Southern Intertie Cost-Benefit Report History

Southern Intertie Cost-Benefit Report History
	ALL ARE INDEPENDENT STUDIES (except 11/02 Chugach study)	*ADJUSTED BENEFIT TO COST RATIO**
		NEGATIVE	POSITIVE
6/89	DFI - BENEFITS: $43 to 49 million ($1987)	0.42 to 0.48
12/89	DFI - BENEFITS: $114 to 131 million ($1990). Publicly revised by DFI in 3/9/98 but in the 2/16/98 Chugach secret study DFI says these numbers are [probably less accurate].		1.13 to 1.29 [future DFI comment: probably less accurate]
2/14/90	Analysis North (Alan Mitchell) - BENEFITS: $51 to 65 million ($1990). Mitchell was the State of Alaska Utility Consumer Advocate.	0.50 to 0.64
1/97	Southern Intertie Environmental Impact Statement public input process begins.
2/16/98	DFI 2/98 - BENEFITS: $56.7 million ($1997). Chugach Electric "Secret" study. DFI states "We believe our comprehensive approach [in the 2/98 study] is much more accurate [then the previous 1989 work]."	0.46 *DFI: "much more accurate"*
3/9/98	DFI 3/98 - BENEFITS: $143.5 million ($1997); A revision of the 12/89 study. Steve Haas, a consultant involved in the two studies, later said the more pessimistic...[2/98] study was probably the more accurate of the two.		1.16 [DFI: probably less accurate]
10/2/02	Southern Intertie Environmental Impact Statement public process ends with record of decision.
11/18/02	NOT AN INDEPENDENT STUDY: Chugach Electric internal study - many benefits not quantified, ratio cannot be determined. SEE NOTE.	over 0.45 ?
12/5/02	Chugach Electric "Secret" study made public for the first time.

* The lowest cost Enstar Route was prohibited in the final EIS record of decision. Therefore only Tesoro Route costs (about $15 million higher) are used. Costs used are Total Lifecycle Costs (including present value, PV, of cable replacements and O&M costs). Grants are never considered to be "free" (deducted from costs).

6/89 DFI study was for a much larger 230kv line (all others below were for a 138kv line), therefore use 12/89 costs for the smaller line. COST: $101.2 million ($1990) adjusted cost; BENEFITS: $43 to 49 million ($1987); BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: 0.42 to 0.48.

12/89 DFI - COST: $86.2 million ($1990) and add $15 million cost increase for the Tesoro line = $101.2 million ($1990) adjusted cost; BENEFITS: $114 to 131 million ($1990); ADJUSTED BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: 1.13 to 1.29

2/14/90 Analysis North (Alan Mitchell) - $86 million ($1990) and add $15 million cost increase for the Tesoro line = $101 million ($1990) adjusted cost; BENEFITS: $51 to 65 million ($1990); BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: 0.50 to 0.64

2/16/98 DFI - COST: $90.2 million ($1997) and add $16 million cost increase for the Tesoro line plus $17.9 million for life cycle O&M and cable replacements = $124.1 million ($1997) adjusted cost; BENEFITS: $56.7 million ($1997); ADJUSTED BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: 0.46

3/9/98 DFI - COST: $90.2 million ($1997) and add $16 million cost increase for the Tesoro line plus $17.9 million for life cycle O&M and cable replacements = $124.1 million ($1997) adjusted cost; BENEFITS: $143.5 million ($1997); ADJUSTED BENEFIT TO COST RATIO: 1.16

11/18/02 Chugach Electric internal study - COST: $112.0 million ($1997). Why this has dropped from the $124.1 million ($1997) in the EIS is not explained by Chugach. BENEFITS: $56.0 million ($1997??), does not include capacity sharing, reliability, reduced line maintenance, avoiding generation on Kenai, avoiding not loading line during bad weather, these benefits not quantified by Chugach. Therefore a comparable ADJUSTED BENEFIT TO COST RATIO cannot be calculated except to say it will be over 0.45 to 0.50 (range is due to unexplained cost difference)

Please send comments or questions to Chugach Consumers