Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Light and Power 1986-10-08
LIGHT AND POWER COMMITTEE 4,0- / . OCTOBER 8, 1986 4.f * AGENDA / 3/ 1, 1987 BUDGET REVIEW 2. OLYMPUS DAM HYDRO PROJECT - FEASIBILITY REPORT BILL HARRIS - NORTH AMERICAN HYDRO 3. MARY's LAKE SUBSTATION - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 4. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY - POWER CONTRACT ATTACHMENTS "A" AND "C" 5. REPORTS: A. SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS 8, 1986 ELECTRIC SALES C, PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY D. SURGE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT E, OTHER BUDGET BOOKS 01\C MI F U Va-0/ .,6 1 , 1986 rates were used in the computations where: Demand Charge Rate = $10.40/KW x 12 months = $124.80/KW Energy Charge Rate = $0.0132/KWH TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE FOR DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D, E, AND F IF USED TO OFFSET PURCHASED POWER/ENERGY (1986 BASE YEAR) AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE JANUARY ANNUAL ANNUAL POWER POWER DEMAND ENERGY ENERGY AVE. P ROD. PROD. CHARGE PROD. CHARGE ANNUAL ALT. KW KW OFFSET KW OFFSET REV. 0 53.6 - $3,340 470,000 - $6,200 $ 9,540 B 11.6 66.7 $4,890 584,000 $7,710 $12,600 C 41.6 80.6 $7,630 706,000 $9,320 $16,950 ~ A-. D 42.7 85.5 $8,000 749,000 $9,890 $17,890 -2.1%~L E 32.8 68.6 $6,330 601,000 $7,930 $14,260 F 10.6 72.0 $5,150 630,000 $8,320 $13,470 The results of the computation indicate development alternative D would still produce the greatest gross average annual revenue, but significantly less than if sold directly to a public utility. Another development alternative to consider, if used to _ offset purchased energy and demand, would be to use a small fixed geometry turbine. The unit would be sized small such that it would run near 100% of the time. The best return on investment would be with a unit of a capacity in the 30 KW to 50 KW range. A list of manufacturers/distributors of micro hydro generating equipment has been placpd in the appendix. 48 .,6 IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. Background and Assumptions This section of the report will compare the benefits and costs of the different hydropower development alternatives at the Olympus Dam using a life-cycle approach. Certain basic assumptions, which are required in a benefit/cost analysis, will be outlined before describing the results of the economic analysis. The sensitivity of the benefit/cost comparisons to these basic assumptions is investigated in Section IX-D. Public development and financing is assumed, although private financing is discussed. The approach used in this study and the accompanying benefit/cost streams, although indicative of project development viability, might best be used in the comparison of the various alternatives. Very often to assure first year positive cash flow, a. long term levelized on front loaded power/energy sale contract is negotiated with a utility. The i contract is_designed to put more money "up front" which results in a higher buy back rate initially. Over the term of the contract the initial rate or a portion of the rate is not escalated or escalated at a lesser rate than the predicted rate of increase for power/energyt If project development is to continue,negotiations should i begin with prospective power purchasers. Potential purchase contracts and possible methods of financing should be jointly ) investigated and economically analyzed. A financial approach 1 can be customized that will best meet the designs of the developer. 1. Economic Feasibility Indicators A number of economic feasibility indicators will be given herein to provide interested parties with a choice of decision rules and to outline the economic advantages and disadvantages of each option. These indicators are: The first year cost of power is the cost of debt service, operation and maintenance, and other costs divided by the average annual energy production. . The benefit-cost ratio is the present worth of project benefits divided by the present worth of initial project costs and annual costs. 49 n I i=o Bi x (1+d)i B/C = n C~ OMi x (1+d) i=O where B/C = benefit-cost ratio for a project economic life of n years, B. = benefits in year i, 1 C = initial project cost, OMi = operation and maintenance costs in year i, d = discount rate, and n = project economic life. . The net present value (NPV) is the present worth of project benefits minus the present worth of project Costs: 2 n NPV = ~ NBi/(1+d)i i=0 . where NPV = net present value for a project economic - life of n years, and NB· = net project benefits in year i; 1 (benefits minus costs). period of negative net present value is the number of - years the project requires to reach a zero net present value. 2. Assumptions The following assumptions are incorporated into the economic analysis: The initial project costs will be amortized over 30 years. 50 i TABLE- 6. ALTEENCVE 0 - BENEET AND =32 1-9,tjas Net Debt 1 y . Net ------- Present North ------- Present U{ ./. -ill Year Revenue Ser#112 *05:3 IRC:me 3ene,i:s Costs Cast Flow Vaiye -- 0----0 ----- ---- ------ -0---0-- ----- -0---0-- ----- £ 74 .1,16 ent -41 $6,500 /*Il ..L..3 : 17 0.17 tr-, 177 .4/ ,./6 ($2,570: (12.5703 4-1 :CA 24 occ :St 178/ *17 7.-10 'W L i U.,9 $23,222 lui--W ;If .6 ; ,. C: $22,660 (11.272) (13.342] 337 -01 25,282 ...... •.U, ., U $23,?64 $ ; 41 A41 414 375 ..., ''00; 43.927) £70 -,7 214 -6- 37,335 31.532 336.J/3 125,:31 · $999 , ....,v, t. 0 7.1 1 337,165 *-4 -1 :C AC. ; ':'A t-= 327 2-- VA, . ' 00: ./,:1.4 6.--' . . . 1 ..1 U (5745; 5-- .AG £14 =/ 231 er: 19/ '11£ t.t =97 $2.384 t' 0,0 $8.495 , 1. TW • ...1,-·.'U -1 4- 1.-/ ....., $41.,55 <5.262 88.962 56, :40 U. 1.1 $ 33.701 . $5.340 £43.840 $26.261 19,455 'It , $21. 469 64.443 $10.983 546.041 $25.22 2 $9.?75 ; 7 JA- C .1 1 1 1 $18,?01 $5. iII $:5,1?3 10 548,573 ;94 7£7 411 :-4 5:1 -96 te- :£, *'- -40 t. 7·C 520,9/4 -·U• 6-U- ..:,W- .6<0·-W: Di,,5. $51,244 326, 362 $11,103 $13.179 , 17 llc t'' 04r . - 1 - ¥60,w.w 19 $6,264 :Lf,1/1 554.063 $25,262 $11.714 $16 497 £96 ACC 41= 044 $.5. 754 13 *¢7 AT· 44.17-0 %1 -,1 4/1 -/0 2 10 1 : L .••·,gui -- 1 U . 7 l u $22,276 115,094 $7,193 541.125 14 330.173 126.262 $:3,038 520,873 ....uu/ $14,278 $7,354 t - 0 -Ag 491 047 6.7 707 *-' '·1 4/ 'U.' , 4/.2 •al,202. $:0. :10 523,486 321,455 $13,524 37,931 556.809 16 $66.974 511 0A~ fid /'f •29 4 -. A f . ., .1 4 $21,956 $12,319 18.237 $54,276 -9 I. 17 3·9,30.3 '20.252 $15'JO? 529,096 320,6,5~ 51!33 28 2,14 t-- 9/ 18 $74.544 $28,IiI IL 'El 27- 4 7,; £7,1 -OA '4 030 t. 741 *Op '97 liu,..4 ..:., I. ..0, ... STZ ...1,1 +1L 12-0 . 3,0 00 810,9=9 39,944 $91,067 7 - W 1 -u- $17,040 0-,4 - 1- 30 *32.70 *4/1 +UL 533.730 $19,532 $10,414 4 7'e ·9 I Q IML -1 :- 217 077 40 ''3 t''in 'Cr 31 *07 E-7 *19 0-E $4..~5 $19,169 19,904 $9.264 3109 120 .4·,/• ..4 $26,282 .t., 1./w <49 -27 526,28' $20.009 $46.076 $13.312 $9,426 59 -04 1/:C O-c -- 397 1.4 *CL ..·1 i +. U :I ...:I'.I: /-/, 6,4 $21.!09 $50,955 318,462 39.485 S : .: 7-5. to 077 ¢'COR 75; .94 .4.1 t..·/ .371 424 1.. .,C ''C ...4, / 6.. ...I-./ •L...... 6...6 •19... 1 $137,324 $:08.438 126,262 $23,495 553.630 517,782 $6,159 38.555 19.43 2 2 2-'1 + 4 4 - C.- 4:*WL. 7-42,*V~ Z:7 -EG *17 .12:! 3:14.402 ...,6.- -41.,0, -U·I, U.6 $7.767 $9.60- $13,.-:U $!20,694 323,262 125,150 353.231 $17,123 37:437 59.63? 3!:4 :fo $127.322 326.262 1.- =00 $73!481 ¥ -/t., 1 ....W. - f . ' U. u-6 ell 00- 47 '42 ic ACC t. 7. Q.0 S..71 --R 2-0 7' .-9 .,- .J,-w, tiN_,0 :·e,73/ 315,295 $6,19 49: 866 3132.254 1:41.724 326,262 330.707 334,754 $.6.:ES $6.507 19:Set $195.9· Jl $149.319 530 73. t..7 :3: st=.337 $3. 442 8im 14- $309 "' . $157,742 $0 634.:77 $123.565 315,391 2 1 -3 2 r •0• ./: C 41-2 I f 0 4-2 r.- *'TA -2.! £'.: :Ai .... . 1 LIU 0 7-J ./ I :13, I. i I . 2'.,·I / . I I·J I ./I 53,315 $11,?56 3232.3 TE e € 7< =7 i $0 $38,¢40 3137.52 $3.254 $:1.:83 3244.541 2 1 f A 4 4 - 11:= 1-7 46 *;A ITT *fi- 60= *'1 7-7 1=: ' 9- 4' ' 211 tme' CO= ./Ii .2·-· .... 4 V i. ....1., .U.6.J .*.-'WUU .4 - $195.415 .., .,.9 ,„~ 2.,·.0,1/0 $14,463 13.134 2 1. -'C &-L., 1.1 *A *47 -.4 /6.:·I.:i -7 $206.!63 40 344.,669 $16:.494 $14,!94 $3,075 41. 1,2 .... 7-- 21 1 - CNV| 19 $47, :25 $170,374 $13,930 $3,012 $10.?12 $289.244 *.... - - I¢-1- - .9 • £121 24-7,454 .v $49, i '/ mi f, lat $13,87! $2,982 $10,709 $'90 0<7 $242.085 50 **6.-44 . 4 U , 4 ... .. .. 1 - 1.1 2.+7 g- , i co ..37 21: t'L $2,907 $10, 509 $3!0.462 1! · F* 700 $0 $55.337 $200,06.3 $13,167 $0 OFT *14 -•: $320,776 2. -I.W. . - $269,4#1 $0 $58,580 $2:1.066 $12,922 12,200 $19, :22 $330.398 43 $234,266 $0 $61,591 $222,675 $12.621 $2,748 $9.9.:4 1340,832 44 $299,900 $0 164,978 $233,922 $12,445 $2,696 $9.349 $350.581 45 2.1. :gr f.>AC,w;·' .14, 4.- 1 $0 133,552 $247,843 41.9 .14 $2,646 59,567 $360,148 46 $333,797 10 $72,323 $261.474 $11,987 12,597 $9,389 $369. 537 47 5352,155 10 $76,300 -4,--,O.-I $11,764 $2,549 ;9 1,< $-72 7<, 48 $371,524 $0 $80,497 $291,027 $11,545 12,50! $9,043 $387,795 ...W 49 :701 c.0 ..!-,ile $0 $84,924 $307,034 31!.330 $2,455 $8,875 $395,630 50 54!3.515 10 $99,595 $323,920 $11 llc $2,409 18,710 1405.380 Gross Revenue $30,000 Economic Analysis for a Project Life of 30 Years Project Costs......... $313,000 Present Net Value = $195,935 0 & M................. $6,500 Benefit Cost Ratio = 1.43 Interest 7.50% Amortization Period... 30 yrs Economic Analysis for a Project Life of 50 Years I. Lot:ation 5.50% Pre5ent Net Value = $405,330 Benefit Cost Ratio = 1.79 e c U <L; « J Er- ' 4 ! 1 J : d !3 :2 1 L 1 3 : R m &17 r ....I .4 G,2.€Set¥94-Fi v.3,4,:-,47:„A• TABLE 8. AL: as:,H: i /: 7 - BENEF.7 AND COST STREAMS ® 20: 0 4 M Net ------- Present Worth ------- Present Debt .-. 1.... . 1 CUlt Revenue ... 14 L. ....3.0 Income Benefits Costs Lasc r.ow M . -- Value -* 1 4-C -An 5 -7,1,1- 35.500 (32.:93) $23,442 $25,956 ($2.514) ($2,514) - •-J.-'24 . V ·4 t.: COL i., 4 1 . I Z u , 4 6 U . u G r · 1 to 222.403 2 -$5.303 6 11.819) $23,006 $24,407 (11.40!) - :$3,916] $-9. )48 -~4411 AR, . 16. 122-2-- 4.$436)14:$22,57, -11:..161.--=.(5323}_ ($4,299) -~ i -/ 30?q .4 t.9 1113 . 3730 $22.:52 L:•..4 5546 (13.752) .of'· · 4,-* .- r'~9553 1. At. , .I./.16 Uic.pf, Or .6.1-,itrq'671 5 -i: t. ..t 3 ..·te iek·'*.C v .4..a·:U 327,351 en-'11395'·49$2,:58) i . :...../.I .I...... I ...'' , I. A t,¢22,403 .* ' 99;:Ei +C~;4.3. 344 5421,:47¢5!?'Di.1.n42:-:67--*2-rn,(Il?1)103& pre· 4 .1.:rul. e - .... I : , A- -- . 4. I .:I . " 3 7 , p - $·14, 747 . .. 2·6084 ;4.360.-,i'$20,944 23:3,074 .942.969 (3,?tiZ.678 4 ? 4,4 41't 4 . r 1$17,047'DE "'$3,507.met.6. 195 2 -4.336.658 5-2,403 $8.:)01 '~.5 16 2=4 -44"A C" - ..• Ll i ·1// 9 , 1.4. - I 't./. . , 3.33,674 ..' §22.403' g;3'441 N ~ 37,930 ' 120,172 0.- 11038 9 14.084 , 10,259 2 340,301 ' 122,403 ~~ $3;905 ~ 99. 59: .-$19,796 ) 1$15. 190 -c~ f$4.606~ 27£4,876 1 1 2 .t kil ff.~"14.3,·:45 .7122,49: 4.1':r $9395 r~~fit.-248 $19,429 1 ?·$14,352 2 15,-077 1.rit?,952 ·'3 ' I I '' J.~ I c &17 - + 1/ 'A, . .=, 14... ry, 2-t.v. ' $9,9 12 -~313,098 '- $19,067 3 $13.567 0 $5,4MV '2$25,451 --7~>1-11 9 , $47,910 7$22,403 $10,457 1-$15,05! -9118,712 9'612,934 c¢$5,878 *j i ,.:ou ...u ·, · . 1 ~t, •* 'e . 14~ ,-t''.,$50,546.. t $22,403 f $11,032 $17,111· '··-$19,364 L zs!2,147 -=716,2!7 ·14$37,546 2 - '-15:,326 +1-6122,403 *11 '70 919,294 . 1....W 4 1 0 A 9. z.' CIA K $44,064 56,517 15 556.253 $2-.403 tt. .'- ..4,4/7 $21,577 $17.687 $10.903 $6.734 $59,847 :7 £2=C -K- 2'122..403 112.954 -*'$23,996 il7, C:9 ' S!0,340 3 -$7,018 74$57,355 to:1.;c -la ' £" 41, $-0 107 *17 LL. $26,548 ·$17,035 1 -- 49,213 643$7,22. 3 5$65,027 366,061 - 322.493 -~'$14,418 $29,240 1· 116,713 -~'20 '12 ' 87,400· 10$72,437 ·C U - *41.098 *L.. 4·V J +VL, £'I ''. ~£74 080 - $16, 407 2. 13. 355 - c'$7.552 72$80.039 99 5 3 -*07 9/1 "122,403 - 316,048 135,077 -$16,102 1 5 58,420 -1$7,661 '- -..2 1 . I =- 1 . *77 =71 're '.A- '--21. 9-1 - *75 1,0 1 'glf :69 -·. $8, :.. tr, C. q 11, •v-1.-·/w ./.'·/94 013 2 3$7,790 -•-J.U,1, ··~. ·'-· 6 351,332 1422,·403 5!'.361 ~$41,574 - 415,508 - $7,330'-4- $7,879 t 5:03,383 3 '1 :~0, 067 -- -„. 903 -$1 4 9~ 2 . Or 60,1 t i q -9,-1 £ 7 -7-1 $7,949 t!.11 7-7 ...... .... 9 ,- .1. I. 4- w .'.-'. - 1 79 0. C toi ACC ¢ 9 3 .1 6 7 $!0 296 .../4/W /4-, Iv/ . , 1 ... 340,010 lia:706 $6.934 18,003 $119,340 SCL /07 - tc9 &(.9 $20,474 2=7 -9. $14,659 16,617 $3.042 :1.7 720 ./ 11 2 4 4 4 -7 t== 107 1-1 1.7 ./£ CE- _ *$ 14,336 36,319 $9 AA- 4,1~C. 140 I '1:11 000 „ ......4 ./. .....,-I.' .UU,-wl 2",4 0'32 -1 ...0 $22.403 $23.344 - 361,212 -_314.112 _..38,0;u .... 18.080 -.$:53,529 -=.,w.- -. ..w..... 1 --~v...,,. .A.-..|.U. .,..$15.,61 1 ..:- 0-. 4 622,403 1324,529 ---4-5.01 3 .i- *t: c:4 ...·*T 77. ·i 49 r.al $119,048 522,403 $25,953 $70.282 $13,398 t. :17 t: Av i 215: 0 821 . 31 *:'E 004 50 827,412 $98,194 $:3,345 ....52,913· _._51:1,.432 i.3134113 -~'- Il .6 4.!W -•-'• C.. ta :MAT :Cl __ti: AC7 2 29 Ce:C ¢ 1,1 9-C tioo,:~1 -- SO $39,510 $109,231 112.853 32.305 $10:043 $:90.399 1139.791 - ., . , 1 2117 2:A - 4-1 - IC 2 1 1: 009 2. 7.: $9.air 49AA .LA . : V ...6.-UW .....6,4 $12.814 ...94.-4 $155.591 '-110 477* cr: 1121,53.3 $12,379 ¢1 7,18 : I - ' -9 ;750 017 ..2...W .., , V. . 21.Cl/ ..'.1., 8 et,4 142 - 10 $35.826 $129.322 $12,149 12.652 $?,497 3219,434 $173,177 ·-.1.·"1 --50 ·1· $37,796 $135,330 *11,923 52,603 $9,321 $228,755 3 4107 74 1 - $0 - 139.273 5142.926 $11.301 $2.554 $9- 147 t,77 CAD c 9 + 1 0. 7.A -$0 $42,968 $150,431 $11,483 $2,506 *: 077 4744 279 I 40 .* TL . wi I 10 ta,1 -cl ·2120,969 $14270 49 :AO 1 A •77.4/4 18,910 $255,699 41 $214:EZ5 30 $46,923 $157,712 $11,060 $2,414 58,646 $264,335 42 $226,Zf5 $0 - $49,398 $175.936 $10,854 $2,369 $8.425 1272,820 43 1238,783 $0 152,115 $186,666 $10,652 *01 7?q .....w $8,327 $231.!47 44 - $251,916 $0 - $54,?82 $196,935 $10,454 12,282 $8,172 $289,320 45 .:u.:,ij. 10 $58,006 $207,766 $10,260 $2,239 13.020 $297,340 46 «con -00 to $61,196 $219-!93 $10,069 $2,198 $7,271 1305,211 •'4/4.Wi 47 219• oil 10 $64,562 $231,249 19,Sgt /7 1.- •:,U,Wil ....iu/ $7,725 $312,936 48 $312.080 tO $69,113 $243,967 $9,698 $2,117 $7,581 $320,517 49 $329,24< $0 171,959 $257,386 $9,517 12,077 $7,440 $327,?57 50 $3„,ouo $0 $75,811 .4, I ,.9. .OVJ'.ug ~7 -c- t,71 r.. $9,340 $2.038 $7,302 ./,C .go Gross Revenue .$25,200 Economic Analysis for a Project Life of 30 Years Project C05t5 $257,000 Present Net Vaiue = $159,681 0 & M................. $5,500 Benefit Cost Ratio = 1.41 Interest 7.50% Amortization Pericd... 30 yrs Economic Analysis for *a Project Life of 50 Years Inflation 5.50% Present Net Vaiue = $17< '58 Benefit Cost Ratio = 1.77 57 2 61 12 8 1.: !:2 5.' 11 0 C, C. Comparison of Project Development Alternatives The first year cost of energy, net present value, and benefit-cost ratio for each of the development alternatives are compared in Table 7, also see Figure 20. A graphical presentation of B/C ratios for the various development alternatives is given in Figure 20. A 30 year and 50 year project life was used. A 30 to 35 year project economic life is commonly used for hydropower facilities. Experience.has indicated, however, that the project economic life of a typical hydropower facility has been significantly greater (50 years or more). A 50-year project economic life analysis has, therefore, also been included. As in the cost and benefit stream analysis, the economic indicators of Alternative A and D, although good, are consistently less beneficial than the economic indicators of Alternative D and F. The economic indicators of Alternatives D and F are similar, with both displaying very good economic . return. The economic performances of Alternatives B and C are not as good as those of the other alternatives, although B/C ratios are greater than unity. TABLE 9. FIRST YEAR COST OF ENERGY, PRESENT NET VALUE AND BENEFIT TO COST RATIO OLYMPUS DAM DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ABCDEF First Year Cost of Energy ($/KWH) .046 .055 .055 .044 .048 .044 30-Year Project Economic Life Present Net Value (Thousand $, 1986 Base Year) 97 66 78 196 108 160 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.31 1.14 1.14 1.43 1.26 1.41 - 50-Year Project Economic Life Present Net Value (Thousand $, 1986 Base Year) 216 221 267 405 260 335 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.60 1.44 1.44 1.79 1.54 1.77 D. Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis investigates the impact of variations in project parameters and economic assumptions on the economic 58 ' 11' 4 ·1 ~ '1".89.1 r.'$1, 011,111,1,11!,U~* 6 , ESTES / OLYMPUS PEAS/816/TY /O- 9-86 (LOOAL- 05 E /WALYS)5 j -. ~ AutemlVE ___ - ESCALATIoN INTE Rest -_ INcokE _ B)C D -- _ 3,50__ 1 - 6, AS __31%000 f_ .sif-at ------ - 3.60-----_ 6.as _f_/§00 --f___ . 81 l '00._ 3,60 6,35_______#1(*000____-_ _-74~~38 -10-_56___ F 3.60 __ ___ ____ __ 6. 25 ___ 4; 000_ . , 74- - 2©-- - --9/--90- t. , t. 'L v t.lt i 1 t 11 F. i 1 u 4 -11 . - 1 11 r , . . 1 - t -· I. :-'-- -t» t.. 4 1-1 VARjABLEA i.___f.--Ao-mAL En€4/---ji Ell-le.41-44- _CLIGNity LOW. 1 . 4 i i , ; i € ·i , f 1 ! i i - If 1 U. _1.- 1.-r-=_MORE E/9£g*PR-00001764-841<63 Hlet«fou,ae-uttuak 1 i ',L 1 ?''tt... i. ~. j. .1 r 1 ' ' 'ji . 1 ; 1 r t 0 1 - ~ ' 00 GT-oF„ PRDIYEOT _19_COA)5824¢1140-Y. P+15/7 L t t, 1-1- h. i : ti .11 4 i.- 1,· - : 1-4 11 1, .4 4 L S. 1 d» 14 1.1 It-':11't·.t j . - ERS PE-c/4-€,65r..1-4/7293@#TeD F f i 1 -14. 1-2 f:i'l·)/L 4*... +... 1-0. , 1. L.- 1 . .i '. a 1,it i 1 1 /'• 456fUFW_ /«735-_ /1 Z.-reer€T ,©-S>kE,57 - 4 4 26* --14 61 /2/4 -7444 -7202« 774«" 23 -7 * 1 . t I 4 i . t 1 4 1 1 : . . i ,/1 - 1 1,/1 ' t 4 . 1.1. 1 -2 ' .4 e ; i ·; · 1 1' 1 ... ! ; 1 1 - 1 ; 1 2+ 1'. . 1·7 v· i 8 @ R. W BECK AND ASSOCIATES - ENGINEERSANDCONSULTANTS PLANNING BANNOCK PLAZA BUILDING GENERAL OFFICE DESIGN 660 BANNOCK STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON RATES ENVIRONMENTAL DENVER, COLORADO 80204 Telephone: 206-441-7500 ECONOMICS MANAGEMENT Telex: 4990402 BECKSEA 303-623-8166 FILE NO. CC-2027-ES4-AX October 3, 1986 Mr. Robert L. Dekker Directors Light and Power Department Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Subject: Comparison of Bid Proposals Contract No. 3 General Construction Dear Mr. Dekker: Bid proposals for Contract 3 were opened and publicly read at 1:00 p.m. on October 3, 1986. A total of two prbposals were received. Bids were received as follows: Base Prices Bid Schedule 1 Leonard L. Graton Construction 9$34,130.00 Electrical Substation Specialists Corp. $49,000.00 Graton Construction proposed a substitution for the wire and cable specified, however, his proposal stated that he would furnish an acceptable alternative at no further cost to the Owner. In our opinion, nothing submitted in the proposals appears to be a detrimental material change from the requirements of the Contract Documents from a technical engineering standpoint and it appears that the proposals are responsive to the technical engineering requirements of the Contract Documents. We recommend that your legal counsel review the proposals for legal adequacy and that you consult your business advi?ors regarding the adequacy of the proposals relating to such matters. Assuming the proposals - are found to be adequate with respect to those items, and based on Leonard L. Graton Construction submitting the lowest base prices we recommend that Leonard L. Graton be awarded the contract for Bid Schedule No. 1 in the amount of $34,130.00, Seattle. WA • Denver. CO • Phoenix, AZ • Orlando, FL • Columbus. NE • Wellesley, MA • Indianapolis, IN • Minneapolis, MN • Sacramento, CA • Austin, TX Mr. Robert L. Dekker -2- October 3, 1986 Please advise if you have any questions concerning this evaluation. Sincerely, R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES -arley G. MoriartgZ~ ~J Executive Eng ine*r / U Approval: 721 --4 fh..g,-- _42- Brucd L.-St-urdefant Partner and Manager Central Design Division HGM:lef (9203D.Rl) Attachments CC: S. Jordan ~ PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY TIMBERLINE &HOASETOOTH ROADS •FORT COLLINS, COLORAD080525 •(303) 226-4000 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Larry Burkhardt H. Bernerd Dannels Robert L. Dekker David C. Plumb , Raymond O. Reeb Barbara S. Rutstein Rich Shannon Dieter P. Wirtzfeld 9 GENERAL MANAGER October 2, 1986 James D. Pendergrass Mr. Robert Dekker Director of Light and Power Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Bob: Enclosed are two original copies each of Attachment C to the Power Contract and Exhibit A to the Transmission Facilities Agreement between Platte River and the Town of Estes Park. These have-been_approved by the Board at the August Board Meeting, exe- ~JO--= cuted by Platte River and are ready for approval and execution by the Town of Estes Park. If you need any of Platte River's assistance in getting these approved, please call Roy Rohla. Once these documents have been executed by the Town, please return one original copy of each. Thank you for your assistance with these documents. Sincerely yours, PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY (,Tames D. Pendergrass General Manager 1 SS Enclosures Exhibit "A„ The following properties comprise the Leased Facilities to be transferred to Pl atte River Power Authority as of March 1, 1980 pursuant to the provisions of Article (1) (a) of the Transmission Facilities Transfer Agreement to which this exhibit is annexed. Category Property Description FERC Account (1) Land and Land Rights 350 All land, land rights and easements on which the following facilities are erected: (a) Estes Power Plant to Estes Park Sub 115 kV Line (b) WAPA Tap to Marys Lake Sub 115 kV Line (2) Station Equipment 353 All 115 kV breakers, buses, switches, insulators, control equipment & devices, switchboards, meters, relays, structural steel and foundations in service at: (a) Estes Park Substation (b) Marys Lake Substation (3) Poles and Fixtures--115 kV Lines 355 All anchors, head arm and other guys, including guy guards, guy clamps, pole plates, etc; brackets; cross arms and braces; gaining, roofing, stenciling and tagging; insulator pins and sus- pension bolts; pole steps; poles, wood & steel; racks complete with insulators; reinforcing and stubbing; settings; shaving and painting for the following facilities: (a) Estes Power Plant to Estes Park Sub 115 kV Line (b) WAPA Tap to Marys Lake Sub 115 kV Line (4) Overhead Conductors and Devices--115 kV 356 All conductor, ground wires and ground clamps, insulators, switches and other devices for the following facilities: (a) Estes Power Plant to Estes Park Sub 115 kV Line (b) WAPA Tap to Marys Lake Sub 115 kV Line The following table shows the cost and maintenance responsibilities agreed to by the Parties: FURNISH MAINTAIN Substation: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J Estes CcccCCCccc CcccCCCcc Marys Lake CcccCCCccc CcccCCCcc Legend: C - Town of Estes Park Furnish and Maintain Items: (A) Site Purchase and Ownership (F) Control Building (B) Grading and Surfacing Within (G) Battery & DC System Fenced Area (C) Access Road (H) Station Service (D) Fence (I) Station Lighting (E) Landscaping and Grounds (J) Station Grounding Outside Fenced Area The foregoing Exhibit is approved by the parties as of , 1986 PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY TOWN OF ESTES PARK 0__0~2:G-0,_~ ~~Fieral Manager u Mayor ATTEST: ATTEST: 749£dthill@uputti Astistant Secretary • - i Attachment C Platte River Power Authority SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS - (1) Applicability These service specifications are applicable to the Agreement for electric service dated March 31, 1980, and covering the supply and del ivery of electric power and energy by Platte River Power Authority, ("Seller") to TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO ("Participant") ( 2) Poi nts of Del ivery Seller is obligated to deliver electric power and energy contracted for by Participant. Such delivery shall be made at the following points and voltages and subject to the indicated conditions. Del i very Poi nt Del i very Metering Del i very Identity and Location Voltage Voltage Conditions Estes Park Substation 115 kV 12.5 kV NA Southeast of Estes Park Marvs Lake Substation 115 kV 12.5 kV NA Southwest of Estes Park (3) Underfrequency Load Interruption Participant shall at all times be obligated to maintain minimum percentages of its load subject to interruption during periods of system under- frequency. Such percentages of load shall be interrupted in successive steps, subject to relay and circuit breaker time, before the frequency decreases to the frequency established for each load step, all as specified in the following table. Such interrupting capability shall be in operation on Participant's system on or before the effective date hereinafter specified. Percent Effective Step of Load Frequency Date 1. 10 59.0 Hz. 1/1/80 2. 20 58.5 Hz 1/1/80 3. 20 58.0 Hz 1/1/80 The foregoing is subject to change in the event obligations of Seller to provide under-frequency load.interruption are changed under production, pooling or exchange agreements to which Seller is a party. ' (4) Cost and Maintenance Responsibility The Seller and Participant agree to the cost and maintenance respon- sibilities as shown in the following table. This table shall be updated as new del ivery points or stations are constructed. FURNISH MAINTAIN Substation: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J Estes FpppPPPppp PpppPPPpp Marys Lake PpppPPPpp PpppPPPpp Legend: P - Participant S - Seller Furnish and Maintain Items: (A) Site Purchase and Ownership (F) Control Building (B) Grading and Surfacing Within (G) Battery & DC System Fenced Area (C) Access Road (H) Station Service (D) Fence (I) Station Lighting (E) Landscaping and Grounds (J) Station Grounding Outside Fenced Area (5) Approvals The foregoing Service Specifications are approved by the parties as of , 1986 and shall continue in force until changed by mutual agreement. FghSELLE 9- FOR PARTICIPANT U ~phral Managdr Mayor ATTEST: ATTEST: *lluu )71 2£04.Abl Assistant,Secretary . Exhibit "A" The following properties comprise the Leased Facilities to be transferred to Platte River Power Authority as of March 1, 1980 pursuant to the provisions of Article (1) (a) of the Transmission Facilities Transfer Agreement to which this exhibit is annexed. Category Property Description FERC Account (1) Land and Land Rights 350 All land, land rights and easements on which the following facilities are erected: (a) Estes Power Plant to Estes Park Sub 115 kV Line (b) WAPA Tap to Marys Lake Sub 115 kV Line (2) Station Equipment 353 All 115 kV breakers, buses, switches, insulators, control equipment & devices, switchboards, meters, relays, structural steel and foundations in service at: (a) Estes Park Substation (b) Marys Lake Substation (3) Poles and Fixtures--115 kV Lines 355 All anchors, head arm and other guys, including guy guards, guy clamps, pole plates, etc; brackets; cross arms and braces; gaining, roofing, stenciling and tagging; insulator pins and sus- pension bolts; pole steps; poles, wood & steel; racks complete with insulators; reinforcing and stubbing; settings; shaving and painting for the following facilities: (a) Estes Power Plant to Estes Park Sub 115 kV Line (b) WAPA Tap to Marys Lake Sub 115 kV Line (4) Overhead Conductors and Devices--115 kV 356 All conductor, ground wires and ground clamps, insulators, switches and other devices for the following facilities: (a) Estes Power Plant to Estes Park Sub 115 kV Line (b) WAPA Tap to Marys Lake Sub 115 kV Line ' I The following table shows the cost and maintenance responsibilities agreed to by the Parties: ¥ FURNISH MAINTAIN Substation: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J Estes CcccCCCccc CcccCCCcc Marys Lake CcccCCCccc CcccCCCcc Legend: C - Town of Estes Park Furnish and Maintain Items: (A) Site Purchase and Ownership (F) Control Building (B) Grading and Surfacing Within (G) Battery & DC System Fenced Area (C) Access Road (H) Station Service (D) Fence (I) Station Lighting (E) Landscaping and Grounds (J) Station Grounding Outside Fenced Area The foregoing Exhibit is approved by the parties as of , 1986 PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1.-49- - /Geheral Manager O Mayor ATTEST: F ' f · ATTEST: 4-ouct LK*,Cul»n Assistant Secretary P . :- -<' #4 - . Attachment C P1 a tte R i ve r P owe r Au tho ri ty SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS (1) Applicability These service specifications are applicable to the Agreement for electric service dated March 31, 1980, and covering the supply and delivery of electric power and energy by Platte River Power Authority, ("Seller") to TOWN OF ESTES PARK COLORADO ("Participant") (2) Points of Delivery Seller is obligated to deliver electric power and energy contracted for by Participant. Such delivery shall be made at the following points and voltages and subject to the indicated conditions. Delivery Point Del ivery Metering Del i very Identity and Location Voltage Vol tage Conditions Estes Park Substation 115 kV 12.5 kV NA Southeast of Estes Park Marvs Lake Substation 115 kV 12.5 kV NA Southwest of Estes Park (3) Underfrequency Load Interruption Participant shall at all times be obligated to maintain minimum percentages of its load subject to interruption during periods of system under- frequency. Such percentages of load shall be interrupted in successive steps, subject to rel ay and ci rcuit breaker time, before the frequency decreases to the frequency established for each load step, all as specified in the following table. Such interrupting capability shall be in operation on Participant's system on or before the effective date hereinafter specified. Percent Effective Step of Load Frequency Date 1. 10 59.0 Hz 1/1/80 2. 20 58.5 Hz 1 '1 '80 3. 20 58.0 Hz 1/1/80 The foregoing is subject to change in the event obligations of Seller to provide under-frequency load interruption are changed under production, pooling or exchange agreements to which Seller is a party. (4) Cost and Maintenance Responsibility The Seller and Participant agree to the cost and maintenance respon- - I.- sibilities as shown in the following table. This table shall be updated as new delivery points or stations are constructed. FURNISH MAINTAIN Substation: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J Estes PpppPPPppp PpppPPPpp Marys Lake PpppPPPppp PpppPPPpp Legend: P - Participant S - Seller Furnish and Maintain Items: (A) Site Purchase and Ownership (F) Control Building (B) Grading and Surfacing Within (G) Battery & DC System Fenced Area (C) Access Road (H) Station Service (D) Fence - (I) Station Lighting (E) Landscaping and Grounds (J) Station Grounding Outside Fenced Area (5) Approvals The foregoing Service Specifications are approved by the parties as of , 1986 and shall continue in force until changed by mutual agreement. FOA SELLER n FOR PARTICIPANT LL-0,41,-~ €~eral Manager Mayor ATTEST: F ; : - ATTEST: »diouhh i€uout-0 Assistant Secretary I< PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY TIMBERLINE & HORSETOOTH ROADS•FORTCOLLINS.COLORADO 80525•(303) 226-4000 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Larry Burkhardt H. Bernerd Daniels Rooeft L Dekkef David C. Plumo October 3,- 1986 Raymond O. Reeo Baroara S. Rutste,0 Rich Shannon Dieter P. Wirtzteld GENERAL MANAGER James O. Pendefgrass Mr. Larry Simpson General Manager - Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District P. O. Box 679 Loveland, Colorado 80539 Dear Larry: I was pleased to hear ERDA's presentation to the City of Fort Collins on September 17. As I told you previously, I would be happy to give you my comments after I heard their presentation. I am afraid they are painting a picture that is far too rosy. In my opinion ERDA will have a very difficult time getting contracts for anyone to purchase pumped storage capacity. There is no market in this area at all and the California markets have declined so much that Bonneville Power Administration is having 1 trouble marketing surplus conventional hydro. There is a surplus of nuclear power in the Midwest, but I do not believe ERDA will be able to obtain long-term contracts for pumping energy at rates which will make the project feasible. The cost figures quoted by ERDA ($924 per kW for pumped storage plus $400 per kW for transmission) are probably more expensive than conventional fossil fuel base load plants which are energy,· as well as capacity, producers and more useful to the utilities. An effort was made recently to interest Midwestern utilities in a 1500 MW pumped storage project in Ohio which was estimated to cost $567 per kW. No utilities could be found who were interested in purchasing power or even participating in preliminary studies. In our region the Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration have had trouble marketing the 200 MWs of power from the already existing Mt. Elbert Project and as a result are currently proposing a 25% rate increase in the current rate and integration of the project with the rest of the Missouri Basin Projects after 1989 to make the cost more attractive. -¥ 2%*>14*4)0¥2041- Mr. Larry Simpson October 3, 1986 Page Two The other area which I believe ERDA totally misunderstands is the high voltage DC transmission. I believe these lines will be strongly opposed by environmental groups and by local interests. - It is virtually impossible to build a high voltage line without condemnation powers. Nebraska Public Power District's attempt to build the MANDAN line is a good example. I would suggest that you be very cautious about investing the District's money in this or any other pumped storage project. If you would like to discuss this project further, I would be happy to meet with you. Sincerely, PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY r) / ~~9Xs D. Pendergrass General Manager /kmr