Capital Cost Benchmark Study June 2013 For 240kV Transmission and Substation Projects

Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission and Substation
Projects
June 2013
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
Study Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Process & Schedule ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Capital Cost Summaries & Benchmarks ...................................................................................................... 11
Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................................. 13
Line Facility Cost.................................................................................................................................. 16
Project Management & Construction Management .......................................................................... 17
Separate Costs .................................................................................................................................... 17
Cost Comparisons ............................................................................................................................... 20
Transmission Substations ....................................................................................................................... 24
Facility Costs........................................................................................................................................ 25
Project Management & Construction Management .......................................................................... 26
Separate Costs .................................................................................................................................... 26
Cost Comparisons ............................................................................................................................... 28
Adjusting Factors for Benchmarks .............................................................................................................. 36
Financial Adjustments ............................................................................................................................. 36
Transmission Line Technical Cost Adjustments ...................................................................................... 37
Transmission Substations ....................................................................................................................... 39
Target Project Portfolio............................................................................................................................... 39
Transmission Line Selection Criteria ....................................................................................................... 39
Substation Selection Criteria................................................................................................................... 40
Transmission Lines Projects .................................................................................................................... 41
Substation Projects ................................................................................................................................. 62
Page 1
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table of Contents
Appendix:
Section I
Survey Instrument Used for Collecting Transmission Project Data
Section II
Detailed Comparison of Transmission Lines Costs
Section III
Transmission Lines Survey Cost Detail – Projects L1 through L8
Section IV
Transmission Lines AESO Cost Detail – Projects L9 through L11
Section V
Conductor Material Cost & Structure Loading Adjustment
Section VI
Survey Instrument Used for Collecting Substation Project Data
Section VII
Detailed Comparison of Substation Costs
Section VIII
Substation Survey Cost Detail – Projects S1 through S5
Section IX
Substation AESO Cost Detail – Projects S6 through S8
Section X
Financial Adjustments to Reported Costs
Calculation Detail
Cost Escalation Indices
RS Means Regional Wage Data
Historical Currency Exchange Rates
Page 2
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Executive Summary
On average, estimates for building transmission lines and substations in Alberta have escalated
significantly over the last three years. While a portion of the increase can be associated with cost
pressures that come with an expanding economy, other differences can also be correlated with
differences in material and labour costs. The introduction of a new AESO line standard that was phased
in between 2010 and 2012, may also have contributed to some extent. However, increases of the
magnitude noted in Alberta are beyond what would normally be attributed to these factors alone. It is
the reason for the remaining and unexplained cost escalation that the AESO sought to understand, and
in so doing, compare current Alberta costs to similar transmission and substation projects throughout
Canada and elsewhere in North America.
In mid-2012 the AESO engaged FTI Consulting (“FTI”) and Genivar Inc. (“Genivar”) to assist in studying
transmission and substation facility development costs in Alberta, and comparing them with similar
projects in other jurisdictions. The objective of the study included:
•
•
•
Assessing 240kV transmission facility scope and costs with an exclusive focus on double circuit
transmission lines and 240kV substations;
Providing comparisons of key project elements to Alberta transmission and substation facility
costs, including engineering/ design, major material components , construction labour and
where possible non-facility costs such as project/ construction management, owner costs and
other separate costs; and
Contributing towards the development of benchmarks to support the AESO’s efforts with
respect to testing for “cost reasonableness” while assessing transmission facility owner
proposals and associated cost estimates for transmission and substation projects.
For the voltage levels used in this study, Alberta uses a nominal voltage of 240kV with transmission lines
and substations, where other jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada use a voltage in the range of 220kV to
230kV. For the purposes of the study, 220kV to 240kV were treated as the same voltage classification
and where one voltage class is mentioned, it is intended to include the complete range.
The FTI and Genivar team identified a number of targeted projects to be included in the study and in
turn invited the project owners/ utilities to participate. A number of utilities elected to participate but
not all. Reasons cited by the utilities that declined to participate included: insufficient availability of
resources to compile the necessary project information or operating in a non-regulated competitive
environment with concerns that providing information could hamper their ability to effectively
participate in the market. Some utilities simply declined participation without citing any particular
reason.
In all, project information was acquired on eight 230kV double circuit transmission lines and five 230kV
substations located outside of Alberta. As well, the AESO provided estimates for three 240kV double
circuit transmission lines and three 240kV substations, bringing the total to 11 transmission lines and 8
substations that were included in the study.
Page 3
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Since so few 230kV projects of the types targeted for study are completed each year in Canada and the
U.S., the scope of the study expanded to include 345kV double circuit transmission lines. It was found
that in the U.S. many jurisdictions have adopted the higher voltage as a standard for transmission as
opposed to 230kV. The 345kV transmission lines are similar to the Alberta 240kV lines as described in
the body of the report, and as such, one of the projects included in the study for comparison is a 345kV
double circuit transmission line.
Transmission line project cost data was adjusted to reflect time of construction, currencies, regional
economic differences, material escalation and differences for conductor size (and number), as well as
environmental loading, (i.e. transverse wind load and ice or wet snow loading) where applicable. This
resulted in transmission line costs being normalized to the extent possible. It is recognized that
differences may also exist in terrain, right of way, land use and other environmental conditions that
could further affect the cost of construction. Financial adjustments ranged from $25k /km to $387k /km
(or 2% to 30%) with an average adjustment of $66k /km (or 4.8%) for the three projects most similar to
projects studied in Alberta. Design adjustments ranged from -$246k /km to $942k /km (or -13% to 63%)
with an average adjustment of $128k /km (or 12%) for the three projects most similar to projects
studied in Alberta. Further detail of the financial and design/ technical adjustments can be found in the
Transmission Cost Comparison section of the report.
The transmission lines included in the study were constructed using galvanized steel towers or steel
poles with aluminum conductor steel reinforced.
Comparisons were made between the three Alberta lines and similar lines outside of Alberta with
highlights provided as follows.
Transmission Line Comparisons
The cost breakdown used for analysis consisted of the Line Facility Cost, Project & Construction
Management and Separate Costs comprised of Approvals, Permits and Licensing, Land & Easement
Costs, ES&G (also referred to as overheads) and AFUDC. The Line Facility Cost included all costs
necessary to build a transmission line excluding project and construction management once approvals
and property rights are obtained. The focus of the comparisons is on the Line Facility Cost as these
costs represent the building portions of a transmission line and represented the largest cost component.
Project/Construction Management and Separate Costs were compared as well, but have a greater
degree of relative variability (e.g. cost of property rights is location specific, utility accounting practices
differ for ES&G and AFUDC.
Table 1 provides a synopsis of the differences noted between the Line Facility Costs for the Alberta
projects and the average of similar projects that were constructed in jurisdictions outside of Alberta.
Page 4
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 1
Alberta Projects
(Located Primarily in Agricultural and Pasture Lands)
Material
Detailed Engineering
Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
Average Cost of
Studied Projects Most
Similar to the Alberta
Projects
L9
2 – 1033 Conductor
on 240kV Towers
(100 – 150 km)
L10
2 – 1033 Conductor
on 240kV Towers
(20 – 30 km)
L11
2 – 795 Conductor
on 240kV Towers
(30 – 50 km)
$000s /km
Estimated Cost
$000s /km
Estimated Cost
$000s /km
Estimated Cost
$000s /km
525
48
1,016
$1,589
Alberta Projects Compared
to Average Cost of Similar Lines
584
61
1,132
$1,776
669
133
1,509
$2,311
578
23
601
$1,202
12%
45%
-24%
As noted in the table above, the Line Facility Cost for two of the Alberta projects was estimated to be
greater than the average of the three similar projects outside of Alberta by 12% (for Project L9) and 45%
(Project L10). One of the studied Alberta projects (L11) was estimated to cost 24% less than the average
of similar projects outside Alberta. The three projects in jurisdictions outside of Alberta most similar to
the sample of Alberta projects had Line Facility Costs ranging from $1,327k /km to $1,746k /km with an
average of $1,589k /km. Line Facility Costs for the sample of three Alberta projects were $1,776k /km,
$2,311k /km and $1,202k /km with an average of $1,763k /km.
As well, the study included two transmission line projects
outside of Alberta which exhibited significant differences in
design and substantially lower Line Facility Costs than the
sample of projects in Alberta. Line Facility Costs for these
two projects were $722k /km and $609k /km, ranging from
50% to 60% of the lowest cost Alberta project. One of these
projects was a 345 kV steel tower line and the other a HFrame steel pole line. Further analysis and risk assessment is
required to fully understand serviceability and reliability
implications associated with these lower cost designs.
The study also included 2 steel monopole lines, one located in agricultural and forested areas and the
other in primarily rugged terrain. The Line Facility Costs for these projects were $1,679k /km and
$2,627k /km respectively. Furthermore, a transmission line located in a suburban environment was
also included in the study with a Line Facility Cost of $2,085k /km. Costs for these projects may not be
fully comparable to the Alberta projects included in the study as the scope of these projects (e.g. terrain
and tower design) differed somewhat from the Alberta Base Case. The cost data for these projects is
presented herein for informational purposes in response to the AESO’s benchmark objectives.
Page 5
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Comparisons for Project and Construction Management and Separate Costs can be found in Capital Cost
Summaries & Benchmarks under the Cost Comparisons section of the report.
Substation Comparisons
Substation project costs were adjusted for applicable financial impacts similar to the transmission line
projects. No further cost adjustments were made to substations to account for technical and design
differences, as substations contain numerous types of equipment that cannot be easily adjusted to
reflect an accurate overall cost difference of the major cost components of a project. Substations were
however compared on the basis of size with the identification of the primary cost drivers contributing to
the differences. All substations in the study included two power transformers with a varying number of
circuit breakers and other equipment. Overall the three Alberta projects fell within the cost range for
the 240kV – 138kV substations analysed. Substation Facility Costs for a 240kV – 138kV substation with
two power transformers generally fell within a range of about $16 million to $28 million depending on
the amount of additional equipment (i.e. circuit breakers, capacitor banks and telecommunication
facilities.) As with Transmission Lines, details on comparisons are provided in Capital Cost Summaries &
Benchmarks under the Cost Comparisons section of the report.
Page 6
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Study Overview
The AESO leads the safe, reliable and economic planning and operation of Alberta’s interconnected
power system and facilitates Alberta’s fair, efficient and openly competitive wholesale electricity
market. As an independent, not-for-profit organization, acting in the public interest of 3.5 million
Albertans, the AESO does not own transmission facilities nor does it have a financial position in the
electricity market. The AESO has an independent board that provides governance and direction to its
operations, and regulatory oversight is provided by the Alberta Utility Commission.
The AESO has observed cost increases for transmission and substation facilities over the last three years
and given the considerable increase in transmission facility development that is planned over the next
five years, the AESO has sought to assess and understand some of the key cost differences that are
contributing to rising transmission facility costs in the Province.
The AESO engaged FTI and Genivar to assist in studying transmission and substation facility
development costs in Alberta, comparing them with similar projects in other jurisdictions. The objective
of the study included:
•
•
•
Assessing 240kV transmission facility scope and costs with an exclusive focus on double circuit
transmission lines and 240kV substations;
Providing comparisons of key project elements to Alberta transmission and substation facility
costs, including engineering/ design, major material components, construction labour and
where possible non-facility costs such as project/ construction management, owner costs and
other separate costs; and
Contributing towards the development of benchmarks to support the AESO’s efforts with
respect to testing for “cost reasonableness” while assessing transmission facility owner
proposals and associated cost estimates for transmission projects.
Much of the Alberta transmission system is operated at a nominal voltage of 240kV, where most other
jurisdictions in North America operate similar systems at 230kV or 220kV. In most cases, a voltage
variation of this magnitude has little, if any, impact on transmission line and substation designs. For
these reasons, voltages of 220kV to 240kV are treated as the same voltage classification for the purpose
of this study. Where one voltage class is mentioned, it is intended to include the complete range.
The FTI/Genivar team identified a number of target projects to be included in the study and in turn
invited project owners (utilities) to participate in the study. The report has been structured on the
principle of data privilege, such that the information provided herein cannot be associated with a
project’s specific location, facility owner or other characteristics that would enable correlation to the
companies participating in the study. All utilities that participated in the study will receive a copy of the
report with gratitude extended for their assistance with this work.
Project cost information was obtained through written surveys of utilities agreeing to participate in the
study. The surveys were structured in alignment with the current format of the AESO’s Proposal to
Page 7
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Provide Service (PPS) estimate. The surveys requested project specific information and relevant
technical details regarding scope, design, cost and schedules for each project.
The FTI/Genivar team contacted various utilities located in Canada and the U.S. and invited 16 to
participate based on their recent development of 230kV and 240kV facilities. Respondents provided
data on eight transmission projects and five substation projects located outside of Alberta.
Some utilities declined the invitation to participate. The reasons cited included:
•
•
Operating in a non-regulated competitive environment (or planning to enter a non-regulated
environment) with concerns that providing the information requested would hamper their
ability to effectively participate in the market.
Insufficient staff availability to compile the necessary project data and complete the survey
within the timeframe required.
As invited utilities noted concerns about resource availability and/or time constraints to complete the
survey, FTI/ Genivar offered all assistance necessary to compile the data and produce the targeted
information on the utilities’ behalf. Support offered included meeting at the utilities’ offices, reviewing
project cost records, evaluating project drawings and specifications, and analyzing other project records
on scope and schedule in order to complete the survey forms. While none of the utilities requested
such assistance, a number of the participating utilities provided source documentation (e.g.
Environmental Assessments) in lieu of completing the surveys as a means to provide the data
requested. In other instances, respondents scaled back on the level of detail of information provided
due to confidentiality concerns.
FTI/ Genivar appreciates the significant commitment made by all participating utilities and the efforts
made to extract historic information at the level of detail requested in order to produce a meaningful
data set.
In addition to the portfolio of projects targeted in jurisdictions outside of Alberta, the AESO subjectively
selected a sample of projects within Alberta, providing estimates for three transmission lines to be
included in the study. For purposes of cost normalization amongst project portfolio, the Alberta projects
were used to define the Alberta Base Case - consisting of a double circuit line with two 1033 kcmil
conductors per phase supported on steel towers. Added details are provided under the Transmission
Line Projects section.
The transmission line projects included in this study were designed and built with steel structures, either
towers or steel poles, and conductor made from the same materials, but of different size. Costs were
normalized to align with the Alberta Base Case in terms of facilities installed, time of construction and
regional economic differences. This provided comparable cost data for 11 projects (three in Alberta and
eight in other Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions) recognizing differences in terrain, right of way
characteristics, and prominent design features.
Page 8
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Lines with similar terrain features (e.g. agricultural with some forested lands) were grouped and
compared to the three Alberta lines contained in the study. Information was also obtained on lines
constructed in partially rugged forested areas, suburban areas, and lines with designs that differ from
Alberta. Information on the latter projects was obtained to assist the AESO in their efforts to test for
“cost reasonableness” for projects located in these types of environments and to gain an appreciation of
design practices employed by others in the industry.
The substations included in the study have two power transformers with varying numbers of circuit
breakers and other equipment. FTI/ Genivar obtained substation facility (e.g. cost, schedule and scope)
data from several utility companies participating in the study. As well, the AESO provided cost estimates
for substations within Alberta. This provided comparable cost and equipment data for eight substation
projects (three in Alberta and five in other Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions). One of the Alberta
substations was used as a basis for comparison with the other substations.
Transmission facility cost data was structured into three primary categories for analysis and comparison
– transmission line (or substation) facility costs, project and construction management, and other
separate costs. Line Facility Costs (or Substation Facility Costs) includes the costs to build a line or
substation, but does not include project and construction management, approvals, property rights,
engineering support & general (ES&G) or allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). A
separate category was used for Project and Construction Management Costs and the remaining cost
elements form the third category labeled as Separate Costs. Line and Substation Facility Costs have
been used as the denominator in deriving the various cost ratios for comparison of projects.
Process & Schedule
The identification of suitable projects, establishing data requirements, contacting utilities, acquiring
information and clarification of data inconsistencies required many steps, and in some cases, resulted in
an iterative process to arrive at a suitable data set for each project contained in the portfolio. The AESO
staff was very helpful during the course of these activities by providing guidance during scoping sessions
to clarify target project characteristics and the suitability of the information acquired. As well, the AESO
extended invitations to several transmission and substation facility owners to solicit the utilities’
participation in this study.
The following provides an outline of the process and steps taken:
•
•
As noted above, the process commenced with scoping sessions with the AESO and included
updates to obtain feedback on the suitability of projects currently being developed in
jurisdictions outside of Alberta.
FTI/ Genivar performed extensive research to identify suitable transmission projects and to
confirm scope, cost and schedule details for targeted projects. Resources included Edison
Electric Institute publications, regulatory filings, Environment Assessments, regulator and
utility web pages, ISO system impact assessments, and other industry publications.
Page 9
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Based on this research a portfolio of substation and transmission line projects was created
and targeted for inclusion in the study.
The AESO and FTI/ Genivar reviewed the target project portfolio and agreed on nature and
number of projects to be used for benchmarking purposes.
Detailed survey instruments were prepared to acquire project details and cost information
from participating utilities. FTI/ Genivar based the survey instruments on the level of detail
and structure used by the AESO in its PPS estimate formats - then current at the time the
study was initiated (see Appendix – Section I and VI).
FTI/ Genivar in conjunction with the AESO contacted and interviewed prospective utilities
for agreement to participate in the AESO study.
Assistance was offered to each of the prospective and participating utilities to complete the
survey instruments (e.g. offering resources to jointly compile records, assist in extracting the
relevant information, and fill-in the survey based on source documents provided).
Subsequent to receiving surveys from the participating utilities and analyzing the data
provided, FTI/ Genivar clarified information gaps and data inconsistencies with each of the
respondents.
FTI/ Genivar also reconciled differences between utility cost breakdown structures to allow
comparison between cost elements and enable benchmarks to be established as provided in
this report.
Page 10
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Capital Cost Summaries & Benchmarks
Background
On average, estimates for building transmission lines and substations in Alberta have escalated
significantly over the last three years. According to the information provided by the AESO, cost
estimates for developing 240kV double circuit lines increased by 79% between 2010 and 2012 as
demonstrated in the chart below. More specifically, the average estimated line facility cost for a 240kV
double circuit line with one circuit strung in 2010 was $797k /km as compared to an average estimated
cost of $1,898k /km for like facilities estimated in 2012. 1 This change represents an increase of 138%.
Figure 1
Facility Cost - 240 kV Double Circuit Lines
$2,000
$1,800
$ Thousands/km
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$1,898
$800
$600
$400
$1,453
$1,059
$200
$2010
2011
2012
Source: AESO Reasonableness Assessment of Transmission Cost Using Benchmarking Methodology - Figues D.3
While a portion of the increase can be associated with cost pressures that come with an expanding
economy, other differences can be correlated with differences in material and labour costs. The
introduction of a new AESO line standard that was phased in between 2010 and 2012, may also have
contributed to some extent. 2 However, increases of the magnitude noted in Alberta are beyond what
can be attributed to these factors alone. Table 2 below illustrates the year over year changes in the
producer price index (PPI) for transmission utilities in Canada, the average labour costs for construction
trades in Alberta, and the cost of primary construction materials used in the development of
transmission and substation projects.
1
Data source derived from the “Reasonableness Assessment of Transmission Cost Using Benchmarking Methodology”, AESO Position Paper
dated March 28, 2013, Figure D.3 240kV Line > 15km, p 46. The sample size included six projects for 2010 and five projects for 2012. Noted
costs do not include allowances for escalation and contingencies.
2
The AESO implemented a new functional specification and design standards effective January 1, 2012, but a number of the 2010 projects
included provisions for the new requirements. The Alberta projects included in this study, while estimated during mid-2010 already factored in
the requirements for the new functional specifications and standards where others may not have done so to the full extent.
Page 11
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 2
Percent Change from Previous Year
2010
2011
2012
% Change:
2009 - 2012
Commodity Prices
Cement and concrete products
Primary steel products
1
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
3.3%
-1.2%
1.8%
-1.7%
-1.1%
20.9%
5.4%
-14.5%
8.8%
5.2%
5.9%
7.5%
6.2%
6.8%
6.3%
6.6%
1.5%
1.7%
2.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.3%
2.9%
1.6%
0.6%
1.6%
0.3%
0.0%
0.6%
1.4%
8.5%
8.3%
12.3%
8.4%
8.7%
8.3%
11.2%
2.6%
0.5%
1.7%
-0.1%
3.2%
2.3%
3.4%
1.7%
0.9%
1.4%
0.6%
1.8%
6.9%
4.3%
5.7%
3.3%
2
Primary aluminum products
2
Construction Labor Rates 3
Carpenter
Cement finisher
Electrician
Labourer
Reinforcing steel erector
Structural steel erector
Heavy equipment operator
Construction of Electric Utilities 4
Distribution systems
Transmission line systems
Transmission lines
Substations
Source:
1
Sta tCa n CANSIM Ta bl e 329-0065 (a l l Ca na da )
2
Sta tCa n CANSIM Ta bl e 329-0063 (a l l Ca na da )
3
Sta tCa n CANSIM Ta bl e 327-0003 (Ca l ga ry)
4
Sta tCa n CANSIM Ta bl e 327-0011 (a l l Ca na da )
Note:
Transmission Line Systems represents the composite index of both transmission lines and substations taken
together.
Trend data for assessing year over year changes in transmission and substation facility projects was not
made available by participating utilities and available for the Canadian Provinces outside of Alberta. The
79% cost escalation between 2010 and 2012 for 240kV transmission line projects in Alberta is however,
in contrast with the 5% increase in transmission plant (i.e. the composite index for all transmission
related categories) costs in the U.S. during the same period. The figures below illustrate the year over
year changes and relative cost trends in U.S. transmission facilities costs since 2005.
Page 12
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Figure 2
Cost of US Transmission Lines
Year-Over-Year Change
Overhead Conductors & Devices
Poles & Fixtures
Towers & Fixtures
Transmission Plant - Total
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
2005
2006
2007
2009
2008
2010
2011
2012
Year
Source: Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs
Figure 3
Cost of US Transmission Lines
Relative Costs Since 2005
Overhead Conductors & Devices
Poles & Fixtures
Towers & Fixtures
5% increase from 2010 2012 for "Transmission
Plant - Total"
150
Transmission Plant - Total
2005 Dollars = 100
125
100
75
50
2005
2006
2007
Source: Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
It is the reason for the remaining and unexplained cost escalation that the AESO wants to understand,
and in so doing, compare current Alberta costs to similar transmission and substation projects
throughout Canada and elsewhere in North America.
Transmission Lines
This study includes a number of 230kV and 240kV transmission lines and, in one case a comparison is
also being made to a 345kV project based on the similarity of tower, conductor and other design
features.
Introduction
In total, cost and technical data were provided for eight transmission line projects. These are identified
as Projects L1 to L8 to facilitate disclosure without breaching confidentiality. The Alberta projects are
Page 13
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
included for comparison purposes and are not representative of all types of lines being built, or to be
built, in Alberta and as such, comparisons can only be made as they apply to the study group.
Transmission lines projects not directly used for comparison to the Alberta transmission line projects are
presented to respond to the AESO’s benchmark objectives.
The following is a brief description of each transmission line included in the study:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project L1 is a 230kV transmission line constructed on an existing right of way using steel towers
and crosses a mix of agricultural lands, forested and undeveloped lands and suburban areas
(length is between 20 km and 30 km)
Project L2 is a 230kV transmission line constructed using steel monopoles and crosses hilly
forested terrain and agricultural lands (length is between 50 km and 70 km)
Project L3 is a 345kV transmission line constructed using steel towers and crosses agricultural
lands (length is between 50 km and 70 km)
Project L4 is a 230kV transmission line constructed using H-frame steel poles with direct
embedded foundation through agricultural lands (length is between 30 and 50 km)
Project L5 is a 230kV transmission line constructed on an existing right of way using steel towers
in a suburban environment (length is between 10 km and 20 km)
Project L6 is a 230kV transmission line constructed on an existing right of way with steel towers
and crosses mostly agricultural lands and some forested and undeveloped lands (length is
between 20 km and 40 km)
Project L7 is a 230kV transmission line constructed on an existing right of way with steel towers
and crosses mostly agricultural lands (length is between 60 km and 80 km)
Project L8 is a 230kV transmission line built using steel monopoles and crosses rugged forested
terrain with some agricultural and suburban lands and includes two long water crossings (length
is between 30 k and 50 km)
Project L9 is an Alberta 240kV project constructed using steel towers in southern Alberta and
passes through agricultural and pasture lands (length is between 100 km and 150 km)
Project L10 is an Alberta 240kV project located in central Alberta using steel towers and crosses
a mix of agricultural lands and some industrial lands (length is between 20 km and 30 km)
Project L11 is an Alberta 240kV project constructed using steel towers in southern Alberta and
passes through agricultural lands (length is between 30 km and 50 km)
In order to improve reliability of cost comparisons, transmission facility projects were grouped into
similar types by geographical traits and/or topography. The groupings used combine transmission lines
installed in similar environments. FTI/ Genivar used four groupings to study and compare costs between
projects. These are outlined as follows:
Type 1a – Tower Construction in Mix of Agriculture and Forested Lands
Projects L1, L6 and L7 were constructed in agricultural lands with some forested areas and in some cases
low lying wet areas. L1 included costs for access roads that were in the order of $393k /km, which is
Page 14
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
significantly higher than other projects where these sorts of costs were identified. L6 and L7 were
constructed on an existing narrow right of way (e.g. 30 metres in width), not necessarily considered
optimum design. A number of these differences account for the range in Line Facility Cost of $1,327k
/km to $1,746k /km with the average being $1,589k /km.
Type 1b – Monopole Construction in Mix of Agriculture and Forested Lands
This type of construction is similar to Type 1a, except the line is constructed with steel monopoles and
includes L2 with a Line Facility Cost of $1,679k /km.
Type 2 - Suburban Construction
Reference project L5 is primarily suburban construction with the use of a large percentage of heavy
dead-end towers. This project type is not a direct comparison to the sampled Alberta lines, but does
add perspective and can be a useful reference for lines built in more populated urban areas. One would
expect the cost for this type of project to be higher than the projects in more rural, agricultural settings
noted in Type 1a and Type 1b, and this is the case with a Line Facility Cost of $2,085k /km.
Type 3- Mix of Rugged Terrain and Agricultural Lands with Long Water Crossings
Reference project L8 fits into this category. About 60% of the route is located in forested rugged terrain
with two long (approximately 1km – 2km each) water crossings. The water crossings on this project
break the line into 4 distinct line sections further complicating construction and access. The line was
constructed using steel monopoles. Although not necessarily indicative of the best solution for heavier
conductor loading (considering the significant costs associated with the added conductor and wind
loading to align with the Alberta Base Case), the project nonetheless provides some reference of what
may be encountered in rugged hilly terrain in remote locations. For comparison purposes a $942k /km
increase was added to the project costs provided to account for design adjustments that make
comparison more consistent with the Alberta Base Case. As adjusted, the Line Facility Cost for this type
of project is $2,627k /km.
Type 4 - Different Designs to Alberta
Project L3 and L4 are lines that are notably different in design to the Alberta Base Case. Respective Line
Facility Costs are $722k /km and $609k /km. Both of these lines are located in primarily flat, agricultural
lands.
Project L3 is a 345kV double circuit line with a conductor configuration that minimizes structure loading.
The project was constructed over agricultural lands with relatively easy access. Tower design used a
delta configuration with two phases supported on the bottom arm. Longitudinal strength capacity for
the tower configuration is not as robust as the Alberta designs that include broken conductor loading.
Project L4 is a double circuit 230kV line using H-Frame steel pole structures directly embedded in earth.
This type of construction is substantially less costly, as foundation costs are relatively low when
structures are installed directly in the ground with engineered backfill (i.e. no concrete or reinforcing).
Page 15
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Foundations of this type can create added risks and these are further discussed in the Transmission
Lines Projects section under Project L4.
Both of these designs are significantly lower in cost than the Alberta designs and provide options for
future installations. Detailed engineering analyses, risk assessments and tower/ line optimization
studies would be required to confirm the suitability of these design considerations prior to
implementation in Alberta.
Cost Summary
This study assessed project costs across three primary categories. The cost breakdown structure for
relative comparisons between projects included:
•
•
•
Line Facility Cost
Project Management & Construction Management; and
Separate Costs
Line Facility Cost
Line Facility Cost represented the direct costs for materials installed, engineering, and construction once
the necessary approvals have been acquired and includes appropriate allowances for escalation and
contingencies for those projects that are in the estimating stage, as is the case with the Alberta projects.
In many cases these represented contract costs and purchases made, but there were utilities that have
in-house design capability and construction organizations that undertake work of this type. Since Line
Facility Cost included all costs necessary to build a transmission line (excluding project and construction
management), the primary focus of the comparisons in this study is on the Line Facility Cost.
Material
Costs in this category included all permanent materials installed as part of a transmission line
project. These costs were capitalized and included: structure and foundation materials (including
guy wires where applicable), conductor and hardware (such as fittings, spacers and dampers,
shieldwire and in some cases optical ground wire (i.e. OPGW), grounding materials, insulators, and
right of way installations such as culverts and bridges where required.
Detailed Engineering
Engineering costs included geotechnical investigations, foundation design, structure design, line
layout and the preparation of technical specifications for material purchases and installations. In
some cases utilities have developed standard structure types which reduced the amount of
engineering required to design a line.
Page 16
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Construction
Construction costs included right of way preparation, constructing access roads as needed (and
removal of roads upon completion), line clearing, managing material deliveries and material depots,
transporting materials to site, installation of foundations and structures, stringing conductors and
commissioning. In most cases utilities contracted for this work, but there were a few utilities that
have in-house construction capabilities that can undertake certain portions.
Project Management & Construction Management
These costs included procurement, project management and construction management. These
consisted of a mix of in-house staff and contract project managers.
Separate Costs
The separate costs noted below were either site specific, (e.g. Land and Easement costs), involved
approvals and licensing, or represented specific utility practices, (e.g. Owner’s E S & G or Overheads). As
a result, Separate Costs were excluded from reference cost comparisons for this study as they tended to
be highly variable cost inputs.
Owner Costs
•
•
Approval Permits and Licensing – these costs included system studies, preparation of
preliminary estimates, environmental approvals and rate applications and would include studies
needed to support approvals.
Land and Easements – these costs included obtaining property rights, easements and in some
cases included property purchases needed for the transmission line.
Other Costs
•
•
Owner’s ES&G or Overheads – Depending on the utility, these costs included a number of
corporate and business functions that supported capital developments and were usually applied
as cost allocations. Examples included: distributed cost for the development and maintenance
of standards, portions of asset management and planning costs, human resources, finance and
real estate. Utility accounting practices varied in this area.
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) – These costs included interest charges
or the cost of capital on funds expended during construction. They were proportional to the
corporate discount rate, the duration of construction and expenditure profiles.
It should be noted that some of the participating utilities do not collect capital project costs consistent
with the categories and work breakdown structure used by the AESO. Some participants were therefor
unable to provide cost and scope data at levels outlined in the survey instruments. In other instances,
participating utilities elected to summarize project data to preserve confidentiality. For these reasons
and unless added relevant details have been provided, the focus of the benchmark study is on costs at
the level of detail contained in Tables 3 and 4 below.
Page 17
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 3
Adjusted Cost / Estimate per Kilometer - Transmission Lines Projects ($000)
L1
L2
L3
L4
Type 1a
Type 1b
Type 4
Type 4
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
471 / km
21 / km
1,203 / km
$
$
$
688 / km
79 / km
912 / km
$
$
$
277 / km
18 / km
427 / km
$
$
$
307 / km
18 / km
285 / km
$
1,695 / km
$
1,679 / km
$
722 / km
$
609 / km
$
5 / km
$
43 / km
$
15 / km
$
2 / km
$
$
- / km
343 / km
$
$
310 / km
208 / km
$
$
36 / km
53 / km
$
$
74 / km
60 / km
$
343 / km
$
518 / km
$
90 / km
$
133 / km
$
2,043 / km
$
2,240 / km
$
826 / km
$
744 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
L5
Type 2
L6
Type 1a
L7
Type 1a
L8
Type 3
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
333 / km
107 / km
1,645 / km
$
$
$
603 / km
68 / km
1,075 / km
$
$
$
501 / km
55 / km
772 / km
$
$
$
739 / km
61 / km
1,826 / km
$
2,085 / km
$
1,746 / km
$
1,327 / km
$
2,627 / km
$
278 / km
$
28 / km
$
11 / km
$
109 / km
$
$
41 / km
331 / km
$
$
23 / km
355 / km
$
$
34 / km
348 / km
$
$
133 / km
218 / km
$
372 / km
$
379 / km
$
383 / km
$
351 / km
$
2,735 / km
$
2,152 / km
$
1,721 / km
$
3,087 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
L9 - Alberta
Agricultural
L10 - Alberta
Agricultural
L11 - Alberta
Agricultural
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
584 / km
61 / km
1,132 / km
$
$
$
669 / km
133 / km
1,509 / km
$
$
$
578 / km
23 / km
601 / km
$
1,776 / km
$
2,311 / km
$
1,202 / km
$
218 / km
$
98 / km
$
170 / km
$
$
185 / km
596 / km
$
$
222 / km
543 / km
$
$
211 / km
259 / km
$
781 / km
$
765 / km
$
470 / km
$
2,775 / km
$
3,174 / km
$
1,842 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Page 18
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 4
Cost / Estimated Cost as a Percent of Total Line Facility Cost
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9 Alberta
L10 Alberta
L11 Alberta
27.8%
1.2%
71.0%
41.0%
4.7%
54.3%
38.3%
2.5%
59.1%
50.4%
2.9%
46.7%
15.9%
5.2%
78.9%
34.5%
3.9%
61.6%
37.7%
4.1%
58.2%
28.2%
2.3%
69.5%
32.9%
3.4%
63.7%
28.9%
5.8%
65.3%
48.1%
1.9%
50.0%
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
1.6%
0.9%
dnp
afe 2
dnp
1.6%
dnp
0.3%
dnp
afe
0.3%
2.6%
2.0%
0.3%
13.3%
1.6%
Approvals, Permits & Lic.
Land & Easements
np
np
7.4%
11.1%
dnp
dnp
4.6%
7.5%
dnp
dnp
np
1.3%
Total Owners Costs
np
18.4%
5.0%
12.1%
1.9%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
14.7%
5.5%
5.5%
6.9%
7.4%
np
np
9.8%
Total Other Costs
20.2%
12.4%
7.4%
20.2%
30.8%
12.4%
Total Project & Const. Mgmt
0.3%
afe
1
0.8%
3.3%
6.5%
5.7%
2.8%
1.4%
12.0%
2.2%
0.8%
4.1%
12.3%
4.2%
14.2%
2.6%
np
2.0%
3.1%
6.2%
4.3%
5.2%
4.4%
3.5%
14.0%
1.3%
2.6%
5.1%
10.4%
9.6%
17.6%
15.9%
np
14.8%
5.6%
17.1%
9.1%
3.0%
5.3%
9.1%
24.4%
9.6%
14.0%
9.3%
12.2%
9.8%
15.9%
20.3%
26.2%
8.3%
33.5%
23.5%
21.5%
21.9%
17.8%
21.7%
28.8%
13.4%
44.0%
33.1%
39.1%
1
0.8%
afe
1
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Owners Costs
3.2 - Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Key
np - "Not Provi ded" (cos t a mount not provi ded by pa rti ci pa ti ng uti l i ty)
dnp - "Deta i l Not Provi ded" (l evel of deta i l not provi ded, onl y s umma ry l evel fi gures provi ded by pa rti ci pa ti ng uti l i ty)
afe - "Accounted for El s ewhere" (Uti l i ty ha s i ncl uded thi s cos t i n a nother cos t ca tegory a nd we were una bl e to s epa ra te the cos t a mounts )
Notes
1
Accounted for i n '1.3 - Tota l Cons tructi on Cos t'
2
Accounted for i n '1.2 - Deta i l Engi neeri ng'
For the transmission line projects in Alberta (e.g. Projects L9, L10, & L11), cost information was provided
by the AESO. Cost data from these projects was derived from estimates prepared by Transmission
Facility Owners (TFOs) of work in progress or upcoming planned projects. According to the AESO, the
estimates provided have an accuracy range of +20% and -10%. This means that final project costs are
expected to be no more than 120% of estimated costs and no less than 90% of the estimated costs.
The estimate accuracy range is highlighted for the Alberta projects, as the cost information provided is
based on estimates and while the data does represent expected costs at project completion, actual
costs may vary. Adjusted cost and the range of final expected costs for each Alberta project is as follows:
Page 19
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
Project L9: $1,776k /km estimated (final costs expected to range from $1,598k /km to $2,131k
/km)
Project L10: $2,311k /km estimated (final costs expected to range from $2,079k /km to $2,773k
/km)
Project L11: $1,202k /km estimated (final costs expected to range from $1,081k /km to $1,442k
/km)
Cost Comparisons
There are many factors that influence the cost of a transmission line such as conductor type, structure
type, terrain, land use, construction methods, measures taken to protect the environment, regulatory
processes, economic conditions and more. As depicted in the Table 5 below, costs for transmission line
projects included within this study have been adjusted or modified for comparative purposes to account
for financial variations associated with timing of construction, regional economic differences, and
material escalation. Adjustments for technical characteristics have also been made for conductor type,
wind loading imposed on structures, and loading from ice on conductors where applicable. It is
recognized that not all project details are normalized prior to making comparisons of scope and cost,
however the adjustments made provide a meaningful indication of expected cost for similar type of
construction in the environment that they were built. Details concerning these adjustments are
presented in the Adjusting Factors for Benchmarks section of this report.
Table 5
Summary of Adjustments to Project Costs
Tota l Li ne
Fa ci l i ty Cos t
per Ki l ometer
($000)
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
$1,815
$1,424
$582
$467
$1,944
$1,288
$1,082
$1,504
$1,776
$2,311
$1,000
Fi na nci a l
Adjus tments
Des i gn
Adjus tments
Norma l i zed
Tota l Li ne
Fa ci l i ty Cos t
per Ki l ometer
($000)
Tota l of
Adjus tments
$
%
$
%
$
%
$60
$65
$174
$25
$387
$113
$26
$180
$0
$0
$0
3.3%
4.6%
29.9%
5.3%
19.9%
8.8%
2.4%
12.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-$180
$190
-$34
$118
-$246
$345
$220
$942
$0
$0
$202
-10%
13%
-6%
25%
-13%
27%
20%
63%
0%
0%
20%
-$120
$255
$140
$143
$141
$459
$246
$1,122
$0
$0
$202
-6.6%
17.9%
24.0%
30.5%
7.3%
35.6%
22.7%
74.6%
0.0%
0.0%
20.2%
$1,695
$1,679
$722
$609
$2,085
$1,746
$1,327
$2,627
$1,776
$2,311
$1,202
For comparative purposes, the projects in Alberta are compared with the Type 1a projects located in
other jurisdictions as these are the most similar to the Alberta lines included within the study. The
Alberta Projects L9 and L11 are located in a prairie environment crossing agricultural and pasture lands.
Project L10 is located north of these lines in similar agricultural lands with some facility development in
industrial areas. Type 1a lines (L1, L6 and L7) would have the greatest similarity when compared to the
Page 20
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Alberta lines from the perspective of design and right of way conditions. Table 6 below provides the
Line Facility Costs for these projects with cost adjustments made, and provides comparisons with the
Alberta projects.
Table 6
Type 1a (Agriculture Lands With Some Forested & Suburban Areas)
$000 / km
L1
2-1192 Conductor
On 500kV Towers
(20 – 30 km)
Material
Detailed Engineering
Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
L6
1-795 Conductor
On 230kV Towers
(20 – 40 km)
L7
1-1192 Conductor
On 230kV Towers
(60 – 80 km)
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
580
20
1,215
$1,815
-109
1
-12
-$120
471
21
1,203
$1,695
479
61
747
$1,288
124
7
328
$459
603
68
1,075
$1,746
425
53
604
$1,082
76
2
168
$246
501
55
772
$1,327
Alberta Transmission Lines (Primarily Agriculture & Pasture Lands)
$000 / km
L9
2 – 1033 Conductor
on 240kV Towers
(100 – 150 km)
Material
Detailed Engineering
Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
L10
2 – 1033 Conductor
on 240kV Towers
(20 – 30 km)
L11
2 – 795 Conductor
on 240kV Towers
Initially 1 Circuit
(30 – 50 km)
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
584
61
1,132
$1,776
0
0
0
$0
584
61
1,132
$1,776
669
133
1,509
$2,311
0
0
0
$0
669
133
1,509
$2,311
467
23
510
$1,000
111
0
91
$202
578
23
601
$1,202
Comparison of Transmission Line Facility Costs
$000 / km
Average
Type 1a
Agriculture Lands With
Some Forested &
Suburban Areas
Material
Detailed Engineering
Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
Average
Alberta Transmission
Lines (L9, L10, L11)
Primarily Agriculture &
Pasture Lands
Difference
Between
Averages
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
Utility
Cost
Total
Adjust.
Norm.
Cost
495
45
855
$1,395
30
3
161
$194
525
48
1,016
$1,589
573
72
1,050
$1,695
37
0
30
$67
610
72
1,081
$1,763
78
27
195
$300
7
-3
-131
-$127
85
24
64
$174
Page 21
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Line Facility Cost
High Level Comparisons
The average Line Facility Cost for the Type 1a project was $1,589k /km. Comparison of the Alberta
transmission line projects to the Type 1a project average Line Facility Costs yielded the following:
•
•
•
Project L9, at an estimated cost of $1,776k /km is approximately 12% above average.
Project L10, at an estimated cost of $2,311k /km is approximately 45% above average.
Project L11, at an estimated cost of $1,202k /km is approximately 24% below average.
The study also included 2 steel monopole lines (L2 and L8), one located in agricultural and forested
areas and the other in primarily rugged terrain. The Line Facility Costs for these projects were
$1,679k /km and $2,627k /km respectively. Furthermore, a transmission line located in a suburban
environment (L5) was also included in the study with a Line Facility Cost of $2,085k /km. These
projects do not compare directly to the Alberta projects, but it can be mentioned that one would
expect costs in suburban areas and those in rugged terrain to be somewhat higher than lines built in
agricultural lands, which does not appear to be the case when the Alberta project L10 is compared
to L5.
As well, the study included two transmission line projects (L3 and L4) categorized above as Type 4 –
“Different Designs to Alberta”. The Line Facility Cost for Project L3 was $722k /km and L4 was
$609k /km - ranging from 50% to 60% of the lowest cost Alberta project (L11). One of these projects
was a 345 kV steel tower line and the other a H-Frame steel pole line. Further analysis and risk
assessment is required to fully understand serviceability and reliability implications associated with
these lower cost designs.
Section 1.1 – Total Material Cost
The average cost for material for projects L1, L6 and L7, which are most similar to the Alberta
transmission towers and lines was $525k /km as compared to the Alberta projects with costs of
$584k /km (Project L9), $669k /km (Project L10), and $578k /km (Project L11).
Material costs in general range from about $275k /km to nearly $740k /km for a project with
monopole designs. Project L2 and Project L8 (both with monopole designs) exhibited the highest
material cost at $688k /km and $739k /km respectively. Project L3 (a 345kV steel tower design) and
Project L4 (a 230kV H-frame design) were categorized as Type 4 – “Different Designs to Alberta” and
had the lowest material costs for reasons explained above. Accounting for material costs on Project
L5 differed from other transmission line projects included in the study. Foundation material costs
for L5 were included in the construction cost accounts, which is part of the reason why material
costs for L5 were lower than the others.
Page 22
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Section 1.2 – Detail Engineering
Engineering costs for the Alberta projects were estimated to be $61k /km (Project L9), $133k /km
(Project L10), and $23k /km (Project L11) where the average for Type 1a lines was $48k /km.
In general engineering costs range from 1% of the Line Facility Cost to over 5% for the studied
projects across Canada and the U.S. The Alberta projects, namely L9, L10 and L11, range from 2% to
6% of Line Facility Costs. When evaluated in financial terms, engineering costs for the projects
located in other jurisdictions averaged $53k /km and were approximately 35% lower than the
average of $72k /km for projects in Alberta.
Section 1.3 – Total Construction Cost
The average construction cost for the three most comparable Type 1a projects (i.e. Projects L1, L6
and L7) was $1,017k /km. In comparison, estimated construction costs for the three sampled
projects in Alberta were $1,132k /km (Project L9), $1,509k /km (Project L10), and $601k /km
(Project L11). Estimated construction costs for the three sampled projects in Alberta averaged
$1,081k /km, approximately 6% higher than the average construction costs for similar projects
outside of Alberta.
Project & Construction Management Cost
The low project and construction management costs noted in Table 3 for Projects L1, L6 and L7 were
attributed to differences in accounting practices from other utilities. As part of work planning, portions
of construction management were accounted for under construction. Project L4 had a low project
management cost as this only represented the contracted amount. Project management by in-house
staff was accounted for under engineering. This being the case, only Projects L2, L3, L5 and L8 can be
used for comparisons.
Excluding the outliers, project and construction management costs ranged from $15k /km to $278k /km.
Project management and construction management costs varied to some degree with line length. Those
lines with more stringent environmental conditions typically experience higher costs, and this was the
case with Project L5 that was a shorter line located in a populated area. The Alberta projects fell within
this range, but with values of $218k/km for L9 and $170k/km for L11 may be considered high in
comparison with other projects included in the study. Total project management and construction
management costs for the studied projects (without accounting differences) averaged 5.5% of Total Line
Facility Cost compared to Alberta Projects L9 and L11 which represented 12.3% and 14.2% respectively.
Separate Costs
Table 4 above contains the percentages for the Separate Costs relative to the Line Facility Cost.
Page 23
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Section 3.1
Owners Costs can vary depending on the cost for property rights and the regulatory requirements
for environmental approvals. Those projects that have been built on existing rights of way will
require little, if any, new property rights or property purchases and generally have the lower
percentages for the Owners Cost. Projects L5, L6, L7 and L8 were built in whole or part on an
existing right of way and as such cannot be compared to the Alberta projects. Owners Costs were
not provided for Project L1. This being the case, comparisons in this category can only be made to
Project L2, L3 and L4. For these projects, the Owners Costs range from 5% to 18.4% of the Line
Facility Cost where the Alberta projects range is 9.6% and 17.6%.
Section 3.2
The three Alberta projects (i.e. L9, L10 and L11) had the highest percentage for Other Costs ranging
from 22% to 34% of the Line Facility Cost or $259k /km to $596k /km. This was primarily due to the
high AFUDC allowance that averaged 17% of the Line Facility Cost. Where AFUDC costs were
provided for projects in other Canadian provinces and in the U.S., AFUDC costs averaged about 7%.
The primary determinants of AFUDC include facility development timelines, scheduling of the work
and cost of capital. Any or all of these variables would contribute to the differences between
observed costs in Alberta and the studied projects. The level of cost detail provided by participating
utilities did not enable a specific determination to be made regarding the source(s) of the lower
AFUDC and Other Costs in jurisdictions outside Alberta.
ES&G costs, also referred to overheads, ranged from 0% to 17%. These were usually an allocation
approved by the Regulator. ES&G for the Alberta projects ranged from 9% to 10% of the Line
Facility Cost. Four utilities applied a lower percentage and four applied a higher percentage.
Transmission Substations
Introduction
Substations present a complex array of equipment and facilities needed to provide electricity, transform
voltage, provide switching capabilities and control the flow of power. Even though substations contain
many types of equipment and instrumentation, there are two that generally form the hub of a station.
These are the transformers and the circuit breakers needed to control and protect system elements.
Information submitted by participating utilities was adequate to compare costs at the higher-level cost
elements that include materials, construction, project management and other costs. These costs are
presented in Table 7 and 8 below for each substation. A number of utilities participating in the study
did not provide a breakdown of cost and technical data for their equipment, and this being the case,
information was insufficient to establish benchmarks of equipment costs to any great degree. Where
available however, relevant equipment cost information provided by the participating utilities and the
AESO is presented in the Equipment Costs section below.
Page 24
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Costs for substations can vary greatly based on many factors. These include type, number and size of
equipment, the need for telecommunication towers, size and extent of oil containment, site conditions,
soil type and water table, site drainage, the inclusion of distribution facilities, etc. It is these cost drivers
as they apply to a particular substation that will be discussed in the comparisons below.
The study included a total of eight substations, five outside of Alberta and three within Alberta. Cost
data and substation details for the Alberta projects were based on estimates provided by the AESO and
the five projects outside of Alberta were based on actual costs, or costs of a substation nearing
completion. All substations included two power transformers with varied number of circuit breakers
and related equipment such as switches, protection and controls, structures, foundations, grounding
and in some cases telecommunication facilities.
Cost Summary
This study compares project costs in three primary categories as follows:
•
•
•
Substation Facility Costs
Project Management & Construction Management; and
Separate Costs
Facility Costs
Similar to Total Line Facility Costs, the Substation Facility Costs encompass the majority of a substation
project’s total cost and include appropriate allowances for escalation and contingencies for those
projects that are in the estimating stage, as is the case with the Alberta projects. The Substation Facility
Cost combined with project management and construction management costs represents the minimum
cost inputs needed to build a substation after approvals have been granted and property acquired.
Material
Costs in this category included all permanent materials installed as part of a substation project.
These costs were capitalized and included transformers, breakers, switches, instrumentation
transformers, surge arrestors, grounding, protection equipment, structure and foundation
materials, buildings, fencing and other facilities and equipment as needed.
Detailed Engineering
Engineering costs included geotechnical investigations, foundation design, layout and structure
design, protection and communication design and the preparation of technical specifications for
equipment purchases and installations. Engineering support during construction was also part of this
cost category.
Page 25
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Construction
Construction costs included site preparation, managing material and equipment deliveries,
installation of foundations, structures and buildings, installing bus work and insulation, control and
communication facilities, installation of equipment, commissioning and other installations required
for the substation facilities. In most cases utilities contracted this work, but there were some
utilities that have in-house construction capabilities that could undertake large portions of this
work.
Telecommunication
This included added telecommunication equipment and facilities needed for communications
between substations and operating centres to provide real time operating data and control.
Project Management & Construction Management
This category of costs included procurement, project management and construction management
provided through external contractors or via a mix of in-house staff and contracted resources.
Separate Costs
The separate costs either were site specific (e.g. land costs), involved approvals and licensing, or
represented specific utility practices (e.g. E S & G or Overheads). Separate Costs were divided into
Owners’ Costs that represent approvals, permits, licensing, and costs for property and property
acquisition and “Other Costs” that included ES&G or overheads and AFUDC. This is the same cost
breakdown structure used in the study of transmission line projects.
Page 26
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 7
Adjusted Cost / Estimate by Cost Type - Substation Projects ($000)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6 Alberta
S7 Alberta
S8 Alberta
$ 11,112
$ 5,246
$ 10,385
$ 1,192
$ 8,264
$ 1,284
$ 6,494
$ 319
$ 18,490
$ 7,542
$ 22,259
dnp
$ 10,494
$ 1,254
$ 6,613
np
$ 11,300
$ 2,496
$ 7,696
dnp
$ 13,957
$ 1,189
$ 9,564
$ 638
$ 11,620
$ 628
$ 6,467
$
25
$ 12,023
$ 1,438
$ 24,704
$ 1,953
$ 27,935
$ 16,362
$ 48,291
$ 18,360
$ 21,492
$ 25,348
$ 18,740
$ 40,118
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Mgmt
$
835
afe
$ 1,338
$
42
$ 4,519
dnp
$
292
dnp
$
624
afe
$ 572
$ 1,049
$
$
280
286
$ 3,527
$ 3,411
$
835
$ 1,380
$ 4,519
$
292
$
624
$ 1,621
$
565
$ 6,937
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Lic.
Land & Easements
$ 1,271
np
$
$
8
11
$ 3,333
$ 1,020
$
$
326
324
np
700
$
$
165
290
$
$
224
957
$
$
174
np
Total Owners Costs
$ 1,271
$
19
$ 4,353
$
650
$
700
$
456
$ 1,181
$
174
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 1,657
$ 1,035
$ 1,160
$ 1,585
$ 13,371
np
np
$ 1,824
$ 2,704
$ 1,352
$ 2,987
np
$ 3,977
$ 860
$ 2,312
np
Total Other Costs
$ 2,692
$ 2,745
$ 13,371
$ 1,824
$ 4,056
$ 2,987
$ 4,838
$ 2,312
$ 3,963
$ 2,764
$ 17,724
$ 2,474
$ 4,756
$ 3,442
$ 6,018
$ 2,486
$ 32,733
$ 20,506
$ 70,534
$ 21,126
$ 26,871
$ 30,412
$ 25,324
$ 49,542
3.2 - Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
Key
np - "Not Provi ded" (cos t a mount not provi ded by pa rti ci pa ti ng uti l i ty)
dnp - "Deta i l Not Provi ded" (l evel of deta i l not provi ded, onl y s umma ry l evel fi gures provi ded by pa rti ci pa ti ng uti l i ty)
afe - "Accounted for El s ewhere" (Uti l i ty ha s i ncl uded thi s cos t i n a nother cos t ca tegory a nd we were una bl e to
s epa ra te the cos t a mounts )
Page 27
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 8
Cost / Estimated Cost as a Percent of Total Substation Facility Cost
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6 Alberta
S7 Alberta
S8 Alberta
39.8%
18.8%
37.2%
4.3%
50.5%
7.8%
39.7%
1.9%
38.3%
15.6%
46.1%
dnp
57.2%
6.8%
36.0%
np
52.6%
11.6%
35.8%
dnp
55.1%
4.7%
37.7%
2.5%
62.0%
3.4%
34.5%
0.1%
30.0%
3.6%
61.6%
4.9%
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
Total Substation Facility Cost
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0%
afe
8.2%
0.3%
9.4%
dnp
1.6%
dnp
2.9%
afe
2.3%
4.1%
1.5%
1.5%
8.8%
8.5%
3.0%
8.4%
9.4%
1.6%
2.9%
6.4%
3.0%
17.3%
Approvals, Permits & Lic.
Land & Easements
afe
np
0.0%
0.1%
6.9%
2.1%
1.8%
1.8%
np
3.3%
0.7%
1.1%
1.2%
5.1%
0.4%
np
Total Owners Costs
4.5%
0.1%
9.0%
3.5%
3.3%
1.8%
6.3%
0.4%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
5.9%
3.7%
7.1%
9.7%
27.7%
np
np
9.9%
12.6%
6.3%
11.8%
np
21.2%
4.6%
5.8%
np
Total Other Costs
9.6%
16.8%
27.7%
9.9%
18.9%
11.8%
25.8%
5.8%
14.2%
16.9%
36.7%
13.5%
22.1%
13.6%
32.1%
6.2%
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Mgmt
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Owners Costs
3.2 - Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Key
np - "Not Provi ded" (cos t a mount not provi ded by pa rti ci pa ti ng uti l i ty)
dnp - "Deta i l Not Provi ded" (l evel of deta i l not provi ded, onl y s umma ry l evel fi gures provi ded by
pa rti ci pa ti ng uti l i ty)
afe - "Accounted for El s ewhere" (Uti l i ty ha s i ncl uded thi s cos t i n a nother cos t ca tegory a nd we were una bl e
to s epa ra te the cos t a mounts )
Cost Comparisons
Comparing costs between substations is not straightforward due to variability in equipment size and
numbers, substation location, site conditions and station layout. There is not one substation element or
characteristic that can adequately describe a substation to a degree that it can be used as the key
reference element for cost comparisons. This being the case, and as a starting point, comparisons
Page 28
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
between substations were based on relative size in reference to the Alberta substation, Project S7. Of
the Alberta substations included within the study, this had the lowest estimated cost for standard
equipment in a relatively lower cost construction environment.
Table 9 below provides an indication of relative substation size with the corresponding facility costs.
Substation size was primarily based on the number of circuit breakers as each substation included two
power transformers. The table also identifies the relative cost ranking, with 1 being the lowest cost
substation and 8 being the highest cost. The table is included to provide a starting point and perspective
for comparison.
Table 9
Comparison of Relative Size and Cost ($000)
Substation Facility Cost
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
$21,492
S6
Alberta
$25,348
S7
Alberta
$18,740
S8
Alberta
$40,118
$27,935
$16,362
$48,291
$18,360
6
7
1
1
8
8
2
5
4
2
5
4
3
6
7
3
2
2
11
13
2
2
7
15
22
2
2
5
7
2
2
4
2
6
2
4
4
8
2
4
0
4
($ in 000s)
Relative Cost Ranking
Relative Size
1
No. of PTRs
2
No. of 220kV – 240kV CKT BKR
2
No. of 115kV – 144kV CKT BKR
Total No. of CKT BKR
2
2
2
3
3
Notes:
1. PTR = Power Transformers
2. CKT BKR = Circuit Breakers
In most cases the relative size, based on the extent of primary equipment installed (or to be installed) on
the project, does not align with the project’s relative cost ranking. The reasons for this are addressed in
the comparisons below. First however, it must be recognized that substation project costs are not
exclusively correlated with the number of circuit breakers. There are many other cost elements (e.g.
transformers, site preparation, capacitor banks, station service, added distribution facilities, etc.) that
are common to substations and not directly correlated with the number of breakers within the station.
This being the case, the table above only provides an indication of relative substation size based on the
number of circuit breakers without intention of unitizing costs on the basis of breakers. Further
explanation is provided in the Substation Projects section of the study.
For purpose of cost comparisons that included substation equipment, site conditions and location, the
Alberta Project S7 was used for the reference case. As mentioned above, this substation was selected
for comparison to others as it was the lowest cost Alberta substation and contained primarily standard
equipment types in a relatively low cost environment. Substation Project S7, located in a large
population area, contained two power transformers, four 240kV circuit breakers and four 138kV circuit
breakers. Table 10 highlights the cost variances between the reference Project S7 and the other
substations included in the study.
Page 29
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 10
Cost Variances Between Alberta Reference Project & Other Substations ($000s)
Size Ranking
Material
Detail Engineering
Construction
Telecom
Total Substation Facility
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
2
S6
Alberta
4
S7
Alberta
6
S8
Alberta
3
7
1
8
5
$ (508)
4,618
3,918
1,167
$ 9,195
$(3,365)
656
28
294
$(2,378)
$ 6,870
6,914
15,792
(25)
$ 29,551
$(1,126)
626
146
(25)
$ (379)
$ (320)
1,868
1,229
(25)
$ 2,752
$ 2,337
561
3,097
613
$ 6,608
$
$
$
-
403
810
18,237
1928
$ 21,378
Notes:
Positive numbers reflect costs that are higher than the reference project.
Negative numbers reflect costs that are lower than the reference project.
The following compares each substation to the Alberta substation S7 and highlights cost differences and
the reasons for these where information has been provided. Following the comparisons, a summary is
provided with added context.
Substation Facility Cost
Project S1
Primary Equipment:
•
•
•
Two (2) 230/138kV transformers – 400 MVA
Two (2) 230kV breakers
Eleven (11) 138kV breakers
Project S1 was larger than the reference Project S7 in that it included more equipment (i.e. five
additional breakers, associated equipment and a telecommunications tower and equipment). Details
provided by the utility indicated that some material costs (e.g. foundations) were accounted for under
construction account which partly explains the reason that Project S1 had $508k less material cost than
Project S7 even though Project S1 had more installed equipment.
Engineering costs for Project S1 however were somewhat overstated. In addition to detailed
engineering, this account included costs for the owner’s field engineering staff which was determined
through a capital allocation process. These field engineering costs would normally be accounted for
under construction management or construction accounts.
As this substation included more equipment than S7, and some material costs were accounted for in
construction, one would expect higher construction costs, as was the case. In addition, the station was
located in somewhat of an isolated area, which would normally increase costs. Overall the total
Substation Facility Cost for Project S1 was $27,935k, approximately $9,195k more than the Project S7
which was estimated to cost $18,740k.
Page 30
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Project S2
Primary Equipment:
•
•
Two (2) 230/115kV transformers – 224 MVA
Two (2) 115kV breakers
Considering the amount and type of installed equipment, this substation was the smallest of all
substation projects included in the study. Accordingly, this project, S2, had the lowest material costs of
all substations. The primary difference between Project S2 and the reference, Project S7, was the
number of circuit breakers. Project S7 had six more breakers than Project S2.
Engineering costs for Project S2 were approximately $1,284k compared to $628k for the reference
project. On a percentage basis, engineering costs on Project S2 ran 7.8% of Substation Facility Cost
compared to 3.6% for the reference Project S7.
Project S2 was located in a large population centre similar to S7. Construction and engineering costs for
S2 are greater than S7, which was not in alignment with the relative substation size. The participating
utility did not provide information to determine the cause of this variance.
In total however, the Project Facility Cost for Project S2 at $16,362k, approximately $2,378 less than the
reference Project S7 which was estimated to cost $18,740k.
Project S3
Primary Equipment:
•
•
•
Two (2) 220/115kV transformers – 250 MVA
Seven (7) 220kV breakers
Fifteen (15) 115kV breakers
This was a large substation located in a large population centre. The station included 14 more breakers
and other associated equipment (e.g. switches, protections, etc.) than the reference Project S7. As well,
the substation included shunt reactors, one 115kV capacitor bank, and a distribution yard with two
115kV – 12kV transformers and eight 12kV circuit breakers. Material costs for this substation project
were $18,490k, approximately $6,870k (or 60%) more than Project S7.
Engineering costs for Project S3 were $7,542k compared with only $628k for Project S7. An engineering
analysis, cost and performance audit would be required to establish a more detailed correlation
between cost, station size and equipment installed to account for the differences in the actual
engineering costs for Project S3 and the estimated costs for the reference project.
In regards to construction, Project S3 cost $22,259k, approximately $15,792k more than the estimated
construction cost of $6,467k for the Alberta reference project. In addition to the construction costs for
Page 31
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
this project running more than Project S7 in terms of absolute dollars, at 46.1% of Substation Facility
Cost, construction for this project was well above the average of 39% for all studied projects outside of
Alberta. Assessment of the ratio of material costs to construction costs also indicated that the higher
construction costs could not be explained simply by the difference in the amount of the equipment. The
ratio of material and equipment costs to construction for Project S3 was 0.83 compared to 1.80 for the
referenced project S7 and a ratio that averaged 1.25 for all projects included in the study.
Project S4
Primary Equipment:
•
•
•
Two (2) 230/138kV transformers – 300 MVA
Two (2) 230kV breakers
Five (5) 138kV breakers
Project S4 is slightly smaller than the reference Project S7 in that it contained one less circuit breaker
and most of the breakers were at lower voltage. Project S4 also included two 115kV -25kV transformers
for distribution. This station did not include oil containment facilities. Material costs for substation
Project S4 were $10,494k or approximately $1,126k less than the Alberta reference Project S7.
At $1,254k, detailed engineering costs were approximately twice the cost of $628k for Project S7. As a
percentage of Substation Facility Cost, engineering costs on Project S4 were 6.8% compared to 3.4% on
the reference project.
Construction costs were $146k greater than Project S7 in part due to the distribution facilities which
were not included in the scope of the reference substation. On a percentage basis, both Project S4 and
Project S7 had similar construction costs in proportion to Substation Facility Cost running 36% and
34.5% respectively.
Even though Project S4 was ranked 5th in overall size, at $18,360k, its Substation Facility Costs were the
second lowest of all station projects included in the study. In comparison to the reference project in
Alberta, the Substation Facility Cost was $379k less than Project S7. Details were not available to
determine the source(s) of the lower costs.
Project S5
Primary Equipment:
•
•
Two (2) 230/115kV transformers – 250 MVA
Three (3) 115kV breakers
This substation was somewhat smaller than reference Project S7 in that it contained five fewer circuit
breakers and associated equipment. The substation included telecommunication facilities and two
Page 32
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
buildings, one more than Project S7. In relative size, this project ranked 2nd (i.e. second smallest)
compared to Project S7 which ranked 6th in size.
In comparison to the reference project, Project S5 had $11,300k in material costs, some $320 less than
the reference project. Engineering costs were $2,496k or $1,868 more than Project S7. Construction
costs for Project S5 were $7,696, approximately $1,229 more than the reference project.
The most illustrative differences between Project S5 and Project S7 were in comparison of two cost
elements as a percentage of Project Facility Costs. For Project S5 material costs represented 52.6% of
Substation Facility Cost compared with 62% for the reference substation S7. Costs for detailed
engineering however were 11.6% on Project S5 compared with only 3.4% of Substation Facility Cost on
Project S7.
Although Substation Facility Costs of $21,492k for Project S5 were $2,752 more than Project S7,
information was not available to determine the source for the differences other than the added
telecommunication facilities and an extra building, which would not fully explain this difference.
Project S6 – Alberta
Primary Equipment:
•
•
•
Two (2) 240/144kV transformers – 200 MVA
Four (4) 240kV breakers
Two (2) 144kV breakers
Project S6 is located in northern Alberta in a remote community. The substation was slightly smaller
than Alberta Reference Project S7 based on the number of circuit breakers, but included capacitor banks
and telecommunication facilities that were not part of Project S7.
Material costs for this substation project were $13,957k, approximately $2,337k (or 20%) more than
Project S7.
Engineering costs for Project S6 were $1,189k compared with only $628k for Project S7. An engineering
analysis, cost and performance audit would be required to establish a more detailed correlation
between cost, station size and equipment installed to account for the differences in the actual
engineering costs for Project S6 and the estimated costs for the reference project. On a percentage
basis, both Project S6 and Project S7 had similar engineering costs in proportion to Substation Facility
Cost running 4.7% and 3.4% respectively.
In regards to construction, Project S6 cost $9,564k, approximately $3,097k more than the Alberta
reference project. In addition to the construction costs for this project running more than Project S7 in
terms of absolute dollars, at 37.7% of Substation Facility Cost, construction for this project was near the
average of 39% for all studied projects outside of Alberta.
Page 33
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Project S8 – Alberta
Primary Equipment:
•
•
Two (2) 240/138kV transformers – 200 MVA
Four (4) 240kV breakers
Project S8 is located in northern Alberta in an area with wet and poor soil conditions. Equipment
installed was somewhat less than the reference project (i.e. four fewer circuit breakers) but included
telecommunication facilities not required with Project S7. Overall this project, Project S8, was the 3rd
smallest in size rankings but was ranked 7th (i.e. second most costly project) of all studied projects.
As a result of higher foundation, structure and control building costs, materials cost were $403k more
than the reference project.
Engineering costs were $810k higher for this project in comparison to Project S7. This was primarily
attributable to the remote work location. In proportion to Substation Facility Costs, both Project S8 and
Project S7 had similar engineering costs running 3.6% and 3.4% respectively.
The remote location and poor soil conditions were significant cost drivers for Project S8 and this was
reflected in the construction costs of $24,704k compared to $6,467k for Project S7. Removing
incremental site preparation costs of $12,047k, and the added telecommunication costs of $1,928k, the
Substation Facility Cost for this project reduced to $26,143k. Despite these adjustments, the Substation
Facility Cost remained $7,403k, or 41%, greater than the Substation Facility Cost for the Alberta
reference project. Please refer to Appendix Section IX for details.
Project & Construction Management Cost
Project and construction management costs as a percentage of the Substation Facility Costs (as noted in
Table 7) were lowest for Projects S1, S4, S5 and the Alberta Project S7. Project and construction
management costs for these stations ranged from 2% to 3% of Substation Facility Costs. For Projects S1
and S5 however, construction management costs were accounted for under utility’s engineering or
construction costs. Accordingly, the total project and construction management costs for Projects S1
and S5 were marginally understated. Project management and construction management costs for
Projects S2, S3, and S6 ranged from 6% to 9%. Project S8, located in northern Alberta had the highest
project management and construction management cost at 17% of Substation Facility Cost.
Other Costs
3.1 Owners Cost
Other costs involving Approvals, Permits, and Licensing (APL) and land costs, ranged from zero to
about 9% as noted in Table 8. The wide variation was based on site-specific circumstances. APL
costs were not provided with Project S5, as these were part of a larger project. Project S2 was
Page 34
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
constructed on property that was owned by the utility prior to the project initiation, which was the
primary reason for its lower Owner’s Cost. Excluding S2 and S5 from the comparisons for the
reasons noted above, costs in this category ranged from about 1% in a remote location to 9% in a
suburban area.
3.2 Other Cost
These costs included AFUDC and ES&G (or Overheads) and ranged from just under 6% to nearly 28%
as noted in Table 8. In some cases utilities have not applied AFUDC to the project costs provided.
ES&G (or Overheads) account for common utility costs that support a substation project with
percentages generally approved by the Regulator. No reason was provided why some utilities had
not applied AFUDC.
ES&G ranged from approximately 6% to 21% for the three Alberta projects. For the two Alberta
projects (S6 and S8), the Alberta Utilities Commission has temporarily allowed the transmission
facility owners to include construction-work-in-progress (CWIP) into rate base for certain projects.
This allows the transmission facility owners to recover the financing cost of construction capital
when incurred rather than by AFUDC after the asset is placed in service.
Facility Cost Comparison Summary
Project S3 was a large station by comparison to the other studied projects with a significantly higher
cost. Project S8 was located in an area with exceptionally poor and wet soil conditions resulting in
proportionately higher construction costs. Excluding these two substations, facility costs for a 240kV –
138kV substation with two power transformers fell within a range of about $16 million to $28 million.
Costs varied for a number of reasons based on the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
number and type of circuit breakers
number and type of switches
need for a telecommunication towers and equipment
use of other equipment such as capacitors
sound barriers
size/extent of oil containment
type and length of perimeter enclosure
site preparations and station grounding installations
size and number of buildings required
landscaping and more
Contributing costs of each of these components ranged from minimal to very significant based on the
specific circumstances at each substation.
Page 35
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Project S7 represented a fairly standard configuration and type of installation for a 240kV to 138kV
substation in Alberta. The cost structure for this project was used as a frame of reference for
comparison with the other substation projects included in this study. Considering the relative efficiency
and economy with respect to the S7 project, other 240kV to 138kV substation projects (both under
development and in the future) can be compared to this project’s costs for consistency. Costs for
differences in project scope, complexity, or the variability of inputs noted above, may be added to, or
deducted from costs of Project S7 to assess the reasonableness of the comparative project. Scope,
schedule and cost data for the sampled projects did not encompass sufficient detail to enable the FTI/
Genivar team to build a generic cost model for the type of 240kV to 138kV substations included in this
study.
Equipment Costs
A number of utilities provided details on equipment specifications and costs. Some differences in
equipment ratings and functionality were observed. For example, some circuit breakers included built in
current transformers. While corresponding details were not available for all equipment installation or
site facilities, cost information of the type provided offered useful and added insights on the cost of the
studied substations. Table 11 below, provides a unit cost comparison for primary equipment included
within the scope of the studied substations.
Table 11
Equipment Unit Costs ($000s)
Project
S1
S3
S4
S6 (Alberta)
S7 (Alberta)
S8 (Alberta)
Power
Transformer
220 to 240kV
Circuit Breaker
115 to 144kV
Circuit Breaker
$2,784
$2,350
$2,306
$2,830
$2,903
$149
$141
$170
$192
$210
$92
$67
$65
$132
-
Adjusting Factors for Benchmarks
Financial Adjustments
In order to normalize costs across differing time periods, regional localities, and national currencies, a
series of adjustments were necessary to align reported cost data with those encountered locally by the
AESO in 2012 dollars. As any adjustment can potentially diminish the accuracy of actual cost data
received from the various reporting utilities, the study includes both the unadjusted raw cost data
provided by the surveyed utilities alongside the normalized figures. Because of the discretion involved in
adjusting reported costs for escalation, differences in geographies, and foreign exchange rates, the
degree of accuracy of final adjusted costs per kilometer is generally +/-5%.
Page 36
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Financial adjustments made to the surveyed transmission line and substation projects are described
below. Additional related documentation is available in the Appendix.
Project Timing and Cost Escalation
Of the transmission and substation projects reported by the participating utilities, some were completed
as early as 2007. To properly reflect the natural escalation of construction costs over time, project costs
were adjusted to properly reflect costs as of December 31, 2012. To do so, industry-specific price and
cost indices were compiled from the Canadian governmental agency StatCan and the United States’
Bureau of Labor Statistics. These indices provided inflation coefficients for the electric power
transmission and distribution industry on a national level for both Canada and the United States. The
ratio between the data for a utility’s reported in-service date and year-end 2012 represents the timing
and cost escalation adjustment for each project. For the handful of projects with in-service dates
scheduled in the future only estimated costs were available for this study. Contingency and escalation
accounts contained in these estimates have been allocated across the other estimated costs for the
portions of the project already completed. Escalation has also been removed from costs of future work
to reflect costs in present value (i.e. year-end 2012 dollars).
Regional Cost Adjustments
Average construction labour wage rates can vary by region. Availability of labour, cost of living, and
regional demand can affect utilities’ cost to hire labour and complete transmission/ substation facility
projects. Because of this, RSMeans (one of North America’s leading suppliers of construction cost
information) publishes annual City Cost Indices that contain average construction cost factors for 731
Canadian and U.S. cities and towns. The cost factors published by RSMeans represent variances in
regional cost to that of the U.S. average. By taking the ratio between the factor reported for the region
encompassing the surveyed project, and the factor for Calgary, Alberta, local wage variances are
accounted for across the transmission line and substation projects contained in the portfolio. Although
RSMeans does provide separate factors for material and labour costs, adjustments were made only to
reported labour costs. Equipment and materials costs were not separately adjusted due to the minimal
equipment and material cost differences between the Canadian and U.S. regions.
Currency Exchange Rates
For the handful of surveyed projects located outside of Canada, reported costs were converted from
U.S. Dollars into Canadian Dollars. Rather than using varying exchange rates across the many different
projects’ completion dates, a current spot rate was chosen for all projects. The December 31, 2012
closing USD/CAD exchange rate was applied.
Transmission Line Technical Cost Adjustments
Transmission lines are constructed using various sizes of conductors (in single or bundled configurations)
in order to provide for the required current transfer capabilities. Transmission lines can also be
Page 37
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
constructed using a variety of structure types and materials. Many lines are constructed using steel
towers or steel poles, as is the case in Alberta and the projects included in this study. However,
conductor size and configuration vary between projects included in the study and cost adjustments
were made to reflect material and conductor configuration (e.g. conductor size, single conductor or two
bundle per phase) in order to align costs with the Alberta Base Case as defined in the Transmission Lines
Project section of this report. Refer to the Appendix - Section V for the conductor cost adjustments.
The transmission lines included in this study were located in different parts of North America and are
subjected to varying environmental loading (e.g. combinations of ice and wind load). Information has
been obtained on design wind speeds and ice accumulation on conductors for the projects being studied
and a cost adjustment was made to material costs to reflect a higher or lower transverse loading on
structures than that of the Alberta Base Case, where applicable, based on the design characteristics of
the line under consideration. A further adjustment was made to construction costs to reflect the
heavier or lighter structures needed to accommodate the Alberta loading. Refer to the Appendix –
Section V for the environmental load from conductors.
It is recognized that transmission lines are designed to resist added longitudinal loading and some
include added provisions for improved reliability as discussed in the Transmission Lines Project section
of the report. Quantitative cost adjustments to account for these differences would require an in-depth
engineering analysis which was outside the scope of this study. Notable differences are however
highlighted in the discussion as they apply to particular projects.
All transmission line projects included in this study are considered to be of a length where mobilization
and demobilization influences will not significantly impact unit cost and as such, no provision was
included for the length of a transmission line.
Other cost impacts such as soil types and land use cannot be quantified for the projects included in this
study, as the required level of detail was not available. Variability in these areas were highlighted and
discussed in order to provide context to the benchmark information. Right of way widths and land costs
are project specific and were highlighted where significant. Differences in terrain were recognized and
addressed at least in part through the grouping of projects by similar terrain types (e.g. agriculture,
prairie, forested land, or suburban area).
Table 12 below summarizes the application of technical cost adjustments used in the study. For added
details please refer to the Transmission Lines Projects section and specific project information.
Page 38
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 12
Cost Element
Material
Technical Cost Adjustments
Cost Adjustment
for Conductor Size
Conductor material costs increased
or decreased to normalize with the
Alberta Base Case
Engineering
Difference in conductor size will not
impact engineering costs
Construction
Adjusted upward or downward to
account for differences in conductor
installation
Approvals Permits and Licenses
Differences in conductor size will
not impact approval, permitting and
licensing costs
Land and Easements
Conductor size does not impact land
and easement costs
Owners ES&G (Overheads)
These costs generally change with
project cost and are adjusted on a
prorated basis
Same as above
AFUDC
Cost Adjustment
For Structure Loading
Structure material costs increased
or decreased to align with the
Alberta Base Case as applicable
based on information provided
Change in structure loading should
not impact the amount of
engineering required
Adjusted upward or downward
based on transverse wind and ice
load on conductors relative to the
Alberta Base Case
Differences in wind and ice loading
from conductors should not impact
approval, permitting and licensing
costs
Differences in wind and ice loading
from conductors should not impact
land and easement costs
Adjusted on a prorated basis same
as conductor costs
Same as above
Transmission Substations
Due to the numerous and different types of equipment and potential differences in infrastructure, it was
considered impractical to make financial adjustments to account for the technical differences between
substation projects. Instead, the concept of station size was used as a starting point for comparisons
with further insights provided through discussions in the Cost Comparisons section of the report.
Target Project Portfolio
Transmission Line Selection Criteria
The focus of the study was on double circuit 240kV transmission lines constructed, or to be constructed
in the near term in North America, outside of Alberta, and to compare these projects to similar Alberta
lines that were designed in accordance with ISO Rules, Part 502.2 - Facilities on the basis of cost,
technical requirements and serviceability.
It must be recognized that transmission lines can be constructed using various types of material and that
designs can differ significantly. Differences may include:
Page 39
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structures - steel pole, lattice towers, guyed structures, wood structures, etc.
Foundation differences depending on site conditions – caissons, piles, direct embedded, etc.
Conductor types - single or bundled conductor arrangements
Size and use of Right of Way - overbuild on an existing right of way or a new right of way,
Environmental loading, and
Long water crossings and other site specific situations that require unique designs
It would be unrealistic to expect to find transmission projects that match the Alberta designs in every
facet or detail considering varying design practices, materials in use and varying terrain and site
conditions encountered and other environmental conditions.
Recognizing these differences, the study carefully considered matching the line characteristics of
potential projects to the standard designs used in Alberta by applying the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Double circuit transmission lines constructed using steel structures
Alberta has varied terrain from prairie type environments to rugged forested hilly areas and
muskeg in the north. The emphasis was on projects in agricultural lands, but considering the
variability in terrain and land use, information on transmission lines built in other environments
such as suburban areas, rugged terrain and terrain requiring winter construction was
considered to be of value.
Many of the lines being built in Alberta use a two-bundle conductor. The preference was for
two-conductor bundle, but lines with single conductor per phase were considered to provide
valuable insight for comparative purposes.
A focus was also placed on designs that differ from the ISO rules Part 502.2 – Facilities
requirements in order to gain an appreciation of industry practices and identify options.
The preference was for lines constructed on new rights of way, but lines built on existing rights
of way following the removal of an older line were accepted, as this has become a common
practice and accounts for a significant number of projects that have recently been completed.
It was recognized that many of the new transmission lines recently or currently being built in
the U.S. were 345kV rather than 230kV. Many of these 345kV lines are similar to the 240kV
lines built in Alberta in that they use a two-conductor bundle with tower configurations similar
to the 240kV design. This being the case, 345kV projects in the U.S. were targeted for study in
addition to the 230kV designs.
Substation Selection Criteria
The focus for substation project portfolio was 220kV to 240kV transformer stations with a voltage
reduction to 115kV or 138kV. These are the primary nominal voltages in use at these levels in North
America. Type and equipment quantities can, and do vary greatly. The size and cost of a substation can
also depend on the number of circuits connected to a station as well as other factors like local utility
standards and system requirements. These are further discussed below under the Substation Projects
section. While recognizing these variables, transformer stations in Canada and the U.S., with voltage
Page 40
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
classifications noted above and that have been recently placed in service (or expected to be completed
in the near term) were targeted for inclusion in the study.
The primary considerations for selection were as follows:
•
•
•
High side voltage of 220kV to 240kV with a low side transmission voltage of 115kV to 138kV.
It was recognized that substations might also include provisions to supply local customers at
distribution voltage (i.e. less than 50kV). This being the case, substations that included
distribution facilities were also accepted.
The preference was for substations with two power transformers to allow for more consistent
comparisons. Transformers are generally the highest cost element in a station and require a
significant amount of added infrastructure (e.g. large foundation and oil containment).
Transmission Lines Projects
Introduction
The search for projects similar to Alberta netted cost and technical data on eight projects located in
jurisdictions elsewhere in Canada and in the U.S. As well, the AESO provided information on three
240kV lines in Alberta which were to be used for comparison. The Alberta projects included in the
portfolio of studied projects, while representative of 240kV transmission facilities currently being
developed in the Province, do not necessarily reflect the full scope of future 240kV transmission facility
projects in Alberta. That being the case, it must be recognized that the benchmark data reaches outside
the scope of the three Alberta projects contained in this study.
From a material perspective, all lines used steel for support structures, either poles or galvanized steel
towers, and all lines were constructed using aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) which is
representative of a standard that is currently in use in Alberta. Five of the transmission facility projects
used a 2-conductor bundle per phase, which is also a practice currently in use with the Alberta lines.
Three used a single conductor per phase.
Three of the studied transmission lines were located on a new right of way and five were built on an
existing right of way. Further differences and similarities are discussed below.
The following is a list projects included in the study:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project L1 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 1192 kcmil
Project L2 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 795 kcmil
Project L3 – 345kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 1590 kcmil
Project L4 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 795 kcmil
Project L5 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 1590 kcmil
Project L6 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 1 – 795 kcmil
Project L7 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 1 – 1192 kcmil
Page 41
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
•
Project L8 – 230kV Double Circuit Line with 1 – 1590 kcmil
Project L9 (Alberta) – 240kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 1033 kcmil
Project L10 (Alberta) – 240kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 1033 kcmil
Project L11 (Alberta) – 240kV Double Circuit Line with 2 – 795 kcmil
Transmission Line Characteristics - General
Transmission lines are designed to transmit power from one location to another and in turn are assigned
a specific transfer capability. A line rating is usually expressed in terms of a maximum operating
temperature or amperes that pass through conductors, or MVA. In this study, conductor differences
between projects were used as a proxy for energy transfer capability, as costs associated with conductor
type and conductor configuration can be adjusted for comparison purposes between projects.
Conductors - The conductor is one of two primary components that make up a transmission line, with
structures being the other. As mentioned above, this study was limited to ACSR conductor, which is
widely used in the industry, but not the only type. Other conductors include all aluminum and
aluminum alloy types and those used to a lesser degree include a type T-2 conductor with stranding that
reduces the effects of aeolian vibration when compared to the more standard conductors. More
recently, High Tension Low Sag type conductors have entered the market.
Over the last 10 years or so, a common practice that has materialized is the installation of optical ground
wire (OPGW) for telecommunications in lieu of one or both shieldwires. Four of the eight transmission
lines located outside of Alberta were constructed with OPGW in place of a shieldwire. All of the Alberta
lines included in this study are to be constructed with OPGW.
Structure Design - There are notable design differences between jurisdictions. Some of these are based
on industry standards such as ANSI and ASCE, and others are based on utility experience, differences in
risk management and environmental considerations. Transmission structures are designed to resist
loadings imposed by wind on conductors and structures with or without ice cover, as applicable for the
particular location. Minimum loadings are specified in standards such as Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), but many utilities apply higher loading
based on experience and studies that have identified a need for greater loading to provide for a higher
level of reliability. As well, the wire system can impose significant longitudinal loads on structures and
some utilities design for broken conductor and shieldwire conditions of various combinations.
Cascading of structures is a possibility and some utilities impose specific requirements to reduce the
degree of damage by specifying higher strength anti-cascading structures that can withstand loading
imposed by several broken wires.
Structure Types - Many different designs are in use for transmission lines at the 230kV - 240kV level, but
over time a number of utilities in the industry have settled on galvanized steel towers and steel poles as
their standard structures, and it is these two structure types that provide the focus of this study. There
are however still significant differences that must be considered when reviewing cost and design data.
Phase configuration can vary from a vertical stacked arrangement on a circuit to a delta configuration,
Page 42
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
steel poles can be painted, galvanized or be made of weathering steel not requiring added corrosion
protection above grade. Different foundation materials are in use as well and include concrete caissons,
piles to direct buried steel poles. There can be significant cost variations with these design differences.
Insulation & Grounding - The level of insulation and the need for shielding from lightning strikes have
been standardized for the most part and were not considered to result in significant variation in cost as
it applies to this study. Structure grounding requirements can impact cost in areas where soil resistivity
is high, but none of the projects included in the study specifically highlighted this as an issue.
Right of Way and Terrain - Terrain and right of way conditions can significantly affect construction cost
and in some cases special designs are required to optimize cost and to align with resources and
equipment capabilities available. Notable differences in terrain with the eight projects located outside
of Alberta range from an agricultural type environment to a mix of rural landscape with varying amounts
of forested areas and rugged terrain, to a mostly suburban setting. As well, in today’s environment
acquiring new rights of way presents significant challenges for utilities and many are using existing rights
of way for new developments by removing older lower voltage lines. Five of the eight projects in
jurisdictions outside Alberta fell into this category. In some cases existing rights of way place restrictions
on design and construction, as they can limit span length and construction methods, and in some cases
there is the need to work adjacent to energized transmission lines, further complicating construction.
Added Serviceability and Reliability Considerations - Serviceability provisions can also increase or
decrease cost. Provisions for live line maintenance can increase cost as a result of greater phase
separation and clearances to accommodate work methods, which can vary from one utility to the next.
As well, in areas prone to icing of conductors, designs in many cases provide provisions to reduce the
likelihood of conductor flashover during conductor galloping. These requirements can impact phase
separation and tower configuration as determined by span length and provisions for single loop or
double loop galloping. Other considerations include Charpy impact testing for steel in cold
environments to prevent brittle fracture and increased conductor damping in cold environments to
protect against aeolian vibration damage. Details of this type were not provided by most utilities, but
are part of design practices used in Alberta. Most utilities use a minimum ground clearance that is
greater than the minimum specified by the NESC or CSA. This is usually done to accommodate
construction tolerances or for added safety. In Alberta, utilities are bound by the Alberta Electric Utility
Code in regards to clearances.
Alberta Base Case
In recognition of the potential differences in transmission lines as discussed above, and to adequately
compare the projects included in this study to the Alberta lines, a baseline project was developed. The
following describes the Alberta Base Case project:
•
•
•
Double circuit 240kV line with steel tower construction;
Towers with three level vertical phase configuration;
Conductor: 2 - 1033.5 kcmil per phase;
Page 43
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
•
Shieldwire – one OPGW and one steel wire;
Alberta Zone C loading with a 100 year return period. Radial wet snow of 50mm on conductors
with 230 pascal (pa) wind at 30 metres was used as the reference transverse loading. As well,
the analysis included the effects of high wind conditions without ice or wet snow on conductors,
and the highest transverse conductor loading was used for comparison purposes. It is
recognized that suspension towers and steel poles, in most cases, are designed for a broken
conductor condition, but in a number of cases it was not possible to obtain design information
to this level of detail;
Located in relatively flat terrain in Alberta similar to Project L10;
Constructed on a new right of way with a width of 50 metres.
Cost Adjustments and Comparison
Conductor Variation - Project material costs were adjusted for difference in conductor type and
configuration to match the conductor to that of the Alberta Base Case. As well, construction costs were
increased to reflect the added cost to string a two-conductor bundle for single conductor lines. The
increase of stringing a double conductor bundle as opposed to a single conductor was estimated to be
15% of the line construction cost. Refer to the Appendix – Section V for relative transverse
environmental load on conductors and cost differences in conductor materials.
Design Variation - Information was obtained on maximum transverse wind load, with and without ice
on conductors. Differences in loading to the Alberta Base Case were used to adjust the structure cost
and the cost of construction. For a particular design, it was approximated that the structure material
cost would increase or decrease in proportion to the load from conductors. There were exceptions as
identified under each project below based on specific transmission line characteristics, (e.g. where it
was not possible to optimize designs based on right of way width restrictions (Projects L6 and L7)). For
construction, it was estimated that for the projects under consideration, construction costs would
increase or decrease by a third of the percentage increase in transverse wind and ice loading on
structures from conductors. For example, if mechanical loading on structures from conductors were to
increase by 30% in order to support 2-1033.5 kcmil conductors per phase (the Alberta Base Case), the
cost of construction would then be taken to increase by 10%.
Engineering, project management, and other cost inputs were not estimated to increase as a result of an
increase in design loading.
Differences in cost to account for variations in longitudinal loading (broken wire loading or construction
loading), or anti-cascading provisions were not applied, as the information received from a number of
utilities did not provide the level of detail needed to do so. Observed differences were discussed as
applicable.
Page 44
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
ES&G (Overheads) and AFUDC
These cost elements are usually proportional to the project cost. Adjustments were made based on
differences in Facility Costs after applying the material and construction adjustments noted above.
Structures, Right of Way and Terrain, Serviceability and Reliability Considerations - Potential
differences in cost due to structure type and configuration were highlighted and discussed as applicable.
Terrain and right-of-way differences were discussed from a relative perspective. To adequately quantify
the impact of costs associated with differences in terrain and right of way conditions, an in-depth
engineering evaluation would be required that includes the assessment of construction techniques, line
accessibility and right-of-way features over the entire routing of the transmission line. An engineering
analysis of this type was outside the scope of this study.
Right of way widths can have an impact on design efficiency as narrow rights of way may impose
restrictions on allowable span lengths thereby negatively affecting line optimization. This aspect was
highlighted when applicable.
Serviceability and reliability differences were highlighted based on available information and
observations inferred from the data provided by participating utilities.
Project L1
Description
This project is a 230kV double circuit line constructed on an existing right way following the removal of a
lower voltage line. The right of way is relatively flat and crossed about 20% suburban areas, 30%
agricultural lands. The remainder is forested or undeveloped lands. Added details are provided in the
table below.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 20 and 30 km
Steel towers
Concrete
2 – 1192 kcmil per phase
Steel wire
Transverse conductor load is about 32% > the Alberta Base Case
500kV towers were used and the line included a long water crossing
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
This line is somewhat more robust than the Alberta Base Case, in that 500kV towers were used and the
line was designed to resist higher transverse wind loading. The conductor is larger than the 1033 kcmil
base case. Provisions for these differences as well as the financial adjustments are accounted for in the
table below. Due to the larger conductor and higher wind loads technical and financial adjustments
Page 45
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
(which serve to reduce conductor size and wind loading to match the Alberta Base Case) decrease the
Total Line Facility Cost used for comparison from $1,815k /km to $1,695k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
•
•
•
Right of way access and line construction costs in suburban areas are generally higher than rural
areas due to a greater number of road crossings, added precautions needed to respond to
public demands and to protect local infrastructure and the environment.
Environmental conditions required the construction and removal of access roads at a cost of
$393k/km when averaged over the length of the line.
Information provided by the utility would imply that the line did not include OPGW, where the
Alberta lines do include OPGW in lieu of a steel shieldwire. It is expected that the cost additions
from the two items noted above would be significantly greater than the addition of OPGW when
compared to the Alberta projects.
Project and construction management costs were low with this line, as some were accounted
for under line construction.
This utility did not provide costs for approvals, permits and licensing.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility with Adjustments
Transmission Project L1
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
580 / km
20 / km
1,215 / km
$
$
$
471 / km
21 / km
1,203 / km
27.8%
1.2%
71.0%
$
1,815 / km
$
1,695 / km
100.0%
$
5 / km
$
5 / km
$
$
- / km
361 / km
$
$
- / km
343 / km
$
361 / km
$
343 / km
$
2,181 / km
$
2,043 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Page 46
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Project L2
Description
This is a 230kV double circuit line located on a new right of way. The right of way crosses rolling
agricultural lands for about 70% of the distance and forested and undeveloped lands for the remainder.
Added details are provided in the table below.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 50 and 70 km
Steel Monopole
Concrete and piles
2 – 795 kcmil per phase
OPGW & steel wire
Transverse conductor load is about 75% of the Alberta Base Case
None
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The design of this line differed from the Alberta Base Case in structure type (i.e. steel monopole) and the
structures were designed to resist a lower wind load. The conductor is smaller than the 1033 kcmil base
case. The financial adjustment and provisions for these differences are accounted for in the table
below. These adjustments (which serve to increase conductor size and wind loading to match the
Alberta Base case) increase the Total Line Facility Cost used for comparison from $1,424k /km to
$1,679k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
Right of way access and line construction is generally more complicated in forested hilly areas
with low lying wet areas than the prairies, which is the case with this line. Construction details
were not provided to specifically assess the differences.
Submissions required for environmental approvals and permits would indicate that the
construction of this line included significant environmental oversight and conditions of approval.
It is not clear how these might differ from the Alberta Base case, but they are noteworthy and
impact cost relative to other projects included in this study.
Page 47
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Transmission Project L2
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
557 / km
73 / km
793 / km
$
$
$
688 / km
79 / km
912 / km
41.0%
4.7%
54.3%
$
1,424 / km
$
1,679 / km
100.0%
$
40 / km
$
43 / km
$
$
301 / km
172 / km
$
$
310 / km
208 / km
$
473 / km
$
518 / km
$
1,936 / km
$
2,240 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Project L3
Description
This transmission project is a 345kV double circuit line located on a new right of way. The structure
configuration and conductor arrangement are similar to that used with 240kV circuits in Alberta. The
line was constructed on right of way crossing relatively flat agricultural lands. Added details are
provided in the table below.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 50 and 70 km
Steel towers
Concrete
2 – 1590 kcmil per phase
Steel wire
Transverse conductor load is 37% > the Alberta Base Case
345kV line with delta configuration
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The design differed from the Alberta Base Case in that the structures were designed to support a delta
phase configuration with two phases supported by the lower arm of a tower and the third phase on the
arm above. As well, the towers were designed to support a larger conductor and higher wind load than
the base case. Provisions to account for these differences including the financial adjustments are
identified in the table below. These adjustments increase the Total Line Facility Cost used for
comparison from $582k /km to $722k /km, with the financial adjustments increasing comparative costs
above the technical reductions.
Page 48
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
•
•
•
A 345kV line generally requires higher ground clearances than a 240kV line, which increases the
height of conductors and slightly increases the structure overturning moment. This would
require a slightly more robust tower to resist these added loads. The delta phase configuration
outlined above more than offsets any increase in overturning moment attributed to an increase
in ground clearance, as the phases are positioned at two levels on a tower as opposed to the
higher three level configuration generally in use with 240kV double circuit lines.
345kV lines require slightly more insulation and added phase spacing than 240kV lines, which
can result in a marginal increase in cost. This was not considered material for the purposes of
this study.
Suspension towers used on this line were designed for longitudinal construction loading, but not
a broken wire condition. Construction loads are somewhat less than a broken wire condition,
thereby resulting in somewhat lighter suspension towers that are easier to install with all other
things being equal. It is expected that with a lower tower capacity to resist longitudinal loading,
a greater number of adjacent towers would be damaged should a tower fail or conductors
break. A detail engineering study would be required to estimate the differences in damage
control provided by the various longitudinal strength requirements.
This line does not include OPGW. Substituting OPGW for one shieldwire would increase cost,
but considering the relative cost to the other lines, this is not considered material for the
purposes of this study.
Right of way width requirement for this line is 48.8 metres which is similar to the Alberta Base
case.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Transmission Project L3
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
273 / km
12 / km
297 / km
$
$
$
277 / km
18 / km
427 / km
38.3%
2.5%
59.1%
$
582 / km
$
722 / km
100.0%
$
9 / km
$
15 / km
$
$
23 / km
36 / km
$
$
36 / km
53 / km
$
59 / km
$
90 / km
$
651 / km
$
826 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Page 49
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Project L4
Description
This project is a 230kV double circuit line located on a new right of way. The line was constructed on a
relatively flat right of way crossing 95% agricultural lands and 5% suburban areas. The construction plan
included scope for stringing one circuit initially and the second circuit at some time in the future. Added
details are provided in the table below.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 30 and 50 km
H-Frame Steel Pole
Direct embedded in earth
2 – 795 kcmil per phase
Steel wire
Transverse conductor load is 28% > the Alberta Base Case
One circuit installed initially
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The design for this project differed from the Alberta Base Case in that only one circuit was initially
installed on H-Frame type steel pole structures as opposed to steel towers. The conductor is smaller
than the 1033 kcmil base case, but the line was designed to resist a higher wind load. Provisions for the
installation of a second circuit are accounted for in the table below. No adjustment was made to reduce
costs for the higher conductor wind load, as this adjustment is not considered material for comparison
purposes since the overall cost of this design is substantially lower than other designs. Incorporating
adjustments for the second circuit and appropriate financial adjustments increased the Total Line
Facility Cost used for comparison from $467k /km to $609k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
•
•
Direct embedded steel poles are significantly less costly than concrete or pile foundations, and
in part, are the reason for the large difference in cost between this project and others. There
are however added risks with foundations of this type including possible delamination of the
below ground coating that protects the buried steel. Added care must be taken to adjust the
standard foundation for poor soil conditions that might be encountered on a line. Direct
embedded poles have been used successfully with wood construction, but steel poles may
provide a lower resistance to uplift. As well, anodes are usually installed for added corrosion
protection and need to be monitored.
The line was designed for a broken conductor condition and anti-cascading provisions were
provided at every 10th structure. These provisions are similar to the Alberta Base Case.
The average span of this line is about 60% of a line constructed using steel towers resulting in a
greater impact on agricultural operations.
Project management costs were low compared to other projects, as project management is also
accounted for in the engineering account.
Page 50
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Transmission Project L4
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
258 / km
16 / km
193 / km
$
$
$
307 / km
18 / km
285 / km
50.4%
2.9%
46.7%
$
467 / km
$
609 / km
100.0%
$
2 / km
$
2 / km
$
$
71 / km
43 / km
$
$
74 / km
60 / km
$
114 / km
$
133 / km
$
582 / km
$
744 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Project L5
Description
This project is a 230kV double circuit line located in near a large population centre on a right of way that
located in a suburban area. The line was constructed on an existing right of way following the removal
of the prior transmission line. Added details are provided below.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 10 and 20 km
Steel towers
Concrete
2 – 1590 kcmil per phase
OPGW & steel wire
Transverse conductor load is 30% > the Alberta Base Case
None
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The structures are similar to the Alberta Base Case, except the line included a high proportion of deadend structures (i.e. about 50%). As well, the towers were designed to support a larger conductor than
the base case with higher wind loading from conductors. Cost adjustments for these technical
differences as well as the appropriate financial adjustments are identified in the table below. The
adjustments increase the Total Line Facility Cost used for comparison from $1,944k /km to $2,085k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
Page 51
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
Structure type and numbers provided by the utility indicated that about 50% of the structures
are dead-end type. Accordingly, one would expect material costs to be relatively higher for this
project than the other studied projects. This was not the case however as the utility accounted
for foundation materials as part of its construction costs. The result was that while material
costs appeared low compared with other projects, construction costs were higher.
Right of way access and line construction costs in suburban areas are generally higher than rural
areas due to a larger number of road crossings, added precautions needed to respond to public
demands and to protect local infrastructure and the environment.
Project management costs for this line were substantially greater than other projects. This was
in part attributed to the added project management to remove existing facilities. Removal of an
older line was completed as part of this project. Removal costs were accounted for separately
but not the associated project management costs.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Transmission Project L5
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
397 / km
88 / km
1,459 / km
$
$
$
333 / km
107 / km
1,645 / km
15.9%
5.2%
78.9%
$
1,944 / km
$
2,085 / km
100.0%
$
229 / km
$
278 / km
$
$
33 / km
305 / km
$
$
41 / km
331 / km
$
338 / km
$
372 / km
$
2,511 / km
$
2,735 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Project L6
Description
This project is a 230kV double circuit line that was constructed on an existing right of way following the
removal of a lower voltage line. The line route crosses a mix of rolling hills and relatively flat lands with
about 80% being agricultural lands and remainder a mix of forested and undeveloped lands in wet
locations. Added details are provided below.
Page 52
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 20 and 40 km
Steel towers
Concrete
Single 795 kcmil per phase
OPGW & Steel Wire
Transverse conductor load is about 55% of the Alberta Base Case
Much of the right of way width was restricted to 30 metres which is
about 60% to 70% of that normal for new 230kV double circuit
tower lines
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The structures for this line were similar in design to the Alberta Base Case, but with a single conductor
per phase as opposed to a bundled arrangement. The conductor was somewhat smaller than the 1033
kcmil base case and in turn the structure loading from conductors was substantially less.
As this line was constructed on a somewhat narrower right of way than normal, the utility was unable to
optimize the line design as compared to a wider, unencumbered right of way. The higher material costs
supported this observation. This being the case, no adjustment was applied to materials to account for
the higher Alberta structure loading, but costs were increased to account for the added conductor and
hardware. Construction costs were adjusted similar to other projects to reflect the added increase for
installing a more robust line with a bundled conductor arrangement. These technical adjustments and
applicable financial adjustments increased the Total Line Facility Cost used for comparison from $1,288k
/km to $1,746k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
•
Line construction required extensive use of access roads. These increased project costs by
$165k /km when averaged over the length of the line.
The removal of the lower voltage line was included in the construction cost, which was not the
case with other projects. The utility did not provide added details to allow removal of these
costs and as a result no adjustment was made.
As noted above, reducing the width of a right of way can impact the ability to optimize cost.
Narrower rights of way impose restrictions on span lengths, as the conductor must be confined
to the right of way under high wind conditions that cause the conductor to swing outwards
towards the edge of the right of way. The greater the span, the greater the conductor
movement towards the edge of the right of way and with narrow rights of way and long spans,
the conductor will blow out beyond the edge thereby requiring a reduction in span length. This
being the case, one cannot consider this to be an optimized design when compared to projects
constructed on a wider right of way. This has been recognized to some extent by excluding a
material cost adjustment as noted above. Construction costs however were adjusted to reflect
a bundle conductor configuration and an allowance to reflect a line with larger towers without
right of way restrictions.
Page 53
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Transmission Project L6
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
479 / km
61 / km
747 / km
$
$
$
603 / km
68 / km
1,075 / km
34.5%
3.9%
61.6%
$
1,288 / km
$
1,746 / km
100.0%
$
25 / km
$
28 / km
$
$
22 / km
256 / km
$
$
23 / km
355 / km
$
279 / km
$
379 / km
$
1,591 / km
$
2,152 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Project L7
Description
This project is a 230kV double circuit line that was constructed on an existing right of way following the
removal of a previously installed lower voltage line. For the majority of the route, the line crosses
agricultural lands with small amounts of forested and undeveloped lands in wet areas. Added details
are provided below.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 60 and 80 km
Steel towers
Concrete
Single 1192 kcmil per phase
Steel wire
Transverse conductor load is 66% of the Alberta Base Case
Much of the right of way width was restricted to 30 metres which is
about 60% to 70% of that normal for new 230kV double circuit
tower lines
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The structures were similar in design to the Alberta Base Case, but with a single conductor per phase as
opposed to a bundled arrangement. The conductor was larger than the 1033 kcmil base case, but with
single conductor as opposed to double, the structure loading from conductors was substantially less.
As this line was located on a somewhat narrower right of way than normal, the utility was unable to
optimize the line design as compared to an unencumbered right of way width. In that respect, this
Page 54
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
project was similar to Project L6. The higher material costs support this observation. Accordingly, no
adjustment was applied to structure materials for the higher Alberta loading, but costs were increased
to account for added conductor and hardware costs. Construction costs were adjusted similar to other
projects to reflect the added increase of installing a more robust line that would support a bundled
conductor arrangement. These technical adjustments, along with the applicable financial adjustments,
increased the Total Line Facility Cost used for comparison from $1,082k /km to $1,327k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
•
Line construction required extensive use of access roads. These access roads increased project
cost by $181k /km when averaged over the length of the line.
As noted above in Project L6, reducing the width of a right of way can impact line optimization.
As such the method for cost adjustment was similar to Project L6.
This line did not include OPGW, where the Alberta lines contain at least one OPGW in lieu of a
steel shieldwire. Cost additions when compared to the Alberta Base Case from the item noted
above were greater than the addition of OPGW.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Transmission Project L7
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
425 / km
53 / km
604 / km
$
$
$
501 / km
55 / km
772 / km
37.7%
4.1%
58.2%
$
1,082 / km
$
1,327 / km
100.0%
$
11 / km
$
11 / km
$
$
33 / km
280 / km
$
$
34 / km
348 / km
$
312 / km
$
383 / km
$
1,405 / km
$
1,721 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Project L8
Description
This project is a 230kV double circuit line constructed on an existing right of way following the removal
of a lower voltage line. The line route consists of 25% agricultural lands, 15% suburban and about 60%
rugged terrain through forested areas with two long water crossings. Added details are provided below.
Page 55
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 30 and 50 km
Steel monopole
Concrete
Single 1590 kcmil per phase
Steel wire
Transverse conductor load is 45% of the Alberta Base Case
Includes 2 long water crossings – each between 1 km and 2 km
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The design of this line differed from the Alberta Base Case in structure type (i.e. steel monopole) and the
structures were designed to resist a lower wind load. Conductor was larger than the 1033 kcmil base
case. This project also used a single conductor per phase rather than bundled conductor as in the base
case.
Generally monopoles can be constructed in a cost effective manner on a right of way that is narrower
than that normally required to optimize tower designs. Accordingly, adjustments were made to
materials and construction costs to account for a more robust monopole design that would
accommodate the higher wind load and added conductor. These technical differences and the
applicable financial adjustments increased the Total Line Facility Cost for comparison from $1,504k /km
to $2,627k /km.
Notable costs and other conditions that impact cost:
•
•
Right of way access and line construction is typically more complicated in rugged forested areas
than the prairies. This was the case with this line, but without construction details adjustments
for these differences could not be made. It was however noted that helicopters were used to
transport structures to site.
Financial adjustments account for an increase of $181k /km to the Total Line Facility Cost with
the remaining $942k /km being attributed to technical adjustments made necessary for
alignment of conductor and higher wind loading with the Alberta Base Case.
Page 56
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
per km ($000)
Transmission Project L8
Normalized Cost
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
382 / km
53 / km
1,069 / km
$
$
$
739 / km
61 / km
1,826 / km
28.2%
2.3%
69.5%
$
1,504 / km
$
2,627 / km
100.0%
$
95 / km
$
109 / km
$
$
123 / km
122 / km
$
$
133 / km
218 / km
$
245 / km
$
351 / km
$
1,844 / km
$
3,087 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Project L9 - Alberta
Description
This project is for a 240kV double circuit transmission line located in southern Alberta. The AESO
provided a description of project scope and an estimate of project costs.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 100 km and 150 km
Steel towers
Screw piles
2 - 1033 kcmil per phase
OPGW, steel wire
Over 75% Alberta Climate Zone C with the rest in Zone B
None
Estimate Details
Over 75% of this line was considered to be representative of the Alberta Base Case and further
described above. Applying the technical adjustments used with other projects, it is estimated that the
portion of the transmission line located in Zone B overstates the Line Facility Cost of this line by about
$42k /km (2.4%) over the total line length and is not considered of a magnitude requiring adjustment
considering the accuracy of the estimate +20% and -10%.
The estimate included the subject transmission line and work at substations. The total transmission
facility cost represented 91% of the total project facility cost which included lines, substations and
telecommunications. The estimate combined Owner’s Costs, Direct Costs and Other Costs for the lines
and substations work. These are itemized below with allocations applied to the transmission line work.
Page 57
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
The expectation was that certain activities and costs would be greater for the stations work than lines
on a percentage basis as indicated below where the percentage is less than 91%.
% Allocation
to Lines
Owner’s Cost
Proposal to Provide Service
Facility Applications
Land Rights – Easements
91%
91%
100%
% Allocation
to Lines
Direct Costs
Project Management
Construction Management
Escalation
Contingencies
80%
80%
85%
85%
% Allocation
to Lines
Other Costs
AFUDC
ES&G
91%
91%
Furthermore, the project estimate included allowances for escalation and contingencies. For purposes
of comparison, these were distributed across cost elements on a prorated basis. Apportionment of
escalation and contingencies was required to align the estimated costs with costs for completed projects
(which were based on actual costs and therefore no longer included escalation and contingencies).
Transmission Line Estimate Data
Transmission Project L9 - Alberta
Cost Estimate
per km ($000)
Normalized Est.
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
584 / km
61 / km
1,132 / km
$
$
$
584 / km
61 / km
1,132 / km
32.9%
3.4%
63.7%
$
1,776 / km
$
1,776 / km
100.0%
$
218 / km
$
218 / km
$
$
185 / km
596 / km
$
$
185 / km
596 / km
$
781 / km
$
781 / km
$
2,775 / km
$
2,775 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
Page 58
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
The estimate accuracy provided by the AESO was reported to be +20% and -10% indicating that actual
costs are expected to be within 90% to 120% of the amount estimated.
Project L10 – Alberta
Description
This project is for a 240kV double circuit transmission line located in central Alberta. The AESO provided
a description of the project scope and an estimate of project costs.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 20 km and 30 km
Steel towers
Not provided
2 - 1033 kcmil per phase
OPGW and steel wire
Alberta Climate Zone C
None
Estimate Details
The estimate was derived from the total project estimate that included the subject 240kV transmission
line plus facilities for an added 500kV transmission line and related substation facilities. The
transmission facility costs for the 240kV scope of work represented 13.9% of the project’s total facility
costs. As was the case with Project L9, the Owner’s Cost, Direct Costs and Other Costs were allocated on
a percentage basis as noted below. A number of the allocations were lower on a percentage basis than
the 240kV line portion of the project’s total facility costs. The expectation was that the 500kV
transmission facilities and substation facilities will attract a greater proportion of these costs where this
is the case.
Owners Cost
% Allocation
to Lines
Proposal to Provide Service
Facility Applications
Land Rights – Easements
4.6%
4.6%
10%
Direct Costs
% Allocation
to Lines
Project Management
Construction Management
Contingencies
10%
10%
10%
Other Costs
% Allocation
to Lines
AFUDC
ES&G
Escalation
13.9%
13.9%
10%
Page 59
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
The estimate included an allowance for escalation and contingencies. For purposes of comparison, these
were distributed over the estimate on a prorated basis. As with Project L9, this was required to align the
estimate with completed projects (which were based on actual costs and therefore no longer included
allowances for escalation or contingency).
Transmission Line Estimate Data
Cost Estimate
per km ($000)
Transmission Project L10 - Alberta
Normalized Est.
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
669 / km
133 / km
1,509 / km
$
$
$
669 / km
133 / km
1,509 / km
28.9%
5.8%
65.3%
$
2,311 / km
$
2,311 / km
100.0%
$
98 / km
$
98 / km
$
$
222 / km
543 / km
$
$
222 / km
543 / km
$
765 / km
$
765 / km
$
3,174 / km
$
3,174 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
The estimate accuracy is +20% and -10% indicating that actual costs can be expected to within 90% to
120% of the amount estimated.
Project L11 – Alberta
Description
This project is a 240kV double circuit transmission line located in southern Alberta. Only one circuit will
be initially strung. The AESO provided a description of the project scope and estimate of project costs.
Length
Structure Type
Foundation Type
Conductor
Shieldwire
Design Wind & Ice Loading Comparison
Added Details
Between 30 and 50 km
Steel towers
Screw piles
2 - 795 kcmil per phase
OPGW, steel wire
Alberta Climate Zone C
None
Estimate Details
The estimate for this project included the subject transmission line plus substation facilities and
telecommunication upgrades. The total facility costs for the 240kV double circuit line represented 96%
Page 60
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
of the total project facility cost. As was the case with Project L9 and Project L10, the Owner’s Cost,
Direct Costs and Other Costs were allocated on a percentage basis as noted below. A number of the
allocations were lower on a percentage basis than the 240kV line portion of the total facility cost. The
expectation was that certain activities and costs would be greater for the station work than lines on a
percentage basis where this was the case.
Owners Cost
% Allocation
to Lines
Proposal to Provide Service
Facility Applications
Land Rights – Easements
96%
96%
96%
Direct Costs
% Allocation
to Lines
Project Management
Construction Management
Escalation
Contingencies
90%
90%
96%
96%
Other Costs
% Allocation
to Lines
AFUDC
ES&G
96%
96%
The estimate included an allowance for escalation and contingencies. For purposes of comparison, these
were distributed over the estimate on a prorated basis. As with Project L9 and Project L10, this was
required to align the estimate to completed projects (which were based on actual costs and therefore
no longer included allowances for escalation and contingency).
As this line was priced with one circuit installed, an allowance has been included in the table below to
install the second circuit and to account for the added conductor load that would bring the design in
alignment with the Alberta Base Case. These adjustments increase the Total Line Facility Cost used for
comparison from $1,000k /km to $1,202k /km. As well, the Other Costs consisting of AFUDC and ES&G
have been increased in proportion to the Total Line Facility Cost as these costs usually increase and
decrease with the level of capital investment. The same adjustment was made to other projects where
applicable.
Page 61
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Transmission Line Estimate Data
Transmission Project L11 - Alberta
Cost Estimate
per km ($000)
Normalized Est.
per km ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Line Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 - Total Project & Const. Management
$
$
$
467 / km
23 / km
510 / km
$
$
$
578 / km
23 / km
601 / km
48.1%
1.9%
50.0%
$
1,000 / km
$
1,202 / km
100.0%
$
170 / km
$
170 / km
$
$
211 / km
215 / km
$
$
211 / km
259 / km
$
426 / km
$
470 / km
$
1,596 / km
$
1,842 / km
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
The estimate accuracy is +20% and -10% indicating that actual costs can be expected to within 90% to
120% of the amount estimated.
Substation Projects
Introduction
Transmission substations are used for the delivery of power, voltage transformation, switching and as
connection points for both load and generation. Substation facilities are complicated and contain
numerous types of equipment, instrumentation and other components such as: power transformers,
circuit breakers, disconnect switches, bus work, insulators, capacitor banks, instrumentation devices,
protection and control systems, station service, batteries and battery chargers, grounding systems, site
infrastructure, buildings and telecommunication facilities. Quantities and equipment type can vary
depending on utility design standards and specifications and system requirements.
The primary components that comprise a substation include the transformers, circuit breakers,
switches, connecting bus and support structures, foundations, oil containment, buildings, protections
and controls, and telecommunications. These items were the focus of this study with other facilities and
equipment highlighted as deemed relevant.
In Alberta, transmission facility owners have been developing 240kV substations that step down voltage
to 138kV and 144kV for many years. Other electric utilities in Canada and the U.S. use similar nominal
voltages (i.e. 220kV, 230kV and 240kV) on the high side with 115kV and 138kV on the low side. This
study compares substation costs in Alberta to other stations that step down voltages from 220kV or
230kV to 115kV or 138kV. From strictly a voltage perspective there is little difference in design and
Page 62
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
installation between these nominal voltages and for the purposes of this study, they were considered to
be one and the same.
In total, the study included eight new substations; five located in North America outside of Alberta and
three substations located in Alberta for comparison. For the three projects in Alberta, the AESO
provided an estimate of project costs. All eight substations included two transformers but had varying
numbers of breakers and other equipment types. Differences in design and equipment are discussed in
greater detail below. The following is a brief description of each project included in the study:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project S1: 230-138kV substation with 2 transformers & 13 circuit breakers
Project S2: 230-115kV substation with 2 transformers & 2 circuit breakers
Project S3: 220-115kV substation with 2 transformers, 22 circuit breakers & distribution facilities
Project S4: 230 -138kV substation with 2 transformers, 7 circuit breakers & distribution facilities
Project S5: 230-115kV substation with 2 transformers & 3 circuit breakers
Project S6 (Alberta): 240-144kV substation with 2 transformers & 6 circuit breakers
Project S7 (Alberta): 240-138kV substation with 2 transformers & 8 circuit breakers
Project S8 (Alberta): 240-138kV substation with 2 transformers & 4 circuit breakers
Relative Size of a Substation
Many factors influence the cost of a substation. These include the type and quantity of transformers,
the type and quantity of circuit breakers, the type and quantity of switches, and the need for other
equipment such as capacitors. Moreover, soil conditions and water table can complicate the installation
of foundations and grounding systems. Remoteness adds to shipping and construction costs. The need
for telecommunication towers and other facilities such as oil containment, site security provisions, and
control buildings can also influence cost. Even commodity prices and variations in demand for
equipment can increase or decrease total project cost.
Transformer and breakers are the primary equipment within a substation. Much of the other equipment
and installations support the functionality of these primary elements. It is for these reasons that
transformers and circuit breakers are used to establish the relative size of the substations included in
this study.
All substation projects in this study contained two power transformers which constituted the highest
cost elements. Considering that parity had been reached with transformers, the number and voltage of
circuit breakers was used to determine the relative size of a substation project. Table 13 below lists the
relative size of the substations in ascending order based on the number and type of circuit breakers.
Page 63
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Table 13
Relative
Size
Project
No. of
Power
Transformers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S2
S5
S8 (Alberta)
S6 (Alberta)
S4
S7 (Alberta)
S1
S3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No. of
220 – 240kV
Circuit
Breakers
4
4
2
4
2
7
No. of
115 – 144
Circuit
Breakers
Total
Circuit
Breakers
Substation
Facility Cost
($ in 000s)
2
3
2
3
4
6
7
8
13
22
16,362
21,492
40,118
25,348
18,360
18,740
27,935
48,291
2
5
4
11
15
Higher voltage circuit breakers are generally more costly than lower voltage types. In order to assess
whether the mix of circuit breakers could influence the relative size or cost ranking of the studied
substations, one could apply a weighting to the higher voltage circuit breakers to derive a value
equivalent to lower voltage type breakers. It was judged that 1.5 would be about the highest
equivalency factor one might use considering the cost impact that a breaker has on other cost elements
(e.g. foundations, site facilities, protections and controls and switching). It was found that applying an
equivalency factor (weighting) of up to 1.5 to the higher voltage breakers did not change the rankings
noted in the table above. In recognition of this, the relative size of a substation for the purposes of this
study was based on the total number of circuit breakers at a substation and not some adjusted number
based on a subjective equivalency factor.
Project S1
Project S1 is a 230kV – 138kV substation located near a population centre of about 100,000, albeit in a
somewhat isolated area. Substation details are as follows:
Quantity
2
2
11
36
Equipment
Power transformers – 230kV/138kV, 400 MVA
230kV Circuit Breakers – 3000 amp
138kV Circuit Breakers – 2000 amp
Disconnect Switches
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The facility cost for the project as provided by the utility was $26,608k, which based on applicable
financial adjustments, increased to $27,935k.
Notable costs and other conditions that impacted cost:
•
The station included a new microwave tower.
Page 64
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
Portions of Owners Costs (i.e. Approvals, Permits and Licensing) were accounted for under
Project Management as a result of the participating utility’s allocation process.
Detail engineering included costs for utility engineers and field operations consistent with the
utility’s cost accounting structure. This is the reason that these costs were higher than with
other utilities. Such costs would normally be accounted for under construction management or
construction.
Land costs were not provided.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
($000)
Substation Project S1
Normalized
Cost ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
$
$
$
$
11,112
4,810
9,523
1,161
$
$
$
$
11,112
5,246
10,385
1,192
40%
19%
37%
4%
$
26,608
$
27,935
100.0%
$
766
$
835
$
$
1,165
2,469
$
$
1,271
2,692
Total Separate Costs
$
3,634
$
3,963
Total Substation Project Cost
$
31,007
$
32,733
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S2
This project is a 230kV – 115kV substation located near a large populated centre. Substation details are
as follows:
Quantity
2
2
6
Equipment
Power transformers – 230kV/115kV, 224 MVA
115kV Circuit Breakers – 2000 amp
Disconnect Switches
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The facility cost for the substation as provided by the utility was $14,924k, which based on applicable
financial adjustments increased to $16,362k.
Notable costs and other conditions that impacted cost:
Page 65
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
This was a substation with the least amount of equipment when compared to others in the
study.
The substation was located on property that was already owned by the utility prior to the
commencement of the project.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
($000)
Substation Project S2
Normalized
Cost ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
8,143
1,075
5,438
267
$
$
$
$
8,264
1,284
6,494
319
51%
8%
40%
2%
$
14,924
$
16,362
100.0%
$
1,155
$
1,380
$
$
18
2,299
$
$
19
2,745
Total Separate Costs
$
2,316
$
2,764
Total Substation Project Cost
$
18,395
$
20,506
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S3
Project S3 is a 220kV – 115kV substation located near a large population centre. Substation details are
as follows:
Quantity
2
7
15
44
2
8
Equipment
Power transformers – 220kV/115kV, 250 MVA
220kV Circuit Breakers – 3000 amp
115kV Circuit Breakers – 1200 & 2000 amp
Disconnect Switches
Distribution Transformers – 115kV/12kV
Distribution Circuit Breakers – 12kV
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The facility cost for the substation as reported by the utility was $46,540k, which based on applicable
financial adjustments, increased to $48,291k.
Notable costs and other conditions that impacted cost:
Page 66
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
•
The station included a distribution yard with equipment as noted above.
The station included capacitor and shunt reactors for voltage control.
This station included more equipment than any of the other stations included in the study to
accommodate the number of transmission lines entering and exiting the station.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
($000)
Substation Project S3
Normalized
Cost ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
18,549
7,084
20,907
-
$
$
$
$
18,490
7,542
22,259
-
38%
16%
46%
$
46,540
$
48,291
100.0%
$
4,245
$
4,519
$
$
4,154
12,559
$
$
4,353
13,371
Total Separate Costs
$
16,713
$
17,724
Total Substation Project Cost
$
67,497
$
70,534
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S4
Project S4 is a 230kV – 138kV substation located near a medium size city. Substation details are as
follows:
Quantity
2
2
5
22
2
Equipment
Power transformers – 230kV/138kV, 300 MVA
230kV Breakers – 2000 amp
138kV Breakers – 2000 amp
Disconnect switches
Distribution transformers – 138kV/25kV
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The facility cost for the substation as provided by the utility was $17,529k, which based on applicable
financial adjustments, increased to $18,360k.
Notable costs and other conditions that impacted cost:
Page 67
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
•
•
The scope of this substation did not include oil containment facilities.
The substation included a distribution yard with equipment as noted above.
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
($000)
Substation Project S4
Normalized
Cost ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
10,494
1,121
5,914
-
$
$
$
$
10,494
1,254
6,613
-
57%
7%
36%
$
17,529
$
18,360
100.0%
$
261
$
292
$
$
615
1,632
$
$
650
1,824
Total Separate Costs
$
2,247
$
2,474
Total Substation Project Cost
$
20,037
$
21,126
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S5
Project S5 is a 230kV – 115kV substation located near several towns. Substation details are as follows:
Quantity
2
3
8
Equipment
Power transformers – 230kV/115kV, 250 MVA
115kV Breakers – 2000 amp
Disconnect switches
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
The facility cost for the substation as provided by the utility was $21,100k, which based on applicable
financial adjustments, increased to $21,492k.
Notable costs and other conditions that impacted cost:
•
The substation includes 2 buildings and telecom facilities with a tower. Costs for these items
have not been identified separately, but are included in material and construction costs.
Page 68
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Actual Cost
($000)
Substation Project S5
Normalized
Cost ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
11,300
2,400
7,400
-
$
$
$
$
11,300
2,496
7,696
-
53%
12%
36%
$
21,100
$
21,492
100.0%
$
600
$
624
$
$
700
3,900
$
$
700
4,056
Total Separate Costs
$
4,600
$
4,756
Total Substation Project Cost
$
26,300
$
26,871
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S6
This is a 240kV – 144kV substation located in community in northern Alberta. Substation details are as
follows:
Quantity
2
4
2
36
Equipment
Power transformers – 230kV/144kV, 200 MVA
240kV Breakers – 3000 amp
144kV Breakers – 2000 amp
Disconnect Switches
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
•
•
•
The scope of this substation included added telecom facilities.
Added equipment included capacitor banks.
The substation was located in a relatively remote community.
Page 69
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Substation Project S6 - Alberta
Cost Estimate
($000)
Normalized
Est. ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
13,957
1,189
9,564
638
$
$
$
$
13,957
1,189
9,564
638
55%
5%
38%
3%
$
25,348
$
25,348
100.0%
$
1,621
$
1,621
$
$
456
2,987
$
$
456
2,987
Total Separate Costs
$
3,442
$
3,442
Total Substation Project Cost
$
30,412
$
30,412
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S7
Project S7 is a 240kV – 138kV substation located in Alberta in a major population centre. Substation
details are as follows:
Quantity
2
4
4
28
Equipment
Power transformers – 240kV/138kV, 400 MVA
240kV Breakers – 3000 amp
138kV Breakers – 2000 amp
Disconnect Switches
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
•
•
This was a relative standard substation that did not include added equipment such as capacitor
banks.
The substation was located in a major centre in a relatively lower cost construction
environment.
Page 70
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Substation Project S7 - Alberta
Cost Estimate
($000)
Normalized
Est. ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
11,620
628
6,467
25
$
$
$
$
11,620
628
6,467
25
62%
3%
35%
0%
$
18,740
$
18,740
100.0%
$
565
$
565
$
$
1,181
4,838
$
$
1,181
4,838
Total Separate Costs
$
6,018
$
6,018
Total Substation Project Cost
$
25,324
$
25,324
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Project S8
Project S8 is a 240kV – 138kV substation located in a remote part of northern Alberta. Station details
are as follows:
Quantity
2
4
18
Equipment
Power transformers – 240kV/138kV, 400 MVA
240kV Breakers – 3000 amp
Disconnect Switches
Observed Conditions & Impact on Cost
•
•
•
This substation was located in a remote location.
The substation site was located in an area with exceptionally poor and wet soil conditions.
The substation included added telecom facilities when compared to other stations.
Page 71
Alberta Electric System Operator
Capital Cost Benchmark Study
For 240kV Transmission & Substation Projects
Cost Data Provided by Participating Utility
Substation Project S8 - Alberta
Cost Estimate
($000)
Normalized
Est. ($000)
% of Facility
Cost
1.0 - Substation Facility Cost
1.1 - Total Material Cost
1.2 - Detail Engineering
1.3 - Total Construction Cost
1.4 - Total Telecom Cost
$
$
$
$
12,023
1,438
24,704
1,953
$
$
$
$
12,023
1,438
24,704
1,953
30%
4%
62%
5%
$
40,118
$
40,118
100.0%
$
6,937
$
6,937
$
$
174
2,312
$
$
174
2,312
Total Separate Costs
$
2,486
$
2,486
Total Substation Project Cost
$
49,542
$
49,542
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 - Project & Const. Management
3.0 - Separate Costs
3.1 - Total Owners Costs
3.2 - Total Other Costs
Page 72
Appendix Capital Cost Benchmarking Study Section I Survey Instrument Used for Collecting Transmission Line Project Data September 14, 2012 Transmission Lines Project Survey INTRODUCTION FTI and Genivar have been retained by the Alberta Electrical System Operator (AESO) to complete a benchmarking study of a number of transmission line and substation projects in jurisdictions outside of the province of Alberta. The survey contained in this document is specifically for transmission Line projects. The objectives of the study include: 
Assessing transmission facility costs in jurisdictions outside Alberta (i.e. within North America) with a focus on double circuit 230 kV transmission lines and 230 kV transformer stations, and provide benchmark comparisons to Alberta transmission facility costs, including design and construction practices, as well as major cost components of material and labor. 
Benchmarking to support the AESO’s efforts with respect to testing for “cost reasonableness” while assessing transmission facility owner proposals and associated cost estimates for transmission projects. The survey contained in this document has been designed to align with the cost breakdown structure used by the AESO for the purpose of easy comparisons. It is recognized that your company’s cost breakdown structure might not align exactly with the information requested below, and where this is the case, please combine line items to a level of detail available. From there, if possible, please provide an estimate of the cost breakdown that aligns with the survey format and indicate that this is an estimate. CONFIDENTIALITY AWARENESS The FTI Genivar Report will not associate any data with a project’s specific location, facility owner, or other stakeholders that would enable correlation to the company’s participation in the study. All confidential information, as well as that available in the public domain will be protected to the fullest extent by AESO, FTI Consulting and Genivar. CONTACT INFORMATION Todd H. Mohr Senior Managing Director Tel: (303) 689‐8890 Mobile: (303) 681‐7527 1001 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado USA 80202 FTI CONSULTING GENIVAR George Juhn, P. Eng. Program/Project Consultant Tel: (905) 303‐6537 Mobile: (647) 993‐6537 1300 Yonge Street, Suite 801 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4T 1X3 SURVEY FRAMEWORK Section 1 – Project Description Section 2 – Preliminary Engineering, Approvals and Tender Section 3 – Project Coordination and Management Section 4 – Detail Engineering Section 5 – Right of Way Preparation Section 6 – Material Costs Section 7 – Line Construction and Commissioning Section 8 – AFUDC, Contingencies, Common Costs, Removals Section 9 – Transmission Line Information and Design Details Section 10 – Source and Supporting Documents PREAMBLE It is assumed that Canadian Utilities will provide the information in CAN$s and metric units of measure and US utilities in US$s and imperial units of measure. As noted in the introduction, where information is not available to the level of detail requested, please combine line items to a level of detail that is aligned with the cost breakdown structure used by your company. From there, if possible, please provide an estimate of the cost breakdown that aligns with the survey format and indicate that this is an estimate. Please use the “notes” field freely to add explanation and context that might not be evident with information provided in other parts of the survey. Furthermore, there is an intention to capture information on problems encountered during planning, purchasing and execution of the project and the identification of unusual circumstances that would have a material impact on cost and/or schedule from what would normally be the case. An entry field has been provided at the end of Section 8 for this purpose. There is no need to calculate the unit cost values. The FTI and Genivar team will complete this part of the survey. Please feel free to attach files, documents or other supplemental information to support the data requested in the survey. If the documents and files provided include the requested survey data, there is no need to transcribe the data into the survey format. If precise answers are not available, please provide estimates, partial answers, and opinions. These too are of value to us. 2
Section 1 – Project Description Project Name: Description of Project: Total Cost for the 230 kV Double Circuit Line: ________________ From: ________________________________________________ To: __________________________________________________ Project Start Date: ______________________________________ In‐Service Date: ________________________________________ Length of Double Circuit Line: _____________________________ 3
Section 2 – Preliminary Engineering, Approvals and Tender Enter Vendor Name or Owners Cost (OC) if Done In‐
House No. Description 2.1 Identification of routing options & selecting preferred route Preliminary design & line layout, and cost to generate estimates Environmental Assessment & approvals Rate filing preparation & hearing Labor and payments for negotiating property rights Cost of registered easements and other property rights Prepare and evaluate tender documents and award prime contracts 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Unit Cost ($/Mile or km) Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Totals Section 3 – Project Coordination and Management No. Description 3.1 Project & construction management Enter Vendor Name or Owners Cost (OC) if Done In‐
House Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Unit Cost ($/Mile of km) 4
Section 4 – Detail Engineering No. 4.1 4.2 4.3 Enter Vendor Name or Owners Cost (OC) if Done In‐
House Description Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Line layout and optimization Foundation & structures Prepare data packages, instructions and engineering support during construction Totals Original Cost Estimate if Unit Cost Different from ($/Mile Current of km) Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Section 5 – Right of Way Preparation Enter Vendor Name or Owners Cost (OC) if Done In‐
House No. Description 5.1 5.2 Survey & staking Access routes, roads, bridges, culverts, etc. Right of way clearing, timber salvage Added right of way work to comply with EA requirements, e.g., landscaping, screenings, etc. 5.3 5.4 Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Totals Original Cost Estimate if Unit Cost Different from ($/Mile Current of km) Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) 5
Notes Section 6 – Material Cost No. Description 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Foundation material if applicable Structures Conductor Sheildwire (Include OPGW if applicable) Insulators Switches Other material, i.e., hardware and smaller components, e.g., dampers, aerial markers, U‐bolts, fittings, clamps, grounding, etc. 6.5 6.6 6.7 Vendor Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Unit Cost ($/Mile of km) Notes Totals Section 7 – Line Construction and Commissioning No. Description 7.1 Material delivery to specific site and storage Foundation and anchors if done separate from structures Structure assembly and erection Stringing and pulling conductors and shieldwire Right of way restoration Commissioning and checks made during construction As‐built data, drawings, etc. 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.7 Totals Vendor Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Original Cost Estimate if Unit Cost Different Current ($/Mile Estimate or of km) Actual Cost ($1,000s) 6
Notes Section 8 – AFUDC, Contingencies, Common Costs, Removals No. Actual Cost or Current estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Description Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) 8.1 8.2 Notes Total cost from above tables Other costs not included above. Please describe these costs in the notes section. 8.3 Total Installation Cost = 8.1+8.2 8.4 Line removals if the project involves overbuilding and existing transmission line. If these removals are not part of the capital addition, please do not include them in the total cost, but note the amount in the appropriate column. 8.5 Contingencies 8.6 Common Costs (Overheads) – Please use the notes section to provide the items that make up the Common Costs 8.7 Interest during construction (AFUDC)
Grand Total 8.8 Please use this field to identify the reasons why costs were greater than the original estimate (if applicable), and unusual circumstances that resulted in higher costs than would normally be the case. 7
Section 9 – Transmission Line Information and Design Details 9.1 ‐ Structures Category Structures Foundation Types Details No. of Structures Description/Average Height/Are Any Guyed? /Additional Notes
Lattice Towers Steel Pole Structures Wood Structures Other Suspension structures Angle structures Deadend structures Switch structures High water crossing towers
Other Augered concrete pier Concrete pad/pedestal
Piles and pile cap Engineered backfill Other 9.2 ‐ Conductors and Shieldwire Category Phase Conductors Shieldwire OPGW Type/Size
Single or Bundle Wire Length
8
Notes
9.3 ‐ Site Conditions and Construction Line location Urban Rural Remote Mountainous Right of Way Conditions Rocky terrain Solid ground Wet soft ground Swampy Construction Considerations Winter construction (freezing conditions) Helicopter usage Right of Way Clearing ‐ Tree and brush removal % of Line Length
Notes
Hectares/ Acres
Description of Right of Way Vegetation Cleared
9.4 ‐ Line Design Information Right of Way Width: Average span: Standard minimum ground clearance: Maximum conductor operating temperature: Line rating: Line Design Loading Maximum wind load on wires (pressure): Maximum wind load on structures (pressure): Maximum combined wind and ice loading on conductor (wind pressure and radial ice thickness): Maximum combined wind and ice loading on shield wires (wind pressure and radial ice thickness): Maximum combined wind and ice loading on structures (wind pressure and ice thickness): Maximum ice loading on conductor (radial ice thickness) without wind: Broken wire loading on suspension structures (longitudinal load): Other, e.g., anti‐cascading criteria: Load factors: Storm return period: Notes: Reference Design Standards: 9
Section 10 – Source and Supporting Documents 10.1 Regulatory Applications, Permitting and Approval Documents. If posted on a company web page, please provide the address. 10.2 Initial and Current Project Estimate 10.3 Current/Final Cost Report and Schedule 10.4 Contract with Engineering and Construction Companies Selected for Project Delivery 10.5 Project Single Line Diagram, Route Plan and Drawing of Typical Structures 10
Section II Detailed Comparison of Transmission Lines Costs Alberta Electric System Operator
Benchmarking Survey of Utility Construction Costs
Normalized Cost / Estimate per Kilometer ‐ Transmission Lines Projects ($000)
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 $ 130 / km
$ 53 / km
$ 124 / km
$ 203 / km
$ 73 / km
$ 56 / km
L6 1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 471 / km
$ 688 / km
$ 277 / km
$ 307 / km
$ 333 / km
$ 603 / km
$ 21 / km
$ 79 / km
$ 18 / km
$ 18 / km
$ 107 / km
$ 68 / km
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 810 / km
$ 393 / km
$ 684 / km
$ 228 / km
$ 342 / km
$ 85 / km
$ 272 / km
$ 13 / km
$ 446 / km
$ 1,069 / km
$ 130 / km
$ 911 / km
$ 165 / km
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 1,203 / km
$ 912 / km
$ 427 / km
$ 285 / km
$ 1,645 / km
$ 1,075 / km
$ 1,695 / km
$ 1,679 / km
$ 722 / km
$ 609 / km
$ 2,085 / km
$ 1,746 / km
$ 5 / km
$ 27 / km
$ 16 / km
$ ‐ / km
$ 43 / km
$ 15 / km
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 5 / km
$ 28 / km
$ 2 / km
$ 2 / km
$ 278 / km
$ 28 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
$ 123 / km
$ 186 / km
$ 28 / km
$ 46 / km
$ ‐ / km
$ 310 / km
$ 36 / km
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 249 / km
$ 94 / km
$ 93 / km
$ 115 / km
$ 53 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 343 / km
$ 208 / km
$ 53 / km
$ 343 / km
$ 518 / km
$ 2,043 / km
$ 2,240 / km
$ 74 / km
$ 23 / km
$ 41 / km
$ 23 / km
$ 331 / km
$ 258 / km
$ 97 / km
$ 60 / km
$ 331 / km
$ 355 / km
$ 90 / km
$ 133 / km
$ 372 / km
$ 379 / km
$ 826 / km
$ 744 / km
$ 2,735 / km
$ 2,152 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1 of 2
$ 60 / km
Alberta Electric System Operator
Benchmarking Survey of Utility Construction Costs
Normalized Cost / Estimate per Kilometer ‐ Transmission Lines Projects ($000)
L7 L8 L9 ‐ Alberta L10 ‐ Alberta L11 ‐ Alberta $ 505 / km
$ 235 / km
$ 387 / km
$ 38 / km
$ 158 / km
$ 52
$ 334
$ 47
$ 236
$ 501 / km
$ 739 / km
$ 584 / km
$ 669 / km
$ 578 / km
$ 55 / km
$ 61 / km
$ 61 / km
$ 133 / km
$ 23 / km
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 592 / km
$ 181 / km
$ 1,794 / km
$ 32 / km
$ 1,105 / km
$ 27 / km
$ 1,458 / km
$ 52 / km
$ 130 / km
$ 448 / km
$ 23 / km
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 772 / km
$ 1,826 / km
$ 1,132 / km
$ 1,509 / km
$ 601 / km
$ 1,327 / km
$ 2,627 / km
$ 1,776 / km
$ 2,311 / km
$ 1,202 / km
$ 11 / km
$ 22 / km
$ 87 / km
$ 116 / km
$ 102 / km
$ 64 / km
$ 33 / km
$ 144 / km
$ 26 / km
$ 11 / km
$ 109 / km
$ 218 / km
$ 98 / km
$ 170 / km
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 34 / km
$ 52 / km
$ 81 / km
$ 110 / km
$ 76 / km
$ 119 / km
$ 102 / km
$ 42 / km
$ 169 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 34 / km
$ 133 / km
$ 185 / km
$ 222 / km
$ 211 / km
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 228 / km
$ 121 / km
$ 80 / km
$ 138 / km
$ 162 / km
$ 434 / km
$ 221 / km
$ 322 / km
$ 112 / km
$ 146 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 348 / km
$ 218 / km
$ 596 / km
$ 543 / km
$ 259 / km
$ 383 / km
$ 351 / km
$ 781 / km
$ 765 / km
$ 470 / km
$ 1,721 / km
$ 3,087 / km
$ 2,775 / km
$ 3,174 / km
$ 1,842 / km
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
$ 84
$ 225
$ 114
$ 155
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
2 of 2
Section III Transmission Lines ‐ Survey Cost Detail Projects L1 through L8 Project Number:
Transmission Lines L1
Line Length (km): 20 km to 30 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0485
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0000
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
$ 580 / km
1.0000
$ 580 / km
0.8118
$ 471 / km
28%
$ 20 / km
1.0485
$ 21 / km
1.0000
$ 21 / km
1%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 840 / km
$ 375 / km
1.0485
1.0485
$ 881 / km
$ 393 / km
0.9195
1.0000
$ 810 / km
$ 393 / km
48%
23%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 1,215 / km
$ 1,274 / km
$ 1,203 / km
71%
$ 1,815 / km
$ 1,875 / km
$ 1,695 / km
100%
$ 5 / km
0%
0%
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 5 / km
1.0485
$ 5 / km
1.0000
$ 5 / km
$ 5 / km
$ 5 / km
$ ‐
$ ‐ / km
$ ‐ / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 262 / km
$ 99 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 361 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.0485
1.0485
$ 249 / km
$ 94 / km
15%
6%
$ 379 / km
$ 343 / km
20%
$ 361 / km
$ 379 / km
$ 343 / km
20%
$ 2,181 / km
$ 2,259 / km
$ 2,043 / km
1 of 8
$ 275 / km
$ 104 / km
0.9040
0.9040
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L2
Line Length (km): 50 km to 70 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0751
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0000
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
$ 557 / km
1.0000
$ 557 / km
1.2351
$ 688 / km
41%
$ 73 / km
1.0751
$ 79 / km
1.0000
$ 79 / km
5%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 581 / km
$ 212 / km
1.0751
1.0751
$ 625 / km
$ 228 / km
1.0951
1.0000
$ 684 / km
$ 228 / km
41%
14%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 793 / km
$ 853 / km
$ 912 / km
54%
$ 1,424 / km
$ 1,489 / km
$ 1,679 / km
100%
$ 27 / km
$ 16 / km
2%
1%
$ 43 / km
3%
$ 123 / km
$ 186 / km
7%
11%
$ 310 / km
18%
$ 93 / km
$ 115 / km
6%
7%
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 25 / km
$ 15 / km
1.0751
1.0751
$ 40 / km
$ 27 / km
$ 16 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 43 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 115 / km
$ 186 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 301 / km
1.0751
1.0000
$ 123 / km
$ 186 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 310 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 77 / km
$ 95 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 172 / km
$ 184 / km
$ 208 / km
12%
$ 473 / km
$ 494 / km
$ 518 / km
31%
$ 1,936 / km
$ 2,026 / km
$ 2,240 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
$ 2,614 / km
$ 1,646 / km
1.0751
1.0751
$ 82 / km
$ 102 / km
1.1279
1.1279
Accuracy Estimate Range: (+35% / ‐15%)
$ 2,735 / km
$ 1,722 / km
2 of 8
$ 3,024 / km
$ 1,904 / km
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L3
Line Length (km): 50 km to 70 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.5530
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0118
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
$ 273 / km
1.0118
$ 277 / km
1.0000
$ 277 / km
38%
$ 12 / km
1.5530
$ 18 / km
1.0000
$ 18 / km
3%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 242 / km
$ 55 / km
1.5530
1.5530
$ 376 / km
$ 85 / km
0.9091
1.0000
$ 342 / km
$ 85 / km
47%
12%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 297 / km
$ 461 / km
$ 427 / km
59%
$ 582 / km
$ 756 / km
$ 722 / km
100%
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
$ 9 / km
1.5530
$ 15 / km
1.0000
$ 15 / km
2%
$ 23 / km
1.5530
$ 36 / km
1.0000
$ 36 / km
5%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 36 / km
1.5530
$ 56 / km
0.9548
$ 53 / km
7%
Total Other Costs
$ 36 / km
$ 56 / km
$ 53 / km
7%
$ 59 / km
$ 92 / km
$ 90 / km
12%
$ 651 / km
$ 863 / km
$ 826 / km
Total Project & Const. Management
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
3 of 8
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L4
Line Length (km): 30 km to 50 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.1182
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0000
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
$ 130 / km
$ 28 / km
$ 100 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 130 / km
$ 28 / km
$ 100 / km
1.0000
1.9091
1.2400
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 258 / km
1.0000
$ 258 / km
$ 16 / km
1.1182
$ 18 / km
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 182 / km
$ 11 / km
1.1182
1.1182
$ 203 / km
$ 13 / km
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 193 / km
$ 467 / km
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
$ 130 / km
$ 53 / km
$ 124 / km
21%
9%
20%
$ 307 / km
50%
1.0000
$ 18 / km
3%
1.3385
1.0000
$ 272 / km
$ 13 / km
45%
2%
$ 216 / km
$ 285 / km
47%
$ 491 / km
$ 609 / km
100%
$ 2 / km
0%
$ 2 / km
0%
$ 28 / km
$ 46 / km
5%
7%
$ 74 / km
12%
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 2 / km
1.1182
$ 2 / km
$ 2 / km
1.0000
$ 2 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 25 / km
$ 46 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 71 / km
1.1182
1.0000
$ 28 / km
$ 46 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 74 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
1.2399
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 43 / km
$ 60 / km
10%
Total Other Costs
$ 43 / km
$ 48 / km
$ 60 / km
10%
$ 114 / km
$ 122 / km
$ 133 / km
22%
$ 582 / km
$ 615 / km
$ 744 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
$ 786 / km
$ 495 / km
1.1182
$ 48 / km
Accuracy Estimate Range: (+35% / ‐15%)
$ 830 / km
$ 523 / km
4 of 8
$ 1,005 / km
$ 633 / km
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L5
Line Length (km): 10 km to 20 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.2151
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.1376
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
$ 233 / km
$ 64 / km
$ 100 / km
1.1376
1.1376
1.1376
$ 265 / km
$ 73 / km
$ 114 / km
0.7678
1.0000
0.4938
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 397 / km
1.1376
$ 452 / km
$ 88 / km
1.2151
$ 107 / km
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 398 / km
$ 953 / km
$ 107 / km
1.2151
1.2151
1.2151
$ 484 / km
$ 1,159 / km
$ 130 / km
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 1,459 / km
$ 1,944 / km
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
$ 203 / km
$ 73 / km
$ 56 / km
10%
4%
3%
$ 333 / km
16%
1.0000
$ 107 / km
5%
0.9226
0.9226
1.0000
$ 446 / km
$ 1,069 / km
$ 130 / km
21%
51%
6%
$ 1,772 / km
$ 1,645 / km
79%
$ 2,331 / km
$ 2,085 / km
100%
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
$ 229 / km
1.2151
$ 278 / km
1.0000
$ 278 / km
13%
$ 33 / km
1.2151
$ 41 / km
1.0000
$ 41 / km
2%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 305 / km
1.2151
$ 370 / km
0.8944
$ 331 / km
16%
Total Other Costs
$ 305 / km
$ 370 / km
$ 331 / km
16%
$ 338 / km
$ 411 / km
$ 372 / km
18%
$ 2,511 / km
$ 3,020 / km
$ 2,735 / km
Total Project & Const. Management
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
5 of 8
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L6
Line Length (km): 20 km to 40 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.1112
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0491
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
$ 479 / km
1.0491
$ 502 / km
1.1997
$ 603 / km
35%
$ 61 / km
1.1112
$ 68 / km
1.0000
$ 68 / km
4%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 599 / km
$ 148 / km
1.1112
1.1112
$ 666 / km
$ 165 / km
1.3680
1.0000
$ 911 / km
$ 165 / km
52%
9%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 747 / km
$ 830 / km
$ 1,075 / km
62%
$ 1,288 / km
$ 1,401 / km
$ 1,746 / km
100%
$ 28 / km
2%
$ 28 / km
2%
$ 23 / km
1%
$ 23 / km
1%
$ 258 / km
$ 97 / km
15%
6%
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 25 / km
1.1112
$ 25 / km
$ 28 / km
1.0000
$ 28 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 22 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 22 / km
1.0491
$ 23 / km
1.0000
$ 23 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 186 / km
$ 70 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 256 / km
$ 285 / km
$ 355 / km
20%
$ 279 / km
$ 308 / km
$ 379 / km
22%
$ 1,591 / km
$ 1,737 / km
$ 2,152 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.1112
1.1112
6 of 8
$ 207 / km
$ 78 / km
1.2465
1.2465
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L7
Line Length (km): 60 km to 80 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0400
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0000
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
$ 425 / km
1.0000
$ 425 / km
1.1777
$ 501 / km
38%
$ 53 / km
1.0400
$ 55 / km
1.0000
$ 55 / km
4%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 430 / km
$ 174 / km
1.0400
1.0400
$ 447 / km
$ 181 / km
1.3221
1.0000
$ 592 / km
$ 181 / km
45%
14%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 604 / km
$ 628 / km
$ 772 / km
58%
$ 1,082 / km
$ 1,108 / km
$ 1,327 / km
100%
$ 11 / km
1%
$ 11 / km
1%
$ 34 / km
3%
$ 34 / km
3%
$ 228 / km
$ 121 / km
17%
9%
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 11 / km
1.0400
$ 11 / km
$ 11 / km
1.0000
$ 11 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 33 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 33 / km
1.0400
$ 34 / km
1.0000
$ 34 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 183 / km
$ 97 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 280 / km
$ 291 / km
$ 348 / km
26%
$ 312 / km
$ 325 / km
$ 383 / km
29%
$ 1,405 / km
$ 1,444 / km
$ 1,721 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.0400
1.0400
7 of 8
$ 190 / km
$ 101 / km
1.1983
1.1983
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L8
Line Length (km): 30 km to 50 km
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.1440
Financial Adj. (non‐labor) 1.0491
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
$ 217 / km
1.0491
$ 227 / km
2.2200
$ 505 / km
19%
$ 165 / km
1.0491
$ 174 / km
1.3528
$ 235 / km
9%
$ 739 / km
28%
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 382 / km
$ 401 / km
$ 53 / km
1.1440
$ 61 / km
1.0000
$ 61 / km
2%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 1,041 / km
$ 28 / km
1.1440
1.1440
$ 1,191 / km
$ 32 / km
1.5067
1.0000
$ 1,794 / km
$ 32 / km
68%
1%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 1,069 / km
$ 1,223 / km
$ 1,826 / km
70%
$ 1,504 / km
$ 1,685 / km
$ 2,627 / km
100%
$ 22 / km
$ 87 / km
1%
3%
$ 109 / km
4%
$ 52 / km
$ 81 / km
2%
3%
$ 133 / km
5%
$ 80 / km
$ 138 / km
3%
5%
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 19 / km
$ 76 / km
1.1440
1.1440
$ 95 / km
$ 22 / km
$ 87 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 109 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 45 / km
$ 77 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 123 / km
1.1440
1.0491
$ 52 / km
$ 81 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 133 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 45 / km
$ 78 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 122 / km
$ 140 / km
$ 218 / km
8%
$ 245 / km
$ 273 / km
$ 351 / km
13%
$ 1,844 / km
$ 2,066 / km
$ 3,087 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.1440
1.1440
8 of 8
$ 51 / km
$ 89 / km
1.5591
1.5591
Section IV Transmission Lines ‐ Alberta Cost Detail Project L9 through L11 ‐ Alberta Project Number:
Transmission Lines L9 ‐ Alberta
Line Length (km): 100 ‐ 150 km
Contingency & Escalation: $ 56,972
Accuracy Estimate:
+20% / ‐10%
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
$ 387 / km
$ 38 / km
$ 158 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 387 / km
$ 38 / km
$ 158 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 584 / km
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
$ 584 / km
$ 387 / km
$ 38 / km
$ 158 / km
21.8%
2%
9%
$ 584 / km
33%
$ 61 / km
1.0000
$ 61 / km
1.0000
$ 61 / km
3%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 1,105 / km
$ 27 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 1,105 / km
$ 27 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 1,105 / km
$ 27 / km
62%
2%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 1,132 / km
$ 1,132 / km
$ 1,132 / km
64%
$ 1,776 / km
$ 1,776 / km
$ 1,776 / km
100%
$ 116 / km
$ 102 / km
7%
6%
$ 218 / km
12%
$ 110 / km
$ 76 / km
6%
4%
$ 185 / km
10%
$ 162 / km
$ 434 / km
9%
24%
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 116 / km
$ 102 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 218 / km
$ 116 / km
$ 102 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 218 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 110 / km
$ 76 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 185 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 110 / km
$ 76 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 185 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 162 / km
$ 434 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 596 / km
$ 596 / km
$ 596 / km
34%
$ 781 / km
$ 781 / km
$ 781 / km
44%
$ 2,775 / km
$ 2,775 / km
$ 2,775 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.0000
1.0000
$ 162 / km
$ 434 / km
1.0000
1.0000
Accuracy Estimate Range: (+20% / ‐10%)
$ 3,330 / km
$ 2,498 / km
$ 3,330 / km
$ 2,498 / km
1 of 3
$ 3,330 / km
$ 2,498 / km
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L10 ‐ Alberta
Line Length (km): 20 ‐ 30 km
Contingency & Escalation: $ 7,099
Accuracy Estimate:
+20% / ‐10%
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
$ 52
$ 334
$ 47
$ 236
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 669 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 52
$ 334
$ 47
$ 236
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 669 / km
$ 52
$ 334
$ 47
$ 236
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
2.3%
14.5%
2%
10%
$ 669 / km
29%
$ 133 / km
1.0000
$ 133 / km
1.0000
$ 133 / km
6%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 1,458 / km
$ 52 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 1,458 / km
$ 52 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 1,458 / km
$ 52 / km
63%
2%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 1,509 / km
$ 1,509 / km
$ 1,509 / km
65%
$ 2,311 / km
$ 2,311 / km
$ 2,311 / km
100%
$ 64 / km
$ 33 / km
3%
1%
$ 98 / km
4%
$ 119 / km
$ 102 / km
5%
4%
$ 222 / km
10%
$ 221 / km
$ 322 / km
10%
14%
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 64 / km
$ 33 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 98 / km
$ 64 / km
$ 33 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 98 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 119 / km
$ 102 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 222 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 119 / km
$ 102 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 222 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 221 / km
$ 322 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 543 / km
$ 543 / km
$ 543 / km
24%
$ 765 / km
$ 765 / km
$ 765 / km
33%
$ 3,174 / km
$ 3,174 / km
$ 3,174 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.0000
1.0000
$ 221 / km
$ 322 / km
1.0000
1.0000
Accuracy Estimate Range: (+20% / ‐10%)
$ 3,809 / km
$ 2,857 / km
$ 3,809 / km
$ 2,857 / km
2 of 3
$ 3,809 / km
$ 2,857 / km
Project Number:
Transmission Lines L11 ‐ Alberta
Line Length (km): 30 ‐ 50 km
Contingency & Escalation: $ 12,979
Accuracy Estimate:
+20% / ‐10%
Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted Cost per Kilometer
($000)
Structure Loading & Conductor Adjustment
Normalized Cost % of Facility per Kilometer
Cost
($000)
1.0 ‐ Line Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Foundations
Structures
Hardware
Conductor
$ 79
$ 213
$ 114
$ 62
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 467 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 79
$ 213
$ 114
$ 62
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
1.0721
1.0574
1.0000
2.5169
$ 467 / km
$ 84
$ 225
$ 114
$ 155
/ km
/ km
/ km
/ km
7.0%
18.7%
9%
13%
$ 578 / km
48%
$ 23 / km
1.0000
$ 23 / km
1.0000
$ 23 / km
2%
Foundation
Line Construction
Right of Way Preparation & Surveying
$ 109 / km
$ 378 / km
$ 23 / km
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 109 / km
$ 378 / km
$ 23 / km
1.1864
1.1864
1.0000
$ 130 / km
$ 448 / km
$ 23 / km
11%
37%
2%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 510 / km
$ 510 / km
$ 601 / km
50%
$ 1,000 / km
$ 1,000 / km
$ 1,202 / km
100%
$ 144 / km
$ 26 / km
12%
2%
$ 170 / km
14%
$ 42 / km
$ 169 / km
4%
14%
$ 211 / km
18%
$ 112 / km
$ 146 / km
9%
12%
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Total Line Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Total Project & Const. Mgmt
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
$ 144 / km
$ 26 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 170 / km
$ 144 / km
$ 26 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 170 / km
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 42 / km
$ 169 / km
Total Owners Costs
$ 211 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 42 / km
$ 169 / km
1.0000
1.0000
$ 211 / km
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 93 / km
$ 122 / km
Total Other Costs
$ 215 / km
$ 215 / km
$ 259 / km
22%
$ 426 / km
$ 426 / km
$ 470 / km
39%
$ 1,596 / km
$ 1,596 / km
$ 1,842 / km
Total Separate Costs
Total Transmission Project Cost
1.0000
1.0000
$ 93 / km
$ 122 / km
1.2024
1.2024
Accuracy Estimate Range: (+20% / ‐10%)
$ 1,915 / km
$ 1,436 / km
$ 1,915 / km
$ 1,436 / km
3 of 3
$ 2,210 / km
$ 1,657 / km
Section V Conductor Material Cost & Structure Loading Adjustments Conductor Material Cost Adjustments
Project
Total Conductor Cost Adjustment $1000
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L11
(324)
1,728
(3,233)
888
(732)
2,582
5,740
2,294
3,745
1 of 2
Load From Conductors
Base Case Load is for 2‐ 1033.5 kcmil ‐ Alberta Zone C
Transverse Structure Loading from Conductors
Project
Conductor Max. Design Relative to Load Alberta (N/m)/Phase Base Case
Alberta Zone C
2 ‐ 1033
63.2
L1
2‐ 1192
83.3
132%
L2
2 ‐ 795
47.1
75%
L3
2‐ 1590 (Lapwing)
86.9
137%
L4
2 ‐ 795
80.9
128%
L5
2 ‐ 1590 (Lapwing)
82.3
130%
L6
1 ‐ 795
35.0
55%
L7
1 ‐ 1192
41.7
66%
L8
1 ‐ 1590
28.4
45%
L11
2 ‐ 795
58.9
93%
2 of 2
Section VI Survey Instrument Used for Collecting Substation Project Data September 14, 2012 Transmission Station Project Survey INTRODUCTION FTI and Genivar have been retained by the Alberta Electrical System Operator (AESO) to complete a benchmarking study of a number of transmission line and substation projects in jurisdictions outside of the province of Alberta. The survey contained in this document is specifically for transmission substation projects. The objectives of the study include: 
Assessing transmission facility costs in jurisdictions outside Alberta (i.e. within North America) with a focus on double circuit 230 kV transmission lines and 230 kV transformer stations, and provide benchmark comparisons to Alberta transmission facility costs, including design and construction practices, as well as major cost components of material and labor. 
Benchmarking to support the AESO’s efforts with respect to testing for “cost reasonableness” while assessing transmission facility owner proposals and associated cost estimates for transmission projects. The survey contained in this document has been designed to align with the cost breakdown structure used by the AESO for the purpose of easy comparisons. It is recognized that your company’s cost breakdown structure might not align exactly with the information requested below, and where this is the case, please combine line items to a level of detail available. From there, if possible, please provide an estimate of the cost breakdown that aligns with the survey format and indicate that this is an estimate. CONFIDENTIALITY AWARENESS The FTI Genivar Report will not associate any data with a project’s specific location, facility owner, or other stakeholders that would enable correlation to the company’s participation in the study. All confidential information, as well as that available in the public domain will be protected to the fullest extent by AESO, FTI Consulting and Genivar. CONTACT INFORMATION Todd H. Mohr Senior Managing Director Tel: (303) 689‐8890 Mobile: (303) 681‐7527 1001 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado USA 80202 FTI CONSULTING GENIVAR George Juhn, P. Eng. Program/Project Consultant Tel: (905) 303‐6537 Mobile: (647) 993‐6537 1300 Yonge Street, Suite 801 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4T 1X3 Transmission Station Project Survey SURVEY FRAMEWORK Section 1 – Project Description Section 2 – Preliminary Engineering, Approvals and Tender Section 3 – Project Coordination and Management Section 4 – Detail Engineering Section 5 – Cost of Station Equipment Section 6 – Switchyard Material and Sundry Equipment Section 7 – Building Material and Building Equipment Section 8 – Cost of Protections, Control, Metering Equipment Section 9 – Other Equipment and Material Cost Section 10 – Site Preparation & Survey Section 11 – Switchyard Construction Section 12 – Equipment Installation Section 13 – Building Construction Section 14 – Protections, Control, Metering Installation Section 15 – Commissioning and As‐Built Section 16 – AFUDC, Common Costs, Contingencies and Removals Section 17 – Site and Technical Information Section 18 – Source and Supporting Documents PREAMBLE It is assumed that Canadian Utilities will provide the information in CAN$s and metric units of measure and US utilities in US$s and imperial units of measure. As noted in the introduction, where information is not available to the level of detail requested, please combine line items to a level of detail that is aligned with the cost breakdown structure used by your company. From there, if possible, please provide an estimate of the cost breakdown that aligns with the survey format and indicate that this is an estimate. Please use the “notes” field freely to add explanation and context that might not be evident with information provided in other parts of the survey. Furthermore, there is an intention to capture information on problems encountered during planning, purchasing and execution of the project and the identification of unusual circumstances that would have a material impact on cost and/or schedule from what would normally be the case. An entry field has been provided at the end of Section 16 for this purpose. There is no need to calculate the unit cost values. The FTI and Genivar team will complete this part of the survey. Please feel free to attach files, documents or other supplemental information to support the data requested in the survey. If the documents and files provided include the requested survey data, there is no need to transcribe the data into the survey format. If precise answers are not available, please provide estimates, partial answers, and opinions. These too are of value to us. 2
Transmission Station Project Survey Section 1 – Project Description Project Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description of Project: Total Cost for the Substation/Transformer Station: _$_____________________ In‐Service Date: ________________________________ Section 2 ‐ Preliminary Engineering, Approvals and Tender No. Description 2.1 Site selection, preliminary designs and cost estimates Studies – Environment, Electrical, System Impact Assessment, etc. (please identify the type in the notes field) Approvals, e.g., environmental, building permits, etc. Regulatory submissions and approvals Property acquisition costs including legal, land agent fees and the cost for the property Prepare and evaluate tender documents, and award prime contracts 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Totals Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Vendor Name or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Notes 3
Transmission Station Project Survey Section 3 ‐ Project Coordination and Management No. Vendor Name or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Description 3.1 Project & construction management Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Hours if Known Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Section 4 ‐ Detail Engineering No. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Vendor Name or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Description Civil and structural design Electrical design & equipment specifications Protection, control, metering, telecom, SCADA Drawings and document preparation Prepare data package for construction and provide field engineering support Totals 4
Transmission Station Project Survey Sections 5 – Cost of Station Equipment 

No. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 Totals Transmission Equipment, i.e., > 50 kV, Unless Noted If more than one type/classification of equipment is contained in a category with cost differences that are significant, please add a line under the subject category and enter the equipment specifics. For example, if the station includes 230 kV and 115 kV power transformers, identify costs for each type of power transformer and use the notes section to describe the equipment. Original Cost Actual Cost or Equipment Estimate if Current Vendor(s) Different from Estimate if Unit Notes Description Units Qty. and Others Current Under Cost Considered Estimate or Development Actual Cost Relevant ($1,000s) ($1,000s) Power transformers #
Lightning Arrestors #
Substation regulators #
Oil monitoring systems #
Circuit breakers #
Circuit switchers #
Capacitors #
Reactors #
CVT #
Air break switch #
Air break switch motorized #
Station service transformers #
Underground cable if applicable length
Distribution equipment < 50 kV N/A
excluding station service, e.g., breakers, reclosers, transrupters, cable, etc. Other equipment not identified N/A
above 5
Transmission Station Project Survey Section 6 – Switchyard Material and Sundry Equipment No. Description Units 6.1 Foundations 6.2 Oil Containment 6.3 Steel structures 6.4 Fire wall between power transformers 6.5 Grounding – indicate predominate size in the notes and total length under Qty. 6.6 Fencing – note type and height in the notes section 6.7 Bus work 6.8 Insulation 6.9 Switchgear inside building if applicable 6.10 Distribution switchyard material if it can be separated from Transmission 6.11 Telecommunication tower and antennas. Note height of tower under notes. Totals Qty. Equipment Vendor(s) and Others Considered Relevant Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Unit Cost cubic feet or m area
weight
#
length
length
length
#
N/A
N/A
weight of tower 6
Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Transmission Station Project Survey Section 7 – Building Material and Equipment No. Description Units 7.1 Buildings including HVAC, electrical, structure, etc. 7.2 AC & DC supply (batteries) 7.3 Back‐up generation Totals Qty. Equipment Vendor(s) and Others Considered Relevant Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Unit Cost area
N/A
#
Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Section 8 – Cost of Protections, Control, Metering Equipment If more than one type/classification of equipment is contained in a category with cost differences that are significant, please add a line under the subject category and enter the equipment specifics. Original Cost Actual Cost or Estimate if Equipment Current Different from Vendor(s) Unit Estimate if Current No. Description Units Qty. and Others Notes Cost Under Estimate or Considered Development Actual Cost Relevant ($1,000s) ($1,000s) 8.1 Relays #
8.2 Meters #
8.3 RTUs #
8.4 Other (please use the notes to N/A
elaborate) Totals 7
Transmission Station Project Survey Section 9 – Other Equipment or Material Not Identified Above No. Description Units 9.0 Other Equipment or Material Not Identified Above (please use the notes field to elaborate) N/A
Qty. Equipment Vendor(s) and Others Considered Relevant Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Totals Sections 10 ‐ Site Preparation & Survey No. Description Units 10.1 Clearing and survey 10.2 Grading ‐ cut and fill Qty. Vendor or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) area
cubic feet or m length
cubic feet or m 10.3 Access roads 10.4 Surface gravel Totals 8
Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Transmission Station Project Survey Sections 11 ‐ Switchyard Construction No. Description Units 11.1 Foundations 11.2 Oil Containment 11.3 Steel structures 11.4 Fire wall between power transformers 11.5 Grounding 11.6 Fencing 11.7 Bus work 11.8 Insulation 11.9 Switchgear inside building if applicable 11.10 Cable trench 11.11 Distribution switchyard if it can be separated from Transmission 11.12 Telecommunication tower and antennas. Totals Qty. Vendor or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) cubic feet or m area
weight
#
length
length
length
#
N/A
length
N/A
weight of tower 9
Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Transmission Station Project Survey Sections 12 ‐ Equipment Installation No. Description Units 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.12 12.13 12.14 Power transformers Lightning Arrestors Substation regulators Oil monitoring systems Circuit breakers Circuit switchers Capacitors Reactors CVT Air break switch Air break switch motorized Station service transformers Under ground cable if applicable 12.15 Distribution equipment < 50 kV excluding station service, e.g., breakers, reclosers, transrupters, cable, etc. 12.16 Other equipment not identified above Totals Qty. Vendor or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
length
N/A
N/A
10
Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Transmission Station Project Survey Sections 13 ‐ Building Construction No. Description Units 13.1 Buildings including HVAC, electrical, structure, etc. 13.2 AC & DC supply (batteries) 13.3 Back‐up generation Totals Qty. Vendor or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes area
N/A
#
Sections 14 ‐ Protections, Control, Metering Installation No. 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 Description Units Relays Meters RTUs Other (please use the notes to elaborate) #
#
#
N/A
Qty. Vendor or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) Totals 11
Transmission Station Project Survey Sections 15 ‐ Commissioning and As‐Built No. Description Units 15.1 As‐built drawings 15.2 Equipment testing and documentation 15.3 Relay settings, SCADA, RTU programing and functional testing Totals Qty. Vendor or Owner’s Cost if Done In‐House Actual Cost or Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000s) N/A
N/A
N/A
12
Unit Cost Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Transmission Station Project Survey Section 16 ‐ AFUDC, Common Costs, Contingencies and Removals No. 16.1 Description Actual Cost or
Current Estimate if Under Development ($1,000’s) Original Cost Estimate if Different from Current Estimate or Actual Cost ($1,000s) Notes Total cost from above tables 16.2 Other costs not included above. Please describe these costs in the notes section. 16.2 Total Installation Cost = 16.1 + 16.2
16.3 Removals of existing equipment and site infrastructure if this project is within or adjacent to an existing transformer station. Please list equipment and infrastructure removed under the notes section. If these removals are not part of the capital addition, please do not include them in the total cost, but note the amount in the appropriate column. 16.4 Contingencies 16.5 Common Costs (Overheads) – Please use the notes to provide the items that make up the Common Costs. 16.6 Interest during construction (AFUDC)
Total Capital Cost 16.7 Please use this field to identify the reasons why costs were greater than the original estimate (if applicable), and unusual circumstances that resulted in higher costs than would normally be the case. 13
Transmission Station Project Survey Section 17 ‐ Site and Technical Information 17.1 Site Information Is this a completely new development or an addition to an existing switchyard? Transmission switchyard area of new station development: Distribution switchyard area: Is there an allowance for future development? If the answer is yes, how much? Soil Conditions: Primarily rock Solid soil Poor wet conditions Swampy Foundation type and number to support transmission facilities: Concrete: Piles: Other: Foundation type and number to support distribution facilities: Concrete: Piles: Other: Oil Containment area and number: Construction material: No of pits: Average area and volume of containment pit: Station Buildings: Number: Area: Purpose: Type of construction: Average bus structure height: 14
Transmission Station Project Survey 17.2 Transmission Equipment Data Please fill out the following in regards to Transmission Equipment. Use each box to fill in the answer. Power Transformers Quantity Nominal Voltages MVA Rating
Cooling Class
BIL
Surge Arrestors Quantity Rated Voltage Maximum Manufacturer Model
Continuous Operating Voltage (kV) Circuit Breakers Quantity Maximum Rated Rated Interruption Medium
Manufacturer Voltage Continuous Model Current 15
Notes
Notes
Notes
Transmission Station Project Survey Disconnect Switch Quantity Motor Operated (Y or N) Capacitor Bank Quantity Rated Voltage Current Transformer Quantity Indoor or Outdoor With Ground Switch (Y or N) Rated Continuous Current Notes
Rated Capacity (MVAR) Rated Maximum Voltage BIL
Notes
Capacity (kV) Primary Amperes
Metering or Protection Notes
16
Transmission Station Project Survey Section 18 ‐ Source & Supporting Documents 18.1 Regulatory Applications, Permitting and Approval Documents. If posted on a company web page, please provide the address. 18.2 Initial and Current Project Estimate 18.3 Current/Final Cost Report and Schedule 18.4 Contract with Engineering and Construction Companies Selected for Project Delivery 18.5 Project Single Line Diagram and Station Layout drawings 17
Section VII Detailed Comparison of Substation Costs Alberta Electric System Operator
Benchmarking Survey of Utility Construction Costs
Adjusted Cost / Estimate by Cost Type ‐ Substation Projects ($000)
S1
S2
S3
S4
$ 9,087
$ 1,872
$ 1,751
$ 5,779
$ 8,498
$ 1,102
$ 500
$ 194
$ 200
S5
S6 ‐ Alberta
S7 ‐ Alberta
S8 ‐ Alberta
$ 8,835
$ 3,418
$ 272
$ 1,433
$ 8,257
$ 2,171
$ 252
$ 941
$ 8,028
$ 2,477
$ 466
$ 757
$ 296
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Station equipment Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 11,112
$ 8,264
$ 18,490
$ 10,494
$ 11,300
$ 13,957
$ 11,620
$ 12,023
$ 5,246
$ 1,284
$ 7,542
$ 1,254
$ 2,496
$ 1,189
$ 628
$ 1,438
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 2,837
$ 3,785
$ 109
$ 2,966
$ 578
$ 109
$ 1,537
$ 6,396
$ 1,258
$ 11,691
$ 1,377
$ 1,325
$ 1,896
$ 291
$ 1,541
$ 839
$ 721
$ 2,796
$ 2,400
$ 14,447
$ 5,721
$ 3,050
$ 9,802
$ 1,047
$ 1,017
$ 454
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 10,385
$ 6,494
$ 22,259
$ 6,613
$ 9,564
$ 6,467
$ 24,704
Material
Labour
$ 826
$ 366
$ 319
$ 438
$ 200
$ 5
$ 21
$ 350
$ 1,603
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ 1,192
$ 319
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 638
$ 25
$ 1,953
$ 27,935
$ 16,362
$ 48,291
$ 18,360
$ 21,492
$ 25,348
$ 18,740
$ 40,118
$ 835
$ 1,338
$ 42
$ 4,519
$ 292
$ 624
$ 572
$ 1,049
$ 280
$ 286
$ 3,527
$ 3,411
$ 835
$ 1,380
$ 4,519
$ 292
$ 624
$ 1,621
$ 565
$ 6,937
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 1,271
$ 8
$ 11
$ 3,333
$ 1,020
$ 326
$ 324
$ 165
$ 290
$ 224
$ 957
$ 174
$ 700
Total Owners Costs
$ 1,271
$ 19
$ 4,353
$ 650
$ 700
$ 456
$ 1,181
$ 174
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 1,657
$ 1,035
$ 1,160
$ 1,585
$ 13,371
$ 2,704
$ 1,352
$ 2,987
$ 3,977
$ 860
$ 2,312
$ 1,824
Total Other Costs
$ 2,692
$ 2,745
$ 13,371
$ 1,824
$ 4,056
$ 2,987
$ 4,838
$ 2,312
$ 3,963
$ 2,764
$ 17,724
$ 2,474
$ 4,756
$ 3,442
$ 6,018
$ 2,486
$ 32,733
$ 20,506
$ 70,534
$ 21,126
$ 26,871
$ 30,412
$ 25,324
$ 49,542
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
$ 7,696
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
1 of 1
Section VIII Substation ‐ Survey Cost Detail Projects S1 through S5 Project Number:
Substation S1
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0905
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0000
Contingency & Escalation
$ ‐
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Cost ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
$ 11,112
41.8%
$ ‐
$ 11,112
41.8%
1.0000
$ 11,112
39.8%
$ 4,810
18.1%
$ ‐
$ 4,810
18.1%
1.0905
$ 5,246
18.8%
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 2,602
$ 3,471
$ 100
$ 2,720
$ 530
$ 100
9.8%
13.0%
0.4%
10.2%
2.0%
0.4%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 2,602
$ 3,471
$ 100
$ 2,720
$ 530
$ 100
9.8%
13.0%
0.4%
10.2%
2.0%
0.4%
1.0905
1.0905
1.0905
1.0905
1.0905
1.0905
$ 2,837
$ 3,785
$ 109
$ 2,966
$ 578
$ 109
10.2%
13.6%
0.4%
10.6%
2.1%
0.4%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 9,523
35.8%
$ ‐
$ 9,523
35.8%
$ 10,385
37.2%
Material
Labour
$ 826
$ 335
3.1%
1.3%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 826
$ 335
3.1%
1.3%
$ 826
$ 366
3.0%
1.3%
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ 1,161
4.4%
$ ‐
$ 1,161
4.4%
$ 1,192
4.3%
$ 26,608
100.0%
$ ‐
$ 26,608
100.0%
$ 27,935
100.0%
$ 766
$ ‐
2.9%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 766
$ ‐
2.9%
$ 835
3.0%
$ 766
2.9%
$ ‐
$ 766
2.9%
$ 835
3.0%
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 1,165
$ ‐
4.4%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 1,165
$ ‐
4.4%
$ 1,271
4.5%
Total Owners Costs
$ 1,165
4.4%
$ ‐
$ 1,165
4.4%
$ 1,271
4.5%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 1,519
$ 949
5.7%
3.6%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 1,519
$ 949
5.7%
3.6%
$ 1,657
$ 1,035
5.9%
3.7%
Total Other Costs
$ 2,469
9.3%
$ ‐
$ 2,469
9.3%
$ 2,692
9.6%
$ 3,634
13.7%
$ ‐
$ 3,634
13.7%
$ 3,963
14.2%
$ ‐
$ 31,007
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Total Substation Facility Cost
1.0000
1.0905
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.0905
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.0905
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 31,007
1 of 5
1.0905
1.0905
$ 32,733
Project Number:
Substation S2
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.1943
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0149
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Cost ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
$ 8,143
54.6%
$ ‐
$ 8,143
54.6%
1.0149
$ 8,264
50.5%
$ 1,075
7.2%
$ ‐
$ 1,075
7.2%
1.1943
$ 1,284
7.8%
$ 5,438
36.4%
$ ‐
$ 5,438
36.4%
1.1943
$ 6,494
39.7%
Material
Labour
$ ‐
$ 267
1.8%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 267
1.8%
1.1943
$ 319
1.9%
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ 267
1.8%
$ ‐
$ 267
1.8%
$ 319
1.9%
$ 14,924
100.0%
$ ‐
$ 14,924
100.0%
$ 16,362
100.0%
$ 1,120
$ 35
7.5%
0.2%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 1,120
$ 35
7.5%
0.2%
$ 1,338
$ 42
8.2%
0.3%
$ 1,155
7.7%
$ ‐
$ 1,155
7.7%
$ 1,380
8.4%
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 7
$ 11
0.0%
0.1%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 7
$ 11
0.0%
0.1%
$ 8
$ 11
0.0%
0.1%
Total Owners Costs
$ 18
0.1%
$ ‐
$ 18
0.1%
$ 19
0.1%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 971
$ 1,327
6.5%
8.9%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 971
$ 1,327
6.5%
8.9%
$ 1,160
$ 1,585
7.1%
9.7%
Total Other Costs
$ 2,299
15.4%
$ ‐
$ 2,299
15.4%
$ 2,745
16.8%
$ 2,316
15.5%
$ ‐
$ 2,316
15.5%
$ 2,764
16.9%
$ ‐
$ 18,395
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Total Substation Facility Cost
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.1943
1.1943
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.1943
1.0149
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 18,395
2 of 5
1.1943
1.1943
$ 20,506
Project Number:
Substation S3
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0647
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
0.9968
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Cost ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
$ 9,116
$ 1,878
$ ‐
$ 1,757
$ 5,798
19.6%
4.0%
0.9968
0.9968
$ 9,087
$ 1,872
18.8%
3.9%
3.8%
12.5%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
3.8%
12.5%
0.9968
0.9968
$ 1,751
$ 5,779
3.6%
12.0%
$ 18,549
39.9%
$ ‐
$ 18,549
39.9%
$ 18,490
38.3%
$ 7,084
15.2%
$ ‐
$ 7,084
15.2%
1.0647
$ 7,542
15.6%
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 1,444
$ 6,008
$ 1,182
$ 10,980
$ 1,293
3.1%
12.9%
2.5%
23.6%
2.8%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 1,444
$ 6,008
$ 1,182
$ 10,980
$ 1,293
$ ‐
3.1%
12.9%
2.5%
23.6%
2.8%
1.0647
1.0647
1.0647
1.0647
1.0647
$ 1,537
$ 6,396
$ 1,258
$ 11,691
$ 1,377
3.2%
13.2%
2.6%
24.2%
2.9%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 20,907
44.9%
$ ‐
$ 20,907
44.9%
$ 22,259
46.1%
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
$ 9,116
$ 1,878
$ ‐
$ 1,757
$ 5,798
19.6%
4.0%
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.3 ‐ Construction
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Material
Labour
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 46,540
100.0%
$ ‐
$ 46,540
100.0%
$ 4,245
$ ‐
9.1%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 4,245
$ ‐
9.1%
$ 4,245
9.1%
$ ‐
$ 4,245
9.1%
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 3,131
$ 1,023
6.7%
2.2%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 3,131
$ 1,023
6.7%
2.2%
Total Owners Costs
$ 4,154
8.9%
$ ‐
$ 4,154
8.9%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 12,559
$ ‐
27.0%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 12,559
$ ‐
27.0%
Total Other Costs
$ 12,559
27.0%
$ ‐
$ 12,559
$ 16,713
35.9%
$ ‐
$ 16,713
$ ‐
$ 67,497
Total Substation Facility Cost
$ 48,291
100.0%
$ 4,519
9.4%
$ 4,519
9.4%
$ 3,333
$ 1,020
6.9%
2.1%
$ 4,353
9.0%
$ 13,371
27.7%
27.0%
$ 13,371
27.7%
35.9%
$ 17,724
36.7%
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.0647
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.0647
0.9968
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 67,497
3 of 5
1.0647
$ 70,534
Project Number:
Substation S4
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.1182
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0000
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Cost ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
$ 8,498
$ 1,102
$ 500
$ 194
$ 200
48.5%
6.3%
2.9%
1.1%
1.1%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 8,498
$ 1,102
$ 500
$ 194
$ 200
48.5%
6.3%
2.9%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 10,494
59.9%
$ ‐
$ 10,494
59.9%
$ 1,121
6.4%
$ ‐
$ 1,121
6.4%
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 1,185
$ 1,696
$ 260
$ 1,378
$ 750
$ 645
6.8%
9.7%
1.5%
7.9%
4.3%
3.7%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 1,185
$ 1,696
$ 260
$ 1,378
$ 750
$ 645
6.8%
9.7%
1.5%
7.9%
4.3%
3.7%
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 5,914
33.7%
$ ‐
$ 5,914
33.7%
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
$ 8,498
$ 1,102
$ 500
$ 194
$ 200
46.3%
6.0%
2.7%
1.1%
1.1%
$ 10,494
57.2%
1.1182
$ 1,254
6.8%
1.1182
1.1182
1.1182
1.1182
1.1182
1.1182
$ 1,325
$ 1,896
$ 291
$ 1,541
$ 839
$ 721
7.2%
10.3%
1.6%
8.4%
4.6%
3.9%
$ 6,613
36.0%
1.3 ‐ Construction
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Material
Labour
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 17,529
100.0%
$ ‐
$ 17,529
100.0%
$ 261
$ ‐
1.5%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 261
$ ‐
1.5%
$ 261
1.5%
$ ‐
$ 261
1.5%
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ 291
$ 324
1.7%
1.8%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 291
$ 324
1.7%
1.8%
Total Owners Costs
$ 615
3.5%
$ ‐
$ 615
3.5%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ ‐
$ 1,632
9.3%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 1,632
9.3%
Total Other Costs
$ 1,632
9.3%
$ ‐
$ 1,632
$ 2,247
12.8%
$ ‐
$ 2,247
$ ‐
$ 20,037
Total Substation Facility Cost
$ 18,360
100.0%
$ 292
1.6%
$ 292
1.6%
$ 326
$ 324
1.8%
1.8%
$ 650
3.5%
$ 1,824
9.9%
9.3%
$ 1,824
9.9%
12.8%
$ 2,474
13.5%
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.1182
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.1182
1.0000
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 20,037
4 of 5
1.1182
$ 21,126
Project Number:
Substation S5
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0400
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0000
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Cost ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
$ 11,300
53.6%
$ ‐
$ 11,300
53.6%
1.0000
$ 11,300
52.6%
$ 2,400
11.4%
$ ‐
$ 2,400
11.4%
1.0400
$ 2,496
11.6%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 7,400
35.1%
1.0400
$ 7,696
35.8%
1.3 ‐ Construction
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 7,400
35.1%
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Material
Labour
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 21,100
100.0%
$ ‐
$ 21,100
100.0%
$ 600
$ ‐
2.8%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 600
$ ‐
2.8%
$ 600
2.8%
$ ‐
$ 600
2.8%
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
$ ‐
$ 700
3.3%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 700
3.3%
Total Owners Costs
$ 700
3.3%
$ ‐
$ 700
3.3%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 2,600
$ 1,300
12.3%
6.2%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 2,600
$ 1,300
12.3%
6.2%
Total Other Costs
$ 3,900
18.5%
$ ‐
$ 3,900
$ 4,600
21.8%
$ ‐
$ 4,600
$ ‐
$ 26,300
Total Substation Facility Cost
$ 21,492
100.0%
$ 624
2.9%
$ 624
2.9%
$ 700
3.3%
$ 700
3.3%
$ 2,704
$ 1,352
12.6%
6.3%
18.5%
$ 4,056
18.9%
21.8%
$ 4,756
22.1%
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.0400
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.0000
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 26,300
5 of 5
1.0400
1.0400
$ 26,871
Section IX Substations ‐ Alberta Cost Detail Project S6 through S8 ‐ Alberta Project Number:
Substation S6 ‐ Alberta
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0000
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0000
Contingency & Escalation
$ 3,333
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Est. ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
$ 8,835
$ 3,418
$ 272
$ 1,433
34.9%
13.5%
1.1%
5.7%
$ 13,957
55.1%
1.0000
$ 1,189
4.7%
11.0%
1.0000
$ 2,796
11.0%
22.6%
1.0000
$ 5,721
22.6%
4.1%
1.0000
$ 1,047
4.1%
$ 9,564
37.7%
$ 438
$ 200
1.7%
0.8%
2.5%
$ 638
2.5%
$ 25,348
100.0%
$ 25,348
100.0%
$ 63
$ 115
$ 572
$ 1,049
2.3%
4.1%
$ 572
$ 1,049
2.3%
4.1%
6.4%
$ 178
$ 1,621
6.4%
$ 1,621
6.4%
$ 147
$ 258
0.7%
1.1%
$ 18
$ 32
$ 165
$ 290
0.7%
1.1%
$ 165
$ 290
0.7%
1.1%
$ 406
1.8%
$ 50
$ 456
1.8%
$ 456
1.8%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 2,659
$ ‐
11.8%
$ 327
$ ‐
$ 2,987
$ ‐
11.8%
$ 2,987
11.8%
Total Other Costs
$ 2,659
11.8%
$ 327
$ 2,987
11.8%
$ 2,987
11.8%
$ 3,065
13.6%
$ 377
$ 3,442
13.6%
$ 3,442
13.6%
$ 3,333
$ 30,412
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
$ 7,867
$ 3,043
$ 242
$ 1,276
34.9%
13.5%
1.1%
5.7%
$ 968
$ 375
$ 30
$ 157
$ ‐
$ 8,835
$ 3,418
$ 272
$ 1,433
$ ‐
34.9%
13.5%
1.1%
5.7%
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 12,428
55.1%
$ 1,529
$ 13,957
55.1%
$ 1,059
4.7%
$ 130
$ 1,189
4.7%
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 2,490
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 5,094
$ ‐
$ 932
11.0%
4.1%
$ 306
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 627
$ ‐
$ 115
$ 2,796
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 5,721
$ ‐
$ 1,047
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 8,516
37.7%
$ 1,048
$ 9,564
37.7%
Material
Labour
$ 390
$ 178
1.7%
0.8%
$ 48
$ 22
$ 438
$ 200
1.7%
0.8%
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ 568
2.5%
$ 70
$ 638
$ 22,570
100.0%
$ 2,778
$ 509
$ 934
2.3%
4.1%
$ 1,444
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.3 ‐ Construction
22.6%
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Total Substation Facility Cost
1.0000
1.0000
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.0000
1.0000
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.0000
1.0000
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 27,079
1 of 3
1.0000
$ 30,412
Project Number:
Substation S7 ‐ Alberta
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0000
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0000
Contingency & Escalation
$ ‐
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Est. ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
$ 8,257
$ 2,171
$ 252
$ 941
44.1%
11.6%
1.3%
5.0%
$ 11,620
62.0%
1.0000
$ 628
3.4%
12.8%
1.0000
$ 2,400
12.8%
16.3%
1.0000
$ 3,050
16.3%
5.4%
1.0000
$ 1,017
5.4%
$ 6,467
34.5%
$ 5
$ 21
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
$ 25
0.1%
$ 18,740
100.0%
$ 18,740
100.0%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 280
$ 286
1.5%
1.5%
$ 280
$ 286
1.5%
1.5%
3.0%
$ ‐
$ 565
3.0%
$ 565
3.0%
$ 224
$ 957
1.2%
5.1%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 224
$ 957
1.2%
5.1%
$ 224
$ 957
1.2%
5.1%
$ 1,181
6.3%
$ ‐
$ 1,181
6.3%
$ 1,181
6.3%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 3,977
$ 860
21.2%
4.6%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 3,977
$ 860
21.2%
4.6%
$ 3,977
$ 860
21.2%
4.6%
Total Other Costs
$ 4,838
25.8%
$ ‐
$ 4,838
25.8%
$ 4,838
25.8%
$ 6,018
32.1%
$ ‐
$ 6,018
32.1%
$ 6,018
32.1%
$ ‐
$ 25,324
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material
$ 8,257
$ 2,171
$ 252
$ 941
44.1%
11.6%
1.3%
5.0%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 8,257
$ 2,171
$ 252
$ 941
$ ‐
44.1%
11.6%
1.3%
5.0%
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 11,620
62.0%
$ ‐
$ 11,620
62.0%
$ 628
3.4%
$ ‐
$ 628
3.4%
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 2,400
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 3,050
$ ‐
$ 1,017
12.8%
5.4%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 2,400
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 3,050
$ ‐
$ 1,017
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 6,467
34.5%
$ ‐
$ 6,467
34.5%
Material
Labour
$ 5
$ 21
0.0%
0.1%
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 5
$ 21
0.0%
0.1%
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ 25
0.1%
$ ‐
$ 25
$ 18,740
100.0%
$ ‐
$ 280
$ 286
1.5%
1.5%
$ 565
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.3 ‐ Construction
16.3%
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Total Substation Facility Cost
1.0000
1.0000
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.0000
1.0000
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.0000
1.0000
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 25,324
2 of 3
1.0000
1.0000
$ 25,324
Project Number:
Substation S8 ‐ Alberta
Financial Adj. (labor)
1.0000
Financial Adj. (non‐labor)
1.0000
Contingency & Escalation
$ 4,371
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Contingency & Escalation
Actual Cost or % of Facility Estimate
Cost
($000)
Financial Adjustments
Adjusted & % of Facility Normalized Cost
Est. ($000)
1.0 ‐ Substation Facility Cost
1.1 ‐ Material
$ 8,028
$ 2,477
$ 466
$ 757
$ 296
20.0%
6.2%
1.2%
1.9%
0.7%
$ 12,023
30.0%
1.0000
$ 1,438
3.6%
36.0%
1.0000
$ 14,447
36.0%
24.4%
1.0000
$ 9,802
24.4%
1.1%
1.0000
$ 454
1.1%
$ 24,704
61.6%
$ 350
$ 1,603
0.9%
4.0%
4.9%
$ 1,953
4.9%
$ 40,118
100.0%
$ 40,118
100.0%
$ 311
$ 301
$ 3,527
$ 3,411
8.8%
8.5%
$ 3,527
$ 3,411
8.8%
8.5%
17.3%
$ 612
$ 6,937
17.3%
$ 6,937
17.3%
$ 159
$ ‐
0.4%
$ 15
$ ‐
$ 174
$ ‐
0.4%
$ 174
0.4%
$ 159
0.4%
$ 15
$ 174
0.4%
$ 174
0.4%
ES&G or Overheads
AFUDC
$ 2,108
$ ‐
5.8%
$ 204
$ ‐
$ 2,312
$ ‐
5.8%
$ 2,312
5.8%
Total Other Costs
$ 2,108
5.8%
$ 204
$ 2,312
5.8%
$ 2,312
5.8%
$ 2,267
6.2%
$ 219
$ 2,486
6.2%
$ 2,486
6.2%
$ 4,371
$ 49,542
Station equipment (see below)
Foundations, structures, grounding & buswork
Control Building
Protection, Control, Metering, SCADA
Other Material (distribution allowance)
$ 7,319
$ 2,258
$ 424
$ 690
$ 270
20.0%
6.2%
1.2%
1.9%
0.7%
$ 708
$ 219
$ 41
$ 67
$ 26
$ 8,028
$ 2,477
$ 466
$ 757
$ 296
20.0%
6.2%
1.2%
1.9%
0.7%
1.1 ‐ Total Material Cost
$ 10,962
30.0%
$ 1,061
$ 12,023
30.0%
$ 1,311
3.6%
$ 127
$ 1,438
3.6%
Site Preparation & Survey
Switch Yard Construction
Building Installation + Mechanical
Equipment Installation
Protection, Control, Meter Installation
Commissioning
$ 13,173
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 8,937
$ ‐
$ 414
36.0%
1.1%
$ 1,275
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 865
$ ‐
$ 40
$ 14,447
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ 9,802
$ ‐
$ 454
1.3 ‐ Total Construction Cost
$ 22,524
61.6%
$ 2,180
$ 24,704
61.6%
Material
Labour
$ 319
$ 1,462
0.9%
4.0%
$ 31
$ 141
$ 350
$ 1,603
0.9%
4.0%
1.4 ‐ Total Telecom Cost
$ 1,781
4.9%
$ 172
$ 1,953
$ 36,579
100.0%
$ 3,540
$ 3,216
$ 3,110
8.8%
8.5%
$ 6,325
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Land & Easements
Total Owners Costs
1.2 ‐ Detail Engineering
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.3 ‐ Construction
24.4%
1.4 ‐ Telecom
Total Substation Facility Cost
1.0000
1.0000
2.0 ‐ Project & Const. Management
Project Management
Construction Management
Total Project & Const. Management
1.0000
1.0000
3.0 ‐ Separate Costs
3.1 ‐ Owners Costs
1.0000
3.2 ‐ Other Costs
Total Separate Costs
Total Substation Project Cost
$ 45,171
3 of 3
1.0000
$ 49,542
Section X Financial Adjustments to Reported Costs ‐
‐
‐
‐
Calculation Detail Cost Escalation Indices RSMeans Regional Wage Data Historical Currency Exchange Rates Financial Adjustments to Reported Costs Calculation Detail AESO ‐ Benchmarking Analysis
Summary of Financial Adjustments to Utility Cost Data
Beg.
Coeff.
Country
Cost Escalation Timing Adjustment
In Svc. Date Start Coeff. End Date End Coeff. Adjustment
[a]
[b]
[c]
[d]=[c]/[b]
Adj.
Coeff.
Project Location
Regional Cost Adjustment
Loc. Coeff. Target Location Tar. Coeff. Adjustment
[e]=[d]*[a]
[f]
[g]
[h]=[g]/[f]
Adj.
Coeff.
Foreign Exchange Adjustment
Orig. Curr. Target Curr. Trans. Date Spot Rate
[i]=[h]*[e]
Adjustment Coefficient
[j]
[k]=[j]*[i]
Transmission Lines
With Regional Cost Adjustment (for Labor Costs)
Project L1
Project L2
Project L3
Project L4
Project L5
Project L6
Project L7
Project L8
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
CAN
CAN
USA
CAN
USA
CAN
CAN
CAN
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
156.1
156.1
134.9
156.1
134.9
156.1
156.1
156.1
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
156.1
156.1
134.9
156.1
134.9
156.1
156.1
156.1
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
156.1
134.9
134.9
156.1
156.1
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
Jan‐13
156.1
134.9
134.9
156.1
156.1
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
1.049
1.075
1.558
1.118
1.219
1.111
1.040
1.144
CAD
CAD
USD
CAD
USD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
1.0000
1.0000
0.9968
1.0000
0.9968
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0485
1.0751
1.5530
1.1182
1.2151
1.1112
1.0400
1.1440
CAD
CAD
USD
CAD
USD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
1.0000
1.0000
0.9968
1.0000
0.9968
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0118
1.0000
1.1376
1.0491
1.0000
1.0491
CAD
USD
USD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
1.0000
0.9968
0.9968
1.0000
1.0000
1.090
1.194
1.065
1.118
1.040
CAD
USD
USD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
CAD
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
Dec‐12
1.0000
0.9968
0.9968
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0149
0.9968
1.0000
1.0000
Without Regional Cost Adjustment (for non‐Labor Costs)
Project L1
Project L2
Project L3
Project L4
Project L5
Project L6
Project L7
Project L8
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
CAN
CAN
USA
CAN
USA
CAN
CAN
CAN
Substations
With Regional Cost Adjustment (for Labor Costs)
Project S1
Project S2
Project S3
Project S4
Project S5
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
CAN
USA
USA
CAN
CAN
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
Calgary
1.090
1.198
1.068
1.118
1.040
Without Regional Cost Adjustment (for non‐Labor Costs)
Project S1
Project S2
Project S3
Project S4
Project S5
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
CAN
USA
USA
CAN
CAN
Note:
‐ To prevent users from exploiting adjustment data above to identify utilities and related projects participating in the survey, certain data in the above analysis have been redacted. However, all source data upon which this analysis relies is available for review. Letters notating the calculations performed in this analysis are shown at the top of the page.
1 of 1
Financial Adjustments to Reported Costs Cost Escalation Indices Table 327‐0011 Electric utility construction price indexes (EUCPI), annual (index, 1992=100)(1,2,3,4)
Survey or program details:
Electric Utility Construction Price Indexes ‐ 2316
Geography
Price index components
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Distribution systems
Total direct costs
Construction indirects
Transmission line systems
Transmission line systems interest foregone during construction
Transmission line systems less interest foregone during construction
Transmission line systems less transformers
Transmission line systems less transformers and interest foregone during construction
Transmission lines
Substations
150.3
151.9
141.4
148.8
71.6
150.9
145.6
147.9
151.2
147.5
151.1
150.7
153.4
149.7
69.6
151.9
146.1
148.4
150.2
149.5
155.1
155.2
154.7
150.5
66.9
152.8
147.3
149.8
152.7
149.3
160.1
159.5
162.9
154
60.5
156.5
151.2
154
157.9
151.8
161.5
160.7
166.3
156.1
46.5
159
152.7
155.9
158.8
154.5
Footnotes
1
2
3
4
These indexes measure price change for construction of two separate models of electric utility plant.
For more information on this table see "Survey/Program Details: Electric Utility Construction Price Indexes, 1992=100 ‐ 2316" in CANSIM table 327‐0011 homepage or Statistics Canada's catalogue 62‐007‐XPB.
Current year estimates, if shown, pertain to the first half of the calendar year.
Current and previous year estimates are preliminary and are subject to revisions.
Source:
Statistics Canada. Table 327‐0011 ‐ Electric utility construction price indexes (EUCPI), annual (index, 1992=100)
(accessed: March 26, 2013)
Producer Price Index Industry Data
Original Data Value
Series Id:
Industry:
Product:
Base Date:
Years:
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
PCU221122221122
Electric power distribution
Electric power distribution
200312
2003 to 2013
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
100.1
103.3
112.7
114.6
119.6
126.7
125.9
130.0
132.4
134.9
100.1
103.1
113.2
115.7
119.0
127.0
126.4
130.8
132.5
100.2
103.3
112.7
114.9
120.1
126.0
127.7
131.1
132.1
100.3
103.5
113.4
115.5
121.3
125.8
128.3
131.1
132.0
101.1
104.6
114.1
117.8
123.4
127.5
129.6
133.0
134.0
104.5
108.7
118.1
122.3
127.0
129.5
134.4
136.2
136.6
104.9
109.9
118.7
122.9
129.7
131.0
135.5
137.9
139.2
105.8
110.3
118.4
122.9
130.0
130.4
135.6
138.4
139.2
105.9
110.5
118.9
123.2
129.6
130.5
135.5
138.0
139.6
103.0
109.3
115.0
119.8
127.4
127.2
130.9
134.9
136.8
101.9
109.1
112.6
118.2
125.1
125.4
128.3
132.5
134.2
100.0
102.3
109.4
112.9
118.4
125.4
125.5
128.9
132.9
135.2
102.5
107.1
115.1
118.9
124.8
127.7
130.6
133.9
135.3
Data extracted on: March 4, 2013 (12:19:05 PM)
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
Financial Adjustments to Reported Costs RSMeans Regional Wage Data RSMeans Regional Wage Report Redacted for Copyright Purposes Financial Adjustments to Reported Costs Historical Currency Exchange Rates AESO - Benchmarking Analysis
Summary of Foreign Exchange Rates - USD/CAD (December 2012)
Source: http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical‐rates/
Exchange Rate
Bid
Ask
Midpoint
31-Dec-12
30-Dec-12
29-Dec-12
28-Dec-12
27-Dec-12
26-Dec-12
25-Dec-12
24-Dec-12
23-Dec-12
22-Dec-12
21-Dec-12
20-Dec-12
19-Dec-12
18-Dec-12
17-Dec-12
16-Dec-12
15-Dec-12
14-Dec-12
13-Dec-12
12-Dec-12
11-Dec-12
10-Dec-12
9-Dec-12
8-Dec-12
7-Dec-12
6-Dec-12
5-Dec-12
4-Dec-12
3-Dec-12
2-Dec-12
1-Dec-12
0.9966
0.9966
0.995
0.9931
0.9919
0.9911
0.9928
0.9931
0.9931
0.9907
0.9885
0.9863
0.9842
0.9857
0.9855
0.9855
0.9846
0.9841
0.9856
0.9867
0.9874
0.9881
0.9882
0.9908
0.9916
0.9921
0.994
0.9932
0.9941
0.9941
0.9929
0.9969
0.9969
0.9952
0.9933
0.9921
0.9912
0.993
0.9936
0.9936
0.9909
0.9887
0.9865
0.9843
0.9859
0.986
0.986
0.9848
0.9843
0.9857
0.9868
0.9876
0.9886
0.9887
0.991
0.9917
0.9922
0.9942
0.9934
0.9946
0.9946
0.9932
0.9968
0.9968
0.9951
0.9932
0.992
0.9912
0.9929
0.9934
0.9934
0.9908
0.9886
0.9864
0.9843
0.9858
0.9858
0.9858
0.9847
0.9842
0.9857
0.9868
0.9875
0.9884
0.9885
0.9909
0.9917
0.9922
0.9941
0.9933
0.9944
0.9944
0.9931
1 of 1