Middletown Norwalk Project TCA/Schedule 12C Application

NEPOOL Reliability Committee Data ResponsesApril 21, 2009

NortheastUtilities System

Middletown-Norwalk Cost Estimates

Set 3 Question 1

Data Request: At the Reliability Committee ("RC") meeting on September 16, 2008, it was stated that the Project and all alternatives were evaluated using 2008 dollars. However, on the TCA application, specifically question 11, it states the valuation year as "in-service year," where question 2 of the TCA application lists in-service year as 2009. Please indicate the actual valuation year of the costs for the Project and alternatives.

Response: The costs for the Project included in the TCA Application were "time-of-

performance" dollars

Costs reflect the dollars that were incurred in the year that they were spent (2001-2009)

Similar approach taken for Alternatives

1

Middletown-Norwalk SPS Modifications

Set 3 Question 2

Data Request: As a result of this Project, will here be any changes or modifications to the SPS for the Cross Sound Cable or any other SPS modifications? If yes, are those costs included?

Response: Yes, there was a modification to the existing NPCC Type III Special Protection

System (SPS) #154 – Cross Sound Cable 387, also known as the 387 Line End Open SPS. The existing SPS monitored the status of the Scovill Rock 5T, 8T, and 7T circuit breakers.

The Middletown-Norwalk Project modified the Scovill Rock 345-kV Switching Station configuration with the installation of four (4) new 345-kV circuit breakers resulting in a breaker-and-a-half bus configuration. The modifications to the Scovill Rock Switching Station allowed for a simplification of the monitoring for the 387 line end open condition. This is accomplished by monitoring the 5T and 6T circuit breakers for an open condition.

2

Middletown-Norwalk Duct Bank

Set 3 Question 4

Data Request: Confirm that the 345-kV XLPE duct bank has no spare conduits to be used at a later date.

Response: The 345-kV XLPE duct bank contains no spare conduits for 345-kV XLPE cable.

3

Middletown-Norwalk No Feasible All-overhead Route

Set 3 Question 5Data Request: Describe the pursuit of an all-overhead alternative. Provide

relevant documentation including Connecticut Siting Council submittals and cost estimates.

Response: The companies determined there was no feasible all-overhead alternative.

4

Middletown-Norwalk Splices and Vaults

Set 3 Question 6 Data Request: Explain the difference between XLPE and HPFF splices,

highlighting any cost differences as a percentage. Also, explain why the splice vaults are so large and reiterate the amount of splice vaults that were used in this project. If possible, provide a comparison to the amount used in Bethel to Norwalk Project.

Response: High Pressure Fluid Filled technology cable was not a viable alternative for

the Middletown-Norwalk Project for reliability purposes. For details of this analysis, please refer to the ISO-NE Reliability and Operability Committee Report.

5

Middletown-Norwalk Splices and Vaults (cont’d)

6

Project

Middletown-Norwalk

(XLPE)

Bethel-Norwalk (XLPE)

Length of double

345- kV circuit

~24 miles ~2 miles

Total number of

345- kV splice vaults

150 single circuit 12 single circuit

Maximum distance between 345-kV

splice vaults

1945 feet 1984 feet

Average distance between splice vaults

1534 feet 1380 feet

Vault size 30’(l)x8’(h)x8’(w) 30’(l)x7’(h)x8’(w)Size of cable

conductor (kcmil)3000 1750

Middletown-Norwalk Contaminated Soil

Set 3 Question 7Data Request: Identify any costs that were associated with contaminated soil

removal or mitigation as a result of the 24 miles of underground construction.

Response: The Companies incurred approximately $14M in additional costs to dispose of

soil classified as polluted, contaminated, or hazardous. Based on design requirements of the cable system (i.e., concrete to protect the

ductbank covered with flowable fill, a self compacting low strength concrete type mixture that has specific thermal and heat transfer properties) none of the excavated soil could be returned to the trenches.

7

Middletown-Norwalk Discussion of Process of Properties to be AcquiredSet 3 Question 8Data Request: Explain what process was used to determine which residential

properties would need to be acquired for increased right-of-way (ROW) width for Alternatives A and B. For example, the TCA application specified that for Alternative B, 29 homes would be within 10 feet of the edge of ROW and 42 homes would be within 20 feet of the edge of the ROW. Similarly, Alternative A would have 17 homes within 10 feet of the edge of the ROW and 21 homes within 20 feet of the edge of the ROW. Describe in detail what the minimum distance is from the edge of ROW to "homes" and if "homes" are defined as dwellings or to the edge of privately owned property.

Response:

Only homes or businesses that “touched” the ROW boundary were identified as a property that would need to be acquired. This was a conservative process that may in fact underestimate the actual number of dwellings that may need to be acquired.

The additional information about the proximity of homes to the right of way was included in the TCA only to describe residential density. These numbers were not included in the cost estimates

8

Middletown-Norwalk Discussion of Properties

9

Middletown-Norwalk Discussion of Properties

10

Middletown-Norwalk Discussion of Properties

11

Middletown-Norwalk Property Cost Estimates

Set 3 Question 9Data Request: What process is used to develop estimates for property acquisition?

For the alternatives A and B, were actual house values used or estimates? Were there any condemnations? If so, how was the estimate developed? Describe how in this Project the construction type (i.e., taller structures, monopoles or H-Frame) and ROW width affects the number of homes that need to be acquired.

Response: The property acquisition costs and easement costs for the Project and the

Alternatives were determined using actual costs if known or latest property estimates at the time. These estimates were based on appraisals for the value of acquisitions and easements in the area.

For the Project, in some locations, construction types were optimized such that no homes needed to be acquired.

For Alternatives A and B, in general, taller structures require less ROW expansion than shorter structures such as H-frames and therefore serve to minimize the amount of easements and dwellings that need to be acquired.

12

Middletown-Norwalk and Bethel-Norwalk

Set 3 Question 11

Data Request: Describe and provide costs for any cost incurred in the Middletown to Norwalk project that resulted from the underground portions of the Bethel to Norwalk transmission project.

Response: The cable systems on the Bethel - Norwalk Project had no impact/influence on

the cost of the Middletown - Norwalk Project.

14

Middletown-Norwalk Construction Requirements

Set 3 Question 12 Data Request: Identify any construction requirements (i.e., nighttime

construction) required by the Connecticut Department of Transportation ("CDOT") for the Project and, for each such requirement, provide the incremental cost of the requirement.

Response: CDOT and certain municipalities require the Companies to hire inspectors to

monitor the in-road work. The roads at issue are heavily travelled and provide critical alternative routes for Interstate 95. The total cost incurred by both Companies for these inspectors was approximately $5M.

The only limitation imposed by CDOT as to "time of construction" was that it would not permit construction on state roads during rush hour periods for public safety reasons.

15

Middletown-Norwalk Project Design Changes

Set 3 Question 13

Data Request: Using a table, identify any Project design changes and their costs that were initiated by the Connecticut Siting Council ("CSC"), CDOT or others that resulted in a cost increase above the original proposed route that was discussed with the CSC.

Response: The table in the data response package provides the list of both Project design

change increases and decreases.

16

Middletown-Norwalk Alternative Home Acquisitions

Set 3 Question 15Data Request: Explain why in the Docket 272 findings, it states that homes would

not be taken for Alternative A where in the TCA application on page 48, it states there is an "Acquisition of two homes ... in Wilton."

Set 3 Question 16Data Request: Explain why in paragraph 195, 198 in CSC Docket 272 findings, it is

stated that 29 homes would need to be taken for Alternative B whereas in the TCA application on page 43, it is stated that 31 homes would need to be taken.

Response: At the time of the Application to the Connecticut Siting Council in October 2003,

it was assumed that the ROW in Wilton would be expanded as part of the Bethel-Norwalk Project. As a result of the final Bethel-Norwalk Project configuration, this ROW expansion was not necessary. Accordingly, the Middletown-Norwalk Project would have required an expansion of the ROW in Wilton for both Alternative A and B and an acquisition of the two homes in Wilton.

18

Middletown-Norwalk Alternative Streams and WetlandsSet 3 Question 17 and 19

Data Request: The TCA application states for Alternative A, "Requires crossing of approximately 23 more streams . .. and 50 more regulated wetlands ... than the Project." This totals 73 wetlands and stream crossings for Alternative A. v.s. CSC Docket 272 specifies 49 wetlands and stream crossings.

The TCA application states "Requires crossing of approximately 38 more streams ... And approximately 85 more regulated wetlands . . than the Project.“ v.s. CSC Docket 272 states 85 wetland and stream crossings are required for Alternative B. Explain why there is a difference.

Response: Siting Council Findings of Fact 197 and 198 for Alternative A and

Alternative B respectively were incorrect because the number relates solely to wetlands and did not include any stream crossings.

19

Questions?