DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 Integrated Resource Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 Integrated Resource Plan 2010 Integrated Resource Plan August 2010 Prepared by Power Management Direct Comments/Questions to (253) 502-8025 Tacoma Power 2010 Integrated Resource Plan Executive Summary Tacoma Power’s 2010 Integrated Resource Plan recommends conservation as the sole addition to the utility’s resource portfolio. Analysis indicates that an aggressive conservation acquisition program coupled with Tacoma Power’s existing resources will be sufficient to meet projected retail load. This strategy should allow the utility to avoid a need to purchase expensive generating resources for over ten years. Specifically, this IRP found that: • Approximately 63 aMW of new conservation is cost-effective in Tacoma Power’s service territory over the next ten years. • This conservation, when combined with current utility resources should be sufficient to serve projected retail load beyond 2020. • Tacoma Power is well positioned to comply with the 3 percent renewable resource mandate that begins in 2012. Tacoma Power’s eligible renewable resource portfolio is comprised of nearly equal parts of utility owned incremental hydro and a contract for renewable energy credits. The 2010 IRP also considered the potential effect of electric vehicles and climate change on utility operations: • Electric vehicles are unlikely to impose a significant load on Tacoma Power until 2018 to 2025. • The effects of climate change are likely to be small for Tacoma Power’s loads and resources through the mid-2020s. This assessment is preliminary – the findings are likely to evolve as our understanding of the regional implications of climate change improves. Page: iii TACOMA POWER 2010 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The primary purpose of preparing an meet any identified load-resource gap at integrated resource plan (IRP) is to the lowest cost and risk. For Tacoma determine whether a utility has sufficient Power, a third purpose is to identify a resources to satisfy projected retail conservation acquisition goal for the loads. The second purpose is to utility. Tacoma Power’s 2010 IRP determine the mix of new supply-side addresses these tasks together. and demand-side resources that will Tacoma Power’s Resource Status Retail Electric Loads individual conservation measures. To Electric load forecasts are a fundamental develop this estimate, the utility hired component of any IRP. Tacoma Power’s the Cadmus Consulting firm to assess the load projection was compiled from applicability of 306 individual individual forecasts for each of the conservation measures and more than utility’s seven customer classes. A 60,000 variations on those measures. variety of factors including population, Over 200 of the assessed measures were economic conditions, energy prices, and found to be “cost-effective” in Tacoma business expectations (for large Power’s service territory; that is, the customers) influenced these individual energy saved costs less than had the forecasts. The red line on figure ES.1 utility acquired the same amount of represents the utility’s projected annual electricity from the wholesale market. retail customer load over time without These cost-effective measures are any conservation savings.1 projected to reduce Tacoma Power’s retail load by about 63 aMW over the Conservation next decade. However, a small portion Conservation reduces retail load. The of the potential conservation is at federal black line on Figure ES.1 shows the facilities and outside of the utility’s projected annual retail customer load control. Excluding this energy savings with conservation. The difference reduces the utility’s ten-year between the red and black lines shows conservation potential to about 60 aMW. how much conservation is expected to reduce Tacoma Power’s retail load. Three schedules for acquiring conservation are considered in this IRP. Tacoma Power’s conservation estimate is Each schedule would achieve the same the sum of the energy saved by multiple amount of conservation by the end of the ten-year period: 1 This analysis used an 18-year planning horizon to 1. A roughly uniform amount each year coincide with the conclusion of the utility’s new contract with BPA which expires on September (pro rata). 30, 2028. Page: iv TACOMA POWER 2010 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. Accelerated conservation in the early have a life-cycle cost of $2.0 million more years (front-loaded). than the pro rata schedule. Tacoma 3. Reduced conservation in the early Power’s two-year, 2012 to 2013, years (back-loaded). conservation target under a pro rata The pro rata conservation acquisition acquisition schedule is 12 to 13 aMW. schedule was found to be best for The black line on Figure ES.1 shows the Tacoma Power’s customers. The Energy utility’s projected annual retail load with Independence Act (a.k.a. I-937) prohibits conservation. This black line indicates back-loaded acquisition schedules and a the minimum amount of electricity front-loaded schedule is estimated to Tacoma Power needs to serve load. Figure ES.1 Tacoma Power’s Annual Load-Resource Balance: Critical Water Utility Resources and Bonneville Power Administration For planning purposes, Tacoma Power (BPA) resources. assesses its electricity supply assuming The bars in Figure ES.1 indicate the that its owned and contracted resources amount of electricity that Tacoma Power face critical water conditions. Critical expects to be available each year from its water is defined as the river flows that generation and contract resources under occurred over the 1940-41 operating critical water conditions: year2 – the year with the lowest • combined river flows into Tacoma Power The blue portion represents electricity from BPA through the Regional Power Sales Contract. 2 A utility operating year begins on August 1, and ends on July 31. Page: v TACOMA POWER 2010 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The green portion represents planning horizon, the analysis does electricity from other electricity supply project a small deficit of about 15 aMW contracts. for the utility. • The orange portion is electricity from While Tacoma Power plans for critical Tacoma Power’s own generation water conditions, river flows are typically resources. much higher. Thus, the utility’s supply Annual Load Resource Balance resources will generally produce more The annual load-resource balance is electricity than Figure ES.1 indicates. defined by the amount that power Figure ES.2 depicts Tacoma Power’s load- supplies exceed or fall below the resource balance under average water expected loads. As conditions. With Without conservation, Tacoma Figure ES.1 shows, power average water, Power would need new supply supplies (the bars) exceed resources. Load would begin to supplies exceed retail load (black line) through exceed demand around 2014 loads by about the first fourteen years of and the overall resource deficit 200 aMW. The utility the planning horizon. would reach approximately sells this excess power Tacoma Power’s load- 135 aMW by the end of the in the wholesale planning period. resource balance is market. The revenue surplus during this period. This signals from these sales helps Tacoma Power that Tacoma Power does not, at this maintain electric rates that are among time, need additional resources. the lowest in Washington and the nation. However, over the last four years of the Figure ES.2 Tacoma Power’s Annual Load-Resource Balance: Average Water Page: vi TACOMA POWER 2010 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Monthly Load Resource Balance estimate of the utility’s load-resource Retail loads grow and fall throughout a balance under alternative river flow year. Therefore, in addition to serving regimes. annual retail load, utilities must also have To account for uncertain river flows, the the resources to satisfy variable monthly model assessed Tacoma Power’s monthly loads. This type of analysis is especially load-resource balance based on difficult for hydro-based utilities like 75 operating years of actual river flow Tacoma Power where the quantity and data (1928-29 through 2002-03). timing of river flows into generating Another important input is the monthly projects is highly uncertain. retail load. The monthly retail load © This IRP used Vista LT , a proprietary profile, presented in Figure ES.3, was computer program, to model the based on an annual average load of operation of Tacoma Power’s resources. 622 aMW. This is the highest annual load Essentially, the model determines when projected for the IRP study period, and is it is best to use water for generation and forecast to occur during the 2017-18 when it is best to store water in project operating year. reservoirs. The model produces an Figure ES.3 Tacoma Power’s Projected Monthly Load for 2017 While monthly deficits would be an number of deficit months and the adverse outcome of this monthly model, magnitude of those deficits. The utility they would not necessarily indicate a searched for two adverse trends when need for additional supply resources. reviewing the model results: That conclusion would depend on the Page: vii TACOMA POWER 2010 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Whether 5 to 10 percent of operating those below 0 aMW indicate a resource years were resource deficit over the deficit. same month(s). The lines in Figure ES.4 are nearly always • Whether any operating year had a above 0 aMW indicating that Tacoma deficit load-resource balance over the Power’s resources are virtually always entire water year. surplus to monthly retail load. Only two Figure ES.4 shows the results of this of the 900 months plotted were resource analysis. The figure contains 75 lines, deficit. And since the two deficit months one for each year of actual river flows occurred in the same year, no seasonal examined. Each line shows Tacoma shortage reoccurred over multiple years. Power’s calculated load-resource balance Furthermore, Tacoma Power was surplus over 12 months based on a historical for each of the 75 historic operating year of actual river flows.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cowlitz/Riffe Lake Level Fact Sheet June 6, 2017
    Cowlitz/Riffe Lake Level Fact Sheet June 6, 2017 Based on new information about regional seismicity, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) revised its earthquake predictions for the Cowlitz River basin. Although the probability of a large earthquake is very low, the revisions showed an increase to the potential impact on the spillway piers of Mossyrock Dam (not to the dam structure itself). To protect public safety, Tacoma Power has proposed to hold Riffe Lake’s elevation down approximately 30 feet lower than full (778 ft.) at least into the next decade. Formal approval by the federal agency that regulates the utility is pending. Public safety Public safety is our top priority. Although there is a very low probability of the type of seismic activity that would cause the spillways to fail, we have a responsibility to operate in a way that limits the risk to the public. Keeping the lake level lower Mossyrock Dam’s five spillway piers accomplishes that. There are no modifications to the operations at at full lake level Mayfield Dam. If we get significant rain or flooding, Tacoma Power may need to use the storage capacity of Riffe Lake to minimize downstream flooding by temporarily allowing the lake level to rise. After the risk of downstream flooding passes, we would then gradually lower the reservoir. Seismic information Mossyrock Dam is a tall, double curvature arch with spillways located high in the middle of the dam. No concrete arch dams have failed due to earthquakes. However, preliminary analysis concluded that specific seismic events could cause the spillway piers to fail, which could cause the spillway gates to fail, resulting in an uncontrolled release of water and considerable downstream flooding.
    [Show full text]
  • Finance Department
    City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities Power Division Cowlitz Falls North Shore Collector Downstream Fish Evaluation RFP Specification No. PG16-0558F QUESTIONS and ANSWERS All interested parties had the opportunity to submit questions in writing to Joe Parris, Purchasing Division by 3:00 PM on January 9, 2017. The answers to the questions received are provided below and posted to the City’s website at www.TacomaPurchasing.org. This information IS NOT considered an addendum. Respondents should consider this information when submitting their proposals. Question 1: In reference to page 1: Is the Downstream Fish Passage Conceptual Design Report available? Answer 1: Yes, the report was submitted to FERC on February 15, 2012 and will be provided with the responses. Question 2: In reference to page 6, item #10 - The Required Form only indicates Signature page be included: What is to be done with Appendix A Proposal Form and Contractor Record of Prior Contracts? Are these also to be included as RFP Content to be Submitted? Answer 2: Yes. Both forms are required in the content to be submitted. An Addendum will be posted to clarify these requirements Question 3: In reference to page 8 - objective 3b: Define FSC performance. Answer 3: The primary metric for measuring the CFNSC (rather than the FSC) is Fish Passage Survival (FPS). Target FPS is 95%, with a minimum of 75% while employing the best available technology. Secondary metrics include Fish Collection Efficiency (FCE), Detection Efficiency (DE), Entrance Efficiency (EE), and Retention Efficiency (RE). Question 4: In reference to page 8, Objective 4b: Is information on outmigration historical run timing available? Answer 4: Yes, although these data will be limited to periods when the collector has been operated, typically April 1st through August 31st.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Times — the Challenges and Risks of Managing Aging Infrastructure Under a New Financial Reality
    United States Society on Dams Changing Times — The Challenges and Risks of Managing Aging Infrastructure Under a New Financial Reality 33rd Annual USSD Conference Phoenix, Arizona, February 11-15, 2013 CONTENTS Plenary Session USACE Experience in Performing Constructability Reviews ...............1 David Paul, Mike Zoccola and Vanessa Bateman, Corps of Engineers; and Dan Hertel, Engineering Solutions, LLC Levees Levee Evaluation with Ground-Penetrating Radar ....................3 Hussein Khalefa Chlaib, Haydar Al-Shukri, Hanan Mahdi, M. Mert Su, Aycan Catakli and Najah Abd, University of Arkansas at Little Rock How Enhanced and Economically Viable Engineering Analysis Can Help Levee Owners Evaluate Their Inventory in Response to FEMA’s Proposed Approach for Non-Accredited Levees ..................................5 Todd Mitchell, Paul Grosskruger and Cornelia Dean, Fugro Constultants, Inc.; and Bob Woldringh, Furgro Engineers, BV Use of Fragility Curves in Assigning Levee Remediation Priorities ...........7 Rich Millet, Sujan Punyamurthula, Derek Morley and Loren Murray, URS Corporation Probabilistic Evaluation of Levee Distress for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project .....................................9 Khaled Chowdhury, URS Corporation; Derek Morley and Mary Perlea, Corps of Engineers; Wilbur Huang, California Department of Water Resources; and Matthew Weil and Saritha Aella, URS Corporation Integrating Levee Performance Assessments into Complex Flood Protection Systems ..........................................11 T. Mitchell,
    [Show full text]
  • Cowlitz River Advisory Board to Provide Input to WDFW Regarding the FHMP
    Hydroelectric facilities at Mayfield and Mossyrock Dam (Hydroelectric Project) are owned and operated by City of Tacoma, Washington, Department of Public Utilities, Light Division (Tacoma). In August of 2000 the Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) was completed. The Settlement Agreement establishes Tacoma’s obligations for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of natural resources affected by the Hydroelectric Project. The Settlement Agreement called for the development of a Fisheries and Hatchery Management Plan (FHMP). Issues addressed in the FHMP include quantity and size of fish to be released, rearing and release strategies to be employed, stock status monitoring and evaluation programs and fishery management strategies. The initial FHMP was completed in August 2004. The Settlement Agreement calls for the FHMP to be updated every six years, and that update process is now beginning. Actions called for in the FHMP can impact both conservation efforts and fishing opportunities in the Cowlitz Basin. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will be working with other signatories to the Settlement Agreement to develop an FHMP that achieves conservation and sustainable fishery goals. To help WDFW better represent our constituents we will work with a Cowlitz River advisory board to provide input to WDFW regarding the FHMP. WDFW’s goal is to complete an updated FHMP that better addresses the needs of the resources and citizens of the State of Washington. To that end, WDFW is currently in the process of developing this Cowlitz River advisory board that will be composed of concerned citizens who will provide recommendations to the department regarding changes to the FHMP and other fishery management issues in the Cowlitz Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Summary 2020 IRP Report
    IRP 2020 Integrated Resource Plan 2 • 2020 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 5 2 ABOUT OUR INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN 11 3 NEW SINCE OUR 2017 IRP 12 CLEAN ENERGY TRANSFORMATION ACT 12 EV AUTHORITY 12 THE ENERGY IMBALANCE MARKET 12 IMPACTS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 13 FOCUS ON EQUITY AND INCLUSION 13 4 ANALYSIS 14 HOW WE ANALYZE OUR PORTFOLIOS 14 PORTFOLIOS WE CONSIDER 15 RESULTS 16 5 OUR RESOURCE STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN 18 RESOURCE STRATEGY 18 ACTION PLAN 18 MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE IRP 19 4 • 2020 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN © COPYRIGHT 2020 5 1 INTRODUCTION Tacoma Power has been publicly-owned since 1893. We are a division of Tacoma Public Utilities, which is governed by a five-member Public Utility Board. We were established in 1893 when the citizens of Tacoma voted to buy the privately-owned Tacoma Light & Water Company. Local citizens believed that public ownership and local control would give them a higher caliber of services and the ability to maintain control over them. That decision paved the way for us to become a national leader in providing renewable, reliable, and affordable electricity. Today, we generate, transmit, and distribute electricity and provide energy services in an increasingly competitive marketplace. We provide electricity to nearly 179,000 homes and businesses across 180 square miles in the cities of Tacoma, Fircrest, University Place, Fife, parts of Steilacoom, Lakewood, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and unincorporated Pierce County as far south as Roy. 6 • 2020 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN WHERE YOUR POWER COMES FROM Nearly all of the electricity we deliver to our customers comes from Our resources usually provide more electricity than we hydroelectric power sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Cowlitz Falls Fish Passage
    (-•&•• OCT 3 11935 OSTI •m ,.-> Wi iv4Mi>TEF •mm ••'Si-* • •• DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi• bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer• ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom• mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. -'»;e COWLITZ FALLS FISH PASSAGE A big fish-saving effort is bringing neighbors together in a common cause. VI.: On top of the brand new Cowlitz filed a lawsuit against BPA. Here's a ;-^ Dam, on a cool morning in the sport-fishing guide. There's a wood• spring of 1994, and unlikely cutter. collection of people are staring down through grates into a gate Somebody flips a switch to start the well. Some are flat on their bellies, flow through a baffle in the gate shading their eyes, very intent. This well. The water — whose flow is a test.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Geology in Washington, Volume I Wuhington Diviaion of Geology and Earth Resoul'ces Bulleti!I 78
    The Cowlitz River Projects 264 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY IN WASHINGTON Aerial view of Mossyrock reservoir (Riffe Lake) and the valley of the Cowlitz River; view to the northeast toward Mount Rainier. Photograph by R. W. Galster, July 1980. Engineering Geology in Wuhington, Volume I . Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78 The Cowlitz River Projects: Mayfield and Mossyrock Dams HOWARD A. COOMBS University of Washington PROJECT DESCRIPTION unit) is at the toe of the dam on the north bank. The reservoir is 23.5 mi long. By impounding more than The Cowlitz River has its origin in the Cowlitz 1,600,000 acre-ft of water in the reservoir, the output of Glacier on the southeastern slope of Mount Rainier. The Mayfield Dam was greatly enhanced (Figures 3 and 4). river flows southward, then turns toward the west and passes through the western margin of the Cascade AREAL GEOLOGY Range in a broad, glaciated basin. It is in this stretch of The southern Cascades of Washington are composed the river that both Mossyrock and Mayfield dams are lo­ essentially of volcanic and sedimentary rocks that have cated. Finally, the Cowlitz River turns southward and been intruded by many dikes and sills and by small enters the Columbia River at Longview. batholiths and stocks of dioritic composition, as well as Mayfield Dam, completed in 1963, is 13 mi down­ plugs of andesite and basalt. Most of these rocks range stream from Mossyrock Dam, constructed 5 yr later. in age from late Eocene to Miocene (Hammond, 1963; Both are approximately 50 mi due south of Tacoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Harris Hydraulics Laboratory Historic Resources Addendum University of Washington
    Harris Hydraulics Laboratory Historic Resources Addendum University of Washington James Cary, Architect pc 14 December 2012 1. INTRODUCTION Background The University of Washington is planning a project to replace the roofing on the Harris Hydraulics Laboratory (HHL). The laboratory consists of two structures – the original building built in 1920 and an addition built in 1961. The proposed project will replace the roofing on the original 1920 building, the 1961 addition, and the 1961 connector between the two. In addition, the proposed project scope includes improvement of safety measures on the roof by installing safe access and fall arrest anchors. The Harris Hydraulics Laboratory is located on the south portion of the University of Washington campus on San Juan Road, which is adjacent to the building on its northwest and southwest sides. Adjacent buildings are the Oceanography Teaching Building (OTB) to the northwest and the South Campus Center (SOCC) to the southeast. Showboat Beach is located across San Juan Road to the southwest. The University’s Historic Preservation Policies and Practices require a Historical Resources Addendum (HRA) to be prepared for any project that makes exterior alterations to a building more than 50 years old (2003 Seattle Campus Master Plan). This report provides documentation of the historical and architectural features of both the original Harris Hydraulics Lab (1920) and the addition to the building (1961). These structures are 92 and 51 years old, respectively. This HRA was developed by James Cary, Architect pc of Seattle, Washington. The research was undertaken in October 2012 and a second draft report was prepared for 30 October 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Mossyrock Dam/Riffe Lake Update Generation Manager Pat Mccarty Mossyrock Community Center March 3, 2017 AGENDA
    Mossyrock Dam/Riffe Lake Update Generation Manager Pat McCarty Mossyrock Community Center March 3, 2017 AGENDA Overview Background Seismicity Current risks Temporary risk reduction methods Path forward Questions 2 TACOMA POWER OVERVIEW Four hydroelectric projects Seven dams • Licenses provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Publicly owned since 1893 • Must collect enough revenues to equal expenses • Receive revenues mainly through wholesale/retail sales Our top priority is safety 3 BACKGROUND 4 COWLITZ RIVER PROJECT Mayfield Dam Mossyrock Dam Forms 13-mile-long Mayfield Lake Forms 23-mile-long Riffe Lake 5 FERC OVERSIGHT Regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Currently licensed through 2037 Dam safety program • Daily/weekly/annual inspections • Five-year review (Part 12) o Independent consultant o Potential failure mode analyses o Review current standards Hydrometeorlogical reports Updates to USGS seismic hazard maps 6 SEISMIC PATH Seismicity: “The occurrence or frequency of earthquakes in a region.” Been looking at seismicity for years Made improvements; developed plans for spillway piers Got to the point of designing modifications to the piers New seismicity numbers were released by USGS Higher numbers required new structural evaluations; back to the drawing board The USGS numbers that are used to calculate potential seismic impacts have increased multiple times between 2001 and today. 7 EARTHQUAKE FACTORS Magnitude Distance Local (Richter or Depth from the geologic Duration
    [Show full text]
  • Cowlitz/Riffe Lake Level Fact Sheet Feb. 14, 2017
    Cowlitz/Riffe Lake Level Fact Sheet Feb. 14, 2017 The Cowlitz River Project produces hydroelectric power from the water stored behind Mayfield and Mossyrock dams. Completed in 1962, Mayfield Dam forms 13-mile-long Mayfield Lake. Mossyrock Dam, built in 1968, stands 606 feet above bedrock and is the tallest dam in Washington state. The dam forms 23.5-mile-long Riffe Lake. Based on new information about regional seismicity, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently revised its earthquake predictions for the Cowlitz River basin. Although the probability of a large earthquake is very low, the revisions showed an increase to the potential impact just on the spillways of Mossyrock Dam (not to the dam structure itself). To protect public safety, Tacoma Power has proposed to hold Riffe Lake’s elevation down approximately 30 feet lower than full (778 ft.) at least into the next decade. Approval by the federal agency that regulates the utility is pending. Please note: The circumstances at Mossyrock Dam are significantly different than the current situation at Oroville Dam in Northern California. Tacoma Power is not reacting to a current situation – the operational changes are an abundant precautionary measure. There is no impending emergency at Mossyrock Dam and there is no structural damage. Without a significant seismic event, which has a very low probability, there are no concerns about Mossyrock Dam. Mossyrock Dam is a concrete structure, while the Oroville Dam is an earthen structure. The spillways at the Oroville Dam sit on soil and bedrock, and are failing. At Mossyrock, the spillways rest on concrete, and, even when applying the revised seismic analysis, it is not predicted that an earthquake would compromise the dam – it would only impact the spillways.
    [Show full text]
  • Title of Project Pursuit RFP # and Date
    CIMFP Exhibit P-02150 Page 1 Submitted to NALCOR ENERGY Independent Engineer Lower Churchill Project Reference No. RFP LC-PM-082 March 2012 3-4 Technical Proposal Questionnaire PROSPOSAL CIMFP Exhibit P-02150 Page 2 Independent Engineer | Reference LC‐PM‐082 Nalcor Energy – Lower Churchill Project TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-4 Technical Questionnaire (Attachment 6) ............................................................................................ 1 Execution ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................................... 31 Organization and Key Personnel ................................................................................................... 31 Package Specific ............................................................................................................................ 33 Cost Estimate (submitted with Commercial Form of Proposal) ..................................................... 44 Appendix 1 – Project Organization Charts ..................................................................................... 45 Appendix 2 – Corporate Organization Charts ................................................................................ 49 Appendix 3 – Personnel Matrix Table and Resumes ..................................................................... 51 Appendix 4 – Summary Schedule ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cowlitz Wildlife Area Fish Retrofit
    Cowlitz Wildlife Area Fish Retrofit Habitat Program Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration (SSHEAR) Section Submitted by Jason P. Kunz Susan Cierebiej-Kanzler Paul Sekulich December 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..............................................................1 WILDLIFE AREA OVERVIEW ...................................................2 Mitigation History .......................................................2 Anadromous Fish Use/ Existing Fish Passage Facilities . .......................4 Unit Description .........................................................5 Cowlitz Trout Hatchery Unit ..........................................5 Davis Lake Unit ...................................................5 Kosmos Unit ......................................................5 Mossyrock Unit ....................................................6 Peterman Ridge Unit ...............................................6 Kiona Creek Unit ..................................................6 Spears Unit .......................................................7 Swofford Unit .....................................................7 Buffer Zones ......................................................7 METHODS ...................................................................8 Inventory/Feature Evaluation ...............................................8 Barrier Prioritization .....................................................8 Screen Prioritization ......................................................9 RESULTS ...................................................................10
    [Show full text]