Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/11/2011 - PINERIDGE NATURAL AREA TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCT
DATE: October 11, 2011 STAFF: Steve Catanach John Stokes, Ginger Purvis AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4 SUBJECT Pineridge Natural Area Transmission Line Construction Alternatives Study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff will be presenting a draft study which examines alternative construction methodologies. The study examines the environmental, economic, aesthetic, reliability and schedule impacts of the potential alternatives. Staff is seeking Council direction on what alternative, if any, it wishes to pursue. Key to the discussion of potential alternatives is Western Area Power Administration’s (Western) adamant position denying consideration of undergrounding its existing and future transmission facilities. Western has also indicated that, within a decade, it plans to upgrade the overhead transmission line crossing Pineridge Natural Area. This position significantly limits options available to address view shed impacts. An underground option is examined and the probable Western line across Pineridge is illustrated, but ultimately due to Western’s position, the majority of options examined are related to alternate overhead construction methods. Options examined include: • Relocate the proposed line to one of three alternate routes in order to lessen visual impacts. • Change the appearance of the proposed line through the use of either galvanized (silver) or other color treatment. • In place of the proposed tall single poles, use shorter double pole construction similar to the existing line. • Decrease the number of poles in the Pineridge area by extending the distance between poles. This will require taller poles. • Rather than building a double circuit line, upgrade just the existing. This would require additional substation equipment. • Underground the new line and leave the existing Western line in place. In addition to the transmission line alternatives, staff and SAIC have also prepared a report that examines potentially available Distributed Generation (DG) technologies that might be available. While City staff recognizes an immediate need to provide additional electric requirements to the Loveland and south Fort Collins areas, integration of DG technologies are also being studied to augment our future electrical demand. Fort Collins cannot dictate what the City of Loveland does and does not do on its system; however the hope is that the information will be of value as the City looks at the integration of DG on its systems. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION To address reliability issues, Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) is in the final stages of upgrading the area transmission network by adding 230-kV transmission facilities, in particular the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe interconnection project (Project). To date, Platte River has accomplished two phases of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe transmission line. This report addresses issues that have been raised related to the Phase III of the Platte River Project which extends from Dixon Creek Substation to Horsetooth Tap Switching Station. A point of contention for Phase III has been the section that is planned to be constructed overhead by rebuilding the existing Western Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line through the Pineridge Natural Area in Fort Collins as a double-circuit steel pole line. This section was planned to complete the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe 230-kV transmission corridor conversion by a summer 2012 in-service deadline. Construction staging for Phase III began in the spring of 2011. As activity on the project escalated, citizens began to take notice. Although the required public process for notification was followed from 2005 up through today, a significant number of citizens were unaware of the project. As observed at Council meetings, and through other media, there has been concern voiced with the impact the project will have on the Pineridge Natural Area. As noted, the required public engagement process was done as part of the project. However, there was not a strong focused October 11, 2011 -2- ITEM 4 process to build informed consent or at a minimum acceptance of the project. Projects such as the Pineridge transmission project require a heightened level of engagement with the community and more specifically those stakeholders that are directly affected by a project. In this case, as with any large project that has substantial impact, the minimum process does not adequately achieve the required level of engagement. As a result, Platte River and the City have devoted significant resources exploring opportunities to address citizen concerns, which should have been done throughout the project. On August 16, 2011, City Council , by motion, directed staff (1) to attempt to negotiate with the Platte River Power Authority a written agreement to postpone the commencement of construction of Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation Transmission Line project pending the completion of a rigorous, in-depth data- based analysis and review of the project and its related impacts as presently designed, as well as the pros, cons, costs and benefits of the project and further pending the review and consideration of that analysis by the Fort Collins City Council and the other member cities of PRPA; (2) if such an agreement has not been negotiated and signed between PRPA and City on or before August 26, 2011, to work with the Mayor to schedule a special meeting of the City Council to be held no later than August 31, 2011, for the purpose of seeking Council approval of the commencement of such litigation as may be necessary for the City to seek adjunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction adjoining the construction of the project; and (3) to prepare such legal documents as may be necessary to file such a court action pending further direction from the Council. On August 25, 2011, the Platte River Board of Directors passed a motion directing: “Platte River Power Authority to temporarily delay further construction activities associated with Phase III of the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe transmission upgrade until October 18, 2011, provided an agreement, suitable to the General Manager, can be reached with the City of Fort Collins in order to use this period of delay to study alternative means to complete the 230 kV circuit presently under construction that will provide a redundant transmission circuit to the City of Loveland. During the period between now and October 18, staff is directed to cooperate fully with the City of Fort Collins to retain a mutually agreeable, nationally recognized engineering consultant to complete the referenced study. The results of the study of alternative means to complete the 230 kV transmission circuit will be presented to the City Council of Fort Collins on October 18 for action by the City Council. Due to the critical importance of the new 230 kV circuit to the reliability of service to the City of Loveland and residents of south Fort Collins, any alternatives must complete the connection by June 1, 2012. Fort Collins must pay the incremental costs of any alternative pursued. Platte River is willing to pay a reasonable amount for the retention of the engineering consultant, such amount not to exceed one half of the expenses.” The end result of a multi stepped process has been to develop the Agreement signed on August 31, 2011 (Attachment 1). In that Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and Platte River Power Authority agreed to hire SAIC / R.W. Beck to analyze the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe project and examine alternative ways to accomplish the purposes of the project. Staff, Platte River and SAIC have been diligently working on the Alternatives Study. The initial schedule called for the study to be completed by October 10, 2011 for inclusion in the Council packet for the October 18, 2011 meeting. In order to provide information for the October 11, 2011 adjourned meeting, the study materials that are attached are a 90% draft of the final report (Attachments 2 and 3). FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Please see attached draft report provided by R.W. Beck / SAIC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please see attached draft report provided by R.W. Beck / SAIC. October 11, 2011 -3- ITEM 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Utilities and Natural Resources staff recommend that the appropriate City departments work with Platte River to develop guidelines that define the expectations, procedures and processes that should be utilized in order to insure that citizens are engaged, informed and considered throughout all phases of a project. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Due to the limited time frame associated with developing the study there was no opportunity to present the material to any board or commission. PUBLIC OUTREACH Pending the action taken by City Council, public outreach will be conducted to present potential alternatives to the public. ATTACHMENTS 1. Interim Agreement Regarding Phase III of the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe Transmission Line Project Between City of Fort Collins and Platte River Power Authority 2. Draft Pineridge Transmission Project Alternatives Study 3. Draft Distributed Generation Alternatives Study Draft Report Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado October 2011 Draft Report Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado October 2011 This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to SAIC constitute the opinions of SAIC. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, SAIC has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. SAIC makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. © 2011 SAIC All rights reserved. File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Executive Summary Section 1 PLATTE RIVER TRANSMISSION NETWORK AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Load Growth ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Transmission Planning ............................................................................. 1-1 Section 2 WESTERN’S FACILITIES AND LONG-RANGE PLANS ................ 2-1 2.1 Western Transmission in Pineridge Natural Area ................................... 2-1 Section 3 DIXON CREEK – HORSESHOE LINE CONFIGURATION ............ 3-1 3.1 Platte River Proposed Project .................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Phase I – Horseshoe Substation to Trilby Substation .................. 3-1 3.1.2 Phase II – Trilby Substation to Horsetooth Tap........................... 3-3 3.1.3 Phase III – Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek Substation ............... 3-4 3.2 Phase III Schedule .................................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Phase III Cost ........................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Phase III Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 3-6 3.4.1 Biological Resource Impacts ....................................................... 3-6 3.4.2 Aesthetic Impacts ......................................................................... 3-7 Section 4 ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS ....................... 4-1 4.1 Range of Options Considered .................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Painted Structures .................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Alternative Structure Types ..................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Double-Circuit H-Frame .......................................................................... 4-3 4.4.1 Schedule ....................................................................................... 4-5 4.4.2 Cost .............................................................................................. 4-6 4.4.3 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts .................................... 4-7 4.4.4 Aesthetic Impacts ......................................................................... 4-7 4.5 Single-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame ............................................................ 4-10 Section 5 SPAN LENGTH INCREASE .................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Interrelationship of Span Length and Structure Height ........................... 5-1 Table of Contents iv SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 5.2 Schedule ................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Cost .......................................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts ............................................... 5-4 5.5 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-4 Section 6 PARTIAL UNDERGROUND ALTERNATIVE ALONG CURRENT ROUTE.................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Description ............................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Schedule ................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Cost .......................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts ............................................... 6-4 6.5 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-4 Section 7 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ..................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Initially Considered Routes ..................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Magenta Route Alternative – Follow Lower Ridge Line in Pineridge Natural Area ............................................................................ 7-6 7.2.1 Route Description ........................................................................ 7-6 7.2.2 Easements .................................................................................... 7-6 7.2.3 Schedule ....................................................................................... 7-6 7.2.4 Cost .............................................................................................. 7-8 7.2.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................ 7-9 7.2.6 Aesthetic Impacts ......................................................................... 7-9 7.3 Orange Route Alterative – South Centennial Drive .............................. 7-12 7.3.1 Route Description ...................................................................... 7-12 7.3.2 Easements .................................................................................. 7-12 7.3.3 Schedule ..................................................................................... 7-13 7.3.4 Cost ............................................................................................ 7-14 7.3.5 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. 7-15 7.3.6 Aesthetics ................................................................................... 7-16 7.4 Green Route Alternative – South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road ....................................................................................................... 7-19 7.4.1 Route Description ...................................................................... 7-19 7.4.2 Easements .................................................................................. 7-19 7.4.3 Schedule ..................................................................................... 7-19 7.4.4 Cost ............................................................................................ 7-21 7.4.5 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. 7-22 7.4.6 Aesthetics ................................................................................... 7-22 Section 8 TEMPORARY LINE ............................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Required Interconnection Timeline ......................................................... 8-1 8.2 Temporary Line Configuration – Wooden Structures ............................. 8-1 8.3 Schedule ................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4 Cost .......................................................................................................... 8-3 8.5 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts ............................................... 8-4 8.6 Aesthetic Impacts ..................................................................................... 8-4 Table of Contents File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC v List of Tables Table 1-1 Loveland Peak Load History ...................................................................... 1-1 Table 3-1 Span, Height, and Right-of-Way Information ............................................ 3-4 Table 3-2 Implementation Schedule Phase III Existing Contract ............................... 3-5 Table 4-1 230-kV H-frame Span, Height, and Right-of-Way Information ................ 4-4 Table 4-2 Cost Comparison Double-circuit H-frame Structure Alternative ............... 4-7 Table 5-1 Cost Comparison Long Span Alternative ................................................... 5-3 Table 6-1 Implementation Schedule Partial Underground in Pineridge Natural Area ..................................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2 Cost Comparison Partial Underground Alternative .................................... 6-3 Table 7-1 Alternate Route Screening Matrix .............................................................. 7-3 Table 7-2 Implementation Schedule Magenta Route Alternative .............................. 7-7 Table 7-3 Cost Comparison Magenta Route Alternative ............................................ 7-8 Table 7-4 Implementation Schedule Orange Route Alternative .............................. 7-13 Table 7-5 Cost Comparison Orange Route Alternative ............................................ 7-15 Table 7-6 Implementation Schedule Green Route Alternative ................................ 7-20 Table 7-7 Cost Comparison Green Route Alternative .............................................. 7-22 Table 8-1 Implementation Schedule Temporary Wood Pole Line in Pineridge Natural Area ..................................................................................................... 8-3 Table 8-2 Estimated Cost Temporary Transmission Line .......................................... 8-4 Table of Contents vi SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Western 230-kV and 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line Structures 2-2 Figure 2-2. Existing Western 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line in Pineridge Natural Area ..................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3. Photo Simulation – Future Western 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line in Pineridge Natural Area .................................................. 2-3 Figure 3-1. Underground 230-kV Transmission Ductbank Cross-Section ................. 3-2 Figure 3-2. Underground 230-kV Transmission Ductbank Vault (24’Lx8’Wx8’H) .............................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-3. Double-Circuit 230-kV Transmission Line Structure .............................. 3-3 Figure 3-4. Existing Western 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ..................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-5. Proposed Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ...................... 3-9 Figure 4-1. Photo Simulation Painted Single Steel Poles ........................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2. Double-Circuit 230-kV Lattice Tower ..................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-3. Double-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame ............................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-4. Existing Western 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ..................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-5. Photo Simulation: Double-Circuit 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ...................... 4-9 Figure 4-6. Photo Simulation: Double-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ...................... 4-9 Figure 4-7. Western 230-kV and 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line Structures ........................................................................................................ 4-10 Figure 4-8. Photo Simulation: Single-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ........................................... 4-11 Figure 4-9. Existing Fordham 230-115 kV Substation in Longmont ....................... 4-12 Figure 7-1. Phase III Initial Route Alternatives (2010 Imagery) ................... 7-1 Figure 7-2. Phase III Viable Route Alternatives (2010 Imagery) .................. 7-5 Figure 7-2. Existing view of Dixon Reservoir from Burns Ranch (Looking northwest) ....................................................................................... 7-10 Figure 7-3. Existing view of Pineridge from Burns Ranch (Looking west) 7-10 Figure 7-4. Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking northwest at Dixon Reservoir) ............................................... 7-11 Figure 7-5. Platte River 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking northwest at Dixon Reservoir) ........................................................ 7-11 Figure 7-6. Platte River 230-kV Transmission Lines (Looking west at Pineridge) 7-12 Figure 7-7. Existing view of Dixon Reservoir from Burns Ranch (Looking northwest) ....................................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-8. Existing view of Pineridge from Burns Ranch (Looking west) 7-17 Table of Contents File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC vii Figure 7-9. Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking northwest at Dixon Reservoir) ............................................... 7-18 Figure 7-10.Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking west at Pineridge) ........................................................................... 7-18 File: 005445/3105111014-1000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) is responsible for designing and operating the high-voltage electric transmission system that serves the cities of Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland (Cities). The Cities have grown over the past decade and peak load has increased to the point that the existing transmission system is not sufficient to provide the required redundancy to reliably meet Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland needs. Section 1 of this document discusses the specifics of the transmission reliability issues facing the northern Front Range Colorado transmission corridor in Larimer County that serves these cities and alternatives for addressing those issues. To address reliability issues, Platte River is in the final stages of upgrading the area transmission network by adding 230-kV transmission facilities, in particular the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe interconnection project (Project). To date Platte River has accomplished two phases of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe transmission line. This report addresses issues that have been raised related to Phase III of the Platte River Project which extends from Dixon Creek Substation to Horsetooth Tap Switching Station. A point of contention for Phase III has been the section that is planned to be constructed overhead by rebuilding the existing Western Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line through the Pineridge Natural Area in Fort Collins as a double- circuit steel pole line, as simulated in Figure EX-1. Figure EX-1 - Proposed Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 This section was planned to complete the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe 230-kV transmission corridor conversion by a summer 2012 in-service deadline. By not completing the Dixon Creek – Horsetooth segment, the 230-kV circuit capability of the first two phases will not be realized and Platte River will not be able to provide transmission reliability per North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards when the Cities’ loads exceed 550 MW. Platte River stated that this load level was exceeded 178 hours during 2011 as of August 22nd and is expected to be exceeded more frequently next summer based on projected 2.75% annual load increases; therefore an alternative solution needs to be completed before June 2012 or a temporary line must be in place by that time. As of October 2011, the design, permitting and some of the material procurement has been completed for Phase III as proposed by Platte River. This phase is presently being delayed until it can be demonstrated that other alternative ways to accomplish the purposes of the Project have been examined. This report evaluates a number of physical alternatives for Phase III as compared to Platte River’s existing transmission plan for the completion of the Dixon Creek – Horsetooth Tap 230-kV circuit, which is described in detail in Section 3. For discussion purposes the Dixon Creek – Horsetooth Tap line is described as having a southern section and a northern section, The southern section is 2.4 miles long extending from Horsetooth Tap Switching Station to the area of Spring Canyon Dam. The northern section is 1.4 miles long extending from the area of Spring Canyon Dam, through the Pineridge Natural Area, to Dixon Creek Substation. Western’s Plans Since Platte River’s proposed Project utilizes the Western Right-of-Way (R/W) in the Pineridge Natural Area and also involves rebuilding Western’s existing transmission line onto new structures, it is important to understand Western’s long range plans in consideration of any potential changes to the Project and their position in general towards underground transmission facilities. Western has clearly communicated the following: 1. Western is willing to relocate to an alternate route, provided, there is no cost to Western, their technical requirements are accommodated and they retain a R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek. 2. Western will not consider undergrounding their existing line or any new lines. 3. If the Platte River line is built elsewhere and the Western line remains in the Pineridge Natural Area, Western has indicated that it is in their long range plans to upgrade the existing line crossing Pineridge with overhead construction within a decade. Anticipating future growth, they plan to rebuild for 230-kV using larger structures than those in place today. A photo simulation of the probable Western line across Pineridge for this scenario is shown in Figure EX-2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY File: 005445/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 Figure EX-2 – Photo Simulation Western Line rebuilt to 230-kV Western’s position significantly limits options available to address view shed impacts. An underground option for the new Platte River line is examined, but the Western line would remain. Therefore, the majority of options examined are related to alternate overhead construction methods. Temporary Impacts of Adopting an Alternative As a part of this study it was determined that, in the event that an alternative is adopted for Phase III of Platte River’s proposed Project that cannot be completed by next summer (2012), reliability issues dictate that a temporary 230-kV line will need to be built. This could be a parallel wood pole line through the area or completion of the line as designed subject to later removal. Any temporary parallel line through the southerly line section would require easements over private property. If the owners are not willing to grant easements, a lengthy condemnation process would likely be required. In addition the timeline for environmental permitting of a temporary line in Larimer County would not support completion of the parallel line in time to meet the in-service date. Therefore completion of the line as designed may be the only viable temporary solution for the southerly section. For the northerly section, from Spring Canyon dam a temporary line could be located adjacent to the existing Western 115-kV line if easements and environmental permitting can be obtained in time. Construction for this temporary line is anticipated to have biological and natural resource impacts very similar to constructing the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 proposed Project. The temporary line would have additional biological and natural resource impacts from the construction activities associated with its future removal. The temporary line will also have aesthetic impacts for the duration of the line being in place, which is estimated to be two years Potential Phase III Alternatives The range of options considered under this study included evaluation of structure changes to the line proposed by Platte River as well as routing alternatives. The options examined include: 1. Change the appearance of the proposed line through the use of either galvanizing (silver) or other color treatment for the poles 2. In place of the proposed tall single poles use alternative structure types, such as shorter double pole construction similar to the existing line; 3. Rather than building a double circuit line upgrade just the existing line. This would require additional substation equipment. 4. Decrease the number of poles in the Pineridge area by extending the distance between the poles (longer spans). This will require taller poles. 5. Underground the new line along the proposed route through Pineridge and leave the existing Western line in place; and 6. Relocate the proposed line to one of three alternative routes in order to lessen visual impacts. In evaluating each of the above alternatives the analyses considered the timeline for completion of the alternative, costs of the alternative, its biological and natural resource (environmental) impacts, and its aesthetic impacts. Color Treatment Platte River’s proposed single pole structures are made of weathering steel which overtime darkens to a deep brown color and is thought to resemble the appearance of wood poles when viewed from a distance. This was selected over galvanized steel, which has a shiny appearance that can be highly visible in sunlight or bright light conditions and would increase the aesthetic impact of tubular steel poles in the Pineridge Natural Area. Another option is painted steel, available in a wide range of color options to blend into the environment; however surface scratches or damage will expose the underlying steel to corrosion damage. A photo simulation of painted poles is shown in Figure EX-3. If painted poles were to be used for the Phase III structures, it is not feasible to use the poles already procured by Platte River. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY File: 005445/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 5 Figure EX-3 Photo Simulation Painted Single Pole Structures Alternative Structure Types Three alternative structure types were considered. A double-circuit lattice tower as shown in Figure EX-4 is commonly used in the industry, but would have more environmental and aesthetic impact and a higher cost than the proposed Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure EX-4 Double-Circuit 230-kv Lattice Tower Figure EX-5 is a photo simulation of double circuit 230-kV steel H-frame structures along the alignment in the Pineridge Natural Area. It would also have more environmental and aesthetic impact and a higher cost than the proposed Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY File: 005445/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7 Figure EX-5 Photo Simulation Double-Circuit 230-kV H-frame Upgrade of Existing Line A single-circuit 230-kV H-frame as shown in Figure EX-1 could possibly provide adequate reliability if coupled with a $10 million, 5 acre, 230-115-kV substation. However, the single-circuit option would be owned and controlled by Western and would not provide the firm capacity Platte River requires. Longer Spans The option of using longer spans is anticipated to result in much taller structures (135 to 150 feet), depending on final design and conductor selection. The poles may also have a larger diameter and be quite massive; therefore this option was deemed to not be preferred over the proposed Project. Partial Undergrounding Along Proposed Route Undergrounding of the Platte River line on the proposed route through Pineridge may address the aesthetic impact of larger double-circuit structures but has substantial tradeoffs. Since Western would not allow undergrounding of its circuit and since Western plans to upgrade the existing overhead line, the aesthetic impact is represented by the photo simulation shown above in Figure EX-1. The underground alternative is anticipated to have extensive physical impacts on biological and natural resource as a result of trenching through the Pineridge Natural Area. This alternative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 also has substantial cost implications since it is estimated to cost approximately $7 Million more than the proposed Project. Alternative Routes An initial screening analysis identified three viable routing options for the proposed Platte River 230-kV line separate from the existing 115-kV Western line route. These are color-coded on Figure EX-6 as follows; 1. Magenta route- Lower ridgeline in Pineridge Natural Area (overhead, but reduced visibility in the natural area) 2. Orange Route- South Centennial Drive (overhead, but at a greater distance from the City and less impact on the natural area ) 3. Green Route- South Taft Hill R and West Drake (overhead/underground hybrid east of the natural area) Figure EX-6 Alternative Routes Review of these routing alternatives weighed the environmental and aesthetic impacts using a subjective scale of low to high impact, as well as the cost and construction schedule. Table EX-1 below illustrates how the three alternatives compare to each EXECUTIVE SUMMARY File: 005445/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 9 other and to undergrounding along the proposed Pineridge route. The project development costs shown include the materials and construction required for the alternative as well as the engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction management and interest during construction. Other costs related to adoption of an alternative include costs for the temporary line and any sunk costs related to materials or construction already in place which would need to be abandoned. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Table EX-1 Alternative Route Comparison Route ID Route Description Technical Solution Environmental Impact Aesthetic Impact Cost Yellow 1 (Platte River Proposed Project) 3.7 miles Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek Substation through Horsetooth Reservoir Area and Pineridge Natural Area. Double-circuit tubular steel pole line supporting both Platte River’s proposed 230-kV circuit and Western’s existing 115-kV circuit. Medium – construction roads required along the northern portion. Southern portion utilize helicopter construction. High – Major impact for recreational users of Natural Area and Horsetooth Reservoir. $8.5M Yellow 2 (Partial UG) 3.7 miles (1.4 UG) Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek Substation through Horsetooth Reservoir Area and Pineridge Natural Area. Overhead from Horsetooth Tap to near Spring Canyon Dam (as designed), then underground (as a single circuit) to Dixon Creek Substation; Western remains as single circuit overhead line. High – construction roads required and continuous trench/bore (with pits) along the northern portion. Southern portion utilize helicopter construction. Medium – No major, long term aesthetic impact through Pineridge Natural Area. Transmission line visible from Natural Area and Horsetooth Reservoir. $15.3M Green 2 (Partial UG) 5.1 miles (3.1 UG) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY File: 005445/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 11 Orange 4.2 miles Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam, then north along S Centennial Dr, east near Dixon Canyon Rd, across Dixon Reservoir to Dixon Creek Substation. Overhead double-circuit tubular steel poles (230-kV Platte River and Western 115-kV). Low – construction in existing Western R/W and public R/W. Medium – Adds very tall structures in area with overhead distribution lines. $10.4M File: 005455/3105111014-1000 Section 1 PLATTE RIVER TRANSMISSION NETWORK AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY 1.1 Load Growth Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) is responsible for designing and operating the electric transmission system that serves the cities of Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland (Cities). Electric systems are designed to serve peak load, which is when the instantaneous Megawatt (MW) demand is the highest. In the northern Front Range Colorado area, peak loads typically occur between 4 PM and 6 PM on a summer weekday when business and residential cooling requirements and evening activities overlap. Peak load at Loveland has increased approximately 37% over the past ten years as shown in Table 1-1. Overall system growth in the Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) service area has increased 20% during that timeframe. Peak load has increased to the point that the 115-kV transmission system is not sufficient to provide the required redundancy to reliably meet Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland needs. Table 1-1 Loveland Peak Load History Date Time MW 7/18/2011 18:00 156 7/26/2010 17:00 145 7/24/2009 16:00 135 8/1/2008 17:00 153 7/23/2007 17:00 146 6/14/2006 17:00 137 7/22/2005 17:00 137 7/13/2004 16:00 125 7/17/2003 16:00 122 7/30/2002 17:00 114 1.2 Transmission Planning It is required per the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Transmission Planning (TPL) standards (TPL-001 through TPL-004, in particular) to conduct power flow studies to effectively demonstrate the reliability of the electric system under contingency situations, such as loss of a network transmission line. In performing these extensive contingency analyses, the effect of an outaged facility on Section 1 1-2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 the rest of the transmission system is evaluated under a variety of system loading conditions, transmission configurations, and generation dispatch patterns. Two transmission lines connect the City of Loveland to generation resources. On the east side of Loveland is a Platte River 230-kV line capable of serving approximately 472 MW. On the west side of the cities is a Western Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line capable of serving approximately 109 MW peak load. Current system planning studies, as well as 10-year transmission planning studies conducted in 2004, have conclusively demonstrated the urgent need to provide additional capacity between Fort Collins and Loveland to address the contingency loss of the existing 230-kV line between the two cities. In 2004, Platte River considered several alternatives and determined the most economical solution was to build a 230-kV circuit (Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation). In addition, the Colorado Coordinated Planning Group, which is a statewide consortium (including Tri-State and Xcel Energy) have collectively concluded that the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe 230-kV circuit is an appropriate transmission solution for the area. With the load growth existing in the upper portion of the Front Range from Colorado Springs toward the Wyoming border, future transmission improvements are scheduled to take place from Southern Wyoming to Northern Colorado in order to accommodate the expanded import capability from the generation resources north of the Colorado border. The scheduled improvements will have an effect of increased power flows through the eastern part of Colorado in the Front Range. Over 70 percent of the state’s load exists between Fort Collins and Colorado Springs within 40 miles of either side of Interstate 25; thus, the proposed parallel 230-kV transmission lines will also serve to boost the overall system reliability. The two segments of this comprehensive 230-kV upgrade north of Horseshoe Substation (Phase I) and west of Trilby Substation (Phase II) have already been completed, and the section south of Dixon Creek Substation through Pineridge Natural Area (Phase III) is the last phase in preparation for the anticipated summer 2012 loading conditions in the Loveland area. The last section in question will aid in alleviating the 115-kV circuit contingency loading that occurs with a 230-kV circuit outage. This report addresses issues that have been raised related to the Phase III of the Platte River Project which extends from Dixon Creek Substation to Horsetooth Tap switching station. A point of contention for Phase III has been the section that is planned to be constructed overhead by rebuilding the existing Western Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line through the Pineridge Natural Area in Fort Collins as a double-circuit steel pole line. This section was planned to complete the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe 230-kV transmission corridor conversion by a summer 2012 in-service deadline. By leaving the remaining Dixon Creek – Horsetooth segment at 115-kV, the 230-kV circuit capability of the two previously upgraded 115-kV circuits will not be realized and Platte River will not be able to provide transmission reliability per North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards when the Cities’ loads exceed 550 MW. Platte River stated that this load level was exceeded 178 hours PLATTE RIVER TRANSMISSION NETWORK AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 1-3 during 2011 as of August 22nd and is expected to be exceeded more frequently next summer based on projected 2.75% annual load increases. The design, permitting, and some of the material procurement have been completed for Phase III as proposed by Platte River. This phase is presently being delayed until it can be demonstrated that other alternatives have been adequately evaluated. This report evaluates a number of physical alternatives for Phase III as compared to Platte River’s existing transmission plan for the completion of the Dixon Creek – Horsetooth Tap 230-kV circuit. File: 005455/3105111014-1000 Section 2 WESTERN’S FACILITIES AND LONG-RANGE PLANS 2.1 Western Transmission in Pineridge Natural Area Since Platte River’s proposed Phase III of the Dixon Creek to Horsetooth project in the Pineridge Natural Area also involves Western’s existing transmission line and right-of-way, it is important to understand Western’s long-range plans for these facilities. Based upon a brief discussion with Western regarding their plans for the existing 115- kV line we were able to determine the following: 1. The existing line utilizes wood H-frame structures, is 60 years old, and is nearing the end of its useful life. Western indicated that given its age, they would need to rebuild the line within 10 years. 2. Western has no system studies indicating a need to upgrade the circuit to 230-kV, but given the expanding prevalence of a 230-kV grid in the area, they would opt to design and rebuild the line to 230-kV standards. 3. If Western were to rebuild the line as a single circuit 230-kV line, without the Platte River line, they would prefer to utilize a wood H-frame structure. 4. Western’s typical right-of-way (R/W) width for 230-kV single circuit H-frame construction is 125 feet, which is common and appropriate for this type construction. Rebuilding the line at 230-kV with H-frames would require expansion of the existing 75-foot R/W by acquisition of an additional 50-foot width from Fort Collins. 5. Western is opposed to undergrounding their circuit at 115 kV or 230 kV. They indicated a willingness to negotiate and support expansion of the existing R/W or acquisition of an alternative route R/W provided there is no cost to them and their technical requirements are accommodated. In the event the Platte River 230-kV transmission line utilizes one of the other route alternatives considered in this report and Western’s line remains in the Pineridge Natural Area information is provided below to illustrate the difference in Western’s structure types for 115-kV and 230-kV lines. A Western 230-kV H-frame would have almost double the pole spacing (22 feet versus 12 feet) and much wider crossarms (45 feet versus 25 feet) compared to the existing 115-kV H-frame. Figure 2-1 is a photograph that Western provided of an existing transmission corridor that illustrates the relative sizes between their 115-kV and 230-kV H-frame structures. Section 2 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study Figure 2-1. Western 230-kV and 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line Structures Figure 2-2 is a photograph of the existing Western 75-foot R/W and 115-kV transmission line in the Pineridge Natural Area. For any alternatives considered in this report where the Western line is not rebuilt or relocated from the Pineridge Natural Area, Figure 2-3 provides a photo simulation illustrating Western’s future plan to rebuild their line at 230-kV. WESTERN’S FACILITIES AND LONG-RANGE PLANS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 Figure 2-2. Existing Western 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line in Pineridge Natural Area Figure 2-3. Photo Simulation – Future Western 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line in Pineridge Natural Area Section 2 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study In the event that Western could not obtain the additional R/W necessary to build a single circuit 230-kV wood H-frame line in the Pineridge Natural Area, the existing R/W would be sufficient to accommodate a single-pole 230-kV line. This concept was not explored in the discussions with Western. File: 005455/3105111014-1000 Section 3 DIXON CREEK – HORSESHOE LINE CONFIGURATION 3.1 Platte River Proposed Project The Platte River proposed project seeks to create a 230-kV transmission interconnection between the Dixon Creek Substation in Fort Collins and the Horseshoe Substation in Loveland, as a second 230-kV power source for Loveland, as more fully explained in Section 1 of this report. In order to accomplish this 230-kV interconnection, Platte River divided the transmission line into three segments or phases as further described below. To date Platte River has completed both Phase I and Phase II of the transmission line. This report focuses on the Phase III segment from Horsetooth Tap Switching Station to Dixon Creek Substation, located within Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. 3.1.1 Phase I – Horseshoe Substation to Trilby Substation Phase I consists of the Platte River single circuit 230-kV transmission line, from Horseshoe Substation in Loveland to Trilby Substation in Fort Collins, a distance of approximately 2.4 miles. This line is constructed as an underground transmission line in a concrete-encased ductbank and utilizes three power cables, one per phase. The underground ductbank includes seven underground vaults along its alignment for cable pulling and splicing purposes. These underground vaults are spaced approximately 1,300 feet to 1,900 feet apart. We understand that Phase I was placed underground due to the difficulty in locating and obtaining a viable R/W for an overhead line. Figure 3-1 includes a cross section of the underground line, illustrating the ductbank configuration. Figure 3-2 is a depiction of the underground vaults. The 230-kV power cable is a jacketed cable consisting of a solid dielectric insulation, referred to as XLPE, around a stranded copper wire (2000 kcmil) as the electrical conductor. The 230-kV line transitions from overhead construction to underground construction by utilizing a tubular steel riser structure outside Trilby Substation. Section 3 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure 3-1. Underground 230-kV Transmission Ductbank Cross-Section Figure 3-2. Underground 230-kV Transmission Ductbank Vault (24’Lx8’Wx8’H) We understand that Phase I was completed for a total cost of $11,583,000, or $4.8 Million per mile. These costs included engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction management, and interest during construction. DIXON CREEK – HORSESHOE LINE CONFIGURATION File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 3.1.2 Phase II – Trilby Substation to Horsetooth Tap Phase II from Trilby Substation to Horsetooth Tap consists of rebuilding an existing Tri-State Generation & Transmission (G&T) 115-kV transmission line, combined with the Platte River 230-kV transmission line for a distance of approximately 3.1 miles. This double circuit line is constructed as an overhead line utilizing steel poles. The line consists of 31 steel poles with six power cables, three on each side of the pole, as electrical conductors and one optical ground wire near the top of the pole for both lightning protection and communication purposes. The overhead line is primarily located within public road R/W, routed along West Trilby Road for approximately two-thirds of its length. The remaining third of the line is routed cross-country mostly in the Horsetooth Reservoir Area. Phase II uses “tangent” structures as shown in Figure 3-3. It is a single, self- supporting steel pole structure made of weathering steel and is mounted on a drilled concrete pier foundation. It uses “braced-post” insulator assemblies that extend 8 to 10 feet from the face of the pole, with six total phase positions: three on one side for Platte River and three on the other side for Tri-State G&T. The steel poles range in height from 80 to 135 feet tall, with roughly seventy percent of the poles being 90 feet. The 230-kV power cable consists of a bare cable with aluminum wires stranded over steel wires, referred to as ACSR, as the electrical conductor. The drilled pier foundations range in size from 6 to 9 feet in diameter and 18 to 42 feet in depth. Figure 3-3. Double-Circuit 230-kV Transmission Line Structure Section 3 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Phase II was completed for a total cost of $3,438,000 or $1.1 Million per mile. These costs included engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction management, and interest during construction. 3.1.3 Phase III – Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek Substation Phase III from Horsetooth Tap Switching Station to Dixon Creek Substation consists of rebuilding an existing Western 115-kV transmission line to 230-kV standards, combined with the Platte River 230-kV transmission line for a distance of approximately 3.7 miles. This double-circuit line is planned to be constructed as an overhead line utilizing a total of 34 steel poles similar to those used for Phase II. The line is routed within the existing 75-foot R/W for Western’s 115-kV line. For approximately two-thirds of the length of Phase III, the Western R/W is routed upslope from, and generally along West County Road 38E to near the Spring Canyon Dam. The line section along West County Road 38E utilizes 20 poles with design spans of about 400 to 850 feet, with one span adjacent to the dam of over 1,300 feet. The structures for this portion of Phase III range in height from 90 feet to 120 feet with the majority of poles being from 100 feet to 115 feet tall. From near the Spring Canyon Dam, the route turns into and passes through the Pineridge Natural Area for approximately 1.4 miles. This portion of Phase III proceeds from the area of Spring Canyon Dam, generally north, passing near and to the east of a group of homes in Burns Ranch subdivision and then continues to the Dixon Creek Substation. This portion of Phase III utilizes 14 steel poles with design spans of about 500 to 660 feet. Structures in the Pineridge Natural Area range in height from 85 feet to 105 feet with the majority of poles being from 90 to 95 feet tall. This design for Phase III was adopted principally to fit in the existing 75-foot Western R/W, and the typical design spans are suited to fitting in this corridor. See Table 3-1 for a summary of level ground spans, heights, and R/W needs. Table 3-1 Span, Height, and Right-of-Way Information Notes: 1 Based on level ground spans, 1272 ACSR Bittern conductor and loading criteria from Phase III. 2 Right-of-way width based on NESC Rule 234 clearances to the edge of right of way plus some margin for a nominal width. Other considerations like working room and access may increase this dimension. Span (ft) Height (ft above ground) Minimum Right of Way Width (ft) 600 87 75 700 92 75 800 97 75 900 102 100 1000 108 100 1100 115 100 DIXON CREEK – HORSESHOE LINE CONFIGURATION File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 5 The foundations range in diameter from 6 feet to 12 feet with the most common diameter 7 feet. The foundation depths range from 17 feet to 41 feet with the most common depths being 19 feet and 24 to 26 feet. These foundations are larger than the foundations for the existing Western H-frame structures because each single pole and its footing need to withstand the total load while the H-frame splits the load between two foundations. 3.2 Phase III Schedule The schedule established by Platte River for completion of the entire Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation 230-kV circuit is May 2012 in order to have the interconnection in place prior to when summer peak loads occur. Phase III is the final segment necessary to complete the project. We understand that steel poles for Phase III have been fabricated and delivered to the project site and a construction contract has been negotiated and construction is ready to begin. Below in Table 3-2 is an estimated schedule for completion of Phase III as presently proposed by Platte River. Table 3-2 Implementation Schedule Phase III Existing Contract Phase Start Finish Cumulative Restart Construction 10/19/11 Mobilize 10/19/11 10/26/11 Construct Foundations 10/24/11 4/13/12 Erect Poles and Frame 1/2/12 5/5/12 String, Sag, and Clip 2/6/12 5/25/12 Test and Commission 5/7/12 5/28/12 152 days Notes: 1. Based on favorable winter construction conditions. Construct difficult to reach and high ground first. 2. Based on willingness and availability of Phase III contractor to renegotiate or restart their contract. 3.3 Phase III Cost Cost information provided by Platte River for Phase III indicates a total material and construction cost of $7.1 Million. Other costs for engineering, permitting, right-of- way, construction management, and interest during construction are estimated to be about 20% of the material and construction cost, resulting in a total Phase III cost of $8.5 Million or $2.3 Million per mile. The significant cost difference between Phase II and Phase III may be attributed to the fact that the majority of Phase II is located adjacent to public roads and a majority of Phase III is located in rough terrain with difficult access, with helicopter construction planned for some of these areas. Section 3 6 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 3.4 Phase III Environmental Impacts Transmission line construction activities that result in physical ground disturbance may result in environmental impacts to natural and biological resources and include access roads/trails for moving materials and construction crews, excavation for foundations, assembly and erection of structures, and wire stringing. Construction period impacts can often be mitigated through adoption of storm water and erosion control practices as well as re-vegetation of disturbed areas following construction activities. Other potential environmental impacts during the operating life of the transmission facilities include ground disturbance for any periodic maintenance activities, avian collisions with wires, and the aesthetic impact of the visual presence of man-made features in the natural environment. This project is a replacement of an existing line. Impacts may be less than for a project involving a new line on a previously undisturbed easement. Platte River completed research into environmental conditions in 2008 and provided this information to Western for use in their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Subsequently Platte River conducted additional literature research and field survey in early September 2011 related to biological resources in the vicinity of the Western R/W from Dixon Creek Substation to Horsetooth Tap. A study of cultural resources from Dixon Creek to Horseshoe was conducted in 2008. A second survey was conducted in the vicinity of Spring Creek (Site 5LR205) near the Western R/W in September 2011. In order to address aesthetic impacts in this study a number of photo simulations were prepared for the proposed project and several alternatives routes. Information resulting from the above efforts is summarized below for Phase III. 3.4.1 Biological Resource Impacts The biological review for Phase III encompassed an area 150 feet wide, centered on the existing Western transmission line. This review considered federal and state threatened and endangered species as well as species of concern identified by Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. The 2011 field survey confirmed the findings of earlier studies, related to federal threatened and endangered species, determining that these species or their preferred habitat are not present in the R/W, and construction and operation of the transmission line would not have adverse environmental impacts to threatened and endangered species. State listed species of concern or potential habitat were identified during the environmental studies for the proposed transmission line. The relevant species are the bald eagle, black-tailed prairie dog, western burrowing owl, and migratory and nesting birds. No eagle nests were observed, but the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife did note their primary concerns were potential effects to bald eagle foraging habitats and collision impacts. The R/W for Phase III does include a black-tailed prairie dog DIXON CREEK – HORSESHOE LINE CONFIGURATION File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7 colony for approximately 1,700 feet of its length. Mitigation measures for this species may be recommended by the City of Fort Collins. Western burrowing owls are closely associated with prairie dog colonies however the 2011 surveys found no evidence of burrowing owls and there are no known recent or historical occurrences of owls at this site. A number of native avian species were observed within the R/W and there is potential habitat for various birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For construction during the breeding season – April through September – surveys should be conducted to determine if any nests are present in the R/W. The City of Fort Collins has identified butterfly and plant communities as species of concern. The R/W includes suitable habitat for six butterflies of concern and four plants of concern. Of the four plant species, only Bell’s Twinpod was observed in three separate populations, two of which may be directly impacted by construction. Efforts will focus on avoiding impacts during construction. If avoidance is not possible, the City will develop mitigation plans such as relocation of the plants to suitable habitat outside of the project area or removal and replanting in the same location after the completion of the project. In addition two sensitive natural plant communities were identified in the R/W, Xeric Tallgrass Prairie and Mountain Mahogany-Skunkbush/Big Bluestem Shrubland. The Xeric Tallgrass Prairie is an area roughly 275 feet by 350 feet and the Mountain Mahogany-Skunkbush/Big Bluestem Shrubland encompasses the entire R/W from Spring Canyon Dam south to Horsetooth Tap. The City may have recommendations to minimize impacts to these vegetation communities during construction. 3.4.2 Aesthetic Impacts The aesthetic impact of a transmission facilities can be a highly subjective determination. The elements that affect aesthetic impact include the scenic quality, viewer sensitivity and the viewing distance. The scenic quality of the area being viewed is created by a combination of the physical features, vegetation, color, adjacent scenery and scarcity. The viewer sensitivity is related to the value the viewing public places on the visual landscape as well as the extent or frequency that the landscape is viewed by the public. The viewing distance relates to how prominent a transmission facility will be in the visual landscape as determined by whether the line is in the foreground, middleground or background. The aesthetic impact of a transmission line is created when a view shed is disrupted; when the structures are out of proportion with the surrounding environment; or when the structures contrast with the landscape in the background, for example the line is prominent on the skyline. The Pineridge Natural Area includes varied landforms and a high scenic quality along with native vegetation. The area also contains manmade features in the form of an existing transmission line. Viewer sensitivity might be considered relatively high as this is an area often viewed during recreational activities and easily accessible to a large population. Other existing impacts to scenic quality include bike and pedestrian trails and adjacent land owner developments. Section 3 8 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 In terms of the viewing distance and how to gauge the prominence of transmission facilities, photographs of the existing landscape and photo simulations of the proposed Phase III line were prepared. Figure 3-4 illustrates the existing Western 115-kV H-frame transmission line looking south from a recreational trail near Burns Ranch subdivision into the Pineridge Natural Area. Figure 3-4. Existing Western 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) Figures 3-5 illustrates Platte River’s proposed double-circuit, tubular steel pole 230- kV transmission line structures located in the existing Western transmission line R/W. DIXON CREEK – HORSESHOE LINE CONFIGURATION File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 9 Figure 3-5. Proposed Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) File: 005455/3105111014-1000 Section 4 ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS 4.1 Range of Options Considered In evaluating alternatives to the proposed construction for Phase III in the Pineridge Natural Area, the first consideration was to identify modifications which could potentially be incorporated along the route identified for Phase III. The three primary options identified were the use of alternative structure configurations, increasing span lengths to reduce the number of structures, or utilizing underground construction. This section of the report addresses alternative structure configurations. 4.2 Painted Structures Platte River’s proposed single pole structures are made of weathering steel which overtime darkens to a deep brown color and is thought to resemble the appearance of wood poles when viewed from a distance. When viewed against a light colored background or against the skyline the dark color of these structures may be more prominent than if an alternative pole color was used. There are two other potential surface treatments used for utility structures, these being galvanized steel or painted. In all cases pole surface treatment is an important element of the design for transmission lines as these provide protection against corrosion of the steel pole material. Weathering steel by its nature forms a protective cover that limits pole corrosion and in the event of surface scratches or damage is self healing. Galvanized steel provides a thin zinc coating that is corrosion resistant however surface scratches or damage will expose the underlying steel to corrosion damage. Maintenance for these instances entails cleaning the damaged area and applying a zinc rich paint. Painted steel provides a thin coating that is corrosion resistant however surface scratches or damage will expose the underlying steel to corrosion damage. Maintenance for these instances entails cleaning the damaged area and applying paint. In some instances combinations of these protective coatings are utilized, for example galvanized steel poles with a painted coating. It is important to note that due to the manner in which weathering steel develops a protective layer, the use of paint over weathering steel is not an option. This means that if painted poles were to be used for the Phase III structures it is not feasible to use the poles already procured by Platte River. Therefore use of this option requires construction of a temporary wood pole line while procurement of new poles proceeds and the costs for the structures currently in hand would be a sunk cost. Galvanized steel has a shiny appearance that can be highly visible in sunlight or bright light conditions. This alternative surface treatment is not anticipated to lessen the aesthetic impact of tubular steel poles in the Pineridge Natural Area. Section 4 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 There are a wide range of color options to choose from for painted structures. Typically the color is selected to allow the structures to blend into the environment where they are installed. This selection is difficult since the color of the viewing background will vary depending on lighting conditions, seasons and vantage point. A color commonly used in the industry tends to be in the gray spectrum. Figure 4-1 is a photo simulation of the proposed Platte River single pole structures painted light gray. Figure 4-1. Photo Simulation Painted Single Steel Poles 4.3 Alternative Structure Types There are two other basic structure types that are utilized in the industry, namely lattice towers or H-frame structures. When considering these two structure types it was noted that a lattice tower would be very similar to the proposed steel poles from a circuit configuration and structure height standpoint as shown in Figure 4-2. From a visual aesthetic perspective lattice towers may have advantages when they will be in more distant or background views, due to their ability to blend with the landscape where viewers are essentially “looking through” the structures. Conversely when lattice towers are in foreground views they are seen as a bulkier structure than single steel poles and may convey a sense that is more of an industrial type facility. For these reasons the lattice tower alternative was not considered viable for the Pineridge Natural Area. ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 Source: ATC Figure 4-2. Double-Circuit 230-kV Lattice Tower The H-frame structure type was determined a reasonable candidate for use in the Pineridge Natural Area and is further analyzed below. 4.4 Double-Circuit H-Frame Figure 4-3 depicts a double-circuit 230-kV H-frame structure. This structure is similar in form to the structures in place today on the Western 115-kV transmission line. The double-circuit H-frame has an additional crossarm for the second circuit. Although of the same general form as the existing line, the structure is generally larger, reflecting both the higher voltage (230-kV) of Phase III as well as the increased physical loadings the structure will need to support from the greater number of wires being carried. Section 4 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure 4-3. Double-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame The double-circuit 230-kV H-frame will have a greater leg spacing and longer crossarms than the existing Western line. It utilizes V-String insulator assemblies that serve two main purposes: they provide increased holding capacity for the heavy vertical loads expected on the wires, and they restrain insulator positions so they do not swing out and require additional R/W width. The width of this structure is 60 feet, based on 11-foot spacing from each 230-kV phase conductor to each pole, and considering pole width and arm extension beyond the outside phase wires. The structure height above ground will depend on many factors such as span length, conductor tension limits, and terrain. For data selected for the Phase III portion of the Dixon Creek - Horseshoe 230-kV Line, we estimate that the structure heights will range from 85 to 100 feet corresponding to level ground span lengths from 600 feet to 900 feet. See Table 4-1 for a summary of span, structure height, and R/W information. Table 4-1 230-kV H-frame Span, Height, and Right-of-Way Information Span (ft) Height (ft above ground) Minimum Right of Way Width (ft) 600 84 75 700 89 75 800 95 75 ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 5 900 102 75 1000 110 100 Notes: 1 Based on level ground spans, 1272 ACSR Bittern conductor and loading criteria from Phase III. 2 Right of way width based on NESC Rule 234 clearances to the edge of right of way plus some margin for a nominal width. Other considerations like working room and access may increase this dimension. The structure shown in Figure 4-2 is representative of a “tangent” structure, which is the prevalent structure type in the Pineridge Natural Area. Tangent structures are used on straight sections of transmission lines; therefore, where a line angle (turning point, or direction change) does occur, variations of this structure will have to be implemented similar to the three pole structures in place on the existing Western line. It is possible to select any three of the six conductor positions to belong to Platte River with the other three belonging to Western. In actuality, two logical configurations exist. First, all top arm positions could belong to one utility with the bottom arm positions belonging to the other utility. This makes the upper circuit difficult to reach safely without taking an outage on the lower circuit. The other configuration is to assign one set of outer positions to one utility with a middle position and with the other utility taking the remaining three positions. This makes access to the outside conductors easier and may only entail one circuit outage. Access to the middle phase however is still an issue and may require an outage of the other utility’s circuit. This is not expected to be a frequent maintenance need, but should be anticipated. This structure is not a Platte River or Western standard. As mentioned there is an operational issue related to working on one of the circuits. It is very dangerous to work on or around 230-kV circuits and requires specialized “hot-line” maintenance techniques that the crews of the two utilities may not be set up to employ. 4.4.1 Schedule If this structure type were adopted by Platte River and Western for the Pineridge Natural Area, the construction for the portion of Phase III from Horsetooth Tap to the area of the Spring Canyon Dam could proceed as presently planned. However, the redesign and procurement process for roughly 40% of the line must be started anew. This redesign entails verification of structure dimensions, developing loading and concept drawings for the double-circuit steel H-frames to solicit bids from steel structure manufacturers. This redesign and bid process through selection of a structure supplier might take an estimated 3 months. Once the structure supplier is established an additional 1 to 2 months would be required to finish calculations, steel drawings, and approval of shop drawings. Fabrication of the structures and delivery requires another 4 to 6 months depending on plant capacity and schedules. Overall this redesign and procurement process is expected to be on the critical path and is estimated to entail a schedule time of 8 to 11 months. Assuming that the original contractor for Phase III would be retained to construct this variation it would be necessary to modify the construction drawings and contract for this change. This would occur in parallel with the new steel procurement effort described above. Section 4 6 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 This structure change results in additional work not required for the single steel poles; therefore, construction of the segment through the Pineridge Natural Area is anticipated to take longer than if the single steel poles were used. The additional work consists of digging and placing an additional foundation at each structure location since each structure has two steel poles instead of one (current design). The double- circuit H-frame will also be much heavier than the single pole structures of the current design and would likely require additional equipment and crew time to set the structures. In total the construction time for this segment is estimated to be 6 to 7 months. Additional delay may also occur if new environmental studies are required due to the redesign or expansion of the easement. Based on the additional time for material procurement and for construction of the double-circuit H-frames, it appears this option would not be completed in accordance with the in-service date for Phase III, thereby necessitating the establishment of a temporary connection from the area of Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek. As further described in Section 8, it may be possible to install a temporary 230-kV wood pole line along the proposed route (within the Pineridge Natural Area). 4.4.2 Cost To estimate the costs for use of double-circuit H-frame structures, it was assumed a typical H-frame will be 95 feet tall, and will sit atop two concrete pier foundations. The foundations are anticipated to be about 6 to 7 feet in diameter each and 10 to 15 feet deep. Table 4-2 summarizes the cost for use of double-circuit H-frame structures versus the cost for the proposed Project. As shown, no change in cost from the proposed route for the south portion of this alternative is expected. The cost estimate includes: 1. the material and construction costs for the southern portion of Phase III, as proposed by Platte River; 2. the material and construction costs for the northern portion of Phase III through Pineridge Natural Area, as indicated above; 3. other project development costs such as engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction management, etc.; 4. the cost of re-engineering and associated permitting for the northern portion of the route; 5. the cost of engineering, permitting, materials, etc. expended for the proposed Project that will be of no value to the Project if double-circuit H-frame structures are used; and 6. the cost to install the temporary 230-kV line. ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7 Table 4-2 Cost Comparison Double-circuit H-frame Structure Alternative Alternative Proposed Project Engineering Costs 1 $0.52 million $1.42 Million South Section Material and Construction: Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam $5.30 Million $5.30 Million North Section Material and Construction: Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek Substation $2.62 Million $1.80 Million Sunk Costs $0.59 Million $0 Temporary 230-kV Wood Pole Line 2 $0.86 Million $0 Total $10.96 Million $8.52 Million Project Cost Differential + 2.44 Million (29% Increase) 1 Engineering Costs include incurred and planned costs for the Proposed Project, including engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction contract administration/construction management, and interest during construction. Engineering Costs are estimated to be approximately 20% of the material and construction costs, based on Phase I and Phase II. 2 Temporary Line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Sunk costs for the double-circuit H-frame structure alternative include the proportionate amount of Engineering Costs for the proposed Project that will not be constructed, as well as the cost of the steel pole structures already procured and received by Platte River. 4.4.3 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts Many of the environmental impacts for use of an H-frame structure type are anticipated to be the same as for the proposed single steel poles. For example, the number and location of access roads is expected to be very similar for the two structure types. Therefore, the discussion below is limited to environmental impacts that are in addition to what would occur if the proposed project were built. The main additional impact due to the use of H-frame structures is related to foundation construction. The H-frame structure type will require two foundations as opposed to the single foundation of the steel poles. In effect, this doubles the area of ground disturbance and potential impacts to sensitive resources as compared to the proposed project. However, the area disturbed for each foundation will be relatively confined such that although more ground is disturbed, the total area disturbed is not expected to cause significant impacts. In terms of specific plant or animal species impacts, the structure locations can typically be adjusted for short distances so that their footprint avoids an impact. This is similar for the single steel poles. 4.4.4 Aesthetic Impacts In order to compare aesthetic impacts for utilizing a double-circuit H-frame versus the proposed single steel poles there are two or three areas where the H-frame structures Section 4 8 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 present a different visual element. The 230-kV H-frame will be taller and have more bulk than the existing Western H-frame, but they will be shorter than the proposed single steel poles. The 230-kV H-frame could be considered “wider,” or not as slender, when compared to the proposed single steel poles since it has two legs each of which are anticipated to be of a large diameter. In addition, the 60-foot long heavy crossarm on the 230-kV H-frame is expected to add to a sense of massiveness for these structures. Looking at a transverse view, a person would see differing levels of wires for the different structure configurations. The Western H-frame has two different levels of wire with 5 wires total, the proposed steel poles would have four different levels of wire with 8 wires total, and the double-circuit H-frame would have three different levels of wire with 8 wires total. To provide a sense of how the different structure types may appear, the following figures illustrate the existing Western line and the potential single steel poles or H-frame. Figure 4-4. Existing Western 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 9 Figure 4-5. Photo Simulation: Double-Circuit 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) Figure 4-6. Photo Simulation: Double-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) Section 4 10 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 4.5 Single-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame Electrically, it may be possible to provide the required capacity and reliability by rebuilding the existing Western 115-kV H-Frame transmission line from Dixon Creek to Horsetooth Tap as a 230-kV line without adding a second circuit. Figure 4-7 in illustrates the relative sizes between a 115-kV and 230-kV single-circuit H-frame. Figure 4-8 is a photo simulation of this type of line in the Pineridge Natural Area. Figure 4-7. Western 230-kV and 115-kV H-Frame Transmission Line Structures ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 11 Figure 4-8. Photo Simulation: Single-Circuit 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking South in Pineridge Natural Area) This option would require installation of a 230-115 kV substation at the Horsetooth Tap location, including 230 and 115 kV breakers, at least one 230-115 kV autotransformer, and associated equipment and relaying. The substation would require the acquisition of approximately 5 acres of land. The infrastructure costs (excluding land) for this substation would be around $10 million. An aerial photo of the Fordham 230-115 kV Substation in Longmont is shown in Figure 4-8 as an example of what the substation might look like. Section 4 12 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure 4-8. Existing Fordham 230-115 kV Substation in Longmont Platte River would need to study this option to determine if it would meet the long- term needs of both Platte River and Western. When this option was discussed with Western, they provided the following comments: Western's position would be that they would have to own the entire line and then grant a contractual capacity right to Platte River. Western would not accept an arrangement where Platte River owned the line and granted Western capacity rights. (This also applies to any reroute option that Western would be a party to.) Western would expect to retain no less than the full capacity of the current 115-kV line in a new 230-kV circuit initially and the right to recall up to the full capacity of the 230-kV circuit when system studies or other factors show Western has a need. Based on the comments from Western, it is anticipated Platte River would not want to make this kind of an investment without acquiring ownership and long-term firm capacity to serve the Cities’ needs. Further, this arrangement would require Platte River to pay Western’s transmission wheeling rate for transmission outages in the Loveland area. The worst case scenario is estimated to be approximately $16,000 per day in 2012. The transmission outage scenarios could be routine maintenance of a line or terminal equipment, forced outages that are sustained by equipment failure, or outages associated with system construction activities. The impacts of the single-circuit H-frame line would be similar to those of the double- circuit line, but the substation would add additional biological, natural resource, and aesthetic impacts. Due to these obstacles, replacement of the existing 115-kV line ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS File: 005455/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 13 from Dixon Creek to Horsetooth Tap with a single-circuit 230-kV H-frame line was not considered as a viable alternative for Platte River’s purposes. File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 Section 5 SPAN LENGTH INCREASE 5.1 Interrelationship of Span Length and Structure Height Another alternative considered as an adjustment to the proposed construction for Phase III was to potentially modify the line through the use of longer spans. It is technically feasible to lengthen overhead spans so that there are fewer structures in the Pineridge Natural Area. However, it is important to recognize a basic axiom of transmission line design: longer spans mean taller structures and/or higher conductor tensions. An option would be to utilize the same conductor and pole configuration as planned for the Phase III project to span 1,300 feet. This is anticipated to reduce the number of structures in the Pineridge Natural Area from 13 to 6 but would require poles on the order of 145 feet above ground. Not only would they be tall, but they would likely be more massive structures with base diameters on the order of 10 feet with correspondingly large pier foundations. It may also be difficult for all of the construction activities to be completed within the confines of the existing 75 foot easement. In combination with the idea of increasing the span length the concept of utilizing stronger standard conductors, which could be pulled up tighter, reducing sag and structure height was considered. For instance, substituting a 1272 kcmil 54/19 ACSR (code name “Pheasant”) conductor for the planned “Bittern” conductor results in about a 20 foot reduction in pole height for a 1,300-foot span. Other special conductor types were also considered. One type, ACCR (“Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced”), has reportedly been used by Platte River on the Timberline – Harmony 230-kV line. The review of the special conductor as an alternative determined that pole heights could potentially be reduced an additional 5 feet. This alternative was not considered viable in view of the fact these type conductors may be 2.5 times the cost of standard conductors and result in a relatively small increment of height reduction. A result of using stronger and higher tensions is that this places greater loads on termination and line angle structures, which translates to larger structures. Since the design criteria for the proposed line includes load cases for broken conductor, any increase in conductor tensions will also have an impact on the size of tangent structures. So even though the dimensional design of the tangent structure pole top may not change, the size of the poles (i.e., thickness of steel or diameter of shaft at the base of the pole) will almost certainly increase. If the structure loading and size increase there will also be corresponding changes to the foundations. Section 5 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 5.2 Schedule If longer spans and taller structures were adopted by Platte River and Western for the Pineridge Natural Area, the construction for the portion of Phase III from Horsetooth Tap to the area of the Spring Canyon Dam could proceed as presently planned, utilizing the current structures and conductor. However, the redesign and procurement process for roughly 40% of the line must be started anew. This redesign entails developing a new line layout, verification of structure dimensions, and developing loading and concept drawings for the new taller steel poles to solicit bids from steel structure manufactures. This redesign and bid process through selection of a structure supplier might take an estimated 3 months. Once the structure supplier is established an additional 1 to 2 months would be required to finish calculations, steel drawings and approval of shop drawings. Fabrication of the structures and delivery requires another 4 to 6 months depending on plant capacity and schedules. Overall this redesign and procurement process is expected to be on the critical path and is estimated to entail a schedule time of 8 to 11 months. Assuming that the original contractor for Phase III would be retained to construct this variation it would be necessary to modify the construction drawings and contract for this change. This would occur in parallel with the new line layout and steel procurement effort described above. The structure changes due to increased span lengths results in fewer structures which may reduce the work through the Pineridge Natural Area, however, this may be partially offset due to the much larger foundations and poles which will entail additional work compared to the proposed structures. Overall the construction time for this segment may be relatively close to the time planned under the proposed Project. In total the material procurement and construction for this alternative is estimated to be 9 to 10 months. Additional delay may occur if new environmental studies are required due to the redesign of the line with longer spans. Based on the additional time for material procurement of the taller steel poles it appears this option would not be completed in accordance with the in-service date for Phase III, thereby necessitating establishing some type of temporary connection from the area of Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek Substation. 5.3 Cost To estimate the costs for use of longer spans we first considered utilizing the same conductor as the proposed Project. Due to the increased sags the structures would need to be 145 feet tall. Utilizing a conductor that can be installed at higher tensions (less sag) the structure heights can be reduced by about 10 feet (135 feet tall). The taller structures and increased span lengths significantly increase the foundation loadings resulting in foundations estimated to be about 10 feet in diameter and 25 feet deep. The higher strength conductor will also be more costly than for the proposed Project but the additional cost to purchase the stronger conductor was warranted as the SPAN LENGTH INCREASE File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 reduction in structure height results in structure and foundation cost savings that exceed the additional conductor costs. The conductor installation cost was estimated to be about the same for either conductor type. Table 5-1 summarizes the cost for use of longer spans versus the cost for the proposed Project. As shown, no change in cost from the proposed route for the south portion of this alternative is expected. The cost estimate includes: 1. the material and construction costs for the southern portion of Phase III, as proposed by Platte River; 2. the material and construction costs for the northern portion of Phase III through Pineridge Natural Area, as indicated above; 3. other project development costs such as engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction management, etc.; 4. the cost of re-engineering and associated permitting for the northern portion of the route; 5. the cost of engineering, permitting, materials, etc. expended for the proposed Project that will be of no value to the Project if longer span lengths are used; and 6. the cost to install the temporary 230-kV line. Table 5-1 Cost Comparison Long Span Alternative Long Span Alternative Proposed Project Engineering Costs 1 $1.48 million $1.42 Million South Section Material and Construction: Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam $5.30 Million $5.30 Million North Section Material and Construction: Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek Substation $2.09 Million $1.80 Million Sunk Costs $0.59 Million $0 Temporary 230-kV Wood Pole Line 2 $0.86 Million $0 Total $10.32 Million $8.52 Million Project Cost Differential + $1.80 Million (21% Increase) 1 Engineering Costs include incurred and planned costs for the Proposed Project, including engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction contract administration/construction management, and interest during construction. Engineering Costs are estimated to be approximately 20% of the material and construction costs, based on Phase I and Phase II. 2 Temporary Line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Sunk costs for the longer span length alternative include the proportionate amount of Engineering Costs for the proposed Project that will not be constructed, as well as the cost of the steel pole structures already procured and received by Platte River. Section 5 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 5.4 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts In general the type of environmental impacts for the long span alternative are anticipated to be the same as for the proposed single steel poles, for example the amount and location of access roads is expected to be very similar. However the area of disturbance and amount of environmental impacts are anticipated to be less than for the proposed Project due to constructing half as many foundations and structures. In terms of specific plant or animal species impacts, the structure locations can typically be adjusted for short distances so that their footprint avoids an impact. This is similar for the proposed Project. 5.5 Aesthetic Impacts If longer spans are used there will be approximately half the number of support structures as in the proposed Project within the Pineridge Natural Area. The longer span structures will likely appear as more massive than the proposed project since they will be approximately 50% taller with noticeably larger diameters (10 feet versus 5 feet). In addition the poles will be higher in the air and as such may be more visible above the horizon – against the sky. Due to the height and size of these structures it is possible that an observer near Dixon Creek Substation may be able to see full structures in the foreground and the tops of all of the structures as far as Spring Canyon Dam. Although the poles will be at a greater spacing the wires may not appear different to the casual observer since they will be as near to the ground at mid-span as they are for the proposed Project. File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 Section 6 PARTIAL UNDERGROUND ALTERNATIVE ALONG CURRENT ROUTE 6.1 Description This alternative utilizes underground transmission for the Platte River 230-kV circuit from the area near the base of Spring Canyon Dam into and through approximately 1.4 miles of the Pineridge Natural Area to Dixon Creek Substation. For approximately 2.4 miles, from Horsetooth Tap to the area near Spring Canyon Dam, the circuit would utilize overhead construction, as currently proposed by Platte River. As noted in Section 2 of this report, Western is opposed to undergrounding their circuit so it would remain above ground for all of Phase III, including through Pineridge. The underground portion of the Platte River 230-kV line would consist of a single- circuit 230-kV underground ductbank with underground vaults, similar to what was utilized for Phase I of the Project and as illustrated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Short sections of the ductbank may be constructed using directional drilling or boring techniques in order to mitigate specific local impacts. The ductbank will be located to one side of Western’s existing 75-foot transmission line R/W. Ideally, the ductbank would be located inside the existing Western R/W boundaries, but to be acceptable to Western, it would need to allow for Western’s proposed rebuild of their overhead facilities in the future. Therefore, a new easement may be required from the City of Fort Collins outside of the existing Western R/W for the Platte River underground facilities and preferably outside of any proposed expansion of the Western R/W to accommodate their rebuilt overhead facilities. However, the current Natural Areas Easement Policy prohibits the granting of new easements that allow for overhead lines within any City-owned Natural Area. Since the easement would be for an underground line it appears that this policy may not apply. 6.2 Schedule Table 6-1 identifies the estimated implementation schedule for this route alternative. Assuming favorable winter construction conditions and use of the current Phase III design of the overhead line for the south section, the contractor will re-start work on the 2.4-mile south section on October 19, 2011. Finally, this schedule assumes that environmental studies and associated mitigation plans could be completed and approved by the appropriate authorities within this schedule. Section 6 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Alternative Report Section 6_final draft.docx 10/6/11 Table 6-1 Implementation Schedule Partial Underground in Pineridge Natural Area Phase Start Finish Cumulative Restart Construction for South Segment 10/19/11 Mobilize 10/19/11 10/26/11 Stake / Construct Piers 10/24/11 2/15/12 Erect Poles and Install Framing 1/2/12 3/31/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 2/01/12 4/30/12 Finalize Alignment for North Segment 10/31/11 11/30/11 Final Design 12/01/11 4/15/12 Material Procurement for North Segment 3/15/12 11/15/12 Design for Temporary Line 11/01/11 1/31/12 R/W acquisition for Temporary Line 12/01/11 2/29/12 Material Procurement for Temporary Line 1/01/12 2/29/12 Modify Construction Contract 1/15/12 2/15/12 Construct Temporary Line NTP 2/20/12 Set Poles and Install Framing 3/01/12 4/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 4/16/12 5/15/12 Test and Commission 5/16/12 5/31/12 Procure Construction Contract for UG 4/16/12 6/15/12 UG Construction NTP 6/22/12 Mobilize 7/01/12 7/15/12 Dixon Creek Substation Modifications 7/16/12 9/15/12 Ductbank Construction 9/16/12 11/15/12 Cable Installation 11/16/12 12/31/12 Test and Commission 1/01/13 1/15/13 404 days Due to the lead time for procurement of 230-kV underground cable, construction of this alternative will not be complete by the required in-service date. As a result, a temporary 230-kV transmission line will be required (by May 2012 and remain in service) until the underground portion of this route can be completed. Refer to Section 8 of this report for a discussion of details associated with possible use of a temporary 230-kV line. 6.3 Cost Table 6-2 illustrates the difference in cost between the proposed Phase III overhead double-circuit steel single pole transmission line and the cost estimated for Phase III PARTIAL UNDERGROUND ALTERNATIVE ALONG CURRENT ROUTE File: 000000/99-99999-99999-9999 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 with undergrounding construction for the northern 1.3 miles of Phase III from the base of Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek Substation (through the Pineridge area). The cost estimate includes: 1. the material and construction costs for Phase III as proposed by Platte River; 2. other project development costs such as engineering, permitting, construction management, etc. 3. the cost of re-engineering and associated permitting for the northern portion of the route; 4. the cost of engineering, permitting, materials, etc. expended for the proposed Project that will be of no value to the Project if the underground alternative is selected; and 5. the cost to install the temporary 230-kV line. Table 6-2 Cost Comparison Partial Underground Alternative Partial UG Alternative Proposed Project Engineering Costs 1 $1.74 Million $1.42 Million South Section OH Material and Construction: Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam $5.30 Million $5.30 Million North Section UG Material and Construction: Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek Substation $6.80 Million $1.80 Million Sunk Costs $0.59 Million $0 Temporary 230-kV Line 2 $0.86 Million $0 Total $15.29 Million $8.52 Million Project Cost Differential +6.77 Million (79% Increase) 1 Engineering Costs include incurred and planned costs for the Proposed Project, including engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction contract administration/construction management, and interest during construction. Engineering Costs are estimated to be approximately 20% of the material and construction costs for overhead facilities and 10% for underground facilities (given the higher per mile cost of construction), based on Phase I and Phase II. 2 Temporary Line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Costs of the underground section are anticipated to be substantially above what was experienced for the Phase I construction along South Shields Street due to the expected presence of rock and additional boring required for environmental protection of sensitive habitat. The cost estimate assumes approximately 15 percent of the total underground length may be installed using boring methods. Sunk costs for the underground alternative include the proportionate amount of Engineering Costs and the structures procured for the proposed Project that will not be installed. Section 6 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Alternative Report Section 6_final draft.docx 10/6/11 6.4 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts As indicated in Section 3.4, environmental studies were conducted along the existing Western transmission line route for the proposed single steel pole design, which identified a number of species of concern. For the southern portion of this alternative through the Horsetooth Reservoir Area the biological and natural resource impacts will be as identified by Platte River for the proposed Project. Regardless of whether the line is constructed underground or overhead, construction roads will be required along the alignment through the Pineridge Natural Area for vehicle and equipment access. Since the underground portion of this alternative will require excavating a continuous trench for 1.4 miles through the Pineridge Natural Area, ground disturbance will be extensive and significant, when compared to the disturbance associated with the single steel pole design currently proposed. Construction may utilize boring methods to mitigate ground disturbance through sensitive habitat. Although boring requires large pits on either end of the bore that present a larger impact to the environment. Bore pit locations will need to be carefully selected to avoid sensitive habitat. It is anticipated that some portions of the underground trench would impact species or habitat of concern and mitigation measures may not be sufficient to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. No significant impacts are anticipated due to construction of the proposed single pole design. 6.5 Aesthetic Impacts The aesthetic impacts for the southern portion of this alternative through Horsetooth Tap Reservoir Area will be the same as for the proposed Project, with the exception that a large transition structure would be required to allow the overhead line to be re- directed underground. The transition structure will set at or near the southern end of Pineridge. The height of this structure is estimated to be 110 feet to 120 feet. In the Pineridge Natural Area, the new underground 230-kV line would result in some temporary visual scars to the landscape during construction that are anticipated to diminish rapidly once revegetation occurs. A benefit of installing the 230-kV transmission line underground is that following restoration of the area impacted by construction there would be very little change to the visual character of the area. However, the Western line would still remain in place until Western decides to rebuild their overhead line at some point in the future. With the exception of the transition structure, the only above-grade sign of the underground facility would be the vault access ways visible at the ground surface (vaults are spaced about every 1,300 to 1,900 feet) and red-colored utility markers (i.e., typically small posts about 3 to 4 feet tall) that will be located above the underground utility and spaced approximately every 500 feet. As noted in Section 2, at some time in the future, the Western 115-kV transmission line would be rebuilt to 230-kV utilizing larger H-frame structures as simulated in Figure 2-3. File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-1 Section 7 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES 7.1 Initially Considered Routes The first step in evaluating alternatives to the proposed Project was to quickly identify a range of potential route alternatives. Figure 7-1 identifies a diverse set of routes that were evaluated as part of this study. These routes were initially subjected to screening criteria to narrow the options to a workable set of alternatives. The potential alternatives were identified based on implementation cost, availability of a corridor for construction of the line, land use and development, environmental impacts, construction disturbance, aesthetic impacts, and operational considerations. The largest hurdle with any of the listed alternatives is the inability to complete by the June 2012 deadline. Figure 7-1. Phase III Initial Route Alternatives (2010 Imagery) Section 7 7-2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 A summary of the characteristics and evaluation of this group of initially considered alternatives is provided in Table 7-1. This table identifies the routes that were carried forward for further analysis. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-3 Table 7-1 Alternate Route Screening Matrix Route ID Route Description Technical Solution Environmental Impact Aesthetic Impact Cost Yellow 1 (Platte River Proposed Project) 3.7 miles Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek Substation through Horsetooth Reservoir Area and Pineridge Natural Area. Double-circuit tubular steel pole line supporting both Platte River’s proposed 230-kV circuit and Western’s existing 115-kV circuit. Medium – construction roads required along the northern portion. Southern portion utilize helicopter construction. High – Major impact for recreational users of Natural Area and Horsetooth Reservoir. $8.5M Yellow 2 (Partial UG) 3.7 miles (1.4 UG) Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Dixon Creek Substation through Horsetooth Reservoir Area and Pineridge Natural Area. Overhead from Horsetooth Tap to near Spring Canyon Dam (as designed), then underground (as a single circuit) to Dixon Creek Substation; Western remains as single circuit overhead line. High – construction roads required and continuous trench/bore (with pits) along the northern portion. Southern portion utilize helicopter construction. Medium – No major, long term aesthetic impact through Pineridge Natural Area. Transmission line visible from Natural Area and Horsetooth Reservoir. $15.3M Green 1 5.1 miles North in public road R/W along S Taft Hill Rd, then west along W Section 7 7-4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Blue 1 6.1 miles North in public road R/W along S Shields St, then west along W Drake Rd. Overhead single-circuit 230-kV tubular steel poles. Low – construction in developed public R/W. High – adds very tall structures in area where electric utilities are underground. $16.8M Blue 2 6.1 miles North in public road R/W along S Shields St, then west along W Drake Rd. Underground single-circuit 230- kV ductbank. Low – construction in developed public R/W. Low – overhead only in area with existing overhead distribution. $37.5M Red 1 8.0 miles Within public road R/W east along W Trilby Rd, north along SR-287, then west along W Drake Rd. Overhead single-circuit 230-kV tubular steel poles. Low – construction in developed public R/W. High – adds very tall structures in area where electric utilities are underground. $18.3M Red 2 8.0 miles Within public road R/W east along W Trilby Rd, north along SR-287, then west along W Drake Rd. Underground single-circuit 230- kV ductbank. Low – construction in developed public R/W. Low – no visible facilities. $45.5M Magenta 4.1 miles Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam as proposed, then north along the base of the ridge through Pineridge Natural Area to near Dixon Canyon Rd, east across Dixon Reservoir to Dixon Creek Substation. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-5 In summary, the alternative routes that were further evaluated are illustrated in Figure 7-2 and include: 1. Magenta Route: following the proposed Project route through the Horsetooth Reservoir Area then branching off along the lower ridge line in Pineridge Natural Area. 2. Orange Route: following the proposed Project route through the Horsetooth Reservoir Area then branching off along South Centennial Drive. 3. Green Route: tapping into the Phase II line on West Trilby Road and running within the public road R/W of South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road. Figure 7-2. Phase III Viable Route Alternatives (2010 Imagery) These three route alternatives are described in more detail below, and provide implementation schedule forecasts and estimates of Project costs, as well as environmental and aesthetic impacts. Section 7 7-6 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 7.2 Magenta Route Alternative – Follow Lower Ridge Line in Pineridge Natural Area 7.2.1 Route Description The Magenta Route alternative is approximately 4.1 miles (or 0.3 miles longer than the proposed Project). It follows the same route as the proposed alignment within the Western 115-kV transmission line R/W for approximately 2.4 miles from Horsetooth Tap switching station through the Horsetooth Reservoir Area to near the base of Spring Canyon Dam. At this juncture, the route continues along the proposed alignment for another 1/4 mile where it branches off to the north-northwest along the toe of the slope of Pineridge through the Pineridge Natural Area. The transmission line R/W would be located generally below the existing vegetation line. The route continues in this direction until near Dixon Canyon Road where it turns and heads east, crossing the Dixon Reservoir, passing to the north of Burns Ranch and into Dixon Creek Substation. Two structure configuration options could be utilized for the Magenta Route alternative: 1) steel poles, similar to the proposed Project, or 2) a double-circuit H- frame. 7.2.2 Easements The Magenta Route alternative requires establishment of a new transmission line R/W through the Pineridge Natural Area that could be exchanged for the existing Western R/W. The R/W width may vary from 75 to 125 feet depending on structure and conductor selection and final design. Assuming many of the steel pole structures procured for Phase III could be reused for this route alternative, a 75-foot easement is anticipated to suffice. The City of Fort Collins owns the Pineridge Natural Area. Parcels crossed by this route are zoned Public Open Lands District. It is unclear at this time what process the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County may require for evaluating and eventually approving this alternative route. 7.2.3 Schedule The schedule in Table 7-2 is based on completion of the southern part of this route, from Horsetooth Tap switching station to near the Spring Canyon Dam, using the current design. Meanwhile efforts would be started to finalize the new alignment for the northern section, conduct surveying, geotechnical and environmental studies, update the design for the new alignment, obtain all necessary jurisdictional approvals, and prepare a new or modified steel pole procurement contract. This schedule assumes that environmental studies and associated mitigation plans could be completed and approved by the appropriate authorities within this schedule. As noted above, efforts would be made to reuse existing and delivered poles for Phase III, but this cannot be assured. Regardless, this route is approximately 0.4 miles ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-7 longer than the proposed Project and includes additional heavy angle/deadend structures. Table 7-2 Implementation Schedule Magenta Route Alternative Phase Start Finish Cumulative Restart Construction for South Segment 10/19/11 Mobilize 10/19/11 10/26/11 Stake / Construct Piers 10/24/11 2/15/12 Erect Poles and Install Framing 1/02/12 3/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 2/01/12 4/15/12 Design for Temporary Line 11/01/11 1/31/12 R/W acquisition for Temporary Line 12/01/11 2/29/12 Material Procurement for Temporary Line 1/02/12 2/29/12 Modify Construction Contract 1/15/12 2/15/12 Construct Temporary Line NTP 2/20/12 Mobilize 2/20/12 2/29/12 Set Poles and Install Framing 3/01/12 4/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 4/16/12 5/15/12 Test and Commission 5/16/12 5/31/12 Finalize Alignment for North Segment 10/31/11 11/30/11 Surveying Revised Route 11/30/11 1/31/12 Geotechnical Studies 11/30/11 1/31/12 R/W Acquisition for North Segment 12/01/11 5/31/12 Final Design 12/01/11 4/15/12 Environmental Field Studies / Review 12/01/11 8/31/12 Material Procurement for North Segment 3/15/12 9/30/12 Modify Construction Contract for North 4/16/12 6/01/12 Construct North Segment NTP 7/15/12 Mobilize 7/15/12 7/31/12 Construct Piers 8/01/12 10/31/12 Erect Poles and Install Framing 10/01/12 11/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 11/16/12 12/15/12 Test and Commission 12/16/12 12/31/12 400 days As a result of the additional activities for the northern part of the Magenta Route alternative, it is shown that Phase III would not be completed by the required in- service date and therefore would require a temporary 230-kV line to be installed. As Section 7 7-8 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 further described in Section 8, it may be possible to install a temporary 230-kV wood pole line along the proposed route (within the Pineridge Natural Area). 7.2.4 Cost Table 7-3 summarizes the cost of the Magenta Route alternative versus the cost for the proposed Project. As shown, no change in cost from the proposed route for the south portion of this alternative is expected. The cost estimate includes: 1. the material and construction costs for the southern portion of Phase III, as proposed by Platte River; 2. the material and construction costs for the northern portion of Phase III through Pineridge Natural Area, as indicated above; 3. other project development costs such as engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction management, etc.; 4. the cost of re-engineering and associated permitting for the northern portion of the route; 5. the cost of engineering, permitting, materials, etc. expended for the proposed Project that will be of no value to the Project if the Magenta Route is selected; and 6. the cost to install the temporary 230-kV line. Table 7-3 Cost Comparison Magenta Route Alternative Magenta Route Alternative Proposed Project Engineering Costs 1 $1.52 million $1.42 Million South Section Material and Construction: Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam $5.30 Million $5.30 Million North Section Material and Construction: Spring Canyon Dam to Dixon Creek Substation $2.30 Million $1.80 Million Sunk Costs $0.18 Million $0 Temporary 230-kV Wood Pole Line 2 $0.86 Million $0 Total $10.16 Million $8.52 Million Project Cost Differential + $1.64 Million (19% Increase) 1 Engineering Costs include incurred and planned costs for the Proposed Project, including engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction contract administration/construction management, and interest during construction. Engineering Costs are estimated to be approximately 20% of the material and construction costs, based on Phase I and Phase II. 2 Temporary Line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Sunk costs for the Magenta Route alternative include the proportionate amount of Engineering Costs for the proposed Project that will not be constructed. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-9 7.2.5 Environmental Impacts With this new route, additional environmental studies will be required for the northern section of Phase III. It is anticipated that species of concern similar to those found during review of the proposed Project will be encountered. Since structure locations are relatively flexible, if species or habitat of concern are encountered, impacts can be mitigated by shifting structure locations ahead or back on the alignment. However, placement of the overhead line in close proximity to Dixon Reservoir may increase avian impacts with the transmission lines and structures. Mitigation measures to minimize impacts such as increasing the visibility of the overhead cables may be necessary. Construction impacts of the transmission line along this route alternative is expected to be similar to the proposed route, if single steel poles are used. The major construction period impact will be the development of roads for vehicle and equipment access, assuming no significant environmental mitigation is required. Structure site impacts may slightly increase if H-frame structures are used since each structure will include two foundations. 7.2.6 Aesthetic Impacts There is no change in the aesthetic impacts for the southern portion of the Magenta Route alternative, since it will be constructed per the proposed Project design. Figure 7-2 is an existing view from Burns Ranch looking northwest across the Dixon Reservoir. Section 7 7-10 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure 7-2. Existing view of Dixon Reservoir from Burns Ranch (Looking northwest) Figure 7-3 is an existing view looking west toward the ridgeline. The jogging trail bed is elevated and blocks from view the base of the ridge. Figure 7-3. Existing view of Pineridge from Burns Ranch (Looking west) Relocating the transmission line to the base of Pineridge removes the transmission line from the foreground of residences in Burns Ranch and further from the existing recreational trails. Conversely this relocation may move the transmission line into view sheds for residences above Pineridge or closer to recreational uses near the reservoir at the north end of the Pineridge Natural Area. The relocated transmission line will be set with Pineridge in the background, simulated in Figures 7-4 through 7- 6. Mitigation efforts that may be undertaken to minimize avian impacts will likely increase cable visibility within the view shed. Figures 7-4 and 7-5 is the same view from Burns Ranch across the Dixon Reservoir simulating double-circuit 230-kV steel pole and H-frame structures, respectively. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-11 Figure 7-4. Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking northwest at Dixon Reservoir) Figure 7-5. Platte River 230-kV H-Frame Transmission Line (Looking northwest at Dixon Reservoir) Section 7 7-12 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure 7-6 is the view looking west toward the ridgeline. The elevation of the jogging trail bed compared to the residences hides the structures located at the base of the ridge. Figure 7-6. Platte River 230-kV Transmission Lines (Looking west at Pineridge) 7.3 Orange Route Alterative – South Centennial Drive 7.3.1 Route Description The Orange Route alternative, similar to the Magenta Route, follows the same alignment as the proposed Project within the Western 115-kV transmission line R/W for approximately 2.2 miles from Horsetooth Tap switching station through the Horsetooth Reservoir Area to the top of Spring Canyon Dam. At this juncture, the route turns generally north, crosses Spring Canyon Dam with a single long span and continues along South Centennial Drive, within Larimer County’s public road R/W for 1.3 miles. Near Dixon Canyon Road, the alignment turns east, crosses the Dixon Reservoir, passes north of Burns Ranch and terminates at the Dixon Creek Substation. The last 1/2 mile of this route is located in the Pineridge Natural Area. 7.3.2 Easements The Orange Route alternative is anticipated to require very little new transmission line R/W. The southern 2.2 miles of this route are located in existing Western transmission line R/W. From there, it is anticipated that an engineering solution is available to construct the line completely within the public road R/W of South ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-13 Centennial Drive. It is assumed, given the fixed width of the public road R/W, only steel pole structures are feasible for this route. Where the route turns east from South Centennial Drive in the gap in the ridge near Dixon Canyon Road, the alignment crosses one privately-owned parcel located in Larimer County, currently zoned FA1 – Farming. After crossing this parcel, the alignment re-enters public road R/W (of Dixon Canyon Road) for about 0.05 miles. However, if an easement cannot be negotiated for this parcel, an engineering solution should be available to continue the line north for approximately 0.1 miles to the intersection with Dixon Canyon Road and proceed within the public road R/W of Dixon Canyon Road for 0.1 miles, essentially going around the privately-owned parcel. The final 1/2 mile of the Orange Route crosses two parcels located within the Pineridge Natural Area, owned by the City of Fort Collins and zoned Public Open Lands District. The transmission line R/W width, for the R/W located outside the public road R/W, may vary from 75 to 125 feet depending on structure and conductor selection and final design. Assuming many of the steel pole structures procured for Phase III could be reused for this route alternative and that steel poles are the only feasible option along South Centennial Drive (without requiring additional R/W width), a 75-foot easement is anticipated to suffice. 7.3.3 Schedule The schedule below, in Table 7-4, is based on a favorable winter construction period allowing completion of the southern part of this route, from Horsetooth Tap switching station to near the Spring Canyon Dam using the current design. Meanwhile efforts would be started to finalize the new alignment for the northern section, negotiate and acquire R/W (as required), conduct surveying, geotechnical and environmental studies, update the design for the new alignment, and prepare a new or modified steel pole procurement contract. Efforts would be made to reuse existing and delivered poles for Phase III, but this cannot be assured. It is anticipated that the Larimer County approval process to locate facilities within their right-of-way may take up to one year to complete. The construction contract would also be modified for the realignment and delay of schedule. Table 7-4 Implementation Schedule Orange Route Alternative Phase Start Finish Cumulative Restart Construction for South Segment 10/19/11 Mobilize 10/19/11 10/26/11 Stake / Construct Piers 10/24/11 2/15/12 Erect Poles and Install Framing 1/02/12 3/15/12 Section 7 7-14 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Phase Start Finish Cumulative String, Sag and Clip Conductor 2/01/12 4/15/12 Design for Temporary Line 11/01/11 1/31/12 R/W acquisition for Temporary Line 12/01/11 2/29/12 Material Procurement for Temporary Line 1/02/12 2/29/12 Modify Construction Contract 1/15/12 2/15/12 Construct Temporary Line NTP 2/20/12 Mobilize 2/20/12 2/29/12 Set Poles and Install Framing 3/01/12 4/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 4/16/12 5/15/12 Test and Commission 5/16/12 5/31/12 Finalize Alignment for North Segment 10/31/11 11/30/11 Surveying Revised Route 11/30/11 1/31/12 Geotechnical Studies 11/30/11 1/31/12 R/W Acquisition for North Segment 12/01/11 5/31/12 Finalize Design 12/01/11 4/15/12 Environmental Field Studies / Review 12/01/11 7/31/12 Larimer County Approval Process 12/01/11 11/30/12 Material Procurement for North Segment 3/15/12 9/30/12 Modify Construction Contract for North 4/16/12 6/01/12 Construct North Segment NTP 7/15/12 Mobilize 12/01/12 12/07/12 Construct Piers 12/08/12 3/15/13 Erect Poles and Install Framing 2/20/13 4/07/13 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 3/20/13 4/20/13 Test and Commission 4/21/13 5/07/13 527 days As a result of the additional activities for the northern part of the Orange Route alternative, it is shown that Phase III would not be completed by the required in- service date and therefore would require a temporary 230-kV line to be installed. As further described in Section 8, a temporary 230-kV wood pole line would be installed along the proposed route (within the Pineridge Natural Area). 7.3.4 Cost Table 7-5 summarizes the cost of the Orange Route alternative versus the cost for the proposed Project. As shown, no change in cost from the proposed route for the south portion of this alternative is expected. The cost estimate includes: ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-15 1. the material and construction costs for the southern portion of Phase III, as proposed by Platte River; 2. the material and construction costs for the northern portion of Phase III along South Centennial Road and through Pineridge Natural Area, as indicated above; 3. other project development costs such as engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction management, etc.; 4. the cost of re-engineering and associated permitting for the northern portion of the route; 5. the cost of engineering, permitting, materials, etc. expended for the proposed Project that will be of no value to the Project if the Orange Route is selected; and 6. the cost to install the temporary 230-kV line. Table 7-5 Cost Comparison Orange Route Alternative Orange Route Alternative Proposed Project Engineering Costs 1 $1.50 Million $1.42 Million South Section Material and Construction: Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam $5.30 Million $5.30 Million North Section Material and Construction: South Centennial Drive to Dixon Creek Substation $2.20 Million $1.80 Million Sunk Costs $0.21 Million $0 Temporary 230-kV Wood Pole Line 2 $1.19 Million $0 Total $10.40 Million $8.52 Million Project Cost Differential +1.88 Million (22% Increase) 1 Engineering Costs include incurred and planned costs for the Proposed Project, including engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction contract administration/construction management, and interest during construction. Engineering Costs are estimated to be approximately 20% of the total material and construction costs, based on Phase I and Phase II. 2 Temporary Line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Sunk costs for the Orange Route alternative include the proportionate amount of Engineering Costs for the proposed Project that will not be constructed. 7.3.5 Environmental Impacts Additional environmental studies will be required for the northern section of the Orange Route alternative, where the alignment turns north on South Centennial Drive. Although much of this route is located within public road R/W, it is anticipated that species of concern similar to those found during review of the proposed Project, may be encountered beyond the limits of the existing improvements (i.e., roadway). This is certainly the case at the north end of this section, near Dixon Creek Substation, where Section 7 7-16 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 the route is again located in Pineridge Natural Area. Since structure locations are relatively flexible, if species or habitat of concern are encountered, impacts can be mitigated by shifting structure locations ahead or back on the alignment. Construction impacts of the transmission line along this route alternative is expected to be similar to the Phase II route along West Trilby Road. Construction vehicle and equipment access will be from existing roads. Impacts, such as ground disturbance, at each structure location would be similar to the proposed Project. 7.3.6 Aesthetics There is no change in the aesthetic impacts for the southern portion of the Orange Route alternative, since it will be constructed per the proposed Project design. Figure 7-7 is an existing view from Burns Ranch looking northwest across the Dixon Reservoir. Figure 7-7. Existing view of Dixon Reservoir from Burns Ranch (Looking northwest) Figure 7-8 is an existing view looking west toward the ridgeline. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-17 Figure 7-8. Existing view of Pineridge from Burns Ranch (Looking west) Relocating the transmission line along South Centennial Drive removes the transmission line from the foreground of residences in Burns Ranch and further from the existing recreational trails. From the viewpoint of these residences, as well as from the recreational trails, the transmission line structures would be partially hidden by Pineridge. However, the structure tops would be visible, in some cases through the tree line at the top of the ridge, but in other locations, against the backdrop of the sky. Conversely this relocation may move the transmission line into the foreground views for residences along South Centennial Drive. The relocated transmission line is simulated in Figures 7-9 and 7-10. Section 7 7-18 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Figure 7-9. Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking northwest at Dixon Reservoir) Figure 7-10.Platte River 230-kV Tubular Steel Pole Transmission Line (Looking west at Pineridge) ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-19 7.4 Green Route Alternative – South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road 7.4.1 Route Description The Green route alternative does not utilize any portion of the proposed Phase III Project (i.e., existing Western transmission line R/W, located in the Horsetooth Reservoir Area and Pineridge Natural Area). This route is located entirely within public road R/W of South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road and consists of both overhead and underground construction. The Green Route will tap into the recently completed Phase II transmission line (Trilby to Horsetooth Tap) near the intersection of West Trilby Road and South Taft Hill Road. At this point, the existing tangent structure would be replaced with a deadend structure to accommodate the 90-degree angle the 230-kV circuit would turn as it proceeds north. For approximately 2.0 miles through mostly undeveloped area, this route would remain overhead. Through this section of the Green Route, an existing overhead distribution line already exists. It is anticipated that the distribution circuit would be attached to the new transmission line as underbuild. South of West Harmony Road, where residential development begins, the alignment would go underground for the remainder of the Green Route. The route continues north on South Taft Hill Road, turns west on West Drake Road and ends at the Dixon Creek Substation. The design of the underground section would be similar to that of Phase I from Horseshoe Substation to Trilby Substation. Since this route includes underground transmission, Western has indicated that it would not relocate its existing 115-kV line with Platte River. Therefore, this route consists of only a single 230-kV circuit for Platte River. Western would remain in their existing R/W and has indicated that at some time in the future (within the next 10 to 15 years), Western plans to upgrade their line to 230-kV. Western’s standard 230- kV structure is an H-frame structure, similar to but taller and wider than the 115-kV structures for their existing line. 7.4.2 Easements The Green route is assumed to be entirely located with the public road R/W of West Trilby Road, South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road. Therefore, no easements are anticipated to be required. 7.4.3 Schedule The schedule below, in Table 7-6, does not allow any near-term construction based on the existing design for Phase III to proceed. Efforts would commence immediately to finalize the new alignment, conduct surveying, perform any geotechnical and environmental studies, update the design for the new alignment, and prepare a new or modified steel pole procurement contract. Materials for the underground portion of the construction would also need to be procured. Efforts would be made to reuse Section 7 7-20 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 existing and delivered poles for the overhead portion of Phase III, but this cannot be assured. The construction contract would also be modified for the realignment and delay of schedule. A separate construction contract may be considered for the underground portion of this route. Table 7-6 Implementation Schedule Green Route Alternative Phase Start Finish Cumulative Restart Construction for South Segment 10/19/11 Mobilize 10/19/11 10/26/11 Stake / Construct Piers 10/24/11 2/15/12 Erect Poles and Install Framing 1/02/12 3/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 2/01/12 4/15/12 Design for Temporary Line 11/01/11 1/31/12 R/W acquisition for Temporary Line 12/01/11 2/29/12 Material Procurement for Temporary Line 1/02/12 2/29/12 Negotiate Construction Contract 1/15/12 2/15/12 Construct Temporary Line NTP 2/20/12 Mobilize 2/20/12 2/29/12 Set Poles and Install Framing 3/01/12 4/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 4/16/12 5/15/12 Test and Commission 5/16/12 5/31/12 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-21 Phase Start Finish Cumulative Finalize Alignment for Green Route 10/31/11 11/30/11 Surveying 11/30/11 2/29/12 Geotechnical Studies 11/30/11 1/31/12 Final Design 12/01/11 5/31/12 Permitting 12/01/11 5/31/12 Material Procurement 3/15/12 12/31/12 Procure Construction Contract 6/01/12 7/31/12 Construction NTP 8/07/12 Mobilize 8/15/12 8/31/12 Construct Piers (south section) 9/01/12 12/15/12 Erect Poles and Install Framing 12/16/12 2/15/13 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 2/16/13 3/15/13 Dixon Creek Substation Modifications 10/01/12 11/30/12 Ductbank Construction (north section) 9/01/12 2/29/13 Cable Installation 2/15/13 5/15/13 Test and Commission 4/16/13 5/31/13 541 days As a result of the additional activities for the Green Route alternative, it is shown that Phase III would not be completed by the required in-service date and therefore would require a temporary 230-kV line to be installed. As further described in Section 8, a temporary 230-kV wood pole line would be installed along West County Road 38E from Horsetooth Tap switching station to Spring Canyon Dam and along the existing Western R/W within the Pineridge Natural Area. 7.4.4 Cost Table 7-7 summarizes the cost of the Green Route alternative versus the cost for the proposed Project. The cost estimate includes: 1. the material and construction costs for the Phase III Project, as proposed by Platte River; 2. the material and construction costs for the Green Route along South Taft Hill Road and West Drake Road, as indicated above; 3. other project development costs such as engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction management, etc.; 4. the cost of re-engineering and associated permitting for the Green Route; 5. the cost of engineering, permitting, materials, etc. expended for the proposed Project that will be of no value to the Project if the Green Route is selected; and 6. the cost to install the temporary 230-kV line. Section 7 7-22 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Table 7-7 Cost Comparison Green Route Alternative Green Route Alternative Proposed Project Engineering Costs 1 $1.45 Million $1.42 Million Material and Construction $13.13 Million $7.10 Million Sunk Costs $4.57 Million $0 Temporary 230-kV Wood Pole Line 2 $7.40 Million $0 Total $26.55 Million $8.52 Million Project Cost Differential +18.03 Million (212% Increase) 1 Engineering Costs include incurred and planned costs for the Proposed Project, including engineering, permitting, right-of-way, construction contract administration/construction management, and interest during construction. Engineering Costs are estimated to be approximately 20% of the total material and construction costs, based on Phase I and Phase II. 2 Temporary Line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Sunk costs for the Green Route alternative include all Engineering Costs for the proposed Project, procurement and material costs for structures that cannot be reused for the overhead portion of the Green Route, and the costs associated with the portion of Phase II 230-kV line from the Green Route tap location to Horsetooth Tap switching station. Note that this section of the Phase II line would need to remain in operation as the second circuit on this line is owned by Tri-State G&T. 7.4.5 Environmental Impacts Additional environmental studies will be required for the Green Route alternative; however, it is anticipated that the majority of this route, since it is located in developed areas, would not encounter the level of species of concern as would be expected in the Pineridge Natural Area for the proposed Project or Magenta route. Construction impacts of the transmission line along the Green Route alternative is expected to be similar to the Phase I (underground) and Phase II (overhead) routes along South Shields Road and West Trilby Road, respectively. Construction vehicle and equipment access will be from existing roads. 7.4.6 Aesthetics Visually, the new transmission line along the southern 2.0 miles of this route along South Taft Hill Road is in a relatively undeveloped area and would be similar to the existing 230-kV line along West Trilby Road, except the Green Route will only be a single circuit. Note, the existing Phase II line from Trilby Substation to Horsetooth Tap switching station is a double-circuit steel pole line. The circuit on the north side of the pole is Platte River’s 230-kV circuit. The underground portion of the line would result in some temporary ground disturbance to the existing R/W improvements (e.g., paved roads, sidewalks and driveways, and landscaping) during construction. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 7-23 Permanent evidence of the underground utility would be vault access ways visible at the ground surface (vaults are spaced about every 1,300 to 1,900 feet) and red-colored utility markers (i.e., typically small posts about 3 to 4 feet tall) that will be located above the underground utility and spaced approximately every 500 feet. As noted in Section 2 at some time in the future the Western 115-kV transmission line would be rebuilt to 230-kV utilizing larger H-frame structures as simulated in Figure 2-3. File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 Section 8 TEMPORARY LINE 8.1 Required Interconnection Timeline The Dixon Creek to Horseshoe Transmission Project is scheduled for completion by June 1, 2012 in order to meet reliability requirements for electric power delivery to south Fort Collins and the City of Loveland under contingency conditions. For alternatives considered in this report that would not establish an acceptable transmission interconnection by the required date, temporary facilities would be necessary. Information related to the routing, schedule, costs and impacts of these temporary facilities is provided below for each of the temporary interconnections identified. 8.2 Temporary Line Configuration – Wooden Structures The concept for the temporary 230-kV line is to provide a relatively simple line design with readily or quickly available materials that provides reliable short term transmission by June 1, 2012 in order to bridge the time until a final solution is in place. For all route alternatives, the temporary line is proposed to be a single circuit 230-kV line, built parallel to the Western 115-kV line through the Pineridge Natural Area. The temporary line would consist of single wood poles configured with either davit arms and suspension insulators, horizontal vee insulators, or single horizontal post insulators. The temporary wooden structures would be set directly in the ground. (As discussed below, use of the steel poles delivered for the proposed Phase III as temporary structures would require base plate connections and concrete pier footings.) Where practical the temporary structures would be set adjacent to the existing H- frames owned by Western to avoid midspan blowout clearance infringements (i.e., wind blowing the line beyond existing easement restrictions). Depending upon the clearances that could be obtained from the existing Western line, the temporary line may also require a temporary R/W. It is noted that the current Natural Areas Easement Policy prohibits the granting of new easements that allow for overhead lines within any City owned Natural Area. The temporary line would be designed for the same basic loading conditions as the proposed project. It was assumed that the temporary line structures would consist of a 90-foot, Class H3 or H4 wood pole, directly embedded in the ground for a height above ground of approximately 80 feet. Figure 8-1 illustrates a single-circuit wood pole configuration. Such structures would be capable of supporting 300- to 400-foot spans of 230-kV line and associated insulator equipment. Section 8 2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/1110/5/11 Figure 8-1. Single-Circuit Wood Pole Configuration Some of the wood poles for the temporary 230-kV line (i.e., non-tangent structures) would require guys and anchors to support the load, including loads during windy conditions, of particular concern in this area. It is anticipated that engineering solutions are available to locate guys and anchors in the R/W or temporary R/W. For the Green Route alternative, which does not utilize any portion of the proposed Project, a temporary line is necessary for the southern section of the proposed Project from Horsetooth Tap to near the Spring Canyon Dam. In this area a wood temporary line along W County Road 38E or parallel to the Western line was considered but it appears R/W and permitting issues would not be resolved in time to meet the required in service date. In this case the temporary solution in the southern section would be to build the Phase III line as planned, namely a double-circuit 230-kV steel pole line. Once the Green Route alternative was completed and the temporary line is no longer needed only the Western circuit installed on the southern section must remain in service. TEMPORARY LINE File: 00545503/3105111014-1000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 8.3 Schedule Table 8-1 identifies the estimated implementation schedule for completing the temporary line by the required in-service date for the 230-kV Phase III transmission line. This schedule applies to the 1.4-mile single-circuit wood pole line installed in the Pineridge Natural Area and is applicable to the H-frame, Long Span, Partial Underground alternatives, and the Magenta and Orange Routes. Table 8-1 Implementation Schedule Temporary Wood Pole Line in Pineridge Natural Area Phase Start Finish Cumulative Design for Temporary Line 11/01/11 1/31/12 R/W acquisition for Temporary Line 12/01/11 2/29/12 Material Procurement for Temporary Line 1/01/12 2/29/12 Modify Construction Contract 1/15/12 2/15/12 Construct Temporary Line NTP 2/20/12 Set Poles and Install Framing 3/01/12 4/15/12 String, Sag and Clip Conductor 4/16/12 5/15/12 Test and Commission 5/16/12 5/31/12 213 days Although this schedule also applies to the Green Route (Section 7), the southern section of the proposed Project must also be in service to complete the interconnection of Phase II to Dixon Creek Substation. However, the southern section of the proposed Project is not part of the final Green Route infrastructure. Further, the schedules presented in Sections 6 and 7 for the route alternatives do not include removal of the temporary facilities after the permanent transmission line is in service. 8.4 Cost Table 8-2 presents the costs for the temporary facilities, as presented in this report for the alternative structure configurations and span lengths, and route alternatives. The temporary line costs include associated engineering, permitting, right-of-way, materials, contract construction, construction contract administration/construction management and interest during construction. Section 8 4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Transmission Alternatives Study 10/6/1110/5/11 Table 8-2 Estimated Cost Temporary Transmission Line Route Alternative Report Section Reference Estimated Cost H-frame 4 $860,000 Long Span 5 $860,000 Partial Underground 6 $2,820,000 Magenta 7 $860,000 Orange 7 $1,190,000 Green 7 $2,820,000 8.5 Biological and Natural Resource Impacts The environmental impacts for a temporary wooden structure line are expected to be additive to those impacts, discussed elsewhere, for the permanent 230-kV line. Many of the environmental impacts for construction of the temporary wooden structure line are anticipated to be the same as for the proposed single steel poles, for example the amount and location of access roads is expected to be very similar. The temporary wood pole line would likely require additional structures resulting in an increase in the number of areas with concentrated ground disturbance to auger holes and set poles. However, there would be quite a bit of flexibility in span lengths to mitigate impacts to specific localized resources by shifting individual structures short distances. The temporary wooden structure line would have additional traffic impact on any construction roads and additional ground disturbance in the Pineridge Natural Area due to the need to return at some future time to remove the facility. 8.6 Aesthetic Impacts For a temporary wooden structure line constructed adjacent to the existing Western R/W it is anticipated the line would be perceived as adding visual clutter. Since this transmission line would only be in place until the permanent facility is completed any aesthetic impacts are expected to be short term. Draft Report Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado October 2011 Draft Report Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado October 2011 This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to SAIC constitute the opinions of SAIC. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, SAIC has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. SAIC makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. © 2011 SAIC All rights reserved. File: 005455/3105111014-2000 Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study City of Fort Collins, Colorado Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Executive Summary Section 1 LOAD GROWTH AND CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENTS .......... 1-1 1.1 Load Growth ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Transmission Contingency Requirements ............................................... 1-1 1.3 Peak Load Reduction ............................................................................... 1-3 Section 2 POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................... 2-1 2.1 Distributed Generation Options ............................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Waste Diversion ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Solar Photovoltaic ........................................................................ 2-2 2.1.3 Solar Thermal Electric ................................................................. 2-3 2.1.4 Gas Turbines ................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.5 Fuel Cells ..................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.6 Combined Heat and Power .......................................................... 2-7 2.2 Load Reduction and Load Shifting Options ............................................ 2-8 2.2.1 Emergency Gen Sets in Area ....................................................... 2-8 2.2.2 Advanced Metering Infrastructure and Automatic Meter Reading ...................................................................................... 2-10 2.2.3 Community Energy Storage ....................................................... 2-11 2.2.4 Hybrid Ice Air Conditioning ...................................................... 2-13 2.3 Renewable Incentives ............................................................................ 2-14 2.3.1 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) ............................................ 2-14 2.3.2 Incentives ................................................................................... 2-14 2.4 Summary ................................................................................................ 2-16 Table of Contents iv SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 List of Tables Table 1-1 Summer 2011 Peak City Loads 7/18/2011 ................................................. 1-1 Table 2-1 Summary of Colorado Incentives ............................................................. 2-14 Table 2-2 Summary of Peak Load Reduction Options ............................................. 2-17 Table of Contents File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC v List of Figures Figure 1-1. Platte River Peak Hours Above 550 MW, 5/28/11 – 8/30/11 .................. 1-3 File: 005455/3105111014-2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Peak Load Reduction Requirements If existing and projected Cities’ loads can be reduced and limited to 550 MW, the proposed 230-kV line may not be required. This past summer (2011) a peak load reduction of up to 70 MW in the Loveland area and 15 MW in the Fort Collins Harmony Substation area for approximately 178 hours would have been required to meet this criteria. Additional peak load reduction in these areas will be required to offset the projected 2.75% annual load increases. Technologies can be used to reduce peak loads by utilizing distributed generation, to serve load locally instead of through the transmission system, and peak load reduction techniques that directly control customer loads or economically incentivize the customer to reduce loads during peak hours. Table E-1 summarizes the distributed generation and load reduction or load shifting technologies discussed in this report. High-level planning assumptions are used to attempt the quantify a potential capacity reduction and cost of each technology, assuming a peak load reduction of 85 MW for 178 hours/year, as well as the likely schedule required to implement it. None of these technologies could be implemented in time to resolve the transmission issues anticipated next summer without the Dickson-Horseshoe 230-kV line and it is doubtful that any single solution could achieve the desired load reduction in a reasonable time period, but a combination of technologies could provide significant benefit. Costs on most of these technologies are still substantially higher than traditional peak generation resources that provide comparable peak power at a cost of approximately $650/kW and $1.3 million ongoing annual operating costs. Table ES-1 Summary of Peak Load Reduction Options Peak Load Reduction Options Type MW MW at Peak Hour Cost/ kW Total Cost Ongoing Annual Costs Site Availability Installation Timeframe (Mo) Notes Municipal Solid Waste Generation 14 14 $ 4,500 $ 63M $ 5M Larimer County Landfill 24 mo Landfill solid waste dried and burned to generate electricity Biomass Generation 35 35 $ 4,500 $ 157M $ 5M Horseshoe Substation biomass location 24 mo Biomass gas burned to generate electricity Solar PV w/ Battery Storage Generation 85 85 $ 5,410 $ 460M $10M Requires 400+ acres 18 Mo+ Battery storage required to shift the timing of electricity put onto the grid to peak hours. Solar Thermal Electric Generation 85 85 $ 4,000 $ 340M $6M Requires 500+ acres 24 Mo Molten salt storage creates steam to generate electricity at any time of day including peaks. Gas Turbines Generation 95 95 $ 1,000 $95.5M $3M Minimum of 15 acres 24 - 36 Mo Only included EPC costs and add 15 percent for owner's costs Fuel Cells Generation 85 85 $ 8,000 $ 680M TBD. Requires survey for natural gas fuel and location 24 - 36 Mo New technologies at cutting edge, may or may not be available by next summer in sufficient quantities. Combined Heat and Power Generation 100 100 $ 1,350 $ 135M $5M Minimum of 15 acres 24 Mo Major long lead equipment (CT and STG) needs to procured prior to EPC Contract. Only included EPC costs and add 15 percent for owner's costs Emergency Gen Sets in Area Load Reduction 2.5 2 $ 260 $ 518K $50k to $117k Peak Load Reduction Options Type MW MW at Peak Hour Cost/ kW Total Cost Ongoing Annual Costs Site Availability Installation Timeframe (Mo) Notes Smart Meters w/ TOU Rates Load Reduction/S hifting 85 85 $ 100 $ 8.5M $ .85 M Cost to install 30k Loveland residential and commercial electric meters only. Does not include cost for 65k meters in Ft. Collins Install smart meters in Loveland commercial and residential properties. Use higher rate band during 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in both Loveland and Ft. Collins to lower peak usage. Community Energy Storage (CES) Load Shifting 135 85 $ 3,125 $ 265M $ 5.3M TBD. Requires 2650 locations 24 - 36 Mo Batteries provide home backup and can send power to the grid during peak hours Hybrid Ice Air Conditioning Load Shifting 46 46 $ 1,700 $ 76M $ 1.5M 1/4 to 1/3 of buildings 24 Mo 2500 (+- 30%) ice systems to install. Operates 800 hours/yr. during peaks. Local production facilities could be built between Loveland and Ft. Collins, good for local economy and shorten delivery/installation timeframes. File: 005455/3105111014-2000 Section 1 LOAD GROWTH AND CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENTS 1.1 Load Growth Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) is responsible for designing and operating the electric transmission system that serves the cities of Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland (Cities). Electric systems are designed to serve peak load, which is when the instantaneous Megawatt (MW) demand is the highest. In the northern Front Range Colorado area, it typically occurs between 4 PM and 6 PM on a summer weekday when business and residential cooling requirements and evening activities overlap. The combined actual peak load of the four cities in 2011 was approximately 640 MW as shown in Table 1-1. Under more extreme summer weather, the 2011 load was forecasted at 671 MW. Loads are projected to increase to 687 MW by 2012, and increase about 2.75% per year to 2020. Table 1-1 Summer 2011 Peak City Loads 7/18/2011 City MW Estes Park 17 Fort Collins 292 Longmont 175 Loveland 140 Praxair 16 Total 640 Traditionally, transmission planning has been reactive to load growth. Planners project the peak load at each substation for ten to twenty years in the future and determine what transmission upgrades are required to serve that load Projected load growth is based on population and economic forecasts and historic correlation between these factors and peak electric system loads, factoring in weather conditions. Another solution that is beginning to be considered is to control and limit the peak load growth that the transmission system is required to serve by utilizing distributed generation and/or peak load reduction technologies in specific areas. 1.2 Transmission Contingency Requirements The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Transmission Planning (TPL) standards require transmission owners and operators to conduct power flow studies to effectively demonstrate the reliability of the electric system under contingency situations, such as loss of a transmission line. In performing these Section 1 1-2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 extensive contingency analyses, the effect of an outaged facility on the rest of the transmission system is evaluated under a variety of system loading conditions, transmission configurations, and generation dispatch patterns. If studies determine that loss of a transmission element overloads another element or causes an unacceptable reduction in voltage, the transmission utility must upgrade the system to prevent this from happening, effectively requiring redundant supplies to most substations. If upgrades are not completed in time to prevent the overloads, the transmission operator must develop a mitigation plan for potential contingencies. Both Platte River and Western Area Power Authority (Western) own and operate 115-kV and/or 230-kV lines that serve the Cities. The 230-kV lines can deliver twice as much power as the 115-kV lines using the same size conductors, but require taller poles and more distance between the wires. Two transmission lines connect the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland to generation resources north and south of the cities. On the east side of the cities is a Platte River 230-kV line capable of serving approximately 472 MW. On the west side of the cities is a Western Area Power Administration (Western) 115-kV line capable of serving approximately 109 MW peak load. Other 115-kV lines serve Loveland from the east and the south. The cities have grown over the past decade and peak load has increased to the point that the 115-kV lines are not sufficient to provide the required redundancy to Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland. Current system planning studies, as well as 10-year transmission planning studies conducted in 2004, have conclusively demonstrated the urgent need to provide additional capacity between Fort Collins and Loveland to address the contingency loss of the existing 230-kV line between the two cities when the combined city loads exceeds 550 MW. In 2004, Platte River considered several alternatives and determined the most economical solution was to build a 230-kV circuit (Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Substation). In addition, the Colorado Coordinated Planning Group, which is a statewide consortium (including Tri-State and Xcel Energy) have collectively concluded that the Dixon Creek – Horseshoe 230-kV circuit is an appropriate transmission solution for the area. With the load growth existing in the upper portion of the Front Range from Colorado Springs toward the Wyoming border, future transmission improvements are scheduled to take place from Southern Wyoming to Northern Colorado in order to accommodate the expanded import capability from the generation resources north of the Colorado border. The scheduled improvements will have an effect of increased power flows through the eastern part of Colorado in the Front Range. Over 70 percent of the state’s load exists between Fort Collins and Colorado Springs within 40 miles of either side of Interstate 25; thus, the proposed parallel 230-kV transmission lines will also serve to boost the overall system reliability of customers outside of the Larimer County load territory. Platte River has constructed additional 230-kV lines to Fort Collins and Longmont, and is in the process of completing a 230-kV line to serve Loveland. The two segments of this comprehensive 230-kV upgrade north of Horseshoe Substation and west of Trilby Substation have already been completed and the section south of Dixon LOAD GROWTH AND CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENTS File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 1-3 Creek Substation through Pineridge Natural Area is the last phase in preparation for the anticipated summer 2012 loading conditions in the Loveland area. The last section in question will aid in alleviating the 115-kV circuit contingency loading with 345-kV and 230-kV circuit outages to the east and north of the Fort Collins/Loveland area. By leaving the remaining Dixon Creek – Horsetooth segment at 115-kV, the 230-kV circuit capability of the two previously upgraded 115-kV circuits will not be realized and Platte River will not be able to provide transmission reliability per NERC standards when the Cities’ loads exceed 550 MW, which they did for 178 hours during 2011 as of August 22nd. 1.3 Peak Load Reduction If existing and projected Cities’ loads can be reduced and limited to 550 MW, the proposed 230-kV line may not be required. Figure 1-1 illustrates the days, times, and amounts that system load has exceeded 550 MW from June through August 2011. Figure 1-1. Platte River Peak Hours Above 550 MW, 5/28/11 – 8/30/11 According to Platte River’s load flow analysis, this past summer (2011) a peak load reduction of up to 70 MW in the Loveland area and 15 MW in the Fort Collins Harmony Substation area would have been necessary to avoid equipment overloads during a single contingency outage scenario. Additional peak load reduction in these areas will be required to offset the projected 2.75% annual load increases. The following section describes potential technologies that can be used to reduce peak loads by utilizing distributed generation to serve load locally instead of through the transmission system, and peak load reduction techniques that directly control customer loads or economically incentivize the customer to reduce loads during peak hours. File: 005455/3105111014-2000 Section 2 POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES 2.1 Distributed Generation Options 2.1.1 Waste Diversion For the purposes of this discussion, we will focus on waste-to-energy facilities fueled by municipal solid waste (“MSW”) or biomass. Waste-to-energy is the process where MSW or biomass is used as a fuel to heat tubes of water in a boiler. The high temperatures produced by burning the waste convert the water into steam, which is then used to drive a steam turbine generator that produces electricity. The resulting ash must be landfilled, but the waste volume is reduced by approximately 90 percent. Municipal Solid Waste Based on information provided by the Larimer County Landfill (the “Landfill”), which is jointly owned by Larimer County (25 percent), the City of Fort Collins (50 percent), and the City of Loveland (25 percent), the Landfill receives approximately 600 tons per day (“TPD”) of MSW. The estimated useful life of the Landfill is 2027. Larimer County has purchased land near Wellington for possible use as a future solid waste management site. Until needed by the Solid Waste Department, the property will be managed by the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department. The following is a planning level capital cost estimate on the cost of building a waste- to-energy facility south of the Horseshoe Substation based on the following assumptions: 600 TPD of MSW available for the waste-to-energy facility to be located within the city of Loveland (187,200 tons per year (“TPY”)) The MSW is contracted under long-term contracts to the city of Loveland in the amount of 187,000 tons per year to the waste-to-energy facility 600 kilowatt-hours per ton of MSW 8,000 hours of operation per year $4,500 per kilowatt (“kW”) installed cost 24-month construction schedule after environmental permitting is completed and environmental permitting could take as long as two years to complete Facility site available Non-fuel operations and maintenance (“O&M”) costs are not included but would range from approximately fixed $10/kW month and variable $0.04 per kilowatt- hour (“kWh”) Section 2 2-2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Using the assumptions above, the waste-to-energy facility could generate approximately 14 megawatts (“MW”) at a cost of approximately $63,000,000. Biomass Biomass is plant matter that can be used to generate electricity with steam turbines & gasifiers or produce heat, usually by direct combustion. Wood energy is derived both from direct use of harvested wood as a fuel and from wood waste streams. Examples include forest residues (such as dead trees, branches and tree stumps), yard clippings, wood chips and even municipal solid waste. Biomass also includes plant or animal matter that can be converted into fibers or other industrial chemicals, including biofuels. Industrial biomass can be grown from numerous types of plants, including miscanthus, switchgrass, hemp, corn, poplar, willow, sorghum, sugarcane, and a variety of tree species, ranging from eucalyptus to oil palm (palm oil). The following is a planning level capital cost estimate on the cost of building a biomass facility that produces electricity south of the Horseshoe Substation based on the following assumptions: 467,000 TPY of biomass available for the biomass facility The 467,000 TPY of biomass is under long-term contracts with the city of Loveland $25 per green ton of biomass delivered to the biomass facility 600 kilowatt-hours per ton of biomass 40 percent moisture in the biomass 8,000 hours of operation per year $4,500 per kW installed cost 24-month construction schedule after environmental permitting is completed, and environmental permitting could take as long as 18 months to complete Facility site available Non-fuel O&M costs are not included but would range from approximately fixed $10/kW month and variable $0.04 per kWh 35 MW capacity Using the assumptions above, the biomass facility would cost approximately $157,000,000. 2.1.2 Solar Photovoltaic The goal for this project is to reduce the peak hour electric load or increase electric generation in Loveland and Ft. Collins by 85 MW to meet the peak summer demand. There are many kinds of Solar Photovoltaic (“PV”) technologies, including monocrystalline multicrystalline, thin film, and concentrated solar using dish engines. POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-3 But the inherent issue with using Photovoltaic panels for this particular application however, is that electricity would need to be stored during the day for use on cloudy days and for use during peak hours, defined as 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. This is well after the sun has peaked for solar PV generation so there is a mis-alignment in terms of when electricity is generated by solar panels and when it is required. If a suitable storage system can be provided at reasonable cost, then the use of solar PV energy might be appropriate. Here is an example of a solar farm providing the equivalent of 85 MW of power for four hours per day (140 MWh total) by storing the daily solar energy in batteries and discharging it during the peak hours Solar PV Solution Assumptions: 79 MW of solar panels near Loveland Sufficient space, 500 acres Land cost is not included in kW cost estimate Location is within ¼ mile of a transmission line with available capacity Solar Radiance is 5.39 kWh/sq m/day (this is the kilowatt hours per square meter per day, or Solar Insolation, representing the intensity and duration of the sun during an average day in Loveland) System Efficiency = 80 percent (due to wiring and inverter losses etc.) Includes 500 MWh of batteries for one day’s worth of storage Assumes batteries discharge less than 80 percent to maintain battery life Batteries discharge up to 4 hours per occurrence during peak hours Installation cost for solar and batteries $530M total or $6,215/kW Ongoing annual cost for property tax and maintenance approximately $10M Note that this system would require a minimum of one day’s worth of battery storage, or four hours, to fill in during the peak hours. Utility scale NaS(Sodium Sulfur) batteries are costly so Lithium ion batteries at $425/kWh have been assumed. Solar Thermal Electric technology, also known as Concentrated Solar Power (“CSP”) with Thermal Energy Storage (“TES”) however may be able to solve the problem of storage too, so electricity can be generated during peak hours and discharged during peak load hours as described next. 2.1.3 Solar Thermal Electric CSP systems use mirrors to concentrate sunlight and heat a working fluid. The fluid is then used to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. Various CSP technologies are available and distinguished by how the heat is collected and subsequently used to create electricity. Section 2 2-4 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Parabolic Trough Parabolic trough systems use rows of parabolic concentrating mirror assemblies (the “trough”) arranged from north to south on a given plant site to enable tracking the east-west motion of the sun. The mirrors concentrate sunlight onto a tube, through which synthetic oil passes, and the oil is heated to approximately 750 degrees Fahrenheit (“ºF”). The heated oil then passes through a series of heat exchangers to generate steam, which is subsequently used in a steam turbine to generate electricity. Thermal Energy Storage CSP systems using molten salt as the heat transfer fluid, can be integrated with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) systems to store thermal energy for later use to generate steam. In a trough plant, the fluid collects solar energy heat as it circulates through the solar field, then passes through a boiler to drive the steam turbine. Molten salt is stored in large insulated concrete tanks or vats so that during cloudy days or peak periods it can be sent to the steam turbine to generate electricity as required. The larger the tanks, the more energy can be stored to make it through longer stretches of cloudy days. The potential operational benefits of solar thermal with storage are great however.. CSP with TES has the potential for 24-hour operation which would allow solar thermal energy to shave peak loads in Ft. Collins and Loveland, assuming sufficient land can be found for the facilities. Most PV and CSP systems require between 4 and 10 acres per peak MW of output and for effective deployment, land must be largely flat, preferably with less than a two percent grade. The approximate costs for a concentrated solar power “trough” system with storage are as follows: Two days of 4-hour 85 MW peak loads Costs in the $4000/kW range Total cost $340M Longer storage requirements would increase the molten salt volumes required and increase cost Requires approximately 500+ acres; the cost of land is not included 2.1.4 Gas Turbines Gas turbines are used quite commonly to generate electricity. For example, the LM6000 gas turbine manufactured by General Electric (“GE”) provides 54,610 shaft horsepower (40,700 kW) from either end of the low-pressure rotor system, which rotates at 3,600 rotations per minute. This twin spool design with the low-pressure turbine operating at 60 Hertz eliminates the need for a conventional power turbine. Its high efficiency and installation flexibility make it ideal also for a wide variety of utility power generation and industrial applications, especially peaker and cogeneration plants. POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-5 The GE LM6000 PC is rated to provide more than 43 MW with a thermal efficiency of around 42 percent lower heating value (“LHV”) at ISO conditions (59°F, sea level, and 60 percent relative humidity). With options, this can be increased to around 50 MW rated power. This unit has applications in power generation for combined cycle or peak power. Other applications include combined heat & power for industrial & independent power producers. Typical users: Hospitals Airports Pulp and paper, cement, mining plants Gas pipelines, refineries, gas production Utilities Cruise ships and fast ferries The overall EPC costs for a simple-cycle (“SC”) plant in northern Colorado is estimated at $930 kW to $1,000 kW. This cost has an accuracy level of +30 to -15 percent and is based on present day 2011 dollars and does not include escalation and owner’s costs, which is discussed below. Many factors can impact the EPC price of a facility including: size, site ambient conditions, delivery voltage, fuel supply pressure, use of secondary or tertiary fuels, type of heat rejection system, emissions control equipment, indoor versus outdoor installations, type of wastewater treatment, conditions of the site, date of contract, project location schedule acceleration of schedule and others. These costs are based on specific set of conditions listed below: Size: 45 MW Two GE LM6000’s Natural fuel only Project location: Northern Colorado Performance assumed to be at ISO ambient conditions Delivery voltage: 69 kV Outdoor equipment In addition to the variations in the EPC costs, other highly variable project costs are also incurred. These costs, which are not typically directly associated with the EPC contract, are referred to as owner indirect and other costs. These costs may include the following: Electrical interconnection costs to install transmission lines or upgrade the existing utility system Section 2 2-6 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Fuel interconnection costs Permitting fees Development fees (preliminary engineering, preparation and negotiation of contracts, and other legal and professional fees) Taxes or payments in lieu of taxes Financing fees including interest during construction, legal fees, lender fees, and insurance (i.e. efficacy insurance) Other site or regional related costs Based on our experience reviewing projects for financing, these fees can be 15 percent, or higher, of the EPC costs which are not included in the cost above. The overall construction schedule is approximately 18 to 20 months from the award of the EPC contract to commercial operation of the plant. Included in this time frame is detailed design, balance of plant procurement, construction, and commissioning. Permitting and project development would have to start one to two years prior to the award of the EPC contract. Generally, however, a 90 MW SC plants in development today can be constructed in approximately two to three years which includes permitting, long lead procurement, construction, and commissioning. 2.1.5 Fuel Cells New technologies that may be considered include the fuel cell which takes natural gas (methane) and water, in a chemical process, generates electricity, heat, and releases less pollutants than even burning natural gas in a gas turbine. Such systems are fairly new when it applies to providing electricity for a building or home. These systems make little or noise, so have an advantage in areas where noisy generation plants would be unwelcome. Planning level costs for the Bloom Energy solid oxide fuel cell (“SOFC”) are as follows: One-time installation fees are in the $7,000 to $12,000/kW range after government and other state incentives; we’ll use $8,000/kW for large installations Figures include warranty costs recommended since the fuel cell stack will need replacement in five to ten years Cost for 85 MW system is approximately $680,000,000 Cost for natural gas to generate 85 MW for 178 hours is around $6,000/hour or $1M annually Installation time frame is 24 - 36 months POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-7 2.1.6 Combined Heat and Power Combined heat and power (“CHP”) facilities, also known as “cogeneration” plants are typically electric power plants that use their own waste heat to warm nearby buildings, heat water, warm greenhouses or warehouses, or for other practical purposes, instead of just disposing of the heat. Typically the facility that generates electricity must be near where the waste heat can be put to good use. CHP systems are able to increase the total energy utilization of primary energy sources and because it is usually cost effective, CHP is steadily gaining popularity in all sectors of the energy economy due to rising fossil fuel costs and concerns over the environment from greenhouse gasses and global warming. Traditional power plants are roughly 30 percent efficient when generating electricity. A CHP system however generates the electricity, and then uses remaining heat for hot water or space heating, achieving efficiencies up to 80 percent or more. For the Loveland area, it would be good to survey the existing power generating plants, and nearby industries to determine if there are any facilities that might be able to benefit nearby companies with their waste heat. Perhaps a mutually beneficial arrangement can be made, which lowers overall electrical demand, and reducing the base electrical load. The overall engineering, procurement and construction (“EPC”) costs for a combined- cycle (“CC”) plant in northern Colorado is estimated at $1,300 kW to $1,400 kW. This cost has a accuracy level of +30 to – 15 percent and is based on present day 2011 dollars and does not include escalation and owner’s costs, which is discussed below. Many factors can impact the EPC price of a facility including: size, site ambient conditions, delivery voltage, fuel supply pressure, use of secondary or tertiary fuels, type of heat rejection system, emissions control equipment, indoor versus outdoor installations, type of wastewater treatment, conditions of the site, date of contract, project location schedule acceleration of schedule and others. These costs are based on specific set of conditions listed below: Size: 100 MW 1 – PG7121EA\ 1 – 30 MW Steam Turbine Generator Natural fuel only Project location: Northern Colorado Performance assumed to be at ISO ambient conditions Delivery voltage: 69 kV Outdoor equipment Section 2 2-8 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 In addition to the variations in the EPC costs, other highly variable project costs are also incurred. These costs, which are not typically directly associated with the EPC contract, are referred to as owner indirect and other costs. These costs may include the following: Electrical interconnection costs to install transmission lines or upgrade the existing utility system Fuel interconnection costs Permitting fees Development fees (preliminary engineering, preparation and negotiation of contracts, and other legal and professional fees) Taxes or payments in lieu of taxes Financing fees including interest during construction, legal fees, lender fees, and insurance (i.e. efficacy insurance) Other site or regional related costs Based on our experience reviewing projects for financing, these fees can be 15 percent, or higher, of the EPC costs which are not included in the cost above. The overall construction schedule is approximately 20 to 24 months from the award of the EPC contract to commercial operation of the plant. Included in this time frame is detailed design, balance of plant procurement, construction, and commissioning. Permitting and project development would have to start one to two years prior to the award of the EPC contract. Generally, however, a 100 MW CC plants in development today can be constructed in approximately two and a half to four years which includes permitting, long lead procurement, construction, and commissioning. 2.2 Load Reduction and Load Shifting Options 2.2.1 Emergency Gen Sets in Area A Load Reduction Management System (“LRMS”) can be implemented to control the operation of back-up diesel generators that supply emergency power to water and sewer system pumps and pumping stations operated by the water authority and other municipal agencies, and possibly cooperating corporate entities in the Ft. Collins and Loveland area. During peak loads, the back-up generators would be brought online to power the back-up water and wastewater pumps, or provide backup power to the operation, temporarily reducing the load on the grid. When peak periods are over, the pumps and buildings would be brought back online and the back-up generators turned off. This option is possible only if there are sufficient back-up diesel generators that can be used. We are assuming 20 units may be available between businesses and municipalities in Ft. Collins and Loveland, which will reduce load on the grid by approximately 10 MW. POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-9 To insure this is a feasible option, an inventory should be taken of the companies, electric, water and power authority to determine the number of “gen sets” (back-up generators) that might be available for this approach. If feasible, then information on gen set manufacturer, model, capacity, control panel model, and the transfer switch make and model would be required. For the dispatch of existing back-up generators, a remotely controlled interface unit must be installed at the stand-by generator. When the control unit receives a command to start, it will send a signal to the generator to engage the existing automatic transfer switch to operate, simulating an outage has occurred. This operation will cause the generator to start and transfer the appropriate loads to back-up generator and is a relatively simple task assuming that the interface to the generator is straight forward, depending upon the make and model. If there is an issue with turning off water pumps temporarily during a forced back-up connection, then the transfer switch must be replaced with a “closed” transition transfer switch which will eliminate the problem but at an additional cost. Frequent dispatch may also have other issues as well such as restrictions or permit limits on run time, air pollution limits, operational issues due to water back flows, etc. In addition, deep wells may have issues with the water flowing in reverse direction when the pumps are temporarily turned off and would require a longer time delay before restarting the pumps. Along with remote control, the diesel back-up generators would also be monitored for critical start/stop, fuel level, electric output and other operational conditions depending upon the age, make and model of the generator, control panel and transfer switch. Since most back-up generators are tested on a regular basis anyway, monitoring them and controlling them remotely would eliminate the truck rolls and labor costs to manually test each of the backup generators. To reduce load by 85 MW, a significant number of back-up generators in the range of 850 would need to be turned on. There will not be nearly enough to cover the entire 85 MW requirement between Ft. Collins and Loveland but 20 units seems to be a reasonable number, with an average generator rating of 625 kW. Assumptions: 10 MW of peak demand load to be reduced 178 hours per year. The average diesel backup generator rating is 625 kW (ranges from 10 kW to 2,000 kW). Current installed generators are made by major vendors like Caterpillar, Onan, Generac, Cummins etc. and transfer switches are capable of being remotely managed within reasonable complexities. Generator output is 80 percent of rated load. Generating 10 MW would require approximately 20 diesel generators (10 MW/625 kW/.80 = 20); no environmental issues would prohibit diesel operation. 75 percent of the generators use open transfer switches allowing standard stand- alone remote terminal units (“RTUs”) for remote control. Section 2 2-10 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 25 percent of the generators use closed transition transfer switches providing no interruption in power to the pump when switching to backup. 80 percent of diesel generator sites have Internet access for remote management/control. 15 percent of diesel generator sites require cellular access for remote management/control. Five percent of diesel generator sites require satellite access for remote management/control. Remote monitoring, management and control would require fully integrated demand management system. Includes integration into Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (“SCADA”) or Smart Grid applications. Installed cost is approximately $518,000. Or $260/kW. Installation timeframe would be approximately 6 to 12 months. On-going cost of diesel fuel should also be considered in this scenario, which could cost up to $1,000 per year to generate 2 MW for 178 hours, depending upon the price for diesel fuel. These ongoing costs however would be reduced or eliminated since a portion of this fuel expense would have been paid for to run regularly scheduled backup generator tests anyway. It is not uncommon to run monthly tests for a good portion of the day. In this scenario, running backup tests during peak hours would help reduce the utility’s peak loads, something the utility could make attractive to the companies with backup generators by offering incentives. 2.2.2 Advanced Metering Infrastructure and Automatic Meter Reading In early 2012 Ft. Collins will begin rolling out an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system to 55,000 residential housing units and 10,000 commercial buildings. One advantage of having AMI is that the utility can offer various rate packages based on rate bands, Time Of Use (TOU) rates, variable pricing and other services based on the technology. Various pricing bands during the day can motivate customers to consume or not to consume electricity. If Ft. Collins were to install the meters and then implement pricing for peak hours, off-peak hours, and variable rate hours, it will see a reduction in demand during the peak hour rate band. As an example, if the higher cost peak rate band were set for 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. the utility is very likely to see a reduction in demand during those hours. Loveland does not have a smart grid plan but in a first phase, if they were to install an Automatic Meter Reading system (AMR) in residential and commercial accounts, it could be done fairly easily without having to build a data communications network back to the utility command center. In the first phase, Automatic Meter Readers (AMR) could drive by and wirelessly collect interval data from the meters for billing POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-11 purposes. The implementation of the AMR however would allow Loveland to incorporate various rate plans like Ft. Collins. Then as financing and design efforts proceed, eventually convert to a fully automatic meter infrastructure if they so desire. Reducing peak hour usage however could be accomplished. 30,000 electric smart meters could be installed in Loveland (4615 commercial, 25385 residential) Cost per meter installed approximately $265 each on average On-going cost to read meters w/ AMR approximately $2 per month each Total Cost to install: $7,950,000 Installed cost is $115/ kW Both utilities use peak rates between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. with exact TOU hours to be determined Potential is provided for Ft. Collins and Loveland to potentially reduce substantial demand during peak hours 2.2.3 Community Energy Storage Community Energy Storage (“CES”) consists of a large battery back-up system installed by the utility in neighborhoods, that serves several houses, typically associated with neighborhood transformers at the grid edge. If CES units were installed in the Loveland and Ft. Collins area, the utility could use them as a kind of buffer, to feed electric power into the grid during peak hours, and fill them up with low cost electricity during off-peak hours. The first installation of CES systems recently began in the U.S. providing back-up power to an average of four homes per CES unit. These units will also be used to reduce electrical load by powering homes during periods of peak energy consumption, with the overall process managed through a “control hub,” at the nearby sub-station. Each of these CES battery units for Loveland and Ft. Collins will be sized at 50 kWh. Depending on the day and time of the outage, and remaining power in each battery, each CES unit can supply around four hours of back-up power to each of four houses depending on the level of battery charge, time of day, and actual load. Note that back- up times will increase when neighbors are aware they are on back-up power. Besides shortening or eliminating the amount of time a customer is without power, CES units can also be used to supply energy to the houses during peak electrical periods, say between 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., on hot summer days when air conditioners are running on high. With a CES unit feeding power to the houses during these peak times, the overall load on the electric grid is reduced. By relieving the strain on the electric system during these peak periods, the utility can reduce the price of electricity at those times, and in general delay the need for future power plants or transmission lines which helps lower overall energy costs. Section 2 2-12 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Once qualified properties are selected for the location of CES battery systems, the installation process takes about three days for each CES, which is usually located next to an existing pad mounted neighborhood transformer. The following is a planning level capital cost estimate to install 2,650 x 50 kW CES battery systems, a total of 135 MW nameplate capacity based on the following assumptions: Size of each CES battery is 50 kW. Each transformer supports on average four homes with an average total load of 8 kW. CES provides power for those four homes an average of four hours per occurrence (outage). Batteries are used during 178 hours of annual peak period load. Charging of batteries occurs during off-peak periods at times of lowest electrical cost. CES would conservatively be discharged only up to 64 percent per occurrence to maintain long term battery life. For each occurrence each CES reduces load on the grid 8 kW x 4 h = 32 kWh. Discharging 2650 CES units x 32 kWh = 85 MWh. $ 31,25 / kW is the installed cost based on output. Energy cost savings should also be considered. If the price difference between off- peak (when battery is “filled”) and peak (when battery is discharged) is $.10 / kW then savings to the utility will be $.10 x 32 kWh x 2,650 CES units = $8,480 per occurrence. 45 occurrences of 4 hours each per year (178 hours total). Installation of 2,188 CES units will take approximately 36-months after permitting is completed. Maintenance costs are not included in above. This assumes there are actually enough locations to actually install the quantity of batteries proposed. Such a study would need to be completed first. Utilizing the assumptions above, the CES capability could be engineered to reduce load by approximately 85 MW during 178 peak hours for an installation cost of approximately $265,000,000. Cost savings due to keeping homes on back-up power has not been factored in for items like reduced food spoilage, basement flooding prevented, or increased personal health and safety etc. Upfront costs for CES are determined mainly by the size of the battery. As installations increase in the future, battery costs will continue to drop due to volumes of scale. And when re-cycled batteries can be incorporated into the vendor products, there will be significant cost reductions in this technology. POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-13 2.2.4 Hybrid Ice Air Conditioning During summer month peak hours, one of the largest consumers of electricity, if not the largest load is air conditioning. Approximately 30 percent to 40 percent of a building’s load on a hot day may be used for this purpose. In Loveland and Ft. Collins, reducing air conditioning load during the critical 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. peak hours could be accomplished using hybrid “ice and electric” air conditioning technology, reducing the electric load substantially when needed the most. These hybrid systems are typically installed on the roofs of large residential and commercial structures, and connected to existing air conditioners. They create ice during the low cost, off-peak hours and use the ice later during the hot afternoon and evening peak periods for cooling purposes. Some new air conditioning models from manufacturers like Carrier/Trane are built with a ready-made “ice coil” and can easily be connected to one of these hybrid ice storage units, making installation very simple. Other air conditioners can’t be converted, or due to location, space or power constraints cannot be converted. Other air conditioning systems require slight modifications but can be upgraded to accept the connection. Overall, about one third of them can be converted. One approach to implementing such a program could be for the utility to install such units at no cost, to motivate building owners to participate. Not only would owners of hybrid air conditioning systems see annual electrical cost savings in the 10 – 20% range, but the utility would see a reduced load during the critical peak periods and could control the systems. Based on the last 10 years of data for the area, and an analysis by the hybrid air conditioning company The Average Peak Day is July 19th Average Peak Hour is 4:45 p.m.to 5:45 p.m. Combined peak summer load is 461 MW for both Loveland and Ft. Collins Portions of peak load due to air conditioning is assumed to be 30 percent 33% of AC sites can accept an ice air conditioner Potential MW reduction is 46 MW or 10 percent of the summer peak load split between Loveland with 16MW and Ft. Collins 30 MW respectively Requires 2514 (plus or minus 30 percent) ice air conditioners with direct load control Installed cost is $76M Cost is $1700/kW Plus 2% annual maintenance or $1.5M/year Section 2 2-14 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 2.3 Renewable Incentives 2.3.1 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) When an organization reduces its emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants through energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, those reductions have financial value. Companies, utilities, governments, and others are willing to purchase those emissions reductions to either voluntarily offset their own emissions or satisfy government mandates that they do so. For example, roughly half the states in the U.S. have adopted renewable portfolio standards (“RPS”) that require utilities to generate a percentage of their power from renewable resources. Utilities can meet these requirements by either producing electricity from wind turbines, solar power or other renewable resources, or by purchasing RECs from organizations that do. Some companies do not want to own the renewable energy assets Those who cannot participate, may choose to enter into a power purchase agreement which allows a third party to install and own renewable facilities on the company’s property. The third party takes full advantage of the federal tax reductions, accelerated depreciation, state incentives, local incentives, and utility incentives. In turn it sells power back to the original company at a reduced rate. The third party can also own the RECs generated by owning the renewable energy resources and can either provide them to the organization which is hosting the project or can sell them on the open market. 2.3.2 Incentives There are various incentives for renewable energy based on technology, state, utility, and special interest groups. The tax incentive with the largest impact on renewables for individuals and companies has been the Federal Tax Credit, now extended to 2017, providing up to 30 percent off the gross cost to install renewable energy systems along with the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (“MACRS”) allowing accelerated 5-year depreciation of such assets. Table 2-1 summarizes some of the types of incentives available in Colorado. Details on some of the specific programs follows. Table 2-1 Summary of Colorado Incentives Incentive Description 3rd Party Solar Power Purchase Agreement Policies Colorado Power Purchase Agreement Senate Bill 09-051; PUC Decision C09-0990 described at http://www.dora.state.co.us/puc/docketsdecisions/decisions/2009/C09- 0990_08R-424E.pdf Energy Efficient Resource Standards Electricity sales and demand reduction of 5% of 2006 numbers by 2018 (statutory requirement); natural gas savings requirements vary by utility Grant Programs for Renewables State, Utility, Local, Private programs POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES File: 005455/3105111014-2000 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 2-15 Interconnection Policies 10,000 kW system capacity limit in Colorado Loan Programs for Renewables State programs plus other Net Metering Policies IOUs no limit, co-ops & municipals 10kW/25kW PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) Financing Policies Property tax Assessed Clean Energy Programs Property Tax Incentives for Renewables Some State Exemptions or special assessments Rebate Programs for Renewables State, Utility, Local, Non profit Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies 30% by 2020 (IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops & large municipals) Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies with Solar/Distributed Generation Provisions Colorado: 3% DG by 2020 1.5% customer-sited by 2020 Sales Tax Incentives for Renewables State exemption + local gov (option) authorized to offer exemption or deduction Colorado Property Tax Exemption for Residential Renewable Energy Equipment For Colorado property taxation purposes, renewable energy systems as defined under § 40-1-102 (11), C.R.S., that are used to produce two (2) megawatts or less of electricity are classified as personal property and assessed by the county assessor. The following are examples of renewable energy systems (property): photovoltaics (solar), hydroelectric, and wind turbine property. A description of this program can be found at http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO188F&re=1&ee=1 Colorado Renewable Energy Property Tax Assessment Colorado Renewable Energy Property Tax Assessment based on Senate Bill 177, enacted in April of 2009, allows for large-scale solar facilities (2 MW or larger) installed on or after January 1, 2009, to follow the same method for property tax assessments as wind-energy facilities. Wind facilities in operation prior to June 1, 2006, and solar facilities installed prior to January 1, 2009, are assessed using the same method as other renewables. In 2010, Senate Bills 174, 177, and 19, respectively, extended this methodology to equipment used to produce electricity from geothermal, biomass, and certain hydro resources. See more at http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO46F&re=1&ee=1 Colorado Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Equipment Colorado exempts from the state's sales and use tax all sales, storage, and use of components used in the production of alternating current electricity from a renewable energy source. Effective July 1, 2009, through July 1, 2017, all sales, storage, and use of components used in solar thermal systems are also exempt from the state's sales and use tax. The exemption for systems which produce electricity from a renewable resource includes but is not limited to PV systems, solar thermal-electric systems, small wind systems, biomass systems, or geothermal systems. See more at http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO160F&re=1&ee=1 Section 2 2-16 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Pineridge Distributed Generation Alternatives Study 10/6/11 Colorado Local Option for – Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Renewable Energy Systems for Solar Water Heat, Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal Electric, Other Renewables Colorado enacted legislation in April 2007 (SB 145) to authorize counties and municipalities to offer property or sales tax rebates or credits to residential and commercial property owners who install renewable energy systems on their property. HB 1126 of May 2009 added solar thermal (non-electric) systems to the list of renewable energy equipment eligible for the sales and use tax exemption, and expires in 2017. See more at http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO50F&re=1&ee=1 Feed-In-Tariff A Feed-In-Tariff (“FIT”) is a contract that utilities sponsor, whereby other companies and individuals generate electricity and sell the power at specified rates back to the utility. The advantage of a FIT is that a person or company can set up an alternative energy system and sell power to the utility without having certain limitations, like in a net metering agreement. (A net metering plan typically limits the amount of electricity one can sell back to a utility by what that person or entity consumes, at or below the consumer rate.) A FIT has fewer restrictions and it sets specific kWh rates that the utility will pay over a period of time like 10 or 15 years for solar, biomass, or wind generated electricity. Such timeframes help developers recoup the cost of the investment. Recent FITS in the US were announced by Northern Indiana Power Company in June and were sold out in a matter of weeks, and the Oregon FIT was sold out 45 minutes after it was released, due to its generous solar rates. See http://solaroregon.org/residential-solar/steps-to-solar/solar-electric/feed-in-tariff and http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=IN79F&re=1&ee= 0 2.4 Summary Table 2-1 summarizes the distributed generation and load reduction or load shifting technologies discussed in this report. High-level planning assumptions are used to attempt the quantify a potential capacity reduction and cost of each technology, assuming a peak load reduction of up to 85 MW for 178 hours/year (based on Platte River’s estimate as of August 22nd), as well as the likely schedule required to implement it. None of these technologies could be implemented in time to resolve the transmission issues anticipated next summer without the Dixon Creek-Horseshoe 230-kV line, and it is doubtful that any single solution could achieve the desired load reduction in a reasonable time period. However, a combination of technologies could provide significant benefit. Table 2-2 Summary of Peak Load Reduction Options Peak Load Reduction Options Type MW MW at Peak Hour Cost/ kW Total Cost Ongoing Annual Costs Site Availability Installation Timeframe (Mo) Notes Municipal Solid Waste Generation 14 14 $ 4,500 $ 63M $ 5M Larimer County Landfill 24 mo Landfill solid waste dried and burned to generate electricity Biomass Generation 35 35 $ 4,500 $ 157M $ 5M Horseshoe Substation biomass location 24 mo Biomass gas burned to generate electricity Solar PV w/ Battery Storage Generation 85 85 $ 5,410 $ 460M $ 10M Requires 400+ acres 18 Mo+ Battery storage required to shift the timing of electricity put onto the grid to peak hours. Solar Thermal Electric Generation 85 85 $ 4,000 $ 340M $ 6M Requires 500+ acres 24 Mo Molten salt storage creates steam to generate electricity at any time of day including peaks. Gas Turbines Generation 95 95 $ 1,000 $95.5M $ 3M Minimum of 15 acres 24 - 36 Mo Only included EPC costs and add 15 percent for owner's costs Fuel Cells Generation 85 85 $ 8,000 $ 680M $ 1M TBD. Requires survey for natural gas fuel and location 24 - 36 Mo New technologies at cutting edge, may or may not be available by next summer in sufficient quantities. Combined Heat and Power Generation 100 100 $ 1,350 $ 135M $ 5M Minimum of 15 acres 24 Mo Major long lead equipment (CT and STG) needs to procured prior to EPC Contract. Only included EPC costs and add 15 percent for owner's costs Emergency Gen Sets in Area Load Reduction 12.5 10 $ 52 $ 518K $ 500k to $700k Requires existing diesel backup generators Peak Load Reduction Options Type MW MW at Peak Hour Cost/ kW Total Cost Ongoing Annual Costs Site Availability Installation Timeframe (Mo) Notes Smart Meters w/ TOU Rates Load Reduction/S hifting 85 85 $ 100 $ 8.5M $ .85 M Cost to install 30k Loveland residential and commercial electric meters only. Does not include cost for 65k meters in Ft. Collins Install smart meters in Loveland commercial and residential properties. Use higher rate band during 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in both Loveland and Ft. Collins to lower peak usage. Community Energy Storage (CES) Load Shifting 135 85 $ 3,125 $ 265M $ 5.3M TBD. Requires 2650 locations 24 - 36 Mo Batteries provide home backup and can send power to the grid during peak hours Hybrid Ice Air Conditioning Load Shifting 46 46 $ 1,700 $ 76M $ 1.5M 1/4 to 1/3 of buildings 24 Mo 2500 (+- 30%) ice systems to install. Operates 800 hours/yr. during peaks. Local production facilities could be built between Loveland and Ft. Collins, good for local economy and shorten delivery/installation timeframes. 6 - 12 Mo Performing backup generator tests and running during peak hours . Requires existing diesel backup generators 6 - 12 Mo Performing backup generator tests and running during peak hours. Overhead double-circuit tubular steel poles (230-kV Platte River and Western 115-kV). Medium – construction roads required along the northern portion. Southern portion utilize helicopter construction. Medium – Impact for recreational users of Natural Area; line blends with Pineridge background for distant viewers. $10.2M Orange 4.2 miles Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam, then north along S Centennial Dr, east near Dixon Canyon Rd, across Dixon Reservoir to Dixon Creek Substation. Overhead double-circuit tubular steel poles (230-kV Platte River and Western 115-kV). Low – construction in existing Western R/W and public R/W. Medium – Adds very tall structures in area with overhead distribution lines. $10.4M Drake Rd. Overhead single-circuit 230-kV tubular steel poles. Low – construction in developed public R/W. High – adds very tall structures in area where electric utilities are underground. $16.0M Green 2 (Partial UG) 5.1 miles (3.1 UG) North in public road R/W along S Taft Hill Rd, then west along W Drake Rd. Overhead single-circuit 230-kV tubular steel poles north to W Harmony Rd, then underground to Dixon Creek Substation. Low – construction in developed public R/W. Low – overhead only in area with existing overhead distribution. $26.6M Green 3 5.1 miles North in public road R/W along S Taft Hill Rd, then west along W Drake Rd. Underground single-circuit 230- kV ductbank. Low – construction in developed public R/W. Low – no visible facilities. $33.3M North in public road R/W along S Taft Hill Rd, then west along W Drake Rd. Overhead single-circuit 230-kV tubular steel poles north to W Harmony Rd, then underground to Dixon Creek Substation. Low – construction in developed public R/W. Low – overhead only in area with existing overhead distribution. $26.6M Magenta 4.1 miles Utilize existing 75-ft Western R/W from Horsetooth Tap to Spring Canyon Dam as proposed, then north along the base of the ridge through Pineridge Natural Area to near Dixon Canyon Rd, east across Dixon Reservoir to Dixon Creek Substation. Overhead double-circuit tubular steel poles (230-kV Platte River and Western 115-kV). Medium – construction roads required along the northern portion. Southern portion utilize helicopter construction. Medium – Impact for recreational users of Natural Area; line blends with Pineridge background for distant viewers. $10.2M