The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDonlin Creek Power Feasibility Study Volume 5Donlin Creek Mine Power Supply Feasibility Study Volume 5 Appendix F-I Public Draft March 20,2004 ome la an Dn ee GS alista Corporation : 301 Calista Court,Suite A »Anchorage,Alaska 99518-3028 *(907)279-5516 | 'TO:: A er - 'Ron Miller 1 .AIDEA/AEA | 813 W.Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage,AK 99503 Coals nn 301 Calista Court,Suite A *Anchorage,Alaska 99518-3028 »(907)279-5516 «Facsimile (907)272-5060 »Website:www.calistacorp.com ns ocr July 22,2004 D )pe i |i Office of the President n\I yt | Ron Miller Sik yup as sep,LEY AIDEA/AEA 813 W.Northern Lights Blvd.PIOEA FEE Anchorage AK 99503 Re:-Donlin Creek Mine Power Supply Feasibility Study Dear Ron Miller: Enclosed is a copy of the Final Report of the Donlin Creek Mine Power Supply Feasibility Study on CD-ROM.The State of Alaska funded this feasibility study through the Alaska Energy Authority to determine the options available for providing electrical power to the Donlin Creek Gold Mine Development Project and the villages in the Calista/AVCP region.This study was conducted through Nuvista Light and Power Company,a non-profit formed by Calista Corporation to act as a regional wholesale electrical utility to provide power to Donlin Creek and the villages in the Calista/AVCP region. After more than three years of study it has been determined that the least costly alternative for the long-term is the construction and installation of a coal-fired power plant at Bethel,Alaska and a 190 mile transmission line to Donlin Creek.It also has been demonstrated that best available control technology can be utilized on this project to exceed emission standards. Donlin Creek contains one of the largest undeveloped deposits of gold in the world.Calista is committed to the sustainable development of this property to enable social and economic improvements in the Calista/AVCP region.Providing low cost electrical power to Donlin Creek and the region provides the impetus for these long-term enhancements. Questions about this project can be addressed to:Bob Charles,President,Nuvista Light &Power Company,301 Calista Court,Suite A,Anchorage,AK 99518,or by email to bcharles@calistacorp.com. Sincerely, CALISTA CORPORATION Matthew Nicolai President/CEO Enc. Donlin Creek Mine Power Supply Feasibility Study Nuvista Light &Power,Co. 301 Calista Ct. Anchorage,AK 99518-2038 Volume 5 Appendix F-I Public Draft March 20,2004 Bettine,LLC 1120 E.Huffman Rd.Pmb 343 Anchorage,AK 99501 907-336-2335 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I SECTION I -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION II -INTRODUCTION SECTION III -POWER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES SECTION IV -138-kV TRANSMISSION LINE &SUBSTATIONS SECTIONV -PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION VI-PROJECT COST ESTIMATES SECTION VII-PROJECT MANAGMENT &SCHEDULING SECTION VIIT-PROJECT FINANCING SECTION IX -ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF POWER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES GLOSSARY OF TERMS VOLUME 2 Appendix A -Coal Plant Feasibility Design and Report Prepared by PES VOLUME 3 Appendix B -Modular Plant Feasibility Design and Report Prepared by PES | VOLUME 4 Appendix C -138 kV Transmission Line Feasibility Design Information Appendix D -Electric System Studies Prepared by EPS Appendix E -Foundation and Fuel Storage Feasibility Design Reports Prepared by LCMF VOLUME 5 Appendix F -Preliminary Environmental Assessment Review Appendix G -Economic Analysis Appendix H -Miscellaneous Information Appendix I-Public Comments APPENDIX F-I Appendix F -Preliminary Environmental Assessment Review 1.Transmission Line Review and Report by Travis-Peterson,Inc. 2.Power Plant Review and Report by Steigers Corporation Appendix G -Economic Analysis 1.Coal-Fired Plants 2.Combustion Turbine Plants -Bethel 3.Combustion Turbine Plant -Crooked Creek 4.Transmission Lines from Rail-belt Appendix H -Misc. 1.Loss of Load Expectation Calculations 2.Coal Cost Projections 3.Coal Plant Efficiencies and Reliability Information 4.EMF Information 5.Permafrost Information 6.Bethel River Bank Erosion Sketch Appendix I -Public Comments APPENDIX F Appendix F -Preliminary Environmental Assessment Review 1.Transmission Line Review and Report by Travis-Peterson,Inc. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.000.eee escecesceneeseeeeseeecesecseeeesneeeseesececsseeessceseesssesseeeessaseees l 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...........:cccccccccsscsseceeseceeeseesensesscesseesecseeeeescaeeseeeneeees 1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNG.uu...cescccsssesceseseeseceseeeecesseesseesescesseserecensecenes 4 3.1 Land Use Impacts ............eeecsceeesseeesecceessseeseeenesecssetececeesessesceneeessaeseesenseeees 4 3.2 Wetlands oo...seceeseesceseceeeeensceeseeessceassceseeesesseceacesseesesesoseatseeeseeseeseeeseees 7 3.3.Navigable RIVEIS..............:::cscssceeceeceseceseceeseeessceeesceseeaeseneeseeseceacesseesssenesseteees 8 3.4 Floodplain Management ...............cccccsscccsssseesssneeecssecessnaceeesseceseeensenecseseseeenes 8 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .0............sscssessscesseecetsesseeeeeesenenseseesoenes 8 3.6 Essential Fish Habitat 00...et eeeecessecesenceseceeeseeeseeseeesecaeeeceeseeeseseeeeees 8 3.7 Anadromous Fish Streams .............::ccssscsssececssssccesssccessccecscecesceeeessneceeseneeses 9 3.8 State Lands/State Parks...ee eeeeeceeecssceeeseneeseeesseeseeesssesessessseseeneeeeeses 9 3.9 Coastal Zone Management ...............cscccssessencccessesceeceseesceesecsceeeeseseseeeeeess 10 3.10 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts...ee esesesceseseeessesssereneetsseeeenseees 10 3.11 Historic,Architectural,Archaeological,and Cultural Resources..............10 3.12 Construction Impacts 0.0...eesscccessscesceeeeeetsoeeeaesneeeseceesaceeceteeeersneeeseseeees 11 4.0 FEDERAL PROCESS1.000...cccccsscsssessessestceseceeectesnceesecenseneceesessaseenaceaeeeoeeeeeseeteeees 11 5.0 COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES,BUSINESSES AND THE PUBLIC.............14 5.1 Federal Agencies...........ccssssssscesesseseseseecseesssceeeessssessenceescssssessesessssesesseeesoes 14 5.2 State Agencies...seseescseceseeeeeeseceseceesseseceessscsesesecseeeseeeeeeseesesseeesseeesees 14 5.3 City and Village...eessccesrecessceesseecsscesscessssscecssueseeesseeseensesesensesetes 15 5.4 --Private Orgamizations...........eeeesseseeceseceeseceseeeeescesescessesersseesseeneeecsesssesesess 15 6.0 ANTICIPATED PERMITS1.0.0...ccecesssceceesecceceseeceesceeneseseceaeseseescsessesasoseesesasesees 16 7.0 CONCLUSIONS..00..eee ceseescceceecesettececcessceeesseesncesesseesserecsuassssessenseseeseasenseesses 18 7.1 Preliminary Research .............:csscseseseeseessensscecceesseaeseseeseesesensseseseseeeonsesees 18 7.2 Responses to Letter...ee scssssssscesesseseeesssssscsscesssseessstsesssosenes esessenes 18 8.0 REFERENCES oo.ccccceecscssessecsneeccessescessecceseseessecesceeesseaccaesessseescneesessseeeseeensseeees 19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Region/Vicinity and Proposed Alternative ...........essesssesesceereseresseereneeens 2 Figure 2 Proposed Power Plant Location.........ce cssssscessesseesseseseecsssssessersesesessssenseeons 3 Figure 3 Segment Breakdown of Transmission Line.........escessssscseceseescsseseesreeesees 6 Figure 4 NEPA Decision Making Flowchart ..........:.:ccccsesssssseseeceeeceeceeseeeseseeessentenee 13 Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Breakdown in Segments of the Proposed Route...........ccccscssseesssseeseceetsenees 5 Table 2 Landownership Rights ............sscsssscessesssesseceessnsactscsaececssenseeeseeesseatenaeenseenses 7 Table 3 Potential Permits and Approvals.............:::ccssscesssscsstseeecessesessscesseeseeseeseesees 16 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Mailing List and Sample Letter Appendix B_Phone Log,Comments from Agencies,Businesses,and the Public Appendix C Landownership Maps Appendix D USDA RUS NEPA Policies and Regulations Appendix E ADNR Application for Easement Right-of-way Permit Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page iv TABLE OF ACRONYMS Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program Alaska Department of Fish and Game State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc Best Management Practices Bethel Native Corporation United States Bureau of Land Management Coastal Regional Service Area Division of Mining,Land and Water Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement Erosion Control Plan Federal Aviation Administration National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service Notice of Intent National Pollution Discharge Elimination System National Wildlife Refuge Office of Habitat Management and Permitting Ordinary High Water Office of Project Management and Permitting Record of Decision Right-of-way Division of Rural Utilities Service State Historic and Preservation Office Special use permits Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan The Kuskokwim Corporation - Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Department of Agriculture United States Fish and Wildlife Service Frank J.Bettine,P-E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Nuvista Light &Power,Co.(Nuvista)initiated a feasibility study to construct a power plant in Bethel,Alaska and a 138 kV transmission line from Bethel to eight rural communities along the Kuskokwim River and the proposed Donlin Creek gold mine project (Figure 1).Nuvista is a non-profit corporation created to serve as a regional generation and transmission utility for the Calista region.The transmission line will be located along the northern bank of the Kuskokwim River.The power line will serve Bethel,Akiachak,Akiak,Tulusak,Lower/Upper Kalskag,Aniak,Chuathbaluk Crooked Creek and the proposed Donlin Creek gold mine (Figure 1).The proposed power plant will be located south of the Bethel Airport at approximately 60°46.225 minutes north latitude and 161°47.320 west longitude (Figure 2). The goal of this project is to develop an economical source of electrical power for the Calista region with less environmental impacts.Currently,each village has its own diesel-powered electric generators and tank farms.Constructing a centralized power plant located at Bethel and a power grid along the Kuskokwim River would reduce energy cost in the region and minimize fuel storage at each village. Nuvista retained the services of Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,Esq.as the project consultant.Mr. Bettine subcontracted with Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc.(TPECI)to develop an environmental overview for the transmission line portion of the feasibility study. A letter was sent to environmental agencies,the affected communities,landowners,and other interest groups to introduce the proposed transmission line and power plant projectandrequestcomments.A copy of the letter and the responses are located in Appendices A and B._This report summarizes the environmental issues identified by the environmental agencies and the other interested parties.The report outlines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)process and time requirements for the proposed project.Lastly,the report lists the necessary permits required to proceed with the project. 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Bethel is located along the Kuskokwim River,40 miles inland from the Bering Sea.It lies in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,400 air miles west of Anchorage.Bethel is located in the Bethel Recording District Sec.09,TO8N,R71W,Seward Meridian. Precipitation averages 16 inches a year in this area with snowfall of 50 inches.Summer temperatures range from lows of 42°to highs of 62°F.Winter low and high temperatures average -2°to 19°F (ADCED,2003) The area varies from a coastal climate near Bethel to a prevailing continental climate at Crooked Creek the easternmost town.Snowfall averages from about 50 inches at Bethel to upwards of 85 inches per year at Crooked Creek.Rainfall in the Kuskokwim River area averages approximately 15 to 20 inches.Temperature variances are greatest in the areas experiencing continental climate,where they may vary from -59°F in the winter up ae "OStuyahakpile!ciTackers gs.eenehevillas #38!sit uw i"f TRAVISPETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,INC, 2598 ARCTIC BOULEVARD ptr) SMOBORAGHE,ALASKA SIE PROMECTNot 1117-01 FTF:1EL2O1 Pleures! _2,£iat wll Oe'Loy.is : kAC8geeseEektel BELHEL TRANSSLUSSION LINE PROPOSED ROLITE REGIONVICINY &PROPOSED ALTERNATIVEVrankJ.Betting,PE FICTRE} DATE:(2447)SCALP:LPC"=25 miley anwerPI ation Proposed Po ,Loc bes +a P xs'sf pow a Coal Plant.80 Acres. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 4 to 94°F in the summer.High winds are common along the Kuskokwim River in the fall and winter.The Kuskokwim River is ice-free typically from late-May through October (ADCED,2003). The proposed transmission line would run along the north bank of the Kuskokwim River. It would provide power to Bethel and eight other communities en route to the Donlin Creek mine.These communities are Bethel,Akiachak,Akiak,Tulusak,Lower/Upper Kalskag,Aniak,Chuathbaluk,and Crooked Creek. Bethel is the largest city along the 191 mile route.The population in Bethel is 5,736,and the population in the other communities range from slightly under 100 residents to over 600 (ADCED,2003).Crooked Creek is the last community along the route before the transmission line diverts north approximately 12 miles to the proposed Donlin Creek mine. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Office research and agency comments revealed the following environmental concerns. 3.1 LAND USE IMPACTS The feasibility study has identified an alternative that is approximately 190.5 miles in length.Except for a one mile section of the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM)land and 6.4 miles of State lands,the route traverses private lands that have either been conveyed to the various native corporations or have been selected for conveyance. The design team intentionally routed the transmission line through private lands to avoid crossing Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)lands and,to the maximum extent possible,state and other federal lands. The proposed project may affect five groups of land owners.These are regional corporations,village corporations,state,federal,and native allotments (Appendix C). The majority of the lands over which the transmission line will be built are owned by private landowners and village corporations.The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC)owns the majority of the land along the proposed route.The proposed transmission route will also cross native allotments.Two federal groups own land along the proposed route. The BLM manages federal lands and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)manages the Yukon Delta NWR.Michael B.Reardon,Refuge Manager, should be contacted with questions regarding land status and ROW permitting in the refuge (USFWS,2003a)Secondary transmission lines feeding power to the communities would cross native village corporation and the city lands. No permanent roads will be maintained on the transmission line right-of-way (ROW). The transmission line will require a ROW width of 40 to 50 feet within the Bethel City limits and a 125-foot width for the remainder of the line.Once the transmission line is in operation,the power line will be maintained using a combination of helicopters,boats and tracked vehicles. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 Bethel Transmission Line 10/13/2003 Page 5 Landownership consists of surface rights and subsurface rights.This project will affect mainly the surface estate,but some subsurface lands will be affected due to required material sources.Table 1 displays a breakdown of the transmission line and the ownership rights within each segment of the affected lands.Figure 3 displays a map of the individual segments of the proposed transmission line. TABLE 1 BREAKDOWN IN SEGMENTS OF THE PROPOSED ROUTE Length Accumulated Minimum Maximum Segment (miles)Length (miles)|Elevation (ft)|Elevation (ft)|Land Ownership Comments A-B 6 6 24 66 City of Bethel;|Power Plant 138 kV Step- BNC;Private up Substation at Mile 0.0 Parcels;Native Allotments B-C 15.9 21.9 13 61 BNC;Akiachak Akiachak Substation at Mile 19.7 C-D 16.0 37.9 19 48 Akiachak;Akiak Substation at Mile Kokarmiut;26.2 Tuluksarmute D-E 16.6 56.5 39 61 Tuluksarmute Tuluksak Substation Mile 43.4 E-F 15.6 70.1 39 59 Tuluksarmute; TKC &4.2 mi. TKC Selected F-G 15.5 85.6 36 73 TKC &2.8 mi.Kalskag Substation at TKC Selected Mile 85.6 G-H 15.3 100.1 59 415 TKC;11 Native Allotments H-I 16.1 117 83 477 TKC;10 Native |Aniak Substation at MileAllotments110.6 I-J 15.8 132.8 87 497 TKC &1 mi.Chuathbaluk Substation at TKC Selected;6 Mile 123.4 Native Allotments JI-K 13.3 146.1 103 700 TKC &3.4 mi TKC Selected;5 Native Allotments K-L 14.4 160.5 124 717 1 mile BLM; 4.2 miles State; TKC L-M 17.0 177.5 161 556 2.1 miles State; TKC;2 Native Allotments M-N 13.7 191.2 140 947 TKC;|Native Crooked Creek Substation Allotment at Mile 177.8;Donlin Creek Mine Substation at Mile 191.2 The following are responses from landowners located within the proposed transmission route.The USFWS indicated that any lands in a NWR that have been selected but not Frank J.Bettine,P-E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 6 conveyed to a native corporation are managed as any other refuge lands under their jurisdiction.The development on those lands will require a ROW permit.The USFWS wre ete Frank J.Bettine,P-E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 8 stated that a review of the alternatives along with their impacts is necessary to assure that the use of the refuge land is compatible with the mandated purposes of the Yukon Delta NWR.Only the alternative that meets the mandated purposes of the NWR system and would not adversely impact the refuge values would be permitted (USFWS,2003a).The State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)Division of Mining,Land and Water (DMLW)indicated that an ROW permit would be required to cross state owned lands and any RS 2477 trails (ADNR DMLW,2003a).The Bethel Native Corporation (BNC)explains that landownership is complicated around the City of Bethel.They explain that there are many private allotments,city owned land,BNC owned land,and Calista owns the subsurface rights (BNC,2003).Table 2 breaks down the surface and subsurface landownership rights. TABLE 2 LANDOWNERSHIP RIGHTS Owner Surface Rights Subsurface Rights Explanation Calista Regional Corporation Yes Yes Own Both Rights Village Corporations Yes No Calista Owns Subsurface Rights City Lands Yes No Calista Owns Subsurface .Rights Native Allotments Yes No Calista Owns Subsurface Rights USFWS Yes Yes Owns Both Rights State Lands Yes Yes Owns Both Rights BLM Yes Yes Owns Both Rights 3.2 WETLANDS The proposed transmission line will parallel the north bank of the Kuskokwim River between Bethel and Crooked Creek.There are many small streams entering the Kuskokwim River from the north.There are swamps,bogs,sloughs and other wetlands in the area. Wetland mapping has not been completed along the project corridor.Therefore,wetland areas will need to be delineated and mapped.All fill material placed on wetlands will require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)(USACE, 2003).This includes temporary fills for access roads,boat ramps,and temporary bridges. Most of the impacted wetlands should have negligible or minimal impacts to their overall functions because the overhead lines and support structures will require minimal fill. Mitigation and minimization measures need to be discussed in the permit application. Comments from the USACE are documented in their correspondence located in Appendix B. Frank J.Bettine,P-E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 9 3.33.NAVIGABLE RIVERS The Kuskokwim River is considered a navigable river.Two other major navigable rivers,the Gweek and Owhat Rivers,will be crossed by the transmission line.Many other small creeks will be crossed that may be classified as navigable.Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires a permit for any structures placed within or work performed below the high water mark of a navigable river (USACE,2003).It is anticipated that all rivers and creeks will be spanned. 3.4 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT The power plant and transmission lines will be located within the Kuskokwim River's floodplain.Neither the transmission line nor its support towers will restrict flow.Ice flows are common within the Kuskokwim River floodplain.Support towers vulnerable to ice flows and flood events will be engineered to withstand these events. 3.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES According to the USFWS,there are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals found to occur within the project area.Three different sources were consulted to make the determination.TPECI consulted Mr.Greg Balogh and Mr.Michael Jimmy of the Yukon Delta NWR (USFWS,2003b)and (USFWS,2003c).The USFWS (USFWS, 2003d)and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)(NMFS,2003a)internet website was used to confirm that there are no threatened or endangered species within the project area.Jeanne Hanson (NMFS)indicated that NMFS did not expect any threatened or endangered species under their jurisdiction (NMFS,2003a). 3.6 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT NMFS considers the Kuskokwim River as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.Many creeks and rivers located draining into the Kuskokwim River also appear to have EFH.According to the NMFS web pages,the following essential fish species may inhabit these streams:chinook salmon,coho salmon,sockeye salmon,chum salmon,and pink salmon.Over-water work will be necessary to complete the free-span transmission line.Over-water work does not require a permit from NMFS or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). An EFH assessment will need to be performed to determine what EFH will be impacted and what minimization and mitigation measures will be performed to offset the impacts. The construction of temporary ramps,river access points,small bridges,and river crossings will need EFH assessments to be performed.Once the EFH assessment is complete,the Lead Agency for the NEPA document will send it to NMFS for review. The review process can take up to 60 days to complete.If NMFS agrees with the results and the mitigation they will concur with the assessment enabling the construction effort to proceed.Mitigation may be necessary (NMFS,2003a). Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 10 3.7 ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS A search of the ADF&G "An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important to the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (AWC)”(ADF&G,2003a)found that the Kuskokwim River is a cataloged anadromous fish stream (335-10-16600).The Kuskokwim River supports sheefish,whitefish and spawning whitefish,chinook salmon, sockeye salmon,coho salmon,chum salmon,and pink salmon.There are other anadromous fish streams in the area but the ADF&G has not catalogued the streams located to the north side of the Kuskokwim River.This does not mean that there are no anadromous fish streams to the north.Mr.Wayne Dolezal (ADF&G)informed us that ADF&G is in the process of cataloguing the streams to the north (ADF&G,2002b).The work will not be completed by ADF&G because this responsibility has been taken over by the ADNR Office of Habitat Management and Permitting (OHMP).There are no set dates for completion of this task. Any anadromous fish streams that may be impacted within the project area will be reported to ADNR OHMP for approval.ADNR OHMP indicated that they need to know the following information for any work conducted below the Ordinary High Water (OHW)mark. Location of the stream; Stream crossing methods; Type of work occurring in the stream; Type of transmission lines and supports structures; Fish species present or utilizing each stream; Geomorphic characteristics at each site; Habitat characteristics at each site;and Methods,locations,and permanency of access to the transmission line during andafterconstruction. If ADNR concurs with the results then the project may proceed (ADNR OHMP,2003b). 3.8 STATE LANDS/STATE PARKS The ADNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation website and the ADF&G State of Alaska Refuges,Critical Habitat Areas,and Sanctuaries Database (ADF &G,2003c)were consulted to determine that there are no state parks,refuges,sanctuaries,or critical habitat areas in the area.Mr.John Zimmerly,Park Ranger,with the Alaska State Parks Service confirmed via phone that there are no Alaska State Parks in the subject area (ADNR,2003d).The response from ADNR DMLW indicated that some of the work will be performed on state lands (ADNR DMLW,2003¢).Appendix C shows the state-owned lands along the project area. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 11 3.9 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT A review of the "Coastal Zone Boundaries”atlas found that the proposed project area is within the Coastal Zone Management Area (ADNR ACMP,2003f).The project affects two Coastal Zone Management Areas;the City of Bethel Coastal Management District, and the Cenaliulriit Coastal Regional Service Area (CRSA). A Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ)will need to be completed and sent to the ADNR, Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP)for review.The OPMP helps determine the federal permitting requirements for the project.The OPMP will make the determination that the project design is consistent or not consistent with the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program (ACMP). 3.10 CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS The USACE and the USFWS stated that they are very concerned about cumulative and secondary impacts (USACE,2003 &USFWS,2003a).These agencies have suggested that any environmental analysis and permitting may need to consider the transmission line,the power plant,Crooked Creek airport expansion,mine access road,and Donlin Creek gold mine as the complete project. The proposed power plant and transmission line would supply the power necessary to operate the Donlin Creek Mine.Donlin Creek Mine will consume over 70 percent of the electrical power transmitted along the new power grid.Donlin Creek Mine would utilize Crooked Creek's airport to supply fuel,cargo,and passengers.The airport will need to be expanded to accommodate large cargo aircraft.A new road would be built to link Donlin Creek Mine with the airport.The close proximity of the mine to the village would generate business within Crooked Creek.Operation of the mine will increase supplies and the number of travelers through Crooked Creek. In the future,the power plant may supply energy for communities away from the primary corridor.It is possible transmission lines would be built to feed communities to the west or north of Bethel to provide a cheaper and cleaner source of power for those communities.The opportunity for cheaper power in some of these other towns could lead to an increase in population in these areas. 3.11 HISTORIC,ARCHITECTURAL,ARCHAEOLOGICAL,AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO)anticipates that there will be many areas of cultural significance.Once the final transmission line route is chosen cultural surveys may be necessary to determine areas of cultural significance (SHPO,2003). Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 12 3.12 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The section of the power line between Bethel and Upper Kalskag traverses marshy lowlands composed of fine grain sands and silts that are dotted with numerous small lakes,small streams and sloughs.It is anticipated that this section of the line will be built during the winter months when the ground is frozen and there is sufficient snow cover to protect the vegetation.Terrain along the remainder of the proposed route appears suitable for year-round construction. Construction of the transmission line will require temporary access points from the Kuskokwim River.Special use permits (SUPs)and ROW permits will need to be .obtained from the land owners to access and perform construction within the transmission line ROW.Temporary ramps,roads,supply and housing structures will be needed for staging the construction effort for this project.Temporary fill may be placed in wetlands to build ramps and roads for construction of the transmission lines.The fill will be removed after the construction is complete.No permanent roads will be built for maintaining the transmission line.The transmission lines will be maintained via off-road vehicles,boats and helicopters. Trees and undergrowth will be removed from access points and during construction of the transmission lines.Temporary impacts to wildlife are expected during the construction phase of the project.Construction may temporarily disrupt normal wildlife activities.The impacts could temporarily affect subsistence hunting at communities where construction occurs.These impacts are not expected to be long term and should dissipate after the construction phase.Some construction could occur during the winter months utilizing frozen ground or ice-roads.Winter construction efforts would have fewer adverse effects on tundra,birds,fish,wetlands,EFH,and erosion. Water quality impacts may result from the build alternative due to erosion and runoff from construction areas.The contractor will minimize these impacts by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs)for erosion and pollution control in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Permit program for Alaska.A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and an Erosion Control Plan (ESCP)will be implemented to minimize water quality impacts during the construction phase. Construction will generate some solid waste.The waste will be disposed of in nearby community landfills or removed off-site to Bethel.Construction methods,locations,and timing concerns are expressed in the agency letters located in Appendix B. 4.0 FEDERAL PROCESS Since it is anticipated that federal money will be used to finance the electrical system,the project must comply with the NEPA.It is anticipated that the proposed power plant and transmission line will be classified as a major federal action that will significantly affect the human environment.7 CFR 1794.25 states in relevant part,"An EIS will normally Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 13 be required in connection with proposed actions involving the following types of facilities:(1)New electric generating facilities of more than 50 MW (nameplate rating) other than diesel generators or combustion turbines.All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall be covered in the EIS ...”Therefore,an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)must be prepared for the transmission line.Agencies responding to the feasibility letter agreed that the proposed project will require an EIS.These agencies also suggested that the Cumulative Impact Section must address the transmission line,power plant,Donlin Creek Mine,the expansion of Crooked Creek Airport,and the construction of the new road between the airport and the mine (USFWS, 2003a &USACE,2003). A simplified version of the EIS process is as follows: e Determine the Lead agency for the transmission line and Bethel power plant project.The RUS would be the lead agency of choice for this project but it has not agreed to serve as the lead agency ; e The lead agency submits a Notice of Intent (NOI)to the Federal Register; e Complete the Scoping Process (Identify significant issues,translate the issues into the purpose and need for the action,introduce alternatives and non-alternatives, and introduce the impacts); Develop alternatives; Prepare a draft EIS; Notice of Availability 45 day review period; Hold a public hearing; Incorporate comments; Finalize EIS and circulate the final document for 30 days;and RUS issues a Record of Decision (ROD). A copy of the USDA RUS NEPA policies and regulations are attached in Appendix D. TPECI estimates the entire environmental process to take approximately 2.5 years to complete assuming there are no significant obstacles encountered during the EIS process. Figure 4 displays a simplified version of the NEPA process that federally funded projects must follow. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 14 FIGURE 4 NEPA DECISION MAKING FLOWCHART Determine Lead Agency Lead a Concurs that an EISis Required NOT in Federal Register -5 =rand Agency Review (implemen Decision Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 15 5.0 COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES,BUSINESSES,AND THE PUBLIC TPECI and Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,developed a letter and graphics describing the project and mailed the letter to federal,state,local government agencies,cities,and native corporations.The interested groups were allowed to comment on the project.These comments are summarized below.The letters containing the comments,questions,andconcernsarelocatedinAppendixB. 5.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES Three federal agencies replied to the letter.They were the NMFS,the USACE,and the USFWS (Appendix B). Ms.Jeanne L.Hanson,NMFS Field Office Supervisor for Habitat Conservation Division, pointed out that she did not expect the project to affect any Threatened or Endangered Species under their jurisdiction but the project could lead to adverse affects of EFH.An EFH assessment is required (NMFS,2003a). Two of the agencies,the USACE and the USFWS stated that the project needs to evaluate alternate transmission routes and their impacts.The EIS must include the proposed power plant,Donlin Creek Mine,and infrastructure associated with the Donlin Creek mine project (USACE,2003 &USFWS,2003a).The USACE specified if the power plant and transmission line were economically feasible without the mine then they might consider the project separate from the mine project (USACE,2003).The two agencies also stated that they needed to evaluate the alternate routes and their environmental impacts to determine which alternative has the least adverse environmental impacts.Both agencies also listed permits required under their jurisdiction.The USACE permits are the Section 404 Wetland Fill Permit and the Section 10 Navigable Rivers Permit.These two permits can be combined and applied for as a Section 404/10 Permit.Assuming the power line is routed across lands that have been selected by a village corporation for conveyance,but have not yet been conveyed,a USFWS National Wildlife Refuge ROW permit will also be needed. 5.2.STATE AGENCIES Three divisions of the ADNR replied to the letter describing the proposed project.The SHPO believes an archaeological survey will be necessary for this project.The DMLW acknowledged that the project will require ROW permitting to conduct work on or access state lands for the proposed project.They also mailed a permit application describing the specific information required for their permit review process (ADNR DMLW,2003e).A copy of the permit application is included in Appendix E.The OHMP's concerns involve work that will be conducted in and around streams.The OHMP indicated that Fish Habitat Permits will most likely be required depending on line and equipment crossings methods and locations.They indicated that any work below the OHW mark will require these permits.The specific information required for a fish habitat permit is outlined in Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 16 the letter from the OHMP (ADNR OHMP,2003b).The letters from the agencies are located in Appendix B. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)did not have any comments pertaining to the letter.However,ADEC permitting will be necessary for completion of the project.Permitting will be required during construction of the project and for operating the power plant.The necessary ADEC permits can be found in Table 3. 5.33 CITY AND VILLAGE A wide array of comments and questions were in the responses from the village corporations and the City of Kwethluk.The mayor of the City of Kwethluk expressed his gratitude for the information (Kwethluk,2003).The mayor desires to comment on the project after the details are outlined in the EIS.Three village corporations and one city responded to the letter.The corporations were the BNC,Kwethluk Incorporated,and Akiachak Limited.The City of Kwethluk was the only city to respond to the letter. The village corporations expressed their acceptance for an environmentally friendly and economic source of electricity for their region.Their main environmental concerns pertained to land use restrictions,subsistence hunting,and wildlife.The village corporations also expressed a desire to review alternate routes and the possibility of an underground transmission line (Kwethluk Incorporated,2003,Akiachak,2003 &BNC, 2003).The City of Kwethluk and most of the village corporations also expressed their gratitude for being considered in the early development of the project. BNC's main concern involved land status impacts.BNC explained that landownershiparoundBetheliscomplicatedduetothenumberoflandowners(city-owned,corporation, and private).BNC was also concerned about the future location of the power plant because they heard second-hand that one proposed location was on their lands (BNC, 2003). BNC has several environmental concerns pertaining to the proposed project.Their main concem involves health issues associated with a coal-fueled power plant.They also specified their preference for an alternate location of the power plant and transmission line farther away from the city of Bethel and away from the Kuskokwim River (BNC, 2003).The letters are located in Appendix B. 5.4 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc (AVEC)is the current electricity provider for the area.AVEC had very specific questions relating to power line and power plant specifications,tower configuration,conductor size,transformers (AVEC,2003). AVEC's response is located in Appendix B. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 Bethel Transmission Line 10/13/2003 Page 17 6.0 ANTICIPATED PERMITS Project permits will require detailed design information.Project specifics,alternatives, and work time frames will need to be completed according to permit specifications.It will be helpful to prepare a Coastal Project Questionnaire first to coordinate permit submittals. The project is currently undergoing a feasibility study.Nuvista anticipates the feasibility study will be completed by January 2004.The EIS and location engineering for the 138 kV transmission line are scheduled to begin during the onset of 2004 and would not be completed until the middle of 2006.Detailed engineering will begin in mid-to-late 2004 and would continue into 2006.The project team anticipates completing the environmental work and engineering by the end of 2006.The project team anticipates acquiring all permits by the end of 2007.Construction of the selected power supply alternative and the Bethel to Donlin Creek mine 138 kV transmission line is currently scheduled for 2008-2010.The system is scheduled for full operation by late spring 2010. Table 3 summarizes the potential permits required for this project and the regulatory agencies that approve them. TABLE 3 POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Agency Name Type of Permit/Approval Reason for Permit/Approval Federal Agencies Dept.of Agriculture,RUS Location Approval.Lead Agency approves the NEPA document. U.S.Army Corps of Section 404 A Section 404 permit is required for authorization of Engineers wetland fills. Section 10 A section 10 Permit is required for any work performed in a navigable river below the OHW mark or for any structures placed within a navigable river U.S.Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Protection of endangered and threatened species Service Refuge Crossing Permit |Any transmission lines across wildlife refuges require approval. U.S.National Marine and |Essential Fish Habitat Minimize impacts to fish habitats. Fisheries Service Assessment State Agencies Alaska Department of ADEC Wastewater A general permit is for similar situations with standard Environmental General conditions,such as excavation dewatering,floating Conservation and non-permanent shore-based camps.The permit tells what limits must be met,what measures must be taken,which types of discharges are covered by it Food Service A permit must be obtained for permanent,temporary, limited or mobile food service operations serving 11 or more persons per day must.(May apply to construction camp) Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 Bethel Transmission Line 10/13/2003 Page 18 CONTINUED Certificate of 'Reasonable Assurance (401 Certificate) ADEC must issue a 401 Certificate to accompany any federal permit issued under the Federal Clean Water Act.For example,a COE Section 404 permit would trigger the need for a state certificate. Title V Air Quality for power plant ADEC must issue an air quality control permit to construct and operate a power plant. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, (Title AS 41.14.870) "Anadromous Fish A General Waterway/Water body Application must be submitted if heavy equipment usage or construction OHMP.Passage”activities disturb fish habitat and anadromous fish habitats.These permits also stipulate how stream In Cooperation with water withdrawals may be conducted. Or Or Alaska Department of (Title AS 41.14.840)The above information dealing with only non- Fish &Game "Fish Passage”anadromous fish passage. Alaska Department of Coastal Project A project application that is filled out to help Natural Resources,Questionnaire determine what state and federal permitting is OPMP necessary to proceed with a project located within the Coastal Zone Management Area. Alaska Department of Temporary Water Use This permit is required if water withdrawals will occur Natural Resources, DMLW during construction.The permit lasts for the length of a temporary project. Materials Sale &Purchase of required materials from state lands. Mining Plan Alaska Department of Land Use A land use permit is required for use of state lands Natural Resources,along the proposed ROW. DMLW ROW A ROW is required for construction of transmission lines or other improvements that cross state lands. Alaska Department of Cultural Resource For any federally permitted,licensed,or funded Natural Resources,SHPO |Concurrence Section project,the SHPO must concur that cultural resources 106 Review would not be adversely impacted,or that proper methods would be used to minimize or mitigate ;impacts that would take place. Alaska Department of Utility Permit on State Required before construction on DOT&PF managed Transportation and Public |ROW state lands or for structures crossing DOT&PF ROWs. Facilities City of Bethel Planning Department Building Permission is required to build transmission lines across City land. Calista Corporation Land Department |ROW _|Administrative approval for crossing Calista Lands. Village Approvals Akiachak,Akiak,Tulusak,|ROW and Easements Village corporations and councils issue permission for Lower/Upper Kalskag,utility crossings of village lands. Aniak,Chuathbaluk,and Crooked Creek Private Individuals ROW and Easements Permission is required to build transmission liries across private lands unless ROW is secured eminent domain process. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 19 7.00 CONCLUSIONS Preliminary research was performed by contacting agencies,researching publications and internet web sites,and reviewing comments.The following summarizes information collected for the project. 7.1 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH Preliminary research concluded the following environmental consequences pertaining to the proposed power plant and transmission lines: e Review of the ADF&G publication "State of Alaska Refuges,Critical Habitat Areas, and Sanctuaries”found that there are no State Refuges,Critical Habitat Areas,or Sanctuaries in the project vicinity; e The ADNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation "Individual State Park Units in Alaska”was reviewed and it was found that there are no State Parks in the proposed project vicinity.There are state appropriated lands along the proposed alignment; e Review of the "Coastal Zone Boundaries”atlas found that the proposed project area is within the Coastal Management Area.The project affects two Coastal Zones;the City of Bethel Coastal Management District,and the Cenaliulriit CRSA.A CPQ will need to be filled out and submitted to the OPMP; e Research through NMFS and USF&WS revealed that there are no threatened or endangered species existing in the vicinity of the proposed project area.TPECI also contacted two USF&WS representatives to confirm; e The Kuskokwim River is considered EFH.Several creeks and rivers draining into the Kuskokwim River also appear to have EFH.According to the NMFS &the USF&WS web pages,the following essential fish species may inhabit these streams: chinook salmon,coho salmon,sockeye salmon,chum salmon,and pink salmon.At this stage of design,it has been determined that over-water work will be necessary to complete the transmission line.The construction of temporary ramps,river access points,small bridges,and river crossings will need EFH assessments to be performed; e A search of the ADF&G "An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important to the Spawning,Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (AWC)”found that the Kuskokwim River is a cataloged anadromous fish stream (335-10-16600).There are other anadromous fish streams in the area but the ADF&G have not catalogued the streams located to the north side of the Kuskokwim River.The Kuskokwim River supports sheefish,whitefish and spawning whitefish,chinook salmon,sockeye salmon,coho salmon,chum salmon,and pink salmon;and e Research of the USF&WS web site indicates that approximately 7 miles of the preliminary power line routing would cross lands,within the Yukon Delta NWR,that have been selected by TKC but have yet to be conveyed. 7.2 RESPONSES TO LETTER Letters received from agencies,cities,villages and from AVEC raised several general issues.General comments regarding these issues are as follows: Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 20 e Construction of the transmission line may require an EIS that evaluates the proposed transmission line,power plant,Donlin Creek Mine and access road,and the Crooked Creek runway extension project; The EIS will also require a discussion of alternate routes and associated impacts; e Construction of the proposed power plant may require purchasing or leasing lands owned by the BNC and private individuals; e Construction of the proposed transmission lines will require ROWs across native lands,private lands,state and federal lands;and e The transmission line will require many different permits for its completion (Table 3). The project alternatives and their specifics need to be determined after the feasibility report is completed.Each specific alternative will need to be outlined explaining a detailed route,landownership,environmental impacts,mitigation and minimization techniques,time schedules,and reasoning behind the Proposed Action. 8.0 REFERENCES ADCED,2003.Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Community Database,Database available at http://www.dced.state.ak.us May 2003. ADF&G,2003a.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Publications Database, Anadromous Waters Catalog and =Atlas,Database available at http://www.habitat.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/anadcat/anadcat.shtml May 2003. ADF&G,2003b.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Mr.Wayne Dolezal,personal communication,February 12,2003. ADF&G,2003c.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,State of Alaska Refuges,Critical Habitat Areas,and Sanctuaries Database,Database available at http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/adfghome.htm May 2003. ADNR DMLW,2003a.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division ofMining,Land and Water,Ms.Mary Jane Sutliff,letter,April 15,2003. ADNR OHMP,2003b.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Habitat Management and Permitting,Mr.Edward Weiss and Ms.Robin Willis,letter, May 21,2003. ADNR State Parks,2003c.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,State Parks Database,Database available at http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/units/index.htm May, 2003. ADNR,2003d.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,Mr.John Zimmerly,phone conversation,March 11,2003. Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 10/13/2003 Bethel Transmission Line Page 21 ADNR DMLW,2003e.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Mining,Land and Water,Ms.Mary Jane Sutliff,letter,May 8,2003. ADNR ACMP,2003f.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Alaska Coastal Management Program Database,Database available at http://www.gov.state.ak.us/dgc/Explore/Tournw.htm May 2003. Akiachak Limited,Mr.Willie Kasayulie,letter,April 25,2003. AVEC,2003.Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc.,Ms.Meera Kohler,letter,April 21,2003. BNC,2003.The Bethel Native Corporation,Mr.Marc D.Stemp,letter,April 21,2003. Kwethluk,2003.City of Kwethluk,Mr.Boris L.Epchook,letter,April 8,2003. Kwethluk Incorporated,2003.Mr.George Guy,letter,April 30,2003. NMFS,2003a.National Marine Fisheries Service,Ms.Jeanne Hanson,e-mail,April 15, 2003. NMFS,2003b.National Marine Fisheries Service,Endangered and Threatened Species Database,Database available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/default.htm May,2003. SHPO,2003.State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,State Historical Preservation Office,Ms.Julie Raymond-Yakoubian,e-mail,April 10,2003. USACE,2003.Department of Army,United States Army Corps of Engineers,Ms.Mary Leykom,letter,April 28,2003. USFWS,2003a.United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Ms.Ann G.Rappoport,letter, May 7,2003. USFWS,2003b.United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,Mr.Greg Balogh,phone conversation,June 17,2003. USFWS,2003c.United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,Mr.Michael Jimmy,phone conversation,March 17,2003. USFWS,2003d.United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Endangered Species Database, Database available at http://www.17.fws.gov/es/te.cfm May 2003. APPENDIX A MAILING LIST AND SAMPLE LETTER Title <irst Last Name Job Title Company ress Address2 City State Zip W Phone Name Code Agency List (Will receive Appendix A) Mr.Nurul Islam Environmental U.S.Dept.of |Rural Utilities Agriculure ==Washington DC 20250-|(202)720-1414SpecialistAgricultureServiceSouthBldg.1571 Fax 720-0820Room2244 Send Bus.Card Ms.Jeanne Hanson Supervisor National Protective 222 West Anchorage AK 99513 |(907)271-3029 Marine Resources Seventh 271-3030 Fax Fisheries Management Avenue, Service Suite 43 a Mr.Brad Smith Fisheries National Protective 222 West Anchorage AK =99513.|(907)271-3023 Biologist Marine Resources Seventh 271-3030 Fax Fisheries Management Avenue, Service Suite 43 Mr.Andrew =Smith Director Housing and Community 949 E.36"Anchorage AK --99508-|(907)271-4684 "Gus”Urban Planning &Avenue 4399 |271-3667 Fax Development Development Suite 401 Mr.Dan Smith Regulatory U.S.Army P.O.Box Elmendorf AK 99506-|(800)487-2712 Specialist Corps of 6898 AFB 6898 |753-5567 Fax Engineers Ms.RoseM.Brady Realty Officer Bureau of 3601 C Street Anchorage AK --99503 |(907)271-469IndianAffairsSuite1100271-1749 Ms.Ann Dossat Reality Bureau of 3601 C Street Anchorage AK 99503 |(907)271 4593SpecialistIndianAffairsSuite1100271-4801 Mr.Wayne _Dolezal Fisheries Dept.of Fish Habitat &333 Anchorage AK 99518-|(907)267-2333 :Biologist and Game Restoration Raspberry 1599 |267-2464 FaxDivisionRoad Mr.Michael Coffing Subsistence Dept.of Fish Subsistence -P.O.Box Bethel AK --99559 |(907)543-3100 Resource and Game Division 1789 543-4477 Fax Specialist III e-mail mike_coffing@ shgame.state.ak us Ms.Carol Compton Land Use,&Alaska Dept.Div.of Land 550W.7".Anchorage AK 9950J-|(907)269-8567 Land Lease of Natural Ave Suite 3877 |269-8913 Fax Permits Resources 900 C litle First Last Name Job Title Company ress Address2 City State Zip V Phone Name Code Ms.Linda Holzman Water Use Alaska Dept.Div.of Water 550W.7".Anchorage AK 9950]-|(907)269-8641 Lou Permits of Natural Ave Suite 3577 |269-8947 Fax Resources 900 B Ms.Mary Sutliff ROW &Alaska Dept.Div.of Land 550 W.7".Anchorage AK =99501-|(907)269-8564 Jane Easements of Natural Ave Suite 3877 =|269-8913 Fax Resources 900 C Ms.Linda Books Mining Permits AlaskaDept.Div.of 550 W.7",Anchorage AK 99501-|(907)269-8647 of Natural Mining Ave Suite 3577 |269-8913 Resources 900 A Ms.=Judith Bittner State Historic Alaska Dept..Div.of Parks 550 West Anchorage AK =.99501 |(907)-269-8715 Preservation of Natural and 7th Avenue,269-8908 Fax Officer Resources Recreation Suite 1310 Ms.Ann Rappaport _--Field U.S.Fish &Ecological 605 W.4th Anchorage AK 99501 |(907)-271-2787 Supervisor Wildlife Services Ave,271-2786 Fax Service Mr.Michael Rearden Refuge :US.Fish &Yukon Delta P.O.Box Bethel AK --99559-|(907)543-3151ManagerWildlifeNational3460346|543-4413 Fax Service Wildlife Refuge Ms.Sharon Janis Reality Div.USS.Fish &1011 E.Tudor Anchorage AK 99503 |(907)786-3490 Chief Wildlife Road Stop 786-3901 Fax Service 211 *e-mail sharon_janis@f WS.20V Mr,John Oscar Coastal Division of P.O.Box 69 Mekoryuk AK --99630 |(907)827-8748 Coordinator Governmental 827-8749 Fax Coordination e-mail cenaliulriit@sta band.net Mr.'John Malone Coastal Division of P.O.Box Bethel AK =.99559 |(907)543-5301CoordinatorGovernmental1388543-4186 Fax Coordination Ms.Cynthia Zuelow-Project Review Division of 550 W.7"Anchorage AK -s-99503.|(907)269-7478OsbourneAssistantGovernmentalAve.,Suite Fax 269-3981 Coordination _1660 Title first Last Name Job Title Company j 'essl AddressZ City State Zip W Phone Name Code Mr.Kris Noonan AIDEA and 813 W.Anchorage AK 99503 |(907)269-3000 Alaska Energy Northern 269-3044 Fax Authority Lights Blvd., Mr,Bob Carlson Environmental Alaska Dept.Bethel Field P.O,Box Bethel AK =:99557 _|(907)543-3215 Specialist of Office 228 §43-3216 Fax Environmental Conservation Mr.Steve Becker District U.S.Deptof P.O.Box Bethel AK =99559 _|(907)343-7155 Conservationist Agriculture 1869 or 761-7757 Lower 761-3855 Fax Kuskokwim Resource Conser,&Dev Mr,Travis Pate Acting US.Dept.of -P.O.Box 309 Aniak AK =99557 |(907)675-4578 President Agriculture 675-4579 Fax Interior Rivers Resource Cons,&Dev. Council Mr. Jel¥Foley Senior Calista 301 Calista Anchorage AK 99518-|(907)279-5516ExplorationCorporationCourt,Suite A 3028 =|272-5060 FaxGeologist Mr.Nick Enos Exploration Calista 301 Calista Anchorage AK 99518-|(907)279-5516 Geologist Corporation Court,Suite A 3028 |272-5060 Fax Local Government Corporation and Interest Groups Ms.Meera Kohler CEO AVEC Ine,4831 Eagle Anchorage AK 99503 |(800)478-1818Street(800)478-2389 Fax Ms.Nicole Ross Realty Director Akiachak P.O.Box 70 Akiachak AK =99551 |(907)825-4065Native825-4029 Fax Community Mr.George Peter Tribal Akiachak P.O.Box 70 Akiachak AK --99551 |(907)825-4626. Administrator Native 825-4029 Fax Community Title First Last Name Job Title Company 1 ress AddressZ City State Zip WW sPhone Name Code Mr.Willie Kasayulie President Akiachak,P.O.Box Akiachak AK 99551 |(907)825-4328 .Limited 51010 825-4115 Ms.Lovey Duffy Village Aniak P.O.Box 349 Aniak AK 99557 |(907)675-4349 Administrator Traditional 675-4513 Fax Council Mr.-Jason Ward Project Aniak -Environmenta Aniak AK 99557 |(907)675-4349 Manager Traditional |Coord.675-4513 Fax Council Mr.Artie Demantle Owner Aniak Light &P.O,Box 129 Aniak AK --99557 |(907)675-4334 Power Co. Mr.Mare Stemp President Bethel Native P.O.Box 719 Bethel AK 99559 |(907)$43-2124 Corporation 543-2897 Fax Mr.Hal Borrego Bethel Utilities 3380 C Street Anchorage AK 99503 |(907)562-2500 Suite 210 562-2502 Mr.Peter Gillia City City of Akiak =P.O.Box Akiak AK --99552.|(907)765-7412 Administrator 52167 765-7414 Fax Mr.IvanM._Ivan Executive Akiak IRA P.O.Box Akiak AK 99552 |(907)765-7112 Director Council 52165 765-7512 Fax . Mr.Sam Jackson Chairman Kokarmiut P.O.Box 147 Akiak AK --99552 |(907)765-7228 Corporation 765-7619 Fax Mr.Robert Ballow President Kuskokwim 4300 B St.Anchorage AK 99503 |(907)243-2944 Corporation Suite 207 Ext.105 Ms.Rachel -Kline Land Manager Kuskokwim 4300 B St.Anchorage AK 99503 |(907)243-2944CorporationSuite207Ext,102 Mr..RobertE.Herron City Manager City of Bethel P.O.Box Bethel AK =.99559 |(907)543-1372 1388 543-4171 Fax Mr,=Carl Berger Executive Lower P.O.Box Bethel AK =.99559 |(907)543-5967 Director Kuskokwim 2021 543-3130 Fax Econ.Dev. Council Mr.Myrom Maneng President Assoc.of P.O.Box 219 Bethel AK 99559 |(907)543-7301 Village $43-3596 Fax Council Presidents litle First Last Name Job Title Company ressl Address2 City State Zip V Phone Name Code Ms.Glenda Miller Realty Officer Assoc,of P.O.Box 219 Bethel AK 99559 _|(907)543-7351Village$43-5732 Fax Council Presidents Mr.Steve Street Archaeologist Assoc.of P.O.Box 219 Bethel AK 99559 |(907)543-745] Village 543-5732 Fax Council Presidents Ms.Flora Olrun Executive Orutsararmuit P.O.Box 927 Bethel AK 99559 _|(907)543-2608 Director Native Council 543-2639 Ms.Marie Yako Realty Officer Orutsararmuit.P.O.Box 927 Bethel AK =.99559 |(907)543-2608 Native Council 543-2639 Ms.Helen Pitka Village Chuathbaluk P.O.Box Chuathbaluk AK 99557 |(907)467-4313 Administrator Village _CHU 467-4113 Fax 'Council Ms.Mini John Village Crooked Creek P.O.Box 69 Crooked AK =99575 |(907)432-2200 Administrator Village Creek 432-2201 Fax Council Ms.Bernice Hetherington Village Upper Kalskag P.O.Box 50 Kalskag AK =.99607 _|(907)471-2207 7 Administrator Village 471-2399 Fax Council Mr.Paul Kermeroff City of Upper P.O.Box 80 Upper AK =:99607 |(907)471-2220 .Kalskag Kalskag 471-2237 Fax Mr.JamesA.Kvamme Realty Officer Kuskokwim P.O.Box 127 Aniak AK =99557 |(907)675-4384Native675-4387 Fax Association Mr,Leo Morgan Executive Kuskokwim P.O,Box 127 Aniak AK --99557 |(907)675-4384DirectorNative675-4387 Fax Association Mr..-Travis Pate City Manager City ofAniak P.O.189 Aniak AK =99557 |(907)675-4481675-4486 Fax Ms.Rose Nook Village Village of P.O.Box 27 Lower AK --99626 |(907)471-2379 Administrator Lower Kalskag Kalskag 471-2378 Fax Ms,Anastasia Levi Mayor City ofLower P.O.Box 69 Lower AK =:99626 |(907)471-2440 .Kalskag Kalskag 471+2460 Fax Community Title First Last Name Job Title Company . ressi Address2 City State Zip W Phone - Name Code Mr.Wassillie George Deputy IRA P.O.Box 130 Kwethluk AK =.99621 |(907)757-6714Director(907)757-6328 Mr.Chariton Epchook President Organized P.O.Box130 Kwethluk AK 99621.|(907)757-6043 A Village of 757-6321 Fax Kwethluk Ms.Marilyn Nicolai Realty Officer Organized P.O.Box 127°Kwethluk AK --99621.|(907)757-6216 Village of 757-6328 Fax Kwethluk Mr.George Guy Business Kwethluk P.O,Box 110 Kwethluk AK =:99621 |(907)757-6613ManagerIncorporated757-6212 Fax Mr.Boris Epchook Mayor City of P.O.Box 50 Kwethluk AK =--99621.|(907)757-6022Kwethluk757-6497 Fax Mr.Noah Allexie Sr,Coucil Tuntutuliak P.O.Box 95 Tuluksak AK 99679-|(907)695-6420 Member Traditional 0095 |695-6932 Fax Council EPA Mr.Joseph Sallaffie Tribal Tuluksak P.O.Box 95 Tuluksak AK 99679-|(907)695-6420 Administrator Native 0095 |695-6932 Fax Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 7/2/2003 Bethel Power Plant &Transmission Line Page 1 April 3,2003 Re:Bethel Transmission Line Project Number:1117-01 Subject:Bethel Power Plant & Transmission Line <Title><First Name><Last Name> <Job Title> <Company> <Address> <City><State><Zip Code> Dear <Title><Last Name> Nuvista Light &Power,Co.,(Nuvista)initiated a feasibility study to construct a 138 kV transmission line from Bethel,Alaska to the proposed Donlin Creek gold mine project,located north of Crooked Creek.Nuvista is a non-profit corporation recently formed by Calista Corporation to serve as a regional generation and transmission utility.The transmission line would be located along the northern bank of the Kuskokwim River.The power line would provide electricity to the proposed Donlin Creek mine project and the community of Bethel,and in due course the villages of Akiachak,Akiak,Tulusak, Lower/Upper Kalskag,Aniak,Chuathbaluk,and Crooked Creek.The goal of this project is to develop a more economical and environmentally friendly long-term source of electrical power for the Calista region as well as to provide power to the Donlin Creek mine project.Nuvista retained the services of Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,Esq.as the project consultant.Mr.Bettine subcontracted with Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.(TPECT)to develop an environmental overview and determine the land ownership status. Early identification of environmental concerns associated with 138 kV transmission line will facilitate efficient project development.To ensure that all possible factors are considered in the design of the proposed project,Nuvista is requesting agency and public comments and recommendations.Your agency's input at this time is important to this project. Location and Description Bethel is located at the mouth of the Kuskokwim River,40 miles inland from the Bering Sea,and 400 air miles west of Anchorage.It lies at approximately 60.79222°North Latitude and 161.75583°West Longitude (Sec.09,TOO8N,RO71W,Seward Meridian.) (DCED,2002)(Figure 1). Donlin Creek Mine,the final destination of the 138 kV transmission line,is located approximately 12 miles north of Crooked Creek.Neither Bethel nor the other communities along the transmission route are connected via a road system.Crooked WARS 11:19 AM Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 7/2/2003 Bethel Power Plant &Transmission Line Page2 Creek lies on the north bank of the Kuskokwim River within the Kilbuk-Kuskokwim Mountains,141 miles northeast of Bethel and 275 miles west of Anchorage.It lies at approximately 62.012050°North Latitude and 158.197033°West Longitude.(Sec.32, TO21N,RO48W,Seward Meridian)(Figure 1). Calista Corporation and its associated village corporations own the majority of the lands along the proposed 138 kV transmission line corridor.A number of private native allotments would be affected by the transmission line. Proposed Project The length of the 138 kV transmission line between Bethel and the Donlin Creek mine will be approximately 191 miles.(Figurel).The transmission line will require a right-of- way width of 40-50 feet within the Bethel City limits and a 125-foot width for the remainder of the line.Construction of the transmission line between Bethel and Donlin Creek will require temporary points of access from.the Kuskokwim River.Power to supply the community of Bethel,the villages along the power line route and the 70 megawatts of power required by the Donlin Creek gold mine project will come from a large power plant built in Bethel.The proposed site of the power plant and the beginning point of the 138 kV transmission line is located south of Bethel,at the approximatecoordinatesN60.770417°,W161.788667°. Project Schedule The project is currently undergoing a feasibility study.Nuvista anticipates the feasibilitystudywillbecompletedinNovember,2003.The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and location engineering are scheduled to begin during the onset of 2004 and would not be completed until March,2006.Detailed engineering will begin in mid-to-late 2004 and would continue into 2006.The project team anticipates completing the environmental work and engineering by the end of 2006.Construction of the selected power supply alternative and the Bethel to Donlin Creek mine 138 kV transmission line is currently scheduled for 2008-2010.The system is scheduled for full operation by late spring 2010. What We Want from You Over the next 30 days,we would like to get your comments and concerns involving only the 138 kV transmission line.Comments and concerns regarding the proposed power plant at Bethel will be solicited at a later date.Your concerns will be reviewed to help identify new possibilities,issues,and permit requirements.All questions and comments are important. For More Information If you have any questions regarding the project,please contact Michael Travis at (907) 522-4337 or Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,Esq,at (907)336-2335. TAMA ALND AM Frank J.Bettine,P.E.,1117-01 7/2/2003 Bethel Power Plant &Transmission Line Page 3 Sincerely. Michael Travis,P.E. President 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite #102 Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Enclosed Figure 1 -Location and Vicinity Map,Transmission Route WIS 11:19 AM APPENDIX B PHONE LOG,COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES,BUSINESSES, AND THE PUBLIC MEETING LOG DATE:February 12,2003 TIME:Afternoon IN ATTENDENCE:Mr.Bill Anklewich (TPECI)and Mr.Wayne Dolezal (ADF&G) SUBJECT:Anadromous Fish Stream Catalog Mr.Bill Anklewich of Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting (TPECI )went to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)Habitat Division to view the anadromous fish stream catalogs.TPECI spoke briefly with Mr.Wayne Dolezal about catalogued fish streams.Mr.Dolezal stated that none of the streams of the northern bank on the Kuskowim River have been catalogued yet.He informed Mr.Anklewich that this did not mean that they are not anadromous fish streams,only that they haven't had the time to catalog them yet.He told me that they would not be finished with cataloguing them until 2007 or later.He informed Mr.Anklewich that for now they all go by the Kuskokwim River catalog number. TELEPHONE LOG DATE:March 11,2003 TIME:Unknown FROM:John Zimmerly;ADNR,State Parks and Recreation TO:Michael Travis in place of Bill Anklewich;Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. SUBJECT:State parks in the Proposed Bethel Kuskokwim Transmission Line Area Ranger John Zimmerly (sp.)left a message with Mr.Travis that there are no state parks in the subject area.The ADNR website was also consulted and it confirmed this. TELEPHONE LOG DATE:March 12,2003 TIME:Unknown FROM:Mike Coleman of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)(202)502- 8236 He returned my phone Call TO:Bill Anklewich of Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc (TPECIT) SUBJECT:Looking for Lead Agency for Bethel Transmission Line Project Mr.Coleman phoned me in response to a message I left on his phone pertaining to being the lead agency for the project.He informed me that they were not going to be the lead agency because it was not in their jurisdiction.The reasoning behind his FERC siting answer was as follows: They do not have authority over electric transmission lines; They do not have authority over intrastate work,only authority involves interstate work;and . e@ Only have authority over gas pipeline and hydroelectric interstate power and are the rate authority. He did inform me to check with the Alaska power commission.I thanked him for his time and information. TELEPHONE LOG DATE:March 17,2003 TIME:9:20 am FROM:Bill Anklewich TO:Nurul Islam SUBJECT:Looking for Lead Agency for Bethel Transmission Line Project I phoned Mr.Islam looking for answers pertaining to the lead agency of the proposed project.He asked me questions pertaining to project specifics (kind of power plant, length of transmission lines,and main user of the electricity).I informed him of what we knew at this point,and that TPECI was performing this initial non-specific environmental study and that the rest of the environmental would be bid on in the future.I informed him TPECI was looking at finding out who the Lead Agency would be pertaining to this project,what kind of permitting would be required,and the environmental impacts of the project.- He informed me that he didn't know anything about the project and he could not answer if they would be the lead agency.He informed me to determine that he would need to know more about the project.He also informed me of the following: e They may be the main funding agency but may not be the Lead Agency; e They may just be a Cooperating Agency or one of many Cooperating agencies; e He informed me that if the transmission lines are going through federal lands that BLM may want to be the Lead Agency;and e He informed me that other factors may be involved to determine who the Lead Agency would be. I asked him for his address and told him I would send him some information for his review.I thanked him for his time and information. TELEPHONE LOG DATE:March 17,2003 TIME:2:05 pm FROM:Bill Anklewich TO:Michael Jimmy;USF&WS Refuge Info Technician I SUBJECT:Threatened and Endangered Species in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge I spoke to Mr.Jimmy to find out the species of animals and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.He informed me the only species listed in the park are the Spectacled Eider,Steller's Eider,and the Emperor Goose.He informed me that these birds only occur near the coastal areas.He told me he did not know of any animals or plants that are threatened or endangered near the Kuskokwim River.I thanked him for the information and double checked it with information found on the internet and Mr.Greg Balogh of USF&WS. TELEPHONE LOG DATE:June 17,2003 TIME:Unknown FROM:Bill Anklewich,Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. TO:Greg Balogh,United States Fish and Wildlife Service SUBJECT:Proposed Kuskokwim Bethel Transmission Line Subject Area Threatened and Endangered Species Mr.Greg Balogh was contacted to reassure that there are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals in the subject area.He informed me that there are not any threatened or endangered species in the area.I thanked him for his time and information. Mike Travis From:Jeanne Hanson [Jeanne.Hanson@noaa.gov]ient:Friday,April 18,2003 10:45 AM 0:Mike Travis Ce:Lawrence R.Peltz Subject:Re:Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line Then it will be USDA that will make the call whether or not there would be an adverse affect to EFH,and if so do an assessment and consultation. Jeanne Mike Travis wrote: >Good point.So far,it appears that the US Department of Agriculture >will be the lead agency. -----Original Message----- From:Jeanne Hanson [mailto:Jeanne.Hanson@noaa.gov] Sent:Wed 4/16/2003 10:56 AM To:Mike Travis Cc:Lawrence R.Peltz Subject:Re:Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line VVVVVVVVVVThe question will be who is the Federal Action Agency for this? Mike Travis wrote:VVVVY>Thank you,Jeanne,for your timely response.We will be coordinating closely with NMFS as the roject progresses.; > >Sincerely, > >Michael Travisbo]-----Original Message---- From:Jeanne Hanson [mailto:Jeanne.Hanson@noaa.gov]} Sent:Tue 4/15/2003 3:48 PM To:Mike Travis Cc:Lawrence R.Peltz Subject:Bethel Power Plant and Transmission LineVvvVVVVVVY VVVVVVVVVVVDear Michael,vvvvVVvVNOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service)received your inquiry i vvVVVVV.VvVvVV/vVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVvvvYVYVVVVVVVYVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVrequesting agency comments and recommendations on a proposed transmission line from Bethel to the Donlin Creek gold mine project. NOAA Fisheries is charged with protection of living marine resources including Essential Fish Habitat (EFH),marine mammals and the administration of the Endangered Species Act as it applies to certain cetaceans and pinnipeds in Alaska.From the information you provided, we do not expect these marine mammals to be affected by your proposed activity.NOAA Fisheries'primary concern for this project will be the possibility of adverse impacts to EFH for salmon in the Yukon River and all tributaries within the project boundaries. The trigger for EFH consultation is a Federal action agency's determination that an action may adversely affect EFH.If a Federal action agency determines that an action will not adversely affect EFH,no consultation is required,and the Federal action agency is not required to contact NMFS. Should there be an adverse affect determination consultation will be necessary,and the Federal action agency will be required to submit an EFH assessment.Once an assessment is received by NOAA Fisheries,the Habitat Conservation Division will then review and offer conservation recommendations,if any,to the action agency to protect EFH. We have established an EFH area on our Internet site http:/www.fakr@noaa.gov,Habitat Conservation.This site includes the EFH Environmental Assessment,EFH Habitat Assessment Reports,EFH data sets,EFH maps and an EFH search for species by latitude/longitude tool.We continue to expand this site and hope the EFH information will assist your review. Any action that may adversely affect EFH should include an EFH assessment in either a separate document or clearly referenced in a support document,such as an environmental assessment for the project. An EFH assessment is outlined in 50 CFR Part 600.920 (g)and includes the mandatory contents:(i)a description of the proposed action,(ii) an analysis of the effects on EFH,(iii)the agencies views regarding the effects of the action on EFH,and (iv)proposed mitigation.These contents will be included in some form of your assessment,presumably the EIS mentioned in your letter.However,a clearly referenced EFH assessment will satisfy the requirements of the provisions regarding EFH within the administration of the Magnuson Stevens Act (16 U.S.C.1801 et seq.). Please contact Larry Peltz,271-1332,the NMFS biologist for your area, if you need further assistance with your request. Jeanne L.Hanson _ Field Office Supervisor for Habitat Conservation Division United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . Anchorage Fish &Wildlife Field Office - 60S West 4"Avenue,Room G-61 WAY -7 28 Anchorage,Alaska 99501-2249 Mr.Michael Travis Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 102 Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Re:Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line Dear Mr.Travis, The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has reviewed your April 3,2003,letter requesting identification of concerns related to a potential 138 kV transmission line from Bethel to the proposed Donlin Creek gold mine project.The project is currently undergoing a feasibility studyscheduledforcompletioninNovember2003.The Environmental Impact,Statement and location engineering are scheduled to begin in 2004 and to be completed in 2006.Construction is currently scheduled for 2008 to 2010.The transmission line would be approximately 191 miles long,and outside the Bethel city limits would require a 125-foot wide right-of-way. Construction of the transmission line would require temporary points of access from the Kuskokwim River.The project would require construction of a power plant in Bethel. The Service provided comments on an earlier study (letter dated July 9,2002 from Michael B. Rearden to Frank J.Bettine),and those comments are still valid.In that letter,the Service made several points,several of which are reiterated here.First,lands within a National Wildlife Refuge which have been selected but not conveyed to a Native corporation are managed as any other refuge land,and any development on such lands would require a right-of-way permit.The Service also commented that in making a decision on a right-of-way permit,we would look at the existence of feasible and prudent alternatives which would not impact refuge values.These may encompass alternative power line routes as well as alternative modes of meeting regional power needs.Finally,no refuge use may be allowed unless it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and with the purposes of the refuge system as a whole.Thus, the compatibility standard is not only a decision factor under Title XI of ANILCA,it is a specific requirement of ANILCA. The Service believes that the entire scope of the project should be comprehensively evaluated as is required under NEPA,including direst,indirect,and cumulative project impacts.This includes not only all aspects of the transmission line including alternative routes,but also the Mr.Michael Travis Page2 power plant and other power generation alternatives,the Donlin Creek mine,the road to the mine,and secondary power distribution to Yukon Delta and Kuskokwim River villages. Specific issues which should be addressed in the feasibility study include: 1 10. 11 An assessment of the costs and schedule necessary for preparation of an environmental impact statement to obtain a right-of-way permit for construction of the transmission line within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge., Potential impacts of all project features,including the transmission line and towers,on migratory birds. Potential impacts of all project features,including the transmission line and towers on fish and wildlife populations and habitat,and subsistence activities. Construction timing and methods to minimize impacts to fish,wildlife,habitat,and subsistence activities. Construction access points along the Kuskokwim River and the need for and location of construction camps. Stream crossing methods and buffer strip retention. Fuel transportation,storage and spill prevention plans. Raptor nest surveys along the Kuskokwim River. Presence of endangered species and the potential for adverse impacts on those species. Requirements for development (wetland fills)to support transmission line construction and an assessment of potential development in the villages should power be made available. Methods to mitigate all adverse impacts on the environment. Mr.Michael Travis If you have any questions concerning these comments please contact Phil Bra of our projectplanningstaffat(907)271-2440 or by email at philbma@fws.gov.Questions regarding landstatusandright-of-way permitting within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge should be addressed to Michael B.Rearden,Refuge Manager at (907)543-315 lor by email at michael_rearden@fws.gov. Sincerely, Ann G.Rappoport Field Supervisor ce:M.Rearden,Yukon Delta NWR,USFWS S.Shuck,Realty,USFWS . K.Laing,Migratory Bird Management,USFWS E.Weiss,ADF&G M.Leykom,COE T:\Phil_Bena\Miso Projects\Bethalto Donlin.#2.doc DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,ALASKAP.O.BOX 6898ELMENDORFAFB,ALASKA 99506-6898 Regulatory Branch .' North Section APRIL 2 8 2005 9-2003-0375 Mr.Michael Travis,P.E. Travis/Peterson Consulting,Ine 3305 Arctic Blvd.,Suite 102 Anchorage,AK 99503 Dear Mr Travis: This is in regard to your April 3,2003,request for comments and concerns relating to a proposed 138 kv transmission line to be constructed from Bethel, Alaska to the Donlin Creek Mine north of the village of Crooked Creek. Complex issues surround the scope of this project and will need to be clarified prior to beginning work on the environmental document and DepartmentoftheArmy(DA)permitting.The scope of analysis for this project willnecessarilyincludetheconstructionoftheproposedpowerplantor alternative power generation source.It appears that the Donlin Creek Mine may be an integral part of the project as well.If so,the transmission line and power generating facility would need to be evaluated in NEPA documents supporting the mine project.If the transmission line/Bethel power generation facility is an independent project,i.e.it is an economically viable project obviate of the mine,then we may consider the project separately from the mine project. Required DA permits would include a Section 404 permit for the disposal of dredged or £111 material in waters of the U.8.including wetlands.The Kuskokwim River is navigable and consequently any structures placed in,or work conducted below the ordinary high water mark of the Kuskokwim River, would require a Section 10 permit. Additional issues which would concern us include:the applicant's evaluation of alternative transmission line routes in an effort to avoid adverse impacts;potential impacts of-the power lines and towers to bird migration routes and air traffic routes;infrastructure requirements in the individual villages connected to the transmission line;proximity of the overhead lines and support towers to village airports;access to the project facilities in areas not on existing roads;and construction methods and timing. Thank you for the opportunity to become involved early in the project genesis.If copies of the preliminary feasibility study for this project are still available,please send me one with your next correspondence.If you have questiqns concerning this letter,please contact me at 753-2716. Sincerel YayMary Leyko Regulatory Specialist STAVE OF ALASKA / resexesDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES DIVISION OFMINING,LANO AND WATER 550 W.7TH AVE.,SUITE 9006SOUTHCENTRALREGIONLANDOFFICEANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501-3577 April 15,2003 Michael D.Travis P.E. President Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Re:Bethel Power Plant &Transmission Line Dear Mr.Travis, Thank you for the notification of your proposed transmission line in the Bethel to Donlin Creek Mine area.Because of the scale of the map we are unable to determine,with accuracy,which state lands are involved. We have reviewed an overview of the area covered by the project and it appears that the route traverses several RS 2477 trails,some airports and the Kuskokwim River.This information may not be accurate. Could you please submit a map of the project that accurately and specifically describes its location.We would appreciate a legal description of the lands involved by providing an accurate map and list the land descriptions according to Township,Range,Meridian and Section.This information is available at State Department of Natural Resources Public Room.Once we receive the information we will be in a better position to determine if an application for a right of way on state lands is appropriate. If you have any questions regarding this request please contact me at 269-8564.We look forward to working with you to secure the appropriate state authorization for your project. Sincerely,. ht 0:SutliffNatalResource Specialist "Develop,Conserve and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans” STATE OF ALASKA /essaDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING,LAND AND WATER 550 W.7TH AVE.,SUITE 800CSOUTHCENTRALREGIONLANDOFFICEANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501-3577 William Anklewich Staff Scientist Travis/Peterson Environmental]Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard Anchorage,Alaska 99503 May 8,2003 Re:Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line Dear Mr.Anklewich, Thank you for providing the status maps for the Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line Project.When State lands are involved,as in this case,there needs to be an application for a right of way.I have enclosed an application form that can be submittedtothefollowingaddressalongwiththeapplicationfee: Public Information Center Department <of Natural Resources550West7™Avenue Suite 1260 Anchorage,Alaska 99501-3557 (907)269-8400 Thank you for your prompt response to my request for information.If you have any questions please call me at 269-8564. vaninden bittNatalResourceSpecialist "Develop,Conserve and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans” STE OE AINSI,mms onan333RASPBERRYROAD ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99518-1599 PHONE:(907)267-2285FAX:(907)267-2464 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTIN May 21,2003 Michael Travis,P.E. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 102 Anchorage,AK 99503 Dear Mr.Travis: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G)and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Habitat Management and Permitting (DNR/OHMP)has received your request to provide scoping comments on the proposed electrical transmission line between Bethel,Alaska and the Donlin Creek Mine.The information provided was rather general,however,some concerns are evident from what was provided.Once full plans are developed,the ADF&G and OHMP would also like to review those for potential concerns.Based on a review of the information provided,we have the following comments. OHMP Fish Habitat Permits will most likely be required for the project,dependent on transmission line crossing methods and equipment crossing methods and locations.In order to fully evaluate the permitting needs and provide meaningful input,the OHMP and ADF&G will need more . information on the project.Initially,the location and methods for equipment and transmission line crossing for each stream crossed by the transmission line will be needed.If the crossings or construction methods involve any work below the Ordinary High Water (OHW)mark of the stream or water body,then these additional data are needed. Type of work occurring in the stream Fish species present or utilizing each stream Geomorphologic characteristics at each site Habitat characteristics at each site Another issue will be access to the line both during and after construction.Your letter mentions use of access points from the Kuskokwim River.Information on these sites,and on any access road along the length of the line,will be needed.The projected use and permanency of these roads and access sites will be needed in addition to the information requested above.The type of transmission line (aerial,underground,etc.)and the methods for construction will also affect other fish and wildlife concerns such as interference with migrations,bird strikes,etc. "Develop,Conserve,and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans.” Michael Travis,P.E.2 May 21,2003 We appreciate the opportunity to comment.Once plans start to solidify more,we would be available for a meeting to discuss concerns and options.For your information,projects of this nature in Western Alaska formerly reviewed by the ADF&G,Habitat &Restoration Division,will now be reviewed by the ADF&G in Anchorage and the new OHMP in Fairbanks.In the future,you can contact Robin Willis at ADF&G (907)-267-2329 for comments related to the ADF&G fish and wildlife concerns.You can contact Mac McLean (907)-459-7281 with the /OHMP regarding comments related to fish habitat and permitting at stream crossings along the route. Sincerely, Dick Lefebvre,Deputy Commissioner A)bh Pokin Wha» Edward W.Weiss Robin Willis Habitat Biologist Habitat Biologist Anchorage Area Office ADF&G ed_weiss@adnr.state.ak.us robin_willis@fishgame.state.ak.us ce:A.Rappoport,USFWS J.Hooper,AVCP J.Hanson,NMFS M.McLean,ADNR T.Ward,ADF&G/CF/Bethel R.Willis,ADF&G/WC/Anchorage C.Whitmore,ADF&G/SF/Bethel R.Seavoy,ADF&G/WC/Bethel J.Oscar,Cefialiulriit CRSA Bill Anklewich om:Mike Travis nt:Thursday,April 10,2003 11:23 AM 192 Bill AnklewichSubject:FW:Bethel Transmission Line CardforJuteRaymond-Yakoubt. - --Original Message----- From:Julie Raymond-Yakoublan [mailto:juliery@dnr.state.ak.us] Sent:Thursday,April 10,2003 10:52 AM To:Mike Travis Subject:Bethel Transmission Line Michael,.: As I mentioned in our telephone conversation earlier today,with a project the size of the proposed transmission line,it is likely that large areas will require archaeologicalsurvey.Therefore,it would be wise,as you noted,to include the likelihood ofarchaeologicalsurveyworkinthebudgetplanningprocess.At this time our office is .unable to give any more specific details regarding the scope or nature of such a survey. Thanks! Julie Raymond-Yakoubian April 21,2003 Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 102 Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Re:Bethel Power Plant &Transmission Line Dear Mr.Travis, Bethel Native Corporation (BNC)is in receipt of your letter of April 2,2003,requesting our comments and concems on the proposed project to install a 138kV electric transmission line from Bethel to the proposed Donlin Creek mine project.BNC's Land Committee met on April 12,2003 and had an opportunity to review your letter.We understand that the transmission line will run for 191 miles from Bethel to Donlin Creek, and will require a right-of-way width of 40-50 feet within Bethel City limits and a 125-foot wide width for the remainder of the line.This project is currently undergoing a feasibility Study,which is expected to be completed in November 2003. The land status around Bethel is complicated the existence of numerous land holders, including BNC (surface),Calista (subsurface)Native Allottees,the City of Bethel,and other private land owners.The map provided did not include detailed land status information and it was difficult for the Land Committee members to comment on the transmission line route or determine what impact the line would have on BNC lands.It is evident,due to the land status around Bethel,that site control to acquire the right-of- way for the transmission line will be complicated by having to obtain permits from private land holders who own land under ANCSA,and those who own Iand in a restricted status.We did note that the transmission line followed section lines.Is there a reason for this?Will this power line be constructed above ground?We would also like to obtain a more detailed map to assist the Land Committee in understanding what impacts the transmission line will have on BNC lands.Additionally,we would like to inform you that permission would be needed from BNC to perform any studies or environmental work on our land.Your request must be made in writing to BNC and beaccompaniedbyafilingfeeof$50.00. The Land Committee understands that there will be a power plant,but that the location and other specifics are not known,other than the plant will be located somewhere south of Bethel.One of our Land Committee members was present at a recent Bethel Chamber of Commerce meeting in which it was reported that the power plant would be located somewhere on BNC's lands.BNC was never contacted nor informed that their land would be used prior to it becoming public knowledge.We reproach the lack of courtesy given to BNC,and request that we are kept in the loop on any and all issues that involve BNC land. BNC has environmental concems and because we lack adequate information regarding this project,it is impossible for us to support the project.Other questions raised by our Land Committee include:What kind of power plant will be established and how much land will be required for its development?We have heard rumors that it will be fueled by coal.We have concerns that burning coal is not healthy for the people,animals,and the tundra.Who will monitor its operation?Our rough estimates of the location places it near traditional subsistence and established fish camps.What other options have Nuvista considered for the location of the transmission line?Have they considered placing it on the other side of the mountain? In closing,BNC needs more information up front and would like to be informed about the process and plans about the project as it progresses.We are unable to comment on the location of the line given the lack of detailed information on the map.We thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, i «<aMarcD.Sterfip President/CEO AKIACHAK LIMITED Post Office Box 51010 Akiachak,Alaska 99551 (907)825-4328 Fax #(907)825-4115 25 April 2003 Mr.Michael Travis,P.E. President 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite #102 Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Re:Bethel Transmission Line Project Number:111701 Dear Mr.Travis, Per Board of Director directive 1 am responding to your request for comments regarding the Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line,letter dated April 3,2003. The Akiachak Limited Board of Directors met on April 11%,2003,and reviewed and discussed your letter.Generally,we are supportive of the efforts of the Nuvista Light &Power Company (Nuvista)to provide low cost electricity to _the villages along the Kuskokwim River in light of the high cost of generating our community with fossil fuel system. The Board realizes that Nuvista will go on the corporate lands during the course of the construction of a 138 kV transmission line from Bethel to the Donlin Mine site,basically on the north side of the Kuskokwim River.The Board does not object to this endeavor.. There are several questions the Board would like some answers to regarding the proposed route and the possible impacts to our shareholder activities on corporate lands,They are: 1.Is the project intent to construct a road on the length of the right- of-way to maintain the power line? 2.Are there going to be any restrictions for shareholders to conduct subsistence activities along the right-of-way? 3.What type of restrictions and/or protections are there for Akiachak Limited when the transmission line crosses the Gweek River? 4.What type of restrictions and/or protections are there for Akiachak Limited when the transmission line crosses corporate lands? There may be other comments and questions in the future,but these are the primary issues of concern to the Board of Directors.We would like to be kept informed and be involved during the course of the project. I thank you for allowing us to make our comments regarding the project. Sincerely, AKIACHAK LIMITED President &CEO HWETHLUK INCORPORATED P.O.Box 110 Kwethluk,Alaska 99621 Phone:(907)757-6613;Fax:(907)757-6212 April 30,2003 Michael Travis,P.E.President Travis/Peterson Environmen Consulting,Inc, 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 102 Anchorage,AK 99503 Re:Transmission Line from Bethel to Donlin Creek Dear Mr.Travis,P.E. The receipt and invitation of yours for comments and/or recommendations dated April 3,2003 is acknowledged. thank you, The development of an "economical and environmentally friendly”electric power source in the Calista/Association of Village Council President region will be most welcome if:(1)Economically,electricity use costs will definitely be lowered to acceptable level/s for all commercial,educational,and private customers.(2)Environmentally friendly goal and objectives should apply in all of the development phases of the electric transmission line project. There is no doubt that various subsistence hunting,fishing,and trapping areas could be disturbed rendering them less/non-productive places.To minimize/mitigate such possible environmental impacts to the Kuskokwim River -watershed and including all its north side tributaries watersheds should undergo individual careful review in their respective "crossing areas”(of the transmission line)for prevention of or mitigation of riverbank or stream bank erosions,It must be clearly understood that all these watershed areas are important parts of the entire breadbasket of the Kuskokwim River area villages which and whose respective residents are highly dependent on renewable natural resources.(3)Perhaps,as a thought,the transmission lines rights of way could be designed to run on the southemn edges,as appropriate,of the tundra north of the Kuskokwim River.In the hill or mountain areas,the transmission lines design should provide for maximum protection,including possible enhancements,of fish and game habitat.(4) To keep reduced high wires aerial cluttering particularly in the vicinities of the villages referred to East of Bethel, the possible applicability of single wire ground return and electric line such as exists between Bethel and Napakiak should be given some review or study.The affected village residents should be consulted for their view points and thoughts for the most acceptable rights of way design to their village.This conception,development,and implementation of the transmission line will change the landscape to perpetuity that makes it of utmost importance for extra diligent selection of rights of way routes.In addition,diligent selections may lead to "ownership” relevancy,pride and acceptability of the proposed project.I thank you for the opportunity to present. Sincerely, Kwethluk,Incorporated George Guy, Business Manager GG/amo ce:file 64/88/2883 14:29 7576437 CITY OF KWETHLLK PAGE City of Kwethiuk 11*Kwethiuk Streat P.O.Box 50 Kwethjuk,Alaska 99621 Telephone (907)737-6022 PAX (907)757-6497 April 8,2003 Mr.Michae}D.Travis,P.E. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Subject:Letter dated April 3,2003 Bethe}Transmission Line,Project #1117-01 Bethe)Power Plant &Transmission Line Dear Mr.Travis: Thank you for the correspondence referenced above and your quest for comments andconcernswemayhaveinthedevelopmentofthisproject. As of today,I have no comments and or concerns but will bring to the attention ofthe City Council the correspondence you sent to seek their comments and or concerns of the proposed Transmission Line from Bethe)Alaska to the Donlin Creek Mine. I would rather comment as soon as I receive a copy of the Environmental ImpactStatementandtheproposedcostoftheprojectfromplanning,development,and to implementation. Thank you for considering our comments and concems as important to the development of this project while in the planning phase. If you have any questions or comments please foel free to contact me at the above listed telephone number during normal business hours. Cordially, OS eS)Post-it*Fax Note Psa -22 a>7BVMayorfae,Hf?TRAASE Butts 8%tent PEGE..; Phone @ Phere6Ce:KwethlukCityCouncil = Z o7 2372 Geax |File 267 $22-J/g VP"9077576 VF7 AVEC: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC. April 21,2003 03-M-050E Mr.Michael Travis,P.E. President Travis/Peterson Environmental Consutting,Inc. Suite,102 3305 Arctic Boulevard Anchorage,Alaska 99503 RE:Comments on Bethel Transmission Line Dear Mr.Travis: A review of the three page letter dated April 3,2003,and attached Figure 1,Bethel Transmission Line Proposed Route dated February 14,2003,resulted in the following comments: 1.How does the capacity of the proposed 138 KV line compare with current and projected loads?Would a lower operating voitage line be adequate,or is a higher operating voltage line necessary? 2.Was a DC transmission line considered,and if so,why is it not being given additional consideration? 3.How many individual stepdown transformation sites are proposed between Bethe! and the Donlin Creek mine site? 4.How will the reliability of the line be affected by the number of individual stepdown transformation sites? 5.Will a communications conductor such as a fiber optic cable be carried on the transmission line? 6.i.a paralleling road being proposed for construction and future maintenance of theine 7.Will there be any 138 KV crossings of the Kuskokwim River,for example at Aniak? 8.Has a recommended conductor size been identified? 9.Has a recommended tower configuration been developed at this time? 10.Has an average span length been recommended at this time? 4831 Eagle Street -Anchorage.Alaska 99503-7497 -Phone (907)SA1-1818 «Tn State (RON)ATRARIN .Fav (QN7\SAOANRA 11.It does not appear that the proposed route is in any avalanche areas.However,it could be located in areas of severe icing and flooding and ice flows from flooding. What steps are being taken to prevent power interruptions associated with these natural events? 12.Vandalism in the form of rifle shots at the insulators and conductors may occur.What steps are being taken to alleviate this potential hazard? 13.ls automated load shedding of individual stepdown transformer loads being proposed in order to restore service after an interruption? Sincerely yours, Yluk Awa Meera Kohler President and CEO MK:ejp Cc:Mark Teitze!,Vice President and Manager,Engineering APPENDIX C LANDOWNERSHIP MAPS |Proposed Powerline Route -Bethel to Donlin Creek Calista 14h8 Land 20)Mili'a . il Sheet 1 of 1 Overview Map: Village Corporations Along Route {Sidoeted (aici shawn with Eghior afiaetingh Power Line Proposed Route Sitea!Ghee,brates apices sasecatees Seka aes,Bary Vickie Sel WORN Oodle.Fok seieg wired wertice ben opting,onetendteethirstAtLanielMdacincpesernistdeteheAiresCopetined»Helen?Beeeeone,Medes Tia Ptebe (MIFaS on eveketieDotweeterablyatingDmIke, Fad fetremeeatint clseinss oieig lie bryantPeresso,pivane-cecdart Frise lth, Mie:Pralectons freatian' Urtewrem)Treswenten Mernatie TATEBorn4,MACTT Dita Het Efe;Catete,HTN (Calista Pd Caton cag,Qtr 2 anchoring,Attala SONU (Oi 28 (eee Sheet 71 of 9 General Land Status apSz}é 5 £é Stato Cetected Federal Lands Yeh Refuge |BRM (Uneppenpriated) j Powar Line Proposed Route Free tans dette greerstredardshowNelee i 24i g =2s : ; & fiediz tt etic.523 it eegiie Fssf§ ae Pegrie efE58& i; ESEze GEif, sed3FE atin: befie "As: EEL; ae tieghilyE Sik Pez2dg 2hgitQF igre eee = eon ee we i so ao 4é2 bsProposedPowerlineRoute -Bethel to Donlin Creek |, Sheet 2 of 9 General Land Status Native Lands:3 Pathe Atatriert ||ANCBA Selected J]ANCA conveyed 0sp State Lands C4 Biante Patented and TAG ]State Selected Federal Lends . -_;|SLM (Lingpproprinted) "t =|Wastte Rete - Power Ling Proposed Route tht mee dentete griterutiowsfordwadseRmayMectuneloresuirarsandatietone. For Soisted et stots rhereilen,anrkeslheBreeofLendHacegeetandTheAtrersCesurrnectofHatem:Mewsurees. Raaotet the ive 1t41#a)910 aretenie tyabcdletenahinsingtnereise. fore ert rolte,Beene cated From ibettid.Pet Ptromtion cementing (Me roped fey Protectan Wlonmetes:Liteemat Tp speren Steopatiin (TASYore4.WANT?Oem Nik Bing,Colton,CRG 3St (ARGS Cine,Sp4 Ape serags,deere OPA Calista FDS ORAS -otecabetocenptem rline Route-Bethel to Donlin Creek },Fs Proposed Powe 3 > * SS ee etre ae oe"j a _3 &:g& HLGi7i Sem, ==%=z2t -3S ittee.ae3 ig So2 PE EP $f8 Pibears 272g £4 e2po st 2 =& i Essf4,5 - «i m & ise gif £85 ¢ HeelGP=hy =&e$ @€3s s«§ SH2 E& Byikze G2£38 wire ® es = < Gaa>a=a3ogee;555 mamege 28 ereonenm inck Hepiili; ae $ell:Shiv ae eopeaeie Fe See F syic wo aH=ke at Ot veaeeerd Sralezasz 3#sz Qi: iy aeey2 ToT pat kp Proposed Powerline Route -Bethel to Donlin Creek;stew at t Proposed Powerline Route -Bethel to Donlin Greek on indewhinesewrninaerne"taeag-Sheet 4 of9 General Land Status Native LandsrjANCBASelecting [|ance comayed 00) State LandscoesqStatePatented and TAd [oo]sista Sotected Federal Lends[Ja oun PT wade Relge Power Line Proposed Route 0? Atta: He np Aepertes gieonrekond imeed atchSeyrectartefocalerreryahdhove,fir dented wd vale btreneton,ciclo the Boreau at Lond Meregemed ead.fit Atenia Co pitreard of Hetiras Ressurcen.Maer 130 Plats IM TEAL ie beetadle farSWaNesingherhe Vee htieneten GinceringIhe HooterJeraitingDene,finan caeteet Frack Betting, Daag Berneetins,intreorgdeen Gtcieeat Taceverns bareatae (TH) Bees 4 ATTY Oatyen Me Kena,Cotenn,bee 00d CalistaRt)Poetera aeg Rae Anenering,Adrien to 1H(BOTT27EL»tee Cotataceeptcom anentnnnnd|Proposed PowerlineRi oute-Bethel to Donlin Creek|+ina Sheet 5 of9 General Land Status Native Lends Each Nath Atotinants []ANCSA Bolected [a]ANCSA Conveyed 110) Stale Lands rad State Patented and TAGcyBroteBalectad Federal Lands |8m CUmacgecpitnet 7 Ca i Wastte Pafige Polwer Line Proposed Route ae HelweTreesete Oreiete grees treet fered alate:Brag jt hora atiere snd onineiNg.For sa auiert weut neetise arin rnlisins,CretanPiePerstséLandManagerartgidfitdeanDeperetondatMneeiRye Seamer Ein Piate (ATEay se seatnnn beetactsMhsinehitatingIhesian Fer bhaieries comonring the propienetpoweNe1Ae,ren te coat Frock Battin'. Hee Ree,Cones 02008 Calista Wr C8000 Cong Ste 4»AcetoneAewesSelePRUEPRESEULeeeoMewerresscere ) Proposed Po i-sap A nee \ i werline Route -Bethel to Donlin Creek 304 eA fastenergers atee eon ay 9 Sheet 6 of 9 General Land Status Native Lands r oa Native Abotrienie |.ANCSA Satected [rr]ANCA Convered 10) State Lends [7]outa Petected and TAdfieie{.|State Selected Federal Lands[|oN cunaceronrinteds {Vhtkitte fetage Power Line Proposed Routeae MeowPenmap sepicte grisea tres fertt abehomRthayvigiuateaceoftentodamiaiore.Fer sole bet tard stwtie mhrsetion,sorted he Bree,of Lert Meregaretand | 'toa Alesis Demartinesd of histune!Aaecuries.Un nhes Tithe Ptane (ATH8)are avetobas feenerenter?@ siege eee 20 Riemesition annes ming he ponemedtfawnnate,sheeen cacdact Prank Bettie. Wop:Prnine?64 PeinaiearUrsTrerrverea(ecrater {UTM} Tore 4 MANT!Deten Met Se,Cetere,CORTES Calista 227 Qvvey (runt Ste A devtorngn,Aba PPRt19722589918-pr coeORcet iessne ene: Sheet 7 of 9 General Land Status Nolive Lands State Patented and TAGFok OS]state setected sina a sare ate MaikaneSic Sax$Minnydiiiaatihed Federal Landsic(Undppittirietedy |Marte Retuge Power.Line Proposed Route Wee:oshehakiMtsicteGieaebeded ee&May Inctiats tered aocey Med reneFewfetatedondvariefvrronetioncnetuckBwPirieeesot10rdMate:knbisAtrweaCapeneraedatMature:Nesoared,Mester Tie Finin (MTPYs bre ventas fotseedsResiventslsatarngOpHirLta, Yea Hhinnettih beeneoning ihe priieedQrwnithesriuts,pions eerctnnt Fount Rating, Prateeten Inte-walien!pt adie 'Trergueepe Maren (UITW)Form &,HET Gooteen Heh Bria:Caled,271 Calista REL C818 Cot,Rott a aNhers,deed OIEPROSE2ABE+toner cetnenerscoety -ies|Proposed Powerline Route -Bethel to Donlin Creek a aa oe =ae a :Sheet 8 of 9 General Land Status Native Lands .J Native Allotments |State Selectedae os Po |Wide RefugePe Power Line Proposed Route O4 Notes:RES romp dericte gene tred tend sete,kt mey Inchiste focel efrons and amisatorrs,For cetahert tnd statue Information.contnol fe Burese of Lend Management and the Maske Orpatmert of Nelirsi Resumes,idagcer THs Plots (MIPS)nee evediento foteee)township slong the mile, For 9 Ihe propfewerineroute,pleases contedt Frank Batting. Map Prepcton nfemeton: Liniverna!Theneverna Marestor {UTM}Zone 4,WADZT Datum Nik Eroe,Cattta,02/1003 Galista Oi Catieen Crut,ButteA -Anchorage,Abst ISH(9873 E7PES1S «pew eadoterepcom Sheet 9 of 9 General Land Status Native Lands ney =)" |veg ge el tele sh eee eles!Calista61.28 28 8 Miles 30)Cotte Coat,Sirk)A.Aexcherege,Alize 99S18(907)279-5316 -wencoPtcopcon APPENDIX D USDA RUS NEPA POLICIES AND REGULATIONS aa =e as 5 Gene--,----}=-a =------a =a =I-====-s -3-,.=esSnenmanaatarae-aaaneeeenrd_-oo_-------F ---_--@ oe=-==-lp=.8s-_S -arSa =-=--rr)ao ErDUM===ser =--=7 =-r=--a-----"-- <<a --<-<-<-$_-_-<<< ---<-- ----_a nee.=aa _Ee ot--=ueUedhU6UlUne==--=-_=-€-=== =mm ==-=-ene =ee |8=-ér ma-<-==-«==y--<_-----s----EeeEe----=-hum,_-==--=-_---wa ™z_T-_lUlUlCUS =ta =a ======- =a--wee_---- -EEEEEEEEEEEeeee'Soccccneacaenanas?Fw-enrersoctrarnctermmarteonnanaareail stoccomnmmnenemennene™--Ee-_ -- = =td ==LS rd een -«o -_-<oo -- -_--ainl== ==lw= 3 --I.spennennmetaratitiereraiadaaieichasieeny arn _)==Ss=e >.=_-ss-_LUCaeeSeer--- -_s&-|caper renasneernalll-S-=- = =_ == I ST revered _---_---- eenewsel-=-_S=ee dC oma|a on3_lClhalll-esmam8Cee=ss:2_-_i 1." -- ---< -<_<--<a == a - =- -= -_ =.a-a-,aman el -_-a nn ee ---=---J =--w =_=i --ro --I --c-==- we ee _---_-_--F --E -----------Foeanaensenpaneverennarsaglennae2aoF== Friday December 11,1998 Part VI Department of Agriculture Rural!Utilities Service. 7 CFR Part 1780 and 1794 Environmental Policies and Procedures; Final Rule DODtD reaeral Keptster/VOl.035,NO.258/rriday,Vecember 11,1998/Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL TURE Rural Utilities Service 7 CFR Parts 1780 and 1794 RIN 0572-AB33 Environmental Policies and Procedures AGENCY:Rural Utilities Service,USDA. ACTION:Final rule. summary:The Rural Utilities Service (RUS)hereby revises its existing environmental]regulations, Environmental Policies and Procedures, which have served as RUS implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.)in compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA. Based on new Congressional mandates, changes in the electric industry,and RUS experience and review of its existing procedures,RUS has determined that several]changes are necessary for its environmental review Process to operate in a smooth,efficient, and effective manner. The implementation of this rule has required that certain changes be made to 7 CFR part 1780 regarding environmental compliance.The amendments published tn this document consist of those necessary tomaketheprovisionsofPart1780subjecttotheenvironmentalrequirementsof this rule.; EFFECTINE DATE:December 11,1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Gary J.Morgan,Director,or Lawrence R. Wolfe,Senior Environmental Protection Specialist,Engineering and : Environmental Staff;Rural Utilities Service,Stop 1571,1400 Ind Ave.,SW.,W on,DC 20250-1571.Telephone (202)720-1784.E-mail address gmorgan@rus.usda.gov or lwolfe@rus.usda.gov.This rule and the guidance bulletins described in this rule will be available on the Internet via the RUS home page at www.usda.gov/rus/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Classification This rule has been determined to besignificantandwasreviewedbythe Office of Management and Budget (OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Civil Justice Reform This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,Civil Justice Reform.RUS has determined that thisproposedrulemeetstheapplicable standards provided in sec.3 of the Executive Order. In accordance with the Executive Orderandthe rule;(1)all state and locallawsandregulationsthatareInconflictwiththisrulewillbepreempted;(2)noretro-active effect will be given to therule;and (3)administrative are requiredto be exhausted prior toinitiallitigationagainsttheDepartment (7 U.S.C.6912). Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification Pursuant to section 605 (b)of theRegulatoryFlexibilityAct,§ULS.C. 605(b),RUS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.If a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities.The application for financial assistance under the RUS Electric and Telecommunications programs and the application for loansandgrantsundertheRUSWaterandWasteprogramarediscretionary; regulatory requirements will,therefore, apply only to those entities which choose to apply for financial assistance or funding. Information Collection and 'Recordkeeping Requirements -The recordkeeping and reporting burdens contained in this rule were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.chapter 35,)under control number 0572-0117. National Performance Review This regulatory action is being taken as part of the National Performance Review to eliminate unnecessary regulations and improve those that remain in force. Environmental Justice This rule is subject to the .requirements of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.Implementation of theserequirementswilloccuratthetimeof actions performed hereunder. National Environmental Policy Act Certification The Administrator of RUS has determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environmert as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.)Therefore, this action does not require an environmental impact statement or assessment. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The programs described by thisproposedrulearelistedintheCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs under numbers 10.850,Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees,10.851,Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees,10.760, Water and Waste Disposal System for Rural Communities,10.764,Resource Conservation Development Loans,and 10.765,Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans.This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents,the U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington,DC 20402. Intergovernmental Review This rule excludes the Electric and Telecommunications Programs from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation,which may require consultation with State and local officials.A final rule related notice entitled,"'Department Program and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372,”(50 FR 47034) determined that RUS loans and loan guarantees,and RTB bank loans,were not covered by Executive Order 12372. The Water and Waste Program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372.Consultation will be completed at the time of actions performed hereunder. Unfunded Mandates This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act)for State,local, and tribal governments or the private sector.Thus this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Background On March 13,1984,the Rural Electrification Administration (predecessor of RUS)published 7 CFR Part 1794,Environmental Policies and Procedures,as a final rule in the FederalRegister(49 FR 9544)covering the actions of the Electric and Telecommunications programs.Based on new congressional mandates, changes in the electric industry,and RUS experience and review of its existing procedures,RUS has determined that several changes are necessary for its environmental review process to operate in a smooth,efficient, and effective manner. Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68649 The existing 7 CFR part 1794 was designed to implement the requirementsofNEPAandtheCEQregulationsfor RUS Electric and Telecommunications programs.As a result of the FederalCropInsuranceReformandDepartment of Agriculture on Act of 1994 (Pub.L.103-354,108 Stat 3178), the programs of the Rural Electrification Administration,were combined with the Water and Waste program from the former Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)into RUS.Most changesedto7CFRpat1794result fromProposca the addition of the Water and Waste program to RUS. For further guidance in the preparation of public notices and environmental documents,RUS has Prepared aseries of guidance bulletins.specific bulletins areqvaitaliicwhichprovideguidanceinpreparingtheEnvironmentalReport (ER)for proposed actions classified as categorical exclusions and proposed actions which require an Environmental Assessment (EA).Further information on these bulletins is provided in §1794.7. This final rule contains a variety of substantive and procedural changesfromtheprovisionsofthecurrentrule.Some of these revisions are minor (1794.4,Trivial Violations was deleted)or are merely intended to clarify existing RUS policies and procedures (§1794.6,Definitions,was added).Other revisions reflect in RUS implementation of the CEQ regulations as outlined below. The relationship between RUS and its Electric and Telecommunications applicants has substantiallysinceRUSissuedthefinalruleinMarchof1984.Changes that have occurred inthelast4yearshavebeenparticularly dramatic.Historically,RUS provided substantially all of its applicants'capital needs and established a lending relationship reflecting that dominant lending role.However,because of limited annual joan authorization levels,RUS no longer serves such a role. Moreover,in a 1993 amendment to section 306E of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (RE Acd),as amended (7U.S.C.936e),Congress required RUS to abancion its close hands-on control of its applicants and instead follow thepracticesofprivatemarketlenders.RUShasdonesothroughthedevelopmentof new forms of loan agreements and security instruments and thepublicationof7CFRPart1717,subpartM.Operational Controls,which reduce or eliminate much of the oversight and control historically exercised by RUS over its Electric applicants. Refi these and reforms, RUS has revised §1794.3 of the rule. Environmental reviews will continue to be required in connection with theapprovaloffinancialassistanceforapplicantsandtheissuanceofrules, regulations,and bulletins by RUS. However,no reviews will be required in connection with approvals provided byRUSpursuanttoitsloancontractsandsecurityinstrumentswithapplicantssuchasapprovalsoflien accommodations or the use of general funds by anplicants.These approvals are not major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Within subpart C of this rule,a classification system defines the level of environmental review required for RUS and applicant actions.In Section 1794.20 RUS has clarified its position for circumstances under which an applicant's participation in a project results in a Federal action.Sections 1794.21 through 1794.25 of this subpart are further subdivided when appropriate to differentiate between actions being proposed by RUS and actions proposed by Electric,Telecommunications,and Water and Waste applicants.A number of classification changeshavebeenmadewithinsubpartCofthisrule.These reciassifications involve minor actions proposed by applicants which rarely.if ever,result in significant environmental impact or public interest.RUS believes this rule includes adequate safeguards to identify any unusual circumstances that may uire additional scrutiny. US has the thresholds foracreage(facility sites),and capacity(generation facilities)within §1794.22(a).In addition to modifying the thresholds for acreage and capacity, RUS has imposed differert thresholds for construction of electric generating capacity at new sites versus existing sites within §1794.23(c).Acreage and capacity threshold changes within §1794.24,and a capacity threshold 'change within §1794.25 reflect changes that have been made tn §§1794.22({a), and 1794.23(c).No changes were made to the existing thresholds for transmission line length.Capacity thresholds have been eliminated for hydroelectric Is in §§1794.22 and 1794.23.RUS will normally adopt the NEPA document prepared by the Federal licensing agency ofSeenaPrciareinwhich RUSapplicartspartiidsforproposedactionsintheWaterandWasteare classified in §§1794.21(c)and 1794.22(b).Based on historical experience and a survey of the thresholds established by the Environment Protection Agency which administers similar RUS has eliminated the two tiered classification for EAs that is contained in 7 CFR Part 1940,SubpartG,theenvironmentalregulationoftheformer FmHA,and adopted the more traditional classification scheme as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.9.Because RUS co-funds a significant portion of itsProjectswithotherFederalandstateclassificationanddocumentationschemeisthoughttobemoreconducivetominimizingduplicative environmental review efforts. RUS has modified its procedures insubpartsDthroughGofthispart.TheEAwillbethesubjectdocumentofthe notice of availability requirements in §1794.42,where previously.the applicant's ER was the subject document.By this change,the notice requirements for all three programs willbeconsistentforbothEAproposalsandEAwithscopingproposals.This change will encourage more public involvement by allowtng public review of EA proposals prior to the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSD. RUS has also changed its notice requirements for Electric program projects requiring scoping.The timing of RUS Federal Register notice for public scoping meetings in §1794.52(b)has been reducedfrom30daysto14dayspriortothemeeting.No appreciable benefit resulted from an earlier notice requirement.The existing regulation allows RUS to adopt the applicant's ER as its EA but requiresRUStoprepareitsownEAfromtheapplicant's Environmental Analysis (EVAL)where a proposed action requires scoping.RUS has changed this requirement by all the EVAL to serve as its EA (see §1794.53)consistent with 40 CFR §1506.5(b). RUS has modified its policy regardingtheuseofcontractorUndertheexistingregulation,RUS.wasrequiredtouseagencyfundswhenan independent contractor was chosen byRUStopreparetheEIS.In accordancewiththeprovisionsof7CFRPart1789,"Use of Consultants Funded by Applicants”and Section 759A of the Federal Agriculture Improvement andReformActof1996,the draft and finalEISmaybepreparedbyaconsultant selected by RUS and funded by the applicant.A new requirement, publication of a notice of availability by RUS and the applicant for a Record of Decision is established in §1794.63. sitew CS Preparation of the Rulemaking The proposed rule (7 CFR part 1794) was published in the Federal Register on November 24,1997 (62 FR 62527). Public comment was invited for a 60- day period,ending on January 23,1998. Eighty-nine written comments were received representing 32 specific tions and individuals.These included two Federal agencies,eightFederalagencystateoffices,oneregionalcommission,two electric cooperative associations,and seventeen rural electric cooperatives.All comments were fully considered when revising the proposed rule for publication as a final rulemaking. Every effort has been made to respond in detail in the preamble to every question raised or suggestion offered. Where commenters pointed out errors in spelling,syntax,and minor technical errors these errors were corrected and not mentioned further in the preamble. In addition,many commenters made similar suggestions or raised similar issues.In the interest of clarity, comments that were similar in nature were grouped and discussed in the mostrelevantsectioninthepreamble.Some comments pointed out vague and unclear language.Clarifying and explanatory language was added to the rule and preamble as appropriate.The discussion under General Comments responds to general comments and clarification of misunderstandings as to RUS''s intent.The statements under Comments on Specific Sections address the more significant comments received on particular provisions and how RUS responded to them. General Comments Several comments focused on the background discussion of the preamble to the proposed rule regarding the proposed renumbered §1794.3,entitled Actions requiring environmental review.”The back discussion explained that,because of changes in law and reforms in the Electric and Telecommunications industry,RUSPptorevisethatsectiontoreflect that RUS would no longer treat as Federal actions subject to environmental reviews,approvals provided by RUS pursuant to its loan contracts and security instruments.The preamble explained that these approvals are "ministerial''and not major Federal actions for the purposes of NEPA.The commenters,who uniformly supported the proposed revision,asked that RUS identify all approvals that would no longer be subject to environmental review or clarify that only the approval of loans and loan guarantees will require an environmental review.Agency Response:The p revision to §1794.3 deletes reference to 'Hen accommodations,and approvals provided pursuant to loan contracts and security instruments (e.g.,approvals oftheuseofgeneralfunds).”In pertinent part,the revised section identifies as actions requiring environmental review, "the approval of financial assistance pursuant to the Electric, Telecommunications,and Water and Waste Programs.”In response to thecomments,RUS has added a clarifyingsentenceto§1734.3 siting that, "Approvals provided by RUS pursuant to loan contracts and security instruments,including approvals of lien accommodations,are not actions for the purpose ofthis part and the provisionsofthispartshallnotapplytotheexerciseofsuchapprovals.””RUS believes that,while it is principally the approvals of loans and loan guaranteestowhichenvironmentalreviewsattach, it ls possible that other types of discretionary financial assistance couldbeavailableundertheRUSprogram, which would trigger environmental reviews.Examples include lien subordinations under §306 of the RE Act (7 U.S.C.936).The regulatory text should not limit those actions requiring environmental review to the approval of loans and loan tees. Consequently,no other change has been made in response to the comments.,Ten commenters expressed concern about the two-tier classification that was created for "categorically excluded” proposals in §§1794.21 and 1794.22,which they believe is overly burdensome and confusing.Theyfurtherbelievethatmanyofthesize,voltage,distance,and acreage thresholds have been arbitrarily determined and need to be reevaluated. Agency Response:RUS established -the two-tier classification system for categorically excluded proposals specifically to reduce the burden on applicants without compromising the requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations.Categorically excluded proposals listed in §1794.21 normally do not significantly impact the quality of the human environment.Therefore the submittal of an ER is not required. An ER is required for categorically excluded proposals listed in §1794.22 to provide for circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant impact (see 40 CFR 1508.4). Prior to issuing the proposed rule,RUS reevaluated the thresholds established in the existing regulation and determined that the revised thresholds included in the proposed rule represent a reasonable delineation consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4. The commenters also questioned why an environmental report should be required for a proposal that is normally categorically excluded and recommend that where appropriate,proposals listedin§1794.22 be incorporated into §1794.21.Agency Response:The changesbythesecommentsarenot consistent with the definition of categorical exclusion in 40 CFR 1508.4.In ordertoensure thataproposed actiondoesnotsignificantlyaffectthequality of the human environment,KUS must conduct an environmental review.The two-tiered classification system for Categorical Exclusions establishes the level of information that must be provided by the applicant for proposals listed in each tier.This information is necessary so RUS can identify . extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have significant environmental effects. commenter recommended incorporating language into §1794.21 by which RUS could increase the level of environmental review for any ; categorically excluded project,which had a significant environmental effect. Other commenters point out that proposals in these two categories must meet the requirements of §1794.31.Therefore a safeguard alreadyexistswherebyRUScanevaluateeach project and determine if further environmental review is appropriate.Agency Response:This rule includes a requirement in §1794.22(a)by which RUS reserves the right to requestenvironmentaldocumentationfor proposals listed in §1794.21 (b)and (c) if significant environmental effects result from the implementation of the proposal.RUS believes that determiningwhetheranERshouldbepreparedfor all categorically excluded proposals on a case-by-case basis would be inconsistent with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4)and would extend the RUS environmental review process.Three commenters assert that the thresholds established to differentiate between projects that require an environmental assessment (EA)with and without scoping (§§1794.23 and1794.24)were also arbitrarilydeterminedandpointoutthat a 1 MWincreaseincapacitycanincreasethelevelofreview.The commentersrecommendthatall§1794.24 proposals which normally require scoping be incorporated into §1794.23 and that RUS adopt language allowing the agency to require scoping for projects which are expected to have significant impacts. Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68651 Agency Response:RUS has reevaluated the thresholds that were © established in the existing tion for actions listed in §§1794.23 and 1794.24.The thresholds accurately delineate the difference between proposed actions which can be adequately reviewed with an EA and those actions which have a higherpotentialforneedinganEIS.The latterrequiredthepreparationofanEVALby the applicant.The EVAL will serve as the RUS EA,(40 CFR 1506.5(b)).Instead of establishing a single classification system for actions normally requiring an EA and determining the need for scoping on an individual basis,RUS agrees some flexibility is needed and has included a provision to modify or waive scoping requirements in §1794.52 for actions that normally require an EA with scoping. Two commenters expressed concern with the provisions of the proposed rule that allow the applicant or its consultant to prepare the environmental report (ER)which normally serves as RUS”EA forWaterandWasteproposals.These commenters assert that there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest. Agency Response:Agency responsibility ts addressed in 40 CFR 1506.5.The CEQ regulations allow an agency to require an applicant to submit environmental information for possible use by that agency (40 CFR 1506.5(a)). The agency should assist the applicantbyoutliningthetypesofinformation required.The agency shall independently evaluate the information provided by the applicant and acceptresponsibleforitsaccuracy.RUS has developed guidance Bulletin 1794A- 602 for that purpose.An agency can permit an applicant to prepare an EA provided the agency makes its own evaluation of the environmental issues and takes responsibility for the scopeandcontentoftheEA(40 CFR1506.5 (b)).One commenter recommends that the procedures defined in 7 CFR 1940-G under which RUS reviews information submitted by the applicant and completes the assessment should be .used for Water and Waste proposals. Agency Response:This rule provides for an agency-prepared EA.Section 1794.41 states that the ER will normallyserveastheRUSEA.The decisionofwhetherRUSusestheapplicant's ER as its EA or prepares the EA from information provided in the ER will be made by the State Environmental Coordinator (SEC). Another commenter noted that by not allowing RUS employees to complete EAs,the agency is Limiting the ability of its employees to provide technical assistance to rural areas. Agency Response:RUS does not agree with this statement.By improving the efficiency of document preparation, Rural Development staff will have more time to provide meaningful guidance and technical assistance to applicants. Comments on Specific Sections Background.One commenter requested clarification of paragraph 9 of the proposed rules Background section that discusses exempting from review approvais provided by KUS pursuant to its loan contracts and security instruments. Agency Response:This comment isaddressedintheresponsetothefirst general comment.Section 1794.2:One commenter questioned whether the item (d)in this section correctly characterized the roles RUS and the applicant play under NEPA and the CEQ regulations.He asserts that the applicant should be responsible for the accuracy of the 'information contained in environmental documents and the agency should be responsible for compliance with appropriate regulations.Response:RUS agrees.Thetextofitem(d)has been changedtoclarifytheroleoftheapplicant.RUS is responsible for compliance with NEPA, including verifying the accuracy of theinformationitusesinitsenvironmental review (40 CFR 1506.5).The applicant is responsible for compliance with all applicable RUS requirements. on 1794.3:Six commenters recommended that this section clearly State that the rule applies only to direct loans and loan guarantee approvals.Agency Response:This comment isaddressedintheresponsetothefirst comment. Section 1794.5 (now §1794.4):Two commenters support the proposedformatofplacingmetricunitsin parentheses following the non-metric equivalents which ts the reverse of the current format.Another commenter questioned whether the change in metric system format would be contrary to the national effort to convert to the metric system and not in compliance with Executive Order 12770. Agency Response:It has been RUSexperiencethatthecurrentformatin which metric units are followed by the non-metric equivalents in parentheses has been impractical and has confused readers.This rule's provisions for the use of metric units comply with Executive Order 12770. Section 1794.7 (now §1794.6):One commenter suggested adding "the environment”to the definition of Emergency Situation to account for threats to the environment and including a definition of "multiplexing sites.” Agency Response:The words "'or to the human environment”have been added to the end of the definition ofEmergencySituationandadefinition has been included in this section for multiplexing sites.Another commenter suggested deleting the words *"*document and” from the definition of ER. Agency Response:RUS recognizes that the amount of Gocumentation that can be included in an ER can vary forthetypesofprolistedin §§1794.22 and 1794.23 from a few Pagesto 100 pages or more.Since theword"document”does not add significance to the definition of ER,the word has been deleted. A third commenter thought that the terms ER,EA and Environmental Impact Assessment were confusing and needed further explanation.Agency Response:RUS agrees and hasrevertedtotheterminologyusedintheexistingrule.RUS has in the past andproposestocontinuetodifferentiate between the documentation submitted by the applicant for proposals that normally require an EA (§1794.23)and proposals that normally require an EA with scoping (§1794.24)by titling theformeranERandthelateranEVAL.The agency prepared document for proposals listed in §§1794.23 and 1794.24 is still titled an EA (40 CFR1508.9).oe : One commenter requested that thissectionbemodifiedsotheERandEAcanbestand-alone documents and not a mandatory part of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)for Water and Waste proposals.This commenter asserts that such a restriction precludes the use of other resources to complete the preparation of the environmental documentation. Agency Response:Although RUS intends for the ER to be submitted with the PER for Water and Waste proposals,.there is no requirementthattheERbepreparedexclusivelybytheengineering consultant that prepares the PER.The key issue is that environmental concerns be considered at the earliest planning stage of a proposal to ensure that environmental values are given appropriate consideration.The earliest lanning stage of a is the PER.P Section 17048 (row §1794.7):Two commenters noted that RUS Bulletin 1780-26 already has been designated for guidance for another purpose.Agency Response:The designationsfortheguidancedocumentsreferenced in this section have been corrected. 68652 Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations One commenter recommended that a standard format be developed for applicants to follow in the preparation of an ER or EA. Agency Response:The appropriate bulletins referenced in this section will contain a standard format for preparinganER;the applicantdoesnotprepareanEA. The same commenter further recommended that State Directors be able to issue supplements with less thanapprovalbytheAdministrator.Agency Response:State Directorshavetheabilitytoissuesupplements. However,to ensure compliance with environmental laws and regulations and maintain uniformity with neighboring states and within a region,requires Administrator review and approval of lements. ix commenters urged RUS to consult with interested parties regarding the referenced electric and telecommunications guidance documents prior to taking final action on this rule. Agency Response:RUS has considered all comments received on the current versions of Bulletins 1794A- 600 and 1794A-601 in preparing the revisions to these two Bulletins.Both Bulletins will be made available to applicants via the Internet prior to the effective date of this final rule. Two commenters believe that the referenced Water and Waste bulletin (RUS Bulletin 1794A-602)should be published for comment and one commenter requested a 60-day extension to the comment period on the proposed rule following the release of that draft bulletin. Response:RUS Bulletin 1794A-602 was reviewed by Rural Development staff prior to the effectivedateofthisfinalrule.RUS does notagreethatthecommentperiodonthe proposed rule should be extendedsubjecttothereleaseofthedraftbulletin. Section 1794.10:One commenter recommended replacing "under RUS direct guidance and supervision”with "with advise from RUS"instead. Agency Response:The referenced language has been revised.RUS will 'assist applicants by outlining the types of information required and provide guidance and oversight in the development of the documentation {40 CFR 1506.5). _Thts commenter also recommended that the language in §§1794.10 and1794.31(b)be consistent and refer to the SEC or neither. Agency Response:The language in§1794.10 applies to all three RUS prosrams.Therefore,a specific agency official ts only identified in §1794.31(b),which ts specific to the Water and WasteSection1794.12:One commenter recommended that in (a)(3)all comments on Water and Waste proposals be sent directly to the RUS State Office instead of through the applicant.Agency Response:Applicant notices must state that comments should be sent to the RUS appropriate office for Water and Waste proposals and to the Washington,DC,office for Electric and Telecormmunications proposals. However,RUS recognizes that both verbal and written comments on a proposal are sometimes directed to the applicant.This subsection accounts for this possibility by requiring the applicant to submit comments to RUS.commenters were concerned that the requirement in §1794.13(a)(4) making all environmental documents and documentation related to the proposed action available in specific locations was too broad and created an overly burdensome and onerous responsibility for the applicant.They recommended that RUS narrow the scope of information that the applicant is required to make available in a public setting and require the applicant to_designate a contact person to respond torequestsforadditionalandsupporting information. Agency Response:RUS agrees that therequirementmakingallenvironmental documents and documentation available in specific locations creates an overly burdensome and onerous responsibilityfortheapplicantanddoesnotenhancepublicparticipationinthe: environmental process.The language in §1794.13(a)(4)has been revised.RUS will determine which project related environmental documents will be made available for review at locations -convenient for the public.To ensure full public disclosure,a list of all documents not provided for public review will be included.Documents not provided will be available for inspection through a designated RUS or applicant contact n. Two commenters requested that§1794.13(a}(5)be expended to note thatpublichearingsaretobeconfinedtotheenvironmentalaspectsofaproposed action. Agency Response:RUS believes that the purpose of the public hearings or meetings has been adequately identified in this section. One commenter requested that RUS coordinate its meetings with meetings, ,and environmental reviews, which may be held and/or required by others. Agency Response:RUS agrees with this comment and has revised §1794.13(a)(5)to include coordination of its meetings with the requirementsofotherinterestedagenciesandgroups. Six commenters questioned why RUS has established differing thresholds for publication of notices in the Federal Register with respect to the Electric and Telecommunications programs in §1794.13(b)and the Water and Waste program in §1794.13(c).They recommended that the language in §1794.13(c)be consistent for all three Agency Response:RUS agrees and hasdecidedtorevisethelanguagein §§1794.13(b)and 1794.42(b)thereby making the thresholds for publication of notices consistent for all three programs. RUS will provide interested agencies with notification of its FONSI determinations through direct mailings or,at its option,the Federal Register, when appropriate. Section 1794.14:One commenter endorsed the flexibility provided in this section and recommended that this flexibility be more clearly stated.The commenter also suggested that the duties of a cooperating agency are unclear and a brief list should be included. Agency Response:The duties of acooperatingagencyaredescribedin 40 CFR 1501.6 and are incorporated by reference. Section 1794.17:One commenter questioned whether the midgattve measures would be discussed in the FONSI memo to the file in addition to the FONSI public notice.Two commenters noted that the provisions of (b)(3)appear to expand the responsibilities of field staff beyond that of development specialists.One commenter suggested that a better rolefortheagencywouldbetonotifytheappropriateregulatoryagencytoenforce the mitigative measures. Agency Response:Mitigation measures shall be discussed in both the FONSI memo and public notice.The responsibilities of field staff have not been expanded.In the routine process of checking on-site conditions for compliance with relevant loan or grant provisions,it is appropriate for staff to document the applicant's compliance Status with regard to mitigation measures that were agreed upon as partoftheconditionsfortheloan/grant.Ifdiscrepanciesarenoted,the agency may need to notify the appropriate regulatoryagencyforaction.. Section 1794.21 (a):Six commenters recommended that in addition to defining "emergency situation”this Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68653 section be expanded to account for such situations. Agency Response:RUS has addedaction(4)to account for emergency situations. Section 1794.21 (b}):Ome commenter questioned why a "detailed description”'was required for 12 actionsinthiscategorywhenallactionsinthiscategoryhadtobesufficiently types of proposals contained in this section normally do not significantlyaffectthequalityofthehumanenvironment.Thus the submission of anERisnotnormallyrequired.However,in order to waive the ER requirementforthe12actionsinthiscategoryso designated,the RUS reviewer must have a complete description of what is being proposed,how it will be constructed, and the setting in which theprojectwillbelocated.Evaluating these12actionsonacase-by-case basis is more effective than uniformly requiringthemandatorysubmittalofanER.Another commenterwasconcernedthatthesubmittalofanenvironmental documentwasnotrequired forproactionsdescribedin §1794.21(b)(4),(8).(14),(15)and (16),which could under certain circumstances described tn §1794.21 (b)(4),(8).(14), (15),and (16)could result in significanteffectstothehumanenvironment,suchaSpresentingahazardtobirds.The description of the facilities to be constructed that must be provided for these actions and others so noted in §1794.21(b)Is used by RUS todeterminewhetherthecurrent level of . review is adequate or a higher level of review is warranted. One commenter expressed concern over the Jon in action §1794.21 (b)(18)which require the applicant obtain certification from the utility owner that the facilities to be are in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.This commenter believes that the normal environmental review process should be sufficient to identify and resolve issues that may be encountered. Agency Response:RUS agrees thatobtainingacertificationofcomplianceforthepurchaseofexistingfacilitiesIs not the appropriate form of . documentation.Upon further review, RUS has determined that establishingtwoseparatelevelsofreviewforthe purchase of existing facilities,Specifically action (18)in §1794.21 (b)and action (7)tn §1794.23(b),is not warranted.Both references to these actions have been deleted from the finaltuleandreplacedbynewaction(11)in§1794.22(a).Under the new requirement applicants will have the option of submitting an ER or the results of a facility environmental audit.AhigherlevelofreviewmayberequiredbeforeRUSapprovesanapplicant's purchase of facilities that aredeterminedtsbeInviclationof Federal,QE TRAD ees bes are ase state,or local environmenta!laws or regulations.. One commenter recommended that the threshold for action described in §1794.21 (b)(21),standby diesel generators,be increased from 1 megawatt (MW)to 2 MW and also be utilized for load management purposes in addition to emergency power.Agency Response:RUS does notagree.The purpose of this category is to -exclude standby diesel generators that would be subject to limited use (I.¢. emergency outages).Utilizing such facilities for load increases the hours of usage and thus increase potential effects to the quality of the human environment. A commenter asserts that the action described in §1794.21 (b)(24)could create a major change in local airquality. Agency Response:RUS agrees that wording describing action (24)could be misinterpreted and has added the following statement:'"Repowering or uprating that results in an increased fuelconsumptionorthesubstitutionofone fuel combustion technology with another is excluded from this classification.”Because this action does not include an increase in fuel consumption,no change in local air quality is anticipated. This commenter further recommended that the type of customerfacilitiescoveredin§1794.21 (b)(24)include commercial and agricultural.Agency Response:RUS agrees to addcommercialandagriculturefacilitiesto item (24). Section 1794.22:Three commenters noted that identified in §1794.22(a)(11)and §1794.21 (b)(20)which discuss facilities that will reduce the amount of pollutants released into the environment are redundant and the referencein§1794.22 shouldbedeleted.Agency Response:RUS agrees that therequirementsof§1794.22(a)(11)and§1794.21 (b)(20)are redundant. Accordingly,action #11 in §1794.22(a)of the proposed rule has been deleted. One commenter asserted that proposals listed in §1794.22(b)(3)and (4)have the potential to impact important resources but will be excluded from environmerial review. Agency Response:Applicants are required to prepare and submit an ER for all proposed actions listed in §1794.22(b).RUS will review the ER to determine whether a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental effect (40 CFR 1508.4). One commenter suggested that §1794.22(c)belongs in §1794.23 which describes EA proposals.Agency Response:Proposals listed in§1794.22(c)were so designated to parallel the level of documertationrequiredbytheEPAin40CFR6.505(c) for similar proposals.Agencies with similar programs are encouraged byCEQtoconsultwitheachothertocoordinatetheirprocedures,especially for programs requesting similar information from applicants (49 CFR1507.3(a)).RUS believes that these actions are correctly described in §1794.22(c). One commenter noted that §1794.22(c)(1)and (2)only apply to discharges and need to be expanded to include water withdrawals. Agency Response:RUS agrees and has expanded the discussion in §1794.22(c) to clarify this issue.Two commenters requested that "substantial increases”'in §1794.22 (c)(2)be defined and one commenter also questioned how this term applied to a new facility. Agency Response:The term "substantial increases”has not been defined because its interpretation depends on local conditions and regulatory requirements.RUS agrees that this action should not include new facilities and has revised the language accordingly.One commenter noted that §1794.22 (c)(3)stipulates no greater than a 30 percent growth factor whereas §1794.22 (b)(3)stipulates a modest growth potential and requests consistency within the rule. Agency Response:The 30 percent growth factor is an established threshold,whereas the term "modest growth”applies to local conditions and regulatory requirements.Another commenter asserts that the thresholds in §1794.22(c)(3)need to bechangedbecauseitappearsthatasmallsystem(20-30 EDU's)could beexpandedupto500EDU's and still beacategoricallyexcluded. Agency Response:RUS believes thecapacitycriteriaasstatedissufficient for the purposes of classifying an action DSD04 rederal Kepister/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations as a categorical exclusion.Two other provisions may be applicable to the commenter's point.First,the ER would provide sufficient information to determine if there are any extraordinary circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have as cant environmental effect (see 40 CFR 1508.4).Second,under §1794.22(b)(2),RUS could determine that the facility improvements are not modest in use,size,capacity,purpose, or location and would require an EA. Section 1794.23:One commenter recommended thai jor consistency,this section be titled "*Proposals normally requiring an EA without scoping.” Agency Response:RUS disagrees. Early public involvement may be appropriate for any level of environmental review and should not be explicitly dismissed by excluding scoping for certain thresholds. Section 1794.31:One commenter stated that RUS should not be supervising or giving direct guidance to the applicant.He ed modifying the wording tn (b)to "with advice from RUS.”.: ; .Agency Response:This issue is addressed in the response to the comment on §1794.10. Another commenter noted that the SEC would be unable to devote the time necessary to supervise all applicants. Agency Response:High volume states | have been provided additional environmental specialist positions in anticipation of the increased workload. Section 1794.32:One commenter wanted clarification in (b)on the criteria used to determine when public notice would be required if important land resources are affected.Another commenter suggested that in (b) reference should be made to §1794.7 or the RUS Bulletin 1794A-602. Agency Response:RUS agrees withthissuggestionandhasreferencedthe two bulletins that provide guidance in ng an ER. Section 1794.33:One commenter noted that this section allows RUS to act on an application without any environmental review. Agency Response:The commenter's interpretation of §1794.33 is incorrect. RUS shall conduct an environmental review for all proposed actions covered by this section.Proposals listed in §1794.21(b)and (c)normally require the submittal of a project description. Whereas,proposals listed in §1794.22(a)and (b)normally requirethesubmittalofanER.RUS reserves therighttorequireadditional environmental information on ary proposal the agency believes may have significant effects on the quality of the human environment (§1794.30). Section 1794.41:One commenter noted that the typical applicant would need assistance from their consulting engineer in preparing the ER,resultinginafeeincreasetotheapplicant.If the_SEC retains approval authority for the ER,another layer of review ts addedbeforetheERisaccepted.Agency Response:RUS anticipatesthattheapplicant's engineer will prepare the ER at the same time that project planning is done.RUS further anticipates Usai any increase in the engineering fee should be modest since the engineer in most projects has been preparing the applicant's environmental information for the agency.The SEC should be the only agency approval official for the ER. Section 1794.44:Two commenters noted that it appears RUS will take final action on proposals covered by this section without waiting for public input.Agency Response:Actions listed in §1794.23 are subject to public input when the EA is made available for review through applicant notice. Normally there is no provision for additional public input when RUS makes a FONSI determination for actions listed in §1794.23. These commenters also noted that draft RUS Bulletin 1794A-602 calls for a 15-day review period if significant comments are received on the draft EA. Agency Response:The reference to the 15-day review period was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule.Section 1794.44 has been modified to include an opportunity for the public to review the RUS FONSI determination if substantive comments are recetved on the EA. Section 1794.51:One commenternotedthatnomentionismadein(a)'where the applicant's notice will be published.Agency Response:The commenter is correct that §1794.51 does not state where the applicant's notice will be published.That information ts provided in §1794.13(a)(1)and (2). Section 1794.61:Two commenters asserted that the cost of an EIS wouldbeprohibitivefornearlyallWaterand Waste applicants which could result in even high priority projects being canceled due to the inability of the applicant to fund the EIS.Agency Response:RUS agrees that anEIScanbeanexpensivedocumenttoprepareandhasidentifiedcertain methods of funding an EIS in §1794.61 (a). Section 1794.70:One commenter recommends that this section be expanded to allow the adoption of environmental documents prepared by state or local agencies or other parties in accordance with the provisions of§1794.84 of the existing regulation.Agency Response:The CEQregulationsin40CFR1506.3 only permit a Federal agency to adoptdocumentsbyorforanother Federal Agency.In 40 CFR 1506.2, Federal agencies are required to"cooperate with state and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce duplication between NEPA and state and loca]requirements by jointly preparing EAs and EISs.RUS acknowledges that its policy on the incorporation of environmental documents prepared by others was omitted from the proposed rule.This omission has been corrected with the addition of §1794.74, One commenter suggested that RUS be more flexible in its adoption procedures and not duplicate another agency's public notice and comment period.Agency Response:RUS believes thatitsdecisionsmustbesubjecttopublicnotificationregardlessofwhoprepares the environmental documentation.The preferred strategy to avoid duplicationofeffortwouldbeforRUStoparticipate with other agencies in the preparation of the initial environmental documents as stated in §1794.14. This commenter also recommended that RUS accept environmental documents prepared by states under the State Revolving Fund (SRF)programs as its own documents or at a minimum adopt the subject documents. Agency Response:RUS may adopt environmental documents prepared by State agencies administering SRF programs under the Clean Water Act (32 U.S.C.1251)and the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.300).Where appropriate,the State Director will enter into an agreement with appropriate state agencies to establish the necessary procedures. Any environmental document accepted or prepared by RUS prior to the effective date of these regulations may be developed in accordance with RUS environmental requirements ineffectatthetimethedocumentwas accepted or prepared by RUS. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1780 Business and industry,Communitydevelopment,Community facilities,Grant programs-housing and community development,Reporting andrecordkeepingrequirements,Rural _areas,Waste treatment and disposal, Water supply,Watersheds. rederal Kegister/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68655 List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1794 Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping _requirements. Therefore RUS amends chapter XVIIoftitle7oftheCodeofFederalRegulationsasfollows: PART 1780-WATER AND WASTE LOANS AND GRANTS Subpart B-Loan and Grant Application Processing 1.Section 1780.31 is amended by revising paragraph (e)to read as follows: §1780.31 General. ***** (e)Starting with the earliest discussion with prospective applicants, the State Environmental tor shall discuss with prospective applicants and be available for consultation during the application process the environmental review requirements for evaluating the potential environmental consequences of the project.Pursuant to 7 CFR 1794 and guidance in RUS Bulletin 1794A-602,the environmental review requirements shall be performed by theapplicantsimultaneouslyand- concurrently with the project's engineering planning and design.This should provide flexibility to consider reasonable alternatives to the project and development methods to mitigate identified adverse environmental effects.Mitigation measures necessary to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental effects must be integrated into project design. 2.Section 1780.33 is amended byrevisingparagraphs(c)(3),and (f)to readasfollows: §1780.33 Application requirements. ***** c)**& (3)The State staff engineer will consult with the applicant's engineer as appropriate to resolve any questionsco!the PER.Written comments will be provided by the State staff engineer to the processing office to meet eligibility determination time lines. ***** (f)Environmental Report.For thoseactionslistedin§§1794.22(6)and 1794.23(b),the applicant shall submit, in accordance with RUS Bulletin 1794A-602,two copies of the completed Environmental Report. (1)Upon receipt of the Environmental Report,the processing office shall forward one copy of the report with comments and recommendation to the State Environmental Coordinator for review. (2)The State Environmental Coordinator will consult with the applicant as appropriate to resolve any environmental concerns.Written comments will be provided by the State Environmental Coordinator to the processing office to meet eligibility determination time Lines. s 2 *=* 3.Section 1780.39 is amended by revising paragraph (b)introductory text and removing and revising paragraph(h). $1780.39 Application processing. *** ** (b)Professional services and contracts related to the facility.Fees provided for in contracts or agreements shall be reasonable.The Agency shall considerfeestobereasonableiftheyarenotinexcessofthoseordinarilychargedby the profession as a whole for similar work when RUS financing is not involved.Applicants will be responsible for providing the services necessary to plan projects including design of facilities,environmental review and documentation requirements, preparation of cost and income estimates,development of proposals for organization and financing,and overall operation and maintenance of the facility.Applicants should negotiate for procurement of professional services, whereby competitors'qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified competitor is selected,subject to negotiations of fair and reasonable compensation.Contracts or other forms of agreement between the applicant and its professional and technical representatives are required and are subject to RUS concurrence. *s =** 4.Section 1780.41 is amended byrevisingparagraph(a)(8)to read as follows: $1780.41 Loan or grant approval. fa)*** (8)Completed environmental review documents including copies of public notices and appropriate proof of publication,if applicable;and ***** SUBPART C-PLANNING,DESIGN, BIDDING,CONTRACTING, CONSTRUCTING AND INSPECTIONS 5.Section 1780.55 is revised to read as follows: §1780.55 Preliminary engineering reports. Preliminary engineering reports and Environmental Reports.Preliminary engineering reports (PERs)must conform to customary professional standards.PER guidelines for water, sanitary sewer,solid waste,and storm sewer are available from the Agency. Environmental Reports must meet the policies and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act and RUS procedures.Guidelines for preparing Environmental Reports are available in RUS Bulletin 1794A-602. 6.Section 1780.57 ts amended by revising paragraph (a)to read as follows: S1720 57 Neslon policies, ***** (a}Environmental review.Facilities financed by the Agency must undergo an environmental impact analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and RUS procedures.Facility planning and design must not only be responsive to the owner's needs but must consider the environmental consequences of the proposed project.Facility design shall incorporate and integrate,where practicable,mitigation measures that avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts.Environmental reviews serve as a means of assessing environmental impacts of project proposals,rather than justifying decisions already made.Applicants maynottakeanyactiononaprojectproposalthatwillhaveanadverseenvironmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable project alternatives being reviewed priortothecompletionoftheAgency's environmental review. **s ** 7.Part 1794 is revised to read as follows: PART 1794-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Subpart A-General Sec. 1794.1 Purpose. 1794.2 Authority. 1794.3 Actions requiring environmental review. 1794.4 Metric units. 1794.5 Responsible officials. 1794.6 Definitions. 1794.7 Guidance. 1794.8-1794.9 [Reserved] Subpert B-implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act 1794.10 Applicant responsibilities. 1784.11 Apply NEPA early in the planning Process. 1794.12 Consideration of alternatives. 1794.13 Public involvement. 1794.14 Interagency involvement and coordination. 1794.15 Limitations on actions during theNEPAprocess1794.16 ering. BvOVvVUT reaeral Kepister/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 1794.17 Mitigation. 1794.18-1794.19 [Reserved] Subpart C-Ciassification of Proposais 1794.20 Control. 1794.21 Categorically excluded proposals without an ER. 1794.22 Categorically excluded proposals requiring an ER. 1794.23 Proposals normally requiring an EA. 1794.24 Proposals normally requiringanEAwithscoping.1794.25 Propocals normally requiring anEIS. 1794.26-1794.29 [Reserved] Subpart D-Procedure for Categorical Exclusions 1794.30 General. 1794.31 Classification. 1794.32 Environmental report. 1794.33 action. 1794.34-1794.39 [Reserved] Subpart E-Procedure for Environmental Assessments 1794.40 General. 1794.41 Document requirements. 1794.42 Notice of availability. 1794.43 Agency finding.1794.44 Timing of agency action. 1794.45-1794.49 [Reserved] Subpart F-Procedure for Environmental Assessments With Scoping 1794.50 Normal sequence. 1794.51 Preparation for scoping. 1794.52 Scoping meetings. 1794.53 Environmental analysis.1794.54 determination. 31794.55-179459 [Reserved] Subpart G-Procedure for Environmental Impect Statements 1794.60 Normal sequence. 1794.61 Environmental impact statement. 1794.62 Supplemental EIS. 1794.63 Record of decision. 1794.64 Timing of agency action. 1794.65-1794.69 [Reserved] Subpart H-AdoptionofEnvironmentalDocuments 1794.70 General.1794.71 Adoption of an EA.1784.72 Adoption of an EIS.1794.73 Timing of agency action. 1794.74 Incorporation of environmental materials. 1794.75 -1794.79 [Reserved] Authority:7 U.S.C.6941 et seq.,42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.;40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. Subpart A-General §1794.1 Purpose. (a)This part contains the policies andluresoftheRuralUtilitiesService (RUS)for implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),as amended (42 U.S.C.4321-- 4346);the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508)and certain related Federal environmental laws,statutes, regulations,and Executtve Orders (EO) that apply to RUS programs and administrative actions. (b)The policies and procedures contained in this part are intended to help RUS officials make decisions that are based on an understanding of environmental consequences,and take actions that protect,restore,and enhance the environment.In assessing the potential environmental impacts of its actions,RUS wiii consult eariy with appropriate Federal,State,and local agencies and other organizations to provide decision-makers withinformationontheissuesthataretrulysignificanttotheactioninquestion. §17942 Authority. {a)This part derives its authority from and is intended to be compliant with NEPA,CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions _of NEPA,and other RUS regulations. (b)Where practicable,RUS will use NEPA analysis and documents and review procedures to integrate the requirements of related environmental statutes,regulations,and orders._(©)This part integrates therequirementsofNEPAwithother planning and environmental review procedures required by law,or by RUS practice including but not limited to:(1)Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.1531 et seq);(2)The National Historic PreservationAct(16 U.S.C.470 et seq);(3)Farmland Protection Policy Act (7U.S.C.4201 et seq.);(4)E.O.11593,Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (3 CFR,1971 Comp.,p. 154): (5)E.O.11514,Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality(3 CFR,1970 Comp.,p.104);(6)E.O.11988,Floodplain Management (3 CFR,1977 Comp..,p. 117);(7)E.O.11990,Protection of Wetlands(3 CFR,1977 Comp..p.121);and (8)E.O.12898,Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations(3 CFR,1994 Comp.,p. - 859). (d)Applicants are responsible for ensuring that proposed actions are incompliancewithallappropriateRUSrequirements.Environmental documents submitted by the applicant shall be prepared under the oversight and guidance of RUS.RUS will evaluate and be responsible for the accuracy of all information contained therein. §1794.3 Actions requiring environmental review. The provisions of this part apply to actions by RUS including the approval of financial assistance pursuant to the Electric,Telecommunications,and Water and Waste Programs,the disposal of property held by RUS pursuant to such programs,and the issuance of new or revised rules,regulations,and bulletins.Approvals provided by RUS pursuant to loan contracts and security instruments,including approvals of lien accommodations,are not actions for the purposes of this part and the provisions of this part shall not apply to the exercise of such approvals. §1794.4 Metric units. RUS normally will prepare environmental documents using non- metric equivalents with one of the following two options;metric units tn parentheses immediately following the non-metric equivalents or a metric conversion table as an appendix. Environmental documents p:by ot for a RUS applicant should fallow the same format. §1794.5 Responsible officials. The Administrator of RUS has the responsibility for Agency compliance with all environmental laws, regulations,and EOs that apply to RUS and administrative actions. Responsibility for ensuring environmental compliance for actions taken by RUS has been delegated as follows: (a)Electric and Telecommunications Programs.The appropriate Assistant Administrator is responsible for ensuring compliance with this part for the respective programs.(b)Water and Waste Program.The Assistant Administrator for this program is responsible for ensuring compliance with this part at the national level.The State Director is the responsible official for ensuring compliance with this part for actions taken at the State Office level. §17946 Definitions. The following definitions,as well as the definitions contained in 40 CFR part1508oftheCEQregulations,apply to the implementation of this part: Applicant.The organization applyingforfinancialassistanceorother approval from either the Electric or Telecommunications programs or the organization applying for a loan or grant from the Water and Waste p.Construction Work Plan (CWP).The document required by 7 CFR part 1710.Emergency Situation.A natural disaster or system failure that may Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68657 involve an immediate or imminent threat to public health,safety,or thehumanenvironment. Environmental Analysis (EVAL).The document submitted by the applicant for proposed actions subject to compliance with §1794.24 and under special circumstances §1794.25.Environmental Report (ER).The environmental documentation normally submitted by applicants for proposed actions subject to compliance with §§1794.22 and 1794.23.An ER for the Water and Waste Program refers to the nomnally included as part of the Preliminary Enginee.Report.Environmental review.Any one or allofthelevelsofenvironmentalanalysis described under subpart C of thisEquivalentDwellingUnit(EDU).Level of water or waste service provided to a typical rural residential dwelling.im,Land Resources.Defined pursuant to the U.S.Department of Agriculture's Departmental Regulation 9500-3,Land Use Policy,as important farmland,prime forestland,prime rangeland,wetlands,and floodplains. Copies of this Departmental Ri tion 'are available from USDA,Rural Utilities Service,Wash mn,DC 20250.Loan .nt required by 7 CFR part 1737.Multiplexing Center.A field site where a telecommunications provider houses a device that combines individual subscriber circuits onto a single system for economical connection with a switching center.The combiner, or "multiplexer,”may be mounted on apole,on a concrete pad,or in a partialorfullenclosuresuchasashelter,or small building.Natural Resource Management Guide. Inventory of natural resources,land uses,and environmental factors specified by Federal,State,and local authorities as deserving some degree of protection or special consideration.The guide describes the standards or types of protection that apply.Engineering Report (PER). Document required by 7 CFR part 1780 for Water and Waste Programs.A PER is prepared by an applicant's engineering consultant documenting a proposed action's preliminary engineering plan and design and the applicable environmental reviewactivitiesasrequiredinthispart.UponapprovalbyRUS,the PER,or a portionthereof,shall serve as the RUS environmental document. Supervisory Control and Data 'Acquisition System (SCADA).Electronic monitoring and control equipment installed at electric substations and switching stations. Third party Consultant.A party selected by RUS to prepare the EIS for proposed actions described in §1794.25 where the applicant initiating the proposal agrees to fund preparation of the document in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR Part 1789,"Use of Consultants Funded by Borrowers”and Section 759A of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C.2204b(b)). §17947 Guidance. {a)Electric and TelecommunicationsPrnarameFaefiorthaeguidanceSPOgrames.SOF sUruiet uidance in the preparation of public notices and environmental documents,RUS has prepared a series of program specific guidance bulletins.RUS Bulletin 1794A-600 provides guidance in preparing the ER for proposed actions classified as categorical exclusions (CEs) (§1794.22(a))and RUS Bulletin 1794A- 601 provides guidance in preparing the ER for proposed actions which require EAs (§1794.23(b)Telecommunications .only and (c));:.Copies of these bulletins are available upon request by contacting Rural Utilities Service,Publications Office,PDRA,Stop 1522;1400 Independence Avenue,SW; Washington,DC 20250-1522.(b)Water and Waste Program.RUSBulletin1794A-602 provides guidance in p the ER for p actions classified as CEs (§1794.22(b))and EAs(§1794.23(b)).A copy of this bulletin tsavailableuponrequestbycontactingthe appropriate State Director.State : Directors may provide supplemental guidance to meet state and local laws and regulations and to provide for orderly application procedures and efficient service to applicants.State Directors shall obtain the Administrator's approval for all supplements to RUS Bulletin 1794A-- 602.Each State Office shall maintain an updated Natural Resource Management Guide and provide applicants with pertinent sections or a copy of the curren edition thereof. §§1794.8-1794.9 [Reserved] Subpart B-implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act §1704.10 Applicant responsibilities. As describedinsubpartCofthispart,applicants shall prepare the applicable environmental documentation concurrent with a proposed action's engineering.planning,and design activities.RUS shall assist applicants by outlining the types of information required and shall provide guidance and oversight in the development of the documentation.Documentation shall not be considered complete until all public review periods,as applicable, have expired and RUS concurrence,as set forth in the appropriate decision document and associated public notice, has been issued. §1794.11 Apply NEPA earty in the planning process. The environmental review process requires early coordination with and involvement of RUS.Applicants should consult with RUS at the earliest stages of planning for any proposal that mayrequireRUSaction.For proposed actions that normaily require an EiS, applicants shall consult with RUS prior to obtaining the services of an environmental consultant. §179412 Considerationofalternatives. In determining what are reasonable alternatives,RUS considers a number of factors.These factors may include,but are not limited to,the proposed action's size and scope,state of the technology, economic considerations,legal and socioeconomic concerns,availability of resources,and the timeframe in which the identified need must be fulfilled. §$179413 Public involvement. (a)In carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA,RUS shall make diligenteffortstoinvolvethepublicinthe environmental review process throughpublicnoticesandpublichearingsand (1)All public notices required by this part shall describe the nature,location,and extent of the proposed action andindicatetheavailabilityandlocationof additional information.They shall be published in newspaper(s)of generalcirculationwithintheproposedaction's area of environmental impact and the county(s)in which the proposed action will take place or such other places as RUS determines. (2)The number of editions in which the notices should be published will be specified in the Bulletins referenced in §1794.7 or established on a project-by- project basis.Alternative forms of notice may also be to ensure that residents located in the area affected by the proposed action are notified.The applicant should not publish notices for compliance with this part until so notified by RUS. (3)A copy of all comments received by the applicant concerningenvironmentalofthe action shall be provided to RUS ina timely manner.RUS and applicants shall assess and consider public comments both individually and collectively.Responses to publiccommentswillbeappendedtothe applicable environmental document. D5005 Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations {4)RUS and applicants shall make available to the public those project related environmental documents that RUS determines will enhance public participation in the environmental process.These materials shall be placed in locations convenient for the public as determined by RUS in consultation with applicants.Included with the documentation shall be a list of other project-related information that shall be available for inspection through a designated RUS or applicant contact (5)Publichearings or meetings shaii be held at reasonable times and locations concerning environmentalaspectsofaproposedactioninallcaseswhere,in the opinion of RUS,the needforhearingsormeetingsisindicatedin order to develop adequate information on the environmental implications of the proposed action.Public hearings ormeetingsconductedbyRUSwillbe coordinated to the extent practicable with other meetings,hearings,and environmental reviews which may be held or required by other Federal,state and local agencies.Applicants shall,as necessary,participate in all RUS conducted public hearings or meeting.(6)Scoping procedures,in accordancewith40CFR1501.7,are requiredforProposedactionsnormallyrequiring anEAwithscoping(§1794.24)or an EIS (§1794.25).RUS may require scoping procedures to be followed for other proposed actions where appropriate to achieve the of NEPA.| (b)The applicant shall have public notices described in this section published in a newspaper(s).Applicants shall obtain proof of publication from the newspaper(s)for inclusion into the applicable environmental document. Where the proposed action requires an EIS RUS shall,in addition to applicant published notices,publish notice in the Federal Register.In all cases,RUS may publish notices in the Federal Register as appropriate. $179414 Interagency involvement and coordination. In an attermpt to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort with state or local procedures,RUS will,to the extentpossibleandinaccordancewith40 CFR1506.2,actively participate with anygovernmentalagencytocooperatively orjointlyprepareenvironmentaldocumentssothatonedocumentwill comply with all applicable laws.Where RUS has agreed to participate as acooperatingagency,in accordance with40CFR1501.6,RUS may rely upon the .lead agency's procedures forimplementingNEPAprocedures.Inaddition,RUS shall request that: (a)The lead agency indicates that RUS 1s a cooperating agency in all NEPA-related notices published for the proposed action; (b)The scope and contentofthe EAorEISsatisfiesthestatutoryand regulatory requirements applicable to RUS;and (c)The applicant shall inform RUS in a timely manner of its involvement in a proposed action where another Federal! agency is preparing an environmental document so as to permit RUS to adequately fulfill its duties as a cooperating agency. $1794.15 LimitationsonactionsduringtheNEPAprocess. (a)General.Until RUS concludes its environmental review process,the applicant shall take no action concerning the proposed action which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives being considered in the environmental review process (40 CFR 1506.1). (b)Electric Program.In determining which applicant activities related to a action can proceed prior to completion of the environmental reviewprocess,RUS must determine,amongothermattersthat:(1)The activity shall not have anadverseenvironmentalimpactandshall not preclude the search for other alternatives.For example,purchase of water rights,optioning or transfer oflandtide.or continued use ofland ashistoricallyemployedwillnothavean adverse environmental impact. However,site preparation orconstructionatorneartheproposedsite(e.g.rail spur)or development of a related facility (e.g.opening a captive mine)normally will have an adverse environmental impact. (2)Expenditures are minimal.To be minimal,the expenditure must not exceed the amount of loss which the applicant could absorb without jeopardizing the Government's security interest in the event the proposed action is not approved by the Administrator, and must not compromise the - objectivity of RUS environmental review.Not withstanding other considerations,expenditures equivalenttoupto10percentoftheproposedaction's cost normally will not compromise RUS objectivity. Expenditures for the purpose ofproducingdocumentationrequired for RUS environmental review are excluded from this limitation. $1794.16 Tlering. It is the policy of RUS to prepare programmatic level analysis in order totieranEISandanEAwhere:(a)It is practicable,and (b)There will be a reduction of delayandork,or where better decision making will be fostered (40 CFR 1502.20). §1794.17 Mitigation. (a)General.In addition to complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.14(f),it is RUS policy that a discussion of mitigative measuresessentialtorendertheimpactsoftheproposedactionnotsignificantwillbe included in or referenced in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSD and the Record of Decision (ROD).(b)Water and Waste Program.(1)Mitigation measures which involve protective measures for environmental resources cited in this part or restrictions or limitations on real property located in the service areas of the proposed action shall be negotiated with applicants and any relevant regulatory agency so as to be enforceable.All mitigation measures incorporating land use issues shallrectherightsandresponsibilities of landholders in making private land use decisions and recognize the responsibility of governments in influencing how land may be used to meet public needs. (2)Mitigation measures shall be included in the letter of conditions. (3)RUS has the responsibility for the post approval construction or security inspections or monitoring to ensure that all mitigation measures included in the environmental documents have been implemented as specified in the letter of conditions. §§1794.18-1794.19 [Reserved] Subpart C-Classification of Proposals §1794.20 Control.. Electric and Telecommunications Programs.For environmental review purposes,RUS has identified andestablishedcategoriesofproposed actions (§§1794.21 through 1794.25). An applicant may propose to participate with other parties in the ownership of a project where the applicant(s)does not have sufficient control to alter the development of the project.In sucha case,RUS shall determine whether the applicant participants have sufficient control and responsibility to alter the development of the proposed project prior to determining its classification. Where the applicant proposes to participate with other parties in the reaeral Kegister/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68659 ownership of a proposed project and all applicants cumulatively own:(a)Five percent or less of a project is not considered a Federal action subject to this part;(b)Thirty-three and one-third percentormoreofaprojectshallbetreatedinitsusualcategory;(c)More than five percentbut lessthan33%percent of a project,RUS shall determine whether the applicant participants have sufficient control and responsibility to alter the developmentoftheproposalsuchthatRUS's actionwillbeConsideredaFederalaction subject to this part.Consideration shall be given to such factors as:(1)Whether construction would be completed regardless of RUS financialassistanceora(2)The stage of planning andconstruction; (3)Total participation of the licant;ar;4)Participation percentage of each utility;and(5)Managerial arrangements and contractual provisions. $1794.21 Categorically excluded proposals without an ER. (a)General.Certain types of actions taken by RUS do not normally require an ER.Proposed actions within thisclassificationare: (1)The issuance of bulletins and information publications that do not concern environmental matters or substantial facility design,construction, or maintenance practices;(2)Procurement activites related totheoperationofRUS; (3)Personnel and administrative actions;and (4)Repairs made because of an emergency situation to return to service damaged facilities of an applicant's em. (b)Electric and Telecommunications Programs.Applications for financial assistance for the types of actions listed in this paragraph (b) normally do not require the submission of an ER.These types of actions are subject to the requirements of §1794.31. Applicants shall sufficiently identify all proposed actions so their proper classification can be determined. Detailed descriptions shall be provided for each proposal noted in this section. RUS normally requires additional information in addition to a descriptionofwhatisbeingproposed,to ensure thatproposalsareproperlyclassified.In order to provide for extraordinary circumstances,RUS may require development of an ER for proposals listed in this section.Proposed actions within this classification are: (1)Purchase of land where use shallremainunchanged,or the purchase of existing water rights where no associated construction is involved: (2)Additional or substitute financial assistance for proposed actions which have previously received environmental review and approval from RUS, provided the scope of the proposal and environmental considerations have not (3)Rehabilitation or reconstruction of transportation facilities within existing rights-of-way (ROW)or generating facility sites.A description of the rehabilitation or reconstruction shall be provided to RUS;(4)Changes or additions to microwave sites,substations,switching stations, telecommunications switching or muldplexing centers,buildings,or small _Structures requiring new physical disturbance or fencing of less than one acre (0.4 hectare).A description of the additions or changes and the area to be impacted by the expansion shall be provided to RUS;(5)Internal modifications orequipmentadditions(e.g.,computerfacilities,relocating interior walls)tostructuresorbuil(6)Internal or minor"external changestoelectricgeneratingorfuelprocessing facilities and related support structures where there is negligible impact on the outside environment.A description of the c shall be ded to RUS:oh Onis Provi qt replacement of equipment or small structures (e.g.,line support structures, line transformers,microwave facilities, telecommunications remote switchingandmultiplsites);(8)The Conserection,oftelecommunicationsfacilities within the fenced area of an existing substation, switching station,or within the boundaries of an existing electric generating facility site.A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS;. (9)SCADA and energy management systems involving no new external construction; (10)Testing or monitoring work (e.g., soil or rock core sampling,monitoring wells,air monitoring);(11)Studies and engineeringundertakentodefineproposed actions or alternatives sufficiently so that environmental effects can be assessed; (12)Construction of electric powerlineswithinthefencedareaofanexistingsubstation,switching station,or within the boundaries of an electric generating facility site:(13)Contracts for certain items of equipment which are part of a proposed action for which RUS is preparing an EA or EIS,and which meet the limitations on actions during the NEPA process as established in 40 CFR1506.1(d)and contained in§1794.15(6)(2); (14)Rebuilding of power lines or telecommunications cables where road or highway reconstruction requires the applicant to relocate the lines eitherwithinoradjacenttothenewroadorhighwayeasementorright-of-way.A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS;(15)Phase or voltage conversions, reconducioring or upgrading of existing electric distribution lines,or telecommunication facilities.A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS;(16)Construction of new power lines, substations,or telecommunications facilities on industrial or commercial sites,where the applicant has no control over the location of the new facilities. Related off-site facilities would be treated in their normal category.A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS;(17)Participation by an applicant(s} in any proposed action where total applicant financial participation will befivepercentorless;(18)Constructionofabatteryenergy storage system at an existing generating station or substation site.A descriptionofthefacilitiestobeconstructedshall be ded to RUS. (19)Additional bulk commodity storage (e.g.,coal,fuel oil,Limestone) within existing generating station boundaries.A certification attesting to the current state of compliance of the facilities and a description ofthefacilitiestobeaddedshallbeprovidedtoRUS;(20)Proposals designed to reduce theamountofpollutantsreleasedintothe environment (e.g.,precipitators,baghouse or scrubber installations,and coal washing equipment)which will have no other environmental impact outside the existing facility site.A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS;(21)Construction of standby diesel electric generators (one megawatt or lesstotalcapacity)and associated facilities, for the primary purpose of providing emergency power,at an existing applicant headquarters or district office, telecommunications switching or multiplexing site,or at an industrial, commercial or agricultural facility served by the applicant.A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS; 22)Construction of onsite facilities designed for the transfer of ash,scrubber wastes,and other byproducts from coal- vouvyv reueral Nepister/VOl.OS,NO.258/rriday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations fired electric generating stations forrecyclingorstorageatanexistingcoalmine(surface or underground).A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS; (23)Changes or additions to an existing water well system,includingnewwatersupplywellsandassociatedpipelineswithintheboundariesofan existing well field or generating station site.A description of the changes or additions shall be provided;and (24)Repowering or uprating of an existing unit(s)at a fossil-fueled generating station in order to improve the efficiency or the energy output of the facility.Repowering or uprating that results in increased fuel consumption or the substitution of one fuel combustion technology with another is excluded from this classification. (c)Water and Waste Program. Applications for financial assistance for certain proposed actions do not normally require the submission of an ER.Applicants shall sufficienthy identify all proposed actions so their proper classification can be determined.These types ofactionsaresubjecttotherequirementsof§1794.31.In order toprovideforextraordinarycircumstances,RUS may require development of an ER for proposals listed in this section.Proposed actions within this classification are: (1)Management actions relating to invitation for bids,award of contracts, and the actual physical commencementofconstructionactivities; (2)Proposed actions that primarilyinvolvethepurchaseandinstallation of office equipment or motorized vehicles; (3)The award of financial assistance for technical assistance,planning purposes,environmental analysis, management studies,or feasibility studies;and (4)Loan closing and servicing activities that do not alter the purpose, operation,location,or design of the proposal as originally approved,such as subordinations,amendments and revisions to approved actions,and the provision of additional financial assistance for cost overruns. $1794.22 Categorically excluded proposals requiring an ER. (a)Electric and Telecommunications Programs.Applications for financial assistance for the types of proposed actions listed in this section normallyrequirethesubmissionofanERandaresubjecttotherequirementsof§1794.32. Proposed actions within this classification are: (1)Construction of electric power lines and associated facilities designed for or capable of operation at a nominalvoltageofeither:()that 69 kilovolts (kV);(ii)Less than 230 kV if no more than25miles(40.2 kilometers)of line are involved;or (ili)230 kV or greater involving no more than three miles (4.8 kilometers)of line; (2)Construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines,cables,and related facilities; (3)Construction of microwave facilities,SCADA,and energy management systems involving ne morthanfiveacres2hectares)of physical disturbance at arry single site;(4)Construction of cooperative orcomheadquarters,maintenance facilities,or other buildings involvingnomorethan10acres(4 hectares)ofpraiadisturbanceorfencedproperty;5)Changes to existing transmission lines that involve less than 20 percent pole replacement,or the complete rebuilding of existing distribution lines within the same ROW.Changes to transmission lines that require 20 percent or greater pole replacementwillbeconsideredthesameasnewconstruction; (6)Changes or additions to existing substations,switching stations, telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers,or external changes to buildings or small structuresrequiringoneacre(0.4 hectare)or morebutnomorethanfiveacres(2 hectares)of new physically disturbed land or fenced property;(7)Construction of substations, switching stations,or telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers requiring no more than five acres (2 hectares)of new physically disturbed land or fenced property:(8)Construction of diesel electric generating facilities of five megawatts (MW)(nameplate rating)or less either at an existing generation or substation sites.This category also applies to a diesel electric generating facility of five MW or less that is located at or adjacent to an landfill site and suppliedwithrefusederivedfuel.All new associated facilities and related electric lines shall be covered in the ER; (9)Additions to or the replacement of existing generating units at a hydroelectric facility or dam which result in no change in the normal maximum surface area or normal maximum surface elevation of the existing impoundment.All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall be covered in the ER:(10)Construction of new water supply wells and associated pipelines not located within the boundaries of an existing well field or generating station site;and (11)Purchase of existing facilities or a portion thereof where use or operation will remain .The results of a facility environmental audit can be substituted for the ER. (b)Water and Waste Program.For certain proposed actions,applications for financial assistance normally requirethesubmittalofanERaspartofthePER.These types of actions are subject to the requirements of §1794.32. classification are: (1)Rehabilitation of existing facilicies, functional replacement or rehabilitation of equipment,or the construction of new ancillary facilities adjacent or appurtenant to existing facilities, including but not limited to, replacement of utilities such as water or sewer lines and appurtenances for existing users with modest or moderate growth potential,reconstruction of curbs and sidewalks,street repaving, and building modifications, renovations,and improvements;(2)Facility improvements to meetcurrentneedswithamodestchange inuse,Size,Capacity,purpose or location from the original facility.The proposed action must be designed for predominantly residential use with other new or expanded users being small-scale,commercial enterpriseshalimitedsecondaryimpacts;(3)Construction of new facilities that are designed to serve not more than 500 EDUs and with modest growthpotential.The proposed action must bedesignedforpredominantlyresidential use with other users being small-scale, commercial enterprises having limited secondary i cts; (4)The extension,enlargement or construction of interceptors,collection, transmission or distribution lines within a one-mile (1.6-kilometer)limit from existing service areas estimated from boundary listed as follows:"et The corporate Limits of the community being served;(ii)If there are developed areasimmediatelycontiguoustothecorporate limits of a community,the limits of these developed areas;or(iii)Ifan unincorporated area is to beserved,the limits of the developed areas; (5)Installation of new water supply wells or water storage facilities that are .required by a regulatory authority or standard engineering practice as a backup to existing production well(s)or as reserve for fire protection;(6)Actions described in §1794.21{c){4)which alter the purpose, Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68661 operation,location,or design of the proposed action as originally approved, and such alteration is equivalent in magnitude or type as described inparagraphs(b)(1)through (b)(5)ofthissection:and (7)The lease or disposal!of real property by RUS,which may result in a change in use of the real property in the reasonably foreseeable future and such change,is equivalent in magnitudeortypeasdescribedinparagraphs(b)(1)through (b)(5). (c)Specialized criteria for not granting a CE for Water and WasteProjects.An EA must be prepared if aactionnormallyclassifiedas a CE meets any of the following: (1)Will either create a new or relocateanexistingdischargetoorawithdrawalfromsurfaceorgroundwaters; (2)Will result in substantial increases in the volume or the loading of pollutants from an existing discharge to receiving waters; (3)Will cause a substantial increase in the volume of withdrawal from surface or ground waters at an existing site;or(4)Would provide capacity to servemorethan500EDUsora30percentincreaseintheexistingpopulation whichever 1s larger. §ire423 Proposals normally requiring an RUS will normally prepare an EA for all proposed actions which are neither categorical exclusions (§§1794.21 and 1794.22)nor normally requiring an EIS(§1794.25).For certain actions within this class,scoping and document procedures contained in §§1794.50 1794.54 shall be followed (see §1794.24).The following are proposed actions which normally require an EA and shall be subject to the requirementsof§§1794.40 through 1794.44. (a)General.Issuance or modification of RUS regulations concerning environmental matters. (b)Telecommunicationsand WaterandWastePrograms.An EA shall be prepared for applications for financial"assistance for all proposed actions not spectfically defined as a CE or otherwise specifically categorized by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. (c)Electric Program.Applications for financial assistance for certain actions normally require the preparation of an EA.Proposed actions falling within this classification are: (1)Construction of combustion turbine or diesel generating facilities of 50 MW (nameplate rating)or less at a new site (no existing generating capacity)except for items covered by §1794.22(a)(8).All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall be covered in the EA; (2)Construction of combustion turbine or diesel generating facilities of100MW(nameplate rating)or lessatanexistinggeneratingsite,except for items 'covered by §1794.22(a)(8).All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall be covered in the EA: (3)Construction of any other type of new electric generating facilities of 10 MW (nameplate rating)or less.All new associated facilities and related electric ae sy at to.TA.power lines shall be covered in the EA; (4)Repowering or uprating of an existing unit(s)at a fossil-fueled generating station where the fuel combustion technology of the affected unit(s)ts substituted for another (e.g.coal or oil-fired boiler is converted to a fluidized bed boiler or replaced with a combustion turbine unit); (5)Installation of new g units at an existing hydroelectric facilityordam,or the replacement ofexistinggeneratingunitsatahydroelectric facility or dam which will result in a change in the normal maximum surface area of normal maximum surface elevation of the existing impoundment. All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall be covered intheEA; (6)A new drilling operation or the expansion of a mining or drilling operation; (7)Construction of cooperative headquarters,maintenance,and equipment storage facilities involving more than 10 acres (4 hectares)of physical disturbance or fenced property: (8)The construction of electric power .lines and related facilities designed for and capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 230 kV or more involvingmorethanthreemiles(4.8 kilometers) but not more than 25 miles (40 kilometers)of line: (9)The construction of electric power lines and related facilities designed for or capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 69 kV or more but less than 230 kV where more than 25 miles (40 kilometers)of power line are involved; (10)The construction of substations or switching stations requiring greater than five acres (2 hectares)of new physical disturbance at a single site;and (11)Construction of facilities designed for the transferand storage ofash,scrubber wastes,and other : byproducts from coal-fired electric generating stations that will be located beyond the existing facility site boundaries. §179424 Proposals normally requiring an EA with scoping. (a)General.Applications for financial assistance for certain proposed actions require the use of a scoping procedure in the development of the EA.Thesetypesofactionsaresubjecttotherequirementsof§§1794.50 through 1794.54.RUS has the discretion to modify or waive the requirements listedin§1794.52 for a proposed action inthiscategory. (b)Electric Program.Proposed actions falling within this classification are:(1)The construction of electric power lines and related facilities designed for and capable of operation at a nominal voltage of 230 kV or more where more than 25 miles (40 kilometers)of power line are involved; (2)Construction of combustion turbines and diesel generators of morethan50MWatanewsiteormorethan100MWatanexistingsite;and the construction of any other type of electric generating facility of more than 10 MW | but not more than 50 MW (nameplate rating).All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall becoveredinanyEAorEISthatisprepared.(c)Telecommunications and Water and Waste Programs.There are no actions normally falling within this classification. §179425 Proposals normalty requiring an&s. Applications for financial assistance for certain proposed actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment shall require the preparation of an EIS. (a)Electric Program.An EIS will normally be required in connection with proposed actions involving the - following types of facilities:(1)New electric generating facilities of more than 50 MW (nameplate rating) other than diesel generators or combustion turbines.All new associated facilities and related electric powerlinesshallbecoveredintheEIS;and(2)A new mining operation when the applicants have effective control (e.g.,dedicated mine or purchase of a substantial portion of the mining equipment).(b)Proposals listed above are subject to the requirements of §§1794.60, 1794.61,1794.63,and 1794.64, Preparation of a supplemental draft or final EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 shall be subject to the uirements of §§1794.62 and 1794.64."oO Telecommunications and WaterandWastePrograms.No groups or sets of proposed actions normally require the preparation of an EIS.The 68662 Federal Register/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 1,1998/Rules and Regulations environmental review process,as described in this part,shall be used to identify those proposed actions for which the preparation of an EIS tsnecessary.If an EIS is required,RUSshallproceeddirectlytoitspreparation.Prior completion of an EA is notmandatory. $§1794.28-1794.29 [Reserved] Subpart D-Procedure for Categorical Exctusions B170420 Genersl The procedures of this subpart which apply to actions classified as CEs in §§1794.21 and 1794.22 provideRUSwithinformationnecessaryto determine if the proposed action meetsthecriteriaforaCE.Where,because ofextraordinarycircumstances,a normally categorically excluded action may haveasignificanteffectonthequalityofthehumanenvironment,RUS may require additional environmental documentation. $1794.31 Classification. (a)Electric and Telecommunications Programs.RUS will normally determine the proper environmental classification of projects based on its evaluation of the project description set forth in the construction work plan or loan design which the applicant is required to submit with its application for financial assistance.Each project must be sufficiently described to ensure its proper classification.RUS may require the applicant to provide additional information on a project where appropriate. (b)Water and Waste Program.RUS will normally determine the environmental classification for projects based on its evaluation of the preliminary planning and designinformation.A §179432 Environmental report. (a)For proposed actions listed in§1794.21(b)and (c),the applicant tsnormallynotrequiredtosubmitanER. (b)For actions listed in §1794.22(a)and (b),the applicant shall normally submit an ER.Guidance in preparing the ER for Electric andTelecommunicationiscontainedinRUSBulletin1794A -600. Guidance in preparing the ER for Water and Waste proposals is contained in RUS Bulletin 1794A--602.The applicant may be required to publish public notices and provide evidence of such if the proposed action is located in, impacts,or converts important land resources. §179433 Agency action. RUS may act on an application for financial assistance upon determining,based on the review of documents as setforthin§1794.32 and such additional information as RUS deems necessary, that the project is categorically excluded. §§1794.34-1794.29 [Reserved] Subpart E-Procedure for Environmental Assessments bY el,eeeezienwVewen. This subpart applies to proposed actions described in §1794.23.Where appropriate to carry out the purposes of NEPA,RUS may impose,on a case-by- case basis,additional requirements associated with the preparation of anEA.If at any point in the preparation ofanEA,RUS determines that the proposed action will have a significanteffectonthequalityofthehumanenvironment,the preparation of an EIS shall be required and the lures in subpart G ofthis part shall be followed. $1794.41 Document requirements, Applicants will provide an ER in accordance with the appropriate guidance documents referenced in§1794.7.After RUS has evaluated the ER and has determined the ER adequately addresses all applicable environmental issues,the ER will normally serve as RUS'EA.However,RUSreservesthe righttoprepare itsownEAfromtheinformationprovided in the ER.RUS will take responsibilityforthescopeandcontentofanEA. §179442 Notice of availability. Prior to RUS making a finding in accordance with §1794.43 and upon RUS authorization and guidance,the applicant shall have a notice published which announces the availability of the EA and solicits public comments on the EA. §170443 Agency finding. (a)General.If RUS finds,based on anEAthattheproposedactionwillnot have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment,RUS will prepare a FONSL Upon authorization of RUS,the applicant shall have a notice published which informs the public of the RUS and the availability oftheEAandFONSI.The notice shall bepreparedandpublishedinaccordance with RUS guidance. (b)Electric and Telecommunications Programs.RUS shall have a notice published in the Federal Register that announces the availability of the EA and FONSI. $1794.44 Tlening of agency action. RUS may take its final action onactionsrequiringanEA(§1794.23)at any time after publication of the RUS and applicant notices that a FONSI has been made and any required review period has expired.When substantive comments are received on the EA,RUS may provide an additional period (15 days)for public review following the publication of its FONSI determination.Final action shall not be taken until this review period has expired.'* §$1794.45-1794.49 [Reserved] Subpart F-Procedure for Environmental Assessments With Scoping §179450 Normal sequence. For proposed actions covered by §1794.24 and other actions determined by the Administrator to require an EA with Scoping.RUS and the applicant will follow the same procedures forscopingandtherequirementsfor notices and documents as for proposedactionsnormallyrequiringanEIS through the point at which the Environmental Analysis (EVAL)is submitted (see §1794.54).After the EVAL has been submitted,RUS will make a judgment to utilize the EVAL asitsEAandissueaFONSIorprepareanEIS. $1794.51 Preperation for scoping. (a)As soon as practicable after RUS and the applicant have developed a schedule for the environmental review process,RUS shall have its notice of 'intent to prepare an EA or EIS (§1794.13)published in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 1508.22).The applicant shall have published,in a timely manner,a notice similar to RUS' notice. (b)As part of the early planning,theapplicantshouldconsultwith appropriate Federal,state,and localagenciestoinformthemoftheproposedaction,identify permits and approvals which must be obtained,and administrative procedures which must be followed. (c)Before formal scoping ts initiated, RUS will require the applicant to submit an Alternative Evaluation Study andeitheraSitingStudy(generation)or a Macro-Corridor Study (transmissionlines).: (d)The applicant ts encouraged to hold public information meetings in the general location of the action and any reasonable alternatives when such applicant meetings will make the scoping process more meaningful.A written summary of the comments made Federal Kegister/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations 68663 at such meetings must be submitted to RUS as soon as practicable after the meetings. $1784.52 Scoping meetings. (a)Both RUS and the applicant shall have a notice published which announces a public scoping meeting is to be conducted,either in conjunction with the notice of intent or as a separate notice. (b)The RUS notice shall be published in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior to the meeting(s).The applicant's newspaper at least 10 days prior to the meeting(s).Other forms of media may also be used by the applicant to notice the meetings.(c)Where an environmental document is the subject of the hearingormeeting,that document will be made available to the public at least 10 days in advance of the . (d)The scoping meeting(s)will beheldintheareaoftheproposedactionatsuchplace(s)as RUS determines will best afford an opportunity for public involvement.Any person or representative of an organization,or government body desiring to make a statement at the meeting may make such statement in writing or orally.Theformatofthemeetingmaybeoneof twostyles.It can either be of the traditional style which features formal presentations followed by a comment period,or the open house style in which attendees are able to individually obtain information on topics or issues of interest within an established time period.A transcript will be made ofthescopingmeeting.(e)As soon as practicable after the scoping meeting(s),RUS,as lead agency,shall determine the significant issuestobeanalyzedindepthandidentifyand eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental .review.RUS will develop a proposed scope for further environmental study and review.RUS shall send a copy of this proposed scope to cooperating agencies and the applicant,and allow recipients 30 days to comment on the scope's adequacy and emphasis.After expiration of the 30-day period,RUS shall provide written guidance to the applicant concerning the scope of environmental study to be performed and information to be gathered. §1794.53 Environmental analysis. (a)After scoping procedures have been completed,RUS shall require the applicant to develop and submit an EVAL.The EVAL shall be prepared under the supervision and guidance of RUS staff and RUS shall evaluate and be responsible for the accuracy of all information contained therein. (b)The EVAL will normally serve astheRUSEA.The EVAL can also serveasthebasisforanEIS,and under suchcircumstanceswillbemadean appendix to the EIS.After RUS has reviewed and found the EVAL to be satisfactory,the applicant shall provideRUSwithasufficientnumberofcopiesoftheEVALtosatisfytheRUSdistributionplan. (c)The EVAL shall include a Summary of the construction and operation monitoring and mitigation measures for the proposed action.These measures may be revised as appropriate in response to comments and other information.and shall be incorporated by summary or reference into the FONSI or ROD. $1794.54 Agency determination. Following the scoping process and the development of a satisfactory EA,RUS shall determine whether the proposed action is a major Federal action Significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.If RUS determines the action Is significant,RUS will continue with the procedures in subpartGofthispart.If RUS determinestheactionisnotsignificant,RUS will proceed in accordance with §§1794.42 through 1794.44. $§1794.55-1794.59 [Reserved] Subpart G-Procedure for Environmental impact Statements $1794.60 Normal sequence. -For proposed actions requiring an EIS (see §1794.25),the NEPA process shall proceed in the same manner as for proposed actions requiring an EA with scoping through the point at which the scoping process is completed (see §1794.52). $1794.61 Environmental impactstatement.. (a)General.An EIS shall be preparedinaccordancewith40CFRpart1502. Funding,in whole or in part,for an EIS can be obtained from any lawful source (e.g.,cooperative agreements developed in accordance with Section 759A, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996,Pub.L.104-127 and 31 U.S.C.6301).A third-party consultant selected by RUS and funded by the applicant (7 CFR part 1789)maytheEIS. (1)After a draft or final EIS has beenprepared,RUS and the applicant shall concurrently have a notice of availability for the document published. The time period allowed for review will be a minimum of45 days for a draft EISand30daysforafinalEIS.This period is measured from the date that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- publishes a notice in the FederalRegisterinaccordancewith40CFR 1506.10. (2)In addition to circulation required by 40 CFR 1502.19,the draft and final EIS (or summaries thereof,at RUS discretion)shall be circulated to the appropriate state,regional,and metropolitan clearinghouses. (3)Where a final EIS does not require substantial changes from the draft EIS, RUS may document required changes through errata sheets,insertion pages, and revised sections to be incorporatedintothedraftEIS.In such cases,RUSshallcirculatesuchchangestogether with comments on the draft EIS, responses to comments,and other appropriate information as its final EIS. RUS will not circulate the draft EIS again,although RUS will provide thedraftEISifrequestedwithin30daysofpublicationofnoticeofavailabilityof the final EIS. (b)Electric Program.Where the applicant or its consultant has prepared an EVAL,RUS will develop its draft andfinalETSfromtheEVAL.An EVAL willnotberequiredifathird-party consultant prepares the draft and final EIS. |§1794.62 SupplementalEIS. (a)A supplement to a draft or final EIS shall be prepared,circulated,and given notice by RUS and the applicant in the same manner (exclusive ofscoping)as a draft and final EIS (see§1794.61). (b)Normally RUS and the applicant will have published notices of intent toprepareasupplementtoafinalEISinthosecaseswhereaRODhasalreadybeenissued. (c)RUS,at its discretion,may issue an information supplement to a final EIS where RUS determines that the - purposes of NEPA are furthered by doing so even though such supplement is not required by 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1). RUS and the applicant shall concurrently have a notice of availability published.The notice requirements shall be the same as for a final EIS and the information supplement shall be circulated in the same manner as a final EIS.RUS shall - take no final action on any proposed modification discussed in the information supplement unt!30 days after the RUS notice of availability or the applicant's notice is published, whichever occurs later. 00004 rederal Kegister/Vol.63,No.238/Friday,December 11,1998/Rules and Regulations $1794.63 Record of decision. {a)Upon completion of the review period for a final EIS,RUS will have its ROD prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2. (b)Separate RUS and applicant notices of availability shall be published concurrently.The notices shall summarize the RUS decision and announce the availability of the ROD. Copies of the ROD wil!be made available upon request from the point of contact identified in the notice. $1794.84 Timing of agency action, (a)RUS may take its final action or execute commitments on proposed actions requiring an EIS or Supplemental EIS at any time after the ROD has been published. (b)For budgetary purposes some financial assistance may be approved conditionally with a stipulation that nofundsshallbeadvanceduntilaRODhasbeenprepared. §§1794.65-1794.69 [Reserved] Subpart H-Adoption of Environmental Documents $1794.70 General.© This subpart covers the adoption of environmental documents prepared by other Federal agencies.Where applicants participate In proposed actions for which an EA or EIS has been prepared by or for another Federalagency,RUS may adopt the existing EA or EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3. $1794.71 AdoptionofanEA.RUS may adopt a FederalEAorEISoraportionthereofasitsEA.RUS shallmaketheEAavailableandassurethatnoticeisprovidedinthesamemannerasifRUShadpreparedtheEA. $1704.72 Adoption of an EIS. (a)Where RUS determines that an existing Federal EIS requires additionalinformationtomeetthestandardsforanadequatestatementforRUSproposed action,RUS may adopt all or a portionoftheEISasapartofitsdraftEIS.ThecirculationandnoticeprovisionsforadraftandfinalEIS(see §1794.61)apply.(b)If RUS was not a cooperatingagencybutdeterminesthatanother Federal agency's EIS is adequate,RUS shall adopt that agency's EIS as its final EIS.RUS and the applicant shall have separate notices published advising of RUS adoption of the EIS and independent determination of its adequacy.(c)If the adopted EIS is generallyavailableandmeetsRUSstandards, RUS shall have a public notice published inf the public of its action and availability of the EIS to interested parties upon request.If theadoptedEISisnotgenerallyavailable, RUS shall have a public notice published informing the public of its action and will circulate copies of the EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.19 and 40 CFR 1506.3. $1794.73 Timing of agency action. Where RUS has adopted another agency's environmental documents,the timing of the action shall be subject tothesamerequirementsasifRUShadpreparedtherequiredEAorEIS. $1794.74 Incorporation of environmental materials. RUS may incorporate into its environmental documents, environmental documents or portions thereof prepared by state,or local agencies or other parties for purposes other than compliance with the requirements of NEPA.RUS will circulate the incorporated documents asapartofitsEAordraftandfinalEISinthesamemannerasifpreparedbyRUS. §1794.75-1794.79 [Reserved] Dated:December 7,1998. Jill Long Thompson, Under Secretary,Rural Development. {FR Doc.98-32882 Filed 12-10-98;8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3416-18-P : APPENDIX E _ADNR APPLICATION FOR EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING,LAND AND WATER ()Northem Region (_]Southcentral Region []Southeast Region 3700 Airport Way 550 W 7th Ave.,Suita 900C 400 Willoughby,#400 Fairbanks,AK 99709 Anchorage,AK 99501-3577 Juneau,AK 99801 (907)451-2740 (907)269-8552 (907)465-3400 APPLICATION FOR EASEMENT AS 38.05.850 Non-refundable application fee:$400"ADL # (to be fitted in by state) Applicant's Name =Doing business as: Maiti Ag : .. :E.M ry City/State/Zip Message Phone (_)Work Phone (__}Soc,Sec,#and/or Tax ID # Is applicanta nonprofit cooperative association?[]yes []no.If yes,are you applying for an exemption under AS 38,.05.850(b)?[]yes []no.If yes,please submit proof of nonprofit status (e.9.by-laws,articles of Incorporation,tax statement). Location of activity/Legal Description:Municipality ,Meridian Township,=ss Ls,Range Section 14,14, Township |__-s_«,,_ -s Range Section 4,44 7 (atach dre sheets as neasded) Total length of applied-for easernent (feet}:Total width of applied-for easament (feet): Acres encompassed by easement:{43,560 square feet =1 acre) Specific purpose of easement (e.g.electric utility,fiber-optic conduit or cable,telecommunications tower,road,bridge, airstrip/airport,driveway,trail,drainage),and type of anticipated traffic (e.g.plane,truck,heavy equipment):Explain Are you applyingforthe Division of Mining,Land and Water to reserve a Public Easement?Yes []No ([].Are you applying to be granted a Private Easement?Yes []No ([].(Note:Annual rental fee required for private easement) "See 11 AAC 05.010 regarding fees for federal,state,and local government agencies _Date Stamp: 162-112 (Rev,10/01)| STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 'DIVISION OF MINING,LAND AND WATER =]Northem Region [X]Southcentral Region ([]Southeast Region 3700 Airport Way 550 W 7th Ave.,Suite 900C 400 Willoughby,#400 Fairbanks,AK 99709 Anchorage,AK 99501-3577 Juneau,AK 99801 (907)451-2740 (907)269-8552 (907)465-3400 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN A developmentplan is a written statement (narrative)and a sketch or biuefine drawing describing the proposed use anddevelopmentofstateland.The information contained in a development pian is needed to provide a complete review of theapplicationandtheproposeduseanddevelopment,and helps to determine the terms and conditions of the authorization andthelevelofbondingandinsurancethatmayberequired. Most applications submitted to the Division of Mining,Land and Water must have an attached development plan.The fewexceptionstothisruleincludeapplicationsforstatelandsalesandsometypesoflandusepermit.The amountandtypeofinformationincludedinthedevelopmentplanwilldependontheproposeduseandlevelofdevelopment.Insufficientinformationinthedevelopmentplanand/or application or failure to provide a development pian may result in a delay inprocessingtheapplication.tf you are unsure whether your application will require a development plan,contact the regionalofficeresponsibleformanagingtheareayouareplanningtouse(regional office addresses and phone numbers are shown atthetopofthissheet). if the application is approved,the approved development plan becomes a part of the authorization document.AuthorizedactivitiesarelimitedtothosedescribedInthedevelopmentplanand/or authorization document.The developmentplan mustbeupdatedifchangestoanapprovedprojectareproposedbeforeorduringtheproject's siting,construction,or operation;ifanyadditionalstructures,buildings,or improvements are proposed;or If there Is a change in activity that was not addressedduringconsiderationoftheapplication.Please note that these development plans or plan changes must be approved by theDivisionofMining,Land and Water before any change occurs in use,construction,or activity.Conducting activities that are"ot authorized by the development plan and authorization document could result in revocation and termination of theuthorizationand/or other appropriate legal action. I.General Guidelines for Preparing a Development Plan For new authorizations,the development plan must show theproposedimprovementsand/or use areas,as well as preconstructionplans.For.existing authorizationswithoutacurrentdevelopmentplanorifthedevelopmentplanIsbeingupdated,the plan must show existing improvements and/or use areas,etc.,and any known future changes.The developmentplanmustinclude:°Maps:a USGS map at a scale of at least 1:63,360 showing the location of the proposed project;a blueline drawing orsketch,Grawn to scale (the attached diagram may be used);and *Written Project description:a detailed written description (narrative)of the intended use and level of developmentplannedundertheauthorizationandanexplanationofthesketchorbluelinedrawing. ll.Land Use Permits Permanent improvements cannot be authorized by a land use permit.However,a development planaccompanying,a land use permit application must describe nonpermanent structures and activities.(Nonpermanentstructuresarestructuresthatcanbeeasilyandquicklytakendownandremovedfromthesite,without any significantdisturbanceordamagetothearea.)Several of the specific development plan items fisted below will not apply to activitiesauthorizedunderalandusapermit;those items that do apply shouki be described in as much detail as possible,to enablepromptreviewoftheapplication.if the proposed land use permit activity §s of a mobile nature,such as a permit to move heavy equipment across state land,a development plan is not required;but a map showing the proposed route-of travel is required.If the impact would not have a significant effect on the environment,such as a permit to harvest wild produce,adevelopmentplanisnotrequired,but a map showing the location of the proposed harvest area is required. iil.Narrative portion of the development plan Describe the type of activities or development planned for the site;specify ifanyfacilitiesareintendedforcommercialuse,or will be rented out;and provide a description and explanation of the itemsshownonthesketchorblueline.Following |is a list of specific information to be included In the narrativa,Htapplicable to theproposedproject _02-DEVPL(Rev.08/99) VICINITY MAP DIVISION OF MINING,LAND AND WATER DIAGRAM Sec(s)___Townetip__,Fange____,Merkiery_ Scala 1°. SHEET __OF __Fie# 2.Power Plant Review and Report by Steigers Corporation Bethel Power Plant Environmental Permitting Requirements Assessment Prepared for NUVISTA LIGHT &POWER,CO. Anchorage,Alaska Prepared by Steigers Corporation Littleton,Colorado November 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 Alternative 1 -Land-Based Coal-Fired Power Plant 3 2.2 Alternative 2-Barge-Mounted Coal-Fired Power Plant 4 2.3.Alternative 3 -Combustion Turbine Plant 4 3.0 CONSULTATION 8 4.0 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9 41 State of Alaska 9 '4.2 Federal Agencies ,10 3 Others 12 5.0 ©ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND MAJOR PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS 13 5.1 Alaska Coastal Zone Management 13 5.2.Air Quality 14 5.3.Water Quality 17 5.4 Wetlands and Navigable Rivers 20 5.5 Fish Habitat .22 5.6 Floodplain Development 24 5.7 AirTraffic 25 5.8 NEPA Compliance 25 5.9 Field Data Collection 30 5.10 Potential Permits and Approvals for Bethel Power Plant 31 6.0 PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE (32 7.0 REFERENCES .33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Aerial Photo of Bethel and Vicinity Showing Proposed Bethel Power Plant 6 Locations Figure 2 Photo of an Existing Air-Supported Coal Storage Structure 7 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 1 _Initial Consultation Letter,Bethel Power Plant Project Description,Parties to Whom the Initial Consultation Letter Was Sent and Responses.. Bethel Power Plant Environmental Permitting Requirements Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION Nuvista Light &Power,Inc.(Nuvista)is evaluating the feasibility of constructing and operating an energy generation facility near the community of Bethel,Alaska.Three alternatives for power production are being considered: e Alternative 1 -a land-based coal-fired power plant e Alternative 2 -a barge-mounted coal-fired power plant e Alternative 3 -diesel-fired combustion turbines. Brief descriptions of the three power plant alternatives are provided in Section 2. The proposed power plant would be developed for two purposes:1)sell wholesale power to local utilities for resale to their customers,an endeavor that would ultimately serve approximately 40 communities and villages in the region and distribute hot water to meet local district heating needsin Bethel and 2)supply electrical power directly to the proposed Donlin Creek Gold Mine,whichis currently under exploration by Placer Dome,Inc.and NovaGold Resources,Inc. Steigers Corporation was retained by Bettine,LLC on behalf of Nuvista Light &Power,Co.to assess the environmental and permitting requirements for the Bethel Power Plant and appurtenant structures.The conclusions of this assessment are included in this report.Issues related to development of the transmission line system have been addressed in a separate report, "Environmental Planning for the Proposed Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line,"prepared by Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc.(Travis/Peterson 2003).Development of the Donlin Creek Gold Mine is not part of the Bethel Power Plant proposal,and specific environmentalissues and permitting requirements related to its construction and operation arenotaddressedhere. Bethel Power Plant 1 November 2003 Permitting Report ; . Steigers Corporation 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Nuvista proposes to construct the Bethel Power Plant near Bethel,Alaska.Bethel is located in southwest Alaska about 400 air miles west of Anchorage.It is situated on the Kuskokwim River about 60 miles upstream of the river's mouth at Kuskokwim Bay on the Bering Sea.Bethel has a population of about 5,500 and is the commercial and transportation hub of the Yukon Delta. Access to Bethel is by air or the Kuskokwim River. Bethel is located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,a large area of low-lying tundra,wetlands,intertidal mud and sand flats,and small lakes.The preferred location for Bethel Power Plant Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 is a site approximately 1 mile south of Bethel in Section 20 of Township 8 North,Range 7 West of the Seward Meridian at an elevation of approximately 50 feet mean sea level.A photograph showing the proposed location of the facility and the associated facility dock,access roads,and cooling pond is provided as Figure 1. Alternatives 1 and 2 would differ from one another primarily in the location and configuration of their nearly identical facility components.Alternative 2 would have the coal-fired power plant mounted on barges anchored at a nearby site (also in Section 20)in the Kuskokwim River.The proposed location of the barge-mounted coal plant is shown in Figure 1.All proposed locations for the Bethel Power Plant are situated on private property. The power plant alternatives are described below.In addition to the facility site itself,each of the alternatives involves developing a number of linear support features outside the facility boundary,including a variety of pipelines and conveyor systems.While parts or all of the facility sites per se may be expected to experience extensive disturbance during construction,the proposed off-site pipeline and conveyor systems have been designed to minimize surface disturbance and avoid the need to develop permanent rights-of-way for maintenance.Likewise, while the selected plant site will experience continuous human activity throughout the operations phase,the off-site facilities should be relatively free of project-related activity over the long term. All alternatives propose the use of a naturally occurring,approximately 78-acre pond for steam- cycle cooling of the power generation facilities (see Figure 1).The pond is located generally south of the proposed facility sites and would be connected to the power plant by heavily insulated,2-to 3-foot-diameter pipelines elevated 6 to 8 feet above the ground on driven piles or small A-frame towers.Use of a cooling pond rather than forced-air cooling towers would reduce construction costs and also substantially reduce annual operating costs.However,should further investigation indicate overriding environmental constraints associated with using the existing pond as a cooling pond,the cooling tower option would be revisited. All alternatives also propose to capture waste heat from the power plant and distribute hot water via a district heating system.The district heating system will include a central heat exchange station located about midway between the power plant and Bethel and more than 6 miles of main trunk lines leading from the power plant to the Bethel Municipal Airport and to the town of Bethel and beyond.The main trunk lines will consist of 14-to 16-inch pipes hung from pilings and elevated about 2 feet above the ground.As currently envisioned,the district heating system Bethel Power Plant 2 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation main trunk lines will follow existing roads and streets.It is estimated that the captured waste heat would displace nearly all of the fuel oil currently used by Bethel Utilities to supply Bethel's power needs,approximately 3.5 million gallons annually.The existing Bethel Utilities power plant houses about 10 MW of diesel generation,which would likely remain operational to provide additional standby/backup power for the proposed Bethel Power Plant. Other features common to all alternatives include a dock on the Kuskokwim River and new arereade randAa feam tha alant aitale\tn an pyioting enad tn Dathnl Tha enade |5.:=2 exrsll al.access roaas rom tac piaue SLO)LY alt CxisSuing TOaG 10 DCU.1CSE TOaAGS Wil AINCLy lanes and of dirt/gravel construction. &two 2.1 Alternative 1 -Land-Based Coal-Fired Power Plant The proposed land-based coal-fired power plant would consist of two atmospheric pulverized coal-fired boilers each powering a 48-MW steam turbine,plus one 46-MW diesel-fired simple- cycle combustion turbine,for a total installed capacity of 142 MW.The power plant would generate approximately 670,000 MWh annually.The two coal-fired steam turbines would provide primary power,with the combustion turbine providing standby/backup generation.It is estimated that the combustion turbine will generate approximately 3 percent of the annual generation,or about 20,000 MWh per year. The land-based coal-fired plant would burn about 300,000 short tons of coal annually.The project proposes to use a high-BTU,very low-sulfur coal from the Black Bear Mine in Canada as the coal supply for the power plant.The coal would be shipped from Canada in self-off-loading freighters and transferred to barges in the area of Goodnews Bay for movement up the -Kuskokwim River to the Bethel Power Plant facility's barge unloading station and dock.Coal deliveries would occur during the open water season from the end of May through the end of September each year. From the unloading station,the coal will be transported approximately one-half mile to the coal storage pile at the power plant by means of a covered conveyor belt.The conveyor belt system will be elevated 12 to 20 feet above the ground by steel A-frame towers mounted on small concrete surface pads over pilings.The conveyor belt will parallel a new road between the dock and the plant.To minimize blowing coal dust,the coal would be stored in a large covered building such as the air-supported structure shown in Figure 2. A 3-million-gallon fuel tank would be built at the site to store the fuel oil for the combustion turbine.Under this alternative,where the combustion turbine serves only as a backup unit,the incrementally small amount of diesel fuel needed will likely be purchased from the existing tank farm in Bethel and trucked to the power plant. In addition to the coal-fired boilers and the combustion turbine and their associated pumps and control room,other features of the land-based coal-fired alternative include additional coal conveyors and various coal-handling equipment,an approximately l-acre blowdown pond,an electrical switchyard and associated 138-kV transmission lines to Bethel,and the initial section of the district heating system.The proposed land-based coal-fired power plant facility would occupy approximately 80 acres.Exhaust stack height is estimated at approximately 120 feet. Bethel Power Plant 3 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation The land-based coal-fired power plant would generate approximately 33,000 tons of ash annually.The ash will be processed as it is produced by adding 6 percent Portland cement and 16 percent water to form approximately 40,000 tons of gravel-like aggregate.The aggregate can be put to beneficial use locally and regionally for road construction or in concrete as a substitute for gravel. 2.2 Alternative 2 --Barge-Mounted Coal-Fired Power Plant The barge-mounted coal-fired power plant alternative would occupy two barges off the Kuskokwim River plus adjacent land for coal and diesel fuel storage and other facility features. Each barge would be 100 feet wide by 300 feet long and has a draft of about 8 feet;together the barges would occupy less than 2 acres.The barges would be set in place by digging a channel into the river bank of sufficient width,length,and depth to float the barges into position.Once the barges are in place,an armored berm would be built between the barge channel and the river to protect the barges from ice flows during spring breakup and to provide an earthen platform for unloading supplies.The barges would be located in the floodplain of the river at a location where there is little elevation difference in the bank and the river. Each barge would accommodate a 48-MW atmospheric pulverized coal-fired power plant.One of the two barges would also accommodate a 46-MW diesel-fired simple-cycle combustion turbine as standby generation.The total installed capacity would be 142 MW.Under this alternative,the power plant would generate approximately 670,000 MWh annually.As with the land-based coal-fired power plant alternative,it is estimated that the combustion turbine would generate approximately 3 percent of the annual generation,or about 20,000 MWh per year. The barge-mounted coal-fired plant would burn about 300,000 short tons of coal annually. Details of the coal supply,coal delivery,and coal storage systems for the barge-mounted coal- fired power plant are expected to be similar to those described for the land-based coal-fired power plant,including covered storage for the coal pile.Likewise,diesel fuel for the backup combustion turbine will be obtained locally.Processing and disposition of ash wastes would be the same as for the land-based coal-fired power plant alternative. The 300,000 tons of coal storage and a single 3-million-gallon fuel storage tank would be located on the adjacent river bank directly above the barges,and these would be connected to the generating facilities by a short conveyor and pipeline,respectively.Other auxiliary features of the barge-mounted coal-fired power plant alternative,including the blowdown pond and the electrical switchyard,would also be located in this area,which would occupy approximately 80 acres.Exhaust stack height for the barge-mounted plant is estimated at approximately 120 feet, which would place the top of the stack 60 to 70 feet above the top of the adjacent river bank. There are significant cost savings to the project for the barge-mounted coal plant over the land- based coal plant. 2.3 Alternative 3 -Combustion Turbine Plant The combustion turbine alternative would consist of a 151-MW combined-cycle plant consisting of three simple-cycle,42-MW combustion turbines,plus one or two heat recovery steam turbine Bethel Power Plant 4 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation generators with a total capacity of 25 MW.Under this alternative,the power plant would generate approximately 670,000 MWh annually. The power plant would burn #2 diesel fuel,of which it would consume about 35 million gallons annually.The diesel fuel needed to fire the combustion turbine plant would be delivered by barge to the facility dock and pumped to the facility diesel fuel storage tanks via an aboveground pipeline.The fuel pipeline will be 8 to 12 inches in diameter and will be elevated 2 feet above or Th anal;1A Hal +h d her the dacl d +h lant ost,the ground.The fuel pipeline would parallel the new road between the dock and the plant site mentioned above.Fuel storage requirements would be 25 million gallons annually,and the fuel would be stored in eight,3.1 million gallon bermed tanks. Auxiliary features of the combustion turbine alternative include an electrical switchyard,the associated 138-kV transmission lines to Bethel,and the initial section of the district heating system.The entire combustion turbine facility would occupy approximately 40 acres.Exhaust stack height is estimated at approximately 75 feet. No ash would be generated by the combustion turbine power plant alternative. Bethel Power Plant 5 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation Proposed Lacation of ©»|:2s Barge-Mounted Coal Plant ond!Alternative 40. Figure 1 -Aerial Photo of Bethel and Vicinity Showing Proposed Bethel Power Plant Locations Bethel Power Plant 6 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation 3.0 CONSULTATION Input from interested parties is important in determining the permitting requirements for a project,defining the scope of the environmental analysis,and ensuring that concerns of these parties are considered from the earliest stages of project planning and development.A letter was developed and presented initiating consultation with potentially interested parties,including State of Alaska and federal resource and regulatory agencies,municipalities in the vicinity of the proposed project,potentially affected native communities,and other stakeholders.The initial consultation letter included the project description provided in Sections 1 and 2,above,and solicited input from recipients regarding: e federal,state,or local permits that will or may be required for the construction and operation of any of the three alternatives e general or specific resource issues and concerns that should be addressed in the environmental analysis of any of the three alternatives e existing information that would help in conducting accurate and thorough analysis of the effects of the project e specific resource studies that will or may need to be conducted e existing or reasonably foreseeable projectsor activities that should be considered in theassessmentofcumulativeimpacts. The initial consultation letter described why Nuvista is proposing that development of the Bethel Power Plant,the Donlin Creek Gold Mine,and the transmission line from Bethel to the mine be evaluated independently and requested cooperation of recipients with this approach. A copy of the initial consultation letter,the project description,and the list of parties to whom the initial consultation letter for the Bethel Power Plant was sent is provided in Attachment 1. All but a few of these letters were transmitted on September 2,2003,with a request for responses by October 1,2003.A few others were mailed later in response to referrals from the initial recipients or requests from additional interested parties. Bethel Power Plant 8 November 2003 Permitting Report : Steigers Corporation 4.0 -COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT Written responses were received from 11 entities contacted by means of the initial consultation letter.These responses are summarized below,and copies of the letters are provided in Attachment 1. 4.1 State of Alaska Three responses to the initial consultation letter were received from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). Ms.Kerry Howard,ADNR Office of Habitat Management and Permitting,referred future consultation on the project to Mr.Robert F.McLean,ADNR Office of Habitat Management and Permitting,Fairbanks Area Office,and to Ms.Sue Magee,ADNR Office of Project Management and Permitting,for coordination of project review for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)(ADNR 2003a). These individuals have been added to the project distribution list. Ms.Sue Magee and Ms.Cynthia Zuelow-Osborne,ADNR Office of Project Management and Permitting,ACMP,each provided a copy of the Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification (CPQ)form that is used to determine whether the final proposal will require a coordinated review for consistency with state and local standards of the ACMP (ADNR 2003b,ADNR 2003c). Ms.Zuelow-Osbome also referred the project to sources of information on local standards and requirements as Mr.John Malone,City of Bethel Planning Department, and,outside the City of Bethel,Mr.John Oscar,Cenaliulritt Coastal Resource Service Coordinator.These individuals have been added to the project distribution list. One response to the initial consultation letter was received from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).| Tom Chapple,Director,ADEC Division of Air and Water Quality,indicated that ADEC will require an air quality control construction permit and an air quality control operating permit for the project (ADEC 2003).These may be subject to federal Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),in which case the project may be required to collect ambient air quality data and meteorological data representative of the airshed in the vicinity of the project and to conduct a case-by-case assessment of control technologies for the project. With regard to water quality permits,ADEC may,depending on the design flow and cooling water discharge conditions,require a state non-domestic wastewater discharge permit or (more likely)an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)National Pollutant 'Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit;water quality standards for temperature and thermal discharge would apply.If a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is required by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE),ADEC water quality staff would need to Bethel Power Plant 9 .November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation evaluate and certify compliance with state water quality standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Mr.Chapple provided a number of ADEC contacts for specific permitting tasks.He also directed the project to contact Stan Foo of the ADNR Office of Project Management and Permitting regarding consistency review under the ACMP and indicated that the project scope for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)review will be delineated by thelandfaAagencychaegnafthneaxeaufederalapeuryyinCiarBYOrwicreview. 4.2 Federal Agencies Six responses to the initial consultation letter were received from federal resource and regulatory agencies. e Mr.Bill Allen,State Director,U.S.Department of Agriculture,Rural Development, stated that his office supports the state administration concerning resource development.He had no specific recommendations (USDA 2003). e Mr.William W.Wood,State Biologist,U.S.Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),indicated that the agency has an established field office in the town of Bethel and that a copy of the initial consultation letter would be forwarded to the District Conservationist in charge of that service area (NRCS 2003). NRCS's initial interest in the Bethel Power Plant Project would focus on:administration and documentation of the public participation process;potential impacts to private property natural resources;potential impacts to wetland,water,plant,soil erosion and sedimentation;and wildlife and fisheries resources. e Ms.Nora J.Braman,Contracting Officer,Acquisition and Real Estate,U.S.Department of Transportation,Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)provided an FAA form that must be completed for coordination and evaluation by the FAA Air Traffic and Frequency Management Divisions and submitted with a topographic map marked withthelocationoftheplantsite(FAA 2003). The FAA expressed concerns over the potential for the power plant to generate ice fog that could adversely affect the Bethel airport and the possible adverse affects on instrument procedures at the Bethel airport. e Mr.James W.Balsiger,Administrator,Alaska Region,National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),identified NMFS's two areas of concern related to the project as the potential impact on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)for salmon in the Kuskokwim River and all tributaries within the project boundaries and the potential impact on marine mammals. Specific EFH concerns for the Bethel Power Plant Project are all potential impacts to five species of Pacific salmon in the Kuskokwim River,e.g.,cooling water source,fish species present in the proposed cooling pond,and proposed access road stream crossings. The federal action agency must prepare an EFH assessment for any action that may Bethel Power Plant 10 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation adversely affect EFH;requirements of the EFH assessment,as well as a reference to NMFS's EFH website,are provided in the response letter.NMFS subsequently reviews the EFS assessment and offers conservation recommendations to protect EFH. Mr.Balsiger also offered guidance on compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),pointing out that,in addition to including threatened or endangered species that may occur near Bethel,Section 7 consultation must address threatened or endangered species that may occur along marinc routes.NMFS's concerns are the potential for petroleum fuel spills and the potential impact of marine traffic transiting the Beaufort Sea on migration of the endangered bowhead whale. e Mr.Gary Edwards,Acting Regional Director,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), stated that the USFWS believes that the entire scope of the project should be comprehensively evaluated,including direct,indirect,and cumulative project impacts, "as is required under [NEPA]...when project components are so interrelated as to be inseparable."According to the USFWS,this would include the transmission line,power plant and other power generation alternatives,the Donlin Creek mine,the road to the mine,and secondary power distribution to Yukon Delta and Kuskokwim River villages. The scope of the NEPA analysis would be determined by the lead federal agency. Mr.Edwards reiterated comments on the project previously provided by Michael B. Rearden,Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Manager),i.e.,lands within National Wildlife Refuge selected by but not yet conveyed to Alaska Native corporation are managed as any other refuge land and any development on such lands would require a right-of-way (ROW)permit from USFWS;decision on a ROW permit would look at the existence of feasible and prudent alternatives that would not impact refuge values;refuge use must be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and with the mission of the refuge system as a whole. If a ROW permit is required,feasibility study and environmental analysis of the project will need to be prepared for the USFWS application,including:assessment of cost and schedule for preparation of an EIS necessary to evaluate a ROW permit for construction of the primary transmission line or secondary transmission lines within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and a complete description of all project features including the -power plant,hot water pipelines,central heat exchange,conveyor system,dock,coal and fuel transfer and storage areas,the Goodnews Bay coal transfer site,cooling water requirements,ash and cooling water disposal areas,dreded material disposal areas, transmission lines,and electric power substations. Project evaluation should also include assessment of factors that could impact USFWS trust responsibilities,including:potential impacts of project features on migratory birds; potential impacts of project features on fish and wildlife populations and habitat and on subsistence activities;construction timing and other methods to minimize impacts to fish, wildlife,habitat,and subsistence activities;stream crossing methods and buffer strip retention along transmission lines;fuel transportation,storage,and spill prevention plans; presence of endangered species and the potential for adverse impacts from direct or indirect effects to listed species or designated critical habitat at locations of all project Bethel Power Plant 11 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation 4.3 features;delineation of wetlands and assessment of wetland functional values to aid in assessment of impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats;assessment of potential secondary development in the villages that could potentially impact fish and wildlife populations and habitat and subsistence activities;methods to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment,including methods to avoid and minimize impacts to fish and wildlife populations and habitat and subsistence activities. Me anD D;Tand Den +Maragcre IC A rO'n er ;aval.On Gv.suCe,LeaG s roject AVAGHAEUL,Uede CMAALY WUT pS UL igi neers LALVE,witCorps"),U.S.Army Engineer District,Alaska,outlined Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for permitting certain structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S.The Kuskokwim River is a navigable waterway as defined by ACOE,Alaska District. Mr.Rice also outlined Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for permitting placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S.,including wetlands. A number of criteria that would establish Corps jurisdiction over the federal (NEPA) review of the project were discussed.With regard to the scope of the NEPA assessment, the Corps is precluded from "piecemealing"projects for analysis and permitting."If the power plant and mine are in fact tied together in an economic analysis,we cannot separate the power plant from the mine.The power plant must demonstrate an independent utility to be permitted as a separate action....To consider the Bethel power generation facility a separate project the plant must be an economically viable -project independent of the mine." Mr.Rice concluded that to date it appears that the Donlin Creek Mine is an integral part of the Bethel Power Plant Project and that the Corps is not convinced that the power generation facility and the mine are independent projects. Others One response to the initial consultation letter was received from parties other than State of Alaska and federal resource and regulatory agencies.. Ms.Meera Kohler,President and CEO,Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc. (AVEC)provided several suggestions for revising Figure 1 of the project description included with the initial consultation letter (AVEC 2003). Bethel Power Plant 12 November 2003 Permitting Report 'Steigers Corporation 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND MAJOR PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Because the Bethel Power Plant is in the initial feasibility design phase and because a number of alternatives are still being considered,final selection,design,location,and operation of project facilities are not known.Consequently,it is not possible to precisely delineate all environmental issues that may arise as a result of the project as it will ultimately be defined.Therefore,this section will focus on major environmental issues likely to be associated with one or more of thenawerntaltornatinathaaA4hshanefonsadpowerplantauerTnativesandonwcmajorpermittingrequirementsassociatedWitticseissues. Environmentalissues and permitting requirements addressedin this section include: Alaska Coastal Zone Management Air Quality Water Quality Wetlands and Navigable RiversFishHabitat Floodplain Development Air Traffic NEPA Compliance 5.1 Alaska Coastal Zone Management The sites proposed for development of the Bethel Power Plant fall within the State of Alaska's Coastal Zone (ADNR 2003c).The project would likely affect two coastal zone management areas,the City of Bethel Coastal Management District and the Cenaliulriit Coastal Regional Service Area. Projects proposed within the Alaska Coastal Zone must conform to Alaska's Coastal Management Program (ACMP)and are subject to an ACMP Consistency Review.The ACMP Consistency Review,administered by the ADNR Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP)is a multiple-agency review process intended to determine the project's consistency with the standards of the ACMP and with enforceable policies of approved district coastal management programs. The Consistency Review will require the Bethel Power Plant Project to submit a Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ),which OPMP and various state and federal agencies will then review for program consistency.The CPQ requires completion of the detailed questionnaire and submittal of information about the Bethel Power Plant,as well as a detailed project description and a topographic map showing the project location.All information necessary to complete the CPQ should be available from investigations and data collection for other permits. OPMP's permit coordination process includes an evaluation of all permit applications submitted for the project.Copies of all permit applications must be submitted to the OPMP to complete the project's Coastal Project Questionnaire submittal.OPMP forwards copies of these permit applications to all state and federal agencies that have permit requirements for the project.These agencies have the opportunity to review all applications submitted for the project and to provide comments to OPMP.Based on the information received from this review process,OPMP makes Bethel Power Plant 13 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation a determination as to the consistency of the project with ACMP and issues a finding for approval or denial of the project.Before an agency can approve a permit application,a positive ACMPfindingfromOPMPmustbereceived. While the ACMP Consistency Review is merely a review and approval process and not a permit itself,it incorporates coordination of a review of the CPQ and all permit applications by all interested state and federal agencies.Since the review period for the ACMP Consistency thenitte 3 fF 4h CPQReviewdoesnotstartuntilacompleteCPQhasbeensubmitted,accurate preparation of the CPQ is a very important part of the project permitting effort.Coordination with the affected agencies will greatly facilitate successful completion of the CPQ and substantially reduce the potential for delays in the review process. Once the ACMP Consistency Review is complete,approval is valid indefinitely unless the project is modified. 5.2.Air Quality Any of the three generating alternatives proposed for the Bethel Power Plant will require an air quality control construction permit and an operating permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).The air quality construction permit is based on projecting future air quality conditions by dispersion modeling of emissions specified for the proposed equipment and site-specific pre-construction meteorological and air quality data.The air quality construction permit will allow the construction and initial operation of the coal-fired boilers and/or diesel-fired combustion turbines proposed under either Alternative 1,Alternative 2,or Alternative 3 for the Bethel Power Plant.Once operation of the Bethel Power Plant commences, the project would apply for an operating permit,which would be based on actual emissions resulting from operation of the completed facility.Because it is a post-construction requirement, the air quality operating permit will not be addressed further in this report. As a new fossil-fuel-fired source of air pollutant emissions with a heat input rating of more than 250 MMBtv/hr and the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO),sulfur dioxide (SO2),and particulate matter (PMjo),the Bethel Power Plant will require a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)air quality construction permit. ADEC will grant air quality construction permit approval if the proposed facility: ¢Demonstrates that the expected air quality impacts from the facility will not cause an exceedance or contribute to an existing exceedance of the National/State Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)or exceed PSD increments ¢Meets the applicable emission standards or,depending on the vintage and history of the emitting units,New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)for new air emission units. Under Alternatives 1 and 2,the proposed facility would use two atmospheric pulverized coal-fired boilers to supply high-pressure steam to 48-MW steam turbines,plus one 46- MW diesel-fired simple-cycle combustion turbine,for a total installed capacity of 142 MW.The boilers will likely be subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart Da (NSPS for electric utility steam generating units).Under Alternative 3,the proposed facility would consist Bethel Power Plant , 14 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation of a 151-MW combined-cycle plant including three simple-cycle,42-MW combustion turbines,plus one or two heat recovery steam turbine generators with a total capacity of 25 MW. e Demonstrates that the air quality impacts will not adversely affect Air Quality-Related Values (AQRVs),such as visibility,vegetation,soils,and related growth. mA tenTheconstructionpermitapplicationwillrequcstoperaung conemissioncontrolequipment,to ensure that the Bethel Power Plant will comply with Alaska's air quality control regulations. 5.2.1 Emission Limits The boilers will be subject to federal NSPS,Subpart Da,which sets the upper limits for the emission rates of NOx,PMio,and SO2.The NSPS limits that apply to the boilers are: e NO,=0.18 Ib/MMBtu¢PMio=0.03 Ib/MMBtu (99 percent control efficiency) e SO,=0.60 lb/MMBtu (70 percent control efficiency). PSD review for the Bethel Power Plant will likely require several types of analyses,including assessment of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT)for of NO,,PMio,SO2,and carbon monoxide (CO).Technologies that may need to be addressed in the BACT analysis include: NO,--selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) CO --good combustion control 'PMio --baghouse SO,--limestone injection. The Bethel Power Plant may also emit sufficient quantities of acid gases (hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride)and heavy metals (e.g.,beryllium)and thus be classified as a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).Major HAP sources may be subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)requirements.It is expected that the emission controls that would be installed as BACT to control criteria air pollutants would also constitute MACT for acid gases and heavy metals under Section 112(g)of the Clean Air Act. Though EPA is in the process of developing such regulations,it is not currently known to what degree coal-fired power plants will need to control their mercury emissions.However,some mercury control techniques for coal-fired utility boilers include: e advance coal cleaning e carbon filter beds (99 percent mercury control)e wet scrubbing (90+percent control for water soluble species,limited control for elemental mercury) e selenium filters (90 percent mercury control) Bethel Power Plant 15 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation e activated carbon injection (50 to 90 percent mercury control). It will be important to determine the mercury content of the coal to be fired in the Bethel Power Plant boilers and closely follow the development of EPA regulations.Possible mercury control methods should be evaluated during engineering and design of the facility in case the need arises to retrofit the exhaust stream to further control emissions. The region in which the Bethel Power Plant is proposcd to be located is classified as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants.Therefore,installation of the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)controls and acquiring emission offsets will not be required. 5.2.2.Ambient Air Quality Analyses The primary task in the construction permit application process involves dispersion modeling of NOx,CO,PMio,and SQ)emissions to demonstrate that the proposed Bethel Power Plant will -comply with NAAQS and PSD increments.It is expected that EPA's refined dispersion model for industrial sources,AERMOD,will be adequate to demonstrate compliance.The surrounding terrain is not hilly or mountainous,so use of a complex terrain model should not be required. A key step in the NAAQS and PSD increment compliance demonstration for the facility will be securing representative meteorological and ambient air quality data to conduct the dispersion modeling analyses.In general,meteorological data must be collected on site for a 1-year period before air quality permitting can begin,but this requirement may be waived if representative meteorological data from a nearby location is available for use in the dispersion modeling.The EPA's SCRAM website lists 6 years (1984 through 1989)of surface-level National Weather Service (NWS)office meteorological data for Bethel.Typically,more recent data would be necessary to support PSD modeling.It is likely that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) will have more recent data and,therefore,that 5 years of representative NWS data could be obtained for Bethel Power Plant emissions dispersion modeling.Obtaining suitable NWS data would preclude the need for the project to collect 1 year of on-site meteorological data. The air quality analysis would be initiated by contacting the National Climatic Data Center to obtain the most recent 5 years of representative surface and mixing height meteorological data for the NWS station in Bethel.The location of the NWS station would be compared to those ofthetwoproposedprojectsitestoassesstherepresentativenessofthemeteorologicaldatafor modeling.The meteorological data would be reviewed for completeness to determine if they meet PSD data quality requirements,and the available data parameters would be assessed to determine which EPA-approved dispersion models the data would support.The results of this review would be presented to ADEC for its concurrence with the use of the existing Bethel NWS meteorological data for conducting the ambient air quality modeling analysis in support of construction permitting for the Bethel Power Plant. Collection of ambient air quality data is another requirement for PSD permitting.However,this requirement can be avoided if dispersion modeling predicts ambient air quality impacts from the facility that are less than the de minimis monitoring concentrations.Therefore,if the NWS meteorological data are deemed by ADEC to be suitable and representative for conducting the Bethel Power Plant 16 November 2003 Permitting Report : - Steigers Corporation dispersion modeling,a dispersion modeling analysis can be conducted using stack parameters and emissions as currently envisioned.If the results of the modeling analysis indicate that the impacts are higher than de minimis monitoring concentrations,the project may seek ADEC's concurrence with the use of existing air quality data to represent the ambient air quality background concentrations for the region and,if necessary,to fulfill the requirements for pre- construction air quality monitoring. A PSD construction permit applicant must perform an AQRV analysis to ensure that environmental values (i.e.,visibility,flora,fauna,etc.)are not adversely affected by the total pollutant concentration they will experience as a result of emissions from the proposed source, any recently permitted (but not yet operating)sources in the area,and existing sources.The AQRV analysis must include a cumulative air quality analysis in which the proposed source and any recently permitted (but not operating)sources in the area are modeled.This total modeled concentration is then added to measured ambient levels to assess the effect of all anticipated ambient concentrations on AQRVs. . No Class I air quality areas (specified national parks,wilderness areas,national wildlife areas,or native American lands)exist in close proximity to the proposed locations for the Bethel Power Plant.Furthermore,no other large sources of pollutants that might potentially contribute to cumulative air quality impacts occur in the area.Finally,because the project will utilize BACT, impacts to soil and vegetation are not anticipated to be significant.Therefore,it is not likely that an AQRV analysis would result in adverse impacts to AQRVs.- 5.3 Water Quality All three alternatives for the Bethel Power Plant would utilize an approximately 79-acre naturally occurring freshwater pond for the recirculation of condenser cooling water from the steam turbines.Because of the preliminary nature of this evaluation,the facility's wastewater discharge has not yet been thoroughly characterized.Plant process water would be treated to meet State Water Quality Standards before being discharged into the cooling pond,and so the most significant component of the facility's wastewater discharge is likely to be elevated temperatures.However,the volume of condenser cooling water required to be circulated under each of the three alternatives is not known at this time and,therefore,the resulting temperature regime of the cooling pond has not been modeled.Likewise,the biological characteristics of the proposed cooling pond,including fisheries,other aquatic species,and wildlife,are not known,so potential impacts to these systems from wastewater discharge to the pond cannot be predicted at this time.Also,the proposed cooling pond may be hydrologically connected to local groundwater aquifers and the nearby Kuskokwim River,and the potential for impacts to these systems from changes in the cooling pond temperature would need to be investigated. If disposal of the Bethel Power Plant's thermal effluent and operational wastewater requires discharge of wastewater or pollutants to waters of the U.S.,it will be necessary to secure a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Wastewater Discharge Permit as mandated by the Clean Water Act.NPDES permitting for industrial wastewater discharges is Bethel Power Plant 17 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation regulated by U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Region 10 in the State of Alaska. Preparation of an NPDES permit requires the State to complete a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification,which is the state's certification that the proposed discharge meets all State- mandated Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70)and that the discharge will not result in unacceptable environmental impacts.Therefore,NPDES permit preparation would be completed by the EPA,and the Section 401 Certification would be completed by ADEC. One alternative to use £tha weennnerd canes sa aA is the qratall fF =a a atinen A Ren ml_ne 1WeGLLOELUGLUVeWoeYiLitPrUupuOeUBeUULUEpuuUdUstlallauvuilUlUOC,if COG1ing towers to provide all of the necessary cooling for plant operations.Installation of forced-air cooling towers would eliminate the need for the cooling pond and,likewise,the need for an NPDES permit and Section 401 Certification for cooling water.Elimination of these permitting requirements could significantly reduce the overall permitting effort and cost of the project. Installation of forced-air cooling towers would also eliminate the need for NEPA compliance triggered by the NPDES permitting process (but not necessarily NEPA compliance that might be triggered by other federal actions). 5.3.1 NPDES Permit If the 79-acre pond for the recirculation of condenser cooling water from the steam turbines is selected as the preferred alternative,the Bethel Power Plant Project will be required to submit an NPDES permit application to EPA prior to commencement of plant operations.It will be 'necessary to collect on-site data and conduct thermal modeling,including information on the quantity and quality of raw water to be withdrawn from the cooling pond,as well as the quantity and quality of effluent and other related information,prior to developing the NPDES permit application.Following receipt of the application,EPA will prepare the NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit. It is likely that the only difficulty that would prevent issuance of the draft NPDES permit might be meeting State standards for approval of the Section 401 Certification and identification of unmitigable impacts from the thermal discharge.The State Section 401 Certification will be prepared concurrently with the draft NPDES permit and,following completion of both,the draft NPDES permit will be submitted for public comment.Public opinion of a project such as this is very difficult to forecast and could affect the permit processing schedule.By addressing any 'public concerns early in the permitting process,it is usually possible to limit or eliminate delays resulting from public opposition. Though securing an NPDES permit for the facility's wastewater discharge will require a significant level of effort,there are no indications that such an effort would be impossible unless the project identified significant impacts or was unable to meet State Water Quality Standards. The greatest impact to project development would likely be the uncertainty associated with the schedule for securing the final permit.EPA's backlog,field and technical studies needed to meet the requirements for a State Section 401 Certification,or public opposition could all delay final permit approval.If this option is to be considered,it is recommended that the project consult with EPA and ADEC staff after the wastewater discharge requirements for operations are established to identify and quantify any areas of concern.If the project has done a thorough job Bethel Power Plant 18 ; November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation in addressing the concerns of EPA and ADEC during preparation of the draft permit,then it is unlikely public opposition will result in significant project delays. Because this action requires a federal approval for a new source of a wastewater discharge,it is likely that EPA will require the project to undergo NEPA compliance.EPA will likely require preparation of Environmental Assessment (EA),and if this assessment demonstrates that project development will nxnot result in a:significant environmental impact,NEPA Tequirements will havewillrequirepreparationofanEnvironmental"Tnrpact Statement (EIS).EA and EJS requirements are discussed in greater detail in the NEPA Compliance section of this document. 5.3.2 Section 401 Certification ADEC will conduct an antidegradation review and a water quality review after receipt of an NPDES permit application and a Section 401 Certification application from the project.The Section 401 Certification will be completed concurrently with the draft NPDES Permit and will identify any potential problems with the proposed discharge.It is assumed that,through treatment,all constituents of the facility's wastewater discharge other than temperature will meet State Water Quality Standards.It will be up to OCMP to determine potential impacts and make recommendations as to allowable thermal discharges to the cooling pond.Once allowable discharge limits have been established,a variety of design alternatives will be evaluated to maintain thermal discharges at or below these limits. It will likely be necessary to study temperature impacts to the proposed cooling pond and any other potentially connected waters before ADEC would approve the facility's proposed discharge.At a minimum,this will require thermal modeling to identify the extent of the thermal impact to fisheries,other aquatic species,and wildlife associated with the cooling pond.State Water Quality Standards also include a clause that allows a facility to petition for a variance from the thermal standard if it is shown that the established temperature limit is more stringent than what is necessary to protect the resource.Further evaluation will be necessary to determineifthisvariancewillbeavailabletotheBethelPowerPlant. Issuance of the Section 401 Certification will depend on the nature of the impacts identified from the facility's discharge.Additional analysis may be required to quantify these impacts before ADEC will issue the Section 401 Certification.ADEC may also request that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)provide its comments on the Section 401 Certification prior to issuing its approval to ensure fisheries issues are adequately addressed. The Section 401 Certification will be issued with the draft NPDES permit,assuming no significant problems are identified.Processing time could depend on the number of Section 401 Certifications being prepared by ADEC at the time of application submittal. 5.3.3 NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit for Operations As an industrial facility,the Bethel Power Plant will need an NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial operational activities.This permit is administered by EPA Bethel Power Plant 19 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation and would be authorized under a Multi-Sector General Permit that has been issued to the State of Alaska.The major requirement for this permit will be a demonstration that stormwater discharged from the facility and its associated property to waters of the State does not contain pollutants.Testing for contaminants at the stormwater outfall and demonstrating that control structures are in place to effectively contain all potential pollution will effectively meet this requirement.A Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP)detailing the location and effectiveness of control structures,sampling techniques and frequencies,pollutants stored on site,and reporting requirements will be developed as a condition of the permit.An evaluation of the facility for appropriate maintenance and installation of Best Management Practices to prevent sediment and pollution from entering waters of the State through stormwater discharge will provide the basis for developing the SWPPP.EPA will work with the permittee to ensure that an agreement is reached that will allow coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit. It is possible to include the analysis and application for the NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit with that for the NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit. 5.4 Wetlands and Navigable Rivers The site proposed for construction of Bethel Power Plant Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 occupies low-lying tundra areas,wetlands,and ponds.Alternative 2 proposes construction and/or dredging and filling within the floodplain of the Kuskokwim River to accommodate barge- mounted power plant units.All three power plant alternatives propose the use of a naturally occurring,approximately 79-acre pond for steam-cycle cooling of the power generation facilities (see Figure 1).Any or all of these activities would likely trigger federal permitting under the Clean Water Act and/or the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps regulates impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S.by enforcing the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.Section 404 requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill materials into waters of the U.S.,including wetlands.For regulatory purposes,the Corps defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,and under normal circumstances do support,a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.Land-clearing operations involving vegetation removal with mechanized equipment,windrowing of vegetation,land leveling,or other soil disturbances in wetlands are considered placement of fill material under Corps jurisdiction. Given the proposed location of the Bethel Power Plant relative to the prevalence of wetlands,it is likely that significant involvement will be required by the Corps in applying its regulatory requirements for wetlands disturbance under Section 404.Consequently,it is necessary to consider potential impacts to these resources as project development proceeds.Development of the power plant and appurtenant conveyors and pipelines may require one or more wetlands permits.A site investigation and wetland delineation/determination will be necessary to determine the extent to which project development will impact regulated wetlands and waters of the U.S. Bethel Power Plant ;20 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation Likewise,the Corps regulates construction of certain structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S.pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 5.4.1 Section 404 Nationwide Permit The nature and extent of the wetlands to be developed have a significant influence over the permitting requirements and degree of permitting difficulty.Under many circumstances,tandAa ates wa Antemporarydisturbancetowetlandsrresultingfromcertainconstructionanddevelopment activities can be completed under a Corps Section 404 Nationwide permit (Nationwide permit)to meet federal regulatory requirements.Securing a Nationwide permit generally is a straightforward procedure requiring minimal time,effort,and expense to complete and,as a rule,does notrequirewetlandsmitigation. Some aspects of project development may be covered under Nationwide permit(s),however the bulk of most project development activities would require an Individual permit,the details of which are discussed below.These issues will need to be discussed in consultation with the Corps prior to project development._ 5.4.2 Section 404 Individual Permit Depending on the existing biological characteristics of the pond designated for development as the project cooling pond,the design of proposed inlet and outlet structures,and the nature of 'physical impacts resulting from its operation as a cooling pond (e.g.,water temperature,water surface elevation),use of this natural feature as a cooling pond could result in significant impacts to wetlands and their functional values.Consequently,its development could require a more involved and complicated wetlands permitting effort.Other wetland areas would also be impacted by surface disturbance related to construction of the power plant and its appurtenant structures. Significant disturbance to wetlands typically requires a Section 404 Individual permit (Individual permit),and the level of effort necessary to secure an Individual permit can vary greatly but usually requires a fairly significant permitting effort.Assuming that an Individual permit is required for development of the cooling pond,it is likely that the Corps would include all wetland-related impacts from project development under the Individual permit in order to evaluate all project-related impacts cumulatively.This would preclude the need for additional . Nationwide permits for other project development activities.Securing an Individual permit would require field investigations,including wetland delineations,wetlands mitigation,and possibly habitat assessments for federally listed threatened and endangered species.It will also be necessary to evaluate the project area to determine that high value wetlands will not be affected by project development.Preparation of an Individual permit would also require the State of Alaska to complete a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification The greatest concerns for project development that could result from disturbance of wetlandsrequiringanIndividualpermitwouldbealongprocessingtimeforapprovalofthepermitand the possibility of the Corps requiring significant mitigation for impacts to wetlands.It is not possible to accurately determine the degree of permitting difficulty without a more thorough Bethel Power Plant 21 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation assessment of the project area and consultation with the Corps.In addition,if an Individual permit were required for project development,then it is possible that issuance of this permit would be considered a major federal action,which would result in the application of NEPA requirements to the project. If the project were to install forced-air cooling towers to provide plant cooling in place of the cooling pond alternative,project development might be able to proceed with a lesser wetlands J Ao+h tallae af ash Ao ctatndApermittingeffortforpiantconstructionandtheinstallationofotherappurrtenances.As statea previously,this level of wetlands disturbance might typically be permitted through one or more Nationwide permits,and securing these permits usually requires a reasonable level of effort. Thus,the need for an Individual permit and the associated 401 Certification for wetland disturbances would possibly be reduced,though this is a Corps decision and cannot be determined at this time.Elimination of Individual permit requirements through the Corps could significantly reduce the overall permitting effort and cost of the project.Elimination of the Individual 404 permit would also reduce the federal requirement for NEPA compliance for Section 404 permitting (but not necessarily NEPA compliance that might be triggered by otherfederalactions). 5.4.3 Section 401 Certification Approval of an Individual permit from the Corps would also require securing a Section 401 Certification from ADEC as mandated by the Clean Water Act.Disturbances from development in wetlands can result in impacts to water quality downstream from the area of disturbance. ADEC will require the project to demonstrate that the appropriate controls will be used to -prevent impacts that degrade water quality beyond the State Water Quality Standards.It is assumed that the project will be able to meet these requirements and that there will be no complications in securing this certification. 5.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Corps jurisdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act is limited to "navigable water"or to waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark that may be used to transport interstate or foreign commerce.The Kuskokwim River is a navigable waterway as defined by the ACOE,Alaska District. All alternatives propose the construction of at least dock and barge-unloading facilities adjacent to the Kuskokwim River,and Alternative 2 proposes construction and/or dredging and filling within the river floodplain.Tradeoffs between the Clean Water Act Section 404 and the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permitting requirements for the different alternatives could become a significant factor in the final choice of Bethel Power Plant alternatives. 5.5 Fish Habitat All three alternatives for the Bethel Power Plant involve aquatic habitats and,therefore potentially,fish habitat.The Kuskokwim River,which will host at least dock and barge- unloading facilities under all alternatives and also constructed mooring accommodations for the Bethel Power Plant 22 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation barge-mounted power plants under Alternative 2,is considered by NMFS to be Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)for five species of salmon under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.The Kuskokwim River is also catalogued as an anadromous fish stream by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)(ADF&G 2003). The fisheries status of the naturally occurring pond that has been designated for development as the project cooling pond for all three power plant alternatives is not known,nor is its hydrologic relationship to the Kuskokwim River or to other potential fish habitats. Both federal and State resource agencies have an interest in fish habitat in Alaska,including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's NMFS and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Habitat Management and Permitting. §.5.1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment In its response to the initial consultation letter for the Bethel Power Plant Project,NMFS identified its specific EFH concerns for the project as all potential impacts to the five species of Pacific salmon in the Kuskokwim River.These species include chinook salmon,coho salmon, sockeye salmon,chum salmon,and pink salmon.NMFS general concerns regarding the project include the cooling water source,fish species present in the proposed cooling pond,and proposed access road stream crossings. NMFS requires the federal agency authorizing the project to prepare an EFH Assessment for any action that may adversely affect EFH.The EFH Assessment may be a separate document or be clearly referenced as a support document to an EA or an EIS for the project.The EFH Assessment includes the following mandatory contents:(i)a description of the proposed action, (11)an analysis of the effects on EFH,(iii)the agency's views regarding the effects of the action EFH,and (iv)proposed mitigation. Once it has received the EFS Assessment,NMFS reviews it and offers conservation recommendations to protect EFH,if any,to the federal action agency.These recommendations would be considered in the NEPA assessment. 5.5.2 Fish Habitat Permit The ADNR Office of Habitat Management and Permitting (OHMP)Fish Habitat Permit is designed to guarantee efficient passage of fish and to protect and conserve fishery resources and fish habitat in waters designated as important for the spawning,rearing,and migration of resident and anadromous fish.Historically impacts to anadromous fish have been emphasized in the application of this permitting requirement;however,the possibility exists that OHMP could regulate impacts to resident fish.A Fish Habitat Permit could be required for any instream work during both the construction and operations phases of the project and for wastewater discharges. Because of its classification as an anadromous fish stream by ADF&G,construction activities in the Kuskokwim River under any of the three alternatives would likely require application for a Fish Habitat Permit,and,depending on the fisheries characteristics of the proposed cooling pond, Bethel Power Plant 23 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation location or construction of the cooling water discharge pipe and discharge of non-contact cooling water to the cooling pond might also require this permit. A letter of intent and complete copies of the plans and specifications for the proposed activity normally satisfy permit application requirements.The application must include:1)type of project and its purpose,2)legal description of the project site,3)type and timing of the activity, 4)description of any dredge and fill activities,5)characteristics of the waterbody,and 6) ++:Latah L 1.tenes drs tr hk TannA hala,+h elie nes highengineeringdrawingsorskctchesofhydraulicstructurestobeplacedbelowtheordinaryhigh water mark of the water body.Additional information relating to the quantity of intake water and to the source,quantity,and quality of discharge water may also be required. It is anticipated that the project will be required to evaluate the potential for impacts through detailed analysis of fisheries.The requirements for these analyses would be met by the studies required for preparation of an EIS,or,if an EIS is not required,these studies should be designed to meet the requirements for the Fish Habitat Permit.Data collection and field surveys for Corps permit applications will generally also meet the requirements of the Fish Habitat Permit application.A possible exception could be the collection of additional flow data should existing data prove to be incomplete.The application for this permit would be submitted at approximately the same time as the application for the Corps permit because of the similarity of their requirements.Based on previous experience with similar projects,there are no foreseeable difficulties in obtaining a Fish Habitat Permit for the project unless important fisheries are found to exist in the proposed cooling pond.. Construction of an air-cooled condenser would eliminate the need for the cooling pond as well as for the discharge of cooling water.Under these circumstances,the need for a Fish Habitat Permit for the project may be minimized,assuming that project development could proceed without impacts to anadromous fish in the Kuskokwim River. 5.6 Floodplain Development All alternatives for the Bethel Power Plant propose the construction of at least dock and barge- unloading facilities along the Kuskokwim River,and Alternative 2 proposes construction and/or dredging and filling within the Kuskokwim River floodplain to accommodate the barge-mounted power plant.The approximate elevation of the designated mapped floodplain near Bethel is 17 feet mean sea level (HDR 2003),so,at approximately 50 feet mean sea level,most of the construction for Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 would likely be outside the Kuskokwim River floodplain. Prior to issuing any building,grading,or development permits involving activities in a regulatory floodway,the project must provide certification that the proposed development will not impact the pre-project base flood elevations,floodway elevations,or floodway data widths.A "no-rise” assessment would need to be conducted to meet this certification requirement.The engineering or "no-rise”certification must be supported by technical data,which involves two separate analyses:a step-backwater analysis and a conveyance analysis.Computer models are used to determine the changes in floodplain elevations that would result from the proposed development. Bethel Power Plant.24 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation The certification is provided by the permittee and is signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer. In addition to the "no-rise”certification,an Application for Flood Hazard Permit must be completed and submitted to the local municipality. Applicability of these requirements to the project will depend on the nature of the dredging andotitheaVasolal.DR;fin A Antawn:hn +n +hmitigationactivitiesoOccuringiweAUSKOKWiMsivecrfloodplain.A determination as to the necessity of a floodplain assessment will be made concurrently with development of the permitting requirements for dredging activities in the Kuskokwim River.If it is deemed necessary,2 floodplain assessment will need to be conducted as required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 5.7 Air Traffic Each of the three alternatives proposed for the Bethel Power Plant is located within approximately 2 miles of the Bethel Airport.A notice must be provided to the Federal Aviation 'Administration (FAA)if structures are constructed or installed that may interfere with aircraft flight paths.In its response to the initial consultation letter for the Bethel Power Plant,the FAA provided FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration),which must be completed for coordination and evaluation by the FAA Air Traffic and Frequency Management Divisions.The FAA letter expressed concern over possible adverse effects on instrument procedures to the airport and the potential for the power plant to generate ice fog that could adversely affect the airport.Form 7460-1 will be provided to the FAA,along with a topographic map with the plant site identified,for a determination of the aircraft safety considerations associated with constructing the Bethel Power Plant stack(s).Based on the relatively short stacks envisioned at the facility,it is not at this time anticipated that there will be difficultiesinreceivingFAAapproval. Considering the proximity of the proposed facility to Bethel Airport,it is realistic to assume that the Bethel Power Plant stacks will require some form of marking to meet FAA approval.The FAA will place notification of impending construction of a new obstruction on Sectional Aeronautical Charts,and pilots will be notified through Notice to Airman and other flight information publications in accordance with FAA flight safety regulations. The issue of potential ice fog formation from power plant operation would also be investigated as part of the meteorological/air quality analysis in the NEPA assessment. 5.8 NEPA Compliance 5.8.1 Trigger for NEPA Compliance Major federal actions require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Major federal actions include authorizing development of public lands,federal funding of a project,or issuance of a federal permit that authorizes activities with the potential for environmental effects.As currently envisioned,partial funding of the Bethel Power Plant Bethel Power Plant ;25 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation Project would be provided through the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA),Division of Rural Utilities (RUS).Thus,federal funding would likely be the trigger for NEPA compliance, and RUS would be the lead agency for the NEPA review.Other federal actions related to the three proposed alternatives for the Bethel Power Plant that could result in a NEPA compliance requirement are EPA NPDES permitting and Corps Section 404 permitting,primarily due to development of the cooling pond.Federal regulations stipulate that issuance of an NPDES permit to anew source by EPA may be a major federal action and,as such,could be subject to the environmental review provisions of NEPA.NEPA compliance is not typically required for a Corps Section 404 Nationwide permit but can apply to a project requiring a Section 404 Individual permit.In addition,it is possible that NEPA compliance could be required if work in the Kuskokwim River,particularly the more significant earthmoving and construction work described for Alternative 2,required Corps permitting under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.If these federal permits were required,the agencies administering them would likely be cooperating agencies in the NEPA review process. 5.8.2 Scope of NEPA Consistency Review An issue that has arisen in assessing the feasibility and permittability off the Bethel Power Plant is whether development of the power plant and appurtenances and the associated transmission line can be separated from development of the Donlin Creek Gold Mine,at least from a NEPA compliance standpoint.The development of the Bethel Power Plant is seen by certain agencies to be closely tied to development of the gold mine in that the mine would constitute the majority consumer of the power produced under the current development scenario,and providing the power to the mine is the predominant factor in transmission line routing. In response to the initial consultation letter for the Bethel Power Plant,the USFWS commented that it believes that the entire scope of the project should be comprehensively evaluated, including direct,indirect,and cumulative project impacts,"as is required under [NEPA]... when project components are so interrelated as to be inseparable"(USFWS 2003).According to the USFWS,this would include the transmission line,power plant and other power generation alternatives,the Donlin Creek mine,the road to the mine,and secondary power distribution to Yukon Delta and Kuskokwim River villages. With regard to the scope of the NEPA assessment,the Corps stated in its response to the initial consultation letter that,when the Corps has jurisdiction over NEPA review,it is precluded from "piecemealing"projects for analysis and permitting."If the power plant and mine are in fact tied together in an economic analysis,we cannot separate the power plant from the mine.The power plant must demonstrate an independent utility to be permitted as a separate action....To consider the Bethel power generation facility a separate project the plant must be an economically viable project independent of the mine."The response concluded that it appears that the Donlin Creek Gold Mine is an integral part of the Bethel Power Plant Project and that the Corps is not convinced that the power generation facility and the mine are independent projects. Although some parties have suggested that the gold mine and power plant/transmission line projects be evaluated together,there are a number of important reasons for treating them independently. Bethel Power Plant 26 November 2003 Permitting Report ; Steigers Corporation e First,scheduling constraints require that environmental review and permitting of the power plant and transmission line must proceed ahead of those for the mine so that these facilities can be constructed and operational by the time power is needed for mine construction and operation.If not,the mine would need to permit and operate its own power generating source until the Bethel Power Plant and transmission lines were completed,which would preclude the need for an alternative power source and would likely preempt development of the Bethcl Power Plant as proposed. e Second,development of the Bethel Power Plant,as proposed,represents only one of several alternative sources of electrical power for the gold mine;therefore,analysis of the power plant in the context of the environmental assessment for the mine is not likely to be as thorough as would be possible under an independent review. e Third,the entirely different functions of the facilities and the considerable distance between the gold mine,the (majority of the)transmission line,and the proposed power plant location suggest few synergies to be realized from coordinated review of these facilities.Other than regarding socioeconomic considerations,few similar impacts are expected from the three projects,and these could be evaluated under the cumulative impacts assessment for each,as appropriate. e Finally,the power plant could be developed independent of development of the gold mine,and vice versa;e.g.,a power plant could be constructed to serve just the local community and other communities in the region along the transmission line route: A number of reviewers have pointed out that the scope of the NEPA analysis will be delineated by the lead federal agency in charge of the review.However,conversely,selection of the lead federal agency will likely be determined by the scope of the NEPA review.Thus,as discussed above,if the scope of the NEPA review is restricted to the Bethel Power Plant and the transmission line,RUS would likely be the lead agency,whereas,if the scope of the NEPA review is extended to include the gold mine,another federal agency,such as the U.S. Departments of the Interior or Army could be the lead agency,depending on the nature of the major federal action requiring NEPA compliance.The issue of how NEPA compliance for the Bethel Power Plant Project can be structured to both accomplish a valid environmental analysis of the project and preserve the necessary project schedule needs further investigation.It is possible that providing an enhanced treatment of cumulative impacts,including those from the proposed mine,in the NEPA analysis for the power plant/transmission line,along with tiering of any subsequent NEPA analysis for the gold mine,would be a satisfactory approach.Werecommendthatameetingamongthepotentiallyaffectedpartiesandagenciestodiscussand define the fundamental issue of project scope at this early stage in project planning would be useful in resolving this issue early in the permitting process for the Bethel Power Plant Project. For the purpose of this review of NEPA Compliance requirements for the Bethel Power Plant Project,we will continue to assume that the scope of the NEPA review will include only the power plant and its appurtenances and the associated transmission line and that RUS will be the lead federal agency. Bethel Power Plant .27 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation 5.8.3.Environmental Assessment NEPA compliance generally requires an analysis of the environmental effects of the action, typically through preparation of an EA or an EJS.It is assumed that RUS would require preparation of an EIS for the project. The federal load ngoeney far tha NEDA raryqa?wold pages tha proiect tr menu An onfarnnAVRGLINGGeyAULAUeLNSLLEVICWuto1GTOQGuirTetocprojecproviacinformation regarding the nature of project development and the potential for environmental impacts in an Environmental Information Document (EID).The requirements for the information contained in this document are not well defined and would be determined based on the project and the project location.The information required for the EID would also depend on such things as the size of the project and the availability of supporting information.The EID will be the basis for preparation of the NEPA documents. If a preliminary environmental review indicates that a significant environmental impact may occur and this impact cannot be eliminated by modification of the proposed project,an EIS will be required.While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the environmental review,the possibility exists that an EJS will be necessary for development of the Bethel Power Plant/transmission line. The federal lead agency has the responsibility for preparing the EIS.The project proponent usually has the option of retaining a third party contractor acceptable to the federal lead agency to prepare the EIS in order to expedite preparation of the document. An EIS is a thorough environmental review of the proposed project,including a detailed evaluation of what is termed the "affected environment.”Several of the key components of the evaluation of the affected environment will be discussed in greater detail below.These issues have been selected and included in the NEPA Compliance section of this report because these issues would be addressed in that document.However,even if an EIS is not required,these issues would likely have to be addressed before securing approval for other project permits. e Threatened and Endangered Species.The EIS will require an evaluation of project-related impacts on endangered species as mandated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),and regulations under this Act are enforced by the USFWS and NMFS.An evaluation of impacts to endangered species may also be required for approval of any federal permits required for project development in the absence of an EIS.If it is determine that project activities will not affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat,then the project will have met its regulatory requirements under the ESA. Review of existing documentation for the area preliminarily indicates that federally listed endangered species or endangered species habitat do not occur at the project site.A more detailed analysis will be required to confirm these findings through ESA Section 7 Consultation with USFWS.This consultation may require a detailed habitat assessment Bethel Power Plant .28 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation for any listed species and their habitat that could occur in the project area.It is possible that existing documentation may preclude the need for a detailed habitat assessment. In its response to the initial consultation letter for the Bethel Power Plant,NMFS offered guidance on compliance with the ESA,pointing out that,in addition to including threatened or endangered species that may occur near Bethel,ESA Section 7 consultation must address threatened or endangered species that may occur along marine routes nronased far nee in cinnlyuing eael ta the weniect NIME Cts nanrorne are the nntantial farPAVPYSe20kGow1bOUPpiyiVUELULYPLE.ANY OD BUMMER LO GLY LU prulbiiticad 1UL petroleum fuel spills and the potential impact of marine traffic transiting the Beaufort Sea on migration of the endangered bowhead whale. e Wildlife and Habitat.The proposed location for the Bethel Power Plant lies adjacent to the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,as does most of the landscape that would be traversed by the transmission line.The Refuge is known to provide prime habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species,including brown and black bears,caribou,moose and wolves.In terms of both density and species diversity,the Yukon Delta is the most important shorebird nesting area in the United States.Birds from six major flyways,from the Atlantic Ocean to the east coast of Asia,nest on the refuge or stop to rest and feed during migration.A detailed habitat assessment will likely be required to identify potential impacts to these animals.Where significant impacts to wildlife are identified, project development would need to be modified or mitigation would need to be provided. The Kuskokwim River and its tributaries provide hundreds of miles of spawning and rearing habitat for fish.A total of 44 species use the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge's waters,including all five North American Pacific salmon,Dolly Varden char, northern pike,sheefish,arctic grayling,several species of whitefish,burbot and rainbow trout.Although fisheries characteristics of the proposed cooling pond are not known,its operation could result in impacts to any resident species,and these potential impacts would need to be evaluated.Again,where impacts are identified,project development would need to be modified or mitigation provided.An assessment of potential impacts to fish species is provided in the development of the OHMP Fish Habitat Permit.Likewise, assessment of potential impacts to salmon in the Kuskokwim River and its tributaries is provided in the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. e Cultural and Archaeological Resources.Cultural resources are prehistoric,ethno- historic,or historic properties,sites,objects,or districts that reflect past human use of the land.NEPA requires consideration of cultural resources,as does the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).The NHPA mandates that federally funded,licensed,or permitted actions must afford the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on actions that may affect cultural resources.Other key laws that pertain to assessment,mitigation,and preservation of cultural resources and graves include the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act,the Archaeological Resources Protection Act,and the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act. Bethel Power Plant 29 ;November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)will also issue a Cultural Resources Concurrence under the NHPA and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act for developments that may affect historic or archaeological sites.ADNR approval could be required under circumstances where federal requirements do not apply,as would be the case when a project required state permits but did not require major federal permits. There are a number of sources of information on cultural resources in Alaska,the records of which will need to be searched to identify any known archaeological sites prior to project development.Following the records research,it is likely that field surveys to identify cultural resource sites will also be required to satisfy NHPA Section 106 requirements.Depending on the significance of any survey finds,some items may merely be catalogued and/or collected,while,in other situations,sites may be excluded 'from development,which can have significant impacts on project schedule and cost.It is likely that project development would be able to proceed without significant negative effects from the presence of cultural or archaeological resources,assuming effort is expended to identify these sites early in project development. Also included in the evaluation of the affected environment are such subjects as climate and air quality,geology and soils,vegetation,wetlands,water resources,socioeconomic resources, visual resources,recreation and tourism,and health and human safety.Some of these subjects, such as air quality,wetlands,and water resources,will require evaluation with or without the requirement of an EIS.However,the level of project scrutiny and the additional requirements for study and analysis of project impacts to numerous other potentially affected resources will require a significant level of time,effort,and expense should an EIS be required for project development. An EIS will also include a comparison of several project alternatives that ultimately leads to a preferred alternative that will address and mitigate environmental impacts while allowing project development to move forward,although it is possible that findings in the EJS will indicate that the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project are unacceptable and an approvable alternative is not available.It is not expected that the Bethel Power Plant Project,as proposed,will result in unmitigable environmental impacts preventing project development.It is likely,however,that preparation and approval of an EIS will be a significant burden to project development resulting in high permitting costs and potential project delays. 5.9 Field Data Collection Data collection requirements have been identified for a number of the permits described above. Agencies typically establish study requirements in the course of consultation on specific permitting issues,and required field studies must be designed and implemented in support of the permits being developed.Field work can generally be accomplished during one summer field season and is followed by data analysis and report preparation.Total time to complete field studies may be expected to be on the order of 6 to 8 months. Bethel Power Plant 30 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation 5.10 Potential Permits And Approvals For Bethel Power Plant Agency Name Permit/Approval Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Project Management and Permitting Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Consistency Review Alaska Department of Environmental Conservaiion,Division of Air and Water Quality Air Quality Construction Permit,including monitoring programs U.S.Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Wastewater Discharge Permit Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,Division of Air and Water Quality Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification(s) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,Division of Air and Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit for Operations Quality U.S.Department of the Army,Army Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide and/or Corps of Engineers Individual Permits U.S.Department of the Army,Army Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit Corps of Engineers Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Habitat Management and Permitting Fish Habitat Permit U.S.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Hazard Permit and "No-Rise"Certification U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration U.S Department of Agriculture,Division of Rural Utilities National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance,including field data collection U.S.Department of the Interior,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act (ESA)Section 7 Consultation U.S.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act (ESA)Section 7 Consultation Alaska Department of Natural Resources,State Historic Preservation Officer National Historic Preservation ActtNHPA)Section107Consultation Bethel Power Plant Permitting Report Steigers Corporation 31 November 2003 6.0 PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE Permit/Approval Estimated Cost*Anticipated Schedule Alaska Coastal Management Program $50,000 30 months (ACMP)Consistency Review Air Quality Construction Permit,$650,000 32 months including monitoring program National Poliutant Discharge Elimination $340,000 28 months System (NPDES)Wastewater Discharge Permit Clean Water Act Section 401 $90,000 12 months Certification(s) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination $25,000 6 months System Stormwater Discharge Permit for Operations Clean Water Act Section 404 $450,000 16 months Nationwide and/or Individual Permits Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 $210,000 8 months Permit Fish Habitat Permit $200,000 6 months Essential Fish Habitat Assessment $60,000 10 months Endangered Species Act (ESA)Section 7 $50,000 8 months Consultation National Historic Preservation Act $40,000 4 months (NHPA)Section 107 Consultation Flood Hazard Permit and "No-Rise"$190,000 6 months Certification FAA Notice of Proposed Construction or $35,000 3 months Alteration National Environmental Policy Act $1,200,000 24 months (NEPA)Compliance,including field data collection Total/Longest Duration $3,590,000 32 months * Bethel Power Plant Permitting Report Steigers Corporation 32 Contractor Cost -Does not include project or engineering/design support costs.- November 2003 7.0 REFERENCES ACOE 2003.U.S.Department of the Army,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.Letter from Don R. Rice,Lead Project Manager,received October 2,2003. ADEC 2003.Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,Division of Air and Water Quality.Letter from Tom Chapple,Director,dated October 10,2003. ADF&G 2003.An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important to the Spawning,Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes.Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ADNR 2003a.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Habitat Management and Permitting.E-mail from Ms.Kerry Howard dated September 11,2003. ADNR 2003b.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Project Management and Permitting.E-mail from Ms.Sue Magee dated September 11,2003. ADNR 2003c.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Office of Project Management and Permitting.E-mail from Ms.Cynthia Zuelow-Osborne dated October 22,2003. AVEC 2003.Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc.Letter from Ms.Meera Kohler, President and CEO,dated September 30,2003. FAA 2003.U.S.Department of Transportation,Federal Aviation Administration.Letter from Ms.Nora J.Braman,Contracting Officer,Acquisition and Real Estate,dated October 17, 2003. HDR 2003.Bethel Airport Master Plan Environmental Assessment,Project No.52659.HDR Alaska,Inc.Prepared for State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.February 2003. NMFS 2003.U.S.Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service.Letter from Mr.James W.Balsiger, Administrator,Alaska Region,dated September 26,2003. NRCS 2003.U.S.Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service.Letter from Mr.William W.Wood,State Biologist,dated September 15,2003. Travis/Peterson 2003 Environmental Planning for the Proposed Bethel Power Plant and Transmission Line.Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc.Prepared for Frank J.Bettine,P.-E.July 2003. USDA 2003.U.S.Department of Agriculture,Rural Development.E-mail from Mr.Bill Allen, State Director,dated September 23,2003. Bethel Power Plant 33 November 2003 Permitting Report . Steigers Corporation USFWS 2003.U.S.Department of Interior,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Letter from Mr. Gary Edwards,Acting Regional Director,received September 26,2003. Bethel Power Plant 34 November 2003 Permitting Report Steigers Corporation ATTACHMENT 1 INITIAL CONSULTATION LETTER BETHEL POWER PLANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PARTIES TO WHOM THE INITIAL CONSULTATION LETTER WAS SENT STEIGERS CORPORATION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES &PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Mr.Tom Chapple September 2,2003 Director J.O.N.185 WP 1,2f Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation LetterNo.185-00 Division of Air and Water Quality 555 Cordova Street Anchorage,AK 99501 Subject:Bethel Power Plant Dear Mr.Chapple, Nuvista Light &Power,Inc.(Nuvista)is evaluating the feasibility of constructing and operating an energy generation facility near Bethel,Alaska.Three alternatives for power production are being considered:1)a land-based coal-fired power plant;2)a barge-mounted coal-fired power plant;and 3)diesel-fired combustion turbines.The facility would be developed for two purposes:1)to supply electrical power directly to the proposed Donlin Creek Gold Mine,which is currently under exploration by Placer Dome,Inc.and NovaGold Resources,Inc.and 2)to sell wholesale power to local utilities for resale to their customers,an endeavor that would ultimately serve approximately 40 communities and villages in the region and distribute hot water to meet local district heatingneedsinBethel.A brief description of the three power plant alternatives is attached. We are aware that you may have already received information related to development of the Donlin Creek Gold Mine and/or development of the transmission line from Bethel to the mine.Although some parties have suggested that these three projects be evaluated together,there are a number of important reasons for treating them independently.First,scheduling constraints require that environmental review and permitting of the power plant and transmission line proceed ahead of those for the mine so that these facilities can be constructed and operational by the time power is needed for mine construction and operation.If not,the mine will be required to permit and operate its own power generating station which would preclude the need for this alternative power sources. Second,the power plant could be developed independent of development of the gold mine,and vice versa;€.g.,a power plant could be constructed to serve just the local community and other communities in the region.Third,development of the Bethel Power Plant,as proposed,represents only one alternative source of power for the gold mine;therefore,analysis of the power plant in the context of the environmental assessment for the mine is not likely to be as thorough as would be possible under an independent review.Finally,the entirely different functions of the facilities and the considerable distance between the gold mine,the (majority of the)transmission line,and the proposed power plant location suggest few synergies to be realized from coordinated review of these facilities.Few similar impacts are expected from the three projects,and these would be evaluated under the cumulative impacts assessment for each,as appropriate.For these reasons,we are pursuing the proposal for the Bethel Power Plant independently from the proposals for the other two projects.Your cooperation with this approach will be greatly appreciated 1510 West Cana Court,Sune [600 ¢Lormerox,Concrano 80120-5638TELEPHONE:03}799-3633 ¢FAX:G03)99-6015 Mr.Tom Chapple . September 2,2003 Page 2 Steigers Corporation has been retained to assess the environmental and permitting requirements for the Bethel Power Plant project.By this letter.we are initiating consultation with potentially interested parties.including resource and regulatory agencies and other stakeholders,regarding: e federal,state,or local permits that will or may be required for the construction andaowente£oacth nw ale nw neseoperationOFCiuieTaitemative e general or specific resource issues and concerns that should be addressed in the environmental analysis of either alternativeeexistinginformationthatwouldhelpinconducting accurate and thorough analysis of the effects of the project *specific resource studies that will or may need to be conducted *existing or reasonably foreseeable projects or activities that should be considered in the assessment of cumulative impacts. Input from interested parties will be important in determining the permitting requirements for the project and in defining the scope of the environmental analysis.We will appreciate any information you can contribute to this end and will make sure that your input regarding project permitting and environmental assessment is considered from the earliest stages of projectplanninganddevelopment. A list of the parties to whom this letter for the Bethel Power Plant is being sent is attached.If you know of other agencies that might have jurisdiction over some aspect of this project or are aware of other parties who might be potential stakeholders,please contact us so they may be included in this distribution.And,if we can answer any questions or provide additional information about the project,please contact Bill Steigers of Steigers Corporation at (303)799- 3633 or Frank Bettine.consultant for Nuvista.at (907)336-2335. We would appreciate receiving your input on this matter by October 1,2003.If you would prefer to respond electronically,please direct e-mail to wdsteigers/@isteigers.com.Thank you in advance for taking the time to help us accurately determine the permitting requirements and the scope of environmental analysis for this project. Sincerely,Wye ieWilliamD.Steigers Chairman and CEO WDS/SLW/cjw Enclosures Bethel Power Plant Description Nuvista Light &Power,Inc.(Nuvista)is evaluating the feasibility of constructing and operating an energy generation facility near the community of Bethel,Alaska.Three alternatives for power production are being considered:Alternative 1 -a land-based coal-fired power plant; Alternative 2 -a barge-mounted,coal-fired power plant;and Alternative 3 -diesel-fired turbines.Alternatives 1 and 2 would differ from one another primarily in the location and configuration of their nearly identical facility components.The proposed power piant wouid be developed for two purposes:1)to supply electrical power directly to the proposed Donlin Creek Gold Mine,which is currently under exploration by Placer Dome,Inc.and NovaGold Resources, Inc.,and 2)to sell wholesale power to local utilities for resale to their customers,an endeavor that would ultimately serve approximately 40 communities and villages in the region,and distribute hot water to meet Jocal district heating needs in Bethel. Bethel is located in southwest Alaska about 400 air miles west of Anchorage.It is situated on the Kuskokwim River about 60 miles upstream of the river's mouth at Kuskokwim Bay on theBeringSea.Bethel has a population of about 5,500 andis the commercial and transportation huboftheYukonDelta.Access to Bethelis by air or the Kuskokwim River. Bethel hes within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,a large area of low-lying tundra, wetlands,intertidal mud and sand flats,and smalllakes.The preferred location for Bethel Power Plant Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 is a site approximately 1 mile south of Bethel in Section 20 of Township 8 North,Range 7 West of the Seward Meridian at an elevation of approximately 50 feet mean sea level.A photograph showing the proposed location of the facility and the associated facility dock,access roads,and cooling pond is attached (Figure 1). The alternative coal-fired configuration,Alternative 2,would have the coal plant mounted on barges anchored at a nearby site (also in Section 20)in the Kuskokwim River.The proposed location of the barge-mounted coal plant is shown in Figure 1.All proposed locations for the Bethel Power Plant are situated on private property. The power plant alternatives are described below.In addition to the facility site itself,each of the alternatives involves developing a number of linear support features outside the facility boundary,including a variety of pipelines and conveyor systems.While parts or all of thefacilitysitespersemaybeexpectedtoexperienceextensivedisturbanceduringconstruction,the proposed off-site pipeline and conveyor systems have been designed to minimize surface disturbance and to avoid the need to develop permanent rights-of-way for maintenance. Likewise,while the plant sites will experience continuous human activity throughout the operations phase,the off-site facilities should be relatively free of project-related activity over the long term. All alternatives propose the use ofa naturally occurring,approximately 78-acre pond for steam- cycle cooling of the power generation facilities (see Figure 1).The pond is located generally south of the proposed facility sites and would be connected to the power plant by heavily insulated,2-to 3-foot-diameter pipelines elevated 6 to 8 feet above the ground on driven piles or small A-frame towers.Use ofa cooling pond rather than forced-air cooling towers would reduce construction costs and also substantially reduce annual operating costs.However,should further Bethel Power Plant 1 .August 2003 Project Description Steigers Corporation investigation indicate environmental constraints associated with using the existing pond as a cooling pond,the cooling tower option would be revisited. All alternatives also propose to capture waste heat from the power plant and distribute hot water via a district heating system.The district heating system will include a central heat exchange station located about midway between the power plant and Bethel and more than 6 miles of main trunk lines leading from the power plant to the Bethel Municipal Airport and to the town ofRathalmalinflA_tan lh_inch has ffBethelandbeyond.The main trunk lines will consistof 14-to 16-inch pipes nung om pilings and elevated about 2 feet above the ground.As currently envisioned,the district heating system main trunk lines will follow existing roads and streets.It is estimated that the captured waste heat would displace nearly all of the fuel oil currently used by Bethel Utilities to supply Bethel's power needs,approximately 3.5 million gallons annually.The existing Bethel Utilities power plant houses about 10 MW of diesel generation,which would likely remain operational to provide additional standby/backup power for the proposed Bethel Power Plant. Other features common to all alternatives include a dock on the Kuskokwim River and new access roads from the plant site(s)to an existing road to Bethel.These roads will likely be two lanes and of dirt/gravel construction. Alternative 1 -Land-Based Coal-Fired Power Plant The proposed land-based coal-fired power plant would consist of two atmospheric pulverized coal-fired boilers each powering a 48-MW steam turbine,plus one 46-MW diesel-fired simple-cycle combustion turbine,for a total installed capacity of 142 MW.The power plant would generate approximately 670,000 MWh annually.The two coal-fired steam turbines would provide primary power,with the combustion turbine providing standby/backup generation.It is estimated that the combustion turbine will generate approximately 3 percent of the annual generation,or about 20,000 MWh per year. The land-based coal-fired plant would burn about 300,000 short tons of coal annually.The project proposes to use a high-BTU,very low-sulfur coal from the Black Bear Mine in Canada as the coal supply for the power plant.The coal would be shipped from Canada in self-off-loading freighters and transferred to barges in the area of Goodnews Bay for movement up the Kuskokwim River to the Bethel Power Plant facility's barge unloading station and dock.Coal deliveries would occur during the open water season from the end of May through the end of September each year. From the unloading station,the coal will be transported approximately one-half mile to the coal storage pile at the power plant by means of a covered conveyor belt.The conveyor belt system will be elevated 12 to 20 feet above the ground by steel A-frame towers mounted on small concrete surface pads over pilings.The conveyor belt will parallel a new road between the dock and the plant.To minimize blowing coal dust,the coal would be stored in a large covered building such as the air-supported structure shown in Figure 2. A 3-million-gallon fuel tank would be built at the site to store the fuel oil for the combustionturbine.Under this alternative,where the combustion turbine serves only as a backup unit,the Bethel Power Plant ;2 August 2003 Project Description Steigers Corporation small amount of diesel fuel needed will likely be purchased from the existing tank farm in Bethel and trucked to the power plant. In addition to the coal-fired boilers and the combustion turbine and their associated pumps and control room,other features of the land-based coal-fired alternative include additional coal conveyors and various coal-handling equipment,an approximately 1-acre blowdown pond,an electrical switchyard and associated 138-kV transmission lines to Bethel,and the initial section of the district heating system.The proposed land-based coal-fired power plant facility would occupy approximately 80 acres.Exhaust stack height is estimated at approximately 120 feet. The land-based coal-fired power plant would generate approximately 33,000 tons of ash annually.The ash will be processed as it is produced by adding 6 percent Portland cement and 16 percent water to form approximately 40,000 tons of gravel-like aggregate.The aggregate can be put to beneficial use locally and regionally for road construction or in concrete as a substitute for gravel. Alternative 2 -Barge-Mounted Coal-Fired Power Plant The barge-mounted coal-fired power plant alternative would occupy two barges off the Kuskokwim River plus adjacent land for coal and diesel fuel storage and other facility features. Each bargeis 100 feet wide by 300 feet long and has a draft of about 8 feet;together the bargeswouldoccupylessthan2acres.The barges would be set in place by digging a channel into the river bank of sufficient width,length,and depth to float the barges into position.Once the barges are in place,an armored berm would be built between the barge channel and the river to protect the barges from ice flows during spring breakup and to provide an earthen platform for unloading supplies.The barges would be located in the floodplain of the river at a location where there is little elevation difference in the bank and the river. Each barge would accommodate a 48-MW atmospheric pulverized coal-fired power plant.One of the two barges would also accommodate a 46-MW diesel-fired simple-cycle combustion turbine as standby generation.The total installed capacity would be 142 MW.Under this alternative,the power plant would generate approximately 670,000 MWh annually.As with the land-based coal-fired power plant alternative,it is estimated that the combustion turbine will generate approximately 3 percent of the annual generation,or about 20,000 MWh per year. The barge-mounted coal-fired plant would burn about 300,000 short tons of coal annually. Details of the coal supply,coal delivery,and coal storage systems for the barge-mounted coal- fired power plant are expected to be similar to those described for the land-based coal-fired power plant,including covered storage for the coal pile.Likewise,diesel fuel for the backup combustion turbine will be obtained locally.Processing and disposition of ash wastes would be the same as for the land-based coal-fired power plant alternative. The 300,000 tons of coal storage and a single 3-million-gallon fuel storage tank would be located on the adjacent river bank directly above the barges,and these would be connected to the generating facilities by a short conveyor and pipeline,respectively.Other auxiliary features of the barge-mounted coal-fired power plant alternative,including the blowdown pond and the Bethel Power Plant . 3 August 2003 Project Description Steigers Corporation electrical switchyard,would also be located in this area,which would occupy approximately 80 acres.Exhaust stack height for the barge-mounted plant is estimated at approximately 120 feet, which will place the top of the stack 60 to 70 feet above the top of the adjacent river bank. There are significant cost savings to the project for the barge-mounted coal plant over the land- based coal plant. A 1424-3 Com ay SeSALLEUALVOTVLVLNAVUSLEOL The combustion turbine alternative would consist of a 151-MW combined-cycle plant consisting of three simple-cycle,42-MW combustion turbines,plus one or two heat recovery steam turbine generators with a total capacity of 25 MW.Under this alternative,the power plant would generate approximately 670,000 MWh annually. The power plant would burn #2 diesel fuel,of which it would consume about 35 million gallons annually.The large amount of diesel fuel needed to fire the combustion turbine plant would be delivered by barge to the facility dock and pumped to the facility diesel fuel storage tanks via an aboveground pipeline.The fuel pipeline will be 8 to 12 inches in diameter and will be elevated 2 feet above the ground.The fuel pipeline will parallel the new road between the dock and the plant site mentioned above.Fuel storage requirements would be 25 million gallons annually,and 'the fuel would be stored in eight,3.1 million gallon tanks. Auxiliary features of the combustion turbine alternative include an electrical switchyard,the associated 138-kV transmission lines to Bethel,and the initial section of the district heating system.The entire combustion turbine facility would occupy approximately 40 acres.Exhaust stack height is estimated at approximately 75 feet. No ash would be generated by the combustion turbine power plant alternative. Bethel Power Plant 4 August 2003 Project Description Steigers Corporation ed Lacation ofoutedCoalP Figure 1 -Aerial Photo of Bethel and Vicinity Showing Proposed Bethel Power Plant Locations Bethel Power Plant 5 August 2003 Project Description Steigers Corporation Air-Supportedingtisigure2-Photo of an Ex Coal Storage Structure F August 2003BethelPowerPlant Project Description Steigers Corporation Bethel Power Plant Information Distribution List AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX State of Alaska Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Tom Chapple,Director Division of Air and Water Quality Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova Street Anchorage,AK 99501 (907)269-7686 (907)269-3098 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristin Ryan,Director Division of Environmental Health Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova Street Anchorage,AK 99501 (907)269-7645 (907)269-7654 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation William Ashton Environmental Engineer Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova Street Anchorage,AK 99501 (907)269-6282 (907)269-7508 Alaska Department of Natural Resources Kerry Howard,Executive Director Office of Habitat Management and Permitting400WilloughbyAvenue,4"Floor Juneau,AK 99801-1796 (907)465-4105 (907)465-4759 Alaska Department of Natural Resources Susan Magee,Project Review Coordinator Office of Project Management and Permitting 550 West Seventh Avenue,Suite 1660 Anchorage,AK 99501 (907)269-7472 (907)269-3981 Regulatory Commission of Alaska Mary Grace Salazar,Administrative Manager Regulatory Commission of Alaska 701 W.Eighth Avenue,Suite 300 (907)276-6222 (907)276-0160 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation Anchorage,AK 99501-1963 1 _August 2003 AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX Federal U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Don Rice,Team Leader North Section U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O.Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB,AK 99506-6898 (907)753-2712 (907)753-5567 U.S.Bureau of Indian Affairs Niles Cesar,Regional Director U.S.Bureau of Indian Affairs Alaska Regional Office P.O.Box 25520 709 West 9"Street Juneau,AK 99802 (300)645-8397 (907)856-7252 U.S.Fish &Wildlife Service Rowan W.Gould,Regional Director US.Fish &Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road,Mail Stop 381 Anchorage,AK 99503-6199 (907)786-3542 (907)786-3306 USS.Fish &Wildlife Service Michael B.Rearden,Refuge Manager Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge P.O.Box 346 Bethel,AK 99559-0346 (907)543-3151 (907)543-4413 National Marine Fisheries Service Ron Burke,Deputy Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service,Alaska Region P.O.Box 21668 Juneau,AK 99802-1668 (907)586-7221 (907)586-7249 Rural Utilities Service Bill Allen,State Director Alaska Rural Development 800 W.Evergreen,Suite 201 Palmer,AK 99645 (907)761-7705 (907)761-7784 National Resource Conservation Service Bill Wood,State Biologist National Resource Conservation Service 800 W.Evergreen,Suite 100 Palmer,AK 99645 (907)761-7761 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation 2 August 2003 AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX Federal Aviation Administration Jan Girard,Manager of Acquisitions and Real Estate Federal Aviation Administration 222 W.Seventh Avenue Anchorage,AK 99513 (907)271-5427 Native Communities Association of Village Council Presidents Mr.Myrom Maneng,President Association of Village Council Presidents P.O.Box 219° Bethel,AK 99559 (907)543-7301 (907)543-3596 Akiachak Native Community Mr.George Peter,Tribal Administrator ° Akiachak Native Community P.O.Box 90 ; Akiachak,AK 99551 (907)825-4626 (907)825-4029 Akiak IRA Council Mr.Ivan M.Ivan,Executive Director Akiak IRA Council P.O.Box 52165 Aniak,AK 99552 (907)765-7112 (907)765-7512 Aniak Traditional Council Ms.Lovey Duffy,Village Administrator Aniak Traditional Council P.O.Box 349 Aniak,AK 99557 (907)675-4349 (907)675-4513 Bethel Native Corporation Mr.Marc Stemp,President Bethel Native Corporation P.O.Box 719 Bethel,AK 99559 (907)543-2124 (907)543-2897 Orutsararmuit Native Council Ms.Flora Olrun,Executive Director Orutsararmuit Native Council P.O.Box 927 © Bethel,AK 99559 (907)543-2608 (907)543-2639 Chuathbaluk Village Council Ms.Helen Pitka,Village Administrator Chuathbaluk Village Council (907)467-4313 (907)467-4113 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation 3 August 2003 AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX P.O.Box CHU Chuathbaluk,AK 99557 Crooked Creek Village Council Ms.Mini John,Village Adminiatrator Crooked Creek Village Council P.O.Box 69 Crooked Creek,AK 99575 (907)432-2200 (907)432-2201 Upper Kalshag Village Council Ms.Bernice Hetherington,Village Administrator Upper Kalshag Village Council P.O.Box 50 Kalshag,AK 99607 (907)471-2207 (907)471-2399 Kuskokwim Native Association Mr.Leo Morgan,Executive Director Kuskokwim Native Association P.O.Box 127 Aniak,AK.99557 (907)675-4384 (907)675-4387 Village of Lower Kalskag Ms.Rose Nook,Village Administrator Village of Lower Kalskag P.O.Box 27 Lower Kalskag,AK 99626 (907)471-2379 (907)471-2378 Kwethluk IRA Mr.Wassillie George,Deputy Director Kwethluk IRA P.O.Box 130 Kwethluk,AK 99621 (907)757-6714 (907)757-6328 Organized Village of Kwethluk Mr.Chariton Epchook,President Organized Village of Kwethluk P.O.Box 130 Kwethluk,AK 99621 |(907)757-6043 (907)757-6321 Tuntutuliak Traditional Council EPA Mr.Noah Allexie Sr.,Council Member Tuntutuliak Traditional Council EPA P.O.Box 95 Tuluksak,AK 99679-0095 (907)695-6420 |(907)695-6932 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation August 2003 AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX Tuluksak Native Community Mr.Joseph Sallaffie,Tribal Administrator Tuluksak Native Community P.O.Box 97 Tuluksak,AK 99679-0095 (907)695-6420 (907)695-6932 Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council Mr.Carl Berger,Executive Director Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council P.O.Box 219 Bethel,AK 99559 (907)543-5967 (907)543-3130 Cities City of Akiak Mr.Peter Gillia,City Administrator (907)765-7412 City of Akiak (907)765-7414 P.O.Box 52167 Akaik,AK 99552 City of Bethel Mr.Robert E.Herron,City Manager (907)543-1372 City of Bethel (907)543-4171 P.O.Box 1388 Bethel,AK 99559 City of Bethel Mr.John Malone,Planning Department (907)543-1372 City of Bethel (907)543-4171 P.O.Box 1388 Bethel,AK 99559 City of Upper Kalskag Mr.Paul Kermeroff (907)471-2220 City of Upper Kalskag (907)471-2237 P.O.Box 80 Upper Kalskag,AK 99607 City of Aniak Mr.Travis Pate,City Manager (907)675-4481 City of Aniak P.O.Box 189 Aniak,AK 99557 (907)675-4486 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation August 2003 AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX | City of Lower Kalskag Ms.Anastasia Levi,Mayor (907)471-2440 City of Lower Kalskag (907)471-2460 P.O.Box 69 Lower Kalskag,AK 99626 City of Kwethluk Mr.Boris Epchook,Mayor (907)757-6022 City of Kwethluk (907)757-6497 P.O.Box 50 Kwethluk,AK 99621 Corporations AVEC,Inc.Ms.Meera Kohler,CEO (800)478-1818 AVEC,Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage,AK 99503 (800)478-2389 Akiachak,Limited Mr.Willie Kasayulie,President Akiachak,Limited P.O.Box 51010 Akaichak,AK 9955] (907)825-4328 (907)825-4115 Aniak Light &Power Company Mr.Artie Demantle,Owner Aniak Light &Power Company P.O.Box 129 Aniak,AK 99557 (907)675-4334 Bethel Utilities Mr.Hal Borrego Bethel Utilities 3380 C Street,Suite 210 Anchorage,AK 99503 (907)562-2500 (907)562-2502 Kokarmiut Corporation Mr.Sam Jackson,Chairman Kokarmiut Corporation P.O.Box 147 Akiak,AK 99552 (907)765-7228 (907)765-7619 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation August 2003 AGENCY/ENTITY DIRECTOR-LEVEL CONTACT TELEPHONE/FAX Kuskokwim Corporation Mr.Robert Ballow,President Kuskokwim Corporation 4300 B Street Anchorage,AK 99503 (907)243-2944 Kwethluk Incorporated Mr.George Guy,Business Manager Kwethluk Incorporated P.O.Box 110 Kwethluk,AK 99621 (907)757-6613 (907)757-6212 Calista Corporation Mr.Jeff Foley,Senior Exploration Geologist Calista Corporation 301 Calista Court,Suite A (907)279-5516 (907)272-5060 Bethel Power Plant Distribution List Steigers Corporation Anchorage,AK 99518-3028 August 2003 William D.Steigers From:Kerry Howard [kerry _howard@dnr.state.ak.us]Sent:Wednesday,September 10,2003 6:38 PM To:William D.Steigers Cc:Robert F Mclean;Susan E Magee Subject:Bethel Power Plant Dear Mr,Steigers:I received your correspondence dated 912/03 regarding the feasibility of constructingand47eeoperatinganenergygencrationfacilitynearBethel,Alaska.I appreciate being notified about this proj ect. Bethel lies within the geographic area managed by our Fairbanks Area Office.As such,I am copying the Fairbanks Area Office Manager,Mac McLean with this note,so you will have his email address.Review ofyourproposedprojectwillbehandledoutofOHMP's Fairbanks office.I will forward the correspondence you sent to Mac;please send future correspondence directly to our Fairbanks Office (Mac can provide you the address). 1 also notice that the DNR Office of Project Management and Permitting wasn'included on your list ofcorrespondencerecipients.OPMP has a pivotal role in coordinating the review of projects for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program.As such,J am also copying Ms.Suc Magee in OPMP'sAnchorageofficewiththisemail.You should contact Sue directly and also provide her a copy of the sameinformationpacket.. Thank you-Ms,Kerry Howard William D.Steigers From:Susan Magee [Susan_Magee@dnr.state.ak.us]Sent:Thursday,September 11,2003 10:59 AM To:Wiliam D.Stelgers Ce:Cynthia J Zueiow-OsborneSubject:Re:Nuvista -Bethe!Power Plant Lo! cpq-3.doc (6?KB) Mz.Steigers, I am attaching a copy of our Coastal Project Questionnaire for you to complete.Please refer to the following web page for information on the program and review pracess: <http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Projects/pepq-html> Please feel free to contact me at (907)269-7472 or Cynthia Zuelow-Osborne at (907)269-7478 if you have any questions.Thank you,Sue Mageee Office Of Project Management &Permitting Alaska Coastal Management Program 550 W.7th Ave.,Suite 1660 Anchorage,AK. 99501 Fax #(907)269-3981 William D.Steigers wrote: >Dear Kary, > >Thank you for your email.Per your request,we will follow up and >provide the requested information packet ta Ms.Sue Magee in the >Office of Project Management and Permitting in Anchorage. > >Sincerely, 7 . >Bill Steigers > >Willian D,Steigers,Chairman and CEO >Stcigers Corporation >1510 West Canal Court,Suite 1000 >Littleton,CO 80120-5639 >Telephone:(303)799-3633 >Fax:(303)799-6015 >Cell/Pager.(303)881-2618 >Email:wdsteigers@steigers.com >Website:http://Awww.steigers.com > > >----Original Message---->From:Kerry Howard [mailto:kerry_howard@dar.state.cake us] >Sent:Wednesday,September 10,2003 6:38 PM >To:William D.Steigers >Ce:Robert F Mclean;Susan E Magee >Subject Bethel Power Plant > >Dear Mr.Steigers:I received your correspondence dated 9/2/03 1 >regarding the feasibility of constructing and operating an energy >generation facility near Bethel,Alaska.I appreciate being notified >about this project. >Bethel lies within the geographic area managed by our Fairbanks Arca >Office.As such,1 am copying the Fairbanks Area Office Manager,Mac >McLean with this note,so you will have his email address.Review of >your proposed project will be handled out of OHMP's Fairbanks office, >I will forward the correspondence you sent to Mac;please send future >cortespondence directly to our Fairbanks Office (Mac can provide you >the address).. > . >]also notice that the DNR Office of Project Management and Permitting >wasnt included on your list of correspondence recipients.OPMP has a >pivotal role in coordinating the review of projects for consistency >with the Alaska Coastal Management >Program.As such,J am also copying Ms.Sue Magee in OPMP's >Anchorage office with this email.You should contact Sue directly and >also provide her a copy of the same information packet. > >Thank you Ms,Kerry Howard > United States Department of Agriculture ONRG Natural Resources Conservation Service 800 West Evergreen Avenue,Suite 100 Palmer,AK 89645-6539 907-761-7760: 807-761-7780 FAX www.ak.orcs.usda.gov DATE:September 15,2003 | File Code:220 TO:William D.Steigers,Chairman and CEO 1510 West Canal Court,Suite 1000 Littleton,CO 80120-5639 Dear Mr.Steigers, Thank you for your recent letter (185-003)regarding the Nuvista Light and Power,Inc. feasibility study for a power generation facility near Bethel,Alaska.In April we received similar inquiry regarding the feasibility study for the 138K volt transmission line adjunct proposal. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is an agency of the US Department of Agriculture which works with private landowners regarding conservation concerns of soil,water,animal, plants,air and human resources,Our agency has an established field office in the town of Bethel and a copy of your letter will be forwarded with comment instructions to the District Conservationist currently in charge of this service area. Should the project find a potentially favorable opportunity to move forward,our initial interest will be focused in three areas; *Administration and documentation of the public participation process. e Potential impacts to client and cooperator private property natural resources. ®General concern for impacts to wetland,water,plant,soil erosion and sedimentation and wildlife and fisheries resources. At this time my office has not been notified of any potential controversy or concern from our partners or clients.However,after notification to the District Conservationist in charge of the Bethel area,a more thorough understanding of these issues should be known. We appreciate the opportunity for consultation and to provide and receive information regarding the impacts to the natural resources of the Bethel area.In closing I would draw attention to one small discrepant detail from your letter;our agency is correctly known as the NATURAL Resources Conservation Service.Thank you, Sincerely, William W.Wood .: ; State Biologist,Natural Resources Conservation Service CC:W/o enclosure John C.Copeland,State Resource Conservationist,Anchorage,AK The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides Jeadership in @ partnership effortto help peopleconserve,maintain,and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer William D,Steigers From:Bill Allen [ballen@ak.usda.gov] Sent:Tuesday,September 23,2003 7:37 PMTo:wdsteigers @steigers.com Cc:Bemey Richert;Edward B.Rasmuson (E-mail);Greg O'Claray Subject:Bethe!Power Plant Mr William D.Steigers Chainnan and CEO Steigers Corporation Dear Mr Steigers: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 2 regarding the above referenced project.While I don't have any specific recommendations regarding the project suffice for me to say that we support the state administration concerning resource development.We stand ready to learn more about the options and consequences pertaining to the proposed project.In short,we want to know more to determine what role,if any,we could playin thedevelopmentoftheproposedproject. Thanks for contacting me and J look forward to your response. Yours truly, B.B.Allen State Director USDA Rural Development 907 761 7701 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E.Tudor Rd. Anchorage,Alaska 99503-6149INREPLYREFERTO: AFES/AF WFO SEP262003 Mr.William D.Sieigers Steigers Corporation 1510 West Canal Court,Suite 1000 Littleton,Colorado 80120-5639 Re:Bethel Power Plant Dear Mr.Steigers: The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed your September 2,2003,letter requesting inputonpermittingrequirementsandscopeofenvironmenialanalysisfortheNuvistaLightandPower,Inc.,Bethel Power Plant project.The facility would be devcloped to supply electricalpowerdirectlytotheproposedDonlinCreekgoldmineandtosellwholesalepowertolocalutilitiesforresaletocustomersinapproximately40communitiesandvillagesintheregion.Additionally,the project would distribute hot water to meet local district hcating needs in Bethel.Three alternatives for power production are being considered:1)a land-based coal-fired powerplant;2)a barge-mounted coal-fired power plant;and 3)diese]fueled combustion turbines.- In your letter,you request Service cooperation with your proposed approach of evaluating theRethelpowerplantindependentlyfromtheDonlinCreekmineandthe191-mile longtransmissionline.In a letter dated May 7,2003,from Ms.Ann Rappoport,Anchorage Fish andWildlifeFieldOffice,Field Supervisor,to Mr.Michael Travis on this project,the Service stated that we betieve that the entire scope of the project should be comprehensively evaluated as isrequircdumdertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,cluding direct,indirect,and cumulativeprojectimpacts.This includes the transmission line,the power plant and other power generationaltematives,the Donlin Creek mine,the road to the mine,and secondary power distribution toYukonDeltaandKuskokwimRivervillages,The Service believes that NEPA requires that thescopeoftheentireprojectshouldbecomprehensivelyevaluatedwhenprojectcomponentsaresointerrelatedsoastobeinseparable.Whileit may be possible to separate project components andtoconductindependentenvironmentalanalyses,doing so may ultimately result in lengthy and.costly project delays.Ultimately,the scope of the NEPA analysis must be determined by the lead Federa]agency. The Service provided comments on an earlier study (Jetter dated July 9,2002,fromMichaelB.Rearden,Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Manager,to Frank J.Bettine),and those comments are still valid.In that letter,the Service made several points:first,lands withinaNationalWildlifeRefugewhichhavebeenselectedbutnotconveyedtoanAlaskaNativecorporationaremanagedasanyotherreftigeland,and any development on such Jands wouldrequirearight-of-way (ROW)permit from the Service;second,to make a decision on aROWpermit,we would look at the cxistence of feasible and prudent alternatives,which would notimpactrefugevalues;and finally,refuge use must be compatible with the purposes for which the_refuge was established and with the mission of the refuge system as a whole.The compatibilitystandardisadecisionfactorunderbothTitleXIofAlaskaNationalInterestLandsConservation Actand National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C.668dd). Mr.William D.Steigers 2 IfaROW permit iss required,a feasibility study and environmental analysis of the project willneedtobepreparedfortheServiceapplication,and should include:1)an assessmentof thecostsandschedulenecessaryforpreparationofanenvironmentalimpactstatementnecessary toevaluateaROWpermitforconstructionoftheprimarytransmissionlineorsecondarytransmissionlmeswithintheYulconDeltaNationalWildlifeRefuge;and 2)a complete description of all project features including the power plant,hot water pipelines,central heatexchange,conveyor system,dock,coal and fuel transfer and storage areas,the Goodnews Baycoaltransfersite,cooling water requirements,ash and cooling water disposal areas,dredgedmaterialdisposalareas,transmission lines,and electric power substations. Independent of the need for a ROW permit,your project evaluation should include an assessmentofthefollowing,which could impact Service trust responsibilities: 1.Potential impacts of project features on migratory birds. 2.Potential impacts of project features on fish and wildlife populations and habitat,andsubsistenceactivities. 3.°Construction timing and other methods to minimize impacts to fish,wildlife,habitat,and,subsistence activitics. 4.Stream crossing methods and buffer strip retention along transmission lines. 5.Fuel transportation,storage and spill prevention plans.6.Presence of cndangered species,and the potential for adverse impacts from direct or.indirect effects to listed species or designated critical habitat at locations of all projectfeatures. 7.A delineation of wetlands and an assessment of wetland functional values,which will aidintheassessmentofimpactstofishandwildlifeandtheirhabitats.8.An assessment of potential secondary developmentin the villages that could potentiallyimpactfishandwildlifepopulationsandhabitat,and subsistence activitics. 9.Methods to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment,including methods to avoid andminimizeimpactstofishandwildlifepopulationsandhabitat,and subsistence activities. Future correspondence regarding these comments should be directed to Phil Brna,AnchorageFishandWildlifeFieldOffice,Project Planning Branch,at (907)271-2440 or by email at phil_brna@fws.gov.Questions concerning permitting within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Mr.William D.Steigers Refuge should be directed to Michael B.Rearden,Refuge Manager,at (907)543-315 lor byemailatmichael_rearden@fws.gov.Questions regarding land status should be directed toJohnBrewer,Chief,Branch of Mapping Science,Division of Realty,at (907)786-3462. Sincerely, ce:A.Rappoport,USFWS M.Rearden,USFWS S.Janis,USFWS M.McLean,ADNR R.Willis,ADF&G V.Ross,COE VOWS Tbk WIE PSE be bbe PRE LEW ee BE WwW IVLIVILTDwhe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service P.O.Box 21668 Juneau,Alaska 99802-1668 September 26,2003 Witham D.Steigers Chairman and CEO Steigers Corporation 1510 West Canal Court,Suite 1000 Littleton,CO.80120-5639 Dear Mr.Steigers, Tue National Marine Fisherios SService aN MFSShhas reviewedyOurr lettar concerning constructionandoperationofanenergyfacilitybyNuvistaLightandPowerInc.(Nuvista)near BethelAlaska.NMFS has two areas of concern regarding this project:the impact on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)for salmonin the Kuskokwim River and all tributaries within the projjectboundaries,and the impact on marine mammals. Federal agencies must prepare an EFH Assessment for any action that may adversely affect EFH. The EFH Assessment may be a separate document or clearly referenced in a support document,such as an environmental assessment (EA)or an enyironmental impact statement,(EIS)for theproject.An EFH Assessment iis-outlinedin 50 CFR-Part 600.920.(e)and includes the mandatorycontents:(i)a description of the proposed action,(ii)an analysis of the effects on EFH,(iii)theagenciesviewsregardingtheeffectsoftheactiononEFH,and (iv)proposed mitigation.ThesecontentsshouldbeincludedintheprojjectenvironmentalanalysispursanttotheMagnuson.-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.1801 etseq.). Please note that an EFH assessment is to be completed by the federal agency that will be authorizing the project.Once the assessment is received by NMFS,we will review it and offer conservation recommendations,if any,to the action agency to protect EFH.We have established an EFH area on our Intemet site Attp:/Awww.fakr.noaa gov/habitat/efh.him,which includes the EFH Environmental Assessment,FFH Habitat Assessment Reports,EFH data sets,EFH mapsandanEFHsearchforspeciesbylatitude/longitude tool.We continue to expand this site and hope the EFH information will assist your review. Specific EFH concerns for this project are all potential impacts to the five species of Pacific salmon in the Kuskokwim River.The project description does not contain enough detail for NMFS to provide an explicit list of all project components that might negatively impact salmon_EFH.Some general concerns include;cooling water source,fish,species present in the proposedcoolingpontyand.proposed access read stream.crossings.wp Sh are eee 8 ee 28 o os:'iseho,Nie a.a 40 8 vy ess cae "hoy Ay y nt Ieera ge oe' prsremiredtocxwiththe-Endangred Species'Act 'of 1973,as.amendedGh,'Section 7 ofa.sos rn :oa De eg Se oe we e "eh,8 8 SE ALASKA REGION -www.fakr.noaa.gov the ESA requires consultation between the Federal action agency and NMFS whenevera listed species or critical habitat may be affected by an action.This consultation must address both primary and secondary effects,which in this case would require analysis and consideration of any marine shipping component.Your preliminary design work should include a description of any endangered or threatened species which occur near Bethel as well as along those marine routes, and assess any potential impacts to these animals.We expect that normal shipping activity would not affect these resources.However,shipping large quantities of petroleum products may lead to fuel spills,and any traffic transiting the Beaufort Sea may impact the migration of the endangered bowhead whale.Your letter did not include information on marine routes,so you should determine whether potential conflicts exist in consideration of your specific plans. NMFS looks forward to working with Nuvista to minimize the impact of this project on living marine resources.Please contact Larry Peltz at (907)271-1332 if you need further assistance with your request. Sincerely, mold.'\.ov _-Aames W.Balsigpr oe .je Administrator,Alaska Region ;Co ..September 36,2003...8 i ee O82M-138E oS 2M 'William Steigers mp pevote'Steigers Corporation ane'+."Suite 1000.": 'we 1 S10 West'Canal Ctre'Littleton,co 80120 -59 en eS ,me cen 'Re::Comhents on Bethel Power Plant'."imeneo ae Boe ee Letter of September 2,2003,and oos woe roe eo ee a 'ae Letter Number185.003. ote avereviewi otyeyouti bro page cover letteri fontpagee Bethel Power Piant:description;page'5 ae ;cet displaying Figure.1,Aerial Photo of Bethel and Vicinity showingProposed Bethel Power:, ..i °°".'Plant Locations;and Figure 2,Photo ofanan Existing Airsupported Coal StorageStructure,"fesulted in thefollowing comaments:::.1 :The location of theising Béthel Manipal Amp sboild beshown onnieuwe:a,..ae "S 3 oe2.The'cation ofthe existingBethel Uniltespower planishoni te shown 0on.ae Figure.oe ;me Be The divection of flowof the,Yukon River'should te identified ina Figure 1i.4a ANortharrow should,be Properly applied to Figure 1.; awee ©Bingprely, ..:President &CEO MK:ep 4881 Eagle Street «Anchorage,Alaska 99503-7497«Phone (907)561-1818-In State (800)478-1818'+Fax (907),562-4086 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,ALASKA P.O.BOX 6888 ELMENDORF AFB,ALASKA 99506-6898 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF; Regulatory Branch "PGTOBER 6 2 2003NorthSection.. Q-INNI-INADevesmWavas Mr.William D.Steigers Chairman and CEO Steigers Corporation 1510 West Canal Court,Suite 1000 Littleton,Colorado 80120-5639 Mr.Steigers: We are in receipt of your request to separate the Bethel power plant environmental:analysis from the Donlin Creek Mine review.Below you will find my discussion,and a response to this issue. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for certain structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States,prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C.403).Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States,including wetlands, prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C.1344.) For regulatory purposes,the Corps of Engineers defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,and under normal circumstances do support,a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in _ saturated soil conditions.Navigable waters of the United States are those waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high water mark,and/or other waters identified as navigable by the Alaska District.The Kuskokwim River is a navigable waterway as defined by theCorpsofEngineers,Alaska District. Also be advised that land clearing operations involving vegetation removal with mechanized equipment such as front-end loaders,backhoes,or bulldozers with sheer blades,rakes,or discs in wetlands;or windrowing of vegetation, land leveling,or other soil disturbances are considered placement of fill material under our jurisdiction. Complex issues surround the scope of this project and will need to be clarified prior to beginning work on any Department of the Army permitting. The scope of analysis for the project needs to be established by the Corps for your proposed activity."The district engineer shall establish the scope ah of the NEPA document (e.g.,the EA or EIS)to address the impacts of the specific activity requiring the Department of the Army permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant Federal review.The district engineer is considered to have control and responsibility for wet J th eh orl -sportionsoftheprojectbeyondthelimitsofCorps jurisdiction where theFederalinvolvementissufficienttoturnanessentiallyprivateactioninto a federal action.Theses are cases where the environmental consequences are essentially products of the Corps permit action.Typical factors to be considered in determining whether sufficient "control and responsibility"exists include: Whether or not the regulated activity compromises "merely a link"in a corridor type project (e.g.a transportation or utility transmissionproject).Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinityoftheregulatedactivity,which affect the location and configuration of theregulatedactivity. The extent to which the entire project will be within Corps jurisdiction.And,,, The extent of cumulative control and responsibility. Federal control and responsibility will include the portions of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction where the cumulative Federal involvement of the Corps and other Federal agencies is sufficient to grant legal control over such additional portions of the project.” We are precluded from piece mealing projects for analysis and purposes of permitting.If the power plant and mine are in fact tied together in an economic analysis we cannot separate the power plant from the mine.The power plant must demonstrate an independent utility to be permitted as a separate action. It is not clear from your discussion how much control the Corps will actually have over the power plant construction.Department of the Army permits will be required for the power plant,transmission lines,substations,and support facilities located in wetlands,and for actions crossing over or under the Kuskokwim River.Additional issues which concern us include:the need to evaluate alternative transmission line routes to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands;the potential impacts of the power lines and towers to bird migration routes and air traffic routes; infrastructure requirements in the individual villages conmected to the transmission line;proximity of the overhead lines and support towers to village airports;access to the project facilities in areas not on existing roads;and proposed construction methods and timing. To date it appears that the Donlin Creek Mine is an integral part of the power generation project.We have not been convinced that the power generation facility and the mine are independent projects.For us to consider the Bethel power generation facility a separate project the plant must be an economically viable project independent of the mine. The Corps is not the only Federal Agency that may be involved in permitting power lines and a power generation facility.The involvement of federal land management agencies and the State of Alaska can also impact the Scope of the required NEPA analysis. rm pu geeeetdeer oe =ten TOoL%In thsnryoufortheopporcunarytobecomeinvolvedCarayancoyouhavequestionsconcerningthisletter,”please contact me b (907)753-2716.KKct0e,@ue]pb0=]ofyctSincerely,ZheimR.Rice(read Project Manager STATE OF ALASKA.|sepmm om555CordovaStreet Anchorage,AK 99501-2617 , PHONE:(907)269-7634DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION FAX:(OO 269.3098 DIVISION OF AIR AND WATER QUALITY http://www.state.ak.us/dec/ DIRECTOR'S OFFICE October 10,2003 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED eats .NO.:7003 0500 0004 7869 8571WilliamD.Steigers Steigers Corporation 1510 West Canal Court,Suite 1000 Littleton,CO 80120-5639 Re:Information Request for Permitting Requirements for Nuvista Light &Power, Bethel Power Plant 'Dear Mr,Steigers: This letter is in response to your letter dated September 2,2003 asking for assistance withdéterminingpermittingrequirementsanddefiningthescopeoftherequiredenvironmental analysis for the project referenced above. You have asked us to comment regarding the project scope.This question pertains to project consistency review under the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)and for review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).Although we may have active involvement in both of these reviews,you should contact Stan Foo at the Office of Project Management and Permitting in the Department of Natural Resources regarding ACMP at (907)269-8621.For NEPA review,project scope will be delineated by the lead federal agency in charge of the review. The following describes the permitting requirements of this proposed project that fall under the purview of this Division.For any of the three alternatives you describe,Nuvista will require an air - quality control construction permit and operating permit from the department.The three alternatives may also be subject to Federal Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards depending on the vintage and history of the emitting units. If the alternatives are subject to New Source Review under our construction permit program, Nuvista may be required to collect ambient air quality data and meteorological data representative of the air shed in the vicinity of the project and conduct a case-by-case assessment of control technologies for the project. Depending on the design flow and cooling water discharge conditions,Nuvista may need a non- domestic wastewater discharge permit from the state under 18 AAC 72.600 or more likely,an NPDES permit from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).An application for an NPDES permit to Region 10 of EPA at www.epa.gow/region10 would be an appropriate first steponcedetailsofthedischargeareknown.The water quality standards for temperature under 18 AAC 70.020 and thermal discharge requirements under 18 AAC 70.220 would apply.If Nuvista's i}Printed on recycled paperCleanAir,Clean Water William D.Steigers -2-October 10,2003 project requires an Army Corps of Engineer Clean Water Act Section 404 dredge or fill permit,mystaffwouldneedtoevaluateandcertifycompliancewithStatewaterqualitystandardsunder Section 401. Please look at our website for details on the various permits referenced above.See www.state.ak.us/dec/dawa/aam/newpermit.htm for the air permits program.See www.state.ak.us/dec/dawq/waterpermits/index.htm for the wastewater permits. Be advised that additional effort applied early in this process may minimize the time in reviewing your project data and permit applications.I recommend that you contact the following people for their particular area of coverage to ensure timely and predictable expectations for permits: e Construction Air Permits,Jim Baumgartner (907)465-5108 ¢Operating Air Permits,Cynthia Espinoza.(907)269-7575 e Industrial Wastewater,Sharmon Stambaugh (907)269-7565 e Section 404 certifications,Tim Rumfelt (907)269-7564 | Sincerely, Tomb fo Tom apple Director ce:Jim Baumgartner,ADEC AWQ Air Permits Juneau Cynthia Espinoza,ADEC AWQ Air Permits Anchorage -Sharmon Stambaugh,ADEC AWQ,IW Tim Rumfelt,ADEC AWQ Kristin Ryan,ADEC EH Kerry Howard,ADNR OHMP Stan Foo,ADNR OPMP Myrom Maneng,AVCP Robert Herron,City of Bethel mgsiE,G:\AWQ\Ang Femits AIRFACSInovisaSte gers foia Nuvista LP Bethel.doc Alaskan Region 222 W.7th Avenue #14»»Logistics Division Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 Phone:(907)271-5427 U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration October 17,2003 Mr.William D.Steigers,Chairman &CEOSteigersCorporation 1510 W Canal Court,Ste 1000 Littleton,CO 80120-5639 Dear Mr.Steigers: Reference your Letter No.185-003 of September2,2003,JON 185 WP 1,2f regarding a feasibility study for anew Bethel Power Plant. The following comments were received from our various Divisions regarding the study: 1.FAA form 7460-1 (enclosed)must be completed for coordination and evaluation by our AirTrafficandFrequencyManagementDivisions.They will also need a topographical map withan"+”where the plant would be located.Website:http://www?/alaska.faa.cov/at/notices/7460ref.htm. 2.Concerns were expressed by our Flight Standards Office of a plant potential to generate ice fog which could adversely affect the airport. 3.Possible adverse effects on instrument procedures to the airport. If you require additional information,please call me at 907-271-5849,fax 907-271-5214 or email:nora.braman@faa.gov.Please keep my name on the mailing list for any future correspondence on the subject. Sincerely, ¢¢WlContractingneOfficer,Acquisition &Real Estate,'AAL-S9RE _Enclosurenosy °eek PL te es feo eoetel eet ye 8 seat gg oD dadonTot edoe * ee eee Le °.:*y ° ' yeh JAMS tices ESE,eign eho Ds DGITIR 24s.5 TheoSCE oe Ge CIEEéErhe)y co William D.Steigers From:Cynthia Zuelow Osborne [Cynthia_Zuelow-Osborne@dnr.state.ak.us]Sent:Wednesday,October 22,2003 1:31 PM To:wdsteigers @steigers.comCe:jfmatone@gci.net;CenaliulriitSubject:Nuvista L&P Bethel Power Plant cnn-2.doc (92 KB} Mr.Steigers, This message is being sent in response to your letter of September 11, 2003 concerning alternative proposals for the construction and operation of a power production plant near Bethel,Alaska.I apologize that your October 1,2003 comment deadline was not met,but want to offer the following brief comments for your consideration. The site currently proposed for development of this project falls within the State of Alaska's Coastal Zone and,apparently,within the City of Bethel Coastal District (legal descriptions of the privately owned parcels referred to were not provided in your letter).As such,the Department ofNatural Resources,Office of Project Management and Pennitting,Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)advises that once your project has reached a point where applications for appropriate state and federal permit applications are submitted,you should also submit a completed Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement (CPQ)document and requested attachments to this office so that a determination can be made as to whether the finalized proposal will require a coordinated review for consistency with State and Local standards of the ACMP.A current copy of the CPQ is included as an attachment to this message. Additional information on Jocal standards and requirements can be obtained by contacting Mr.John Malone at the City of Bethel Planning Department,907-543-5301.I note that you have already distributed a copy of your letter to the City.If any portion of your project proposal lies outside of the City of Bethel's jurisdiction,the appropriate contact for consideration of local ACMP considerations is Mr.John Oscar,Cenaliulritt Coastal Resource Service Coordinator, 907-827-8748.Thank you for contacting the Office of Project Management and Permitting at this early stage of project planning.Please feelfreetocontactmewithadditionalquestionsifanyatmydirectline: 907-269-7478. Cynthia Zuelow-Osborne - Project Review Assistant .Alaska Department ofNatural Resources Dffice of Project Management and Permitting Alaska Coastal Management Program APPENDIX G 1.Coal-Fired Plant 2.Combine-Cycle Combustion Turbine Plant -Bethel 3.Combine-Cycle Combustion Turbine Plant -Crooked Creek 4.Transmission Lines from Railbelt COAL PLANT Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal 97 MW Land-Based Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss in Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel -Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant. Total Capacity in KWs _ Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 tt) $680,900 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 »43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 525,600,000 . 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 143,000 *707,830,303 18,152,059 _0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 « 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 16,020,790 82,009,364 96,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 t!] $2,175 $370 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 9 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,175 $370 $0 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,175 $370 $0 2050 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 ie} 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2055 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 443,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon . Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capltal Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $210,975,000 $17,020,000" $o $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 '$4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2015 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 *$306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,696,940 $149,396,940 2020 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 -,$7,114,140 $411,896,940 -$306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2025 $210,975,000 '$17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2030 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2035 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 3,000,000 2055 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 3,000,000 2060 . $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons .Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oit $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant +Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line #100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 305,157 1,311,429 .$16,783,661 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $500,969 $1,567,000 $0 $20,425,345 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,866,985 $0 2015 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 309,320 1,329,316 $17,012,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $507,801 $1,567,000 $0 $20,682,553 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,869,372 $0 2020 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 313,482 1,347,202 $17,241,484 $1,616,643 $0 $o $514,634 $1,567,000 $0 $20,939,761 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $7,871,759 $0 2025 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 316,554 1,360,407 $17,410,481 $1,632,488 $0 $0$519,678 $1,567,000 $0 $21,129,648 2,100,000 5,000,000 - $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,873,521 $0 2030 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 319,627 1,373,612 $17,579,478 - $1,648,334 $0 $0 $524,723 $1,567,000 $0 $21,319,535 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,875,283 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2045 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 4,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh «5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost§$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5%- $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.056 $0.042 - $0.035 $0.027 $0.020 $0.035 $0.013 $0.048 $0.104 $0.090 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 0.109 0.095 0.087 0.080 0.073 $64,296,215 $55,870,743 $51,658,007 $47,445,271 $43,232,536 64,296,215 55,870,743 51,658,007 47,445,271 43,232,536 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,144,705,549 $994,701,631 $919,699,671 $844,697,712 $769,695,753 2015 $0.055 $0.044 $0.034 $0.027 $0.020 $0.034 $0.013 $0.048 $0.103 $0.089 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 0.108 0.094 0.087 0.080 0.073; $64,603,542 $56,178,070 $51,965,334 $47,752,598 $43,539,863 386,084,615 335,531,785 310,255,370 284,978,955 259,702,540 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.054 $0.040 $0.033 $0.027 $0.020 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.101 $0.088 $0.081 $0.074 $0.067 0.106 0.093 0.086 0.079 0.072 $64,910,869 $56,485,397 $52,272,661 $48,059,925 $43,847,190 709,409,654 616,729,463 570,389,369 $24,049,274 477,709,180 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.054 - $0.040 $0.033 $0.026 $0.019 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.101 $0.087 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 0.106 0.092 0.085 0.078 0.071. $65,137,757 $56,712,285 $52,499,549 $48,286,813 $44,074,077 1,034,190,883 899,383,336 831,979,563 764,575,790 697,172,016 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.053 $0.039 $0.033 $0.026 $0.019 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.100 $0.086 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 0.105 0.091 0.085 0.078 0.071 $65,364,644 $56,939,173 $52,726,437 $48,513,701 $44,300,965 1,360,106,553 1,183,171,648 1,094,704,196 1,006,236,743 917,769,291 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,631,876,628 1,421,239,837 '4,315,921,441 1,210,603,046 1,105,284,650 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,683,434,122 1,472,797,330 1,367,478,935 1,262,160,539 1,156,842,143 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,734,991,615 1,524 354,824 4,419,036,428 1,313,718,032 1,208,399,636 490,154 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,786,549,108 1,575,912,317 1,470,593,921 1,365,275,525 1,259,957,130 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,838,106,601 1,627,469,810 1,522,151,414 1,416,833,019 1,311,514,623 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0,105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,889,664,095 1,679,027,303 1,573,708,908 1,468,390,512 1,363,072,116 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Piant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+6 villages Year 41.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethet Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 §,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2015 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2025 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 48,000 @ 0 Oo 143,000. 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 $680,900 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 443,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 2035 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 .$1,940 $370 $0 2040 16,020,790 82,009,364 - 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 2060 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,360,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK, Mine Bethel Utitities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons * Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fue!Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total!Capital Cost 5%.$100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o -$0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487 ,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2020 "$188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,110,000 $0 $369,487 ,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487 ,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 "$387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 $0 3,000,000 2040 $o 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gatlons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line *#100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882. $14,280,147 $10,067,411 305,157 1,311,429 $16,783,661 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $500,969 $1,567,000 $0 $20,425,345 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,866,985 $0 2015 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $16,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 309,320 1,329,316 $17,012,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $507,801 $1,567,000 $0 $20,682,553 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,869,372 $0 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 313,482 1,347,202 $17,241,484 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $514,634 $1,567,000 $0 $20,939,761 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,871,759 $0 2025 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 316,554 1,360,407 $17,410,481 $1,632,488 $o $0 $519,678 $1,567,000 $0 $21,129,648 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,873,521 $0 2030 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 319,627 1,373,612 $17,579,478 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $524,723 $1,567,000 $0 $21,319,535 - 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,875,283 $0 2035 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2040 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2045 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $o $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2060 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life .Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5%. $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M.Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.053 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.035 $0.013 $0,048 $0.101 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 $0.065 0.106 0.091 0.084 0.077 0.070 $62,375,628 $53,950,157 $49,737,421 $45,524,685 $41,311,949 62,375,628 53,950,157 49,737,421 45,524,685 41,311,949 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,110,512,156 $960,508,237 $885,506,278 $810,504,319 $735,502,359 2015 $0.052 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 | $0.034 $0.013 $0.048 $0.099 $0,085 $0.078 $0.071 $0.064 0.104 0.090 0.083 0.076 0,069 $62,682,955 $54,257,484 $50,044,748 $45,832,012 $41,619,276 374,561,098 324,008,268 298,731,853 273,455,438 248,179,023 2,999,940 _17,760,981 2020 $0.051 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.017 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.098 $0.085 $0.076 $0.071 $0.064 0.103 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.069 $62,990,283 $54,564,811 $50,352,075 $46,139,339 $41,926,603 688,283,202 595,603,014 549,262,920 502,922,826 456,582,731 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.050 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0,098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.075 0.068 $63,217,170 $54,791,699 $50,578,963 $46,366,227 $42,153,491 1,003,461,502 868,653,956 801,250,183 733,846,409 666,442,636 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.050 $0.036 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.070 $0.063 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 $63,444,058 $55,018,586 $50,805,850 $46,593,115 $42,380,379 1,319,774,241 1,142,839,337 1,054,371,884 965,904,432 877,436,979 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,583,861,972 1,373,225,180 1,267 ,906,785 4,162,588,389 1,057,269,993 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,635,419,465 1,424,782,674 1,319,464,278 1,214,145,882 4,108,827 ,487 490,151 91,664,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,686,976,958 1,476,340,167 1,371,021,771 4,265,703,376 1,160,384,980 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,738,534 ,452 1,527,897 ,660 4,422,579,264 14,317,260,869 1,211,942,473 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,790,091 ,945 1,579,455,153 1,474,136,758 1,368,818,362 1,263,499,966 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,841,649,438 1,631,012,647 1,525,694,251 1,420,375,855 1,315,057,460 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethei+8 villages Year 41.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 415,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 691,750,897 . 17,737,202 . 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2020 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 701,058,707 17,975,864 t') 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 80 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine 2025 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 707,930,303 48,152,059 .0 0 9 , $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2030 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 415,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0. 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 t'] 0 2040 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2060 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK .Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 mites Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs : Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 »$211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2015 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2020 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2025 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 ? $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237 ,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 +$7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2030 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $14,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $108,299,690 2035 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 3,000,000 2040 3,000,000 2045 3,000,000 2050 $0 'so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 3,000,000 $1.37 2060 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annua!Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total . O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 305,157 "4,314,429. $16,783,661 $1,573,715 $1,567,000 $0 $20,425,345 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,866,985 $0 2015 $29,593,444 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 . $8,529,762 309,320 1,329,316 $17,012,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $507,801 $1,567,000 $0 $20,682,553 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,869,372 $o 2020 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 313,482 1,347,202 $17,241,484 $1,616,643 $1,567,000 $0 $20,939,761 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,871,759 $0 2025 $29,593,444 $21,167,970 $18,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 316,554 1,360,407 $17,410,481 $1,632,488 $1,567,000 $0 $21,129,648 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,873,521 $0 2030 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 319,627 1,373,612 -$17,579,478 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $524,723 $1,567,000 $0 $21,319,535 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,875,283 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 4,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 4,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $o $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.050 $0.036 $0.029 $0.022 $0.014 $0.035 $0.013 $0.048 $0.098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.069 $0.062 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.074 0.067 $60,837,980 $52,412,508 $48,199,772 $43,987,037 $39,774,301 60,837,980 52,412,508 48,199,772 43,987,037 39,774,301 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,083,136,441 $933,132,522 $858,130,563 $783,128,603 $708,126,644 2015 $0.049 $0.035 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 $0.034 $0.013 $0.048 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.069 $0.062 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.074 0.067 $61,145,307 $52,719,835 $48,507,099 $44,294,364 $40,081,628 365,335,206 314,782,376 289,505,961 264,229,546 238,953,131 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.049 $0.035 -$0.028 $0.021° $0.014 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.096 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 $0.061 0.101 0.087 0.080 0.073 0.066 $61,452,634 $53,027,162 $48,814,426 $44,601,691 $40,388,955 671,369,068 578,688,879 532,348,785 486,008,691 439,668,597, 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0,048 $0.034 $0.027 $0.021 $0.014 $0.034 +$0.013 $0.047 $0.095 $0.081 $0.075 $0.068 $0.061 0.100 0.086 0.080 0.073 0.066 $61,679,522 $53,254,050, $49,041,314 $44,828,578 $40,615,843 978,859,125 844,051,579 776,647,805 709,244,032. 641,840,259 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.047 $0.034 $0.027 $0.020 $0.014 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.094 $0.081 $0.074 . $0.067 $0.060 0.099 0.086 0.079 0.072 0.065 *$61,906,409 $53,480,938 $49,268,202 $45,055,466 $40,842,730 1,287,483,621 1,110,548,717 1,022,081,264 933,613,812 845,146,359 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,545,420,757 1,334,783,966 1,229,465,570 1,124,147,175 1,018,828,779 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 - $0,000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0,100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,596,978,251 1,386,341,459 1,281,023,064 1,175,704,668 1,070,386,272 490,151 91,684,152 2045. $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 . 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,648,535,744 1,437,898,953 1,332,580,557 1,227,262,161 1,121,943,765 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,341,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,700,093,237 1,489,456,446 4,384,138,050 1,278,819,654 4,173,501,259 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,751,650,730 1,541,013,939 4,435,695,543 4,330,377,148 1,225,058,752 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,803,208,224 1,592,571,432 1,487,253,036 1,381 ,934,641 1,276,616,245 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal 97 MW Land-Based Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+6 villages Year 1,Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Dentin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Uttlitles Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 80,000 2,281 9,580 6,700 7,500 106,064 613,200,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 678,041,628 58,692,000 65,700,000 802,433,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 782,372,788 20,060,841 0 0 $680,900 2015 80,000 2,630 40,995 6,700 7,500 107,825 613,200,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 687,588,100 58,692,000 65,700,000 811,980,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 791,680,597 20,299,502 0 0 $680,900 2020 80,000 2,980 12,410 6,700 7,500 109,590 613,200,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 697,134,571 58,692,000 65,700,000 821,526,571 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,060 800,988,407 20,538,164 0 ti} $680,900 2025 80,000 3,123 13,407 6,700 7,500 110,729 613,200,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 704,182,362 58,692,000 65,700,000 828,574,362 97,000 46,000 0 Ly) 0 443,000 807,860,003 20,714,359 0 ty) $680,900 2030 80,000 3,266 14,403 6,700 7,500 111,869 613,200,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 711,230,154 58,692,000 65,700,000 835,622,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 i) 143,000 814,731,600 20,890,554 0 0 $680,900 2035 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 ”4,380,000 21,900,000 924,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2040 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 tt] 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,175 $370 $o 2045 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 9 0 0 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 LY) 0 $2,175 $370 $o 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 ie) 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 9 0 $2,175 $370 $0 2055 0 3,433 14,403 §00 2,500 20,0136 i¢) 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,0100 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 tt] 0 $2,175 $370 2060 9 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,000 46,000 it] 9 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 9 9 0 $2,175 $370 $o 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Piant Combustion Turbine Bathe! cCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethet CCK Mine Fual Storage Costs $/Galion ,Bethel CCK Mine Fual Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal,5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $o $227,995,000 +$130,732,600 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,140,000 $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2015 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,600 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $4114,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201 ,896,940 $149,396,940 2020 $240,975,000 $17,020,000 $o $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896.940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2025 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $0 $392,282,800 - $19,644,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2030 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,410,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,696,940 $306,896 940$254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2035 $0 3,000,000 2040 $o 3,000,000 2045 $o 3,000,000 2050 2055 $0 3,000,000 $0 2060 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% *O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Galions Bethel cCcK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Off $/Gallons Bethel ccK Mine Annuat Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fue!Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Totat O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 349,841 1,503,461 $19,241,282 $1,804,153 $0 $o $574,325 $1,567,000 $0 $23,186,760 2,100,000 §,000,000 $200,608 $400,000 1 $192,000 $o $0 $7,892,608 $0 2015 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 354,004 4,521,347 $19,470,194 $1,625,617 $1,567,000 $0 $23,443,968 2,100,000 5,000,000 $202,995 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,894,995 $o 2020 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 358,166 1,539,234 .$19,699,105 $1,847,081 $1,567,000 $0 $23,701,176 2,100,000 5,000,000 $205,382 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $7,897,382 $o 2025 \ $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 361,238 4,552,439 $19,868,102 $1,862,027 $0 $0 $593,035 $1,567,000 $o $23,891,063 2,100,000 5,000,000 $207,144 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,899,144 $0 2030 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 364,311 1,565,644 $20,037,098 *$1,878,772 $o $o $598,079 $1,567,000 $0 $24,080,950 2,100,000 5,000,000 $208,906 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,900,906 $o 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2040 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2045 67,253 292,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $o 2050 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $a $0 $4,323,078 $0 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 (i) $70.00 $1.20 $4,707,679 $279,403 go fo $136,009 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 4,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $o 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $0' $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $a 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5%°$100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.049 $0.036 $0.030 $0.024 $0.018 $0.034 $0.012 $0.046 $0.095 $0.082 $0.076 . $0.070 $0.064 0.100 0.087 0.081 0.075 0.069 $67,521,253 $59,095,781 $54,883,045 $50,670,310 $46,457,574 67,521,253 59,095,781 54,883,045 50,670,310 © 46,457,574 3,390,208 3,390,208 2015 $0.048 $0.036 $0.030 $0.024 $0.017 $0.034 $0.011 $0.046 $0.094 $0.081 $0.075 $0.069 $0.063 0.099 0.086 0,080 0.074 0.068 $67,828,580 $59,403,108 $55,190,373 $50,977,637 $46,764,901 405,434,845 354,682,015 329,605,600 304,329,185 279,052,770 3,437,940 20,388,981 2020 $0.047 $0.035 $0.029 $0.023 $0.017 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.093 $0.081 $0.075 $0.069 $0.063 0.098 0.086 0.080 0.074 0.068 $68,135,907 $59,710,435 _$55,497,700 $51,284,964 $47,072,228 744,885,072 652,204,884 605,864,789 559,524,695 513,184,601 3,485,673 41,064,357 2025 $0.047 $0.035 $0.029 $0.023 $0.017 - $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.092 $0.080 $0.074 $0.068*-$0.062 0.097 0.085 0.079 0.073 0.067 $68,362,795 $59,937,323 $55,724,587 $51,511,651 $47,299,116 1,085,791,495 950,963,948 883,580,175 816,176,402 748,772,629 3,520,912 62,013,633 2030 $0.046 $0.035 $0.029 $0.023 $0.017 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.091 $0.080 »$0,074 $0.068 $0.062 0.096 0.085 0.079 0.073 0.067 $68,589,682 $60,164 211 $55,951,475 $51,738,739 $47,526,003 1,427 832,356 1,250,897,452 1,162,429,999 1,073,962,547 985,495,095 3,556,151 83,174,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0,100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,742,502 585 1,501 ,865,794 1,396,547,398 1,291 229,002 1,185,910,607 490,151 101,445,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0,105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,341,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,764,060,078 1,553,423,287 1,448,104,891 - 1,342,786,496 1,237,468,100 490,151 104,386,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0,105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,314,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,815,617,574 1,604,980,780 1,499,662,384 1,394,343,989 1,289,025,593 490,154 107,327,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.160 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,867,175,065 1,656,538,273 1,551,219,878 1,445,901,482 1,340,583,086 490,151 410,267,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0,044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0,105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,918,732,558 1,708,095,767 4,602,777,371 1,497,458,975 1,392,140,579 490,151 113,208,856 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,970,290,051 1,759,653,260 4,654,334 ,864 4,549,016,468 1,443,698,073 490,151 116,149,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villagas Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Piant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Tota!KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coai Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Bethei Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethet CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1} Plant Costs Coat Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/W Bethel CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 80,000 2,284 9,580 6,700 7,500 106,064 613,200,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 678,041,628 58,692,000 65,700,000 802,433,628 97,000 46,000 te] 0 0 143,000 782,372,788 20,060,841 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2015 80,000 2,630 10,995 6,700 7,500 107,825 613,200,000 44,782,606 62,605,493 687,588,100 58,692,000 65,700,000 811,980,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 791,680,597 20,299,502 0 0 2020 80,000 2,980 12,410 6,700 7,500 109,590 613,200,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 697,134,571 58,692,000 65,700,000 821,526,571 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 800,988,407 20,538,164 0 0 $680,900 2025 80,000 3,123 13,407 6,700 7,500 110,729 613,200,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 704,182,362 58,692,000 65,700,000 828,574,362 97,000 46,000 9 Q 0 143,000 807,860,003 20,714,359 0 0 $680,900 2030 80,000 3,266 14,403 6,700 7,500 111,669 613,200,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 711,230,154 58,692,000 65,700,000 835,622,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 814,731,600 20,890,554 0 0 $680,900 2035 0 3,350 14,403 ¢ 500 2,500 20,753 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 Us] 0 ) 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 :0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2050 0 3,433 44,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2055 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 a 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 9 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 a $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 2010 2015 2020 :2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Plant Costs $: Coal Plant $188,180,000 $188,180,000 $188,180,000 $188,180,000 $188,180,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Combustion Turbine : Bethel $17,020,000 $17,020,000 $17,020,000 $17,020,000 $17,020,000 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 CCK Mine $0 $0 $0 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o Bethel Utilities Plant Totat $205,200,000 $205,200,000 $205,200,000 $205,200,000 $205,200,000 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 Bethel Diesel Plant $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o 138 kV Substations $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Village Sub.+Dist.Lines $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 Total $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $o Tug +3 Barges $14,600,000 $11,600,000 $11,600,000 $11,600,000 $11,600,000 $0 $0-$0 $o $0 $0 Enviormental Studies $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fue!Storage Gallons Bethel.3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ccK 0 0 is)0 0 0 0 0 0 Le)0 Mine 0 i+)0 it}0 0 [)Oo.tt)0 () Fuel Storage Costs $/Gation Bethel $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CCK $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o Mine $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fuel Oit Storage $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $o $o $o $o $0 $o District Heating System $0.$0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o SubTotal Capital Costs $369,487,800 $369,487 ,800 $369,487,800 $369,487,800 $369,487,800 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o tnterest During Constuction . . 5%$18,474,390 $18,474,390 $18,474,390 $18,474,390 $18,474,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$13,474,390 $13,474,390 $13,474,390 $13,474,390 $13,474,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$10,974,390 $10,974,390 $10,974,390 $10,974,390 $10,974,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$8,474,390 $8,474,390 $8,474,390 $8,474,390 $8,474,390 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$5,974,390 $5,974,390 $5,974,390 «$5,974,390 $5,974,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 Total Capital Cost 5%.$387,962,190 $387,962,190 $387,962,190 $387,962,190 $387,962,190 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $282,962,190 $282,962,180 $282,962,190 $282,962,190 $282,962,190 $0 $o $o $o-$0 $o $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$230,462,190 $230,462,190 $230,462,190 $230,462,190 $230,462,190 $0 $o $o $o $0 $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$177,962,190 $177,962,190 $177,962,190 $177,962,190 -$177,962,190 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$125,462,190 $125,462,190 $125,462,190 $125,462,190 $125,462,190 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 : 2/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 2010 2015 2020 "2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5%$34,131,090 $31,131,090 $34,131,090 $31,131,090 $31,131,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $100 M Grants,Bat.5%$22,705,618 $22,705,618 $22,705,618 $22,705,618 $22,705,618 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$18,492,882 $18,492,882 $18,492,882 $18,492,882 $18,492,882 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$14,280,147 $14,280,147 $14,280,147 $14,280,147 $14,280,147 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$10,067,414 °=$10,067,411 $10,067,411 $10,067,411 $10,067,414 $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons 349,841 354,004 358,166 361,238 364,311 67,253 67,253 67,253 87,253 67,253 67,253 #1 Fuel Oil Gallons : Bethel 1,503,461 1,521,347 |4,539,234 1,552,439 4,565,644 232,911 232,911 232,911 232,911 232,911 232,911 CCK ' Mine 0 0 0. |. 0 [')Q 0 0 0 0 ti) Coal $/Ton $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel $1.20 .$1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 CCK Mine Annual Fus!Costs Coal $19,241,282 $19,470,194 $19,699,105 $19,868,102 $20,037,098 $4,707,679 $4,707,879 $4,707,679 $4,707,679 $4,707,679 $4,707,679 #1 Fuel Oil Bethet $1,804,153 $1,825,617 $1,847,081 $1,862,927 $1,878,772 $279,493 $279,493 $279,493 $279,493 $279,493 $279,483 CCK $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 Mine $0 $0 $0 .$0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan $574,325 $581,158 $587,991 $593,035 $598,079 $136,099 $136,099 $136,099 $136,099 $136,099 $136,099 O&M Tug +Barges $1,567,000 $1,567,000 $1,567,000 $1,567,000 $1,567,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 Purchased Pwr , Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o'$0 $0 $o $0 $0 Total $23,186,760 $23,443,968 $23,701,176 $23,891,063 $24,080,950 $5,498,270 $5,498,270 $5,498,270 $5,498,270 $5,498,270 $5,498,270 _O&M Coal-Plant Personnel 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 .2,100,000 2,100,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 4,400,000Equipmant/Supplies 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Combustion Turbine $200,608 $202,995 $205,382 $207,144 ©$208,906 $31,078,$31,078 $31,078 $31,078 $31,078 $31,078 Personnel EquipmenvSupplies Nuvista Administration $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 ©$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 138 kV T-Lina $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 +100KV DC Line $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Heat Sales Offset $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o ' $0 $o $0 $0 Total O&M $7,892,608 ©$7,894,995 $7,897,382 ;$7,899,144 $7,900,906 $4,323,078 $4,323,078 $4,323,078 $4,323,078 $4,323,078 $4,323,078 PCE Payments ; $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 3 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kwWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumutaied WholeSate Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.046 $0.033 $0.027 $0.021 $0.015 $0.034 $0.012 $0.046 $0.092 $0.079 $0.073 $0.067 $0.061 0.097 0.084 0.078 0.072 0.066 $65,600,667 $57,175,195 $52,962,459 $48,749,723 $44,536,988 65,600,667 57,175,198 52,962,459 48,749,723 44,536,988 3,390,208 3,390,208 2015 $0.045 $0.033 $0.027 $0.021 $0.015 $0.034 $0.011 $0.046 $0.091 $0.079 $0.072 $0.066 $0.060 0.096 0.084 0.077 0.071 0.065 $65,907,994 $57,482,522 $53,269,786 $49,057,050 $44,844,315 393,914,327 343,358,497 318,082,082 292,805,667 267,529,252 3,437,940 20,388,961 2020 $0.045 $0.033 $0,027 $0.020 $0.014 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.090 $0.078 $0.072 $0.068 $0.060 0.095 0.083 0.077 0.071 0.065 $66,215,321 $57,789,849 $53,577,113 $49,364,377 $45,151,642 723,758,623 631,078,435 584,738,341 538,398,246 492,058,152 3,485,673 41,064,357 2025 $0.044 $0.032 $0.026 $0.020 $0.014 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.089 $0.077 $0.071 $0.065 $0.059 0.094 0.082 0.076 0.070 0.064 $66,442,209 $58,016,737 $53,604,001 $49,591,265 $45,378,529 4,055,062,415 920,254,568 852,850,795 785,447,022 718,043,248 3,520,912 62,013,633 2030 $0.044 $0.032 $0.026 $0.020 $0.014 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.089 $0.077 $0.071 $0.065 $0.059 0.094 0.082 0.076 0.070 0.064 $66,669,096 $58,243,625 $54,030,689 $49,818,153 $45,605,417 1,387,500,045 1,210,565,140 4,122,097,688 4,033,630,235 945,162,783 3,556,151 83,174,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,664 487,928 1,453,851 ,137 1,348,532,741 1,243,214,346 1,137 ,895,950 490,151 101,445,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,716,045,422 1,505,408,630 4,400,090,235 1,294,771 ,839 1,189,453,443 490,151 404,386,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,767,602,915 1,556,966,124 1,451,647,728 4,346,329,332 1,244 ,010,936 490,154 107,327,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,819,160,408 1,608,523,617 4,603,205,221 1,397 886,825 1,292,568,430 490,151 110,267,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,870,717,901 1,660,081,110 1,554,762,714 1,449,444,319 1,344,125,923 490,151 113,208,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.4105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,922,275,395 1,711,638,603 1,606,320,208 1,501 ,001,812 1,395,683,416 490,151 416,149,770 22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal 80 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 4.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses in Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/«W Combustion Turbine $W Bethel CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant 438 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 80,000 2,281 9,580 6,700 7,500 106,064 613,200,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 678,041,628 58,692,000 65,700,000 802,433,628 80,000 25,000 9 0 40,000 115,000 782,372,788 20,060,841 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2015 80,000 2,630 10,995 6,700 7,500 107,825 613,200,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 687,588,100 58,692,000 65,700,000 811,980,100 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 791,680,597 20,299,502 tt) id i) $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2020 80,000 2,980 12,410 6,700 7,500 109,590 613,200,000 13,269,790 70,664,784 697,134,571 58,692,000 65,700,000 821,526,571 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 800,988,407 20,538,164 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2025 80,000 3,123 13,407 6,700 7,500 110,729 613,200,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 704,182,362 58,692,000 65,700,000 828,574,362 80,000 25,000 0 by} 10,000 115,000 807,860,003 20,714,359 0 Qo Qo $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2030 80,000 3,266 14,403 6,700 7,500 111,868 613,200,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 +714,230,154 58,692,000 65,700,000 835,622,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 40,000 115,000 814,731,600 20,890,554 0 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2,500 20,836 Ld) 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 40,000 115,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 9 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 40,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 [e) 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 9 0 10,000 415,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 Qo 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK ine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 mites Bethel Diesel Plant 438 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines £100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Galion Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine. Total Fue Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuctlon 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal,5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $o $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2015 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,410,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2020 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $14,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $68,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2025 $75,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 - $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $21,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2030 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $41,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,690 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2035 $0 3,000,000 $1.37 2040 $0 $1.37 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 so 3,000,000 2055 2060 $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o 3,000,000 22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuet Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gations Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bathel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnet Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine .Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 KV T-Line 4100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $29,593,441 $21,187,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 349,841 4,503,461 $19,241,262 $1,804,153 $0 $0 $574,325 $1,567,000 $0 $23,186,760 2,100,000 5,000,000 $200,608 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,892,608 $0 2015 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 354,004 1,521,347 $19,470,194 $1,825,617 $o $0 $581,158 $1,567,000 $0 $23,443,968 2,100,000 5,000,000 $202,995 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $7,894,995 $o 2020 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 358,166 1,539,234 $19,699,105 $1,847,081 $0 $0 $587,991 $1,567,000 $0 $23,701,176 2,100,000 . 5,000,000 $205,382 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $7,897,382 $0 2025 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 361,238 1,552,439 $19,868,102 $1,862,927 $0 $o $593,035 $1,567,000 $0 $23,891,063 2,100,000 5,000,000 $207,144 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $7,899,144 $0 2030, $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 364,311 © 1,565,644 $20,037,098 $1,878,772 $0 -$0 $598,079 $1,567,000 $0 $24,080,950 2,100,000 5,000,000 $208,906 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,900,906 $0 2035 $0 $0 $0 so $0 67,253 * 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 '$0 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $o 2040 $0 $0 $0 $o $o 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2045 $0 $0 $0 $o $o 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $o 2050 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $o 2055 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $4,323,078 $0 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Aveage Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal,5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.044 $0.031 $0.025 $0.019 $0.013 $0.034 $0.012 $0.046 $0.089 $0.077 $0.071 $0.065 $0.058 0.094 0.082 0.076 0.070 0.063 $64,063,018 $55,637,546 $51,424,814 $47,212,075 $42,999,339 64,063,018 55,637,546 $1,424,811 47,212,075 42,999,339 3,390,208 3,390,208 2015 $0.043 $0.031 $0.025 $0.019 $0.012 $0.034 $0.014 $0.046 $0.089 $0.076 $0.070 $0.064 $0.058 0.094 0.081 0.075. 0.069 0.063 $64,370,345 $55,944,874 $51,732,138 $47,519,402 $43,306,666 384,685,436 334,132,606 308,856,191 283,579,776 258,303,361 3,437,940 20,388,984 2020 $0.042 $0.030 $0.024 $0.018 $0.012 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.088 $0.076 $0.070 $0.064 $0.058 0.093 0.081 0.075 0.068 0.063 $64,677,672 $56,252,201 $52,039,465 $47,826,729 $43,613,993 706,844,489 614,164,300 567,824,206 521,484,112 475,144,018 3,485,673 41,064,357 2026 $0.042 $0.030 $0.024 $0.018 $0.012 $0.034 $0.014 $0.045 $0.087 $0.075 $0.069 >$0.063 $0.057 0.092 0.080 0.074 0.068 0.062 $64,904,560 $56,479,088 $52,266,352 $48,053,617 $43,840,881 1,030,459,737895,652,191 828,248,418 760,844,644 693,440,871 3,520,912 62,013,633 2030 $0.042 $0.030 $0.024 $0.018 $0,012 $0.034 $0.011 $0.045 $0.087 $0.075 $0.069 $0.063 $0.057 0.092 0.080 0.074 0.068 0.062 $65,131,448 $56,705,976 $52,493,240 $48,280,504 $44,067,769 1,355,209,425 1,176,274,520 1,089,807,068 1,001,339,615 912,672,163 3,556,151 83,174,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,626,046,714 1,415,409,923 4,310,091,527 1,204,773,134 1,099,454,736 490,151 101,445,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,677,604 ,207 1,466,967,416 1,361,649,020 1,256,330,624 1,151,012,229 490,151 104,386,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.058 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 _$10,311,499$10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,729,161,700 1,518,524,909 1,413,206,513 1,307,888,118 4,202,569,722 490,151 107,327,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,780,719,194 -1,570,082,402 1,464,764,007 1,359,445,611 1,254,127,215 490,151 110,267,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,341,499 $10,311,499 1,832,276,687 1,621 ,639,896 4,516,321,500 4,411,003,1041,305,684,708 490,151 113,208,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 9.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,883,834 180 1,673,197,389 1,567 878,9931,462,560,597 1,357 ,242,202 490,151 116,149,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Fording Coal97MWLand-Based Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages :Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity In KWs. Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethet CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1)} Plant Costs Coal Plant $/KW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mlle 2010 60,000 2,281 9,580 3,500 7,500 82,861 438,000,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 502,841,628 30,660,000 65,700,000 599,201,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 $84,221,588 14,980,044 0 0 $680,900 2015 60,000 2,630 10,995 3,500 7,500 84,625 436,000,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 512,388,100 30,660,000 65,700,000 608,748,100 *97,000 46,000 9 0 0 143,000 593,529,397 45,218,702 0 '0 $680,900 2020 60,000 2,980 12.410 3,500 7,500 86,390 438,000,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 521,934,571 30,660,000 65,700,000 618,294,571 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 602,837,207 15,457,364 LY) 0 $680,900 2025 60,000 3,123 13,407 3,500 7,500 87,529 438,000,000 44,645,290 76,337,072 528,982,362 30,660,000 65,700,000 625,342,362 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 609,708,803 15,633,559 9 Ly) $680,900 2030 60,000 3,266 14,403 3,500 7,500 88,669 438,000,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 536,030,154 30,660,000 *65,700,000 632,390,154 97,000 443,000 616,580,400 15,809,754 0 9 $680,900 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 Q $0 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 924,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 443,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 9 $o 2055 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $o 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 o . 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 i] 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Bethel Utillties Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 438 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuet Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Galion Bethel cCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel . CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $o $227,995,000 $1430,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $392,282,800 ° $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,.940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2015 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 . 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201 ,896,940 $149,396,940 2020 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $0 $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $14,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 , $0 $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,144,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201,896,940 $149,396,940 2025 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $o $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,114,140 $4141,896,940 $306,896,940 $254,396,940 $201 896,940 $149,396,940 2030 $210,975,000 $17,020,000 $o $227,995,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $392,282,800 $19,614,140 $14,614,140 $12,114,140 $9,614,140 $7,414,140 $411,896,940 $306,896,940 $254 ,396,940$201,896,940 $149,396,940 2035 $o 3,000,000 $1.37 2040 $0 3,000,000 $1.37 2045 $o $1.37 2050 $o 3,060,000 $1.37 2055 2060 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oi!Gallons Bethet cCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gations Bethel ccK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oll Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fue!Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW - Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 261,237 4,122,680 $14,368,051 $1,347,216 $0 $o $428,866 $2,100,000 $o $18,244,133 2,100,000 5,000,000 $149,800 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $7,841,800 $o 2015 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 265,399 1,140,568 $14,596,963 $1,368,680 $o $0 $435,699 "$2,100,000 $0 $18,501,342 2,100,000 5,000,000 $152,187 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $7,844,187 $0 2020 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $14,987,997 269,561 1,158,453 $14,825,874 $1,390,144 $0 $o $442,532 $2,100,000 $o $18,758,550 2,100,000 5,000,000 $154,574 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $7,846,574 $o 2025 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 272,634 1,171,658 0 $55.00 | $1.20 $14,994,874 $1,405,990 $0 $0 $447,576 $2,100,000 $0 $18,948,436 2,100,000 5,000,000 $156,336 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,848,336 $o 2030 $33,051,676 $24,626,204 $20,413,469 $16,200,733 $11,987,997 275,707 1,184,863 $15,163,668 $1,421,835 $0 $0 $452,620 $2,400,000 $0 $19,138,323 *2,100,000 *5,000,000 $158,098 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $7,850,098 $0 2035 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2040 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 '$136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 4,400,000 2,500,000 . $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2045 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $o 2050 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 2055 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 .$5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $o $0 $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $o 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cast of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.066 $0.049 $0.041 $0.032 $0.024 $0.036 $0.016 $0.052 $0.118 $0.101 $0.092 $0.084 $0.076 0.123 0.106 0.097 0.089 0.081 $61,651,818 $53,226,346 $49,013,611 $44,800,875 $40,588,139 61,651,818 53,226,346 49,013,611 44,800,875 40,588,139 2,514,208 2,514,208 2015 $0.065 $0.048 $0.040 $0.032 *$0,023 $0.036 $0.015 $0.054 $0.116 $0.099 $0.091 $0.083 $0.075 0.121 0.104 0.096 0.088 0.080 $61,959,145 $53,533,674 $49,320,938 $45,108,202 $40,895,466 370,218,236 319,665,406 294,388,991 269,112,576 243,836,161 2,561,940 15,132,981 2020 $0.063 $0.047 $0,039 $0.031 $0.023 $0.036 $0.015 $0.051 $0.114 $0.098 $0.090 $0.082 $0.074 0.119 0.103 0.095 0.087 0.079 $62,266,472 $53,841,001 $49,628,265 $45,415,529 $41,202,793 680,321,288 587,641,100 541,301,006 494,960,912 448,620,818 2,609,673 30,552,357 lan 2025 $0.062 $0.047 $0.039 $0.031 $0.023 $0.036 $0.015 $0.051 $0.113 $0.097 $0.089 $0.081 $0.073 0.118 0.102 0.094 0.086 0.078 $62,493,360 $54,067,888 $49,855,152 $45,642,417 $41,429,681 991,880,537 857,072,991 789,669,218 722,265,444 654,861,671 2,644,912 46,245,633 2030 $0.062 $0.046 $0.038 $0.030 $0.022 $0.036 $0.015 $0.050 $0.112 $0.096 $0.068 $0.081 $0.073 0.117 0.101 0.093 0.086 0.078 $62,720,248 $54,294,776 $50,082,040 $45,869,304 $41,656,569 1,304 ,574,225 1,127,639,320 1,039,171,868 950,704,415 862,236,963 2,680,151 62,150,342 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,565,766,714 4,355,129,923 1,249,811,527 1,144,493,131 1,039,174,735 490,151 76,041,247 2040 .$0.000 $0.000 $0.00 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,341,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,617,324,207 1,406 687,416 1,301,369,020 1,196,050,624 1,090,732,229 490,151 78,982,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,668,881,7001,458,244,909 1,352,926,513 1,247,608,118 1,142,289,722 490,151 81,923,056 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0,044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0,105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,720,439,194 4,509,802,402 4,404,484,006 1,299,165,611 1,193,847,215 490,151 84,863,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.405 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,771,996,687 1,561,359,895 1,456,041,500 1,350,723,104 1,245,404 ,708 "490,151 87,804,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0,100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.405 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,823,554,180 1,612,917,389 1,507 598,993 1,402,280,597 1,296 962,202 490,151 90,745,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste.Heat Sales Bethel+68 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bathe Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Deniin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coa!Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW .Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 60,000 2,281 9,580 3,500 7,500 82,861 438,000,000 10,295,423 $4,546,206 502,841,628 30,660,000 65,700,000 599,201,628 97,000 46,000 0 ie) td) 443,000 $84,221,588 14,980,041 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2015 60,000 2,630 10,995 3,500 7,500 84,625 438,000,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 512,388,100 30,660,000 65,700,000 608,748,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 te) 143,000 593,529,397 15,218,702 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2020 60,000 2,980 12,410 3,500 7,500 86,390 438,000,000 43,269,790 70,664,781 521,934,571 30,660,000 65,700,000 618,294,571 97,000 \ 46,000 0 0 te) 143,000 602,837,207 15,457,364 0 0 $680,900 2025 60,000 3,123 13,407 3,500 7,500 87,529 438,000,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 528,982,362 30,660,000 65,700,000 625,342,362 97,000 46,000 0 0 i) 143,000 609,708,803 15,633,559 0 0 $680,900 2030 60,000 3,266 14,403 3,500 7,500 88,669 438,000,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 536,030,154 30,660,000 -65,700,000 632,390,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 616,580,400 15,809,754 0 0 $680,900 2035 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 Q 143,000 - 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2040 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 . 20,836 9 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 © 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0- 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 i] 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 LY) 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 i 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 9 2055 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836, 0 16,020,790) 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 . 97,000 46,000 0 Q Q 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 G Q $1,940 $370 $o 2060 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 - 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 9 0 143,000 124,202,400 3,107,754 9 9 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles. Totat Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fue!Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel ccK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethet CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Canstuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $o $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 ° $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $o $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387 ,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 "$0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 ¢0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $369,487 800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $o $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 tt 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 -$11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 *$369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 *$282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,180 2035 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 3,000,000 2040 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $o 3,000,000 2056 $0 3,000,000 0 0 2060 so $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $o so $0 $o $o 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annua!Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oli Gallons Bethet ccK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel ccK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Off Bethel CCK .Mine Annual Interest Fue!Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Totai O&M Coal-Plant Personnei Equipmenv Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,414 261,237 1,122,680 $14,368,054 $1,347,216 $0 $o $428,866 $2,100,000 $0 $18,244,133 2,100,000 5,000,000 $149,800 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,841,800 $0 2015 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,414 265,399 1,140,566 $14,596,963 $1,368,680 $o $0 $435,699 $2,100,000 $0 $18,501,342 2,100,000 5,000,000 $152,187 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,844,187 $0 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 269,564 1,158,453 $14,625,874 $1,390,144 $0 $0 $442,532 $2,100,000 $0 $18,758,550 2,100,000 5,000,000 $154,574 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,846,574 $o 2026 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,441 272,634 1,171,658 $14,994,871 $1,405,990 $0, $0 $447,576 $2,100,000 $o $18,948,436 2,100,000 §,000,000 $156,336 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,848,336 $o 2030 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 275,707 1,184,863 $15,163,868 $1,421,835" $o $o $452,620 $2,100,000 $0 $19,138,323 2,100,000 5,000,000 $158,098 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,850,098 $0 2035 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000: $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 2040 $0 $0 $0 $o $o 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,483 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2045 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2050 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $o 2058 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 4,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 ° $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal,5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% .$150 M Grants,Bal,5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100-M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.062 $0.045 $0.037 $0.028 $0.020 $0.036 $0.016 $0.052 $0.114 $0.097 $0.089 $0.080 $0.072 0.119 0.102 0.094 0.085 0.077 $59,731,232 $51,305,760 $47,093,024 $42,880,289 $38,667,553 59,731,232 51,305,760 47,093,024 42,880,289 38,667,553 2,514,208 2,514,208 2015 $0.061 $0.044 $0.036 $0.028 $0.020 $0.036 $0.015 $0.051 | $0,112 $0.096 $0.088 $0.079 $0.074 0.117 0,101 0.093 0.084 0.076 $60,038,559 -$54,613,087 $47,400,354 $43,187,616 $38,974,880 368,694,718 308,141,888 282,865,473 257,589,058 232,312,643 2,561,940 45,132,981 2020 $0.060 $0.044 $0.035 $0.027 $0.019 $0.036 $0.015 $0.051 $0.111 $0.094 $0.086 $0.078 $0.070 0.116 0.089 0.091 0.083 0.075 $60,345,886 $51,920,414 $47,707,678 $43,494,943 $39,282,207 659,194,840 566,514,651 520,174,557 .473,834,463 427,494,369 2,609,673 30,552,357 2025 $0.059 $0.043 $0.035 $0.027 $0.019 $0.036 $0.015 $0.051 $0.110 $0.094 $0.086 $0.078 $0.070 0.115 0.099 0.091 0.083 0.075 $60,572,774 $52,147,302 $47,934,566 $43,721,830 $39,509,095 961,151,157 826,343,611 758,939,837 691,536,064 624,132,291 2,644,912 46,245,633 2030 $0.058 $0.042 $0.034 $0.027 $0.019 $0.036 $0.015 $0.050 $0.108 $0.093 $0,085 $0.077 $0.069 0.113 0.098 0.090 0,082 0,074 $60,799,661 $52,374,190 $48,161,454 $43,948,716 $39,735,982 4,264,241,913 1,087,307,008 998,839,556 910,372,104 821,904,651 2,680,151 62,150,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,341,499 1,517,752,057 1,307,115,266 1,201,796,870 1,096,478,475 991,160,079 490,154 76,041,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 .$0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,569,309,551 1,358,672,759 1,253,354 ,363 4,148,035,968 1,042,717,572 490,151 78,982,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 *$0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,314,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,620,867 ,044 1,410,230,252 1,304,911,857 1,199,593,461 1,094,275,065 490,151 81,923,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,672,424,537 4,461,787,746 4,358,469,350 1,251,150,954 1,145,832,559 490,154 84,863,964 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 +0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,723,982,030 1,513,345,239 1,408,026 B43 $,302,708,447 1,197,390,052 490,151 87,804,868 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,498 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,775,539,523 4,564 902,732 1,459,584 ,336 1,354,265,941 1,248,947,545 490,151 90,745,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life 80 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Saies T-Line losses in Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CF8 Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost (1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethet CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 60,000 2,281 9,580 3,500 7,500 82,861 438,000,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 502,641,628 30,660,000 65,700,000 599,201,628 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 $84,221,588 14,980,041 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 *$250 $680,900 2016 60,000 2,630 10,995 3,500 7,500 84,625 438,000,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 512,388,100 30,660,000 65,700,000 608,748,100 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 §93,529,397 15,218,702 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 *$250 $680,900 2020 60,000 2,980 12,410 3,500 7,500 86,390 438,000,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 521,934,571 30,660,000 65,700,000 618,294,571 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 602,837,207 15,457,364 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2025 60,000 3,123 13,407 3,500 7,500 87,529 438,000,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 528,962,362 30,660,000 65,700,000 .625,342,362 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 609,708,803 15,633,559 a 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2030 60,000 3.266 14,403 3,500 7,500 88,669 438,000,000 . 16,020,790 82,009,364 536,030,154 30,660,000 65,700,000 632,390,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 616,580,400 15,809,754 0 0 0 $2,190 $370 $250 $680,900 2035 0 3,350 14,403 500 2,500 20,753 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,800,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000. 115,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 27,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 9 0 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 -80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 40,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 20556 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 6 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 id Q a $2,190 $370 $250 $0 2060 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 190,000 415,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coat Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 KV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV.DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction : 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bai.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $175,200,000 $8,250,000 $o $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $14,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,567,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2015 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,006,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 | $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2020 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,690 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2025 $175,200,000 _$9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,690 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2030 $175,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $186,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $351,237,800 $17,561,890 $12,561,890 $10,061,890 $7,561,890 $5,061,890 $368,799,690 $263,799,680 $211,299,690 $158,799,690 $106,299,690 2035 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $o 3,000,000 $1.37 2055 $0 3,000,000 2060 $o 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annuat Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK. Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs : Coal #1 Fuel Oit Bethel CCK Mine Annual interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equlpment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 -$29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 261,237 1,122,680 $14,368,051 $1,347,216 $0 $0 $428,866 $1,567,000 $0 $17,711,133 2,100,000 5,000,000 $149,800 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,841,800 $o 2015 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 265,399 1,140,566 $14,596,963 $1,368,680 $1,567,000 $0 $17,968,342 2,100,000 5,000,000 $152,187 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,844,187 $0 2020 $29,593,444 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 269,564 1,158,453 $14,825,874 $1,390,144 $0 $o$442,532 $1,567,000 $0 $18,225,550 2,100,000 5,000,000 $154,574 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $7,846,574 $o 2025 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 272,634 1,171,658 $14,994,874 $1,405,990 $0 $0 $447,576 $1,567,000 $0 $18,415,436 2,100,000 5,000,000 $156,336 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,848,336 $0 2030 $29,593,441 $21,167,970 $16,955,234 $12,742,498 $8,529,762 275,707 1,184,863 $15,163,868 $1,421,835 $0 $0 $452,620 $1,567,000 $0 $18,605,323 2,160,000 5,000,000 $158,098 $400,600 $192,000 $o $0 $7,850,098 $0 2035 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2040 $o $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $4,323,078 $o 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2050 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,914 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,323,078 $0 2058 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 .2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $o $136,099 $375,000 $o $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Demand,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bat.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power $100 M Grants,Bal.5%| $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annuai Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.059 $0.042 $0.034 $0.025 $0.017 $0.035 $0.016 $0.051 $0.110 $0.093 $0,085 $0.076 $0.068 0.4118 0.098 0.080 0.081 0.073 $57,660,583 $49,235,112 $45,022,376 $40,809,640 $36,596,904 57,660,583 49,235,112 45,022,376 40,809,640 36,596,904 2,514,208 2,514,208 2015 $0.058 $0.041 $0.033 $0.025 $0.017 $0.035 $0.015 $0.050 $0.108 $0,092 $0.083 $0.075 $0.067 0.113 0.097 0.088 0.080 0.072 $57,967,910 $49,542,439 $45,329,703 $41,116,967 $36,904,231 346,270,827 295,717,997 270,441,582 245,165,167 219,888,752 2,561,940 15,132,981 2020 $0.057 $0.041 $0,032 $0.024 $0.016 $0.035 $0.015 $0.050 $0,107 $0.091 $0.082 $0.074 $0.066 0.112 0.096 0.087 0.079 0.071 $58,275,237 $49,849,766 $45,637,030 - $41,424,294 $37,211,558 636,417,705 $43,737,517 497,397,423 451,057,329 404,717,235 2,609,673 30,552,357 2025 $0.056 $0.040 $0.032 $0.024 $0.016 $0.035 $0.015 $0.050 $0.106 $0.090 $0.082 $0,074 $0.066 0.111 0.095 0.087 0.079 0.071 $58,502,125 $50,076,653 $45,863,918 $41,651,182 $37,438,446 928,020,780 793,213,233 725,809,460 658,405,687 591,001,914 2,644,912 46,245,633 2030 $0.055 $0.039 $0.032 $0.024 $0.016 $0.035 $0.015 $0.049 $0.105 $0.089 $0.081 $0.073 $0.065 0.110 0.094 0.086 0.078 0.070 $58,728,013 $50,303,541 $46,090,805 $41,878,069 $37,665,334 1,220,758 ,293 4,043,823,388 955,355,936 866,868,484 778,421,031 2,680,151 62,150,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.405 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,314,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,465,985,843 1,255,349,051 1,150,030,656 1,044,712,260 939,393,864 490,151 76,041,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 "$10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,517,543,336 4,306,906,545 4,201,588,149 1,096,269,753 990,951,358 490,151 78,982,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,569,100,829 4,358,464,038 1,253,145,642 1,147,827,247 1,042,508,851 490,151 81,923,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,620,658,323 1,410,021,531 4,304,703,135 4,199,384,740 1,094,066,344 490,151 84,863,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,341,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,672,215,816 1,461,579,024 1,356,260,629 1,250,942,233 1,145,623,837 490,154 87,804,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,723,773,309 1,513,136,518 1,407 818,122 1,302,499,726 1,197,181,331 490,151 90,745,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Luscar Coal Valley Mine 97 MW Land-Based Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Totat KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CF8 Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 ie] 0 $680,900 2015 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0° 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 (¢) ie) $680,900 Combustion Turbine 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 §,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 46,000 (4) 0 0 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 2035 0 3,350 14,403 *600 2,500 20,753 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,000 143,000 *421,202,400 3,107,754 0 t) $0 2040 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 o 0 $0 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,225 $370 $0 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,225 $370 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,225 $370 $0 2060 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $2,225 $370 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethet Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethe!Diesel Plant 438 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $215,825,000 $17,020,000 $0 $232,845,000 $130,732,600 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $397,132,800 $19,856,640 $14,856,640 $12,356,640 $9,856,640 $7,356,640 $416,989,440 $311,989,440 $259,489,440 $206,989,440 $154,489,440 2015 $215,825,000 $17,020,000 $0 $232,845,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $o $397,132,800 $19,856,640 $14,856,640 $12,356,640 $9,856,640 $7,356,640 $416,989,440 $311,989,440 $259,489,440 $206,989,440 $154,489,440 2020 $215,825,000 $17,020,000 $0 $232,845,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $397 ,132,800 $19,856,640 $14,856,640 $12,356,640 $9,856,640 $7,356,640 $416,989,440 $311,989,440 $259,489,440 $206,989,440 $154,489,440 2025 $215,825,000 $17,020,000 $o $232,845,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $397,132,800 $19,856,640 $14,856,640 $12,356,640 $9,856,640 $7,356,640 $416,989,440 $311,989,440 $259,489,440 $206,989,440 $154,489,440 2030 $215,825,000 $17,020,000 $0 $232,845,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $397 132,800 $19,856,640 $14,856,640 $12,356,640 $9,856,640 $7,356,640 $416,989,440 $311,989,440 $259,489,440 $206,989,440 $154,489,440 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons _Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line 4+100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $33,460,311 $25,034,840 $20,822,104 $16,609,368 $12,396,632 346,258 1,311,429 $14,975,660 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $451,629 $1,770,000 $0 $18,771,003 2,100,000 5,200,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,066,985 $0 2015 $33,460,311 $25,034,840 $20,822,104 $16,609,368 $12,396,632 350,981 1,329,316 $15,179,912 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $457,789 $1,770,000 $0 $19,002,879 2,100,000 5,200,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,069,372 $0 2020 $33,460,311 $25,034,840 $20,822,104 $16,609,368 $12,396,632 355,703 1,347,202 $15,384,164 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $463,948 $1,770,000 $0 $19,234,755 2,100,000 5,200,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,071,759 $0 2025 $33,460,311 $25,034,840 $20,822,104 $16,609,368 $12,396,632 359,190 4,360,407 $15,534,956 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $468,496 $1,770,000 $0 $19,405,940 2,100,000 5,200,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,073,521 $0 2030 $33,460,314 *$25,034,840 $20,822,104 $16,609,368 $12,396,632 362,676 1,373,612 $15,685,747 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $473,043 $1,770,000 $0 $19,577,125 2,100,000 §,200,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,075,283 $o 2035 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0. $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860$423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2050 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2055 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $o $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2060 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs \Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh .Total BreakEven.Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal,5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.057 $0.042 $0.035 $0.028 $0.024 $0.032 $0.014 $0.045 $0.102 $0.088 $0.081 $0.074 $0.066 0.107 0.093 0.086 0.079 0.071 $63,250,508 $54,825,037 $50,612,301 $46,399,565 $42,186,829 63,250,508 54,825,037 50,612,301 46,399,565 42,186,829 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,126,088,188 $976,084 ,269 $901,082,310 $826,080,350 $751,078,391 2015 $0.056 $0.042 $0.035 $0.028 $0.021 $0.032 $0.013 $0.045 $0.101 $0.087 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 '0.106 0.092 0.085 0.078 0.071 $63,532,503 $55,107,032 $50,894,296 $46,681,560 $42,468,824 379,785,045 329,232,215 303,955,800 278,679,385 253,402,970 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.055 $0.041 $0.034 $0.027 $0.020 $0.032 $0.013 $0.045 $0.100 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 $0.065 0.105 0.091 0.084 0.077 0.070 $63,814,498 $55,389,026 $51,176,291 $46,963,555 .$42,750,819 697,729,556 605,049,367 558,709,273 512,369,179 466,029,085 3,047,673 _35,808,357 2025 $0,054 $0.041 $0.034 $0.027 $0.020 $0.031 $0.013 $0.045 $0.099 $0.085 $0.078 $0.072 $0.065 0.104 0.090 0.083 0.077 0.070 $64,022,684 $55,597,212 $51,384,476 $47,171,741 $42,959,005 1,017,010,232 882,202,685 814,798,912 747,395,139 *679,991,366 3,082,912 64,129,633 2030 $0.054 $0.040 $0.033 $0.027 $0.020 $0.031 $0.013 $0.044 $0.098 $0.084 $0.078 $0.071 $0.064 0.103 0.089 0.083 0.076 0.069 $64,230,870 $55,805,398 $51,592,662 $47,379,927 $43,167,191 1,337 331,838 1,160,396 ,933 1,07 1,929,481 983,462,028 894,994 576 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,604,543,053 1,393,906,261 1,288,587 ,866 1,183,269,470 1,077,951,074 490,154 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 »$10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,655,981,730 4,445,344,938 1,340,026,543 1,234,708,147 4,129,389,751 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 .$0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,707,420,407 1,496,783,616 1,391,465,220 1,286,146,824 1,180,828,429 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,758,859,084 1,548,222,293 1,442,903,897 1,337 ,585,501 1,232,267,106 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,810,297,761 1,599,660,970 4,494,342,574 1,389,024,178 1,283,705,783 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 ° $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,861,736,438 1,651 ,099,647 1,545,761,251 1,440,462,856 1,335,144,460 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Luscar Coal Valley Mine 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand *Bonlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel *Total KWH Sates T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 §,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,574 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 © {t] 0 $680,900 2025 _70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,562,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 [} 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 §25,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2040 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $1,990 $370 $0 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 i) 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $1,990 $370 $o 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 | 97,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 [} 0 $o 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormentat Studies Fuel Storage Gallons .Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $193,030,000 $17,020,000 $0 $210,050,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 _ $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $374,337,800 $18,716,890 $13,716,890 $11,216,890 $8,716,890 $6,216,890 $393,054,690 $288,054,690 $235,554,690 $183,054,690 $130,554,690 2015 $193,030,000 $17,020,000 $0 $210,050,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 .$4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $374,337,800 $18,716,890 $13,716,890 $11,216,890 $8,716,890 $6,216,890 $393,054,690 $288,054,690 $235,554,690 $183,054,690 $130,554,690 2020 $193,030,000 $17,020,000 $0 $210,050,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $374,337,800 $18,716,890 $13,716,890 $11,216,890 $8,716,890 $6,216,890 $393,054,690 $288,054,690 $235,554,690 $183,054,690 $130,554,690 2025 $193,030,000 $17,020,000 $o $210,050,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $374,337,800 $18,716,890 $13,716,890 . $11,216,890 $8,716,890 $6,216,890 $393,054,690 $288,054,690 $235,554,690 $183,054,690 $130,554,690 2030 $193,030,000 $17,020,000 $0 $210,050,000 .$130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $374,337 ,800 $18,716,890 $13,716,890 $11,216,890 $8,716,890 $6,216,890 $393,054,690 $288,054,690 $235,554,690 $183,054,690 $130,554,690 2035 $0 3,000,000 $1.37 2040 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service :5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuei Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Of]Gallons ,Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of PurchasedPwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $31,539,725 $23,114,254 $18,901,518 $14,688,782 $10,476,046 346,258 1,311,429 $14,975,660 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $451,629 $1,770,000 $0 $18,771,003 2,100,000 5,200,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,066,985 $0 2015 $31,539,725 $23,114,254 $18,901,518 $14,688,782 $10,476,046 350,981 1,329,316 $15,179,912 $1,595,179 $o $0 $457,789 $1,770,000 $0 $19,002,879 2,100,000 5,200,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,069,372 $0 2020 $31,539,725 $23,114,254 $18,901,518 $14,688,782 $10,476,046 355,703 1,347,202 $15,384,164 "$1,616,643 $0 $0 $463,948 $1,770,000 $0 $19,234,755 2,100,000 5,200,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,071,759 $0 2025 $31,539,725 $23,114,254 $18,901,518 $14,688,782 $10,476,046 359,190 1,360,407 $15,534,956 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $468,496 $1,770,000 $0 $19,405,940 2,100,000 §,200,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,073,521 $0 2030 $31,539,725 $23,114,254 *$18,901,518 $14,688,782 $10,476,046 362,676 1,373,612 $15,685,747 $1,648,334 $1,770,000 $0 $19,577,125 2,100,000 5,200,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,075,283 $0 2035 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2040 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2045 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2050 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2055 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bat.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh _ 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.053 $0.039 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.032 $0.014 $0.045 $0.099 $0.085 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.104 0.090 0.082 0.075 0.068 $61,329,922 $52,904,450 $48,691,715 $44,478,979 $40,266,243 61,329,922 52,904,450 48,691,715 44,478,979 40,266,243 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,091,894,795 $941,890,876 $866,888,917 $791 ,886,957 $716,884,998 ' 2015 $0,053 $0.039 $0.032 $0.024 $0.017 $0.032 $0.013 $0.045 $0.098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.075 0.068 $61,611,917 $53,186,445 $48,973,709 $44,760,974 $40,548,238 368,261,527 317,708,697 292,432,282 267,155,867 241,879,452 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.052 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.032 $0.013 $0.045 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.069 $0.062 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.074 0.067 $61,893,912 $53,468,440 $49,255,704 $45,042,968 $40,830,233 676,603,107 583,922,919 537,582,824 491,242,730 444,902,636 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.051 $0.037 * $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.031 $0.013 $0.045 $0.096 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 $0.062 0.101 0.087 0.080 0.073 0.067 $62,102,098 $53,676,626 $49,463,890 $45,251,154 $41,038,419 986,280,852 851,473,305 784,069,532 716,665,759 649,261,985 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.051 $0.037 $0.030 $0.024 $0.017 $0.031 $0.013 $0.044 $0.095 $0.081 $0.075 $0.068 $0.061 0.100 0.086 0.080 0.073 0.066 $62,310,284 $53,884,812 $49,672,076 $45,459,340 $41,246,605 1,296,999,526 1,120,064,621 1,031,597,169 943,129,717 854,662,264 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,556,528,396 1,345,891,605 1,240,573,209 1,135,254,813 1,029,936,418 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,607 967,073 1,397 ,330,282 1,292,011,886 1,186,693,490 1,081 ,375,095 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 ° $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,659,405,750 1,448,768,959 1,343,450,563 1,238,132,168 1,132,813,772 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 -$0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,710,844,428 1,500,207,636 1,394,889,240 1,289,570,845 1,184,252,449 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,762,283,105 1,551,646,313 1,446,327,918 1,341,009,522 1,235,691,126 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,813,721,782 1,603,084,990 1,497,766,595 1,392,448,199 1,287,129,803 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Luscar Coal Valley Mine 80 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+68 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine 'Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccKk Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK »Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mite 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 -80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 0 $2,240 $370 $250 $680,900 2015 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 691,750,897 . 17,737,202 0 Q 0 $2,240 $370 $250 $680,900 2020 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 80,000 25,000 0 i] 10,000 115,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 0 $2,240 $370 $250 $680,900 2025 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 80,000 25,000 0 it] 10,000 115,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 [} } 0 $2,240 $370 $250 $680,900 2030 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 80,000 © 25,000 0 ) 10,000 115,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 (°) 0 2035 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 i) 10,000 415,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2040 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 9 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 {1 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 a Q 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 it) 0 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 Qo 2060 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 80,000 25,000 0 i] 10,000 115,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Goal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Totat 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal..5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost ,5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $179,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $190,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $355,237,800 $17,761,890 $12,761,890 $10,261,890 $7,761,890 $5,261,890 $372,999,690 $267,999,690 $215,499,690 $162,999,690 $110,499,690 2015 $179,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $190,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 . $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $355,237 ,800 $17,761,890 $12,761,890 $10,261,890 $7,761,890 $5,261,890 $372,999,690 $267,999,690 $215,499,690 $162,999,690 $110,499,690 2020 $179,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $190,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $355,237,800 $17,761,890 $12,761,890 $10,261,890 $7,761,890 $5,261,890 $372,999,690 $267 ,999,690 $215,499,690 $162,999,690 $110,499,690 2025 $179,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $190,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $355,237,800 $17,761,890 $12,761,890 $10,261,890 $7,761,890 $5,261,890 $372,999,690 $267,999,690 $215,499,690 $162,999,690 $110,499,690 2030 $179,200,000 $9,250,000 $0 $2,500,000 $190,950,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $355,237,800 $17,761,890 $12,761,890 $10,264,890 $7,761,890 $5,261,890 $372,999,690 $267,999,690 $215,499,690 $162,999,690 $110,499,690 2035 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 2055 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oit $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel EquipmentSupplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $29,930,460 $21,504,988 $17,292,253 $13,079,517 $8,866,781 346,258 1,311,429 $14,975,660 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $451,629 $1,770,000 $0 $18,771,003 2,100,000 §,200,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $6,066,985 $0 2015 $29,930,460 $21,504,988 $17,292,253 $13,079,517 $8,866,781 350,981 1,329,316 $15,179,912 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $457,789 $1,770,000 $0 $19,002,879 2,100,000 5,200,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,069,372 $0 2020 $29,930,460 $21,504,988 $17,292,253 $13,079,517 $8,866,781 355,703 1,347,202 $15,384,164 $1,616,643 $0 $o $463,948 $1,770,000 $o $19,234,755 2,100,000 §,200,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $8,071,759 $0 2025 $29,930,460 $21,504,988 $17,292,253 $13,079,517 $8,866,781 359,190 1,360,407 $15,534,956 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $468,496 $1,770,000 $0 $19,405,940 2,100,000 5,200,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,073,521 $0 2030 $29,930,460 $21,504,988 $17,292,253 $13,079,517 $8,866,781 362,676 1,373,612 $15,685,747 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $473,043 $1,770,000 $0 $19,577,125 2,100,000 5,200,000 . $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,075,283 $o 2035 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $o $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 4,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $4,523,078 $0 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $o $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $o $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 4,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,523,078 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $o $o $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,523,078 $0 2055 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $o $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 76,593 232,911 $4,442,405 $279,493 $0 $0 $128,860 $423,750 $0 $5,274,507 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% '$200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.054 $0.036 . $0.029 $0.022 $0.015 $0.032 $0.014 $0.045 $0.096 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 $0.060 0.101 0.087 0.080 0.073 0.065 $59,720,657 $51,295,185 $47,082,449 $42,869,714 $38,656,978 59,720,657 51,295,185 47,082,449 42,869,714 38,656,978 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,063,244,046 $913,240,127 $838,238,168 $763,236,209 $688,234,249 2015 $0.050 $0.036 $0.029 $0.022 $0.015 $0.032 $0.013 $0.045 $0.095 $0.081 $0.074 $0.067 $0.060 0.100 0.086 0.079 0.072 0.065 $60,002,652 $51,577,180 $47,364,444 $43,151,709 $38,938,973 358,605,937 308,053,107 282,776,692 257,500,277 _232,223,862 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.049 $0.035 $0.028 $0.021 $0.015 $0.032 $0.013 $0.045 $0.094 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 $0.059 0.099 0.085 0.078 0.071 0.064 $60,284,647 $51,859,175 $47,646,439 $43,433,703 $39,220,968 658,901,191 $66,221,003 519,880,908 473,540,814 427,200,720 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.049 $0.035 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 $0.031 $0.013 $0.045 $0.093 $0.079 $0.073 $0.066 $0.059 0.098 0.084 0.078 0.071 0.064 $60,492,833 -$52,067,361 $47,854,625 $43,641,889 $39,429,153 960,532,610 825,725,064 758,321,291 690,917,517 623,513,744 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.048 $0.034 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 $0.031 $0.013 $0.044 $0.092 $0.079 $0.072 $0,065 $0.059 0.097 0.084 0.077 0.070 0.064 $60,701,019 $52,275,547 $48,062,814 $43,850,075 $39,637,339 1,263,204 ,959 1,086,270,055 997,802,602 909,335,150 820,867,697 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0,100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,516,296,769 1,305,659,978 1,200,341,582 1,095,023,186 989,704,791 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,567,735,446 1,357,098,655 1,251,780,259 1,146,461,863 1,041,143,468 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,619,174,123 1,408,537,332 1,303,218,936 1,197,900,540 1,092,582,145 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,670,612,800 1,459,976,009 1,354,657 ,613 1,249,339,218 1,144,020,822 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,722,051,477 "1,511,414,686 1,406,096,290 1,300,777,895 1,195,459,499 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.054 $0.046 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 $10,287,735 1,773,490,1551,562,853,363 1,457,534,968 1,352,216,5721,246,898,176 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Usibelli Coal 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel © Line Loss _ In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses in Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 0 $2,300 $370 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 0 $2,300 $370" $680,900 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 $680,900 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 t) 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2045 Q 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0° 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 ie] 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2055 .0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 416,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon :Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capita!Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $223,100,000 $17,020,000 $0 .$240,120,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 | $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $404,407,800 $20,220,390 $15,220,390 $12,720,390 $10,220,390 $7,720,390 $424,628,190 $319,628,190$267,128,190 $214,628,190 $162,128,190 2015 $223,100,000 $17,020,000 $0 $240,120,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $41,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $404,407,800 $20,220,390 $15,220,390 $12,720,390 *$10,220,390 $7,720,390 $424,628,190 $319,628,190 $267,128,190 $214,628,190 $162,128,190 2020 $223,100,000 $17,020,000 $0 $240,120,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $404,407,800 $20,220,390 $15,220,390 $12,720,390 $10,220,390 $7,720,390 $424,628,190 $319,628,190 $267,128,190 $214,628,190 $162,128,190 2025 $223,100,000 $17,020,000 $0 $240,120,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $404,407,800 $20,220,390 $15,220,390 $12,720,390 $10,220,390 $7,720,390 $424,628,190 $319,628,190 $267,128,190 $214,628,190 $162,128,190 2030 $223,100,000 $17,020,000 $0 $240,120,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 _$142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $404,407,800 $20,220,390 $15,220,390 $12,720,390 $10,220,390 $7,720,390 $424,628,190 $319,628,190 $267,128,190 $214,628,190 $162,128,190 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine 60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #4 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK -Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Ol Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loar O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr _Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line _+100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $34,073,265 $25,647,793 $21,435,057 $17,222,321 $13,009,585 581,245 4,311,429 $16,681,722 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $498,187 $2,695,000 | $0 $21,448,624 2,100,000 5,500,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,366,985 $0 2015 $34,073,265 $25,647,793 $21,435,057 $17,222,321 $13,009,585 589,172 1,329,316 $16,909,243 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $504,982 $2,695,000 $0 $21,704,404 2,100,000 5,500,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $8,369,372 $0 2020 $34,073,265 $25,647,793 $21,435,057 $17,222,321 $13,009,585 597,100 1,347,202 $17,136,764 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $511,776 $2,695,000 $0 $21,960,183 2,100,000 5,500,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,371,759 $0 2025 $34,073,265 $25,647,793 $21,438,057 $17,222,321 $13,009,585 602,952 1,360,407 $17,304,735 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $516,793 $2,695,000 $0 $22,149,016 .2,100,000 5,500,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,373,521 $0 2030 $34,073,265 $25,647,793 $21,435,057 $17,222,321" $13,009,585 -608,805 1,373,612 $17,472,705 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $521,809 $2,695,000 $0 $22,337,848 *2,100,000 5,500,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $8,375,283 $0 2035 103,229 232,911 $4,506,999 $279,493 $0 $0 $130,622 $645,000 $0 $5,562,115 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 103,229 232,911 $4,506,999 $279,493 $0 $0 $130,622 $645,000 $0 $5,562,115 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2045 103,229 232,911 $4,506,999 $279,493 $0 $0 $130,622 $645,000 $0 $5,562,115 4,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2050 103,229 232,911 $4,506,999 . $279,493 $0 $0 $130,622 $645,000 $0 $5,562,115 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 2055 103,229 232,911 $4,506,999 $279,493 $0 $0 $130,622 $645,000 $0 $5,562,115 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 103,229 232,911 $4,506,999 $279,493 $0 $0 $130,622 $645,000 $0 $5,562,115 1,400,000 2,700,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,523,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life © Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 7 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% jmulated WholeSale Cost of Powe: . :5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.058 $0.043 $0.036 $0.029 $0.022 $0.036 $0.014 $0.050 $0.108 $0.094 $0.087 $0.080 $0.073 - 0.113 0.099 0.092 0.085 0.078 $66,841,082 $58,415,610 $54,202,874 $49,990,139 $45,777,403 66,841,082 »58,415,610 54,202,874 49,990,139 45,777,403 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,190,013,404 $1,040,009,486 $965,007,526 $890,005,567 $815,003,608 2015 $0.057 $0.043 $0.036 $0.029 $0.022 $0.036 $0.014 $0.050 $0.107 $0.093 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 0.112 0.098 0.091 0.084 0.077 $67,146,981 $58,721,509 $54,508,773 $50,296,037 $46,083,301 401,352,390 350,799,560 325,523,145 300,246,730 - 274,970,315 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.056 -$0.042 $0.035 $0.028 $0.021. $0.036 $0.014 $0,050 $0.106 $0.092 $0.085 $0.078 $0.071 0.111 0.097 0.080 0.083 0.076 $67,452,879 $59,027,408 $54,814,672 $50,601,936 $46,389,200 737,393,192 644,713,004 598,372,909 552,032,815 $05,692,721 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.055 $0.042 $0.035 $0.028 $0.021 $0.036 $0.014 $0.050 $0.105 $0.091 $0.084 $0.077 $0.071 0.110 0.096 0.089 0.082 0.076 - $67,678,713 $59,253,241 $55,040,505 $50,827,769 $46,615,034 1,074,883,422 940,075,876 872,672,102 805,268,329 737,864,556 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.055 $0.041 $0.034 $0.028 $0.021 $0.036 $0.013 $0.049 $0.104 $0.090 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 0.109 0.095 0.089 0.082 0.075 $67,904,546 $59,479,074 $55,266,338 $51,053,603 $46,840,867 1,413,502,819 1,236,567,914 1,148,100,461 1,059,633,009 971,165,557 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.087 $0.046 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 1,695,696,345 1,485,059,554 1,379,741,158 1,274,422,762 1,169,104,367 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.057 $0.046 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 1,748,573,060 1,537 ,936,268 1,432,617,873 1,327,299,477 1,221,981 ,081 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.057 $0.046 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0,103 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 1,801,449,774 4,590,812,983 1,485,494,587 1,380,176,191 1,274,857,796 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.057 $0.046 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 0.108 0.108° 0.108 0.108 0.108 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 1,854,326,488 1,643,689,697 1,538,371,301 1,433,052,906 1,327,734,510 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.057 $0.046 $0.103 $0,103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 $10,576,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 1,907,203,203 1,696,566,412 4,591,248,016 1,485,929,620 1,380,611,224 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.057 $0.046 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 $0.103 0.108 .108 0.108 0.108 0.108 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 $10,575,343 1,960,079,917 1,749,443,126 1,644,124,730 1,538,806,335 1,433,487 939 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line 97 MW Barge-Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales,35%Efficiency Bethel+8 villages Year »1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Totat KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coat Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel cCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mite 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 §,000 7,500 94,3641 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 © 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2016 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 97,000 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 §,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 2035 0 3,350 14,403 500 2,500 20,753 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 (1) 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2040 0 3,433 14,403 §00 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2060 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 - 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line Year "Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Piant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gailon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 2015 $188,180,000 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $17,020,000 $0 $0 $205,200,000 -$205,200,000 $130,732,800 $13,732,800 $500,000 $500,000$4,100,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 *$0 $0 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 $1.37 $1.37 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $4,110,000 2010 2015 $0 $0 $369,487,800 $369,487,800 $18,474,390$18,474,390 $13,474,390 $13,474,390$10,974,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190'$177,962,190 $125,462,190 $125,462,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 © $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 »$0 $4,110,000 2020 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 "$13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 | $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0, $25,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,110,000 2025 $0 $369,487 ,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 _$8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387 ,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 -$188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 2030 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $17,962,190 - $125,462,190 2035 $0 3,000,000 $1.37 2040 $0 3,000,000 $0 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 3,000,000 0 t) $1.37 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Galtons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coai-Ptant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset 2010 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 270,480 1,311,429 $14,876,427 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $446,921 $1,567,000 $0 $18,466,063 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 .$192,000 $0 $0 2015 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 274,170 1,329,316 $15,079,326 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $455,044 $1,567,000 $0 $18,696,548 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 277,859 1,347,202 $15,282,225 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $461,166 $1,567,000 $0 $18,927,034 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2025 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 280,582 4,360,407 $15,432,017 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $465,687 $1,567,000 $0 $19,097,192 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o 2030 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 283,306 1,373,612 $15,581,810 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $470,207 $1,567,000 $0 $19,267,351 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2035 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2040 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2045 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $o $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 2055 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSate Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% $7,866,985 $0 2010 $0.053 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.031 $0.013 $0.045 $0,097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.069 $0.062 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.074 0.067 $60,416,346 . $51,990,875 $47,778,139 $43,565,403 $39,352,667 60,416,346 51,990,875 47,778,139 43,565,403 39,352,667 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,075,629,834 $925,625,915 $850,623,956 $775,621,997 $700,620,037 $7,869,372 $0 2015 $0.052 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.031 . $0.013 *$0.044 $0.096 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 $0.061 0.101 0.087 0.080 0.073 0.066 $60,696,951 $52,271,479 $48,058,743 $43,846,007 $39,633,272 362,778,682 312,225,852 286,949,437 261,673,022 236,396,607 2,999,940 17,760,981 $7,871,759 $0 2020 $0.051 $0.037 $0.030 - $0.023 $0.017 $0.031 $0.013 $0.044 « $0.095 $0.081 $0.074 $0.067 $0.060 0.100 0.086 0.079 0.072 0.065 $60,977,555 $52,552,084 $48,339,348 $44,126,612 $39,913,876 666,544,039 573,863,851 527,523,757 481,183,663 434,843,569 3,047,673 35,808,357 $7,873,521 $0 2025 $0.050 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.031 $0.013 $0.044 $0.094 $0.081 $0.074 $0.067 $0:060 0.099 0.086 0.079. 0.072 0.065 *$61,184,715 $52,759,243 $48,546,507 $44,333,771 $40,121,036 971,638,975 836,831,428 769,427,655 702,023,882 634,620,109 3,082,912 54,129,633 $7,875,283 $0 2030 $0.050 $0.036 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.031 $0.013 $0.044 $0.093 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 $0.060 0.098 0.085 0.078 0.071 0.065 $61,391,874 $52,966,402 $48,753,667 $44,540,931 $40,328,195 1,277,769,708 1,100,834,803 1,012,367 ,350 923,899,898 835,432,446 3,118,151 72,662,342 $4,323,078 $0 2035 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,533,648,703 4,323,011,911 1,217,693,516 4,112,375,120 4,007,056,724 490,151 88,743,247 $4,323,078 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,585,206,196 1,374,569,405 1,269,251,009 1,163,932,613 1,058,614,217 490,154 91,684,152 $4,323,078 $0 2045 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,636,763,689 1,426,126,898 1,320,808,502 1,215,490,106 4,110,171,711 490,151 94,625,056 $4,323,078 $0 2050 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,688,321,182 1,477,684 ,391 1,372,365,995 1,267,047,600 1,161,729,204 490,151 97,565,961 $4,323,078 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,739,878,676 1,529,241 ,884 1,423,923,488 1,318,605,093 1,213,286,697 490,151 100,506,866 $4,323,078 $0 2050 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,791,436,169 1,580,799,377 1,47§,480,982 1,370,162,586 1,264,844,190 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line 97 MW Barge-Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales,40%Efficiency , Bethel+8 villages Year, *4.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal!Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kw Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000" 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 143,000 691,750,897 47,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 707,930,303 48,152,059 0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 t!) ('] $1,940 $370 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 22/2004 'Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuet Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel cck Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel ccK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $208,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577 ,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 2010 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 *$0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,110,000 2015 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 >$230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 2020 $0 $369,487 ,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387 ,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 .$177,962,190 $125,462,190 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 2025 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $o $4,110,000 2030 $0 "$369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2035 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coat $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 136 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M 2010 $34,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 236,636 1,311,429 $13,014,966 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $398,122 $1,567,000 $0 $16,553,803 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 +$192,000 $0 $0 $7,866,985 2015 $31,134,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 239,863 1,329,316 $13,192,477 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $403,552 $1,567,000 $0 $16,758,208 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,869,372 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 243,091 1,347,202 $13,369,987 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $408,982 $1,567,000 $0 $16,962,612 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,871,759 2025 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 245,473 1,360,407 $13,501,037 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $412,991 $1,567,000 $0 $17,113,516 2,100,000 §,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $7,873,521 2030 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 247,856 1,373,612 $13,632,086 $1,648,334 $0 $0$416,999 $1,567,000 $0 $17,264,420 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,875,283 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 2055 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 2060 67,253 232,911 $4,707,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $136,099 $375,000 $0 $5,498,270 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Line PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh : 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% $0 2010 $0.053 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.028 $0.013 $0.041 $0.094 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 $0.058 0.099 0.085 0.078 0.074 0.063 $58,504,087 $50,078,615 $45,865,879 $41,653,143 $37,440,408 58,504,087 50,078,615 45,865,879 41,653,143 37,440,408 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,04 1,584,688 $891 ,580,769 $816,578,810 $741,576,851 $666,574,891 $0 2015 $0.052 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.028 $0.013 $0.041 $0.093 $0.079 $0.072 $0.065 $0.058 0.098 0.084 0.077 0.070 0.063 $58,758,610 $50,333,138 $46,120,403 $41,907,667 $37,694,931 351,279,043 300,726,214 275,449,799 250,173,384 224,896,969 2,999,940 17,760,981 $o 2020 $0.051 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.017 $0.028 $0.013 $0.041 $0.092 $0.078 $0.071 $0.064 $0.057 0.097 0.083 0.076 0.069 0.062 $59,013,133 $50,587,662 $46,374,926 $42,162,190 $37,949,454 645,326,617 552,646,428 506,306,334 459,966,240 413,626,146 3,047,673 35,808,357 $0 2025 $0.050 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.028 $0.013 $0.041 -$0.091 $0.077 $0.071 $0.064 $0.057 0.096 0.082 0.076 0.069 0.062 $59,201,038 $50,775,566 $46,562,831 $42,350,095 $38,137,359 940,580,188 805,772,644 738,368,868 670,965,095 603,561,322 3,082,912 54,129,633 $0 2030 "$0.050 $0.036 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.028 $0.013 $0.040 $0.090 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 $0.056 0.095 0.082 0.075 0.068 0.061 $59,388,943 $50,963,471 $46,750,735 $42,537,999 $38,325,264 1,236,773,282 1,059,838,378 971,370,925 882,903,473 794,436,021 3,118,151 72,662,342 $0 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 -0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,344,499 $10,311,499 1,484,640,552 1,274,003,761 1,168,685,365 1,063,366,969 958,048,573 490,151 88,743,247 $0 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,536,198,045 1,325,561,254 1,220,242,858 1,114,924,462 1,009,606,067 "490,151 91,684,152 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 -$0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,587,755,538 4,377,118,747 4,271,800,351 1,166,481 ,956 1,061,163,560 490,151 94,625,056 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,639,313,032 1,428,676,240 1,323,357 ,845 1,218,039,449 1,112,721 ,053 490,151 97,565,961 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 4,690,870,525 1,480,233,733 1,374,915,338 1,269,596,942 1,164,278,546 490,151 100,506,866 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.056 $0.044 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 $0.100 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 $10,311,499 1,742,428,018 1,531,791,227 1,426,472,831 1,321,154,435 1,215,836,040 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,with 1 million Equivalent diese!gallons Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Goitd Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kwW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 40,295,423 54,546,206 690,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 682,443,088 47,498,541 0 Q [} $1,940 $370 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 §,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 43,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,C00 719,034,571 97,000 46,000 :0 0 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2025 _ +70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 707,930,303 48,152,059 0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 44,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 46,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 9 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 16,020,790 82,009,36498,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 9 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 9 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 t] 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2060 Q 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 [) 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormentai Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal,5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010. $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 - $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $4,110,000. 2010 $11,600,000 $381 ,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $o $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000$4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $4,110,000 2015 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190$295,142,190$242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $4,110,000 2020 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $4,110,000 $0 $4,110,000 2025 $11,600,000 $381 ,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2030 *$188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 .$205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 "+$0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $4,110,000 2030 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 2060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 $1.37 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons Additional Coal for WH Total Coal #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #4 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual!Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine. Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel EquipmenvSupplies Combustion Turbine Personne! EquipmenvSupplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 305,157 6,000 341,157 1,311,429 $17,113,664 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $509,974 $1,567,000 $0 $20,764,351 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($1,000,000) $6,866,985 $0 2015 ¥ $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 309,320 6,000 315,320 1,329,316 $17,342,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $516,807 $1,567,000 $0 $24,021,559 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($1,000,000) $6,869,372 $0 2020 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $16,257,501 $11,044,765 313,482 6,000 319,482 1,347,202 $17,571,484 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $523,640 $1,567,000 $0 $21,278,767 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($1,000,000) $6,871,759 $0 2025 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 316,554 6,000 322,554 1,360,407 $17,740,481 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $528,684 $1,567,000 $0 $21,468,654 2,100,000 §,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $o ($1,000,000) $6,873,521 $0 2030 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 319,627 6,000 325,627 1,373,612 $17,909,478 $1,648,334 $0 $0: $533,728 $1,567,000 $0 $21,658,540 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($1,000,000) $6,875,283 $0 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 6,000 73,253 232,911 $5,127,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $147,561 $375,000 $0 $5,929,732 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($1,000,000) $3,323,078 $0 67,253 6,000 73,253 232,911 $5,127,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $147,561 $375,000 $0 $5,929,732 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($1,000,000) $3,323,078 $0 2045 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 67,253 6,000 73,253 232,911 $5,127,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $147,561 $375,000 $0 $5,929,732 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $1,000,000 $5,323,078 $0 2050 67,253 6,000 73,253 232,911 $5,127,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $147,561 $375,000 $0 $5,929,732 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 »$0 $1,000,000 $5,323,078 $0 2055 $o $o $0 $0 $0 67,253 6,000 73,253 232,911 $5,127,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $147,561 $375,000 $0 $5,929,732 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $1,000,000 $5,323,078 $0 67,253 6,000 73,253 232,911 $5,127,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $147,564 $375,000 $0 $5,929,732 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $1,000,000 $5,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh | 5% $100M Grants,Bal.5%*$150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0.054 $0.040 $0.033 $0.026 $0.019 $0.035 $0.012 $0.047 $0.104 $0.087 $0.080 $0.073 $0.066 0.106 0.092 0.085 0.078 0.071 $62,691,989 $54,266,517 $50,053,781 $45,841,045 $41,628,310 62,691,989 54,266,517 50,053,781 45,841,045 41,628,310 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,116,144,516 $966,140,597 $891 ,138,638 $816,136,679 $741,134,719 2015 $0.054 $0.039 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.035 $0.011 $0.046 $0.100 $0.086 $0.079 ¢ $0.072 $0.065 0.105 0.081 0.084 0.077 0.070 "$62,999,316 $54,573,844 $50,361,108 $46,148,373 $41,935,637 376,459,260 325,906,430 300,630,015 275,353,600 250,077,185 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.053 $0.039 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.035 $0.01 $0.046 $0.099 $0.085 $0.078 $0.071 $0.064 0.104 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.069 $63,306,643 $54,881,171 $50,668,435 $46,455,700 $42,242,964 691,763,166 599,082,978 552,742,883 506,402,789 460,062,695 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.052 $0.038 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0:035 $0.011 $0.046 $0.098 $0.084 $0.078 $0.071 $0.064 0.103 0.089 0.083 0.076 0.069 $63,533,531 $55,108,059 $50,895,323 $46,682,587 $42,469,851 1,008,523,268 873,715,721 806,311,948 736,908,175 671,504,402 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.051 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.018 $0.035 $0.011 $0.046 $0.097 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.102 0.089 0.082 0.075 0.068 $63,760,418 $55,334,947 $51,122,211 $46,909,475 $42,696,739 4,326,417,809 1,149,482,904 4,061,015,451 972,547,999 884,080,547 3,118,154 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0.034 $0.094 $0.004 $0.094 $0.094 $0.094 $0.094 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 1,591 202,442 1,380,565,651 1,275,247 ,255 1,169,928,859 1,064,610,464 490,154 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0,034 $0.094 $0.094 $0.094 $0.094 $0.094 $0.094 0.099 0.089 0.099 0.099 0.099 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 $9,742,960 1,639,917,244 1,429,280,452 4,323,962,057 1,218,643,661 1,113,325,265 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0.054 $0.115 $0.115 $0.145 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 0.420 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 1,690,632,046 1,479,995,254 1,374,676,859 1,269,358,463 1,164,040,067 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0.054 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 ”$11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 1,749,346,847 1,538,7 10,056 1,433,391,660 1,328,073,265 1,222,754,869 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0.054 $0.115 $0.145 $0.145 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 1,808,061,649 1,597,424,858 1,492,106,462 1,386,788,066 1,281,469,671 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.060 $0.054 $0.115 $0.115 $0.115 $0,115 $0.115 $0.115 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 $11,742,960 1,866,776,451 1,656,139,660 1,550,821 ,264 1,445,502,868 1,340,184,472 490,154 103,447,770 3/22/2004 _Doniin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,with 2 million Equivalent diesel gallons Waste Heat Sales Bethe!+8 villages Year 4.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gotd Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses tn Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel *CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,284 9,580 §,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 i) $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 it] 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 §,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,574 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 ¢ 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 QO $680,900 2035 0 3,350 14,403 500 2,500 20,753 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $o 2040 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 i} 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,340,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 ) $0 2050 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 i] 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 443,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 Qo 0 $0 2055 0 3,433 14,403 600 2,500 20,836 o 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2060 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 9 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges- Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel ccK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gailon Bethel cCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel ccKk Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 i) 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 .$0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 - $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 3 $11,600,000 $38 1,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 A 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381 ,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 *$11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2030 $188,180,000 ; $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190$295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 3,000,000 i¢] 0 $1.37 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bat.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons Additional Coal for WH Total Coat #1 Fuel Oil Galtons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethet CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #4 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine ,Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 438 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 305,157 12,000 317,157 4,311,429 $17,443,661 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $518,980 $1,567,000 $0 $21,103,356 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 "$400,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $5,866,985 $0 2015 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 309,320 12,000 321,320 1,329,316 $17,672,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $525,813 $1,567,000 $0 $21,360,564 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $5,869,372 $0 2020 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 - 313,482 12,000 325,482 1,347,202 $17,901,484 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $532,645 $1,567,000 $0 $21,617,772 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $5,871,759 $0 2025 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 316,554 12,000 328,554 1,360,407 $18,070,481 $1,632,488 $o $0 $537,690 $1,567,000 $0 $21,807,659 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $5,873,521 $0 2030 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 319,627 12,000 334,627 1,373,612 $18,239,478 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $542,734 $1,567,000 $0 $21,997,546 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $5,875,283 .$0 67,253 12,000 79,253 232,911 $5,547,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $159,022 $375,000 $0 $6,361,194 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $2,323,078 $0 67,253 12,000 79,253 232,911 $5,547,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $159,022 $375,000 $0 $6,361,194 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $2,323,078 $0 67,253 12,000 79,253 232,911 $5,547,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $159,022 $375,000 $0 $6,361,194 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $2,323,078 $0 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 42,000 79,253 232,911 $5,547,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $159,022 $375,000 $0 $6,361,194 1,400,000 2,500,000 $34,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $2,323,078 $0 67,253 12,000 79,253 232,911 $5,547,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $159,022 $375,000 $0 $6,361,194 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $2,323,078 $0 2060 67,253 12,000 79,253 232,911 $5,547,679 $279,493 $o $0 $159,022 $375,000 $0 $6,361,194 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($2,000,000) $2,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total , BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annuai Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.054 $0.040 $0.033 $0.026 $0.019 $0.036 $0.010 $0.046 $0.100 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 $0.064 0.105 0.091 0.084 ° 0.077 0.069 $62,030,994 $53,605,523 $49,392,787 $45,180,051 $40,967,315 62,030,994 53,605,523 49,392,787 45,180,051 40,967,315 2,952,208 2,952,208 2015 $0.054 $0.039 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.036 $0.010 $0.045 $0.099 $0.085 $0.078 $0.074 $0.064 0.104 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.069 $62,338,321 $53,912,850 $49,700,114 $45,487,378 $44,274,642 372,493,293 321,940,463 296,664,048 271,387,633 246,111,219 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.053 $0.039 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.035 $0.010 $0.045 $0.098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0,063 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.075 0.068 $62,645,649 * $54,220,177 $50,007,441 $45,794,705 $41,581,969 684,492,228 591,812,039 545,471,945 499,131,851 452,791,757 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.052 $0.038 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.035 $0.010 $0.045 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.070 $0.063 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 $62,872,536 $54,447,065 $50,234,329 $46,021,593 $41,808,857 997,947,358 863,139,814 795,736,038 728,332,265 660,928,492 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.051 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.018 $0.035 $0.009 $0.045 $0.096 $0.083 $0.076 $0.069 $0.062 0.101 0.088 0.081 0.074 0.067 $63,099,424 $54,673,952 $50,461,216 $46,248,481 $42,035,745 4,312,536,927 1,135,602,022 1,047,134,570 958,667,117 870,199,665 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 | $0.065 $0.024 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 1,574,109,044 1,363,472,253 4,258,153,857 4,152,835,462 4,047,517,066 490,151 88,743,247 2040 2 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.065 $0.024 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 1,619,981,155 1,409,344,363 1,304,025,968 1,198,707,572 1,093,389,176 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.0¢0 $0.000 $0.065 $0.024 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 1,665,853,265 1,455,216,474 1,349,898,078 1,244,579,6821,139,261 ,287 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.065 $0.024 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 1,711,725,375 1,501,088,584 1,395,770,188 1,290,451,793 1,185,133,397 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.065 $0.024 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 4,757,597,486 1,546,960,694 1,441,642,299 1,336,323,903 4,231,005,507 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 +$0.000 $0.065 $0.024 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 $0.089 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 $9,174,422 1,803,469,596 1,592,832,805 1,487,514,409 1,382,196,013 1,276,877,618 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,with 3 million Equivalent diesel gallons Waste Heat Sales Bethel+6 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand +Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Doniin Gold Mine Villages Bethet Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mins Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kw Combustion Turbine $/kW :Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile Year 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,364 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 tt) 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2010 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 '0 0 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 t) $1,940 $370 $680,900 2015 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2020 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 707,930,303 48,152,059 0 ) $680,900 2025 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000" 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 [¢) $680,900 2030 2035 0 3,350 14,403 500 2,500 20,753 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0° ie] 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2035 2040 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2040 2045 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,000 46,000 i) 0 Lt) 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2045 46,020,790 82,009,364 - 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 [s} 443,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2050 2055 0 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 ie] 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 Qo $¢ 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,000 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2060 3221/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 492 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormenta!Studies Fuel Storage Gallons .Bethel CCK Mine Fue!Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethsi CCK Mine | Total Fuel Oit Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost. 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% $188,180,000 $17,020,000 2 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $38 1,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $41,600,000 $6,000,000" 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381,087,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190 $137,642,190 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0' $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 $4,110,000 $0 $o $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381,087 ,800 $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 - $400,142,190 $295,142,190 $242,642,190 $190,142,190$137,642,190 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $11,600,000 $381 ,087,800 © $19,054,390 $14,054,390 $11,554,390 $9,054,390 $6,554,390 $400,142,190 $295,142,190 . $242,642,190.$190,142,190 $137,642,190 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 9 0 $1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales - Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements - Coal Tons Additional Coal for WH Total Coal #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuet Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual!Fuel Costs Coat #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fue!Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel, Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnet Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 305,157 18,000 323,157 1,311,429 $17,773,661 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $527,986 $1,567,000 $0 $21,442,362 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $4,866,985 $0 2015 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $41,044,765 309,320 48,000 327,320 1,329,316 $18,002,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $534,818 $1,567,000 $0 $21,699,570 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $o ($3,000,000) $4,869,372 $0 2020 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 313,482 18,000 331,482 1,347,202 $18,231,484 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $541,651 $1,567,000 $0 $21,956,778 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $4,871,759 $0 2025 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 316,554 18,000 334,554 4,360,407 $18,400,481 $1,632,488 $o. $0 $546,695 $1,567,000 $o $22,146,665 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $4,873,521 $0 2030 $32,108,445 $23,682,973 $19,470,237 $15,257,501 $11,044,765 319,627 18,000 337,627 4,373,612 $18,569,478 $1,648,334 $o $0 $551,740 $1,567,000 $0 $22,336,552 2,100,000 *§,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $4,875,283 $0 67,253 18,000 85,253 232,911 $5,967,679 $279,493 $0 $0 $170,484 $375,000 $0 $6,792,655 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 .$0 ($3,000,000) $1,323,078 $0 67,253 18,000 232,911 $0 $279,493 $7,627 $375,000 $0 $662,120 1,400,000 2,500,000 _$31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $1,323,078 $0 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 67,253 18,000 232,911 $0 $279,493 $0 $0 $7,627 $375,000 $0 $662,120 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $1,323,078 $0 2050 *$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 18,000 232,911 $0 $279,493 $7,627 $375,000 $0 $662,120 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $1,323,078 $0 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 18,000 232,911 $0 $279,493 $375,000 $0 $662,120 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $1,323,078 $0 67,253 18,000 232,911 $0 $279,493 $o $0 $7,627 $375,000 $o $662,120 1,400,000 2,500,000 $341,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 ($3,000,000) $1,323,078 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Demand,20 Year Life,with Waste Heat Sales Year Power Costs Capita!Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bai.5% Fuel $/kWh >O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power : 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.054 $0.040 $0.033 $0.026 $0,019 $0.036 $0.008 $0.045 $0.099 $0,085 $0.078 $0.070 $0.063 0.104 0.090 0.083 0.075 0.068 $61,370,000 $52,944,528 $48,731,793 $44,519,057 $40,306,321 61,370,000 52,944,528 48,731,793 44,519,057 40,306,321 2,952,208 2,952,208 2015 $0.054 $0.039 $0.032 >$0.025 $0.018 $0.036 $0.008 $0.044 $0.098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.075 0.068 $61,677,327 $53,251,855 $49,039,120 $44,826,384 $40,613,648 368,527,327 317,974,497 292,698,082 267,421,667 242,145,252 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.053 $0.039 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.036 $0.008 $0.044 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.069 $0.062 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.074 0.067 $61,984,654 $53,559,182 $49,346,447 $45,133,711 $40,920,975 677,221,290 584,541,104 538,201,007 491,860,913 445,520,819 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.052 $0.038 $0.032 $0.025 $0.018 $0.036 $0.008 $0.044 $0.096 $0.082 $0.075 $0.069 $0.062 0.101 0.087 0.080 0.074 0.067 $62,211,542 $53,786,070 $49,573,334 $45,360,599 $41,147,863 987,371,448 852,563,901 785,160,128 717,756,355 650,352,582 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.051 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.018 $0.036 $0.008 $0.044 $0.095 $0.082 $0.075 $0.068 $0.064 0.100 0.087 0.080 0.073 0.066 $62,438,430 $54,012,958 $49,800,222 $45,587,486 $41,374,750 1,298,656,045 4,121,721,140 1,033,253,688 944,786,235 856,318,783 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.069 $0.013 $0.083 $0.083 $0.083 $0.083 $0.083 $0.083 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 $8,605,884 $8,605,884 $8,605,884 $8,605,884 $8,605,884 1,557,015,647 1,346,378,856 1,241,060,460 1,135,742,064 1,030,423,668 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.007 $0.013 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 1,593,914,531 1,383,277,739 1,277,959,343 1,172,640,948 1,067 322,552 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.007 $0.013 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 4,606,291,273 1,395,654 ,4821,290,336,086 1,185,017,690 1,079,699,295 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 . $0.007 $0.013 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 1,618,668,016 1,408,031 ,225 1,302,712,829 1,197,394,433 1,092,076,038 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.007 $0.013 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 4,631,044,759 1,420,407 9671,315,089,572 1,209,771,176 1,104,452,780 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.007 $0.013 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 $0.020 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 $2,475,349 1,643,421,501 1,432,784,710 1,327,466,314 1,222,147,919 1,116,829,523 490,151 103,447,770 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,50 Year Mine Life 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine '+138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 41.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use *Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses in Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2,Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 §,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 443,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 i $1,940 $370 $680,900 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 443,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 0 *$1,940 $370 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $680,900 2035 70,000 3,350 15,559 5,000 7,500 101,409 525,600,000 17,032,550 97,614,444 640,246,993 43,800,000 "65,700,000 749,746,993 143,000 731,003,318 18,743,675 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 2040 70,000 3,433 16,715 5,000 7,500 102,648 525,600,000 18,044,309 113,219,524 656,863,833 43,800,000 65,700,000 766,363,833 747,204,737 19,159,096 0 0 i] $1,940 $370 $0 2045 70,000 3,433 18,007 5,000 7,500 103,940 525,600,000 18,232,998 121,047,966 664,880,963 43,800,000 65,700,000 774,380,963 755,021,439 19,359,524 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 2050 70,000 3,433 19,298 5,000 7,500 105,231 525,600,000 18,421,686 128,876,408 672,898,094 43,800,000 65,700,000 782,398,094 762,838,141 49,559,952 0 0 Q $1,940 $370 $o 2055 70,000 3,433 20,590 §,000 7,500 106,523 525,600,000 18,610,375 136,704,850 680,915,224 43,800,000 65,700,000 790,415,224 143,000 770,654,844 19,760,381 0 0 [t) $1,940 $370 $0 7,500 107,814 525,600,000 18,799,063 144,533,292 688,932,355 43,800,000 65,700,000 798,432,355 143,000 778,471,546 19,960,809 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,50 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub,+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK _Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total.Fuet Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577 ,600 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $o $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0... $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487 ,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 '$282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 >2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 1 $142,577,800 $11,600,000: $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 | $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2035 $0 3,000,000 2040 . $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,50 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements. Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Olt $/Gallons :Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coat #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M 2010 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 305,157 1,311,429 $16,783,661 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $500,969 $1,567,000 $0 $20,425,345 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,866,985 2015 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,682 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 309,320 1,329,316 $17,012,573 $1,595,179 $0 $o $507,801 $1,567,000 $0 $20,682,553 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 . $400,000 $192,000 - $0 $0 $7,869,372 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 313,482 1,347,202 $17,241,484 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $514,634 $1,567,000 $0 $20,939,761 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,871,759 2025 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 316,554 1,360,407 $17,410,481 $1,632,488 $o .$o $519,678 $1,567,000 $0 $21,129,648 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,873,521 2030 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 349,627 1,373,612 $17,579,478 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $524,723 $1,567,000. $0 $21,319,535 © 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 - $0 $0 $7,875,283 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 326,871 1,404,746 $22,880,998 $1,685,695 $0 $0 $670,420 $375,000 $0 $25,612,113 2,100,000 §,000,000 $187,437 $400,000 $192,000 _$0 $0 $7,879,437 2040 334,116 1,435,879 $23,388,116 $1,723,055 $0 $o $685,278 $375,000 $0 $26,171,450 2,100,000 5,000,000 $191,591 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,883,591 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 337,611 1,450,901 $23,632,785 $1,741,081 $0 $0 $692,447 $375,000 $0 $26,441,313 2,100,000 5,000,000 $193,595 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,885,595 2050 341,106 1,465,922 $23,877,454 $1,759,106 $0 $0 $699,616 $375,000 $0 $26,711,176 2,100,000 5,000,000 $195,600 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,887,600 2055 344,602 1,480,943 $24,122,123 | $1,777,131 $0 $0 $706,785 $375,000 $0 $26,981,040 2,100,000 5,000,000 $197,604 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,889,604 348,097 1,495,964 $24,366,792 $1,795,157 $0 $0 $713,954 $375,000 $0 $27,250,903 2,100,000 5,000,000 $199,608 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,891,608 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,50 Year Mine Life Year PCE Payments Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5%: Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal,5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal,5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $62,375,628 $53,950,157 $49,737,421 $45,524,685 $41,311,949 62,375,628 53,950,157 49,737,421 45,524,685 41,311,949 2,952,208 2,952,208 2015 $62,682,955 $54,257,484 $50,044,748 $45,832,012 $41,619,276 374,561,098 324,008,268 298,731,853 273,455,438 248,179,023 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $62,990,283 $54,564,811 $50,352,075 $46,139,339 $41,926,603 +688,283,202 595,603,014 549,262,920 §02,922,826 456,582,731 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0 $0.050 $0.037 .$0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.075 0.068 $63,217,170 $54,791,699 $50,578,963 $46,366,227 $42,153,491 1,003,461 ,502 868,653,956 801,250,183 733,846,409 666,442,636 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0 $0.050 $0.036 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.070 $0.063 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 $63,444,058 $55,018,586 $50,805,850 $46,593,115 $42,380,379 "1,319,774,241 1,142,839,337 1,054,371 ,884 965,904,432 877,436,979 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $36,692,784 $36,692,784 $36,692,784 $36,692,784 $36,692,784 1,610,243,258 1,399,606,466 1,294 ,288,071 1,188,969,675 1,083,651,279 3,201,235 91,454,331 2040 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.040 $0.012 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0,057 $37,339,360 $37,339,360 $37,339,360 $37,339,360 $37,339,360 1,794,353,755 1,583,716,964 1,478,398,568 1,373,080,172 1,267,761,777 3,284,319 110,744,825 2045 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.040 $0.012 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 $0.052 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 $37,651,313 $37,651,313 $37,651,313 $37,651,313 $37,651,313 1,981 ,362,507 1,770,725,715 1,665,407,320 1,560,088,924 1,454,770,528 3,324,405 130,490,826 2050 $37,963,266 $37,963,266 $37,963,266 $37,963,266 $37,963,266 2,169,931 ,024 1,959,294 233 1,853,975,837 1,748,657 442 1,643,339,046 3,364,490 150,477,340 2055 $38,275,219 $38,275,219 $38,275,219 $38,275,219 $36,275,219 2,360,059,309 2,149,422,517 2,044,104,122 1,938,785,726 1,833,467 ,330 3,404,576 170,704,369 2060 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.040 $0.011 $0.051 $0.051 $0.051 $0.051 $0.051 $0.051 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 $38,587,173 $38,587,173 $38,587,173 $38,587,173 $38,587,173 2,551,747,359 2,341,110,568 2,235,792,172 2,130,473,776 2,025,155,381 3,444,662 191,171,911 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load 1st 20 Years,30 MW Thereafter 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Denlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss in Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated »Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 5,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 tf] 0 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 5,000 7,500 97,890 *525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,784 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 5,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 O°: $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 5,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 2035 262,800,000 17,032,550 97,614,444 377,446,993 13,140,000 65,700,000 456,286,993 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 444,879,818 11,407,175 0 0 $0 2040 35,000 3,433 16,715 1,500 7,500 64,148 262,800,000 18,044,309 413,219,524 394,063,833 13,140,000 65,700,000 472,903,833 97,000 46,000 ) 0 0 143,000 461,081,237 11,822,596 0 0 $0 2045 35,000 3,433 18,007 1,500 7,500 65,440 262,800,000 18,232,998 421,047,966 402,080,963 13,140,000 65,700,000 480,920,963 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 468 897,939 12,023,024 0 0 $0 2050 262,800,000 18,421,686 128,876,408 410,098,094 13,140,000 65,700,000 488,938,094 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 476,714,641 12,223,452 0 0 $0 2055 252,800,000 18,610,375 136,704,850 418,115,224 13,140,000 65,700,000 496,955,224 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 434,531,344 12,423,881 0 0 $0 2060 35,000 3,433 21,881 1,500 7,500 69,314 262,800,000 18,799,063 144,533,292 426,132,355 43,140,000 65,700,000 504,972,355 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 492,348,046 12,624,309 0 0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load 1st 20 Years,30 MW Thereafter Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diese!Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub,+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs :Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% °$150 M.Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,180 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2025 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $o $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 .$18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 $0 3,000,000 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,000,000 2060 $0 3,000,000 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load 1st 20 Years,30 MW Thereafter Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% "$250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine _Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil -Bethel CCK Mine Annuat}Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset 2010 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 305,157 1,311,429 $16,783,661 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $500,969 $1,567,000 $0 $20,425,345 2,100,000 §,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2015 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 309,320 1,329,316 $17,012,573 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $507,801 $1,567,000 $0 $20,682,553 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 313,482 4,347,202, $17,241,484 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $514,634 $1,567,000 $0 $20,939,761 2,100,000 5,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2025 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $16,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 316,554 1,360,407 $17,410,481 $1,632,488 $0 $0 $519,678 $1,567,000 $0 $21,129,648 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2030 $31,134,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 319,627 1,373,612 $17,579,478 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $524,723 $1,567,000 $0 $21,319,535 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2035 198,930 654,911 $13,925,100 $1,025,894 $0 $0 $408,009 $375,000 $0 $15,734,003 2,100,000 §,000,000 $114,072 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2040 206,175 886,045 $14,432,218 $1,063,254 $0 $0 $422,868 $375,000 $0 $16,293,340 2,100,000 5,000,000 $118,226 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 2045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 209,670 901,066 $14,676,887 $1,081,279 $0 $0 $430,037 $375,000 $0 $16,563,203 2,100,000 5,000,000 $120,230 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2050 $0 $o $0 $0 $o 213,165 916,087 $14,921,556 $1,099,305 $0 $0 $437,206 $375,000 $0 $16,833,066 2,100,000 5,000,000 $122,235 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 216,660 931,108 $15,166,225 $1,117,330 $444,375 $375,000 $0 $17,102,930 2,100,000 5,000,000 $124,239 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 2060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 220,156 946,130 $15,410,894 $1,135,365 $0 $0 $451,544 $375,000 $0 $17,372,793 2,100,000 5,000,000 $126,243 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load '1st 20 Years,30 MW Thereafter Year Total O&M PCE Payments Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Granis,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 7 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $7,868,995 $0 $0.053 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.035 $0.013 $0.048 $0.101 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 $0.065 0.106 0.091 0.084 0.077 0.070 $62,377,638 $53,952,167 $49,739,431 $45,526,695 $41,313,959 62,377,638 53,952,167 49,739,431 45,526,695 41,313,959 2,952,208 2,952,208 2015 $7,871,387 _$0 $0.052 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.034 $0.013 $0.048 $0.099 $0.085 © $0.078 * $0.071 $0.064 0.104 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.069 $62,684,970 $54,259,499 $50,046,763 $45,834,027 $41,621,291 374,573,163 324,020,333 298,743,918 273,467,503 248,191,088 2,999,940 - 17,760,981 2020 $7,873,779 $0 $0.051 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.017 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.098 $0.085 $0.078 $0.074 $0.064 0.103 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.069 $62,992,303 $54,566,831 $50,354,095 $46,141,359 $41,928,623 688,305,347 595,625,159 549,285,065 502,944,971 456,604,876 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $7,875,546 $0 $0.050 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.098 $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 $0.063 0.103 0.089 0.082 0.075 0,068 $63,219,195 $54,793,724 $50,580,988 $46,368,252 $42,155,516 1,003,493,752 868,686,206 801,282,433 733,878,659 666,474,886 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $7,877,313 $0 $0.050 $0.036 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.034 $0.013 $0.047 $0.097 $0.083 $0.076 $0.070 $0.063 0.102 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 $63,446,088 $55,020,616 $50,807,880 $46,595,145 - $42,382,409 1,319,816,621 1,142,881,717 1,054,414,264 965,946,842 877,479,359 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $7,808,107 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.042 $0.024 $0.062 $0.062 $0.062 $0.062 $0.062 $0.062 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 $25,429,345 $25,429,345 $25,429,345 $25,429,345 $25,429,345 1,599,030,318 1,388,393,527 1,283,075,131 1,177,756,735 1,072,438,339 1,887,235 90,140,331 2040 $7,812,266 $a $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 © $0.041 -$0.020 $0.061 $0.061 $0.061 $0.061 $0.061 $0.061 0.066 0.066 0.066 "0.066 0.066 $26,075,925 $26,075,925 $26,075,925 $26,075,925 $26,075,925 1,726,823,621 1,516,186,830 1,410,868,434 1,305,550,039 1,200,231 ,643 1,970,319 101,546,825 2045 $7,814,275 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.041 $0.019 $0.061 $0.061 $0.061 $0.064 $0.061 $0.061 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 $26,387,883 $26,387,883 $26,387,883 $26,387,883 $26,387,883 1,857,515,204 | 1,646,878,413 1,541,560,017 1,436,241,621 1,330,923,226 2,010,405 113,408,826 2050 $7,816,285 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.041 $0.019 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 $26,699,841 $26,699,844 $26,699,841 $26,699,841 $26,699,841 1,989,766,578 1,779,129,787 1,673,811,391 1,568,492,995 1,463,174,599 2,050,490 125,511,340 2055 $7,818,294 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.041 $0.019 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 $0.060 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 $27,011,800 $27,011,800 $27,011,800 $27,011,800 $27,011,800 2,123,577,743 1,912,940,952 1,807,622,556 1,702,304,160 1,596,985,765 2,090,576 137,854,369 2060 $7,820,303 $0 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.044 $0.018 $0.059 $0.059 $0.059 $0.059 $0.059 $0.059 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 $27,323,758 $27,323,758 $27,323,758 $27,323,758 $27,323,758 2,258,948,700 2,048,311,908 1,942,993,513 1,837,675,117 1,732,356,721 2,130,662 150,437,911 3/22/2004 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 97 MW Barge Mounted Coal Plant Bethel +46 MW Combustion Turbine +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales,Coal @ $57.25 /ton Bethel+8 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Dontin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant §/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 §,000 7,500 94,361 525,600,000 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 65,700,000 699,941,628 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 682,443,088 17,498,541 0 0 $680,900 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 5,000 7,500 96,125 525,600,000 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 65,700,000 709,488,100 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 691,750,897 17,737,202 0 0 $680,900 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 §,000 7,500 97,890 525,600,000 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 65,700,000 719,034,571 97,000 46,000 0. 0 0 143,000 701,058,707 17,975,864 0 0 $680,900 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 §,000 7,500 99,029 525,600,000 14,645,290 76,337,072 .616,582,362 43,800,000 65,700,000 726,082,362 97,000 46,000 Q 0 0 143,000 707,930,303 18,152,059 0 0 $680,900 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 §,000 7,500 100,169 525,600,000 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 65,700,000 733,130,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 714,801,900 18,328,254 0 0 $680,900 2035 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2040 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 (*] 0 $0 2050 0 3,433 14,403 £00 2,600 20,836 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 0 $1,940 $370 $0 2055 0 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 424,310,154 97,000 46,000 0 0 0 143,000 121,202,400 3,107,754 9 0 $0 2060 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 97,000 421,202,400 3,107,754 0 0 $0 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CccK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles . Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oi!Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5%; Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 (*] $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 "$369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387 ,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2015 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 | $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 .$387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2020 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 t) $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $126,462,190 2025 3188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 . $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $18,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387 ,962,190$282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2030 $188,180,000 $17,020,000 $0 $205,200,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $11,600,000 $6,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $4,110,000 $0 $0 $4,110,000 $0 $369,487,800 $16,474,390 $13,474,390 $10,974,390 $8,474,390 $5,974,390 $387 ,962,190 $282,962,190 $230,462,190 $177,962,190 $125,462,190 2035 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2040 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2045 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 2050 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 2055 3,000,000 it) 0 $1.37 2060 3,000,000 0 0 $1.37 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coat Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fue!Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments 2010 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 305,157 1,311,429 $20,979,577 $1,573,715 $0 $0 $615,474 $1,567,000 $0 $24,735,766 2,100,000 5,000,000 $174,985 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,866,985 $0 2015 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 309,320 1,329,316 $21,265,716 $1,595,179 $0 $0 $623,869 $1,567,000 $0 $25,051,764 2,100,000 5,000,000 $177,372 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,869,372 $0 2020 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 313,482 1,347,202 $21,551,856 $1,616,643 $0 $0 $632,263 $1,567,000 $0 $25,367,761 2,100,000 §,000,000 $179,759 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $7,871,759 $0 2025 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 316,554 1,360,407 $21,763,104 $1,632,488 '$0 $0 $638,461 $1,567,000 $0 $25,601,050 2,100,000 5,000,000 $181,521 $400,000 $192,000-$0- $0 $7,873,521 $0 2030 $31,131,090 $22,705,618 $18,492,882 $14,280,147 $10,067,411 319,627 4,373,612 $21,974,347 $1,648,334 $0 $0 $644,658 $1,567,000 $o $25,834,339 2,100,000 5,000,000 $183,283 $400,000 $192,000 :$0 $0 $7 ,B75,283 $0 2035 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 67,253 232,911 $5,884,598 $279,493 $0 $0 $168,217 $375,000 $0 $6,707,308 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $5,884,598 $279,493 $0 $0 $168,217 $375,000 $0 $6,707,308 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 67,253 232,911 $5,884,598 $279,493 $0 $0 $168,217 $375,000 $0 $6,707,308 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 2050 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 0 $87.50 $1.20 $5,884,598 $279,493 $0 $0 $168,217 $375,000 $0 $6,707,308 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $4,323,0/8 $0 2055 67,253 232,911 $5,884,598 $279,493 $0 $0 $168,217 $375,000 $0 $6,707,308 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $4,323,078 $0 2060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 67,253 232,911 $5,884,598 $279,493 $0 $0 $168,217 $375,000 $0 $6,707,308 1,400,000 2,500,000 $31,078 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $4,323,078 $0 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% "Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income 2010 $0.053 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.042 $0.013 $0.055 $0.108 $0.094 $0.087 $0.079 $0.072 0.143 0.099 0.092 0.084 0.077 $66,686,049 $58,260,578 $54,047,842 $49,835,106 $45,622,370 66,686,049 58,260,578 54,047,842 49,835,106 . 45,622,370 2,952,208 2,952,208 ! 2015 $0.052 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.017 $0.042 $0.013 $0.055 $0.107 $0.093 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 0.112 0.098 0.091 0.084 0.077 $67,052,166 $58,626,694 $54,413,959 $50,201,223 $45,988,487 400,482,413 349,929,583 324,653,168 299,376,753 274,100,338 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $0.051 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.017 $0.042 $0.013 $0.055 $0.108 $0.092 $0.085 $0.078 $0.071 0.114 0.097 0.090 0.083 0.076 $67,418,283 $58,992,811 $54,780,075 $50,567,339 $46,354,604 736,109,360 643,429,172 597,089,077 550,748,983 504,408,889 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $0.050 $0.037 $0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.042 $0.013 $0.054 $0.105 $0.091 $0.084 $0.077 $0.071 0.110 0.096 0.089 0.082 0.076 $67,688,573 $59,263,101 $55,050,365 $50,837,629$46,624,893 1,073,471,063 938,663,517 871,259,744 803,855,970 736,452,197 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $0.050 $0:036 "$0.030 $0.023 $0.016 $0.04 $0.013 $0.054 $0.104 *$0.090. $0.084 $0.077 $0.070 0.109 0.095 0.089 0.082 0.075 $67,958,862 $59,533,391 $55,320,655 $51,107,919 $46,895,183 1,412,184,216 41,235,249,311 4,146,781,859 1,058,314,406 969,846,954 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.068 $0.044 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 . $0.113 $0.113 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 1,695,540,202 1,484,903,410 4,379,585,015 1,274,266,619 1,168,948,223 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 _$0.068$0.044 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 1,753,142,883 1,542,506,091 1,437,187,695 1,331,869,300 1,226,550,904 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 -$0.068 $0.044 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 1,810,745,563 1,600,108,772 1,494,790,376 1,389,471,981 1,284,153,585 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.044 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 1,868,348,244 1,657,711,453 1,552,393,057 1,447,074,561 1,341,756,266 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.044 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 1,925,950,925 1,715,314,134 1,609,995,738 1,504,677,342 1,399,358,947 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $0.000 *$0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.044 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 $0.113 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 $11,520,536 1,983,553,606 1,772,916,815 1,687,598,419 1,562,280,023 1,456,961,627 490,151 103,447,770 COMBUSTION TURBINE -BETHEL Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 150 MW Barge Mounted Combined-Cycle Plant @ Bethel -#2 Fuel Oil +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales : Bethel+6 vilages Year 2010 2016 2020 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 Villages 2,281 2,630 2,980 Bethel 9,580 10,995 12,410 Line Loss §,000 §,000 . §,000 In Plant Use 2,500 2,500 2,500 Total KW 89,361.24 91,125.44 92,689.63 KWHs Donlin Gold Mine 625,600,000.00 525,600,000.00 §25,600,000.00Villages10,295,423 41,782,608 13,269,790Bethel54,546,206 62,605,493 70,664,781 Total KWH Sales 590,441,628 599,988,100 609,534,571 T-Line losses 43,800,000.00 43,800,000.00 43,800,000.00 In Plant Use 21,900,000.00 21,900,000.00 21,900,000.00 Total kWh Generated 656,141,628.49 665,668,099.65 675,234,571.20 Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant 0 0 0 Combustion Turbine Bethel 150,000 150,000 150,000 CCK Qo 0 0 Mine Q oO 9 Bethel Utilities Plant 0 0 UY) Tota!Capacity in KWs 180,000 150,000 150,000 Generation KWHs Coal Plant t)Q 9 Combustion Turbine Bethel 656,141,628 665,688,100"675,234,571 }CCK 0 Q VW)Mine Qo o 0 Purchased Power 0 0 0 2.Capital Cos{1) Plant Costs Coal Ptant $/kW $0 so $o Combustion Turbine $AW Bethel $620 $820 $820 CCK Mine Bathe!Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile $660,900 $680,900 $880,900 Plant Costs $: Coal Piant $o $0 $o Combustion Turbine Bethel $123,000,000 $123,000,000 $123,000,000 ccK . Mine $o $o $0 Bethel Utilities Plant Total $123,000,000 $123,000,000 $123,000,000 2025 70,000.00 3,423 13,407 5,000 2,500 94,029.37 525,600,000.00 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000.00 21,900,000.00 682,282,362.43 682,262,362 0 it} tt) $0 $820 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 2030 70,000.00 95,169.10 525,600,000.00 16,020,790 62,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000.00 21,900,000.00 689,330,153.66 150,000 0 689,330,154 LY] 0 0 $0 $820 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 2035 2,500 20,253.05 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934,533.66 119,934,534 $820 $o $o 2040 2,500 20,336.50 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,360.00 21,900,000.00 119,934 ,533.66 119,934,534 0 0 0 $0 $820 $o 2045 20,336.50 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934,533.66 119,934,534 0 LV) $o $820 $o 2050 16,020,790 62,009,364 96,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934 533,66 119,934,534 0- o $820 $0 $2055 20,336.50 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934 ,533.66 119,934 534 0 0 0 $0 $820 2060 16,020,790 62,009,364 96,030,154 4,389.00 21,800,000.00 119,934 533.66 119,934,534 0 _o 0 $o $820 $o 11/15/2003 Dontin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life -Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles © $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bethe!Diesel Plant $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 _$0 $o .$o $0 $o $o 138 kV Substations $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $o $o $0 $0 $o $o Vilage Sub.+Dist.Lines $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $o $o $o $0 $o $o #100 kV OC Line @ 385 miles $0 $0 so $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o so $o Total $142,577,800 $142,577 ,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577 ,800 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 Tug +3 Barges $o $0 $o so .$o $0 $o so $o $o so Enviormenta!Studies $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 Fuel Storage Gallons . Bethet 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 CCK 0 o o o 0 Q 0 0 9 0 o Mine 0 0 0 'LV)0 iy 0 ]Qo Q Q Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 ccK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel $25,000,000 .$25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 so $0 $o $o so CCK $0 $o .$0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 $o Mine $0 $o so $o $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $o Total Fuel Oil Storage $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 so $o $o $o $0 $0 Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2045 .2050 District Heating System $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 SubTotal Capital Costs $296,577,800 $296,577,800 $296,577 ,800 $296,577,800 $296,577,800 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o Interest During Constuction . . 5%$14,828,890 $14,628,890 $14,828,890 $14,828,890 $14,828,890 $o $o $0 $o $o $o $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$9,826,890 $9,828,890 $9,826,890 $9,828,890 $9,828,690 $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$7,328,890 $7,328,890 $7,326,890 $7,328,690 $7,328,890 $0 so.$o $0 ,$o $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$4,828,890 $4,628,890 $4,828,890 $4,826,890 $4,828,890 $o .$0 so so $o $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$2,326,890 $2,328,890 $2,328,890 $2,328,890 $2,328,890 $o :$0 $o $o $0 $o Total Capital Cost . : 5%$311,406,690 $311,406,690 $311,406,690 $311,406,690 $311,406,690 $0 $o :$o $0 $o $o $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$206,406,690 $206,406,690 $206,406,690 $206,406,690 $206 406,690 $o $o $o so so so $150 M Grants,Bal.5%|$153,906,690 $153,906,690 $153,906,690 $153,906,690 $153,906,690 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$101,406,690 $101,406,690 $101,406.690 $101,406,690 $101,406,690 $o $o $0 $o $0 $o $250 M Grants,Bal,5%$48,906,690 $48,906,690 $48,906,690 $48,906,690 $48,906,690 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $o 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5%$24,988,078 $24,988,078 $24,968,078 $24,988,078 $24,988,078 $o $o $o $o $o so $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$16,562,607 $16,562,607 $16,562,607 $16,562,607 $16,562,607 $o $o $0 $o $o $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$12,349,871 "$12,349,871 $12,349,871 $12,349,871 $12,349,871 $0 $0 $o $o $o $0. $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$8,137,135 $8,137,135 $8,137,135 $6,137,135 $8,137,135 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$3,924,399 $3,924,399 $3,924,399 $3,924,399 $3,924,399 $o $0 $0 $o $o $0 O&M Costs - Annual Fuel Requirements Coat Tons °°°°°°°-°-° #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel 31,292,908,44 31,748,201.68 32,203,494.93 32,539,620.36 32,875,745.79 7,864,937 69 7,864 937.69 7,864,937 69 7,864 937.69 7,864,937.69 7,864,93769 CCK Mine °.°a >oO °-i -- Coal $/Ton $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.60 $45.80 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel $1.04 §104 $1.04 $1.04 $104 $120 $120 $120 $1.20 $1.20 $1.20 CCK . Mine 2 .14/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel OW Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Suppty Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Suppiies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line *#100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/Wh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0 $32,544,625 $0 so $888,136 $0 $0 $33,432,760 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $6,292,000 2015 $0 $33,018,130 $o $33,919,187 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 so $0 $6,292,000 »$0 2015 $0.042 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 - $0.007 $0.057 $0.010 $0.067 $0.109 $0.095 $0.088 $0.081 $0.074 0.114 0.100 0.093 0.086 0.079 2020 $0 $33,491,635 $o so $913,979 $0 $0 $34,405,614 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $6,292,000 $0 2020 $0.041 $0.027 $0.020 $0.013 $0.006 $0.056 $0.010 $0.067 $0.108 $0.094 $0.087 $0.080 $0.073 0.113 0.099 0.092 0.085 0.078 2025 $0 $33,841,205 $0 $0 $923,519 $o $0 $34,764,724 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $6,292,000 so 2025 $0.041 $0.027 $0.020 $0.013 $0.006 $0.056 $0.010 $0.067 $0.107 $0.093 $0.087 $0.080 $0.073 0.112 0.098 0.092 0.085 0.078 2030 $0 $34,190,776 / $0 $0 $933,059 $o $o $35,123,834 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 *$192,000 $o $o $6,292,000 $o 2030 $0,040 $0.027 $0,020 $0.013 $0.006 $0.056 $0.010 $0.066 $0.108 $0.093 $0.086 $0.079 $0.073 0.111 0.098 0.091 0.084 0.078 2035 $o $9,437,925 $o $o $257,559 $o $o $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 so $o $3,392,000 so 2035 $0,000 $o.0c0 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2040 $o $9,437,925 $o so $257,559 $o $o $9,695,484 4,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 so 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,099 $0,035 $0.134 $0,134 $0.134 $0.134 $0,134 $0,134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2045 $0 $9,437,925 $0 so $257,559 $0 $0 $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $3,392,000 $o 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2050 $o $9,437,925 $0 $o $257,559 $o $o $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $3,392,000 so 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0,134 $0,134 $0,134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0,139 0.139 2055 $0 $9,437,925 $o $0 $257,559 $0 $o $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0,134 $0,134 $0.134 $0.134 $0,134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2060 $0 $9,437,925 $0 $0 $257,550 $o $o $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 $o 2050 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 44/15/2003 Donilin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annuaf WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annuai Net Income Accumulated Net income Mine 20 yearPower cost .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $67,665,047 $59,239,575 $55,026,840 $50,844,104 $46,601,368 87,665,047 59,239,575 55,026,840 50,814,104 46,601,368 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,204,682,971 $1,054,679,052 $979,677,093 $904,675,133 $829,673,174 2015 $68,199,206 $59,773,735 $55,560,999 $51,348,263 $47,135,527 406,524,442 355,971,612 330,695,197 ° 305,418,782 280,142,367 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $68,733,365 $60,307,894 $56,095,158 $51,882,422 $47,668,686 748,054,632 655,374,444 609,034,350 562,694,256 616,354,162 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $69,127,715 $60,702,243 $56,489,507 $52,276,771 $48,064,035 1,092,115,809 957,308,262 889,904,489 822,500,716 755,096,942 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $69,522,064 $61,096,592 $56,883,856 $52,671,120 $48,456,385 1,438,148,731 1,261,213,626 1,172,746,373 1,084,278,921 995,811,469 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,877,635: $13,577,635 1,729,814,620 1,519,177 ,8291,443,659,433 1,308,541,037 1,203,222,642 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 1,797 ,702,795 1,587 066,003 1,481,747,608 1,376,429,212 1,271,110,816 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 1,865,590,969 1,654,954,178 1,549,635,782 1,444,317,386 1,338,998,991 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 1,933,479,144 1,722,842,352 1,617,523,957 1,512,205,561 1,406,887,165 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 2,001,367 ,318 1,790,730,527 1,685,412,131 4,580,093,736 4,474,775,340 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 2,069,255,493 1,858,618,701 1,753,300,306 1,647,981,910 1,542,663,514 490,151 103,447,770 14/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 150 MW Barge Mounted Combined-Cycle Plant @ Bethel -#2 Fuel Oil +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+8 villages Year 4.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Goid Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss in Plant Use Total KW KWHs Doniin Goid Mine Villages Bethe! Total KWH Sales T-Line losses in Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethe! ccK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos{1) Plant Costs Coal Piant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethe! CCK Mine Bethe!Uulites Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel cCcK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethal Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Vilage Sub.+Dist.Lines +400 kV DC Line @ 385 miles 2010 60,000 2,281 9,580 3,500 2,500 77,861.24 438,000,000.00 10,295,423 54,546,206 502,841,628 30,660,000.60 21,900,000.00 555,401,628.49 150,000 0 o ti] 150,000 0 555,401,628 9 tt) o $o $820 $680,900 $0 $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 438,000,000.00 11,782,606 62,605,493 512,388,100 30,660,000.00 21,900,000.00 564,948,099.85 150,000 0 o 0 150,000 iy 564,948,100 0 0 0 so. $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2020 60,000 2,980 12,410 3,500 2,500 81,389.63 438,000,000.00 13,269,790 70,664,781 521,934,571 30,660,000.00 21,900,000.00 574,494,571.20 574,494,571 0 0 0 $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2025 60,000 3,123 13,407 3,500 2,500 82,529.37 438,000,000.00 14,645,280 76,337,072 528,982,362 30,660,000.00 21,900,000.00 581,542,362.43 581,542,362 0 0 0 $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2030 60,000 3,268 14,403 3,500 2,500 83,669.10 438,000,000.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 536,030,154 30,660,000.00 21,900,000.00 588,590,153.66 588,590,154 0 9 0 so $620 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o 2035 3,350 14,403 500 1,000 19,252.55 16,020,790 62,009,364 98,030,154 4,360,000.00 8,760,000.00 141,170,153.66 | 141,170,154 i) 0 0 $0 $820 2040 "3,433 14,403 500 1,000 19,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 150,000 0 ty 0 150,000 te) 141,170,154 0 0 ) so $820 2045 3,433 14,403 §00 1,000 19,336.00 16,020,790 62,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000,00 111,170,153.66 111,170,154 0 t) 0 2050 3,433 14,403 500 1,000 19,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00° 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 0 911,470,154 9 0 0 $o $620 2055 3,433 44,403 500 1,000 19,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000,00 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 111,170,154 0 0 0 $0 $820 19,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 191,170,153.66 141,170,154 0 0 0 $0 $620 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Totat $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 -Tug +3 Barges $o $o .$0 $0 so $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 Enviormentat Studies $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $o $0 $o $o $o Fuet Storage Gallons . Bethet 25,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 CCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mine 0 0 o ..0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 CCK . Mine Fuel Storage Costs . -Bethel $25,000,000 _$21,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 -$21,000,000 $o $o $o $0 $o $o CCK $0 :$0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o $o Mine $o $0 $o $o $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 Total Fuel Oll Storage $25,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $o .$0 $0 $o go.so Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2046 2050 2045 2050 °District Heating System $0 $o $0 $0 $0 -$0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 SubTotal Capital Costs $296,577,800 $292,577,800 $292,577,800 $292,577,800 .$292,577,B00 $o so go $o :$o $o Interest During Constuction 5%$14,628,690 $14,628,690 $14,628,890 $14,626,890 $14,628,890 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $o $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$9,828,690 $9,628,890 $9,626,890 $9,626,890 $9,628,890 $o 1 so $o go $o $o $150 M Grants,Bal.5%.$7,328,890 $7,128,890 $7,126,890 $7,128,890 $7,128,890 $o $o $o so $o $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$4,628,890 $4,628,890 *$4,628,890 $4,626,890 $4,628,690 .$o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$2,328,890 $2,128,890 $2,128,890 $2,126,890 -$2,128,890 $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 Total Capital Cost 5%$311,406,690 $307,206,690 $307,206,690 $307,206,690 $307,206,690 .$o $o so $o $o $0 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$206,406,690 $202,206,690 :$202,206,690 $202,206,690 $202,206,690 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$153,906,690 $149,706,690 $149,706,690 $149,706,690 $149,706,690 $0 .$0 $o $o _$0 $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$101,406,690 $97,206,690 $97,206,690 $97,206,690 $97,206,690 $0 $o $0 $o $o $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$48,906,690 $44,706,690 $44,706,690 .$44,706,690 $44,706,690 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 7 , 5%$24,988,078 $24,651,060 $24,651,060 $24,651,060 $24,651,060 $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$16,562,607 $16,225,588 $16,225,588 $16,225,588 $16,225,588 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$12,349,871 $12,012,852 $12,012,852 $12,012,852 $12,012,852 .$0 $a -$0 $0 $0 $o $200 M Grants,Bal,5%$8,137,135 $7,800,116 $7,800,116 $7,800,116 $7,600,116 $o"$o $o $o :$0 $o $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$3,924,399 $3,587,380 $3,587,380 $3,587,380 -$3,587,380 $0 $o $o $o $o $o O&M Costs .' Annual Fuel Requirements .; Coat Tons .*°ce °°©° - oo?°i #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel 26,488,385.36 26,943,678.61 27,398,97 1.86 27,735,097.29 26,071,222.71 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 CCK : Mine ->°°--to ---° Coal $/Ton $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 #1 Fuel Oil $/Gatlons Bethel $1.04 $1.04 $1.04 $104 $1.04 $4.20 $120 $120 $120 $120 $1.20 cCK " . Mine 2 : 41/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oi! Bethe! CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M CoatPlant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel EquipmentSuppiies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line, +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M S/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.§% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kwh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $o $27,547,921 $o $o $751,777 $o $0 $28,299,698 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $6,292,000 so 2010 $0.050 $0.033 $0.025 $0.016 $0.008 $0.056 $0.013 $0.069 $0.118 $0.102 $0.093 $0,085 $0.077 0.123 0.107 0.098 0.090 0.082 2015 $0 $28,021,426 $0 $26,786,124 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $0 2015 2020 $0 $28,494,931 $o $o $777,620 so $0 $29,272,551 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $0 2020 $0.047 $0.031 $0.023 $0.015 $0.007 $0.056 $0.012 $0.068 $0.115 $0.099 $0.091 $0.083 $0.075 0.120 "0.104 0.096 0.088 0.080 2025 $0 $28,844,501 $o $0 $787,160 $0 $0 $29,631,661 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $6,292,000 $0 2025 $0.047 $0.031 $0.023 $0.015 $0.007 $0.056 $0.012 $0.068 $0.115 $0.099 $0.091 $0.083 $0,075 0.120 0.104 0.096 0.088 0.080 2030 2035 $0 $0 $29,194,072 $8,748,236 $0 $o so $0 $796,700 $238,737 $o $o $0 $0 $29,990,771 $8,986,973 $1,600,000 1,000,000$4,100,000 2,000,000 $400,000 _$200,000 $192,000 $192,000 go $o so $0 $6,292,000 $3,392,000 $o $o20302035 $0.046 $0.000 $0.030 $0.000 $0.022 $0.000 $0.015 -$0.000 $0.007 $0.000 $0.056 $0.092$0.012 $0.035 $0.068 $0.126 $0.114 >$0.126 $0.098 $0,128 $0.090 $0.126 $0.082 $0.126 $0.074 $0.126 0.119 0.131 0.103 0.134 0.095 0.134 0.087 0.131 0.079 0.131 2040 $0 $8,748,238 $0 $o $236,737 $o $o $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $3,392,000 $o 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 0.134 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 2045 $0 $8,748,236 so $o $238,737 $o $0 $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 -$0 $o $3,392,000 $o 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0,126 0.431 0.134 0.134 0.131 0.131 2050 $0 $8,748,236 $o $o $238,737 $o $0 $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $3,392,000 so 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0,126 $0.126 0.131 0.134 0.131 0.134 0.131 2055 $0 $8,748,236 $o $o $238,737 $0 $o $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o so $3,392,000 $o 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0,126 $0.128 $0.126 $0.126 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.431 0.131 2060 $0 $8,748,236 $0. $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $o $3,392,000 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 41/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 2010 Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5%$62,093,984 $100 M Grants,Bai.5%$53,668,512 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$49,455,777 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$45,243,041 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$41,030,305 Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5%62,093,984 $100 M Grants,Bat.5%53,668,512 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%49,455,777 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%45,243,041 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%41,030,305 Annual Net Income 2,514,208 Accumulated Net Income 2,514,208 Mine 20 yearPower cost 5%$1,081,738,802 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$934,958,728 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$861,568,691 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$788,178,653 2015 $62,291,124 $53,865,653 $49,652,917 $45,440,181 $41,227,445 372,761,045 322,208,215 296,931,800 271,655,385 246,378,970 2,561,940 46,132,981 2020 $62,825,284 $54,399,612 $50,187,076 $45,974,340 $41,761,604 684,750,826 592,070,638 545,730,544 499,390,450 453,050,356 2,609,673 30,552,357 2025 $63,219,633 $54,794,161 $50,581,428 $46,368,689 $42,155,954 999,271,594 864,464,047 797,060,274 729,656,501 662,252,728 2,644,912 46,245,633 2030 $63,613,982 $55,186,510 $50,975,774 $46,763,039 $42,550,303 1,315,784,106 1,138,829,202 1,050,361 ,749 961,894,297 873,426,845 2,680,151 62,150,342 2035 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,583,089,1581,372,452,367 1,267,133,971 1,161,815,575 1,056,497,180 490,151 76,041,247 2040 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,669,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,647,434,779 1,436,797 ,987 4,331,479,592 1,226,161,196 1,120,842,800 490,151 78,982,152 2045 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,711,780,399 1,501,143,608 1,395,825,212 1,290,506,817 4,185,188,421 490,151 81,923,056 2050 $12,869,124 $12,669,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,776,126,020 1,565,489,229 1,460,170,833 1,364,852,438 1,248,534,042 490,151 84,863,961 2055 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,840,471,641 1,620,834,850 1,524 ,516,4541,419,198,058 1,313,879,663 490,154 87,804,866 2060 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,669,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,904,617,262 1,694,180,470 1,588,862,075 1,483,543,679 1,378,225,283 490,151 90,745,770 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 150 MW Barge Mounted Combined-Cycle Plant @ Bethel -#2 Fuel Oil +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethei+6 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss in Plant Use Total KW KWHs Dontin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos€i) Piant Costs Coat Plant $/kw Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK :Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant '138 kV T-Line/Mife Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel cCcK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diese!Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 mites 2010 80,000 2,281 9,580 5,800 2,500 100,164.24 600,685,714.29 10,295,423 54,546,206 665,527,343 50,808,000.00 21,900,000.00 738 ,235,342.78 738,235,343 Qo 0 0 $0 $820 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2015 102,825.44 800,685,714.29 11,782,606 62,605,493 675,073,814 58,692,000.00 21,900,000.00 755,665,814.13 150,000 i) 150,000 0 755,665,814 0 0 0 $o $820 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 so $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2020 104,589.63 600,685 ,714.2913,269,790 70,664,781 684,620,285 58,692,000.00 21,900,000.00 765,212,285.49 150,000 150,000 765,212,285 0 0 0 $0 $820 $680,900 so $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2025 80,000 3,123 13,407 6,700 2,500 105,729.37 600,885,714.29 14,645,290 76,337,072 691,668,077 58,692,000.00 21,900,000.00 772,260,076.72 150,000 150,000 0 772,260,077 0 "9 0 $0 $820 $680,900 $0 $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2030 106,869.10 600,685,714.29 16,020,790 82,009,364 698,715,868 58,692,000.00 21,900,000.00 779,307 867.95 779,307 868 0 o 0 $0 $820 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 2036 3,350 14,403 500 1,000 19,252.55 18,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 >441,170,154 Qo 0 0 $0 $820 2040 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 150,000 0 111,170,154 . 0 0 0 $0 $820 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 491,170,153.66 150,000 0 111,476,154 Q DY) 0 $0 $820 2050 18,020,790 62,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 114,170,154 9 9 0 $o $820 2055 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 111,176,153.66 411,170,1549 0 0 $o $820 2060 3,433 14,403 500 1,000 19,336.00 ' 18,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 8,760,000.00 111,170,153.66 150,000 0 111,170,154 0 0 0 $o $620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $o $0 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 2010 2015 '2020 +2025 2030 2035 2040 '2045 2050 2055 2060 Total $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577 ,800 $142,577,800 $0 $0 ;$o $o $0 $0 Tug +3 Barges $0 $o $o $o so so $o so $o $o $0 Enviormental Studies $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $o $o so $0 .so $0 Fuet Storage Galtons .Bethel 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 29,000,000 CCK 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i)0 0 0 Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon . . . Bethel $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1,00 CCK Mine Fual Storage Costs ; Bethel $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $o $o $o $o $o so CCK $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $0 Mine $o $o $o $o $0 -$0 $o $0 $o $o $o Totet Fuel Oil Storage $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $0 $0 so $o $o $o .Year 2010 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2060 2045 2050 District Heating System so $o $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 so 30 $0 SubTotal Capital Costs $300,577,800 $300,577,800 $300,577 ,800 $300,577 ,600 $300,577,800 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 Interest During Constuction ' 5%$15,028,890 $15,028,890 -$15,028,890 $15,028,890 $15,026,690 $o $o $o $o $o $o *$100 M Grants,Bal.5%$10,028,890 $10,028,890 $10,028,890 $10,028,690 $10,026,890 $o $o $o $o $o so $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$7,528,890 $7,528,890 $7,528,890 $7,528,690 $7,528,890 $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$5,028,890 $5,028,890 $5,028,690 $5,028,890 $5,028,890 $0 $o $o $o $0 $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$2,528,890 $2,528,890 $2,528,890 $2,528,690 $2,528,890 '$o $0 $o $o $o $o Total Capital Cost 5%$3 15,606,690 $315,606,690 $315,606,690 $315,606 690 $315,606.690 $o so $o $o $o $0 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$210,606,690 $210,606,690 $210,606,690 $210,606,690 $20,606,690 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5% .$158,106,690 $158,106,690 $158,106,690 $158,106,690 $158,106,690 $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$105,606,690 $105,606,690 $105,606 ,690 $105,606,690 $105,606,690 $o so $0 $0 $o $o $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$53,108,690 $53,106,690 $53,106,690 $53,106,690 $53,106,690 $o $0 $0 so $o $o 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5%$25,325,097 $25,325,097 $25,325,097 $25,325,097 $25,325,097 $o $0 $0 $o $o so $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$16,899,626 $16,899,626 $16,899,626 $16,899,626 $16,899,626 $o $o $o $o $0 $o $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$12,686,890 $12,686,890 $12,686,890 $12,686,890 $12,686,890 $o $0 so so $o $o $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$8,474,154 $8,474,154 $8,474,154 $8,474,154 $8,474,154 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$4,261,418 $4,261,418 $4,261,418 $4,261,418 $4,261,418 $o $o $o $o $o $o O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons -°-a .°-..°:- #1 Fuel Oil Gallons :Bethel 35,208,147.12 36,039,446.52 36,494,739,77 36,630,865.20 37,166,990.63 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 7,290,196.62 CCK Mine .°s °°°°---- Coal $/Ton $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 #1 Fuel Oll $/Gallons Bethel $1.04 $1.04 $1.04 $1.04 $1.04 §1.20 $1.20 $120 $120 $120 $1.20 ccK Mine 2 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annus!Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Ol Bethel CCK _Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Ptant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnet EquipmenvSupplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Saies Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bat.5% $250 M Grants,Bai,5% Fuel $/kWh O&M SkWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bat.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $206 M Grants,Bat.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $o $36,616,473 $o $37,615,729 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 so $o $6,292,000 $0 2010 $0.038 $0.025 $0.019 $0.013 $0.006 $0.057 $0.009 $0.066 $0.104 $0.091 $0.085 $0.079 $0.072 0.109 0.096 0.090 0.084 0.077 2015 $0 $37,481,024 $o so $1,022,849 $0 $0 $38,503,873 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $o 2015 $0.038 $0.025 $0.019 $0.013 $0.006 $0.057 $0,009 $0.068 $0.104 $0.091 $0.085 $0.079 $0.073 0.109 0.096 0.090 0.084 0.078 2020 $0 $37,954,529 $o $o $1,035,771 $0 $o $38,990,300 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $o 2020 $0.037 $0.025 $0.019 $0.012 $0,006 $0.057 $0.008 $0.066 $0.103 $0.091 $0.085 $0.079 $0.072 0.108 0.096 0.090 0.084 0.077 2025 $0 $38,304,100 $0 $1,045,311 $o $o $39,349,410 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 so so $6,292,000 so 2025 $0.037 $0.024 $0.018 $0.012 $0.006 $0.057 $0.009 $0.066 $0.103 $0.090 $0.084 $0.078 $0.072 0.108 0.095 0.089 0.083 0.077 2030 $0 $38,653,670 $0 $39,708,520 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 so $o $6,292,000 $0 2030 $0.036 $0.024 $0.018 $0.012 $0,008 $0.057 $0.009 $0.068 $0.102 $0.090 $0.084 $0.078 $0.072 0.107 0.095 0.089 0.083 0.077 2035 °$0 $8,748,236 $0 $o $238,737 $0 $o $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 $o 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.128 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 0.134 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 2040 $o $8,746,236 $0 $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 so $0 $3,392,000 $o 2040 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0,126 $0.126 $0.126 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 2045 $0 $8,748,236 $o so $238,737 $o $0 $8,986,973 4,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 so $0 $3,392,000 so 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.128 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 0.131 0.131 0,131 0.131 0.131 2050 $o $8,748,236 30 so $238,737 $0 $o $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 0.131 0.134 0.131 0.131 0.131 2055 $0 $8,748,236 $o $0 $238,737 $0 $o $8,986,973 1,006,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 so $o $3,392,000 so 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 $0.126 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 2060 $o $8,748,236 $0 $o $238,737 $o $o $8,986,973 1,000,000 2,000,000 "$200,000 $192,000 so $o $3,392,000 $o 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.092 $0.035 $0,126 $0.126 $0.126 $0,126 $0,126 ° $0.126 0.131 0.131 0.134 0.131 0.431 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $72,560,463 $64,134,991 $59,922,255 $56,709,519 $51,496,783 72,560,463 64,134,991 69,922,255 §5,709,519 $1,496,783 3,327,637 3,327,637 $1,309,819,462 $1,157,727,726 $1,081,681,858 $1,005,635,969 2015 $73,496,340 $65,070,668 $60,858,132 $56,645,396 $52,432,681 438,298,653 385,745,823 360,469,408 335,192,993 309,916,578 3,375,369 20,013,553 2020 $74,030,499 $65,605,027 $61,392,291 $57,179,556 $52,966,820 804,314,511 711,634,323 665,294,228 618,954,134 $72,614,040 3,423,101 40,313,499 2025 $74,424,648 $65,999,376 $61,786,641 $57,573,905 $53,361,169 1,174,861,355 1,040,053,808 972,650,035 905,246,262 837,842,468 3,458,340 60,887,347 2030 $74.819,197 $66,393,725 $62,180,990 $57,968,254 $53,755,518 1,547,379,944 1,370,445,039 1,281,977,5874,193,510,134 1,105,042,682 3,493,579 61,672,628 2035 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,859,525,857 1,648,689,065 1,543,570,670 1,438,252,274 1,332,933,878 490,151 99,630,676 2040 $12,869,124 $12,669,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,923,871,477 1,713,234,686 1,607 ,916,290 1,502,597,895 1,397,279,499 490,151 102,571,580 2045 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 1,988,217,098 1,777,580,307 1,672,261,911 1,566,943,515 1,461,625,120 490,151 105,512,485 2050 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 2,052,562,719 1,841 ,925,927 1,736,607 5321,631,289,136 1,525,970,740 490,151 106,453,389 2055 $12,889,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 2,116,906,340 1,906,271,548 1,800,953,153 1,695,634,757 1,590,316,361 490,151 111,394,294 2060 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 $12,869,124 2,181,253,960 1,970,617,169 1,865,298,773 1,759,980,378 1,654,661 ,982 490,151 114,335,199 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load;20 Year Mine Life . 150 MW Barge Mounted Combined-Cycle Plant @ Bethel -Propane +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+6 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Dontin Gold Mine Villages Bethe! Total KWH Sales 'T-Line tosses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coat Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel cCcK Mine Bethel Utillties Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethet CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos{1} Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $kW Bethet CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile Plant Costs $ Coal Piant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 2010 70,000.00 .2,281 89,361.24 525,600,000.00 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000 21,900,000 656,141,628 656,141,628 ti) 0 0 $o $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 2015 70,000.00 2,500 91,125.44 525,600,000.00 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000 21,900,000 665,688,100 150,000 0 665,688,100 0 0 $0 $820 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $0 $123,000,000 2020 70,000.00 *2,980 12,410 5,000 2,500 92,889.63 525,600,000.00 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 43,800,000 21,900,000 675,234,571 150,000 9 675,234,571 Qo 0 $0 $0 $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 94,029.37 525,600,000.00 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000 21,900,000 682,282,362 150,000 0 682,282,362 o 0 0 $0 $820 $680,900 $0 $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 95,169.10 525,600,000.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000 21,900,000 689,330,154 150,000 Q Q 0 150,000 $680,900 $o $123,000,000 $o $123,000,000 2035 2,500 20,752.55 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 124,310,154 0 0 0 $0 $820 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 2040 16,020,790 82,009,364 96,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 124,310,154 0 0 0 $0 2045 500 2,500 20,838.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 124,310,154 0 0 0 $0 2050 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,836.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 124,310,154 0 0 0 $820 $o so 2055 3,433 14,403 500 2,500 20,636.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 150,000 0 124,310,154 0 Li} 0 $0 $820 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 2060 3,433 .14,403 500 2,500 20,836.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 21,900,000 124,310,154 124,310,154 Qo 0 0 $0 $820 $0 $o $o $0 $o 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life -Year 136 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines.+100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethe! CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gatlon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel :CCK Mine Total Fuel Oli Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5%- $200 M Grants,Bat.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bat.5% 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service ,5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oit Gallons Bethel CCK Mine 2010 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142/577,800 $o $6,000,000 $28,500,000 $0 $o $28,500,000 $0 $300,077,800 $15,003,890 $10,003,890 $7,503,890 $5,003,890 $2,503,890 $315,081,690 $210,081,690 $157,581,690 $105,081,690 $52,581,690 $25,282,970 $16,857,498 $12,644,762 $8,432,027 $4,219,291 47,859,742 2016 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $o $6,000,000 38,000,000 0 o $0.75 $28,500,000 $0 $0 $26,500,000 $0 $300,077,800 $15,003,890 $10,003,890 $7,503,890 $5,003,890 $2,503,890 $315,081,690 $210,081,690 $157,581,690 $105,081,690 $52,581,690 $25,282,970 $16,857,498 $12,644,762 $8,432,027 $4,219,291 48,556,073 2020 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577 800 $o $6,000,000 38,000,000 0 ° $0.75 $28,500,000 $0 $0 $28,500,000 $0 $300,077 ,800 $15,003,890 $10,003,890 $7,503,890 $5,003,890 $2,503,890 $315,081,690 $210,081,690 $157,581,690 $105,081,690 $52,581,690 $25,282,970 $16,857,498 $12,644,762 $8,432,027 $4,219,291 49,252,404 2025 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $0 $142,577,800 $0 $6,000,000 38,000,000 $0.75 $28,500,000 $0 $o $28,500,000 $0 $300,077 ,800 $15,003,890 $10,003,890 $7,503,890 $5,003,890 $2,503,890 $315,081,690° $210,081,690 $157 ,581,690 $105,081,690 $52,581,690 $25,282,970 $16,857,498 $12,644,762 $8,432,027 $4,219,291 r 49,766,478 2030 $130,732,600 $500,000 $4;100,000 $7,245,000 $o $142,577 ,800 $o $6,000,000 38,000,000 $0.75 $28,500,000 $o $300,077 800 $15,003,890 $10,003,890 $7,503,890 $5,003,890 $2,503,890 $315,061,690 $210,081,690 $157,581,690 $105,081,690 $52,581,690 $25,282,970 $16,857,498 $12,644,762 $8,432,027 $4,219,291 60,280,552 so $o 38,000,000 12,487,577 38,000,000 Q Qo $0.75 12,467,577 2045 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 so $0 38,000,000 0 Qo $0.75 12,467,577 38,000,000 0 0 $0.75 12,467,577 $o $0 38,000,000 Qo Q $0.75 12,467,577 so $o 38,000,000 12,467,577 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Ot $/Galions Bethel $ CCK Mine Year Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel OW Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Piant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personne! Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 438 KV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M S/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bai.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $o $31,108,833 $o $o $848,953 $0 $0 $31,957,786 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $6,292,000 $0 2010 ° $0.043 $0.029 $0.021 $0.014 $0.007 $0,054 $0,011 $0.065 $0.108 $0.093 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 0.113 0.098 0.091 0.084 0.077 $o $31,561,448 $o $o. $861,305 $o $o $32,422,753 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $6,292,000 $0 2015 $0.042 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 $0.007 $0.054 $0.010 $0.065 $0.107 $0.093 $0.086 $0.079 $0.072 0.112 0.098 0.091 0.084 0.077 $32,014,063 0 $0 $873,657 $0 $0 $32,887,719 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $o $6,292,000 $o 2020 $0.041 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 $0.007 $0.054 $0.010 $0.064 $0.106 $0.092 $0.085 $0.078 $0.071 0.111 0.097 0.090 0.083 0.076 $o $32,348,211 so so. $882,776 $o $o $33,230,986 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $6,292,000 $0 2025 $0.041 $0.027 $0.021 $0.014 $0.007 $0.054 $0.010 . $0.064 $0.105 $0.091 $0.085 $0.078 $0.071 0.110 0.096 0.090 0.083 0.078 2030 $o $32,882,359 $0 $33,574,253 $1,800,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $6,292,000 $o 2030 $0.041 $0.027 $0.020 $0.014 $0.007 $0.054 $0.010 $0.064 $0.104 $0,091 $0.084 $0.077 $0.071 0.109 0.096 0.069 '0.082 0.076 | 2035 $0 $9,724,710 $0 $0 $265,385 $0 $0 $9,990,095 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,060 $192,000 $0 $0 $3,392,000 $o 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 , $0.000 $0.000 $0,102 $0.035 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 2040 $0 $9,724,710 $0 $o $265,385 $o $o $9,990,095 4,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $3,392,000 $o 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,102 $0.035 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 2045 $o $9,724,710 $0 $o $265,385 $o $o $9,990,095 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $a $0 $3,392,000 $o 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.102 $0.035 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 2050 $o $9,724,710 $o $o $265,385 $0 so $9,990,095 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 so $0 $3,392,000 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.102 $0.035 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 2055 $o $9,724,710 $0 so $265,385 $o $o $9,990,095 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $3,392,000 $o 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.02 $0.035 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 2060 $0 $9,724,710 $o $o $265,385 $0 $o $9,990,095 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.102 $0.035 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 $0.137 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 11/46/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSaie Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Year Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $66,484,964 $58,059,492 $53,646,756 $49,634,021 $45,421,285 66,484,964 $8,059,492 53,846,756 49,634,021 45,421,285 2010 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,183,673,214 $1,033,669,295 $958,667,338 $883,665,377 $808,663,417 2015 $66,997,663 $58,572,191 $54,359,456 $50,146,720 $45,933,984 399,422,482 348,869,652 323,593,237 298,316,623 273,040,408 2015 2,999,940 © 17,760,981 2020 $67,510,362 $59,084,691 $54,872,155 $50,659,419 $46,446,663 734,923,497 642,243,309 595,903,214 549,663,120 $03,223,026 2020 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025° $67,888,868 $59,463,397 $55,250,651 $51,037,925 $46,825,189 1,072,853,814 938,046,267 870,642,494 803,238,721 735,824,948 -2025 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $68,267,374 $59,841,903 $55,629,167 $51,416,431 $47,203,695 1,412,676,661 1,235,741,758 1,147,274,304 1,058,806,852 970,339,399 2030 3,118,154 72,862,342 2035 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,248 1,699,618,404 1,488,981,613 1,383,663,217 1,278,344,621 1,173,026,426 2035 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 1,768,979,635 1,558,342,844 1,453,024,448 1,347 ,706,0521,242,387,657 2040 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $13,672,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,672,246 $13,872,246 1,838,340,866 1,627,704,075 1,522,385,679 1,417,067,283 1,311,748,686 2045 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $13,872,246 $13,672,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,672,246 1,907,702,097 1,697,065,306 1,591,746,910 1,486,428,514 1,381,410,118 2050 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $13,872,246 ”$13,972,246 $13,672,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 1,977,063,328 1,786,426,5361,681,108,1411,5655,789,745 1,450,471,349 2085 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $13,872,246 $13,872,246 $13,872,248 $13,672,246 $13,872,246 2,046 424,559 1,835,787 ,767 1,730,469,372 1,625,150,976 1,519,832,580 2060 490,151 103,447,770 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 150 MW Land-Based Combined-Cycle Plant @ Bethel -#2 Diesel +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Bethel+6 villages Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages: Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donitn Gold Mine Vitlages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated | Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coai Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coat Plant Combustion Turbine Bethet ccK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kw Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethet CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK . Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 2010 70,000.00 2,281 9,580 5,000 2,500 89,361.24 525,600,000.00 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 43,800,000.00 21,900,000.006568,141,628.49 656,141,628 tt] 0 0 $0 $890 $133,500,000 $0 $133,500,000 91,125.44 525,600,000.00 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 43,800,000.00 21,806,000.00 665,688,099.85 150,000 150,000 Qo 665,688,100 o 0 0 $0 $890 $680,900 $o $133,500,000 $0 $433,500,000 2020 70,000.00 2,980 12,410 §,000 2,500 92,889.63 525,600,000.00 13,269,790 70,684,781 609,534,571 43,800,000.00 21,900,000.00 675,234,571.20 150,000 0 150,000 0 675,234,571 Qo 0 o $o $890 $680,900 $o $133,500,000 $o $133,500,000 2025 70,000.00 3,123 13,407 5,000 2,500 94,029.37 §25,600,000.00 14,845,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 43,800,000.00 21,800,000.00 682,282,362.43 150,000 150,000 0 682,282,362 0 0 0 so $890 $680,900 $o $133,500,000 $o $133,500,000 2030 70,000.00 3,268 14,403 5,000 2,500 95,169.10 §25,600,000.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 43,800,000.00 21,900,000.00 689,330,153.66 150,000 0 689,330,154 oO 0 0 $0 $890 $680,900 $o $133,500,000 $o $133,500,000 2035 05 2,500 20,253.05 16,020,780 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 118,934 ,533.66 119,034,534 "oO 0 0 $o $o so $o $0 2040 3,433 14,403 05 2,500 20,336.50 16,020,790 62,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934 533.66 119,934,534 Uy) Qo $0 $890 2045 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934,533.66 419,934,634 0 Qo 9 $o $890 $o $o so $o $o 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934 ,533.66 97,000 150,000 0 0 0 247,000 0 119,934,534 () 0 0 $890 2055 05 2,500 20,336.50 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 118,934,533.66 150,000 0 119,934,534 0 Q 0 $0 $890 $o 2060 05 2,500 20,336.50 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380.00 21,900,000.00 119,934,533.66 247,000 0 119,934,534 0 Qo 0 $o $890 $0 $o $o $o $o 11/45/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life . Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 138 kV T-Line @ 192 mies $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $130,732,600 $130,732,800 $130,732,800 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 Bethel Diesel Plant $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $o $o $o $o $0 $o *138 kV Substations $4,100,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 -$4,100,000 $4,100,000 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o Vittage Sub.+Dist.Lines $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 $0 $o $o $0 $o $o +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles $0 $0 so $o $o $0 $o $o $0 $0 so Total $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 $142,577,800 '$o $0 $o $0 30 $o Tug +3 Barges $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o Enviermental Studies $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 _$o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 CCK 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 Qo 0 iy 0 G Mine G 0 Lt]0 O°0 Qo t)it]0 0 Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon . Bethel $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 CCK .Mine . Fuel Storage Costs Bethel $25,000,000 $25,000,000 _$25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $0 so $o $0 $0 so cCK $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o .$o $o $o $0 $0 Mine $0 $o $0 $0 $o $o $o.-$0 $0 $0 $o Total Fuet Oil Storage $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $o $o $o $o $0 $0 Year 2010 2015 2020 -2025 2030 -2035 2040 2045 2050 2045 2050 District Heating System $o $o $o $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $0 $0 SubTotal Capital Costs $307,077,800 $307,077,800 $307,077,800 $307,077,800 $307,077,800 $o $0 $0 $o $o $o interest During Constuction .'. 5%$15,353,890 $15,353,890 $15,353,690 $15,353,890 $15,353,890 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$10,353,890 $10,353,890 $10,353,690 $10,353,690 $10,353,890 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$7,853,890 $7,853,890 $7,853,890 $7,853,890 $7,853,890 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 .$0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$5,353,890 $5,353,890 $5,353,890 $5,353,890 $5,353,890 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$2,853,890 $2,853,890 $2,653,690 $2,853,890 $2,853,890 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $o Total Capital Cost 5%$322,431,690 $322,431,690 $322,431,690 $322,431,690 $322,431,690 $0 $o $o $o $o $0 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$217,431,690 $217,431,690 $217,431,690 $217,431,690 $217,431,690 $o :$o $o $0 $0 $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$164,931,690 $164,931,690 $164,931,690 $164,931,690 $164,931,690 $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$112,431,690 "$112,431,690 $112,431,690 $112,431,690 $112,431,690 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$59,931,690 $59,931,690 $59,931,690 $59,931,690 $59,931,690 $o $0 $o $0 $o $o 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5%$25,872,753 $25,872,753 $25,872,753 $25,872,753 $25,872,753 $0 $o $0 $o so $o $100 M Grants,Bal.5%$17,447,281 $17,447,281 $17,447,281 $17,447,281 $17,447,281 $o $0 $o $0 $o $0 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$13,234,546 $13,234,546 $13,234,546 $13,234,548 $13,234,546 $o $o $o $0 $0 .$o $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$9,021,810 $9,021,810 $9,021,810 $9,021,810 $9,021,610 so $o $0 $o $o $o $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$4,809,074 $4,809,074 $4,609,074 $4,809,074 $4,809,074 $o so $0 $o $0 $0 O&M Costs Annus Fuel Requirements Coal Tons -°°-°©°-.-- #1 Fuel Oil Gallons .. Bethel 31,292,908.44 31,748,201.68 32,203,494.93 32,539,620.36 32,875,745.78 7,864,937.69 7 864,937.69 -7,864,937.69 7,664 937.69 7 864,937.69 7,884,937 69 ccK : Mine =°°.°°.°°-° Coal $/Ton $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 #1 Fuel Oil $/Galions : Bethel $104 $104 $104 $1.04 $104 $120 $120 $120 $1.20 $120 $1.20 ccK . Mine 2 11/46/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel ccK :Mine Annuai Interest Fue!Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel EquipmenvSupplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5 $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuet $/kWh O&M SAWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0 $32,544,625 $0 $868,136 $o $o $33,432,760 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $0 2010 $0.044 $0.030 $0.022 $0.015 $0.008 $0.057 $o.011 $0.067 $0.114 $0.097 $0.090 $0.083 $0.075 0.116 0.102 0.095 0.088 0.080 2015 $o $33,018,130 $o $33,919,187 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $o $6,292,000 $o 2015 $0.043 $0.029 $0.022 $0.015 $0.008 $0.057 $0.010 $0.067 $0.110 $0,098 $0.089 $0.082 $0.075 0.115 0.104 0.094 0.087 0.080 2020 $o $33,491,635 $o $913,979 $o $o $34,405,614 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $o 2020 $0.042 $0.029 $0.022 $0.015 $0.008 $0.056 $0.010 $0.067 $0.109 $0.095 $0.088 $0.082 $0.075 0.114 0.100 0.093 0.087 0,080 2025 $0 $33,841,205 $0 $923,519 $0 $o $34,764,724 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o $0 $6,292,000 $0 2025 $0.042 $0.028 $0.021 $0.015 $o.008 $0.056 $0.010 $0.067 $0.109 $0.095 $0.088 $0.081 $0.074 0.114 0.100 0.093 0.086 0.079 2030 $0 $34,190,776 $o so $933,059 $o $0 $35,123,834 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $192,000 $o so $6,292,000 $0 2030 $0.041 $0.028 $0.021 $0.014 $0.008 $0.056 $0.010 $0.068 $0.108 $0,094 $0.088 $0.081 $0.074 0.113 0.099 0.093 0.086 0.079 2035 $o $9,437,925 $0 $0 $257,559 $0 $0 $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 so. 2035 2040 $9,437,925 $0 $o $257,559 $o $0 $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 so $o $3,392,000 $o 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0,134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2045 $o $9,437,925 so $0 $257,559 $0 $0 $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $0 $3,392,000 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2050 $o $9,437,925 $o $o $257,559 so $o $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 $o 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2055 $o $9,437,925 $o $o $257,559 $o $0 $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $o $o $3,392,000 so 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 -$0.000 $0.099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 2060 $0 $9,437,925 $o $257,559 $0 $0 $9,695,484 1,000,000 2,000,000 $200,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $3,392,000 $0 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,099 $0.035 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 $0.134 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 14/46/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumuiated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost : 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $68,549,722 $60,124,250 $55,911,514 $51,698,778 $47,486,042 68,549,722 60,124,250 55,911,514 61,696,778 47 486,042 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,220,433,382 $1,070,429,463 $995,427,504 $920,.425,545 $645,423,585 2015 $69,083,881 $60,658,409 $56,445,673 $52,232,937 $48,020,202 411,832,489 361,279,659 336,003,244 310,726,629 285,450,414 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $69,618,040 $61,192,568 $56,979,832 $52,767,097 $46,554,361 757,786,052 665,105,864618,765,770 572,425,676 626,085,581 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $70,012,389 $61,586,917 $57,374,182 $53,161,446 $48,948,710 1,106,270,601 971,463,055 904,059,281 836,655,508 769,251,735 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $70,406,736 $61,981,267 $57,768,531 $53,555,795 $49,343,069 1,456,726,896 1,279,791,991 1,194,324,538 1,102,857,086 1,014,389,634 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,877,635 $13,577,635 1,751 ,931,483 1,541,294 692 1,435,976,296 1,330,657,900 1,225,339,505 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,638 1,819,619,658 1,609,182,866 1,503,664,471 1,398,546,075 1,293,227,679 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 1,887,707 832 1,677,071,041 1,871,752,645 1,466,434 2501,.361,115,854 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $13,577,635 $13,577,638 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,835 1,955,596,007 1,744,959,215 1,639,640,820 1,534,322,424 1,429,004,028 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 2,023,484,1841 1,812,847 ,390 1,707,528,994 1,602,210,599 1,496,892,203 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 $13,577,635 2,091 372,356 1,880,735,565 1,775,417,169 1,670,098,773 1,564,780,377 490,151 103,447,770 11/15/2003 COMBUSTION TURBINE -CROOKED CREEK Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 110 MW Combined-Cycle Plant @ Crooked Creek -#2 Fuel Oil +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss tn Plant Use Total KW KWHs Doniin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses: In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine ,Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utitities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine | Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 70,000.00 0 0 0.5 2,500 72,500.5 525,600,000 0 0 §25,600,000 4,380 21,900,000 547,504,380 110,000 0 547,504,380 0 ('] 0 $0 $900 $680,900 2015 70,000.00 1,490 6,205 0.5 2,500 80,195.3 525,600,000 0 0 525,600,000 4,380 21,900,000 547,504,380 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 "547,504,380 0 0 ] $0 $900 $680,900 2020 70,000.00 2,980 12,410 0.5 2,500 87,890.1 525,600,000 - .0 ) §25,600,000 4,380 21,900,000 547,504,380 410,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 547,504,380 0 (¢] 0 $0 $900 $680,900 2025 70,000.00 89,029.9 525,600,000 0 0 525,600,000 4,380 21,900,000 647,504,380 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 §47,504,380 0 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 2030 70,000.00 3,266 2,500 90,169.6 525,600,000 0 0 525,600,000 4,380 21,900,000 547,504,380 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 547,504,380 0 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 14 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction '5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $o $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $o $4,100,000 $o $o $13,632,600 $o $3,000,000 25,000,000 0 $1.00 $25,000,000 $o $25,000,000 2010 $0 $140,632,600 $7,031,630 $2,031,630 $0 $147,664,230 $42,664,230 $0 2015 $o $99,000,000 $o $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $o $4,100,000 $0 $o $13,632,600 $o $3,000,000 25,000,000 0 $1.00 $25,000,000 $140,632,600 $7,031,630 $2,031,630 $0 $147,664,230 $42,664,230 $0 2020 $0 $99,000,000 $o $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $o $4,100,000 $o $o $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 25,000,000 0 $1.00 $25,000,000 $0 $25,000,000 2020 $o $140,632,600 $7,031,630 $2,031,630 $0 $147,664,230 _$42,664,230 $o 2025 $o $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $o $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 25,000,000 0 $1.00 $25,000,000 $0 $25,000,000 2025 $o $140,632,600 $7,031,630 $2,031,630 $o $147,664,230 ° $42,664,230 $0 2030 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 - $0 $o $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 25,000,000 0 $1.00 $25,000,000 $0 $25,000,000 2030 $0 $140,632,600 $7,031,630 $2,031,630 $0 $147,664,230 $42,664,230 $0 41/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel ccK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel ° Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KY DC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M 2010 $11,848,960 $3,423,488 $0 $0 $0 29,919,710.54 $45.80 1.25 so $37,399,638 $0 $1,020,628 $0 $0 $38,420,266 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $6,114,000 2015 $11,848,960 $3,423,488 $0 $0 $0 29,919,710.51 $45.80 1.25 $0 $37,399,638 $0 $1,020,628 $0 $0 $38,420,266 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $6,114,000 2020 $11,848,960 $3,423,488 $0 $0 $0 29,919,710.54 $45.80 1.25 $0 $37,399,638 $0 $1,020,628 $0 $o $38,420,266 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $6,114,000 2025 $11,848,960 $3,423,488 $0 $0 $0 29,919,710.51 . $45.80 1.25 $o $37,399,638 $0 $1,020,628 $0 $o $38,420,266 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $o $0 $6,114,000 2030 $11,848,960 $3,423,488 $0 $0 $0 29,919,710.51 $45.80 41.25 $o $37,399,638 $o $1,020,628 $0 $o $38,420,266 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $6,114,000 11/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year PCE Payments Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual WholeSale Cost of Power. 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% "Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0 $0.023 $0.007 $0.000 $0.073 $0.012 $0.085 $0.107 $0.091 $0.085 0.112 0.096 0.090 $59,011,226 $50,585,754 $47,162,266 §9,011,226 50,585,754 47,162,266 2,628,000 2,628,000 $1,180,224,519 $1,011,715,086 $943,245,322 2015 $o $0.023 $0.007 $0.000 $0.073 $0.012 $0.085 $0.107 $0.091 $0.085 0.112 0.096 0.090 $59,011,226 $50,585,754 $47,162,266 354,067,356 303,514,526 262,973,597 2,628,000 15,768,000 2020 $o $0.023 $0.007 $0.000 $0.073 $0.012 $0.085 $0.107 $0.091 $0.085 0.112 0.096 0.090. $59,011,226 $50,585,754 $47,162,266 649,123,485 556,443,297 518,784,927 2,628,000 *31,536,000 2025 $o $0.023 $0.007 *$0.000 $0.073 $0.012 $0.085 $0.107 $0.091 $0.085 0.112 0.096 0.090 $59,011,226 $50,585,754 $47,162,266 944,179,615 809,372,069 754,596,257 2,628,000 47,304,000 2030 $0 $0.023 $0.007 $0.000 $0.073 $0.012 $0.085 $0.107 $0.091 $0.085 0.112 0.096 0.080 $59,011,226 $50,585,754 $47,162,266 1,239,235,745 1,062,300,840 990,407,588 2,628,000 63,072,000 14/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 110 MW Combined-Cycle Plant @ Crooked Creek -#2 Fuel Oil +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Piant Combustion Turbine Bethel « CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW . Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 60,000 0 0 500 2,500 63,000.0 438,000,000.00 0 0 438,000,000 4,380,000 21,900,000 - 464,280,000 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 464,280,000 it) 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 2015 60,000 1,490 6,205 500 2,500 70,694.8 438,000,000.00 i¢) 0 '438,000,000 4,380,000 21,900,000 464,280,000 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 464,280,000 0 te) 0 $0 $900 $680,900 2020 60,000 2,980 12,410 500 2,500 78,389.6 438,000,000.00 0 0 438,000,000 4,380,000 21,900,000 464,280,000 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 464,280,000 0 ie) 0 $0 $900 $680,900 2025 60,000 3,123 13,407 500 2,500 79,529.4 438,000,000.00 i?) i) 438,000,000 4,380,000 21,900,000 464,280,000 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 i) 464,280,000 0 i) 0 $0 $900 $680,900 438,000,000.00 0 Qo 438,000,000 4,380,000 21,900,000 464,280,000 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 464,280,000 0 i) 0 $0 $900 $680,900 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 'Total 138 kV T-Line @ 14 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total- Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine aa Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 .$4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 21,000,000 0 $1.00 $21,000,000 $0 $21,000,000 2010 $0 $136,632,600 $6,831,630 $1,831,630 $0 $143,464,230 $38,464,230 $0 2015 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 21,000,000 0 $1.00 $21,000,000 $0 $21,000,000 2015 $0 $136,632,600 $6,831,630 $1,831,630 $0 $143,464,230 $38,464,230 ;$0 2020 $0 $99,000,000 $0 *$99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0. $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 21,000,000 0 $1.00 $21,000,000 $0 $21,000,000 2020 $0 $136,632,600 $6,831,630 $1,831,630 $0 $143,464,230 $38,464,230 $0 2025 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 21,000,000 0 _$1.00 $21,000,000 $0 $21,000,000 2025 $0 $136,632,600 $6,831,630 $1,831,630 $0 $143,464,230 $38,464,230 $0 2030 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 21,000,000 0 $1.00 $21,000,000 $0 $21,000,000 2030 $0 $136,632,600 $6,831,630 $1,831,630 $0 $143,464,230 $38,464,230 $0 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total -O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line 2010 $11,511,944 $3,086,469 25,371,711.54 $45.80 1.25 $0 $31,714,639 $0 $865,486 $0 $0 $32,580,125 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 2015 $11,511,941 $3,086,469 ' 25,371,711.54 $45.80 1.25 $0 $31,714,639 $0 $32,580,125 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 2020 $11,511,941 $3,086,469 $0 $0 $0 25,371,711.54 $45.80 1.25 $0 $31,714,639 $0 $32,580,125 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 2025 . $11,511,941 $3,086,469 $0 $0 $0 25,371,711.54 $45.80 1.25 $ $0 $31,714,639 -$0 $865,486 $0 $0 $32,580,125 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 2030 $11,511,941 $3,086,469 25,371,711.54 $45.80 1.25 _$0 $31,714,639 $0 $32,580,125 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -50 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 'Waste Heat Sales Offset Totai O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual!WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0 $6,116,010 $0 2010 $0.026 $0.007 $0.000 $0.074 $0.014 $0.088 $0.115 $0.095 $0.088 0.120 0.100 0.093 $52,398,076 $43,972,604 $40,886,135 52,398,076 43,972,604 40,886,135 2,190,000 2,190,000 $1,047,961,520 $879,452,087 $817,722,700 2015 $0 $6,116,015 $0 2015 $0.026 $0.007 $0.000 $0.074 $0.014 $0.088 $0.115 $0.095 $0.088 0.120 0.100 0.093 $52,398,081 $43,972,609 $40,886,140 314,388,461 263,835,631 245,316,815 2,190,000 13,140,000 2020 $0 $6,116,020 $0 2020 $0.026 $0.007 $0.000 $0.074 $0.014 $0.088 $0.115 $0.095 $0.088 0.120 0.100 0.093 $52,398,086 $43,972,614 $40,886,145 576,378,871 483,698,683 449,747,520 2,190,000 26,280,000 2025 $0 $6,116,025 $0 2025 $0.026 $0.007 $0.000 $0.074 $0.014 $0.088 $0.115 $0.095 $0.088 0.120 0.100 0.093 $52,398,091 $43,972,619 $40,886,150 838,369,306 703,561,759 654,178,250 2,190,000 39,420,000 2030 $0 $6,116,030 $o 2030 $0.026 $0.007 $0.000 $0.074 $0.014 $0.088 $0.115 $0.095 $0.088 0.120 0.100 0.093 $52,398,096 $43,972,624 $40,886,155 4,100,359,766 923,424 861 858,609,005 2,190,000 52,560,000 14/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 110 MW Combined-Cycle Plant @ Crooked Creek -#2 Fuel Oil +138 KV T-Line to mine,No Waste Heat Sales Year 1.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line tosses In Piant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal!Plant Combustion Turbine Bethe! CCK Mine - Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel cck Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cost(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 2010 613,200,000 0 0 613,200,000 4,380 21,900,000 635,104,380 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 Q 635,104,380 0 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 80,000 0.5 2,500 82,500.5 © 613,200,000 0 0 613,200,000 4,380 21,900,000 635,104,380 410,000 0 0 Q 110,000 0 635,104,380 0 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 80,000 0.5 2,500 82,500.5 613,200,000 0 0 613,200,000 4,380 21,900,000 635,104,380 110,000 .0 0 0 110,000 0 635,104,380 QO 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 80,000 0.5 2,500 82,500.5 613,200,000 0 0 613,200,000 4,380 21,900,000 635,104,380 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 635,104,380 0 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 82,500.5 613,200,000 0 0 613,200,000 '4,380 21,900,000 635,104,380 110,000 0 0 0 110,000 0 635,104,380 0 0 0 $0 $900 $680,900 41/16/2003 : Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 14 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 385 miles Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% ' 2010 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 29,000,000 .9 $1.00 $29,000,000 $0 $29,000,000 2010 $0 $144,632,600 $7,231,630 $2,231,630 $0 $151,864,230 $46,864,230 $0 2015 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 29,000:000 ;0 $1.00 $29,000,000 $0 $29,000,000 2015 $0 $144,632,600 "$7,231,630 $2,231,630 $0 $151 ,864,230 $46,864,230 $0 2020 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 29,000,000 0 $1.00 $29,000,000 $0 $29,000,000 2020 $0 $144,632,600 $7,231,630 $2,231,630 $0 $151,864,230 $46,864,230 $0 2025 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $13,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 29,000,000 0 $1.00 $29,000,000 $0 $29,000,000 2025 $0 $144,632,600 $7,231,630 $2,231,630 $0 $151,864,230 $46,864,230 $0 2030 $0 $99,000,000 $0 $99,000,000 $9,532,600 $0 $4,100,000 $0 $0 313,632,600 $0 $3,000,000 29,000,000 0 $1.00 $29,000,000 $0 $29,000,000 2030 $0 $144,632,600 $7,231,630 $2,231,630 $0 $151 ,864,230 $46,864,230 $0 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK © Mine Annuai Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Plant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line +100KV DC Line 2010 $12,185,979 $3,760,507 34,706,825.89 $45.80 4.25 $0 $43,383,532 $0 $1,183,927 $0 $0 $44,567,459 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 2015 $12,185,979 $3,760,507 34,706,825.89 $45.80 1.25 $0 $43,383,532 $0 $1,183,927 $0 $0 $44,567,459 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $400,000 $14,000 $0 2020 2025 2030 $12,185,979 $12,185,979 $12,185,979 $3,760,507 $3,760,507 $3,760,507 -$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #REFI #REF!#REFI 34,706,825.89 34,706,825.89 34,706,825.89 $45.80 $45.80 $45.80 1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $0 $0 $0 $43,383,532 $43,383,532 $43,383,532 $0 $0 $0 $1,183,927 $1,183,927 $1,183,927 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,567,459 $44,567,459 $44,567,459 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $4,100,000 $4,100,000 °$4,100,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -70 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capita!Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Fuel $/kWh O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Year Annual WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $140 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost -5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $0 $6,116,010 $0 2010 $0.020 $0.006 $0.000 $0.073 $0.010 $0.083 $0.103 $0.089 $0.083 0.108 0.094 0.088 2010 $65,935,448 $57,509,977 $53,749,469 65,935,448 57,509,977 53,749,469 3,066,000 3,066,000 $1,318,708,964 $1,150,199,531 $1,074,989,390 2015 $0 $6,116,015 $0 2015 $0.020 - $0.006 $0.000 $0.073 $0.010 $0.083 $0.103 $0.089 $0.083 0.108 0.094 0.088 2015 $65,935,453 $57,509,982 $53,749,474 395,612,694 345,059,864 322,496,822 3,066,000 18,396,000 2020,$0 $6,116,020 $0 2020 $0.020 $0.006 $0.000 $0.073 $0.010 $0.083 $0.103 $0.089 $0.083 0.108 0.094 0.088 2020 $65,935,458 $57,509,987 $53,749,479 725,289,965 632,609,777 591,244,199 3,066,000 36,792,000 2025 $0 $6,116,025 $0 2025 $0.020 $0.006 $0.000 $0.073 $0.010 $0.083 $0.103 $0.089 $0.083 0.108 0.094 0.088 2025 $65,935,463 $57,509,992 $53,749,484 1,054 ,967,261 920,159,715 859,991,602 3,066,000 '55,188,000 2030 $0 $6,116,030 $0 2030 $0.020 $0.006 $0.000 $0.073 $0.010 $0.083 $0.103.$0.089 $0.083 0.108 0.094 0.088 2030 $65,935,468 $57,509,997 $53,749,489 1,384,644 ,582 1,207,709,677 1,128,739,029 3,066,000 73,584,000 11/16/2003 TRANSMISSION LINES FROM RAILBELT Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 230 kV,AC,Transmission Line From Nenana to Crooked Ck +138 KV T-Line to Cooked Ck to Bethel,with Demand Charge Bethel+8 villages Year 4.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWa Generation KWHs Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos(4) Plant Costs Coal Piant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW .Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile +100kV DC T-Line/Mile Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant .Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethel Diesel Plant 230 KV Substation 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines#230kVAC Line @ 370 miles 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 4,200 Qo 86,061.24 525,600,000.00 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 36,792,000.00 627 ,233,628.49 eoosceorr)627,233,626 $o $o $680,900 $930,185 $o $0 $0 $0 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,245,000$344 ,168,450 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 4,200 0 87,825.44 525,600,000.00 41,762,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 36,792,000.00 636,780,099.65 aooooe000636,780,100 $0 $o $680,900 $930,185 $o so $o $0 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $344,188,450 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 4,200 0 89,589.63 525,600,000.00 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 36,792,000.00 646,326,571.20 eacog0ooo646,326,571 $0 $0 $680,900 $930,185 $0 $o $0 $o $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $344,166,450 70,000 3,123 13,407 * 4,200 0 90,729.37 525,600,000.00 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 36,792,000.00 653,374,362.43 eoo0cceoeoo653,374,362 $0 $0 $680,900 $930,185 $0 $0 $0 $o $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $344,168,450 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 4,200 0 91,869.10 525,600,000.00 16,020,790 62,009,364 623,630,154 36,792,000.00 660 422,153.66 eoc0o00ooo660,422,154 $o $0 $680,900 $930,185 $o $o $0 $o $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $344,168,450 2035 3,350 14,403 500.0 0 18,252.55 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 geo0o0eco900102,410,154 *$0 $0 $0 2040 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 62,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 i)eooonogoo102,410,154 $o $0 $0 $o $o so $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 2045 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 eo000eoca102,410,154 so $0 $o $0 $o $o $o so $o $o $o $0 2050 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 eo0000oca102,410,154 $o $0 $o $0 $o $0 $o $o $o $0 $o $0 2055 3,433 14,403 500.0 ie] 18,336.00 16,020,790 €2,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,4 10,153.66 ecoo90q900102,410,154 $0 $o 2060 3,433 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 eocoeoooo102,410,154 $o $0 $o 11/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethe! cCcK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Gallon .Bethel CCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oll Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grents,Bal.5% +3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements: Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Gallons Bethei CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fual Oil $/Gallons Bethel CCK Mine 2010 $488,648,260 so $6,000,000 coo$1.37 $o $o $o $o 2010 $o $494 648,260 $24,732,413 $19,732,413 $17,232,413 $14,732,413 $12,232,413 $519,380,673 $414,380,673 $361,880,673 $309,380,673 $266,880,673 $41,676,449 $33,250,977 $29,038,241 $24,825,506 $20,612,770 2015 $490,746,250 $o $6,000,000 ooo$1.37 $o $o $0 $o 2015 $o $496,746,250 $24,837,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,837,313 $42,337,313 $521,583,563 $416,583,563 $364,083,563 $311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,216,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 2020 $490,7486,250 $0 $6,000,000 eoo0$496,746,250 $24,637,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,837,313 $12,337,313 $521,583,563 $416,583,563 $364,083,563 $311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 2025 $490,746,250 $0 $6,000,000 ooo$496,746,250 $24,837,313 $19,837,313 $17,397,313 $14,837,313 $12,337,313 $521,583,563 $416,583,563 $364 083,563$311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 2030 $490,746,250 $o $6,000,000 eso$496,746,250 $24,837,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,837,313 $12,337,313 +$521,583,563 $416,583,563 $364 ,083,563$311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 eooeoao2045 $o $o $o ooo2050 eaoo2060 $o $o $0 e20011/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 2010 :2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 '2045 2050 2055 2060 Annual Fuel Costs Coal $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o #1 Fuel Olt , Bethel $0 $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 cCK $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o Mine $o $0.$0 $o $o :$0 $o $o $0 $o so Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan $o $o ;$0 "$0 $o $0 $o $0 $o $o $o O&M Tug +Barges $o $0 '$o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 .$0 $o Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW $11,250 $11.250 $11.250 $11.250 $11,250 $11.250 $11.250 $11,250 $11,250 $11.250 $11.250 Energy Charge $/kwh $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 $0.045 Cost of Purchased Pwr $36,325,513 $36,755,104 $37,184,696 $37,501,846 $37,818,997 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 Total $36,325,513 $36,755,104 $37,184,696 $37,501,846 $37,818,997 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 '0am .Coal-Plant Personne!it]iy i Qo i)it]Qo 0 0 9 o EquipmentSupplies t+)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Combustion Turbine $0 $0 $0 _$0 $0 $o :$o $0 $0 $0 $o Personnel Equipment/Supplies Nuvista Administration $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 138 kV T-Line $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 ©$192,000 .$192,000 $192,000 +230 KV AC Line $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 Waste Heat Sales Offset $0 .$0 $o $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $o Total O&M $962,000 $962,000 $962,000 $962,000 $962,000 $762,000 $762,000 $762,000 $762,000.$762,000 $762,000 PCE Payments $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2045 2050 Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5%$0.071 $0.070 $0.069 $0.068 $0.067 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $100 M Grants,Bai.5%$0.056 $0.056 $0.055 $0.054 $0.054 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$0.049 $0,049 $0.048 $0.047 $0.047 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$0.042 $0.042 $0.041 $0.041 $0.040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$0035 -$0.035 $0.034 $0.034 $0.033 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 Purchased Power $0.062 $0.064 $0.061 $0.061 $0.061 $0.068 $0.068 $0.068 $0.068 $0.068 $0.068 O&M $/kWh $0.002 $0.002 $0.002 $0.002 $0.002 $0.008 $0.008 $0.008 $0.008 $0.008 $0.008 Total $0.063 $0.063 $0.063 $0.062 .$0.062 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5%$0.134 $0.133 $0.131 $0.130 $0.129 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%-$0.119 $0.119 $0.117 $0.117 $0.116 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%$0.112 $0.112 $0,111 $0.110 $0.109 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%$0.105 $0.105 $0.104 $0.103 $0.102 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%$0.098 $0.098 $0.097 $0.096 $0.096 $0.075 *$0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 Wholesale Cost$/kWh 0.139 0.138 0.136 0.135 0.134 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 $100 M Grants,Bal.5%0.124 0.124 0.122 0.122 0.4124 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 $150 M Grants,Bal.5%0.117 0.117 0.116 0.115 0.114 0.080 0.080 6.080 0.080 0.060 0.080 $200 M Grants,Bal.5%0.410 0.110 0.109 0.108 0.107 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 $250 M Grants,Bal.5%0.103 .0.103 0.102 0.101 0.101 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 ".3 11/16/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life .Year Annuai WholeSaie Cost of Power .5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $81,916,170 $73,490,699 $69,277,963 $65,065,227 $60,852,491 61,916,170 73,490,699 69,277,963 65,065,227 60,852,491 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,458,404,593 $1,308,400,674 $1,233,398,715 $1,158,396,756 $1,083,394,796 2015 $82,570,250 $74,144,788 $69,932,052 $65,719,316 $61,506,580 492,151,111 441,598,281 416,321,866 391,048,451 365,769,036 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $83,047,583 $74,622,111 $70,409,378 $66,196,640 $61,983,904 905,479,732 812,799,544 766,459,450 720,119,356 673,779,262 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $83,399,973 $74,974,501 $70,761,765 $66,549,029 $62,336,293 1,321,070,037 1,186,262,491 1,118,858,7171,051 454,944984,051,171 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $83,752,362 $75,326,891 $71,114,185 $66,901,419 $62,688,683 1,738,422,290 . 4,561,487,385 4,473,019,933 4,384,552,480 1,296,085,028 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,865,608 $7,885,608 2,081,317,346 1,870,680,555 1,765,362,159 1,660,043,763 1,564,725,368 490,154 88,743,247 2040 $7,885,608 $7,685,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,606 2,120,745,385 1,910,108,593 1,804 790,1971,699,471,602 1,594,153,406 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $7,685,608 $7,685,608 $7,865,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,160,173,423 1,949,536,632 1,844,218,236 1,736,899,840 1,633,581,444 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,199,601,461 1,988,964 ,6701,883,646,274 1,776,327 ,879 1,673,008,483 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,606 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,239,029,500 2,028,392,708 +,923,074,313 1,817,755,917 1,712,437,521 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $7,865,608 $7,885,608 $7,685,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,278,457,538 2,067 ,820,7471,962,502,3541,857,183,9551,751,865,560 490,151 103,447,770 11/45/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 230 kV,AC,Transmission Line From Nenana to Crooked Ck. +138 KV T-Line to Cooked Ck to Bethel,No Demand Charge Bothel+8 villages Year 41.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH.Sales T-Line losses in Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel cCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total Capacity In KW Generation KWHs Cos!Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos(1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kw Combustion Turbine $/cW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 230 AC T-Line/Mile Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethel ccK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethe!Diesel Plant 230 KV Substation 138 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines 230 kV AC Line @ 370 mites 2010 70,000 2.281 9,580 4,200 0 86,061.24 525,600,000.00 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 36,792,000.00 627,233,628.49 escocno627,233,628 $o $0 $680,900 $930,185 $o $o $0 $0 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,245,000 $344,168,450 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 4,200 0 87,825.44 §25,600,000.00 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 36,792,000.00 636,780,099.85 egoooo636,780,100 $0 $680,900 $930,185 so $0 $o $o $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $344,168,450 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 4,200 0 69,589.63 525,600,000.00 13,269,790 70,664,761 609,534,571 36,792,000.00 646,326,571.20 eoooo646,326,571 $o $o $680,900 $930,185 so $0 $o $o $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $344,168,450 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 4,200 9 90,729.37 525,600,000.00 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 36,792,000.00 653,374 ,382.43 eocoaoeoo653,374,362 $o $0 $680,900 $930,185 $o $0 $o $0 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000$344,168,450 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 4,200 Qo 91,869.10 525,600,000.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 36,792,000.00 660,422,153.66 eoooooo660,422,154 $0 $660,900 $930,185 $o -$0 $0 $0 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $34,168,450 2035 3,350 14,403 "500.0 i 18,252.55 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 eeosco102,410,154 so $o 2040 3,433 14,403 500.0 Q 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 eoooaooo102,410,154 $o $o $o 2045 3,433 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 46,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 eoooooo102,410,154 $o $0 2050 3,433 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 agooooo102,410,154 $0 $o $0 2055 3,433 44,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 62,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,410,153.66 soooco°102,410,154 $o $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o. $0 $o .$0 $0 2060 3,433 14,403 500.0 0 16,336.00 16,020,790 62.009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000.00 102,4 10,153.66 eoooo°102,410,154 $o 11/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Total Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Fuet Storage Costs $/Gallon .Bethel CCK .. Mine Fuel Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage Year District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 3.Expenses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bat.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requirements Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oll Gallons Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Oil $/Gailons Bethel CCK Mine $488 ,646,250 $0 $6,000,000 .$1.37 so $o $o $o 2010 $o $494,646,250 $24,732,313 $19,732,313 $17,232,313 $14,732,313 $12,232,313 $519,378,563 $4 14,378,563$361,878,563 $309,378,563 $256,878,563 $41,676,260 $33,250,808 $29,038,072 $24,825,336 $20,612,600 $490,746,250 $o $6,000,000 $1.37 $0 $o $0 $o 2015 $o $496,746,250 $24,837,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,637,313 $12,337,313 $521,583,563 $46,583,563 $364,083,563 $311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 $490,746,250 $o $6,000,000 $1.37 $o $o so so 2020 $o $496,746,250 $24,637,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,837,313 $12,337,313 $52,583,563 $416,583,563 $364 ,083,563$311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 $490,746,250 $o $6,000,000 $1.37 $496,746,250 $24,837,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,837,313 $12,337,313 $521,583,563 $416,583,563 $364 ,083,563$31,583,563 $259,083,563 . $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,769,535 $49,746,250 $0 $6,000,000 $1.37 $496,746,250 $24,837,313 $19,837,313 $17,337,313 $14,837,313 $12,337,313 $52 1,583,563$416,583,563 $364,083,563 $311,583,563 $259,083,563 $41,853,214 $33,427,743 $29,215,007 $25,002,271 $20,789,535 $0 $o ooo$1.37 $1.37 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1.37 +$1.37 $o $0 $o $0 $o so $0 $o20452050 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $0 $o $o $0 $0 $o so $0 $o $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $60.00 $60.00 120 $1.20 § $1.37 $0 $o| $1.37 11/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Yeer Annual Fuel Costs Mine Annual Interest Fuet Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge SKW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Total O&M Coal-Piant Personnel Equipment/Supplies Combustion Turbine Personnel EqulpmenvSupplies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line #230 KV AC Line Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments. Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Purchased Power O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Granta,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholesale Cost$/kWh $100 M Grants,Bat.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $o $o $o $o so $o $0.000 $0.045 $28,225,513 $28,225,513 ao$0 $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $962,000 $o 2010 $0.071 $0.056 $0.049 $0.042 $0.035 $0.048 $0.002 $0.049 $0.120 $0.106 $0,099 $0.091 $0.084 0.125 0.191 0.104 0.096 0.089 2015 $0.000 $0.045 $28,655,104 $28,655,104 oo$400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $962,000 so 2018 $0.070 $0.058 $0.049 $0.042 $0.035 $0.048 $0:002 $0.049 $0.119 $0.105 $0.098 $0.091 $0.084 0.124 0.110 0.103 0.096 0.089 $0.000 $0.045 $29,084,696 $29,084,696 oo$0 $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $962,000 $o 2020 $0.069 $0.055 $0.048 $0.041 $0.034 $0.048 $0.002 $0,049 $0.118 $0.104 $0.097 $0.090 $0.083 0.123 0.109 0.102 0.095 0.088 $29,401,846 oo$0.000 $0.045 $29,716,997 $29,718,997 eo$0 $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o 2035 $o $o $0 $0 so $0 $0.000 $0.045 $4,608,457 $4,608,457 eo$0 $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $762,000 $o 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.047 $0.008 $0.055 $0.055 . $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 $0.000 $0.045 $4,608,457 $4,608,457 oo$o $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $762,000 $o 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.047 $0.008 -$0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 $4,608,457 $4,608,457 oo$200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.047 $0.008 $0.055 $0,055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.058 $0.055 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 2050 $0 $o $o so $o $0 $0.000 $0.045 $4,608,457 $4,608,457 o$o $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $762,000 $o 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.047 $0.008 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 $0.000 $0.045 $4,608,457 $4,608,457 °$0 $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $762,000 so 2045 $0,000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.047 $0.008 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 $0.000 $0.045 $4,608,457 $4,608,457 a$o $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $762,000 $o 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.047 $0.008 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 $0.055 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 11/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual WholeSate Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal,5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power 5% $100 M Grents,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% _$200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Net Income Accumulated Net Income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal,5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $73,816,001 $65,390,529 $61,177,794 $56,965,058 $52,752,322 73,816,001 65,390,529 61,177,794 56,965,058 $2,752,322 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,314,192,234 $1,164,188,315$1,089,186,356 $1,014,184,396 $939,182,437 2015 $74,470,259 $66,044,788 $61,832,052 $57,619,316 $53,406,580 443,550,265 392,997,435 367,721,020 342,444,605 317,168,190 2,999,940 17,760,981 2020 $74,947,563 $66,522,114 $62,309,376 $58,096,640 $53,883,904 +816,378,886 723,698,697 677,358,603 631,018,509 584,678,415 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $75,298,973 $66,874,501 $62,661,765 $58,449,029 $54,236,293 1,191,469,190 1,056 ,661,644 989,257,671 921,854,097 654,450,324 3,082,912 54,129,633 2030 $75,852,362 $67,226,891 $63,014,155 $58,801,419 $54,586,683 1,568,321,443 1,391,386,538 1,302,919,086 1,214,451,633 1,125,984,181 3,118,151 72,662,342 2035 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,660,608 $5,860,608 1,876,791,4991,666,154,7081,560,836,312 4,455,517,917 1,350,199,521 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,606 $5,860,608 1,906,094 ,5381,695,457 ,746 1,590,139,351 1,484,820,955 1,379,502,559 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $5,660,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 1,935,397 ,576 1,724,780,785 1,619,442,389 1,514,123,993 1,408,805,598 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 1,964,700,615 1,754,063,823 1,648,745,428 1,543,427,032 1,438,108,636 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $5,860,608 $5,860,606 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 1,994,003,653 1,783,366,862 1,678,048 466 1,572,730,070 1,467 411,675 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 $5,660,608 $5,860,608 $5,860,608 2,023,306,691 1,812,869,900 1,707 ,351,504 1,602,033,109 1,496,714,713 490,151 103,447,770 44/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life +100 kV,DC,Transmission Line From Nenana to Crooked Ck +138 KV T-Line to Cooked Ck to Bethel,with Demand Charge Bethel+8 villages Year 41.Power Requirements KWs Peak Demand Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Line Loss In Plant Use Total KW KWHs Donlin Gold Mine Villages Bethel Total KWH Sales T-Line losses In Plant Use Total kWh Generated Generation Capacity KWs CFB Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bethet CCK Mine Bethe!Utilities Plant Total Capacity in KWs Generation KWHs Coal Piant Combustion Turbine Bethel CCK Mine .Purchased Power 2.Capital Cos{1) Plant Costs Coal Plant $/kW Combustion Turbine $/kW Bethel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant 138 kV T-Line/Mile 230 AC T-Line/Mile Plant Costs $ Coal Plant Combustion Turbine Bathel CCK Mine Bethel Utilities Plant Total a 2010 70,000 2,281 9,580 6,900 0 88,761.24 525,600,000.00 10,295,423 54,546,206 590,441,628 60,444,000 650,585,628 eoo0oeao*850,885,628 $0 $o $680,900 $733,700 $0 $0 $o $o 2015 70,000 2,630 10,995 6,900 0 90,525.44 §25,600,000.00 11,782,606 62,605,493 599,988,100 60,444,000 660,432,100 soo660,432,100 $0 $0 $680,900 $733,700 $0 so $o $o 2020 70,000 2,980 12,410 6,900 0 92,289.63 525,600,000.00 13,269,790 70,664,781 609,534,571 60,444,000 669,978,571 eocooosdeo0669,976,571 $0 $0 $680,900 $733,700 $o so $0 $0 2025 70,000 3,123 13,407 6,900 0 93,429.37 ° 525,600,000.00 14,645,290 76,337,072 616,582,362 . 60,444,000 677,026,362 eoocadeoo0677,026,362 $o $o $686,900 $733,700 $0 "$0 $o $0 2030 70,000 3,266 14,403 6,900 0 94,569.10 625,600,000.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 623,630,154 80,444,000 664,074,154 ogooo90eco684,074,154 $0 $o $680,900 $733,700 $o $0 $o $o 2035 3,350: 14,403 500.0 ty) 18,252.55 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 102,410,154 eoo00ooo102,410,154 $o $o $o $o 2040 3,433 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 102,410,154 eooceaaso102,410,154 $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 2045 3,433 14,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 102,410,154 eoo00102,410,154 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o 2050 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 102,410,154 eooo0o102,410,154 $0 $0 $o $o 2055 3,433 44,403 500.0 0 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 102,410,154 eooosde900102,410,154 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 2060 3,433 14,403 500.0 Uy) 18,336.00 16,020,790 82,009,364 98,030,154 4,380,000 102,410,154 escoooooo102,410,154 $o° $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 11/15/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year 138 kV T-Line @ 192 miles Bethe!Diesel Plant 230 KV Substation 136 kV Substations Village Sub.+Dist.Lines +100 kV DC Line @ 370 miles AC-DC Conversion Equip. Totat Tug +3 Barges Enviormental Studies Fuel Storage Gailons Bethel cCK Mine Fuel Storage Costs $/Galion Bethel CCK Mine Fue!Storage Costs Bethel CCK Mine Total Fuel Oil Storage District Heating System SubTotal Capital Costs Interest During Constuction 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bat.5% $250 M Grants,Bat.5% Total Capital Cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bat.5% 3.Expanses Annual Debt Service 5% $100 M Grants,Bal,5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% O&M Costs Annual Fuel Requtremants Coal Tons #1 Fuel Oil Galions Bethel CCK Mine Coal $/Ton #1 Fuel Ol $/Gallons Bethel $ CCK Mine 2010 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,245,000 $271,469,000 $100,000,000 $515,946,800 $0 $6,000,000 eoo0$1.37 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $521,946,800 $26,097,340 . $21,097,340 $16,597,340 $16,097,340 $13,597,340 $548,044,140 $443,044,140 $390,544,140 $338,044,140 $285,544,140 $43,976,480 $35,651,008 $31,336,272 $27,125,536 $22,912,801 2015 $130,732,800 | $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 - $7,245,000 $271,469,000 $100,000,000 $418,046,800 $0 $6,000,000 eaao$1.37 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $424,046,800 $21,202,340 $16,202,340 $13,702,340 $11,202,340 $8,702,340 $445,249,140 $340,249,140$287,749,140 $235,249,140 $182,749,140 $35,727,943 $27,302,471 $23,089,735 $18,877,000 $14,664,264 2020 $130,732,600 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000$7,245,000 $271,469,000 $100,000,000 $418,046,800 $o $6,000,000 ooo$424,046,800 $21,202,340 $16,202,340 $13,702,340 $11,202,340 $8,702,340 $445,249,140 $340,249,140 $287,749,140 $235,249,140 $162,749,140 $35,727,943 $27,302,471 $23,089,735 $18,877,000 $14,664,264 2025 $130,732,800 $500,000 '$4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $271,469,000 $100,000,000$4 18,046,800 $0 $6,000,000 ooo$1.37 $0 $0 $o so $0 $424,046,800 $21,202,340 $16,202,340 $13,702,340 $11,202,340 $8,702,340 $445,249,140 $340,249,140 $287,749,140 $235,249,140 $182,749,140 $35,727,943 $27,302,471 $23,069,735 $18,877,000 $14,664,264 2030 $130,732,800 $500,000 $4,000,000 $4,100,000 $7,245,000 $27 1,469,000 $100,000,000 $4 18,046,800 $o° $6,000,000 ea0$o $424,046,800 $21,202,340 $16,202,340 $13,702,340 $11,202,340 $8,702,340 $445,249,140 $340,249,140$287,749,140 $235,249,140 $182,749,140 $35,727,943 $27,302,471 $23.069,736 $18,877,000 $14,664,264 ooooooooo$1.37 2050 so $o $o $o $o $o so $o e9002055 2060 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $o so $o aoo$1.37 11/18/2003 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life Year Annual Fuel Costs Coal #1 Fuel Oil Bethel CCK Mine Annual Interest Fuel Supply Loan O&M Tug +Barges Purchased Pwr Demand Charge $/KW Energy Charge $/kwh Cost of Purchased Pwr Totat O&M Coat-Plant Personnel Equipment/Suppiies Combustion Turbine Personnel - Equipment/Suppiies Nuvista Administration 138 kV T-Line #230 KV AC Line | Waste Heat Sales Offset Total O&M PCE Payments Year Power Costs Capital Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Purchased Power O&M $/kWh Total BreakEven Cost $/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Wholeseie Cost$/kWh 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bat.5% $200 M Grants,Bat.5% $250 M Grants,Bat.5% $11,250 $0.045 $37,389,853 $37,389,853 °$0 $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $962,000 $0 2010 $0.074 $0.060 $0.053 $0.046 $0.039 $0.063 $0,002 $0.065 $0,139 $0.125 $0.118 $0.441 $0.104 0.144 0.130 0.123 0.116 0.109 $11.250 $0.045 $37,819,444 $37,819,444 =)$o $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $962,000 $0 2015 $0.060 $0.046 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.063 $0.002 $0.065 $0.124 $0.110 $0.103 $0.096 $0,089 0,129 0.115 0.108 0.401 0.094 2020 $0 $0 $o $o $11.250 $0.045 $38,249,036 $38,249,036 eo$o $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $962,000 so 2020 $0.059 $0.045 $0.038 $0.031 $0.024 $0.063 $0.002 $0.064 $0.123 $0.109 $0.102 $0.095 $0.088 0.128 0.114 0.107 0.100 0.093 2025 . $0 $o $o $o $o $o $11.250 $0.045 $38,566,186 $38,566,186 $0 $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $962,000 $o 2025 $0.058 $0.044 $0.037 $0.034 $0.024 $0.063 $0.002 $0.084 $0.122 $0.108 $0.102 $0.095 $0.088 0.127 0.143. 0.107 0,100 0.093 2030 $0 $o $0 $o $o $o $11.250 $0.045 $36,883,337 $38,883,337 °$0 $400,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $962,000 $o 2030 $0.057 $0.044 $0.037 $0,030 $0.024 $0.062 $0.002 $0.064 $0.121 $0,108 $0.101 $0.094 $0.087 0.126 0.113 0.106 0.099 0.092 2035 $11.250 $0.045 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 co$o $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $762,000 $o 2035 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,068 $0.008 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 2040 $0 $o "$0 $o $0 $o $11.250 $0.045 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 ooso $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $0 $762,000 $0 2040 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.008 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 2045 $0 $o so $o $o $o $11.250 $0.045 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $0 $200,000. $192,000 $370,000 $o $762,000 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.008 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 0.060 0.080 0.060 0.080 0.080 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 °so $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o ”$762,000 $o 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.008 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 $11.250 $0.045 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $762,000 $0 2045 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0,000 $0.068 $0.008 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 2060 $11.250 $0.045 $6,633,457 $6,633,457 o$o $200,000 $192,000 $370,000 $o $762,000 $o 2050 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.068 $0.0068 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 $0.075 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 41/15/2003 Accumulated WholeSale Cost of Power Year Annual WholeSale Cost of Power $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bat,5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal,5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% Annual Nat Income Accumulated Net income Mine 20 yearPower cost 5% $100 M Grants,Bal.5% $150 M Grants,Bal.5% $200 M Grants,Bal.5% $250 M Grants,Bal.5% 2010 $85,280,541 $76,855,069 $72,842,334 $68,429,598 $64,216,862 85,280,541 76,855,069 72,642,334 68,429,598 64,216,862 2,952,208 2,952,208 $1,518,302,584 $1,368,298,662 $1,293,296,702 $1,218,294,743 $1,143,292,784 2015 $77,509,328 $69,083,858 $64,871,120 $60,658,385 $56,445,649 503,912,033 453,359,204 426,082,789 402,806,374 377,529,959 2,999,940 17,760,961 Donlin Creek Mine -60 MW Average Load,20 Year Mine Life 2020 $77,986,651 $69,561,180 $65,348,444 $61,135,708 $56,922,972 891,935,997 799,255,809 752,915,714 706,575,620 660,235,526 3,047,673 35,808,357 2025 $76,339,041 $69,913,568 $65,700,634 $61,486,098 $57,275,362 1,262,221,644 1,147,414,097 1,080,010,324 4,012,606,551 945,202,778 3,082,912 64,129,633 2030 $78,691,431 $70,265,959 $66,053,223 $61,840,487 $57,627,751 1,874,269,239 1,497,334,334 1,408,866,681 1,320,399,429 1,231,931,977 3,118,181 72,662,342 2035 $7,665,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 1,996,920,569 1,786,283,777 1,680,965,382 1,575,646,9861,470,328,590 490,151 88,743,247 2040 $7,885,608 $7,685,608 $7,885,606 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,036,348,607 1,825,711,816 1,720,393,420 1,615,075,024 . 1,509,756,629 490,151 91,684,152 2045 $7,885,608 $7,685,608 $7,885,608 $7,685,608 $7,685,608 2,075,776 646 1,865,139,854 1,759,621,459 1,654,503,063 1,549,184,667 490,151 94,625,056 2050 $7,685,606 $7,885,608 $7,885,606 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,115,204 684 1,904,567,893 -1,799,249,497 1,693,931,101 1,586,612,706 490,151 97,565,961 2055 $7,885,608 $7,685,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,154,632,722 1,9413,995,931 1,836,677,535 490,151 100,506,866 2060 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 $7,885,608 2,194,060,761 1,983,423,969 1,878,105,574 1,772,787,178 1,667 468,782 490,151 103,447,770 11/16/2003 APPENDIX H 1.Loss of Load Expectation Calculation 2.Coal Cost Projections 3.Coal Plant Efficiencies and Reliability Information 4.EMF Information 5.Permafrost Information 6.Bethel River Bank Erosion Sketch 1.Loss of Load Expectation Calculation Coal-Fired Plant Loss of Load Expectation Calculations For each Steam Generator process line assume FOR of 5% For combustion turbine assume FOR of 1% For Existing Bethel Diesel Plant FOR 2% 2x48.6 MW Coal Units+46 MW CT Unit Probability Table for Coal Units Cap.in Cap.Out Probability 2x40 MW Coal Units+46 MW CT Unit +10 MW Bethel Diesel Plant © Probability Table for Coal Units Cap.in Cap.Out Probability 110 0 0.9025 110 0 0.9025 55 55 6.085 55 55 8.095 0 100 9.0025 0 100 0.0025 Add in 46 MW CT in Service Add in 46 MW CT in Service Cap.Out Probability Cap.Out Probability 0 0.893475 0 _0.893475 55 0.09405 45 0.09405 110 0.002475 90 0.002475 46 MW CT out of Service 46 MW CT out of Service Cap.Out Probability Cap.Out Probability 46 0.009025 46 0.009025 101 0.00095 91 .0.00095 156 0.000025 136 0.000025 Combined Probability Table Combined Probability Table Cap.Out Cap.In Probability Loss of Load Cap.Out Cap.In Probability Loss of Load hours/yr hours/yr is)156 0.893475 :8)136 0.893475 55 101 0.09405 45 91 0.09405 46 110 0.009025 79.059 46 90 0.009025 0 101 $5 0.00095 8.322 8.322 90 -46 0.002475 21.681 110 46 0.002475 21.681 21.681 91 45 0.00095 8.322 156 0 0.000025 0.219 0.219 136 0 0.000025 0.219 Cumulative Total 4 38.544 109.281 4 30.222 Add in 10 MW Diesel Plant in Service Cap.Out 0 0.8756055 45 0.092169 46 0.0088445 90 0.0024255 91 0.000931 136 0.0000245 Add in 10 MW Diesel Plant iOut of Service Cap Out. 10 0.0178695 55 0.001881 56 0,0001805 100 0.0000495 101 0.000019 146 0.0000005 Cumulativie Probability Table Cap.Out Cap.In 0 146 0.8756055 45 101 0.092169 10 -136 0.0178695 46 100 0.0088445 77 47782 90 §6 0.0024255 21.24738 55 91 0.001881 16.47756 56 90 0.0001805 8.15556 o1 -55 0.000931 8.15556 1.58118 100 46 0.0000495 0.43362 0.43362 101 45 0.000019 0.16644 0.16644 136 10 0.0000245 0.21462 0.21462 146 Q 0.0000005 0.00438 0.00438 8.97462 125.7586 Combine-Cycle Plant Loss of Load Expectation Calculations For each combustion turbine assume FOR of 1% For steam turbine assume FOR of 1% Bethel Plant 3x42 MW Simple Cycle Units+25 MW CT Unit Prohahility Table for Simple Cycle Unitsropaaeny Cap.Out Cap.In Probability 126 0 0.970299 84 42 0.029403 42 84 0.000297 0 126 0.000001 Add in 25 MW STG in Service Cap.Out Probability 0 0.9683584 42 0.02910897 84 0.00029403 126 0.00000099 25 MW SGT out of Service Cap.Out Probability 25 0.00970299 67 0.00029403 409 0.00000297 151 0.00000001 Combined Probability Table Cap.Out Cap.In Probability .h 0 151 0.9683584 42 109 0.02910897 25 126 0.00970299 67 84 0.00029403 84 67 0.00029403 109 42 0.00000297 126 25 0.00000099 151 0 0.00000001 jours/yr 2.575703 0.026017 0.008672 8.76E-05 2.61048 Loss of Load 2.575703 2.575703 0.026017 0.008672 8.76E-05 5.186183 84.99819 2.575703 2.575703 0.026017 0.008672 8.76E-05 90.18438 Crooked Creek Plant 2x42 MW Turbien Units+25 MW CT Unit Probability Table for Coal Units Cap.Out Cap.In Probability 84 0 0.9801 42 55 0.0198 0 100 0.0001 Add in 13 MW STG in Service Cap.Out Cap In.Probability 0 0.970299 42 0.019602 84 0.000099 13 MW SGT out of Service Cap.Out Cap In.Probability 13 0.009801 57 0.000198 97 0.000001 Combined Probability Table Cap.Out Cap.In Probability 0 97 0.970299 -42 57 0.019602 13 84 0.009801 57 42 0.000198 84 13 0.000099 97 0 0.000001 Loss of Load hours/yr 85.85676 1.73448 0.86724 0.00876 88.46724 85.857 1.734 0.867 0.009 88.467 2.Coal Cost Projections Table 16.Coal Supply,Disposition,and Prices (Million Short Tons per Year,Unless Otherwise Noted) Dispositi on,and 201 |201 |201 |201 /201 |201 |201 |201 201 |204 202/202 202 |202 |202 202 202|Prices {Oo ,1) 1 5. Productio}| a Appalach ia Interior 144 147/149 [154 156 165 |168 167 1168 |167 |158.|150 [147 [149.1147 |150 |152 1154 |153 1521150 |152/|153 154 |156 159, West fo Ld East of Mississip :||i {pi aa _|oe ee oe ee West of ; || the ,: yo,17 Mississip .% Total Net :yo iImportsLobb-_..en ee ho Imports.16|16 17 17 18 18 19 [20 120 421 21 22 22 (23 24 25 126 126 Exports 58 |49 141 40 40 39 38 37 37 [36 [35 32 31 32 31 29 28 28 29 l27 \26 fot Fa6|ii 6 eo io || (9 i | Total Supply 2/ 103 8 110 _106.eo 119 |121 1715 18 122.123 6 124 9 125 128 0 |-|4 iConsum; ption by {Sector Resident. al and Commer cial _Industrial ay 63 64-64 65 66 68 68 68 69 71 of which: Coal to Liquids iCoke Plants 126 25 Electric Generato rs 4/ .{Total Discrepa i :: ncy and Pod ge .yo,to Stock 43 159 120 {16 -3 {3 +3 +3 $3 13°73 +2 $3 $3 7-3 13 +3 $3 +3 +3 53 13 $3 +3 13 +3 JINJA; Change 4 fo ;;qo qo.too: 15/es a Average ||A ,1 Yoyo Minemou ;7 .tos th Price Jo ee |ee ne ee (2001 dollars 17.417. per short |18 159 ton) j He|14.114.114.114.114.414.414.114.114.114.114.114.|14.14.114.|14.|99 {78 (60 (65 163 467 199 49 51 [48 (38 |32 j28 (24 132 136 . (2001dolf [| arsper 0.8 |0.8 © million |1 43 Mo:Btu)fo|Ce i re cr Cer Ce ;Delivered]a Price :;:i (2001 ::: dollars : per short a fos ton)6/er ee ee eeee ee 32.32.|31.134./31.(31.431.Ja0.]30.[a0.J29.29.l29.29.'29.J29.|29.jas.jas.jae.las.28.Ize.|28.27.|27.|[ndustral 99 Ig3 jg6 69 30 14 [12 |e9 [53 27 [97 80 [55 [53 |39 [33 116 [96 [87 69 |40 |23 |16 Joo lo jo2 39.|39.|39.|38.138.137.137.|37.|37.137..les [33 |20 |so |62 93 |72 |48 [37 [09 ©Coke [45.'l4e.|44.a4.143.|aa.|laz.ll42.'a2.Jat.|a4.lao.[40.|40.ll40.|40Plants43|42 /40 |08 (60 |17 |93 46 [01 167 [38 [81 |67 [54 |39 03 Electric .; Generato::i rs eet,(24 (25.(24.(24.124.faa,za.[24 toa,J23.f23.fas.[23.[23.|23.jaa.(23.faa.jaa.22.[22 (22.|22.|22.joe.foo.fgIshortton)[8 ]°6 79 |89 {70 j92 |67 {139 |09 (81 |61 |55 439 433 24 |16 102 84 176 65 |45 33/8 21 (22 17 Io7°|2)KDoN72004 3 )ssl : :,r : : ldollars/11.2 11.2 (1.2 11.2 (1.2 $1.2 11.2 (14.2 (4.4 [4.4 (4.4 14.4 [4.4 14.0 [4.4 [14 [04 [01 tt ft tt tt tt tt 44 los.million 3 45 (2 |2 2 2 1 oO 9 |8 7 |6 j6 15 15 4 j4 3 |B 12 44 1 1 1 0 | Btu) Average las logj67 175 (52 |70 |43 113 |e2 |53 31 |22 [05 [98 |a7 [7a j62 [43 [33 [21 [00 \86 je1 [71 |71 |64 Exports 35.1/36.|35.1/35.134.(34.[34,33.133.133.|32.32.|32.[32.I32.|32.[32.|32.(32.131.134.(34.131.}30.(30.[30.|7/72 |97 [52 114 [70 |33 |17 |85 145 |19 |88 |18 |o9 [14 130 [58 [27 112 |13 |96 |89 126 |13 [99 [96 [a5 | 1/Includes anthracite,bituminous coal,lignite,and waste coal delivered to independent power producers.Waste coal deliveries totaled 10.1 million tons in 2000 and 10.6 million tons in 2001. 2/Production plus net imports and net storage withdrawals. _3/Includes consumption for combined heat and power plants,except those plants whose primary business is to sell electricity,or electricity and heat,to the public. 4/\ncludes electricity-only and combined heat and power (CHP)plants whose primary business is to sell electricity,or electricity and heat,to the public.5/Balancing item:the sum of production,net imports,and net storage withdrawals minus total consumption. 6/Sectoral prices weighted by consumption tonnage;weighted average excludes residential/commercial prices:and export free-alongside-ship(f.a.s.)prices. 7/F.a.s.price at U.S.port of exit. Btu=British thermal unit.N/A=Not applicable.Note:Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.Data for 2000 and 2001 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.Sources:2000:Energy Information Administration (EIA),Coal Industry Annual 2000,DOE/EIA-0584(2000)(Washington,DC,January 2002).2001 data based on EIA,Quarterly Coal Report,October-December 2001,DOE/EIA-0121(2001/4Q)(Washington,DC,May 2002)and EIA,AEQ2003 National Energy Modeling System run aeo2003.d110502c.Projections:EIA,AEO2003 National Energy Modeling System run aeo2003.d110502c. 3.Coal Plant Efficiencies and Reliability Information Energy ™Power Plan Generating Resources Advisory Committee DRAFT Northwest Power Planning Council New Resource Characterization for the Fifth Power Plan Coal-fired Power Plants May 17,2002 This paper describes the technical characteristics and cost and performance assumptions to be used by the Northwest Power Planning Council for assessments involving new coal- fired power plants.The intent is to characterize a typical facility,recognizing that actual facilities will differ from these assumptions in the particulars.We anticipate using these assumptions in price forecasting and system reliability assessment models.Others may use the Councils technology characterizations for their own purposes. Coal-fired steam-electric power plants are a mature technology,in use for over a century. Coal-fired power plants are the major source of power in eastern electricity supply systems and the second largest component of the western grid.Currently,over 36,000 megawatts of coal steam-electric power plants are in service on the western electricity grid,comprising about 23%of generating capacity.In recent years,however,the economic and environmental advantages of combined-cycle gas turbines,low load growth and promise of advanced coal-based technologies with superior efficiency and environmental characteristics eclipsed conventional coal-fired steam-electric technology, at least in the United States.Since 1990,less than 500 megawatts of new coal-fired steam electric plant entered service on the western grid. The future prospects for coal-fired steam-electric power plants may be changing.Like reciprocating internal combustion engines,another mature technology,the economic and environmental characteristics of coal-fired steam-electric power plants have greatly improved.These factors,combined with the prospect of stable or declining coal prices _May reinvigorate the competition between coal and natural gas and lessen the near-term prospects for revolutionary coal-based technologies., The capital cost of coal-fired steam-electric plants has declined about 25%(constant dollars)since the early 1990s with little or no sacrifice to thermal efficiency,reliability or environmental performance.This cost reduction is attributable to plant performance improvements,automation and reliability improvements,equipment cost reduction, reduced construction schedule,and increased market competition (DOE,1999).Coal prices also have declined during this period as a result of stagnant demand and productivity improvements in mining and transportation.By way of comparison,the Councils 1991 power plan estimated the overnight capital cost of a new coal-fired steam-electric plant to be $1775/kW and the cost of Powder River coal at $0.68/MMBtu (year 2000 dollars).The capital and fuel costs proposed for the Fifth Power Plan are $1468/kW and $0.71/MMBtu,respectively. Though the economics have improved,other issues associated with future development of coal-fired power plants remain largely unchanged.The issues cited in the Fourth Power Plan -air quality impacts,carbon dioxide and global climate change,water impacts,solid waste,site availability,coal transportation,electric power transmission and impacts of coal mining and transportation -remain significant. The proposed reference plant is a subcritical 400 megawatt pulverized coal-fired unit.It is one of two or more co-located similar units.Because of increasing constraints on the availability of water,we assume the plant is equipped with dry mechanical draft cooling. The plant would be equipped with flue gas desulfurization,fabric filter particulate control and would use combustion NOx control.In view of cost and performance improvements achieved in recent years with conventional technology,the potential for further improvements,and difficulties experienced with development of advanced technologies, future improvements in cost and performance is based on evolutionary improvements to conventional technology. Issues: e In previous power plans,location-specific coal-fired power plant costs (including transmission interconnection and site infrastructure)were based on actual Northwest sites that had been proposed for development.The availability of capacity for future development was based on the same approach.This approach no longer appears practical now that power price forecasting and other Council analyses demand a west-wide view.What approach should the Council use in expanding the basis plant assumptions to the various load-resource areas used in the Councils models?What are the important variables among prospective sites?Do we need to assess possible constraints on resource development? e What should we assume with respect to future environmental requirements for coal-fired capacity?Will mercury and other air toxins be controlled and how would plant cost and performance be affected?The reference design does not include selective catalytic reduction (SCR)for additional NOx control.Should we assume that SCR would be typically installed on new plants. e The proposed scheduled outage factor seems high ( 30 days/yr)butis consistentwithGADSdataandnewplantdesignobjectives.Do this assumption requirerevision?e Our current assumption regarding future technology development is limited to heat rate improvement andis taken from the Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2002.The basis is unclear.Should we look at an alternative approach,e.g.adoption of some advanced technology or achievement of US DOE performance goals by some future date?e Capital replacement assumptions affect the retirement of existing capacity in power price forecasting and other modeling.Are the proposed assumptions realistic? References DOE (1999):US Department of Energy.Market-based Advanced Coal Power Systems. March 1999, EIA (2001):US Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration.Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2002.December 2001. Table 1:Resource characterization:Coal-fired power plants Facility 400 MW (nominal)pulverized coal-fired subcritical steam-Reference plant from DOE,1999,. electric plant,2400 psig/1000°F/1000°F reheat.Dry modified to suit western coal and mechanical draft cooling.Low-NOx burners;lime spray site conditions. dryer;fabric particulate filter.OReference plantO design. Co-sited with one or more additional units. Fuel Western subbituminous coal.9300 Btu/Ib,0.4%S.Characteristics are for Powder River Basin coal. Technology {2000 Fifth plan base year. base year Price base 2000 Fifth plan base year. year Net power New &clean:385 MW DOE (1999)Derated 3%for dry output Lifetime average:374MW cooling. Average degradation based on 4" plan GT values. Lead time Development:36 months Development shortened from 4" plan 48 months. Construction:36 months Availability Scheduled outage factor:9%Availability factors based on 1995 - Forced outage rate:7%99 GADS,but consistent w/DOE Mean time to repair:40 hours (1999)reduced redundancy design. Availability:85%. Heat rate New &clean:9350 Btu/kWh DOE (1999),increased 3%for dry CHHV)Lifetime average:9550 Btu/kWh cooling., Vintage improvement:-0.34%/yr .Average degradation based on 4" plan GT values.. Vintage improvement From EIA (2001) Service life 30 years DOE (1999).Reduced from 4" Power plan (40 yrs). Capital cost jDevelopment:$25/kW Development cost factors from 4° Construction (Overnight):$1403/kW Plan. Startup:$26/kW Working capital:$14/kW Construction,startup &working capital from DOE (1999)plus estimated dry cooling,land & ownerDs admin costs.No allowance for site infrastructure. Capital To 30 yrs:$15/kW/yr EIA (2001). replacement }Over 30 yrs:$20/kW/yr ; Non-fuel O&M}Fixed O&M :$25/kW/yr DOE (1999)except prop tax &cost Property Tax:$20/kW/yr insurance.Prop tax &insurance Insurance:$4/kW/yr 1.4%&0.25%assessed value, Variable:$0.5/MWh respectively. Vintage improvement:0%/yr Financing IPP See Table 2 (To follow) SOx Calculation to be supplied -95%removal NOx 4.09 Ib/Mwh (2.05 T/GWh)DOE (1999)Est.2005 BACT Particulates {0.272 Ib/Mwh (0.136 T/GWh)DOE (1999)Est.2005 BACT Cco2 Calculation to be supplied Site The current AURORA run (with no limits on new capacity) Availability result in the foliowing build levels by 2020:AB -700 MW, CO 1750 MW,ID 3150 MW,MT 350 MW,WY 1140 MW. April 17,2001 Review of Potential Efficiency Improvements at Coal-Fired Power Plants Introduction The Clean Air Markets Division,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency requested that Perrin Quarles Associates,Inc.,perform a review of readily available data on potential and actual efficiency improvements at coal-fired utilities.The objective was to identify heat rate reductions or efficiency improvements that have taken place due to either optimization efforts at existing utility boilers or due to the use of newer advanced technologies for coal combustion. A unit's efficiency in this context refers to its thermal efficiency and is defined as a percentage determined by the electrical energy export divided by the fuel energy input. Fuel energy input can be defined either on a higher heating value (HHV)or lower heating value (LHV)basis.HHV is the full energy content of a fuel including the latent heat of vaporization of water,while LHV excludes the energy in the water vapor from the fuels hydrogen.The HHV will be about 5 to 10 percent higher than LHV.In the United States, fuel energy content is generally measured in terms of HHV,and HHV is used in Energy Information Agency statistics.Internationally,LHV is more often used.For this report, all efficiencies are reported on an HHV basis.Efficiency is also commonly represented by the heat rate,which is the reciprocal of the thermal efficiency and is described in the units of Btv/kWh.- This document discusses the range of heat rates and efficiencies associated with coal-fired power plants including the improved heat rates that have been achieved at some of the more recently constructed state-of-the-art coal-fired facilities.The following is a general discussion of this issue in the context of several different types of coal-fired plants.Note that the information in this report is based on a search of documents currently available on the Internet.More extensive research that may lead to additional data and supporting documentation could entail contacting EIA at DOE or individual facilities for additional information,particularly with respect to actual heat rates or efficiency percentages. Conventional Pulverized Coal Plants Current Heat Rates Unit efficiency,or heat rate,is a function of unit design,size,capacity factor,the fuel fired,maintenance condition of the unit,and operating and ambient conditions (cooling water temperature).Existing pulverized coal boilers operating today in the U.S. use subcritical or supercritical steam cycles.A supercritical steam cycle normally operates above the water critical temperature (705 F)and critical pressure (3210 psia)where water can exist only in the gaseous phase.Subcritical systems historically have achieved thermal efficiencies of 33 to 34 percent (10,300 Btu/kWh to 10,000 Btu/kWh). Supercritical systems achieve thermal efficiencies 3 to 5 percent higher than subcritical Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 2 systems.'Table 1 summarizes heat rate data for the 25 best performing utility coal-fired plants,and 50 best performing utility company coal-fired fleets in the U.S.The data were prepared for Electric Light and Power's annual top 100 utility operating report” Table 1:Best Coal Fired Heat Rates -U.S.Utilities ,Lowest Reported s ve Average of the Annual Average _Reported Annual _-HeatRate _|Average Heat Rates "_(Btu/kWh).-oo fee (Btu/kWh) 25 Best Performing 8996 9309 Coal-Fired Plants 50 Best Performing 9382 10,146 9854 Coal-Fired Fleets Data on heat rates are taken from Electric Light and Power's annual top 100 utility operating report (EL&P,1999),and were prepared by Navigant Consulting.Heat rates are from 1998 or 1997.The report noted that utility methods for determining the heat rate values are inconsistent. Heat Rate Improvements at Existing Plants Many conventional pulverized coal-fired power plants have made improvements to their systems that have,in turn,led to improvements in the plant's efficiency or heat rate. The extent to which heat rates can be improved at existing plants is estimated to be at best 3 to 5 percent.>This is because heat rate is primarily dependent on unit design,fuel,and capacity factor,and the design ofa plant can not be changed once built.The literature reviewed reported heat rate improvements consistent with the 3 to 5 percent improvement estimate. Table 2 summarizes some of the potential actions that could be taken to improve plant efficiencies.Even though these data are based on the higher moisture "brown coal" or lignite typically used only in certain areas,such as Australia,Germany,Russia,and certain portions of the U.S.,some of the actions may also be applied in the context of the lower moisture "black coal"or bituminous that is typically used in the U.S.These actions include those that would help restore the plant to its design conditions,change existing operational settings,or install retrofit improvements. Kitto,J.B.,Babcock &Wilcox,Developments in Pulverized Coal-Fired Boiler Technology,presented to the Missouri Valley Electric Association Engineering Conference,April 1996.http://www.babcock.com/pgg/tt/pdf/BR-1610.pdf Burr,M.T.,Holding companies rule;top 10 sell 28%of U.S.electricity,Electric Light and Power,October 1999. 3Levy,E.and N.Sarunac,Technical Review ofEPA's Proposed Output Monitoring System,Lehigh University Energy Research Center,September 2000. Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 3 Table 2:Measures that may Improve the Efficiency of Coal-Fired Power Plants' Action*-:mae oo ue a -Efficiency Improvement (%): |Restore Plant to Design Conditions Minimize boiier tramp air 6.42 Reinstate any feedheaters out of service 0.46 -1.97 Refurbish feedheaters 0.84 Reduce steam leaks 1.1 Reduce turbine gland leakage 0.84 'Changes to Operational Settings Low excess air operation 1.22 Improved combustion control ,0.84 |Retrofit Improvements Extra airheater surface in the boiler °2.1 Install new high efficiency turbine blades ; 0.98 Install variable speed drives**: . 1.97 Install on-line condenser cleaning system ;0.84 Install new cooling tower film pack**1.97 Install intermittent energisation to ESPs | 0.32 *Note that the efficiency improvements expected as a result of implementation of these actions may not be additive and the feasibility and improvements associated with each action may vary based on plant configuration. **The expected efficiency improvements associated with these actions may be overestimated. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO)has implemented a number of actions to improve the efficiency or heat rate at certain coal-fired plants,some of which are included in Table 2 above.The efficiency improvements as reported in the Climate Challenge Participation Accord between WEPCO and the Department of Energy (DOE) are summarized in Table 3.Efficiency improvements over a 5 year period ranged from 2.3 percent to 4.1 percent.In the Accord,WEPCO also committed to other efforts to improve heat rates including:various equipment control upgrades such as distributed control systems,precipitators and turbine controls;metering upgrades;boiler chemical cleaning;feedwater heater improvements;reduced condenser air in-leakage;and reduced "Sinclair Knight Merz Pty.Ltd.,Integrating Consultancy -Efficiency Standards for Power Generation,Australian Greenhouse Office,January 2000,p.38. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/markets/gen_eff/skmreport.pdf Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 4 thermal losses.WEPCO estimated a 0.5 percent annual company-wide heat rate improvement due to these additional efforts over a period from 1995 -2000. Table 3:Example Heat Rate Improvements at Wisconsin Electric Plants Due to Operational Changes (1990 -1994)° ale 'Original - 1 Heat Rate "(Btu/kWh Improved 'Heat Rate |@twkWh i:'EfficiencoY. Increase. (%) Descriptionof Efficiency Oe >Improvement Projects mica 9,802 9,424 3.9 Variable pressure operation, distributed control system,retractable turbine packing,variable speed drives _ on the forced and induced draft fans, reduced air in-leakage,feedwater heater replacements,increased availability and capacity factor and precipitator energy management system Pleasant Prairie 11,157 10,796 3.2 Variable pressure operation,unit and equipment performance monitoring, retractable turbine packing,reduced air in-leakage,increased availability and variable speed drive make-up water pumps , Presque Isle 11,565 11,089 41 Retractable turbine packing,increased availability and capacity factor, reduced air in-leakage,reduced excess boiler O2,boiler chemical cleaning, CO monitors on the boiler,improved turbine pressure and updated or additional instrumentation *Wisconsin Electric Power Company Climate Challenge Participation Accord (agreementwithDOE),Appendix A (Wisconsin Energy Emission Reduction/Sequestration Project Descriptions),Section 2 -Supply Side Energy Efficiency. http://www.eren.doe.gov/climatechallenge/cc_accordxWISCEL.htm Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 5 Table 3:Example Heat Rate Improvements at Wisconsin Electric Plants Due to Operational Changes (1990 -1994)(cont.) hy :aS |Original :.Improved _Efficienc a8 o , 2s xymi,|HeatRate |HeatRate |oy |Description of Efficiencyoetee|(Btu/kWh |.(Btu/kWh Increase ae Improvement Projects -:a Valley 13,938 13,623 2.3 Last row turbine blade replacement, retractable turbine packing,variable speed drives for the forced and induced draft fans,superheater surface change,reduced air in-leakage, reduced pulverizer primary air velocity and increased availability and capacity factor PQA has previously reviewed literature for CAMD on NO,reductions and efficiency improvements resulting from the installation of combustion optimization software,such as NeuSIGHT,ULTRAMAX,and GNOCIS.The software works with aboiler's digital control system to optimize and control boiler settings.Efficiency improvements from the combustion optimization ranged from 0.3 to 3 percent.® New Pulverized Coal Plants In addition to the potential for efficiency improvements at existing conventional pulverized coal-fired plants through operational changes and equipment upgrades,there is also the potential for dramatically reduced heat rates through the use of pulverized coal- fired power plants built with more advanced technologies. A Low Emissions Boiler System (LEBS)based on the direct combustion of pulverized coal emphasizes improvements in technology and processes that are already widely accepted.These types of facilities include a high-efficiency pulverized coal boiler integrated with other more efficient combustion techniques and advancements in emission control technologies.The more advanced versions of these facilities may achieve up to 44 percent efficiency and are expected to be currently.commercially available.' In the context of these newer units,a 400 MW pulverized coal power plant design based on the utilization of pulverized coal feeding a conventional steam boiler and steam ®Perrin Quarles Associates,Inc.,Review of Utility Coal-Fired Boiler Optimization Papers,Appendix,August 2000. "Lester,E.,Minimization of Global Climate Change Using Clean Coal Technology, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,August 1998,p.5. http://www.aiche.org/government/pdfdocs/cleancoal.pdf Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 6 turbine,as well as state-of-the-art technology and components currently available in the market,could achieve heat rates as low as 8,251 Btu/k Wh,depending on the specific design of the facility.Design data for these types of facilities are summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4:Heat Rate Data for Subcritical,Supercritical,and Ultra-Supercritical Coal-Fired Power Plants (Design Data Based on a 400 MW Facility)* ee "Steam Be |.Expected Heat.|Temperature (F)|Rate (Btu/kWh)Type ofPlant - Subcritical (conventional 2400 psig 1000F/1000F 9,077 pulverized coal plant with emission control systems to meet current air quality standards) Supercritical (single reheat 3500 psig 1050F/1050F 8,568 configuration with emissions control systems to meet air quality standards expected in 2005) Ultra-Supercritical (double 4500 psig L1O0F/1100F/1100F |8,251 reheat configuration with . emissions control systems to meet air quality standards expected in 2010) Another source includes data from coal-fired plants in North America,Europe,and Japan,and cites the best practice thermal efficiency rates at 37.7 percent and 41.7 percent - for subcritical and supercritical plants,respectively,for facilities similar in size to those referenced above.”. An examination of this new generation of coal burning plants internationally have revealed that several are capable of achieving efficiencies above 40 percent through the use of low condenser pressures,high steam pressures and temperatures,double reheat cycles,up to ten stages of feed heating and other changes to station parameters and 8U.S.Department of Energy,Office of Fossil Energy,Market Based Advanced Coal Power Systems,Section 3 --Pulverized Coal-Fired Plants,May 1999,DOE/FE-0400,p.3.1-5, 3.2-2,and 3.3-2. http://www.fetc.doe.gov/coal_power/special_rpts/market_systems/market_sys.html *Sinclair Knight Merz Pty.Ltd.,Integrating Consultancy --Efficiency Standards for - Power Generation,Australian Greenhouse Office,January 2000,p.6. Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 7 configuration of equipment.These plants and their corresponding efficiencies are summarized in Table 5 below. 'Table 5 -International "Black Coal"Power Plants with High Design Thermal Efficiencies” roar [one][seearinentiner |meet Staudinger 5 1992 550 1004/1040 41.1* Rostock 1994 550 1004/1040 42 Esbjerg 1992 400 1036/1040 43.2* Nordjylland-|1998 400 1076/1076/1076 44.9 svaerket (double reheat cycle) Lubeck 1998 440 1076/1112 43.6 Bexbach II 2002 ;750 1067/1103 44.2 (projected) *Note that these estimated thermal efficiencies have been confirmed through testing and/or operating experience. Combined Cycle Operations at Coal-Fired Power Plants Coal-fired power plants have historically been limited to the simple cycle method. However,recent technological developments have led to the capability of powering "combined-cycle"generators.Under DOE Initiatives,two new technologies --Pressurized Fluid Bed Combustion and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)--have allowed for combined cycle operations in the context of coal-fired facilities.These facilities have dramatically improved efficiencies or heat rates as compared to conventional pulverized coal-fired facilities. Pressurized Fluid Bed Combustor One study examined the efficiency benefits of using more advanced technologies such as the pressurized fluid bed combustor.Using a standard pulverized coal plant (294 MW with a heat rate of 9009 Btu/k Wh)as a reference point,the efficiency benefits of using more advanced technologies were evaluated.A facility similar to the reference plant that utilizes a pressurized fluid bed combustor system may be able to achieve heat rates between 7,040 Btu/kWh and 8,679 Btu/kWh depending on the type of technology.A "bubbling bed"pressurized fluid bed combustor could lead to a heat rate of about 8,679 BtwkWh,while a "first generation"or "second generation"pressurized fluid bed Sinclair Knight Merz Pty.Ltd.,p.59. Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 8 combustor could lead to heat rates of 8,506 Btu/kWh and 7,040 Btu/kWh,respectively.” Another DOE study also confirms heat rates in this range for a pressurized fluid bed combustor.” Combustors the size of 70 to 80 MW have been in operation for a number of years. Recently,some larger combustors have been constructed.A 350 MW combustor is under construction in Japan and the expected efficiency is 41 percent.There is the potential to reach 43 percent in future plants.However,based on operational data from one existing plant,the overall net efficiency is approximately 38.2 percent."? Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle The DOE/Parsons study referenced above also examined the benefits of using an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IGCC)system,which is capable of achieving heat rates between 7,374 Btu/kWh and 7,581 Btu/kWh,depending again,on the type of technology used.'* There have been some successful examples of plants that have recently demonstrated the IGCC technology.The Wabash River Coal Gasification Power Plant in West Terre Haute,IN and the Polk Power Plant in Polk County,Florida are two IGCC systems that have been successful at improving efficiencies.The Wabash River project repowered the oldest of six pulverized coal units using a "next-generating"coal gasifier, an advanced gas turbine and a heat-recovery steam generator.The 265 MW unit began operation in December 1995 and the design heat rate for the repowered unit is 9,034 Btu/KWh (approximately 38 percent efficiency).5 The Polk Power Plant has a similar efficiency estimated at 39.7 percent and the heat rate is estimated at approximately 8,600 Btu/kWh.'®. Bonk,D.,and M.Freier,U.S.Department of Energy,and Buchanan,et.al.,Parsons Power,Assessment of Opportunities for Advanced Technology Repowering,p.3.,Proceedings of the Advanced Coal Based and Environmental Systems Conference,Pittsburgh,July 22 -24,1997. http://www.fetc.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ps/ps_pdf/PS1-7.PDF 2 Market Based Advanced Coal Power Systems,Section 5 --Circulating Pressurized Fluid Bed Combustor,U.S.Department of Energy,May 1999,p.5-5. Sinclair Knight Merz Pty.Ltd.,pp.59-60,66-67. 148 onk,D.and M.Freier,and Buchanan,et.al.,p.3-4. 'SDOE Fossil Energy Techline,"Fourth Clean Coal Plant to Win Powerplant Award Sets Record Operation for Coal Gasifier in Early 1997."February 18,1997. http://www.fe.doe.gov/techline/tl wab96.html '©Clean Coal Today,"Tampa Electric's Greenfield IGCC Ready for Demonstration," Office of Fossil Energy,U.S.Department of Energy,DOE/FE-0215 P-24,No.24,Winter 1996. Efficiency Improvements April 17,2001 Page 9 Recent data on actual operational results shows that these facilities have achieved efficiencies that are similar to the design values.The overall net thermal efficiency for the Wabash River IGCC facility has been 39.7 percent.!'The overall net thermal efficiency for the Polk Power Station has been 36.5 percent with an overall heat rate of 9350 Btu/kWh.The efficiency for the Polk Station has been slightly lower than expected due to problems with the gasifier and low carbon conversion.These and other issues have been recently addressed and certain operational changes are expected to lead to a thermal efficiency of around 38 percent." One study notes that the efficiency of IGCC plants is expected to be around 42 percent and there is the potential to achieve 49 percent when higher efficiency gas turbines become available.'One DOE study estimates the thermal efficiency of an IGCC plant slightly lower at 40.1 percent with a heat rate of 8,522 Btu/kWh.This estimate assumes a 540 MW facility with a plant configuration based on the technology demonstrated at the Wabash IGCC facility but incorporates a new steam turbine.However,this study also describes IGCC facilities of similar size based on more advanced technologies (some of which of which are not yet commercially available)that could achieve an efficiency and heat rate of up to 49.7 percent and 6,870 Btu/kWh,respectively.”° The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project -An Update,"Clean Coal Technology,Topical Report #20,September 2000. http://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/topicalreports/documents/topical20.pdf '8"Tampa Electric Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Project -An Update,"Clean Coal Technology,Topical Report #19,July 2000. http://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/topicalreports/documents/topicall 9.pdf Sinclair Knight Merz Pty.Ltd.,pp.59,66. °Market Based Advanced Coal Power Systems,Section 4 --Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle,DOE,May 1999,p.4.3-5. '4.EMF Information ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS G.FILIPPOPOULOS D.TSANAKAS filippo@eeae.nrcps.ariadne-t.Tsanakas@ee.upatras.gr DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS 26500,RION,GREECE Abstract Accurate mathematical formulae of the magnetic field around some commonly used configurations of power lines are derived.This is achieved by the use of two copies of the complex numbers set.The one copy,named C,,is used to represent the vectors in the vertical plane (where the magnetic flux density vector is considered). The other copy,named C;,is used to represent the sinusoidal varying quantities as phasors.The rotating vector of the magnetic flux density occurs as a combination of the two complex number sets,belonging to the set of the Cartesian product C;x C,named double complex numbers.The magnetic flux density vector,as a double complex number is described through remarkably simple relations,making the development of accurate mathematical formulae for it possible.These formulae express the magnetic flux density vector as a function of the line geometrical parameters and the relative distance from it.Similar formulae for the resultant value of the magnetic field,a commonly used quantity to describe the magnetic field,are also derived.As examples accurate formulae of the magnetic field around single circuit power lines in flat,vertical and delta configurations and hexagon lines in various configurations are presented. , 1 Introduction The last decades,the magnetic fields produced around power lines are considered as an environmental factor. The calculation of the magnetic field values at ground level under a power line is usually made arithmetically with the use of a computer [1].However,the arithmetic calculation does not allow an insight at the magnetic field properties and its dependencies of the various parameters of the setting.For example,the magnetic field at ground level is calculated at a specific distance from the line axis and considering a specific height of the conductors to the ground.This calculation is repeated for various distances in order to get the magnetic fieldprofile.For different conductor heights or if there is a change in the line arrangement,the whole process must berepeated.Also the results refer to a specific line and cannot be easily generalized.However,computational investigations are made in order to reach some general conclusions about the ability of some power line configurations to reduce the produced magnetic fields.For example,double circuit lines in low reactance configuration and compact lines were found to reduce the magnetic fields in [2,3]. In [4]some approximate formulae of the magnetic field were presented.These formulae were based on the multipole expansion of the magnetic field and are precise at relative big distances from the line in comparison to the distances between its conductors.These formulae are very useful in the determination of the way the magnetic field decays away from a power line.For example,the fast reduction of the magnetic field away from a double circuit line in low reactance phasing was explained:placing the conductors in such a way that the first terms of the multipole expansion is zeroed,the magnetic field far from the line is minimized.However,these formulae do not show the behaviourof the magnetic field under the line,where there usually is an increased interest.In most cases it is important to know the magnetic field maximum value under the line and where it appears:In this paper accurate mathematical formulae of the magnetic field around some commonly used configurations of power lines are derived. 83 G.FILIPPOPOULOS D.TSANAKAS In [1,2,3,4]the complex numbers were preserved as phasors to represent the sinusoidal varying quantities.In this paper,complex numbers are also used to represent the vectors in the traverse plane to the conductors,where the magnetic field is considered.This is possible if a system with two imaginary units is used.In [5]many imaginary units are used,reaching to systems of hypercomplex numbers.So the innovation of this approach is the simultaneous use of complex numbers to represent plane vectors and phasors.After this representation the magnetic field rotating vector is represented by a new set of numbers,named double complex numbers.These numbers are a combination of the complex numbers representing plane vectors with the complex numbers representing sinusoidal varying quantities.The double complex numbers and their basic properties,from a mathematical point of view,are briefly discussed in the Appendix. As to denotation bold letters are used for vectors,underlined letters for phasors and bold underlined letters for double complex numbers.Also small letters indicate instantaneous values and capital letters rms values. 2 Magnetic field calculation using double complex numbers Figure 1 shows the space arrangement of the conductors of a power line in relation to the xyZ axes system.The line route is considered straight and parallel to the z-axis.The line conductors are not straight but they are sagged by their weight.The curve that is drawn by each conductor at a span between two sequential suspension points is known as the catenary curve.In order to simplify the calculations and the analysis of the magnetic field produced by the line;the model of an assembly of horizontal conductors in z-axis is used.This model is precise in the . prediction of the magnetic fields if the conductor sag is small in comparison to the span.A typical value for high voltage lineconductorsagis10mforaspanof350m.Figure 1.Space arrangement of the conductors of a power line. Figure 2 shows a traverse section of a power line modelled as an assembly of three conductors parallel to z-axis.This section is actually the xy plane,where the conductors are shown as single points.The conductor k is caringthecurrenti,towards the positive z-axis direction.The magnetic flux density b,which is created by the k conductor,is given by the Ampere law: Holk (sb,=é,.xR ; '2-1kaR(z )¢) 7 Vs..ae ns ..aewherep,=42 10 7 An is the magnetic permeability of free space,€,is the unit vector in the direction of z-m , axis,R,is the vector distance from the k conductor to the point of interest P and the symbol x denotes the cross product of the vectors é,and R,. In the general case a line with n conductors may be considered.Equation (2-2)could be simplified if the Using the superposition theorem,the magnetic flux density b vector distances on the xy plane were .produced by the line is the vector sum of the fields produced by represented as complex numbers.On the each conductor separately:other hand,for ac lines the conductor currents are sinusoidal quantities 2 2i.(éxR represented by phasors,which are alsob=dbs =erties (2-2,omplex numbers.It is clear that having ==k only one set of complex numbers does 84 ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS not allow the simultaneous representation of the vectors in the xy plane and the current phasors.In order to solve this problem two copies of the complex numbers set are used:1)The set C; of the complex numbers with the imaginary unit i (i?=--1)y Oi, and 2)the set C;of the complex numbers with the imaginary unitj and(j?=-1).It is noted that i #j. ©x z Figure 2.Traverse section of a power line model. The set C;is used for the representation of vectors on the xy plane.Each vector on the xy plane R =xé,+yé, (é,and @,are the unit vectors on x and y axis)is represented by the complex number R =x +iy.Using this representation,the factor (é,xR,)/R?in (2-2)is written as i/R,,where R,is the conjugate complex number of R,(R,=x -iy)and the factor i is used to enter a x/2 rotation instead of the outer product with the unit vector é,. The set C;is used for the representation of sinusoidal quantities as phasors.Each sinusoidal quantity iy =421,cos(@t+@,)is represented by the complex number I,=I,e'through the relation i,=v2 Re(I,e*").Using these representations,(2-2)gives: b =12Re,(Be™)(2-3) in,=],.where B=at 2-4,B=>a .(2-4) The vector b is represented by B ,which is a double complex number (described in the Appendix).The term Re,is an expansion of the real function,meaning the real part of the double complex number as to the imaginaryunitj:Re,(a +ib+jot ijd)=a+ib. The double complex numberB may be written in the following forms: B=B,+iB,=B,+jB,=B,,+iB,+jB,,+iB,,(2-5) The phasors B,and B,represent the ip,wl in,GI,;P oy eee Beatty BH 2-6)components of b on x and y-axis,respectively,2m 1 R,2m 4m R, which are sinusoidal quantities.The vectors B, and B,are refer to the real and imaginary part where I,,and I,,are the real and the imaginary part of of b,expressed by the relations:the current I,. The vector b as a function of time (2-3),traces an ellipse.Figure 3 shows this ellipse defined by its major G.FILIPPOPOULOS semi-axis B,and its minor semi-axis By.The factor ;/v2 is used to convert the maximum instant values to rms values.However,a very significant parameter of the magnetic flux density is its resultant value B,which is equal to the magnitude of the double complex number B: B=[B|=(62 +3)=(8?+B?) D.TSANAKAS Figure 3.The ellipse described by the vector b. =(Bz +B?+B?,+B3)2 3 Multipole expansion of the magnetic flux density (2-7) Figure 4 shows again the traverse section of a power line.The currents are characterized by their phasors I,and the place of the k conductor is characterized by its vector distance d,from a reference point O,which is a central point of the line.The point O is close to but not necessarily the centre of the conductor arrangement. The vector R defines the distance from the point of interest P.Replacing the distance of the point of interest P from the conductor k:R,=R-d,,and using the equation (R-d,)|=).a}"/R*(valid for R >d,)in (2-4),it results =) the multipole expansion of the magnetic field flux density: B=YBa hel) ip,M,where:B,,=-==O)ogR* and M,=ya The multipole expansion is the expression of the magnetic flux density as a sum of rN y O to the point 10. d r Oo Lo R B, P Gi) Figure 4.Traverse section of a power line mgge}noting the reference point O. (3-3) succeeding terms that inversely depend with an increasing force of the distance R.Each term By)of this sum is called A order 86 ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS term of the magnetic flux density and is expressed through (3-2).The factor m_ is called the A order moment of the magnetic flux density.Both double complex numbers B,,and M,express elliptical rotating vectors.The term B,,, may be calculated through the calculation of the moment M,and the distance from the line R.Figure 5 shows ihe relation between the ellipse traced by M,and the ellipse traced by B,.)at deferent places around the line./ The general expression of the magnetic flux density 4 order term is due to the \capabilities of the double complex to express the elliptical rotating vectors.It should be noted that in [4]only the first \ four terms of the magnetic flux density \ multipole expansion were derived.Also \in [4]the magnetic field away from the \ power line was approximated with the NN first non-zero term of the multipole ™ " expansion._ Figure 5.Relation between the ellipses defined by M,and Bay . 4 Single circuit lines The magnetic flux density around a single circuit line consisting of three phase conductors (a,b and c)is derived from (2-4)as B aie i,+le ted 2n\R-d,R-d,R-d, Making some manipulations,(4-1)is written as: pu ite Gth+!eR?-[(a,+4,1,+,+4.1,+(0,+4, + I.JR+d,d.1,+4,4,1,+4,4,1 2n R'-(d,+d,+d,)R?+(d,d,+d,d,+d,d,dd, Considering the phases abc consist a positive sequence system,their currents are related according to: where a =e??? Replacing these equations in (4-2),it becomes: 87 (4-1) (4-2) (4-3) G.FILIPPOPOULOS D.TSANAKAS ip,]d,+a"4,+ad,+d,d,+a dd,+ad,d,B=-oS ee (4-4)2x R*-(d,+d,+d,)R?+(d,d,+,d,+d,d,)R-d,d,d, The resultant value of the magnetic flux density is calculated by (4-3)as B =|B]. =pu I Ka,+a d,+ad,+d,d,+a dd,+ad,d,|(4-5)2n |R' (d,+d,+d,)R'+(d,d,+d,d,+d,d,)R-d,d,d, Equations (4-4)and (4-5)get much simpler forms when they refer to specific configurations of lines.Table 1 gives the expressions for the magnetic flux density vector and its resultant value for the three most commonly used configurations of single circuit lines. Table 1.Accurate formulae of the magnetic flux density vector B and resultant value B for single circuit lines Line configuration Accurate formulae b 8 S c B _ipIs W3R-s aa "Xe ""2aR (R?-s*) R Nie_p,Is 3R?+37 2nR \R'-2R?s'cos2o+s* Flat arrangement , s B=-u,Is V3R-is at Boor (+8) s b R 1 _pis 3R?+87 2 2nR \R*+2R's'cos2o+s°* Vertical arrangement a V3s B a Dittels Rit ii)-sli+j)4a R?+is? b c :1 R ,3 32 bols R?+s?2 4n R$-2R3s?sin3p+s° Delta arrangement 5 Hexagon line Figure 6 shows the traverse section of a hexagon line.The conductors of this line are placed on the corners of a regular hexagon.The advantage of hexagon lines for the magnetic field calculation is their symmetry. 88 ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS Considering the reference point O at the centre of the hexagon,the vector distances of the corners from O is 'given by similar expressions: 2ni(kéy2Se6 (5-1) Figure 6.A hexagon line Equation (3-3)gives the A order moment.Replacing (5-1)in (3-3)it results: a i0-1)(k-1)M,=syle "3 (5-2) k=l This relation results that there is a general recursive relation between the A4+6v and the A order moment of the magnetic flux density.So,calculating the 6 first moments,the rest are derived: Mow,=8M,(5-3) The recursiveness of the moments results similar relations between the magnetic flux density terms.The 4 order term of the magnetic flux density id given by (3-2).Equation (3-2)in combination with (5-3)results: ;6vip,M,sBe)oe RO an So all the terms of the multipole expansion of the magnetic flux density in (3-1),may be separated in 6 groups, as shown in the following relation:. B=Y Bey +2 Been +2 Beers +2D Beers +2 Brows +2 Brews (5-5) v=ve!v=ve v=v=0 Each of the 6 sums appearing as terms in the former equation are calculated as: o _ip M,R™:2 Boos On Ronee (5-6) Replacing this in (5-6)it gives: ip,M,R*+M,R*+M,R?+M,R?+M.R+M,_We N.B==3°=o 2n R°-s°2n R®-s°(3-7) 89 G.FILIPPOPOULOS D.TSANAKAS 6where:N=)M,R**(5-8) hel The resultant value of the magnetic flux density occurs as the magnitude of the above expression: B=be N =2a (5-10)1R”-2R 65°cos6p +s”)2 where the distance s and the angle »are shown in figure 6. The calculation of the magnetic field flux density vector consists in the calculation of N from the 6 first moments.The calculation of the magnetic field flux density rms value consists in the calculation of N =|N|.The value of N depends on the line configuration.In table 2 three common configurations of a hexagon line are examined.It should be noted that even though the presented method assumes that R>s,these formulae are also valid for Rss. 6 Conclusions Accurate formulas of the magnetic field vector and its resultant value for commonly used configurations of power lines have been developed.These formulas may be used in the accurate estimation and the analysis of the magnetic field values around these lines.As an example,for a flat power line,it is possible to calculate for the magnetic field profile at ground level,its maximum value and the exact distance from the line axis where it appears,keeping the distances between the phase conductors and the distance from the conductors to ground as parameters.Also the magnetic field levels of different power line configurations can be compared. Double complex numbers proved to be very efficient for the representation of the magnetic field vectors.Their use simplified the expressions of the magnetic field produced by power lines and allowed the development of the accurate formulae.Also the magnetic field multipole expansion terms were simplified and a general expression of the A-order term was presented.However,it remains for a future paper to show how the properties of the ellipse described by the magnetic field vector,such as the major semi-axis,are related to the double complex number representing the field and how these parameters can be extracted from this number. It remains for future work to examine some more complicated cases of power line magnetic fields.A true double circuit line conductor arrangement may decline significantly from the examined case of hexagonal lines.Further more the currents might not be well balanced or some significant harmonics levels may have been introduced. 7 References [i]D.W.Deno,L.E.Zaffanella:"Filed effects of overhead transmission lines and stations”Chapter 8 of the "Transmission Line Reference Book-345kV and Above”,2°ed.Electric Power Research Institute, California 1982. [2]D.Tsanakas,G.Filippopoulos,J.Voyatzakis,G.Kouvarakis:Compact and optimum phase conductor arrangement for the reduction of electric and magnetic fields of overhead lines,CIGRE Report 36-103, Session 2000. [3]G.Filippopoulos,D.Tsanakas,G.Kouvarakis:Overhead and underground power line electric and magnetic field reduction techniques,Millennium International Workshop on Biological Effects of | Electromagnetic Fields,Crete,Greece,October 2000. [4]W.T.Kaune,L.E.Zaffanella:Analysis of magnetic fields produced far from electric power lines, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,Vol.7,No 4,pp.2082 -2091,October 1992. 90 ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS [5]I.L.Kantor,A.S.Solodovnikov:"Hypercomplex Numbers -An Elementary Introduction to Algebras” Springer-Verlag 1989,ISBN:0-387-96980-2,ISBN:3-540-96980-2 (Translated from Russian to English language by A.Shenitzer).. 91 G.FILIPPOPOULOS D.TSANAKAS Table 2.Accurate formulae of the magnetic flux density vector B and resultant value B for hexagon lines. Line configuration Accurate formulae b b °° a®@ super-bundle double circuit line Zip,Is ijR*+sR?+s°R -ijs* 2n Ro-s°B= B=3p,Is[R®+s7?R*+2s*R*(cos2@ -cos4p)+s°R?+5° Qn R?-2R's°cos69 +8”} b c e e ae low-reactance double circuit line Bin,Is'R (1-ij)R?+(1+ij)s?B=2a R'-s°* 13V2p,Is'R R'+s'*2 B=12 6.6 122uR*"-2R°s'cos6p+s b e ¢c e de six phase line 3ip,Is (1+ij)R*+(1-ij)s*B=2n R°-s* 13V2y,Is Re 45°2 B=12 6.6 122nR™"*-2R°s'cos6p +s Appendix:Double Complex Numbers and their properties General The double complex may be used when there is a need to use simultaneously two sets of complex numbers.In this case,two copies of the complex numbers set is used the set C;with the imaginary unit i,and the set Cj with the imaginary unit j (i?=-1,j?=-1 and i#j).The set of double complex numbers D is the Cartesian product of the set C;to the C;(D =CxC=R').A double complex number f may be written in the forms: f£=2,+jz,=§+10,=atib+jet ijd 92 (A-1) ACCURATE FORMULAE OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELDS where Z,=a+ib and Z,=c+id are complex numbers in the set C;,oa +jc and t=b+jd are complex numbers in the set C;and a,b,c and d are real numbers (in the set R).Considering a second double complex number f'=a'+ib'+jc'+ijd'the product of f with f'occurs as shown in (A-2).Assuming the usual operations of real numbers apply and replacing i?=-1,j?=-1 where they appear). ff!=aa'+iab'+jac'+ijad'+iba'-bb'+ijbc'-jbd'+(4-2)+jca'+jicb'--cc' icd'+ijda'-jdb'-ide'+dd' This relation shows that the product of two double complex numbers is also a double complex number.Equation (A-2)is used as a multiplication mle,allowing the axiomatic definition of double complex numbers as a commutative ring. Axiomatic definition Double complex numbers are ordered quadruplets of real numbers with some operation rules.Considering the quadruplets (a,b,c,d)and (a',b',c',d')where the a,b,c,d,a',b',c'and d'are real numbers the rules for equality,addition are component like and the multiplication rule are defined as: (a,b,c,d)=(a',b',c',d')<>(a=a',b=b',c=c'andd=d')(A-3) {a,b,c,d)+(a',b',c',d')=(at+a',b+bc+c',d+d')(4-4) (a,b,c,d)(a',b',c',d')=(4-5)=(aa'-bb'-cc'+dd',ab'+ba'-cd'-de',ac'-bd'+ca'-db',ad'+be'+cb'+da') Defining 1=(1,0,0,0),i=(0,1,0,0)and j=(0,0,1,0),the product ij occurs ij=(0,0,0,1).Based on these equalities,and considering the product of any real number r with (a,b,c,d)as r(a,b,c,d)=(ra,rb,re,rd)any double complex number (a,b,c,d)may be written in the familiar form a+bi+cj+dij.The subset of D for c = 0 and d=0Q,is the set C;.Similarly,the subset of D for b =0 and d =0 is the set C;.Further more,the subset of Dforb=0,c =0 and d=0 is the set of the real numbers R.The defined operation rules are consistent with the well known operations in the two sets of complex and the real numbers C;,C;and R. Based on the rules for addition and multiplication it can be easily derived that the set of double complex numbers is a commutative ring (addition is commutative:f,+f,=f,+/£,,multiplication is commutative:f,f,=f£,£,, addition is associative:f,+(f,+f,)=(f,+f,)+f,,multiplication is associative:f,(f,f£,)=(£,f,)f,, multiplication is distributive with respect to addition:f,(f,+£,)=1,f,+f,£,,the zero element is the real number 0:f+0=f and the unitary element is the real number 1:f-1=f,where f,,f,and f,stand for double complex numbers).That means that the basic operation rules for double complex numbers addition and multiplication are the same as the known ones (as for real numbers).So there is no need to memorize specialoperationrules.Also,there is no need to remember the multiplication rule;it is enough to replace i?=-1 and j?= -1 where they appear. Inversion of double complex numbers However,there is a significant difference between the set of double complex numbers and the sets of complex and real numbers.Double complex numbers is not a division system i.e.there are some double complex numbers without an inverse (called non-invertible numbers),An inverse of a double complex number f is any double complex number f,,,for which the following relation is valid f f,,,=1.It can be proven that if f has an inverse this is a unique double complex number.The cancellation low does not apply for non-invertible 93 G.FILIPPOPOULOS D.TSANAKAS numbers,i.e.if f is a non-invertible number,equation fx=fy may be true and for x#y.This would be impossible if f had an inverse.So the expression 1/f is not valid,unless it is known that f is invertible (for example if it is a real or a complex number). The magnitude of a double complex number The magnitude If]of a double complex number f expressed in the forms of (A-1)is a real number that occurs according to the relations: a 2 2\aI=(zi?+lzf?)?=(¢,P +,-@?+b?+0?+a")(4-6) This relation is consistent with the definition of the magnitude of complex numbers. A useful relation for the calculation of the product of two double complex numbers f,and f,is the following: If,£21 =|lif) . (A-7) However,this relation is valid only if at least one of f,and f,is a real number or a complex number in C;or C; or a product of a complex number in C;with a complex number in C;. 94 oevaneee gC Noungitararmen nce meenipens ea ee ee ee eeMyeeeSaee=i.e eaElectric &Magnetic Fields (EMFs) Over the years,the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs}has drawn the interest of scientists,government researchers, energy companies,consumers,the news media,and others.New studies and reports on EMFs will certainly continue to spur interest and debate regarding this important issue. Presently,research studies about the correlation between EMF exposure and adverse health effects are inconclusive.Since Allegheny Energy is committed to providing safe.and reliable electric service to customers, we have prepared this brochure to provide the most current information available on EMFs. We hope the information within this brochure helps answer your questions regarding EMFs. What are EMFs? EMFs are invisible lines of force that are present wherever electricity exists. Electric fields are produced by voltage,which is the presence of an electrical charge.The higher the voltage of the power supply,the greater the electric field.An electric field is produced any time a conductor,or wire,is energized.For example,when a lamp in your home is plugged into an electrical outlet,an electric field exists,whether or not the lamp is turned on.Electric fields are also a natural phenomenon and can come in the form of lightning from a thunderstorm or the static charge you sometimes feel on dry days."| 1 20 Volts,No Current ory ttt 4 ums FY POY Y be Magnetic fields are produced by current, which is the flow of electrical charges.As the current increases,the strength of the mag- netic field also increases.For example,the current drawn by a lamp,and the resulting magnetic fields,will be stronger on the lamp'shighsettingthantheywillbewhenthelamp is operated on its low setting.The wiresproduceamagneticfieldonlywhenthe lamp . is turned on. Where are EMFs found? The largest natural source of magnetic fields that we are exposed to is created by our Earth. In nature,magnetic fields are what keep compass needles pointed north and can be strong enough in some parts of the world to pull an automobile uphill. In your home,appliances produce the highest magnetic field levels.At work,computers and other electrical equipment produce magnetic fields.Outside of your home or office,electric transmission and distribution lines produce magnetic and electric fields as they carry electricity from power stations to your home, business,and community.The following charts show typical levels of magnetic fields, measured in milligauss,produced by common household appliances and electric transmission and distribution lines. 'UL2ine.d2in.39 in: Microwave |ae = Oven 750-2000.40-80 3-8 -Clothes ..ree |Washer 8-400.2-30.0.1-2 & (\AF pyLampOnYWy F re100Was°)> . . Magnetic fields pass through objects such as buildings,plants,and the ground.They are measured in units named for 18th-century mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss and 19th-century electrician and inventor Nicola Tesla.The units of the tesla are equal to 10,000 gauss.The gauss is a measure of the number of magnetic lines of force passing through an area equal to one square inch.The earth's magnetic field averages 500 milligauss or 0.5 gauss (1 gauss =1000 milligauss). Electric oa Range.60-2000 4-40.--0.1-1 Dryer 60-200002 1-70 ..0.1-3 Television .25-500.©0.4-20 0.1-2 Source:Edison Electric Institute Magnetic field strength decreases as the distance from the source increases.This chart shows magnetic field levels,measured in milligauss,from three distances. y Q centerline |50ft.* 100ft*200ft* 12kvt 28 3 ]2|cae DIStance from center of rightOF way ;: RY Kulovalt»: :ine .veg de Paar . Nd «d138KV 124.3829 TUT)230kv**92 29...8B 2aue"oe "While the structures arefrequently the same as d 38 kyadsee230-oA tae ae bisher.melas oe oe Bou500W"142 82)25 6 Source:AlleghenyEnereyfield calculations at normal=conductorheight and load,Readings mayvary withnechangesiinheight.anit line londing.a This chart shows magnetic field levels,measured in milligauss,at ground level near electric transmission and distribution lines.These calculations were taken under normal weather conditions.Readings may vary with changes in the height of the line and temperature. What factors determine EMF exposure? be Distance:As the charts illustrate,exposure is greater the closer you are to the field source. b=Time:The more time you spend near the field source,the greater the exposure. be Field Strength:The stronger the field at its source,the greater the exposure.Voltage levels for electric fields and current levels for magnetic fields determine source strength. f=Wiring Configuration:Some wiring con- figurations produce magnetic fields that fall rapidly with distance,while others create fields that fall off less rapidly.For example, electric motors produce magnetic fields that fall rapidly,while household wiring produces fields that fall less rapidly. Do EMPs affect human health? Studies to determine the effects of electric and magnetic fields on humans have been inconclusive. Can electric power lines be built without producing EMFs? No.A magnetic field is present when electric current is present.An electric field is present when voltage is present. Do underground electric power lines have lower magnetic fields at ground level? Burying electric power lines will not reduce magnetic fields at ground level.Measure- ments taken at ground level over under- ground distribution lines show magnetic fields comparable to those beneath overhead distribution and transmission lines.The determining factors for these field levels are current in the wires,depth of wire burial, geometry of the wires,and whether shielding practices are employed. Have exposure limits been set for EMFs? No limits by federal,state,or local authorities have been set for exposures to magnetic or electric field levels.National and interna- tional industrial guidelines have been published for workers that operate welders and other equipment that use large amounts of electricity. Where can I!learn more about EME studies? The following agencies and organizations can provide information on EMF research through your local library or on the internet:The National Academy of Science, www.nationalacademies.org;the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, www.niehs.nih.gov;the Environmental Protection Agency,www.epa.gov;and the Electric Power Research Institute, www.epri.com. Call Allegheny Energy toll-free at 1-800-ALLEGHENY (1-800-255-3443)for more information.Allegheny Energy will continue to keep you informed as new information regarding the effects of EMFs becomes available. Stock #090116 NIEHS ot The National!institute of Environmental Healis Sciences EMF Basics This chapter reviews terms you need to know to have a basic understanding of electric and magnetic fields (EMF),compares EMF with other forms of electromagnetic energy,and briefly discusses how such fields may affect us. What are electric and magnetic fields? Howis the term EMF usedin this booklet?How are power-frequency EMF different from other types of electromagnetic energy? How are alternating current sources of EMF different from direct current sources? What happens when |am exposed to EMF? Doesn't the earth produce EMF? Q What are electric and magnetic fields? fef* Electric and magnetic fields (EMF)are invisible lines of force that surround any electrical device.Power lines,electrical wiring,and electrical equipment all produce EMF.There are many other sources of EMF as well.The focus of this booklet is on power- frequency EMF--that is, EMF associated with the generation,transmission, and use of electric power. to do viork.Measured in wets (\'} Hor in Kiovolts (EV)(1kV &1008 waits}. "Et Current The movement of electric charge (e.g,dectrons).Measured i amperes (A). Lamp pluggedinencturnedon: Electric fields are produced by voltage and increase in strength as the voltage increases.The electric field strength is measured in units of volts per meter (V/m).Magnetic fields result from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices and increase in strength as the current increases.Magnetic fields are measured in units of gauss (G)or tesla (T). Lanad pugged in bel Guned aff. Voltage produc an electeic hoi. »Meauared In volts permeter (vim)2 ewe inkilovolts per meter {kV/mm}.'e Easity shielded (urcakened)by | o ¢onducting objects such as trees and.oulidings, =Strength decreases rapedly with2Anereasingdistancefromthesource,Most electrical equipment Voltage.Electrical pressure.the potential Lamp plugged in but tured off; ; a t20V s Switch Joe *wa Electrical Terms geeee:--xe0r,Familiar Comparisons 3 Fiose connectedteanopenfaucesbutwithteemasticturnedoff. A Water paessuee in hose. ese connented te am amen thuce?and wach the moLebe tarred GA. ClickHeretoSee Large Image**Voltage produces an electric field and current produces amagneticfield. Magnetic Fields *Produced by current. Larhe hucged tis and tarred on.CoavcentesDHOEAEE&Ma Grades Guat nies, _oddeasured in gauss (G)or tesla (7). ©Not easily shielded fweakened)by mast material, *Strength decreases rapidly withIncreasingdistancefromthesource, has to be turned on,i.e., current must be flowing,for a magnetic field to be produced.Electric fields are often present even when the equipment is switched off,as long as it remains connected to the source of electric power.Brief bursts of EMF (sometimes called transients")can also occur when electrical devices are turned on or off. currentis flowing.__ Electric fields are shielded or weakened by materials that conduct electricity-- even materials that conduct poorly,including trees, huildinos.and human skin.-AS "*Click Here to See Large Image**oa .An appliance thatis pluggedin and therefore 'connected to a source of electricity has an electric field even when the appliance is turned off.To produce a magnetic field,the appliance must be plugged in and turned on so that the 6 Re.Shier wet1Reimeonenera,bi19k.*Click Here to See Large Image™*:ee a a ee Leb be AEE 201,cohorttees Q How is the term EMF used in this booklet? The term "EMF"usually refers to electric and magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies such as those associated with the use of electric power.The term EMF can be used in a much broader sense as well,encompassing electromagnetic fields with low or high frequencies. :Measuring EMF:Common Terms |Electric fields:Electric field strength iis measured in volts per meter (vim or inilovoltspermeter(kV/m).1 kV=1000 Vagneticfifieldsaremeasuredinunitsofgauss (G)or"tesla m.Gaussis the unit most commonly usedin the United States.__Teslais the internationally accepted scientific term.1.T=10,000-G Since most environmental EMF exposures involve magnetic”fields that are only a fraction of a tesla or a gauss,these are_.commonly measuredin units of microtesla (uT)or milligauss,-__(mG).Amilligauss is 1/1,000 of agauss.A microteslais1/1,000,000 of a tesla..1.G =1,000 mG;1:'T=1,000,000 uT To.converta measurement from microtesla (uT)to milligauss (mG),multiply by 10.4 pT =10 mG;0.1 pT=1mG. When we use EMF in this booklet,we mean extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields,ranging from 3 to 3,000 Hz (see page 8).This range includes power-frequency (50 or 60 Hz)fields.In the ELF range,electric and 'magnetic fields are not coupled or interrelated in the same way that they are at higher frequencies.So,it is more useful to refer to them as "electric and magnetic fields"rather than "electromagnetic fields.”In the popular press, however,you will see both terms used,abbreviated as EMF. This booklet focuses on extremely low frequency EMF,primarily power- frequency fields of 50 or 60 Hz,produced by the generation,transmission,and use of electricity. How are power-frequency EMF different from other types of electromagnetic energy? X-rays,visible light,microwaves,radio waves,and EMF are all forms of7electromagneticenergy.One property that distinguishes different forms ofelectromagneticenergyisthefrequency,expressedin hertz (Hz).Power-frequency EMF,50 or 60 Hz,carries very little energy,has no ionizing effects, and usually has no thermal effects.Just as various chemicals affect our bodies in different ways,various forms of electromagnetic energy can have very different biological effects. Some types of equipment or operations simultaneously produce electromagnetic energy of different frequencies.Welding operations,for example,can produceelectromagneticenergyintheultraviolet,visible,infrared,and radio-frequency ranges,in addition to power-frequency EMF.Microwave ovens produce 60-Hz fields of several hundred milligauss,but they also create microwave energy inside the oven that is ata much higher frequency (about 2.45 billion Hz).We are shielded from the higher frequencyfields inside the oven by its casing,butwearenotshieldedfromthe60-Hz fields. Cellular telephones communicate by emitting high-frequency electric and magnetic fieids simiiar to those used for radio and television broadcasts.These radio-frequency and microwave fields are quite different from the extremely low frequency EMF produced by power lines and most appliances. How are alternating current sources of EMF different from direct current sources? Some equipment can run on either alternating current (AC)or direct current A (DC).In most parts of the United States,if the equipmentis plugged into a*household wall socket,itis using AC electric current that reverses directionin the electrical wiring--or alternates--60 times per second,or at 60 hertz (Hz).If the equipment uses batteries,then electric current flows in one direction only. This produces a "static"or stationary magnetic field,also called a direct current field.Some battery-operated equipment can produce time-varying magnetic fields as part of its normal operation. aman Clectromagnetic Spectrum -:"Click Here to See Large image”age The wavy line at the right illustrates-Gamma =f 1 .tS the concept that the higher the. Pa Tee 3 frequency,the more rapidly the field "Keays.about|bition bition He,Dp 10 varies.The fields do not vary atO.__sgn penetrate the body and 0 'Rerays =Hz (direct current)and vary trillionsissuesbydecayingmmporrarty4h=|ie of times per second near the top of .jeoces cates "neni {é the spectrum.Note that 104 means | is eh Unramiolet 7 so%,10.x 10x 10 x 10 or-10,000Hz..1aORkilohertz(kHz)=1,000 Hz..1.ma megahertz (MHz)=1,000,000 Hz °*gatrsti 10 Hicrowaves,severedbilion He,¥ Shecene loser tau.}10 eelCotshoneBeeEeBikesheii}1800-1900 Asser 'tee "|TOod Voy ewe seh geacist i ”Soh 30400 Hi 108 Powerdreguomey EME $0 me 60 He,2careswery(tlie energy fan ne _.foniing effects and wually Extremaly tow Tin Stects.%aire vend 6 He Cirost caver Lal \ Q What happens when I am exposed to EMF? In most practical situations,DC electric power does not induce electric currents in humans.Strong DC magnetic fields are present in some industrial environments,can induce significant currents when a person moves,and may be of concern for other reasons,such as potential effects on implanted medical devices. AC electric power produces electric and magnetic fields that create weak electric currents in humans.These are called "induced currents."Much of the research on how EMF may affect human health has focused on AC-induced currents. Electric fields A person standing directly under a high-voltage transmission line may feel a mild shock when touching something that conducts electricity.These sensations are caused by the strong electric fields from the high-voltage electricity in the lines. They occur only at close range because the electric fields rapidly become weaker as the distance from the line increases.Electric fields may be shielded and further weakened by buildings,trees,and other objects that conduct electricity. Magnetic fields Alternating magnetic fields produced by AC electricity can induce the flow of weak electric currents in the body.However,such currents are estimated to be smaller than the measured electric currents produced naturally by the brain, nerves,and heart. Q Doesn't the earth produce EMF? A Yes.The earth produces EMF,mainly in the form of static fields,similar to the fields generated by DC electricity.Electric fields are produced by air turbulence and other atmospheric activity.The earth's magnetic field of about 500 mG is thought to be produced by electric currents flowing deep within the earth's core. Because these fields are static rather than alternating,they do not induce currents in stationary objects as do fields associated with alternating current. Such static fields can induce currents in moving and rotating objects. The wavy line at the right illustrates the concept that the higher the frequency, the more rapidly the field varies.The fields do not vary at 0 Hz (direct current)and vary trillions of times per second near the top of the spectrum.Note that 104 means 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 or 10,000 Hz.1 kilohertz (kHz)=1,000 Hz.1 megahertz (MHz)=1,000,000 Hz. You cannot see a magnetic field,but this illustration represents how the strength of the magnetic field can diminish just 1-2 feet (30-61 centimeters)from the source.This magnetic field is a 60-Hz power-frequency field. On to Evaluating Potential Health Effects EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential HealthEffects|Results of EMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards | National and International EMF Reviews |References een .pies Nit aR aE EMFRAPID Home |NIEHS Home For More Information About EMF:Web Center NIEHS at The Notional institule of Environmental Health Sciences "Answers :i ae iJune2002"sp Sen \ Evaluating Potential Health Effects This chapter explains how scientific studies are conducted and evaluated to assess _ potential health effects. How do we evaluate whether EMF exposures cause health effects? How do we evaluate the results of epidemiological studies of EMF? How do we characterize EMF exposure? What is the average field strength? How is EMF exposure measured in epidemiological studies? @)How do we evaluate whether EMF exposures cause health effects? ry Animal experiments,laboratory studies of cells,clinical studies,computeraNsimulations,and human population (epidemiological)studies all provide valuable__™information.When evaluating evidence that certain exposures cause disease, scientists consider results from studiesin various disciplines.No single study or type of study is definitive. Laboratory studies Laboratory studies with cells and animals can provide evidence to help determine if an agent such as EMF causes disease.Cellular studies can increase our understanding of the biological mechanisms by which disease animal: .::.studiesoccurs.Experiments with animals provide a - means to observe effects of specific agents under carefully controlled conditions.Neither cellular nor animal studies,however,can recreate the complex nature of the whole human organism and its environment. Therefore,we must use caution in applying the results of cellular or animal studies directly to humans or concluding that a lack -of an effect in laboratory studies proves that an agent is safe.Even with these limitations, cellular and animal studies have proven very useful over the years for identifying and understanding the toxicity of numerous chemicals and physical agents. '+Does E24F ExposureCauseDisease?8%*fords or yer eeltalarstudies Laboratory studies and human studies provide pieces of the puzzle,but.no.. ==single study can give us the whole...oe Picture, Very specific laboratory conditions are needed for researchers to be able to detect EMF effects,and experimental exposures are not easily comparable to human exposures.In most cases,it is not clear how EMF actually produces the effects observed in some experiments.Without understanding how the effects occur,it is difficult to evaluate how laboratory results relate to human health effects. Some laboratory studies have reported that EMF exposure can produce biological effects,including changes in functions of cells and tissues and subtle changes in hormone levels in animals.It is important to distinguish between a biological effect and a health effect.Many biological effects are within the normal range of variation and are not necessarily harmful.For example,bright light has a biological effect on our eyes,causing the pupils to constrict,which is a normal response. Clinical Studies In clinical studies,researchers use sensitive instruments to monitor human physiology during controlled exposure to environmental agents.In EMF studies,volunteers are exposed to electric or magnetic fields at higher levels than those commonly encountered in everyday life. Researchers measure heart rate,brain activity, hormonal levels,and other factors in exposed ccna nemaan engage and unexposed groups to look for differences Most researchers agree that resulting from EMF exposure.epidemiology -the study of ”patterns and possible causes of ..diseases-is one of the most...Epidemiology valuable tools to identify human -A valuable tool to identify human health risks is to health risks..Cs study a human population that has experienced the exposure.This type of research is called epidemiology. The epidemiologist observes and compares groups of people who have had orhavenothadcertaindiseasesandexposurestoseeiftheriskofdiseaseis|different between the exposed and unexposed groups.The epidemiologist does not control the exposure and cannot experimentally control all the factors that might affect the risk of disease. Q How do we evaluate the results of epidemiological studies of EMF? Many factors need to be considered when determining whether an agent causes disease.An exposure that an epidemiological study associates with increased *risk of a certain disease is not always the actual cause of the disease.To judge whether an agent actually causes a health effect,several issues are considered. Strength of Association The stronger the association between an exposure and disease,the more confident we can be that the diseaseis due to the exposure being studied.With cigarette smoking and lung cancer,the association is very strong--20 times the normal risk.In the studies that suggest a relationship between EMF and certain rare cancers,the association is much weaker. Dose-response Epidemiological data are more convincing if disease rates increase as exposure levels increase.Such dose-response relationships have appearedin only a fewEMFstudies., ConsistencyConsistencyrequires that an association found in one study appears in other studies involving different study populations and methods.Associations found consistently are more likely to be causal.With regard to EMF,results from different studies sometimes disagree in important ways,such as what type of cancer is associated with EMF exposure.Because of this inconsistency, scientists cannot be sure whether the increased risks are due to EMF or other factors. Biological Plausibility When associations are weak in an epidemiological study,results of laboratory studies are even more important to support the association.Many scientists remain skeptical about an association between EMF exposure and cancer because laboratory studies thus far have not shown any consistent evidence of adverse health effects,nor have results of experimental studies revealed a plausible biological explanation for such an association. Reliability of Exposure Information Another important consideration with EMF epidemiological studies is how the exposure information was obtained.Did the researchers simply estimate people's EMF exposures based on their job titles.or how their houses werewired,or did they actually conduct EMF measurements?What did they measure (electric fields,magnetic fields,or both)?How often were the EMF measurements made and at what time?In how many different places were the fields measured?More recent studies have included measurements of magnetic field exposure.Magnetic fields measured at the time a study is conducted can only estimate exposures that occurred in previous years (at the time a disease process may have begun).Lack of comprehensive exposure information makes it more difficult to interpret the results of a study,particularly considering that everyone in the industrialized world has been exposed to EMF. Confounding Epidemiological studies show relationships or correlations between disease and other factors such as diet,environmental conditions,and heredity.When a disease is correlated with some factor,it does not necessarily mean that the correlated factor causes the disease.It could mean that the factor occurs together with some other factor,not measured in the study,that actually causes the disease.This is called confounding. For example,a study might show that alcohol consumption is correlated with lung cancer.This could occur if the study group consists of people who drink and also smoke tobacco,as often happens.In this example,alcohol use is correlated with lung cancer,but cigarette smoking is a confounding factor and the true cause of the disease. Statistical Significance Researchers use statistical methods to determine the likelihood that the association between exposure and disease is due simply to chance.For a result to be considered "statistically significant,"the association must be stronger than would be expected to occur by chance alone. Meta-analysis One way researchers try to get more information from epidemiological studies is to conduct a meta-analysis.A meta-analysis combines the summary statistics of many studies to explore their differences and,if appropriate,calculates an overall summary risk estimate.The main challenge faced by researchers performing meta-analyses is that populations,measurements,evaluation techniques,participation rates,and potential confounding factors vary in the original studies.These differencesin the studies make it difficult to combine theresultsinameaningfulway. Pooled Analysis Pooled analysis combines the original data from several studies and conducts a new analysis on the primary data.It requires access to the original data from individual studies and can only include diseases or factors included in all the studies,but it has the advantage that the same parameters can be applied to allstudies.As with meta-analysis,pooled analysisis still subject to the limitations of the experimental design of the original studies (for example,evaluation techniques,participation rates,etc.).Pooled analysis differs from meta-analysis, which combines the summary statistics from different studies,not their originaldata. Q How do we characterize EMF exposure? mw.Noone knows which aspect of EMF exposure,if any,affects human health. .Because of this uncertainty,in addition to the field strength,we must ask how long an exposure lasts,how it varies,and at what time of day or night it occurs. House wiring,for example,is often a significant source of EMF exposure for an individual,but the magnetic fields produced by the wiring depend on the amountofcurrentflowing.As heating,lighting,and appliance use varies during the day, magnetic field exposure will also vary.. For many studies,researchers describe EMF exposures by estimating the average field strength.Some scientists believe that average exposure may not - be the best measurement of EMF exposure and that other parameters,such as peak exposure or time of exposure,may be important. Q What is the average field strength? In EMF studies,the information reported most often has been a person's EMF &exposure averaged over time (average field strength).With cancer-causing chemicals,a person's average exposure over many years can be a good way to predict his or her chances of getting the disease. There are different ways to calculate average magnetic field exposures.One method involves having a person wear a small monitor that takes many measurements over a work shift,a day,or longer.Then the average of those measurements is calculated.Another method involves placing a monitor that takes many measurements in a residence over a 24-hour or 48-hour period. Sometimes averages are calculated for people with the same occupation,people working in similar environments,or people using several brands of the same type or similar types of equipment. Q How is EMF exposure measured in epidemiological studies? =Epidemiologists study patterns and possible causes of diseases in humanASpopulations.These studies are usually observational rather than experimental."This means that the researcher observes and compares groups of people who have had certain diseases and exposures and looks for possible "associations." The epidemiologist must find a way to estimate the exposure that people had at an earlier time. geaere rereSoAssociation ©dn epidemiology,:a»positive association between an exposure2 (such as EMF)and aediseaseisnotnecessarilyproofthattheexposurecausedthedisease.However,:'the more often the exposure and disease occur together,the stronger the-association,and the Stronger!is the Possibility that the exposure may increase the©'risk of the disease.”: eF ae 1S SEARLE RST ee SEN SRE:see nea re s oe 3s doi SEES SaaS a oe 3 Some exposure estimates for residential studies have been based on designation of households in terms of "wire codes."In other studies, measurements have been made in homes,assuming that EMF levels at the time of the measurement are similar to levels at some time in the past.Some studies involved "spot measurements.”Exposure levels change as a person moves around in his or her environment,so spot measurements taken at specific locations only approximate the complex variations in exposure a person experiences.Other studies measured magnetic fields over a 24-hour or 48-hour period.Exposure levels for some occupational studies are measured by having certain employees wear personal monitors.The data taken from these monitors are sometimes used to estimate typical exposure levels for employees with certain job titles.Researchers can then estimate exposures using only an employee's job title and avoid measuring exposures of all employees. _Methods to Estimate EMF Exposure -|Wire Codes-A classifi cation of homes based on characteristics of power lines_outside the home (thickness of the wires,wire configuration,etc.)and theirL;distance from the home.This information iis used to code the homes into groups ©:with higher,and lower predicted magnetic fifield levels.: ee pe |Spot Measurement -An instantaneous or-very short-term (e.g.,30-second)_measurement taken at a designated location."Time-Weighted Average-A weighted average of exposure measurements takenoveraperiodoftimethattakesintoaccountthetimeintervalbetween measurements.When the measurements are taken with a monitor at a fixed-Sampling rate,the time-weighted average equals the arithmetic mean of the -measurements. :Personal Monitor-An instrument that can be worn on the body for measuring*exposure over time. .Calculated Historical Fields -An estimate based on a theoretical calculation of_the magneticfield emitted by power lines using historical electrical loads on those:lines. On to Results of EMF Research EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential Health Effects |Results of EMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards | National and International EMF Reviews |References EMFRAPID Home |NIEHS HomeForMoreInformationAboutEMF:Web Center NIEHS <ai The Notional institute of Environmental Neatta Sciences Easepce:Results of EMF Research This chapter summarizes the results of EMF research worldwide,including epidemiological studies of children and adults,clinical studies of how humans react to typical EMF exposures,and laboratory research with animals and cells. e fs there a link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia? e What is the epidemiological evidence for evaluating a link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia? e ts there a link between EMF exposure and childhood brain cancer or other forms of cancer in children? e Is there a link between residential EMF exposure and cancer in adults? e Have clusters of cancer or other adverse health effects been linked to EMF exposure? e tf EMF does cause or promote cancer,shouldn't cancer rates have increased along with the increased use of electricity? «is there a link between EMF exposure in electrical occupations and cancer ? e Have studies of workers in other industries suggested a link between EMF exposure and cancer? Is there a link between EMF exposure and breast cancer? What have we learned from clinical studies? What effects of EMF have been reported in laboratory studies of cells? Have effects of EMF been reported in laboratory studies in animals? Can EMF exposure damage DNA? Q Is there a link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia? Despite more than two decades of research to determine whether elevated EMF exposure,principally to magnetic fields,is related to an increased risk of "childhood leukemia,there is still no definitive answer.Much progress has been made,however,with some lines of research leading to reasonably clear answers and others remaining unresolved.The best available evidence at this time leads to the following answers to specific questions about the link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia: e /s there an association between power line configurations (wire codes) and childhood leukemia?No. e Is there an association between measured fields and childhood leukemia? Yes,but the association is weak,and it is not clear whether it represents a cause-and-effect relationship. What is the epidemiological evidence for evaluating a link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia? »The initial studies,starting with the pioneering research of Dr.Nancy Wertheimer -and Ed Leeper in 1979 in Denver,Colorado,focused on power line=™configurations near homes.Power lines were systematically evaluated andcodedfortheirpresumedabilitytoproduceelevatedmagneticfieldsinhomes and classified into groups with higher and lower predicted magnetic field levels. Although the first study and two that followed in Denver and Los Angeles showed an association between wire codes indicative of elevated magnetic fields and childhood leukemia,larger,more recent studies in the central part of the United States and in several provinces of Canada did not find such an association.In fact,combining the evidence from all the studies,we can conclude with some confidence that wire codes are not associated with a measurable increase in the risk of childhood leukemia. The other approach to assessing EMF exposure in homes focused on the measurements of magnetic fields.Unlike wire codes,which are only applicable in North America due to the nature of the electric power distribution system, measured fields have been studied in relation to childhood leukemia in research conducted around the world,including Sweden,Engiand,Germany,New Zealand,and Taiwan.Large,detailed studies have recently been completed in the United States,Canada,and the United Kingdom that provide the most evidence for making an evaluation.These studies have produced variable findings,some reporting small associations,others finding no associations. Eee ES _National Cancer Institute Study -In 14997,after eight years of work,Dr.Martha Linet and colleagues at the National"Cancer Institute (NCI)reported the results of their:study of childhood acute='lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).The case-conirol study involved more than 1,000childrenlivingin9easternandmidwesternU.S.states andis the largest:epidemiological study of childhood leukemia to datein the United States:To helpresolvethequestionofwirecodeversusmeasuredmagneticfields,the NCI'researchers carried out both types of exposure assessment.Overall,Linet reportedJittleevidencethatlivingin.homes with:-higher measured magnetic-field levels was a.'disease risk and found no evidence thatliving in a home with ahigh wirecodeconfiigurationincreasedtheriskofALLinchildren. United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study -'In December 1999,Sit Richard Doll and colleagues iin the United Kingdomannouncedthatthelargeststudyofchildhoodcancereverundertaken-involvingnearly4,000 children with cancer in England,Wales,and Scotland-found no-'evidence of excess risk of childhood leukemia or other cancers from exposure topower-frequency magneticfields.It should be noted,however,that because most..power linesin the United Kingdom areunderground,the EMF exposures of these 4childrenweremostlylowerthan0.2 microtesla or 2 milligauss. After reviewing all the data,the U.S.National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)concluded in 1999 that the evidence was weak,but that it was still sufficient to warrant limited concern.The NIEHS rationale was that no individual epidemiological study provided convincing evidence linking magnetic field exposure with childhood leukemia,but the overall pattern of results for some methods of measuring exposure suggested a weak association between increasing exposure to EMF and increasing risk of childhood leukemia.The small number of cases in these studies made it impossible to firmly demonstrate this association.However,the fact that similar results had been observed in studies of different populations using a variety of study designs supported thisobservation.. A major challenge has been to determine whether the most highly elevated,but rarely encountered,levels of magnetic fields are associated with an increased risk of leukemia.Early reports focused on the risk associated with exposures above 2 or 3 milligauss,but the more recent studies have been large enough to also provide some information on levels above 3 or 4 milligauss.It is estimated that 4.5%of homes in the United States have magnetic fields above 3 milligauss,and 2.5%of homes have levels above 4 milligauss. rapue seescrmsaneeenace What is Cancer?'Cancer:te"Cancer”is:aterm used to describe at least 200 different diseases,all involving :'uncontrolled cell growth.The frequency of cancer is measured by the incidence-the-number of new cases diagnosed each year.Incidenceis usually described as thenumberofnewcasesdiagnosedper100,000 people per year.The incidence of.ecancer in adultsin the United Statesis 382 per 100,000per year,and childhoodcancersaccountforabout1%of all cancers.The factors that influence risk differ among the forms of cancer:Known risk factors such as smoking,diet,and alcohol "*contribute to specific types of cancer.(For example,smoking is a known risk factor :for lung cancer,bladder cancer,and oral.©cancer.*)For many other cancers,the Sdcausesareunknown.2 eee oes :oe Leukemia ve oe _ :Leukemia describesa variety of cancerss that arise in the bone marrow where bloodcellsareformed.The leukemias representless than 4%of all cancer cases in.:adults but are the most common form of cancer in children.For children age4 and.s"under,the incidence of childhood leukemiais approximately 6 per 100,000 peryear,and it decreases with age to about 2 per 100,000 per year for children 10 andolder.In the United States,the incidence of adult leukemiais about 10 cases per400,000 people per year.Little is known about what causes leukemia,although ek-genetic factors play a role.The only known causes are ionizing radiation,benzene,°vand other chemicals and drugs |thatt suppress bone marrow.function,and ahuman .J-cell leukemia virus Brain Cancer...::Cancer of the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord)is uncommon,with'incidencein the United States now at about 6 cases in 100,000 people peryear.The causes of the disease are largely unknown,although a number of studies have --eported an association with certain occupational chemical exposures.lonizing -fadiation to the scalpis a known risk factor for brain cancer.Factors associated-with an increased risk for other types of cancer-such as smoking,diet,andexcessivealcoholuse--have not been found to be associated with brain cancer. To determine what the integrated information from all the studies says about magnetic fields and childhood leukemia,two groups have conducted pooled analyses in which the original data from relevant studies were integrated and analyzed.One report (Greenland et al.,2000)combined 12 relevant studies with magnetic field measurements,and the other considered 9 such studies (Ahlbom et al.,2000).The details of the two pooled analyses are different,but their findings are similar.There is weak evidence for an association (relative risk of approximately 2)at exposures.above 3 mG.However,few individuals had high exposures in these studies;therefore,even combining all studies,there is uncertainty about the strength of the association. The following table summarizes the results for the epidemiological!studies of EMF exposure and childhood leukemia analyzed in the pooled analysis by Greenland et al.(2000).The focus of the summary review was the magnetic fields that occurred three months prior to diagnosis.The results were derived from either calculated historical fields or multiple measurements of magnetic fields.The North American studies (Linet,London,McBride,Savitz)were 60 Hz; all other studies were 50 Hz.Results from the recent study from the United Kingdom are also included in the table.This study was included in the analysis by Ahibom et al.(2000).The relative risk estimates from the individual studies show little or no association of magnetic fields with childhood leukemia.The study summary for the pooled analysis by Greenland et al.(2000)shows a weak association between childhood leukemia and magnetic field exposures greater 3 mG. i :Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fieldsand Childhood Leukemia_Magnetic field category (mG Shuestem>2<3mG S3mGFirstauthor.Estimate _95%CL.Estimate »95%CL...)Estimate 95%CLCoghill."0.54.0.17,1.74 _Nocontrols |No controls.No controls .No controls -'Dockerty 0.65 =0.26,1.63 >-2.83.:0.29,27.9. Nocontrols §No controls.'Feychting -0.63...0.08,4.77..:.090 .0.12,7.00 |.4.44 1.67,11.7 wLinet.107 082,139:1.01 064,159 151.0.92,2.49 'London 0.96 0.54,1.73 0.75 0.22,2.53.1.53.(0.67,3.50 McBride --0.89:062,141.29...4.27-..0.74,2.20°5 °142°.0.63,3.214 ,Michaelis ©145.5 0.78,2.72 5 1.06...0.27,4.16 2.48 0.79,7.84(Olsen -.0.67.0.07,6.42.,Nocases .Nocases...2.00 0.40,9.93»'Savitz 1.610 064,411 5.1.29.0.27,6.26 3.87...0.87,17.3 Tomenius 0.57.0.33,0.99 0.88...0.33,2.36 .1.41...0.38,5.29Tynes=:1,06.0.25,4.53.Nocases.Nocases ©No cases._..No cases _Verkasalo 0.141-5 0.14,9.07,No Cases |-Nocases 2.00."0.23,17.7:Study . 6 .oo 4 Boe"summary |0.80,1.12 be 1.06 |0.79,1 A2,aa 1.69 -1.25,2.29 . Hs.1-<2mG 2 <4 mG >4mG"United ee a 030 337. Kingdom 0.57,eh a 0.98 7 0.50,1 93 61,00.1 0.30,3.37. ie :95%CL=95%confidence limits.Source:Greenland et al.,2000..-, *Mantel-Haenszel analysis (p=0.01).Maximum-likelinood summaries5 differed by less than 1% 'from these summaries;based on 2,656 cases ahd 7,084 controls.Adjusting for age,sex,andothervariableshadlittleeffectonsummaryresults.°**These data are from a recent United Kingdom study not included iin the Greenland analysis tbut.includedin another pooled analysis (Ahlbom et al.2000).The United Kingdom study included,1,073 cases and 2,224 controls.|. For this table,the column headed "estimate”describes the relative risk:Relative riskis the ratio of the risk of childhood leukemia for thosein a magneticfield exposure group compared to personswithexposurelevelsof1.0 mG or less.For example,Coghill estimated that children with"exposures between 1 and 2 mG have 0.54 times the risk of children whose exposures were less»than 1 mG.London's study estimates that children whose exposures were greater than 3 mGhave1.53 times the risk of children whose exposures were less than 1 mG.The column headed"95%|CL"(confidence limits)describes howmuch random variation is in the estimate of relative* risk.The estimate may be off by some amount due to random variation,and the width of the - iconfidence limits gives some notion of that variation.For example,in Coghill's estimate of 0.54 for. 'the relative risk,values as low as 0.17 or as high as 1.74 would not be statistically significantly different from the value of 0.54.Note there is a wide range of estimates of relative risk across the istudies and wide confidence limits for many studies.In light of these findings,the pooling ofresultscanbeextremelyhelpfultocalculateanoverallestimate,much betier than can be:obtained from any study taken alone.- is there a iink between EiviF exposure and chiidhood brain cancer or other forms of cancer in children? Although the earliest studies suggested an association between EMF exposure _and all forms of childhood cancer,those initial findings have not been confirmed "by other studies.At present,the available series of studies indicates no association between EMF exposure and childhood cancers other than leukemia. Far fewer of these studies have been conducted than studies of childhood leukemia. Q Is there a link between residential EMF exposure and cancer in adults? -The few studies that have been conducted to address EMF and adult cancer dofsnotprovidestrongevidenceforanassociation.Thus,a link has not been4establishedbetweenresidentialEMFexposureandadultcancers,including leukemia,brain cancer,and breast cancer (see table below).ae 'Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Adult Cancer 8Ceoer|Results (odds ratios)i ee ee eee "Leuke |op All.First author Sn _Location -.Typeof exposure data.mia CNS tumors cance re s eee "Calculated historical fields Cle ee oan'Coleman ce g 'Calculated &spot mmeasure -NA_Sweden.i ore 0.92 NA-Feychting and -a :-'menis .a *0.7-Taiwan ae ie):NAAhlbom:Taiwan'Calculated historical fi elds ar too NALie.es Nlette ad oo Calculated historical fields |"AA (breast canayo'United =.ae -li Kingdom Calculated historical fields |4 43 cer).1.03'McDowall:Wire codes &spot)ey oo NA : :Seattle,US meee :2)O75e..ar NA.Severson : :measurements ::NA : :'San =:NAPE ee NA.Wrensch ©;Wire codes &spot ©:::0.9 7 :Francisco,US ©.,1.885:-NA,Youngson ::measurements : :NA ;-United «gs : ;Calculated historical fields:_Kingdom eee ee renee oe AsCNS==central nervous system.' , "The numberis Statistically significant (greater than expected by chance)._Study results are listed as "odds ratios"(OR).An odds ratio of 1.00 means there was no increase | 'or decreasein risk.In other words,the odds that the peoplein the study who had the disease (in.| 'this case,cancer)and were exposed to a particular agent (in this case,EMF)are the same as for |ithe peoplein the study who did not have the disease.An'odds ratio greater than 1 may occur»_simply by chance,unless itis Statistically significant.mS Have clusters of cancer or other adverse health effects been linked to EMF exposure? An unusually large number of cancers,miscarriages,or other adverse health effects that occur in one area or over one period of time is called a "cluster." Sometimes clusters provide an early warning of a health hazard.But most of the time the reason for the cluster is not known.There have been no proven instances of cancer clusters linked with EMF exposure. i, The definition of a "cluster”depends on how large an area is included. Cancer cases (x's in illustration)in a city,neighborhood,or workplace may occur in ways that suggest a cluster due to a common environmental cause.Often these patterns turn out to be due to chance.Delineation of a cluster is _subjective-where do you draw the circles? If EMF does cause or promote cancer,shouldn't cancer rates have increased along with the increased use of electricity? «.Not necessarily.Although the use of electricity has "increased greatly over the years,EMF exposures"may not have increased.Changes in building wiring 'codes and in the design of electrical appliances have #* in some cases resulted in lower magnetic field levels. Rates for various types of cancer have shown both increases and decreases through the years,due in part to improved prevention,diagnosis,reporting, and treatment. Is there a link between EMF exposure in electrical occupations and cancer? For almost as long as we have been concerned with residential exposure to 4 EMF and childhood cancers,researchers have been studying workplace*exposure to EMF and adult cancers,focusing on leukemia and brain cancer. This research began with surveys of job titles and cancer risks,but has progressed to include very large,detailed studies of the health of workers, especially electric utility workers,in the United States,Canada,France,England, and several Northern European countries.Some studies have found evidence that suggests a link between EMF exposure and both leukemia and brain cancer,whereas other studies of similar size and quality have not found such associations. e California -A 1993 study of 36,000 California electric utility workers reported no strong,consistent evidence of an association between magnetic fields and any type of cancer. e Canada/France -A 1994 study of more than 200,000 utility workers in 3 utility companies in Canada and France reported no significant association between all leukemias combined and cumulative exposure to magnetic fields.There was a slight,but not statistically significant, increase in brain cancer.The researchers concluded that the study did not provide clear-cut evidence that magnetic field exposures caused leukemia or brain cancer. e North Carolina -Results of a 1995 study involving more than 138,000 utility workers at 5 electric utilities in the United States did not support an association between occupational magnetic field exposure and leukemia, but suggested a link to brain cancer. e Denmark -In 1997 a study of workers employed in all Danish utility companies reported a small,but statistically significant,excess risk for all cancers combined and for lung cancer.No excess risk was observed for leukemia,brain cancers,or breast cancer. e United Kingdom -A 1997 study among electrical workers in the United Kingdom did not find an excess risk for brain cancer.An extension of this work reported in 2001 also found no increased risk for brain cancer. Efforts have also been made to pool the findings across several of the above studies to produce more accurate estimates of the association between EMF and cancer (Kheifets et al.,1999).The combined summary statistics across studies provide insufficient evidence for an association between EMF exposure in the workplace and either leukemia or brain cancer. Have studies of workers in other industries suggested a link between EMF exposure and cancer? »,One of the largest studies to report an association between/*cancer and magnetic field exposure in a broad range of industries"™was conducted in Sweden (1993).The study included an assessment of EMF exposure in 1,015 different workplaces and involved more than 1,600 people in 169 different occupations.An association was reported between estimated EMF exposure and increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.An association 5 was also reported between exposure to magnetic fields and brain cancer,but there was no dose-response relationship. Another Swedish study (1994)found an excess risk of lymphocytic leukemia among railway engine drivers and conductors.However,the total cancer incidence (all tumors included)for this group of workers was lower than in the general Swedish population.A study of Norwegian railway workers found no evidence for an association between EMF exposure and leukemia or brain cancer.Although both positive and negative effects of EMF exposure have been reported,the majority of studies show no effects. Q Is there a link between EMF exposure and breast cancer? An cause breast cancer,in part because breast cancer is such a common disease"in adult women.Early studies identified a few electrical workers with male breast cancer,a very rare disease.A link between EMF exposure and alterations in the hormone melatonin was considered a possible hypothesis.This idea provided motivation to conduct research addressing a possible link between EMF exposure and breast cancer.Overall,the published epidemiological studies have not shown such an association. £'Researchers have been interested in the possibility that EMF exposure might Q What have we learned from clinical studies? m Laboratory studies with human volunteers have attempted to answer questions »such as, e Does EMF exposure alter normal brain and heart function? e Does EMF exposure at night affect sleep patterns? e Does EMF exposure affect the immune system? e Does EMF exposure affect hormones? The following kinds of biological effects have been reported.Keep in mind that a biological effect is simply a measurable change in some biological response.It may or may not have any bearing on health. e Heart rate An inconsistent effect on heart rate by EMF exposure has been reported. When observed,the biological response is small (on average,a slowing of about three to five beats per minute),and the response does not persist once exposure has ended. Two laboratories,one in the United States and one in Australia,have reported effects of EMF on heart rate variability.Exposures used in these experiments were relatively high (about 300 mG),and lower exposures failed to produce the effect.Effects have not been observed consistently in repeated experiments. e Sleep electrophysiology A laboratory report suggested that overnight exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields may disrupt brain electrical activity (EEG)during night sleep.In this study subjects were exposed to either continuous or intermittent magnetic fields of 283 mG.Individuals exposed to the intermittent magnetic fields showed alterations in traditional EEG sleep parameters indicative of a pattern of poor and disrupted sleep.Several studies have reported no effect with continuous exposure. e Hormones,immune system,and.blood chemistry Several clinical studies with human volunteers have evaluated the effects of power-frequency EMF exposure on hormones,the immune system, and blood chemistry.These studies provide little evidence for any consistent effect. e Melatonin The hormone melatonin is secreted mainly at night and primarily by the pineal gland,a small gland attached to the brain.Some laboratory experiments with cells and animals have shown that melatonin can slow the growth of cancer cells,including breast cancer cells.Suppressed nocturnal melatonin levels have been observed in some studies of laboratory animals exposed to both electric and magnetic fields.These observations led to the hypothesis that EMF exposure might reduce melatonin and thereby weaken one of the body's defenses against cancer. Many clinical studies with human volunteers have now examined whether various levels and types of magnetic field exposure affect blood levels of melatonin.Exposure of human volunteers at night to power-frequency EMF under controlled laboratory conditions has no apparent effect on melatonin.Some studies of people exposed to EMF at work or at home do report evidence for a small suppression of melatonin.It is not clear whether the decreases in melatonin reported under environmental 'conditions are related to the presence of EMF exposure or to other factors. Q What effects of EMF have been reported in laboratory studies of cells? AFAN Over the years,scientists have conducted more than 1,000 laboratory studies to investigate potential biological effects of EMF exposure.Most have been in vitro studies;that is,studies carried out on cells isolated from animals and plants,or on cell components such as cell membranes.Other studies involved animals, mainly rats and mice.In general,these studies do not demonstrate a consistent effect of EMF exposure. Q A Most in vitro studies have used magnetic fields of 1,000 mG (100 UT)or higher, exposures that far exceed daily human exposures.In most incidences,when one laboratory has reported effects of EMF exposure on cells,other laboratories have not been able to reproduce the findings.For such research results to be widely accepted by scientists as valid,they must be replicated--that is,scientists in other laboratories should be able to repeat the experiment and get similar results.Cellular studies have investigated potential EMF effects on cell proliferation and differentiation,gene expression,enzyme activity,melatonin, and DNA.Scientists reviewing the EMF research literature find overall that the cellular studies provide little convincing evidence of EMF effects at environmental levels. Have effects of EMF been reported in laboratory studies in animals? Researchers have published more than 30 detailed reports on both long-term.and short-term studies of EMF exposures in laboratory animals (bioassays)."Long-term animal bioassays constitute an important group of studies in EMF research.Such studies have a proven record for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals,physical agents,and other suspected cancer-causing agents.In the EMF studies,large groups of mice or rats were continuously exposed to EMF for two years or longer and were then evaluated for cancer.The U.S.National Toxicology Program (http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/)has an extensive historical database for hundreds of different chemical and physical agents evaluated using this model.EMF long-term bioassays examined leukemia,brain cancer,and breast cancer--the diseases some epidemiological studies have associated with EMF exposure. Several different approaches have been used to evaluate effects of EMF exposure in animal bioassays.To investigate whether EMF could promote cancer after genetic damage had occurred,some long-term studies used cancer initiators such as ultraviolet light,radiation,or certain chemicals that are known to cause genetic damage.Researchers compared groups of animals treated with cancer initiators to groups treated with cancer initiators and then exposed to EMF,to see if EMF exposure promoted the cancer growth (initiation-promotion model).Other studies tested the cancer promotion potential of EMF using mice that were predisposed to cancer because they had defects in the genes that control cancer. "Animal Leukemia Studies:Long-Term,Continuous Exposure 'Studies,Two_or More Yearsin LengthFirstauthor4°Sex/species ,"Exposure/animal numbers _Results' Babbitt (U.S.)..Female mice -14,000 mG,190 or 380 mice per group.No effecBeoe s :Some groups treated with ifonizing radiatio _t 'Boorman (U.S.).Male and female rats |”n.--McCormick (U.S.)|Male and female mic <5 -.20 to 10,000 mG,100 per group -Now. Mandeville (Canada |arse 7 ceeHe 20 to 10,000 mG,100 per group effect eo Female rats 2-2,|.=20to 20,000 mG,50 per group.=No =ee Inuteroexposure >effect Yasui Japan)..Male andfemale rats 5,000 to 50,000 mG,50 per group' =---sNo poe ee oe ee eres ee a effect- »No-effect Leukemia . Fifteen animal leukemia studies have been completed and reported.Most tested for effects of exposure to power-frequency (60-Hz)magnetic fields using rodents.Results of these studies were largely negative.The Babbitt study evaluated the subtypes of leukemia.The data provide no support for the reported epidemiology findings of leukemia from EMF exposure.Many scientists feel that the lack of effects seen in these laboratory leukemia studies significantly weakens the case for EMF as a cause of leukemia. Breast Cancer Researchers in the Ukraine,Germany,Sweden,and the United States have used initiation-promotion models to investigate whether EMF exposure promotes breast cancer in rats. The results of these studies are mixed;while the German studies showed some effects,the Swedish and U.S.studies showed none.Studies in Germany reported effects on the numbers of tumors and tumor volume.A National Toxicology Program long-term bioassay performed without the use of other cancer-initiating substances showed no effects of EMF exposure on the development of mammary tumors in rats and mice. The explanation for the observed difference among these studies is not readily apparent.Within the limits of the experimental rodent model of mammary carcinogenesis,no conclusions are possible regarding a promoting effect of EMF on chemically induced mammary cancer.- Other Cancers Tests of EMF effects on skin cancer,liver cancer,and brain cancer have been conducted using both initiation-promotion models and non-initiated long-term bioassays.All are negative. Three positive studies were reported for a co-promotion model of skin cancer in mice.The mice were exposed to EMF plus cancer-causing chemicals after cancers had already been initiated.The same research team as well as anindependentlaboratorywereunabletoreproducetheseresultsinsubsequent experiments. Non-cancer Effects Many animal studies have investigated whether EMF can cause health problems other than cancer.Researchers have examined many endpoints,including birth defects,immune system function,reproduction,behavior,and learning.Overall, animal studies do not support EMF effects on non-cancer endpoints. Q Can EMF exposure damage DNA? -ge.Studies have attempted to determine whether EMF has genotoxic potential;thataNis,whether EMF exposure can alter the genetic material of living organisms.Thisquestionisimportantbecausegenotoxicagentsoftenalsocausecancerorbirth defects.Studies of genotoxicity have included tests on bacteria,fruit flies,and some tests on rats and mice.Nearly 100 studies on EMF genotoxicity have been reported.Most evidence suggests that EMF exposure is not genotoxic.Based on experiments with cells,some researchers have suggested that EMF exposure may inhibit the cell's ability to repair normal DNA damage,but this idea remains speculative because of the lack of genotoxicity observed in EMF animal studies. On to Your EMF Environment EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential HealthEffects|ResultsofEMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards |National and International EMF Reviews |References EMFRAPID Home |NIEHS Home For More Information About EMF:Web Center NIEHS.£29 Ihe Notionot institute of Environmental Heatts Sciences Soy EES Answers ,..:June 2002)" Sie Part 2 This chapter discusses typical magnetic field exposures in home and work environments and identifies common EMF sources and field intensities associated with these sources. How do we define EMF exposure? How is EMF exposure measured? What are some typical EMF exposures? What are typical EMF exposures for people living in the United States? What levels of EMF are found in common environments? What EMF field levels are encountered in the home? What are EMF levels close to electrical appliances? What EMF levels are found near power lines? How strong is the EMF from electric power substations? Do electrical workers have higher EMF exposure than other workers? What are possible EMF exposures in the workplace? What are some typical sources of EMF in the workplace? What EMF exposure occurs during travel? How can|find out how strong the EMF is where I live and work? How much do computers contribute to my EMF exposure? What can be done to limit EMF exposure? Q What EMF levels are found near power lines? Power transmission lines bring power from a generating station to an electrical substation.Power distribution lines bring power from the substation to your*home.Transmission and distribution lines can be either overhead or underground.Overhead lines produce both electric fields and magnetic fields. Underground lines do not produce electric fields above ground but may produce magnetic fields above ground. Power transmission lines Typical EMF levels for transmission lines are shown in the chart on page 37.At a distance of 300 feet and at times of average electricity demand,the magnetic fields from many lines can be similar to typical background levels found in most homes.The distance at which the magnetic field from the line becomes indistinguishable from typical background levels differs for different types of lines. Power Distribution Lines ; Typical voltage for power distribution lines in North America ranges from 4 to 24 kilovolts (kV).Electric field levels directly beneath overhead distribution linesmayvaryfromafewvoltspermeterto100or200voltspermeter.Magnetic fields directly beneath overhead distribution lines typically range from 10 to 20 mG for main feeders and less than 10 mG for laterals.Such levels are also typical directly above underground lines.Peak EMF levels,however,can vary considerably depending on the amount of current carried by the line.Peak magnetic field levels as high as 70 mG have been measured directly below overhead distribution lines and as high as 40 mG above underground lines. Q How strong is the EMF from electric power substations? fr Ingeneral,the strongest EMF around the outside of a substation comes from thefspowerlinesenteringandleavingthesubstation.The strength of the EMF fromequipmentwithinthesubstations,such as transformers,reactors,and capacitor banks,decreases rapidly with increasing distance.Beyond the substation fence or wall,the EMF produced by the substation equipment is typically indistinguishable from background levels. Q Do electrical workers have higher EMF exposure than other workers? ,Most of the information we have about occupational EMF exposure comes fromaNstudiesofelectricutilityworkers.It is therefore difficult to compare electrical™workers'EMF exposures with those of other workers because thereis less information about EMF exposures in work environments other than electric -utilities.Early studies did not include actual measurements of EMF exposure on the job but used job titles as an estimate of EMF exposure among electrical workers.Recent studies,however,have included extensive EMF exposureassessments. Areport published in 1994 provides some information about estimated EMF exposures of workers in Los Angeles in a number of electrical jobs in electric utilities and other industries.Electrical workers had higher average EMF exposures,(9.6 mG)than did workers in other jobs (1.7 mG).For this study,the category "electrical workers"included electrical engineering technicians, electrical engineers,electricians,power line workers,power station operators, telephone line workers,TV repairers,and welders. Typical EMF Levels for Power Transmission Lines®*.SUS poney .: : 1 Gachric Fpl fiery 1 os Ra..on anor Maan MagnetsFridtn}29.7 65 43 94s o2 230KV aspros.tegt .of Rgmtotavay : :Sm...Jom 7 aim sim rys Bom -te Te ite :THO .:t E n k J Boeck rics Fond (\verg 248 :18 03 .WO 0.01 Mears Magneta:Fankd (mG)$7.5 195 ZA &AB iz wo ous 506 k¥:Se cae Aporon.£: : eS of Rghtot Way os 2m om sim vimSteTeADenteG05ty ; t LoL l L } Becrric Feld (errr 748 38 0 :C3050"| faean Magnets ets fn)ill ws 426°:32 is: :.Magnetic Field from 2s00-kV Fansmission 7oe_Une Measured on the Right-of-Way oe Electric fields from povver lines are relatively © _Every:§Minutes for 1 Week":¥ |stable because fine voltage dorsnt charge |*very mouth.Magnetic fields on most lines:Pa fluctuate greatly as custent changes in =: :fl |sesponse to changing toads.Magnet helds$50 7 4 rh :must be described statisticatly In terms of |2 all ia :fd Al4,arerages,tianlmumd,o8¢.The magnetic fields2.it YA ra }'"pali [shows are meant caltulated for 321 power ©5 F a -c,knes for 1990 annual mean loads.During peak42wads(about 1%of the time),magnetic fields -aa For This tian Period:ase about iwite as strong a5 the mean kvelspkNicheetsoze4iedSogbowe,The graph on the beft is an example of ©op Manmentelseedae ©2 how the magnetic field watied during ane week |4 pecans for nt SOKA tansenissionline, :*These are gpical EME Pid 1 m 82 n shove ground #for various distances trom powerot ines in1 the Patitic"Nertheest.They are for general inticrmation.For information about a spedict'tine,Rontect we utility thatoperatestheBne.tense :Source:Bonneville Power Administration,1996.****Click Here to SociLarge Image** Q What are possible EMF exposures in the workplace? The figures below are examples of magnetic field exposures determined with exposure meters worn by four workers in different occupations.These measurements demonstrate how EMF exposures vary among individual workers.They do not necessarily represent typical EMF exposures for workers in these occupations.. Magnetic Field Exposures of Workers (mG) __Sewting machine operator in garment factory”naaintenance mechanid ;_=»ar |Lh eda kil aeee8111 i "|-wo:fapan:1.0 : =».4 2 be 10 iW:|fe os 8poPdtAnowtOshewhe,To wk ii as il1g,S3Cam 20am 530amn Wsnae Xen VenTERae Lele pre The mechanic repaired a compressor at 9:45 am and 11:10 am. Z rer come Te=open 7 3.85 pmThesewingmachineoperatorworkedallday, took a 71-hour lunch break at 11:15 am,and took 10-minute breaks at 8:55 am and 2:55 pm. Government office worker """" r Electrician -".ness Beyo eat toe 8 at ete 6 :- oso : : - ; i a Mean 9.1 i a .:Ge rePelMean:0.9 Cony mean 2.0"| pone Geometric :wo30earG.7*'E 2 H E 20 20 ': 7 10 } a hb 0 |I 1 [|| :)iW at -tl}:.5 FAL!oA,|AL i dl Mes mee os "200 am '3.0C-ar EOD amo L0G pm:et pm |S00 pmFemaeWdaes80ain10-06 we "11-0 rk 17.00 ae"yeep The government worker was at the copyTheelectricianrepairedalargeair-conditioning machine at 8:00 am,at the computer from motor at 9:10 am and at 11:45 am.41:00am to 1:00 pm and also from 2:30 pm to4:30 pm. *The geometric mean is calculated by squaring the values,adding the squares,and then taking the square root of the sum.Source:National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health andU.S.Department of Energy. "Click Here to See Large Image*** The tables below can give you a general idea about magnetic field levels for different jobs and around various kinds of electrical equipment.It is important to remember that EMF levels depend on the actual equipment used in the workplace.Different brands or models of the same type of equipment can have different magnetic field strengths.!t is also important to keep in mind that the strength of a magnetic field decreases quickly with distance. -EMF Measurements During a WorkdayELFmagnetic fields measured in mG"Median for Range for 90%Industry and occupation os :ae occupation*|of workers™"-ELECTRICAL WORKERS IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES 5 eeElectricalengineersLT0.5-12,.0°_Construction electricians |eo BE a PB.1.6-12.15Ivrepairers-eee cae ee :0.68.60) Q AKbe Welders 886."ELECTRIC UTILITIES Sart See(Clerical workers without computers eo O5 0.2-2.0- [Clerical workers with computers BA 0.54.5'Line workers :2.5 -0.5-34.8 Electricians 64 0.8-34.0(Distribution substation operators os 7.2 2 1.1-36.2'Workers off the job fhome,travel,etc.)oo 0.9 -.033.7 ;TELECOMMUNICATIONS ©.oe eee =. Install,maintenance,&repair technicians |9B 0,723.2'Central office technicians oo 24 »-0.5-B.2: (Cable splicers ae 32 |.0.7-15.0,AUTO TRANSMISSION MANUFACTURE ;"Assemblers._ae co 07 _0.2-4.9(Machinists es aae. 0.6-27.6"HOSPITALS Pin dey nie oe ee 'Nurses oeee 0.52.15\X-ray technicians |»Se 1.5 fe te 1.0-2.2 SELECTED |OCCUPATIONS FROMALL ECONOMIC SECTORS'Construction machine operaiors:He 05 ne "O.4-1 7"Motor vehicle drivers .wee 14 ee 0.42.7Schoolteachers..:1300 0.6-3.2- Auto mechanics =2.3 0.68.7Retailsales:-_ae.a 2.3 eo 4.0-5.5-'Sheet metal workersoH cee)39 2.03-484."Sewing machine operators =6B Fo 0.9-32.0- Forestry and logging jobs.76 --0.6-95.5*** If you have questions or want more information about your EMF exposure at work,your plant safety officer,industrial hygienist,or other local safety official can be a good source of information.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)is asked occasionally to conduct health hazard evaluations in workplaces where EMF is a suspected cause for concern.For further technical assistance contact NIOSH at 800-356-4674. What are some typical sources of EMF in the workplace? Exposure assessment studies so far have shown that most people's |EMF exposure at work comes from electrical appliances and tools and}- from the building's power supply.People who work near transformers, electrical closets,circuit boxes,or other high-current electrical Net ,equipment may have 60-Hz magnetic field exposures of hundreds of }re ae milligauss or more.In offices,magnetic field levels are often similar to " * those found at home,typically 0.5 to 4.0 mG.However,these levels can increase dramatically near certain types of equipment. 'EMF Spot Measurements |ELF:_Industry and sources Theiss Other frequencies Comments pane (m6)|) ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT USED IN MACHINE MANUFACTURING 'Electic resistance 6,000-VLEcheater14,000 |High VLE Tool exposures measured at ,Induction heater 10-460 ©g ."=.operator's chest. 'Hand-held grinder «3,000 %Tool exposures measured atGrinder."410 ee -»)operator's chest...Lathe,drill press,etc.1-4°Tool exposures measured at |operator's chest."ALUMIN UM REFINING a 'Aluminum pot rooms '3.4-30 oo Highiy-rectified DC current (with aneeVeryhighStaticfieldELFripple).Recification room ope 300- a High static field efiines aluminum. eae 2 3,300 Hs mended . "STEEL FOUNDRY . ) 'Ladle refinery -coer)oe Furnace active aon...High ULF fromthe =....Highest ELF field was at the ett:170-ange :- BORE eg 909 --ladle's big _chairof control room operator.Furnace inactive --,magnetic stirrer”Highest ELF field was at theoe0.6-3.7._High ULF fromthe = chair of control room operator. Electrogalvanizing unit oon ladle's big oa .ne a.ee magnetic stirreraeeTHighViFTELEVISIONBROADCASTINGSesheea .Video cameras 7.2-24.0 i ae3:VLF ve(studio and minicams).:ms a Video tape degaussers....160--= ._.Measured 1 ft away.Light control centers -3,300..." Walk-through survey. Studio and newsrooms 10-300 oe -Walk-through survey... 'HOSPITALS a ae'Intensive care unit VLE Measured at nurse's chest. Post-anesthesia care 0.1-220 VLF ante |cunit -0.1-24 |Very hich static field Measured at technician's workMagneticresonance0.5-280 6.VLE and RE ,locations. -imaging (MRI)=ce aes : "TRANSPORTATION .. . Cars,minivans,and 0.1-125°Most frequencies less 'Steel-belted tires are the principal'trucks than 60 Hz _ELF source |oes ;0.5-146 --_for gas/diesel vehicles.. Bus (diesel powered)0.1-81.|Mast frequencies less as _Electric cars "4-635 -_than 60 Hz i - _Chargers for electric :0.1-88 ,Some elevated static .Measured 2 ft from charger.:"cars.::0.1-330 fields °.:.Measured at waist.Fields at ankles |Electric buses 0.8:24.2 ed :2-5 times higher.- Electric train,passenger _Measured at waist.Fields at anklescarseeeSOR25&60 Hz ppower oon i -2-5 times higher.Airiiner |Oe nies 2s US.trains |Measured at waist.nae ne "400 Hz power on ::airliners _GOVERNMENT OFFICES 7 ey Desk work locations «|0.1-7 ce aa eee Peaks due to laser printers."Desks near power :eae |5 ae ;3 eg a scenter 7 15470 a oe-Power cablesin floor :25-1800 ::oe _o Building power supplies _.3 000 Po _|Appliancefields measured 6 in.Can opener 1.000 ae :away.Desktop cooling fan...1 0-200 oe es |Appliance fifields measured 6 in.Other office appliances |.Le oy eS away.Source:National Institute for Occupational Safety'and Health,2001."ULF (ultra low frequency)-frequencies above 0,below 3 Hz. -ELF (extremely low frequency)-frequencies 3-3,000 Hz..._VLF (very low frequency)-frequencies 3,000-30,000 Hz (3-30 kilohertz) Q What EMF exposure occurs during travel? »,Inside a car or bus,the main sources of magnetic field exposure are those youANpassby(or under)as you drive,such as power lines.Car batteries involve directcurrent(DC)rather than alternating current (AC).Alternators can create EMF, but at frequencies other than 60 Hz.The rotation of steel-belted tires is also a source of EMF. Most trains in the United States are diesel powered.Some electrically powered trains operate on AC,such as the passenger trains between Washington,D.C. and New Haven,Connecticut.Measurements taken on these trains using personal exposure monitors have suggested that average 60-Hz magnetic field exposures for passengers and conductors may exceed 50 mG.A U.S. government-sponsored exposure assessment study of electric rail systems found average 60-Hz magnetic field levels in train operator compartments that ranged from 0.4 mG (Boston high speed trolley)to 31.1 mG (North Jersey transit).The graph below shows average and maximum magnetic field measurements in operator compartments of several electric rail systems.It illustrates that 60 Hz is one of several electromagnetic frequencies to which train operators are exposed. : Workers who maintain the tracks on electric rail lines,primarily in the northeastern United States,also have elevated magnetic field exposures at both 25 Hz and 60 Hz.Measurements taken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show that typical average daily exposures range from 3 to 18 mG,depending on how often trains pass the work site. Rapid transit and light rail systems in the United States,such as the Washington D.C.Metro and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit,run on DC electricity. These DC-powered trains contain equipment that produces AC fields.For example,areas of strong AC magnetic fields have been measured on the Washington Metro close to the floor,during braking and acceleration, presumably near equipment located underneath the subway cars. am Ce -to 3 f 3 ': |North Joney Transt Long Beanch 3 Washingion 9.6.Meatreesil (a8 cart) Amtrak Horthnest Corridor (69 #7}Boston tetrerey : Arenas.Mostheatt Coersdar 25 1}:' Sense BS Dep at Trap A,1943 "Click Here to SeeLargelmage*™==ee 'These graphs illustrate that 60 Hz is one of several electromagnetic . frequencies to which train operators are exposed.The maximum... exposure is the top of the blue (upper)portion of the bar;the -. average exposure is the top of the red (lower)portion.= Q How canI find out how strong the EMF is where |live and work? The tables throughout this chapter can give you a general idea about magnetic field levels at home,for different jobs,and around various kinds of electrical *equipment.For specific information about EMF from a particular power line, contact the utility that operates the line.Some will perform home EMF measurements.: You can take your own EMF measurements with a magnetic field meter.For a spot measurement to provide a useful estimate of your EMF exposure,it should be taken at a time of day and location when and where you are typically near the equipment.Keep in mind that the strength of a magnetic field drops off quickly with distance. Independent technicians will conduct EMF measurements for a fee.Search the Internet under "EMF meters”or "EMF measurement."You should investigate the experience and qualifications of commercial firms,since governments do not standardize EMF measurements or certify measurement contractors. At work,your plant safety officer,industrial hygienist,or other local safety officialcanbeagoodsourceofinformation.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)sometimes conducts health hazard evaluations in workplaces where EMF is a suspected cause for concern.For further technical assistance,contact NIOSH at 800-356-4674. Q How much do computers contribute to my EMF exposure? %the video display terminal (VDT)or monitor provides some = 5naCwPersonalcomputersthemselvesproducevery.little EMF.However OO"CG magnetic field exposure unlessit is of the new flat-panel design. Conventional VDTs containing cathode ray tubes use magnetic fields to produce the image on the screen,and some emission of P79 those magnetic fields is unavoidable.Unlike most other appliances” which produce predominantly 60-Hz magnetic fields,VDTs emit magnetic fields in both the extremely low frequency (ELF)and very low frequency (VLF)frequency ranges.Many newer VDTs have been designed to minimize magneticfieldemissions,and those identified as "TCO'99 compliant"meet a standard for low emissions. Q What can be done to limit EMF exposure? Personal exposure to EMF depends on three things:the strength of theANmagneticfieldsourcesinyourenvironment,your distance from those sources,*and the time you spendin the field. If you are concerned about EMF exposure,your first step should be to find out where the major EMF sources are and move away from them or limit the time you spend near them.Magnetic fields from appliances decrease dramatically about an arm's length away from the source.In many cases,rearranging a bed, a chair,or a work area to increase your distance from an electrical panel or some other EMF source can reduce your EMF exposure. Another way to reduce EMF exposure is to use equipment designed to have relatively low EMF emissions.Sometimes electrical wiring in a house or a building can be the source of strong magnetic field exposure.Incorrect wiring is a common source of higher-than-usual magnetic fields.Wiring problems are also worth correcting for safety reasons. In its 1999 report to Congress,the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences suggested that the power industry continue its current practice of siting power lines to reduce EMF exposures.) There are more costly actions,such as burying power lines,moving out of a home,or restricting the use of office space that may reduce exposures.Because scientists are still debating whether EMF is a hazard to health,it is not clear that the costs of such measures are warranted.Some EMF reduction measures may create other problems.For instance,compacting power lines reduces EMF but increases the danger of accidental electrocution for line workers. We are not sure which aspects of the magnetic field exposure,if any,to reduce. Future research may reveal that EMF reduction measures based on today's limited understanding are inadequate or irrelevant.No action shouid be taken to reduce EMF exposure if it increases the risk of a known safety hazard. On to EMF Exposure Standards EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential Health Effects |Results of EMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards | National and International EMF Reviews |References EMFRAPID Home |NIEHS Home For More Information About EMF:Web Center i EM F :Questions ©Answers asa ey)EMF Exposure Standards This chapter describes standards and guidelines established by state,national,and international safety organizations for some EMF sources and exposures. Are there exposure standards for 60-Hz EMF? Does EMF affect people with pacemakers or other medical devices? What about products advertised as producing low or reduced magnetic fields? Are cellular telephones and towers sources of EMF exposure? Q aA'PPie Are there exposure standards for 60-Hz EMF? In the United States,there are no federal standards limiting occupational or residential exposure to 60-Hz EMF. At least six states have set standards for transmission line electric fields;two of these also have standards for magnetic fields (see table below).In most cases, the maximum fields permitted by each state are the maximum fields that existing lines produce at maximum load-carrying conditions.Some states further limit electric field strength at road crossings to ensure that electric current induced into large metal objects such as trucks and buses does not represent an electric shock hazard. S -State Transmission Line Standards and Guidelines a Electric Field).-:gees Magnetic FieldState-"OnRO.W?Edge ROW.su "OnROW.F "Bigs ROW.::Florida BkVim®KVim =D ':450 mG (max.load) 10 KV/m?.oS ae we 200 mG?(max.load) ee fe eee a.250mG*(max.load) Minnesota |>8kVim.oe ee ot i --ao Montana 7RVim Re : New Jersey 3kV/im Toe aNewYork1.8kVim 16kVim {200 mG (max.load) L ALO KVM wee ee .7OKVIM =[Oregon =:|"9 kVim ee ee Pe -FARO.Ww.=right-of-way (oriin the Florida standard,certain1 additional areas agoining the rightof-way).-Ss :AVim =kilovolt per meter.One kilovolt =1,000 volts.*For lines of 69-230 kV."ee a *For 500 kV lines.Josh ee a ©For 500 kV lines on certain existing R.O.2 W*Maximum for highway crossings. *May be waived by the landowner. ¢Maximum for private road crossings.- Two organizations have developed voluntary occupational exposure guidelines for EMF exposure.These guidelines are intended to prevent effects,such asinduced.currents in cells or nerve stimulation,which are known to occur at high magnitudes,much higher (more than 1,000 times higher)than EMF levels found typically in occupational and residential environments.These guidelines are summarized in the tables on the right. oF ICNIRP Guidelines for EMFExposure _ 'Exposure(60 Hz)Cake a Electric field °°©Magnetic field Occupational :&"8.3 kim.Hoe 42 G (4,200 mG)_|General Public =4.2 kVim 0.833G (833 mG)=International Commission on Non--lonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)is an organization of15,000 scientists from 40 nations who specialize |in radiation\protection.Source:ICNIRP,1998.- ae _ACGIHOccupational 1Threshold 'Limit Values for 60-Hz EMF S a :oe Electric field_Magnetic fieldOccupationaleexposure"should not e:exceed oe "25 kVim :"40 G(100,000 m6)Prudence dictates the use of protective oo :45 kVim clothing above.ee oe pong :'Exposure of workers with cartiac 1 AEE eS kVim A.1 G3 (4,000 me)'pacemakers should not exceedAmericanConferenceofGovernmental industrial Hygienists(ACGIE)isisaa professional”organization that facilitates the exchange of technical information about worker health'protection.Itis not a government regulatory agency.'Source:ACGIH,2001.-a 5 gi :age fe The International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) concluded that available data regardingpotential long-term effects,such as increased risk of cancer,are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) publishes "Threshold Limit Values"(TLVs)for various physical agents.The TLVs for 60-Hz EMF shown in the table are identified as guides to control exposure; they are not intended to demarcate safe and dangerous levels. Q Does EMF affect people with pacemakers or other medical devices? fi,According to the U.S.Food and Drug Administration (FDA),interference from»,EMF can affect various medical devices including cardiac pacemakers and"implantable defibrillators.Most current researchin this area focuses on higher frequency sources such as cellular phones,citizens band radios,wireless computer links,microwave signals,radio and television transmitters,and paging transmitters. Sources such as welding equipment,power lines at electric generating plants, and rail transportation equipment can produce lower frequency EMF strong enough to interfere with some models of pacemakers and defibrillators.The occupational exposure guidelines developed by ACGIH state that workers with cardiac pacemakers should not be exposed to a 60-Hz magnetic field greater than 1 gauss (1,000 mG)or a 60-Hz electric field greater than 1 kilovolt per meter (1,000 V/m)(See ACGIH guidelines above).Workers who are concerned about EMF exposure effects on pacemakers,implantable defibrillators,or other implanted electronic medical devices should consult their doctors or industrial hygienists. Nonelectronic metallic medical implants (such as artificial joints,pins,nails, screws,and plates)can be affected by high magnetic fields such as those from magnetic resonance imaging (MRi)devices and aiuminum refining equipment, but are generally unaffected by the lower fields from most other sources. The FDA MedWatch program is collecting information about medical device problems thought to be associated with exposure to or interference from EMF. Anyone experiencing a problem that might be due to such interference is encouraged to call and report it (800-332-1088). Q What about products advertised as producing low or reduced magneticfields? Virtually all electrical appliances and devices emit electric and magnetic fields. .The strengths of the fields vary appreciably both between types of devices and among manufacturers and models of the same type of device.Some appliance manufacturers are designing new models that,in general,have lower EMF than older models.As a result,the words "low field"or "reduced field"may be relative to older models and not necessarily relative to other manufacturers or devices. At this time,there are no domestic or international standards or guidelines limiting the EMF emissions of appliances. The U.S.government has set no standards for magnetic fields from computer monitors or video display terminals (VDTs).The Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO)established in 1992 a standard recommending strict limits on the EMF emissions of computer monitors.The VDTs should produce magnetic fields of no more than 2 mG at a distance of 30 cm (about 1 ft)from the front surface of the monitor and 50 cm (about 1 ft 8 in)from the sidesandbackofthemonitor.The TCO'92 standard has become a de facto standard in the VDT industry worldwide.A 1999 standard,promulgated by the Swedish TCO (known as the TCO'99 standard),provides for international and environmental labeling of personal computers.Many computer monitors marketed in the U.S.are certified as compliant with TCO'99 and are thereby . assured to produce low magnetic fields. Beware of advertisements claiming that the federal government has certified that the advertised equipment produces little or no EMF.The federal government has no such general certification program for the emissions of low-frequency EMF. The U.S.Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological 'Health (CDRH)does certify medical equipment and equipment producing high levels of ionizing radiation or microwave radiation.Information about certain devices as well as general information about EMF is available from the CDRH at 888-463-6332. Q Are cellular telephones and towers sources of EMF exposure? =Cellular telephones and towers involve radio-frequency and microwave-fy frequency electromagnetic fields.These are in a much higher frequency range*than are the power-frequency electric and magnetic fields associated with the transmission and use of electricity. The U.S.Federal Communications Commission (FCC)licenses communications systems that use radio-frequency and microwave electromagnetic fields and ensures that licensed facilities comply with exposure standards.Public information on this topic is published on two FCC Internet sites: http:/Awww.fcec.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56 and http:/Awww.fcec.gov/oet/rfsafety/ The U.S.Food and Drug Administration also provides information about cellular telephones on its web site (http:/Awww.fda.gov/cdrh/ocd/mobilphone.html). On to National and International EMF Reviews EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential HealthEffectsS|Results of EMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards |National and International EMF Reviews |References EMFRAPID Home |NIEHS HomeForMoreInformationAboutEMF:Web Center NIEHS <a The Notional insitute of Environmental Health Sciences AnswersmBREoiloO7)=Oojo]wnJune 2002 =. !National and International EMF This chapter presents the findings and recommendations of major EMF research reviews,including the U.S.government's EMF RAPID Program. e What have national and international agencies concluded about the impact of EMF exposure on human health? e What other U.S.organizations have reported on EMF? e What can we conclude about EMF at this time? What have national and international agencies concluded about the impact of EMF exposure on human health? "when all the scientific evidence is considered,the link between EMF exposure and cancer is weak.The World Health Organization in 1997 reached a similar conclusion. The two reports were the U.S.National Academy of Sciences report in 1996 and,in 1999,the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences report to Since 1995,two major U.S.reports have concluded that limited evidence existsforanassociationbetweenEMFexposureandincreasedleukemiarisk,but that the U.S.Congress at the end of the U.S.EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID)Program. The U.S.EMF RAPID Program Initiated by the U.S.Congress and established by law in 1992,the U.S.EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (EMF RAPID)Program set out to study whether exposure to electric and magnetic fields produced by the generation,transmission,or use of electric power posed a risk to human health. For more information about the EMF RAPID Program,visit the web site (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/). The U.S.Department of Energy (DOE)administered the overall EMF RAPID Program,but health effects research and risk assessment were supervised by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),a branch of the _U.S.National Institutes of Health (NIH).Together,DOE and NIEHS oversaw more than 100 cellular and animal studies,as well as engineering and exposure assessment studies.Although the EMF RAPID Program did not fund any additional epidemiological studies,an analysis of the many studies already conducted was an important part of its final report. The electric power industry contributed about half,or $22.5 million,of the $45 million eventually spent on EMF research over the course of the EMF RAPID Program.The NIEHS received $30.1 million from this program for research, public outreach,administration,and the health assessment evaluation of extremely low frequency (ELF)EMF.The DOE received approximately $15millionfromthisprogramforengineeringandEMFmitigationresearch.The NIEHS contributed an additional $14.5 million for support of extramural and intramural research including long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program. SAAS_EMF RAPID Program |Interagency Committee"National Institute of EnviDepartmentofEnergy©.Department of Defense-orae a |_Department of Transportation ee AlEnvironmentalProtectionAgency=:a AFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission--National Institute of Standards and Technology :©Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationEeaeRuralElectrificationAdministrationTe snmental HealthSciences An interagency committee was established by the President of the United States to provide oversight and program management support for the EMF RAPID Program.The interagency committee included representatives from NIEHS, DOE,and seven other federal agencies with EMF-related responsibilities. The EMF RAPID Program also received advice from a National EMF Advisory Committee (NEMFAC),which included representatives from citizen groups, labor,utilities,the National Academy of Sciences,and other groups.They met regularly with DOE and NIEHS staff to express their views.NEMFAC meetings were open to the public.The EMF RAPID Program sponsored |citizenparticipationinsomescientificmeetingsaswell.Abroad -@%Se ee group of citizens reviewed all major public information materials produced for the program. NIEHS Working Group Report 1998 In preparation for the EMF RAPID Program's goal of _reporting to the U.S.Congress on possible health effects from exposure to EMF from power lines,the NIEHS convened an expert working group in June 1998.Over 9 days,about 30 scientists conducted a complete review of EMF studies,including those sponsored by the EMF RAPID Program and others.Their conclusions offered guidance to the NIEHS as it prepared its report to Congress. Using criteria developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,a majority of the members of the working group concluded that exposure to power-- frequency EMF is a possible human carcinogen. The majority called their opinion "a conservative public health decision based on limited evidence for an increased occurrence of childhood leukemias and an increased occurrence of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)in occupational settings."For these diseases,the working group reported that animal and cellular studies neither confirm nor deny the epidemiological studies'suggestion of a disease risk.This report is available on the NIEHS EMF RAPID web site (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/). NIEHS Report to Congress at Conclusion of EMF RAPID Program In June 1999,the NIEHS reported to the U.S.Congress that scientific evidence for an EMF-cancer link is weak. The following are excerpts from the 1999 NIEHS report: The NIEHS believes that the probability that ELF-EMF exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small.The weak epidemiological associations and lack of any laboratory support for these associations provide only marginal, scientific support that exposure to this agent is causing any degree of harm. The scientific evidence suggesting that extremelylow _frequency EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak.The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer:childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults.While the support from individual studies is weak,the epidemiological studies demonstrate,for some methods of measuring exposure,a fairly consistent pattern of a small,increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic lymphocytic leukemia than for childhood leukemia.In contrast,the mechanistic studies and the animal toxicology literature fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern across studies,although sporadic findings of biological effects (including increased cancers in animals)have been reported. No indication of increased leukemias in experimental animals has been observed. The full report is available on the NIEHS EMF RAPID web site (http:/Awww.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/). No regulatory action was recommended or taken based on the NIEHS report. The NIEHS director,Dr.Kenneth Olden,told the Congress that,in his opinion, the conclusion of the NIEHS report \was not sufficient to warrant aggressiveregulatoryaction. The NIEHS did not recommend adopting EMF standards for electric appliances or burying electric power lines.Instead,it recommended providing publicinformationaboutpracticalwaystoreduceEMFexposure.The NIEHS aiso suggested that power companies and utilities "continue siting power lines to"reduceexposures and...explore ways to reduce the creation of magneticfieldsaroundtransmissionanddistributionlineswithoutcreatingnewhazards."The NIEHS encouraged manufacturers to reduce magnetic fields at a minimal cost, but noted that the risks do not warrant expensive redesign of electrical appliances. The NIEHS also encouraged individuals who are concerned about EMF in their homes to check to see if their homes are properly wired and grounded,since incorrect wiring or other code violations are a common source of higher-than- usual magnetic fields. National Academy of Sciences Report In October 1996,a National Research Council committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)released its evaluation of research on potential associations between EMF exposure and cancer,reproduction,development, learning,and behavior.The report concluded: Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells,tissues,and organisms (including humans),the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard.Specifically,no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer,adverse neurobehavioral effects,or reproductive and developmental effects. The NAS report focused primarily on the association of childhood leukemia with the proximity of the child's home to power lines.The NAS panel found that although a link between EMF exposure and increased risk for childhood leukemia was observed in studies that had estimated EMF exposure using the wire code method (distance of home from power line),such a link was not found in studies that had included actual measurements of magnetic fields at the time of the study.The panel called for more research to pinpoint the unexplained factors causing small increases in childhood leukemia in houses close to power lines. World Health Organization International EMF Project The World Health Organization (WHO)International EMF Project,with headquarters in Geneva,Switzerland,was launched at a 1996 meeting with representatives of 23 countries attending.It was intended to respond to growing concerns in many member states over possible EMF health effects and to address the conflict between such concerns and technological and economic progress.In its advisory role,the WHO International EMF Projectis NOWreviewinglaboratoryandepidemiologicalevidence, identifying gaps in scientific knowledge,developing an ue car ihagendaforfutureresearch,and developing risk.A -L:aNcommunicationbookletsandotherpublicinformation.The ¥5 | r podWHOInternationalEMFProjectisfundedwith contributions from governments and institutions and is expected to provide an overall EMF health risk assessment.Additional information about this program can be found on the WHO EMF web site (http:/iwww.who.int/peh-emf/). As part of this project,in 1997 a working group of 45 scientists from around the world surveyed the evidence for adverse EMF health effects.They reported that, "taken together,the findings of all published studies are suggestive of an association between childhood leukemia and estimates of ELF (extremely low frequency or power-frequency)magneticfields.”Much like the 1996 U.S.NAS report,the WHO report noted that living in homes near power lines was associated with an approximate 1.5-fold excess risk of childhood leukemia.But unlike the NAS panel,WHO scientists had seen the results of the 1997 U.S.National Cancer Institute study of EMF and childhood leukemia.This work showed even more strongly the inconsistency between results of studies that used a wire code to estimate EMF exposure and studies that actually measured magnetic fields. Regarding health effects other than cancer,the WHO scientists reported that the epidemiological studies "do not provide sufficient evidence to support an association between extremely-low-frequency magnetic-field exposure and adult cancers,pregnancy outcome,or neurobehavioural disorders.” World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)produces a monograph series that reviews the scientific evidence regarding potential carcinogenicity associated with exposure to environmental agents.Aninternationalscientificpanelof21expertsfrom10countriesmetinJune 2001 to review the scientific evidence regarding the potential carcinogenicity of static and ELF (extremely low frequency or power-frequency)EMF.The panel categorized its conclusions for carcinogenicity based on the IARC classification system--a system that evaluates the strength of evidence from epidemiological,laboratory(human and cellular),and mechanistic studies.The panel classified power--frequency EMF as "possibly carcinogenic to humans"based ona fairly consistent statistical association between a doubling of risk of childhood leukemia and magnetic field exposure above 0.4 microtesla (0.4 pT,4 milligauss or 4 mG). In contrast,they found no consistent evidence that childhood EMF exposures are associated with other types of cancer or that adult EMF exposures are associated with increased risk for any kind of cancer.The IARC panel reported that no consistent carcinogenic effects of EMF exposure have been observed in experimental animals and that there is currently no scientific expianation for the observed association between childhood leukemia and EMF exposure.Further information can be obtained at the |ARC web sites (http://www.iarc.fr/and http://monographs.iarc.fr/). International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection The International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)-issued exposure guidelines to guard against known adverse effects such as stimulation of nerves and muscles at very high EMF levels,as well as shocks and burns caused by touching objects that conduct electricity.In April 1998, ICNIRP revised its exposure guidelines and characterized as "unconvincing”the evidence for an association between everyday power-frequency EMF and cancer. European Union In 1996,a European Union (EU)advisory panel provided an overview of the state of science and standards among EU countries.With respect to power- frequency EMF,the panel members said that there is no clear evidence that exposure to EMF results in an increased risk of cancer. Australia--Radiation Advisory Committee Report to Parliament In 1997,Australia's Radiation Advisory Committee briefly reviewed the EMF scientific literature and advised the Australian Parliament that,overall,there is insufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion regarding possible health effects from exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields. The committee also reported that "the weight of opinion as expressed in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report,and the negative results from the National Cancer Institute study (Linet et al.,1997)would seem to shift the balance of probability more towards there being no identifiable health effects". Canada--Health Canada Report . In December 1998,a working group of public health officers at Health Canada, the federal agency that manages Canada's health care system,issued a review of the scientific literature regarding power-frequency EMF health effects.They found the evidence to be insufficient to conclude that EMF causes a risk ofcancer. The report concluded that while EMF effects may be observed in biological systems in a laboratory,no adverse health effects have been demonstrated at the levels to which humans and animals are typically exposed. As for epidemiology,25 years of study results are inconsistent and inconclusive, the panel said,and a plausible EMF-cancer mechanism is missing.Health Canada pledged to continue monitoring EMF research and to reassess this position as new information becomes available. Germany--Ordinance 26OnJanuary1,1997,Germany became the first nation to adopt a national rule on EMF exposure for the general public.Ordinance 26 applies only to facilities such as overhead and underground transmission and distribution lines,transformers, _switchgear and overhead lines for electric-powered trains.Both electric (5 kV/m) and magnetic field exposure limits (1 Gauss)are high enough that they are unlikely to be encountered in ordinary daily life.The ordinance also requires that precautionary measures be taken on a case-by-case basis when electric facilities are sited or upgraded near homes,hospital,schools,day care centers,and playgrounds. Great Britain--National Radiological Protection Board Report The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)in Great Britain advises the government of the United Kingdom regarding standards of protection for exposure to non-ionizing radiation.The NRPB's advisory group on non-ionizing radiation periodically reviews new developments in EMF research and reports itsfindings.Results of the advisory group's latest review were published in 2001. The report reviewed residential and occupational epidemiological studies,aswellascellular,animal,and human volunteer studies that had been published.The advisory group noted that thereis "some epidemiological evidence thatprolongedexposuretohigherlevelsofpowerfrequencymagneticfieldsis associated with a small risk of leukaemia in children.”Specifically,the NRPB advisory group's analysis suggests "that relatively heavy average exposures of 0.4 wT [4 mG]or more are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemiain children under 15 years of age."The group pointed out,however,that laboratoryexperimentshaveprovided"no good evidence that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields are capable of producing cancer." Scandinavia--EMF Developments In October 1995,a group of Swedish researchers and government officials published a report about EMF exposure in the workplace.This "Criteria Group" reviewed EMF scientific literature and,using the IARC classification system, ranked occupational EMF exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."They also endorsed the Swedish government's 1994 policy statement that public exposure limits to EMFs were not needed,but that people might simply want to use caution with EMFs. In 1996,five Swedish government agencies further explained their precautionary advice about EMF.EMF exposure should be reduced,they said,but only when .practical,without great inconvenience or cost. Health experts in Norway,Denmark,and Finland generally agreed in reviews published in the 1990s that if an EMF health risk exists,it is small.They acknowledged that a link between residential magnetic fields and childhood leukemia cannot be confirmed or denied.in 1994,severai Norwegian government ministries also recommended increasing the distance between residences and electrical facilities,if it could be done at low cost and with little inconvenience. Q What other U.S.organizations have reported on EMF? z American Medical Association ,In.1995,the American Medical Association advised physicians that no™scientifically documented health risk had been associated with "usually occurring”EMF,based on a review of EMF epidemiological,laboratory studies, and major literature reviews. American Cancer SocietyIn1996,the American Cancer Society released a review of 20 years of EMF epidemiological research including occupational studies and residential studies of adult and childhood cancer.The society noted that some data supporta possible relationship of magnetic field exposure with leukemia and brain cancer, but further research may not be justified if studies continue to find uncertain results.Of particular interestis the summary of results from eight studies of riskfromuseofhouseholdapplianceswithrelativelyhighmagneticfields,such as electric blankets and electric razors.The summary suggested that thereis no persuasive evidence for increased risk with more frequent or longer use of these appliances. American Physical SocietyTheAmericanPhysicalSociety (APS)represents thousands of U.S.physicists.Responding to the NIEHS Working Group's conclusion that EMFis a possible human carcinogen,the APS executive board voted in 1998 to reaffirm its 1995 opinion that thereis "no consistent,significant link between cancer and powerlinefields." California's Department of Health Services . In 1996,California's Department of Health Services (DHS)began an ambitious five-year effort to assess possible EMF public health risk and offer guidance toschooladministratorsandotherdecision-makers.The California Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)Program is a research,education,and technical assistance program concerned with the possible health effects of EMF from power lines,appliances,and other uses of electricity.The program's goal is to find a rational and fair approach to dealing with the potential risks,if any,of exposure to EMF.This is done through research,policy analysis,and education. The web site has educational materials on EMF and related health issues for individuals,schools,government agencies,and professional organizations (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/deodc/ehib/emf/). 0)What can we conclude about EMF at this time?wat -Electricity is a beneficial part of our daily lives,but whenever electricity isf=4 generated,transmitted,or used,electric and magneticfields are created.Overthepast25years,research has addressed the question of whether exposure to power-frequency EMF might adversely affect human health.For most health outcomes,there is no evidence that EMF exposures have adverse effects.There is some evidence from epidemiology studies that exposure to power-frequency EMF is associated with an increased risk for childhood leukemia.This association is difficult to interpret in the absence of reproducible laboratory evidence or a scientific explanation that links magneticfields with childhood leukemia. EMF exposures are complex and come from multiple sources in the home and workplace in addition to power lines.Although scientists are still debating whether EMF is a hazard to health,the NIEHS recommends continued education on ways of reducing exposures.This booklet has identified some EMF sources and some simple steps you can take to limit your exposure.For your own safety,it is important that any steps you take to reduce your exposures do not increase other obvious hazards such as those from electrocution or fire.At the current time in the United States,there are no federal standards for occupational or residential exposure to 60-Hz EMF. On to References EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential HealthEffects|Results of EMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards | National and International EMF Reviews |References EMFRAPID Home2 |NIEHS Home For More Information About EMF:Web Center: NIEHS "at The Notional Institute of Environmental Health Sciences -:Answers,Junevnen0n2 a || &References Selected references on EMF topics. Basic Science EMF Levels and Exposures EMF Standards and Regulations Residential Childhood Cancer Studies Residential Adult Cancer Studies Occupational EMF Cancer Studies Laboratory Animal EMF Studies Laboratory Cellular EMF Studies National Reviews of EMF Research Basic Science Kovetz A.Electromagnetic Theory.New York:Oxford University Press (2000). Vanderlinde J.Classical Electromagnetic Theory.New York:Wiley (1993). EMF Levels and Exposures Dietrich FM &Jacobs WL.Survey and Assessment of Electric and Magnetic (EMF)Public Exposure in the Transportation Environment.Report of the U.S. Department of Transportation.NTIS Document PB99-130908.Arlington,VA: National Technical Information Service (1999). Kaune WT.Assessing human exposure to power-frequency electric and magnetic fields.Environmental Health Perspectives 101:121-133 (1993). Kaune WT &Zaffanella L.Assessing historical exposure of children to power frequency magnetic fields.Journal of Exposure Analysis Environmental Epidemiology 4:149-170 (1994). Tarone RE,Kaune WT,Linet MS,Hatch EE,Kleinerman RA,Robison LL,Boice JD &Wacholder S.Residential wire codes:Reproducibility and relation with measured magnetic fields.Occupational and Environmental Medicine 55:333- 339 (1998). U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.EMF in your environment:magnetic field measurements of everyday electrical devices.Washington,DC:Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,Radiation Studies Division,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Report No.402-R-92-008 (1992). Zaffanella L.Survey of residential magnetic field sources.Volume 1:Goals, Results and Conclusions.EPRI Report No.TR-102759.Palo Alto,CA:Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),1993;1-224. EMF Standards and Regulations Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, 7th Ed.Publication No.0100.Cincinnati,OH:American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (2001). _ICNIRP International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric,Magnetic,and - Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz).Health Physics 74:494-522 (1998). Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health.Low-Frequency Electrical and Magnetic Fields (SNBOSH):The Precautionary Principle for National Authorities.Guidance for Decision-Makers.Solna (1996). U.S.Department of Transportation,F.R.A.Safety of High Speed Guided Ground Transportation Systems,Magnetic and Electric Field Testing of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and New Jersey Coast Line Rail Systems,Volume I: Analysis.Washington,DC:Office of Research and Development (1993). Residential Childhood Cancer Studies Ahlbom A,Day N,Feychting M,Roman E,Skinner J,Dockerty J,Linet M, McBride M,Michaelis J,Olsen JH,Tynes T &Verkasalo PK.A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukemia.British Journal of Cancer 83:692- 698 (2000). Coghill RW,Steward J &Philips A.Extra low frequency electric and magnetic fields in the bedplace of children diagnosed with leukemia:A case-control study.European Journal of Cancer Prevention 5:153-158 (1996). Dockerty JD,Elwood JM,Skegg DC,&Herbison GP.Electromagnetic field exposures and childhood cancers in New Zealand.Cancer Causes and Control 9:299-309 (1998). Feychting M &Ahlbom A.Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing near Swedish high-voltage power lines.American Journal of Epidemiology 138:467-481 (1993). Greenland S,Sheppard AR,Kaune WT,Poole C &Kelsh MA.A pooled analysis of magnetic fields,wire codes and childhood leukemia.EMF Study Group.Epidemiology 11:624-634 (2000). e Linet MS,Hatch EE,Kleinerman RA,Robison LL,Kaune WT,Friedman DR, Severson RK,Haines CM,Hartsock CT,Niwa S,Wacholder S &Tarone RE. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children.New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7 (1997). bel E,Cheng TC &Peters JM.Exposure to residential electrtric aand magnetic fifields and risk of childhood leukemia.American Journal of Epidemiology 134:923-937 (1991). e McBride ML,Gallagher RP,Thériault G,Armstrong BG,Tamaro S,Spinelli JJ, Deadman JE,Fincham B,Robson D &Choi W.Power-frequency electric and magnetic fields and risk of childhood leukemia in Canada.American Journal of Epidemiology 149:831-842 (1999). e Michaelis J,Schuz J,Meinert R,Zemann E,Grigat JP,Kaatsch P,Kaletsch U, Miesner A,Brinkmann K,Kalkner W,&Karner H.Combined risk estimates for two German population-based case-control studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood leukemia.Epidemiology 9:92-94 (1998). e Olsen JH,Nielsen A &Schulgen G.Residence near high voltage facilities and risk of cancer in children.British Medical Journal 307:891-895 (1993). e Savitz DA,Wachtel H,Barnes FA,John EM &Tvrdik JG.Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields.American Journal of Epidemiology 128:21-38 (1988). ' *Tomenius L.50-Hz electromagnetic environment and the incidence of childhood tumors in Stockholm county.Bioelectromagnetics 7:191-207 (1986). e Tynes T &Haldorsen T.Electromagnetic fields and cancer in children residing near Norwegian high-voltage power lines.American Journal of Epidemiology 145:219-226 (1997). e UK Childhood Cancer Study Investigators.Exposure to power frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer:a case/control study.Lancet 354:1925-1931 (1999). e Verkasalo PK,Pukkala E,Hongisto MY,Valjus JE,Jarvinen PJ,Heikkila KV & Koskenvuo M.Risk of cancer in Finnish children living close to power lines. British Medical Journal 307:895-899 (1993). Residential Adult Cancer Studies e -Coleman MP,Bell CM,Taylor HL &Primie-Zakelj M.Leukemia and residence near electricity transmission equipment:a case-control study.British Journal of Cancer 60:793-798 (1989). Feychting M &Ahilbom A.Magnetic fields,leukemia,and central nervous system tumors in Swedish adults residing near high-voltage power lines. Epidemiology 5:501-509 (1994). Li CY,Theriault G &Lin RS.Residential exposure to 60-hertz magneticfieldsandadultcancersinTaiwan.Epidemictogy 8:25-30 (1 997). McDowall ME.Mortality of persons resident in the vicinity of electricity transmission facilities.British Journal of Cancer 53:27 1-279 (1986). Severson RK,Stevens RG,Kaune WT,Thomas DB,Heuser L,Davis S & Sever LE.Acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and residential exposure to power frequency magnetic fields.American Journal of Epidemiology 128:10-20 (1988). Wrensch M,Yost M,Miike R,Lee G &Touchstone J.Adult glioma in relation to residential power-frequency electromagnetic field exposures in the San Francisco Bay area.Epidemiology 10:523-527 (1999). Youngson JH,Clayden AD,Myers A &Cartwright RA.A case/control study of adult haematological malignanciesin relation to overhead powerlines.British -Journal of Cancer 63:977-985 (1991). Occupational EMF Cancer Studies Coogan PF,Clapp RW,Newcomb PA,Wenzl TB,Bogdan G,Mittendorf R, Baron JA &Longnecker MP.Occupational exposure to 60-Hertz magnetic fields and risk of breast cancer in women.Epidemiology 7:459-464 (1996). Floderus B,Persson T,Stenlund C,Wennberg A,Ost A,&Knave B. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in relation to leukemia and brain tumors:a case-control study in Sweden.Cancer Causes Control 4:465- 476 (1993). Floderus B,Tornqvist S,&Stenlund C.Incidence of selected cancers in Swedish railway workers,1961-79.Cancer Causes Control 5:189-194 (1994). Sorahan T,Nichols L,van Tongeren M,&Harrington JM.Occupational exposure to magnetic fields relative to mortality from brain tumours:updated and revised findings from a study of United Kingdom electricity generation and transmission workers,197397.Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58(10):626-630 (2001). Johansen C,&Olsen JH Risk of cancer among Danish utility workers -Anationwidecohortstudy.American Journal of Epidemiology,147:548-555 (1998). e Kheifets LI,Gilbert ES,Sussman SS,Guenel P,Sahl JD,Savitz DA,&Theriault G.Comparative analyses of the studies of magnetic fields and cancer in electric utility workers:studies from France,Canada,and the United States. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56(8):567-574 (1999). «London SJ,Bowman JD,Sobel E,Thomas OC,Garabrant DH,PearceN,Bernstein L &Peters JM.Exposureto magneticfields among electrical workers in relation to leukemia risk in Los Angeles County.American Journal of Industrial Medicine 26:47-60 (1994). «Matanoski GM,Breysse PN &Elliott EA.Electromagnetic field exposure and male breast cancer.Lancet 337:737 (1991). *Sahl JD,Kelsh MA,&Greenland S.Cohort and nested case-control studies of hematopoietic cancers and brain cancer among utility worker.Epidemiology4:21-32 (1994). «Savitz DA &Loomis DP.Magnetic field exposure in relation to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among electric utility workers.American Journal of Epidemiology 141:123-134 (1995). «Sorahan T,Nichols L,van Tongeren M,&Harrington JM.Occupational exposure to magnetic fields relative to mortality from brain tumours:updated and revised findings from a study of United Kingdom electricity generation and transmission workers,197397.Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58:626-630 (2001). e Thériault G,Goldberg M,Miller AB,Armstrong B,Guénel P,Deadman J, Imbernon E,To T,Chevalier A,Cyr D,&Wall C.Cancer risks associated with occupational exposure to magnetic fields among electric utility workers in Ontario and Quebec,Canada and France:19701989.American Journal of Epidemiology 139:550-572 (1994). e Tynes T,Jynge H,&Vistnes Al.Leukemia and brain tumors in Norwegian railway workers,a nested case-control study.American Journal of Epidemiology 139:645-653 (1994). Laboratory Animal EMF Studies e Anderson LE,Boorman GA,Morris JE,Sasser LB,Mann PC,Grumbein SL,| Hailey JR,McNally A,Sills RC &Haseman JK.Effect of 13-week magnetic field exposures on DMBA-initiated mammary gland carcinomas in female Sprague- Dawley rats.Carcinogenesis 20:1615-1620 (1999). «Baum A,Mevissen M,Kamino K,Mohr U &Léscher W.A histopathological study on alterations in DMBA-induced mammary carcinogenesis in rats with 50 Hz,100 mT magnetic field exposure.Carcinogenesis 16:119-125 (1995). Babbitt JT,Kharazi Al,Taylor JMG,Rafferty CN,Kovatch R,Bonds CB,Mirell SG,Frumkin E,Dietrich F,Zhuang D &Hahn TJM.Leukemia/lymphoma in mice exposed to 60-Hz magnetic fields:Results of the chronic exposure study TR-110338.Los Angeles:Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)(1998). Babbitt JT,Kharazi Al,Taylor JMG,Rafferty CN,Kovatch R,Bonds CB,Mirell SG,Frumkin E,Dietrich F,Zhuang D &Hahn TJM.Leukemia/lymphoma in mice exposed to 60-Hz magnetic fields:Results of the chronic exposure study, Second Edition.Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)and B.C.Hydro,Palo Alto,California and Burnaby,British Columbia,Canada (1999). Boorman GA,Anderson LE,Morris JE,Sasser LB,Mann PC,Grumbein SL, Hailey JR,McNally A,Sills RC &Haseman JK.Effect of 26-week magnetic field exposures in a DMBA initiation-promotion mammary gland model in Sprague- Dawley rats.Carcinogenesis 20:899-904 (1999). Boorman GA,McCormick DL,Findlay JC,Hailey JR,Gauger JR,Johnson TR, Kovatch RM,Sills RC &Haseman JK.Chronic toxicity/oncogenicity of 60 Hz (power frequency)magnetic fields in F344/N rats.Toxicological Pathology 27:267-278 (1999).. Boorman GA,McCormick DL,Ward JM,Haseman JK &Sills RC.Magnetic fields and mammary cancer in rodents:A critical review and evaluation of published literature.Radiation Research 153:617-626 (2000). Boorman GA,Rafferty CN,Ward JM &Sills RC.Leukemia and lymphoma incidence in rodents exposed to low-frequency magnetic fields.Radiation Research 153:627-636 (2000). Ekstrém T,Mild KH &Holmberg B.Mammary tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats after initiation with DMBA followed by exposure to 50 Hz electromagnetic fields in a promotional scheme.Cancer Letters 123:107-111 (1998). Mandeville R,Franco E,Sidrac-Ghali S,Paris-Nadon L,Rocheleau N,Mercier G,Desy M &Gaboury L.Evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of 60 Hz linear sinusoidal continuous-wave magnetic fields in Fisher F344 rats. Federation of the American Society of Experimental Biology Journal 11:1127- 1136 (1997).© McCormick DL,Boorman GA,Findlay JC,Hailey JR,Jonnson TR,Gauger JR, Pletcher JM,Sills RC &Haseman JK.Chronic toxicity/oncogenicity of 60 Hz (power frequency)magnetic fields in BEC3F1 mice.Toxicological Pathology 27:279-285 (1999). Mevissen M,Lerchl A,Szamel M &Léscher W.Exposure of DMBA-treated female rats in a 50-Hz,50 microTesla magnetic field:Effects on mammary tumor growth,melatonin levels and T-lymphocyte activation.Carcinogenesis 17:903-910 (1996). Yasui M,Kikuchi T,Ogawa M,Otaka Y,Tsuchitani M &Iwata H. Carcinogenicity test of 50 Hz sinusoidal magnetic fields in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 18:531-540 (1997). Laboratory Cellular EMF Studies Balcer-Kubiczek EK,Harrison GH,Zhang XF,Shi ZM,Abraham JM,McCready WA,Ampey LL,III,Meltzer SJ,Jacobs MC,&Davis CC.Rodent cell transformation and immediate early gene expression following 60-Hz magnetic field exposure.Environmental Health Perspectives 104:1188-1198 (1996). Boorman GA,Owen RD,Lotz WG &Galvin MJ,Jr.Evaluation of in vitro effects of 50 and 60 Hz magnetic fields in regional EMF exposure facilities.Radiation Research 153:648-657 (2000). Lacy-Hulbert A,Metcalfe JC,&Hesketh R.Biological responses to electromagneticfields.Federation of the American Society of ExperimentalBiology(FASEB)Journal 12:395-420 (1998). Morehouse CA &Owen RD.Exposure of Daudi cells to low-frequency magnetic fields does not elevate MYC steady-state mRNA levels.Radiation Research 153:663-669 (2000). Snawder JE,Edwards RM,Conover DL &Lotz WG.Effect of magnetic field exposure on anchorage-independent growth of a promoter-sensitive mouse epidermal cell line (JB6).Environmental Health Perspectives 107:195-198 (1999). Wey HE,Conover DL,Mathias P,Toraason MA &Lotz WG.50-Hz magnetic field and calcium transients''in Jurkat cells:Results ofa research and public information dissemination (RAPID)program study.Environmental HealthPerspectives108:135-140 (2000). National Reviews of EMF Research American Medical Association.Council on Scientific Affairs.Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields.Chicago:American Medical Association (December1994). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,U.S.Department of Energy.Questions and Answers:EMF in the Workplace.Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power.Report No.DOE/GO-10095-218 (September.1996). *National Radiological Protection Board.ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer.Volume 12:1,Chilton,Didcot,Oxon,UK OX11 ORQ (2001). e National Research Council,Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems.Possible Health Effects of =Spe idens .oot .meerExposuretoResidentialElectricandMagneticFields.Washington:National Academy Press (1997). e National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields.NIH Publication No.99-4493.Research Triangle Park,National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (1999). e Portier CJ &Wolfe MS,Eds.Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields--NIEHS Working Group Report NIH Publication No.98-3981.Research Triangle Park,National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (1998). On to EMF Basics EMF Questions &Answers Home |Introduction |EMF Basics |Evaluating Potential Health Effects |Results of EMF Research |Your EMF Environment |EMF Exposure Standards | National and International EMF Reviews |References cme yee meneterneerenzv eee pee een pornre-anenneneneevrennpneren intNOnNOUNoe-e EMFRAPID Home |NIEHS Home For More Information About EMF:Web Center 5.Permafrost Information Alaska Science Forum January 23,1997 Thawing Permafrost Threatens Alaska's Foundation Article #1321 by Ned Rozell This article is provided as a public service by the Geophysical Institute,University of Alaska Fairbanks,in cooperation with the UAF research community.Ned Rozell is a science writer at the institute. Is Kipnuk sinking? Eskimo elders in the coastal Alaska village think it might be.Tom Osterkamp thinks he might know one of the reasons why--Alaska's permafrost is warming. Osterkamp,a Geophysical Institute professor of physics who has studied Alaska's,permafrost for 25 years,recently received an e-mail message from a colleague who told him of the Kipnuk elders'concerns. Kipnuk,located about 100 miles west of Bethel,is a treeless village where about 500 people live.The topographic map for the Kipnuk area looks like Swiss cheese because the village sits amid hundreds of lakes.Kipnuk's elevation is only about five feet above the level of the Bering Sea. Jan Parks,the principal of Chief Paul Memorial School at Kipnuk,said buildings in the village show signs of an unstable ground surface--walls develop cracks,doors stick,and floors rise and fall. "If you put a marble on the floor,in one year it'll roll in one direction;in the next year it'll go the other direction,"Parks said. The symptoms Parks described are consistent with those of an area that sits on top of thawing permafrost,Osterkamp said.Permafrost occurs under about 85 percent of Alaska's surface area;patches of permafrost can be found as far +h,AsouthasAnchorage. If thawing permafrost is Kipnuk's problem,the villagers aren't alone. Osterkamp's recent measurements show that all permafrost south of the Yukon River is warming,and in most cases there isn't one degree left between ice and water. Osterkamp monitors the temperature of permafrost with a network of one-inch holes drilled in permafrost throughout the state.The holes,located near Fairbanks,Anchorage,Bethel,Glennallen,Eagle,and other towns and villages, have all been telling the same story.Since 1989,each time Osterkamp has checked the temperatures of permafrost at depths from 10 to 25 meters,the permafrost has crept closer to the melting point. A test site off Stampede Trail in Healy provides an example of what's happening to permafrost south of the Yukon River.In 1989,the permafrost temperature 10 meters under the surface was about -1.27 degrees Celsius. In 1990,the Stampede Trail permafrost warmed to -1.07 degrees.The permafrost has warmed steadily since.When Osterkamp checked in July,1996, the permafrost 10 meters deep was about -0.7 degrees Celsius.These tenths of a degree might not seem significant,but Osterkamp pointed out there's not -much more warming that can occur before the Stampede Trail permafrost is no longer frozen. There are two possible reasons why the permafrost has warmed south of the Yukon River,Osterkamp said.Permafrost may be responding to a warmer climate,or it may reflect the amount of snow that insulates the ground. Whatever the cause,permafrost or a sudden lack thereof may catch the attention of many Alaskans in the near future. "If this (widespread permafrost thaw)comes about,it will change the face of southern Alaska,"Osterkamp said.In addition to creating roller coaster roads and tilting buildings,thawing permafrost often causes large sections of forest to collapse,killing trees and other vegetation that live on a foundation of permafrost. The future of permafrost south of the Yukon River isn't promising,Osterkamp said.He cited computer models that predict a 3-to S5-degree Celsius warming in the next 50 years. "If that really occurs,it will thaw all of the permafrost south of the Yukon and most of it south of the Brooks Range,"he said. That's a chilling thought. [Water,Snow and Ice Index}[Main Index] Legend PERMAFROST WR3Hl Mountainous Area uriderlain by continuous permafrost |B29 Mountainous Area underlain by discontinuous permafrost [=]Mountainous Area underlain by isolated masses of permafrost ' fsa)Lowland and Upland Area underlain by thick permafrost (£2]Lowland and Upland Area underlain by moderately thick to thin permafrost .[_]Lowland and Upland Area underlain by discontinuous permafrost ((_]Lowiand and Upland Area underlain by numerous isolated masses of permafrost ([_.]Lowland and Upland Area underlain by isolated masses of permafrost [E23 Lowland and Upland Area generally free of permafrost Rees ee Permafrost Zones baarrow* 'Wainwright RonCae Nusa ee a ek sipasch foktonk *:4 hsKalin!9 Kotzebue,» ::a Shishmarefsakaone26a Areas outside of permafrost region generally free of permafrost bea a it,oes ANRCSOfficeLocations"vss Ke J Fairbanks 4 ©Field Office Gombelt "Ox.ot,}2)3 'Sa af@SubFieldOffice+s veonga ES K ey FPskte Junction *, *&State Office (Palmer)ie Ulcer ee .en nent ee,Tet @ RcDOMCes Updated 6/25/02 ,Fmmonaky Kottk a k ti we %Healy ,wh !Alakarwi he =a *..a PayThisdatasetconsistsofageoreferenceddigitalmapandattributedataderivedinVillage;ay.2 rea ey ea ¢?from the publication "Permafrost map of Alaska”.The map shows the correlation Mountain Vilage Saint Mary I Ns "j Glennallen ' of physiographic province to presence of permafrost across the state of Alaska.He B gh tohcross hf 'aNSourcemapisfromFerrans,O.J.,1965,Permafrost mapofAlaska:U.S.Geological "oper a Neal Antak'y,ig avnf bet ;Bear tahe :Survey Miscellaneous Geologic investigations Map |-445.x Let Station ot boy at'wastoe AD ,ee '$r1ye rege hilar atMekoryehonxfFyioe*ffA ieeS.ea)saraanfieihe z . : Bethal **ba m ; :ef e r -?Ge ae ake ve4hnZom!aePeer ©enai*.i ae cf hie anes Kipruk ee liganek Fgh ay:2 at ”Vakutan esto"a<n4 jurieawi.ge we -Homer Senard ae iPtfii?oniingham--*38"os ee iegetnevi4obayaomSethevi . i ker,=Saint Paul *e ones mn aaes ;Naknek gybo yw tayee'we eiteyKodiak«Sema Station *roate qt reLa ae°F {a rePaia"iweepar.rm >*ee aoa?"3*rd PontoeaitaleeWeeSandPor47caeknoton”ay .Cok a |King Cove.co efak Station |we,na Z"ee mcg ptt UnalaskaoepeAudmena iN"Eoa45a18027030 6.Bethel River Bank Erosion Sketch plee Aker orion be en, ee IES Phe Bonk "|Prquemed |° Leena” Goad PamAces.”eg ye Be a =!a Prideecbed St.asos,Plier Bark Lota fon _ ae Fok nid Gccanyogra APPENDIX I 1.Public Comments Intentionally left blank Public Comments to be inserted