Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationMarch 1, 1982 public Service Company C©Il0alg © P.O, BOX 840 • DENVER, COLORADO 80201 Board of County Connissioners Garfield County P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: A Re: Application for Special Use Permit, Phase I, Electric Transmission and Substation System for Oil Shale Development In our public hearing before you on February 16, 1982, you requested that Public Service Company pursue alternate locations for the proposed 230,000/345,000 volt transmission line to cross the Colorado River, provide engineering data comparing the original proposal with the alternatives, and further negotiate with the land owners for the required easement. ALTERNATE LOCATIONS Four alternate locations for crossing the Colorado River have been reviewed and are indicated on the enclosed map as alternates 1, 2, 3, and 4. Alternate 1 is the original alignment proposed by the Company. Alternate 2 opens the existing 230,000 volt line at a point between fixtures 219 and 220 hearing northwesterly across the Colorado River. Alternate 3 opens the existing 230,000 volt line at a point between fixtures 218 and 219 and also has a northwesterly bearing cross- ing the Colorado River. Alternate 4 is south of, and parallels the section line of Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. ENGINEERING DATA The major concern in designing and constructing a river crossing is, first of all, reliability of the system that is being designed and secondly, the economics which are involved in making such a river crossing. You will note that Alternates 2 and 3 both appear to be less costly than Alternate 1. however, this does not take into account the additional costs for flood protection, tree removal, access for construction, and maintenance costs which will be incurred to construct either Alternate 2 or 3. Alternate 2 is the shortest distance of the alternatives which were considered. The distance referred to is the total distance from our tap point to a deadend tower on solid high ground above the flood plain on the northwest side of the river and southeast of the existing railroad. ALTERNATE 1 Our initial proposal was chosen with several thoughts in mind. The high deadend towers necessary for this river crossing would tap the existing 230,000 volt line below the high bluff on the southeast side of NO. OF SHEET 2 PUBLIC SERVICECOMPANVOrCOLORADO DATE 3-1-$2 the river and therefore would have a high background behind them, making them more adaptable and suitable from an aesthetic and environ- mental standpoint. Both deadend towers for this crossing would be on high ground and would not be subject to flooding or high water. The access to both deadend towers is quite good and would allow the neces- sary areas for large pieces of construction equipment. The two tangent towers would both be out of the flood plain and would therefore not have additional foundation costs as would be necessary if they were at a lower elevation near the existing high water levels of the Colorado River. ALTERNATE 2 The same number of towers are necessary for this alternative and the deadend tower leg extensions are almost identical in length with the exception of the tower on the northwest side of the river. The deadend tower would be farther south toward Battlement Mesa and would be much higher in elevation than the deadend tower on Alternate 1 and would therefore be less aesthetically pleasing because the tower top would be skylined from certain areas along the Interstate Highway. The westerly tangent tower would have to be placed in what was once the Colorado River bed and therefore foundation costs would increase at an estimated multiplying factor of 1.7. Because of the water table, sand, and silt conditions and the possibility of debris being washed in high water conditions, additional flood protection would have to be designed. The location of Alternate 2 also takes us through some large trees in the old riverbed area and these would either have to be removed to allow proper clearances to the conductor, or high main- tenance costs would have to be incurred annually in order to achieve proper clearances. It might also be advantageous to remove trees on the north side of these towers to prevent the possibility of debris being washed into the tower foundations during high water conditions. These additional flood protection costs and a reduced factor of reli- ability have not been estimated. Although Alternate 2 appears to be less in cost than Alternate 1, exact costs cannot he obtained at this time without the benefit of soil tests and a careful study of tree heights and locations, along with other flood control measures. ALTERNATE 3 We can once again use four towers for this alternative. However, the distance continues to increase and the easterly deadend tower is now placed almost on the elevation of Battlement Mesa. This would not be acceptable from an aesthetic and environmental standpoint and the deadend tower legs are now increasing so that the overall tower height makes a skyline condition unacceptable. Alternate 3 also requires that one tangent tower be placed on an island in the middle of an exist- ing channel which causes tremendous access problems for construction and maintenance and would require additonal flood protection for the foundations. We have still used only a 1.7 multiplying factor on the foundation costs but recognize that construction of the tower on the island would probably require a special permit from the Corps of Engin- eers. We once again have the same debris and tree problems as in Alternate 2, and the distance on river crossing conditions which reduces the reliability of the system which we had initially proposed in Alter- nate lter- nate 1 No. or SHEET 3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO DATE 3-1-82 ALTERNATE 4 This alternate roughly follows the centerline of Section 5 and is not feasible because of the fact that three towers would be in the flood plain thus reducing the reliability to an unacceptable level. This alternative also puts us in the old river channel and the elevation of the three towers would be subject to washing and debris during high water conditions. A special permit from the Corps of Engineers would be required and the locations of this alternative would also subject us to a very high maintenance condition. SUMMARY In analyzing the various alternatives, we still recommend the initial proposal of Alternate 1. Alternate 2 would be a very acceptable proposal, but we recognize that the additional foundation costs, flood protection, tree clearing, access for construction, and maintenance costs will add to the cost of the pro- ject. The incremental differences in the attached estimate does not reflect the actual final costs which may be incurred. The reliability of Alternate 2 is slightly less than that of Alternate 1 because of the westerly tangent tower being in the flood plain. We feel proper design and the possibility of removing trees from the upstream side of the tower could achieve a reliability factor which will suit the needs of the oil shale projects. COST ANALYSIS For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed foundation costs to be $50,000.00 for deadend towers, and $20,000.00 for tangent towers. We have then used a factor of 1.7 for installing foundations in flood plains because of the high water table, access, sand and silt conditions, and additional depth which is necessary to resist uplift, bearing, and shear loads. ALTERNATE 1 Distance = 2675 feet line costs Estimated cost of towers Est. foundation costs: (2) Deadend towers (3) Tangent towers $ 61,446.00 $163,414.00 $100,000.00 $ 60,000.00 TOTAL $384,860.00 ALTERNATE 2 (Preferred alternate location) Distance = 2942 feet line costs $ 50,412.00 Estimated initial cost of towers $144,414.00 Est. foundation costs: (2) Deadend towers $100,000.00 (2) Tangent towers $ 40,000.00 (1) Foundation in flood pin.$ 14,000.00 TOTAL $348,826.00* *This does not include the costs for flood protection, tree tramming clearing, maintenance, and reduced reliability. or NO. OF SHEET d PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO DATE 3`1 82 ALTERNATE 3 Distance = 3145 feetline costs $ 53,842.00 Estimated initial cost of towers $149,901.00 Est. foundation costs: (2) Deadend towers $100,000.00 (2) Tangent towers $ 40,000.00 (1) Foundation in flood pin.$ 14,000.00 TOTAL $357,743.00* *This does not include the costs for flood protection, tree trimming or clearing, access for construction, maintenance, and reduced reliability. ALTERNATE 4 The estimated cost was not calculated for this alternate because the placement of three towers in the flood plain reduces reliability to an unacceptable level. NEGOTIATIONS The alternate alignments have been reviewed and discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Grant Knight, Mr. John Knight, and representatives from Battlement Mesa, Inc., and the Exxon Company, USA on separate occasions. All parties are in agreement that Alternate 2 is a workable compromise for crossing the Colorado River. Please refer to the two letters attached as written evidence of the concerned parties willingness to negotiate an acceptance settlement. Respectfully submitted, David K. Howard Supervisor, Land Use Electric Engineering Land Department jlm Enclosures cc: Grant Knight John Knight Hank Smith, Exxon Bill Wilde, BMI GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INSPECTION FORM Date -peea-1/-,1z » ' _ 1nspector__ ._/ rt-elb_______ Name of Operation:_ Contact Person: (.may -z /c--ivAvi.v& [Lcz:�f -Ce, Phone Number: Address: ii e/ it it // Notes on compliance or non-compliance w/Resolution #_c -Z -_`74r "Cdga/s4 and/or Permit # • /1/',y,5 : (Reference comments by condition #) acs ii C 7�UiY1Z= /0L=ve](1,GCr26?at/ 8-7 -1 S !: JGl-P672«z)c Fe -Ca v77PT7-G4-o�--% Further Action Required: mPublic Service Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 306 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: Public Service Company of Colorado 5909 E. 38th Ave. Denver, CO 80207 May 13, 1985 Public Service Company of Colorado, Pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 30-28-110(1)(a), hereby requests your approval of the location and extent of its proposed temporary 69,000 volt electric transmission line between Colorado Ute Electric Association's Crystal. Substation and Public Service Company's Carbondale Substation. See Exhibit A. On May 27, 1980, the Garfield County Commissioners, by Resolution 80-88, approved Public Service Company's plans to upgrade the existing transmission line between its Hopkins Substation and Carbondale Substation from 69,000 volts to 115,000 volt operation. This transmission line is Public Service Company's sole source of providing electric energy to its Carbondale Substation which supplies the electric needs of its Carbondale area customers including the Mid -Continent and Snowmass mines. Every effort is being made by Public Service Company to maintain and insure continuity of service during the construction of this project. The construction of the temporary 69,000 volt line between Crystal Substation and Carbondale Substation is critical to the Company's efforts. The temporary line will allow the Company to minimize any outages to its customers in the area and will greatly improve working conditions and safety factors for workers on the upgrade project. Public Service Company intends to construct the temporary line first, hopefully starting in June 1985, as the first phase of the construction project. Upon completion of the temporary line, the line between Hopkins and Carbondale will be replaced with the new 115,000 volt line. As soon as the 115,000 volt line is constructed and energized, the temporary line will be removed. The entire construction program is estimated to be completed in 6-9 months. Garfield County Planning Commission May 13, 1985 Page 2 The temporary line route is located entirely within Garfield County. All of the property owners who own the land upon which the temporary line is to be built have been contacted and have granted the Company permission to conduct its surveying and engineering activities on their properties and have indicated their willingness to cooperate with the Company in the building of this line. In order that the Company may continue to keep up with the ever increasing electric needs of our customers and our construction schedule starting in June 1985, your early approval of this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David K. Howard Supervisor -Land Use Architectural & Right -of -Way Department DKH/ea Public Service SYSL Public Service Company of Colorado Western Division P.O. Box 849 Grand Junction. CO 81502 May 13, 1985 For Immediate Release Contact:Don Johnson 244-2650 or Don Currie 625-2210 PUBLIC SERVICE PREPARES FOR LINE REBUILD Grand Junction -- Public Service Co. of Colorado has announced plans to construct a temporary line between their Carbondale Substation and Colorado-Ute's Crystal Substation in preparation for rebuilding the existing 69, 000 -volt transmission line from Carbondale Substation north into Spring Valley. In 1978, PSCo obtained permits from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and Garfield County for the rebuild project. In 1984, a like permit was granted by the Bureau of Land Management. This was a part of an overall system upgrade to eventually interconnect the PSCo transmission system with Colorado-Ute's system at the Crystal Substation. Through this interconnection, PSCo would have been able to obtain back up service for it's system and Colorado -Ute would likewise have back up service for it's system. PSCo was unable to obtain a permit from the Town of Carbondale in 1982 to complete this interconnection. Don Johnson, Western Division marketing manager indicated "The Town of Carbondale, Mid -Continent Coal and Snowmass Coal are all served by the single 69,000 -volt line from Spring Valley and the Carbondale Substation. From an engineering standpoint, PSCo feels the service reliability can be improved and to raise this level of service we must upgrade the existing line to the next logical voltage which in this case is 115,000 volts." Johnson also said that construction of the temporary line is critical for the citizens of Carbondale as well as insuring continuity of service for the Mid -Continent and Snowmass mines. The temporary line will allow PSCo to minimize outages for PSCo customers in the area and will greatly improve working conditions and safety factors for workers on the rebuild project. NH REBUILD - ' 'iTINUED IRST AND LAST ADD Construction work on the temporary line is to start in June of this year and PSCO plans to remove the line by spring of 1986. Some preliminary work will be done at the Carbondale Substation in May of this year with final conversion work being done in the spring of 1986. Cost of the project is estimated at just over two million dollars. PSCO -- HOPKIi SUBSTATION Ce- REBUILD SECTION CARBONDALE SUBSTATION TO SNOWMASS COAL T MID-CONTIN COAL NT TOWN OF A• N FORK RIVER -' .. - TEMPORARY LINE `i CARBONDALE OCRYSTAL SUBSTATION