Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Teeland to Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade 2009
©Oo Clectric Power Systems Inc. Consulting Engineers Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Existing System Analysis January 26,2009 David W.Burlingame,P.E. Dr.James W.Cote,Jr.,P.E. David A.Meyer iWWW.EPSINC.COM PHONE (425)883-2833 °4020 148th AVE NE,SUITE C,REDMOND,WASHINGTON 98052 ¢FAX (425)883-0464PHONE(907)522-1953 *3305 ARCTIC BLVD.,SUITE 201,ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99503 ©FAX (907)522-1182 AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Existing System Analysis Summary of Changes Revision |Revision Date Revision Description Number 0 January 26,2009 |Initial Release January 26,2009 AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Existing System Analysis Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary Introduction Base Cases hmeWwWNContingencies N-1 Conditions 5 Results -Contingency Analysis 6 Conclusions January 26,2009 iii AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation 1 Executive Summary Electric Power Systems,Inc.(EPS)has evaluated the ability of the Alaska Railbelt transmission system to operate in a secure manner following the loss of the single transmission line between Chugach Electric Association's (Chugach's)Point MacKenzie and Teeland substations.Point MacKenzie substation is a key component in the Railbelt transmission grid,serving as the hub of electrical power generated at Beluga and providing interconnections to all other utilities.Teeland substation currently serves as the sole terminus of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie serving Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)and also as the primary source of power for Matanuska Electric Association's (MEA's)consumers in the Palmer and Wasilla area. The MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line is the heaviest loaded line in the Railbelt, carrying upwards of 200 MW at peak conditions.By comparison,the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie carries no more than 75 MW during its peak loading (See Attached Map). The ability of the Railbelt transmission system to continue operation following the loss of the MacKenzie-Teeland line has not been fully evaluated since prior to the upgrade of the Bradley Lake governor in 2006.This study provides a limited assessment of the security of the existing system and evaluated the benefits of constructing the Lorraine- Douglas transmission line. The study results indicate that the new Bradley Lake governor has increased the stability and security of the southern portion of the Railbelt.However,the loss of the MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line continues to provide the largest disturbance to the Railbelt,resulting in a large number of consumer outages and,in some cases,system instability.The sensitivity of the Railbelt to the loss of the MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line is not dependent upon winter or summer loading conditions,but rather fault duration and power flow on the Anchorage-Kenai transmission line. Under summer and winter loading conditions,the loss of the MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line results in unstable conditions in the Anchorage-Kenai transmission system.In addition to the system instability,the outage results in a blackout of approximately 30,000 of the Railbelt consumers.The unstable conditions could result in widespread blackouts from Fairbanks to Homer.In the worst case,the system will suffer a complete blackout with a risk of damage to Railbelt generators. The construction of a new substation at Lorraine,with a new transmission line to the Douglas substation,provides a transmission loop between MacKenzie,Lorraine, Teeland and Douglas substations.The loss of any single transmission line in this loop can eliminate the widespread outages and risk of system collapse in summer conditions. In the winter conditions,it eliminates the widespread outages in the Mat-Su Valley and Fairbanks and mitigates the risk of total system collapse in the remaining southern system. The construction of the Lorraine-Douglas transmission line has a dramatic impact on the reliability of service to the Railbelt consumers.The elimination of a single point of failure for the entire electrical system in summer conditions is achieved with construction of the transmission line.In winter and summer conditions,outages to all consumers in the Palmer and Wasilla areas and a significant number of consumers in the Fairbanks area is eliminated by the failure of a single transmission line.The stability margin for the winter conditions is improved,but unlike the summer conditions,the risk of system instability is not eliminated. > oa January 26,2009 1 9”,QecticPowerSystemsConsultingEngineers Ss _SYSTEM: Oo ? AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation 2 Introduction Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)requested that EPS perform a transmission assessment for the Alaska Railbelt transmission system between Chugach's Point MacKenzie substation and Douglas substation.The study was conducted using the most recently approved Railbelt database and 2007 loading conditions. Specifically,AML&P requested that EPS evaluate the security of the Alaska Railbelt transmission system against the loss the Point MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line. The loss of the transmission line has a severe effect on the Railbelt for two primary reasons:1)fault acceleration of the system generators,and 2)load rejection following the fault.During transmission faults,the system operating voltage is severely reduced at the point of the fault.As a result of reduced voltage,the generators experience an immediate loss of electrical load and may accelerate above their rated speed (60 Hz) during the fault.Since the Point MacKenzie station is near the electrical center of the Railbelt,faults near this station result in the greatest electrical acceleration for the Railbelt generation. When the transmission line fault is cleared by breakers on the transmission line,the Railbelt generators establish a new operating point and the system attempts to return to a new stable operating condition.The ability of a transmission system to transition from one stable operating point to another stable point following a transmission fault is referred to as maintaining transient stability.If the system cannot transition from one operating point to a second operating point following a transmission fault,the system is referred to as being transiently unstable or incurring system instability. In the case of a fault on the MacKenzie-Teeland line,after the fault is cleared by opening the breakers on the transmission line the generation acceleration created by the transmission line fault is replaced by the acceleration caused by the huge load rejection experienced when the GVEA and MEA consumers loose their power.The combination of the transmission fault followed by the loss of load creates a significant overspeed of the Railbelt generators (over 62.0 Hz).This overspeed reaches the point that the system is unable to return to a stable operating point,referred to as an unstable system. The Railbelt system is particularly vulnerable to instability as a result of faults on the MacKenzie-Teeland transmission system.This potential for instability increases as the duration of the fault increases and with increased power flow on the MacKenzie-Teeland line and the Anchorage-Kenai transmission lines.The large load rejection created by the loss of consumer load for this fault creates a frequency rise in the Railbelt in excess of 62.0 Hz.Coupled with this frequency rise,the system experiences severe frequency oscillations,increasing the risk of subsequent contingencies and generator damage. Once a system reaches a point of instability,the results are difficult to predict.The system could separate into smaller islands,with some islands surviving the event,or the entire system can experience a complete blackout. In addition to the impacts of a system blackout,instability presents a great risk to operating generation during the oscillations of an unstable event.The generators are subject to extreme electrical and mechanical stresses that can be catastrophic to generators in the most severe cases.The possibility of long-term damage to large generators is the driving reason for protection against unstable conditions. January 26,2009 2 Bo >CletePowerSystersoQ\Consulting Engineers© SYSTEMS AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation The addition of the Lorraine-Douglas transmission line eliminates potential blackout conditions to over 24%of the Railbelt consumers and eliminates the extreme frequency rise which follows the blackout.During summer conditions,the system is stable for a 230 kV Lorraine-Teeland line fault with no loss of load in the Railbelt.During winter conditions,the new line mitigates the chance of system instability and eliminates the loss of load that currently exists. 3 Base Cases Power flow base cases were selected that represent the peak loading conditions for both the winter and summer seasons of 2007.These cases were based upon previous Railbelt studies and approved databases.The system power totals for the base cases are shown in Table 1. Table 1 -Railbelt System Power Totals (MW) RAILBELT AML&P |CHUGACH |MEA |HEA |GVEA_|SEWARD |TOTALLOAD WINTER CASE 177 211]125 86]257 9 865 MACKENZIE- TEELAND FLOW 160 LOAD LOSS (%)18% SUMMER CASE 156 180]105|72] -219 3|740 MACKENZIE- TEELAND FLOW 110 LOAD LOSS (%)15% The base cases represent the historical loading conditions for the Railbelt system. Future load growth in the Mat-Su area,in particular,will increase the loading on the MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line,resulting in a case worse than what was evaluated in this study.In addition to these base cases,Intertie flows between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage and Fairbanks were varied to provide an assessment of the system during a wide range of conditions. 4 Contingencies N-1 Conditions The contingencies evaluated in this study include single line outages along the 230 kV transmission system between Chugach's Point MacKenzie and Teeland substations and the Alaska Intertie's Douglas substation.The system was modeled with all equipment initially in service. The new Lorraine substation was assumed to be constructed at the terminus of the existing double circuit transmission lines from Point Mackenzie to West Terminal of the Teeland stations.The Lorraine substation would serve as the new terminus for the two transmission lines from Point MacKenzie,intersecting the one transmission line to the Plant 2 substation,the one transmission line to Teeland substation and adding one new transmission line to the Alaska Intertie's substation at Douglas. When the Lorraine substation was modeled,contingencies for the Point MacKenzie- Lorraine,Lorraine-Plant 2 and Lorraine-Teeland stations were simulated as contingencies. lectric_Frower SystemsJanuary26,2009 3 'a meoyConsultingEngineers AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation 5 Results --Contingency Analysis The contingency analysis were evaluated for 2007 summer and winter conditions.A summary of the results of the analysis is included in the tables below: 2007 Summer Valley Analysis -Base Case Disturbance (Positive =North}Results =System Stable?Plot {Fault at From Bus End)Clearing |Kenai Teeland System Code Time Flow Flow |Separation MEA Line Open MEA Line ClosedNumberFromBusToBus..(Cycles)|(MW)(MW)Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable A di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 6 649 73.2 no "unstableJ stable [unstable |stable stable marginal d2 AMLP Plant 2 -East Terminal 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d2 AMLP Plant2 East Terminal 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 6 72 73.2 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable B d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 6 -64.9 73.2 yes stable stable Eunstable”stable stable marginal d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 6 72 73.2 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 6 -64.9 73.2 yes stable stable marginal stable stable marginal dl Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable c di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 4 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d2 AMLP Plant 2 -East Terminal 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d2 AMLP Plant 2 -_East Terminal 4 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 4 72 73.2 yes stable stabie stable stable stable stable D d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 4 64.9 73.2 yes stable stable _marginal stable stable _marginal d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 4 72 73.2 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 4 64.9 73.2 yes stable stable marginal stable stable marginal 2007 Winter Peak Analysis -Base Case Disturbance (Positive =North)Results =System Stable?(Fault at From Bus End)..Plot Clearing |Kenai Teeland System Code Number From Bus To Bus ume 'ow wee Separation MEA Line Open MEA Line Closed {cycles}|}{)Fairbanks -Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 6 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable E di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 6 648 74.6 no unstable,y stable [unstable |"unstableg stable fC unstable_]d2 AMLP Plant2 -East Terminal 6 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d2 AMLP Plant 2 _East Terminal 6 64.8 74.6 no "unstable ©stable *unstable'"unstable ™stable "unstable} d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 6 74.5 73 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable F d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 6 64.8 74.6 yes stable stable Eunstable_]stable stable Cunstable_1 d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 6 74s 73 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 6 64.8 74.6 yes stable stable marginal stable stable marginal di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 4 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable 6 di Pt.MacKenzie West Terminal 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d2 AMLP Plant2 =East Terminal 4 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d2 AMLP Plant 2 East Terminal 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal a3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 4 74.5 73 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable H d3 Pt.MacKenzie Teeland 4 64.8 74.6 yes stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 4 74.5 73 yes stable stable stable stable stable stable d4 Teeland Pt.MacKenzie 4 64.8 74.6 yes stable stable marginal stable stable marginal In each of the summer cases,with the MEA line open the MEA system suffers a total loss of power to all consumers served from Teeland substation and the GVEA system suffers a loss of 75 MW of consumer load.This represents approximately 20%of the load in the Railbelt.In addition to loss of power to MEA and GVEA consumers,in three of the cases the system is unable to maintain stability following the fault.For these cases,a total system blackout from Anchorage to Homer is possible with an extremely high overfrequency condition and unstable oscillations. The winter cases are similar to the summer cases,with the exception that the MEA line switch between Teeland and Eklutna stations has less of an impact on maintaining system stability.However,in these cases the extreme overfrequency condition created by the loss of both MEA and GVEA loads significantly increases the risk of total system blackout following the line outage.Similar to the summer condition,the loss of load January 26,2009 4 AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation attributed to this single line fault is approximately 20%of the Railbelt load.However, due to the amount of load lost and the impacts of cold load restoration,restoration of these loads could take considerably longer than under summer conditions. The results of the simulations following the incorporation of the Lorraine substation and Lorraine-Douglas transmission line are presented in the following tables: 2007 Summer Valley Analysis -Upgraded Case Disturbance (Positive =North)Results =System Stable?Plot (Fault at From Bus End)Clearing |Kenai Teeland System Code Number From Bus To Bus Time Flow Flow Separation MEA Line Open MEA Line Closed ;(Cycles)|(MW)(mw)Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai A ds Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d5 Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal B dé Lorraine West Terminal 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d6 Lorraine West Terminal 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d7 Lorraine Teeland 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable c a7 Lorraine Teeland 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal dg Teeland Lorraine 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable dg Teeland Lorraine 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal dg Lorraine Douglas 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable D a9 Lorraine Douglas 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal dio Douglas Lorraine 6 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable dio Douglas Lorraine 6 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal E ds Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d5 Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 4 -64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal F dé Lorraine West Terminal 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d6 Lorraine West Terminal 4 64,9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d7 Lorraine Teeland 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable G d7 Lorraine Teeland 4 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal as Teeland Lorraine 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable ds Teeland Lorraine 4 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal!stable stable marginal a9 Lorraine Douglas 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable H do *Lorraine Douglas 4 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d10 Douglas Lorraine 4 72 73.2 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d1o0 Douglas Lorraine 4 64.9 73.2 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal 2007 Winter Peak Analysis -Upgraded Case {Fault at from bus tna}(Positive =North)Results =System Stable? Plot Clearing |Kenai Teeland System Code Number From Bus To Bus nme ee ne Separation MEA Line Open MEA Line Closed (cycles)|(}()Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks Anchorage Kenai \aS Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 6 745 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stabledsPt.MacKenzie Lorraine 6 -64.8 74.6 no "unstable ©stable Funstable stable stable _Funstable )dé Lorraine West Terminal 6 745 73 no _stable stable stable _Stable stable stable d6 Lorraine West Terminal 6 -64.8 74.6 no "unstable?stable Funstable "unstable &stable Funstable d7 Lorraine Teeland 6 745 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable k d7 Lorraine Teeland 6 64.8 74.6 no "unstable'y stable unstable "unstable 3 stable Eunstable }d8 Teeland Lorraine 6 745 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable ds Teeland Lorraine 6 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal do Lorraine Douglas 6 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable L d9 Lorraine Douglas 6 64.8 74.6 no "unstable J stable Eunstabie "unstable stable funstable }10 Douglas Lorraine 6 74.5 73 no stable stabie stable stable stable stable d10 Douglas Lorraine 6 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal M dS Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 4 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable ds Pt.MacKenzie Lorraine 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable ___marginal stable stable marginal N dé Lorraine West Terminal 4 745 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable dé Lorraine West Terminal 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d7 Lorraine Teeland 4 745 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable PS d7 Lorraine Teeland 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal d8 Teeland Lorraine 4 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d8 Teeland Lorraine 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal do Lorraine Douglas 4 745 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable P d9 Lorraine Douglas 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal dio Douglas Lorraine 4 74.5 73 no stable stable stable stable stable stable d10 Douglas Lorraine 4 64.8 74.6 no stable stable marginal stable stable marginal As can be seen in the summer condition results,all cases are stable and the system does not experience any loss of load as a result of the fault.Several cases have January 26,2009 AML&P Lorraine Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation oscillations that may be present for longer than desired;however,the cases remain stable in the simulations. In the winter conditions,the fault acceleration is too great for the system to overcome with fault durations of 6 cycles,but the system is stable with 4 cycle fault durations.In both fault cases,the absence of the extreme overfrequency condition will increase the chance of system survival. The system swings,which appear unstable,may be controllable with mitigating measures such as SVCs at Lorraine and tuning power system stabilizers at Bradley and in the GVEA system;however,these measures were the beyond the scope of this study. 6 Conclusions The construction of the substation at Lorraine and a new transmission line from Lorraine to the Douglas substation will substantially reduce the loss of load in the Railbelt system due to faults on the Point MacKenzie-Teeland-Douglas transmission system.The system improvement will reduce the risk of system instability during both summer and winter conditions. If constructed,additional SVC support at the Lorraine substation with power oscillation dampening is recommended in order to provide further dampening of oscillations following faults on the 230 kV transmission system. January26,2009 6 ke Ciscoe SistersQyConsultingEngineers AML&P Lorraine -Douglas Transmission Line Evaluation ta " .:td atbg ow nt esPusSecBaterh|a] January 26,2009 7 E@lectric Power Systems Consulting Engineers Alaska Energy Authority January 19,2008 813 West Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage,Alaska 99503 Attention:Mr.Jim Strandberg Re:Budgetary Estimate for SVC Controls Upgrade Dear Mr.Strandberg, Electric Power Systems,Inc has reviewed reviewed the scope of work and effort required to implement the three options previously outlined by the IOC's Maintenance Subcommittee for upgrading the three SVCs located at Teeland,Healy and Gold Hill Stations.The costs of the SVC installations were updated to reflect the expected costs in 2008 dollars,but do not include administrative costs for AEA or the participating utilities.The costs also do not reflect any additional operating costs that may be incurred due to the outage of the Anchorage -Fairbanks Intertie during the construction of any of the three options. The estimated costs in 2008 dollars are as follows: Option 1 -SVC Controls Upgrade Only Item Cost Notes Construction Contract Labor $75,600.00 {2 men -5 weeks-10hrs/day Construction contract per Diem $9,000.00 {$150/day/man Construction Manager/Coordinator $41,550.00 Inspector $42,300.00 Miscellaneous material $12,000.00 Vendor Equipment &Labor $1,003,000.00 |ABB Quotation 8/29/07 +3% Contingency @20%$236,690.00 Total per site $1,420,140.00 Total Three Sites $4,260,420.00 Option 2 -SVC Controls &Thyristor/Cooling Upgrade Item Cost Notes Construction Contract Labor $75,600.00 |2 men -5 weeks-i0hrs/day Construction contract per Diem $9,000.00 |$150/day/man Construction Contract Labor -cooling $100,800.00 |4 men -5 weeks-10hrs/day Construction contract per Diem -cooling $12,000.00 |$150/day/man Construction Manager/Coordinator $72,480.00 |6hrs/day Inspector $70,500.00 Miscellaneous material $12,000.00 Vendor Equipment &Labor $1,504,500.00 {ABB Quotation 8/29/07 +3% Contingency @20%$348,816.00 Total per site $2,205,696.00 Total Three Sites $6,617,088.00 Multiple mobilization costs $150,000.00 Grand Total all three sites $6,767,088.00 PHONE (907)522-1953 *3305 ARCTIC BLVD.,SUITE 201,ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99503 *FAX (907)522-1182 *WWW.EPSINC.COM PHONE (907)789-2474 °2213JORDAN AVE,JUNEAU,ALASKA 99803 *FAX (907)789-4939 Option 3 -SVC Controls &Thyristor Cooling &Relaying UpgradeItemCost Notes Construction Contract Labor $75,600.00 {2 men -5 weeks-10hrs/day Construction contract per Diem $9,000.00 |$150/day/man Construction Contract Labor -cooling $100,800.00 14 men -5 weeks-10hrs/day Construction contract per Diem -cooling $12,000.00 |$150/day/man Construction Contract Labor -relaying $82,800.00 |4 men -5 weeks-10hrs/day Construction contract per Diem -relaying $9,000.00 {$150/day/man Design Engineer $67,800.00 As-Built $120,000.00 Documentation $18,000.00 Construction Manager/Coordinator $90,600.00 |6hrs/day Inspector $112,800.00 Miscellaneous material $47,000.00 Vendor Equipment &Labor $1,504,500.00 {ABB Quotation 8/29/07 +3% Contingency @20%$367,900.00 Total per site $2,617,800.00 Total Three Sites $7,853,400.00 Multiple mobilization costs $150,000.00 Grand Total all three sites $8,003,400.00 We believe these estimates reflect the cost of the three SVC options under discussion by the IOC and reflect the latest costs supplied by ABB.We believe the solicitation of proposals for qualified vendors will result in price proposals equal to or less than those included within the above budgetary estimates. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 646-5103 or via email at dburlingame@epsinc.com. Sincerely, David W.Burlingame,P.E. Principal PHONE (907)522-1953 *3305 ARCTIC BLVD.,SUITE 201,ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99503 *FAX (907)522-1182 *WWW.EPSINC.COM PHONE (907)789-2474 *2213 JORDAN AVE,JUNEAU,ALASKA 99803 *FAX (907)789-4939 PAGE 2 OF 2 In-house work paper Project:Static VAR Compensator Project, Alaska Intertie Project Description of Work:Replace Static VAR Compensator Active Network components at three locations on the Alaska Intertie. Work will include: Design Services for creation of competitive bid documents Remove existing static VAR compensator Installing new thyristor devices,thyristor controllers,a liquid based thyristor cooling system,within existing AEA owned buildings,at the following intertie sub-station locations: Gold Hill Healy Teeland Required building modifications SCADA communications upgrades to integrate new controls into existing network SCADA system Spare Parts Budget: $8,300,000 Schedule: Design 90 days [assume term agreement services] Bidding 60 days Construction Mobilization 90 days Construction 120 days AIDEA -AEA Alaska Energy Authority Intertie SVC Repairs FY2008 Request:$10,000,000 Reference No: AP/AL:Appropriation Project Type:Repair and Replacement Category:Development Location:Statewide -Railbelt Contact:Sara Fisher-Goad House District:Contact Phone:(907)771-3012 Estimated Project Dates:04/13/2008 -06/30/2010 Brief Summary and Statement of Need: Language Section:$10,000,000 is appropriated to AEA from the Alaska Capital Income Fund as a debt obligation recoverable as a cost of use of the Alaska Intertie.The funding is needed for critical Static Var Compensator (SVC)upgrades. Funding:FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total Total:$10,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 State Match Required I One-Time Project [I Phased -new Tl Phased -underway [I On-Going 0%=Minimum State Match %Required [ Amendment I Mental Health Bill Operating &Maintenance Costs:Amount Staff Project Development:0 0 Ongoing Operating:0 0 One-Time Startup:0 Totals:0 0 Additional Information /Prior Funding History: The Teeland SVC unit has been periodically_out of service because it apparently is losing its phase _..---{Deleted:taken lock and outputting voltage spikes.Of the three that are a part of the AEA owned Intertieno more -_-__..--{Deleted:fourthanonemaybeoutofserviceatanygiventime.SVCs are active network control devices thatmust ::--{Detetea:inoperatetomaintainstabilityoftheIntertie.If more than one goes down _at any given time,the intertie _(Deleted:system and owned by AEA,will need to be taken out of service. {Deleted:another LAAINSThe utilities are terming the SVC condition as serious,warranting immediate attention.The appropriation will finance repairs,payable by participating utilities,for design services,removal of existing SVCs,installing new thyristor devices,controllers and cooling systems at the Gold Hill,Healy and Teeland sub-stations.In addition,the appropriation will finance SCADA communication upgrades to integrate the new controls into the existing network SCADA system. The debt obligation is consistent with the Alaska Intertie Agreement that requires the participating utilities to pay for intertie repairs,renewals and replacements.The debt obligation shall be payable at 0%for a term not to exceed 10 years._Suggested alteration:...not to exceed 15 years.[note:this would harmonize with the position taken by the IOC and communicated to AEA for use in putting financing information together.] A Deleted:2/11/08 9:18:24 AMStateofAlaskaCapitalProjectSummaryDepartmentofCommerce,Community,and Economic Development Final FY06 Cap Supps w/Vetoes Reference No:42727 |5/41010:4050AM sr --sisiSY Paget va (o/s PB pow TEELAND-DOUGLAS TRANSMISSION LINE UPRGRADE PROJECT DOUGLAS-LAKE LORRAINE ROUTE OPTION This document is in response to the October 3,2008 letter from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)to Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)as project manager for the Teeland-Douglas Transmission Line Upgrade Project (Project).The letter requested a short concept paper presenting the Douglas-lake Lorraine route option for completing the southern segment of the AEA-owned Intertie component to the Railbelt electric transmission grid. Vulnerability of Transmission Grid a By way of brief overview,the Railbelt electric transmission grid serves consumers in towns and surroundingareasthatcomprisethreemajorloadcenters:Homer,Kenai and Soldotna on the Kenai Peninsula;Anchorage andtheMat-Su Valleyin Southcentral Alaska;and Healy,Delta Junction and Fairbanksin Interior Alaska.Railbeltgenerationplantsarelocatedinthesethreemainareas:primarily Bradley Lake (Kenai Peninsula),Beluga/Plant 2(Southcentral Area);and Golden Valley Electric Association (Interior Alaska). Kenai and Southcentral have historically been interconnected through the Quartz Creek transmission line.Also,approximately twenty-five years ago,Railbelt electric cooperatives,municipalities and the State of Alaska bandedtogethertobuildthe170-mile AEA-owned Alaska Intertie to provide an interconnection between Southcentral and the Interior,and thereby additionally succeededin creating an interconnection of the three major generationandloadareas.Since commissioning,the Alaska 'Intertie has substantially enhanced electric reliabilitythroughouttheRailbeltbyprovidingsupporttoanyone'load center from the other load centers.It has alsoalloweddeliveryoflowcostpowertoInteriorAlaskaandgeneratedpower.sales revenue for the Anchorage,Mat-Su and Kenai Peninsula customers.: While the transmission lines are thus the backbone of the Railbelt electric grid,the Intertie and Quartz Creek segments are only single-line facilities.Consequently their reliability is compromised by the lack of any redundancy should they suffer an outage for any reason,with such failure thereby isolating the affected load centers from each other and the benefits that interconnection generates.And if the isolated load center shouldsimultaneouslyexperienceasignificantcompromiseofitsowngeneration(which might occur under severewinterweatherconditions,earthquakes or floods),then a very difficult situation would be presented.Single- contingency transmission paths therefore characterize weak transmission grids,and ours will have to be enhanced to provide greater redundancy in the near future if the Railbelt grid is to be characterized as a minimally robust transmission system similar to those generally in place within the contiguous U.S. However,the 230 kV segment of the Southcentral grid running from the Point Mackenzie substation 20 miles to the Teeland substation is particularly vulnerable and requires immediate attention if resources can be provided. Should this segment feeding to the Teeland substation experience an outage,it would not only isolate the Interior load center.It would simultaneously trigger immediate outage of the MEA system and its approximately 50,000 customers as the segment also feeds that area.Moreover,because Anchorage is also fed through the Point Mackenzie substation,the disturbance created by this single line's failure has the potential to create a cascading blackout for Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.It should further be kept in mind that during peak loading conditions the segment must transmit almost three times the amount of power normally carried by other Railbelt grid components,adding to the concern for bolstering its reliability as early as feasible.This Pt.Mackenzie- Teeland link is the major weakness in the present Intertie structure that can be removed by the Douglas-Lake Lorraine routing for the southern terminus of the Intertie. Page 1 Page 3 |Ge Qo TEELAND-DOUGLAS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT:LAKE LORRAINE ROUTING Overview:The public involvement process for this project has allowed consideration of whether the original concept of a Teeland to Douglas transmission line routing might be modified to better serve the overall Railbelt electric infrastructure.Modifying the new line's routing to terminate at Lake Lorraine rather than Teeland will respond to public routing concerns near the Teeland Substation,and will significantly enhance reliability of the Railbelt electric grid.This modification will therefore provide a strong improvement over the original project concept. Existing Transmission System:The Railbelt electric transmission system serves consumers in towns and surrounding areas that comprise three major load centers:Homer,Kenai and Soldotna on the Kenai Peninsula; Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley in Southcentral Alaska;and Healy,Delta Junction and Fairbanks in Interior Alaska.The Kenai and Southcentral load centers have been interconnected for many years,and the Alaska Intertie in 1985 connected Southcentral with the Interior resulting in an interconnected Railbelt transmission system. Within the Railbelt system,interconnecting transmission lines typically carry no more than 75 MW during normal loading conditions,or about enough power for 15,000 Alaskan homes and businesses.This practice results from physical limitations in the interconnecting transmission lines.One exception to this general loading pattern throughout the Railbelt system is the transmission line between Point MacKenzie and the Teeland Substation. During peak loading conditions,this transmission line segment must carry over 200 MW to consumers in the Mat-Su Valley and Interior Alaska areas,or almost three times the typical load of Railbelt transmission lines.An unexpected outage of this one transmission line can interrupt power to over 50,000 homes and business's throughout the Southcentral and Interior regions. Moreover,due to the amount of power and its critical location in the electrical system,the unexpected loss of this transmission line also 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 worst contingency for planning in the entire Railbelt.Loss of this single transmission line could black out the entire electrical system. Proposed Improvement;Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)as project manager for AEA is presently working on the route selection for a new line between the Teeland and Douglas Substations pursuant to earlier legislative funding and authorization (Sec.78(c),ch.1,SLA 2002).The importance,as above discussed, of the Point MacKenzie/Teeland line to the Railbelt system provides an opportunity to consider a modification to the original authorization/appropriation that responds to public concerns for routing and,in fact,more truly furthers the legislation's primary intent to "upgrade and extend”the southern terminus of the Alaska Intertie.If the new transmission line from Douglas Substation were extended further south to Lake Lorraine rather than terminated at Teeland Substation,the power line could be routed in less populated area to lessen impact on area residents and substantially reduce the potential for system-wide blackout. A Douglas-Lake Lorraine routing option entails construction of a new switchyard near the area of Lake Lorraine along the Point Mackenzie Road,approximately two miles west of the new Mat-Su Port facilities,as well as a new 230 kV transmission line north to the existing Douglas Substation.At Douglas,the voltage would be reduced for connection to the Alaska Intertie at the existing 138 kV as it is today and additional system enhancements will be considered. Two existing 230 kV transmission lines from the Point MacKenzie Substation and one existing 230 kV line from Plant 2 in Anchorage would serve the new Lake Lorraine Substation.With the completion of the new transmission line,the Lake Lorraine Substation would become a new hub for the Railbelt grid,interconnecting key transmission lines from Point MacKenzie and ML&P with transmission lines serving MEA and the Alaska Page 1 Intertie.In addition to significantly strengthening this critical link in the Railbelt electrical system,the new hub may also be used to serve loads in surrounding areas. Cost Estimate:Until a more definitive analysis is undertaken,it is not possible to attempt a detailed itemization of costs for a Douglas-Lake Lorraine routing.Based on a very preliminary review,AEA estimates that a 40-mile long transmission line,a new substation,and modifications to the existing substation will cost $80 million,less the remaining portion of the original appropriation for the Teeland-Douglas Upgrade Project.This proposed routing change will still accomplish the primary intent of the Teeland-Douglas Upgrade Project authorization while as discussed critically enhancing the reliability of the overall Railbelt electrical system. Contact Information For further clarification and more information,please contact: Mr.James Strandberg,Project Manager Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority/Alaska Energy Authority 771-3069 jstrandberg(@aidea.org Alaska ™to FairbanksWILLOWDOUGLAS SUBSTATION PROPOSED DOUGLAS/LAKE LORRAINE SUSANTRANSMISSIONLINE ROUTE UNDETERMINED PROPOSED LAKE LORRAINE TO ANCHORAGE SUBSTATION CEA/ML&P TO BELUGA LINES POINT MACKENZIE TO ANCHORAGE Page 2 Co Co Teeland/Douglas 2004 Routing Study -4 possible routes PIP -picked the MEA parallel route Possible improvement to the system by going to Lorraine instead of Teeland October 3,2008 letter with possible change of scope Placeholder 2-page document ("short concept paper”) Cursory look at parcel count for all ARR routes plus CEA parallel and Knik Road Brief system review and confirmation of Lorraine Routing Study 1.Proceed with routing study addendum a.Just parallel to CEA b.Wait on ARR draft EIS (March 2009) i.Try to select the most likely c.Use the all the ARR routes and include in routing study amendment d."make every effort to ...avoid or mitigate”dual towers e.Corridor width 2.Wait on ARR final EIS and ROD(June/July 2009) a.Use selected ARR route plus CEA and Knik Road 3.Wait on IRP and use their route plus CEA,Knik Road and ARR (Sept/Oct 2009) 1.Discuss interconnection options 2.Discuss joint tower use REGA -Susitna needs and requirements (20??) 7 SECTION 12 TRANSMISSION PROJECTS ALASKA RIRP STUDY Project E -Lake Lorraine to Douglas 230 kV Transmission Line (New Build -Category 2) Pt.MacKenzie substation is a key component in the Railbelt transmission grid,serving as the hub of electrical power generated at Beluga and providing interconnections to all other utilities.Teeland substation currently serves as the sole terminus of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie and also as the primary source of power for MEA's consumers in the Palmer-Wasilla area. The Pt.MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line is the heaviest loaded line in the Railbelt,often carrying over 200 MW during peak months.By comparison,the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie is constrained to no more than 75 MW during its peak loading and the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie is restricted to less than 85 MW.Under both summer and winter loading conditions,the loss of the Pt.MacKenzie-Teeland transmission line results in unstable conditions in the Anchorage-Kenai transmission system during certain generation conditions. This instability is in addition to the blackout of approximately 25 percent of the Railbelt consumers caused by the line outage.The unstable conditions could result in widespread blackouts from Fairbanks to Homer.In the worst case,the system will suffer a complete blackout,with a risk of damage to Railbelt generators. The construction of a new substation at Lake Lorraine,with a new transmission line to Douglas Substation provides a transmission loop between Pt.MacKenzie,Lake Lorraine,Teeland and Douglas substations will eliminate the largest single contingency in the Railbelt system.Following the completion of the Lorraine- Douglas line,the loss of any single transmission line in this loop will not result in widespread outages in the Fairbanks and Mat-Su areas. The construction of the Lake Lorraine-Douglas transmission line has a dramatic impact on the reliability of service to the Railbelt consumers.The elimination of a single point of failure for the entire electrical system in the summer conditions is achieved.In both winter and summer conditions,outages to all consumers in the Palmer -Wasilla areas and a significant number of consumers in the Fairbanks area by the failure of a single transmission line are eliminated.The stability margin for the winter conditions is improved,but unlike the summer conditions,the risk of system instability is not eliminated. This project will also require the upgrade of the existing SVCs at Teeland,Healy and Gold Hill.These SVCs were installed in 1984 as part of the original Intertie construction.The SVC components are no longer manufactured or available from third party vendors.Spare parts have been exhausted and replacement components cannot be obtained.Loss of the SVCs is critical to the operation of the Intertie and the economic transfer of both energy and capacity between Anchorage and Fairbanks.Figure 12-6 presents this proposed project. Black &Veatch,12-11 .February 2010 SECTION 12 TRANSMISSION PROJECTS a Figure 12-6LakeLorrainetoDouglas230kVTransmission Line (New Build) ALASKA RIRP STUDY Black &Veatch _12-12 February 2010 a :8 © Alaska Energy Authority Lake Lorraine to Douglas Crew Hr 5/9/2011 Structures Cost Estimate $900 Unit Cost Item Qnty Est.Wt Material Crew Hr Labor Total Steel DC 230kV Tangent 500'Span 230kV String Insulator 6 $850 0.5 $450 $7,800 90'Steel Pole with Davit Arms 1 5,500 $10,000 7 $6,300 $16,300 Ground Sleeve 1 1,800 $3,500 6 $5,400 $8,900 Total $33,000 Winter Construction +20%$39,600 Pipe Pile Foundation*1 2,900 $870 6 $5,400 $6,270 Total $46,000 2-Pole Running Angle Structure DC 230kV 230kV Angle Strings 2 $2,300 6 $5,400 $15,400 85'Steel Pole 2 3,500 $6,000 6 $5,400 $22,800 Ground Sleeve 2 1,200 $2,300 6 $5,400 $15,400 Guy Assembly 6 $450 1 $900 $8,100 Anchor Assembly 6 $400 2 $1,800 $13,200 $75,000 Winter Construction +20%$90,000 Pipe Pile Foundation*2 2,900 $870 6 $5,400 $12,540 Total $103,000 2-Pole Guyed Structure DC 230kV 230kV Deadend Strings 2 $2,300 4 $3,600 $11,800 85'Steel Pole 2 6,000 $12,000 6 $5,400 $34,800 Ground Sleeve 2 2,500 $5,200 6 $5,400 $21,200 Guy Assembly 12 $500 1 $900 $16,800 Anchor Assembly 12 $450 2 $1,800 $27,000 Total $112,000 Winter Construction +20%$134,400 Pipe Pile Foundation*2 2,900 $870 6 $5,400 $12,540 Total $147,000 Cardinal Conductor 1000'1,300 $2,000 5 $4,500 $6,500 Winter Construction +20%$7,800 Estimated one-mile $694,960 Summer 10-tangent,2-angle,1 deadend $936,552 Winter 10-tangent,2-angle,1 deadend *36"pipe pile -3/8"wall -145#/ft -20°length Alaska Energy Authority Lake Lorraine to Douglas Line Segment Cost Estimate -SUMMER &WINTER CONSTUCTION TOTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE SEGMENT LENGTH TANGENT ANGLE DEADEND TOWERS COND*TIMEFRAME Willow Mac East/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168°Winter Connector 3 30,149"41 13 7 61 90°Winter Willow w/Access 147,523'201 63 31 295 443°Winter 233,640"468 701' Houston North Mac East/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168°Winter Connector 3 30,149"41 13 7 61 90"Winter Houston North 81,576'107 36 20 163 245°Winter Houston/Willow 1 10,349'15 4 2 -24 31°Winter Houston/Willow 2 45,619"60 22 9 91 137'Summer 223,661'448 671' Houston South Mac East/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168'Winter Connector 3 30,149"41 13 7 61 90°Winter Houston South 109,190°143 52 23 218 328°Winter Houston/Willow 2 45,619"60 22 9 91 137'Summer 240,926'482 723' Big Lake Mac East/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168'Winter Big Lake 87,014'119 37 18 174 261'Winter Big Lake/Houston 42,082'55 19 10 84 126'Winter Houston/Willow 1 10,349"15 4 2 21 31 Winter Houston/Willow 2 45,619'60 22 9 91 137'Summer 241,032"482 723' Exist.Corridor CEA 125,136 172 51 27 250 375'1/2 Winter,1/2 Summer Big Lake/Houston 42,082'55 19 10 84 126'Winter Houston/Willow 1 10,349'15 4 2 21 31'Winter Houston/Willow 2 45,619°60 22 9 91 137°Summer 223,186'446 670° Methodology -Each line segment is divided into 500°spans Angles and deadends are based on routes shown on drawing plus two angles and one deadend per mile three conductors are assumed *CONDUCTOR units are 1,000' **DESIGN &MANAGEMENT consists of:Design,Owner Costs,Inspection,etc.-20%of construction estimate Page 1 5/9/2011 CONST.COST DESIGN &*ESTIMATE |MANAGEMENT TOTAL ESTIMATE $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 $13,320,644 $4,959,482 $991,896 $6,447,326 $7,191,249 $26,118,447 «$5,223,689 _$33,953,984 $37,871,748 $40,264,580 $8,052,916 $52,343,954 to $58,383,641 $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 $13,320,644 $4,959,482 $991,896 $6,447,326 $7,191,249 $13,478,878 $2,695,776 $17,522,542 $19,544,374 $1,638,162 $327,632 $2,129,610 $2,375,335 $5,527,574 $1,105,515 -_-$7,185,847 $8,014,983 $34,790,748 $6,958,150 $45,227,972 to $50,446,584 $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 $13,320,644 $4,959,482 $991,896 $6,447,326 $7,191,249 $17,870,055 $3,574,011 $23,231,072 $25,911,580 $5,527,574 '$1,105,515 _-$7,185,847 $8,014,983 $37,543,763 $7,508,753 $48,806,892 to $54,438,456 $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 $13,320,644 $13,967,137 $2,793,427 $18,157,278 $20,252,349 $6,941,709 $1,388,342 $9,024,222 $10,065,479 $1,638,162 $327,632 $2,129,610 $2,375,335 $5,527,574 «$1,105,515 '$7,185,847 $8,014,983 $37,261,234 $7,452,247 $48,439,604 to $54,028,789 $16,327,167 $3,265,433 $21,225,317 $23,674,392 $6,941,709 $1,388,342 $9,024,222 $10,065,479 $1,638,162 $327,632 $2,129,610 $2,375,335 $5,527,574 $1,108,515 _$7,185,847 $8,014,983 $30,434,613 $6,086,923 $39,564,997 to $44,130,189 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Lorraine to Douglas Line Segment Cost Estimate -ALL WINTER CONSTRUCTION 5/9/2011 TOTAL ESTIMATE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONST.COST DESIGN &** LINE SEGMENT LENGTH TANGENT ANGLE DEADEND TOWERS COND*TIMEFRAME ESTIMATE MANAGEMENTWillowMacEast/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168"Winter $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 Connector 3 30,149"A 13 7 61 90'Winter $4,959,482 $991,896 $6,447,326Willow147,523"201 63 31 295 443'Winter $26,118,447 $5,223,689 _$33,953,981 233,640°468 701°$40,264,580 $8,052,916 $52,343,954 Houston North Mac East/West §5,968"75 23 14 112 168'Winter $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 Connector 3 30,149"a 13 7 61 90'Winter $4,959,482 $991,896 $6,447,326 Houston North 81,576"107 36 20 163 245"Winter $13,478,878 $2,695,776 $17,522,542 Houston/Willow 1 10,349"15 4 2 21 31"Winter $1,638,162 $327,632 $2,129,610Houston/Willow 2 __45,619"60 22 9 91 137'Winter $7,416,489 $1,483,298 $9,641,436 223,661"448 671'$36,679,663 $7,335,933 $47,683,562 Houston South Mac East/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168°Winter $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 Connector 3 30,149"41 13 7 61 90"Winter $4,959,482 $991,896 $6,447,326 Houston South 109,190"143 52 23 218 328"Winter $17,870,055 $3,574,011 $23,231,072 Houston/Willow 2 45,619!60 22 9 91 137'Winter $7,416,489 $1,483,298 $9,641,436 240,926"482 723°$39,432,678 $7,886,536 $51,262,481 Big Lake Mac East/West 55,968"75 23 14 112 168"Winter $9,186,651 $1,837,330 $11,942,647 Big Lake 87,014 119 37 18 174 261'Winter $13,967,137 $2,793,427 $18,157,278 Big Lake/Houston 42,082"55 19 10 84 126 Winter $6,941,709 $1,388,342 $9,024,222 Houston/Willow 1 10,349 15 4 2 21 31'Winter $1,638,162 $327,632 $2,129,610 Houston/Willow 2 45,619"60 22 9 91 137"Winter $7,416,489 $1,483,298 $9,641,436 241,032"482 723°$39,150,149 $7,830,030 $50,895,193 Exist.Corridor CEA 125,136"172 54 27 250 375'Winter $20,062,182 $4,012,436 $26,080,837 Big Lake/Houston 42,082"55 19 10 84 126°Winter $6,941,709 $1,388,342 $9,024,222 Houston/Willow 1 10,349"15 4 2 21 31"Winter $1,638,162 $327,632 $2,129,610 Houston/Willow 2 45,619"60 22 9 91 137"Winter $7,416,489 $1,483,298 $9,641,436 "223,186"446 670"$36,058,543 $7,211,709 $46,876,106 Methodology -Each line segment is divided into 500'spans Angles and deadends are based on routes shown on drawing plus two angles and one deadend per mile three conductors are assumed *CONDUCTOR units are 1,000' **DESIGN &MANAGEMENT consists of:Design,Owner Costs,Inspection,etc.-20%of construction estimate Page 2 to to to to $13,320,644 $7,191,249 $37,871,748 $58,383,641 $13,320,644 $7,191,249 $19,544,374 $2,375,335 $10,753,909 $53,185,511 $13,320,644 $7,191,249 $25,911,580 $10,753,909 $57,177,383 $13,320,644 $20,252,349 $10,065,479 $2,375,335 $10,753,909 $56,767,716 $29,090,164 $10,065,479 $2,375,335 $10,753,909 $52,284,887 ? 0 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Lorraine to Douglas Line Segment Cost Estimate -ALL WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLUS 450'SPAN LINE SEGMENT Willow Mac East/West Connector 3 Willow Houston N:Mac East/West Connector 3 Houston North Houston/Willow 1 Houston/Willow 2 Houston S«Mac East/West Connector 3 Houston South Houston/Willow 2 Big Lake Mac East/West Big Lake Big Lake/Houston Houston/Willow 1 Houston/Willow 2 Exist. Corridor CEA Big Lake/Houston Houston/Willow 1 Houston/Willow 2 Methodology -Each line segment is divided into 500'spans 55,968" 30,149" 147,523' 233,640" 55,968' 30,149" 81,576" 10,349" 45,619" 223,661' 55,968" 30,149" 109,190' 45,619' 240,926" 55,968" 87,014' 42,082' 10,349' 45,619' 241,032" 125,136' 42,082' 10,349" 45,619' 223,186" LENGTH TANGENT 23 13 63 14 7 31 27 10 ANGLE DEADEND TOWERS TOTAL COND* 112 168" 61 90" 295 443 468701" 12,168" 61 90" 163245" 21 31" 91 137" 448 «671 112168" 61 90"218 =328"91 137 482723" 112 168" 174261" 84 126" 21 31" 1 137" 482-«723' 250 375" 84 126" 21 3" 91 137" 446 «670 CONSTRUCTION TIMEFRAME Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Angles and deadends are based on routes shown on drawing plus two angles and one deadend per mile three conductors are assumed *CONDUCTOR units are 1,000' **DESIGN &MANAGEMENT consists of:Design,Owner Costs,Inspection,etc.-20%of construction estimate Page 3 CONST.COST DESIGN &** ESTIMATE $10,368,201 $5,597,582 $26,787,843 $42,753,626 $10,368,201 $5,597,582 $15,214,378 $1,847,562 $8,368,839 $41,396,563 $10,368,201 $5,597,582 $20,167,305 $8,368,839 $44,501,928 $10,368,201 $15,756,787 $7,835,259 $1,847,562 $8,368,839 $44,176,649 $22,632,282 $7,835,259 $1,847,562 $8,368,839 $40,683,943 MANAGEMENT $2,073,640 $1,119,516 $5,357,569 $8,550,725 $2,073,640 $1,119,516 $3,042,876 $369,512 $1,673,768 $8,279,313 $2,073,640 $1,119,516 $4,033,461 $1,673,768 $8,900,386 $2,073,640 $3,151,357 $1,567,052 $369,512 $1,673,768 $8,835,330 $4,526,456 $1,567,052 $369,512 $1,673,768 $8,136,789 5/9/2011 TOTAL ESTIMATE $13,478,662 $15,033,892 $7,276,856 $8,116,494 $34,824,196 $38,842,372 $55,579,714 to $61,992,758 $13,478,662 $15,033,892$7,276,856 $8,116,494 $19,778,692 $22,060,849 $2,401,830 $2,678,965 $10,879,491 $12,134,817 $53,815,532 to $60,025,016 $13,478,662 $15,033,892$7,276,856 $8,116,494 $26,217,497 $29,242,593 $10,879,491 $12,134,817 $57,852,506 to $64,527,795 $13,478,662 $15,033,892 $20,483,823 $22,847,341 $10,185,837 $11,361,126 $2,401 ,830 $2,678,965 $10,879,491 $12,134,817 $57,429,643 to $64,056,141 $29,421,967 $32,816,809 $10,185,837 $11,361,126 $2,401,830 $2,678,965 $10,879,491 $12,134,817 $52,889,126 to $58,991,717 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Lorraine to Douglas Line Segment Cost Estimate -VARIOUS OPTIONS in $million SUMMER &WINTER =|WINTER CONSTUCTION WINTER +450"SPANLINECONSTRUCTIONONLYCONSTRUCTION Willow $52 $58 $52 $58 $56 $62 Houston North $45 $50 $48 $53 $54 $60 Houston South $49 $54 $51 $57 $58 $65 Big Lake $48 $54 $51 $57 $57 $64 Exist.Corridor $40 $44 $47 $52 $53 $59 Page 4 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Prepared for: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage,AK 99503 __ DRYDEN &LaRUE,INC. 3305 Arctic Blvd.,Suite 201 Anchorage,AK 99503 LAND FIELD SERVICES,INC. PO Box 221649 Anchorage,AK 99522 TRAVIS/PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS,INC. 3305 Arctic Blvd.,Suite 204 Anchorage,AK 99503 January 30,2004 Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTIONwir...scsscssesssccsersscsscscsscssnsesacsssscsenesonccoesescecsrsnensearsesesssoacracssnses 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY...... 3.0 ROUTE DESCRIPTIONSG......ccccsscssssssssssssscsssersncsetsscreeccesscsscsssessors 3.1 ARRC ROUTE (ROUTE A).....sccccsssesscseetesseescessnsevesescasesescepecsneaessueesesesceseeataessaeenes 4 3.2 CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (ROUTE C)......ccssscsssssstcecssscessencessssereneceaseneaeessaeeesataasens 4 3.3 HIGHWAY ROUTE (ROUTE H).......csscscecstscsssecssetsesnececceeeeseccsecscesersseeseasenstsonsersenees 5 3.4 MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (ROUTE M)......ccccscceseresseesssseecsasesnesasensesccessasssesasesersens 5 3.5 MEA UPGRADE (OPTION U1,U2 &U3)...ccescscstsssessscesssecessssnseerereseresnsesssessessaes 6 4.0 ROUTES WITH ALTERNATES .........ccscsssssssscrsessestscssscorasceecssensssssorsonsssesceorass 6 4.1 ARRC ROUTE ......ccccscsscceseteessesesscnssessesssenteesserseaennacsesatarseasessaaecensccesessnacereseeneeaeaee 6 4.2 MEA PARALLEL ROUTE...scscccssseesccseceresnenessieceeceseesscaeerseesseercatsadseserermeateaneentenes 6 5.0 COMPARISON CRITERIA ..ssscsssssssccssssescssesecrsscsansscssssnssssncssesessenassnncssesssensonse 7 5.1 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ......cssscsccessccsssesesecseeessessnsenessceseuessusnsnsanessaeesaetssnenecseenaaea 7 §.2 -§QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS...ssscecsecescesseesstssccceceseessteseecasaecesatessnssecseseeaereaeearess 9 5.3 REGULATORY AGENCIES ......ceccsssetscesssscssssesensesssessecuceacceseseaecoesesseaecenssaeeesensesneanees 9 6.0 ROUTE DATAun...cecsscscccsscenecssonsssnensnessencsssssossesssncsseescnssceeasessssssorensese 11 6.1 ARRC ROUTE (ROUTE A).....ccsssessesesstssnessentecssceesceaesacesccansecevseseuesenscsnaneneetsanseess 11 6.2 CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (ROUTE C)..icccecssssssseteectsseccessneseessssesetssssneneeeeeseneresees 12 6.3 HIGHWAY ROUTE (ROUTE H).......csssessssecesescenesessesscnesussaseaeessensnreevsssetscnsnsteneessess 14 6.4 MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (ROUTE M).......cccccccsssscesssseseescessescuessnccessseneteneeseersns 15 6.5 MEA UPGRADE ROUTE (OPTION U1).uu.eeecssccscsssteseseneceencesceceseseatccesaeeecsteeenaes 16 6.6 MEA UPGRADE ROUTE (OPTION U2).....ecccsceceseseresscesrecessneseeeesseessesnsenatesaneneas 17 6.7 MEA UPGRADE ROUTE (OPTION U3)...ecccessescssssccceseseeseesecsssetensseasaessactesesenneess 18 7.0 ROUTE COMPARISON ......cccccssssscsscsessssscssesssassssscoresscsesessnesooes 19 7.1 QUALITATIVE COMPARISON.....ccssscssecssccsssessesenscsetassseesercsssesoessenesonsassacessoseneesnes 19 7.2 QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON....csscscsssessssceessncesssetacsensceecstanessteseesererssnauseennesectes 20 8.0 CONCLUSION...ccsccsssscssssscscccsnscsssscsssssernscearonserssarsons 23 APPENDICES _Appendix A -Route Qualitative Analysis...sesseseeteeteseeesserenssneerenrenssnsseeneesenes A-1 Appendix B Right of Way Cost Estimate Detail cc cceccsessserssetsseenseesctreeneanes B-1 Appendix C Conceptual Drawings and Construction Cost Estimates...ee C-1 Appendix D -Route Summary Sheets oo.cicceccsscesseseseesecsesenseasesseesraseenenssenserneesances D-1 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transntission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 1.0 INTRODUCTION The existing 138 kV Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.(MEA)Transmission line is part of the Alaska Intertie that supplies power from Teeland Substation to Fairbanks.The State of Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)and other members of the Alaska Intertie Operating Committee (IOC)are requesting that alternative lines to this section of the Intertie be evaluated. AEA contracted Dryden &LaRue,Inc.(D&L)to prepare a feasibility level assessment of several options for replacement or upgrade of the existing line from Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation.This study identifies several possible alignments for the new 230 kV transmission line and compares them based on defined criteria.At this level of review,the study is based on literature research,limited agency interviews,and our knowledge of the area.Meetings were held with appropriate 'agencies and documentswereobtainedfromMEAandtheMatanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB)to determine the current land ownership,wetlands designations,estimates of permitting requirements,and current easements,A typical 230 kV line design suitable for the Matanuska-Susitna environment and utilizing existing linear rights of way is used as a basis.Alternative designs and routes are compared using data such as;property ownership,number of impacted parcels,anticipated permitting,public participation,and environmental concerns.The new line will improve performance of the existing Alaska Intertie. The following team was assembled to complete this study:Dryden &LaRue,Inc.D&L), Land Field Services (LFS)and Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants,Inc.(TPECI). D&L developed the conceptual design of the line and construction cost estimates for each of the proposed routes.LFS determined land status of individual parcels along each route and developed right-of-way cost estimates.TPECI identified environmental issues and the permits required for each route.Route selection and comparisons involved all team members. The team used a multi-disciplinary approach for evaluating routes and comparing impacts.The selection process evaluates qualitative and quantitative criteria. Quantitative criteria are definitive and measurable parameters,while qualitative criteria are subjective and rated by personal values.The team used both criteria to evaluate the proposed routes and identify the most reasonable and cost-effective alternative. The Route Map Overview displays the study area and the proposed routes.Detailed maps showing each line segment are in Appendix D. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.1 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental DATE:6/3/03PROVEDT:AEAUPGDFILENAME(CAD):overviewDOUGLAS SUBSTATION iM)ARD &,Say ETUDY APRA BOUNDARY - MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (M} ROADWAY ROUTE (H} ALASKA RAILROAD ROUTE {A) CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (C) NOTE:FOR DETAILS REFER TO ROUTE MAPS IN APPENDIX D DrydentLaRue,Ine -CONSULTING ENGINEERS f Route Map Overview TEELAND SUBSTATION | ___ Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 2.0 METHODOLOGY The new 230 kV line will be approximately 25 miles in length.The possible routes for this line start at Teeland Substation and generally run in a northwesterly direction to the Douglas Substation.Existing linear facilities such as:highways and roads,the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)right-of-way and existing electrical lines are considered natural corridors for routing.The study area is bounded by Knik Goose Bay Road on the south,Johnson Road and the foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains on the east,the Nancy Lake Recreation Park to the west and Douglas Substation on the Willow-Fishhook Road to the north (see attached maps for boundary).Routes outside this study area are not considered because this would force the routes to be much longer,which will inherently increase all impacts and costs. Thirty-six (36)individual segments are identified within the study area.These segments are combined into four possible transmission routes;ARRC Route,Cross Country Route, Highway Route and the MEA Parallel Route.Most segments are adjacent to some existing linear facility,such as roadways,which provides a potential location on either side of the facility.Rather than including both sides of the facility,the side with the least cost and fewest impacts is selected to represent the segment. A fifth alternative,upgrading the MEA line within the existing right of way is also evaluated.Three options are being investigated: ©Option 1 -Build a new single circuit 230 kV line and replace the station transformer at Douglas Substation; e Option 2 -Build a double-circuit 230 kV line which would allow MEA to operate one circuit at 138 kV to maintain the feed into Douglas Substation; e Option 3 -Modify the exiting 138 kV line to operate at 230 kV and replace the Douglas Substation transformer. A progressive method of selection is used,starting with an introduction and general route description of each route,The qualitative criteria are then applied to each route with differences noted.The routes are then compared using the quantitative criteria,which displays route differences.Finally,judgment and overall comparisons are applied to atrive at the most reasonable routes with the lowest cumulative impacts and least estimated cost. 3.0 Route Descriptions Based on a review of aerial photography,MSB maps,field inspections and general knowledge of the area,four separate routes are identified as reasonable locations for a new 230 kV transmission line.The proposed routes are the ARRC Route (Route A), Cross Country Route (Route C),Highway Route (Route H),and MEA Parallel Route (Route M).In addition,there are several options for new configurations within the existing MEA alignment.These are identified as MEA Upgrades (Upgrade U1,U2 & Dryden &LaRue,Inc.3 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KY Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation U3).All routes begin at the Teeland Substation located on the east side of Knik-Goose Bay Road and end at the Douglas Substation.The following sections describe each route in detail.Route sections are also identified on the Routing Maps (sheets 1-4). 3.1 ARRC Route (Route A) Route A travels west,crossing the Knik-Goose Bay Road and then northeast on the west side of the road until South Vine Road.The route then turns north on South Vine Road and travels for over 3-1/2 miles before reaching the ARRC corridor.The route then travels west on the north side of the corridor for over 5 miles where it finally crosses over the ARRC corridor (Sections A3 &A4,Routing Map,sheet 1). The route travels north and then northwest on the west/south side of the ARRC corridor (Section A5,Routing Map,sheet 2).The route continues northwest crossing over the Little Susitna River (Section A6,Routing Map,sheet 2). The route travels north/northwest for over 2 miles where it crosses back over to the north side of the ARRC corridor (Section A7).The route continues northwest over undeveloped terrain for over 1-1/2 miles crossing an unnamed creek (Section A8). Continuing north/northwest,the route crosses over Nancy Creek and Kelly Lake,and passes on the east side of the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area (Sections A9 &A10). Sections A7 through A10 are located on Routing Map,sheet 3. The route then turns north and travels for nearly three miles crossing over Ruth Lake,a public use easement,and Deception Creek before it reaches the Douglas Substation (Sections All &A12,Routing Map,sheet 4). 3.2 Cross Country Route (Route C) Route C travels west,crossing the Knik-Goose Bay Road and then turns south along the west side of the road.The route then travels west along the south side of Victoria Estates (Section C1).The route continues west through undeveloped land for 3 miles.It then turns northwest at the section line easement (Section C2).The route then turns and travels northwest for approximately 2 miles.The route then turns north along the section line easement just west of the Woody Lake Estates and crosses over Big Lake Road (Section C3).Sections C1 to C3 are located on the Routing Map (sheet 1). The route then travels northwest across undeveloped terrain for over 2 miles (Section C4, Routing Map,sheet 2).The route continues northwest/west across undeveloped terrain for nearly 4 miles (Section C5).The route then travels north for over 2-1/2 miles crossing the Little Susitna River,an unnamed creek,the Alaska Railroad,and the Parks Highway (Section C6).The route continues north for 3 miles crossing Lake Creek and Nancy Creek (Section C7).Sections C5 to C7 are located on the Routing Map (sheet 3). The route travels northwest over undeveloped terrain for nearly 6 miles before reaching the Douglas Substation (Section C8,Routing Map,sheet 4). Dryden &LaRue,Inc.4 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 3.3.Wighway Route (Route H) Route H_travels west crossing Knik-Goose Bay Road through Victoria Estates Subdivision (Section HI).It continues west through the Shawn Acres Subdivision and undeveloped land for approximately 2-1/2 miles where it turns north near Darla Lake Estates (Section H2).The route proceeds north along South Johnson Road for three miles until it reaches the Parks Highway (Section H3).Sections H1 to H3 are located on the Routing Map (sheet 1). The route then turns west and travels on the north side of the Parks Highway (Section H4, Routing Map,sheet 2).The route continues turning north/northwest on the north side of the Parks Highway for over 9 miles (Sections H5 page 5,H6,H7,&H8,Routing Map, sheet 3).Continuing north/northwest,the route crosses over Nancy Creek and Kelly Lake,and passes on the east side of the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area where it joins the ARRC corridor (Sections H9 &H10,Routing Map,sheet 4).The route then turns north along the corridor and travels for nearly 3 miles crossing over Ruth Lake,a public use easement,and Deception Creek before it reaches the Douglas Substation (Sections H11 &H12,Routing Map,sheet 4). 3.4 MEA Parallel Route (Route M) Route M travels west crossing Knik-Goose Bay road through Victoria Estates Subdivision until it meets Katherine Road.The route then runs north.The route then turns west on Sunset Avenue where it travels west for the entire length of the road (Section M1,Routing Map,sheet 1).It continues west on the section line through undeveloped terrain for nearly 2 miles (Sections M2 &M3,Routing Map,sheet 1).The route then turns right where it travels northwest for approximately 2 miles.The route then turns north along the section line easement just west of the Woody Lake Estates and crosses over Big Lake Road (Section M4,Routing Map,sheet 2).The route then turns northwest again before Kenlar Road and runs for over 3 miles through undeveloped land (Section M5,Routing Map,sheet 2). The route runs west/northwest through undeveloped land for nearly 4 miles crossing the Little Susitna River (Section M6,Routing Map,sheet 3).The route then tums north for 3 miles along the section line easement (Section M7,Routing Map,sheet 3).It continues traveling north over undeveloped land along the section line easement until it crosses Nancy Creek (Section M8,Routing Map,sheet 3).The route then turns northwest for nearly 4 miles (Section M9,Routing Map,sheet 4).It continues traveling northwest through undeveloped land until it reaches the northeast corner of a subdivision east of Gene Lake (Section M10,Routing Map,sheet 4).The route then proceeds north for 1 mile crossing Deception Creek ending at the Douglas Substation (Section M11,Routing Map,sheet 4). Dryden &LaRue,Inc..35 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 3.5 MEA Upgrade (Option U1,U2 &U3) Route U is the existing MEA 138 kV line right of way.There are three different options for the upgrade.The first option (Option U1)would be to retire the existing line and build a new 230 kV line in the existing right of way.This option would also require the transformer at Douglas Substation to be replaced with a 230 kV transformer.The second option (Option U2)would also retire the existing 138 kV line,but replace it with a double-circuit 230 kV line.MEA could operate the second circuit at 138 kV to avoid changing out the transformer at Douglas Substation.The third option (Option U3)would be to modify the existing 138 kV line to operate at 230 kV.Like the first option,the transformer at Douglas Substation would have to be changed out. 4.0 Routes with Alternates During the development of the initial routes,it became apparent that two routes (the ARRC and the MEA Parallel Routes)could potentially be improved by altering one or more of the route segments. 4.1 ARRC Route Route A is intended to follow the Alaska Railroad as much as possible.Development around the Nancy Lake area combined with the limited right of way will pose a problem with constructing a new 230 kV line.Two alternate sections (A8A and AIOA)are identified to avoid these problem areas.The cost of these reroutes has little impact on the overall cost of the entire route and they are not included with the final route evaluation. If this route is selected,one of the reroutes could be considered to reduce public impact. The first alternate route,designated Alternate A9A,follows the ARRC Route up through Section A8.Section A8A then heads northward from the ARRC Route and ties into the Highway Route Section H9.Section H9 then ties back into the ARRC Route to Douglas Substation.This alternate route would let the alignment bypass the developments around the Nancy Lake area. The second alternate route,designated Alternate A10A,follows the Alternate A9A route _up through Section H9,The route then heads northerly following Section A10A until it ties into the MEA Parallel Route at Section MIO and follows it to Douglas Substation. This alternate route would allow the line to bypass the developments at Kelly Lake as well as Nancy Lake. 4,2 MEA Parailel Route With the existing 230 kV and 138 kV lines running out of Teeland Substation there might not be adequate room in the existing right of way to install a new 230 kV circuit.This will need to be investigated further in the design phase of the project.If this turns out to be a problem an alternate section (M1A)is identified to route the new 230 kV line around Dryden &LaRue,Inc. 6 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation this area.Section MIA crosses Knik-Goose Bay Road heading west,then follows the road northward on the west side to West Sunset Avenue.The route then turns west following West Sunset Avenue along the north side until it ties into Section M2. 5.0 Comparison Criteria 5.1 Qualitative Analysis 5.1.1 Evaluative Criteria Evaluative criteria describes the differences between routes and the level of suitability to meet the project purpose and needs.These criteria are not used to eliminate routes,but are used in development of the routes.The following describes the evaluative criteria, and how it applies to this study. e Avoid Land Use Conflicts -This criterion is used to exclude areas that could provoke major conflicts in land use (i.e.,airports,dedicated recreation areas,and densely populated areas), e Avoid Major Terrain Obstacles -This criterion is used to exclude areas that could cause significant construction and/or major difficulty in construction or maintenance (i.e.,large rivers,mountains,high value wetlands,ponds,and lakes). e Minimize Route Distance -This criterion is used to minimize the route distance and decrease the total cost of the project.As a result,preference is given to the route that meets the purpose and need of the project and has the least distance. e Minimize Land Clearing -This criterion is used to minimize the impacts to forested areas.Therefore,preference is given to the route that requires the least amount of land clearing. e Minimize Environmental Impacts -This criterion is used to evaluate the environmental impacts for each route.This criterion is broken up into four subgroups:Consultation,Mitigation,Permitting,and Remediation. >Consultation:This sub criterion is used to reduce the amount of environmental consultation with federal,state,and municipal agencies. Preference is given to the route that fulfills the purpose and need of the project and requires the least amount of agency and public consultation. >Permitting:This sub criterion is used to minimize permits,applications, and agreements with federal,state,and municipal agencies.Preference is given to the route that fulfills the purpose and need of the project and requires the least amount of permits. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.7 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation >Mitigation:This sub criterion is used to reduce the amount of mitigation required by federal and state statutes and/or agency regulations to offset environmental impacts.Preference is given to the route that fulfills the purpose and need of the project and requires the least amount of mitigation. >Remediation:This sub criterion is used to reduce remediation in areas that require restoration or meets conditions required by federal and state standards.Preference is given to the route that fulfills the purpose and need of the project and requires the least amount of remediation. 5.1.2 Intangible Criteria The intangible criteria for this study are:visual impacts,public safety,existing facilities, construction impacts and land use.Intangible criteria are value driven,which makes it difficult to measure and quantify.Values given to intangible criterion is a subjective process at best.For the purpose of this project,low,moderate and high levels of impact were determined for each route.The following describes the intangibles,and how they are used for this review. *Visual Impacts -This criterion is used to identify the visibility of the transmission line to the public.Visibility of overhead lines is dependent on the height of the lines with respect to the surrounding environment and other objects in the view- shed. e Public Safety -This criterion is used to identify areas where transmission lines placed structures near vehicular traveled ways or areas where the public could be endangered.Parks,sidewalks,bike paths,public and private airstrips,and float plan landing areas could also be impacted by structures or guy wires. e Existing Facilities -This criterion is used to identify existing facilities that could impact the design and/or construction of a transmission line (i.e.,street lights, signs,parking lots,traffic signals,etc.). ®Construction Impacts -This criterion is used to estimate the impacts of construction to the surrounding area ({i.e.,noise,dust,accessibility,etc.). Construction impacts are limited in duration,but could affect the property owners. The property owners and the type of construction are evaluated. e Land Use Conflicts -This criterion identifies land use conflicts.Examples of land use conflicts are airports,schools,and developed neighborhoods. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.8 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 5.2 Quantitative Analysis 5.2.1 The tangible criteria used in this study for route selection are: Tangible Criteria construction, engineering/owner,easement,and permitting costs.Tangible criteria can be measured and quantified.Each tangible criterion is applied to each route and quantified with a dollar value.The following describes the tangibles criteria and how they are applied in this review. 5.3 | Construction Costs -This criterion estimates the cost of the construction based on conceptual towers and typical line costs in the Anchorage area. Engineering/Owner &Contingency Costs -This criterion estimates the cost of design and Owner participation and includes a 20%contingency on the construction costs. Easements -This criterion estimates the cost of acquiring easements along each route.The cost includes amounts of compensation paid to landowners for easements based on the estimated land values,plus administrative costs of the acquisition such as surveying,title analysis,appraisal,negotiations and general administration of an acquisition program. Permitting -This criterion estimates the cost of acquiring land use and environmental permits from the regulatory agencies.It does not include any protracted public involvement process. Regulatory Agencies Agency permits can be a significant part of acquiring permission to construct a newtransmissionline.Below is a list of potential permits for this transmission line. POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Type of Agency Name Permit/A pproval Reason for Permit/Approval Federal Agencies U.S.Army Corps of Section 404 Permit A Section 404 permit is required for authorization Tengineers (COE)of wetland fills. State Agencies Alaska Department of Certificate of ADEC must issue a 401 Certificate to accompany Environmental Reasonable Assurance |any federal permit issued under the Federal Clean Conservation (ADEC)(401 Certificate)Water Act.For example,a COE Section 404 permit would trigger the need for a state certificate. Alaska Department of Fish Habitat Permit A General Waterway/Waterbody Application must Natural Resources (ADNR) (AS Title 41.05.870)be submitted if heavy equipment usage or construction activities disturb the natural flow or bed of any stream,river,or lake.These permits also stipulate how stream water withdrawals may be conducted. Dryden &LaRue,inc. Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental January 30,2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Type of Agency Name Permit/A pproval Reason for Permit/A pproval State Agencies (Continued) ADNR,Division of Temporary Water Use |This permit is required if water withdrawals will Mining and Water Permit occur during construction.The permit lasts for the Management length of a temporary project. ADNR,Division of Land |Land Use Permit A land use permit is required for use of state lands along the proposed ROW. Right of Way (ROW)A ROW is required for construction of Permit transmission lines or other improvements that cross state lands. ADNR,State Historic Cultural Resource For any federally permitted,licensed,or funded Preservation Office Concurrence Section project,the SHPO must concur that cultural (SHPO)106 Review resources would not be adversely impacted,or that proper methods would be used to minimize or mitigate impacts that would take place. Alaska Department of Utility Permit on State |Required before construction on ADOT&PF Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) ROW managed state lands or for structures crossing ADOT&PF ROWS. National Parks Service Section 6(F)-approval |Nancy Lake State Recreation Area (NPS)to use lands purchased by the Land Water Conservation Fund. Alaska Railroad Corp Crossing Permit Required before construction on ARRC property (ARRC) The following section briefly describes federal and state agency jurisdiction and their permit requirements. e COE -The Army Corps of Engineers (COE)regulates impacts to wetlands.The COE enforces Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by issuing individual or nationwide permits for wetlands impacts. ADEC -The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),in conjunction with the COE 404 permitting,will analyze projects for impacts to water quality and recommend mitigation measures to prevent water pollution. ADEC will issue a Certificate of Assurance in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. ADNR -The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)regulates temporary withdrawals of water from state-owned sources and issues a water use permit.ADNR coordinates this permit application with all state agencies. The ADNR Division of Mining,Land and Water also issues right-of-way permits for crossing state lands.The exception is when a project crosses a state highway. If a state highway is crossed,the Department of Transportation &Public Facilities (DOT&PF)regulates the crossing. Dryden &LaRue,Inc. Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental 10 January 30,2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)is a division of ADNR and it regulates impacts to historic,cuJtural,and archeological resources.According to the 1966 Historic Preservation Act,all projects must be submitted to the SHPO for their analysis and approval. ADNR regulates specific rivers,lakes,and streams or parts of them that are important for the spawning,rearing,or migration of anadromous fish.According to Alaska Statute 16.05.870,ADF&G must issue a permit for any activity occurring in habitat important to anadromous fish. e ADOT&PF -The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)regulates state-owned roads.A new transmission line along or crossing a state-owned road would require a utility permit from ADOT&PF. e ARRC -If a route uses the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)corridor or crosses the Alaska Railroad,a Right of Way Permit will be required. 6.0 Route Data This section summarizes the information gathered and data produced for each of the individual routes.A detailed write-up that describes each route by segment can be found in Appendix A.Backup for the right-of-way costs and break down of parcel types impacted can be found in Appendix B.Construction cost estimates and conceptual structure sketches can be found in Appendix C.Summary sheets for each route listing the information gathered per segment can be found in Appendix D.Costs shown in this section are rounded to simplify the viewing and comparison. 6.1 ARRC Route (Route A) The ARRC Route (Route A)travels from the Teeland Substation on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Station in Willow.Route A is divided into 12 sections.This route travels along the ARRC for the majority of its length.Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts.The following analysis estimates the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route A and the associated costs for construction and easements. 6.1.1 Qualitative Analysis Route A will travel along the ARRC corridor for the majority of the route.Based on these conditions,land use conflicts will be low with the exception of Sections A2,A4, A5,A6,and A9 (Refer to Appendix A for details). Major terrain obstacles in Route A include lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands.These conditions exist in Sections A2 through A1l2.Land clearing will be required as a result of Dryden &LaRue,Inc.11 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation the route traveling through undeveloped terrain.Disruption to facilities that have developed adjacent to the ARRC corridor can be expected. Extensive consultation with ARRC,ADNR,COE,ADEC,and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from the ADOT&PF. Some of the land surrounding Route A is owned by the State of Alaska.Therefore,a Land Use Permit,and a Right of Way Permit will be required from ADNR.Furthermore, a Temporary Water Use Permit will also be necessary and obtained from ADNR. Because there are wetlands along this route,a Section 404 Permit will be required. Additionally,a Section 401 Certification from ADEC will also be required.For this review,it is assumed that the line could be constructed adjacent to,but not in the ARRC right-of-way.Crossing permits will be required at some locations along the ARRC. Finally,a current clearance from SHPO is required for this transmission line. The overall visual impact of the route is moderate-low.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate-low for the route.The Jand use conflicts for this route are moderate-low. 6.1.2 Quantitative Analysis The ARRC Route is 24.8 miles in length,and will require a total of 235.9 acres of land clearings.Construction costs for this route are estimated at $10,332,000. Engineering/Owner costs are estimated at $1,033,000,with a construction contingency of $2,066,500.There are 166 private parcels and 11 Agency parcels (breakdown of Agencies can be found in Appendix B)along this route,which will necessitate an easements cost of $1,455,600. Land use permits are required from ADNR,ADOT&PF,and ARRC.Environmental permits are required from COB,ADNR,and ADEC.The estimated costs of these permits total $183,750.The estimated cost of the public involvement process is expected to be $50,000. 6.1.3 Route Alternates The alternates for this route are not included in this section because they did not have a significant impact on the cost of the route.The alternates are mainly identified to show that a route does exist that could avoid the specific residential areas at Nancy Lake. 6.2 Cross Country Route (Route C) The Cross Country Route (Route C)travels from the Teeland Substation on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Station in Willow.Route C is divided into eight sections.This route travels along the existing transmission line for several sections. Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts.The Dryden &LaRue,Ine.12 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/P eterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transinission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation following analysis estimates the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route C,and the associated costs for construction and easements. 6.2.1 Qualitative Analysis Route C will avoid densely populated and residential areas for the majority of the route. Based on these conditions,land use conflicts will be low with the exception of Section C6 (Refer to Appendix A for details). Major terrain obstacles in Route C include lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands.These conditions exist in Sections C2 through C8.Extensive land clearing will be required as a result of the route traveling through undeveloped terrain. Extensive consultation with ADNR,COE,ADEC,and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from ADOT&PF and ARRC. Some of the land surrounding Route C is owned by the State of Alaska.Therefore,a Land Use Permit,and a Right of Way Permit will be required from ADNR.Furthermore, a Temporary Water Use Permit will also be necessary and obtained from ADNR. Because there are wetlands along this route,a COE Section 404 Permit will be required. Additionally,a Section 401 Certification from ADEC will also be required.Finally,a current clearance from SHPO is required for this transmission line. Because this transmission line crosses over and travels along roads that are maintained by ADOT&PF,a Utility Permit is required.Additionally,this transmission line crosses -several rivers that are anadromous fish streams and will require a Fish and Habitat Permit (Title 41).Route C also crosses the ARRC corridor and will require a Right of Way Crossing Permit from ARRC. The overall visual impact of the route is low.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are low. 6.2.2 Quantitative Analysis The Cross Country Route is 25.2 miles in length,and will require a total of 241.8 acres of land clearing.Construction costs for this route are estimated at $9,194,500. Engineering/Owner costs are estimated at $919,500,with a construction contingency of $1,839,000.There are 38 private parcels and 14 Agency parcels (breakdown of Agencies can be found in Appendix B)along this route,which will necessitate an easement cost of $307,000. Land use permits are required from ADNR,ADOT&PF,and ARRC.Environmental permits are required from COE,ADNR,and ADEC.The estimated cost of theses permits is $100,450.The estimated cost of the public involvement process is expected to be $150,000. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.13 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 6.3 Highway Route (Route H) The Highway Route (Route H)travels along the highway from the Teeland Substation on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Station in Willow.Route H is divided into 12 sections.Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts.The following analysis estimates the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route H and the associated costs for construction and easements. 6.3.1 Qualitative Analysis Route H is intended to parallel the Parks Highway for the majority of its length.This area is heavily traveled and densely populated in some sections.Based on these conditions, land use conflicts vary from low to moderate with the exception of Sections H5,H7,and H9 (Refer to Appendix A for details). Major terrain obstacles in Route H include lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands.These conditions exist in Sections H2 through H4,and H6 through H11.Land clearing will be minimized as a result of the route following the Parks Highway.However,wooded terrain exists in Sections H2,H3,H11,and H12;therefore,some additional land clearing will be required to accommodate the new line. Extensive consultation with ADNR,COE,ADOT&PF and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from ADEC and ARRC. Some ofthe land surrounding Route H is owned by the State of Alaska.Therefore,a Land Use Permit,and a Right of Way Permit will be required from ADNR.Furthermore, a Temporary Water Use Permit will also be necessary and obtained from ADNR. Because there are wetlands along this route,a COE Section 404 Permit will be required. Additionally,a Section 401 Certification from ADEC will also be required.Finally,a current clearance from SHPO is required for this transmission line. Because this transmission line crosses over and travels along roads that are maintained by ADOT&PF,a Utility Permit is required.Additionally,this transmission line crosses several rivers that are anadromous fish streams and will require a Fish and Habitat Permit from ADNR (Title 41).Route H also crosses the ARRC corridor and will require a Right of Way Crossing Permit from ARRC. The overall visual impact of the route is moderate.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is moderate.The impacts to existing facilities are moderate-low. The construction impacts ate moderate for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are moderate-low.: Dryden &LaRue,Inc.14 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc.° Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation 6.3.2 Quantitative Analysis The Highway Route is 24.6 miles in length,and will require a total of 236.5 acres of land clearing.Construction costs for this route are estimated at $10,307,000.Engineering/ Owner costs are estimated at $1,030,500,with a construction contingency of $2,061,500. There are 179 private parcels and 9 Agency parcels (breakdown of Agencies can be found in Appendix B)along this route,which will necessitate an easements cost of $1,028,600. Land use permits are required from ADNR,ADOT&PF,and ARRC.Environmental Permits are required from COE,ADNR,and ADEC.The estimated cost of theses permits is $145,850.The total cost of the public involvement process is expected to be $50,000. 6.4.MEA Parallel Route (Route M) Route M travels adjacent to the existing transmission line for its entire length.A separate right-of-way is assumed,but utilizing the existing MEA right-of-way for blow-out.This route begins at the Teeland Substations on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at 'the Douglas Substation on Fish Hook Road in Willow.Route M is divided into 11 sections.Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts. The following analysis estimates the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route M and the costs associated with construction and easements. . 6.4.1 Qualitative Analysis Route M is mostly unpopulated,densely forested terrain with wetlands.Because of these conditions,land use conflicts are nonexistent with the exception of Sections M1 and M2. Sections M1 and M2 are heavily populated and potential land use conflicts exist in these areas, Major terrain obstacles in Route M include ponds,lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands. These conditions exist in Sections M3 through M11.Wooded terrain exists from Section M2 to M11.Land clearing will be required for the new line. Extensive consultation with ADNR,COE,ADEC and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from ADOT&PF and ARRC. Some of the Jand surrounding Route M is owned by the State of Alaska;therefore,a Right of Way and Land Use Permit will be required from ADNR.Because there are wetlands along this route,a COE Section 404 Permit will be required with an ADEC Section 401 Certification.A current SHPO clearance will also be required for this transmission line.' Because this transmission line crosses over roads that are maintained by ADOT&PF,a Right of Way Crossing Permit is required.Additionally,this transmission line crosses Dryden &LaRue,Ine.15 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,inc.; Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KY Transniission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation several ponds,lakes,and rivers that will contain anadromous fish species and will require an ADNR Title 41 Permit.Finally,Route M crosses an ARRC corridor and will require a Right of Way Crossing Permit from ARRC. This option will create a corridor with two lines instead of the existing one line,which will increase the visual impact.The overall visual impact of the route is low to moderate- low.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate-low for the route. The land use conflicts for this route are low. 6.4.2 Quantitative Analysis The MEA Parallel Route is 25.3 miles in length,and will require a total of 241.9 acres of land clearing.Construction costs for this route are estimated at $9,440,000.Engineering/ Owner costs are estimated at $944,000,with a construction contingency of $1,888,000. There are 94 private parcels and 20 Agency parcels (breakdown of Agencies can be found in Appendix B)along this route,which will necessitate an easements cost of $585,500. Land Use Permits are required from ADNR,ADOT&PF,and ARRC.Environmental Permits are required from COE,ADNR,and ADEC.The estimated cost of these permits is $105,200.The estimated cost of the public involvement process is expected to be $50,000. 6.4.3 Route Alternates The alternate for this route is not included in this section because it did not have a significant impact on the cost of the route,or the impacts caused by the route.The alternate is mainly identified in case the existing right of way between the two existing lines out of Teeland does not have adequate clearances for another line. 6.5 MEA Upgrade Route (Option U1) Option U1 would replace the existing MEA 138kV line with a new 230kV line from Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation.This route is an exiting route and does not have the same level of information gathered or data generated as for the other routes.It would be close in comparison to the MEA Parallel Route in the environmental concerns since they share the same basic corridor. 6.5.1 Qualitative Analysis The existing alignment has essentially the same environmental issues and permits as the MEA Parallel Route,see Section 6.4.1,because it crosses the same lands.One environmental difference is the visual impact of one line instead of two in the case of the parallel option. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.16 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/P eterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation The overall visual impact of the route is low.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate-low for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are low. 6.5.2 Quantitative Analysis The MEA Upgrade Route Option UL is 25.3 miles in length,and should not require any land clearing.Construction costs for this route are estimated at $9,048,000.Engineering/ Owner costs are estimated at of $905,000,with a construction contingency of $1,809,500. Due to voltage limitations in the existing easements and permits,the majority of the existing right of way will require new easements or agency right-of-way permits to allow the significant upgrade from a 138 kV line to a 230 kV line.New easements will be required from 26 of the 76 private parcels affected.Virtually the entire "agency”lands (state,borough,Native and state leased lands)are burdened by the voltage limitation and will require new right-of-way permits and easements,the estimated cost for this is $210,000. Land use permits are required from ADNR,ADOT&PF,and ARRC.Environmental permits are required from COE,ADNR,and ADEC,The estimated cost of these permits is $105,200.The total cost of the public involvement process is expected to be $50,000. These costs were assumed to be the same as the MEA Parallel Route. 6.6 MEA Upgrade Route (Option U2) Option U2 will replace the existing Mea 138kV line with a new double circuit 230kV line from Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation.This route is an exiting route and does not have the same level of information gathered or data generated for it.It would be close in comparison to the MEA Parallel Route in the environmental concerns since they share the same basic corridor. 6.6.1 Qualitative Analysis The existing alignment is essentially the same environmental issues and permits as the MEA Parallel Route,see Section 6.4.1,because it crosses the same lands.One environmental difference is the visual impact of one line instead of two in the case of the parallel option. The overall!visual impact of the route is low.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate-low for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are low. 6.6.2 Quantitative Analysis The MEA Upgrade Route Option U2 is 25.3 miles in length,and should not require any land clearing.Construction costs for this route are estimated at $10,722,000. Engineering/Owner costs are estimated at $1,072,000,with a construction contingency of Dryden &LaRue,Inc.17 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation $2,144,500.The estimated right-of-way cost for this route is $210,000 for the same reasons as spelled out for MEA Upgrade Option 1 (Section 6.5.2). Land use permits are required from ADNR,ADOT&PF,and ARRC.Environmental permits are required from COE,ADNR,and ADEC.The estimated cost of these permits is $105,200.The total cost of the public involvement process is expected to be $50,000. These costs were assumed to be the same as the MEA Parallel Route. 6.7 MEA Upgrade Route (Option U3) Option U3 would modify the existing MEA 138 kV line such that it could be operated at 230 kV.A preliminary investigation of this option reveals that a significant amount of modifications will be required.The minimum conductor size recommended for 230 kV lines based on radio noise and corona issues is 795 kcemil.Thus the existing 556 kcmil ACSR (Dove)conductor will have to be changed out with a conductor that is about 20% larger.A cursory review of the original design finds that most of the existing structures do not have the strength to support the larger conductor using the original design wind loading and overload capacity factors.Several possibilities exist to solve this problem including: 1.Justifying a reduction in the design wind loading and/or overload capacity factors (NESC Heavy loading with Grade B OCF appeared to control the original design. A re-design will still require the use of NESC Heavy loading,but Grade B OCF is not mandated.) 2.Strengthen the existing towers and foundations,e.g.add side guys,reinforce structure and foundation members,etc. 3.Replace existing structures and foundations with stronger ones 4.Reduce the wind and weight spans by using inset structures. In addition to larger conductor and longer insulators,additional phase spacing and ground clearance is required for 230 kV.Existing structures that will remain will require their cross arms be replaced with longer arms designed for 230 kV phase spacing.Additional ground clearance will need to be obtained by one or more of the following: Use conductor that sags less than the existing conductor Raise existing structures by adding foundation reveal Replace existing structures with taller structures BwWNHRUse inset structures A detailed evaluation of the modifications required to operate the existing line at 230 kV is beyond the scope of this study.Obviously,some construction cost savings can be realized over Option U1,total line replacement.We have not tried to quantify that cost | savings at this time.Because this option is the only option that will use 25 year-old components,its maintenance and reliability issues will be less favorable than the other Dryden &LaRue,Inc.18 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation options.The other qualitative impacts of this option would be essentially the same as Option U1. Because this option is very similar to Option U1,it is not further discussed in this report. Should upgrading the MEA line to a single circuit 230 kV line become the preferred option,a detailed study should be performed to determine the feasibility of reusing existing line components. 7.0 Route Comparison 7.1 Qualitative Comparison For the qualitative comparison the routes are compared using the intangible criteria.The evaluative criteria from Section 5.1.1 is used to establish the routes,but not used for this comparison.The intangible aspects of a route are the hardest to define as they tend to be subjective and one person's view may not be the same as another.Routes that have high impacts in the intangible rankings will likely have more negative views from the general public.These are the routes that are eliminated in the first phase of the comparison. The intangible criteria for each route are shown in Table 1 on the next page.Averaging all of the segments for each route derives the value for each intangible impact.Tangible criteria are rated with a low (L)equal to one,a medium (M)equal to three and a high (A) equal to five.In Table 1,the intangible impacts values are graphed for each route. Table 1 shows that the Highway Route has the highest value for four of the categories and is second highest in the fifth (land use conflicts).This route has the highest overall intangible impacts.The ARRC Route has the second highest value in three of the categories,ties for highest tn land use conflicts and is third in construction impacts.The ARRC Route has some right-of-way impacts,such as conflicts with recreational properties around the Nancy Lake.. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.19 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Ine. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Intangible Criteria Comparison ®4 geS io EM ARRC <=ElCross Count gt Highway i=7 EIMEA Parallel ==EIMEA Upgrade (=) rr oO503 awVisual ExistingFacilitesConstruct.ImpactsLandUseConflictsCriteria Table 1 7.2 Quantitative Comparison In this section,the options are evaluated on the tangible criteria:construction, engineering/owner,easement and permitting costs. 7.21 Construction Cost Estimates Each of the options has a conceptual construction cost estimate completed.The estimates are based on construction type,section length and the number of angles and deadends. These costs do not include any special design considerations.Included in the cost estimate is 10%for engineering/owner plus 20%for construction contingency (see Appendix C for cost estimate details). Construction Routes Cost Estimate ARRC Route $13,431,500 Cross Country Route $11,953,000 Highway Route $13,399,000 MEA Parallel $12,272,000 MEA Upgrade (Option U1)$11,763,500 MEA Upgrade (Option U2)$13,938,500 From these figures,the MEA Upgrade (Option U1)has the lower cost,but there is only a small margin between it and the Cross Country Route and the MEA Parallel Route.For Dryden &LaRue,Inc.20 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation this feasibility level study,the cost for these three options should be considered equivalent.The ARRC and Highway Routes along with the MEA Upgrade (Option U2) are the most expensive options. 7.22 Right-of-Way Parcels and Cost Estimates Each route is analyzed to estimate the cost to acquire the needed right of way.Right-of- way widths are based on conceptual sketches of each structure type (see Appendix C), Individual parcel types are identified and cost estimates for acquisition and negotiation are included (see Appendix B).The number of private parcels impacted,number of agency parcels impacted,and the total right-of-way cost for each option are listed below. Routes Private Parcels Agency Parcels Cost ARRC Route 166 11 $1,455,600 Cross Country Route 38 14 $307,000 Highway Route 179 9 $1,028,600 MEA Parallel 94 20 $585,500 MEA Upgrade (Option U1)76(26)*24**$210,000 MEA Upgrade (Option U2)76(26)*24**$210,000 *The MEA Upgrade routes have 76 existing parcels,but only 26 of those parcels would need a new right-of-way agreement due to the increased voltage. **Existing agency permits/easements are limited to existing voltage. Therefore,new easements are required.. These figures show that the ARRC and Highway Routes will impact significantly more parcels than the other four options. 7.2.3 Permitting Costs The costs associated with permitting each route is estimated below (see Appendix D). These estimates include the cost of the permits from the different agencies,as well as the cost to cover any public involvement that the permits may require.These estimates are based on the Public Involvement Process (PIP)not becoming protracted.Without any Federal Funds involved and the 230kV line likely to be either an upgrade or adjacent to the existing line,the possibility of an expensive PIP is not contemplated or included. Based on this assumption,the permitting costs are listed for the options below. Options Permit Costs Public Involvement ARRC Route $183,750 $50,000 Cross Country Route $100,450 $150,000 Highway Route --$145,850 $50,000 MEA Parallel $105,200 $50,000 Dryden &LaRue,Inc.21 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation MEA Upgrade(Option U1)$105,200 $50,000 MEA Upgrade(Option U2)$105,200 $50,000 The Cross Country Route shows some additional public involvement because it is the only route that does not parallel an existing linear facility.Additionally,this route has the potential to increase public opposition because for half of the route it is parallel to the existing line and displaced by just 1.5 miles.This does not fit with a corridor concept of linear facilities and could raise opposition. 7.2.4 Disruption Plan This section compares how each of the routes would affect existing utilities during construction of the line. The ARRC,Highway and Cross Country Routes will affect some of the distribution system lines that could require outages.Overall the impact should be limited and not cause any major issues.In the sections where a route parallels the existing 138 kV line precautions for working around the energized 138 kV circuit should be exercised,but again this should not cause any major issues. The MEA Parallel Route will be much like the others in its impacts to the local distribution systems.It will have a larger contact area with the existing 138 kV circuit, but again it should not cause any major issues. The MEA Upgrade options will have significant impacts.To rebuild the line,the existing line will need to be out of service for extended periods of time.This would remove the link feeding power north to Golden Valley Electric Association's (GVEA)system. Therefore,during construction,GVEA must generate all their power needs,The normal supply to Douglas Substation would also be disrupted.The power might be able to be rerouted through the distribution system to pick up the load for Douglas Substation. Another solution is to feed Douglas Substation from the north.The cost associated with the existing line being out of service during the construction of the new line requires many assumptions,some of which can be estimated. Estimated construction period is 7 months Approximately one-half of the line will require winter construction Estimated cost for CEA additional spinning reserve is $175,000 for 7 months Estimated cost for ML&P additional spinning reserve is $250,000 for 7 months Estimated cost for GVEA to generate versus purchase is $1,750,000 for 7 months No impacts for loss of sales is included++oe©OOBased on these gross assumptions and cost estimates,the impact for the two upgrade options is an additional $2,175,000. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.-22 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/P eterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Based on the above disruption plan,the options other than the MEA Upgrade options, have the least impacts because the existing line-feeding north would still be in operation. 7.2.5 Total Route Costs To help summarize the quantitative criteria comparison the following table lists the total estimated cost for each of the routes from the data above. Estimated Options Total Cost* ARRC Route $15,121,000 Cross Country Route $12,510,000 Highway Route $14,623,000 MEA Parallel Route $13,013,000MEAUpgrade(Option U1)$14,303,000 MBA Upgrade (Option U2)$16,479,000 .*Cost estimates are only at a feasibility level. The Cross Country and MEA Parallel are essentially the same estimated cost.MEA Upgrade (Option U1)is slightly higher (approximately 10%),but close enough to be considered essentially the same for a feasibility level estimate.MEA Upgrade (Option U2)is sufficiently higher (about 26%)to be considered a more costly option 8.0 CONCLUSION When the intangible impacts of the different routes are compared,it shows that the ARRC and Highway Routes have higher impacts than the rest.The Highway Route has the highest overall intangible impact of all the routes.It ranks highest in four of the five categories.The ARRC Route is ranked second highest overall.It is important to minimize the intangible impacts due to the opinion-based nature of the intangibles.A route with low intangible impacts is anticipated to have low public opposition.This leaves the Cross Country Route,MEA Paralle]Route and the MEA Upgrade options, with the MEA Upgrade having the lowest impacts. The other comparison criteria are quantitative.A comparison of construction costs show the Cross Country and MEA Parallel routes are very close and the lowest.The Upgrade (Option U1,single circuit)is close enough to be considered in this same group based on feasibility level estimates.The Highway Route is also in the level of construction cost, but is not included due to the intangible impacts.MEA Upgrade (Option U2,double circuit)is higher due to the more complex construction and outage impacts.The ARRC Route is also estimated at this higher level and is generally due to the amount of short spans and single poles north our of Teeland and estimated right-of-way costs.For the Dryden &LaRue,lnc.23 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. -Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 KV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation purposes of comparison,MEA Upgrade Option U2 and ARRC Route are eliminated based on the higher cost. Based on right-of-way considerations,the MEA Upgrade options have the fewest impacted parcels and the lowest right-of-way cost,due to the use of the existing MEA right of way.Based on permitting costs,there is not a significant difference between the routes to give any one route an advantage.The Cross Country Route does have estimated higher public involvement costs.The public involvement phase could lead to delays that will translate into higher costs. The Disruption Plan shows that the Cross Country and the MEA Parallel routes have the advantage in this category.This is due to the need to de-energize the existing line and transfer power north to GVEA for the MEA Upgrade options. The first half of the Cross Country and MEA Parallel Routes are very similar,following the existing 138 kV line with some minor variations.The second half of the Cross Country Route,from approximately the Parks Highway crossing to Douglas Substation, essentially parallels the existing MEA line at approximately 1.5 miles to the east.With the existing line so close,it is not practical to argue for a separate line.Public concerns may force the two lines to be adjacent. The MEA Parallel route offers the least cost and disruption with the MEA Upgrade Option U1 running a close second.The intangible impacts of both routes are very similar.Comparing the costs,there is not a significant margin between the two to make a difference.MEA Upgrade Option U1 has a lower impact on the right of way,as many of the existing parcels will allow for the 230 kV line.The MEA Parallel Route will require anew right of way for the entire length of the project. The estimated construction schedule for MEA Parallel and MEA Upgrade Option U1 shows that permitting and right of way acquisition for both projects will be about the same.Acquiring the easements on private property is estimated at 6 months.Acquiring right of way permits from the different agencies is estimated at 3 months.Permitting for either option is estimated at 6 months.These estimates do not reflect any protracted public involvement process.Estimated construction time of the MEA Parallel and MEA Upgrade Option U1 could be slightly different.The MEA Parallel Route is estimated at 7 months,while the MEA Upgrade Option U1 is estimated at 8 to 9 months. Based upon the findings,either the MEA Upgrade Option U1 or the MEA Parallel Route will fulfill the project purpose and need. Dryden &LaRue,inc.24 January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Dryden &LaRue,Inc.January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis APPENDIX A ROUTE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS This appendix covers a qualitative analysis of each route with individual segments discussed and a summary included. ALASKA RAULROAD ROUTE (A) The Alaska Railroad Route (A)travels from the Teeland Substation on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Station in Willow.Route A is divided into 12 sections.This route travels along the Alaska Railroad for the majority of its length.Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts.The following sections examine the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route A, and the associated costs for construction and easements. Section Al Section Al travels through a residential area,so moderate land use conflicts are expected. No major terrain obstacles exist in this section.Furthermore,minimal land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary from the following agencies:Alaska Department of Transportation &Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)Division of Mining,Land,and Water. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit and ADNR Right of Way (ROW) Permit.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for this section. Visual,public safety,and construction impacts are expected to be moderate because of the residential area.Existing facilities impacts will be moderate. Section A2 Land use conflicts are expected to be high in this section due to densely populated residential area.Major terrain obstacles in this section include Lucile Creek.Minimal land clearing will be required due to this section traveling along South Vine Road. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE),Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC),Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC),and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 'Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-l January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Ine. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41,Section 404,Section 401,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A2 Visual,public safety,and construction impacts are expected to be high.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section A3 Section A3 travels along the railroad so,land use conflicts are expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include Golden Lake.Some land clearing will occur in this section. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,ARRC,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ARRC ROW Pemnnit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A3. Visual impacts will be low due to the area mostly undeveloped terrain.Construction impacts will be moderate in this section due to a portion of this route being difficult to access.Public safety impacts will be low.Existing facilities impacts are expected to be low along this section. Section A4 Land use conflicts are expected to be high in this section because of the floatplane traffic on Loon Lake.Major terrain obstacles include an unnamed creek and various wetlands. Land clearing will be required in this section due to the undeveloped terrain. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ARRC,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ARRC ROW Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A4, Visual impacts will be low due to the area mostly undeveloped terrain.Construction impacts will be moderate in this section due to a portion of this route being difficult to access.Public safety impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low along this section. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-2 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Section A5 Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate.Major terrain obstacles include Loon Lake.Additional land clearing will be required in this section due to the undeveloped terrain. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ARRC,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ARRC ROW Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance. Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A5. Visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be low due to the undeveloped terrain.Construction impacts will be moderate in this section.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low along this section. Section A6 Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate in this section because the recreation activities that occurs along the Little Susitna River.This section crosses the Parks Highway.Major terrain obstacles include various wetlands and the Little Susitna River. Land clearing will be required in this section of Route A. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ARRC,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,ADNR Division of Habitat and Permitting,ARRC,COE,ADEC,and SHPO., Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41,ARRC ROW Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A6. Visual impacts will be moderate due to the route crossing the Parks Highway. Construction impacts will be moderate in this section due to a portion of this route being difficult to access.Public safety impacts will be low.Existing facilities impacts are expected to be low along this section. Section A7 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section because its remoteness.This section crosses the Parks Highway.Major terrain obstacles include various wetlands and an unnamed creek.Land clearing will be required in this section of Route A. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ARRC,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-3 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW Permit,ARRC ROW Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A7. Visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be moderate in this section due to its remoteness.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low along this section. Section A8 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route A.Major terrain obstacles include various wetlands and an unnamed tributary of Lake Creek.Land clearing will be required in this section of Route A. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ARRC,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO., Anticipated permits are:ARRC,ADNR ROW Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A8. Visual,public safety and construction impacts will be low.Existing facilities impacts are expected to be low along this section. Section A9 Land use conflicts are expected to be high in this section because of the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area.This area is densely populated.Major terrain obstacles include the Nancy Creek,Lily Creek,Nancy Lake,and various wetlands.Land clearing will be required in this section of Route A. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ARRC,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ARRC ROW Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section A9. Visual and construction impacts will be high.Public safety impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low along this section. Section A10 There are no land use conflicts in this section of Route A.Therefore,impacts are expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include Kelly Creek and surrounding wetlands.Minimal land clearing will be required. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-4 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants 'Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,ARRC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO © clearance.Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. This section travels along the ARRC,so visual and public safety impacts will be low. Impacts to the existing transmission line will be low in this section.Construction impacts are expected to be moderate. Section Al1 There are no land use conflicts in this section of Route A.Therefore,impacts are - expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include Ruth Lake,surrounding wetlands,an unnamed creek,and a public use easement.Moderate land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,ARRC,and SHPO, Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. Visual and public safety impacts will be low.Impacts to the existing transmission line will be low in this section.Construction impacts are expected to be moderate Section A12 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route A.Major terrain obstacles in this section include the Deception Creek and a small portion of wetlands.This section follows the existing transmission line north in a straight line,so route distance is minimized.The majority of Section A1l2 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will occur. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Division of Mining and Water Management,Office of Habitat and permitting,SHPO, and COE. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41 Permit,SHPO clearance, Section 404,and Section 401.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section H12. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-5 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Because this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual impacts will be low.Public safety will not be affected and is expected to be low as well.Existing facilities are located along this section so impacts will be low. Route A Summary Route A will travel along the railroad corridor for the majority of the route.Based on these conditions,land use conflicts will be low with the exception of Sections A2,A4, AS,A6,and A9. Major terrain obstacles in Route A include lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands.These conditions exist in Sections A2 through Al2.Land clearing will be required as a result of the route traveling the through some undeveloped terrain. Extensive consultation with ARRC,ADNR,COE,ADEC,and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from ADOT&PF,ADF&G. The land-surrounding Route A is owned by the State of Alaska.Therefore,a Land Use Permit,and a ROW Permit will be required from ADNR.Furthermore,a Temporary Water Use Permit will also be necessary and obtained from ADNR.Because there are wetlands along this route,a Section 404 Permit will be required.Additionally,a Section 401 Certification from ADEC will also be required.Finally,a current clearance from SHPO is required for this transmission line. The overall visual impact of the route is moderate-low.The overall impact to public safety cause by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate-low for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are moderate-low. CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (C) The Cross Country Route (C)travels from the Teeland Substation on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Station in Willow.Route C is divided into eight sections.This route travels along the existing transmission line for several sections. Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts.The following sections examine the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route C and the associated costs for construction and easements. Section C1 Section Cl travels south of a residential area.Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate.No major terrain obstacles exist in this section.Minimal land clearing will be required in this section. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-6 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF and ADNR Division of Land. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,and ADNR Land Use Permit.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for this section of Route C. Visual and construction impacts will be moderate due to the residential area.Because a portion of this route travels along Knik/Goose Bay Road,public safety impacts will be moderate.Impacts to existing facilities will be low. Section C2 Most of this section is undeveloped wooded terrain;therefore,land use conflicts will be low.Major terrain obstacles include two unnamed lakes and surrounding wetlands. Because this section of Route C is mostly wooded terrain,substantial land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF and ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits.are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,and ADNR Land Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for this section of Route C. Visual and public safety impacts will be low due to the remoteness of this section. Existing facility impacts will be low.Because this area is undeveloped,access may be difficult so construction impacts will be moderate. Section C3 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route C.Major terrain obstacles in this section include one lake,two streams,and various wetlands.This section will follow the existing transmission line northwest,and then north in a straight line,so route distance will be minimized.This section of Route C crosses West Hollywood Road and Big Lake Road.The majority of Section C3 is wooded terrain; therefore,additional land clearing will occur. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting, COE,and SHPO, Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41 Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section C3. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-7 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/P eterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual impacts will be low and construction impacts will be moderate.Public safety will not be affected and is expected to be low.Existing facilities are located along this subsection so the impacts will be low. Section C4 A moderate land use conflict is expected in this section of Route C because of the Houston Jr/Sr.High School.Major terrain obstacles in this section include various wetlands.This section veers southeast from the existing transmission line but continues travel northwest.Section C4 crosses Hawk Lane.However,the majority of this section is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,Section 404, Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section C4. Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual impacts will be low and construction impacts will be moderate because of the school.Public safety will not be affected and is expected to be low.Existing facilities impacts are expected to be low. Section C5 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route C.Major terrain obstacles in this section include ponds and abundant wetlands.This section follows the existing transmission line northwest,west,and northwest again so route distance is not minimized.The majority of this section is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,Section 404, Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section CS. Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual impacts will be low. Public safety will not be affected.Existing facilities are located along this section so impacts will be low. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-8 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A ;Route Qualitative Analysis Section C6 | Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate in this section of Route C because of recreational use of land and water bodies.Major terrain obstacles in this section include the Little Susitna River and unnamed tributary,and abundant wetlands.This section travels north in a straight line so route distance is minimized.This section of Route C crosses the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway.A substantial portion of Section C6 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Mining, Land,and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting,COE,ADEC, ARRC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41 Permit,Section 404, Section 401,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section C6. Because some of this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual and public safety impacts are expected to be low.Because most of this section is in undeveloped terrain, construction impacts will be moderate.Existing facilities impacts are expected to be low. .Section C7 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route C.Major terrain obstacles in this section include Lake Creek,Nancy Creek,and abundant wetlands.This section travels north in a straight line so route distance is minimized.A portion of Section C7 is wooded terrain;therefore,some additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW Permit,Section 404,and Section 401 and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section C7. Because some of this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual and construction impacts will be low.Public safety will not be affected and is expected to be low. Existing facility impacts are will be low. Section C8 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route C.Major terrain obstacles include Lily Creek,Deception Creek,and various wetlands.This section travels through a lengthy section of undeveloped terrain;therefore land clearing will be required. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-9 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Division of Mining,Land,and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting, COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41,Section 404,Section 401, and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section C8. Visual and public safety impacts will be low in this section due to its remoteness. However,construction impacts will be moderate.Impacts to existing facilities will be low. Route C Summary Route C will avoid densely populated and residential areas for the majority of the route. Based on these conditions,land use conflicts will be low with the exception of Section C6. Major terrain obstacles in Route C include lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands.These conditions exist in Sections C2 through C8.Extensive land clearing will be required as a result of the route traveling through undeveloped terrain. Extensive consultation with ADNR,COE,ADEC,,and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from ADOT&PF,ADF&G,and ARRC. The land surrounding Route C is owned by the State of Alaska;therefore,a Land Use Permit,and a ROW Permit will be required from ADNR.Furthermore,a Temporary Water Use Permit will also be necessary and should be obtained from ADNR.Because there are wetlands along this route,a Section 404 Permit will be required.Additionally,a Section 401 Certification from ADEC will also be required.Finally,a current clearance from SHPO is required for this transmission line. Because this transmission line crosses over and travels along roads that are maintained by ADOT&PF,a Utility Permit is required.Additionally,this transmission line crosses several rivers that are anadromous fish streams and will require a Fish and Habitat Permit (Title 41).Route C also crosses the railroad corridor and will require a ROW Crossing Permit from ARRC. The overall visual impact of the route is low.The overall impact to public safety caused by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are low. HIGHWAY ROUTE (4) The Highway Route (A)travels along the highway from the Teeland Substation on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Station in Willow.Route H is divided into 12 sections.Each section contains various conditions with potential Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-10 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis environmental impacts.The following sections examine the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route H and the associated costs for construction and easements. Section Ht Section Hi travels through a residential housing complex.Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate.There are no major terrain obstacles in this section.Following the existing line minimizes route distance.No land clearing will be required for this section. Consultation will be necessary from the following agencies:ADOT&PF and ADNR, Division of Lands. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit and ADNR ROW Permit.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section H1. Visual impacts will be low because of the existing line.Construction impacts will be moderate in this section due to the area being heavily populated.Public safety will not change.Existing facilities are located are located along this section. Section H2 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section.Major terrain obstacles in this section inchide two lakes and surrounding wetlands.Because this section of Route H is undeveloped terrain,land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary from the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,COE,ADEC,and SHPO Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,Section 404, Section 401,and SHPO clearance,Mitigation and remediation will not be required for this section. Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual impacts will be low. Construction impacts will be moderate because of the difficulty accessing the area. Public safety will not be affected and is expected to be low.Existing facilities do not exist in this section so impacts are expected to be moderate, Section H3 Section H3 travels through a residential area;therefore,moderate land use conflicts are expected.Major terrain obstacles include Dusk Lake,Lucile Creek and surrounding wetlands.This section follows a public right of way easement in a straight line so outer distance in mimimized.This section crosses over Hollywood Road and the Parks Dryden &LaRue,Ine.A-I1 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc.. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Highway.Because most of this section is undeveloped,some land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,Division of Mining and Water Management,and Office of Habitat and Permitting,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit and Title 41 Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section H3. Because this section contains a residential area,visual and public safety impacts are expected to be moderate.There are no existing facilities in this section so the impacts will be moderate.Construction impacts are expected to be high in this section. Section H4 This section of Route H travels on the north side of the Parks Highway.Land use conflicts are expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include a portion of wetlands along this section.Minimal land clearing will be required due to the route traveling along the road. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section H4. Because this section of Route H travels along the highway,visual impacts will be high. ublic safety will not be affected;therefore,impacts will be low.Existing facilities do not exist in this section so impacts will be moderate.Additionally,construction impacts will be moderate. Section H5 Land use conflicts are expected to be high in this section because of the Denlow Business Park and local airplane traffic.No major terrain obstacles exist in this section.Because this section of Route H travels along the highway,minimal land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section H5. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-12 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis This section of Route H travels along the north side of the highway;therefore,visual and public safety impacts will be high.The existing transmission line is adjacent to this section and could be moderately impacted.Construction impacts will be moderate due to the Denlow Business Park. Section H6 Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate in this section of Route H.Major terrain obstacles that exist are the Alaska Railroad and the Little Susitna River.Minimal land clearing will be required for this section of Route H. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,Division of Mining and Water Management,Office of Habitat and Permitting ARRC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit and Title 41 Permit,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for this section. Visual and public safety impacts will be high because this section parallels the highway. The existing transmission line is adjacent to this section and could be moderately impacted.Additionally,construction impacts are expected to be moderate. Section 17 Land use conflicts are expected to be high in this section of Route H.An unnamed stream that exists in this section is the major terrain obstacle.Minimal land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO, Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance. Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. Because this section travels along the Parks Highway,visual and public safety impacts will be high.Existing transmission line is adjacent to this section and could be moderately impacted.Construction impacts are expected to be low. Section H8 There are no land use conflicts in this sectionof Route H.Therefore,impacts are expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include an unnamed tributary of Lake Creek. Minimal land clearing will be required. Dryden &LaRue,Ine.A-13 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A :Route Qualitative Analysis Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:)s ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance. Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. Because this section travels along the Parks Highway,visual and public safety impacts will be high.Existing transmission line is adjacent to this section and could be moderately impacted.Construction impacts are expected to be low. Section H9 Land use conflicts are expected to be high in this section of Route H due to the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area.Major terrain obstacles include Nancy Creek,Lily Creek and surrounding wetlands.Minimal land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,and SHPO, Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. Because this section travels along the Parks Highway,visual and public safety impacts will be high.The existing transmission line is adjacent to this section and could be moderately impacted.Construction impacts are expected to be high. Section H10 There are no land use conflicts in this section of Route H.Therefore,impacts are expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include Kelly Creek and surrounding wetlands.Minimal land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,ARRC,and SHPO, Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. This section travels along the ARRC,so visual and public safety impacts will be low. Impacts to the existing transmission line will be low in this section.Construction impacts are expected to be moderate. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-14 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Section itl There are no land use conflicts in this section of Route H.Therefore,impacts are expected to be low.Major terrain obstacles include Ruth Lake,surrounding wetlands,an unnamed creek,and a public use easement.Moderate land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and Division of Mining and Water Management,COE,ADEC,ARRC,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Temporary Water Use Permit,Section 404,Section 401,ARRC ROW Permit,and SHPO clearance.Mitigation and remediation is not expected in this section. This section travels along the ARRC,so visual and public safety impacts will be low. Impacts to the existing transmission line will be low in this section.Construction impacts are expected to be moderate. Section H12 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route H.Major terrain obstacles in this section include the Deception Creek and a small portion of wetlands.This section follows the existing transmission line north in a straight line,so route distance is minimized.The majority of Section H12 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Division of Mining and Water Management,Office of Habitat and permitting,SHPO, and COE. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW Permit,ADNR Title 41 Permit,SHPO clearance, Section 404,and Section 401.Mitigation and remediation will not be required for Section H12. Because this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual impacts will be low.Public safety will not be affected and is expected to be low as well.Impacts to existing facilities located along this section will be low. Route H Summary Route H is designed to parallel the Parks Highway for the majority of its length.This area is heavily traveled and densely populated in some sections.Based on these conditions, land use conflicts vary from low to moderate with the exception of Sections HS,H7,and H9. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-15 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Major terrain obstacles in Route H include lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands.These conditions exist in Sections H2 through H4,and H6 through H11.Land clearing will be minimized as a result of the route following the Parks Highway.Because wooded terrain exists in Sections H2,H3,Hil,and H12,some additional land clearing will be required to accommodate the new line. Extensive consultation with ADNR,COE,and SHPO will be necessary.Additional consultation will be required from ADOT&PF,ADF&G,ADEC and ARRC. The land surrounding Route H is owned by the State of Alaska;therefore,a Land Use Permit,and a ROW Permit will be required from ADNR.Furthermore,a Temporary Water Use Permit will also be necessary and should be obtained from ADNR.Because there are wetlands along this route,a Section 404 permit will be required.Additionally,a Section 401 Certification from ADEC will also be required.Finally,a current clearance from SHPO is required for this transmission line. Because this transmission line crosses over and travels along roads that are maintained by ADOT&PF,a Utility Permit is required.Additionally,this transmission line crosses several rivers that are anadromous fish streams and will require a Fish and Habitat Permit (Title 41).Route H also crosses the railroad corridor and will require a ROW Crossing Permit from ARRC. The overall visual impact of the route is moderate.The overall impact to public safety cause by this route is moderate.The impacts to existing facilities are also moderate-low. The construction impacts are moderate for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are moderate-low. MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (MW) Route M travels along the existing transmission line for its entire length.This route begins at the Teeland Substations on Knik Goose Bay Road in Wasilla,and ends at the Douglas Substation on Fish Hook Road in Willow.Route M is divided into 11 sections. Each section contains various conditions with potential environmental impacts.The following sections examine the environmental impacts associated with each section for Route M and the costs associated with construction and easements. Section M1 Section M1 travels through a residential housing complex.Because this area is heavily populated,land use conflicts will be high.There are no major terrain obstacles along Section M1.Some land clearing will be required along this section. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:Alaska Department of Transportation &Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)Division of Land. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-16 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PE Utility Permit,and ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit.Some mitigation will be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Visual impacts will be low because of the existing line.Construction impacts will be moderate in this section due to the area being heavily populated and close to energized lines.Public safety impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M2 Section M2 travels through a residential area;therefore,moderate land use conflicts are anticipated.No major terrain obstacles exist in this section.A portion of this section is wooded landscape;therefore,some land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,and SHPO. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit, and SHPO clearance.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Visual impacts will be moderate because this section will parallel Sunset Avenue. Construction impacts and public safety will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M3 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route M.Major terrain obstacles in this subsection include a large lake and wetlands.A large portion of this section is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land,. Mining,and Water Management,SHPO,COE,and the ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because this area is inaccessible visual impact will be low.Construction impacts will be moderate.Public safety will not be affected and impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-17 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Dougias Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Section M4 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route M.Major terrain obstacles in this section include one large lake,two streams,and various wetlands.This section of Route M crosses West Hollywood Road and Big Lake Road.The majority of Section M4 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will occur. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,Mining and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting, SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit, ADNR Title 41 Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual and public safety impacts will be low,and construction impacts will be moderate.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M5 Moderate land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route M due to its close proximity to the Houston Jr/Sr.High School.Major terrain obstacles in this section include a small lake,and various wetlands.Section M5 crosses Hawk Lane.Because the majority of this section is wooded terrain,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,Mining,and Water Management,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW and Land Use Pennit, SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation in areas where land clearing has occurred. Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual and public safety impacts will be low.Construction impacts are will be moderate because of the school. Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M6 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route M.Major terrainobstaclesincludepondsandabundantwetlands.The majority of this section is woodedterrain;therefore,additional land clearing will occur. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADOT&PF,ADNR Division of Land,Mining,and Water Management,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Dryden &LaRue,Ine.A-18 January 30,2004 Land Fieid Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A 'Route Qualitative Analysis Anticipated permits are:ADOT&PF Utility Permit,ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit, SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because this area is mostly wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual and public safety impacts will be low.Construction impacts will be moderate.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M7 Land use conflicts are expected to be moderate in this section of Route M because of recreational activities.Major terrain obstacles in this section include the Little Susitna River,Lake Creek,and surrounding wetlands.This section of Route M crosses the Alaska Railroad.A substantial portion of Section M7 is wooded terrain;therefore, additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Mining,and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting,SHPO,COE, ADEC,and ARRC. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit,ADNR Title 41 Permit, SHPO clearance,Section 404,Section 401,and ARRC ROW Permit.Some mitigation will be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because some of this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M8 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route M.Major terrain obstacles in this section include a small pond and abundant wetlands.This section of Route M crosses the Parks Highway.A small portion of Section M8 is wooded terrain;therefore, some additional Jand clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Mining,and Water Management,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because some of this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-19 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants } Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A ;Route Qualitative Analysis Section M9 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route M.Major terrain obstacles in this section include four creeks,two small ponds,and abundant wetlands.A substantial portion of Section M9 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Mining,and Water Management,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be necessary for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M10 Land use conflicts are expected to be low in this section of Route M.Major terrain obstacles include a small section of wetlands and a public use easement.A substantial portion of Section M10 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will be required. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Mining,and Water Management,SHPO,COE,and ADEC. Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit,SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be required for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because some of this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected to be low. Section M11 No land use conflicts are expected in this section of Route M.Major terrain obstacles in this section include the Deception Creek and a small portion of wetlands.The majority of Section M11 is wooded terrain;therefore,additional land clearing will occur. Consultation will be necessary with the following agencies:ADNR Division of Land, Mining,and Water Management,ADNR Office of Habitat and Permitting,SHPO,COE and ADEC. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-20 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Ine. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants fl Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix A Route Qualitative Analysis Anticipated permits are:ADNR ROW and Land Use Permit,ADNR Title 41 Permit, SHPO clearance,Section 404,and Section 401.Some mitigation may be required for revegetation where land clearing has occurred. Because this area is wooded terrain and unpopulated,visual,public safety,and construction impacts will be low.Impacts to existing facilities are expected top be low. Route M Summary - Route M is mostly unpopulated,densely forested terrain with wetlands.Because of these conditions,land use conflicts are nonexistent with the exception of section M1 and M2. Sections M1 and M2 are heavily populated and potential land use conflicts exist in these areas. Major terrain obstacles in Route M include ponds,lakes,rivers,streams,and wetlands. These conditions exist in Sections M3 through M11.Wooded terrain exists from Section M2 to M11.Land clearing will be required for the new line. Extensive consultation with ADNR,COE,ADEC and SHPO will be necessary. Additional consultation will be required from ADOT&PF,and ARRC. The land surrounding Route M is owned by the State of Alaska.Therefore,a ROW and Land Use Permit will be required from ADNR.Because there are wetlands along this route,a Section 404 permit will be required in accordance with a Section 401 Certification.A current SHPO clearance will also be required for this transmission line. Because this transmission line crosses over roads that are maintained by ADOT&PF,a ROW Crossing Permit is required.Additionally,this transmission line crosses several ponds,lakes,and rivers and will that house anadromous fish species and will require an ADNR Title 41 Permit.Finally,Route M crosses a railroad corridor and will require a ROW Crossing Permit from ARRC. The overall visual impact of the route is low.The overall impact to public safety cause by this route is low.The impacts to existing facilities are also low.The construction impacts are moderate-low for the route.The land use conflicts for this route are low. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.A-21 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix B Dryden &LaRue,Inc.January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Ine. Travis/Peterson Environinental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Dougtas Substation Appendix B Right of Way Cost Estimate Detail |APPENDIXB RIGHT OF WAY COST ESTIMATE DETAIL This appendix contains the detailed information gathered for the right-of-way cost estimate.Pages B-2 thru B-9 contain the spreadsheets that cover the direct right-of-way costs.The following describes a few of the columns that need further detail: Column 2 lists the parcel type,which is broken down for the purpose of estimating land value,since unit values generally vary according to the parcel size and character.The different types are classified as follows:Subdivision lots which generally range in size of ¥%acre to 1 4 acre,"Waiver”type parcels which are un-subdivided parcels in the size range of 2 %acres to 10 acres,small acreage parcels in the range of 10 to 40 acres,large acreage parcels of over 40 acres and State-owned land.The subdivision parcels are broken down further because there was found to be significant variances in lot prices between several of the subdivisions crossed near Teeland Substation. Column 7 is the estimated fee value of the land within the proposed easement,listed as dollars per square foot or per acre as appropriated.These values are derived by sampling similar types of parcels at the Mat-Su Borough Assessor's Office,taking the Borough's appraised values for assessment purposes and adding 25%for a "rule of thumb” adjustment.This adjustment is judged to be appropriate because of the anticipated appreciation of land values over time and the fact that taxing authority assessed values are generally conservative to being with. Column 8 is a completely subjective estimate,but found to have some merit in past transmission line acquisitions.It assumes that the landowner retains some use of the land and as a result should not be paid in the entire fee value of the square footage or acreage in the easement.Some types of parcels are impacted more than others,notably small subdivision lots to which 75%of fee was allotted instead of the 50%used for acreage parcels.An exception to this is where the line is proposed to go between the MEA and CEA lines through Victorian Estates.Fifty percent (50%)is used since the entire 60 feet is already encumbered by the MEA or CEA easements. Here are a couple of final notes.The land ownership over the length of the line includes private parties,Mat-Su Borough-owned (mostly large parcels),ANCSA village or regional corporation parcels,and State-owned land.There is one quarter-section parcel in Section 35,TL9N,R4W that may be in Federal ownership,further investigation is needed. Pages B-10 thru B-18 are summary spreadsheets for each of the routes.They list the number of and type of impacted parcels,direct and indirect costs. Pages B-19 thru B-21 contain the information gathered on the existing MEA right of way. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.B-l January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study ALASKA RAILROAD ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (Rev 7/14/03) 1 2 3 4 §6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|*PARCEL TYPE]NO.PARCELS LINEAR FT|ROW WIDTH|NO.UNITS UNIT VALUE |}%OF FEE|ROW COST(SCALED)(ROUNDED) A-1 Subd.23 3,000 30!90,000 sq.ft.$0.38/sq.ft.75%$25,600 A-1 Waiver 4 1,100 30'.75 Ac.$6,250/ac.75%$3,500 A-2 Subd.24 5,280 30'168,400 sq.ft.$0.25/sq.ft.75%$29,700 A-2 Subd.14 4,960 30!148,800 sq.ft.$0.15/sq.ft.75%$16,700 A-2 Waiver 6 41,660 30'1.14 ac.$6,000/ac.75%$5,150 A-2 Commercial 1 600 30!18,000 Sq.ft.$0.47/sq.ft.75%$6,350 A-2 Sm Acreage 7 5,140 30'3.54 ac.$2,300/ac.75%$6,100 A-3 Subd.2 1,950 70 136,500 sq.ft.$0.35/sq.ft.75%$24,000 A-3 Waiver 1 800 70'1.29 ac.$5,600/ac.50%$3,600 A-3 Sm Acreage 2 2,700 70 4.34 ac.$1,800/ac.50%$3,900 A-3 Lg Acreage 4 9,330 70°15.0 ac.$1 ,500/ac.50%$17,300 A-4 Sm Acreage 1 1,300 70 2.10 ac.$1,100/ac,50%$1,150 A-4 Lg Acreage 4 9,700 70°15.59 ac.$1,100/ac.50%$8,570 A-5 Subd.19 4,700 70 329,000 sq.ft.$.20/sq.ft.75%$49,350 A-5 Sm Acreage 6 3,630 70°5.83 ac.$2,500/ac.50%$7,300 A-5 Lg Acreage 2 3,800 70!6.11 ac.$1 ,250/ac.50%3,800 AS Subd.3 900 70!63,000 sq.ft.$0.13/sq.ft.75%$6,140 A-6 Sm Acreage 7 8,150 70 13.4 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$14,400 A-6 Lg Acreage 4 6,680 70 10.73 ac.$800/ac.50%$4,300 A-6 State 1 350 70'350'$.10/ft.$40 A-7 Subd.2 600 70'42,000 sq.ft.$0.13/sq.ft.75%$4,100 A-7 Sm Acreage 3 3,600 70!5.79 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$8,370 A-7 Lg Acreage 4 7,600 70'12.21 ac.$800/ac,50%$4,890 A-8 Sm Acreage 6 8,500 70'13.66 ac.$1,200/ac.50%$8,200 A-9 Subd.3 900 70!63,000 sq.ft.$0.18/sq.ft.75%$8,500 A-3 Sm Acreage 10 10,350 70°16.63 ac.$1 800/ac.75%$22,450 A-9 Lg Acreage 1 1,100 70'1.77 ac.$1,800/ac.50%$1,600 A-9 Total Take 2 950 2.84 ac,100%$450,000 A-10 Sm Acreage 11 6,100 70'9.8 ac.$2,000/ac.50%$9,800 4-10 State 1 4,350 70'1,350!$.10/ft.$140 A-11 Sm Acreage 1 580 70'0.93 ac.$1.625/ac.50%$750 A-11 Lg Acreage 4 §,280 70'8.48 ac.$750/ac.50%$3,180 A-11 State 1 2,640 70'2,640'$.10/ft.$260 A-12 Sm Acreage 1 1,300 70°2.09 ac.$1.625/ac.50%$1,700 A-12 Lg Acreage 1 1,300 70'2.09 ac.$750/ac.50%$780 A-12 State 4 2,640 70 2,640!$.10/ft.$260 TOTALS 181 130,520 $753,930 B-2 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study ALASKA RAILROAD "A-9A ALTERNATE"ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (Rev 7/14/03) 1 2 3 4 §6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|"PARCEL TYPE ]NO.PARCELS |LINEAR FT.|ROW WIDTH NO.UNITS UNIT VALUE |%OF FEE}ROW COST ® (SCALED) A-1 Subd.23 3,000 30'90,000 sq.ft.$0.38/sq.ft.75%$25,600 A-1 Waiver 1 1,100 30".75 Ac.$6,250/ac.75%$3,500 A-2 Subd.24 5,280 30'158,400 sq.ft $0.25/sq.ft.75%$29,700 A-2 Subd.14 4,960 30'148,800 sq.ft.$0.1 5/sq.ft.75%$16,700 A-2 Waiver 6 1,660 30'1.14 ac.$6,000/ac.75%$5,150 A-2 Commercial 1 600 30"18,000 Sq.t.$0.47/sq.ft.75%$6,350 A-2 Sm Acreage 7 5.140 30°3.54 ac.$2,300/ac.,75%$6,100 A-3 Subd.2 1,950 70'136,500 sq.ft.$0.35/sq.ft.75%$24,000 A-3 Waiver 1 800 70°1.29 ac.$5,600/ac,50%$3,600 A-3 Sm Acreage 2 2,700 70 4.34 ac.$1,800/ac.50%$3,900 A-3 Lg Acreage 4 9,330 70'15.0 ac.$1 ,500/ac.50%,$11,300 A-4 Sm Acreage 1 1,300 70'2.10 ac.$1,100/ac.50%$1,150 A-4 Lg Acreage 4 9,700 70'15.59 ac.$1,100/ac.50%$8,570 A-5 Subd.19 4,700 70'329,000 sq.ft.$.20/sq.ft.75%$49,350 AS Sm Acreage 6 3,630 70'5.83 ac,$2,500/ac.50%$7,300 AS Lg Acreage 2 3,800 70'6.11 ac.$1 ,250/ac.50%3,800 AS Subd.3 900 70 63,000 sq.ft.$0.13/sq.ft.75%$6,140 A-6 Sm Acreage 7 8,150 70'13.1 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$14,400 AS Lg Acreage 4 6,680 70 10.73 ac.$800/ac.50%$4,300 ASB State 1 350 70'350'$.10/ft.$40 A-7 Subd.2 600 70!42,000 sq.ft.$0.13/sq.ft.75%$4,100 A-7 Sm Acreage 3 3,600 70 5.79 ac,$2,200/ac.50%$6,369 A-7 Lo Acreage 4 7,600 70 12.21 ac.$800/ac.50%$4,890 A-8 Sm Acreage 6 8,500 70'13.66 ac.$1,200/ac.50%$8,200 A-8A Sm Acreage 1 500 70'0.80 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$880 A-9A Subd.1 150 70°40,500 sq.ft.$0.18/sq.ft.75%$1,420 A-9A Waiver 4 500 70°0.80 ac.$4,000/ac.50%$1,600 A-9A Sm Acreage 1 450 70'0.72 ac,$2,200/ac.50%$800 A-SA Lg Acreage 10 12,830 70'20,62 ac.$1,250/ac,50%$12,890 A-10 Sm Acreage 11 6,100 70'9.80 ac.$2,000/ac,50%$9,800 A-10 State 4 1,350 70'1,350'$.10/ft,$140 A-11 Sm Acreage 1 580 70°0.93 ac.$1.625/ac.50%$750 A-11 Lg Acreage 1 5,280 70'8.48 ac.$750/ac.50%$3,180 A-11 State 1 2,640 70'2,640'$.10/ft.$260 A-12 Sm Acreage 1 1,300 70°2.09 ac.$1.625/ac.50%$1,700 A-12 Lg Acreage 4 1,300 70°2.09 ac.$750/ac,50%$780 A-12 State 1 2,640 70°2,640'$.10/ft.$260 TOTALS 179 131,650 $288,969 B-3 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study ALASKA RAILROAD "A-10A ALTERNATE"ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (Rev 7/14/03) 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|"PARCEL TYPE |NO.PARCELS |LINEAR FT.|ROW WIDTH}NO.UNITS UNIT VALUE |%OF FEE]ROW COST ® (SCALED) A-1 Subd.23 3,000 30°90,000 sq.ft.$0.38/sq.ft.75%$25,600 A-1 Waiver 1 1,100 30°75 Ac.$6,250/ac,75%$3,500 A-2 Subd.24 5,280 30"458,400 sq_ft.$0.25/sq.ft.75%$29,700 A-2 Subd.14 4,960 30'148,800 sq.ft.$0.15/sq.ft.75%$16,700 A-2 Waiver 6 1,660 30'1.14 ac.$6,000/ac,75%$5,150 A-2 Commercial 4 600 30!18,000 Sq.ft.$0.47/sq.ft.75%$6,350 A-2 Sm Acreage 7 5,140 30'3.54 ac.$2,300/ac.75%$6,100 A-3 Subd,2 1,950 70'136,500 sq.ft.$0.35/sq.ft.75%$24,000 A:3 Waiver 1 800 70'1.29 ac,$5,600/ac.50%$3,600 A3 Sm Acreage 2 2,700 70'4.34 ac.$1,800/ac.50%$3,900 A-3 Lg Acreage 4 9,330 70!15.0 ac,$1,500/ac.50%$11,300 A-4 Sm Acreage 1 1,300 70°2.10 ac.$1,100/ac.50%$1,150 A-4 Lg Acreage 4 9,700 70"15.59 ac,$1,100/ac.50%$8,570 A-5 Subd.19 4,700 70'329,000 sq.ft.$.20/sq.ft.75%$49,350 A-5 Sm Acreage 6 3,630 70'5.83 ac,$2,500/ac.50%$7,300 A5 Lg Acreage -2 3,800 70'6.11 ac.$1,250/ac.50%3,800 A-6 Subd.3 900 70'63,000 sq.ft.$0.13/sq.ft.75%$6,140 A-6 Sm Acreage 7 8,150 70'13.1 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$14,400 A-6 Lg Acreage 4 6,680 70 10.73 ac.$800/ac.50%$4,300 A-6 State 1 350 70'350!$.10/ft.$40 A-7 Subd.2 600 70°42,000 sq.ft.$0.13/sq.ft.75%$4,100 A-7 Sm Acreage 3 3,600 70'5.79 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$5,369 A-7 Lg Acreage 4 7,600 70'12.21 ac.$800/ac.50%$4,890 A-8 Sm Acreage 6 8,500 70'13.66 ac.$1,200/ac.50%$8,200 A-8A Sm Acreage 1 500 70'0.80 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$880 A-9A Subd.4 150 70'10,500 sq.ft.$0.18/sq.ft 75%$1,420 A-9A Waiver 1 500 70°0.80 ac.$4,000/ac.50%$1,600 A-9A Sm Acreage 4 450 70°0.72 ac.$2,200/ac.50%$800 A-9A Lg Acreage 10 12,830 70°20.62 ac.$1,250/ac.50%$12,890 A-10A Sm Acreage 4 4,160 100"9.55 ac.$1,800/ac.50%$8,600 A-10A Lg Acreage 4 3,700 100'8.49 ac.$800/ac.50%$3,400 M-10 Sm Acreage 1 600 70°0.96 ac.$1,625/ac,50%$780 M-10 Lg Acreage 1 5,400 70 8.68 ac.-$750/ac.50%$3,260 M-10 State 2,800 70'2,800!$.10/ft.$280 A-12 Sm Acreage 1 1,300 70!2.09 ac.$1.625/ac.50%$1,700 A-12 lg Acreage 1 1,300 70°2.09 ac.$750/ac.50%$780 A-12 State 1 2,640 70°2,640!$.10/ft.$260 TOTALS 171 132,360 $291,159 B-4 4/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (REV 7/14/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|*PARCEL TYPE |NO.PARCELS |LINEAR FT|ROW WIDTH]NO.UNITS |UNIT VALUE]%OF FEE]ROW COST ® (SCALED) C-4 Subd.8 4,600 30'48,000 $0.69/sq ft.75%$24,840 C-1 Sm.Acreage 4 2,100 400'4.82 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$3,920 C-2 Waiver 3 2,640 400'6.06 ac.$3,000/ac.50%$9,100 C-2 Sm.Acreage 5 6,600 100'.15.15 $1,200/ac.50%$9,100 C-2 Lg.Acreage 3 8,080 400"18.55 ac.$800/ac.50%$7,420 C-3 Waiver 2 930 70'1.59 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$4,970 C-3 Sm.Acreage 4 2,600 70'4.12 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$3,350 C-3 Lg.Acreage 4 15,600 70'25.10 ac.$750/ac,50%$9,410 C-4 Waiver 6 2,100 70!3.37 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$10,530 C-4 Sm.Acreage 6 5,200 70'8.36 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$6,800 C-4 Lg.Acreage 1 4,000 |70'6.43 ac.$750/ac.50%$2,400 C-5 Lg.Acreage 2 13,800 70'22.18 ac.$750/ac.50%$8,320 C-5 State 1 6,300 70'6,300!$.10/t.$630 C-6 Sm.Acreage 2 2,340 87'4.67 ac,$1,625/ac.50%$3,800 C-6 Lg.Acreage 1 2,440 70'3.92 ac.$750/ac.50%$1,470 C4 State 4 9,280 70'9,280'$.10/ft.$930 C-7 Lg.Acreage 4 3,960 70 6.36 ac,$750/ac.50%$2,390 C-7 State 4 11,880 70'11,880'$.10/it.$1,190 C-8 Sm.Acreage 1 600 7400"1.38 ac.$1,625/ac,50%$1,120 C-8 Lg.Acreage 2 8,000 100°18.37 ac.$750/ac.50%$6,890 C-8 State 4 23,000 100!23,000'$.10/it.$2,300 TOTALS 56 133,110 $120,880 B-5 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study HIGHWAY ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (REV.7/14/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #{PARCEL TYPE|NO.PARCELS|LINEAR FT,|ROW WIDTH NO,UNITS UNIT VALUE |%OF FEE|ROW COST H1 Subd.21 3,000 30 90,000sq.ft.$0.69sq.ft.50%$31,050 H2 Subd.1 3 600 30 18,000sq.ft $0.25sq.ft.715%$3,375 H2 Subd.2 3 1,270 30 38,100sq.ft.$0.12sf.ft.50%$2,286 H2 Subd.3 3 2,640 70 4.24ac,$3,438/Ac 50%$7,289 H2 Waiver 1 2 660 30 0.45ac.$6,250/Ac.50%$1,406 H2 Waiver 2 3 1,320 70 2.12ac.$5,625/Ac.50%$5,963 H2 Large 6 7,920 70 12.73ac.$1,500/Ac.50%$9,548 H3 Subd.1 6 970 70 67,900sq.ft.$0.26sq.ft 50%$8,827 H3 Subd.2 1 750 70 52,500sq.ft.$0.435q.ft 50%$11,288 H3 Subd.3 1 850 70 59 500sq.ft.$0.43sq.ft 50%$12,793 H3 Waiver 1 2 1,320 70 2.12ac.$2,500/Ac.50%$2,650 H3 Waiver 2 2 810 70 1.30ac.$3,345/Ac.50%$2,174 H3 Large 6 10,560 70 16.97ac.$1,313/Ac.50%$11,141 H4 Subd.4 2 9650 70 67,200sq.ft.$0.315q.ft 50%$10,416 H4 Subd.2 2 300 70 21,000sq.ft.$0.16sq.ft 50%$1,680 H4 Waiver 14 1 1,100 70 1.77ac.$8,125/Ac.50%$7,191 H4 Waiver 2 1 300 70 0.48ac.$5,000/Ac.50%$1,200 H4 Large 4 10,510 70 16.89ac.$1,418/Ac,50%$11,975 H5 Subd.4 2 700 70 49,000sq.ft.$0.16sq.ft 50%$3,920 H5 Subd.2 19 2,830:70 198,100sq.ft.$0.34sq.ft 50%$33,677 H5 Waiver 1 2 1,290 70 2.07ac.$4,375/Ac.50%$4,528 HS Waiver 2 2 670 70 1.08ac.$4,100/Ac.50%$2,214 H5 Waiver 3 3 2,680 70 4.31ac.$4,073/Ac.50%$8,777 H5 Large 1 1,860 70 2.99ac.$1,250/Ac.50%$1,869 H6 Large 1 1 1,300 70 2.09ac.$1,750/Ac.50%$1,829 H6 Large 2 1 770 70 1.24ac.$1,120/Ac.50%$694 H6 Waiver 1 1 330 70 0.53ac.$2,238/Ac.50%$593 -HE Waiver 2 2 1,600 70 2,57ac.$5,264/Ac.50%$6,764 H6 Waiver 3 1 1,355 70 2.18ac.$5,264/Ac.50%$5,738 H6 Subd.1 1 1,200 70 1.93ac.$3,000/Ac.50%$2,895 H6 Subd,2 13 1,320 70 92 ,400sq,.ft.$0.31sq.ft.50%$14,322 H6 Large 3 1 1,420 70 2.2846.$1,251/Ac.50%$1,426 H6 Subd.3 5 1,050 70 73,500sq.ft.$5,131/Ac.50%$4,448 H6 Waiver 4 3 2,260 70 3.63ac.$4,100/Ac.50%$7,442 H6 Large 4 2 3,150 70 5.06ac,$1,251/Ac.50%$3,165 Subtotals 429 71,625 $246,553 B-6 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study HIGHWAY ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (REV 7/14/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|PARCEL TYPE]NO.PARCELS}LINEAR FT.|ROW WIDTH NO.UNITS UNIT VALUE |%OF FEE]ROW COST H7 Waiver 1 5 2,470 70 3.97ac.$3,438/Ac.50%$6,824 H7 Large 1 3 6,050 70 9.72ac.$1,063/Ac.50%$5,166 H7 Subd.4 800 70 1.29ac,$2,750/Ac.50%$1,774 H7 Large 2 2 1,870 70 3.01ac.$1,250/Ac.50%$1,881 H7 Waiver 2 4 2,100 70 3.37ac,$3,745/Ac.50%$6,310 Hé Waiver 1 2 850 70 1.37ac.$2,388/Ac.50%$1,636 H8 Large 14 1 4,050 70 1.69ac.$1,013/Ac.50%$856 H8 Waiver 2 1 710 70 1.14ac.$3,998/Ac,50%$2,279 H8 Large 2 1 1,820 70 2.92ac.$1,013/Ac.50%$1,479 H8 Waiver 3 7 5,210 70 8.37ac.$2,249/Ac.50%$9,412 HS Waiver 1 500 70 0.80ac.$4,O00/Ac.50%$1,600 H9 Large 10 12,830 70 20.62ac.$1,668/Ac.50%$17,197 HS Subd.4 150 70 10,500sq,ft.$0.18sq.ft.50%$945 H10 Sm.Acreage 12 7,450 70 11.97ac.$2,000/Ac.50%$11,970 H11 Sm.Acreage i)580 70 0.93ac,$,1625/Ac.50%$756 H11 Large 4 5,860 70 9.42ac.$750/Ac.50%$3,533 H11 State 1 2,540 70 2,640'$.10/ft.$264 H12 Sm.Acreage 1 1,300 70 2.09 $1,625/Ac.50%$1,698 H12 Large 1 1,300 70 2.09 $750/Ac.50%$784 H12 State 1 2,640 70 2,640'$.10/ft.$264 Subtotals 60 58,180 $76,628 TOTALS 189 129,805 $323,181.00 B-7 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study MEA PARALLEL ROUTE,DIRECT ROW COSTS (Rev.7/14/03) 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|*PARCEL TYPE |NO.PARCELS |LINEAR FT]ROW WIDTH|NO.UNITS |UNIT VALUE]%OF FEE|ROW COST ® (SCALED) M-1 Subd.23 3,660 60'219,600 sq.ft.|$0.69/sq.ft.50%$75,760 M-1 Waiver 1 660 30 0.45 ac.$6250/ac.50%31,400 M-2 Subd.36 6,600 30'198,000 sq.ft.|$0.18/sq.ft.75%$26,730 M-2 Waiver 2 1,320 30'0.91 ac.$6250/ac.50%$2,850 M-2 Sm.Acreage 4 5,280 30!3.64 ac.$1 ,625/ac.50%$2,950 M-3 Waiver 1 330 70°0.53 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$1,650 M-3 Sm.Acreage 2 2,310 70'3.71 ac.$1,625/a.50%$3,000 M-3A Lg.Acreage 1 $00 70°1.45 ac.$750/ac.50%$950 M-4 Waiver 2 990 70'1.59 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$4,970M-4 Sm.Acreage 4 2,600 70'4.12 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$3,350 M-4 Lg.Acreage 4 15,600 70"25.10 ac.$750/ac.50%$9,410 M-5 Waiver 7 2,100 70'3.37 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$10,530 M-5 Sm.Acreage 6 4,250 70'6.83 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$5,550 M-§Lg.Acreage 2 4,600 70°7.39 ac.$750/ac.50%$2,770 M-6 Lg.Acreage 2 13,800 70'22.18 ac.$750/ac.,50%$8,320 M-6 State 4 6,300 70'6,300"$.10/Ht.$630 M-7 State 1 11,620 70'11,620!$.10/ft.$1,160 M-7 Lg.Acreage 1 5,680 70!9.13 ac.$750/ac,50%$3,420 M-8 Sm.Acreage 3 3,040 70'4.89 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$3,970 M-8 Lg.Acreage 4 7,960 70'12.79 ac.$750/ac.50%$4,800 M-9 Sm.Acreage 1 £00 7Q'0.80 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$1,300 M-9 Lg.Acreage 3 7,700 70!12.53 ac.$750/ac.50%$4,640 M-9 State 1 11,600 -70'41,600'$.10/ft.$1,160 M-10 Sm.Acreage 1 600 70!0.96 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$780 M-10 Lg.Acreage 1 5,400 70'8.68 ac.$750/ac.50%$3,260 M-10 State 1 2,800 70'2,800'$.10/ac.$280 M-11 Sm.Acreage 4 1,300 70°2.09 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$1,700 M-14 Lg.Acreage 1 1,300 70 2.09 ac,$750/ac.50%$780 M-14 State 1 2,640 70 2,640!$.10/ac.$260 TOTALS 118 133,440 $187,930 "Parcel Types Explained:"Subd."=Subdivision lots under 2.5 acres;"Waiver"=Parcels 2.5 acres to 10 acres in size; "Sm.Acreage"=Small acreage parcels,11 to 40 acres;"Lg Acreage”=Parcels over 40 acres. 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study MEA PARALLEL ROUTE,CAPTAIN'S RIDGE ALTERNATE (Rev.7/14/03) 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SEGMENT #|*PARCEL TYPE |NO.PARCELS |LINEAR FT)ROW WIDTH|NO.UNITS |UNIT VALUE]%OF FEE}ROW COST ® (SCALED) M-1A Subd.16 2,640 30'79,200 sq.ft.|$0.69/sq.ft.75%$41,000 M-1A Subd.9 2,300 30'69,000 sq.ft.|$0.44/sq.ft.75%$22,770 M-2 Subd.36 6,600 30!198,000 sq.ft.|$0.18/sq.ft.75%$26,730 M-2 Waiver 2 1,320 30'0.91 ac.$6250/ac.50%$2,850 M-2 Sm.Acreage 4 5,280 30!3.64 ac.$1 ,625/ac.50%$2,950 M-3 Waiver 4 330 70'0.53 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$1,650 M-3 Sm.Acreage 2 2,310 70'3.71 ac.$1,625/a.50%$3,000 M-3A Lg.Acreage 1 900 70'1.45 ac.$750/ac.50%$550 M-4 Waiver 2 g90 70 1.59 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$4,970 M-4 Sm.Acreage 4 2,600 70'4.12 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$3,350 M-4 Lg.Acreage 4 15,600 70 25.10 ac.$750/ac.50%$9,410 M-5 Waiver 7 2,100 70!3.37 ac.$6,250/ac.50%$10,530 M-5 Sm.Acreage 6 4,250 70 6.83 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$5,550 M-5 Lg.Acreage 2 4,600 70°7.39 ac.$750/ac.50%$2,770 M-6 Lg.Acreage 2 13,800 70°22.18 ac.$750/ac.50%$8,320 M-6 State 4 6,300 70!6,300'$.10/ft.$630 M-7 State 1 11,620 70'11,620!$.10/ft.$1,160 M-7 Lg.Acreage 1 5,680 70!9.13 ac.$750/ac.50%$3,420 M-8 Sm.Acreage 3 3,040 70 4.89 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$3,970 M-8 Lg.Acreage 4 7,960 70'12.79 ac.$750/ac.50%$4,800 M-9 Sm.Acreage 4 500 70'0.80 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$1,300 M-9 Lg.Acreage 3 7,700 70°12.53 ac.$750/ac.50%$4,640 M-9 State 4 11,600 70'11,600'$.10/ft.$1,160 M-10 Sm.Acreage 4 600 70'0.96 ac.$1 ,625/ac.50%$780 M-10 Lg.Acreage 4 5,400 70'8.68 ac.$750/ac.50%$3,260 M-10 State 4 2,800 70 2,800'$.10/ft.$280 M-114 Sm.Acreage 4 1,300 70'2.09 ac.$1,625/ac.50%$1,700 M-11 Lg.Acreage 1 1,300 70'2.09 ac.$750/ac.50%$780 M-11 State 1 2,640 70 2,640'$.10/ft.$260 TOTALS 119 134,060 $174,540 *Parcel Types Explained:"Subd."=Subdivision lots under 2.5 acres;"Waiver"=Parcels 2.5 acres to 10 acres in size; "Sm.Acreage"=Small acreage parcels,11 to 40 acres;"Lg Acreage"=Parcels over 40 acres. B-9 1/30/2004 ROUTE COMPARISON SUMMARY DIRECT &INDIRECT COSTS OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS (7/28/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NO.AGENCY|NO.PRIVATE!NO.FED.|NO.STATE {|ARRC LONG.|LINEAR FT,|DIRECT |INDIRECT TOTAL ROUTE PARCELS PARCELS |PARCELS |PARCELS |ENCROACH |(SCALED)COSTS COSTS |(ROUNDED) MEA Parallel Route 24 94 1 5 133,760 $190,118 $395,375 $585,490 MEA Alternate Parallel Route 24 95 4 5 134,380 $176,728 $399,075 $575,800 Alaska Railroad Route 15 166 3 $11,800 132,260 $770,500 $684,650 |$1,455,150 Alaska Railroad A-9A Alternate 17 164 3 $9,530 133,010 $303,170 $677,250 $980,420 Alaska Railroad A 10A Alternate 17 158 3 $8,360 133,680 $303,930 $655,050 $958,980 Highway Parallel . Route 11 179 2 $1,170 130,480 $326,296 $702,650 |$1,028,950CrossCountry Route 48 38 4 134,010 $123,130 $183,950 $307,080 NOTES: AGENCY PARCELS =MHT,ANCSA,COH,U OF A,ADOP,ADOT/PF,ARRC (X-ING ONLY),AND MSB STATE PARCELS=State lands administered by ADL,not ADOP.ARRC LONG.ENCROACH =Annuat rental of longitudinal encroachment in the Alaska Railroad ROW,based on adjacent land values. DIRECT COSTS=Amounts of compensation paid directly to landowners or agencies.INDIRECT COSTS=The administrative costs of acquisition;includes platting,title,appraisal,negotiations,general administration,etc.LINEAR FT (SCALED)=The total linear feet of the route,including highway &railroad crossings. B-10 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS ALASKA RAILROAD ROUTE (7/28/03) 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SEGMENT NO.PVT.AGENCY |STATELAND|ARR&DOT]LANDDIR.|PVT.LAND |%TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTAL NO.PARCELS PARCELS |DIR.COSTS |CROSSINGS COSTS IND.COST |LINEARFT |LINEAR $IND.COST COSTS A-1 23 1 $0 $3,405 $29,100 $85,100 3.25 $0 $1,312 $118,917 A-2 52 0 $0 $10,430 $64,000 $192,400 13.64 $0 $5,507 $272,337 A-3 8 1 $0 $9 $42,800 $29,600 11.17 $3,659 $4,510 $80,569 A-4 4 1 $0 30 $9,720 $14,800 8.32 $831 $3,359 $28,710 A-5 27 0 $0 $10,465 $60,450 $99,900 9.58 $1,396 $3,868 $176,079 A-6 13 1 $40 $0 $24,840 $48,100 12.16 $574 $4,910 $78,824 A-7?6 3 $0 $7,025 $15,360 $22,200 9.07 $1,240 $3,662 $49,487 A-8 6 0 $0 $0 $8,200 $22,200 6.43 $660 $2,596 $33,656 AY 14 1 $0 $3,530 $482,550 $51,800 10.6 $2,270 $4,280 $544,430 A-10 11 4 $140 $0 $9,800 $40,700 5.63 $1,170 $2,273 $54,083 Av11 0 2 $260 $0 $3,930 $0 6.43 $0 $2,596 $6,786 A-12 2 0 $260 $0 $2,480 $7,400 3.96 $0 $1,599 $11,739 TOTALS 166 11 $700 $34,855 $753,230 $614,200 100.24 $11,800 $40,472 $1,455,617 NOTE 1.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN 5)entries include both direct and indirect costs. NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the total combined cost for the following agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Knikatnu Inc., U OF A,ARR (Linear),Mental Health Trust,and State DNR,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. B-11 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS ALASKA RAILROAD A-9A ALTERNATE ROUTE (7/28/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SEGMENT NO.PVT.AGENCY |STATELAND]ARR &DOT |LANDDIR.}|PVT.LAND %TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTAL NO.PARCELS PARCELS |DIR.COSTS |CROSSINGS COSTS IND.COST |LINEARFT |LINEAR $IND.COST COSTS A-1 23 1 $90 $3,405 $29,100 $85,100 3.24 $0 $1,308 $118,913 A-2 52 0 $0 $10,430 $64,000 $192,400 13.57 $0 $5,479 $272,309 A-3 8 1 $0 $0 $42,800 $29,600 11.11 $3,659 $4,486 $80,545A-4 4 1 $0 $0 $9,720 $14,800 8.27 $831 $3,339 $28,690 A-5 27 0 $0 $10,465 $60,450 $99,900 9.53 $1,396 $3,848 $176,059 A-6 13 1 $40 $0 $24,840 $48,100 12.09 $574 $4,881 $78,435 A-7 6 3 $0 $7,025 $15,360 $22,200 8.87 $1,240 $3,581 $49,406 A-8 6 0 $0 $0 $8,200 $22,200 6.39 $660 $2,580 $33,640 A-8A 1 0 $0 $3,430 $880 $3,700 0.60 $0 $242 $8,252 A-9A 12 1 $0 $0 $16,710 $44,400 10.47 $0 $4,227 $65,337 A-10 10 1 $140 $0 $9,800 $37,000 5.6 $1,170 $2,261 $50,371 A-114 0 2 $260 $0 $3,930 $0 6.39 $0 $2,580 $8,770 A-12 2 0 $260 $0 $2,480 $7,400 3.94 $0 $1,591 $11,731 TOTALS 164 11 $700 $34,755 $288,270 $606,800 100.07 $9,530 $40,403 $980,458 NOTE t.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN §)entries include both direct and indirect costs. NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the total combined cost for the following agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Knikatnu Inc., U OF A,ARR (Linear),Mental Health Trust,and State DNR,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS ALASKA RAILROAD A-10A ALTERNATE ROUTE (7/28/03) 612345 7 8 9 10SEGMENT|NO.PvT.|AGENCY |STATELAND]ARR&DOT|LANDDIR.|PVT.LAND |%TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTALNO.PARCELS |PARCELS |DIR.COSTS|CROSSINGS|cCosTS |IND.COST |LINEARFT |LINEAR$|IND.cCost |costs Av 23 1 $0 $3,405 $29,100 $85,100 3.24 $0 $1,308 $118,913 A-2 52 0 $0 $10,430 $64,000 $192,400 13.57 $0 $5,479 $272,309 A3 6 1 $0 $0 $42,800 $29,600 1.11 $3,659 $4,486 $80,545 A-4 4 1 $0 $0 $9,720 $14,800 8.27 $831 $3,339 $28,690 A-5 27 0 $0 $10,465 $50,450 $99,900 9.53 $1,306 $3,848 $176,059 AS 13 1 $40 $0 $24,840 $48,100 12.09 $574 $4,881 $78,435 A?6 3 $0 $7,025 $15,360 $22,200 8.87 $1,240 $3,581 $49,406 AB 6 0 $0 $0 $8,200 $22,200 6.39 $660 $2,580 $33,640 A-8A 1 0 $0 $3,430 $880 $3,700 0.60 $0 $242 $8,252 A-9A 12 1 $0 $0 $16,710 $44,400 10.47 $0 $4,227 $65,337 A-10A 4 1 $0 $0 $12,000 $14,800 5.88 $0 $2,374 $29,174 M-10 0 2 $280 $0 $4,040 $0 6.58 $0 $2,057 $6,977 A-12 2 0 $260 $0 $2,480 $7,400 3.92 $0 $1,583 $11,723 TOTALS 158 11 $580 $34,755 $280,580 $584,600 100.52 $8,360 $40,585 $959,460 NOTE 1.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN 5)entries include both direct and indirect costs.NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the total combined cost for the following agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Knikatnu Inc., U OF A,ARR (Linear),Mental Health Trust,and State DNR,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. B-13 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (7/28/03) 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9g 10 SEGMENT NO.PVT.AGENCY |STATELAND/ARR&DOT |LAND DIR.}PVT.LAND %TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTAL NO.PARCELS PARCELS |DIR.COSTS |CROSSINGS COSTS IND.COST |LINEAR FT LINEAR $IND.COST COSTS C-1 9 0 $0 $3,410 $28,760 $33,300 2.86 $810 $66,280 C-2 10 i $0 $0 $25,620 $37,000 12.92 $3,660 $66,280 C-3 7 4 $0 $3,410 $17,730 $25,900 14.42 $4,084 $51,124 C-4 t 5 $0 $0 $19,730 $25,900 8.43 $2,388 $48,018 C-5 0 2 $630 $0 $8,320 $0 15 $4,249 $13,199 C-6 3 0 $930 $10,455 $5,270 $11,100 10.79 $3,056 $30,811 C-7 0)4 $1,190 $0 $2,390 $0 11.82 $3,348 $6,928 C-8 2 1 $2,300 $0 $8,010 $7,400 23.58 $6,679 $24,389 TOTALS 38 14 $5,050 $17,275 $115,830 $140,600 99.82 $0 $28,274 $307,030 NOTE 1.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN §)entries include both direct and indirect costs. NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the total combined cost for the following agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Knikatnu Inc., Mental Health Trust,and State DNR,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. B-14 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS HIGHWAY PARALLEL ROUTE (7/28/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SEGMENT |NO.PVT.|AGENCY |STATELAND]ARR&DOT|LAND DIR.|PVT.LAND |%TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTAL NO,PARCELS |PARCELS |DIR.COSTS|CROSSINGS|COSTS |IND.COST |LINEARFT |LINEAR$|IND.COST |cCosTS H-1 21 0 $0 $3,405 $31,050 $77,700 2.46 $697 $112,852 H-2 20 0 $0 $0 $29,867 $74,000 14.04 $3,127 $106,994 3 78 0 $0 $3,405 $48,873 $66,600 11.86 $3,359 $122,237 H-4 10 0 $0 $0 $32,462 $37,000 10.09 $2,858 $72,320 H-5 29 0 $0 $0 $54,985 $107,300 7.69 $2,178 $164,463 H-6 27 4 $0 $7,025 $49,316 $99,900 12.27 $3,475 $159,716 t7 7 1 $0 $0 $21,955 $62,900 10.19 $2,886 $87,741 H-8 12 0 $0 $0 $15,062 $44 400 7.39 $2,093 $62,155 H-9 12 1 $0 $0 $19,742 $44,400 10.33 $2,926 $67,068 H-10 11 1 $140 $0 $11,970 $40,700 5.71 $1,170 $1,617 $55,597 H-14 0 2 $260 $0 $3,930 $0 6.96 $1,971 $6,161 H-12 2 0 $260 $0 $2,480 $7,400 4.02 $4,139 $11,279 TOTALS 179 9 $660 $13,835 $322,292 $662,300 100.01 $1,170 $28,326 |$1,028,583 NOTE t.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN 5)entries include both direct and indirect costs. NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the total combined cost for the following agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Mental Health Trust, ARR (Linear),and State DNR,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. B-15 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (7/28/03) 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SEGMENT NO.PVT.AGENCY |STATELAND;ARR&DOT |LAND DIR.;PVT.LAND |%TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTAL NO.PARCELS PARCELS |DIR.COSTS |CROSSINGS COSTS IND.COST |LINEARFT |LINEAR $IND.COST COSTS M-1 24 0 $0 $3,410 $77,160 $88,800 3.23 $1,051 $170,421 M-2 42 0 $0 $0 $32,530 $155,400 9.87 $3,212 $191,142 M-3 3 0 $0 $0 $4,650 $11,100 1.97 $642 $16,392 M-3A 0 1 $0 $0 $550 $0 0.67 $220 $770 M-4 6 4 $0 $3,400 $17,730 $22,200 14.35 $4,670 $48,000 M-5 10 5 $0 $0 $18,850 $37,000 8.19 $2,665 $58,515 M-6 0 2 $630 $0 $8,320 $0 15.03 $4,891 $13,841 M-7 4 0 $1,160 $7,025 $3,420 $3,700 12.93 $4,210 $19,515 M-8 5 3 $0 $3,420 $8,770 $18,500 8.22 $2,677 $33,367 M-9 1 3 $1,160 $0 $5,940 $3,700 14.80 $4,818 $15,618 M-10 0 2 $280 $0 $4,040 $0 6.58 $2,141 $6,461 M-114 2 0 $260 $0 $2,480 $7,400 3.92 $1,275 $11,415 TOTALS 94 20 $3,490 $17,255 $184,440 $347,800 99.76 $0 $32,472 $585,457 NOTE 1.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN 5)entries include both direct and indirect costs. NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the total combined cost for the following agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Knikatnu Inc.,CIRI, State DNR,and Federal BLM,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. B-16 1/30/2004 COST OF EASEMENTS &PERMITS BY ROUTE SEGMENTS MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (7/28/03) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 SEGMENT NO.PVT.AGENCY |STATELAND!]ARR &DOT |LANDDIR.|PVT,LAND |%TOTAL ARR AGENCY TOTAL NO.PARCELS PARCELS |DIR.COSTS |CROSSINGS COSTS IND.COST |LINEARFT |LINEAR$IND.COST COSTS M-1A 26 0 $0 $3,410 $63,770 $92,500 3.68 $1,197 $160,877 M-2 42 0 $0 $0 $32,530 $155,400 9.82 $3,197 $191,127 M-3 3 0 $0 $0 $4,650 $11,100 1.96 $639 $16,389 M-3A 0 4 30 $0 $550 $0 0.67 $220 $770 M-4 6 4 $0 $3,400 $17,730 $22,200 14.28 $4,648 $47 978 M-5 10 5 $0 $0 $18,850 $37,000 8.15 $2,652 $58,502 M-6 0 2 $630 $0 $8,320 $0 14.96 $4,869 $13,819 M-7 1 0 $1,160 $7,025 $3,420 $3,700 12.87 $4,190 $19,495 M-8 5 3 $0 $3,420 $8,770 $18,500 8.19 $2,664 $33,354 M-9 1 3 $1,160 $0 $5,940 $3,700 14.73 $4,796 $15,596 M-10 0 2 $280 $0 $4,040 $0 6.55 $2,132 $6,452 M-14 2 0 $260 $0 $2,480 $7,400 3.9 $1,269 $11,409 TOTALS 95 20 $3,490 $17,255 $171,050 $351,500 99.76 $0 $32,473 $575,768 NOTE 1.ARR &DOT CROSSINGS (COLUMN 5)entries include both direct and indirect costs. NOTE 2.AGENCY INDIRECT COSTS (COLUMN 10)is the tatal combined cost for the follawing agencies:MSB,COH (Houston),Knikatnu Inc.,CIR}, State DNR,and Federal BLM,with a proportionate amount allocated to each segment according to its length. B-17 1/30/2004 |LAND FIELD#217226"{SERVICES INC: Memo To:Kelly Hill From:Bob Ylvisaker CC:Jay Sullivan Date:January 29,2004 Re:Intertie Upgrade Study,ROW Cosis for Existing MEA ROW Upgrade Attached is an Excel work sheet showing the costs of ROW acquisition that would likely be involved in upgrading the existing 100'MEA ROW to 230 kV (either single circuit or double circuit). Most of the ROW is covered by easements or permits that specifically limit the use to its existing use; Le.115 kV or 138 kV.Additional acquisition is necessary to change (upgrade)the use,even if no additional ROW width is needed. You can see from the matrix that a total of 28,440 linear feet of the existing ROW is covered by private easements that do not have the voltage limitation.No additional acquisition is needed on these parcels.A total of 105,320 linear feet of the ROW is burdened by the limitation and will require private acquisition or additional agency permitting.All of the agency permits for this route contain the voltage limitation.Most of the 26 private parcels fisted as needing additional acquisition are that way because they were acquired from the State or Mat-Su Borough after the line was built and were granted to the new owners SUBJECT TO the MEA ROW.However,the same limitations as contained in the agency permits carried over to the parcels conveyed to the new owners,i.e.limited to 115 or 138 kV. As to the ROW acquisition costs,the direct and indirect costs of the agency lands is judged to be the same as for the MEA Parallel Route analysis done eariier. For the 26 private parcels requiring additional acquisition,the direct costs were calculated using the same formula as was used for the MEA Parallel Route.Although the MEA Parallel Route was based on acquiring 70'of ROW width,|used the same numbers for upgrading the 100'wide existing ROW, resulting in per-acre or per square foot compensation being about 30%less because of the land already being encumbered by the MEA ROW.When it comes time for actual acquisition,an appraiser will likely arrive at a different conclusion,probably reducing the compensation even more.The Indirect Cost of upgrading the 26 private parcels is based on $3,500 per parcel,or $91,000 total. To summarize:Total number of private parcels:76.Total number needing additional acquisition:26. Of the 26 private parcels,total Direct Cost is estimated to be $24,900;total Indirect Cost is $91,000. Total Direct and Indirect costs to upgrade the agency controlled portion of the ROW is $93,433,fora total acquisition cost of $210,000 (rounded). Total length of "good”ROW is 28,440'(21%of the ROW);total length of "bad”ROW is 105,320'(79%). Bob Ylvisaker B-18 ROUTE COMPARISON RECONCILIATION WORK SHEET EASEMENTS &PERMITS,DIRECT &INDIRECT COSTS UPGRADING EXISTING MEA ROW (9/1/03) OWNERSHIP NO.OF LINEAR FT.|*DIRECT |**INDIRECT CATEGORY PARCELS (SCALED)COSTS COSTS COMMENTS "GOOD"PVT PARCELS 50 28,440 DIRECT COSTS SAME PVT NEEDING FORMULA AS MEA ACQUISITION 26 13,670 $24,900 $91,000 PARALLEL RTE. MAT-SU BOROUGH 12 26,240 $17,750 $6,025 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL CITY OF HOUSTON 3 3,450 $2,860 $6,025 .SAME AS MEA PARALLEL STATE (GENERAL)5 34,680 $3,468 $4,225 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL 'STATE (ADOT/PF)3 720 $1,210 $9,000 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL STATE (LSE TO ; BOY SCOUTS)1 5,680 $3,420 $3,700 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL ARR ROW ; CROSSING 1 280 $1,000 -$6,025 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL ANCSA KNIKATNU 2 17,800 -$10,750 $6,025 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL ANCSA,CIRI (SELECTED)4 2,800 $1,700 $6,025 SAME AS MEA PARALLEL FEDERAL (CIRI ; *LINEAR FT,INCLUDED IN SELECTED)1 *$4,225 CIRI SELECTION TOTALS 133,760 $67,058 $142,275 *"Direct Costs"equal amounts of compensation paid to land owners/agencies. *"Indirect Costs"equal the administrative costs of acquiring the easements or permits.They include property administration,title services,platting,appraisal services,document preparation,agency application preparation,negotiations,condemnation preparation,and incidental expenses. B-19 1/30/2004 LAND FIELD SERVICES,INC. P.O.BOX 221649 P.O.BOX 72510 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99522 FAIRBANKS,ALASKA 99707 248-6740 452-1206 Subject:Alaska Intertie Project MEA Existing Right-of-Way ADL 79951 A review of the title to the existing MEA transmission line easement ADL 79951 indicates some areas of deficiencies in this Grant of Right-of-Way which will necessitatecurativeacquisitionjnthefuture. MEA filed a Right-of-Way Application from Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation (including some other lands north of Douglas Substation)on December 8, 1976.This Application affected anly those lands on State of Alaska property. On October 17,1977,DNR issued a Letter of Entry to begin clearing and construction work.Under State regulations,this Letter of Entry does not grant the applicant any possessory interest fn the land until after an "as-built”survey is submitted and a Grant of Right-of-Way is issued. On November 20,1985,MEA submitted an as-built survey to comply with the Letter of Entry provision. On June 11,1987,the Grant of Right-of-Way was issued for those lands which were,at that time,still in State of Alaska ownership. MEA was cognizant of the fact that its original Right-of-Way Application was deficient because of the interim conveyances to other entities,and MEA acquired rights-of-way from these entities.An example of this is an Easement,dated November 22,1983 and recorded February 10,1984 in Book 344,Pages 929 through 932,Palmer Recording District,from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to MEA. An example of the deficiencies In the right-of-way is evident by review of subsequent documents,an example of which is that certain Quitclaim Deed,dated January 9,2003 and recorded January 13,2003 as Document 2003-000781-0,from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,as Grantor,to Scott A.Johannes and Caris D.Johannes, Husband and Wife,conveying the Borough's interestin Government Lot 7,Section 16,Township 19 North,Range 4 West,Seward Meridian. A Reservation in this Quitclaim Deed states,in part,"reserving unto the Grantor an electrical transmission and distribution line 100 feet in width centered on the existing Teeland to Willow electrical transmission tine (ADL 79951 Letter of Entry). Because this Letter of Entry does not convey any interest in the land,further acquisition in this case,and other similar instances,will be necessary. B-20 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix C Dryden &LaRue,Inc.January 30,2004 Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix C Conceptual Drawings &Construction Cost Estimates APPENDIX C CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Pages C-2 thru C-8 are the conceptual drawings for this project. Pages C-9 thru C-13 are the constructioncost estimates for each of the routes.The estimates are based upon what type of construction the segment will be and the number of tangent,angle and deadend structures. The winter construction column gives the percent of each segment that will require either winter construction,or the terrain that will make the construction more difficult.A 10% adder was used for this construction and the amount is shown in the next column. A 20%construction contingency and a 10%engineering/owner cost are added to the construction subtotal.The right of way,permitting and public involvement costs are added to give the total project estimated cost. Dryden &LaRue,Ine.C-1 January30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants omeeneceeeoteLJebetesseertes(7X-STRUCTURE 900'SPANS 30"|70' JOINT-USE EXTRA R-O-W R-O-W REQUIRED 100'TOTAL R-O-W REQUIRED aa _:By im |SINGLE POLE 400'SPANS Note:JOINT-USE R-O-W INCLUDES EXISTING 1T-LINE R-O-W,ARRC R-O-W AND 30'i 30' HIGHWAY R-O-W JOINT-USE EXTRA R-O-W R-O-W REQUIRED - +-60"TOTAL R-O-W REQUIRED - t:ROW230KVDATE:4 08-03PROJECT:AEAFILENAME(CADDYELIS Diyclon Pau Fa]ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY -|smeCONSULTINGENDINEERS230kVR-O-W REQUIREMENTS ROW 230 DESIGNED BY;D&LDRAWNBY:PMW PRELIMINARY SKETCH C-2 DATE:4-08-03PROJECT:AEAFILENAME(CADDO):SC=230ae:H A a el ts A oO (OQ RERREE RRR RRS LS SCALE:NTS. LIES Doyen f Leoeee,Fre ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY DRAWING NO. CONSULTING EXCINEERS SINGLE CIRCUIT 230kV SINGLE POLE TANGENT SCG 230kV DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY:RAE PRELIMINARY SKETCH C-3 |msj!|FS|+CATE:4-08-03PROJECT:AEAFILENAME(CADO):H-138co a a) Lo LJ) )( RAKES RK CORRE SCALE:N.T.S. LEER Pydon}Zadlus Ina)ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY -|sameCONSULTINGENGINEERS230kVTANGENTH-FRAME H-230 DESIGNED BY:D&L DRAWN BY:PMW PRELIMINARY SKETCH c-4 FILENAME(CADO):SC238KVDEDATE:4-08-03PROJECT:AEA1-9SECTION A-ephpneopeypeee !1emer-xprebneepteht e}$sap $fSCALE:N.T.S. LAER Dryden!LaRue,Ine.ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY DRAMING NO. CONSULTING ENGIREERS SINGLE CIRCUIT 23CkV SINGLE POLE GUYED DEAOEND SC-230DE DESIGNED BY:D&t : DRAWN BY:PMW PRELIMINARY SKETCH C-5 DATE:4-06-03PROVECT:AEAFILENAME(CAOD):H-230ol [7]i fo =aNTek,eel \,'ef SFco) J LJ LJ J SCALE:N.T.S. EES Doyen {Zag Ine.ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY DRAWING NO, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 230kV 3-POLE DEADEND 3P-230 DE DESIGNED BY:D&L DRAWN BY:RAE PRELIMINARY SKETCH C-6 DATE:4-08-03PROJECT:AEA|a|_\-DUDPPEEEL8.5'8.5'o%/imiDDEDDLDEeDT DUDDELLE-10.5'10.5' ]Uf_\go."RRR RRR SCALE:NTS. rin FILENAME{cand}:OC 230consuunnaENGINEERS DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY:RAE Dryden t!LaRue,Gre ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230kV SINGLE POLE TANGENT PRELIMINARY SKETCH DRAWING NO. DC 230kV C-7 beEED EE EEE O----$.PECEEEEEFILENA&ME(CAOD):DC238KVDEDATE:4-08=03PROJECT:AEAPLAN 5 -wenreceneeett -weresseeent]--7 te -pbeoreronbtte fy -eepppreettrett H}-§ -eephprpstpret -wpppobbtbbatt b}- z-a7-te oo RRR eT |"REE SCALE:NTS. LES Peden {LaRue Ine ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ||one 0.CONSULTING EMGHNEERS DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230kV 2-POLE GUYED DEADEND DC-230DE DESIGNED BY:Dad DRAWN BY:PMW PRELIMINARY SKETCH C-8 AEA Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study ARRC Route Winter Other Costs Tower Type Tower Tangent Angle Angle Deadend Deadend Sub Construct.Winter Total SegmentSegmentQntyCostQntyCostQntyCostTotalPercentConstuct.|Construction Cost At Single Pote 10 $27,000 1 $38,000 2 $51,000 $410,000 0%$0 $410,000 A2 Single Pole 45 $27,000 $38,000 1 $51,000 $1,266,000 0%$0 $1,266,000 A3 X-Str 18 $35,000 2 $50,000 0 $69,000 $730,000 20%$14,600 $744,600 A4 X-Str 13 $35,000 4 $50,000 1 $69,000 $724,000 20%$14,480 $738,480 A5 X-Str 14 $35,000 3 $50,000 4 $69,000 $709,000 0%$0 $709,000 AB X-Str 18 $35,000 3 $50,000 0 $69,000 $780,000 20%$15,600 $795,600 AT X-Str 14 $35,000 2 $50,000 1 $69,000 $659,000 25%$16,475 $675,475 A8 X-Str 9 $35,000 2 $50,000 0 $69,000 $415,000 0%$0 $415,000 Ag X-Str 16 $35,000 3 $50,000 1 $69,000 $779,000 0%$0 $779,000 A10 X-Str 9 $35,000 3 $50,000 1 $69,000 $534,000 0%$0 $534,000 Att X-Str 9 $35,000 $50,000 0 $69,000 $315,000 50%$15,750 $330,750 A12 X-Str 6 $35,000 $50,000 1 $69,000 $279,000 50%$13,950 $292,950 Stevens Substation 1 $400,000 $400,000 Teeland Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000 Clearing 236 .$6,534 $1,541,371 Subtotal $10,332,226 Contingency(20%)$2,066,445 Engineering(10%)$1,033,223 ROW $1,455,600 Permits $183,750 Public Envolment $50,000 Total $15,121,243 A10A X-Str 18 $35,000 3 $50,000 0 $69,000 $780,000 Total $8,288,105 C-9 1/30/2004 AEA Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Cross Country Route Winter Other Costs Tower Tangent Angle Angle Deadenc Deadend Sub Construct.Winter Total Segment Segment Tower Type Qnty Cost Qnty Cost Qnty Cost Total Percent Constuct.|Construction Cost C1 Single Pole .10 $27,000 Q $38,000 3 $51,000 $423,000 0%$0 $423,000 C2 X-Str 21 $35,000 1 $50,000 1 $69,000 $854,000 10%$8,540 $862,540 C3 X-Str 21 $35,000 1 $50,000 1 $69,000 $854,000 20%$17,080 $871,080 C4 X-Str 13 $35,000 2 $50,000 0 $69,000 $555,000 10%$5,550 $560,550 C5 X-Str 22 $35,000 1 $50,000 2 $69,000 $958,000 100%$95,800 $1,053,800 C6 x-Str 16 $35,000 $50,000 0 $69,000 $560,000 100%$56,000 $616,000 C7 X-Str 18 $35,000 $50,000 1 $69,000 $699,000 100%$69,900 $768,900 C8 X-Str 35 $35,000 $50,000 1 $69,000 $1,294,000 50%$64,700 $1,358,700 Stevens Substation 4 $400,000 $400,000 Teeland Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000 Clearing 242 $6,534 $1,579,921 Subtotal $9,194,491 Contingency(20%)$1,838,898 Engineering(10%)$919,449 ROW $307,030 Permits $100,450 Public Envolment $150,000 Total $12,510,319 C-10 1/30/2004 AEA Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Highway Route Winter'Other Costs Tower Tangent Angle Angie Deadend Deadend Sub Construct.Winter Total Segment Segment TowerType Qnty Cost Qnty Cost Qnty Cost Total Percent Constuct.Construction Cost H1 Single Pole 8 $27,000 0 $38,000 1 $51,000 $267,000 0%$0 $267,000 H2 X-Str 16 $35,000 0 $50,000 1 $69,000 $629,000 20%$12,580 $641,580 H3 X-Str 17 $35,000 0 $50,000 1 $69,000 $664,000 30%$19,920 $683,920 H4 X-Str 15 $35,000 2 $50,000 2 $69,000 $763,000 0%$0 $763,000 H5 X-Str 13 $35,000 3 $50,000 2 $69,000 $743,000 0%$0 $743,000 H6 X-Str 19 $35,000 3 $50,000 2 $69,000 $953,000 0%$0 $953,000 H7 X-Str 15 $35,000 4 $50,000 2 $69,000 $863,000 0%$0 $863,000 H8 X-Str 8 $35,000 2 $50,000 0 $69,000 $380,000 0%$0 $380,000 H9 X-Str 18 $35,000 7 $50,000 2 $69,000 $1,118,000 0%$0 $1,118,000 H10 X-Str 9 $35,000 2 $50,000 2 $69,000 $553,000 0%$0 $553,000 H11 X-Str 9 $35,000 0 $50,000 0 $69,000 $315,000 50%$15,750 $330,750 H12 X-Str 6 $35,000 0 $50,000 2 $89,000 $348,000 50%$17,400 $365,400 Stevens Substation 1 $400,000 $400,000 Teeland Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000 Clearing 237 $6,534 $1,545,291 Subtotal $10,306,941 Contingency(20%)$2,061,388 Engineering(10%)$1,030,694 ROW $1,028,600 Permits $145,850 Public Envoiment $50,000 Total $14,623,473 C-11 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study MEA Parallel Route Other Costs Tower Type Tower Tangent Angle Angle Deadend Deadend Sub Winter Winter Total SegmentSegmentQntyCostQntyCostQntyCostTotalConstruct.Construct.Construction Cost M1 Single Pole 8 $27,000 $38,000 2 $51,000 $318,000 0%$0 $318,000 M2 Single Pole 36 $27,000 $38,000 1 $51,000 $1,023,000 0%$0 $1,023,000 M3 X-Str 4 $35,000 $50,000 4 $69,000 $209,000 0%$0 $209,000 M4 X-Str 20 $35,000 1 $50,000 1 $69,000 $819,000 20%$16,380 $835,380 M5 X-Str 11 $35,000 1 $50,000 0 $69,000 $435,000 10%$4,350 $439,350 M6 X-Str 22 $35,000 $50,000 2 $69,000 $908,000 100%$90,800 $998,800 M7 X-Str 19 $35,000 $50,000 1 $69,000 $734,000 100%$73,400 $807,400 M8 X-Str 14 $35,000 1 $50,000 $69,000 $435,000 100%$43,500 $478,500 Mg X-Str 21 $35,000 1 $50,000 $69,000 $785,000 100%$78,500 $863,500 M10 X-Str 9 $35,000 1 $50,000 1 $69,000 $434,000 100%$43,400 $477,400 M11 X-Str 5 $35,000 4 $50,000 1 $69,000 $294,000 50%$14,700 $308,700 Stevens Substation 1 $400,000 $400,000 Teeland Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000 Clearing 242 $6,534 $1,581,228 Subtotal $9,440,258 Contingency(20%)$1,888,052 Engineering(10%)$944,026 ROW $585,500Permits$105,200 Public Envolment $50,000 Total $13,013,035 MIA Single Pole 13 $27,000 0 $38,000 3 $51,000 $504,000 Tota!$504,000 C-12 1/30/2004 AEA Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Double Circuit Line MEA Upgrade Route Other Costs Towar Type Tower Tangent Angle Angie Deadend Deadend Sub Winter Winter Total SegmentSegmentQntyCostQntyCostQntyCostTotalConstruct.Construct.Construction Cost U1 Single Pole 5 $40,000 $65,000 1 $75,000 $275,000 0%$0 $275,000 U2 Single Pole 20 $40,000 $65,000 1 $75,000 $875,000 0%$0 $875,000 U3 Single Pole 5 $40,000 $65,000 4 $75,000 $275,000 0%$0 $275,000 US Single Pole 26 $40,000 4 $65,000 4 $75,000 $1,180,000 20%$23,600 $1,203,600 us Single Pole 15 $40,000 4 $65,000 9 $75,000 $665,000 10%$6,650 $671,650 U6 Single Pole 29 $40,000 $65,000 2 $75,000 $1,310,000 100%$131,000 $1,441,000 U7 Single Pole 25 $40,000 $65,000 1 $75,000 $1,075,000 100%$107,500 $1,182,500 Us Single Pole 16 $40,000 1 $65,000 $75,000 $665,000 100%$66,500 $731,500 us Singia Pole 28 $40,000 4 $65,000 $75,000 $1,185,000 100%$118,500 $1,303,500 y10 Single Pole 12 $40,000 1 $65,000 1 $75,000 $620,000 100%$62,000 $682,000 Ut1 Single Pole 7 $40,000 1 $65,000 1 $75,000 $420,000 50%$21,000 $441,000 Retire X-Str 90 $6,000 $540,000 Stevens Substation 1 $400,000 $400,000 Teeland Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000Clearing0$6,534 $0 Total 187 Subtotal $10,721,750 Contingency(20%)$2,144,350 Engineering(10%)$1,072,175 ROW $210,000 Permits $105,200 Public Envolment $50,000 Total $14,303,475 Single Circuit Line w/Upgrades at Substations Tower Type Tower Tangent Angle Angle Deadend Deadend Sub Total Winter Winter Total Segment Segment Qnty Cost Qnty Cost Qnty Cost Constnict.Construct.Construction Cost ui Single Pole 8 $27,000 $38,000 1 $51,000 $267,000 0%$0 $267,000 U2 Single Pole 36 $27,000 $38,000 1 $51,000 $1,023,000 0%$0 $1,023,000 U3 X-Str 4 $35,000 $50,000 1 $69,000 $209,000 0%$0 $209,000 U4 X-Str 20 $35,000 1 $50,000 1 $69,000 $819,000 20%$16,380 $835,380 U5 X-Str 11 $35,000 1 $50,000 0 $69,000 $435,000 10%$4,350 $439,350 U6 X-Str 22 $35,000 $50,000 2 $69,000 $908,000 100%$90,800 $998,800 U7 X-Str 18 $35,000 $50,000 1 $69,000 $734,000 100%$73,400 $807,400 Us X-Str 11.=$35,000 4 $50,000 $69,000 $435,000 100%$43,500 $478,500 us X-Str 21 $35,000 1 $50,000 $69,000 $785,000 100%$78,500 $863,500 u10 X-Str 9 $35,000 1 $50,000 1 $69,000 $434,000 100%$43,400 $477,400 utd X-Str 5 $35,000 1 $50,000 4 $69,000 $294,000 50%$14,700 $308,700 Retire X-Str 90 $6,000 $540,000 Stevens Substation 1 $400,000 $400,000 Teeland Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000 Douglas Substation 1 $700,000 $700,000 Clearing 0 $6,534 $0 Subtotal $9,048,030 Cantingency(20%)$1,809 606 Enginearing(10%)$904,803 ROW $210,000 Permits $105,200 Public Envolment $50,000 Total $12,127,639 C13 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study 230 kV Transmission Line Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix D Dryden &LaRue,Inc. Land Field Services,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental January 30,2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation Appendix D Route Summary Sheets APPENDIXD ROUTE SUMMARY SHEETS Pages D-2 thru D-7 are the summary sheets for each of the routes.The routes are broken down into individual segments and list the data gathered.Some of the permitting costs are for the entire route and are not shown for each segment. Dryden &LaRue,Inc.D-1 January 30,2004 Land Field Service,Inc. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study ARRC Route Qualitative Intangible (L=Low,M=Moderate,H=High)Tangible PermittingLineSectionClearingClearingVisualPublic{Existing |Construct.|Land Use!Construction Environment. Segment}Length {|Length/width Area Impacts Safety |Facilities |Impacts |Conflicts Cost Easement Land Use COE Pub.Invol|AONR ADEC Al 4100{2050 60 123000 M M M L L $410,000!$¢118,917 |$10,000 }$-$-$-$- A2 17640]16758 60 1005480 H L L H H $1,266,000 |§272,337 |$18,820!$:$:$5,000}$- A3 14780}413302 100}1330200 L L L M L $748,000 |$80,569 |$17,390 4 $-$-S$-$- A4 11000}9900 100 9390000 L L L M H $742,000 |$28,710 |$10,500 §$-$-${¢§- (AS 12430;12130 100;1213000 L L L L M $=.709,000}$176,0791$11,0651 $-5 $-$(AG 16080]9648]100; 964800F -M L L M M $8000001$7882418 18.040]$-{8 -|$5000;$ - AZ 11800}8850 100 885000 L L L L L $680,000 1 $49,487 |$10,900 ;$:$-$5 Ag 8500}7650!100!765000;si.L C L ct $-415,000($33,656 [$9,250 |$-{$ -t$ -$§ Ag 13300)11970 100 1197000 H L L H H $779,000}$5444301 $16,650 !$:$:$ba $: A110 7450}5960 100 596000 L L L L L $534,000 |$54,083 }$413,725 1$-$-$-$- Ai1 9080}6810 4100 681000 L L L L L $335,000 |$6,786 |$14,540 |§:$”$:$- Ai2 5240}5240 100 §24000 L L L L L $296,000;$11,739 +$7,620 15 :$.$5,000 i$: 2.0 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.3 $250 248 23586961 $7,714,000 |$1,455.6171$158,500]§5,000 |§50,000 |$15,2501 §5,000Milesacres $10,174,767 Alternate (A-9A) Al 4100]2050 60 123000 M M M L L $410,000}$118,913 1 $10,000 |$-$-$"$- A2 17640}16758 60;1005480 H L L H H $_1,266,000|$ 272,309]3 18,820 |$-$$-$5000/$ - A3 14780}13302 100 1330200 L L L M L S$_748,000 |$80,545 |$17,390 |$>$-$-$- Ad 11000]9900}100 990000 L L L M H $742,000 1 $28,6901$10,5001 $-{S$-{$-|$- AS 12130;12130 400 4213000 L L L L M $709,000 |$176,059 }$11,065 |$-$:$:$= AG 16080]9648|100! S64800/_MM a L M M $800,000/$78435{3 18,0401$-|[$-{[$5000/$- AZ 11800!8850 100 885000 L L L L L $680,000!§49,406 1$10,900 |$-$-$-3 - A8 8500{7650 100 765000 L L L L L $415,000 |$33,640 {$9,250 1 $-$$-$_5 - Ag 500]500]100 50000 H L L L L $100,000 |$8,2521$10,000 |$-{$s -[$-tg - ASA (H9)13480)12132 100 1213200 H H M H H $768,000 |$65,337 15 10,000 |$-$-$-$- Aid 7450|5960 100 596000 L L L L L $534,000 |$60,371 145 13,725 {|$:$$-$$$ A141 9080;6810 100 681000 L L L L L $335,000 |$6,770}5 14,540 |$-$-$:$: A12 5240}5240 100 524000 L L L L L $296,000 |$11,7311 $7,620 1 $-$-$5,000}/$_- 2.2 1.5 1.3 2.1 2.2 25.0 237.38935 $7,803,000 |$980,458/$161,850}$§,000 |$50,000 |$15,000 |$5,000Milesacres $9,800,608 D-2 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study ARRC Route Qualitative Intangible (L=Low,M=Moderate,H=High)Tangible PermittingLineSectionClearingClearingVisualPublic{Existing |Construct.{Land Use|Construction Environment. Segment}Length |LengthMidth Area Impacts |Safety |Facilltles |Impacts |Conflicts Cost Easement Land Use COE Pub.Invol |ADNR ADECAlternate{A-10A) Al 4100}2050 60 423000 M M M L L $_410,000[$-118,913 {$10,000 |$:$:$:$: A2 17640}16758 60 10054380 H L L H H $1,266,000 |$272,309 |$18,820 |}$-$:$5,000 |$- A3 14780}13302 100 1330200 L L L M L $748,000 |$80,545 |$17,380|$-$-$.$- A4 Ti000{9900,160 990000 L L L M H $ 742,000{$28,6501$10,500]$-|$-($-TS - AS 12130|12130 100 1213000 L L L L M $__709,000;$176,059!5 11,065 |$-$-$:5 : AG 16080|9648 400 964800 M L L M M $800,000 1 $78,435 45 18,040 |$:$:$5,000 |§- AT 11800;8850 100 885000 L L L L L $680,000}$49,406 1$10,900 |$-$-$-4 - AB 8500;7650 460 765000 L L L L L $415,000}$33,640 |$9,250 |$-$-$T§- ABA 500 500 400 50000 H L L L L $100,000}$8,252 4 §10,000 |$:$-$S$.- ASA 13480}12132 100 1213200 H H M H H $768,000 |$65,337 |$10,000 |$-$:$-$. A10A,7860;5895 100 §89500 L L L M L $780,000 |$29,174 1$10,000 |$-$-5 -$- M10 8800}7900 100 790000 L L L L L $427,000 |$6,977 1S 10,000 |$-5 tie $5 - A12 5240;5240 100 §24000 L L L L L $296,000 |$41,723 |}$7,620 |$:5 :$5,000}$: 2.2 1.5 1.3 2.2 2.2 25.0 239.74242 $8141,000}$959460/5 1535851$5,000 |$50,000 |$15,000}$5,000Milesacres $10,143,145 D-3 1/30/2004 Cross Country Route Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Qualitative intangible (L=Low,M=Moderate,H=High)Tangible Permitting_Line Section Clearing Clearing]Visual Public |Existing |Construct.|Land Use}Construction Environment. Segment]Length |LengthAvidth |Area |impacts |Safety ]Facilities |Impacts {Conflicts Cost Easement Land Use COE Pub.Invol |ADNR ADEC C1 3700}2775 60}166500 M L L M L $432,0004$66,2801$10,000]$:$a $-$- C2 17320}15588]100;1558800 L L L M L $804,000|$ 66,280;/%3 10,000]$-$-$-$ C3 19190}16800}100}1680000 L L L M L $804,000;/$ 51,1251$10,000]$"$.-$5000}$ - C4 41300}11300 1001 1130000 L L L M L $455,000 |$48,018 |$10,000:$-[$-$-$- ICS 20100}18000}100!4800000 L L L L L $ 908.000T$13,1991$10,000}$-{$$-[$-i$- Cé 14060}5624 100;562400 L L L M M $560,000}$30,811}$10,200;$-$-$5,000;$. C7 15840;11088 400}1108800 L L L M L $699,000 |$6,928 |$§,000 ;$-$-$-$- C8 31600}25280}100}2528000 L L L M L $1,294,0001$ 24389)$§,000 |$-$-$§000/$- 13 1.0 1.0 2.8 13 $250 25.2 241.839 $5,956,000}$307,030;$70,200;$10,000}$50,000 |$15,250}$5,000 Miles acres $7,009,080 D-4 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Highway Route Qualitative Intangible (L=Low,M=Moderate,H=High)Tangible PermittingLine|Section Clearing Clearing|Visual Public |Existing |Construct.j Land Use}Construction Environment. Segment}Length |LengthMwidth |Area |Impacts |Safety |Facilities |Impacts |Conflicts Cost Easement Land Use COE Pub.Invol ADNR ADECH130000300LLLML$267,000 {|$112,852 |$10,000 |$:$:$-$: H2 14410 8646!100}864600 L L M M L $629,000 |$106,994 }$10,000 }$-$-$:$- H3 15260]11445)100]1144500 M M M H M $664,000 |$122,237 |$10,000 |$:$-$500015 - H4 13170}11853}100}1185300 H H M M L $663,000 }$72,3201$10,000;$-$-$.$: IH5 10030}100301 760/1003000 H H M M H $593,000 |$164,463 [$10,000 |$-I$-_{§-{$ - H6 15755!11816.3;100]1181625 H H M M M $803,000 1 $159,716 |$10,200 |$-$-$5,000]$- H?13290}11964}100)1196100}H H M L H $663,000 }$87,741 |$10,000 |$-$-$-$- HB 9640 86761 100[867600!H H M L L $280,000 |$62,155 |$10,000 |$-$-$-$- H9 43480}12132]1400!1213200 H H M ia H 3 768,000 |$67,068 {|$10,000 |$:$:$:$: H10 7450 5960|100}596000 L L L M L $453,000 |$§5,597 |$10,200 |$ba 3 :$:$: H11 9080 6810;100!681000 L L L M L $315,000 |$6,161 |$10,200 |$-$:5 :$: H12 5240 §240 70}366800 L L L M L $348,000 |$11,279 {$10,000}$:$-$5000!$: 3.2 3.2 2.3 3.0 2.3 $250 24.6 236.449 $6,446,000 |$ 1,028,583/$120,600]$5,000 {$50,000;$15,250|$5,000Milesacres $8,315,033 | D-5 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study MEA Parallel Route Qualitative Intangible (L=Low,M=Moderate,H=High)Tangible .Permitting Line Section Clearing Clearing |Visual Public |Existing }Construct!Land Use}Construction Environment. Segment}Length }Length/width Area Impacts |Safety |Facilities |Impacts |Conflicts Cost Easement Land Use COE |Pub.invol ADNR ADEC M1 4320}1300!60 78000 L L L M L $318,000}$17042145 10,0001$:$-$-$- M2 43200]13200]60}792000 M L L L M $1,023,000 |$191,142/$10,000|/$-$-$:$- M3 3540!2700]100!270000 L L L M L $191,000}3 17,162]$§,000 |$-5 -$-$-M4 48190[16800]160}1680000 L L L M L $812,000|$48,0001$10,000}/$-{|§-|$5000;$°- M5 40950;10950}100}1095000 L L L M M $428,000};$5851513 10,000;$-$-$-$- M6 20100|18000!100!1800000 L L L L L $908,000{$13,841:$10,000)$-$-$-$- M7 17300;13800}100;1380000 L L L M M $734,000}$19515335 §,200 |$-$-$5000/1 $- M8 11000}5500}100!550000 L L L L L $428,000 13 33,367 |$§,000 |$-$-$-$- Mg 19800}15800};100}1580000 L L L L L $778,000}$156181$§,000 |$-$-$>$- M10 8800}7900}100;790000 L L L L L $427,000 |$6,461 |$5,000 |$-$-$-$a M11 5240!5240}100!524000 L L L L L $287,000 |$11,415}$5,000 |$-$-$5,000}$. 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.5 25.3 241.9421 $6,334,000 |$585,4571$ 80,200{$5,000/$50,000!$15.0001$5,000 Miles acres Alternate (Captains Ridge) i M1A 4940}4940}60!296400 M L M M H $504,000 |$160,877{$10,000!$-$:$:$- M2 13200;13200;60}792000 M L L L M $1,023,0001$191,1271$10,000;3 -$-$-$> M3 :3540}2700}100!270000 L L L M L $791,0001$17,159%$§,000 |$-$-$”$- M4 '19190!16800}100;1680000 L L L M L $812,000;$47,8781$10,000;$-$-$5,000{/$- MS 10850}10950}100;1095000 L L L M M $428,000 {$§58502;/$10,000!$-$-$:$- M6 |20100;18000!100!1800000 L L L L L $908,000;$13,819/%10,000;$-$-$$- M7 17300}13800;100]1380000 L L L M M $734,000}$19,495}$5,200 |$ia $-$5,000;$- M8 11000}5500!100;550000 L L L L L $428,0001$33,354/$5,000 |$-$-$-$- Ng 19800}15800;100;1580000 L L L L L $778,000 {$15596 {$§,000 {|$-$-$:$- M10 8800]7900}100}790000 L L L L L $427,000 |$6,452 |$5,000 }$:$-$-$: M11 |5240|5240}100:524000 L L L L L $287,0001$11,409/}$5,000 |$-$-$5,000]$- 1.4 1.0 4.2 1.9 4.9 25.4 246.9559 $ 6,520,000{3$575,768}$80,200{$5,000/$50000!$150001$5 000 Miles acres D6 1/30/2004 Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study MEA Upgrade Double Circuit 230kV Qualitative Intangible (L=Low,M=Moderate,H=High)Tangible PermittingLineSectionClearingClearing|Visual Public |Existing [Construct]Land Use]Construction Environment, Segment}Length |Length/width|Area Impacts |Safety |Facilities |Impacts |Conflicts Cost Easement |Land Use COE Pub.Invol |ADONR ADEC U1 4320 0 60 0 L L L M L $275,000 $10,000 |$-$-$:$- U2 13200 oy 60 of =M L L L M $875,000 $ 10000;/$-[$-{$-[$_- U3 3540 0}100 0 L L L M L $275,000 $5,000 |$-$-$-$- U4 19190 O}100 0 L L L M L $1,203,600 $10,000 |$-$-$5,0001$- U5 10950 of 100 oft L L M M{$671,650 $10,0001$-I$-|$ -[S$- U6 20100 Q!100 0 L L L L L $1,441,000 $10,000!:$-$:$-$- U?17300 0}100 oft L L M M {$1,182,500 $ 5200|$-{$-{$5000;$ - UB 11000 Q}100 0 L L L L L $731,500 $5,000 |$-$-$-$2WE)19800 oy 100 0 L L L L L $1,303,500 $ 60001$-|$-_|$-[$ - U10 8800 of 100 0 L L L L c $682,000 $500013 -I$-Tg -F372 U11 §240 0}400 0 L L L L L $441,000 $5,000 |$-$.$§000;$- 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.9 4.5 25.3 0 $9,081,750;$210,000]$80,200}$5,000}$50,000!$15,000}$5000Milesacres Single Circuit 230kV U4 4320 of 60 ok L L M c $267,000 $10000/$-T$-{$_-Lg 7 U2 13200 0 60 0 M L L L M $1,023,000 $10,000 |$-$:$-$- U3 3540 0}100 0 L L L M L $209,000 $5,000 |$-$-$-$ - U4 19190 oO}100 0 L L L M L $835,380 $10,000 |$:$-$5000!$- U5 10950 0}100 0 L L L Ml M 5 439,350 $10000;$-{$-{$8 -[S$- U6 20100 Q}100 0 L L L L L $998,800 $10,000 ;$-$-$e $- U7 17300 0}100 0 L L L M M $807,400 $5,200 }$-$:$5,0001$- U8 11000 0}100 a L L L L $478,500 $ 5,0001/$-4$Tg.ts - Us 19800 QO}100 0 L L L L L $863,500 $5,000 |$-3 -$-$ U10 8800 oO!100 0 L L L L L $477,400 $§,000 |$-$:$-$- U11 5240 0;100 0 L L L L L $308,700 $5,000 |$-$-$5,000]$- 4.2 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.5 25.3 0 $6,708,030 |$210,000;$80,200/$5,000|$50,000}$15,000;$5,000Milesacres D-7 1/30/2004 pe cameen e MEA PARALLEL ROUTE it]poneraoven HORT WAY ROUTEthypctmminaiesaeALASKARAILSOADROUTE (A)fo rr wmreeersen CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE (C}]secron exe rowers ROUTE LEGEND SHEET INDEX ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALASKA INTERTIE UPGRADE STUDY TEERLAND TO DOUGLAS SUBSTATION «one reee MER PARALLEL,ROUTE A zee»women ROADIWLY ROUTE #1),teneosannnane ALASKA RAK ROAD ROUTE fh)terea01 CROSS COUNTRY ROUTE 1}Jsccnonenoroms, a 1000 anes 4200,we 'AL OFT ang ROUTE LEGEND SHEET INDEX =e 20f4 6 |eG EXISTING MEAYTRANSMISSION.une ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALASKA INTERTIE UPGRADE STUDY TEELAND TO DOUGLAS SUBSTA TKN a Vrlp msmmeaice MEA PARALLEL ROUTE (llae+manne ROADYAY ROUTE OttLermamonueenALASKARARROKDROUTECApencecameenGROSSCOUNTRYROUTEC}scree ene rowers ROUTE LEGEND EXISTING MEA TRANSHESSION Line ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALASKA INTERTIE UPGRADE STUDY TEELAMD TO DOUGLAS SUBSTATION scasreaceae MEA PARALLEL ROUTE At emenaae o mums ROAKIWAY ROUTE otsnminnmeeRLASKARAIKDADROUTE1A?pecorttece tence CROSS COUMTHY ROUTE (0)Jatenon sno rowers ROUTE LEGEND EXISTING MEA TRANSMISSION ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALASKA INTERTIE UPGRADE STUDY TEELAND 10 DOUGLAS SUBSTATION .,Ges analyst ir Jor= [tem 1:MEA owns a segment of line from Hollywood Road to Willow.Intertie participants had use of this line up until 2004,when MEA exercised its right of termination.Intertie participants sought and achieved RCA intervention,and the RCA issued a joint use order,under its statutory powers.By RCA order,the intertie participants have access and use of the capacity of this line segment. Item 2:Another 5.5 miles of interconnection from the Teeland substation that stretches to the point the line crosses Hollywood Road was constructed by Alaska Power Authority and is now owned by AEA,but is promised to MEA. Here is a pertinent quote from the joint use agreement governing this segment,which is still in effect: (l include the entire agreement in attachment) Section 8.It is understood that the new trans--Qitnrtin PreyertmissionlinewillbeaportionoftheexistingMEAtrans- mission system required to serve the MEA load north of the Teeland Substation.Accordingly,it is agreed that MEA shall have the primary right at all times to utilize the new transmission line capacity to transmit power to such MEA loads at no cost to MEA.Such rights will have precedence over all other uses.The Power Authority will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the line is available for use at all times but offers no guarantee of availability orreliabilityofthenewtransmissionline.The Power Authority_will not be liable for direct or consequential damagesresultingfromlinefailure.All energy losses resultingfromutilizationhereinspecifiedshallbesuppliedandpaidforbyMEA.For the purposes of determining said losses,engineering estimation shall be used and shall assume onlyMEAloadingoftheline.tilization cf the line by MEA at « any given instance shall not exceed forty (40)megawatts,which is that amount of transmission capacity lost to MEA byinccrporationofthisnewtransmissionlineintotheexistingMEAtransmissionsystem. Section 9.When the Power Authority determines that it no longer recuires the electrical transmission line as @ component part of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Project,the Power Authority will transfer title to the transmission line to MEA at no cost as part of the compensa- tion for the performance of this contract by MEA and Power Authority usage of the MEA right-of-way. February 28,2007 AIDEA AND AEA RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM DCCED FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE Below are AIDEA and AEA's responses to the February 12,2007 AIDEA Questions from the DCCED Finance Subcommittee. The questions use "AIDEA”to represent both AIDEA and AEA;the responses do not. Ketchikan Shipyard Regarding the Ketchikan Shipyard,Representative Chenault,Co-chair of House Finance, requests answers to the following questions (please copy him with your response): 1.What is the total amount of State funds spent to date?See attached spreadsheet. 2.What is the total amount of Federal funds spent to date?See attached spreadsheet. 3.What is the total revenue that has been received by year?See attached spreadsheet.Please provide a 10 year revenue projection.The shipyard operator is currently working on revenue projections,but considers this to be proprietary information,the disclosure of which could adversely impact their operations. T-line between Teeland and Douglas Substation 1.Regarding the $20.3 million legislative appropriation in 2002 to build the bypass line from Teeland Substation to Douglas Substation,why after 5 years has AIDEA failed to complete,or to even begin construction of the line? The most significant cause for the delays on this project arose as a consequence of AEA attempts to work cooperatively with the IOC Utilities on the project.AEA and the IOC Utilities agreed that significant cost savings could be achieved if the Utilities assumed greater control over this bypass project,particularly in conjunction with Utility commitments to address long neglected major maintenance items,and address snow-load issues.See,e.g.,April 22,2004 letter from Ron Miller to Senator Therriault. Municipal Light and Power (ML&P),an Anchorage utility,agreed to manage the design and construction of the bypass line.The Alaska Intertie Operating Committee (IOC)supported this approach.See attached copy of the IOC minutes dated May 18,2004,describing three resolutions in which the IOC accepts (1)early route study report,(2)recommendation of the MEA parallel route,and (3) recommendation that ML&P perform the duties of project manager. Oo AEA and ML&P began negotiating a project management agreement.ML&P objected to AEA's initial September 2004 draft of the Project Management Agreement,expressing their belief that AEA under the draft maintained too much oversight of the Project.This initial approach was abandoned in early 2005,and AEA agreed to provide less project oversight.AEA and ML&P continued negotiating a project management agreement,leading to the final August 2006 version of this agreement,a copy of which is attached. Under the agreement,ML&P will determine the schedule for design and construction of this intertie extension.Before the August 2006 agreement can become effective,ML&P must have the agreement approved by the Anchorage Municipal Assembly.AEA continues to wait for ML&P to take the agreement to the Anchorage Municipal Assembly for approval. Another cause for delay on the project arose because IOC Utilities disagreed amongst themselves regarding prioritizing the use of these appropriated funds. MEA suggested that these funds should be used for repairs and other purposes such as snow load mitigation.GVEA,ML&P and CEA (the Utilities)requested that the initial S-miles of the Alaska Intertie route be included as part of the bypass project. The Utilities suggested that this section needed to be part of the bypass project because it is owned by MEA and used under a contract with a term that ends in 2018.However,the use of this 5-mile section in conjunction with the Alaska Intertie is not in jeopardy of being lost since the contract with MEA provides for perpetual use of the line even after the contract term ends.The Utilities still contend that this section still needs to be part of the bypass project because it is inadequate for 230kv operation. AEA has maintained that the legislature intended for this appropriation to first be used to construct a line to bypass the MEA-TLS -approximately 19 miles of MEA owned line which is no longer used under the Alaska Intertie Agreement,but rather is used by the Utilities and the City of Seward utility under an RCA order.See,e.g., April 22,2004 letter from Ron Miller to Senator Therriault. Despite delays,progress has been achieved.Dryden &LaRue,Inc.was hired to prepare a feasibility level assessment of several route options for the Project.See January 2004 analysis,a copy of which is attached.IOC utilities requested additional analysis be conducted to help determine the preferred route. 2.When will construction begin?Completion date? The Anchorage Municipal Assembly must approve the AEA/ML&P Project Management Agreement and ML&P must appoint a project manager for work to begin. oO 3.Will AIDEA bear any cost growth due to delays,or are sufficient funds available including accrued interest to complete the line? Interest from the $20.3 million was not appropriated to the Project.Interest remains with the Railbelt Energy Fund.Under the AEA/ML&P Project Management Agreement,ML&P is required to notify AEA of any funding shortfall. Prior to proceeding to the construction phase of the Project,written agreements must be in place to guarantee funding overruns.In order to contain the cost of the project to the appropriated amount,AEA suggests that ML&P at the time of design and upon completion of a detailed construction cost estimate establish viable alternates,either additive or deductive,that will allow the project to be completed within the existing funding.In the alternative,AEA would work with the utilities if they elect to seek financing,or elect to cover shortfalls with internal utility capital funding.AEA expects that ML&P would bring this information back to the IOC prior to construction. T-line between Douglas Substation and Stevens Substation Regarding the September 26,2005 letter signed by AIDEA and three of the six electric utilitics in the Railbelt,and specifically referring to the proposed $14 million 115kV transmission line between Douglas and Stevens substations,please provide the following information: 1.The proposed 115Kv line would only serve the remote Stevens Substation owned by the local utility and connected to the Alaska Intertie.Although Stevens is connected to the Railbelt power grid,the substation is idle -perhaps because of slower-than-expected load growth or alternate service being available through local distribution lines.The local utility has waged an expensive television campaign criticizing AIDEA for alleged safety concerns in this area caused by differential snow loading on the Douglas-to-Stevens section of AIDEA's Alaska Intertie which connects Anchorage and Fairbanks.Why would AIDEA consider spending public funds to run a second line from Douglas to Stevens without seizing the one-time opportunity to use the new line,which would parallel the "snow load”portion of the Alaska Intertie,to solve the snow loading problem identified in the utility's advertising campaign? This solution is supported by expert electrical transmission engineers and can be accomplished at very little cost.It would increase the reliability of power exchanges between Anchorage and Fairbanks,eliminate the snow loading safety concerns and save AIDEA millions to rebuild the snow load section as a separate project.Please provide your engineers'assessment justifying building the line to operate at 115kV in isolation from AIDEA's Alaska Intertie,instead of at 138kv or 230kv to be operated as part of,and in parallel with AIDEA's Alaska Intertie. The Alaska Energy Authority understands that this question addresses two different projects,with different goals,and that would serve and benefit two different groups of railbelt ratepayers.The MEA proposed 115kv line would serve Oo ratepayers of the local utility,MEA,and would be integrated into MEA's distribution system.The GVEA proposed 230kv (or 138kv)line purportedly would be integrated into the Alaska Intertie and would primarily serve ratepayers who receive power transmitted over the Alaska Intertie -GVEA customers;and secondarily serve ratepayers of utilities that sell power transmitted over the Alaska Intertie -Chugach and ML&P. Comparison of the two projects is therefore an apples to oranges comparison -any conclusion depends more upon what goals,benefits,or particular railbelt ratepayers interests are intended to be promoted.At this time,AEA does not advocate for either proposed project,and particularly does not advocate for one project over the other. AEA is unaware of any engineering analysis to support either project.AEA is unaware of any cost projection for either project.AEA is uncertain whether MEA's proposal would have provided full or only partial funding for that project. AEA is uncertain,but is skeptical,that a cost projection on MEA's 115kv proposed line would support GVEA's proposed 230kv (or 138kv)proposed project.AEA is unaware of the basis for the statement "[t]his solution is supported by expert electrical transmission engineers and can be accomplished at very little cost.” AEA is uncertain as to why GVEA would propose a 138kv project in any event. One of the stated purposes for the current bypass project is to upgrade the Alaska Intertie to 230kv capability.GVEA's proposal to build a 138kv project would appear to have a limited useful life,and promote a questionable cost-benefit economic value. AEA is unaware of any engineer's study or cost-benefit analysis supporting the construction of a parallel,redundant line to cure snow load issues.While MEA commenced a "television campaign”regarding snow load safety issues a few months after the September 26,2005,letter referenced in the question,AEA is not aware of any other IOC utility that believes an actual snow load safety problem exists,nor any other IOC utility that believes construction of a redundant,parallel line could be justified under any cost-benefit analysis as a solution to snow load issues. AEA has worked cooperatively with the Intertie Operating Committee to find ways of safely operating the Intertie under snow load conditions.A solution has emerged that appears to promote a public interest:cost-benefit analysis.MUL&P is the operator of the portion of the Alaska Intertie subject to snow load issues.ML&P has a responsibility to monitor snow load conditions,and de-energize the line if unsafe conditions exist.To assist ML&P,a snow-load monitoring system has been installed.This is an automatic reporting program from conductor-tower mounted snow load monitors that reports any adverse loadings.To further assist ML&P, anytime there are recorded snow events,a ground based snow machine patrol is sent out to confirm the intertie conductors are not sagging. In practice,the monitors appear to have proven reliable,and patrols appear to have been effective in assuring safe operation.There has been no documented serious snow loading on the line segment for the last decade. AEA and the IOC hired engineers with expertise in transmission line safety to review the current intertie operations in order to confirm that this approach to snow-loading is safe and in the public interest.One of the conclusions of the study is that the line is being operated safely.A copy of the report is attached.AEA has not heard any IOC Utility (other than MEA)disagree with,or object to,the conclusions of the report. 2.The local utility recently attempted (until they were halted by RCA)to shut down the Alaska Intertic connecting Anchorage and Fairbanks.Assuming the proposed Douglas-to-Stevens line will be part of,and operated in parallel with AIDEA's Alaska Intertie,why would AIDEA propose to publicly fund the line and then transfer ownership to this non-generating local utility? Shouldn't AIDEA retain ownership,or better yet transfer construction responsibility,title and risk to a joint action agency comprised of the utilities responsible for electric generation and power system dispatch and operation in the Railbelt? AEA,offering its assistance to RCA in an attempt to help resolve disputes between IOC utilities,participated in RCA-ordered mediation and in the RCA hearings referenced in the question.In the course of that participation,AEA heard MEA represent to other IOC utilities and to the RCA that they did not seek to "shut down”the Alaska Intertie,but rather primarily sought to reduce the operating voltage of the MEA-TLS from 138kv to 115kv. AEA understands that MEA would intend to own its proposed 115kv project,and that it would not be "part of,and operated in parallel with”the Alaska Intertie. AEA has no intention to own MEA's proposed 115kv project,and,therefore,would not "transfer ownership”to MEA. Has AIDEA given notice to the utilities to "cancel the Alaska Intertie Agreement”?If so,why? AEA's October 16,2006 letter providing notice of intent to terminate the Alaska Intertie Agreement (effective October 16,2010)with the reasons stated therein is attached.The April 22,2004 letter from Ron Miller to Senator Therriault,a copy of which is attached,describe unfulfilled IOC Utility commitments to address neglected major maintenance items,and further reflects reasons why AEA gave notice of termination. o Has AIDEA received an offer to purchase the Alaska Intertie,or engaged in discussions regarding potential purchase by any utility or consortium? At the December 1,2006 AEA Board meeting,MEA presented the attached proposal to purchase the Alaska Intertie,"...for approximately $50 million,under terms and conditions mutually agreeable to ...”AEA.At that meeting,MEA presented to AEA a sealed envelope containing what was described as confidential terms of the offer to purchase.The AEA Board directed staff to conduct a public process to consider what should be done with the Intertie,including whether the Intertie should be sold,and if so,to whom.This could entail an RFP or other public disposal process and for that reason,the sealed envelope from MEA was returned unopened to the utility on December 1,2006,since acceptance could have tainted any request for proposal or other public disposal process. AEA is currently working through a public process of considering whether there should be unified systems operation for the management and dispatch of electric power in the Railbelt.This work was funded with an appropriation of $800,000 bythe24"Legislature.A potential disposition of the Alaska Intertie by AEA is one of the items to be addressed during these public meetings. AEA is not engaged in any discussions regarding potential purchase of the Alaska Intertie by any utility or consortium. Regarding the balance of the Railbelt projects identified in the September 26, 2005 letter mentioned above,please provide the individual cost/benefit analyses for the projects and identify any matching funds or utility debt to be joined with public dollars,as was done when funding previous Railbelt projects. AEA does not have a cost benefit analysis of the projects,nor does AEA take any position on the projects that were proposed to be funded during the second sessionofthe24"Legislature.The back up that was submitted to the legislature and to OMB is attached. Healy Clean Coal Plant Please provide a report identifying total AIDEA spending on HCCP from all internal and external funds,regardless of source,for all direct and indirect construction,operating,maintenance and other (administration,legal,consulting, etc.)activities from project inception to date.Please identify any debt,including write-downs or write-offs and any revenue generated to date. See attached spreadsheet. Of the AIDEA costs reported in the spreadsheet,AIDEA estimates it incurred more than $15 million of expenses for the benefit of GVEA's Unit 1.It also paid GVEA $1 million for development of HCCP as part of the 2000 Settlement Agreement,and oO has paid GVEA more than $5 million for custodial duties,heat and electricity since HCCP ceased operations in 1999. Information requests concerning the period between now and 2014 when Homer proposes to buy power from HCCP: 1.HCCP was shut down in 2000 following failed performance tests,funds exhaustion,major component failure and explosion events that rendered the plant unsafe for employees.It has sat idle since.Please provide your engineers'scope, schedule and budget regarding the Agency's intention to accept the risk and to provide the funds to permit,convert,complete,start-up and operate HCCP. Provide fund sources,engincers'reports and cost-benefit estimates. AIDEA disagrees with these characterizations of 1HCCP.In 2000,HCCP did not suffer from "funds exhaustion,major component failure,and explosion events that rendered the plant unsafe for employees.”Nor did it fail performance tests. AIDEA and nationally recognized engineers who have evaluated HCCP operations, or who have inspected the plant,believe that it is safe,reliable,and capable of operating according to design specifications. The results and the history of HCCP's Date of Commercial Operations test supports AIDEA's views that HCCP did not fail its "performance tests.”The 1991 Power Sales Agreement between GVEA and AIDEA required that by January 1,2000 HCCP meet the performance standards for determining the "Date of Commercial Operations.”Although construction of HCCP was delayed for several years owing to permitting and construction problems,the contractual deadline for HCCP's "Date of Commercial Operations”remained as agreed upon in 1991.Therefore, following completion of construction,AIDEA was required to conduct HCCP operational tests sooner than was contemplated by both GVEA and AIDEA when the Power Sales Agreement was entered into.This required AIDEA to perform the Date of Commercial Operations test well before AIDEA's engineers had the expected opportunities to fine-tune HCCP's systems. After HCCP was placed into operation,AIDEA and GVEA jointly selected Dennis Swann,an engineer with a nationally recognized reputation and experience with coal generation plants,to act as the Independent Engineer for the purpose of determining whether HCCP satisfied the Date of Commercial Operations requirements. The contractual requirements for the Date of Commercial Operations were: (Oo "Date of Commercial Operation”means the date,which shall not occur before the end of the Test Period, on which engineers retained for this purpose by the Authority and acceptable to the Purchaser have (i)determined the Project has operated at not less than 50 megawatts,net of O station service,at a Capacity Factor of not less than 85 percent, for a period of 90 consecutive days,using coal with characteristics equivalent to those of long-term Usibelli coal,as defined in the Coal Supply Agreement between the Purchaser and Usibelli Coal Mine,Inc.dated January 1991,and (ii) stated that,as the result of their independent observations of the test operations of the Project and tests and inspections required by the engineers,the major systems of the Project are performing in accordance with design specifications and tolerances and that the engineers know of no reason why the Project will not perform on a sustained operating basis as provided under this Agreement if the Project is operated, maintained,and renewed according to standard utility practices. Initially AIDEA and GVEA disagreed about the extent of these requirements,so Swann,as the Independent Engineer,was compelled to resolve the dispute,and determine what was required by these provisions.After the disputes were resolved, and at the conclusion of the test,Swann,as Independent Engineer,found that the "test results were inconclusive regarding the requirements set forth in the [1991] Power Sales Agreement.”He did not find that HCCP failed to function properly or that it did not perform as designed.He concluded that the test results were inconclusive in part because he found that the test was biased due to the fact that the quality of the coal used during the test was greater than was intended when the Power Sales Agreement was signed.He also found the test inconclusive because AIDEA had available a larger maintenance crew,including equipment manufacture representatives,than would normally be utilized during conventional operations. The excessive maintenance crew,Swann thought,was able to respond to equipment problems more rapidly than during normal operations and therefore it reduced HCCP's down-time during test operations. Even though Independent Engineer Swann did not find that HCCP conclusively passed the Date of Commercial Operations tests,AIDEA concluded that during the test period HCCP had demonstrated that with additional time for refining HCCP's various systems,and with some limited modifications to them,it could perform economically on a sustained operating basis with the use of a slightly higher quality of coal.Swann's report supported this view.His report said this about HCCP's performance during the test period: "It is our opinion that the major systems of the project are performing in accordance with design specifications and tolerances. It is our opinion that the plant,as configured and if operated and maintained in accordance with standard utility practice,could be considered as a Oo commercial plant which is of comparable efficiency with similar plants if the coal delivered and burned remains above 7,200 btu/lb.Note that maintenance of the coal delivery system will be much higher than that of other coal burning facilities. If HCCP were operated on ROM coal having a heat content in the range of 7,200 to 7,800+btu/Ib,we find no reason that the project will not perform on a sustained operating basis if operated and maintained in accordance with standard utility practices.We do note however,that the maintenance on the coal transport system from the feeder outlet to the combustor inlet will be higher than industry standards,thereby reducing capacity factors.” With respect to the safety of HCCP,during a later deposition Swann expressed this opinion: Q.All right.Well,Mr.Swann [the Independent Engineer],you spent a lot of time at this plant in the past couple years;have you not? A.Yes,I have. Q.In your view,based upon your observations over the past couple of years,is this plant safe? A.Yes,it's as safe as any coal-fired power plant that I've been in. Following the operational test periods,Swann also made the following observations regarding whether HCCP should be retrofitted to conventional low-NOx combustors,as GVEA has advocated: "Retrofit Considerations.It is our opinion that conversion of the combustion equipment from the existing TRW precombustor/slagging combustor system to conventional low-NOx burners will not improve the commercial viability of HCCP. Therefore,it seems that retrofitting low NOx burners on HCCP would be a step backward." In light of the Independent Engineer's favorable comments about HCCP performance and his negative comments regarding retrofitting HCCP's combustors, O and based upon AIDEA's belief that limited modifications to HCCP would address HCCP's higher than industry standards maintenance costs,AIDEA requested additional time from GVEA to demonstrate HCCP's ability to satisfy the Date of Commercial Operation requirements. GVEA promptly rejected AIDEA's request,and gave notice of termination of the 1991 Power Sales Agreement.After several months of negotiations,AIDEA and GVEA entered into a definitive Settlement Agreement dated March 8,2000 ("Settlement Agreement”). Under the Settlement Agreement,GVEA was given the exclusive right to develop HCCP in any manner that it might choose,including a retrofit to conventional low- NOx combustors.AIDEA paid GVEA $1 million up-front,and agreed to pay an additional $4 million if GVEA elected to commit to develop WCCP.GVEA pursued development of HCCP until April 2,2003,when it gave AIDEA notice that it was abandoning its efforts and was terminating the 1991 Power Sales Agreement. After GVEA abandoned its efforts,the Settlement Agreement gave AIDEA the right to develop HCCP.AIDEA exercised this right,first by exploring options to develop HCCP with GVEA,including joint AIDEA/GVEA Board level efforts.These efforts,although extensive,were unsuccessful. Subsequently,AIDEA undertook a public solicitation for entities interested in developing HCCP.A technical conference on HCCP conducted as part of the public solicitation was also held in December 2004.These efforts eventually led to a Power Sales Agreement and a Project Development Agreement between AIDEA and Homer Electric Association (HEA). HEA hired engineers Shaw,Stone and Webster to evaluate HCCP's current condition and to propose improvements to bring it into operation.Shaw reported its findings in a March 28,2006,report titled "HCCP Condition Assessment and Restart Study,”a copy of which is provided.This report supported Dennis Swann's favorable conclusions regarding the ability of HCCP to be placed into operation without conversion to conventional low NOx combustors.The executive summary of that report contains the following conclusions: SSW has completed the above referenced study.The primary results of this study as determined by SSW are: e HCCP is in good condition and has incurred since 1999 no significant deterioration during the shutdown e If recommendations for remediation and system separation are implemented,SSW knows of no reason why HCCP cannot be operated separately from Unit 1 in a safe and reliable manner for the duration of its 10 Oo design life provided industry standard operation and maintenance activities are performed e SSW concurs with the HGI coal handling study with minor scope and cost adjustments. The basic provisions of the Power Sales Agreement and a Project Development Agreement between AIDEA and HEA include: a.HEA agrees to pay AIDEA (a)$65,795,000,plus (b)the net restart and interim operation costs (AIDEA costs less revenues),with interest at 5.25%, amortized over the time HEA purchases power under the Power Sales Agreement (which is anticipated to commence January 1,2014). b.HEA agrees to be responsible for all HCCP generation and transmission operations,maintenance,and related issues when HEA begins purchasing HCCP power.HEA and AIDEA will have shared responsibility for these issues during earlier interim power sales. c.HEA has the right to evaluate HCCP's operational performance for two years after commercial operations commence,at which time HEA may elect cither to commit to the long-term power or to terminate the Power Sales Agreement. d.The development of HCCP,and all related contractual obligations between HEA and AIDEA,are contingent upon AIDEA obtaining from GVEA,in the mediation or in the pending litigation,leasehold and other interests at the Healy site to enable HCCP to be placed in operation,consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.In addition to providing for a ground lease,the Settlement Agreement provides: "The parties further agree to execute such agreements as are necessary and appropriate to provide AIDEAa full opportunity to maximize the economic utility of HCCP,recognizing GVEA's desire and necessity to retain the beneficial use of Healy #1.” AIDEA and GVEA are engaged in mediation attempting to negotiate a ground lease and other appropriate agreements. The Shaw,Stone and Webster physical assessment report HEA commissioned also provides information regarding the estimated cost of placing HCCP into operation. AIDEA believes the cost of the restart project ultimately will exceed the approximate $29.8 million reported in this study.The successful resolution of the current mediation between AIDEA and GVEA will require modifications to the HCCP development plans assumed in the Shaw,Stone and Webster report.These modifications are likely to increase the total estimated restart costs.AIDEA will 11 oO attempt its negotiations with GVEA to minimize modifications to development plans that would require cost increases. 2.What is the estimated power cost,sales price and profit/loss to AIDEA on a per kWh basis by year? Under its agreements with HEA,AIDEA will not recognize any profit or loss during the interim power sales.Any profit or loss on interim power sales will decrease or increase the amount HEA pays AIDEA monthly when HEA begins purchasing the HCCP power. AIDEA believes that the sales price for interim power sales will be a negotiated price,with the upper limit being the cost of the railbelt power that HCCP power would replace.HEA and AIDEA will exert joint efforts to negotiate interim power sales agreements.According to the terms of the agreements ITEA,rather than AIDEA,will be the primary beneficiary of all power sales.AIDEA believes that the interim sales of ITCCP powcr could significantly benefit both HEA and the purchasing railbelt utility because HCCP power should be available at a cost lower than the current cost of gencrating some railbclt power. HEA has developed confidential,proprietary estimates of the power costs for interim power.Disclosure of this confidential,proprictary information would likely disadvantage HEA (the primary beneficiary of interim power sales)in any ITEA/AIDEA negotiations with any power purchasers.It would therefore be inappropriate to disclose such confidential,proprietary estimated power costs at this time. 3.Please identify the purchasers of power from the plant,including purchase agreements and annual purchase quantities by year? There are no current agreements for the purchase of interim HCCP power,and therefore no specifically identified power purchasers. Sale of the power from HCCP will require its restart and placing it into operation. No realistic estimate of when that will occur can be made until after AIDEA obtains from GVEA the necessary rights related to the Healy site,consistent with the Settlement Agreement.In addition to uncertainties of when HCCP operations can begin so power sales can commence,the resolution of unresolved issues with GVEA are also likely to affect the cost of power production.The current mediation is anticipated to address certain operational issues,the results of which would either increase or decrease the cost of producing HCCP power.Effective negotiation of power sales agreements first requires a determination of the cost of power and a realistic estimate of when HCCP operations will commence.More progress in mediation with GVEA is necessary before that can occur. 12 oO 4.Please provide a copy of AIDEA's ground lease,air permit and coal purchase agreements for HCCP. 5.Please identify interconnect agreements which address spinning reserves and restitution to interior ratepayers for HCCP outages. AIDEA anticipates that an appropriate ground lease and air permit will be developed in conjunction with the mediation with GVEA. Under the Project Development Agreement,the negotiation of a coal purchase agreement,interconnect and other agreements will be accomplished through the joint efforts of HEA and AIDEA.For many of the same reasons expressed in the response to question 3,it is difficult to negotiate these agreements without first knowing when AIDEA will obtain from GVEA necessary rights related to the Healy site.For example,in order to obtain a better price,a coal purchase contract may require the purchase of a minimum,annual quantity of coal.It would not be prudent for AIDEA or ITEA to commit to purchasing specific annual quantitics of coal until after a realistic assessment is made of when ITCCP operations will begin, and thus when coal will actually be needed.More progress in the mediation with GVEA is necessary before that can occur. 6.When do you plan to file the Power Sales Agreement with the RCA? Under the Project Development Agreement between HEA and AIDEA,HEA and AIDEA will jointly determine when to file the Power Sales Agreement with the RCA.Until substantial progress is made with GVEA in the mediation,it would be premature to file the agreement with RCA. Please provide the following additional information: 1.A copy of the Homer/AEA Project Development Agreement and Power Sales Agreement.If the agreements do not make clear who will bear the conversion and completion,and operating/spinning reserve risks of HCCP,please provide your engineers'assessment of the responsibilities and costs. Copies are attached.Within the Power Sales Agreement,one paragraph has been redacted.This paragraph addresses certain contingencies related to the litigation/mediation between AIDEA and GVEA,and disclosure could harm HEA's and AIDEA's respective interests. 2.AIDEA built HCCP on GVEA property because AIDEA's engineers determined the plant would be fatally uneconomic if located north of Healy as originally planned.Provide an engineers'assessment of the comparative costs of isolated vs.dual operation of HCCP/Healy I and the associated cost impact to rate payers of each configuration. As a preliminary matter,AIDEA does not recall that any AIDEA engineer determined that HCCP economics would be "fatally uneconomic”if located off the 13 )© Healy site.However,AIDEA has no plans to operate HCCP at any site other than the Healy site. The economics of HCCP operations in any configuration will change as the cost of alternative power generation changes.As recently as 2000,the cost of alternative Cook Inlet gas-generated power made HCCP power appear economically unattractive,and in AIDEA's view,significantly contributed to GVEA exercising its contractual rights to terminate the 1991 Power Sales Agreement.However,as Cook Inlet gas resources have diminished,the cost of Cook Inlet gas generated power has increased,and the economics of HCCP generated power have improved.The economics of HCCP generated power as contemplated in current plans looks even better when compared to the cost of other,alternative railbelt power generation. With respect to the primary question,there is no valid basis to provide an accurate comparison of "isolated vs.dual operation of HCCP/Mealy 1”for several reasons. a.Some of the cconomic advantages originally contemplated from the dual operation of Healy #1 and HCCP are no longer available.Since 1999,when IICCP and IIealy #1 were both in operation,GVEA has altered its Healy #1 operations to improve its economics and to accommodate neighborhood complaints.While GVEA apparently had good business reasons for making these changes,one consequence has been that the existing coal pile and coal handling facility are no longer reliably adequate for both Healy #1 and HCCP.Because the ability to reliably deliver coal into a coal generating plant is essential,the anticipated economic advantages from dual operation of these facilities has been eliminated. b.An accurate comparison of "isolated vs.dual operation”is contingent upon the results obtained in mediation or litigation with GVEA.Nothing in the existing development plan between HEA and AIDEA precludes the adoption of any mutually beneficial advantages that might accrue to Healy #1 and HCCP.For example,AIDEA contemplates that some facilities will be shared between the two power generating plants,providing economic advantages to both plants.The scope of the beneficial advantages is contingent upon successful resolution of issues with GVEA.AIDEA has limited ability to force GVEA to accept operational criteria that might be beneficial to railbelt ratepayers,but not,in GVEA's view,be beneficial to it. 3.An engineers'assessment of the capital costs to separate HCCP and Healy 1,and the sources of such capital.In the alternative,please provide the joint operating agreement. See attached March 28,2006,"HCCP Condition Assessment and Restart Study”by Shaw,Stone and Webster.The sources of capital,as is described in the agreement between AIDEA and HEA:AIDEA will finance the net capital costs (AIDEA costs 14 7 Oo less interim power sales revenues)and HEA will repay that amount over the life of HEA power purchases with interest at 5.25%.See also answer to question 2 above. 4.Information on GVEA's 2006 offer to purchase HCCP and to assume all risk for the permitting,conversion,startup and long-term operation of the plant.Provide the engineers'comparative evaluation of the benefits,drawbacks,milestones and risk assessment of the GVEA offer and the Homer/AIDEA agreements. GVEA did not submit an offer to AIDEA in 2006 to purchase ICCP.GVEA,in the course of mediation,said that it had prepared an offer to purchase HCCP and might submit it to AIDEA,but GVEA first requested AIDEA to confirm that AIDEA would seriously consider the offer.AIDEA gave GVEA written and verbal assurances that AIDEA would seriously consider any offer to purchase HCCP that GVEA submitted.GVEA,however,apparently elected not to submit to AIDEA any offer to purchase IICCP in 2006 because AIDEA did not receive any offer from GVEA to purchase HCCP. If you have any questions,please call. 15 ||Teeland/Douglas '|Transmission Line Upgrade Municipal Light &Power Assembly Work Session July 13,2007 Assembly Action Required O Appropriate $19.5 million from AEA to ML&P O Authorize ML&P to be project manager O Revise capital budget to reflect project funds Project Description O Build new segment to complete Alaska Intertie Oi State-owned transmission line a Insulate to 230 kV capability a Operate initially at 138 kV O Segment 25 miles -Teeland to Douglas Substations TEELAND-DOUGLAS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT Susitna River DOUGLAS SUBSTATION SS,gousitna But TEELAND susstanion-7 ("eer BAY RDlet . bo ofageOeAMNO.-2007,ATTACHMENT 1 New line O Eliminate need to use MEA line;return to exclusive MEA service Oi Transmission line dedicated to Intertie transmission Oi Complete state's infrastructure for Railbelt as intended C1]Reduce line loss,improve reliability, increase capacity Existing segment O20 miles of 115 kV line,owned by MEA Ol Formerly operated by AEA at 138 kV under agreement with MEA O Operating agreement expired a MEA declined to renew a Current user is by RCA order 11 Remaining 5 miles is 138 kV,built in '80s by AEA in MEA easement (and subject to MEA use) NN |2 Financial issues O Appropriation (with allowable 10%A&G) is sufficient to cover project costs O If shortfall,AEA and utilities consult on how to proceed O No penalty to ML&P if project terminated Management issues | Oi ML&P as project manager un ML&P is operator of Intertie southern portion ns IOC endorsed selection of ML&P to manage History of Alaska Intertie O High voltage,170-mile Intertie built in 1980s O Infrastructure to transfer bulk energy between northern and southern Railbelt communities O Economy collapsed before Intertie finished O Teeland/Douglas segment utilized existing MEA line plus five-mile AEA line (subject to MEA interests)|| "lI |History (continued} O 2002 legislature appropriated funds to AEA to upgrade and extend line 0 IOC approved the appropriation and designation of ML&P to manage project Benefits of Intertie O GVEA access to lower-cost hydro O ML&P and Chugach sell power to GVEA; reduces rates to retail customers O ML&P and Chugach receive power from GVEA Oi Access to GVEA's battery plant provides Railbelt stability