Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing Cove Hydrolectric Feasibility Study 1988- I .a. .. ) Am5kaPowerAu~orUy King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study July 1988 8231/880/1 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY July 1988 PROJECT TEAM David Denig-Chakroff Project Manager Roy Taylor Project Engineer Remy Wi 11 i ams Cost Estimator Afzal Khan Electrical Engineer Don Shira, Director Program Development Robert E. LeResche Executive Director © 1988 Alaska Power Authority li st of Pl ates list of Tables List of Figures Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............. . . iii . . . iii iii Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 1 1 2 3 Findings and Recommendations ........ . Project History and Previous Studies ... . DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT ... . General Description ......... . 7 7 • 10 • . . . 15 · 18 Weirs and Intake Structures •••••• Penstocks and Sediment Trap . . • • Powerhouse and Generating Equipment Transmission System .. . . . . . 20 400 kW A lterna t i ve . . • . Project Costs . . . . . . . .. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--l,OOO KW PROPOSAL. Economi c Model. . . . Base Case Analysis ... . Hydroproject Analysis ... . Sensitivity Analyses .... . ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--400 KW PROPOSAL. COST OF POWER ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . References • . . APPENDIX A: Response to Comments on Draft Report APPENDIX 8: Electrical System Details APPENDIX C: Detailed Cost Estimates APPENDIX D: Fish and Game Correspondence APPENDIX E: 400 kW Economic Analysis Spreadsheets APPENDIX F: Response to City of King Cove Requests 8231/880/2 ii • . • 22 · 25 • • • 27 • • . 27 · . • 41 · 44 · 47 · . • 51 . . 51 • • 62 Pl ate I. Plate II. Pl ate I I I. Plate IV. Plate V. Plate VI. Table I-A. lable I-B. Table 2-A. Table 2-B. Table 3. lable 4-A. Table 4-B. Fi gure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7: Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Fi gure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. 8231/880/3 List of Plates Project Location Map . . . . . Weir Design ........ . Intake Structure Design Pressure Settling Tank Design Penstock Configuration. Powerhouse Design ..... List of Tables Summary of Estimated Construction Costs Annual O&M Cost Estimates .. . . . . . . Economic Ana1ysis--Low Diesel Fuel Price .. Economic Ana1ysis--High Diesel Fuel Price Load Distribution and Hydropower Potential Cost of Power Ana1ysis--Low Fuel Price .. Cost of Power Ana1ysis--High Fuel Price Li s t 0 f Fig u re s 8 · 12 13 16 · 17 19 23 · 24 . . 29 · 31 · 36 · 55 · 57 Monthly Energy Distribution . . . 35 Monthly Hydropower Potential . . . . . . . 35 1989 Monthly Power Distribution .... 38 2007 Monthly Power Distribution ... 38 Load and Hydropower Forecast--2% Load Growth . . 39 Load and Hydropower Forecast--O% Load Growth . . 39 Load and Hydropower Forecast--4% Load Growth . . 40 King Cove Oil Price Forecast .......... 42 Sensitivity Analysis--Economic/Hydroproject 48 Sensitivity Ana1ysis--Diese1 System ... 49 Load Factor Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . 50 Distribution of Costs--Base Case ....... 52 Distribution of Costs--Hydroproject ... 52 Projected Cost of Power--Low Fuel Price 59 Projected Cost of Power--High Fuel Price. 59 iii I NTRODUCTI ON Summary In 1982 the Alaska Power Authority initiated a feasibility and streamflow monitoring program for Delta Creek near King Cove, Alaska. Based on the technical and environmental investigations conducted since that time and based on five full years of hydrolog- ic monitoring, this report compiles and summarizes the data ac- quired through the feasibility program. It presents the conceptual design for a recommended hydroelectric project on Delta Creek and an electrical system to transmit power to the King Cove distribu- tion system. In addition, this feasibility report presents economic analyses of both a 1,000 kW and a 400 kW hydroelectric project on Delta Creek. The analysis indicates that both the 1,000 kW and 400 kW hydro- electric projects are economically feasible when compared to the alternative of meeting the community's power demand solely with a diesel generator system. The net present values of the life-cycle costs of each proposed hydroelectric project and of a base case of continued use of diesel generation were determined for both low and high diesel fuel price forecasts. The net present value (NPV) of each hydroproject proposal was compared to the net present value of the base case in a cost-to-cost ratio (i.e., NPV of base case t NPV of hydroproject). The cost-to-cost ratios are between 1.56 and 1.69 8231/880/4 King Cove Hydroelectric FeasibilitYt July 1988 for the 1,000 kW hydroproject proposal and between 1.44 and 1.71 for the 400 kW project over the diesel fuel price forecast range. Findings and Recommendations 1. Both a 1,000 kW and a 400 kW hydroe 1 ectri c power system utilizing flow in Delta Creek and including a transmission line to King Cove are technically and economically feasible t assuming the power produced from the projects can be sold. 2. Load growth is not a prerequ is ite for project feas i bil i ty since nearly the full output of either system would be uti- lized in the first year of operation. 3. Either system would create minimal environmental impact t which could be offset by appropriate mitigation measures; however, construction techniques and timing should be planned to mini- mize the construction impact on fisheries resources. 4. The project design should, to the extent possible t reflect construction techniques and operation and maintenance proce- dures that will facilitate employment of local labor. 5. Equipment procurement documents should be sufficiently flexi- ble to allow suppliers to provide the most efficient system for the resource and power demands of the community. 8231/880/5 2 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 6. The project design should accommodate high sediment load transport conditi ons through appropri ate weir des i gn and by locating roads and penstock outside the Delta Creek canyon. 7. The Power Authority should assist the City of King Cove in pursuing financing options for development of a hydroelectric project on Delta Creek. Project History and Previous Studies . Two potential hydropower sites near King Cove were evaluated in 1980 by EBASCO Services, Inc. for the Alaska District Corps of ~ngineers (EBASCO, 1980). A site on Delta Creek was identified as the most economic with a benefit-cost ratio between 3.6 and 5.8, depending on the plant utilization factor used. In July 1981, CH2M Hill, under contract to the Alaska Power Author- ity, completed a Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for King Cove. The reconnaissance study evaluated alternative sources for meeting the future electricity requirements of King Cove, including wind, peat and coal combustion, small hydropower, tidal and solar power, and continued use of centralized or decentralized diesel-powered generation. The report also ana- lyzed the potential for waste heat recovery from diesel generators and for conservation of building heat. The reconnaissance study 8231/880/6 3 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 rejected wind, peat, coal, tidal and solar power options based on economic, environmental and technical grounds. It dismissed waste heat recovery due to a lack of buildings with significant heating requirements in the vicinity of the power plant. The reconnais- sance study recommended a more detailed investigation to determine the feasibility of a hydroproject on Delta Creek, including a streamflow measurement program. The Power Authority initiated the King Cove hydroproject feasibili- ty program in September 1981 and a streamflow monitoring program on Delta Creek in January 1982. An initial feasibility report, completed by DOWL Engineers in June 1982, evaluated four potential hydropower sites in addition to the Delta Creek site and concluded that upper Delta Creek was the best available hydroproject site in the vicinity of King Cove. Based on limited hydrologic data, the report recommended a 575 kW hydroelectric project consisting of a diversion weir, hinged for sediment clean-out; a 5,300 foot penstock and access road within the Delta Creek canyon (including one stream crossing); a powerhouse located on Delta Creek about! mile north of the airstrip; and a 5} mile transmission line to King Cove. The total construction cost of the proposed project was estimated to "be $3.7 million in 1982 dollars. When annual infla- L. tion is taRen into account, this equates to $4.4 million in 1987 dollars. The net present value of the life-cycle costs of a base case diesel generator system ranged from $9.3 million to $14.2 8231/880/7 4 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 million in 1982 dollars, depending on assumptions. These net present values were compared to a 1982 net present value of the costs of the proposed hydroelectric project of $7.1 million, yielding a cost-to-cost ratio between 1.32 and 2.01. Based on the preliminary results of the 1982 study, the Power Authority continued its streamflow monitoring program and initiated a number of environmental, geotechnical, and hydrologic investiga- tions to answer questions raised by the study. Field surveys were conducted in 1 ate 1982 and early 1983 to conduct fi sh counts, to update hydrologic data, and to determine the proposed project's impact on fisheries (DOWL, 1984). A geotechnical study conducted in 1984 concluded that adverse sediment transport conditions in De lta Creek must be addressed in the des i gn of the hydroe 1 ectri c system (Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, 1984). In 1985 Power Authority engineers conducted a detailed assessment of the existing electrical generation and distribution systems of both the City and Peter Pan Seafoods to determi ne control and interface requi rements for i ntegrati ng the proposed hydroel ectric system with the eXisting diesel systems. Power Authority staff also collected load data from both the City and Peter Pan to use in sizing the hydroelectric project and in updating and completing the feasibility study. Design modifications were initiated in 1986 to address sediment transport conditions, to meet existing control and 8231/880/8 5 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 interface requirements, and to size the project based on updated hydrologic and load projections. By January 1987, five full years of streamflow data had been collected for Delta Creek, yielding sufficient hydrologic data to make project design and development decisions with a better degree of certainty. The Power Authority issued a Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasi- bility Study in March 1987, recommending development of a 1,000 kW hydroproject on Delta Creek. The City of King Cove made comments on the draft and raised questions about the analysis in a letter to the Power Authority dated April 29, 1987. These questions and comments resulted in a number of changes to the assumptions made in the draft report and in a re-analysis of the economic feasibility of the project. Response to those questions and comments were addressed by the Power Authority ina 1 etter to the Ci ty of Ki ng Cove dated August 5, 1987 and were incorporated into this final feasibility report. The April 29, 1987, letter from the City and the Power Authority's response are contained in Appendix A of this report. The findings of the King Cove hydroelectric feasibility analysis were presented to the Alaska Power Authority Board of Directors on December 11, 1987. At that time the Ci ty indicated that it was pursuing various options for financing and constructing the project and asked the Power Authority's assistance in identifying and analyzing those options. One option the City wished to investigate 8231/880/9 6 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 was the feasibility of developing a 400 kW hydroelectric project on the assumption that the City would not provide power to Peter Pan Seafoods. The City asked the Power Authority to develop cost estimates and economic analyses for this alternative, and those analyses have been incorporated into this report. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT General Description The 1,000 kW hydroelectric project proposed for Delta Creek would consist of two weirs, one on each tributary of the creek, at an elevation of approximately 530 feet above sea level. (See Plate 1.) The two weirs would be linked to a common sediment settling tank by 24-inch and 30-inch feeder lines. A 6,300 foot, 36-inch penstock would transport water from the settling tank to a power- house located on the east bank of the creek, ; mi 1 e north of the airstrip, at an elevation of about 215 feet. The 313-foot head of water would drive one or two turbines capable of producing up to 1,000 kW of electricity, and a tailrace would return the water to the creek. A 3.7 mile, 12.47 kV underground transmission line would connect the powerhouse to the King Cove distribution system at Deer Island Subdivision. A junction would be installed in King Cove and distribution lines would be installed to interconnect the junction with both the City of King Cove powerplant and the power- plant at Peter Pan Seafoods. 8231/880/10 7 I. ---- o t II I ~ 2 2! MILES ~~ 8 8RIsrOL 8AY rf~;'--::-.. ~~.~ . VICINITY MAP NTS _.\:'- r---------------------------~~ ...t I;,:'. King Cove Hydroelectric Project PROJECT LOCATION MAP Plate I (Revised from DOWL, 1982) King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 A major difference between this recommended hydroproject design and that proposed in the 1982 feasibility report is that the majority of the penstock route in this design would be located off the floodplain and outside the Delta Creek canyon on the bench east of the creek. This design change was deemed necessary, based on the results of the 1984 geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical study found that, duri ng frequent storms, sediment transport is significant, including movement of cobbles and boulders in the stream bed, and that the stream channel can significantly and randomly change its course within the 100-foot wide floodplain. In addition, the canyon walls were found to be extremely unstable, making areas within the Delta Creek canyon unsuitable as a penstock route. The hydroelectric project proposed in this report is intended to illustrate a typi ca 1 confi gurati on and not necessarily the final configuration of the project. Minor modifications are likely, and a more detailed specification will be required for final design prior to construction. Any additional costs due to required modifications are accounted for as contingency costs in the cost estimates for the proposed project. Special effort has been made to conceptualize and recommend a project that could be easily constructed us"ing local labor and minimizing the need for expensive and specialized equipment and materials. Equipment procurement documents should be sufficiently 8231/880/12 9 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 flexible to permit the equipment supplier to provide the most efficient system, given the available resource and electrical demands of the community. Weirs and Intake Structures In order to route the penstock out of the canyon and still maintain a positive slope, it is necessary to locate intake structures at a higher elevation than previously proposed, above the confluence of the Clear Water (east) Tributary and the Glacial (west) Tributary of Delta Creek. Two weirs would therefore be required to take advantage of the flow from both tributaries. The weirs are designed to withstand the high sediment loads and storm flows of the tributaries with minimal maintenance. The 1984 geotechnical report estimated that a reservoir formed by placing a weir on either tributary could fill with sediments in less than a month. The design proposed in 1982 addressed anticipated sediment load problems by providing a hinged weir that could be lowered to remove accumulated sediments. Given the rate of sediment transport in Delta Creek, however, the cost of maintaining such a system would be extremely high. In addition, the hydroelectric system would have to be shut down during storms in anticipation of flows that could overload sediment traps, allowing sediment to enter and damage the turbines. 8231/880/13 10 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 The recommended weirs are each des i gned wi th an intake structure attached to the downstream side of the weir (Plate II). The intake structure would consist of a Johnson or wedge wire screen supported on a box-1 ike enc 1 osu re to wh i ch the penstock wou 1 d be connected (Plate III). Sediment would be allowed to settle out behind each weir, after which both water and sediment would be transported over the crest of the weir and over the intake structure. All but the finest sediments would pass over the screen and would be transport- ed downstream. Water would be drawn through the screen into the enclosure, which would act as a reservoir to funnel water into the penstock. The Johnson screen has been used effectively in hydro- project applications where its primary function has been to allow passage of fish and floating debris. The original use of the screen, however, was to separate rock from slurry in mining opera- tions, and it is specifically designed to rapidly accept water while rejecting aggregates. In order to protect the screen from large rocks and boulders that may migrate down the stream during storm flow, the proposed design includes a heavy duty screen installed above the Johnson screen. The weir itself would be constructed of 6X8 (six-inch by eight- inch) treated timber laid between and supported by 6X6 H-beam steel posts. The H-beams could be cemented in place with premixed, bagged concrete that need not be prepared at the site, but simply poured into the post holes, all owi ng ground water to perform the necessary hydration. Wood would be used to the maximum extent 8231/880/14 11 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 ...I W W I- et) z w w a: o (/) )0- a: c ~ a: A. -o c o ~--. -0 U GIll. c I Il )( o CD w ~ C I- Z c • -GI C GI GI (/) -o .. c ~ o o l-(/) Z W A. ,.. • ~ = ~ t' c = .' c > GOwa: II zi'!~ .~w o • CD _GO at ~ GOw~ I ~~: -~;: w ...I GO u: . ± w ~ I-10 Z\ GO: ~ ~ ~ .... .... -~ GO ~ ... w Q rI AI ... PowfK Autttorlty King Cove Hydroelectric Project NOTE: CLEAR WATER TRIBUTARY WEIR IS SIMILAR TO GLACIAL TRIBUTARY WEIR GLACIAL TRIBUTARY WEIR PI.le II 8231/880/15 12 m N W ....... ........ m m o ........ ...... 0\ ...... W ( Vertical 3·.S· TAG) Direction of Flow Ai ~ 1IIIIII1 TOP VIEW (Primary and Intak e acreena not ahown) PARTIAL PLAN OF INTAKE ~ _. ~ 10 ). 0 ( 0 c • II z :r ftJ ~ -I 'C :. ~ • ;IIIi: ... -0 • m !. III • ). -0 n c: -)( ... i 0 "V ... ~ 0 <» ~ WOOD FLOOR (3· .. • TAG) • 0 • NOTE: Primary Screen not .hown 2 S·xS" Direction of Flow TREATED----p..,~ TIMBER WOOD W'~~.T&~ (V''''.a' 3.'; ,'0· ----------1 -'-r:r (} -'-0 --' < -,om <+ "<I .. "< c.. ~ c....o em "<m n ...... <+ ~~ m -'-mn King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 possible for construction of the weirs and intake structures to minimize icing problems. The 1982 proposal required a road from the powerhouse to the weir site to provide access for maintenance operations. The weir/intake structure recommended in this report is designed to minimize maintenance at the intake structure and, consequently, a road to the weir sites should not be necessary. Placing the intake struc- ture on the downstream side of the weir would eliminate the need to clean out a forebay. During large storms, rock will be swept over the intake structure by the force of heavy storm flows and pass downstream. During normal flows, sediments will easily be rejected by the Johnson screen. Some combination of flows could result in a buildup of heavier rock just below the weir, which would require removal with a bulldozer. This appears unlikely; although, if it does occur, an annual cleaning would resolve the problem. The Clear Water Tributary weir should require no more maintenance than an annual inspection of the screens. The wood stave tank should not require an inspection more frequently than once a month, except during periods of high water, and then experience will dictate the schedule. The construction contractor will have to build a con- struction road to move materials to the site, and this road should be adequate for access to the tank. The weirs can easily be reached by foot from the tank for inspection purposes. Even if a bulldozer is required at the Glacial Tributary weir occasionally, road construction beyond the tank would not be necessary_ 8231/880/17 14 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Penstocks and Sediment Trap Feeder lines would transport water from each intake structure to a common sediment trap, consisting of an 8-foot diameter, 15-foot high, pressurized, wood stave tank (Plate IV). The pressure tank would be equipped with a 12-inch sluice line for cleaning out accumulated sediments. The feeder line between the Clear Water Tributary and the settling tank woul d cons i st of 580 feet of 24-i nch pi pe, whil e the feeder line from the Glacial Tributary would be composed of 780 feet of 30-inch pipe. (See Plate V.) A 36-inch penstock would be installed between the settling tank and the powerhouse, a distance of 6,300 feet. All penstock could be constructed from 10-gauge steel with gasketed bell and spigot joints to allow installation by unskilled labor. The majority of the 36-inch penstock could be laid directly on the ground surface and secured with bands and earth anchors. This woul d greatly reduce the need for support structures and concrete foundations. A 350-foot secti on of the penstock near the powerhouse woul d be constructed on an approximate 25 percent slope and would be sup- ported on timber cribbing. The final 400 feet of penstock would be 8231/880/18 15 (Xl N W ....... ......... (Xl (Xl a ......... ....... 1,0 "U • -• < "U 21 m UI UI C 21 m ... > z ~ :;II; -. ;, C) 0 0 c • :I: 'C Q. .. 0 • i n -.. n " .. 0 • n - ~ [ II ffJ ~ c: So ~ ~ PLAN Penstock Wood-stave Tank 8'-0· Ola. SECTION A-A • :~.,' • ;.,' .... -' ....... .:...;. • ...;.-:.... •. ;..a...._. ;::-• ..;.,'.c,,;.-.: .•. PRESSURE TANK AT CONNECTION BETWEEN 24", 30" AND 36" LINES ... 01 .' o • .... 0-" ... ·0 --' < ...·m rl" '<:::I: ~ '< Q. """l c....o em '<m n ....... rl" 1,0 """l (Xl .... (Xln King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Glacial Tributary Weir Feeder Line 0=30- 8231/880/20 Clear Water Tributary Weir I Feeder Line --_n 0=24- 'Io..;;;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=i~L__ Pre s sur e 17 Tank Penstock --_t 0=38- \ To Powerhouse rI AI .... PtnNr Authority King Cove Hydroelectric Project PENSTOCK CONFIGURATION Plate V King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 located on the floodplain and could be buried to minimize support structures and to protect the pipe from vehicular traffic. Powerhouse and Generating Equipment The power generating equipment would be housed in a 35X35 or 30X50 foot (depending on whether one or two turbine-generators are in- stalled), prefabricated metal building with a concrete foundation (Plate VI) •. The building and tailrace would be designed to mini- mize erosion and sedimentation that could have a long-term environ- mental impact on the creek. The large flow range of Delta Creek and the variation in demand suggests that two units or a single turbine capable of operating over a wide range of flows is necessary for this project. A preliminary recommendation for turbine/generator design is two Francis type units rated for 600 kW and 400 kW respectively. This combination would allow power to be generated efficiently with as little as 15 cfs (cubic feet per second) flow from the creek, which would produce approximately 335 kW. Other systems, however, such as a single 1,000 kW Pelton unit with two or more jets, may be equally as efficient and less expensive. Consequently, the tur- bine/generator equipment recommended in this report should be considered a tentative selection for the purpose of making a cost estimate. Bid documents for this equipment should allow contrac- 8231/880/21 18 co N W ....... ........ co co o ........ N N PROfiLE -SECHON A SCALf iI'I"O GENERAL PLAN ~-I·.2CI TAILRACE .'",--"'L PER~H(L OOOA -- 8EARWG WeAtt:.l.TIOH SlT )10' 01.& P(NSTOC": __ TURS_fit( $HUTO"" 1IAI...'1[ _ ,0 01.& "''''STOOl 0""''' ___ _ ItlPfiAP __ PROFILE -SECTION 8 SCALE ~ '1"0 POW'ER:-tQUSE PLAN SCAU: r'I'-o ,. ~_J--~ ~ 20 2:' lO SCA-LE r .. ' ---:---~ ~~_~~ __ iO 120 '----j------, SCALE I'. 20· EQUIPNENT OITRAHCE O();)R __ _ _____ GEN[R,uOR ____ ~"l1 .. wHEEl ___ TURIlINE B j NOTE: If two turbine generalor • • r. to be Inatall." • 30·.60· po •• rho~ •• would be raqulred. A ~ ...... '"-AUflHN/fy King CO". Hydroelectric Project POWERHOU8E Plot. VI (tram UOWL, 1962) " ;;><:: ro ...... QI~ I.Il 1.0 ...... 0" n ..... ·0 ---' < ..... ·ro rt ,<:::r:: '< 0.. ""l wO cro ~ro' n ....... rt 1.O""l CO ...... con King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 tors to propose the least costly units that meet project specifica- tions. The generator and switchgear would operate at 480 volts and provide for remote operation from the City of King Cove. The hydroelectric powerplant control panels would include switches allowing an operator to lock out the remote circuit and use "local manual II while in the plant, but the system would normally function in the remote mode. The powerplant main transformer would step up the 480 generation voltage to 12.47 kV for transmission to King Cove. The electrical equipment recommended for the hydroelectric power station (including generators, auxiliary equipment, control and protection, grounding system, lighting, and switchyard equipment) is described in further detail in Appendix B. Transmission System A 12.47 kV, 3-phase, underground transmission line would be in- stalled to connect the hydroelectric power station with the King Cove distribution system at Deer Island Subdivision, a distance of about 3.7 miles. The transmission line would generally follow along the side of the road between the airstrip and Deer Island Subdivision. The transmission line would not be buried in the road bed since this would be counter to regulations of the state Depart- ment of Transportation and Public Facilities and since depth requirements would necessitate blasting below the road bed to lay 8231/880/23 20 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 the cable. The transmission line design would provide for instal- lation of sectionalizing cabinets spaced approximately 2,500 feet apart along the length of the transmission line route. These cabinets would provide easy access to splice points for mainte- nance, repairs, and future service tie-ins. The junction at King Cove would contain three disconnects allowing power from the hydroelectric project to supply the City of King Cove powerplant, the powerplant at Peter Pan Seafoods, or both. Distribution lines would be installed between the junction and each of the powerplants. A computer-based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system would be installed at the City of King Cove powerplant to provide centralized remote control and monitoring of the hydroelec- tric power station and the entire electrical system. The SCADA system is relatively simple to operate and maintain. A maintenance contract could be executed with the manufacturer, and this cost has been included in the cost estimate for the proposed project. Training would also be provided so that operation and routine maintenance could be handled locally. Appendix B describes in greater detail the electrical components of the recommended transmi ss ion and di stribution systems, incl udi ng single line diagrams. It also gives detailed descriptions of equipment required and recommended at the City of King Cove and 8231/880/24 21 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Peter Pan Seafoods powerpl ants (i ncl udi ng the SCADA system) and provides single-line and control panel diagrams of those facil- ities. 400 kW Alternative This report also addresses the feasibility of developing a 400 kW hydroelectric project on Delta Creek. The 400 kW project would not require a diversion and intake structure on the Clear Water Tribu- tary nor the feeder line from the Clear Water Tributary weir to the settling tank. The feeder from the Glacial Tributary to the settling tank would be reduced from 30-inch pipe to 24-inch pipe, and the penstock from the settling tank to the powerhouse would be reduced from 36-inch pipe to 24-inch pipe. The powerhouse would be reduced from 1,500 square feet to 800 square feet, and only one 400 kW turbine/generator set would be installed. Switchgear would not be provided at the Peter Pan Seafoods powerhouse under the 400 kW alternative. All other aspects of the system would be the same as the 1,000 kW system described above. Project Costs The entire 1,000 kW hydroelectric project, including transmission lines and associated equipment, is estimated to cost $3,740,000 in 1987 dollars. The 400 kW alternative is estimated to cost $2,650,000 in 1987 dollars. These costs include a contingency 8231/880/25 22 King Cove Hydroelectric Feas i bil ity, July 1988 allowance of 20 percent. Table I-A provides a summary of the estimated project construction costs. Table I-B provi des annual operation and maintenance cost estimates. Table I-A Summary of Estimated Construction Costs for 1,000 kW and 400 kW Hydroprojects on Delta Creek King Cove, Alaska Description 1,000 kW 400 kW Diversion Structure-- Glacial Tributary $ 41,780 $ 41,780 Diversion Structure-- Clear Water Tributary 27,850 Penstock 505,240 402,000 Tank 17,750 17,750 Powerhouse and Tailrace 243,000 143,800 Mechanical and Electrical 1,164,000 723,000 Transmission Line (3.7 mi.) 206,000 206,000 Misc. Construction Items 335,500 265,000 SUBTOTAL $2,54·1,220 $1,799,430 Administration (10%) 254,100 179,900 Engineering & Construction Management (12.5%) 317,700 224,900 SUBTOTAL $3,113,020 $2,204,230 Contingency (20%) 622,600 440,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $3,735,620 $2,645,030 USE $3,740,000 $2,650,000 Detailed construction cost estimates are provided in Appendix C. The cost estimates were originally developed in 1987 and are, therefore, expressed in 1987 dollars. All costs can be converted to 1988 dollars by applying a four percent inflation factor. Since 8231/880/26 23 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Table I-B Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates King Cove Hydroelectric Project Descri~tion 1,000 kW Personnel Costs Operator ($50,000/yr X .33 or .25) $16,700 Temporary Hires 5,000 Equ"j pment Pickup 7,100 Miscellaneous Rental 5,500 Supplies Lubricants and Cleaners 600 Spare parts, bulbs, charts, etc. 1,300 Janitorial Supplies 200 SUBTOTAL $36,400 Administration (10%) 3,600 TOTAL $40,000 Annua 1 Energy (kWh) 5,200,000 O&M COST PER KWH 0.77¢ 400 kW $12,500 5,000 7,100 5,000 500 1,000 200 $31,300 3,100 $34,400 2,200,000 1.56¢ the economic analyses are conducted in real terms, however, conver- sion to other-year dollars will have no effect on the cost-to-cost ratios or the economics of the projects. Neither the cost esti- mates in Table I-A nor those in Appendix B include financing costs, a 1tho~gh an estimate of fi nanci ng costs has been added to the construction costs to determine the total project cost estimate for the purpose of running the economic analyses. 8231/880/27 24 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 All constructi on cost estimates assume the use of force account labor, except for mechanical and electrical work which would be carried out under contract and which were priced at Title 36 (Alaska mini Davis-Bacon) wage rates. Prices for spiral rolled steel pipe for the penstock are based on a firm price quote from a supplier. (Use of polyethylene pipe was considered but was deter- mined to be more expensive for this application.) Turbine/genera- tor prices were derived by extrapolating and escalating earlier price quotes. Remaining material costs and production rates were based on Power Authority staff experience. No camp costs were included, on the assumption that workers will be local hire or will be housed and fed in existing facilities. A subsistence allowance of $80 per man-day was included. The anticipated construction period is six months. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Environmental and fisheries impact investigations were conducted on Delta Creek as part of the initial 1982 feasibility report and as a supplemental study completed in May 1984 (DOWL, 1984). The inves- tigations and subsequent discussions with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game concluded that environmental and fisheries impacts from the project would be minimal and could be mitigated to meet the requirements of state statutes. 8231/880/28 25 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Construction activities mai have a temporary impact on fisheries due to increased erosion and sedimentation in Delta Creek during the construction period. Proper construction techniques and timing, however, should minimize this impact. The hydropower system design recommended in this report will have less construc- tion impact than that proposed in 1982, since the current design does not include placement of a road and penstock within the Delta Creek canyon between the powerhouse and the weir sites. The design currently recommended also has an advantage over the 1982 proposal with respect to long-term impacts during operation of the project in that the weir and intake design will not require periodic flushing of sediments from behind the weir, which would have increased sedimentation in the stream during and after this mainte- nance procedure. The stretch of Delta Creek between the powerhouse and the wei r sites may be dewatered during periods of low flow and will experi- ence a significant reduction in flow during plant operations. This may have a direct effect on Dolly Varden char which presently IJse this section of the stream, although several small tributaries entering the creek between the weir sites and the powerhouse site may partially offset this impact. A limited number of anadromous fish have been observed between the proposed powerhouse site and a point several hundred feet upstream. The point upstream represents a velocity barrier beyond which the 8231/880/29 26 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 anadromous fish do not venture. Miti9ation measures would be required to compensate for the project's effect on this limited anadromous fish resource. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has agreed that such mitigation would be appropriate and has suggested that the road which follows Delta Creek and Airstrip Creek to Leonard Harbor be rerouted beside the creek, eliminating some existing stream fords in the road (see Appendix D). This mitigation, in a section of Delta Creek below the powerhouse site whi ch supports an important anadromous fi sh resource, woul d out- weigh the detrimental impacts of the hydroproject to the stretch of stream between the powerhouse and the velocity barrier. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--1,OOO KW PROPOSAL Economic Model This economic analysis examines and compares the costs of a base case power system, which assumes the continued use of diesel generators to meet the power requirements of King Cove, with the costs of the 1,000 kW proposed hydroproject on Delta Creek, using diesel generators for backup and peaking. The costs of the base case and the hydroproject are examined by discount"ing and adding the life-cycle costs of each to obtain a net present value (NPV) in 1987 dollars. The costs are compared by calculating a cost-to-cost ratio of the net present value of the base case to the net present value of the hydroproject (i.e., NPV of base case + NPV of hydro- 8231/880/30 27 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 project = cost-to-cost ratio). The economi c feas i bi 1 i ty of the hydroproject is established when its net present value is less than the net present value of the base case, that is, when the cost-to- cost ratio is greater than 1.0. This indicates that it is more expensive, in the long-run, to continue using diesel generators than it is to build and operate the hydroelectric project. Tables 2-A and 2-B present the economic model for the analysis of the 1,000 kW proposal. At the top of each table is a list of "Assumptions" and "Economic Parameters" that were used in the analysis. Table 2-A provides the economic analysis for a low diesel fuel price forecast, while Table 2-B reflects a high fuel price forecast. Load forecast assumptions and economic parameters are discussed in this section as they apply to each component of the economic model. Diesel system and hydroproject assumptions are discussed in detail in the Base Case Analysis and Hydroproject Analysis sections below. Assumptions outlined in Table 2-A were varied to detennine their effects on the economic feasibil ity of the project, and the results of those sensitivity analyses are also discussed below. The economic analysis is cal'ried out for a period of 30 years, which is assumed to be the economic life of the hydroproject. Load and fuel price forecasts, however, are projected for a planning period of only 20 years, after which loads and fuel prices remain constant in real terms for the purpose of the economic analysis. 8231/880/31 28 Table 2-A (page 1 of 2) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY 00 Economic Analysis N w I--' ....... 00 low Diesel Fuel Price forec •• t lMd Foreca.t Auu.ptiona DiHe' Sy.te. A .. u.pttons Nydroproject AssUipt Ions 00 0 - - - - -__ - -°0. _________ • ___ • ____ • _________ ." ____ -----------------------------------_0-____ .00 ___________ 0 __________ 0 00 _____ 0 __ ----0-__ 0 ____ ------------------------ ....... SUIIIWIY City LOId Factor· 50.01 fuel Eueletlon •• te: lOW Construction eo.t • '3,740,000 W ---.0_----------------------------------------Peter Pin lOld Factor. 10.01 1988 AvO. fuel Prfce • SO.8O Igol fllW1Ctng Coet • S210,OOO N '.ae C ..... t Prea.,t Velue • "6,808,545 C~fty LMd Growth • 2.01 City Efficiency. 12 kIII/gol Tote' Coet • S3,950,000 Nydroproject let P'Hent Velue • '10,745,698 Peter Pin E' f I ct enc:y • 15 kWh/gol ........ , Debt service. S363,OOO Coet/Coet •• tio • 1.56 Ec~lc Par_ten Econa.lc Llf •• 2Oyee,. ..,It 1 • 600 kII ____ 0.0 ______ -----------------_ •• -•••• _-_ •• _ •• __ •• _______ ••• _______ • __ • ____ w. __ • _ "plac--.t COlt. sroo IkIII ~It 2. 400 kW IcIItNl Inter .. t a.te • 8.01 City 0 , M Coot. SO.03 IkWh lnotolled C~lty • 1,000 kW ~l Infletlon •• te • 4.51 Peter PIIn 0 , lit COlt. SO.02 IkWh Helld • 313 It • e.l DIICCUlt a.te • 3.51 Efficiency' 851 ECOIKIIIIC ANALYSIS o , lit Coet • SO.OO8 IkWh ___________ w _____ 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1~ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ENERGY REClJIREMENTS (kWh) 1 City loed 2,107,_ 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,1141 2,469,2511 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,6n,804 2,726,260 2,780,786 2 Peter Pen load 4,075,1148 4,157,365 4,240,512 4,325,323 4,411,829 4,500,066 4,590,067 4,681,1168 4,175,506 4,871,016 4,968,436 5,067,805 5,169,161 5,2n,544 5,3n,995 3 Totel C<nIU'11 ty load 6,183,336 6,307,003 6,433,143 6,561,806 6,693,042 6,1126,903 6,963,441 7,102,709 7,244,764 7,389,659 7,537,452 7,688,201 7,1141,965 7,998,804 8,158,781 DIESEL FUEL RATES 4 ArY'IJ8l Escalet ion Rate 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.011 2.01 2.01 2.01 0.01 0.011 0.01 0.011 0.01 5 Fuel Price (1987 Slga" 0.54 0.80 0.112 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 BASE CASE ANAL Y SIS City System N 1.0 6 finn Capacity (kW) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 roo 700 700 7 Capad ty Add it ions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replacetllef'lts (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel fuel Use (gallons) 175,624 179,136 182,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201,737 205,m 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231,732 10 Capital Coste <1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 420,000 0 11 Fuel Cost. (1987 S) 94,837 143,309 149,099 155,122 161,389 167,910 174,693 181,751 189,093 196,733 204,681 208,774 212,950 217,209 221,553 12 O'M Costs (1987" 63,225 64,489 65,179 67,094 68,436 69,805 71,201 72,625 74,078 75,559 77 ,070 78,612 80,184 81,788 83,424 13 ToUt City Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,798 214,878 222,217 229,826 237,715 245,894 254,376 263,171 272,292 281,751 357,386 293,134 718,997 304,977 Peter Pan System 14 fir. Cepacity (kW) 2,450 2,450 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 15 Capacity Additions (kW) 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 16 Cepacity Replecements (kW) 0 1,950 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel fuel Use (gallons) 271,723 2n,158 2112,701 288,355 294,122 300,004 306,004 312,125 318,367 324,734 331,229 337,854 344,611 351,503 358,533 18 C""ltel Costs (1987 S) 0 1,645,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs (1987 S) 146,731 221,726 230,684 240,003 249,700 259,788 270,283 281,202 292,563 304,382 316,680 323,013 329,473 336,063 342,784 20 a , M Coot. (1987 S) 81,517 83,147 84,810 86,506 88,237 90,001 91,801 93,637 95,510 97,420 99,369 101,356 103,383 105,451 107,560 21 Total Peter Pen Costs (1987 $) 228,247 1,949,873 1,365,494 326,510 337,936 349,789 362,084 374,840 388,073 401,803 416,048 424,369 432,857 441,514 450,344 22 Total A ....... I Costa (1987 S) 386,309 2,157,6n 1,58O,3n 548,727 567,762 587,503 607,979 629,216 651,244 674,095 697,800 781,756 n5,991 1,160,510 755,321 HYDAOPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Ff .... Copaclty (kll) 3,550 3,550 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 3,850 24 Dlnel Cepecity Additions <k\l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Cepacity Replecements (k\l) 0 T,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric Generetion (k\II) 5,158,317 5,192,815 5,228,003 5,263,894 5,300,504 5,337,1146 5,375,934 5,414,785 5,454,412 5,494,376 5,524,947 5,556,130 5,587,937 27 DIMOI Generotlon (kWh) 6,183,336 6,307,003 1,274,1126 1,368,991 1,465,039 1,563,008 1,662,937 1,764,864 1,868,829 1,974,874 2,083,040 2,193,825 2,317,018 2,442,674 2,510,844 28 DIMol fuel u .. (gollone) 412,222 420,467 84,988 91,266 97,669 104,201 110,1162 117,658 124,5119 131,658 138,1169 146,255 154,_ 162,845 171,390 29 Coptlol Cooto (1987 S) 0 5,000,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 50 Fuel Coot. (1987 S) 222,600 336,373 69,351 75,963 112,918 90,232 97,921 106,001 114,491 123,407 132,769 139,831 147,683 155,692 163,861 31 a , M Cooto (1987 S) 123,667 126,140 65,216 67,364 69,556 71,792 74,073 76,399 78,nl 81,191 83,660 86,183 M,W 91,636 94,444 32 Totol A ....... I Coots (1987 S> 346,267 5,462,514 1,184,566 143,327 152,474 162,024 171,993 1112,400 193,262 204,598 216,429 226,014 236,565 247,328 2511,305 Table 2-A (page 2 of 2) ex:> N w ....... ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -....... ~ __ ~w ___ ~ ____ ..... _ ex:> 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200II 2009 2010 lOll 2012 2013 20" 2015 2016 2017 ex:> EHERGY REQUIREMENTS (kljh) 0 I City lood 2,1136,401 2,1193,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,Ul,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 -....... 2 Pt'er P .... Lood 5,485,555 5,595,266 5,707,171 5,821,315 5,937,741 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,'96 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6.056,496 6.056,496 W 3 Total C....,lty Lood 8,321,956 8,4811,395 8,651,163 8,831,326 9,007,953 9,IM,112 9,IM,112 9,IM,1I2 9,IM,1I2 9,IM,112 9,IM,112 9,IM,I12 9,IM,I12 9,1M,1I2 9,IM,I12 9,IM,112 W DIESEL FUEL RATES 4 Annual EK.lat'"" Ra'" 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.1lS 0.0 5 "al PrIce (19117 S,gal) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 BASE CASE ANAL lSIS Citysys,ea 6 Ffrll C_fty (leW) 700 700 700 700 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 7 C_ity Addltl .... (kWI 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~lty .epIK~'. (kW) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Dies.l Fuel Use (S.lIons) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,851 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 10 Cepi tal Co ... <1987 S) 0 0 0 70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Fuel Costs <1987 I) 225,984 230,504 235,114 239,816 244,613 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 12 0& " Costs (1987 II 85,092 86,794 88,530 90,300 92,106 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total City Cost. <1987 S) 311,076 317,298 325,644 400,117 686,719 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,'53 343,453 343,'53 Peter Pan Systetn W 14 firm Capacity (kW) 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 15 t.aped ty Additions (k.W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity Replacements (1(\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1:{00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Offset Fuel US. (gallons) 365,704 373,018 380,478 388,088 395,849 403,766 403,766 403, 66 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 18 Cepital CO", <1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Flal Cost. (1987 S) 349,640 356,633 363,765 371,041 378,461 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 20 o " " Costs (19117 S) 109,711 111,905 114,143 116,426 118,755 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 21 Total Peter Pen Costs (1987 $) 459,351 468,538 477,909 487,467 497,216 507,160 1,207,160 1,557,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 22 Total Annual Costs (1987 S) 770,427 785,1136 801,552 887,583 1,183,935 850,614 1,550,614 1,900,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 HYDROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 fir .. Copacity (kW) 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,350 3,350 2,350 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 24 Diesel Capacity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 copaclty Replac..n .. (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric Generation (kljh) 5,620,380 5,645,334 5,655,929 5,666,737 5,677,761 5,682,700 5,682 f 7qO: 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682.700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 27 Gieset GefWration (kWh) 2,701,577 2,843,062 3,002,234 3,164,590 3,330,192 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 21 Olfsel , ... t Use (gallons) 180,105 189,537 200,149 210,973 222,013 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233.694 233,694 29 Ceptlal Cos .. (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 flal Cos .. (1987 I) 172,194 181,212 191,357 201,705 212,261 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 31 o " " Costs (1987 S) 97,308 100,330 103,595 106,926 110,323 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 111,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 32 Total Annual Costs <1987 S) 269,502 281,542 294,953 308,631 322,583 337,294 U7,294 827,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 Table 2-8 (page 1 of 2) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEAS I 8 I L lTY 0:> Economic Analysis N w ...... ........... 0:> High Pinel Fuel Price Forecast lOfd forec.st Aa~tions 01_1 Syst .. A .. """tl ..... Mydraproje<t A • .....,ti .... 0:> .. ~~~ ..... ~ ....... ~ --~ .... # ---~ .. ~ .. -------_ .. --.----------------.. ,,~ ---... ---.---.... -_ ...... ---------.. --------.. ------_ .. " .. -----_ ........ "' ... ---..... ... _____ .............. _ .. _. _______ • AM_ ..... ____ a _Y City LOfd Factor· 50.OX Fuel Elcatation •• te: HIGH Construo:tien Coot • $3.740.000 ........... .. _______ " ...... --_ .... ----... .-....... ---........... ----.... -" .. ~ Peter Pen Load fector • 7O.OX 1_ Ava. fuel Priee • SO.80 IDOl f I,*",i", Coot • '210.000 W .... Cu. Wet PrHent Value • S19,863~ 162 CQIIIU'Iity LOfd Growth. 2.OX . Cltv Efflelenev • 12 kWh/",1 Total Cott • &3,950,000 ..J::> HydraproJe<t .. t Pr"ant Value' 111.744.404 Peter Pan Efftciency • 15 kWh/",1 Amuel Oebt Service· $363,000 Cott/Coat a.th> • 1.69 Ec~jc: par_tera Ec:~'c Life. 20 year. unit I • 600 kV .. -_ .................. --.. _----........ --" --... ~ .... -----........... -_ ... _._ ........ _----..... -.-.. --.. ~ -------.. ReplllC-'1t Coat. $700 IkWh unit 2 • 400 kW trkNIin.l InterHt .ate • 8.OX CltV 0 & M Coot· SO.03 /kWh Instolllld C_itV • 1,000 til Al'nJet Inflation .ate • 4.51 Peter Pan 0 , " Cost • SO.02 IkWh Need • 313 It RMl Di.cOU'\t .ate • 3.51 Effielenev • 851 ECOIOtIC ANALYSIS O&MCOIt· SO.OO8 IkWh --_ .. "' ...... _-_ ......... 1987 1_ 1919 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ENERGY REIlUIREMENTS (kWh) 1 CltVLoed 2,107,488 2,149,638 2.192,631 2,236,483 2,281.213 2.326,837 2.373,374 2,420,841 2,469.25' 2.518.643 2.569.016 2,620.396 2.672,804 2.726,260 2,71!0,_ 2 Peter PW1 L04d 4.075,848 4.157.365 4,240,512 4,325,323 4,411,829 4#500,066 4,590,067 4,6II1.e611 4.775.506 4,871.016 4.9611.436 5.067,805 5,169.161 5.272.544 5.377,995 3 Total t.....lty Load 6,183,336 6,307,003 6,433,143 6,561,806 6,693,042 6.1126,903 6,963,441 7.102,709 7.244,764 7,389,659 7.537,452 7,6l1li,201 7,841,965 7 1 998,804 8,158,781 DIESEL fUEL RA TES 4 ArnJII( EKa_at ion Rate 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.'l l.51 3.51 3.51 l.'l 3.51 3.511 3.51 3.51 3.51 5 fuel Price (1987 SIva\) 0.54 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.21 1.25 BASE CASE ANALYSIS City System W 6 fir .. Capac I tv (kll) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 ...... 7 CapoeitV Additions (tV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 Capoeftv R""loeemonto (kV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel fuel Use (gatlons) 175,624 179,136 182,719 186.374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201.737 205,m 209,887 214,085 218.366 222.734 227,188 231,732 10 Copital C""U (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.000 0 420,000 0 11 fuel Coots (1987 I) 94.837 143,309 151.292 159,718 1611,615 178.007 187,922 198._ 209.439 221.105 233,420 2~.422 260.148 274,638 289,935 12 o , M Costs (1987 &) 63,225 64.489 65, T79 67,094 611,436 69.805 71,201 72,625 74.078 75.559 77,070 78,612 80,184 81,788 83,424 13 Tolal City Costs (1987 I) 158,062 207.798 217.070 226,813 237,051 247.812 2'9,123 271,014 283,517 296,_ 310,491 395,034 340,332 776,426 373,359 Peter Pan $yetetl 14 fif'1ll C_ity (kW) 2,450 2,450 2,350 2,350 2.350 2.350 2,350 2,330 2,350 2,350 2,330 2.350 2.350 2,350 2,350 15 Capoeltv Addl tlcno (kll) 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capoeity Repl .. .....,u (kV) 0 1,950 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Dinel fuel Use (gall ..... ) 271,723 277,158 2112,701 288.355 294,122 300,004 306,004 312.125 318,367 .324.734 331,229 337.854 3«,611 351,503 358.533 18 Copltal CO ... (1987 I) 0 1,645,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fuel COOti (1987 I) 1~.731 221.726 234.016 247,114 260.879 275,410 290.750 306,945 324,041 342.091 361,145 381,261 402,497 424,916 448,584 20 o , M Costs (1987 I) 81,517 83,147 84.810 86,506 88,237 90.001 91,801 93,637 95,510 97,420 99._ 101,356 103,383 105,451 107,560 21 total Peter P .... Coots (1987 $) 228.247 1,9"9,873 1,368,887 333.621 349,115 365.411 382,551 400,5112 419,552 439,511 460,514 4112,617 505,880 530,367 556,144 22 Total A ....... l Coots (1987 $) 386,309 2,157.672 1,585,957 560,434 586.166 613.223 641.674 671.596 703,0611 736.175 771,005 877,651 846,212 1,306.793 929,502 HYDRIJ>ROJECT AJlAL YSIS 23 fl .... C_ltV (kll) 3,550 3,550 4,450 4.450 4,430 4,430 4,451 4,451 4,450 4.430 4,450 4,450 4,430 4,450 3,850 24 Olnel C_ltv Addltl ..... (kV) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 ,_ltV Reploe_to (kW) 0 1,500 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroeloetrle _r.tlen (kWh) 5,158.317 5.192,815 5,228,003 5,263,894 5,300.504 5.337,1146 5,373,934 5.414,7115 5.454.412 5.4901.376 5,524.9017 5.556.130 5.587,937 27 Ol .. el _rotien (kWh) 6.183,336 6.307,003 1,274.1126 1.368.991 1,465,039 1,563.001 1,662,937 1.164,864 1,868,129 1.974,874 2,083,040 2, 193,1Ii!5 2.317,018 2,442,674 2,570,844 28 Dinel fuel u.. ("'II ..... ) 412,222 420,~7 84,_ 91,266 97,669 104,201 110,862 111,658 124._ 131.658 138,869 1~,255 154.468 162.845 171.390 29 Coptlal Coats (1987 II 0 5,000.000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 fuel COIU (1987 S) 222,600 336,373 70,370 78,213 86.630 95,658 105,336 115,705 126._ 138,_ 151.412 165,046 180,415 196,1156 214,437 31 o & " Coat. (1987 I) 123,667 126,140 65,216 67,364 69.556 71.792 14,073 76.399 78,771 81,191 83.660 86.183 88,882 91.636 901,444 32 Totol _I Coots (1987 .) 346.261 5.462,514 1,185.586 145.5711 156.187 167,430 17'9,408 192,104 205.5111 219.886 23',072 251,229 269,297 _,492 3011.881 Table 2-8 ro (page 2 of 2) N w ....... ECllIICIIIC AllALYSIS ........ *---........................ ro ZOO2 2Q01 ZOO4 2005 2006 20117 ZOOI 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ro EIIlI" aECIUlaEMEIITS (kill) a I CltyLoood 2.1136,401 2,1193,1019 2,95G,m 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,Il1,616 ........ 2 ",t ... Pan Loood 5,485,5'55 5,595,266 5,707,171 5,821,315 5,937,741 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056.496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 W 3 Total C-...lty Loood _,321,956 .,411,595 .,651, '" I _,UI,A6 9,007.953 9,'11.112 9,'11,112 9,'11,112 9,'11.112 9,111,112 9,111,112 9,111,112 9,111,112 9,111,112 9,111,112 9,111,112 (.TI OIEfiEL F .. L IlArES 4 _I E_latlon lat. 3.Sf. :S.5f. 3.51 :S.sr. :S.'" O.or. O.or. O.or. b.or. O.or. O.or. O.or. O.or. 0.01 O.or. 0.0 5 f .. 1 Prl.,., (1987 " .. I> 1.019 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 !lASE CAlif AllALYSIS City lyet. 6 fino C_'ty (kY) 700 700 700 1110 eoo eoo IlOO IlOO IlOO IlOO IlOO IlOO IlOO IlOO 800 eoo 7 c...-=Ity Addltl ..... (kW) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 C_lty leploc-.t. (kII) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 01_1 f .. 1 11M ( .. Ilona) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,851 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,_ 260,_ 260,_ 260,_ 260,_ 260,_ 260,968 260,968 10 C""ltol Coea (1987 $) 0 0 0 70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 11 fuel Coota (1987 $) 3Ot.,084 323,133 341,132 360,133 380,192 ,401,369 401,369 401.369 401,369 401.369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 12 o & .. Coet. (1987 &) 85,092 16,794 11,530 90,300 92,IOt. 93,_ 93,948 93,_ 93,948 93,948 93,_ 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total City Coet. (1987 5) 391,177 409,927 4019,662 520,433 822,0199 495,318 495,318 495,3'8 495,318 495,318 495,318 495.318 495,319 495,318 495',318 495,319 Peter Pan Sytt_ W 14 fino Capacity (kY) 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 N 15 Capacity Additl""" (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 c_lty Aeploc ......... (kII) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 01 .... 1 Fuel U .. (,oil"",,) 365,704 373,018 3110,478 311,011 395,849 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,166 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 18 Capital Cost. (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 19 fuel Coot. (1987 $) 473,570 499,_ 527,795 557,193 511,2019 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 20 0& .. CoaU (1987 $) 109,711 111,905 114,143 116,426 118,155 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 21 Total P.t •• Pan Coou (1987 $) 5113,281 611,853 641,958 673,619 7ot.,984 742,123 1,442,123 1,1'92,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 22 Total " ..... 1 coota (1987 $) 974,458 1,021,780 1,071,600 1,194,0'.13 1,5019,282 1,237,441 1,937,441 2,287,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 KYDROPROJECT _LYSIS 23 Fir. copoci ty (kW) 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,350 3,350 2,350 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 I,S50 24 01 ... 1 Capacity Additl ..... Ikll) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 capac; ty Repl"" ......... (kY) 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 "ydr""I""t.l< G_.atlon Ik .... ) 5,620,380 5,645,334 5,655,9019 5,666,737 5,677,761 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,1110 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 27 01_1 '-.atlon ( ...... ) 2,701,577 2,843,062 3,002,234 3,164,590 3,330,192 3,50'.1,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,50'.1,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 28 111 .... 1 Fuel U •• (gall"",,) 180,10'.1 189,537 200,149 210,973 222,013 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 29 Captlal Cos .. (1987 5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Co ... (1987 $) 233,228 254,033 277,644 302,902 3019,_ 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 31 o & .. Coots (1987 $) 97,308 100,330 103,595 1Ot.,9lO 110,323 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,965 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 32 Total Amual Costs (1987 I) 330,537 354,363 391,240 409,828 440,232 473,287 473,287 963,287 473,287 473,297 473,297 473,297 473,297 473,287 473,287 473,287 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Although this may be a conservative assumption, forecasters do not believe they have sufficient data to make such projections for more than 20 years. A two percent annual growth in the community's electric load is assumed for the purpose of the economic analysis (see Table 2, line 3 and Figure 5). This load growth is considered to be a somewhat conservative estimation as a long-range load forecast for King Cove. Higher load growth scenarios, however, were determined to have 1 ittl e effect on the overall economi cs of the project since the hydroelectric system would be almost fully utilized in the first year it comes online. The community load is proportionately divided between the Peter Pan Seafood facility and all other consumers (Table 2, lines 1 and 2) based on actual 1985 demand data obtained from both the City utility and from Peter Pan. These data provided daily peak demands for each powerpl ant. In order to convert the peak demands to hourly loads, a load factor of 50 percent was assumed for the City load. A 70 percent load factor was used for Peter Pan since it has a significantly greater load and a more efficient power system. Load factor is the ratio of average demand to peak demand (average demand + peak demand = load factor). Figure 1 and Table 3 (lines 3, 7 and II) show the monthly peak and energy requirements based on the 1985 data and load factor assump- 8231/880/36 33 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 tions. This distribution was assumed to remain constant and was applied to the long-range annual community load forecast to deter- mine, for any given month in any year, the energy requirements of the Peter Pan facil ity (Table 2, 1 i ne 2) and of consumers on the City power system (Table 2, line 1). Table 3 was also used to calculate the monthly hydropower potential of a 1,000 kW project on Delta Creek. Line 17 indicates the potential power output of the project based on the average monthly stream flow of the dry year of record (line 13). For each month of the dry year of record, the power production from a 1,000 kW hydroproject would be limited by the available streamflow from Delta Creek. In most years, greater stream flows will be avail- able, and more power could be produced. Power production would be limited, however, by the installed capacity of the project, to 744,000 kWh/month (1,000 kW X 31 days X 24 hours) 1 ess down-time for maintenance and forced outages. The power production potential based on the dry year of record is used in thi sana lysi s as a conservative assumption, with the expectation that monthly produc- tion will exceed these amounts in most years. Figure 2 portrays the monthly power production potential from the proposed project for the dry year of record. The forecast monthly community load was matched with the monthly hydropower potential to determine the amount of load that could be provided by the hydroproject in any given month throughout the 8231/880/37 34 Figure 1 Monthly Energy Distribution KING COVE, ALASKA 15.0% 14.0% 13.0% 0 12.0% ..:: 0 ..J f 11.0% z 10.0% ::::> :::;: 9.0% :::;: 0 0 ..J 8.0% ..:: ::::> 7.0% z z ..:: 6.0% lL. 0 I-5.0% z i.J.I 4.0% 0 Cl: i.J.I 3.0% 0.. 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I:2Zl CITY LOAD (34.1%) ~ PETER PAN LOAD (65.9%) Figure 2 Monthly Hydropower Potential DELTA CREEK, KING COVE, ALASKA 1.300 1.200 1.100 1.000 :c I-z 0.900 0 :::;: Cl: 0.800 i.J.I 0.. Vl 0.700 Cl: ::::> 0 0.600 :c I 1= 0.500 ..:: ~ ..:: 0.400 l:) i.J.I :::;: 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 8231/880/38 35 <X> Table 3 N W ....... KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY ....... <X> Load Distribution and Hydropower Potential <X> 0 ....... W 1.0 (ING COllI: HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY _THLY LOAD DISTRIBUflOli AND HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ~----------* ... ,.. ---Y.ar J .... ·87 feb-87 Mer·87 Apr'87 MeY'87 J .... ·87 Jul'87 Aug-87 Sop·87 Oct-87 .... ·87 Doc-IIr Total CITY POWER PLANT 1 Aver ... 0_ (tv) 241 lSO 232 240 241 229 220 235 241 247 256 lS6 241 2 Poak 0_ (tv) 482 500 -480 482 458 440 470 482 4901 512 512 ] Total Lood (tWIt) 179,304 168,000 112,6011 112,aDO 179,304 164,880 163,680 174,840 173,520 183,768 184,320 190,_ 2,107,488 4 Percent of Total 2. !IX 2.7'l 2.SX 2.SX 2.!IX 2.7'l 2.6X 2.SX 2.SX 3.OX 3.OX 3.1S 34.1S PETER PAN SEAfoooS 5 Avor ... 0_ (tv) 378 371 lOll 357 448 735 1175 m 420 329 2110 238 -6 Peak 0_ (tv) 540 530 440 510 640 1,050 1,250 1,190 600 470 400 340 7 Total Lood ItWlt) 281,232 249,312 229,152 lS7,040 m,312 529,200 651,000 619,752 302,400 244,776 201,600 177,072 4,075,_ 8 Percent of Total 4.5% 4.OX 3.7'l 4.2lI: 5.4% 8.6X 10.5% 10.OX 4.!IX 4.OX 3.31 2.!IX 65.!IX caMJIi ITY TOTAL 9 Average 0_ (kll) 619 621 540 597 689 964 1,095 1,068 661 576 536 4901 7D5 10 Peak o-.i (tv) 540 530 464 510 640 1,050 1,250 1,190 600 4901 512 512 W 11 Total Load (tWIt) 460,536 417,312 401,760 429,840 512,616 694,080 814,680 794,592 475,920 428,544 385,920 367,536 6,183,336 en 12 Percent of Totat 7.41; 6.7'l 6.51 7.OX 8.31 11.21 13.2l!: 12.!IX 7.7'l 6.!IX 6.21 5.!IX l00.OX DelTA CREEr HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL (DAY YEAR) ------~ ~ --------------« --------------------Year Jar feb Mer Apr May J .... JuI Aug Sop Oct Nov Dec Total DISCHARGE SIMIARY 13 Mean flow (cfs) 22.70 17.10 18.50 23.20 22.50 36.90 41.50 32.40 42.50 32.90 36.50 30.70 30 14 "101_ flow «Is) 19.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 26.00 31.00 25.00 27.00 20.00 26.00 21.00 15 15 Maxi ... flow (cfs) 30.00 23.00 32.00 40.00 37.00 61.00 64.00 75.00 89.00 131.00 82.00 55.00 131 ENERGY POTENTIAL 16 Average C!Ipo<lty (kll) 503 381 412 513 498 796 885 785 904 716 788 671 648 17 H\'droproject Potent lal (kIIh) 374,013 256,359 306,551 369,645 370,826 512,845 658,347 524,830 650,775 532,385 567,152 498,972 5,682,700 HYDROPROJECT ENERGY OISTRIBUTlON ~*--.• --~ ----------~---.. -------. Year Jaii feb Mar Apr May J .... Jut Aug Sop oe. No. Dec Total HYDROELECTRIC GENEAATlOli (tWIt) 18 City load 179,304 168,000 172,6011 112,800 179,304 164,880 163,680 174,840 173,520 183,768 184,320 190,464 2,107,488 19 Peter Pan Load 194,709 88,359 133,9013 196,845 191,522 407,965 4901,667 349,990 302,400 244,776 201,600 177,072 2,983,849 20 Total 374,013 256,359 306,551 369,645 370,826 572,845 658,347 524,830 475,920 428,544 385,920 367,536 5,091,337 DIESEL GENERATION (tWIt) 21 City Load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Peter Pan load 86,523 160,953 95,209 60,195 141,790 121,235 156,333 269,762 0 0 1,091,999 23 Tota' 86,523 160,953 95,209 60,195 141,790 121,235 156,333 269,762 0 0 1,091,999 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 3D-year period of economic analysis. Figures 3 and 4 show the monthly power distribution during two sample years (1989 and 2007) from that period. Figure 3 models the projected power distribution in 1989. In that year the hydroproject could be fully absorbed for eight months out of the year. From September through December, there would be excess hydropower potential. The entire annual City load could be provided by hydropower, and Peter Pan's load could be entirely met by hydropower for the four months indicated above. From January through August, Peter Pan would have to provide supplementary power with its diesel generators. By the end of the 20-year planning period in 2007, the hydroproject would be fully absorbed (Figure 4). Peter Pan would be supp1ement- ing its load with some level of diesel generation for the entire year. Monthly power distribution was converted to annual production to determine annual hydropower generation (1 ine 26, Table 2) and to produce Figure 5, showing the projected hydropower production in relation to the community load forecast. Figures 6 and 7 show this relationship under two alternative load growth scenarios. These fi gures better illustrate the fact that the hydroproject woul d be almost fully absorbed upon coming online. Even with a 4 percent rate of annual load growth (Figure 7), there is little potential 8231/880/40 37 :r:: I-z 0 :::;: a::: w a. (j) a::: :::> 0 :r:: I I- ~ 3: ..: <.:) w :::;: :r:: I- Z o :::;: a::: w a. (j) a::: :::> o :r:: I I- ~ 3: ~ w :::;: Figure 3 1989 Monthly Power Distribution HYDROPROJECT WITH DIESEL BACKUP 1.300 .-~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~----~----~----~ 1.200 1.100 1.000 0.900 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 Jon Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CITY HYDRO PETER PAN HYDRO PETER PAN DIESEL EXCESS HYDRO Figure 4 2007 Monthly Power Distribution HYDROPROJECT WITH DIESEL BACKUP 1.300 1.200 1.100 1.000 0.900 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CITY HYDRO PETER PAN HYDRO PETER PAN DIESEL EXCESS HYDRO 8231/880/41 38 Figure 5 Load and Hydropower Forecast MEDIUM LOAD GROWTH SCENARIO 14.000 13.000 12,000 11.000 0:: 10.000 « w >- 0:: 9,000 w a.. 8,000 Vl 0:: ::> 7,000 0 ::r:: I 6,000 r-r-« 3: 5,000 « Q w 4,000 PETER PAN LOAD :::!! 3.000 2.000 1,000 CITY LOAD 0,000 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 + COMMUNITY LOAD 0 HYDRO GENERATION Fi gure 6 Load and Hydropower Forecast 12.000 lOW (0%) LOAD GROWTH SCENARIO 11,000 - 10,000 - 9,000 0:: « w >-8.000 0:: W a.. 7,000 Vl 0:: ::> 6,000 0 - ::r:: I 5.000 r-r--"" « 3: « 4,000 Q -PETER PAN LOAD w :::!! 3.000 - 2,000 - 1,000 - 0,000 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 + COMMUNITY LOAD o HYDRO GENERATION 8231/880/42 39 cr <x: w >- cr w 0.. (/) cr ::::> 0 I I t.:: <x: 3: <x: c.:l w :::. Figure 7 Load and Hydropower Forecast 14.000 HIGH (4%) LOAD GROWTH SCENARIO 13.000 12,000 11.000 10,000 9.000 8.000 PETER PAN LOAD 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3,000 2,000 1.000 0.000 1987 1992 1997 + COMMUNITY LOAD o HYDRO GENERATION for additional hydropower production. The additional load would be provided by diesel generators whether or not the hydroproject is built. Consequently, changes in load growth forecasts have little effect on the economics of the project. The annual energy requirements and hydropower potential are used in Table 2 to calculate the 30-year life-cycle costs of the base case diesel system and the hydroelectric project (see discussions below). These life-cycle costs are discounted using a 3, percent real annual discount rate, and then totalled to calculate the net present value of each case. The real discount rate represents the time value of money without considering the effects of inflation 8231/880/43 40 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 and can be thought of as the difference between the nominal inter- est rate (8 percent) and the inflation rate (4i percent). The economic model need not account for the effects of inflation since, presumably, inflation would have the same effect on all costs in the analysis. Consequently, all costs in the economic analysis are presented in real (inflation-free) 1987 dollars. Base Case Analysis The base case assumes that energy requirements for the community of King Cove will continue to be met by two independent diesel sys- tems, one for the City and one for Peter Pan. Capital costs in Table 2 (lines 10 and 18) reflect the costs of replacing and adding diesel generator capacity. The firm capacities of the City and Peter Pan systems (1 ines 6 and 14 respectively) represent the i nsta 11 ed capacity 1 ess the capacity of the 1 argest uni t in the system. This allows for the energy demand being met even when the largest unit in the system ;s down for repairs. As load grows, capacity is assumed to be added to each diesel system such that the firm capacity is sufficient to meet the the peak demand for that system (lines 7 and 15). Diesel generators are assumed to have a life of 20 years, and capacity additions and replacements are assumed to cost $700 per installed kW in 1987 dollars. The base case assumes that Peter Pan will follow through with its plan to replace existing diesels with two 1,500 kW machines and one 850 kW 8231/880/44 41 r--co OJ '-" lJ.J U a:: a.. ....J 0 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 unit for a total installed capacity of 3,850 kW in 1989 and a firm capacity of 2,350 kW. The most unpredictable element in the economic model is the future price of diesel fuel. Consequently, an economic analysis was conducted for both the upper and lower bounds of an oi 1 pr; ce forecast range. (See Figure 8.) Table 2-A presents the economic analysis for the low diesel price trend and Table 2-8 presents the analysis for. the high fuel price trend. Figure 8 King Cove Oil Price Forecast KING COVE PRICE 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0% 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 YEAR • UPPER TREND 0 LOWER TREND 8231/880/45 42 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 The fuel price of 54 cents/gallon used for 1987 is the average price for that year as calculated from data provided by the City of King Cove. The 1988 pri ce of 80 cents per ga 11 on is a de 1 i ve red price quoted to the City in January 1988. The lower trend of the forecast range assumes that the price of fuel on will increase by 2 percent annually in real terms (above the rate of inflation) through 1996 when it will stabilize at 96 cents/gallon. The price is held at this level for the remainder of the study period. The high trend for the forecast range assumes that the price of oil will increase at an annual rate of 31 percent {real} through 2006. Fuel use is calculated on the basis of a diesel generator efficien- cy of 12 kWh per gallon of fuel for the City system and 15 kWh per gallon for the Peter Pan system. It is assumed that the Peter Pan system will have a higher efficiency because it will consist of newer units. Annual fuel use (Table 2, lines 9 and 17) is calcu- lated by dividing the required energy production from lines 1 and 2, respectively, by the appropriate generator efficiency. Annual fuel costs (lines 11 and 19) are the product of fuel use and the fuel price in line 5. Operation and maintenance costs for the City diesel system is assumed to be 3 cents/ kWh. Since the Peter Pan system wi 11 be newer, larger and more efficient, 2 cents/kWh is assumed for operation and maintenance. The annual operation and maintenance costs in lines 12 and 20 are determined by multiplying the required 8231/880/46 43 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 energy production from lines 1 and 2 times 3 cents/kWh and 2 cents/kWh, respectively. The 3D-year life-cycle costs of the City system (line 13) and the Peter Pan system (line 21) were added to determine the total annual costs of the base case (line 22). This cost stream was then used to ca 1 cu 1 ate the net present va 1 ue of the tota 1 1 i fe-cyc 1 e costs using a 31 percent real discount rate. The total net present value of the costs of the base case is $16.8 mill ion for the low fuel price forecast (Table 2-A, Summary) and $19.9 million for the high diesel price forecast (Table 2-B, Summary). Hydroproject Analysis The hydroproject ana lys is assumes that the City of Ki ng Cove and the Peter Pan power systems will be interconnected with and served by the 1,000 kW hydroe 1 ect ri c power proj ect proposed for De lta Creek. Under the hydropower case, it is assumed that diesel units would still be maintained by both the City and Peter Pan for backup and for meeting peak demand. With a proper maintenance schedule and program, however, there should be little need for the City to supplement power available from the hydroproject. Assuming instal- lation of two turbine/generator units (one 400 kW and one 600 kW), maintenance could be scheduled during periods of low demand so that the City load could be met even with one hydroelectric unit down for maintenance. It would be necessary, however, for the City to 8231/880/47 44 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 maintain some diesel capacity (or to arrange to purchase power from Peter Pan) in the event of an unexpected shutdown of the hydroelec- tric system or a break in the transmission line between the hydro- electric power plant and the City. The construction cost of the 1,000 kW hydroelectric project is estimated to be $3.74 million (see Table I-A). A bond sizing analysis conducted for the project indicated that $210,000 would be required in financing costs, for a total capital cost of $3.95 million to develop the project. For economic comparison, this figure is represented in the economic analysis as a single dis- bursement in 1988 (Table 2, line 29). In the economic analysis, it is assumed that the hydroproject would begin providing power to King Cove consumers in 1989, after which diesel generators would be used to supply energy requirements that could not be met by the hydroelectric plant or during forced or planned outages. Since Peter Pan would be the major user of diesel power under the hydropower case, diesel efficiency and operation and maintenance assumptions for backup diesel power are the same as those used for the Peter Pan system under the base case. The capital costs in line 29 of Table 2 represent the cost of adding and replacing diesel units, with the exception of 1988, which includes the cost of financing and constructing the hydro- project. The hydroproject analysis includes the cost of replacing 8231/880/48 45 King Cove Hydroelectric Feas ibil ity, July 1988 1,500 kW of installed diesel capacity in both 1988 and 1989. Peter Pan has already committed to this investment and would carry through with the purchase even if the hydroproject is built. The analysis does not include an investment for an additional 850 kW capacity planned by Peter Pan, since the company has not yet committed to this purchase, and the additional capacity would not be necessary, under the 2 percent load growth assumption, if the hydroproject were built. Fuel costs in line 30 represent the cost of diesel fuel required to meet power needs that cannot be met by the hydroelectric plant. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (line 31) are for both the hydroelectric equipment and the diesel generators, using the hydroproject O&M cost estimate from Table 1-B and the Peter Pan diesel system O&M cost assumption. The 30-year life-cycle costs for the hydroelectric project with diesel backup (line 32) is used to determine the net present value using a 3i percent real discount rate. The present value of the costs for the hydroproject is $10.75 million for the low diesel price forecast (Table 2-A, Summary) and $11.74 million for the high fuel price forecast (Table 2-B, Summary). When compared to the base case net present values, these figures yield cost-to-cost ratios of 1.56 and 1.69, respectively, for the low and high fuel price trends. 8231/880/49 46 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Sensitivity Analyses Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the effect on the economic analysis of changing the values of various assumptions, using the low fuel price trend to provide the most conservative test of the economic analysis. Figure 9 illustrates the sensitivi- ty of hydroproject assumptions and economic parameters, and Figure 10 shows the sensitivity of diesel system assumptions. Each of the eight assumptions shown in both graphs was tested by deviating their values in plus and minus 10 percent increments, up to plus . and minus 50 percent of their original estimated value, and record- ing the effect of these changes on the cost-to-cost ratio. For example, in Figure 9, line C represents the cost of financing and constructi ng the hydroproject. At the estimated value of $3.95 million (zero percent deviation), the cost-to-cost ratio is 1.56. If, however, the project costs are underestimated by 30 percent, or if there is a 30 percent cost overrun on the project, then the cost-to-cost ratio woul d be 1.42. If, on the other hand, the project were to come in under budget by 30 percent, then the cost-to-cost ratio would be 1.74. None of the eight assumptions, varied independently by plus or minus 50 percent, causes the cost-to-cost ratio to drop below 1.0, the measure of economic feasibility. A combination of factors, however, such as a large cost overrun accompanied by a drop in oil prices, could conceivably cause the project to become uneconomic. 8231/880/50 47 0 ~ n:: l- V) 0 0 "-l- V) 0 0 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Figure 9 Sensitivity Analysis ECONOMIC AND HYDROPOWER ASSUMPTIONS 2.00 1.90 C 1.80 1.70 B A 1.60 1.50 +-____________________________ ~~--~_=----------~A B 1.40 -1------------------------------------=::,~---__I C 1.30 +------,-----,------,,.....----,-----,-----.,.-----.......... ---..-----,----i -50% -40% -30% -20% 10% o + 1 0% +20% +30% +40% +50% PERCENT DEVIATION FROM ESTIMATED VALUE LEGEND DEVIATION LETTER ESTIMATED RANGE SYMBOL EXPLANATION VALUE (-50% -+50%) A Hydroproject Operation and Maintenance Costs 0.33 ct/kWh 0.39 ¢/kWh -1.16 ¢/kWh B Discount Rate 3.5% 1. 75% -5.25% C Hydroproject Construction and Financing Costs $3,950,000 $1,975,000 -$5,925,000 8231/880/51 48 0 ~ 0:: l- (/) 0 () '-. I- (/) 0 () King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 2.00 1.90 E 1.80 1.70 D 1.60 C B Figure 10 Sensitivity Analysis DIESEL SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS .A B 1.56 1.50 -\::---==--------:;:~--.. ------...::::".~::::::_----____i E 1.40 ..;----~------.---------------I A 1.30 -f::------,---..,..---,---.,-------r--,------,-------,---,--____i -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% o +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% PERCENT DEVIATION FROM ESTIMATED VALUE LEGEND DEVIATION LETTER ESTIMATED RANGE SYMBOL EX PLANATION VALUE ~-50% -+50%} A 1988 Average Fuel Price $0.80 $0.40 -$1.20 B King Cove Operation and Maintenance Costs 3.0 ¢jkWh 1.5 ¢/kWh -4.5 ¢/kWh C Peter Pan Operation and Maintenance Costs 2.0 ¢/kWh 1.0 ¢jkWh -3.0 ¢jkWh D Peter Pan Diesel Generator Efficiency 15.0 kWh/ ga 1 7.5 kWh/gal -22.5 kWh/gal E King Cove Diesel Generator Efficiency 12.0 kWh/gal 6.0 kWh/gal -18.0 kWh/ ga 1 8231/880/52 49 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 In order to determine the effect of load factor assumptions on the outcome of the economic analysis, a separate load factor sensitivi- ty analysis was conducted. Each combination of a City and Peter Pan load factor of 30 percent to 80 percent, in 10 percent incre- ments, was tested. The results, shown in Figure 11, indicate that no combination of load factor assumptions would change the conclu- sion of the feasibility analysis. Fi gure 11 Load Factor Sensitivity KING COVE HYDROPROJECT FEASIBILITY 1.70 1.68 1.66 1.64 0 1.62 i= « 0:: I-1.60 (f) 0 () 1.58 "" I- (f) 0 () 1.56 1.54 1.52 1.50 1.48 30% 40% 50% 60% CITY LOAD FACTOR 8231/880/53 50 PETER PAN LOAD FACTOR • 30% + 40% o 50% t::. 60% x 70% 'J 80% 70% 80% King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--400 KW P~OPOSAL An identical economic analysis to the one described for the 1,000 kW proposal was conducted for an alternative proposal to construct a 400 kW hydroelectric project on Delta Creek to serve the City load only. The economic analysis for the 400 kW project is pre- sented in Appendix E, Table 2-A (low fuel price forecast) and Table 2-8 (high fuel price forecast). The analysis shows that the cost-to-cost ratio for the 400 kW project is 1.44 under the low fuel price forecast and 1.71 under the high fuel price forecast. Sensitivity analyses were not conducted for the 400 kW alternative, however, these ratios clearly indicate economic feasibility. Financial questions related to the 400 kW alternative were evaluat- ed at the request of the City and are di scussed in response to Request #7 and Request #8 contained in Appendix F. COST OF POWER ANALYSIS The hydroelectric proposal is a capital-intensive project; over fifty percent of the life-cycle costs of the project are capital costs. (See Fi gures 12 and 13.) Less than one quarter of the I ife-cycle costs of the base case diesel alternative are capital costs, nearly 60 percent being fuel costs. While fuel costs are likely to vary widely from year to year and to rise with inflation, capital costs are usually paid in the form of annual debt service payments which are constant from year to year and are not affected 8231/880/54 51 Figure 12 Distribution of Costs BASE CASE DIESEL SYSTEM FUEL COSTS (57.0%) Figure 13 Distribution of Costs CAPITAL COSTS (22.6%) 1,000 KW HYDROPROJECT WITH DIESEL BACKUP O&M COSTS (16.6%) FUEL COSTS (29.1 %) 8231/880/55 52 ... . . . . . . . , , , , , . . . . . CAPITAL COSTS (54.3%) King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 by inflation. This relationship has a significant effect on the year-to-year cost of a project and, consequently, on the cost of power that would be produced from that project. The economic and sensitivity analyses discussed above indicate that the 1,000 kW hydroelectric proposal would be less expensive than the base case over the life of the project; that is, they show "economi c feas i bil ity. II They do not, however, show how the costs of the hydroelectric project and the diesel base case would compare on a year-to-year basis if the capital costs were spread out over annual debt service payments. Usually, capital-intensive power projects will cost more than the diesel case alternative during the early years of the project, even though they are more economical over the 1 ife of the project. This is because the capital debt service is a significant new expense when it first comes due, but it remains constant over the life of the project. The annual costs of the diesel alternative, on the other hand, may be relatively low in the near future {because existing equipment is paid for, fuel is being purchased at at a reasonable price, etc.}, but they increase significantly from year to year as new equipment is needed and as fuel prices and inflation rise. In order to get an idea of how the cost of the 1,000 kW hydroelec- tric project would compare with the cost of the diesel base case on a year-to-year, cost per kilowatt-hour basis (assuming capital costs would be paid in annual debt service payments), a cost of 8231/880/56 53 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 power analysis was conducted. This is a prel iminary analysis and should not be used as a detailed financial feasibility study. It is useful, however, in illustrating the difference in annual costs between the two cases and in determining whether the capital- intensive hydroproject would cost more annually in the early years and, if so, for how long. To determine the annual cost of power, in cents per kilowatt-hour, the capital costs of the base case and the hydroproject were converted to annual debt service, and an inflation factor of 4t percent was applied to the life-cycle costs to convert them to nominal dollars. (See Tables 4-A and 4-B and Figures 14 and 15.) This "cost of power" represents only the production costs that vary between the base case and the hydroproject case. Because it does not include costs that are assumed to be common to both cases (such as general and admini strative costs, customer servi ce costs, and distribution costs), this comparison does not represent the true cost of power production for each case. The analysis also assumes, for the sake of convenience, that 100 percent of the power avail- able from the hydroproject would be sold. This may not be a valid assumption since periods of high flow, when large amounts of power can be produced, may not always correspond to periods of high demand for electricity. The effects of costs common to both cases and of the percentage of hydroelectric power that is useable should be addressed in more detailed rate and financial analyses which are beyond the scope of this study. 8231/880/57 54 0:: N W I-' Table 4-A (page 1 of 2) .......... ex> ex> a KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY .......... (.}1 Cost of Power Analysis ex> rollt Of ~R _LYSIS ......................... ~ ................ ,.7 H_ I. 1.990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ,_ 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 lASE CAllE _ YSI S tity lvat. 1 II<Ibt ".vt.e (_t ... 1 .) 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 47,219 47,219 123,030 123,030 2 f ... 1 toeto (M_I ... 1 .) 94,1)7 149,751 16.2,820 171,021 192,460 Z09,246 227,496 241,331 268,910 292,364 311,116] 331,810 361,131 314,931 410,304 3 Q , " toeto <_1 ... 1 .) 65,225 61,391 71,832 76,566 '1,612 86,990 92,723 .,133 105,346 112,211 119,611 121,516 135,913 144,944 154,496 4 Toul ttt)' toeta ( ...... 1 .) 193,710 252,191 270,300 _,235 3011,720 ]31,114 3S5,867 3Il,at9 409,904 440,300 473,199 513,604 544,339 652,910 641,129 Pete. PII'I lvat. 5 II<Ibt servl •• (Noal ... 1 S) 0 175,086 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 . 291,873 0 f .. 1 toett (Moal ... 1 I) 146,731 231,704 251,913 273,114 297,711 323,742 351,919 312,618 416,054 452,341 491,194 524,203 558,746 595,569 634,817 7 o , " toeta (Moat ... 1 I) 81,517 86,_ 92,615 .,718 105,224 112,151 119,549 127,421 135,825 144,716 154,311 164,486 175,326 186,110 199,195 I, ToUI 'eter PII'I toet ( ... 1 ... 1) 228,247 493,619 636,400 664,475 694,868 127,m 763,401 801,918 843,752 111,990 937,913 980,562 1,025,946 1,074,322 1,125,1lo65 (.}1 9 Tote I Annual Coata (_1 ... 1 II 421,957 746,471 906,701 953,710 1.004,5M 1,059,657 1,119,267 1,183,197 1,253,656 1,329,290 1,411,183 1,494,166 1,570,286 1,127,232 1,813,715 (.}1 10 M_I ... I Coat of P""". (l/kIII) 0 •• 11.8 14.1 14.5 15.0 15.5 ".1 16.7 17.3 18.0 18.7 19.4 20.0 2,1.6 22.2 11 Totel Annual Coeta (Real 1987 S) 421,957 714,3]2 130,293 835,733 842,409 850,323 859,461 869,118 881,552 894,485 908.699 920,703 925,941 974,628 979,357 12 Reel Coat of P .... r (1987 "kill) 6.8 11.3 12.9 12.7 1M. 12.5 12.3 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.0 11.8 12.2 12.0 IIYDI(f>ROJECT _LYSIS Hydrllproject'Oleoel $yat. 13 Debt Service Cae-tnal S> 35,648 152,435 669,221 669.221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 14 Fuel Coets (N_lnal S) 222,600 351,510 75,733 86,686 .,881 112,446 127,518 144,253 162,817 183,394 206,187 226,925 250,452 275,916 303.462 15 o & " Coata (M_lnel $) 123,667 131,816 71,217 76,874 82,947 89,466 96,46.2 103,968 112,021 120,658 129,921 139,116] 150,734 162,396 174,905 16 Total I\nnIJaI Coets (M_I ... I $) 381,915 635,161 816,171 832,181 851,050 871,133 893,201 917,442 944.059 973,274 1,005,329 1,036,008 1,070,408 1,107.534 1,141,588 17 M_lnel Coat of P_r ($/kIII) 6.2 10.1 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.2 13.3 13.5 13.6 13.8 14.1 28 Total Annual Coata (Real 1987 $) 381,915 608",384 747.392 729,163 713,651 699,041 645,_ 674,163 663,848 654,920 647,359 631,317 631,181 624,950 619,_ 19 101 Coet of ' .... r (1987 I/klll) 6.2 9.6 11.6 11.1 10.1 10.2 9.11 9.5 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.6 HydrOprojKt Portion 20 Debt service (M_lnaL $) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400.000 400,000 400,000 21 Fuel Coats (M_lnaL 5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 o , " Costs (M_lnal $) 43,374 45,629 48,_ 50,510 53,150 55,933 58,867 61,961 65,223 68,658 12.146 75,818 19,6I3J, 23 Total Annual Costs (Nominal $) 443,374 445,629 446._ 450,510 453,150 455,933 458,867 461,961 465,223 468.658 472,146 475,818 479,6I3J, 24 NUB'nal Cost of Power (1/klll) 8.6 8.6 8.6 11.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.6 25 Total Annual Costs (Real 1987 S) 406.011 390,503 375,680 361,512 347,912 335,033 322,669 310,856 299,570 288,786 278.408 268,491 259.016 26 R •• I CO$t of P ..... r <1987 </kWh) 7.9 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.6 ex:> N W ....... ........ ex:> ex:> a ........ Table 4-A (page 2 of 2) (JI 1.0 COST OF P<M<I _"1$ ................................ __ .. ** .. 2002 2003 2IJOS ZOO6 2007 ZOO6 -2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 lASE CAlI! _ YSIS City $yll. 1 Cobt lervlce (_1 ... 1 $) 12J,030 123,030 12J,03O 138,775 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 2 f .... t coau (M .. I ... I $) 437,343 W,I64 4\16,_ 529,_ 564,531 601,734 621,812 657,109 686,679 717,579 749,S7D 7113,614 S1S,8n 855,726 1194,234 934,47S 3 o , " Coati (_1 ... 1 S) 164,6n 17S,529 187,097 199,426 212,W 226,5n 236,175 247,428 258,562 27D,197 282,356 295,062 308,340 322,215 336,715 351,867 4 total tlty Coau (_1 ... 1 S) 725,050 764,123 107,011 867,831 991,147 1,049,157 1,086,651 1,125.583 1,166,287 1,208,823 1,253,273 1,299,123 1,348,265 1,398,_ 1,451,995 l,507,W ""ter Pm Syet. 5 CIbt lervlce (_Inal S) 291,813 291,a73 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 471,557 753,213 7S3,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 7S3,213 7S3,213 6 'uel Coati (_Inal $) 676.652 nl,243 768.175 a19.435 a13,436 930,995 9n,890 I,016,67D 1,062,420 1.110,229 1,160,190 1,212,398 1,266,956 1,323,969 1,383,548 1,445,107 7 o , " Coati (_Inal S) 212,322 226,314 241,228 257,125 274,Ol'O 292,131 305,2n 319,014 ll3,37D 348,371 364,048 380,430 397,550 415,439 434,134 453,67D 8 Total ""lOr Pm coat (M .. lnal) 1,160,847 1,239,430 1,301,874 l,W.4ll 1,419,3711 1,514,999 l,749,n4 2,086,897 2,149,003 2,211,813 2,2n,450 2,346,041 2,417,718 2,492,621 2,57D,894 2,652,690 9 Totat _I Coati (N .. lnal I) 1,905,_ 2,004,153 2,108,885 2,236,264 2,437,S2S 2,'"564,356 2,856,356 3,214,460 3,315,290 3,420,636 3,53O,n3 3,645,764 3,765,982 3,891,609 4,022,_ 4,16Q,07D (JI 10 N .. inal Coat of _r ('{kill) 22.9 23,6 24,4 25.3 27.1 27.9 30.9 35,0 36.1 37.2 38.4 39.7 41.0 42.4 43.8 45.3 0'1 11 Total _I Coats (R.al 1987 $) 984,816 990,992 997,814 1,012,581 1,056,184 1,065,292 1,125,430 1,220,541 1,204,611 1,189,361 1,174,760 1,160,820 1,141,462 1,134,679 1,122,447 1,110,741 12 R .. I Coat of Power (19117 '{kill) 11.8 11.7 11,5 11.5 11.7 11.6 12.2 13.3 13.1 12.9 12.8 12.6 12.5 12.3 12.2 12.1 HI'llROPIIWEeT _nls Hydroproject·j)i ... t SVl't .. 13 Oobt Servi .. (_i ... 1 I) 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 600,660 800,660 14 'uel Ceau (N .. inal S) m,244 366,4n 404,410 445.462 489.868 558,841 563,095 588,434 614,913 642,585 671,501 7Dl,118 m,296 766,294 600,7n 836,812 15 o , " Coati (N .. inal $) 188,319 202.905 218,936 236,143 254,_ 214,610 286,967 299,881 313,316 327,4n 342,214 357,614 373,106 390,523 408,_ 426,461 16 Totat _I CoeU (N .. Inal I) 1,190,184 1,238,604 1,292,567 1,350,826 1,413,698 1,482,678 1,519,283 1,688,975 1,728,949 l,no,n2 1,814,375 1,859,992 1,901,662 1,951,4n 2,009,534 2,063,933 11 _Inal Coat of Power U{kWII) 14,3 14.6 14.9 15.3 15.7 16.1 16.5 1&.4 18.8 19.3 19.1 20.2 20.8 21.3 21.9 22.5 28 Total _I Coot. (Re.1 19117 S) 615,302 612,451 611,612 611,655 612,558 614,782 6G2,812 641,305 628,214 615,686 603,_ 592,226 581,248 570,743 560,_ 551,070 19 Rul Coat of Power (1987 '{kill) 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.& 6.1 6.6 1.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 Hydroproject Port ion 20 Debt Service (N"",inal I) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 21 Fuel COSU (NOIIIiool S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 o , M Costs (N .. inal I) 83,7S3 87,911 92,039 96,364 100,897 105,529 110,278 115,240 120,426 125,845 131,508 131,426 143,610 150,073 156,826 163,883 23 Total Annual CosU (Nominal I) 483,753 487,911 492,039 496,364 500,897 505,529 510,278 515,240 520,426 525,845 531,508 537.426 543,610 550,073 556,826 563,883 24 ."",inal Cost of Power (,{kWh) 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.1 9.8 9.9 25 Total Annual Costs (Real 1987 $) 249,965 241,257. 232,821 224,7S4 217 ,039 209,614 202,412 195,637 189,091 182,838 116,049 111,118 165,633 160,385 155,363 150,551 26 Real Cost of Power (1981 f{kWh) 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 00 Table 4-8 N (page 1 of 2) W ...... KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY ......... 00 Cost of Power Analysis 00 a ......... 0"0 a COSI Of POWER AIIAL YlIS ....................... ~N ___ aa_ ... 1911 I. '''' 1990 1991 1992 1995 1994 1995 1996 1991 1_ 1999 2000 2001 lASE CASE AllALY$lS cu, Sy,u. I _I Se,."tea (N .. t ... 1 I) 35,641 »,641 35,641 35,641 »,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 47,219 47,219 123,030 123,030 2 f .. 1 COOIto (M .. tnal S) 94,&'57 149,7'Sa 165,214 182,265 201,076 221,829 244,7'23 269,910 0191,843 321,5113 362,495 399,906 441,179 486,712 536,944 3 o , " COOIU (N .. lnal S) 63,225 61,391 11,&'52 16,566 11,612 16,990 92,7'23 9I,m 105,346 112,2118 119,688 121,516 135,913 144,944 154,496 4 lotal Cit, COOIta (_t ... 1 S) 193,110 252,1'l1li Z72,69'S 294,4111 3111,116 344,461 373,094 404,461 4311,&'511 476,519 517,&'51 574,101 624,3111 754,6116 1114,469 'ater Pon Syst_ 5 Debt Strvlea (N .. lnal S) 0 175,016 0191,1173 0191,1173 0191,1173 0191,873 0191,1173 0191,1173 0191,873 0191,1173 0191,1173 0191,873 0191,873 0191,873 0191,873 6 f .. 1 Coata (N .. I ... I I) 146,731 231,104 255,617 281,_ 311,103 343,210 378,632 417,109 460,820 508,379 560,847 61&,730 682,5117 753,035 &'50,753 7 o , " COOIU (N .. tnal S) 81.517 16,_ 92,615 91,711 105,224 112,1511 119,549 121,4211 135,1125 144,776 154,317 164,486 175,326 186,1180 199,195 8 lata' 'ater P ... Coet (Nc.inaU 228,241 493,679 640,105 672,5\10 108,199 747,241 790,0S4 &'51,010 888,517 945,028 1,007,037 1,075,089 1,149,786 1,231,181 '1,321,821 9 Totol NnMII COl" (N .. I ... , S) 421,957 746,477 912,Il00 967,069 1,026,535 1,091,708 1,163,141 1,241,471 1,327,355 1,421,547 1,524,868 1,649,790 1,774,167 1,986,473 2,136,290 10 ... Inal Coat of Power ('/klll) 6.11 ILl 14.2 14.7 15.3 16.0 16.7 17.5 18.3 19.2 20.2 21.5 22.6 24.8 26.2 01 11 10101 NnMII Coo .. (I.al 1987.) 421,957 714,332 135,878 841,439 860,813 &16,042 893,176 912,268 933,316 956,565 981,904 1,016,598 1,046,162 1,1ZO,91Q 1,1S3,S39 """-I 12 • .,al Coat of Power (1911 ,/kIII) 6.11 11.3 13.0 12.9 12.9 12.& 12.11 12.11 12.9 12.9 13.0 1l.2 13.3 14.0 14.1 HYO.OPROJECT AIIAL YS I S Hydrcproject·DI ... , S)'St_ 13 Debt Servic .. (1 .. lnal S) 35,641 152,435 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 14 f .. 1 CoatI (N .. lnal S) m.6DO 351,510 16,846 89,254 103,308 119,201 137,175 157,458 1110,335 286,114 235,130 267,845 305,962 348,867 397,125 15 o , " Coot. (N .. lnal S) 123,667 131,1116 11,217 76,&74 82.941 89,466 96,462 103,91611 112,021 120,658 129,921 139,863 150,734 162,396 174,90S 16 lotal NnMII Coou (N .. lnal S) 381,915 635,161 817,284 1135,349 855,476 1177,894 902,8511 930,641 961,577 _,995 1,034,2110 1,076,9019 1,125,917 1,1110,485 1 ,241 ,2S1 17 _Inal Coat of Power «/klll) 6.2 10.1 12.1 12.1 12.11 12.9 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.5 13.7 14.0 14.4 14.8 lS.2 28 Total NnMII Coo .. (R .. I 1987 $) 381,915 608,384 141,412 732,014 717,369 704,467 693,300 683,_ 616,161 610,2011 _,001 663,602 663,913 _,114 670,242 19 Real Coot of Power (1981 '/kIII) 6.2 9.6 11.6 11,2 10.1 10.3 10.0 9.6 9.3 9.1 &.& 8.6 8.5 8.3 8.2 Hydroproject Portion 20 Debt Servic-e (N .. inal S) 400, DOG 400,000 400,000 400, DOG 400,000 400,000 400 ,DOG 400,000 400,000 400 ,DOG 400,000 400,000 400,000 21 f .. 1 Costa (N,.inal I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 o , " Coot. (I .. inal S) 43,374 45,6019 411,006 50,510 53,150 55,933 58,867 61,961 65,223 68,65& 72,146 75,818 19,_ 23 Total A ........ I Coats O"",lnal $) 443,374 445,6019 448,006 450,510 453,150 455,933 458,867 461,961 465,223 468,658 472,146 475,818 419,_ 24 N .. inal Cost of Power «/klll) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 11.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.6 25 Total ArnJaI Costs CReal 1987 $) 406,011 390,503 375,680 361,512 347,9n 335,033 322,669 310,856 299,510 2110,786 278,408 268,491 259,016 26 .... 1 Coat of Power (1987 ,/klll) 7.9 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.1 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.6 ex> N W ....... -... ex> ex> 0 (page -... Table 4-8 2 of 2) 0\ ....... COST Of PIMa AlW.YSIS ....... --~ ................. ------... ZOO2 200J ~ 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 IIA5£ CASi AlW.lSlS CItYSyllt. I Debt Servl .. 'N .. I".I $) 123,030 123,030 123,030 11II,175 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 2 'wi ca.t. ,N .. I".I ., 592,360 653,495 720,940 195,346 877,431 967,.7 1,011,547 1,057,067 1,104,635 1,154,343 1,206,289 1,260,5n 1,317,297 1,376,576 1,438,521 1,50l,ZS5 3 o , II ca. .. '_1 ... 1 $) 164,677 1'1'!1,529 187,091 199,426 212,569 226,577 236,175 247,428 ZS8,562 270,197 282,356 295,062 508,340 322,215 336,715 351,867 4 Tot.1 City ca.tI '_1 ... 1 $) 880,067 952,054 1,1131,067 1,133,544 1,311,046 1,415,611 1,469.,366 1,525,541 1,584,243 1,645,Sl7 1,709,691 1,716,680 1,846,6&4 1,919,837 1,996,283 2,076,166 Plt.r Pon Syllt_ 5 Debt ...... 1<. ,N .. I""I $) 291,873 291,873 291,1173 291,873 291,873 291,873 471,557 '1'!13,213 '1'!13,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 6 fwl COOl. ,_1 ... 1 S) 916,492 1,011,0lI0 1,115,430 I ,no, 549 1,357,550 1.497 •• 1,565,052 1,635,480 1,709,076 1,185,9115 1,866.354 1,950,340 2,038,105 2.129,820 2,225.662 2,3ZS,S17 7 o , II COO" ,N .. lnal I) 212.322 226,314 241,221 257.1ZS lT4,070 292.131 305.277 319,014 333,370 348,371 364,048 380,430 397,550 415,439 434,134 453,670 a Totll P.tor Pon ca.t ,_1",,1) 1,420,667 1,529,266 1,644,531 1,779.541 1,923,492 2,0111,661 2,341,_ 2,707,707 2,795,659 2,887,569 2,983,615 3,083,983 3,188,1166 3,29II,4n 3,413,009 3,532,700 (JI 9 Totll _I COIte ,_Inol I) 2,3OO,'I'!I3 2,481,321 2,619,597 2,913,095 3,234,538 l\497,2n 3,811,253 4,m,247 4,319,902 4,533,156 4,693,306 4.86Il,663 5,035,551 5.218,309 5,409.292 5.608,866 ex> 10 N .. lnal Coot of P_r ,e,kWh) 27.6 29.2 30.9 33.0 35.9 38.1 41.5 46.1 47.1 49.3 51.1 52.9 54.8 56.8 58.9 61.0 11 Total _I Cootl ,A .. I 1987 $) 1.188.1146 1,226,931 1,267,922 1,319,050 1.401.531 1,450.119 1.512,257 1,601,366 1,591,438 1,576,194 ',561,606 1,547.647 1,534,289 1,521,506 1,509,274 1,497,568 12 A .. I Coot of P_r (1987 e,kWh) 14.3 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 15 •• 16.5 17.5 17.3 17.2 17.0 16.8 16.7 16.6 \6.4 \6.3 HYDAOPAOJECT AMALUIS HydroproJect'Dleul Syot_ 13 Debt ...... 1<. (N .. I""I I) 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 800,660 800,660 800,660 8110,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 8110,660 14 , ... 1 COitI (N .. '".I $) 451,362 513,749 586,767 668,953 761,384 866,823 905,830 946,592 989,189 1,033,702 1,080,219 1,128,829 1,119,626 1,232,709 1,288,181 1,346,149 IS o , II COItl ,_, ... 1 $) 188.319 202,905 2111,936 236,143 m,609 274,610 286.967 299,881 313,376 327,477 342,214 357,614 373,706 390,523 408,096 426,461 16 Tolll _I COlt. (1 .. lnal $) 1,308,903 1,385,875 1,474,924 1,574,317 1,685,214 1,810,654 1,862,Ola 2,047,133 2,103,224 2,161,840 2,223,093 2,287,102 2,353,992 2,423,892 2,496,938 2,573,270 17 .... Inal COlt of P_r ,e'kWh) 15.7 16.3 11.0 17.11 111.7 19.7 20.3 22.3 22.9 23.5 24.2 24.9 25.6 26.4 27.2 28.0 211 Tolll _I Cool. (AHI 1987 $) 676.337 685,273 691,899 712,1151 730,206 750,175 138,825 777,2911 764,207 751,619 739,691 728,219 717,241 706,736 696,683 687,063 19 Aell COlt of P_r (1.7 e,kWh) a.l a.l 11.1 11.1 11.1 8.2 11.0 11.5 •. 3 8.2 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.5 Hydroprojecl Portion 20 Debt Sorvi ... '_Inal $) 400,000 400,000 400,_ 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,_ 400,000 400,_ 400,000 400,000 400,000 400._ 400,000 400,000 400,000 21 fuel Coot. 'N .. I""I $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 o , II Coall ,_1".1 $) 83,753 87,911 92,039 96,364 100,897 105,529 110,218 115,240 120.426 125,845 131,508 137,426 143,610 150,073 156,826 163,883 23 To.al Alnlal Costa (I_Ina 1 $) 483,753 487,911 492,039 496,364 500,897 505,529 510,218 515,240 520,426 525,845 531,508 517,426 543,610 550,073 556,826 563,883 24 _i",,1 Cost of POW<tr 't'kWh) 8.6 8.6 '.7 8.8 B.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 25 Total Alnlal Costa (Real 1987 $) 249,965 241,257 232,1121 224,754 217,039 209,614 202,472 195,637 189,097 182,838 176,849 171,118 165,633 160,385 155,363 150,5S7 26 Real co.t of P_r (1987 e,kWh) 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 70 60 50 0:: 40 w 3: 0 a.. LL. 0 30 I- (11 0 <-) --' « 20 z ~ 0 z 10 0 1987 • ALL-DIESEL 70 60 ---. .c:: 3: '" "-50 2 c '" ..':l- 0:: 40 w 3: 0 a.. LL. 0 30 I- (11 0 <-) --' « 20 z ~ 0 z 10 0 1987 • ALL-DIESEL 8231/880/62 1992 1992 Figure 14 Projected Cost of Power LOW FUEL PRICE ESCALATION 1997 2002 2007 + HYDRO-DIESEL Figure 15 Projected Cost of Power HIGH FUEL PRICE ESCALATION 1997 2002 + HYDRO-DIESEL 59 2007 2012 2017 HYDRO PORTION 2012 2017 HYDRO PORTION King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Under the low fuel escalation rate (Table 4-A, line 17 and Figure 14), the projected cost of power with the hydroproject would be 12.7 cents/kWh in 1989, the year the hydroproject was assumed to begin producing electricity, and gradually increase to 22.5 cents/kWh over the 1 ife of the project. The projected cost of power with the hydroproject is lower in the first year of hydro- electric production than the projected cost of power from the base case alternative (Table 4-A, line 10). Under the base case, with low fuel escalation, the projected cost of power in 1989 would be 14.1 cents/kWh and would steadily rise with inflation and fuel escalation to 45.3 cents/kWh in 2017. Assuming the high fuel escalation rate (Table 4-8, line 17 and Figure 15), projected costs with the hydroproject would again start at 12.7 cents/kWh in 1989 and rise to 28.0 cents/kWh over the life of the project. Under the base case,· high fuel escalation rate, projected costs would start at 14.2 cents/kWh in 1989 and rise to 60.1 cents/kWh in 2017. The lower line graphed in Figures 14 and 15 represents the hydro- electric portion of the hydroproject case, exclusive of the cost of using diesel generators for backup and peaking. Since there is no fuel cost associated with the hydroelectric project itself and since it has low operation and maintenance costs, the cost of power from the hydroproject is represented almost entirely by the level- ized debt service payments for the project. 8231/880/63 60 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 The projected cost of power and other financial questions for the 400 kW hydroelectric proposal were addressed in a March 24, 1988 letter to the City of King Cove. (See Appendix F). Figure 2 in Appendix F shows that the projected cost of power from the 400 kW project would be higher than the base case for the first five years of project operation assuming 100 percent usability. If only 60 percent of the power from the hydroproject could be sold, it would take 10 years for the cost of power from the hydroproject to cross over and become less expensive than the base case alternative. 8231/880/64 61 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 References Alaska Department of Natural Resources, A Geotechnical Investiga- tion of the Proposed King Cove Hydroelectric Weir Site on Delta Creek, Alaska; 1984. CH2M Hill, Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alterna- tives for King Cove; 1981. DOWL Engineers, Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project; 1982. DOWL Engineers, Kind Cove Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, Continued Fie1 Investigations of Delta Creek Aquatic Biology and Hydrology, 1984. EBASCO Services, Inc., Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska; U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, Alaska District, 1980. 8231/880/65 62 APPENDIX A Response to Comments on Draft Report CITY OF KING COVE P.O. Box 37 • King Cove. Alaska 99612 • (907) 497-2340 Apr i1 29, 1987 David Denig-Chakroff Project r-1anager Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 RECS!'!:::) p'v . \ t fl ~ y ~'. .. " \': -.' •. RE: King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study a/MAY -4 All :j3 Dear Mr. Chakroff: The City of King Cove wants to continue working with the Alaska Power Authority to pursue developing the King Cove hydroelectric project. The proposed project appears to provide a dependable source of power and long-term cost savings, both of which are of interest to the City. The City has also prepared comments on the draft feasibility study, (attached) and would like these addressed in the final study. I am available to work with APA to pursue the project and ask that you keep the City apprised of action it should take to keep the project moving forward. I also understand that Peter Pan Seafoods plans to submit a letter stating their interest in the project. Please call i( you have any :~~::/::~::,tJ" d# Lj1jC~Y,tlll; !/!~.l4;;/ Wayne ~ars all l Ci ty ~anag r 1689 'c' Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 276-2700 attachment cc: Alex Samuelson, Mayor Cindi Samuelson, City Clerk Lloyd Guffey, Superintendent, Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Glenn Guffey, Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Gene Holland, City Engineer, City of King Cove CITY OF KI~G COVE CO~1HENTS ON DRAFT KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY The City of King Cove submits the following comments on the Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. The City would like APA to address these comments in the final report. 1. Page 8, second para, first sentenCe. "The hydroelectric project recommended in this report is not intended to be a final design und Ylill require mouificaLion c.:Jd more detailed specification prior to construction." Are any of the potential modifications or more detailed specifications 'so extensive rh~t the proiect would become unfeasible? Also, cou ld these potential m001! lca tlons 1j're':it-I-y affect the cos t estimates? In partlculdL, COUla c-o~1: incceases E,e larg~ enougn to significantly effect the cost-to-cost ratio? 2. Is the design proposed for this project "proven"? In particular, will the proposed intake screen effectively mitigate problems posed by the sediment loads in Delta Creek? 3. Page 9, first para, last sentence. "Since minimal maintenance would be required with the design recommended in this report, a road to the weir sites would not be necessary." The City would like "minim~l maintenance" quantified ... clean intake screens once per week? clean wood stave tanks once per month? etc. In short, what does minimal maintenance mean? Also, how will maintenance personnel aCCess the dam si te and int_ake scr""en t f -"I. rOQd ~ not constructed to these areas? Another question is who will be responslble for proJect maintenance ... the City, Peter Pan Se::::foods, or other party? 4. Page 15. Powerhouse and Generating Equipment. The City would like additional discussion on the advantages! disadvantages on the one or two turbine-generator approach. Also, are there other configurations than the 400 KW and 600 KW generators that would allow the City to efficiently produce the most power possible from the stream flow available? The intent would be to enable the project to produce the most pOWer possible for consumption by Peter Pan Seafoods. 5. Page 17. Transmission and Distribution System. The City is concerned about the proposed use of an overhead transmission line from the-power house to downtown King Cove. The City presently uses underground lines for all transmission lines because of problems with maintaining overhead lines. The City requests APA address the following: o ~o~t nf initially installing underground vs. overhead 1 ine, and how th~s at fec'Cs proJ ec'C cos 1:,--nra"l:ribi-l-tty and t 1 nancinq. Also, when computJ.:,,-unaeLgrouna tl'1'le o...:oscs-, ,'roviue t:!stimates for ducted cable that comes on spools of no larger than 2,000'. The City understands that special installation equipment is needed for larger than 2,000' rolls and this would increase project costs, o Pot..:ntia 1 of doing iiil~)r()vernf'q.t~. I~-" -.ai-.m0.r.t road i.E- underground lines are used. t;xamine long-term maJ.ntl:::llanCe cOciEs to 'Cl1e Cl. Eyfor cUI uverhead vs. underground transmission line. For example, consider equipment the City would need to purchase to serve overhead rather than underground lines. At present, the City only has equipment to serve underground line. o Cost of installing break points (junction points) in the transmission line about every 2,000 feet so the City can more easily repair the system. o Cost of installing step-downs of voltage on the line so the City can service other power users. In particular, ability to step-down voltage at the air~ort and the Mallard Lake Subdivision area. . o Also, how difficult and time-consuming is the SCADA system to maintain and operate? How frequently do problems occur with this system? The City wants to ensure that it has the technical ability and funds to operate and maintain this system. 6. Project Costs. The City would li~e APA to prepare a cost estimate for the project that involves the City using the force account system to manage the project. The City believes that this system would eliminate the 10% profit included in the estimate, may decrease the 15% General Overhead expenses, and would significantly affect labor costs. The City's current rate of pay for construction equipment operators is $13.49/hour to start, with some operators (those who have previously worked with the City) earning about S15.00/hour. The fringe benefit rate for the above positions would be about 20%. Th revised cost estimate would best be included as an alternative in the project costs section. Also, identify how force accounting the project through the City may affect project financing. 7. Economic Analysis. APA should be aware that the City projects that the price of #2 diesel will increase to $.56 to $.58/gallon with the next fuel delivery_ Chevron has discontinued service to King Cove and this will result in a price increase. This increase in cost should only improve the cost-to-cost ratio. Delta Western will begin delivering fuel to King Cove in mid-May. APA may want to prepare a revised cost analysis using new fuel prices. 8. Hydroproject Analysis, Page 39, first para.. " diesel units would still be mairltained by both the City and Peter Pan for backup and for meeting peak demand." Will the City need to supplement the power available from the hydroelectric plant at any time with diesel generator power, or will only Peter Pan Seafoods need to supplement the hydropower? The City's concern centers on the size of its existing generators for providing supplemental power. The City's generators can independently meet the City's present electric load. Also, the report should provide greater details on the amount of power that would be available for sale to Peter Pan Seafoods, assuming that the City's need for power will be completely met by hydropower. 9. Page 40, third para. Correction. Peter Pan Seafoods has committed to the Durchase of a 1,500 KW and 850 KW generator, and plans to purchase a second 1,500 KW generator in several years. 10. Cost of Power Analysis. The City would like APA to prepare estimates for the amount the City would need to charge electric consumers to "break-even" on operating the electric system. The City's present rate is $.20/KWH. The City needs this information to help ~ake infor~ed decisions on pursuing hydropower construction. 11. Cost of Power Analysis, page 47, second para, last sentence. The City would like APA to further explore methods of financing the prevent "rate shock", with the intent being to initially make the hydropower no more expensive than d 1 generated power. 12. March 25, 1986 MemorandUm from Afzal H. Kahn, Page 6. The Deer Island Subdivision referenced in the discussion on present and future load has been built and the City is providing power to about 30 homes in this area. The addition of this subdivision has affected the City's total power use reflected in the table on page seven of this memorandum. Also, this one time large increase in level of local use may significantly affect the base estimate used for the 2% annual rate of growth in City power consumption. APA should reexamine the City's total use of electric power for the last six months (since Deer Island has been occupied) to determine if this affects the power estimates and growth projections. 13. Power Sales Agreement. The Feasibility Study minimally addresses the need and nature of the required power sales agreements between the City and APA and Peter Pan Seafoods and APA. However, these agreements will be a major factor for the City and Peter Pan Seafoods to decide if they will participate in the hydropower project. The City requests additional information be provided in the report or in supplemental information on the proposed power sales agreement. Information that needs to be addressed includes, but is not limited to: o What is the length of the power sales agreement? o Is it possible to amend power sales agreements to reflect potential new major users (commercial/industrial users) of the power? o How will the ratio of City vs. Peter Pan Seafoods use of the hydropower project's power be determined, and what occurs if there is significant growth in' either party's desired amount of use? o What ocCUrs if either party reneges after agreements are in place? For example, the Peter Pan Seafoods complex is destroyed by fire and the company decides not to rebuild. 14~ The report is based on a 30 year projectec life and financing of the hydropower project. However, the City assumes that the dam and penstock system will have a greater life than 30 years. The report should also address the impact this project will have on electric production costs when the project is completely paid for after 30 years. ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska August 5, 1987 Mr. Wayne Marshall, City Manager City of King Cove 1689 IC' Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Marshall: Steve Cowper. Governor This letter summarizes the results of recent analysis of the proposed King Cove Hydroelectric Project based on comments received on the March 1987 Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. Attached are responses to the specific comments prepared by the City and forwarded with your letter of April 29, 1987. I will incorporate these comments, changes, and analyses into a final report upon my return from vacation on August 24, 1987. Enclosed you will find revised tables and graphs from the feasibility study which reflect the revised economic analysis. This analysis is the result of the following changes made from the draft report: 1. The hydroelectric cost estimate is based on the availability of force-account labor at rates the City has provided for this analysis. (See enclosed cost estimate.) 2. The transmission line cost estimate is based on an underground rather than an overhead line as requested by the City. (See enclosed cost estimate.) 3. The diesel fuel price forecast has been revised in accordance with comments from the City. 4. The City load reflects the addition of the Deer Island Subdivision. 5. The hydropower potential of Delta Creek is based on the dry year of record, rather than the average year, in response to a comment by the Mayor of King Cove at the public hearing on the draft report. 6. Financing costs have been revised as a result of an internal review. The overall result of these changes is quite significant with respect to the feasibility of the proposed hydroelectric project. Under the revised analysis, the cost-to-cost ratio of the continued use of diesel systems over the hydroproject is 1.55 for the high fuel price forecast and 1.36 for the low fuel price forecast. A cost/cost ratio of 1.0 would mean the two options have the same long-term cost; thus a ratio 9848/752/1 ~ PO. Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 ¥' PO. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Mr. Wayne Marshall August 5, 1987 Page 2 greater than this indicates economic feasibility. Sensitivity analyses show that, even under the low fuel price forecast, none of the assumptions varied independently up to plus or minus 50 percent of their estimated value would cause the cost/cost ratio to fall below 1.0. If you have any questions or further comments concerning these analyses, please let me know upon my return so that I can incorporate them into the final report. Jl~//~ L David Denig-Chakroff .. r-Project Manager Enclosures as stated. DDC:nc cc: Brent N. Petrie, Alaska Power Authority Donald L. Shira, Alaska Power Authority Michael D. Hubbard, Alaska Power Authority E. Roy Taylor, Alaska Power Authority Remy Williams, Alaska Power Authority 9848/752/2 RESPONSE TO CITY OF KING COVE COMMENTS ON DRAFT KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY The fo 11 ow; ng responds to the numbered comments (attached) prov; ded by the City of King Cove on the March 1987 Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. 1. The concept shown in the feasibility study is intended to illustrate the typical configuration and not necessarily the final configuration of the proposed project. Experience has shown that proposed projects invariably require modification during design no matter how simple the concept. Any anticipated modifications are not expected to add significantly to the estimated cost and may even reduce the estimated cost of the project. Possible changes might include rotation of the powerhouse due to the type of units selected or realignment of the penstock as a result of the fi na 1 route survey. The cost of such changes has been provided for in the cost estimate and resulting economic analysis in the form of contingency costs equal to 20 percent of the base cost of construction. The sensitivity analyses show the effect on the cost/cost ratio of increases (or decreases) in the estimated cost of the project. They indicate that, all else being equal, the estimated cost of the hydroproject could be increased by 50 percent (to $6.5 million), and the project would still be economically feasible. 2. The Johnson screen, or wedge wire screen as it is sometimes called, has been used effectively in hydroelectric applications where its primary function has been to pass fish and floating debris. The original use of the screen, however, was to separate rock from a slurry in mining operations, and it is still used extensively for that purpose. It is designed specifically to rapidly accept water while rejecting aggregates. While we are unaware of another hydroproject where the exact configuration proposed for Delta Creek has been used, we have discussed the concept with engineers who have used it in similar applications, and all agree it will work. In order to protect the screen from large rocks and boulders that may migrate down the stream during storm flow, we are proposing to install a heavy duty screen above the Johnson screen. 3. The intent of the weir/intake structure design is to minimize if not eliminate maintenance at the intake structure. placing the intake structure on the downstream side of the weir will eliminate 9848/752/3 the need to clean out a forebay. During large storms, rock will be swept over the intake structure by the force of heavy storm flows and pass downstream. During normal flows, sediments will easily be rejected by the Johnson screen. Some combination of flows could result ina bui 1 dup of heavier rock just below the wei r, whi ch would require it to be removed with a Cat. This appears to be unlikely, and if it does occur, an annual cleaning will resolve the problem. The Clear Fork weir should never require maintenance except for an annual inspection of the screens. The wood stave tank should not require an inspection more frequently than once a month, except duri ng peri ods of hi gh water, and then experi ence wi 11 di ctate the schedule. The construction contractor wi 11 have to build a construction road to move materials to the site. This road would be adequate for access to the tank, but access need not be extended to the wei rs because it is not necessary. The wei rs are easily reached by foot from the tank for inspection and, even if a Cat is required at the one weir occasionally, a road beyond the tank would not be necessary. Project maintenance responsibil ities are yet to be determineq, although such costs will be part of the annual project costs. A decision as to who will maintain a project is often made as part of the overall power sales agreement for the project. 4. The large flow range of Delta Creek and the variation in demand suggests that two units or a turbine with the capability to operate over a wide range of flows is necessary for this project. There is nothing magic about the 400-600 combination used for the proposed concept. This combination would allow power to be generated effi ci ently from as 1 ittl e as 15 cfs whi ch wi 11 produce approxi- mately 335 kW. If the capabil i ty to operate effi ci ently at even lower flows is desired, then a smaller unit can be utilized, but one must be careful to ensure that the efficiency ranges of the two units overl ap sufficiently to avoid wasting energy in the middl e ranges. The type and manufacturer of the units will also influence this question; therefore, the selection should be fine-tuned when the equipment selection is made based on manufacturer's submittals. By giving bidders more than one option to bid on, a selection of a combination can be made that best meets the needs of the project. 5. The cost of installing an underground transmission line rather than an overhead 1 ine has been estimated and included in the economic analysis. (See cost estimate dated 7/31/87.) The design provides for installation of sectionalizer cabinets spaced approximately 2500 feet apart along the length of transmission route. These cabinets will provide easy access to splice points for maintenance, repairs, and future service tie-ins. The route would generally follow along side the road from the airport. The transmission line would not be buried in the road bed due to restrictive DOT&PF 9848/752/4 regulations and the need to blast below the road bed to lay the cable. The SCADA system is relatively simple to operate and maintain. A maintenance contract would be executed with the manufacturer, and its cost has been provided for in this analysis. Training would also be provided so that operation and minor mainte- nance could be handled locally. 6. The cost estimate has been rev; sed to reflect the use of force- account labor for project construction. Use of force-account labor would significantly reduce project costs, yielding beneficial results to the economics and eventual financing of the project. The benefits reflected in this analysis are dependent on the availability of a labor force during construction at the rates provided by the City for the analysis. 7. The diesel fuel price forecast has been revised based on price quotes provided by the City in August 1987. The average 1987 fuel pri ce (54 cents/gallon), whi ch is the base pri ce used-in the economic analysis, was determined by assuming that the fuel used by King Cove from January through August (8 months) cost 46.4 cents/ga 11 on, and the fuel to be used from September to December (4 months) will cost 70 cents/gallon. Under the high fuel price scenario, it was assumed that the average 1987 price will increase by 28.6 percent for a 1988 average pri ce of 70 cents/ ga 11 on and then increase at a rate of 3.5 percent annually in real terms for 19 years. The 28.6 percent increase corresponds to a 28.6 percent increase projected in the world price of oil between 1986 and 1987 under the "high" oil forecast used by the Power Authority. The low fuel price scenario assumes that the 70 cent/gallon price will not be maintained through 1988 but that the 1987 average price will only increase by 7.1 percent to 58 cents/gallon in 1988 and then increase at a rate of 2 percent annually in real terms for nine years. Although fuel price forecasting is tenuous at best, it would appear reasonable for prices to fall somewhere within these two parameters. The hydroproject appears to be economically feasible, even under the low fuel price scenario. Further variation in the fuel price was analyzed in the sensitivity analyses. Even using a base 1987 average fuel price of only 27 cents/gallon (escalating at the "l ow " forecas t rates) and ho 1 di ng a 11 other parameters and assumpti ens constant, the hydrcproject appears economically feasible. If the base average 1987 fuel price is raised to 81 cents/gallon, the cost/cost ratio becomes 1.52 under the low fuel price forecast and 1.75 under the high fuel price forecast. 8. With a proper maintenance schedule and program, the City should need to supplement power available from the hydroproject minimally if at all. Assuming there are two hydroelectric units installed, 9848/752/5 maintenance could be scheduled during periods of low demand so that the City load can be met even with one unit down for maintenance. Of course the City should maintain some diesel capacity (or arrange to purchase power from Peter Pan) in the event of an emergency or a break in the transmission line to the hydroelectric plant. Line 18 of Table 3 in the feasibility report shows the amount of energy that would be available from the hydroproject in any given month. Line 19 shows the monthly City load for the base year (1987), and line 20 shows the amount of hydroelectric energy available to meet Peter Panls needs on a monthly basis. Notice that from September to December there is excess hydropower over and above what could be used by the City and Peter Pan. Tables 2-A and 2-B show the same information on an annual basis. Line 26 of the tables show the annual energy available from the hydroelectric project. Line 1 shows the City requirement. By subtracting Line 1 from Line 26, one can obtain the energy available for sale to Peter Pan. 9. This correction will be made in the final feasibility report. 10. The feasibility study, in Tables 4-A and 4-B, estimates the cost of power for the base case and hydroproject based on debt servi ce, fuel and O&M cost estimates. The City could add its overhead and administrative costs to the other costs in the tables to estimate the rate needed to charge consumers. Rate analysis, however, is beyond the scope of the feas i bi 1 i ty study, and an accurate rate could not be determined until a financial analysis is complete. 11. Financing options will be explored as part of the plan of finance and financial analysis that will be conducted if the Power Authori- ty proceeds beyond the feasibil ity stage for the project. It is beyond the scope of the feasibility study. 12. The additional load required by the Deer Creek Subdivision has been incorporated into the final feasibility analysis. 13. If the Power Authority proceeds with this project beyond the feasibility phase, a financial analysis will address the needs of any future power sales agreements. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the feasibility study. 14. Certainly if the project lasts longer than 30 years (and there is no reason it should not with proper maintenance) and outlives debt obligations, there will be significant benefit in reduced power production costs. To give some idea of the savings, one can look in the last column of line 17 on Table 4-B and find that the projected cost of power in 2017 with the hydroproject is 23.0 cents/kWh. If we then subtract the hydroproject debt service ($409,000 from 1; ne 20) from the total annua 1 costs ($2,109,063 from line 16) and divide by the total community load (9,188,112 kWh 9848/752/6 from line 3, Table 2-A), we get a cost of 18.5 cents/kWh for a savings of 4.5 cents/kWh when the debt service on the hydroproject runs out after 30 years. 9848/752/7 APPENDIX B Electrical System Details MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO: THRU: FROM: FILES DATE: March 25, 1986 FILE NO.: TELEPHONE NO.: Afzal H. Khan ~ #'.~ Director/Systems Operations SUBJECT: King Cove Hydroelectric Project (Proposed) and Engineering 1. EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM A. City of King Cove Powerhouse The City Powerhouse consists of two diesel generator units (2-300 kW caterpillar units -See Table 2). A new 500 kW diesel generator unit will be installed in the near future to meet the growing demand for the power. The voltage generated is 480 V, 3-phase, 60 Hz. A step-up transformer, 750 kVA, 480V~7.2/12.47 kV, 3-phase, 60 Hz, located outside, is used to serve the city load. The control panels are located in a control room adjacent to the generator room. The control panels are equipped with circuit breakers, controls, indicat- ing and metering devices. The primary distribution is 7.2/12.47 kV, 3-phase, 60 Hz. The secondary distribution is 120/240 V, single phase, 60 Hz. All distribution is under- ground. See Figures KC-E2 and KC-E3, attached. B. Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. Powerhouse The powerhouse consists of five diesel generator units (for generator data see Table 3). The voltage generated is 480 V, 3-phase, 60 Hz. A step-up transformer, 750 kVA, 3-phase, 60 Hz, 480 V-7.2/12.47 kV is used to provide emergency power to the city of King Cove. The control panels are located in a control room adjacent to the generator room. The control panels are equipped with unit breakers, controls, indicating and metering devices. The cannery distribution is 480 V, 3-phase, 60 Hz. See Figures PP-El, PP-E2, and PP-E3, attached. 2. PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM A. GeAeral 3511/573/1 Figure KC-E1 shows the proposed interconnected system. A 12 • .47 kV transmi ss ion 1 ine would be bui 1t between proposed HydroeTectric plant and King Cove junction (to be located in the City). The King Cove junction consists of three discon- nects. Normal operating configuration would be with' all switches closed. A distribution line would be built between King Cove junction and city of King Cove powerplant. A second King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 2 line wou1d be built between King Cove junction and powerplant at Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. B. King Cove Hydroelectric Project Generators: The powerhouse will have one or two turbine generators. Each turbine generator would be provided with a static excitation system, governor system (speed measuring and control section and hydraulic control section), and miscella- neous controls located near the units. The 480 V switchgear assembly consists of generator breakers, surge protection equipment, generator neutral grounding system, voltage and current transformers for metering, relaying and synchronizing. The generator line terminals will be connected to the circuit breaker and the surge protection equipment. The connections to the main power transformer, station service transformers will be made from the switchgear assembly. The neutral terminal from the generator housing will be connected to the grounding transformer, rated 480-120/240 V. Station Auxiliary Equipment: The station auxiliary power for the powerplant would be supplied by either of the main genera- tors or by the diesel generator. Main generator power will be fed to the station service bus through fuse-disconnect switch and 480-120/240 V, 50 kVA dry type transformer. A 120/240 V panel in the powerplant will be provided. This 120/240 V panel will provide protection and disconnection means for the various loads including motors, power outlets, lighting and battery chargers. Controls for all major electrical devices would be done by 125 V dc circuits. The 125 V dc circuits will be fed from a distribution panel which will be supplied from the station battery and two battery chargers. Ground and undervoltage protection will be provided. Control and Protection: Control of the generators is switch selectable for local manual, local auto or remote mode. The control panels will contain the local control switches, indicating and recording meters, control wiring, synchronizing equipment, and protective relaying devices. The operators . will be given all pertinent generator data on the front of the panels and may choose control actions as required. 3511/573/2 Grounding System: A complete grounding system for the powerplant and switchyard will be provided. The neutral terminals and housing of the generators, transformer, circuit breakers, and all electrical equipment frame and enclosures will be connected to the ground system. Lighting: Lighting will be provided in the powerplant and switchyard. King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 3 Switchyar d: The main transformer will be used to step-up the 480 V generated voltage to the transmission voltage level of 12.47 kV. The transformer will be a two-winding, 3-phase, 60 Hz, outdoor, oil cooled type and is equipped with no-lead tap changers with bracket mounted lightning arresters adjacent to the high voltage bushings. The low voltage windings will be connected in delta and will be connected to the generator terminals by 600 V cable. The high voltage windings will be connected in grounded wye and the line terminals will be connected to the circuit breaker. The circuit breaker will be used to connect the high voltage terminals of the main power transformer to the 12.47 kV transmission line. C. King Cove Swltchyard (At Diesel Powerplant) The incoming line from King Cove Junction would be designed to operate at 12.47 kV; The switchyard consists of one 750 kVA step-down transformer (existing) and one 12.5 kV metalclad switchgear. The 12.5 kV switchgear will be a metal enclosed building consisting of three breakers and control cubicles. Instrument transformers will be provided for relaying, metering and synchronizing. The current transformers for metering will have a metering accuracy of ANSI class 0.38-2.0. The current transformers for relaying will have a relaying accuracy of ANSI class T400 or better. Potential transformers will have an ANSI accuracy of 0.3W, X, M, and Y. All air circuit breakers would have provisions for local and remote control. A control panel will be provided in the control room next to the existing control panels. The main incoming line and all feeder lines will have indicating ampere, watt, var, and watthour meters, as well as test switches at the bottom of the front swing panel for current/voltage testing. The circuit breaker control switches with indicating lights will be prov.ided. The protective devices included are phase and ground overcurrent relays. See Figures KC-E2 and KC-E3 attached. D. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Power Plant 3511/573/3 The incoming line from King Cove Junction would connect the existing 750 kVA transformer at the powerplant. A circuit breaker would be provided to connect transformer to 480 V Bus. A circuit breaker and control cubicle would be provided. The control cubicle will have indicating ampere, volts, watt, var and watthour meters. The control switches will be provided. The instrument transformers will be provided for metering, relaying, and synchronizing. The current transformers for metering will have a metering accuracy of ANSI class 0.38-2.0. King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 4 Potential transformers will have an ANSI accuracy class of O.3W, X, M, and Y. See Figures PP-E1 and PP-E2 attached. 3. SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM A computer-based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system will provide centralized remote control and monitoring of the King Cove Hydroelectric Power plant, and City of King Cove Powerplant. The SCADA system would consist of a Central Processing Unit and Master Station at the Control Center and Remote Terminal Units at the power plants. The SCADA system will be designed to provide highly reliable and secure operation. Functions that would be provided by SCADA system include control, status indication, alarm reporting, data logging and strip chart recording from King Cove Hydroelectric palnt. The Communication system will provide voice and data circuits between control center and remote locations through a combination of cable and leased telephone faciltiies. Basic System: The basic software consists of the following: 1. Real-time Disc Operating System 2. System/Operator Interface 3. Data Base Design Techniques 4. User Design Task 5. Monitoring and Control Functions a. Digital Input Capabilities b. Analog Input Capabilities c. Alarm Messages d. Manual Control Functions e. Reports and Profiles f. Totalized Data g. Analog Totalization h. Historic Capabilities i. logs, Summaries and Reports Master Telemetry Unit (MTU): The MTU will serve primarily as a data concentrator and communications controller, acquiring data in a multiplex form from the Remote Terminal Units (RTU). This data is then buffered in local memory processed to determine change-of- state and formatted for subsequent processing by the CPU. In addition, the MTU receives commands from the CPU, and routes these commands to the appropriate RTU. The MTU operates independently of the Central Processing Unit once it has received the schedule of points to be scanned. This table is downloaded from the CPU upon starting, and need only be downloaded again when significant changes have been made to the CPU data base. The following describes the functions of MTU: 3511/573/4 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 5 a. Data Concentration b. Data Communication c. Distributed Control d. System Self Supervision e. Back-up Operation Remote Terminal Unit (RTU): This will be located in close proximity to the field monitoring and control points, the RTU interface directly to each point via hardware connections. During normal system operation, the RTU's communicate with and are supervised by the Master Telemetry Unit (MTU). In the event of a loss of communications with the RTU, the RTU's fall back to a stand-alone mode of operation and continue to perform their designated control function. To facilitate commu- nications with the Master Telemetry Unit (MTU), each RTU will be equipped with a communication module. SCADA Input/Output (I/O) Points: DIGITAL INPUT King Cove Hydro RTU King Cove Power Plant RTU TOTAL 4. COST ESTIMATE 30 20 50 A. City of King Cove Power Plant: a. New Control Panel b. Metalclad Switchgear c. Installation (a and b) B. King. Cove Junction: a. Metalclad Switchgear b. Installation C. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Power Plant: ar New Control Panel b. Installation D. SCADA (Complete) E. King Cove Hydro: 3511/573/5 a. Turbine/generator with accessories DIGITAL OUTPUT 12 8 20 ANALOG INPUT 12 12 24 $21,000 45,000 13,000 $15,000 $ 3,000 $15,000 $ 3,000 $75,000 $340,000 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 6 b. Station auxiliary, control and "protection, switchyard equipment and Grounding system. c. Installation (a and b) F. Contingency Total $ 70,000 80,000 $102,000 $782,000 NOTE: Estimates are preliminary and it will be verified later. Transmission line cost is not included. Also, not included are Engineering services and civil work costs. 5. PRESENT AND FUTURE LOAD AK/tg The present load is tabulated in Table 1. The hydroelectric potential and demand is plotted on Figure KC-E4. The city's planned expansion includes a new 30-home subdivision. The estimated load for the subdivision is 100 KW. The School District has a 100 KW standby diesel generator unit, which they use for an emergency. The cannery would be expanding the operations with additona1 freezing facilities that would utilize diesel fueled compressors. The cannery's future peak load would be 1,450 KW. The Hydroelectric potential plotted on Figure KC-E4 indicates that it would not support hydroelectric power for the City and the Cannery combined. The proposat hydroelectric project would support only the city load and probably the Cannery's off-season load. cc: E. L. Morris, Associate Executive Director, Planning/Operations R. E. Etheridge, Associate Executive Director, Projects D. Denig-Chakroff, Project Manager E. Roy Taylor, Deputy Project Manager, Construction 3511/573/6 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 7 Month Kin~ Cove Municieal ower plant KW KW (Average) ( Peak) January 259 282 February 258 300 March 248 264 April 246 280 May 251 282 June 237 258 July 219 240 August 227 270 . September 245 282 October 266 294 November 279 312 December 288 312 3511/573/1 1985 Load Table 1 Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. Combined ~ower Plant KW KW KW KW (Average) ( Peak) (Average) (Peak) 430 540 689 822 375 530 633 830 345 440 593 704 390 510 636 790 463 640 714 922 809 1050 1046 1308 1007 1250 1226 1490 704 1190 931 1460 456 600 701 882 424 470 690 764 355 400 634 712 319 340 607 652 . CITY OF KING COVE POWER PLANT TABLE 2 GENERATOR DATA: Quantity: MFR: Model: KW: KVA: Phase: Hertz(HZ): Power Factor: Voltage: Current: RPM: 2 Caterpi 11 ar SRCR (Frame No. 250TH3792) 300 375 3 60 0.8 230/460V 941/471A 1200 587, Part No. 8L32, Serial No. GENERATOR DATA: MFR I UNIT MODEL KW 1 MARATHON 400 2 DELCO 1000 E6724 3 DELCO 700 E6710 4 DELCO 600 E7363 - 5 BELOIT 750 PETER PAN SEAFOODS INC. KVA 500 1250 875 750 937.5 POWER PLANT TABLE 3 PF PHASE Hzl 0.8 3 60 0.8 3 60 --- 0.8 3 60 0.8 3 60 ---- 0.8 3 60 VOLTAGE AMPS SPEED 277/480 601 i 1800 277/480 1504 1800 -- 277/480 1052 1800 240/480 902 1800 - 480 ll27 1800 • KINe. CO\! E HibllDet..f.c.lRIC. P0!4aPl"'~i (PROP(;)~EO) PRELIMINARY PROPO~€:D El~S-TRICAL Sl'STEtot CITY OF "'INC, COilE FIGURE KC-El l· f) "OO .... F 5001'''. 300"''''' O,..&PF .~~. <t-S()\1 * I.PT r .. r L...w-} ) "OO ..... F ) l'loo",F S'fNC. 50o,..r 8aoAT J l "." .. To UNIT I ~QC) "'''I o.9PF." C;;. -n.G " 500ll:W !).&PF.3p:~&o'l I) IZOO A.!' 1200AT 150\(."", TR"'''')F I ~1I0'l. 7.2/12.411.\1 ,l4ttCl 3~bOIlf. (EllI!lT .... 'J ,1>00:<; . I .!.!!.9, I!>RO 100;5 , To I(IN(.CO<IE JUI'lCTION t _ I;Pl ~t--~-(WC. )l!o~ lri,h"_'lO\l ~I\C.T W 100:5' Jo4ET ... "C"AO S..c;~ IV; 1(11 &11:' CoITY bISTIt. '.&oe~ .. ew 1E4\JIPME.NT <,P~O"().$&O) --------------.... ---------, PRELIMINAR), POWERPLANI CITy OF KIHG covE 51NGl..S LINE DIA<iRAI!.1 P'IGIJIU;' KC-E l. l ~'! 0G0B 6 ~Eb I~:I 0 1551 V6U. ADJ. 0 · 6;' "'" SCo 1 o 00000 ~0~ Co It 0 0 ill] C.S Il.It ..... K.e'- ,"00 ..... F 500 ... T .. ItJ(I'!S.T ...... C c.oNTIla. ... ... ,.. '" t:. ....... DG0B EJ 00 E1 ::>PUb &,.1£1.10 ~ '1>"'( ~ EJ ~ lOLl B 5w. o 5~ Sill. o !)S "",o\,.,, '10\,.1 ..... 1 I t !o,,,"Sb' A~l. t "l. :? 4 0 ~ 1 0 00000 0 0 0000 00 RllllO b d ~'0~B <. Q. o 0 ~O~ [ill C!O [ill c.:. r.a.tii ... K.£L &R.£~K.E:R.. «Ooo,..,F 12.00 ..... " 50o"'T 1I00'-'" T ~~ 0 0 6'''''·\.· .... T'' 101 •• , ,.o,"1N( "1\'" 'loT .... ' 0 'loO'" & .. IE ..... K. etr. 12.00 .... 11.00 ""T I ! 8GB IVARI E3 VA 00EJ ~ ~ ~ EJ[JEJ[J EJDEJLJi ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ _____ l PR:-l...IMINARy z.. LOW 0.1.. PII.~ ...... ItE" "!'.._ .i'c.'i WATt", T£ ..... P'. 4. 0"" .... ~-c: to (ONrRGL PANEL".;, .:s _ !..ow a II ...... '"EI. '" -LO... ..,A"Tl:'k t..Il>lf. ... C ITt UF \':"IN(. C.OVe. 1-c.ItL".r t>IIJi'A""' .... l.Q. I=I~\JRE. 1<.<:.-1:3 • HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL AND DEMAND KING COVE -DELTA CREEK 1.300 1.200 1.100 - 1.000 0.900 "'" rnD (-4'0 0.800 £-ta ~: 0.700 O~ ..l0 0.600 .... od t-4£-t ~ 0.500 0.400 Hl~ROPOWBR POTENTUL 0.300 ,- 0.200 Minimum 0.100 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SSP OCT NOV DEC Averale Power Demand <> City A City and Cannery 3. C ,'oS ) SZ-I 480V ".~OOK.W l>HioTR. , PAME\. )sz-z. ~ = = 2: :r 2 ~ :0 ;;;) 0 0 ..... .. ~ ~ :! ::! I 1 ~ ., 1000"-'14 laOIC.N '-001(.l1li 150 lC.W ~ ________________________________ -JI V 480" . .'b¢,OO HI O.SPF I &Q.C.T 1110Q~'i I L 3PT', 4eO.1l011 --+------- HO kV4 TR ..... !>F 4&0.,.1.2/11.41 ¥.v,39,"OHI. lIUI:.TIN,) } elTYoF IUt.t/1 toV£ blSTUWjlON ~~.I)Ii.II..., 10 liP IS HP F'N~ PRE l I .. " I N A R. Y POWE "PLANT PETI!:I!:. pp..W !:>EA FoOD) IWc', ~"'~'l..E LI""E DIA.41itAM Ff«UIlE PP_ E 1 ~ . fh j.: . - .. t . . . , i ~~~------------------------------__________________ £~I&TIW~~' _____________________________________________________ ·~I~·~p-~---p-O~;~~~M~b=.~~~N-T-aP--1~1 I TOTAUllNG GIi.~,"R.""'T'::'e.. '::oNTRoI.. ~"lIO"S !':Ie-C.TIOM / 1\ CIT ,. .... ~D~R. (,I .... EJOC/~d~ EJ§l~V~OI EJI$Sll~r(i 0 1 E1EJI~~I~~ 01 OZ 02: Ot I~sl LJ EJ~ 03 EJE] o~ 88 03 Oi 0'\ 0", :L] 6] (DOS B(:]®®~: E11~1®G)~! IU~·\l F~: G] ® 'I 6," .• z. . ' .. ®®01 . . ·8001 . "'900' "~@fLJ • __ f fgJlIr€fGl :O~ 1t£lt!3t~~. ~i t:;I~~:~' oi4~ , . : .,1 • \ .&I.IiNr..EII.. ~»t,· . J) l~TIl\IOTlO":1I'i\l.QY. :t!liitM'& 1E(.J\9t:l !!p-:aar -a-'II9'" T.::r rS1 . r .. -" j ............. • ". J' 1....-.. • .. ·l·,-", . \1'40:'1" ;-.......... " .. -". .. • t ... ..,~-, ..... T' ............................ ....., ~'.""'''I''''.''' ,..~ ,,..... .... ' .. t·· L.jO. Z. ~o.l . '-- LEC£4D ~ 1...(.) • .-.) <>'L pa..ES'5>YIL£. e.. o.~ f' .. E:,\ullJ! "I Yf"'1e'-1:Et.\f> co .... TROl,. PANELS l. HI ", ... TG.R. TEMP. 3 t.vE.P.~pe.Et> "'" Ill!; vE A.!l>1I. l"owli>R- 5 'Rot:. 1.0 ... OIL.. PII.e."1>I.Ia..E "PII..E HI YIt .... "I"t?IL 16_. 1 P\J~bUlTo."" -L ... ""P Tf!!.T 'a FOE I. rIlE So \ ..... E. II "'I.. ~ .... pe-iU'-"I"ull.l IL TOT .... \.. "'alJ"~ I). f: ... (" OoIe Moct; \4 FRONT E.I....f!.VAT 10,,", . , EJI$$I!~I~" 0 1 Ot EJI$~II;,!r~ 0 1 Ol. -ElBG BB 03 BEl OJ 0 0 0+ 0", §JE) B E1lt~1 ® 6) ~: BI~.I@G)~: ®~o, ®~o, §JEJ ~fir'il fJ.iIll£, ® 6~' I ,If), '1-OU1 ~ @9 ot.4 .... ~ '. I _ J '. ~ I. -. , wAS'''''~T\Q*, e.Ye!!'«-~«'"TICI'" IRJO:Ak.." ',E('Tout-J , .. I'" .... ...,. .. ....... ·,.,.w . \-... ; , ... 't 1. _ ; ). ~. ; .... ~ ...... ~ r'~ .• ___ ~. $ • ., ..... 6 to.lO.+ "-lO.';. PRElIMIt-lARY PO~ERPLMn PETER PA~ SEA FoOD:!t ~C. c::o .. q'Rol... PA~e:.L'J FI<;UR.E pp-£"2. .' I :.z 0 -t "1 0 (/I > J;, "'Q rp --, (t1 7U \J :P 1:. '1\ \to. m ,f\ )' C 13 11 fTI () 0 1J D' \1 \lr , I rn z.' (Jl n :-.. .' " " 'lJ () ~ rn fQ t , IJ r-})I Z. -~ , " , . : .' " Ul-.nr !t\ 4-80 V DISTR. PNL. c.orlT Ro I. PANEL ~(IiXI"'-.:)~1 "U;:W', C.ONTQoL Pt-1L " (0 NT R() L ROO ~·,f lPRoPoSEb) UN\r #~ UN'T jf:4- UHtT tl:S SYNC. PH\", 480V.3¢ f>lJ& APPENDIX C Detailed Cost Estimates COST ESTIMATE 1,000 KW HYDROPROJECT KING COVE, ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) SUMMARY Diversion Structure-·Glacial Fork Diversion Structure--Clear Fork Penstock Tank Powerhouse & Tailrace Mechanical & Electrical Contract Transmission Line (3.7 mi.) Misc. Construction Items Subtotal Administration (10%) Eng. & Constr. Management (12.5%) Subtotal Cont i ngency (20%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. Units Unit _ ..... 1"" "" ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 560 6,950 300 6,900 2,600 18,150 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Willi ams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 41,780 27,850 505,240 17,750 243,000 1,164,000 206,100 335,500 2,541,220 254,100 317,700 3,113,020 622,600 3,735,620 USE 3,740,000 FRE IGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 206 4,382 54 1,700 422 2,344 9,416 ' ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Will i allIS (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ......... __ .... -........ -----_ .. _ .... ------------------------------_._---..... _---......... .., ... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ---....... _--- DETAIL DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (5Q121+7a71=109 ') 130 LF 7.50 980 15.5 20 6"x8"x10 ' Treat. Timber 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 3"x6" T&G Treat. 750 BF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Saclcrete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trashrack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25 Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30·· 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 Laborers--12 10-hr days) 840 20.00 16,800 Equipment D6 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 Pump & Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- CLEAR FORK (allow 2/3 cost of Glacial Creek structure) 16,650 560 20.00 11,200 27,850 206 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-as KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Est imated by: Remy Wi II i ams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT -.................... _--....... -............... -..... ------~------.-.----.. -----.. -----.......... "" ... -.......... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ........ ------ DETAIL (cont'd) ----------_ .. _-- PENSTOCK Materials Clear Creek Weir to Tank: 24"~ x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 580 LF 20.45 11,860 35.1 204 Glacial Fork Weir to Tank: 30"~ x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 780 LF 25.11 19,590 46.0 359 Tank to Top of Hill: 3611~ x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 5,550 LF 29.80 165,390 55.0 3,053 Top of Hill to Powerhouse: 3611~ x 10 GA.*, Weld Bell 750 LF 28.80 21,600 55.0 413 * All pipe coated w/alkyd enamel outside & coal tar enamel lining. Drive Anchors & S.S. Bands 230 EA 75.00 17,250 50 115 4'~ Culverts @ Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 TilTber Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Subtotal 4,382 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor (5-man crew) 350 20.00 7,000 Equipment D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (90 10-hr days @ 90'/day) Labor (7-man crew) 6,300 20.00 126,000 Equipment Pipelayer, 561D 800 HR 35.00 28,000 350 966 FE Loader 800 HR 60.00 48,000 420 Tractor Trailer 800 HR 50.00 40,000 250 Equip. Install Cone. Deadman & Subtotal 1,020 T i ITber Cri bs Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 366,240 6,950 139,000 505,240 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar'88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Willi allIS (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT .. ,. ........ --_ ........ _-............................ _---------_ .. _-------------------------... --_ .......... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt --------... DETAIL (cont'd) -... ------............ _- TANK--B'" x 15' HIGH WO. STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12" Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transducer 1 EA 1,300 Wire #14 6,300 LF 0.10 600 Concrete 4 CY 150.00 600 700 28 Instal lation Subtotal 54 Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 11,750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 200 CY 200.00 40,000 23 4,600 20.00 92,000 700 1,400 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (1500 SF) EA 30,000 2,300 20.00 46,000 300 HVAC LS 25,000 Lighting LS 10,000 Subtotal 1,700 SUBTOTAL 105,000 6,900 138,000 243,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Wi II iams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ........... __ .. --... _-... --............. ---------------* ... -------....... ----------....................... -_ .. No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt -_ ... _----- DETAIL (cont'd) ....... -------...... _ ... MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator w/accessories (1-400 KW & 1-600 KW) LS 450,000 900 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Switchyard Equipment, and Groundi ng System LS 80,000 Installation of Above 2,500 38.00 95,000 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel EA 21,000 21 Metalclad Switchgear EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38.00 13,680 King Cove Junction Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 Peter Pan Seafoods Power Plant Metalclad Switchgear EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 SCADA (Complete) 75,000 Subtotal 701,000 3,040 115,520 816,520 996 Job Supervision 2.0 NOS 6,000 12,000 Air Fare 12 RT 700 8,400 Rm. & Board 400 MD 80 32,000 Flatbed Truck 2.0 NOS 1,600 3,200 Pickup 2.0 NOS 1,200 2,400 Freight 996 CWT 15 14,900 Small Tools (5% of Labor Cost) 5,800 Mob/Demob 25,000 Subtotal 920,220 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5%) 243,900 Total Contract Cost 1,164,120 USE 1,164,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-BS KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy WHliams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ----_ ...... _ ... _ ...... --------_ ... _-----------------_ .. _---------------------... -...... _- No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials Wtl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ........ 1-.. ------_ ...... DETAIL (cont'd) ......... _-----_ ....... - UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION LINE--12.47 KV, 3;, 3.7 MILES Use 3 single; cables plus a neutral, buried w/30" cover. Splices will be in sectionalizer cabinets spaced Q 2500'. 3.7 miles x 5280'/mile = 19,536' USE 20,000 LF Materials 15 KV Cable--#2 Copper (20 x 3; x 1.15 = 69 USE 70) 70 1000 FT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral #2 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44 Sectionalizer Cabinet (complete) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 Trench Excavation & Backfill--Excavate, haul and place Subtotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 = 20 days 20 days x 10 hrs = 200 hrs Equipment CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) wI 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 75.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loader 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY Dump Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Wacker Compactor 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 Labor 1 Foreman 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equipment Operators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cable and Sectionalizer Cabinets at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. Equipment Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 ~, Force Account Labor) QUANTITY No. Units DETAIL (cont'd) MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job Supervision 6 Freight 9,416 Air Fare 10 Flatbed Truck 6 Pickups (2 ea.) 12 Purchaser/Timekeeper 6 Small Tools & Supplies (5% on Labor) Mob/Demob SUBTOTAL Unit LS NOS CWT RT NOS NOS NOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Williams Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 10,000 36,000 141,200 7,000 9,600 14,400 24,000 18,300 75,000 335,500 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit Total CWt COST ESTIMATE 400 KW HYDROPROJECT KING COVE, ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KW, Force Account Labor) SUMMARY Diversion Structure--Glacial Fork Penstock Tank Powerhouse & Tailrace Mechanical & Electrical Contract Transmission Line (3.7 mi.) Misc. Construction Items Subtotal Administration (10%) Eng. & Constr. Management (12.5%) Subtotal Contingency (20%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 6,250 300 4,140 2,600 14,130 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Will iams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 41,780 402,000 17,750 143,800 n3,000 206,100 265,000 1,799,430 179,900 224,900 2,204,230 440,800 2,645,030 USE 2,650,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total twt 308 2,837 54 1,000 422 2,344 6,965 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-SS KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Wi II iams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT --_ ....... _------------.......... --------------------------------------_ ... ,.. .... _----.. No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials Wtl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ........... --... DETAIL DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF lS.S (SS12'+7Q7':109') 130 LF 7.S0 980 lS.S 20 6"x8"xl0' Treat. Tint>er 100 EA 3S.00 3,SOO 150.0 150 3"x6" T&G Treat. 750 BF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Sackrete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trashrack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 2S" Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 SLuice Gate 30 11 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 Laborers--12 10-hr days) 840 20 16,800 Equipment 06 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 Pump & Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ... __ ..... _-----_ ... -_ ... _ .................. _---------------------------------------_ ............. _- No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ...... ---............ _ .... DETAIL (cont'd) ..... ------... __ ..... -... PENSTOCK--GLACIAL CREEK WEIR TO TANK TO POWERHOUSE Materials 24"_ x 10 GA. '0' Ring w/ALkyd outside & coal tar enamel lining 7,100 LF 20.45 145,200 35.1 2,492 Drive Anchors & S.S. Bands 210 EA 75.00 15,750 50 105 4'_ Culverts Q Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 . Tintler Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Subtotal 2,837 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor (5'man crew) 350 20 7,000 Equipment D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (80 10·hr days Q 90'/day) Labor (7-man crew) 5,600 20 112,000 Equipment Pipelayer, 561D 700 HR 35.00 24,500 350 966 FE Loader 700 HR 60.00 42,000 420 Tractor Trai ler 700 HR 50.00 35,000 250 Equip. Install Conc. Deadman & Subtotal 1,020 Tintler Cribs Labor 300 20 6,000 Mi sc. Equi pment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 277,000 6,250 125,000 402,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ... ---------...... -----_ ......... _----........ -----------------------------................ __ ... -- No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt -... --_._ ... DETAI L (cont'd) -----... --------- TANK--8'f x 15' HIGH WO. STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12" Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transducer 1 EA 1,300 Wire #14 6,300 LF 0.10 600 Concrete 4 CY 150.00 600 700 28 Installation Subtotal 54 Labor 300 20 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 11,750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 120 CY 200 24,000 23 2,760 20 55,200 700 840 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (800 SF) EA 16,000 1,380 20 27,600 160 HVAC LS 15,000 Lighting LS 6,000 Subtotal 1,000 SUBTOTAL 61,000 4,140 82,800 143,800 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Wi II iams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT --------............. ..... "" ...... -"" .......... ---... --_ ......... _--------_.--..... _ ... -_ ................... _- No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ...... _ .......... _ ... DETAIL (cont/d) _ ... _ ..... _--------.. MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator w/accessories LS 1?0,000 360 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Switchyard Equipment, and Grounding System LS 70,000 Installation of Above 1,600 38 60,800 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel EA 21,000 21 Metalclad Switchgear EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38 13,680 King Cove Junction Metalclad Switchgear EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38 3,420 SCADA (Complete) 75,000 Subtotal 416,000 2,050 77,900 493,900 441 Job supervision 1.5 MOS 6,000 9,000 Air Fare 10 RT 700 7,000 Rm. & Board 270 MO 80 21,600 Flatbed Truck 1.5 MOS 1,600 2,400 Pickup 1.5 MOS 1,200 1,800 Freight 441 CWT 15 6,600 Small Tools (5% of Labor Cost) 3,900 Mob/Demob 25,000 Subtotal 571,200 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5%) 151,400 Total Contract Cost 722,600 USE 723,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-SS KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT .................... -........ ...... _-----_ .. _ ..... -.... ---.--... ------.-------.-~---... ... .......... _----..... No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials Wtl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ................ -.... DETAIL (cont'd) ---.................. _-.. - UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION LINE--12.47 KY, 3_, 3.7 MILES Use 3 single _ cables plus a neutral, buried w/30" cover. Splices will be in sectionalizer cabinets spaced a 2500'. 3.7 miles x 5280'/mile = 19,536' USE 20,000 LF Materials 15 KY Cable--#2 Copper (20 x 3_ x 1.15 = 69 USE 70) 70 1000 FT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral #2 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44 Sectionalizer Cabinet (complete) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 . Trench Excavation & 8ackfill--Excavate. haul and place Subtotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 = 20 days 20 days x 10 hrs = 200 hrs Equipment CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) with 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 75.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loader 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY Dump Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Wacker Compactor 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 Labor 1 Foreman 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equipment Operators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cable and Sectionalizer Cabinets at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. Equipment Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KW, Force Account Labor) DETAIL (cont'd) MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job Supervision Freight Air Fare Flatbed Truck Pickups (2 ea.) Purchaser/Timekeeper Small Tools & Supplies Mob/Demob SUBTOTAL (5% on Labor) QUANTITY No. Units 5 6,965 9 5 10 5 Unit LS MOS CWT RT MOS MOS MOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Wi II iams Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 10,000 30,000 104,500 6,300 8,000 12,000 20,000 14,200 60,000 265,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit Total CWt APPENDIX D Fish and Game Correspondence (\ ALASIiA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 July 20, 1984 Denby Lloyd, Habitat Biologist Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Phone: (907) 2n-7641 (907) 276-0001 Subject: Mitigation for the Proposed Small Hydro Project near King Cove Dear Mr. Lloyd: This letter is written to confirm the important points from our conversation of July 17. They are listed below. 1. From Bill Britt's memory and his conversation with Laurel Bennett, it seems that the velocity barrier on Delta Creek is several hundred feet above the p~opq~ed power- house location. The 19 pink salmon in Table 4 of DOWL's May 1984 environmental report were within that stretch. Therefore, the Alaska Power Authority's nomination of the entire stretch above the powerhouse for deletion from the Anadromous Fish Catalog is in error. 2. The limited anadromous fish resource between the power- house and the velocity barrier requires protection or mitigation appropriate to its value. 3. The road which follows Delta Creek and its tributary, Airport Creek, down to Leonard Harbor apparently crosses the creeks a number of times. Those portions of the creeks (below the powerhouse) are important anadromous resource for pink salmon. Rerouting portions of the road to go along side the creek--eliminating some stream fords--should provide inexpensive mitigation which outweighs the damage done to the area between the power- house and the velocity barrier. 4. The mitigation described above, along with appropriate design of the powerhouse and tailrace (i.e., design to minimize erosion, etc.) should provide mitigation that meets the requirements of AS16.05.870. . 3072/251/d2/fl Page 2 The four paragraphs above are the salient points of our conversa- tion as I remember it. If your recollection is any different, please let me know. Sincerely, "'" " .I 1/' ~1i~t;~~v' BL/aw j/ cc: Lamarr Cotton. City Manager, King Cove t·1e 1 Ni cho 1 s, DOWL Bill Britt, OOWL Lance Trasky, Dept. of Fish and Game 3072/251/d2/fl APPENDIX E 400 kW Economic Analysis Spreadsheets Table 2·A KIMG COVE KYDROPOIIER FEASIBILITY Low Diesel Fuel Price Forecast load Forecast Ass\.II1>t i 005 Dieset System As:s~tions Hydroproject ASSLlllPtions I"" ...................................... "'1 •• ~ ~ ~ •• w ~ •• ____________ w ___________ -_ .... --_ .... ~--_ .............. _ ................ ----.. --,. ............ .. --......... ---------"" .. ------_ .. -----.--- SUMIIARY City load factor 50.0% Fuel Escelation Rate: Lc./ Construction Cost *' S2,650t OOO I·········· ............................... ····1 Peter Pen load Factor = ro.01 1988 Ava. Fuel Price 'Ii $0.60 19a1 Financing Cost :: S152,OOO 8ase Case Met Present Value :t:: S5,n4,188 Ca" ...... d ty load Growth .;! 2.0% City Efficiency • 12 .WI1/gal Tout Cost ;II $2,802,000 Hydroprojeet Met Present ~8lue '& $3.999,352 Peter Pan Efffciency = 15 .WI1/gal AJ"W'IUel Debt Service = $263,000 Cost/Cost Ratio;; 1.44 economic Parameters EConc:.Iic life J:: 20 )'ftr. Unit I • 400 <I, -_ .......... -_ ...... --_ ................................ ---_ .... -----...... .. ........ -_ .... --_ .... -_ .................. -------_ .... Reptacement Cost := $700 I<WI1 Unit 2 • Okll lIaminal Interest Rate := 8.0% Ci ty 0 I M Cost = $0.03 "WI1 I .... talled C_ity • 400 kII ArnJal Inflation Rate = 4.51 Peter Pan 0 & M Cost := $0.02 I<WI1 Heed • 313 ft Real D iscOU"It Rate = 3.51 Efficiency .. 851 E~IC ANALYSIS o & M Cost := $0.016 IkWl1 ----.. ~-.. ~~ .... ----- 1987 1_ 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (kWl1) 1 City load 2,107,488 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,672,604 2,726,260 2,760,786 2 Peter Pen load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total coomuni tv load 2,107,488 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,672,604 2,726,260 2,760,786 DIESEl FUEL RATES 4 Annual Escatation Rate 2.01 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 Fuel Price (1987 S/g.l) 0.54 0.60 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 BASE CASE AHAl YSIS city Svstem 6 Firm Capacity (kl.l) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 roo 700 7 Capacity Additions (kl.l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 Capaci ty Replacements <k\J) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 175,624 179,136 1S2,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201,737 205,m 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231,732 10 Capital Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro,ooo 0 420,000 0 11 fuel Costs (1987 $) 94,837 143,309 149,099 155,122 161,389 167,910 174,693 181,751 189,093 196,m 204,681 208,774 212,950 217,209 221,553 12 o & " Costs (1987 $) 63,225 64,489 65,779 67,094 66,436 69,805 71,201 72,625 74,078 75,559 77,070 78,612 80,184 81,788 83,424 13 Total Ci tv Costs (1987 S) 158,062 207,m 214,878 222,217 229,026 237,715 245,894 254,376 263,171 272,292 281,751 357,386 293,134 718,997 304,977 Peter Pan System 14 fi rm Capad ty (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (kl.l') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity RepLacements {kl.l') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Capital Costs <1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0& " Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pan Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total Annual Cos.ts (1981 S) 158,062 207,798 214,878 222,217 229,826 237,715 245,894 254,376 263,171 272,292 281,751 357,386 293,134 718,997 304,977 HYDROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 firm Capacity (kW) 600 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 24 Diesel Capacitv Addhions (k\l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capacity R.pl.c ........ <kII) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 26 HydroelectrIc Generation «WI1) 2,l66,n4 2,205,m 2,243,273 2,281,523 2,320,539 2,360,335 2,400,927 2,442,nO 2,479,936 2,513,699 2,544,422 2,575,760 2,607,n4 27 Diesel Generation (kWh) 2,107,488 2,149,638 23,907 30,711 37,940 45,314 52,835 60,506 66,331. 76,313 89,081 106,697 128,382 150,501 173,062 28 Diesel fuel Use (gallons) 140,499 143,309 1,594 2,047 2,529 3,021 3,522 4,034 4,555 5,088 5,939 7,113 8,559 10,033 11,537 Z9 Capt;a' Costs (1987 $) 0 2,602,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro,ooo 0 30 fuel Cos ts (1987 $) 75,8ro 114,647 1,301 1,704 2,147 2,616 3,111 3,634 4,186 4,769 5,678 6,601 8,183 9,593 11,031 31 01. " Costs (1987 S) 42,150 42,993 34,310 35,024 35,754 36,498 37,257 38,031 38,021 39,627 40,469 41,348 42,261 43,192 44,142 32 Total Annual Costs (1987 $) 118,019 2,959,640 35,611 36,nS 37,901 39,114 40,368 41,665 43,007 44,395 46,146 48,148 50,443 122,785 55,172 • Table 2·A (coot'd) ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ~ --. ~~~ -----... ---- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (kllh) 1 City load 2,836,401 2,893,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131.616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131.616 3,131.616 3.131.616 3.131,616 3.131,616 2 Peter Pan load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total C()IftftU1ity load 2,836,401 2,893.129 2.950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131.616 3.131,616 3,131,616 3.131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 DIESEL FUEL RATES 4 Arnull Escalation Rate 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0 5 Fuel Price <1987 SIgal) 0.96 0.96 0.96 9.96 0.96 0.96 0.% 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 BASE CASE ANALYSI S City Syst ... 6 Finn CapacIty (kll) 700 700 700 700 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 7 C~ity Additions (kII) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replac_ta (kll) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Diesel Fuel Use (gallona) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,851 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,_ 260,_ 260,968 260,968 260,_ 260,968 260,_ 10 Capital Costs <1987 $) 0 0 0 70,000 3SO,OOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II Fuel Costs <1987 $) 225,984 230,504 235,114 239,816 244,613 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 ~49,505 12 o & H Costs (1987 $) 85,092 86,794 88,530 90,300 92,106 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total Ci ty Costs (1987 $) 311,076 317,298 323,644 400,117 686,719 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 Peter Pan Sys tem 14 Firm CapacUy (I(Y) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (1(\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 tapad ty Repl ecements (k.,) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Capftal Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o & H Costs <1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pan Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total Annual Costs (1987 $) 311,076 317,298 323,644 400,117 686,719 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 HYOROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Fi rm Capac 1 ty (kU) 500 500 SOO 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 24 Diesel Cspacity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capacity Replacements (kW) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectr;c Generation (k~) 2,640,328 2,673,583 2,707,504 2,742,103 2,m,394 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 27 Oiesel Generation (kYh) 196,074 219,546 243,488 267,909 292,818 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 26 Oie •• l Fuel Us. (g811ons) 13,072 14,636 16,233 17,861 19,521 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 29 captial Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 12,497 13,993 15,520 17,076 18,664 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 31 o & M Costs (1987 $) 45, III 46,099 47,107 48,135" 49,184 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 32 Tot.l Anru.l Costs (1987 $) 57,608 60,092 62,626 65,211 417,847 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 ro,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 Tabl. 2-S KING COVE HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY High Diesel Fuel Price Forecast Load foreeast AssUlptions Diesel Systet'ft Assl.Ilf'tiona Hydroprojeet Assl.IIIIptions 1-------------. -------. -----.. -----------.--.. ~ ~ ~-~ .. -~-~ ..... -...... -... '" ---.... ,. ................ --._ .. --...... ,. -.. --... _--.. _-_ ...... _-----_ .. _ .. _------.. ...... -.. -_ .. -...... -_ .... ~ ..................... -....... -- SUMMARY city load Factor. 50.OX Fuel Escalat ion Rate: HIGH Constructfon Coat. 12,650,000 ,------------------------------------.. --_ ... -Peter Pen load FectO'r • 7O.OX 1988 AYg. Fuel Price c SO.80 'pi financing Cost. '152,000 8ase Case Net Present Value. $6,973,400 C-.,I ty load Growth • 2_OX City Efficiency. 12 kIItI/pl Total Coot • 12,802,000 Hydroproject Net Present Value = $4,082,036 Peter Pan Efficiency lit 15 kWh/pi AFV1UIil Debt Service If $263,000 Cost/Cost Ratio #: 1..71 EConoMic Par_ten EConoJIfc life If 20 year. Unit 1 • 400 kW I" ----. -. --. --------------------.---. -•• -•••• .. .... --_ .. -_ .... ---... -----_ ............... ----ReplacetN!nt Cost • 1700 /kWh unit 2 If OkW NCIfIlnel Interest Rate lit 8.OX ctty 0 & M Coat • SO.03 /kIItI Installed Capec:lty • 400 kW Annual InHatlon Aate a 4.5% Peter Pan 0 & M Cost ;: SO.02 /kWh Head • 313 ft Real DiscO!Ilt Rate :.; 3.5% Efficiency :. 85:1. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS o & M Cost. SO.016/k11t1 --~~.-. ---~. --_ .. 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1991l 1999 2000 2001 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (kIItI) 1 City load 2,107,488 2,149,636 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,261,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,672,804 2,726,260 2 , 7IlO , 7Il6 2 Peter Pan load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total CCIftIIU\ity load 2,107,488 2,149,636 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,672,804 2,726,260 2,700,7Il6 OIESeL FUEL RATES 4 Annual Escalation Rate 3.5:1. 3.51 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5% 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 3.5:1. 5 Fuel Price (1987 $/gol) 0.54 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.21 1.25 BASE CASE ANALYSIS Ci ty System 6 Firm Capacity (k\.l) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 7 capacity AckUtions (k.\.I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replacements (k.\.I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 175,624 179,136 182,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201,737 205,n2 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231,732 10 Cap;,al Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 420,000 0 11 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 94,637 143,309 151,292 159,716 168,615 178,007 167,922 198,369 209,439 221,105 233,420 246,422 260,146 274,636 289,935 12 o & M Costs (1987 $) 63,225 64,469 65,779 67,094 68,436 69,805 71,201 72,625 74,078 75,559 77,070 76,612 60,184 81,788 83,424 13 Total City Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,79Il 217,070 226,613 237,051 247,612 259,123 271,014 263,517 296,664 310,491 395,034 340,332 n6,426 373,359 Peter Pan System 14 Firm Capacity (1(\.1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (k\.l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity Replacements (1(\<1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Capital Costs 0987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs <1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o & M Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pan Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total Annual Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,798 217,070 226,613 237,051 247,612 259,123 271,014 283,517 296,664 310,491 395,034 340,332 n6,426 373,359 HY()ROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Fir .. Capacity (kll) 600 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 24 01 ... 1 Capacity Additions (k~) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capacity Replacements (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 26 Hydroelectric Gener.tion (kWh) 2,168,724 2,205,m 2,243,273 2#281,523 2,320,539 2,360,335 2,400,927 2,442,330 2,479,936 2,513,699 2,544,422 2,575,760 2,607,724 27 Diesel Generat;on (kWh) 2,107,468 2,149,636 23,907 30,711 37,940 45,314 52,635 60,506 68,331 76,313 89,081 106,697 128,382 150,501 173,062 26 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 140,499 143,309 1,594 2,047 2,529 3,021 3,522 4,034 4,555 5,088 5,939 7,113 8,559 10,033 11,537 29 Cap'ial Costs (1987 $) 0 2,802,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 30 Fuel Costs <1987 $) 75,870 114,647 1,320 1,755 2,243 2,m 3,347 3,967 4,637 5,359 6,475 8,027 9,996 12,129 14,435 31 o & M Costs 0987 $) 42,150 42,993 34,310 35,024 35,754 36,498 37,257 38,031 38,821 39,627 40,469 41,348 42,261 43,192 44,142 32 Total Amuel Costs (1987 $) 118,019 2,959,640 35,630 36,77'9 37,997 39,271 40,604 41,99Il 43,458 44,986 46,944 49,375 52,257 125,321 58,577 Tabl. 2·B (cont'd) ECQIj(lMIC ANALYSIS ..... _----------- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (kill» I City Load 2,836,401 2,893,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 2 Peter Pen Loed 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a a 3 Toul COfI'IfIJnity Load 2,836,401 2,893,129 2,950,~2 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 DIESEL FUEL RATES 4 ArnJ81 E.calltion R.t~ 3.5S 3.5S 3.5S 3.5:1; 3.5:1; 0.0l 0.0l a.Ol 0.0l a.Ol 0.0l 0.0l 0.0l a.Ol a.Ol 0.0 5 Fuel price (1987 SIgal) 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 BASE CASE ANAL YS I S CitySyst ... 6 FI .... C""""lty (kll) 700 700 700 700 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 7 Capacity A<kiitions (kII) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Capacity R.pl.c.....,t. (k\l) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 9 Diesel Fuel Use (g.II ..... ) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,1151 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 10 Capital Costa (1987 $) 0 0 0 70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II Fuel Costs (1987 $) 306,084 323,133 541,132 360,133 380,192 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 12 0& M Costs (1987 $) 85,092 86,794 88,530 90,300 92,106 93,_ 93,_ 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,_ 93,948 13 Total City Costs (1987 $) 391,177 409,927 429,662 520,433 822,2~ 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 Peter Pan System 14 firm C.pacity (k\l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (kII) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity R.pl.c""""'t. (k\l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuet Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Capital Co.t. (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fuel Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o & M Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pan Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total Annual Costs (1987 $) 391,177 409,927 429,662 520,433 822,~ 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 HYOROPROJECr ANALYSIS 23 Firm Capacity (kW) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 24 Diesel Capacity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capacity R.pl.c""""'t. (kW) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric Gener.tion (kWh) 2,640,328 2,673,583 2,707,504 2,742,103 2,m,394 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 27 Die •• l Gen.ratlon (kill» 196,074 219,546 243,488 267,909 292,818 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 28 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 13,072 14,636 16,233 17,861 19,521 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 (9 Captiat Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Cost. (1987 $) 16,927 19,617 22,518 25,643 29,008 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717' 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717 31 o & M Co.ts (1987 $) 45,111 46,099 47,107 48,135 49,184 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 32 Total Annual Costs (1987 $) 62,038 65,716 69,624 73,778 428,192 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 APPENDIX F Response to City of King Cove Requests CITY OF KING COVE P.O. Box 37 • King Cove, Alaska 99612 • (907) 497-2340 January 20, 1988 Dave Denning-Chakroff Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Dave: At our January 14 meeting, I outlined several requests the City has for technical assistance from the Alaska Power Authority (APA) on the King Cove Hydroelectric Project and also some general technical questions that we would like answered. Attached is a list of the technical assistance requests and a separate attachment identifying questions on technical development of the project. I request APA provide me a written response to the requests for assistance and the technical concerns by February 3. Please contact me to let me know if you have questions on our requests. Sl./ncerelY~ ~.~~ ~ ,;/~-;r/~ wa y r1e Marsha 11 City Manager 1007 W. 3rd., Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 274-7555 attachments ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM APA The City, in its efforts to accomplish development of the King Cove hydroelectric project, requests the following technical assistance from APA staff. Request #1. Identify the cost to construct a hydroelectric project that meets the City's existing need and projected future demand for electric power. In short, to downsize the proposed 1,000 KW hydroelectric project to one which serves only King Cove needs. The City's intent is to determine if it is feasible for the community to proceed with constructing a project if Peter Pan Seafoods does agree to be a significant purchaser of hydropower. The City requests APA prepare a detailed cost estimate to construct a downsized project, using the cost estimate format that is included in the March and August feasibility report on the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. In preparing a cost estimate to construct a downsized project, the City would also like an estimate on the cost that may be incurred to expand this project in the future to provide for additional power generation. The intent is to demonstrate to Peter Pan, the City Council and other parties the cost that would be incurred if the City builds the downsized project and later finds it to its advantage to construct a larger project. All construction cost estimates should be expressed in January 1, 1988 dollars. Request ~2. Perform an electric utility rate analysis of the present King Cove electric utility. The intent is to clearly identify the amount of monies the City will need to recover above and beyond the cost to generate power from the hydroelectric project to pay all cost the City incurs to provide electric service. In short, what are the costs involved to provide electric service and what KW rate will the City need to charge to pay these costs and build an operating reserve. For example, the present feasibility report estimates construction of a 1,000 KW plant at a cost of $3.9 million will involve an electric KW cost of 8.3 cents to pay for the power generated. If it costs 8.3 cents to pay for power generated, how much higher rate does the City need to charge to pay operational costs. This analysis is of key importance to the Council in determining if the City has the financial resources available to pursue construction of the hydroelectric project, particularly if a downsized project built. The City wants to avoid an increase in utility consumer rates by constructing the project. Request #3. The City is concerned that the operation and maintenance cost identified by APA, approximately 1/3 centl KW, may be unrealistic for the long term operation and maintenance of the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. The City would like APA to reexamine the projected O&M cost, and clearly identify all costs involved with performing future O&M, and how these costs affect the cost of power generated from the hydropower project. The City, as the proposed owner of the facility, will be responsibile for all future O&M costs, and needs as clear of direction as possible on these costs. The magnitude of future O&M costs will also greatly affect the Council's decision as to if the City can afford to proceed with construction of the project. Request #4. Identify possible methods and provide examples of potential power sales agreements the City could enter with Peter Pan Seafoods to obtain their commitment to participate in the project. The intent is to clearly identify all options available to the City in trying to attract private industry participation in the project and guarantee private industry purchase of power generated from the hydroelectric facility. Request #5. To date, APA has prepared the March feasibility report for the King Cove Hydroelectric Project and followed that with an August letter to the City identifying APA's response to questions the City raised. The City requests APA prepare a composite report that pulls information from both of these reports and all appropriate other data needed to prepare a final feasibility report on the King Cove Project. This report is of critical importance to the City so it can pursue financing sources to construct the project other than those that may be available through the APA. Information on project cost, financial analysis, and project benefit to the City are critical. In preparing this composite report, the City requests APA use a base fuel cost of $0.80 per gallon. In a January 18 conversation I had with Delta Western, the primary fuel carrier to King Cove, the company stated that $0.80 is the most accurate price that should be used for delivery of fuel to King Cove in January of 1988. Delta Western also stated that the potential ranges that had been experienced over the last two month to three months for the delivery cost to King Cove have been within $0.-75-.85 per gallon. The City believes the $0.80 figure is the most appropriate, and should supplant the $0.54 per gallon cost that has been used in recent cost projections. Request #6. Provide descriptive information on how a turnkey project would work for the community. At present the City Council is looking at a turnkey operation as a potential way to allow private construction of the project and fix or minimize any construction cost overruns which would be the City's responsibility. The City would like any available information on using this methodology to construct a hydroelectric project, and preferably examples of communities which have used this method. Request #7. Provide a detailed financial analysis on construction of the project using the City as the owner/builder. Some financing questions we request APA respond to are: 1) If State bond monies are used, is there any potential to ramp a payment schedule to minimize or decrease initial costs on repayment of the annual debt service? 2) Does the City have the option to do an early repayment of the bonds which would be issued for this project? The City believes that Peter Pan Seafood's participation in the project may enable it to more rapidly repay the bonded indebtness. Are there any penalities or prohibitions normally associated with early repayment. 3) The State presently uses the Power Cost Equalization Program to subsidize the City's cost to generate power. If the hydroelectric project is constructed what, if any, guarantee can be used from the Power Cost Equalization Program payments to assist in securing the issuance of bonds? 4) The City, if it assumes the responsibility to be the project builder/owner, will need to assume the risk of cost overruns on project construction. The City requests APA explore methods of using APA's self-insurance arrangement to protect the City against construction cost overruns. 5) Prepare and provide to the City, a list of tables identifying variable interest rates to finance project construction. I would like these tables to start at a 6% rate of interest and increase to 9 1/2%, using variations of 1/2% of interest. Request #8. Provide an analysis of the amount of PCE benefit to King Cove consumers if it costs the City 8.34/KW to generate power from the hydropower project. The City needs to know the amount of decrease in PCE subsidy it may experience from converting to hydropower. Request #9. The City is strongly considering trying to establish a working group to address construction of the King Cove Hydroelectric Project and would like APA to consider being a member of this working group. The group would most likely involve the City Attorney, APA, potentially the Farmers Home Administration, City Bond Counsel and also Peter Pan Seafoods. The working group may involve travel to Seattle and I would like APA to insure it has the ability to expend State monies to travel to Seattle if necessary. 0119.1 ATTACHMENT 2 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT AFTER CONSTRUCTION 1. Some concern has been raised with the ability of the hydroelectric project to provide good quality power for the City of King Cove, particularly if the City goes with a downsized project. The City would like to know if any of the existing demands and loads of its residential, commercial and municipal consumers would have an adverse impact on the power generated from the hydroproject. For example, it has been rumored that the start of some generators/engine motors could have the affect of causing the power generated from the hydroproject to "brown-out" for brief periods of time. It has also been stated that the City may need to use diesel power to supplement the hydropower to prevent this "brown- out" condition. In short, the City needs to know if the power from the hydo- project will be of such a quality that it can continuously meet the demand from residential, commercial, and municipal utilities in the community. In addition, if the project constructed involves Peter Pan Seafoods which has motors, generators, etc. that require large surges of power, in the 50-100 KW range, can the hydroelectric project meet this demand without causing adverse impacts to the quality of power to other consumers in the communities? 2. If the 1,000 KW plant is constructed, the City needs direction from APA on how the power that would be used by the City of King Cove can be separated from the power used by Peter Pan Seafoods. In short, if the City agrees to sell Peter Pan Seafoods a block of 200 or 400 KW power for X number of months how does the City insure it is delivering that block of power? The City needs a response to help it in its power sales negotiations with Peter Pan Seafoods and to alleviate concerns that it will be difficult if not impractical to guarantee a specific block of power to a consumer, such as Peter Pan, through using the City1s utility system. 3. What is the life expectancy of using an underground transmission system for the main cable to distribute power from the hydroplant to the City of King Cove verses the life expectancy of an overhead cable system? In addition, what are projected annual operating and maintenance costs on an underground verses an overhead system? The City would like this analysis completed so it can determine if an overhead line may have some advantages to the underground system and if it using an overhead line would assist in accomplishing project construction. 4. Some individuals in King Cove have questioned if it is feasible and practical to run individual service connections from the main distribution cable that is transmitting power from the hydroelectric project to King Cove. It is my understanding that this can be done with no problems to the main transmission cable. I request APA concur with this analysis or identify potential problems with doing individual service connections to the main transmission cable. 5. To what extent, if any, will the City need to supplement the hydropower with diesel power? Also, will the City need to purchase a smaller diesel generator to efficiently provide this supplemental power? If so, what are the estimated cost and sizing of the diesel generator recommended? 0119.1 March 24, 1988 Mr. Wayne Marshall City Manager City of King Cove 1007 West Third Suite 201 ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear l!fr w~: Steve Cowper, Governor Enclosed are responses to the questions you submitted to us under Attachment 1 of your letter dated January 20, 1988. Afzal Khan has discussed with you by telephone the questions contained in Attachment 2. He intends to respond to these questions in writing next week. have any questions regarding the enclosed material, feel free to or Mike Hubbard. (L/ id Denig-Chakroff Project Manager DDC:tg Enclosures as stated cc: Donald L. Shira, Alaska Power Authority Afzal Khan, Alaska Power Authority Michael Hubbard, Alaska Power Authority 2166/0034/1 o PO Box AM Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 Kr PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561·7877 ... A~5k.PowerAu~orUy Response to City of King Cove Requests Regarding the King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 24, 1988 Request #1: Construction ~ost Enclosed are revised cost estimates for the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. The estimates assume the use of force account labor except for mechanical and electrical engineering work that would be carried out under contract. Estimates for the 400-kW and 1,OOO-kW project proposals also reflect the reduced cost of transmission line construction since one-third of the required line will be constructed using funds acquired, in the Governor's Jobs Bill. None of the cost estimates include financ- ing costs.) Exhibit A estimates the construction cost of a 400-kW hydroelectric project to be $2.65 million. The cost of a 1,OOO-kW project, shown in Exhibit B, is estimated at $3.74 million. Exhibit C estimates the cost (in 1987 dollars) of upgrading a 400-kW project to a l,OOO-kW at some later date to be $1.95 million. Consequently, a "staged" 1,000-kW project would cost $4.60 million in 1987 dollars. The revised 400-kW and 1,OOO-kW project cost estimates have been incorporat- ed into the revised economic analyses enclosed. All cost estimates can be converted to January 1988 dollars by applying a four percent infla- tion factor. Request 12: Rate Analysis As stated in my letter of February 2, 1988, we are unable to respond to this request due to our present staffing level and workloads. Request #3: oaM Costs Table 1 shows estimated operation and maintenance costs for the 400-kW and 1,000-kW project proposals. These OIM costs have been included in the revised economic analyses. 2097/0033(1) Table 1 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Personnel Costs Operator ($50,000/yr) Temporary Hires Equipment Pickup Miscellaneous Rental Supplies Lubricants and Cleaners Spare parts. bulbs, charts, etc. Janitorial Supplies Subtotal Admin. and Overhead (10%) TOTAL Annual Energy (kWh) O&M COST PER KWH Request 14: Power Sales Agreements 400 kW $12,500 5,000 7,100 5,000 500 1,000 200 31.300 31 100 $ 34,400 2.200.000 1.56¢ 1,000 kW $16,700 5,000 7,100 5,500 600 1,300 200 36.400 31 600 $ 40,000 5,200,000 0.77¢ Power sales agreements between the City and Peter Pan Seafoods (PPS) could range from single as-required/as-available transfers to actual ownership shares. The type of arrangement best suited for the City will be a function of the size of project installed and its operating charac- teristics, the load growth experienced in the community. the willingness to accept risk. the financial and economic trade-offs from one option to the next, and security requested by the lending institution. One important factor to consider when negotiating long-term layoff agreements ;s how the resource fits with the load requirements. In the case of run-of-river hydro, water cannot be stored to generate power as it is needed. Thus, at times there may be excess generation that cannot be used by the City. At other times. there may be i nadequa te hydro generation. and diesels must be used as a supplement. Cost obligations in the agreements should take into account whether or not the power is "fim." If the power is fim, than a customer such as PPS can count on it to be there under all but extraordinary circum- 2097/DD33(2) . stances. This reduces the need for additional capacity, and fixed costs should be included in the price. If the power is non-firm, then addi- tional capacity must be maintained in the event that the power is unavailable. In this case, the price may contain only variable costs of production, but split-the-savings concepts are common. Split-the- savings sets prices at a rate midway between the vari abl e cost of production and the variable cost of the alternative power. The following arrangements that the City might consider each offer their own advantages and disadvantages. Selection should take into account those factors outlined above; and all parties, including lending insti- tutions, should be included to some extent in drafting such agreements. As-avail able/As-regui red: If the C1ty had excess power avai lable, a transfer would occur if PPS required it. Requirements would be based on a specified priority, such as hydro first or diesel first. In the first case, excess hydro generation would be sold if PPS was operating. In the second case, sales would occur only if PPS was operating and their. own diesel generation could not meet their load. The maximum price for this type of transfer would be the variable cost of PPS's alternative cost of production, which will be significantly higher than the variable cost of hydro generation. Pricing strategies that the City might want to consider include a percentaqe of the alter- native cost or a split-the-savings rate. Declining-Block Layoff: In this scenario, the City would provide PPS with a percentage share of the project with its respective benefits and obligations. In anticipation of an increasing City load, the percentage share transfer to PPS would decline each year. The amount the share declines can be at a specified amount or based on a formula. Pricing would include both fixed and variable costs since the power would be firm. PPS may be reluctant to pay all the costs associated with their share as they would not incur all the long-term benefits due to their declining share. Fixed Layoff: This would be the same as the declining-block layoff, but the percentage share would remain the same over time. Other: Even with a declining-block or fixed layoff, there may be need for supplemental non-firm transfers in the event a portion of one party's energy is unusable. These transfers can be accompanied by money or can be "banked" for the right of similar energy in the future. In all of the above cases, it is assumed that the City would be owner of the project. Even wi th long-term layoffs to PPS, the C1ty wou 1 d be obligated to the creditors for the entire amount borrowed in the event PPS defaulted. An alternative would be for PPS to be partial owner, although this may reduce some of the control that the City has over the project. 2097/0033(3) Request #5: Feasibility The revised cost estimates (Request #l), O&M costs (Request #2), base fuel cost (Request #5), and financing costs have been incorporated into the economic analyses spreadsheets from the Draft feasibil ity report (Tables 2 and 3). The result shows that, under the low fuel-price escalation forecast, the 400-kW project proposal has a cost-to-cost ratio of 1.44 as compared to the continued use of diesel generation under the base case. The I,OOO-kW proposal has a cost-to-cost ratio of 1.56. Once the assumptions in these economic analyses have been reviewed and approved by the City of King Cove, the Power Authority will finalize the feasibility report. Request #6: Turnkey Contracts If the City is concerned about the accurateness of the construction cost estimates, a turnkey contract may be able to "lock inl' a particular. construction cost. Such a contract would set the price for which the· project would be built, with penalty clauses in the event the project does not operate according to specifications. Provisions for change- orders due to unforeseen events are typically included in the contract. WM1e a turnkey contract appears to eliminate certain risks, the City must also consider: 1. The bidded cost may be higher than under a non-turnkey con- tract to compensate the bidder's additional risk. 2. Cost underruns do not accrue to the City. Request #7: Financial Analysis 1. Rate Stabilization: It is possible to decrease debt service in the initial years through several different strategies. One possibility would be to pay interest only during the initial years, although this may not reduce debt service that much. 'Another possibility would be to issue zero-coupon bonds. In this case, levelized principal and interest pay- ments are typi ca 11y deposi ted into escrow over the bond I s life, with a lump-sum payment of principal plus accrued interest made at the bond1s maturity date. It may be possible to defer part of the escrow payments for a period of time. Zero-coupon bonds can have 25-to 30-year maturities, but 15- to 20-year maturities are more common. In eHher case (i nterest only or zero-coupon bonds), the effective interest rate and debt payments in later years will increase as compared to paying levelized payments for the entire period. Additionally, deferring payments sends a 2097/0033(4) tllbl. 2 II:IIG aM IlYOIIOI'OWE. 'WI.lllf' 400 Idol 'ro JtoCt loM ._t MIUllPtI-DI_l ~t_ ....... tI_ lIydraprojec:t •• ..-pt 1_ ........ ~ .. _ .. _ ... ~ ... r ............................. "' ........... _ ................. .. ..... --.......... -.......................................... .. ......................................... "' .......................... -......... -.... .. .......... _ .......... -..... _ ........ -.... --.----_ ...... -.... .... , CI ty l .... fllCtor • 50 •• fwl E_l.Uan •• ta: I.OIf Construction COSt • 12,650,_ --..... -..................................................... ,..-"' ....................... Poter 'M l .... 'IICtor • 19 •• t. Alii. 'wl Price • • •• , .. l fllWIeine COSt • .152._ .... c.. let ,......,t V.lw • 15.774.1. c:-.nlty l .... &rwdI • 2 •• City Efflcl.ncy • 12 1IIIIJ .. 1 Tot.1 COSt • 12.102,_ lIydraproJlICt let , ..... Valw· ","',Hi Poter 'In Ifflcl.ncy • 15 lIIIIJ .. l AnruII hIiIt •• nlc •• 126],_ Coat'COIIt •• Uo • 1.44 E~cPor __ E_lc Uf •• a,..,.. unit 1 • 400 kII .. --..... -.................... "' ................ _ ...................................... .. .. -.................... ~ ...... "' ................................. --"' .. "~COIIt· tnIO IIiIII unit 2 • Okll ...... , Int_t bt •• I .• Cfty 0 , II COIIt • ..ID, .. l .. t.Hed c.paclty • 400 kII ....... InflaUen bt •• 4.51 Potar PM 0 , II COIIt • ..OZ IIiIII ...... 31) ft .. 'DI_ ..... 3.51 Efficiency· II'JI Ea.M1 t AIIlLY ... O'"COSt-lO.ot6, • ........ ...... -................. t_ t. I. I. 1991 I. 1995 tM t995 1996 1997 1998 t'" ZOllO 2001 fllllG' WIll/IE .... (/doIh) 1 City lotd 2,107,. 2,'",''' 2,'.,61' 2,'216,. 2 •• ',2tS 2._.D7 2.J7l.3n. 2,.a.Ml 2, W, lSI 2.511.60 2.569.016 2,62O.l9I6 2,6n,_ 2.726.2.60 2.710,116 2 Pot"'-'In loM • • 0 • 0 0 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 , tot.1 c:-.nlty lotd 2.t07 •• 2.149,'" 2,111.611 2.216 •• 2 •• '.2tS 2._.D7 2.'73.'n. 2 • .a.Ml -2.W.lSI 2.511,"" 2,569.016 2.62O.Jll6 2.6n._ 2.726.2.60 2.710,116 DIESEL RIEL utEl , AnruIt l_t.UIIft •• t. 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 5 .wl 'rice <1987 ., .. U 0.14 0 •• '.12 '.D 0 •• 1.17 0 •• 0.98 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 USE CASE AlIA&. Yli. City I~t_ 6 ,I,. c.paclt,. (Idol) 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 6DD 190 190 190 7 c.r-Ity Addltl_ (1tW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 c.paclty "ac~a (Idol) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 DI_I .wl .... , .. U_) t75.~ 119,136 112.719 '."n. 190,101 ,".-197.na, 201.737 as.m 209._ 214," 218.366 m,714 221,1. 231,732 10 ~1t.1 COSta (_1.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 19,_ 0 420._ 0 11 fwl COSta (1917 .) 94.1D7 t43.lOt • 149.099 155,'22 161 •• t67.91o In..6ft 111.751 1.,093 196.m 204.del •• 774 212.950 217,209 221,5SJ 12 o & II COIIt. ,,_ .) M.m 64.4IP _,m '7,IM de,,", .,. 71.201 n.m 74.0na 75.559 77,OlQ 711.612 80,1114 81.188 as,424 1] Totea City COlt. ,1tI7 I) ' •• 062 _,N 214.lna m.217 m,. D7.71S as ... 254,'" 263.171 2n.m 281,751 B1.W 293.134 118.991 304,917 'eter PM .~t_ 14 fl,. c.r-Ity (1tW) 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IS c.paclty Addltl_ (Idol) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 c.r-Ity ... .-t. (Idol) 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 DI_I 'wt .... '''U_) 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 ~It.t COIIti <1987 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fwl COSt. <1_ I) • 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o & II COSt. U987 .) 0 0 • • 0 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 tot.1 Peter PM COIIt. <1-I) 0 0 • 0 • 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 T .t.l AnruIl COIIta (1117 .) 1.,062 a7,N 214._ m.217 m._ D7.71S as," 254 •• •• 171 2n,m .'.75' B7,_ 293.134 718.991 304.977 lI~cr .... ys .. D fir. c.pacu,. (Idol) 6DD 6DD ' .. 1._ I •• t._ 1._ 1._ I,. I •• I •• I,. I •• I,. SOIl a 01'" c.paclty Addttl_ (Idol) • 1 0 • • • • • I • 0 0 0 0 0 2S c.paclt,. ... .-t. (Idol) • 0 • • • • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 100 a 26 .,...ttoCtrlc ...... UIIft (.) 2,161,124 2,as.m 2.141,m 2,28'.5D 2,:120,5" 2._._ 2.400.927 2.442.]]0 2,419,936 2.513,699 2.544.422 2.575.160 2.607.n4 27 ot ......... UIIft(.) 2.107 •• 2,149." D,_ 30,711 V •• 45.'" 52.'" .. ,,. .,Dl ".31] .,.t 106.697 ,a.312 150,501 173,0601 • 01'" ... l .... ("U_) '''.499 141.lOt .,* 2.1147 2._ 3.12' '.m . 4._ '.'" 5._ 5.'" 7.113 8.SSf 10,m 11.537 29 CtIItlal COIIt. (1.1.) 0 2.102,. 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 10._ a 30 'wI COIIt. (1987 I) 75,119 114.647 1.301 1.* 2,147 2.616 3,111 '.634 '.'. 4.7. 5.6711 6,801 8,1ID 9,593 11,031 ]I o & II COIIta (1987 ') 42.150 42,993 34."0 lS.0Z4 'S,1S4 36,'. '7.lS7 •• Dl •• 121 ".627 4O,W 41,348 42,261 41.192 44.142 12 tot.1 AnruII COSta (1.7.) 118.019 2.9S9.640 B,611 36.na 31,901 J9,114 40,_ 41," 43,.7 44.395 46,146 41,141 50,443 122,115 55,172 " .'". hOle 2 (cont'd, EOWOIIII C MAl YSI S ~ _ ........... --.............. 2002 2003 201M 2OG5 2G06 200' 2001 2G09 20'0 2011 2012 201] 2014 2015 2016 2017 E •• " .aI'''''' (kWh) 1 CltyL .... 2,1]6.481 2, .... ,129 2,958,. ] •• '0.0'2 ].01'0.2'2 ].131.'" 5.13'.'" 5.1]'.616 5.'5',616 5,151,616 ].1]1,616 ].151,616 ].151,616 5.1]1.616 ].151,616 5,111,616 2 Pet.,. hn L .... 0 0 0 0 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 totel c-Ity L .... 2.1]6,481 2 ...... '29 2,958,. ].010,012 ].01'0.212 ],151,61' ],151,616 ].1]1,61' ],151.616 ],151,616 5.151.616 ], ']1,616 5.1]1.616 ].151,616 ].151,616 5,111,616 DIESEL fUEL IAtES 4 ..... 1 Elealot Ian .oto 0 •• 0 •• D •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• O.OX 0 •• 0.01 0.0 5 fwl ,.,Ico (I.' II .. ., 0.96 •• 96 0.96 0.96 '.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 lASE CASE MALYS.S City SyIlt_ 6 II.. CllpKlty (1111) 700 1'00 1'00 1'01 ------100 100 100 eoo eoo eoo , CllpKlty Addltf_ (til' • 0 • ,. • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • CllpKlty Iepl_a (bI' 0 • 0 • 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Df_1 fwl UN C .. II_, ZJ6.J6' .,,'" .5,t'16 258.1K m,.' -,-2160._ 2160,_ 2160,_ 2160,_ 2160,. 2160,. 260 •• 260.968 260,968 260.w.3 10 c.pftol Coan (1917 S) 0 • • 1'0,. ]50 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 'wl Coata Ct.' S) m .... DI,_ •• 114 Pt.'16 a.."5 .9,_ .9._ .9,_ .9,_ 249,_ .9,_ 249,_ 249._ 249. 50S Z49,50S 249,5OS 12 0111 Coata (111' I) .,-.,JIM ••• -.--.-",MIl ",MIl ",MIl ",MIl ",MIl 91,MII 91.MII 91.MII 91,MII 91,944 93,948 1] totol City Coat. (t9I1 I' 511,'" 511,. -.'" ..... 11' _,nt JU.4D JU,4s] JU,4" JU,4D JU.4" JU,4" SO,4SS JU,4s] 54S.4s] 545.451 341,451 Poter hn SyIlt_ 14 f f .. c.,....c:hy (bI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 CllpKlty Addltl_ CbI' 0 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 CllpKlty .... _ta (bI) 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 DI_I .wl UN C .. II_, 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 c.pl tat Coata (19Il' I) 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fwl Coata (1917 S) 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 01 .. Coata CI91' I) • • 0 • • • • • 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 21 'otel Peter hn CoIit. (1917 I) 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 22 total ..... 1 coata (1917 I) 511,076 517 •• W,'" 491.117 6I6.n, 545.4S5 JU.45] 545,4S] JU,45] 54].455 54S,45S 54].45] 341,45S 54].45] 345.453 14J,451 MYIIIQlIIIO.IECt MAL'SIS ZJ • I .. C.,....c:lty (til, 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 24 01_1 CllpKlty Addltl_ (til) 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 CllpKlty Ieploc-a. (til) • • • • 500 • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 .,....Ioctrlc ...... U .. (Ida, 2,648,Ra 2.673 •• 2.1'0'._ 2.142.1U 2,m." 2,"2,m 2.at2.m 2."2,m 2."2,m 2,'12.532 2,"2,532 2.812.532 2,812,532 2.812.512 2,812.512 2,I12,53l 2' 11...a ...... tlan (Ida) 196.074 219,_ aJ._ -.-.,'" 519._ 519._ 51 •• _ ]19._ 51t._ SI9,. SI9,. 519,084 519,. S19,084 119,0lIl. za II_I fwl UN ( .. 11_) 15,On 14.616 16.m 17 •• ' 19.Rl 21.m 21,m 21.m 21.m 21,m 21.272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21.272 21,2Tl 29 C8ptlal Coata "911 I' 0 0 • • -.-• • • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. fwl Coate C'.' s, 12.497 15.991 15.520 17._ ta.'" -.--.-_.DI -.--,-2O,DI 2O.DI 20,151 20,151 2O.na lO,H8 51 o I II Coat. (1917 I) 45,111 46 .... 47 •• 41.135 49,1M ",257 ".251 50.251 50,251 50,251 50,25' 50,25' SO,257 SO,257 50,251 50,~1 32 lota' ..... t Coate U9l' s, 57.601 ..... 62._ 65.211 411.14' 1'0.595 1'0,595 1'0,595 1'0,595 1'0,595 1'0,595 1'0,595 18.595 18.595 18,595 70.59'1 " Tllbla S IU IG IXN£ IIY111CJ1C1jf. 'UIl.1l1 n 1,000 l1li ,rojllCt l_ f_t AAuIIptI_ 01_' lyat_ ANulptI_ ~oprojec:t AQUlpt.I_ .. ,. ~ .... 4 _ ......... "' ........ OR ................. 05 ___ ~ ................... _ .......... .. -................................ -............... -........ ,., .... .......... .......... -................ --............. --....... -...... oo,.. .... .. ........................... _ ......................... -.............. SUllllNf City l_ 'IICtor • 50 •• fue' I_'atlon .ata: lOll CGIIetnctlon Coet • 13,740,000 -.......... -........... -.......................... -............................. -...... Peter 'm l_ 'IICtor • 70 •• I. A"I. 'ue' ",Ice • 10 •• ' .. ' ,1_1". Coet • 1210.000 ... c-.. t , ..... t ve'ue •• ,6 ...... 545 c-Ity l_ ..--. • 2 •• City Ifflcl~ • 12 _,,,, Tota' Coet • Sl. 950. 000 ~oprojact .. t "'-t V.'ue •• ,0.745 ..... Pet ...... Ifflcl~ • 15 1dIIIJ .. , ...... , DIIbt Servlca • 1363.000 toetlCoet .aUo • 1.56 I~c ..-..cera I~c L1fa. 20 ,..,. Unit 1 • 600 l1li ..... -...... -.............. -....... -................. -.. _. _ ............. -_ ...... __ . ... ......... -......... _ ..... -......................................... •• __ toet· .• ,... Unit 2 • 400 l1li ...... 1 'nt_t lata. ••• City 0 I .. Coet • 10.11 ,_ INtaUed tepeelty • 1.000 l1li ..... , 'nflaU ..... ta • 4.51 Mer 'm 0 I .. toet • 10.12 ,... IIeed • S13 ft .. l.'-..e"te • 1.51 Efflcl~ • 851 Ea.cMIC MAUS'S 01 .. toe •• 10 •• '_ --...... -..... .., .............. 1917 I. t_ '''' Ith 1992 19PJ 19M 1M 1M '''7 1M '''' ZOOD 2001 E •• GY 1flllUIIIBIEIITS (kill) 1 City l_ 2.107.411 2.149.611 2,192,al 2,236," 2,.',2tS 2.126,.7 2.Sn,374 2.420.141 2.469.251 2.511.641 2.561.016 2.~.J96 2,6n._ 2,716.2toO 2,110,716 2 Peter ,.,. lOlid 4.015 •• 4,157 •• '._.512 4.m.m 4.411.129 4._ ..... 4._.067 4 ... ' .... 4,m._ 4 •• n,016 4.968,416 5,067.105 5,1 •• 161 5.212.544 5, 377.9'J5. J Jota' c-It., l_ 6.1 •• _ 6._._ 6.411.141 6.561 •• 6, •• 142 6._,_ 6 ..... 441 7.'12.'" 7.244.714 7._ •• 7.SJ1.4S2 7,611.201 7,.',_ 7.9111,"" ',151,711 OIESEl fUll UTEI 4 ...... , E_'atlan .ata 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 0 •• D •• 0.0& 0.0& 0.01 5 fue' ,rica Ct.7 ., .. U 0.54 I .. ... ••• I.IS '.17 o.a '.M 0.92 0.94 0." 0." 0." 0." 0." laSE tAlE MAlYSII City lyat_ 6 '1 ... tepeelty (l1li) 600 600 600 -600 600 600 600 600 -600 600 7DO 7DO 100 1 CIIfMIC Ity Addlt 1_ (l1li) 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 II • CllfMlClt., • ..,'.-ta (l1li) 0 0 I • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 01_' ,uet UN ( .. tl_, 115,624 119,136 1 •• 719 1 •• 174 1M. 101 ,".-197,m lIDl,m _.m _ •• 7 214._ 21'.366 222.714 227,1. 231,132 10 Clpl tat Coet. (1.7 .) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.000 0 420._ 0 11 fue' toeta 0.7 .) 94,1S7 14S •• 149.'" ISS, III 161,_ 167.910 174,_ 111,151 1.,_ 1".m 204.611 201.774 212.950 217._ 221,553 12 o ... Coeta Ct.7 I, a.225 64,_ M.m 67._ ".436 ••• n.lIDl n.625 74.011 15.559 77.070 11.612 80.1. 11._ 13,424 tJ Tota' CIty toeta (1.7 I) 151.062 207,1911 214.111 222.217 229._ m.n5 as._ 2S4.J76 263,ln 2n.m 211.151 357._ m,l34 n'.997 304,9n 'ater , ... Spt_ 14 fl ... c.peclt., (kIi) 2.450 2,450 2.350 2.350 2._ 2,_ 2.150 2._ 2._ 2,S50 2,S50 2.S50 2.150 2.3S0 2,350 15 tepeelty Addltl_ (l1li) 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 16 CllfMlClty hptac..ca (l1li) 0 1._ 1._ I 0 • 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 17 01_' 'ue' UN ( .. , t_) 2n.m 277.150 _.Nt ••• 294.1l1 -,--.-312.125 311,367 J24.7S4 DI.229 D7.154 144.611 351,503 3511,Sn 1. c..,ltat toe.. ct917 .) 0 1,645,_ 1,_ •• 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fuel toet. (1917 ., 146.131 lIl,nII a._ -.-Mt.7111 at._ m,_ 211 •• m,563 104,. 116 •• m.013 129.413 J36,D6J J42,1114 20 o • .. toe,. (1917 ') 11.517 •• 147 14.111 ••• a,B7 M,OOI 91." ft,a7 ft.510 97,420 ",. 101.S56 IOJ.SIS 1115,451 1111.5(00 21 Total Mer .... toeta (1917 .) •• au I,",m 1,.,4. _.510 JJ7.956 349._ 562 •• 174 •• _,on 681,_ 416 .... 424._ 412.851 441,514 450,344 II Jota' ..... l toeta (tte7 ') .,. 2.157.672 1._.m 541."" W._ -,--.'" ".216 MI.244 m .• IIIR,_ 111.756 721.'" 1,1i111,510 755,321 .......... Cf .... fli. B " .. c.pec I ty (IIU) S.sse S.sse 4,450 4,_ 4,_ 4,451 4._ 4._ 4.450 4.450 4.451 4,450 4.450 4.450 3.1SO 24 "_, c.peclty Addltl_ ( ... , I • I I • • • I • I I 0 0 0 0 25 tepeelty "IIC-,a (l1li) 0 1._ I,_ D 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 M ..... 'actrlc ...... U ... (_) 5,151,317 5,1 •• 115 5 ••• _ 5,263,_ 5._._ 5.D7.146 5,S15, 9)4 5,414.1I5 5.454.412 5.494.176 5,524.947 5.556.150 5.5111.937 27 01_, ...... U ... ,_) 6.1 •• _ 6 •• 7 •• 1,174,_ 1._.", 1._.-1.563 •• 1,_.ft7 1.714.164 1 ..... 129 1,974,'74 2._.061 2.1",125 2.S17,OI' 2.442.674 2.570.144 21 01_' ,uel 11M ( .. t~_) 412,212 420.467 14 •• 91," W." tI4.lIDI "1,162 117.651 124 •• 111.651 lSI .... 146.255 154.461 162,.5 tn.J90 29 Captla' toet. (t917 ., 0 '.000,_ 1._._ 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 fuel toeta Ct.7 ., 212.600 _.In 69,.' 75 .... 12.91' .,W 97,921 106 •• 1 114.491 121,687 112.7. ,39 •• , 147.611 155.692 163.861 51 o I .. toeta (1.7 .) 125.667 1M, 168 65,216 67.364 •• 556 n.m 74.073 76._ 1I.m It. 191 1S.660 86, lIS _.1Il 91.616 ~.444 S2 Tot.' ...... , toeu (1987 .) 146.267 5,462,514 1.1 •• 566 145.127 152,474 162.024 In._ 112._ 19J.l6Z 204._ 216.429 226.014 216.565 241.:121 258.305 llIbl" 1 (tant'd) ECOIIOIII C MAL YS I S _._M ....... ~_ ... __ .. _ .. ,. 2002 2QO] ZOO4 2005 2OD6 z007 2001 2009 2010 2011 2012 20U 2014 2015 2016 2017 EIlEIIGT IEIlUI_IIS (k.) 1 cttyLOIId 2,1]6,401 2,.,129 2,950,992 5,010,012 5,07'0,212 5,m,616 3.131,616 5,m.616 3,Ul.616 3.Ul.616 3.131.616 J.Ul,'16 J.151,616 ],1]1,616 5,151.616 3,Ul,616 2 "'rer'lft LOIId 5,485.555 5,595._ 5,7'07,171 5,121,115 5,tJ7,741 6,056.4M 6,056,4M 6,056,4M 6.056.4M 6.056.496 6,056,4M 6.056.4M 6.056.4M 6.056.496 6.056.496 6,0S6, 496 ] toro' '-Ity lo.d 1.121.956 1._.]95 1.658,165 1,1.J1,J2r6 9,.7.," 9 ..... 112 9. 1 •• tl2 9.1 •• 112 9,1 •• tl2 9.' •• 112 9,1 •• tl2 9,1 •• 112 9,1.,112 9,1.,112 9,1 •• 112 9.1M,112 )J nu RIEL IA JEt 4 ...... , I_'otlon lot. O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX O.OX 0.0 5 'wi "Ice ".7 ., .. 1) O.M O.M O.M O.M O.M O.M O.M O.M 0.96 O.M O.M O.M 0.96 O.M O.M 0.96 USE CASE AlIA!. ,It I CltySyoat_ 6 fI .. ClrpKhy (til) 7'00 7'00 7'00 7'00 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 108 800 IlOO 7 ClIIIKlty 1Idd1t1_ (Idll) 0 0 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ClrpKlty hpl_1t (Idll) 0 0 a 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 01_1 fual ..... ( .. u_) 2]6.167 261.* 265,916 250._ m,.' -.'" -,'" -.'" -,'" 260,'" 260._ 260._ 260,'" 260,'" 260.968 260,961 10 C..,I rei Coar. (1.7 I) 0 0 0 7'0,,, 550._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 'wei Coate ".7 I) m,. DO._ m.t14 m,l" 244.6tJ 249,505 249.505 249,505 249.505 249.505 249,505 249.505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 12 o I .. Coat. "OOl I) .. -_.JIM •• ,IJI. -,-.,IN tJ.N tJ,N tJ,N tJ,N tJ,N tJ,9IoI 95.9101 95,9101 95,9101 95,9101 91,943 II Totot City Coote (1.7 I) 111,_ JU,_ 121.* ...... 117 _,119 )4],455 )4].455 )4].451 )4],451 )4].451 )4].451 )4],4" 54],45] 54],45] 545,453 141,451 "oter '1ft lyar_ 14 ,I .. CII!IK tty (til) 2,350 2,]50 2,550 2.]50 2,550 2,]50 2.]50 1._ 1,-1._ 1,-1.-1._ 1._ 1.000 1,000 15 CIrpK tty IIddIr 1_ (1dI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 ClIIIKlty I,,_te (1dI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1._ '.-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Ol_t 'wei ..... ( .. tt_) _.704 ]71.018 •• 411 -.-]95._ 40].766 40].766 40].766 40].766 40],766 40],766 40].766 40'.766 403.766 403.166 40J,766 III C..,ltat Coar. "9111 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7'00._ '.050,_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 f.-t Coate (I., I) )49.640 356,65' J6J,765 '",04' '11.461 _,OJI _,OJI _.OJI _.OJI _.DI JII6,Dl 5116.Dl 5116,Dl 336.0]1 336,031 186,031 20 o I .. Coote (1.7 I) 109.711 ItI,905 114,14] 116.4li6 111,755 121. '50 121.150 tal. 150 121. '50 121,150 121.150 121,150 121,150 121,1]0 121,1]0 121,130 2' Tor.1 I'oto, '1ft Coote "9117 I) 459,35' 461.5. 477 .... 461,467 497.216 507.1" 1.207 .... 1.557,'" 507 .... 501 .... 507,'" 507.160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 22 Tote' ...... t Coo .. (19117 I) 77'0,427 lIS ,1]6 101,552 111,_ " 'U,955 150,614 1.550,614 1,900,614 150.614 150.614 150.614 150,614 1150.614 150.614 150.614 1IS0,614 NTDICI'IIO.IECT AlIA!. YS I S 2' .1,. Cll!lKtty (til) ],150 ].150 3,150 3,150 3," 3,]50 1,350 2,150 1,550 1.550 1,550 1,550 1.550 1.550 1,550 I. 550 24 DI_t Cll!lKtrI/IlddIU_ (til) 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) Z5 ClIIIKlty 1"_18 (til) 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 7'00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) 26 .,..,..loct,lc ...... Uon (kill) 5.620._ 5,"5,m 5.655,929 5 ..... 717 5,677,761 5 .6112, 7'00 5,6112,_ 5,6112,_ 5,6112.7'00 5.6112,7'00 5,6112,7'00 5.6112.700 5.6112,7'00 5,6112.700 5,6112.700 5,6112,700 27 01-' ..... 01 Ion (kill) 2.7'01,577 2.84J,06Z 3.102,5 1.*._ 3,DO,I. 1,_,4'2 1._,412 3,_,4'2 1,_,412 1._.4'2 1,505,412 ',505,412 ',505,412 '.505,412 ],505.412 1,505,412 28 01_1 .... t ..... ( .. tt __ 1.,115 1.,557 _.149 218.971 m,011 m,_ m,_ m._ m,_ m,_ m._ m,_ m,'" m,'" m,_ 2n,~ 29 CIpt lot Coate ".7 .) 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 400,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 '1oM1 Ceote ".7 I) 1R,I94 181,212 1t'.J'S7 201,1115 212,216' m,429 m,429 m,429 m,429 m.4Zt m,4Zt m,429 22],429 223,429 223,429 22J,429 ]1 o I " Coate ".7 .) 97,_ I •• DO 1OJ.595 , .... "0.121 "',-",,_ 113,_ lU._ 'U._ ",,_ III •• 113,. 111,165 "',_ 113,865 '2 Tot.t ...... t Coote ".7 I) 269.502 .',542 294,953 _ .651 W, _ D7.294 D7,294 127,294 D7,294 D7,294 D7,294 D7.294 n7.294 "7,294 n1,294 117,294 warning signal to "bondholders, and they may be reluctant to enter into such a transaction. Increased risk premiums through higher interest rates may be required. Another option would be to secure funds from another source to use as rate stabilization in the ear1y years. 2. Early Debt Retirement: Typically, bonds are issued such that once construction is completed, they cannot be called (retired early) for approximately ten years. After that period, they can be called early but at a premium of around 3 percent declining over a period of time to no premium. If the City were to receive excess monies through supplemental power sales, those proceeds could be placed in escrow with the interest earn; ngs pay; ng the ; nterest payments on ali ke amount of debt until the principal can b@ retired. Under most circumstances, the yield on the escrow would be restricted and _ interest earnings could not be higher than the interest- payment on the bonds. 3. PCE Security: Because Power Cost Equalization (PCE) is funded on an annual basis by the Legislature, PCE payments would not be a strong security for bonds. Pledges that as long as the program continues, such payments wi 11 be first used to pay debt service may provide some security to the bondholders. The legality of such a covenant must be investigated, however. 4. Cost Overrun Insurance: Currently, the Power Authority is not aware of any cost-effective means in providing cost-overrun insurance separate from turnkey construction. 5. Bond sizes and corresponding debt service for various interest rates are shown in Table 4 and Figure 1. Annual debt payments do not take into account potential interest earnings on the debt service reserve fund. 2097/0033(5) · Table 4 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Bond Size/Debt Service Summary (Dollars in Thousands) Bond Size Annual Interest Construction Financing 1 Net 2 DSR 3 Bond Debt Rate Cost Expenses IDC Rounding Size Service4 1,000 -Kilowatt Unit 6.0% $3,750 $152 $124 $316 $8 $4,350 $316 6.5 3,750 153 132 335 0 4,370 335 7.0 3,750 154 141 355 0 4,400 355 7.5 3,750 155 150 375 0 4,430 375 8.0 3,750 156 159 397 8 4,470 397 8.5 3,750 158 168 419 5 4,500 419 9.0 3,750 159 177 441 3 4,530 441 9.5 3,750 160 186 464 0 4,560 464 400 -Kilowatt Unit 6.0% $2,700 $118 $ 89 $228 $5 $3,140 $228 6.5 2,700 119 96 242 3 3,160 242 7.0 2,700 119 102 256 3 3,180 256 7.5 2,700 120 109 271 0 3,200 271 8.0 2,700 121 115 287 7 3,230 287 8.5 2,700 122 122 302 4 3,250 302 9.0 2,700 123 128 318 1 3,270 318 9.5 2,700 124 135 336 5 3,300 336 1Assumed to be 3.5% of the total bond issue for the 1,000-kilowatt unit and 3.75% for the 400-kilowatt unit. 2Interest costs offset by interest earnings during construction. Earnings are based on an assumed reinvestment rate 1% less than the interest rate. 3Debt service reserve fund equal to one year's debt service. 4Annual debt service based on a 30-year amortization. Does not include any reductions from potential interest earnings on reserve funds. 2097/0033(6) Q) 0 .~ CD (J') ...... ..0 CD 0 460 420 380 340 300 260 Figure 1 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Annual Debt Service (Thousands of Dollars) , .OOO-kilowatt unit 400-kilowatt unit 220 ~--------~I--------~I--------~I----------'I--------~--------~-------4 6.0~ 6.SX 7.0X 7.S~ 8.0~ 8.5% 9.0% 9.5% Bond Interest Rate Request #8: peE Savinqs Estimated peE savings for the 400-kW project are shown on Tables 5 -7. Please note that these are based on the continuation of the peE program as it is present- lyestablished. No assurances can be given that such levels of subsidies will continue in the future. 2097/0033(7) ' ... Ie 5 MIIjar A'.....,tl ..... : Inflation I"e 4.5" !Ci .... Cow lIydroelectric: Project Inte, .. t I.te '.OX Colt of "-r Anllpia C_tructlon Coat 1Z,700,OOO 400 "" Project land Slz. 13, 2:SO, 000 Debt .... "Ic:a (lIydro) 1Z86,9t:J IIydro 111 ... 11 It Y (1) 1001 ,.7 I. ,. 1990 199' 1992 1993 19916 1995 1996 1997 1M 1999 2000 2001 IAR CASE MAUSIS Cit, Spt_ Debt IInle. C2, J5,648 »,648 »,648 »,648 »,648 »,648 55.648 J5,648 J5,648 35,648 J5,648 47,219 47,219 lB,O:SO 113.030 f.-I c.t. (3) 94,'31 149,'" ''','' '".02' 192 .... _.246 221.4" 247,Da _,91' m,364 511,165 J38,". 161,138 384,9)7 410,304 o & It c.t. (4) 61,225 67." n._ 76,W ",612 16._ 92.m .,m 105.546 112._ 119,_ 121,516 155,985 144.944 1~.496 Tot.t ':lty c.u 19J.7'. m.M 271 •• .,D5 _ ,720 J". _ 555.167 38','" 409._ 440._ 473.199 509,1" 539.899 615.417 65O,JS6 Cit, Lo..t (lUI) (5, 2,1.7 2,'50 2. ItS 2,m 2,211 2.527 2.J13 2.421 2,46' 2,519 2,569 2.620 2,613 2.126 2,1111 Colt of "-r (/1lVII) 9.2 II.' .'2., 12.9 ".6 I4.J 15 •• IS.' 16.6 17.5 18.4 19.4 20.2 22.6 B.4 IYDICI'IO.IEC' MAUll S lIydroproject'DI_1 Ipt_ Debt Service (01_1) (6) J5.648 J5.641 J5.648 »,641 »,641 ».641 55.648 J5,648 ».648 55,648 J5,641 55.648 35.648 411.283 4II,m Debt IInlee (lIydro) (" • • 216,915 216.9" 216.91J 216.91J 216.91:S 216,91J 216.913 216.915 216.9U 216.913 216,913 216,913 216,913 f.-I c.t. Cl) 15.'71 119,_ 1,421 1,9(,5 2,561 :S •• 4.052 4,946 5,953 7,087 . .... 11.037 13.m 17.000 20,428 o & It c.ta (4) 42,150 44.921 31.460 ",'" 42,657 45,41.1 411.518 51.155 55.217 511,_ 62.847 61.101 71,669 .. ~~:~ 111,1411 'otll AlnMI c.t. 153 .... _.382 361,449 364,414 367,159 111,_ J15,'" J19,262 _.m _,531 394.225 400.699 408.107 4211.141 417.372 City Lo..t CIUI, (5) 2,1'7 2,150 2. ItS 2,m 2,21' 2,527 2,373 2.421 2,46' 2.519 2.569 2.620 2,613 2,126 2,1111 c.t of P_r (lkYI, 7.J 9.J 16.5 16.3 16.1 16.0 15.' 15.7 15.5 15.4 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.7 15.7 Project Se"I ..... : ... i".1 Doll.r. AlnMI C91,149, (15,2J9) (511.Dl9' C39,421' (19.264) 2,551 26,115 51,7" 111.915 108,465 Ul,191 1116,696 212,904 ~I.thl. (91,149, (166 •• ) (224,427) (Z6J,I47) C_,111) C2IO.554) (254,Jn) C20Z.'" C12J,6J5) CIS. 1611) 116.623 :S05,519 516,303 I'r_t Worth _I ..... ca, AlnMI (14,"" (64,506) (46 •• n, C.,915' (".111) 1,611 15,2" 21._ 39,507 50.240 S6,SlJ 74,140 111,314 ~letlw (14."') (141,912' (*.915) cm,.) CD7.161) C2J5,450, C220,I73, CI92 •• ' (152.699, (102.459, (45.936' 28.204 106,517 PCf _I ..... , (9, ... 1 .. 1 Doll ... AlnMI (16,591) (71.4", (55.131) CJ7,449) (t'.JOt) 2,429 24.073 49,176 15,_ 103.042 125,202 177,361 202,334 a-t.tlw (16.591) (151 ... ' «215,.' (BO,iIIS" (-,,", (266.526) C.',a" (192.'", (117,452) (14.410) 110,192 _,153 490,4l1li I'~ Worth Se"I ..... ca, ~l C., '"' (61,.' (U,17I) C27, 526) (12,455) 1,5" 14.515 26._ 31,532 47.121 SJ,697 70,435 74," cu..Iletlw C., '") (141.451' (tas,D7) (212,155, (225 •• ) (m.6lI' (_.164) (112,596, (145.165) (91.JS6' (U.639) 26,m 101,191 lilbl. ~ (cant'd) ZOOZ 20IIJ 2G04 2005 2006 2007 2001 ZOO9 2010 2011 2012 lOU 2014 2015 2016 2011 lASE CASE MAUIII ChySyet_ D4Iobt ...."Ic. (2) lZJ,. lZJ,_ 12l,_ I.,m 115,. 115,. 115,. 115,. 115,. 115 •• 115._ lts,_ ISS,. lts,59' lSS,398 lIS, J9t\ fue' coat_ (J) 4J7.MS 4116,'" 496 •• 529,629 "",SJl 601.1'J4 ..... " 657. I • 616.619 117.S'" 749.11U m,'14 81',877 tsS,126 _,2l4 9J4,4n o , • coati (4, 1 .... 77 U'5,529 "7.097 "'.426 212._ •• S77 Z56.m :lM7,'" 2SI.W 211. ,.7 212,156 295,1162 _,J40 122,215 W,715 5",1161 toto' tlty coate 617.57' 727.:iM9 _,51' 121.741 .,414 9S6."S "'.'" l,m.'11 1.075.S74 1,116.110 1,160.560 1,207,010 1.255.551 1,306,275 1,359,2.IJ 1,414.6n tlty LCIIIII (IIih' (5) 2._ 2.1PS 2.951 J,010 J,01l J,IJ2 J,IJ2 J.I12 J,I12 J.1J2 J.1J2 J,IJ2 5,112 5,112 3,112 3,132 coat of ... (/bII) 24.2 25.1 •• 1 27.5 29.S IO.S Jl.1 D.O J4.J H.' Jl.1 •• S 48.1 41.7 45.4 4S.2 II'fIIIIClPIO.Itt MAL nil .,......,ect·.,_, lyet_ D4Iobt Sarilc. (01_') (6) 41._ 41._ 41._ 41._ M._ M._ M._ M,_ M._ M._ M._ 91.._ 91.._ 91.,_ 91.,_ 91.,906 INbt """'ca ( .... 0' (1) •• 91' •• 91' •• 91' •• 911 _.91J •• 91J _.913 •• 91' •• 91' •• 91' -.'" _ •• 11 _,915 _.913 _.915 2116,913 'ue' coati (,) :IM.l. -.. R.M 17,111 G." 49._ 11,256 51,_ B.m •• 4ft ".':IM 65,'75 66.749 ",m 72,_ 76,112 0' • coat_ (4) 11 •• n.m ",IS' -.-l1J,. 121._ 1 ..... 112,. 1 •• JI. 144.560 ISl,.S 1S7.M2 164,MS 172,367 110.124 1111,229 toto' ..... , coate 446._ 456.7ZS W.'" 4.".21' _.401 W.0l4 •• l'S6 561.742 SM.I. _.151 -,. _,m 615.513 62l,9S9 634,04 646,220 tlty LCIIIII ( ... ) (5) I._ I.IPS 2,'" J,01I J.OlD J,I12 J,IJ2 J.I12 ',112 J,IJ2 J.I12 J,IJ2 3.112 5,112 3.152 3,132 coat of ...... (lbII) lS.l IS.I IS.' IS.' 11.S 11 •• 17.' 11.1 11.4 ".1 19.0 19.' 19.6 19.9 20.5 20.6 Prolect Ievln,.1: ..ena' Dollar_ ..... , 240,_ 2..,..514 101 •• J4Z,W W.W ",571 414,111 465,1. ""'.4116 "',259 566,572 603,475 642,0]1 612,336 724.441 1611.455 ca..teUft l'S7,195 1,027.no 1.129,_ 1,'12.m 2,_._ 2.441 •• 2.1lI._ I.MS.l. J .... 616 4.J11.'75 4,9]1,447 5,541.921 6, lID.'" 6,866.296 7.590.144 1.359.200 PrHMt IIOrtll levi. ee) _,147 92,5l'J 91,_ 95,744 95,151 92._ ".-_,411 .,1411 _,III 16,105 SS.420 8].914 12.416 ..... , 12.014 15,.' ca..toUft 1 •• S12 211.'" 361,_ 454.m 546._ .... 1. m,.1 125,_ 917,_ 1._ . .., 1.097.01S 1,115.1D 1.271,9]1 1.357.H7 1.441.Dl 1.'21,1101 PCE levlnee: (9) .. Inal Doll._ ..... , 221,_ 256.991 .. -125 .... , 141,611 _.141 412.474 441.172 472._ -.-_,244 511,101 609,956 641.220 _.226 no. on ~'otlft 119._ 916.114 1.265,m I._.m l.m._ 2.121.'" 2.114.111 1.1l'S.'" J.64I._ 4.1S1._ 4.,",5:iM S,264.125 5.'74.161 6,522,981 7,211,207 1,91.1,240 Pr_ IIIDrtll levlnee (I, 11.257 _ •• 7 ••• If.lIO ••• 15."7 M,.1 ID,112 12.464 "',m 111,3'3 ..... , 77.914 11.017 11.740 If.N 11.149 a-aoUft U9.1. _.122 MS.162 QI •• 119._ _.111 .. '" -."" In._ 957._ 1.1M2 .... 1.125.17' 1,_.141 1._.489 1,169,264 1.441,611 '-tile 6 llejor AUullptl_: InneUan le'e 4.5. Kine c-Hydroelectric: Project Inter .. t aete '.OX Coet of '-r ANtYIII. c-truc:tlon Coet 12,100,000 400 .., Project land Sile s:s ,230,000 Debt SerVice (Hydro) 1286,915 II¥dro ""1 II 'y (I) aox '.7 I. I. ,,.. 1'" 1m 1995 19M 1995 ,,,. '991 'M 1999 2000 2001 IA$( CAlf ..... 'SII CUyIYllt_ Debt SerVice (2) 35,648 15,648 15,648 35,648 35,648 15,648 35.648 35,648 35.648 35,648 35,648 41,219 47,219 lZl,OJO 123,010 fuel ea.te (I) _,an 149.na 'I6Z,. 111 •• 1 Ift,468 _,2611 m," 247,_ _.91. m.J64 117,011 _,'10 361,138 _,911 410,JCK o & II ea.«e (4) 65,m "'.Itt n,_ M.,.. '1,612 .,-ft,m .,m IllS,,.. n2,. 119," 127,516 US, • 1414," 1S4,4M ..... "''''' ... .l ... lotel ,City ea.t. 19J,1I0 m,M IJI •• _.m _,no Dl._ IH •• 7 Jal,'19 -.-UG._ 473.'" 509,'64 S".M 615,411 6S0,J56 City Loed C'" (5) 2.107 2. ISO 2,1ft 2.m 2,.' 2,127 2.1" 2,421 2,469 2,519 2.569 2,620 2,673 2,726 2,111 ea.t of '-r (/bIII' 9.2 n,. 11.1 II.' 11.6 14.1 15.0 IS.' ".6 17.5 11.4 19.4 20.2 22.6 n.4 IJDItOIItIOJECl ..... YS II Hydroprojec:«'O'_1 lyat_ Debt ..,."Ice (1"_1) (6, 35.648 35.648 35.648 35.648 15.648 15,648 15,648 35 .... 15.648 15,648 35,648 35,648 15,648 41,211 41,211 Debt SerVice CII¥dro' (7, 0 0 _,911 _,911 _.911 _.911 _.911 _.911 _,911 _.9t1 _,915 _,913 216,913 216,911 2116,913 fuel ea.ta C:S) 15,'lO "',. 27.117 29.'19 12.141 .. -",641 ",m 41,_ 52,441 57,912 65,019 61,. 75,190 111,991 0& II ea.t. (4, 42.1SO 414.927 ",SY 42.1. 414,'" 47._ 51.1J1 54,_ SI.212 62,_ 66.236 lO,.' 75,466 10,561 15,9911 lote' "'-t ea.ta 151,661 ZOO,JIIl -,-_ ,68 400, _ 406,m 411.119 4211,67J .... 561 417,091 446.7119 456,291 466,911 490,Ml SOJ,IM City Loed ( .. , (5, 2,101 2,1SO 2,191 2,236 2,.1 2.121 2,5" 2.421 2,469 2,519 2,569 2,620 2,673 2,726 2,781 Coet of '-r (l1tIoII) 7.1 9.1 t1.' 17.6 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.4 17.4 11.4 t1.4 t1.4 17.5 111.0 111.1 I'roJec:t ..... ,,,..: lleal,.l Dotter. "'-, cn".' '1115,119' (ID,674' (14,749, (57.511, (Ja,ID' (11,4157) 1,_ 26,491 52,1" n,. 124,419 147,171 a..t.U .... (119 •• , C ••• , (ltS.OII' C_,II2) CU7,m, (416,1.' (_.1S7, (SOl •• ' C415,1I7) (422.264) C14',216) (224,787) (77,616) Pr_t WlM'U1 Myl,.. (I) "'-I eno,I.' «90.154' (n,., e54.9U' C".I41, ea,_, (",.' 1.114 11.252 24,4ID SI,JOJ 49,436 S4,114 c.-t.'I .... (110.115, C_.SIt, (m.,,,, (W.W, C_ •• ' (Itt •• , (401."', C400,Ma' C_."" (162,499) (UI,IM) (211.160) (227."5) pt£ ..... 1,..: (9) lleal,.t Doll .... "'-t (ltl,.' ( .... ',,) C.,14" ,n,tt2' C54."" C •• 912) (17,.' I." 25 .... SO,_ -,-118,_ '''.8'2 a.ute,l ... (111,.' (lIl," (_.111' (IN,., (4M •• , C .. I.In, (4" •• ' (4)1,"" (451,.' (411,15') (Dt,"2) (215,S4I) (73,m) ~ .... '" 1eY1,.. (I) ...... " .... , C_ •• , C .... I) ca •• , (17 •• , ca •• ', (11.141, ',.7 12,. D, .. Zf,7!I ",. 51,_ .......... ct .... , U ... III, 'BI •• , cln ... , ... liii0' (17'1 •• ' , ... ."., C_ •• , (w .... , c144,m, CII4 .... ' C»7,672) (216,CI6S) " 1101:>1 .. 6 (cont'd) 200l 200J 2004 200S 2006 z007 20GI ZG09 2010 2011 2012 20t] 2014 201~ 2016 2017 lASE tAIIE MALYlIS City SYllt. Debt ........ e<t (2) In,_ In.OlO In.OlO 1.,715 11S._ 11S._ 11S._ las._ las._ las._ l1lS._ IllS •• 115.J98 115._ lIS, 398 18~,398 f .. , c:.ta (l) 4n.54' 466.164 496._ 529,629 564.5" 601.7]4 6211.812 657.1. 616.619 117,519 749,810 713,614 1111,1171 155.n6 1194,254 934,41'; o , It c:.t. (4) 164.677 175.529 187 •• 7 199.426 212,569 226,571 2J6.m 141.421 251.562 210,197 zaz,356 m.062 _,540 m,i!IS ",,115 ]51,861 Tota' City c:.t. 617.516 727,14' 169,5" 821.141 905,414 956,645 _.'19 l,m.m 1.0n,514 I, ''',110 1,16O,!J60 1,201,010 I,Z!J','SI 1,]06,275 1,J59,m 1,414,61'; City lMd C") (5) 2,1J6 2,'" 2,951 3,810 3,010 5, 'SI '. 'SI 3,1S1 3,']2 3, ']2 3,1]2 5.1]2 5, ']2 5,1]2 5, ,]2 3,132 Coat of ~ (J1ttotI) 24.2 25,1 26.1 21.' 29.5 30.5 3'.7 n.o 34.3 35.6 57.1 51.' 40.1 41.7 45.4 U.2 1I~c:t MALYlIS lIydraproject-DI_' SYllt. Debt ....... Ic. (0'_1) (6) 4I.m 41._ 41._ 41,_ 111.]6' "'.]61 In ,]6' In.]61 111,]61 "',]61 111.]61 111,]61 111.]61 '11,]61 111,161 111,161 Debt ....... 'n (.,..) (7) _.tI, _."1 -.'" -.'" _,"I _,911 _.911 _.'15 _.'15 _,911 _,911 216.'U 216,913 216,915 216,915 286,9U , .. , c:.ta (,) .,J.M 91.a 185.N "'.'" ' .. -115.511 '41.615 141._ '54.641 161 •• '''.119 116.411 114.420 192,119 201,39' 210,4~3 o , It c:.t. (4) 91.N 91 •• ' .. '" 111.614 119. IS. 121.'" lSI." 1 •• 111 "'.121 151,'" 151,411 '65,615 ,n .... 1111,156 1 •• '" 197,499 Tot.' ..... , c:.ta 516.11' m .... S4S._ "'.'" "" .. , .... -'72.716 _.1" -.... "'.551 m.os 740,]66 755.160 711,1147 1M,651 806,226 City lMd ( .. ) (5) 2,_ 2.'" 2.95' 1.''10 '.ON J,I]2 J.l]2 3.1]2 J,1]2 J.']2 3,1]2 1,1]2 3,']2 3.13i! 3,1]2 3,132 Coat of ~ (J1ttotI) ".2 ".J ".5 ".1 20_' 21.1 21.5 2'.' U.J U.1 n.2 n.6 24.1 24.6 Z!J.2 ZS.l 'roject .... 1 ... ' "'ne' 0011 .... ..... , 171.251 196,_ 224,011 MII,_ 26iJ,U1 m._ SI'.ID 541,nl J75.526 "',572 434.m 466,644 499,190 '34,4211 510,625 6OI,UO o...t.tlve " . ..., _.W 514.492 774,'" 1.117,720 l,m.4GO 1._,W 1._.26iJ 2,J71._ 2.112.]61 J,217,216 J.6IJ.9JO 4.111.720 4.7111,148 5,.,m 5,1197,223 ,,-' WDrtll .... , ... (.) ..... , 51.307 6Z,OS2 .. -N.m .,'72 61.51] ..... 69.019 69.01' ".905 61._ 61. I. 61"n 66,905 66, '" 6~.103 a..ttatlve (169 •• ) (111.217) (41.9110, a.'N "".N la.755 n •• m _.m ",.7 4Ja."' SD7,Z99 5",411 641.010 109,91J 716,056 1141,]60 PCf 1aY1 ... , (9) "'ne' 001l .... ..... , 162.695 .. -212.110 241,_ a .... ••• •• 016 DO.'" •• no _.IU 41].119 4U,J12 414,1111 501,101 542,093 5111,027 Gatl.Uve ..... 175._ _.7. m,"" •• IM 1 .... 150 1,5" •• 1._.'. 1.211._ 2."'.au J .... 422 J,499.7]4 J.914.5" 4,412,241 5,024,534 S,602,161 ,,_ WDrtll ..... , ... CI) ..... , 55.'" 5I.N a.111 "',751 a,519 .,-•• '54 •• as •• 621 ..... 65,151 64.nt 64,1~ 65,551 6Z,1J6 62,01& Gatl.Uve (160.172) (111 •• ) C",.) 26.952 .. -154,6" _.171 -.-.',1" '''.m 411._ 546,665 610.859 614,411 nl,ZS] 199,292 .' fabl. 1 llajor -......,tl_, Infl.tlan •• t. 4.51 Ill,. c-lIydroeleetrlc: Proleet Inter .. l bt. 1.11'& Coet of P_ AnaI,.la c-tructlan Coet 12, 100 ,_ 400 kU Projeet land She '5,230,_ Debt Servlc:. (lIydro) 12f16,9U lIydro UMallUty (t) 601 1911 1911 I. I. 1991 1992 199) 1994 1995 1996 1991 1991 1999 ZOllO 2001 lASE CASE MAlYSIS Cltys,.t_ Debt .....,Ic:. (2, 35,648 D,648 D,648 D.648 J5,648 D,648 D,648 55.648 55,648 55,648 H,648 41,219 41,219 In,03O 123,030 fuel Coet. C5, 94.1J1 149."" 162,_ 111,121 192,460 _,M 221,_ M1.m _.910 m.J64 5",1I6J JlI,I10 36I,IM W,911 410,104 o & II Coeta (4, 6J,m ",JP1 n.IA 76,!IM 11,612 16,. 'I2,m 9I,m 105,146 112,_ 119,_ 121,516 135,_ 144,944 154,496 10t.U:lty Coeta '91.110 252,M m .• •• 235 JOt. 120 DI,. m.w lI1,I19 409,_ 440,_ 41J,199 509.164 539,_ 615,411 650,356 CI ty loM " .. " (5) 2,'01 2,'50 2.1" 2,ZJ6 2,211 2,JZl 2.31J 2,42' 2,469 2.519 2,569 2,620 2,61J 2,126 2,1111 Coet of '-(lkUh, 9.2 11.1 12.S 12.9 15.6 14.J 15.0 15.1 16.6 11.' 11.4 19.4 ZO.2 22.6 21.4 IIYIIIOI'IIOJICf MAlYSIS lIydr...,.ojeet·DI_1 .,.t_ Debt Servlc:. (DI_I) (6, H,648 H.648 35,648 D,648 J5.648 D,648 H,648 H,648 55,648 H,648 H,648 35,648 J5,648 48,285 61,481 Debt .....,Ic:. (lIydro, (1) 0 0 _,915 _,915 _,91J _.911 _,91J _,91J _,913 _,915 _,915 _,913 _,91J _,913 _,915 fuel Coeta (n 15,170 119,_ 52,954 51,IU 6J,1M .,915 15,230 12,115 .,623 91,_ 101,001 115,04' 123," lB,lID 143,554 o & II Coata (4, 42,150 44,.' 41,616 44,199 41,)45 50,481 SJ,lJl 51,409 6',211 15,m 69,625 14,211 79,261 114,511 90,248 lot.l ...,..1 Coeta 155,668 2OO,JIZ 4",151 4K,m W._ 44',961 451,_ 462 •• 47),401 485,646 499,1. 511,1IJ 525,115 553,154 5112,202 City loM (1Iott, (5, 2,101 2,150 2,1" 2,ZJ6 2,211 2,W 2,J7) 2,421 2,469 2,519 2,569 2,620 2,61J 2,126 2,111 Coat of p_ (lkUh, 7.5 9.J 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.5 19.4 19.5 19.7 ZO.5 ZO.9 Projeet savl ... , _Inal Doll.ra ...,..1 (146,151) (lJ5,5M' C'D.Jll) (110,019' (95,"''' CIf.W' C6J,491) (45,146, (25,99), (2,119' 14,1114 62,282 68,154 o.-tatlw (146,151) C2U •• ' (405,"" C51S,m, (611,.) CWI,.' (m,.' C_,648, ,_,640' (829,560' (115.116' (152,II9J, C684,159, p..-t tIOrth savlftl!lo CI) ...,..t (lH,915, (116.ZD2) (91.111) CIf,91" Ca,17), C50.5Il, (J1,"" (M,499, (15,00), (1,2160' 6,DIB 24,1JJ 25,060 ....... tlw (1D,91J' C252,I15' CDO.'" cOI,m, C4II,I41) C5016.12I' (SID,m, c",m, (62',.' (622,540' C616,456' C591,72J' C566,665) Pa levi ... : ,9, ..... ' .... 1-..... t n.,.' (1.,"''' C117,145) ("'"r.., c9I,m, ("',m, C6I,IU, CU."" (M,'" (2,SID, 11,415 st,l. 64,146 ....... Uw (lJt,.' c_,m, , •• 414, C .... ." C ..... , Ca7,"" Cn7,.' C_,6I" (_.JOG, (711 •• , (714,417' (715,249) (650,502) , ...... tIOrth savlnp (I, ..... t (129.171, (11 ••• , CII.-' C"' .• , C61,"" C48 •• , (D, tfI') C8.Dn (12,DJ, n,1"" 5.m n,491 n,lDl ....... Uw (129,171' (2Jt.!IM' CJR,,., ( .... "', c,n ... , "W,., CSM,Wl .,71,'" '''',116, (591,41J, (!II •• ) (561,1J1) (!1M, no) Ie'. 1 (coot'd) 200Z ZOOl 2G04 2005 ZOO6 z007 2808 2OD9 2010 2011 2012 lOll 2014 2015 2016 2011 IIASf CASE MAUSll Cit)' Ivat. Debt s.nrICII (2) 123.030 123.030 123.0l0 1 •• 715 -.-115._ 115._ 115._ 115._ 115._ Il1S._ Il1S._ Il1S._ IllS, 598 1l1S,lM 115, J911 'uel c.ta e:1) 451.:I4l 466. '" -.• 529.629 "'.531 601,1J4 621,a12 657.1. 616.619 717.S19 749.a18 m.614 l1a,m 155,726 "'.234 934,415 o & II c.ta e4' 164.677 175.529 187.fII1I '".426 212,_ 226.S77 m.m 247.421 258.562 218,197 za,lS6 29S.06Z _.540 322,215 336.715 l51,1161 lotal Cit), c.u .7.576 n7.249 •• "7 121,741 _.4:14 956.645 9PJ.919 l.m,1lI 1,073.574 1,116,110 1.160.560 1,287.010 1,255,551 1,306.275 1,lS9,28J 1,414,615 City l .... ,lUI) (5) 2,1J6 2 •• 2.951 3,010 S.018 S,152 S.152 3.152 3.152 5,152 5,152 5.152 5,152 S.I52 5.152 l,U2 CeMlt of '-' e/.) 24.2 B.l •• 1 27.3 it.S 50.5 51.7 D.O 34.5 35.6 n.' •• 5 40.1 41.7 4l.4 45.2 HYOIIOI'IIO.IICI AlAI. fill lI)IdraproJect '01_1 lvat. 0IIIt s.nriCII (01_1' (6) 6t.487 61.417 6t.417 6t,_ 1 •• 110 1 •• ttO 1.,110 •• 110 1 •• 110 1.,110 1.,110 1.,110 1.,110 1.,110 1.,110 1.,110 Debt s.nrlce (1I)Idro) (7, _.913 _.911 _.913 _.913 _.913 _.913 _.913 _,913 _.913 _.913 _.91l _,9t) _,915 _,915 _,91l _,915 'uel c.ta (3) 154,461 "',m n .... .... -.. -UI •• DI,"4 242.413 B3,521 ... nl 276,6D -.. , 502 •• SIS. 684 529,_ 344,715 o I II c.ta ,4, 96.295 112.7" -.f2S 116 •• 1 •• M ID,144 1".136 14S,'" lSI .... 158,m 165.9122 173._ 181.191 1 •• :144 197.86S 206,169 lotal "'-I c.u •• 156 6.,.m 616,"" .7.4n raI,.7 750.1S1 766,152 'III,IIZ -.• all,w U7.U7 lIS7.492 878,J04 900.051 m.m 9066,526 CIty L .... (lUI, (5, 2.1J6 2._ 2.951 3.'" 3.'18 3.152 5,152 3.152 3.152 3,152 S.I52 5.152 5,152 5,152 5,152 1.152 c...t of ,..,. "., 21.1 21.3 21.6 21.' D.7 24.0 24.S B.O B.6 16.1 26.7 27.4 28.0 21.7 it.5 10.2 Project ..... I'.u "'Inet Dollara "'-I .,420 1.,952 152 •• '64 •• n".127 -."" 221.78' 250,_ 273,m it7,59O m,_ :I4',S1I 177,247 406.224 06,505 4611,149 c...tatlw (596.3tt, (486.W' (m.5.) (' ..• ' (10,142) 196,m ~.1" 674.177 "7.461 1.245._ 1,561.040 1,917.558 2,2M,1OS 2,1lIl.0l0 l,117.55S 1,605,6&4 PrnMt .... tll IIIYI,.. ca, "'-I 50.1" :14,'" •. m " •• 7 ".-47,1'7 48.071 "',m 50._ 50.684 50.954 51.0]6 51.004 50.154 50.5'7 50,245 c...taUw (536.559, e501 .... ' (461.116, " ... 7Z9, (373 •• ' (J16 •• ' em. ,., (m.5t) (177.244, el •• 561' a5,126' C24,59O) 26.41S 77.261 127.86S 178,111 PU ...... ,.., (9) ... Ine' DoU.n "'-l 15.'" '''.454 116.1. 156.1156. '11, '18 '96.160 216.'" D7.516 259._ •• 711 306.UJ m,0402 '58,las las.'1l 414.680 444,142 c...tatlw (566,.) e462 .... ' CDS •• " eu"".) (f,.) 1 •• 514 ~.911 640.461 ".-1,1R,. 1,_." 1.R' .... 2.1.,065 2.565.'78 2,_.651 1,425,400 p..-t IIIIIf'tII ...... ,.. Ca) 45.4" 47," 47.756 48.150 41,711 "'-I a._ 52 •• 36,m 42.177 42,-46,421 48,_ 48.414 48,454 41,511 41,067 tuulatlw C_.73" (416 •• ' ("',M, (",.m, (BS •• ' (_,JU' (III •• , (116,1.' " ..• ' "a,m, C71,144' , CD,560) 25._ 73,405 121.4R 169,205 " FOb T NOT E S . For Tables 5 - 7 (1) Usability of project output after takinq into account monthly flows. (2) Debt service on installed diesel generators using the assumed interest rate and an amortization period of 20 years. (3) Fuel costs of diesel generation based on $0.80/Qallon diesel price in 1988 with 2 percent real escalation through 1996. A 12kWh/gallon fuel efficiency for City generation was assumed. (4) Estimated. (5) Based on an assumed 2 percent load growth. (6) Debt service of backup diesel generators based on the same assumptions used 1n the Base Case Analysis. (See footnote 2.) (7) Debt service on the estimated bond size. Does not take into account potential interest earnings on the debt service reserve fund. (8) Discounted to 1988 using the assumed cost of money. (9) Based on the current program remaining in effect. No assurances can be given that this will occur. 2097/0033(8) 36 34 32 30 28 26 ..r: ~ 24 ........... ttl ~ 22 c • u 20 18 16 14 12 10 Figure 2 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Usability Analysis (1) (400-knowatt unIt) 100" usable (2) 80X usable - -60X usable -DIesel Case / ---,-- --' ... -----... ",--------,----.". .". , , --------: -./ : ~-----------_ ........ . "",---------------------..,-~ ,---- -----------.' , ----~-----~--~~~-------------- . , , 1988 1990 1995 Year 2000 2005 (1) Cost of power producUon with on o •• umed Inflation rote of 4.5. ond on Interelli rote of 8., Does not Indude City admlnl.traUve and other colli., (2) Usability of project output after monthly Ioad/reaource fit. 2010 .s::. . Figure 3 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Cost of Capital Analysis (1) 361r ________________________ ~(4~O_O_-_~_lo_w_ot~t_u_n~iQ~ ________________________ ~ 3 - - - -9" coat of capitol (2) 3 2 2 8" coat of capitol (2) Ole ... Caa. ~ 2 "'-!! s:: • u 2 ------,-----.. ' .,..-----; ------------------; , ---~--------------, : ---------.... -./ . ~------------------:-----~------.,., 1 1 -----...----.....-- 1 1 ~--~~--~~--~-T1--~1--~~---~-~~~1~~1~~--~~--~1--~-~~· 1988 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year (1) Co.t of pow« production with an ouumed inflation rot. of 4.5S. Doe. not Include CIty odmlnilltrative ond other co •• (2) BoNd on 100X u.Gbblty after monthly IOQd/raource fit. .' EXHIBIT A KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KV, Force AccOLr'lt Labor) SUMMARY Diversion Structure--Glacial Fork Penstock Tank. Powerhouse & Tailrace Mechanical & Electrical Contract Trans.ission Line (3.7.1.) Misc. Construction It_ SiJ)total Administration (lOX) Eng. & Constr. Mana,..ent (12.51) SiJ)total Contingency (2OX) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 6,250 300 4,140 2,600 14,130 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estf_ted by: ReIllY Wit l iams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 41,780 402,000 17,750 143,800 723,000 206,100 265,000 1,799,430 179,900 224,900 2,204,230 440,800 2,645,030 USE 2,650,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 2,837 54 1,000 422 2,344 6,965 EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 DoUara) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Eatil1l8ted by: ReIllY Williams (400 KW, force Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QUAlTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL fREIGHT ---..................... ............. _-............. _----~ ... -..... --.--..... --.----.--.-... --------_ .. --_ ..... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost " Labor Unit CWt --...... ---- DETAIL DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- GLACIAL fORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (58'2'+787'.'09') 130 Lf 7.50 980 15.5 20 6Mx8Mx10' Treat. Ti~r 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 3Mx6" TIG Treat. 750 If 1.00 750 3.5 26 Sackrete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trashrack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25 Misc. lolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30" 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor <1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 Laborers--12 10-hr days) 840 20 16,800 Equipment D6 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 P~ " Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-sa KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti_ted by: Reii)' IoIillillllS (400 KIoI, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QlJAMTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT .. -.................. -... -................ _ ....... _---.... _ ... --_ ....... -... -----...... ---.... -----....... _-.. ""_ ....... No. unit HrsJ Total Materials IoItJ Total units unit Price Cost unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CIoIt --........ _-_ ... DETAIL (cont'd) ... "'----...... ----... -- PENSTOCK-'GLACIAL CREEK WEIR TO TANK TO POWERIIOOSE Materials 24'" x 10 GA. '0' Ring wJAlkyd outside & coal tar enIIIIIl l tntng 7,100 LF ZO.45 145,200 35.1 2,492 Drive Anchors & S.S. Banda 210 EA 75.00 15,750 50 105 4', Culverts a Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 Tillllber Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Stbtotal 2,837 Bench, install cui verts across Clear Fork Labor (5-.an crew) 350 20 7,000 Equipnaent D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (80 10-hr days a 90' Jday) Labor (7-.an crew) 5,600 20 112,000 Equipnaent Pipelayer, 561D 700 HR 35.00 24,500 350 966 FE Loader 700 HR 60.00 42,000 420 Tractor Trailer 700 HR 50.00 35,000 250 Equip. Install Conc. Deachan & Subtotal 1,020 Tidler Cribs Labor 300 20 6,000 Misc. Equipnaent LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 277,000 6,250 125,000 402,000 EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti_ted by: ReIllY Villiams (400 ICW, Force AccOU"It Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LA80R TOTAL FREIGHT ........... _ ... -.... _-............................ .. ... -_ ..... --.----_ .... _---_ ......... _ .......... .. -.............. _---- No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials Vtl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CYt _J .. __ ...... _----... DETAIL (cont'd) ......... -....... -----_ ...... TANK--8', x 15' HIGH 11). STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12-Fluth Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings ] EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Tranaducer 1 EA 1,300 Vire '14 6,300 LF 0.10 600 C~rete 4 CY 150.00 600 700 2~ InstaUation Swtotal 54 Labor 300 20 6,000 Mi sc. ECflipllllnt LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 11,750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 120 CY 200 24,000 23 2,760 20 55,200 700 840 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (800 SF) 1 EA 16,000 1,380 20 27,600 160 WAC LS 15,000 Lighting LS 6,000 Swtotat 1,000 Sl8TOTAL 61,000 4,140 82,800 143,800 EXHIBIT A ALASKA PCM:R AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-as KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti.ted by: Re.)' Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QIJAtITlTY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT -------_ ..... -... ..---.... _ ...... --.--..... _----_ ... _---.. ---_ .. ----_ ..... --... -............................... No. Ik\it Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total units unit Price Cost Ik\lt Hrs Rate Cost , Labor Unit CWt -.......... ---- DETAIL (cont'd) -------... -----_ .. MECHANICAL , ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator w/acceasoriea LS 190,000 360 Station AuXil iary, Control' Protection, Switchyard Equi~t, ... Greu.ting Syst_ LS 70,000 InstaUation of Above 1,600 38 60,800 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel EA 21,000 21 Metalcled Switchgear EA 45,000 45 InstaUation of Above 360 38 13,680 King Cove J~tion Metalcled Switchgear EA 15,000 15 Installati on 90 38 3,420 SCADA (Ca.plete) 75,000 SUbtotal 416,000 2,050 77,900 493,900 441 Job Supervision 1.5 NOS 6,000 9,000 Air Fare 10 RT 700 7,000 RII. , Board 270 NO 80 21,600 Flatbed Truck 1.5 NOS 1,600 2,400 Pick~ 1.5 NOS 1,200 1,800 Freight 441 an 15 6,600 Small Tools (5X of Labor Cost) 3,900 Mob/D~ 25,000 Subtotal 571,200 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5X) 151,400 Total Contract Cost n2,600 USE n3,ooO EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dolla .. s) Date: Rev. Ma .. -88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti_ted bv: ReIlY "illiams (400 ~, Fo .. c. Account Labo .. ) Sh .. t 6 of 7 QUAIITITY MATERIAL LA8QR TOTAL FREIGHT ....... -................ -....... __ ..................... ..._--...... ------------........ --......... --_. -_ .. _-........ -............ 110. Unit H ... I Total Mat ... ials "tl Total Unit. Unit P .. lc. Coat Unit H ... Rat. Cost , Lebo .. Unit ~t ......... -......... - DETAIL (cont'd) .. -................................ UNDERGIKUID TRANSMISSIOII LlIIIE--12.47 KY, 3f, 3.7 MILES U •• 3 .11"111. , cabl .. plua a neut .. al, bu .. ied w/30" cov .... Splices will be in aectionellz ... cabinets .PllCed a 2500'. 3.7 _il .. x 5210'1_11 •• 19,536' USE 20,000 LF Mat.rials 15 KY Cabl.--'2 Coppe .. (20 x 3, x 1.15.69 USE 70) 70 1000 FT 1,300 91,000 525 368 lleut .. al '2 coppe .. 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44. sectionellz ... Cabinet (cOlllPI.t.) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 T .. ench Excavation' 8eckfiI l--Excsvat., haul end plac. Subtotal 422 beddil"ll end beckfill at .. at. of 1000' pe .. 10-h ... shift. 20,000 -1000 • 20 days 20 days x 10 h .... 200 h ... Equi~t CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) with 3/4 CY Rock Buck.t 200 HR 75.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loade .. 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY DUIIIIp Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Doz ... 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Weck.r CoIIpecto .. 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 Lebo .. 1 Fo .. _n 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equi~t Ope .. ators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck D .. iv ... 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Lebo ...... 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cabl. end Sectfoneliz ... Cabinets at .. at. of 1000' pe .. 10-h ... shift. Equf~t Truck' T .. l ... w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist .... Is) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7.000 1 T .. uck D .. iver 200 aoo 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 EXHIBIT A KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KY, Force AccOLl'lt Labor) DETAI L (cont'd) MISCELLAtlEWS COIISTRUCTlOli ITEMS Surveying I Staking Job SUpervision Freight Air Far. Flatbed Truck Pickups (2 H.) Purcha •• r/TI .. keeper s.ll Tool. I SI4lPl iea (51 on Labor) Mob/D..ob HTOTAL QlJAllTiTY No. Unit. 5 6,965 9 5 10 5 Unit LS MOl CWT IT MOl MOl MOl LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dolla,..) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Coat Hr.1 Unit LABOR Total Hr. Rat. Date: Rev. Mar-88 Eati_ted by: ReIllY WHlilllllS Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Material. Coat , Labor 10,000 30,000 104,500 6,300 8,000 12,000 20,000 14,200 60,000 265,000 FREIGHT Wtl Unit Total CWt EXHIBIT B KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KY, Force Account Labor) SUllWtY Diversion Structure··Glacial Fork Diversion Structure··Clear Fork Penstock Tank Powerhouse' Tailrace Mechanical' Electrical Contract T r8l"l8llli ss i on Li ne (3.7 IIi.) Misc. Construction It_ Subtotal Adainistration (1OX) Eng. , Constr. M8nageIIent (12.5%) Subtotal Contingency (2OX) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. Units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrsl Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 560 6,950 300 6,900 2,600 18,150 Rate Date: Rev. "ar-88 Estimated by: ReIllY Will iams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL "aterials Cost & Labor 41,780 27,850 505,240 17,750 243,000 1,164,000 206,100 335,500 2,541,220 254,100 317,700 3,113,020 622,600 3,735,620 USE 3,740,000 FREIGHT Wtl Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 206 4,382 54 1,700 422 2,344 9,416' EXIIIBIT B ALASKA POIER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Will iams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QUAIITITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGIIT ..... _----...... ----------------... _--------------------... _-_._-... ----_ ... _-... _ ............ No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials Wtl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost , Labor Unit CWt --~--.................... -... DETAIL DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (5812'+717'.109') 130 LF 7.50 980 15.5 20 6"xS·x10' Treat. Tiar 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 3"x6-TIG Treat. 750 IF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Sackrete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trashrack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25 . Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30" 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 Laborers--12 10-hr days) 840 20.00 16,800 Equipment D6 Dozer 100 IIR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 IIR 30.00 3,000 390 P~ , Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- CLEAR FORK (allow 2/3 cost of Glacial Creek structure) 16,650 560 20.00 11,200 27,850 206 EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 DoUars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estilll8ted by: Remy loIiLLiams (1,000 KIoI, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 CIUAJITITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ....... _-................ ............ -.-..... --_ ... ----------.. ---------------------_ .... _---_ ... ---- No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials IoItl Total Units Unit Price Coat Unit Hrs Rate Cost , Labor Unit CIoIt ---........... _- DETAIL (cont'd) .. __ ... _ ..... _---..... _- PENSTOCK Materials Clear Creek Weir to Tank: 24 M, x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 580 LF 20.45 11,860 35.1 204 Glacial Fork weir to Tank: 30 M' x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 780 LF 25.11 19,590 46.0 359 Tank to Top of Hill: ]6M' x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 5,550 LF 29.80 165,390 55.0 3,053 Top of Hill to Powerhouse: ]6M' x 10 GA.*, Weld Bell 750 LF 28.80 21,600 55.0 413 * All pipe coated w/alkyd en8IIIel outaide & coal tar en8IIIel lining. Drive Anchors & S.S. Benda 230 EA 75.00 17,250 50 115 4', Culverts i Clear Fork Xing 120 Lf 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 Tilltler Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Swtotal 4,382 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor (5-1en crew) 350 20.00 7,000 EqufpMflt 06 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed , Set (90 10-hr days i 9O'/day) Labor (7-1en crew) 6,300 20.00 126,000 EquipMflt Pipelayer, 5610 800 HR 35.00 28,000 350 966 FE Loader 800 HR 60.00 48,000 420 Tractor Trafler 800 HR 50.00 40,000 250 Equip. InstaLL Conc. Deadnan & Swtotal 1,020 T int>er Cribs Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 366,240 6,950 139,000 505,240 ,; EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti_ted by: Remy Wi II iams (1,000 KY, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ................... -...... -..................... *._-... ------_ ... _-------_ ...... _----------................. -............. No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ..... _--.......... DETAIL (cont'd) --........... __ ... _----... TANK--8'" x 15' HIGH Y). STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12 u Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transducer 1 EA 1,300 Wire '14 6,300 LF 0.10 600 Concrete 4 CV 150.00 600 700 28 Installation Subtotal 54 Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipaent LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 11,750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 200 CY 200.00 40,000 23 4,600 20.00 92,000 700 1,400 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (1500 SF) EA 30,000 2,300 20.00 46,000 300 HVAC LS 25,000 Lighting LS 10,000 Subtotal 1,700 SUBTOTAL 105,000 6,900 138,000 243,000 EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 DollarS) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Est imated by: Aemy Willi ams (1,000 KY, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ......... ----.... _---_ ........ -.... _ ...... -.... ---......... _-........ _------.. -----_. ---...... ----....... - No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Aate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ----_ .. _-- DETAIL (cont'd) --........ --.... _---..... MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator w/acce,sorfes 0-400 KY & 1-600 KY) LS 450,000 900 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Switchyard Equipaent, and GrOU'lding Syst_ LS 80,000 Installation of Above 2,500 38.00 95,000 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel 1 EA 21,000 21 Metalcled Switchgear 1 EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38.00 13,680 King Cove JU'lCtion Metalcled Switchgear T EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 Peter Pan Seafoods Power Plant Metalcled Switchgear EA 15,000 15 Instaliati on 90 38.00 3,420 SCAOA (Co.plete) 75,000 Subtotal 701,000 3,040 115,520 816,520 996 Job Sl4I'Irvision 2.0 NOS 6,000 12,000 Air Fare 12 AT 700 8,400 All. & Board 400 fI) 80 32,000 Flatbed Truck 2.0 NOS 1,600 3,200 Pickup 2.0 NOS 1,200 2,400 Freight 996 CWT 15 14,900 Small Tools (5X of Labor Cost) 5,800 Mob/DeRIob 25,000 Subtotal 920,220 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5X) 243,900 Total Contract Cost 1,164,120 USE 1,164,000 EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estilllllted by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT .... -........ _--...... ----...... --......... --.... ... ----......... -----.... ----_ ... _--_ .... _----. .. -.. --...... _ ........ No. Unit Hrsl Total Materials Wtl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ---------DETAIL (cont'd) ------_ ......... __ ... - UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION LINE--12.47 KY, 3~, 3.7 MILES Use 3 single ~ cables plus a neutral, buried w/30" cover. Spl ices wi II be in sectionalizer cabinets spaced i 2500'. 3.7 .iles x 5280'I.il. • 19,536' USE 20,000 LF Materials 15 KY Cable--I2 Copper (20 x 3~ x 1.15 .69 USE 70) 70 1000 fT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral 12 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44 Sectionalizer Cabinet (complete) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 ' Trench Excavation & Backfill-'Excavate, haul and place Subtotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 = 20 days 20 days x 10 hrs = 200 hrs Equ i p!IIent CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) wI 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 75.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loader 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY DUMp Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Wacker Compactor 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 Labor 1 Forellllln 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equip!llent Operators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cable and Sectionalizer Cabinets at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. Equip!llent Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,0~0 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 EXHIBIT B KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) ClIANTITY 110. Units ..... .1..- DETAIL (cont'd) IUSCELlAJIEOOS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying , Staking Job Supervision 6 Freight 9,416 Air fare 10 Flatbed Truck 6 Pickups (2 ea.) 12 Purchaser/Ti..teeper 6 Small Tools , Supplies (5X on Labor) Mob/DeIIIOb SUBTOTAL Unit LS NOS CWT IT NOS NOS NOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs .. Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Esti_ted by: Reiii)' Williams Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost , Labor 10,000 36,000 141,200 7,000 9,600 14,400 24,000 18,300 75,000 335,500 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit Total CWt EXHIBIT C KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Marginal cost of ~rading 400 ICW project to 1,000 ICW) SUMMARY Diversion Structure--Clear Fork Penstock Powerhouse & Tailrace Misc. Construction It .. Mechanical & Electrical Contract St.btotal Adainistration (101) Eng. & Constr. Management (12.5X) St.btotal Contingency (201) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. Units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 DoUars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost MrsJ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 560 6,250 3,620 10,430 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estilll8tecl by: Remy Wi II i ams Sheet 1 of 3 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 27,850 402,000 125,400 248,000 521,000 1,324,250 132,400 165,500 1,622,150 324,400 1,946,550 USE 1,950,000 FREIGHT WtJ Unit (Equip.) Total twt 206 2,837 700 2,344 6,087 EXHIBIT C KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Marginal cost of upgrading 400 KW project to 1,000 KW) DETAIL DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- CLEAR FORK PENSTOCK POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job Supervision Freight Air Fare Flatbed Truck Pickups (2 ea.) Purchaser/TiMekeeper Sll8ll Tools & Suppl ies (5X on Labor) Mob/DetaOb Subtotal QUANTITY _ ............ _--_ .. _-- No. Units Unit LS 5 NOS 6,087 CWT 9 RT 5 NOS 10 NOS 5 NOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL LABOR Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estill8ted by: ReIllY Williams Sheet 2 of 3 TOTAL FREIGHT .. _---------_ ... --------... ----.. ----...... ----------------...... --......... - Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt -------.. - 16,650 560 20.00 11,200 27,850 206 277,000 6,250 20.00 125,000 402,000 2,837 53,000 3,620 20.00 72,400 125,400 700 (Equip.) 2,344 10,000 6,000 30,000 15 91,300 700 6,300 1,600 8,000 1,200 12,000 4,000 20,000 10,400 60,000 248,000 EXHIBIT C ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Date: Rev. Mar-BS (Marginal cost of upgrading Esti .. ted by: Remy Williams 400 KW project to 1,000 KW) Sheet 3 of 3 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ... -..................... .. -.................. _----------------.. _--------------------------........... No. Uoit Hrsl Total Materials Wtl Total Uoits Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost " Labor Uoit CWt ----......... - DETAIL (cont'd) --......... _--...... _---- MECHANICAL " ELECTRICAL CONTRACT 600 KW Turbine-Generator w/eecessories 260,000 540 Station Auxiliary, Control" Protection, Switchyard Equipaent, and Grounding System 10,000 Installation of Above 1,600 38.00 60,800 Peter Pan Seafoods Power Plant Metalclad Switchgear 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 St.btotal 285,000 1,690 64,220 349,220 555 Job Supervision 1.0 MOS 6,000 6,000 Air Fare 10 RT 700 7,000 RIll. & Board 125 iii) 80 10,000 Flatbed Truck 1.0 MOS 1,600 1,600 Pickup 1.0 MOS 1,200 1,200 Freight 555 CWT 15 8,300 Small Tools (5X of Labor Cost) 3,200 Mob/Demob 25,000 St.btotal 411,520 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5X) 109,100 Total Contract Cost 520,620 USE 521,000 ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska Apri 1 7, 1988 Mr. Wayne Marshall, City Manager City of King Cove 1007 W. 3rd, Suite 201 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr! ~~~ SIeve Cowoer. Governor The attached memo contains Afzal Khan's comments on the questions posed in Attachment 2 of your letter dated January 20, 1988. With the mater- ial I sent you on March 24, 1988, these comments complete our response to your January 20, 1988 request. 'IttI~ avid Denig-Chakroff Manager of Project Evaluation DDC:dw Attachment as stated cc: Donald L. Shira, Alaska Power Authority Afzal H. Khan, Alaska Power Authority 2308/846(1) PO. Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465·3575 X PO Box 190869 701 EastTudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519·0869 (907) 561·7877 MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO: David Oenig-Chakroff DATE: April 6, 1988 Manager of Project Evaluation FILE NO.: THRU: TELEPHONE NO.: FROM: Afzal H. Khan (;,I/It Manager/Engineerlng Support SUBJECT: King Cove Hydroelectric Project Per your request, the comments on Attachment 2 of the City of King Cove's letter dated January 20, 1988, are as follows: 1. When the operating utility is delivering electric power (hydro or any other) to the City of King Cove, the consumers' generators/en- gines should not be connected to the system. It is the responsi- bility of the operating utility to set rules and regulations regarding individuals trying to operate their generators in paral- lel with the hydro. Individuals owning generators for emergency purposes should have provisions to start only when disconnected from the utility. As long as they follow prudent utility prac- tices, there will be no problem. The hydro plant will deliver an electric power at a voltage and frequency that are both, within narrow limits, constant. This is essential for the residential and commercial customers. Peter Pan Seafoods has some large motors (50 -100 hp). When connected to the utility system, the operation of large motors will cause the system voltage and frequency to fluctuate. Excessive fluctuation in voltage and frequency is not tolerable. Peter Pan Seafoods would need to install devices to start the large motors in steps and to be timed so that they are not started simultaneously. 2. It is not difficult to deliver a block (200 or 400 KW) of power to Peter pan Seafoods. The operators at Peter Pan Seafoods can control the power delivered to Peter Pan. The power delivered will be measured by a meter at Peter Pan. 3. The life expectancy of an underground transmission system, depend- ing on the type of cable used and the type of protection applied, is from fifteen to twenty years. The life expectancy of an over- head transmission system is about thirty years, not considering natural disasters. 4. It is practical to run individual service connection from the main transmission cable as long as the individual service connections are properly fused to protect the system. 5. It is important to provide a stand-by system (diesel power) to deal with those times when the hydro plant may be out of service. The City should keep the existing diesel generator units in operating condition. The City does not need to purchase a small diesel generating unit. AHK:tg 2286/0D34/1