Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Teeland Douglas meeting line meeting notes 2008
e . .aMAT-SU Borough Planning M _|C2?le ®8/22/08,Page 1 jol* Meeting Notes ;ing Bel )Melee Praver,IES SUBJECT:Teeland -Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project DATE:October 23,2008 TIME:12:30PM.-1:45PM. LOCATION:Kinnley's Restaurant (Lunch meeting) MEETING ATTENDANCE:Mr.David Heier,MSB Land &Resource Manager,745-9579. Michael Travis,TPECI The purpose of the meeting was to seek Mr.David Heier's opinion of the Teeland -Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project joining the Alaska Railroad Commission (ARRC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)process.The project is considering following the ARRC spur route.In addition,the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)is proposing to acquire up to 300 feet additional right-of-way (ROW)for future transmission lines.Michael Travis showed Mr. Heier the proposed ARRC routes and the AEA letter to Mr.Doug Hall that expands the scope of the Teeland-Douglas project and requests a utility corridor that will incorporate 200 to 300 feet of ROW for future expansion. Mr.Heier replied that if our project injected itself into the ARRC EIS process,we would seriously jeopardize their project schedule.He said that the Matanuska-Sustina Borough (MSB) originally considered an 800-foot ROW for the ARRC spur.The additional ROW would accommodate future roads and utilities.However,the federal lead agency for the EIS,the Surface Transportation Board (STB),told the MSB that a ROW of that width that may contain other linear facilities will generate more pubic controversy and larger land use impacts than the ARRC ROW.The STB mandated a ROW width of 200 feet to contain the railroad spur.The ROW width is predicated on containing a head-on train collision.Based on the STB directive, the MSB retreated from their 800-foot proposal and accepted the 200-foot ROW. Mr.Heier said that the MSB just hired HDR to acquire ROW for the ARRC staging area close to the port.MSB is planning to start purchasing ROW for the entire spur in June,2009. Mr.Heier told me to remember that the ARRC Spur is a MSB project.The Borough got the federal funds to build the project.The ARRC will operate it.He said that the MSB would view the AEA project negatively if AEA asked to be included in their EIS process;especially if AEA does not have legislative intent for following the railroad spur. Mr.Heier said the Borough had many parcels of land in the Point MacKenzie area.He said that if AEA project followed the Chugach Electric Association transmission line,the MSB could assist AEA in acquiring ROW and the land needed to site a new substation (switch yard)by Lake Lorraine.Mr.Heier recommended that AEA complete the project as Mr.Travis and Ms.Kim Robinson presented to the MSB Planning Department on August 22,2008.He said that after the project completes the Tier II Essential Services process,AEA can always amend the project findings.By that time,the STB EIS process would be complete and AEA could evaluate the chosen railroad route. Mr.Heier said that he knew Mr.James Strandberg of AEA and he would be very comfortable writing Mr.Strandberg a letter explaining the MSB position.Mr.Travis thanked Mr.Heier for his time and asked him not to correspond with AEA until he receives an official notification asking him for his input. Q ALASKA INTERTIE OPERATING COMMITTEE SPECIAL TELECONFERENCE MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY,SEPTEMBER 23,2008 PRESENT:Henri Dale Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)-lOC Chair Tuckerman Babcock Alaska Electric Generation &Transmission (AEG&T) Kevin Dunham Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Doug Hall Anchorage Municipal Light &Power (AMLP) Jim Strandberg Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Burke Wick Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Don Zoerb Alaska Electric Generation &Transmission (AEG&T) RECORDER:Donna Rose Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) 10C Chair,Henri Dale,called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. TALKEETNA RIVER TOWER REPAIR (Tower #'s 194 &195)Henri Dale,IOC Chair called to order a special teleconference meeting to review Dryden &LaRue'sengineeringoptionstorepairtowers194&195.Committee discussed the advantages anddisadvantagesofoption4,7,7A,7B and 7C.Concerhs regarding :short-term/temporary repair vs.permanent/long-term repair,permitting issues and.Costs were discussed.An option needs to bedeterminedsoworkcanbecompletedthiswinterseas: Option 7C allows for the use of the existing towers::to have sheet piling built up around them,leaving thetowerswheretheyare.Most Committee members.believethisis the most simplistic and cost effectiverepairandshouldlastwellintothefutureAMLPagreed,although with some concern.AEA noted thatownerwillbefairlystringentondesigncriteria.Requirements will be code compliant,but a little more isbetterthanjustbeingcompliant.maa weCommitteeunanimouslyagieed upon |option 7C. "he ¥Discussion moved to project management.GVEAis okay with the southern utilities taking the lead on theprojectduetologistics.Committee'agreed,butis unsure of what utility this will be yet.This will bedecideduponinthenearfuture."+” AEA will move ahead with Term Agreement,Contract documentation and bid process.Documentation will be shared with Committee. ADJOURN 9:40 a.m. Oo Teeland/Douglas Transmission Line Public Hearing 6:00 p.m.Wednesday,August 6,2008 Wasilla Sports Complex AGENDA I.Introduction and Procedure:Louis Agi a.Nature and Purpose of Hearing b.Future Public Involvement Schedule c.Hearing Procedure II.Presentation of Project:Del LaRue a.Project Purpose and Need b.Methodology for Route Selection c.Preferred Route Ill.Public Comment a.Name and community provided with each comment IV.Adjournment at 8:00 p.m. Teeland/Douglas Team Members in Attendance: Alaska Energy Authority:Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting: Jim Strandberg Michael Travis Dryden and LaRue,Inc:Municipal Light and Power: Del LaRue Louis Agi Frank Bettine Doug Hall Kim Robinson o NEWSLETTER of the KNIK-WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT July 2008 J.Introduction 7 if Notice of Public Hearing f DOUGLAS SUBSTATION ie August 6,20084)6:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m.i -Wasilla Sports Complex 4 Houston |Rooms |and 2NY1001S.Mack Drive poousiina Wasilla Alaska 'TEELAND SUBSTATIO a"ES The public is invited to attend oe and provide testimony on the Knik-Willow Transmission KNIK-GOOSE BAY RD Line Project| ilet i anennee_ This Newsletter shares the current status of the Knik-Willow Transmission Line Project that will build approximately 25 miles of new electrical transmission line between the Teeland (Knik)and Douglas (Willow)substations for the Alaska Intertie.Constructed in the mid-1980s,the 170-mile Intertie is owned by the State of Alaska through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).The Intertie constitutes the essential infrastructure permitting bulk energy transfers between Fairbanks and Anchorage. The Project will provide the Intertie with a 230 kilovolt (kV)link,the minimum size in the balance of the Intertie,to replace approximately 25 miles of transmission line that includes a 20-mile span of 115 kV line owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and a five-mile segment of 138 kV line in which AEA and MEA both have ownership interests and share use.The MEA 20-mile span had historically been leased to AEA for Intertie purposes and jointly used,but MEA declined to renew the lease and desires its return for local use only. Thus,the Project will return MEA's span and complete the Intertie as a facility exclusively dedicated to bulk energy transfers at a greater potential carrying capacity,also offering greater efficiency,reliability and safety.The new line will be energized at only 138 kV,the current operating voltage of the Intertie,but building to the higher standard now realizes economies that would be lost if the greater capacity were to be built at a later time when growing demand should require the capacity increase. Project Newsletter July 2008 Page 1 of 6 oO Through the spring and early summer of this year,the Project team has been conducting meetings with community stakeholders and open houses for the community at large concerning the Project.The sessions all commenced with the Project Team presenting the nature and history of the Intertie,and then the routing study that had been done in 2004 and resulted in an initial array of potential routes including a preferred route at that time.The Team answered questions on all aspects of the Project and solicited input from the stakeholders and public at large concerning the precise choices for routing of the new line. These meetings and open houses,twelve all told,were conducted as part of the Public Involvement Plan filed by the Project team with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.The last meeting scheduled in the Plan is a formal public hearing to be held on August 6,2008 in the Wasilla Sports Complex,at Rooms 1 and 2,between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM.This hearing will be devoted to receiving formal public testimony addressing the Project's line choices.This meeting is being noticed by media advertising and direct mailing to stakeholders. The following sections of this Newsletter will again review briefly the initial array of line choices and basic supporting considerations.A summary of the discussions from the meetings and open houses is presented,followed by a statement of our preliminary routing selection .The material presented will hopefully provide a useful background for persons desiring to testify at the August 6 hearing. Following the hearing,the Project team will consider the material presented throughout the public process including the hearing,conduct further technical work as may be necessary to insure route feasibility such as additional permitting and right of way review,undertake preparation of a preliminary line design,and update our work for late developments including the funding needs and progress on potentially related Intertie matters.At the conclusion of this process the Project team will present a decisional document containing its formal recommendation to the AEA on final selection of routing and line design for the Intertie's Knik-Willow segment. The present expectation is for the decisional document to be completed in the late fall,and it will be made available at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/under the Teeland-Douglas Intertie Upgrade Project. Notice of the document's availability will be distributed to the community. As a final administrative note in this section,the Project is being conducted under a Project Management contract from AEA to Municipal Light and Power (ML&P),the Intertie's southern administrator.ML&P has retained the engineering firm of Dryden &LaRue (D&L)as its prime subcontractor,which firm had also conducted 2004 initial route study.D&L has retained Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting (TPEC)for the Project's environmental permitting work and for assistance with the public involvement process. For more project information please visit www.drydenlarue.com/07-0263/.Further comments can be directed to either of the following persons: Michael D.Travis,P.E.,Public Involvement Coordinator Del LaRue,P.E.,Project Engineer Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc.Dryden and LaRue,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite]102 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 201 Anchorage,AK 99503 Anchorage,AK 99503 Phone:(907)522-4337;Fax:(907)522-4313 Phone:(907)349-6653;Fax:(907)552-2534 E-mail:mtravis@tpeci.com E-mail:dlarue@drydenlarue.com Project Newsletter July 2008 Page 2 of 6 Oo II.2004 Route Study SP RR So be ALASKA INTERTIE UPGRADE STUDY =<-f-ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 2 ===©=©MEA PARALLELROUTE(M) ee aes ROADWAY ROUTE (H) ecemeerereseesers ALASKA RAILROAD ROUTE (A) -se amsea=CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (C) 1-7 TYaeeee A at =. o>H Hn *rai oe : Lge oe |H ae.a Sia ee aa aay &. . s 1 =a I a +a LA = , 7 Ail i . = a PALS reas ve i=cy { pt Fe Se 5=- :'Skomau o --%4 :4 >f pa i ed »To Le == *A clear view of all graphs and tables can be found at www.drydenlarue.com/07-0263/ In 2004,D&L under contract to AEA prepared an initial route analysis study for the Knik-Willow Transmission Line Project.D&L developed the conceptual design of the line,as well as cost estimates for construction and acquisition of rights of way for each route.TPEC identified environmental issues and permits required for each route.Four possible transmission routes were identified;AARC (or existing railroad)Route,Cross Country Route,Highway Route and the MEA Parallel Route.All segments except the Cross Country Route are adjacent to an existing linear facility such as aroadway. 'Three options that entailed upgrading the existing transmission line were also considered in the study,but they all involved discontinuing transmission service over the Intertie during the line's construction.Those options are not being investigated at this time as current economics indicate they are no longer feasible,as the price of such discontinuance of transmission service would be in the $15 to $17 million range for each year of the year or more required for construction. Project Newsletter July 2008 Page 3 of 6 oO EVALUATION CRITERIA: QUALITATIVE DATA >Visual Impacts Public Safety Existing Facilities Construction Impacts Land Use Conflicts Terrain Obstacles Minimal Distance and Clearing Environmental ImpactsVVVVVVV QUANTITATIVE DATA Costs for: >Construction >Engineering >Easements >Permits 2008 Public Involvement Table Route comparison involved arranging the combined data into qualitative and quantitative criteria.Qualitative data included aspects that must be considered but are not easily amenable to objective measurement,such as land use conflicts,terrain obstacles,amount of land clearing required,environmental impacts,visual impacts,public safety,impacts on existing facilities,and construction impacts. Quantitative criteria were definitive and measurable data,including construction costs,engineering/owner and contingency costs,costs of acquiring permits and easements. Based on this methodology,a route was selected for initial recommendation that offered the lowest cumulative impacts and least estimated costs.The preferred route resulting from this analysis was the MEA Parallel Route. One or more copies of the 2004 study were provided at each of the community meetings,and a copy may be viewed on the Project website referenced at the end of the preceding section of this Newsletter. Ill.Public Involvement Date Action . Feb 20 Presented to City of Houston city officials Presented to Matanuska Susitna Borough officials March 7 Contacted Stakeholders to organize a meeting April 9 Presented to Meadow Lakes CC April 16 Presented to Stakeholders in Palmer Presented to Knik/Fairview Community Council (CC)board May 5 Presented to the Willow Area Civic Organization CC May 7 Presented at Knik/Fairview CC general membership meeting May 8 Presented to City of Houston Council May 29 Posted Fliers in Big Lake,Houston,Willow,Knik and Meadow Lakes communities June 11 Presented to Big Lake Community Council June 1,8,15 Published announcement in Anchorage Daily News and Frontiersman June 1-16 Aired radio announcements June 17 Open House at Willow Community Center Open House at Houston City Hall June 19 Open House at Settler's Bay Lodge Aug 6 Formal Public Hearing at Wasilla Sports Facility As reflected in the Public Involvement Table,the Project Team held scoping meetings with public officials,attended community council and city council meetings and held open house forums.In this process,the team received many questions and comments;both written and verbal. The transmission line project extends 25 miles between the Knik-Fairview community and the Willow community.The four potential routes may impact four community councils and one city.At one end of the project,near the Teeland Project Newsletter July 2008 Page 4 of6 Oo Substation (Knik),the MEA parallel route passes through several subdivisions of one-acre lots,and then heads north and west through larger tracts to the Douglas Substation (Willow)at the other end. Summary of Public Comments: Fourteen written comments or questions were received by the team.Comments and questions were voiced at the 12 meetings held between February 20 and June 19 in the communities affected.Following is a synopsis of those meetings based on the Teams impressions of the public sentiment..... A clear majority of comments recommended following the MEA parallel route because it would avoid disrupting undisturbed territory.An obvious preference was voiced to keep the utility corridor as narrow as possible to avoid infringing on neighboring properties. Several citizens recommended the cross country route,primarily to avoid the small-lot congested area around the Teeland Substation.One comment from a property owner on the cross country route near the Teeland Substation contradicted those recommendations and recommended the MEA parallel route over the cross country route since the properties on the MEA parallel route were already next to existing electric lines and an added line would have less negative impact than developing a new route.One comment from a meeting in Willow expressed concern that the cross country route would intrude on an existing dog mushing trail. The question asked most often was how much right-of-way will be needed and if additional right-of-way is needed,how it will be obtained.Many asked if the utility corridor could be used as a recreational trail.Another common question/suggestion was for the transmission line to be located within the new proposed railroad corridor from Willow to Pt.MacKenzie. Geographically,the Knik area seemed most concerned with how right-of-way would be obtained,and how much right-of- way.The Meadow Lakes Community Council adopted a resolution recommending the MEA parallel route,which effectively excluded that Community Council from impact by any of the four routes.The Big Lake Community Council, which is minimally impacted by the project,took no formal action,but seemed to prefer the MEA parallel route. The Houston and Willow areas voiced their preference for the MEA parallel route by submitting written comments and voicing their comments at public meetings.Several comments voiced preference for the utilities to work together andconstructasingle-tower line,to limit negative visual impact”and keep the utility corridor footprint as narrow as possible. The City of Houston and Willow Area Civic organization are still considering a joint resolution concerning the project. No position from those bodies is available to incorporate into this Newsletter. State and Borough elected officials attending presentations were Representative Neuman and Stoltz,Assemblymembers Woods,Bettine,Kluberton and Church.No formal comments were received from these officials* Matanuska Electric Association was notified of all meetings and invited to meet with the team.MEA representatives attended open house forums in Houston,Willow and Knik on June 17 and 19.The project team is schedule to make a presentation to the MEA Board of Directors on July 28.No official MEA position is included in this Newsletter. ?Burying the transmission line was discussed at several hearings.Information related to undergrounding is available on the Project website. 3 The team is complying with an existing Matanuska-Susitna Borough public involvement process ordinance. Project Newsletter July 2008 Page 5 of 6 Oo IV.Preliminary Decision The Project Team greatly appreciated the opportunity to present the Project before the many groups with which it met. People in attendance exhibited commendable patience in confronting and absorbing unfamiliar matters,and in turn frequently posed thought-provoking comments and questions. Having considered the discussions to date,the Project Team believes that the MEA Parallel Route is in the community's best interest.The factors that influenced that preference in the 2004 study remain and are valid today,and recognized in much of the community dialogue.This route takes best advantage of existing corridors,resulting in the least disturbance of property interests and the most minimal impact on aesthetic sensibilities. Although offering the smallest footprint,there are still questions concerning this route that have yet to be addressed in further study.However,no fatal obstacles appear present,and no superior routing choice has yet emerged. Accordingly,and subject to what may be developed at the August 6 hearing and/or may be revealed through later research,the preliminary decision of the Project team is that the MEA Parallel Route is the preliminary preferred selection for the Knik-Willow transmission line. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 102 Anchorage,Alaska 99508 Project Newsletter July 2008 Page 6 of 6 0 Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line:Public Comments and Public Meeting Notes As outlined in the public involvement plan,the Teeland-Douglas team held meetings with public officials,attended community council meetings and organized three public open house forums.During this time seventeen written public comments and a community resolution were received.These statements as well as all meeting notes are provided in this document. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Date:5/5/08 Name:Ted and Val Schachle Comment: We liked your presentation and given the information you provided,your proposal "as is”seems to be an exceptable plan. Thank you 2. Date:5/5/08 Name:Doyle E Holmes Comment: Use the existing MEA right of way and widen it if necessary.No new route is preferred. 3. Date:5/5/08 Name:Claire Fitzgerald Comment: The only route that makes sense is to follow the present MEA line. 4. Date:5/08/08 Name:Kelley Griffin Comment: Hello Kim, oO I attended the Knik-Fairview Community Council meeting last night,and I would like to be added to any informational mailing list you might have in regards to the inter-tie project from Teeland substation. Thank you, Kelley Griffin 5. Date:05/15/2008 Name:Bruno Bryner Comment: The new 25 mile segment of the transmission line (Intertie)should be incorporated into the existing powerline corridor. Highest priority should be given to a one-tower line with double conductors.If this is technically or otherwise not possible then the new line should be parallel to the existing line in the same corridor widening the corridor as little as possible.Common sense tells me that using the same corridor is the best solution in points of view of right of way,environmental impact, and construction costs. 6. Date:5-27-2008 Name:Mayor Sandy McDonald Comment: Many would like to see this be a joint effort between MLP and MEA. -State funds are being requested and used -Rate payer funds are being spent This makes the project one of a larger magnitude than MLP alone.We would appreciate an open form between MLP and MEA before a plan is accepted. 7. Date:6/02/08 Name:Rosemary Hanrath Comment: To:Michael D.Travis,P.-E.AND/OR Del LaRue,P.E Re:Knik to Willow (Teeland to Douglas)Transmission Line Upgrade public presentations. Will this upgrade affect my receipt of power from MEA at my home located at Mile 92.5 Parks Highway (4 miles north of Sheep Creek Lodge)?If so,I will plan to attend your presentation scheduled June 17,2008 at the Willow Community Center between 4:30 p.m.and 6:00 p.m.If not,what substation (transmission line)serves my residence? Thank you in advance for your response. Rosemary Hanrath Sent:Monday,June 02,2008 2:37 PM Good afternoon,Rosemary - This project will not affect the power supply to your home.Your power comes from a distribution line connected to the Douglas Substation in Willow.If you have a few minutes, please stop by our open house on June 17. Sincerely, Mike 8. Date:6/16/08 Name:Floyd Heimbuck Comment: Dear Mr.Travis, We line in Soldotna,have medical appointments on the dates you will have open meetings Willow and Houston so cannot attend those meetings. We (my wife and I)homesteaded the land and own it yet where Parks Hwy mile approx 67 4, crosses it at a northwesterly direction.The Methodist church is on the south boundary;the eastern boundary is next to the LDS church and is %mile long. Our Patent indicates a road and a power line.We have assumed a 30ft power easement and a 15ft telephone within that 30 ft easement for MAT Su telephone. How near to our land is the project expected to be. We should talk about it.Thanks/ We have always tried to be good neighbors. Response: TELEPHONE LOG DATE:June 16,2008 TIME:4:40pm FROM:Bill Anklewich (TPECD TO:Floyd Heimbuck SUBJECT: I introduced myself and informed Mr.Heimbuck that all of the proposed routes are located east of his property.He explained that he was not able to access the web site to look at the proposed routes.His property is D12,Section 20,on Sheet index 3.The property is 160 acres and located near mile post 67.5 Parks Highway.I informed him that all of the proposed routes are located Oo east of the Ladasa Camp Road and either near Kelly Lake or east of Kelly Lake.He said something along the lines of "O.K.then great.No problems!” I thanked him for his time and help on the subject. 9. Date:6/27/08 Name:Michael Pauley Comment: Mr.Peterson, I noticed your name listed as a public contact for information on the Teeland-Douglas transmission line.I had hoped to attend one of the meetings in Houston and Willow where this project was talked about, but couldn't make it work with my schedule. Is it possible that you could email me any information (Power point, handouts,etc.)that were presented at these meetings?If it's not practical to email these documents,can I visit your office and pick them up?Please let me know -- Thanks, Michael Pauley On May 27,2008,at 9:36 AM,Mike Travis wrote: Hi,Michael - I can send you all the materials.We should have them completed within a week.Thank you for asking. Mike Mike, Thanks for your prompt response.Since you said it might take a week to complete the materials, are we talking about a huge number of documents?Just curious. Also,I'm going to be in Anchorage for meetings on Thursday and Friday --so if it's easier for me to pick up hard copies from your office,rather than sending them by email,perhaps we could arrange that. Thank you, Michael Pauley Sent:Wednesday,May 28,2008 1:25 PM Michael - All documents will be uploaded into the project website by next week. You can access the web-link through the Alaska Energy Authority webpage. I recommend you and anyone else at MEA that would like copies of material presented at the meetings to download this information at your leisure.If you need assistance in understanding the materials,please call me. Sincerely, Mike 10. Date:6/17/08 Name:Rita Godbee Comment: Old route best-less land moved and trampled.Streamlined towers are good.Go for it! 11. Date:6/17/08 Name:Nina Zwahlen Comment: Follow existing route with modification near Teeland substation-move south around populated area 12. Date:6/19/08 Name:Charles Foster Comment: It appears on the surface that the MEA Parallel line is the most cost effective,least intrusive of the lines. 13. Date:6/19/08 Name:Bob JauJou Comment: After listening to the presentation my wife (Sharon)and I perffer the MEA paraellel route. Reasons:cost right of way least impact on property owners least perferred route would be the cross country route 14. Date:7/31/08 ©] Name:Paul &Erin McLarnon Comment: Recently we received a news letter on the Knik Willow Transmission Line Project.Our property is in close proximity to the project and we offer the following comments:Your initial determination parallel double corridor-two sets of poles set forth in your newsletter is faulty.All qualitative data-visual,public safety,existing corridor(facilities),construction impacts,land use acquisition,land use conflicts etc.are magnified with a parallel corridor-double pole route.Your determination increases the footprint and does not offer the smallest footprint.You use more poles,wider corridor,more land,increase user conflict with our trail systems and definitely detract from the scenic value and primary reason people like to live and work here.The double pole parallel route is a waste of state money and does not consider future power needs for Southcentral AK as it only allows power to flow north.You need to do it right the fist time, which has not been AEA /GVEA's way of doing it in the past (i.e.Healey Cole Plant) AEA/ML&P GVEA and MEA need to do what is right,and find a way to work together to build the most cost effective project with the smallest foot print that allows for the most effective use of power now and in the future.Your current proposal for use of a parallel double pole project that only sends power north does not meet any of these criteria.I also would like to know what regulatory criteria are being followed during this evaluation?Is,or will there be a FERC review for the proposed route,if so what opportunities will we have to comment during that process and what are the evaluation criteria if there is a FERC process?Thank You Paul and Erin McLarnon. 15. Date:7/31/08 Name:Joann Barelka Comment: As an out of state property owner whos property(24547 W.Parks Hwy,Lots C5,C1)is currently cut by MEA line at present,how would we be affected if the parallel line is selected?How much more right of way will be taken?Will there be restrictions on land useage and within how many feet?If a new route is chosen what will happen to current lines?Tahnk You for your time. Respestfully submitted,Joann K.Barelka 16. Date:8/04/08 Name:Vern Halter Comment: Re:Knik/Willow Transmission Line Project Dear Mr.Travis and Mr.La Rue: o Recently you issued a Newsletter-July 2008 that contained misleading and wrong information.The City of Houston and the Community of Willow do not support the MEA parallel line as the chosen route.This leads to an unsightly double corridor through Houston and Willow.This is unnecessary.We are not the recipient's of this power nor is this project really even needed.The original 230vK line north of Willow was not built on need or facts;it was built on speculation that Susitna Hydro would occur.You got the cart before the horse on that one and you are about to do it again.Millions and millions were spent just on consultants and paper for Susitna.That line is still operated at lower voltage twenty-five years after construction. In 1995-2000,hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by DOE,the State and Golden Valley Electric who combined with Usibelli to push and build a now defunct Coal plant in Healy.If the State/AIDEA and Golden Valley can spend and waste money like this the little added cost of building this power line through Willow and Houston on the existing corridor with one set of towers is pitifully low.Do something right the first time may be the lesson of Healy. There already exists a large utility/electric corridor through Houston/Willow.It has always been called the "Intertie”.If this project is really needed at this time,we asked that this existing power corridor carry both Golden Valley's and MEA's electricity in a single pole configuration even if these new poles are taller.This will be the smallest best footprint meeting the needs of Utilities.Willow and Houston recognized that the existing Intertie corridor was preferable to the Parks or Railroad alignment,but twisting this into saying we prefer the parallel double pole route was false and very misleading.This leads to exactly what we are opposed to. When this project is complete we want one set of poles albeit taller not two sets-not double side by side-not one MEA and the other AEA-MLP-GVEA. Our position was made very clear to you at your first meeting in City Hall Chambers- Houston.The Houston City council and City officials including now Houston Mayor Sandy Mc Donald were present.Linda Oxley from WACO was present and I was present.Roger Purcel from Houston's Council stated for all of us that we did not accept the parallel double pole touting through this area.Roger stated clearly that underground cable within the existing corridor was our first choice and secondly if this was not acceptagle3 to you because of cost,then it was the existing "Intertie”corridor with one set of poles carrying both MEA and MLP needs.To adda second corridor with double the number of unsightly poles parallel to MEA's is unacceptable. The City of Houston has twice passed a Resolution stating this.Willow has rescheduled to their August meeting to do the same,but the fact is it was made very clear in Houston to you in person. So much infighting and friction between various Utilities that is occurring does not justify in any way two corridors and two sets of poles-one MEA and a new AEA/MLP?GVEA set.At the June Houston meeting MLP representatives made it clear that it was MEA's fault and that they were uncooperative.When MEA met with our Communities they said MLP was not offering anything and MLP would harm MEA interests.MLP says MEA will not renew the joint use lease for the current Intertie through Houston/Willow so this parallel construction is required. MEA has resorted to using fear saying this project upgrade will cost MEA customers a lot of money.MLP and you say no it won't.MEA says they are not allowed drop-off points north of © Willow and they will have to build new lines because of this.AEA/MLP say no worry,we provide drop-offs. It just goes on and on-Utilities pointing fingers at each other-and the net effect is the City of Houston and Willow lose.Our Communities support power generation and transmission but we want the single existing corridor with a single set of towers to be used to transfer MEA electricity and bulk GVEA/MLP electricity through Houston/Willow is workable and meets both current and future needs for both GVEA/MLP and MEA.This is the request form Houston/Willow.The old towers come down. Golden Valley receives their cheaper electricity.MLP receives their sales.Estimated for 2009 show some where in the neighborhood of 392,473 MWs are following north and in return 287 MWSs are coming south.Great deal for residents of this area.MEA and its customer should not incur one dime more in utility bills or costs to support this power transfer north. MEA should receive a new higher voltage line on this single rower that meets current and future transmission needs.And as both of you said MEA should also benefit from a better drop off system that can handle growth to the north.Please make sure this happens. Your initial determination parallel double corridor-two sets of poles set forth in your newsletter is faulty.All qualitative data-visual,public safety,existing corridor (facilities), construction impacts,land use acquisition,land use conflicts etc.are magnified with a parallel corridor-double pole route.Your determination increases the footprint and does not offer the smallest footprint.You use more towers,wider corridor,more land,increases user conflict with our trail system s and definitely detract from the scenic value and primary reason people like to live and work out here. The Nat-Su Borough public involvement process requires more than just superficial public involvement.New poles in a second or parallel corridor through our Mat Su communities also require you to comply with the Mat-Su Borough Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for towers- tall structures.I specifically request this since then at least Willow and Houston can be heard and this rush to double the number of poles and to parallel lines is allowed to go through our borough public process.I think we will hear that our Communities are opposed to this.Even communities like the Meadow Lakes and Big Lake which you say support parallel did so because it did not effect then much at all in doing so.More importantly they were not given the opportunity to voice support for single tower/existing intertie corridor since you did not present this as an option. This is an Intertie corridor route through the heart of Houston and Willow.Golden Valley along with Usibelli pushed the Healy debacle costing us $300,000,000 in federal and state money and now look at what they say.Golden Valley now says their power cannot be down and they cannot help financially during construction of a single pole project line through Houston/Willow.They are the prime recipient's of this cheap MLP power flowing north.Golden Valley has a great quote on their webpage:"As always,GVEA stands firm in protecting members'best interest in the cooperative.”It is Willow and Houston and MEA customers who get the shaft.With this new line and sweetheart flow of electricity north there is not much incentive for GVEA to show some responsibility for the Healy mess. © GVEA is being sued by AIDEA for the second time after failing to abide by the original settlement in the first litigation.$167,000,000 million in damages are now asserted. Interestingly enough the same issue is presented in the Healy case as now.In Healy,GVEA refuses to lease long-term the ground the plant sits on so operations can began.In the present case,MEA refuses to lease or cooperate with this project so a second corridor parallel to the existing corridor is to avoid this.MEA just like GVEA say they are solely interested in protecting members.Homer Electric somehow got in the middle of the Healy mess.Just recently,Homer tossed a lateral pass back to Golden Valley to transfer contractual rights to the Healy plant to Golden Valley.This is soap opera stuff at its best. All of this is a sideshow to REGA-the Alaska Railbelt Grid Authority Study which is in draft form and only released July 23.This study is supposed to bring things together for Alaskans. Local residents around Houston and Willow have been inundated with the "fear factor”-your rates are going up-if you don't be quiet and submit to this folly.It is not a good public process when the MEA parallel corridor was the only choice presented to locals.It is not a good public process when you ignore what local elected officials told you directly.It is not good public policy to get the cart before the horse.It is certainly not good public policy to allow a utility to side step responsibility. When you present a pre-determined set of choices you arrive at the answer you want. That is probably what happened with the Healy coal plant debacle.This is what happened here. This is what you presented to MEA last night-a parallel double pole scenario.You left Houston and Willow out.We do have one set of Intertie towers through Houston/Willow now and we expect this project to keep it that way-taller towers-same corridor-old MEA towers come down. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when Alaskans cannot take federal pork for an energy project and turn it into bacon and ham.We must really look great to people in the lower 48 who extended us the money.This new Intertie Soap should be named the "Golden Goose Line for Golden Valley.”GVEA”s and MLP'”'s self interests'seem to be far more important than any of ours here in the Valley. Sincerely, Vern Halter Willow,Alaska 17. Name:Harry Banks Date:8/04/08 Comment: I live near the current MEA line.I suppor a single pole installation.We use area dog trails and want to see minimum encrochment on the existing Hessler-Norris trail system-Thank you oO COMMUNITY RESOLUTION 1. Date:5/14/08 Name:Meadow Lakes Community Council Mike Wolf,President Sherri Rusher,Secretary Address:P.O.Box 298666 Meadow Lakes,Alaska 99629 Comment: A resolution of the Meadow Lakes Community Council Inc.selecting the MEA Parallel Route as the best route for the upgraded Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Transmission Line Project.Municipal Light and Power as the Project Manager should recommend this selection to The Alaska Energy Authority. WHEREAS;The Meadow Lakes Community Council,Inc.recognizes that electrical energy is presently transferred next to this route on a transmission line primarily owned be Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.,which desires the return of this segment for local use. WHEREAS;The Meadow Lakes Community Council,Inc.recognizes the need for the new transmission line and the increase in capacity of such line.This new transmission line will provide vital infrastructure to link the power resources serving the Northern and Southern portions of the railbelt. WHEREAS;The Meadow Lakes Community Council,Inc.recognizes that the MEA Parallel route is the route with the least impact on communities due to the nearby existing transmission line. WHEREAS;The Meadow Lakes Community Council,Inc.recognizes the alternative routes will have a negative visual impact areas of our community. NOW THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED,that the Meadow Lakes Community Council,Inc. is requesting Municipal Light and Power to recommend the selection of the MEA Parallel Route to the Alaska Energy Authority.PASSED this 14"day of May 2008,at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meadow Lakes Community Council,Inc. 10 MEETING NOTES Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Meetings held February 20,2008 The project team held meetings at the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB)offices in Palmer and City of Houston offices in Houston on Wednesday February 20,2008.The purpose of the meetings was to present the project to city and borough officials,answer their questions and discuss what ordinances may apply to the project. The project team at each meeting consisted of the following (except as noted):Jim Strandberg, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA),project owner (Mr.Strandberg did not attend the Houston meeting);Louis Agi,Doug Hall and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light &Power,project manager; Del LaRue,Dryden &LaRue and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson Environmental,project manager consultants. The following describes the format for each meeting.Mr.LaRue stated he is the project engineer,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines,and gave an overview and history of the intertie.He explained that this project replaces a 25-mile stretch of the intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road.Twenty miles of the line being replaced is owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and was built for 115 kV.The remaining five miles is owned by AEA,subject to MEA uses,and was built for 138 kV. The new section would be built for 230 kV,dedicated to Intertie uses only,and would substantially improve capacity,safety and reliability.Mr.LaRue presented a diagram of the existing MEA tower and a possible new tower configuration.He also summarized the 2004 preliminary routing study,which reviewed and ranked four separate routes as well as investigated replacing the existing MEA structure.Mr.LaRue left a copy of the study at the MSB and the City of Houston offices.Mr.Travis then explained that the project is at the public involvement phase,and public comment will be solicited and used to determine the final route. He further provided an overview of the proposed public involvement process and stated he will serve as project lead for this phase. The meeting at the MSB was held in the Assembly chambers beginning at 11:00 a.m.In attendance from the MSB were Mark Mayo,Planning Director;Robert Guertin,Code Compliance Officer;Dave Heier,Chief of Land Management;and Mike Weller,Traffic Technician. Following Mr.Travis'presentation,the Borough staff recommended making an extra effort to notify the public.In response to questions from the team,the Borough staff present was not familiar with what ordinances would apply.Mr.Mayo indicated that Susan Lee would call Mr. Travis to work with the team on what ordinances and requirements may apply to the project.It was also suggested that the team consider making periodic appearances at MSB Assembly meetings to provide updates on the project if requested.The MSB meeting ended at approximately noon. 11 ©] The meeting at the City of Houston began at approximately 2:15 p.m.Present were Sandy McDonald,Acting Mayor,and Roger Purcell,City Council member,City of Houston;Linda Oxley,president of the Willow Area Civic Organization;Vern Halter,resident of Willow and member of the Borough Planning Commission;and Tom Kluberton,Borough Assembly member representing Assembly District 7. During the presentation by Mr.LaRue,the participants at the Houston meeting asked many questions about the project,including whether the transmission line could be buried.It was explained that while distribution lines,which are of a much lower voltage,are routinely buried, transmission lines are not.The cost of burying a transmission line is significant and usually occurs in very high-density areas where an overhead transmission line cannot be built.In those high-density areas,the cost is shared by millions of ratepayers.It was also explained that a buried line will not last as long as an overhead line,and there is no one in the United States who can splice a broken transmission line.Any repair would require summoning someone from outside the country,and thus affect reliability. Mr.Kluberton referred to the study of the Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority (REGA) commissioned by AEA,and wondered if this project is being coordinated with that study.Mr. LaRue pointed out that a separate study has been commission by AEA for the REGA study contractor,Black &Veatch,to review this project in detail to insure it does not conflict with the REGA study. A schematic showing the existing MEA line,with the proposed 230 kV line next to it,was viewed by the partictpants.The residents of Willow expressed their concern about the appearance of the two poles side-by-side,and indicated they would prefer to see a one-pole line. Mr.Larue indicated that a single-pole dual line could be constructed and accommodate both MEA's circuit and AEA's circuit,but it would require approval by MEA and would cost more than the single-circuit tower.He explained that a single pole line would be much higher than the proposed design,and would require additional right-of-way acquisition.The participants affirmed they would prefer a one-pole line,and expressed their desire that this group work with MEA.Mr.LaRue indicated that the team would be requesting a meeting with MEA during the course of this process. The participants asked if the transmission line could be located within one of the railroad spur routes being planned by the Alaska Railroad to run from Willow,Houston or Big Lake to Point MacKenzie.Mr.Hall pointed out that the railroad routes were reviewed early on by the team and none of the proposed routes would be suitable to co-locate the transmission line.The location of the railroad routes and the existing transmission line route was pointed out on a map at the City, which showed the transmission line running northwesterly and perpendicular to the primarily north-south railroad routes. Acting Mayor McDonald was not aware of any City of Houston ordinances that would apply to this project.Ms.McDonald asked that the project team make a presentation to the entire City Council at one of their meetings.The Houston meeting concluded at approximately 4:00 p.m. 12 Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Meadow Lakes Community Council meeting -April 9,2008 The project team attended the Meadow Lakes Community Council meeting held on April 9, 2008 at the Midnight Sun Charter School,Mile 1,Pittman Road beginning at 7:00 p.m.The purpose of the team's attendances was to present the project to the community,answer their questions and collect their comments. Present from the team were Doug Hall and Kim Robinson,ML&P;Frank Bettine and Del LaRue,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson.There were approximately 23 members of the community in attendance. Kim Robinson introduced the project and the project team,pointing out that four routes were studied and two of those routes go through the boundaries of the Meadow Lakes Community Council.She explained that a preferred route was identified,which is not one of the two routes going through Meadow Lakes,and the project is at the public involvement stage,where public input is being solicited before selecting a final route. A sign-in sheet for those wanting to be kept notified,as well as literature about the project was available for the public.The literature was distributed to the audience during Mr.LaRue's presentation. Mr.LaRue,the project engineer,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines,and gave an overview and history of the intertie.He explained that this project replaces a stretch of the intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road.Twenty miles of the line being replaced is owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and was built for 115 kV.The remaining five miles is owned by AEA,subject to MEA uses,and was built for 138 kV.Mr.LaRue explained that one of the options studied was to upgrade the existing MEA line within the existing right-of-way,and due to increased costs of that option (from $2 to $17 million),it is no longer being considered.The new section would be built for 230 kV,dedicated to Intertie uses only,and would substantially improve capacity,safety and reliability. Mike Travis followed with a presentation of the public involvement process,which will include meeting with community councils,holding public meetings and taking formal public testimony. Questions and comments from the public included: Will the project require the taking of additional right-of-way on the route that goes along Vine Road.Mr.LaRue indicated that additional easements would be needed. What is the reason for the increase in costs from $2 to $17 million to complete the project?Mr. LaRue explained that Golden Valley Electric buys power from southcentral Alaska,and the cost of them being without the low-cost power was considered in the project.They purchase more of their power today from southcentral,due to the high cost of fuel,than they did when the costs were developed. 13 Oo Will it be a standard high-voltage facility like the Intertie?Mr.LaRue indicated it would be similar to the Intertie. How wide will the right-of-way be?Mr.LaRue explained that the width of the right-of-way will depend on how the line is designed,and how well the new line can be integrated with the existing transmission line right-of-way.He noted that a single right-of-way would require 100 feet and if combined with the existing ROW should require about150 feet. What would cause a change in the preferred route,making the routes going through Meadow Lakes more likely?Mr.Travis indicated that it would change if it was determined that a major flaw in the original analysis was discovered. Is the preferred route the least expensive?Mr.LaRue indicated the costs of the routes are similar. Ms.Rusher pointed out that the Meadow Lakes comprehensive plan states a preference for telecommunication towers to share space with other providers,to avoid the duplication of tall structures.She felt the same would apply to utilities. Ms.Starr thought that the rusting steel poles were ugly and instead they should be painted green. Mr.LaRue explained that the rusting towers are the least long term maintenance and would most likely be selected for this line. Will there be substations along the route?Mr.LaRue explained there will be no additional substations. Will the lines be higher,and will the lines sag?Mr.LaRue presented a diagram of the proposed line,which showed the existing MEA towers with the new towers next to them.He pointed out that the old towers are 65 feet and the new towers are about 80 feet.The wires from the existing and the new line will both sag closer to the ground between towers.The new line is shown with V-string insulators to allow the towers to be placed closer together. Will the project interfere with recreational uses in the area?Mr.LaRue did not know what the impact would be,but that snowmachines could cross the transmission line.Also,that because the brush under transmission lines is periodically cut down,they typically become used for trails. The owner cannot condone trails because of liability. What is the distance between the poles,and will the lines sag?Mr.LaRue explained the lines will sag,but the amount of sag will depend on the design. How far apart are the new towers and the old towers?Mr.LaRue pointed out that it is expected a total of 150 feet of nght-of-way width would accommodate the two towers. Will the line be disruptive to compass,GPS or cell phone usage?Mr.LaRue responded that the line will interfere with a compass,but nothing else will be affected. 14 o The team was thanked and applauded for their presentation,and the Community Council continued with their meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Knik-Fairview Community Council meeting -April 16,2008 The project team attended the Knik-Fairview Community Council board meeting held on April 16,2008 at the Knik Public Safety Building,Station 62,Mile 7,Knik-Goose Bay Road, beginning at 6:30 p.m.The purpose of the team's attendances was to present the project to the community,answer their questions and collect their comments. Present from the team were Louis Agi,Doug Hall and Kim Robinson,ML&P;Frank Bettine and Del LaRue,Dryden &LaRue;Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson and Jim Strandberg,Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).There were approximately 15 members of the community in attendance. Kim Robinson introduced the project,pointing out that the section of the Intertie which extends between the Teeland Substation near Settler's Bay and the Willow Fishhook road will be upgraded and replaced.Four routes were studied and a preferred route identified.Before a final route is selected,the project team will be doing a public involvement process,where public input will be solicited.She asked for a copy of the sign-in sheet and the minutes,and Mr.Tilton,board president,indicated they could be made available to the team.(Attach when available). Business cards of the team members,the projects needs statement and a map were distributed to the meeting attendees. Mr.LaRue,the project engineer,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines,and gave an overview and history of the state owned Intertie.He explained that this project replaces and upgrades (from 115 kV to 230 kV)a stretch of the Intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road,presently owned by MEA.Mr.Tilton asked if the existing MEA line could be charged at 230 kV.Mr.LaRue indicated it could not be. Mr.LaRue explained that one of the options studied was to upgrade the existing MEA line within the existing right-of-way,and due to increased costs of the Intertie service interruption for an extended period of time (from $2 to $17 million),it is no longer being considered. Mr.LaRue presented a copy of the tower line conceptual drawing,which showed two towers side-by-side,one tower representing the existing MEA line and the larger tower the new transmission line.He explained this allows MEA to have their facility back for their sole use. Kristine Abshire felt that those living next to the line would object to the two-tower concept. Dan Elliott suggested a line be run from the Beluga power plant north to Willow,and be located within the proposed Alaska railroad corridor going from Willow to Pt.MacKenzie.He felt that would be better for future planning purposes.It was noted that route would add a significant 15 Oo distance to the transmission line (almost double),and significant costs,including an additional substation. Mr.Johnson asked how the right-of-way would be acquired.It was explained that negotiations would be preferred,but that the State has eminent domain powers. It was explained that this line is for energy transmission and will not be used to serve customers, as a distribution line would.Discussion followed about the Willow to Talkeetna network,that MEA has a distribution line going from Willow to Talkeetna,and has a substation off the Intertie,which is used for back-up purposes. Mr.Strandberg explained that the utilities use the Intertie and are charged based on their kilowatt hour usage,and operating costs are the only costs.There is no debt service or profit built into the charge. Mike Travis followed with a presentation of the public involvement process,which will include meeting with community councils,holding public meetings and taking formal public testimony. Mr.Travis stated that,in addition to coming back for the general membership meeting next month,a public meeting will be scheduled in the Knik area,with notices advertised and posted. Mr.Johnson asked about the fencing and blocking of the Beluga transmission line,and wondered if this line could be used by the public for snow machine and ATV access.Mr.Bettine pointed out that very often a utility line crosses private property,and the owner retains the ability to control that property subject to utility use.It is not a public easement. In response to a question about burying the line,Mr.LaRue presented photos and diagrams showing the large vaults that are required to bury a transmission line.He explained that it is technically possible,but not practical at this voltage level.It is done rarely and is very expensive. Another question was raised about eminent domain.Mr.Strandberg noted that AEA is very reluctant to use eminent domain and hoped to work with the community and landowner. Mr.Tilton pointed out that this is a very windy area and it may be advantageous to build the new (bigger line)on the west side of the existing MEA line.Mr.LaRue stated the design has not been started and such data will be considered in the design process. Mr.Elliott felt the community would support this project if a snowmachine trail could be designated within the easement.Mr.LaRue pointed out that utilities will not condone any kind of use in the utility easements due to liability. Mr.Elliott asked if MEA opposes this,and noted there 1s a new MEA board.Mr.Hall pointed out that the team has asked for a meeting with MEA,and hope to work with them on this line. The team will be back out to the community council on May 7"to attend the quarterly membership meeting.The board discussed whether it would be necessary to move the meeting to a larger place,and opted to stay at the fire station. 16 o The team concluded their presentation at approximately 7:20 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Stakeholder Meeting held on April 16,2008 The project team met with stakeholders at the offices of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in Palmer beginning at 3:20 p.m.The purpose of the meeting was to present the project answer questions and collect comments. Present from the team were Louis Agi,Doug Hall and Kim Robinson,ML&P;Frank Bettine and Del LaRue,Dryden &LaRue;Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson;and Jim Strandberg,Alaska Energy Authority.Stakeholders present were Lynne Woods,Deputy Borough Mayor,Dewey Taylor, MEA Ratepayer Alliance,and Mimi Peabody,Friends of Mat-Su (arriving at 3:50 p.m.) The project needs statement,along with a map of the four routes,was distributed to those present. Mr.LaRue,the project engineer,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines,and gave an overview and history of the intertie.He explained that this project replaces and upgrades (from 115kV to 230kV)a stretch of the intertie located between the Teeland Substation on Knik Road and the Douglas Substation in Willow.Four routes were identified and studied,and a qualitative and quantitative analysis was used to select a preferred route.Mr.LaRue described the routes,and pointed out that the preferred route follows the existing MEA transmission line. In response to a question about costs,Mr.Larue noted that the costs of all four routes are similar, ranging from $12.5 to $15 million.The number of parcels impacted differs by route,and the preferred route goes through approximately 94 parcels.Mr.Taylor asked if additional easements will need to be acquired along the preferred route.Mr.LaRue explained that some easement sharing is possible,and some additional easement will likely be needed.Mr.Taylor wondered if this project would enhance electric reliability to the Talkeetna area.It was explained that MEA has the ability to use the intertie to provide power to Talkeetna,but prefers to use their own distribution network,except when MEA has problems with their facilities.The team has requested a meeting with MEA to work out the details of transitioning the intertie off MEA's facility,but have not heard back from MEA management. Mr.Taylor asked about the timeline for construction,and it was noted construction will begin in 2009 or 2010.Mr.LaRue explained that one of the options studied was to upgrade the existing MEA line within the existing right-of-way,and due to increased costs of that option (from $2 to $17 million),it is no longer being considered.The costs related to that option is the loss of power being supplied from southcentral to Fairbanks. Mr.Travis presented the public involvement plan,and explained that the team has met with officials from the Matanuska Susitna Borough and the City of Houston,and intends to meet with the community councils from Knik to Willow,followed by open house public meetings.He 17 Oo explained that this project comes under the borough ordinance which requires a public involvement plan,and the plan for this project was submitted to Borough Planning Director Mayo for his approval.After the public meetings,a meeting will be held where formal public testimony is taken.The process will culminate in a decisional document that will be submitted to the Matanuska Susitna Borough,as required by their ordinance. Mr.LaRue presented a copy of the pole line conceptual drawing,which showed two towers side- by-side;one tower representing the existing MEA line and the larger tower the new transmission line. Mr.Strandberg pointed out that the Legislature approved $2.5 million to study the Susitna hydro project,and this new 230 kV line is compatible with the Susitna project.It was estimated that the Susitna project is approximately 60 miles from the Intertie. Mr.Hall explained that energy is sold by Chugach Electric and ML&P to Fairbanks,and returns profits to CEA and ML&P ratepayers. Mr.Taylor asked if any additional maintenance costs would be associated with two tower lines. Mr.LaRue pointed out there would be some added maintenance,but maintenance of transmission lines is generally a minimal cost. Ms.Woods commented that following the existing MEA route would appear to have the least impact. Mr.Taylor asked if this project fits in with the Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority (REGA)study that is currently underway.Mr.Strandberg explained that the REGA study is analyzing the form of business structure that should own and operate the railbelt network,and has to look at future growth of the network.He noted that AEA has had discussions with the railbelt utilities and from those discussions it appears this 230kV line will fit in,especially if the Susitna project moves forward. Discussion of sizes and voltages of transmission lines followed.Ms.Woods wondered if this line size would serve the future needs of the railbelt.Mr.Strandberg felt it would serve future needs, given the best information we have today.Ms.Woods referred to the Tri-Borough study,which recommended planning for future energy needs. Mr.Taylor wondered who would be opposed to this project,other than property owners affected. The MEA advertisement showing electrical wires sagging under snow-load was discussed,and those present wondered if the intertie upgrade will be similar to the lines shown in the MEA advertisement.Mr.Strandberg explained the state has a snow-load monitoring system,and in addition the state pays a contractor to patrol the line after snowfalls. The meeting ended at approximately 4:30 p.m. 18 Oo Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Willow Community Council meeting -May 5,2008 On May 5,2008,the project team attended the Willow Community Council meeting at the Willow Community Center,Mile 69.5 Parks Highway.The meeting began at 7:00 p.m.The purpose of the team's presentation was to inform the community about the proposed Knik to Willow Intertie Upgrade project,answer their questions,and collect their comments.Present from the team were Louis Agi,Doug Hall and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Frank Bettine,Dryden &LaRue;Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson and Jim Strandberg, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).There were approximately 20 members of the community in attendance. Kim Robinson introduced the project.She explained that the Intertie,which extends between the Teeland Substation near Settler's Bay and the Douglas Substation at the Willow/Fishhook road, will be upgraded.The team determined four feasible routes and selected a preferred alternative. Before finalizing the route,the project team implemented a public involvement process to gather public input on the route alternatives.Ms.Robinson distributed handouts of a map showing four alternative routes,a project description,and a comment section. Mr.Travis gave an overview of the Public Involvement Process.He stated that the project team met with local officials and community councils.Once the project team decides on a specific alternative,the team will develop a decision document.He pointed out that the project falls under the Matanuska Susitna Borough's Type II Essential Service ordinance,which requires public notice and the decision document. Mr.Bettine,project engineer,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines and gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie.He explained that this project will upgrade (from 115 kV to 230 kV)a stretch of the Intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road.The existing line was presently owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and used by AEA.MEA wanted its facility back.Mr.Bettine stated that a new line,compatible with the existing Intertie,was planned. Mr.Bettine referred to the 2004 Dryden and LaRue study that identified and evaluated several routes.He described the routes as Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of- way criteria,following the existing MEA right-of-way was determined to be the preferred route. Mr.Bettine pointed out that the costs of all four routes were similar,but the number of parcels affected varies by each route ranged from 38 to 169 parcels. Mr.Bettine presented a conceptual drawing of the existing MEA towers next to the proposed new towers.In response to a question from the audience,Mr.Hall noted that the new towers would be somewhat smaller than the existing Intertie towers because the new line will be built to 230kV and the Intertie was built to 345kV. Mr.Holmes asked if the MEA wires could be placed on the same tower with the new wires.Mr. Bettine noted that was a possibility.However,Mr.Hall pointed out it would require a larger 19 oO structure to accommodate both circuits.Mr.Bettine explained that the original line was designed by Del LaRue,and that it was possible to build one tower to hold both lines,but this alternative would require MEA consent. Mr.Bettine also explained that the team evaluated the possibility of tearing down the existing line and replacing it with an upgraded system.If this alternative was implemented,then Fairbanks would have to produce all of its electricity.Since Fairbanks generates its electricity with coal and diesel,the rising energy costs would push the cost of generation to $17 million. This cost makes this alternative uneconomical. Mr.Bettine pointed out that a single-tower design would require larger and more towers.The larger towers require extensive foundations.The combination of taller and more towers with substantial foundations would significantly increase the cost of the project. A woman on the community council board,representing the local senior citizens,preferred one tower over two parallel towers.She wondered if one tower would require less right-of-way to build.Mr.Bettine confirmed it would need less right-of-way than two parallel towers. Mr.Holmes speculated that MEA may not cooperate.Bruno felt a power line corridor was a scar on the landscape and wondered if a new separate line would be more expensive.Mr.Bettine pointed out that the proposed two-tower approach is less expensive than a single-line with two circuits.Mr.Bettine said that the current proposal is a two-tower approach.He encouraged comments from the public on the routes and design. Mr.Strandberg encouraged comments from the public.Bruno pointed out that one line would be easier to maintain and wondered if it would be better for MEA.Mr.Strandberg said he did not know and stated the team was seeking to work with MEA on the project. Dana asked how far apart the existing towers were.Mr.Bettine pointed out they were 1,000 feet apart and a new line next to the existing line would require the towers be placed in the same locations to avoid the wind causing the wires to sway into the other line. A board member asked how this line would benefit those in Willow.Mr.Bettine said that MEA would get their facility back.In addition,the new transmission line could serve as a backup to the MEA distribution lines.Mr.Strandberg pointed out that the Intertie was capable of conveying power back and forth across the railbelt,which enhances reliability among the utilities.If the Susitna hydro project was developed in the future,this facility would accommodate the power.He stated that the Intertie was crucial to the future of energy transmission in Alaska.MEA is not clear where they will get power in the future,but MEA could get it off the Intertie. Mr.Agi pointed out that the Chugach Electric Association (CEA)sells power to MEA and Fairbanks.The profits CEA receives from the sale of power to Fairbanks offset the cost of power that CEA sells to MEA. 20 oO A board member asked why the money to build this line was not used to add towers to the existing Intertie and solve the sagging line problems.Mr.Strandberg referred to the MEA advertisement which implies the snow-burdened Intertie posed a safety threat to those who travel near it.Mr.Strandberg explained that the photos used in the commercial were 10-years old,and did not accurately reflect the lines today.He explained that ML&P monitored strain gauges which detected wires weighed down by snow.ML&P also periodically patrolled the Intertie on snowmachine.Mr.Strandberg noted that all the railbelt utilities use the Intertie,and all,except MEA,believed the present system was adequate. Mr.Holmes opined that MEA may not have any source of power in 2014 when its contract with CEA expired.He suggested the team look at the documents underlying the MEA easements to determine if all utilities can use those easements.Mr.Bettine thanked him for the suggestion and Mr.Hall noted that land experts will be looking at the easement documents. Dana asked if the towers were placed 600 feet apart would that solve the sagging wires problem. Mr.Bettine pointed out that the engineers have learned from building the Intertie and any new construction will not have the sagging lines problem. Bruno asked how wide a corridor would be required to house two towers side-by-side.Mr. Bettine responded it would be a minimum of 50 feet additional to the existing 100 feet easement for a total of 150 feet minimum.This estimate assumed that MEA would share their easement. A separate easement would require 100 additional feet for a minimum of 200 feet wide.Bruno felt that 50 additional feet would be acceptable. Tina asked why all this money was locked into one source of power.She wanted to see alternative energy sources.She believed dams were not alternatives because they caused problems with the salmon.She wondered about the safety issues related to power lines. Mr.Strandberg responded by explaining that a new fund for alternative energy projects was approved by the legislature this year and the Alaska Energy Authority will be managing the funds.He pointed out there were emerging technologies for distributed generation with photovoltaic or wind power.He said that Alaska does not have much of a network compared to the remaining states.He stated that it will never be less expensive to build than now and we will need the backbone whether the energy is renewable or not.Tina believed Alaska did not need to be like the lower 48 states and wanted Alaska to think differently and be innovative.Mr. Strandberg pointed out that energy self-sufficiency for Alaska can be obtained through hydro projects at the Susitna River and Lake Chakachamna,and the Fire Island wind energy project. He also said that appliances we use are becoming more efficient. Mr.Bettine responded to the safety question,pointing out that there was no conclusive evidence of harm from electromagnetic fields created by power lines.He left copies of literature on the subject with the community council along with the 2004 route study. Vic said he was concerned that the Cross Country Route would seriously impact a historic dog mushing trail in the area.Linda Oxley asked the team to download a map of the trail from the community council's website for more information. 21 Oo Sandy McDonald,Mayor of the City of Houston,pointed out that she met with Lorali Carter from MEA,who indicated they have $25 million to upgrade the same section of transmission line.Mayor McDonald felt there should be no duplication.Mr.Hall pointed out that MEA has stated they want to build a transmission line from the Douglas substation in Willow to the Stevens substation in Talkeetna.Mayor McDonald indicated she could have misunderstood. Mayor McDonald referred to the previous meeting at the City of Houston and reiterated her desire to see the transmission line buried.Mr.Bettine used drawings and photographs to explain the process.He pointed out that very few 230 kV transmission lines are buried,the cost is prohibitive,it requires the line to be spliced and the splices housed in large underground concrete vaults.He pointed out that someone from outside the U.S.would have to perform the splices and approximately 140 vaults would be required for this transmission line. Dana wondered what influence the participants have in the ultimate decision to build the line. Mr.Bettine responded that the routes have been evaluated and now is the time for the public to participate in the route selection,and the AEA will make the final decision.Mr.Strandberg pointed out that the comments would be reviewed and heard and taken into consideration in the final decision.He encouraged the submission of written comments.Mr.Agi pointed out that the public can influence how the line is ultimately constructed.He noted that a new line needs to be built,but possibly the old line could be removed,and that the availability of funds could be an issue. Mr.Schachle indicated his non-objection to the preferred route,as presented.Bruno asked who would be involved in the decision.Mr.Strandberg responded that there are people with technical expertise who will find the best solution. The presentation concluded at 8:30 p.m.Written comments were submitted by Ted and Val Schachle and Claire Fitzgerald and Doyle Holmes. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Knik-Fairview General Membership Community Council meeting -May 7, 2008 The project team attended the Knik-Fairview General Membership Community Council meeting held on May 7,2008.It was held at 7:00 p.m.at the Knik Public Safety Building,Station 62, Mile 7,Knik-Goose Bay Road.The purpose of the team's attendance was to present the project to the community,answer their questions,and collect comments.The team presentation began at 7:45 p.m. Present from the team were Louis Agi,Doug Hall,and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Frank Bettine,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson.There were approximately 15 members of the community in attendance.Elected representatives present were Matanuska Susitna Borough Assembly members Cindy Bettine and Michelle Church,and State Representative Bill Stoltze. 22 o Kim Robinson introduced the project.She explained that the Intertie between the Teeland Substation near Settler's Bay and the Douglas Substation at the Willow-Fishhook road will be upgraded.The team determined four routes and selected a preferred route.Before finalizing the route,the project team implemented a public involvement process to gather input on the route alternatives.Ms.Robinson distributed handouts of a map showing four alternative routes,a project description,and comment section. Mr.Bettine,one of the project engineers,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines and gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie.He explained that this project will upgrade (from 115 kV to 230 kV)a stretch of the Intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road.The existing line was presently owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and used by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).MEA wanted its facility back.Mr.Bettine stated that a new line,compatible with the existing Intertie,was planned. Mr.Bettine referred to the 2004 Dryden and LaRue study that identified and evaluated several routes.He described the routes as Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of- way criteria,following the existing MEA right-of-way was determined to be the preferred route. Mr.Bettine pointed out that the costs of all four routes were similar,but the number of parcels affected varies by each route ranged from 38 to 169 parcels. Mr.Bettine presented a conceptual drawing of the existing MEA towers side-by-side with the proposed new towers.He pointed out that the existing towers were 65 to 70 feet and the new towers,because of the 230 kV voltages,would be approximately 80 to 85 feet tall. Mr.Bettine explained that the existing MEA easement was 100 feet wide,and if the new line could share space with the MEA easement,it would require a minimum of 50 additional feet.Ifa separate easement was required,then a minimum of 100 feet of additional width would be added to the existing corridor. Mr.Bettine pointed out that,in the area coming out of the Teeland Substation where Chugach Electric (CEA)and MEA had existing transmission lines,it was possible to use a single-tower line for the MEA circuit and the new 230 kV circuit.Ms.Bettine asked if the team discussed this with MEA.Mr.Bettine replied that the team extended an invitation to MEA to discuss the return of their facilities,and give a presentation to the MEA board.MEA had not replied. In response to questions,Mr.Travis said that every attempt will be made to minimize the amount of right-of-way needed,but some additional will likely be required.A gentleman in the audience felt that the MEA route appeared to be a straight shot out of Teeland.Kelly Griffin felt the Cross Country Route would have the least impact.She noted the routes would go through her properties and cross wetlands.She noted that many people in the area have built up close to the MEA easement. 23 ° Ms.Griffin asked if there was any way a snowmachine trail could be incorporated into the corridor.Mr.Agi replied that utility corridors cannot be designated as trails.Mr.Tilton pointed out that within an easement property owners still retain ownership of the property.However, their use cannot prevent utility companies from maintaining the facility.Therefore,the utility cannot grant additional uses within the easement.Mr.Agi noted that utilities will not tolerate any conflicting uses within their easements.Mr.Bettine pointed out that the poles and guy wires are potentially dangerous obstacles to trail use. A question was raised about the sagging wires.Mr.Bettine explained that the section of the Intertie between Willow and Talkeetna,which was charged at 345 kV,will sag under heavy snow load.He explained that strain gauges were installed on that section of the line that sensed the line tension from snow loads.When the strain reaches a limit,the line was de-energized and inspected.In addition,after every snowfall,a snowmachiner patrols the line.He explained the new transmission line will not have the same problems. Mr.Travis referred to the 2004 study that evaluated several routes and came up with a preferred alternative.He noted that meetings were held with Borough and City of Houston officials,and the project falls under the new Borough Type II Essential Services ordinance.The team developed a public involvement process and submitted it to the Borough Planning Department. He explained that three open houses will be held next month,one in Knik,Houston and Willow, followed by a formal public hearing.Mr.Travis felt the public involvement process would conclude in the October to November time-frame. Representative Stoltze said he heard many neighbor complaints during the rebuilding of the Eklutna line.ML&P responded to complaints by saying they would place the line where they need it. Mr.Hall explained that the Eklutna line project replaced 50-year-old rotting wooden poles.The project is owned by ML&P,MEA and Chugach Electric (CEA).The easements were in place, and some people had built close to or within the existing easements.The new transmission line project must acquire easements. Mr.Stoltze believed there was a general lack of communication on the project.He said a local church had a problem with the placement of a pole and the Municipality did not know it was their project.Mr.Hall noted that people often build into easements without knowing about it and then are shocked when construction occurs and they have to move out of the easement.Mr.Agi noted that there was a perception of less than adequate public process associated with that project,and this project has a more extensive public involvement project built in.Mr.Stoltze felt that lessons were learned from that project. Mr.Tilton referred to Mr.Strandberg's assurances at the previous meeting that all right-of-way would be acquired through negotiation and no property condemnation would occur.Mr.Hall clarified that the intent is to negotiate and use condemnation as a last resort.Mr.Tilton pointed out that the Eklutna project did not require right-of-way acquisition,and this project does,so talking with the property owners will be necessary in this project.Mr.Travis pointed out that the route will be designed to minimize right-of-way taking.A gentleman asked if the team will talk 24 o with the property owners before final design.Mr.Travis pointed out that the design will begearedtowardtheleastimpactonpropertyowners,and there will be open house forums.Ms. Griffin asked if notices will be mailed to property owners.Mr.Travis responded that in condensed residential areas,property owners will be notified. Ms.Griffin asked about the right-of-way acquisition process.Mr.Agi explained that the project will initiate negotiations,and if the property owner is not amenable the project will have to decide whether to go around the subject property if feasible or through it,and proceed with condemnation.In response to Mr.Johnson's question as to how the project would monetarily deal with individual property owners,Mr.Agi stated actual negotiation strategy and limits would remain a matter for the individual situation.Mr.Bettine pointed out that the owner retains ownership rights to the land,subject to the utility's use of the easement. Mr.Agi pointed out that there will be a formal public hearing where testimony will be recorded; at that public hearing a preliminary route will have been selected. Ms.Griffin asked if a pasture is located under a power line,can the meat be labeled as organic. Mr.Travis stated that electrical lines will not affect the organic designation on foods. Mr.Elliott stated his preference that the railroad and highway routes would be the least desirable routes.Ms.Church asked if the final public hearing would be in October.The team announcedthatopenhousestylepublicforumswouldbeheldonJune17and19"and the final public hearing was scheduled for July 23,2008 at the Wasilla Sports Facility. Ms.Church asked what would happen if MEA does not respond to the request to meet.Mr.Hall hoped that MEA would eventually respond and talk with the team.Mr.Agi said that the team may have to proceed with a separate easement next to the existing easement.Mr.Hall pointed out the construction will begin in Willow and move south toward Knik. Mr.Tilton asked for a show of hands on a preferred route.Seven (7)indicated their preference for the preferred route,which follows the MEA right-of-way,and two (2)voted for the Cross Country Route.The other two routes received no votes.Mr.Bettine pointed out that the Cross Country Route and the MEA Route follow the same path at the point where the MEA route heads north. The presentation concluded at 8:45 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Houston City Council Meeting -May 8,2008 The project team attended the City of Houston Council meeting held on May 8,2008.The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 7:00 p.m.at Houston City Hall,Armstrong Road, Houston,Alaska.The purpose of the team's attendance was to present the project to the community,answer their questions,and collect comments.The team presentation began at 7:05 p.m. 25 Oo Present from the team were Louis Agi,Doug Hall,and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Frank Bettine,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson.There were approximately four members of the community in attendance,together with Councilmembers Purcell,Burnett,Stout and Tilghman,Mayor McDonald and members of the city staff. Kim Robinson introduced the project.She explained that the Intertie between the Teeland Substation near Settler's Bay and the Douglas Substation at the Willow-Fishhook road will be upgraded.The team determined four routes and selected a preferred route.Before finalizing the route,the project team implemented a public involvement process to gather input on the route alternatives.Ms.Robinson and Mr.Hall distributed handouts of a map showing four alternative routes,a project description,and comment section. Mr.Bettine,one of the project engineers,presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines and gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie.He explained that this project will upgrade (from 115 kV to 230 kV)a stretch of the Intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road.The existing line was presently owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and used by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).MEA wanted its facility back.Mr.Bettine stated that a new line,compatible with the existing Intertie,was planned. Mr.Bettine referred to the 2004 Dryden and LaRue study that identified and evaluated several routes.He described the routes as Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of- way criteria,following the existing MEA right-of-way was determined to be the preferred route. Mr.Bettine presented a conceptual drawing of the existing MEA towers side-by-side with the proposed new towers.He pointed out that the existing towers were 65 to 70 feet and the new towers,because of the 230 kV voltages,would be approximately 80 to 85 feet tall. Mr.Bettine explained that the existing MEA easement is100 feet wide,and if the new line could share space with the MEA easement,it would require a minimum of 50 additional feet.If a separate easement is required,then a minimum of 100 feet of additional width would be added to the existing corridor. Councilmember Purcell felt that there needs to be one line,which will require less right-of-way. He insisted the team work with MEA.He said that the line built in Anchorage (Eklutna)used one tower and it is preferable to two towers. Mr.Bettine pointed out that we cannot force MEA to cooperate.Mr.Purcell felt that a greater effort needs to be made,more than writing letters,to talk with MEA personnel. In response to a question from Mayor McDonald,Mr.Bettine indicated the only route with the vegetation cleared right now is the MEA route. 26 oO Mr.Agi explained that the owner,Alaska Energy Authority,is taking the lead in setting up a meeting between the team and MEA,and follow-up phone calls have been made to MEA.A gentleman from the audience pointed out that MEA has a new board and there may be changes in the future. Mr.Bettine explained that the cost of taking the line out of service was considered in the study. Fairbanks buys power from southcentral Alaska,and since Fairbanks generates its electricity with coal and diesel,the rising energy costs have pushed up the cost of taking the line out of service to approximately $17 million. Councilmember Purcell expressed his belief that the proposed transmission line would not benefit the local community,but they are being asked to give up property to easements.He suggested the team try to make it work with MEA.Mr.Hall stated that the team is willing to work with MEA,and pointed out that MEA is a cooperative owned by the people sitting in the room.Mr.Hall went on to say that this project would benefit the Houston area by increasing the reliability of the electrical service.He reminded everyone that the Intertie provided power to this area several times last summer when a nesting bird kept shorting the lines and interfered with power distribution from Anchorage. Mr.Bettine pointed out that the new line could connect to the Douglas substation,which would provide redundancy for MEA's distribution system. Mayor McDonald noted that the City could initiate a public meeting between MEA and the team. She wanted to see more options than the two-tower approach.Mayor McDonald stated that the legislature has allocated MEA $25 million for line improvements,and hoped to see MEA and the team combine funding to avoid duplication.Mr.Hall pointed out that MEA was given a schedule of all the meetings the team has been attending in the community and the team welcomes their attendance and participation. Mayor McDonald thanked the team for the effort being made to inform the public on this project. Mr.Bettine announced that open house public forums are scheduled on June 17"and 19"in Knik,Houston and Willow,with a final public hearing scheduled on July 23,2008 at the Wasilla Sports Facility. A gentleman from the audience asked about the status of the Healy Coal power plant.Mr.Hall explained that the plant is owned by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, and they are negotiating with Homer Electric Association to get the plant operating.If the plant goes into operation,it will increase the use of the Intertie. Mr.Bettine explained that a preliminary route selection will be available at the time of the public hearing in July. Councilmember Stout asked if MEA could upgrade their existing line to 230kV.Mr.Bettine indicated they would have to rebuild with larger towers. 27 oO The team's presentation concluded at 7:30 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Big Lake Community Council meeting -June 11,2008 The project team attended the Big Lake Community Council meeting held on June 11,2008.It was held at 7:00 p.m.at the Bud Beech Public Safety Building,Station 8-1,Mile 4,Big Lake Road.The purpose of the team's attendance was to present the project to the community,answer their questions,and collect comments.The team presentation began at approximately 7:20 p.m. Present from the team were Doug Hall,and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Del LaRue,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson.There were approximately 30 members of the community in attendance.State Representative Mark Neuman and Director-elect to the MEA Board,Janet Kincaid,were also present. Kim Robinson introduced the project.She explained that the Intertie between the Teeland Substation near Settler's Bay and the Douglas Substation at the Willow-Fishhook road will be upgraded.The team determined four routes and selected a preferred route.Before finalizing the route,the project team implemented a public involvement process to gather input on the route alternatives.Ms.Robinson and Mr.Hall distributed handouts of a map showing four alternative routes,a project description,and comment section as Mr.LaRue began his presentation. Mr.Larue presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines and gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie.He explained that this project will construct a stretch of the Intertie located between Settler's Bay on Knik Road and the Willow-Fishhook Road.The new line segment will be constructed to operate at 230 kV even though the line will continue to be operated at 138 kV.The existing line was presently owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and used by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).MEA wants its facility back. Mr.LaRue described the four routes:the Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Parallel Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of-way criteria,following the existing MEA right-of-way was determined to be the preferred route.Mr.LaRue pointed out that the costs of all four routes were similar,but the number of parcels affected varies by each route. Mr.LaRue explained that an additional alternative studied was to replace the existing line with a new line.This would require the existing line to be out of service for a significant period of time during construction.The line is used to sell power from southcentral to Fairbanks,and the cost of taking the line out of service,the last time an analysis was calculated,is $17 million. Mr.Travis presented the Public Involvement Process;the team has met with Borough and City of Houston officials,community councils and other stakeholders to date.Three open-house public forums are scheduled next week: June 17,4:30 to 6:00 p.m.at the Willow Community Center June 17,7:00 to 8:30 p.m.at Houston City Hall 28 Oo June 19,7:00 to 9:00 p.m.at Settler's Bay Lodge A meeting to take formal public testimony is scheduled on August 6,2008 at the Wasilla Sports Facility,beginning at 6:00 p.m. Mr.Archibald asked if the existing MEA line will be abandoned.Mr.LaRue responded that we have no control over MEA's facilities.Mr.LaRue presented a conceptual drawing of two towers side-by-side,one larger one proposed to be built next to a smaller one,the existing MEA line. Mr.O'Hara asked if the remaining portion of the Intertie,north of Willow,would also be upgraded.Mr.LaRue explained that the northern portion of the Intertie is already built to 345 kV.This project will enable the Intertie operating voltage to be increased to 230 kV if demand warrants in the future. Representative Neuman asked about the voltages being run across that section of line today.Mr. LaRue explained that the existing line is designed for 115 kV and it is being operated at 138 kV. Mr.LaRue pointed out that he designed the line and it was built to Rural Electric Administration (REA)standards,which require it be built beyond the minimum electrical standards.Mr. Archibald asked if operating the line at that voltage meets the NESC standards,and Mr.LaRue indicated that it does. A woman in the audience asked if the project would entail MEA's power line being removed. Mr.LaRue presented a single-tower conceptual drawing,which would enable the new line and existing line to be on one tower.He explained that MEA has to decide what to do with its facilities. Mr.Archibald asked about the right-of-way.Mr.LaRue indicated that the right-of-way belongs to MEA.The first five miles (from Knik)of facilities are owned by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA),on MEA right-of-way,and the remaining 20 miles of facilities are owed by MEA and located on MEA right-of-way. A woman in the audience asked how high the new towers would be.Mr.LaRue indicated they would be 90 to 100 feet (referring to the single-tower double-circuit concept).He explained that the team anticipates using some of MEA's right-of-way. Mr.O'Hara stated that it would seem going along the existing route would be preferable to creating a brand new route.Mr.LaRue pointed out that the existing route impacts less parcels than,for example,the highway route. Mr.Archibald wondered if completing this project would require MEA to remove its line.Mr. LaRue pointed out that utilities can have lines that are not energized. Mr.LaRue pointed out that MEA has asked for their line to be returned to their use.If MEA is agreeable,a tower-line similar to the one built from Anchorage to the Eklutna hydro plant can be built here. 29 oO A gentleman from the audience asked which design would be most economical for everyone.Mr. LaRue pointed out that the two-tower side-by-side plan would cost the least. Mr.Hall explained how the Eklutna line was in need of replacement since the poles from the original construction done n the early 1950s were rotten.The line was constructed as a double- circuit and insulated to operate at230 kV,even though the line is still operated at 115 kV.Mr. Larue pointed out that the incremental cost of construction a line to operate at the higher voltage is small compared to the cost of rebuilding the line later. A woman in the audience asked if something happens to the new line,could the old MEA line be a substitute.Mr.LaRue responded that one of the downsides of locating the lines together is that both are affected by the same event and both may be unusable.He indicated that if the new line were to go out,the other MEA line probably would not be used,but could be if the situation warranted. Mr.Hall noted that MEA needs to tell the team if they want the line terminated at the Douglas Substation,since we would need to construct a switchyard if they have 138 kV at Douglas rather than 115 kV. Representative Neuman asked what MEA would say about this if they were here.Mr.LaRue noted that he cannot speak for MEA,but they have a concern that if the line is built to 230 kV MEA will not be able to tap off it for local use.Mr.LaRue pointed out that a decision to change the voltage from 138kV to 230kV would be a major decision and would affect all the utilities on the railbelt.Any change in voltage would require changing out many transformers,which would be costly.At this time there is no need to operate the Intertie at more than 138kV because there is not sufficient demand to warrant it. Ms.Robinson pointed out that MEA has been notified of all the meetings the team has scheduled,and have been invited to meet with the team to address their concerns.The team has also offered to make a presentation to the MEA board.MEA has not responded to these invitations to date. A woman from the audience was concerned that all the people who are affected by this be notified.She referred to a similar situation where a cell tower was being built and it was represented that people affected would learn about it,and that many were not notified. Janet Kincaid,director-elect to the MEA board,explained that she will be seated as a boardmemberattheJuly8"MEA meeting.At that time,she plans to make a motion to invite the team to make a similar presentation to the MEA Board.She felt that the MEA board needs more information than it is presently getting.The audience applauded Ms.Kincaid after her statement. A question was asked how large the footprint will be of the new tower line.Mr.LaRue estimated that,if right-of-way is shared,it would expand the corridor by approximately 50 to 60 feet or more.In response to a question,Mr.LaRue indicated that right-of-way acquisition will be required for this project. 30 Oo The community council applauded the team at the conclusion of their presentation. The presentation concluded at approximately 7:50 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Houston Open House Meeting -June 17,2008 The project team sponsored an open-house public meeting on the project at Houston City Hall, Houston,Alaska,on June 17,2008;beginning at 7:20 p.m.The meeting was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m.,however prior use of the room prevented the team from beginning at 7:00 p.m. Present from the team were Doug Hall,and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Del LaRue and Frank Bettine,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson. Present from the community were City Councilmembers Purcell,Stout,Buzard and Tilghman; Mayor McDonald and Julia Normand.Representatives from Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)in attendance were Tuckerman Babcock and Lorali Carter. Mr.LaRue presented a map showing the railbelt transmission lines and gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie.He explained the final Intertie section to be installed and upgraded is between Knik and Willow.Dryden &LaRue identified four routes and evaluated the impact of each.The existing line is presently owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) and used by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Mr.Bettine referred to the 2004 Dryden and LaRue study that identified and evaluated several routes.He described the routes as Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of- way criteria,following the existing MEA right-of-way was determined to be the preferred route. Mr.Purcell asked how many miles of the line will go through the City of Houston.Mr.Travis and Mr.Bettine estimated that traveling northwesterly through the City covers approximately seven miles.Mr.Purcell asked how many acres are impacted inside the City of Houston.Mr. LaRue indicated he does not know the amount of acres,but the total number of parcels impacted by each route is included in the 2004 route study.A copy of the 2004 Study was given to the Councilmembers to review during the presentation.Mr.Purcell expressed his concern that the line would be going over homes and requiring additional right-of-way in Houston.Mr.LaRue stated that constructing the line will require additional right-of-way acquisition.Mayor McDonald asked if property owners would be compensated,and Mr.LaRue said that they would be. Mr.Babcock asked under what authority would condemnation be used.Mr.LaRue pointed out that the Municipality of Anchorage has condemnation authority,and noted the goal is for no condemnation proceedings to take place.Mr.Purcell noted that the new subdivision on Kenlar Road,as well as a tri-plex,will be impacted by the line. Mr.LaRue presented a conceptual drawing of the existing MEA towers side-by-side with the proposed new towers.He showed a separate conceptual drawing of a single-shaft tower,which is 31 Oo taller but requires a smaller footprint.Mr.Purcell asked how close the single-shaft tower can be built next to the MEA tower.Mr.LaRue explained that several factors influence separation distance between the existing MEA line and a single-pole tower.Mr.Purcell recommended building using a one-pole concept. Mr.Babcock pointed out that the project is an Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)project,not an ML&P project.The AEA originally received $20.3 million for the project and in the last legislative session $10 million was taken from the project,and there is not enough money to complete the project now.Mr.LaRue noted that AEA will be going back to the legislature for the remaining $10 million.Mr.Purcell suggested that AEA request $16 million in order to build the one-tower concept. Mr.Babcock expressed his opinion that the project is limited to sending power north on the Intertie,and that the project will not happen.He stated that MEA will offer their attorney to assist any homeowner to protect their rights on easement acquisitions for the new line. Mr.Hall explained that the $10 million was used for the three static VAR systems on the Intertie that needs to be replaced,and this use of project funds was agreed to by the utilities.Mr.LaRue noted that the $10 million for the project is not needed at this time and could not be spent this year. Mr.Buzard asked if the affected property owners were notified.Mr.LaRue indicated that the owners will be contacted later in the easement acquisition process.Mr.Travis pointed out that property owners near the Teeland substation (Knik)were notified by mail. Ms.Normand asked about the single-tower concept.Mr.LaRue referred to the conceptual diagrams and explained that the width of the two-tower design would be approximately 60 to 70 feet,and the taller single-tower design would require approximately 40 to 60 feet. Mayor McDonald asked if the MEA line and the new line could be placed on one pole.Mr. LaRue said it is possible to design it that way,but it is MEA's decision on what to do with their line.He referred to the Eklutna line,which has a single-tower with two lines.Mayor McDonald asked why it was done for Eklutna but cannot be done here.Mr.LaRue pointed out that three utilities own the Eklutna project assets,including the tower line.Since AEA owns this line,MEA will decide whether to participate or not to participate in a single-pole design. Mr.Stout asked Mr.Babcock if MEA it they would be willing to locate their line on a single tower.Mr.Babcock referred to the line north of Willow,and the possibility that the Intertie operating voltage will be increased to 230 kV,which will seriously compromise MEA's ability to serve the area north of Willow.Mr.Babcock said that if the voltage is increased then MEA will need to build a transmission line north of Willow,operated at 115 kV,to serve the area.He noted that MEA received funding from the legislature in the past three sessions to build this line,but those appropriations were vetoed by three sitting governors.If MEA can get funding for that line,they have no objection to this project.He analogized that the Intertie is a freeway and frontage roads (transmission lines of lower voltage)are need to serve the local traffic. 32 Oo Mr.LaRue suggested that,instead of building a separate line,using transformers to tap the Intertie and serve the local needs would be less expensive and less intrusive than a new transmission line.He noted that if the voltage is increased to 230 kV,all the utilities along the Intertie would be impacted and would be required to purchase facilities compatible with the new voltage.Mr.LaRue pointed out that there are no present plans to change the voltage on the Intertie;however it is cost-effective to design and build the line to be capable of operating at a higher voltage for future needs. Ms.Normand asked if MEA would be required to pay pole space rental if they located on the new pole.Mr.Hall indicated agreements are typically used to handle this type of situation in this industry.He explained how CEA and the Eklutna Project did this in the 1970s in order to accommodate a new line and an existing line in a single right-of-way. The group discussed the possibility of tearing down the old line and rebuilding it to accommodate both MEA and AEA.Mr.LaRue noted there is a significant cost associated with taking the line out of service. Mr.Purcell asked how much additional right-of-way would be needed.Mr.LaRue noted that,if it is not possible to use MEA's right-of-way,then an additional 100 feet would be required. (The group discussed the four-dam pool in southeast Alaska.) Mayor McDonald asked that MEA and ML&P work together,that a one-tower concept is preferred,making a double-easement unnecessary.Mr.LaRue noted that it is MEA's decision on their line. Mayor McDonald asked why MEA is not building this line in their area.Mr.Babcock stated that MEA is not interested in building a line that will hurt MEA.He claimed that Fairbanks is the primary beneficiary of the line,and MEA needs to be held harmless.Mr.Babcock suggested that if AEA is planning to ask for more money from the legislature,that MEA's requested for the "frontage road"be included with that request.Mr.Babcock noted that the Intertie,as a state- owned facility,is unregulated.He pointed out that this project was funded in 2002 and here it is 2008 and the route has not been selected yet. Mr.Bettine pointed out that MEA is saying they want to build another powerline,which will result in another two-tower line,but between Douglas (Willow)and Stevens (Talkeetna). Mr.Purcell asked why not route around Houston.Mr.Bettine pointed out that if the Susitna dam project is built then that low cost power can be shipped around the state on the Intertie,so if Houston wants to benefit from that power,the line will need to come to them.He pointed out that the cost of building to 230 kV (instead of 138 kV),to prepare for future growth,adds 15 percent to the cost. Mayor McDonald asked who owns the line,and Mr.Hall responded that the State of Alaska owns the Intertie,which is located between Douglas (Willow)and Healy. 33 Oo Mayor McDonald noted that MEA does not want to step up and play and has elected not to participate in this line because MEA believes it will not benefit from the line.Mr.Babcock indicated they do not want to be the contractor to build the line,but may add a substation.He indicated they have no objection to the State having a bulk line,but there is no reason for MEA consumers to have to pay the price. Mayor McDonald asked if the MEA line could be located on the same pole as the new line.Mr. Babcock indicated they would not agree to that unless the "frontage road"is built.Mr.LaRue referred to the extra tower line that would be created by the "frontage road." Mayor McDonald asked MEA would be willing to share space on the new towers.Mr.Babcock asked Mr.LaRue if a separate line for MEA use could be mounted under the 345 kV.Mr.LaRue responded "no."and Mr.Babcock then responded to Mayor McDonald that in that case,no, MEA would not share space. Mr.Tilghman asked about the additional line MEA would build to Talkeetna.Mr.Babcock indicated that if this project is built,MEA will have to build another line from Willow to Talkeetna,that MEA gets no benefit from this project.Mr.Babcock reiterated MEA's need for a "frontage road".Referring to the suggestion that a substation be used to tap to the Intertie rather than build a new line,Mr.Babcock noted that no money is appropriated for local power upgrades.Mr.Hall pointed out that all substations,belonging to all railbelt utilities,will need to be replaced if the Intertie voltage is increased. Mr.Purcell asked if Houston needs more than 138 kV.Mr.Bettine pointed out that if they want renewable energy to supply Houston,then they will need more than 138 kV.Mr.Bettine reminded the group that ten years from now,it will be more difficult to build this line because costs will be higher and the impacts will be greater. Mr.Hall added that Houston benefits from a project that adds infrastructure,that all communities benefit and that power flows from the north to the south on the Intertie at times. Mayor McDonald felt Houston does not want a big wide right-of-way,and asked to do whatever we can to work together to avoid a potential eyesore.She would like a meeting of minds,and would like reliable power.Mr.LaRue pointed out that MEA is a cooperative owned by its members,and it is MEA's decision what to do with their facilities.Mr.Purcell wanted to see a one-pole line rather than a two-pole line. Mr.Babcock questioned ML&P's motivation in promoting this project.He noted that it is MEA's obligation to protect its ratepayers.He referred to a preliminary release of the Railbelt Electric Grid Authority (REGA)study,and noted that it says $120 million would be spent on upgrades to the Intertie.He felt the Intertie would follow the new railroad spur corridor. The group reviewed the proposed railroad spur routes and compared them to the Knik to Willow line;with it noted that the proposed powerline runs perpendicular to all the proposed rail routes. 34 Oo Mayor McDonald asked each councilmember to comment.Mr.Buzard indicated he would take a wait-and-see approach.Mr.Purcell felt if the one-tower concept cannot be built,then he would prefer to see the cross-country route,as it has the least number of miles in Houston. The meeting concluded at 8:45 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Willow Community Open House Meeting -June 17,2008 The project team sponsored an open-house public meeting on the project at the Willow Community Center,Willow,Alaska,on June 17,2008,beginning at 4:30 p.m.The meeting was advertised to the public by radio advertising in KMBQ radio and KENI radio,and newspaper advertising in the Anchorage Daily News and the Frontiersman. Present from the team were Doug Hall,and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Del LaRue and Frank Bettine,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson. Approximately 11 members of the public participated,including Tuckerman Babcock and Lorali Carter with Matanuska Electric Association (MEA).Stations with poster boards displaying the railbelt transmission grid,the routing study,information related to burying transmission lines and the public involvement process were located in the Center.A station with sign-in sheets and comment sheets was located at the entrance.The public signed in and then circulated among the display stations. At 5:30 p.m.Mr.LaRue showed a PowerPoint presentation of the project.He gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie construction.The section of the Intertie left to be completed is between Knik and Willow.Four routes were identified and evaluated to complete the construction:the Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of-way criteria, Dryden &LaRue determined that following the existing MEA right-of-way was the preferred route. Mr.Travis presented the public involvement process and noted that a similar meeting is scheduled June 19th in Knik.After the Knik meeting,the team will develop a preliminarydecisionandholdapublichearingonAugust6".After the public hearing,a final decision will be made and permitting will begin. Mr.LaRue displayed a poster showing a conceptual drawing of the existing MEA towers side- by-side with the proposed new towers.Mr.LaRue explained that the line is being designed for 230 kV but will continue to be operated at 138 kV. Ed McCain asked about the intertie north of Willow.Mr.LaRue explained that it is built for 345 kV and operated at 138 kV. 35 Oo Steve Charles asked how high the towers are north of Willow,and Mr.LaRue estimated they average 90 feet high. Mr.LaRue showed a conceptual single-shaft tower that is anticipated to be used in the vicinity of the Teeland (Knik)substation where there is limited right-of-way area.The towers would be taller,but take up a smaller footprint. Linda Oxley asked if power on the intertie can flow both north and south.She understood it only flowed north.Mr.Hall indicated power flows both ways,and last summer during outages in Willow,power flowed from Fairbanks about 16 times.Mr.Babcock of MEA gave his opinion that was the first time power came south in 10 years.Mr.Hall pointed out that energy flows south several times a year and that this is a normal occurrence.Also,the railbelt utilities share spinning reserve and power is often shared from north to south.He pointed out that in his position with ML&P he is the operator of the southern portion of the Intertie and has been for the past 25 years,and is familiar with the flow of power. Ms.Oxley noted that she is not in favor of donating land for right-of-way that benefits Fairbanks. Mr.Babcock asked how much power has been sent north and how much has been sent south.He said that power comes south when (the Fairbanks utility)Golden Valley (GVEA)wants to cooperate,that they (GVEA)control the Healy switch and can shut the power off that is heading south.He stated that GVEA has no spinning reserve and use battery system and load shed in lieu of spin.When GVEA put in a transmission system up north they used separate corridors,which is more beneficial for reliability purposes.Mr.Babcock stated that Mr.Haagenson (of GVEA) suggested the line not be built next to the existing line.He added that this Intertie project is only theoretical at this time;there is not enough money to build the line because the Legislature appropriated some of the money away from the project during this legislative session. Mr.Hall explained that power flows predominantly from south to north,and the reason is that today it is too expensive to buy power from Fairbanks because they burn diesel fuel in some of their generators.He explained that GVEA takes power from Bradley Lake,and buys from Chugach Electric (CEA)and ML&P when they can.He pointed out that when CEA sells economy energy it reduces the cost of power that CEA sells to MEA,which reduces MEA consumer energy bills. Ed.McCain asked about the price of power per kilowatt hour.Mr.Hall explained that there are contracts for firm power,and economy energy is sold at a negotiated price.He pointed out that economy energy is interruptible power;there is no firm commitment to provide the power and it can be shut off at any time.Because it is interruptible,the cost for economy energy is less than for firm power contracts. Ed McCain asked about generating capacity,how long the southcentral area can send power north.Mr.Hall responded that last winter ML&P did not have spare power to send north.Mr. McCain asked if the existing 115 kV line can handle those power transfers,and questioned the need for a second line.Mr.Hall explained that this project is the completion of the Intertie and MEA wants its line back for its own use. 36 Oo Mr.LaRue responded to Mr.Babcock's reference to a line built in Fairbanks in a completely different location.He pointed out that both parallel to the existing line and a separate route were investigated.The original line was constructed adjacent to the highway which since then had seen most of the development in the area.A line parallel to the existing would be more disruptive to property owners and developments than a separate route.Also,a separate route does have the additional advantage of not being as susceptible to a major event. Linda Oxley asked if there is a way for the two utilities to work together.Mr.LaRue could not say how utilities will get along.He noted that MEA requested this line back for their sole use. Linda Oxley announced that at the July meeting the Willow Area Community Organization (WACO)will be considering whether to adopt a joint resolution with the City of Houston about the project.She felt the communities will not support the project,that the people bought the land for themselves and not for industry.She felt the impact would be minimized if the lines are placed on the same pole. Mr.Hall pointed out that the team received feedback from people who do not like the taller tower,but prefer the two-tower concept because it is not as tall.Ms.Robinson indicated that comments supporting the project as presented were received from individuals attending the last WACO meeting. Steve Charles asked if the MEA line and the new line go on the same pole.Mr.LaRue responded that it is possible from an engineering standpoint,but it is MEA's decision to move their line onto the same tower or not. Ed McCain asked how much longer the existing line could be utilized before it is over-loaded. Mr.Hall responded that it is operating at capacity now when the energy is available from CEA and ML&P.He also noted that if natural gas were available in Fairbanks in the future,new generation would be sited on the north end and power would then be flowing south. Steve Charles asked MEA representatives if MEA would be opposed to locating on the same tower as the new line.Mr.Babcock asked why the State wants to build this line,that GVEA should pay for the line and MEA wants to be held harmless for future upgrades.He felt there was no guaranty that the voltage would not be increased to 230 kV.If this occurred,MEA would have to build a new distribution line to Stevens Substation.This would cost $14 million.He pointed out that four legislatures funded MEA's proposal to build a transmission line to Talkeetna,and four different governors vetoed it.Mr.LaRue pointed out that if the line voltage were to be increased to operate at 230 kV,many utilities would be affected,not just MEA. Rather than build a new line,a transformer could be placed at the Stevens Substation,which is less costly and less disruptive. Mr.Hall pointed out that none of the utilities using the Intertie have it in their plans to upgrade their facilities to accommodate a voltage change.He pointed out that the State is building this line now because it was started 30 years ago with the construction of the Intertie between Willow and Healthy,the completion of the northern Intertie a few years ago,and this is the last segment 37 oO to be built.He referred to the Eklutna project and pointed out that was rebuilt because the poles were rotting away.He noted that line is a single-tower,double circuit designed and built for 230 kV,but operated at 115 kV. Mr.LaRue added that 230 kV will be needed in the future and it is prudent to build it today since it does not cost much more for the extra voltage. Mr.Babcock asked if the other utilities would agree to leave the line at 138 kV for the next 20 years.Mr.LaRue indicated he does not have the ability to promise that.Mr.Hall pointed out that utilities outside Alaska learned that building to the higher voltage before it is needed is more cost effective than building when it is needed. Ed McCain asked who would pay for the additional substation at Talkeetna.Mr.Hall believed that whoever proposes to increase the voltage should be prepared to pay for it. Mr.Babcock pointed out that GVEA is making $7 to $9 million a year and it is worthwhile for them to pay for the line,that MEA gets no benefit. Mr.Hall referred to MEA's recent announcement about a new power plant in Eklutna,noting that the Eklutna rebuild makes that proposal more feasible. Linda Oxley indicated her desire to see the dialogue between the utilities continue,and to work together. Steve Charles spoke in favor of the development of small scale hydro power,and felt the 230 kV line would be needed to accommodate future growth.He favored the project for that reason. The team's presentation concluded at 6:10 p.m. Knik to Willow (Teeland-Douglas)Intertie Upgrade Project Notes from Knik Open House Meeting -June 19,2008 The project team sponsored an open-house public meeting on the project at the Settler's Bay Lodge,Mile 7 Knik-Goose Bay Road,Wasilla,on June 19,2008,beginning at 7:00 p.m. Present from the team were Doug Hall,Mary Ann Hanson and Kim Robinson,Municipal Light and Power (ML&P);Del LaRue,Dan Beardsley and Frank Bettine,Dryden &LaRue;and Mike Travis,Travis/Peterson.Tuckerman Babcock from Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)also attended the open house. Approximately 11 members of the public participated.Stations with poster boards displaying the railbelt transmission grid,the routing study,information related to burying transmission lines and the public involvement process were located in the lower-level banquet room of the Lodge.A station with sign-in sheets and comment sheets was located at the entrance.The public signed in and then circulated among the display stations. 38 o At 7:45 p.m.Mr.LaRue showed a PowerPoint presentation of the project.He gave an overview and history of the state-owned Intertie construction.The last section of the Intertie left to be completed is between Knik and Willow.Four routes were identified and evaluated by Dryden & LaRue to complete the construction:the Alaska Railroad Route,Highway Route,Cross-Country Route,and MEA Route.After evaluating the routes on engineering,environmental,and right-of- way criteria,following the existing MEA right-of-way was determined to be the preferred route. Mr.LaRue explained that one option studied was to tear down and replace the existing line.That option is no longer being considered because of the increase in cost of that option. Mr.LaRue explained that the purpose of the meeting is to get input from the public on which route to choose. Mr.Jaujou asked about the difference in cost between the tear-down option and the other options.Mr.LaRue explained that taking the existing line out of service will prohibit use of the Intertie.That cost is estimated to be between $15 and $17 million. Mr.Travis presented the public involvement process and explained that the Matanuska Susitna Borough requires a public involvement plan,which has been submitted and accepted by the Borough.After this meeting,the team will develop a preliminary decision and hold a publichearingonAugust6".After the public hearing,a final decision will be made and a formal decisional document will be prepared and submitted to the Borough. Mr.Travis encouraged those present to submit written comments. Mr.LaRue displayed a slide showing a conceptual drawing of the existing MEA towers side-by- side with the proposed new towers.He then showed a single-shaft conceptual drawing which is anticipated to be used in the Knik area where there are small-lot,high-density developments.He explained that there is an existing 230 kV tower line owned by Chugach Electric (CEA),next to a smaller tower line owned by MEA.The drawing proposed to replace the MEA line with a single tower housing the new line and the MEA line,and the existing MEA line would be removed. Ms.Ampuero asked if these lines would be close to people's houses.Mr.LaRue indicated that in certain areas,yes.She then asked about eddy currents and wondered if the people would not want to live next to the lines.Mr.LaRue noted that there are existing lines next to them right now.Mr.LaRue pointed out that the field on the power line drops as a square of the distance.He also pointed out that if right-of-way acquisition is required,the compensation to the property owners will include the adverse impacts of the line. Mr.LaRue explained the square of the distance;that the force of the electromagnetic field emanating from the power lines decreases at an exponential rate,rather than a linear rate,with the distance from the line.He demonstrated a curve on the slide which showed the force dropping off rapidly close to the line,and dropping off less significantly as the distance increased. 39 Oo Mr.LaRue referred to the epidemiological studies done by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on the effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)on human health. He explained that the studies could find no correlation between EMF and health risks.Ms. Ampuero asked about cell phones and tumors,and Mr.LaRue indicated he could not speak to the effects of cell phone use. Mr.Jaujou referred to the single-shaft conceptual drawing,and asked what the distance will be between the towers.Mr.LaRue pointed out that there is an existing 100 foot easement belonging to CEA side-by-side with another 100-foot easement belonging to MEA.He noted that the existing lines have to be charged during construction,so he is not certain exactly where the new towers will be placed. Ms.Ampuero asked if the tower height is affected by the Castle Mountain Fault.She wondered if an earthquake could cause one tower to fall into another tower.Mr.LaRue noted that the focus of the design is to minimize impact to people living next to the line,and making it as reliable as possible.Mr.LaRue explained that the existing design crosses the Fault,and tower-lines are designed to be flexible to withstand earthquakes.He pointed out that the major transmission line outages are typically due to avalanches,river erosion and,on one occasion,a boat anchor.Other than the 1964 earthquake,Mr.LaRue was not aware of any towers in Alaska failing from an earthquake. The slide presentation and question and answer session concluded at 8:05 p.m.No additional members of the public appeared,and the team closed the meeting down at 8:45 p.m. 40 aft [eB WE.oO BPs o Lpreerre.take 7 a a a a a a a a 2,[uls2 RAILBELT TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENTS Transmission System Description The Railbelt electrical transmission system serves consumers from Nanwalek and Homer through Kenai/Soldotna on the Kenai Peninsula the Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley areas in Southcentral Alaska and the Healy,FairbankS and Delta Junction areas in Interior Alaska.The system is characterized by the three major load areas of the Kenai,Southcentral and interior Alaska connected by single transmission lines between each of the areas. The electrical system could be considered in its infancy,with the first major interconnection between large load areas occurring within only the last 25 years. The system has been planned and constructed by a combination of Electric Cooperatives,Municipalities and the State of Alaska.As system improvements are identified,one or more of the entities generally work together to plan for,construct and operate the new facilities. Within the Railbelt,most transmission lines carry no more than 75 MW during normal loading conditions,or about enough power for 15,000 Alaskan homes and business's.This comes about through planning and operation to limit the number of people whose lives would be affected should the transmission line experience a temporary outage. The lone exception to this loading criteria in the entire Railbelt system is the 230 kV transmission line between Pt MacKenzie and Teeland substations.During peak loading conditions,this transmission line is responsible fortransmittingover200MW,or three times the typical amount of power to consumers in the Mat-Su Valley, Fairbanks and Delta Junction.An unexpected outage of this transmission line interrupts power to over 50,000 homes and business's throughout the southcentral and interior regions of Alaska. Due to the amount of power and its critical location in the electrical system,the unexpected loss of this transmission line impacts generation and potential power supplies from Beluga all the way to the Bradley Lake Project at the southern end of the Railbelt system and is the single worse contingency for planning in the entire Railbelt region. Proposed Improvement _ The construction of a new transmission line from the 230 kV ' transmission system to Douglas substation,the terminus of the Alaska-Fairbanks Intertie would eliminate the worst single contingency that exists in the transmission system today.It would provide redundant sources of power and eliminate single contingency events for over 120 MW or approximately 30,000 -EXISTING LINEconsumersintheMat-Su Valley.It would eliminate over 50 SN miles of single contingency outages for the Alaska-Fairbanks Intertie,improving power and reliability to 50,000 consumers in a#westi i i i the Interior and increasing power sales from Southcentral Alaska.|No area ..PROPOSED NEW LINE !meTheproposedtransmissionlinewouldstartfromanew(ROUTE UNKNOWN)a"substation located approximately 1.5 miles from the new Mat-Su aportandtransversedirectlytotheexistingDouglassubstationoOnearWillow,Alaska.The line would be operated at 230 kV, with a step-down transformer to 115X138 kV at Douglas substation that would allow the existing MEA transmission line to be operated at either 115 or 138 kV between Douglas and Teeland stations.The substation would be served by two 230 kV transmission lines from Pt MacKenzie Substation,with 230 kV Bul transmission lines interconnecting to AML&P/Chugach, Teeland/MEA and the Alaska Intertie. CHUGACH/AML-+P Mat-Su Port Substation BD sezren 1s nero ores amen s7s-10-08(TYPICAL)OR TLSS-$-2000 WileA)Mebelation helatalrie, LEGEND ) ©EeTE aT 142THE|lecelcel-taliliise|1.-;LeBeEe4ajLLL i 1 ' 'Yi |1-0"lew weer lweer lrcel wo |1-0"lel We |We leet see -|(andLL'wel wel eaeel -oft.rr-F=iiheft\\a[#8"4853A.5KV_UNE '.S730" j t cr | PLAN_VIEW 0 0 SCALE: PROJECT:uo.RECORD REVRION ENG./DESIGN.:W.0.#7 |AaURLT AGOOUNT @LOD.1Ou REMOVED NOTES TEELAND SUBSTATIONadCOREETRUCTIONREVEONFT|GSES |(GUESS |tam pa sine 2 |S-PHASE SERVCE STATON TRANSFORMER INSTALLATION -ACCOUNT 107.104 5601 esota Drive GENERAL CasWSPSTBWOTTO==P.O.Bor 198300 AND PROPERTY PLAN ry 8 wy Anchorage,Alaska99519-6300ASBULT=STATION UPGRADE TLSS S-0002 sexr_-t_or1_| afiifoe:Quve Brarburrgasns [EES 220 KV Waek-Tebint Lene Geta.bunk -Zoo MY :oo 349-bUSSahifob:Die.Trurbinaame eps [-tecbared Reugla_| hens atttané =6 Qh taRure LY-N36 Law +hea f 3 fufos:Mast.Unantnsan |Fes [teclasrd Revealer | o hnid te bod Aethied will.trud Farr.Tred doerAaahcctnendeaecpranasetnLotRe-AmLe Le forraint, az|ge tht bask G anriber proven AMAHAAAAMOOHOABoeoOAwe-whab bes [Bavrbengarae tas Cont stp stth t4 oyClsamacrh "neapensitsbite,hie tow tbhed wf BradfecttallenLarstadhadsgprtedcaattfPrseheLet=Ahenw intentseohtrveHillyaate baye Mt Eepeciad of agecoad ptr2)n[og:Bs Meng Hall Mig¢pP [terberad Dera lar.||Propet TNA CA etend oat cusail rnanonannannnnnanonlon|nn0 [los tee B Bradley Ob |eecA- -|Atherh_ 2/08:es Acciiin wl Se Prreg [Brad.Conn Peclard.Broafes |Hear.QueBenton Inrtearte Sent Mae A./Quucebe Basi gene Bs te des cuens 4/10 fos Webi Maina Conference [REGA| _é.ow e pent for B/rs and 4%:hharrce 2elbing caps 0)66 [Kern [Steud 9:00AM -_D4oam 3/13/08 A Aezondnenet of aihnga-"A Cé4/e-tlt) , iA Cae quilapa) tite Aylprenth. -G@dT Cosy tut a babrid org.beneath gg884Peee&aiHI\Le starneydDQtavefeb)che theare,2 Vn deat Anitint|eeBEV neds an-=Boa.Lagsh Nevatenr . 4 £2 2Bipiig=Bite TA = = |g d == ||head trad rok vgs Ohm a Marte.gute ne data or WO 9)49|e'|.41|4heAioaf.2eV7 (2 ginsralion flan few._aCelinaaridityRultocol,=cece uh.Ee)."fe Any covtacet Wark.torfir.:opie Then anced t..il 0!el/Zaataney ples.dik arabe ef Chrcmathr Lrdevelopcert.dake.cbacleiicag a4 gereraliinn plane.= Vise is tise dale he dsanle =tagpaaet rsheans a- obs astes doetin/mranag Ana Pease || =" James Strandberg From:-Harper,Kevin M.([HarperKM@bv.com] Sent:Friday,March 07,2008 2:26 PM To:James Strandberg Ce:James Hemsath;Cheung,Doland Subject:Agenda for Monday's Conference Call Jim - |propose the following agenda items for our discussion Monday morning: @o Plans for visit on 3/13 and 3/14 (®°Advisory Group Meeting«Date =Agenda »Other meetings during same trip o Next visit with utilities after Advisory Group meeting o Tax and legal advice ° (®o_Tri-Borough Study o Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Be Discussion with Fred BonessoMeetingwithSteveHaagenson (@o _Response to Mark Foster(ep Any other items you have -Kevin -Kevin M.Harper Director .Enterprise Management Solutions Division Black &Veatch 24513 SE 37th Street Issaquah,WA 98029 (office)425-427-1652 /(cell)425-941-6061 This e-mail,and any attachments thereto,is intended only for use by the addressee(s)named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this e-mail,and any attachments thereto,is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any. copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. : 1 Knew epberteiie dicetor A+?3 [10 (0B:deJL.dhe.a [ner Gel]4 *-daswtcha-secpitorndiaag GIA_<rneeEiaag O meek tr dink 03/Cechauh Dealer Datirdce fareeNFEPs Lr2 Carnent qprejeck ia toheag an "At laae.”<fitscchsaiatensideraliinotEPSMeeeneeLL : 2 tes to torbract Brod _J.Le Ate tf As carn be € € c «lh 333-og|O fon dy Rue 646-Sito es-[Gre en ort thre --(401) agent Ove ot nes-53592NarlhHecny,ANan A . ad Revere Tarper BdV 2 Philbin Oats abled phen dead oe ALA-SEZS C407 )441-1104 wilnbeyv@ alacka.net ApokU wf Per for Atco PES EOoF 1C1)230KY Room nor h_. James Strandberg From:Harper,Kevin M.[HarperKM@bv.com] Sent:Monday,February 11,2008 9:41 AM To:James Strandberg Ce:James Hemsath;Stolze,Stephen A.(Steve);Mundy,Don;Cheung,Doland Subject:Proposed Contract Amendment Related to Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Project Attachments:Contract Amendment Number 1.doc Jim - As you requested,|have prepared the following draft contract amendment related to the proposed Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Project for your review and comment. <<Contract Amendment Number 1.doc>> Please let me know if you have any questions. Kevin Kevin M.Harper Director Enterprise Management Solutions Division Black &Veatch 24513 SE 37th Street Issaquah,WA 98029 (office)425-427-1652 /(cell)425-941-6061 This e-mail,and any attachments thereto,is intended only for use by the addressee(s)named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this e-mail,and any attachments thereto,is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. Cer VHeAt 40 ve Jen 10 MLE Wer TO (cece nt ells p . "Tin STEAVDBERG -waints Z 23ERU WYforties [X- ZECRICS CEA Uf,_E.2 aller,COOP,G,7 ehF450 (-/Va 4 aT Se v4 wWebElTe *MLVA2el750es= gt wer nv?sIWe 5zZ Alaska Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority (REGA)Study Contract Amendment Amendment No:1 -Review of Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Project Additional Scope Element The purpose of this effort is to review the underlying need for the proposed Teeland-Douglas 'Transmission Line Project and ensure that the results are properly reflected in the REGA study. The level of review and evaluation needed to complete this assessment goes beyond the level of review of transmission requirements that is included in the REGA Study.In other words,the _ scope of the REGA study does not included a detailed review of any proposed transmissionsystemexpansionprojects;rather,it includes only a high-level needs assessment of proposed transmission system investments,principally using information provided by the utilities and industry standards for construction costs. This assessment,which was requested by Anchorage Municipal Light &Power (AML&P), would require a detailed review of all supporting documentation and in-depth discussions with Doug Hall (AML&P),Del LaRue,of Dryden &LaRue,Inc.(the consulting engineer on the project),and others as required.Black &Veatch will provide a document that summarizes the results of our review and we will provide this document to AML&P,Dryden LaRue,Inc.,and the Alaska Energy Authority.Furthermore,the results of this study will be carried forward into the REGA study. Cost Estimate Don Mundy,Senior Vice President,will conduct this review.We estimate that the assessment will require 32 hours for Don to complete;Don's hourly billing rate is $375.Therefore,our estimate for the completion of this assessment as follows: Professional Fees $12,000 Out-of-Pocket Expenses 2,000 (travel and administrative support) Total Estimated Cost $14,000 Consistent with the fixed price nature of the related REGA contract,we propose to complete this assessment for a fixed price of $14,000. Schedule We are prepared to complete this review within four weeks of receiving a notice to proceed. |Oe,29°_ES_-Loo ,99O 2/11/08 Draft I Lean het /.(262)dod-si4y oe -_2[r6 [08 Rebrw Treva...(907 )tc8-20e%We (401)440-Te04 ee Crarhy Ae.fore Aer'ek,ne be , _ oo tent AupremeCarndecision af fora,Aha.TAPS OTdO_coe ne oo a Bet trkaty ne ---.-4 fas fos Ds [ial Bogan_| _|-2fes./os Cl)230kKVQipcuits a AG o2a aMc¢P w/report)qutenk abeortd we don ee an nae°o AGH Ae GMA te duaeret.neor _aqaqeench.| ae faiTeland,[fgCnbrtea | Benetaneca pi ae aeine:Ronat .Loom|antl - tuel Rat / , NO -WwW bartobej ear a-_folTES @Mere Gio qWabliececountwince Kevin TenrperCa=BA Gnaltnhhavether-__ Reba CureCLapwsemtidyPhaggpraentshain,Wein tf oanoweProvidersAaGawkt.Toeewpene re . woud Abe.addilrern.+sky hit bet,fea beWageAngeAAG od -nok coe ee1Peeese_pee Ff ern GVEA an_-preewed Fon ;.tthe Abe aenrthanrnn co ee thete Penner,pert.3 eei,be SEY Lene,1 lh poi aFela non the feelard Line te ZZ0kKV,40 ny Ahe entire bone. pee.ae a ak ihein =Chief "davdd -Henerecs _ Lew pretentaliim -=-.Bie te.AAG.ponoahqvMenersacnagensindLiane2Fes.waeME.Abaw brn.Z-£,Water.vo =aay alaeCepey bf.IES =Me FeMane CrasAr Hevaton -a 12:60>_2:imoPAy .. ----- _a1eted_Ho<hr nee a. y.-rnetig-nore cna phepngen tpefieTH @ MER eeee entera.cm i ms :co=Resour the telind.Devigfar Penerniacionfore_wittert the addition of ISEV.ditrttactitn fuming,Fe wan cw tr futipg ?-Ware Aneqe,ata.oebtenremire.bh Mer splircd acrwiee ark __ -yr Warne Ange.Men dd n0te_._ -foe A.Aylin hat GVMAeceuced®"20MM 5jae ta omg oe Aha nerthennr..thetagPom spat._ot. Me SEV Lene.Line,it will eppeote.the naa|i||||\(\!\':'t.i'::|5aa"the heelrrl Line te ZA0EV 40 ar the ertere Lene aw tbe rarsed,ard power florist.w0etrlrcongemeenafeGQVETL he Abt Gar a.qreqrotat BdV Ae dew ©aa pons,pireee.Bn Aarnrthannnr Herth Cuntrdl ite hens Oye Bee |tiLsAecee,oa,Prard.eee,LasYeeL $todn Wibkee Pracizg.toldAp,ior Heh oe Kerk Wher e ow (Z é set £.tow Leacbhertinr :oe Wee _fs "Woy a.\z Bek Pek Herwitor |_-Bo ese co ee _Bo eee >MoKAC herenn le.es oo(po lita fe Walle a OoeeBe.lite,u HevecloreWither...Cormerrevcenrre tg,[mere ee brendaqn.aree:wells__pertanecietAte,Cheng wee ee ee co ee Tc wee ee ee wea en eee eee mee cee enceTt.Mew |enrd aeyben,:jo Phin Brrerttaehl ee bb eee a . -"VrpteAte "WetmanonTaefreee/wan Bebeccl.Negi ee ee ee ceeeeon-ee lite a tie ne eaeaes)Aevd 2AwMW efr LetLaxad aoewe Cascentorwey fer Aiaenya (Ata Ae ashe preat-wleation Le Maze.terrdh (Z)Corwneec wit Corerveike wt Peake Grupelermertakerr ., GD Met aw/feel (A@.perette Aetehkihe /-meee"Fpe rnedifintiina,a at tbenral co eee}Aeter Anetlirga _-Lee oe7.Sir.preyed deseriphions _.end.2a)phere.cerrteels Ww Bfacemitted $_ |KE G8 4 (23Coilut'CeacintionLe Hane' i/¢[c®@-Veelend Piaat Cerrdinnlidrn,Wu. g (EG)Meheraa eofCA "4 lezalon@GEZa)Duet erg,00Ga@PhoneextleAeee MDwo(AE)Mack.hewek (I@Coteek(1G Wee dWa he fo Merteid Aaah peep grape eno coenn(1 Avbakikes Covermenile Cerencenks _| iz)Meet we)Corrieasye Cen ceils eee nea3.roupete fev -a.len ern fan Kak __an (4)Rent.sckectin os x Recent Prasernls-Qnrdive ANCE ©Lake Nbrvecc Lier._ ©Curentenl Aewnrices nytsatel iin:. ZL auvsidea porn Cerda On tha/ae @ MudpP ;: =e - :G :acdkiin Llane :__ae =uniting,Atkin.a ___ae-Masvned efackipeoensit eh,Leaesbeters ee -+Mbeki.senercyn ___ . ae Coraresiaatin,(Brit.bg a ___ee Woe James Strandberg From:Agi,Lou E.[AgiLE@ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent:Thursday,January 03,2008 3:31 PM To:Mike Travis;fbettine@drydenlarue.com;Del LaRue;Hall,Doug W.;James Strandberg Subject:FW:Revised Teeland -douglas needs statement Attachments:TEELAND-Douglas Purpose and Needs (5)1.doc;Jointoff Project Description.doc; Jointstkhids(frank)Notice.doc Hi Frank,Mike,Others; Thanks for reworks.Purpose,Need and Description (PND)sections read well.My problem is what docs we need at this stage and whether PND is most suitable vehicle? At tomorrow's group meeting,we should hopefully be finalizing public officials and persons we will be approaching for preliminary meetings about Project.We will be looking at Mat-Su officials (possibly Mayor Curt Menard,Dep.Mayor Lynn Woods,Mgr.John Duffy,Assembly Members Cindy Bettine,Tom Kluberton),Houston officials (Mayor ?Frost,Council Members ??7),Wasilla officials (??),Houston officials (//),Lyda Green &staff),Friends of Mat-Su (Ex.Dir.[?]Kathy Wells),Stakeholder groups principals (Presidents Knik-Fairview,Meadows Lakes,Big Lake,Willow &Nancy Lakes Community Councils and Pres.Nancy Lake Recreation Area),among maybe others we will discuss.Kim Robinson from ML8&P staff,knowledgeable about Mat-Su political landscape,will be present together with large maps Del initially prepared to assist on selection of persons and approach. My thinking subject to group discussion is that we will want to set up meeting times with chosen persons (hopefully in small groups)by telephone and then follow conversation with confirming email including project description and proposed public process for their prior information and consideration.The PND does not contain our proposed public process,but that could of course be added.The greater concern is that these public persons are sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate a 'meatier'presentation than provided in the more 'barebones'PND.|also don't think it appropriate to begin the communication's format with Purpose and Needs statements.This could be confusing as an opening,and |think we are in any event better served by telling our story in narrative from the top. The above "Jointoff...”attachment offers an alternative project description for this audience.It concludes with a statement of our intended public process (which could be easily transferred to the PND if we want to stay with that approach)and has a more complete project description.The description is based on the presentation in support of the project made to the Anchorage Administration and Assembly as well as to Jim Palin,so we have the comfort of knowing it is sufficiently informative and entirely functional at that parallel level.To be clear,however,|am not in any way vetoing the PND; merely stating a preference based on my own experience in sending and receiving these types of docs -I think we need something a bit more formal/substantial.But the PND reads well and should be adequate with addition of our intended public process,if that is desired. With respect to use of the PND as our mailer to individual stakeholders,it doesn't contain a statement relating the recipient to the public process which should be appreciated by the reader (and could of course be added).However,|am more concerned here that we need a 'softer'introductory statement than provided by the initial Purpose and Needs statements.And without those statements,the PND's description lacks a statement concerning MEA's involvement which |thought we decided was highly desirable at our last meeting for our initial communications to the public.And although the description states that line will be energized at 138 kV,there is no explanation of why it is being built at the higher capacity which seems logical to include.In the above "Jointstkhids...”attachment offered for consideration,|tried to start with the PND's description and weave in the additional elements of process,MEA's involvement and the rationale for building to the higher capacity. Lou From:Mike Travis [mailto:mtravis@tpeci.com] Sent:Thursday,January 03,2008 9:31 AM To:fbettine@drydenlarue.com;Del LaRue;Agi,Lou E.;Hall,Doug W.;Jim Strandberg Subject:RE:Revised Teeland -douglas needs statement Hi,Frank - I couldn't resist adding a few commas and changing a few verb tenses.I think this P&N statement reads great! Mike Michael D.Travis,P.E. Principal Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Blvd,Suite 102 Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Phone:(907)522-4337 Fax:(907)522-4313 From:Frank Bettine [mailto:fbettine@drydenlarue.com] Sent:Thursday,December 27,2007 11:49 AM To:'De!l LaRue';'Agi,Lou E.';Mike Travis;'Hall,Doug W."';'Jim Strandberg' Subject:FW:Revised Teeland -douglas needs statement Primarily for Lou's review but comments welcome from everyone From:Frank Bettine [mailto:fbettine@mtaonline.net] Sent:Thursday,December 27,2007 11:47 AM To:fbettine@drydenlarue.com Subject:Revised Teeland -douglas needs statement .PL_trm Page 1 of1CodePublishingOn_ne Search |Table of Contents |Home Page Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code TITLE 17:ZONING CHAPTER 17.60:CONDITIONAL USES 17.60.020 APPLICABILITY. 17.60.020 APPLICABILITY." (A)This chapter applies in all areas of the borough outside special land use districts,unless otherwise provided for in this S chapter.. (B)The requirements of this chapter apply to CCRCs within special land use districts,residential land use districts,and other i"areas outside the cities,which allow correctional group homes as a permitted or conditional use.: (C)This chapter does not apply to correctional residential supervision where only one person is required to remain during ;specified periods of every day for a specified term at his or her regular private residence or the private residence of another person 3intowhosecustodythesupervisedpersonhasbeenplacedbyajudgeormagistrateasin"house arrest”or as a condition of release 2 while awaiting trial.' (D)This chapter does not apply within the cities of Houston,Palmer,or Wasilla.° (E)This chapter does not apply to state approved noncorrectional facilities such as,substance abuse treatment programs,:hospitals,or job training centers which are incidently providing residential treatment,rehabilitative care,or training to persons in " the custody of local,state,or federal corrections authorities.For purposes of this chapter "incidental”means ten percent or less of the facility's authorized population,but allows one corrections custody resident if the facility is designed to provide residence for less than ten persons.: (Ord.96-003(SUB)(AM),§3,1996;Ord.84-27,§2(part),1984)¢ 17.60.030 PERMIT REQUIRED. (A)The following land uses are declared to be potentially damaging to the property values and usefulness of adjacent properties,or potentially harmful to the public health,safety,and welfare: (1)junkyards and refuse areas; (2)correctional community residential centers; (3)race tracks used by motorized vehicles carrying people on land; (4)tall structures exceeding the maximum allowable height for structures within a special land use district or, exceeding 100 feet above average grade in locations where no maximum height for structures is designated by borough code; (5)tower farms containing two or more tall towers regulated under this section; (6)tower line routes and tower service area grids,containing two or more towers regulated under this section; (7)electrical 'Tighting towers in excess of 185 feet located within the road rights-of-way along major arterial corridors. (B)Such uses are permitted only upon the issuance of a conditional use permit,as provided in this chapter.Unless such uses are maintained under and in accordance with a lawfully issued permit,such uses are declared to be public nuisances.Maintenance of such a land use without a permit is prohibited. (Ord.06-215,§2,2006;Ord.99-093(AM),§3,1999;Ord.97-084 (AM),§3,1997;Ord.96-003(SUB)(AM),§4,1996;Ord.84- 27,§2 (part),1984) 17.60.040 APPLICATION PROCEDURES. (A)General.An application to the planning commission for a conditional use or modification of an existing conditional use may be initiated by a property owner or the owners'authorized agent.An application for a conditional use shall be filed with the planning director on a form provided by the planning department. qd)The application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by an appropriate filing fee as established by the assembly,payable to the borough. (B)Site plan.A detailed site plan showing the proposed location of all buildings and structures on the site,access points, buffering,drainage,vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns,parking areas and the specific location of the use or uses to be made of the development shall be submitted with the application. (C)Action by planning commission. (1)The planning commission shall hear any interested parties and shall render a decision on the application for a conditional use permit within 30 calendar days from the date of public hearing.In recommending the granting of a conditional use,the planning commission shall state in writing the conditions of approval of the permit which it finds necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter.These conditions may increase the required lot size,control the locationandnumberofvehicularaccesspointstotheproperty,require screening and land filling where necessary to reduce noiseRTAPages(inp Search [Clear Search |'Search Results |Table of Contents |Top [irr[BACKS Search hits:ON NEXT http://ntS.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=454686129&infobase=matsubor.nfo&jump=17.60.0....12/19/2007 PL_frm .Page 1 of1CodePublishingOnxineSearch|Table of Contents|Home Page Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code TITLE 17:ZONING CHAPTER 17.60:CONDITIONAL USES 17.60.010 DEFINITIONS. 17.60.010 DEFINITIONS. (A)For the purpose of this chapter,the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (0.5)'Alternative tower structure”means tall structures such as:clock towers,sculptures,steeples,light poles,buildings, artificial trees,and similar alternative-design structures and architectural features,that support,conceal,or camouflage antennas or other uses requiring height. (0.7)*Antenna”meansa rod,wire,or set of wires used in sending and receiving electromagnetic waves. (1)"Automobile wrecking”means the dismantling or wrecking of automobiles or other motor vehicles and the storage or keeping for commercial sale of dismantled or wrecked automobiles or the parts resulting from such activity. (2)"Automobile wrecking yard”means the location within which the activity of automobile wrecking for 2 commercial or public use is present.; (2.5)Collocation”means the location of more than one use or attachment,such as an antenna,on the same structure or site;also the location of more than one structure on the same site. (3)"Commercial”means any activity where goods or services are offered or provided for sale or profit. (4)"Commission”means the planning commission of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. (5)"Correctional community residential center (CCRC)”means a community residential center,other than a correctional institution,for the short-term or temporary detention of prisoners in transition from a correctional institution, performing restitution,or undergoing rehabilitation or recovery from a legal infirmity.CCRCs may not be used for detention of prisoners who pose a threat or danger to the public for violent or sexual misconduct without imprisonment or physical confinement under guard or twenty-four hour physical supervision.The determination of whether a prisoner poses a threat or danger to the public for violent or sexual misconduct without imprisonment or physical confinement under guard or twenty-four hour physical supervision shall be made by the commissioner of corrections for state prisoners and the United States Attorney General,or the U.S.Director of Bureau of Prisons for federal prisoners. (6)"Correctional institution”means a facility other than a correctional community residential center providing fortheimprisonmentorphysicalconfinementordetentionofprisonersunderguardortwenty-four hour physical supervision,such as prisons,prison farms,jails,reformatories,penitentiaries,houses of detention,detention centers, honor camps,and similar facilities. (7)"Federal prisoners”means offenders in the custody or control or under the care or supervision of the United States Attorney General or the Bureau of Prisons. (7.5)"Height of structure”means the vertical distance measured from the base of the structure at finished grade,to the highest point of the structure including appurtenances.The average between the highest and lowest grades within 20 feet of the structure,shall be considered finished grade and used in calculating the height. (8)"Junk”means any secondhand and used machinery,scrap iron,copper,lead,zinc,aluminum,or other metals;it also includes wrecked automobiles,tools,implements,rags,used building materials,rubber and paper.The above listed materials are not intended to be exclusive;"junk”may include any other materials that cannot,without further alteration and reconditioning,be used for their original purposes. (9)"Junkyard/refuse area”means a location which is commercially used for the purpose of the outdoor storage, handling,dismantling,wrecking,keeping or sale of used,discarded,wrecked or abandoned airplanes,appliances, vehicles,boats,building and building materials,machinery,equipment,or parts thereof,including but not limited to, scrap metals,wood,lumber,plastic,fiber or other tangible materials. (10)"Motorized”means powered or propelled by a force other than human or animal muscular power,gravity,or wind. qa)"Neighborhood”means an area of a community with characteristics which distinguish it from other community areas and which may include distinct economic characteristics,use patterns,schools,or boundaries defined by physical barriers such as major highways,railroads,or natural features such as rivers. (12)"Prisoner”means: (a)a person held under authority of state law in official detention as defined in AS 11.81.900; (b)includes a juvenile committed to the custody of the Alaska Department of Corrections Commissioner when the juvenile has been charged,prosecuted,or convicted as an adult. (13)"Race track”means a prepared route traveled by contestants to achieve goals of skill,duration,or REGIRLBACIS|Pages (Xsqee]Search |Clear Search |Search Results |Table of Contents |Top [fagerergy Search hits:0 (Ris gre http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dl!?clientID=454687619&infobase=matsubor.nfo&jump=17.60.0....12/19/2007 Document ; .Page 2 of 8 (9)"Junkyard 'refuse area”ir a location which is commercially used fc >purpose of the outdoor storage,handling, dismantling,wrecking,keeping or sale of used,discarded,wrecked or abandoned airplanes,appliances,vehicles,boats,building and building materials,machinery,equipment,or parts thereof,including but not limited to,scrap metals,wood,lumber,plastic,fiber or other tangible materials. (10)"Motorized”means powered or propelled by a force other than human or animal muscular power,gravity,or wind. dl)"Neighborhood”means an area of a community with characteristics which distinguish it from other community areas and which may include distinct economic characteristics,use patterns,schools,or boundaries defined by physical barriers such as major highways,railroads,or natural features such as rivers. (12)"Prisoner”means: (a)a person held under authority of state law in official detention as defined in AS 11.81.900; (b)includes a juvenile committed to the custody of the Alaska Department of Corrections Commissioner when the juvenile has been charged,prosecuted,or convicted as an adult. (13)"Race track”means a prepared route traveled by contestants to achieve goals of skill,duration,or speed,including practice for such events,also known as;raceway,or race course. (14)"Tall structure”means a structure that is high or tall,relative to its surroundings.The term includes but is not limited to,flagpoles,sculpture,buildings,elevators,storage or processing facilities,water tanks,derricks,cranes,signs,chimneys,area illumination poles,towers,supports for communication,and power transmission lines. (15)"Tower”means a type of tall structure not intended for occupancy and includes,but is not limited to,antenna,monopoles, self-supporting lattice,guyed structures,and alternative type structures for uses including,but not limited to,telecommunication as in receiving,or transmission of television,microwave,cellular telephone,common carrier,personal communications service (PCS),or other radio wave signals.A tower may be free standing or attached to a structure. (16)"Tower farm”means a lot or contiguous group of lots used as a location for more than one tower. SD "Tower line route”means the route traversed by two or more towers supporting common service as in electrical power,communications,or lighting. (18)"Tower service area grid”means the service area and locations of two or more towers providing common service as in a cellular telephone service area. (19)"Width of a structure”means the horizontal distance measured from the outermost points of the structure including attachments and structural supports but excluding guy wires and transmission lines strung between towers as in the case of electrical power lines. (Ord.99-093(AM),§I,1999;Ord.97-084(AM),§2,1997;Ord.96-003(SUB)(AM),§2,1996;Ord.84-27,§2 (part),1984) 17.60.020 APPLICABILITY. (A)This chapter applies in all areas of the borough outside special land use districts,unless otherwise provided for in this chapter. (B)The requirements of this chapter apply to CCRCs within special land use districts,residential land use districts,and other areas outside the cities,which allow correctional group homes as a permitted or conditional use. (C)This chapter does not apply to correctional residential supervision where only one person is required to remain during specified periods of every day for a specified term at his or her regular private residence or the private residence of another person into whose custody the supervised person has been placed by a judge or magistrate as in "house arrest”or as a condition of release while awaiting trial. (D)This chapter does not apply within the cities of Houston,Palmer,or Wasilla. (E)This chapter does not apply to state approved noncorrectional facilities such as,substance abuse treatment programs,hospitals,or job training centers which are incidently providing residential treatment,rehabilitative care,or training to persons in the custody of local,state,or federal corrections authorities.For purposes of this chapter "incidental”means ten percent or less of the facility's authorized population,but allows one corrections custody resident if the facility is designed to provide residence for less than ten persons. (Ord.96-003(SUB)(AM),§3,1996;Ord.84-27,§2(part),1984) 17.60.030 PERMIT REQUIRED. (A)The following land uses are declared to be potentially damaging to the property values and usefulness of adjacent properties,or potentially harmful to the public health,safety,and welfare: (1)junkyards and refuse areas; (2)correctional community residential centers; (3)race tracks used by motorized vehicles carrying people on land; (4)tall structures exceeding the maximum allowable height for structures within a special land use district or,exceeding 100 feet above average grade in locations where no maximum height for structures is designated by borough code; (5)tower farms containing two or more tall towers regulated under this section; =>(6)tower line routes and tower service area grids,containing two or more towers regulated under this section; (7)electrical lighting towers in excess of 185 feet located within the road rights-of-way along major arterial corridors. (B)Such uses are permitted only upon the issuance of a conditional use permit,as provided in this chapter.Unless such uses arepyup maintained under and in accordance with a lawfully issued permit,such uses are declared to be public nuisances.Maintenance of such a land http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=454687619&infobase=matsubor.nfo&record={6E22...12/19/2007 Document ; .Page 3 of 8 use without a permit is prohibited. (Ord.06-215,§2,2006;Ord.99-093(AM),§3,1999;Ord.97-084 (AM),§3,1997;Ord.96-003(SUB)(AM),§4,1996;Ord.84-27,§2 (part), 1984) 17.60.0410 APPLICATION PROCEDURES. (A)General.An application to the planning commission for a conditional use or modification of an existing conditional use may be initiated by a property owner or the owners'authorized agent.An application for a conditional use shall be filed with the planning director on a form provided by the planning department. (1)The application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by an appropriate filing fee as established by the assembly, payable to the borough. (B)Site plan.A detailed site plan showing the proposed location of all buildings and structures on the site,access points,buffering, drainage,vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns,parking areas and the specific location of the use or uses to be made of the development shall be submitted with the application. (C)Action by planning commission. (1)The planning commission shall hear any interested parties and shall render a decision on the application for a conditional use permit within 30 calendar days from the date of public hearing.In recommending the granting of a conditional use,the planning commission shall state in writing the conditions of approval of the permit which it finds necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter.These conditions may increase the required lot size,control the location and number of vehicular access points to the property,require screening and land filling where necessary to reduce noise and glare,and may require the reclamation of property to a character in keeping with surrounding lands.The commission may impose other conditions and safeguards designed to ensure the compatibility of the conditional use with other lawful uses. (2)The planning director shall incorporate any conditions or requirements stipulated by the commission in the conditional use permit. (Ord.99-093(AM),§4,1999;Ord.93-045,§2,1993;Ord.91-106,1991) 17.60.100 GENERAL STANDARDS. (A)A conditional use may be approved only if it meets with the requirements of this section in addition to any other standards required by this chapter. (B)In granting a conditional use permit,the planning commission must make the following findings: qd)the conditional use will preserve or not detract from the value,character and integrity of the surrounding area; (2)that granting the conditional use permit will not be harmful to the public health,safety,convenience and welfare; (3)that sufficient setback,lot area,buffers,or other safeguards are being provided to meet the conditions listed in subsections (B) (1)through (3)of this section; (4)the conditional use fulfills all other requirements of this chapter pertaining to the conditional use in this section. (Ord.84-27,§2 (part),1984) 17.60.110 JUNKYARDS AND REFUSE AREA STANDARDS. (A)No junkyard or auto wrecking yard shall be established or operated unless the wrecking yard is completely obscured from the view of any traveled or public right-of-way.The permit may require the junkyard or auto wrecking yard not within a building to be contained within a continuous solid fence no less than eight feet in height,if such requirement is necessary to prevent the unsightly display of the yard or for public safety purposes.Fencing may be of one or a combination of the following: (1)conventional solid wood or metal fencing; (2)evergreen or other natural planting sufficient to provide year-round screening; (3)earthen berm or topography. (B)In all cases,fencing provided shall be continuous and of sufficient density to provide visual screening required by this chapter on a year-round basis. (Ord.84-27,§2 (part),1984) 17.60.120 STANDARDS FOR CORRECTIONAL COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CENTERS. (A)These standards may not be implemented in a way that compromises the required security of a facility.CCRCs established after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section must be in accordance with the standards of this chapter. (B)In addition to all other applicable laws,rules,and standards,CCRCs are subject to the following standards: (1)A CCRC may not be located within one-half mile ofa pre-existing public or licensed private school,a pre-existing licenseddaycarefacility,or 750 feet from a pre-existing alcohol beverage dispensary or package store. (2)CCRCs may not generate traffic,light,glare,noise,odor,smoke,electrical interference,vibration,or dust and may not have an appearance,scale of operation,size,residential density,or use that is not allowed in the district within which it is located,that is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood,or that causes a nuisance off the permitted site. (3)CCRC dwelling units may be attached or detached in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and requirements of the district within which the facility is located. http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=454687619&infobase=matsubor.nfo&record={6E22...12/19/2007 Document . .Page 5 of 8 (2)design drawings,drawn to »«..,for all buildings,and structures,and elevat......Design drawings for new construction must be certified by a registered engineer or architect; (3)a plan of operations describing the proposed use in detail sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all applicable borough ordinances,standards,and conditions.This submittal shall also include: (a)evidence of compliance with all other applicable local,state,and federal laws by the applicant(s)and their authorized agent(s)regarding the proposed use; (b)a proposed organization chart of the operation identifying the lines of responsibility and general function of the owners and staff of the organizations that will own and operate the facility including job descriptions; (c)a description of the number and types of residents proposed; (d)descriptions of all major activity types proposed to occur on site; (e)general description of the security measures proposed to protect the public safety. (D)The property owner and the permittee shall be responsible for maintaining all aspects of the operation,improvements,development, and site in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and all applicable local,state,and federal requirements.Failure to correct any violation of any permit condition is a violation of borough code. (1)A pattern of crimes committed by residents of a permitted facility,which are determined by the planning commission to be creating an unreasonable degree of risk to public safety,may be grounds for revocation of the permit. (2)In addition to other applicable penalties,failure to correct a violation of code after reasonable notice may result in revocation of the permit. (3)Upon issuance of a permit under this chapter the permittee shall provide all necessary documentation to maintain current information sufficient to demonstrate continued compliance with permit conditions.The permittee shall also provide the borough the following information: (a)name,title,and 24-hour contact telephone numbers for the person(s)in charge of the operation and security of the institution or facility; (b)}immediate notification of escapes; (c)immediate notification of any formal notice of violation issued by a government agency indicating an unacceptable level of security exists or has been allowed to exist at the facility. (4)Authorized representatives of the borough will be allowed to inspect the permitted site and related records at reasonable times for the purpose of monitoring compliance with all permit conditions.Upon reasonable notice from the borough,the permittee shall provide necessary assistance and security to facilitate authorized inspections by borough representatives. (5)A permit may be transferred to another individual subcontractor with planning commission notification and approval. (Ord.96-003(SUB)(AM),§5,1996) 17.60.130 Standardsfor Race Tracks.[Repealed by Ord.99-154(AM),§2,1999 and recodified at MSB 17.60.135] 17.60.1353 Standards For Race Tracks [Repealed by Ord.01-118 (AM by SUB 2,§1,2001] 17.60.140 TALL STRUCTURES,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,TOWERS,TOWER FARMS,TOWER ROUTES, AND TOWER SERVICE AREA GRIDS. (A)Tall structures,tower farms,tower routes,tower service area grids,and their uses are subject to regulation in order to protect the public health,safety,and welfare from the negative impacts of tall structures and their uses including but not limited to,physical danger, electromagnetic variations,reduced light,air,and open space,reduced property values,glare,noise,vibration,damage due to collapse,odor, runoff,drainage,litter,and loss of quiet enjoyment of residential property.These standards are in addition to all other applicable laws. (B)Exemptions.The following are exempt from the requirement for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this section: (i)church spires,religious icons,and flag poles displaying official government or religious flags; (2)minor customary and incidental fixtures and attachments located above 100 feet,or the maximum allowable height for the structure,placed upon other structures which are not otherwise regulated as tall structures,such as buildings less than the maximum height allowed in the district.Exempt minor fixtures shall not increase the maximum height of the structure to more than 135 feet or ten feet above the maximum allowable height for the structure,except that,a maximum of four "whip”or "pole”type antennae,less than six inches in diameter at the base each,may be placed to increase the height of the structure to a maximum of 145 feet or 20 feet above the maximum allowable height for the structure.Exempt minor fixtures shall not require safety lights or be illuminated.Exempt minor fixtures include but are not limited to:elevator shafts,cupolas,vent pipes,heating and air conditioning equipment,dish type antennas,and minor architectural features.Signs are not exempt under this section; (3)towers and antennae utilized for temporary emergency services of 180 days or less in response to a local disaster; (4)[Repealed by Ord.99-122,§2,1999]; (5)a temporary wireless communication facility shall be allowed for a maximum of 90 days during the construction of a permitted,permanent facility; (6)temporary tall structures,including but not limited to:drilling derricks and construction cranes,which are on site less than 120 consecutive days,or 180 days total within a consecutive 12-month period,and are not intended to routinely reoccur on the same site; http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=4546876 1 9&infobase=matsubor.nfo&record={6E22...12/19/2007 Document ; .Page 6 of 8 (C) (7)support structures less thal...-feet in height when used exclusively for illu......uting major arterial highways; (8)routine maintenance and repair of legal nonconforming,or permitted tall structures and related equipment,may be performed without issuance,or amendment,of a conditional use permit.Equipment,including lines and antennae,may also be removed from, added to,or reoriented upon,a legal tall structure.All work allowed under this subsection shall comply with the performance standards of this section,subject to the following guidelines: (a)Allowed work shall not require additional air safety or strobe lighting and shall not substantially change the profile, or other characteristics of the tall structure to increase the negative visibility or other impacts across lot lines as regulated by this chapter. (b)Allowed work shall not increase the width of the tall structure by more than five feet at any point. (c)Allowed work shall not increase the height of the tall structure by more than five feet,except that a maximum of four "whip”or "pole”antennae less than six inches in diameter,each,at the base may be placed to increase the height of the existing tall structure a maximum of twenty feet; (9)licensed amateur (ham)radio stations,except that,modification or use of such towers for commercial use shall require a conditional use permit in accordance with this section; (10)structures within the boundaries of the port district as defined in MSB 18.02. Performance Standards.The following standards shall apply to regulated structures and uses: ql)The ability of utility services to efficiently provide such services to the community shall be protected to the extent feasible. The best balance between cost efficient service provided to the public by the use,and protection of the public interest will be pursued by the commission in accordance with these standards. (2)The planning commission may vary or waive one or more of the standards and requirements of this chapter based upon specific findings that the change will result in better overall implementation ofthe goals of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. (3)The number of tall structures,tower line routes,tower service area grids,and antenna farms authorized by the borough shall be the minimum reasonably required to provide services. (4)To the extent feasible,location of tall structures,tower line routes,and tower farms shall be in compatible areas where the adverse impact of the use is minimized.Tall structure location is generally more favored in industrial and agricultural districts designated by borough code,nonresidential areas,and areas where the tall structure will not unduly detract from land values or economic value related to tourism or cultural values. (5)Tower line routes and tower service area grids subject to this chapter shall be reviewed for those areas where the regulated tall structures will have impact.The commission shall not unreasonably expand the permit review to areas or uses not specifically addressed by this chapter. (6)Tall structures may be principal or accessory structures on a lot.A different existing use or an existing structure on the samelotshallnotprecludetheinstallationofatallstructureonthelot. (7)Tall structures for telecommunications,lighting and electrical transmission,that are constructed,and maintained,in accordance with the provisions of a permit issued under this chapter shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use or structure. (8)Conditions may be required for design,scheduling,fences,walls,warning signs,camouflage,vegetation,setbacks, collocation,use of existing and alternative structures,tower farms and other mitigation. (9)Unless specifically provided for by code,signs intended for view across lot lines shall not be permitted on tall structures except for warning signs required to address safety issues on the site. (10)The proposed development shall not interfere with the approaches to any existing airport or airfield,including water bodies supporting aircraft use. (li)Tall structures shall be constructed,configured,and maintain color schemes to reduce adverse visual impact. (12)Tall structures shall use nonstrobe type red lights for night air safety illumination unless otherwise required by law.The negative impact across lot lines caused by tall structure lights and illumination on the site shall be minimized.Scenic and night sky views,traffic safety,enjoyment of residential,and other lawful uses shall be protected.Conditions may be required for lighting:type, wattage,brightness,shrouds,direction,location,height,and other buffers. (13)Surrounding topography and development shall be used to reduce negative impacts.Height above nearby ridge lines,hills, trees,and buildings shall be the minimum needed to reasonably conduct the use. (14)Visibility oftall structures and aerial lines from public parks,trails,and water bodies will be minimized. (15)Aerial lines crossing parks,trails,and water bodies will be minimized. (16)For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tall structure or antenna complies with district development regulations including,but not limited to,setback requirements,lot size and coverage requirements,and other requirements,the dimensions of the entire lot shall control,even though the antennas or tall structures may be located on leased parcels within such lots. (17)In residential districts designated by code,towers must be set back at least the minimum required distance for structures in the zoning district,and may be required to be set back a greater distance to a maximum distance equal to the height of the tower. (18)In districts designated by code for commercial use,and public or institutional use,towers must be set back at least the minimum required distances for structures in the zoning district,and may be required to be set back a greater distance to a maximum of equal the height of the tower. http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=45468761 9&infobase=matsubor.nfo&record={6E22....12/19/2007 Document . .Page 7 of8 (19)In areas outside of specia:suid use districts and in districts designated by vude for agricultural and industrial use,towers must be set back at least the minimum required distances for structures in the zoning district. (20)Guys,guy anchors,and accessory facilities must meet zoning district setback requirements. (21)Towers over 100 feet in height shall not be located within one-quarter of a mile from another existing tower that is over 100 feet in height except as authorized in tower farms,tower service area grids,or tower line routes. (22)Adequate vehicle parking shall be provided on the subject property,outside of public use easements and rights-of-way. (D)Upon issuance of a permit under this chapter,the permittee shall provide all necessary documentation to maintain current information sufficient to demonstrate continued compliance with permit conditions. (E)The property owner and the permittee shall be responsible for maintaining all aspects of the operation,improvements,development, and site in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and all applicable local,state,and federal requirements. (F)Authorized representatives of the borough shall be allowed to inspect the site and related records at reasonable times for the purpose of monitoring compliance with all permit conditions.Upon reasonable notice from the borough,the permittee shall provide necessary assistance to facilitate authorized inspections. (G)As part of the application for conditional use permit under this section,the applicant shall provide the following supporting information: (1)Written confirmation from the applicable community council that a pre-application public meeting was held with the applicant to discuss issues related to the siting of the proposed tall structure. (2)A plan of development and operations describing the proposed use in detail sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all applicable borough ordinances,standards,and conditions.At a minimum this submittal shall also include: (a)Name,title and contact telephone numbers for persons in charge of the operation and who will be responsible for compliance with the permit. (b)Legal description of the subject parcel and borough tax account number.A location by latitude and longitude may also be required at the discretion of the planning director if appropriate to implement the requirements of this chapter. (c)Current maps at appropriate scale,showing:the location of the proposed use,the locations of other tall structure facilities operated by the applicant,and those proposed by the applicant that are within the borough or outside of the borough but within one-half mile of the borough boundary,the designated residential districts and the existing residential uses within one-half mile of the proposed use. (d)Evidence of compliance with applicable local,state,and federal laws regarding the proposed use of the property. (e)An organization chart or description identifying the lines of responsibility and general function of the organization that will own and operate the facility. (f)A description of all major types of activities proposed to occur on the site including at a minimum,the purpose, number,type,and general performance specifications of all tall structures and antenna,on site staffing,accessory structures, equipment such as generators,and plans for collocation of other tall structures,and antennae on the site. (g)A general description of the security and safety measures proposed to protect the public safety. (h)A site plan,drawn to scale under the seal of a qualified Alaska registered surveyor,clearly indicating all site boundaries,location of existing and proposed tall structures,antenna,other structures,and other development on site,means of access,screening and fencing,topography,landscaping,drainage management,adjacent public easements,and rights-of- way. (i).Elevation drawings of the facilities depicting existing and proposed tall structures,other structures,landscaping, proposed color(s),method of camouflage,and illumination.Photo simulations may be used to provide required information. Qj)Certification by a qualified Alaska licensed professional engineer that the structural integrity of the tall structure is in compliance with applicable safety standards. (k)Signed statements by the applicant containing the following information: (1)confirmation the proposed use is not part of a larger network or explanation of the proposed facility's function in a network; (ii)the feasibility of locating the facility in a district where the tall structure would be permitted as an administratively approved use; (iii)an explanation of why the proposed facility cannot be located on an existing facility; (iv)a description of how the tall structure will accommodate collocation of additional antennas and other compatible services for future users or why such collocation is not feasible; (v)agreement by the applicant and landlord to remove the facility within 90 days after abandonment,or termination of the permit,and (vi)assurance the proposed uses and structures shall comply with all Federal Aviation Administration,Federal Communications Commission,and other applicable federal,state,and local laws and regulations. (Ord.99-122,§2,1999;Ord.99-093(AM),§5,1999) 17.60.180 |TRANSFER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. (A)Except as otherwise specified by code,the privileges and requirements of a conditional use permit shall run with the land,subject to http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=454687619&infobase=matsubor.nfo&record={6E22...12/19/2007 Teeland to Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project:Project Description The Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project will build a new approximately 25- mile 230 kV segment for the Anchorage to Fairbanks electric power transmission line intertie (Intertie),owned by the State's Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).The segment will be added to the State's existing 170-mile Intertie built through the mid-1980s,which provides the only infrastructure for bulk energy transfers between the northern and southern Railbelt communities and is dedicated exclusively to such transmission at a 230 kV or higher construction standard. The Project is being built under a $20.3 million legislative appropriation to AEA and pursuant to approval of the Intertie Operating Committee (the organization of Railbelt utilities that manages the Intertie with AEA. This is a necessary and significant project.The new transmission pathway will replace an approximate 20-mile segment of the Intertie grid from Hollywood Road to Douglas consisting of an increasingly unreliable 115 kV line owned by Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.(MEA). The segment is used jointly for Intertie and MEA local purposes,and is substantially below the minimum 230 kV transfer capacity of the Intertie generally..The concurrent use began under a lease with MEA entered into in 1986,which it did not desire to renew upon expiration.This termination then led to litigation before the.Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Recognizing the Intertie's importance as "the vital link between power resources in the northern and southern portions of the Railbelt,”the RCA compelled MEA to continue availability of its facilities for Intertie use until a replacement facility such as this*Project could be constructed,tested and energized.igo hs ae The new segment will also replace approximately.five miles of the current Intertie grid fromTeelandtoHollywoodRoadconsistingofa138kVtransmissionlinebuiltinthe1980sbyAEAinMEAeasements.This segment is similarly subject to joint use and is below the transfer capacity standard throughout the balance of the Intertie (and with a further cap on Intertie load transfers).Additionally,the 1984 AEA/MEA agreement for this line provides for its transfer toMEAin2018,so that it is a relatively short-lived as well as marginally functional Intertie asset also prudent to replace and significantly upgrade at this time. The Proj ect therefore provides a necessary bypass for a critical and-eententious segment of theIntertie.It further provides a necessary major enhancement by replacing the existing joint use115and138kV.segments with a line dedicated exclusively to Intertie transmission andconstructedattheIntertie's minimum 230 kV standard. The new line will initially be energized at only 138 kV,which is the Intertie's present operating voltage.But designing and building the line to the higher Intertie construction standard of 230 kV constitutes a relatively small additional expenditure to the Project's cost.Moreover,the higher capacity will be required for transferring expected greater loads during the useful life of the Project,while also permitting more reliable,efficient and safer energy transfers at lower voltages.Consequently,constructing the new line to the higher 230 kV standard at this time rather than later as a stand-alone or even retro-fit project is the prudent choice. No final decision has been made on the new line's precise routing.Some possible routes were reviewed and ranked in a 2004 study by Dryden &LaRue (see second attachment),but other routings may be possible in whole or in part as might be rebuild of existing line sections.The Project's first phase will select the final routing based to the maximum extent feasible on local input. We are currently in the process of meeting with public officials and other public persons in the Borough likely to be interested in the Project and particularly its choice of routing,including the presidents or principal persons of stakeholder groups such as community councils that may be impacted by selection of any of the present routing scenarios (tentatively,Knik-Fairview, Meadow Lakes,Big Lake,Willow,and the Nancy Lake recreational Area).Our intention is to use these initial meetings for several purposes:to informally introduce our key people and the Project including our proposals for going forward;to respond to any questions and consider any guidance that may be offered for improving our contemplated plan of action;and generally to leave the contacted persons with a sufficient preliminary familiarity to provide useful first-order responses to members of the public that may choose to contact them for information wheninitiallyreceivingtheirnoticeoftheProject. Following these initial meetings,we intend to mail individual:notices of the Project and invitations to discussion sessions to all persons having property interests in the areas that would be impacted by our potential routing (the third attachment contains our intended format for this communication).Simultaneously,we will also issue a public noticeof the Project and theholdingofapublicworkshoptobothshareour.information to date and solicit communitycomment(format,frequency and choice of media for notice not yet selected).After the publicworkshop,we propose to hold meetings with the stakeholder groups individually.. Our timeline for the above steps is to complete meetings with public persons during January, mail individual notices and commence public notice in early February,hold our public workshopinearlyMarch(tentatively March 7,2008,7-11 pm,Settlers Bay Golf Course),and complete community council/stakeholder meetings by.the gnd.of April (a schedule has not yet beenestablishedforthese).my Contact telephone numbers will be provided in the notice materials.We are also constructing awebsitetoprovideusefulinformationanddupdatestothepublicastheProjectprogressestocompletion. TEELAND-DOUGLAS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT \ aegeaf"Ss F"@a: sitna es 4 ouston Vasil Fottonwoo 4"7 :ee: rue sl pele :i a *, oe .BirchwoodPAEaddY Wig CoePea Ans Vetage fEagle River AM NO.-2007,ATTACHMENT 1 -.-:-.-MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (i) __-ROADWAY ROUTE (H) -----------ALASKA RAILROAD ROUTE (A) -------CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (C) N col 00d ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ALASKA INTERTIE UPGRADE STUDY DGUQLAS SUBSTATION February24,2007 TEELAND-DOUGLAS TRANSMISION LINE UPGRADE PROJECT PURPOSE: This project will replace the 25 mile segment of the Alaska Intertie transmission system that extends between Wasilla and Willow and is owned by the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)but is jointly used by MEA and the State.Replacing this section will improve reliability, efficiency and bulk energy transfer capability throughout the railbelt electrical system. NEED: The MEA segment under joint use does not meet the reliability,efficiency and energy transfer needs and capabilities of the intertie system and must be replaced.MEA has also declined to renew the joint use agreement and desires the return of this segment for local use.Thus,for immediate needs and to prudently accommodate projected population and load growth,the Alaska legislature authorized and funded replacement of this segment of the Intertie and tasked the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)to execute its directive. DESCRIPTION: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)is undertaking a necessary and significant project to enhance the transfer capacity and reliability of the State owned Alaska Intertie.The Intertie provides the vital transmission infrastructure that links the power resources serving the Northern and Southern portions of the railbelt.The new 25 mile long segment of transmission line will extent between the Teeland substation located south of Wasilla near Settler's Bay to Douglas substation located near Willow (see attached map).The transmission line design will accommodate 230 kilovolts (kV)but the line will initially be energized at 138 kV-the present Intertie operating voltage.The remainder of the Intertie is built at 230 kV or higher construction standards and is dedicated exclusively to bulk energy transfers,as will be this new segment. The project will be built with a $20.3 million legislative appropriation.AEA has contracted with ML&P,the utility responsible for operating the southern portion of the Intertie,to serve as project manager. No final decision has been made on the new line's routing or line configuration.ML&P reviewed possible routes and ranked them in a 2004 study (see attached map).Other routing including the rebuilding of existing line segments may be possible.The first phase of the Project will be to solicit and evaluate agency and public input.ML&P,through its engineering and environmental consultants,will soon release informational material and schedule public meetings to solicit public comments. 12/27/07 CONTACTS: Company Contact Responsibility |Phone No.E-Mail Dryden &Del LaRue,|Project 349-6653 dlarue@drydenlarue.com LaRue,Inc.P.E.Engineer Travis/Peterson |Michael Public 522-4337 mtravis@tpeci.com Environmental |Travis,P.E.|Involvement Consulting,Inc.,Coordinator Place map here 12/27/07 James Strandberg From:.Agi,Lou E.[AgiLE@ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent:Thursday,July 19,2007 3:42 PM To:James Strandberg Subject:FW:AR No.2007-162,Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Project:7/24 Assembly Hearing Attachments:Var2.-Request for NTP phase1(T-D Fin-Prog Periodic Rpt).doc Hi Jim (and Group): Below is self-explanatory message |just sent Mike about Tuesday Assembly hearing.It should answer some of your questions.|haven't heard back from Mike yet,but |have a doctor's appointment shortly.Let me know if you have questions and I will pass on anything from Mike of interest to your group.Probably will not get back to you until tomorrow morning. Lou From:Agi,Lou E. Sent:Thursday,July 19,2007 2:44 PM To:Abbott,Michael K. Cc:Posey,James M.(MLP)Subject:AR No.2007-162,Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Project:7/24 Assembly Hearing Mike: Attached is ML&P's draft request for AEA to authorize commencement of Phase 1 work under the AEA contract.It was delivered Tuesday and is currently under review by AEA.The document provides a detailed view of what we are proposing for our first year's work in the Mat-Su,as well as an overview of total project numbers as we have them now.| am forwarding doc in case you want to familiarize yourself more with project before Tuesday. Also enclosed below is brief exchange between our chief Intertie engineer,Doug Hall,and me just confirming the project's value and possibly of interest to you as well.He informs me similar outage problems were experienced in past years, probably attributable in the main to the undersizing of the 20-mile segment. Unless you direct differently,|will advise the AEA people and Chugach GM (Bill Stewart)to show for Assembly meetingabout5pmTuesday,as we are apparently second on agenda for after 6pm.|will also invite Del LaRue (prospective prime sub and everybody's Intertie guru)and Golden Valley GM to be present although do not know if latter will make it. Either or both could prove useful depending on flow of Assembly discussion. The thrust of our expected contribution from both AEA (probably thru ED Ron Miller)and Chugach,if asked,is that project is necessary,has approval of lOC (Railbelt utilities Intertie group),and ML&P is acceptable and suitable project manager. |am not bringing slide show we prepared for work session not held. Let me know if any thoughts on your end.Thanks for help. Lou From:Hall,Doug W. Sent:Wednesday,July 18,2007 10:54 AM To:Agi,Lou E.;Pedersen,Chris E.;'Del Larue' Cc:Posey,James M.(MLP) Subject:RE:Teeland-Douglas Draft Request for Phase NTP Oe « Lou,for what it's worth.There have been 4 disruptions on the line between Teelana and Douglas since July 2.We have still not found the cause but each disturbance has resulted in an outage in Fairbanks.Another reason to complete construction of this line segment. NOTICE OF STATE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT AND INVITATION TO WORKSHOP This notice introduces the Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project under which the State through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)will build in the Mat-Su Borough an approximately 25-mile addition for the Anchorage to Fairbanks electric power transmission line intertie (Intertie).The State's existing 170-mile Intertie owned by AEA was built through the mid- 1980s at a 230 kilowatt (kV)or higher energy transfer standard,is dedicated exclusively to bulk energy transfers,and now provides the vital infrastructure linking our power resources serving the northern and southern portions of the Railbelt including the Kenai Peninsula and Bradley Lake hydroelectric facility.This addition to the Intertie will likewise be dedicated exclusively to Intertie use at its 230 kV minimum transfer standard,as well as provide significant upgrade of an Intertie segment requiring present replacement. The addition will bypass an approximate 20-mile 115 kV segment of the Intertie grid owned by Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)and possessing undesirable operating and capacity characteristics for Intertie purposes.The segment has been operated jointly for Intertie and MEA local purposes since 1986,first under a lease from MEA which it desired not to renew upon expiration in 2004 and since then under order of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska until a replacement line such as this dedicated bypass Project could be constructed,tested and energized with all due speed.Although this immediately required replacement will initially be energized only at 138 kV,which is the Intertie's present operating voltage,building the new line now to the higher 230 kV standard will enable the Intertie infrastructure to transfer substantially greater loads in the anticipated future at minimal extra present expense.Equally important,the higher capacity will also permit significantly more reliable,efficient and safer energy transfers at present lower voltages. Geographically,the addition will extend between the Teeland substation,located south of Wasilla near Settler's Bay on the Knik Goose Bay Road,to the Douglas substation located near Willow on the Willow-Fishhook Road (see attached map 1).This area lies within the southern portion of the Intertie and AEA has contracted with Anchorage's Municipal Light and Power (ML&P),the utility responsible for operating this portion of the Intertie,to serve as project manager.ML&P,in turn,has engaged engineering and environmental consultants to assist in the new line's routing,design and construction. No final decision has been made on the new line's precise routing or line configuration. Possible routes were reviewed and ranked in a 2004 study (see attached map 2),but other routing including the rebuilding of existing line segments may be possible.The Project's first phase will select the final routing for the addition based to the maximum extent feasible on local input. To secure community input ML&P and its consultants are scheduling public meetings,first with the community at large at a public workshop and later with individual 'stakeholder'groups such as community councils and other land use groups.The workshop and stakeholder meetings will provide an opportunity to explore the proposed routings in more detail together with Project options and constraints,as well as to address questions and concerns that may be raised by members of the community.Public notice will be provided for the workshop and suitable group notice for the stakeholder meetings. Individual mailed notices such as this one will be provided to persons that records or other information indicate own or have an interest in property that may be impacted by any of the routes presently under consideration.By virtue of your receipt of this notice,the ML&P consultants have determined that you own or otherwise have an interest in property potentially impacted by the potential routing.You are therefore particularly invited to attend our public workshop and/or the subsequent meeting for your stakeholder group to learn more about the Project and to contribute your thoughts. The public workshop will be held on March 7,2008,from 7 -11 pm,at the Settlers Bay Golf Club.A schedule of subsequent stakeholder meetings will be established and communicated at a later date,and possibly not until conclusion of the public workshop. If there are any questions before the workshop,contact information for ML&P consultants is provided below.A website is also under construction that will continue to provide useful information throughout the Project life. CONTACTS: Company Contact Responsibility Phone No.E-Mail Dryden &Dei LaRue,Project 349-6653 dlarue@drydenlarue.com LaRue,Inc.P.E.Engineer Travis/Peterson }Michael Public 522-4337 mtravis@tpeci.com Environmental Travis,P.E.Involvement Consulting,Inc.Coordinator _Lt fe fo7:,Tes) TELANO-DOU Brg,:Y) USEY Line g "Beuslos te eb et A bem « ©leg tag ihe be anenrthy.ty aubether,A thes Anansi,Lele Thing,nw)Pukan,- fehr taland /Droafon Latina f J cect CZ avtetre from :fe:eS |oO:OD An a mote ee |Ger \aiq-7216 A(401 )tse-6417 foul tabey Areva cep 205-5 3a preterination s AenGeeVirtenehPeliestrung(401)172-tsc8 -EFSF EEA [eg ct hor VWelste-Bee lo auctionTeeYeringtesctdagy(26)ss 0645 |(ao7}ca4-ozee ethupeafotBrantre/roo . tLirceh@alastacnet Beenrd anemrter HE; piv @.Aerewet ges tabard Borg laa Thepreyet,OD de a tepeg Sf ALe tentriack Me bt Wiser faint Kechele anitibong eaeTAPS Kernve Aewd ato namenernent phracLures and tonal}orfuquvtelicn Ss.2 Seckrrreal ConferenceOO.BAY |bane -@ 4-5 abode ot pape OO.a ae aebakahe 42 mam@454-'4o i¢gec lot /204 .reba soe hen an Lowerte Or Keryrn tf poervrpicudt Ate Pretehelen arnhhaLeAtarnnceArverien Leatinn Lt Teeland to Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project Kick-Off Meeting Agenda November 9,2007 Introductions Team Project Overview a.2004 Report b.Existing Lines c.New Line d.Routes e.Design,ROW,Permitting f.Construction Phase 1 a.Design Criteria b.Public Involvement Process (PIP) c.Initial ROW and Permitting d.Final Route Selection e.Preliminary Design f.Line Survey g.Budget &Schedule << Phase 2 -Permit Acquisition Phase 3 -Right-of-Way Acquisition Phase4 a.Final Design b.Construction Specifications Phase 5 -Construction Phase 6 Close Out Werk Breda meckongGEDAVN --». DRAFT ALASKA INTERTIE OPERATING COMMITTEE Interim MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY,MAY 18,2004 (AIDEA -BOARD ROOM) Present: John Cooley Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Art Copoulos Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) Henri Dale Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Doug Hall Anchorage Municipal Light &Power (AMLP) Bob Drake Matanuska Electric Association,(MEA) Jim Posey Anchorage Municipal Light &Power (AMLP) Joe Griffith Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Steve Haagenson Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Ron Miller Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) Brian Hickey Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Lee Thiebert Chugach Electric Association (CEA) Dora Gropp Chugach Electric Association (CEA). Del LaRue Dryden &LaRue Brian Bjorkquist Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) Ed Reubling Anchorage Municipal Light &Power (AMLP) Absent: Don Stead Homer Electric Association (HEA) Bob Day Anchorage Municipal Light &Power (AMLP) The meeting was called to order at 10:30 A.M. l ADOPTION OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES Minutes of prior meeting to be adopted at next scheduled meeting. ll APPROVAL/MODIFICATION OF AGENDA Art added VI-C Teeland SVC Aux transformer. Ul COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORTS A.-Karl Reiche e-mail of 4/16/04 There were no comments on the e-mail B.Copoulos/Kimmel e-mail of 5/17/04 To be discussed in work session. IV VISITOR'S COMMENTS RELATED TO ITEMS ON AGENDA No comments. Page 1 of 3 Vv RECESS Recess deferred -went into Work Session. vi WORK SESSION The work session began;discussions followed the agenda below. A.Teeland-Douglas Bypass Del LaRue gave a brief presentation on the different routes and discussed the pros and cons of these routes. Discussed possibility of condemnation,ElS,and potential tower conflict of sharing ROW's. As all the routes were feasible,and would accomplish the needed - infrastructure upgrade,it was discussed that the selection of a particular route,does not exclude the others from being pursued if unexpected obstacles were to present themselves. B.AMLP as Project Manager Discussed using AMLP as the project manager.Jim Posey says they are up to the challenge.AMLP and the State need to finish working out the details. Cc.Teeland SVC auxiliary transformer One of the dry pack transformers has failed.This is the second failure (although different modes of failure).CEA would like to replace the dry pack transformer with an oil transformer. lOC recommendation is to have an engineering firm spec out the proper oil transformer and have it replaced. vil FORMAL OPERATING COMMITTEE ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS Resolution 1: The IOC accepts and concurs with the Dryden &LaRue study "Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study -230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation” Vote taken and passed in favor. AEGT -abstain CEA -yes AMLP -yes GVEA -yes AEA -AEA concurs to support the IOC Utilities Recommendation. Resolution 2: The IOC recommends pursuing the MEA Parallel Route (Route M) Page 2 of 3 vu Vote taken and passed in favor. AEGT -abstain CEA -yes AMLP -yes GVEA -yes AEA -AEAconcurs to support the IOC Utilities Recommendation. -Resolution 3: The lOC recommends AMLP to perform the duties of "Project Manager” forthe Alaska Intertie Upgrade Project Vote taken and passed in favor. AEGT -abstain CEA -yes AMLP -yes GVEA -yes AEA --AEAconcurs to support the IOC Utilities Recommendation. SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS No assignments were made. DETERMINE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING Next meeting to be held at 11:00 AM on Thursday,July 15,2004,hosted by MEA. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:47 AM. Page 3 of 3 (a) 1 2 wad =I | T{MBERLAND eo a 7ederKe 8¥ay 7 6 - 9 & wm 10 bee Ld q "™™S s450) \Ife +LM3Ill[et]I Sees 4E|«ea!nSte (6533) PION PARK it) N2Y/” Ef WP isf;12,pio}a UNIT ¢2 Tract D 24 ";8/,|.3ia- bts) t 3/42)03}04]est ag]ta]18 (4405)(6611) TRACT A SETTLERS BAY UNIT O.ft cad J 10 ! Vf | | |ufHl TrajeetAOE/AOD 455 @/24/o7 iii1.o°.aiineiiagl i ML¢gP? JOHN R NIC MEMORIAL P (3914) Alaska Industrial DevelopmentheaExportAuthority MIE =ALASKAAEla!,EX f=ENERGY AUTHORITY August 1,2008 Lois Lester,President of the Board Matanuska Electric Association P.O.Box 2929 Palmer AK 99645 Re:-tnvitation to collaborate on the Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Dear Ms.Lester: Thank you for allowing the Teeland-Douglas Project Team to make a presentation to the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)Board on July 28,2008.As a follow-up to that meeting, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)seeks to work with MEA staff on some of the engineering details of this important project.There are several design issues that could impact your system; we would like our contractor,ML&P,and MEA to reach joint decisions on these matters: 1.SHARED ROW -The new towers can be located adjacent to the existing MEA towers and utilize some common right-of-way.This will minimize the additional right-of-way requirements to the neighboring property owners.How much of the existing MEA right- of-way can be shared on this Project? 2.CONNECTION AT DOUGLAS SUBSTATION -The Douglas Substation is presently supplied directly from the tntertie at 138kV.There are at feast three possible connections after construction of the new line: a.If MEA wants to change the existing line back to115kV and supply Douglas from that voltage,then the existing transformer will need to be modified to the 115kV supply voltage.This arrangement will limit the reliability to a radial (dead-end) line because the Intertie will bypass the Douglas Substation. b.It would be possible to install a new transformer from 138kV to 115kV.This would allow MEA to serve Douglas at their 115kV voltage and still allow for a loop feed (the Intertie would provide the second source).This is similar to the present setup with Douglas on the Intertie loop.oDouglas could remain as-is.The new 138kV fine would supply the existing transformer. Which on of the above scenarios best fits with MEA's needs? 3.RELOCATION OF MEA CIRCUIT -There are options on the type of tower to be instailed for the new line.The towers can be either capabie of a single circuit (3-wires) 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard *Anchorage,Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org ©907/771-3000 ©FAX 907/771-3044 ®Toll Free (Alaska Only)888/300-8534 »www.akenerpyauthority.org Ms.Lois Lester August 1,2008 Page 2 of 2 or a double circuit (6-wires).Does MEA wish to be inclucled on a double circuit tower or be left as-is on their existing line? We propose MEA's and ML&P's technical personnel!work together over the next 60 to 90 days to resolve these and any other issues.We seek to work with you to develop a joint cooperative approach for the project that minimizes impact to the MEA service area and its rate payers. Please respond directly to ML&P project manager Doug Hall (263-5453),and copy Louis Agi (263-5884),Kim Robinson (263-5889),and me. Again,we appreciated the hospitality you and your staff afforded us at the board meeting.We look for ways the project can both benefit MEA and the Railbett Electrical Grid,and to establish and maintain a positive trust relationship with MEA. Sincerely,decdCsuze. mes S.Strandberg,P.E. =A Project Manager,Teeland-Déuglas Intertie Project JSSish TH AAFA Projects\]eeland Douglas Intertie Project\.tr to MEA Board doc CC:Mr.Steve Haagenson,AEA Executive Director Mr.Russell Nogg,Chairman,ML&P Commission Mr.Jim Posey,ML&P General Manager Mr.Wayne Carmony,MEA General Manager ME A Matanuska ElectricSynergyWorks,Association,Inc.yw ;P.O.Box 2929 ' Palmer,Alaska 99645-2929 Telephone:(907)745-3231 Fax:(907)761-9368 August 13,2008 James S.Strandberg,P.E. AEA Project Manager Teeland-Douglas Intertie Project 813 W Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage,AK 99503-2495 Dear Mr.Strandberg: In a recent communication to the MEA Board President,Lois Lester,you asked a number of questions.|]have been asked to respond. Question:How much of the existing MEA right-of-way can be shared on this Project? Answer:MEA's response is essentially unchanged since it was previously communicated to AIDEA/AEA Executive Director Mr.Ron Miller on May 9,2003 (with the clarification that MEA does and will object to any sharing of right-of-way between Teeland Substation and our Hollywood Road 115 kV line crossing). Question:Which of the scenarios best fits with MEA's needs (a reference fo the connection at Douglas Substation)? Answer:c,(Until such time as AEA is notified to the contrary.) Question:Does MEA wish to be included ona double circuit tower or to be left as-is ontheirexistingline? Answer:As-is.MEA's position is unchanged since this information was communicated to Mr,Miller on May 9,2003.It is of importance that we maintain the flexibility to operate our own facilities,for our own purposes,and in the manner of our choosing,in either a single or double circuit configuration. Sincerely, vw)DAA Va aanWayneD.Carmony General Manager ce:MEA Board of Directors Enclosure ataaaedar=&S-irr"go>c==]weAMAR AEA Matanuska Electric Association,Inc. P.O.Box 2929 Palmer,Alaska 99645-2929 . Telepbone:(907)745-3231 VIA FACSIMILE Fax:(907)745-9328 'AND CERTIFIED MAIL May 9,2003 Mr.Ron Miller Executive Director Alaska Industria]Development and Export Authority/Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Dear Mr.Miller: ]am writing to follow up on our May 2,2003 telephone conversation,and my January28,2003 letter to James McMillan concerning the December 18,1986 Transmission Services Agreement (Agreement)between MEA and the AJaska Power Authority.A copy of my letter to Mr.McMillan is enclosed. This letter constitutes MEA's notice that it will not be extending the Agreement upon its scheduled June 30,2004 expiration.Although we had previously notified AIDEA/AEA that we might not arrive at a decision on the future of the Agreement until later this summier,our evaluation has concluded earlier than expected and J wanted to share this information with you as soon as possible as a gesture of good faith to your agency,; ; As you are probably already aware,this line segment is a major element in MEA's current and future operating plans.The line will undoubtedly play a key role in the © ultimate future use of MEA's Hollywood Road generation site,and it is critically important that MEA have the flexibility of operating it in the manner of our choosing, in either a single or double circuit configuration. As a general proposition MEA will,of course,cooperate with AIDEA/ABA in allowing for some easement overlap for a new transmission line,should your agency decide to proceed with construction adjacent to our existing right-of-way easements. We will,however,require that any overlap be limited to that portion of our easements between our closest phase conductor and the edge of our right-of way.Further,the new line will have to be constructed at a sufficient distance from MEA's existing Ron Miller May 9,2003 Page 2 facilities as to avoid the possibility of contact between the two lines in the event a structure in either line should fall over.Although our intent is to cooperate with AIDEA/AEA in allowing for some easement overlap,it must be understood that no physical intrusions into our existing easements will be permitted. We wili be happy to discuss these conceptual requirements in greater detail with your consultants at a time that is mutually convenient, Sincerely, Wayne D.Carmony General Manager Enclosure dz/prw