20161108Adelman Direct.pdf

RECE IVED
201& NG1! -8 P 1 Li: 05
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY TO CONSTRUCT SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS TO SECURE ADEQUATE
AND RELIABLE SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS
IN THE WOOD RIVER VALLEY.
CASE NO . IPC-E-16-28
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
RYANN. ADELMAN
1
2
Q.
A.
Please state your name and business address.
My name is Ryan Adelman. My business address
3 is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702.
4
5
Q.
A.
By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
6 Power" or "Company") as the Customer Operations Project
7 Manager in the Customer Operations Engineering and
8 Construction Department.
9
10
Q.
A.
Please describe your educational background.
I graduated in 1996 from the University of
11 Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, receiving a Bachelor of Science
12
13
Degree in Civil Engineering. I am a registered
professional engineer in the state of Idaho. I am
14 currently pursuing a Masters of Business Administration
15 through Boise State University's Executive MBA program.
16 Q. Please describe your work experience with
17 Idaho Power.
18 A. From 2004 to 2008, I was employed by Idaho
19 Power as an engineer in Power Production's Civil
20
21
Engineering Group. In 2008, I became an Engineering Leader
responsible for the Langley Gulch power plant project. In
22 2013, I transitioned to the Civil Engineering Leader in
23 Power Production. In 2015, I accepted my current position
24 as Manager of the Projects Department where I manage Idaho
25 Power's Project Management and Cost and Controls group.
ADELMAN, DI 1
Idaho Power Company
1 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this
2 proceeding?
3 A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the
4 details of the various options for redundant electrical
5 service into the Wood River Valley/North Valley area as
6 provided to me by Company witness David Angell and as
7 described in his testimony. I will also discuss the costs,
8 benefits, and detriments of each of the viable options and
9 conclude by identifying the lowest-cost, base case
10 redundant service option, Overhead Distribution, as well as
11 the economically equivalent redundant service option,
12 Underground Transmission-Transition Point 1, for which the
13 Company is requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience
14 and Necessity ("CPCN")
15
16 Q.
I . BACKGROUND
Please state again the construction
17 configurations considered by the Company to provide
18 redundant electric service to the North Valley.
19 A. Idaho Power investigated a number of
20 construction configurations and numerous routes for
21 providing a redundant source of energy to the North Valley,
22 including some non-traditional construction configurations
23 described in Mr. Angell's testimony. The Company's
24 analysis concluded that the non-traditional construction
25 configuration technologies (i.e., microgrid) for providing
ADELMAN, DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1 a redundant electr i c energy solution are just not co s t -
2 effective today , would only provide electric backup for a
3 relatively short period of time , and would still not
4 eliminate the need for the redundant transmission system .
5 Mr . Angell described four redundant electric
6 service construction configurations which all begin with
7 the same Common Route configurat i on of a 138 kilovol t
8 ("kV") overhead transmission line constructed from t he Wood
9 River Transmission Station, east to Buttercup Road , then
10 north along the bike path and Highway 75 to approximately
11 the area near Owl Rock Road . The four construction
12 configurations Mr . Angell described were identified as :
13 (1) Overhead Transmission , (2) Underground Transmiss i on ,
14 (3) Overhead Distribution , and (4) Underground
15 Distribution .
16 Q. Which of these construction configurations did
17 Mr . Angell provide t o you for additional analysis and
18 review?
19 A. Mr . Angell concluded that neither the Dollar
20 Mountain nor the Downtown District route options for an
21 Overhead Transmission construction configuration provided a
22 viable solution for redundant electric service to the North
23 Valley . Mr . Angell describes the Company 's rationale for
24 eliminating this construction configuration in greater
25 detail in his testimony .
ADELMAN , DI 3
Idaho Power Company
1 The three remaining construction configurations Mr.
2 Angell provided for further analysis and review are
3 identified as:
4 1. Underground Transmission.
5 The Underground Transmission construction
6 configuration would include the Common Route along Highway
7 75 to one of three possible overhead-to-underground
8 transition points between Owl Rock Road and Elkhorn Road,
9 at which point the transmission line would be constructed
10 underground and proceed along the highway and in road
11 rights-of-way to the Ketchum substation. Please see Angell
12 Exhibit No. 5.
13 2 . Overhead Distribution.
14 The Overhead Distribution construction configuration
15 would include the Common Route to a new substation site on
16 the west side of Highway 75 south of Owl Rock Road. This
17 construction configuration would include a new substation
18 with 2 x 44.8 MVA 138/12.5 kV transformers, two 4-bay
19 metalclad sections, five feeder getaways, a control
20 building, 10 foot decorative walls, and sound barriers
21 around the transformers. Five overhead distribution
22 circuits would connect with the existing Ketchum and
23 Elkhorn substation distribution circuits. Eight sets of
24 padmount switchgear and optical fiber from the new
25 substation for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
ADELMAN, DI 4
Idaho Power Company
1 (SCADA) control will be installed to effectuate the load
2 transfers during outages of any transmission line or
3
4
substation. Please see Angell Exhibit No. 6.
Unlike the Underground Transmission construction
5 configuration, this option (and the next) only provides 60
6 megawatts ("MWn) of additional service capacity on five
7 distribution circuits. Additional circuits will need to be
8 constructed if the area peak load increases.
9 3. Underground Distribution.
10 The Underground Distribution construction
11 configuration would also include the Common Route to a new
12 substation site on the west side of Highway 75 south of Owl
13 Rock Road. From this point on, the option is substantially
14 the same as the Overhead Distribution construction
15 configuration with the 12.5 kV distribution circuits
16 installed underground, rather than overhead, requiring
17 boring, asphalt, and landscape work.
18
19 Q.
II. COSTS, BENEFITS, AND DETRIMENTS
What are the estimated construction costs for
20 each of the three viable redundant service line
21 construction configurations?
22 A. I have provided Exhibit No. 7, which shows the
23 cost estimates for each of the three redundant service
24 construction configurations. The estimates are based on
25 conceptual design level estimates and all three service
ADELMAN, DI 5
Idaho Power Company
1 line options include a 30 percent contingency. Variances
2 could occur as a result of actual right-of-way costs and
3 underground bore costs.
4 The construction cost estimates for the Underground
5 Transmission construction configuration range from $29.5 to
6 $36.2 million. The cost estimate ranges depend on the
7 location of the point of transition from overhead-to-
8 underground construction. For the Overhead Distribution
9 construction configuration, the construction cost estimates
10 range from $29.1 to $31.1 million and for the Underground
11 Distribution construction configuration, they range from
12 $43.4 to $45.9 million. Both distribution line options
13 include basic feeder switching automation.
14 Q. What are the benefits and detriments of each
15 of the three redundant electric service options?
16 A. The primary benefit of the Underground
17 Transmission construction configuration is that the line
18 would provide a second, fully redundant transmission line
19 to the Ketchum substation and reduce sustained outages. If
20 this option were constructed, the North Valley customers
21 would not experience a sustained outage for loss of either
22 transmission line (the existing transmission line or the
23 newly constructed transmission line). Other benefits
24 include that the line would support a build-out demand in
25 the North Valley area of 120 MW. The current peak for the
ADELMAN, DI 6
Idaho Power Company
1 North Valley is approximately 60 MW. The underground
2 portion of the transmission line would avoid the City of
3 Ketchum's Prohibition of Use and greatly reduce the adverse
4 visual impacts that are opposed by many in the North
5 Valley . The line would provide the ability to de-energize
6 any section of either transmission line for maintenance,
7 inspection , repair, or reconstruction, without customer
8 interruption.
9 Q. Are there any potential detriments or
10 downsides to this option?
11 A. Yes. Idaho Power does not have historical
12 experience in constructing and operating underground
13 transmission. The Company currently does not have any
14 underground transmissi o n line anywhere on its system, but
15 underground transmission is not new technology and is used
16 by other utilities in other parts of the country.
17 Q. What are the benefits of the Overhead
18 Distribution construction configuration?
19 A. The benefits of the Overhead Distribution
20 construction configuration are that the combination of the
21 line, substation, and distribution circuits would provide
22 60 MW of redundant capacity to the existing customers
23 served from the Ketchum and Elkhorn substations, with
24 similar reliability benefits as the Underground
25 Transmission construction configuration. New distribution
ADELMAN, DI 7
Idaho Power Company
1 circuits would provide backup service for maintenance
2 activities on portions of the existing distribution
3 circuits. Idaho Power has extensive experience operating
4 and maintaining overhead distribution lines and
5 substations.
6 Q. Are there any possible detriments to this
7 option?
8 A. Yes. If there was an interruption in the
9 service caused by the existing transmission line, customers
10 would experience short sustained outages until the
11 distribution circuits are switched to the alternate service
12 circuits. This could occur if the current 138 kV
13 transmission line experienced a "line event," which is an
14 extended outage for line conductor, insulator, or structure
15 failures caused by, among other things, vandalism,
16 inclement weather, wood decay, woodpecker damage,
17 avalanche, fire, and micro-burst wind events. The Overhead
18 Distribution construction c onfiguration would not result in
19 a reduction of the number of sustained outages. The
20 substation and five overhead feeders would cause additional
21 visual impacts which may not be supported by the customers
22 in the North Valley area and may not be allowed by city
23 ordinances in Ketchum and Sun Valley. This configuration
24 provides only 60 MW of backup service for the existing
25 customers. Over time, additional facilities would be
ADELMAN, DI 8
Idaho Power Company
1 required to maintain backup service as demand in the North
2 Valley area grows .
3 Q. And finally, what are the benefits and
4 detriments of the Underground Distribution construction
5 configuration?
6 A. From a reliability and capacity perspective,
7 the Underground Distribution construction configuration
8 would provide substantially similar benefits as the
9 Overhead Distribution construction configuration. However,
10 unlike the Overhead Distribution construction
11 configuration, this option would greatly reduce the visual
12 impacts of overhead distribution circuits and avoid the
13 city ordinance issues in Ketchum and Sun Valley.
14 The detriments are similar to that noted for
15 overhead distribution . It should be noted , however, this
16 option is the most expensive of all three options, without
17 providing any significant additional benefits other than
18 the reduction in adverse visual impacts and the avo idance
19 of city ordinance issues .
20
21
III. CONSTRUCTION CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS
Q. Based upon the cost estimates and relative
22 benefits and detriments of the three construction
23 configurations, was the Company able to eliminate any
24 construction configuration from further analysis?
25
ADELMAN , DI 9
Idaho Power Company
1 A. Yes. In reviewing the three proposed
2 construction configurations for providing redundant
3 electrical service to the North Valley, the Company
4 compared the cost estimates of each option with its
5 respective benefits and detriments. The Company concluded
6 that the Underground Distribution construction
7 configuration should be eliminated from further
8 consideration. The Underground Distribution construction
9 configuration would provide substantially similar benefits
10 as the Overhead Distribution construction configuration,
11 but at a substantially higher cost to construct. While
12 there would be fewer obstacles to construction by avoiding
13 city ordinance issues regarding overhead construction, the
14 significant increase in construction costs could not be
15 justified.
16 Q. What additional review did the Company perform
17 for the two remaining service construction configurations?
18 A. At this point in the analysis, the
19 construction cost estimates for the Overhead Distribution
20 construction configuration, ranging from $29.1 to $31.1
21 million, provide the lowest-cost solution to providing
22 redundant electrical service to the North Valley. In
23 addition, the Overhead Distribution construction
24 configuration is consistent with the Company's traditional
25 or standard practice of providing redundant electric
ADELMAN, DI 10
Idaho Power Company
1 service to an area. However, while the Overhead
2 Distribution construction configuration provides an
3 electrical solution that would enable the Company to reduce
4 the duration of sustained outages and continue providing
5 reliable electric service to the North Valley, the
6 similarity in costs between the Overhead Distribution and
7 Underground Transmission construction configurations
8 necessitated further review between the two. For the
9 additional analysis, the Company used the midpoint of the
10 range in cost estimates for the Overhead Distribution
11 construction configuration ($30 million) as an economic
12 base for the Company's standard practice solution . Using
13 the $30 million economic base, the Company continued
14 analysis on the range of cost estimates for the Underground
15 Transmission construction configuration.
16 Q. What impact does the location of the
17 underground transition structure have on the total overall
18 cost estimate for the Underground Transmission construction
19 configuration?
20 A. Because the cost of underground transmission
21 is very expensive, the impact to the overall cost of
22 providing redundant service to the North Valley under the
23 Underground Transmission construction configuration is
24 impacted greatly by the location of the transition point
25 from overhead to underground transmission. The cost to
ADELMAN, DI 11
Idaho Power Company
1 construct an underground transmission line can range
2 between five to 10 times the costs of overhead
3 construction. Therefore, the total project cost estimate
4 for the Underground Transmission construction configuration
5 can be reduced by continuing the initial overhead portion
6 of the Common Route transmission line, the portion from the
7 Wood River substation in Hailey to the area near Owl Rock
8 Road, as far north as possible before transitioning the
9 line to underground.
10 Q. What options to various overhead-to-
11 underground transition points were evaluated?
12 A. Three separate options with varying overhead-
13 to-underground transition points ("TPu) were analyzed
14 further. The potential locations for transition points
15 along Highway 75 are identified as: TPl, near the
16 intersection of Elkhorn Road and Highway 75; TP2, near the
17 intersection of Hospital Drive and Highway 75; and TP3,
18 near the intersection of Owl Rock Road and Highway 75.
19 Q. What are the total estimated costs for the
20 Underground Transmission construction configuration that
2 1 are associated with each of these transition points?
22 A. The overall Underground Transmission project
23 costs are as follows:
24
25
2 6
Underground Transmission-TPl:
Underground Transmission-TP2:
Underground Transmission-TP3:
$30.0 million
$32.7 million
$35.7 million
ADELMAN, DI 12
Idaho Power Company
1 The estimates are based on conceptual design level
2 estimates. Variances could occur as a result of actual
3 right-of-way costs, underground bore costs, or other
4 unknown construction-related costs.
5 Q. How do these cost estimates compare to the
6 economic base case option of $30 million for the Overhead
7 Distribution construction configuration?
8 A. The cost estimates for options TP2 and TP3 are
9 greater than the cost estimate of the economic base
10 construction configuration. However, the cost estimate for
11 TPl of $30 million is the same as the cost estimate for the
12 Overhead Distribution construction configuration.
13 Q. Does the Company consider the Overhead
14 Distribution base case construction configuration
15 equivalent to Underground Transmission-TPl construction
16 configuration?
17 A. From a cost basis, yes. However, the benefits
18 and construction challenges are not equivalent.
19 Q. How are the benefits between the two cost
20 equivalent solutions different?
21 A. While both the Overhead Distribution and
22 Underground Transmission-TPl construction configurations
23 provide redundant service to the North Valley area, the
24 Underground Transmission-TPl option will provide additional
25 stability over time as it would allow for future growth in
ADELMAN, DI 13
Idaho Power Company
1 customer demand. As I stated above, the Underground
2 Transmission construction configuration would provide full
3 redundant capacity of the existing 138 kV transmission line
4 and would support a build-out demand in the North Valley
5 area of 120 MW. The line would provide the ability to de-
6 energize any section of either transmission line for
7 maintenance, inspection, repair, or reconstruction, without
8 customer interruption.
9 While the Overhead Distribution construction
10 configuration is the economic base case, the Overhead
11 Distribution construction configuration would provide for
12 only 60 MW of backup service. Over time, additional
13 facilities would be required to maintain backup service as
14 demand in the North Valley area grows. If there was an
15 interruption in the service provided by the existing
16 transmission line, customers would experience short
17 sustained outages until the distribution circuits are
18 switched to the alternate service circuits. The Overhead
19 Distribution construction configuration would not result in
20 a reduction of the number of sustained outages.
21 Q. Are there differences in the operational risks
22 between the two cost-equivalent construction
23 configurations?
24 A. Yes. From an operating perspective, given the
25 unlikely event of a 138 kV underground cable failure, no
ADELMAN, DI 14
Idaho Power Company
1 customers would experience a sustained outage with the
2 Underground Transmission construction configurat ion, as the
3 existing line will maintain the continuity of service until
4 the underground cable is repaired.
5 For the Overhead Distribution construction
6 configuration, the potential operational risks include
7 customers experiencing sustained outages if the alternate
8 source switching is not automated. Even if the switching
9 is automated, the customers would experience sustained
10 outages if any circuit is in an abnormal configuration
11 prior to the line event. Lack of automation and abnormal
1 2 circuit configurations have the potential to increase the
13 System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) and
14 System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI)
15 reliability indices. Additionally, cold load pickup might
16 complicate and prolong re-energizing feeders that are out
17 if the automation is either not implemented, disabled, or
18 malfunctions.
19 Q. Because Idaho Power does not currently have
20 any experience with underground transmission facilities on
21 its system, what does the Company propose to do if there is
22 a cable failure?
23 A. As noted above, it is unlikely that the
24 underground cable will fail. However, in the event of a
25
ADELMAN, DI 15
Idaho Power Company
1 failure, Idaho Power will utilize contractors that have
2 experience dealing with underground transmission lines.
3 Q. What construction concerns or challenges did
4 the Company consider between the two cost -equival ent
5 options?
6 A. While both options would require a number of
7 permits prior to construction, the Company believes that
8 construction of the Overhead Distribution construction
9 configuration may be met with considerable resistance.
10 Blaine County requires approval of a conditional use permit
11 due to the transmission structure heights. But the
12 substation for the Overhead Distribution construction
13 configuration, if located on the west side of Highway 75,
14 would also require a site alteration permit of the Mountain
15 Overlay District from the Blaine County Planning and Zoning
16 Commission. For the Underground Transmission construction
17 configuration, both the City of Ketchum and the City of Sun
18 Valley require a Right-Of-Way Encroachment and Dig Permit,
19 approved by their respective city councils. However, there
20 is concern that the overhead distribution circuits for the
21 Overhead Distribution construction configuration would
22 likely be denied by both Sun Valley and Ketchum based upon
23 statements made by city officials and their interpretations
24 of city code and conditional use permits in specific zoning
25 districts. Through numerous meetings with city officials,
ADELMAN, DI 16
Idaho Power Company
1 it has become apparent that overhead construction of any
2 sort will be met with significant resistance .
3 Q. Has the Company thus far pursued any
4 permitting activities for any of the possible routes?
5 A. Yes. Idaho Power has been and is currently
6 engaged in acquiring the appropriate and required permits
7 including the submission in 2015 for a right -of-way
8 encroachment application to the cities of Ketchum and Sun
9 Valley and a conditional use permit, with a revised
10 application in 2016 to Blaine County . All requests are
11 still pending , with a hearing set for the conditional use
12 permit application with Blaine County on November 10 , 2016.
13
14 Q.
IV . CONCLUSION
Please summarize the Company's analysis for
15 providing a redundant source for electrical service in the
16 North Valley.
17 A. Across the Company's system, Idaho Power's
18 standard practice to reduce sustained outages and improve
19 system reliability is to construct redundant overhead
20 transmission lines or to implement distribution circuits
21 with tie switches, particularly in large customer areas
22 like the North Valley . Two construction configurations
23 evaluated meet this standard practice criterion, the
24 Overhead Transmission and Overhead Distribution
25 construction configurations .
ADELMAN, DI 17
Idaho Power Company
1 Each of the construction configurations includes
2 construction of the Cormnon Route, an overhead 138 kV
3 transmission line from the Wood River station to a location
4 near the intersection of Highway 75 and Owl Rock Road. As
5 described in Mr. Angell's testimony, the Company determined
6 that the Overhead Transmission construction configuration
7 was not a viable option for the North Valley. This leaves
8 the Overhead Distribution option, which as the lowest-cost
9 viable construction configuration serves as the economic
10 base case, at an estimated cost of $30 million, and
11 represents the traditional and standard practice solution
12 for providing redundant electrical service to the North
13 Valley.
14 Q. Is the Overhead Distribution construction
15 configuration the Company's recormnendation for a CPCN?
16 A. No. As explained above, the Overhead
17 Distribution construction configuration would be the
18 Company's traditional and standard practice for building a
19 redundant electrical solution, given its estimated cost and
20 the constraints of the North Valley. Consequently, it
21 serves as a base case by which to measure any incremental
22 cost difference that may be required because of the local
23 jurisdictions' preferences. However, the Company
2 4 understands and recognizes that the Overhead Distribution
25 construction configuration may not be the construction
ADELMAN, DI 18
Idaho Power Company
1 configuration desired by many of the constituents in the
2 North Valley, and has identified the Underground
3 Transmission-TPl construction configuration as an economic
4 equivalent to the Overhead Distribution base case. The
5 Company maintains that if the local government and
6 communities require that the facilities be constructed
7 underground or on a construction configuration route that
8 increases the cost of such facilities, the incremental cost
9 difference between the Overhead Distribution construction
10 configuration and the underground configuration should be
11 assessed to the cities of Ketchum and Sun Valley and to
12 Blaine County. Company witness Michael Youngblood
13 discusses possible funding arrangements the Company
14 considered for recovering the incremental costs of other
15 construction configurations in his testimony.
16 Q. Is the Underground Transmission construction
17 configuration an economic equivalent to the Overhead
18 Distribution construction configuration and, therefore, a
19 viable option for a CPCN request?
20 A. Yes. The Company's analysis concludes that
21 the Underground Transmission-TPl option, at $30 million,
22 would be an economic equivalent to the Company's standard
23 practice of providing redundant electrical service. Idaho
24 Power views this routing option as striking a balance
25 between the Company's obligations to provide low-cost,
ADELMAN, DI 19
Idaho Power Company
1 reliable service and the cormnunities' interests.
2 Consequently, the Company is seeking a CPCN for the
3 Underground Transmission-TPl route. The other Underground
4 Transmission options, TP2 and TP3, result in higher
5 estimated costs for construction. If either of these
6 higher-cost options is chosen by the governments or
7 cormnunities in the North Valley, then any incremental costs
8 above the economic base case of $30 million must be funded
9 by the customers in the North Valley.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Does this conclude your testimony?
Yes.
ADELMAN, DI 2 0
Idaho Power Company
1 ATTESTATION OF TESTIMONY
2
3 STATE OF IDAHO
4 ss.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
County of Ada
I, Ryan N. Adelman, having been duly sworn to
testify truthfully, and based upon my personal knowledge,
state the following:
I am employed by Idaho Power Company as the Customer
Operations Project Manager in the Customer Operations
Engineering and Construction Department and am competent to
be a witness in this proceeding.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the state of Idaho that the foregoing pre-filed testimony
and exhibit are true and correct to the best of my
information and belief.
t'~/!p' DATED this _v~-day of November 2016.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this :t;-\h day of
November 2016.
Notary Public
Residing at: Boise, Idaho
My commission expires: 02/04/2021
ADELMAN, DI 21
Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-16-28
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ADELMAN, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 7
()
Ql C/l (I)
::0 z . 0 )> .
"Cg-=o~
Ql -() ::r (0 3 I -·
(l)Qlr;ng ..... ? ..... z
0 -9' 0 -"C N. N00)--.J
Wood River Valley Redundant Electric Service
Estimated Cost Summary of Construction Configuration Alternatives
Underground Distribution Overhead Distribution
New Substation $ 5,515,000 New Substation $ 5,515,000
Distribution Line Switches $ 20,000 Distribution Line Switches $ 20,000
Underground distribution $ 13,165,217 Overhead distribution $ 4,073,913
Other Feeder Work $ 518,100 Other Feeder Work $ 518,100
Communications $ 280,000 Communications $ 280,000
Automation $ 800,000 Automation $ 800,000
Surveying $ 100,000 Surveying $ 100,000
IPC Management/Inspection $ 150,000 IPC Management/Inspection $ 150,000
Subtotal 1 $ 20,548,317 Subtotal 1 $ 11,457,013
Contingency 30% $ 6,164,495 Contingency 30% $ 3,437,104
Overheads 15% $ 3,082,248 Overheads 15% $ 1,718,552
Subtotal 2 $ 29,795,060 Subtotal 2 $ 16,612,669
AFUDC 8% $ 2,383,605 AFUDC 8% $ 1,329,014
Subtotal 3 $ 32,178,665 Subtotal 3 $ 17,941,683
Right-of-way $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Right-of-way $ 1,000,000
Substation Site Construction $ $ 1,000,000 Substation Site Construction $
Underground Bore $ $ 500,000
Total $ 33,178,665 $ 35,678,665 $ 18,941,683
Common Route $ 10,204,650 $ 10,204,650
Grand Total $ 43,383,315 $ 45,883,315 Grand Total $ 29,146,333
Cost Estimate Ranges ($ millions) $ 43.4 $ 45.9 Cost Estimate Ranges ($ millions) $ 29.1
$
$
$
$
$
2,000,000
1,000,000
20,941,683
31,146,333
31.1
()
Q)
(/)
Cl)
:::oz . 0 )> . a. -m -uro"Ux m-():::,-<03 • fr ro m m -· rv_::J..'....z
0 -9' 0 --urv ­rv () c» -...i
Overhead 138 kV (w/Engineering)
Underground 138 kV (w/Engineering)
Distribution Underbuild
Communications
138 kV Line Switches
138 kV Line Terminals
Surveying
IPC Management/Inspection
Subtotal 1
Contingency
Overheads
ITD Bridge Project Work (w/OH)
Subtotal 2
AFUDC
Subtotal 3
Right-of-way
Underground Bore
Total
Common Route
Grand Total
Cost Estimate Ranges ($ millions)
Wood River Valley Redundant Electric Service
Estimated Cost Summary of Construction Configuration Alternatives
Underground Transmission
Transition Point 1 Transition Point 2
$ 589,000 $ 134,000
$ 8,097,000 $ 10,673,000
$ 98,000 $ 28,000
$ 1,133,000 $ 1,083,000
$ 621,000 $ 621,000
$ 834,000 $ 834,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 11,722,000 $ 13,723,000
30% $ 3,516,600 $ 4,116,900
15% $ 1,758,300 $ 2,058,450
$ 345,000 $ 345,000
--17,341,900 $ 20,243,3SO $
8% $ 1,387,352 $ 1,619,468
$ 18,729,2S2 $ 21,862,818
$ 600,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 350,000 $ 700,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 19,329,2S2 $ 20,129,2S2 $ 22,212,818 $ 22,762,818
$ 10,204,6SO $ 10,204,6SO
$ 29,S33,902 $ 30,333,902 $ 32,417,468 $ 32,967,468
$ 29.5 $ 30.3 $ 32.4 $ 33.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Transition Point 3
12,397,000
1,033,000
621,000
834,000
100,000
250,000
15,235,000
4,570,500
2,285,250
345,000
22,435,750
1,794,860
24,230,610
750,000
24,980,610
10,204,650
35,185,260
35.2
$
$
$
$
$
1,250,000
500,000
25,980,610
36,185,260
36.2