8b Presentation, Electric Ground Support Equipment Charging Stations
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
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.