Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Intertie upgrade report for IOC 2002
[0° Attachment A Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Alaska Intertie Upgrade Report For the Intertie Operating Committee October 2002 Prepared by the Technical Subcommittee to the [OC Rey.10/8/2002 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertic Upgrade Altematives Report Table of Contents 1.Executive SUMMALY ........cccccsstcescecsesseceseseeersessusesssceecesectesssnscensesseeerereasees 3 |PR £91 (coe |U [01 ((0)»Inno en en 4 IIL,ISSUGS oe eecetssssscssersteeteeserecsccnseaesseenanersececeececerecsacsereereytessesenccecerrasceseaenass 4 @)Insulation Level...ccc cescesscescecsscesesssensensesersesstecesnneecseeensesesseneesesesereveess 5 b)SVG Components...............es ceesecsssneeeeeceseseeecesseesessasecssseseerseeeaessnauseeseseseeees 5 c)115kV Line Section from Hollywood Road to Douglas ..0....eee eeeeteeeeeees 5 d)Unbalanced Snow Loads............essesseccsesseescessecscscecersccessaesenerccsseeesensenees 5 IV.Alternatives ..............ccccsssesccssasscceecescenseecsescecoenaseeeeessssousonenscesagspecsussseseaesanensoes 5 €)SVC Upgrades ........cece ceceeeceeeesseceseceeesesoeteeanecnenncasecasaseanseneeesenssageeseessnerees 5 b)Hollywood Road to Douglas 115kV Line Rebuilt Options...see 6 c)New Hollywood Road to Douglas Line...eee eee eeeeeeesesesneneeceneeeerenenes 7 d)Snow Load Mitigation...seeeaeneasesenencessnsaenecenenssessensntoatacnensees 7 e)Teeland to Hollywood Road 138kV Line Rebuilt .......eee eeeee nee eeeeeeeeees 7 V.Cost Estimate SumMMarrieS .........ccc eescceseeeseoeseesceseeeeeesassneanensesecnecocenensseneaeses 7 VI.Recommendations ....00.....2...cccccccccesecececcceceseseesseessererensrsescstesseseeesausenssecenseeees 8 Appendix A:Maps .........csccccsscssssssccreccessneecseeseescorseneeecsesenersenaeesensrsneesseeteeteseenes 10 Appendix B:SVC Upgrades .......ccccccssseereceeceeseecteneeersssereresuseesnsecescessseteeseepenee 11 Appendix C:Transmission Line Cost Estimates and Structure Sketches...........12 Appendix D:Snow Load Mitigation Cost Estimates 0.0.0.0...cee esesseseeeeeeeaeees 15AppendixE:Technical Subcommittee MEMbe!lS........acces seeeeeseeeeeeeerereeees 16 Appendix F:JOC Upgrade Plan (July 2002).0........ececcsseeesceeessceaeeeereensnseceeeneeeers 18 Rev.10/9/2002 2 Anchorage-Faicbanks Intertie Upgrade Altematives Report i.Executive Summary The Anchorage -Fairbanks Intertie is a 325-mile long transmission connection between south central and central Alaska electric utility systems.It consists of a 170-mile section insulated for 345kV and a 5-mile section insulated for 138kV.In addition,it utilizes utility owned line section on its northern and southern end.It operates at 138kV and has a transfer capacity of 70 MW. Operating issues requiring upgrades or changes have been identified as: e Static VAR Compensation (SVC)Obsolescence. e Insufficient insulation of a 19 mile long southern segment (115kV MEA owned line.) e Snow loading impacts on 70 miles of line between Douglas and the Susitna River Crossing. The Technical Subcommittee to the [OC has investigated these issues and identified alternatives to mitigate or correct deficiencies.The recommended alternatives can be implemented with funds available from a State of Alaska legislative appropriation in the amount of $20,300,000 made to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)in SB 2006. The recommendations and their priorities have been determined as follows: 1.Replace the controls for the static VAR compensators ($1.85 million.) 2.Construct a new transmission line between Hollywood Road and Douglas Substation ($8.5 to 13 million.) 3.Modify Conductor Attachments on the line between Douglas and the Susitna River crossing to increase clearances under snow load ($4 miilion.) 4.Upgrade the Teeland to Hollywood Road line section to 230kV ($1 to 2.5 million.) The committee favors an upgrade of the tie to 230kV,but does not see the need to complete such a conversion at this time.All new facilities or modifications should however be constructed to allow future operation at 230kV. Rev,10/8/2002 .3 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Altematives Report ll.introduction The Anchorage -Fairbanks Intertie is a transmission connection between south central and central Alaska's electric utility systems.It is approximately 325 miles long and consists of several line sections,which are state or utility owned (see Table 1).The tie operates at 138kV and is constrained in its transfer capacity to 70 MW.While deficiencies have been identified over the 15 years the tie has been in operation,funding constraints did not allow the major investments needed to correct performance of the tie. The State of Alaska appropriated $20.3 Million to the Alaska EnergyAuthority(AEA)'to upgrade the tie and the Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) adopted a plan to identify and prioritize alternatives in its July 2002 meeting (see Appendix F).A technical subcommittee to the IOC was formed and given the task of investigating technical feasibilities,developing budgetary cost estimates and recommending the implementation of upgrades. This report describes deficiencies and/or constraints,the technical solutions for upgrade options and cost estimates for the implementation of the proposed alternatives. Il.Issues The major sections of the tie are single circuit segments between Chugach Electric's Teeland Substation and Golden Valley Electric's Gold Hill Substation.Between Teeland and Anchorage parallel circuits exist.The following table identifies the single circuit sections,their design insulation,length and ownership: Table 1 -Anchorage Fairbanks Intertie Sections Section Description Length Insulated Conductor Owned by Teeland -Hollywood 5 miles ea 1x Dove/phase |Alaska Energy AuthorityRaliywoodRoadto19miles|115kV 1x Dove/phase |Matanuska Electric Association Doles to Healy 170 345kV 2x Rail/phase Alaska Energy Authority Healy to Gold Hill 102"138kV 1x Golden Valley Electric miles Drake/phase Association Three Static VAR Compensators (SVCs)are installed on the system at Teeland, Healy and Gold Hill Substations to allow transfer of 70 MW between the endpoints within system stability limits. '132 SB 2006;"The sum of $20,300,000 Is appropriated from the Rallbelt energy fund (A.S.37.05.520)to the epartment of Communi d Economic Developm a neray Authority,to upgra n end the @ to Fairbanks power transmissi ie to the Teeland su Rev.10/8/2002 4 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report a)Insulation Level Future transfers of up to 100 MW are desired by the utilities and all alternatives should be designed to allow upgrading the tie capacity accordingly. This would include construction of new or upgraded transmission line sections to 230kV insulation levels.When the new Northern Intertie between Healy and Fairbanks is complete,only the MEA owned 115kV line and the Teeland to Hollywood Road segment will have less than 230kV capability. b)SVC Components Maintenance of the SVC's has become a major issue due to obsolescence.The original manufacturer no longer supports the equipment currently in service.Control components cannot be readily obtained which leads to operating failures and expensive rebuilding of existing parts.Extensive down .times will have to be anticipated in the future if parts cannot be obtained ina timely manner. c)115kV Line Section from Hollywood Road to Douglas Operation of this section at 138kV makes it the "weakest”link in the Intertie and has led to reliability problems.Many trips of the Intertie have occurred in this section during times of inclement weather.Upgrading or replacing this section with a fully insulated line would add significant reliability to the tie. d)Unbalanced Snow Loads Approximately 70 miles of the Douglas to Healy section are subject to unbalanced snow and ice loads on the conductors,which reduce ground clearances in isolated spans to less than design requirements.Insulator swing monitors are presently used to alarm dispatch centers and if snow loads cannot be reduced,the Intertie is de-energized until conductor clearances return to acceptable levels.Investigations conducted between 1992 and 1996 resulted in identification of several options for reducing unbalanced loading ("Initial Analysis of Unbalanced Snow Loading Options”,Dryden &LaRue,June 1995),but were not implemented due to funding constraints. IV.Alternatives The Technical Subcommittee has identified upgrade alternatives that will rectify the deficiencies addressed above and prioritized them as follows: a)SVC Upgrades 1)Replace Controls: This alternative would replace existing controls at the three SVCs on the Intertie with new controls from a different manufacturer.All major equipment (transformers,reactors etc.)would remain unchanged.The SVCs would be capable of sustaining the present operation of the Intertie with greater reliability and lower maintenance costs. Rey.10/8/2002 5 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report 2)Replace entire SVCs: This option would replace all SVC equipment.Compensation would be from -10MVAr to +50MVAr.The new installation would be at a site separate from the existing,which will allow the existing SVCs to remain in operation during installation of the new equipment. 3)Replace and upgrade to use with 230kV: Preliminary system performance investigations indicate that more extensive VAR support would be needed if the tie would be operated at 230kV. This option would replace all three SVCs with new equipment and controls to allow operation at 230kV and 100 MW. b)Hoilywood Road to Douglas 115kV Line Rebuilt Options 1)Double Circuit Rebuilt of MEA's 115kV Line : This alternative would use the existing ROW,retire the existing X-structure line and replace it with a double circuit designed for 230kV.One circuit would belong to MEA and be operated at 115kV.The other circuit would be part of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie and be operated at 138kV until converted to 230kV. "Drake”would be the minimum conductor for both circuits.Advantages for a rebuilt would be: e Nonew ROW would be required. e Enhanced reliability,although less than a separate line. Service interruptions during construction would have to be mitigated adding costs to the project.Overall susceptibility of two circuits on one set of structures to disturbances would be greater than for individual lines. 2)Upgrade MEA''s 115kV line to 230kV: The insulation level would be increased to 230kV and the "Dove” conductor replaced with "Drake”.While it is expected that some structures could be upgraded,replacements would be required and a structure-by-structure evaluation would be necessary to determine the extent of the upgrade. Both the above options would require extensive outages of the connection between Anchorage and Fairbanks during construction.Minimizing these outages and mitigating resulting costs would need to be taken into account when determining costs and feasibility. The above options,upgrading the line or a double circuit,would aiso. require MEA's concurrence.MEA does not see any benefit to MEA with either option.Bob Drake indicated that a double circuit could limit MEA's operations and maintenance.He specified that MEA's support for any option would need to include a clear benefit to MEA.Bob Drake indicated that he was not in a position to discuss either selling or leasing the line,nor did he have any idea of costs associated with either arrangement. Rev.10/8/2002 6 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Altematives Report c)New Hollywood Read to Douglas Line This line would be built as a single circuit,insulated for 230kV,in a new ROW to connect the existing 138kV wood pole line coming from Teeland Substation to the main part of the Intertie at Douglas.Conductor size would be "Drake”(795 KCM ACSR)or larger. Advantages for a separate line would be: e No service interruptions during construction e Enhanced reliability e Anewtransmission corridor It is recognized that finding a route with the required easements and permits within the budget and timeframe under consideration may prove difficult. d)Snow Load Mitigation With only 1 or 2 forced shut downs every winter during the last few years, major improvements could not be justified.implementing measures to shorten the insulator strings to 230kV insulation and reducing the amount of slack available in any given span by attaching the conductor to an inverted "V” insulator string,as well as removing one conductor/phase from the bundle,are considered to be desirable and would allow operation under some icing conditions. e)Teeland to Hollywood Road 138kV Line Rebuilt This 5 mile long line consists primarily of single wood pole construction with "Dove "conductor.It would be upgraded to 230kV insulation with "Drake” conductor.Structures would be replaced where necessary or new insulators installed where clearance and structure strength allows. V.Cost Estimate Summaries The committee members prepared budgetary cost estimates for the alternatives.Base information used,as well as basic assumptions,are included in Appendix B to D. The transmission line construction estimates do not include engineering, permitting and ROW costs in the "low”costs.It is,however,anticipated that the alternative described can be built within the cost ranges listed.Costs for line upgrades will greatly depend on how many structures have to be replaced.The estimates ranges use the lower costs of upgrades and the higher costs of total replacement.Actual costs would most likely be based on a mix of upgrades and replacements. The costs for snow load mitigation are based on 1996 estimates and have been updated by using a general "round up”increase. Rev.10/8/2002 7 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Table 2 -Anchorage Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Cost Estimates Alternative Cost SVC Upgrade Components Control Upgrade $1,850,000 Replacement for 138kV Use $20,000,000 Replacement for Future Use $28,100,000 .Hollywood Road to Douglas 115kV Line Rebuilt Double Circuit 230kV $13,000,000 to $18,100,000 Upgrade to 230kV $5,000,000 to $9,000,000 New 230kV Line Hollywood Road to Douglas $8,500,000 to $13,000,000 Snow Load Mitigation Conductor Attachment Modifications $4,000,000 Inset Prop Structures $8,000,000 Inset H-Frames $18,000,000 Upgrade Teeland to Hollywood Road Line to 230kV $1,000,000 to $2,500,000 VI.Recommendations The following priorities were established (with MEA expressing no opinion): a)SVC Control Upgrade $1.85 Million This will allow efficient use and maintenance of the existing equipment until a voltage upgrade makes replacement of the entire VAR support necessary.Specifications and contract documents for the purchase and installation of the contro!equipment will need to be prepared and competitive bids solicited.AEA should contract with consultants and/or manufacturers of the control equipment to accomplish this.Technical support would come from the IOC Technical Subcommittee. b)New Line from Hollywood to Douglas $8.5 to 13 Million With the uncertainties associated with routing of a new segment as well as costs for permitting,engineering and construction,this project should begin with a route selection study.Such a study needs to analyze all feasible alternative corridors as well as compare overall costs of a new route against those for upgrading the existing 115kV line.This analysis wil]require input from MEA on benefits they expect to receive. Rev.10/8/2002 8 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Altematives Report c)Snow Load Mitigation (Conductor attachments)$4 Million It is not expected that central/south central Alaska will need transmission at the 345kV level within the current planning horizons. Reducing the insulation of the segment from Douglas to the Susitna River to 230kV will increase ground clearance and allow conductor attachments,which will reduce excessive conductor sag under unbalanced load.. Removing the second phase conductor could be accomplished at the same time.Since this changes the impedance of the line,it is suggested that system studies confirm,that such a measure will not impede operation of the tie.Cost estimates should be updated and the scope of work confirmed prior to authorizing design of this project. d)Upgrade Teeland to Hollywood Road Line to 230kV_$1 to 2.5 Million This project would prepare the section for future operation at 230kV.Detailed engineering assessments are needed to determine structure/insulation upgrades and replacements required.Construction would cause interruptions in service over the Anchorage to Fairbanks tie and incur additional costs. The above projects are listed in sequence of priority as established by the Technical Subcommittee and it is recommended to pursue initial work for the SVC Control Upgrades and the new line section between Hollywood Road and Douglas immediately.Work on the next two projects can be postponed until more accurate cost estimates are available and funding can be better assessed. Rev.10/8/2002 9 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Altematives Report Appendix A:Maps 1.Alaska Transmission Lines 2.South Central Alaska Transmission Lines Rev.10/8/2002 .10 YRTSeavevewneCOMMUNITIES GENERATION PLANTS SOLOMON CiVALDEZ{cver)SOLDOTWA (AEGET)BRAOLEY LAKE (AEA) SUBSTATIONS 30 NENANA (GVEA)TAGE (CEAPUKPSTATION 11 EN >Drewing:J:\TronsLines\AEA_ANC-FBX\Aloska_JIntertie_upgrade-2.0WG Oct 09,2002 -8:18am FAIRBANKS (SEE DETAIL) (ovea) Af "4 PR eee Oe CENTRAL ALASKA ALASKA TRANSMISSION LINES ZTO CANTWELL 118kV HOLLYWOOD ROAD TO DOUGLES (19 MILES) WASILLA ° T38kV TEELANO TO HOLLYWOOD ROAD (5 MILES) KNIK ARM ANCHORAGE TO INDIAN »SUTTON ®@ PALMER a NERATI ANT! (INTERNATIONAL (CEA)12 PLAN 2 futaey3PLANT2(NL&P44EXLUTNAHYDRO (APA) a SUBSTATIONS ANCHORAGE (APA)EAST TERMINAL (CEA)PONT MocKENZIE (enPOWTWORONZOF(CEA) UNIVERSITY (CEAWESTTERMINAL (CEA)CEA 230 KY SUH (CEA)TEELAND (CEA)O'NEILL (MEA)13 OOUGLAS (MEA)1S PALMER (MEA) --TRANSMISSION LINES OESIGNED 345 KV @ SUBMARINE CABLES 250 KY 115 KV (OPERATED)grevaasS36SOUTH CENTRAL ALASKA TRANSMISSION LINES Orawing:&\TransLines\AEA_ANC=FEX\Aloska_Intertie_upgrode-1.DWG Oct 09,2002 -8:17am Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertic Upgrade Altcmatives Report Appendix B:SVC Upgrades Cost Estimates prepared by GVEA Rev.10/8/2002 1] 1. 2. 3. SVC UPGRADES IOC Technical Subcommittee September 17,2002 Reason for looking at SVC Upgrades a.The existing SVC installations are becoming technically obsolete and it is getting increasingly difficult,if not impossible,to get repair parts or equipment.Replacement with SVC's of sufficient capacity to allow energy transfers up to 100 MW is supported by all utilities. Three options have been investigated. a.Option #1.Replace the existing GE controls on each SVC. b.Option #2.Total replacement of the existing SVC's (same size) c.Option #3.New SVC's sized to use with 230kV Intertie upgrade. Estimated costs of each option a.Option #1.$1.85 Million b.Option #2.$20.0 Million c.Option #3.$28.1 Million OPTION #1 Replace the existing GE controls on each SVC 1.Assumptions a)Budgetary proposal from ABB for Art Copoulus,AIDEA is still valid.Proposalwasmade1"quarter of 2002. b)The upgrades for all three GE SVC's (GHS,HLS,TLS)are purchased at the same time. c)Station Control and Monitoring (SCM)System is preferred over Mimic Panel. d)Full set of spare parts at each substation. e)Equipment removed has no salvage value. 2.Estimated Costs a)ABB controls b)Full set of spare parts at each site c)Utility Man hours” d)Disposal of existing control equipment e)Contingency (15%) $430k/site $70k/site $3k/site Subtotal TOTAL $1,340,000 $47,800 $210,000 9,000 $1,606,800 $241,020 $1,847,820 **Utility manhours consists of the manpower required to remove existing contro] equipment,install and wire the new control equipment,help with commissioning,update prints,engineering and upgrade the SCADA control interface.Total estimated manhours are 1000 at a burdened Jabor rate of $70/hr. ABB Alaska's Northern Intertie GE/SVC-CONTROL RETROFIT BUDGETARY PROPOSAL UTPSAIDEA2002 This budgetary proposal is based on a request for control retrofit to the Teeland,Gold Hill,and Healy SVC,located on Alaska's Northern Intertie.This includes a replacement of the existing GE control system,with no specification of requirements made. A.Scope of Supply: The overall scope for the ABB delivery will be specified in a Work Specification included with any final quotation. A.1 VarMACH with Mimic Panel e One (1)set of MACH2 control panel,including documentation. °Hardware and software for the control of firing request to one (1)Thyristor Controlled Reactor (TCR). °One (1)mimic with control functions to operate the SVC. °The following control functions are included in the MACH2 system: -Voltage and Suseptance Control -Direct Current Control -Gain Supervision -Start and Stop Sequences °The analog interface is for current 5A (secondary current)and for voltage 120/¥3 V (phase-to-ground voltage). °Installation Supervision and commissioning are included.It is estimated the installation and commissioning will take approximately four (4)weeks. ABB Inc. Power Systems Business Unit 701-B Hostetler Way .Telephone (541)298-4161 Utilities Division The Dalles,OR 97058 Fax (541)298-4164 ABB A.2 MACH2 with Station Control and Monitoring (SCM)System °One (1)set of MACH2 control panel,including documentation. .Hardware and software for the control of firing request to one (1)Thyristor Controlled Reactor (TCR). °One (1)SCM-system consisting of DCU,one (1)SCM,one (1)EWS/OWS,and connections between these units. e The following contro!functions are included in the MACH2 system: -Voltage and Suseptance Control -Direct Current Control -Gain Supervision -Start and Stop Sequences .The analog interface is for current 5A (secondary current)and for voltage 120/¥3 V (phase-to-ground voltage}. .Installation Supervision and commissioning are included.It is estimated the installation and commissioning will take approximately four (4)weeks. A3 Spare Parts for MACH2 with Mimic Panel One (1)set of spare parts with one (1)circuit board for each type used in the MACH2 with mimic panel.Note that these spare parts can be used as a common set for all SVC's with the same MACH2 system. AA Spare Parts for MACH2 with SCM-System One (1)set of spare parts with one (1)circuit board for each type used in the MACH2 with SCM-system.Note that these spare parts can be used as a common set for all SVC's with the same MACH2 system. B.Not Included in Scope: Customer to provide qualified electrical personnel to remove existing equipment,install MACH2,terminate cables (under ABB's supervision),new cables as required,and assist ABB Power Systems in commissioning of the new MACH2. Power supply to the control system shall be supplied by the customer.The power consumption is 1000 W,120 VAC and 500 W,120 VDC.The SCM system requires an "uninteruptable"AC supply. ABB Inc. Power Systems Business Unit 701-B Hostetler Way Telephone (541)298-4161 Utilities Division The Daftes,OR 97058 Fax (541)298-4164 ABB Price: The following budgetary prices are based on the volume of an order i.e.if more than one MACH2 system is purchased at the same time a discount is offered. C1 One (1)MACH2 with Mimic (item A.1)and spare parts(item A.3):: C.1.1.One (1)SVC Controi Retrofit:$475,000.00/per Station C.1.2 Two (2)SVC Control Retrofit:$395,000.00/per Station 6.1.3 Three (8)SVC Control Retrofit:$365,000.00/per Station The above listed prices includes one (1)common set of spare parts for items C2.1,C2.2, and C2.3.If the customer requires one (1)set of spare parts for each station there will be an additional price of $37,960.00 each for items C.1.2 and C.1.3. C.2 One (1)MACH2 with SCM-System (item _A.2)and spare parts (item A.4). C.2.1 One (1)SVC Control Retrofit:$545,000.00/per Station G2.2 Two (2)SVC Control Retrofit:$460,000.00/per Station C2.3 Three (3)SVC Control Retrofit:$430,000.00/per Station The above listed prices includes one (1)commen set of spare parts for items C2.1,C2.2, _and C2.3,lf the customer requires one (1)set of spare parts for each station there will be an additional price of $47,800.00 each for items C.1.2 and C.1.3. Termsand Conditions: Terms and Conditions are according to ABB Inc.documents as listed below: Standard Conditions for Equipment Sales and Related on-Site Services Special!Conditions -New Control Equipment for Existing SVC's WORK SPECIFICATION -SVC Control System Replacement Terms of Payment: Net 30-days from date of invoice. 10 %due with fully executed purchase agreement 70%due with equipment delivery 30%due with successful completion of commissioning tests. Delivery Time: 26 weeks from date of fully executed purchase agreement. Validity: This proposal expires on March 30,2002. ABB Inc. Power Systems Business Unit 701-B Hostetler Way Telephone (541)298-4161 Utilities Division :The Dalles,OR 97058 Fax (541)298-4164 OPTION #2 Total replacement of the existing SVC's (same size) 1.Assumptions a)Budgetary proposal from ABB for GVEA is still valid.Proposal was made 2" quarter of 2002.Proposal includes a building,138kV breaker and main disconnect switch.Spares for each SVC are also included. b)Existing SVC's are kept running until replacement built. c)Budgetary proposal is fora -10 MVAR to +50 MVAR SVC.This price will be used for each site even though the SVC's at each substation are of different sizes. d)A Site is available to build replacement. e)Equipment removed has no salvage value. 2.Estimated Costs a)New SVC $5,600k/site $16,800,000 b)Site Work $100k/site $300,000 c)Utility Man hours”$120k/site '$210,000 d)Disposal of existing equipment $10k/site $30,000 .Subtotal $17,340,000 e)Contingency (15%)$2,601,000 TOTAL $19,941,000 **Utility manhours consists of the manpower required to install new control equipment, new RTU,upgrade the SCADA control interface,help with commissioning,update prints,engineering and remove existing equipment.Total estimated manhours are 1700 at a burdened labor rate of $70/hr. Item# The budget price for the turnkey SVC consisting of -10 MVAR (inductive)to +50 MVAR (capacitive)with a voltage rating of 138kV is $5.6 Million. The budgetary tumkey price includes the following scope: Main Equipment --Thyristor Controlled Reactor --Fixed Filters Transformer Bus Work --MACH 2 Control System Also Included: Foundations Installation Labor &Supervision Commissioning Shipment to site and duty The estimate assumes that a suitable substation location exists. Local taxes are not included in the estimate. Price considers the following non-standard items: --Additional shipping to Alaska --Ambient operating range of -60 to +90 degrees F ABB Inc. ABB Power Systems Address Telephone Fax Email Division 940 Main Campus Drive (562)413-3267 (626)732-1954 armando.etvira@us.abb.com Raleigh,NC 27606 OPTION #3 New SVC's sized to use with 230kV Intertie upgrade. 1.Assumptions a)Budgetary proposal from ABB for GVEA is still valid.Proposal was made an quarter of 2002.The incremental cost to add additional reactive compensation over the amount in the proposal and to change the transformer voltage to 230kV is small ( 10%). b)The amount of additional reactive compensation needed has not been determined. A dynamics study will be required to put an accurate number on the required ranges of the SVC's.Additionally,large reactors will be required to clamp system voltages during system restoration (SVC's tripped off). c)SVC's will be tied to the 230kV bus. d)A site is available to build new SVC. 2.Estimated Costs a)New SVC b)Reactors (20-30 MVAR) c)Site Work _d)Utility Man hours” e)Disposal of existing equipment f)Contingency (15%) $6,300k/site $5,000k $100k/site $120k/site $ 10k/site Subtotal TOTAL $18,900,000 $5,000,000 $300,000 $210,000 $30,000 $24,440,000 $_3,660,000 $28,100,000 **Utility manhours consists of the manpower required to install new control equipment, new RTU,upgrade the SCADA control interface,help with commissioning,update prints,engineering and remove existing equipment.Total estimated manhours are 1700 at a burdened labor rate of $70/hr. Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Appendix C:Transmission Line Cost Estimates and Structure Sketches _ 1.New Line in New Corridor 2.Rebuilding MEA's 115kV Line Rev.10/8/2002 12 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report I.New Line in New Corridor Golden Valley Electric estimates construction costs for a single circuit 230kV at $450,000/mile for 19 miles =$8,550,000. These costs are based on actual costs for the Northern Intertie (2001/2002)and the assumption are: e Xstructures,1200 Ft.span average,Drake conductor. e Engineering,ROW,Permits and inspection not included. e Chugach Electric proposes to add these costs in at 50 %of the construction costs,leading to: $680,000/mile for 19 miles =$12,920,000 Rev.10/8/2002 13 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Hl.Rebuilding MEA's 115kV Line 1)Upgrade to 230kV (Spreadsheet) 2)Double Circuit 230 kV Rebuilt (Spreadsheet) 3)Structure Sketches and Base Estimates Southern Intertie Eklutna Line Rebuild Rev.10/8/2002 14 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERTIE UPGRADE MEA 145KV UPGRADE TO SINGLE CIRCUIT 230KV Uporade Repiecg DESCRIPTION EXT.PRICE #OF UNITS EXT,PRICE MOBILIZATION 1 $100,000.00 1 $100,000.00 DEMOBILIZATION 1 $100,000.00 1 $100,000.00 TOTAL MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBSILIZATION:$200,000.00 $200,000.00 TOTAL SURVEY $150,000.00 $150,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 4 -UPGRADE STRUCTURE ASSEMBLY UNITS 100 $600,000.00 100 $1,800,000.00 TANGENT 80 ao 3-POLE SWING ANGLE 10 10 3-POLE LARGE (DOE)ANGLE 2 2 3-POLE DDE ;8 8 TOTAL:SECTION 2-UPGRADE TOP ASSEMBLY UNITS 100 $600,000.00 100 $1,200,000.00 795 MCM ACSR "Drake*302.000 $1,661,000.00 302.000 $1,661,000.00 TOTAL 'SECTION 3 -NEW CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY UNITS $1,661 ,000.00 $1,661 ,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 4-NEW GUY ASSEMBLY UNITS 320 $320,000.00 320 $320,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 5 -NEW ANCHOR ASSEMBLY UNITS 150 |$180,000.00 150 $150,000.00 VIBRATION DAMPERS 300 $120,000.00 300 $120,000.00 36"EHV AVIATION WARNING BALL 100 $70,000.00 100 $70,000.00 TOTAL :SECTION 6 -NEW MISC.ASSY UNITS $190,000.00 $190,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 7 -RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING &ACCESS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 8 -UPGRADE FOUNDATION ASSY UNITS 125 $625,000.00 250 $2,500,000.00 1 !{ MEArebuilt 1 9/27/2002 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERTIE UPGRADE tadMEA115KVUPGRADETOSINGLECIRCUIT230KVUeorade 4 Replaco | DESCRIPTION #OF UNITS EXT.PRICE |#OF UNITS EXT.PRICE eee Eee Ss EPR OE RONG 5 TOTAL:REMOVAL -POLE ASSY UNITS 0 100 $100,000.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -POLE TOP ASSY UNITS 0 100 $60,000.00 CONDUCTOR 26/7 ACSR "DOVE"302 $211,400.00 302 $211,400.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -CONDUCTOR ASSY UNITS 302 302 TOTAL:REMOVAL -GUY ASSY UNITS 320 $96,000.00 320 $96,000.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -ANCHOR ASSY UNITS 150 $45,000.00 250 $75,000.00 RECAPITULATION MO8/DEMOB $200,000.00 i $200,000.00 SURVEY $150,000.00 $150,000.00 NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION $4,146,000,00 $7,821,000.00 CLEARING &ACCESS ROADS $150,000.00 $156,000.00 REMOVAURETIREMENT $352,400.00 $542,400.00 TOTAL $4,998,400.00 $8,863,400.00 Assumptions:1200 Ft.Spans,X-structures can be upgraded to "Drake”and 230kV,some anchors and foundations can be re-used, Estimates are based an 1986 CEA upgrades of X-structures MEArebuilt 9/27/2002 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERTIE UPGRADE DOUBLE CIRCUIT MEA 115KV SINGLE STEEL POLE,SINGLE STEEL POLE, DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230KV DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230KV (V DESCRIPTION #OF UNITS EXT.PRICE #OF UNITS EXT.PRICE |EBSD OYA ZS SNS SEN SA SED TUONO SSRIS Ss os 1 $200,000.00 || TOTAL SURVEY 1 $200,000.00 4 $200,000.00 STEEL POLES 292 $5,548,000.00 212 $3,700,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 1 -NEW POLE ASSEMBLY UNITS 202 $5,548,000.00 212 $3,700,000.00 =--{.--.-__.___] TANGENT DOUBLE CIRCUIT 200 $1,440,000.00 114 $1,400,000.00 2-POLE SWING ANGLE 22 $202,400.00 22 $202,400.00 a POLE DEADEND ASSEMBLY 8 $92,000.00 8 $92,000.00 TOTAL:SECTION 2 -NEW POLE TOP ASSEMBLY UNITS 230 $1,734,400.00 144 $1,694,400.00 795 MCM ACSR "Drake*805.000 $3,327,500.00 |605.000 $4,200,000.00 TOTAL :SECTION 3 -NEW CONDUCTOR ASSEMBLY UNITS $3,327,500.00 :$4,200,000.00 SINGLE GUY TO SINGLE ROD,25K 264 $211,200.00 204 $0.00 DOUBLE GUY TO TWO RODS,50K 96 $144,000.00 96 $0.00 TOTAL:SECTION 4 -NEW GUY ASSEMBLY UNITS 360 $355,200.00 360 $0.00 4 FT.CONCRETE SLUG ANCHOR 58 $53,200.00 58 $0.00 SCREW ANCHOR,TRIPLE HELIX 400 $400,000.00 400 $0.00 3-1/2'OR 5'EXTENSIONS FOR TA-248°400 $140,000.00 400 TOTAL:SECTION 5 NEW ANCHOR ASSEMBLY UNITS $593,200.00 $250,000.00 $0.00 VIBRATION DAMPERS 300 $120,000.00 300 $0.00 36°EHV AVIATION WARNING BALL 100 $70,000.00 100 $0.00 TOTAL :SECTION 6 -NEW MISC.ASSY UNITS $1$0,000.00 $0.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1 $300,000.00 |1 $0.00 ACCESS ROADS 1 $150,000.00 1 $0.00 TOTAL:SECTION 7 -NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING UNITS $450,000.00 $200,000.00 MEArebuillt Page 1 OF 2 9/27/2002 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS INTERTIE UPGRADE DOUBLE CIRCUIT MEA 115KV SINGLE STEEL POLE,.SINGLE STEEL POLE,: DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230KV DOUBLE CIRCUIT 230KV(V_ DESCRIPTION #OF UNITS EXT.PRICE #OF UNITS LG NS ANSERE ns i '|a0"x 4/2"X 25 STEEL PIPE PILE WiPLATE 292 $2,920,000.00 330 $0.00 TOTAL:SECTION 8 -NEW FOUNDATIONASSY UNITS $2,920,000.00 $1,650,000.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -STRUCTURE ASSY UNITS 100 $100,000.00 400 $610,000.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -POLE TOP ASSY UNITS 100 $60,000.00 +00 $0.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -CONDUCTOR ASSY UNITS 302 $211,400.00 301 $0.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -GUY ASSY UNITS 150 $45,000.00 150 $0.00 TOTAL:REMOVAL -ANCHOR ASSY UNITS 180 $45,000.00 160 $0.00 FOTAL:REMOVAL FOUNDATIONS 200 $20,000.00 200 RECAPITULATION - MOB/DEMOB $200,000.00 $200,000.00 SURVEY $200,000.00 $200,000.00 NEWLINE CONSTRUCTION $14,668,300.00 $11,494,400.00 CLEARING AND ACCESS ROADS $450,000.00 $200,000.00 REMOVALRETIREMENT $481,400.00 $610,000.00 TOTAL $15,899,700.00 |$12,704,400.00 _Assumptions:500ft spans,- wr double circult single pole davit ;_|"Ss¥mPtions:single pole steel-----,structures,700 to SO0Ft spans,arm construction,no ROW .."V"type suspension,no ROWcosts;Base:1988 230kV ' ,+ {costs;Base:2001 Eklutna LineRelocationand2001KiatttoUparadeAlternativesCampbell|Pa MEArebuilt Page 2 OF 2 9/27/2002 LINE DESIGN 8 23 cs3-|SHEP"bentotdSTRHT85ft.TTT I a tr rr | 1 II Ny! WW e ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FILE NAME:LINEDSCN.OWG SCALE:N15. ORAWING NO.Devoe Z tLalRue,linc.SOUTHERN INTERTIECONSULTING/ENGHLERS TANGENT 4DATE:10/01/97 230/138 kVDESIGNEDBY:OS)lof 1DRAWNBY:RAE TYPICAL WOOD POLE TANGENT-H A-4 SOUTHERN !INTERTIE PROJECT 138kV SINGLE CIRCUIT TRANSMISSION LINE;COST ESTIMATE per Mile WOOD H-FRAME,UNBRACED 138kV Operation with 230kV Clearances,Insulation and Spacings 795 komil ACSR "Drake"Conductor Prepared by POWER Engineers,Inc.and Dryden &LaRue,Inc. LINE DESIGN 8 Qty/Extended |Extended L&MMile{Materiai {|Labor Material Labor Total Clearing Costs Clearing (per Mila)100'ROW 1 lot $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 Clean-Up (per Mile)1 lot $4,545 $4,545 $4,545 Poles -Wood H-frame,Unbraced-138kV 138kV Tangent PTA 7 $2,209 |$4,418 $15,464 $30,927 $46,391 138kV Tangent Spnsn Insl Assy 7 $1,091 $1,636 $7,636 $11,455 $19,091 Wood Pole,DF,85'-H4 14 $3,364 $5,718 $47,091 $80,055 |$127,145 138kV Heavy Tangent PTA 0.5 $2,684 |$5,367 $1,342 $2,684 $4,025 138kV Heavy Tangent Spnsn ins!Assy 0.5 $1,227 |$1,841 $614 $920 $1,534 Wood Pole,DF,85'-H1 1 $3,000 {|$5,100 $3,000 $5,100 $8,100 Heavy Tangent Driven Pile Anchor -1/30'0.5 $982 |$1,865 $491 $933 $1,424 Heavy Tangent Screw Anchor 0.5 $182 |$1,364 $91 $682 $773 138kV Medium Angie (5°-30°)PTA 0.25 $2,585 {|$5,171 $646 $1,293 $1,939 138kV Medium Angle (5°-30°)Spnsn inst Assy 0.25 $1,227 |$1,841 $307 $460 $767 Wood Pole,DF,85'-H1 0.75 $3,000 |$5,100 $2,250 $3,825 $6,075 Medium Angle Driven Pile Anchor -1/30°0.88 $9821 $1,865 $864 $1,642 $2,506 Medium Angle Screw Anchor 0.88 $182}$1,364 $160 $1,200 $1,360 138kV Heavy Angie (30°-60°)PTA 0.25 $1,124 |$3,371 $281 $843 $1,124 138kV Heavy Angle (30°-60°)Spnsn Insl Assy 0.25 $1,227 }$1,841 $307 $460 $767 Wood Pole,OF,85'-H1 0.75 $3,000 |$5,100 $2,250 $3,825 $6,075 Heavy Angle Driven Pile Anchor -1/30!0.88 $982 |$1,865 $864 $1,642 $2,506 Heavy Angle Screw Anchor 0.88 -$227 |$1,591 $200 $1,400 $1,600 138kV Double Deadend PTA 0.5 $1,893 |]$5,678 $946 $2,839 $3,785 138kV Double Deadend (0°-90°)DE inst Assy 0.5 $2,455 }$3,682 $1,227 $1,841 $3,068 Wood Pole,DF,85'-Ht 1.5 $3,000 {$5,100 $4,500 $7,650 $12,150 Double Deadend Driven Pile Anchor -1/30'1.63 $982 }$1,865 $1,600 $3,041 $4,641 Double Deadend Screw Anchor 1.63 $227 |$1,591 $370 $2,593 $2,964 Conductor 795 kcmit "Drake"ACSR (1,000 ft)15.84 $1,636 |$2,727 $25,920 $43,200 $69,120FiberOpticCable,Incl Hdwr,Guying,etc. Additional Str &Fnd Requirements 8.5 Mob/Demob 1 lot $19,074 SUBTOTAL $118,422 $263,053 $400,549 ENGINEERING 6.5%$26,036 CONSTRUCTION MANGAGEMENT 7.0%$28,038 CONTINGENCY 10.0%$40,055 TOTAL $494,678 HLY 23-437 (1/23/98)chuches2.xds/OH-8 139kV (2)120376/a!A-13 LINE DESIGN 9 STRHT70ft.il 1STITTTE TTT »ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE RILE_NAME:230TOWN.OWG SCALE:NTS.Dpvoen /ILalRue,fInc.SOUTHERN INTERTIE DRAWING Wo, CONSULTING /ENGINEERS SPOLE-D OESIGNED By!"SL 230/138 KV DDUBLE CIRCUIT lentDRAWNBY:RAE SINGLE-SHAFT STEEL POLE TANGENT A-5 SOUTHERN INTEATIE PROJECT 138kV DOUBLE CIRCUIT TRANSMISSION LINE;COST ESTIMATE per Mila DOUBLE CIRCUIT STEEL POLE 138kV Operation with 230kV Clearances,insulation and Spacings 795 kemit ACSR "Drake"Conductor Prepared by POWER Engineers,Inc.and Dryden &LaRue,inc. Qty!Extended |Extended L&MLINEDESIGN9Mile|Material}Labor |Material |Labor Total Clearing Costs Clearing (per Mile)70'ROW Tio!$33,600 $33,600 $33,600 Clean-Up (per Mile)1 lot $4,545 $4,545 $4,545 Structure Costs (Pole,Base Plate,PTA &Fnd.) Tangent (0°-3°)Singie Steel Pole (70')9.6 $6,845 |$10,268 ||$65,032 $97,548 $162,580 Tangent (0°-3°)Foundation (70').95 $3,709 |$5,564 $35,236 $52,855 $88,091 338kV Tangent Braced Post Ins!Assy 9.5 $4,364 |$5,236 $41,455 $49,745 $91,200 jLight Angle,Long Span (0°-15°)Single Steel Pola 1 $9,033 {$13,549 $9,083 |$13,549 $22,582 Light Angie,Long Span (0°-15°)Foundation 4 $7,600 |$41,400 $7,600 $11,400 $19,000 438kV Light Angle Braced Post insl Assy 1 $4,364 |$5,236 $4,364 $5,236 $9,600 Heavy Angle (15°-60°)Steet 2-Pole 15 |$13,331 |$19,996] $19,996|$29,995 $49,991 {Heavy Angle (t5°-60°)Foundation 3 $13,309 |$19,964 $39,927 $59,891 $99,818 138kV Heavy Angle Spnsn ins!Assy 1.5 $2,455 |$2,945 $3,682 $4,418 $8,100 Deadand (0°-80°)Steel 2-Pota 2 $16,238 |$24,057 $32,476 $48,715 $81,491 Deadend {0°-90")Foundation Tt 4 {$15,018 ¢$22:527 $60,073 |$90,109}$150,182}758kV Deadend(30°-90°)DE Inst Assy 2 $4,909 {$5,891 $9,818 |$11,782 $21,600 Conductor Conductor .15,84 $1,636 $2,727 $25,920 $43,200 $69,120 Fiber Optic Cable,Incl Hdwr,Guying,etc.$3,074 |$4,149 Additional Str &Fnd Requirements i4 Mob/Demob 1 fot $168,224 $18,224 SUBTOTAL $354,612 $574,812 $829,424 ENGINEERING 6.5%$60,413 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7.0%$65,060 CONTINGENCY 10.0%$92,942 TOTAL $1,147,838 COST ESTIMATE FOR ADDITION OF SINGLE 12.5KV UNDERBUILD Tangent (0°-3°)Singia Steei Pole (70')9.5 $17,156 |$25,734 $162,981 |$244,472 $407,453 Light Angle,Long Span (0°-15°)Single Steel Pole 1 $24,146 |$36,219 $24,146 $36,219 $60,365 Heavy Angie (15°-60°)Steel 2-Pole 15 |$45,594 |$68,376)$68,376 |$102,564}$170,940 Deadend (0°-90°)Steel 2-Pole 2 $55,022 |$82,534 $110,045 |$165,067 $275,112 Conductor 795 kcmil "Drake”ACSA (1,000 ft)15.84 $1,636 |$2,727 $25,920 $43,200 $69,120 336 Kemil "Linnet”ACSR (1,000 ft)21.12 $909 }$1,636 $19,200 $34,560 $53,760 Additional Str &Fnd Requirements 14 Mob/Demob 1 lot $20,735 $20,735 SUBTOTAL $410,668 $646,816 $1,057,484 ENGINEERING "6.5%$68,736 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7.0%$74,024 CONTINGENCY 10.0%$105,748 TOTAL $1,305,993 HLY 23-437 (1/23/98)chuohes2.xis/OH-9 L3SKY (2)120376/a!A-14 LINE DESIGN 10 15' INSULATOR +10-0"|tieFIBERopm GROUND WIRE WOOD POLE,\STRHT70ft.ges am *ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FILE NAME:_LINEDSON.DWG REV 2 10/98 BY:PEI SCALE:NTS.Drvoen }LaRue,ne.SOUTHERN INTERTIE oe ¥0 CONSULTING ENGINEERS FIGURE B-12DATE:10/01/97DESIGNEDBY,DSL | 230/138 kV DRAWN BY:RAE SINGLE WODD POLE TANGENT SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT 138kV SINGLE CIRCUIT TRANSMISSION LINE;COST ESTIMATE per Mile SINGLE WOOD POLE,SINGLE CIRCUIT,NO UNDERBUILD 138kV Operation with 230kV Clearances,Insulation and Spacings 795 kemil ACSR "Drake"Conductor Prepared by POWER Engineers,Inc.and Dryden &LaRue,inc. Qty/Extended |Extended L&MLINEDESIGN10MileMaterial|Labor Material Labor Total Clearing CostsClearing(per Mile)70°ROW 1 lot $33,600 $33,600 |$33,600 Clean-Up (per Mile)1 lot $4,545 $4,545 $4,545 Structure Costs (PTA,Pole,Fdn) Wood Pole,DF,60'-H1 11 $1,733 |$2,946 $19,060 $32,402 $51,462 Tangent Driven Pile Anchor/Fdn -1/30°4 $982 |$1,865 $3,927 $7,462 $11,389 138kV Tangent Post Insl Assy 11 $2,182 |$4,364 $24,000 $48,000 $72,000 Wood Pole,DF,80-1 1 $2,721 |$4,626 $2,721 $4,626 $7,346 Light Angle Screw Anchor 2 $182 |$1,364 $364 $2,727 $3,091 Light Angle Driven Pile Anchor/Fdn -1/30'0.2 $982 ]$1,865 $196 $373 $569 138kV Light Angle Post Ins!Assy 1 $2,182 |$4,364 $2,182 $4,364 $6,545 Wood Pole,DF,90'-H4 1 $3,653 |$6,210 $3,653 $6,210 $9,862 Heavy Angle Screw Anchor 3 $227 |$1,591 $682 $4,773 $5,455 Heavy Angie Driven Pile Anchor/Fdn -4/30 1 $982 |$1,865 $982 $1,865 $2,847 138kV Heavy Angle Spnsn Ins!Assy 1 $1,227 |$2,455 $1,227 $2,455 $3,682 Wood Pole,OF,90'-H4 1 $3,653 |$6,210 $3,653 $6,210 $9,862 Double Deadend Screw Anchor 6 $227 |$1,591 $1,364 $9,545 $10,909 Double Deadend Driven Pile Anchor/Fdn -1/30'2 $982 |$1,865 $1,964 $3,731 $5,695 138kV Deadend (30°-90°)DE Inst Assy 2 $2,455 |$7,364 $4,909 $14,727 $19,636 Conductor 735 kcmil "Drake"ACSR {1,000 ft)15.84 $1,636 |$2,727 $25,920 $43,200 $69,120336kemil"Linnet”ACSR (4,000 ft) Additional Str &Fnd Requirements 14 Mob/Demob 1 lot $16,381 $16,381 SUBTOTAL $96,803 $247,195 $343,998 ENGINEERING 6.5%$22,360CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT7.0%$24,080CONTINGENCY10.0%$34,400 TOTAL $424,838 HLY 23-437 (1/23/98)chuubesl.xts/OH-10 13BKV (2)120376/al A-15 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES &;5/4 OPTIONA OPTIONB OPTIONC OPTIOND OPTIONE OPTIONF OPTIONG OPTIONH OPTION!OPTIONS OPTION K WISKVS/C 115KVSIC 115 KVS/IC 11SKVS/IC 115KVS/C 230 kV D/C 230kKV D/C 230kVS/C 230kVS/C 230 kV S/C 230 kV S/C Wood Wood Wood Steel Steel Steel Steel Wood Steel Wood Steel H-Frame H-Frame H-Frame X-Tower V-Tower Pole A-Frame H-Frame X-Tower H-Frame X-Tower CONDUCTOR:Ibis Ibis Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake ROW Width:=75 ft.75 ft.75 ft.75 ft.75 ft.75 ft.75 ft.75 ft.75 tt.155 ft.155 ft. SPOTTING:EXISTING PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD PLS-CADD CLEARING&ACCESS $67,092 $67,092 $67,092 $67,092 $67,092 $67,092'\$67,092 $67,092 $67,092 $67,082 $67,092 RETIRE EXIST.LINE $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 $203,213 FOUNDATIONS $0 $0 $0 $374,375 $238,194 $545,630 $661,021 .$0 ANCHORS $190,210 $85,781 $63,403 $248,170 $364,644 $78,322 $78,322 $104,429 $251,899 $70,862 $136,282 STRUCTURES $1,047,337 $1,018,481 $899,010 $1,065,364 $1,009,617 $1,243,571 $1,319,723 $1,077,449 $1,331,326 $719,354 $837,816 POLE TOP ASSEMBLIES $411,680 $293,882 $276,356 $157,853 $157,853 $485,125 $485,125 $421,871 $279,614 $283,836 $132,625 WIRE $572,044 $572,044 $784,909 $784909 $784,909 $1,411,313 $1,411,313 $784,909 $784909 $784909 $784,909 TOTAL $2,491,576 $2,240,493 $2,293,984 $2,900,976 $2,825,523 $4,034,266 $4,225,809 $2,658,963 $3,356,498 $2,129,268 $2,445,494 Average cost per mile:$389,309 $350,077 $358,435 $453,278 $441,488 $630,354 $660,283 $419,124 $438,444 $0 $283,557 $524,453 $344,760 $382,108 Kron,ain £Le.Lut Keytow FCaktasefSchoRobaut reD cle wv EOCcostest.xls DRYDEN LaRUE,INC,PMPod ps 6/21/2001 seogeeteSORTStsCeROJECTS\CEAEKLT.A41\DC-<CONCEPT,OWG8'-6” }2' 0" rh oO .! oO oO | oOo oa:L SCALE:ATS. {EKLUTNA TRANSMISSION LINE DRAWING NO.|gf KAS PreysSatayFre Dc 250KV CONCEPT "pare:8/13/01DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY:RAE FILENAME(CADDCONCEPTUAL 230kV D/C SINGLE POLE STRUCTURE OPTION F 1 of3 [Pree ""CTelefua -eed SOc fer Rebull * ,es Daron I'7 Chugach Electric Association Preliminary Sketch Double Circuit 138kV 138 8v |eal 2 -138 &v +"tre ul 4+. 2 138 Kv Sa Le » 34.5 kv 4 a i AMoM .S f\ "1 ¥ ',ia z32ed SCALE NTS.i Lig Puen {LoRue Inc]CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION meow wo. Be communes ene DOUBLE CIRCUIT 138kV WTH 34.5kV UNDERGULLD OC-138 é¥By OEE ON et PRELIMINARY SKETCH SHEET 1 3 Dryden &LaRue,Inc.March 2002 JATraneLines\230KVWMKUVFCUMStructIFCUVSS0S.GP4 i ' i Bly oF patria ; a Ra be [ora no J ' me |in,MICO NAA,Lis wie _{ott]screw ALA US:"it -[2]cman ©cue ae wa |2 |Jur Common anes 7): .1]ray ieagen 24g we)Bo Nora Cexti aang 60 -[rar et ashy rc re Pa 29 fie.)2 2°pvt =POYAL -san at Statins WaT _|a0 parte tor ky a rae©=. or RE ees ee =mg]¢|the oosre 20”B/aenOo = ET ae - Sa 0 AMTRIA sm.ease wires [mace ee st it eeeorKSCUPTiOWtA.tis]-: tre or,ren £700 ws ae gray Lan gan LT al ek LY 000 Teta BT oetian wien]1200 Toa Sete,GAT 108 i ABGALVIA TIONS ue atorroe a! ome CAO EEE ==oy FORT WHARTON WLEAETeasrerwwMeviNePONSCar i |.an .'C-vane -CONOUTTON vanGrvAne hea vows my ey ne FCUN-38-0006 fa 'ROTI.iGRTOCHbLAAcoprot|nie Seo covers on : .4 ecancnce Feet Onto omer maw]Yi s-e7 a . : om nee 3maneCOMLICHCLECHIKASUCAL,th,aa TANGENT POLES.:aa @ Nor LAE89 1008 : rE PE :ative lakassy"sna ERecTion gmawnG [8-3 9 5 i i ==e nope Tee)Pte See]on .2 |eusashowbelay Sat wine ie.|]}too TANGENT POLES : toarace tine 1 Sew 2 (oar ween Osan T=721 ERECTION ORAWING £ BCC ee Rg x ine]860)Minnesota Drive :P.O.Box 166300 . WAY Anchorage,Aloske nates . E 99619-8300 ; oerec/2002 «09:05 Table 9-8 Data on Summary Options Radial Tower Insltr Movement Max Ground Insulator Snew Stiffness Cond Length No Tower Insltr Total Sag Clear- ance Type in lb/ft Resagq ft Spans ft ft ft ft ft Middle Span Loaded Original I-Strng 4.00 1500 No 11.00 15 1.42 3.96 5.37 81.84 -2.09 138-kV I-string 4.00 9500 No 5.45 15 0.44 3.32 3.76 72.78 12.52 161-kV I-String 4.00 9500 No 6.40 .15 0.40 3.64 4.04 74.41 9.94 230-kV I-string 4.00 9500 No 7.35 15 0.36 3.91 4.28 75.78 7.62 138-kV I-string 4.00 9500 Yes 5.45 15 0.38 2.99 3.37 67.14 18.16 161-kV I-String 4.00 9500 Yes 6.40 15 0.34 3.25 3.59 68.49 15.87 230-kV I-string 4.00 9500 Yes 7.35 15 0.31 3.46 3.77 69.60 13.80 20°I-Vstring 4.00 9500 No 7.60 15 0.62 2.09 2.70 66.05 17.10 20°I-Vstring 4.00 9500 Yes 7.60 11 0.58 1.79 2.36 60.31 22.84 End Span or Two Middle Spans Loaded Original I-Strng 4.00 1500 No 11.00 10 2.02 5.30 7.31 72.16 7.59 138-kV I-string 4.00 9500 No 5.45 10 0.62 4.00 4.62 63.73 21.57 161-kV I-String 4.00 9500 No 6.40 10 0.57 4.49 5.05 65.13 19.22 230-kV I-string 4.00 9500 No 7.35 10 0.52 4.91 5.43 66.35 17.05 138-kV I-string 4.00 9500 Yes 5.45 10 0.55 3.75 4.30 59.02 26.28 161-kV I-String 4.00 9500 Yes 6.40 10 0.49 4.16 4.65 60.25 24.10 230-kV I-string 4.00 9500 Yes '7.35 10 0.45 4.51 4.96 61.31:22.09 20°I-Vstring 4.00 9500 No 7.60 5 0.78 2.52 3.29 59.02 24.13 20°I-Vstring 4.00 9500 Yes 7.60 5 0.73 2.20 2.93 53.92 29.23 Table 1-1 Options for Improving Ground Clearance 4"Radial Snow 5 lb/ft? Outside Phase Ground Clearance Estimated One Two Rsltnt Xarm Cost Span Spans Xarm Cpcty Per Loaded Loaded Load Used Structure Options:ft ft kip %$ 1.Leave as is with 345-kV Insulation: 2.09 7.59 6.4 36 -0- 2.Remove yokes,pretension guys, reverse shield wire peaks,shorten insulator strings to: a.230-kV 7.62 17.05 7.5 42 _15,300 b.161-kV 9.94 19.22 7.8 44 15,300 c.138-kV 12.52 21.57 8.2 46 15,300 Remove yokes,pretension guys,resag conductor,remove shield wire,shorten insulator strings to: a.230 -kV 13.80 22.09 7.21 40 21,800 b.161-kV 15.87 24.106 7.3 41 21,800 c.138-kV 18.16 26.28 7.7 43 21,800 Remove yokes,pretension guys, change insulator strings to 230-kV Inverted V-Strings,reverse shield wire peaks:.17.10 24.13 9.3 53 22,400 Remove yokes,pretension guys,change insulator strings to 230-kvVInvertedV-Strings,remove shield wire,resag conductor:22.84 29.23 9.0 51 27,900 Intertie Operating Committee , February 9,1996Mr.Jim Hall Page 3 line at distribution voltages into bolted faults 26 miles away(the distance from Douglas to Stevens and Stevens to Chunilna Creek).There is not sufficient fault current available at Doug- las without capacitive compensation.Shunt capacitors were inves- tigated and also did not work.Series capacitors provide enough compensation to get the required currents,however disturbances during energization are far outside the bounds that the low side equipment can withstand.Disturbances on the 138 kV system at Douglas and Teeland are also outside reasonable bounds.We haveconcludedthatice/snow melting using conventional AC equipment is probably not feasible.We are discussing the possibility of usingDCwithABB,but do not yet have any detailed information. Inset Towerg -New tubular steel H-frame structures would be inset in every span.The towers would use the same insulators and hard-ware as the existing structures (i.e.,would be insulated at 345- kV).The H-frames would be set in sections in between the exist- ing phase and shield wires. Pros Cong Increases ground clearance Most expensive the most under unbal-Some increased maintenance anced loads,should cost "cure the problem"Permitting and environmen- except in the most tal issues may need to unusual circumstances be addressed No operational interven- tion required In summary,the solutions to the problem range from essentiallyoperationalinnature(load monitoring)through insetting towersthatareveryexpensivebutwouldnormallynotrequireanyopera- tional action. We expect to finalize the cost estimates and schedules by the endofnextweek.If you have any questions,please give us a call. DRYDEN &LaRUE,INC. DH bec Alan B.Peabody,U?.E. ABP:jJ£\icsnol\estimate.icn cc:Steve Haagenson\GVEA Vincent Mottola\FMUS Larry Hembree\MLEP Jim Wilson\CEA Sam Matthews\HEA Stan Sieczkowski\AEA Intertie Operating Committee Mr.Jim Hall Pros Least Expensive Provides Information for future designs February 9,1996 Page 2 Cons Does not increase ground clearance by itself Requires an outage and line crew to remove snow &ice from low spans Uses standard hardware Convert to Inverted V's -the existing 345 kV insulator strings would be converted to inverted V-strings.The yokes would be removed and the guys would be attached directly to the anchor piles.The guys would be pretensioned to reduce tower movement under unbalanced longitudinal loads.Shield wire peaks would be reversed to increase clearance between the phase conductors and the shield wires. Pros Cons May not eliminate outages and ground clearance problems Increases longitudinal loads on crossarm Increases ground clearance under unbalanced loads Relatively inexpensive Inset Prop Structures -Three single pole wood structures with insulated sections of bus would be inset at approximately mid span to catch the wire when it sags below normal clearances.A diffi- culty with this concept is that the height of the prop is limited by maintaining some clearance to the line under normal operation but having it high enough to do some good when unbalanced loads occur. Pros Cons May not completely elimi- mate outages &ground clearance problems Unproven concept Looks strange Abrasion damage to wire must be addressed Permitting and environmen- tal issues may need to be addressed : Increases ground clearance under unbalanced loads Ice Melting -Equipment would be installed at Stevens SubstationnearTalkeetnatoenergizethelineatlowvoltageandhighcur-rent to generate enough heat to melt the snow/ice off the wires.Manitoba Hydro's manual "Ice Storm Management of Overhead Lines"indicates currents on the order of 2500 amps per phase for 30 minutes to an hour are needed to melt glaze ice. With the help of Steve Haagenson and Doug Ritter at GVEA we lookedatinstallingatransformeratStevenstoallowenergizingthe |,/, MORYDEN &B_QMQUE,ENC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6426 Homer Drive,Anchorage,AK 99518 Mailing Address:P.O.BOX 111008,ANCHORAGE,AK 99511-1008 February 9,1996 (907)349-6653 *FAX 522-2534¥Fecersel Bf ra/be Mr.Jim Hall both appr tetINTERTIEOPERATINGCOMMITTEEaa)De .c/o Matanuska Electric Assn.,Inc.Ce CU yt 'eo P.O.Box 2929 ;PA , Palmer,Alaska 99645 Po,SD,Wo te Oc hoy Reference:Anchorage -Fairbanks Intertie Options for Mitigating the Effects of Unbalanced Snow Loads lor.Teaxhr,to foth.%Preliminary Cost Estimates ;AG-*C offr otrre_.Pe f WV This letter is to update you and the committee on our progres rvK Achwiththecostestimatesformitigatingtheeffectsofunbalanced' snow loads.We have completed,but still need to review and check the estimates.The estimate for ice/snow melting is our best guess of the range at this point (see the discussion below). Ball Park Cost Estimates Table 1 shows our ball park estimated costs for construction of the different alternatives.The costs are for construction only and do not include the costs of engineering,permitting,construc- tion management,inspection,owners overhead and administrative costs,ete.The cost for improvements is for the line section from Douglas Substation near Willow to Chunilna Creek,a distance of about 52 miles. Table 1 Ball Park Cost Estimates (Construction Only) Line Monitoring {4 locations)§$440,000 Line Monitoring (23 locations)1,300,000 Convert to Inverted V's 3,300,000 ; Inset Prop Structures 7,100,000 -F436 ,5 Hf a 8G fa Ice Melting §,000,000 to 10,000,000+? e>Inset H-frames 17,000,000 €22>0427,Ye Pros and Cons Line Monitoring -inclinometers and load cells would be installed on the insulator strings of either 4 or 23 towers to monitor theweightofsnowbuildupandinsulatorswing.The instruments wouldcommunicateviacellularphone.The instruments could be interro-gated to look at conditions during certain windows when the phoneispoweredup.They would also call in to sound an alarm when theinsulatorswingexceedsapresetlevel. Transmission,Distribution,Substations,System Planning Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Appendix D:Snow Load Mitigation Cost Estimates Dryden &LaRue Letter of February 9,1996 Rev.10/8/2002 15 Caswell Lokes Road-Douglas Substation Trees Trimmed 70-71 e@ Sunshine\, 4;V2"0,64 B4 Fault 12/25/90 i 'illow |'0 mi intermittent :Wrapped Conductor -_|L-------=-_Snow Removed =Intarmittant Spons, Wropped Cond.97-96 wrepged Gene Shield Wire Arma Twisted -------_--+ or Wrapped Conductor 5 3 10 SCALE IN MILES ®Talkeetna e¢ Foult 12/23/90 urry Fault 12/25/90 Foult 1/17/90 242 Figure 1 Fault and Snow Loading Locations oPte, Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report 5.Recommend to DCED,AEAa project manager and project action plan for the project 6.Nominate a technical subcommittee provide technical assistance to the project manager. 7.Propose AIA modifications and maintenance arrangements to cover new facilities. The IOC will complete these tasks within three months of the DCED,AEA 's direction to proceed.The IOC will identify possible upgrade/extension alternatives consistent with the legislation and recommend the preferred alternative.This list of alternatives will consider solutions to underrated insulation issues,ground clearance issues,transfer capacity limitations and reactive compensation requirements.A preferred alternative will be selected based consistency with legislation,technical adequacy and a preliminary cost benefit analysis.A budgetary scope of work will be developed for the preferred alternative.This scope of work will consider overall project oversight, environmental,design oversight,project management and construction.A budgetary estimate and project schedule will be completed based on this scope of work.The action plan will recommend the preferred method of contracting for permitting,design and construction consistent with the risk and liability posture contemplated in the AIA. Rev.10/9/2002 20 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Proposed Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade/Extension Design And Construction Management Plan The Alaska Intertie is currently operated at 138 KV although various portions of the tie are insulated at voltages ranging from 115 KV to 345 KV.These varying insulation levels and their resulting clearances have caused or contributed to a number of limitations in the use,availability,capacity and reliability of the tie.The Alaska Legislature has appropriated $20.3 M to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska Energy Authority (DCED,AEA)"to upgrade and extend the Anchorage toFairbankspowertransmissionIntertietotheTeelandsubstation.” Intertie modifications and additions,of this nature,are contemplated under section 7.4 ofthecurrentAlaskaIntertieAgreement(AIA),dated December 1985.?As a practical application of section 7.4,of the AIA,the Intertie Operating Committee (IOC)requests that DCED,AEA,direct the IOC to perform the following: 1.Develop a short list of potential upgrade/extension alternatives consistent with the legislation. 2.Recommend preferred and minority opinion alternatives and estimate of costs for these in item 3,and submit to DCED,AEA prior to initiating step 3. 3.Develop a scope,schedule and budgetary estimate for the alternative selected by DCED,AEA. 4.Ifthe selected alternative exceeds appropriation amount,develop a recommendation to cover the shortfall. 2 Page 132 SB 2006:"The sum of $20,300,000 is appropriated from the Railbelt energy fund (A.S.37.05.520)to the Department of Community and Economic Development,Alaska Energy Authority,to upgrade and extend the Anchorage to Fairbanks power transmission intertie to the Teeland substation.” 3 Section 7.4 Modifications and Additions to the Intertle 7.4.1 Modifications and additions to the Intertie shall be designed and constructed so as not to reduce the Intertie reliability,subject to Prudent Utility Practice and reasonable economics.Design for such modifications shall be submitted to the Operating Committee for review and comment.The comments of the Operating Committee shall be incorporated into the design of the modifications and additions as they relate to the operation and reliability of the Intertie. 7.4.2 APA shall have the right to make additions,deletions or changes to the Intertie including taps to the line to provide electrical services at locations which it deems beneficial and reasonable.Costs related to modifications or additions covered by this Section 7.4.2 will not be charged to the Participants as a cost of Intertie use unless such modifications are of direct benefit to the Participants as determined in advance by the Operating Committee. 7.4.3 Participants shall have the right to request additions,deletions or changes to the Intertle.The request shall be in writing to APA with justification for the addition deletion or change.APA will not unreasonably withhold making such additions,deletions or changes.Any modification shall be at the expense of the requesting Particlpant (s)unless such modification is of direct benefit to other or all Participants as determined in advance by the Operating Committee in which case the Operating Committee Shall determine how the Utility Participants will share the cost. 7.4.4 APA shall give reasonable notice to all Participants before making any modification as provided herein. Rev.10/9/2002 19 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Altematives Report Appendix E:Technical Subcommittee Members Rev.10/8/2002 16 Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report ANCHORAGE -FAIRBANKS INTERTIE UPGRADE loc -TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE UTILITY MEMBER PHONE AIDEA COPOULOS,ART 269-3029 AEA REICHE,KARL 269-3017 AML&P KIECH,MIKE 263-5235 AML&P HEMBREE,LARRY 263-5243 AML&P HALL,DOUG GVEA DEVRIES,TIM 451-5669 GVEA RITTER,DOUG 451-5658 GVEA WRIGHT,MIKE 451-5679 MEA DRAKE,BOB 761-9283 MEA MORGAN,RAY 761-9318 HEA STEAD,DON 235-3336 HEA YERKES,MIKE 240-0667 CEA SLIMAN,LUKE 762-7602 CEA GROPP,DORA 762-4626 Rev,[0/8/2002 CELL 440-9477 232-5204 232-7536 229-7095 17 FAX 269-3044 269-3044 451-5638 451-5618 762-4617 E-MAIL acopoulos@aidea.org kreiche@aidea.org kiechMM@ci.anchorage.ak.us hembreeLJ@ci.anchorage.ak.us HallDW@d.anchorage.ak.us trdevries@aqvea.com dr@qvea.COM mjw@gvea.COM Redrake@matanuska.com info@matanuska.com Attn.:Morgan dstead@homerelectric.com mylesc@gci.net luke_sliman@chugachelectric.com dora_gropp@chugachelectric.com Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie Upgrade Alternatives Report Appendix F:1OC Upgrade Plan (July 2002) Rev.10/8/2002 18 Ron Miller From:Karl Reiche . Sent:Monday,October 06,2003 8:55 AM To:Brian Bjorkquist;Ron Miller Ce:P.E.Delbert LaRue (dlarue@drydenlarue.com);Bernie Smith Subject:FW:Comments on the Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study We have received two sets of comments to date:the e-mail from GVEA (below);and a letter from CEA (will scan &forward). -----Original Message----- From:Steve Haagenson [mailto:shh@gvea.CoOM]oa Sent:Wednesday,October 01,2003 11:31 AM To:kreiche@aidea.org;Ron Miller Cc:Shauna Howell;Mike J.Wright;Cheryl K.Swift;Henri F.Dale;Tim R.DeVries Subject:Comments on the Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study Golden Valley has completed its review of the Alaska Intertie Upgrade Study.The study conducted by Dryden &LaRue,Land Field Services and Travis/Peterson Environmental Consultants provides a very thorough analysis and evaluation of the available routes for construction of a 230 kV transmission line between Teeland Substation in Wasilla to Douglas Substation in Willow.The evaluation criteria are consistent with public concerns on recent projects and address the routing issues from a number of agency perspectives. We agree with the Study conclusion that the routes parallel to the existing MEA route or an upgrade of the existing MEA line are the best options.We also agree that either of these routes will have a major impact during construction as the intertie transfers will be disrupted during construction.It may be possible to schedule portions of the work to minimize impacts of the reduced intertie transfers. We are very interested in AIDEA's thoughts on the next steps to move this project towards completion. We understand there are several issues that may shift the schedule,such as federal land ownership that could drive a federal environmental review.On the other hand,if the entire route is on State or private land,it may be possible to conduct a Best Interest Finding to obtain public input on the most preferential route.It has taken about a year since the Legislature and Governor passed the appropriation to get this route study completed,and as the existing wheeling agreement expires on July 1,2004,we are interested in a schedule that will minimize disruption of the transfers across the Alaska Intertie between Fairbanks and Anchorage.It is anticipated that the right-of-way acquisition may take a concerted effort and possible condemnations.Has a project manager been assigned to this project and will the AIDEA staff be making a recommendation to the Board on a route and proposing a schedule,scope of work and cost estimate for this important transmission infrastructure project? Please let us know if there is anything that Golden Valley can do to expedite this project. Steven Haagenson President &CEO Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc. (907)458-5866 shhegvea.gom CHUC.POWERING ALASKA'S FUTURE D)|GE (WE )October 1,2003 \CT &&OCT @ 8 2003 on AIDEA/AEA Brine X Mr.Karl Reiche Beme $-- AIDEA 7 5aie -813 W.Northern Lights Blvd.(2el : Anchorage,AK 99503-6690 =IZ {2 - Subject:Alaska Intertie Upgrade between Teeland and Douglas Dryden and LaRue Study,Draft,September 2003 Dear Mr.Reiche: This letter offers Chugach Electric Assoc.,Inc.(Chugach's)comments to Dryden and LaRue's draft study.The study investigates five alternatives for the Alaska Intertie upgrade and recommends pursuing two options associated with the existing Matanuska Electric Assoc.,Inc.(MEA)line (build a new line parallel and rebuild existing).Alternatives following the existing Alaska Railroad,the Parks Highway,or a new transmission route ("Cross Country”)were also investigated.The selection of the study corridor was apparently based on the resulting overall length of the new line.New railroad/road corridors being studied are not included here. Cost estimates for construction,permitting,and ROW acquisition support the recommendation.All cost estimates range between $12 million to $15 million for construction and permitting/easement acquisition.The study does not include costs forsystemdisruptionoracquiringrightstoMEA's line that would have to be added to rebuiltalternatives.;' While it is not specifically mentioned,we assume that the investigations did not encounter a"fatal flaw”?for any of the altematives.It appears however,that the Alaska RailroadCorridorroutewasnottreatedasfullyastheotherswhichmayhavebeenbasedonthejudgmentofthemagnitudeofintangibleimpactsandROW/permit complications.eStrategically,it may |bé advisable to keep the "Cross Country”alternative for furtherinvestigationssinceitwouldprovideanalternatetransmissioncorridor.The selection of the study area does,however,force this alternative into a relatively narrow corridor and places italmostnexttotheexistinglineinmanysections. There are other points that should be considered.First,it will be important to determine howmuchtheoverallcostswouldincreaseiftheMEA-rebuilt option were chosen;and second,it may also be beneficial to use sections from the main alternatives investigated for a combination route.Has such an option been contemplated? > 4 Chugach Electric Association,Inc. 5601 Minnesota Drive,BO.Box 196300,Anchorage,Alaska 99519-6300 ©(907}563-7494 Fax (907)562-0027 ©(800)478-7494 www.chugochelectric.com ©info@chugachelectric.com Mr.Karl Rieche,AIDEA October 1,2003 Page2 Chugach basically agrees with the recommendations but,since not all aspects of the recommended alternative(s)are investigated,a decision should be postponed until costs for service disruption and acquisition of MEA's rights can be fully assessed. Sincerely, Lee D.Thibert,Sr.Vice-President Power Delivery a[2eafto Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement Songls (Legend ©City A Proposed Communication Tower eam Proposed Rail Alternatives qummeme Mac East Terminal Reserve Area qe Mac West Terminal Reserve Area -+-ARRC Mainline sortene Iditarod Trail mma Highway ===Major Road Road ry Water Body L ro Refuge and Recreation Areas "EAV-wiLLow!Ns oe 4 &' POIN MACKE AGRICUL PROUE eae 8 Mac West 7 peOem0}:bie ee geenWi ae)af 7.3f W Holtywoo. :Knik Arm :Of *Cook Inlet 2 10 Miles}tae Figure 2-2.Alternatives Considered for the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Proposed Action and Alternatives March 2010 2-13 "s Landuse Legend (ES state -airrort [Ea STATE -DEPT OF FISH &GAME DERE state -DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WMMBB STATE -DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ECS stare-OTHER EExd soroucH MRE crv Electrical LegendMMMcooreraTiVE=gig takeFaFeverar--CEA[=MENTAL HEALTH ==souston wre NA ---Shared HE native corp -willow pS!NO DATA £___.PRIVATE [3 Puetic university GEREE taxio mismatcH I™LENAPLELEtttit Anchorage Municipal Light &]_'er Point MacKenzie to Douglas Transmission Line-Methodology 5/4/2010 General --All electronic files saved at:P:\anchorage_municipal_light_and_power\douglas_teeland\right-of-way\route_study. --The 4 alternative routes (Willow,Houston,Big Lake,CEA)are identified on the PDF document "mat-su-2-updated (1)". --"Mac E/W"portion is shared by Willow,Houston,&Big Lake routes and runs from (a)Point MacKenzie to (b)where the Big Lake route splits off in T15N,R4W,Section 5. --"Conn 3"portion is shared by Willow &Houston routes and runs from (a)the end of the Mac E/W portion to (b)where the Willow &Houston routes split off in T16N,R5W,Section 23. --"Big Lake to Houston”portion is shared by Big Lake &CEA routes and runs from (a)where the Big Lake and CEA routes meet in T17N,R3W,Section 11 to (b)where the Big Lake &CEA routes meet the Houston route in T18N,R4W,Section 25. --"Houston to Willow”portion is shared by Houston,Big Lake,&CEA routes and runs from (a)the end of the Big Lake to Houston portion to (b)Douglas substation. Number of Parcelsby Owner --Ownership classifications are City,Iditarod,Mental Health,Mat-Su Borough,Native Corp.,Private,State-DNR, State-DOT,State-other,and University. - Use the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Public Lands Viewer to verify the ownership classification of each parcel that each alternative route passes through,runs along,or may impact. Approximate Miles --Print out the PDF document "mat-su-2-updated (1)"and use a scale to determine the approximate mileage of each route.To scale the map,assume that the length of each side of a township section equals 1 mile. Visual Impact Points --Use the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Public Lands Viewer to identify privately-owned parcels within 1,000 feet of proposed routes. --Include only privately-owned parcels that are assigned a "Building Appraisal"or "Building Assessed"value. --Privately-owned agricultural lands of Mac E/W portion not included. --Each identified parcel that is 40 acres or larger is considered one "visual impact area". --If multiple smaller (less than 40 acres)identified parcels are located within an area less than 40 acres,all such parcels shall be grouped into one "visual impact area”. --Assign "visual impact points"to each "visual impact area"according to the following scale: --Within 100 feet of route (high visual impact)=5 points --Within 500 feet of route (moderate visual impact)=3 points --Within 1,000 feet of route (low visual impact)=1 point Number of Land Use Permits --Types of land use permits are Iditarod crossing,Rail (existing)Crossing,Road Crossing,Road (existing)ROW, Water (lake)crossing,Water (stream)crossing,Rail (proposed)Crossing,and Road (future)ROW. --Use the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Public Lands Viewer to identify the existing and potential future physical features that each alternative route passes through,runs along,or may impact. --Look at the PDF document "mat-su_assessing_data_gis_map(2)"to determine Rail (proposed)Crossings.The proposed rail lines are identified by the bold colored lines on this map. € Anchorage Municipal Light &Power Point MacKenzie to Douglas Transmission Line-Summary of Alternative Routes 5/4/2010 Route 1 (Willow)-Mac E/W,Conn 3,&Willow portions Route 2 (Houston)-Mac E/W,Conn 3,Houston,&Houston to Willow portions Route 3 (Big Lake)-Mac E/W,Big Lake,Big Lake to Houston,&Houston to Willow portions Route 4 (CEA)-CEA,Big Lake to Houston,&Houston to Willow portions Estimated Number of Parcels by Owner,Mileage per Route,and Visual Impact Points Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Owner Classification (Willow)(Houston)(Big Lake)(CEA) City:0 0 3 3 Iditarod:0 0 2 1 Mental Health:5 12 4 3 MSB (Mat-Su Borough):35 -37 M1 30 Native Corp.:4 5 10 11 Private:60 47 94 88 State-DNR:29 5 4 4 State-DOT:2 1 1 0 State-other:13 22 13 22 University:19}2 2 4 TOTAL PARCELS:148 131 174 163 APPROXIMATE MILES:45 43 46 43 VISUAL IMPACT POINTS:87 72 169 168 Estimated Number of Land Use Permits per Route Existing physical features Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Type of Permit (Willow)(Houston)(Big Lake)(CEA) Iditarod crossing:1 0 2 1 Rail (existing)crossing:1 1 1 1 Road crossing:9 9 15 18 Road (existing)ROW:1 1 1 2 Water (lake)crossing:3 5 2 2 Water (stream)crossing:22 19 24 27 TOTAL PERMITS:37 35 45 51 Potential future physical features Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Type of Permit (Willow)(Houston)(Big Lake)(CEA) Rail (proposed)crossing:15 9 9 2 Road (future)ROW:2 1 4 Q TOTAL PERMITS:17 10 10 2 Anchorage Municipal Light &Power Point MacKenzie to Douglas Tra Map Number Meridian Twn.Range Section 477 478 479 480 481 482 Line-Houst LEGAL DESCRIPTION SM 18N 4W 23 SM 18N 4W 24 SM 18N 4W 14 SM 18N 4W 13 SM 48N 4W 13 SM 18N 4W 13 SM 18N 4W 13 SM 18N 4W 11 INTENTIONALLY DELETED SM 18N 4W 12 SM 18N 4W 12 SM 18N 4W 12 SM 18N 4W 12 SM 18N 4W 11 SM 18N 4W 12 SM 18N 4W 2 SM 18N 4W 4 SM 18N 4W 2 SM 18N 4W 2 SM 18N 4W i SM 19N 4W 36 SM 19N 4W 35 SM 19N 4W 35 SM 19N 4W 35 SM 19N 4W 26 SM 19N 4W 26 SM 19N 4W 27 SM 19N 4W 22 SM 19N 4W 21 SM 19N 4W 21 SM 19N 4W 16 SM 19N 4W 16 SM 19N 4W 9 SM 19N 4W 8 SM 19N 4W 8 SM 19N 4W 8 SM 19N 4W 5 SM 19N 4W 4 Legal Description Lot A1 No information provided. No information provided. No information provided. No information provided. Lot 85 Lot 84 Lot D6 Lot C13 Lot C9 Lot C10 No information provided. Lot A2 Lot Bt Lot C5 Lot C1 Lot A3 Lot A2 Lot A1 No information provided. No information provided. Lot A4 Lot A3 No information provided. Lot A1 Lot A1 Lot A1 Lot A2 Lot B4 Lot B2 Lot D3 Lot A1 WILLOW BRK EST Lot A& Lot A10 Lot D6 Lot C5 to Willow Portion Owner Classification State-ONR State-other State-other State-other State-other Private Private Private Private Private Private State-other Private Private Private Private MSB MSB MSB State-other State-other Private Private State-other MSB MSB MS8 MSB Private use Private MSB Private Private Private MSB Private 5/4/2010 Property Address N/A NWA N/A N/A N/A 22558 W.Parks Hwy. 22500 W.Parks Hwy. 7008 N.Aw-Saw Ln. 6897 N.Aw-Saw Ln. 7053 N.Aw-Saw Ln. 7083 N.Aw-Saw Ln. N/A N/A NA NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A 22206 W.Tuxedo Ave. N/A N/A NIA 23033 W.Snowbird Ln. 23205 W.Douglas Dr. OWNER INFORMATION Current Owner State of Alaska Dept.of Natural Resources Division of Lands No information provided. No information provided. No information provided. No information provided. Dale &Heather A.Smith,David P.&Wendy A.Williams. Dale &Heather A.Smith,David P.&Wendy A.Williams Wood W.Vernon &P A Fam TR Wood W Vernon Tre Wood PE Nelope A Tre Susanne Dillon Heidi Ruh Jenkins Heidi Ruh Jenkins No information provided. Charles W.Harter Barrett GM Dickason O E G&C Kaupp JA & SE Strong JB&S Barelka Joann K Tre Barelka Joann K Rev Tr Barelka Joann K Tre Bareika Joann K Rev Tr Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough No information provided. No information provided. Robert E.&Penny i.Aibright Roger Evan Blouch,Kip Emil Kackman,& Kyle Robert Kackman No information provided. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough Matanuska-Susitna Borough Thos A.Lapp Matanuska-Susitna Borough Scott A.&Karis D.Johannes Matanuska-Susitna Borough Landak Anthony DO.&Kerri Jackson Mark S.&Stephen T.Read 15469 N.Willow Station Matanuska-Susitna Borough 23714 W.Willow Fishho.Gordon &Karen Romriell Address 550 W.7th Ave.,Suite 1050A PMB 264 1830 E.Parks Hwy.,Suite 113A PMB 264 1830 E.Parks Hwy.,Suite 113A P.O.Box 512 P.O.Box 870994 P.O.Box 171 P.O.Box 171 P.O.Box 904 5886 Big Bend Loop 36460 Chester Rd. 36460 Chester Rd. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. HC 36 Box 2894S 7221 Ticonderoga Pi. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 1215 Oxford Dr. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 2547 E.Julia May Rd. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. P.O.Box 870877 8640 Muir Ct. 101 Ranch House Rd. 350 E.Dahlia Ave. 29731 N.Glenn Hwy. City Anchorage Wasilla Wasilla Kasilof Wasilla Willow Willow Willow Anchorage Avon Avon Palmer Palmer Palmer Wasilla Anchorage Paimer Paimer Palmer Palmer Anchorage Palmer Wasilla Palmer Wasilla Anchorage Wimberley Palmer Sutton State AK AK AK Zip 99501-3579 99654-7377 99654-7377 99610-0512 99687-0994 99688-0171 99688-0171 99688-0904 99502-4503 44011 44011 99645-6488 99645-6488 99645-6488 99654 99502 99645 99645 99645-6488 99645-6488 99503-6939 99645-6488 99654 99645 99687-0877 99504 78676 99645-6488 99674 Map NameiNo. LS08 LS08 LSo1 LSo1 Lso1 Lsot LSot LSo1 LSo1 LSo1 LSo1 LSo1 LSo1 LSso1 Lso1 LSo1 LSot LSo1 Lso1 WIié Wit6 wité wité Wwit6 Wii6 Wi6 Wwité Wiis Wis WHO witd0 WHO Wid Wid Wwitd Wid Wid Tax Lot Number Borough 18N04W23A001 18N04W13B005 18N04W13B004 18N04W11D006 18N04W12C013 18N04W12C009 18NO04W12C010 18N04W11A002 18N04W 128001 18N04W02C005 18N04W01C001 18NO4W02A003 18N04W02A002 48N04W01A001 TONO4W35A004 19NO4W35A003 19N04W26A001 18N04W27A001 19N04W22A001 19NO04W21A002 19N04W21B004 19NO4W 168002 19N04W16D003 19NO4WO9A001 6414B07L004 19NO4WO8A008 19NO04WO08A010 19NO04W05D006 19N04W04C005 MSB MSB MSB MSB MS8 MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MsB MSsB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB MSB Zoning PARCEL INFORMATION Assessed 2010 Land Appraised 2010Land Assessed 2010 Impr.Size 505.30 12.60 12.20 97.90 18.49 §.50 35.00 40.00 40.00 235.00 80.00 120.00 40.00 560.00 40.00 120.00 320.00 240.00 640.00 240.00 39.96 320.00 39.70 640.00 3.02 80.00 65.00 125.00 136.12 Appraisal $136,000 $15,800 $22,900 $118,900 $49,900 $9,500 $37,800 $37,600 $48,000 $122,800 $72,000 $81,000 $51,200 $176,400 $21,600 $69,000 $576,000 $600,000 $256,000 $140,800 $55,900 $160,000 $62,900 $640,000 $15,100 $81,000 $65,800 $143,800 $71,500 Value/SF $0.01 #DIVA! #DIV/0! #DIV/O! #DIV/0! $0.03 $0.04 $0.03 $0.06 $0.04 $0.02 #DIV/0! $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 #ONI0! #DIV/0! $0.01 $0.01 #DIV/O! $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.01 $0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.02 $0.11 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 Assessment Value/SF Appraisal Assessment $0 $15,800 $22,900 $118,900 $49.900 $9,500 $37,800 $37,600 $48,000 $122,800 $21,600 $69,000 $0 $15,100 $81,000 $65,800 $0 $71,500 $0.00 a0Iviol #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/O! $0.03 $0.04 $0.03 $0.06 $0.04 $0.02 #DIVA! $0.02 $0.03 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.03 $0.00 #DIV/O! #DIV/O! $0.01 $0.01 #00! $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 $0.00 $0.04 $0.00 $0.11 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 $0.01 $0 $0 $254,600 $22,200 $119,600 $0 $41,100 $100 $0 $26,900 2010 Impr. $0 $0 $254,600 $22,200 $119,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,100 $100 $0 $26,900 Comments Water (stream)crossing (1) Water (stream)crossing (2) Water (stream)crossing (1) Water (stream)crossing (2) Rail (existing)crossing (1) Water (stream)crossing (3) Water (stream)crossing (3) Rail (existing)crossing {1} Rail (existing)crassing (1) Road crossing (1}-W.Parks Hwy. Road crossing (2)-N.Aw-Saw Ln. Water (stream)crossing (4) Road crossing (1}-W.Parks Hwy. Water (stream)crossing (4) Road crossing (2}-N.Aw-Saw Ln. Water (stream)crossing (5) Water (stream)crossing (6) Water (stream)crossing (7) Water (stream)crossing (8) Road crossing (3)W.Tuxedo St. Water (stream)crossing (9) Water (stream)crossing (9) a Anchorage Municipal Light &Power Point MacKenzie to Douglas Transmission Line-Summary of Alternative Routes 5/4/2010 Mac East/West Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification #of Parcels City:0 Iditarod:0 Mental Health:3 MSB (Mat-Su Borough):8 Native Corp.:1 Private:13 State-DNR:1 State-DOT:0 State-other:0 University:ie} Total:26 Approximate miles:11 Visual impact points:0 Willow Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification #of Parcels City:0 Iditarod:0 Mental Health:2 MSB (Mat-Su Borough):19 Native Corp.:a Private:39 State-DNR:28 State-DOT:2 State-other:12 University:0 Total:103 Approximate miles:28 Visual impact points:67 Big Lake Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification #of Parcels PERMITTING Type of Permit #of Permits Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total: PERMITTING Type of Permit NOOhOOIow#of Permits Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total: PERMITTING Type of Permit 35 #of Permits Conn 3 Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification #of Parcels City: Iditarod: Mental Heaith: MSB (Mat-Su Borough): Native Corp.: Private: State-DNR: State-DOT: State-other: University: Total: Approximate miles: Visual impact points: Houston Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification IORAOOCWMANWOOO=ico)nNoo#of Parcels City: Iditarod: Mental Health: MSB (Mat-Su Borough): Native Corp.: Private: State-DNR: State-DOT: State-other: University: Total: Approximate miles: Visual impact points: CEA Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification -_aAaa©IOWAWOOD-OOO=on#of Parcels PERMITTING Type of Permit #of Permits Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total: PERMITTING Type of Permit NN?-oOOolos10 #of Permits Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total: PERMITTING Type of Permit OwWwoooI>13 #of Permits City: Iditarod: Mental Health: MSB (Mat-Su Borough): Native Corp.: Private: State-DNR: State-DOT: State-other: University: Total: Approximate miles: Visual impact points:_rnWhy]OMANO-AN=©Ooo-=ooBig Lake to Houston Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification #of Parcels City: Iditarod: Mental Health: MSB (Mat-Su Borough): Native Corp.: Private: State-DNR: State-DOT: State-other: University: Total: Approximate miles: Visual impact points:-_IOWONQOANOONwo=NOOo©Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total: PERMITTING Type of Permit o-OMDONMlam21 #of Permits Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total:NPPNOOOlo=12 City:1 Iditarod:1 Mental Health:3 MSB (Mat-Su Borough):15 Native Corp.:7 Private:55 State-DNR:1 State-DOT:0 State-other:11 University:1 Total:95 Approximate miles:24 Visual impact points:98 Houston to Willow Portion OWNERSHIP Owner Classification #of Parcels City:0 Iditarod:0 Mental Health:0 MSB (Mat-Su Borough):10 Native Corp.:0 Private:18 State-DNR:1 State-DOT:0 State-other:8 University:[¢) Total:37 Approximate miles:11 Visual impact points:42 Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total: PERMITTING Type of Permit lo=28 #of Permits Iditarod crossing: Rail (existing)crossing: Road crossing: Road (existing)ROW: Water (lake)crossing: Water (stream)crossing: Rail (proposed)crossing: Road (future)ROW: Total:oOoow-olo©13 MEP MUNICIPAL LIGHT &POWER December 15,2009 Jim Strandberg,P.E., Project Manager Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage,AK 99503 Subject:Douglas Substation Relay Protection Upgrade P-09-102,M10134 (2009) Dear Mr.Jim Strandberg, As per the request from Alaska Intertie Operating Committees,IOC Reliablility and Protection Subcommittee asked ML&P to replace existing transmission relays between Douglas Substation and Healy Substation with new SEL relays. This project requires changing out existing SEL-121 relays and old mechanical relays with new SEL 311L and 421 relays.This will include 1)_Initial Site Visit 2)Procurement of the SEL relays and materials 3)Convert some old drawings into AutoCAD drawings 4)Modify existing control &relaying schematics and create new wiring diagrams 5)Field Work 6)Programming relays 7)-Testing and commission of relays 8)Create As-built/Record of Drawings for this upgrade It is my understanding that this project is budgeted for $220,000.My preliminary estimate shows the above amount is sufficient enough to complete the project.ML&P will bill all of the expenses associated with this project quarterly starting from March 2010.If the project requires more funding due to unforeseen circumstances or change in the project scope,ML&P will stop the project,notify you,and obtain your agreement on the new amount prior to exceeding the budget. 1200 East First Avenue e Anchorage,Alaska e 99501-1685 Phone 907.279.7671 «Fax 907.263.5804 www.mlandp.com If you are in agreement with the above matters,please sign this letter and return the signed original letter to ML&P.If we do not hear from you within 45 days,ML&P will assume that you have cancelled the project. Concurrence: Sincerely, ae Signature Date Aung Thuya Substation &Planning ML&P Engineering Printed Name Cc:Doug Hall,ML&P Dispatch Virginia Ruggles,ML&P Finance Victor Yep,ML&P Engineering Dan Bishop,GVEA Gary Khun,MEA Luke Sliman,CEA Shellie Helton,AEA aSra Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. 3305 Arctic Blvd.,Suite 102 Anchorage,AK 99503 FEBRUARY 2009anehaiOTe2.cre os NEWSLETTER OF THE KNIK-WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT (TEELAND-DOUGLAS TRANSMISSION LINE UPGRADE) WWW.DRYDENLARUE.COM/07-0263 EBEIVE yJamesStrandbergMAR03zat Railbelt Electrical Grid Auth.Study 813 W.Northern Lights Blvd.AIDEAAnchorage,AK 99503 -E 7 INSIDE:PROJECT TEAM CONSIDERSTheProjectTeamgreatlyappreciatedtheopportunitytointroducetheKnik-Willow Transmission Line project to the public.People in attendance raised relevant issues ne Involvement in 2 A N E XPA N D E D S C O P E regarding the Project.The Team Jooks forward to phe same participatio jn the future.SHOESpeFET RTS Hidabbodh Dovasaddavedadsfoed Maasbsasdovelbedb bas Continuing Public ALASKA INTERTIE :'.,:Involvement 2 TO FAIRBANKSInadditiontothemeetings,open house,and hearings described in the previous - E pages,written comments can be submitted through the project website or to either:Formal Public Hearing 3 WILLOW DOUGLASComments'|BSTATIONWereontheWeb!Michael D.Travis,P.E.Del LaRue,P.E.Upcoming Public éoe,Public Involvement Coordinator Project Engineer Involvement 3 i Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc.Dryden and LaRue,Inc.é 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 102 3305 Arctic Boulevard,Suite 204 Project Contacts 4 / Anchorage,AK 99503 Anchorage,AK 99503 é Phone:(907)522-4337 Phone:(907)349-6653 James Strandberg 1 ... 7 :TEELANDProjectupdateswillbeFax:(907)522-4313 Fax:(907)552-2534 Project Manager r SUBSTATION .;Email:mtravis@tpeci.com E-Mail:dlarue@drydenlarue.com |available on the project Alaska Energy Authority PROPOSED KNIK .WILL OW/L AKE LORRAINEtwebsitea TRANSMISSION LINE wuw.drydenlarne.com|/07-0263 Doug Hall .ROUTE UNDETERMINED ;tProjectManagerorthroughtheAEAi Municipal Light &Power |website at ' .Awwyw.akenergyauthority.org ,'% under the Teeland Douglas Intertie Upgrade Project. Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc.Syl nttadRhac,Sune. CONSUITING tNEINTERHN Lou Agi Project Administrator Municipal Light &Power Del LaRue Engineering Consultant Dryden &LaRue,Inc. Michael Travis Public Involvement Coordinator Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. ..t PROPOSED LAKE we.TO ANCHORAGE &LORRAINE SUBSTATION (CEA/ML&P LINES) TO BELUGA POINT MACKENZIE TO ANCHORAGE The Knik-Willow Transmission Line project area. for the Alaska Intertie.The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)requested that the Project Team expand the scope of the project to investigate constructing a 230 kilovolt (kV)circuit from the Lake Lorraine area near Point Mackenzie to Willow rather than from Knik to Willow. The Knik-Willow Transmission Line Pro- ject Team prepared this newsletter to provide a status update on the project. The project initially involved building approximately 25 miles of new electrical! transmission line between the Teeland (Knik)and Douglas (Willow)substations Page 2 FEBRUARY 2009 NEWSLETTER of the KNIK-WILLOW TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT Page 3 The X-style tower proposed in Alternative 1 TYPICAL The tall tower proposed in Alternative 2 PSR al A i ii H it fo |aod it eo oeiHHEYi pes||ee)it at %ij 7)if ul i | ben. m TYPICAL This expansion will also require a new switchyard near Lake Lorraine,about three miles northwest of the new Point MacKenzie port. This configuration would increase the reliability of the entire electric grid,de- crease the chance of a system-wide blackout and could provide power to the Matanuska Valley and Interior Alaska. This will allow Matanuska Electric Asso- ciation (MEA)to reclaim their 20-mile segment of the existing system,which the State of Alaska currently uses to move power between Southcentral Alaska and the Interior.The team is still evaluating possible alignments for the line.Regardless of the route,the re- vised design will be about 45 miles long. EXPANDED SCOPE Under the expanded project scope,two existing 230 kV transmission lines from the Point Mackenzie Substation and one existing 230 kV line from Anchor- age would serve the new Lake Lorraine Substation.With the completion of the new lines,the Lake Lorraine Substation would become a hub for the Railbelt grid,connecting Chugach Electric Asso- ciation and Municipal Light and Power lines with lines serving MEA and the Alaska Intertie.In addition to signifi- cantly strengthening this critical link in the Railbelt electrical system,the new hub could also be used to serve sur- rounding areas. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN 2008 In 2008,the Project Team held scoping meetings with public officials and com- munity stakeholders,attended commu- nity council and city council meetings, and held open house forums on the original Knik-Willow project.The pur- pose of the meetings was to understand and address community concerns with the project.Each session began with the Project Team presenting the nature and history of the Intertie and the 2004 routing study which generated the initial series of potential routes.Twelve meet- ings and open houses were conducted as part of the first Public Involvement Plan the Project Team filed with the Ma- tanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB)Plan- ning Department.The last meeting was a formal public hearing held on August 6th,2008 at the Wasilla Sports Com- plex,and was devoted to receiving for- mal public testimony addressing the project routing choices. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING The route proposed at the August 6, 2008 formal public hearing featured new transmission lines constructed along the existing MEA corridor.Within that route,the Project Team presented two alternatives.The first would con- struct a set of parallel lines running through an enlarged right-of-way.This alternative featured new X-style towers and would also require additional right- of-way.The second alternative would construct taller poles which could hold two sets of lines and would reduce the required right-of-way. in general,public comments opposed parallel sets of lines and recommended taller poles which could support two sets of lines.Comments noted that two sets of lines would not be aesthetically pleasing,recommended that construc- tion impacts be reclaimed,and empha- sized maintaining recreational opportunities within the corridor.Public comments also supported slowing the process to ensure that the project was constructed in the public's best interest, but also to keep project delays and infla- tion in mind.MEA expressed its opposi- tion to the project. The Houston/Willow Resolution sup- ported a single-pole design and acknowl- edged that Alaskan communities need to tolerate growth and accommodate the needs of neighboring communities,so long as that growth included respect for the impacts on all communities involved. The Resolution also acknowledged many other points,and is available in its en- tirety on the project website. A resident of the West Sunset subdivi- sion stated that people live in the area because they value a pristine environ- ment and that the double-pole configu- ration would impact that pristine char- acter.The resident also noted that the new poles could create a safety hazard in a recreational area,and that he pre- ferred a route along the Parks Highway. A complete transcript of the formal pub- lic hearing is available on the project website. UPCOMING PUBLIC In the coming year,the Project Team will attend community council meetings to describe changes in the project,discuss the expanded scope,address questions and concerns about the new routing analysis,and gather further input from the community.The new routing analy- sis will include the area between the Douglas Substation and the proposed Lake Lorraine Substation.The Team will hold at least one additional open house in the project area. The Team will update the stakeholder contact list based on prior interest and participation in the project.The team expects to omit some stakeholders and to include some new ones.The final stakeholder list will be included in the decisional document following the public review process. The Project Team will hold another for- mal public hearing.The hearing will be held in the location judged most conven- ient to the greatest number of partici- pants.The hearing will be advertised in local newspapers,public postings in af- fected communities,and public service announcements or advertisements on local radio stations.The Project Team intends to notify all stakeholders,com- INVOLVEMENT munity councils,MSB assembly repre- sentatives,and property owners within 600 feet of the preferred project corridor at least 15 days ahead of time by mail, fax,or email. In addition to increasing public involve- ment opportunities,the Team has devel- oped this newsletter to explain the changes in project scope.The newslet- ter is distributed to all property owners along the existing MEA route and the Lake Lorraine area. Following the next phase of the publicinvolvementprocess,the Project Team will use the information gathered from the public meetings and hearing to se- lect a route and a design. At the conclusion of the public review process,the Project Team will present a decisional document containing a formal recommendation to the AEA on the final routing selection and line design for the new portion of the Intertie.The new routing study should be complete in 2009. To submit written comments on the proposedproject,visit the project website or write to one of the points of contact listed on the back page.