Item No.: 8b supp
Meeting Date: July 28, 2020



Electric Ground Support Equipment (EGSE)
Charging Stations

Agenda
Vision and Purpose
Benefits
Impacts and Delays
Scope Summary
Budget
Lessons Learned
Risks
Schedule
2

Today's Meeting Request
Request authorization to:
1.  Advertise Phase 2B for Construction;
2.  Authorize an increased budget totaling $7,400,000 for
a total project authorization of $38,100,000.


3

Program Vision and Purpose
Install 472
chargers
Enable airline
224 Charge Ports                     248 Charge Ports                    use of EGSE
rather than
fossil-fuel
Reduce carbon
and other air
emissions
1

Project Benefits
Phase 1 completed in 2014
Demonstrated emission reductions of ~4,000 metric tons CO2/yr
Phase 2 will
Reduce CO2 emissions by 4,000 to 5,000 metric tons per year, and
criteria air pollutants (particulate, SO2, NOx, etc.) by almost 200 tons
per year
Reduce fuel consumption
Reduce airline maintenance

5

Airline Benefits
Alaska now uses more than 200 EGSE
for SEA
Delta, Southwest, and United
collectively, have ~100 EGSE in-use
Ground crew reception is positive
High demand for new charger
locations on south half of airport.

6

Impacts and Delays
2013 - Phase 2 deferred
Airline realignment
Major project construction (e.g., IAF)
2016  Phase 2 separated into multiple projects
Maximize installation on Concourse A, B and South Satellite locations, based on
existing power capacity
2017 - South satellite scope deferred
Currently planning for full seismic upgrade at SSAT

7

Scope Summary

Typical GSE Charger Corrals
The electrical charging system allows the airlines
to use electrically powered ground service equipment.




2 Charge Ports                  4 Charge Ports                  6 Charge Ports

9

Full Project Buildout

Phase 1 Installations


256 Charge Ports
Installed

Phase 2A


40 Charge Ports Planned

Phase 2B
30 Charge Ports
Completed
to date




98 Charge Ports Planned

Budget
Original      Expended    Estimate to      Budget       Revised
Budget      to-date     Complete     Increase      Budget
Design                     $7.54M       $6.2M        $3.2M       $1.86M       $9.4M
Chargers                    $7.0M        $6.9M        $1.3M        $1.2M        $8.2M
Misc. Equipment               -          $0.4M        $0.1M        $0.5M        $0.5M
Port Construction               -           $2.0M        $0.6M        $2.6M        $2.6M
Services (Small Works)
Construction (Major         $16.16M       $4.4M        $13.0M       $1.24M       $17.4M
Works)
Total     $30.7M       $19.9M       $18.2M        $7.4M        $38.1M


14

Budget Increase
Escalation of construction costs & soft costs          $6.3M
Arc Flash Mitigation (added scope)                  $1.5M
Design update of the entire Phase 2 Project          $2.1M
Execution via multiple sub-phases                  $0.7M
South Satellite Scope Deferral                       ($3.2M)
TOTAL             $7.4M

15

Cone of Certainty
W e are here

Lessons Learned
When a Project is deferred
Evaluate impact to cost and schedule then report to commission.
Project designed within dynamic Airfield Operations Area
Establish budget and schedule contingencies on this heightened level of risk for delays and/or
design updates.
Port purchased equipment
Selected vendor contract shall be sufficient in length to support the project/program schedule
including a reasonable contingency.



17

Risks
Project Risk            Budget/Schedule Impact                Mitigation Plan
Phase 1, Owner furnished       Contractor markup.        Budget includes contractor markup.
chargers. Remaining Phase 2                                Specification includes salient
chargers contractor furnished                               characteristics required by the Port.
International Arrivals Facility     Phase 2A delayed until      Begin design ASAP based on final
(IAF) construction                completion of IAF           configuration of IAF
Ramp is Dynamic              Potential for operational   Close coordination with Port and Airline
changes between design   Operations staff.
and installation


18

Schedule
Phase 2B Small Works In-Use                               Q3 2020
Phase 2B
Design Complete                                      Q3 2020
Construction Start                                         Q1 2021
In-Use                                                Q1 2023
Phase 2A
IAF substantial completion                                 Q1 2021
Design Complete                                      Q3 2021
Construction Start                                         Q4 2021
In-Use                                                Q3 2022

19

Questions?

Appendix

21

Alternative 1
Complete the Small Works project charger installations currently in construction. Do not proceed with
the new Concourse B power center, or the remaining chargers identified under Phase 2A, and Phase 2B.
Cost Implications: An estimated $2,200,000 in costs to date will need to be expensed if this option is
pursued.
Pros:
1) No additional capital costs.
Cons:
1) Most airlines will not be able to take advantage of EGSE.
2) The Port of Seattle will not be able to realize the environmental benefits of EGSE on the
remaining south half of Sea-Tac Airport.
This is not the recommended alternative.
22

Alternative 2
Complete the planned charger installations and new Concourse B power center as identified for Phase
2A, and Phase 2B projects.
Cost Implications: $23,930,189 (Total Phase 2 cost)
Pros:
1) Installs 138 EGSE charge ports on Concourse A, B and the South Satellite.
2) Maximizes the reduction in carbon emissions from ground service equipment.
3) Allows Most airlines operating out of Sea-Tac Airport to take advantage of EGSE.
4) Increases the electrical power capacity on concourse B.
Cons:
1) Additional capital costs
This is the recommended alternative.
23