Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study October 1987
a ae Alaskaa Power Authoritya_Soe of Wasseo. SOUTHEASTALASKATRANSMISSION1INTERTIESTUDY. "Prepared By HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY,ian_OCTOBER 1987 -re ;. 'ee To 4 i)- i we . j . o }'a p) a . byt ..+ . hat lie vot ' . : :+t ” '. .. ..:.os . ,.5 coe sy . *. ':ols ,Coot ..,ue :uo . Le .had yoy oe .et oF foe aean.we "a j .i oy :"Pe a . . ad . .Weg we :my .. \ .te "oan....oo ."" ... ..' .2 \. | a . . .Stee,.wes : a -7 .:op +a,. 5 .r .no 1 .. :.. j . :7 :woe .rt :cr 0 ::.ve nos .'.:4 ' ...: . . . -.:. .. tts 'sowed : ' . ' .a . ..rs koe .so.,a +a .i 'a ."y .cof ., t 'ot .aan . .,:: . .:TO es 1 te a . +.oot :a wot .wo Lo :roy LT mar ,yr .Vea wey oy :s . .; -,4 .wo '_x . .' : ?.oe . .* : .oar '- . ::Pos mo .='ea .Tote *Tob:lt : :wey ... . .+>. :..Fe -'rae an os n, ...:.a .mt Fy . : 7 a Soy .wo,.eet : We '.+wo an :'ue .as .c .:mo :mote .me a a .:'aa :et z ':uo eee "we :.,Se . . .".. '",. od .,atte .B . ... . . ".'' v4 .e Sot .' .: ..:. fos :nye arn i pone,.eo fee eye Mo 5 as . . :.rot x .. .7 ... ot :'.-. . . 7 1 .sat . : ce I oh . . .°bey 5 .a .s ny .>A .7 . a 'D ..ct an . :"os tee ry .Loe ..a . .. .i . .mo . :. 'los «ne wey .Maye yoy ',wey woe .roa i ,,-an : 4 +4 -. *... ;.ye . .j .sy .. woe ts an e .. a?ae Pp .de hye tas eons ee Le ".a tg . - . _-rs .ve bere ' . . -vaya Dep Ay eee .co Pag tay >7 .. . . ..woatle a):rn es oe .:rs . . . . .lea -'-- .4 we .''bee ge oe ".:..-: :* , ,my, . aan i rr .eo ;<Lo .:' tas :* :' a :.ely 'Moy ..veg . -,a + "os .pty ye ta a x oo,.:ns .1 . 5 st :, .:oo.'.. - .'y °o ad '. . 3 .wo mo oo fos te :.nn oo .a .'.. 5 ::oe ° Looe i yo .a i.. a ;.et . : ,vps :cow .1 : .soe e : . . . :rn i sole an . \ :.1 ...e .*DF ' ."Cte :'poy "ooo :. .toy :vin . tet .. .:° .¥ ...wet EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After reviewing demographic and economic criteria provided by thePowerAuthority,and the physical and hydrometerological condi-tions of the study area,Harza concludes that a transmission system interconnecting many of the Southeast Alaska communities is technically and economically feasible. Based on the planning criteria used to guide this study the mosteconomicdevelopmentwouldincludenewtransmissionlinksbetween (1)Snettisham and Sitka via Juneau,Green's Creek Mine,Hoonah and Tenakee Springs;(2)Petersburg,Wrangell and Ketchikan via a Tyee Lake-Swan Lake intertie;and (3)the Quartz Hill Mine and B.C.Hydro at Kitsault,British Columbia.The total estimated construction cost of these three interconnections is $153 million at the January 1987 price level.Pertinent data for the three interconnections are given in Table l. The proposed transmission links of Snettisham to Sitka and Tyee-Swan Lake appear to be the most economical utilization of the surplus generation available from the Tyee and Snettisham/Crater Lake hydroelectric developments and warrant implementationregardlessofthestatusoftheQuartzHillMine. 'Scope of Services The investigations described herein were performed for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company,in accordance with the terms of Contract No.APA-86-R-O1l1.The purpose of the studies was to define the proposed Southeast Intertie Project,a transmission interconnection of Southeast Alaska's major electric load centers and hydro generation sources.Harza's studies establish guidelines for the implementation of particular segments of the transmission system in the near term,such that they would be compatible with ultimate system development.Consideration was also given to importing power and energy from the Northern Canada Power Commission (now called the Yukon Development Corporation) and/or B.C.Hydro. In order to accomplish this assignment,many tasks were performed. System studies of various intertie schemes were conducted toestablishtheappropriatevoltagelevelsfortherequiredoverhead lines and submarine cables.Route selection studies for the required transmission lines were performed.These included cost comparisons and assessment of environmental impacts of alternative routes.Bathymetric surveys of potential submarine cable cross- ings were performed on numerous routes.Preliminary submarinecableandoverheadtransmissionlineengineeringstudiesweremade to select appropriate cables and overhead line structures andconductors.Finally,economic analyses of individual transmission line segments and numerous intertie systems were performed to prioritize the most feasible segments which warrant detailed investigation. Interconnections Considered The contract scope of services originally included consideration of the following transmission line interconnections: l.Skagway -Whitehorse (U.S.portion only) 2.Skagway -Haines -Juneau 3.Juneau -Green's Creek Mine 4.Green's Creek -Hoonah 5.Juneau/Snettisham -Kake 6.Kake -Petersburg 7.Kake -Sitka 8.Tyee Lake Project -Swan Lake Project 9.Ketchikan -Prince of Wales Island (Kasaan Peninsula) 10.Ketchikan -Quartz Hill ll.Quartz Hill -Kitsault,B.C.(U.S.portion only) In response to public and agency concerns identified during meetings conducted in S.E.Alaska in January 1987,the study scope was expanded to include consideration of the following additionalinterconnections: 1.Hoonah -Tenakee Springs 2.Tenakee Springs -Angoon 3.Tenakee Springs -Sitka 4.Tyee Lake Project -Ketchikan (via Cleveland Peninsula) 5.Tyee Lake Project -Prince of Wales Island (via Cleveland Peninsula) 6.Ketchikan -Metlakatla 7.Quartz Hill -Prince Rupert,B.C. A draft of this report was completed in May 1987 and circulated among numerous interested agencies,and public and private entities.The resulting comments,along with the review comments received from the Power Authority staff,have been,to the extent possible,incorporated into this final report. Systems Studies Power system studies were performed assuming that Quartz Hill would be part of the overall system demand.These studies indicate that a transmission grid for the region should be predominantly a 138 kV AC system with direct current transmission for long submarine cable segments.The proposed system would utilize the existing Snettisham-Juneau,Tyee -Wrangell-Petersburg and Swan Lake-Ketchikan transmission lines at their present design voltage levels. Route Selection Route (corridor)selection studies were performed for 10 overlandtransmissionlinesegments.The selection process included mapstudies,assessment of available environmental information and cost comparisons among the route alternatives.This activity wasperformedinconsultationwiththeU.S.Forest Service and other public and private entities and resource agencies.In addition to the overland surveys,bathymetric surveys of 10 potentialsubmarinecablecrossinglocationswereperformedbyHardingLawsonAssociates.The surveys were completed during the periodOctober12throughOctober21,1986.These investigations focused on locating underwater routes that would be technically andeconomicallyfeasibletodevelopbasedoncurrenttechnologyandonbottomgeometry,composition and prevailing tides and currents. Input to the route selection studies regarding the regulatory andenvironmental/socio/cultural aspects of the routes was provided by P.E.I.Consultants,Inc.and Northern Archaeological Consultants. Engineering Studies Preliminary engineering studies for the submarine cables were performed by Pirelli Cable Corporation.Their assignment was to select an appropriate submarine cable design for each crossing and to prepare preliminary cost estimates for the manufacture and installation of cables. Preliminary engineering studies for the overhead transmission lines were performed by Harza.The studies included line struc- ture selection,sag calculations,and conductor and insulator selection for the various AC and DC overhead lines.Cost estimates were prepared for the various lines.The most feasible overhead structure was found to be a 138 kV AC wood H-frame system with an average span length of 700 feet.The most feasible underwater cables for those segments that are longer than 25 miles in length were found to be direct current lines.Substation requirements at each line termination were assessed and cost estimates were prepared for the necessary equipment and site development. Economic Analysis Analyses of the various transmission line segments and numeroustransmissionsystemalternativesconsideredwereperformedintwo steps.The first step,an economic screening,compared theconstructioncostofeachintertielinktothevalueofthepotentialdisplaceddieselfuel.This was performed by comparingthenetpresentworthlifecyclecostsoftheintendedtransmis--- sion link with that of the existing diesel system.Because,fromaregionalstandpoint,the sunk cost of existing hydroelectricdevelopmentsandtransmissionanddistributionsystemswouldbe the same for all economic cases considered,these costs were excluded from both the screening analysis and the subsequentdetailedanalysesoftheselectedtransmissionsystems.Therefore,in both analyses,the cost of power from existingAlaskanhydroelectricplantswasassumedtobe$0.00 per kWh for all cases analyzed.The analyses were conducted using PowerAuthoritycriteriafordiscountrates,energy demand,and fuelcosts.The planning horizon for the study spanned 20 years.The transmission links that were found to be marginal or better on anindividualbasiswerethenincludedaspartoftheoverall detailed system study.Various expansion scenarios were then tested against a base case that included no new transmission lines. Findings Following is a brief summary of some of the major findings fromthestudy: l.The optimum system voltage for the Southeast Intertie System should be 138 kV.Direct Current (DC)transmission should be utilized for submarine cable segments exceeding 25 miles in length and also for other segments where it has demonstrated technical advantages versus AC transmission.Figure l depicts the lengths,optimum voltages and transmission type for the individual links of the overall system. 2.Comparison of the year 2006 load forecast with the generation capability of the region's existing hydroelectric generation facilities (including Crater Lake phase of Snettisham), reveals that without the Quartz Hill mine,the total forecast load peak and energy demand for the major load centers is less than the developed hydro capability.Without Quartz Hill,importation of energy from Canada is not appropriate during this 20 year planning horizon.Conversely,with Quartz Hill,the region's load demand exceeds its developed hydro generation capability. 3.The most economic plan investigated involves implementation, during the 20 year planning horizon,of portions of what could ultimately become a truly region-wide system.The selected transmission segments (Figure 2)would interconnecttheSnettisham/Crater Lake complex via Thane substation with Juneau,Green's Creek Mine,Hoonah,Tenakee Springs and Sitka at 69 kV,and would also implement a 138 kV interconnection of Tyee and Swan Lake hydroelectric projects to intertieKetchikan,Petersburg and Wrangell.With these segments in place by 2006,nearly all (96%)of the surplus generation available from Tyee and Snettisham/Crater Lake would be utilized.The Quartz Hill project would be independently connected to B.C.Hydro.The cost of this plan is anestimated$153 million (January 1987 price level)and itsBenefit/Cost ratio is 1.26.Without the Quartz Hill line andload,the cost of the plan would be $112 million and the B/C ratio would be 1.11.The Expansion Plan B subsystems wouldbecompatiblewithlongtermexpansiontoPrinceofWales Island,Metlakatla,Angoon,Kake,Skagway or Haines at such time as the load demand in those communities growssufficientlytojustifyinterconnection.The Plan B sub- systems are also compatible with a future interconnection of the Snettisham and Tyee Projects via Snettisham,Kake and Petersburg. If Quartz Hill receives no power from B.C.Hydro and mustotherwisedependonon-site diesel generation,there would be economic advantage to providing a portion of that demand fromexistingsurplushydropowerinSoutheastAlaska.The cost of constructing the necessary transmission facilities is estimated to be $167 million in present day dollars.Figure 3 depicts the elements that would be constructed and the costs of those segments.The Benefit/Cost ratio for this planis1.21. The Benefit/Cost ratio associated with interconnecting QuartzHilltoB.C.Hydro with no other tie into the Alaska trans- mission system is 1.47.The cost of constructing the trans- mission line to Kitsault,Canada is estimated to be $41.3 million for the United States portion of the lines.Costs associated with the Canadian portion of the lines would be included in the wheeling price of power. Recommendations 1.A detailed feasibility study of the proposed 69 kV intercon- nection of Alaska Electric Light &Power's system on Douglas Island with Green's Creek Mine should be undertaken.The study should include a preliminary route survey,an assess- ment of foundation conditions along the proposed route,an environmental assessment,a detailed financial analysis including input from AEL&P,the Alaska Power Administration and Green's Creek Mining Company,and preparation of a definite project report.Consideration may be given to designing the line for 69 kV (to facilitate its future extension to Sitka)but operating it initially at 34.5 kV. Because the submarine cable survey conducted in 1986 indicated a feasible route,no additional submarine surveys appear to be necessary to support the detailed feasibility study of this interconnection. A detailed feasibility study of the Tyee-Swan Lake intercon- nection should be undertaken.The study should include apreliminaryroutesurvey,an assessment of foundation condi- tions along the proposed route,an environmental assessment, detailed financial analysis and the preparation of a definite project report. 3.Additional preliminary studies are required to establish the route for the Green's Creek-Sitka transmission segment.Studies performed should include comparisons of various alternative routes between the load centers,assessment of the potential environmental impacts of alternative routes and subsequent verification of proposed submarine cable crossingsbyside-scan sonar survey.These studies should be followed by detailed feasibility studies of the selected route including financial analysis. 4.Further assessment should be conducted on the transmission interconnection between Ketchikan and Metlakatla.An inter- connection could allow Metlakatla's diesel generators to be put into cold reserve.Detailed investigations will allow for a more definitive route assessment and refined cost estimate. 5.Future studies of individual segments should include detailed environmental studies to support final route selection, assess environmental impacts and satisfy regulatory requirements of the permitting agencies. Conclusions A level of transmission interconnection in Southeast Alaska appears prudent.Energy surpluses available from the existing Tyee Lake and Snettisham/Crater Lake projects can be utilized economically to satisfy forecast load demands in load centers not presently interconnected to these projects.As a minimum,inter- connections of Juneau'and the Green's Creek Mine,in the near term,and the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake projects,in the mid-term, appear wise.Expansion of the Snettisham/Crater Lake system to Sitka or to the Quartz Hill Mine has also been shown to be economically feasible.Interconnection of Quartz Hill to Canadian generation is very attractive from an economic standpoint. Interconnection Juneau-Greens Creek Greens Creek-Hoonah Tenakee Springs-Sitka Tyee Lake-Swan Lake Quartz Hil1-B.C. Table 1 Most Economic Plan -Pertinent Data 2/January 1987 price level.3/U.S.facilities only.Assumed commencement of mining activities. Initial Length _Year of EstimatedVoltageOverheadCableTotalOperationCost kV mi.mi.mi.$xX 1000 69 23.2 5.2 28.4 1990 19,690 69 95.3 24.0 119.3 2003 63,070 138 .49.9 0.6 50.5 2002 29,100 100p¢c 24.5 1.1 25.62'19952/41,2902/ FIGURE 1 *\WHITEHORSE SKAGWAY sO,N HAINES "oN. BOKV HOONAH 27.7 GREENS CREEK % Qa °SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON SITKA PETERSBURG KAKE 46.7 ° TYEE LAKE 100KV DCPRINCE LEGEND:.OF WALES BIPOLAR ISLAND ©-Load centers 7 ) CE)-GENERATION SOURCES ee exes -EXISTING T/LINE PROPOSED T/LINE 13.LENGTH,MILES METLAKATLA25.6(U.S.ONLY)KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY LENGTHS AND VOLTAGES OF ROUTES LHOARZA enaineenina Company .ocToses 19e7 FIGURE 2 N HAINES @ 69KV 5 JUNEAUHOONAH$23.44 GREENS : CREEK SNETTISHAM- GRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS @ ancoon SITKA re |PETERSBURG KAKE : % WRANGELL 7.A& TYEE LAKE @ PRINCE RLEGEND:OF WALES < ©-Load centers rs)owen , C)-GENERATION SOURCES SGK eames -EXISTING T/LINE ETCHIKAN o0KV DC (BIPOLAR)SS(2) <==-PROPOSED T/LINE re]QUARTZ138KV_VOLTAGE METLAKATLA $473$COST(MILLIONS)7 KITSAULT bIAR ZA enaineenins Company . GN SKAGWAY @ iw O .WHITEHORSE- C u § CCTOBER 1987 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN B FIGURE 3 ™,WHITEHORSE™-OSKAGWAY°o ™ean,/ot 40,N HAINES @ 'oN. om HoonaH ©GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ancoon sitka @ PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL TYEE LAKE PRINCE LEGEND:OF NSS©-Loaocenters °owen / ©-GENERATION SOURCES SE ees =EXISTING T/LINE KETCHIKAN =(2) ==-PROPOSED T/LINE ro)QUART J 138KV _VOLTAGE METLAKATLA /O s COST(MILLIONS)KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN C L14RZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .OCTOBER 1987 .:: : , . L ,, va t ne ' ai : - ..-' :f | | | tds ' . oo, a :) af a .. ..''.- .. &".'' * vi ae : ol :ee ° id : : Es ,' ae ; ; ' Ld : .| . ad . , .. 1 + ,; .. :'i . LZ . :. ) ii : .a . ', .; ?°° t '; "ad a .1 .oe - we ',| .': ! - 1 o i.i : :..,' ' aes | U . ; ,';':-.n 4 : uF . | + 'f%' :: woe 7 .4 wo 4 : :° | i ;=-: x , ." TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Executive Summary Table of Contents 1.Introduction Authorization Purpose and Scope of Report Study Approach Background and Previous Studies General Existing and Forecast Load Demand Existing and Potential Generation Sources Previous Studies Acknowledgements 2.Power System Planning Introduction System Planning Criteria System Reliability Criteria Power System Studies Power System Alternatives Plan I -Basic Intertie Plan Plan II Overland North of Juneau Plan III -AC to Sitka,West Route Plan IV -Radial to Angoon Plan V - Cleveland Peninsula Other Radial Lines AC Versus DC Transmission Application of HVDC to S.E.Intertie System HVDC Costs and Developments Study Results Energy Losses i-NNNNNot(64mMNIRA)--hoNNNMNNMNNH{DANWUW&|o lNbae|anN TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter 3.Submarine Cable Design Considerations and Cost Estimates Submarine Cable Surveys Selection of Final Cable Routes Submarine Cable Designs Submarine Cable Installation Submarine Cable Reliability Submarine Cable Costs 4.Overhead Transmission Line Design and Cost Estimates General Climatic Conditions Structure Foundations 138 kV AC Overhead Lines Conductors Insulators Line Structures Wood H-Frame Structure Steel H-Frame Structure Single Steel Pole Structure 138 kV Line Structure Cost Comparison 69 kV Overhead Lines Conductors and Insulators Line Structures DC Overhead Lines Conductors Insulators Vertical Clearance ROW Width &Minimum Clearing Requirements Estimated Construction Cost for Overhead Transmission Lines -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter 5.Substation Design Considerations Introduction AC Stations DC Converter/Inverter Stations Local Loads and Voltages Substation Costs Communications 6.Segment Route Selection Approach Identify Study Segments Route Selection Objectives Evaluation Criteria Physical Constraints Biological Constraints Social Cultual Constraints Costs Alternative Route Identification Data Collection and Agency Consultation Alternative Comparison and Selection Segment Segment Segment segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment Segment WMmMNAHNDUWNo©©©©©@@:oooqcoco°oSkagway to Whitehorse Skagway-Haines-Juneau Juneau to Green's Creek Snettisham to Kake Petersburg-Kake Kake to Sitka Tyee Lake-Swan Lake Ketchikan to Prince of Wales Island Swan Lake to Quartz Hill Quartz Hill to B.C. Ketchikan to Metlakatla Green's Creek-Hoonah- Tenakee-Sitka and Angoon Cleveland Peninsula Quartz Hill to Prince Rupert,B.C. -iii-HDDAVANAHAOWNDOee«©©©©28i-oeosoreeost5owodododoAOoWwOwAIHNUWD-l bodoO TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter 7.Economic Evaluation of Intertie Alternatives Introduction Description of Alternative Plans Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V Criteria for Economic Planning Horizon Discount Rates Economic Lives Load Forecasts Diesel Installed Costs Base Case Southeast Alaska Connections Power Supplied by N.C.P.C. Power Supplied by B.C.Hydro Power Supplied by Both B.C.Hydro and N.C.P.C. Evaluation Capacity and Retirements Diesel Fuel Prices O&M Costs Investment Costs Hydro Energy Costs Methodology Screening Method Results of the Screening Northern System Central System Southern System Total S.E.Alaska Interconnection Power Supplied by N.C.P.C. Power Supplied from B.C.Hydro Power Supplied from Both N.C.P.C. and B.C.Hydro Summary -iv- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter 7.(cont'd) Detailed Analysis General Energy Allocation Procedures Results of the Economic Analyses Base Case Expansion Plan Intertie Expansion Plan Intertie Expansion Plan Intertie Expansion Plan Intertie Expansion Plan Summary of Results OQWYSensitivity Analyses Sensitivity to Discount Rate Sensitivity to Fuel Price Forecast Sensitivity to Electric Load Demand Forecast Sensitivity to On-line Date 8.The Recommended Plan Description Costs Implementation Required Permits Bibliography -VvV- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) List of Tables Title Page 1985 Population and Load Demand for Selected Communities 1-6 High Electric Load Demand Forecast 1-7 Medium Electric Load Demand Forecast 1-7 Low Electric Load Deamnd Forecast 1-7 Estimated Load Demand for S.E.Alaskan Mining Developments 1-8 Existing Hydroelectric Projects 1-9 Potential Hydroelectric Projects 1-10 Load Forecast Used for Power Systems Studies 2-4 Submarine Cable Routes Selected for Survey 3-1 Summary of Submarine Cable Surveys 3-3 Cable Designs Recommended by Pirelli Cable Corporation 3-5 Insulation Dielectric Losses for Typical138kVAC240MM"Submarine Cable 3-6 Submarine Cable Costs for Surveyed Routes 3-7 Interpolated Cost Estimates for Submarine Cable Routes Not Surveyed 3-8 Assumed Climatic Conditions for Overhead Transmission Lines 4-2 138 kV AC Insulator Assembly Characteristics 4-3 Porcelain Vs.Polymer Insulators for 138 kV AC Construction 4-4 Sag Calculations for 138 kV AC Overhead Lines 4-4 -vi- top)5_I_meRSHOOTUBWwDYNy-OoDNANNNAHAAARAAVAAAOStTABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) List of Tables Title Page Line Structure Costs 4-6 Overhead Transmission Line Basic Construction Per Mile Costs 4-11 Overhead Transmission Lines,Per Mile Con- struction Costs in Rock and Muskeg Foundation Areas 4-11 Estimated Clearing Costs for Various Transmis- sion Line Configurations 4-11 Load Center Transmission/Distribution Voltage and Design Peak Load 5-3 Evaluation Criteria for Route Comparison 6-3 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 1 6.1-3 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 2 6.2-7 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 3 6.3-2 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 5 6.5-2 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 6 6.6-4 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 7 6.7-3 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 8 6 .8-3 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 9 6.9-2 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 10 6.10-4 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 11 6.11-2 Alternative Comparison Summary,Segment 12 6.12-2 List of Alternative Systems Considered 7-3 Major Economic Criteria 7-8 Diesel Installed Capacity and Retirement Schedule 7-9 System Hydro Generation Sources 7-10 Oil and Diesel Full Price Forecasts 7-11 -vii- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) List of Tables Title Page Diesel Costs 7-12 Hydroelectric Project Data 7-14 Transmission Line Investment Costs 7-15 Screening Analysis,Energy Allocation and Costs 7-17 Screening Analysis Results,Medium Load Forecast 7-18 Estimated Communication System Costs 7-22 Summary of Annual System Losses for Expansion Plans A,B,C and D 7-22 Energy Allocation,Year 2006 -Expansion Plan C 7-24 Base Case Expansion Plan,Present Worth Summary 7-25 Intertie Expansion Plan A,Summary of Economic Analysis Results 7-26 Intertie Expansion Plan B,Summary of Economic Analysis Results 7-27 Intertie Expansion Plan C,Summary of Economic Analysis Results 7-27 Intertie Expansion Plan D,Summary of Econimic Analysis Results 7-29 Results of the Sensitivity Analyses 7-31 Line Terminations 8-1 Most Economic Plan -Summary Cost Estimate 8-1 Principal Permits That May Be Required 8-4 -viii- Z[e)1&Whw-_--3-t1NPNmhwmwyDy-2OwO THUPWhoOTABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) List of Figures Title General Map Existing Transmission Lines Existing Hydroelectric Plants Potential Hydroelectric Plants Plan I -Basic Intertie Plan Plan II -Overland North of Juneau Plan III -AC to Sitka,West Route Plan IV -Radial to Angoon Plan V -Cleveland Peninsula Plan I -System Plan II -System Plan III -System Plan IV System Plan V -System Surveyed Submarine Cable Routes 138 kV AC Wood H-Frame Tangent Structure 138 kV AC Steel H-Frame Tangent Structure 138 kV AC Steel Pole Tangent Structure 69 kV AC Wood Pole Tangent Structure Monopolar 100 kV DC Wood Pole Tangent Structure Minimum Clearing Diagram 138 kV Structure Typical 138 kV AC Main Line Substation Typical Radial Line Substation, Converter Station Main Components Typical Bipolar Converter Station Segment Designations Route Alternatives,Segment 1,Skagway- Whiterhorse Route Alternatives,Segment 2,Skagway- Haines-Juneau Route Alternatives,Segment 2,Skagway- Haines-Juneau Route Alternatives,Sgement 3,Douglas Island-Green's Creek Route Alternatives,Segment 5,Snettisham- Kake -ix- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) List of Figures Title Route Alternatives,Segment 6,Petersburg-Kake Route Alternatives,Segment 7,Kake-Sitka Route Alternatives,Segment 8,Tyee-Swan Lake Route Alternatives,Segment 9,Ketchikan- Prince of Wales Island Route Alternatives,Segment 10,Swan Lake- Quartz Hill -B.C. Route Alternatives,Segment 11,Quartz Hil1l-B.c Proposed Route,Segment 12,Ketchikan- Metlakatla Proposed Route,Segment 13,Tyee-Ketchikan- Prince of Wales Island Via Cleveland Peninsula Proposed Route,Segement 14,Green's Creek- Hoonah-Tenakee Springs-Angoon-Sitka Quartz Hill-Prince Rupert Submarine Calbe Routes Length of Selected Routes Geographic Sub-Systems Routing Alternatives Alternative I -Base Case Alternative II -S.E.Alaska Connections Alternative III -Power from N.C.P.C. Alternative IV -Power from B.C.Hydro Alternative V -Power from N.C.P.C.and B.C.Hydro Expansion Plan Expansion Plan Expansion Plan Expansion Plan VADYPMost Economic Plan -x7- Appendix A - Appendix B - Appendix C - Appendix D - List of Appendices Southeast Alaska Intertie Project Submarine Crossing Surveys,Skagway to Ketchikan,Alaska. Harding Lawson Associates,Novato California. December 31,1986. Pirelli Cable Corporation."Comments on Southeast Alaska Intertie Bathymetric Survey Conducted During the Period of October 13-31, 1986".Capt.Antonio Nesi,author.December 1986. and "Pirelli Report on Participation in Southeast Alaska Intertie Study",with Societa Cavi Pirelli.March 20,1987. Northern Archaeological Consultants,Inc. "Cultural Resources Along the Route of the Proposed Southeast Alaska Intertie Project", April 1986. Public and Agency Contacts Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Authorization This study was performed in accordance with the terms of Contract No.APA-86-R-011,(and its Amendment No.1)between the Alaska Power Authority and Harza Engineering Company.Funds for the study were provided by the State of Alaska. Purpose and Scope of Report As shown on Figure 1-1,there are presently,in the South-©east Alaska archipelago,many electrically isolated communities, each with its own generation facilities for electric power.For Many load centers the only generation facilities are diesel- electric generators.Others have developed hydroelectric resources to meet their load demand and in many cases have sur- plus hydroelectric capacity.Interconnection of the load cen- ters by an electric power transmission system would allow the interchange of surplus hydroelectric energy by load centers which would otherwise be dependent on fossil fuel generation. The interconnection would also allow more efficient development of Southeast Alaska's abundant hydroelectric resources and could also facilitate the utilization of surplus Canadian hydrogenera- tion by interconnection with the Northern Canada Power Commis- sion (now called the Yukon Development Corporation),through Skagway,or with B.C.Hydro to the south. Over the years,the Alaska Power Authority,the Alaska Power Administration,and others have studied the feasibility of transmission interconnections between specific generation faci- lities and one or more load centers.Three of these transmis- sion lines,which could form the backbone of a Southeast Alaska Intertie System,have already been constructed.These are the 138 kV Snettisham Project transmission line,serving the Juneau area;the 138 kV Tyee Lake Project transmission line,serving Wrangell and Petersburg;and the 115 kV Swan Lake Project trans- mission line,serving Ketchikan.See Figure 1 2.In 1985, there were 44 circuit miles of 138 kV,30 circuit miles of 115 kV and 121 circuit miles of 69 kV transmission lines in the Southeast Alaska region.Of the 44 miles of 138 kV lines,about 15 miles are submarine cable.However,as indicated by the variation in voltage levels among the existing lines,there is a need for the establishment of criteria to guide the development of future transmission line segments to insure their compatibil- ity with the proposed overall Southeast Alaska grid.The purpose of this study is to provide those required criteria. FIGURE 1-1 56o 55° 137°136?1359 1349 133°120 me 130° a i 'v Li 'Li LI8WhitehorseieaeLEGEND GULF OF ALASKA Note: Base map taken from USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW =66,1978 °1s 30 45 bhies e Load Center fe]Generation Source o---=Existing Transmission Line _Tyee Lake a )see ' Quartz wl AY>i 755° _.-_-_-oor Oizoa Entrance if 131° LIARZA excnesanc covmeany t L 137°136°134° +OCTOSER 1987 L 133° ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY | SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY GENERAL MAP FIGURE 1-2 GVE A7BASKVG-69/345 kV LOCATION MAP APA I3BKVSrert shom EXISTING TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS Scale in miles - Oo 50 100 150 200 (Map taken from Alaska Electric Power Statistics,1960-1984, Alaska Power Authority,December 1985.30PP) The scope of this study includes the following work tasks: Task No. 1. Task Description Collection and review of existing data includingtopographicmaps,bathymetric and navigation charts,aerial photographs and previous reports. Preliminary route selection to establish macro- corridors for transmission intertie segments and establishment of primary and alternate submarine cable routes to be surveyed... Underwater surveys of submarine cable routes culminating in a survey report containing bathy- metric profiles of the routes surveyed and iden- tifying potential impediments,if any,to cable installation,such as unstable sediments, obstacles,strong currents and busy navigation channels. Preliminary engineering investigations including, for submarine cable crossings,selection of cable voltage,cable type,cable installation pro- cedures and locations of cable termination points,and for overhead transmission lines, selection of not more than two routes with in the macro-corridor,selection of appropriate voltage, conductor,and structure type. Environmental investigations,including investi- gations of potential impacts,if any,on land use and cover,recreation,and visual,cultural fish- eries,terrestrial and other resources;contact and coordination with the U.S.Forest Service, other appropriate Federal and State agencies and affected local government,utility and Native corporation entities;and determinations of the required permits and authorizations required for implementation of the intertie segments. Engineering studies to determine an ultimate intertie system for Southeast Alaska,including the establishment of planning criteria and equip- ment capacity ratings considering load data,load flow and sequential implementation of the trans- mission line segments;and the preparation of cost estimates for engineering and construction of the transmission lines. 1-2 8. Economic analysis of the transmission line seg-ments,including comparison of the lines to a base case expansion plan;and priority ranking of the segments on the basis of economics,need for power in the load centers served,environmental impact and constructibility. Preparation of the study report. Originally,the study was to examine interconnection of the following: 11. Skagway -Whitehorse (U.S.portion only) Skagway -Haines -Juneau Juneau -Green's Creek Mine Green's Creek -Hoonah Juneau/Snettisham -Kake Kake -Petersburg Kake -Sitka Tyee Lake Project -Swan Lake Project Ketchikan -Prince of Wales Island (Kasaan Peninsula) Ketchikan -Quartz Hill area Quartz Hill -Kitsault,B.C.(U.S.portion only) The study was subsequently expanded to include consideration of the following interconnections: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 Hoonah -Tenakee Springs Tenakee Springs -Angoon Tenakee Springs -Sitka Tyee Lake Project -Ketchikan (via Cleveland Peninsula) Tyee Lake Project -Prince of Wales Island (via Cleveland Peninsula) 1-3 6. 7. Ketchikan -Metlakatla Quartz Hill -Prince Rupert,B.C. Study Approach The tasks described above were executed,with the assist- ance of Power Authority personnel,by Harza and its four subcon- tractors,Harding Lawson Associates (Anchorage),Northern Archaeological Consultants,Inc.(Anchorage),PEI Consultants, Inc.(Ketchikan)and Pirelli Cable Corporation (Union,New Jersey). follows: The responsibilities of the participants were as Harding Lawson Associates performed the surveys of the submarine cable routes,collected and reviewed data pertaining to the routes,participated in the pre- liminary selection of the cable crossing locations, analyzed the survey data collected and prepared the survey report which is included as Appendix A.Sub- contractors to Harding Lawson Associates in this effort were Gregco,Inc.,which furnished navigational services,and Robert D.Horchover,whose M.V.Silvia J.served as the vessel for the surveys. Northern Archaeological Consultants,Inc.performed cultural resources investigations of the proposed tranmsission line routes.The resulting report is included as Appendix B. PEI Consultants,Inc.was responsible for data collec- tion and served as the principal point of contact with the resource agencies and affected public and private entities.PEI prepared the list of required permits and authorizations presented herein and organized and participated a round of project status meetings with public,private,and agency groups throughout South- east Alaska in January,1987. Pirelli Cable Corporation performed preliminary cable engineering services including participation in the preliminary cable crossing selection,review of the survey report,cable design selection and preparation of the cost estimates for engineering,manufacture and installation of submarine cables for the surveyed routes.Pirelli also provided the services of a submarine cable installation expert as an onboard observer during the survey task. e Harza Engineering provided overall coordination and project management for the study and participated, in all of the work tasks.Specific tasks for which Harza was solely responsible included power system studies of the various intertie configurations consid- ered,establishment of the study planning criteria, review of previous reports,voltage selection,over- head transmission line and substation engineering and cost estimating,environmental assessment,economic analysis and priority ranking of the routes,and pre- paration of the study report. e Alaska Power Authority provided pertinent reports, electric load forecasts,land and land rights costs, oil price forecasts,costs of Canadian and Alaskan generation and participated in the submarine cable Surveys and the January 1987 project status presenta- tions. The study was performed in two phases.Phase 1 included Tasks 1 through 5 and culminated in the preparation of cost estimates for numerous transmission line segments and combina- tions of intertied systems and a preliminary economic screening to.eliminate those transmission line segments or systems not warranting further study.Phase 2 included Tasks 6 through 8 and involved refinement of the cost estimates for selected routes,detailed economic and sensitivity analysis,the priority ranking of the recommended individual transmission line seg- ments,and confirming power system studies. Background and Previous Studies General Southeast Alaska lies along the Pacific coast of the North American continent,generally east of the 141st meridian and south of the 60th parallel.The climate is maritime;mild and moist at the lower altitudes with warming provided by the Alaska Current.With increasing altitude the climate becomes more severe with heavy snowfalls at upper altitudes resulting in the formation of numerous glaciers and several ice fields.Precipi- tation accumulation ranges from between 60 to 200 inches peryearwithsteady,light to moderate rainfalls or snow occurring on 200 to 250 days per year. The economy of the area is based upon government services, the fishery and forest products industries and to a lesserextentonminingandtourism.While recent events and depressedmarketshavecausedadeclineinseveralimportantsectorsoftheregion's economy,there are prospects for increased activity 1-5 in the mining and tourism sectors,as well as the forest products industry.Transportation through the area is diffi- cult,depending on the Alaska Ferry System and air services. Roads systems are mainly local,in the vicinity of the region's larger communities,with the exception of the fairly extensive road network on Prince of Wales Island.Roads through Canada via Skagway,Haines or Hyder provide the only access to outside highway systems. The population of Southeast Alaska,while exhibiting a general upward trend,tends to fluctuate with the local economy, particularly on a community by community basis.Table 1-1 gives recent population figures for selected communities in the region.As shown in the table,Juneau,the State capital,has the largest population,followed by Ketchikan,Sitka,Petersburg and Wrangell. Table 1-1 1985 POPULATION AND LOAD DEMANDS FOR SELECTED COMMUNITIES Community Population Peak Demand Energy Demand (kw)(MWh) Skagway 800 1,200 4,829 Haines 1,800 1,668 8,685 Juneau 28,940 57,700 261,189 Kake 630 7,200 20,294 Sitka 8,200 14,738 105,003 Petersburg *3,250 5,000 27,547 Wrangell 2,400 3,270 13,651 Ketchikan 13,200 °25,500 108,422 Metlakatla 1,423 7,200 20,274Craig1,167 1,158 4,137Klawockl/590 411 1,741ThorneBayl/430 229 1,104Hydaburg-395 289 1,152 1/1984 Estimates from the "Black Bear Lake HydroelectricProjectFeasibilityReportUpdate".Harza Engineering Company,February 1987. 1-6 Existing and Forecast Load Demand Estimates of present and future electric load demand in Southeast Alaska were furnished by the Alaska Power Authority. In addition to population data,Table 1-1 gives peak and energy demands in selected S.E.Alaska communities. Three forecasts of future load demand were provided.As shown in Tables 1-2 through 1-4,the total forecast energy demand for 15 load centers ranges from a low of 875 GWh in year 2006 to a high of 1,496 GWh in that year,with cumulative peak load demand ranging from 182.1 MW to 320.4 MW for the same load centers.The medium load forecast for the load centers,for the year 2006 is 1,534,000 MWh and 211.2 MW. 1-7 Skaquay Haines Green's Creek Juneau Hoanah Kake Sitka Angoon Tenakee Petersburg Urangell Ketchikan Quartz Hill Prince of Vales Metlakata Skagway Haines Green's Creek Juneau Hoonah Kake Sitka Angoon Tenakee Petersburg Veanget! Ketchikan Quartz Hill Prince of Wales Metlakata Table 1-2 HIGH ELECTRIC LOAD DEMANO FORECAST ENERGY DEMAND (MWh) 1967 |1988 1969 1990 1971 1992 1973 1994 1995 1996 199?1998 1999 2006 2001 2002 2003 20048 2005 2006 wo Ut HH BEES une ue pre LESS HEE aH SEE AU RAE HRM SHUR JE JOUER RRM SE JHE $620 S650 S690 65160 9 Ash00 6 h59 65518 S78 h39 700758 B16 B7S ISK 99H SKIS L7H 70238 =74300891795035)«95155 90277)940051790636 756 295877)10000 §=10,087 §=105178 «100262 101351 10448 9100531 «105622 «10,714 §=10,806 10,900 0 0 0 26,081 26,061 26061 26,061 26,06 26,06t 265061 26,061 26,061 265061 26,061 26:06)26,061 26,061 26,061 26,061 24,061 258,700 256600 262,400 268,500 272,600 277,300 281,900 286,500 291,400 293,200 295,400 297:700 299,700 301,600 304,800 307,800 310,800 313,900 317,000 321,000 2,821 3018 3,230 3,456 3696 3,957 65236 45530 bs7t2 40900 5096 =50277 SSL 507325961 19948?70S 77K 7425327762,853 2.933 3,016 3100 35158 35217 3277 35338 3,400 35508 3612 3,723 3,637 35955 65076 4201 =330 hhh 4 60104,113 106,989 109,963 112,980 116,100 120,270 126,569 129,063 133,698 138,500 143,365 148,400 153,612 159,007 164:592 170,373 176.357 182,551 188,963 195,400 1,488 «615592 15708 =-1823)10950)2,087 =2,239)25389)2sKBS 21586 2 216BB 279525907 «=323344 3270S 3401 =3537)3678 3828 270 305 322 339 Ri)|343 376 387 403 41?431 446 462 476 495 $12 $30 54?9&8 586 27;716 30,540 31,180 31,833 32,500 33,098 33,706 34:32 34,957?35,600 34:253 36.919 37,596 38286 38989 (397,706 40,433 41,175 415931 9 42570019547619,963 20,463 20:975 21:500 21,908 22,317 22,736 23,164 23,600 26,066 265542 25,027 9 25:521 24025)«26560 27066 =275599 =285144 =28,700 1255257 139:334 154.997 1725620 191,800 203,154 215:180 227:918 241,409 255,700 262,079 268,658 275,382 2821273 289:337 276,578 304,000 311,608 319:407 327,400 0 0 0 a O 199,750 250,300 250,300 250,300 453,200 475,400 676,100 476,100 476,300 676,300 476,200 478,200 476:200 476,200 474,200 12,818 13,944 15,5177 16.529 18,011 19438 20,987 22,638 24,002 25,687 27,503 28,822 30,206 31,457 335180 34,778 36,455 38:2146 40,060 41,997 20;258 20,616 20/576 20737 920,900 921,096 921,276 =215698 =20,696 =200900 9 220277)221665.23,057 9232456 923862 2627524699 =25125 =25,558 =26000 PEAK DEMAND (kW) 1,400 1400 1,600 1,400 1,400 15419 15437 156597 15679 15500)1051010529527)1559915549 =559569)=15579 1,590):16001638067707171758180018201839148591,880 «1,900 «2,918 =15929)159868 15957)1978989 2,006 =2.019)25034 =2,050 i)0 D 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3:500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 56.600 56,200 57,600 58,700 59,700 40,700 41,800 62,800 43,5800 44,200 64:700 65:200 45,400 44,100 44,600 47,400 48,000 68,700 49,400 78,300 6%722 723 827 885 MAP 1013 10BK 127 732191268 1531910372 AZ?1684 156318051669)15736 879 698 718 139 760 1 799 813 831 850 875 900 926 953 960 =40008 =1,037 1,087 1,098 3s 1,130 16,040 165705 17,375 16,076 18600 19,574 20:379 215218 22,091 23,000 23,917 26,870 25,861 26,8972 27,964 29,079 30,238 31,443 32,697 34,000 a dal 493 928 565 604 647 692 720 748 778 827 B42 876 1 947 985 1.026 1.085 1,108 ry 7 62 B&87 92 95 99 4102 104 109 113 117 121 126 130 134 139 144 149 5.715 5833 5.959 4.075 4200 6316 6:433 8:55 6676 =BOD 9207082 716R 7293 7422005537686 78217980)8 1004077)6955)45235)85317)ADD h77 4556 4b3K TT BOD BTS ISD 5027 51055 18S 5265 55387 =5430)5524S 60D 26,052 20516 31,216 +34.167 37,400 40,25t 43,319 46,621 50975 54,000 55,530 $7102 $6,720 605303 42,073 63,852 65,5661 975521 695433 7400 0 0 0 Hy 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95.000 95,000 95,000 95,000 3,080 30360695 4069)4hBF 4761 SRG 5788 SAIL AL 730207637975)BISBAL 9108 =95518 =9950 =10,403 10,87862596:318 6378 437)S0D)=S97 h9H 79H BP?7000 =718627328 h97 7671 78698030)81216 kK =8601 =8 B00 Table 1-3 MEQIUM ELECTRIC LOAO DEMAND FORECAST ENERGY DEMAND (HUh) 1987 1988 1989 1970 1991 1992 1993 1996 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2004 PLL wie ME Haak OE 100 et ae AHH PL iy sae Ti sue PrE Hak aaa ry we ue Skagway 51369 -5:583)59723.55908)100120 hOB ABO BBD hs200 e227 259 28%1B 38H 378809 639 669 8 SD Haines 8679 «68958 9038 0119)95200259)9SNP 39779897 =9500 756B 916386 70S TPR BAA 918 =95985 «100056 §=105128 =10,200 Green's Creek 0 a 0 26.061 26,061 26.081 26,061 26,061 26.061 26,061 26,061 26,061 26,061 26,061 26,061 26,062 265061 26,041 26:061 26,081 Juneau 2645300 256,800 254,400 255,300 258:300 259,900 280,700 261:500 262,300 263,500 264,400 265,200 266,000 266,700 267,800 268,700 267,500 270,400 271:200 2725400 Hoanah 2,021 25970 9 3y827)38292)346K 3K469 3862 8S NTS 45309 AB?AS90738 B90 50875209)55978 =85489 57155,887 Kake 2.637 2.678 2718 2,759 2,800 2,839 2,878 2.918 2,959 3,000 3.067 309 3142 Ft 3,240 3,291 35342 3,376 3446 3,500 Sitka 102,580 103,861 105,158 104:471 107,600 110,081 112,411 1165790 £17219 119,700 122,110 126,568 127,075 1295633 132.283 136,905 137,421 140,371 143,217 148,100 Angoon 1488 15567 0852157371832 15930)25033)2006220210 202B2 20358 2430 2508 =2588 26712572846 2,997 =3,025)3118 Tenakee 282 289 276 304 312 319 327 334 344 353 Sal 370 380 387 397 409 419 4297 440 451 Petersburg 295527 29961 30,401 30,887 31:300 31.670 32,085 32,485 32,890 33,300 33,707 34,119 345536 34,958 935,385 35,817 9341255 «36698 =37146 =375600 Urangel |195167 19,500 19,860 205227 20,600 205858 21,010 215370 9 210634 =205900 922,178 =225452)220732 23017 =258305 925597 925892 «2h NFL «241894 =--26,B00 Ketchikan 117,268 123,446 129,969 1360774 166,000 147,885 151,874 195,971 160,177 164,500 167/085 169,630 172.255 174,920 177,626 180,375 183,166 186,000 188,878 191,800 Quartz Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 199,750 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,300 250,308 250,300 Prince of Wales °442658 12,231 12839 135477 245953 14,863 15,338 15,827 165336 16.859 17,400 175970 =18560)«190069 =195798 205449 =215122)215817 9225536 =231.280 Metiakata 20,199 20279 «=20399-20499 205600 920,719 «20,838 920,958 921,077 «=2h200 |20,518 20,840 22,06?=22,500 922,83?923551799 251526 923,879 9241237)28600 PEAK DEMAND (kW) Skaguay 1400 1.400 «91,600 «=1,400)1,400)15600)1400)15600)1800 1800 610 1819 20h2F 0 1h39 18AG SF 06bF 1587914901500 Haines :1,420 1,639 1.659 1,660 1,700 1,720 1,737 1,759 1,780 1,600 £610 1,820 1,627 1,639 1,669 1,659 1,869 1,680 1,890 1,900 . Ereen's Creek a 0 Oo 3,500 3,500 3,500 3:500 3,500 3,500 3.500 3:500 3,500 3500 3:500 3508 3500 3,500 3.500 3,500 3,500 Juneau 57,900 56200 55,700 55,900 58,500 54,900 57,100 97,200 57,900 $7,700 57,800 $8,100 $8:200 58,500 56.400 56,800 57,900 57,200 59,400 $9,400 Hoonah 68?721 758 796 636 678 922 968 998 =15029 1,060)15093)82710062 1097 852380272350)4391 Kake 660 670 680 670 700 710 720 730 760 750 760 771 781 192 803 B14 825 83?848 840 Sitka 15,777 16.421 16473 16833 17,200 17,637 18,088 185585 19,017 19,500 19,950 20.411 20,882 21,364 21,857 22,362 22.878 23,407 235947 24,500 Angaon 440 42 485 sid $35 542 570 620 639 658 678 679 720 742 Tbh 787 Bll 834 Bat 887 Tenakee 7 3 %71 7 81 B3 85 87 87 92 bf)%9 401 104 106 109 112 114 Petersburg 55597 5.695 5,795 5,89 6000 6.059 4:118 6178 6.239 6300 6385 6471 94:55?94666 73S B26 POND 7104 =75200 Uransell 30977 6055)135207 300453394379 OIF ASP SOD S48 41596 b6S 4 b9K TKS 4796 BAA 487649485000 Ketchikan 75,003 26.489 28,066 29,732 3tS00 32,4600 33,739 34,918 36,138 37,400 36,021 38653 39,275 39,948 940,612 41,287 410973)42,670 43,377 445100 Quartz Hill 0 0 0 0 0 i}0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50.000 50,000 50,000 Prince af Vales 2,830 3,001 3,186 35382 35596 3,826 3,925 4:026 bsi3l =43238389 hb'SBF Set 45837)45970 510555244 5387 5538 Met lakata 6400 6400 6,400 6.400 6,400 64579 6,518 6578 6.637 6,700 6837 6976 F119 97266 41275637718 7875 B36 =8 200 Skagway Haines Green's Creek Juneau Hoonah Kake Sitka Angoon Tenakee Petersburg Wrangell Ketchikan Quartz Hill Prince of Wales Met lakata Skagway Haines Green's Creek Juneau Hoonah Kake Sitka Angoon Tenakee Petersburg Urange!| Ketchikan Quartz Hill Prince of Wales Metlakata Table 1-4 LOW ELECTRIC LOAD DEMAND FORECAST ENERGY DEMAND (MWh) 19867 1988 1989 1990 1971 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2008 2008 oi 8 Log |HE RERE Rene RRNE eet CES eae htt HERE Lot eS KHER REE RRR RHEE REE Lite HREM 5:23?50279-50319 53387)S400 =55252)S108 =968832800 4 0D P00 70D 700 4 70D 4700 4700S 4700 »3=7200S 4,7006.760 «68.777 «=6819 BSD 8900 9002S 6900 0S 8700 |S 8900 2S 8900S 6 9t0)=920 930 8050)760)=970s 980)=-s «990s 9,008 0 0 BD 26:061 26,061 26,061 26,061 26.061 26,061 265061 26:061 26,081 26061 26,061 26:06 26,061 26,061 26,061 26:041 24,061 264,300 256,800 253,100 250,400 250,100 250,500 251,100 251,400 252,200 253,000 253,200 253,400 253,500 253,600 253,800 253,900 254,000 254,100 254,300 254,800 2.621 25706 «=.20993,3083)3175)35270)03368 =3K46P 3537 610 =368297559831 907)235985)6S 4 1h6 41229 NG OD 2,600 2:600 2,600 2,600 2.400 2400 2,600 2,800 2:600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,400 2,600 2:600 2,400 25600 2,600 2,400 2,400 101,231 100,948 100,765 100;582 100,400 101,032 101,468 102,308 102:952 103,400 1045099 108,600 105,108 105,611 106:119 106.631 107,144 197,460 108,179 108,700 1466 15533 £5579 15626 te67S 10725777?BBP e9OK 942 598L 2021 20S =20102 28hR 25187 =2523120275 2 321 27 280 -282 285 288 271 276 2a 300 303 304 310 313 318 319 322 325 32?332 335 29:236 «=29,476 29,716 =79,958 30,200 930,397 9305598 «=308798 =30997)200 3038S SPL 758 310967?=32136 =325326 =325518 932,711 =32,905 +33,100 17,957 170336 165737)16:59 155600 915,600 15,600 15:600 15,600 15,4600 15,600 15,4600 15,400 15,608 15,400 15,600 15,600 15,5400 15,400 15,400 113,707 (1175330 1205067 126,922 128,900 130,671 132.468 1365285 136,150 238,000 139-358 140,730 162,015 143,516 1445926 166,353 147,793 149,248 150,717 152,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i)0 0 O 199,750 250,309 2505300 250,300 2505300 250:300 250,300 10,697 105973)11256 1856 UL BSE 125067 12648 120757 135073 15,598 15731 14 OSE 185379)17S =15,059 15.611 15,772 16161 16,519 =14,90620,020 20,080 20,0602 20,080 20,100 205120 20,160 20,160 20,180 20200 206240 20:277 20,317 205357 20.397 +«20,437 920,479 9205519 20,560 20,400 PEAK DEMANO (kW) 1,600 =«1,5600 16001800 1k00 06338 2PL2t 1S6 5100010001800)2B t00)=1,100)1,200)01,100)1,100)1,100 39s 1,100 3=1,100 1,620 «15637 «15657 =68D)15700)15700)1,700)15700)15700)1,700)te 700)1,700)15700)45700)15700)1,700)3S 1700)15700 39 1,700)11,700 0 q 0 3,500 3,500 3500 3,500 3500 3,500 3500 3500 3500 3,500 3,500 3500 3:500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 57,900 54:200 55,400 56,800 54.800 54,900 55,000 55,000 55,200 55,400 55,400 55,400 55,500 55,400 55,6009 55,600 55;700 55,700 55,700 55800 875 895 716 738 760 783 804 830 847 844 681 879 WN?935 956 973 9920 «1012 =1,832 1,059 640 640 640 640 680 640 40 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 840 640 640.ba 155511 15,583 15655 155727 15,800 15,918 16,037 £65157 16278 16,600 9160497 86595)16,678 «16793 16893)16993175098 =17195):17,297 17,4600 aii bad 37 71 485 500 515 $30 541 551 $62 574 585 $7?609 621 633 646 659 672 70 7h 2 22 73 74 ik)re)%7 78 79 79 80 81 82 83 83 64 85 5,557 S418 $678 5.7379 5.800 5,820 5840.5,860 5,680 5,900 56939 5.5978 6017?6057 6:09?6137 9 bs17?218 =259 30037%=469235592,3695 3,600 3,400 360036003600 3400 =3400400 3k00 34003400 3400 23400 093800)3,400 =3,40026,155 25,041 25,960 26,913 27,900 28,327 28,760 27,200 27:667 30,100 30,433 30,770 31110 31.454 31,802 32,156 32.509 32,867 33,232 33,4600 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 q 0 0 0 Q $0,000 $0,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Sa,000 2667 25520 925575 925632,2,689 =20789 20B1225B7B 2596230103077 3146 3218 =328393553428 =35023578 =3658 3,738612016064018020020020020020020022023925927929919=39 SF =380 =40 Table 1-5 shows estimated load demand of two mining developments in Southeast Alaska.As shown on the table,the Green's Creek Mine,on Admiralty Island,is estimated to have a peak demand of 3.5 MW and an energy demand of 26,060 MWh for a 20 year duration beginning in 1990.The Quartz Hill Mine, located east of Ketchkian,is assumed to have a peak demand of 50 MW and an energy demand of 199,750 MWh beginning in 1995 increasing to 250,000 MWh by 1996. Table 1-5 ESTIMATED LOAD DEMAND FOR S.E.ALASKAN MINING DEVELOPMENT Average Estimated Mine Peak Demand Annual Energy Project Life (kW)(MWh)(years) Green's Creek Mine 3,500 26,060 20 Quartz Hill Mine 50,000 250,000 50 Existing and Potential Generation Sources Southeast Alaska has abundant potential hydroelectric resources.Table 1-6 lists the major existing projects and gives their installed capacity and estimated average annual energy output.As shown-on the table,the total existing hydro- electric generating capacity in Southeast Alaska is 173.6 MW; the total average annual energy output of the projects is 794,290 MWh.Figure 1-3 shows the locations of the existing hydroelectric plants. Many potential hydrolectric developments have been studied. Table 1-7 lists several projects which continue to be givenseriousconsiderationandshowstheestimatedinstalledcapacity and projected average annual energy output of each.Figure 1-4 shows the location of these projects. 1-8 FIGURE 1-3 137°136°135°4c 1330 1370 1319 139° i 'q q UJoO T.v t Whitehorsenee LEGEND e Load Center A Generation Source ow-Existing Transmission Line GULF OF ALASKA Note:.-550BomBasemaptakenfromUSDA Forest Service General Technical vw Q ;Report PNW -66,1978 ()18 3 458 Scale wuies Quartz Mill e AY 55°/455° Kitsaull G Map Area” L u 1 if aa L 1370 136°138°134°133°13270 131?139° Refer to Table 1-6 for Project Name, Capacity and Average Annual Energy ALASKA POWER AUTHORITYGeneration.-SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXISTING HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTSHARZAENGINEERINGCOMPANY-OCTOBER 1687 59° 5g? g7° 560 ss° WHARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY FIGURE 1-4 = 137°136°135°w40 139°1370 1310 130° T .v i T T T T°Whitehorseee LEGEND io]ic ANOS a Cree. GULF OF ALASKA Note: Base map taken from USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW -66,1978 ()1s 30 as Scale Mules ALASKA A Map Area” Va e Load Center °Generation Source wwe §«=6Existing Transmission Line A Potential Hydro Project: Kiteauit Dizon Entrance 1379 136°335°134° Reter to Table 1-7 for Project Name, Planned Capacity and Average Annual Energy Generation. 'OCTOBER 1987 133°1320 1319 132° ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS Table 1-6 EXISTING HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS Installed Capacity Avg.Annual Project MW Energy MWh 1.Skagway,AP&T Hydro 1.0 2,940 2.Juneau,AEL&P Hydro 10.6 60,000 3.Snettisham 46.0 216,000 4.Crater Lake 27.0 118,000 5.Sitka,SED Hydro 26.5 103,000 6.Petersburg,MP&L Hydro 2.0 10,000 7.Tyee Lake 20.0 |114,100 8.Swan Lake 22.5 85,400 9,Ketchikan,KPU Hydro 14.0 62,700 10.Metlakatla,MP&L Hydro 4.01/22,1501/ Total 173.6 794,290 1/Includes planned Chester Lake Hydroelectric Project. 1-9 Table 1-7 POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS ; Avg.Annual Project Capacity,MW Energy MWh 1.West Creekl/4.5 20,210 2.Takatz Lake2/27.3 93,200 3.Black Bear Lake3/3.0 17,600 4.Lake Dorothyl/26.0 |127,000 5.Sweetheart Lakel/26.0 125,000 6.Tyee Lake Expansion4/10.02/22,4002/ i/.Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study,R.W.Beck,1982. 2/City of Sitka Alternative Energy Study,Ott WaterEngineers,Inc.1982. 3/Black Bear Lake Project Feasibility Report Update,HarzaEngineeringCompany,1987. 4/Definite Project Report -Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project,International Engineering Company,Inc.,1979. 5/Incremental capacity and average annual energy. Bordering Southeast Alaska,to the east and south,is the Canadian province of British Columbia.The provincial utility, British Columbia (B.C.)Hydro,is one of the largest owner/ operators of hydroelectric generating facilities in the world. The utility has over 9,000 MW of installed hydrogeneration capacity at the present time and has identified several other major projects which could be developed.Assuming a favorable long term agreement could be reached with B.C.Hydro,Canadian generation could be imported to satisfy Southeast Alaska's power and energy requirements for the forseeable future.Such anarrangementwouldrequiretheconstructionofatransmissioninterconnectionoftheB.C.Hydro grid with a Southeast Intertie System in the Ketchikan/Swan Lake area. 1-10 Surplus Canadian hydrogeneration of a lesser magnitude is- also available from the Northern Canada Power Commission (N.C.P.C.)in the Yukon Territory.Importation of generation from this source would be via a Whitehorse-Skagway transmission line. »Either of these alternatives would require a Federal Energy Regulatory (FERC)license,an import/export agreement with Canada and a special Presidential permit to authorize project implementation. Previous Studies Numerous studies relating to the proposed interconnection of Southeast Alaska's electric load centers and hydroelectric generation projects have been performed in recent years.Stud- ies pertaining directly to the proposed project include the 1982 report,Southeast Alaska Intertie DC Transmission System,for the Alaska Power Administration (APAd)by Teshmont Consultant Inc.;the 1980 report,Snettisham-Ketchikan Transmission System, for the APAd by Harstad Associates;and the U.S.Forest Ser- vice's Tongass Land Management Plan.Other previous studies performed for the Alaska Power Authority,which bear on the Southeast Intertie,concern the development of specific hydro- electric and transmission intertie projects such as Tyee Lake, Swan Lake,West Creek,Lake Dorothy,and the Tyee-Kake Iatertie. Resource management plans such as the U.S.Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project Mine Development and the USFS Chatham and Stikine Areas 1986-90 management plan EIS report,various com- munity coastal management plans,and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities'regional transportation plans for Southeast Alaska were also consulted in the course of this effort. Concurrent with the study described herein,R.W.Beck Asso- ciates prepared the reports "Juneau Area Electric Load Forecast" (April 1987)and "Southeast Alaska Electric Load Forecast"(April 1987)for the Alaska Power Authority.These two studiesprovidetheelectricloaddemandforecastsuponwhichthepreliminarytransmissioninterconnectiondesignsandeconomicanalysespresentedhereinarebased. A bibliography of the consulted reports is included at the end of this volume. Acknowledgements We acknowledge and appreciate the valuable assistance andadviceofferedbythestaffpersonnelofthefollowing: 1-11 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination Alaska Electric Light and Power Company Alaska Power Administration Alaska Power Authority Alaska Power and Telephone Company Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Cape Fox Corporation City of Haines City and Borough of Juneau City of Ketchikan City of Petersburg City and Borough of Sitka City of Skagway City of Thorne Bay City of Wrangell Federal Aviation Administration Glacier Highway Electric Association,Inc. Greens Creek Mining Haines Light and Power Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchkian Public Utilities Metlakatla Power and Light 1-12 National Marine Fisheries Service National Park Service Sealaska Corporation South Coast,Inc. Southeast Conference Tlingit and Haida Regional Electric Authority U.S.Borax U.S.Coast Guard U.S.Environment Protection Agency U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service U.S.Forest Service Chapter 2 POWER SYSTEM PLANNING Introduction Interconnection of the load centers and generation sources in Southeast Alaska will ultimately require the establishment ofagoverningbody,or operating council ofa form similar tothosecommoninthecontiguous48states.The operating councilwouldconsistofmemberloadcenterandgenerationsourceutili- ties and would establish operating rules,set rates,operate and maintain system facilities,dispatch loads and establish system expansion planning and reliability criteria.No such operating council currently exists in Southeast Alaska. In the absence of an existing operating council and estab- lished system expansion planning and reliability criteria,it was necessary to formulate criteria for use in this study to facilitate power -system studies of the proposed transmission intertie configurations.The power system studies were per- formed to determine the appropriate capacity required for each intertie segment,to estimate line losses,and to evaluate the electric characteristics of the various Intertie configurations considered. The following paragraphs describe the planning and relia- bility criteria established,the power studies performed and present the results of the system studies. 'System Planning Criteria In consultation with the Alaska Power Authority the follow- ing system planning criteria were adopted for the power system studies effort: 1.Voltage at transmission substations,under normal system conditions,will be maintained with a range of plus/minus 5%of the nominal voltage level. 2.Under single contingency line outage conditions,bus voltage will be allowed to go to 90%of the nominal voltage level. 3.The power factor at the load center power delivery locations will be maintained at 95%or higher. 4.Local generation will be operated as necessary to provide voltage regulation and system inertia. The studies were performed assuming maximum outputfromsystemhydrogenerationplants,with supplementalgenerationfromlocalhydroplantsand,lastly,thermal generation sources. System Reliability Criteria The following system reliability criteria were developed inconsultationwiththePowerAuthority: 1.Sufficient generating capacity will be provided,as nearly as practicable,to provide a fixed capacity including reserve that is greater than the forecast maximum demand of the Intertie System. The Intertie System planning will be designed to assure that the system will not experience cascading breakup and collapse initiated by the occurrence of contingencies such as; a.Loss of all generating capacity at any generating station. b.Loss of any two generating units. c.Outage of any two circuits or generating units during scheduled maintenance on any other trans- mission line or generating unit. d.Outage of any single or double circuit transmis- sion line,generating unit,transformer,or bus. e.Simultaneous outage of overhead transmission lines parallel to each other for a substantial distance having a spacing between circuits of less than the height of the structures. f.Any fault,clearedby normal operation or backuprelays. g.Loss of any large load or concentrated load area. Power System Studies Studies of the various Intertie System configurations were performed on a personal computer using a commercially available software program from Electrocon International,Inc.The program creates a mathematical model of the interconnected generation and transmission system,and computes real and 2-2 reactive power flows as well as bus voltage levels.With this analytical tool it is possible to determine how a proposed system would perform in steady state under various operatingscenarios. For this study the load flow program was used to model the proposed transmission line additions,transformers and genera- tion dispatch conditions.Using the load flow program it is possible to establish power flow conditions on each proposed transmission circuit.The program is designed primarily for modeling alternating current transmission systems.To representthedirectcurrentlines,a two step process was used.First an AC transmission line with minimum resistance and reactance was assumed in the location of the DC line,and the case was solved. A second case was then formulated without the proposed DC con- nection,but in place of its terminals a load and a generator were modeled.The magnitude of the load and generator were equal to the equivalent DC power flow as calculated in the first step. Although not an exact model,this technique allows for a planning level model that represents how a DC line would func- tion as part of an interconnected regional transmission system. In the event that a DC line were found to be economically feasible,it would then be necessary to make detailed engineer- ing design studies with more precise and exact DC.transmission line models. The basic input requirements of the load flow program for planning level studies are the following: 1.Transmission line and transformer resistance, reactance and shunt charging values. 2.Generator real power output. 3.Generator reactive power output limits. 4.Transformer tap settings. 5.Shunt reactor ratings. 6.Real and reactive bus load values. 7.Range of acceptable bus voltage limits. 8.Designation of one generator as the swing machine for the system. The results of a load flow calculation are real and reac- tive power flows through transmission lines and transformers together with associated bus voltage levels.The program also computes real power losses for the alternating current system. The power system studies were performed using the year 2006 high load forecast shown in Table 2-1.The forecast is the - preliminary forecast furnished by the Power Authority in October,1986.Comparison with Tables 1-2 through 1-4 will reveal that the preliminary forecast is generally higher than the Power Authority's final forecast for the load centers. Nevertheless it was deemed prudent to base the formulation of the Intertie System on the preliminary,high,year 2006 forecast thereby assuring sufficient capacity in the system for later years. Power System Alternatives Power flow studies were prepared for a Basic Intertie Plan and several variations as described in the following paragraphs. The names of the system configurations that were studied are: Plan I -Basic Intertie Plan (Figure 2-1) Plan II -Overland North of Juneau (Figure 2-2) Plan III -AC to Sitka,West Route (Figure 2-3) Plan IV -Radial to Angoon (Figure 2-4) Plan V -Cleveland Peninsula (Figure 2-5) Plan I -Basic Intertie Plan Of the systems considered,this system configuration has the most submarine cable and the least overland transmission line.The plan was prepared according to the requirements of the original contract scope of services and includes necessary transmission lines and substations to interconnect ten load centers,the Quartz Hill mine,and five major hydroelectric generating stations in Southeast Alaska;see Figure 2-1. Also included are two connections with Canadian electric power systems.From Skagway,a transmission connection to theNorthCanadianPowerCommissionSystematWhitehorseisincluded and,at the southern end of the study area,a transmission line is extended from Swan Lake to Quartz Hill mine and then to the B.C.Hydro system at the Kitsault Substation. Table 2-1 LOAD FORECAST USED FOR POWER SYSTEM STUDIES Year 2006 Peak Load Demand Center kW Skagway 1,740 Haines 2,880 Juneau (Auk Bay &Thane)97,600 Kake .1,340 Sitka 32,900 Petersburg 8,340 Wrangell 4,840 Ketchikan 31,000PrinceofWalesIslanal/9,700 Metlakatla 5,670 Quartz Hill 96,000 Green's Creek 5,000 Hoonah 1,337 Angoon 853 Tenakee Springs 380 i/Includes loads at:Craig,Hydaburg,Klawock,and Thorne Bay. FIGURE 2-1 ™,WHITEHORSENL38k SKAGWAY SANapUNA\HAINES 'oN, JUNEAU HOONAH @ GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- GRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ANcoon 100KV DCsiTka@ PETERSBURG KAKE TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES ©-Load centers swan ; O -GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN e Sh emee -EXISTING T/LINE s %AS s--PROPOSED T/LINE QuARt2METLAKATLA 100KV DC (BIPOLAR)7 *!TSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY PLAN |-BASIC INTERTIE PLANLIARZAencincenincCOMPANY.ocToaEa 1887 P The Basic Intertie Plan utilizes the three major existingtransmissionlinesinSoutheastAlaska.Direct current powertransmissionisusedforsubmarinecablerunsthatexceed25 miles in length. Plan II -Overland North of Juneau Instead of the submarine cable interconnection between Skagway,Haines and Juneau used in Plan I,Plan II would use overland transmission along the east side of Lynn Canal.See Figure 2-2.A transmission line would be constructed from Skagway to the Auke Bay substation north of Juneau.The inter- connection with Haines would be via a submarine cable from a substation located on the east side of Lynn Canal,opposite Haines. Plan III -AC to Sitka,West Route This configuration was proposed as an alternative to the Snettisham-Kake DC cable in Plan I.As shown on Figure 2-3 a 138 kv AC overhead transmission line,with several relativelyshortsubmarinecablecrossings,would be constructed from Thane Substation south of Juneau,to the west across Douglas Island, Admiralty Island,Chichagof Island,and south to Baranof Island. The line would deliver power to load centers at Greens Creek Mine,Hoonah,Tenakee Springs and Sitka.A radial line to Angoon could also be provided from the Tenakee Springs-Sitka segment. This plan is technically difficult because it requires transmission of modest amounts of power over long distances at the selected voltage,138 kV.Load flow studies show that there will be voltage regulation difficulties wnless appropriate measures are taken.Consequently,this plan includes shunt reactors and a static var compensator at the termination on Baranof Island.The static var compensator would also be required to provide reactive power to the DC converter-inverter station for the long cable connection to the southern portion of the Intertie System via Kake. The selection of 138 kV transmission voltage is dictated by the total overall distance from Juneau to Sitka.As a result, the delivery of power at Hoonah,Tenakee Springs and Angoon would result in lightly loaded transformers.Studies of this connection at 69 kV indicate that voltage regulation problems would make 69 kV transmission impractical. 2-5 FIGURE 2-2 ™N,WHITEHORSE SKAGWAY Lo34.5KV\\1 vy CANAL Mo,N HAINES (EAST)o™. HoonaH @ GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ancoon 100KV DCsitka@ PETERSBURG KAKE TYEE LAKE PRINGELEGEND:OF WALES ISLANDrd)-LOAD CENTERS ° O HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .OCTOBER 1987 GENERATION SOURCES EXISTING T/LINE PROPOSED T/LINE QUARTZ METLAKATLA HILL KITSAULT 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY PLAN I!-OVERLAND NORTH OF JUNEAU FIGURE 2-3 ™"N,WHITEHORSE 138KV. SKAGWAY 75KV DC So,N HAINES s™ - 138 KV o-=JUNEAUHOONAHGREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE . SPRINGS ANGOON 100KV OC ._138KVSITKAo-PETERSBURG KAKE TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES ISLAND©-Loan centers ©)-GENERATION souRCcES oem -EXISTING T/LINE QUARTZ HILL'===-PROPOSED T/LINE METLAKATLA 1OOKV DC (BIPOLAR)- KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY PLAN Ill AC TO SITKA,WEST ROUTEHMARZAENGINEERINGCOMPANY.OCTOSE=198° Plan IV -Radial to Angoon This plan was proposed in response to the Public and AgencyrequesttoincludetheloadcentersofHoonah,Tenakee SpringsandAngoon.It is similar to the preceding case except that there is no connection to the Sitka system.Consequently,lineloadingsarelight,but extensive var compensation is not required with this plan.Voltage regulation would be from transformer tap settings and local generation.See Figure 2-4. Plan V -Cleveland Peninsula This variation was developed in response to suggestions that Ketchikan could be provided with increased reliability if it were connected to Tyee generation by a transmission line that waS on a separate right-of-way from the Swan Lake line.As shown on Figure 2-5,Plan V has the additional advantage that it allows a connection to Prince of Wales Island with an alternat- ing current cable across Clarence Strait instead of the direct current cable from Ketchikan shown in Plan I. The plan requires construction of a 138/69 kV step-down substation in an isolated area of the Cleveland Peninsula. Other Radial Lines Other radial connections considered include lines from Ketchikan to Metlakatla and from Ketchikan to the proposed Prince of Wales Island Intra-island transmission system. Previous studies have indicated that the Prince of Wales system should be a 69 kV AC overhead system serving Thorne Bay, Hydaburg,and the Klawock/Craig load center.An interconnection between Klawock and Craig at 12.5 kV is planned to be imple- mented by the Power Authority in the near future. Three alternative methods of interconnecting Ketchikan and Metlakatla were considered.These are as follows: 1.A 69 kV interconnection from Ketchikan Public Utili- ties'(KPU)Bailey Substation.The intertie route includes 7.5 miles of new 69 kV construction through Ketchikan and Saxman,a one mile long cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel from Mountain Point to Race Point and 14.0 miles of 69 kV line with an intercon- nection to Metlakatla Power and Light's (MP&L)planned Chester Lake Project. 2 A 69 kV interconnection from KPU's 34.5 kV Mountain Point Substation.The connection would require installation of a 34.5 kV/69 kV step-up substation at 2-6 FIGURE 2 4 NN,WHITEHORSEN38KYSKAGWAY 'Cc N HAINES (oN oe 69KV6oKVO JUNEAU HOONAH GREENS CREEK 69 KV SNETTISHAM= CRATER LAKE TENAKEESPRINGS SA 3ww ANGOON PETERSBURGSITKAo-100 KV DC KAKE ;PRINCE LEGEND:.OF WALES °ISLAND O LOAD CENTERS GENERATION SOURCES EXISTING T/LINE QUARTZPROPOSEDT/LINE HILLMETLAKATLA 100KV DC (BIPOLAR)KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY PLAN IV - RADIAL TO ANGOONHARZAencineenINGCOMPANYocTORES1987 FIGURE 2-5 ™N WHITEHORSE™438KSKAGWAY N HAINES . Hoonay ©GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ancoon sitka ©100KV DC KAKE TYEE LAKE PRINCE CLEVELAND PENIN.LEGEND:OF WALES ©-Loo centers owen ; GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN -EXISTING T/LINE . -__.re)QUARTZPROPOSEDT/LINE HILLMETLAKATLA 100KV DC (BIPOLAR) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY PLAN V - CLEVELAND PENINSULAMARIZAencineeRINGCOMPANY.ocTOSES 1997 Mountain Point and the submarine cable crossing and 14.0 mile overhead line previously described. 3.A 34.5 kV interconnection from KPU's Mountain Point substation.The cable crossing of Revillagigedo Chan- nel and overhead line on Annette Island would be as described above,but at a voltage of 34.5 kv. The 69 kV connection from Bailey Substation is preferred because it does not involve the KPU distribution system.That is,power flow variations at the MP&L load center would not enter the KPU system.The other two alternatives would require that power to MP&L pass-through the KPU distribution system. This would result in increased losses in the KPU system,and disturbances originating in the MP&L system would cause undesir- able voltage fluctuations in the KPU system. AC Versus DC Transmission There is a significant difference between the maximum practical power transmission distance for an overhead line and an electric power cable when both are at the same voltage.Asexplainedintheliterature,//the practical length for high voltage alternating current cables is on the order of twenty five miles.Direct current cables,however,do not have the characteristic of reactance and capacitance that alternating current cables have.Therefore they do not have the distance limitation that alternating current cables have. Direct current cables do have voltage drop and loss consid- erations,but they are determined by series resistance.Voltage drop can be made to fall within acceptable limits by providing a cable with a sufficiently large conductor.Voltage drop and losses are reduced as the resistance is reduced. When this limitation for high voltage AC cables is applied to the formulation of a transmission system for Southeast Alaska the following transmission segments are found to require sub- Marine cables that are longer than twenty five miles. Skagway -Haines -Auke Bay Snettisham -Kake Kake -Blue Lake (Sitka) In these cases it will be necessary to use direct current cables as the transmission method. 1/Kimbark,E.W.1971.Direct Current Transmission,Wiley International.Volume 1.25 pp. 2-7 Application of HVDC TO S.E.Intertie System High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)transmission line tech- nology is being successfully applied in a large number of modern power systems.HVDC finds application for several technical- economic reasons.The applications are summarized as: 1.Long Distance Power Transmission 2.Controllability 3.Submarine Cable Systems 4.Interface (between two systems of different frequency) 5.Asynchronous Interconnection (System Stability) Plan I,proposed for the S.E.Intertie Study,included five HVDC installations.Each of these was proposed because it met one or more of the five application requirements.As noted above the Skagway/Haines/Juneau,Snettisham/Kake and Kake/Sitka installations were formed as HVDC installations because the proposed routes included submarine cables with lengths exceeding25miles.In addition,HVDC transmission was proposedfor theQuartzHill/Kitsault and Ketchikan/Prince of Wales Island lines to resolve system stability problems for power flow control considerations. In DC transmission,ground (sea)return can be used as one conductor.This means that each separately insulated transmission conductor together with the ground-return path forms a separate electric circuit.Based on this fundamental, the following three basic circuit arrangements can be considered. 1.Monopolar Arrangement.One transmission conductor (pole)is installed and ground (sea)return is used permanently. Monopolar transmission is used in systems of comparatively lowpowerrating,and mainly with cable transmission.As shown in the following list the monopolar sea return arrangement has been selected for use in both European and North American applications. LIST OF MONOPOLAR HVDC INSTALLATIONS Project Installation ' Location Date Capacity Voltage Comments Gotvand-Sweden 1954 20 MW 100 KV No overhead 1970 30 MW 150 KV transmission: 60 miles (96 km)underwater cable. Skagerak,Norway-1976 250 MW 250 KV InitiallyDenmarkOperated mono- polar.Up- bipolar opera- tion in 1977. Kanti-Skan,1965 250 MW 250 KV 54 miles (88 Denmark-Sweden Sardinia,Italy 1967 200 MW 200 KV Vancouver 1968 Pole #1 78 MW 130 KV Island,B.C.1969 Pole #2 312 MW 260 KV Canada 1976 Pole #3 500 MW 280 kV Rauma,Finland-Under 420 MW 360 KV Forsmark,Constr. Sweden km)overhead transmission and 54 miles (87 km)of underwater cable, 187 miles (301 km)overhead transmission and 73 miles (118 km)of underwater cable, 26 miles (41 km)overhead transmission and 20 miles (32 km)under- water cable. 112 miles (180 km).Route Vv survey under- way in 1986.=6 2.Bipolar:In bipolar transmission ground (sea)returnisnotnecessary,but is provided to increase transmission availability in case of failure of one pole. 2-9 3.Homopolar:This is a version of bipolar except that both poles transmit current in the same direction,and earth (sea)is used as the return path. Use of sea return path with a monopolar DC system may notbefeasibleinurbanareasbecauseofprobabilityofinterfer- ence with existing underground metallic structures and facili- ties.However,in the case of Southeast Alaska the conditions are similar to those where monopolar systems are in operation. Selection of the DC arrangement for the various Southeast intertie DC segments is based on striking a balance between reliability requirements and initial capital cost.The Intertie load centers will,for the most part,be interconnected to the grid by more than one transmission link and will also,under the assumptions made herein,be required to maintain sufficient local hydro and/or standby diesel capacity to meet local power and energy requirements in case of a transmission line outage.This level of reliability is deemed sufficient to justify selec- tion of the monopolar arrangement for all but the Quartz Hill/ Kitsault interconnection.Because the reliability of the mine's power supply will be of paramount concern,a bipolar DC trans- mission arrangement was selected for this interconnection.The monopolar systems can be upgraded to bipolar by the addition of a parallel conductor,as was done for the Vancouver Island interconnection and on the Shagrek Project in Norway/Denmark. Of the three manufacturers contacted for engineering input regarding the application of DC transmission for the Intertie, two,ASEA and Siemens,responded regarding the use of monopolar systems,as follows: Siemens Letter Dated May 1,1987:"Monopolar DC with seareturnispracticable.Potential problems such as environ- mental concerns and interference with submarine navigation systems,need to considered.Typically,because of such concerns in conjunction with redundancy considerations,sea return is used as back-up mode only". ASEA Letter Dated March 4,1987:"Sea return has been usedformanyyearsformostoftheHVDCsubmarinecable projects..... In some parts of the United States there may be licensing (permitting)restrictions affecting continuous sea return for a monopolar DC system.This needs to be investi- gated". HVDC Costs and Developments The present commercial applications of high voltage direct current are in the higher voltage range and at high capacity levels.The minimum ratings in use to date are on the order of 100 MVA and about 200 kV. An electric power system has been developed for the S.E. Intertie that is based on the requirements of the interconnected system for the year 2006.At this load level the high voltage direct current power requirements range up to 50 MW. For the purpose of the study,cost estimates for HVDC equipment were obtained from manufacturers.This cost informa- tion was given with the caveat that the design and manufacture of such equipment,using present technology,would be non- Standard.That is,it would be a unique order,and the costs would reflect extra engineering and special modifications needed in the manufacturing processes. There are an increasing number of potential applications of HVDC at power levels less than 100 MW,and voltages less than 200 kV.Manufacturers indicated an awareness of this,and it appears that they may attempt to address the needs of this market in the near future. In addition to the increasing number of smaller size HVDC applications,there is also the possible develop ent of newtechnologyfromoneoftheresearchagencies.Two such agencies and their areas of interest are: 1.Manitoba Hydro Research -Forced Commutation. 2.Electric Power Research Institute -Gate Turn-off Thyristors (GTO). Future studies of a S.E.Intertie should reevaluate the status of HVDC manufacturing capability and costs. 2/"Comparison of Costs and Benefits for DC and AC Transmis-sion",Report ORNL -6204 prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Feb.1987. 3/"High Voltage Direct Current Research Program"W.Long andP.A.Gnadt,report prepared for Oak Ridge National Labora- tory,Sept.1986.N'11 Study Results Figures 2-6 through 2-10 are single line diagrams of the transmission system alignments that were formulated and analyzed with the load flow program.These systems,although acceptable from the engineering point of view,were used as the basis for the economic screening and analysis.Based on economic consid- erations these systems subsequently were revised and simpli- fied. As shown on the figures,the Intertie System is planned to be predominantly a 138 kV AC system with 100 kV DC links between Snettisham and Kake,and/or Sitka and Kake,and with 69 kv radial transmission lines to serve remote load centers as warranted.Deviations from this include 34.5 kV service to Haines and Green's Creek Mine in some plans,75 kV DC service to Prince of Wales Island,and the bipolar 100 kV DC line between Quartz Hill and B.C.Hydro at Kitsault,B.C.Also,in all plans considered,the existing 115 kV AC Swan Lake-Ketchikan transmis- sion line would remain as is.These deviations from the stand- ard represent the least cost technically acceptable alternatives for use in the economic analyses presented herein.The merits of upgrading the lower voltage lines to provide standard AC and DC voltages throughout the S.E.Intertie system should be evalu- ated during the detailed transmission line design. Energy Losses The Southeast Intertie system will experience energy losses as part of normal operation of the bulk power transmission system.These losses would be the result of power flow through transmission lines and cables,and through DC/AC converter and inverter stations.Alternating current cables also have the characteristic of dielectric losses in the insulating medium. The analysis of losses performed for this study does not include power conversion losses.It is assumed for this analy- sis that power conversion losses would be roughly equivalent in all plans.; Energy losses for the Intertie Expansion Plans,described in Chaper 7,were calculated using information based on powersystemoperationandpowerflowcalculationsfortheproposedsystems.Table 7-12 is a tabulation of losses for each of theexpansionplans.The information in the table gives the esti-mated energy losses for each category of loss,and the estimatedtotalannuallosses.The values are based on the system with loads at the most likely load demand forecast level for year2006.(Refer to Chapter 7 for the results of these studies). FIGURE 2-6 NCPC A niTERCREE PROPOSED SOUTH eeaaxv|CANADA EAST ALASKA |U.S.A INTERTIE SYSTEM 5 YEAR 2006SKAGWAY=PLAN I iranes|5 ;75K {! >\ AUKE BAY GREEN CK.MINE 138 KV 34.5KV 69KV L,JUNEAUAREA -eauE"4+anv OL THANE ”2 -CRATERSNETTISHAMS)ve\38KV BLUE SITKA 69KV LAKE 69KV || lOOKY GREEN - 'LAKEle PETERSBURGLEGENDaa iS)SYSTEM GENERATION 6ON WRANGELL LOA 4 ry 138KVY-OAC BUS ', -P4-CABLE &TERMINATION SW.YO. 1BBKV mn 7 balEx}A.C/0.6 CONVERTER a STATION SWAN 3LAKEovlAUTOTRANSFORMER© 4 D.C.GROUND ELECTRODE KETCHIKAN BBKV IneKLAWOCK|THORNE BAY Ty sky69KV69KVv 75KV CRAIG 12.5KV .a @9KV 6SKV METLAKATLA KITSAULT HYDABURS B.C. HYORO LIAR ZA ENGINEERINGCOMPANY-OCTOBER 1987 FIGURE 2-7 NCPC WHITEHORSE OVERLAND NORTH OF JUNEAU =ROFOSED SOUTH 38KV CANADA EAST ALASKA U.S.A INTERTIE SYSTEM Se snus YEAR 20065nny>ER LYNN CANAL (EAST)*_ AUKE BAY GREEN CK.MINE P 138 KV 345ky 69KV |suNEAU AREA =eaxv7 fwo x sousaxv THANE J&Sp4.SNETTISHAM \°©Oo eee138KV BLUE SITKA 6aKv LAKE aaKky |l 1OOKV GREEN LAKE | LEGEND PETERSBURG;aio)SYSTEM SENERATION | y LOAD Bus -P4-CABLE &TERMINATION A.C./0.6 CONVERTER STATION ub.AUTO TRANSFORMER t 4-D.C.GROUND ELECTRODE KLAWOCK THORNE BAY _o3KVv "YCABURS HARZAENGINEERING COMPANY -OCTOSES ° S$MeSy. WRANGELL4™i3aKv©\ Sw.YD (Z8KV % wa SWAN 2 LAKE Fe 138KV QUARTZ HILL MINEKETCHIKAN \5 KV 63KV KITSAULTMETLAKATLASOOKV B.¢. BYCRO 387 FIGURE 2-8 vb AUTO TRANSFORMER 4 _D.¢.GROUND ELECTRODE KLAWOCK THORNE BAY NOPS AC.TO SITKA,WEST ROUTENdiTEHORSEPROPOSEDSOUTH IRBKy ZANADA EAST ALASKA U.S.A INTERTIE SYSTEM SKAGWAY YEAR 2006PLANlit HAINES AUKE BAY ] 138 KV 38KV _JUNEAU°AREA HooNaH /28KV)I38KV 1 THANE a” 13gkyv 3BKV REMOTETenakee[38KV SPRINGS ST _[,suesta rion ZRATERTaySNETTISAAMO©LAKE76SKV38KV 138kv BLUE SITKA "Peak LAKE 69Ky \, iOOKY GREEN LAKE LEGEND PETERSBURG sede 138K iS)SYSTEM SENERATION oyiON WRANGELL-_4 {38KVYOADBus%X -P-CABLE &TERMINATION Sw.YD t38KV on A.C./0.6.CONVERTER 3 STATION SWAN 3LAKE QUARTZ HILL MINEKETCHIKANDOK TY SKY HAR ZA ENGINEERING COMPANY - Lb 69KY ;KITSAULTMETLAKATLA \ HYDABURS 2. MYZRS OCTOBES 1987 FIGURE 2-9 NCPC RADIAL TO ANGOON NHITEHORSE PROPOSED SOUTH 138K CANADA EAST ALASKA U.S.A INTERTIE SYSTEM suasna YEAR 2006LIV TSKV HAINES Sexy . AUKE BAY ) GREEN CK,MINE 138 KV 69KV 69KV \JUNEAU7IVrAREA¢6IKV HOONAH 71-69 KV 138KV |THANE J TENAKEE 7\_69KVSPRINGS carro ©©oaANGOON7o9kv1B8KV BLUE SITKA 69Kv LAKE pal aa<v 1OOKV GREEN _ LAKE aes PETERSBURGLESENC138K ©SYSTEM GENERATION <+,Sy WRANGELL'y Loac BUS %TN 138KV -PG-CABLE &TERMINATION wvi fas!%tt AC./0.6 CONVERTER asiSTATIONun3LAKz ies AUTO TRANSFORMER nC Lk ob.e.GROUND ELECTRODE 138KV QUARTZKETCHIKANHILLMINEKLAWOCKTHORNEBAYrySKY69KV I5KV CRAIG 12,£KV d 69KV é .KITSAULT"en METLAKATLA SOOKV "HYDABURS B.C. HYTRO LIARZA enciNEERING COMPANY FIGURE 2-10 -Po-CABLE &TERMINATION NCPC CLEVELAND PENINSULA WHITEHORSE PROPOSED SOUTH _aeKv |_CANADA EAST ALASKA U.S.A INTERTIE SYSTEM sa suse YEAR 2006 HAINES ° AUKE BAY ) ene 136 KV 34.5KV 69KV JUNEAUPAREAat6oxv7< axv TO THANEmn 2? SNETTISHAM S)Oo eee\38KV BLUE SITKA cou LAKE 69Kv | OO KV GREEN LAKE LEGEND PETERSBURG1KV S)SYSTEM GENERATION CoE SAND « 138K¥-%,WRANGELL y LOAC BUS why %TTX 13 8Kv69KY.= rm¥%+k A.C./D.S CONVERTER 3 STATION SWAN 3LAKEa)vb.AUTO TRANSFORMER Oo tt Dt.GROUND ELECTRODE&138KalT freeman seyl Sa,KLAWOCK THORNE |BAY q usKy6oKyRY -+-6IKV U.S.A. CRAIG CANADA 12.8KV 69KV KITSAULT_-"METLAKATLA HYDABURS B.C. HYORO HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY =OCTOSER 1987 The energy loss values are determined from peak megawatt loss,and are converted to energy according to load and loss factors.The loss factor is taken at the nominal value of: 0.7 (load factor**2)+0.3 (load factor).In more detailed analyses of the individual transmission segments,studies snould be performed of the load diversity of the various consumer cate- gories in the load centers to be served,to accurately.determinetheappropriateloadandlossfactors.(See referencel/for a discussion of load and loss factor). The calculation of estimated losses for the AC/DC inverter -converter stations is based on a demand loss of 1%of station capacity.The value of 1%is taken from manufacturer's litera- ture and engineering papers.The amount of actual loss at each station will vary according to the design and amount of filters required at each station. Direct current cable loss is calculated as the current squared resistance product,and converted to energy according to system load and loss factors.The alternating current system loss is taken from load flow calculations as the megawatt loss at peak load,and converted to energy. Alternating current cable has losses that are the result of current leaking through the cable insulating dielectric material.Cable dielectric losses are directly related to the type of insulating material used in the cable design.In this study the dielectric losses have been calculated for the South- east Intertie system for cables with Ethylene Propylene Rubber (EPR)insulation.(See Chapter 3 for a discussion of cable insulation and dielectric loss).Cable dielectric losses are present whenever the cable is energized,and are independent of power flow through the cable.This means that cable dielectric losses are encountered each hour that the cable is in service. For this analysis cable dielectric losses are based on 100%load and loss factors. If system economics allow losses to be allocated to hydro energy and the value of water is small,then dielectric losses may not be of consequence.However,losses of this magnitude have a significant economic consequence on a system with large amounts of thermal energy conversion. It should be noted that there is also incremental capacity required to meet the loss demand.A future formulation of a . more definite Southeast Intertie system should include consid- eration of the cost of this loss. 1/EPRI,Technical Assessment Guide,P-2410-SR,May 1982,Palo Alto,CA,pp.6-6. 2-13 Chapter 3 SUBMARINE CABLE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES The studies described in Chapter 2 established the required capacities of the various transmission line segments based onsinglecontingencyoutagecriteria.In this chapter,thestudieswhichresultedintheselectionoftherecommended sub- marine cable crossings are described.Further,the estimated costs of the various cable crossings are given. Submarine Cable Surveys Based on studies of USGS 1:63360 scale quad maps and NOAA navigation charts,potential submarine cable routes for ten of the original 11 stipulated transmission intertie segments were selected within the macro-corridor for each segment.Table 3-1 lists the routes selected for survey and Figure 3-1 gives their locations.As indicated on both the table and the figure,the survey of two additional potential cable crossings for trans- mission interconnections of Ketchikan and Metlakatla,and Quartz Hill and Prince Rupert,B.C.were also considered. Surveys of the selected crossing locations were performed by Harding Lawson Associates,during the period October 12 through October 31,1986.In addition to Harding Lawson and its subcontractors,the survey crew included a representative of the Alaska Power Authority and also.a submarine cable installation expert furnished by Pirelli Cable Corporation.During the course of the survey,it was decided,with the approval of the Power Authority,not to perform surveys of the following routes due to budgetary constraints and the existence of previous surveys by others: Transmission Line Segment No.Crossing From To 4 Chatham Strait Greens Creek Hoonah 8.5/8.6 North Behm Canal Tyee Lake Swan Lake 11 Portland Canal Quartz Hill Kitsault,B.C. 13 Behm Canal/Revillagigedo Channel/Chatham Sound Quartz Hill Prince Rupert, On completion of the surveys Harding Lawson Associates analyzed the data collected and prepared draft and final survey 3-1 Table 3-1 SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES SELECTED FOR SURVEY Intertie Segmen Transmission Line SegmentNo.J/-Crossing From To 2.1 Lynn Canal Skagway Haines 2.2 Lynn Canal Haines Juneau 3 Stephans Passage Juneau Green's Creek 4 Chatham Strait2/Green's Creek Hoonah 5.2/5.4 Port Snettisham/Stephans Passage/Fredrick Sound Snettisham Kake 6.1 Wrangell Narrows Petersburg Kake 6.5 Duncan Canal Petersburg Kake 7.1 Fredrick Sound/Chatham Strait Kake Sitka8.5/8.6 North Behm Canal 2/Tyee Lake Swan Lake 9.1 Tongass Narrows/Clarence Strait Ketchikan Prince of Wales Is. 10.6 Behm Canal Swan Lake Quartz Hill 11 Portland Canal2/Quartz Hill Kitsault,B.C. 12 Revillagigedo Channel Ketchikan Metlakatla 13 Behm Canal/Revillagigedo Channel/Chatham Sound2/Quartz Hill Prince Rupert,B.C. 1/These numerical designations were subsequently revised. 2/The indicated surveys were not performed due to budgetary constraints and the existence of previous surveys. FIGURE 3-1 gre 196°1352 gac 2332 1370 1319 13067T©writenorseaeel LEGEND aN e Load Center | ; 'Shagway >fe)Generation Sourcei i AY . -- Proposed Transmission Line NS ZeiAhGreen”s Cre.as ol gee ' i | 4 1 | i $79 -=57¢ GULF OF ALASKA Nu oNVEce_| 1 Note:,fi yee Lake " \sete 7 {i \|ff \ogee +Base map taken from USDA 12 ofr -8.5/8.6 H NNForestServiceGeneralTechnicalwa6*Oy's tp g {fo]aN.f | Report PNW -66,1978 :ae owes S 4%\\__.' 'Y y¥at ' °1$36 48 SS - d iors Scate bhies %Quartz Hil! 10,08 . Sn ttfo|j seer 455° Le To Prince Rupert,B.C. Font are 136°135°134%4320 1320 131?13 1.Refer to Table 3-1. 2.Routes 4,8.5/8.6,11 and 13 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY were surveyed by otners.SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY SURVEYED SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTESHARZAENGNEEAINGCOMPANY.OCTOSE®1967 reports including plan and profiles of the surveyed routes.The final survey report is attached hereto as Appendix A.The Pirelli representative aboard the survey vessel also prepared an account of the conducted surveys.This report is given in Appendix B. Selection of Final Cable Routes The selection of acceptable final cable routes is a pre- requisite to selection of a preferred cable design.A surveyed route that indicates rapid changes in slope,large rock outcrops and/or boulders at the bases of steep approaches to landings should be avoided.Therefore,on some of the surveyed cable crossings routes,additional detailed surveys should be imple- mented using divers and side scan sonar to determine acceptable cable routes.A summary of the cable routes surveyed is listed in Table 3-2 with comments regarding route suitability and/or the need for additional surveys. .As shown on the table,several of the surveys have indi- cated problem areas along the selected routes.The laying of submarine cable along rapidly changing slopes or with landings at steep and rocky points is not recommended.Under such condi- tions the cable might be layed with free spans and thus sub- jected to movements due to tidal action causing wear of the armor wires and fatigue of a lead sheath.To avoid this,addi- tional surveys of some routes to facilitate selection of route alternatives that have a relatively smooth bottom and approaches to landing points are recommended. Table 3-2 SUMMARY OF SUBMARINE CABLE SURVEYS Plate Naut.No.1/cable Crossing KM Miles Comments 1.2.1 Skagway to Haines 25.9 14.0 Steep approach and 2.2 Haines to Bridget 98.2 53.0 rapid changes in Cove Slope at Haines side. Additional survey required for alterna- tive route. 2.3.South Douglas Island to Young Bay, Admiralty Island 7.4 4.0 Feasible route. 4.5.2/5.4 Port Snettishan Approach to to Kupreanof Kupreanof steep Island 126 68 and rocky.Additional survey data required for alternative route. 5.6.1 Wrangell Narrows, Mitkof to Lindenburg Peninsula 1.5 0.8 Feasible route. 6.6.5 Duncan Canal 1.7 1.1 Steep landing site on east shore.Feasi- ble route.Additionalsurveydatarequired. 7.7.1 Kake to Warm Springs Pt.White landing, Bay,Baranof Island 56.3 30.0 rocky with offshore ledges.Crossing of Frederick Sound acceptable.Pt. Gardner and Yasha Island rapid changes in slope.Additional survey required for alternate route. i/Refer to Harding Lawson Associates report,Appendix A. Plate No. Table 3-2 (Cont'd) 'SUMMARY OF SUBMARINF CABLE SURVEYS Cable Crossing KM 8. 10. 11. 12. 8.5 Bell Island- Beaver Creek 1.1 8.6 Point Lees- Claude Point North Behm Canal 1.1 9.1 Ketchikan to Grindall Pt.,Kasaan Peninsula Prince of Wales Island 26 10.6 Pt.Trollop to Revillagigedo Island 12.5 11.Portland Canal 2.2 12.2 Mountain Point, Revillagigedo Island to Race Point, Annette Island 1.3 Naut. Miles Comments 0.6 14.0 6.7 1.2 0.7 Feasible route. Feasible route. Rapid changes in approach to cove north of Mud Bay.. Additional survey data needed for alter- native route. Approach to Pt. Trollup steep. Additional survey data required. Approach to Columbia Point very steep. Additional survey data required. Feasible route. Additional survey data required. Refer to Harding Lawson Associates report,Appendix A. 3-4 Submarine Cable Designs Based on the bathymetric survey report,voltage ratings, and load requirements established by the power system studies described in Chapter 2,Pirelli Cable Corporation prepared pre-liminary designs for 13 submarine cable crossings.The Pirelli report is included as Appendix B,and their recommendations are summarized on Table 3-3. Pirelli has recommended submarine cable designs based on EPR (Ethylene Propylene Rubber)dielectric insulation without a lead sheath.The application of EPR insulated submarine cable without a lead sheath at 138 kV would be at the forefront of cable technology.To our knowledge,at the present time there are no submarine applications of EPR at voltages exceeding 69 kV. Presently,a United States industry standard for EPR insu- lated 138 kV cable does not exist.As a result Pirelli has proposed cable designed in accordance with IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)standards.IEC cable standards do not specify an insulation thickness.Cables manufactured according to IEC tend to have thinner insulation than do cables built according to U.S.industry standards. Another technical factor that should be evaluated when considering the use of EPR insultation is dielectric loss.EPR compounds vary from maunfacturer to manufacturer,but all EPR compounds have greater dielectric losses than do equivalent cables with more conventional insulations.See Table 3-4 for a comparison of losses for cables with different types of insulation. The Pirelli recommendation is also at variance with conven- tional cable installation because it does not include a sheath. The omission of the sheath is based on sea bed conditions iden- tified in the underwater surveys for some routes;namely,rock outcrops,boulders,and other bottom irregularities that would result in unsupported cable spans.If future underwater route surveys can find routes that are free of such conditions,then a lead sheathed cable design could be reconsidered. Proven design alternatives to EPR insulated cable are lead sheathed oil-filled,oil impregnated paper insulated or soliddielectricinsulatedcablewithaleadsheath.At voltages of 69 kV and above paper insulated cable with a lead sheath hasbeenwidelyusedforsubmarinecableapplicationallovertheworld.Based on this proven experience,we recommend that paperinsulatedleadsheathcables,self-contained oil filled (SCOF) for AC cable routes and oil impregnated (solid)for long DCcableroutesalsobeconsidered.Other excellent alternative 3-5 Table 3-3 CABLE DESIGNS RECOMMENDED BY PIRELLI CABLE CORPORATION Segment:2.1 2.2 ,3 5.2/5.4 6.1 6.5 7.1 From:Skagway Haines Douglas Is.Snettisham Wrangell Narrows Duncan Canal Kake Item To:Haines,Bridge Cove Young Bay Kupreanof --Warm Springs Bay Length of Cable,Feet 78,000 277,000 27,500 420,000 5,000 6,000 190,000 Voltage,kV AC (DC)(75)(75)34.5 (100)138 138 (75) Cable Typel/2/Conductor Size,mm2 150 150 70 240 240 240 150 No.of Conductors/Cable 1 1 3 1 3 3 1Armor3/DCW DCW sw DCW sw sw DCW O.D.,in.2.3 2.3 3.5 2.7 7.2 7.2 2.3 Weight,lbs/ft.6.0 6.0 9.4 8.0 30.2 30.2 6.9 Segment:8.5 8.6 ;9.1 10.6 11 12 From:Bell Is.Pt.Lees Ketchikan Revilla.Is.Portland Canal Mountain Pt. Item To:Revilla.Is.Revilla.Is.Grindall Pt.Pt.Trollup -Race Pt. Length of Cable,Feet 6,300 4,200 91,000 41,000 9,500 5,000 Voltage,kV AC (DC)138 138 (75)138 (100)69 Cable Typel/2/Conductor Size,min@ 240 240 150 240 240 120 No.of Conductors/Cable 3 3 1 3 1 3Armor3/su sw pcw DCW DCW DCW O.D.,in.7.2 7.2 .2.3 7.1 2.7 4.8 Weight,lbs/ft.30.2 30.2 6.0 32.2 8.0 17.4 i/Data furnished by Pirelli Cable Corporation 2/All EPR insulated cables 3/Armor types:Single Wire (SW);Double Counterhelical Wire (DCW) submarine cable designs are cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) insulated with a lead sheath and polypropylene laminated paper (PPLP)with a lead sheath.The XLPE has excellent dielectric loss characteristics (see Table 3-4)which should be considered in the long term economic analysis of the cable routes.The PPLP has excellent resistance to oil drainage which would satisfy cable route applications with high elevation differences.. Table 3-4 INSULATION DIELECTRIC LOSSES FOR TYPICAL 138 kV AC 240MM2 SUBMARINE CABLE Insulation SIC DF wal/ XLPE . 2.4 001 007 EPR 2.9 003 2292 Paper Insulation (solid)3.5 003 353 Paper Insulation (PPLD)2.7 -0007 064 where SIC =Insulation Dielectric Constant DF =Dissipation Factor Wd =Watts loss per conductor foot at 60 Hz i/Reference:Neher,McGrath AEEI paper No.57-660 "TheCalculationoftheTemperatureRiseandLoadCapability of Cable System". Submarine Cable Installation The cost estimates prepared by Pirelli include installation and are based on a turn-key type contract being contracted to, in all probability,a cable manufacturing company.It should be noted that these are preliminary estimates.Contingencies should be allowed in the installation schedules for unforeseen problems.The transport of the cables and the installation of the cables should be done,preferably in the months of May to September.Although other months may be seemingly feasible, delays due to storms and increased risks are very likely. 3-6 Submarine Cable Reliability The reliability factor of submarine cable is extremely high.In the typical application the majority of the cable is routed in deep water and should be self-protecting,not requir-ing maintenance, The shore landing sites should be chosen to minimize risk of damage.The burial of the cable in the near shore sections would prevent damage and assure that planned maintenance activi- ties are not necessary. For any sites where cable burial is not possible,or is partially successful,or where there is a need for the cables to be covered with selected granular material,in the initial years of operation it would be advisable to inspect these locations on an annual basis.This inspection should be carried out by a diver using a locator to track the cable.The diver would check for signs of cable movement which could result in chafing,cable damage,or any other potential hazard situation. Submarine Cable Costs Estimates of the cost of manufacture and installation of the submarine cables for 13 cable crossings were prepared by Pirelli based on their recommended cable designs.As shown in Appendix B,Pirelli prepared unit price estimates for the cost of one or two cables per crossing,and lump sum estimates for the mobilization,engineering and additional surveys required to implement the cable installations.Table 3-5 presents a summary of the cost estimates and gives the estimated total cost for the installation of a single cable at each surveyed crossing,except for the Portland Canal crossing (No.11)for which two cables are required. As indicated in Chapters 1 and 6,public,agency and private contacts during the course of the study resulted in the subsequent consideration of transmission interconnections for additional load centers and/or via routes not previously consid- ered.Many of the new routes include submarine cable crossings for which no site specific cost estimates or cable designs have been prepared and,in most cases,for which no survey data is available.For these submarine cable crossings,the design and cost data provided by Pirelli were interpolated to provide dataforuseincomparisonsofthevariousroutes.Pirelli's unitcostsandlumpsumcostswereexaminedfortrendsconsidering cable voltage,length,type and total weight of cable.For eachadditionalcablecrossingstudied,new unit prices for installa- tion and new lump sum costs for mobilization and engineering and Surveys were developed.The unit prices for cable manufactureusedintheinterpolatedcostestimatesarethesameasthose 3-7 Table 3-5 SUBMARINE CABLE COSTS FOR SURVEYED ROUTESI/2/ Segment:2.1 2.2 3 5.2/5.4 6.1 6.5 7 From:Skagway Haines Douglas Is.Snettisham Wrangell Narrows Duncan Canal Kake Item To:Haines Bridget Cove Young Bay Kupreanof --Warm Springs Bay Length of Cable,Feet 78,000 277,000 27,500 420,000 5,000 6,000 190,000 Voltage,kv AC (DC)(75)(75)34.5 (100)138 138 (100) Unit Costs in $/1000 ft1/3/4/ Manufacture Cable 18,000 18,000 30,000 25,000 105,000 105,000 18,000 Installation,1 Cable 11,200 4,500 20,000 3,500 82,000 82,000 9,300 Installation,2 Cables 14,600 6,000 28,000 4,800 114,000 114,000 12,800 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization!/6.60 6.80 1.35 7.00 1.35 1.35 6.80 Cable Manufacture 1.40 4.86 0.83 10.50 0.53 0.63 3.42 Installation 0.87 1.25 0.55 1.47 0.41 0.49 1.77 Subtotal 8.87 12.91 2.73 18.97 2.29 2.47 11.99 Surveys 0.29 0.67 0.10 0.67 0.07 0.07 0.29 Engineeringl/0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.07 Total Installed Cost 9.26 13.58 2.90 19.74 2.41 2.59 12.35 1/bata furnished by Pirelli Cable Corporation 2/All EPR insulated cables 3/For AC cables,1 single cable consists of 3 conductors 4/Per Pirelli,manufacturing costs are current and include profit and overhead.7 Installation costs include a 5%contingency allowance.P © Table 3-5 (Cont'd) SUBMARINE CABLE COSTS FOR SURVEYED ROUTESI/2/ Segment:8.5 8.6 9.0 10 11 12 From:Bell Is.Pt.Lees Ketchikan Revilla.Portland Canal Mountain Pt. Item To:Revilla.Is.Revilla.Is.Grindall Pt.Pt.Trollup -Race Pt. Length of Cable,Feet 6,300 4,200 91,090 41,000 9,500 5,000 Voltage,kv AC (DC)138 138 (75)138 (100)69 Unit Costs in $/1000 ft1/3/4/ Manufacture Cable 105,000 105,000 18,000 115,000 25,000 60,000Installation,1 Cable 82,000 97,500 11,250 21,500 -97,500 Installation,2 Cables 114,000 178,800 14,600 32,000 178,800 178,800 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization!/1.35 0.67 6.60 6.80 0.67 0.67 Cable Manufacture 0.66 0.44 1.64 4.72 0.48 0.48 Installation 0.52 0.41 1.02 0.88 1.70 0.31 Subtotal 2.53 .1.52 9.26 12.40 2.85 1.46 Surveys1/0.07 0.07 0.29 0.10 0.07 0.07Engineering1/0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 Total Installed Cost 2.65 1.64 9.65 12.55 2.97 1.58 (2 cables) 1/Data furnished by Pirelli Cable Corporation 2/All EPR insulated cables 3/For AC cables,1 single cable consists of 3 conductors 4/Per Pirelli,manufacturing costs are current and include profit and overhead.Installation costs include a 5%contingency allowance, furnished by Pirelli for the surveyed routes.Table 3-6 shows the costs estimates developed for the additional submarine cable crossings. 3-8 Table 3-6 INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Lynn CanalCrossing:Lynn Canall/Lynn Canall/Lynn Canal Lynn Canal Segment No.:2.1 2.1/2.2 2.1B 2.1B 2.18 From:Skagway Skagway Skagway Skagway Skagway To:Haines Haines/Juneau Haines Haines Haines Length,Feet 78,000 355,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Voltage,kV AC (DC)138 (75)138 69 34.5 Cable Data2/ Conductor Size,mm2 240 150 240 120 70 No.of Conductors 3 1 3 3 3 Weight,lbs/ft 30.2 6.0 30.2 17.4 9.4 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 105,000 18,000 105,000 60,000 30,000 Installation,1 Cable 20,200 3,000 55,900 40,000 25,900 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 6.90 7.00 6.60 1.35 0.68 Manufacturing 8.19 6.39 1.57 0.90 0.45 Installation 1.58 1.07 0.84 0.60 0.39 Subtotal 16.67 14.46 9.01 2.85 1.52 Surveys and Engineering 0.83 0.73 0.45 0.14 0.14 Total Installed Cost3/25.00 15.19 9.46 2.99 1.66 1/Although the indicated routes were surveyed,consideration of various alternatives required interpolation of costs, 2/EPR insulated cables 3/Costs excluding contingencies and owners cost resulting in the estimates shown. Table 3-6 (Cont'd) INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Lynn Canal 2.2/2.8 Haines Douglas Is. Crossing:Lynn Canal Segment No.:2.2B From:Haines Tos:Juneau Length,Feet 51,000 Voltage,kv AC (DC)138 Cable Datal/. Conductor Size,mm2 240 No.of Conductors 3 Weight,lbs/ft 30.2 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 105,000 Installation,1 Cable 27,200 410,000 (75) 150 1 6.0 18,000 3,900 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 6.80 Manufacturing 5.35 Installation 1.39 Subtotal 13.54 Surveys and Engineering 0.68 Total Installed Costs2/14.22 1/EPR insulated cables 2/°Costs excluding contingencies and owners cost 16.67 Favorite Lynn Canal Channel 2.1/2.2/2.8 3 Skagway Juneau Douglas Is.Green's Creek 488,000 27,500 (75)138 150 240 1 3 6.0 30.2 18,000 105,000 3,600 40,800 7.00 6.70 8.78 2.89 1.76 1.12 17.54 10.71 0.88 0.54 18.42 11.25 Table 3-6 (Cont'd) INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Crossing:Favorite "Channel Chatham Str.Chatham Str.Ten.I./Pearl Segment No.:3 14.1 14.1 14.3/14.4 From:Juneau Green's Creek Green's Creek Tenakee To:Green's Creek Hoonah Hoonah Sitka Length,Feet!l/27,500 87,000 87,000 (2)40,000 Voltage,kv AC (DC)69 138 69 138 Cable Data2/ Conductor Size,mm2 120 240 120 240 No.of Conductors 3 3 3 3 Weight,lbs/ft 17.4 30.2 17.4 30.2 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 60,000 105,000 60,000 105,000 Installation,1 Cable 31,270 19,660 15,660 31,710 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 6.60 6.95 6.80 6.75 Manufacturing 1.65 9.14 5.22 4.20 Installation 0.86 1.70 1.36 1.27 Subtotal 9.11 17.79 13.38 12.22 Surveys and Engineering 0.46 0.89 0.67 0.61 Total Installed Costs3/9.57 18.68 14.05 12.83 1/7 (2)Indicates two separate cable crossings ww}do||/EPR insulated cables /Costs excluding contingencies and owners cost Table 3-6 (Cont'd) INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Crossing:Ten.I./Pearl Ten.I./Chatham Fredrick S.Chatham Str. Segment No.:14.3/14.4 14.3/14.5 5.4 7.1 From:Tenakee Tenakee Snettisham Sitka To:Sitka Angoon Kake Kake Length,Feetl/(2)40,000 (2)80,000 333,000 190,000 Voltage,kv AC (DC)69 69 (100)(100) Cable Data2/ Conductor Size,mm2 120 240 240 240 No.of Conductors 3 3 1 1 Weight,lbs/ft 17.4 17.4 8.0 8.0 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 60,000 60,000 25,000 25,000 Installation,1 Cable 25,230 15,660 5,000 9,600 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 6.65 6.80 6.95 6.80 Manufacturing 2.40 4.80 8.33 4.75 Installation 1.01 1.25 1.66 1.82 Subtotal 10.06 12.85 16.94 13.37 Surveys and Engineering 0.50 0.64 0.85 0.39 Total Installed Costs3/10.56 13.49 17.79 13.76 1/7 (2)Indicates two separate cable crossings 2/EPR insulated cables 3/Costs excluding contingencies and owners cost Table 3-6 (Cont'd) INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Crossing:Wrngl.N./Duncan Wrangell Nar.N:Behm Canal N.Behm Canal Segment No.:6.1 6.2 8.3 8.2 From:Petersburg Petersburg Tyee Lake Tyee Lake To:Kake Kake Swan Lake Swan Lake Length,Feetl/(2)11,000 3,200 3,200 10,000: Voltage,kV AC (DC)138 138 138 138 Cable Data2/ Conductor Size,mm2 240 240 240 240 No.of Conductors 3 3 3 3 Weight,lbs/ft 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 Installation,1 Cable 66,440 99,600 99,600 66,440 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 1.35 0.67 0.67 1.35 Manufacturing 1.16 0.34 0.34 1.05 Installation 0.73 0.32 0.32 0.66 Subtotal 3.24 1.33 1.33 3.06 Surveys and Engineering 0.29 0.13 0.16 0.16 Total Installed Costs3/3.53 1.46 1.46 3.22 1/(2)Indicates two separate cable crossings 2/EPR insulated cables 3/Costs excluding conti ngencies and owners cost Table 3-6 (Cont'd) INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Crossing:Behm Canal Clarence Str.Behm Canal Behm Canal Behm Canal Behm Canal Segment No.:13.1 13.2 10.3 10.3/10.10 10.5/10.7 10.5/10.7/10.10 From:Tyee Lake Tyee Lake Swan Lake Swan Lake Swan Lake Swan Lake To:Ketchikan Prince of Wales Quartz Hill Quartz Hill Quartz Hill Quartz Hill Length,Feet!/50,000 48,000 48,000 83,000 (2)61,000 (2)96,000 Voltage,kV AC (DC)138 69 138 138 138 138 Cable Data2/ Conductor Size,mm2 240 120 240 240 240 240 No.of Conductors 3 3 3 3 3 3 Weight,lbs/ft 30.2 17.4 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 105,000 60,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 Installation,1 Cable 27,200 22,600 30,600 20,100 24,200 19,300 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 6.80 6.70 6.80 6.95 6.90 7.00 Manufacturing 5.25 2.88 5.52 9.54 7.01 11.04 Installation 1.36 1.08 1.47 1.67 1.48 1.85 Subtotal 13.41 10.66 13.79 18.16 15.39 19.89 Surveys and Engineering 0.67 0.54 0.69 0.91 0.77 1.00 Total Installed Costs3/14.08 11.20 14.48 19.07 16.16 20.89 1/(2)Indicates two separate cable crossings 2/EPR insulated cables3/Costs excluding contingencies and owners cost Table 3-6 (Cont'd) INTERPOLATED COST ESTIMATES FOR SUBMARINE CABLE ROUTES NOT SURVEYED Crossing:.Behm Canal Behm Canal Behm Canal Behm Canal Segment No.:10.7 10.7/10.10 10.8 10.8/10.10 From:Swan Lake Swan Lake Swan Lake Swan Lake Tos Quartz Hill Quartz Hill Quartz Hill Quartz Hill Length,Feet 53,000 88,000 45,000 80,000 Voltage,kV AC (DC)138 138 138 138 Cable Datal/. Conductor Size,mm?240 240 240 240 No.of Conductors 3 3 3 3 Weight,lbs/ft 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 Unit Cost in $/1000 ft Manufacture Cable 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 Installation,1 Cable 27,400 19,300 30,600 20,900 Total Cost for Single Cable,in $Millions Mobilization 6.80 6.90 6.80 6.95 Manufacturing 6.10 10.12 5.17 9.20 Installation 1.45 1.70 1.38 1.67 Subtotal 14.35 18.72 13.35 17.82 Surveys and Engineering 0.72 0.93 0.67 0.89 Total Installed Costs2/15.07 19.65 14.02 18.71 Vy EPR insulated cables2/Costs excluding contingencies and owners cost3/(2)Indicates two separate cable crossings Chapter 4 OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES General This chapter describes the assumptions,criteria and para- meters used to develop the preliminary designs and cost esti- mates for comparison of the various.overhead transmission line alternatives.The study is based on the climatic and terrain information available and conductor sizes determined from the system studies described in Chapter2.The quantity of theinformationindicated,and the extent of engineering described below is deemed to be sufficient to permit cost comparisons and estimates to an accuracy of 20 percent.From the general climatic data available,preliminary conductor loadings were formulated and sag and tensions were calculated.These,in turn,were used as a basis for selecting suitable spans,struc- ture types and all component requirements. Subsequently,costs were estimated and compared for stand- ard line structures and a structure type was selected for recom mendation.The prices used for all major line materials are current,and suppliers of the line structures were consulted. However,because of the general nature of this study,further investigation and study would be required to establish the final design criteria for particular segments of the line prior to construction. Line erection costs were estimated based on salary rates, obtained from the Alaska Labor Department in Juneau,and assumed construction production rates and manpower needed.Previous studies for the S.E.Intertie and actual line construction costs supplied by the Power Authority were studied and compared to computed costs as applicable. Climatic Conditions For preliminary studies,the average climatic conditions, shown below,were used.It should be recognized that considera- tion of higher wind conditions and heavier ice accumulation on conductors may be required in final design of particular sec-tions of the line,such as the White Pass portion of the Skagway -Whitehorse interconnection. The following table shows the conditions used to compute conductor loadings: Table 4-1 ASSUMED CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES!/ Strength Condition Temperature °F Limit (REA) Everyday temperature 40 33.3%Initial Max.radial ice 1.5 in.30 70% Max.wind 120 MPH 40 703% Max.conductor temperature 120 - NESC heavy loading 0 50% NESC minimum temperature 0 25%Final 1/To establish minimum clearance requirements seven feetofsnowaccumulationwasassumed. Structure Foundations Direct embedment of the line structure poles is assumed for construction of the lines.With exception of deep muskeg deposits,pole embedment in normal inorganic soil is taken as ten percent of the pole length plus two feet.For poles set in rock,the embedment length is assumed to be ten percent of the pole length. For shallow muskeg deposits,pole embedment will be governed by the depth to underlying stable soils.For deep muskeg areas,raft or similar type foundations in conjunction with guying could be used,with log anchors for pole guys. Screw or rock anchors would be used for guys in inorganic and rock soils,respectively. If steel line structures are used,particularly the free standing single pole type,caisson foundations would be required for heavily loaded (angle or dead end)structures in normal soils.Rock anchor foundations would be used for rocky areas and,in general,pile foundations would be required for deep muskeg areas.Anchor bolts would provide the connection between the foundation and the pole for these types of foundations. 138 kV AC Overhead Lines In accordance with system studies presented in Chapter 2, 138 kV was selected as the voltage level for major AC trunk line routes. Conductors Based on the system studies,described in Chapter 2,it was determined that a 336 kCM ACSR conductor would meet the electri- cal requirements for the 138 kv lines.However,because of Southeast Alaska's terrain and weather conditions,which are considered severe,the larger 397.5 kCM ACSR conductor was used for cost estimating purposes.It is believed that no conductor smaller than 336 kCM ACSR should be used for these lines.The actual conductor size can be established in the final design stage,but no appreciable reduction in cost would be realized by using the smaller conductor. Because the isokearaunic level is very low (1-2)in the study area,a shield wire will not generally be required on the lines.The approaches to line terminals,however,should be shielded for a distance of 1.0-1.5 miles. Insulators An insulation level equivalent to eight standard 5-3/4"x 10"porcelain insulator discs per string was selected for the 138 kv AC lines.Insulator assembly characteristics are shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 138 KV AC INSULATOR ASSEMBLY CHARACTERISTICS Nominal Voltage (L-L)138 kV No.of Insulators 8 Low Frequency Dry/Wet 485/760 kV Impulse Pos/Neg 780/760 kv Leakage Distance 92 inches. ME Strength 20,000 lbs. For cost estimating purposes,the use of polymer insulatorswasassumed.Although the price quoted for the polymer type is higher than that for porcelain,polymer insulators are recom-mended because of their light weight,strength and construction/maintenance advantages.The comparable cost and weight perassemblyofthetwotypesofinsulatorsareshowninTable 4-3. Table 4-3 PORCELAIN VS.POLYMER INSULATORS FOR 138 KV AC CONSTRUCTION Item Porcelain Polymer Weight,lbs per assembly 110 30 Cost per assembly $140 $170 Line Structures To select the appropriate line structure for the main trunk Intertie transmission lines,a cost comparison study was made for the 138 kV AC lines.The three types of structures consid- ered were Wood Standard H-Frame with X-bracing,Steel H-Frame and Single Steel Pole,all directly embedded.The selection only these three structure types for this study is based on line construction costs in Alaska.The labor erection cost is high and in general represents the larger part of the total construc- tion cost due to access,terrain features and climatic condi- tions.Therefore,the least expensive alternative for line con- struction should be the one which requires less labor and time. Lattice galvanized steel towers were not considered because they require more labor for their erection and foundations than the selected structure types and are considered by many to be objectionable because of their visual impact.Wood single pole structures,although the least expensive alternative per struc- ture,were also rejected because of their limited span length, which can present difficulties for their spotting in the rough terrain encountered along many line routes.Furthermore,the larger number of wood single pole structures required would also increase the labor required for their erection. The assumed minimum vertical clearance for the main trunk lines is 23 feet,in accordance with NESC (National Electrical Safety Code)guidelines for 138 kV AC line voltage along roads in rural areas.An assumed snow accumulation depth of seven feet is used in conjunction with the minimum clearance to estab- lish the average structure height for the cost estimates.Sag calculations for various span lengths for the 138 kV lines, under the assumed conditions,are given on Table 4-4. Economical span lengths have not been calculated for the selected structure types because this is not considered neces- sary for cost comparison purposes. Wood H-Frame Wood Structure.The standard 138 kV Wood H-Frame structure with X-bracing (see Figure 4-1)is the basic 4-4 -PREPARED FOR -LARK .397.5 KCH 30/7 STKAND ACSR CONDUCTUR HEAVY LUADING 0.3649 HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY ..USING STRESS@STRAIN DATA AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FRUM ALCUA CROSS SECTIONAL AREA ULTIMATE.STRENGTH = ELECTRICAL SAFETY CODE CONSTANT = OVERALL.OIJAMETER &. STRESS=STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. ENGLISH UNITS SPAN&=600.0 FEET DESIGN POINTS TEMPsF ICEsIN.WINDsLBSF -9,0.0.500 4.000 0.0 1,500 0.000 0.0 0.900 0.900 40,0 0.000 21,000 40.0 ..9.000 0.000 40,0 0.000 6,000-40.0 _0.000..0,000.120.0 0,000 0.000 SPANZ 700.0 FEET .DESIGN POINTS TEMPeF ICEeINe WIND/LBSF 0.0 ...0.500..4.000 0,0 1.500 0.000 0.90.9.000 0.000 40.0 0.000 21,000 40.0.0,000 0.000 40,0 0,000 6,000 240.0 0.000....9,000.120.0 0.000 0.000 SPAN=1000.0 FEET DESIGN POINTS TEMPeF ICEsINe WINDSLBSF 0 9__94500 4,000 0.0 1,500 0,000 0,0 0,000 0,000 40,0 0,000 21,000 40,0 0,000 0,000 40.0 0.000 6,000 -40,0 0,000 0,0v0 120.0 0.000 0.000 ALASKA.POWER AUTHORITY 26300.00000 LB. 0.6060000 IN. SQ. 1-773 Table 4-4 IN. 0.30000 FINAL SAGs FT.TENSION, 9,78 16,84 5.52 £1.04 7,06 7.76 4,36 8.82 13214, $075. 6294, 3973, 4306, 6429, 3180. FINAL SAGs FT.TENSION, 12.93 21.34 7,82 14,36 9.58 10.51. -6.27 _. 41.33 SAGs FT. 34,35 43.79 26,84 36.08 30,11 31.30 27,56 32,59 14200. 4681, 6590. 3984, 43206, 6088, 3370. FINAL TENSTONe 56097,_. 14200, e7il, 5379, 2598, 2978. 2436, 2402, LB. TATLe LHe 7386... LB. SAG AND TENSION DATA 0/0 .35-32 65.09 25,00 31.01 19,57 21.21 odeb7. 15.66 070 3O039__.. 69.95 24,04 32.46 19,62 21.31 29099 16.60 070 28,06 69.95 13.35 26.50 12,80 14,67 15.97 11.83 INITJAL SAGs FT.TENSIONS .Lelb 9027. 16,64 13214. 3,51 7986. 8,45 4221. 4,02 6960. 4,70 7103. 3,12.8970, 5.66 a957. Loe INITIAL SAG,FT.TENSIUNe LBo 9099 .9548, 21.34 14200, 4,59 8316, 10,77 8761, Seek 7325, 6.07 7489, -4ell.9272, 7.40 $375. INITIAL SAG,e FT.TENSIONe 28,91.6758, 43.79 14200, 21.81 3578. 30,42 6366. 24,03 3249, 25.05 3713. 19.57 3985. 28.32 2760, SAG CALCULATIONS FOR 138 KV AC OVERHEAD LINES 0/0 44,47 65.09 39.34 40.50 34,32 34.99 44.19 24.42 0/0 47.03 69.95 40.96 43.26 36,06 36.69 45.67 26.48 0/0 33.29 69.95 17.63 31.36 16,00 16.29 19.03 13.60 RESULTANT 1.556 4.924 0.623 1.542 0.623 0.742 0.623 0.623 RESULTANT 1,556 4.924 0.623 1.542 0.623 0.742 0,623 0.623 RESULTANT 1.556 4.924 0.623 1.542 U.623 0.742 0.623 FIGURE 4-1 §+0"\|TewenTTTTt =6%/5Q FT WIND©40°F SWING (NESC) WARZA encveces covesny (8.5 ACRES /MILE) -OCTOBER 195° NOTE.g \ SIM/LAR STRUCTURE 4 FOR bE 8/POLAR al /2FT7. 41INE WITH GROUND MIN,CLEARANCE RETURN CONDUCTOR . 4\1 - N : L CONDUCTORS V Q 8 iN ¢397.5 KCM ACSR yXe)=HORIZONTAL SPAN,¥=700 F7./ S|!ra:y |Sp 'J w \g OY N Pe)_/ N ©OY Q !GRO xy y -||UND LINE ?}SITS STATIS TE AE STIRS TESTIS TFS PESTS TISTET ETS ETT -/|8°EMBEOMENT Zw , 35'-0"J 35'-0rTOTALROWW/OTH 70-7 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY 138KV AC WOOD H-FRAME TANGENT STRUCTURE type selected for the cost comparison.Based on preliminarycalculations,the span capability of the structure with ANSI class poles is estimated to be 700 ft.considering the followingloads: e NESC Heavy Loading e 120 MPH Wind Load e 1-1/2 Inch Radial Ice Load Without Wind In accordance with suppliers'price quotes,the material cost per structure delivered to Ketchikan is as follows: Framing (crossarms,braces,bolts,etc.)$900.00 Poles 1050.00 Total $1950.00 The total weight of the structure would be approximately 5100 lbs.using the 60 ft.poles required for the assumed clearance. Steel H-Frame Structure.The steel H-Frame structure con- sidered would be two steel poles without X-bracing and one tubu- lar crossarm (see Figure 4-2).For the loadings shown above, the steel structure weight would be 5,200 lbs.,approximately the same as the Wood H-Frame alternative.The span capability, however,would be 1000 feet compared to 700 feet.Therefore, for the same weight,the number of structures per mile will be reduced from 9 to 6,with a corresponding reduction in construc- tion labor cost.The price of the tangent structure quoted by a U.S.manufacturer is $6,800 including freight to Ketchikan.To accommodate the bigger sag for the longer span,the height of the structure would be increased by 10 feet compared to the Wood H-Frame. The steel H-frame structure considered would be constructed of bare CORTAN-A588M steel with a coal tar coating on the embedded length.Clips for removable ladders and a 2 foot ground sleeve would be provided. Single Steel Pole Structure.A third structure type which could be used for the 138 kV AC lines is a Single Steel Pole structure with free-standing shaft and three crossarms as shown on Figure 4-3.Based on the same loading as above and 1000 foot span,the estimated structure weight is 4,500 lbs.The struc-ture would have the same features as given for the Steel H-Frame structure.The supplier's estimated price for a tangent pole is -$5,000 including freight to Ketchikan.The total length of the pole would be in the range of 80-85 feet. LLhhse PE, A 60'-0”q 10"EMBEDMENT | ve /7*6 wu” | i Z -oe--e- I i | u Xx% (\! >i”|ly 9 CONDUCTORS BS .397.5 KCM ACSR & fe)HORIZONTAL SPAN ©S 1000 FT.b ©& |:|GROUND LINELSTTSUtESBLSwereherent oe £0'-0"--50'-oOo” FIGURE 4-2 WARZA eExcnesteanc comeeny V TOTAL ROW W/DTH 100FT(12.1 ACRES/MILE} OCTOSES 1957 {-->'NALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY 138KV STEEL H-FRAME TANGENT STRUCTURE STEEL DAV/IT FIGURE 4-3CROSSARMS 9 «! N =4 S$ iy CONDUCTORS S975 KEM ACSR HORIZONTAL SPAN 1000 F7. | x | YH ™ .5S _QO ||N\>ae) %)q aN P ” g -_-*>--we i N\.SN L- \»)®wie N\|9 Ly i .NeN\ \&5 \- |GROUND LINE 5iwTWfGUEgOLDAOEalkORDERNGOOGPERINSpoTEES /3'EMBEDMENT ZI 58-6""L *3g'-6" TOTAL ROW WIDTH 77 FT (9.4 ACRES /M/LE) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY 138KV STEEL POLE TANGENT STRUCTURE HARZA eNGrEERNS COMmcNyY ©OCTOBER 1957 138 kV Line Structure Cost Comparison.Estimated basiccostspermileforconventionallineconstructionforselected three alternatives are shown in Table 4-5.The costs shown are for comparison purposes only and do not include the costs of right of way acquisition,clearing,engineering,administration,or contingencies. Table 4-5 LINE STRUCTURE costsl/ Wood Steel Single H-Frame H-Frame Steel Pole Number of structures per mile 9 6 6 Number of pole embedments per mile 18 12 6 Estimated weight of struc- tures per mile,lbs..45,900 46,800 40,500 Estimated cost of construc-; tion per mile $101,700 $112,600 $109,800 Estimated cost of materials per mile $54,000 $80,000 S$73,000 Total cost per mile2/$155,700 $192,600 $182,800 i/Composite costs for 75/15/10 percent of normal/rock/muskegfoundationconditions, 2/Without cost of ROW,clearing,contingencies,administra-tion,or engineering. As shown in the table,the least cost alternative is the Wood H-Frame construction alternative followed by the Single Steel Pole.The final choice between the two can be made only during the final line design stage when the soil conditionsalongtherouteshouldbeknownandanalysisofthecostof the structures and their foundations is performed.For this compar-- ison,the assumption of 75/15/10 percent of normal/rock/muskeg soil conditions was made.Other parameters which will influence the selection of steel versus wood structures will be the line maintenance conditions and construction access.For helicopter assisted line construction in roadless areas,for example,steel poles may have a cost advantage because they are lighter per . mile,and require a fewer number of structures to transport. 4-6 For this evaluation,however,the Wood H-Frame structure is the least expensive alternative and was selected for use in the cost estimates of all 138 kV overhead lines. 69 kv AC Overhead Lines Based on the system studies described in Chapter 2,69 kV AC overhead lines were selected for major branch lines.Theywouldbeofthesinglewoodpoletype,directly embedded.Theselectedbasiclinefeaturesareasdescribedinthefollowing paragraphs.For estimating purposes this configuration was also used for 34.5 kV branch lines where applicable. Conductors and Insulators -Size 4/0 AWG ACSR conductors were selected for cost esti- mating proposes.This is the next larger size conductor to the Minimum for 69 kV voltage class lines according to REA (Rural Electrification Administration)Standards.Calculations of con- ductor sag were made for the 69 kV lines based on conductor tensions limited to recommended safe values for aeolian vibra- tion and maximum stress. Line insulation equivalent to four standard 4-3/4"x 10" porcelain insulator discs was selected for the 69 kV AC lines. Because polymer line post insulators are expected to provide necessary resistance to unbalanced load for the conductors and Spans assumed,they can be used for these lines also.Compared to the porcelain type,polymer insulators are lighter in weight, more resistant to vandalism,easier to maintain and result ina reduction of ROW width.Therefore polymer line post insulators are the selected type for this analysis. Line Structures Based on the same loading conditions as for the 138 kv lines,the 45-50 ft.ANSI Class 2 pole is estimated to be required for an assumed 350 foot average span.Fifteen struc-tures per mile would be required.A typical structure configu- ration is shown on Figure No.4-4. DC Overhead Lines Two DC transmission voltages,75 kV and 100 kV,would be utilized in the Intertie System as presently conceived.TheoverheadDClinesforthisvoltageclasswillbeverysimilar to the 69 kV AC overhead lines.The main differences would be that a single conductor would be used for monopolar (or two forbipolar)systems instead of three conductors needed for AC linesandthattheinsulatorsusedmustbesuitableforDCoperation. Figure 4-5 shows a typical 100 kV DC wood pole tangent struc- 4-7 FIGURE 4-4 je creereresTrrtT CONDUCTORS 9/0 AWG ACSI HORIZONTAL SPAN ¥€00 F7.|SAGN >= N >/ Q xRtli=/ % >ly $/ N / L%)w N Qt 2/7 N rey Oy N 0 &/ S|GROUND LINE 1 fTITERTET&"EMBEDMENT, 20-0"20'.0" TOTAL ROW WIOTH 40F / (4.9 ACRES /MIL E) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY 69KV AC WOOD POLE TANGENT STRUCTURE SHAR ZA ENGneEANG CoNmeNY OCTORER 1887 arer a aro FIGURE 4-5 5-6"5'6 4 -.7.7 . - 3 Z >E YS+-tGROUNDRETURNoeSN SECOND CONDUCTOR ¥ FOR BIPOLAR LINE |<CONDUCTOR 397,§KCM 405R TOTAL ROW WIOTH 50 Fr Y HORIZONTAL SPAN 700 F7. (6.0 ACRES/MILE)Jj (\ BS l9 3 = s S >Ne) \a += \O}!OY .:ey\oY,\a7 \/ \|GROUND j\LINE |i L\|A TRIES TETRIS?parr RoreeneraTVeTETSEMBEDMENT, r 2070" , 20:07 TOTAL ROW WIOTH 40fT (4.9 ACRES/MILE) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY MONOPOLAR 100KV DC WOOD POLE TANGENT STRUCTUREHARZAENcNEEENGcoves.>.OCTOeFR 1267 ture.Spans for the DC lines were assumed to be 700 feet mono- polar lines and 400 feet for bipolar lines.Where three conduc- tors are required (bipolar plus a sea return conductor)H-frame structures similar to those previously described could be used. Conductors Size 397.5 kCM ACSR conductors,the same as those selected for the 138 kv AC lines,were assumed for the DC circuits. Insulators The contamination severity and leakage resistanceofinsulatorsarethemostimportantparametersforselection of DC line insulation.For the Southeast Intertie area salt contam- ination should be considered.The insulation failure for DC lines,in general,can occur as a result of the wetting of con- tamination by fog,or mist,after a protracted dry period.The process of failure starts with increased leakage currents which heat the insulator surface and produce so-called dry bands. Then,under the voltage stress,arcs over the dry bands occur between low resistance areas with resulting cascading flashover and insulation failure.Therefore,one of the main parameters to consider in selecting DC insulators is the leakage distance provided by the insulation. For this analysis,suspension polymer insulators with a leakage distance of 1.0 in./kV line to ground (100 inches total for a 100 kV line)were assumed.The exact type of insulators to be used on DC lines will be selected during the final line design. Vertical Clearance The minimum ground clearance of 23 feet was used to estab- lish the DC line structure height requirements.This clearance was calculated in accordance with NESC requirements for 100 kV DC voltage in areas with vehicular traffic. ROW Width &Minimum Clearing Requirements The right of way (ROW)for transmission lines must be ofsufficientwidthtoprovideanenvironmentforsafeandreliable operation and maintenance of the line.The ROW widths recom- mended herein were estimated based on NESC requirements to pro- vide minimum clearance from deflected conductors to construction at any place on the edge of the ROW,based on conductor deflec-tions for average spans and swing under 6 lbs/sq.ft.wind pressure. For the line voltages recommended for the Southeast Inter- tie (maximum 138 kV AC or 100 kV DC),the Electrical Environ- mental Effects are not expected to be governing and were notconsideredinselectionofROWwidth.For example,electro-static field at ground level for 138 kV AC lines will be much less,compared to that allowed for higher voltage lines and,assuch,should not present a problem.At the most,only RadioInterference(RI)from the lines may have adverse effects at particular locations,and,if warranted,would be addressed during design stages. The clearing of ROW preferably would be held to a minimum (Fig.4-6),and is done for the following three main reasons: 1)To facilitate the erection of the line structures.A minimum cleared radius at each site would be required to assemble the materials and maneuver the erection equipment. 2)To allow efficient installation of conductors. Normally,minimum width stringing trails should be cleared to allow the pulling of the conductors.Where vegetation is light bulldozer clearing may be per- formed.Forested areas will require clear cutting. The use of helicopters for stringing would reduce clearing requirements between line structures. 3)To provide adequate electrical clearance to the energized line.The clearances provided are in accordance with NESC requirements. Right of way widths for the line configurations considered and the acreage of right of way per mile of line are given on Figures 4-1 through 4-4.Based on information provided by the Alaska Power Authority an allowance for land and land rights of $7000.000 per 'ile of overhead transmission line is included in the cost estimates presented herein. Estimated Construction Costs for Overhead Transmission Lines To facilitate the route selection for each transmission segment and the economic analyses of the various intertie system alternatives,comparative cost estimates were prepared for each type of overhead construction required.Because,site specific information,such as foundation conditions,is not available these estimate are considered preliminary.Per mile costs were developed for the following line configurations: 1.138 kV AC Wood H-Frame (also DC bipolar plus sea return) FIGURE 4-6 CLEARING AT STRUCTURE SITE Cas REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE ERECTION OR FIRE HAZARD REASONSCLEARINGAT MID SPAN | DISPLACEDaeee \AT REST. TE + |AS REQUIREDr-4 35!FOR STRINGING3S! YROW WIOTH ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY MINIMUM CLEARING DIAGRAM 138KV STRUCTURE LARZA encnesans COvRony OCTOBER 1957 2.69 kV AC Wood Single Poles 3.100-75 kV DC Wood Single Poles a.Monopolar DC line b.Bipolar DC line The per mile cost used for 34.5 kV construction is the same that estimated for the 69 kV AC lines,for this study. For each line configuration considered,the cost of con- struction along existing roads,using conventional methods and in normal soil conditions,was estimated.This basic per mile construction cost was then modified to develop estimated costs for construction under adverse conditions,such as rock founda- tion,muskeg foundation,or limited access conditions.For the purposes of this report,all limited access transmission lines are assumed to be constructed using helicopter construction techniques. Calculated manhour costs and the estimated manhours requir- ed for particular construction operations were used to arrive at the basic average line construction cost per mile. Installation of the transmission line requires three labor- intensive operations:structure location and setting;pole-top assembly installation;and conductor stringing.Determination of manhours required for these three operations depends on production rates and local conditions.The production rates used for this analysis were developed based on information from contractors,previous reports and published data.Local condi- tions,different erection procedures and equipment were consid- ered.For example,the hauling costs for steel poles can be almost double the hauling cost for wood poles because steel poles must be handled in a manner to prevent denting and cannot be dragged.Pole top assembly installation time depends on the type of line structure utilized.Pole top assemblies for single poles are more complex than those for H frame construction and consequently require more installation time. For stringing by the tension method,line accessibility is the major factor affecting the cost of line stringing.Adverse conditions can increase the time required for stringing to as much as double the normal time.Structure clipping and deadend making depend on the number of structures in the line so that'the crew time required for these operations is proportional to the number of structures per mile. The basic construction costs developed include the follow- ing: 1.Labor cost,based on Alaska Department of Labor infor- mation adjusted for 60 hour work weeks,plus payroll burden and fringe benefits,and including allowances for mobilization,demobilization and lodging. 2.Work force and construction time required.For each line configuration,the crew composition and produc- tion rate was estimated for material hauling,excava- tion,structure assembly and erection,and conductor stringing. 3.Structure type and number per mile,as described previously.The estimate is based on tangent struc- ture construction and adjusted to account for angle, dead end,and crossing structure construction. 4.Line material costs.The cost estimates are based on current manufacturer quotations plus an allowance of 25%for shipping and handling. 5.Contractor's profit and overhead,assumed to be 45%of total labor costs. Separate per mile costs were developed for rock and muskeg foundation construction and for helicopter construction.The costs developed for helicopter construction assumes transpor- tation of all materials,equipment and crew using either a Bell Model 212 or 205 for the hauling materials and setting of line structures and a Hughes Model 500 for assistance during conduc tor stringing and transportation of personnel. Table 4-6 shows the basic per mile costs for four trans- mission line configurations.Table 4-7 gives the per mile cost for construction in rock foundation areas and also for muskeg area construction.The estimated additional cost for trans- mission line construction with access solely by helicopter is based on-the number of line structures required per mile for each type of line configuration.The additional per mile costs range from $20,000 for 138 kV AC construction to $10,000 formonopolarDClines,regardless of the foundation conditions encountered. Estimated clearing costs are based on complete removal of timber and slash from the transmission line right of way.Table 4-8 shows the estimated per mile cost for the various line con- figurations considered. Table 4-6 OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINESBASICCONSTRUCTIONPERMILEcostsl/ $Per Mile 138 kV Wood 69 kV bc be H-Frame Wood Pole Monopolar Bipolar Structure Foundations/mi 182/15 9 14 Labor Stringing $51,000 $45,000 $25,000 $39,000 Struct.Erect.43,000 40,000 30,000 38,000 Total Labor $94,000 S$85,000 $55,000 S$77,000 Materials Conductors &Accessories Line Conductors 13,800 6,500 4,600 9,200 Insulators,Hardware and Miscellaneous 7,700 12,100 2,500 7,400 Subtotal -$21,500 $18,600 $7,100 $16,600 Poles &Fixtures Poles 26,500 16,000 9,000 16,000 Guys,Anch.& Other Mat.6,000 3,400 2,900 3,400 Subtotal $32,500 $19,400 $11,900 $19,400 Total Material §54,000 $38,000 $19,000 $36,000 Basic ConstructionCost3/$148,000 $123,000 $74,000 $113,000 1/Construction along existing roads with normal soil founda-tions. 2/Nine structures per mile. 3/Excludes the costs of right of way acquisition,.clearing,engineering,construction management and contingencies and owner's costs. Table 4-7 OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES PER MILE CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN ROCK AND MUSKEG FOUNDATION AREAS $Per Mile 138 kv Wood 69 kV DC DC H-Frame Wood Pole Monopolar Bipolar Structure Foundations/mi 18 15 9 14 Rock Foundation Labor Stringing $51,000 $45,000 $25,000 $39,000 Str.Erection $73,000 62,000 48,000 60,000 Materials 54,000 38,000 19,000 36,000 Per Mile Construc-$178,000 $145,000 $92,000 $135,000 tion Cost Muskeg Foundation Labor Stringing 51,000 45,000 25,000 39,000 Str.Erect.84,000 71,000 55,000 68,000 Materials 57,000 39,000 20,000 38,000 Per Mile Construc-$192,000 $155,000 $100,000 $145,000 tion Cost i Construction along existing roads. 2/Excludes the costs of right of way acquisition,clearing,engineering,construction management and contingencies and owner's costs. Table 4-8 ESTIMATED CLEARING COSTS FOR VARIOUS TRANSMISSIONLINE CONFIGURATIONS Transmission Line Cost per Mile,$ 138 kV Wood H-Frame 85,000 69 kV Single Wood Pole 54,000 DC Monopolar 54,000 DC Bipolar 70,000 Chapter 5 SUBSTATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Introduction Substations will be required at each load center served by the Intertie,to step the transmission line voltage down to the level of local subtransmission or primary distribution voltage Substations will also be required at locations where two systems having different operating voltages terminate,such as at Swan Lake (115 kV)for the interconnection with Tyee Lake (138 kV). At the interface of AC and DC transmission segments,sophisti- cated manned facilities called converter/inverter stations will be required.At the junction of spur lines with the main trunk intertie transmission line,switching stations will be required if all of the line voltages are the same;if not,a substation, with a transformer,will be required. AC Stations Substations and switching stations for the Intertie should be designed using reliability criteria consistent with that used to guide the design of the entire Intertie System.Accordingly, for main trunk line substations,important to the functioning of the entire Intertie,a main and transfer bus arrangement is recommended.This arrangement has sufficient redundancy to allow scheduled maintenance or unscheduled outage of circuit breakers with no detrimental affect on System operations. Figure 5-1 shows a one-line diagram of a typical 138 kV AC main line substation. For substations on radial lines from the main trunk line, less rigid reliability criteria can be applied.Outages at these facilities would affect the load centers located down- stream of the problem facility,but would have no detrimentalaffectontheoperationofentireIntertieSystem.Thus,in theinterestofeconomy,a simpler substation arrangement is justi- fied.Figure 5-2 shows a typical radial line substation arrangement. Oil retention facilities are required at substations to contain any oil spillage.The substation components utilizingoilaretransformersandcircuitbreakers.To minimize the size of the oil retention facilities,minimum oil circuit breakers or SFg circuit breakers should be specified.Therefore,thecapacityoftheoilretentionsystemneedonlybeadequate to hold the transformer oil. FIGURE 5- 138 KV 5 MVA Transformer a Switch (typ)#ToGreensCreekCircuit Breaker (typ) VI - -f35LIae138 KV | M.B.ToExisting«a.12.4KVSub.+-T-ToTenakee<@@SpringsHOONAH WEST ROUTE SUBSTATION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY TYPICAL 138 KV AC MAIN LINE SUBSTATION IMARZA Eexcneeans COveavy .ocToRER +857 FIGURE 5- 69 KV By-Pass Circuit Breaker (typ) Switch (typ)_,)f 5 MVA Transformer38 ToAngoonToHoonahToExisting12.4KVSub.TENAKEE SPRINGS SUBSTATION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY TYPICAL RADIAL LINE SUBSTATION HARZA EXNGNEEANG Conmeny ©OCTOBER 1957 pc Convertor/Inverter Stations Several segments of the Intertie necessitate the use of DC converter stations for either system reliability or due to the length of the required submarine cables.Two DC system configu- rations are recommended;the monopolar sea return and the bi- polar sea return configurations. The monopolar configuration,as the name implies,has one conductor energized and the return current path is through the sea and ground.As discussed in Chapter 2 this simple system is recommended for all the DC locations except the Quartz Hill - Kitsault interconnection.The bipolar system is recommended for this segment. The bipolar configuration utilizes two poles with one or more converters per pole at each terminal.There are two con- ductors,one per pole at each terminal.The midpoint between the converters at each end are grounded. The main components of the DC convertor station are shown in Figure 5-3.These components are as follows: 1.Convertor transfer 2.AC Filter 3.Shunt Capacitors 4.Convertor 5.Smoothing Reactor 6.pc Filter The converter transformer is the link between the AC and the DC systems and is designed to provide an ungrounded,voltage source for the converter bridge.The tranformer is a single- 'phase three-winding transformer;one primary and two second- aries.The primary windings are connected to the AC bus in a wye configuration.One secondary winding is connected wye andthesecondwindingisconnecteddelta.The voltage induced in the delta winding has a waveform 30 degrees out of phase with the one induced in the other winding,such that the two wave- forms taken together form a six-phase system. Converter stations tend to inject harmonics into the AC system.The AC filters and shunt capacities reduce distortionintheACsystemandprovidevarsupportfortheconverter.Thefiltershuntstheimpedanceofthenetworktogroundandthereby shunts the harmonics generated by the converter bridge to ground. The converter will have two valves for each electricalphase.Each valve has a number of thyristors connected in 5-2 FIGURE 5-3 CONVERTER STATION Smootning TRANSMISSION CONVERTER LINE STATION Converter Transf.YY. C Converter q AN -t roa a \!3{DC Filterr>ee Aa |ct!, 1 | 7 14|anei-{LM !!-: |1 1 | _1! -if |1 (Control SystemUA |' Shunt Capacitors AC Bus ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY CONVERTER STATION - MAIN COMPONENTSLIARZAencnesanccomeanr OcTOsER 1987 series to block the voltages and conduct the currents that are characteristic of the converter. The smoothing reactor is used to smooth ripples in the DC output and to limit lightning and switching surges from the pc circuit to the thyristor valves. The DC filters are essentially shunt capacitance connected across the DC line to control and/or remove the 3rd,12th and higher harmonies. Station buildings are required to house the various com- ponents of the converter.The DC converter stations planned for this system are relatively small.Therefore,components such as the thyristor valves,main control,the AC relaying system con- trol for the AC filter valve arrestors,grounding switches and the auxiliary electrical and mechanical systems can be housed in a single converter building. Space requirements of monopolar terminals with an AC volt- age rating up to 138 kV are approximately 200 ft by 300 ft. Requirements of bipolar terminals with an a-c voltage rating up to 138 kV are approximately 330 ft by 330 ft.See Figure 5-4. The required area is in addition to the area required for the AC yard. Local Loads and Voltages Where feasible,existing substations should be expanded to facilitate connection to the Intertie System.Table 5-1 lists the present transmission or distribution voltage at the various load centers considered and gives the assumed design capacity of the transformers required at each,if interconnected to the System.Since Juneau,Ketchikan,Wrangell and Petersburg are already served by ""Intertie"generation facilities,any future upgrades of substations serving these communities,are assumed to be required in all cases considered.Consequently,the cost of improvements or maintenance of these existing facilities has not been addressed or included in this study except where modi- fications are required to accommodate a particular Intertie alternative. Substation Costs Cost estimates for substation facilities and HVDC converter/inverter facilities were developed for each load center under each of the various Intertie alternative plans considered.The estimates for the required equipment are based on current manufacturer quotations and include allowances forinstallation,contractor's profit and overhead,associated civil 5-3 FIGURE 5-4 ne =b4SHUNT ith FILTER 13th FILTER CAPACITORSpOCAPACITORS Zz OHO ooo An,OFnO;@PT'S ¢ é Q3 SHUNT CAPACITORS SHOQTHING OH,STRAINit"s ™S US w A coc COOLER VALVE HALL H---i CONTROL |- Le SERVICElyawIBLOG. as 240'-0" fs)- CONVERTER”\6 8]8 /A A COOLER TRANSFORMERS O.H.STRAIN i rt SHUNTTOWER¢switch Lg ¢et sunt ¢ i TOACSWITCHYARD®@PI's bo)m2”+o a;g¢}On,=f0;aHON,AO|etn,OT&( CAPACITORS {: C3-T+0 SHUNTkOo+-o50 CAPACITORSREACTORS With FILTER [3th FILTERrnoD+O--4- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY TYPICAL BIPOLAR CONVERTER STATION HARZA excnesanc COvesny .OCTOBER 227 Table 5-1 LOAD CENTER TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION VOLTAGE AND DESIGN PEAK LOA DesignLoadCenterVoltagePeakLoad V MVA Skagway 2.4 3 Haines 34.5 5JuneauArea2/NA NA Greens Creek Mine 4.16 5 Hoonah 12.47 5 Tenakee Springs 12.47 5 Angoon 12.47 5 Sitka 69 30 Kake 2.4 3Petersburg2/NA NAWrangell2/NA NAKetchikan2/NA NAPrinceofWalesIslana4/69 10QuartzHillMine4/34.5 100 Metlakatla 12.47 10 Design peak loads furnished by Alaska Power Authority;high forecast,year 2006. Existing facilities assumed upgraded as required. Assumed 69 kV Intra-Island Transmission system serving Thorne Bay,Hydaburg and Klawock/Craig. Assumed 34.5 kV local system. works,and shipment of the required equipment and materials to Alaska. Communications The successful operation of an interconnected generation and transmission system is dependent on an adequate communica- tion system.The communication system will provide for the transmission of critical information.Three communication func- tions need to be addressed:(1)relay protection,(2)system control and data acquisition (SCADA),and (3)voice. The installation of submarine cables provides an opportuni- ty to install a communication medium as part of the cable design.Power cable manufacturers offer cable designs that include fiber optic cables built into the power cable assembly. For long submarine cable runs the fiber optic cable can replace difficult microwave links.Long over-water microwave links are prone to signal fading problems.With fiber optic cables, however,the fading problem encountered with microwave over-water transmission can be avoided. Therefore it is recommended that fiber optic communications be considered when detailed design studies are undertaken for the Southeast Intertie system. For the purposes of this study a dedicated microwave system with channel diversity is assumed to be the primary mode of communication for the Intertie DC alternatives.Back-up would be provided with communications channels leased from Alascom and other communication companies.For the new AC interconnections, leased communication channels are assumed to be the primary communication mode.For existing AC links,the existing com- munications systems are assumed to be adequate in some cases and assumed to require upgrading in others. Communication costs,based on those presented by Teshmont Consultants Inc.their 1982 report for the Alaska Power Adminis- tration,are included in the cost estimates for selected alter- natives given in Chapter 7. Chapter 6 SEGMENT ROUTE SELECTION Approach The approach used to select preferred transmission routes for economic analysis consisted of the following six steps: z Identify study segments Establish route selection objectives Define evaluation criteria Identify route alternatives for each segment Collect evaluation data and Agency comments Compare alternatives and select preferred routeDWPmWD -eeSteps one through three are general route selection steps; steps four through six were applied to each study segment iden- tified in step one. It is important to keep in mind when reading this chapter that the intent of this study was to determine the feasibility of a southeast Alaska intertied transmission system and its general configuration.The magnitude of the study,in terms of geographic area covered,made detailed,site-specific resource investigations infeasible under the constraints of the project. Therefore,route selections for this study were based on evalu- ation of existing information from various sources. For this study,.preference was given,in most cases,to the more economical route alignment unless technical or environ- mental factors were judged to clearly outweigh such a selection. Two reasons exist for this economic bias.First,the emphasis of this study is on determining the feasibility of an intertied system,which is based principally on energy supply and demand and financial incentives.If a least cost alignment is evalu- ated and determined not be viable,then neither will a more costly,but perhaps environmentally more acceptable alignment. Secondly,since detailed studies were not possible,environ-mentally or technically preferred routes could not be selected with high degrees of confidence. Given the magnitude and potential for significant impacts of this project,detailed technical and environmental resourceinvestigationswillneedtobeconductedforthosesegmentsthatarerecommendedinthefinalanalyses.At that time,final routes will be selected and environmental impact assessment studies prepared. Identify Study Segments Initially,eleven study segments were identified for evalu- ation based on locations of power generation sources and load centers (Figure 6-1).Later in the study effort as a result of discussion with utilities and agencies,four additional study segments were identified for evaluation. Locations of these 15 study segments in the context of Southeast Alaska are shown in Figure 6-1.The fifteen study segments are numbered and titled as follows: Segment 1.Skagway to Whitehorse Segment 2.Skagway -Haines-Juneau Segment 3.Juneau to Green's Creek Segment 4.(Hawk Inlet to Hoonah,included in Segment 14) Segment 5.Snettisham to Kake Segment 6.Petersburg to Kake Segment 7.Kake to Sitka Segment 8.Tyee Lake to Swan Lake Segment 9.Ketchikan to Prince of Wales Island Segment 10.Swan Lake to Quartz Hill Segment 11.Quartz Hill to British Columbia Segment 12.Ketchikan to Metlakatla Segment 13.Tyee Lake to Ketchikan/Thorne Bay Via Cleveland Peninsula Segment 14.Hawk Inlet to Hoonah to Sitka Segment 15.Quartz Hill to Prince Rupert Transmission line routes identified for each of these seg- ments are discussed later in this chapter. Route Selection Objectives The transmission line route selection process was guided by the goal of identifying an environmentally and technically acceptable route which provides reliable electric service to communities at reasonable cost.Specific objectives which were identified included the following: e Parallel existing transmission lines and roads,when possible,rather than open new corridors. e Avoid routes parallel to streams. r)Avoid prime or important recreation areas. e Minimize impacts to visually sensitive areas. e Minimize routing through private land holdings. 6-2 FIGURE 6 1 ™,. .WHITEHORSE™,4 SKAGWAY s204NHAINESoN . 14.1 -Oo---HOONAH GREENS CREEK 14.2 SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS Loe] s ANGOON SITKA ww PETERSBURG KAKE PRINCE 2LEGEND:OF WALES 43. ISLAND LOAD CENTERS GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN )SE EXISTING T/LINE|O=PROPOSED T/LINE KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY SEGMENT DESIGNATIONS H4RZA ENGINEERING COMPANY -OCTOSES 1967 e Avoid routing above elevations of 1500 feet. e Minimize routing through wetlands and on steep slopes. e Avoid sensitive biological and cultural resource areas. These objectives helped determine the evaluation criteria which were used to evaluate and compare the route alternatives. Evaluation Criteria Based on the project objectives identified for the study and the study team's experience and knowledge of conditions in Southeast Alaska,several evaluation criteria,or factors,were established.These were inventoried to allow comparison of the technical,environmental and economic merits of each route. The evaluation factors and their units of measure are shown on Table 6-1.Evaluation factors were grouped into four principle evaluation categories:physical constraints,biological constraints,social/cultural constraints and costs.Following is a brief discussion of each category. Physical Constraints.The physical constraint evaluation factors used for comparing the routes give an indication of the technical acceptability of a route in terms of reliability, risk,ease of construction and maintenance.For example,a well designed and properly installed submarine cable may be quite reliable as defined in terms of outages on an annual basis,but its risk factor is still high since an outage,when it does occur,is often difficult to repair,time consuming and costly. Similarly,transmission lines can be constructed on steep slopes and high elevations,but in general,such locations experience more frequent outages and are more difficult to construct and maintain than lines located on flatter slopes and at lower elevations. Five physical constraint evaluation factors were used to compare route alternatives.These were: Major stream crossings. Steep slopes. Elevation. Access. Muskeg/wetland areas. Route alternatives were placed on 1:63,360 scale topo-graphic maps and then each evaluation factor was inventoried intermsofmilesroutedthroughornumberoftimescrossedasshowninTable6-1.Access,or roadless areas were inventoried 6-3 Table 6-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ROUTE COMPARISON Length .Unit* Cable mi Overland mi Physical Constraints Major Stream Crossing # Avalanche/Steep Slope Areas mi Elevation:500-1500 feet mi 1500 feet mi Exposure:Ridge Top Crossing mi Access:Roadless Areas mi Muskeg/Wetland Areas mi Biological Constraints Anadromous Streams Crossed # Anadromous Streams Paralleled mi Shellfish Harvest/Spawning Areas # Waterfowl Use Areas mi Eagle Nest/Concentration Areas # Social/Cultural Constraints Land Use:Wilderness Areas mi USFS LUD2/LUD3 mi/mi Airports (within 1 mile)# Designated Refuges/Parks # Visual Impact:Ferry Routes mi Trails/Cabins #/# Other areas mi Cultural Resources:Existing Sites # Potential Sits Land Status:Federal/State mi Community/Borough mi Private mi e Table 6-1 (cont'd) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR ROUTE COMPARISON Costs Cable:DC AC Overhead:Base St.Slope/Rock Muskeg/Wetland Additional Costs (add above) Row Clearing Helicopter Constr. Terminals:AC Terminal DC Converter Station Contingencies Engineering,Administration,Construction Managementand Land Acquisition L.S. L.S. $/mi. S/mi. $/mi. $/mi. $/mi. L.S. L.S. L.S. L.S. from USFS transportation sytem maps obtained from district Forest Service offices.Roads designated as planned by the Forest Service were counted as existing,along with existing logging roads.Muskeg/wetland areas were generalized from topo- graphic maps,except for information received from agencies and previous studies since the extensive area covered for this study did not allow time or budget for detailed investigations or field reconnaissance. Biological Constraints.Biological resource factors used for comparing the routes relate to the need to avoid sensitive environmental resources.Six biological constraint factors were used for this evaluation.These included: Anadromous streams crossed. Anadromous streams paralleled. Shellfish harvest/spawning areas. Waterfowl use areas. Eagle nest sites. Muskeg/wetland areas. Transmission line impacts to fish and shellfish are most likely to occur from sedimentation due to erosion or submarine cable installation.In general,most of these impacts are negligible if proper construction techniques and erosion control measures are used.Minimizing clearing near stream crossings and keeping parallel lines at least 300 feet away from streams, where geographical constraints allow,will help minimize or avoid such impacts. Turbidity resulting from cable burial is expected to be localized and rapidly dissipated by tidal action.Similarly, any habitat disturbance is expected to be returned to pre- project conditions due to tidal action soon after cable con- struction activities are completed.Long term impacts may result from cable spans interfering with bottom fishing activi- ties,particularly where submerged cables span underwater pinnacles.Areas of noted commercial fishing activity should be avoided as much as possible. Many of the inlets and bays in Southeast Alaska receive high concentrations of waterfowl or are important travel cor-ridors for migratory waterfowl.Transmission line routes through these areas can increase the potential for waterfowlmortalitiesasaresultofcollisionswithconductors,especial- ly for lines routed close to mouths of anadromous streams whereeaglesandwaterfowltendtoconcentrate.Studies have shownthatmostcollisionsthatdooccur,occur with the small over- head shield wires,rather than the large more visible conduc- tors.Such shield wires are not likely to be needed because of 6-4 the low insidence of lightening in Southeast Alaska.While this may be true in most cases,Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel have noted that waterfowl collisions are still of concern due to the frequently foggy conditions in Southeast Alaska coupled with typical early morning and late evening waterfowl movements. Eagle nest sites were inventoried from U.S.Fish Wildlife Service survey maps.While sensitivity is high due to their regulatroy status,actual impacts of the line on eagles is expected to be low.Electrocution of eagles is not anticipated to be a concern as the conductors will be sufficiently far apart from each other and from grounded objects to eliminate simulta- neous contact and electrocution.Similarly,collisions of eagles with the conductors is expected to be rare.Locating lines near the mouths of anadromous streams where eagles are concentrating on spawning salmon,however,should be avoided. Many transmission line impacts on eagles can be avoided by keeping lines at least 1/16 mile away from nest sites and by timing construction to avoid sensitive nesting times. Muskeg/wetland areas were considered for biological reasons as well as for engineering constraint reasons.Such habitat provides important feeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl such as trumpeter swan and geese and also provide important habitat for deer,bear,moose and other terrestrial and avian species. Other evaluation factors noted in agency comments but not inventoried at this time include mountain goat habitat,old growth forest and other habitats associated with big game such as deer,moose and bear.These factors,as well as those listed above,should be inventoried in detail as necessary to support environmental impact and route refinement studies for those transmission lines segments which proceed toward implementation. These future environmental studies will require close coordina- tion with state and federal agencies. Social/Cutlural Constraints.Social and cultural con- straint factors relate to resources in which a transmission line's presence affects the value placed on that resource by people,and resources which are of concern due to regulatoryrequirementsandpersonalsafetyreasons.Recreational andvisuallysensitiveareasareexamplesofthefirstcategory;cultural resource sites and wilderness areas are examples of the latter category. Four social/cultural resource evaluation factors were iden- tified for this study.These were: Land use Visual impacts Cultural resource sites Land status As shown in Table 6-1,several of these factors included subfactors. Land use constraints were considered in terms of selecting a route which would minimize impacts on designated parks, refuges and wilderness areas,avoid conflicts with airports,and maintain compatibility with forest service land management objectives.As multiple use forest management is the principal land use for much of Southeast Alaska,Forest Service Land Use Designations (LUD)which were considered to be less compatible with the presence of a transmission line were noted.These included LUD categories I,II and III.Management objectives for these three LUD's are summarized as follows: LUD I.An area allocated to LUD I would be recommended for wilderness designation or be studied for such a designation.LUD I is applied to undeveloped lands which provide opportunities for solitude -and primitive types of recreation and contain unaltered habitats for plant and animal species. The LUD I areas were included in-the evaluation under wilderness areas. LUD II.This designation provides greater management flexibility while retaining the primitive envi- ronment.Specifically,power developments are permitted with the condition that they retain the overall primitive characteristics of the allo- cated area.Roads can be built to serve the maintenance of a power development. LUD III.Areas allocated to LUD III are managed to provide a balance between amenity and commodity values. The management goal is to achieve a high degree of compatibility between competing resources in the same area,and timber harvesting is a permit- ted activity.This designation does not restrict transmission line development. LUD IV.This designation provides for intensive develop-ment of resources with emphasis on commodity resources.This designation is not considered aconstrainttotransmissionlineroutingandthus, not noted. Visual quality is an important managed resource in South- east Alaska and an important route evaluation factor in this study.Thousands of visitors annually travel Southeast's inland passage on the State's Alaska Marine Ferry System.Many other visitors and locals travel the thousand of miles of waterways and inlets in search of recreational experiences. Because the impacts of a transmission line on recreation resources would be primarily visual,emphasis has been placed on noting State Ferry routes,and trails,cabins and campgrounds in proximity to transmission line routes.Since transmission facility prominence declines readily at distance beyond 2-1/2 to 3 miles,these factors were inventoried for the routes only if they were within three miles of the identified route. An additional evaluation factor,additional use areas,was included and subjectively inventoried to reflect potential visual impacts on popular areas such as lakes,inlets and resi- dential areas. Visual impact constraints were inventoried noting route locations in relation to identified Ferry routes and Forest Service cabins,campgrounds,and trails identified from topo- graphic maps and by resource agencies.Time did not permit a detailed inventory of all existing trails and cabin sites or inventory and evaluation of the Forest Service's visual resource management objectives inventories. Cultural resource sites were noted for the route selection study because of their regulatory and permitting importance. Existing and potential sites were inventoried in the vicinity of each transmission line rate for each segment (Appendix C). Generally,most cultural resource sites can be avoided through proper siting of the transmission line route in final design. As such,they are not as significant as some of the other resource factors in determining a preferred route.However, noting their presence does give on indication of the extent of potential field investigation work one route may require com- pared to another. Land status was used as an evaluation factor because cer- tain types of ownership,such as native and private,generally present more restrictions and higher acquisition costs thatothers.In addition,private and native land owners often object to transmission lines on their property because they maylimitfuturedevelopmentanduse.Land ownership classifica- tions used to evaluate and compare potential routes included: e Federal/state ownershipeLocalgovernment(City/borough)ownership e Private/private selected ownership 6-7 The number of miles of transmission line crossing each landownershipclassificationwasinventoriedforeachalternative route.Land status information was obtained from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the US Forest Service (regional office,Juneau). Costs.Costs for the overhead routes were noted in terms of material and construction costs per mile.Maintenance costs were not included in the route selection study.Submarine cable costs,were given lump sum prices since the pricing varied according to the line's length and logistical requirements. Line termination costs including substation and/or DC converter station costs were also considered.Finally,a contingency allowance and an estimated cost for engineering,construction management,land acquisition and owners administration was added. For overhead lines unit per mile costs were developed based on different construction requirements.For example,route lengths through muskeg/weltand areas received a higher cost per mile than a route on stable soils. Cable costs included lump sum figures for each route. Overhead transmission line costs were subdivided into three categories which included a base construction cost per mile,per mile cost for construction on steep slopes with rock founda- tions,and per mile costs for construction in muskeg/wetland areas.The assumption for the overhead base construction cost was line construction on good soils with adjacent road access. Unit costs were applied using information inventoried for the physical constraint factors.Since for this study,such information was inferred primarily from topographic maps,it is important to keep in mind that costs are generalized and devel- oped in the absence of information obtained from detailed field studies. Additional costs included unit costs for right-of-way clearing and helicopter construction.Since detailed vegetation inventories were not conducted for this study,right-of-way clearing was assumed for all overhead route lengths.This is expected to raise the costs for some routes but it is not anti- cipated to significantly change the route selection. Helicopter construction costs were added to the overheadcostsforallunroadedareas.It was assumed that roads would not be constructed in unroaded locations.Terminal costs were included for DC converter stations,AC substations and upgrades of existing substations. 6-8 Alternative Route Identification For this study,the term route is synonimous with corridor. The route may be fairly well defined in some locations where it parallels existing transmission lines or existing roads.In other areas,less well-defined by available data or physio- graphic constraints,the width of the route as represented by the lines shown in the figures may vary considerably (1/4 to 3 miles). Initial route alternatives were identified by noting begin- ing and end points established earlier and then identifying technically acceptable routes from topographic maps,USFS maps, and utility system maps to connect them.When possible,alter- natives were identified that paralleled existing or planned Forest Service roads and existing transmission lines. In some segments,route locations were well defined due to existing road systems and/or physical constraints.In these cases,only one route was identified.Also,some alternatives were modified and new alternatives added as a result of discus- sions with Agencies.These Agency suggested refinements have been noted on the route alternative maps shown for each segment. Data Collection and Agency Consultation Once route alternatives were identified,data collection efforts were initiated.Topographic maps,USFS transportation system maps,and high altitude photography were obtained and reviewed.Relevant information from previous utility system reports as well as other reports from state and local govern- ments were also reviewed.A list of the reports and documents reviewed is noted in the bibliography at the end of this report. In general,information to support most of the physical constraint evaluation factors was obtained from topographic quadrangle maps.Time constraints and the extensive area to becovereddidnotallowfordetailedinventoryofevaluation factors.As a result,some resource factors,such as wetland potential,may be under inventoried,while others,such as steep Slope may be over inventoried.As the inventory process wasconsistantforallsegments,the information collected for these evaluation factors is considered valid for making alternative route comparisons within the scope of this study.Detailedfeasibilityanalysisofeachtransmissionlinesegment,prior toitsimplementation,should include a more thorough investigationofenvironmentalimpactsthantheconstraintsofthisstudyhas allowed. The access evaluation factor (road vs.roadless)was inven- toried from USFS transportation maps,and from discussions with Forest Service personnel.In addition to existing logging roads,planned logging roads were also noted and considered as roaded areas,since such roads are likely to be constructed well within the construction time-frame of the transmission lines. Biological constraint factors were inventoried from Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Management maps.Eagle nest sites were inventoried from eagle survey maps obtained from the U.S.FIsh &Wildlife Service. Visual and land use constraint factors were inventoried from various maps,reports,and agency comments.Cultural resource sites were inventoried by a cultural resource subcon- tractor (see Appendix C). An essential part of the data collection and evaluation effort was Agency Consultation.Topographic maps with markedroutealternativesforeachsegmentweresenttovarious Federal,State,and Local Agencies for their review and com ments.This was followed up by meetings in which routes and issues were discussed.During the meetings,forms were passedoutcontainingsegmentlinesandtechnicalandenvironmental resource criteria.Agencies were asked to note on these forms their perception of the degree of impact various segment links may have on various resource categories,as well as suggestions for refinements or additional alternatives.In June 1987 the Power Authority circulated the draft of this report requesting comments from the contacted agencies.Information received from these agency contacts was factored into the comparison of alter- natives discussed later. Agencies contacted during the project study effort included: Federal Alaska Power Administration Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency Federal Aviation Administration Fish and Wildlife Service Forest Service National Marine Fisheries Service National Park Service U.S.Coast Guard State Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Fish and Game Department of Natural Resources Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Department of Governmental Coordination Local City of Haines City and Borough of Juneau City of Ketchikan City of Petersburg City and Borough of Sitka City of Skagway City of Thorne Bay City of Wrangell Ketchikan Gateway Borough Documentation of Agency Consultation is included in Appendix D.Private entities contacted are listed in Chapter Alternative Comparison and Selection Information gathered from sources was noted in constraint and cost inventory forms by individual segment link for each evaluation factor for each study segment.Information was inventoried by individual segment links since several links comprise one alternative,and some links are included in more than one alternative. For the alternative comparison,individual segment links and their resulting technical,environmental and economic information were combined to indicate the different route alter- natives identified for each study segment.For example,segment links 6.2,6.7,6.9 were combined to form one alternative. These alternatives were documented in tables titled Alternative Comparison Summaries. It is important to keep in mind that for some study segments,evaluation factor information was not available or was not complete.The segment summary matrices note such occur- rences by marking that factor with an asterisk or leaving the space blank. These summaries formed the basis for selecting a preferred route for each study segment.To the extent that data was sufficient,engineering,environmental and economic route preferences were noted for each study segment.A final route 6-11 preference,combining the above three preferences was selected: for each study segment when that selection was clear.When conflicts among the engineering,environmental and economic preferences existed,trade-offs were noted in the text discus- sion and final selections made based on judgement of the study team with respect to line reliability,reasonableness of cost, and environmental acceptability.Final preference selections also considered agency comments and previous studies by others. The following discussions detail the results of the route comparison and selection for each study segment.Each segment discussion is supported by a route alternatives map(s)(Figures 6-2 through 6-15),and/or an alternative comparison summary table.These are followed by Figure 6-16 which gives the lengths of the various selected routes. SEGMENT 1.0 SKAGWAY TO WHITERHORSE Description of Alternatives Initially,several segment links were identified for con- necting and routing the Canadian power surplus available from Whitehorse,into Skagway as shown in Figure 6-2. After review of the links by Agencies and the community of Skagway,some links were eliminated and a additional link (1.2A) was added.Segment link 1.6 which followed the railroad into Canada was within the Klondike Gold Rush National Park.Sucha route would require a lengthy and difficult permitting process under the National Historical Preservation Act.Segment 1.6 would also present serious impacts to cultural resource sites, have extreme avalanche potential,heavy winter snows and icing conditions.For those reasons segment link 1.6 was eliminated from further screening. Similarly,after review and discussion with Agencies, segment link 1.3 which routed on the steep slope east of Skagway,was eliminated.This link would present significant visual,impacts to viewers coming into Skagway via the White- horse to Skagway Highway.In addition the route would be very difficult to construct and maintain on the steep slopes. An additional link was added (link 1.2A)based on sug- gestions from Agencies (see Appendix D for documentation of Agency consultation).This suggested realignment parallels the railroad corridor,crosses the Skagway River and then stays low on the west slope before it crosses the highway. Alternative Comparison As a result of the above information,two route alterna- tives were identified for further comparison.Except for segment links 1.2 and 1.2A,both alternatives are identical andparalleltheexistingroadcorridorsintoCanada.AlternativerouteAparallelstheexistingroadcorridorfortheentire distance.Alternative route B follows part of the Agency sug- gested refinement and drops away from the highway for about twomiles.Table 6-2 presents the summarized information for each of the alternatives. Route Length.Alternative B is the shorter of the two routes,but only by about 0.2 miles.No cable crossings are required for either route. Physical Constraints.Based on the physical constraints inventoried,route B appears preferable,though not by a signi- ficant amount.Alternative B's longer length at lower eleva- tions avoids roughly one mile of steep slope construction compared to alternative A,as well as about 1.2 additional miles of construction at elevations between 500 and 1500 feet.While alternative B has 1.4 miles of roadless area to construct com- pared to alternative A,the amount is not great and its location is such that construction workers may be able to access most of the length by vehicles from each end rather than use helicopter construction. Both alternatives will route adjacent to the railroad corridor coming out of Skagway and cross the Skagway River near the existing highway bridge.The alternatives were the'same for the other physical constraint factors inventoried. Either of the two alternatives are expected to experience outages due to avalanche,winds and icing problems which are likely to occur as the line gets above tree-line and elevation 1500 in segment 1.5.No alternatives exist,other than burial of the line,to avoid these conditions. Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.Few differ- ences were identified between alternatives for the constraint factors inventoried.Alternative B is expected to create less visual impact due to its route location in segment link 1.2A. In this location;the line is expected to be largely screened from view by motorists on the highway because of the line's lower elevation and the intervening topography and vegetation. While Alternative B:may be slightly preferred with respect to reducing visual impacts,both routes will create significant visual impacts on the historic Skagway setting and from theexistingroadcorridor. In addition to the visual impact concern,other environ- mentally sensitive areas,common to both alternatives,include routing through approximately one mile of the Klondike Gold Rush National Park,potential impacts to historic trails and sites in and around Skagway,and potential impacts to areas used by mountain goats. Impacts to mountain goats is expected to be minimal if the route stays close to the existing road corridor.Physical impacts to cultural resource sites are expected to be avoided, but visual impacts to such sites will remain. Any routing of a transmission line through a unit of the National Park System would require application for a right-of- way permit from the National Park Service.Such an application would be processed in accordance with existing federal regula- tions,(43 CFR 36 and 36 CFR 14).In addition,in determining whether to approve an application for an electrical transmission line in Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park,the Nation- al Park Service is required to assess whether there are any economically feasible and prudent alternative routes to the proposed route.As a result,on EIS would likely be required and prepared by the Park Service. Feasible alternatives to this section of line route may be to route the line around the Park Boundary,or to bury the por- tion of the line passing through the park adjacent to the road. Costs.Total estimated costs for the alternatives were very close,with alternative B being slightly less costly than alternative A,by a total of less than $70,000.The difference in cost might be more if the unroaded section of alternative B could be constructed without the need of helicopters,but that difference would still be less than $100,000. As a result,economically,either route could be consid- ered,even though Table 6-2 reflects the slight advantage of Alternative route B. Selected Alternative Based on the evaluation and comparison of the information collected,alternative route B is indicated as the preferred alternative for economic analysis. Regardless of the route finally selected,serious study must be placed on reducing visual impacts in the Skagway vicin- ity and to historical resources,and on reducing the route's impact on the Klondike Gold Rush National Park.Either routeshowninFigure6-2,can be expected to meet with much opposi- tion and require lengthy permitting procedures. INTERTIE SEGMENTS EVALUATION FACTORS sequent LO SKAGWAY-WHAIIEHORSE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES SE ALASKA INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY SEGMENT SO ALT A\LF LENGTH mee IUSOL,wae act:eountsSuERLAND=745 ie mh :oS Oa rvs comaains --/7////MUTII NIIILIIN IMLAY LLLLLA LLL LLL LLL”©"22 8 2 ee tran mp Esp ae 1500 FEET m 6.0 $0 Access ROADLESS AREAS '2 EE BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS WLLL ALLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLLLL SOR ESICOMMENTSmronamasarctoaeb:1 ane epgororesewcrmesmeremnmnene=gh 2 Llotiee Fale t Segmrea?1EAGLENESTSITEShid2Q.sean eoit77/ITT HIN TILL NILA LLLLLIN Gisronareoneruaey §-"|at en Taausicasins.camecanos #L ZZ ot 72SOTHERUSEAREAS.m 740 123 CULTURAL SITES:EXISTING/POTENTIAL "Wi\|lft LAND STATUS:FEDERAL/STATE ul|Zb/e!laéfe privATePnivATe SELECTION me Zo Z.aCOSTS{in $000)LLLLLINLLLLLL LILLIA LLL LLL LLLLLLRLLLLLLECABLEOC ac -s soveancanease__746_sim 5 Le 12297suscorenocx_778 sim s|W457 G79 ENGINEERING PREFERENCE :MIBmusxecwercann.Z27Z_sm s[.Oo o ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE =:"92772 ADDITIONAL COSTS (and te avose)-_ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :Aen EROWCLEARING.__O87 sim 5 Pid foeHELICOPTERCONSTA._<&O_timm 8 oO ZB TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL -%|202Z0|ZoZzo OCCONVEATERSTATION $|==ALTERNATIVE SELECTED CONTINGENCIES 8]22Z0|/O/0 FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: ENG,ADMIN.,CM,LAND s|4/70 |4760. TOTAL $|7Z0/|7/32 HARZA ENGINEERING CO..Joct.1987 e-8318vVL FIGURE 6-2 LEGEND: @emmemm PREFERRED ROUTE om me ALTERNATIVE LLL fe ROUTES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING wae EXISTING T/LINE eea@ EXISTING/. PLANNED ROADS AGENCY SUGGESTED | REFINEMENT PARK BOUNDARY . 5,. at er asenee oy jf TO WHITEHORSE SOUTHEAST INTERTIE PROJEC ALAS®A POWER AUTHORITY SKAGWAY =WHITEHORSE 'ROUTE ALTERNATIVES SEGMENT 2.0 SKAGWAY-HAINES-JUNEAU Description of Alternatives The system studies described in Chapter 2 established 138 kV as the appropriate voltage for the Southeast Intertie System. As it pertains to the Skagway-Haines-Juneau interconnection, this means that the 138 kV inteconnection from the north must be completed,through Juneau,to the 138 kV bus at Thane substa- tion,the terminus of the transmission line from Snettisham. The evaluation and comparison of route alternatives from Skagway to Juneau (Thane)consisted of an examination of alternatives using direct current (DC lines)and more conventional alternat- ing current (AC lines).Because of the long distance covered, and the large number of potential alternatives,the evaluation was conducted in two parts.First,alternative overland routes between Bridget Cove and Juneau were evaluated and a preferred route selected (Figure 6-3a).Second,the preferred Bridget Cove to Juneau route was combined with alternative route seg- ments between Skagway and Bridget Cove (Figure 6-3).The resulting complete route alternatives were then compared and a preferred route selected.Because the length of required cable routes were in excess of 25 miles,DC as well as AC systems were compared.The DC alternatives continue overland from Bridget Cove to a converter station at Auke Bay as monopolar DC overhead lines.This is reflected only in the overhead line costs for those alternatives.The physical and environmental constraint factor information,as inventoried for this study was treated as the same for either type of overhead line. Bridget Cove to Juneau Three-overland alternatives,for either AC or DC transmis- sion lines,were identified for connecting the transmission sys- - tem from Bridget Cove to the Juneau system (Figure 6-34a). Alternative A (segments 2.4,2.7)exits Bridget Cove to the east for about a mile and then turns south into the South Fork and Boulder Creek drainages.It continues south crossing the Eagle and Herbert Rivers,past Wind Fall Lake and into theMontanaCreekdrainagebeforeitconnectstoanexistingsub- station at Auke Bay.From there it will parallel or require an upgrade of an existing AEL&P 69 kV line through Juneau to Thane substation. Alternative B (segments 2.3,2.5,2.7)follows the GlacierHighwaysouthfromBridgetCovetoTeeHarbor,(Figure 6-3a).At Tee Harbor the route turns southeast to follow a DOT proposed bypass which is located along the base of Auke Mountain.Alter- 6.2-1 native B continues along this route and terminates at the same location as alternative A. Alternative C (segments 2.3,2.6,2.7)follows the Glacier Highway as did alternative B.However,just north of Pearl Harbor (see Figure 6-3a)the route turns southeast into the Peterson Creek drainage,passes Peterson Lake to the east and then follows the Waydeleigh Creek drainage to the same sub- station location as the other two alternatives. Comparison of Alternatives Table 6-3 presents the evaluation factors for the three alternatives described above. Route Length.Between the three alternatives,route C is the shortest.At 36 miles,it is one mile shorter than alterna- tive A and 2.5 miles shorter than alternative B. Physical Constraints.Physical constraints are considered the least,overall,with alternative route B.Though,alterna- tive B has 3 more miles of steep slope than alternative A, alternative A has 18 miles of roadless area,compared to 0 miles for alternative B and 8 miles for alternative C.Alternative A's roadless condition could change as the Montana Creek drain- age has been proposed as a road corridor.Montana Creek's high recreation use however,makes this possibility seem remote. Alternative A is also less desireable than alternative B or C with respect to muskeg/wetland areas crossed.It crosses 3 miles more than alternative B and 1.5 miles more than alterna- tive C.. Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.Biological constraints inventoried favor alternatives A and C.Alternative A crosses one more anadromous stream than alternative C but parallels 8.5 miles of anadromous stream compared to one-half mile paralleled by alternatives B and C.With respect to poten- tial impacts on eagles,alternative A is clearly preferable, impacting no eagle nest sites compared to 13 for alternative C and 26 for alternative B. It should be stressed that the number of eagle nest sites inventoried was from general survey information.Specific nest locations relative to the transmission line routes are not known at this time.Even so,the information is still considered valid in terms of comparing the potential for impact. Biologically sensitive areas common to all the route alter-natives include crossings of the Eagle and Herbert Rivers.According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game representativesthisareaisanextensivewetland,high in fish and wildlife 6.2-2 values.Other sensitive resource areas noted include wetlands in the Windfall Lake area and in the Montana Creek drainage. Alternative preference is more straightforward with respect to land use,visual and recreation resource constraints.Based on comments from resource agencies (See Appendix D),the alter- native with the least adverse impact to area visual and recrea- tional resources is the route paralleling the Glacier Highway (alternative B). While the Glacier Highway route potentially impacts views from State Ferrys travelling between Juneau,Haines and Skagway, such impacts are incremental to the visual impacts that present- ly exist due to development along the Highway including an existing 69 kV transmission line.Both alternatives A and C would present significant visual impacts to areas of high use and high recreational value in the Montana and Peterson Creek drainages.Sensitive recreational resources and facilities in those areas that are likely to be affected include Forest Ser- vice recreation cabins on Peterson Lake,Windfall Lake,and near Auke Nu Creek.Popular backcountry trails would be affected. These include the Windfall-Montana Creek Trail,Peterson Creek Trail,Herbert and Eagle River trails and the Spalding Creek Trail. In addition to these potential impacts,alternative C's location in'the Waydeleigh Creek drainage is of concern because Waydeleigh Creek is a domestic water source for the area as well as a designated andromous stream. Costs.Evaluation of estimated construction costs indicate that alternative B is the least costly of the three alternative routes.However,its total estimated cost is only $67,000 less than alternative C which is insignificant in comparison.Alter- native A was roughly $358,000 more costly than alternative B, largely because of the greater length of roadless areas requiring helicopter construction. Selected Alternative Based on the above comparison,the Glacier Highway route (alternative B)was selected as the preferred route segment between Bridget Cove and Juneau. In the course of the study,some Agencies suggested that the route between Bridget Cove and Juneau be routed underwatertoDouglasIsland.As an AC cable alternative to the GlacierHighwayoverlandroute,an underwater route would eliminate mostofthepotentialenvironmentalimpactsnotedearlier.However,the cost of constructing the cable route,which is roughly 25 miles in length,would be approximately $14 million,or over 6.2-3 2-1/2 times the estimated cost of the overland route.Concern for cable installation between Berners Bay (North of Bridget Cove)and Juneau has been voiced by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)staff since this area is used for both spawning and over-wintering by Pacific herring.NMFS recommends that final alignment for an underwater cable installation be coordi- nated with various fishing organizations in order to avoid significant impacts. In the following discussion,the same underwater segment is evaluated as part of a total DC underwater cable system between Skagway and Juneau. Skagway-Haines-Juneau Four alternatives were identified for comparison.These included two underwater DC cable routes,and two overland AC transmission line routes. Description of Alternatives The two DC cable alternatives,alternative D and E enter Taiya Inlet at Skagway and route underwater to Haines (see Chapter 3 for detailed discussion on cables).At Haines,a DC converter station is constructed and a connection made to the existing transmission line system.Both alternatives then con- tinue underwater through Lynn Canal to Bridget Cove.At Bridget Cove alternative D comes ashore and follows the previously selected Bridget Cove to Thane route as an overhead DC line. Alternative E continues underwater to Douglas Island (segment 2.8,Figure 6-3a). The two AC overhead alternatives evaluated follow road corridors studied by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF).These road corridors,Lynn Canal West and Lynn Canal East,were evaluated by DOTPF as part of an update to the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan (Acres 1986). For this study,both routes were assumed to be roadless.The Lynn Canal West route (alternative G),shares the same routesegmentoftheLynnCanalEastroutefromSkagwaytoapoint directly east of Haines.At this point the route crosses Chilkoot Inlet with an AC cable,and routes past Haines to the Northwest before it crosses the Chilkat River and then follows the identified road corridor along the west shore of Lynn Canal. At St.James Bay (see Figure 6-3),the Lynn Canal West route crosses Lynn Canal with an AC underwater cable exiting atBridgetCove.From Bridget Cove,the alternative follows thepreviouslyselectedroutefromBridgetCovethroughJuneauto Thane. The Lynn Canal East route,(alternative F)follows the east shores of Taiya Inlet and Lynn Canal entirely overland to Bridget Cove (segment 2.1 A,2.2A,Figure 6-3).This alterna- tive would connect Haines via an AC underwater cable crossing (segment 2.1B).As with alternative G,alternative F would follow the previously selected route between Bridget Cove and Thane. Comparison of Alternatives Table 6-3 summarizes the route comparison information for the four alternatives., Route Length.The shortest overall route length is alter- native D,at 103.2 miles.The longest route is alternative G at 115.3 miles.The alternative with the shortest amount of cable is alternative F.It has 2.8 miles of cable,compared to 92 and 67.2 miles of cable for alternatives D and E,respectively. Physical Constraints.Comparison of physical constraint factors among the four alternatives,clearly favor the under- water cable routes,alternatives D and E. Both the overland routes would be very difficult to con- struct and maintain because of the extent of steep slope,high avalanche potential throughout and major stream crossings encountered.Both overland alternatives would be constructed and maintained using helicopters.If a road is constructed according to plans of the State (DOTPF presently favors the east side route),then construction and maintenance would be much easier,but the line's reliability is still expected to be low with respect to outages from avalanches.As noted by personnel in the Alaska Division of Mining,Geological and Geophysical Surveys,an additional concern for all route alternatives is the risk of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes which this area has experienced (see Appendix D comments). While the cable alternatives may be more reliable in terms of reducing the frequency of outages,this advantage must be weighed against the fact that their risk factor is higher.It is much more costly and time consuming to repair a cable outage than an outage of an overhead line.In an area of noted earth- quake activity such as this,the location and installation ofcablesmustbecloselyscrutinized,and compared with the ability of overland routes to be more easily repaired. Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.Both under-water route alternatives are prefereable to the overland route alternatives with respect to minimizing potential impacts to biological,social and cultural resources. 6.2-5 Both overland routes would create significant visual impacts to travelers of the State's Marine Ferry system.In addition,both routes would require crossing the mouths of numerous streams which are typically concentration sites of eagles and other birds which feed on spawning salmon. Areas of particular environmental concern include the crossing of the Chilkat and Endicott Rivers for the Lynn Canal West alternative.The Forest Service has proposed a recreation cabin on the Endicott River.The Chilkat River area is nationally known for its concentration of eagles,and the com- munity of Haines receives thousands of tourists annually who come to view them.An overhead crossing of the Chilkat,in addition to creating potential impacts to eagles is likely to be strongly opposed because of its visual impact to the surrounding community.Eagle nest surveys conducted by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that close to 50 eagle nests are located in proximity to the Lynn Canal West route. Areas of particular environmental concern for the Lynn Canal East route include the Katzehin River crossing and the areas near the heads of Berners Bay and Echo Cove.The U.S. Forest Service has a recreation cabin located on the Katzehin River.The latter two areas are of particular concern because of extensive wetlands,anadromous streams and concentrations of eagles.Fish and wildlife eagle surveys were not complete for the east shore of Lynn Canal.In the completed surveys,15 eagle nest sites were noted to be in proximity of the Lynn Canal East alternative. Costs.Comparison of the estimated costs shown in Table 6-3 indicate that alternative F (Lynn Canal East)is the most economical to construct.Its cost is roughly $25 million less than the other overland AC alternative (Lynn Canal West),and is about $14 million less than that of either of the DC cable alternatives. Selected Alternative The selected route for segment 2.0 and for the economic analysis is alternative F,the economically preferred route. This recommendation is based mostly on the conclusion that the costs of the cable route alternatives are too high to justify their selection over the land routes,particularly whenconsideringthatareaearthquakeactivityincreasestheoutageriskforcables.Though ADF&G and the USFS have noted prefer-ences for alternative E (all underwater),in the absence of having detailed engineering and environmental studies to supportapreferredrouteselection,selection of the least cost alter- 6.2-6 native is appropriate for determining the feasibility of inter- tie connections,which is the principal purpose of this study. 6.2-7 INTEATIE SEGMENTS |SEGMENT &-O SKAGWAY-AINE S -ANNE.Ao SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE Z.oO ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONBE/OGET COVE ALEA FO SUNEAVU SKAGWAYeHAINES*°SONEAU °SUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS LO AMLTERNATIVES|.AIC BLIERNAINVA S Dc AC LENGTH EVAN MEL AMTEB |ALTON ALT A\MTIB |AI C\ALTD |ACT ENALT FNALT.G|mae ner:SEGMENTS CABLE AC/PC4 mp _---_-_-OLGA ee 28/0 \26/0 |BEIDGET COVE FO SONEALOVERLANDm|370 |ZEaS |Bo Fro |JES |76.2 ,328.5":WAS ,L0%,LO MIERNATIVESranconanHIMNTULINILNLLNTLLLL”Se 4MAJORSTREAMCROSSING+Z Zz Zz Zz Z p4 2 AMLIB:Z3,%SZ.7 (SELECTED)AVALANCHE STEEP SLOPE AREAS m 38 al 6.5 2.8 Z/SS Fy ao .ce g 26 Z7ELEVATION5001500FEETm245oOZ5135QZSQoO404SNi.2500 FEET m 2 Qo 2 OQ Q 2 oO 2 2 Q AC AL TELM BTVE SEXPOSUREAIDGETOPCROSSINGmoOoOFooV>A9 2 2 Q 2s NLT AL ZG& ACCESS ROADLESS AREAS m SEO Qo ZO LEE oO Go geo Q ae AMLIB 23,2%oz.PUSELECTEO)eM Me Ai6 25 26,27BIOLOGICALCONSTRAINTSWWW/)//)//)/}/Vi /} ANADAOMOUS STREAMS CROSSED ¥A 4 5 @ 4 A Ss g SKAG WAY-AMINES <SONLALANADAOMOUSSTREAMSPARALLELED=aw BS as 2s ES as as 2S o 0i &ZS DC ALIERMNATIVWWES FISH HARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS mi Oo oO oO o 2 2)QO til 28.28waTeRrow.use AREAS ni oO 2)o o oO oO &MED!21,224+HITEEAGLENESTSITES#Oo LG /3 +Qo Ze 42 ii MLD.6 Z24,2.Z 2.8 (DOHAS 158.)4sociavicuctunatconstraints-(N/A ALLL LLLIML LL.\Me.ALTERMATNVESLANDUSEWILDERNESSAREASm-=--_=_Zz PLT&USFS LUD2/LUD3 mien 717 |ofso|ef/9 |3777 |of50\C779 |e [Ao £FeyE BBE MEE 20h Z/E,Z.aeAIRPORTStwittinFoiledEoOoO2ry)ys)2 Pe)Oo -7 PST LY CON:")DESIGNATED REFUGES 2D 2 o oO Oo Oo 2 O o >ALTG:2/4 27€ZZEr a8 VISUAL IMPACT FEARY ROUTES m 12 S95 /20 AO S45 10.0 S45 o|6&5 As (WEST LIM CAV HL)TRAILS/CABINS CAMPGRNDS §6#[4/0 |4/7 3)i #/o Whi 3/d 4/7 ol 47 2// OTHER USE AREAS ™2.0 |ZO JO 72.0 3O WZ Zo o|so 430 |\YL F¢S5LV CABLECULTURALSITES:EXISTING/POTENTIALHH OKO |7/72 co |go 7/2,se EZ.37 SVHE NPA NZ VIBEVCALLES LAND STATUS FEDERAL/STATE m |L5/25|PAVET |EEMEN SELLE |PATAT ALE)PRIETO (773 AGES ELTALOCALGOV'T m 0.8 Os Os 2S as LS 2.6 -W/L taf ..private mnivate SELECTION mw _-__-_--_-_27 OS Mere:Lack:front Griege!are-7 CaeCOSTS(in $000)TLLUL NULL LULL WLLL ML VILLALA aed ir anrperst fed #7 ho Woe 7CABLEocx'======wee a ab 25 2BDey Stet LL,heap net(-MIVA ESOVERHEADBase_7414S =EF G/B (40 2657|_/838|<Go 9/8 [VYE|5.624|5446st.stopenock -92 "7B sim 8 250 oo3 S06 VA [2b4 9?6 S32 a#\GZ5%VALS ENGINEERING PREFERENCE 1:MLL MUSKEGWETLAND £@7V/FE sim 8 $00 £00 350 Gi\364 e7Zz 200 -|22744 4/4 ENVIRONMENTALPREFERENCE 8:27 "arD ADDITIONAL COSTS (add 10 spore PULAE|-/70]FPOC|Sf 7&0 4/00 LO |s7@e LZO2 (400|1 760\|lio ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :a F ROW CLEARING --Gsm sl 060 4/0 S/4\|4700e\|7278\7530 Le 93 1 6503|64/4mecicopterconsTA.42am sf (Go =0|Ko -le?-_-[sZ270|/s3e TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL 8 MA WA NA WA NA AA 2920|7%20|¢¥/60|F7éOOCCONVERTERSTATION$NA MA WA Ma aA MA |24 000|£4.0€e __ALTERNATIVE SELECTED CONTINGENCIES 8 WHA NA OZ WA V4 WI &050|7250\7267)GSD FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:4477 A” ENG.ADMIN.,CM.,LAND $NA NA nA NA WA NAL 937|Gor |ZH60|7/18 ; TOTAL $|$637 |426/|G8%|7053|6458)65Z/\68B0 |66 807|5Z/27|7705 HARZA ENGINEERING CO.{ocrt.1987 e-9318vL mr w were % oe OT isoNAN 2]\adaprosi: LEGEND:- mmm PREFERRED ROUTE wm oe ALTERNATIVE HE HE ROUTESELIMIRATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING onmnes EXISTING/ PLANNED ROAOS AGENCY SUGGESTED REFINEMENT WILDERNESS BOUNDARY POSED USFSC ABINNae 4 MILES SEGMENT 2 SKAGWAY -HAINES -JUNEAU ROUTE ALTERNATIVES &? LEGEND: 'sm mmm PREFERRED ROUTE ome ome ALTERNATIVE "HE +H ROUTES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING wooomme EXISTING T/LINE om Gere e72809& SEASONERRRE: EXISTING/ PLANNED ROADS AGENCY SUGGESTED REFINEMENT WILOERNESS BOUNDARY ALASKA PONER AUTH CRIT ECTSUITHEASTINTERTIE SEGMENT 3.0 JUNEAU TO GREEN'S CREEK Description of Alternatives Only one route was identified for the Juneau to Green's Creek Segment.This is shown in Figure 6-4.The steep slopes of the north shore of Admiralty Island,in addition to the Island's Wilderness Status limited route choices.In addition, the Green's Creek Mining Company,recently constructed a road to their mine site which reduces the clearing requirements for construction of a transmission line. As proposed,the transmission line route begins at the existing substation on Douglas Island and then follows the existing road system north and west along the shore to Middle Point.At this location,the line crosses Stephans Passage with 5.2 miles of underwater AC cable and exits at the north end of Young Bay near the head of Hawk Inlet.Here the route turns south and follows the Green's Creek road to the mine site.The total length of the route is 29.4 miles,including 5.2 miles of cable. With respect to physical constraints,the line will require roughly 10.7 miles of steep slope construction and construction in roadless area for about 2 miles.In general,construction is not expected to be difficult since the line will be constructed along existing road for most of its length. Areas of noted environmental resource concern in the vicin- ity of the route include the narrow strip of land between the head of Hawk Inlet and Young Bay.This location is bordered by waterfowl use areas on both sides,and has relatively high con- centrations of eagles because of the number of salmon streams in the area. Additionally,approximately 7.5 miles of the line routes through the portion of the Admiralty Island National Monumentdesignatednon-wilderness.While these lands are not subject toprovisionsandrequirementsoftheNationalWildernessPreserva-tion System,they are still managed to protect objects of envi-ronmental,cultural and scientific interest.The Forest Service has suggested that a buried cable alternative be evaluated:with-in the Monument lands to reduce visual impacts and vegetation clearing,since much of the area is windthrow prone and risks of major blowdown would be increased. 6.3-1 Costs Construction costs for the proposed transmission line route were estimated for three different operating alternatives,as shown in Table 6-4. One alternative assumed the proposed route to be a 34.5 kv spur to Green's Creek Mine and two others involve the segment at 69 kV and 138 kV,assuming the route continued to Hoonah as part of the West Route Intertie system discussed in Chapter 2. Total construction cost obviously favors the 34.5 kV system because of the lower material and installation costs.However, final selection of the voltage for this route will depend on the final intertie system selected. 3.0 JSUNFAU-GEEENS CREERINTEATIESEGMENTS|SEGMENT SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE 20 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ALTERNATIVES °SUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS AL7 At AMLIB ALTE4 Y 4 LENGTH cent LLL ALLL LLL)9 i:SEGMENTS CARE mm BZ SZ 22 ALT 70 -FAS Lo FPL JO GRA,SKK, OVERLAND m ZAZ ,Ly LEZ y >,J CPL SPC TD CAMELPHYSICALCONSTRAINTSULLAL”ge,ven nnent cruaorrances mE FL Dole Mellie - (Bb4U INTECTIE WEST keel ELEVATION 500 I5OOFEET m™. )1800 FEET ™ EXPOSURE RIDGE TOP CROSSING ™ ACCESS ROADLESS AREAS 'mm LE A 438 MUSK EG/WETLAND POTENTIAL m 2 2]oO BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS VLU L LLL)SOTESICOMMENTSANADROMOUSSTREAMSCROSSED*)1,VO MLTERNWIIWVE FPOTES HELE ANADROMOUS STREAMS PARALLELED am L ;COM S/DMLEDP,scunsinansngnmmemens [ZZ WOr POVERTH PIED 42%ZErfe 2,QPIMERVES sae SrugstEEAGLENESTSITES7 ,LY 7 7;7 7 ,7 -TON PP OYoeeptlyCsYPRGsinceunaconnieW/L NLL,'vcr cee pene,AIRPORTStent tmtel ae E 3,BST PERMILE LOR He OVERMERPDESIGNATEDREFUGES!i LINES,LV IES CF [55 PARKS mf " ORE 232 fZ23 (08eeaerceamecourcanostfN|75 flock:pas 4S 178 OTHER USE AREAS ml)LIN wer IWVEN TODED.SEE TERT.g Misk&G/WlLi 486 68 742 CULTURAL SITES:EXISTING/POTENTIAL#44 AY CLEMLING,od 64 &5 LAND STATUS:FEDERAL/STATE ml |*HELICOPTi oO "Ao Zo LOCAL Gov't mf}PGCADE:fo GO NA PRIVATE/PRIVATE SELECTION 3m COSTS (in $000)TILL MMA YU VILLA VMMLLL VILLL/L)WLLL WLLL LLLLL2 LLL A MTS.4 ANO B FEQULE eP-OLE Ron HES!SOME Ae AT.C LEGVIRES UPOGRTPE (ROMCABLE:DC $ ac $LEIA PG S%0|_liso FANE ovenncao ease -VFE/ESgm 5 "68-___SBe|_Zac6eSTSLOPE/ROCK __-<--Simi s {B50 1650 /FeO ENGINEERING PREFERENCE nab MUSKEG/WETLAND _sm $"_o "_aA_ie ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE 3:4277 4 ADDITIONAL COSTS (add 10 above)CASED,262 Sho =ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :ALT ROWCLEARING....%-Sim $B76 E27L|S365HELICOPTERConsTA,__%__Smi 8 4 do fO TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL %4222|4360|£860 DC CONVERTER STATION $===ALTERNATIVE SELECTED aCONTINGENCIES$s 4400)22502 EAE FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:' ENG.,ADMIN,CM,LAND $]47e0]26/0 Z4€0 #ODADENPS ON SELECTED SYSTEM TOTAL $|ZG |/GB4H6 |ZE7#5|HARZA ENGINEERING CO.jocr.1987 ¥ -9JISVL LS 4 hieEaN<PeTenseunaahyjyj,creas ECSveFACE:aa iArs|ae ,Ms SadoETS1.RITSAULTaeMaecenasPOORERS 'LEGEND:_ mm mmm PREFERRED women EXISTING/ay ROUTE /"es ws PEANNED ROADS J. me ALTERNATIVE se ee8 AGENCY =.: ROUTE °”.s SUGGESTEDTitELIMINATED"we REFINEMENTFROMFURTHER-=--=WILDERNESS. |SCREENING __.BOUNDARY -enn a ota EXISTING T/LINE 7 'ROUTE ALTERNATIVES | ASP ER ED SEGMENT 5.0 SNETTISHAM TO KAKE Description of Alternatives Route alternatives to connect the Snettisham Hydroelectric project with Kake consisted of combining alternative segment links on each end of the line with an underwater DC cable in the middle (Figure 6-5).An all overland route was not considered to be practical because of the length involved,topographic constraints and the numerous underwater inlet crossings whichwouldberequired. Four alternatives were identified.Two alternatives (alternatives C and D)include a submarine cable from the Snettisham powerplant to Kake.The other two alternatives (alternatives A and B)would have a DC overhead line parallel the existing Snettisham to Juneau transmission line to Point Styleman before going via submarine cable to Kupreanof Island. On Kupreanof Island,two alternatives (B and D)follow the Gunnuk Creek drainage into Kake.The other alternatives (A and C),route to the west of the Gunnuk Creek drainage and then into Kake (Figure 6-5). Alternative Comparison Table 6-5 summarizes evaluation information for each alter- native. Route Length.Over 70 percent of the length of each route alternative 1s submarine cable.Alternatives A and B has 63 miles of cable,alternative C and D have 79.5 miles of cable. The shortest route overall is alternative A with a length of 89 miles. Physical Constraints.Comparison of the inventoried phys- ical constraint information identified alternative C as the , engineering preference.It has significantly less steep slope and roadless areas than either of the two alternatives which route overland to Point Styleman (alternatives A and B).In comparison to the other "all cable"route (alternative D), alternative C has slightly less roadless area and less lengththroughmuskeg/wetland area (Table 6-5). Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.Comparison of evaluation factors for these categories indicated that alterna- tives A and C were prefereable with respect to biological con-straints.This was due to the fact that both alternatives avoid segment 5.6 which parallels Gunnuk Creek.In addition to Gunnuk Creek being an important salmon stream,its watershed is the water supply source for the city of Kake (see Agency com- ments,Appendix D). All four alternatives potentially impact salmon spawning habitat and eagle concentration areas in the portion of segment 5.4 that crosses lower Schooner and Point White Creeks (see Figure 6-5). Available data indicates the route preference with respect to social/cultural constraints to be either of the two alterna- tives with longer cable lengths (alternatives C and D).These routes are preferred since potential cultural,visual and land use impacts would be minimized. Costs.Route alternative D is estimated as the least cost alternative at $57.96 million.Its cost is on the order of 500,000 less than those of alternatives A and B and approxi- mately equal to that of alternative C. Selected Alternative Considering the above information,alternative route C was selected as the preferred alternative for economic analysis. While it is not the least cost alternative,alternative C is preferable technically and environmentally. Future detailed studies of this route should focus on refining the route alignment to avoid sensitive salmon spawningstreamsnearKake. seoment 500 SAVETISSA/AM -KAKEINTERTIESEGMENTS SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ZO SUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS .ALIZANALI OJ|ALT ClALI-D 7 y LENGTH ent LLLLLL ie i:SEGMENTS CABLE m|@50|gol A%s|775 METAS Eb,64 EE,5.7 OVERLAND rm 260 (6.23 thD ”MoE ,7 ,iy 4th Bt 67,a4 £6,5.7PHYSICALCONSTRAINTSULLMANLLLMLL,he 0 2 6.2 86,85 7MAJOHSTREAMCHOSSING+o 2 e2 [=]LP:BE £4 64656.7AVALANCHESTEEPSLUPEAREASm42.3 Zo as P=)He aon 3 ELEVATION 500 1500 FEET m 1/30 {2,7 AS Az 91500 FEET m™2 4 2 2 EXPOSURE RIDGE TOP CROSSING me oO 2 2 2 ACCESS ROADLESS AREAS m 73 ¢VER}GO G2MUSKEG/WE TL AND POTENTIAL rm 3.4 44 Zd 4./,BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS VLA LL LL SOE SICOMMENTSANADROMOUSSTREAMSCROSSED#é EA 4 s 1 TEMYSMNISSION LINE VS (0040ANADROMOUSSTREAMSPARALLELED=m 2.3 AB a5 AE 'DO CVELHEND FOR LIVES F./sraceumunerergnmmamine =e}gf |2 BE AND E7,SOBAMECELEEAGLENESTSITES#zl Z Z Z ,-Ot oe oon ces estisociatrcurtunatconstants1//////M/NLLLLLMLLLLLL LLL LLL LL gatvt CFELANDUSE:WILDERNESS AREAS m oO J 2 (=E.WLI PLUSFSLUD2/LUD3 mime TAL 10 SATE . PORTS (withen J mied -<-°red a re Fe OO pe Be PreeiyVISUALIMPACTFERRYAOUTESmLO4o40feMATRMKEFAP(e totre 04DTRAILS/CABINS CAMPGANDS #1 -DATLA JACAMALETE ---FHUILMSTIES ONLY,BOMMW Be OTHER USE AREAS mi -DAN IWNCAM PLETE --PORE ITIESCULTURALSITES:ExisTINGPOTENTIALHe 273 |27S 177 |147 LANO STATUS FEDERAL/STATE mm LILES Lad 2/63 LYRNEYARSpnivatemnivartSELECTIONm7a7"27 o/L COSTS {in $000)VIM LILIAN LLL LL CABLE OC sL/7Z AZ 780 _/9758\14758 OvE aneaD ease ___24_sim :BA 1B Zee BeSTSLOPE-ROCK -_.92 .sim L370 L2H ZZ el ENGINEERING PREFERENCE ALT SeMUSKEGWETLANDAAA.sim $2 2 Oo 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE MEL ADDITIONAL COSTS|add tu above)-_--___ECONOMIC PREFERENCE SLIP ROW CLEARING -_ae sm 3]/o00|/e @ZZ eIz2HELICOPTERCONSTA.72 tim 8 ZEB 268 1Z0|24 TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL s|#320|4320 |¢3Z0|¢320 CONTINGENCIES NN fee Be eae ESE FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Me ENG.ADMIN.,CM.,LAND s$|#260|8060 |7BZ0|7Ae TOTAL 8|2BSL9 |F650 |270 786 |57957 HARZA ENGINEERING CO.|ocr.1987 S-931aVvL um mms -PREFERRED omens EXISTING/ 2,ROUTE PLANNED ROADS owe ems ALTERNATIVE e880 AGENCY oHt-tit routes SUGGESTED 2 ELIMINATED REFINEMENT FROM FURTHER ----WILDERNESS BOUNDARY-SCREENING Ried)of474eeaBNGIEN ee Camq%¥SS eel?XS af i AETSAULY ROUTE ALTERNATIVES. IMEERGGG COMPAR. vennnsanand SEGMENT 6.0 PETERSBURG-KAKE Description of Alternatives The proposed transmission line includes conventional over- head 3-phase 138 kV conductors on wood H-frame poles and AC cables for underwater crossings. Several route segments were identified to connect Peters- burg with Kake,as shown in Figure 6-6.Based on review of previous transmission line routing studies done for different voltages,several segments which routed through the Petersburg Creek Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area were eliminated.It would take an act of Congress to allow ingress through the Wilderness Area,and since reasonable alternatives appear to exist which do not route through the Wilderness,those segments were eliminated. Two routes were identified for further comparison;a south- ern route (alternative B)and a northern route (alternative A). A portion of the southern route (segment link 6-1)was modified before final comparison in response to Agency concerns noted for that portion of segment link 6.1 (see Appendix D for details of Agency Comments).Both route alternatives were identified in previous studies. Alternative A.The northern route alternative begins at an existing substation south of Petersburg at Blunt Point.It parallels an existing subtransmission line into Petersburg, crosses Wrangell Narrows via submarine cable and then routes northward along the wooded slope adjacent to Frederick Sound before it turns westward into the Twelve Mile Creek drainage. There it follows lowland areas adjacent to existing and planned logging roads,for the most part,to Kake.The total length of the northern alternative is 53.6 miles,including 0.6 miles of underwater cable. Alternative B.The southern route alternative begins at a new substation located approximately three miles south of Blunt Point.The line exits to the west,crosses the Wrangell Narrows via submarine cable and routes through an unnamed creek drainage paralleling existing logging roads to Duncan Canal.After'crossing Duncan Canal via underwater cable,the line followsrelativelyflatterrainnorthwardtothepasswhichdivides the Duncan Canal drainages to the east with those flowing west to Hamilton Creek.The route follows a previously recommended route in the area west of Duncan Canal to minimize routing through muskeg areas.The route from Duncan Canal to the passisunroadedandtherearenoknownplansforloggingroadsat 6.6-1 present.West of the pass the route parallels existing logging roads to Kake. The total length of the southern route alternative is 46.7 miles,including 1.7 miles of underwater cable. Alternative Comparison Table 6-6 presents information summarized from segment link inventories for each of the alternative routes.The following discussion summarizes the above findings by evaluation factor category. Route Length.The shortest route in terms of total length is the southern route (alterntive B).It is approximately 7 miles shorter than alterntive A.However,it has roughly 1.1 additional miles of underwater cable which substantially increases its cost. Physical Constraints.With respect to the physical con- straints inventoried,the southern route (alternative B)appears preferable from an engineering point of view.The southern route traverses no steep slope compared to 4 miles of steep slope for the northern route.It crosses slightly more muskeg/ wetland area than the north route (2 miles more).The southern route has fewer unroaded miles than the northern route (5.5. miles)therefore access is better and the need for helicopter construction is less. Though the southern route has 1.1 miles more submarine cable,and thus a greater risk factor in terms of cable outage, the cable's location compared to that of the northern route is considered more reliable.The northern alternative cable crosses the Wrangell Narrows in an area of active shipping.In addition to concern for periodic dredging which is done to main- tain the channel,concern is higher for this northern alterna- tive with respect the ship's anchors snagging the cable. Biological,Social/Cultural Constraints.As shown in Table 6-6,route preference with respect to environmental constraint factors is mixed.Generally,the northern route is preferable with respect to minimizing potential impacts to aquaticresourcesandwaterfowl;the southern route is preferable with respect to minimizing land use and social resource impacts as well as impacts to eagle nest sites. 6.6-2 : Environmentally sensitive areas associated with the north- ern route include the steep forested slope between PetersburgandTwelveMileCreek,the area near Portage Creek and Goose Cove,and the Wrangell Narrows crossing.High concentrations of eagles nest sites exist in area between Petersburg and Twelve Mile Creek as well as several anadromous streams which would need to be crossed.This same area is also highly sensitive to viewers travelling the inside passage on the Alaska Marine Ferry. The area near Portage Creek and Goose Cove (Figure 6-6), according to U.S.Forest Service personnel,is part of a major waterfowl migration path which leads southwest into the Duncan Canal area.The area also has several anadromous streams which flow into Portage Bay.Concern would be particularly high for portions of the line route near the mouths of these streams as these locations are areas in which eagles and other birds are attracted to spawning salmon. The Wrangell Narrows crossing is environmentally sensitive because of migratory waterfowl and commercial crab and shrimp fisheries.Tide flats on the Kupreanof side of the Narrows are used extensively by feeding waterfowl and for recreational and subsistance purposes by residents (see Agency comments,Appendix D). Areas of the southern route that are environmentally sensi- tive include the Wrangell Narrows,Duncan Canal area and the Hamilton and Big John Creek watersheds.As in the Petersburg Creek area,the Wrangell Narrows area receives large concentra- tions of migratory waterfowl and supports shellfish and shrimp fisheries.The Duncan Canal area is particularly sensitive with respect to waterfowl use.According to U.S.Forest Service comments,Duncan Canal is one of the major waterfowl concentra- tion areas in Southeast Alaska.It is also the location of a shrimp trawl fishery which provides as much as 80 percent of the total shrimp catch in Southeast Alaska (Appendix D).Big John and Hamilton Creeks are both major salmon streams and any trans- mission line crossing will be of concern due to sedimentation impacts and impacts to eagles. In summary and within the limits of this study,both routes present substantial potential for impacts to environmental resources.For purposes of presenting a preferred route for economic analysis in the next phase of this study,the southern route (alternatives B)was judged to be preferable due to its lower land use,eagle and visual resource impacts,and the greater reliability in its Wrangell Narrows crossing. Costs.The northern route (alternative A)is the preferred route economically even though it is longer.The principle reason for this is the underwater cable crossing of Duncan Canal required for the southern route. The southern route's higher cost also reflects the need to construct a new substation rather than upgrade an existing sub- Station as is done for the northern route.The southern alternative could possibly be routed to the existing substation, thus saving the cost of a new substation.However,any savings are likely to be minimal due to the cost of constructing the additional line on steep slope and the need for mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts to users of the Marine FerrysystemintheWrangellNarrows. Estimated costs for the two routes are $23.6 million for the northern route and about $26.5 million for the southern route. Selected Alternative Based on evaluation and comparison of the factors sum- marized in Table 6-6,input received from Agencies and review of previous studies,the recommended alternative for economic analysis is Alternative B (southern route). The higher cost and potentially significant aquatic resource and waterfowl impacts of the southern route,however, necessitate that,before final design of this Intertie segment commences,detailed environmental comparisons of these two alternatives be made. 6.6-4 seament @.0 KAKE -PETERS OURGINTERTIESEGMENTS SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE A oO ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONROUTEALTERNATIVES.SUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS .ALI.A\ALTB 7 y Yj 4sno-___=581/7/HI MULLIN CLL Ls CABLE m Le 47 ALT AS 6.Z,6.7,OF OVEALANO m|93.0 ,$8.02 y Y y r ,AMALIE!EACE CEPPHYSICALCONSTRAINTSVLULLLLIMLLULUIUIMLLLLLLLL}OY OLS veacancnt siete suure antas mf TED 2 : ELEVATION 500 1500 FEET m 2D o )1500 FEET m 2 o EXPOSURE AIDGE TOP CROSSING om oO oO ACCESS RUADLESS AREAS ™22,5 6.0 . MUSK EG/WE TLAND POTENTIAL m 7-0 GoBIOLOGICALCONSTRAINTSLULL LLU LLLLLLLA NOTESICOMMENTSANADAOMOUSSTREAMSCROSSED#&L970 1 SEGMENT 6.1 REPUWRES AA MEWANADROMOUSSTREAMSPARALLELED=ow 475 |2:80 1383 KV SOESTATION S0PTH OCFSHELLFISHHARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS mi 2e 47 FETERS BURG AUP SEMAINE WATERFOWL USE AREAS mi 2,5 Et CNICE CROSSINGS OF MWRANGECC- EAGLE NEST SITES *f4 0 ,2zZ :, -NECCOWS AND DEVEAN CANALsocracicucrunatconstraints(///////M/MAILLLL MLL LULA LLL 2.SE GadeG2 REDES AELANDUSE'WILDERNESS AREAS ™o oe VEEAY Fel TR ROAD FEVERSuststuornuns|mnt aia |278 08g Oe A GEHELMS.DESIGNATED REFUGES!Z 2 CLOSSING OF WENGE CAELIA/S PARKS m 2 2 VISUAL IMPACT FERRY ROUTES m JZ0 @5TRAILS/CABINS CAMPGANDS #|o/3 Of/ OTHER USE AREAS om LA.42 CULTUAAL SITES.EXISTING/POTENTIAL S/7\_3h LAND STATUS:FEOERAL/STATE mm |LOLA MY AeLOCALGOV'T m LL.afPRIVATE/PRIVATE SELECTION mm 35 Af , COSTS {in $000)VITAL LILLIE oa 7 RAovennean:aase _7473 _sim 5 P9I72|AASAstscorernock-"ZF sim $ZgZe7 "997 ERING PREFERENCE :MLABMUSKEG/WETLAND SIé.Sim =LIG4 {722 ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE 3:447,25 ADDITIONAL COSTS {add to above)_-__ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :ANT,A ROWCLEARING._.27_sm $1 39/3|S8ZBHELICOPTERCONSTA.7O_simi 8 W/O 300 TERMINALS:AC TEAMINAL 3 2/80\|3960 .lconvmaeesCONVERTERSTATION:-"3 =CLC KAICILITBY AT KAKE VASSUMED MW ALACE)ALTERNATIVE SELECTED ATE ENG.ADMIN.,CM.,LAND $3 BIO 4090 TOTAL $23 556 126,¢5Z HARZA ENGINEERING CO.JOcr.1987 8-98J1SsvL ee "LEGEND wwe mmmen PREFERRED ROUTE were ee WILDERNESS BOUNDARY Heditdit ROUTES ELIMINATE meme EXISTING/PLANNEDROADS SEGEMENT 7.0 KAKE TO SITKA Description of Alternatives Three route alternatives were identified for connecting Kake and Sitka.All three alternatives include a 35 mile long DC cable crossing from Kake to Warm Springs Bay (Figure 6-7). Blue Lake substation was selected as the termination for all three alternatives.The existing transmission line from Blue Lake into Sitka would be adequate to carry the forecast loads. From Warm Springs Bay alternative A follows segments 7.2 and 7.6 to the existing substation at Blue Lake.Alternatives B and C follow the north shore of Baranoff Lake and continue west- ward into the Baranoff River drainage.Alternative B then turns north (segment 7.4)and crosses a high elevation ridge before entering the Blue Lake watershed.Alternative C continues west- ward (segment 7.5),crosses a high elevation ridge and routes north of Medrejia Lake before turning north and paralleling an existing road along Silver Bay to the Blue Lake substation. The total lengths of the three routes are 55.1 miles for alternative A,55.3 miles for alternative B and 55.4 miles for alternative C.Over half of each route's length is underwater cable 35.2 miles). Alternative Comparison Table 6-7 summarizes evaluation information for each alter- native. Route Length.Total lengths of the three alternatives are almost identical.Alternative A is the shortest route,but only by 0.2 and 0.3 miles compared to routes B and C,respectively. Cable lengths are the same for all three alternatives. Physical Constraints.Alternative C is the most favorable alternative with respect to engineering preference,as can be seen by the comparison of physical constraint factors in Table 6-7.Alternative A,though the shortest of the three routes, would present significant construction and maintenance problems. Over five miles of this alternative's length is above 1500 feet elevation.Much of that length is over 3500 feet elevation. Exposure to wind,snow and icing is expected to be severebecauseofitsridgetoplocationandlocationbetweentwo glaciers in segment link 7.2. In comparison,alternative C has only one mile of linelocatedabove1500feetelevation.It also traverses roughly 3 miles less roadless area than either alternative A or B. 6.7-1 Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.No clear envi- ronmental preference emerged from the evaluations and comparison of the environmental factors inventoried.All three alterna- tives would present visual and land use impacts to the communi- ties of Manleyville and Baranoff.Forest Service representa- tives have noted that residents of Manleyville expressed con- cerns over the visual impacts of a pipeline corridor and may have major objections to a transmission line corridor (see com- ment Appendix D). Alternative C has the potential to impact more anadromous streams as it nears Bear Cove and Silver Bay towards the Sitka termination.However,as the line will parallel an existing road and transmission line in this location,impacts are not expected to be significant. Alternatives A and B,while preferable with respect to biological constraints,are less preferred with respect tosocialandculturalconstraintsbecauseoftheirgreaterpoten- tial of impacting visual and recreation resources in the vicin- ity of Blue Lake.Both alternatives would be visible to hikers along the Beaver Lake trail and users of the campground located at the west end of Blue Lake.Blue Lake is also the water source for a pulp mill and the City and Borough of Sitka. Costs.Total costs for the three alternatives range between $34.23 million for alternatives A and C and $34.28 million for alternative B.Though the estimated construction costs for all three alternatives are very close,alternative C was selected as preferred because more of its length is accessible by road in addition to being routed at lower elevations.Both factors will reduce maintenance-related costs in the long run. Selected Alternative Alternative C is recommended as the alternative for econom- ic analysis.Technically,it is the best route and would be the least costly to build. It should be noted that the City and Borough of Sitka have expressed a desire to have a line routed into the city from thenorthinordertoincreasethereliabilityoftheirtransmission system as opposed to utilizing the existing Blue Lake/Green Laketransmissionline.Such a route coming from the Manleyville or Takatz Lake region would be technically difficult and costly toconstruct,since it would require construction at high eleva-tions and crossings of exposed mountain passes into the Indian River drainage. For purposes of this study,the least costly and more reli-able alternative was chosen for determining the economic viabil- 6.7-2 ity of this segment as part of the Intertie System.Future studies of this segment should include more detailed considera- tion of the city's preferred alternative. INTERTIE SEGMENTS |SEGMENT 70 KAKE-SI 7KA SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE FO ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONROUTEALTERNATIVESSUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS ALT AA BART ; LENGTH enue l/iMee Aum MILLI LLLLALLLLLL esr SeonCABLE™FS,LEZ Je Cc OVERLAND rm 42./AA ,,,TE:ZB Zé PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS MLL LLU LLIN LL io Ze:x Z3Soe vevnrent secrsoreancas wef PTO?ELEVATION $00 IS00F EET rm ESE 27 40 )1500 FEET ™4S L¢40 EXPOSURE AIOGE TOP CROSSING m ZS OF 5 se oon one beep eat eeSIOLOGICALCONSTRAINTSWLLhLLLLULLLLL VALLI LLL ALLL LL)BOrEsicoMMENTS ANADROMOUS STREAMS PARALLELED =m 22 O2 Vr} SHELLFISH HARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS mi as'as 22WATERFOWLUSEAREASrv EAGLE NEST SITES bid CIN ORMM ATION INCOM FE ETE J SOCIAL/CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS LLHh LLL.WLLL LLL LL.WM)TLLANOUSEWILOERNESSAREASmm USFS LUO2/LUD3 mutes AIRPORTS Iwithin 0 rile}5 DESIGNATED REFUGES) PARKS mi [ (J o. VISUAL IMPACT FERAY ROUTES m Ze ZO 40TRALS/CAQINS CAMPGANDS «=#|__7//VLE Of1 \CIVEORMATLON INCOMPLETE) OTHEA USE AREAS m B.0 as 5.5CULTURALSITES:EXISTING/POTENTIAL#4]OF 0/3 OfZ2 LAND STATUS:FEDERAL/STATE ZEEE SEUSSZN MA G/AODLOCALGOV'T m _= PRIVATE/PRIVATE SELECTION mw AZ as COV EOMMATION,SV COANZ2ZETEJ44COSTS(in $000)Li)WIMMNLLLLLLL TD VILMLUNLLLLLL)UM VIM IYI LLCABLE:OC s|7%Ibo 13,76¢0|/2%geacrd$s -_-_-OVERHEAD BASE __77_Sim S$ZB?at CESststore'roce -_4 sim $EES E28 E28 ENGINEERING PREFERENCE [MICMUSKEGWETLAND_4°2._gim -$ZIe Z7o "fe ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE 3:A/OA/E ADDITIONAL COSTS (acid to above}_--ECONOMIC PREFERENCE >VOVE ROW CLEARING __.277.sim S$407$\4085\|4093HELICOPTERConsTA.fF wm 8 /E7 EF (23 TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL 8 YOO GOO GeeDCCONVEATERSTATION$[Seam)B2Z|2200](OS LWOULAY WI KAKE ASEAWNED M4 VCPRE)ALTERNATIVE SELECTED CONTINGENCIES s|38/0|4820|38 FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ACTS ENG.,ADMIN.,CM.,LAND s|4590 4 GO|#290 TOTAL 8|34225|Z¢270 |F$ZZ HARZA ENGINEERING CO.Jocr.1987 2-9SI9VL :AScaei,pe et ng Ml ss ;eg eee EMax LEGEND: mwa ome PREFERRED ROUTE ome ewe ALTERNATIVE Hb tit ROUTES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING mean EXISTING T/LINE ; omnes EXISTING/ PLANNED ROADS AGENCY SUGGESTED REFINEMENT WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ie NOTRE eya!*t - -S alyo4scant - \ \wlSy 2 z aN N i]WSK AQWAY a"=iN)Ps N,woe ver aralSNseeNSsiaIONNOESesTRLSAY:fo)oe oF M :re J 2 N ipreyEas¢serendeunPar:be IAG t ps = =e .ne ) KETCHICAM +1 ie)tcKITSAULT - SCALE 0 4 MILES ,--} ee rem eeALASKAPOWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE PROJECT SEGMENT 7 KAKE -SITKA ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ens MARZA ENGINEERING.TOMPANY bare OCT 199 SEGMENT 8.0 TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE Description of Alternatives Four alternative routes which combined various segment links were identified for comparison (Table 6-8).These alter- natives were identified after the elimination of several other segment links which routed through the Misty Fiords National Monument.An additional segment link (8.6)was identified by the U.S.Forest Service and incorporated into the alternative comparisons. All the route alternatives parallel the existing Tyee Lake and Wrangell transmission line,then turn south through the Eagle River drainage before crossing Bell Arm and Behm Canal. Alternatives A and C remain to the east of Eagle River and Eagle Lake,avoid crossing Bell Arm,and cross Behm Canal at Pt.Lees (see Figure 6-8).In the same area,alternatives B and D cross Eagle River and traverse the west slope.They then cross Bell Arm with an overhead cable,cross Bell Island overhead,and then Behm Canal via underwater cable. From a point south of Behm Canal,all four alternatives share the same segment link (8.4)through the Beaver and Klam Creek drainages.West of these drainages,topographic con- straints were considered too severe for routing;and routing east of the drainages would place routes in the Misty Fiords National Monument. From segment link 8.4,alternatives A and B turn eastward and follow existing and planned Forest Service logging roads north of Orchard Lake.Both then cross Orchard Creek and follow existing and planned roads to Swan Lake. Alternatives C and D turn south from segment link 8.4, cross Shrimp Bay with an overhead line and then follow along the shore of the head of Neet's Bay.Near the Neets Bay Hatchery, both alternatives turn east following an existing logging road until they turn to the southeast,crossing over a pass and intersecting with the other alternatives to continue south along Carrol Inlet and to Swan Lake. Alternative Comparison ' Table 6-8 summarizes evaluation information for each alter-native and indicates the segment links for each route. Route Length.Total lengths of alternatives A,B,C and D are 50.2,50.5,51.4 and 51.7 miles respectively.The shortest route is alternative A in terms of total miles.However,with respect to underwater cable lengths,alternative A has 1.3 miles more cable length than either alternative B or alternative D. Physical Constraints.As shown in Table 6-8,alternative A is the preferred route with respect to engineering preference, Alternative C is next in preference.Both routes avoid the aerial crossing of Bell Arm which would require special founda- tion construction on steep slopes and for the long span.While alternative A has 0.7 mile more muskeg/wetland potential cross- ing than alternative C,it has the least amount of unroaded area of all the alternatives and the fewest miles of line at eleva- tions above 500 feet. Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.Preference with respect to reducing or avoiding potential impacts on environmental resources favors alternatives B and D.Alterna- tives A and C both potentially parallel more anadromous streams and impact more shellfish harvest areas (Table 6-8).Further- more,the cable crossing for both routes A and C crosses close to winter herring grounds located on the south shore of Behm Canal. Social and cultural resource impacts are also higher with alternatives A and C,notably due to the visual and cultural resource impact potential associated with segment 8.2 in both alternatives.AS proposed,segment 8.2 would cross in the immediate area of a U.S.Forest Service recreation cabin located at Anchor Pass.It would also present significant visual impacts to Point Lees which is a prominent land form located at the intersection of Bell Arm and Behm Canal.Point Lees is also the site of a former large native village,as mentioned in Captain George Vancouver's ship log (Appendix C and D). Between the two remaining alternatives,B and D,alterna- tive D is slightly preferred.This preference reflects U.S. Forest Service comments that segment 8.5,included in alterna- tive B,has higher primitive recreation value than alternative D and segment 8.6.Visually,segment 8.5 potentially impacts theForestServicecabinsonOrchardLake.Parts of Segment 8.6 may also visually impact those cabins and create higher visualimpactstoviewersfromthewaterwhereitcrossesShrimp Bay and routes along the shore of Neet's Bay. Cost.Comparison of the total costs of the four alterna- tives favors alternative B.Alternative B would cost approxima- tely $500,000 less than alternative D,and $1.4 to $2.0 million dollars less than either alternatives A and C.The higher cost of the steep slope construction and aerial crossing of Bell Arm in alternatives B and D,is more than off-set by the 1.3 addi- tional miles of cable crossing associated with alternatives A and C. Selected Alternative Based on the information presented,alternative B is selected as the preferred route,but is only slightly more pre- ferable than alternative D. Overall,alternative B was slightly better,technically, than alternative D because of its shorter length,(7.3 miles) less routing through roadless areas,and avoidance of spanning Shrimp Bay.These factors were considered to off-set the higher impacts of alternative B on recreational resources.Should more roads be constructed adjacent to segment 8.6 in the future, alternative D should be reconsidered. Upon review of the draft of this report,the U.S.Forest Service suggested that segment 8.1 be constructed on the west side of Eagle River because of the steep slopes on the east side.This refinement is shown in Figure 6-8. 6.8-3 INTERTIE SEGMENTS |SEGMENT 8.0 TVEE LAKE-SEAN LAKE SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE LO ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONROUTEALTERNATIVES°SUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS Wes A\AL S|ALT e|MID VALUATI VY,y LENGTH wine /UMLL Ml YWhMUULULL ine 8 SEGMENTSCABLEmL9OleMALTA?E1,2%,44,2 SB7 OVERLAND mh GAS Aer iY 7 ry MALT Bs Et,BS O4 ES,87reVGWALCONTIGLALLA"2:8:28:9 2:67 MAJOH SIRE AM CH JING Ed .nvavancnt wien suurt AREAS om as VE:Bz 7.3 MID:E465 E64,BG,6,7 ELEVATION 500 1500 FEET m SEO 22,6 42.9 L275 )1800 FEET om Lf /f At AfEXPOSURERIDGETOPCROSSINGomOoOooO ACCESS ROADLESS AREAS ™Loe 44 2 2 LAFMUSKEG/WE TLAND POTENTIAL rm VF2,{3,8 f2./:BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS LLL LLYAN LLLLL VAM LLL LL SOTESICOMMENTSANAAMSCROSSEDE'sAnapmomoussrntansPARALLELEDm Z4 S.$a:4 FSSHELLFISHHARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS mi LGD ee 79 LE WATERFOWL USE AREAS mi Ss,3 53 5,3 23EAGLENESTSITES¥/vA 7 -SOCIAL/CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS -[7ME NLA.ANOS USES.LUDZLUOY mem 2 2 2 nesionateonetuces._/v7 7 LVISUALIMPACTFERRYROUTESm40402fo40O\|.,. transicasins campcanos «=6#[¥/4 [#/S [H/o [#723 |A-Abeatr hy_Mtom PLEve) OTHER USE AREAS mm GS ZL EF.FOCULTURALSITES:EXISTING/POTENTIAL W/Z |O75 278 Of. LAND STATUS:FEDERAL/STATE ™GERD RYO ALAS SLAFLOCALGOV'T m -_--7 PRIVATE/PRIVATE SELECTION mm -_--_ COSTS (in $000)VILL LLINILLUMI LM LLL LLL mane A :ER Tée 32ZZ22|462ovenneansass_"V8 _sim [32/2 29€O|3652 |33200ST.SLOPE/ROCK _18,-fm -$26/7|_z2€84\2546 |28/5 ENGINEERING PREFERENCE :M7AFMUSKEGWETLAND77%_Sim -$220¢|feso|2/70 |25/é ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE :9275.8 or2ADDITIONALCOSTS{ada 10 above}-|_-ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :MQ7E. ROW CLEARING >|tm $8)f/09|4¢245|4/83\#£35ZoneLicoptenconsta.£O.sm sf Sol Sed|Geel "é¥o TERMINALS:AC TEAMINAL 8|2560|$560)|S S5hol BLréo DC CONVERTER STATION $-.=-=-ALTERNATIVE SELECTED CONTINGENCIES s|407 |d£o/o |dme|doze FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS :4L78 ENG.,ADMIN,CM,LAND s|4 7c £590\L7%0|£672 TOTAL 8 |20,3/2 |28,903 |30827 |2942/HARZA ENGINEERING CO.OCT.1967 8-9318VL Asey KETC!: : "ROUTE ome ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED SCREENING EXISTING;*- AGENCY . REFINEMENT” ,ROUTE ALTERNATIVES INA}LUMARAP SEGMENT 9.0 KETCHIKAN TO PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND Description of Alternatives Two route alternatives were identified to connect the pro- posed intra island transmission line at Thorne Bay with the existing power grid in Ketchikan.Both routes exit Ketchikan via underwater cable near Mud Bay,come ashore on Prince of Wales Island at Grindall Point and then follow the north shore of Kasaan Peninsula for about five miles.At this point,alter- native A turns to the west and follows the south shore of Kasaan Peninsula,while alternative B continues along its north shore. The two alternatives come together near Tolstoi Bay and then follow the same route segment northwest to an intersection with the proposed intra-island transmission system west of Thorne Bay. Comparison of Alternatives Table 6-9 summarizes information used in the following comparisons: Route Length.The shortest route is alternative B,by 1.4 miles.Both routes have the same length of cable (17.2 miles). Physical Constraints.Alternative B is the preferred route with respect to evaluation of physical constraints.It crosses 4.7 miles less roadless area.Alternative B also crosses 1.3 miles less muskeg/wetland area than does alternative A. Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.As indicated in Table 6-9,route preference with respect to the evaluation factors inventoried is mixed.Both routes cross the same number of anadromous streams (13),but alternative B has fewer miles of route parallel to streams (1.8 miles). Potential impacts to eagle nest sites,clearly favors alternative A,with 13 sites in proximity to the route.In comparison,alternative B has 23 eagle nest sites inventoried. Alternative A is preferable with respect to minimizing visual impacts.While miles of potential visual impact to Ferryroutesareclose(10.3 and 12.3 miles),alternative B's 12.3 miles is more significant since it is potentially visible totouristsonthemaininlandpassageroute,while alternative A's 10.3 miles would be viewed by users of the Prince of Wales Ferry route to Hollis.The latter is largely a local shuttle route between Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island. Much of Prince of Wales Island is in native ownership. This is reflected by the relatively higher number of route miles in private land status for this study segment compared to other segments in the study.Typically,routing through privately owned land is less desireable than a route through federal, state or local government owned land.Land acquisition costs are usually higher and opposition is often high,and can lead tolengthynegotiationorcondemnationproceedings. Alternative route B is less constraining in terms of rout- ing though private land,having 10.4 miles routed through private/private selected lands.In comparison,alternative A has 11.7 miles routed through the same category. Few land use conflicts are expected to result from either route.The majority of both routes are in the Forest Services's LUD IV category which places emphasis on resource development. Alternative A does route through or near the community of Kasaan,which may be of concern to local residents with respect to the line's visual impact.It should be noted that because the proposed line is a DC circuit,Kasaan could not be served by the system without an AC connection from the proposed DC converter station. Costs.Total project costs favor alternative B,but not significantly.Total costs for routes A and B are $43.46 and $42.72 million respectively.Less than $800,000 separate the two routes. Selected Alternative Alternative route B is selected as the alternative for economic analysis because it has the least cost,and is tech- nically preferred. The relatively close cost and mixed environmental prefer- ences between the two routes,however,necessitates that,should this segment be pursued as part of the Intertie system,detailed studies should be conducted on both routes. GO WETCH MAAS -PRINCE OF WALES 15.INTERTIE SEGMENTS |SEGMENT seoment|SE ALASKA INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ZO SUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS ALZA ALT &LF ,VALUATION V, LENGTH ene n VLMLYM UA CU LAL CU CE seowewtenorANO=eee izG|CEXCLUOES SAB ANMLES|OL W/ENV WL fawaron|Zo sony 7275,its G95 "GatPHYSICALCONSTRAINTSVLLLWLMUMIALLLmoatancntGreerstoreAREAS¥E 2,3 ELEVATION $00 1500 FEET ™10 oO 41500 FEET ™(Z 2 EXPOSURE RIDGE TOP CROSSING m QOS AS ACCESS MOAOLESS AREAS wl Bo eeMUSKEG/WE TE AND POTENTIAL om 2,5 £4, BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS VTL LILLIANLLLA SOTESICOMMENTSANADROMOUSSTREAMSCROSSED#43 VE}A SGLETER LOVTE COMBINED WITH ANADROMOUS STREAMS PARALLELED =m 28 ZO "3 IND COMPARE DJ?SEGMENT3.SHELLFISH HARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS mi OS 2S 2,5 ECQAAEWT FI LEQVIES WEY WATERFOWL USE AREAS mi 2 2 Tit.(RIM LILLEYSUESTATIS Jo EAGLE NEST SITES *Es ,23 73 .|,BES LAT”socmrev una conranns WN NULL LLL LLL.eB a 18Biren757rAnouseUSFS,LuD@tuD'mnt7D >he BAS Ale OTNLLS AIRE AtavoPOLme sentcnuas "al 2 PARKS om Q Q VISUAL IMPACT FERRY ROUTES m 423 /i3 TRAILS/CABINS CAMPGRNDS #QATA_INCOMPLETE OTHEA USE AREAS ml DAFA |(COMAL IECULTURALSITES:EXISTINGPOTENTIAL#4 of /S |4/7, LAND STATUS:FEDERAL/STATE -|ZELf24 727027 LOCAL GOV'T m = _- PRIVATE/PRIVATE SELECTION mm a?1.4 , COSTS {in $000)VITALI ULLAL LL CABLE:OC s G6S0|GESO AC $s _'= ovennean Bast AL/fSem $|/565|7H7OststorenockWYKSgim$l 7 /¥F o/Z ENGINEERING PREFERENCE [ALTEmuskecwetiannHAZZESsim«os A253]7/3 ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE 3:44 7 46ADDITIONALCOSTS{add 10 above!=_=-ECONOMIC PREFERENCE 'Me Aa8k ROW CLEARING ___sim $&49/2 LAFFHELICOPTERCONSTR.©Simi §FE6 372 TEAMINALS:AC TERMINAL s|2260|3500 OC CONVERTER STATION $1 /Z G20 /Z GA?ALTERNATIVE SELECTED . CONTINGENCIES s|5¢40|5550 FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ALTE ENG.AOMIN.,CM.,LAND s|62/0 |6&f%o TOTAL s AL,TL4 HARZA ENGINEERING CO.jocr.1987 6-9318VL LEGEND: =PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING EXISTING T/LINE evens |EXISTING/ -2 |PLANNED ROADSeeeeeAGENCY .SUGGESTED REFINEMENT ------WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ATHMEAST INTERTHec =. KETCHIKAN 6-98°S3HNDI4 SEGMENT 10.0 SWAN LAKE TO QUARTZ HILL Descriptionof Alternatives Alternatives to connect the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine site to the Swan Lake Hydroelectric site were investigated for two principal reasons.First,Quartz Hill represents a large load center which could take advantage of surplus energy offered by an Intertie System.Secondly,the Quartz Hill site is on one logical route for a Southeast Intertie link connecting to Canadian generation sources.Another Southeast Intertie link to Canada,at Prince Rupert,was evaluated,but found not to be feasible because of physical constraints to underwater cable construction and cost considerations (see Segment 11 and 15 discussions). Several segment links were identified for connecting Swan Lake and Quartz Hill (Figure 6-10).After review of these seg- ments links by Agencies,several modifications were made.Two segment links were eliminated from further comparison because of their potential for impacting high recreational values in the Gokachin and Mesa Lakes region of the Misty Fiords National Monument.Several refinements and additions were made as a result of discussions with Ketchikan District Forest Service personnel.The eastern terminus of all the Behm Canal cable crossings was relocated from Point Trollup to a location near the mouth of Bartholomew Creek inside Smeaton Bay.This was done to reduce visual impacts which would have been quite prominent to the many viewers traveling up Behm Canal into Misty Fiords. Route segments that were added during the study (10.5, 10.6,10.7 and 10.8)reflected the Forest Service's knowledge of existing and planned logging roads in the area east and west of Thorne Arm. In all,ten route segment links were identified which were combined to form eight route alternatives for comparison,as shown in Table 6-10.It is important to note that none of the eight alternatives avoid routing through the Misty FiordsNationalMonument.Therefore,regardless of the route selected, difficult and lengthy permitting procedures are expected. Following are general descriptions of the route alterna- tives: Beginning at the Swan Lake substation,all the alternativesroutesouthwardfollowingplannedloggingroadsalongtheeasternshoreofCarrolInlet(segment link 10.1).Ata point 6.10-1 just north of Island Point and the Coast Guard Loran station, alternative A splits off from the rest of the alternatives and crosses into the Misty Fiords National Monument south of Ella Lake continuing to the shore at Behm Canal just north of Short Pass.From there,alternative A continues underwater to a point west of Bartholomew Creek on the north shore of Smeaton Bay.At this point altentive A routes overland up the Bartholomew Creek drainage,and then crosses the Wilson and Blossom Rivers before it reaches the Quartz Hill Mine site. Alternative D is identical to alternative A up to the point west of Bartholomew Creek.At that point alternative D contin- ues underwater to Wharf Point where it follows the south shore of Wilson Arm overland and through the proposed Quartz Hill tailings tunnel to the mine site (segment link 10.10). Alternatives B,C,E and F all route southeast from Segment link 10.1,following existing and planned logging roads on the east side of Thorne Arm before they turn east into Misty Fiords. Alternatives B anc C enter Behm Canal at a point north of Rudyard Island.Alternative E and F continue to follow the existing road system further south before they enter Behm canal near Fox Point.At Bartholomew Creek in Smeaton Bay,alterna- tives B and E follow the overland route segment 10.9 into Quartz Hill,while C and F continue underwater to Wharf Point (segment 10.10). The last of the eight alternatives,G and H,follow the existing and proposed logging roads and the Forest Service sug- gested refinement on the west side of Thorne Arm (segment link 10.5).Both alternatives cross Thorne Arm with a submarine cable at Elf Point and follow segment 10.7 to Fox Point.At Bartholomew Creek,alternative G routes overland (link 10.9)and alternative H continues underwater to Wharf Point (link 10.10). Comparison of Alternatives Table 6-10 presents the segment link evaluation information summarized by the alternatives described above. Route Length.The shortest overall route is alternative D at 50.7 miles.The longest route is alternative G at 60.4 miles.The route with the shortest cable distance is alterna- tive B with 8.6 miles of underwater cable.In comparison, alternative D which is the shortest overall in length,has 15.4 miles of cable. Physical Constraints.Comparison of the physical con-straint factors in Table 6-10 indicates that all the alterna- tives are similar in the extent of physical constraints inven- toried.Alternative routes C and H can be considered to have 6.10-2 Slight advantages over alternative F.Of the eight alternatives routes considered,these three alternatives C,F and H,appear to have the fewest overall physical constraints.While alter- native F is the same as C and D in steep slope miles and eleva- tion over 1500 feet,it crosses more muskeg area than the other two alternatives and has more roadless area than alternative 4H. Among the three alternatives,alternative C crosses the most roadless area;22.6 miles compared to 20.0 and 16.9 miles for F and H,respectively.However,alternative C crosses the fewest miles of muskeg/wetland area,12.9 miles,as compared to 15.9 and 14.2 miles crossed for alternatives F and H. One note of concern with these three alternatives and other alternatives that include segment link 10.10 is the proposal of U.S.Borax to use Wilson Arm as a tailings disposal site for its Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine development.Presently,the revised Quartz Hill Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1987) proposes Wilson Arm as the preferred tailings disposal site. However,the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),in its review of the Quartz Hill project,has recommended that the middle basin of Boca de Quadra be the location for the mine tailing disposal.If Wilson Arm remains as the tailings dis- posal site,all transmission line alternatives that include segment link 10.10 would be technically infeasible as routes, since they would pass through an area of active tailings deposi- tion and may be prone to cable movement or damage. Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.Except for alternatives G and H,biological constraints are similar among the route alternatives.Sensitive resource areas noted by Agen- cies include a good bottom fishery in the vicinity of Short Pass.Alternatives A and D would need to be realigned to avoid impacts in this region.Other areas of biological sensitivity that were noted included concern for eagles and impacts to anadromous fish at the mouth of Calamity Creek.This location, in segment 10.1,is common to all alternatives. Segment 10.9 lies completely within the Misty Fiords Non- wilderness Area associated with the Quartz Hill Project.This segment is of particular concern for its potential impact on high value salmon spawning areas with consequent high use byeagleswheretheproposedroutecrossestheWilsonandBlossomRivers.Alternatives A,B,E and G must deal with this con- cern. All the alternatives which include segment 10.5 cross the most anadromous streams (14).Segment 10.5 also routes betweentwowaterfowluseareas,one located on Thorne Arm near Minx Island and the other located just to the west of Carrol Inlet. 6.10-3 AS mentioned earlier,all alternatives pass through the ;Misty Fiords National Monument.Alternative C is the shortest route through the Monument with 2.2 miles crossed.Alternative B is next with 4.0 miles crossed.Alternative A is the longestcrossingthroughtheMonumentWildernessareawith12.1 miles. As expected,alternative A also affects more high value primi-tive recreation area,in the vicinity of Ella Lake.These figures do not include routings through the non-wilderness area of Misty Fiords National Monument.Alternatives A and B,which include segment link 10.9,would route through approximately 18milesofnon-wilderness area.Alternatives which include seg-ment link 10.10,such as alternative C,route through less non-wilderness area (11 miles)due to the more direct route taken bytheunderwatercablethroughthenon-wilderness area. Cost.Alternatives A and B are preferred alternatives with respect to cost.Less than $200,000 separate the two.Alterna- tive A is the least costly,with a total estimated construction cost of $38.66 million. The most costly alternative is alternative H.Its total construction cost is estimated at $45.16 million. Selected Alternative The route selected for economc analysis is alternative B, consisting of segment links 10.1,10.2,10.4,10.8 and 10.9. Technically,alternative B is less desireable than alternative H which is the engineering preference.However,the $6 million additional cost for alternative H,in addition to the tailings disposal issue associated with link 10.10,eliminate this alter- native H from further consideration. With respect to overall environmental resources,alterna- tive C is slightly preferred to alternative B.Alternative C was eliminated,however,because it is $2.4 million dollars costlier than alternative B,and it includes segment link 10.10. Regardless of the route selected for this segment,an over- head transmission line through the Misty Fiords National Monu- ment will be difficult to achieve.Regulations under ANILCA (Title XI,Section 1110a)allow for routing utility corridors to inholdings within wilderness areas.However,ANILCA also states that such corridors must be compatible with the purpose for which the area was established,and that all feasible alternati- ves be evaluated. Field studies to support a detailed evaluation and an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary and time con-suming,with no guarantee that the effort would be successful. 6.10-4 Routing through fewer miles of Monument Land will reduce study efforts but will not avoid the lengthy regulatory and permitting process. Consideration was given to extending a route south of Thorne Arm to Point Alva,thereby avoiding overhead line impacts to the Wilderness Boundary.However the alternative was reject- ed because it would add 9-10 miles of additional overhead line to the route,as well as 6-8 additional miles of cable,thereby making such a route prohibitively expensive. 6.10-5 INTERTIE SEGMENTS seament /0.0 SWAM LAKE -QUART2 A144 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES SE ALASKA INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY SEGMENT 10.0 EVALUATION FACTORS MTA HIE Aur CEI DAT EVITA SEE.3 LENGTH fata LD ML LL LL MMe VW //_MAP REF.:SEGMENTSCAQLEemli.L283 OVERLAND m PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS $3,2 VL $4.7LULL /gb. MLL JS.3|£2._AFWLMMLLLLLL,NLL.,LE WLLL MALTA6 (Ob,VAE AGMEIEBM,WZ IAA IOE,(O9MLICEAL,10.2 12.4108,/2./2ALTD!01,108 0/0AKEtltt,08,104,(06707 129NhEstl,(02,04,(06,10,7,f./0ALI.GE 104,107,4AE,707,0.9 MAJOR STREAM CROSSING *Q 2 2 Zz AVALANCHE STEEP SLUPE AREAS rm LO Zz Se £7 22 Be Z> ELEVATION $00 15008EET w!4G SD.&ZB SO VPA "Ze LaA8)1S00 FEET m 32 Zz 2 10 ZZ oO ZZ EXPOSURE RIDGE TOP CROSSING m™Oo o 2 2 oe Lo © ACCESS ROADLESS AREAS m 362 237|226)247 Zell 200|ABoe MUSKE G/WE TLAND POTENTIAL {4.7 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ULE AthAilted OL,AAS,MAT WO f YUL,NOTES/COMMENTS ANADHOMOUS STREAMS CROSSED G2WMLL ZN Z#|/A7\|/89|4.0ULLLLLLALLLLLILLLHLLLLLL ANADHOMOUS STREAMS PARALLELED SHELL FISH HARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS 22|__3.7| 22|«Z|3,7 72|_48 £2 Le 28 £2 -42 2©|__fo g 24303034WATERFOWLUSEAREAS EAGLE NEST SITES SOCIAL/CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS (hah WU fkMMUNULLTLLLLy |EASEDP ON THE REVIEEO PREFT QUPTE Hib MINE ES,7HLOCATIAN!OFF FAL BELACTEPTAVAANGSOVSPOSAL,SIF MAY PREECLYIDE ALTEENATIVES WMWY1CH INCELYEE SEGRAENT/O.%2,LAND USE WILDERNESS AREAS m GA Ze Wa USFS LUD2Z/LUDI mite @ THE BOLANARINE CABLE LAVA AIRPORTS (within D mite)ba EVAet 7a Lit.Le.of LLie Led DLE.z SM WL SAAS FRA, DESIGNATED REFUGES. PARKS m 2 2 ?2 3 2 é VISUAL IMPACT FERRY ROUTES m 2:0 PX 40 LO AO A020 22TRAILS/CABINS CAMPGANDS §6©*#|Op |2/2 2/2 |2 2/2 |22 OQ OTHER USE AREAS m MNCOMFALETE /NEOLM ALLA ----CULTURAL SITES EXISTINGPOTENTIALHd OAL |0/57 T73 473 //e@ |2/5 0/6 LAND STATUS FEDERAL/STATE m|PIS PIAIEVA G|BEES IS.VIE4\|BOL/GS FE AHES AIL CEA LTS LOCAL GOv'T m -_=-_-_7 *_ PRIVATE /PRIVATE SELECTION im ---_@4¢|2 =_="4COSTS{in$000)TYTN LLL LLL CABLE DC s _==____-_ -ac s|(#4&|(4020 (SB Zo\|1907 /Se70\|/VE&|_f6fbeoveaneaoease__%7B _sim 5 352A 2761 2 gge 2620 304G| 2759e|8723suscorenock-/72..sm s|2360]2/0/|/S6 LEE|2208|_2674|_2226 ENGINEERING PREFERENCE #:tig 7 Af oreyMUSKEGWETLAND77.$im 8 Lié?\|2EZZ £42 LEEL 3FS5|32062)2072 ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE ts 2 7.C age' ADDITIONAL COSTS {add tu stove)=_-'--_--_-ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :4LT Aor&nowcieaanG._.2&5 sm 8s]367 |379°7|3730|Zaco/|2£307|Jé6|47stHELICOPTERCONSTR.2S.Simi 8 DE VIZ MEE ABZ eve KEO $40 TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL 8|2890|ZE9|ZE%\|ZE90\|ZE|2bE%2|ZER DC CONVERTER STATION $=-=-==_ALTERNATIVE SELECTED MECONTINGENCIESs|4330|4to |£féo|397|4 %o|£3|4 flo FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ENG,AOMIN.,CM.,LANO s|5392|2+v¥o |So |£4¥o EX G#4o\|28002|6a00|6 ?BITELES 2LV PUIRTS ZMee TOTAL 3 |58 Gb/|IG B05|4/075 |4Q Wo |4Z 256)fb Z76|fe FS |ofS HARZA ENGUEERING CO.Jocr.1987 01-9831aVvL LEGEND: wa men PREFERRED ome EXISTING/ ROUTE PLANNED ROADS omen me ALTERNATIVE 9 0 #8 ©©AGENCY"Ht Ht ELIMINATED REFINEMENT FROM FURTHER ----- WILDERNESS SCREENING BOUNDARY twee EXISTING T/LINE bn,tee.2.4.aot2oY7hghEpeonyPS"TX6.'ae'a*.<"_maltinyAN!aaras7yse4TONE LG4'At VigerYou.rn oo tye1fS23Rseee,SAOOTé<aAxfSa.wore,4aM{MISTY FIORDS NATIONAL Se oes EKUNDERWATE RiCABLE}:a oe YAfieeSfoneeey,py=WeegeeQUAM SEGMENT 11.0 QUARTZ HILL TO B.C. Description of Alternatives One route was identified to connect Quartz Hill to the Canadian Power Supply in Kitsault,British Columbia.Such a connection would provide dependable hydroelectric power toQuartzHillandreducedependenceondieselgenerationwhich ismorecostlyperkilowatthourtouseandproducesundesirable air quality impacts. An additional reason for evaluating this segment is todeterminethefeasibilityofconnectingCanada's surplus genera-tion with an intertied system in Southeast Alaska.Segment 11 would be one logical route for such a connection from the south because of the Quartz Hill load demand and because the route is both direct and technically feasible.The route described below was identified previously in studies done for Quartz Hill.The location of the U.S.portion of the route is indicated on Figure 6-11. The system proposed for this segment is bipolar 100 kv Dc. The DC transmission facilities will provide better control for compensating for fluctuations between the different Canadian and U.S.operating systems.The proposed 100 kV DC.line would exit a DC converter station at the Quartz Hill Mine site,cross White Creek and then follow the Hill Creek drainage into the Keta River Valley.There it would cross the Keta River and continue to the southeast,following an unnamed drainage into the Marten River Valley.At this point the proposed route turns east to follow the Marten and Tombstone Rivers to Tombstone Bay on the Portland Canal.Here,it would cross the canal with two DC underwater cables (one for each pole)and connect with Canadian power facilities.Portland Canal would also be the site of a sea return electrode for the DC system.Consequently,the line from Quartz Hill to Portland Canal must carry three conductors and will have an appearance similar to a 138 kV AC H-frame transmission line. The total length of the proposed route from Quartz Hill to Canada is 26.3 miles,including 1.8 miles of underwater DC cable to the Canadian side of Portland Canal. Technically,the line is considered feasible but it will be difficult to construct and maintain.At least four miles of steep slope construction would be required as well as five milesofconstructioninmuskeg/wetland area in the Marten and Keta River Valleys.All of the overhead portion of the line wouldrequirehelicopterconstructionandmaintenanceduetoitsremoteandroadlesslocation. 6.11-1 Much of the route's location adjacent to steep slopes is expected to be effected by avalanches.Areas of most concern regarding avalanches include the drainages north and south of the Keta River and the eastern 3 miles of the Tombstone River. Important environmental resources that may be affected bytherouteincludeawaterfowluseareawherethelinecrosses the Keta River and several important salmon streams.The route would follow the Tombstone River for 10.6 miles,the Marten River and associated tributaries for 6.0 miles,the Keta River and tributaries (including Red,Hill,and White Creeks)for 9.0 miles,and Beaver Creek for 0.5 mile.According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel,the Tombstone River is a particularly important salmon stream and crossing it should be avoided (Appendix D). In addition to the above environmental resource concerns, approximately 17 miles of the proposed route crosses through Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness area.Concerns and issues related to this impact will be similar to those discussed for the segment 10 routes. Costs The total construction cost for Segment 11 is estimated to be $39.29 million.This estimate includes the cost of a DC converter station at Quartz Hill and the cost of construction to the Canadian side of Portland Canal. 6.11-2 POEPaLEGEND:- om ome ALTERNATIVE Ht tit --6 oe PREFERRED ROUTE ROUTES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING EXISTING T/LINE EXISTING/ PLANNED ROADS AGENCY SUGGESTED REFINEMENT WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE PROJECT 'SEGMERT:14HAWKINLET-HOONAH -TENAKEEANGOONS-SITKA PROPOSED ROUTE ot. HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY Date OCF Wza SEGMENT 15.0 QUARTZ HILL to PRINCE RUPERT,B.C. Description of Alternatives Segment 15 was considered as an alternative to the Quartz Hill-Kitsault,B.C.transmission line (Segment 11).Comparison of the two segments are summarized at the conclusion of this section.Like Segment 11,the required facility is a bipolar 100 kV DC transmission line with a sea return.The line would be predominantly a submarine cable but would have an overland portion,from Quartz-Hill to Smeaton Bay,along the route previously described as segment 10.9.The overhead portion of the line on the U.S.side would carry a third conductor for sea return from Smeaton Bay and thus would require wood H-frame line structures and have an appearance similar to the 138 kV AC lines.On the Canadian side,the overhead line would be bipolar DC on single wood poles. As shown on Figure 6-15,the submarine cable route for the line would follow Smeaton Bay,Behm Canal and the Revillagigedo Channel to the US/Canadian border,north of Dundas Island.From that point to Prince Rupert two routes were considered.Segment 15.1 continues southeasterly,passing northeast of Dundas Island and continuing to a landfall on the Tsimpsean Peninsula.From there,Segment 15.1 would follow an overland route to Prince Rupert.The total length of the route is 112 miles,of which 40 miles would be overhead construction and about 72 miles would be twin submarine cables.A bathymetric survey of this routewasconductedbyNOAAforthePowerAuthorityin19841/,The survey data indicate the presence of deep troughs and rocky ledges which may be unsuitable for submarine cables in the areas of Behm Canal and northeast of Dundas Island. The second route alternative shown on Figure 6-15 for the cable is Segment 15.2.This route passes to the west of DundasIslandthroughCaamanoPassageandthenturnseasttowardPrince Rupert,following Brown Passage,Metlakatla Harbor and Prince Rupert Harbor into Prince Rupert.The length of this alterna-tive is about 136 miles.About 117 miles of this length would be twin submarine cables and 19 miles would be overhead lines. Information from NOAA charts indicates this alternative passes through a large area south of Dundas Island that is designatedasadumpingareaandmaybeunsuitableforsubmarinecables.In addition,this route is exposed to the open ocean and high winds,south of Dundas Island,which could adversely impact cable installation and reliability. 1/International Technology Limited;Hydrographic Survey DataProcessingForSouthewastAlaskaInterties;January 1986. 6.15-1 As noted above,both of the considered Quartz Hill to Prince Rupert routes may have flaws which could make a submarine cable installation inadvisable.Of the two,the easterly route, Segment 15.1 was selected for comparison with Segment 11.1 based on its shorter length and because it is the more sheltered of the two routes. Segment Comparison The estimated cost of the entire Segment 15.1 is approxima- tely $110 million.The cost of facilities within the U.S. border is estimated to be about $70 million.In contrast the interconnection of Quartz Hill with B.C.Hydro via Kitsault is estimated to cost about $70 million in total and about $40 million for the U.S.facilities. From an environmental stand point,the Quartz Hill to Prince Rupert Route,Segment 15,is preferable to Segment 11 which requires a corridor through the wilderness area of Misty Fiords National Monument.Segment 15 requires a corridor only through the non-wilderness area of the Monument and therefore presents a lesser social/cultural impact. Though segment 15 is preferred with respect to environ- mental resources,segment 11 is the selected alternative for connecting Quartz Hill to B.C.Hydro.This conclusion is based on the considerably lower cost of segment 11 and because the route presents fewer technical difficulties compared with those of segment 15. 6.15-2 INTEARTIE SEGMENTS scament OO CUARTE HILL -BL1T1Stf COLNE /A ROUTE ALTERNATIVES SEGMENT SE ALASKA INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONUoSUMMARY EVALUATION FACTORS Af EVALUATIONLENGTHUNIT LLL YW,WH)MAP REF.:SEGMENTS CABLE me Ové AL ANO om LF, PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS YWHUA / LKLL)WLLL LLL.VILLANILL LLL, MAJOR STREAM CHOSSING AVALANCHE STEEP SLOPE AHE AS 44 ELEVATION 500 I5OOFEET 21900 FEET EXPOSURE RIDGE TOP CROSSING 93392323334ACCESS ROADLESS AREAS MUSK EG/WETLAND POTENTIAL Wet LMVEN)CLIED) BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS WH)'A WLLL.WLLL WLUMNLULLLALLLLLLLLG LILLE NOTES/COMMENTSANADAROMOUSSTREAMSCROSSEDFiANADAOMOUSSTREAMSPARALLELEO=om|7SHELLFISHHARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS mil (Date Aled |(AKENVTOLIEL.SEE WATERFOWL USE AREAS 1a EAGLE NEST SITES # SOCIAL/CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS YHA,VL,LLL}LLL NN LLL LAND USE WILDERNESS AREAS m| USFS LUO2/LUDI muir)AIRPORTS twitter 1 mile)+7DESIGNATEDREFUGES: PARKS m f VISUAL IMPACT FERRY ROUTES wll QA MOT WHEVIGRIED. TAANLS/CABINS CAMPGANDS #/\ OTHER USE AREAS ml | CULTURAL SITES EXISTING/POTENTIAL #/q 7 LAND STATUS FEDERAL/STATE om |24 tH/ LOCAL Gov'T ms =PAIVATEPRIVATE SELECTION m|2//OCOSTS(in$000)44S,cosTs ety //////,LLL VLLLLLL VLLe LNOMLTERNATIVE LEPTINGSSOCFAP1SSEGAVENTKOELECONS/PALED,2718 BUPA'(00 LY DE w/1TMHTiloCovDuejoke(Oh SEMA CETAkNVIAPORILANDCANT.WbCODA-FRAME CONSTLIC TA], 3OS.FACILITIES ONLY CaBLe-:OC s ZIVac$-OVERHEAD BASE -626...wm os[7%ST StOPE'ROCK -2.s "E72 ENGINEERING PREFERENCE :WMAMUSKEGWETLAND"7...om s =ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE :A/AP ADDITIONAL COSTS|add 10 above)=ECONOMIC PREFERENCE :M4 ROW CLEARING __->?tim $|4705HELICOPTERCONSTR.20 tim 8 ¢9o TERMINALS:AC TERMINAL $i 2550/7 , ONVERTER STATION ALTERNATIVE SELECTEDcontinceNcies°°;tb.50%LLGUIRTEE Hee FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 3 AS SHOWN ENG,ADMIN.,CM.LAND s|4930 TOTAL $|97270 HARZA ENGINEERING CO.jocr.1987 bb-8S19v1 FIGURE 6-11aE L-cy.rao ndA) xeTcM wvvtaehe ae a3fo\ont * eo,Meee.ot J 4 ne eee Higa 'Fie OR EN at en NS aaySEATSesbossSaas 3.ate?Zi Re heaaanyte weedoeasCateVILDERNESSape” ine woovates '2 A ty et >"gt Foe MER ONLEGEND:aAes SCALE 0 4 MILES em PREFERRED EXISTING/-=-=ROUTE PLANNED nonos ef ALASKA POWER AUTHOR:t+ft ome ewe ALTERNATIVE eeeee AGENCY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE PRIME.th Ht ROUTES SUGGESTED - ELIMINATED REFINEMENT SEGMENT 11 FROM FURTHER -"----WILDERNESS QUARTZ HILL -B.C.;SCREENING BOUNDARY "f ma EXISTING T/LINE ROUTE ALTERNATIVES kas eee hay UME AN.eu an 4 SEGMENT 12.0 KETCHIKAN TO METLAKATLA Description of Alternatives Three system alternatives were identified for connecting Metlakatla to Ketchikan.These alternatives,described in Chapter 2,included: 1.A 69 kV connection through Ketchikan from Ketchikan Public Utilities'(KPU)Bailey substation to Metlakatla (alternative A). 2.A 69 kV connection from KPU's Mountain Point substation to Metlakatla with a 34.5 to 69 kV step-up transformer installed at Mountain Point (alternative B). 3.A 34.5 kV connection from Mountain Point substation to Metlakatla (alternative C). All three routes would follow the route described below and shown in Figure 6-12.Alternative B and C routes however,would Start at Mountain Point rather than at Bailey substation. The proposed alternative A route would exit Bailey sub- station and follow the Tongass Highway east through Ketchikan to Mountain Point.This segment of the route would either parallel or carry the existing 34.5 kV transmission line as an under- build.At Mountain Point,the route would cross Revillagigedo Channel to Race Point on Annette Island.From there,the route would follow the lower elevations along the west shore of Annette Island to Metlakatla.From Mountain Point to Metlakatla,the proposed alternative A route is also the route for alternatives B and C. The total line length from Bailey substation is 22.5 miles. The length from Mountain Point is 15 miles.A one mile long AC underwater cable is included in the mileage totals. Route preference with respect to system considerations favors the 69 kV alternative to Bailey substation (alternativeA),as it would avoid the possibility of disturbances originat-ing in the Metlakatla system from entering the KPU distributionsystem(see Chapter 2).This alternative,however would be moreobjectionablethantheothertwoalternativeswithrespecttoenvironmentalresourcesasitslocationinKetchikanwould present additional visual and land use impacts.It is also themostcostlyofthethreesystemalternativeswithanestimatedconstructioncostof$11.2 million compared to $8.1 million and $6.6 million for alternatives B and C respectively. 6.12-1 Constraints and impacts would be essentially the same for the three system alternatives on Annette Island.The 34.5 kv system would have a slightly narrower right-of-way than the 69 kV system but the difference would not be significant. Visual impacts would be high for the section of line located on the Race Point Peninsula because of that landform's high visibility to Alaska Marine Highway travelers passing to the north and west of the peninsula.This impact could be reduced by having the cable west of Spire Island.This roughly one additional mile cable segment.The rest of visible to travelers on the come ashore further up the peninsula mitigation however,would add of cable,doubling the length of the the route to Metlakatla would be water in and around Metlakatla. Because of topographic constraints,alternative locations for the line through this section are very limited. For the economic evaluation of this interconnection,the least cost alternative,34.5 kV from Mountain Point,was selected. 6.12-2 INTEARTIE SEGMENTS seament (2:0 NETCA/KAN-METLALAT PT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES SE ALASKA INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY SEGMENT 12.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AL7A ALTE ALT a LENGTH Fa LLL ane 8 SeoMENTS Se ea ee MBS TOE,OO UdHetterevitCOnsTaASLLLNLLLLLLLINLLINiosFYWTPF=METEREDAVALANCHESreLPSturtAREASZOZo2-0 ernmnetmcaeine det ae ai BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS LLL VTL LLL LLL LL NOTES/COMMENTSANAUROMOUSSTAREAMSCROSSED* ANADROMOUS STREAMS PARALLELEO om[/SHELLFISH HARVEST/SPAWNING AREAS if)DA PA AO7|WVVEV CRED.SEE TEXT. WATERFOWL USE AREAS mi | EAGLE NEST SITES #|J SOCIAL/CULTURAL CONSTRAINTS LLL)VL LLL}LLL LLL LLL LLL WLLL UMMA LAND USE WILDERNESS AREAS + USFS)=LUD@ZLUDI ™ AIRPORTS ftosttin b mlel DESIGNATED REFUGES' PARKS VISUAL IMPACT FERRY ROUTES J L t >FITZ vet LYVEAL4 PLIEP.SEL TEXT. TRAILS/CABINS CAMPGANOS OTHER USE AREAS CULTURAL SITES:EX#STING/POTENTIAL FAd LAND STATUS:FEDERAL/STATE ™ LOCAL GOv'Tt mom PRIVATE/PRIVATE SELECTION mm COSTS (in $000)VM ILL!YM VLMLLLLL VL VLLLLLL)WLLL ILL LLLLLL}LLL 1 REIERNATWES (MWVOLVE ELECT EIAZMSPECTSOFCONNECTIONFROM LAMY SUBSIAJIOAN HEKY LYS PL FROM,EA GAY DiolhtoTionlSYSTEMATAAOONTASPOINT, Z MTA LEGOIELS ANEW FEVWENENDTeFHilbovdgeyKETEHI-LAN. CABLE OC 3 ac s|2578]7578|/e6eovenneanease_722.sm 3s]/7f0|'feo!"£60SLSLOPE-'ROcK -SL3S._sim $”290 ZgO ZI ENGINEERING PREFERENCE :MAMUSKEGWETLAND429.Sim 8 era VEE ZEE ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE =:AZZ,3,C ADDITIONAL COSTS (add ty above)-==_ECONOMIC PREFERENCE 'MET.2 AOW CLEARING...#4 Sim fe LEG SeeHELICOPTERCONSTR,42 Sim 8 Zip ZEO BO TERMINALS.AC TERMINAL s|25/0 |/3e0e @30 3 DC CONVERTER STATION $==-_ALTERNATIVE SELECTED ure o CONTINGENCIES 3|_7480|[Zese BID FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS aA ia ENG.,ADMIN.CM.,LAND s|4790 |4240}4030 ao TOTAL 8)W2Z |G/4Z |B&O HARZA ENGINEERING CO.JOcT.1987 = To < -BAI iSUBSTA' wy iqogms)E '}i whee j ns 7 rs . q Se me " Fan 2 ; >eye ee ; =bw ua i Boo i dont tne-fen otecmfa oa t ag.+kt14rsrome aNae..te *bed'N : éxaawayrae+we a "t "'JLLEY"iy: .Ban Aha me \TION.2a 7 4 ven A sr nee ry aTIONLSI,oa teem N :4 oe,\o>,Cn ee Ass,--)a tne ee me Te a NARA cpnean,:ma a.a 'L '=a Lia RS re Mg *etNL oe wy es RN"oe a ; 'Re Ss SnNive.s aiN*ms,ae ;°F a |NI serenbeune™ 5 , .*4 eg a w reoanse*F,_re 3 al TN.Spe 7 . pot "one ©ase J'Totty \"a come {jo 5 ES 'sy'.io PcsS,MOUNTAINPOINT "YO NARA»>)SUBSTATION et |AIT TNar,eR °ey y/%arte ian e ,.©morse..af "is ut we adiar.2 ss NY pean.wy 4 y =An.ied 2 \.-f :-">aol a a)\ver we eeAwantianWe'Pa SS leeva|2 ert.CLNt|;-Rae LEGEND: om mem PREFERRED ROUTE ome om ALTERNATIVE Ht+H ROUTES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING women EXISTING T/LINE E «4 oa rt re i, fe ty os S A a: a!ge 22seEADoi'7." Mee Nate Ye , owes EXISTING/ PLANNED ROADS *eee AGENCY SUGGESTED REFINEMENT ow w=WILDERNESS BOUNDARY 4 MILES ALASKA POWER:AUTHORITYSOUTHEAST.INTERTIE PROJECT °eo se ewe te te ee 'SEGMERE:TaiKETCHIKAN=METEAKATLA _PROPOSED ROUTE 4HAAZA ENGINEERING COMPANY OATE:OCT 1987 SEGMENT 13.0 TYEE LAKE TO KETCHIKAN VIA CLEVELAND PENINSULA The route identified for this segment was developed in response to suggestions that the Ketchikan system could be provided with increased reliability if it were connected to TyeeLakegenerationbyatransmissionlinethatwasonaseparate right-of-way from the Swan Lake line.Cleveland Peninsula was identified as a potential area for an alternative route to the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake intertie segment (segment 8).A route through Cleveland Peninsula could also provide for a shorter connection to Prince of Wales Island (segment 9),and provide the opportunity to supply energy in support of potential resource development on Cleveland Peninsula,as noted during meetings. For comparison purposes,one route through the Cleveland Peninsula was identified based on evaluation of physical and topographic constraints from USGS topographic maps,and Forest Service transportation inventory maps.The route was divided into two segment links to facilitate comparison with segments 8 (Tyee to Ketchikan)and 9 (Ketchikan to Prince of Wales Island). Segment link 13.1 is a 138 kV system routed from Tyee Lake to Ketchikan.Segment link 13.2 is a 69 kV system routed from a remote substation on Cleveland Peninsula to Thorne Bay on Prince of Wales Island (Figure 6-13). Description of Alternatives Segment link 13.1 would exit the existing substation at Tyee Lake and parallel the existing 138 kV transmission line forabout11milesbeforeitturnssouth.From this point the line would continue south passing two miles to the east of Boulder Lake.South of Boulder Lake,the route turns to the southwest and continues to the shore of Seward Passage.There it follows steep terrain and the shore to the head of Santa Anna Inlet before it turns south through drainages and comes out west of Spacious Bay.From'there,segment link 13.1 routes through the Hofstad Creek drainage before it crosses over a low pass to terminate at the proposed remote substation site located ap- proximately one mile northwest of the head of Helm Bay. At this site segment 13.1 turns east following the shore of Helm Bay to Helm Point.At Helm Point the line crosses BehmCanalviaanACsubmarinecabletothevicinityofSurveyPoint. It then continues overland paralleling the Tongass Highway formostofthewaybeyondWardCovetotheBaileysubstationsite in Ketchikan. 6.13-1 The segment link to Prince of Wales Island (segment 13.2) begins at the proposed remote substation site northwest of Helm Bay.The proposed 69 kV line would exit the substation to the northwest and follow the Black Bear Creek drainage to a point south of Union Bay.There it would turn west to the shore of Clarence Strait and cross underwater with an AC cable to Thorne Head on the Prince of Wales Island.At that location,the route would cross overland to Thorne Bay where it would connect with the proposed 69 kV intra-island transmission system. Segment Comparison No route alternatives were identified for segment 13.In terms of the Intertie system,however,segment 13 is essentially an alternative to segments 8.0 and 9.0 discussed earlier.The following comparison,therefore,is based on a general assess- ment of segments 13.1 and 13.2 as compared to their alterna- tives,segments 8.0 and 9.0., Cleveland Peninsula/Ketchikan vs.Tyee Lake/Swan Lake (Segment8.0) Route Length.Between the two routes from Tyee Lake to Ketchikan,segment 8 (Figure 6-8)is substantially shorter, notably because it stops at Swan Lake and then uses the existing Swan Lake line to feed into Ketchitkan.The preferred segment 8 route has a total length of 50.5 miles,including 0.6 miles of cable.In comparison the Cleveland Peninsula route is approxi- mately 87 miles long,including 9.5 miles of cable. Physical Constraints.General comparison of physical constraints associated with the two routes indicates a prefer- ence for the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake alternative (segment 8). While muskeg/wetland and steep slope constraints appear similar, all of the Cleveland Peninsula route would require helicopter construction.In contrast only about half of the length of segment 8 is roadless. Environmental Constraints.In general,environmental constraints are anticipated to be greater with the ClevelandPeninsulatoKetchikanroute.In addition to being longer,this route passes close to several bays which tend to experiencehigherwaterfowluseandeagleconcentrationthanotherloca-tions.Additionally,the Cleveland Peninsula route is expectedtocreatesignificantlymorelanduserelatedimpactsbecauseof its routing through Ketchikan. Costs.Total estimated construction costs clearly favor the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake alternative.Total costs for segment8areapproximately$28.9 million.In comparison,the estimatedcosttoconstructsegment13.1 is roughly $50.3 million. 6.13-2 Cleveland Peninsula/Prince of Wales Island (Segment 13.2)-Ketchikan/Prince of Wales Island (Segment 9)Comparison In order to compare segment 13.2 with segment 9 (shown in Figure 6-9),it is assumed that segment 13.1 is in place.Based on a general review of both segments it can quickly be deduced that segment link 13.2 is preferable to segment 9 in comparison of physical,and environmental constraints,as well as cost. Segment link 13.2 is much shorter 19.5 miles compared to 43.8 miles for segment 9.Segment 13.2 also has about half the cable length of segment 9 (9 miles of AC versus 17.2 miles of DC cable).Segment 13.2 would be expected to cross some muskeg/ wetland area in the Black Bear Creek drainage.Constraints related to steep slope construction however,would be negli- gible.In comparison,segment 9 crosses about 9 miles of muskeg and 3 miles of steep slope. Segment 13.2 will have significantly less environmental impact.Areas of environmental concern are expected to be impacts to anadromous fish and eagles because of the line's route parallel to Black Bear Creek and visual impact to travelers on the State Ferry in Clarence Strait.However, visual impact of segment 9 on those same viewers would be more significant since segment 9,parallels Kasaan Peninsula which is also visible to travelers of Clarence Strait. Cost for segment 13.2 is estimated at $22.1 million.In comparison,segment 9 is estimated to cost approximately $42.7 million. Selected Alternative Based on the above considerations,the selected intertie connection is segment 8,Tyee Lake to Swan Lake,and segment 9, Ketchikan to Prince of Wales Island. This selection is based on the following conclusions: 1.The Tyee Lake to Ketchikan route via Cleveland Penin- sula (segment 13.1)is not justified on its own merits. 2.While the transmission connection between the remote substation to Prince of Wales Island (segment 13.2)is preferable when compared only to segment 9,it must have segment 13.1 to be feasible. 6.13-3 The interconnection of Tyee to Prince of Wales Island' (either via segments 8 and 9 or via segments 13.1 and 13.2)must be assumed to make the Cleveland Peninsula route economically attractive.As discussed in Chapter 7 this was done and based on the analysis presented therein,the question was resolved in favor of segments 8,the Tyee-Swan Lake interconnection,and segment 9,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Island. 6.13-4 4 Ph. we . J'a * o 1 ( a =.dioo we War . r's+e he Py Aaa. Gatere - A j ee oy f . : . TYEELAKE: cag?} a4 1. PaveytyrOte,)'ee Ortteewr Perera:| y ' aeace 5 y heapc neh rete BV PRT. Owes: ”w4P3w ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE PROJECT 13 AKE -KETCHIKAN -PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND VIA CLEVELAND PENINSUL, SEGMENT TYEE LAKE PROPOSED ROUTE TING COMPANYINETRUNG:AEAY.,retman ye*y*on oabea, 8%. Pa}ALaLa5 cate SKAGWAY LEGEND omeewe EXISTING/mame PREFERRED PLANNED ROADS AGENCY ROUTE ome eee ALTERNATIVE Hh-tt SUGGESTEDROUTESREFINEMENT ---WILDERNESS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER SCREENING -----EXISTING BOUNDARY "LINE4 im)L-. ON ee SEGMENT 14.0 HAWK INLET-HOONAH TO SITKA Description of Alternatives During the Public and Agency meetings conducted in January 1987,it was suggested that a transmission intertie,routed down Chicagof and Baranof Islands rather than from Snettisham to Kake,would better serve local communities and future develop- ment potential.In response to these comments an alternative intertie route was identified,as shown in Figure 6-14,and compared to the Snettisham to Kake connection (segment 5.0). The required system voltage was determined to be 138 kV AC, versus 100 kV DC for Snettisham to Kake. This route,termed the West Route,begins at Hawk Inlet where it connects to the Juneau power grid via a 138 kV Juneau to Green's Creek transmission line segment (segment 3.0).From Hawk Inlet the route crosses Chatham Strait to Chicagof Island north of Whitestone Harbor with a 138 kV AC submarine cable and continues into Hoonah where a substation would be constructed to step down the voltage for local use. From Hoonah,the 138 kV line would follow existing forestServiceloggingroads!/south into the Game and North Creek drainages.The route crosses over the pass between the North Creek and Freshwater Creek drainages and follows existing log- ging roads to Tenakee Springs,where a substation would be con- structed. At Tenakee Springs,the proposed line crosses Tenakee Inlet with an AC underwater cable coming ashore east of Kadashan Bay. It then turns south,following existing logging roads in the Kadashan River Valley to a point just northwest of the head ofSitkohBay.At this location an optional remote substation could be constructed to facilitate a 69 kV spur to Angoon (segment link 14.5). Whether or not the Angoon spur is constructed,the 138 kV system would continue south following existing logging roads,for the most part,past Sitkoh Lake to Point Lindenburg.There,it would cross Peril Strait,via submarine cable,and exit at Point Moses on Baranof Island. From Point Moses the proposed route begins to follow more rugged and remote terrain.The route crosses north of Lake Evafollowinganarrowvalleytoplannedloggingroadswestof 1/As noted in the Tongass National Forest Logging Operation Plan EIS for Chicagof Island (USDA,1986). 6.14-1 Middle Arm Kelp Bay.At that point it turns west,crosses a high elevation pass into an unnamed drainage south of AnnahootzMountain.There,it turns south to follow existing loggingroadsandnarrowdrainagesintotheIndianRiverValley,finallyconnectingwiththeexistingtransmissionsysteminSitkawith the construction of a substation expansion at Blue Lake Power- house.(Also see the discussion of the City of Sitka's pre-ference,given in Appendix D and section 6.7 herein). For comparison to the East Route,as a part of a total Southeast Intertie system,the West Route must continue from Sitka to Kake as described in the discussion of segment 7. The total length of the West Route is 204 miles,including the Juneau-Green's Creek 138 kV line and Sitka-Kake.Approxima- tely 63 miles of that total are underwater AC cables.The following section compares the technical,environmental and economic merits of this West Route with its East Route counter- part,Snettisham to Kake (Segment 5.0). Segment Comparison Evaluation constraint factors were not inventoried for the 'West Route,as they were for the segments identified in the initial stages of the study.Even so,general comparisons with respect to technical and environmental aspects,as well as assumptions regarding costs can be made to support the conclu- sion drawn. Route Length.Total length favors segment 5,the Snettisham to Kake route.It is 115 miles shorter than the West Route.However,it has almost the same cable length as the West Route,63 miles. Physical Constraints.Technically,the Snettisham to Kake route would be easier to construct and maintain,primarilybecauseofthephysicalconstraintsassociatedwithoverland construction.The long single cable of segment 5.0 would not represent a greater risk factor over the several shorter cablelengthsrequiredwiththeWestRoute.Greater cable risk may be associated with the several smaller crossings since the poten- tial for near shore hazards such as tidal fluctuations and anchor dragging would be greater with several crossings. While the Snettisham to Kake route is preferred technical- ly,the West Route does not actually encounter difficult physi-cal constraints until it nears Sitka.Refinements to the route in this area,may reduce some physical constraints encountered. 6.14-2 Biological and Social/Cultural Constraints.The Snettisham to Kake route is clearly preferred with respect to minimizing environmental impacts.Fish and Wildlife Service eagle surveys indicate many eagle nest sites along the shores of Chicagof Island in the vicinity of the cable crossing locations for the West Route.In addition,the West Route would affect more recreation areas as it passes near several Forest Service recreation cabins located on lakes near the route.Visual impacts would be higher as well,particularly as-the route nears Sitka and begins crossing high elevation passes and approaches the Katlian Bay area.The route's crossing of Peril Strait would also be visible to State Ferry travelers. Costs.Comparison of the estimated construction costs for segment 5 and segment 14 favor segment 5,Snettisham to Kake.Costs estimated for the West Route are about $165 million including the 138 kV Juneayu-Green's Creek and the Sitka-Kake segment.In comparison,Snettisham to Kake's estimated construction cost is about $58 million. Selected Alternative As a link in the Southeast Intertie connection,Snettisham to Kake is the preferred route.The West Route does have the advantage of picking up the energy loads of Hoonah,Tenakee and Sitka,but on all other technical,environmental and economic counts,it is less desireable in comparison to the East Side Route.With the East Route,the load centers on Chicagof and Baranof Islands can be interconnected to the Southeast Intertie system subsequent to-its initial operation,if economic condi- tions dictate. Based on the above conclusions,segment 14 is not preferred as part of the Southeast Alaska 138 kV Intertie system.However as discussed in Chapter 7,an economic comparison was made between the West Route,serving Green's Creek,Hoonah,Tenakee Springs,Angoon and Sitka,and the East Route with a 69 kV spur from Juneau,serving the same load centers. 6.14-3 8 te i. baiFF £ - ul: ae ; ; oS) i_-jw . i] , tw ¢ j=S as . wee ster ey \ofWw,>o.; Meme Cesteary, . o Lop eos, Ceown way,9; 2 7 ty abe=-Ss] owew! ns Sole a ee +t. v 4) Oo05 =" - " : 8 sree2 y!+rik rx=a- a . . b: op » porn-ee.nave, ad.bedT - Ww|<} ae aelaws . + uewting-.: 2w 9: Z2- aiexe(iohy q¢te 2, . - neg 5ea om} Wis = HeeleriSo: Ral Loy : tte 22<4z: - qo Trs 3 : sey We )/o= udi ae en15 1: ; on ite poo] |re 4LoOi: _. wiNg=CcPed2 7 Zz HS: tit.oO<3a|if . 1A : i se : . t ee i , at.. nee 2 aDeev amen 18 .\Nue enon orn bang edventy} Caniead *, ue 5 te oS Med 7 Y Cree om 4 4 1ee i" 4 . . = we «ata . here . rere PLTtad Pod wey."she. , vob a wh'ee'H ” .. 1 - a ¢ Fr ' ° ” ' Many ' i thoy ; . nwt 7 e woe a? RS7 wnt OA. : we 2.oS hg . : a3 a aeeryw puers] a Lf ts at. - ot . : ptonnee 4 " . q 4 Wis SatePA u SoetudL "t + ats H a?2 Va4g eg i ab - . : ' fg . If Ne ' at . , : Aer ° i i) wits S Pins Ne : vere a \ ' 2S a an . " on ' . PA y¥ aOl :| "Ae ) Pat pori=iMpeeeoatAa Py Sere Sie EXISTING/ PLANNED ROADS AGENCY SUGGESTED REFINEMENT --=--WILDERNESS BOUNDARY Sey awe AeereChonSits w ; « \ esoe§= a 9ke oror e <£ FSZqe xe, 2nift22 wt cues =wue-&wkreseygkw2r D26e¢ & cOHt O4ufgG x rasacm <CMwun wz||0 : we [|.| om ud ae3thtl - - . ” 7 . ei! ' sdieerat-TP IRB,.. FIGURE 6-16 HOONAH TENAKEE SPRINGS GREENS CREEK ANGOON WHITEHORSE SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE SITKA 55.4 KAKE PRINCE LEGEND:OF WALES ISLAND ©-Loan centers GENERATION SOURCES EXISTING T/LINE PROPOSED T/LINE LENGTH,MILES O 13.oaLIARZA engineerinc Comeany PETERSBURG46.7 g$°0sMETLAKATLA HILL -CCTOSES 1987 25.6(U.S.ONLY)KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY LENGTHS OF SELECTED ROUTES Chapter 7 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF INTERTIE ALTERNATIVES Introduction This chapter describes formulation of several system expan- sion plan alternatives for the Southeast Intertie and the cri- teria,methodology,and results of economic analyses performed to determine which alternative plan is the most economically desirable.The selection process was performed in two parts. A preliminary economic screening was performed to identify the most favorable alternatives.These alternatives were then analyzed in more detail using economic assumptions adopted for this study.The final results yield a recommended Intertie expansion plan and a chronology of development. Description of Alternative Plans The route selection studies,described in Chapter 6, resulted in the identification of the recommended routings for the transmission lines which,if constructed,would form the Southeast Intertie System.This chapter presents studies of various combinations of these transmission lines which were grouped into alternative systems,analyzed and compared. Table 7-1 presents the alternative systems studied.As shown in the table,the alternatives were grouped under five general headings with subgroupings.The five headings are as follows: Alternative I -Base Case Alternative II -Southeast Alaska Connections Alternative III -Power Supplied from N.C.P.C. Alternative IV -Power Supplied from B.C.Hydro Alternative V -Power Supplied from Both N.C.P.C.an B.C.Hydro . The major subgroupings were developed to allow the analysisofpossiblesubsystems,based on geographic location,which wereidentifiedduringthecourseofthestudy,to allow comparisonofunresolvedroutingquestionsandtoallowanassessmentoftheeffectsoftheQuartzHillMineontheexpansionplanalter- natives.Figure 7-1 shows the geographic divisions identified,with maximum development in each separate system indicated. 7-1 FIGURE 7-1 .WHITEHORSE"NN SKAGWAY ™ c N HAINES "se.ae HOONAH 2 CREEK SNETTISHAM-NORTHERN SYSTEM CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON PETERSBURG KAKE NORTHERN,CENTRAL,/ OR SOUTHERN SYSTEM / CENTRAL SYSTEM SOUTHERN SYSTEM TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES ISLAND©-L0A0 centers C)-GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN We ees -EXISTING T/LINE = QUARTZ===-PROPOSED T/LINE HILL =i -«ALTERNATIVE T/LINE METLAKATLA KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY GEOGRAPHIC SUB-SYSTEMS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .OCTOSES 1967 Figure 7-2 shows the two unresolved routing questions analyzed; East Route vs.West Route,and Cleveland Peninsula vs.Tyee-Swan Lake.The Quartz Hill question was investigated by inclusion or exclusion of the Quartz Hill load from the various alterna- tives. For radial lines,such as the Northern System line to Angoon and/or Sitka,via Green's Creek,Hoonah and Tenakee Springs,it is possible to investigate the economic desirability of an interconnection by analyzing the system without the radial line,or a segment of the line,and then adding the line and comparing the resulting B/C ratios.This approach was taken for analysis of the proposed radial lines to Haines,Skagway, Green's Creek,Hoonah,Tenakee Springs,Angoon,Sitka,Prince of Wales Island,and Metlakatla. FIGURE 7-2 GREENS CREEK TENAKEE SPRINGS WEST ROUTE ©ancoon NN .WHITEHORSENN SKAGWAY NN N HAINES (oN,SN JUNEAU SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE EAST ROUTE LARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY -OCTOSER 1997 ---\SITKA @----\---------PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL TYEE LAKE CLEVELAND PENIN..-77”aPRINCEZ TYEE-SWANLEGEND:oF WALES =mz SWAN@-Load centers LAKE , - oO:©)-GENERATION souRCES Wy mes -EXISTING T/LINE = ===-PROPOSED T/LINE QUARTZ Js9/ ===-ALTERNATIVE T/LINE meTLAKaTA O KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ROUTING ALTERNATIVES II. BASE Table 7-1 INTERTIE ALTERNATIVES CASE Diesel and Existing Hydropower Intertie Connections INTERTIE CONNECTIONS NORTHERN SYSTEM (Supplied by Snettisham and Crater Lake) Juneau-Skagway Juneau-Haines-Skagway Juneau-Greens Creek (34.5 kV,20 year life) Juneau-Greens Creek (69 kV,20 year life) Juneau-Greens Creek Hoonah Juneau-Greens Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee Juneau-Greens Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Angoon Juneau-Greens Creek Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka Juneau-Greens Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Angoon-Sitka Snettisham-Kake-SitkaAWOs]HAMB&WND-Oeese©©©©©@&@CENTRAL SYSTEM (Supplied by Tyee Lake) 1.Petersburg -Kake 2.Petersburg-Kake-Sitka SOUTHERN SYSTEM (Supplied by Tyee and Swan Lakes) 1.Tyee-Ketchikan a.Direct Connection (Cleveland Peninsula) b.Connected via Swan Lake 2.Tyee-Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. a.Direct Connections from Tyee via Cleveland Peninsula b.Connected via Swan Lake and Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. 3.Tyee Lake-Swan Lake Plus:a.Ketchikan-Metlakatla (69 kV from Bailey) b.Ketchikan-Metlakatla,(via Mt.Pt.,34.5 kV) c.Petersburg-Kake-Sitka d.Swan Lake-Quartz Hill e.Ketchikan-Prince of Wales,and Swan Lake- Quartz Hill Table 7-1 (Cont'd) NORTH-SOUTH INTERCONNECTIONS WITH QUARTZ HILL 1.(East Route),Juneau-Green's Creek,Snettisham- Kake-Petersburg,Swan-Tyee-Quartz Hill, Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. Same as above,plus Kake-Sitka Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg,Tyee-Swan-Quartz Hill (West Route),Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah- Tenakee-Angoon-Sitka-Kake- Petersburg,Swan-Tyee-Quartz Hill,Ketchikan- Prince of Wales Is. NORTH-SOUTH INTERCONNECTION WITHOUT QUARTZ HILL 1.(East Route),Juneau-Green's Creek,Snetthisham- Kake-Petersburg,Swan-Tyee,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. Same as above,plus Kake-Sitka (West Route),Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah- Tenakee-Angoon-Sitka-Kake-Petersburg,Swan-Tyee, Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. III.POWER SUPPLIED BY N.C.P.C. A.NORTHERN SYSTEM Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines-Juneau-Green's Creek- Hoonah-Tenakee Angoon Same as above,plus Sitka NORTH-SOUTH INTERCONNECTIONS WITH QUARTZ HILL 1.(East Route),Whitehorse-Skagway -Haines-Juneau- Green's Creek,Snetthisham-Kake-Petersburg,Swan- Tyee-Quartz Hill,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. Same as above,plus Kake-Sitka Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg,Tyee-Swan-Quartz Hill 7-4 Table 7-1 (Cont'd) 4.(West Route)Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines-Juneau- Green's Creek,Snetthisham-Kake-Petersburg,Swan- Tyee,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. NORTH-SOUTH INTERCONNECTIONS WITHOUT QUARTZ HILL 1.(East Route)Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines-Juneau- Green's Creek,Snetthisham-Kake-Petersburg,Swan- Tyee,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. 2.Same as above,plus Kake-Sitka 3.(West Route)Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines-Juneau- Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Angoon-Sitka-Kake- Petersburg,Swan-Tyee,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. IV.POWER SUPPLIED BY B.C.HYDRO A.SOUTHERN SYSTEM 1.B.C.-Quartz Hill 2.B.C.-Quartz Hill-Swan Lake 3.B.C.-Quartz Hill-Swan Lake-Tyee Lake NORTH INTERCONNECTIONS WITH QUARTZ HILL 1.(Bast Route)Juneau-Green's Creek,Snetthisham- Kake-Petersburg,Swan-Tyee-Quartz Hill-B.C.Hydro Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. 2.Same as above,plus Kake-Sitka 3.(West Route)Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee- Angoon-Sitka-Kake-Petersburg,Swan-Tyee-Quartz Hill-BC Hydro,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. 4.B.C.-Quartz Hill-Swan Lake-Tyee Lake,Petersburg- Kake-Sitka Vv.POWER SUPPLIED BY BOTH B.C.HYDRO AND N.C.P.C HYDRO A.ONLY:QUARTZ HILL SUPPLIED BY B.C.HYDRO 1.B.C.-Quartz Hill,Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines 2.B.C.-Quartz Hill,Whitehorse-Skagway-Juneau- Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka,Haines-Juneau 7-5 Table 7-1 (Cont'd) 3.Same as above,plus Haines and Angoon 4.B.C.-Quartz Hill,Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines- Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka-Kake- Petersburg,Swan-Tyee,Ketchikan Prince of Wales Is.(West Route) 5.B.C.-Quartz Hill,Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines- Juneau-Green's Creek,Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg, Tyee-Swan Lake,Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is. (East Route) B.B.C.HYDRO AND N.C.P.C.INTERNCONNECTED 1.East Route without Kake-Sitka 2.East Route,Kake-Sitka 3.West Route Alternative I -Base Case Alternative I represents a scenario in which no new trans- mission lines would be built throughout the study period. Increasing loads were assumed to be met by excess hydro energy available and new diesel generators.Existing transmission lines are considered part of the base case.These include the Tyee Lake-Wrangell-Petersburg transmission line,the Snettisham-Juneau transmission line and the Swan Lake -Ketchikan transmission line.All alternative expansion plans will be compared to the base case scenario.See Figure 7-3. Alternative II -Southeast Alaska Connections Alternative II includes only Southeast Alaska interconnec- tion scenarios,i.e.intertie alternatives that do not include power imported from Canada.See Figure 7-4. The Northern System would be supplied by the Snettisham- Crater Lake Project and could include Juneau,Haines,Skaqway, Green's Creek Mine,Hoonah,Tenakee Springs,Angoon,Kake,and Sitka.The major load centers in the Northern System would be Juneau,Green's Creek and Sitka.There are two alternative intertie routes to Sitka.The "West Route"through Juneau- Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee Springs-Sitka,and the "East Route" through Snettisham-Kake-Sitka.The second region,or CentralSystem,would be supplied by Tyee and could include Wrangell,Petersburg,Kake and Sitka.The third region,or SouthernSystem,could be supplied by Tyee Lake and Swan Lake and couldincludeKetchikan,Wrangell,Petersburg,Kake,Sitka,Prince of Wales Island,Metlakatla,and Quartz Hill.In this Southern 7-6 System,two alternative routes were considered for the Tyee- Ketchikan interconnection;one is to link Tyee directly to Ketchikan via Cleveland Peninsula and the other is to link TyeetoKetchikanviaaTyee-Swan Lake interconnection.Total S.E. System Intertie alternatives refer to the potential inclusion of all load centers in the system.Two main routes were considered for interconnecting the Northern,Central and Southern systems.The "East Route"refers to an interconnection of the three geographic subsystems via a Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg line and Tyee-Swan Lake.The "West Route"would entail interconnectingthethreesubsystemsviaJuneau-Hoonah,Sitka,Kake and Peters- burg,and the Tyee-Swan Lake line. Alternative III -Power Supplied by N.C.P.C. Alternative III involves the all S.E.Alaska system, described in Alternative II,with an interconnection to the Northern Canada Power Commission (N.C.P.C.)grid at Whitehorse via Skagway.See Figure 7-5.Power to the Northern System and an entire S.E.Alaska grid,with their variations,were investi- gated. Alternative IV -Power Supplied by B.C.Hydro Alternative IV involves the all S.E.Alaska system, described in Alternative II,with an interconnection to Canadian generation sources in British Columbia via transmission lines from Kitsault,B.C.to Quartz Hill Mine and from Quartz Hill to the Swan Lake Project.See Figure 7-6.Power to the Southern System and an entire S.E.Alaska grid,with their variations, were analyzed. Alternative V -Power Supplied by Both B.C.Hydro and N.C.P.C. As indicated,power would be furnished from both the north and the south in Alternative V.Cases involving split grids, with each Canadian utility serving selected Alaska load centers, were analyzed,as well as an interconnection of the two CanadianutilitiesthroughAlaska.See Figure 7-7.The appropriate variations were analyzed. Criteria for Economic Evaluation The economic parameters and assumptions used in the evalua- tion of the various alternatives are based on guidelines sup- plied by the Alaska Power Authority and local utilities.TheeconomicparametersdetailedbelowaresummarizedonTable7-2. FIGURE 7-3 ™S .WHITEHORSE™ SKAGWAY e *'C \HAINES &"ge HOONAH ©ones CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©Ancoon siTka @ 0 PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL TYEE LAKE PRINCE LEGEND:OF ALESD ©-Loan centers °4asky Swen ; ©)-GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN we9 meme =EXISTING T/LINE = =---PROPOSED T/LINE re)QUARTZ @ JsMETLAKATLAyfO KITSAULT "ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ALTERNATIVE I HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .OCTOSES 1937 BASE CASE FIGURE 7-4 MN .WHITEHORSE™ SKAGWAY SN "LoMo,N HAINES oN CREEK SNETTISHAM- GRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON sITkKA ©PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL ?.%zZ TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALESISLAND SWAN©-Loan centers LAKE ; O -GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN Sk wane -EXISTING T/LINE *=oO ----PROPOSED T/LINE QUARTZ HILL ,METLAKATLA wy,QO KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ALTERNATIVE U S.E.ALASKA SYSTEMHARZAENGINEERINGCOMPANY-OCTOBES 1997 FIGURE 7-5 ™,WHITEHORSE SKAGWAY *C4 5204YUS :N HAINES -O=JUNEAU HOONAH .GREENS °CREEK SNETTISHAM CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON SITKA @ PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL ?.%Z TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES©-Loan centers LAKE ' 'e)-GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN SS wees =EXISTING T/LINE = PROPOSED T/LINE QUARTZ°'HILL éMETLAKATLA"y OKITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ALTERNATIVE Ill POWER FROM N.C.P.C.HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .OCTOSES 1967 FIGURE 7-6 NN .WHITEHORSE™ SKAGWAY ™ eee) N HAINES io. r JUNEAU HOONAH GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON siTka @ PETERSBURG KAKE in)Sa WRANGELL 7. a TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES©-Loan centers owen ) ;as >oO oeGENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN EXISTING T/LINE OC PROPOSED T/LINE METLAKATLA KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ALTERNATIVE IV POWER FROM B.C.HYDROHARZAENGINEERINGCOMPANY.OCTDeEE®1987 FIGURE 7-7 ™,WHITEHORSE SKAGWAY "Can,o 40,N HAINES *oS -oO-JUNEAU HOONAH GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ANGOON sITkA @ PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL 7.%z TYEE LAKE PRINCE LEGEND:OF WALES©-Loan centers swan ; GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN NSOoEXISTINGT/LINE QUARTZ HILL O PROPOSED T/LINE METLAKATLA KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY ALTERNATIVE V POWER FROM N.C.P.C.AND B.C.HYDRObIARZAENGINEERINGCOMPANYOCTOBER1957 Table 7-2 MAJOR ECONOMIC CRITERIA 1.All Costs in 1987 Dollars.2.Present Worth Analysis:1987-20341/ 3.Planning Horizon:1987-2006 4.Discount Rate:3.5 and 4.5 percent 5.Inflation Rate:0 percent 6.Economic Life of Projects Diesel Generators 20 years Transmission Lines 30 years Hydroelectric Projects 50 years 7.Annual Fixed Carrying Charges 20-year 30-year 50-year Life Life Life Cost of Money (%)3.50 3.50 3.50 Amortization (%)3.54 1.94 0.76 Insurance (%)0.25 0.20 0.20 Total (%)7.29 5.64 4.46 i/The last year of the planning horizon:2034 corresponds tothelastyearofthe30-year economic life of transmission lines,assuming an on-line date in 2005. Planning Horizon The planning horizon,or period of study,selected begins in January 1,1987 and ends December 31,2034,the last year ofthe30-year economic life of a transmission line built in 2005. The Power Authority guidelines prescribe a 20 year period for load and fuel forecasting,and expansion alternative enactment (1987-2006).For the period 2007 to 2034,all loads,costs,andexpansionplanswereassumedtoremainconstant.Present worthcostcomparisonsweremadeintermsof1987dollarsusingthe discount rates described below. Discount Rates Two real discount rates of 3.5%and 4.5%were used in this analysis.The lower rate of 3.5%is used in the reference casedescribedintheresults.The rate of inflation was assumed to be zero percent throughout the study period. Table 7-2 summarizes the annual fixed carrying charges used in the study.These charges are the sum of the real interest rate,depreciation,and insurance.The project costs were depreciated using a straight line amortization based on the project life.The annual insurance cost for diesel generators was assumed to be 0.25 percent of the total investment cost. For hydroelectric facilities and transmission lines,insurance costs were assumed to be 0.20 percent of the total investment. Economic Lives The economic lives assumed for generation and transmission facilities are based on APA Guidelines.A life of 20 years was assumed for diesel generators,30 years for transmission lines and 50 years for hydroelectric plants.For the period 2007-2034 all existing capacity remains fixed at the 2006 year levels. Load Forecasts Tables 1-2,through 1-4 show the load projections for the high,most likely,and low electric load demand scenarios that were used in the analysis.The projections for the major load centers are those presented in the R.W.Beck draft report dated December 22,1986,except the projections for Juneau which are from an R.W.Beck report dated January 29,1987.Projections for other load centers were developed based on information furnished by the Power Authority and from the Black Bear Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Update Report (February1987). Diesel Installed Capacity and Retirements Table 7-3 shows the 1986 installed capacity of generation facilities serving the various load centers and the assumed retirement schedule for the period 1987-2006.For the purposes of this study,the existing hydro generation projects in South- east Alaska were divided into two categories:local hydro projects,which have been developed by local utilities and were assumed to serve the local load exclusively;and system hydro projects,which were developed by State or Federal agencies andwhichwereassumedtogeneratepowerandenergytobesharedby interconnected load centers.Table 7-4 is a list of the so called "System Hydro"plants.All other existing plants were assumed to serve local loads. 1/Harza Engineering Company report for the Alaska Power Authority. Load Center ant Staquay Haines Green's Creek Juneau Haonah Kate Sitha Angoon Tenakee Petersburg Urangel! Ketchitan Quartz Hill Prince of Vales Metlakata Existing Capacity 1987 aannagee ann (hy)(ku) 3,865 4,270 Py1969 aan (ku) 1990 ann (ku) 1771 (kW) 1,3 etdcoonenosnaneacona1992 onan (kW) 1993 nn au) Table 7-3 DIESEL RETIREMENT SCHEDULE 1994 wane (ku) 1,40 1998 1997 nan oon (kW)(kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 ] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]0 0 0 0 0 3,030 =1,100q0 2000 neve (ku) 2,500 1,600 0 --_uwoa2001 none (ku) 2002 vane (ku) 2003 on (kv) 2006 one (hv) 2005 TT) (ku) B85 2006 PL) (hu) Table 7-4 SYSTEM HYDRO GENERATION SOURCES Annual Average Plant Capacit Energy-Seaay (MWh) Snettisham 46.0 216,000 Crater Lake 27.0 118,000 Tyee Lake 20.0 114,100 Swan Lake 22.5 85,400 Communities connected to a System Hydro Project were assumed to require 100%of the peak load as back-up diesel capacity.These diesel units would be necessary for emergencyoperation,for peaking requirements,for voltage regulation,or to meet remaining load requirements not available from the hydro projects.A minimum of 5%diesel generation is assumed in all communities. Communities not interconnected to System Hydro were assumed to require diesel capacity equal to 125%-130%of the peak load depending on the ratio of the largest diesel unit to the overall capacity requirements;i.e.smaller communities require a higher diesel reserve. Costs All costs are given in terms of 1987 dollars.The five sources of costs in this analysis are the transmission lines, local hydroelectric projects,System and Canadian hydroelectric projects,and diesel generation.The costs are busbar costs anddonotincludecostallowancesfordistribution,administration, and customer billings.Since these excluded costs are the same for all alternatives,the relative ranking of alternatives is not affected. Diesel Fuel Prices.Table 7-5 shows the diesel fuel price forecasts that were used in the analyses.The high and low forecast shown were furnished by the Power Authority.Because of the need to develop a reference case analysis reflecting themostlikelyassumptions,a mean diesel fuel price projection, the average of the high and low forecasts,was computed. Table 7-5 OIL AND DIESEL FUEL PRICE FORECASTS High Forecast Low Forecast Mean Forecast oil Diesel Oil Diesel oil Diesel Price Price Price Price Price Price Year ($/bb1)($/gal)(S$/bb1)($/gal)($/bb1)($/gal) 1987 18.00 0.70 15.00 0.65 16.50 0.68 1988 18.63 0.72 15.31 0.66 16.97 0.69 1989 19.28 0.75 15.62 0.68 17.45 0.71 1990 19.96 0.78 15.94 0.69 17.95 0.73 1991 20.66 0.80 16.27 0.70 18.46 0.75 1992 21.38 0.83 16.60 0.72 18.99 0.78 1993 22.13 0.86 16.94 0.73 19.54 0.80 1994 22.90 0.89 17.29 0.75 20.09 0.82 1995 23.70:0.92 17.64 0.76 20.67 0.84 1996 24.53 0.95 18.00 0.78 21.26 0.87 1997 25.39 0.99 18.00 0.78 21.69 0.88 1998 26.28 1.02 18.00 0.78 22.14 0.90 1999 27.20 1.06 18.00 0.78 22.60 0.92 2000 28.15 1.09 18.00 0.78 23.07 0.94 2001 29.14 1.13 18.00 0.78 23.57 0.96 2002 30.15 1.17 18.00 0.78 24.08 0.98 2003 31.21 1.21 18.00 0.78 24.60 1.00 2004 32.30 1.26 18.00 0.78 25.15 1.02 2005 33.43 1.30 18.00 0.78 25.71 1.04 2006 34.60 1.35 18.00 0.78 26.30 1.06 To reflect differences in diesel fuel costs in the varous load centers a diesel fuel cost ratio was developed for each. Table 7-6 shows the diesel fuel cost ratio for each load center. A ratio of 1.10 indicates that the diesel price in that load center is 1.10 times the reference price given above.Diesel efficiency (kilowatt per gallon)and diesel O&M costs ($/kWh) are also indicated in Table 7-6 for each load center.These figures are based on information furnished by the Power Author- ity,or were assumed if information was unavailable. Table 7-6 DIESEL COSTS Fuel Cost O&M Load Center Ratio Efficiency Costs(kwWh/gal)($/kWh) Skagway 1.03 13.40 0.05 Haines 1.02 .12.25 0.05 Green's Creek 1.00 14.00 0.03 Juneau 1.00 11.00 0.02 Hoonah 1.24 11.20 0.05 Kake 1.26 11.45 0.05 Sitka 1.25 12.00 0.03 Angoon 1.25 10.55 0.05 Tenakee 1.25 10.00 0.05 Petersburg 1.10 10.00 0.05 Wrangell 1.10 10.00 0.05 Ketchikan 1.00 14.00 0.03 Quartz Hill 1.00 14.00 0.03 Prince of Wales 1.00 12.20 0.04 Metlakatla 1.00 12.00 0.05 O&M Costs.Diesel operation and maintenance (0&M)costs are based on data provided by local utilities.Diesel O&M costs for each community are shown in Table 7-6. Hydro O&M costs are based on data supplied by each utility supplying hydroelectric power.When information was not avail- able,O&M costs were determined using formulas derived by arithmetic regressions of hydro O&M cost data.Table 7-7 gives the O&M costs for the System,Canadian and Local hydro plants. O&M costs for Canadian generation were assumed to be included in the energy price. Annual O&M costs for transmission lines were taken as one percent of the initial cost of the line,including substations and/or DC converter stations. Investment Costs.An investment cost of $300 per kW was assumed for diesel units.New diesel capacity was added,by increments of 500 kW,based on existing capacity,retirements, and minimum reserve criteria. System and Local Hydro investment costs for existing plantsareassumedtobesunkcostsandthereforeexcludedfromthis study.Transmission line construction costs are shown on Table7-8.The costs shown on the table include land and land rights, right-of-way clearing,overhead line and/or submarine cable 7-12 materials and installation costs,and substation/converter station costs for each interconnection.A contingency allowance of 20%is included,as is an allowance of 17.5%for engineering and owner's costs. Hydro Energy Costs.Table 7-7 shows the installed cap- acity,average annual energy,and energy costs of the hydroelec- tric projects.For the purpose of the economic analysis,no debt repayment for the existing local and S.E.hydro were included,since,from the standpoint of all Southeast Alaska, these costs would be similar for the Base Case and all alterna- tive scenarios.As a result,no energy costs were included for the local and S.E.hydro projects.These costs,and the vari- ous tariffs for the S.E.hydro projects,can only be thoroughly addressed in a detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the selected alternatives.Including these sunk costs in such an analysis,while not affecting the overall results of the study,would alter the benefits of new transmission lines for individual load centers.Petersburg and Wrangell,for example, would benefit from a Tyee-Swan Lake interconnection because the sunk cost of Tyee would be shared among three load centers instead of the present two. Energy prices of B.C.Hydro and N.C.P.C.Hydro generation were are assumed to be $0.055 per kilowatt-hour (including both power and energy charges and the cost of the required Candadian transmission facilities).A sensitivity analysis was performed using $0.07 per kilowatt-hour. Table 7-7 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DATA Average Annual Installed Annual Energy O&M Project Capacit Ener Price CostsCEH(MWh/yr)($/MWh)($*1000) SYSTEM HYDRO PROJECTS Snettisham 46,000 216,000 0 598* Swan Lake 22,500 85,400 0 297* Tyee Lake 20,000 114,000 0 321% Crater Lake 27,000 118,000 0 349* CANADIAN HYDRO PROJECTS British Colombia 100,000 Unlimited 55 0 Whitehorse 22,000 100,000 55 0 LOCAL HYDRO PROJECTS Skagway 1,000 2940 0 40* Haines 0 0 0 0 Green's Creek 0 0 0 0 Juneau 10,600 60,000 0 219* Hoonah 0 0 0 0 Kake 0 0 0 0 Sitka 26,540 103,000 0 335 Angoon 0 0 0 0 Tenakee 0 0 0 0 Sealaska 0 0 0 0 Petersburg 2,000 10,000.0 74* Wrangell 0 0 0 0 Ketchikan 14,000 62,700 0 237* Quartz Hill 0 0 0 0 Prince of Wales Is.0 0 0 0 Metlakatla 4,000**22,150**0 200** *The indicated O&M costs were calculated using the following formulasNormalAnnual O&M =18899,3804 CAP x (1112 x CAP +142 x AEP)x 1.46 rated capacity (MW) average annual energy production (GWh) Where CAP and AEP **Includes planned Chester Lake Hydroelectric Project. 7-14 Table 7-8 INTERTIE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Connection Voltage Cost (kV)($*1000) From Juneau to Skagway and Haines Juneau-Skagway 138 47,280 Juneau-Skagway-Haines 34.5/138 54,030 From Whitehorse to Skagway and Haines Whitehorse-Skagway (U.S.Facilities only)138 7,420 Skagway-Haines 34.5 13,240 From Juneau to Sitka Juneau-Green's Creek 34.5 11,220 Juneau-Green's Creek _69 19,490 -Green's Creek-Hoonah 69 23,240 Hoonah-Tenakee Springs 69 8,190 Tenakee Springs -Angoon 69 23,790 Tenakee Springs-Sitka 69 31,040 Tenakee/Sitka-Angoon 69 20,680 From Juneau to Petersburg Juneau-Green's Creek 138 25,750 Green's Creek-Hoonah .138 31,250 Hoonah-Tenakee Springs-138 12,610 Tenakee Springs-Sitka 138 43,710 Tenakee/Sitka (138 kV)-Angoon 69 23,280 Sitka-Kake :100(DC)51,980 Kake-Petersburg 138 26,450 From Tyee to Sitka Petersburg-Kake (without Kake- Snettisham)138 27,440 Kake-Sitka 100(DC)48,220 From Juneau to Sitka Snettisham-Kake 100(DC)57,990 Kake-Sitka 100(DC)34,230 From Petersburg to Sitka followed by Snettisham-Kake Petersburg-Kake 138 27,440 Kake-Sitka 100(DC)48,220 Snettisham--Kake 100(DC)41,120 Table 7-8 (Cont'd) INTERTIE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Connection Voltage Cost (kV)($*1000) From Snettisham to Sitka followed by Petersburg-Kake Snettisham-Kake 100(DC)57,990 Kake-Sitka 100(DC)34,230 Kake-Petersburg 138 26,450 From Tyee Lake to Swan Lake (with Prince of Wales Is.) Tyee Lake-Swan Lake 138 28,900 Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is.75 (DC)43,460 Prince of Wales Is.System 69 9,360 Ketchikan-Metlakatla (from Bailey)69 11,210 Ketchikan-Metlakatla (from Mt.Pt.)34.5 6,610 From Tyee Lake to Ketchikan (with Prince of Wales Is.) Tyee Lake-Ketchikan 138 50,270 Tyee/Ketchikan-Prince of Wales Is.69 22,150 Prince of Wales Is.System 69 9,360 Swan Lake-Quartz Hill 138 45,660 From Tyee Lake to Swan Lake followed by Swan Lake to Quartz Hill Tyee Lake-Swan Lake 138 28,900 Swan Lake-Quartz Hill 138 38,800 From Tyee Lake to Swan Lake and Quartz Hill to B.C.followed by Swan Lake to Quartz Hill Tyee Lake-Swan Lake 138 28,900 Quartz Hill-B.C.100(DC)39,290 Swan Lake-Quartz Hill (U.S.facili- ties only)138 38,140 Methodology Screening Method Because of the multitude of possible intertie alternatives, a screening analysis was performed to identify the most economi- cally favorable alternatives,and to form the basis for the development of the alternatives used in the detailed study.To avoid eliminating potentially feasibile alternatives during the 7-16 System,two alternative routes were considered for the Tyee- Ketchikan interconnection;one is to link Tyee directly to Ketchikan via Cleveland Peninsula and the other is to link Tyee to Ketchikan via a Tyee-Swan Lake interconnection.Total S.E. System Intertie alternatives refer to the potential inclusion of all load centers in the system.Two main routes were considered for interconnecting the Northern,Central and Southern systems. The "East Route"refers to an interconnection of the three geographic subsystems via a Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg line and Tyee-Swan Lake.The "West Route"would entail interconnecting the three subsystems via Juneau-Hoonah,Sitka,Kake and Peters- burg,and the Tyee-Swan Lake line. Alternative III -Power Supplied by N.C.P.Cc. Alternative III involves the all S.E.Alaska system, described in Alternative II,with an interconnection to the Northern Canada Power Commission (N.C.P.C.)grid at Whitehorse via Skagway.See Figure 7-5.Power to the Northern System and an entire S.E.Alaska grid,with their variations,were investi- gated. Alternative IV -Power Supplied by B.C.Hydro Alternative IV involves the all S.E.Alaska system, described in Alternative II,with an interconnection to Canadian generation sources in British Columbia via transmission lines from Kitsault,B.C.to Quartz Hill Mine and from Quartz Hill to the Swan Lake Project.See Figure 7-6.Power to the Southern System and an entire.S.E.Alaska grid,with their variations, were analyzed. Alternative V -Power Supplied by Both B.C.Hydro and N.C.P.C. As indicated,power would be furnished from both the north and the south in Alternative V.Cases involving split grids, with each Canadian utility serving selected Alaska load centers, were analyzed,as well as an interconnection of the two CanadianutilitiesthroughAlaska.See Figure 7-7.The appropriate variations were analyzed. Criteria for Economic Evaluation The economic parameters and assumptions used in the evalua-tion of the various alternatives are based on guidelines sup plied by the Alaska Power Authority and local utilities.TheeconomicparametersdetailedbelowaresummarizedonTable7-2. Table 7-9 SCREENING ANALYSIS ENERGY ALLOCATION AND COSTS Year 2006 Local Minimum Replaceable Elec.C.P.W.Load Hydro Snettisham Crater Tyee Swan Diesel Diesel Price R.Diesel Load Center (MWh)(MWh)(MWh)(MWh)(MWh)(MWh)(MWh)(MWh)($/kWh)($*1000) Skagway 6,500 2,940 325 3,235 $0.098 3,879 Haines 10,200 510 9,690 $0.098 11,540 Green's Creek 26,061 1,303 24,758 $0.096 17,623 Juneau 272,400 60,000 216,000 118,000 13,620 (135,220)1/$0.096 NA Hoonah 5,887 294 5,593 $0.112 7,655 Kake 3,500 175 3,325 $0.114 4,605 Sitka 146,100 103,000 7,305 35,795 $0.113 49,287 Angoon 3,116 .156 2,960 $0.113 4,076 Tenakee Springs 451 23 428 $0.113 590 Petersburg 37,600 10,000 57,050 1,880 (31,330)1/$0.103 NA Wrangell 24,800 57,050 1,240 (33,490)$0.103 NA Ketchikan 191,800 62,700 85,400 9,590 34,110 $0.096 40,970 Quartz Hill 250,300 12,515 237,785 $0.096 279,336 Prince of Wales 23,280 ° ;1,164 22,116 $0.096 25,981 Metlakatla 24,600 22,150 1,230 1,220 $0.096 1,433 1/Numbers in parenthesis indicate a surplus of hydro generation in the correspondingleadcenters.NA:Not Applicable because excess hydro energy is available at these load centers. Results of the Screening Table 7-10 summarizes the results of the screening analy- sis.The analysis was performed on an incremental basis by progressively interconnecting load centers to a source of sur- plus hydro power to utilize the available hydro generation. (Based on the load forecast for the year 2006,surplus hydro generation will be available from both the Snettisham-Crater Lake and Tyee Lake projects).The analysis was also performed for the geographic subsystems and for the entire Southeast Alaska System.The results for the screening analysis are given in the following paragraphs. Northern System.As shown in Table 7-10,an intertie of Snettisham to Skagway and Haines via Juneau is not a favorable alternative.The B/C ratio of a Juneau-Skagway-Haines line is 0.44. The Juneau-Green's Creek connection appears to be a viable alternative with a B/C ratio of 2.67 when a 34.5 kV transmission line was used.Because Green's Creek mine has an expected life of only 20 years this load center was treated differently than the others in that costs and energy requirements were assumed to extend for only 20 years instead of the 50-year assumption used for analysis of all other load centers. When a 69 kV transmission line was used for the Juneau- Green's Creek connection,the B/C ratio dropped to 1.53.With the addition of Hoonah to Juneau-Green's Creek the B/C ratio of the entire interconnection drops to 0.93 because the incremental B/C ratio of the Green's Creek-Hoonah segment is only 0.37.The overall B/C ratio continues to decrease when Tenakee and Angoon are included in the system.However,if the line is extended at 69 kV from Tenakee to Sitka (West Route),without Angoon,the overall B/C ratio increases to 1.43 because the increment of Tenakee-Sitka has a B/C ratio of 2.47.The B/C ratio for the Angoon transmission segment is 0.27. The other way to connect Sitka to Snettisham-Crater Lake power is the East Route,via the Snettisham-Kake-Sitka intercon-nection using 100 kV DC cables.This alternative has a B/C ratio of 0.91.It is not economically attractive. As a result of this analysis,the Juneau-Green's Creek interconnection and the West Route to Sitka appear to be the only two attractive interconnections in the Norhtern System. Central System.The second source of surplus S.E.hydro-electric energy in 2006 is the Tyee Lake Project.An intertieofPetersburgtoKakeisnotattractive,having a B/C ratio of 7-18 PAGE 1 OF 2 TABLE 7-10 SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS MEDIUM LOAD FORECAST S.£.CANADA DIESEL CANADA DIESEL.«ANNUAL =ANAUAL CP.CPU. REPLACEABL HYDRO HYORO ENERGY |ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY OLN =-sTRANS.«ssCPLU.OC.PLW.sOCLP.W.=TOTAL REPLACEABLEENERGYAVAILABLEAVAILABLENEEDEDPRICEPRICECOSTS+COSTS.«=COST : =-s«ENERGY «=sO&N'SSsSTRANS» =sCOINTERTIE DIESEL =BC INTERTIE EXPANSION PLANS (Huh)=(Muh)(Hh)(HU)(S/kUR)(S/kUh)-(SH10D0)($H1000)($#1000)(51000)(641000)($01000)(#1000)(s*1000)RATIO IQQBGOHE GHHEISUE GQINHE GUIDE GHG GUESS JUG A.NORTHERN SYSTEM (Supplied by Snett and Crater) 1.Juneau-Skaquay 35235 =135;220 0 0 0.055 0.0%0 472.8 =47,280 Qo 5,768 24,593 30,341 3,879 0.13 2.Juneau-Haines-Skaguay 12,925 135,220 q 0 0.055 0.09 0 540.3 54,030 0 S92 26,106 =34696 150419 0.44 3.Juneau-Greens Creek (34 kVs2D year lite)245758 =1355220 0 0 0.055 0.09 0 12.20 145220 0 829 5838 61666 =17823 2.64 4.Juneau-Greens Creek (67 kV,20 vear lite}265758 =135,220 9 i]0.055 0.096 a 176.9 19,490 0 1,441 10;138 911,879 17,823 1,82 5.Juneau-Greens Creek-Hoonah 30;351 =135,220 it)iH 0.055 0.0%0 427.3 42,730 0 S213 221226)=27,440 =25,278 0.92 &.Juneau-Greens Creek-Haonah-Tenakee 30,777 =135,220 0 i]0.055 0.098 a $07.2 $0,920 0 6213-26488 =32,699 =25,848 0.79 7,Juneau-Greens Creek-Haonah-Tenakee-Angoon 33,737 =135,220 i]0 0:055 0.096 0 M71 24s 710 0 9415 38,841 47,976 29,9hb 0.42 8.Juneau-Greens Creek-Haanah-Tenakee-Sitka 66,576 135,720 i)0 0.055 0.094 0 819.6 =81,980 O $0,000 42,432 52.632 75,155 1.43 9.Juneau-Greens Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka»Angoon 67,538 =135,220 0 0 0.055 0.096 O 1,026.6 102,640 0 12,523 53,389 65,911 79,231 1.20 10.Snettishae-Kake-Sitka 37120 =135,220 1)d 0.055 0.096 0 922.2 92220 Q 11,251 =67,969 59,220 =$3,892 aa B.CENTRAL SYSTEM (Supplied by Tyee} 1.Petersburg-Kake 35325 =64820 i)0 0.055 0.096 0 274.8 =27,440 i]35368 =140273)17621 45605 0.26 2.Petersburg-Kake-Sitka 39:120 4,820 a a 0.085 0.076 0 756.6 =755660 0 9,231 °39,355 68:568 53,892 tl C.SOUTHERN SYSTEM (Supplied by Tyee and Swan) 1.TYEE-KETOHIKAN a.Direct Connection 345110 64,820 0 0 0.055 0.0%0 $02.7 50,270 0 6133 261148 =32,281 =40,070 1.54 b.Connected via Suan Lake 3bs1i0 =64,820 G 0 0.055 0.096 0 269.0 26,900 0 3526 15,032 18,558 460,070 2.78 2.TYEE-KETCHIKAN-PRINCE OF WALES . a.Direct Connections from Tvee 96226 =4,820 0 i)0.055 0.09 0 617.8 81,780 0 9,978 =42,538 =52,516 66,051 171 b.Connected via Swan Lake and Ketchikan-Peince of Vales $b:726 =.820 0 0 9.055 0.0%0 6097.8 80,988 0 9,880 62,122 52,002 683051 1.71 3.Tvee-Suan plus a.Ketchikan-Metlakatia (O9kV trom Bailey)35.330 =64,820 0 0 0.055 0.076 0 éOr.t 40,010 0 6,878 =20,863 =25,757 =44508 1.61 b.Ketchikan-Metlatatia (via Me Pt 34.5 1V)35,330 44,820 a 0 0.055 0.098 0 355.1 35,510 0 65332 18.471 272,803 64,508 c.PetersburaKake-Sitka 73,230 =64,820 0 8,410 0.055 0.096 810 «1,065.6 106,580 9,880 125757 $6387 77,026 935962 : d.Swan Lake-Quartz Hill . 271,695 6&,820 Q 207,075 0.055 0.096 19,938 677.0 67,700 263,259 65260 =35,219 2881738 =3195404 Lil D.NORTH SOUTH INTERCONNECTIONS WITH QUARTZ HILL 1.(East Route)Juneau-Green's Creek»Snetthishas- Kake-Petersburgs Tvee-Svan-Quartz Hills Ketchikan-Prince of Vales 322,096 200,080 O 122,058 9.055 0.076 180752 -2:153.8 2155360 183,382 «=26275)142,02 2815678 =347,415 2.Saae as above plus Kake-Sitka 357,887 200,040 Q 157,649 0.055 0.09 159199 2,496.7 269,470 «185,432 30662 §=«129,887 «=345,760 =816,902 3.Snett-Kake-Petersburg:Tyee-Swan-Quartz Hill 275.220 200,040 O 75,180 0.055 0.098 7237)1,529.6 =152.280 =BB317 18562 079138 §=-186.015 =324,011 &(Vest Route)Juneau-Green's Creek-Hocnah-Tenakee- Angoon-Sitka-Kake-Petersburgs Swan-Tyee-Quartz Hill» Ketchikan-Princeof Wales 3415796 =200.040 O 141,758 0.085 0.0%13,649 3,348.1 334,610 =146.526 40,849 174,183 381,526 399,187 1.08 E.NORTH SOUTH INTERCONNECTIONS VITHOUT QUARTZ HILL 1.(East Route)Juneau-Green's Creek»Snetthishae- Kake-Petersburg,Tyee-Swans Ketchikan-Prince of Vales 66,309 200,060 ')0 0.055 0.096 G 1,766.4 176,640 O 21:55 91,880 113,431 68,279 0.78 2.Sameasabave plus Kake-Sitka 120,106 200,040 a 0 0.055 0.0%0 2,108.7 210,670 O 25,727)109,665 $35,423)137,588 1.02 3.(West Route)Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee- Angoon-Sitka-Kake-Petersburg»Tvee-Swans Ketchihan-Prince of Vales 126.125 200,040 0 i)0.055 0.0%Q 2,960.1 296,010 O 3601S 153,971 190,086 145,01 0.77 PAGE 2 OF 2 TABLE 7-10 SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS MEDIUM LOAD FORECAST S.E.CANADA DIESEL CANADA ==OJESEL.«=ANNUAL =ANNUAL .CPU.C.P.U. REPLACEABL HYDRO HYDRO ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY =ENERGY ORM TRANS CPW.6C.P.U.|OE.P.W.©(TOTAL «=REPLACEABLEENERGYAVAILABLEAVAILABLENEEOEOPRICEPRICEcostscostscostENERGYOuNTRANS=INTERTIE =DIESEL B/C INTERTIE EXPANSION PLANS (Huh)(MUh)(Mh)(Mb)(S/kUh)(S$/kWh)«=(SHLO0D)(S81000)(S¥1000)($8100)(S¥100D)(S¥1000)($*1000)($1000)RATIOJUUHHURGRHHHHHHEGRREGSRQHQG0RHSHSHEEGHHBHBBEGHOBGH008GNHGHNHEJSQQQ808ESHGHBHOENBBBEBEB8QUQHEUBERHBGHGHE HEOBOBBE 11}.A.POWER SUPPLIED BY N.C.P.C.- NORTHERN SYSTEM 1.Uhitehorse-Staguay-Haines 12,925 O 100,000 0 0.055 0.0%ml 208.6 20,680 6,473 2.521 10,766 21,940 15,419 0.70 2.Vhitehorse-Skaquay-Haines-Juneau-Green's Creek- Hoonah-Tenakee-Angoon 66.664 135220 100,000 0 0.055 0.0%O 1,362.6 134,260 OB 16,380 69,836 Bbs217 85,343 0.53 3.Saee as above plus Tenakee-Sitka 62,457 135,220 100,000 q 0.058 0.096 G 15624.9 162.190 GQ 19,788 84,366 1065152 74,850 0.7 1V.A.POUER SUPPLIED BY B.C.HYDRO --SOUTHERN SYSTEM 1.B.Cs-Quartz Hill (US facilities only)2375785 0 1,000,000 0 0.055 0.09%13,078 392.9 =39,2970 =-:189,561 479%=20543?»=-1845792 2795336 1.51 2.B.C.-Quartr Hifl-Swan (US facilities only)271,895 0 1,000,000 0 0.055 0.076 £4,986 635.2 83,520 182;450 +=10,190 9=-43,683 736,083 =389,406 3.B.C.-Quartz Hill-Swan-Tyee (US facilities only)271,895 64,820 1,000,000 0 0.055 0.09%=145387 =2,071.7 1075170 =138,958 ==13,075 =55,765 2075778 =19,406 156 4.B.C.-Quartz Hill-Swan-Tyees Petersburg-Kake- . Sitta US tacilities only)311,015 64,820 1,000,000 D 9.055 0.096 13,561 15828.3 182,830 165,205 22,306 955100 2825611 373,298 1,32 Vv.POWER SUPPLIED 8Y BOTH BC HYORO AND N.C.P.C. A.ONLY QUARTZ HILL RECEIVES POVER FROM 8.C.HYDRO 1.B.C.-Quartz Hills Uhitehorse-Skagvay-Haines 750,710 0 337,785 0 9.055 0.09%13,789 607.9 =40,790 «=:168,238 7417 315620)2075271 =2984755 1.42 2.B.C.-Quartz Hill,Whitehorse-Skaquay-Juneau-Green's . Creet-Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitha 307,596 0 33737685 0 0.055 0.096 16,918 9 =15745.2 1760520)206605 =215292,90,778 9=318.475 «=358,370 1.13 3.Same as above plus Haines and Angoon 3205264 ©Q 337,785 h]0.055 0.096 «=875613)2,023.3)202,330 9 214,678 =2668S =1052263)3445823 =3735984 1.08 &.UVhitehorse to Prince of Vales (Uest Route)Saae as V.A.2 above plus Lyan Creek-Hainess Sitka-Kake-Petersburgs Tyee-Swans Ketchikan-Prince af Wales 347;145 200,040 337,785 6 0.055 0.0%9191 3,450.0 345,000 1125133 64.532 189,857 346,522 640,568 1.27 5.Whitehorse to Prince af Vales (East Route)Same as V.A.1 : above plus Haines-Juneau-Green's Creeks Snettishaa Kake-Sitka,Kake-Petersbueg»Tyee-Suans Ketchitan- Prince of Vales 370,814 200,080 337,785 0 0.055 0.0%91393 .2:985.3 298,530 114,595 34s:422 155,282 306.2979 =432,320 1.41 B.BC HYDRO ANO NCPC HYDRO ARE INTERCONNECTED 1,(East Route)without Sitka Uhitehorse-Skaguay Juneau-Green's Creeks Snettishas- Kake-Petersburg»Tyee-Swan-Quartz Hill-B.C.3035213 200,040 1,100,000 0 0.055 0.096 5.675 2,584.3 258:430 69,232 31,530)134,426 =235,186 =345513 1.47 2.(East Route)with Sitka . Saee as above plus Kake-Sitka 337,008 200,060 1,100,000 0 0.055 0.096 74663 25926.6 292,660 93:252 35,708 1525227 281,187 394,800 1.49 3.(West Route)Uhiteharse-Skaguay-Juneau-Green's Creek- Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka-Kake-Petersburg:Tyee-Swan- Quartz Hill-B.C.345,027 200,040 1,100,000 1)0.055 0.094 297%=3:513.5 3515350)975272)42,867 «182,757 =3225916 §=-403,045 1.25 0.26.But since the year 2006 Sitka load demand is large,the Petersburg-Kake-Sitka interconnection warrants further study with a B/C ratio of 1.11. Southern System.Ketchikan's energy demand is large enough to absorb all available Swan Lake Project generation by year 2006 and warrant a connection to Tyee.As described in Chapter 6,two ways of connecting Ketchikan to Tyee were considered. The connection via Swan Lake was preferred to a direct Ketchikan-Tyee line.Their B/C ratios were 2.78 and 1.54 respectively.In addition,additional hydro energy from Tyee would be available for Prince of Wales Island,Metlakatla,Kake- Sitka,or Quartz Hill.The results of analyses of these inter- connections are shown below. When Prince of Wales Island 1/is added to the two Tyee- Ketchikan intertie alternatives,the interconnection via Swan Lake intertie shows a slight advantage.However,the incremen- tal B/C ratio of the Prince of Wales Island intertie from Ketchikan is only 0.95.On the other hand,if the direct con- nection from Tyee to Ketchikan via Cleveland Penninsula is con- structed (at a cost of approximately $50 million versus $29 million for the Tyee-Swan Lake intertie),the incremental B/C ratio for the addition of Prince of Wales Island would be 1.39 under the medium load forecast.The analysis assumes that the entire cost of Tyee-Ketchikan direct connection is allocated to Ketchikan.The transmission line,routed over Cleveland Penninsula,both facilities a relatively inexpensive connection to Prince of Wales Island but also increases the reliability of the Ketchikan power system by providing a separate link to a major power source.The incremental cost of about $11 million for the Cleveland Penninsula route versus the Tyee-Swan Lake line represents a cost to Ketchikan for increased reliability. Resolution of this question,Cleveland Penninsula route versus Tyee-Swan Lake,requires a detailed financial analysis,and is should be the subject of a future study.For the detailed eco- nomic analysis presented herein,the connection of Tyee to Ketchikan via Swan Lake is selected because it is the least cost alternative for the major load center at Ketchikan. 1/The costs used in the analysis include the $9,360,000 esti- mated cost of a 69 kV transmission system serving Thorne Bay,Hydaburg and intertied Craing/Klawock,based on theestimatespresentedinBlackBearLakeHydroelectric Project Feasibility Report Update,Harza Engineering Company,February 1987. An analysis of incremental costs and benefits was done for adding Metlakatla to the Tyee-Ketchikan system.The Metlakatla interconnection is not favorable.It has an incremental B/C ratio of 0.34 using the least cost transmission configuration, the 34.5 kV line from Mt.Point. The interconnection of Swan Lake and Tyee Lake to Kake and Sitka is not feasible,with an incremental B/C ratio of 0.92. For the connection of Quartz Hill Mine to Swan Lake and Tyee Lake,the B/C ratio is marginally feasible with a B/C ratio of 1.117 and an incremental B/C rato of 1.04.This is because the Surplus energy available to Quartz Hill from Tyee would be only 30,710 MWh with this interconnection.With the addition of both Prince of Wales Island and Quartz Hill to a Tyee-Ketchikan sys- tem even less hydro energy would be available to Quartz Hill and the B/C ratio is only 1.00. In summary,for the Southern System,the Tyee-Swan Lake interconnection to meet the additional demand in Ketchikan has the most attractive B/C ratio of 2.78.The incremental addition of Prince of Wales or Meltakatla is not economically feasible, and the addition of Quartz Hill is only marginally feasible. Total S.E.Alaska Interconnection.Economic screening of an all Southeast Alaska interconnection resulted in a B/C ratio of 1.74 for the interconnection of Snettisham through Quartz Hill via the East Route.The West Route B/C ratio is 1.06.The East Route is,therefore,the most economically attractive of the two.Without Quartz Hill,the East Route is also the most attractive alternative,with a B/C ratio of 1.06. Power Supplied by N.C.P.C.Since the Local and S.E.Sys-tem Hydro energy available exceeds the 2006 load demand for all S.E.load centers except Quartz Hill,the only practical alter- native involving N.C.P.C.power would be Whitehorse-Skagway- Haines intertie,because the intertie from Snettisham-Juneau- Skagway-Haines was not found economically feasible.The Whitehorse-Skagway-Haines interconnection is not favorable, having a B/C ratio of 0.70. Power Supplied from B.C Hydro.For the same reasons given in the discussion of N.C.P.C.above,the only practical B.C. Hydro alternative is an intertie to Quartz Hill.This alterna-tive has a B/C ratio of 1.51.An intertie to Swan-Tyee- Petersburg-Kake-Sitka was also analyzed to examine the economic feasibility of connecting the large demand in Sitka to B.C.Hydro.However,the incremental B/C ratio of this intertie is less than 1.0. 7-20 Power Supplied from Both N.C.P.C.and B.C.Hydro.As stated above,the only attractive alternative is the intertie B.C.Hydro to Quarz Hill. Summary.Based on the data presented above,four intertieexpansionplansweredevelopedformoredetailedanalysis.The four expansion plans combine the intertie alternatives havingthemostfavorableB/C ratios,while also taking into account utilization of surplus energy to supply to the areas greatest in need.The four expansion plans are as follows: Intertie Expansion Plan A.Shown on Figure 7-8,ExpansionPlanAincludesthefollowinginterconnections: Juneau-Green's Creek Tyee Lake-Swan Lake B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill Intertie Expansion Plan B.Shown on Figure 7-9,ExpansionPlanBincludes: Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka Tyee Lake-Swan Lake B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill Intertie Expansion Plan C.Shown on Figure 7-10,ExpansionPlanChasthefollowinginterconnections: Juneau-Green's Creek Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg Tyee Lake-Swan Lake-Quartz Hill Intertie Expansion Plan D.Shown on Figure 7-11,ExpansionPlanDhasthefollowinginterconnections: Juneau-Green's Creek Petersburg-Kake-Sitka B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill Detailed Analysis General.Expansion Plans A,B,C and D were analyzed infurtherdetailbasedontheeconomiccriteriapreviouslydes- cribed.Using the medium load forecast,the mean fuel cost scenario,and a 3.5%discount rate,annual costs for the period 1987-2006 were calculated.Annual costs for the period 2007 to 2034 were held constant at 2006 level. The analysis was performed using two personal computer spreadsheet programs.The first program allocates the S.E.System and Canadian hydropower to each load center based on each 7-21 FIGURE 7-8 -PROPOSED T/LINE VOLTAGE COST(MILLIONS) HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY ™ .WHITEHORSE™,OSKAGWAYQONay,U 40,N HAINES @ EN, 34.5KV Hoonan @ GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ancoon SITKA @ 3°PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL TYEE LAKE @ @ PRINCE xLEGEND:OF WALES < ©-Loan centers ro)TAKE , ©)-GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN SE(-) wes -EXISTING T/LINE 100KV DC (BIPOLAR)</> QUARTZ HILLMETLAKATLA OCTOBES 1997 KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN A FIGURE 7-9 ™.WHITEHORSE™.OSKAGWAYre]™.Say,OgNHAINES@(oN 69KV eS JUNEAU HOONAH $25.44 GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©Ancoon SITKA °o PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL TYEE LAKE Px) PRINCE 2LEGEND:OF WALES < ©-Loan centers r.)owen , (©)-GENERATION soURCES SeKES ome =EXISTING T/LINE TCHIKAN sooKy pc (BIPOLAR)\/> <=-PROPOSED T/LINE +)QUARTZ 9 138KV _VOLTAGE METLAKATLA 847.3 $COST(MILLIONS)KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN B HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY OCTOEES 1657 FIGURE 7-10 O -GENERATION SOURCES wm -EXISTING T/LINE -PROPOSED T/LINE 138KV VOLTAGE $COST(MILLIONS) MARIZA,encineeRING COMPANY ™,WHITEHORSE™-OSKAGWAYre]™"han,U 40,4NHAINES&(oN o™ 34.5KV HOONAH f+]GREENS : CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ancoon sITkKA @ KAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES ISLAND©@ -Loao centers ° NeKETCHIKANSle°[+)QUARTZ ViCy METLAKATLA KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN C OCTOSES 1997 FIGURE 7-11 ™,WHITEHORSE™.OSKAGWAYaSNNS NapUA\HAINES @ iON, 34.5 =JUNEAUHOONAH@®GREENS *. CREEK SNETTISHAM- CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS ©ancoon 100KV 1388 KVSITKA-=$50.22 KAKE $27.64 WRANGELL TYEE LAKE PRINCELEGEND:OF WALES WAN@-Loan centers r.415k Wee ; OC -GENERATION SOURCES KETCHIKAN Se ame -EXISTING T/LINE 100KV DC (BIPOLAR).=(2) =--PROPOSED T/LINE e QUARTZMETLAKATLA 34 135 KITSAULT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY EXPANSION PLAN D HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY CCTOSGE=*e=7 specific expansion plan.The second program uses the capacities and energies supplied to each load center by each power source to determine the corresponding capital,operation and mainte- nance,and energy costs.The present worth of each total annual cost is calculated,and then added to the cumulative present worth.The cumulative present worth calculated for each commun- ity for the years 1987-2034 are used in the Benefit cost ratios for alternative comparison. The benefits and costs attributable to the three expansion plans were further refined by the addition of estimated communi- cation system costs for new or upgraded communications facili- ties required for each expansion plan.Table 7-11 shows the estimate costs of the communication facilities.An estimate of the transmission system losses attributable to each expansion was also included in the detailed analysis of the plans.Table 7-12 is a tabulation of losses for each of the expansion plans. The information in the table gives the estimated energy losses for each category of loss,and the estimated total annual losses.For analysis of the three expansion plans,these losses were taken into account by reducing the amount of energy generation assumed to be available from System Hydro plants or, in the case of Quartz Hill connected to B.C.Hydro,by assuming an equivalent increase in load center demand. Energy Allocation Procedure.To meet the annual energy requirements in each load center,the following procedure was used: 1.All Local hydro energy sources available at a load center are assumed to be utilized first. 2.To meet hydropower and transmission outages,peaking requirements and voltage regulation needs,a 5%mini- mum diesel energy generation is assumed for each load center. 3.If a load center is intertied to System Hydropower project(s),the hydro energy available is used to meettheloadcenter's energy demand not met by Nos.1 and 2 above.The hydro energy available from System proj- ect(s)was assumed to be be shared between all load centers connected with the project(s)in proportion to their unfulfilled energy requirements.For cost allocation purposes,transmission and O&M costs were assumed to be shared in proportion to the energy delivered in each load center.For example,if Snettisham is intertied to Juneau,Greens Creek, Hoonah,Tenakee and Sitka,the energy available fromSnettishamandallassociatedcostswouldbeshared 7-22 Table 7-11 ESTIMATED COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS COSTS Estimated Costs In $Millionsl/ Route Segment Pian A Plan B Plan C Plan D Snettisham-Juneau2/---- Juneau-Green's Creek $-3/.$0.2 $-3/S -3/ Green's Creek-Hoonah NA 0.2 NA NA Hoonah-Tenakee Springs NA 0.2 NA NA Tenakee Springs-Sitka NA 0.2 NA NA Snettisham-Kake NA NA 2.5 NA Kake-Sitka NA NA NA 2.0 Kake- Petersburg NA NA 0.2 0.2 Peterburg-Wrangell-Tyee2/--0.4 0.4 Tyee-Swan Lake 0.2 0.2 0.2 NA Swan Lake-Ketchikan2/---- Swan Lake-Quartz Hill NA NA -3/NA Quartz Hill-Kitsault,B.C.4/2.0 2.0 NA 2.0 Total Estimated Cost 2.2 3.0 3.3 4.6 (January 1987 price level) 1/Costs based on estimated communication system costs presentedin"Southeast Alaska Intertie DC Transmission System," Teshmont Consultants,Inc.November 1982. 2/Existing system assumed adequate,or upgraded as indicated. 3/Cost of assumed leased telephone communications system included in O&M costs. 4/U.S.facilities only. Table 7-12 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SYSTEM LOSSES FOR EXPANSION PLANS A,B,C,AND Dl/ (In MWh per Year) AC DC AC Cable bc Total System Cable Dielectric Convertor System Expansion Plan Losses Losses Losses Losses Losses Plan A -North 1,330 0 640 0 1,970 Plan A -South 1,025 0 2,616 2,3082/5,949 Total Plan A 2,355 0 3,256 2,308 7,919 Plan B -North 1,317 0 1,253 0 2,570 Plan B -South 1,056 0 2,478 2,3082/5,848 Total Plan B 2,373 0 3,731 2,308 8,412 Plan C 2,780 271 4,263 1,154 8,468 Plan D -North 1,330 0 640 0 1,970 Plan D -Central 323 74 2,527 1,154 4,078 Plan D -South 312 .0 0 2,308 2,620 Total Plan D 1,965 74 -C«3,167 3,462 8,668 V/Medium load forecast,year 2006 demand. 2/Quartz Hill-Kitsault losses of 2,308 MWh/year are for U.S.converter station only. among these five load centers,in proportion to each load center's Snettishan energy use. 4.If a load center was assumed intertied to a Canadian generation source,the Canadian energy was used to meet the energy demand not met by Nos.1,2,and 3 above.As in No.3,the Canadian energy available and the associated costs were shared among all load cen- ters intertied to Canadian generation. 5.If the annual energy requirement of the load center is not met by Nos.1,2,3,and 4 above,then additional diesel generation was assumed to be required. An example of the results of the energy allocation for Expansion Plan C,year 2006 medium load forecast,is shown in Table 7-13. 7-23 Load Center Skagway Haines Green's Creek Juneau Hoonah Kake Sitka Angoon Tenakee Springs Petersburg Wrangell Ketchikan Quartz Hill Prince of Wales Is. Metlakatla Total Table 7-13 ENERGY ALLOCATION YEAR 2006 -EXPANSION PLAN C 7-24 Diesel Energy Local Gener-S.E.Canadian Demand Hydro tion Hydro Hydro(MWhy ThWhy (MWh)(MWh)(MWh) 6,500 2,940 3,560 0 0 10,200 0 10,200 0 0 26,061 0 5,540 20,521 0 272,400 60,000 47,639 164,761 0 5,887 0 5,887 0 0 3,500 0 744 2,756 0 146,100 103,000 43,100 0 0 3,116 0 3,116 0 0 451 0 451 0 0 37,600 10,000 6,282 21,318 0 24,800 0 5,272 19,528 0 191,800 62,700 30,043 99,057 0 250,300 0 53,209 197,091 0 23,280 0 23,280 0 0 24,600 22,150 2,450 0 _0 1,026,595 260,790 240,773 525,032 0 Results of the Economic Analysis Base Case Expansion Plan The Base Case,which represents system expansion by the addition of diesel generation,with only the existing intertie connections,is used as the basis of comparison of the alterna- tive intertie expansion plans.The following table lists the Cumulative present worth for each load center under the Base Case scenario. Table 7-14 BASE CASE EXPANSION PLAN PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY 50 Year Cumulative Load Center Present Worth ($x 10°) Skagway 11,169 Haines 30,604 Green's Creek 33,962 Juneau 58,134 Hoonah 18,745 Kake 12,141 Sitka 96,393 Angoon 10,512 Tenakee 1,571 Petersburg/Wrangell 20,136 Ketchikan 80,757 Quartz Hill 448,295 Prince of Wales Is.56,722 Metlakatla 11,225 Total 890,365 Intertie Expansion Plan A Intertie Expansion A has an overall B/C ratio of 1.25 when compared to the Base Case Plan.As Table 7-15 reveals,theQuartzHillinterconnection(importing B.C.Hydro energy)has a definate advantage,with a B/C ratio of 1.47 when compared to the cost of supplying its own diesel generation.The Swan Lake-Tyee Lake intertie has an optimum B/C ratio of 1.23,whentheSwanLake-Tyee intertie begins operation in the year 2002.The Juneau-Green's Creek intertie (34.5 kV)has a B/C ratio of 1.26,assuming 1990 to be its on-line year. Without the B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill interconnection (Quartz Hill on-site diesel),the overall B/C ratio for Expansion Plan A would drop to 1.04.Considering all Southeast Alaska except Quartz Hill,Expansion Plan A has a B/C ratio of 1.09. Table 7-15 INTERTIE EXPANSION PLAN A SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Diesel Expansion Base Case Plan A Interconnected Cumulative Cumulative B/C Load Centers (Year)Present Worth Present Worth Ratio ($x 1,000)(S*x 71,00) Juneau-Green's Creek (1990)90,096 73,086 1.26 Petersburg-Wrangell- Wrangell-Ketchikan (2002)100,893 82,010 1.23 Quartz Hill-B.C.Hydro (1995)448,295 305,537 1.47 Total S.E.Alaska with B.C.Hydro. to Quartz Hill 890,365 709,716 1.25 Total S.E.Alaska without B.C.Hydro to Quartz Hill 890,365 852,747 1.04 Total S.E.Alaska except Quartz Hill 442,070 404,179 1.09 Intertie Expansion Plan B Table 7-16 summarizes the results of the analysis of Inter- tie Expansion Plan B.The intertie to Sitka from Juneau via Green's Creek,Hoonah,and Tenakee Springs has an optimum B/C ratio of 1.13,when the 69 kV Juneau-Green's Creek intertie begins operation in the year 1990 and the remaining intertiesbeginoperationintheyear2003.As mentioned in the discus-sion of the screening analysis results,the incremental segments of this Plan are too expensive for the small load demands at Hoonah,and Tenakee,but the savings at Sitka is large enough to 7-26 compensate for the losses that would have existed at each of the other load centers.The required 69 kV Juneau-Green's Creek connection has a B/C ratio of 1.07. The Petersburg-Wrangell-Ketchikan interconnection has a B/C ratio of 1.23 when the Swan-Tyee intertie begins operation in the year 2000. Quartz Hill supplied by B.C.Hydro has the same cost and B/C ratio (1.47)for Expansion Plan B as it does in Expansion Plan A.The Total S.E.Alaska B/C ratio for Intertie Expansion Plan B is 1.26 with the Quartz Hill intertie to B.C.Hydro and 1.05 with Quartz Hill supplied by on-site diesel generation. Excluding Quartz Hill,the Plan B B/C ratio for S.E.Alaska is 1.11. Table 7-16 INTERTIE EXPANSION PLAN B SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Diesel Base Expansion Plan B Interconnected Case Cumulative Cumulative B/C Load Centers (Year)Present Worth Present Worth Ratio (S$x 1,000)($*x 1,000) Juneau-Green's Creek (1990)92,096 86,392 1.07 Juneau-Green's Creek- Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka (2003)208,805 184,982 1.13 Petersburg-Wrangell- Ketchikan (2002)100,893 82,010 1.23 Quartz Hil1-B.C.Hydro (1995)448,295 305,537 1.47 Total S.E.Alaska with B.C.Hydro to Quartz Hill 890,365 704,905 -1.26 Total S.E.Alaska without B.C.Hydro to Quartz Hill 890,365 847,663 1.05 Total S.E.Alaska except Quartz Hill 442,070 399,368 1.11 7-27 Intertie Expansion Plan C Explansion Plan C can be viewed as an interconnection of the Green's Creek and Quartz Hill mines with the Tyee and Snettisham projects.The assumed commencement dates of mining operations in this expansion plan dictate the required on-line dates for the transmission interconnections.As shown in Table 7-17 the assumed dates are 1990 for Green's Creek and 1995 for Quartz Hill. The B/C ratio for the interconnected load centers for Intertie Expansion Plan C is 1.31.For all S.E.Alaska the B/C ratio of Plan C is 1.21.Since this plan would not be viable without Quartz Hill no B/C ratio for Total S.E.Alaska except Quartz Hill was calculated. Table 7-17 INTERTIE EXPANSION PLAN C SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Diesel Expansion Base Case Plan C Interconnected Cumulative Cumulative B/C Load Centers (Year)Present Worth Present Worth Ratio (S$x 1,000)($x 1,000) Green's Creek Juneau- Kake-Petersburg- Wrangell -Ketchikan- Quartz Hill (1995)653,425 497,759 1.31 Total S.E.Alaska 890,365 734,700 1.21 Intertie Expansion Plan D As shown in Table 7-18,Intertie Expansion Plan D,which includes a Sitka-Tyee interconnection rather than Tyee-Swan Lake(Ketchikan),has a B/C ratio for all S.E.Alaska load centers of 1.23.As before (Plans A and B)the Juneau-Green's Creek inter- tie and the Quartz Hill-B.C.Hydro line have B/C ratios of 1.27 and 1.47,resepctively.The Sitka-Tyee interconnection,how- ever,is only marginally feasible,with a B/C ratio of 1.03.Furthermore,without Quartz Hill,the all Southeast Alaska B/C ratio for Expansion Plan B decreases to 1.06. Table 7-18 INTERTIE EXPANSION PLAN D SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Diesel Expansion Base Case Plan C Interconnected Cumulative Cumulative B/C Load Centers (Year)Present Worth Present Worth -Ratio (S$x 1,000)(S$x 1,000) Juneau-Green's Creek (1990)92,096 72,546 1.27 Sitka-Kake-Petersburg- Wrangell (2006)128,670 124,571 1.03 Quartz Hill-B.C. Hydro (1995)448,295 305,537 1.47 Total S.E.Alaska with B.C.Hydro to Quartz Hill 890,365 723,958 1.23 Total S.E.Alaska without B.C.Hydro to Quartz Hill 890,365 866,716 1.03 Total S.E.Alaska except Quartz Hill 442,070 418,421 1.06 Summary of Results Based on these results,the following observations are made: e Utilizing the surplus Snettisham/Crater Lake hydro generation at Green's Creek is economically attractive. e Utilizing the surplus Snettisham/Crater Lake hydrogenerationbyinterconnectingJuneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee-Sitka is also economically attractive. e A Petersburg-Kake-Sitka connection,which would uti-lize the surplus energy generation of Tyee,is only marginally feasible. 7-29 e A Swan Lake-Tyee connection,which would enable Ketchikan to utilize the surplus from Tyee Lake is economically attractive. e A Snettisham-Kake-Petersburg-Tyee Lake-Swan Lake- Quartz Hill interconnection would utilize all surplus S.E.Hydro electric energy presently developed and is economically feasible. e A Quartz Hill interconnection with B.C.Hydro,without an intertie to Swan Lake is very attractive. Based on these observations,Expansion Plan B,which has separate interconnections of (1)Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah- Tenakee Springs-Sitka,(2)Petersburg-Wrangell-Ketchikan via Tyee-Swan Lake,and (3)Quartz Hill-BC.Hydro,is the selected expansion plan.This plan is the most economic plan,based on the assumptions present herein,with and without Quartz Hill. It would utilize almost all of the surplus energy available from the Tyee and Snettisham/Crater Lake hydroelectric developments to satisfy the load demand in Hoonah,Tenakee Springs,Sitka and Ketchikan as well as the Green's Creek Mine.Further,implemen- tation of the Snettisham and Tyee subsystems will not be depen- dant on development of Quartz Hill Mine but will proceed as load growth in the community load centers dictate. Sensitivity Analyses A sensitivity analysis of the impacts of variations in the following major economic parameters on Expansion Plan B were performed: Discount rate Fuel price forecast Electric load demand forecast Intertie on-line date Table 7-19 shows the sensitivity analysis results for Expansion Plan B (Northern System)and Total S.E.Alaska. Sensitivity to Discount Rate Under a variation in the discount rate,the cumulative worths of the Base Case Expansion Plan and Expansion Plan Bdecreaseasthediscountrateincreases.However,the relative variation between the two scenarios is very slight.As shown in Table 7-19,the B/C ratio of the interconnected Northern Systemcommunitiesata4.5%discount rate remains at 1.13 and theTotalS.E.B/C ratio remains at 1.26. 7-30 Table 7-19 RESULTS OF THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSES INTERCONNECTION:Expansion Plan B (Northern System) Juneau-Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee Springs-Sitka Loadl/Fuel2/Discount Base Case M M 3.50%208,805 M M 4.50%173,480 M H 3.50%236,074 M L 3.50%181,534 H M 3.50%319,916 L M 3.50%130,996 INTERCONNECTION:Expansion Plan B Total S.E.Alaska Loadl/Fue12/Discount Base Case M M 3.50%890,365 M M 4.50%726,642 M H 3.50%1,014,260 M L 3.50%766,471 H M 3.50%1,737,301 L M 3.50%644,467 /H-High,M-Medium,L-Low /H-High,M-Mean,L-Low Sensitivity to Fuel Price Forecast Expansion Plan B B/C Ratio 184,982 1.13 153,294 1.13 195,314 1.21 174,655 1.04 226,226 1.41 165,576 0.79 Expansion Plan B B/C Ratio 704,905 1.26 578,373 1.26 798,944 1.27 670,747 1.14 1,295,484 1.34 582,185 1.11 Under the high fuel price forecast the B/C ratio of the Northern System interconnected load centers of Plan B rises from 1.13 to 1.21.Under the low fuel price forecast it drops to 1.04.The overall B/C ratio for Expansion Plan B increases from 1.26 to 1.27 under the high fuel price forecast,and drops to 1.14 under the low fuel price forecast. the results. 7-31 Table 7-19 summarizes Sensitivity to Electric Load Demand Forecast As shown in Table 7-19,for the Expansion Plan B,Northern System communities,the B/C ratio increases from 1.13 to 1.41 under the high load demand forecast.Under the low load demand forecast,however,the Northern System is not economically feasible,having a B/C of 0.76. Expansion Plan B,Total S.E.Alaska,is less sensitive to load growth,having B/C ratios of 1.34 for the high load fore- cast and 1.11 for the low load forecast. Sensitivity to On-Line Date The year in which each segment of Intertie Expansion Plan B would come on-line was varied to determine the combination of dates with the highest overall S.E.B/C ratio.The optimum dates,based on the load forecasts and assumptions stated herein are as follows: Optimum Transmission Segment On-line Year Juneau-Green's Creek (69 kV)1990 Green's Creek-Hoonah-Tenakee Springs-Sitka 2003 Tyee-Swan Lake .2002 Quartz Hill-B.C.Hydro 1995 7-32 Chapter 8 THE MOST ECONOMIC PLAN Description Expansion Plan B is the most economic Southeast Intertie plan identified under the assumptions of this study.As shown on Figure 8-1,the plan consists of interconnections of the Snettisham/Crater Lake Development with Sitka at 69 kV via Juneau,Green's Creek,Hoonah,and Tenakee Springs;Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan via a 138 kV Tyee Lake-Swan Lake inter- tie;and a transmission line from B.C.Hydro at Kitsault to the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine.The selected routings for the required transmission line segments for Plan B are given in Chapter 6. Table 8-1 shows the required line terminations for the Most Economic Plan. Table 8-1 LINE TERMINATIONS Substation Location Year Requirements Juneau 1990 69 kV Expansion Green's Creek 1990 69 kV 2003 69 kV Expansion Hoonah 2003 69 kV Expansion Tenakee Springs 2003 69 kV Expansion Sitka 2003 69 kV Expansion Petersburg NA None Wrangell NA None Tyee Lake 2002 138 kV Expansion Swan Lake .2002 138 kV Expansion Ketchikan NA None Quartz Hill -100 kV DC Converter FIGURE 8-1 \HAINES 69KV SS JUNEAU$.HOONAH $23.44 GREENS CREEK SNETTISHAM-. CRATER LAKE TENAKEE SPRINGS @ Ancoon SITKA 8 PETERSBURG KAKE WRANGELL ”.\L TYEE LAKE o PRINCE zLEGEND:OF WALES < ISLAND SWAN@-toad centers:r.)LAKE ; ©)-GENERATION souRcES SGKET wees -EXISTING T/LINE CHIKAN J ooky DC (BIPOLAR)=(2) ===-PROPOSED T/LINE .o QUARTZ 13eKy _VOLTAGE METLAKATLA $413 $COST(MILLIONS)-KITSAULT HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY NN SKAGWAY @&.-N .WHITEHORSE™ 1s) u s OCTOBER 1987 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SOUTHEAST INTERTIE STUDY MOST ECONOMIC PLAN Costs Table 8-2 shows the estimated cost of the Most Economic Plan.The costs shown include a contingency allowance of about 20%on all but submarine cable manufacturing costs,and an engi-neering and owners cost allowance of about 17.5 percent.Opera-tion and maintenance costs are estimated to be 1.0 percent of Original installation costs or about $1.5 million per year, including the cost of the manned DC converter station. Implementation As a part of the economic analyses performed the optimum year of initial operation was established for each segment of the Expansion Plan B transmission system.Based on the medium load forecast these are as follows: Optimum Year of Segment Initial Operation Juneau-Green's Creek 1990 Green's Creek-Sitka 2003 Tyee Lake-Swan Lake 2002B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill 1995 (assumed year of initial mine operation) As indicated above,the most immediate attention should be given to studies to support the implementation of the Juneau- Green's Creek transmission segment,followed by Tyee-Swan Lake and Green's Creek-Sitka.Studies of the B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill segment should be scheduled as necessary to support planning for mining operations. In advance of detailed engineering and design of the trans- mission facilities the following engineering studies should be undertaken: 1.Juneau-Green's Creek Intertie Definite Project Report. A detailed feasibility study of the proposed 69 kv interconnection of Alaska Electric Light &Power's system on Douglas Island with Green's Creek Mine should be undertaken.The study should include a preliminary route survey,an assessment of foundation conditions along the proposed route,an environmental assessment,a detailed financial analysis including input from AEL&P,the Alaska Power Administration and Green's Creek Mining Company,and preparation of a definite project report.Consideration may be given to designing the line for 69 kV (to facilitate its future extension to Sitka)but operating it initially at 34.5 kV.Because the submarine cable survey con- 8-2 Table 8-2 MOST ECONOMIC PLAN ---SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE (Cost in $Thousands) 1/U.S.facilities only. 2/Included in Account No.355 above. FERC Juneau Green's Crk.Tyee Lake B.C.Hydro Account to to to to No.Item Green's Crk.Sitka Swan Lake Quartz Hilll/fTotal 350 Land and Land Rights 160 680 350 170 1,360 353 Station Equipment 1,350 3,810 5,560 19,050 29,770 355 Poles and Fixtures 2,830 13,900 9,040 4,260 30,030 356 *Overhead ConductorsandDevices2 ----- 358 Underground Conductors and Devices 9,570 24,610 1,460 2,970 38,610 359 Roads and Trails (Clearing)880 4,200 4,240 1,710 11,030 -Communications Systems 200 600 200 2,000 3,000 Subtotal Direct Cost 14,990 47,800 20,850 30,160 113,800 Contingencies 2,250 7,120 4,010 5,420 18,800 Subtotal Construction Cost 17,240 54,920 24,860 35,580 132,600 Engineering and Owners Cost 2,450 8,150 4,240 5,710 20,550 Total Cost January 1987 Price Level 19,690 63,070 29,100 41,290 153,150 ducted in 1986 indicated a feasible route,no addi- tional submarine surveys appear to be necessary to support the detailed feasibility study of this inter- connection. Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie Definite Project Report.A detailed feasibility study of the Tyee-Swan Lake interconnection should be undertaken.The studyshouldincludeapreliminaryroutesurvey,an assess- ment of foundation conditions along the proposed route,an environmental assessment,detailed financial analysis and the preparation of a definite project report. Green's Creek-Sitka Routing Studies.Additional pre- liminary studies are required to establish the route for this transmission segment.Studies performed should include comparisons of various alternative routes between the load centers,assessment of the potential environmental impacts of alternative routes and subsequent verification of proposed submarine cable crossings by side-scan sonar survey.These studies should be followed by detailed feasibility studies of the selected route including financial analysis. Studies to support the required permit applications listed below. Required Permits Table 8-3 lists the permits and regulation which may apply for implementation of the Expansion Plan B transmission facili- The list includes the temporary permits which would be required by installation contractors as well as the general project permits. 8-3 Table 8-3 PRINCIPAL PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED Agency State of Alaska Alaska Office of Management and Budget Alaska Dept.of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Department of Trans- portation &Public Fac. Permit/Regulatory Requirements Coastal Management Program Certificate of Consistency and Coastal Project Questionnaire Air Quality Permit to Open Burn Water Quality Certification (Clean Water Act Section 401) Solid Waste Disposal Permit Food Service Permit Wastewater Disposal Permit Plan Review for Sewerage System or Water &Waste- water Treatment Anadromous Fish Protection Permits (Title 16) Land Use Permits (state land) Water Rights Permit and Certificate of Appropria- tion Right-of-way Easements and Licenses (state lands) Material Sales Permit Permit to Burn Notification of Operation Timber Harvest-Private Lands Utility Permit (on State ROW) Table 8-3 (cont'd) PRINCIPAL PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED Agency Permit/Regulatory Requirement Federal Department of Energy @e Presidential Permit (for National Marine Fisheries ® Corps of Engineers e U.S.Forest Service e Environmental Protection Agency e Federal Aviation Administration e Federal Communication Commission e Native Corporations e City &Borough e i/Includes clearance from StateOffice. B.C.Hydro-Quartz Hill only) Letter on consultation for Sec.7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 10,Rivers and Harbors Act,Section 404, Clean Water Act ANILCA Review Special Use Permitl//Environmental ImpactAnalysis? Cultural Resource Survey ROW Timber Sales Agreement ANILCA Review National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations Systems Notice of Proposed Construc- tion 7460-1 Permit Radio License and permit to Operate Easements Planning &Zoning Review and Easements ° Historic Preservation 2/Environmental Analysis refers to NEPA requirements foreitherenvironmentalassessmentorenvironmentalimpact statement,depending on perceived impacts. 8-5 ae oy ny :4 ' voy « ' t fay _mo Bibliog rap . > N wn det é . ' e at * ' t ' ' hy BIBLIOGRAPHY Acres International Corp.1986.Evaluation of Corridor Alter- natives.Juneau Access (Lynn/Taku Corridor).Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan.March 1986. Acres International Corp.1986.Evaluation of Corridor Alter- natives.Sitka Access.Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan.March 1986. Acres International Corp.1986.Evaluation of Surface System Alternatives.Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan.April 1986. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. November 1984.Reconnaissance Study -Stikine Highway Access:Project No.A87221. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. January 1986.Supplemental Reconnaissance Study --Brad- field Canal Route Project No.6/439. Alaska Economic Inc.,1982.Economic and Energy Load Forecast - City of Kake. APA (Admin)/Environaid,November 1981.Environmental Scoping of Snettisham/Ketchikan Transmission System. APA (Admin)/Harstad Assoc.,Inc.1980.Snettisham-Ketchikan Transmission System -Preliminary Feasibility Design. Alaska Power Authority.1985.Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1984.Tenth Edition.December 1985. APA/Ebasco.1984.Tyee-Kake Intertie:Final Feasibility Report and Recommendation:Vol I and Vol II. APA/Harza.1982.Chester Lake Project Feasibility Report. APA/Harza/CH2MHill.1981.Black Bear Lake Hydro Project - Feasibility Report. APA/International Engineering Company,Inc.December 1979. Definite Project Report -Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project. APA/OTT Water Engineers.1982.City of Sitka Alternative Energy Study/Final Report. APA/Retherford.1981.Transmission Intertie,Kake-Petersburg, Alaska -A Reconnaissance Report. APA/R.W.Beck and Associates,Inc.December 1983.Haines- Skagway Region Feasibility Study,Volume 1 -4. APA/R.W.Beck and Associates,Inc.September 1983.Preliminary Forecasts of Energy Requirements for Copper Valley Electric Association,Ketchikan,Kodiak Electric Association, Petersburg and Wrangell. Applied Economics Associates,Inc.1979.The Rate of Electric Power in the Southeast Alaska Energy Economy.Phase I. March 1979, City and Borough of Juneau.1984.The Comprehensive Plan,City and Borough of Juneau,Alaska.April 1984. City and Borough of Juneau.Planning Dept.1985.Juneau Coastal Management Program.Conceptually Approved Draft. November 1985. City and Borough of Sitka.1983.Sitka Coastal Management Program.April 1983. Community and Systems Analysis.1983.Skagway Coastal Manage- ment Program.August 1983. Environmental Services Limited.1980.City of Haines Coastal Management Plan.Adopted January 16,1980. FMS Engineers.1983.Whitehorse-Skagway Transmission Line Feasibility Study.Report to Northern Canada Power Commis- Sion.September 1983. Hoonah Planning and Zoning Commission.1984.Hoonah Coastal Management Program.June 1984. International Technology Limited.1986.Alaska Power Authority Hydrographic Survey Data Processing for Southeast AlaskaInterties.January 1986. Ketchikan Gateway Borough,Planning Department.Atlas of the Ketchikan Region. Ketchikan Gateway Borough,Planning Department.1983. Ketchikan District Coastal Management Program. NOAA/APA/International Technology.January 1986.Interpreta- tion and Processing of Hydrographic Data Between Mountain Point -Smeaton Bay and Port Simpson. Nordata Service.1986.West Mandenhall Valley Greenbelt Plan. City and Borough of Juneau,Alaska.November 1986. Northern Canada Power Commission/FMS Engineers.September 1983. Whitehorse-Skagway Transmission Line Feasibility Study. Pacific Rim Planners.Inc.1979.Annette Islands.Coastal Management Program.September 1979. Quadra Engineering,Inc.1984.Kake Coastal Management Program. Concept Approved,June 1984. R.W.Retherford Assoc./APA.1977.Hydroelectric Potential for Angoon,Craig,Hoonah,Hydaburg,Kake,Kasaan,Klawock, Klukwan,Pelican,Yakutat:Preliminary Appraisal.Report. U.S.Department of Agriculture and Forest Service.Tongass Land Management Plan --Amendments,Winter 1985-86. Teshmont Consultants,APA (Admin.)November 1982.Southeast Alaska Intertie DC Transmission System,Reconnaissance Design and Cost Estimate. U.S.Department of Agriculture and Forest Service.Tongass Land Management Plan:Environmental Assessment for Plan Amend- ments. United States Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, Administrative Document.Environmental Impact Statement (Draft)-Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project Mine Development. U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Alaska Region. Tongass Land Management Plan:Final Environmental State- ment Part I and Part II. U.S.Department of Agriculture.Tongass National Forest. Environmental Assessment East Carroll Management Area. U.S.Department of Agriculture.Tongass National Forest,- Chatham and Stikine Areas 1986.1986-90 Operating Period for Alaska Pulp Corporation Long-Term Sale Area.Final Environmental Impact Statement.November 1986.Vol.I, Vol.II,Vol.III. U.S.Department of 1983.Alaska Energy.Alaska Power Administration.August Electric Power Statistics.1960-1982. Department of Juneau-Hoonah Energy -APA (Admin.)December 1981. Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. Department of Interior.Bureau of Land Management. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.1977. Climatic Atlas of the Outer Continental Shelf Waters and Coastal Regions of Alaska.