Friday, March 29, 2024
35.0°F

Letter: Agencies made power line cost errors

| August 12, 2008 12:00 AM

Dear Editor:

For decision-making purposes, there are two very different ways of calculating power line construction.

One involves the use of helicopters for cable pulling and, possibly, to pull poles. Pacific Gas and Electric has stated that this method can save 75 percent of the per mile cost incurred when manual or ground-based equipment is used. BPA's project manager, Kirk Robinson, confirmed this reduced cost figure in January 2008. Power lines can also be constructed by slower, more costly and more labor intensive ways using ground equipment.

BPA's official cost data presented in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Final EIS states the excess cost for the 2.9-mile Quartz Creek Realignment is $366,000 over their corresponding proposed alternative routing through our neighborhoods west of Libby. Using the $1 million per mile cost derived from BPA's Final EIS's Table 2-1, the QC Realignment would cost $2.9 million.

Table 2-2 lists the 0.8-mile Pipe Creek Realignment excess cost over the proposed alternative through the neighborhood as $211,000. The total cost at $1 million per mile would be $800,000.

The reported cost data for both the Quartz Creek and Pipe Creek power line realignments are assumed to be correct as they were based on reduced costs afforded by helicopter use. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality also used and reported these same realignment cost figures in their July 24 Determination which approved of BPA's proposed alternative, which is to rebuild their existing power line in populated neighborhoods instead of rerouting the lines on public land.

A very large and serious financial error was made, however, as Final EIS cost data had not been updated to reflect the large cost increases incurred by manually constructing the lines through neighborhoods without helicopters.

In the Final EIS, BPA had announced helicopter use in neighborhoods would likely be abandoned. In their July 24 Determination, Montana DEQ clearly stated helicopters would not be used in the neighborhoods, yet the cost information used in their Determination, as shown in BPA's Final EIS, remained uncorrected. Why?

The following are cost corrections to the proposed alternative, which should have been made to the $1 million per mile helicopter based cost provided in BPA's Final EIS Table 2-1. The corrections are based on the confirmed 75-percent increase.

The cost of the proposed alternative segment in the Big Horn Terrace populated neighborhood would be increased from $2,534,000 to $4,434,500, which is a difference of $1,534,500 between competing BPA and Montana DEQ Quartz Creek routing options.

The Pipe Creek 0.8-mile realignment cost is $800,000, assuming helicopter use. The proposed alternative segment cost through the neighborhood would increase 75 percent from $589,000 to $1,030,750 or $230,750 over competing public land realignment cost ' not $211,000 less as used in Montana DEQ's Determination and officially reported by both agencies.

Given the proposed alternative cost corrections, the net (undisclosed) savings to BPA rate payers by using the realignment options (bypassing the neighborhoods) would then be $1,765,250.

It is not known if Montana DEQ was informed about the large cost reductions afforded by helicopter power line construction use. They, like the involved public, could have been misled by the information in BPA's May 2008 Final EIS which was unchanged from previous figures in the July 2007 Draft EIS. Did this false information affect Montana DEQ's 24 July Determination and Conclusions?

The large and significant corrections to official cost data should definitely have been made in both the Final EIS and in Montana DEQ's Determination. BPA's staff must certainly have reviewed DEQ's draft Determination either prior to, or subsequent to, its release to the public. It must be noted, however, that BPA disregarded the higher costs in their July 25 Record of Decision, which selected their proposed alternative.

The $1,765,250 savings to rate payers (as opposed to an officially reported cost of $577,000) and the removal of serious electromagnetic field health effects on six homes, neighborhood firefighting restrictions and resident restrictions to property use would have presented strong reasons to realign the power lines on available public land.

BPA claims their mission is to provide low cost power to their customers ' a goal, in this case, that would have been significantly enhanced by rerouting around populated neighborhoods. Large savings for a future 230 kV power line upgrade would also have been achieved as the then admittedly required realignment easement on public land would have been largely paid for and completed.

It is regrettable to realize that BPA's Record of Decision was generated under the auspices of the U.S. government and also to realize that DEQ's Determination was generated under the auspices of the State of Montana.

John D. Smith

Libby