Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Final Report 1991
RAILBELT INTERTIE . FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT March 1991 RAILBELT INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority March 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective 1.2 Background . 1.3 1.4 Feasibility Study Overview .Conclusions . ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Southern Line:Route Selection and Right-of-Way . 2.1.1 Description of Enstar Route . 2.1.2 Enstar Route Right-of-Way Issues 2.1.3 Description of Tesoro Route. 2.1.4 Tesoro Route Right-of-Way Issues Northern Line:Route Selection and Right-of-Way . 2.2.1 Description of "South Route" 2.2.2 Description of "North Route"2.2.3 Right-of-Way Comparison --"South"vs."North"Route , Note on Mental Health Lands Elements of Project Design . 2.4.1 Overview of Southern Line (Enstar Route) 2.4.2 Overview of Southern Line (Tesoro Route) 2.4.3.Overview of Northern Line (Both Routes) Summary of Project Impact . 2.5.1 Southern Line --Impact on Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses .2.5.2 Northern Line --Impact on 'Transfer Capability andTransmissionLosses CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 3.1 Capital Cost Estimates . 3.1.1 Southern Line:"Enstar"Route. 3.1.2 Southern Line:"Tesoro"Route..3.1.3 Northern Line (Including SVS Additions). 3.2 Operating Cost Estimates 3.2.1 Southern Line:"Enstar"Route . 3.2.2 Southern Line:"Tesoro"Route. 3.2.3 Northern Line .. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . 4.1 4.2 Southern Line:Enstar and Tesoro Routes 4.1.1 Air Quality .4.1.2 Water Quality. 4.1.3 Fishand Wildlife..4.1.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status .. 4.1.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetationand Wetlands)4.1.6 Recreation Resources.. 4.1.7 Visual Impacts Northern Line:"North"and "South"Routes 4.2.1 Air Quality . 4.2.2 Water Quality 4.2.3 Fish and Wildlife..4.2.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status .. 4.2.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands)4.2.6 Recreation Resources... 4.2.7 Visual Impacts ECONOMIC PARAMETERS . 3.1 3.2 5.3 Fuel Price Forecasts 5.1.1 Crude Oil . 5.1.2 Natural Gas . 5.1.3 Fuel Oil. 5.1.4 Coal Electricity Demand Forecasts 3.2.1 Railbelt Population and Employment Forecasts 5.2.2 Railbelt Electricity Demand Forecasts Discount Rate 6.PROJECT BENEFITS a a oo 6.1 Benefits ofKenai-AnchorageLine ......61 6.1.1 Reliability Benefits . .eee 626.1.2 Generation Dispatch and Efficiency .rn cy |6.1.3 Generation Reserve Requirements .....69 6.1.4 Benefit Summary:Kenai-Anchorage Line ...6-10 6.2 Benefits ofHealy-FairbanksLine ......)GlIA 6.2.1 Reliability Benefits.6-12 |6.2.2 Economy Energy Benefits:'Substitution of Gas for Ol.6-13 i6.2.3 Capacity Sharing Benefits....+616 |6.2.4 Benefit Summary:Healy-Fairbanks Line.-6 6 6-16 | APPENDIX A.Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study:List of Volumes APPENDIX B.Railbelt Reliability Assessment:North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) APPENDIX C.Comments on Draft Report APPENDIX D.Independent Cost Estimate:Dryden &LaRue,Inc. 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVE The purpose of this document is to review the feasibility of two 138 kV intertie projects:one between Soldotna and Anchorage,the other between Healy and Fairbanks.These projects are identified in Ch.208,Sec.159,SLA 1990,which appropriated $100 million plus interest earnings to a Railbelt intertie reserve.This is intended to comply with the project review requirements contained in AS 44.83.181. 1.2 BACKGROUND The Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study was completed by the Alaska Energy Authority (the "Authority")and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in 1989.Among the projects evaluated,three are of particular relevance to this feasibility study: 1)construction of a new 230 kV transmission line between Soldotna and Anchorage; 2)full upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie,including a new 345 kV line between Healy and Fairbanks plus a new 345 kV line south of Willow; 3)limited upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie consisting only of electrical equipment to allow a limited increase in transfer capacity over the existing line. For each of these intertie projects,the reconnaissance study provides preliminary engineering and design,environmental impact analysis,and construction cost estimates.Also provided are fuel price forecasts,electricity demand forecasts,and economic evaluation of each project.Among the conclusions of the economic analysis were the following: 1)The proposed 230 kV intertie between Soldotna and Anchorage and the proposed full upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie to 345 kV are not economically feasible;i.e.projected costs exceed estimated benefits for both projects. 2)The limited upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie is economically feasible. As these findings emerged,the Railbelt electric utilities proposed two scaled-down intertie alternatives that had the potential to capture most of the benefits of the larger projects but at reduced cost.These scaled-down alternatives are the subject of this feasibility study and are described as follows: 1-1 1)A new intertie between Soldotna and Anchorage constructed at 138 kV (instead of 230 kV as initially proposed); 2)Upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie consisting of a new 138 kV linebetweenHealyandFairbanks,plus electrical equipment needed for increased transfer capability. The Railbelt utilities then sponsored an economic analysis of the scaled-down alternatives,which concluded that both proposals are economically feasible.This analysis was adopted as an addendum to the Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study by the Authority Board of Directors in February 1990.Appendix A contains a complete list of volumes included in the reconnaissance study. 13 FEASIBILITY STUDY OVERVIEW Essentially all of the information required for a feasibility study is also needed to produce a reconnaissance study,specifically: .preliminary engineering and design of proposed projects; °capital and operating costs of proposed projects; environmental impact analysis; other parameters needed for economic assessment including fuel price forecasts,electricity demand forecasts,and discount rate; .benefit/cost analysis. The approach adopted here is to use information developed for the reconnaissance study as much as possible,supplementing where necessary within time and funding - constraints.The main subjects of the feasibility study are covered as follows: Engineering and Design This category includes specification of physical design,route selection and right-of- way,and definition of project capability.In other words,the purpose of this section is to describe what the project is,where it is intended to go (including associated right-of-way issues),and what effect it is expected to have in the areas of power transfer capability and transmission losses. For the southern line (i.e.between Soldotna and Anchorage),most of the information for this section is drawn from prior studies.For the northern line (i.e. the Anchorage-Fairbanks upgrade that includes a new Healy-Fairbanks line), additional work has been performed for this feasibility study to better define the electrical equipment required for the upgrade and the impact of the upgrade on power transfer capability. Capital and Operating Costs Cost estimates were developed in the reconnaissance study for the southern 230 kV line and for the northern 345 kV upgrade,and were subsequently adjusted as the project definition evolved.A capital cost estimate for the scaled-down alternatives was most recently prepared by the Authority in February 1990.However,a cost estimate from an independent source must also be prepared according to the project review requirements in AS 44.83.185.This has now been completed and represents the most recent and thorough cost estimate available regarding the scaled-down alternatives.As a result,the independent estimate of construction cost is presented in this feasibility study and is recommended for project planning. Projected operating and maintenance costs have been reviewed by Authority staff and re-estimated for this study. Environmental Impact Analysis All of this section is taken directly from the reconnaissance study. Economic Parameters Fuel price forecasts,electricity demand forecasts,and discount rate are also taken directly from the reconnaissance study. Project Benefits There was substantial investment during the reconnaissance study in the attempt to quantify the benefits of these transmission projects,and there was substantial debate about the results as well.Much of the benefit for these projects falls into categories where quantification is difficult:e.g.improved reliability,improved system coordination,removal of certain operating constraints,increased access to Bradley Lake spinning reserve.An attempt could be made to sharpen these benefit estimates if funds were committed for additional system modeling and analysis.However, funds for more economic studies have not been made available;and even with additional studies,a clear resolution of these issues might not be achieved. The basic approach of this document is to present and discuss the benefit assessments included in the reconnaissance study,supplemented by comments subsequently made by outside observers regarding the overall adequacy of the Railbelt transmission system.This discussion provides the basis for the Authority's conclusions on project feasibility. 1-3 1.4 CONCLUSIONS The estimated project costs are as follows: ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS (Millions of January 1991 Dollars) Annual Present Value Construction O&M of TotalCostCost#Cost Soldotna-Anchorage 138 kV $75.1 $0.3 $81.5 ("Enstar”route) Soldotna-Anchorage 138 kV $84.1 $0.4 $91.5 ("Tesoro”route) Healy-Fairbanks 138 kV $77.6 $0.2 $80.9 (incl.SVS additions) Represents levelized annual cost.Annual O&M costs are expected to increase over time,as described in Chapter 3. Includes present value of O&M costs for 40 years for the Soldotna- Anchorage line,and for 50 years for the Healy-Fairbanks line. The expected value of benefits previously developed for the Soldotna-Anchoragelinerangesfrom$63.9 million to $125.5 million in January 1991 dollars.!This implies a benefit-cost ratio for the "Enstar"route ranging from .8 to 1.5;and for the "Tesoro"route ranging from .7 to 1.4.The expected value of benefits previously developed for the Healy-Fairbanks line (including electrical equipment)is $108.2millioninJanuary1991dollars,!which implies a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. As discussed in Chapter 6,the ranges of these estimates are due in large part to the nature of the benefits that the studies attempt to quantify.The Authority has not adopted or rejected any specific benefit estimate or numerical benefit-cost ratio. Overall,however,the Authority's conclusion is that the life-cycle benefits for each project will exceed project costs based on the following considerations: 1 Based on 1990 dollar estimates presented in Chapter 6,escalated by 2.25%to convert to January 1991 dollars for consistency with project costs. If $29.6 million in additional benefits due to reconstruction of the existing line were included,the benefit-cost ratio would increase to 1.7.These benefits are discussed on pages 6-17 and 6-18. 2 For the Soldotna-Anchorage line,benefit-cost ratios above and below 1.0 have been estimated in a context of uncertainty.These ratios are based on a corresponding range of benefit estimates.In view of the arguments presented,the assumption adopted here is that the value of quantified benefits will fall somewhere between the upper and lower estimates that have been developed. In addition,an overall perspective on transmission system adequacy must be factored in to the judgment on the merits of the proposed intertie.As reported in Chapter 6,the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)has stated the following: "The existing single line transmission [interconnection]between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl ...pose[s]a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages...In terms of traditional reliability criteria, the proposed Soldotna-[Anchorage]138 kV transmission line ...is necessary to help improve the reliability of electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula,the Anchorage Bowl,and the Fairbanks area." Also reported in Chapter 6 are remarks prepared by Power Technologies, Inc.(PTI),technical consultant to the Authority on transmission issues: "At 75 MW export,the Kenai-Anchorage tie operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design.Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line...A new line from the Kenai area to Anchorage would provide Kenai-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt system." Beyond the quantified benefit estimates,then,these observations make it clear that a second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is necessary to meet prevailing industry standards of transmission reliability. The economic studies summarized above combined with these observations are the basis for the Authority's conclusion that life-cycle benefits of the proposed Soldotna-Anchorage intertie will exceed project costs. For the Healy-Fairbanks transmission proposal,the benefit estimate developed earlier suggests a substantial excess of benefits over costs.As discussed in Chapter 6,alternative assumptions are possible (such as treatment of the "North Pole operating constraint")that could reduce the benefit estimate.There are also compensating factors not considered in the analysis (such as continued Fairbanks access to power from the south during reconstruction of the existing line)that could increase the benefit estimate. After review of these competing arguments,the Authority's conclusion is that the overall benefit-cost ratio reported above is a reasonable indicator of project economics,and that any net downward adjustment that might result 1-5 from further analysis is unlikely to reverse the favorable outcome of theassessment.) An alternative framework for evaluating the project is to consider the electrical equipment as a separable first stage of the upgrade,and to then assess whether the incremental benefits of a new Healy-Fairbanks line exceed the incremental costs of the line.The analysis to date suggests that the incremental benefit-cost ratio for the line itself is close to 1.0.However,there are factors in addition to those considered in the prior analysis that would produce a more clearly favorable outcome: a.As noted above and in Chapter 6,there will be a program of reconstruction of the existing Healy-Fairbanks line that would be expected to cause extensive interruption of power flow to Fairbanks from the south.Construction of a second line as proposed would produce significant savings by allowing reconstruction of the existing line without power flow interruption. b.Again,an overall perspective on transmission system adequacy is provided by NERC and PTI.The NERC conclusion is as follows: "The proposed Healy-[Fairbanks]138 kV transmission line is needed for the reliability of electric supply to the Fairbanks area...[BJased on traditional planning criteria,the tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from Healy to the Fairbanks area.In fact,under traditional reliability criteria,a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area would likely be required..." PTI adds the following comment on Fairbanks reliability assuming a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is constructed at Healy as presently planned: "New generation at Healy combined with a new line between Healy and Fairbanks may raise reliability of electrical service in the Fairbanks area nearly to that presently available in the Anchorage area.With a second line between Healy and Fairbanks,and a system design that will withstand loss of a 50 MW unit at Healy or [loss of]a line from Healy to Fairbanks, blackouts in the Fairbanks area should be far less frequent than at present." The quantified results of the prior benefit assessment combined with these important perspectives form the basis for the Authority's conclusion that life- cycle benefits will exceed project costs for the overall Healy-Fairbanks project (including electrical equipment)and for the Healy-Fairbanks line itself. 2.ENGINEERING AND DESIGN This section includes an overview of route selection and right-of-way issues,basic elements of project design,and a summary of project impact on power transfer capability and transmission losses.Supporting details on routing,right-of-way,and design are provided in Volumes 5 and 6 of the Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study,and in the independent cost estimate included in this volume as Appendix D. Details on project impact are provided in the following documents: ."Kenai Export Limits With and Without a New Line and With and Without Additional Compensation,"Power Technologies,Inc.,December 4,1989. ."Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Upgrade Screening Study,"Power Technologies,Inc.,November 23,1990. :"Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt,"(addendum to Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study),Decision Focus,Inc.,December 21,1989. 2.1 SOUTHERN LINE:ROUTE SELECTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The map in Figure 2.1 displays the two route alternatives that are under consideration for the southern line.The preferred route (called the "Enstar route") generally follows the same path as the existing Enstar pipeline right-of-way through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.The alternate route (called the "Tesoro route”) follows along the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula near the existing Tesoro pipeline right-of-way.(Also shown on the map is the proposed "Beluga route,"which was considered and rejected during the reconnaissance phase due to the severe difficulty of a submarine crossing at this location.The existing transmission line route is shown as well.) There are a number of differences between the Enstar and Tesoro routes,including the following: .The submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm is 9.1 miles for the Enstar route and 13.7 miles for the Tesoro route.The shorter crossing is an advantage in terms of cost and reliability for the Enstar route. .The overall length of new construction is 59 miles for the Tesoro route and 68 miles for the Enstar route.However,the connection between Soldotna and Anchorage via the Tesoro route includes 24 miles of existing line,which increases the length of the Soldotna-Anchorage connection via the Tesoro route to 83 miles.The shorter overall length of the Enstar connection between Soldotna and Anchorage is an advantage in terms of reliability and system performance (e.g.transmission losses). Anchorage/Kenai Transmission Intertie ae ae ) Route Alternatives eo .,oo . :Le es an : meaom Seward/Sterling Highway oe .cp °a =;.,-7 .;(Existing)Route .we : +,an an .een... :.::-<>;--' simteim Tesoro Products Line Route SO,-are -2.::Soa oer wel Re. Ss °:welt.:.:°: .we "ek mse Enstar Gas Pipeline Route ree ,.uo vee woe oo . -srm West Forelands-Seluga '7 ;re S wey ee ...."e . Station Route ee ; . +mT eeon. :rr ne :Bee rr ae .7 tape -aay,:aa Me ar L "4 .7 .sees ..:nue os i s . : 'emt eu H.e . ;:.,a :<.re a : Stonne Mates a-0087 February 1967 ; °7 ne i tee, fivinge-GeneratingStationt:a Tempus,paar ses ro ah MAR ENN a -ort3 area4 Ups 1s ¥ eX, AJg!nee Taeo- oe 283g ee :ots Bgl LSSaldotne aeSubstation... 'pt he FIGURE 2.1 ,The overall cost of the Enstar route is lower primarily due to the shorter submarine cable requirements. :In the reconnaissance study,both routes were judged to have comparable reliability overall.The disadvantage identified for the Tesoro route wasexposureoftheoverheadlinetohigherwindandicingconditionsalongthe Kenai Peninsula west coast.The compensating advantage identified for the Tesoro route was the deeper water it offers for the submarine crossing,and what appeared to be its reduced exposure to tidal currents and ice flows despite its greater length.There is debate on this,however,and the relative exposure of the Enstar and Tesoro submarine crossings to these hazards remains an unsettled issue at this time. 2.1.1 Description of Enstar Route Beginning at the Soldotna substation,the new line goes north across the Sterling Highway,then generally northeast to the boundary of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.The line then turns east and follows along the Refuge border until it rejoins the Enstar pipeline corridor,which it follows into the Refuge and then generally northeast to Chickaloon Bay.The line is buried for the last five miles across Chickaloon Flats. The submarine portion of the line extends from the east side of Chickaloon Bay to a point approximately one-half mile south of the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range,and remains buried in the railroad right-of-way until it is north of Potter's Marsh. From that point,two alternatives have been identified for bringing the line into the existing Anchorage grid.The shorter alternative is to extend the line east to ElmoreStreet,then north along Elmore and Bragaw Streets to the Huffman substation on Huffman Road.The Huffman alternative is preferred because right-of-way problems in the Anchorage area may be fewer for the shorter route. The longer route is to extend the line north along the Old Seward Highway toO'Malley Road,and then west and north along Minnesota By-Pass to the International substation near International Airport Road. 2.1.2 Enstar Route Right-of-Way Issues At this stage,there appear to be two major right-of-way issues with respect to the Enstar route:access through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (the "Refuge"); and access into Anchorage. A discussion of access through the Refuge requires some background.The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)of 1980 established the Refuge,designated 1.35 of its 1.97 million acres as wilderness,and required 2-2 preparation of a "comprehensive conservation plan”(ccp).1 The CCP was intendedtoserveasalandmanagementplanandalsoasavehiclebywhichtheSecretaryof Interior and the President would recommend additional wilderness designations within the Refuge to Congress.The CCP was adopted in 1985. The map in Figure 2.2 can be used to point out the land use designations adopted by the 1985 CCP that are of relevance to the Enstar transmission line route.The thin finger extending north almost to Turnagain Arm is a 1 mile wide corridor that is designated as a "moderate management"area.According to the CCP,transmissionlinesandpipelinescanbeplacedinamoderatemanagementarea"on a site-specific basis subject to restrictions on road access and methods of transmission/pipeline placement." The area surrounding this mile wide corridor in the northeast portion of the map, including a four mile stretch between the end of the corridor and Turnagain Arm,is designated as a "minimal management"area where,according to the CCP,electrical transmission lines are not permitted.The preliminary design anticipates that the line would be buried through this four mile area though a terminal station would be placed near the shore for coupling the underground cable with the submarine cable. The "minimal management"areas identified in the 1985 CCP constitute the Secretary of Interior's recommendations for additional wilderness designations within the Refuge.However,these recommendations have not been acted upon.There have been no additions to the wilderness system within the Refuge since enactment of ANILCA in 1980. An appropriate land use classification such as "moderate management"is a pre- requisite for gaining access through the Refuge.However,assuming either that a buried line and associated terminal station would be allowed within the "minimal management"area or that the CCP could be amended to allow it,a right-of-way application would still have to be submitted and approved by Federal agencies under Title XI of ANILCA. In rendering a decision on the right-of-way application,Title XI of ANILCA states that the Federal agency: "Shall consider,and make detailed findings supported by substantial evidence with respect to ...alternative routes and modes of access,including a determination with respect to whether there is any economically feasible and prudent alternative to the routing of the system through or within a conservation system unit ...and,if not,whether there are alternative routes or modes which would result in fewer or less severe adverse impacts upon theconservationsystemunit." 1 Most of what is now the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge was first set aside as the Kenai National Moose Range in 1941. 2-3 Point Possession . N BAY 2 Ree . ..wt. SS "."ee -aq. a eo Pied +Ne a.o- ° .ren . .™, =eee -ee ee 72 ee Be letra Uolotal ae Fats - oe . - _ . °« ae fre ?{>»wg ;xs,. aye aoe :* oe ,. -oo Due + .vs +rns spy we ' hic 7 4 - »te: -- fle x rs (haghhhdhedihl,ey/NNaoo Ps wwt wey>fLEPOEDPTTTTLTTDIFATVT,'Noe thee=yY yw.Ph Mystery Creeks :Rt iN Wilderness-Unit - )See,=be ee mar be Deed0BOyana "ee pasgOy!ek age .'="a"*dIVy'it4doei>i4?'¥bl&h*Ps¢geed3Soseg”a . -Dorostn YQ >A iS an =oLucesIsland_<*een Seen S 'ray THA aa NT _ wor '-_-_----=rong __ FIGURE 2.2 The Tesoro route does not involve any new construction on Refuge lands.As a result,it appears that a central issue for Federal determination will be whether the Tesoro route is prudent and economically feasible.If the Federal agencies conclude that it is,then right-of-way along the Enstar corridor could be denied on that basis regardless of the land use designation within the CCP. Transmission line access into developed areas always has the potential to create problems for affected property owners and users.From the north end of Potter's Marsh,the Huffman alternative extends 3 miles to the Huffman substation,while the International alternative extends 8.4 miles to the International substation.As noted above,it is assumed that right-of-way would be less difficult to acquire for the Huffman alternative due to its shorter length.The cost estimate is therefore based on the Huffman alternative. 2.13 Description of Tesoro Route The existing 115 kV line between the Soldotna substation and the Bernice Lake substation would continue to be operated at 115 kV and would not require modification.From Bernice Lake,a new 138 kV line would be constructed following North Kenai Road to the Captain Cook State Recreation Area.It is anticipated that the line would be buried for the four mile crossing of the Recreation Area,and then continue overhead following the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way along the coast to Point Possession. The submarine crossing would begin at a point just west of the Refuge boundary at Point Possession and would end at a terminal station on the Anchorage side at Point Campbell.The line would continue underground to the northeast until it is past the east-west airport runway,and then continue overhead to Point Woronzof.There are existing underground cables that extend from Point Woronzof to International substation and also across Knik Arm to Point MacKenzie.As a result,the Tesoro route terminates at Point Woronzof without any additional line extension required into the Anchorage area. An alternative approach is described in the reconnaissance study for bringing the line from Point Campbell into Anchorage.Essentially,the line would extend east along Raspberry Road and Jewel Lake Road,eventually crossing Connor's Bog and terminating at the International substation near International Airport Road. However,this report and the independent cost estimate included in Appendix D assume that the first option extending northeast from Point Campbell to Point Woronzof would be selected.The main reason for this assumption is the higher level of difficulty anticipated in routing the line through more heavily developed areas. Prior to this report,the Tesoro route had been considered only in the context of 230 kV,not 138 kV,construction and operation.As a result,there are two significant differences between the Tesoro route as defined above vs.the Tesoro route defined in the reconnaissance study: 2-4 .The earlier version included 24.2 miles of new 230 kV overhead line between Soldotna and Bernice Lake,including a 4 mile segment across a corner of the Refuge.At 138 kV,this new construction is not necessary. .The earlier version included 6 miles of new 230 kV underground cable between Point Woronzof and International substation.At 138 kV,this new underground cable is not necessary. 2.1.4 Tesoro Route Right-of-Way Issues Right-of-way issues for the Tesoro route are associated with passage through Captain Cook State Recreation Area,with privately owned parcels of land along the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula,and with access into Anchorage from Point Campbell to Point Woronzof.It appears that access through Captain Cook State Recreation Area can be gained provided that the line is buried through this 4 mile segment as planned.In addition,securing a right-of-way through the Recreation Area may require allocation of funds for replacement with lands of equal value,which would require National Park Service approval under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. Between Bernice Lake and Point Possession,right-of-way acquisition would be necessary across an estimated 227 parcels of private-land.This includes land adjacent to North Kenai Road as well as parcels north of Captain Cook State Recreation Area.Right-of-way acquisition for this large number of private parcels is expected to be time-consuming but achievable. From a terminal station at Point Campbell,the line would be buried in Kincaid Park along the coast and would be routed through the woods on X-frame overhead structures between the east-west runway and Point Woronzof.Access difficulty through these areas will depend on the extent to which conflicts with Kincaid Park and the coastal trail south of Point Woronzof can be minimized. 2.2 NORTHERN LINE:ROUTE SELECTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The map in Figure 2.3 displays the two route alternatives that have been developed for the northern line (i.e.the new line between Healy and Fairbanks).These alternatives are labeled the "North Route”and the "South Route."The "North Route"bends around the north side of Fairbanks until it eventually connects with the Ft.Wainwright substation on the southeast side of town;while the "South Route" follows a more direct path to the Ft.Wainwright substation by coming up through the Ft.Wainwright Military Reservation. Prior to the reconnaissance study,it was assumed that a new line into Fairbanks would deliver power to the Ester substation on the west side of town.At the time of the study,however,Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)expressed a strong DATA SOURCES -USGS 1:63,000 Topographic Maps +Utilities 0:arosWw==! &Roads Existing Transmission Lines rrorecereeore Railroad SCALE WN ML_ESNORTH FAIRBANKS TALKEETNA 26 Scate in Mites ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY North Study Area Healy Subarea FIGURE 2.3 ALASKA DistPr A) *1 inser or res ie geared age ee fofu's Sane ie \ : 5 J vyokgey atin ill ae haere!6a F.w EN;ARESESofjae'tba,2ora:.wee ik .Poe Wale wKIG HE SECTION Qo SCALE IN MLES V2 1 3 Fairbanks Inset :;" rantayes *s Taeewtes -.,Seé Inset" |'SS ion 26 60 Scale in Miles DATA SOURCES -USGS 1:63,000 Topographic Maps -Utilities LEGEND Major Highways &Roads amasameams intertie Enstar Gasline Existing Transmission Lines rerermerreeee Railroad NORTH SCALE IN MNES ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY North Study Area Fairbanks Subarea FIGURE 2.3 (continued) APPROVED OATE preference for delivering power to its Ft.Wainwright substation instead.According to the reconnaissance study: "..current load patterns and the difficulty in transmitting the power through the town have indicated that the Ft.Wainwright delivery point is more desirable."(p.IV-1,Vol.6) The "South Route"is identified in the reconnaissance study as the preferred alternative primarily for two reasons:it is about 18 miles shorter than the "North Route"and traverses less land that is privately owned.Asa result,it is expected that the construction cost would be lower for the "South Route”and right-of-way would be less difficult to acquire. 2.2.1 Description of "South Route" Beginning at the Healy substation,the new line extends north to the Nenana area, generally remaining several miles east of the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway.The Tanana River is first crossed about 5 miles east of Nenana.The line then turns toward the east and generally parallels the Tanana River to the easternedgeoftheBonanzaCreekExperimentalForest,about 6 miles southwest of the Fairbanks International Airport.At this point,the line re-crosses the Tanana River and enters the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation,where it proceeds northeast until it is about 3 miles due south of the International Airport. From there,two alternative "subroutes”have been defined to bring the line back across the Tanana River to GVEA's Ft.Wainwright substation.As shown on the map,one subroute heads north directly across the river and then east to the substation.The other "subroute"continues to the east within the military reservation for several more miles,then crosses the river about 1 mile due south of the substation. 2.2.2 Description of "North Route” Beginning at the Healy substation,the line extends north to the Nenana area remaining generally close to the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway for most of the way.It first crosses the Tanana River about 3 miles east of Nenana and continues to the Little Goldstream Creek valley,where the route joins the existingGVEAtransmissionlinecorridor.It then parallels the GVEA route almost to the west edge of the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest where it diverges from theGVEAline,crosses to the north side of the Parks Highway and enters theGoldstreamCreekvalley.As shown on the map,the route then circles around the north and east sides of Fairbanks and terminates at the Ft.Wainwright substation.The last 9 miles of the proposed corridor skirts the edge or goes through residentialandcommercial/industrial areas. 2-6 2.2.3 Right-of-Way Comparison --"South Route"vs."North Route" Table 2.1 below provides a comparison of land ownership along the two routes as of August 1987,the date of issuance for Volume 6 of the reconnaissance study: TABLE 2.1 COMPARISON OF LAND OWNERSHIP North Route South Route* (miles)(miles) Native/Private 19.9 3.5 Federal/State Going Private 25.7 28.7 Borough/Municipal 2.4 0.0 Federal 13.75 23.5 State 52.6 40.6 TOTAL 114.4 96.3 *This is based on the southern "subroute”leading out of the Ft.Wainwright Military Reservation.The other "subroute” is 0.5 miles longer,and includes less Federal land but more State land. Aside from its greater length,the main disadvantage of the North Route is that it passes through significantly more private and developed land,especially to the north of Fairbanks.The South Route is preferred as a result.However,the South Route traverses about 12-15 miles of land within the Ft.Wainwright Military Reservation, including land which is presently used for bombing practice and related activities.A key issue for the preferred South Route will be to negotiate an acceptable right-of- way agreement with the military. 23 NOTE ON MENTAL HEALTH LANDS State "Mental Health Lands"have been identified in the vicinity of all proposed routes,though closer examination would be needed to determine the extent of impact.Whether this issue becomes significant will depend on the timing of aresolutiontotheMentalHealthLandsissue.See letter from the Alaska DepartmentofNaturalResourcesincludedinAppendixC. 2-7 2.4 ELEMENTS OF PROJECT DESIGN The purpose of this section is to convey a basic sketch of project structures and equipment.Project details are available in the reconnaissance study,the independent cost estimate,and in other supporting documentation. 2.4.1 Overview of Southern Line (Enstar Route) The 49.9 miles of overhead line extending from the Soldotna substation into the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge consists of weathering steel X-frame structures.A terminal station is located 5.1 miles south of Turnagain Arm to interconnect the overhead line with the underground cable section that extends through Chickaloon Flats. The 5.1 miles of underground construction consists of 4 oil-filled underground cables. These are connected at a terminal station located near the shore with 4 oil-filledsubmarinecablesthatextendfor9.1 miles across Turnagain Arm.On the Anchorage side,the submarine cables are buried in the railroad right-of-way for an additional 0.8 miles until past Potter's Marsh.A terminal station is located north of Potter's Marsh to interconnect the submarine cable with the overhead line that extends into Anchorage.The overhead line extending 3 miles to Huffman substation consists of weathering steel single pole structures. Substation expansion and modification would also be necessary at Soldotna and at Huffman. 2.4.2 Overview of Southern Line (Tesoro Route) The existing 115 kV line extending 24.2 miles between Soldotna substation and Bernice Lake substation would continue to be operated at 115 kV and would not - require modification.For 11.5 miles from Bernice Lake to the Captain Cook Recreation Area,the new 138 kV line consists of weathering steel single pole structures following the route of North Kenai Road.Oil-filled underground cable is then buried for 4 miles through the Recreation Area,with terminal stations placed at either end to connect the underground and overhead segments.For the next 24.75 miles from the north end of the Recreation Area to Point Possession,the new line consists of weathering steel X-frame structures. A terminal station would be located west of the Refuge boundary at Point Possession,which would connect the overhead line with 4 oil-filled submarine cables. These cables would extend for 13.7 miles across Turnagain Arm to a terminal station at Point Campbell.Oil-filled underground cable would then extend for 2.2 miles to the northeast until it is past the east-west airport runway.The final 2.4 miles to PointWoronzofconsistsofoverheadlinesupportedbyweatheringsteelX-frame structures. Substation modifications would be necessary at Bernice Lake and Point Woronzof. 2.4.3 Overview of Northern Line (Both Routes) The project referred to as the "Northern Line”consists of a new 138 kV intertie between Healy and Fairbanks (which would supplement the existing 138 kV line) plus a significant amount of electrical equipment needed for increased transfer capability.Project design has not been developed in the same detail as the southern line,but construction of the transmission line itself (excluding the electrical equipment)is expected to be much less complex.The northern line does not include any submarine crossings nor are any underground segments presently anticipated. Overall,it is expected that nearly all of the towers will consist of weathering steel X- frame structures.All river crossings will be accomplished with overhead spans. Substation modifications to accommodate the new intertie will be needed at Healy and at Ft.Wainwright. The electrical equipment will consist of SVS (static var)additions that would be installed at the Healy,Ft.Wainwright,and Teeland substations according to the preliminary design.The reconnaissance study envisioned heavy reliance on series capacitors rather than SVS to increase the stability limit for intertie transfers. However,due in part to evidence that has since emerged on the potential for sub- synchronous resonance problems associated with their use in the Railbelt,series capacitors have been eliminated from the proposal.Comparable impact can be achieved with SVS additions,but the SVS approach is more expensive. There is no single level of SVS addition that is necessarily associated with the intertieupgrade.Up to a limit,more SVS will buy more transfer capability.The upgradeproposaldefinedinthisstudyincludesasmuchSVScapacityasisconsidered practical by the Authority's consultant on the subject,Power Technologies,Inc. (PTI).SVS additions above this level will not provide appreciable increases in the stability limit for intertie transfers.Overall,the proposal includes the addition of roughly 200 MVar of SVS capacity to the existing 77 MVar now installed between Teeland and Fairbanks,at a capital cost of roughly $20 million. 2.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACT Presented below are estimates of the impact of each project on power transfer capability and transmission losses. 2.5.1 Southern Line --Impact on Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses There are several factors that can place a limit on the transfer capability of a transmission line.The thermal limit refers to the maximum level of transfer that a line can tolerate without conductor damage from too much heat.The stability limit typically refers to the maximum level of transfer above which system disturbances 2-9 can produce instability and associated widespread outages,as well as a risk ofequipmentdamage.*High transfers can also result in unacceptably low voltages atcustomersitesalongatransmissionline. For the existing Kenai-Anchorage line,the thermal limit is expected to be about 145 MW when planned reconductoring of certain segments is completed.”However,the stability limit will remain much lower.Stability will be improved with the addition of two SVS (static var)units that will be installed on the Kenai Peninsula transmission system as part of the Bradley Lake project.These enhancements have beendesignedtoprovideastabilitylimitof75MWovertheexistingKenai-Anchorage linefornormaloperation.This limit could be increased with the purchase and installation of additional stability enhancements.However,as discussed below,both reliability and transmission loss considerations would weigh against the idea of increasing transfers substantially above 75 MW over the existing line. With the addition of a second Kenai-Anchorage line assuming the same SVS enhancements are installed,the stability limit would be roughly 90 MW for normal operation.A second line would increase reliability,reduce transmission losses,and substantially increase the thermal transfer limit as well.As a result,the 90 MW stability limit for the two-line scenario could be readily increased with additions or modifications to the planned stability enhancements should regular transfers above 90 MW prove valuable at some point in the future. Table 2.2 below shows estimated transmission losses between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula with and without a second line for a range of transfer levels. Additional losses between Bradley Lake and Soldotna are not included. 2 Instability is defined as a loss of synchronism among interconnected generators.3 While conductor damage may not occur until 145 MW is reached,increased power transfer produces more heat which causes additional sag in the line. For the existing Kenai-Anchorage line,transfers much above 90 MW may cause sufficient line sag to reach minimum ground clearance at a number of locations.This would place another limit on transfer capability. 2-10 TABLE 2.2 TRANSMISSION LOSSES BETWEEN ANCHORAGE AND THE KENAI PENINSULA Transmission Losses Transfer Level With Second Line Without Second Line MW MW Lo MW % 40 1.1 2.8%3.6 9.0% 60 2.5 4.2%6.9 11.5% 75 3.9 5.2%10.1 13.5% 90 5.6 6.2%*14.5 *16.1% 110 8.3 7.59%*21.7 *19.7% Note:*denotes losses at transfer levels that exceed planned transfer limits. Incremental losses refer to the amount of loss incurred as a result of the last MW of transfer.For example,without a second line,an additional 4.4 MW is lost when the transfer level is increased by 15 MW from 75 MW to 90 MW.In other words, incremental losses average 29.3%(4.4 divided by 15)for the existing line whentransfersareincreasedmarginallyabove75MW--nearly 1 MWis lost for every 3MWofadditionaltransferatthislevel.With a second line,incremental losses between 75 and 90 MW are 11.3%--about 1 MW lost for every 10 MW of additional transfer.The gap in incremental losses (29.3%vs.11.3%between 75 and 90 MW) grows wider as transfer levels are increased above 90 MW. The high level of incremental losses for the existing line is one of the significant reasons for leaving the stability limit at 75 MW for normal operation.There is little incentive to invest in additional stability enhancements for the existing line when normal operation above 75 MW will be burdened with these high incremental losses. Another significant reason is reliability.According to PTI: "There are two reasons reliability will fall when the system is designed for - higher transfers [without a new line].One is that as the number of stability aids increases,the prospects of one or more of them not responding or not responding properly when a disturbance occurs is higher.The second reason is that equipment such as line conductors,switchgear,transformers,and 2-11 protection in substations is stressed more heavily,and is thus more prone to failure or misoperation."(Kenai Export Limits,page 8) Further,as transfer levels are increased over a single line,the probability and extent of a power outage due to transmission failure are both increased.Heavierdependenceonasingleline,particularly one with a relatively poor reliability history,4makesthesystemmorevulnerabletooutagescausedbyindividualevents. The conclusion adopted here is that increasing the normal transfer limit for theexistinglinesubstantiallyabove75MWwouldnotbeadvisablefromareliabilitystandpointnordesirablefromthestandpointoftransmissionlosses.With a second line,however,the normal transfer limit would be about 90 MW initially with the planned stability enhancements,and could be further increased in the future if desired. During emergency situations,utilities may be willing to exceed the normal transfer limits for brief periods of time.If additional system disturbances occur while the normal limits are exceeded,the resulting system outages could be severe.Though transfers above the normal limit are unusual for this reason,the potential for higher _transfers during emergency conditions is still valuable.The emergency transfer limit for the southern line is dictated by low voltage levels.Given planned stability enhancements,the emergency transfer limit for the existing line is 117 MW:above this level,steady state voltages along the line are unacceptably low.With a second line the emergency transfer limit is 250 MW. The transfer limits for the two scenarios are summarized in Table 2.3 below: TABLE 2.3 TRANSFER LIMITS BETWEEN ANCHORAGE AND THE KENAI PENINSULA With Second Line Without Second Line Normal Operation 90 MW 75 MW Emergency Operation 250 MW 117 MW Note:Assumes planned stability enhancements associated with Bradley Lake See Section 6,Project Benefits,for discussion on reliability. 2-12 As discussed above,the transfer limit for normal operation can be increased in the future for the two-line case,but is unlikely to be increased for the single-line case. 2.5.2 Northern Line --Impact on Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses The reconnaissance study reported that Fairbanks can receive about 62 MW over the existing Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie when 70 MW is input from Anchorage, assuming the existing 25 MW Healy coal plant is in operation at the time.This ts consistent with existing operating practice;however,operation of the intertie at these limits exceeds the stability criteria adopted for this study.In other words,the stability limit for transfers over the existing transmission system is lower than the 70 MW transfers that presently occur.There are events ("single contingencies")that could occur that would result in system instability when transfers are at 70 MW. According to PTI,the maximum amount of Anchorage power that could presently be brought into Healy without exceeding stability limits is about 54 MW under specific, favorable conditions.(After losses,the delivery into Fairbanks would be somewhat less than that.)This could be considered the "secure"transfer limit.The "emergency”limit for transfers into Healy under favorable conditions is estimated at 77 MW.In the absence of a new Healy coal plant,the proposed upgrade would allow an estimated 94 MW to be brought into Healy from Anchorage within "secure" stability limits,and up to 127 MW within the "emergency"limit.These figures are presented in Table 2.4 below: TABLE 2.4 MAXIMUM TRANSFER OF ANCHORAGE POWER INTO HEALY With Upgrade Without Upgrade Normal Operation 94 MW 34 MW Emergency Operation 127 MW 77 MW Note:Assumes no new Healy coal plant;existing plant on-line. Because the scenarios in Table 2.4 assume that the existing 25 MW coal-fired powerplantatHealyisoperatingatfulloutput,the amount of power flowing north out ofHealyis25MWhigherthanthefiguresshownabove.Table 2.5 displays themaximumflowofpoweroutofHealybymakingthis25MWadjustment: 2-13 TABLE 2.5 MAXIMUM FLOW OF POWER NORTH OUT OF HEALY With Upgrade Without Upgrade Normal Operation 119 MW 79 MW Emergency Operation 152 MW 102 MW Note:Assumes no new Healy coal plant;existing plant on-line. The SVS component of the upgrade is primarily responsible for increasing the stability limit for transfers between Anchorage and Fairbanks.As discussed in the reconnaissance study,an "equipment only"upgrade would be possible that would,by itself,provide a useful increment of increased transfer capability.A second line between Healy and Fairbanks would have the following additional impacts: .Substantial reduction in transmission losses between Healy and Fairbanks. .Modest additional increase in transfer capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks. .Significantly increased reliability. Table 2.6 shows the impact of the new line on transmission losses between Healy and Fairbanks for selected levels of power flowing north out of Healy: TABLE 2.6 IMPACT OF A SECOND LINE ON TRANSMISSION LOSSES BETWEEN HEALY AND FAIRBANKS Healy-Fairbanks Transmission Losses (MW) Power Flow North Out of Healy (MW)With Second Line Without Second Line 50 8 1.8 70 1.5 3.5 90 2.4 6.2 110 3.6 9.3 130 5.2 13.4 150 6.9 18.7 2-14 If a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is built at Healy,a significant amount of additional SVS capacity will be needed simply to operate the Healy coal facilities at full capacity and stay within stability criteria adopted for this study.This is due primarily to the need to maintain stability for sudden loss of the new 50 MW Healy unit.The impact of a second line in the context of a new Healy coal plant will be consistent with the above discussion on transmission losses,but will be especially pronounced in the area of reliability.These issues are further discussed in Chapter 6, "Project Benefits." 2-15 3.CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 3.1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES As noted in the Introduction,an independent cost estimate for the two intertie proposals in conformance with AS 44.83.185 has now been prepared by Dryden & LaRue,Inc.The full text of the Dryden &LaRue report is included in Appendix D. This represents the most recent and thorough cost estimate prepared for the 138 kV lines and associated equipment,and is adopted in this feasibility report for project planning.Summaries of the capital cost estimates are provided below. 3.1.1 Southern Line:"Enstar"Route Link 1 16.10 Miles Steel X-Structures $4,698,120 Link 2 33.75 Miles Steel X-Structures $10,404,345 Link 6 2.95 Miles Steel Single Pole $953,690 Soldotna Substation $1,719,800 Huffman Substation $678,200 Subtotal $18,454,155 Right-of-Way $2,500,000 Design 4%$738,166 Construction Mgmt 4%$738,166 Subtotal 1 $22,430,487 Link 3 5.10 Miles Underground Cable $10,457,341 Link4&5 9.90 Miles Submarine Cable $34,548,140 Subtotal 2 $45,005,481 Contingency 10%(Sub1&2)$6,743,597 Utility Admin 1%(Sub1&2)$674,360 AEA Admin $250,000 Estimated Total $75,103,925 Southern Line:"Tesoro"Route Link 3.2A 11.50 Miles Link 3.3.24.75 Miles Link 3.10 2.40 Miles Bernice Lake Woronzof Link 3.2B 4.00 Miles Link 3.4 13.65 Miles Link 3.9 2.20 Miles Steel Single Pole Steel X-Structure Steel X-Structure Substation Substation Subtotal Right-of-Way Design 4% Construction Mgmt 4% Subtotal 1 Underground Cable Submarine Cable Underground Cable Subtotal 2 $3,392,736 $9,210,447 $791,367 $2,300,000 $406,350 $16,100,900 $2,700,000 $644,036 $644,036 $20,088,972 $8,073,954 $42,915,640 $4,465,948 $55,455,542 Contingency 10%(Sub1&2)$7,554,451 Utility Admin 1%(Sub1&2)$755,445 AEA Admin $250,000 Estimated Total $84,104,411 3-2 Northern Line (Including SVS Additions) Link 1 26.00 Miles Steel X-Structures $11,682,101 Link 2 29.50 Miles Steel X-Structures $12,721,443 Link 3 27.00 Miles Steel X-Structures $11,487,410 Link 4 12.50 Miles Steel X-Structures $7,950,747 Link 5 5.50 Miles Steel X-Structures $2,384,193 Healy Substation $406,350 Wainwright Substation $406,850 Subtotal $47,039,094 Right-of-Way $460,000 Design 4%$1,881,564 Construction Mgmt 4%$1,881,564 Subtotal 1 $51,262,222 Healy SVS $4,904,000 Wainwright SVS $3,200,000 Teeland SVS $10,322,000 Subtotal 2 $18,426,000 Contingency 10%(Sub1&2)$6,968,822UtilityAdmin1%(Sub1&2)$696,882 AEA Admin $250,000 Estimated Total $77,603,926 3.2 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES This category is intended to cover costs for both operations and maintenance of the proposed projects (i.e."O&M costs").These annual costs were estimated in the earlier studies by applying a percentage factor ranging from .5%to 1.5%to the project capital cost.This "rule of thumb"method can be misleading especially when, as in this case,the project provides a second circuit between two areas that are already interconnected.While additional maintenance costs will be incurred for the second line,there may be little or no increase in system operating costs. 3-3 The O&M costs outlined below are based on itemized estimates specific to each line rather than application of a percentage rule of thumb.No increase in cost for system operations is anticipated.Included are all costs estimated to keep the projects in sound condition throughout the period of analysis adopted for the benefit assessment:40 years for the southern line and 50 years for the northern line.The 40 year period of analysis for the southern line was based on a presumed 40 year life forwoodpoletransmissiontowers.The 50 year period of analysis for the northern line was based on a presumed 50 year life for steel towers. 3.2.1 Southern Line:"Enstar"Route Inspection Repair & and Replacement:Submarine Routine Overhead Cable Years Maintenance Line Replacement Total 1-5 $55,000 0 0 $55,000 6-30 $70,000 $50,000 0 $120,000 31-40 $70,000 $50,000 $2,100,000 $2,220,000 Inspection and Routine Maintenance:For years 1 through 5,these costs include aerial and ground inspections of overhead line plus inspection and routine maintenance of submarine terminals.Added cost in years 6-40 is for climbing inspection of towers --20%climbed per year. Repair and Replacement --_Overhead Line:This is the estimated average annual cost for significant repair to overhead transmission facilities.No significant costs are anticipated in years 1-5. Submarine Cable Replacement:The preliminary design includes double-armored submarine cable for the crossing of Turnagain Arm.Although the economic life of the cable could equal or exceed 40 years,the risk of earlier damage or failure of the cable is significant and warrants recognition in the long-term cost projection.This estimate assumes that the cable will require replacement after 30 years.The 1991 dollar cost for replacing the submarine cable is estimated at $34.5 million.The annual replacement cost in years 31-40 is based on this estimate annualized over 30 years at 4.5%. 1 Although the updated design presented in this report includes all steel towersforthesouthernline,the earlier concept included roughly 34 miles of woodpoleconstructionforthe"Enstar"route.As a result,the benefit estimate developed in earlier studies was based on an economic life consistent with 'wood towers. 3-4 3.2.2 Southern Line:"Tesoro"Route Inspection Repair & and Replacement:SubmarineRoutineOverheadCable Years Maintenance Line Replacement Total 1-5 $55,000 0 0 $55,000 6-30 $70,000 $50,000 0 $120,000 31-40 $70,000 $50,000 $2,600,000 $2,720,000 All estimates are the same as described above for the "Enstar"route,except that the submarine cable replacement cost is higher due to the longer submarine crossing for the "Tesoro"route.The 1991 dollar estimated replacement cost for submarine cable on the Tesoro route is $42.9 million. 3.2.3 Northern Line Inspection Repair &Major and Replacement:ElectricalRoutineOverheadEquipmentYearsMaintenanceLineInsurance Total 1-5 $60,000 0 $50,000 $110,000 6-50 $85,000 $50,000 $50,000 $185,000 The explanations for these estimates are comparable to those above except that: 1)Submarine cable is not part of the northern line,and 2)Although insurance is not purchased for facilities such as transmission towers or conductor,it would be purchased for major electrical equipment to be installed as part of the northern project,specifically the SVSs. 3-5 4.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT For both reconnaissance and feasibility studies,Alaska Energy Authority regulations require environmental assessment in the following areas: .air quality; water quality; ,fish and wildlife impact; .land use impact and ownership status; terrestrial impact (vegetation and wetlands); recreation resource value; :visual impact. A summary of these impacts by category was prepared for the reconnaissance study in Volume 11 ("Benefit/Cost Analysis"),Section 12,and is reproduced below with minor modifications.Substantially more detail is available in the reconnaissance study from the following two sources: .Volume 5 ("Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project"),Part One, Section 7 ("Environmental Evaluation"),and also in Part Two. :Volume 6 ("Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project"),Chapter VI ("Environmental Evaluation of Alternative Routes”). 4.1 SOUTHERN LINE:ENSTAR AND TESORO ROUTES 4.1.1 Air Quality Impacts of construction and operation of the Kenai-Anchorage intertie on air quality would be confined to locally generated equipment exhaust and fugitive dust.Air quality impacts would be negligible in magnitude for both routes. 4.1.2 Water Quality Since there would not be access roads installed along either corridor,neither routealternativewouldsubstantiallyaffectwaterquality.The Enstar route has a largernumberofsignificantstreamcrossingsinareasnotservedbyexistingpublichighways 4-1 (i.e.about 13)than does the Tesoro route (about 4).Although these areas may require short access spurs from existing access roads,development and use of access areas would result in a low level of impact on water quality.There are two streams along the Enstar route in the Chikaloon Flats area that would require trenching.The extent of use of the lower reaches of these streams by important anadromous fish species is unknown;however,some use by salmon is reported in both Burnt Island and Little Indian creeks. The effects on water quality of the crossing of Turnagain Arm by the buried submarine conduit on either route would be low and would not differ between routes.The effects of crossing mud flats on either side of Turnagain Arm would also differ little between alternatives although the distance traversed would be greater for the Enstar route.Silt resulting from trenching would be temporarily suspended,but would not result in a significant increase in turbidity due to the normally high level of suspended solids in the waters of Upper Cook Inlet.Similarly,trenching to bury the line along the Arm side of the railroad tracks would not significantly affect water quality.Both alternatives on the north side of the Arm are rated as having a low impact potential on water quality. In summary,overall effects on water quality are rated as low for both the Enstar and Tesoro routes. 4.13 Fish and Wildlife The potential effects of each route alternative on fish resources on the Kenai Peninsula would be proportional to the potential effects on water quality since effects on fish result primarily from water quality degradation.One exception would be in Big and Little Indian creeks,where trenching across streams could interfere with spawning habitat,if present.Impacts to fish on the Kenai Peninsula leg are thus considered generally low for the Enstar route,with a potential for a localized moderate impact,and low for the Tesoro route. Primary wildlife concerns along the Enstar route are waterfowl and swan use along the Moose River,Chickaloon Flats and other smaller streams and lakes,as well as use by moose,and perhaps caribou (primarily in the segments within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge).Potential impacts to eagle nesting areas would likely be mitigated by routing adjustments.During construction,impacts to wildlife on the Kenai Peninsula would be slightly greater for the Enstar route than the Tesoro route because of disturbances on Chickaloon Flats and because the route lies across likely migration corridors between the mountains to the east and the flats to the west. Animals such as moose,and possibly caribou,that move from high hillsides in the summer to the lowland winter range may frequently cross the route,although this would not constitute a significant impact after the initial period of construction activities.The area of the Enstar route within the Refuge would remain a high use and high success area for moose hunting since management practices and public access to the area would not be altered.Impacts to wildlife on the Kenai Peninsula leg are considered low for both routes. 4-2 On the Anchorage side of Turnagain Arm,neither of the alternatives or their optional routings would have a significant impact on fish,assuming that trenchingacrossRabbitCreekwouldnotoccurduringperiodsofanadromousfishusage. Potential wildlife concerns on the north side of the Arm focus on the Potter's Marsh area for the Enstar route where nearby overhead line would have some potential for bird collisions.However,the alternative entry to Anchorage for the Enstar route along Old Seward Highway is not likely to be in a heavily used flight path because of the high terrain immediately to the north and existing vegetation between the marsh and the line.Other impacts on wildlife would be relatively minor. Overall,the impacts are classified as low for both routes. 4.1.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status Both the Enstar and Tesoro routes pass through a variety of land ownerships including some private,borough,state,and Native lands.As discussed in Chapter 2, a major portion of the Enstar route lies within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, paralleling the existing Enstar gas pipeline right-of-way.The major non-utility related use of the lands along this route is for hunting which would not be unduly affected by establishment of the transmission line.The impact of the Enstar route on land use on the Kenai Peninsula would be low to moderate. The Tesoro route follows North Kenai Road between Bernice Lake and the Captain Cook State Recreation Area (CCSRA),but requires widening of the existing right- of-way.Between the CCSRA and Point Possession,the route traverses primarily borough land and private land.Within the CCSRA,securing a right-of-way may require allocation of funds for replacement with lands of equal value which would | require National Park Service approval under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act.The impact of the Tesoro route on land use on the Kenai Peninsula is considered low to moderate. North of Turnagain Arm,the Enstar route options would avoid direct passage through sensitive public land use areas including the Potter Section House State Historic Site,Potter Marsh State Game Refuge,and the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range. The majority of the route under both options (to the Huffman or International substation)would parallel existing rights-of-way.The impact of the Enstar route on land use in the Anchorage area would be low.However,impacts may increase above this level in localized residential areas,with the level of impact dependent on the final alignment and the proximity of residences. North of Turnagain Arm,the Tesoro route would avoid extensive routing throughsensitivelanduseareas.The majority of the route would parallel existing rights-of-way,though it would infringe to some degree on Kincaid Park.The line would be buried in the park and opposite the east-west runway but would be in the woods on X-frame steel towers along the coastal trail extension south of Point Woronzof.The 4-3 impact of the Tesoro route on land use in the Anchorage area is judged to be generally low to moderate.This impact level may be reduced to low if conflicts with Kincaid Park and the coastal trail can be eliminated. Overall,the impact of each route on land use is expected to be low to moderate. 4.1.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands) Substantial clearing of overstory vegetation would be required for either route. However,since understory and shrub vegetation would be unaffected over most of the rights-of-way,the impact would be negligible.Potentially serious infestations by spruce bark beetles that could begin in trees cleared along the right-of-way would be mitigated by removal or burning of cut timber from the area. Wetlands disturbance would be kept to a minimum by route selection,minimizing access,careful tower placement,construction timing,and mitigation developed in concert with state and federal agencies.With the mitigation measures that are included in both alternatives,the impacts to terrestrial resources would be,at most, low. 4.1.6 Recreation Resources The primary recreational uses of areas along the alternative routes on the Kenai Peninsula are hunting,fishing,hiking,canoeing,skiing,and snowmobiling.Although there could be interference with some of these activities during construction,this disruption would be short term and restricted in geographic area at any one time. Construction in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge would be timed to minimize conflict with moose seasons and access would be allowed for hunters along the present right-of-way.Initial plans would allow continued recreational use of the right-of-way;however,if increased recreational activity adversely affects the available resources,some areas might require grating. North of Turnagain Arm,the primary recreational activities are nature observation (at Potter's Marsh),and skiing,walking,or running on the coastal trail along Knik Arm.Construction activities on the Enstar route could temporarily interfere with the enjoyment of natural features and wildlife in the vicinity of Potter's Marsh. Construction along the Tesoro route would temporarily diminish enjoyment of recreation along the coastal trail.Following construction,transmission line facilities might be visible from place to place along the coastal trail,especially in winter,and could reduce enjoyment of recreational activities. Overall,the Enstar route would have a low level of impact on recreational resources. The Tesoro route would have a low-to-moderate impact because of the potential disturbance to recreation along the coastal trail,especially during construction. 4.1.7 Visual Impacts Most of the first 18 miles of the Enstar route would be near (e.g.within 1 to 2 miles) existing residential areas and would be in existing rights-of-way.However,some new right-of-way would be required and overhead lines in these areas would be visible from residential properties.From the Refuge boundary to the north side of Turnagain Arm,the Enstar route would not be visible from residences or from public roadways.Increased right-of-way width and the transmission lines would be visible to some air travelers.The terminal stations constructed on the north and south edges of Chickaloon Flats may be relatively inconspicuous to air travellers in and out of Anchorage depending on final site selection. The Tesoro route from Bernice Lake to Captain Cook State Recreation Area (CCSRA)is near existing development and/or within existing rights-of-way.The line is buried through CCSRA.From there to Point Possession,overhead line follows the coastline and would be visible to Kenai-Anchorage air traffic.The terminal/station building also would be visible to air travelers leaving or approaching Anchorage International Airport from the south and to air traffic between Anchorage and Kenai. North of Turnagain Arm on the Enstar route,the buried cables on the Arm side of the railroad would have no adverse aesthetic impacts,and the terminal station would be outside the Potter's Marsh viewing area.North of Potter's Marsh,the Enstar route would parallel existing roads and would be within existing rights-of-way through mostly residential areas with existing power lines.New installations at the Huffman or International substations could intrude on the viewsheds of some area residents.- North of Turnagain Arm,portions of the Tesoro route might be visible to users of the coastal trail extension. Overall,the Enstar route would have a low level of impact on visual resources.The Tesoro route would have a low-to-moderate impact unless screening can be provided to minimize the impact on the aesthetic values of the coastal trail. 4.2 NORTHERN LINE:"NORTH"AND "SOUTH"ROUTES 4.2.1 Air Quality Impacts of construction and operation on air quality would be limited to locally generated equipment exhaust and fugitive dust.These impacts will be largely temporary and localized during construction,and are considered negligible. 4-5 4.2.2 Water Quality Impacts on water quality are expected to be low,and are primarily associated with construction of short access spurs from existing roadways to the corridor. 4.2.3 Fish and Wildlife The effects on fish resources would be proportional to the effects on water quality since impacts on fish result primarily from degradation of water quality.Thus, impacts to fish are expected to be low. The intertie would traverse caribou migration routes and winter range,and cross wetlands used for waterfowl,trumpeter swan,and raptor nesting areas.Habitat used by moose,black bear,and brown bear would be affected. Between Healy and Nenana,both the North Route and the South Route cross similar forest and wetland habitats and each option has a similar potential to affect swan and raptor nesting areas.From Nenana to Fairbanks,the two options differ in that the North Route traverses more forest habitat which includes areas of black bear concentrations.The South Route remains more in the Tanana River Flats and therefore has a greater potential to affect swan and raptor nesting areas.Selection of tower sites that avoid critical nesting areas could minimize this impact.The South Route also has a greater risk of bird collisions.Overall,the impacts to wildlife are considered low. 4.2.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status Land use patterns favor the South Route between Healy and Nenana because it encounters fewer landing strips and airports and less residential land.The SouthRoutefromNenanatoFairbanksisalsofavoredfromalanduseperspectivebecausethemajorityoftheroutecrossespublicandundevelopedlands.It does,however, pass through Fort Wainwright,and agreements would need to be negotiated with the U.S.Army to ensure the transmission lines do not conflict with normal operations in order to obtain easements. 4.2.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands) In forested areas,substantial overstory clearing would be required.However,since understory and shrub vegetation would be unaffected over most of the rights-of-way,the impact would be low.Wetlands disturbance would be kept to a minimum by route selection,minimizing new road construction,careful tower placement,construction timing,and mitigation developed in concert with state and federal agencies.Terrestrial effects overall are expected to be low. 4-6 4.2.6 Recreation Resources The primary recreational uses of the route areas include hunting,fishing,trapping, hiking,canoeing,skiing,and snowmobiling.Although there could be interference with some of these activities during construction,this disruption would be short term and localized at any one time.Increased human access could lead to increased hunting,trapping,and fishing pressure in some areas.All designated state and federal recreation areas would be avoided by all route alternatives thus minimizing impacts in these areas. 4.2.7 Visual Impacts Visual resources along the Healy to Fairbanks segment are considered to be of moderate to high quality,and tourist use of the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad is very high during the summer.Between Healy and Nenana there is a view to the east of the Alaska Range from the railroad and the highway.As the highway descends into the Tanana Flats,the primary views are to the north and east across the Tanana River Valley.There are also views into the Tanana River Valley from the highway in the foothills between Nenana and Fairbanks.In this area the valley is sufficiently distant from the highway to minimize the potential view impairment if the transmission line were to follow the valley route.The visual impact of the North Route in this area would be greater since the transmission line would be visible from the highway and would cross the highway.Placement of the route to the east and south of the highway and railroad would minimize visual impacts in this area. In general,it may be possible to minimize visual impacts for either route through careful line placement.Since a detailed visual assessment would be expected at the time the required right-of-way permits were sought,an acceptable mitigation program could be developed at that time.Overall,the likely visual impacts are rated as low to moderate. 4-7 5.ECONOMIC PARAMETERS This section presents a summary of the fuel price forecasts,electricity demand forecasts,and discount rate that were used in the intertie economic analysis. Supporting detail for the fuel price forecasts is provided in the reconnaissance study ©in Volume 4 ("Fuel Price Outlooks:Crude Oil,Natural Gas,and Fuel Oil")and in Volume 11,Appendix B ("Benefit/Cost Analysis --Fuel Price Forecasts"). Supporting detail for the electricity demand forecasts is provided in thereconnaissancestudyinVolume2("Forecast of Electricity Demand in the AlaskaRailbeltRegion:1988-2010")and in Volume 11,Appendix C ("Benefit Cost Analysis --Demand Forecasts"). 5.1 FUEL PRICE FORECASTS Consistent sets of price forecasts were developed for crude oil,natural gas,fuel oil, and coal. 5.1.1 Crude Oil The crude oil price forecast is the main driver for the natural gas and fuel oil price forecasts,and is an important input to the electricity demand forecasts.Table 5.1 displays the 3 crude oil price forecasts considered in the economic analysis,expressed both in 1990 dollars and in nominal dollars: TABLE 5.1 CRUDE OIL PRICE FORECASTS (Saudi Light Delivered to U.S.Gulf) Low Mid High 1990 Nominal)1990 Nominal]1990 Nominal Year Dollars Dollars}Dollars Dollars}Dollars Dollars 1990 $16.05 $16.05 |$20.64 $20.64 |$22.93 $22.93 1995 18.35 22.86 24.08 30.00 28.67 35.72 2000 20.64 32.05 27.52 42.74 34.40 53.42 2005 21.79 42.16 30.96.59.91 40.13 77.65 2010 ,22.93 55.26 34.40 82.90 45.86 110.52 3-1 In the reconnaissance study,these price forecasts were expressed in 1987 dollars.To arrive at the numbers in Table 5.1 and elsewhere in this report,general inflation is assumed as follows: 1987-88:4.1% 1988-89:4.8% 1989-90:5.1% After 1990:4.5%annually In 1988,the Energy Authority Board of Directors considered these three crude oil price scenarios and adopteda set of probabilities for each as follows: Low Scenario:60% Mid Scenario:30% High Scenario:10% The outcome of the economic analysis conducted for the reconnaissance study reflects these probabilities.For this reason,the probability weighted crude oil price forecast is presented in Table 5.2,again in both 1990 dollars and nominal dollars: TABLE 5.2 PROBABILITY WEIGHTED CRUDE OIL PRICE FORECAST 1990 Nominal Year Dollars Dollars 1990 $18.12 $18.12 1995 21.10 26.29 2000 24.08 37.39 2005 26.38 51.03 2010 28.66 69.08 ”Reflects probabilities adopted in 1988 by AEA Board 3-2 §.1.2 Natural Gas Recent contracts provide the best available indication of the current value and long- term price outlook for Cook Inlet natural gas.Two such contracts had been recently negotiated at the time the reconnaissance study was prepared: 1)Contract between Marathon Oil Company and Enstar Natural Gas Company covering an initial 456 Bcf,with options for additional commitments in the future. 2)Contract between Marathon Oil Company and Chugach Electric Association covering an initial commitment of 215 Bcf,with options for additional commitments in the future. Each contract specifies a base price plus a periodic price adjustment factor.For the Enstar contract,the adjustment is based on changes in the price of crude oil.For the Chugach contract,the adjustment factor is based on price changes for crude oil, (refined)fuel oil,and natural gas in the lower 48.Because fuel oil and lower-48 natural gas prices are expected to follow a path roughly similar to crude oil prices over the long term,a simplified adjustment factor was assumed in the reconnaissance study consisting of crude oil prices only.Table 5.3 shows the wellhead price projections that result when the above-described crude price scenarios are applied according to contract terms. TABLE 5.3 COOK INLET WELLHEAD NATURAL GAS PRICES” (1990 Dollars per MMBtu) Chugach Chugach Chugach Enstar Enstar Enstar Year Low Mid High Low Mid High 1990 $1.46 $1.64 $1.72 $1.64 $1.83 $1.94 - 1995 1.50 1.94 2.27 1.77 2.27 2.65 2000 1.69 2.21 2.73 1.89 2.49 3.06 2005 1.80 2.49 3.18 1.71 2.36 3.02 2010 _1.89 2.76 3.63 1.79 2.61 3.45 ”Note that the Chugach prices do not account for blending in remaining quantities of lower priced,"old"Beluga gas.The Enstar prices,however, represent the blended acquisition cost to Enstar from its two main contracts (primarily the new Marathon contract),exclusive of any distribution margin to customers such as Anchorage Municipal Light &Power. For the reconnaissance study analysis,the Chugach prices were used for the Beluga and Bernice Lake generating plants,while the Enstar prices were used for all Anchorage Municipal Light and Power plants and the Soldotna plant. 5.13 Fuel Oil The fuel oil price forecast of primary interest for the intertie analysis is the price ofNo.4 distillate fuel oil purchased by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)in Fairbanks for use in power generation. GVEA has a contract with the State that extends through 1995 for the purchase ofroyaltyoilfromtheNorthSlope.The royalty oil purchased by GVEA is assigned to the Mapco refinery in Fairbanks for processing,and the refined product (i.e.No.4 fuel oil)is sold back to GVEA at a reduced margin.It is assumed in this forecast that future prices to GVEA will conform generally to this price-setting mechanism,the main elements of which are the wellhead price of crude oil on the North Slope and the TAPS tariff.The resulting price forecast is shown in Table 5.4. TABLE 5.4 PRICE OF NO.4 FUEL OIL TO.GVEA(1990 Dollars per MMBtu) Year Low Mid High 1990 $2.87 $3.66 $4.06 1995 3.26 4.22.4.98 2000 3.66 4.77 5.88 2005 3.86 53.33 6.81 2010 4.06 5.88 7.74 *Note that 1 gallon equals approx.0.144 MMBtu 5.1.4 Coal It is assumed that minemouth coal prices will be based on the cost of production and that the cost of production will not increase in real terms over the long run.The relevant constant dollar cost assumptions,expressed in 1990 dollars,are as follows: 1)Healy coal at minemouth,supplied to existing 25 MW Healy power plant: $1.49/MMBtu. 2)Healy coal delivered to Fairbanks for supplying existing coal-fired generationatChenaplant:$2.89/MMBtu. 5-4 3)50/50 blend of Healy standard coal and waste coal,supplied to proposed new50MWplantatHealy:$0.97/MMBtu. 5.2 ELECTRICITY DEMAND FORECASTS §.2.1 Railbelt Population and Employment Forecasts Electricity demand is dependent on the forecasts of population,households,and employment in the study area.A range of forecasts was developed based on alternative assumptions and varying combinations of assumptions.Using probabilities adopted by the Authority Board,a "low,""middle,"and "high"case was identified,each of which is judged to be equally probable.Neither the low nor the high case is intended to represent a boundary (i.e.a "worst”or "best")case.Table 5.5 shows a summary of the three population forecasts for the Railbelt.Table 5.6 shows a breakdown of the middle case into the three main regions selected for purposes of the intertie analysis. TABLE 5.5 RAILBELT POPULATION FORECASTS (thousands) Low Middle High 1987 388.0,388.0,388.01990385.6 383.9"389.5 1995 399.4 405.4 4183 2000 416.7 4365 465.9 2005 445.7 479.7,527.1 2010 480.3 5387 586.7 ”'The selection of cases was determined by the number of households and level of employmentintheyear2010.As a result,there can be overlap among the selected cases in the initial years. 5-5 TABLE 5.6 MIDDLE CASE --RAILBELT POPULATION FORECAST (thousands) Anchorage Fairbanks and Kenai North Mat-Su Peninsula Star ,Boroughs Borough Borough 1987 268.6 39.6 79.8 1990 262.1 39.7 82.2 1995 277.4 41.3 86.8 2000 300.2 44.4 91.9 2005 333.3 47.7 98.6 2010 378.5 $2.3 107.9 .Includes the Southeast Fairbanks census area. Several different combinations of assumptions produced population forecasts near the middle of the probability distribution.The particular set of assumptions selected as being representative of the middle case included the "Low"oil price forecast shown in Table 5.1,which was assigned a 60%probability by the Energy Authority Board.This and other important assumptions underlying the selected middle case are briefly summarized below. The price of oil expressed in 1990 dollars was assumed to trend upwards from $16.05 in 1990 to $22.93 in 2010 (or to $55.26 in nominal dollars --see Table 5.1). Production from existing fields continues,and technological advances combined with cost control allow the West Sak field on the North Slope to come into production after 2000.Production falls off from a peak of 723 million barrels in 1989 to 411 million in 2000 and 265 million in 2010.Frontier areas,including the Arctic National - Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf,are not developed because sufficiently large discoveries are not made and the cost of development of small fields cannot be recovered due to the low price.In spite of the decline in production, however,total employment in the industry does not fall because of the increasingly labor intensive nature of the process of extracting the maximum amount of oil out of currently producing fields.It is assumed that a trans-Alaska gas line from the North Slope is not built within the forecast horizon (i.e.prior to 2010). The federal government role as a basic industry remains constant with the exception of the deployment of the Light Infantry Division in Fairbanks. Tourism expansion continues at a rate of 20,000 additional tourist visitors annually. The mining industry grows in the late 1980s and 1990s at a rapid rate with the development of the Red Dog,Greens Creek,and U.S.Borax projects,a new coal facility for export in the Railbelt,and other unspecified activities projected to increase at three percent annually. 5-6 The timber industry expands into the early 1990s,at which time further growth is constrained by the size of the resource base,except in Southcentral Alaska where a modest industry develops in the 1990s.The traditional commercial fishery is constrained by the size of the resource base,but the bottomfish industry expands over time,centered in the southwestern part of the state,but with additional activity in the Southern Railbelt and Bristol Bay. State government contracts gradually through the 1990s in spite of revenue augmentation measures,including the use of Permanent Fund earnings beginning in 1992,the reimposition of the personal income tax in 1996,and the elimination of the Permanent Fund dividend in 1999.State petroleum revenues decline in real terms to $1241 million in 2000 and $842 million in 2010.The Permanent Fund real rate of return averages only three percent annually.Government expenditures are concentrated on the operating budget,leaving little for capital expenditures.In spite of wage levels held constant in nominal dollars for several years,government employment levels fall over time due to revenue constraints. The Railbelt economy continues to be the support center for the majority of the state.Its economy grows in response to basic sector growth,which occurs largely outside the boundaries of the Railbelt,and also in response to per capita income growth,which is assumed to resume in the 1990s. 5.2.2 Railbelt Electricity Demand Forecasts Again,a range of forecasts was developed based on alternative assumptions and varying combinations of assumptions,including the following: 1)Population,households,and employment. 2)Energy prices. 3)Consumer discount rates (for modeling consumer purchase choices). 4)Technological change (e.g.possible change in efficiency options and costs). 5)Southern Railbelt natural gas market penetration (i.e.different expansion scenarios for the natural gas distribution system). Using probabilities adopted by Authority staff,"low,""mid,"and "high"cases were selected from the distribution such that each of the three is judged to be equally probable (i.e.the low represents the bottom third of the distribution,the mid represents the middle third,and the high represents the top third).Table 5.7 shows these three forecasts aggregated for the entire Railbelt.Table 5.8 shows a further breakdown of the mid case for each of three main Railbelt regions.Following these tables is a description of further adjustments that were then made to the forecasts. TABLE 5.7 RAILBELT ELECTRIC DEMAND FORECAST" (total energy,GWh) Low Mid High 1987 3305 3305 3305 1990 3237 3225 3269 1995 3153 3271 3432 2000 3156 3395 3675 2005 3289 3641 4058 2010 3495 4053 4427 *..Weather adjusted.Excludes transmission losses and other adjustments described below. TABLE 5.8 MID CASE ELECTRIC DEMAND FORECAST" (three Railbelt regions,GWh) Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks and Mat-Su __-Peninsula North Stay,Boroughs Borough Borough 1987 2262 455 588 1990 2189 438 598 1995 2219 430 622 2000 2306 442 646 2005 2493 462 685 2010 2805 497 752 *Weather adjusted.Excludes transmission losses and ,other adjustments described below.Includes Southeast Fairbanks census area. Residential electricity sales are forecast to grow more slowly than the stock of occupied housing due to higher efficiencies for new equipment (which in part reflects implementation of new federal appliance efficiency standards),assumed increase in average electricity prices due largely to the expiration of existing contracts for "old" Beluga gas supplied to Chugach Electric Association,and continued erosion of electric market share to natural gas particularly in the category of space heat. 5-8 Commercial electricity sales are forecast to grow more slowly than commercial floorstock due primarily to higher efficiencies for new equipment,particularly in the lighting sector.Implementation of new federal standards for fluorescent ballasts contributes to this outlook.The relatively low level of electric space heat is expected to decline further,while miscellaneous equipment per square foot is expected to grow. For the industrial forecast in the mid case,the Tesoro refinery on the Kenai Peninsula is projected to reduce its purchases from Homer Electric from 89.3 GWh in 1987 to 59.5 GWh in all subsequent years as a result of increased self-generation at the refinery.In the low case,Tesoro purchases from Homer Electric decline to zero in 1995 and beyond consistent with 100 percent self-generation.For the entire Railbelt,Table 5.9 shows the total industrial demand for the three selected cases. TABLE 5.9 RAILBELT INDUSTRIAL DEMAND FORECAST" (total energy,GWh) Low Mid High 1987 256 256 256 1990 244 244 244 1995 172 252 311 2000 174 263 327 2005 176 270 364 2010 178 278 380 .Utility supplied,includes no self-generation. Presently,the military bases in the Fairbanks area and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks supply nearly all of their own electric power requirements by operating cogeneration plants that supply both electricity and heat to their respective facilities. Cogeneration facilities efficiently produce electricity and heat in particular proportions.If electricity needs outstrip this balance,the additional electricity is more costly to produce.Particularly for the military bases,there is evidence that electrical needs beyond the balance point could be supplied more efficiently by a local utility.Table 5.10 presents these potential purchases by the military above thecogenerationbalancepoint. 5-9 TABLE 5.10 POTENTIAL PURCHASES OF CIVILIAN ELECTRICITY BY THE MILITARY IN THE FAIRBANKS AREA (GWh) Year Eielson Wainwright Greely Total 1990 12.4 14.0 16.2 42.6 2000 15.1 17.0 16.9 48.9 2010 17.2 19.3 19.2 55.7 The estimated peak purchase in 1990 consistent with these potentials would be approximately 9.5 MW,and would occur during the summer season. Potential sales to the University of Alaska at Fairbanks were also considered,though the estimate is only 2 GWh per year due to the specific characteristics of the University plant and load. Except for sensitivity testing,the intertie analysis assumed that the potential power sales to the military and the University would occur.These loads were therefore added to the Fairbanks area load forecast for purposes of the system modeling. Another adjustment was to reduce the load forecast by the amount of self-generation (i.e.commercial]and industrial cogeneration of power and heat)estimated to occur over the next 20 years and not already accounted for in the industrial forecast.Table 5.11 shows a summary of this adjustment. TABLE 5.11 ADJUSTMENT FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SELF-GENERATION (annual GWh reduction) Anchorage Kenai&Mat-Su.Peninsula _--Fairbanks 1995 12.4 0.8 1.4 2000 29.0 2.8 5.0 2005 45.6 4.9 8.5 2010 62.2 6.9 12.1 Table 5.12 presents a summary of the energy and peak demand forecasts input to thesimulationmodel.Included are the base forecasts (presented iin Tables 5.7 and 5.8)plus the estimatedincrements of military and University loadin Fairbanks,minus the 5-10 self-generation adjustment.Also included is an adjustment to reallocate a small fraction of the Anchorage load to the Kenai Peninsula,where it physically belongs. Finally,because the simulation model uses a curved representation of the load forecast rather than precise year-by-year input,the figures in Table 5.12 are not precisely equal in any given year to the base forecast net of adjustments. TABLE 5.12 SUMMARY OF ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS INPUT TO THE SIMULATION MODEL Anchorage Kenai &Mat-Su Peninsula Fairbanks GWh__MW GWh__MW GWh_MW LOW 1994 2068.9 374.3 413.9 72.0 665.5 126.8 2010 2229.1 403.3 428.9 74.6 749.6 142.9 MID 1994 2087.3 377.6 475.5 82.7 657.2 125.2 2010 2617.4 473.5 549.8 95.7 792.0 150. HIGH 1994 2184.2 395.1 498.9 86.8 695.6 132.6 2010 2823.4 510.8 608.3 105.9 896.7 170.9 53 DISCOUNT RATE Regulations of the Authority require adoption of a discount rate for project evaluation based on the estimated long-term real cost of money.The "real cost of money"(i.e.the real interest rate)for high grade,long term taxable securities was estimated by reference to a broad sampling of published opinion on future interest and inflation rates.This led to adoption by the Authority Board in December 1988, and again in October 1989,of a 4.5%real discount rate for projects that do not qualify for tax exempt financing.The 4.5%rate was used in the intertie economic analysis. 5-11 6.PROJECT BENEFITS As noted in Section 1,there has been substantial prior effort and debate on the estimated benefits of the proposed transmission projects.The first major effort was undertaken by Decision Focus,Inc.(DFI)on contract to the Authority,and is presented in detail in Volume 11 of the reconnaissance study.This will be referred to as the Initial DFI Report for the balance of this chapter.As the findings from this initial report emerged,the transmission proposals were scaled back to their present, 138 kV configuration.A revised assessment of benefits was then prepared by DFI on contract to the Railbelt electric utilities,and is presented in detail in the Addendum to the reconnaissance study.For the balance of this chapter,this will be referred to as the 138 kV_DFI_Report.There have been critiques of both reports and corresponding replies.These are included in the appropriate volumes of the reconnaissance study,and will also be drawn upon in this chapter. 6.1 BENEFITS OF KENAI-ANCHORAGE LINE The expected value of total benefit in the Initial DFI Report,expressed in 1990dollars,is $62.5 million.In the 138 kV DFI Report,the expected value of total benefit is $122.7 million.These expected values are distilled from a range of cases examined in each report.The lowest case examined in the Initial Report indicates a total benefit of $40.1 million,while the highest case examined in the 138 kV Report shows a benefit of $158.7 million.And because all of these cases share certain assumptions that are subject to debate,such as the impact of the new intertie on Railbelt outage frequency and duration,the range of possible benefit estimate could be still wider. The main reason for this broad range of benefit estimate has very little to do with the usual sources of uncertainty such as the outlook for fuel prices or electricity demand. These are not the dominant factors in determining the outcome.The main problem is in trying to quantify certain impacts of a second transmission line that are unusually difficult to predict and evaluate,especially the impact on reliability,generation dispatch and efficiency,and generation reserve requirements. Though essential numbers underlying the benefit/cost analysis will be reviewed,the quantitative detail that accompanies debate in these areas is available in the reconnaissance study and will not be reproduced or further extended here.The purpose of this section is to present the range of conclusions by major benefit area and to discuss the main issues that underlie the assessment. 1 Includes $8-9 million assuming existing line is out of service for extended periods due to long-term maintenance requirements. 6-1 6.1.1 Reliability Benefits The 1987 study by Power Engineers on the Kenai-Anchorage intertie (Volume 5 of the Reconnaissance Study)states the following: "The reliability of the existing 115 kV Kenai intertie was addressed in a report prepared by Dryden &LaRue Consulting Engineers dated January 23,1984. In the Dryden &LaRue study,it was reported that 12 to 100 breaker operations occur annually due primarily to high winds and avalanches. Avalanches were found to account for 75%of the outage hours.Based upon these findings,the existing Kenai Intertie would not be considered very reliable.Improving the avalanche problem by burying or rebuilding in avalanche prone areas should greatly improve outage hours and reliability, but the major number of breaker operations were attributed to high wind.A breaker operation of the intertie during maximum transfer of 125 MW would more than likely cause a separation of the Kenai,resulting in power outages cascading though Anchorage to Fairbanks.Therefore,for reliable transfer capability,the number of breaker operations due to wind must also be reduced if the existing route is to be utilized."(page 3-2) Short circuits on the existing Kenai intertie are caused primarily by wind (for example,by causing two conductors to slap together)or by avalanches.A "breaker operation"will then occur as discussed in the passage above --i.e.a circuit breaker along the line will open.If the short circuit is momentary and the amount of power on the line is not too high,then usually the circuit breaker will immediately reclose and no power outage will occur.This is a common outcome for wind-induced breaker operations.If the fault is not momentary (for example,an avalanche brings down the line)or if transfers are sufficiently high at the time of the fault,then the circuit breaker will not reclose successfully and a power outage may well occur. What the passage points out is that the number of breaker operations on the existing Kenai-Anchorage line has historically been very high and that most of these were caused by high wind,though most of the hours that the line has been out of service were attributable to avalanches.While the passage clearly indicates a high potential for system disruption due to problems with the existing line,it does not tell us how many consumer outages have resulted from these events.During preparation of the Initial DFI_Report,the owner of the existing line (Chugach Electric)was asked to estimate how many consumer outages have been caused by failure of the existing Kenai-Anchorage line. Chugach reviewed their records for five years,1984-1988,and concluded that the average number of consumer outages attributable to Kenai-Anchorage line failureswasabout3peryearduringthatperiod.2 It is not clear how this matches up with the 2 The prevailing industry standard for transmission line outages is 1 outage peryearper100milesofline.To meet this standard,outages on the existing Kenai-Anchorage line should average no more than 1.25 per year,rather than the 3 per year estimated by the Chugach review. 6-2 Dryden &LaRue figures on "breaker operations,"since the Dryden &LaRue report was issued in January 1984 and the Chugach consumer outage figures begin in 1984. Further,Chugach did not include a number of outages that were associated with breaker operations on the line,but for which the ultimate cause was a disturbance elsewhere in the system.This points to a remaining uncertainty that will be brought up again later in this section,specifically:are there additional outages that occur in the present system for which the initial cause is something other than failure of the existing line,but which would be reduced or avoided if the transmission system were strengthened by the addition of a second Kenai-Anchorage line? The reliability analysis in both the Initial DFI_Report and the 138 kV DFI Report is based to a significant extent on the estimate that,in the absence of a new line, consumer outages would occur 3 times per year on the average due to failure of the existing line.Because the system modeling suggested that power would flow to Anchorage from Kenai roughly 40%of the time in the future,the analysis further assumed that the existing line would fail 1 to 2 times annually during Anchorage import conditions. This is the situation that creates the greatest concern among electric utilities in Anchorage and to the north.Historically,power has flowed primarily from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula over the existing line in order to supply the Kenai Peninsula with the greatest generation efficiency.If the existing line fails under these conditions,Anchorage is rarely affected though the Kenai Peninsula would generally suffer a substantial outage.After Bradley Lake is completed,however,utilities in Anchorage and to the north expect to import a substantial amount of energy over the existing Kenai line,and therefore will become far more vulnerable to outages caused by failure of the line.This introduces a significant new contingency into these systems that reduces their reliability.A major part of the issue is therefore:(1)how much will reliability be reduced for Anchorage,Mat-Su,and Fairbanks,and (2) what is it worth to bring reliability in these systems back up to (and perhaps beyond) the standard realized before the reversal of power flow over the Kenai-Anchorage line induced by Bradley Lake? The DFI analysis assumed that each failure of the existing line would result in a 30 MW outage in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area.This is roughly 10%of average demand and 5%of peak demand.DFI further assumed that power would be restored to customers in one hour.Overall,then,the DFI analysis assumed that Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks would suffer 1 to 2 outages per year due to failure of the existing line,each time resulting in a loss of power for 5%to 10%of their systems for one hour.If a second intertie were built between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula,it is assumed that these outages would not occur. While this alone is a significant loss of reliability,there is concern among theseutilitiesthattheirexposurecouldbegreaterthantheDFIanalysisimplies.Among the reasons for this concern are the following: .The average of 3 outages per year over the 5 year period reviewed byChugachincludesalowyearof0outagesandahighyearof8outages.The 6-3 potential for disruption in any given year is therefore well above 3 outages, and the long-term average might not be apparent in the 5 year sample. .The much higher number of "breaker operations”reported by Dryden & LaRue in 1984 raises concern that the potential for disruption may be higher than indicated by the Chugach outage review.Because breaker operation is more likely to result in an outage if the transfer level is high,increased transfers over the line in the future could lead to a higher outage incidence than previously experienced. .Depending on future dispatch patterns,import of power into Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula could occur substantially more than the 40%fraction of time suggested in the DFI analysis.This would further increase the outage exposure in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area. On the other hand,the argument has been raised that the outage experience in Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks may be considerably less than the DFI assumption depending on the level of import into Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula,and on the amount of spinning reserve available in the Anchorage area.The DF]analysis implies that the average level of import into Anchorage over the existing line that is justified by system economics will be about 30 MW.Assuming that spinning reserve is available in Anchorage area gas units while these imports occur,then the actual outage resulting from line failure could be substantially less than 30 MW.The utilities,however,maintain that the benefit of higher imports from the Kenai Peninsula has been underestimated,and that spinning reserve alone does not offer secure protection against transmission induced outages. Though it is difficult to define the extent to which reliability may decline in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area after imports begin from the Kenai Peninsula,it is even more difficult to estimate how much it would be worth to remedy a given decline.The approach taken by DFI was to estimate how much consumers would be willing to pay to avoid outages that would occur with the existing line,but would not | occur if a second line were built.This is then taken as the measure of reliability value for the proposed new line._ There is not much reason for confidence in the estimates that have been developed on consumer willingness-to-pay to avoid outages,although a better approach to valuing reliability remains elusive.These estimates are primarily based on surveys that either ask consumers directly what they would be willing to pay to avoid an outage,or (especially in the case of commercial and industrial customers)ask them to estimate what costs they would incur due to outages of various durations. Presumably,these latter customers would be willing to pay up to the amount of these costs in order to avoid the outage.The Initial DFI Report relied on residential © survey results from around the world obtained by researchers prior to 1983,and on commercial and industrial survey results obtained in a study by Ontario Hydro in 1980.The 138 kV DFI Report uses higher estimates that,for the residential sector, reflect more recent studies and,for the commercial and industrial sector,reflect a revised interpretation of the original 1980 Ontario Hydro results.These changes alone resulted in an increase in reliability value for the new intertie of roughly $25 million. These survey results and their interpretation can be debated and support can be found for a considerable range of conclusions.Overall,a judgment is also needed on the applicability of this information to reliability value in Alaska today and in the future.One argument is that reliability in Alaska during the winter tends to be more valuable than in most other areas because of the climate;a contrary argument is that the consequences of an outage in cities such as Chicago or New York are likely to be more severe because of their higher level of dependence and expectations.One issue on which there may be general agreement,however,is that reliability expectations are higher today in Alaska and elsewhere than they used to be,and these expectations are likely to continue to grow.This implies that people would most likely be willing to pay more today to avoid an outage than they were in 1980, and that the perceived value of reliability is likely to be still higher 10 years from now. Thus far,the discussion has focused mainly on outages in the Anchorage/Mat- Su/Fairbanks area.The other area in which reliability would be affected by a new intertie is the Kenai Peninsula.The DFI system modeling suggested that power in the future will flow north from the Kenai Peninsula roughly 40%of the time,and south to the Kenai Peninsula roughly 60%of the time.For Anchorage and points north,the impact of the existing line on reliability is a concern primarily when power is flowing north into Anchorage.If power is flowing south and the line fails, Anchorage area generation is expected to adjust quickly such that no outage occurs in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area.For the Kenai Peninsula,however,failure of the existing line creates a risk of outage regardless of the direction of power flow. When power is flowing south to the Kenai Peninsula over the existing line alone, failure of the line is expected to cause an outage on the Kenai Peninsula that is somewhat greater in magnitude than the amount of power that is being imported.If imported power over the single line were supplying more than about 50%of Kenai Peninsula power requirements at the time of line failure,then a blackout on the Kenai Peninsula would be the likely result.It is not anticipated that any spinning reserve will be carried on the Kenai Peninsula that,by itself,would be capable of picking up the load if power from the north were suddenly interrupted.If a second line were in place,there should be no outage on the Kenai Peninsula due to comparable failure of the existing line. When power is flowing north from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage over the existing line alone,failure of the line could cause an outage on the Kenai Peninsula as well as in Anchorage depending on the amount and type of generation operating on the Kenai Peninsula at the time of the line failure and on the response characteristics of the Bradley Lake project.For example,if only hydro is operating on the Kenai Peninsula at the time and if exports to Anchorage are at a relatively high level,it is not clear at this point whether Kenai Peninsula generation will be able to adjust such that Kenai Peninsula outages are always avoided.A second line, however,would prevent Kenai Peninsula outages for these events. 6-5 Overall,the Initial DF]Report concluded that the reliability value of the new line is in the range of $12.8 million to $19.7 million (1990 dollars).The 138 kV DFI Report concluded that the reliability value is between $32.3 million and $49.6 million.In contrast,an argument critical of the DFI work was raised that the reliability value could not exceed $17 million,based on the idea that regular transfers over the existing line would produce no more than $17 million of benefit in the future.If these transfers were eliminated,then failure of the existing line would not produce outages in any of the major regions,and reliability equivalent to that provided by asecondlinewouldthereforebe"purchased"at a cost of $17 million in lost transfer benefits.DFI responded that they disagreed with the logic of this cap on reliability value because a second line would have additional reliability impact not directly related to failures of the existing line.Further,DFI maintained that the value of transfers over the existing line in the future would be $33 million rather than $17 million. This raises once again the issue of whether a second line would help to reduce or avoid outages for which the initial cause is something other than failure of the existing line.For example,switching errors have occasionally occurred that produced outages due to inadvertent cut-off of power flow over the existing line.A second line can reduce the adverse impact of such operating errors.Further,there may be events such as loss of a generating unit that would cause an outage in the absence of a second line.With the second line,however,the system would be more resilient and might be able to survive the same event either with no outage,a smaller outage,or perhaps a shorter outage.Such benefits could be due to greater accessibility of spinning or non-spinning reserves,or to improved system stability. This potential and its associated value is even more difficult to gauge than the relatively direct reliability impacts addressed in the DFI studies.Whatever the value is of generally "stiffening"the transmission system in this fashion,it would be in addition to the value debated in the previous studies. A reliability assessment of the Railbelt systems was conducted in early 1990 by the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee of the North American Electric Reliability - Council (NERC).Their report is included in Appendix B.It is clear that the existing transmission connections in the Railbelt fall short of the reliability standards maintained elsewhere in the country.The following excerpts are drawn from the Overview in the NERC report: "The unique geographic,economic,and electrical characteristics of the electrical systems in [the Railbelt]have resulted in an interconnection that is far less reliable than the four major electric Interconnections of the North American Reliability Council." . "The existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area constrain the sharing of generation between and among loadcentersandposeasignificantlyhigherthantraditionalreliabilityriskforsystem-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages." 6-6 "In terms of traditional reliability criteria,the proposed Soldotna-[Anchorage] 138 kV transmission line provides a second circuit between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and is necessary to help improve the reliability of electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula,the Anchorage Bowl,and the Fairbanks area." Although the NERC subcommittee did not attempt to suggest how much the reliability improvement would be worth,their perspective on traditional standards of transmission reliability merits consideration in the benefit/cost assessment. 6.1.2 Generation Dispatch and Efficiency As described in Chapter 2 of this volume,the proposed intertie would have a significant impact on the capacity to transfer energy between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula,and on the transmission losses associated with such transfers. According to the DFI analysis,most of the value of these impacts lies in the improved capability they provide for coordinating the output of Kenai hydro plants with Anchorage area gas-fired plants such that the gas-fired plants are operated at higher efficiency levels.This is the concept that DFI refers to as "hydrothermal coordination"and to which,in their 138 KV Report,they attribute roughly $40 million of benefit.Energy transfer benefits would be much easier to grasp and to quantify if they involved primarily the substitution of cheaper energy from one area for more expensive energy in another,or if the issue were primarily a reduction in transmission losses for a constant pattern and level of transfer between the two areas.For the proposed Kenai-Anchorage intertie,however,the analysis leads to an area of benefit potential that is more difficult to visualize and assess. Thermal generating units such as the combustion turbines and combined cycle units prevalent in the Railbelt are most efficient when operated at or near their maximum output levels,and are substantially less efficient when operating at part load. Hydroelectric units,however,are much less variable in efficiency throughout most of - their output range.The basic concept of hydrothermal coordination is to vary the output of the hydro plants in a manner that keeps the output of thermal plants as close to full output as possible when they are on-line.For the Railbelt,the main opportunity for this will be to coordinate the output of Bradley Lake with Anchorage area gas-fired generating units,which will require sending power back and forth between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.While this can be accomplished to a limited extent with the existing transmission system,a substantial increase in hydrothermal coordination benefits can be realized with the new line,according to the DFI analysis,due to its favorable impact on transfer capability and transmission losses. In the case of the Railbelt,all of the available hydro energy will be consumed overthecourseofatypicalyearinanyevent.As a result,the total amount of electricalenergyproducedfromthermalplantswillbethesameoverthecourseofayear whether or not hydrothermal coordination benefits are realized.The concept,then, is not to get more or less total energy out of a given thermal generating unit over the 6-7 course of a year,but to obtain a given amount of energy in a different pattern. Without hydrothermal coordination,the thermal plant is operated to a certain extentatpartloadandprovidesbothenergyandspinningreserve.”With hydrothermal coordination,the thermal plant is operated over fewer hours but at a higher average output level.As a result,efficiency is higher,the thermal unit is shut down for more - hours,and spinning reserve from the unit is reduced.The savings arise due to the operation of the thermal units at a more efficient operating level,which means that less fuel is needed to produce the required amount of electrical energy output. One important issue is that hydrothermal coordination reduces spinning reserves by reducing the part load operation of thermal units.A certain minimum level of spinning reserve,however,is routinely maintained by the utilities for reliability in accordance with existing policies and operating agreements.Therefore,in order to realize hydrothermal coordination benefits,there must be more than the defined minimum level of spinning reserves available in the system.Further,for the benefit to be attributable to the new intertie,spinning reserves above the minimum level must still be available after accounting for whatever hydrothermal coordination can be accomplished over the existing transmission system,and for whatever other improvements could be made in coordinated system operations. DFI examined recent unit commitment and dispatch records in the Railbelt and reported that substantial excess spinning reserves were frequently in evidence. However,although there is considerable quantitative analysis and debate presented in the reconnaissance study,there has not been a clear resolution of the extent to which the benefit of reduced part load operation of thermal units depends upon the new intertie.The DFI estimate of roughly $40 million presented in their 138 kV Report has been the subject of a quantitative critique that included,among other issues,identification of a significant arithmetic error.Following that critique, however,DFI used a revised methodology that yielded a new benefit estimate consistent in magnitude with their initial estimate. The type of production simulation model used for the reconnaissance study was appropriate for a broad comparison of numerous generation,transmission,and conservation options over a range of fuel price and energy demand assumptions. However,the type of model that is manageable for that purpose cannot simulate the hourly detail of system operation needed to clarify the opportunities and constraints for hydrothermal coordination under varying transmission assumptions.In theabsenceofasufficientlydetailedsimulationandassociatedanalysis,we are left withanuncertainestimatethatalargepotentialexistsforhydrothermalcoordination savings attributable to the new intertie. Spinning reserve is generating capacity that is immediately available to pick up load.For example,a 60 MW combustion turbine that is operated at 40 MW output is also providing 20 MW of spinning reserve. 6-8 6.13 Generation Reserve Requirements The 138 kV DFI Report attributes another $33 million of benefit to the impact of the new intertie on generation reserve costs:$24 million is saved through deferral or reduction of future requirements to purchase new generating capacity,and $9 million is saved by increased reliance on Bradley Lake in lieu of Anchorage area gas-fired units to provide spinning reserve. A little over half of the $24 million capacity savings are due to anticipated capacitydeferrals.This is based on the idea that the Anchorage area will face a capacity deficit during the mid-1990s,and that the new intertie will allow Anchorage to draw upon the capacity surplus on the Kenai Peninsula to a greater extent and thereby defer the necessity of future capacity additions. The projection of a capacity deficit in the Anchorage area during the mid-1990s is based on a generation retirement schedule that is roughly consistent with each unit's book life (e.g.20 year economic life for combined cycle facilities).A criticism has been raised that existing plants may be maintained and operated beyond their formal "book lives,"and that the emergence of a capacity deficit in the Anchorage area might then be delayed for a number of years.If the capacity deficit is delayed,then the benefit of deferring new capacity additions would be reduced. On the other hand,the analysis assumed that Anchorage would be willing to fulfill a large part of its capacity reserve requirement by reliance on Kenai surplus capacity available over a single transmission line.Because Anchorage does not yet face a capacity deficit within its local area,a policy of reliance on capacity outside the localareaoveraSinglelinehasnotyetbeenestablished.Anchorage utilities could decideinthefuturenottorelyonreservecapacitythatisavailableonlyoverasingletransmissionline,particularly if it has a reliability history like the existing Kenai- 'Anchorage line.In that event,building a second line to the Kenai Peninsula could have a larger impact on capacity savings than estimated by DFI. A little less than half of the $24 million in capacity savings is attributed by DFI tocapacityavoidance,i.e.a reduction in the total amount of capacity that is needed to provide a given level of generation reliability.At issue in this case is the level of confidence that sufficient generating capacity will be available at all times to serve load requirements.This level of confidence,in turn,is based on the number and size of generating units that are accessible via transmission facilities,and the probability that one or more of the accessible units will be unavailable due to planned maintenance or forced outage.Presently,the Railbelt utilities have agreed tomaintaina30%capacity reserve margin.The point made by DFI is that a second intertie to the Kenai Peninsula would allow the utilities to maintain the same level of generation reliability with less than 30%capacity reserves,by increasing the amount of generation that is accessible to the load centers via transmission facilities. The $9 million benefit estimate for spinning reserve savings depends on theassumptionthatBradleyLakecanreducethespinningreserverequirementfrom thermal units by 30 MW during the summer and by 50 MW during the winter.The 6-9 mechanism by which this could occur without a decline in reliability is somewhat complex.Bradley Lake will be able to pick up additional load at a rate of roughly 1 MW per second,which is much slower than the response time of thermal units that are typically used to provide spinning reserve in the Railbelt.By itself,Bradley Lake would be unable to compensate for a loss of generation elsewhere in the systemquicklyenoughtoavoidalimitedoutage,and therefore by itself would not be able toprovidespinningreservecomparabletothermalunits.However,thermal units can operate for a limited time at output levels somewhat above their normal power rating --wear and tear is increased but not necessarily by an unacceptable amount. Use of Bradley Lake as spinning reserve requires that the output level of thermal units be allowed to rise above the normal power rating when necessary,and remain at above normal output long enough for Bradley Lake to pick up the additional load. As Bradley Lake output is increased,the output of the thermal units would be backed down to normal power ratings.If the higher level of thermal unit output that can be sustained for limited periods is 10%above the normal rating,and if between 300 MW and 500 MW of thermal capacity are on-line,then Bradley Lake could provide between 30 MW and 50 MW of spinning reserve under this scenario assuming it is also on-line at the time at an output level at least 30-50 MW below its capacity.The benefit of using Bradley Lake for spinning reserves is attributed in part to the new intertie because access to these reserves would otherwise be constrained by the limited availability and capacity of the existing line. The Railbelt utilities will seek to maximize the spinning reserve benefit of Bradley Lake,but the extent to which they can do so without loss of reliability remains uncertain at this time. 6.1.4 Benefit Summary:Kenai-Anchorage Line This section has discussed the potentials and uncertainties associated with the major benefit categories perceived for the Kenai-Anchorage line:reliability,hydrothermal coordination,generation reserve requirements.There are additional uncertainties - that are discussed in the critiques included in the reconnaissance study,and there are additional areas of benefit as well.For example,because the existing line is about 30 years old,it will be the subject of a long-term reconstruction program that will take the line out of service for significant blocks of time over the next 10 to 20 years.This will interrupt the transfer of energy between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula and also interrupt the availability of capacity from the Kenai Peninsula.However,with a second line in place,the long-term reconstruction of the existing line can be effected with minimum system disruption and associated cost,and the expense of the reconstruction program can also be deferred to some extent.Another example is simply the savings in transmission losses,which tend to be overshadowed by hydrothermal coordination in the discussion of transfer benefits.Reduced transmission losses alone would produce substantial savings over the life of the new line. There is no question overall that the new line would produce millions of dollars of benefit that would accrue to Railbelt consumers.The issue for the benefit/cost 6-10 analysis is whether these benefits are sufficient to compensate for the cost of building and maintaining the new line.As noted earlier,a considerable range of quantified benefit estimates have been developed:some imply a favorable benefit/cost outcome and others imply an unfavorable outcome.It may therefore be necessary to go beyond the quantitative debate to judge whether the project represents a worthwhile investment.An important perspective is provided in the following excerpt written by Power Technologies,Inc.in their 1989 study on Kenai power export limits: "At 75 MW export,the Kenai-Anchorage tie operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design.Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line...A new line from the Kenai area to Anchorage would provide Kenai-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt system.It would be a step ahead of the present Anchorage- Fairbanks interconnection design.The great length of the two lines would prevent the interconnection from being classified as a _stronginterconnection,but it would be less "lean"than the present Anchorage- Fairbanks intertie and closer to a par with most of the remainder of the Anchorage area and the Kenai area (once the second line from Soldotna to Fritz Creek is operational)." These remarks are consistent with views of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)discussed earlier.The implication is that a second Kenai- Anchorage line would be considered an essential element of a well-designed transmission network according to prevailing industry standards. 6.2 BENEFITS OF HEALY-FAIRBANKS LINE The Initial DFI_Report investigated several alternatives for upgrading the transmission system between Anchorage and Fairbanks but did not evaluate the .Healy-Fairbanks 138 kV proposal that was subsequently developed.The only benefit estimate that was specifically prepared for this project is presented in the 138kV_DFI Report.As a result,the analysis in the 138 kV Report will be the focus of consideration in the sections below. The expected value of total benefit presented in the 138 kV Report is $105.8 million in 1990 dollars.Again,this expected value is distilled from a range of cases:the lowest reported case is $83 million and the highest reported case is $127 million. This is a relatively narrow range compared with the Kenai-Anchorage analysis,and the variation shown is mostly attributable to alternative load forecast assumptions. The largest category of benefit depends on the substitution of gas-fired energy from the Anchorage area for oil-fired energy in the Fairbanks area.The value of this substitution depends on the price differential between the two fuels and on the amount of substitution that occurs.While the spread in price between gas and oil does not vary widely in the analysis,the amount of substitution does vary widely and 6-11 is dependent on the Fairbanks load forecast assumptions.Other significant categories of benefit reported by DF1 are reliability and generation capacity sharing. There are two alternative approaches to framing the project assessment,both of which are presented in the 138 kV Report.One approach is to evaluate the entire proposal,including both the SVS additions and the new intertie between Healy and Fairbanks,as a single project with an overall cost and benefit estimate associated with it.The $105.8 million benefit estimate noted above is based on this overall project definition.Another approach is to consider the SVS additions and the Healy- Fairbanks intertie as separable projects.Viewed in this way,the SVS additions alone result in a certain level of costs and benefits,and the Healy-Fairbanks intertie then adds an increment of cost and an increment of benefit.Because the SVS additions alone appear to be cost-effective,some attention has been focused on whether the incremental benefits of the proposed Healy-Fairbanks transmission line exceed its incremental costs.In the 138 kV Report,DFI estimated that the incremental benefits of the Healy-Fairbanks line are $59.9 million,which implied an incremental benefit/cost ratio of 1.1.Discussion of incremental benefits is included in the sections below. 6.2.1 Reliability Benefits The estimate of reliability value for the proposed upgrade presented in the 138 kVReportis$11.5 million.Of this amount,$5 million is achieved with the SVS additions alone and $6.5 million is due to the addition of a second Healy-Fairbanks transmission line. The reliability benefit attributed to the SVS additions is based on the idea that the duration of certain outages in southcentral Alaska can be reduced as a result of the increased transmission capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks that the new equipment provides.If Fairbanks can send more of its surplus generation to the southcentral area during certain emergencies,then outage hours among southcentral customers can be reduced.An additional factor not considered in the DFI report is that the SVS additions will substantially improve stability,and that a consequence of improved stability should be a reduction in the extent of outages in the Fairbanks area as well.System disruptions that can presently cause a blackout in the Fairbanks area may result in more limited outages due to the improved stability provided by the SVS additions. The reliability benefit attributed to the second Healy-Fairbanks transmission line is based on an earlier estimate of the savings that would result from a second complete circuit between Anchorage and Fairbanks.Because the distance from Healy to Fairbanks is roughly one-third of the distance between Anchorage and Fairbanks, the Healy-Fairbanks line would provide roughly one-third of the transmission redundancy that a second complete circuit from Anchorage to Fairbanks wouldprovide.On this basis,DFI estimated that the new Healy-Fairbanks line would provide one-third of the reliability value of a second Anchorage-Fairbanks line.This is consistent with the assumption that one-third of the transmission failures between 6-12 Anchorage and Fairbanks occur on the section of line between Healy and Fairbanks, and that line failures on that section would no longer produce outages due to transmission redundancy. The DFI analysis was based on the assumption that the only generation located at Healy would be the existing 25 MW coal-fired power plant.However,if a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is added at Healy as presently planned,then the overall improvement in reliability could be very significant if a second Healy-Fairbanks line were added as well.As stated by Power Technologies,Inc.in their recent screening study: "New generation at Healy combined with a new line between Healy and Fairbanks may raise reliability of electrical service in the Fairbanks area nearly to that presently available in the Anchorage area.With a second line between Healy and Fairbanks,and a system design that will withstand loss of a 50 MW unit at Healy or [loss of]a line from Healy to Fairbanks, blackouts in the Fairbanks area should be far less frequent than at present.” A system design in which most of the on-line generation supplying the Fairbanks area is connected to the load center over two transmission lines clearly represents a major reliability improvement over a design in which most of Fairbanks'power requirements are generated much further away (i.e.in the Anchorage area)and transported over a single line. 6.2.2 Economy Energy Benefits:Substitution of Gas for Oil The economy energy benefit for the proposed upgrade presented in the 138 kV DFI Report is $76.9 million.Of this amount,$31.8 million is estimated from the SVS additions alone and $45.1 million is attributed to the addition of a second Healy- Fairbanks transmission line.Natural gas-fired generation from the Cook Inlet areais . less expensive than oil-fired generation in the Fairbanks area because the price of Cook Inlet gas delivered to the local market has historically been lower than the price of oil,and is expected to remain lower throughout the planning period.By increasing transfer capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks and by reducing transmission losses,the proposed upgrade allows more benefit to be realized from the substitution of gas-fired energy from the Anchorage area for oil-fired energy in the Fairbanks area. The estimated impact of the proposed upgrade on transmission losses used for the 138 kV_Report is comparable to the reduction in losses shown in Chapter 2 of this report,Table 2.6.Regarding transfer capability,the 138 kV Report assumed that the SVS additions alone would increase the maximum level of output that could be delivered from Anchorage to Fairbanks from 62 MW to 84 MW.For the defined upgrade including both the SVS additions and the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line,the 138 kV Report looked at two scenarios for the maximum level of Fairbanks import:99 MW in one case and 112 MW in the other case.Given the load forecast 6-13 assumptions on which the DFI analysis was based,the benefit estimate was almost identical for the two cases.Although raising the maximum level of Fairbanks import of Anchorage energy to 99 MW produced substantial benefits,further increasing themaximumimportlevelfrom99MWto112MWdidnotproduceasignificantdifferenceintheDFIbenefitassessment. Overall,then,the DFI analysis concluded that $31.8 million in benefit would be realized from the SVS additions by increasing the maximum import level of Anchorage energy into Fairbanks from 62 MW to 84 MW.It also concluded that an additional $45.1 million in benefit would be realized from the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line by further increasing the maximum import level from 84 MW to 99 MW and by reducing transmission losses across the full range of energy transfer levels. The recent PTI report referenced in Chapter 2 included a stability analysis of the upgrade alternatives,and yielded a set of stability limits for Anchorage-Fairbanks transfers that are somewhat lower across the board than DFI assumed in the 138 kV Report.Table 6.1 shows a comparison of maximum transfer levels drawn from the DFI report with those that emerge from the recent PTI analysis.These are estimates of the maximum level of Anchorage energy that can be delivered north of Healy to serve Fairbanks area loads,assuming that the existing 25 MW Healy coal plant is operating at full output. TABLE 6.1 MAXIMUM DELIVERY OF ANCHORAGE ENERGY TO SERVE FAIRBANKS AREA LOADS 138 kV Dec.1990DFIReport PTIReport” Present level 62 MW 49 MW With SVS additions only 84 MW '80MW SVS plus new Healy-Fairbanks line 99 MW 90 MW *These represent stability limits for normal operation. Several observations are apparent from this table: °As noted in Chapter 2,the present level of energy import into Fairbanks oftenexceedsthestabilitylimitfornormaloperationrecentlyestimatedbyPTI. 6-14 The SVS additions will have a greater impact on raising the stability limit than previously assumed,but the maximum import level will remain slightly below the 84 MW modeled by DFI. The new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line will further increase the maximum import level by about 10 MW rather than the 15 MW assumed for the DFI incremental benefit estimate.Although smaller than DFI assumed, this increment of transfer capacity occurs at a slightly lower loading levelwhichwouldtendtoincreaseitsvalue. These revisions by themselves (i.e.with all other assumptions held constant)would be expected to have the following impacts on the economy energy benefit estimates presented in the 138 kV DFI Report: If Fairbanks were assumed to adjust its energy imports to stay within the recently estimated stability limits,then the benefit of the SVS additions would be substantially more than previously estimated by DFI.Further,if Fairbanks were assumed to exceed the stability limit by a comparable margin with and without the SVS additions,then the benefit estimate for those additions would still be substantially more than previously estimated. The increase in economy energy benefit produced by the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line appears to be somewhat less than previously estimated, since the line appears to add about 10 MW to the stability limit for Fairbanks imports rather than the 15 MW modeled by DFI.On the other hand,this does not imply a full one-third reduction in the incremental economy energybenefitforthefollowingreasons: a)As noted above,almost no benefit resulted from increasing the maximum import level from 99 MW to 112 MW in the earlier DFI analysis.Although the maximum import level implied by the PTI report is about 90 MW assuming both the SVS additions and the new line,it is not clear how much value is lost by foregoing imports between 90 MW and 99 MW. b)Also as noted above,the 10 MW increment in transfer capacity occurs at a lower loading level than the previous assumption of 15 MW. c)A significant part of the economy energy benefit of the new line is due to its impact on transmission losses throughout the range of possible transfer levels rather than its impact on maximum transfer capacity. The revisions by themselves should not have a major effect on the magnitude of economy energy savings for the upgrade estimated by DFT,in view of their mixedeffectsasdescribedaboveandalsoinviewoftheapproximatenatureoftheseestimatesandbenefitcalculationsoverall. 6-15 Benefits from increased economy energy and reduced transmission losses should be roughly similar whether or not a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is constructed at Healy.The new plant would not reduce the amount of energy flowing between Healy and Fairbanks;therefore,the transmission loss savings attributable to the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line would be of similar magnitude.As noted earlier, some level of SVS addition will be necessary simply to operate 75 MW of Healy capacity at full output and stay within stability criteria.Further upgrade would be necessary to allow transfers from Anchorage in addition to Healy output.In the context of a new Healy coal plant,the proposed upgrade would allow the transfer of roughly 55 MW of Anchorage energy into the Fairbanks area to supplement the 75 MW available from Healy.As in the case without the new Healy plant,this increment of transfer capacity would allow Fairbanks to avoid the costs of oil-fired generation that would otherwise be needed to meet full power requirements. 6.2.3 Capacity Sharing Benefits The capacity sharing benefit of the proposed upgrade presented in the 138 kV Report is $17.3 million.Of this amount,$9.0 million is estimated from the SVS additions alone and $8.3 million is attributed to the addition of a second Healy- Fairbanks transmission line.Consistent with the analysis of the Kenai-Anchorage line,these benefits are estimated for both capacity deferral and capacity avoidance. For the proposed northern upgrade,however,nearly all of the benefit is estimated in the category of capacity avoidance ($16 million of the $17.3 million total).As described earlier,the concept of capacity avoidance benefits is that generation reliability is improved sufficiently by the transmission project to allow a reduction in the capacity reserve margin.Generation reliability is improved by increasing the amount of generation that is accessible to the load centers via transmission facilities. A reduction in the capacity reserve margin translates into a lower requirement for future plant additions. 6.2.4 Benefit Summary:Healy-Fairbanks Line Roughly 75%of the total benefits estimated by DFI for the northern upgrade (including both the SVS additions and the new Healy-Fairbanks line),and 75%of the incremental benefits of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line are in the category of "economy energy,"i.e.increased substitution of gas-fired for oil-fired energy and reduced transmission losses.As described above,the estimated impact on transfer capability has been refined since the 138 kV_DFI Report was prepared,though it does not appear that these revisions would have a major impact on the benefit estimates.Other uncertainties inevitably surround the issue: .The economy energy benefit is highly sensitive to the Fairbanks load forecast: as loads grow,benefits of additional transfer capacity increase.As presented in Chapter 5,the Fairbanks load forecast used for the DFI study anticipates slow growth in the Mid case averaging 1.2%per year.Possible developments 6-16 such as the proposed Fort Knox gold mine could result in significantly higher load growth. .The analysis assumes that a significant price differential between fuel oil inFairbanksandCookInletnaturalgasinAnchoragewillpersistformanyyears into the future.However,one analysis prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority in 1988 suggested that Cook Inlet gas prices could rise substantially perhaps 20 years from now assuming depletion of supplies and a corresponding increase in the cost of production,which could substantially reduce the oil/gas price differential.On the other hand,that analysis is based on one estimate of the total gas resource that may exist in the Cook Inlet area, and may be considered as much an illustration as a prediction of what could happen to long-term Cook Inlet gas prices.It is possible that the gas-oil price differential could increase in the long run depending on future resource discoveries and markets.Overall,the long-term price differential is a significant uncertainty in the analysis. .A significant share of the economy energy benefit is based on the present use of a 60 MW oil-fired combustion turbine at North Pole to meet Fairbanks peak demand when transfers over the intertie are insufficient.Because the unit is relatively inefficient when operated at low output,a minimum loading of about 40 MW is presently observed.When intertie transfers are found insufficient to meet load requirements,a North Pole unit is often brought on- line at 40 MW and intertie transfers are scaled back accordingly.The necessity to scale back intertie transfers substantially whenever a North Pole unit is brought on-line results in a significant lost opportunity to benefit from the relatively low cost of gas-fired generation.The benefit analysis implicitly assumes that this necessity to scale back intertie transfers during peak consumption periods due to the 40 MW minimum loading of a North Pole unit will not be solved or mitigated in the future in some other way.This too, then,constitutes an area of uncertainty in the analysis. Overall,the DFI analysis concludes that the project (including both the SVS additions and the new Healy-Fairbanks line)is cost-effective.It further concludes that the benefit/cost ratio for the SVS additions alone is higher than the incremental benefit/cost ratio for the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line,though both are above 1.0.This suggests that the sources of uncertainty in the analysis have a higher potential to affect the feasibility outcome for the new transmission line than for the SVS additions,and that the feasibility of the line itself is therefore subject to greater uncertainty.There is,however,a significant additional benefit of a new Healy- Fairbanks line not considered in the DFI analysis. The existing Healy-Fairbanks line was constructed in 1967 and will therefore be 30 years old soon after the proposed new line is completed.A phased program of line reconstruction over a five year period is anticipated by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA),the owner of the existing line.Sections of the line will be out of service for an estimated 7 months per year between April and October during the reconstruction program,which will prevent Fairbanks from importing gas-fired 6-17 energy from Anchorage.Installation of a second line as proposed would allow for continued supply of Anchorage power to the north during reconstruction.GVEA estimates that the cost of isolation from Anchorage over these 7 months would be at least $7.7 million per year.By allowing Anchorage and Fairbanks to remain connected during reconstruction of the existing line,the new line would eliminate this anticipated cost.The present value of this additional benefit would be about $29.6 million. As in the case of the proposed Kenai-Anchorage line,there are considerations beyond the quantitative debate that bear on the feasibility judgment for a new Healy- Fairbanks line.As discussed earlier under the heading of reliability,a system design involving two lines between Healy and Fairbanks would be particularly effective in the event that a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is built at Healy.Even if the new 50 MW plant is not built,the representatives from the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)maintain that a second line to Healy would be a necessary,though not sufficient,step towards compliance with prevailing industry standards.From the overview in the NERC report attached in Appendix B: "The proposed Healy-[Fairbanks]138 kV transmission line is needed for the reliability of electric supply to the Fairbanks area.It provides a second transmission path from Healy to the Fairbanks area for both Healy generation capacity and capacity purchases from the Anchorage area (and the Kenai Peninsula)...[B]ased on traditional planning criteria,the tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from Healy to the Fairbanks area. In fact,under traditional reliability criteria,a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area would likely be required..." 4 If a new Healy coal plant is constructed as planned but a new Healy-Fairbanks intertie is not approved,it is expected that reconstruction of the existing line would begin sooner in order to complete the job before the new coal plant comes on-line.If a new intertie is approved,reconstruction of the existing line would be deferred until the new line is completed. 6-18 APPENDIX A Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study:List of Volumes RAILBELT INTERTIE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Volume Number 1 10 11 Addendum* * LIST OF VOLUMES Volume Title Economic and Demographic Projections for the Alaska Railbelt:1988-2010 Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region:1988-2010 Analysis of Electrical End Use Efficiency Programs for the Alaskan Railbelt Fuel Price Outlooks:Crude Oil,Natural Gas,and Fuel Oil Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project Railbelt Stability Study Northeast Transmission Intertie Project Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Alaska Railbelt Region Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area Benefit/Cost Analysis Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt This volume includes revised benefit/cost analysis and critiques by independent reviewers. APPENDIX B Railbelt Reliability Assessment: North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) |FINAL REPORT RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE RAILBELT INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEMS OF THE ALASKA SYSTEMS COORDINATING COUNCIL 1990-1999 March 16,1990 by a Subgroup of NERC's 1990 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee John H.Stout,Chairman (Manager of Engineering Design and DevelopmentHoustonLighting&Power Company) Chisna H.Fleming,Vice Chairman (Manager,Advanced Engineering and PlanningOhioEdisonCompany) Richard E.Phillips,Operating Committee Representative(Operating ManagerNewYorkPowerPool) Virginia C.Sulzberger,NERC Staff Coordinator (Director-EngineeringNorthAmericanElectric Reliability Council) Preface A subgroup of NERC's 1990 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (RAS)recently reviewed the overall reliability of the Railbelt interconnected electric utility systems oftheAlaskaSystemsCoordinatingCouncil(ASCC)at the request of ASCC.This assessmentreviewedtheadequacyoftheexistingsystemandtheproposedgenerationandtransmissionplansfortheRailbeltelectricsystemsoverthe1990-1999 period.Included in this review werethereliabilityimpactsoftwoproposedtransmissioninterconnections-a Soldotna to University138kVlineandaHealytoFortWainwright138kVline. This assessment was performed over an approximate eight week period from mid January to mid March 1990. In preparing this report,the RAS subgroup interviewed representatives of theAlaskaEnergyAuthority,Anchorage Municipal Light &Power,Chugach Electric Association,and Golden Valley Electric Association.These interviews were conducted February 12-14,1990 in Anchorage,Alaska. In addition to the interviews,the assessment is based primarily on electric utilitydataandplansfor1990-1999 provided by the Railbelt interconnected systems cn a basisconsistentwiththeannualApril1CoordinatedBulkPowerSupplyProgram(IE-411)ReportssubmittedtotheU.S.Department of Energy by each of NERC's nine Regional ReliabilityCouncilsandfromthecompletionofadditionalannualdatasubmittalsgenerallyrequested bytheReliabilityAssessmentSubcommitteefromthenineRegions.Several reports of others, either prepared by outside consultants for the Railbelt electric systems or prepared by individualRailbeltelectricsystems,were also reviewed and provided background information. This reliability assessment report is the culmination of these efforts and reflects the expertise,judgment,and interpretations of the RAS subgroup. Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems Overview The Alaska Railbelt electric utility systems began interconnected operations in 1984 by linking together the Fairbanks area with the Anchorage Bowl (The Anchorage Bowl had beenpreviouslyinterconnectedwiththeKenaiPeninsulainthe1960s.)The unique geographic,economic,and electrical characteristics of the electrical systems in these three areas have resulted in an interconnection that is far less reliable than the four major electric Interconnections of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC).For example,the relatively small electrical size of theRailbeltinterconnectioncausesautomaticsheddingofcustomerloadtotakeplacefollowingmost generation and Railbelt interconnection transmission line contingencies.Nonetheless,this Railbeltinterconnectionhasimprovedthereliabilityofelectricsupplytoutilitycustorners,primarily in the Anchorage Bowl area. Two important reliability issues face the Alaska Railbelt interconnected systems.First is the need for additional transmission interconnection lines between the three major load centers and their generation facilities.The existing area interconnection lines are single,limited capacity lines prone to outage by weather and avalanche.Second,is the need to maintain a proper balance between economy and reliability.The cost of reliability is exceptionally high for the Railbelt systems resulting in compromises to the generally accepted electric utility reliability criteria in the lower 48 States and most of Canada.The expectations of the Alaska Railbelt customers toward reliable electric supply show signs of increasing.As a result,the interconnected Railbelt's seven members are recognizing that,along with sharing the economic benefits of interconnection operation,they must also share the responsibilities of reliability. Assessment of the 1990-1999 generation adequacy clearly indicated that sufficientgeneratingcapacitymarginsexistineachofthethreemajorloadareas:the Fairbanks area,the Anchorage Bowl,and the Kenai Peninsula.Neither forced outages or maintenance outages areexpectedtoadverselyimpactgeneratingreserveadequacy.These three areas all have capacitymarginswellabovetheinterconnectionagreementrequirementof30%generation reserves.AS electric demand within the Railbelt systems increases,the member systems should recognize thatthesemarginswilllikelymovedowntowardthe30%minimurn.Of concern is the fact that the 30%reserve criteria is not founded on technical reliability studies such as loss of load probability analyses.The Alaska Railbelt systems should reassess carefully the justification of a 30%criteria and revise their interconnection agreement in accordance with such a reassessment. The existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area constrain thesharingofgenerationbetweenandarnongloadcentersandposeasignificantlyhigherthantraditionalreliabilityriskforsystem-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages. In terms of traditional reliability criteria,the proposed Soldotna-University 138 kVtransmissionlineprovidesasecondcircuitbetweentheKenaipeninsulaandtheAnchorageBowlandisnecessarytohelpimprovethereliabilityofelectricsupplytotheKenaipeninsula,theAnchorageBowl,and the Fairbanks area.This line will increase the electric transfer capabilitybetweentheKenaipeninsulaandtheAnchoragearea,improve system Stability,and help to reducethenumberofloadsheddingincidentsintheAnchorageandFairbanksareasandtheblackoutorlossofelectricsupplytoKenaipeninsulacustomersfollowingcertainsystemoutagesorcontingencies.It will also help to reliably distribute the output of the Bradley Lake hydro generatingfacilitytotheappropriateutilitypurchasersofthehydrocapacity.Without this line,reliability in theKenaipeninsulawilllikelybereducedfollowingthecompletionoftheBradleyLakeproject. The proposed Healy-Fort Wainwright 138 kV transmission line is needed for thereliabilityofelectricsupplytotheFairbanksarea.It provides a second transmission path fromHealytotheFairbanksareaforbothHealygenerationcapacityandcapacitypurchasesfromtheAnchoragearea(and the Kenai peninsula).This line provides both improved reliability andeconomicbenefits(Bradley Lake capacity)to the Fairbanks area.Its reliability impact,however,willnotbeasdramaticastheSoldoma-University 138 kV line,but based on traditional planning criteria, the tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from Healy to the Fairbanks area.Infact,under traditional reliability criteria,a second transmission line between the Anchorage BowlandtheFairbanksareawouldlikelyberequired(either via Teeland and Healy,or preferably via a Separate transmission path such as from the Anchorage Bowl to Glennallen to Jarvis Creek). Finally,many of the planning and operating practices and procedures followed by theRailbeltsystemshaveevolvedandbeendevelopedfromyearsofexperience.In many systems,theseguidelinesneededforreliabilityhavenotbeenwrittendownorformalized.Therefore,the Railbeltutilitiesshoulddevelop,formulate in writing,and approve appropriate planning and operatingreliabilitycriteriafortheirrespectivesystemsandserviceareasaswellasforinterconnectedplanning and operations. Peak Demand and Generation Adequacy A comparison of planned capacity resources,projected available resources,andprojectedwinterpeakdemandsinFigure1indicatesthattheAlaskaRailbeltinterconnectedelectricutilitysystemsshouldhaveadequatecapacityresourcesthroughoutthe1990-1999assessmentperiod.However,the assessment of the Alaska Railbelt systems generationadequacyshouldnotbemadesolelyonanaggregateinterconnectionbasis.This is because thetransmissioninterconnectionsbetweenthethreemajorloadcenters:the Fairbanks area,the Anchorage Bowl,and the Kenai Peninsula consist of single,limited capacity transmission lines. As such,these interconnection lines constrain the sharing of generation between load centers.A proper assessment of generation adequacy requires that the Fairbanks (Golden Valley-Fairbanks)area,the Anchorage Bowl,and Kenai Peninsula be evaluated individually. The distribution of installed generating capacity among the three geographicalregionsoftheRailbeltelectricutilitiesisgenerallyproportionaltotheloaddistributionasshowninTable1.About 63%of the winter peak demand of the Railbelt is located in the Anchorage Bowl area,22%in the Fairbanks area,and 15%in the Kenai Peninsula.Similarly,the installed generating capacity is 67%in the Anchorage Bowl,20%in the Fairbanks area,and 13%on theKenaiPeninsula.The small mismatch is not significant as all areas have capacity margins of -35%or more in the early years of the assessment period. With the addition of Bradley Lake hydro plant in 1991 at the southern extremity of the Kenai Peninsula,along with some planned retirements and replacements of capacity,thedistributionofinstalledcapacitybythewinterof1999/2000 will shift slightly resulting in about61%in the Anchorage Bowl,20%in the Fairbanks area,and nearly 19%on Kenai.The capacity margins will continue to be adequate in the three load areas and are projected to rangefrom38%to 54%at the end of the assessment period. The makeup of the generating capacity and the relative economics of operatingthevarioustypesofcapacityinthethreeareasdistorttheapparentbalanceofgeneratingresourcesanddemandrequirements.As shown in Figure 2,about 92%of the 1989/1990installedcapacityisprimarilygas-or oil-fired with only about 4%consisting of coal-fired steamturbines(with all 45 MW of that located in the Fairbanks area)and the remainder about 4%hydro.About 32 MW of the 49.2 MW of hydro capacity is located in the Anchorage Bowl withtheremaininghydroontheKenaiPeninsula.With the addition of Bradley Lake hydro plant(and other generating capacity replacements and retirements through 1999),the proportion of 4. hydro will shift to nearly 13%with 125 MW of the 157 MW being concentrated on the Kenai Peninsula. Due to relative fuel costs,the Fairbanks area relies primarily on its coal-firedsteamgenerationandsignificantimportsfromthesouth.That is,depending on the time of theyear,some 50%or more of its electrical energy requirements are imported over the single 170milelinefromtheAnchorageBowlarea.These imports plus the output of the 25 MW coal- fired steam turbine at Healy,in turn,depend upon the single 103 mile line to Gold HillsubstationtoreachtheFairbanksareacustomers. Similarly,except for a small amount of hydro and one combustion turbine spinning in standby at Bernice Lake,there is limited generation normally operated on the KenaiPeninsula,and the 89 mile transmission interconnection line from Quartz Creek to the Anchorage Bowl is relied on for imports approaching 60%of the load requirements of theKenaiarea.However,after the completion of the Bradley Lake 108 MW hydro plant,thatimportsituationwillchange.The Kenai Peninsula will become a net exporter of capacityentitlementstothesystemsnorthofthepeninsulaviatheAnchorageBowlduringmostof the year over that same single 89 mile interconnection line. In the Anchorage Bowl area today,the electrical generation output is generallyequaltotwicethecustomerrequirementsinthearea,or more.Net exports from the BowlthereforeequalorexceedtheBowlareademand.Nearly one-half of the generation in theAnchorageBowlislocatedatBelugageneratingfacilityatthewesternextremityoftheBowl onthewesternshoreofCookInlet.This is also the most economical generation.The output ofBelugaandthe32MWofhydroatEklutna(near Palmer),along with some generation in downtown Anchorage are relied upon heavily to support both the Anchorage Bowl load and theexportstotheFairbanksareaandtheKenaiPeninsula.This result is a mix of generation of some 80%or more of the total operating capacity in the Railbelt interconnection concentrated in the Anchorage Bowl,10 to 15%in the Fairbanks area,and 5%or so in the Kenai Peninsula. After the addition of Bradley Lake in 1991,it appears that the typical operatinggenerationmixwouldshifttoapproximately65to70%in the Anchorage Bowl,20%in theKenaiPeninsula,with the Fairbanks area retaining its 10%to 15%share. Sufficient generating capacity exists in the three major Railbelt electric areas fornormalandemergencyoperation.However,the economic realities of the cost of operating thatgenerationresultsinapreponderanceoftheelectricalenergyrequirementsoftheRailbeltinterconnectionbeinggeneratedintheAnchorageBowlarea.The Fairbanks and Kenai areasrelyheavilyonimportsofthatgenerationtosupplytheirelectricalrequirements.Therefore,thetransmissioninterconnectiontransfercapabilityanditsreliabilitybothnorthandsouthoftheBowlarecriticalAlthoughtheadditionoftheBradleyLakehydroplantwillsomewhatreducethegenerationrequirementsintheAnchorageBowlareaandwouldresultinKenaiPeninsulabeinganetexportermuchofthetime,the same transmission interconnection between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula would be relied upon to maintain that supply and thecapabilityandreliabilityofthenorthandsouthtransmissioninterconnectionlineswouldcontinuetobeimportant. Assessment of generation adequacy clearly indicates that sufficient generatingCapacitymarginsexistineachofthethreeAlaskaRailbeltareas.Neither forced outages ormaintenanceoutagesareexpectedtoadverselyimpactgeneratingreserveadequacy.However,while the individual utilities or areas may have capacity margins well above the interconnectionagreementrequirementof30%reserves,the Railbelt member systems should recognize that asdemandincreasesthemarginswilllikelymovedowntowardthe30%minimum.Of concern isthefactthatthe30%criteria is not founded on technical reliability studies such as loss of load probability analyses.The Alaska Railbelt systems should reassess carefully the justification of a30%criteria and revise their interconnection agreement in accordance with such a reassessment. Transmission Adequacy As the loads and generating capacity of the Railbelt electric systems are generally in three geographically separate areas,each of the areas had developed its own transmissionsystemspriortoestablishinginterconnectedoperation.As a consequence,there are threetransmissionvoltages(115 kV,138 kV,and 230 kV)in use that are interconnected bytransformationatfivesubstationsintheAnchorageBowlareaasshowninFigure3.In ; addition,there is underlying subtransmission in each of the areas consisting primarily of 69 kV facilities as well as some 34.5 kV. In the Golden Valley area,which encompasses Fairbanks and extends from Denali Park up the Tanana River valley past Fairbanks to Delta Junction,the transmission system is a single 138 kV circuit of approximately 212 miles in length,except for a 33 milesectionbetweentheNorthPoleandCarneysubstationscurrentlybridged"v 69 kV facilities.However,there are plans to add a 138 kV segment to complete this system in 1994.The Fairbanks area (Golden Valley and Fairbanks)is interconnected with the Anchorage Bowl area by 170 miles of single circuit line between the Healy generating plant near Denali Park to Teeland substation.Teeland substation is an interconnection point for all three transmissionvoltagesofthesesystemsandislocatedinthenorthwesternportionoftheAnchorageBowl area. The Kenai Peninsula is the southernmost of the three areas and has a transmission system of 115 kV which is essentially a single circuit serving the peninsula withbranchestoHomer,Lawing,and Bernice Lake.Approximately 180 miles of 115 kV transmission line serves the Kenai Peninsula.(Future plans are to convert 24 miles of 69 kVlinesouthofLawingto115kVtherebyextendingthe115kVbranchtoSeward.)The KenaiPeninsulaisinterconnectedwiththeAnchorageBowlbya89mile115kVcircuitbetween Quartz Creek substation (41 miles north of Seward)and University substation.Universitysubstationisanotherinterconnectionpointforthreetransmissionvoltagesandislocatedin thesoutheasternportionoftheAnchorageBowlarea. The Anchorage Bowl area includes the city of Anchorage and the surroundingcountrysidebetweentheTurnagainandKnikArmsofCookInlet,extending northward toPalmerandtheMatanuskaValleyarea,and westward to the area north and west of the Knik Arm.The transmission system within Anchorage is 115 kV with an extension southward to thethreevoltageUniversitysubstationandonenorthtoPalmerandwestwardtotheTeeland substation interconnection point.In addition,there is an overlay of about 98 miles of 230 kVtransmissionextendingfromBelugageneratingstationonthewestshoreofCookInlettoa230/138 kV stepdown substation at Point MacKenzie,then north to the Teeland substationinterconnectionpointaswellaseastwardfromPointMacKenzieacrossKnikArm(viasubmarinecable)to Anchorage where it is interconnected to the 115 kV system,and thensouthwardtoUniversitysubstationwithanothertransformationto115kV.The 230 kV loop isclosedby138kV,transformed from 115 kV at University substation,along the southernboundariesofAnchoragetoPointMacKenziestepdownsubstationandextendedwestto theBelugageneratingplant. The transmission in the Anchorage Bowl area is such that it can be considered anetworkand,as such,should be able to withstand loss of any given circuit.The Kenai Peninsulaisessentiallyabranchedcircuitwithunderlyingsubtransmissiononthecross-peninsula sections,such that loss of any branch should be sustainable with only loss of the area served by thatbranch.However,the 89 mile single circuit tie between Kenai Peninsula and the AnchorageBowlis,and has historically been,subject to outages due in large part to avalanches.These 6- outages place the Kenai Peninsula in jeopardy from the effects of isolation from the AnchorageBowlTheadditionofthe108MWBradleyLakehydroelectricplantatthesouthernextremityofthepeninsulanearHomeralongwith60milesof115kVtransmissionbetweenFritzCreekandSoldotnawilltendtoexacerbatethissituationwiththefurtherproblemthatlossofthe existing Kenai-Anchorage Bowl interconnection would interrupt Bradley Lake capacityentitlementsoftheAnchorageBowlandFairbanksareautilities. The addition of the proposed 138 kV circuit between Soldotna substation, requiring transformation from 115 kV at that point,to the 138 kV portion of Universitysubstationwouldnotonlyprovideaparallelpathtotheexistingtiebutwouldalsomake theKenaielectricsystemmoreofalooparrangement.It is in view of this that the following comments are offered as regard reliability aspects: @ The existing 115 kV interconnection line has a poor reliability history and has a transmission transfer capacity limit under 75 megawatts (MW).The chances ofsignificantlyimprovedperformanceisnotgreatduetoitsphysical/geographicallocationandsystemconditionsthatexist. @ The second (currently proposed Soldotna to University 138 kV line)KenaiinterconnectiontotheAnchorageBowlareawouldimprovereliabilitybypreventingthesheddingofcustomerloadiftheexistinginterconnectionline trips, (with the possible exception of those times when the Kenai Peninsula generationisOperatinginanticipationoflossoftheexistingtie). @ When Bradley Lake comes into service,reliability will suffer without a second interconnection tie.That is,the second Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage Bowl lineisnecessarytosupportBradleyLakeandtohelpreliablydistributetheBradleyLakecapacitytothepurchasingsystems,to minimize blackouts in the KenaiPeninsula,and to minimize underfrequency load shedding in the Fairbanks areaandtheAnchorageBowl. As indicated above,the Golden Valley-Fairbanks area transmission system isessentiallya212milesinglecircuitfromtheprimaryelectricalsourceattheHealygeneratingplianttotheeasternextremitiesofthesystematJarvisCreeksubstationnearDeltaJunction.Of this,only about 50 miles has underlying transmission and therefore this system is highly exposedforlossofanysingle138kVcircuitsegment,particularly the 103 mile circuit between Healy andGoldHill.It is in view of this that the following comments are offered as regard reliability aspects. @ The addition of the proposed 105 mile 138 kV circuit between Healy generatingplantandFortWainwrightsubstationwouldnotonlyprovideanalternatepathforlossofthecircuittoGoldHill,but would also provide essentially loop servicebetweentheHealyplantandthemajorpartoftheloadinthisarea. @ The reliability of the Healy-Gold Hill line has been good,such that additionalfacilitieswillnothaveasdramaticanimpactonreliabilityasthesecondKenaiPeninsulatoAnchorageBowltie.However,based on traditional planningcriteria,the Healy-Fort Wainwright tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from the dual sources at Healy (Healy generation plus the capacitypurchasesfromtheAnchorageBowlandlaterfromBradleyLake)to theFairbanksarea. The 170 mile interconnection line between Teeland substation and Healy generatingplantisvulnerabletosinglecircuitoutageandwouldcauselossoftransfercapabilitybetweentheAnchorageBowlareaandHealy.Future consideration should be given to providing anadditionaltransmissionpathbetweentheAnchorageBowlareaandtheFairbanksarea.Under "7 traditional reliability criteria,a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and theFairbanksareawouldlikelyberequired(either via Teeland and Healy,or preferably via aseparatetransmissionpathsuchasfromtheAnchorageBowltoGlennallentoJarvisCreek). Operations The following comments are made concerning the operational aspects of the Alaska Railbelt interconnected systems: Each Railbelt system indicated it brings on additional generation for reserves in | recognition of adverse weather conditions.These reserves were indicated to be geographically located such that they would not be bottled by transmissioncontingencies.This type of response enhances reliability and should be encouraged. It was indicated in the interviews that customer load would be shed if economy or non-firm transactions were interrupted.This does not confirm to the traditionalinterpretationofNERCcriteriaforthesetypesoftransactionsinthe interconnected systems of the lower 48 states.The three traditional broad categories of electrical transactions and a summary of their application is as follows: -Economy transactions are,by definition,immediatelywithdrawable.Receiving systems have the obligation to maintain generation backed-off and spinning to replace the economy without lossofload. Non-FirmorInterruptible -The receiving system must have generationavailabletoreplacethepurchasewithinaspecifiedtime.The sellermustmaintainthedeliveryforthedurationofthissamespecifiedtime.Interruption of the transaction within this predetermined time frame isaccomplishedwithoutanylossofload. Firm -A firm purchase is treated as a generator on the receivingsystemandaloadonthesellerssystem. Lack of agreement exists over who must cut what generation schedules if atransmissionconstraintexists.This condition is partially due to conflicting termsbetweennewandexistingcontracts,e.g.contracts between Chugach andFairbanksandcontractsassociatedwithBradleyLake.Thereis also a lack ofdefinitionintheareaoftransmissionownershipvsuse.These are policydecisionsthatshouldnotwaitforshiftdispatcherstosolvewhentheconditionOccurs. Additional spinning generator reserves will not always prevent underfrequencyloadsheddingforthelossofgeneration.Reliance on load shedding as spinningreserveisnottraditionalandisavoidedbymostNERCsystems.However,duetotheuniquenatureoftheRailbeltsystems,their generation inertia and size ofloads,this technique may not only be appropriate,but essential. Each Railbelt system should develop written operating criteria and procedures foritssystem.These criteria and procedures could then be compared and utilized todevelopoveralloperatingcriteriaandproceduresfortheRailbeltinterconnection. Reliability Issues The existing Railbelt utilities lack comprehensive planning and operating criteria as well as interconnection criteria for integrated planning and operations.Therefore,theexistingandproposedRailbeltelectricutilitysystemswereevaluatedagainsttraditionalreliabilitycriteriaandpracticesfollowedbytheinterconnectedelectricsystemsofNERC'sRegionalReliabilityCouncilsinthelower48statesandCanada. For example,NERC's Planning Guides recommend to the extent practicable that an excessive concentration of generating capacity in one unit,at one location or in one area,beavoided,that excessive dependence on a single transmission line be avoided,and that a system |be designed to withstand credible contingency situations.Under traditional criteria,a singlegenerationortransmissioncontingencygenerallywouldnotblackoutanentireinterconnected _system or cause the shedding of a portion of system load.In contrast,within the AlaskaRailbeltsystems,a single contingency such as the loss of fuel supply to the Beluga generatingplantonDecember11,1989 can and has blacked out the interconnected Railbelt electricsystems.Similarly,based on information given to the RAS subgroup,during periods of high capacity transfers from the Kenai Peninsula Bradley Lake project,the sudden outage of theexisting115kVinterconnectionlinebetweentheKenaipeninsulaandtheAnchorageBowlwouldlikelycauseloadsheddingintheAnchorageandFairbanksareasandablackoutofthecompleteKenaielectricsystem.These two examples illustrate the lack of compliance withtraditionalNERCplanningandoperatingcriteria. Based on a comparison of the current Railbelt interconnected systems planningandoperatingprocedureswithtraditionalelectricutilityplanningandoperatingreliabilitycriteriainNERC-U.S.and NERC-Canada,the RAS subgroup offers the following comments: ©PlanningandOperatingCriteria The Railbelt utilities should develop,formulate inwriting,and approve appropriate planning and operating reliability criteria for theirrespectiveelectricsystemsandserviceareas.In addition,coordinated interconnection planning and operating reliability criteria should similarly bedeveloped,formulated in writing,and approved under the auspices of the existingInterconnectionAgreementorundertheASCCumbrella.NERC's Planning PoliciesencouragethedevelopmentofplanninganddesigncriteriabyRegionalCouncils,power pools,and individual systems applicable to their Region or area. ©Load Shedding and Spinning Reserve Studies The Railbelt utilities are currentlyconductingtwoimportantreliabilityrelatedstudies.The first involves the applicationofunderfrequencyloadsheddingschemes.Underfrequency load shedding is criticaltotheRailbeltutilities,because it is the primary method of preventing systemblackoutsfollowingalossofgenerationorcertaintransmissionlineoutages.This isbecausetherelativelysmallelectricalsizeoftheRailbeltinterconnectionandthemismatchbetweengeneratorgovernorresponseandsystemtransientresponserequirethatautomaticloadsheddingtakeplacefollowingmostgenerationandRailbeltinterconnectiontransmissionlinecontingencies.The second study involvesspinningreserverequirementsaftertheBradleyLakehydroprojectcomesintoservice.This study will also play an important role in determining the ability of theRailbeltutilitiesto-avoid uncontrolled loss of customer load following a systemdisturbance.Both studies are likely to result in Railbelt members having to makedifficultdecisionsaffectingthebalancebetweeneconomyandreliability.Interconnected operation will require that such decisions be made,and compliedwith,as one,rather than as seven separate systems.The importance of these studiesdictatesthattheybecompletedpromptlyandthattheRailbeltutilitiesquicklydetermineandimplementwhateverpolicyandproceduresareidentifiedbythosestudies. The Bradley Lake hydro project,on the KenaiPeninsula,is nearing completion,but the Railbelt utilities have not yet receivedapprovalforconstructionofthetransmissionfacilitiesneededtoreliablytransfercapacityfromtheprojecttomajorloadcenters.As discussed elsewherein thisassessment,thisis a direct threat to the reliability of the Railbelt systems.However, it is also an indication of an even greater threat,the lack of an integrated, coordinated process of planning transmission to accompany generation resources.Electric system reliability is much like a chain,with generation,transmission,anddistributionfacilitiesasindividuallinks.Making the generation link stronger isineffectiveunlessthetransmissionlinkisatleastasstrong.In the future,the Railbelt utilities must proactively and collectively plan and build transmission to support any generation or purchased capacity options.Reliability will likely suffer iftransmissionplanningandconstructioncontinuetolagbehindtheplanningand construction of new generation sources. vs Reliability The most significant issue affecting the reliability of theRailbeltutilitiesismaintainingaproperbalancebetweeneconomyandreliability.IfjudgedagainstthereliabilitylevelsgenerallymaintainedbytheNERC Interconnections,it would appear that,within the Railbelt utilities,economics hasencroachedonreliability.However,given the unique geographic,electrical,andeconomiccircumstancesfacingtheRailbeltsystems,the existing balance may beproper.The cost of providing reliabilityis exceptionally high for the Railbelt utilities,but there are indications that the reliability expectations of the customers in the Railbelt utilities are increasing.The lack of a clear,written definition of whatconstitutesadequatereliabilityfortheRailbeltutilitiesmakesafinaljudgmentimpossible.However,one judgment that can be madeis that more thanin any otherNERCRegion,the balance between economy and reliabilityis of concern.ThemembersoftheRailbeltutilitiesmustpayutmostattentiontothisbalance.It is easytoshareintheeconomicbenefitsofaninterconnectedsystem.It is more difficult,buoes just as important,to also share the responsibilities of maintainingrety. -10- Table 1 RAILBELT INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEMS OF ASCC PEAK DEMAND &CAPACITY RESOURCES -MWWinterSeason Major Electric Load Centers Utilities 1989/1990 1999/2000DemandCapacityDemandCapacity - Fairbanks GVEA 109 197 122 221 Area FMUS 30 44 33 28.5Total139241155249.5 Anchorage CEA 163.8 413.8 170.0 383.9 Bowl APAD 0 32 0 32 MEA 97 0 113 0AML&P 143 3318 135Total403.8 777.6 438 747.7 Kenai CEA 13 99 13.3 63.7 Peninsula HEA 73.9 40 76.3 40 SES 10.5 10.5 14 13.5AEA0-2 --2 108Total97.4 149.5 103.6 225.2 All Systems Total 640.2 1168.1 696.6 1222.4 Sources:Draft of the Railbelt interconnection's responses for the 1990-1999 period to the U.S.Depart-ment of Energy's annual April 1 Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program (IE-411)ReportandtheNERCReliabilityAssessmentSubcommittee's data request forms 01 through 08. -11- Figure 1 Alaska Rallbelt Electric Utility Systems Peak Demand &Projected Available Resources (1990 -1999 Forecast)MW (Winter)1400 |||| ?lanned Capacity Resources'{a ||1200 7 a rojected Available Resources °,=o oe -a et tiation kdFleneseensnsed akeee?1000 a 800 Peak Demand (less interruptibieDemand)Actual |t )| 89/90 90/91 94/95 99/00 *Projected Available Resources are equal to Planned Capacity Resources lees average unavaiianiecapacityatthetimeofsystempeek. Figure 2 Alaska Railbelt Electric Utility Systems Generating Capacity by Fuel NO °°en OZ -oe MW (Winter) 1400 |1200 F 29%,1168 me ea 4.4 42077 UY,Ye }12.9%1000 F 17.7%verevo7e"e"e"e".RL SeSeSeF 17.19"eteteteterere: 74.2%|06.6%400 F c=]1989/1990 1996/2000 @ Pilot BluffZehnder4GMMurphyDome@-_Om BrockmoreChenam3TeHit Pkeet”3 %Gold Hill@'”FL'.Nonk-.>gohnson Rd.r Wainwright Pole (ex Og Camey'Zz Bgnnm a|\ i 8 \17 'JarvisiHealy.Creek' i t Ul U U i U U i i} ' ' i] | ) 4 { \@ Douglas O'Neill Beluga lE@" Figure 3 Alaska Rallbett g a (to be converted from 69 kV to 115 kV) 1 Electric vty S,CooperransmissionSystems1990Pradeyo\.0 Seward ---=20K Cy *;Bradley wane ee 138 kV emmecoanmeeems %Sy Lake (1 991) ----SK Fritz CreekOEMSommm(1991) Homer Diamond88GeneratingStation: @ Substation Ridge APPENDIX C Comments on Draft Report United States Departmentoftheicrric ---_-_-=E=-2FISHANDWILDLIFESERVICE== 1011 E.TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99503 aIN REPLY REFER TO: KNWR/WAES/NAES/RE Mr.Richard Emerman MAR 0 4 1991 Alaska Energy Authority P.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr.Emerman: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has reviewed the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study,dated January 199],prepared by the Alaska Energy Authority.Although the document addresses both the proposed Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage intertie and the Fairbanks to Healy intertie,we will have separate concerns for each project.We offer the following comments for your consideration. GENERAL COMMENTS There are several important issues associated with these proposed projects that will need to be addressed in the preparation of future documents requiredbytheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA). We believe the proposed interties represent major actions and will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)because of the right-of-way issues and potential impacts to the human environment. We recognize that public review of the feasibility study represents a first step in the NEPA process.Future NEPA documents need to include:1)detailed analysis of the potential project impacts on fish,wildlife and habitat for each alternative considered;2)thorough analysis of the no action alternative;and 3)effective mitigation measures for each alternative, including incorporation of raptor protection measures in the designs of the overhead transmission lines.A habitat unit analysis or similar approach could be used to assess impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and to develop an acceptable mitigation plan. Section 1505.1(e)of the National Environmental Policy Act requires that all reasonable alternatives be included in the range of alternatives for theproposal,and Section 1502.14 requires an examination of all reasonablealternativesthatarepracticalorfeasiblefromthetechnicalandeconomic standpoint.The "no build/no action"alternative should be included and evaluated in your future EIS document. The Alaska Energy Authority will need to work closely with appropriate resource agencies to identify measures to mitigate project impacts for each alternative presented.For example,potential impacts to raptors may be avoided and/or minimized by including raptor protection measures in the design of power lines.We recommend that you review a report entitled "SuggestedPracticesforRaptorProtectiononPowerLines,The State of The Art in 1981"'for technical assistance in designing and constructing transmission lines. The preferred alternatives currently under consideration will involve thebuildingofroadsandtrenchinginwetlands.We recommend that you consultwiththeArmyCorpsofEngineersandourEcologicalServices,Anchorage andFairbanksofficestoreviewthepermittingrequirementsunderSection404of the Clean Water Act. We also suggest that you contact our Realty Division in order to discuss theapplicationprocessforaServiceRight-of-Way permit under Title XI of theAlaskaNationalInterestLandsConservationAct(ANILCA). COMMENTS ON THE KENAI PENINSULA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE The Preferred Enstar Route would have more adverse environmental effects on Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands than the Tesoro Route.The proposedEnstarRouteaffectsabout500acresofforestedrefugelandswithnewaccess routes to approximately 220 adjacent pole structures and a new right-of-way.The Tesoro Route,in contrast,would require no clearing of refuge lands.The Tesoro Route would require 59 miles of new construction,while the Enstar Route would entail 68 miles of disturbance. Page 1-4,Conclusions.According to this section,the cost-benefit ratios for the Enstar Route and the Tesoro Route are roughly comparable and are equally reliable,with the Tesoro route having a nine percent higher project cost. However,the Tesoro Route would avoid potential impacts on important moose migration corridors;the Chickaloon Flats waterfowl staging and nesting areaandwaterfowlflyways;bald eagle,brown bear,black bear,wolverine,wolf, and lynx use areas;and high value habitats for many other species. The preferred Enstar Route does not consider potential impact on Kenai Refuge visitors,refuge fish and wildlife,or refuge policies,but is based on projected economic concerns.We believe that when all alternatives are examined,the Enstar Route through the refuge will not be acceptable. Current laws and regulations governing non-program uses on national wildliferefugelandsrequireacompatibilitydetermination.Also,under TitleXI oftheAlaskaNationalInterestLandsConservationAct(ANILCA)of 1980,a determination of whether there is an economically feasible and prudent alternative to this route and whether other alternatives would result in fewer or less severe impacts on the refuge or its resources will need to be made. The feasibility document identifies such a route in the Tesoro Route.If the Enstar Route is to be pursued beyond this feasibility phase of projectplanning,the Alaska Power Authority will have to apply for a right-of-way permit issued by the Service's Realty Division. Page 2-.1.]Description of Enstar Route,second paragraph. Future documents should specifically identify the location of the transition from a buried transmission line to an overhead configuration.The proposed project calls for the transmission line to remain buried until north of Potters Marsh;we request that a site-specific location be identified.We areconcernedabouttheproximityofanoverheadpowerlinetoPotter's Marsh and the potential for bird strikes and raptor electrocutions. Page 4-],4.1.2 Water Quality.The document's assumption that neitheralternativeroutewouldsubstantiallyaffectwaterqualitywillneedto be better supported by design criteria,proposed mitigation measures,anddetailed,site-specific plans addressing water crossings,wetland crossings,and construction timing windows.We believe that the development of accessroadsthroughwetlandsandriparianareasalongstreamcrossingscouldadverselyaffectwaterqualityunlessmitigationmeasuresareincorporatedintotheroaddesign. Page 4-2,4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife,first paragraph.Your conclusions that "impacts to fish on the Kenai Peninsula leg are thus considered generally lowfortheEnstarRoute,with a potential for localized moderate impact,and lowfortheTesoroRoute,"should be supported with scientific data;thefeasibilityreportcontainsnoinformationtosupportyourstatement. Page 4-3,4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife,last paragraph.As stated above,the document needs to clarify the exact location of the proposed Enstar Route (andanyalternativeentry)near the Potter's Marsh area.We recommend that the powerline be buried from the submarine crossing near Potter's Marsh to northoftheintersectionofRabbitCreekRoadandtheNewSewardHighway. The document should also address potential impacts to shorebird habitat inintertidalareasadjacenttotherailroadright-of-way from burial of thepowerlineintheEnstaralternative.Furthermore,proposed timing ofconstructiontoavoidandminimizeimpactstoshorebirdswasnotidentified. COMMENTS ON THE FAIRBANKS TO HEALY INTERTIE Maps provided with the document are not of sufficient detail for adequatereviewandmaybeinaccurate.For example,the legend for Figure 2.3 listsexistingtransmissionlinesandtheEnstarGasline,but neither are depicted.The existing transmission line is important in that it should be considered asanalternative,but it is not discussed. Both proposed routes in the Healy-Fairbanks section cross the Tanana RiverjusteastofNenana.The south route crosses the Tanana River twice more near Fairbanks.Both routes pass within a mile of cliffs east of Nenana which have.been used for nesting by endangered American peregrine falcons (Falcoperegrinusanatum).The south route,which crosses the Tanana River 15 miles southwest of Fairbanks,has no known peregrine falcon nest sites in theimmediatearea.There are several bald eagle nests along the Tanana RiverfromFairbankstoNenana.More detailed route maps would be required toevaluatetheproposedroutes,their proximity to the cliffs,and bald eaglenestsinthearea.) Given the close proximity of both proposed routes to peregrine or peregrineandbaldeaglenestsites,alignment changes/and or construction windows willneedtobeconsideredpriortoapproval.The map in the document lacks enoughdetailandscaleforanadequatereview. River corridors are often major bird migratory routes and structures in theseareasareamajorhazardduringspringandfallmigration.This documentdiscussesthepotentialforbirdcollisions,but does not address markingschemeswhichcoulddecreasethelikelihoodofbirdcollisionswith powerlines.Marking lines will need to be addressed,particularly in nestingareasandalongmigrationroutes. Access for construction and year-round maintenance could have significantadverseimpactsonfish,wildlife,and their habitats,especially in wetlands. Winter activities could influence movements of mammals,the hunting success ofpredators,and trapping harvest of furbearers.Activities during other seasons could impact water quality by erosion,change in drainage patterns, alteration of plant communities,disturbance of nesting and staging migratory birds,increased public access and associated disturbances,and other secondary impacts. A mitigation plan for the Fairbanks-Healy Intertie should be prepared in cooperation with the Service and other resource agencies prior to initiation of the proposed project.Costs for mitigation and monitoring requirements need to be factored into the feasibility report,as they are an essential facet of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to working cooperatively with you in upcoming planning of these intertie projects. Sincerely, G.1 Dep gional Diregtor or Ae WA TF FtManeVicASey?;St 4\int it by FAA SS tah 'ul |WALTERJ.HICKEL,GOVERNORUInduiswieVisitosia/ / DEPARTMENTOFNATURAL RESOURCES /3601CSTREET ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99510-7005 DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER TRAL REGIONMarch6,1991 SOUTHCEN Alaska Energy Authority Attn.:Dick Emermen P.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 RE:Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Dear Mr.Emermen: As requested,staff from the Division of Land and Water has reviewed the Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study (draft report)and offers the following comments. 1.Land Status -Due to the scale of the maps that were provided with the feasibility study,it was difficult to determine the effects of the transmission line construction on state lands that are encumbered by leases or permits issued by this Division.By reviewing state status plats to determine land ownership along the general alignments of each proposal, it was determined that Mental Health Grant Lands,pending and issued leases,right-of way permits and other land actions administered by this Division would be impacted. It should be noted that at this time applications for permits. or leases on Mental Health Lands can not be adjudicated due to a court injunction that prohibits this Division from issuing such authorizations. Enclosed is a list of sections within townships that may be affected,along with Mental Health Land Index Maps that depict the townships that were selected in southcentral and northcentral Alaska. 2.Required DLW authorizations prior to construction -It would be necessary for the Alaska Energy Authority to submit applications for right-of-way permits,leases (should addition land be required for facilities associate with the proposals); and permanent water rights,if appropriate.In addition, permits for temporary access,water use and materials (sand\gravel)may also be required. oe Deep ce rater wt ace The Division of Land and Water appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed projects.If you should need further information please contact this office at 762-2270. Sincerely, "Dane WheyDavePerez Natural Resource Officer ENCLOSURES A:Railbelt.Rew The following is a list of lands that may be affected by Mental Health Grant selections: Southcentral proposals:Seward Meridian Township Range Section (s) 7 North 11 West 9 8 North 11 West 36 8 North 10 West 19 12 North 4 West Exact alignment is required to determine MH lands. 5 North 10 West 23 5 North 7 West 7,8 5 North 8 West 8,9,10,11 12 North 3 West Exact alignment is required to determine MH lands. Northcentral Proposals:Fairbanks Meridian Township Range Section (s) 12 South 7 West 21,5 11 South 7 West 32 6 South 8 West 1,2,12,24,25,36 5 South 7 West 1,2,3,4,8,9,11,12,13,14,17 3 South 4 West 6 1 South 3 West 18 1 South 1 West 24,25 1 North 3 West 11,12,13,14,15 1 North 1 West 17,19,20 1 North 1 East 17 STATE OF ALASKA Mental Health Lands Index Map Southcentral Region(Seward §Copper River Metidians) Eg MENTAL HEALTH GRANT LANDS perneeel tee tadl planttots.Hervee at Cane aeeaea tateeeMaketeateanCabueger Before taking any ection on the ands,cheonthestateFublictandrecordsysemvi @,ources etail aps (stete stotus plots)'vision of Lond &Woter Tewaship rid based on Qureau of @ad Wonagement's 51 Wap Projection:diber's Equal treo Department Of Nofurol ResourcesDivisionofwongement,Land Records information Section adarymabyWLe;i:STATE OF ALASKA Mental Health Lands Index Map Northern Region (Fairbanks Meridian) Ea WENTAL REALTH GRANT LanDs the Stete of ateste by Meand©.at,®Laadtiag det, Before taking wy ection on these fonds,check the current stotesonthestatepubliclondrecordsystemviththeSteteofAlasDepartmentofNaturelResources.Oetoiled mops (state status pleats)ere available et the regional @ of the Division of Lond &WaterMenagementinAnchorage,ond Feirbanks, Primary date source:Aloste at of Neturel Resources Hieation System (ta) Township grid bared on Gureeu of bone Wenegemeat's state Map prejection:A'ber's Equal Aces Oepor ment of Natural ResourcesLee=Aliwizine 4 aN=-DB Ntih-_7 :AC.Ay v 4(1%i -)hoy Ol:tot NY AY om ;nn tacg iy {':° i?'bode GS Yo wvteeuvesal hai WALTER J.HICKEL,GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES KENAI AREA :BOX 1247 DIVISION OF PARKS &OUTDOORRECREATION |BOONEbeyase 89889 RECEIVED MAP O04 1991 pyaska Energy Authority February 28,1991 Richard Emmerman Alaska Energy Authority P.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr.Emmerman, I have reviewed the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study report and would appreciate being placed on your mailing list for future information regarding this project. The Southern Line's Tesoro Route does pass through Captain Cook State Recreation Area and Park Use Permits will be required for any construction within the recreation area. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the recreation area or our permitting process. Sincerely, Chas,kun 2)(Ae Christina D.Titus Kenai Area Superintendent CDT/sf a _-a fam r * /7ayii(Oe |i TAY VM |yp ee |Q\!u\\d WALTERJ.HICKEL,GOVERNORInuALIAUM DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME |ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99516-1599/PHONE.(907)344-0541 RECEIVED February 27,1991 mee 04 1991 pyaska energy Authority Mr.Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr.Emerman: Re:Draft Report Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study;Anchorage to Soldotna Section. The Southcentral Region of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)has completed a review of the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study report with a focus on the Anchorage to Soldotna project.Our Northern Region has reviewed and commented on the proposed Healy/Fairbanks Intertie project addressed in this draft report. The ADF&G previously reviewed and commented on this project in a memorandum to Hart Crowser,in April 1987.The project has changed Slightly since our last review,in that the proposed 230 kV line has been reduced to a 138 kV line.This change eliminates the need for construction of approximately 22 miles of transmissionline between Bernice Lake Substation and Soldotna.This reduction in scope of work should provide for a more favorable benefit/cost ratio for this route,but is not reflected in the "Engineering and Design"section (Section 2.1,Southern Line:Route Selection and Right-of-Way)on page 2-1 (last paragraph). The draft report identifies four alternative routes for the Soldotna to Anchorage Intertie.The Seward/Sterling Highway (Existing)Route,the Enstar Gas Pipeline Route which parallels the Kenai Mountains and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,the Tesoro Products Line Route which follows the Sterling Highway and the West Forelands-Beluga Station Route.The Seward/Sterling Highway and West Forelands-Beluga Routes were eliminated from further consideration in the draft feasibility study and the Enstar GasPipelineRoutewasidentifiedasthePreferredRoute. The ADF&G has no objection to either route presently under consideration although the Tesoro route would have slightly less impact to fish and wildlife resources.We offer the following abe fold ial¢-.0R*Ta ni -1 Richard Emerman -2-February 27,1991 comments for your consideration in finalizing the feasibility report and in preparing for permitting a project in the future. 1.Fisheries Related Impacts.Construction of the transmission line along the Tesoro Products Line Route would result in the traversing of fewer designated anadromous fish streams (15) than the use of the Enstar Route (16).Stream crossings should not pose any significant problem as the crossings would be elevated pole mounted spans with no inwater construction. Stream crossings with vehicles can be scheduled to take advantage of winter ice crossings or occur during periods when anadromous fish are not likely to be adversely impacted (i.e. mid May through mid July).These conditions would be included in the Fish Habitat Permit required from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2.Wildlife Related Impacts.The potential wildlife impacts associated with either the Enstar or Tesoro routes would be similar.Waterfowl utilize the wetland habitats on the Potter Marsh area of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge during the spring and fall migration periods.Waterfowl are also present in the Point Possession area on the Kenai Peninsula. Scheduling of transmission line construction to avoid important migration and nesting areas would minimize construction related impacts associated with either route. Moose habitat impacts would also be similar between the two alternatives,however,the greater amount of timber removal associated with clearing a ROW along and through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge could result in greater impact to the moose population through increased vulnerability to hunters along the cleared ROW. 3.Both the Tesoro and Enstar routes would require the burial of a portion of the transmission line in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge located adjacent to Turnagain and Knik Arms southof Anchorage.The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge was established in 1971 and expanded and renamed in 1988 for the protection of waterfowl,shorebirds,salmon,and other fish and wildlife species and their habitat,and for the use and enjoyment of the people of the state.Burial of the cable wouldbe a requirement of the Special Area Permit required for crossing this refuge pursuant to AS 16.20.060 and 5 AAC 95. Recent surveys of other buried submarine cables'serving Anchorage indicate the need for adequate burial depth and cable protection from scouring,abrasion and vandalism which could expose the cables resulting in electrocution of fish, wildlife or the recreationists using the Cook Inlet shoreline and mudflats. Richard Emerman -3-February 27,1991 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft feasibility. study.Should you have questions regarding our comments or wish to discuss them further,please contact Mr.Gary Liepitz at 267-2284. Sincerel Lance Trasky Regional Supervisor Region II Habitat Division cc:D.Clausen,ADF&G T.Spraker,ADF&G T.Bendock,ADF&G D.Nelson,ADF&G K.Tarbox,ADF&G G.Liepitz,ADF&G J.Westlund,ADF&G S.Millington,ADNR D.McGillivary,USF&WS R.Morris,NMFS D.Kohler,COE P.North,EPA C.Frensdorff,KPB STATE OF ALASKA /"™..ROADDEPARTMENTOFFISHANDGAME1800COLLEGEROAD January 28,1991 RECEIVED FEB1 199} Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Energy a,,Attn:Richard Emerman thorityP.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr.Emerman: RE:Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Region Hi (Interior)of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the referenced draft report sections which cover the proposed Healy/Fairbanks Intertie upgrade.Region II (Southcentral)will review and comment on the Anchorage/Soldotna Intertie sections.We recognize that this is a feasibility document rather than an environmental impact assessment.However,we believe there are environmental conditions which need to be more fully addressed before selection of an alternative is determined to be feasible.The following comments are offered for your consideration: Section 2.2,Northern Line:Route Selection and Right-of-Way.The legend on Figure 2.3 (continued)contains a code for Enstar Gasline but such a feature is not shown or known within the study area. This section also identifies the "South Route”as the preferred alternative because it is shorter and traverses less private land.The decision on route selection does not appear to have considered access to the route for either construction or Operations and maintenance nor the construction along 30-50 additional miles of"wetlands"versus the more upland "North Route." Section 4.2.5,Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands)."Wetland disturbance would be kept to a minimum by route selection,minimizing new road construction,careful tower placement,construction timing ...”This statement seems to be contradicted by the selection of the "South Route”particularly theportionfromnearBonanzaCreektoFairbanks. Section 4.2.6.,Recreation Resources.The "South Route"would pass through an areawhereconsiderableairboatuseoccurs.Increases or decreases in airboat access caused by powerline clearing and construction should be addressed. 4.2.7,Visual Impacts.Most major airlines and many private airplanes approachFairbanksInternationalAirportfromthesouthwestanda"South Route” powerline would be highly visible for many miles.This visual impact should beaddressed. rieK17LH Richard Emerman -2-January 28,1991 In summary,we believe route selection has been premature.We recommend collection of more detailed information concerning ground conditions,access,construction,wetland avoidance,recreational resources,and visual impacts.Please contact Alan Townsend at 451-6192 for additional information or assistance. Sincerely, Alvin G.Ott,Regional Supervisor Habitat Division Department of Fish and Game ce:Frank Rue,ADF&G,Juneau John Clark,ADF&G,Fairbanks Chris Smith,ADF&G,Fairbanks Terry Haynes,ADF&G,Fairbanks Keith Schultz,ADF&G,Fairbanks Rick Smith,ADNR,Fairbanks Pete McGee,ADEC,Fairbanks Patrick Sousa,USFWS,Fairbanks Junior Kerns,Ft.Wainwright STAVE 0 Fi A LL A S i A WALTERJ.HICKEL GOVERNOR DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER ELEPHONE NO. P.O.BOXRECEIVED ALASKA 99801-1800 (907)465-2600 FEB 11 1991 Februa 4,1991alaskaEnergyAuthorityTY* Mr.Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr.Emerman: The Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Draft Report and found the Environmental Impact section to be adequate for comparing the different routes proposed for the southern and northern lines. Regardless of the route ultimately selected,any air or water quality issues will be resolved by the Department in the context of site specific construction permits.Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. Sincerely, inne Zohn A.Sandor Commissioner NY Ry Municipality of Anchorage Municipal Light &PowerTomFink,Mayor 1200 East First Avenue R E C E |V F D Anchorage,Alaska 99501-1685|(907)279-7671,Telecopiers:(907)276-2961,277-9272 February 20,1991 -oo FEB 2 2 1991 'Alaska Energy Authority Mr.Dick Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P.0.Box 19086 Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 Re:ML&P Comments on the Draft Railbelt Intertie.Feasibility Study Dear Mr.Emerman: The discussion in section 6.1.2 on hydrothermal coordination benefits of a second intertie between Kenai and Anchorage does not consider the threshold limit for coordination efforts over the existing line.While it is true that some hydrothermal coordination can be accomplished over the existing intertie, there is some threshold limit of benefits below which the utilities would choose not to rely on Kenai generation to supply Anchorage loads.With two lines between Anchorage and the Kenai, the utilities clearly plan to rely on Kenai generation to supply Anchorage loads.If there remains only a single line,the utilities have not had to make a final choice on how to operate the system.Therefore,it is not clear that the hydrothermal coordination benefits available from a single line should be subtracted when determining the benefits attributableto a new line. At section 4.1.1,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)management disagrees with the study conclusion that there would be negligible air quality impacts in the operation of the Kenai Anchorage intertie.Quite the contrary,ML&P's analysis of air quality impacts strongly suggests that there will be a favorable impact on air quality over the Anchorage and Beluga air sheds.This conclusion is based on the fact that construction of the intertie will significantly reduce line energy losses below current losses,transfer a portion of the burden of spinning reserves to hydro resources,and will promote hydrothermal coordination.All of these factors directly decrease the use ofthermalgenerationresourcesinAnchorageandBeluga,which in turn,decreases the emissions of air pollutants from these resources.Our simple analyses suggest that emissions of NOx, co,voc and particulates can.be reduced significantly. Putting Energy Into Anchorage Alaska Energy Authority Mr.Dick Emerman Draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study February 20,1991 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study.If you should have any questions regarding our comments,please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, A En Thomas R.Stahr General Manager yy Analysis North Alaska's Utility Consumer AdvocateNabSY911West8thAvenue,Suite 204 Anchorage,Alaska 99501 907-272-3425 RECEIVED February 28,1991 at2 3 199] ALASWA ENFRGY sliTunaiTy Alaska Energy Authority Attn:Richard Emerman P.O.Box 190869 Anchorage,AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr.Emerman: Thank you for the invitation to review the "Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study",Draft Report,January 1991.Except for new intertie cost estimates that assume very little Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)involvement with the construction of the interties,this report primarily repackages and comments on information from older studies concerning the projects.Prior work by the Alaska Energy Authority on the topic of Railbelt intertie benefits has been more even- handed in its presentation.In particular,the "Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study"(AEA- Recon),June 1989,and the February 15,1990 memo from you to Robert E.LeResche,"Review of Railbelt Utility Intertie Analysis",presented a fairer picture of the benefits of intertie upgrades,in my opinion.I understand that this current report "was drafted to explain the reasons for the position reached by LeResche and the agency's board"',perhaps explaining the more optimistic conclusions concerning intertie cost-effectiveness contained in the report. Because there is little new information in this report,I have not changed my previous conclusion that the limited upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks line is probably cost- effective,and that new lines from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula and from Healy to Fairbanks are probably not cost-effective.Those conclusions were supported in substantial detail in "A review of "Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt'",February 1990 by Analysis North.The only additional comments I would like to make concern Railbelt power reliability and the interties'expected impact on-reliability.Project advocates have continually touted the reliability benefits of the interties,but the utility-funded analysis of the projects indicates that the interties will reduce power outages by an average of 26 minutes per customer per year,a relatively small impact compared to the 5.5 hours per year that the average Railbelt customer is without power. Although this review offers comments on the cost-effectiveness of the intertie projects,I believe that a Legislative debate about the technical and economic details of the projects is 'Anchorage Daily News,"Intertie Line Backers Try for Funding",Tom Kizzia,February 10, 1990. Page 2 February 28,1991 somewhat pointless.The best way to ensure that the intertie projects are built if they are cost-effective,or not built if they are not cost-effective,is to provide no specific subsidy for their construction.The Railbelt utilities'capital investment process is not perfect,but it is more accurate than the outcome of a Legislative debate concerning intertie merits.The Railbelt utilities will build the interties if they make sense.The Legislature can still lower electric rates with the remainder of the Railbelt Energy Fund by using the fund to pay off or make payments on existing Railbelt utility debt,or using the fund to provide a credit on each customer's monthly electric bill.Providing generic subsidies such as these would not distort the utilities'normal decision-making process concerning capital investments and operating choices. To facilitate the discussion in the following sections,I will use the following abbreviations to designate the various intertie studies: AEA-Recon -"Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study",June 1989,prepared by Decision Focus Inc.(DFI)for the Alaska Energy Authority.$2 million AEA analysis of 230 kV Railbelt interties and other Railbelt energy projects. Utility-DFI -"Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt",December 1989,prepared by Decision Focus Inc.for the Railbelt electric utilities. Utility-funded analysis of 138 kV intertie proposals. AEA-Feasibility -"Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study",January 1991,prepared by the Alaska Energy Authority.The study that is the subject of this review. Interties Are Not the Cure-All for Railbelt Reliability Problems This new study gives the impression that the Railbelt is on the brink of a reliability disaster,and new interties will solve the problem.An overall look at power reliability statistics and estimates of the reliability improvement expected from the interties indicates otherwise. Figure 1 gives power outage statistics for most of the Railbelt utilities and a sampling of non- Alaskan utilities.The figure shows the average hours of power outage during the year incurred by a typical customer of the utility.About half of the Railbelt outage hours are due to problems with generation plants and problems with high-power transmission lines.The rest of the outages are caused by problems with lower-power distribution lines,the power lines found in neighborhoods and subdivisions.The recent Christmas episode of ice-laden trees short-circuiting Railbelt power lines was a distribution line problem. New interties can affect generation and transmission-related power outages but do not reduce distribution-related outages,roughly half of Railbelt customer outage hours.Even if the interties were the perfect cure for generation and transmission problems in the Railbelt, customers would still suffer significant outages due to distribution line problems. Page 3 February 28,1991 Chugach '85-89 ._ Anchorage MLP '85-90 [REEMEES Homer '86-90 . Matanuska '85-89 Copper Valley '86-90 [xi anne Golden Valley 85-89 [= Fairbanks MUS '88-89 [===Estimates of. Interim AEA-Recon ee Outage Reductions:y :from Proposed IntertiesFinalAEA-Recon 2 P : Utility-DFl Yellowstone Valley Idaho County Vigilante Electric Puget Power Boston Edison Canadian Avg,'89 0 2 4 6 8 10 Outage Hours per Customer per Year Figure 1 -Power Outage Comparison.Seward Electric System data not available.Other data from direct communication with utilities and from AEA "Alaska Electric Power Statistics",1988- 89. However,the new interties are not expected be the perfect cure for all generation and transmission problems.The first estimate of improved reliability due to the new interties was a 7 minute per year average reduction in power outages (not counting the Northeast intertie through Glennallen).This estimate was presented in the Interim Report of the AEA Intertie Reconnaissance study.After the review process--a process dominated by project advocates--the final AEA-Recon estimate was increased to about 24 minutes per year.The next analysis was funded by the Railbelt utilities,Utility-DFI,and determined the reliability improvement due to the proposed interties to be about 26 minutes,a relatively small decrease compared to the total outage time of about 5.5 hours per typical Railbelt customer per year,as shown in Figure 1.These outage reduction estimates are averaged across all Railbelt customers;Kenai Peninsula customers will benefit the most,and Fairbanks customers will benefit the least. Page 4 February 28,1991 Railbelt Power Reliability Is Not Dramatically Different from Lower-48 and Canadian Reliability Figure 1 also compares Railbelt reliability to reliability in the Lower 48 and Canada.The small REA electric cooperatives in the Figure--Yellowstone Valley (Montana),Idaho County, and Vigilante Electric (Montana)--have relatively high outage rates from 4 to 10 hours per year: per customer.The larger utilities--Puget Power (Washington State)have outages times near 2 hours per customer per year.Fairbanks utilities and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power have outage times not far above these larger Lower-48 utilities.Finally,an extensive survey of Canadian utilities done by the Canadian Electrical Association determined that Canadian customers were out of power an average of 4.3 hours during 1989. Reliability Benefits Have Been Included in the Past Intertie Cost/Benefit Analyses In the AEA-Recon study,the 24 minute per year power outage reduction was valued at $19 million (1991 $);i.e.,the authors assumed that consumers would be willing to make a one-time payment of $19 million to achieve a 24 minute per year outage reduction over the next 35 years. In Utility-DFI,a higher value was placed on power reliability;the 26 minute per year reduction for 40-50 years was valued at $54 million (1991 $).?In my review of Utility-DFI,I argued that both the estimate of reduced power outage minutes and the valuation of that reliabilityimprovementwereexcessive.I believe that the reliability benefits presented in the AEA-Recon analysis are more accurate.Note that the Utility-DFI valuation of power reliability implies that Railbelt consumers should be willing to pay about $660 million ($3,900 per customer)to have perfectly reliable power (no outages)for the next 40-50 years. The NERC Railbelt Reliability Study Suggests Rules-of-Thumb that Are Probably Not Applicable in Alaska The AEA-Recon analysis and the Utility-DFI analysis approached the question of the reliability impact of the proposed interties by attempting to identify specific types of system outages that would be avoided by the existence of new interties.Estimates of the number, magnitude,and duration of these avoided outages were used to determine that the interties would reduce customer outages by 24 -26 minutes.The Railbelt utilities also initiated a separate reliability review of the Railbelt system by the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC.This review is cited frequently in the AEA-Feasibility study and is included as an appendix in the study. "The Utility-DFI study assumed a longer intertie life than the AEA-Recon study. Page 5 February 28,1991 The NERC study claims that based on traditional planning criteria,additional interties are needed between Kenai and Anchorage,Healy and Fairbanks,and even Anchorage and Healy. These traditional planning criteria appear to require that generation sources be connected to loads by multiple transmission paths. Does this planning rule also mean that Copper Valley Electric needs two more expensive interties from the Solomon Gulch hydro project to Valdez and Glennallen?A response to the question--beyond applying a transmission planning rule-of-thumb--must involve a balancing of the cost of duplicate transmission paths against the improved reliability and other benefits the lines would bring.This is exactly the type of analysis that was done in the AEA-Recon study and the Utility-DFI study.Power outage reductions were estimated and then quantified in terms of their dollar value to consumers. Besides mentioning a tradeoff between economics and reliability,the NERC study entirely failed to address in quantitative terms the magnitude and value of the reliability improvement that the new interties will bring.The authors did not state whether they thought that the Utility-DFI 26 minute outage reduction estimate was high or low.They did not state whether they thought that $54 million was too high or too low a valuation of that 26 minute reduction. It is very likely that the cost/benefit tradeoff weighs in favor of building duplicate transmission paths in the Lower-48.The power flows on the Lower-48 transmission paths are hundreds and sometimes thousands of megawatts (MW).Figures in the Utility-DFI study indicate that power flows on the existing Kenai-Anchorage path will only average about 26 MW after Bradley Lake comes on line,if Railbelt generation units are optimally coordinated.If the Railbelt utilities do not implement generation coordination strategies,the flow could be substantially less.The reason power flow will be so low is because most of Bradley Lake's 42 MW of average power output will supply the Kenai Peninsula's average load of 54 MW. Without Bradley Lake,much of Kenai's load has been served from Anchorage via the existing Kenai-Anchorage line.Power flow on the Healy-Fairbanks path will average about 70 MW. The power flow on the lines from the Solomon Gulch hydro project average less than 5 MW. Duplicate transmission paths are much more difficult to cost-justify with power flows of 26 -70 MW compared to the hundreds of megawatts flowing on Lower-48 transmission lines.The consequences of power flow interruption are not nearly as severe with small power flows.Because of these differences between the Lower-48 and Alaska,I question the application of transmission planning rules-of-thumb in the Alaskan environment. Will Reliability Get Worse in the Railbelt Without New Transmission Lines? The AEA-Recon study and the Utility-DFI study indicate that reliability on the Kenai peninsula will be improved when Bradley Lake comes on line in the next year.Much of the Page 6 February 28,1991 Kenai electrical load will be served from Bradley Lake instead of the less reliable Kenai- Anchorage transmission line.After Bradley's completion,Anchorage will spend part of the year importing power from the Kenai peninsula.A failure of the existing transmission line while Anchorage is importing energy may cause a limited outage in Anchorage.The AEA-Recon study and the Utility-DFI study estimated the effect to be an increase of about 12 minutes per customer per year of power outages.In my review of the Utility-DFI study,I argued that even this low: estimate was overstated because the analysis did not acknowledge the small power flows imported by Anchorage.Relative to the 5 hours of outages per customer per year in the Anchorage area, these reliability impacts are not tremendous. In conclusion,I believe that the current AEA-Feasibility study tends to exaggerate the issue of the proposed interties'impact on Railbelt power reliability.The above discussion provides a more rational perspective on the reliability issue. Sincerely yours,Won MkII Alan Mitchell Utility Analyst APPENDIX D Independent Cost Estimate: Dryden &LaRue,Inc. COST ESTIMATE KENAI/ANCHORAGE AND HEALY/FAIRBANKS 138 kV TRANSMISSION LINE INTERTIES Prepare for: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY P.O.Box 190869Anchorage,Alaska 99519-0869 Prepared by: DRYDEN &LaRUE 6436 Homer Drive Anchorage,Alaska 99518 March 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION eeoeoevevereevneeev eevee eeee ees eeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeee ees 1 GENERAL cost PHILOSOPHY eeoeereveevneeeveeer eee eeereereee eevee eee 3 COST SAVING CONSIDERATIONS ...cccevvcecvessevsecrecencces 11 APPENDICES A.EXECUTIVE COST SUMMARY WITH MAPS)..wwsesceevcccvccvves A-1 B.SUBSTATION COST SUMMARY .ccccccccscccveveeserevesene B-1 C.CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ...-.ccccccccccccccccces C-1 Enstar Route 2...ccc ccc ccc rc cc cc cccccncccccscen C-2 TESOTO ROUTE]2.nce rece ccc ec ccc ccc ccceseccccene C-21 Healy Route ...cccccccrcccrvccccscvvccccccccce C-42 D.CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS cr cccccnccceserccsccsesace D-1 Overhead Construction Unit Costs ............6.D-1 Overhead Link UnitS ...ccccceccencecnccccccces D-6 Underground &Submarine Construction Units ...©-D-13 Right-of-Way Unit CostsS ...ccsccscccccccccccccs D-21 E e COST ASSUMPTIONS eeeoeoeseseeeve#eneeeespeeeeneseseeeneeeeseteeeeeee#e E-1 Overhead Structure Data ...ccccccvcvcccscsecae E-1 Substations eeewswees4ece¢ees#ss854eeenteet,eeeteeseeeeeseeeeeseee E-18 INTRODUCTION The line and substation for this report are primarily based on the previous in-depth cost studies: Power Engineers May 1987 -230 kV Enstar Route Part One &Two May 1987 -230 kV Tesoro Route Harza Engineers Aug 1987 -230 kV Healy Route The above studies were supplemented by both Engineers with brief letter reports in April 1989 for 138 kV lines.We have utilized the base data from the in-depth reports,such as:conductor size, climatological loadings,substation one-lines and geologic data to form the basis for our estimate.Line routes from the previous studies have been assumed fixed.We have not made a strict review of the original cost data only.In order to feel comfortable with an "independent estimate",we have relied heavily on our recent experience with the Bradley Lake transmission lines and made some changes to the original Power and Harza designs.In some instanc- es,these modifications were required to change from the 230 kV to. 138 kV.The most significant difference is in our selectionof the steel-xX tower for all overhead line sections,not restricted by right-of-way,instead of using wood-H structures in some sections. Comparison of the two structures types is further discussed in the General Cost Philosophy section following.Also,we have used our own selection for foundation types,cable terminations,substation yards,etc.to develop our independent cost estimate.None of the construction unit costs from the previous estimates has been used. Our approach is to select designs that are likely to be constructed and then estimate the individual pieces or building blocks (con- struction units).The construction units are then assembled into line sections (links)based on our estimate of the quantities -l1- needed.Final line costs are then a summation of the appropriate links. Following this introduction,is a more detailed discussion on our cost philosophy and some items that could be appropriate for cost savings.The cost data is presented as an increasing detail.The Executive Summary gives costs for each link,design and support for each of the three routes:Enstar,Tesoro,Healy along with route maps.Following this is a Substation Summary Cost with a labor and material breakdown and one-line diagram.Following this is the complete Construction Cost Estimate with labor and material break- down for each item. Background for the Construction Cost Estimate is included in the Construction Unit Costs and Cost Assumptions sections. GENERAL COST PHILOSOPHY Developing a cost estimate for any project requires some consid- eration for the construction climate in addition to the estimates for the physical pieces.One of the significant factor in the cost of a transmission line is the degree of difficulty of the overall administrative system that is required by the owner.Private utilities can be more responsive to the contracting process than the state.We have assumed in this estimate that the private sector will be responsible for construction of these lines. Following is a brief description of the cost philosophy for the major items used in this report.Details of the individual con- struction units and cost assumptions are included in Appendix D & E. OVERHEAD LINES Steel-X vs.Wood-H There are several aspects to consider in the selection of a struc- ture type for any transmission line.Before the design of any. transmission line,a structure study will need to be completed to determine the best choice.For this study,we need to pick a structure type that is most likely to be selected.Based on our experience we agree with the Power and Harza studies that Wooden-H and Steel-X structures are the most logical first choice for these lines.Both structure types have a proven record for 138 kV class lines in Alaska.The decision on when to use which structure type is dependent on many variables including:aesthetics,reliability, maintenance,constructability and cost.The following discussion gives a brief comparison of these variables for the two structure types and the reasons for selecting the steel-X for this cost estimate. Aesthetics Either a wood pole or the weathering steel-X are considered minimal visual impact due to their ability to blend into the surrounding Alaska environment.Existing vegetation and topography can screen views of structures if their silhouette is not overpowering.Lattice structures are best suited for minimum silhouette because of their low mass.Both of the structures compared here will produce considerable silhouett- ing due to the two solid poles.Depending on the number of X- braces and vee-braces in the final design,the wood structures could end up with more impact than the tubular steel which will maintain the same silhouette regardless of load changes. Another item which influences visual impact is the number of structures per mile.A longer ruling span will give less structures per mile to impact the environment.Ruling span is influenced by many factors,but structure strength is the most significant.The steel-X can be manufactured for very long ruling spans with a small increase in cost compared to the wood. Reliability and Maintenance A simple structure design will be reflected in the reliability and amount of required maintenance.A vee-braced and X-braced wood-H has considerably more parts and pieces than a six piece steel-X.The weight of a complete wood-H is about 1/3 more than a comparable steel-X.Weight usually is directly related to construction costs especially in difficult access locations all of the line routes in this study are primarily difficult access.Wood poles have an advantage in terms of their famil- jiarity to maintenance personnel and availability of local stocks.Should a catastrophe break a structure,the steel is often repairable and wood can only be replaced with new poles. Steel is a workable material and normal welding,bending, straightening,etc.techniques can be used to repair the -4- damaged parts.Also,the hinged base of the steel-X is de- signed to allow a tip-up installation with minimal equipment. This is a definite advantage over wood-H type structures. The steel-X has a distinct advantagefor longitudinal loadings outside the design parameters due to the hinged base and guying system.The load release system in the steel-X guy yoke is a method of reducing longitudinal loads prior to structure laydown.The steel-X longitudinal guying system can also be considered a disadvantage because of the guying pieces not present in the wood-H. Constructability The ability to construct a transmission line in a particular location is dependent on many factors that have nothing to do with the comparison between the two structure types.Founda- tions are one major difference between the two structures that can be compared.The normal foundations for the wood-H (in order of progressive expense)are:direct embedment,select backfill for direct embedment and a separate support such as a piling cluster that is attached to the pole.The selection of the foundation type correspondence to the support capabili- ties of the soil.It is not always practical to know in. advance the soil conditions for most of the structure loca- tions.A foundation type that is not influenced by the soil type is a construction advantage.The normal foundations for the steel-X (in order of progressive expense)are:a single driven piling,a double piling and a piling cluster.Any of the steel-X foundations requires the same equipment and the connection to the structure is much easier than a pile cluster connection to a wood pole.There are several advantages for the normal driven piling over the normal direct embedment including:ability to adjust the structure connection in case of frost heaving,ability to increase ground clearance for new conditions such as clearance to a new road,addition of new piling for settling conditions and the ability to use metal working techniques for unusual situations. Cost Cost of a transmission line should include all of the above factors for the required life of the line.A 50-year life is a common period used for transmission lines.We normally Gesign for a 50-year return interval on loading conditions and it is expected that a transmission line will last this long without significant maintenance.The life of a wood pole is dependent on many variables and especially in Alaska,the life is an unknown.Regardless of the selected life,wood will not last as long as steel.If we assume that a 50-year life is reasonable,then the steel-X will have an advantage over the wood.Most financing is based on approximately 30-year life for transmission lines.Wood-H with a 30-year life will cost about 13%more than a steel-X with a 50-year life.The Power Engineers study shows steel-X to be 17%more costly than wood- H which is close to the overall cost difference. We prepared a cost comparison of wood-H vs steel-X in 1986 for the Bradley Lake Project.Our conclusion at that time,and we believe it is still valid,was that the cost of these two. structure types is very close and it is mostly dependent upon foundation costs.The steel-X potentially should have a foundation cost advantage in poor or frost-susceptible soils. The geology investigation of the Enstar route shows pilings are acceptable on all line sections and direct embedment poles are acceptable on about 1/2 of the line.This would allow both types of structures to be used,but on a single construc- tion project (and at this level of estimating)we believe it is advantageous to select one type of construction that is ac- ceptable throughout. There is no definitive geologic data for the Tesoro route,but frost-jacking potential is noted in the Power Engineers study. -6- The Harza study of the Healy line classifies every link as high frost and thaw potential except link 1 which is moderate. The recommended foundation type is piling. The previous studies show piling as the favored foundation type and we believe the steel-X structure will be less expen- sive on this foundation than the wood-H. 4 Conclusion The above discussion is only a quick comparison of wood-H vs. steel-X.Our approach to this cost estimate is to use the structure most likely to be selected.Based on the above factors we believe,it is most likely that the steel-X will be chosen. Structure Loadings It is very difficult to estimate the loading conditions for trans- mission lines in Alaska.Normally the location of a transmission line has no local data for wind,ice,snow or the expected combina- tions of these that might occur over the life of the line.The best that can usually be done is to extrapolate weather data from many miles away using the most knowledgeable meteorologist avail-. able.Recent problems with transmission lines in Alaska may indi- cate that using the NESC guidelines alone is not adequate.Some portions of Alaska need to consider loadings greater than NESC Heavy and the possibility for unequal span loadings.This require- ment appears to be spread from as far as Southeast Alaska to the Railbelt.We have used our knowledge of the local conditions to estimate the loading for each line link.For this estimate we have assumed the following general loading conditions.More specific details are included in the Overhead Structure Data Section. Enstar extreme load 0°,1"ice,4#wind at 60%Initial 30°,O ice,36.9#wind at 60%Initial -7- Tesoro extreme load 0°,2"ice,4#wind at 60%Initial 30°,0 ice,36.9#wind at 60%Initial Healy extreme load 0°,1"ice,4#wind at 60%Initial 30°,0 ice,36.9#wind at 60%Initial Nenana Canyon 32°,0 ice,57.6#wind at 60%Initial Construction Unit Costs The recently completed Bradley Lake project is the most current data available for the cost of steel-X structures.Since it was designed by Dryden &LaRue,we are most familiar with the construc- tion units and propose to use the same units for this estimate wherever applicable.Tower weights and average spans are adjusted to relate to the extreme loading conditions listed above.Single shaft self-supporting towers were selected for two line links with anticipated limited right-of-way.Link 3.2A of the Tesoro line was routed within the existing highway right-of-way and link 6 of the Enstar route is along streets in Anchorage.Basis for these esti- mates is a quick tower weight design and discussions with Meyer Industries.Foundations for these towers is assumed to be some type of driven or augered steel sleeve or large pipe pile.A sketch of each construction unit along with cost estimates is defined in the section Construction Unit Costs. SUBMARINE AND LAND CABLES Suppliers of submarine and underground cable were contacted and asked for price quotes on both solid dielectric and oil-filled 138 kV underground and submarine cable.Those contacted included Fujikura,Mitsui &Co.,Les Cables DeLyon,STK,and Pirelli.At the time this report was prepared,only Mitsui &Co.and Pirelli had responded. Based on the information received,oil-filled cable was the least expensive and most reliable for the proposed intertie.Both Pirelli -g8- and Mitsui &Co.recommended using oil-filled cable in the loca- tions proposed for the intertie.Pirelli did not supply a quote for solid dielectric cable.Mitsui &Co.dia supply a price that was higher than for oil-filled cable. Another factor in choosing oil-filled cable was that cable manufac- turers recently declined to bid on solid dielectric cable for installation in Knik Arm of Cook Inlet.In October 1989,Chugach Electric Association requested bids for solid dielectric and oil- filled submarine cable.Chugach received four bids for oil-filled cable,but none for solid dielectric cable (see Section D).The cable manufacturers did not bid solid dielectric apparently because they believed their products would not be reliable in Cook Inlet. This project will take several years to complete and changes in technology and manufacturing techniques may make solid dielectric cable a competitive option.The cost of submarine cable used for this estimate is $105 per foot.This cost is based on our review of the cable manufacturers estimates and our best guess of a future price.This is a very difficult estimate because it depends on many variables that are not readily predictable such as:manufac- turers plant loadings,currency exchange rates and the final cable specification after reconnaissance.Also,delivery time affects the cost.At this time,it seems that a long lead time could be. -allowed for delivery,however when the specs finally are completed it may be a typical restricted time-line and the cable price will reflect it. The cost of installing the submarine cable includes laying the cable.Burial of submarine cable is expensive and has not been included in this estimate.The cost to benefit analysis for burial of an electrical cable in Turnagain Arm is beyond the scope of this cost estimate.We have included the cost for shore end burial only. We have also included two sections of oil-filled underground cable due to environmental concerns.Enstar link 3 must be buried be- -9- cause the Congressionally mandated management plan for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge prohibits construction of aboveground facilities outside of the pipeline right-of-way or across Chicka- loon Bay flats (see 1987 Hart-Crowser study page 6-17 and the May 6,1987 letter from KNWR manager). The Alaska Department of Natural Resources stated in their letter to Hart-Crowser of May 5,1987 that they would require portions of the transmission line that pass through Captain Cook State Park to be buried.Captain Cook State Park abuts the KNWR,so in may not be possible to go around it. SUBSTATIONS The substation costs are all based on the One-Line Diagrams from the previous reports corrected for 138 kV lines instead of 230 kv lines.Unit costs for the various components were first developed independently and then applied to the substations as required. Substation communications are strictly dependent upon the specifics of each location and have not been included in these estimates. Detailed assumptions are included in Cost Assumptions Section. -10 COST SAVING CONSIDERATIONS In the preparation of this study,several items have been noticed that appear to warrant consideration as a means to reduce the costs. +The SVS system for the Healy line may already be optimized, however it is a single item with significant cost impact and should be considered for review. +Access to a transmission line is a cost benefit initially and during maintenance.All of the line routes should be consid- ered in terms of access. +The submarine and underground cables are the major components of the Enstar and Tesoro routes.An additional effort should be considered to:develop realistic delivery schedules,a preliminary specification,a method of maintaining the propri- ety of the bids,and considerably more discussion with the manufacturers.Without an American manufacturer we are sub- ject to currency exchange rate fluctuations and this has significant impact.Also,the cable manufacturers appear to be quite busy right now and the cost may change with market variations.In essence,the cable costs are so critical to the project cost that some method of better understanding and tracking the cable industry should be considered. -11- A.EXECUTIVE COST SUMMARY The following three sheets present a summary of the cost estimate. Opposite the cost data is a map showing the line links and substa- tion locations. One line diagrams of the proposed substations are included in the next section "Substation Cost Summary".- K[.Link 1SoldotnafaSubstation Substation vin Huffman U.G./SUB TERMINAL IDRYDEN /ILalRue CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE:03/12/91 BY DRB ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENA)INTERTIE ROUTES ENSTAR ROUTE DRAWING NO. A-2 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 16.10 MILES LINK 2 33.75 MILES LINK 6 2.95 MILES SOLDOTNA HUFFMAN LINK 3 5.10 MILES LINK 4 &5 9.90 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURES STEEL X-STRUCTURES STEEL SINGLE POLE SUBSTATION SUBSTATION SUBTOTAL R/W &ACQUISITION DESIGN 4% CM 4% SUBTOTAL 1 UNDERGROUND CABLE SUBMARINE CABLE SUBTOTAL 2 UTILITY ADMIN 1%(SUB 1&2) AEA ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY 10%(SUB 1&2) ESTIMATED TOTAL *Includes $500,000 AEA estimate for permittingKenaiNationalMooseRange $4,698,120 $10,404,345 $953,690 $1,719,800 $678,200 $18,454,155 $2,500,000 $738,166 $738,166 $22,430,487 $10,457,341 $34,548,140 $45,005,481 $674,360 $250,000 $6,743,597 $75,103,925 ekeBernice Lake Substation _--EXISTING 115kV O.H.TO REMAIN Soldotna Substation"a SUB/0.H1.>”TERMINAL” Pt.Woronzof SubstationM™K Link 3.10 "Link 3.9 UNDERGROUND yo UG./SUB Pa TERMINAL koeaevst" 4 Pt.Possession IDRYDEN ¢ CONSULTING DATE:03/11/91 BY:DRB /ILalRue ENGINEERS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE ROUTES TESORO ROUTE DRAWING NO. A-4 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A 11.50 MILES LINK 3.3 24.75 MILES LINK 3.10 2.40 MILES BERNICE LAKE WORONZOF LINK 3.2B 4.00 MILES LINK 3.4 13.65 MILES LINK 3.9 2.20 MILES STEEL SINGLE POLE STEEL X-STRUCTURE STEEL X-STRUCTURE SUBSTATION SUBSTATION SUBTOTAL R/W &ACQUISITION DESIGN 4% CM 4% SUBTOTAL UNDERGROUND CABLE SUBMARINE CABLE UNDERGROUND CABLE SUBTOTAL UTILITY ADMIN 1% 1 2 (SUB 1&2) AEA ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY 10%(SUB 1&2) ESTIMATED TOTAL $3,392,736 $9,210,447 $791,367 $2,300,000 $406,350 $16,100,900 $2,700,000 $644,036 $644,036 $20,088,972 $8,073,954 $42,915,640 $4,465,948 $55,455,542 $755,445 $250,000 $7,554,451 $84,104,411 NENANARivepParks Highway al Ss aha)Healy Substation Parks Highway K Link 3 K ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY DRAWING NO. SCAL=1:250,000 IDrypen «ILalRue CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE:01/08/91 BY:ORB PROF OSED HEALY-FAIRBANKS iNTERTIE SOUTH ROUTE LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK 3 LINK 4 LINK 5 HEALY WAINWRIGHT SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR HEALY/FAIRBANKS ROUTE 26.00 29.50 27.00 12.50 5.50 MILES MILES MILES MILES MILES STEEL X STRUCTURES STEEL X-STRUCTURES STEEL X-STRUCTURES STEEL X-STRUCTURE STEEL X-STRUCTURE SUBSTATION SUBSTATION SUBTOTAL R/W &ACQUISITION DESIGN 4% CM 4% SUBTOTAL 1 HEALY SVS WAINWRIGHT SVS TEELAND SVS SUBTOTAL 2 UTILITY ADMIN 1%(SUB 1&2) AEA ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY 10%(SUB 1&2) ESTIMATED TOTAL $11,682,101 $12,721,443 $11,487,410 $7,950,747 $2,384,193 $406,350 $406,850 $47,039,094 $460,000 $1,881,564 $1,881,564 $51,262,222 $4,904,000 $3,200,000 $10,322,000 $18,426,000 $696,882 $250,000 $6,968,822 $77,603,926 B.SUBSTATION COST SUMMARY The following pages present summary costs and one-line diagrams for the substations. CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $32,600 $97,800 $130,400 FOUNDATIONS $58,450 $38,400 $96,850 EQUIPMENT $91,400 |$1,155,150 |$1,246,550 MISCELLANEOUS $73,000 $123,000 $196,000 PROJECT COST $305,450 |$1,414,350 |$1,719,800 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $25 ,000 $0 $25,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $28,800 $86,400 $115,200 FOUNDATIONS $44,400 $30,600 $75,000 EQUIPMENT $55,700 |$394,800 $450,500 MISCELLANEOUS $11,500 $1,000 $12,500 PROJECT COST $165,400 }$512,800 $678,200 eee ee ee ee eee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3PROJECT:NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITLABORMATERIALL/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $54,400 |$163,200 |$217,600 FOUNDATIONS .$94,950 $63,000 |$157,950 EQUIPMENT $159,350 |$1,514,100 |$1,673,450 MISCELLANEOUS $78,000 |$123,000 |$201,000 PROJECT COST $436,700 |$1,863,300 |$2,300,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITLABORMATERIALL/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 so |$50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 |$52,800 |$70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 |$16,950 |$42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 |$202,550 |$238,750 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 PROJECT COST $134,050 |$272,300 |$406,350 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $o $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 $202,550 $238,750 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 PROJECT COST $134,050 $272,300 $406,350 11 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $704,000 $704,00052MVARSTATICVARSYSTEM$4,200,000 |$4,200,000TOTALPROJECTCOST$134,050 |$5,176,300 |$5,310,350 B -11 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY -SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITLABORMATERIALLym MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 $203,050 $239,250 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 PROJECT COST $134,050 $272,800 $406,850 GOMVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM COST $3,200,000 |$3,200,000TOTALPROJECTCOST$134,050 |$3,472,800 |$3,606,850 B -13 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:TEELAND SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITLABOR|MATERIAL Lym MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES so $0 $0 FOUNDATIONS $0 $0 $0 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 PROJECT COST $50,000 $0 $50,000 60 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $7,200,000 |$7,200,00048MVARSTATICVARSYSTEM.$0 |$3,072,000 |$3,072,000TOTALPROJECTCOST$50,000 {$10,272,000 |$10,322,000 B-14 Cc.CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ENSTAR ROUTE Ow ww wee eee wee eect ewww ewe wwe sees c cee teers ewe mee mee name meemeesene ser erewsesenesanwoweranrerse rete esse sess em enn ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 -16.10 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT |NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |---2-en ene e anne rece rene nen nn eccs [rene rc rece n scenester cece nsec ssn sec esNO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO}MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$223,720 $o |$223,720 |$223,720 so |$223,720SURVEYMILE|16.1 |$10,000 so |$10,000 |$161,000 so |$161,000CLEARINGMILE|16.1 |$6,000 so |$6,000 $96 ,600 so $96,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $481,320 so |$481,320 STX-10 [TANGENT X-STR.EA 70 |$16,500 |$11,800 |$28,300 |$1,155,000 |$826,000 |$1,981,000STX-12 {ANGLE 3-POLE EA 4 |$21,800 |$20,700 |$42,500 $87,200 $82,800 |$170,000STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 6 |$24,000 |$23,500 |$47,500 |$144,000 |$141,000 |$285,000STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 3 so |$11,800 |$11,800 $0 $35,400 $35,400 STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 so |$23,500 |$23,500 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR =9,000#1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,386,200 |$1,085,200 |$2,471,400 SP-10 {TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 |$4,600 |$3,236 |$7,836 so $0 so SP-12 |ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE |EA 0}$10,500 |$8,000 |.$18,500 $0 $0 so SP-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE]EA 0 |$16,000 |$22,500 |$38,500 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M so $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 -16.10 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO,OF |----2e nen ren nnnecnnnccorerernncernneneneccnsenernrereceenecneseececesNO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND.|"DRAKE"795 ACSR 1000'|259 |$2,100 |$1,250 |$3,350 |$543,900 |$323,750 |$867,650swSHIELDWIRE1000'|0 $0 $0 $0 so UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL LM $543,900 |$323,750 |$867,650 FP-1 |FON 1-PILE EA 120 $800 $800 |$1,600 $96.000 $96,000 |$192,000FP-2 |FON 2-PILE EA 50 |$1,200 |$1,600 |$2,800 $60,000 $80,000 |$140,000FR-1 |FON ROCK EA 0 |$4,400 |$1,000 |$5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 207 $800 $800 |$1,600 |$165,600 |$165,600 |$331,200AP-2 |ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 41 |$1,200 |$1,600 |$2,800 $49,200 $65,600 |$114,800AR-1 [ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 |$1,200 $100 |$1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 42 $750 $900 |$1,650 $31,500 $37,800 $69,300 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 21 $450 $0 $450 $9,450 $0 $9,450 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 21]$1,000 so |$1,000 $21,000 $0 $21,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $432,750 |$445,000 |$877,750 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5°EA |0 $4,500 |$1,596 |$6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25'EA |0 $5,000 |$2,280 |$7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 13-PILE FON EA |0 $8,000 |$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 /3-PILE ANCHOR EA |0 $8,000 |$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 0 0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA |O $1,000 so |$1,000 so $0 $0FT-1 |THERMOPILE EA |0 $1,000 |$2,000 |$3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 so CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #7 MISCELLANEOUS STARTUP X-STRUCTURES SINGLE STEEL POLES CONDUCTOR FOUNDATIONS -1 FOUNDATIONS -2 MISCELLANEOUS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 -16.10 MILES UNIT COST NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL REQUIR $481,320 $1,386,200 $0 $543,900$432,750 $0 $0 $2,844,170 $0 $1,085,200 $0 $323,750 $445,000 $0 $0 TOTAL MATERIAL $1,853,950 eee eee eee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee eee ee ee ee eee eee ee eee ee eee eer rer ree rere TIT TT TIT TTT TT $481,320 $2,471,400 $0 $867,650 $877,750 $0 $0 $4,698,120 awee eee ee ee eee ee eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 -33.75 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |over re rec ccnescernnerercrnnenns |oorenesneencecennanscnncceerereenaneenNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'S MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$495,445 $0 |$495,445 $495 ,445 $0 $495 ,445 SURVEY MILE |33.75 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $337,500 $0 $337,500 CLEARING MILE |33.75 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $202,500 $0 $202,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,035,445 $0 |$1,035,445 STX-10 |TANGENT X-STR.EA 158 $16,500 $11,800 $28,300 |$2,607,000 |$1,864,400 |$4,471,400STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 10 $21,800 $20,700 $42,500 $218,000 $207,000 $425 ,000STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA VY $24,000 $23,500 $47,500 $264,000 $258,500 $522,500 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 7 $0 $11,900 $11,900 $0 $83 ,300 $83 ,300 STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 $23,600 $23,600 $0 $23 ,600 $23,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR =9000#1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $3,089,000 |$2,436,800 |$5,525,800 SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $14,500 $25 ,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE}EA 0 $16,000 $29,000 $45 ,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERTAL L/M $0 $0 $0 Cc -5 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 -33.75 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |---2 on nena nnn nner ern n nner eee e ence ener enn e nen e nner cn eeen ene n enn nnee NO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND "DRAKE"795 ACSR 1000'|535 $2,100 |$1,250 |$3,350 |$1,123,500 |$668,750 |$1,792,250 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000'0 $0 so $0 ;$0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,123,500 $668,750 |$1,792,250 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 294 $800 $800 |$1,600 |$235,200 |$235,200 $470,400 FP-2 FON 2-PILE EA 99 |$1,200 $1,600 |$2,800 $118,800 $158,400 $277,200 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 12 |$4,400 |$1,000 |$5,400 $52,800 $12,000 $64,800 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 465 $800 $800 |$1,600 $372,000 |$372,000 $744,000 AP-2 [ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 87}$1,200]$1,600 $2,800 $104,400 |$139,200 |$243,600AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 12 |$1,200 $100 $1,300 $14,400 $1,200 $15,600 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 100 $750 $900 $1,650 $75,000 $90,000 |$165,000FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 65 $450 $0 $450 $29,250 $0 $29,250 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 40 |$1,000 so |$1,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,041,850 |$1,008,000 |$2,049,850 FOP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0|$4,500 $1,596 |$6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25!EA 0 |$5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0FP-3 -|3-PILE FDN EA 0 |$8,000 $2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 --|3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 |$8,000}$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000FT-1 THERMOPILE EA o|$1,000 |$2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,000 $0 $1,000 C -6 eee eee ee ee eee eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #7 MISCELLANEOUS STARTUP X-STRUCTURES SINGLE STEEL POLES CONDUCTOR FOUNDATIONS -1 FOUNDATIONS -2 MISCELLANEOUS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 -33.75 MILES UNIT COST NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL REQUIR Pe ee wee weet eee a ewe ease e eww sew mewe sere eee ere se ee meee eee ee tee were rete ee easeeee ee eee eee errr TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT $1,035,445 $3,089,000 $0 $1,123,500 $1,041,850 $1,000 $0 $6,290,795 $0 $2,436,800 $0 $668,750$1,008,000 $0 $0 TOTAL MATERIAL $4,113,550 $1,035,445 $5,525,800 $0 $1,792,250 $2,049,850 $1,000 $0 $10,404,345 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITYPROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 3 -5.1 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT |NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |e-n2n on ence ee nncn een n nnn ree eee rens fen enen sen tcoenstecenercennererenerseses NO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA |1.00 |$497,969 so |$497,969 |$497,969 so $497,969 SURVEY MILE |5.10 |$12,000 so |$12,000 $61,200 so $61,200 CLEARING MILE |5.10 |$6,000 $0 $6,000 $30,600 $0 $30,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $589,769 $0 $589,769 UNDERGROUND CABLE MILE |5.10 $0 {$1,710,720 [$1,710,720 $0 |$8,726,672 |$8,724,6724OILFILLEDCABLES INSTALLATION LABOR MILE |5.10 |$58,000 $o |$58,000 |$295,800 $0 $295,800SPLICES(FOR 4 CABLES)|EA |5.00 |$28,500}$36,000 |$64,500 |$142,500 $180,000 $322,500 MATERIALS SURGE DIVERTERENDPOINTPRESSURIZATION |EA |2.00 |$3,000 |$25,000 |$28,000 $6,000 $50,000 $56,000MIDPOINTPRESSURIZATION|EA |2.00 |$28,500 |$98,000 |$126,500 $57,000 $196,000 $253,000 MATERIALS FOR JOINTING SURGE DIVERTER RESERVOIRS UNIT DESCRIPTION:CHICKALOON FLATS WATERFOWL AREA UNDERGROUND TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $501,300 |$9,150,672 |$9,651,972 STATION GROUNDING EA |1.00 |$2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA |1.00 |$18,300 |$18,000 |$36,300 $18,300 $18,000 $36,300 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA |1.00 |$13,200 |$26,700 |$39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS -50 kVA 0.00 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0UNDERGROUNDTERM.&ARRES|EA |4.00 $450 |$16,250 |$16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66 ,800 SUBMARINE TERM.&ARRES.0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA |1.00]$7,800]$19,800 |$27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA |1.00}$2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 REMOTE SITE EA |1.00 |$35,000 so |$35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION AT SOUTH END OF CHICKALOON TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION -REMOTE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $81,100 $134,500 $215,600 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 3 -5.1 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |------none nnn e ern n ene n nnn n een tnce rer r nest nn cccccecnt erst se ceneccccccscsccssNO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/H $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3 -5.1 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 [STARTUP $589,769 $0 $589,769 SEC.#2 |UNDERGROUND CABLE $501,300 $9,150,672 $9,651,972 SEC.#3 |TERMINAL STATION $81,100 $134,500 $215,600 SEC.#4 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,172,169 $9,285,172 |$10,457,341 a ee ee ee eee eee eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINKS 4&5 -9.9 MILES rn UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [renner nnnn weer nc ne nner nrer crea nnnn |orecncncarenersernnncscnwarenarecsnscnnsNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOBILIZATION *EA 1.00 |$25,000 $0 $25 ,000 $25,000 $0 $25 ,000 SURVEY MILE |9.90 |$10,000 $0 $10,000 $99,000 $0 $99,000 *MOST OF THE COST OF MOBILIZATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE FOR INSTALLATION OF THE SUBMARINE CABLE. UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $124,000 $0 $124,000 SUBMARINE CABLE MILE |9.90 $0 |$2,217,600 [$2,217,600 $0 |$21,954,240 |$21,954,2404OILFILLEDCABLES INSTALLATION INCLUDING:MILE |9.90 |$858,586 $0 $858,586 |$8,500,000 $0 $8,500,000 SEA BOTTOM LAYING SHORE END WORK DELIVERY TO SITE MOBILIZATION SHORE END EMBEDMENT EA 2.00 {$350,000 $0 $350,000 $700,000 $0 $700,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SUBMARINE CABLES ACROSS TURNAGIN ARM TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT SUBMARINE CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $9,200,000 |$21,954,240 |$31,154,240 STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5 ,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 |$28,100 $25 ,000 $53,100 $28,100 $25 ,000 $53,100 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 0.00 |$13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $0 $0 $0 POTENTIAL TRANS -50 kVA |EA 2.00 $700 $30,900 $31,600 $1,400 $61,800 $63,200 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400UNDERGROUNDTERM.&ARRES|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65 ,000 -$66,800SUBMARINETERM.&ARRES.|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66,800 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 2.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $15,600 $39,600 $55,200 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 REACTOR EA 1.00 |$150,000 $700,000 $850,000 $150,000 $700,000 $850,000REMOTESITEEA1.00 |$35,000 $0 $35 ,000 $35,000 $0 $35 ,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION AT NORTH END OF CHICKALOON TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND TO SUBMARINE TERMINAL STATION -REMOTE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $240,200 $1,462,300 $1,702,500 -10 ee wwe wt cece wc wee eee we wee mee wee te ee eee cee tenet em eee eee ew meee ew sneer ae erases enasesaseeesesenaes eases emserenencaaewacnccces CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINKS 4&5 +9.9 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |more n creme ence nnn ncn cere ncnewnr er ennawensccccnrronecrcwccnnnwnsncenacecnen NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 |$20,100 $19,000 $39,100 $20,100 $19,000 $39,100 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 |$13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS -50 kVA |EA 1.00 $700 $30,900 $31,600 $700 $30,900 $31,600 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 UNDERGROUND TERM.&ARRES|EA 0.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $0 $0 $0 SUBMARINE TERM.&ARRES.|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66,800 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 REACTOR EA 1.00 |$150,000 $700,000 $850,000 $150,000 $700,000 $850,000 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION AT POTTER MARSH TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT SUBMARINE TO OVERHEAD TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $200,100 $1,367,300 $1,567,400 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 4 &5 -9.9 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L &M™ SEC.#1 [STARTUP $124,000 $0 $124,000 SEC.#2 |SUBMARINE CABLE $9,200,000 |$21,954,240 |$31,154,240SEC.#3 |TERMINAL STATION $240,200 $1,462,300 $1,702,500 SEC.#4 |TERMINAL STATION $200,100 $1,367,300 $1,567,400 SEC.#5 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $9,764,300 |$24,783,840 |$34,548,140 11 wwe ww wee wwe ewww wee ae ewe ee wee we ewes e esc m rere eee tere ew eeaseseeneeesese treet seunsceEranasensonecneeemese erase senece CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 6 -2.95 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF Joennerennc een ccer cern wecenccnn [occconeeconccecnnerrcrrccecrrscren NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATILS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 2%TOTAL EA 1 $18,700 $O |$18,700 $18,700 $0 $18,700 SURVEY MILE |2.95 $10,000 $O |$10,000 $29,500 $0 $29,500 CLEARING MILE |2.95 $10,000 $0 |$10,000 $29,500 $0 $29,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $77,700 $0 $77,700 STX-10 [TANGENT X-STR.EA 0 $16,500 $11,800 |$28,300 $0 $0 $0 STX-12 {ANGLE 3-POLE EA 0 $21,800 $20,700 |$42,500 $0 $0 $0 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $24,000 $23,500 |$47,500 $0 $0 $0 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 0 $0 $11,800 |$11,800 so $0 $0 STX-15 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 $23,500 |$23,500 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 sP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 20 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $92,000 $64,720 $156,720 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 4 $10,500 $14,500 |$25,000 $42,000 $58,000 $100,000 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE}EA 5 $16,000 $29,000 |$45,000 $80,000 |$145,000 $225 ,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $214,000 |$267,720 $481,720 eww ewe were we ewe w acc ete wwe cee Bere eet eee OSE eee MEE e TET EE He HEE BOErHeDaeZeseeseeEswewewwmemwewwweewetweeaeeeeeewwwmeewewateererereenemeerceceemweesemeenetersnesetenataserseenemeenesee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 6 -2.95 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |--nnn nnn nn nn nnn ener n errr een nn tenn nent ence ere nnn ecn ene necnscees NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND "DRAKE"795 ACSR 1000'|47 $2,100 $1,250 |$3,350 |$98,700 |$58,750 $157,450 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000!0 $0 $0 $0 $ UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL LM $98,700 |$58,750 $157,450 FP-4 FDN 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 |$1,600 $0 $0 $0 FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 9 $1,200 $1,600 |$2,800 |$10,800 |$14,400 $25,200 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 |$5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 12 $800 $800 |$1,600 $9,600 $9,600 $19,200 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 15 $1,200 $1,600 |$2,800 |$18,000 |$24,000 $42,000AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 |$1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 12 $750 $900 |$1,650 $9,000 |$10,800 $19,800 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 6 $450 $0 $450 $2,700 $0 $2,700 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 6 $1,000 so |$1,000 $6,000 $0 $6,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $56,100 |$58,800 $114,900 FDP-17.5|FON SLEEVE-17.5!EA 20 $4,500 $1,596 |$6,096 |$90,000 |$31,920 $121,920 FOP-25 |FON SLEEVE-25!EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 |$7,280 $o |-$0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 so |$1,000 $0 $0 $0- FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 |$3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $90,000 |$31,920 $121,920 13 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3PROJECT:ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 6 -2.95 MILES UNIT COST |EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF Joon ron ee ren nc enero nen see nen rne eter ater ees re rear terse stersn ter scesNO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR |LABOR [MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL |TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY |LABOR |MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 6 -2.95 MILES LABOR =MATERIAL «Ss LEM SEC.#1 [STARTUP $77,700 $0 $77,700SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $214,000 |$267,720 |$481,720SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $98,700 |$58,750 |$157,450SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $56,100 |$58,800 |$114,900SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $90,000 |$31,920]$121,920SEC.#7 IMISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTALLABOR|MATERIAL L/M $536,500 |$417,190 |$953,690 wwe ee www ewe weet eee wee eee w ere ee eee ete ewe meme wee ema ee wesw eee meme ee sere tesa eae sererasasrereserenese rene sewer oenr eres nonooe CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT |NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |-ee-nn nnn neeee enn nnn nnn enone nen eee [ene e renee cern nnn ncnccre nen ceceennces NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV DEAD END STR.EA.1 $8,000 |$24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 138KV DISC.SW.STR.EA.2 $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 $2,800 $8,400 $11,200 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA.1 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 138KV V.T.SUPPORT EA.3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA.3 $800 $2,400 $3,200 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 11SKV DISC.SW.STR.EA 2 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 115KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $4,800 $6,400 $1,600 $4,800 $6,400 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $600 $1,800 $2,400 $1,800 $5,400 $7,200 138KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 T15KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 115KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,000 |$24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $32,600 $97,800 $130,400 138/115KV AUTO TRF.EA 1 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 138KV DISC.SW.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV V.T.EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 138KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 3 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $4,500 $2,700 $7,200 115KV PCB EA 1 $2,750 $1,650 $4,400 $2,750 $1,650 $4,400 115KV DISC.SW.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 115KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 115KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 115KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 |-$1,800 $1,350 $3,150 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $58,450 $38,400 $96,850 ee eee ee eee ee) CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3PROJECT:NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT |NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO,OF |-----22-22 n-ne enn n ween nn ene e eens [oo cere renee cn en recor eens crores sen eeeNO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138/115KV 100MVA AUTO TRF|EA 1 |$15,000 |$750,000 $765,000 |$15,000 $750,000 $765,000 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 |$100,000 $104,500 $4,500 $100,000 $104,500 138KV DISC.SW.EA 3 |$2,500 |$9,000 $11,500 $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T.EA 3 $500 $6,000 $6,500 $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 3 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9,750 138KV INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 115KV PCB EA 1 $5,000 |$90,000 $95,000 $5,000 $90,000 $95,000 115KV DISC.SW EA 3]$2,000 |$8,000 $10,000 $6,000 $24,000 $30,000 115KV_INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $400 $450 $450 $3,600 $4,050 CONTROL WIRE LS 1 $5,000 |$5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 RELAY &CONTROL PANELS EA 3 $2,500 |$25,000 $27,500 $7,500 $75,000 $82,500 BUS &FITTINGS LS 1 $5,000 |$10,000 $15,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000GROUNDINGLs1$4,000 $4,000 $8,000 $4,000 $4,000 $8,000 CONDUIT LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000MISC.ELECTRICAL LS 1 |$25,000 |$25,000 $50,000 |$25,000 $25,000 $50,000 115KV ARRESTER EA 3 $250 $2,500 $2,750 $750 $7,500 $8,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $91,400 |$1,155,150 |$1,246,550 STATION SERVICE Ls 1 |$10,000 |$30,000 $40,000 |$10,000 $30,000 $40,000 FENCING LF 800 $10 $10 $20 $8,000 $8,000 $16,000 WELL &SEPTIC LS 1 $5,000 |$5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 TESTING LS 1 |$20,000 $0 $20,000 |$20,000 $0 $20,000 SITE WORK LS 1 |$15,000 |$35,000 $50,000 |$15,000 $35,000 $50,000 CONTROL BUILDING LS 1 |$10,000 |$40,000 $50,000 |$10,000 $40,000 $50,000 T.L.TO SOLDOTNA SUB.LS 1 $5,000 |$5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITMISCELLANEOUSLABORMATERIALL/M $73,000 $123,000 $196,000 C -16 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3PROJECT:NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $32,600 $97,800 $130,400 FOUNDATIONS $58,450 $38,400 $96,850 EQUIPMENT $91,400 |$1,155,150 |$1,246,550 MISCELLANEOUS $73,000 $123,000 $196,000 PROJECT COST $305,450 |$1,414,350 |$1,719,800 17 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF foowenncececrcnnccennecowcrnnnccens|eccnnencencencccnccnnrawcennccnnce NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LA8OR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS 138KV DEAD END STR.EA.1 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 138KV DISC.SW.STR.EA.4 $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 $5,600 $16,800 $22,400 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA.2 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $4,000 $12,000 $16,000 138KV V.T.SUPPORT EA.6 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA.8 $800 $2,400 $3,200 $6,400 $19,200 $25 ,600 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT EA 6 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 :$o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $28,800 $86,400 $115,200 138KV PCB EA 2 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $6,500 $3,900 $10,400 138KV DISC.SW.EA 4 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $6,400 $4,800 $11,200 138KV V.T.EA 6 $600 $450 $1,050 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 8 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $9,600 $7,200 $16,800 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 2 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $3,000 $1,800 $4,800 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT EA 6 $600 $450 $1,050 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $44,400 $30,600 $75,000 C -18 aa re ee ee ee ee es ee ee ee eed CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |roeene nner ences cnnnn rene recesecns [moron ene mennarcnneccsrencenececenee NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS 138KV PCB EA 2 $4,500 |$100,000 $104,500 $9,000 |$200,000 $209,000 138KV DISC.SW.EA 6 $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 $15,000 $54,000 $69,000 138KV V.T.EA 6 $500 $6,000 $6,500 $3,000 $36,000 $39,000 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 6 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV INSULATORS EA 24 $50 $450 $500 $1,200 $10,800 $12,000 CONTROL WIRE LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 RELAY &CONTROL PANELS EA 2 $2,500 $25 ,000 $27,500 $5,000 $50,000 $55,000 BUS &FITTINGS LS 1 $5,000 $10,000 $15 ,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 GROUNDING LS 1 $1,500 $2,000 $3,500 $1,500 $2,000 $3,500 CONDUIT LS 1 $1,500 $1,000 $2,500 $1,500 $1,000 $2,500 MISC.ELECTRICAL LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $55,700 |$394,800 $450,500 TESTING Ls 1 $10,000 $o $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 RETERMINATE EXIST.T.LINE|LS 1 $1,500 $1,000 $2,500 $1,500 $1,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $11,500 $1,000 $12,500 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee rer eee ere eer er ere eee err eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $25,000 $0 $25,000- STEEL STRUCTURES $28,800 |$86,400 $115,200 FOUNDATIONS $44,400 |$30,600 $75 ,000 EQUIPMENT $55,700 |$394,800 $450,500 MISCELLANEOUS $11,500 $1,000 $12,500 PROJECT COST $165,400 |$512,800 $678,200 C -20 TESORO ROUTE CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A -11.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |<22 n nace een e wenn nnn e nnn c ene nne [on eee ener enn e ene rn ec crr en eeeterseces NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 2%TOTAL EA 1 |$66,524 so |$66,524 $66,526 $0 $66,524 SURVEY MILE |11.5 |$10,000 so |$10,000 $115,000 $0 $115,000 CLEARING MILE |11.5 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $69,000 $0 $69,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $250,524 $0 $250,524 STX-10 |TANGENT X-STR.EA 0 |$16,500 |$11,800 |$28,300 $0 $0 $0 STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 0 |$21,800 |$20,700 |$42,500 $0 $0 $0 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 |$24,000 |$23,500 |$47,500 $0 $0 $0 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 0 $0 |$11,800 |$11,800 $0 $0 $0 STX-15 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 |$20,700 |$20,700 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR =9,000#1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 SP-10 |TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 145 $4,600 $3,776 $8,376 $667,000 $547,520 |$1,214,520 SP-12 |ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 6 |$10,500 |$14,500 |$25,000 $63,000 $87,000 $150,000 SP-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE|EA 3 |$16,000 |$29,000 |$45,000 $48,000 $87,000 $135,000 SPARE-10|SPARE SP-10 TANGENT EA 7 $0 $3,776 $3,776 $0 $26,432 $26,432 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $778,000 $767,952 |$1,525,952 C -21 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A -11.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [--22-n ere ren nen n nner n er rre rer ctc enn errn cee ecene nrc eneteecntrrc nets:NO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS COND.|"DRAKE"795 ACSR 1000'}182 {|$2,100]$1,250 |$3,350 |$382,200]$227,500 |$609,700SWSHIELDWIRE1000'|0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $382,200 |$227,500 |$609,700 FP-1 [FON 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 |$1,600 $0 $0 $0FP-2 |FDN 2-PILE EA 9}$1,200 |$1,600 |$2,800 $10,800 $14,400 $25,200FR-1 |FDN ROCK EA 0 |$4,400]$1,000]$5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 |ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 18 $800 $800 |$1,600 $14,400 $14,400 $28,800 AP-2 |ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 9}$1,200]$1,600 |$2,800 $10,800 $14,400 $25,200 AR-1 [ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 |$1,200 $100 |$1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 0 $750 $900 |$1,650 $0 $0 so FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 0 $450 $0 $450 $0 $0 $0 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 2 |$1,000 so |$1,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $38,000 $43,200 $81,200 FOP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5!EA |110 |$4,500]$1,596 |$6,096 |$495,000 |$175,560 |$670,560FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25'EA 35 |$5,000 |$2,280 |$7,280 |$175,000 $79,800 |$254,800FP-3 |3-PILE FON EA 0 |$8,000 |$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3_|3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 |$8,000 |$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 |$1,000 so |$1,000 $0 $0 $0FT-1 |THERMOPILE EA o |$1,000 |$2,000 |$3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $670,000 |$255,360 |$925,360 C -22 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A -11.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |one nnn nnn nnn enn n enn m ren nnn nme nem ener n nee e nnn w nnn mcm nec cees NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.2A -11.5 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $250,524 $0 $250,524SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $778,000 $747,952 |$1,525,952SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $382,200 $227,500 $609,700SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $38 ,000 $43,200 $81,200SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $670,000 $255,360 $925 ,360 SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SUMMARY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $2,118,726 |$1,274,012 |$3,392,736 C -23 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2b -4 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF Joon nnn ener rccecrcerncrccrcerren|aonenewewencwrncrcecceencoenercnnnanNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1.00 |$384,628 $0 $384,628 |$384,628 $0 $384 ,628 SURVEY MILE |4.00 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 CLEARING MILE |4.00 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $24,000 $0 $24,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $448,628 $0 $448,628 UNDERGROUND CABLE MILE |4.00 $0 |$1,710,720 |$1,710,720 $0 |$6,842,880 |$6,842,8804OILFILLEDCABLES INSTALLATION LABOR MILE |4.00 $26,000 $0 $26,000 |$104,000 $0 $104,000 SPLICES (FOR 4 CABLES)EA 3.00 $19,000 $36,000 $55,000 $57,000 $108,000 $165 ,000 MATERIALS SURGE DIVERTER ENDPOINT PRESSURIZATION EA 2.00 $2,000 $25 ,000 $27,000 $4,000 $50,000 $54,000 MIDPOINT PRESSURIZATION EA 1.00 $19,000 $98,000 $117,000 $19,000 $98,000 $117,000 MATERIALS FOR JOINTING SURGE DIVERTER RESERVOIRS UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNDERGROUND CABLE THROUGH CAPTAIN COOK PARK.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $184,000 |$7,098,880 |$7,282,880 STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5 ,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900POTENTIALTRANS-50 kVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .$0 UNDERGROUND TERM.&ARRES|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65 ,000 $66 ,800SUBMARINETERM.&ARRES.0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 .$0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION AT SOUTH END OF PARK.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 C -24 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.28 -4 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME:AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [owner nce rn nce c cee cecnncecccencceccnerecerccccnccccrcrcnrcecccceccrscens NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 DEADENO STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS -50 KVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNDERGROUND TERM.&ARRES|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66,800 SUBMARINE TERM.&ARRES.0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION AT NORTH END OF PARK.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.2B -4 MILES LABOR MATERIAL Lé&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $448,476 $0 $448,474 SEC.#2 |UNDERGROUND CABLE $184,000 |$7,098,880 |$7,282,880SEC.#3 |TERMINAL STATION $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 SEC.#4 |TERMINAL STATION $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 SEC.#5 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $711,074 |$7,362,880 |$8,073,954 -25 ewww ew we ewww we we ee ww ewe tet eee we ete OTe Mee ewe HOM Ow eM ewe mee wwe meee SES ET OS MEME ME MEMO BEBO MEE ee HO Here newer ener eereueesers CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.3 -24.75 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [own wren rer c erence reece rece rens [enencnrccwcrcereewsetereracerceencccnsNo.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 2%TOTAL EA 1 |$180,597 $0 |$180,597 $180,597 $0 $180,597 SURVEY MILE [24.75 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $247,500 $0 $247,500 CLEARING MILE |24.75 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $148,500 $0 $148,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $576,597 $0 $576,597 STX-10 [TANGENT X-STR.EA 142 $17,500 $13,000 $30,500 |$2,485,000 |$1,846,000 |$4,331,000STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 15 $21,800 $20,700 $42,500 $327,000 $310,500 $637,500 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 8 $24,000 $23,500 $47,500 $192,000 $188,000 $380,000 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 7 $0 $13,000 $13,000 $0 $91,000 $91,000 STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 $23,500 $23,500 $0 $23,500 $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR =10,000#800'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $3,004,000 |$2,459,000 |$5,463,000 SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,776 $8,376 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $14,500 $25 ,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE]EA 0 $16,000 $29,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 SPARE-10{SPARE SP-10 TANGENT EA 0 $0 $3,776 $3,776 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 C -26 eee ee ee eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.3 -24.75 MILES UNIT COST |EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |---22 ce ene e ener een e nee n eee e cece nee n ence renee nee ene n ne eeneeneneceeesNO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS COND.|"DRAKE"795 ACSR 1000'|392 |$2,100 |$1,250 |$3,350 $823,200 $490,000 |$1,313,200SWSHIELDWIRE7000'0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $823,200 $490,000 |$1,313,200 FP-1 FDN 1-PILE EA 224 $800 $800 |$1,600 |$179,200 $179,200 |$358,400FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 129 |$1,200 |$1,600 |$2,800 |$154,800 $206,400 |$361,200FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0}$4,400}$1,000 |$5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 386 $800 $800 |$1,600 |$308,800 $308,800 |$617,600AP-2 {ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 129 |$1,200 |$1,600 |$2,800 |$154,800 $206,400 |$361,200AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0}$1,200 $100 |$1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD JADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 60 $750 $900 |$1,650 $45,000 $54,000 $99,000 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 45 $450 $0 $450 $20,250 $0 $20,250 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 40 |$1,000 $o |$1,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $902,850 $954,800 |$1,857,650 FDP-17.5|FON SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0]$4,500 |$1,596 |$6,096 $0 $0 $0FDP-25 |FON SLEEVE-25!EA 0]$5,000 |$2,280]$7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 |$8,000}$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 -_|3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0}$8,000}$2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0}$1,000 so |$1,000 $0 $0 "$0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0}$1,000 |$2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 0 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 ww we ew twee we www we eee ee ew ee ce wee ew tates ee sew Beceem ewe ew emt eet eee Eee ee See eeee see tere wees nen e seen ene tererereretaeneseees CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.3 -24.75 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [omen nrc ene ceencereccnn cnn cwnneenecenerncennwronescenncasenmoccorecncces NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/H $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.3 -24.75 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $576,597 $0 $576,597 SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,004,000 |$2,459,000 |$5,463,000SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $823,200 $490,000 |$1,313,200SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $902,850 $954,800 |$1,857,650SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $0 $0 $0 SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $5,306,647 |$3,903,800 |$9,210,447 C -28 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 2 PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.4 -13.65 MILES a UNIT .COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |----22-22 en nee eee e renee ence ene n cee [eee n ene ee eee n ere ence nne nen enn nee eneneresNO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOBILIZATION *EA $25,000 so |$25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 SURVEY MILE $10,000 so |$10,000 |$136,500 $0 $136,500 *MOST OF THE COST OF MOBILIZATION I$ INCLUDED IN THE INSTALLATION COST OF THE SUBMARINE CABLE. UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL LM $161,500 $0 $161,500 SUBMARINE CABLE MILE $0 $2,217,600 |$2,217,600 $0 |$30,270,240 |$30,270,2404OILFILLEDCABLES INSTALLATION INCLUDING:|MILE $622,711 so |$622,711 |$8,500,000 so |$8,500,000MOBILIZATION SEA BOTTOM LAYING SHORE END WORK DELIVERY TO SITE SHORE END EMBEDMENT EA $350,000 so |$350,000 |$700,000 $0 $700,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SUBMARINE CABLES ACROSS TURNAGIN ARM TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT SUBMARINE CABLE LABOR MATERIAL LM $9,200,000 |$30,270,240 |$39,470,240 STATION GROUNDING EA |1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA |1.00]$28,100 |$25,000 |$53,100 $28,100 $25,000 $53,100DEADENDSTRUCTUREEA|1.00]$13,200 |$26,700 |$39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900POTENTIALTRANS-50 kVA |EA |2.00 $700 |$30,900 |$31,600 $1,400 $61,800 $63,200OILPUMPINGPLANTEA|1.00}$1,500 |$500,900 |$502,400 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400UNDERGROUNDTERM.&ARRES|EA |0.00 $450 |$16,250 |$16,700 $0 $0 $0SUBMARINETERM.&ARRES.|EA |4.00 $450 |$16,250 |$16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66,800 SWITCHING STRUCTURE eA |1.00]$7,800 |$19,800 |$27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600REACTOREA|1.00 |$150,000 |$700/000 |saso,oco |$150,000 $700,000 $850,000MISCELECTRICALWORKeA|1.00 |$2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000REMOTESITEea|1.00 |$35,000 so |$35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION AT PT.POSSESSION.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO SUBMARINE TERMINAL STATION -REMOTE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $241,300 |$1,406,700 |$1,648,000 -29 wwe tw cw cc mn wwe eee ew wee ww eww ecm e wee tee w eee mee sete eee cee e ecco wenteneweweeeewescene werent esenesesaseseecessasenesraseuromuneawesnee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.4 -13.65 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |--22 oe none n nen e enn e en nner nnn newer enn tener nen ee nnn n enn nccee nw enneneee NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS STATION GROUNDING EA 4.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 |$28,100 $25,000 $53,100 $28,100 $25,000 $53,100 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 0.00 |$13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $0 $0 $0 POTENTIAL TRANS -50 kVA |EA 1.00 $700 $30,900 $31,600 $700 $30,900 $31,600 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 $1,500 |$500,900 |$502,400 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 UNDERGROUND TERM.&ARRES|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66,800SUBMARINETERM.&ARRES.|EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66,800 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 2.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $15,600 $39,600 $55,200 REACTOR EA 1.00 |$150,000 |$700,000 |$850,000 $150,000 $700,000 $850,000 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION PT.CAMBELL.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT SUBMARINE TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $202,000 |$1,433,900 |$1,635,900 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.4 -13.65 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $161,500 $0 $161,500 SEC.#2 |SUBMARINE CABLE $9,200,000 |$30,270,240 |$39,470,240 SEC.#3 |TERMINAL STATION $241,300 |$1,406,700 |$1,648,000 SEC.#4 |TERMINAL STATION $202,000 |$1,433,900 |$1,635,900 SEC.#5 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $9,804,800 |$33,110,840 |$42,915,640 Cc -30 eee rw wee wa we ww wee we ew wow oO eee wae eee et we ee weet ee ete ee we cone weweer ener ese EET ares eeerererenesaenanensuerecaearareceooeeeate CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITYPROJECT:TESORO LINK 3.9 -2.2 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |-neen ener eee n ene e erence ene e ene n ens Lecce nnen renee tenner ceeccceserer eens NO.OF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO}]MOB &DEMOB S%TOTAL EA 1.00 |$212,664 so |$212,664 |$212,664 $0 $212,664 SURVEY MILE |2.20 |$10,000 so |$10,000 |$22,000 $0 $22,000 CLEARING MILE |2.20]$6,000 $0 $6,000 |$13,200 $0 $13,200 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $267,864 $0 |$247,864 UNDERGROUND CABLE MILE |2.20 $0 {$1,710,720 {$1,710,720 $0 |$3,763,584 |$3,763,584 4 OIL FILLED CABLES INSTALLATION LABOR MILE |2.20 |$26,000 so |$26,000 |$57,200 $0 $57,200 SPLICES (FOR 4 CABLES)EA 1.00 |$19,000 |$36,000 |$55,000 |$19,000 $36,000 $55,000 MATERIALS SURGE DIVERTERENDPOINTPRESSURIZATION |EA |2.00]$2,000]$25,000 |$27,000 $4,000 $50,000 $54,000MIDPOINTPRESSURIZATION|EA 1.00 |$19,000 |$98,000 |$117,000 |$19,000 $98,000 $117,000 MATERIALS FOR JOINTING SURGE DIVERTER RESERVOIRS UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNDERGROUND CABLE IN KINCAID PARK TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/4 $99,200 |$3,947,584 |$4,046,784 STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 |$14,000 |$13,000 |$27,000 |$14,000 $13,000 $27,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 |$13,200 |$26,700 |$39,900 |$13,200 $26,700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS -50 kVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0UNDERGROUNDTERM.&ARRES|EA |4.00 $450 |$16,250 |$16,700}$1,800 $65,000 $66,800 SUBMARINE TERM.&ARRES.0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 |$7,800 |$19,800 |$27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 |$2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TERMINAL STATION NORTH OF KINCAID PARK.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $39,300 $132,000 |$171,300 31 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:TESORO LINK 3.9 -2.2 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |vn n cere w ere rene nc cr rrr wewcnccenewcennewewencneeeenarennwcnceceneecnsNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERTAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.9 -2.2 MILES LABOR MATERIAL Lé&M SEC.#1 [STARTUP $247,864 $0 $247,864 SEC.#2 J|UNDERGROUND CABLE $99,200 |$3,947,584 |$4,046,784SEC.#3 |TERMINAL STATION $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 SEC.#4 {MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $386,364 |$4,079,584 |$4,465,948 C -32 we eee ewe ew tee ww ete a we meee meee enews we ewes ameter eee w semen e seems sewer eee see seer ewesaseser stmt etemetesearasenee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.10 -2.4 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |----2-2-2 nen ener en nner enn n cree fon nen e een cn ener ener ere ncreseee NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR [MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 2%TOTAL EA 1]$15,517 so |$15,517 |$15,517 so |$15,517SURVEYMILE|2.4 |$10,000 $0 |$10,000 |$24,000 so |$24,000 CLEARING MILE |2.4 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $7,200 $0 $7,200 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $46,717 $0 |$46,717 STX-10 |TANGENT X-STR.EA 11 |$17,500 |$13,000 |$30,500 |$192,500 |$143,000 |$335,500 STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 2 |$21,800 |$20,700 |$42,500 |$43,600 |$41,400 |$85,000$TX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 |$24,000 |$23,500 |$47,500 |$24,000 |$23,500 |$47,500 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 0 so |$13,000 |$13,000 $0 $0 $0 STX-13 SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 so |$23,500 |$23,500 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR =10,000#800'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $260,100 |$207,900 |$468,000 SP-10 |TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,776 $8,376 $0 $0 $0 $P-12 [ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 |$10,500 |$14,500 |$25,000 $0 $0 $0 $P-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE]EA 0 |$16,000 |$29,000 |$45,000 $0 $0 $0 SPARE-10|]SPARE SP-10 TANGENT EA 0 $0 $3,776 $3,776 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.10 -2.4 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF Joona renee nnn nnn nnn nnn ene e nen nner ern nnn nee nn nn eee eenncee NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR [MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS COND.|"DRAKE"795 ACSR 1000'|38 $2,100 $1,250 $3,350 |$79,800 |$47,500 |$127,300 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000°0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $79,800 |$47,500 |$127,300 FP-4 FDN 1-PILE EA 10 $800 $800 $1,600 $8,000 $8,000 |$16,000FP-2 FON 2-PILE EA 10 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 |$12,000 |$16,000 |$28,000FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-4 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 48 $800 $800 $1,600 |$38,400 |$38,400 |$76,800AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 4 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $4,800 $6,400 |$11,200AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 7 $750 $900 $1,650 $5,250 $6,300 |$11,550FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 4 $450 $0 $450 $1,800 $0 $1,800 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 4 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $74,250 |$75,100 |$149,350 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25!EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3 PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3 PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 |$10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST (EA)|EA 0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 FT-4 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 0 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 C -34 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3. PROJECT:TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.10 -2.4 MILES UNIT COST |EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |onn nnn terre nnn ener e cen rereenen ann nnccccececcernnnwcceceereccrnnxO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.10 -2.4 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $46,717 $0 $46,717SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $260,100 |$207,900 |$468,000SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $79,800 $47,500 |$127,300SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $74,250 $75,100 |$149,350SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $0 $0 $0 SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $o $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $460,867 |$330,500 |$791,367 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITYPROJECT:NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO,OF |-----222 -n nnn ence nee e nner n nnn e fone eee e ence ener nen ee renee ween renee NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS 138KV DEAD END STR.EA.2 $8,000 |$24,000 |$32,000 |$16,000 $48,000 $64,000 138KV DISC.SW.STR.EA.6 $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 $8,400 $25,200 $33,600 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT EA 6 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 138KV V.T.SUPPORT EA.6 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA.12 $800 $2,400 $3,200 $9,600 $28,800 $38,400 115SKV DISC.SW.STR.EA 3 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $3,600 $10,800 $14,400 115KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $4,800 $6,400 $1,600 $4,800 $6,400 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 2 $600 $1,800 $2,400 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 115KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,000 |$24,000 |$32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 115KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $54,400 $163,200 $217,600 138/115KV AUTO TRF.EA 1 $9,750 $5,850 |$15,600 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 138KV PCB EA 3 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 138KV DISC.SW.EA 6 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $9,600 $7,200 $16,800 138KV V.T.EA 6 $600 $450 $1,050 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 12 $1,200 $900 $2,100 |$14,400 $10,800 $25,200 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT EA 6 $600 $450 $1,050 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV DEAD END STR.EA 2 $8,500 $5,100 |$13,600 |$17,000 $10,200 $27,200 115KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 115KV DISC.SW.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 2 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $2,400 $1,800 $4,200 115KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 OIL RETENTION EA 5 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 115KV DEAD END FND.EA 1 $7,500 $4,500 |$12,000 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 115KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $94,950 $63,000 $157,950 C -36 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |o--nereerccen nnn eren nnn nnecccnes len eerere rer esteneeseneseerrenensecesNO.oF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS 138/115KV 100MVA AUTO TRF|EA 1 |$15,000 |$750,000 |$765,000 |$15,000 |$750,000 |$765,000138KVPCBEA3|$4,500 |$100,000 |$104,500 |}$13,500 |$300,000 |$313,500138KVDISC.SW.EA 6]$2,500 |$9,000 |$11,500 |$15,000 $54,000 $69,000 138KV V.T.EA 6 $500 |$6,000 |$6,500 |$3,000 $36,000 $39,000 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 6 $250 |$3,000 |$3,250 |$1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV INSULATORS EA 36 $50 $450 $500 |$1,800 $16,200 $18,000 115KV PCB EA 1 |$4,000 |$90,000 |$94,000 |$4,000 $90,000 $94,000 115KV DISC.SW EA 3]$2,000 |$8,000 |$10,000 |$6,000 $24,000 $30,000 115KV_INSULATORS EA 6 $50 $400 $450 $300 $2,400 $2,700 CONTROL WIRE LS 1 |$6,000 |$6,000 |$12,000 |$6,000 $6,000 $12,000RELAY&CONTROL PANELS |EA 5 |$2,500 |$25,000 }$27,500 |$12,500 |$125,000 |$137,500BUS&FITTINGS Ls 1 |$20,000 |$25,000 |$45,000 }$20,000 $25 ,000 $45,000 GROUND ING Ls 1 |$5,000 |$6,000 |$11,000 |$5,000 $6,000 $11,000 CONDUIT Ls 1 |$5,000 |$4,000 |$9,000]$5,000 $4,000 $9,000 MISC.ELECTRICAL Ls 1 |$50,000 |$50,000 |$100,000 |$50,000 $50,000 |$100,000115KVSURGEARRESTERSEA3$250 |$2,500 |$2,750 $750 $7,500 $8,250 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $159,350 |$1,514,100 |$1,673,450 STATION SERVICE LS 1 |$10,000 |$30,000 |$40,000 |$10,000 $30,000 $40,000 FENCING LF 800 $10 $10 $20 |$8,000 $8,000 $16,000 WELL &SEPTIC LS 1 |$5,000 |$5,000}$10,000}$5,000 $5,000 $10,000 TESTING LS 1 |$25,000 $0 |$25,000 |$25,000 $0 $25,000 CONTROL BUILDING LS 1 |$10,000 |$40,000 |$50,000 |$10,000 $40,000 $50,000 SITE WORK LS 1 |$20,000 |$40,000 |$60,000 |$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 .$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITMISCELLANEOUSLABORMATERIALL/M $78,000 |$123,000 |$201,000 C -37 eee ee ee eee ee ere eee errr rrr rere eee eee eee ee err) PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE eww ewww wee rm ene ee wee eee eee reese ete ewoeee tere ree ewww meee ewe we eee ewe ew ce see eewe cee eens sce eeewene wee wee cconnae ee wwe encoeoe PROJECT COST $436,700 $1,863,300 $2,300,000 Ow oe ww wo Oo Oe OOo Bee EROS ECHO OOS SORES TO SER EROS HE RE BEDS SE ESSE ESOS ESTOS SESE TED SH Ee BEE Eee Bereseore CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3PROJECT:WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [oon nnn anne nn nee enn n nnn n nnn n eens [anne nee eee ence een w ene nc ene ceee NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LASOR [MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $800 $2,400 $3,200 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 138KV SW.STR.EA 2 $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 $2,800 $8,400 |$11,200 138KV V.T.STR.EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138 KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP|EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,000 |$24,000 $32,000 $8,000 |$24,000 |$32,000 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $17,600 |$52,800 |$70,400 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV SW.STR.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV V.T.STR.EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.|EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV DEADEND STR.EA 1 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 $8,500 $5,100 |$13,600OILRETENTIONEA1$1,500 $900 $2,400 $1,500 $900 $2,400 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 .$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITFOUNDATIONSLABORMATERIALL/M $25,250 |$16,950 |$42,200 C -39 Owe we ewww ww www ee Oe Oe eee BOE ee eee Oem eH SESE ERS HOSED EB ESET TEER SST ESTE ND GeTeDeBeETenaDeEseEEZeSEZesE Eset eETteEeTTEeZEEESe CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT |NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |onnnereee nore cere cece cece eercer ees [ener ere nececcccecenseeeenescnnneNO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR |MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 |$100,000 $104,500 |$4,500 |$100,000 |$104,500 138KV DISC.SW.EA 3 $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T.EA 3 $500 $6 ,000 $6,500 |$1,500 |$18,000 |$19,500138KVSURGEARRESTEREA3$250 $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9,750 138KV INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 BUS &FITTINGS LS 1 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 |$5,000 $6,000 |$11,000CONTROLWIRELs1$2,000 $1,500 $3,500 $2,000 $1,500 $3,500 CONDUIT LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 MISC.ELECTRICAL Ls 1 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 GROUNDING Ls 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 RELAY &CONTROL PANELS EA 1 $2,500 $25 ,000 $27,500 $2,500 $25 ,000 $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $36,200 |$202,550 |$238,750 TESTING LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITMISCELLANEOUSLABORMATERIAL| L/M $5,000 $0 $5,000 C -40 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $0 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 |$202,550 |$238,750 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 PROJECT COST $134,050 |$272,300 |$406,350 C -41 HEALY ROUTE CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 1 -26 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |o--22-2 nnn wenn een n ene nner ern ne |nnn e ence meen nnn ence rence nnrneeeenc ers NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'S MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$556,291 $o |$556,291 $556,291 $0 $556,291SURVEYMILE26|$14,000 so |$14,000 $364,000 $0 $364,000 CLEARING MILE 26 $8,000 $0 $8,000 $208 ,000 $0 $208,000 GEOTECK PROGRAM MILE 26 |$10,000 so |$10,000 $260,000 $0 $260,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,388,291 $o |$1,388,291 STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR.EA 158 |$19,000 |$15,400 |$34,400 |$3,002,000 |$2,433,200 |$5,435,200 STX-12S JANGLE 3-POLE EA 6 |$24,000 |$20,700 |$44,700 $144,000 $124,200 $268,200 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 8 |$26,500 |$23,500 |$50,000 $212,000 $188,000 $400,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 8 so |$15,400 |$15,400 $0 $123,200 $123,200 STX-13S }SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 so |$23,500 |$23,500 $0 $23,500 $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR W/STATIC =76',12,000#,800'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $3,358,000 |$2,892,100 |$6,250,100 SP-10 |TANGENT SINGLE POLE 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 |ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE 0}$10,500 |$14,500 |$25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE 0 |$16,000 |$29,000 |$45,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 C -42 ee ee ee ee eee ee ee eee ee eee ee ere ee rrr eee ree eee ere eer ee ree) CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 1 -26 MILES UNIT COST |EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT WAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |r n newer ence r ee enreewewnnnnwnnncccnrcewcrcennnnnnennnnwcccewccenererencsNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND."CARDINAL"954 ACSR 1000'|412 $2,600 $1,630 $4,230 |$1,071,200 $671,560 $1,742,760SWSHIELDWIRE275$700 $500 $1,200 $192,500 $137,500 $330,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,263,700 $809,060 $2,072,760 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 232 $800 $800 $1,600 $185,600 $185,600 $371,200 FP-2 FON 2-PILE EA 27 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $32,400 $43,200 $75 ,600FR-1 FON ROCK EA 99 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $435,600 $99,000 $534,600 AP-4 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 232 $800 $800 $1,600 $185 ,600 $185 ,600 $371,200 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 96 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $115,200 $153,600 $268,800AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 138 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $165,600 $13,800 $179,400 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 69 $750 $900 $1,650 $51,750 $62,100 $113,850 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 34 $450 $0 $450 $15,300 $0 $15,300 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 34 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $34,000 $0 $34,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,221,050 $742,900 $1,963,950 FDP-17.5|FON SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FON SLEEVE-25'EA 0 $5 ,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $o $o $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 7 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $7,000 $0 $7,000FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $7,000 $0 $7,000 Peer eT Te eee ee eee eee eee ee ee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #7 MISCELLANEOUS STARTUP X-STRUCTURES SINGLE STEEL POLES CONDUCTOR FOUNDATIONS -1 FOUNDATIONS -2 MISCELLANEOUS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 1 -26 MILES UNIT COST NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL REQ'D ewer er eee eee eter eoterces $1,388,291 $3,358,000 $0 $1,263,700 $1,221,050 $7,000 $0 $7,238,061 $0 $809,060 $742,900 $0 $0 TOTAL MATERIAL $4,444,060 eee eee eee eee ee ee eee eee eee rr rrr eee ee ee eee eee eee $1,388,291 $6,250,100 $0 $2,072,760 $1,963,950 $7,000 $0 $11,682,101 44 ee ee ee eee ee er eee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 2 -29.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |-nn ene nn nnn n anne nnn ene nn nnn een e Lowen ene enn enn e ener nen e reece enn e ner enee NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$605,783 $0 |$605,783 $605,783 $0 $605,783 SURVEY MILE |29.5 $14,000 so |$14,000 $413,000 $0 $413,000 CLEARING MILE |29.5 $8,000 $0 $8,000 $236,000 $0 $236,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE |29.5 $10,000 so |$10,000 $295,000 $0 $295,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,549,783 $0 |$1,549,783 STX-10S [TANGENT X-STR.EA 142 $21,000 |$17,800 |$38,800 |$2,982,000 |$2,527,600 |$5,509,600STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 9 $25,000 |$25,900 |$50,900 $225,000 $233,100 $458,100 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 6 $29,000 |$30,000 |$59,000 $174,000 $180,000 $354,000 STX-10S$|SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 7 $o |$17,800 |$17,800 $0 $124,600 $124,600 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 |$30,000 |$30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 STX-RVR [RIVER CROSSING TOWER EA 2 $53,000 |$56,500 |$109,500 $106,000 $113,000 $219,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR W/STATIC =97',14,000#,1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $3,487,000 |$3,208,300 |$6,695,300 SP-10 {TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 |ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 |$14,500 |$25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE]EA 0 $16,000 |$29,000 |$45,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 -45 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 2 -29.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF Jorn neem enn e wenn cen n cnn ncn n nnn c tener nnn anne ee ernment nna ecwe cen emer acces NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND."CARDINAL"954 ACSR 1000'467 $2,600 $1,630 $4,230 |$1,214,200 $761,210 $1,975,410 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000!312 $700 $500 $1,200 $218,400 $156,000 $374,400 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,432,600 $917,210 $2,349,810 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 178 $800 $800 $1,600 $142,400 $142,400 -$284,800 FP-2 FON 2-PILE EA 151 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $181,200 $241,600 $422,800 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $o $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 199 $800 $800 $1,600 $159,200 $159,200 $318,400 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 238 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $285 ,600 $380,800 $666,400 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $O $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 77 $750 $900 $1,650 $57,750 $69,300 $127,050 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 38 $450 $0 $450 $17,100 $0 $17,100 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 38 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $38,000 $0 $38,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $881,250 $993,300 $1,874,550 FDP-17.5]FDN SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDOP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25'EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 4 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $32,000 $10,000 $42,000AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 4 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $32,000 $10,000 $42,000 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 .$0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 56 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $56,000 $112,000 $168,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $120,000 $132,000 $252,000 C -46 ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee ere eee ee eee eee rr err ree eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 2 -29.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF fore ne reer ewww nw enwennnnn nnn cn cweencenncewenn cn cnnemecnccrencnawewnecnensNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 2 -29.5 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $1,549,783 $0 $1,549,783 SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,487,000 |$3,208,300 $6,695,300SEC.#3 {SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $1,432,600 $917,210 $2,349,810 SEC.#5 {FOUNDATIONS -1 $881,250 $993 ,300 $1,874,550SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $120,000 $132,000 $252,000SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $7,470,633 |$5,250,810 |$12,721,443 C -47 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 3 -27 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |enero enn en nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn nee [anne nen e ee ener eer een e ne ee ner e nsec ececesNO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS .|REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$547,020 so |$547,020 $547,020 $0 $547,020 SURVEY MILE |27.0 |$14,000 so |$14,000 $378,000 $0 $378,000 CLEARING MILE |27.0 $8,000 $0 $8,000 $216,000 $0 $216,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE |27.0 |$10,000 $o |$10,000 $270,000 $0 $270,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,411,020 $0 |$1,411,020 STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR.EA 130 |$21,000 |$17,800 |$38,800 |$2,730,000 |$2,314,000 |$5,044,000STX-128 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 8 |$25,000 |$25,900 |$50,900 $200,000 $207,200 $407,200 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 5 |$29,000 |$30,000 |$59,000 $145,000 $150,000 $295,000STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 7 so}$17,800 |$17,800 $0 $124,600 $124,600 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 |$30,000 |$30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 STX-RVR |RIVER CROSSING TOWER EA 2]$53,000 |$56,500 |$109,500 $106,000 $113,000 $219,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR W/STATIC =97',14,000#,1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $3,181,000 |$2,938,800 |$6,119,800 SP-10 [TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 [ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0}$10,500 |$14,500 |$25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE|EA 0}$16,000 |$29,000 |$45,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 C -48 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 3 -27 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO,OF |---n----2enn ene n nner en nner encec ere eeeenene nana ncececnnn seen cnnsssercneNO.oF UNITS |LABOR |MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND.|"CARDINAL"954 ACSR 1000'|428 |$2,600 |$1,630 |$4,230 |$1,112,800 |$697,640 |$1,810,440SWSHIELDWIRE1000'}285 $700 $500 |$1,200 |$199,500 |$142,500 $342,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,312,300 |$840,140 |$2,152,440 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 180 $800 $800 |$1,600 |$144,000 |$144,000 $288,000FP-2 |FDN 2-PILE EA 89 |$1,200]$1,600 |$2,800 |$106,800 |$142,400 $249,200 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 30 |$4,400}$1,000 |$5,400 |$132,000 $30,000 $162,000 AP-1 |ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 282 $800 $300 |$1,600 |$225,600 |$225,600 $451,200 AP-2 |ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 80 |$1,200]$1,600 |$2,800 $96,000 |$128,000 $224,000 AR-1 [ANCHOR ROCK EA 30 |$1,200 $100 |$1,300 $36,000 $3,000 $39,000 FP-ADD {ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 66 $750 $900 |$1,650 $49,500 $59,400 $108,900 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 33 $450 $0 $450 $14,850 $0 $14,850 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 33 |$1,000 $0 |$1,000 $33,000 $0 $33,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL LM $837,750 |$732,400 |$1,570,150 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0 |$4,500 |$1,596 |$6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25!EA 0}$5,000}$2,280]$7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3-|3-PILE FDN EA 4]$8,000 |$2,500 |$10,500 $32,000 $10,000 $42,000AP-3 _|3-PILE ANCHOR EA 4|$8,000 |$2,500 |$10,500 $32,000 $10,000 $42,000 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0}$1,000 $0 |$1,000 $0 $0 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 50]$1,000 |$2,000 |$3,000 $50,000 |$100,000 $150,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $114,000 |$120,000 $234,000 Cc -49 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee ee errr eee ee eee er eee ee eee ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT s HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 3 -27 MILES UNIT COST |EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [oor n creme ncn reer rem er een cen nnrnnn en enerecececenenencwencneesecrcmcerwnenNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 3 -27 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $1,411,020 $0 $1,411,020SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,181,000 |$2,938,800 $6,119,800SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $1,312,300 $840,140 $2,152,440SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $837,750 $732,400 $1,570,150SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $114,000 $120,000 $234,000SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $6,856,070 |$4,631,340 |$11,487,410 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 4 -12.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |wn nnn nner cree w cc ce rence ween nn eres [eon ereceweenwceencccecarereerarcnrcecnsNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQU'D AND AND UNITS MATL'S MATERIALS MOB-DEMO/MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$378,607 $0 |$378,607 $378,607 $0 $378 ,607 SURVEY MILE |12.5 $14,000 $0 $14,000 $175 ,000 $0 $175 ,000 CLEARING MILE |12.5 $8,000 $0 $8,000 $100,000 $0 $100,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE |12.5 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $125 ,000 $0 $125 ,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $778,607 $0 $778,607 STX-10S [TANGENT X-STR.EA 59 $21,000 $17,800 $38,800 |$1,239,000 |$1,050,200 $2,289,200STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 4 $25,000 $25 ,900 $50,900 $100,000 $103 ,600 $203 ,600 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 3 $29,000 $30,000 $59,000 $87,000 $90,000 $177,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 3 $0 $17,800 $17,800 $0 $53,400 $53,400 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 STX-RVR |RIVER CROSSING TOWER EA 2 $53,000 $56,500 |$109,500 $106,000 $113,000 $219,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR W/STATIC =97',14,000#,1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,532,000 |$1,410,200 $2,942,200 sP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $14,500 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE]EA 0 $16,000 $29,000 $45 ,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 C -51 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 4 -12.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [orem enw e rene n eww cen e ence cwc nc cer cc cn seen eswmennwonascncnnenacorresccce NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND.'ICARDINAL"954 ACSR 1000!198 $2,600 $1,630 $4,230 $514,800 $322,740 $837,540 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000°132 $700 $500 $1,200 $92,400 $66,000 $158,400 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $607,200 $388,740 $995 ,940 FP-4 FON 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 $1,600 $0 $o $0 FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 20 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $24,000 $32,000 $56,000 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 20 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $24,000 $32,000 $56,000 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 4 $750 $900 $1,650 $3,000 $3,600 $6,600 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 2 $450 $0 $450 $900 $0 $900 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 2 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $53,900 $67,600 $121,500 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5'EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25!EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 123 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $984 ,000 $307,500 $1,291,500AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 166 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 |$1,328,000 $415,000 $1,743,000FPTSOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 .$0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 26 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $26,000 $52,000 $78,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $2,338,000 $774,500 $3,112,500 C -52 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 4 -12.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |wr er en en en en nen cen cnerncencnneecwcenccewcwccenccnscwncenconncecerccecrces NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 4 -12.5 MILES LABOR MATERIAL Lé&M SEC.#1 |STARTUP $778,607 $0 $778 ,607 SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $1,532,000 |$1,410,200 $2,942,200 SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $607,200 $388,740 $995 ,940 SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $53,900 $67,600 $121,500 SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $2,338,000 $774 ,500 $3,112,500 SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $5,309,707 |$2,641,040 $7,950,747 C -53 ae a a ee Me eee eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 5 -5.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |-2-22 nnn nee n ence weer nn nnn neem en fone nnn renner een nen e renner nore ne senee NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATL'S MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB &DEMOB 5%TOTAL EA 1 |$113,533 so |$113,533 $113,533 $0 $113,533 SURVEY MILE |5.5 |$14,000 $0 |$14,000 $77,000 $0 $77,000 CLEARING MILE |5.5 $8,000 $0 $8,000 $44,000 $0 $44,000 GEOTECK PROGRAM MILE |5.5 |$10,000 so |$10,000 $55,000 $0 $55,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $289,533 $0 $289,533 STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR.EA 26 |$21,000 |$17,800 |$38,800 $546,000 $462,800 |$1,008,800 STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 2 |$25,000 |$25,900 |$50,900 $50,000 $51,800 $101,800 STX-13§|DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 |$29,000 |$30,000 |$59,000 $29,000 $30,000 $59,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR.EA 1 so |$17,800 |$17,800 $0 $17,800 $17,800 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 |$30,000 |$30,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:X-STR W/STATIC =97',14,000#,1,000'SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $625,000 $562,400 |$1,187,400 SP-10 |TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 |ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 |$10,500 |$14,500 |$25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 |DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE]EA 0 |$16,000 |$29,000 |$45,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION:SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 5 -5.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |mwer nce rer w er rececercwcnnwenenenenecnccerccccnsanasotcewccorecnccenencesNO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND."CARDINAL"954 ACSR 1000'87 $2,600 $1,630 $4,230 $226,200 $141,810 $368,010 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000!58 $700 $500 $1,200 $40,600 $29,000 $69,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR &SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $266,800 $170,810 $437,610 FP-1 FDN 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 Fp-2 FON 2-PILE EA 61 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $73,200 $97,600 $170,800 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 82 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $98,400 $131,200 $229,600 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP*ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 14 $750 $900 $1,650 $10,500 $12,600 $23,100 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 7 $450 $0 $450 $3,150 $0 $3,150 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 7 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $7,000 $0 $7,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $192,250 $241,400 $433,650 FOP-17.5|FON SLEEVE-17.5!EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25'EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 -$0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 12 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $12,000 $24,000 $36,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS -2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $12,000 $24,000 $36,000 55 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT:HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 5 -5.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |ose n cern nnn nnn nnn nnn n nen e ener n ener e rene new ene n en enr erent ene ecesNO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL |LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION:TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITMISCELLANEOUSQUANTITYLABORMATERIALL/M $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 5 -5.5 MILES LABOR MATERIAL Lau SEC.#1 {STARTUP $289,533 $0 $289,533SEC.#2 |X-STRUCTURES $625,000 $562,400 |$1,187,400SEC.#3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0SEC.#4 |CONDUCTOR $266,800 $170,810 $437,610SEC.#5 |FOUNDATIONS -1 $192,250 $241,400 $433,650SEC.#6 |FOUNDATIONS -2 $12,000 $24,000 $36,000SEC.#7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,385,583 $998,610 |$2,384,193 C -56 wee emcee cee eww www eee eet ewe ws wow tw ew wwe Bo Oo 88 Oe OES OEE ESSE ESOS SSD EB ESSE SSE MBSE SABES EE HAH OE SBE ETE TST BEBE BEST eEeeeseEEeeZ ese CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME ANO DESCRIPTION NO.OF |-ccere nnn nnn n ween n nner nnn e nee e nnn e |omen neem ene n en nn nnn n wee enenen en ees NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $800 $2,400 $3,200 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 138KV SW.STR.EA 2 $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 $2,800 $8,400 $11,200 138KV V.T.STR.EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.|EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV SW.STR.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV V.T.STR.EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.|EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV DEADEND STR.EA 1 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 1 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $1,500 $900 $2,400 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:HEALY SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [renee n cen ccnenncnscceenmrccenncnces [connennwwcwccnnnenerncnnanccerwncecne no.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 $100,000 $104,500 $4,500 $100,000 $104,500 138KV DISC.SW.EA 3 $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T.EA 3 $500 $6,000 $6,500 $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 3 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9,750 138KV INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 BUS &FITTINGS LS 1 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 CONTROL WIRE LS 1 $2,000 $1,500 $3,500 $2,000 $1,500 $3,500 CONDUIT LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 MISC.ELECTRICAL LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 GROUNDING Ls 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 RELAY &CONTROL PANELS EA 1 $2,500 $25 ,000 $27,500 $2,500 $25 ,000 $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $36,200 $202,550 $238,750 TESTING LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 so $0 bt)$0 $0 $o $0 so $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $5,000 $0 $5,000 C -58 en a ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3PROJECT:HEALY SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $0 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 $202,550 $238,750 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 PROJECT COST $134,050 $272,300 $406,350 11 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $704 ,000 $704,000 52 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $4,200,000 |$4,200,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $134,050 |$5,176,300 |$5,310,350 C -59 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [nonce nen en nner nen n ene e nnn e ween |own wenn were nnn nn ene ene enter e teen ene NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $800 $2,400 $3,200 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 138KV SW.STR.EA 2 $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 $2,800 $8,400 $11,200 138KV V.T.STR.EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.|EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV DEAD END STR.EA 1 $8,000 |$24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV SW.STR.EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV V.T.STR.EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.|EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV DEADEND STR.EA 1 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 1 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $1,500 $900 $2,400 138KV PCB BYPASS STR.EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITFOUNDATIONSLABORMATERIALL/M $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 C -60 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALSUNIT|NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF |onen ence cennnnn nn ween nen n nen ennnnn [ener e ene e nn ene new enennenn enc erereces NO.OF UNITS |LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIRE AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 |$100,000 $104,500 $4,500 $100,000 $104,500 138KV DISC.SW.EA 3 $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T.EA 3 $500 $6,000 $6,500 $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 3 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9,750 138KV INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 BUS &FITTINGS LS 1 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 CONTROL WIRE Ls 1 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 CONDUIT Ls 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 MISC.ELECTRICAL LS 1 |$10,000 |$10,000 $20,000 |$10,000 $10,000 $20,000 RELAY &CONTROL PANELS EA 1 $2,500 |$25,000 $27,500 $2,500 $25,000 $27,500 GROUND ING Ls 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL ue $36,200 $203,050 $239,250 TESTING Ls 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $5,000 $0 $5,000 eee a a ae ee ee ee ee ee rr er eee ree ee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT:FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 $203,050 $239,250 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 PROJECT COST $134,050 $272,800 $406,850 SOMVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM COST $3,200,000 |$3,200,000TOTALPROJECTCOST$134,050 |$3,472,800 |$3,606,850 C -62 ee eee eS ee ee re eee CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT:TEELAND SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF [ower nner n cnn emer nt cme nner enn c ene |wan en nme n mene nnensancercwenccccccce NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS $o $O $o $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o so $0 $0 so $o TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $o so so CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT:TEELAND SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.OF Jocetecccer rece tecncecccmcecncceensfooncneteneeewensnnweennnnacereencnnn NO.OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIRE AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:.UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 ee ee ee eee ee ee Te TTT TIT TT TTT TTT CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR:ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3PROJECT:TEELAND SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION:UNIT UNIT UNITLABOR|MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $0 $0 $0 FOUNDATIONS $0 $0 $0 EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $0 MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 PROJECT COST $50,000 $0 $50,000 60 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $7,200,000 |$7,200,00048MVARSTATICVARSYSTEMso|$3,072,000 |$3,072,000TOTALPROJECTCOST$50,000 |$10,272,000 |$10,322,000 C -65 D.CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS The following pages give the individual pieces of the cost esti- mate.The overhead lines are primarily based on the Bradley Lake project.The submarine and underground are based on recent quotes with a comparison to a recent bid. OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS ENSTAR &TESORO Deadend 90 - LiL Steel Towers Insulator &Guys Labor Mat']Labor Mat'l Total Figure Description Material Weight Cost Cost Total Cost Cost Total Str. $1.20/# STX-10 Tangent Coreten 9,000#$14,000 $10,800 $24,800 $2,500 $1,000 $3,500 $28,300 Steel ; X Tower 10,000#15,000 12,000 27,000 2,500 1,000 3,500 30,500 89'; A A A $1.30/# STX-12,3-Pole Coreten 15,000#17,300 19,500 36,800 4,500 1,200 5,700 42,500 Angle 90:Steel 400007 $1.30/# STX-13,3-Pole Coreten 17 ,000#19,000 22,100 41,100 5,000 1,400 6,400 47,500 Figure Description a. he Pe oe WLU,Si FP-1,AP-1 25'Pile Fdn or Anchor FP-2,AP-2 2-25'Pile AR-1 12°Rod Anchor FR-1 Rock Fdn w/Grouted Rods FDP-17.5' Fdn Sleeve 28"dia. FDP-25° 'Fdn Sleeve FP-3,AP-3 3-25'Pile Fdn or Anchor w/3 Splices 3 Add']Pile 1 Weld Conn. Towers Insulator &Guys Labor Mat'1 Labor Mat'l Total Material Weight Cost Cost Total Cost Cost.Total Str. HP 12x57 $800 $800 $1,600 Stee] 1,200 1,600 2,800 Steel 1,200 100 1,300 Steel 4,400 1,000 5,400 $1.20/# Steel 1,330#4,500 1,596 6,096 1,900#5,000 2,280 7,280 Steel 8,000 2,500 10,500 Towers Insulator &Guys Labor Mat'1 Labor Mat'l Total Figure Description Material Weight Cost Cost Total Cost Cost Total Str. $1.20/#Td SP-10 Self-Coreten 2,280#$4,000 $2,736 $6,736 $600 $500 $1,100 $7,836 supporting Steel 60'(400'k) 60'(600'k)Coreten 2,730#4,000 3,276 7,276 600 500 1,100 8,376Steel W077- 7INN $1.30/#wT SP-12 Guyed Coreten 10,000#7,000 13,000 20,000 3,500 1,500 5,000 25,000Angle75'Pole Steel 10k Vert -W77777 |KA $1.30/#INS SP-13 Guyed Coreten 20,000#9,000 26,000 35,000 7,000 3,000 10,000 45,000D.E.75°Pole Steel 140k Vert W777 CONDUCTOR per ft {1000' Drake ACSR 1.094#2,100 1,250 3,350 Cardinal ACSR 1.229#2,600 1,630 4,230 Static ALWLD =.5#700 500 1,200 Figure Description LLL STX-10S Tangent X-Tower 76' (800'span) 97°(1000'span) STX-12S,3-Pole Guyed Angle 76' 97' STX-13S,3-Pole Deadend 76' 97' River Crossing 1,600'span =143'sag ee 190'tower CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS HEALY &FAIRBANKS Steel Steel Steel Towers Insulator &Guys Labor Mat'l Labor Mat'l Total Material Weight Cost Cost Total Cost Cost Total Str. $1.20/# Coreten 12,000#$16,000 $14,400 $30,400 $3,000 $1,000 $4,000 $34,400 14,000#18,000 16,800 34,800 3,000 1,000 4,000 38,800 $1.30/# Coreten 15,000#19,000 19,500 38,500 5,000 1,200 6,200 44,700 19,000#20,000 24,700 44,700 5,000 1,200 6,200 50,900 Coreten 17,000#21,000 22,100 43,100 5,500 1,400 6,900 50,000 22,000#23,500 28,600 52,100 5,500 1,400 6,900 59,000 Coreten 40,000#40,000 52,000 92,000 13,000 17,500 109,500 Steel 4,500 The following percentages will be used for construction unit quantities unless other circumstances override. Construction Unit Oty to Use Spare Tangent Tower 5%of Tangent Tower Quantity Spare Deadend Tower 5%of Angle &D.E.Tower Qty Pile PreAuger 5%of Total Pile Quantity Pile Uplift Test 5%of Total Pile Quantity Rock Anchor Test 5%of Total Rock Anchor Qty OVERHEAD LINK UNITS OVERHEAD Enstar Route Link 1-16.10 Miles Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Oty STX-10 70 FP-1 (2)120 9000 #FP-2 (2)20 1000'span AP-1 (2)120 AP-2 (2)20 STX-12 4 FP-2 (3)12 AP-1 (9)27 AP-2 (9)9 STX-13 6 FP-2 (3)18 AP-1 (12)60 AP-2 (12)12 Drake 259 Link 2 -33.75 Miles Structure Foundation -tType_Oty Type Oty STX-10 158 FP-1 (2)294% FP-2 (2)36 FR-1 (2)12 AR-1 (2)12 AP-1 (2)294% AP=2 (2)36 STX-12 10 FP-2 (3)30 AP-1 (9)63 AP-2 (9)27 STX-13 11 FP-2 (3)33 AP-1 (12)108 AP-2 (12)24 Drake 535 *Estimate 10%additional piling quantity due to relocation whenencounteringboulders268to294pile. Enstar Route (Continued) Link 6 -2.95 Miles,600'Spans Structure Foundation Type Qty Type SP-10 (6+4)20 FDP-17.5 (1) SP-12 4 FP-2 (1) AP-1 (3) SP-13 5 FP-2 (1) AP-2 (3) Drake 47 OVERHEAD Tesoro Route Link 3.2A -11.5 Miles (Bernice Lake to Captain Cook ParkinHighwayRight-of-Way) Structure Foundation -__lype__Qty Type Qty SP-10 145 FDP-17.5 (1)110 400'span FDP-25 (1)35 60'pole SP-12 6 FP-2 (1)6 75'pole AP-1 (3)18 400'span SP-13 3 FP-2 (1)3 75"pole AP=2 (3)9 400'span Drake 182 Link 3.3 -24.75 Miles (Captain Cook Park to Point Possession) Structure Foundation -__-Type Qty Type Qty STX-10 142 FP-1 (2)224 10,000#FP-2 (2)60 63!AP-1 (2)224 800'span AP-2 (2)60 STX-12 15 FP-2 (3)45 90!AP-1 (9)90 800'span AP-2 (9)45 STX-13 8 FP-2 (3)24 90!AP-1 (12)72 800'span AP-2 (12)24 Drake 392 Tesoro Route (Continued) Link 3.10 -2.40 Miles (Runway to Pt.Woronzof) Structure Foundation __-Type__Qty Type Oty STX-10 11 FP-1 (2)10 9,000#FP-2 (2)1 1,000'span AP-1 (2)18 AP-2 (2)4 STX=-12 2 FP-2 (3)6 AP-1 (9)18 AP-2 (9)0 STX-13 1 FP-2 (3)3 AP-1 (12)12 AP-2 (12)f°) Drake 38 OVERHEAD Healy Route Link1 26 Miles (Healy to Rex) Structure Foundation __Type Oty Type __Qty STX-10S.158 FP-1 (2)232 76!AP-1 (2)232 12,000#FR-1 (2)84 800'span AR-1 (2)84 STX-12S 6 FP-2 (3)12 76!AP-2 (9)36 15,000#FR-1 (3)6 800!AR-1 (9)18 STX-13S 8 FP-2 (3)15 76!AP-2 (12)60 17,000#FR-1 (3)9 800!AR-1 (12)36 Cardinal 412 Static 275 Link 2.-_29.5 Miles (Rex to Nenana) Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Oty STX-10S 142 FP-1 (2)178 97!FP-2 (2)106 14,000#AP-1 (2)178 1,000'span AP-2 (2)106 FT-1 (2)56 STX-12S 9 FP-2 (3)27 97!AP-1 (9)9 19,000#AP-2 (9)72 1,000'span STX-13S 6 FP-2 (3)18 97!AP-1 (12)12 22,000#AP-2 (12)60 1,000'span Rivercross 2 FP-3 (2)4 AP-3 (2)4 Cardinal 467 Static 312 D-10 Healy Route (Continued) Link 3-27 Miles (Nenana to Rosie Creek) Structure Foundation -tlype Oty Type Oty STX-10S 130 FP-1 (2)180 97!FP-2 (2)50 14,000#FR-1 (2)30 1,000'span AP-1 (2)180 AP-2 (2)50 AR-1 (2)30 FT-1 (2)50 STX-125 8 FP-2 (3)24 97!AP-1 (9)54 19,000#AP-2 (9)18 1,000'span STX-13S 5 FP-2 (3)15 97!AP-1 (12)48 22,000#AP-2 (12)12 1,000'span Rivercross 2 FP-3 (2)4 AP-3 (2)4 Cardinal 428 q Static 285 Link 4 =12.5 Miles (Rosie Creek to Fairbanks) Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Oty STX-10S 59 97!FP-3 (2)98 14,000#FP-2 (2)20 1,000'span AP-3 (2)90 AP-2 (2)20 FT-1 (2)26 STX-12S 4 FP-3 (3)12 AP-3 (9)36 STX-135S 3 FP-3 (3)9 AP-3 (12)36 Rivercross 2 FP-3 (2)4 AP-3 (2)4 Cardinal 198 Static 132 D-11 Healy Route (Continued) Link 5 -5.5 Miles (Fairbanks to Wainwright) Structure Foundation -_-tType__Oty Type Qty STX-10S 26 FP-2 (2)52 97!AP-2 (2)52 1,000'span FT-1 (2)12 14,000# STX-12S 2 FP-2 (3)6 AP-2 (9)18 STX-13S 1 FP-2 (3)3 AP-2 (12)12 Cardinal 87 Static 58 D-12 UNDERGROUND &SUBMARINE CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS UNIT COSTS FOR SUBMARINE CABLE Discussion Over the past three to five years,fluctuating exchange rates forU.S.currency,inflation,and strong worldwide demand for submarinecablehaspushedthepriceofthiscablefromabout$60/ft.toabout$120/ft.Mitsui &Co.supplied historical data for prices on . their submarine cables and exchange rates between the U.S.dollar and the Japanese yen.Their data indicated that about 80%of theincreaseincablepriceswasduetothedevaluationofthedollaragainsttheyen.Les Cables DeLyon representatives said thatinflationhadbeenhigherinFrancethanintheU.S.and changes in the exchange rate had devalued the dollar to about 60%of what it was worth in 1987. Mitsui did not provide prices for oil reservoirs,terminations,and other auxiliary equipment.Pirelli recommended that the prices they supplied for the auxiliary equipment in 1987 should be updated by adding 25%to the price.Our estimate follows this recommenda- tion. Quotes Received for Cable As part of our investigation,we requested prices for oil-filled and solid dielectric cable from several manufacturers.The follow- ing two price quotes were received: Mitsui &Co.(USA)....Oil-Filled Cable:$108.90/ft.FOB Japan (with double armor).Add 15%for freight,duties,and unloading.This brings the price to $125/ft. Cross-Linked Polyethylene:$146.96/ft. FOB Japan (with double armor).Add 15% for freight,duties,and unloading.This brings the price to $169/ft. Pirelli ......cceeneee -Oil-Filled Cable:$95-$110/ft.Add 20% for double armor.This brings the price to about $120/ft.,plus or minus $10/ft. (Delivered and unloaded.) Bid Tabulations for Cable This information is a summary of bids received for submarine cable by Chugach Electric Association on October 31,1989.These bids were made in response to a specific bid package.All bids for oil- filled cables include the cost of double armor.This information is supplied as an actual bid response for comparison to the numbers D=-13 we have used.It is not used in preparing our cost estimate. Les Cables DeLyon Oil-filled cable:$109.73/ft. Solid Dielectric cable:No Bid Mitsui &Co. Oil-filled cable:$127.10/ft. Solid Dielectric cable:No Bid STK Oil-filled cable:$120.37/ft. Solid Dielectric cable:No Bid Pirelli Oil-filled cable:$115.50/ft. Solid Dielectric cable:No Bid The cable suppliers did not believe their solid dielectric productsweresuitableforuseinCookInlet. D-14 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COST OF INSTALLING SUBMARINE CABLE Discussion Conversations with Chugach Electric Association personnel confirm the reasonableness of Pirelli's quote based on their experience. Quotes Received Pirelli -$8,500,000 for installation including: Rigging Transportation Unloading the cable in Seattle Prelay Survey Mobilization of the laying barge Loading the cable onto the barge Moving the barge to Anchorage Laying four cablesLandingofthecablesto terminal sites D-15 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS FOR LAND CABLE Discussion The cost for land cables is based on two quotes recieved in December of 1990.The quote for oil-filled cable was lower than for cross-linked polyethylene,so the prices used in estimating theundergroundportionsofthetransmissionlinearebasedonthe.assumption that oil-filled cable will be used. Mitsui did not provide prices for oil reservoirs,terminations,and other auxiliary equipment.Pirelli recommended that the prices they supplied for auxiliary equipment in 1987 should be updated by adding 25%to the price.Our estimate uses the prices recommended by Pirelli. The price per foot of the underground cable used in this estimate is the average of the following price quotes: ($87.50/ft.+$75.00/ft.)/2 =$81/ft. Quotes Received Mitsui &Co.(USA).....Oil-filled cable:$65.39/ft.FOB Japan. Add 15%for freight,duties,and unload- ing.This brings the price to $75/ft. Cross-Linked Polyethylene:$87.39/ft. F.O.B.Japan.Add 15%for freight,du- ties,and unloading.This brings thepriceto$100/ft. Pirelli ................Oil-filled cable:$80-$95/ft. ($87.50 plus or minus $7.50/ft.) (Delivered and unloaded.) D-=-16 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COST OF BURYING LAND CABLE Discussion Installation of 138 kV land cable is assumed to use standard land cable burial equipment and techniques. Accessible Areas Estimated trenching,select backfill,cable laying and cleanup costs in accessible areas:$5/ft.($26,000/mile) Estimated trenching,select backfill,cable laying and cleanup costs in inaccessible areas:$11/ft.($58,000/mile) D- 17 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Discussion Each cable termination requires a small fenced station to enclose terminals,switching,structures,oil reservoirs,and other equip- ment.There are three types of station needed for the Tesoro and Enstar routes:underground cable to submarine cable,overhead-transmission line to submarine cable,and overhead transmission line to underground cable. The oil pumping plants used for the submarine cable require a source of power,so a pair of power potential transformers are in- cluded in these stations. The following spreadsheets detail the estimated costs of each component of the three types of terminal stations used. D-18 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS FILL COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Terminal Fence Fence Area Fill Description length length sq.ft.Depth Underground to Submarine 70 90 6300 4 Overhead to Submarine 70 90 6300 4 Overhead to Underground 60 70 4200 4 FILL Remote Site Total for Terminal Fill Price Fill Price FELl Remote Description cu.yd.per cu.yd.|per cu.yd.Total Site Underground to Submarine 933.33 $35.00 $50.00 $32,666.67 $46,666.67 Overhead to Submarine 933.33 $35.00 $50.00 $32,666.67 $46,666.67 Overhead to Underground 622.22 $35.00 $50.00 $21,777.78 $31,191.11 FENCE COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Terminal Type Fence Fence Total Price per Total Length (ft.{Length (ft.)Length (ft.)Foot Cost Underground to Submarine 70 90 320 $20.00 $6,400.00 Overhead to Submarine 70 90 320 $20.00 $6,400.00 Overhead to Under ground 60 70 260 $20.00 $5,200.00 SITE WORK COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Fill for Site Remote Site Terminal Fill Remote Fence Prep Prep Description Total Site Total Total Total Underground to Submarine $32,666.67 $46,666.67 $6,400.00 $39,066.67 $53,066.67OverheadtoSubmarine$32,666.67 $46,666.67 $6,400.00 $39,066.67 $53,066.67OverheadtoUnderground$21,777.78 $31,111.11 $5,200.00 $26,977.78 $36,311.11 STEEL STRUCTURE COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Structure Weight Labor Material Total Description Deadend 20000 $8,000.00 $24,000.00 $32,000.00 Switching 4000 $1,600.00 $4,800.00 $6,400.00 P.T.500 $200.00 $600.00 $800.00 Termination and Arrestor 500 $200.00 $600.00 $800.00 D-19 FOUNDATION COSTS FOR TERMINAL Structure Volume Labor Material Total Description (cu.yd.) Deadend 16 $4,000.00 $2,400.00 $6,400.00 Switching 8 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $3,200.00 P.T.2 $500.00 $300.00 $800.00 Pumping Plant é $1,500.00 $900.00 $2,400.00 Termination &Arrestor 1 $250.00 $150.00 $400.00 TOTAL STRUCTURE COSTS Structure Foundation Steet Insulators Description Labor Material Labor Material Labor Material Deadend Structure $4,000.00 $2,400.00 $8,000.00 $24,000.00 $1,200.00 $300.00 Switching Structure $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,600.00 $4,800.00 $200.00 $1,800.00 P.T.-SO KVA $500.00 $300.00 $200.00 $600.00 Pumping Plant $1,500.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 Termination &Arrestor $250.00 $150.00 $200.00 $600.00 TOTAL STRUCTURE COSTS (continued) Structure Switches Prefabricated Total Description Labor Material Material Cost Labor Material Total Deadend Structure -$13,200.00 $26,700.00 $39,900.00SwitchingStructure$4,000.00 $12,000.00 $7,800.00 $19,800.00 $27,600.00P.T.-50 KVA $30,000.00 $700.00 $30,900.00 $31,600.00PumpingPlant$500,000.00 $1,500.00 $500,900.00 |$502,400.00Termination&Arrestor $15,500.00 $450.00 $16,250.00 $16,700.00 STATIONS 0 -20 RIGHT-OF-WAY UNIT COSTS SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (ENSTAR ROUTE) PARCEL ANALYSIS Direct Cost Estimate -100'Right of Way Type of Miles #of Extended Parcel of line Parcels Cost CIRI 5.81 1l $48,700 HEA 0.22 3 63,610 Kenai Moose Range 39.80 8 N/A Kenai Peninsula Borough 2.75 ll 37,550 'Private ) 7.34 76 194,500 State 0.50 1 N/A Turnagain Crossing 9.0 1 N/A (State) To Huffman Substation Private 2.49 60 816,000 State | 1.005 6 N/A Municipality of Anch.225 12 163,200 CEA £23 ) 2 27,200 Total Direct Acquisition Cost:$1,350,760 Round up to:$1,400,000 D-21 (Definition: requirements, tions, SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (ENSTAR ROUTE TO HUFFMAN SUBSTATION) Indirect Cost Estimate Acquisition of permits, and condemnation preparation.) Permit Acquisition Platting (Permit Exhibit) Title Services Surveying/Platting A.Project Mapping B.Center Line Surveying C.Individual Plat Preparation Acquisition Appraisals Negotiations Condemnation Preparation Total Indirect Acquisition Cost: Round up to: land surveying and platting title services,real property appraisal,negotia- $12,500 8,400 49,000 10,000 38,500 63,600 132,300 205,800 60,000 $580,100 $600,000 BERNICE LAKE TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (TESORO ROUTE TO PT.WORONZOF) PARCEL ANALYSIS Direct Cost Estimate -100'Right of Way Type of Parcel ANCSA CEA Kenai Penin.Borough Private State Turnagain Arm (State) Municipality of Anch. State Miles #of of line Parcels 0.57 1 0.2 1 13.39 61 24.29 227 5.23 6 1 Anchorage 4.69 9 225 1 Total Direct Acquisition Cost: Round up to: D -23 Extended Cost $3,100 5,300 155,650 1,558,900 N/A N/A 157,500 N/A $1,880,450 $1,900,000- BERNICE LAKE TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (TESORO ROUTE TO PT.WORONZOF) (Definition: requirements, Indirect Cost Estimate Acquisition of permits,land surveying and platting title services,real property appraisal,negotia- tions,and condemnation preparation.) 1.Permit Acquisition $26,500 2.Platting (Permit Exhibit)10,000 3.Title Services 56,810 4.Surveying/Platting A.Project Mapping 10,640 B.Center Line Surveying 40,000 C.Individual Plat Preparation 79,500 5.Acquisition Appraisals 159,000 6.Negotiations 319,000 7.Condemnation Preparation 92,000 Total Indirect Acquisition Cost:$793,450 Round up to:$800,000 D-24 HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE PARCEL ANALYSIS Direct Cost Estimate -100'Right of Way Type of Miles #of Extended Parcel of line Parcels Cost Coal Lease 1.2 1 $45,000 Mining Claims 0.3 6 30,000 Residential 0.3 8 40,000 Timber Sales 0.8 6 30,000 Native 2.7 1 50,000 USA (Top filed)3.3 1 60,000* USA (Other &Mil.)24.8 O+N/A State**58.7 1+N/A Borough 0.3 3 N/A Private 1.0 1 25,000 Total Direct Acquisition Cost:$280,000 Round up to:$300,000 *This amount to be placed in escrow in the eventuality that a Native Corporation receives title to the affected lands. +For the purposes of this analysis,all USA lands are con- sidered as one parcel,and all State lands are considered as one parcel. **This category excludes the State lands encumbered by the Coal Lease,the mining claims,the residential disposals and the timber sales. D-25 (Definition: requirements, HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE Indirect Cost Estimate Acquisition of permits,land surveying and platting title services,real property appraisal,negotia- tions,and condemnation preparation.) l.Permit Acquisition $2,800 2.Platting (Permit Exhibit)1,400 3.Title Services 10,000 4.Surveying/Platting A.Project Mapping 10,000 B.Center Line Surveying 46,500 C.Individual Plat Preparation 12,500 5.Acquisition Appraisals 22,500 6.Negotiations 35,000 7.Condemnation Preparation 10,250 Total Indirect Acquisition Cost:$150,950 Round up to:$160,000 D-26 E.COST ASSUMPTIONS The following pages present the assumptions used in developing the cost estimates.We have tried to include all assumptions,but some non-written judgements are also used in the estimates. OVERHEAD STRUCTURE DATA SVnGe --Pee ilaat el "ottasQua190&101YWvwoonRA0momo2 s'rt a Se z > 4 SAG a aa 2s' 7 tars4&f €€ "DRAKE COorapvetoR Slume 3.6%/Fr Ler d,LOA OryEUsTAR G00'23PANY? 'Bopoe Go'Zo 34z'kK Flo'Kk 7¢'le PLYS O-¢.F. Assume 29"fer Cowd,Lekbrnscs|TELCO4o0'sPASBo0 '70! Sate 640'le 79-7'Ke pevs O.¢.F, SETERM ING Pore F&FDA's Foe: \oce GRD Lime Komen 50 325K €525'h GO "00'k &G00'EK 70 A#70'le J GIO'K 4 tes UwY&A EXNGRS.STL ---164 CIAMFa.rL)-U61y -@314 99313:4314-9012° Project? Checked: Fe Bip 12/a9 Subject:Ya oe ee ee to Cee om ee eee are cae ee 1 C2) ye 2L7:beeIl}7}4esie ILSprey|py "| a, | TTT a Th balliy, NESE |; | oy 1| | | IN;<: |aoa rfyo| 8 a: | BACAhi ! i'rae?|62) | Mead ' ; F Gane | Jf: cr edd irda dt. Mifi : i aa afp r\PG,|C dh '0 nA Bl.| seen cot day1h ' a 0 O28c OL) | %SKi! YA Project:asa <neht JCDLE Contract.No.: SOos72 Subject:Sheet No. |22797719 -Kc hab 2s hl we LAF,Lbeupseg eu rv __of __ By:Date:Checked:-Date:TA:Date:PA:Dote:te tft {Po Baewwove ee |YE.(Pit.COENTONG Lhemge =Ib ¢hOE =LEE?AD |Zo tow,Gaeovv2 Ceéuereves 4.Gusve Clearance (Farce Z72-/) LOCTHEGE fae Excel OCF ZZCwveeF255cz2) SEEPD AVE =ERC66-2Z2 =G6EX.4¢=LK Ge Dw. |ZA H swesns,GFW,SITTIN S xe PFE2EI CEFLCCOTUMRCES. Yep wenn SFz2 MTEL OIT =>VES FF; 2 Aovormette.CeOCnseawee Fon. Cz Z.f/f LF, Zo Fr. =Ze.Ge Fz LKcse/25 7. Project:Contract.No. Subject:Sheet No. --of ___.YA S2esu Suyecu. By:Date:Checked:Date:TAG Dote:PA:Date: LPL LAME ce)FE.Dew ttlwo tors ZE o?Za”i a So%<- ;os Ss S-Zo Fo = oo o 2°f=GOT z= (ouew)O°=12.5 Go Vo z= -7oO°0 >oC SO Fea Za --Zoe 4,'>"0 fx Go Po =a --Zo?--ad sc2 Fo a/,_Zoe _-s --2s Ps 7((Se MEH}237 Ss S7.@ Go 2 Zz 72°Y2"-- =ba V2 a -_--°a 3s-S-es o -_=> la 7?a _--- Severus.Fo Are wortHek -VEC eee Locer Ss SwmrEe We YPLEAES Zin,-o CBw vrrres.d So Po =- - (PDD!FE?KY Zee Aro Laer &SVWESEC Lor ,e Jr Zleae FE LB Gorm(+22 wen )Sol°Are DeF SEP Stetwo 2&60%=z St.Derwa-Te Alea v7 ona E--_user.Moonee SI -A7E AEP LACE LEOpy ss wo LAAE We VEsow0 Sevrs Sta Kens er. Co ee Eva (72.mea 77 am° Oo *- -_ -- Pao are E-4 Seti ZS o's we Utne EGeRr Dan) -_ -_ Sono C-Vr 1 OZ 4 ZDwe, Project:SF LlEctLe LawSz ae ov KsFd Oki Te Contract.No. SOSISEH}/Subject:Sheet No. SOcpore Fe foveworgel-LuvsPr __of __ &Date:Checked:Dote:TALE Dote:P A:Date:Med OEE 2s'iaOrrew,Cre.DPrawe,SAE Lev een SHAN Soo 7, @ovo --7 Foo £77 CCD (220 FI, (¢070 FT. SrT2.Keaar _emyeenw 6.Sewn (Bers Henne Wes "DHerna” 19.76 FT. 3JG.S7 £7. 160 Fs, Ca.0/Yr. SIPOP fer.Pepoira¢?, ae 90 oes SI P25 #&60,27285 = So/+ZS H+S77 =S/FZS+IC.S7 =S./+ZS AS56660 = S.A 4AZSH SE.0/= Sul #2ZS4¢S/F-09= 10.28 Yer,peace ¥O.F8 Y?.BE CE.67 SE.70 44 he CYA LP TU DRYDEN &LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE -ENSTAR ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake RTS =31,500 01/17/91 AREA =.7264 DIAMETER =1.1080 WEIGHT =1.0940 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO.1-537 (RECORD =3) SPAN =400.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP._ICE WIND CONST.SAG JENSION _SAG JENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 .00 3.46 6334.3.08 7115. -10.0 .00 -0 .00 3.75 5831.3.27 6701. 0 =.00 0 .00 4.08 5371.3.47 6300.* 0 .50 4.0 .30 6.22 8074.5.96 8427. -0 1.00 4.0 .00 7.53 10268.7.53 10268. 10.0 .00 .0 =.00 4.42 4958.3.70 5915. 20.0 .00 0 =.00 4.77 4589.3.94 5549. 30.0 .00 °36.9 .00 8.03 8927.7.82 9170. 32.0 .00 0 .00 5.21 4204.4.26 5139. 32.0 .50 .O .00 6.66 6301.6.08 6895. 40.0 .00 0 .00 5.51 3978.4.48 4884. 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 6.44 3812.5.35 4588. 90.0 .00 0 =.00 7.21 3039.6.02 3638. 120.0 .00 0 .00 7.70 2848.6.98 3140. 167.0 .00 0 .00 8.46 2592.8.42 2605. SPAN =600.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP._ICE WIND CONST.SAG JENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT © -20.0 .00 0 =.00 8.30 5939 7.11 6925. -10.0 .00 0 =.00 8.78 5616 7.46 6604. -0 .00 0 .00 9.26 5323 7.82 6300.* 0 .50 4.0 .30 12.45 9087 11.90 9506. -0 1.00 4.0 00 8614.47 12034 14.47 12034. 10.0 .00 0 00 9.75 5058 8.20 6013. 20.0 .00 0 00 =610.23 4819 8.58 5742. 30.0 .00 36.9 00 8615.08 10712 14.77 10940. 32.0 .00 0 0O 8610.81 4561 9.06 5441. 32.0 .50 0 00 12.94 7301 11.93 7913. 40.0 .00 0 00 )§=611.20 4405 9.38 5254. 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 12.43 4450.10.63 5201. 90.0 .00 0 .00 13.50 3657.11.45 4307. 120.0 -.00 0 00 14.17 3484 12.69 3890. 167.0 .00 0 00 15.17 3256 14.55 3395.DatadpetbetbeetNDetA)tdGDADeteteee.°.*e.e°e°eolcoroteeesDDD*eo8©©©©©©©©©or©rag DRYDEN &LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE -ENSTAR ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake RTS =31,500 01/17/91 AREA =.7264 DIAMETER =1.1080 WEIGHT =1.0940 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO.1-537 (RECORD =3) SPAN =800.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP__ICE WIND CONST.SAG JENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 .00 15.11 5805.12.95 6765. -10.0 .00 0 .00 15.69 "§589.13.43 6526. 0 =.00 0 .00 16.27 5390.13.91 6300.* 0 .50 4.0 .30 20.32 9910.19.42 10369. 0 1.00 4.0 .00 23.02 13469.23.02 13469. 10.0 .00 0 .00 16.85 5206.14.40 6087. 20.0 .00 0 .00 17.42 5036.14.90 5885. 30.0 .00 36.9 .00 23.70 12137.23.27 12357.32.0 .00 0 .00 18.10 4849.15.49 5660. 32.0 .50 0 .00 20.82 8077.19.32 8698. 40.0 .00 0 .00 18.54 4733.15.89 5518. 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 20.01 4920.17.44 5639. 90.0 .00 0 .00 21.22 4140.18.38 4776. 120.0 .00 0 .00 22.14 3970.19.83 4427. 167.0 .00 0 .00 23.33 3768.22.04 3988. SPAN =1000.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP._ICE WIND CONST.SAG JENSION SAG JENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 .00 23.73 5780.20.62 6647. -10.0 .00 0 .00 24.38 5626.21.19 6469. 0 .00 0 .00 25.03 5482.21.76 6300.* .50 4.0 .30 29.79 10577.28.49 11057. 0 1.00 4.0 .00 33.11 14649.33.11 14649. 10.0 .00 0 .00 25.67 5347.22.33 6139. 20.0 .00 0 .00 26.30 5219.22.91 5987. 30.0 .00 36.9 .00 33.84 13298.33.30 13512. 32.0 .00 0 .00 27.04 5076.23.59 5814. 32.0 .50 0 .00 30.28 8689.28.25 9307. °40.0 .00 0 .00 27.54 4986.24.05 5705. 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 29.18 5276.25.84 5954. 90.0 .00 0 .00 30.50 4506.26.85 5113. 120.0 .00 0 .00 31.61 4350.28.49 4821. 167.0 .00 0 .00 32.97 4171.30.97 4438.ttstttNDbtOta)BDetete.°°°°cd°e..eolfee]>bteedetateeNDttGDtta)INDetet.eee°e°o.°ee.eeonCoaiq- DRYDEN &LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE -ENSTAR ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake RTS =31,500 01/17/91 AREA =.7264 DIAMETER =1.1080 WEIGHT =1.0940 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO.1-537 (RECORD=3) SPAN =1200.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP._ICE WIND CONST.SAG IJENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 OO .00 34.11 5798.30.10 6564.1.0940 -10.0 .00 0 .00 34.81 5683.30.74 6429.1.0940 0 .00 0 .00 35.50 5573.31.37 6300.*1.0940 0 .50 4.0 30 40.86 11120.39.13 11607 2.5089 0 1.00 4.0 00 44.76 15630.44.76 15630 3.8581 10.0 .00 0 00 8636.18 5469.32.00 6177 1.0940 20.0 .00 0 00 36.86 5370.32.63 6059 1.0940 30.0 .00 36.9 00 45.52 14258.44.86 14465 3.5784 32.0 .00 0 00 37.66 5257.33.38 5923 1.0940 32.0 .50 0 00 41.33 9179.38.74 9784 2.0942 40.0 .00 0 00 38.18 5185.33.88 5837 1.0940 60.0 .00 6.0 00 39.98 5553.35.86 6185 1.2263 90.0 .00 0 00 8641.38 4789.36.93 5359 1.0940 120.0 .00 0 00 42.62 4651.38.72 5114 1.0940 167.0 .00 0 00 44.14 4494,41.43 4783 1.0940 Project:Contract.No.: H//LZ ALE LLL.LE DHOLLTE BQSELESubject:Sheet No. Soneae TeLine leey Lr ofBy:Date:Checked:Date:TA.Date:PA:Date:VM"?fafa waaEval|SAFLALIES<i.as'\APP?AD,EC,Zap,Sas (PasHemie Nesn (""Lrza04se” Ever #5 care Soo Kr = Goo Fr.= Son Fr = 10cm FX = (Zon Por = FCO Fr = S035 Por, Z2/.SS &F, SF.S@ Fr. GO,6Z Fr. &B8.07 Fr. 424.17 For, SZ.LEELG ot F (we STarre) RKwerwa SPA Soo Fr. Conan Fr, Fo-D Fr,0 ODD Fn, "Zco nr A Yoo FT. Sul PSSRKS ZSSolr200%255° SLA r 2S A 373.857 eo ee "s "” +e PR ara' Zin.flee Ee ae, SS ES S765 S8-oZ Sw/e ZS +66,62Z2-=Fo.72 Sol we 20°xe Y2N/7=7 S7-27 wipwwefz' $2' es' if?709 152° DRYDEN &LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE -TESORO ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake AREA =.7264 DIAMETER =1.1080 RTS =31,500 WEIGHT =1.0940 01/17/91 STRESS STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO.1-537 (RECORD =3) SPAN =400.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND CONST. -20.0 .00 0 -10.0 .00 0 0 .00 0 0 .50 4.0 0 2.00 4.0 10.0 .00 0 20.0 .00 0 30.0 .00 36.9 32.0 .00 0 32.0 .50 0 40.0 .00 0 60.0 .00 6.0 90.0 .00 0 120.0 .00 0 167.0 .00 0 SPAN =600.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND CONST. -20.0 .00 0 -10.0 .00 0 0 .00 0 0 .50 4.0 0 2.00 4.0 10.0 .00 0 20.0 .00 0 30.0 .00 36.9 32.0 .00 0 32.0 .50 0 40.0 .00 0 60.0 .00 6.0 90.0 .00 0 120.0 .00 0 167.0 .00 0 On™ EED"IMLOOOOF&IOOTSAG FINAL TENSION 4541. 4221. 3940. 6814. 15903.ll. 3694, 3478. 7912. 3368. 5319. 3304. 3371. 2949. 2768. 2526. E -10 INITIAL SAG TENSION 3.08 7115. 3.27 6701. 3.47 6300.* 5.96 8427 1.35 15903. 3.70 5915. 3.94 5549. 7.82 9170. 4.26 5139, 6.08 6895 4.48 4884. 5.35 4588. 6.02 3638. 6.98 3140. 8.42 2605. INITIAL SAG TENSION 8.15 6046. 8.53 5775. 8.93 5522. 2.76 8872. 1.55 18900.* 9.33 5284. 9.74 5064 5.53 10405 0.23 4820 2.87 7341 0.56 4669. 1.77 4700. 2.62 3910. 3.82 3572. 5.61 3164. WEIGHT .0940 .0940 .0940 5089 -9894 .0940 .0940 9784 .0940 .0942 .0940 -2263 .0940 .0940 .0940btotot8NDPRGW)bttt00NDWEIGHT .0940 .0940 .0940 5089 9894 .0940 .0940 5784 .0940 -0942 .0940 -2263 .0940 .0940 .0940thbetetTObeOD)be00POFS DRYDEN &LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE -TESORO ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake RTS =31,500 01/17/91 AREA =.7264 DIAMETER =1.1080 WEIGHT =1.0940 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO.1-537 (RECORD =3) SPAN =800.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND CONST.SAG TENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT 20.0 .00 0 .00 29.52 2986.25.72 3421.1.0940 -10.0 .00 0 .00 29.75 2964.26.13 3368.1.0940 0 =.00 0 .00 29.97 2942.26.53 3318.1.0940 0 .50 4.0 30 32.64 6204.29.28 6904 2.5089 .0 2.00 4.0 00 38.52 18900.38.52 18900.*8.9894 10.0 .00 0 00 30.20 2920.26.93 3269 1.0940 20.0 .00 0 00 30.42 2899.27.33 3223 1.0940 30.0 .00 36.9 00 34.79 8311.31.97 9032 3.5784 32.0 .00 0 00 30.69 2874.27.80 3169 1.0940 32.0 .50 0 00 33.30 5077.29.65 5692 2.0942 40.0 .00 0 00 30.87 2858.28.11 3134 1.0940 60.0 .00 6.0 00 831.73 3118.29.11 3394 1.2263 90.0 .00 0 00 31.96 2762.29.99 2940 1.0940 120.0 .00 0 00 32.60 2708.31.08 2839 1.0940 167.0 .00 0 00 33.59 2630.32.73 2698 1.0940 SPAN =1000.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND CONST.SAG TENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 00 51.68 2684.48.44 2858 1.0940 -10.0 .00 0 00 8 51.89 2673.48.80 2838 1.0940 0 .00 0 00 52.11 2662.49.17 2817 1.0940 0 .50 4.0 30 54.75 5820.51.39 6188 2.5089 .0 2.00 4.0 0O 60.62 18900.60.62 18900.*8.9894 10.0 .00 0 00 52.33 2651.49.52 2797 1.0940 20.0 .00 0 0O 52.55 2641.49.88 2778 1.0940 30.0 .00 36.9 00 56.83 8006.53.91 8426 3.5784 32.0 .00 0 00 52.81 2628.50.31 2755 1.0940 32.0 .50 .0 00 55.42 4800.51.83 5123 2.0942 40.0 .00 .0 00 52.98 2620.50.59 2740 1.0940 60.0 .00 6.0 00 53.79 2893.51.49 3019 1.2263 90.0 .00 0 00 54.05 2570.52.33 2652 1.0940 120.0 .00 0 00 54.68 2541.53.35 2602 1.0940 167.0 .00 0 00 55.66 2498.54.91 2530 1.0940 E-11 DRYDEN &LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE -TESORO ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake AREA =.7264 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO.1-537 (RECORD =3) SPAN =1200.0 DESIGN POINTS ICE WIND CONST.TEMP -10.wOo°eryo8e@°gooO000000000000DIAMETER =1.1080 SAG RTS =31,500 01/17/91 WEIGHT =1.0940 FINAL TENSION E-12 INITIAL SAG TENSION 23 2639. 57 2628. 9]2616. 91 5855. 07 18900.* 25 2605. 98 2595. 30 8116. 99 2582. 36 4860. 26 2573. 10 2855. 92 2522 90 2493 41 2449 WEIGHT OtbendetettetFDttCA)bttt0)INDet.0940 .0940 .0940 -5089 -9894 .0940 .0940 5784 .0940 0942 .0940 2263 .0940 .0940 .0940 Contract.No.Project: |H]}4iasha Enger flerweesry |BOSESubject:Sheet No. Bed Ly De Pores LelaelalBpbFr of __ l &By:Date:Checked:Date:TAS Date:P A:Date: AEILf?Zefn £2 |4 Zw sl F0es cfDae 2 Wad & |"\['ol us anrd 6 Pow Zrsee, R Fw SPS=S757 - | \j SR aerwnkhe =Fan”3 Aa4§Go.75°\K OD |0 SOG FTF | |y OSCE!SO Fr, ---eace, NIN|N | Z.AZuvvwn Swe |CPS Aeawe Gasz-"neonac >) ZZerres S997 A) |Yoo ---r.=ChO2S Fri Frrdte Com CL IPA Fr,oe FoD Bar.=F7,.28 =r,” |fOoa Fr.=SG64 Fr ”Yoon FF =ESF Fr ”PS OD FO,= 12.00 FF." CO.Aer awe.S92.LEY GAT (4a yYsyarie ») Zxwerws S720 itn."tard.S72. |S22 AF,PHoEAPRZS RINSE =HYP IPC SO"Gov 7,SEI A+ZSH 2o9¥=SF O¢=GO'SOO FT,Fr QOl eZ+77.28 =PS7FB=FB'|SITIO 7-27,FERS FEZSHPSECY =GPETHF HP?'AZAD 4=7,ER SSP 2ZS H+EEE =(Z3.24F=fZ2¢0AYCO"7.Str S/P2SFr /S706 SSE OSE E -13 SUBSTATION ASSUMPTIONS ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HEALY TO FORT WAINWRIGHT 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE CONDUCTOR CARDINAL 954.0 KCMIL 54/7 STRANDING ACSR -- REA=-8462 SQ.IN. DATA FROM CHART NO.1-838 NGLISH UNITS PAN=400.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING REEP IS NOT A FACTOR x DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20.50 4.00 .00 2.398 6.62 7260.5.19 9245. 0.2.00 4.00 .00 9.343 11.25 16672.11.25 16672. 0..50 4.00 .30 2.698 7.50 7209.6.01 8988. 0..00 12.50 .00 1.750 6.53 5371.4.63 7569. 0.2.00R 4.00 .00 6.621 10.05 13222.9.56 13897. 32..50 2.00 .00 2.313 8.11 5719.6.25 7409. 32..50 .00 .00 2.284 8.08 5664.6.21 7361. 32..00 57.60 .00 5.871 10.38 11357.9.56 12316. 32..00 36.00 .00 3.793 9.20 8267.7.88 9644. 60..00 6.00 .00 1.367 8.14 3367.5.61 4878. 120,-00-90+00--00 9054 1344 43553,-___12,34 34382, -70..00 .00 .00 1.229 3.40 7238.2.45 10029. -20..00 .00 .00 1.229 5.08 4842.3.21 7657. 0..00 .00 .00 1.229 5.83 4219.3.64 6760.% 32.00 .00 .00 1.229 7.02 3507.4.48 5485. 60..00 .00 .00 1.229 7.99 3083.5.36 4590. 90.00 .00 .00 1.229 8.46 2913.6.37 3866. 167.00 .00 .00 1.229 9.65 2555.8.87 2778. -.RIME ICE/WET SNOW E-14 SPAN=600.0 FEET 'REEP IS NOT A FACTOR x DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20.-50 4.00 -00 2.398 14.12 7668.10.80 10012. QO.2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 20.94 20209.20.94 20209. QO.-50 4.00 -30 2.698 15.28 7976.12.05 10097. 0.-00 12.50 -00 1.750 13.95 5662.9.81 8037. 0.2-00R 4.00 -00 6.621 19.06 15720.17.96 16673. 32.-50 2.00 -00 2.313 15.98 6536.12.26 8507. 32.-50 -00 -00 2.284 15.95 6468.12.20 8442. 32.-00 57.60 -00 5.871 19.38 13706.17.73 14973. 32.-00 36.00 -00 3.793 .17.59 9748.14.90 11489. 60.-00 6.00 -00 1.367 15.60 3957.11.08 5561. -i20.--_.-00--_90.00--_00 __9_05 4--_-23.-7 4-__17304,BOD Ba -70.-00 -00 -00 1.229 9.70 5707.5.90 9382. -20.-90 00 -00 1.229 12.14 4566.7.44 7437. 0.-00 -00 -00 1.229 13.07 4242.8.19 6760.* 32.-00 -00 -00 1.229 14.50 3827.9.49 5833. 60.-00 00 -00 1.229 15.12 3669.10.70 5177. 90.-00 -00 -00 1.229 15.73 3528.12.01 4616. 167.-00 00 -00 1.229 17.27 3216.15.22 3646. 2 RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN=800.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING 'REEP IS NOT A FACTOR «DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN,POINTS FINAL INITIAL 'TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20.-50 4.00 -00 2.398 30.37 6367.26.40 7311. QO.2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 37.28 20280.37.28 20280.* QO.-50 4.00 30 2.698 31.47 6916.27.70 7844. QO.-00 12.50 -00 1.750 30.37 4645.25.89 5438. QO.2-00R 4.00 -00 6.621 35.19 15209.33.70 15867. 32.-50 2.00 -00 2.313 32.24 5790.28.19 6608. 32.-50 -00 -00 2.284 32.20 5722.28.14 6536. 32.-00 57.60 -00 5.871 35.57 13344.33.51 14146. 32.-0O0 36.00 -00 3.793 33.73 9081.30.57 10003. 60.-00 6.00 -00 1.367 31.56 3493.27.61 3985. -i20.-_ 00-90.00--..00_-_9,054 __-40,45------3.8.1.4.8.39,49--__3 858.5 _ -70.-00 -00 -00 1.229 26.72 3702.21.56 4578. -20.-00 -00 -00 1.229 28.89 3427.23.88 4137. QO.-00 -00 -00 1.229 29.72 3333.24.78 3988. 32. 00 -00 -00 1.229 30.51 3248.26.18 3778. 60.-00 -00 -00 1.229 31.12 3185.27.36 3616. 90.-00 -00 -00 1.229 31.76 3122.28.59 3462. 167.-00 -00 -00 1.229 33.38 2973.31.60 3137. -.RIME ICE/WET SNOW HEAVY LOADING E-15 SPAN=1000.0 FEET 'REEP IS NOT A FACTOR t DESIGN CONDITION HEAVY LOADING DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20.-50 4.00 -00 2.398 51.78 5872.47.84 6343. 0.2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 58.64 20280.58.64 20280.* 0.-50 4.00 -30 2.698 52.83 6480.49.04 6966. oO.-00 12.50 00 1.750 51.84 4280.47.55 4656. 0.2.00R 4.00 -00 6.621 56.45 14911.54.76 15357. 32.50 2.00 »00 2.313 53.60 5476.49.60 5905. 32.-50 -00 -00 2.284 53.57 5410.49.56 5836. 32.-00 57.60 -00 5.871 56.86 13130.54.61 13651. 32.-00 36.00 -00 3.793..55.02 8755.51.73 9294. 60.-00 6.00 -00 1.367 52.83 3282.49.25 3513. 120.009000 fale!9 O54 62.03 18618 6-130---18891-,--- -70.-00 -00 -00 1.229 48.52 3206.43.84 3540. -20.00 00 -00 1.229 50.50 3083.45.90 3385. 0.-00 -00 -00 1.229 51.11 3048.46.70 3328. 32.-00 -00 -00 1.229 51.80 3008.47.97 3242. 60.-00 00 -00 1.229 52.41 2974.49.05 3172. 90.-00 00 -00 1.229 53.05 2939.50.20 3102. 167.-00 -00 00 1.229 54.67 2855.53.04 2940. RIME ICE/WET SNOW 'PAN=1200.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING REEP IS NOT A FACTOR -DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL |INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20.-50 4.00 -00 2.398 78.34 5636.74.47 5916. 0.2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 85.14 20280.85.14 20280.* 0.50 4.00 -30 2.698 79.35 6263.75.59 6561. 0.-00 12.50 -00 1.750 78.42 4108.74.26 4328. 0.2.-00R 4.00 -00 6.621 82.90 14741.81.09 15054. 32.50 2.00 -00 2.313 80.13 5319.76.19 5582. 32.-50 -00 -00 2.284 80.10 5254.76.15 5515. 32.-00 57.60 -00 5.871 83.32 13008.80.98 13366. 32.-00 36.00 -00 3.793 81.50 8582.78.17 8930. 60.-00 6.00 -00 1.367 79.30 3174.75.93 3309. 42-O-y v-OO-9.0.0.0 __0.0 9-5 A -BB gan BD)Sag a Bo pa EGG 70.»00 00 -00 1.229 75.26 3001.70.89 3179. -20.-00 -00 -00 1.229 77.16 2930.72.77 3100. 0.-00 -00 -00 1.229 77.62 2914.73.52 3069. 32.00 -00 -00 1.229 78.30 2889.74.72 3022. 60.-00 -00 -00 1.229 78.90 2868.75.75 2982. 90.-00 -00 -00 1.229 79.54 2846.76.84 2942. 167.-00 -00 -00 1.229 81.15 2792.79.60 2844. RIME ICE/WET SNOW E -16 Alaska Energy Authority December 10,1990 To:Del LaRue Reve Dryden &LaRue From:Dick Emerman Alaska Energy Authority<-i'\ Subject:Healy-Fairbanks Intertie Cost Estimate --SVS and Transformer Additions As we discussed when you began work on this project,the proposed upgrade cf the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie consists of both a new 138 kV Healy-Fairbanks line plus additional SVS and related equipment. Power Technologies,Inc.(PTI)was engaged by the Authority to develop the feasibility level specification of the equipment additions.These additions,including location and size,are shown below along with PTI's initial estimate of capital cost: SVS SVS SVS Auto Transfmr Station Total Size $/Cost Transfmr Cost Cost Cost Location Mvar Kvar M$MVA M$M$M$ FWainwright 40.0 80.0 3.2 3.2 Healy 52.0 80.0 4.2 4.2 11.0 64.0 0.7 0.7 Teeland 60.0 80.0 4.8 112.0 2.0 0.4 7.2 48.0 64.0 3.1 3.1 Totals 211.0 16.0 112.0 2.0 0.4 18.4 PTI made the following cost assumptions: SVS with transformer ($/kvar):$80 SVS w/o transformer ($/kvar):$64 E -20 Please add this configuration of SVS and transformer additions to the proposed Anchorage-Fairbanks upgrade for purposes of your independent cost estimate. Also,please note the following comment written by Steve Haagenson in response to the PTI report: "In discussion with Marty Gustafson of Stone &Webster,the cost of the Kenai SVS's will be in the neighborhood of $100/KVAR. These units are on the street for bid in the near future,and will be very close in price to the SVS's proposed on the northern end of the line.Marty's phone number is (303)741-7908 if you would like to verify this SVS cost estimate number." PTI's budget is used up,so they did not follow up on the suggestion. However,their reply is basically as follows: "Our estimate was based on a doubling of the hardware cost estimates quoted by manufacturers.We were given $40 per kvar and doubled this to $80 per kvar (with transformer).I'm not sure assuming installation cost to be 150%of hardware cost makes sense,but I may be underestimating installation costs in Alaska." E -21