accepted by many states are as follows [13]: Maximum gradient ••••••.••...• 7.0 to 9.0 kV (rms)/m Edge of ROW •••••••.••.••••••. 1.0 to 1.6 kV (rms)/m Calculated results are well below listed guidelines. B. Electrostatic Induction Effects 0 0 0 C/41/7C R4 Induced currents and discharge energy were computed with phase conductors at 25 feet height. Maximum calculated values within ROW a.nd values at the edge of ROW were very close for both single and double circuit configurations. Vehicles considered, their sizes in feet and capacitance to ground in picofarads are: C-3 l 1 11 c- 4 ( t' • ( [ ~~ [ [ [ [ [ ~ [ t: l (· .,, ... L L u lJ I \ . u 0 Vehicle Automobile Panel Truck Tractor Trailer Size 5.8x4.5x15 7.8xl0.75x25 8.0xl3.5x39 Capacitance 1000.0 2000.0 2500.0 Calculated results are as follows: Automobile Panel Truck Trailer Truck Automobile Panel Truck Trailer Truck Induced Currents in ma (rms) Maximum within ROW 0.361 1.384 2.490 Discharge Energy in mJ (millijoules) Maximum within ROW Edge of ROW 0.92 6.73 17.55 0.04 0.45 1.05 o National Electrical sa:ety Code allows 5 ma (rms) of induced current on any veh::.cle or object under the line. Calculated induced currents are within NESC limit [8]. o Tests have shown that a minimum energy of 0.25 mJ is suffi- cient to ignite gasoline vapors during a vehicle refueling C/41/7C R4 C-4 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ L process. Vehicles should not be refueled within right-of- way. C. Electromagnetic Effects 0 The electromagnetic field at the center line of the 230 kV circuit was calculated to be 0. 090 Gauss which is too small to have any effect or be of any concern. were done assuming a 300 MVA line load. The calculations D. Radio Noise 0 0 0 C/41/7C R4 Transmission radio noise was calculated considerinr. the 40 feet mean conductor height above ground, one MHz frequency and 100 ohm-m average soil resistivity. Only AM radio reception having a broadcast band of 0.6 to 1.6 MHz is affected by transmission line radio noise. The calculated conductor surface gradients are as follows: Phase A B c Surface Gradient -kV (rms)/m C-5 14.844 15.730 14.844 - J '( [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ L L 0 0 0 C/41/7C R4 The calculated transmission radio noise for heavy . ral.n, conductor and fair weather conditions are as follows: Heavy Rain Wet Conductor Fair Weather ., Transmission radio noise in dB above 1 uVm Maximum within ROW 72. 83. 61.57 44.57 Edge of ROif 67.49 55.10 38.10 wet Reception quality is a relative tenn and. depends on both sig·- nal strength and line noise level and is defined as follows [15, 3, 1]: Radio Reception Quality Signal/Noise Ratio (dB) Excellent )32 Very Good 27-32 Good 22-27 Poor 16-22 Very Poor 6-16 Intolerable >7 For primary area coverage .FCC recommended signal levels are as follows: C-6 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ l L L IJ 0 0 0 0 C/41/70 R4 Business City Area Residential District Rural Area 80-94 dB above I uV/m 66-80 dB above I uV/m 40-54 dB above I uV/m On the above basis the~ maximum line noise levels for "good" reception are: Residential District Rural Area 44-58 dB above I uV/m I8-32 dE above I uV/m From AM radio signal measur~ments carried ·out for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie line it is evident that signal strengths, in far out areas, are of low level and some inter- ference is expected at least in close proximity to the line during wet conductor condition [1,2]. The wet conductor con- dition is used for evaluating the line performance; the heavy ra1.n condition represents the absolute maximum noise level, with 1% probability of occurrence. In far out remote areas the existing reception quality is preserved at a distance 500 feet away from the ROW. For wet conductor condition the radio noise at 5u0 feet from center phase is calculated to be I6.15 dB above 1 uV/m. For areas close to large cities where signal strengths are much stronger, no objectionable interference is anticipated at the edge of ROW for most of the time. C-7 ,.i' ',.' [ [ [ [ l- - [ L L L 1 .. ~· u u E. Television Interference (TVI) 0 0 0 0 C/41/7C R4 Similar to radio noise, TV reception quality depends on both TV signal strength and' noise level and is defined as follows [15, 3]: TV R~ception Quality Signal/Noise Ratio (dB) Excellent > 36 Very Good 27-36 Good 17-26 Poor 4-16 Very Poor -10-3 Intolerable < -10 Channel 2 (54-60 MHz frequency band) is the channel most sus- ceptible to line interference. FCC required minimum TV signal strengths for a principal com- munity service, are as follows: Channels 2-6 Channels 7-13 Channels 14-83 74 dB above 1 uV/m 77 dB above 1 uV/m 80 dB above 1 uV/m The calculated TVI at the edge of ROW during wet conductor condition for channel 2 (broadcast frequency 60 MHz) is 24.6 dB above 1 uV/m. For TV signals as low as 52 dB the recep- tion quality will be "Very Good". C-8 ,~ '-""' f~. [ [ r - [ I' ....... [ " ~~ [ ........ I ~ L L I ""'""" L l~ L [ ' l) L 0 For far out areas the criteria adopted for RI will eliminate even the slightest TV interference. F. Audible Noise o The calculated audible noise levels are as follows: Heavy Rain Wet Conductor Audible Noise Levels in dB(A) Above 20 uPA (micro-pascals) Maximum Edge of ROW 53.01 43.77 50.42 41.13 o Wet conductor condition, because it generates significant noise at relative low ambient, is the criterion of lin~ per- formance • o. It is generally accepted that the audible noise for wet con- ductor condition should not be more than 52 dB(A) above 20 uPA at the edge of ROW [3]. o The calculated wet conductor audible noise levels for the 230 kV system are below the generally· accepted maximum levelso C/41/7C R4 C-9 [ [ [ L I '"""" ' - 0 0 0 0 0 3a0 CONCLUSIONS From the calculated results it can be concluded that all electrical environmental effects resulting from operating the 230 kV system will be negligible. No interferenc~ to FM radio reception from the proposed z:~o kV lines is expected. No interference to AM radio reception is expected at dis- tances greater than 500 feet from the edge of the right-of- way, even in remote areas with weak radio signals. Electric and magnetic field strengths produced by the 230 kV system will be harmless. No shock hazards from induced currents are expected. o No interference to TV reception is expected in areas with good reception. C/41/7C C-10 R4 . L ........ r i ~ ~' - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8., 9. References Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Environmental Effects Report Including Radio Preconstruction Measurements and Communications Engineering Report, R-2394. (Prepared for Authority). Electrical and Television Tower Survey Alaska Power Results of Preconstruction Measurements Strengths and Radio Frequency Noise (Prepared for Alaska Power Authority). of Radio and TV Signal for 345 kV Intertie. Transmission I.ine Reference Book 345 kV and Above/Second Edition Electric .Power Research Institute, Project UHV, Pittsfield, Mass. -AC Transmission Studies, Schenectady, New York, 1982. Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects of Ultrahigh-Voltage Transmission Lines, General Electric Company, EPRI EL-802, Project 566-1, Final Report, June 1978. Environmental Consideration Concerning the Biological Effects of Power Frequency (50 or 60 Hz) Electric Fields, J.E. Bridges IEEE PAS, Vol. PAS-97, No. 1, January/February 1978, pp. 19-32. Currents Induced in the Human Body by High Voltage Transmission Line Electric Field -Measurement and Calculation of Distribution and Dose, Dr. D.W. Deno, IEEE PAS, Vol. PAS-96, No. 5, September/October 1977, pp. 1517-1527. A Su~ary of Work on the Effects of 60 Hz Electric Fields and Current on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers, J .E. .Bridges., M • .J • Frazier, R.G. Hauser, M.D., Prepared on Technical Backgrounq for Participants of EPRI Sponsored Seminar -February 23-24, 1978, IIT Research Institute Project E8167. Nati{}nal Electri~al Safety Code, ANSI C2-1981. Elect:r;Jstatic and Elect:r(~~gnetic Effects of 0\Ferhead !ransmission Lines, Rural Elsc~r.:-.fication Administrtion.$ REA Bulletin 6Z-4, May 1976. 10. Calculating Electrostatic Effects of Overhead Transmission Lif1es, D. W. Deno, Paper T74-086-5 presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, January 27-February 1, 1974. C/41/7C R4 C-11 l l d 'l •i 'I 'j j ·~ ".lJ '""' I ~ i f r c.- r ... __ .. r· --~ f \.=;...-;; f '-.z;'"""' l '--" I L-.~ f j J n :;.:~ ....... 11. EHV and UHV Electrostatic Effects. Simplified Design Calculation and Preventive Measures, T.M. McCauley, Paper T75-065-8 presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, January 26-31, 1975. 12. Are there Biological and Psychological Effects due to Extra High Voltage Installations, G.E. Atoian, IEEE Trans. (Power Apparatus and Systems), Vol .. PAS-97, No. 1, January/February 1978, pp 8-18. 13. Electrical Environmental Regulations of ·Overhead Transmission Lines, Shah & Associates Inc., November, 1982. 14. Biological Effects of 60-Hz Electric Field on Miniature Swine: Exposure Facility, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratctries, Paper F79 693-3 presented at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, July 15-20, 1979. 15. Transmission Line Referenc.e Book 115-138 kV Compact Line Design, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI 1978. 16. Transmission Line Reference Book 345....;kV and Above .. :ilectric Power Research Institute, Project UHV, Fittsfield, Mass. AC Transmission Studies, Schenectady, New York, 1975. C/41/70 R4 C-12 1 __ ~-r , ... ~~::~z----~-·-~----~----·-··-----~-----·-·-·----------·-------·------- -. 'i"'\ .... ~· ~,-,., ,., ''"~"' ' ' I 'I :I :I 'I I 'I I I I I. I I I I I I II .~- 1 ._, ':. . " '"'' ' - - APPDDII D 345 U ERVIROBMEIJTAL EP'J'EC"r:) Aim P!Pt!OIDWICB I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 345 kV ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PERFOID1ANCE 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report discusses the environmental effects of the 345 kV transmission lines associated with Alaska Power Authority's Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The lines will deliver the power generated at the Susitna River basin plants to the major load centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks. The environmental effects were calculated for corridors with one ci:t:~ui t, 170 feet ROW width, and corridors with two cireui ts, 275 feet ROW wi~th. The followin~~ were considered in the analysis: o Radio Noise 0 0 Television Interference Audible Noise 0 Electric and Magnetic Field Effects For each one of the effects, a criterion was established defining acceptable levels of interference. For radio noise (RI), television interference (TVI) and audible noise (AN), the criteria were based on the interference being annoying. For the electrostatic and electro- magnetic effects, primarily induced current, an upper level of current is defined beyond which physical injury could result. C/41/7D D-1 I I I ' ,\ I .1 I I I I I I I I I I ~I I I I f I Evaluation of the corona discharge phenomena such as radio noise, TVI and audible noise, requires knowledge of the conductor surface gradient whose magnitude entirely depends on the line configuration and voltage. Line configuration and calculated conductor surface gradi-ents are as follows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Line_Configurat~ Bcructure -guyed steel pole • • • • . . • • • x~type Phase spacing . . . . . . . . • • • 9 • • • • • • 33 ft 'Conductor • • • • • • • • • • . . . 2-954 kcmil 45/7ACSR Conductor diameter . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1.165 inch 18 inches 3/8 inch EHS Bundle spacirtg • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • Shield wire . . . • • • • • • . . . • fl • • • Shield wire spacing at each structure . . . . . . Minimum ground clearance . . • • • • • • • • • • • Mean conductor height above ground • . . . . . . . 52 fet!t 30 feet 40 feet o Voltage ..••••••• 345 kV with 1.05 pu. overvoltage o Circuit separation • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 105 feet Conductor Surface Gradients Conductor surface gradients were calculated by using the multiple images method. For multiple circuits, the Maxwell's coefficient matrix was formed considering all circuit phases and all shield . w1res. The calculated average and maximum gradients are as follows: C/41/7D JJ-2 I I A. Corridors with one 345 kV circuit I Surface Gradients (nns)/cm Phase kV ---;11 I Average Maximum I A !L~. 389 15.320 B 15.161 16.142 I c 14.389 15 .. 320 I· B. Corridors with two 345 kV circuits I Phase Sequence: ABC ~..BC I Circuit 4F1 Phase Surface Gradients kV (rms) /em -;.- I Average Maximum I A 14.301 15.227 B 15.221 16.206 I c 15.245 16.232 I Circuit 4fo2 ; Phase Surface Gradients kV (rms) /em I Average Maximum ... I A 15.245 16.232 ~ B 15.221 16.206 I c v~ .. :Jo1 15. -!.2; I I C/41/7D R4 D-3 i I I I I I I I I I I I ·I I I I ·I I I I /J 2.0 RADIO NOISE One of the by-products of transmission line corona discharge process is radio noise, which by definition means 11 any unwanted disturbance within the radio frequency bandu e Radio frequency band extends from 34foKHz to 30,000 MHz. Transmission line noise produced by corona discharge could, in the lower frequency band, interfere with the ra.dio frequency c.ommunications. The interference level depends on the radio signal strength and th~ intensity of the line generated noise. The magnitude of the lin.e noise decreases with increasing frequency and is negligible at frequencies above 10 ·MHz. Interference is generq.lly noticed only with AM radio reception which has a broadcast band of 0.6 to 1.6 MHz. FM radios are immune to interference from line generated radio noise because the magnitude of the li·ne noise is quite small in the Fl1 bro·ad- cast band (88-108 11Hz) and intexference rejection properties inherent in FM radio systems makes them virtually immune to static type distur- bancE. Reception quality quantitatively is expressed by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR): SNR = 20 log V (signal)h V (noise) Where V is in Volts/met~r High SNR is indicative of better quality reception. SNR and corres- ponding reception qu~lity as definec'i by IEEE is as follows [15, 3, 1]: C/41/7D Rl+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Grade A B c D E F SNR (dB) )32 27 32 22 -27 16 -22 6 -16 < 7 Recep~ion Quality Entirely satisfactory Very good, background unobtrusive Fairly satisfactory, background plainly evident Background very evident, speech easily understood Speech understandable only with severe concentration Speech unintelligible Signal strength is affected by station power, distance from the station, antenna height, soil conductivity, and frequency. Line noise is a function of line configuration, conductor surface gradient and weather condition. Primary coverage area as defined by FCC requires a signal strength of 0.1 mV/m for daytime and 0.5 mV/m for nighttime. Recommended signal strengths in primary coverage area are as follows [3, 16]: Business City Area Residential District Rural Areas 80 -94 dB above 1 uV/m 66 -80 dB above 1 uV/m 40 -54 dB above 1 uV/m On the above basis, for a "fairly satisfactory" grade C reception quality, the maximum line noise at the edge of ROW should be: Residential District Rur-al Areas C/41/7D R4 44 -58 dB above 1 uV/m 18 -32 dB above 1 uV/m D-5 ;, ' ,' 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I.·. A. _ Signal Strength No specific measurements of signal strengths have been carried o~t at this time for the proposed lines. However, preconstruction measurements carried out for the 345 kV Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie line are applicable for the proposed lines because of proximity to each other and general similarities (away from large cities). Quality of reception measurements of radio stations at different locations on tbe Intertie line are shown in Table 1. AM radio stations servicing the area in the vicinity of Intertie line ar~! shown in Table 2. The quality of reception from all 13 standard broadcast AM radio stations was not better than quality grade C. Most signal strengths were measured around 20 dB above 1 uV /m with the strongest near Willow at 37 dB above 1 uV/m, which is below the minimum 40 dB above 1 !:..V /m required by FCC for primary service in rural areas. There- fore, only intermittent service is presently provided by radio stations to areas away from cities which by FCC definition is subject to fading and some interference from atmospheric and man-made noise [1, 2, 3, 13]. For areas close to Anchorage and Fairbanks the radio strengths are expected to be much stronger and the qual1cy of reception to be grade A or B with an anticipated signal strength of at least 66 dB above 1 uV/m. C/4l/7D R4 D-6 I I I I . I I I I I I I . I I ' I . , r A. Signal Strength No specific measurements of signal strengths have been carried out at this time for the proposed lines. However, preconstruct ion measurements carried out for the 345 kV Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie line are applicable for the proposed lines because of proximity to each other and general similarities (away from large cities). Quality of reception measurements of radio stations at different locations on the Intertie line are shown in Table 1. AM radio stations servicing the area in the vicinity of Intertie line are shown in Table 2. The quality of reception from all 13 standard broadcast AM radio stations was not better than quality grade C. Most signal strengths were measured around 20 dB above 1 uV/m with the st~ongest near Willow at 37 dB above 1 uV/m, which is below the minimum 40 dB above 1 uV/m required by FCC for primary service in rural areas. There- fore, only intermittent service is presently provided by radio stations to areas away from cities which by FCC definition is subject to fading and some interference from atmospheric and man-made noise [1, 2, 3, 13]. For areas close to Anchorage and Fairbanks the radio strengths are expected to be much stronger and the quality of reception to be grade A or B with an anticipated signal strength of at least 66 dB above 1 uV/m. C/41/7D R4 D-6 ~-\:~;' --· ·~:---··--· ---;"·---:;----·~--·~···-:;--·"··.,.~.--··-··-·-·-·-~' r-~ .... _ ....... -....... -•. ·-·~---··--·· •.,r ~ :::t 0.,~ I '~ <'\ ) '·''''"" .. ,."'•'"'"' .-·:; I I I I! :\ I I I I I I I I I I .. I I . cr:; R I I For areas close to Anchorage and Fairbanks the radio strengths are expected to be much stronger and the quality of reception to be grade A or B with an anticipated signal strength of at least 66 dB above 1 uV/m. B. Transmission Line RI Characteristics The calculation of radio nqise is based on detennining the corona- generated currents and their propagation along the line. All RI calcu- lations were done using methods developed at Project UHV. For cor- ridors with two circuits, all phase wires were considered in fonning the model transformation matrix and Maxwell's coefficient matrix. Shield wires were neglected as their effect in RI generation was negli- gible. RI profiles for corridcrs with one and two circuits are shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The calculations were. based on the following: (1) Line geometry and conductor surface gradients as described ·'above (2) (3) (4) Frequency - 1 l-ffiz Soil resistivity -100 Ohm-m Mean conductor height above ground -40 ft. At the low frequency end of the broadcast band (0. 55 MHz) the line generated noise will be 4.5 dB greater than the one calculated at 1 MHz and at the high frequency end (1.6 MHz) it will be 5 dB lower • C/41/7D R4 D-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Higher soil resistivity reduces the magnitude. of RI generation. Over a range from 10 to 1,000 Ohm-m, a 10 dB difference in RI generation could occur. Howeve~, because signal strength would also decrease with in- creased soil resistivity, the expected effect on SNR would be very small. Calculated maximum values of RI under the line and values at the edge of ROW are shown ip Table 3. Calculated RI values at extended lateral distances from the corridor are shown in Table 4. C. Interference Levels ___ ,. The interference levels of the Susitna lines will depend on the signal- to-noise-ratio. From the RI calculatc~d results and signal strength measurem~nts made for the Intertie line, the following are concluded: (1) (2) C/41/7D R4 For areas away from cities the existing reception quality of the very weak A~ radio signals is preserved at 600 feet away from the edge of ROW. The wet conductor RI at that distance was calculated to be 14.67 dB above 1 uV/m, which is within grade C reception quality in rural areas. No interference to FM reception is expected. D-8 · I I I j ... 't ' : ~ <~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :;:-., (3) For areas close to large cities where signal strengths are high, no interference is anticipated at the edge of ROW for most of the times. The maximum possible line noise is gene- rated during heavy r.ain and the probability of occurrance is only 1%. An all weather RI statistical distribution curve for the edge of ROW is shown in Figure 3. (4~ Interfe\rence to CB communication near the 345 kV lines is not anticip;s.ted. At CB broadcast band of 2 7 MHz, the line gene- rated no1ise will be very low. (5) Any possible interference to other communication facilities will be a\lleviated by maintaining the clearances from each facility as shown in Table 5. 3.0 TELEVISION INTERFERENCE {TVX) Interference to TV reception, when it happens, affects the received picture only. The .aud:Lo portion of a TV signal is in the FM broadcast band and not subject to static types of interference. Channel 2, because of its lowest broadcast frequency band (54-60 MHz) will have the worst performance. The broadcast frequency band for each TV chan- nal is listed in Table 6. A. Criteria TV reception quality is defined by the SNR similarly to Radio Noise and is as follows [15, 3]: C/41/7D R4 D-9 I I I I I I I I I I I •• , .... -.~ i .•. ' ~· 0 I I· I I I I '· " . Grade SNR (dB) TV Reception Qual}.!!, A > 36 Excellent B 27 -36 Very good c 17 -26 Good D 4 -16 Poor E -10 - 3 Very Poor F < -10 Intolerable B. Signal Strength and Performance The FCC required minimum TV signal strengths for a principal community to be served are as follows: Channels 2-6 Channels 7-13 Channels 14-83 74 dB above 1 uV/m 77 dB above 1 uV/m 80 dB above 1 uV/m It is recognized that in many areas outside the principal community, ~seable signals are received with strength considerably lower than the above. In the same FCC regulations, reference is made to grade A and grade B service contours of signal strength. Bonneville Power Adminis- tration has gone further in defining grades C and D service contours. Signal strengths for each grade as defined by FCC and BPA are as fol- 1 ows [ 3 ' 1 6 ] : C/41/7D R4 D-10 I I ~-··-,. ! •, I ····, ' I I I I I I I I I I I I J ' I . ' c " TV SERVICE GRADES (signal levels in cl13 above 1 uVm) TV FCC Si~nal Level BPA Si~na1 Level Channel Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D --- 2 6 68 47 46 -34 33 20 7 -13 71 56 55 -42 41 -33 1.4 -83 74 64 A survey of received TV station, conducted for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie line preconstruction measurements, is shown in Table 7. On the basis of criteria for RI, a 600 feet separation was suggested between edge of ROW and houses. At that distance the TVI for channel 2 with 60 MHz broadcast frequency was calculated to be 6. 75 dB above 1 uV/m which is very low for any TV interference. TVI at the edge of ROW during wet conductor condition (channel i, 60 HHz) was calculated to be 44 dB above 1 uV/m which does not interfere with TV reception, in a principal community serviced in accordance ~nth the FCC. For area.s receiving relatively weak TV signals, as is the case with many Alaska areas, TV translators are utilized to boost and rebroadcast the video and audio signals. A TV translator is licensed to provide service to a small geographical area. The rebroadcast.ed signal is much stronger and therefore, will be less susceptible to interfer·ence .from the proposed 345 kV lines. C/41/7D R4 II D-11 i i ;} l ! J ,I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Reception of TV signals reflected from large structures can cause delayed or "ghost" images in the TV picture. The tubular steel struc- tures proposed for the 345 kV lines are not expected to reflect suffi- ciemt TV signals to cause ghost images c In conclusion, no TV reception problems are expected to result frmn the proposed 345 kV lines in locations where present TV reception is go.r~d. 4.0 AUDIBLE NOISE During fair weather (dry conditions), the audible noise generated by a line is insignificant. Hol-7ever, during wet conductor and heavy rain conditions, audible noise generation increases drastically and can. create serious problems. Noise generated during heavy rain is in the order of 6 to 9 dB higher than that experienced for wet conductor. During heavy rain however, the ambient noise effectively maslts the noise generated by the line. Following the rain, while tte ambient noise is much lowE~r, the noise generated by wet conductors is significant and therefore, it is used as the criterion for line performc:nce. Transmission line audible noise consists of a random component as well as a 120 Hz component. Human ear sensitivity is a function of C/41/7D R4 D-12 0 I I I I I I I If I I I I I I I I 0 ·:.: Reception of TV signals reflected from large structures can cause delayed or "ghost" images in the TV picture. The tubular steel struc- tures proposed for the. 345 k,V li11es arf£ not expected to reflect suffi- cient TV signals ~o cause ghost i~ages. In conclusion, no TV reception problems are expected to result from the proposf?'d 345 kV lines in locations where present TV re::eption is good. 4. 0 AUDIBLE NOISE During fair weather (dry conditions), the audible noise generated by a line is insignificant" However, during wet con •uctor and heavy rain conditions, audible noise generation increases drastically and can create serious problems. Noise generated during heavy rain is in the order of 6 to 9 dB higher than that experienced for wet conductor. During heavy rain however, the ambient noise effectively masks the noise generated by the line. Following the rain, while the ambient noise is much lower, the noise generated by wet conductors is significant and therefore, it is used as the criterion .for line performance. Transmission line audible noise consists of a random component as well as a 120 Hz component. Human ea.r sensitivity is a function of C/41/7D R4 D-12 I I j 'I J , I 'i J } t ' I I ll I I I I I I frequency and consequently, there is no simple way to exactly relate a combination of noise to human response. There a.re numerous "frequency weighing networks" which can approximate human ear response. The one mostly used for transmission noise analysis is known as network "A". The noise level for this approach is usually identified as dB(A). All dB(A) levela will be given in dB(A) above the reference sound pressure o f 2 0 uP a [ 3 , 15 , 16 ] • A. Criteria Although no existing . no1se ordinance in the United States, refers to transmission lines as noise sources, nonetheless, by virtue of their generality may implicity include transmission lines. Bonneville Power Administrations general guideline, based on public response to AC transmission audible noise, indicates that for audible noise levels below 52 dB(A), no complaints will be received. Between 52 and 58 dB(A), there is a very high probability of receiving complaints [ 3]. Therefore, based on these results, the au~ible noise level at the edge o,f the ROW during wet Gonductor condition should not exceed 52 dB(A). B. Characteristics and Performance Audible noise is generated by corona and is, therefore, related to many of the same line characteristics as RI generation. However, while RI is important both during dry and wet conditions, audible noise (AN) is usually insignificant except during wet conductor conditions. C/41/7D R4 D-13 I tl ~ ' "'· J I I I ll ll li I I E (j . ... ,, I .-__ ; I I I I The calculations were done in accordance with the methods deve.loped at project UHV for a mean conductor height of 40 feet. Audil;>le noise pro- files for corridors with one and two circuits are shown in Figures 10 and 11. Calculated maximum, an.d at the edge of ROW, audible noise levels are as follows: Heavy Rain Wet Conductor Heavy Rain Wet Conductor ONE CIRCUIT PER CORRIDOR Audible Noise Levels in dB(A) Above 20 uPA Ma.ximum 55.07 46.33 Edge of RO"{i 52.00 43.00 TWO CIRCUITS PER CORRIDOR Maximum 57.75 49.37 Edge of Row 53.95 45.05 The results indicate that the proposed Susitna 345 kV lines will meet all audible noise criteria for wet conductor anywhere in the vicinity of the lines • C/41/7D R4 D-14 , Jl !I ll I ~ I I ~t-{ . i ~: IJ I I I 5. 0 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELD EFFE(;;TS Both electrostatic and,electromagnetic fields are generated by a trans- mission line during operation. Magnetic fields in the proximity of transmission lines is more than 10 times smaller than the magnetic fields generated from common household tools and appliances, and 1.s considered harmless. There is no evidence that ground gradients have any biological effec~ts on animals or plants. Electric fileds will induce a charge on a1l insulated object and when a person comes in con- tact with the object, current will flow from the object through the person to the ground. The shock from the discharge may or may not be serious, howE-ver, the magnitude of the charge and therefore the severity of the shock is related to parameters associated with the transmission line design and voltage, size and dimensions of the object) the proximity of the object to the line, and degree of insula- t·ion of the object from the ground. The insulation quality between a person coming in contact with such an object and the earth will effect the severity of the shock • A. Criteria Body-passage currents caused by contact with a cnarged object may range from barely detectable to those resulting in lethal effects. It has been reported by Dalziel [3, 4, 5, 11] that currents less than 1 ma produce little or no measu~~ble physiological response, therefore, they are not classified as shock currents. Shock currents ha,ve been class- ified into two groups according to the degree of severity of the effects they produce. A limit of 5 mA (National Electrical Safety Code) is considered by the Underwriter's Laboratory as the maximum safe. C/l+l/7D R4 D-15 I I I~ _J IJ ·I) .~ li I . ' ' ,, . I E I I let-go current for the general population, including children. Currents of 6 mA or larger are considered primary currents c The most dangerous possible consequence of primary shock is ventricular fibril- lation, resulting in immediate arrest of blood circulation. The cur- rent at which fibrillation begins varies with the weight of the person shocked and with the shock duration. In addition to the above hazards of induced currents, if sufficient charge is placed on a vehicle and re-fueling is attempted, it is pos- sible for discharges occurring between the spout of a fueling can and the vehicle to ignite gasoline vapors. Test at: projec-t UHV have indi- cated the minimum energy necessary for ignition to be in the order of 0.25 mJ [3, 15]. In light of all the above, many states have established recommended levels for Maximum Ground Gradient within and at the Edge of ROW. A list of the recommended guidelines for each state is given in Table 8 [13]. B. Electrostatic Effects -Calculations and Results The Electrostatic Effects calculations were done in accordance with methods developed at project UHV. Induced current and discharge energy were calculated for three different vehicles having the following sizes: C/41/7D R4 ~'f.:~·:.~::;~:-~:~~~--~--------~5~--~~-------~-----·--·-··· --·-· ··-~·--·--·· .. •:, ~ I .) ! .) 1 I "·' ;f l' ~ 'i I J 1 I 1 t ~ l I ; f -~ ") I '! I f I I ~. ~ .,.~ I] 11 4 ! ~J i "" ~~ q li lj I . I . ' If l I Vehicle Type Size in feet Capacitance . pF :Ln Automobile 5.8 X 4.50 X 15 1000.0 Panel Truck 7.8 X 10.75 X 25 2000.0 Tractor Trailer 8.0 X 13.50 X 39 2500.0 All <."!onductors and shield wires were considered in forming the neces- sary matrixes for either one or two circuits. The results indicated. that there was no significant difference in maxi- mum v·aluas at the edge o.f RO'V7, irrespectively whether one or two cir- cuits were considered. This was true because of the large separation bet~·7een the circuits and phase sequence considered. Profiies for Induced Currents, Ground Gradients and Discharge En.ergy are shown in Figures 4, 5 and 7 respectivel;y·. The effects of ground clearance and maximum values of Induced Currents, Ground Gradient and Discharge Energy is shoWL1 in Figures 6, 7 and 9 respectiv~ly. On the basis of calculations and presented criteria, the following are conclud'2d: (1) Induced cut,rents 2-re below the 5 ma required by NESC for all vehicles consi.jex.ed. At the edge of ROW the induced current even for the largest vehicle considered is less than 1.5 ma, therefore below ma."timum levels recommended (Table 8) .. . 1n many states (2) The maximum Electric Field under the ROW is calculated t~ be 6. 6 kV (nus) /m ~ihich is below the maximum recommendt.:.d 1n C/41/7D R4 D-17 j I . '~ I 4 I I I I I _! r . "1 ' E I ~ I E £' 11 . . ll ( ! Jl Jw I I . i I JJj (3) 0 many states. The ma;dmum Electric Field at the edge of ROW is 1.5 kV (rms)/m whic'l is within the guidelines accepted by many states [ 13]. The calculated Electric Field levels will have no adverse effects on people or animals. Th'e calculatt::!d Discharge Energy ir higher than the . . m1n1mum required to cause fuel ignition. Therefore, precautions shall be taken to avoid fueling under or near the liues, or that steps be taken to insure that the vehicle is adequately grounded to remove any charge prior to any fueling opera- tion. C. Electromagnetic Effects The Magnetic Field under the line was calculated considering 600 MVA load and 40 foot conductor height. The maximum Magnetic Field was cal- culated to be 0.14024 Gauss which is considered negligible. 6s0 CONCLUSIONS. o From the calculated results it can be concluded that all electrical environmental effects that will resalt from oper- ating the Susitna 345 kV lines will be negligible. 0 0 C/ 4·1/7D R4 No interference to CB, microwave or other communication faci- lities is expected. No ~nterference to FM radio reception is expected. D-18 I I_ I I IJ 1:.1 ,:;J tl I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C/41/7D R4 'd : ..... ' ·; Some interference to AM reception ~s expected, however, this is due to vet·y weak signals that reach these remote areas. At a distance of 600 feet from the edge at the ROW, the existing reception quality will be maintainsd. No interference to TV reception is expected in areas with good reception. Areas with weak TV signals are generally· serviced with TV translators which are utilized to boost and rebroadcast the video and audio signals, and will therefore be less susceptible to interference from the proposed 345 kV lines. . The audible no1se levels generated by the Susitna 345 kV lines will be within acceptable limits. No shock hazards from currents are expected. The maximum induced current is less than the 5 ma required by NESC. The maximum Electric Fields under the line and at the edge of E.OW are within levels acceptable by many states (see Table 8). . . The calculated Discharge Energy i~ l:rtgher than the m1n~mum required for fuel ignition. Therefore~ refueling under or near the lines should be ·avoided unl~ss the vehicle . ~s grounded to remove any charges prior to any refueling opera- tt.n. Magnetic fields produced by operating the 345 kV system will be negligible and harmless. D-19 .. I IJ IJ ·~ . KJ li 11 I n 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 • 8. 9. References Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie -Electrical Environ- mental Effects Report including Radio and Televison Preconstruc- tion Measurements and Communications Tower Survey, Engineering Report R-2394. (Prepared for Alaska Power Authority}~ Results of Preconstruction Measurements of Radio and TV Signal Strengths and Radio Frequency Noise for 345 kV Intertie. (Pre- pared for Alaska Power Authority). Transmission Line Reference Book 34.5 kV and Above/Second Edition, Electric Power Research Institute, Project UHV, Pittsfield, Mass. -AC Transmission Studies, Schenectady, New York, 1982. Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects of Ultrahigh-Voltage Transmissic~ Lines, General Electric Company, EPRI EL-802, Project 566-1, Final Report, June 1978. Environmental Consideration Concerning the Biological Effects of Power Frequency (50 or 60 Hz) Electric Fields, J.E. Bridges, IEEE PAS, Vol. PAS-97, No. l, January/February 1978, pp. 19-32. Currents Induced in the Human Body by High Voltage Transmission Line Electric Field -Measurement and Calculation of Distribution and Dose, Dr. D.W. Deno, IEEE PAS, Vol. PAS-96, No. 5, September/ October 1977, pp. 1517-1527. A Summary of Work on the Effects of 60 Hz Electric Fields and Cur- rent on Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers, J.E. Bridges, M.J. Fraizer, R.G. Hauser, M.D., Prepared on Technical Background for Parti- cipants of EPRI Sponsored Seminar -February 23-24, 1978, IIT Research Institute Project E8167. National Electric Safety Code, ANSI C2-1981. Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects of Overhead Trartstnission Lines, Rural Electrification Administration, Bulletin 62-4, May 1976. 10. Calculating Electrostatic Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines, D. W. Deno, Paper T74-086-5, presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, January 27-February 1, 1974. 11. EHV and UHV Electrostatic Effects -Simplified Design Calculation and Preventive Measures, T.M. McCauley, Paper T75-065-8 presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York) January 26-31, 1975. C/41/7D R4 D-20. I II I ~. I IJ l l.i .. ,: 11 ., J Jl JJ II I ; 'f, 12. Are There Biological and Psychological Effects Due to Extra High Voltage Installations, G.E. Atoian, IEEE Trans. (Power Apparatus and Systems), Vol. PAS-97, No. 1, January/February 1978, pp 8-18. 13. Elec~·.:ical Environmental Regulations of Overhead Transmission Lines, Shah & Associates Inc., November 1982. 14. Biological Effects of 60 Hz Electric Field on . Minature Swine: Exposure Facility, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Paper F79 693-3 presented at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, July 15-20, 1979. 15. Transmission Line Reference Book 115-138 kV Compact Line Design, Electric Power Research Institute, 1978. 16. Transmission Line Reference Book 345-kV and Above, Elect_ric Power Research Institute, Project UHV., Pittsfield, Mass. -AC Trans- mission Studies, Schenectady, New York, 1975. C/41/7D R4 D-21 •' I I I I I I I f IJ ~ !) I I~ " 1"1( IJ ~1 I li I B 1~ .. It TABLES I I [) ll f ·~ ,· ! . l • .. !J I IJ Site Number 10 20 30 40 SOA 60 70 80 90 100 llOA LEGEND: +-'.· Table D-1 EXISTING QUALITY OF RECEPTION FOR AM RADIO STATIONS (BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF RADIO STATION SIGNAL STRENGTHS JULY 9-15, 1981) [1, 2] Number of Radio Stations Judged to have thf~ following Location Qualit~ of Radio ReceEtion A B c D E ---- Willow 3 3 Trapper Creek 2 2 3 Chase 1 4 Lane Creek 1 1 4 Curry 1 Cantwell 1 Carlo Creek 1 Deneki Lake 1 3 McKinley Village McKinley Park Healy 1 1 A -Entirely Satisfactory B -Very Good, Background Unobtrusive C -Fairly Satisfactory, Background Plainly Evident D -Background Very Evident, Speech Understandabl~e With Concentrating E -Speech Unintelligible ' ',: IJ IJ ·1 .. :'1; -~ I I 11; Ill !;'' TABLE D-2 AM RADIO STATIONS [1, 2] Freq. Station Antenna Station KHz Call Location Powe_r kW Limitation Class 550 KENI Anchorage 5 III 560 KOVK Kodiak 1 III 580 KYUK Bethel 5 III 590 KHAR Anchorage 5 III 650 KYAR Anchorage 50 DA-2 II 660 KFAR Fairbanks 10 II '100 KBYR Anchorag~ LS-1, N-.5 II 750 KFQD Anchorage LS-50, N-10 II 9·00 KFRB Fairbanks 10 II 970 KIAK Fairbanks 5 III 1080 KANC Anchorage 10 II 1150 KABN Long Island 5 III (Big Lake) 1170 KJNP North Pole 50 DA-N II Key: DA-2 -Directional Antenna, different patter-ns day and night DA-N -Directional Antenna, during night only LS -Lo~al Sunset N -Night Stations II Class II are licensed by FCC to operate on a clear chan- nel render primary service over wide areas. Stations # Class III are licensed by FCC to operate on a regiona: channel and render. primary service to large ciities (municipali-ties) and surrounding areas. I . . I l'f \; ...:.' I \ . l li IJ ·f·.·_,_ i \ .· ~ I J1 I : _f '. I Jl Jl J1 J Table D-3 CALCULATED MAXIMUM RI LEVELS UNDER THE 345 KV LINE AND AT THE EDGE OF ROW Corridors with One Circuit RI values in dB above 1rv/m Max. under the Heavy Rain 78.80 Wet Conductor 70.20 Fair Weather 53.20 Corridors with Two Circuit Heavy Rain Wet Conductor Fair Weather 86.68 78.07 61.07 line At the -edge 67.82 59.00 42.00 68.40 59 .. 90 42.90 ·-of ROW ,. r· ., ll ll 1·--.·. li 1U -ll u I 11 I I ' 'I· • I •' . _,,' .i~ ' Table D-4 CALCULATED 345 KV RI LEVELS -ONE CIRCUIT PER CORRIDOR Corridors RI levels with One Circuit* Lateral Distance in dB above lfV/rn from Centerline Heavl Rain Wet Conductor Fair Weather ( ft) (Ll) (L5o> (Lso> 100 64.25 55.44 38.44 200 . 48.22 39.40 22.40 300 39.56 30~76 13.76 400 33.85 25.07 8.07 500 29.61 20.84 3.84 600 26.24 17.47 700 23.43 14 .. 67 800 21.02 12.27 900 18.92 10.10 1000 17.00 a:29 * Corridors with two circuits will have the same values with lateral distances measured from the center line of each circuit. 0 ~ ~-:..-_ ~ 0 0 _, 1-~-:J ~¥~ :-;:.,_., ~~ ~-: ".!!Jiillllll ~"""" ;,--. ~~~-J ~ ~.... -.,.J -~----:-.1 ~ t,:_ ,_,_:_.. ~ t:-. ___ .tj Table D-5 ... t:. .. ,;.! ~ ~ ~ £!1!1 POSSIBLE EHV LINE EFFECTS ON COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND RECOMMENDED P.UNIMUM CLEARANCES [ 1 1 2] Recommended No Re-Minimum Co1m1unication Ref lee-Diffrac-Absorp-Ghost-ported Clea1rance Facility tion tion tion ing Effects to EHV Lines Criterion PM Translator X Antenna Height Antenna Toppling plus 200 feet Guy Anchor Maintenance TV Translator X X X ~ntenna Height Antenna Toppling plus 20 feet Guy Anchor Maintenance Earth Stations 10 Tower Height NAVA.IDS (En route) . NOB RCAG X 1000 feet FAA SFO X 1000 feet FAA SSFO X 1000 feet FAA X .1000 feet FAA ' NAVAIDS I (At Airports) il. s• DOT/FAA VOR X 11. s• Ref. B-2 Unicorn X i Airport, I Criterion RCO X I Airport I ' Criterion FSS X Airport I Criterion AAS X Airport . i Criterion ; ALAS X i Airport Criterion Point-to-Point X X X Antenna Height Antenna Toppling Microwave plr~s 200 feet Guy Anchor Maintenance 0.6 First Fresnel Zone .~.·~ ·_·:~::J':".{Jp::~~4..-. '.,,..,, ..... .._-7f'iNai": ~ r-1~ ~ ~ H C· <I /j ,, ·1.-.l ;:,.J u ,I •I I-,~ w Table D-6 FREQUENCY BAND FOR EACH TELEVISION CHANNEL [16] Television Channel Freg;uenc~ Band (MHz) 2 54 -60 3 60 -66 4 66 -72 5 . 76 82 6 82 -88 7 174 -180 8 180 -186 9 186 -192 10 192 198 11 198 -204 12 204 -210 13 210 -216 14 -83 470 -890 'c,l.l, '·""· : i~' " .. , ' tJ', ( I ' I , t ' •• !!!./ I! ' , I I , ' ' r =.I IJ . [ [ El i j I.,, ., ~ II J, ]" & II ~ n '~At ;It', '' , . .·-~. ., li Table D-7 TV STATIONS RECEIVED [1, 2] Operating Power-KW TV Visual/ Channel Locat.:.on Aural 2 KENI Anchorage 26.9/2.69 2 KFAR Fairbanks 5.37/.676 Cantwell Translator at Earth Station Operated by Alaska Department of Highways 4 K04CO Healy Translator (Primary Ch. 11 KTVF Fairbanks) 4 K04DO Talkeetna Translator (Primary Ch. 11 Anchorage) 6 K06KG Talkeetna Translator (Primary Ch. 13 Anchorage) *7 KAKM Anchorage 7 K07ND Hea~y Translator (Primary Ch. 9 Fairbanks) 9 KUAC Fairbanks 9 K0900 Talkeetna Translator .(Primary Ch. 2 Anchorage) 11 KTVA Anchorage 13 KIMO Anchorage 13 Healy Translator AT -Above average terrain AG -Above ground * -Non-commercial educational station 105/20.90 46.7/1.16 26.3/5.35 30/6.17 Antenna Height-feet At/AG 70/173 45/200 143/250 200/255 300/391 90/347 fi!~o:!J ~=~ ::c:: ~":'= h,:...-:t;:;~ E--' ' ----.,....: E5 ~., k~,3 l~ r.-l:==:l ES ~~:!!~ ~ ~ ~ l1!iiiRiil t~~ L~ Table D-8 STATE RECOMr1ENDED ELECTRIC FIELD I.EVELS [13] State California Minnesota New Jersey New York North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Reconunending Regulatory Agencx California Energy Commission/Public Utility Commission Environmental Quality Board Department of Environmental Protection Public Service Conunis s ion Public Service Commission Energy Facility Siting Council Public Utilities Conunission Maximum Electric Field Within The ROW (kV/m) 8 (ac) 12 (HVdc) steady state) {no requirement) 1.0 -public roads 11.0 -private roads 11.8 -over other terrain 8 (ac) 33 (HVdc) 9 7.1 at ground level (HVdc) = High voltage direct current transmission (ac) = Alternating current Electric Field at Edye of RO\'l kV/rn) 1.0 (See te}tt) 3* 1.6 or less 1.4 * From Guidelines for High Voltage Lines Adopterl, Reoolution by New Jersey Commission on Radiation Protec-tion, June 4, 1981. Maximum Short Circuit Current (rnA) 5 (ac) 4 .. 5 (ac) 5 (ac) 34 (Hvdc) 5 (ac) 5 (ac) ~.:til tf!ti§l ~) c~ 1 I 'fl I JJ u (] 1"1. !I ~ ~~ [J u. w '!' -• ' • ~· "~ .., '-' .. ~ : .. '. -... ' . .: FIGURES ['.· . r •::A [· .. < ' ,, _ .. u ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 345 Kv System RI PrQfiles for Corridors with One Circuit 200 !60 120 80 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 Lateraa Distance in Feet Heavy Rain, Wet Conductor and Fair Weather RI Profiles with Mean Conductors Height of 40 Feet Figure n-1 ~ . . ~ -' --~---·· ..;~ . • ·. ... . .. . . . ,-···~.·' .-.. ? •;.:.,_. _ ........ , .;,; ...... ',·~ •. , .. ,.., ....... ' ' .:..Z.'·' ··.. ·"Wi.'r"" .... · ... -.·.. ...... \:-'•-.·. ~ )\.~ ,----~---· ~: ............. '<tr r ...... "!Ai-'i*IMuJill!liiiM:; ~ ........... --· ..._~ ............... "'' 4: ~.. •' ... ' ~n '" 'H..,~ c#hilt ... ,' ... :a;, --~~~-~~G"-'\ r:iilt··. .. '' 11..--.r~ 0 ~,_.._._;::"""C.'):it~'.<'i>i,~~->'--.. <'.<(.-.-~"'-"r."<'c~~__.,.....,..,_=""'~~·-;""'-ff'""'"~-.--"-"'-"~'"\<"<"-4---f"\;~_,.,.,.. ... ,,., •. -""it··-" -:: -"' ..... ~ :;;,::: L, '''""'--""""" L~.._-r:: . ..:.= ~ :w.,__,_ ~ ........ t> :::1:. .-1 •CIJ > 0 ~ ~ A Q orf N :I! ~ r--4 ~ tlS CIJ til orf 0 z 0 orf "d tlS ~ e ... _:!! ~ ·~·&"utl-~ fVT~ \.'.:,...-·~~J ~ ~-<"~----..... L,, __ ::J t:.":J t~ [,., .. 4 ~~ ~ ~ ~:~-~~~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 3451Kv Sys tern RI Profiles for Corridors with Two Circuits 50 + I , " • . • .. "" ,_ :>-: . ,_ f---~~ rl+H.:I-l: f-": +tH+H .. ~ > [f±ffj:'i::~: 1-f flfi+ 1-+--1--1--h+~~-+-1-r-t---!·..-·-t--"-~---· +· -~ C K # 2 -r-+-~ C K # 1 · · H R · . t-. J ......... ,.. ... .. '~-'L ... 1 .~-ea\-y Oln"···l·lt 9 o .. -f-1-.• -1-... -"--· ·-... ... ... ·' . -I-.. ... I-f-. . . . ~~I· L··l··l :-~· ·+. ., . ·~ 4· ·1· q .. ~ .. . t • . •••..• J. ··•· ..................... t ... ! ........ -;;, • .., .. ..:: "I' !» 1;: .... j.. ... : . • • ••• ;,,. '. B:: . .. . :;..1"-t--; . ~""'""' • --. . . : . . : . :' . ' : ! . . i . • . • . 1-..... -... -· f-· -~ . ". " ..... ·-. ! J.j :1 8 0 1 ..... ~ :: ·.. .. .•. .. . .. .. iii: • . . ~-.., ~-_ ...... ,. .. ~ · · ' .. · · · • : -~ .. 1 : :lc: : .. ·,· 7 i w~1, . 1 i~l .. ol n]du_c_to·r· r·; · :~ r . '. . . . . .. ~ ~ d-t--. .. 1 ... 1-...,. \ .......... . •. .. ··: ... ·:·'"·:i' ,' .. ; ... i,:!.l , ..... :'& •. a:, •••.• , .... ~. ·. ,; .. , .. , r•':l! '"l. ... ·• · · ·: U .. 1....~ •1.., ·,. ~II" ~ ._.~""r"''t · •: ' .. :;'_ ... :_· .. · I" · ..... I • • • . , -• • •· • ~ -':,It" • •I-·• ' •I-,.-.. ~ ••I-• "' ,,I ., ' I' I, • ,, . 'o I o 7 0 I. ~, ~ .. : .:: ;,: .. : :.~ !· ... ,., ... .• . , .• ~ :.11 I • • .:. · r\ .: ·· :. · : I\ Iii · 1 ·' !1.~ Fair wea\1her ·:·: '' ;: ·! • " • -~ ... I~ ... • ....... tl .. ----1\. •• f... I-~-' IIi.: I • • • • . . ' I I' 1 . . I .. .,. ~ 1-~I • • .. • . . .. I ~ 1'.1.-~ ~ .. I~ : ' •• , . I ,;. '. ... ;. .. : •. : ,.. .. -~~ ...... •;:1 .•·: .· -~ , .. ·~!· ·:: ·: 4 ···: :; •••• , • ••• ~· • " ~ I._.. ,.,..-Pll""', ; r . :1 !'· !• ·t • • '· • • . • , .· .! . t' e.:. Jl, • o·.l I • '_...;.:..i!~:...-·11·-"t:l~ • •• ""' ""' .... ~. -: 1', , II • ·: . .I ;· ·;•. 0: :'1: I "•qil 6 0 . : : . . ...... ~ .. ;.. ' .. ; :. . . . . . ! I I • 1.-~ 1-' • .. t\ ;.. .. : :· .. '! • ·•·: , ...... :.. .. ;"· :·~· '": ·:;· 'T ' ! .::.: ·, -+··-'-·-·1-· .. -i-.... .... .. ..... ···~~· ~~~-~-. ' . . ~. •. :: ,... . .•. , . ' .. r , ... / , ,1 . ...... . . . .. .. . ... ~ . . . ...................... ·l:· .•.. , , . ....... "':;··"··"';· •. ·, 'I:."' . "'LI . ... . I. 1" ···. ~ .. "" . I ..• I... ' .. ,. I I I" ' ...... ~~11!': .• ,_:1) ' ..... -f-...... 11 ... ~ ·1-1-........ --: Ill -.. ... 1\ . I'~ ....... ;: .•. J,' .... _. • •. :. . . .. .. • ~ • ~ 1-f-1-~ 1--v ~ 1::-""" 1;111 -·-• 1--·1---··I·~~ -· .. -~) ,.: le=: I= 1'1-t' 1-1-1--~ r"' 'b ~ t:;:· . . ' . : "'""""~ .. ••, "" 1/; • • • I Iii.; ' ""-.' "·•;· to--~., ';"'j ;-.;;:1 ~ "'! • _ .. ,. ·-...... -·--.. .. \ . ..._ . . I'"'~ r.:,·l ~ , • . " ' ' ' '" . ' " "I' 1!:• • " ' ' • .... .;: I • ' ' ""'~ ~'~ ...... I , .. , :.... . ...a. I I' • ., --~-f-. -f-7 '" -• • 1-.. •·• .,, -" • " "i-· ·-·1--· .. .!.."--·· >--f--·1+ ,_. .. lit. · .. o·l :• ' 1'1.... ,' ' ''::1 -r-r-t ~ Y . . . .. · · I .., .... ·:-'-: "i '' · • ....... " ., F" .... "--· " · ... .,. ~ ~,..---.. ·-. . II .. , . . . . . i't.. . .• ..... ,_ ·' .. .lit ~~ . -1---~--·~ -1-1---1-1.--... -r-..... --·· 1---f----"-1-t--· ·I\ - . ':"'l'i'oll . . . ~,.; L ... . .. .. . !\ . . . . . ... . ... . . .. 3 0 _ ... t;;.i,.l. _ -· T 1-.. ..... • ~-,·--·1 .... ··· -·1-t-t---t-r ·· t--+1--~~~~·:,.""', .... --. I~-:'!~ ,_ . ..~.:. ---. . t .... , ... . .. .. --1-· -.. 1--t----f.-·1-· f..-I-... l"ii.... . T ..,.r! ~ · · · · · · r."~" · , ... 2 0 t i-· .. l...oo..,. 1--1-~~------~--· ~ --. • I : ..... -· ••• --· ~-~·~· • ...' • • • I ~ ~ L ... ~~ I i -+ l . . I . . .. .. . . ,_~ 1--. I __j I~ 1-1· 1-f-' •-h 1-• .. "" ·j-· .. ··n·· ·. ! .... --·-:~ ~--~---.. :· -t-·~ i·l--1--i·· .... i 1-·-....... r·,~~·-t .. l~-·~ i. · · · 40 u..f"h· . 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 85 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 Lateral Distance in Feet Heavy Rain, Wet Conductor and Fair Weather RI Profiles with Mean Conductor Height of 40 Feet Figure D-2 [~ £::. ~ .. "' ,. f!l!'_:rj{ ~ ;J r .,_,.;- -~ .:j; I ' l -: ' ~ .• J ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ I n . . -=-- r ~ >-a f" .. ~ 4.J "1"'1 ~ "1"'1 ..c cu rr ~ ..c 0 ,.. c.. Q) [r i ;,...J< > "'"'f .u cu ~ [i ~ = e = t.J u ' . . r ~ ~ • . u f' ,, j .J ' fi I u tJ, ' ~ i i ( j' ~ H E ,.,t u .. . " .. • !i .. .. .,;; .. ~ .. "! .. .. -: .. .. • .. .. .. I I • ... : : ' • ... • .. :! • .. -• .. • -• :. • = ALASK~ POWER AUTHORITY 345 Kv System All Weather RI Statistical Dist~ibution I .. ·--·--·----·· -·---··· --------·-·-· -----·····1-· ··1·--i···· ~=~~~~~; ~~ ~--.... -·-· -·---·-· ·--·-::::::-.:r:::: :::-:: :.:-..J.:: ... ·::1==: ····-· ·---·-··-+-. -:.::~· ·---. ·---· ----·-··· ----~ ··::'!.= :; ;:: ::: ... :-~:::~~-:::;.:. ----::-::t:~-':: -=-~:·: -·: :-:=.--:_; .. -:.:-·.: ::. ~-=;b-:-.. :-r~ ~= ~:~ --~·--.~air Weather~-·-·'/--··----···---···--·+r-1·-·t·-· --i--- • •.• ;. .... r-· : : 'r----l----~-ll--!--1---·-!--____ J:_.J --~------i-~ J. • -r---+---· -· ·-!----· ·· ·----f-V-J.---··· ~.... .. · · ·-r--------1-:_·f-----r·-----·t··-- . ... ·-· ·-. -·~t:-~r ·-·-_ _._ r-·-"" -.::-:::-.. ..:..r-. :-=::r-=.:.:.::.=:=-:: .::.:. ~:::.-.::;::·-,.. .:f:-f-t . : ----·-~---------· --~ -·-f---~---·· . -· .,--. '" ....... --f---·-·11!":::; __ 1!· __ .:, ____ .. _. -· -· •.•• -·. -------:::-~.:t:.~== ....... ------......--r_::.:-)ii~::-:.:::t:=----..-.-::..._, . ::.: "'7:-::t:<:::" :.-:-=r: --: ::. ::: ..... -:f=,-...!.:;::: ~=.:;:-:---: ~:-:-:-r.-~":':'!'t-::~-=~:--:..~:-_ .;:.:-:~- ~==::-: ~~-r: .. :. ~..;;;:::~ .. ±--= '1::..-::. :-..:.~::;:;:-~-~ --~:-=-r:·~:. ,_ ·:: __ .:-. .:.t ... : -:-:-~::E::; -::-::t::::. . .• . ._ ____ .... ,;. . ... ..~r.··-~--· tt-·-·-· ·--.j/C:_;_. -·• ----. -·---·· --·-··· --· .••. :_=-··-f----.:.---r:=-~--:Jr-:.J....::tt :·: __ ~~c:: =:. :::_·~ ~~:-_:..t::= -:=:__:: -__ :c:~ r------r---'---·--·-·--· ----~--~· -··-:-----·----:-· -t.--~------r-·-1--------·-----r-----·1--·--···--rr.:-...-"!"'".-----·· ..,-----.-----------·-···-~··-- ··· ·-r-· -~ r----f;·r:~··i;.-_-·. ==.-___ ,]:7-· ·==--.t::::}~~:: +----·+ . ·;,r-::-:-.. ~--.. --· ,.... • . -- : -·-t=· ---!-·-·+-7 "-.--::::~::.tl:..-::..: .• _:::...._:-::;.r:-:= ----........... :.:.:·; -~ :-.::-=-=.:f-:'=:.... ~-~::;t :;J ..=-..::::. ::::-~:--:::-:-;:--:-::::::·-;r-t:::-:._.. r-· ·---... ::-::: :.::~: ... - -· -::..::.::=-~=----;.. ___ ...:-:~; ·r· · ..:.:. .. ~-: ~--=-: :_::t.f ~: 1: ·::. w t c d t · --....... · · ··· e on uc or ·--------·--r--~----r--. -·-----, --~-· ··--- _: . --:j._;:J.::.·---fl----;.,t ---!-· -r::-_:. .:__::f.:;·::::t,.:.:.: :.' -::.:. ·:; -:.:.:=..:. :: ;;.t,:=.:...,.::::.t,· --17+=.:-·-f---1-· •. :~t=-=t.:-::: :J.=~=-f:.:=t:-:--.:.::: r· .::.~· · -:.::..::. · · · ·.:: ... .... ~--··•·-r·:~7··::f:::J,...7..:...:.:.=.:t:::-...:t.:.:.1:.;.:. ~·~: l:i·:.:: ··-t=:: :::;:::...:i::::..r:::; .: .. .:...::-·-• ··--r--·t---L-:-·--· --T--t!:··-1 ---• .; .... --· ···-•• -·. ·-r---· ·--------·· .. r----·1--·· r--+·-f--------····ir --.. ·-· ... j •••• --·~---1----1···----··· ... ~::...:-:::::.:.].i_=·:: f.1 :.::.:--:.:.=~.:.::~..;-J.:.;:.:: . .:-=:. 1: .. :~.!..::.~ -:-:!.:~ .. : __ :.i:.:.: · .... 1::·. :~ :: ... .. ·-· ... -~-_~,::;.· ·--~ :-------=tt'--...-·--~;_ ___ ............ ·--~ ·-............ ···-· .:..:.:.::.:.::.: ~.:..:·. :11:.:. :::.::_t:.:.: · ~::~:.:-.::.IE :: ;:::.l..::....:.:::.::::-:. r:-::.:; ~: .. :. :: L:. :· :.:. .: . · . r-:. i: _;: -------n::.. =---... ------·-·-~-.. + -···---· -·-.. ·--·--·---·--·----···-·-·-·-· . -=-~~:_ft.:..:.. -=---=-c::. __ .:_ ~: .. .::.. t.: ·: ~:-:.::.:.:: r=:::.. . .: : . : ·-;--:..: .:..:..::.· ----i .. :.:. - . f-··--·-··· _,. ---·-r:---A-· r-----·-____ ,... ____ . ·-· -· . . . - • I f-·--• • I \. -----1-·-f• ------·--. • • .. ··--·· ~· .. ·--t--rf-t--·· -7--·---~--~~-·'--1. .. --""---:----·--------:· ...... , · 1---+---tt---+--~-1 _It \. Foul ¥Yeather · -····----·· ·-·-- ! l I I _II I! ., l ; 40 50 60 70 RI-dB above 1 fV/m @ the Edge of ROW RI Statistical Distribution Curve at the Edge of lOW with 71%/29% Fair to Foul Weather Distribution Figure D-3 . . ' , ~---------~~~ ~'*' sh,~"'f ·A~~~~~> ___ ....__,_~~----~-··~~~-.... -----·-~......-...----~---·------·---· -·-·--..... .-....,.,_, ........ .._"""--""""-·---..... _..~~,......-- i n·ill>l I.·~·--·~-~-:~=--·~- , I I il 1 ·j t I 'l I I [ I ! ! '·I -~ 1 ~ ~: ____ t ' ! ' ' "1 \ tl . -~ ... -~ z t-z w 0: 0:: ::> 0 0 LaJ 0 i3 z r--[~ r._,.,_ "~ L ~-L,., -4 r~ lr:-~·:l!!!!!l '\.-<;;li ~ <t [-.':~ f'~ t·-, [~ ~~ L , ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 345 kV System Electrostatic Induction 0n Vehiclco '200 150 too ro o 50 100 LATERAL DISTANCE IN FEET Electrostatically Induced Current Profiles with two circuits in one corridor and phase conductors at 30 ft. above ground with CBA CBA phase sequence. Figure D-4 ~~ '-' . . ,,~==-·\_ " l ~--. F.,. /·:~ . l , r .... j I l l I ·I i l (/ ··-~ :·~~f·(~-"""~"'~· ·--~~-"'-·;~"·""«·"-= ..... ~.. --~··~~-~-~,»=""·'""·~"'·-·--~~-· ""*··-· If-oo:-~,.. :f' . '~'(K-¥f"'}!li' :rr • ko.."'':>\01~~ [~·-'-L-= [>•······-t:::: r~ f'''\!';'o""' -<4'-'--1 [:::'.'!: [~~ ±<·•' ·.:« l~ ,. " ~-· ... r. .... J! eA ~~~ r·:,_j ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 345 Kv System unDUND GRADIENT JN KV(rma)/M y LATERAL DISTANCE IN FEET Ground Gradient Profiles_with two circuits in one corridor and phase conductors at 30 ft. above ground with CBA CBA phase sequence. Figure D-5 l'!.!.~"' l- < ""~'~~~ !,_ rr~ ~·-~ 9' -~ A;~ l_'"'"li•·'i. ~-,. ! ' · ... ';. j;;· ~,~. ()~( .· I. ·L>. '-~ t ""'~' fi ,_"btl J·.:· t l I . ! ! i f i l ! l l i _, j j j fl·~-• r • ! ' 1 I l I t t I I ! ! I I ,, ' u f I l j ' ,f 1 :+ ', . _;;.. ' ~-'-1 .,.! . .; -- .__._______ "~_....:1;''-'"-'ehti-:u«t $\~,_..;.,..:::._~~~-~ ... ...;: ~-----..~--..... ~----· -------~.,.,__,.-~ __ .........._____~,_.,.,.. ..... _,_...,.._,,~_...o;-,~----...~ ..... ,_,. ... ~--"-·-·--.......--.--_.__..~-~- i <':' i ~- ~ 0 tn "1 ~ ~-[ ~ ij ~ ~ rt ~ [ n I 'Jot-"'..::_~,- ~ [_ .,., .. , .• ' t "' '"-' t-:-:-: MAXIMUM INDUCEp CURRENT IN MA (rms) N "" • ffflttfmt~IJmn.•u lum: HllU!Hfft ~'- H l.u:thlf~gt-P-fi~fl1tl~Hiifn·ttmMi.f_JfWimf¥.m~rf~m~1m:rn. .. ..crt .;..tlftm w.~ ,. .... ~ n.. . _ • r~' r t,. rtHlH1 Itt-· !:ttft:t, ~ ~~~~mmmmmm~~~mmmmmmffiffl~~~ ~ ~ "V % m ~ I. (I) s • ~ 111 t~ trj ,..,. tQ ~ CD t;j . I 0\ ~~ I [ w ~ ~ rt ti1 I I CD ,..., __ t ; ~.~ % J~l ' / ~~~ ~~ MAXIMUM GROUND GRADIENT KV(rms)/m N t~~ .r. 01 en !~ ...., a ~~~~~~~~~*"~~~~~~~~y~ % ~ 0 ~ !1:; ~t:: 1~:· r; .. : :·,::; ~~~~-~:~: a .u • • • • • •. . . . I, •• • l 'I" • '·"f. 1. ... ~ ~ • t• • • • • ~'" . .. • • • .. .1 ~ ..... ~ z ~~.~: ...... :r:r o ~r.:: ·.:i: c f~ Q) ~ ~~--~~~H+~~~~~h+~+t·~~~~~~~H+~~~ 0 0 ~ J~t rJm· t:T.JT ···-~~ i-!-•• li~~"r. ... -!-w· 1 .... ,, •·· r t~.n· :i' •• ·:tw ·m ~~~·-1 -m • 'f•!· -~!ii .1rt:i:r •1'!.· L,_1l·r 'tlt rr. .. r;.t ..1tt ·h 1' -:-t t t'l.t+ ·1il; t. •. 0 ·r-r!-~rH· '''r1 :ilt I flf. ·t·-" -• .... , '·t~t -H .t~. . .. ~tt lf·H < '"U:' ......... fg' 'J' ·t·•· r··· •t·· .! ... ·f*•' •:r· rfj'J. ~m ·!--'·· •• ,. ·:t•• •· ij. J ·~ •~ ' •• ,, •• • · lttl:t · L ' ~ •• 111 m :;:r r.H •. : -!+ 1::.111-~· ·.r.~= ttr. • · m·H r .~ P:r. a n h.t;: I it !:;:·: lf ~ rtlm-J' fi:":J: .!7rt-~-• H· :!: i: w· .. -~ u. Gl ~t • ll:t ·••· IL~ .t •·,~· tti f+ . . I :U : .. .., '' • ~,. IH++ • -· 0 t ' -H ·~ •• lf I I • r I r ±~· . ~~ ·± ....... c tt ~t± tU t;~J L ~ i!H t .. ~l~t. :i:1: :t -~ ~~ ~tt ~~ z ~ l • fi. ~-i:rt1i· ;: • ·r~ 1:nn ...-; .. f+ .. -t:t. r.tt ., tit :::r ~ m1 0 ~ :t .. tt!:l ; ~: rtt+t ~~ .. fl. . r:~ i+ "'l~l if'• -~ :~:t.f.H -1t I Iff tiT ,,. I tttt tit! i:J. I :t -!:1-t tj: +r -z ...., tf ~JJl rti! · ~1 !:fifr~.t+t •. ct ~ + "? .-fftl1 ~~=Pltlr1utl 0 •••• !1-:1 f"~ +1 1 l' m t •t 1-•!· ·r i+l·:-olt~ ·•u:±tttl ., !i'! l:rt 1:-:::·· . · li • t: ·t-. ::: tt-• ~h trih ·+HH rTI trlt 1, • tf · ~~ ·If ti · 'I !1 · i !H ±t:tf -j Hrtt ±J rTI •. r!ti1Jt.!'t :fr!f.:t'..t ii'i±L~ •-~ 't!:~t~t: · Urtl ~ t.tift!rrf:rr 1::!-f ttt ttfit ~~ ~ ·ffll-ttl+ ~=tttllil tlf :!lftftrn J:i!:t ttt~1r1 rtltt :tJtt ftt.t.l ~n:I• it 4. 1 .Itt::: tt~J '!:H '11 t' tftn f t-i-l t-It~ ::f.illl t ti-H· + ;J:~J:t . I H ~ I:Utt· tf Itt•~ Htt 1 tti:ttlli:t~lfH±f:ft!'. tt~tn~~~·.m~ttttr.m:~..!J'!.rnttl·!f ~-...... ~ .. fl .••.. i.!H ~. ' __ -c,o •• c;:-_,;:::o,~.-·tl:,'.-. , ,._. ,_ ·, \) ~ ... ---I .. · • E I ' ' . -. t -~ l . ' I 7' ~~ lJ1 ~i ~~ ~ . ~S:::f"; •' :::-::--- it 'f '{ . ' ·f ~ ............... r ~ r c...~ r r Ul a> ...-f r :s 0 ·n .,.; ...-f f ...-f .,.; ~ _ ... d .,.; f' a> . tJ'I ........:J ~ co ~ r : t> Cll ·.-I '-"' Q f , ~ ; t)\ :, ~ ..__~ a> d r::J f l· I ~ I I~ ~~ 48 44 40 36- 32 28 24 20 - B 16 - 1m§ =• 12 -~~ 8 ;:~ 4- 200 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 345 Kv System Discharge Energy on Vehicles !Hi :::: ll!! i: l:lH:: 1::: I~ Tractor Trailer ~ Panel Truck= g;;;: ........ ,, .... ,b!:! lig :t!l I§ ::1 Automobile 1:: I!! II! Iii .!\. 1111 r: l:.;l Ill li:; II! !;H :;; 160 12n BO 4b 0 :::: ::: Lateral Distance in Feet ::.: 40 :::: i::: :.:::;:::: :::: ':1 ,;:.:: :.-: a'o Vehicles Discharge Energy Profiles Figure D-8 120 I' ' ' ' r r r r r,, ,, .. >. 0'\ ~ Q) s:: Ul ~ Q) ..... Q) ::.1 0'\0 ~ ·n, n1 ·rof ,.C:1""4 Ol""'f Ul•ro! ·I"! ~ Q = ::s El ·I"! ~ n:1 ~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 345 Kv System Discharge Energy on Vehicles ! , ... ' -••t· . i . .. .. ··------• • • ,.. • C ~ • ' ~ ,. • • • I • • . . . . .. ~ . .. .. -i .. : . . . • • • • 1 • • • . • •• t . ..... ~ .. ::,• :-•·:: H: :¥ ~ i ·• ~: ~ 1 ~: ::: i.~ .. :::.• !. • :.:·1. ,: .. ·~~ --~--. ~~-.. --·-:--·-... , .. ... '!------:7-:~-·---; ...... .. ~ .. ~ : ' . ' ~ . . • . . . ~ ... • ... :! ---~ .. ' t .. .. 50~--·~·~i __ ·~·~·~·-·~~·--~:~i··~-~~~~~--~~--~~·~·~-~-~-~-~!--~~----~----1 •. . • : . i "'I• '1 .·t·:- ·---:~-~·-·-:--;·----·;·-. ~l-~~-~:-.;-~T--· -~~!~-~~=......,.-----· _· ___ -_-_--_, __ -_-_·_· .... · . . . ~ . .. . I •• t • .,. ---, ~-:..:--=-!---... :: . ~ ----r-----i: -· -........;:~---' i :· .. 1. :Tractor Trailer.-~---"-40 . ~ ! . . . . • . .. .. ... ~ -.. ---.. ----"'--··-~-·-·-.. ---·-·----1 · :Panel 'l'ru.ck · · l • ... ._..!_ __ . . t • : • : . • ~ • : I Autoio'bi1~·--=--------·;····;· .. 30~--~--------~~--·~--~~~------.----.-,~------------ ' •• _:__ ·-· _ __:; __ ...!.. __ ..... ·-. --------·-··'"' . l • ! . .. '· . q;: ·--· .. _.:!..:.. .. --.--.. ' ·-·-·· ~ . ! • i 20~-.-.:~ .. ~.i--.~-+---------~~~~--.~ .. -.. ~.:--~~-----:~---~~--~~------~~ ... • . ! .. . .. . i 'l _________ ., . .. .. ' .. .. ! . • . , ... ---•· . . . . ··-· __ ......... --: .. ~--,_. ---. -. .. ...... ·-..... -· ..... ·-·· ' 1~~~.~~:--.~~-~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~:~-~:--.~~~ .. ~~~--- : . ! '! 30 40 0 0 0 HEIGHT OF CONDUCTORS ABOVE GROUND IN FEET Maximum D~scharge Energy on Vehicles VS Ground Clearance Figure D-9 J ' ] I J I l :l ' 1 I 11 ( I 'I :, ,, ,, ll ; r r r r K: ~ ( ' ' ' ~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY. 345 ~ SYSTEM AUDIBLE NOISE -ONE CIRCUIT PER CORRIDOR ns ~ :1... 60 0 N Q) ~ .Q ns 50 -~ -~ rt:J = ..... Q) 40 Ul ..... 0 s:: Q r-4 .Q 30 ..... rt:J ~ I I • I 40 80 120 160 200 Lateral distance in feet from the center of ~ow Audible Noise Profiles for Heavy Rain and Wet Conductor for corridors with one 345 Kv circuit. Figure D-10 r r r .,. r r r r r ~~ ~-, ~-- 1~ ~~ li 1.[ l r_·. 1 11 , IJ ll1 230 D AliD 345 KV RIGHT-oF-wAY AID r - r r .. , r r r· r ~~ I I' ,_. I_ '~ 11. II IT J. JI 11 lJ 230 KV AND 345#KV RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CLEARING DIAGRAMS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Studies were carried out to consider the mode and effects of structure failure to determine the proper distance between the two parallel transmission lines on the same ROW. Only one mode of structure failure (i.e. falling in the transverse direction toward the adjacent line), will cause interference with the parallel line. Based on proposed separation between the lines (105 and 90 feet for 345 and 230 kV respectively) in order to reach the adjacent line, the structure should fall in a direction normal (90°) to the line axis. A decrease of this angle diminishes this possibility considerably and falling at 75° to the axis, the structure will not interfere with the parallel line. 2.0 SUSPERSION STRUCTURES . It was assumed that for transverse falling, the suspension structure will be rotated around the pivot at the base of one leg, as shown in Figure E-1 dated October 31, 1983 attached. Pivoting with respect to the leg closest to the parallel line is not likely. Transverse forces acting in the direction of the adjacent parallel line must exist for the occurrence of conflict. Under this loading condition the structure leg closest to the adjacent line will be under compressive stress. Because tha leg under compression fail. Immediately upon failure imposed on the structure ·will is the weakest, it will buckle and of the compressed leg all the load be transferred to the other leg, C/41/7E E-1 () r ~ tr ! 1 ·; r t -.~ ' ,I• f~- r !~ r r ~- ~- I_ I_ I_ IJ~ JJ 11 II 11 11 --:',;;:-:~\ ~~"~~..C---------:......----···-~n ........... ----'----·····-·--------.. ---·-·--'··"'· ---.. ·------~---~~+ .. "··---------.. ·--·------~-..... --~-------;______..;.._~-_;_-.....z-'-""-"'- under_ which condition large bending moments at the base of this leg will cause the structure to collapse. Ho~v-ever, the feasibility of assumed falling trajectory in reality is contingent not only on loss of support from buckled structure leg, but also on the complete balance or absence of all longitudinal loads. This condition is unlikely for any loc.\ding combination.. Therefore, everyday conditions rather than heavy loading are more proper for this study on the assumption that the failure is due to vandalism, external forces, or other unusual occurrences. Furthermore, since the width of the structures (made of tubular ele- ments) is negligibly small, the probability of hitting an adjacent structure is so extremely small that for all practical purposes it can be ignored. 3. 0 ANGLE STRUCTURES The angle and strain structures consist of three separate guyed poles with single phases attached to each pole. They are considered to rotate at their base in the case of failure. However, the direction of falling trajectory is not expected to be in the transverse direction or in the dixection of the bisector of the deflection angle. This is due to the fact that the transverse component at the normal direction basically exists only for intact line condition When longitudinal com- ponents are balanced. As soon as a pole moves away from the intact position during failure, highly unbalanced longitudinal loads will appear and the vector of transverse component will change its direc- tion, which phenomenon normally makes angle structures fail more long- itudinally rather than in the direction of bisector. Only in the C/41/7E E-2 r r r , .. [ [ 11 IJ 11 11 tt case of simultaneous and instant release of the guyes on angle struc- tures, thus essentially preserving the intact ba :ance;d conditions, the structure can fall in direction of transverse component (i.e. normal to the line). A failure occurring under heavy loading conditions will definitely result in the angle structure falling close to the longi- tudinal direction. 4.0 EVALUATION In view of the above, for evaluation purposes the following assumptions were adopted: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Everyday loading condition is considered rather than heavy loadingo to Suspension structur3s fall . ax1.s the line, of rotating around the pivot at the base of the leg away from the parallel line. Angle structures are considered to fall closer to long- itudinal and not in transverse direction. The structures made of tubular elements cannot be hit by falling structures, because of very small target areas involved .. Conductors of parallel line can be hit by falling structures, thus creating conflict. Based on the above assumptions and proposed separation between lines, Figure E-1 showing transverse structure falling trajectories were C/41/7E E-3 ! ~ ~ a ;j u ~ ~ ~ I( ,, :! -~ "' I' ;I lf \t ft ll ![ ,, ,, fi ,, ;~ d ;J l l :· ),· _, I 'J )' ;;.,1 ~ , ~ ~ r r [ r [ [ [ L fJ fl. rt 'f t ~ nl !i ,, ' prepared. These sketches are based on structure heights corresponding to 1200 feet spans. From these sketches it appears that: a) for the structures of both lines located in the vicinity of each other (i.e. 360 and 520 feet dis- tance for 345 and 230 kV lines repectively) no conflict exists, even in the worst case of 90° transverse trajectory; and b) a decrease in structure height of 5 to 10 feet ~~11 eliminate this conflict regard- less of tower location. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The conclusion is that no increase of separation is justified for the subject lines as it is very unlikely that in actuality conflicts will occur. This is based on the following: o The failure occurrence is most probable for tangent struc- tures because they normally are designed to be relatively weaker than strain structures, and because of the fact 90% of the line structures are of this type. o The study has shown, that for 1200 feet span, tangent struc- tures placed near each other will not interfere with the parallel line when falling even at 90° angle to the line axis. For structures located at random, the conflict will be eliminated if the spans are in range of 1100-1150 feet. Inasmuch as the Intertie average span is 1150 feet, their values are expected to be closer to actual span lengths. Furthermore, for visual appearance, parallel lines are gene- rally spotted, locating the structures of the two lines as close to each other as possible, practically in pairs, which effectively eliminates the possibility of conflicts. C/41/7E E-4 1 •aJ ' l <- ~ ~; r ,r !~ r r r [ r ' '- [ [ L I IJ fl IJ a ,,.,.., ll ~ .. '1 I I' 0 Tangent structure transverse falling trajectories normal to the direct ion of the line axis are not likely in actuality. One of the conditions for this trajectory is balanced longi- tudinal loads Which is true only during conductor stringing. Longitudinal loads will be unbalanced for all other condi- tions and especially during a structure failure. This alone will prevent the tangent structure from falling at a trajectory close enough to 90° to reach the adjacent line. o The failure of strain structures is less probable since they are designed for containment of failures on the line. The falling modes and trajectories of strain structures are determined by large unbalanced longitudinal loads imposed on them, and existing dur,ing normal and abnormal conditions. Therefore, the probability of interference due to their transverse fall is even less than that for tangent struc- tures. It is also apparent that since parallel lines have common deflect ion points, angle structures of the two lines will be located close to each other. Right-Of-Way Width ROW widths for 230 kV and 345 kV lines shown on sketches have been determined based on the results of electrical environmental study and analysis of the conflicts for parallel lines. For specific conditions encountered and different terrain characteristics, the dimensions indi~ cated will be adjusted during design phase, as required. C/41/7E ,, ! l ! ! j l i l I ~ i l . I! ~ l ~ h .. ~ ff h l ~ ~· M li : ,,: ll fj ~ . I •. , u !i :J r r r I l [ L r .. l ; ... !f J PI I ;J 'I' '~";,~ 1 ., ~ Clearing diagrams ar~ typical and actual vegetation cutting should be selective. The vegetation shall be topped rather than removed. The area between transmission lines designated as "access, construction road area" if not used for this purpose can be left ,,n. th vegetation up to 10 to 12 feet high for the width of 30-35 feet. Required ROW area for different widths will be as follows: Structure Type No. of Circuits ROW Width Area and Voltage on ROW Feet Acres/Mile -- X-frame 345 kV 1 170 20 .. 63 X-frame 345 kV 2 275 33.38 X-frame 345 kV 3 380 46o12 X-frame 345 kV 4 l~85 58.87 X-frame 230 kV 1 120 14.57 X-frame 230 kV 2 210 25.49 X-frame 345 kV & 230 kV 2 250 30.35 Steel Pole 345 kV Double Circuit 1 130 15 .. 78 Steel Pole 345 kV Single Circuit 1 125 15.17 Steel Pole 345 kV Single Circuit 2 230 27.92 Steel Pole 230 kV Single Circuit 1 100 12.14 Steel Pole 2!10 kV Single Circuit 2 190 23.06 C/41/7E E-6 D • I ' l t"~d ' ~ i ! t . ~ !, i ! i! i ~ . . ~ ~ fi " ;. ." .! ~ ~ ,. ~ )1 'I ~ ~ ~) f FIGURES f' fi' ~· ~ E. '~ I_ I .. lj IJ IJ Ll_. 11 lj J ' I 1 1 1 { •' ~ ~I I -; ~ '"'" ~ ""i l1 ~ ~sc 1 345 kV SUSPENSION STRUCTURE * -5.o,q, AT leD FEET To SuPPD~T - 1051 f l. lf ~ ~-][ .. ;n 11 777>1 I' Ill n ' "• n n "::~~: :::~· n n ' n' n TTT "' i 7 u n . ~ :z t ,_ ::r \j ~ -O'Iw (j)ct :J 1-u ~ ·-\0 ASSUMPT'ON~. . "" S"Pt,t.l-1200 FEET ~,.,:,..'{ • EVE'"R'lDA.'( 5r¥i= AO F't:C.T MA'/.1 HUM SE\~ .-L'ISH:.C-1 0 ·-;~·~~( '" ~ C< ,, ,-;: -· _______ ..,_..-. ..:.-....-~.,;· Fv },.:; ~. ' '" 2.30 kV SUSPENSION .SIR.UCTLlRE l 9d I· :26o' ·I \'2.00 I SPAN -;f.-SAG AT 2.60 ~EE.T . TO Su~POR..j --... ..,..--. -- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I . SUSITtl~ HYDRCEL ECTRIC PROJECT _._._ ... ·-_:?1\~.t\LLEL LINE SEPA~O~ STUDY I ! l f HARZA -EBASCO 1 ~ l l l l ,. ,-~-~-.~~~~ ~\~=~~!;=U~E e-~:~~l.J lj I I .J l "' i I j f I ; •. J ""' l f u I ' ' ~ ' 0 • /I-" v-" TYPICAL ROW WIDTH AND QEARING DIAGRAM 230KV X-TYPE STRUCTURES 601 NOTE: RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH Frn TWO SINGLE ORCUIT 230KV FOLE UNES (900FT S~N) WILL BE 50+90+50=190 FT ROW WIDTH 210 I 90' Tl;fE GROWTH UNCER 2 HEIGHT -If) -I'- (!) q: Cl) ln IlL. <;!'" 0 • 0 C\1 ~ ,--II -~~~~· n ~- ACCESS, CCNS1RUCTION R04D AREA ?_; . 60 1 I) fl ~ -~------~--~---~-~,.........___-----~--··-~------~-------~-~~--~· ... ·4<_ ·.-i,-i:·:~ -. : '" n -Ii I 230KV LINES I RE:Cav1MENDED ~-----------~-~R=·~W.~DTH,FT 120 2 I 210 ASSUMPTION: 954KCM ~RAIL" CONDUCTORS !200FT SPAN MAX 120° F SAG-45 FT EVERYDAY SAG-40FT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINES RIGHT-OF-WAY -[ .: r'l . ·' ,, 'I ., i ~t - ,.l f I l ' . I n lp . i i -' .. _ l ~J ,..., i _j .1 i ! ~-·-' i : .. 1 \ I.J r ] ·r ' ' : ~i !" ',i 1 r f ,. f f( i ll I Jl 11 .I _, r I r1 l I 1 J l . ' . : . .. ~-~-~-------'----c_____ _3;:=,~: " ~ t . . -. -·l '~.,. t ' . ~ ~ '.t· 85 1 -·-,.,.. -----~-f ---r••-.,-.---i-.. • . '! .... ,. '! 4 .... •· ·-.. -• ,. ·'·--:--;r··-;. .. ~~ ·· .. ~ TYPICAL ROW WIDTH AND QEARING ~ DIAGRAM ,.. ~ .•• .• -~ . --:A 345KV X-TYF£ .... STRUCTUREs-~--~ .. c • .• ·: -. -. -.... ---:..-.. -----~.--- ROW WIDTH 275' 1051 -ro L ~ U) in liu_ v 0 0 N -~133 1 5~'-II .1- -I::E 0-roZ ~ I -r:--. -. ACCESS I CCNSTR UCTION ROOD AREA NOTE: :r~E GROwrn UNCER i 2 HEIGHT t - RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH FOR TWO'LINES, 345 KV AND 230 KV IN PARALLEL WILL BE 85+ 105 + 60 =250FT~ 85 1 Ql\NC:CR TREE ' L.... 51 -345KV LINt::$ I RECavlMENDED • i R.O.W. WIDTH, FT 170---.-' 2 3 4 275 380 485 i ... "'! "'-·.-... ·• .• .. -. .. . • ASSUMPTION: · · .. . t 954KCM RAIL CONDOCTORS 1 1200FT SPAN MAX I20°F SAG-45FT EVERYDAY SAG-40FT ·-_ .............. . ~ . ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY: • ' SUSITtU. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -;._ ..... 345 KV TRANSMISSION LINES RIGHT-OF-WAY HARZA -EBASCO , -d • H,~,, 1 DATE: NO¥ember 9! 19831 Dh'G. NO.FIGUR!: E.·~ 1 ... ... ! t I t I ., 11 fl . ~ i I I •t - : JJ 1 0 . . : . 0 .. II: . . . . --:---.---------_____ -:tL.-rl:f·· . I 'I' -; . . -I :·:! :t . I ; f . -·J'. ----- -~<·:··.··.:•· t I . l ' !: 1 _ . • • · ·I I . Ill (:r.;;Z~:;i;;~-:-~-rJtA~D~ciiARI~~ . . -----... :; . --.-~~-----·-. ~ ~.IJ . .. ;I .\ I i i 3 4 5KV r.uuBLE ciROJIT • 3 4 5 KV ~INGLE CIRCUIT I tl.' POLE LINE POL£ J-JNE • j . .-r N ":.' I ,. j ROW WlDTH 130' ~9W WJDTH 230' I J I .I ; • • • rl ' I li ! -s=! 1 o5' s2:s• 105' 62 s' :1 !1. j • :: ., . ' ! · · I :1 't l ! i I; ! .;--~ -·-. -~GER TREE· ! , ( ---.--. .::: r·---"' '!' ' 0 :~ !t1 \ '0 I jfJ/,)\J J \..:: h " ~- rl rl r' r\ I Ll '! [I ., . . . . • EVERYDAY. ,?AG l;:; ....... ~ ~l C/) LL.. -C\110 1<)2 I -(X) G) + r--· -Tf;IE GROWTH UNCC:R 2 HEIGHT ~----.. (!) <t C/) lL. -C\110 r<l N ::E~ -2~~~ :;:~ tCCESS, COOSTRUCTJON - ROAD AREA · --- LINES . I .. 2 ,.,._---.. - I . . RECCMMENDED R.O.W. VIJDTH 1 FT 125 230 . . . . - ,____,._... -.. - ASSUMPTION: • . 954KCM • RAIL' CONDUcTORS \) 900FT SPAN ;J 1 MAXT2Q°FSAG-32FT ) l: EVERYDAY SAG-26FT {I ·----~~ f -s: t~JI _ ~ -. ----. ---- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 345KV SINGLE POLE TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-W!J:Y -· . IG HARZA -EBASCO MTE 9'-T > \ I e,::, Dh'G.NO.FIGURS S-+ •[ ' l !- 1\lli£ sac. anvuu:a;;. sa az·,;·;·;::a :a a GIL JlllSLA& .. ;aQ114Ml ·-·=· -······-·.·•,· locUii:.-iAL®.tQJJLW.•·••·Iill·-..r{M,.W"H'"'~---·--------··~--.... -"l r r r ! r r r ,. r r.-· l r r r r [ [ ~i ~1 . 'j APPEIIDIX F COST DATA FOR POTEIITIAL TRABSHISSIOR SYSTEM JlE!'INEMENTS r r· J I , COST DATA FOR POTENTIAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM REFINEMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The total installed cost of the Susitna Transmission System as shown in the FERC License Application is in the order of 575 million dollars, measured in terms of January, 1983 dollars and excluding Alaska Power Authority and Harza-Ebasco charges. This figure also excludes carrying charges and interest during construction. In order to obtain an understanding of the most significant elements of cost related to potential Susitna Transmission System project develop- ment, the cost data on the following pages were prepared during the last week of August, 1983. 2. 0 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL PRO..JECT REFINEMENTS* INDEX Category 1 Change Voltage from Gold Creek to Fairbanks Category 2 Route One Circuit Overland Around Knik Arm From Willow to University Utilize Existing Anchorage Area Transmission Network As Much As Possible Revise Fairbanks Susitna Power Delivery From Ester to Fort Wainwright Relocate Willow Substation to "W/T" Change Voltage from Healy to Fairbanks Identifier CIT C2Tl C2T2 C2T3 C2T4 C2TS *This cost data, should not be used in the future, because it was modified. The land acquisition costs provided by Land Field Services was obtained on October 26, 1983 and is included in Appendix G. In addition, the cost data should be modified by the ROW widths shown on page E-7 of Appendix E. Modified cost data is shown in Appendix H, Table H-2. C/41/7F F-1 3. 0 POTENTIAL PROJECT REFINENMENTS Drawing No. T-1 South Study Area Anchorage Subarea Preliminary Corridor Alternatives Drawing No. T-6 North Study Area Fairbanks Subarea Preliminary Corridor Alternatives Exhibit No. 2 Sketch No. 3 Sketch No. 4 Sketch No. 5 Sketch No. 7 Sketch No. 8 Exhibit 3-3 Exhibit 6-10 C/41/7F Transmission Line -Cost Per Mile Lorraine Single Line Knik Arm Single Line Single Line -Potential Refinements and Transmission Corridors Gold Creek -Ester at 345 kV Gold Creek -Ester at 138 kV Plate F81 -345 kV Systa~ Single Line Diagram and Transmission Corridor Gold Creek -Ester at 230 kV r ' ,~ IL [ .l . ' ' ' I . I . ; I 1 TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2Tl PROPOSED PROJECT REFINEMENTS Change route of one 345 kV transmission line from Willow to University Substation, overland around Knik Arm instead of using a submarine cable crossing under Knik Arm. C2Tl Represents Watana 1993 installation C2Tl.S Represents Susitna 2002 installation C2T1.A Represents Watana 1993 installati~:>n with route from Nancy Lake to Knik Arm (Fossil Creek Area) C2T1.A.S Same as C2Tl.A except Susitna 2002 installation C/41/7F R4 F-4 r . '1 ll • ... r ~ -~ ' ! . I . I I ' ! ... TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CIT COST COMPARISON Change voltage of the transmission system from Gold Creek to Fairbanks, Ester Substation from 345 Kv to 230 Kv. Gold Creek Substation Transmission Lines Gold Creek to Healy {93 Miles) Transmission Lines Healy to Ester (94 Miles) Ester Substation Totals COST COMPARISON 345 Kv SYSTEM (Million $) 10.200 40.548 81.028 23.950 155.726 230 Kv SYSTEM (Million $) 17 .. 410 22.971 45.778 20.600 106.759 Difference: 345 KY system minus 230 Kv system = $48.97 Million or approximately $49 Million dollars. F-4 r !t • r~ :l ri ['' ~:-~, \I r·\ L~ . [ ' 1: ~, . 1'' ' I i J I I I I I J I J 1 J ., l '. '.I 1\ : ~ j 0 TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CIT COST COMPARISON Change transmission line route of one 345 kV line from Willow to University Substation, overland around Knik Arm instead of uoing a submarine cable crossing under Knik Arm. 345 kV !'X" (2 circuits) 345 kV "xn (1 circuit) Submarine Cable (1 circuit) 345 kV Pole (2 circuit) 345 kV Pole (1 circuit) Knik Arm Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (YEAR 1993) ORIGINAL REFINEMENT 38.750 18.299 (43.2 Miles) (20.4 Miles) 16.663 (345.5 Miles) 69.100 38.600 (3.5 Miles-2 circuits) (3.5 Miles-1 circuit) 18.340 11.635 (18.6 Miles-2 circuits) (11.8 Miles-1 circuit) 23.025 (37.5 Miles) 13.650 5.100 139.840 113.322 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $26.518 million or approximately $26.5 Million. C/41/7F R4 F-5 ,, {. ~: r· J. I l ' IIi l I I , ' 1 1 Li TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2Tl.S COST COMPARISON Change transmission line route of one 345 kV line from Willow to University Substation, overland around Knik Arm instead of using a submarine cable crossing under Knik Arm. 345 kV "X" Type 3 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 2 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 1 circuit 345 kV Submarine Cable 345 kV Steel Pole 3 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit Knik Arm Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (YEAR 2002) (Million $) ORIGINAL REFINEMENT $59.616 (43.2 Miles) $18.299 (20.4 Miles) 16.663 (34.5 Miles) 99.600 38.600 (3.5 Miles) (3.5 Miles) 11.973 (7.5 Miles) 10.945 11.635 (11.1 Miles) (11.8 Miles) 23.025 (37.5 Miles) 16.550 5.100 198.684 113.322 Difference: Original minus R~finement = $85.361 million or approximately $85.4 million. C/41/7F R4 F-6 ~I l I I l l I t jt I I J \1 ' ,j . ··~ :'.~ -; • ", < (, • ·';j __ ;.. _~_,' ___ ;...,._.,_..,...._~--... ~--··-...........-~-~,--• .--:.:.:..·.:....~..--"'-.. '"'Nh·---· --··~-·--·~··-~ ' [.~ ~ ~ .. ~ r' ~ [ l l l . . l I . f i: TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T1.A COST COMPARISON Change transmission line route of one 345 kV line from Willow to University Substation, overland around Knik Arm instead of using a submarine cable crossing under Knik Arm. Using alternative line route from Nancy Lake to Knik Arm. 345 kV "XH (2 circuits) 345 kV "X" (1 circuit) 2 circuits Submarine Cable ' 1 circuit 345 kV Pole (2 circuits) 345 kV Pole (1 circuit) Knik Arm Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (YEAR 1993) (Million $) ORIGINAL $38.750 (43.2 Miles) 69.100 (3.5 Miles 2 circuits) 18.340 (18.6 Miles 2 circuits) 13.650 139.840 REFINEMENT 5.741 (6.4 Miles) 36.177 (74.9 Hiles) 38.600 (3.5 Miles) 10 .. 945 (11.1 Miles) 23.025 (37.5 Miles) 5.100 119.588 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $20.252 million or approximately $20.2 million. C/41/7F R4 F-7 [1 t I § l I I . ,:~ TASK 41 -SUSITNA TB~SMISSION SYSTEM C2T1.A.S COST COMPARISON Change transmission line route of one 345 kV line from Willow to University Substation, overland around Knik Arm instead of using a submarine cab'le crossing under Knik Arm, and using alternative line route from Nancy Lake to Knik Arm. 345 kV "X" Type 3 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 2 circuits 345 kV ttxn Type ~1 circuit 345 Submarine Cable 345 kV Steel Pole 3 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit Knik Arm Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (YEAR 1993) (Million $) ORIGINAL REFINEMENT $59.616 (43.2 Miles) 5.741 (6.4 Miles) 36.177 (74.9 Miles) 99.600 38.600 (3.5 Miles) (3.5 Miles) 11.973 (7,5 Miles) 10.945 10.945 (11.1 Miles) (11.1 Miles) 23.025 (37.5 Miles) 16.550 5.100 $198.684 $119.588 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $79.096 m.illion or approximately $79.1 million. C/41/7F R4 F-8 f' J r··, . j l r., f ( . I I f I I '\ \\ ,,-~~..:~~~ TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION STSTEM C2T2 PROPOSED PROJECT REFINEMENTS Change transmission system in Anchorage area to utilize existing trans- mission network as mu<;:Jl as practical. To do S9,. set-up substation on "tt?est side of Knik Arm opposite Anchorage called nLorraine" (see Sketch No. 3). Modify Knik Arm Substation to incorporate a 230 kV breaker and one-half scheme in addition to the 345 kV breaker and one-half arrange- ment. See Sketch No. 4. C2T2 Represents Watana 1993 installation CZT2.S Represents Susitna 2002 installation C2T2.A Represents Watana 1993 installation with route from Nancy Lake to Knik Arm (Fossil Creek Area) C2T2.A.S Same as C2Tl.A except Susitna 2002 installation C/41/7F R4 . F-9 "~, . . (/ ' ·-~ {; . ,r····~·· ,_.,'"'"':~&t.t--...:....,...._:_ .... ,,,.,___;..._~,_~:__, ___ H~-• .,.....,--~-.-..~··· '..>.- i r f I I r I i ' I ·I , I l ' 1 l J ~ r . 1 r . f. r I . f I f l t TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T2 COST COMPARISON Change transmission system in Anchorage area to utilize existing network as much as possible. 345 kV "X" Type 2 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 1 circuit 345 kV Submarine Cable 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circt.lits 345 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit 230 kV "X" Tower 2 circuits 230 kV "X" Tower 1 circuit 230 Submarine Cable 230 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 230 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit Lorraine Substation Knik Arm Substation University Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (YEAR 1993) (Million $) · ORIGINAL REFINEMENT $38.750 (43.2 Miles) 69.100 (3.5 Miles) 18.340 (18.6 Miles) 13.650 25.143 $164.983 18.299 (20.4 Miles) 15.698' (32.5 Miles) 18.420 (30.0 Miles) 0.544 (2.0 Miles) 24.00 (3.5 Miles) 6.360 (11.1 Miles) 2.670 (7.5 Miles) 21 .. 290 22.140 2.400 $131.821 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $33.2 million. $33.162 million or approximately C/41/7F F-10 I .! ! l l I I I I l I l I I l 1 I ! l I I I 0 I l l 'I 1 I I l I '. r-~ l . f" u ' r ~· ·rASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T2,S COST COMPARISON Change transmission system in Anchorage area to utilize existing network as much as possible. 345 kV "Xu Type 3 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 2 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 1 circuit 345 kV Submarine 345 kV Steel Pole 3 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit 230 kV "X" Tower 2.0 Miles) 1 circuit Cable 230 Submarine Cable 230 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 230 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit Lorraine Substation Knik Arm Substation University Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (YEAR 2002) (Million $) ORIGINAL $59.616 (43.2 Miles) 99.600 (3.5 Miles) 11.973 (7.5 Miles) 10.945 (11.1 Miles) 16.550 33.266 $231.950 REFINEMENT 18.299 (20.4 Miles) 15.698 (32.5 Miles) 18.420 (3'0.0 Miles) 0.544 1 circuit 24.0 (3.5 Miles) 6.360 (11.1 Miles) 1.670 (7.5 Miles) 21.290 22.140 2.400 $131.821 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $100. million. $100.129 million or approximately C/41/7F . F-11 1 r 1 l J I ,) l L<'''' ' ' ~ ttr-'i· ·.~ " ; - . . n .,~,..-""' ______ ,.,.,..,_,~-----~-... -.!~-----.-..... -~~-..-.---···· ... -..-·-·~ ' . ' ' TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T2.A COST COMPARISON Change transmission system in Anchorage area to utilize existing network as much as possible using alternative line route from Nancy Lake to Knik Arm. COST COMPARISON (YEAR 1993) (Million $) 345 kV "X" Type 2 circuits 345 kV "X11 Type 1 circuit 345 kV Subm~rine Cable 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit 230 kV "X" Tower 2 circuits 230 kV "X" Tower 1 circuit 230 kV Submarinl;, Cab 1e 230 kV Steei Pole 2 circuits 230 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit Lorraine Substation Knik Arm Substation University Substation Totals ORIGINAL $38.700 (43.2 Miles) 69.100 (3.5 Miles) 18.340 (18.6 MiJ.es) 13.650 25.143 $164.983 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $26.2 million. C/41/7F F-12 REFINEMENT 5.741 (6.4 Miles) 35.211 (72.9 Miles) 18.420 (30.0 Miles) 0.544 (2. 0 Miles) 24.0000 (3.5 Miles) 6.360 (11.1 Miles) 2.670 (7.5 Miles) 21.290 22.140 2.400 $138.776 $26.207 million or approximately r r· f TASK 4l -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T2.A.S COST CO~~ARISON Change transmission system in Anchorage area to utilize existing network as much as possible using alternative line route from Nancy Lake to Knik Arm. COST COMPARISON (YEAR 2002) (Million $) · 345 kV "X" Type 3 circuits 345 kV "X" Type 2 circuits 345 kV "X" Type Miles 345 kV Submarine Cable 345 kV Steel Pole 3 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole Miles) 230 kV "X" Tower 2.0 Miles) 1 circuit 230 kV Submarine 230 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits 230 kV Steel Pole 1 circuit Cable Lorraine Substation Knik Arm Substation University Substation Totals ORIGINAL $59.616 (43.2 Miles) 99.600 (3.5 Miles) 11.973 (7.5 Miles) 10.945 (11.1 Miles 16.550 33.266 $231.950 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $93.2 million. C/41 /7F F-13 REFINEME~T 5.741 (6.4 Miles) 35.211 1 circuit(72.9 18.420 1 circuit(30~0 0.544 1 circuit 24.0000 (3.5 !-files) 6.360 (11.1 Miles) 2.670 (7.5 Miles) 21.290 22.140 2.400 $138.776 $93.174 million or approximately 1 l I l l 1 ' I ··I . ", 1--.. -~~ .;j~~:·!';. s; ·-~-----'-L-·---·~~ -~-~-------·---~------·-----·----· _ ....... ---··".;,------.. ·-·· .. f ··. TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T3 COST COMPARISON Relocate Fairbanks area Susitna power delivery location from Est~r to Fort Wainwright. ADDITIONAL COST (Million $) 2-230 kV Lines "X" Type Structures 6 Miles additional length $ 2.922 River Crossings 11.650 Total $ 14.572 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $14.572 million or approximately $14.6 million. C/41/7F R4 F-14 l l f'"" I i j TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T4 COST COMPARISON Change location of Willow Substation approximately 15 miles southeast to location designated as "W/T". 345 kV "X" Type 2 Lines 345 Submarine Cable 2 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 2 circuits ORIGINAL $38.750 COST COMPARISON (Million $) (43.2 Miles) 69.100 18.340 REFINEMENT 37.135 (41. 4 Miles) 69.100 18.340 Totals $126.190 $124.576 Difference: Original minus Refinement = $1.614 million or approximately $1.6 million. C/41{7F R4 F-15 l' ~~~:~~,··. ;~-----... '--···-·--.-.--.. ...,....,-.-. '-:·~ ·-~~};--~~~~?;~--~·-·.;····-. .' J )) ~·. ; I .. I l I l 1 ·_j··t ~.-... ·, • • -~: ' ' I "') ..... . .. :;1 ~h·i fj -~ ·~ j ~ ! 1 ~ ~ 1 .~ ·~ ,~: •:<1 ... ~-~· tr"' '\ ,. f' ~ f' f TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T4.S COST COMPARISON Change location of Willow Subs•· at ion approximately 15 miles southeast to location designated as "W/T". 345 kV "X" Type 3 circuits 3,45 kV "X" Type 345 kV Submarine Cable 2 circuits 345 kV Submarine Cable 3 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole 3 circuits 345 kV Steel Pole Totals COST CO~?ARISON (YEAR 2002) {Million $) ORIGINAL REFINEMENT $59.617 (43.2 Miles) 37.136 (2 circuits) (41.4 Miles) 69.1 (3.5 Miles) 99.6 (3.5 Miles) 11.973 (7.5 Miles) 10.945 18 .. 340 (11.1 Miles) (18.6 Miles) $182.135 $124.559 Difference: Original minus Refinement= $57.559 million or approximately $57.6 million. C/41/7F R4 F-16 TASK 41 -SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM C2T5 COST COMPARISON Change voltage from Healy Substation to Ester Substation to 138 kV. 230 kV SYSTEM 230 kV "X" Type 2 Lines 138 kV "X" Type Ester Substation Healy Substation Totals COST COMPARISON (Million $) 138 kV SYSTEM $45.778 17.150 $ 62.928 37.224 2 Lines 9.5 11.56 $ 58.284 Difference: 230 kV System minus 138 kV ~ $4.644 million or approximately $4.6 million. C/41/7F R4 F-17 .·1 ,::;. l l r::c '.I l l l .,.-:·-· ~~ I j r t 1 r• TABLES .. ,:~.· . ·. ' . . t ·~ ' fl I ') t ·~ ... - O'il'" """' e l •) :p ta ·~ ~~ .. 1 ·-· ··~\---~~ .. ,:.._..t;......_~__._._. Q._ ~ _...; '' ~--·-· -· -------.. Structure Type & KV X-frame 345 X-frame 345 Steel Pole 3 1~-5 Steel Pole J!t-5 X-frame 230 Steel PolP 230 X-frame 230 Steel Lattice pole with guyes 138 Same 138 138 Steel Pole 230 230 SCSC(3) 230 SCSC(3) 345 SCSC(3) 345 SCSC(3) ROW Width Conduct's N·:) • ./ Bize ~ . 2 X 954 2 K. 954 2 X 95J.4 2 X 954 1 X 954 1 X 954 1 X 954 1 X 556 1 X 556 1 X 954 1 X 954 3 X 200.0 4 X 2000 3 X 2000 4 X 2000 Acres/mile __ ___;_ ____ ,.. 300' X 0.12138 36.4 190' 13.1 100 1 12.1 80 1 9.7 70 1 8a5 Ta~k 41 -Transmission Line -Cost per mile __ R~ised August 31, 1.983 All dollars adjusted to January, 1983 ~;KTS/ ROW 2(lines) 1 1 2(CKTS) 1 1 :!(lines) 1 2 1 2{CKTS) 1 1 1 1 Cost: Mat'l & Labor ( 2) (Dollars) 822,000 (1)436,000 567,000 939,000 247,000 331,000 466,000 181,000 344,000 200s000 548,000 24 million 29.2 million 30.5 million 38.6·million ROW/Width Cleared (Feet) 300/ 190/ 100/ . 100/ 100/ 80/ 160/ 70/ 120/ 70/ 80/ -- (1)Bid data for Intertie Construction (Average of 3 lowest bidders) (2)Includes Line survey and ·c1e>EAring co::;ts "' 't ~ ROW ROW Cost Cost (Dollars) (Dollars) Gold Creek -FBX Gold Creek-Anch 40,000 75,1000 25,000 4~:ooo 25,000 47;000 25,000 47,000 13,000 25,000 13,000 25,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 18,000 16,000 30,000 10,000 18,000 13,000 25,000 ---- il (3)SCSC -Self-Contained Su~Jma.~ ine Cable -Dollars are estimated total installed cost with all accessories in Anchot"age, Alaska for 3.5 miles ufti.der Knik Arm. C/41/7F.3 EXHIBIT NC. 2 -------·--'40~:·· :iltM 411ill¥·RV;WJ··•J1!41& ,.,. ... ~l ~~f ~--*... . . ~. .. ,,.,.,,.~j ';~~ .... ~·~,."'~;. l, r·; ~~ i r ·1f 1],i ~,.-,., f -~~ ~ p f - ! ' I fl j' I l I p ! ''-' 1 i t ~ J 1 ! 1 l j ~ l c :-)~ f C· I l t ., ,, 1 l '~ l I I 'l I ·I ''B FIGURES ~' . . J '~~,~ ~,·,·~ ,,~·· l ~:·~: .. ~ •. •. :.': ~ ~-"' ., j . '. ' I' \i l I ... ... .. ... "' :a "' ..J z "' i 0 ~ w :: u ._, "' => N Ul 0 0 ..J ..J "' "' u 4. .. ~~ ..... Ill::> o' .. Ill l ~ '"" ~ i I f 1 f i f I I I I t I I I l I ' ) I I l I I I ' i I I I I i I ... ' I I I J I cJ q .E J"'l< t . ··n 1 :·r . t I ... j I . l t "' l ,..J •• • ••• ' .. I ! • ! ] .. .. <1 .. I c: '5 I ~ ... i I .:: ~ ~r~ "~t >-tl !:: 0:: (/) w 0 0:: .., Cl w 0 0 (/)~ :c a:: c: a. 1-0:: UJ.J ::::> u 0 >. ii: -z <! 0 1-t;:Q u 0::: UJ Z(f) w ..J >-UJ 0:::(/) 3 0:: 0 w-0 0: <( ::;: £h 0 z ~(/) >--J: ::;: c:.tZ <t <( ~ <t :::i 0:: z (/) !:: w 1-<( Ul 0:: ....1 ::l 0.. <! Ul • .. J\ ":' ..• ' i . ,~ ,.., co ~ ~ I ~ I co ! 1-0 :>: ,.., 11.1 co a: I 0 !!:! h~ i"ll ;.!! ~ r-:' ~ If. -:-::.~ :11. u~ ~~ • Q ""<:~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ .. ,, l l \ t l \ \ j jc I L i l I t l i I "' ,J J J "I j 1 J I l i I ·J ! ·! i j ~ ·:t I ·1 ~1 ·j f l I I l l l i J I l " . )I .. c • .. " .. .. .. . .. . 1 ' • • I " $. 'V • .. c ' ., ' ~ ... •H• .. __ .. • t.... \ . A' l \ ' . I • ' l 1 ,. . ' 1. .t .• • f '· ..... " <-{ t -< t . ••• __ ,,,\•;··,, f '.J ~ ' . ... . \ + t t \i ; ·,;,, • '~ ' ~ , ; -'\, ~ J I 1 .,..,.. ! •f • ~ I' •. ' \ I . • ~ l " ... f • : J "" • ' ' \ " ... 'f ~~ -~t 1, •• r • ..-. ··-~--., .. "' ' . ,.. . " \ ~, . ' : l: t I ·• .; . '• • I ' I'' I ~ • I . I . ·, ... : ' . ... . , ....... ..;,;/ .... . ., ."· ~. . . . . ~· . - • . . t..rt.>ti . ~ . ' I . . -.r ......... ~ ~ •. l 1 • i i l I I I I I I • l 'I i, .. .. . .. . . •. .. •' .:. , . ) •• ' I .I, .. . l '' . \ . ·I ' .. \ l' t . ~ I. .. ' t .~ • I . . ... .. ., llr.-' . . .. ' . .. ' .• + t ··t ... ' .. . . . I '· • I • : . f:'il ,; :·::·{)('::·> ~· : ~·· '• .. ·, ..:\ 'I . . ~ I • . ' . • " " :. • I . ·i"' 'i. t. ··~·' .., ' I ' ~!";. ••• • .. .. ... . ~ . ' . ' . . • • . 0: r -· . .._,I ' I· .. I 'I I .. .. 0: f, ' -, . -;;..i. ', ~..... ""~ ''4:/~., ,,:-~;; '~'1-':t. (;: . -~ll~.-b' Msttt tt Fl'lo.ti:·tliiiii!Yfiil ... riti=et·'-·""-~---*t ft t eEMtllllff2."':i:.,~J!·•'-1L.,t,~!~~:.i~~---~--.~ ... ,. ~-······'*""h+o··"Ji!it-~ : ·-________ , ~ ..... ~ .. ,_,....,.._.., I f;!l \~ J( . . ______ :_ :·.:..._"J[.. 250 KV TO ~ PT. MACKENZIE 1 ~ 230 KV TO KNIK ARM (FOSSIL CREEK~ 230 KV TO TEELAND r 2-375 MVA EACH 345/230 KV LORRAINE SUBSTATION 0 ....,345 KV TO WIT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -· ·-·-··· ..-.-.A •• ,... ••• ,...,....rl. ... "'''"' .... EM SINGLE LINE Dll-\GRAM POTENTIAL REFINEMENTS LORRAINE SUBSTATION SKETCH NO.3 HARZA -EBASCO L.. ·-·---.------J 0 J ~ ,.\ ! I r l i I I ! ) I I" ! ! f ,_.CY-------·~ ---·--- ~==-1 .. · ! ........... ..-~~-----.. _ ... -~' ~-> ;~? ~: _\\ -. -.-... c;.'·/--'-. --._ . .,:, ~-\;.1 c .. • r;;,•~o f? o ~ :-· ... ,P· ,., _ _,; "~t6' . ." -,. . .. ;.,.'2; ~-• ,:'; ;~ ... :· .,')~···-, •. '·,; . / ·-;; '' '. . . '• '• -;, ccJI . •-•' • 'l "~-Vf" c,:'~~ •••••. :r ... ,,..J:. .. ~" .... ~~&A~'i).;~~ lii~M~~~l-"vit,"<~ ~·:tf:; ·''-11,:1'··~. . 1'.:::::::;:, r; --~v,.!l;:_~ '•1< I ~;_;_.w~· . .::;. ~~ --· · · · '"'' · ~~•w.·c~"""' •· .. , .. · ···· ~ ~-----------------------·--~--------------------· '----·-· ......... _____ J< ........ -.. ~·---..:;,;;~~--""~--... ;_-~f1 I r 230 KV TO PLANT NO. 2, . ..,. • TO UNIVERSITY ~ 1 , _J.,.._. - TO LORRAINE r.:---:": 2~375 MVA 345/230KV KNH< ARM (FOSS! L CREEK) 345 KV >--1-STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR 6 •TO WIT 345 KV ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSJTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT . ·-!TNA TRANSMISSION SYSTr::P.A SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM POTENTIAL REFI,NEMENTS FOSSIL CREEK SUBSTATION HARZA -EBASCO SKETCH NO. 4 i::: ~!!..----~ t-/-( :1 Jl !I ~ ·~ .. , [ f I •o I I I LOIIRAIN( o-/-( ~ I tU•••tn-c: e..t~l I UOCIUI ••• AJt •. K.-i!K AIIM t=-~· 1···1 : I ~ro- 1-------IJ-Ln.. I ~ ;-£:--~ ~~- 1..--' ··r· -·-T-~~r--o- ....E.:!_ •t.T WLD } I 1--n•n• vu CCJ11r1.JU.U~ " IIVA --·~rt a••~ H.SM'-D .................... ,., ... uakv .1 OOLO CREEK I fOirr YAINWIUQifT &r-"'ltU..KI) OOI..I>P ...u.n lUCTJI:':C AOOOC. I ·~u ·-------------------·-----, II II 110 WW UNITS ~ -11193 --zoo~ ...,~ .... a'uaa !l.Qll• 1 I I I I I .-~-----r----·1 I I I 1'00'1 IMnAU..ATlOIJ 1-1~~----1-i------r---~ I ... l··· ·-· I t t It • t ·r· · ·r· .,. I ~ ~ ~- DEVIL .. &.. ·j~ ••• 1 I CiHi'ON !.! ! ... ! ~-! I -• I ''I •-i .--+ .--t I ' t :1: I :•~ I :•; 1 I ••• I ••. I ••• I I 1 I I I I l 1 I -~-1----~-L----~-L-1--I I~ I I I "_j L--~~UW.!:!!!)'J2. __ wli'nt O' :ttJT••tr enwu~ DIITAIItCt fJIIOW UU lllQ.\1 lrtJ LI•CS"tl TO E:~! 9' IUl-.trt.t 100 -,. ""' 101.8: " -IOI.t .. •• to•* .. L ESTIMATED aROUND RESISTIVITY f'DR DESIGN IS :K1 0~- ® !:lli2 ...:....t ..... ,...J.SIOIIUC:~ • ! 0 II SO~~ ICALl c:::= =;;;a h••r.J.YUII TRANSI.CISSION LINE CORRIDOR ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC FROjfc:i' I SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM POTENTIAL REFINEMENTS ILUZA· a.t:CI ..,.,, ... ~r w•ruatl ~ 1---AU>d I DA11 I W<lMGI ~ I SKto;~~-NU I -~-~----------------------...:.___ ___ --l..-_"'-------.1.._--L...------J ' -•• • ""·'1...: .... w • ..,,.,,, c.,;q ll4&AJ . .£ t .c. '·.MN!'~Iiftt 4Qjki)l!IJ J42fl@.i414A#W.4AQJ48lll011iJ(,pttUWC:ttl L$t~iUUAM"«~" 4'11 ....,..,_,., ... ,., . t< ... ~~/·-----· ~-~--. -----"--·-·~ .................. ------~·,--·-•·""1:=-,-·<>>~~· -· --~"~~ -'*'~"'~ .. ';:t ,.i&QJ"'tl\·~,.---•if,,?rert.,, Z:wdw;r·· :arwilhiirrt'ii!:MWCitt•·•d81k rluetfg· ~t*fiw~~-:di~~~ ........ · ~ .i': f~ ' '.,;:-..,1.t.--.-""-......... -... - r--, ~-'··., • :1'1. - ·-··"~ .... ·:-~,.--.~--=-="! ' r i l r------------"""\ r---1 1------it-I WILLOW I I LW3 187 -t ~--MILES LF2__.., -rl---] I l I "-. I I rl, LW2 345KV LWI I fll I J I '-rJ I 1 I ~--~ I I rl, I L-l lTJ I I ~-I I I • I 1 I L, ~~ · I_._, I I [ J l '--rJ I I 1 1 I 1 l ' I I I ~ r ---1...-., • i I 4 ~·~ .,..,_--L31 IL J___j_, .,Lll .L2 ~------=-' WATANA DEVIL CANYON GOLD CREEK LFI "-... -rj -+-r--_ ... -.l-- SHUNT 9 t--fJ-'L. REACTOR~ -< .J '--..J +-../ -t,.... -~-· -<~·---h .1:-.._ .... _. I 150 MVA 1 t 345/138- 13.8 KV (TYPICAL) ESTER (FAIRBANKS) GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOC. STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SINGLE LINE Dl1fGRAM POTENTIAL REFINEMENTS GOLD CREEK-ESTER SYSTEM AT 345KV HARZA -EBASCO .SKETCH NO.7 Cl j; ,. ,.,.. ..· . . . . ·;, .. 'lifi"ratUf'Orf'iisf•:,• rl'rwurdlJtf .,......,~. ·"••.-·· . " -. ~· . J·• ·-~ .. ...-.-'~=-~~-'--~-= '· ."ji;.~·· ..;; ...... ~~~M'#Ii:ll I · · '"'i-~..:.~_::;_ __ ~~-... ---~· ----~ .. -----·· --·-·----~-----~. ;: t: TO WILLOW SUBSTATION -~ LW2 345 KV ILWI I I ... l, I 1 t.T·' ._ __ 1 I ... ..~.., I I I I LT-l I t~ I r 1 I I I I I I LT.J I I I 230KV I 11 I II l~~g]AvA _J_ . • I I 230 KV • i L1 L2 L31 jL4 t...:.....---...J WATANA u DEVIL CANYON GOLD CREE~K 230KV 94 Ml.LES .. 30CIMVA 230/138KV 138KV HEALY SUBSTATION 93 MILES -·-~~----~ • .,.,.-~,--.-~·-~· .. "'-~>C+.C L I t ....... ESTER {FA I RBI\NKS) GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOC. STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSJTNt\ TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM POTENTIAL REFINEMENTS HEALY-ESTER SYSTEM AT 138 KV HARZA -EBASCO SKETCH NO. 8 l • • " -. . • .,._w.,.,... '· -······· ·-.. ·----~~;J ·· ·· --···· ----,,.111 ·u,iunu~«~!l4$:!£ "'4 ·W ~ -M!£ JI$JUJdl-.lli(II!III!M~1!3;!1~1!¥'1UWSO~·~:"·,·;·~+""i· ·.~'?~'>·i''•'l::;:o · ~--.. ~··-.r<!l I@!$ 1ft815 #J~'i.QQ)(.44S%!11_( !lp~j .. ~. ~ 1 ·'""'~' f~ ~. _::7 J:~ "~. ! "' ~·o~ ·, ~~·~ . "' .-~~??? ~ .... ~" _ . __ ~ ·"-"!'it -"':> ,,?? ::: ~· · ? .. ,-·" ., ' · · ' ~ r :·· 0 . , --~---------~~~7--~lti.iiL-""' """"'''··· ~~~~~Wttiiln-.iiriitiiit:;il:t''t<.i -~·~·. --~fli'ft ·~·\~.;;.!?:~.~~ ··~--·-~-----·----~ ....... ~.....,......----·""'"--------~~ ___ .. :!. ... 0...-~-·--~---~---------..._. ________ /' ,....,., •ucm• 1't VI..D •o Mtltt -------, HJ-l r----, . I :, I ---i ----{ ·----~-f : I -L.:__ ·-t-~~G t : : I 1----::J-T -[}-r-fJ-·--f I I '_.. I uul I I I .,,. ' ~ tK L-----·--r---... l..----,--::1?--{}-_......,j ~ c .......... __ ..,......,.,1r c.uu Ti':.'"'va. ~ ..,.lit ..,.., 140•1)1 ICY --,__' "L. ~ ..... -~-"1' WILLOW II I - KHIK ARW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tl? Vflt\t -t'!;. ~---, I ~-· ........+ I I I I t .. :. I'' I •r· .. .. I I ..... ' : llJfJl"' r1 ~ I '1" t •r:wovt r.. ru"'"1: GOLD CR[EI( r---------1· I I I I ESTER lPIJRJA•ttl) OOLJ)(. WU.fY (I,.ICTJ11C uaoc. __ l__ · · '· · !u----1L• I \..------------------------~~~ I I ¢ r- 1 I I I I .... UI LUI UNIVERSITY IAMCHOfta..tCI ---------., I I I I I . .. J ; :ll..-----. '------------·--------------., . I II X 170 WW UNITS I I r-1----r----~ I I . 1 toOt •~n&L.U.-I.J_~----1-•------~---' ',l.L: j.L .1. I t t It • • ·r· T .,. I ~ \..~ ~- DEVIL .1. ••• • •• I I ----I • f I I t CANYON ... ••• ••• I -1 I ''I ·-+ --+ --+ I t i''i I :•: I :•~ 1 I ••• I ••• I .,. I I 1 I I I I I 1 I -~--~----~-L---~-L-1--I L--..:!.:'I~ MW UNITS I I. J no••a :.---:.·~ _.../DO•G.Itl'l t .. ·;-.. I +·~ t__ "'' X,.--.J )1 no vvl ,...,ua-tu•v rJ '--.., I I I . :'~ .,. I I I I J -·-·-g:,~)(~n:Nl--ii---- Q<UQAOI D.ECTIIIC AS!SOC1All014 .,. I I I ~----~~ ___L ANCHDRAOE IIUNICIPAL UQHT ll I'DWEII 34!5 KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM ~ -199:1 --zoot MJMI(po W'DTH O' DIIT.ncr anwuM. otUAIICI t•ow u•r or LIHU ... a-.tro LIAIJ.rtt to 1041 or "ow1nt ... -.. ... IO't .. .... to'.t .. >tO lOS I " !!21!' l ESTIMATED GROUND RESISTIVITY fDR DESIGN IS !>0 D~ ® • i !:!2~ .... ,..." T'IWIW ...... _....,.. o tt so-..u S.CILI c:== ==-:3 u-'• .. WU&J 34!5 KV TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSilNA HYDROELEClRIC PROJECT 345 KV SYSTEM SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AND TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR IWZA· r:.l.!ce ..,..,,..,A)Ht,lr'fltr\1•11 ~ .... Ooi'AliiiHQ~It ~ai...&U•A . --"~--· -EXHIBIT 3-3 1 i l r, .... ~ Ml!!iP¥407 Q_ LU::w'JWI!il'!:~il . .f QetJ ,... Nil' L. · ·· · -*r¥*+¥MA* a;,zta. !PMtU:;;e:ww · ·· , ' o# 4' l#4iAJif41A%;3] Q ·' . ,.,.. J..i Q41Pii.1%£1!!1L'IJ¥lli!l,f JitiU:W~i~·-·'JMJiiPWll"ltk U,l!!£,'\1>~~,..,...,.,.-.-----"'~~-·--------~ lf''?.'"l• ,,'' r: ---.·--.... ---~·-·-·~·-·-----......... -~-·~-~-·-.. e·•·--~~----,1 1 l k r !/ ,, '-;-:::. ·~ '.' 0 !i -•~r·~-·- A •' --~,.,;.,~.Ji'"i'#'k';("li· t>i~).&;i.;!.•)ti~-..... -.-: _ , .~---~~ ~. ---........ --~-~__,_,-<><_,....,__~-· -~-~·-:.L_t . ---·-------~---l ., ~~r----1 l , I WILLOW LW2 345KV Ll IL2 ·~ LWI I I ,.J., I .J 1---l r~ I Lr I ~~ I _j, I I I J I I 1 I I l ! I L31 jL4 I I ~ 300MVA 345/230KV DEVIL CANYON GOLD CREEK 230KV ,-, 1 r--1 -------, r---i 1-------~-_j 1-...J I ~-.--, I >----1 ,, .--. 1 . :G,--Ln ~ •· 187 GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOC. MILES ./ 1---- - r : I I .). q /,.. I I 150 MVA 230/138- 13.8 KV {TYPICAL) -- - ESTER ---(FAIRBANKS) E--- LsrATI~ VAR COMPENSATOR ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUS ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM RECOMMENDED REF!NEMENTS GOLD CREEK-ESTER SYSTEM AT 230KV HARZA -EBASCO EXHIBIT 6-10 I l l ---y~ .,._...,._.~.,·~·uq; ""'Pk ;_ '*""'-"!*""-t. jJ $_fliiPI!:f£tliWA! l L . "f. w: .. "(•q:=w:gl U&. :Jii;1@4~~~,.;-•~..,.....-. -~-::: .. -------~---------· -· . ~ . ,, --· .. -·-~_..,.__,_,_, __ ~-...:~~--·· J .. 1·-, ;~;i _j I' ' '· I \~ ~ .. · " ' j·· .-.......... ~---....... .. ........ ~--------·---.. ~-...... ·-· .. --.. ----~----···-·--·0~~~-............ .. APPENDIX G LAHD FIELD SERVICES REPORT ON DIB.ECT AND DIDIRECT LARD ACQUISITION. COSTS October 26, 1983 '' '' ~ l ,,-=..__:..,....:.'.-~:....;::::_~::::--- t t f r ! ~ . t ¥ Jif, . ' ' ~- .. I~ .. f· J f I l I r· I .. f I -~----=r r~ f ------··-···'--· -~------· . ~. I ' ' I J J, ~ I 0 l -- I , .. -- '·..:::t ~ ' ~ -l ' ~ L------ LAND FIELD SERVICES, INC. P 0. Box 1 1 1705 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 561·1671 P 0. Box 2510 Fatrbanks, Alaska 99707 452·120'J Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 711 H St.reet Anchorage, Alaska 99501 October 26, 1983 Attention: Mr. William J. Rom Subject: Susitna Transmission Line Routing Studies North Alternatives Dear Bill·: The following report addresses the land acquisition costs, both direct and indirect, in terms of January 1983 dollars for the various numbered alternatives to the Fairbanks Stub of the Susitna FERC transmission line application. Also included is a parcel count for the number of private owners affected by the various routes, and evaluation of alternate routes in Fairbanks from Gold Hill to the Municipal Utilities Sysi.:em Plant and the Fort Wainwright substation. Costs are based on a per line mile times a 200-foot wide right·- of-way. Direct costs include direct payment to private land owners, including agricultural, remote, mining and native interests; the indirect costs. are cumulative of prelirninary contacts, title work, surveying, application preparation, · appraisal, administration, negotiations and eminent domain proceedingso The direct and indirect costs are esti~ated as follows: Route 1, 2, 5, .8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25 (FERC Application) .Direct Costs: Indirect Costs: Alternate Routes: Route ll, 27A Direct Costs: Indirect Costs: $1,099,500.00 $ 337,000.00 -o- $ 32~4:50.00 loute 24, 19, 6A, 14, ~0 Direct Costs: Indirect Costs: $1,768,250.00 $ 859,025.00 G:-1 l-~ ,, I ,_J -l ~· Page 2 Harza-Ebasco -o~~tober 26, 1983 I Route 23 ,, . Direct Costs: -o- ~ Indirect Costs: $ 9,850.00 J Route 6 J Direct. Costs: $ 66,000.00 Indirect C(:>sts: $ 34,200.00 ~ Route 18 ~ Direct Costs: S·l6,500.,QO Indirect Cc,sts: $ 9,900.00 I ,. Route 13 -Direct Costs: $102,000.00 Indirect Costs: $ 32,075~00 -I 26, I I' Route 16 I Direct Costs: $ 77,000.00 l I ' ' l Indirect Cos+-'"· $ 61,000.00 ...,., . j ~ I ' Rc·ute 21 I I ~ ) Direct Cc:>sts: -o-! l· Indirect Costs: $ 5,750.00 l'c l ~ II ' Route "7 3 t ' -[{ i "' Direct Costs.: .... o-!J ~ Indirect Costs: $ 32,775.00 ~ G-2 L .=1 ... J I ~ ~ J I F ~ • ~ J - ~ fl. I j;'. I I ~ ~ ~ I t ~ ~ ~ L- Page 3 Harza-Ebasco October 26, 1983 Route 4 Direct Costs: Indirect C0sts: i -0- $ ~~600.00 AL"'l analysi.s ox alternative tie-in locations to the existing systems is shown on the attached plat. There is a new alternative route on the east side of Fairbanks numbered 27A. This route would be preferable to 27 because it will bypass a private airport, gravel dredging operations and a trailer court. Additionally, it would be on military lands and so minimize the direct costs. Another alternative is to go from Gold Hill to the Municipal Utilities System power plant or the Fort Wainwright plant through town. There is a great deal of expensive private property to get to either place. One possibility is to utilize existing rights-of-way such as the old Ester Road right-of-way and the Alaska .Railroad right-of-way (if ownership is transferred to the State of Alaska). In the case of going to the Municipal Utilities System plant.-it would involve crossing the Chena River from the Railroad Reserve area to the plant at the existing coal conveyor. To get to Fort Wainwright, it is possible to follow the railroad around Fairbanks and onto the base through Trainor Gate. Using this route would involve burying aportion of the line where it crosses the clear zone for the runway. At this time there are plans to extend Geist Road easterly to the Steese Highway through portions of the railroad yard. The exact routing has not been determined, so it may be possible to coordinate with this project. There is a planned extension of the Parks Highway around the southern part of town to meet up wi1:.h the Richardson HighwKty. A portion of this project is already under way. We endorse the FERC application route. Route 24 impacts grea~ numbers of private land holders. Route 16/26 makes two Tanana River crossings and ends in a flood zone; also, there is a great deal of low-flying aircraft traffic over the river areao Route 11/27 is in an area of no ground access and is partially in " flood plain. Some of the routes may impact future disposals by the State of Alaska. Some of these are just in the planning stages and we could be involved in the planning to include the transmission line easement. Some are already platted and scheduled for disposal. A conversation with the State Division of Land and G-3 l! t ....... ----·--·-··---~--_:-.r iJ, ' ,• ' 'l I ,. I l ~ Page 4 Harza-Ebasco October 26, 1983 Water Management revealed that Harza-Ebasco has cu~rent. disposal i~formation graphically depicted on maps (see attached letter). We have backup figures for this analysis in our files and will be happy to disc~ss them with you ac your convenience. Very truly yours, LAND FIELD SERVICES 1 INC. 11 ~.-la~/;p/ P. J. Sullivan PJS/ns Enclosures G-·4 c------------·------------------------------- I ! ' I ' ' ~ \ ' .. . \) -NORTH STUB-ESTIMATED PRIVATE PARCEL COUNT I Route 27: 2 private I Route 26: 2 private I Route 25: 24: Route 25 private 65 private, futl.i»"e ag disposal I Route 23: future ag disposal Rou~e 22: future ag disposal -Route 2 1 : 0 private Route 20: J Route 19: 6 sections native corporation 4 private I Route 18: native, future ag disposal Route 1 7: native -Route ] 6: native corp, 2 private (native allotments), 4 Min. Cl. Route 1 5: native -Route 14: 20 private, 2 native ~ Route 13: 3 private, 2 native, future disposal area (5 p~rcels) Route 12: 0 private ~ Route 11 : 0 private Route 1 0: • ~ Route 9: . ' 45 private, 2 native, future disposal area 0 private, future disposal area ~ Route 8: Route i: 4 private, open remote area private, 1 proposed private, open remote area ~ Route 6: . b. private, 2 native -· Route 6A: 6 private, future ag disposal ~ Route 5: 4 private c':! ~ Route 4: Route 3 : 0 private 11 mining claim '~ r'l Route ·2: 5 private, future ag disposal Route 1 : 1 (or 2) private ~ ' I ! L-,----:~~-------------G-5 ··-.---·----·-·-.. ·-·······-· "-· ... -.. ---·-···--·-~-----~----·--~-= .. . '" . ,·~ r ' i' I I ! ~ ~ I, 11 fl"'! ~ P ·:J Box n F05 Anchorage. AI?.5Ka 99511 5£1·1671 P 0. Boll 2510 FatrOatnts. Ata~lta 99707 452·1200 Octobe~ 26 1 1983 Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture 711 H Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Hr. Wi!liam J. Rnf!'. Suoject: Susitna Transmission Li~e Routing Studies South A:ternatives Dear Bill: Tne following report addresses the lan~ acqu~s~ti~n Ctsts, both· d~rect and indirect, in terms of January 1983 dollarsu for the various numbered alternatives to the Ar.;chorage Stub of the Susit- na FERC transmission l~ne applicationo The direct land acquisition cos·:~.s wet"e dev~loped from use of the assessing records cf the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, as tempered by a Sales aatio Study based on the Boroughas 1983 assessments which indicates that the assessed values supported 80 to 85% of the market value of the properties assessed. Route 1, 5, 8, 18 (FERC AJ2.l?.lication) The direct acquisition cost t~r this route is estimated to be $1,832,000.00, broken down as follows: Route 1: Route 5: Route 8: Route 18: $1,375.000 .. 00 $ 145,000 .. 00 $ 312,000.00 -o- 'I'hese figures include direct. payments: to private OV<Jners (:t.ncluding agricultural and remote ~nterests) and the Matanuska=S~sitna Borough. State of Alaska lands and military lands do not entail direct land cost considerations .. Indirect costs for this rout~ are estimated at $290,750.00, broken down as follows: Route 1: Route 5: Route 8: Route 18: $ 196,750 .. 00 $ 57,375 .. 00 $ 17,875 .. 00 $ 18,750 .. 00 G-6 1• I li ="""" il y I I I I I I ~ I ! L Page 2 Harza-Ebasco October 26, 1982 These indirect costs are cumulative of preliminary contacts, title work, surveying, application preparation, appraisal 1 administration, negotiations and eminent domain proceedings. The direct costs for this entire report are based on acreage figures calculated by using line miles times 200 foot wide right-of-way. The direct and indirect costs for the alternative routes are estimated as follows: Route 2 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route .J Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 4 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 6 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 7 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 9 Direct Cost Indt..rect Cost $ 36,000.00 s 61,750.00 $215,000 .. 00 $ 59u550 .. 00 $940,000.00 $199,125.00 $1,121,500.00 $ 163,875.00 $1,183,500.00 $ 177,875.00 $368,500.00 $2S2,B75.00 G-7 I I II ~-·1 •· i ! Page 2 Harza-Ebasco october 26, ·1983 These indirect costs are cumtllative of preliminary contacts, title work, surveying, application preparation, appraisal, administration, negotiations and eminent domain proceedinqs. The direct costs for this entire report are based on acreage figures calculated by using line miles times 200 foot wide right-of-way. The direct and indirect costs for the alternative routes are estimated as fcl!ows: Route 2 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 3 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 4 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 6 -- Direct. Cost Indirect Cost Route 7 Direct Cost Ind.ireot Cost Route 9 .. Direct Cosx:. Indirect Cost $ 36,000.00 $ 61,750.00 $215,000.00 $ 59,550.00 $940,000.00 $199,125.00 $1,121, =.oo .. oo $ 163,875.00 $l,l83,500.00 $ 177,875.00 $368,500.v0 $252,875 .. 00 G-7 ' '. ' . .~t( .li ~-~.·.··. Fl ~ h 1,1 l; !,'! 1 .. -... · .. -F' l' ! ,,; l 1: ~.~ If. i·. . !( ' jl 1 I I' 1}: r. 1··. l : ! : L 4' 'I 1· 'l ·. ·l ll . l: j I I l 11-: f 1 l I· ,~:1 I, ' 1: g· I . i ' j I l I i ! r "' ! I I I I I I I Page 3 Harza-Ebasco October 26, ·1983 Route 10 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 11 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 12 Direct Cost . Indirect Cost Route 13/15 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 14 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 16 Direct Cost Indirect Cost Route 17 Direct Cost Indirect Cost $3,273,QQOaOO $ $ $ 548,825 .. 00 918,000.00 291,7SG .. OO $1,338,500.00 $ $ $ 571,000.00 318,000 .. 00 150,500.00 $1,035,000.00 $ 153,375.00 $1,062,000.00 $ 76,500.00 $5,495,000.00 $ 190,250.00 G-8 f I ' I II • I I I I I I I I I I I . . I I I I I Page 4 Harza-Ebasco October 26, 1983 "~· _, ,~-~.,--.. , .. While these direct costs reflect the market as it existed January 1, 1983, these indirect costs represent worst case situations and can be, with good prior planning and coordination, reduced by 25%. From a land standpoint, the Route 2, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, route appears to be the most desirable for an overland routing alternativeo We recommend that Route 9 be moved approximately one-half mile . northerly from its present location and traverse easterly to a point near the Little Susitna River then turn southerly and join Route 11 near the Section 23 P.I. This move would save approx- imately SO% of both the direct and indirect costs for Route 9. Route 17 should be realigned to use both the existing Alaska Power Administration line from Eklutna and the Alaska Railroad Right-of-Way (assuming transfer of that right-of-way to ·the State of Alaska) thus eliminating the majority of the direct cost for Route 17. ~ve cannot reconunend Route 3-6-10, as this route effects a great number of private tracts, with their attendant high direct and indirect costs. On Route 6 and 10, there are 12 existing subdivi- sions. The market indicates that subdivided one-half acre lots are selling for $20,000 per lot in this areao Furthermore, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has a platting and zoning ordinance whereby off-right-of-way buffer zones may be required between transmission lines and subdivided property. This can cause a very expensive off-right-of-way damage factor which must be in- cluded in both direct and indirect costs. If you decide to "bite the bull.et" on Route 6, then Route 7-8 using the existing Chugach right-of-wa~ looks very attractive, both from a direct and indirect cost standpoint. We have no particular recommendation on Route 4, except to point out that there is a potential for effecting 43 private ownerships (many of which are recreation oriented) on this route while affec- ting 15 private ownerships on Route 1. Route 12 is unattractive from a land standpoint because of the number of private parcels and their attendant high direct and indirect costs. Because of the change in character, i.e., from rural to urban, we ·strongly recommend that an advance acquisition program be commenced for whatever routes are chosen within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Although the property values in the Willow area are probably stable the growth in the Palmer-Wasilla-Big Lake area will make a long line acquisition program more expensive as time goes on. G-9 ' I ' I 11 I li I I I I I ••••• : ,~ I I I li ! I I I I . .z.::. ' :0 i '1'! D . - ' :_\ '' : . ~ :.c • _·-., . .;''-""''W/•J --.~:...-.·-·-·----.,·-~_,-.. ~.,._..,.,__......,__"' __ . ..,. _ _,.-~ ... __..., __ __.,;.,.... ___ ~· . --~,_, .......... -., . .:-.._~--ff----·~·-·~::._::~:~_~~· . -=r Page 5 Harza-Ebasco October 26, 1983 We have back-up figures for this analysis in our files and will be happy to discuss them with you at your convenienceo Very truly yours, LAND FIELD SERVICES, INC. 7).'~//J~ P. J. Sullivan President PJS/cf G-10 r l r l j. r: l r f l ~ ! ! ; r -~ ,; •·i 'I ·I ~1 ·! (: ! :·t l ·.\ j " 'f , .. ' ~ I 1 I I ( I I . I ~ '·_I I I I I I I . < I I . I I I I . I APPE!IDlX R SDMMAR.Y OF SUSJ.TNA. TRANSMISSION SISTEK COSTS FOR. FERC APPL:tc.An.Oif SCHEME e I I I I I I .J111t • ..;.. 11 J1 I SUMMARY OF SUSITNA TRANSM1SSION SYSTEM COSTS FOR FERC APPLICATION SCHEME 1.0 INTRODUCTION Using the land acquisition costs from Appendix G and the right-of-way widths as indicated in Appendix E, Exhibit No. 2 from Appendix F was revised as shown in the following tables: C/41/7H H-1 ' l' }' i·' r t: l 1<1 t r l I l I I l \ f• l' l r !<: ! r I I ! ! 1 I l l i l j. L f j I 1 ' ,ll '111 IJ I I: I 1: I ,, I I[ I ' j l i;. . j ~ . J TABLES I I t l I l L I l I \ l l I L i' I I i I l t I I I I Jj JJ I L .' () TABLE H-1 TASK 41 -SIJSITNA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SIJMMMARY Of" SUS! TNA 345 KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM COSTS FOR 200i FERC APPLICATION SCHEME AS SHOWN ON PLATE FSl (IN MILLIONS OF JANUARY 1983 DOLLARS> OCTOBER 29, 1983 WATANA DEVIL CANYON ITEM TRANSMISSION SUBSTATIONS TRANSMISSION SUBSTATIONS TOTAkS 1. Ester Su~statlon 2.. Ester to Hea I y Transmission Lines 3. Healy to Gold Creek Transmission Lines (Excluding Row Costs) 4~ Gold Creek Switching Station 5. Gold Creek to Willow Transmission Line (Add one line in 1993 excludtng Row Costs) 6. Go I d Creek to W I I I ow Transmission Line (Add on line tn 2002) 7. Willow Switching Station 8. WI I low to StJbmarlne Cable Potheads Transmission Lines 9. Submarine Cable Crossing Under Knik Arm 10. Knik Arm Switching Station 11. Kntk Arm to University Transmission Lines 12. Universrty Substation 13. Watana Switching Statton 14~ Watana to Gold Creek Transmission Lines 15. Devil Canyon Switching Station 16. Devil Canyon to Gold Creek Transmission Lfnes TOTALS 17. WI low Energy Management System GRAND TOTAL 81.028 40.548 33. 136 38.664 66,.400 22.910 29.30(1 312.002 22,.31 10.20 13. 10 14.ca 34.69 9.0 103.38 22.4 i25. 78 35.036 20.866 33 .. 200 6.896 95.998 95.998 3 .. 25 5.,55 3.08 7.19 10.2 34.87 4.0 38.87 25.56 81 .. 028 40.548 15.80 33 .. 136 35.036 18.65 59.,530 99.600 17. 16 22.918 41 • .88 9.0 29.308 10 •. 2 6.896 546.25 26.4 572.65 t'' l r j· I I ! . 1 I l 1--~ ' l I I '·:_ ' ( 1 . : i ! [ ! • i L TABLE H-2 Task 41 -Transmission Line -Cost per mile· Revised Novefuber 30, 1983 All costs adjusted 'CO January, 1983 Structure Type & kV X-frame 345 X-frame 345 Steel Pole 345 Steel Pole 345 X-frame 230 X-frame 2.30 Steel Pole 2.30 Steel Pole 230 230 SCSC(3) 2.30 SCSC(3) 345 SCSC(3) 345 SCSC(3) ROW Width 300' X 0.12138 190' 100 1 80' 70 1 Conduct's No./Size, kcm 2 X 954 2 '.;{ 954 2 X 954 2 X 954 1 X 954 1 X 954 1 X 954 1 X 954 3 X 2000 4 X 2000 3 X 2000 4 X 2000 Acres/mile 36.4 :t3.1 12.1 9.7 8.5 CKTS/ ROW 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2(4) 1 1 1 1 Cost: Mat'l & La~or (2) (Dollars) 822,000 (1)436,000 614,000 939,000 331,000 459,000 628,000 673,000 24 million 29.2 million 30.5 million 38.6 million (1) Bid data for Intertie Construction (Average of 3 lowest bidders) {2) includes Line survey and clearing costs (3) SCSC -Self-Contain,~d Submarine Cable -Dollars are estimated total ins'tallad cost with all accessories in Anchorage, Alaska for 3.,5 miles under Knik Arm. (4) Double circuit pole line. C/41/7H '." ·•. ' \ I f l r t ' I ! h I l I I . l l i ! ' i ! -t. ,. ~":."-,, :;_ \ --tl.;:;; • ··-·· C-• ·l --:<,:Oc.j1:, •. :<.,;,_.c;c.,.,,_.;."~'·""-~'"-'"~-~-•~---"'"-··--·~--·-··-·~-~--~---·-~-----------·-··~---···'".;: •. " ..... , ..•. ._ ....... -...• -•. :,., •............ ~:: ..... c._ ....... _ .. , ... ...:· ....... ···-·--~---·-.----·· ...... -........... --····-'··-...:-~----...:-----·~~.:..: • ....;. ____ ~----__..:;~....;;.__:;;,:::O:.t::: .. ;_/ -.,<;; ~ ·• I I [ ! . r r POWER SAllES ~ Lette:r: Of Intent . ' I .J I I! llj ~ !J] :~ J1 ':~. Ji ~ : . '. L \\~,:;J ~-~· ~-' ,,, ·. ', ALASKA POWER AUTHJRITY 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Gentlemen: November 14, 1983 ~e: Intentions concerning the Purchase of Susitna Project Power The Alaska Power Authority (the "Authority") intends to construct the "Susi tna Project" which will consist of power generation and transmission facilities. This letter is a statement of intention of (the Purcha_s_e_r"!"'") --=-to--p-u_r_c""~"h_a_s_e--a portiC'In of the electric power and energy to be generated and transmitted by these facilities. It is understood that certain terms and conditions will be applicable to the sale of this power and energy and that the terms and conditions herein described will be subject to modification and amplificatian before being includej in the agreement that succeeds and replaces this letter of intent. W I T N E S S E T H: The Authority recites, agrees, represents and covenants as follows: (1) The Authority is a public corporation of' the State of Alaska duly created, organized and existing pursuant to AS 44.83; and (2) The Authority fully intends, according to the Constitution and laws of the State of Alaska and the regulations and by-laws of the Authority, to fully comply with the terms thereof; and (3) The Authority desires to fulfill its legislatively established duty of acquiring and constructing power projects to provide residents of the State of Alaska with long-term, stable, and economic sources of energy and an adequate, economic, and reliable lang~term supply of power and energy. The Purchaser recites 1 agrees, represents and covenants as follows: (1) The PIJrchaser is a Home Rule Municipality or a non-profit electric cooperative merrbership corporation of the State of Alaska, duly created, organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State; and (2) The Purchaser is authorized, and has taken all steps necessary ptJrsuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Alaska and the charter and ordinances of the Purchaser, to enter into this Agreement and to fully comply with the terms ti1ereof; and ! ·r ·C: I ' "'[; ' ! f' ' ,.J ' I 1 l I ! ~~ t 1 r l I I l ! I .. I• . ,, .. :,._:; ;J: ., \'• ~ " . .:.,.,_'"~·-'~" ~--~~ .. .._.,.,.,~.,,._,..'<,..-h\o.--~-~ .............. ~,·-···---~--"""""' ~-~··-•-•-••--~·'-"' .. :, -.--.·-'"'*~--,,.,.,-. --·~·-H--·J.,•-~--·-"'·~-~-·--"""--'•--··-~·"•• -- I I I I .I ~ . I pr ' ~~ fJ "jlfi: J1 r ··. ' Ml!:\ (,' l r~ [' . . ~) ~ ~. r '. ~· ~ ' J. L Alaska Power Autllority Letter of Intent November 14, 1983 Page 2 (3) The Purchaser needs to secure an adequate, economical and reliable long-term supply of power and energy; and (4) The Purci1aser performs the functions of a utility and is a wholesale power customer eligible to purchase power produced from a project pursuant to AS 44.83; and The Authority and the Purchaser recite, agree, represent and covenant as follows: (1) As consideration for Purchaser's entry into this Agreement, the Authority will use its reasonable best efforts to complete construction of the Project so as to be able to provide power and energy from the Project to the Purchaser; and (2) As consideration for the Authority's entry into this Agreement, the Purchaser will pay the amounts provided for under this Agreement for power and energy and tne rights to such power and energy from the Project; and (3) This Agreement is entered into in furt~erance of the Act, including AS 43e83.010, to promote the general welfare of tne people cf the State, iilcluding the users of the power and energy of the Project; for oublic purposes; and for the promotion of the long-term economic growth of the State and the development of its natural resources; and (4) In or.jer to enable the Authority to begi~ discussions with financiers concerning the funds necessary to acquire and construct projects in the Energy Program for Alaska and specifically meet its obligations under the Act and the Indenture to be entered intq with the holders of 9onds, it is necessary for the ~uthority to enter into this Agreement with the Purchaser and agreements wi ttl other purchasers and to pledge the moneys to be received as security for the p~yment of th~:; -!\ut:-~uri ty t s bonds. (5) This Statement of Intent will be succeeded by a formal "Power ::ales Agreement" or other agreement that will include all of the terms ;,nd conditions necessary for a prape= and workable contract. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Secti.nn 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Agreeme-nts definitions are specified in EXhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Term of Agreement. (-\ ,.a., This Agreement shall be effective immediately. (b) This Agreement shall remain in effect until such time as it is replaced by a formal "Power Sales Agreement" or other docunent. It is anticipated that the terms of the final agreement will be 40 years. I .! ' ! l l ! ! I l ·~ ' ' . I l ' ~ i I II ftj • Jl~ f1 ' I . [' ,1 J', L .. _ Alaska Power Authority Letter of Intent Section 3. Electric Service to be Furnished. November 14, 1983 Page 3 (a) Delivery. The service will be taken from the Authority as it becomes availabL~, realizing that not all phases of the project are likely to be canpleted at the same time. The power and energy that is available during construction will be allocated to each utility in the same manner as indicated in Section 5u The Authority may enter into agreements with other parties for operation and maintenance of the Project. (b) Continuity_ of Service. The Authority may interrupt or reduce deliveries of electr~c power and energy to the Purchaser if it determines tt.at such interruption or reduction is necessary or desirable in cases of system emergencies, or in order to install equipment in, make repairs,.replacements, investigations, and inspections of, or perform other maintenance war~ on, the Project or the Purchaser's own equipment. In order that the Purchaser's operations will not be unreasonably interfered with, the Authority will give (except in the case of an emergency) the Purchaser reasonable notice of any such interruption or reduction, the reason therefor and the probable duration thereof. (c) Duty to Part.icipate in Development_ of System Operating Criteria. Purchaser agrees to participate in development of interconnected operating and safety criteria not addressed by this Agreement but which may be required from time to time. To this end Purchaser agrees to the formulation of an operatind committee to include parties or utilities interconnected with Project facilities. (d) Additional or Improved Facilities. If additional facilities must be constructed or installed by the Authority to enable the Authority to supply any increase in the Purchaser's demand or to maintain the reliability or operation of the Project, the Authority may in its discretion construct such additional facilities or improvements. The Authority will consider (1) the reasonable utilization of existing facilities; (2) circumstances demonstrating that reasonable utilization of the additional facilities will be assured; and (3) the financial feasibility of the additions including the impact upon the Wr1olesale Power Rate. Any such additional facilities shall, to the extent required by the Act, be considered as part of the Project for purposes of calculating the Wholesale Power Rate for the Project~ (e) Delivery Through One Purchaser's System to Another Purchaser. In those instances where the fac~l~tJ.es of one Purchaser must be used for transfer of power and energy to another Purchaser, the Authority shall have the right co contract with both Purchasers" There shall be an agreement between the two Purchasers that shall set forth the terms and conditions for the transfer of power and energy over one Purchaser's system. The rate that . may be charged for the transfer shall be based on cost plus an adequate margin. ··~· L -. I, :.1 p- 1 1 L ·.\ I • .. j ! ,r·; ! 1 m ! ;_I I I II ,I :: ... '"'I• ·.·· ~.'. " , _____ ,..__~~---~--..~ L---~-·-----" ~-~-~~j~~i.;.~~·lt Alaska Power Authority Letter of Intent November 14, 1983 Page 4 . Se~tion 4. Obli~ations Under Inden~ure. The Autltority intends to assign J.ts r~ghts under th~s Agreement to receive payments as security for the payment of the Bonds and that the rates charged for energy and power from the Project and the rights thereto are based in part on debt service costs incurred in the acquisition, construction, and financing of projects in the Energy Program for Alaska. As such the parties recognize that the amounts paid monthly by the Purchaser under this Agreement shall be calculated as provided herein, but shall in no event be less than the amounts necessary to meet the Debt Service requirements of the Indenture as such ·amounts are apportioned to the Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement. Section 5. Purchase Cbligation; Allocation of Project Capability. (a) Purchase Requirement. The Authority intends to supply and the Purchaser intends to purchase its Entitlement (as hereinafter defined) with respect to the Project of kilowatts of Project Capacity eac~ month. The Purchaser also intends to purchase its Entitlement of energy generated by the project each month in the amount as hereinafter defined • (b) Purcha. ser' s Entitlement Share. As used herein a Purchaser ' s Entitlement Share shall be equal to the ratio of the summation of the Purchaser's peak system demand for the previous 2 years to the surn-nation of all Purchaser's peak system demand for the previous 2 years. This determination shall oe based on the demand recorded in each of the 24 months ending in December prior to the fiscal year beginning July 1 the following year. The Purchaser's Entitlement shall be equal to the result of multiplying the Purchaser's Entitlement Share times the total Project Capacity properly adjusted for transmission line loss. This determination is to be calculated annually. A Purc!1aser' s monthly energy shall be equal to the result of multiplying the Purchaser's entitlement share times the actual generation for that month properly adjusted for transmission line loss. (c) Purchase Rights. Each Purchaser shall have the right to purchase capacity and energy which is in excess of its Entitlement on a when, as, and if available basis. The Authority or its operating agent shall be solely responsible for determining the availability of power and energy in excess of entitlements. (d) Cost Determination. The Authority will set the wholesale power rate for each fiscal year to collect those funds necessary to meet the annual costs of owning, operating and maintaining the project including an adequate margin. r ,( "' .. I 'f J! 1 ,j ~ I I ~ ~ ~ = \:• ,;'\ '·· 'f . . , :.:"~' ;. 0 ~-:... - Alaska Power Authority November 14, 1983 ~L~et_t_e_r __ of __ I_n_t_en_t _______________________________________________________________ Page 5 Cost shall be defined as the following: i$ Annual debt service expenses, plus ii. Annual operation and maintenance expense related to the P:oject, plus iiis That portion of the Authority's annual· administrative and general expense allocable to the Project, plus iv. Other annual exp~nses which result from the owr:ershi~, operation, maintenance or termination of the Project, plus v. An adequate margin. (e) Billir¥JS -The monthly bill shall be determined by application of the wholesale power rate shown below. (f) Wholesale Power Rate -The monthly wholesale power rate shal~ have a three-part structure -a customer charge, a capacity charge and ar1 energy charge. Tne rate for the first year of operation is as follows: Monthly Rate Customer Charge Capacity Charge Energy Charge $ _____ per Deli very Point $ per KW -----cents/KWH Capacity Determination: The capacity to be billed shall be equal to t:he highest one hour KW demand reading occurring during the mont;, but in no case shall be le&s than the Entitlement as herein defined. Energy: The energy to be billed shall be equal to the kilOWtltt hour consumption recorded by the meter for the month, but in no case ~ihall be less than the entitlement as herein defined. (g) Payment of Amounts Due (1) On or be.P~re the 15th day of each month, the Authorit:r shall render the Purchaser a billing statement indicating the payment due. (2) The Purchaser shall pay the amount shown on the l3illing Statement to the Authority by the lOth of the month after receipt of the billing statement. (h) Adjustments to Billings (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year, the billings for each Purc-haser will be adjusted to reflect actual cost, any overpayment being refunded, and any underbilling being paid within 30 days. 0 \). ' ~ I If ~ ·~ Alaska Power Authority Letter of Intent November 14, 1983 Page 6 (i) The PurchAser shall i;1c;ke the payments to the Authority whether or not the Project is o~erating and shall expect the Power Authority to make every effort to operatf~ the Project in a safe and responsible manner in keeping with prudent utility practice. Section 6. f'Jeterin;~ (a) The Authority shall design, purchase and install at its own expense all requi.L'ed revenue metering equipment at the specifled delivery points. Metering of electric energy delivered shall be accomplished by_ a totalizing watt-·hour meter of standard accuracy:' adequate capability, anj reliable manufacture. Additional metering and instrumentation may be installed at Deli very Points by the Author.i ty as required to meet the requirements of the Aut~ority and this AgreementQ (b) Revenue metering shall be subject to the Purchaser's consent to the make and type t,ereof, wrdch consent shall nat be unreasonably withheld. Section 7. Sou~ce of Payment. (a) The obligations of the Purchaser to make the payments under this Agreerrent shall be an operating expense of Purchaser's System and be payable solely from the revenues of Purchaser's System and other moneys legally available therefor. (b) In order to afford, permit, and make timely payments as specified in this ;',\greement, tile Purchaser agrees that it will establish, charge and collect rates, fees, and charges for its sales of Project power and energy so as to provide revenLtes sufficient to meet its obligations including those under this Agreement. · _Se_c_t_i_o_n __ a_. __ O_b_l_igations in the Event of Default. (a) Upon failure of the Purchaser to make any payment in full when due under this Agreement or to perform any other obligation herein, the Authority shall make demand upon the Purchaser, and if said failure is not cured within fifteen (15) days from the date of such demand it shall constitute a default at the expiration of such period. Notice of such demand shall be provided other purchasers by tile Authority. (b) In the event of any default by the Authority under any covenant, agreement or obligation of this Agreement, the Purchaser may, upon fifteen (15) days written notice to the Authority, bring any suit, action or proceeding 1 at law or in equity, including mandamus, injunction and action for specific performance, as may be (lecessary or appropriate to enforce any covenant, agreement or obligation of this Agreement against Authority, but the same shall not make the Authority liable in damages to the Purchaser nor give the Purchaser the right to discontinue the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. ·' 1 J ,, r ---~::1 ") f ~~ I ) " lfi ~~ I I ' ' m ~~ ' j J r ps, Alaska Power Author.i..ty Letter of Intent November 14, 1983 Page 7 (c) Upon the failure of a Power Purchaser with a Power Sales Agreement to make a payrrent which failure constitutes a default under that Power Sales Agreement, the Wholesale Power Rate will be increased to the extent that Debt Service allocated to the defaulting PC)wer Purchaser is apportioned among all other Power Purchasers with Power Sales Agreements, including the Purchaser as Allocated Debt Service. The increase in the Allocated Debt Service shall not reduce the defaulting Power Purchaser• s obligations under its Power Sales Agreement, and any subsequent payments made by defaulting Power Purchaser shall be credited to Debt Service obligations of non-defaulting Power Purchasers with Power Sales Agreements, including the Purchaser as an adjustment to the Allocated Debt Service. The obligations of a defaulting Power Purchaser will be apportioned arrong other Power Purchasers with Power Sales Agreements pursuant to this subsection for a maximum period of one calendar year following the default of that defa:ulting Power Purchaser. A defaulting Power Purchaser's rights to deli very of power and energy may be terminated or suspended by the Authority. In the event of a default the Authority will exercise its best efforts to recover amounts owed by t~e defaulting Power Purchaser. (d) No remedy conferred upon or reserved to the parties hereto is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy or remedies available hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statue or otherwise, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every othsr such remedy. The pursuit by either party of any specific remedy shall not be deemed to be an election of that remedy to the exclusion of any other or others, whether provided hereunder or by law, equity or statute. (e) Any waiver at any time by either party to this Agreement of its rigtts with respect to any default of the other party hereto, or with respect to any other matter arising in connection with this Agreement i' shall not be considered a waiver with respect to any subsequent default, right or matter. Secti0n 9. Limitation on New Projects. (a) The Authority will not issue Bonds to finance new projects in the Energy Program for Alaska unless a nationally-recognized consultant selected pursuant to (b) of this Section 9 renders ·an opinion in writing that (i) the specified new project is economically and financially feasible unde~ reasonable standards for such determinations and consistent with the Act; and (ii) that the issuance of Bonds therefor will not cause an increase in rates or other obligations under the Power Sales Agreements such that the rates or other obligations are economically or financially unfeasible. (b) The Authority will notify Power Purchasers who have executed Power Sales Agreements of the name of a nationally-recognized consultant deemed Qualified to render an opinion as sp~cified in (a) of this Section 9. The Power Purchasers shall have thirty (30) days in which to object to the consultant so named. If objections are raised by Power Purchasers, tl:'len if I ··-·-·· ····=:j Alaska Power Authority Letter of Intent November 14; 1983 Page 8 within forty-·five (45) days after the Authority's notice, Power Purchasers, which in the aggregate are assigned two-thirds of more of the Debt Service apportioned to them by law as an element of their respective wholesale power rates under Power Sales Agreements, agree to an alternative consultant similarly qualified and submit that name to the Authority, the consultant recommended by the Power Purchasers will be selected. If the Power Purchasers cannot agree upon an alternative consultant within the time prescribed, the Authority's recommendat~on will be selected. Selection made under this Section must canply with applicable provisions of State law. Section 10. Exchange of Energy.. The Purchaser may exchange energy purchased under th~s Agreement w~th energy available from other sources to the extent that the Purchaser may determine that such an exchange is in its best interests, and does not contravene applicable provisions as deter~ined in good faith by tl1e Authority .. Section 11. Assignment • (a) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the parties to this Agreement; provided, however, that neither such agreement nor any interest therein shall be transferred or assigned by the Purchaser to any other person unless prior consent of the Authority has been obtained and the assignee or successor in interest complies with the s1:atutory requirements for a purchaser of power under this Act. (b) The Authority may assign its rights to receive payments under this Agreement to a trustee under the Indenture for the benefit of holders of Bonds issued by the Authority. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Purchaser has caused this Letter of Intent to be executed the day and year first above written. (SEAL) A T T E S T: Purchaser By Title Date ; .. ~.~ P~ ~~ EXHIBIT A SUSITNA PRO.:ECT DEFINITIONS (a) "Act" means Title 44, Chapter 83 of the Alaska Statutes (AS 44.83), including the Energy Program for Alaska, as such provisions may be amended by Senate Bill 168 in the First Session of the Thirteenth Legislature in the form originally introduced, or legislation substantially similar thereto. (b) "Agreement" means this Statement of Intent. (c) "Allocated Debt Service" me:tns that portion of the !\uthori ty 's Debt service allocated to the Project and determined in a manner consistent with the Energy Program for Alaska pursuant to the Act. (d) "Annual Project Budget" means the budget adopted, and amended from time to time, by the Authority pursuant to Section 5 with respect to the Project and which itemizes the estimated annual expenses of the Project for each Fiscal Year, commencing with the Co!Mlencement Month, exclusive of costs of construction as defined in the Indenture. (e) "Authority" means the Alaska Power Authority as established by the Act, and any successor agency thereto and, unless the context otherwise requires, such officers of the Authority as may from time to time be delegated responsibilities and duties under this Agreement. (f) "Billing Statement" means the written statement prepared by the Authority and delivered monthly to the Purchaser that shows the monthly amount to be paid to the Authority by the Purchaser for the Purchaser's Entitlement Share as defined in Section 5 in a Fiscal Year (or the remainder of such Fiscal Year in the case of an amended Billing Statement adopted to reflect an arrended Annual Project Budget) and including any year-end adjustments for over-billing or under-billing made pursuant to Section 5. (g) "Bonds" means bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (including refunding bonds) issued pursuant to an Indenture, the proceeds of which will be used to finance, or to refund bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness so issued to finance, a project or projects in the Energy Program for Alaska. (h) "Conmencement Month" means that calendar month which is designated by the Authority upon 90 days' prior written notice to the Purchaser as the first month during which the Purchaser will make monthly payme~ts under this Agreement, and said month will be the later of (i) the Project Completion Date or (ii) the date of commencement of the Agreement as provided in Section 2. (i) "Deot Service" means the amounts convenanted to be charged in the Indenture to pay principal (including any mandatory sinking fund installments) , as it becomes due and not by acceleration, and interest on Bonds and sud1 additional amounts as are convenanted to be charged under the Indenture including, without limitation, amounts to provide debt service coverage and maintain reserves. ', <' I ' I l L I I, Pi.J 1 . .. ~ (j) n Delivery Po~~;1t" means the point or points where ., Exhijit A Page 2 (l) the amount of electric power and energy is actually metered or, if ~o meter exists at that point, the equivalent point adjusted mathematically for line losses from the nearest point of actual metering; and (2) delivery occurs. (k) "electric energy" or "energy" means th·e amount of electric power delivered over time measured in kilowatt hoursQ (1) "electric power" or "powern means the rate of flow of electric en~r;Jy measured in terms of kilowatts or megawatts. (m) "Energy Program for Alaskan means the program for acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance, and sale of power from power projects pursuant to AS 44.83.-380-425, as such provisions may be amended by Senate Bill 168 in the First Session of the Tiiirteenth Alas.ka State Legislature in the form originally introduced, or legislation substantially similar theretoo (n) "Entitlement Share" or "Purchaser's Entitlement Share" means the percent of an Annual Project Budget for which the Purchaser is obligated and the percent of Project Capability and output to which the Purchaser is entitled to receive as provided in Section 5. (o) nFiscal Year" means that twelve-month fiscal year starting July 1 of a particular year through and including June 30 of the succeeding cale11dar year 0 If this Agreement becomes effective on a date between July 1 and the succeedi~ June 30, the initial Fis~al Year for purposes of this Ag~eement is that portion of the twelve-month period remaining thereafter or such other period of time as is mutually agreeable to the partieso (p) "Indenture" means a trust indenture, trust agreement, secured loan agreement, or otl1er instrument or resolution consitituting a contract with bondholders to secure Bonds. (q) "Operations Agreement" means that agreement between the Authoirity aMd Purchaser which sets forth the procedures for delivery of energy and power and executed on even date with this Agreement. (r) "Outstanding" means outstanding Bonds as defined in the Indenture. (s) "Power Purchasers" means Initial Power Purchasers and Subsequent Power Purchasers. (t) 11 Power Sales Agreementsn means agreements for the sale of power from projects irt the Energy Program for Alaska which will replace this letter of intent. I' I I J ~~~~ '1 ' ·j. P· ,. ' f:': ,. ' '' ,. '"- "! P:' i t .d [ ·. t I J i 'l J 1 1 I "{ 1 l I 1 I ! j l ~ ' ' "' ,, '-~~--~-·-:~-~------·~-~---~~~~~-------~--·~~· -=~-\} (u) nproject" means the Susitna Hydro Electric ?roject. Exhibit !\ Page 3 (v) "Project Capability" means the amounts of electric power and energy, if any, as determined by th: Authority, which the Project is capable at any time of generating whether or not the Project is actually generating power and energy, less Project station use and losses. ( w) "Project Completion Date" means the date as established by the Authority when the Project construction and testing is demonstrated to be complete and the Project can begin commercial service. (x) "Prudent Utility Practice'! shall mean at a particular time any of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry at such time, or which, in the exersise of reasonable judgment in light of facts known at such time, could have been expected to accomplish the desired results at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety and reasonable expedition. Prudent Utility Practice is not intendej to be limited to the optimum practice,method or act or the exclusion of all others, but rather to be a spectrum of possible practices, methods and the acts, having due regard for manufacturers' warranties and the requirements of governmental agencies of competent jurisdiction. (y) "Purchase Requirement" means, with respect to a particular project (including the Project) in the Energy Program of ·Alal-)sa, the amount of Power in kilowatts and the energy in kilowatt hours which a Project Power Purchaser is obligated to purchase from this project. (z) "Purchaser means , Alasl<a, a Home Rule ~ f. ! l l ;. ! Municipality of the State of Alaska duly organized and existing under and ~.· .. ·. pursuant to the laws of the State of Alaska, or any successor munici;:Jali ty f or Electric Association, · Inc. , a f non-profit eiectr~c cooperative membership corporation of the State of ~las~a. t· (a a) "Purchaser's Systemn means the Purchaser's public utility system for the distribution, transmission, and generation of electrical power and energy, other than the Project, .and which is owned and operated by the Purchaser. (bb) "Wholesale Power Rate" for the Project means the rate (or rates) charged to the Purchaser per kilowatt of capacity and per kilowatt hour of electrical energy from the Project. I I 'l lft Ill ,tj Kl ' ~· APPERDIX J ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM STUDY, TASK 7, VOLUME ONE SUPPLEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPHKBT Aim S'TEADY STATE AJL\l.YSIS ~r·· ·~-.· ~--~~.·-----~-~--·~-.,-----------~--~------·----------~----·--···~~ __ .. ________________ --~-----··-- . ............... . f ·~•'' ..,'"''"''~··· ., ' ~~ ) -J ~ "I ~ ' l , I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM STtTDY TASK 7 VOLUME 2 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT !ND STEADY STATE ANALYSIS PRELil1INARY REPORT Prepared by: R. Meredith J. Szablya, Task Leader HARZA-EBASCO SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE DECEMBER 1983 • Jl ':.'· ... -' ~) ____ ...... _,..._ ___ ... : .... -..---.. -·..-.· ... ~-...,..._ .. ,,......_ .. _,.,_,__,,.,..._._ . ._ ....... ....._ . .:. ... ~-··...,....----~.,._-.. ,.,.,_--,__.,_ .. _:'~_,____:__,~"~::..::!~' ~-- Introduction TRANSMISSION PLANS FOR 1620 MW SUSITNA GENERATION, REVISED LOADS AND LOAD ALLOCATION This study summarizes the results of studies conducted subsequent to the Volume 1 study on "System Development and Steady State Analysis" of Harza-Ebasco. It evaluates the impact of increasing the total installed generating capacity at Susitna and of requiring the transmission system to be able to transmit 85 percent and 25 percent of .its highest possible output to Anchorage and Fairbar~s, respectively. Additional constraints relating to rights-of-way have been introduced and are discussed in the text • Tne generating capacities assumed for this study are as follows: Watana would be installed in 1993 with six units totaling 1020 MW nominal winter capability. With high head summer conditions it is assumed to be able to generate 1170 MW. Devil Canyon woul~ have four units installed ·in 2002 with winter nominal and summer maximum capabilities of 600 W~ and 716 MW, respectively. Because of the higher generating capacities and the revised allocation assumptions, transmission loadings in this study are about 50% higher than those in Volume 1~~ Criteria Interpretation The criteria used in this study are nominally the same as those outlined in the FERC License Application for the Susitna Project. However, some notable exceptions have been made in interpreting them to avoid unwarranted or premature transmission expenditures, The first of the exceptions is that transmission capability requirements have been timed based on transfer capability requirements to the Anchorage and Fairbanks area, rather than on when generating capacity is expected to be installed. -1- \ I ·~ . ' I ,~.".' •• . ! r. ~. -· ·.,_, The transfer capability requirements to either Anchorage or Fairbanks have been defined as the lesser of the projected area peak load or the appropriate maximum (25 percent or 85 percent) share gf Susitna's then-installed generating capacity5 Both loads and generating capacity limits have been applied on a seasonal basis. For example, either the appropriate share of the winter generating capability or the winter peak load has defined winter transmission requirements. The fact that summer line ratings are lower, or that summer generating capability is higher, is of concern. The basis for the load estimafe is the DOR mean forecast provided in Appendix A of Volume 1. When particular load lev2ls were found to occur beyond the years covered in AppeMdi~ As the growth patterns between yg§;o~ ~QQQ §H~ ~()20 W~f'~ ~~tf~pgl~ted to prQVide au estj.mate of the date A direct result of these interpretations of the criteria is that the need to transmit an appropriate share of the summer uaximum generating capacity will not become a significant factor until su~4e~ peak loads nearly equal Susitna's winter generating capability. Based on the extrapolation of the DOR mean fore~asti this will occur sometime in the 2040s. At so distant a date, even if revised by different load little current economic impacto Thus, e.xcept fo~ right-of-way considerations or· other non-economic factors, the need to transmit Susitna's maximum summer output is unimportant at this time. A third variation is that estimates o£ normal loading patterns and reasonable opet"ati"dg pt:actices ha.ve been asst.liiled fo~ purposes of loss evalu.a:eien and for determining the suitability of post-contingency operating procedures. -2- lp . ....-··-~c··~·--·-·--··.-·-··-· ·-········· ··-···· ···-·· ··-···· 'be .· c' JII .. ;I ,., '· r ; As an example, although the maximum transfsr capability to Anchorage may be required to equal the winter peak load in a particular year, that does not mean that one would expect such a transfer level to being maintained indefinitely after losing one of two supply circuits. A prudent system operator can be expected to increase local generation to replace Susitna generation and to reduce the risk to area security. If such redispatch is done immediately following a contingency, it can allow the use of smaller transformers and lower cable capacities, since both of these elements have long thermal time constants. Cost savings from appropriate use of operating procedures could be significant. Transient stability requirements would not be affected by such measures. A related conclusion from the analysis of expected system operations is that, in average hydro years, both before Devil Canyon is completed and near the study horizon, significant amounts of local (thermal) generation will be required to supplement Susitna's energy output. The thermal generation will be operated most likely during winter peak load periods. This will mean that design conditions of maximum transmission loading can be expected only when the local generation is not operating for some reason. It also means that should operation of thermal generation avoid a contingency loading problem, litf~le incremental operating cost would be entailed. Thermal energy generated during contingency conditions would just replace energy generation othe:rwise required at another time. Considering the lack ~f cost involved with use of thermal generation to ~elieve transmisson loading problems, this is economically preferable to transmission reinforcement. These instances are noted in the text. -3- ' li ' '.1 :; ! . t I ' l ,~. ' ~i ·--~ ' ' ~1 '" •ll s 'i \' I j Cf J •·t ·' J 4 ;,< ' ;,{ ~ ~ '' l,{ .;J j ;It :~ r ,11 A I ~ ~ ,, ~ t -~ 1 :1 l 1 ! l ! I l ! I I' i -l ~ 11 ' j ~ !j ·, 1 ,, !' j J~ 'f ~ .~ ' ,/, r~ ' I r ' ' r· 1( ::: • .!• ,-~ .1-'i. r· ,, .:.}1 ~ \ J~: ,~- ~ i [' ., -) ~- ~ l p:, SUSITNA. AREA SUBSYSTEM Discussion The Susitna area transmission system c.ontinues to perform as a means of collecting the generated power and transmitting it to the Gold Creek Station. The main change from Volume 1 is the elimination of the Reregulation Dam and the increase in generated power levels. Neither of these changes is sufficient to cause a revision to the Volume 1 configuration, other than conductor sizes. Since the writing of Volume 1, two new constraints have been raised. They are the need to use the ri5hts-of-way shown in the FERC License Application as much as possible; and the possible desirability of providing Watana and Devil Canyon switching in underground stations. These latter constraints have led to a return to a configuration comparable to the one in the FERC License Application (Figure 1). In it both Watana and Devil Canyon would have two 345-kV circuits to Gold Creek. The restoration of independent circuitry from Devil Canyon would avoid the need to bring Watana's circuitry near Devil Canyon and possibly into an underground swit:ching station" It would also facilitate use of lower voltage switchgear and transformer terminated lines, if economically desirable. Load flows of this config,\lration are included in the appendices relating to the Fairbanks and Anchor~ge transmission systems. SUSITNA TO FAIRBANKS SUBSYSTEM Discussion In the Susitna-Fairbanks area, forecast loadings have not changed from Volume 1, since the maximum loadings can still only equal the Fairbanks load. The major change has been a need to consider loading levels as h:i.gh as 25% of Susitna' s 1886 MW summet capability~ -4- C-----------------------~-----'"'" ·-------:,;"""'"""'"" ''"'" c " ·~ '• -~ ~ J I~ l '( ",~ f l: f J~ ' t ,t ''i " ( ,. I 1 ID ., ,, ' -~! 1 ·,$•! ,,, J) '·,0 ~. > ... ·~ .:J IT< l ~j I f:' ~.; 4 rl ''i .: ~ ~ ~ ~- ,, ~ . ' '; ' ·; IT -~ l ,~,~ j r l r 1 ~.·. l ~· l ! l ~: Three alternatives were considered: 0 Plan I -an expansion of the recommended alternative of Volume 1 with an additional 230-kV circuit 0 Plan J2 - a modification of the configuration of the FERC License Application 0 Plan DD - a hybrid configuration involving two 345-kV circuits to Healy and eventually three 230-kV circuits between Healy and Fairbanks. These alternatives a~e shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Comparison of Alternatives Timing of facility additions is important in ranking the three alternatives. At one extreme, if all the transmission facilities were required initially, Plan J2 would be the least costlJ. Three 230-kV circuits, which comprise parts of the other two plans, would cost nearly as much as two 345-kV circuits and would have loss penalties significant enough to make them more expensive. The need for an intermediate station at Healy would also penalize Plans I and DD. If timing of facilities is based upon the DOR mean load forecast (and extrapolations of it), a different result is obtained. Plan I remains the one with the lowest present worth, since the third 230-kV circuit added to that plan would not be required until power transfers to Fairbanks exceed the estimated 350+ MW stability limit of that plan. The capital cost savings of Plan I more than offset its loss penalty, compared to the Plan J2 or, to a lesser degree, Plan DD. -5- r· If economics and performance were the sole basis of selecting the preferred plan, Plan I for serving Fairbanks would continue to be recommended. However, since Volume 1 was prepared, it has been suggested that getting right-of-way for a third circuit between Gold Creek and Healy could be difficult and that the extra environmental impact of a third circuit would be an undesirable aspect of this plan. To cope with these considerations the hybrid Plan DD has been developed. It would use the same rights-of-way between Gold Creek and Healy as described in the FERC License Application. It could use the existing 138-kV circuit's right-of-way, when required, for the third 230-kV circuit between Healy and Ester. Its present worth :f.s higher than Plan I, but it is still significantly lower than the plans which use only 345-kV transmission. The exact timing for the addition of the third 230-kV circuit in Plan DD has not been determined, That will depend upon whether or not thermal generation is added in Fairbanks before the third lin.e is needed. If thermal generation is added, one can assume that it will be operating during win.ter peak periods to supply some of the energy deficit which Susitna can not supply. In that case the need for the third line will be delayed u_t:il the Fairbanks summer load levels exceed the estimated 350-400 MW thermal and stability limits of the initial transmission system. If the thermal generation is added at Healy or a point further south, winter power transfers associated with this additional generation could determine the timing of the third 230-kV circuit. Load flow performance of Plan DD is shown in Appendix A for both 390 MW and 453 MW load levels. These load levels represent 25% of Susitna's nominal winter and maximum summer generating capabilities, respectively. The initial development is judged capable of handling the wintey;o output, but an augmented system is required to carry the maximum summer output. The magnitudes of SVC ~equirements have not yet been refined but are expected to be comparable to those of the plan in the FERC License Application. -6- " J ' .. l j y •, \ff:l:~::~·-;, c:-/;P .... · . j ('~' i!(~ .. ; •r••-~-.. ~,.,C··~-·•·--.. ,, ... ~~·~•~·"'-•-· ~ .. ~--··---~· -~ ........ "-·---.---·-H•·:--~~~--•· ····~---~-----··•-·-··•-·•::~ ..... , .... _ ·~:.· .. J\,~~ ·{J)~·· -~~-~·•·~--.:-~~-· ·;;,~~ I! 11 Jl [ ' ., •: ~~ [ SUSITNA TO ANCHORAGE SUBSYSTEM Discussion The main changes from Volume l's assumptions regarding the system between Susitna and Anchorage are that more generation will be available to serve Anchorage both initially and ultimately$ It is also desired that the FERC License Application configuration be followed as closely as possible. Three alternatives are discussed in this study. They are: o Plan Y -from Volume 1 with additional circuitry o Plan J2 ~ a modification of the plan in the FERC License Application o Plan SS - a modified Plan S from Volume 1. Plan Y is shown in Figure 5; Plan J2 in Figures 6 through 8B; and Plan SS in Figures 9 through 11. Each of these plans is presented in turn. Only the latter two are discussed in detail. Au~entation of Plan Y As irt.dicated in Volume 1, several possible plans are competitive to serve Anchorage. Plan Y (Figure 5) offers a fortuitous combination of adequate capability, and reasonable cost. It is adequate for a transfer to Anchorage of just ~~er 1100 MW. However, it is not capable of handling 85% of 1886 MW (• 1603 MW) or even 85~ of 1620 (• :1..377 M\V) without ~o~ification. -7- I ~-""''W:Jl~~----~"'""·~':'. •• ·····'"~~·-··• ,.....,:_ .. ~··--·~·"··~-·-··~---·-"··~-·-"·-····-···------·--------·-···-.-..... .,_, _______ .................... c-:: ...... ~-·--.. --· ·-------~----. ..!: ____ .... , .... ___________ ._. -· ~~) ! r r . To handle a 1600 MW transfer these studies, in concert with those supporting the original FERC License Application, indicate that plans with three 345-kV circuits and one intermediate switching station are preferred. While it may be possible to use a system of two 345-kV circuits and two intermediate switching stations, losses and thermal capability requirements would dictate a much larger conductor size than is now being installed on the Intertie. Therefore, a two circuit plan would not coordinate with on-going construction and is not considered further. Plan Y could be augmented by addition of another 345-kV circuit between Gold Creek and Lorraine. At Lorraine a 345/230-kV switching/ · transformation station would be desirable to defer or eliminate the need to install a second 345-kV cable under Knik Atm. To the north of W/T it even may be desirable to add a 345-kV s~itching station to reduce the lengths of the circuits between Gold Creek and W/T. With all of these modifications it becomes apparent that 345-kV . sw:1.tching at W/T does not add to the system's capabillties or that W/T is not an optimal location for a "middle o£ the line .. station between Lorraine and Gold Creek. It was its ability to serve as a comprOl'nise "middlE~ of the line", ";..-ervice to load center" and "access to existing cables" station which made 11: attractive it'i Volume 1. For significantly higher transfers, the trade-offs involved in the Plan Y compromise are no longer acceptable~. The most not:able weaknesses of Plan Y are that it does not provide access for Susitna transfers to all of the existing cable capacity in its later stages and that the W/T switching location is not optimally located between Gold Creek and Anchorage. It appears that switching stations are required both at Lorraine and at a "middle of the line" po1nt nor'l:h of. W/Te Each of these can be economically justified by r..,elaying a cable, a third circuit, or SVC capacity. -8- [-.·· ............. ,_ .• , ............. " ..................... .. J,~ •' ' ·-~ t lf ., I ., f l' ( I"'' . -~ t ' ! ~ !. l I I' I With this conclusion, it can be shown that Plan S of Volume 1, which would use Willow and Lorraine switching stations, is preferable to Plan Y. No detailed studies of expanding Plan Y have been conducted because of this. Expansion of Plan S, called Plan SS, is discussed later in this study. Plan J2 One of the constraints for this study is to stay as close to the FERC License Application configuration as possible~ This alternative wa$ designed to use only rights-of-way indicated in the FERC License Application, but it has been modified to redtce costs. Its initial development is shown in Figure 6. It consists of two 345-kV circuits between Gold Creek and Lorrainea A mid-point switching station would be located about 15-20 miles north of Willow, to minimize SVC requirements. Since Willow is no longer expected to be a major load center, no offsetting savings would result from using the less desirably located Willow site. Double breaker switching would be used at the midpoint station to eliminate loss of two circuits for a breaker failure. At Gold Creek the Anchorage circuits would be switched in the same bays as the future Devil Canyon circuits. A breaker and a half layout could be used because a breaker failure, which could affect another eight mile long circuit, is not of large concern. At I,orraine one 345-kV circuit would connect to a 345-kV cable to Fossil Creek. The other would terminate in a transformer to the 230-kV station, which would connect to the existing cables and also serve the Teel11nd area load. An SVC system would also be installed. -9- ~·. [ t t l I t ! r l t t f I ! ll ' l J j l I I, I . l I I I ~ ·r l t E ' ' j• I I l 11 I i l -I 1 ! 11 I I \ ! l r ! I I j ll ) 1 ' l ~~ ;i ' ,~ ' ' J~ ,-~ ~~ J! I; ··! ~- J~· r I ~I c·--··· ' This plan requires another 345-kV cable when the capabilities of those already existing and initially installed are exceeded. Appropriate operating procedures can delay the need for extra cable capacity; however, it will probably be req~ired by the time Devil Canyon is installed. E~cause of the lese than ten year span (1993 to 2002) between the need for the first and second sets of 345-kV cables, it is more economical to install both sets initially. At this stage it is advantageous to use the second set of cables temporarily at 230-kV in order to augment the 230-kV system. This has a triple advantage in that it (1) reinforces the weaker of the two Susitna terminations at Lorraine; (2) defers costs of 345-kV switching, transformation and shunt reactors needed to use it at 345-kV, and (3) increases 230-kV system capabilities for times when Beluga's output is high. At Fossil Creek, which is a much preferred location ove~ University, 230-kV switching would be provided for the transformer-terminated 345-kV cable, the 345-kV cable operating at 230-kV, the existing 230-kV cable and the station exits into Anchorage. An SVC system would also be provided. The stage of development with only two 345-kV lines would be expected to be able to transfer about 1000 MW without a stability problem. Approximately two-thirds of the SVC required for that transfer would be installed initially at Lorraine and at Fossil Creek. The remainder would be installed about 5 years later at the mid-point station. The total SVC requirement is roughly estimated to be 700 MVAR of dynamic range, but can be better sized as part of the stability studies. An outage of the 345-kV line terminating at Lorraine would limit sustain~d power transfers from Susitna at the estimated 800 MW capability of the 345-kV cable. An outage of the circuit containing the 345-kV cable would be less restrictive because the 230-kV and 138-kV . cable capacitie~ are higher. The total transfer capability of the -10- ' I~ [ f 1: r I t f f t I I ··=J '' ';) ,,, _ _____,, .<: '"'1-·S'«, ~i~!it j ( -:~~j;~·.:.~ .. ---... ~ ...... ~~·-»...-<,.,; .... -...~~~....,...;__.#...:...,..,__,__..,.~=-·--·-: ~-,.._..._...~~-----~....,-.-~-~_,......-.:.:,~.~~"'-·-··~~~"~·,~~····~:. ......... ~--.-.~··~~-......_-,......,~~~--«......,....~-··--··-~"'·''.,...._ ___ ...,..,.,~----~~-~ ... ~--~ ~ r I l ,f L ~tl :j, l 1 4: I r J ---'1. )I l. J I l ( l ! I I t l I ! " j I 11 I ~ ~~ f '4 ~- -~ J~ " J.'; ' r ' r ~- J; Jl. paralleled 230-kV and 138-kV cables will depend upon what measures are taken to apportion cable loadings, including the application of phase shifters, series reactors or bundled conductors on overhead lines. With careful balance over 1100 MW capacity could be made availableo The combination of Susitna and Beluga can transfer at least 300 MW more than Susitna alone could during single contingenc~ outages. If it becomes desirable to transfer more than 800 MW from Susitna • without the use of post-·con.tingency operating procedures, it will become . necessary to operate the second 345-kV eable at its rated voltage. This would require 345-kV switching at Lorraine and addition of a second transformer at Fossil Creek. Shunt reactors would also be added to the cable circuit. These changes are shown in Figure 7. It appears that this upgrade will not be economically attractive before loads in Anchorage exceed 1000 MW. The reason for this is that an outage of the Lorraine transformer, or its source circuit, would produce only about a 25% overload on the 800 MW cable, which should be well within its short term thermal capabilityc It would not be prudent to continue to serve all of Anchorage on one circuit even if its capability were 1000 MW. The proper response will be to bring as much thermal generation on line as quickly as possible. The cable capability, whether 800 MW or 1000 MW, plays no important role as long as the system remains stable and the cable's thermal time constant is long enough to allow local generation to be brought on line. Switching for the next stage of development, shown in Figures 8A and 8B, depends upon whether or not the cable capacity upgrade is implemented before or concurrently with a third 345-kV circuit from Susitna. Figure SA is the logical successor to Figure 7 and assumes that cable upgrading occurs before addition of a third 345-kV circuit. Figure 8B shows that 345-kV switching at Lorraine can be eliminated if the cable upgrading and the third 345-kV circuit addition are coordinated. Figure 7 would not apply to this latter development sequence. -11- I The question of whether or not coordination is possible depends on when the third 345-kV circuit is desired and how long operational procedures can delay the need for greater cable capacity. Initial conclusions suggest that both needs would occur at the same time at about the 1000 Mtv load. level in Anchorage,. Two factors lead to this load level as a cr.itical indicator. First the total capacity of the cables (the 345-kV cable operating at 230-kV, aud the existing 230-kV and 138-kV cables) would exceed 1000 MW; consequently, no restrictions on local generation would exist before that load level is reached. Second, the annual energy surplus from Susitna is expected to disappear at about that load level which would significantly increase the loss benefits of a third 345-kV circuit and help to justify the latter. Between the addition of Devil Canyon and the end of the hydro energy surplus, the losses on the transmission system are not impor.tant. They just reduce water spillage at Susitna and have negligible cost. However, after that time incremental losses may r~quire incremental thermal generation at significant expense. At that time advancing a third 345-kV circuit is more economical than to operate with higher losses and installing additional amounts of SVC. TI1i~ approach is in contrast to that proposed in Volume 1, where SVC was used to extend an even weaker system (longer circuit segments) to the 1100 MW level. The present study is based on the premise that Anchorage's share of Susitna will reach as high as 1600 MW(; At this level a third circuit is inevitable. -12- I l ' I I I I l·.· .. ' ~~ !; I~ l =1 l ';.a'i· i I I J ~· 1 if It ,~} :1! i' I ~~ ' Load flow studies of Plan J2 at the 1000 MW and 1330 MW load levels are shown in .Appendix B. The former represents the limit by design of the two circuit plan. The latter represents an 85% sha~e of Susitna's 1620 MW winter capability. The system could also be upgraded with additional SVCs, and possibly new cables, to carry at least 85% of 1886 MW when required to do so. Plan SS The final alternative studied for the Anchorage area can be considered as a variation on either Plan J2 or on Plan S of Volume 1. It is shown in Figures 9 through 11. It differs from Plan Jl by routing one 345-kV circuit around Knik Arm, thus avoiding one of the 345-kV cables and providing a system more immune to common-mode cable failures, such as could be caused by earthquakes, tidal waves, ice scour, and anchoring. Like the plan in the FER.C License Application and Plan S, it would have a switching station at Willow. In most respects it resembles Plan S with the eventual addition of a third 345-kV circuit between Gold Creek and Lorraine. The initial configuration would be similar to that of Plan S in Volume 1 and is shown in Figure 9. The main chang~ from Plan S would be the earlier addition of the Willow switch~-5 ~~ation. The Willow switching station ~~ill allow a cost-effective reduction in initial SVC requirements. As in Plan J2, additional SVC would be added (at Willow) about five years late~ to cope with increased transfers from Susitna. One of the main advantages of this plan over Plan J2 is its ability to defer all new Knik Arm cable installations. As in Volume 1, the existing cables are assumed to have just over 600 MW of capability. Any outage of the overhead cirt~uit into Anchorage would exceed the existing cables' long term capability, but operation of Anchorage or Kenai generation -13- r f I l I l i I I I· 'r L 1: t I I ~·· instead of Beluga or Susitna could relieve the problem. However, the likelihood that such operational condition will occur is small because it anticipates ~ double contingency at an inop?ortune time; namely, it assumes that a single cable failure reduces Susitna's transfer capability to Anchorage tc 600 MW and that simultaneously no thermal generation is available at Anchorage (or south of it), while winter peak load is in progress. Delaying the need for any new cables has a large economic advantage. First 11 cables are expensive, relative to all other parts of the transmission system. Second, the longer the cable is delayed, the more likely it might be able to be added inexpensively to the highway bridge proposed to span Knfk Arm. Third, the longer the decision is put off, the more likely future generation plans can be integrated into the Susitna system. If new Beluga generation were to be added or existing cables need to be replaced, two 345-kV cables could be added at once to take advantage of shared installation costs. When extra cable capacity must be added, the preferred morle is to. operate it initially at 230-kV as shown in Figure 10. Just as in Plan J2, there are several advantages to initial operation at 230-kV, despite the need to install an extra circuit breaker at Lorraine. The Figure 10 configuration could operate up to the 1000 MW level, just as Plan J2 could. However, the longer circuitry of this plan would require additional SVC. It may be desirable to add the third 345-kV circuit to this plan before loadings reach 1000 MW$ Figure 11 shows the recommended configuration after the third 345-kV circuit is added and the cable is uprated to 345-kV. I It should be noted that this configuration avoids the need for a 345-kV switching station at Lorraine. Later generation development at Beluga or cable retirements could dictate 345-kV switching as a means of controlling cable loading balance, but it is not required when the third circuit goes into servia;e. -14- 'I . ll •! i ~.·······-·=J'---·· -. ·1 ., 'J ,. I '~!" ~ JIJ J1 11 ,. i J"l ,II) ~1 ~~ ~ ~ '..,t ~~ j J- ~' ~; ~·~ Load flow studies for Plan SS are included in Appendix C for 900 MW and 1330 MW load levels. The 900 mv level represents a reasonable limit before adding a third circuit to this configuration, just as the 1000 ~w level was reasonable for Plan J2. More detailed studies would be required to refine either limit. The 1330 MW level again represents a transfer of 85% of 1620 MW& SVC requirements for this a~ternative are estimated to be 850 MVAR~ Higher· transfers are possible with additional SVC and possibly more cable capacity~ CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of these studies and the rights-of-way restrictions between Gold Creek and Healy, it appears desirable to modify the configuration for service to Fairbanks to that shown in Figure 4 of this study. For the Anchorage area it appears that the configuration shown as Plan S in Volume 1 and Plan SS in this study is preferable to the previously recommended Plan Y for servicing Anchorage. The desirability of considering an alternative plan was already noted in Volume 1 and was done in this case to make expansion to higher than expected power transfers, and the installation of a third 345-kV circuit, more economical. In any event, the results of these studies should be considered tentative. They were based on many long range operational assumptions which could change. They were conducted over a period of only a few days and required many approximations. The timing of a third circuit is highly dependent upon loss reduction benefits and transient stability enhancement relative to alternative use of SVC. Neither of these could be evaluated accurately wtthout extensive studies. Despite these disclaimers, the general ~onclusions are believed to be valid for planning purposes. 0789T -15- . --·-··-·----:=r4· ---~. ,, . ' ' ' . ' 1.,. J ·r~ q t:"' * ~1 I WATANA 345 KV GOLD CREEK "'· . ., ____ ··-·~----~·--.. ,. ~~--~-···----..-..-· ·--··....---~ ""~"'-..--~-· --~~ ·-·-lr·-, ··---··-,c~-,--··;--··--·-·---··•·•···· ·-·----·--.. " > < *Note: Some plans add shunt reactors or vary Lhe sizes of shunt reactors on these lines. 9999 DEVIL CANYON 345 KV (IN 2.002) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I SUSITNA AREA SWITCHI~G WITH INDEPE~~EXT DEVIL C&~YON CIRCUITRY WZA•o.uct ~· .... -· -·--. ,_fiGURE 1 _ -... " I c-.-c. -· •.' ,..._ -· ---· l ' i ' '· ' . ' j .J I l I .. ~ I J I 'f ' ' I ESTER 138 KV 300 MVA · INITIAL 300 :IVA svc , SVc 1 ..___, I --~ TO HEALY 138 KV TO HEALY Al38 KV 100 HEALY _..,_+--.---+--+--t---t---e-- 230 KV 500 MYA ~ 0 M N 500 MVA ~ &I'\ ..:1' M GOLD CREEK SVC ESTER 138 KV ULTIMATE ~ ("i"j N > ~ Ll'\ ..:1' ('} GOLD CREEK SUSIT!iA = FAIRBANKS SW!TCHI~G 230 -KV PLA:.'l I -- . -; .) ·\'~ I ~ ~' ~ ·--- I I I I I I . ~~ ~ .11 J1 ·I 1 -' j ~ " i i JJ ll J :J I; ' ' . ~ L .J '~· 1 .. ~ ~~ '~ I t ·~ II: ' ! ..,._ti ·" :! * ESTER 138 KV 500 MVA 50-65 MVAR 1> ~~ * 500 MVA * svc/l svc TO HEALY 138 KV 50 -65 MVAR 50-65 MVAR TO GOLD CREEK 345 KV *TO FAIRBANKS LOCAL SYSTEM, FUTURE LINES NOT SHOWN. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ~U$1TNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA-FAIRBANKS SWITCHING MODIFIED FERC PLAN J2 ~:Uli.·EU.:~' .................. ,.,., ~ -FIGURE 3 .. I - I ;;· ~ -l '~ '.,,; ~ '•< ' ' i ~ .. J l Jl j ~-1 'i :t '.,J TO FAIRBANKS i ESTER 138 KV 300 MV A f'Y'"IY\ INITIAL svc svc TO HEALY 138 KV TO HEALY 138 KV 100 HEALY _.,_+--+--..._-+-...,.__-4--...- 230 KV * *DELAY OF THESE 500 CB'S IS POSSIBLE MVA ~ > ::..:: Ll"l Ll"l 't"''"'\ ..::t 50 ..::t 50 ~ C""'' MVAR MVAR TO GOLD CREEK 50 . TO 300 MVA > ~ 0 M N FAIRBANKS ~ svc ... svc < > ~ 0 0 :""I ULTIMATE 500 M"vA ;;~: f I ~~ ..::t ~ 500 MVA ;;~ ~t--dn ~I MVAR ~' TO GOLD CREEK AL~SKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYOACEJ...ECT'RIC PAOJECT SUSITNA-FAIRBANKS SWITCHING HYDRID PLAN DD Y.UJA·IMSC$ .... ,., ......... ,.., r ··_ ' " • ~ '· . J f. I '!' ' ' . r:\ ' ,. ' '1'.' .. · I I I .~ JI 'j ll ~· ~-j l·~ J; j J l ~~ I ·'! ;,! J 'l l ' : ' ' ·) Jl J Jl l ,I ,~ : ' '_, J_, ~· " ,, ~~ ~l ' .~ rEELANI:) TO POINT Me KEf.! Z IE. TO GOLD CREU W/T 3-45 KV FOSSIL CRE.'fK 230 KV " '750 MVA * * * *To Anchorage Area 230kV or 230/llSkV ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITM MYOAOfLEC TRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ·-I .4CHORA~E SWITCHING PLAN Y TWO CIRCUIT STAGE FIGURE 5 j-- l l lr ' ' .· ·r: r I I I I I I . .. ~ I - J.:. J JJ l l ! l . ~ . .; ~\ TO GOLD CREEK (NO SHUNT REACTORS) MIDPOINT 345 KV 50 MVAR 345 KV 50 ~-------+---·:._. ____ ..,._ _______ ____. MVAR 800 -1100 ~!VA 800-1100 HVA TO TEELAND TO POINT MACKENZIE LORRAINE 230 KV EXISTING CABLE 230 KV 1--41__, sv c FOSSIL CREEK 230 KV .----4SVC * *T J ANCHORAGE ALASKA POWER ALJ'Tl10RITY SUSIT~ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUS ITNA -ANCHORAGE S\{ITCH I~G !-tODIFIED FERC PLAN J2 TWO CIRCUIT STAGE iU.t.U·D.t$ct FIGURE 6 ............. 1!',.,.., ~ ---_.....,.. 'f . ---~--·-··--·~ _____ .. _____ ........ ·--··--···--··----··-· ............. __________ _. ... . . f II I ' J 0 TO GOLD CR. (50 MVAR SHUNT REACTORS) SVC 800 -LORRAINE 1100 MVA 345 KV TO TEELJ\ND LORRAINE 230 KV MIDPOINT 345 KV 50 MVAR ~ .... 345 KV 31~5 KV 230 KV EXISTING CABLE svc FOSSIL CREEK 50 MVAR 800 -1100 · WvA 230 KV l . * ~* svc * ~~ t!~:E~~~~ ~~ r Jf *TO ANCHORAGE ALASKA POWER AUlliORJTY .. $USITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT rsusiTNA-ANCHORAGE SWITCHING HODIFIED FERC PLAN J2 lli ~1 I t:~..:!~:t: --FIGURE 7 ~-· ----------------------------------------------------~-~~"-~ __ • __ ~_"_.l_r.~~--~_~ __ &_._~_··~~-----· .. IF CABLE UPGRADE PRECEDES THIRD CIRCUIT c-~, .. ----~----·------··---·-·-------------"--·--·-----· -···----· --. ·---_,~ .. ·---·---· .. --·-··-__ ... -:··--·· . i .. . . l t I 1 . I . ,. -: ': ' ., ' "' " : ~--·: . . '. .. , , ". ~ 11 J'. ~ t J J.J J j .. J J .J '" . I II ~-l TO GOLD CR .. (50 MVAR SHUNT REACTORS) SVC J 800 -1100 MVA TO TEELAND t I-----+-------' 1 ~ !0 POINT MACKENZIE I LORRAINE 230 KV svc MIDPOINT 345 KV MVAR EXISTING CABLE FOSSIL CREEK 230 KV 50 MVAR 800 1100 , MVA * ~~ * TO ANCHORAGE ALASKA POWER AUTh'OAITY SUSITNA HYOROEL.EC~ PROJECT SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE SWITCHING HODIFIED FERC PLAN J2 THREE CIRCUIT STAGE IF PRECEDED BY CABLE UPGRADE !'!W.C·tu.-:t FIGURE 8A ,.,., ..... , ............ ...._.... -----.. -· .... ~J ~--___ , ______________________________________________ ._ ______________ ~-------~ ';E:-----~-----:--;--:-------------------. I I I; ' rc , A i ,i. '·t· l L -<-J· ~1 4 I . ~ . I t . j ; '· •' ~ TO GOLD CR. (50 MVAR SHu~T REACTORS) TO TEELAND + TO POU~T MACKENZIE svc 800 -1100 MVA MIDPOINT 345 KV 230 KV ' ~--~------~~------•.----~~ LORRAINE 230 KV EXISTING CABLE FOSSIL CR., 230 50 MVAR 50 MVAR MVA ~ 800 -1100 MVA TO ANCHORAGE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA-ANCHORACE SWITCHING MODIFIED FERC PLAN J 2 THREE CIRCUIT STAGE IF COORDINATED WlTH CABLE UPCRADE j. I . ' I I . . ' .1·· .. · ' I I I TO GOLD CR. (50 MVAR SHUNT REACTORS). TO TEELAND • 800 -1100 MVA LORRAINE 230 KV TO POINT ~~CKENZIE WILLOW 345 KV 345 KV EXISTING CABLE F0SSIL CREEK 230 KV 800 -1100 MVA . * TO ANCHORAf;E ALASKA POVVER AUTHORITY ~----------·------·------~ SUSITNA HYORO€!-ECTRIC PF10JECT SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE SWITCHING PLAN SS . TWO CIRCUIT STAGE .;._, ' . ' • {j. . ' l ' I 1 I: ("'> I I ' •' I I I I I J :I l~ J' ~ ~· ' J ~~ ~ ~·· ~. TO GOLD CR~ (5.0 MVAR SHUNT REACTORS) TO TEELAND l 800 -1100 MVA LORRAINE 230 KV \':::~ WILLOW 345 KV 345 KV 230 KV EXISTING 345 KV AT 230 ¥01 FOSSIL CREEK 230 KV * '800 -1100 MVA TO ANCHORAGE ALASKA POVVER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE SWITCHING PLAN SS WITH FIRST NEW CABLE ~:UU·U.t:::6i· ..... , ........... ..-~ ~ FIGURE 10 .. . ...,...,......... • I I I I 1: I I l ll l, -- ~I f ~ I ~ .. ~ TO GOLD CR. {50 MVAR SHUNT REACTORS) 800 -1100 TO TEELAND TO POINT MACKENZIE MVA 1 LORRAINE 230 KV SVC WILLOW 345 KV EXISTING CABLE 50 MVAR MVA 800 -1100 MVA * TO ANCHORAGE ,.-----------·----·"- ALASKA POWER AliTHORlTY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ~----------~~~~~-----·- SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE SWITCHING PLAN SS THREE CIRCUIT STAGE FIGURE 11·- •j L' !I ~;uu-r.u:aJ t t..1 ... ~· ... '""''' ~ j 11 .... I '-'~'-·!I ,_,..._..;, --· ·-1 ~---------...__~_ ....... ....:....., .................. -:...-..:.~ 1 I I I I . I I ' I APPENDIX A I r :' 3qo of f[jj})(-31,0 138 _,.,__......,..---.---41.__ ....... _ t~ ®21 -..1) £t 0 ---.. .230 (:{) ESTER ~----------------~ SUSITNA·FAJ.RBANKS ALT. DO ·STAGE 2 390 MW TRANSFER . (25% OF MAXIMUM WINTER CAP.) f3 . /6 @f-JG,6 @ 138 HEALY 2lJ~345 506 4 .& 21 7 4-I 4 I 7 4 @>1-s~q GOLD CR. TO ANCHORAGE A-1 ,,._.., .......... _ .. _ _._,.,__..._"'!" r-·~··-... ··-"'...,......_.. ___ ~·-· .. :-~·;.··r . ., ... _ . ...,..,..._,.. :"' ,--....-~ -· -·-~--···•: j---~ :---, ··-·~···-·"'-" -.... ...,...-.... ~·~< ---,_,.,, •• ~_...-. -·~>< .. --·~-··"-~' •· --..... ~ -·....-., ·~·· t.~ . ' ,·· .. J3 8 @J-6,/ DEVIL C. ~ G 27 d- WATANA I' I I li ~ :~ ~. 0< J • ... . ;i ~ @j--"39,0 ESTER /-2..1,2_ ®ttt2 230..-~-+-...... - t~ 6/ 26 29 @ ® 138 HEALY 345 '508 @t-5,9 GOLD CR. TO ANCHORAGE A-2 SUSITNA-FAI.RBANKS ALT. DO -STAGE 2 390 f4W TRANSFER GOLD CRo -HEALY 345 KV OUT 513 DEVIL C. ) ~· u· I ·I· - J 1 I ~-I ' 1 ·. ·j: J.· . • 1 I . : -. l I ~l . '. ' . ,~ f ! I l l l l . I 3qo of ~/-47,2_ 138 ---411~-+-_..----A_ ESTER ·® tr-n ro ...... O"' -0 t-N - SUSITNA-FAI.RBANKS ALT. DD -STAGE 2 390 MW TRANSFER HEALY -ESTER 230 KV OUT I: 1'3~B ®~H~ ~r 230 ---~__.,.,_.......,_ ~---------~ c - Ill lb. ® 2S@ 138 HEALY 214 345 5/6 -e~.-<CT - 8 .4 <i -. · Ali I G 18 136 LQ_ ~------~~6-CO ____ jo __ -Q--~-0------~i ~ .odii 411 • ~ WATANA 4 I .6 I 29 26 52. @L-5 .. 2. @/_-6,0 .. . .... DEVIL C. GOLD CR. TO ANCHORAGE A-3 ·········--·--· ·-···--·······-··--·-······ -···-·························--········ ··--··----·-····--····-----·--------- }) ·*¥*1 .... ; ; 4-53 of TO ANCHORAGE too }?_ ® HEALY €9J!:-3t.S ESTER SUSITNAftFAJRBANKS ALT. DO -STAGE 3 SUMMER 453 MW TRANSFER (25% OF MAXIMUM SUMMER CAP.) . . . 12. 138 @ WATANA DEVIL C. I @f-6,e GOLD CR. A-4 l - , .. ··' i \ ! I I I I I '-153 0 t. 138 ___,.,__.,.......,__ ____ --4~ ESTER ®, t~ (/) -..... /-2'-f/5 .. -I' ®'!2 t~ 230 ........ o-- 2.2... <@) ® 138 HEALY ..4--+- 15 51 AI qq ®f::~,ro GOLD Cll. TO ANCHORAGE }-\-5 ,_ SUSITN/.\-FAIABANKS ALTo DO ·STAGE 3 SUMMER 453 MW TRANSFER GOLD CR. -HEALY 345 KV OUT _________ ___. qq @fs,q DEVIL C. t I I '-I-53 of ({i§9/-4o.b 138 --411~-+---e------~...__ ESTER --co &15,7 0 ®~ ~ ,_ I I' Pll . c------···· 230 _....;._...... ....... _,,.-.· ,;-41"-""----- 22. 2.2. @ ~ 138 ~~ HEALY 345 I 242. 584 4 ..c:S 3 ~~ 357 358 & ~ -dl 41 17 37 36 @f--e:,.e GOLD CRft TO ANCHORAGE A-6 SUSITNA-FAIFiBANKS ALT. DD -STAGE 3 SUMMER 453 MW TRANSFER HEALY -ESTER 230 KV OUT 5'10 -4 G 23 4@1$ WATANA DEVIL C. I l ~ 1 I 1 1 · .. a· ' , J I 'i I r \ I I I I f I f l .f; l I J 1 l i l I 'I I l I . ;. I I Jl -; -~ I '-I-53 of (@ /-4o~.!e_ 138 ---41~-+------e-----..~.._ 2.2. @ HEALY 345 242.. 58'-1: 4 a:S- ESTER ~ 138 ~ SUSITNA-FAIRBANKS ALT. DO· STAGE 3 SUMMER 453 MW TRANSFER HEALY -ESTER 230 KV OUT 5cto G 3 lb 357 358 '-16 ' ~--------.-------------------~ ~ & .<f WATANA 4--f- 17 I 37 36 72 Q&;f.5;9 @f.:t:,.e DEVIL C. GOLD CR. TO ANCHORAGE A-6 c--------------.I I -1 11 ~). ·c--------------· APPENDIX B [ i I I I i (, t I i r: I. I 1·, I, '· ' ' ' TO FAIRBANKS 0 3s-o LORRAINE . ®t_-tf,q_ GOLD CR. MIDPOINT e (_-14.,Z ® '1'1 428 9!__-'-f,'f DEVIL C • SUSITNA·ANCHORAGE ALT.J2·STAGE 2 1000 MW TRANSFER (POSSIBLE ECONOMIC LIMIT FOf SYSTEM WITH TWO CIRCUITS) ~ t>>--N_E_W ___ w., NEW <) ------~~--·------~ B-1 I f tl I ....... -..,.f-• •.,_,. •..t;"u---..ow----...... ._...._ . ....,... . .,, _ _,.. ... TO FAIRBANKS l <§) GOLD CR. MIDPOINT ® L-ZS2::_ ~ 1-, -' l I I I ~r,---------· ..._, __ ""' DEVIL C. .&I 13 SUSITNA-ANCHORAG E ALT. J2-STAGE 2 1000 MW TRANSFER GOLD CREEK -MIDPOINT OUT f r j r I \1; iO FAIRBANKS ~ Q t~ B It~~ L-46,'-f. ~ e t~ t ~~}~ 230 345 .... 129 438 . I > ~ S30 22.1 2.21 i ®J-s,l @ GOLD CR. MID"'_ ....... rVil'i I NEW NEW 0 ~I [>EX~ .:?...ro LORRAINE (;? _) B-3 WATANA DEVIL C. SUSITNA·ANCHORAGE ALT.J2-STAGE 2 1000 MW TRANSFER MIDPOINT -LORRAINE OUT @> (,.') t; (-.J.fLf,CJ ~~ fa: N) i- 230 Jsr-~0 8~ &~0 FOSSIL CR. r ' r t I f ~ I t t l [ I I ~ t I .II J "'{ I 1 0 l l l ! ! 4 ·~ ' 1 o\ l 'I ·t ! ''f 1l}, 1 ,, :{ i ~ ·~ }~ 'l ' " ' f .i 1 I ·~ ' I I I I I I I ll I I I I' I; I. I I i ~ ~ t", ' TO FAIRBANKS 345 JZ.q 43~ 4 .,:.. !;P 35 e; 439 {1/ 7 4 41 G G 12.. La_ ~------~--------------~ ~ 52.7 22./ 22./ ~ ~ ,<f -6' ~ . I'-...---. ---t ~ ;~ 230---------- 350 LORRAINE 7/ @ts~l GOLD CR . MIDPOINT ® /-15,/ .. NEW EXISTING B-4 WATANA qo ({i§J)f4S DEVIL C. SUS:TNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. J2 • S1'AGE 2 1000 MW TRANSFER MIDPOINT -LORRAINE -FOSSIL CREEK 345 KV OUT 0 (.) ~ -43"3 ~~+~ t~~ ---~--------230 fo 57 650 FOSSIL CR. T:::-------. -. . . .... t t l i I i r I TO FAIRBANKS . 12.0 345 505 510 1020 ~ ·~ ..&I '36 /6 457 300 tt ,• ~~--~--~--~--------------~ 7 (~ /-2'5"~ @> t~ 230 __,..__'-- to 350 LORRAINE /07 33 ~ 2.8 I 4 ·~ b2. tJ;B) (:-s.q GOLD CR. MIDPOINT NEW NEW EXISTING B-5 WATANA I;> /29 <@f...s,J DEVIL C. SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. J2 ·STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER (85% OF MAXIMUM WINTER CAP.) /06 p- 7 '180 FOSSIL CR. I I I [ TO FAIRBANKS J2o 345 505 .. IP 37 Jq &_ ~----~~0~~--~------~----~ ~ 4 WATANA /0 0 It 230 3SO LORRAINE 8 It -+~ 35 Qii§}[58_ GOLD CR. MIDPOINT 0 NEW EXISTING B-6 @f-b.,( DEVIL C. SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. J2 ·STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER GOLD CREEK -MIDPOINT OUT 0 (.) ~ f:?JJ.o t~~ ---ilt---4,.____....,__ 230 t .to FOSSIL CR. qso . >-<>--•~•~w _, ___ "'"'-"'""'~----,-~\-"<"<'~~--...-.-.,_,_. _____ _.~'>-•"-"•...,_m.>O,,....,.~ . ..............,-•,~,~·~---»•-•"--"~"~"""""_,.._. ......... ___. _ _.._ -~-..... ........- - ·"·l (i . ,L.~~" .... ~~-~-:~~-~--~--~----~---~--------· ~------~---~·---~---------~--------~-~""""--, . '-"-~---~~: :.1 I --~ '\~1 1 'i ~,1 l' 1 I i I ) I ' TO FAIRBANKS 345 }2.0 50h 511 1023 li> 35 16 63 127 @f::5.1 DEVIL C. Qfs,q GOLD CR. ~!l~ MS-.~-4---.~~-MIDPOINT 1 -~ t~ 0 230 35D 4 350 ~ LORRAINE I 0 7 § (-14,b NEW NEW EXISTING B-7 SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE . ALT. J2-STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER MIDPOINT -LORRAINE OUT (REDUCING 138 KV CABLE LOADS l·JOULD UNLOAD 230 KV CABLE) 3·54 ~-- i/4" qeo FOSS!t CR. . ••<•<••¥--~··-···· .. -..-... ~ ..... ..,... .... __ _.,...._.,.,""-'"''"'_q ..... ,,.....,.__.._.~---··~--··~·-_ __._,..__ ..... ,.._,__-~-~~-..... ----____ ........_,._ i - TO FAIRBANKS 230 . ~cr: ro 35:) LORRAINE . A 345 }2.o 50f:> 51/ 4 19"' 35 lb 46/ 3os-306 4= G 7 ~/a_ ~----~---------6-1/-.----~ ~ WATANA ~ 6 I , ..... 28 6/ 6q @ GOLD CR. MIDPOINT J @ !::::!. '-1-.b NEW N N -- 310 ~ EXISTING 31 B-8 -lp 128 ~l_5./ DEVIL C. SUSITNA·ANCHORAGE ALT.J2·STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER MIDPOINT -LORRAINE -FOSSIL CREEK 345 KV OUT 307 18 CJ98 FOSSIL CR. ~"-·~--... ,..,....., .. ~-~-~..,..,. -'-"'"...--·--· , ........ -~--.-·,...___,.~,.,..._,__,~. -~--·-· .. -__ .,.. ,_.._,,.~-~··"'~',_., ......... _ .. -.~-~--~-·-~---···· . ----·~--------··· ~ .. ··~--.... ~_ .. __ ...._ __________ ~·-,.,_........., ............ ~ ......... !! ... -,.~--....... ---·····--·~-'--'"'--~--""'·-.._...._-~-~-~---... ·--··-... ,.,,.,.. _____ _ \"·\. (\ ., " r I t l I ! I I I I I I I I . I ·I I I; I; :I " I~ I: I, I; . -I, ~ .. . APPENDIX C ,.~-~~~. ~· -~-~--··~--~-----,"~----~-----~---~---~-------·-:·,:··-···-··--· ~--~------------,-... -~---·-------------~~--~~----........., .: ' ' f : -..... '"' ~ . ·' I I I I I I ' ;: I I I I •-, I I ' TO FAIRBANK.S 345 116 355" .. 4 -· '37 I 6 /-4.1 I ® GOLD CR. (~.-: 15,8 @> WILLOW 36 7/ 357 .. <'¥1m 10 ·: 715 .r /o @ WATANA 9/-3·§.._ DEVIL C. SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. SS-STAGE 2 900 M\tJ TRANSFER (POSSIBLE ECONOMIC LIMIT FOR SYST~M WITH TWO CIRCUITS) &'!I' 1'-. to·~ 00 ~--------------------------- 230 ot1~Jtin 3~C a..;....-----t LORRAINE EXISTING C-1 .t=z~,3 ~ I \.0 . o:> .l·~~ --i 0' ;c--~;::;;~ ---t..._--11--·---tt--230 ~t tto J·o , ____ _,.~ 6oo FOSSIL CR. .. -···· ...... ___ .... __ ~ .. ---·-···---L ..... __ , ______ ...:. ...... ~'"--··--·-.. ··~~· ~~-' (i (j I I I I I I II - I' I I , I' I I I I I I I TO FAIRBANKS 345 116 36'-f 367 73'-f 4 .Iff -4 4 G -d I . .d I 38 . 22 J7 .• 35 /CJ 225 @ WATANA 1'2.8 '-1 2. @/-3-7 DEVIL C. ®1:~-2_ GOLD CR. SUSJTNA-ANCHORAGE (J ALT.SS·STAGE 2 ~ ~28.4. 900 MW TRANSFER co t* ~J @ GOLD CR. -WILLOW 345 KV OUT ~l L 345 -*~tt~ WILLOW ~J tt 0 It (-37. I (@>N} ll 230 ---411,___--fi-____ of O It (.) NEW ~ f:37,j It t~9 -230 I+ +o; EXISTING >------<~---------,--~ 600 FOSSIL CR • . C-2 I l ., •. I ,11 . '11 I I· ,l I J I ! .. I l I ~I I I 0 TO FAIRBANKS 345 116 36i..f ..-::c 4 37 15 ...__ ____ _.,_,_"""""'· ·.--. -------- 47.3 et~-c I Z3 Q!-·4,2 GOLD CR. /-J(:,, I @ WiLlOW NEW WATANA ~~-~ DEVIL C. SUSiTNA-ANCHORAGE ALT~ ss D STAGE 2 900 MW TRANSFER WILLOW -LORRAINE 345 KV OUT /-38,8 @ ~ t + ;£J. to ~ t !f; i~ <§ 230 ' ::tat -' l 230 o + ~ ~ ~ ~ !fo --EXISTING -y 3 0 ......._~-----~ >-----< 1--------.....-.. 600 LORRAINE FOSSil. CR. C-3 (":": ~.;;_,._,. .... ··,;' :} .. ~ I "' ·;:~ 1 I 'I · .. : I ,, ;; I TO FAIRBANKS 345 I J(:, 360 -<1--4 37 lb 2Z.5 4- 2"3 30 35 GOLD CR. L-Jh.o @ WILLOW It (_-73 I, l./-NEW @$t, 230 .....!..411..__ ____ ....-:- 0 t f§~ te;- ~ 300 ___ ...,.... LORRAINE ...... EXISTING c-4 . ~ --......... ~~"'...._,..,_.~~·~.-~ ..... ,..~~-~-----... ~ .. --~-.....-------·~,...~·__.._~~~~~,~~ . 363 4 ~ /0 . 72S <P-- 6-·1 G 20 LrL .(@) WATANA 69 ~f-3.b_ DEVIL C. SUS!TNA·ANCHORAGE ALT. SS ·STAGE 2 900 MW TRANSFER WILLOW -FOSSIL CR. OVERHEAD . 345 KV OUT I I I I I I ~' I . I I; ; I TO FAIRBANKS • L-11,'5 @~t 230~-----~ of ~It~ 3 ~.._....--~ LORRAINE 3b 12 22S 4 55 225 450 ..a 4-G 60 119 . @f:o,5 ~/-If# I DEVIL C. GOLD CR. SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. SS ·STAGE 3 900 M~~ TRANSFER (LOWEST POSSIBLE NEED FOR A THIRD 345 KV CIRCUIT) EXISTiNG ~1 t~ :1-o ~------------~ 600 FOSSIL CR. c-5 \} ; c~ ~ TO FAIRBANKS 345 /20 S06 ..d--4 37 a 50 4-57 3oo "30) .di 4 <: 451 20 I ~~ @1:-s~q GOLD CR. @)/-111'+ -WILLOW gtltW{ -i~oo m t~~ ~ 0"-' - - NEW 51/ }021 4 <f.-G ... ~ I .. <f' I i 2. . 2'-f LsL ~ WATANA q ([ii})/-§.1 DEVIL C. SUSITNA·ANCHORAGE ALT.SS .. STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER (85% OF MAXIMUM WINTER CAP) ~ L-26,~ I I \ f /-25 .. ~ @)r8 l& t~ ~ {~<@:> . 230 230 _____ __ o + ~I fro 1./00 i a..;.._ __ _. LORRAINE EXISTING . d£l i't-fa ~----------~~ q 0 FOSSIL CR. C-6 ) .&. .. " ;: I I tl I J ff . . ~ ll ~ 1 I I I ~ ~ '\ ~ ~ ~ ~ TO FAif~BANKS !_-3Jtq S~t t 230 -------- 0 + It 4 LORRAINE 345 120 512 ;Q 4- 37 0 @L-6,o GOLD CR. DEVIL C~ SUSITNA·ANCI-·IORAGE ALT. SS ·STAGE 3 1330 M~.J TRANSFER c l ~ . ' ·i ·. :t!.:f= GOLD CR. -WILLOW 345 KV OUT It 0 0 NEW EXISTING C-7 t I+ q3o FOSSIL CR. I I j I J rl JIB ,lm ~ I I I I ~ ~ m 1 ~ I ~ I I I ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ ~; 0 {'() - TO FAIRBANKS /-11-6 (/@) WILLOW SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. SS ·STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER WILLOW -LORRAINE 345 KV OUT (REDUCING 138 KV CABLE LOADS · WOULD UNLOAD 230 KV CABLE) ~ ~ ~ ---------------------------0 N 0 {-*3612 @l!:t. t . 230 -~~--=--.... 0 + §j ¥2 ....__ __ ---1 4 LORRAINE I NEW EXISTING C-8 "" \' q 0 FOSSIL CR. i.e_ . ···"'~------------------------~------------~-~------~--------~----... ---~~------------------·- -~ . l I .. ' I t . TO FAIRBANKS 37 4hl 4 4 I 20 N -~ ~J ,J) \() -- ~l tr--1 ~~ ~ 0 {:-29.8 ®~t 230 ___..,___ __ ~ 511 q '300 300 ~ 4: 2 I c@/-beO GOLD CR. /-17.6 (@) WILLOW 5/b 103"2 ... <S--G 4 I I.Z · Z.5 h._ boo ~ -I :• WATANA a Shs.z. DEVIL C. SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. SS ·STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER WILLOW -LORRAINE -FOSSIL CREEK 345 KV CIRCUIT OUT (230 KV PHASE SHIFTER COULD REDUCE 230 KV CABLE LOADING) 0 t ~ i~® --tt---tlt----11~ 230 0 + ~~ a..;;....._,t~____. ~~lit :t. 0 EXI~TII\I_~ \ll I ~"} -~--------.---J-Cf'?£> 1-/()0 LORRAINE C·-9 FOSSIL CR.- • ,, ,. r J '_·j,.:,; u ·;kl -A· ' ~ . ,, .. '>J·i_' .. -.· 'i ·~. ~ .. ' L TO FAIRBANKS 345 12o 510 37 8 Lfbo 3:o 30() 4 -4i 4 ..oC!i I 20 2 I @/-S:9 GOLD CR. WILLOW L-ze.e NEW ®~t 230 ..._,_,.'-___ of ~I ~m EXISTING I ' j ~ ·--~'~l SIS 1oaq 4i Cit' G . <! I 12. as L£_ toe> ([@) 4 WATANA DEVIL C. SUSITNA-ANCHORAGE ALT. SS-STAGE 3 1330 MW TRANSFER WILLOW -FOSSIL CR. OVERHEAD 345 KV OUT ___,_ _________ 230 J f l f I l .t I 1 ! 4 0 ~'-----~ LORRAINE ~t i~ fa 1-----------....J q 3D FOSSIL CR. I I 1; hr l '"' l l l. ;·,· I ::, C-lo 1 r ~- • l l f -~