The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017 Transmission Published ArticleAn Alaska case study: Electrical transmission Luis Miranda, Marc Mueller-Stoffels, and Erin Whitney Citation: Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017); View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4986582 View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/rse/9/6 Published by the American Institute of Physics Articles you may be interested in An Alaska case study: Diesel generator technologies Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061701 (2017); 10.1063/1.4986585 Preface: Technology and cost reviews for renewable energy in Alaska: Sharing our experience and know-how Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061501 (2017); 10.1063/1.5017516 An Alaska case study: Solar photovoltaic technology in remote microgrids Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061704 (2017); 10.1063/1.4986577 Wind power project size and component costs: An Alaska case study Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061703 (2017); 10.1063/1.4986579 An Alaska case study: Energy storage technologies Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061708 (2017); 10.1063/1.4986580 An Alaska case study: Cost estimates for integrating renewable technologies Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 9, 061709 (2017); 10.1063/1.4986581 An Alaska case study: Electrical transmission Luis Miranda,Marc Mueller-Stoffels,and Erin Whitney Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 755910, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5910, USA (Received 6 June 2017; accepted 2 September 2017; published online 8 December 2017) Electrical transmission lines in Alaska vary from overhead to submarine to underground installations. Analysis indicates that overhead transmission lines are the least expensive to build, ranging from $100000 to $400000/mile. Cost variability is inﬂuenced by pole spacing, pole heights, line ratings, river crossings, and the amount of work on energized power lines. Submarine lines and underground lines are substantially more expensive than overhead lines, ranging from less than $3000000 to more than $4500000/mile although there is some uncertainty in the datasets. When broken down by major cost components, the cost category including materials, construction, and installation comprises just over half of the total costs, with remaining costs distributed among the control system, substation, switchyard, road clearance, indirect costs, and contingencies. Operation and maintenance costs range from $2800/mile to $4200/mile, with an average of $3560/mile. Expected lifetimes are 20–30years. In general, the transmission technology market is not as dynamic as other energy markets. Financing and initiatives to encourage interties may create bigger loads and economies of scale. Published by AIP Publishing.https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4986582 INTRODUCTION Electrical transmission is a good example of the unique challenges within the state of Alaska. [The term transmission line is used loosely in the context of this paper, not with the typical distinction made between transmission (>138kV) and distribution (<138kV) line, because many “transmission” projects in remote Alaska operate at voltages typically attributed to distribution systems due to the low power levels transmitted.] Alaska is by far the least densely populated state in the United States with fewer than two people per square mile (1.3 in 2015) according to the U.S. Census, distant from the second least densely populated state, Wyoming (6.0 in 2015). Numerous relatively small villages are isolated from each other, some- times by hundreds of miles, with no other settlement between them. The electrical grids for these villages are often disconnected from other communities. These conditions mean that connecting two communities may force work crews to go further and further away from each community, with minimal infrastructure at best. In addition, work crews must construct and maintain purposely built access roads in severe weather conditions, such as in extreme cold and wind, and across permafrost in sometimes-rugged terrain. This review of electrical transmission in Alaska is a result of Alaska Senate Bill (SB) 138. In this bill, the Alaska State Legislature created an uncodiﬁed section of law entitled: “Plan and Recommendations to the Legislature on Infrastructure Needed to Deliver Affordable Energy of the State to Areas That Do Not Have Direct Access to a (proposed) North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline.” To support the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in its development of an Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy, the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) contracted with AEA to document technology development needs speciﬁc to Alaska with regard to renewable and sustainable energy technologies. The intention was to determine what targeted, energy tech- nology development solutions could be implemented in Alaska to make energy more affordable in the Alaska Affordable Energy Study area. While the focus was on technology research 1941-7012/2017/9(6)/061702/9/$30.00 Published by AIP Publishing.9, 061702-1 JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 9, 061702 (2017) solutions, other factors such as logistics, labor, and training were also addressed. Drafts of tech- nology reviews were vetted by expert roundtables in late February and early March 2016. These reviews are not meant to be exhaustive discussions of energy technologies in Alaska or proper designs for each technology, and they should not be used as guides for the choice and installation of speciﬁc systems. As such, not all possible issues with power production and each technology are addressed. Data for each technology were collected from surveys and pub- lically available databases. Only completed projects, or projects with clearly reported data, were included in each technology analysis. These distinctions and descriptions of data sources are included in each technology review. METHODS This document contains a brief statistical analysis based exclusively on the data of applica- tions to the State of Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF), Rounds 1–8 (Alaska Power & Telephone Company (2012),Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (2012),Kootznoowoo Incorporated (2011),Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (2008a,2008b), Metlakatla Indian Community (2011),Metlakatla Indian Community (2012),Metlakatla Indian Community (2013),Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (2008), and Upper Tanana Energy, LLC (2014)). Variability in application styles and total project scope caused a disparate dataset, which resulted in signiﬁcant uncertainty. Budget items could not be compared in exhaustive detail. Thus, the applications considered include those that contained both a budget for a transmission project and the corresponding distance. Furthermore, in some parts of this analysis, only projects exclusively proposing transmission were considered, meaning that data from applications containing both transmission and generation could not be considered. Note that only 18 projects were found to specify the required data. All these projects are listed in the References section along with an active web link to the respective source of data. Comparisons with high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission cost estimates are included at the end of this report. DISCUSSION Capital costs Figure 1 distinguishes transmission costs by line type (overhead, submarine, and under- ground). To calculate the costs shown in Fig.1, the control system, indirect costs (engineering, survey, permitting, etc.), substation, switchyard, road clearance, and contingencies are excluded and therefore not mixed with transmission construction costs. The objective is to provide some abstraction from the speciﬁc terrain conditions. Not all projects give detailed budget FIG. 1. Simpliﬁed direct cost of different types of transmission lines. Cost includes only that of the materials, installation, and construction. The y-axis is presented on a logarithmic scale. An overhead transmission line is the least expensive to build and most widely used. 061702-2 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) breakdowns, making it impossible to separate the abovementioned budget items from the total cost of the project. Overhead line transmission cost An overhead line installation is typically a single pole line, frequently including a 24- strand ﬁber optic cable mounted on a wooden pole. Figure 1 illustrates that an overhead trans- mission line is the least expensive line to build. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that almost all the projects use an overhead transmission line. Differences in costs by line type are accentuated in Alaska due to the remoteness of job sites, lack of connecting infrastructure, extreme weather conditions, poor terrain conditions, extended permitting, and a harsh competing environment for the reduced specialized labor available. These differences are indicated in NANA Paciﬁc (2008)by identifying two distinct scenarios: one that is more closely related to the Lower 48 or the Railbelt region and the other that indicates the case of rural Alaska. According to the North Slope Borough (2010), which cites several contractors, the cost for an overhead line per mile can range from $150000 to $500000, which is consistent with plot- ted data in Fig.2. On the other hand, the City and Borough of Sitka (2009;2010) report a cost of $2000000/ mile. Since these speciﬁed data points as well as those of the Borough and Municipality of Skagway (2008)are more than 1.5 interquartile ranges above the third quartile, they were con- sidered outliers and therefore removed. No other outliers were present in the dataset. Figure 2 does not show a clear relationship between the length of the transmission line and the cost per mile. In fact, the North Slope Borough (2010)reports that longer lengths can result in higher cost mostly due to the time lost to get crews to the job sites. To overcome this time loss, the North Slope Borough suggests a travelling construction camp. Another factor that could greatly inﬂuence cost is the line path terrain. Pole spacing, pole heights, line rating, number of river crossings, and amount of any “hot work,” that is, work on energized power lines, increase the cost variability within the dataset. Comparison of cost per mile estimates Black and Veatch (2011)reported sufﬁciently detailed cost breakdowns for 69kV lines to allow comparison of the values against the REF project application dataset. The general esti- mate by Black and Veatch increases by $2000000/mile for areas without roads due to the use of helicopter constructed self-supported steel poles with micropile foundations. Despite the reduced REF sample size, the corresponding estimate by Black and Veatch (2011)is close to the average of the REF dataset (Fig.3), which demonstrates that the process FIG. 2. Simpliﬁed direct cost of the overhead transmission line. Cost includes materials, installation, and construction. Costs for Sitka are excluded because of its outlier status but are addressed in the text. No clear relationship between the length of the transmission line and the cost per mile emerges for overhead transmission lines. 061702-3 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) of separation of costs as a means to achieving a better estimate removes some of the compo- nents that are subject to speciﬁc conditions, such as terrain. Estimates given by NANA Paciﬁc (2008)are more difﬁcult to compare with the available REF dataset because these estimates are relative to the total project cost, while the total values given by Black and Veatch (2011)exclude any road construction. The total project costs for the REF proposal dataset are calculated based on the total project cost in the case of overhead transmission projects. In the case of joint transmission and generation or transmission projects that include submarine or underground cable, the total cost is estimated using the average bud- get proportions for the budget sub-items shown in Table I. Figure 4 shows this comparison with NANA Paciﬁc estimates. In considering Fig.4, note that the range estimated by NANA Paciﬁc (2008)is a gradient between two cost scenarios, where the ﬁrst is the lower-cost scenario around the Alaska Railbelt and the second is in rural Alaska where installation and construction conditions are far from ideal and generally more costly. As most project applications in the REF dataset cover rural situations, the range is displayed with a gradient, the rural scenario in a darker tone. Considering the same line voltage as before (69kV), the Railbelt scenario costs around $200000/mile, while the rural scenario costs roughly $500000/mile. Despite the fact that only the estimates including road construction are from Black and Veatch (2011), the two general estimates do not contradict each other; they generally point to a smaller range of between $450000 and $500000. Geographical distribution of the overhead line transmission dataset The geographical distribution of the REF project dataset within Alaska is presented in Fig. 5. The map represents the approximate physical location, the line rating in kilovolts (kV), the FIG. 3. Simpliﬁed direct cost comparison for the overhead line between the dataset and Black and Veatch (2011). Cost includes only that of materials, installation, and construction. TABLE I. Major components of transmission line cost (includes labor and materials). Component Average among the dataset (%) Black and Veatch (2011)69 kV adjacent to the existing road (%) Transmission line (materials, construction, and installation) 51.6 69.0 Control system 6.9 … Indirect costs (engineering, surveys, staking, permitting, and admin) 9.8 12.6 Substation 2.9 … Switchyard 1.9 … Road clearance (roads and bridges) 13.8 1.7 Contingency 13.1 16.7 061702-4 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) total projected mileage, as well as the overall cost by thousands of dollars per mile. As is clearly shown, not only does the dataset have a reduced sample size, but the data points are also predominately within one region, Southeast Alaska. This region is known to have rather irregular terrain, which could account for some of the high variability in the overall cost per mile. Submarine line transmission cost Submarine line transmission is typically a three-phase line bundled with a 24-strand ﬁber optic cable, for communication purposes. Figure 6 plots these costs as a function of line length. The cost for submarine line transmission does appear to decrease as the total installed length increases. Linear regression does not yield statistically signiﬁcant results. However, note that the cost for submarine line transmission is considerably higher than that for overhead line transmission. FIG. 5. Geographic distribution of the REF overhead line dataset. Costs are in thousands of dollars/mile. Line ratings are indicated by colors (see the legend). FIG. 4. Comparison of total $/mile cost for the construction of an overhead transmission line. These costs are not the same as displayed in Fig.3, which only include materials, installation, and construction. The shaded area representing NANA Paciﬁc estimates is a range between the extremes of rural and Railbelt construction. 061702-5 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) One of the most curious cases is reported in D Hittle & Associates, Inc. (2009), where even in the same project with two different routes, the cost for submarine line transmission ranges from less than $3000000 to more than $4500000/mile. There are concerns about the accuracy of the budget for this project. Underground line transmission cost The underground line transmission dataset includes the data point with the highest overall cost/mile across all line types, at almost $9000000/mile. Note that these high values are from some of the projects that were considered outliers for overhead transmission, namely,City and Borough of Sitka (2009)and City and Borough of Sitka (2010). Apart from the costs in Southeast Alaska, the construction cost of underground transmis- sion lines can be even higher due to construction in permafrost conditions. However, the sam- ple size of underground transmission lines is too small to draw any substantial conclusions (see Fig.7 with only three data points). Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost For operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, only pure transmission projects are consid- ered, with no cases of joint transmission and generation. Otherwise, the O&M for generation would introduce unnecessary noise into the dataset. The relative proportions of the overhead, submarine, and underground lines do not seem to inﬂuence the cost for O&M. The majority of projects (8 out of 11) point to a narrow region, ranging from $2800 to $4200/mile and averag- ing $3560/mile. FIG. 6. Simpliﬁed direct cost of the submarine transmission line. Cost includes only that of materials, installation, and con- struction. Note the overall higher costs than for overhead line transmission. FIG. 7. Simpliﬁed direct cost of the underground line. Cost includes only that of materials, installation, and construction. 061702-6 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) Expected life To consider the expected life of transmission lines, we must ﬁlter the exclusively transmis- sion projects, similar to what was done in previous sections. Expected lifetimes have an almost binary distribution, with an equal number of projects (4) estimated at 20 and 30years. The exception is the Alaska Power Company (2011a,b,c), which estimates a 50-year expected life. Installed costs by major components Using data exclusively from transmission-only projects, we show in Table I the calculations of the average proportion of each project component relative to the overall project budget. Average proportions in the REF dataset are compared with the estimate given by Black and Veatch (2011). It is unclear if Black and Veatch included the control system, substation, and switchyard in the transmission line cost estimate; however, the indirect costs and the contin- gency costs are comparable to those of the REF dataset, with a primary difference being the category of “road clearance,” since the Black and Veatch estimate assumes that an adjacent road already exists. Technology trends In general, the transmission technology market is not as dynamic as other energy markets. The techniques used have been on the market for the last half-century, with updates only to 24- strand ﬁber optic cable for communication infrastructure. Refurbishment/upgrade market Since the life expectancy of transmission lines is 20 to 30years, the lines are usually replaced after that duration of time. Typically, by upgrading a line, the cost of clearing and building an access road is elimi- nated. According to D Hittle & Associates, Inc. (2009), road and clearing costs can be $200000/mile for forested areas and $230000/mile across muskeg. Based on these estimates, even if the cost to remove the old line and poles is added, signiﬁcant cost savings could be realized by upgrading the old line instead of building a new route. HVDC comments and cost estimate comparisons Lowering the cost of power transmission via high-voltage direct current (HVDC) has been suggested as an option for reducing and stabilizing the cost of delivering power to Alaska’s rural villages. Alternating current (AC) transmission is limited by high costs and line losses that increase with the transmission distance. Direct current (DC) transmission, in contrast, has fewer infrastructure requirements and lower line losses and can be economical over long distan- ces. Because AC power has been the dominant worldwide standard for generation and transmis- sion, the use of DC for power transmission requires conversion from and to AC in order to integrate it into the existing AC infrastructure. Large-scale HVDC systems of hundreds to thou- sands of megawatts which are designed to transmit large amounts of power across long distan- ces have been in use since the mid-twentieth century. However, the electrical demand of rural villages in Alaska is much smaller, typically less than 1MW. At this scale, existing HVDC technology is not available. Therefore, the development of small-scale HVDC systems, power converters, and multi-terminal networks is of critical need if HVDC technology is to be applied in rural Alaska (Alaska Center for Energy and Power, 2013). Life-cycle cost analysis indicates that 60 mile is about the intertie length at which HVDC becomes an economically attractive option (Alaska Center for Energy and Power, 2013). However, more empirical data for a small-scale HVDC intertie are needed for a more rigorous economic analysis. 061702-7 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) CONCLUSIONS Electrical transmission lines in Alaska vary from overhead to submarine to underground installations. Analysis indicates that overhead transmission lines are the least expensive to build, ranging from $100000 to $400000/mile. Cost variability is inﬂuenced by pole spacing, pole heights, line ratings, river crossings, and the amount of work on energized power lines. Submarine lines and underground lines are substantially more expensive than overhead lines, ranging from less than $3000000 to more than $4500000/mile, although there is some uncer- tainty in the datasets. When broken down by major cost components, the cost category including materials, con- struction, and installation comprises just over half of the total costs, with remaining costs dis- tributed among the control system, substation, switchyard, road clearance, indirect costs, and contingencies. Operation and maintenance costs range from $2800/mile to $4200/mile, with an average of $3560/mile. Expected lifetimes are 20–30years. In general, the transmission technol- ogy market is not as dynamic as other energy markets. Financing and initiatives to encourage interties may create bigger loads and economies of scale. Other cost drivers not explored in this work which may warrant future consideration include the impact of the limited construction season due to regional climatic conditions as well as the impact of labor constraints, in the form of competitive pressure on scarce skilled labor, on construction costs. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish tothank the Alaska Energy Authority for its funding tosupport this project. Many people have contributed information and insight to this report. For their review and comments, we wish to thank Joel Groves of Polar Consulting, David Burlingame of Electric Power Systems, Tom Lovas, Brent Petrie (AVEC, retired), Steve Gilbert of AVEC, and Kirk Warren and Neil McMahon of the Alaska Energy Authority. Alaska Center for Energy and Power,http://acep.uaf.edu/media/62339/ACEP-HVDC-Phase-2-Final-Report.pdf for Small- Scale High Voltage Direct Current: Lessons Learned Review of the Polarconsult HVDC Phase II Project with Recommendations for Future Research and Alaskan Applications. Prepared for The Denali Commission, 2013. Alaska Power Company,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%205/Applications/807_Connelly%20Lake%20Hydroelectric %20Project/Connelly%20Lake%20Hydro%20GrantApplication5%20Final.pdf for Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project, 2011a. Alaska Power Company,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%205/Applications/808_Reynolds%20Creek%20Hydro%20 Transmission%20Line/Reynolds%20Creek%20Transmission%20Line%20GrantApplication5%20Final.pdf for Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line, 2011b. Alaska Power Company,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%205/Applications/806_Upper%20Tanana%20Area%20Intertie %20Project/082211_Upper%20Tanana%20Area%20Intertie%20GrantApplication5%20Final.pdf for Upper Tanana Area Inte rtie Project, 2011c. Alaska Power & Telephone Company,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%206/Applications/914_Connelly%20Lake %20Hydroelectric%20Project/092112_AEA-Connelly%20Lake%20Hydroelectric%20Project.pdf for Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project, 2012. Black and Veatch,Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan (Alaska Energy Authority, 2011), Vol. 2. Borough and Municipality of Skagway,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%202/Applications/262_West%20Creek %20Hydro_Muni%20Skagway/West_Creek_Hydro_GrantAppForm%20110708.pdf for West Creek Hydro, 2008. City and Borough of Sitka,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%203/Applications/405_Takatz%20Lake%20Hydroele ctric%20Feasibility%20Anaylsis_City%20&%20Borough%20of%20Sitka%20Electric%20Departme nt.pdf/AEA%20Grant%20Fund%20Application_Nov2009.pdf for Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis, 2009. City and Borough of Sitka,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%204/Applications/603_Sitka_Takatz%20Lake%20 Hydro/AEA%20Grant%20Application%20Package%20Round%20IV.pdf for Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis, 2010. D Hittle & Associates, Inc.,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%205/Applications/811_Kake-Petersburg%20Inter- Connection%20Engineering/Attachment%20B%20-%20D%20Hittle%20Report%20to%20SE%20Conference%20- %20SEAPA%20Kake-Petersburg%20Inter-Connection%20Engineering%20Grant%20Application.pdf for Kake- Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering, 2009. Inside Passage Electric Cooperative,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%206/Applications/922_Gartina%20Falls %20Hydroelectric%20Project/REF%20VI%20Grant%20Application.pdf for Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project, 2012. Kootznoowoo Incorporated,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%205/Applications/825_Thayer%20Lake%20Hydropo- wer%20Development%20TRANSMISSION%20Project/CompleteFile.pdf for Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Tr ansmission/Generation Project, 2011. 061702-8 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017) Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc.,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%201/Applications/29_ Kake-Petersburg%20Intertie_KwaanElectricTransmissionIntertieCooperativeInc/KakeIntertieGrant3.pdf for Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Design, 2008a. Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc.,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%201/Applications/29_ Kake-Petersburg%20Intertie_KwaanElectricTransmissionIntertieCooperativeInc/KakeIntertieGrant1.pdf for Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Design, 2008b. Metlakatla Indian Community,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%205/Applications/828_Metlakatla-Ketchikan%20 Intertie/GrantApplication5MKI-FinalSigned.pdf for Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie, 2011. Metlakatla Indian Community,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%206/Applications/919_Metlakatla-Ketchikan%20 Intertie/MKI-AEARound6-FinalSigned.pdf for Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie, 2012. Metlakatla Indian Community,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%207/Applications/1034%20Metlakatla%20to%20 Ketchikan%20Intertie%20Project/GrantApplication7%20MKI-Final-Signed.pdf for Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie, 20 13. NANA Paciﬁc,Distributing Alaska’s Power (Denali Commission, 2008). North Slope Borough,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%204/Applications/609_NSB_Atqasuk%20Transmission%20 Line/Atqasuk%20Transmission%20Live%20AEA%20Phase%20IV%20Application%209-2010.pdf for Atqasuk Transmission Line, 2010. Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%201/Applications/50_UnalakleetRene wableEnergyFundWindProject_UnalakleetValleyElectricCooperative,Inc/Unalakleet%20REF%20Grant%20Application. pdf for Unalakleet Wind Farm Construction, 2008. Upper Tanana Energy, LLC,http://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%208/Applications/1120%20Yerrick%20Creek%20 Hydroelectric%20Project/091914_AEA%20-%20Yerrick%20Creek%20Hydro%20-%20REF%20Round%20VIII.pdf for Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project, 2014. 061702-9 Miranda, Mueller-Stoffels, and Whitney J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 061702 (2017)