Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Native Alaska Energy Efficiency Feasibility Study Final Report November 30, 1995
4 = NATIVE ALASKA ENERGY EFFICIENCY FEASIBILITY STUDY November 30, 1995 Prepared Under Grant No. DE-FG51-94R020502 Submitted to U.S. Department of Energy Submitted by Koniag, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska Tl Final Report NATIVE ALASKA ENERGY EFFICIENCY FEASIBILITY STUDY November 30, 1995 Prepared Under Grant No. DE-FG51-94R020502 Submitted to U.S. Department of Energy Submitted by Koniag, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska ICRC Energy, Inc. O PH: (703) 352-4910 FAX: (703) 352-4915 July 31, 1996 Mr. Peter Crimp Development Specialist State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 W. 4th Ave., Suite 220 Anchorage, AK. 99501-4631 Dear Peter, It was a pleasure to talk with you the other day. As I promised, please find enclosed a copy of our final report to the USDOE regarding the grant we worked on. The end product was a computer model which can be very useful in optimizing energy supply and_ demand situations. I underlined and because there is a lot of software for analyzing power production and there are some for energy conservation, but we are not aware of any that take the holistic approach and look at both possibilities to come up with an integrated solution. To the extent the Alaska Division of Energy helps the villages plan for the future energy needs, I would think this tool would be very helpful. If you can think of any applications in Alaska, we would love to work on a project there. We have not marketed the product heavily due to other business development, but we are now looking for opportunities to employ the VESOP computer program. I will call to discuss our other Alaska energy developments soon. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please give me a call. incerely, cc: Uwe Gross, Koniag Inc. “A MINORITY-OWNED ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE” PROGRESS STATUS Project Title Alaska Native Energy Efficiency Feasibility Study Contract No. DE-FG51-94R020502 Date Submitted 30 November 1995 Reporting Period 5/6/95 - 12/31/95 Contract Period 11/9/94 - 12/31/95 Contractor — Koniag, Inc. 4300 B Street Suite 407 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Project Milestones Planned Actual 1. Project Planning : 11/15/94 11/30/94 2. Energy Data Collection & Survey 6/30/95 9/01/95 3. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential 3/31/95 9/01/95 4. Demonstration Village Selection Criteria 2/28/95 2/25/95 5. Feasibility Analysis Computer Model 5/31/95 8/31/95 6. Technical/Business Training 7/30/95 10/24/95 7. Model Contracts Development * 9/30/95 11/30/95 8. Feasibility/Design Studies [3-5 Villages] 10/31/95 10/20/95 9. Final Report 12/31/95 11/30/95 Progress Status During the last reporting period the project all project milestones were completed except model contracts development. The Village Energy Simulation Optimization Program (VESOP) was finalized; simulations for the villages of Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Akhiok were conducted; the results and demonstrations of the model were presented to the City and Tribal Council members; a technical/business training presentation was also given to the leaders in the village; a training session with Koniag took place; and the model was demonstrated to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) and the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). * Model contracts proved to be unfeasible due to the present situation in the villages. In its place, a description of the legal and financial considerations of implementing energy programs in the village was developed. This is contained in Attachment F. Other project milestones that were near completion for the last reporting session and have been brought to closure include the data collection efforts and analysis of renewable energy potential. All publicly available wind data was received through the University of Alaska Anchorage in late July. The renewable energy potential for the villages was based on available renewable resource data. A summary of the computer simulations and results for the villages of Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Akhiok are included in this report. The results, as stated above, have been presented to the villages of Old Harbor and Ouzinkie. City council and tribal council members from Akhiok were not available during the sub contractors final trip to Alaska. Progress made during this reporting period is in general concert with the Project Plan. All but one project milestone have been met. Summaries of the status on key milestones for this reporting period are presented below. DATA COLLECTION ° Data collection activities were primarily completed at the end of the last reporting period. Additional wind data was sought after, however, the data was not publicly available and therefor was not obtained. The final outcome of the data collection is summarized below. Appendix A lists the key contacts for the entire project, and Appendix B lists the documents and data that were obtained for the analysis. Electricity ° Electricity consumption information was obtained for Old Harbor, Akhiok, Ouzinkie, and Rampart. Data from Larsen Bay and Port Lions was not pursued since the villages were not included in the final computer simulation/feasibility analysis. (Based on the village selection criteria, the villages of Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Akhiok were included). Fuel Consumption . Actual fuel consumption data was only received from Rampart. The Koniag subcontractor and computer program developer concluded that the information gathered during the subcontractors visit to the villages was adequate for the model simulations. Responses were consistent concerning the amount of fuel required to heat the various houses. The model simulations showed that the amount of heating fuel correlated to the amount indicated by the village residents. Data Quali ° Electricity data was fairly accurate and complete. Old Harbor’s generation data was well organized and complete for both generation and consumption information. Akhiok and Ouzinkie had good consumption information but the total generation data was not as complete. . A 24 hour load curve was developed based on information available from surrounding villages. Since the villages have very similar consumption patterns, a generic load curve was developed for all of the villages. ANALYSIS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL. ° The renewable energy potential was based on the resources available and economic feasibility. In the last progress report, synopsis of the renewable energy potential were included for hydro, wind, biomass and geothermal data. These synopses, with additional information, are repeated below. Technical and economical feasibility were verified in the model simulations. The following summarizes the key renewable energy potential findings. Hydro Data . Stream flow data was originally collected from the U.S. Geologic Survey. Additional stream flow data was obtained for Old Harbor through the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. This stream flow data has only been collected for the last two years and is not available through USGS. The new data is located at the site proposed for hydroelectric power in Old Harbor. . The results of the stream flow data for Old Harbor show potential for a technically and economically feasible hydro project. The results of a desk study for a hydroelectric project in Old Harbor may be found in Attachment C. The microhydro expert recommended that a full feasibility study be conducted for a 600 kW project. Wind Data . Wind data from the Kodiak Airport and from the Old Harbor airstrip was obtained and included in the model analysis. The Kodiak Airport site does not appear to be characteristic of the true winds in the area. The site is also sheltered from the prevailing island winds. The Old Harbor Airstrip site also does not appear to be indicative of the winds in the region. Further wind data collection was not permissible under this grant, therefor the technical experts used the available data to assess the impact wind power may have on the villages included in the analysis. Biomass Energy Old Harbor and Akhiok have few to no trees in their area. The primary form of biomass energy is in municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW converted to thermal energy may be economical enough to provide heating for the schools or city offices. The villages are not large enough to produce enough MSW for it to be used as electricity generation fuel. Geothermal Potential Data from the USGS has been received concerning well temperatures and depths. Also, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and their affiliates provided information on ground source heat pumps. Due to the soil types, drilling deep holes in the ground and inserting vertical piping rather than burying horizontal pipes appears to be the most effective form of ground source heat pump. GSHPs were not found to be cost effective in the feasibility analysis model simulation. DEMONSTRATION VILLAGE SELECTION CRITERIA The village selection criteria was divided into three main categories; economic, social and environment. Each category is weighted according to its level of importance. The economic category has a weight of 0.55, social is weighted as 0.25 and environment has a weight of 0.2. Under each category there are several subcategories which are also weighted and assigned a score of 1 to 10. A score of 1 represents a very poor rating and 10 is a very high rating. The categories and subcategories with their respective weighting factors on the following page. Weighting Factor 0.55 Economic 0.5 is Residences: i Total Energy Cost Savings ii. Total Energy Cost Savings/Total Village Gross Income iii. Total Energy Cost Savings/Household 2. Schools/Government Buildings/Community Centers: 0.4 i. Total Energy Cost Savings ii. Total Energy Cost Savings/Total Village Tax Bse iii. Total Energy Cost Savings/Household 3h PCE: 0.1 PCE Savings Social 0.25 i Village Cooperation 0.2 2 Initiative 0.2 2h Leadership 0.2 4. Long Range Maintenance Responsibility 0.2 St Potential for Village Population & Village Industry Growth 0.2 Hi Fishing ii. Tourism iii. Services Environment 0.2 le Wildlife 0.333 i. Stream Flow/Dams ii. Noise iti. Other 24 Pollution 0.333 i Water a. Surface b. Ground Cc. Sea ii. Air ili. Noise 3; Land Use Restrictions 0.333 i. National Parks ii. Native Corporate Lands iti. Private Land iv. Other Each village was given scores for the above categories and the results were weighted according to the criteria. The highest score possible is a one (1). The villages were then ranked from highest to lowest as seen in Table 1 below. The selection criteria sheets for each village may be found in Attachment D. Table 1. Selection Criteria Results for the Five Kodiak Island Villages Old Harbor Ouzinkie Akhiok Karluk Port Lions Larsen Ba’ Based on the results of the selection criteria, and availability of data, the top three villages in the above table were simulated with the VESOP model. Results may be found in the Feasibility Design Studies section. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS COMPUTER MODEL ° The Village Energy Simulation and Optimization Program (VESOP) -- the native Alaska village energy upgrade feasibility analysis model -- has been completed for the purposes of this project. This PC-based computer model is designed to analyze building-by-building energy demand for the selected villages, determine and optimize the potential for the deployment of energy efficiency demand-side management measures and renewable energy technologies, and calculate near and long-term costs associated with the specific configurations. . VESOP is designed to test and optimize village energy costs through simulations of various energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technology applications. The computer model includes village specific data on building stock characteristics, renewable energy resource potential, renewable energy technology performance characteristics, and costs associated with the deployment of the various technologies and measures. Conventional and renewable energy technologies included in VESOP are diesel generators, hydroelectric power, wind energy conversion technologies, oil furnaces, wood stoves, ground source heat pumps, and district heating. ° The VESOP uses an EXCEL spreadsheet as a pre- and post-calculation data user-interface, and an engineering simulation program called EXTEND. Attachment E provides a draft User Guide for VESOP, and includes more detail on the structure, operation, data content, data inputs, and output reports. Complete cost and economic assumptions are included in Attachment E. Results from the village simulations may be found in the Feasibility Design Studies Section below. TECHNICAL/BUSINESS TRAINING The Koniag representative and subcontractor visited two of the three villages, Old Harbor and Ouzinkie. Akhiok council and tribal members were not available during the trip to Alaska and requested that the information be mailed to them. The technical and business training constituted presenting the model, discussing in detail the results for the respective communities, and giving a business training presentation. During the presentations the program flow and analysis were explained. The results found in the Feasibility Design Studies Section were distributed and discussed. In Old Harbor, the presentation also provided the leaders with background knowledge on a hydroelectric plant and the options they have with their potential project. Since the village is in the process of determining the feasibility of building a hydroplant, the information was very timely and appreciated. The village leaders were eager to implement the finding based on the information received. Business training constituted a presentation on the legal and financial structures of energy services. The paper presented to the villages may be found in Attachment F of this report. The paper was also discussed in light of the particular villages circumstances. For instance, in Old Harbor, the discussion revolved around the development of a hydroelectric project. In Ouzinkie the focus was primarily on energy efficiency measures. FEASIBILITY DESIGN STUDIES: Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Akhiok Old Harbor L Village Overview The City of Old Harbor is located approximately 60 miles southwest of Kodiak City. The village sits on Sitkalidak Strait across from Sitkalidak Island. Mountains almost completely surround the village, protecting it from most strong winds. The strongest winds come from the south tunneled through the Sitkalidak Strait. The village has a population of 300, 100 of which are children. The school tends to bee the center of village activity. The village lodge, which includes a restaurant also tends to be a main gathering place. Old Harbor has very strong leadership and an entrepreneurial spirit. One resident has established an active and thriving lodge, and another began a shuttle service for the airstrip to the village. Also the town is lobbying to have the ferry make a stop a few times a year. Other examples of the villages innovative activities include creating walking paths, installing an oil incinerator to heat the fire hall and remove toxic oil wastes, and maintaining well the various public facilities. Ul. Energy Sector Organizations/Institutions The City of Old Harbor belongs to the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). AVEC serves 50 villages scattered throughout Alaska. Old Harbor is the only village located on Kodiak Island which belongs to AVEC. The cooperative headquarters are based in Anchorage. The villages served by AVEC elect an individual to represent them at the annual meeting. From the 50 delegates 7 are then elected to the board of directors. The system of representation provides the villages with some control over their electricity system. The governing body in the village also appoints or hires the generator operator. The operator maintains the electricity generation system. In some villages the generator operator conducts monthly meter readings and is in charge of collections. In Old Harbor two generator operators share the tasks of maintaining the system and reading electric meters. The diesel generators and the generator buildings were found to be well maintained and clean. I. = Energy Pricing Policy Electricity tariffs in Old Harbor are based on actual expenses. Since Old Harbor falls under the jurisdiction of AVEC, AVEC establishes the rates. All three villages in this study participate in the Power Cost Equalization program (PCE). PCE was established to equalize the cost per kilowatt-hour for all residents in Alaska. The standard tariff is based on the average electricity tariffs in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. To participate, municipalities also must generate some of the electricity with diesel generators. This study does not include the PCE subsidy in the cost analysis because funds for PCE are scheduled to be depleted in the next two to three years. 10 IV. Demand/Consumption Electricity Old Harbor has predominately a residential demand, because the village does not have any main industries. Apart from the residents the city offices and buildings constitute the largest electricity consumption in the village. Other demands include the school and buildings such as the lodge, health clinic, and post office. One of the residents also runs a small store. Not all of the electricity demand can be met by the diesel generator system configuration. Old Harbor does not run its community freezer because the diesel generators are not large enough to provide the peak level of electricity and the electricity needed to run the freezer. The village has four diesel generators but only one runs at a time. According to the diesel generator operator, two or more cannot be on line at the same time because the system will not stay balanced. AVEC supplied Koniag with one years worth of electricity consumption for the village. The profiles provided the total annual residential, city office, school and other electricity consumption. The actual residents and consumers were not specified, therefore the electricity per residential customer could only be averaged on a monthly basis. In general, the village tends to have a lower electricity demand in the summer months because many residents leave, the school is no longer in session and there is light for a longer period of time. Table 2 shows the average energy consumption for the categories of consumers used in this report and simulation. Table 2. Average Electricity Consumed per Day by Sector Total] Residential City) Commercial/ Residential Buildings’ i kWh/day|_kWh/mth/hs kWh/day 1175 434 283 949 316) 323 985 363 337 878 314 331 864 319 273 702 251 291 802 296 303 851 314 318 1002 358 286 1048 387 289 1132 404 313 1189 439 324 11 Thermal Energy Most of the residences in Old Harbor use fuel oil #1, #2 or a combination of the two as the fuel source for heating. The Old Harbor Fuel Company is the only fuel distributor in the village. Since the area does not have any trees wood fuel is not an optional heating source. Many of the homes originally had stoves which acted as both the heating source and stove. Since air does not circulate well in the structures, a relatively constant temperature cannot be maintained throughout the structure. Also, the stoves have a tendency to allow fumes to come back into the house, creating an unhealthy living space. Most of these types of stoves are no longer in use and have been replaced with either a forced draft or baseboard heating system. The Kodiak Island Housing Authority has made improvements on many of the houses they built. The energy efficient upgrades included installing double pane windows and new siding. Many residents indicated that they had not noticed a difference in fuel consumption since the housing upgrades. V. Electricity Supply Configuration and Resource Potential Diesel Generators Four three phase diesel generators are installed in Old Harbor. They are located between the two main residential establishments in trailers. AVEC hired two diesel generator operators who are in charge of maintaining the systems. During the time of the visit to Old Harbor, both trailers and the engines were very clean. The diesel generator operator is responsible and keeps the systems oiled and cleaned on a regular basis. Hydropower A stream located close to the City of Old Harbor shows good potential for hydroelectric power. AVEC hired Polarconsults to conduct a feasibility study on the source. From this feasibility study, AVEC presented a 300 kW hydroelectric potential project to the village. Polarconsults estimates that the project would cost approximately $1.3 million. This project plan only draws on part of the overall hydro source located near Old Harbor. The water flow measurements were taken in a location where two small streams come together. The Old Harbor mayor, Rick Burns, questioned whether the smaller stream that was being used for the project feasibility study would actually be able to supply enough water year around to generate electricity. An independent microhydro expert affiliated with this DOE Title XXVI grant, conducted a desk study of this stream and its potential. The hydro-expert has indicated that the stream source could provide as much as 1 MW of electricity. Since Old Harbor does not require that much electricity, the final outcome suggests that the village develop the source as 600 kW project. The conservative cost estimate is $3.8 million. The estimate is based solely on a desk study without taking a trip to the village 12 or considering using local labor. Local labor would invariably be used reducing the overall cost. This particular hydroelectric plan draws on the stream flow where both small streams come together. The City of Old Harbor’s peak electricity demand is approximately 150 kW not including the electricity required for the large community freezer. The community freezer is not in use because the diesel generators do not have enough capacity to run the freezers and meet the rest of the village electricity demand. The microhydro expert suggested the 600 kW project for several reasons. First, the main cost for the project is in building the penstock. The purchase of a 300 kW versus a 600 kW turbine is relatively insignificant compared to the overall project cost. By implementing a larger turbine, the village will be able to meet it’s electricity growth over several years. Studies have shown (LIST SOURCES) that villages in Alaska that have lower priced electricity experienced a higher growth pattern than similar villages in the same region that have higher priced electricity. Also, the Old Harbor Native Corporation is considering building a cannery (ies). Canneries require large amounts of electricity and labor. A larger hydroelectric plant would be able to meet the canneries demand. Also, a larger load would help reduce the tariffs by spreading out the cost over a larger customer base. The village has shown innovation and economic expansion. There is a thriving lodge that frequently has hunters and tourists, another individual has started a shuttle service for the airstrip, and the town is trying to have the ferry stop at its port. These activities indicate the real potential for economic, population, and subsequent electricity demand growth. Wind Old Harbor may have some wind power potential that could be coupled to the diesel generators or a future hydroelectric. source. Wind data was collected while the Old Harbor airstrip was constructed. Biomass The biomass energy potential in Old Harbor is extremely limited. There are few to no trees and agriculture is not possible given the climate and soil type. The native corporation has discussed building canneries. Waste from the canneries could be used in an incinerator under a waste to thermal energy system. Waste-to-Energy The City of Old Harbor only has a population base of 300. Most villages in Alaska have problems with landfills and disposal of waste oil and metals. Old Harbor invested in a small oil incinerator which acts as a heating source for the firehouse. Were the village to investigate further waste-to-energy applications, one option may be to incinerate the waste to generate heat, in the form of steam or hot water, for the school and/or city offices. The village recently expanded and created a new landfill site, therefore there was little interest in investing in a waste incinerator. 13 VI. ‘Feasibility Analysis of Energy Options Energy Options The Village Energy Simulation Optimization Program determined which option was least cost for Old Harbor’s energy infrastructure. Six electricity generation combinations were tested, including: i. diesel generators; ii. hydroelectric generation with diesel generators; iii. hydroelectric power only (to determine the blackout factors without diesel back up) iv. diesel and wind power; V. hydroelectric power and wind power; and vi. diesel, hydroelectric and wind power. Each of the electricity configurations were simulated for one year, giving a total of a 6 year simulation. Resources were based on actual data as described in the previous sections and driven by energy demand. A series of simulations (runs) were conducted to emulate the present electricity/energy system which verified that the model accurately simulates the village. The actual diesel capacities, heating systems, electricity and fuel demands, and temperature data were used in the simulation. Once the present system had been correlated in the computer model, the subsequent simulations for the various electricity generation systems were conducted. The simulation results indicate an approximate cost for the electricity, thermal energy, the amount of electricity supplied by the various sources, and the fuel for heating. The-word approximate has been emphasized because assumptions were made concerning the project financing, inflation rate, fuel escalation rates, and depreciation values. When the assumptions change, the final results change. Since the assumptions would change uniformly for all cases, the results do give a good idea of which energy options provide the lowest cost services. The base case simulation for Old Harbor includes the residents present energy consumption patterns for both electricity and thermal energy, and the six electricity generation combinations listed above. Actual cost estimates were included for each generation system. Table 3 presents the results based on cost per kWh, thermal energy cost, electricity cost, and total cost for energy. The calculations are done in terms of net present value (NPV) and constant dollars. Other cost assumptions are: (I) 8% interest rate on loans; (ii) 20 year loan; (iii) 2.5% inflation rate; (iv) 3.0% fuel escalation rate; and (v) 8% discount rate. The cost estimates were only based on a 20 year span. A further financial analysis would probably show that once the loan for the hydroelectric plant is paid off, electricity rates would be lower than for diesel generated electricity. 14 Table 3. Old Harbor Energy Costs for Base Case Simulations Run2 Run3 Run4 Run 5 Run 6 Hydro & Diesel Hydro Diesel & Wind Hydro & Wind - Hydro, Diesel & Wind | NPV NPV | Constant | NPV Constant Dollars Dollars Dollars Cost of Energy ($/kWh) Annual Electricity Costs $670,269 $692,871 Annual Thermal Energy Costs $348,523) $348,523 Building Upgrade/Efficiency i $5,923) Costs $1,024,715 Diesel Hydro & Diesel Diesel & Wind dro & Wind Hydro, Diesel & Wind 698352 471467 0 is @is 0 0 0 0 377712 377712 377112 Electricity Produced’ 698352 698353 698353 849180 Electricity Demand 663434 663434 663434 663434 kWh Production oat naa 849180 849180 663434 663434 Fuel Consumption Diesel Fuel for Electricity 66002 0 0 46508 0 . 0 Generation (gal) Fuel for Thermal Energy (gal) 162339 162339 162339 162339 162339 162339 Kerosene Fuel (gal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood for Thermal Energy (cords) 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Other Hydroelectric Options In the above economic analysis, it was assumed that the full cost of the hydro project would be financed through a loan. According the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), most electricity projects receive half their financing through grants either from the state or federal government. Assuming that the 600 kW hydroelectric project only needed half the financing assumed above, the tariffs from the hydroelectric projects would approximately be reduced by one half. Table 4 presents the results based on a lower cost hydro project. Under this assumption, the 600 kW hydroelectric project becomes more interesting, especially if canneries are built in the vicinity of the town. 16 Table 4. Old Harbor Energy Costs Based on Lower Cost Hydro Project Run 4 Run 5 Run6 Diesel & Wind Hydro & Wind - Hydro, Diesel & Wind Constant Constant Dollars Dollars Cost of Energy ($/kWh) i $0.49 Annual Electricity Costs $322,191 Annual Thermal Energy Costs $348,523 Building Upgrade/Efficiency $5,923 Costs Total Annual Energy Related $458,401 $676,637) Costs 17 Energy Efficiency The same six simulations listed above for Old Harbor were conducted with energy efficiency measures incorporated. The energy efficiency measures included: installing two 15 W fluorescent lightbulbs and ballasts, installing Greenplugs, and reducing the thermostat by 8°F. See Attachment G for Greenplug information. Table 5 presents the results from the energy efficiency simulation. Comparing the results of the energy efficiency simulation to the base case (the non-energy efficiency case), the electricity tariffs actually rise. However, the total energy costs decrease. Table 6 compares the costs of the base case and energy efficiency case. The table demonstrates the savings of implementing energy efficiency measures. If the village of Old Harbor kept the present system of diesel generators, and implemented the energy efficiency measures mentioned above, each household would save approximately $1000/year. Savings would depend on the amount of actual electricity patterns and size of home. Results are based on average household consumption for both electricity and heating. 18 ‘ Table 5. Old Harbor Energy Costs Based on Energy Efficiency Measures Run 6 Hydro, Diesel & sone Constant Constant Dollars Cost of Energy ($/kWh) Annual Electricity Costs Annual Thermal Energy Costs Building Upgrade/Efficiency Costs Total Annual Energy Related $686,018) $627,251 Costs Run 1 Run 2 Run3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Diesel . Hydro & Diesel Hydro Diesel & Wind Hydro & Wind Hydro, Diesel & Wind Diesel 373110 Hydro) 79082 0 3731 ‘0 kWh Production 373110 Wind 0 377726 377726 377726 Other] Electricity Produced 579032 579032 750836 750837 . 750837 Electricity Demand 550080 550080 550080 550080 550080 Fuel Consumption Diesel Fuel for Electricity, 57989 0 0 39379 0 0 Generation (gal) Fuel for Thermal Energy (gal) 117193 117193 117193 117193 117193 117193 Kerosene Fuel (gal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood for Thermal Energy (cords) 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Table 6. Cost Comparison Between Base Case and Energy Efficiency Simulation NPV Energy Base Case Savings/year Savings/hs/yr Efficiency $467,779 $572,364 $104,585 $587,944 $723,743 $135,798 $565,342 $701,141 $135,798 $547,792 $651,004 $103,211 $686,018 $821,816 _ $135,798 $708,619 $844,418 $135,798 Constant Dollars Base Case Savings/year Efficiency $377,642 $458,401 $80,759 $527,467 $633,965 $106,498 $503,876 $610,374 $106,498 $469,515 $549,227 $79,712 $627,251 $733,749 $106,498 $650,616 $757,340 $106,725 Vil. Conclusions Results from the VESOP model provide important information for the City of Old Harbor. First, immediate savings can be attained per household if the residents implement energy efficient measures. Cost estimates included the costs of purchasing lightbulbs, and Greenplugs. If the residents purchased the devices themselves, and reduced their thermostats, they would save approximately $1000/year. Old Harbor has excellent hydroelectric potential and good wind power potential. Depending on the economic development plans of the village, hydroelectric power could provide a reliable clean energy source. The Polarconsults plan should be assessed by an outside hydro specialist and/or the single stream being considered as the source should be measured to ensure that there is enough water for most of the year to provide reliable electricity. If the Old Harbor Village Corporation decides to build canneries, the 600 kW hydroelectric plan should seriously be considered. 20 Ouzinkie L Village Overview Ouzinkie is located on Spruce Island, a very small island northeast of Kodiak Island. It is the closest village to Kodiak City. The village of Ouzinkie has a population of approximately 270 residents. The village has a very different character compared to Old Harbor. The village takes very strong ownership of its own destiny including taking over its hydro facility, finding funds to remove its metal waste, lobbying for a shipping port, and continually making smaller project improvements, such as a new playground. I. Energy Sector Organizations/Institutions The City of Ouzinkie controls the electricity generation system and infrastructure. This infrastructure includes a hydroelectric plant, two diesel generators, overhead distribution lines, a generator operator, and the City Clerk. The City Clerk is in charge of collections, billing and in part for the total village budget. Ouzinkie’s leaders have wisely incorporated into the electricity bill other utility fees. These fees include a small charge for garbage pick up, and the water bill. Presently, the electricity tariffs have been.established to pay off the debt financing for the hydro plant and diesel generators in a timely fashion. The State of Alaska’s Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), Division of Energy holds the loan agreement with the City of Ouzinkie for the hydro plant. Ouzinkie has taken responsibility for its electricity generation system and other utility services because the leaders of the village constantly look for ways to improve and maintain their present system. The village showed tremendous interest and appreciation for the being included in the analysis are they were interested in implementing the results. I. Energy Pricing Policy The electricity tariffs are based on actual costs incurred to maintain the system. The costs include: paying the loan for the hydro and diesel generators; paying the salaries for the generator operator and utility clerk; purchasing fuel for the diesel generators; and other related expenses to maintain the system. Similar to Old Harbor, Ouzinkie participates in Power Cost Equalization (PCE). 21 IV. Demand/Consumption Electricity The villages in the Kodiak region have very similar electricity consumption patterns, Ouzinkie does not have any major industrial or commercial electricity loads. The residential sector comprises the largest portion of the electricity demand. Table 7 lists the energy demands by categories. Table 7. Average Electricity Consumed per Day by Sector Total Residential Residential kWh/mth/hs Unlike Old Harbor, Ouzinkie has a community freezer. The hydroelectric plant is large enough to provide electricity for the entire village, including the community freezer. The generator operator has mentioned that the peak demand is approaching the maximum capacity of the hydroelectric plant. The diesel generators and the hydroelectric generator are not coupled. Presently, only the hydroelectric generator or a diesel generator can generate electricity at any given moment. If demand continues to grow, the City of Ouzinkie will need to promote more energy efficient appliances and electricity conservation. The village may also need to modify the electricity system such that a small diesel generator can be coupled to the hydroplant to meet peak demands. The demand will probably grow because the Kodiak Island Housing Authority plans to build ten new houses in the village. Thermal Demand Most of the homes in Ouzinkie use heating oil #1 or #2 as the fuel source. The newer homes have a baseboard heating system that runs off heating oil and has a glycol based heating loop. Since Ouzinkie 22 has an abundance of trees, most homes also have a wood burning stove that provides additional heating. The households use a wide range of fuel per month for heating. Some homes rely on a tremendous amount of wood fuel and may use as little as 30 gallons of fuel per month in the winter. Other households use 110 to 150 gallons per month, and the larger self constructed households use as much as 300 gallons per month. All of the homes visited were extremely warm, temperatures were as high as 80° to 82° F. Some residents use additional electric heaters in the winter. Energy savings could be made by reducing the thermostats to 72° to 74° F. The phenomena of keeping the homes at a relatively high temperature may be out of habit, a culture practice, or an actual physical necessity. V. Electricity Supply Configuration and Resource Potential Diesel Generators Two 200 kW diesel generators provide back up power when the hydroelectric plant is not on line. Since the hydroelectric plant has been installed the diesel generators provide approximately 40% of the annual electricity. Both diesel generators are Cummins brushless generators. They are not coupled with the hydroelectric plant and therefor only run when the hydroplant is not on-line. The engine trailers are located next to the school. Before the hydroplant was built, waste heat from the engines provided heat for the school. A new building facility closer to the airstrip has been built and ultimately the engines will be moved to the new facility. Hydropower The village of Ouzinkie has an 125 kW run-of-river hydroelectric plant. The plant has a very small dam which can provide approximately 8 days of hydroelectricity. In a normal year of precipitation the hydro facility will generate about 60% of the villages electric needs. The only problems encountered so far with the facility have been with a few trout, a beaver and a control panel burnt out. The facility was designed such that 30% of a given load is stored to meet peak and abrupt electricity demands. The health service is financing the Mahoona Lake dam expansion. The dam will then also provide water for the community. Presently the small holding pond holds approximately 120 acre/feet of water. The expansion will increase the size to approximately 230 acre/feet. The almost doubling in size will allow the hydro plant to run more continuously and therefore reduce the amount of diesel generation required by the village. The dam expansion is being done at no cost to Ouzinkie. The village benefits through obtaining safe drinking water and more hydroelectricity during the year. 23 Wind Ouzinkie is located in the same vicinity as Kodiak City and Port Lions. The prevailing strong winds come from the northwest. There may be one or two sites on the western side of Spruce Island where one or two wind turbines could be installed. Specific wind data for the site is not available, however, wind estimates were made based on data available from Kodiak City. Wind turbines could be coupled with the hydroelectric or diesel generators in the future, if the village needed more capacity or found the cost of diesel fuel too costly. Biomass A biomass to energy analysis was not completed because, the village already has an hydroelectric facility. A small sawmill operation creates large amounts of wood waste, but the waste is not a steady supply, nor would it provide enough to justify the cost of a biomass electricity generation system. The residents use wood fuel to supplement their heating. Since fuel oil is the main heating source, the biomass, or wood that is being used to heat the homes appears to be sustainable. Waste-to-Energy Waste-to-Energy was not carefully studied in this analysis. The population of Ouzinkie is too small to provide enough waste for a waste-to-electricity facility. A waste-to-thermal energy facility might be viable to heat the school or city offices. However, the village recently expanded their landfill and showed no interest in installing an incinerator. An incinerator may be an interesting option in the future when the landfill needs to be expanded again. VI. ‘Feasibility Analysis of Energy Options Energy Options The Village Energy Simulation Optimization Program was used to simulate the energy system found in Ouzinkie, and to determine ways of reducing the overall energy costs. Since Ouzinkie already has a hydroelectric facility and diesel generators, the options for various new forms of energy were limited. The pond for the hydroelectric facility will be expanded, therefore the various simulations included the pond expansion. The energy options included: i. 125 kW hydro electric facility with a 120 acre-ft dam, and two 200 kW diesel engines; ii. 125 kW hydroelectric facility with a 230 acre-ft dam, and two 200 kW diesel engines; iii. 125 kW hydroelectric plant, with a 120 acre-ft dam, two 200 kW diesel engines, and two 50 kW wind turbines; and iv. 125 kW hydroelectric plant, with a 230 acre-ft dam, two 200 kW diesel engines, and two 50 kW wind turbines. 24 A series of simulations (runs) were conducted to emulate the present electricity/energy system. These simulations were conducted to verify that the model accurately emulates the village. The actual generating capacities, heating systems, electricity demands, fuel demands, and temperature data were used in the simulation. Once the computer model correlated to the present system, the subsequent simulations for the various electricity generation systems were conducted. The simulation results indicate an approximate cost for the electricity, thermal energy, the amount of electricity supplied by the various sources, and the fuel for heating. The word approximate has been emphasized because assumptions were made concerning the project financing, inflation rate, fuel escalation rate, and depreciation value. When the assumptions change, the final results change. However, since the assumptions consistently change for all simulations, the results give a reliable trend of which energy options provide the least cost services. The base case simulation for Ouzinkie includes the four electricity generation combinations listed above driven by the residents present energy consumption patterns for both electricity and thermal demand. Actual cost estimates were included for each generation system. Table 8 presents the results based on cost per kWh, thermal energy cost, electricity tariffs, and total energy cost. The calculations are done in terms of net present value (NPV) and constant dollars. Other cost assumptions include: i 8% interest rate on loans; 20 year loan on new systems; ili. 2.5% inflation rate; iv. 3.0% fuel escalation rate; and V. 8% discount rate. ptr: 25 Table 8. Ouzinkie Base Case Simulation Run 1 i Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Hydro & Diesel Hydro & Diesel Hydro, Diesel and Hydro, Diesel and Wind Wind pe ee ee fel Dollars Dollars Dollars $0.29 $228,749) $205,120 $6,406) $440,275 $498,043 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Hydro & Diesel Hydro & Diesel Hydro, Diesel and Hydro, Diesel and Wind Wind 200866 107934.0 50483 10720 615352 706100 599809 639475 0 0 168237 168237 Total Annual Energy Related Costs Electricity Produced 816218 814034 818529 818432 Electricity Demand 775408 773332 778380 778380 Diesel Fuel for Electricity 16110 8770 4253 922 Generation (gal) Fuel for Thermal Energy (gal) 118158 118158 118158 118158 Kerosene Fuel (gal) 0 0 0 0 Wood for Thermal Energy ei 0 0 0 (cords) Energy Efficiency The identical simulations were conducted as those listed above but, with energy efficiency measures incorporated. Similar to the simulations conducted for Old Harbor, the energy efficient measures included: replacing two 60 Watt bulbs with 2 fluorescent 15 Watt lightbulbs and ballasts; implementing Greenplugs for the refrigerators; and reducing the thermostats to 72°F. The results for this simulation may be found in Table 9. 26 Table 9. Ouzinkie Energy Efficiency Simulation . Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Hydro & Diesel Hydro & Diesel Hydro, Diesel and | Hydro, Diesel and Larger Dam Wind Wind: Larger Dam = aioe Dollars Dollars $0.31 anual Electricity Costs $228,619 nnual Thermal Energy Costs $180,450 Building Upgrade/Efficiency $7,114 Costs $416,168 Total Annual Energy Related $460,870 Costs Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Hydro & Diesel Hydro & Diesel: Hydro, Diesel and Larger Dam Wind Hydro, Diesel and Wind: Larger Dam 141497 79564.0 19202 243 631653 693586 587407 606366 0 0 168241 168241 Electricity Produced 773150 773150 774850 774850 Electricity Demand 734491 734491 734491 734491 11533 6577 1664 29 Generation (gal) Fuel for Thermal Energy (gal) 102023 102023 102023 102023 Kerosene Fuel (gal) 0 0 0 0 Wood for Thermal Energy 0 0 0 0 (cords) Table 10 compares the costs with and without the energy efficient measures. Based on these results, each house would save approximately $500 per year. The savings reflect a per household average savings. Each household has different electricity and thermal energy consumption patterns. Many houses already have installed energy efficient appliances and have already experienced the savings from these + measures. Other residents are also very careful with turning appliances and lights off when they are not using them or in a room where the appliances or lights are on. 27 Table 10. Cost Comparison Between Base Case and Energy Efficiency Simulation for Ouzinkie NPV Energy Base Case Savings/year Savings/hs/yr Efficiency $460,870 $499,023 ~ $38,153 $453,079 $487,534 $34,455 $463,205 $498,350 $35,146 $477,532 $510,387 _ $32,855 Constant Dollar Energy Base Case Savings/year Efficiency $393,672 $423,148 $29,476 $387,641 $414,255 $26,615 $399,912 $427,067 $27,155 $416,168 $441,667 $25,500 VI. Conclusions Ouzinkie has benefited from having an hydroelectric facility and the village residents recognize the significance of not needing to purchase as much fuel as in the past. The diesel generators are still used 40 % of the time. The increased water storage area should have an excellent impact on the overall hydroelectric use per year. There should be a significant reduction in fuel savings. The village is beginning to grow out of its hydroelectric facility. Also, there are plans to build ten more homes in Ouzinkie. The increase in households and population will have a direct impact on the electricity demand. If the generation system is not improved such that a diesel generator and the hydroplant can provide electricity to the grid at the same time, the hydroelectric plant may not be capable of providing enough capacity to meet the village demands. Akhiok L Village Overview The City of Akhiok has a population of only 70 and is the smallest village included in this report. The village is the southern most village on the island. The village is characterized by strong winds and no trees. The villages only economy apart from government positions lies in the fishing industry. The isolation and harsh weather conditions prevent it from being a tourist center or stopping point for flights 28 to other villages. Akhiok has very high electricity rates because its distance from the major Kodiak Port causes the cost of fuel to be more expensive than most other villages on the island. I. Energy Sector Organizations/Institutions Alaska Power Systems (APS) has contracted with Akhiok to oversee and maintain the villages electricity generating system. There were two diesel generator operators who were in charge of changing the oil and conducting basic maintenance on the system. Since APS has taken over the entire system the two positions may have been eliminated. The village of Akhiok uses power stats to sell residential electricity. The power stats system requires an electricity customer to purchase electricity in advance. The purchased electricity is then credited to their place of residence. Once the meter expires the resident purchases more electricity, or the electricity automatically turns off. Power stats were originally designed as an energy conservation mechanism. The meter continually indicates how much electricity is being used at a given moment. The resident can then immediately see the impacts of turning off lights, TV, or radio. The information provides the user with the knowledge to better control his or her electricity consumption. Power stats have also proved useful in preventing collection arrears. The City of Akhiok consistently had outstanding electricity collections in the thousands of dollars. Since the residents have to purchase their electricity in advance, collections are no longer a problem. I. Energy Pricing Policy Electricity tariffs. in Akhiok are 45¢/kWh. According to a long time resident, the electricity rates have changed very little over the last 20 years. Like other villages on Kodiak Island, Akhiok also participates in the Power Cost Equalization program. The actual cost of electricity is reduced to around 25¢/kWh. Since APS has completely taken over the electricity system the subcontractor was not able to find out how much electricity tariffs have or will change. Akhiok agreed to sign a contract with APS, based on the guarantee that electricity rates would be reduced. IV. Demand/Consumption Electricity The residents constitute the largest electricity demand in the village. Similar to the other villages in this study, other major demands include the city offices/buildings and the school. There is no industry in Akhiok other than fishing. The demand profiles were provided to Koniag by the Akhiok city office. The data originated from Alaska Power Systems previous data gathering activities. Because Akhiok is more remote and has less opportunities for economic activities, the average demand profiles are also lower than in Old Harbor or Ouzinkie, as seen in Table 11. 29 Table 11. Average Electricity Consumed per Day by Sector Total Residential School * City Commercial/ Residential Buildings | Industrial kWh/da kWh/da’ kWh/da 0 0} 0} 0 0 0} 0 0} 0 0 0} 0 Thermal Energy According to the mayor of Akhiok, 90% of the residents have furnace heaters that also heat the water. Most households use two 55 gallon drums per month from November to February. Fuel consumption for heating then drops down to approximately 1 drum every month or month and a half between March and October. The fuel consumption for heating in Akhiok is equivalent to that found in Old Harbor. There is little to no vegetation, and there are no trees in the area. Supplemental fuel wood for heating is not possible. The City of Akhiok is the sole fuel distribution center in the village. Fuel is delivered to the village once a year during the summer. Toward the end of winter and in early spring the City often stops selling fuel oil to the residents because it needs to conserve the fuel for diesel generation until the summer fuel delivery. The residents then take their skiffs to the nearest cannery to purchase fuel oil. V. Electricity Supply Configuration and Resource Potential Akhiok had two three phase diesel generator sets. One Perkins 60 kW generator and a John Deere 115 kW generator set. Even though the engines were three phase systems, the village electricity distribution system was established as a single phase system. Several residents appliances have been tuined in the past from power surges. Alaska Power Systems recently signed an agreement with Akhiok to take over their electricity generation system. The systems that were in place in March 1995 may be switched to the new APS generator sets before January 1, 1996. 30 Hydropower Hydropower was not considered in this study because a well-founded previous assessment indicated that the only stream source in the vicinity did not have enough flow, nor was it at a high enough elevation. to generate electricity. Wind Akhiok has tremendous wind power potential. Wind measurements were not available for the region. Still the only wind data available is in Kodiak City. Residents have indicated that there is normally at least 15 knot winds. Normally the winds maintain a 20 to 30 knot level. Akhiok would be an ideal location for a wind diesel hybrid system. Biomass Biomass energy is not feasible in Akhiok. The area has no trees and little to no vegetation. Waste-to-Energy Similar to the other villages included in this study, waste-to-thermal energy may be an option if it is coupled with the school and/or city offices. Akhiok has a population of only 70. The Kodiak Island Borough would need to express an interest in converting the school’s present heating system to a waste- to-thermal energy system in order for a project to be conceivable. VI. Feasibility Analysis of Energy Options Energy Options Akhiok’s energy options include continuing with the diesel generation system, or establishing an hybrid system with a diesel wind powered system. Since the power generation choices for this village are limited, only two simulations were conducted: the present diesel generation system; and a hybrid diesel wind system. The results for this simulation may be found in Table 12. Both systems were simulated for an entire year. The wind resource was conservatively based on the Kodiak City wind. This simulation only gives a very rough idea of the impact a hybrid system would have on the overall energy costs for the village. 31 Table 12. Akhiok Base Case Simulation Results Run 1 7 Run 2 Diesel Diesel & Wind 2 Dollars Dollars Annual Thermal Energy Costs Building Upgrade/Efficiency Costs Total Annual Energy Related Costs 207945.1 0 100759 279610 0 0 308704 265630 279610 265630 Electricity Produced Electricity Demand Diesel Fuel for Electricity 23424 Generation (gal) Fuel for Thermal Energy (gal) 20914 Kerosene Fuel (gal) 0 Wood for Thermal Energy 0 (cords) The same system configurations were simulated with energy efficient measures included. Results from the energy efficiency case may be seen in Table 13. By implementing energy efficient measures the village could save approximately $10,000 per year. This translates to a per household savings of $400 to $500 annually, Table 14 displays the cost comparison and savings. 32 Table 13. Akhiok Energy Efficiency Simulation Results Run 1 : Run 2 Diesel Diesel & Wind Dollars Dollars $0.51 Total Annual Energy Related Costs 268429 198055.4 0 0 0 100759 Electricity Produced 268429 298815 Electricity Demand 255007 255007 Fuel Consumption Diesel Fuel for Electricity 22648 16987 Generation (gal) Fuel for Thermal Energy (gal) 15449 16680 Kerosene Fuel (gal) 0 0 Wood for Thermal Energy 0 0 (cords) - 33 Table 14 Cost Comparison Between Base Case and Energy Efficiency Simulation for Akhiok NPV ; Energy Base Case Savings/year Savings/hs/yr Efficiency $160,992 $171,255 $10,263 $513 $170,694 $178,895 $8,202 $410 Constant Dollar Energy Base Case Savings/year Savings/hs/yr Efficiency $132,621 $140,556 $7,935 $397; $145,399 $151,746 $6,347 $317 Issues & Concerns . The 24 hour electricity load patterns for weekdays, weekends and in different seasons were not available because the data had never been collected. The 24 hour load patterns determine the time of the peak and how long it lasts. Seasonal variations and the time of day patterns help correlate renewable resources with the demand. The data that was available provided good indications of the load patterns found in the villages. . Kodiak Island has several micro climates. Weather data is only collected in Kodiak City and limited data in Ouzinkie. Weather data was correlated between the villages lacking weather data and the actual weather data sites as required. ° In order for any project to be successful, the villages need to take personal interest or ownership of the project. If the village is not interested enough in the project, the systems installed will not be maintained properly and most probably will prematurely fail. The Koniag Inc. and its subcontractors need to maintain communication with the villages and inform them in a clear fashion of any findings that result from the study. Communication and information sharing should promote greater interest and ownership. . Most of the villages were cooperative and interested in the work. The villages have had several studies already conducted on their energy systems. They are skeptical of outsiders coming into their village to conduct yet another study. Care needs to be taken on the part of the Koniag Inc. and its subcontractors to maintain communication with the i i and include them in the project participation as much as possible. ATTACHMENTS: 34 Attachment A - General Contacts Attachment B - Documents Attachment C - Old Harbor Hydroelectric Plant Analysis Attachment D - Village Selection Criteria Attachment E - VESOP User Guide (Draft) Attachment F - Legal Financial Structure of Energy Services Attachment G - Greenplug Information Attachment H - List of Village Attendees at VESOP model Presentations 36 Attachment A - General Contacts Alaska State Offices and Institutions Janet Afcan (has access to part of the old Energy Library) Division of Administrative Services Department of Rural and Community Affairs Tel:907 269 4500 Fax:907 269 4520 Cary Bolling Energy information Specialist Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 520 East 34th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99503 Tel:907-564-9170 1-800-478-4636 Barbara Collins Energy Rated Homes Corporation Tel:907 563 6749 Fax:907 563 6780 Peter Crimp Development Specialist Division of Energy (DCRA) 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Tel:907 269 4631 Fax:907 269 4645 LuAnn Fisher Alaska State Library Tel:907 465 2944 Dennis Meiners Division of Renewable Energy, DCRA Tel: 907-465-4632 Fax: 907 465 2948 Penny Halbane Statistical Analyst Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs Patty Harper Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association ' Tel:907 561 6103 Fax:907 561 5547 Karin Holser Delta Institute P.O. Box 872212 Wasilla, AK 99687 Karen King Executive Director, Kodiak Housing Authority Tel: Fax:907 486 8723 Sterling Larson Mandanusco Electric Association (ground source heat pump expert) 907 745 3231 David Lockard Division of Energy (DCRA) 333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501-2341 Tel:907 269 4541 Fax:907 269 4645 36 Michael Pope President, Entech Inc. 201 Arctic Slope Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99518 Tel:907-349-9050 Fax:907-267-6496 Stan Sieczkowski Manager of Operations and Maintenance AIDEA Anchorage, AK Tel: 907 561 8050 Mark Tietzel Assistant General Manager Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Tel: 907 561 1818 Fax: 907 561 2388 Professor John Zarling University of Alaska, Fairbanks Tel: 907-474-6097 Fax: 907-474-6087 Kodiak City: Offices and Contacts Kodiak Area Native Association Kelly Simeonoff, Jr. President 402 Center Avenue Kodiak, AK 99615 Tel: 907-564-9170 Kodiak Island Housing Authority D. Todd Littlefield Housing Advisor Bob Meunier Construction Manager 3137 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615-7032 Tel:907-486-8111 Fax:907-486-4432 Ed Kozak General Manager Kodiak Electric P.O. Box 787 Kodiak, AK 99615 Tel: 907 486 7700 Fax: 907 486 7720 Jerrol Friend Friend Contractors 1515 Baranof Kodiak City, AK 99615 Old Harbor Jim Nestic Vice Mayor, City of Old Harbor City Council Office Old Harbor, AK 99643 Tel: 907-286-2204 Fax: 907-286-2278 Rick Berns Mayor, City of Old Harbor City Council Office Old Harbor, AK 99643 Tel: 907-286-2204 Fax: 907-286-2278 Hm: 907-286-2232 Merv Finstad Principal, Old Harbor and Akhiok Schools Box 29 Old Harbor, AK 99643 Tel: 907-286-2213 Fax: 907-286-2222 Old Harbor Fuel Company Sabrina Christianson Tel: 907-286-2229 Carl Christianson 907-286-2296 Bi Akhiok Dave Eluska Mayor, Akhiok Akhiok City Council Akhiok, AK 99615 Tel: 907-836-2229 Fax: 907-836-2209 Mitch Simeonoff Generator Operator, Akhiok Tel: 907-836-2210 Larsen Bay Frank Carlson Mayor, Larsen Bay Larsen Bay City Office Larsen Bay, AK 99624 Tel: 907-847-2211 Fax: 907-847-2239 Joe Katelnikoff Generator Operator Larsen Bay, AK 99624 Tel: 907-847-2211 Fax: 907-847-2239 Ouzinkie Mr. Tom Quick Vice Mayor of Ouzinkie P.O. Box 110 Ouzinkie, AK 99644 Tel: 907 680 2219 Fax: 907 680 2230 Katherine Panamarioff Utility Administrator tel: 907 680 2223 Paul Delgado Generator Operator Tel: 907-680-2232 Ouzinkie Native Corporation (Fuel Sales) Joan and Dee Dee Tel: 907-680-2208 Port Lions Peter Squartsoff Mayor, Port Lions City Office Tel: 907-454-2332 Melvin Squartsoff Toyostove Distributor Professional Fisherman Tel: 907-454-2208 Jerry Nelson Generator Operator Port Lions, AK 907-454-2267 Kizhuyak Oil Sale Bob Nelson (Owner) Tel: 907-454-2422 Tribal Council Bob Nelson (President) Tel: 907-454-2234 Lions Den Lodge Kevin and Katie Atkins (interested in GSHP) Port Lions, AK 907-452-2301 Cecil Nelson School Maintenance 38 Rampart William Evans Tribal Chief Judy Erhart Utility Administrator Rampart, AK Tel: 907-358-3312 Alfred Wiehl Sr. Generator Operator Rampart, AK Tel: 907-452-8521 Others Perry Eaton Native Leader in AK 907-274-5400 David Hoffman Former Mayor of Ruby (can provide information on village buy ins to new projects) Work: 907-852-4460 Home: 907-852-4459 Paul White Project Manager Vestas Wind Power Tel: 619322 1878 Mike Bergey Bergey Wind Power 405 364 4212 Southwest Technology Development Institute Steve Durand Program Manager Box 30001/Dept. 3SOL Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 505 646 4247 Kay Ramsey (the person who will copy the data for us) 505 646 5761 Al Chen National Climatic Data Center Asheville N.C. Tel: 703 648 5318 William Thomas U.S. Geologic Survey Reston, VA (gave connection for stream flow data) Tel: 703 648 5318 Jeff Miller U.S. Geologic Survey Colorado Tel: 303 236 5950 Ken Thompson and Pat Srelokses U.S. Geologic Survey Alaska Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) Tel: 907 786 7126 39 Attachment B - Documents Alaska Conservation Foundation, Delta Institute and Greenpeace Alaska, Port Graham Energy Self- Sufficiency Plan, Alaska Conservation Foundation, September 1994. ASK Marketing and Research Group, 1991 Housing Needs Assessment Study, Alaska Energy Authority, June 1991. | Dowl Engineers, Tudor Engineering Company, and Dryden & Larue, Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project, Alaska Power Authority, March 1982. | Northern Technical Services & Fryer Pressley Engineering, Kodiak Island Borough Electrification Planning Assessment Vol. 2: Technical, Alaska Power Authority, May 1983. | Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of ! Commerce, National Technical Information Service, October 1986. Rogers, Rick, Municipal Solid Waste:_A Resource Assessment for Energy Recovery in Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Alaska Energy Authority, September 1991. ! Alaskan Wind Energy Handbook: July 1981. Rural Fuel Management Systems: Preliminary Study Kodiak Island Alaska. Power Costs Equalization- A Critical Appraisal. August 7, 1986. | | Hydrogen Use in Alaska 40 ALASKAN ENERGY PROJECT DOCUMENT LIST DOC No. TITLE 1 Myrtle Creek stream Flow Data 1963 to 1986 2 Housing Maps of Port Lions, Ouzinkie,Old Harbor,Larson Bay,Karluk,Akhiok 3 Bedroom Size Distrib 4 House data 5 Village School Data 6 Old Harbor electric usage 1994 7 Old Harbor Electric Supply, Demand, Util Maps 8 Notebook (3ring) 8.1 Caterpiller Gen Sizing Guide 8.2 Cat Handbook 8.3 World Wind Energy Resources & Wind Tech 8.4 Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960 to 1993 8.5 Small Hydro Methology 8.6 Wind Energy Tech Economics 9 REEP Program 10 Wind Energy Group Tech Specs 11 Bergey Wind Co Specs 12 Village Weather Data 13 Rampart Electric, Oil, and Hosing data 14 Old Harbor Stream Flow 15 ICRC Dec 1994 Color photos of trip to Alaska 16 Kodiak Water Flow Data 17 Port Lions & Port Wakefields Electric Data and Util maps 18 Ouzinkie Drinking Water Study 19 Ouzinkie Water Source Study,And climate data 20 Micro-Hydro power Handbook 21 Old Harbor Electric demand/user 22 Old Harbor Fule useage 23 Ouzinkie Electric Demand and supply data incld hydro prod 24 VESTAS Wind Energy Products Co Specs 25 Akhiok Electric supply & demand data 26 Hydrogen Use In Alaska 27 King Cove,Larsen Bay,Old Harbor & Togiak Hydroelectric Projects 28 NICE*3 Energy Economic& Envir 29 Burnham Oil Heat Unit data pks 30 HYBRID 1 OPERATE Instructions 31 Commun Profile of Old Harbor AUTHOR KIHA HIHA, Friend Contractors KEA? DOE ST of Alaska World Bank A. Cavallo US Army Village Council POB 67029 Rampart al 99767 Alaskan Hydrology Survey Alaska Natural Resources HDR Engr HDR NREC Intern! AVEC Old Hareb Fuel Co Bill Anderson AUTHOR 'S ADDRESS Kodiak housing authority(KIHA) KIHA KIHA AVEC 4831 Eagle St Anchorage AK 99503 Dept Commun and Regional Affairs Div of Energy Wash DC USACERL @ Champain , IL Div Mining 3601 C ST,Anchorage AK 99503 Anchorage AK Wash DC Palm Spgs ,CA Alaska Power Systems and Alaska dept Comm& F Anchorage AK Inst od Gas Tech for the ST of Alaska DOWL ENGR DOE NRELJ.Manwell DOE -AC02-80cs91201 1981 for AK pwr Authority UMASS Amherst , MA ALASKA ST LIBRARY 31 Commun Profile of Old Harbor 32 Testimony Before The Alaskan Native Commission Jan 21,1993 33 TOYOSTOVE data 34 USGA ALASKA MAP INDEX 35 Port Graham Energy Self-Sufficiency Plan 36 Waste Heat Recovery In Alaska 37 Community Info Summaries 38 KONIAG annual rpt 1994 39 Alaskan Wind Energy Handbook 40 Wind Energy MicroSite Sample Reports 41 Rural Fuel Management Ststems Kodiak IS 42 Atlantic Orient Wind Systems ,Inc 43 World WeatherDisc 44 Alaska Housing Building Energy Efficiency Standard 46 USGS STREAM FLOW FILES notebook 47 Kodiak Is phone book 48 Earthinfo Weather data 49 Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1993 50 Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1992 51 1. Power Cost Equalization prog 1993 2. Ground Source heat pumps 52 Detailed housing drawings for Port Lions Old Harbor Ouzinkie Akhiok Kodiak city Rampart 53 Port Graham Energy Self Sufficiency Plan 54 1991 Housing Needs Assessment Study 55 Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project 56 Kodiak Electrification Plan Asses vol #2 57 Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the U.S. 58 Municipal Solid Waste: A Resource Assessment For Energy Recovery in Alaska 59 Alaskan Wind Energy Handfbook 60 Preliminary Study Kodiak Is AK 61 Power Costs Equalization A Critical Appraisal 62 Hydrogen Use In Alaska Kelly Simeonoff jr Delta Inst &Green peace ALASKA ST LIBRARY Alaska Power Auth,8/31/83,RAJ BHARGAVA Ass: Anchorage DPT COMM & REG affairs1994 Reckard,DOT/PF Resrch,7/81 NRG Systwems Hinesburg VT Aug 1991 GIS weather data Oct 1994 Oct 1993 notebook Dr Zarling KANA Housing Authority And Koak Housing Authority Alaska Consertation Foundation ASK Marketing and Research Group DOWL Engrs Northern Tech Services may,1993 Dept. Commerce,NTIS OCT 1986 July 19811 Rural Fuel Management Systems Aug 7,1986 St of Alaska Library ST Alaska Div Energy And power development Anchorage AK POB 1097 Norwich Vt 05055 4584 NE 89st Seattle, WA98115 520 E 34 st Anchorage AK 99503 5541 Central Ave Boulder Co 80301 St of AK Energy DivAnchorage St of AK Energy DivAnchorage Univ Alaska Fairbanks St of Alaska Delta Inst and Greaenpeace sept 1994 Alaska Energy Auth june 1991 Alaska Power Auth 1982 Alaskan Power Auth Northern Tech Services Alaska Energy Auth Sept 1991 Attachment C. Old Harbor Hydroplant Analysis SCOPE The following cost estimate has been developed for Alternative Energy Development (AED) and MRJ for the Alaska Native Village Electrification project. The objective is to provide an analysis of the hydro potential and develop a cost estimate for a proposed hydropower project in Old Harbor, to support a general analysis of energy options available for Kodiak Island villages, with a work effort to take no more than six days. The effort has been a desk study, using information available from previous studies, flow data and topographic maps. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Old Harbor is a small village located on the southeast coast of Kodiak Island, 50 miles southwest of the city of Kodiak. The village is located on the Sitkalidak Strait which separates Sitkalidak Island from Kodiak Island. The community has a harbor and landing strip but has no road connection with any other community on the island. The topography is quite rugged with nearby mountains, within one mile of the sea, rising to an elevation of 2000 feet. The project, as proposed, would be located on a small stream that flows into Barling Bay. The project shown in Figure 1 would divert the stream at an approximate elevation of 580 feet, through 2000 feet of conduit and then through a penstock of 5200 feet that would convey the water to a powerhouse that would be located on the lower part of a small stream that is about 1 1/2 miles west of Old Harbor. The turbine and generator would have a capacity of 600 kW. Project Characteristics Watershed 4.6 sq. miles Mean Flow 57.6 c.f.s. Gross Head : 450 feet Rated Capacity 600 kw Annual Energy 3,219,000 kWh Road Length 1.6 miles Transmission Line 1.6 miles Cost $3.9 million Another option was considered in the conceptual layout of this project. This approach would cut a canal through the ridge dividing the two watersheds, with much of the excavated rock used for a small dam that could provide storage for peak energy usage. While this option could substantially reduce the cost of the penstock and other parts of the conveyance and the road, the cost of the canal and the dam would increase total project investment. Such a project could have a capacity 41 considerably larger then that of the option in this estimate, depending on the results of a hydrologic analysis. SUMMARY Because of the isolation of Old Harbor (the closest electrical grid is near the city of Kodiak a distance of 50 miles from Old Harbor over mountainous terrain), energy produced here, for the foreseeable future, has to be consumed locally. With no outside market for excess energy the project must be sized to match local demand. If only direct electrical demand is to be utilized, then a smaller project of 400-600 kW appears to be adequate. However, this site doesn't lend itself to development at a lower level because of the length of the penstock and higher project costs. This project will became increasingly viable if developed at a higher capacity, assuming corresponding demand. While present electrical demand is far below that which could be supplied by a project of 800 kW or larger; there is a large potential heating demand estimated in the 1982 study at 2,970,000 kWh in 1980 and 4,090,000 in 2000. However, the four heaviest months of heating demand, are during the period od lowest flows from December through March. Fortunately, this is during the period of maximum winds. Further study needs to better estimate demand and determine project size and if a future project may be a composite of wind an hydro. DEMAND AND SIZING THE PROJECT Old Harbor has 112 houses, 87 of which are said to be occupied. In 1994 a total of 159 consumers used a total of 664,116 kWh of energy and had a peak demand of 172 kW. The monthly peaks ranged from 138 to 164 kW during September through May, and 103 to 120 kW during June through August, with an average load of 85 kW. An average residential consumer used less than 2700 kWh annually, which indicates there has been little growth in per capita demand in the past 15 years, since the average residential consumption in 1980 was 2300 kWh. The annual electrical demand for-each consumer is well below those projected by Dowl Engineers in their August, 1982 Feasibility Study for Old Harbor which used the 1980 demand of 2300 kWh as the base year, and projected demand of 4400 kWh (Dow]) in 2001, 6000 kWh (Ebasco) in 1995, and 4600 kWh (CH2M HILL) in 2001. Total annual energy usage for 1994 (at 664,116), however, has been quite close to that projected in the study (717,000), because of an expansion in both commercial usage and the total number of residential consumers. The previously cited feasibility study includes data demonstrating the effect of energy unit cost and demand from "Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1960-1980" Sixth Edition, August 1981, United States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, page 40. The data indicates that annual energy demand is typically 5000 kWh or more when cost is less then 150 mills/kWh, while 48 AVEC villages with costs of 422 mills/kWh had demand of 2044 kWh. The effect of high energy cost on 42 demand can also be seen in Old Harbor where costs are high and demand is only 30% above the average of the AVEC villages. Given lower energy costs it is probable that demand in Old Harbor will rise rapidly to levels found in other similar communities. This study will make a number of assumptions on projected demand. L That total demand will rise rapidly in the first six years (grow at an annual rate of at least 6%). 2: For the next 20 years demand will grow at the same rate as projected in the previously cited study. No heating demand is projected in this report, although the potential heating demand in the year 1995 is given as about 4,500,000 kWh in the previously cited study. WATER RESOURCES Kodiak Island has a climate strongly dominated by marine influence. The temperature is cool with frequent clouds and fog. The humidity is often high with little temperature variation. There is a normal daily minimum of 25 F in January and February, a normal maximum of 60 F in August, with a mean annual temperature of 41 F. The area north of Old Harbor is well situated for precipitation. The Aleutian Lows move over the island and the winds are said to blow continuously from the south. The highest mountain peak (Koniag with an elevation of about 4500 feet) on the island is located about 10 miles north of Old Harbor together with numerous glaciers. The larger glaciers cover areas of 1 to 4 square miles and are usually found above 3000 feet, although terminal points can be found below 2000 feet; while there are several smaller glaciers between 2000 and 3000 feet elevation. There are no glaciers in the project drainage area, but given the elevation of the watershed, it is probable that substantial areas of snow are present through the end of summer. The windward side of the orographic barriers tend to receive more precipitation then the areas of lower elevation. The project drainage area consists of 4.6 square miles, the upper part of which has two small valleys surrounded by ridges with elevations of 2000 to 3000 feet, and the highest point is about 3500 feet. The Alaska Hydrologic Survey maintains a gage below the intersection of the two upper tributaries and the period of record from 7-14-93 to the present. The mean daily flow during the period from 7-14-93 to 2-2-95 was 58 c.f.s., with a maximum of 2160 and a minimum of .11 cfs. The mean annual flow for this watershed is 12.6 cfs/square mile. The nearest gaged basin is that of Myrtle Creek (USGS No. 15297200) located 9 miles south of Kodiak. This gage has a drainage area of 4.74 sq.mi., and a mean annual flow of 9.70 cfs/sq.mi. for the period 1963 through 1980. Topographic coverage of the Myrtle Creek watershed was not available for this report, it is possible that it receives 43 less precipitation, is located at a lower elevation, and has less snow available for melting in late summer. A hydrologic study needs to determine better the probable flows available for power generation in the proposed project watershed. For the development of this cost estimate the data available for the two year period of record will be assumed to be reasonable and a flow duration curve has been developed from the data. The area near Old Harbor appears to be well endowed with potential hydropower sites. Within 8 to 10 miles of the village are two sites that may be capable of providing 1-2 mW or more. COST Project Mobilization and Demobilization Diversion Two Diversion Dams Intake Intake and Sedimentation Structures Penstock Steel Penstock 5200 ft. Fiberglass Conduit 2000 ft. Excavation and Backfill Powerhouse Prefabricated Structure Turbine and Generator Auxiliary Systems Concrete and Reinf. Steel Access Road 3.0 miles Transmission Line 1.6 miles Contingency 15% Contract Total Engineering Design and Construction Mgmt. 15% Legal and Administrative Total Project Cost Total Total Total 45 AAA PAAAS Aw” 365,000 50,000 75,000 650,000 240,000 100,000 990,000 60,000 250,000 150,000 120,000 580,000 416,000 370,000 2,846,000 426,900 3,272,900 490,935 112,200 3,876,035 Attachment D. Village Selection Criteria 46 OLD HARBOR WEIGHTING FACTOR Fe ENVIRONMENTAL 02 [ : total scores 0.6683) OLD HARBOR ECONOMIC MODEL PREDICTIONS 1|RESIDENCES 1|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 2 AL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE GROSS INCOME ‘AL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS ISCHOOLS/GVT BLDGS/COMMUN CTRS } 1 TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS I 2|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE TAX BASE 3] TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS PCE 1|PCE SAVINGS TOTAL. VILLAGE COOPERATION JINITIATIVE | LEADERSHIP LONG RANGE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL FOR VILLAGE POPULATION & VILLAGE | 4|FISHING 2|TOURISM 3)SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL T|WILOLIFE 1|STREAM FLOW DAMS NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL total scores ee PREDICTIONS RESIDENCES 1|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 2| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE GROSS INCOME 3| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS SCHOOL S/GVT BLDGS/COMMUN CTRS TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 1 2| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE TAX BASE 3) TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS | I 1|PCE SAVINGS TOTAL SOCIAL 1|VILLAGE COOPERATION 2 [INITIATIVE 3|LEADERSHIP 4|LONG RANGE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY 5|POTENTIAL FOR VILLAGE POPULATION & VILLAGE INDUSTRY GROWTH 1|FISHING 2|TOURISM 3|SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL [WILDLIFE 1|STREAM FLOW DAMS 2|NOISE | 3/OTHER if POLLUTION A|WATER A|SURFACE 2|GROUND 3|SEA AIR NOISE ISE RESTRICTIONS INATIONAL PARKS INATIVE CORP LANDS PRIVATE LAND ALASKA PROJECT IDEMONSTRATION VILLAGE SELECTION CRITERIA TINGS |FILE=C:\EXTEND\ALASKA\SITESEL4 XLS ALL SAVINGS ARE Ps a as INDIVIDUAL SCORE PREP PER YEAR ETS ARE USED TO COST, AND QUALITATIVE JUOGHENTS NTO SCORE PO Note: The ENVIRONMENTAL category does not indicate the level of ortance the protectio of the environment is. It represents a degree of diffic ted in satistying environmental regulations and concerns. The mode! proposals lean to the use of renewable gy Sources and conservation measures which their nature are very environmentally friendly. I + |AKHIOK f |WEIGHTING FACTOR note: |O=very negative 0.55) i 1 |MODEL PREDICTIONS | 1|RESIDENCES I 05) 0.36333) 1|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 0.3333) 7233331 2|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE GROSS INCOME 0.3333} | 2.66664 3] TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS 0.3333) 8) 266664 2|SCHOOLS/GVT BLOGS/COMMUN CTRS 04 02 1] TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 0.3333 5| 1.66665 2|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE TAX BASE 0.3333 5| 1.66665 3/ TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS L 0.3333) S| 1.66665 3|PCE O11 0.07 PCE SAVINGS TOTAL INATIONAL PARKS | NATIVE CORP LANDS KARLUK WEIGHTING FACTOR note: __|O=very negative 1|ECONOMIC 0.55 S=nominal = pe = | | S|ENVIRONMENTAL 02 : iE at total scores f 0.5588] KARLUK max possible score=1. r MODEL PREDICTIONS A|RESIDENCES t 0.5 0.3333 TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE GROSS INCOME 0.3333 2.3333 | |__| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS 0.3333 SCHOOLS/GVT BLDGS/COMMUN CTRS |—-|—| 04 0.24 == | SEO eH j seereennes | ease 1|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 0.3333 Sa 2|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE TAX BASE 0.3333 3|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS 0.3333 2 ee eee 01 0.07) 7 0.6433 : i 036 042 4 a! 0.06 Ilo A|PCE SAVINGS TOTAL 1 2]INITIATIVE 3 2 02 = 4|LONG RANGE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY 02 oe S|POTENTIAL FOR VILLAGE POPULATION & VILLAGE INDUSTRY GROWTH 0.2| 1 [FISHING [esas [| 2 Tourism 0.3333 3|SERVICES 0.3333, feat 3|ENVIRONMENTAL [WILDLIFE 0.3333) 1|STREAM FLOW DAMS. | Scena TO) 2|NOISE | | | t | { 3/OTHER = 2|POLLUTION L 0.3333 1|WATER I 1|SURFACE = jwlwlo} jajajaja! | | il lololo io} ‘oo 0.1667 05 rf) | | cr i iii | || 2 [GROUND | 3 2|AIR 3 poses f LAND — RESTRICTIONS 0.3333 NATIONAL PARKS INATIVE CORP LANDS fam} PORT LIONS bescton| | RESIDENCES 1] TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 2| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE GROSS INCOME 3| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS SCHOOL S/GVT BLDGS/COMMUN CTRS I TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 3 TOTAL BRGY Cost SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS [seen PCE SAVINGS TOTAL i LEADERSHIP | LONG RANGE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL FOR VILLAGE POPULATION & VILLAGE INDUSTRY GROWTH 1 [FISHING J 2| TOURISM 3|SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL 1 (WILDLIFE 1|STREAM FLOW DAMS 2|NOISE 3/OTreR POLLUTION 1]WATER 1 2 3 2/AIR 3|NOISE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS NATIONAL PARKS LARSEN BAY WEIGHTING FACTOR OSS 0.25) RESIDENCES tT 1|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS L 2|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE GROSS INCOME 3] TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS 2|SCHOOLS/GVT BLDGS/COMMUN CTRS 1|TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS 2| TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/TOTAL VILLAGE TAX BASE 3) TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS/HOUSEHOLDS PREDICTIONS | f A|PCE SAVINGS TOTAL Soci VILLAGE COOPERATION INITIATIVE LEADERSHIP ILONG RANGE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY POTENTIAL FOR VILLAGE POPULATION & VILLAGE INDUSTRY GROWTH Jonni} [sion vi | jon Attachment E. VESOP User Guide with Excel Spreadsheets 47 ALASKA ENERGY PROJECT 6/8/95 Village Energy Simulation and Optimization Program (VESOP) USER GUIDE WHAT IS VESOP? VESOP is a program for a PC computer used for calculating the total integrated energy demand and supply side performance and cost issues of a small, isolated community. The program simulates minute by minute the energy requirements of all the residences and buildings and supply sources and calculates the near and long term associated costs. WHAT CAN IT BE USED FOR? VESOP can be used to evaluate the cost and performance impact of a proposed modification to the village energy infrastructure. Given the village temperature, stream flow, and wind data, as well as the existing size, number, and types of construction the program allows the user to simulate the existing performance of the village’s energy structure. Then he may modify the model to calculate the cost impact of improvements such as the addition of hydroelectric plants ,wind turbines, electric ground source heat pumps, waste conversion...etc. Since the program simulates real time interaction of all demand side and supply side components brownouts can be detected and hydro reservoir sizes optimized . The Extend model was developed around the needs and resources available in Alaska but could be easily expanded to meet the needs of any village in the world. Within the Extend model the user also has the ability to add or subtract components and to connect them in different ways visually on the screen without reprogramming. ~ HOW DOES IT WORK? VESOP is composed of two parts. The first part is an EXCEL spreadsheet program which is used as a pre and post data interface to the second program which is an engineering simulation program/model, “EXTEND/ALASKA‘. The EXTEND program is the model solution solver. All the components (e.g. houses, wind turbines, diesels, hydro) are contained in the model ALASKA. VESOP Data Transfer Path Results Simulation Software User Input of Data FlowTempl alackal - 1 falls a Roof Walls Other Losses eee |L)eeeary EXHIBIT 5 MODEL HOUSE INTERIOR LEVEL ors Thermostat Windows Thermostat First the user supplies wind, stream, and other weather data directly as text files to the extend model. In addition the user may add to the library of stored component performance data (e.g. diesel gensets, wind turbines, etc.). Next via the spreadsheet the user specifies the number of homes, schools, government buildings, factories, etc. along with their sizes, insulation values, thermostat setpoints....etc.). The user may also update the assumed economic values such as the cost of money, inflation rates, fuel costs, and components costs. Once the input is complete the spreadsheet outputs a file for use by the EXTEND model containing all of the model inputs. The user then executes the EXTEND simulation from within the spreadsheet. EXTEND then calculates the performance of the system in user-defined timesteps over a period of up to 6 years. Each year may have a different mix of energy supply components (e.g. Diesel, Wind, Hydro, D&H, D&W, D&W&H) and the same set of conservation measures (e.g. insulation, thermostat adjustments, etc.). The model selects the diesel size to handle the entire demand and then uses wind and hydro power in that order, to reduce fuel consumption, as long as the wind and hydro are available based on instantaneous wind velocity, and stream flow data and stored water in the reservoir. When Extend signals that it has completed the simulation, the user tells the spreadsheet to load all of the Extend output files. The user can then view all of these files in tabular and graphical forms. The Extend model was developed around the needs and resources available in Alaska but could be easily expanded to meet the needs of any isolated village in the world. On the electric supply side it contains Diesel generators, wind turbines, and hydro. Solar and geothermal power production were not included due to generally low solar insulation and few geothermal pools near most of the villages. Within the houses and municipal buildings, there is available heating by oil furnace, Toyostove®, wood stove, ground source heat pumps, and district heating. All have individual thermostats. The schools have the same plus diesel generators and cogen heating. LIST OF COMPONENTS 1.0 ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1.0 Diesel generators 2.0 Hydropower 3.0 Wind turbines 4.0 System losses 5.0 Power factor losses 2.0 COMMUNITY BUILDINGS 1.0 Houses 2.0 Factories 3.0 Schools 4.0 Municipal facilities 5.0 Community centers 3.0 ENERGY DEMAND 1.0 Furnace fuel oil 2.0 Toyostove® kerosene 3.0 Wood 4.0 District heating well to well heat pump. 5.0 Home appliances including hot water 6.0 Ground source heat pumps DISCUSSION OF COMPONENTS The simulation EXTEND model deals only with the engineering and hardware system simulation aspects. The cost parameters will be discussed separately on the description of the cost spreadsheets in section SIMULATION DISCUSSION LIST OF COMPONENTS 1.0 ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1.0 Diesel generators The diesel generator block is actually made up of up to four different generators representing a genset. The size of each generator can be input separately to allow for optimization within the genset. The Extend program always tries to use the fewest number of generators at any given time. Also, the smallest generators are used if possible for higher fuel efficiency. The amount of electricity produced for any point in time is equal to the total need minus the power produced by the wind turbines and the hydro plant. 2.0 Hydro The hydro power block uses the available water in the holding pond to determine how much electricity it can produce at any particular point in time. It then determines how much it produces based on the total need, the wind energy produced and its own maximum capacity. The amount of water actually removed from the pond is computed based on the production. 3.0 Wind turbines The wind turbine block uses the available wind data, in an input file, to determine the amount of power that can be generated over each time step. If the turbine generates more power than is required, the remainder is assumed to be grounded. 4.0 System losses The electrical system losses for the entire village are inputs as a percentage of supplied power that is lost to heat. This percentage will affect all of the power produced for the village. Also, since the wind turbine and hydro plant may be located at a significant distance from town, the voltage, resistance, and length of these lines are used to determine losses for these lines. 5.0 Power factor losses Power factors are assumed to be 1.0 for most of the demand in the village. The one exception is the factory. The user inputs the power demand for the factory. It is assumed that this demand includes the power factor already in the calculation. 2.0 COMMUNITY BUILDINGS 1.0 Houses Each house block takes into account all of the heat being pumped in and the heat losses through the windows, doors, etc. It then calculates the new temperature in the house for the next time step. The thermostats on each heating unit use that house temperature to turn on or shut off that particular heating unit. When each of the heating units are on, fuel or electricity consumption is determined for future economic analysis. Heating units available are wood stove, furnace, Toyostove®, ground source heat pump, and district heating loop/heat exchanger. 2.0 Factories The factories/canneries consist entirely of a demand. The demand depends on the time of day and year but there is no heating involved since most canneries operate in the summer in Alaska. 3.0 Schools A school is very similar to a house model except that there is a separate generator available to provide power to the school. The school has electrical demand which varies according to the day of the week and the season. The only heating devices available are a wood stove and a furnace and the district heating. 4.0 Municipal facilities The municipal buildings are identical to the school model except the generator is not available. 5.0 Community centers The community centers are identical to the municipal buildings. 3.0 ENERGY DEMAND 1.0 Furnace fuel oil The model keeps track of how many gallons of furnace fuel oil are burned for each day in the simulation. If the furnace is on for any period of time, the fuel consumed is determined from the capacity of the furnace, the BTU content of the fuel, and the efficiency of the furnace. 2.0 Toyostove® kerosene The kerosene burned by the Toyostove® is kept track of in the same manner as is the furnace fuel. The model reports the gallons of fuel used each day. 3.0 Wood The amount of wood consumed for any point in time is determined from the capacity of the wood stove, the BTU content of the wood, and the efficiency of the wood stove. The wood use is reported in cords. 4.0 District heating well to well heat pump. This heat pump acts in the same manner as does the ground source heat pumps for each individual house except that the heat is used to warm the fluid in a district heating system. This fluid is then pumped to the buildings on the loop. An fluid to air heat exchanger in each of these buildings is used to circulate the heat into the house. The district heating used a heat pump and a garbage incineration process to provide heat to the district heating loop. The incinerator heat is used first to reduce the amount of electricity required for heating. 5.0 Home appliances including hot water The total electric demand of the village (appliances, lights, etc.) is input as a text file into the model. The model applies a demand curve to the total demand for a day to determine the power consumption at any point in time. The same method is applied for the hot water except that it is done for each house. 6.0 Ground source heat pumps In each house model, the ground source heat pump block can be used as a method of delivering heat to the house. Since the ground temperature is fairly uniform year-round in Alaska, the C.O.P. is input from the spreadsheet and used for the entire simulation. The heat pumps, when on, always provide the amount of heat equal to their capacity. The electricity used is equal to the amount of heat produced divided by the coefficient of performance and converted to kWh. PRE and POST PROCESSING WORKBOOK SHEETS LIST OF WORKSHEET NAMES 1.0 INPUTS 2.0 ECONINPUTS 3.0 GENVRBL.XLS 4.0 GENCONST.XLS 5.0 HEATING ECONINPUTS 6.0 HEATINGVRBL 7.0 HEATINGCONST 8.0 MATERIALS INPUTS 9.0 MATERIALSVRBL.XLS 10.0 MATERIALSCONST.XLS 11.0 WINDVRBL-2 12.0 GENSETS.XLS 13.0 SHEET1 14.0 SUMMARY OUTPUT 15.0 RUN1 16.0 RUN2 17.0 RUN3 18.0 RUN4 19.0 RUNS 20.0 RUNG 21.0 HYDRO 22.0 WINDCNST.XLS 23.0 MODULE1 24.0 CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTORS SHEET NAME 1.0 “INPUTS” The following inputs represent the inputs for six consecutive runs of the model. All of the variables can be changed between the runs to allow for optimization of the electrical supply. Any of the supply units can be eliminated by setting their maximum power to 0. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Day Number Hydro Efficiency (%) Head (feet) Max Power (kW) Pond Size (acre-feet) Starting Pond Level (acre-feet) Transmission Voltage (Volts) Line Length (feet) Resistance (Ohms/1000 ft) Diesel Max Power Diesel #1 (kW) Max Power Diesel #2 (kW) Max Power Diesel #3 (kW) Max Power Diesel #4 (kW) Energy content of fuel (kWh/gal) Waste Heat Efficiency (%) Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed (mph) Rated Speed (mph) Rated Power (kW) Number of Turbines Turbine Diameter (ft) Alpha Measured Wind Speed Height (ft) Actual Wind Turbine Hub Height (ft) Transmission Voltage Line Length (feet) Resistance (Ohms/1000 ft) School Generator Max Power (kW) Waste Heat Efficiency (%) Utility Heat Pump/District Heating Coefficient of Performance Max Flow Rate (cfs) Water Exit Temp (degrees F) Desired Return Temp (degrees F) Minimum Flow Rate (cfs) Starting Flow Rate (cfs) Maximum Flow Change (cfs) Percent Residential Flow, % Biomass Thermal Energy Efficiency (%) BTUs per pound garbage Heat Transfer Inside H Outside H Electrical Distribution Overall Losses (%) The following inputs can not be changed between runs of the model during a single batch run. Each column represents a distinct building type. Any number of each type can be included in the model. These variables are demand side and can be changed between separate batch runs of the model. Any of the heating units can be removed by simple setting it’s capacity to 0. Note: The hysteresis value for the furnace thermostat applies to all of the other heating units with the exception of the wood stove, which has its own hysteresis value. Fixed Parameters for all Runs House Number 1 2 3 4 5 8 House Type # of units Doors Height (ft) Width (ft) R Value Number Windows R Value Floor Plywood Thickness-outer (in.) Insulation R Value Plywood Thickness-inner (in.) Walls GWB Thickness (in.) Insulation R Value Plywood Thickness (in.) Roof GWB Thickness (in.) Insulation R Value Furnace Capacity (BTUs/hr) Efficiency (%) BTUs/Gallon of fuel Thermostat (degrees F) Hysteresis (degrees F) Toyostove® Stove Capacity (BTUs/hr) Efficiency (%) BTU/Gallon of fuel Thermostat (degrees F) Wood Stove Capacity (BTUs/hr) Efficiency (%) BTU/Cord of wood Thermostat (degrees F) Hysteresis (degrees F) House Heat Pump Capacity (BTUs/hr) C.O.P. Thermostat (degrees F) House Heat Exchanger CFM, air Effectiveness Thermostat (degrees F) House General Length (ft) Width (ft) Height (ft) Building General Floor Area (sq. ft.) (columns i,j,k) Wall Area (sq. ft.) Volume (sq. ft.) House/Building Other Window to Wall Area (%) Air Changes/Hour Starting House Temp (degrees F) Hot Water Usage, Gallons/Day Hot Water Heater Type (1=furnace, 2=heat pump, 3=resistance) Hot Water Temp, F ECONINPUTS GENVRBL.XLS GENCONST.XLS HEATING ECONINPUTS HEATINGVRBL HEATINGCONST MATERIALS INPUTS MATERIALSVRBL.XLS MATERIALSCONST.XLS WINDVRBL-2 GENSETS.XLS SHEET1 SUMMARY OUTPUT RUN1 Contains all of the output data from Extend for the first of the six runs. RUN2 Contains all of the output data from Extend for the second of the six runs. RUN3 Contains all of the output data from Extend for the third of the six runs. RUN4 Contains all of the output data from Extend for the forth of the six runs. RUNS5 Contains all of the output data from Extend for the fifth of the six runs. RUN6 Contains all of the output data from Extend for the first of the six runs. HYDRO WINDCNST.XLS MODULE1 CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTORS oldharbor Input Parameters Run Number 3 4| Efficiency (%) Head (feet) 450 450 450 450 Max Power (kW) 600 0 600 600 Pond Size (acre-feet) 40 40 40 40 Starting Pond Level (acre-feet) 0 0 0 0 Transmission Voltage (Volts) 12000 12000 12000 12000} 12000 12000 Line Length (feet) 3000 3000 3000 3000 Resistance (Ohms/1000 ft) Max Power Diesel #1 (kW) Max Power Diesel #2 (kW) 155 155 Max Power Diesel #3 (kW) 268 268 Max Power Diesel #4 (kW) 0 0 42 42 Energy content of fuel (kWh/gal) Waste Heat Efficiency (%) BQIN|C|/o|o|\o pip BIN C|o|o|o p> Turbine Cut-in Speed (mph) 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.12 Rated Speed (mph) 39.37 39.37 39.37 39.37 39.37 39.37 Rated Power (kW) | 0 225) 225) 225 Number of Turbines 0 3 3 3 Turbine Diameter (ft) 90 90 90 90 | 29] [Alpha 0.14 0.14{ 0.14 0.14 ‘ Measured Wind Speed Height (ft 30 30 30 30 Actual Wind Turbine Hub Height 90 90 90 90 Transmission Voltage 12000 12000 12000 12000} 12000 12000 Line Length (feet) 5000 5000 5000 5000 Resistance (Ohms/1000 ft 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 School Generator Max Power (kW) 0 0 0 0 Waste Heat Efficiency (%) Demand Demand Electrici Average Monthi _ Total Industrial Adjusted Residential Total City & Commercial | Total School : 1111.43 Feb 886.01 March 921.56 April 814.76 May 800.98 June 638.69 July 738.43 August 788.14 September 938.66 October 985.04 November 1068.32 December 1125.66 Actual Residential Month (kWh) January 1174.774 Feb 949.3571 March 984.9032 April 878.1 May 864.3226 June 702.0333 July 801.7742 August 851.4839 September 1002 October 1048.387 November 1131.667 December 1189 Lights Hours per kWh per day Hours/day month Saved January 12 372 0 February 10 280 0 March 8 248 0 April 6 180 0 May| : 4 124 0 June 3 90 0 July 3 93 0 Aug 4 124 0 September 6 180 0} Page 2 October November December Refrigerator January February March April May June July Aug September October November December Page 3 Energy Eff. Inputs Economic Input Parameters Houses/Buildings (1-5) Fixed Parameters for all Runs Number of hours Lights On/day ‘9 Watt (S/bulb & ballast) Number of bulbs/house bulb life (in hours) Incandescent bulb replaced (Watt) - Watts Saved 71 Watt (S/oulb & ballast) Number of bulbs bulb life (in hours) Watts Saved 15 Watt (S/bulb & ballast) Number of bulbs bulb life (in hours) Incandescent bulb replaced (Watt) Watts Saved 17 Watt (S/bulb & ballast) Number of bulbs bulb life (in hours) Incandescent bulb replaced (Watt) Watts Saved 20 Watt ($/bulb & ballast) Number of bulbs bulb life (in hours) Watts Saved Total Cost of Lights (including all houses) Total Number of Bulbs kWatts Saved from Lights CostRefrigerator ($) Initial Cost of Refrigerators (for all houses) Life of refrigerator Watts Saved kWatts Saved iances GreenPlug ($) $0.00 Initial Total Cost $0.00 Life of GreenPlug (yrs) 10 Present Value Multiplier (i, lifesys, lifeapp) 1.78] Watts Saved per day 22622.71 kWatts Saved T I Page 4 Eng. EE@tgy Efficiency Output Parameters |Economic/Finanacial Inputs System Life (L) years 20 20 20 20 20 20 Initial Payment (Ad) $ | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Term of Loan (N) I 2 2 2 2 2 2 Interest (b) | 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% General Inflation Rate (i) { 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Discount Rate (d) 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% Capital Recovery Factor for interest payments (b, N) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Present Worth Factor of Interest Payments (b,N) 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 Fluorescent Light Present Value Factor(i,nb,hrs, If) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 (inflation, number of replacements, hours on per day and bulb life) Incandescent Light Present Value Factor (i,nb,hrs) 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 28.7 (inflation, number of replacements, hours on per day) Captial Recovery Factor for System Income (d,L) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Calculate Costs of Energy Effecient Investment | NPV NPV =C*[1+ summation(1 + i)*(-n) for n=5 to L-5 (life of project) in steps of 5] - NPV of incandescent lights | Initial Number of Bulbs for all houses | 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! luorescent Li Initial Capital Cost of Fl. Lights(C) | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | Bulbs purchased over system life { 37 37 37 37 37 37 | Present Value of Fluorescent Lights (C*FLPV) | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 T Incandescent Lights Number of Incandescent Light Replacements 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 Price per Incandescent Bulb $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 Present Value of Incandescent Lights $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | NPV of Fluorescent Lights over System Life $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 (Fluourescent PV - Incandescent PV) | Annual NPV of Fluorescent Lights | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | Refrigerators | Present Value Factor (i,lifesys,lifeapp) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Costs of Refrigerators Ee) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NPV of Refrigerator | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 |Other Appliances | | Present Value Factor (i,lifesys, lifeapp) | 1.78) 1.78} 1.78 1.78} 1.78} 1.78 Initial Costs of Greenplug _ | $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NPV of GreenPlug | $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual NPV of Appliances and Fluorescent Lights $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Dollar Value | Cost = Fluorescent Light Investment - Cost of Incandescent Lights + Other Appliance Costs Number of Fiuorescent Light Replacements 3.7 3.7 Cost $0 $0 Number of Incandescent Light Replacements 36.5 36.5 Costs of Incandescent Lights $0 $0 Constant Dollar Fluorescent Light Investment ) Page 5 $0 Electric Econinputs T 4 | Economic Input Parameters | 2 | Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Hydro and | Hydro and Wind Hydro Hydro Wind Wind Wind | 4 | Economic/Finanacial Inputs | 5 | System Life (L) years 20 20 20 20 20 20 | 6 | Initial Payment (Ad) $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Term of Loan (N) 20 20 20 20 20 20 | 8 | Interest (b) 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% | 9 | General Inflation Rate (i) 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%: | 10 | Fuel Inflation Rate (e) 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% El Discount Rate (d) 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% | 12 | | 13 | Fixed Annual Payment for System | 14 | | 15 | Staff for Electricity Generation Operations | 16 | Operator & Administrators (# of personnel) 2 2 2 2 2 2 | 17 | Average Annual Salary for Personnel $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 | $20,000 | 18 | Total Annual Salary $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 | 19 | | 20 [Diesel Generator Parameters | 21 | System Life (L) years 20 20: 20 20 Es Number of Diesel Gensets 3 3 3 3 Initial Capital Costs $155,450 | $155,450 $155,450 $155,450 Ea (choose value from Gensets.xs or input value) | 26 | Initial Installation Costs Building Site $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 28 | Tools $3,000 | __ $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 | 29 | | 30 | Annual Costs & Parameters | 31 | Diesel Fuel Price—including transport ($/gallon) $1.53 $1.53 $1.53 $1.53 En Lube Oil Price—including transport ($/gallon) $1 $1 $1 $1 | 33 | Lube Oil Consumption (gal/kWh) | 34 | Contingency for Fuel Storage/Transport ($/gallon) 0 0 | 35 |Diesel #1 [Operating hours until overhaul 10000 10000 10000 10000 Overhaul Cost $8,800 $8,800 $8,800 $8,800 37 Routine Maintenance (annual) $790 $790 $790 $790 | 38 |Diesel #2 [Operating hours until overhaul 10000: 10000. 10000 10000 | 39 | Overhaul Cost $8,800 $8,800 $8,800 $8,800 | 40 | Routine Maintenance (annual) $790 $790 $790 $790 Mu Diesel #3 | Operating hours until overhaul 6000 6000 6000 6000 Overhaul Cost $8,200 $8,200 $8,200 $8,200 | 43 | Routine Maintenance (annual) $780 $780 $780 $780 | 44 |Diesel #4 [Operating hours until overhaul | 45 | Overhaul Cost | 46 | Routine Maintenance (annual) | 47 | | 48 |School Diesel Generator | 49 | | 50 | System Life (L) years 0 0 | 51 | Initial Capital Costs | 52 | Initial Installation Costs | 53 | Building Site | 54 | | 55 | [Annual Costs and Parameters | 56 | |Operating hours until overhaul 6000 Overhaul Cost $0 El Routine Maintenance (annual) $0 | | 59 | | 60 |Wind Turbine Parameters | 61 | | 62 | System Life (L) years 0 10 | 63 | Cost per kW $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500| $1,500 $1,500 Electric Econinputs (Use $1500/KWh for remote locations and $1200 for non-remote) Wind Turbine Size (kW) 225 225 225 225 225 Rotor Diameter (ft) 90 90 90 90 Number of Turbines |. 0 0 0 3 3 3 Total Cost $0 | $0 $0 | $1,012,500 | $1,012,500 | $1,012,500 a. Costs include transportation and installation 98% 98% Wind Turbine Availability Lube Oil Price—including transport ($/gal) $0.00 Lube Oil Consumption (gal/yr) 0 Operating Hours until Overhaut Overhaul Cost Routine Maintenance (2% of capital/year) System Life (L) years System Costs Power House (Building, Turbine, Generator) Penstock Intake Access Road Reservoir/Dam Cost Transmission Line Total Cost $1,900,000 | $1,900,000 $1,900,000 |$1,900,000 a. Costs include transportation and installation Lube Oil Price—including transport ($/gal) Lube Oil Consumption (gal/yr) Operating Hours until Overhaul Overhaul Cost Routine Maintenance (5% of capital/year) Biomass to Methane Conversion System System Life (L) years Initial Capital Costs (US$) JUNKHAR.XLS Run Number 1 2 Wind Hydro Capital Recovery Factor for interest payments (b, N) 0.10 0.10 Present Worth Factor of Interest Payments (b,N) 9.82 9.82 Present Worth Factor of Fuel Costs (e,d,L) 13.73 13.73 Present Worth Factor of O&M (i,d,L) 13.13 13.13 Captial Recovery Factor for System Income (d,L) 0.09 0.09 Calculate Total NPV NPV = Ad + Ap*Y[1/(1+d), NH FL°FC*Y[(1+e)/(1+d),L]+C*OM*Y[(1+i)/(1+d),L] Captial Cost (C) $208,450 $2,108,450 Initial payment on system (Ad) $o $0 Loan (C-Ad) $208,450 $2,108,450 Annual Payment (Ap) $21,231 $214,750 NPV of annual payments $208,450 $2,108,450 Fuel & Oil Costs per year $8,888 $0 NPV of fuel over system lifetime $122,046 so O&M Costs/year for Diesel Generators $3,311 $2,360 O&M Costs/year & Staff $40,000 $135,000 NPV of O&M over system life $568,786 $1,803,885, Total NPV of system Costs $899,282 $3,912,335 Annual NPV of System Costs $84,886 $369,297 Total KWh production per year 60826.86 48492.16 Cost of Energy ($/kWh) $1.40 $7.62 Page 8 Output Parameters 3 Hydro 0.10 9.82 13.73 13.13 0.09 $1,900,000 $0 $1,900,000 $193,519 $1,900,000 $o $0 so $135,000 $1,772,892 $3,672,892 $346,695 84550.00 $4.10 4 Wind 0.10 9.82 13.73 13.13 0.09 $1,220,950 $0 $1,220,950 $124,356 $1,220,950 $1,954 $26,833 $2,592 $60,250 $825,277 $2,073,060 $195,682 23191.90 $8.44 § Hydro and Wind 0.10 9.82 13.73 13.13 0.09 $2,912,500 $0 $2,912,500 $296,645 $2,912,500 $0 $0 $O $155,250 $2,038,826 $4,951,326 $467,370 663434.00 $0.70 6 Hydro and Wind 0.10 9.82 13.73 13.13 0.09 $3,120,950 $0 $3,120,950 $317,876 $3,120,950 $0 $0 $2,360 $155,250 $2,069,819 $5,190,769 $489,972 54817.22 $8.94 JUNKHAR.XLS Constant Dollar Electricity Generation Cost Analysis Output Parameters Run Numb 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hydro, Hydro & Hydro and | Diesel and Day Number Diesel Diesel Hydro Wind Wind Wind Initial Capital $208,450 |$2,108,450 |$1,900,000 | ##HHHHHHH | 7HAHAHHHH | dHAHHHHHHE (choose values from Gensets.xis or input value) Initial Installation Costs Building Site $50,000 $50,000 $0 | $50,000 $0 | $50,000 Tools $3,000 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 $3,000 Annual Payment (Ap) $21,231 | $214,750 | $193,519 | $124,356 | $296,645 | $317,876 Fuel & Oil Costs per year $8,888 $0 $0 $1,954 $0 $0 Diesel Generator O&M Costs/year $3,311 $2,360 $0 $2,592 $0 $2,360 O&M Costs/year & Staff | $40,000 | $135,000 | $135,000} $60,250 | $155,250 | $155,250 Total Annual Costs | $73,430 | $352,110 | $328,519 | $189,153 | $451,895 | $475,486 Annual kWh Delivered 60826.86| 48492.16| _84550.00| 23191.90| 21083.55| 54817.22 | Cost of Electricity ($/kWh) $1.21 $7.26 $3.89 $8.16 $21.43 $8.67 | Page 9 JUNKHAR.XLS Caterpillar Cost Estimates Continuous Rating Machines Circuit ARO Battery Size (kW) ‘Cost Transfer Breaker Switch Sets 139 $24,000 $2,000 $6,900 $450 $12,000 $45,350 175 $29,000 $2,000 $6,900 $450 $12,000 $50,350 210 $32,000 $2,700 $7,600 $450 $12,000 $54,750 265 $39,000 $3,400 $7,600 $450 $12,000 $62,450 b Transport ‘Total a. The above costs are estimates from Albine Engine Power, a certified Caterpillar dealer. b. Transport Costs are estimates and need to be verified. Most Villages will have 2 or more generator sets. The second diesel generator set will not need a generator facility. Therefore the capital costs will be increased by only the gen set expenses. $ for hours Size (kW) Annual before $ for Maint. overhaul Overhaul 160 $780 6000 $8,200 205 $790 10000 $8,800 225 $790 10000 $8,800 275 $810 12000 $9,400 Page 10 Heating Econinputs Economic Input Parameters Run Number 1 2) 3] 4 5 6 Hydro and| Hydro and Day Number -__Wind Hydro Hydro Wind Wind Wind Economic/Finanacial Inputs System Life (L) years 20 20 20 20 20 20 Initial Payment (Ad) $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Term of Loan (N) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest (b) 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% General Inflation Rate (i) 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% Fuel Inflation Rate (e) 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Discount Rate (d) 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% Annual Payments Waste to Heat Energy Parameters System Life (L) years Initial Costs Incinerator Heat Recovery System Total Capital Costs Routine Maintenance Fuel Price ($/gal) Operator & Administrators (# of personnel) Average Annual Salary for Personnel Total Salary for Personnel Pump/District Heatin, System Life (L) years Initial Capital Cost Heat Exchanger Pump Piping ($/foot) Length of piping (feet) Total Cost of Piping _ Transportation/Installation Total Capital Costs $0 Routine Maintenance Operator & Administrators (# of personnel) Average Annual Salary for Personnel Total Salary for Personnel Ground Source Heat Pump System Life (L) years i 15 15) 15 15 15 15 Initial Capital Costs (US$) 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000: Pump Condenser Heat Exchanger Underground Piping (feet) [ Cost of Piping (S/foot) lf Total Piping Installation/Transportation Number of GSHPs Total Capital Costs o|o o|o o|o o|o o|o o|o {Routine Maintenance Operator & Administrators (# of personnel) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Annual Salary for Personnel $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 Total Salary for Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Heating Econinputs Well to Well Source Heat Pum, System Life (L) years Initial Capital Costs (US$) Pump Condenser Heat Exchanger {Underground Piping (feet) Cost of Piping ($/foot) Total Piping 0 Installation/Transportation __ Number of Systems o|o o|o o|o o|o Solo o|o Total Capital Costs Routine Maintenance Operator & Administrators (# of personnel) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Annual Salary for Personnel $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 Total Salary for Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 System Life (L) years Initial Capital Costs (US$) Furnace Installation Number of Stoves 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capital Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Fuel ($/gallon) Maintenance Oil Fired Furnace System Life (L) years 12 12 12 12 12 12 Initial Capital Costs (US$) House Furnace $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500/ $2,500/ $2,500] $2,500 Installation $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Number of House Systems 84 84 84 84 84 84 School Furnace $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 Installation $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000/ $1,000] $1,000] $1,000 Total Cost of School Furnace $11,000 | $11,000 | $11,000 | $11,000 | $11,000 | $11,000 Community Building Furnace $7,000 | $7,000} $7,000/ $7,000} $7,000/ $7,000 Installation : $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000/ $1,000/ $1,000} $1,000 Total Cost of Comm. Bldg Furnace $16,000 | $16,000 | $16,000 | $16,000 | $16,000 | $16,000 Total Capital Cost $279,000 | $279,000 | $279,000 | $279,000 | $279,000 | $279,000 Cost of Fuel ($/gallon) $1.53 $1.53 $1.53 $1.53 $1.53 $1.53 Annual Maintenance $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 System Life (L) years Initial Capital Costs (US. Furmace $2,000 HeatingVrbl Thermal _ Run Numb 1 2 Day Number Wind Hydro Capital Recovery Factor for interest payments (b, N) 0.10 0.10 Present Worth Factor of Interest Payments (b,N) 9.818 9.818 Present Worth Factor of Fuel Costs (e,d,L) 13.732 13.732 Present Worth Factor of O&M (i,d,L) 13.133 13.133 Captial Recovery Factor for System Income (d,L) 0.094 0.094 Calculate Total NPV NPV = Ad + Ap*Y[1/(1+d),N]J+FL*FC*Y[(1+e)/(1+d),L]+C*OM*Y[(1+i)/(1+d),L] Captial Cost (C) $279,000 Initial payment on system (Ad) $0 Loan (C-Ad) $279,000 Annual Payment (Ap) $28,417 NPV of annual payments $279,000 Fuel Costs per year $24,279 NPV of fuel over system lifetime $333,390 Electricity costs for heat pumps $0 NPV of Electricity over system life $0 O&M Costs/year $200 NPV of O&M over system life $2,627 Annual NPV of Thermal Energy Costs $58,053 Page 13 $279,000 $0 $279,000 $28,417 $279,000 $19,285 $264,819 $o $0 $200 $2,627 $51,581 HeatingVrbI Energy Output Parameters 3 4 5 6 Hydro Wind Hydro and Wind Hydro and Wind 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 9.818 9.818 9.818 9.818 13.732 13.732 13.732 13.732 13.133 13.133 13.133 13.133 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $28,417 $28,417 $28,417 $28,417 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $34,230 $9,267 $8,430 $21,782 $470,033 $127,252 $115,756 $299,099 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $200 $200 $200 $2,627 $2,627 $2,627 $2,627 $70,951 $38,595 $37,510 $54,816 Page 14 JUNKHAR.XLS Constant Dollar Thermal Energy Cost Analysis : Output Parameti Run Numb 1 2 3 4 Day Number Wind Hydro Hydro Wind Initial Capital Costs $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 $279,000 Annual Payment (Ap) $28,417 $28,417 $28,417 $28,417 Fuel & Oil Costs per year $24,279 $19,285 $34,230 $9,267 Electricity Costs for Heat Pumps $0 $0 $0 $0 O&M Costs/year & Staff $200 $200 $200 $200 Total Annual Costs $52,896 $47,902 $62,847 $37,884 Page 15 PP AB EE OG JK Tt ii Economic Input Parameters 2 Houses/Buildings (1-5) 3 |Fixed Parameters for all Runs Houses (1-5) 4 |House Type 1 2 3 4bia 5} School 5 |Economic/Finanacial Inputs 6 System Life (L) years 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 Initial Payment (Ad) $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 Term of Loan (N) 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 Interest (b) 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 10 General Inflation Rate (i) 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% u Fuel Inflation Rate (e) 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% | | 12 | Discount Rate (d) 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 13 14 Annual Payments 15 | 16 |Operation & Maintenance 17 18 | Building Materials Cost Parameters 19 | 20 | Doors 21 Cost/Door ($) $100 $50 $75 $60 $150 $200 22 Number of Doors 2 2 2 2 2 5 23 Total Cost of Doors (including all houses) $6,000 | $1,100 $600 | $2,760} $4800] $1,000 | 24 |Windows Ea R Value 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.4 | 26 | Cost/ sq. ft.(including installation) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | 27 | Window Area (sq. ft) 42.504! 48.17925| 56.60358|} 41.8015) 56.79627| 751.9998, 28 Total Window Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 29 |Floors 30 Outer Plywood ($/sq. ft.) $2.00 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.25 $2.25 31 Total Outer Plywood Cost $966 $507 $866 $767 $1,151 | $10,862 32 Inner Plywood ($/sq. ft.) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 33 Total Inner Plywood Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 34 Insulation R Value (from Inputs) 27 27 27 21 19 93 [ 35 | Cost of Floor Insulation ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 36 Total Cost of Floor Insulation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 37 38 |Walls WALLS | 39 | Insulation R Value (from Inputs) 19 19 19 21 19 19 | 40 | Insulation ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 | 41 | Total Wail Insulation Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Se Gypsum Wall Board (GWB) ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Gypsum Wall Board Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | 44 | Plywood ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 | 45 | Total Plywood Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | 46 | | 47 |Roof CEILING _ | 48 | Insulation R Value (from Inputs) 38 38 38 38 38 62 | 49 | Insulation ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 | 50 | Total Ceiling Insulation Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 | 51 | Gypsum Wall Board (GWB) ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 | 52 | Total Gypsum Wall Board Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EY) 53 |Siding | 54 | Siding ($/sq. ft) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 | 55 | Total Siding Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 MaterialsVrb! Energy Efficiency Output Parameters ~ Houses (1-5) Comm. Comm. 1 2 3 4&dia 5 School Bidg Center Capital Recovery Factor for interest payments (b, N) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 012 0.12 0.12 Present Worth Factor of Interest Payments (b,N) 8.559 8.559 8.559 8.559 8.559 8.559 8.559 8.559 Present Worth Factor of Fuel Costs (e,d,L) 8.158 8.158 8.158 8.158 6.158 8.158 8.158 8.158 Present Worth Factor of O&M (i,d,L) 7.956 7.956 7.956 7.956 7.956 7.956 7.956 7.956 Captial Recovery Factor for System Income (d,L) 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 Calculate Total NPV NPV = Ad + Ap*Y[1/(1+d),N]+FL*FC*Y[(1+e)/(1+d),L}+C*OM*Y[(1+i)/(1+d),L] Captial Cost (C) $6,966 ‘$1,607 $1,466 $3,527 $5,951 $11,862 $7,400 $2,818 Initial payment on system (Ad) $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 Loan (C-Ad) $6,966 ‘$1,607 $1,466 $3,527 $5,951 $11,862 $7,400 $2,818 Annual Payment (Ap) $814 $188 $171 $412 $695 $1,386 $865 $329 NPV of annual payments $6,966 $1,607 $1,466 $3,527 $5,951 $11,862 $7,400 $2,818 O&M Costs/year so so so so so so so so NPV of O&M over system life $o $0 $0 $0 so so $0 $0 Annual NPV of System Costs $992 $229 $209 $502 $847 $1,689 $1,054 $401 Page 17 Total $5,923 JUNKHAR.XLS Constant Dollar Energy Efficiency Cost Analysis Energy Efficiency Output Parameters Fixed Parameters for all Runs Houses (1-5) Comm. Comm. House Type 1 2 3 4bia 5 School Bldg Center Initial Capital Costs $6,966 $1,607 $1,466 $3527 $5,951 $11,862 $7,400 $2,818 Annual Payment (Ap) $814 $188 $171 $412 $695 $1,386 $865 $329 O&M Costs/year & Staff $0 $O $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 Total Annual Costs $814 $188 $171 $412 $695 $1,386 $865 $329 Page 18 Date of Simutation: 8/14/95 (Old Harbor - Base Case, Furnace Heat Only Run4 Diesel & Wind NPV Doltars $8.44 $8.16 $195,682 $169,153 $38.595 $37,884 $5,923 $4,860 $240,200 $231,896 _ N [_H Daa Consoldations Run1 A B c D E F G H 1 |Summary Info 2 ; 3 total 60826.86 0.000} 64028.27 5809.14 4 avg 2097.48 173.27 0.000 2207.87 182.39 19.78 5 min 1950.64 134.98 2053.31 142.09 18.34 6 max 2108.35 187.06 2219.32 196.90 7 std 40.67 19.89 0.00 42.81 20.94 0.40 3.14 8 : Fuel Used Max for Total Diesel} Diesel | Min Diesel | Electricity Total kWh |Max Demand! Brown Out | Generation | Generatio | Generation | Generation 9 day Demand (kW) Time (hrs) (kWh) n (kW) (kW) (gal) 10 1 2108.3546| 145.9379675) 0} 2219.3206! 153.6189; 19.881832| 199.65623 11 2| 2108.3546} 145.9379675) 0} 2219.3206| 153.6189} 19.881832|] 199.65623 12 3} 2108.3546| 187.0550575| 0} 2219.3206| 196.9001) 19.881832} 201.72606 13 4} 2108.3546| 187.0550575) 0} 2219.3206| 196.9001} 19.881832| 201.72606 14 5| 2108.3546| 187.0550575| 0} 2219.3206| 196.9001} 19.881832) 201.72606 15 6} 2108.3546| 187.0550575)| 0} 2219.3206| 196.9001| 19.881832| 201.72606 16 7| 2108.3546| 187.0550575} 0} 2219.3206| 196.9001} 19.881832} 201.72606 17 8] 2108.3546| 145.9379675/ 0} 2219.3206; 153.6189} 19.881832) 199.65623 18 9} 2108.3546| 145.9379675| 0} 2219.3206! 153.6189] 19.881832| 199.65623 Page 21 Run1 a oe sa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours # Hours # Hours | ° # Hours Max Over Over Over Over School Capacity | # Hours | Capacity Capacity Capacity Diesel | Min School Diesel 1 | Diesel 2| Diesel 2 Diesel 3 Diesel 4 Out | Diesel Out 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 ) ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S/SO/SC/O/O|C/olo!|o S/S/SC/O/C/C|Cl|o|o O/S/S/O/C|a|Clo\;o S/O/SC|O/C|C|Cl|o|o Page 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours above Capacity School Diesel Total kWh of Hydro Max Hydro Out Max Water Output o/O/O/O/C/C/C/o|o S/O|/S|SloC|C/C\|o\|o oB|O/SO/C/O/O|G/o/o S/S/C|C|C/C/C|c|o Page 23 S/SO/C|/Cl/C/C|olco|o o/O/O/C/C/C/C|o|o 4713374.43 0.00 15868.64 0.00 0.00 162530.15 0.00 547.19 0.00 0.00 663.21 0.00 542.76 0.00 0.00 786384.64 0.00 560.24 0.00 0.00 233270.75 0.00 3.71 0.00 0.00 Kerosen | Wood for Total Power | Electric Heat | Heating Fuel | e Fuel | heating Density Total (gal) (gal) (cords) | 10 | 293677.7267 0} 560.2380952 0 0 11 | 786384.6419 0| 551.8920635 0 0 12 | 317172.8972 0} 553.0380952 0 0 13 | 225998.3713 0} 550.9809524 0 0 [14 | 255546.6393 0] 550.215873 0 0 87638.9549 0| 548.5809524 0 0 16 | 19298.71253 0} 550.0603175 0 0 17 | 10912.18466 0| 547.3492063 0 0 18 | 6445.68055 0} 549.1460317 oO} 0 Page 24 Summary Info Run2 48492.16 2108.35 2108.35 2108.35 0.00 0.00 Total kWh Demand 2108.3546| 145.938 Brown Out Time Total Diesel Max Diesel Generation | Generatio (kWh) n Min Diesel Generation Generator Fuel Consumpt ion (gal) 2108.3546| 145.938 2108.3546| 187.0551 2108.3546} 187.0551 |_ 2108.3546) 187.0551 | 2108.3546} 187.0551 g/9/C/oC;/0|o 2108.3546| 187.0551 2108.3546) 145.938 |} | NI] MD} |B} Go} pO} = 2108.3546| 145.938 10} 2108.3546| 187.0551 11] 2108.3546| 187.0551 12) 2108.3546) 187.0551 13| 2108.3546| 187.0551 14| 2108.3546| 187.0551 15} 2108.3546) 145.938 | 16} 2108.3546) 145.938 17| 2108.3546| 187.0551 18} 2108.3546| 187.0551 19} 2108.3546| 187.0551 20| 2108.3546| 187.0551 21| 2108.3546) 187.0551 22! 2108.3546| 145.938 23) 2108.3546) 145.938 DIAP/Al|SA/SA/S/S/SlS|S/A/S/S/SA/S|Sl|o/clololalolo Page 25 ALS/S/S/S/S/S|O/GD/G/G/G/o|a\/o\|a\o SS/S/S/S/S/SO/SO/S/S/A/A/A/G/Ol/olololololol|olo SGA/S/SA/SA/|P/S/S/|S/S/O/G/A/A/SO/Sl|G/olololol|o\|o ADISLS/S/SHSA/SLS|S/SP/AlSP/A/AD/ S| Glo/o/ol|olol|a\o Run2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00} 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours # Hours # Hours Over # Hours Over Over |- Over Max Capacity # Hours Capacity Capacity Capacity | School Diesel 1 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 3 Diesel 4 |Diesel Out o|Co|o S/o/C|Cl|o|cG/c|o OIAD/S|S/S/AlG/Ol|G/O|G/A/a|olol|a}alolololololo SOLSP/SA/S/SlS/S/S/SlSlA/S/a/ol|ol|ololalololololo ADS/A/S/S/SlSlS/S/S/S/ S| G/S/O/O|G/a\alolololo SOIA/S/S/SlS/S/S/G/S/S/A|G/o/Ol\al/ololololololo SSSLS/S/SlSlS/S/S|S/ A/G a/ aj ala/ololalololo AS/S/S/S/SlO/S/S/A|G/ A/a olo|alolololo S/S/S/S/A|O/G/S/G\a/o/o\ol|olo Page 26 Run2 0.00 0.00 0.00} 51044.50} . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2219.33 181.85 24.00} 1680000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2219.33 153.62 24.00| 1680000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2219.33 196.90 24.00} 1680000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00} 0.00 21.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours above Min School | #Hours | Capacity : School School School | Total kWh Max Hydro | Max Water | Total kWh Diese! Out Diesel Diesel of Hydro |Hydro Out} Hours Output Wind 0 0 0 0} 2219.3261| 153.6194 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0) 2219.3261| 153.6194 24; 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326) 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0 ) 0 0} 2219.326} 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24) 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326} 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326) 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0} 0 0 0} 2219.3261| 153.6194 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.3261| 153.6194 24| 1680000 0 0) 0 0 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24} 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24; 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.3261) 153.6194 24} 1680000 0 0 0 0 0, 2219.3261| 153.6194) 24| 1680000 0 0 0 0 0} 2219.326) 196.9008) 24| 1680000 0 0! 0 0 | 2219.326| 196.9008 24| 1680000 0 0) 0 0} 0} 2219.326| 196.9008) 24| 1680000 0 0} 0 0} 0} 2219.326) 196.9008) 24; 1680000 0 0) 0 0 0} 2219.326) 196.9008 24/ 1680000 0 0} ) 0} 0} 2219.3261| 153.6194) 24| 1680000 0 0} 0} 0} 0) 2219.3261) 153.6194) 1680000) 0 Page 27 Run2 1890.724 4649875.85 12604.83}- 202168.52 548.04 2801.51 543.76 786384.64 560.24 247542.01 3.68 Wind | Total Power; Electric Heating | Kerosene | Wood for Hours Density Heat Total Fuel Fuel heating 0| 293677.727 0| 560.2381 0 0 0| 786384.642 0} 551.8921 0 0 0| 317172.897 0} 553.0381 0 0 0} 225998.371 0} 550.981 0 a 0| 255546.639 0} 550.2159 0 0 0| 87638.9549 0} 548.581 0 0 0} 19298.7125 0} 550.0603 0 0 0} 10912.1847 0| 547.3492 0 0 0} 6445.68055 0| 549.146) Q 0 0} 2801.51031 0} 548.2508 0 0 0} 21929.484 0| 547.1714 0 0 0} 36721.6211 0| 547.6159 0 0 0| 23508.5277 0| 547.2603 0 0 0| 3094.20542 0| 545.6825 0 0 0| 460363.525 0} 547.6159 0 0 0} 148142.634 0| 545.0921 0 0 0} 220552.732 0| 546.5048 0 0 0| 747876.652 0| 543.9492 0 0} 0} 675207.541 0} 545.6603 0 0 0} 235254.854 0} 546.019 0 0 0} 8111.83583) 0} 544.5048 0 0 0} 51060.1969 0} 543.7619 0 0 QO} 12174.7227! 0) 544.2381 0 0 Page 28 Summary Info Run3 total| 84550.00 0.00 avg 2062.20 0.00 min 1950.64 0.00 max 2108.35 0.00 ‘std 72.65 0.00 0.00 Total KWh Demand Max Demand Total ‘Diesel Generati on Min Diesel Generation Generator Fuel Consumpt ion 1| 2108.3546| 145.9379675 0 0 0 0 0 2] 2108.3546| 145.9379675 0 0 0 0 0 3] 2108.3546/ 187.0550575 0 0 0 I 0 4] 2108.3546] 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 5) 2108.3546) 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 6| 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0/ 0 0 0 0 7|__2108.3546] 187.0550575 0/ 0 0| 0 0 8| 2108.3546| 145.9379675 0 0 0 0 0 9} 2108.3546) 145.9379675 0 0 0 0 0 10] 2108.3546/ 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 11/ 2108.3546) 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 12) 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0 0| 0 0 0 13) 2108.3546) 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 14] 2108.3546] 187.0550575 0| 0 0 0 0 15| 2108.3546) 145.9379675 0] 0 0 0 0 16) 2108.3546| 145.9379675 0 0 0 0 0 17| 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 18] 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 19) 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0 0 0] 0 0 20| 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 21| 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0) 0/ 0/ 0 0 22) 2108.3546| 145.9379675| 0| 0/ 0/ 0 0 23) 2108.3546| 145.9379675| 0 0 0! 0 0 24) ~— 2108.3546/ 187.0550575/ 0 0 0| 0 0 25| 2108.3546/ 187.0550575| 0 0 0] 0 0 26) 2108.3546| 187.0550575 0 0 0 0 0 27| 2108.3546| 187.0550575| 0| 0] 0] 0 0 28) 1950.6428) 168.2103517| 0) 0 0| 0 0 29| 1950.6428| 134.9828533| 0] 0 0 0 0 30| 1950.6428) 134.9828533| 0 0 0 0 0 31] 1950.6428| 168.2103517 0 0 0/ 0 0 32) 1950.6428| 168.2103517 0 0 0 0 0 33] 1950.6428| 168.2103517 0 0 0 0 0 34] 1950.6428) 168.2103517 0 0 0 0 0 35| 1950.6428) 168.2103517 0| 0 0 0 0 36| 1950.6428/) 134.9828533| 0) 0 0 0 0 1950.6428] 134.9828533| | 0 0 0 0 1950.6428| 168.2103517 0 0 0 0 Page 29 Run3 1950.6428| 168.2103517 2108.3546| 187.0550575 2108.3546} 145.9379675 Page 30 Le ebed ¥ 18Sa!q | p [asad | € 1aSald | € lasalq | Z jasaiq | Z laseiq | | lasaiq | | leased J2AO SINOH # ule} Jasaig | Ayoedes | sinoy # | Ayloedesd | sunoy # | Ayloedes | sunop # | Ajloede | sunoy # no lasalG ile) lesaig JOOYdS | JOOYDS | JOOYDS xe UIW euny Run3 Page 32 Run3 0.00 0.00 89000.21 ; | 5901398.32 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 2170.74 178.18} 24.00} 1680000.00| 0.00} 0.00} 143936.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 2053.31 142.09} 24.00} 1680000.00} 0.00} 0.00 663.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 2219.33 196.90} 24.00} 1680000.00} 0.00} 0.00) 786384.64 #DIV/O!| 0.00 76.47 0.00 203540.24 # Hours above School | # Hours | Capacity r Total Diesel School | Total kWh of | Max Hydro | Hydro | Max Water | kWh | Wind | Total Power Fuel Out Diesel Hydro Out Hours Output Wind | Hours Density 0 0} 2219.326142| 153.619373 24 1680000 0 0| 293677.7267 0 0| 2219.326142! 153.619373 24 1680000 0 0} 786384.6419 0 0| 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000} 0 0} 317172.8972 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000! 0 0} 225998.3713 0 0| 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0} 0} 255546.6393 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 87638.9549 0 0| 2219.325978| 196.9008013| 24 1680000 0 0} 19298.71253 0 0| 2219.326142| 153.619373| 24 1680000 0 0} 10912.18466 0 0} 2219.326142| 153.619373| 24 1680000 0 0} 6445.68055 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 2801.510314 0} 0| 2219.325978) 196.9008013 24 1680000} 0} 0| 21929.48403 0 0| 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 36721.62109 0 0| 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 23508.52767 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 3094.205421 0 0} 2219.326142| 153.619373 24 1680000 0} 0} 460363.5251 0 0} 2219.326142| 153.619373 24| 1680000 0} 0} 148142.6342 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24| 1680000 0} 0} 220552.7324 0} 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 747876.6515 0 0| 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 675207.5414 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 235254.8541 0 0/ 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 8111.835834 0 0} 2219.326142| 153.619373 24 1680000! 0 0| 51060.19689 | 0} 0| 2219.326142! 153.619373 24 1680000| 0} 0} 12174.72268 0} 0) 2219.325978| 196.9008013) 24) 1680000} 0} 0} 663.2099457 0} 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24) 1680000 0} 0} 2899.075349 0/ 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 QO} 0} 23524.20777 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 1193.429456 0} 0} 2053.31276| 177.0641326 24 1680000/ 0 0} 4289.37711 0 0| 2053.312976| 142.0876094 24 1680000 0 0! 30929.27784 0 0| 2053.312976| 142.0876094 24 1680000} 0 0| 177265.2167 0 0} 2053.31276| 177.0641326 24) 1680000} 0 0| 13603.93431 0} 0| 2053.31276| 177.0641326| 24 1680000 0} 0} 18334.67706 0 0| 2053.31276| 177.0641326] 24 1680000 0 0| 53527.19851 0] 0} 2053.31276| 177.0641326 24 1680000 0 0| 48526.99043 0} 0} 2053.31276| 177.0641326 24 1680000 0 0| 198374.6898 0 0} 2053.312976| 142.0876094 24 1680000) 0} 0} 276289.6628 0| 0| 2053.312976| 142.0876094 24 1680000} 0| 38657.24171 0 0} 2053.31276| 177.0641326) 1680000) 0} 7603.684606 Page 33 Run3 Page 34 0 QO} 2053.31276| 177.0641326 24 1680000 0 0| 228748.7761 0 0} 2219.325978| 196.9008013 24 1680000 0 0} 31352.6404 0 0} 2219.326142| 153.619373 24 1680000 0 0} 95739.17584 3355.881429 22372.54 545.67 534.11 560.24 4.29 Electric Heat Total Heating Fuel Kerosen e Fuel Wood for heating 0} 560.2380952 0| 551.8920635 553.0380952 550.9809524 548.5809524 0 0 0} 550.215873 0 0 §50.0603175| 547.3492063} 0 0} 549.1460317 0} 548.2507937 547.1714286 547.615873 547.2603175| 545.6825397 547.615873 545.0920635/ | 546.5047619 543.9492063 545.6603175 546.0190476 543.7619048 544.2380952 | 543.0190476 | 545.8380952 542.7587302! | 544.7492063) 544.5714286| 542.8730159 544.6380952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0| 544.5047619 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 542.1809524 0| 544.8380952 0} 543.1555556 0} 542.415873 0| 542.6730159 0| 543.5714286 0| 542.0285714 0| 545.3269841 SDLS/S/S/S/[S/SA/[S/S/S/S9/G/Ol/O/S/S/O/G/O/|G/O/G/G/a|o/a/olololajololalclolololo ADIPDLAYN/[SP/A/SN/LA/S/SLS/[SJLO/Sl[S/S/S/S/OlS/S/| S/S} O/Olalolojalololajolalololololo Run3 Page 35 Run4 Summary Info 1277.18 total) 23191.90 13590.55| .- avg| 2108.35 1235.50 157.21 min| 2108.35 181.90 102.99 max} 2108.35 2217.71 196.90 std} 0.00 . 874.10 36.47 : 75.84 Total Max Generator Diesel Diesel Fuel Brown Out| Generatio| Generatio| Min Diesel |Consumpt) # Hours Time n n Generation ion Diesel 1 250.2803} 108.7281 30.3611 181.8993} 107.098 21.56695 451.2551| 179.0801 44.00124 805.9781| 158.0306 88.51127 320.039} 102.9931 35.12361 1038.49| 176.9598 102.1284 2061.204) 196.0115 184.7624 2173.804| 153.6189 195.873 2196.601| 153.6189} 0.385821177| 196.0388 2217.709| 196.9001] 19.88183158| 201.6161 1893.294| 196.2818 O| 177.1956 2108.355| 145.938 2108.355| 145.938 2108.355} 187.0551 2108.355| 187.0551 2108.355| 187.0551 2108.355| 187.0551 2108.355| 187.0551 2108.355| 145.938 2108.355| 145.938 2108.355| 187.0551 2108.355| 187.0551 o/SC|S|SD/O|C/D/O|C|o|o |S} 0} &} Ni] } &) | pO} a O/S/S/O/S/C/O/o\ololo =). Page 37 Run4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 1 # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 2 | # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 3 School Diesel Out 5.333333 6 14.36667 5.766667 14.33333 22.33333 23.66667 24 24 23.1 Page 38 SSS C|S/ClC/ol|o\o|o SSOlSlSlSCl|GC/o|o|o|o\o Run4 19207.41 1746.13 1.61 4353.20 1690.23 Min School | # Hours : Max School Diesel School Total kWh Water [Total kWh Diesel Out} Fuel Out | Diesel of Hydro Output Wind 1680000; 3179.381 1680000} 4353.2 1680000| 3609.234 1680000! 2601.122 1680000} 3245.674 1680000} 1601.315 1680000} 211.2179 1680000! 50.27469 1680000! 22.71977 1680000} 1.61188 1680000| 331.6601 S/O/ol|ololololojololo Slo/ololololololololo Slolololololololololo Slo]ololololololojolo Slolololololololololo Slolololololololololo SlSO/S|O|GD/A/O/G/ol|o|o Page 39 Run4 171.00) ##HHAHHHE 0.00} 6056.92 0.00 0.00 15.55) #RRRRRHE 0.00 550.63 0.00 0.00 0.33} 2801.51 0.00 547.17 0.00 0.00 24.00| ##HHHHHHE 0.00} 560.24 0.00 0.00 9.96 | #HRARHHE 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 Total ' Wind Power Electric | Heating | Kerosene | Wood for Hours Density |Heat Total) Fuel Fuel heating 24| 293677.7 0} 560.2381 0 0 24| 786384.6 0} 551.8921 0 0 24| 317172.9 0} 553.0381 0 0 23.66667| 225998.4 0} 550.981 0 0 23.66667| 255546.6 0} 550.2159 0 0 23| 87638.95 0} 548.581 0 0 10.33333} 19298.71 0| 550.0603 0 0 4.333333| 10912.18 0| 547.3492 0 0 1.666667) 6445.681 0} 549.146 0 0 0.333333} 2801.51 0| 548.2508 0 0 12| 21929.48 0} 547.1714 0 0 Page 40 Summary Info Run5 21083.55 2108.35 2108.35 2108.35 0.00 Total kWh Demand 2108.3546 Max Demand 145.938 Brown Out Time Total Diesel Generation Max Diesel Generatio n Min Diesel Generation 2108.3546 145.938 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 145.938 2108.3546 145.938 2108.3546| 187.0551 Page 41 SD/AO/SC/SC/C|D/G/c\|o|o Run5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours Diesel 1 # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 1 # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 2 # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 3 # Hours Diesel 4 # Hours Over Capacity Diesel 4 S/S/SC|A|C/O|O/C|o|o SlS/O/O/D/O|O|C/o]|o O/S/O/O/D/O|O/D/o|o O/SC/C/SO/O/G/a/C\|o\|o AQlS/S/O/C/D|O|o/|ao/o Page 42 CSCS l|S/OC|C/C/C|Co|o Run5 0.00 _ 0.00 -11697.29 #DIV/0! 0.00 1169.73 1680000.00 0.00 0.00 181.90 1680000.00 0.00 0.00 2217.71 1680000.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 892.22 0.00 Max School Diesel Out| Diesel Out! Min School # Hours School Diesel # Hours above Capacity School Diesel Total kWh of Hydro 250.28061 Max Hydro Out Hydro Hours Max Water Output 108.7283 f 1680000 181.8996 107.0982 5.333333 1680000 451.25597 179.0807 6 1680000 805.97933 158.0311 14.36667 1680000 320.03938 102.9933 5.766667 1680000 1038.4922 176.9604 14.33333 1680000 2061.2089 196.0123 22.33333 1680000 2173.809 153.6194 23.66667 1680000 2196.6063 153.6194 24 1680000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OlS/OC|SC/D/D/C|o/o|o SDIS/SO/S/O|GC/S|a/o]|o AlPD/S/S/O|G/oO|a]o|o0 2217.7141 Page 43 196.9008 24 1680000 Run5 826.4629 18875.75 159.00} 2005877.32 0.00) 5509.75 0.00 0.00 1887.57 15.90| _200587.73 0.00} 550.98 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.33 2801.51 0.00} 547.35 0.00 0.00 4353.20 24.00; 786384.64 0.00} 560.24 0.00 0.00 1711.66 242095.60 3.68 Total kWh} Wind | Total Power} Electric Heating | Kerosene | Wood for Wind Hours Density Heat Total Fuel Fuel heating 3179.381 24| 293677.727 0} 560.2381 0 0 4353.2 24| 786384.642 0| 551.8921 0 0 3609.234 24| 317172.897 0} 553.0381 0 0 2601.122| 23.66667| 225998.371 0} 550.981 0 0 3245.674| 23.66667| 255546.639 0| 550.2159 0 0 1601.315 23| 87638.9549 O| 548.581 0 0 211.2179] 10.33333| 19298.7125 0} 550.0603 0 0 50.27469| 4.333333| 10912.1847 0| 547.3492 0 0 22.71977| 1.666667| 6445.68055) 0} 549.146 0} 0 1.61188) 0.333333] 2801.51031 0} 548.2508 0 0 Page 44 Summary Info Run6 5 total 4817.22 avg 2108.35 174.40 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 min 2108.35 145.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 max 2108.35 187.06 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 std 0.00 0.00 0.00 day 21 Total kWh Demand 08.3546 Max Demand 145.938 Brown Out Time Total Diesel Generation Max Diesel Generatio n Min Diesel Generation Generator Fuel Consumpt ion # Hours Diesel 1 21 08.3546 145.938 21 08.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 187.0551 o|o|/o|o 21 08.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 145.938 CO} CO} NI] OD) Cy} B} Gd] Po} = 21 08.3546 145.938 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 187.0551 2108.3546| 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 145.938 2108.3546) 145.938 2108.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 187.0551 2108.3546 187.0551 21 08.3546 145.938 23) 2108.3546| 145.938 24) 2108.3546| 187.0551 2108.3546) 187.0551 2108.3546) 187.0551 D[S/O/S/Ol/S/SlS/G/O/S/G/G/A/|G/O/a/o/o|al/olo ADLSlS/SAlSAlS/SlS/S/O/S/S/O|SG/S/A/G/alolalolololololo Page 45 ADLSP/SlLSLS/S/SlSA/SA/S/S/O/S/S/SO/G/C/o/olol/ol|ol|olalol|o ADLS/SO/OLOS/SA/S/S/S/A/O/S/S/S/A/O/G/Ol/ol|ololololololo A/S/S/S/S/SA/S/SA/SA/|S/SO/SO/S/S/S/G/oGl/olololol|ololololo DLAP/A/OLOLSALOlSA/S/|A/S/SlSOlA/A/SA/G/Ol/OlO/ol|ol|ol|ololo Run6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 # Hours # Hours # Hours # Hours Over Over Over Over Capacity | # Hours | Capacity | #Hours | Capacity Capacity | School Diesel 1 | Diesel 2 | Diesel 2 | Diesel 3 | Diesel 3 Diesel 4 |Diesel Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/ 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0} 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 46 Runé 0.00 0.00 0.00} 35189.76| . 427.70 39986.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00} 1353.45 160.92 16.45} 1680000.00) 1537.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.21 70.10 5.33| 1680000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00) 2219.33 196.90 24.00] 1680000.00} 4353.20 0.00} - 0.00 0.00 0.00 817.35 41.09 7.47 0.00| 1576.34 # Hours above Min School | #Hours | Capacity 7 School School |Total kWh; Max Hydro | Max Water | Total kWh Diesel Out Diesel | of Hydro |Hydro Out! Hours Output Wind 0 0 0} 0} 250.2806] 108.7283 7| 1680000} 3179.381 0 0 0 0} 181.8996} 107.0982! 5.333333 1680000 4353.2 0 0 0 0| 451.256! 179.0807 6} 1680000} 3609.234 0 0 0 0} 805.9793) 158.0311; 14.36667| 1680000) 2601.122 0 0 0 0} 320.0394} 102.9933] 5.766667| 1680000} 3245.674 0 0 0} 0} 1038.492| 176.9604} 14.33333 1680000} 1601.315 0 0 0 0} 2061.209| 196.0123) 22.33333 1680000) 211.2179 0 0 0 0| 2173.809| 153.6194) 23.66667| | 1680000| 50.27469 0 0 0 0} 2196.606) 153.6194 24| 1680000} 22.71977 0 0 0 0} 2217.714| 196.9008 24| 1680000} 1.61188 0 0 0 0} 1893.298) 196.2825 23.1 1680000} 331.6601 0 0 0 0} 1713.176| 196.9008} 21.66667| 1680000) 584.1362 0 0 0 0} 1996.332| 196.9008} 20.06667} 1680000| 356.1307 0 0 0 0| 2204.717| 196.9008 24| 1680000] 14.60922 0 0 0 0| 262.0028} 90.15091| 6.666667} 1680000! 3844.361 0 0 0 0| 799.7635] 144.6617| 12.66667 1680000} 1963.006 0 0 0 0| 985.7319] 191.6209} 12.86667| 1680000) 2314.713 0 0 0} 0} 132.212) 70.09982| 5.333333 1680000) 3949.556 0 0 0 0} 261.709) 92.01442| 5.866667) 1680000} 3770.03 0 0 0 0} 972.2864] 180.9806 13 1680000} 2533.05 0 0} 0 0} 2176.853} 196.9008} 23.33333| _1680000| 71.52806 0 0 0} 0| 1588.827) 153.6194| 20.33333| 1680000| 797.3606 0 0 0} 0} 2161.729| 153.6194 22) 1680000! 169.1858 0 0 0} 0} 2219.326| 196.9008 24 1680000 0 0 0 0 2199.83] 196.4565 24| 1680000} 19.49551 0 0 | 1924682) 196.9008) 22| 1680000) 392.036 Page 47 Runé 4676962.34 14236.44| 179883.17 547.56 663.21 542.76 786384.64 560.24 240616.62 3.74 Wind | Total Power| Electric Heating | Kerosene | Wood for 3.666667) 12174.7227 | 544.2381 0} 663.209946| | 543.019 1|_ 2899.07535 545.8381 [_ 9.333333) 23524.2078 0) 542.7587 Hours Density Heat Total Fuel Fuel heating 24| 293677.727 0| 560.2381 0 0 t 24| 786384.642 0} 551.8921 0 0 24| 317172.897 0} 553.0381 0 0 23.66667| 225998.371 0} 550.981 0 0 23.66667| 255546.639 0} 550.2159 0 0 23| 87638.9549 0} 548.581 0 0 10.33333| 19298.7125 0| 550.0603 0 0 4.333333} 10912.1847 0| 547.3492 0 0 1.666667| 6445.68055 0| 549.146 0 0 0.333333) 2801.51031 0} 548.2508 0 0 12| 21929.484 0} 547.1714 0 0 9.666667) 36721.6211 0| 547.6159 0 0 11| 23508.5277 0| 547.2603 0 0 1} 3094.20542 0} 545.6825 0 0 22| 460363.525) 0| 547.6159 0 ol 20| 148142.634 0] 545.0921 0 0 19} 220552.732| 0| 546.5048 0 0 19.33333| 747876.652| 0} 543.9492 0 0 22.66667| 675207.541 0| 545.6603 0 0 20.66667| 235254.854 0} 546.019 0 0 2.666667! 8111.83583 0| 544.5048 0 0 11.33333| 51060.1969 0} 543.7619) 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 48 Module1 Const drivel = "c:\extend\alaska\oldharb\base\" Const outfiles = 33 Const runs = 6 Const days = 365 Dim i, startcell, endcell As Integer Dim outdat(1 To 33) As Double Dim runfinish As Boolean Sub newout () newoutput 1, 1 End Sub Sub newoutput(r, a) Dim fname(1 To outfiles), outsheet As String Calculation = xlManual For i = 1 To outfiles ‘loop to open output data files fname(i) = drivel & "aout" & i & ".txt" Open fname(i) For Input As i Next i For j = 1 To runs ‘loop on runs 1-6 outsheet = "Run" & j Worksheets (outsheet) .Select "set worksheet to write output data to For k = 1 To outfiles "loop on output files For i = 1 To days ‘begin read loop on data files read 365 day If Not EOF(k) Then Input #k, datal Cells((i + 9), k).Value = datal Else GoTo nextk End If Next i nextk: Next k Next j closefile: : For i = 1 To outfiles ‘loop to close open output files Close i Next i Calculation = xlAutomatic Calculate Count = 0 Do While Not EOF(2) Count = Count +1 ex_line = Count + 9 Input #2, outdat(1), outdat(2), outdat(3), outdat(4), outdat(5), outdat ' ' (6), outdat(7), outdat (8) e Input #3, outdat(9), outdat(10), outdat(11), outdat(12), outdat(13), ou tdat(14), outdat(15), outdat (16) © Input #4, outdat(17), outdat(18), outdat(19), outdat(20), outdat(21), 0 utdat(22), outdat(23), outdat (24) i ‘If Count >= daynum Then : For j = 1 To 24 ' Cells(ex_line, (j)).Value = outdat(j) Page 49 End Sub s(i, (i, Module1 Next j ‘End If Loop Close #2 Close #3 Close #4 Sub newinput () If MsgBox("OK to delete old output?", 33, "Clear Output") > 1 Then Exit Sub "clear old run outputs : For j = 1 To runs ‘loop on runs 1-6 outsheet = "Run" & j Worksheets (outsheet) .Select "set worksheet to write output data to Range ("al0:ag374") .Clear Next j ‘write run specific data to file fname = drivel & "al_run.txt"” Open fname For Output As #1 Worksheets ("Inputs") .Select 'find beginning and end of section to write to file startcell = Range("run_start") .Row endcell = Range("run_end") .Row For i = startcell To endcell Write #1, Cells(i, 4).Value, Cells(i, 5), Cells(i, 6), Cells(i, 7), Cell 8) 7) Celsl'si(t7));9) Next i "Next j Close #1 ‘output house data fname = drivel & "al_house.txt" Open fname For Output As #1 startcell = Range("hb_ start") .Row endcell = Range("hb_end") .Row For i = startcell To endcell Write #1, Cells(i, 4).Value, Cells(i, 5).Value, Cells(i, 6).Value, Cells 7).Value, Cells(i, 8).Value, Cells(i, 9).Value, Cells(i, 10).Value, Cells(i, 11) - Value Next i Close #1 "output building data fname = drivel & "al_build.txt" Open fname For Output As #1 For i = startcell To endcell Write #1, Cells(i, 9).Value, Cells(i, 10).Value, Cells(i, 11).Value Next i Close #1 "output transmission line data -- #, voltage, length, resistance Page 50 Module1 . fname = drivel & "al_trans.txt" h Open fname For Output As #1 jl startcell = Range("trans_start") .Row ‘ For i = 4 To 17 . Write #1, Cells(startcell, i).Value, Cells((startcell + 1), i).Value, C ells((startcell + 2), i).Value, Cells((startcell + 3), i).Value Next i yi Close #1 End Sub Sub start_sim() Open (drivel. & "aoutl.txt") For Output As 1° Close 1 Open (drivel & “aout2.txt") For Output As 1 Close 1 Open (drivel & “auot3.txt") For Output As 1 Close 1 runfinish = False newinput On Error GoTo openextend AppActivate "Extend", True SendKeys "“(r)", True AppActivate "Microsoft Excel" ) Worksheets ("Summary Output") .Select 'daynum = 1 "Do Until daynum = 2 "OnTime Now + TimeValue ("00:00:30"), "newoutput r, daynum" 'daynum = daynum + 1 y, y! ' DoEvents "Loop Exit Sub openextend: retval = Shell("e:\extend\extend.exe e:\extend\alaska\alaska.mox", On Error GoTo 0 Resume End Sub 6) Page 51 capital recovery factors Function CRFP(interest, years) newinterest = 1 / (1 + interest) If newinterest = 1 Then CRFP = 1 / years Else CRFP = (1 - newinterest) / (newinterest - newinterest * (years + 1)) End If End Function Function PWFP(interest, years) newinterest = 1 / (1 + interest) If newinterest = 1 Then PWFP = years Else PWFP = (newinterest - newinterest * (years + 1)) / (1 - newinterest) End If End Function Function PWFF(fuelinflation, discount, life) fescrate = (1 + fuelinflation) / (1 + discount) If fescrate = 1 Then PWFF = life Else PWFF = (fescrate - fescrate * (life + 1)) / (1 - fescrate) End If End Function Function PWFO(geninflation, discount, life) oescrate = (1 + geninflation) / (1 + discount) If oescrate = 1 Then PWFO = life Else PWFO = (oescrate - oescrate * (life + 1)) / (1 - oescrate) End If End Function Function CRFI(discount, life) Rate = 1 / (1 + discount) If Rate = 1 Then CRFI = 1 / life Else CRFI = (1 - Rate) / (Rate - Rate * (life + 1) End If End Function Function EEPV(discount, lifesys, lifeapp) EEPV = 1 xr = lifesys Mod lifeapp j = lifesys / lifeapp k = j * lifeapp For j = lifeapp To k - lifeapp Step lifeapp EEPV = EEPV + 1 / (1 + discount) * j Next j If r > 0 Then EEPV = EEPV - r / lifeapp * (1 / (1 + discount) * lifesys) End If End Function Page 52 capital recovery factors Function INPV(discount, numbulbs, numhours) INPV = 1 For j = 1 To numbulbs - 1 INPV = INPV + (1 + discount) * (-1000 * j / (365 * numhours) ) Next j End Function Function FL2PV(discount, numbulbs, numhours, life) FL2PV = 1 For j = 1 To numbulbs - 1 ; FL2PV = FL2PV + (1 + discount) * (-life * j / (365 * numhours) ) Next j End Function Page 53 Attachment F - Legal Financial Structure of Energy Services 54 LEGAL FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF ENERGY SERVICES Jim Lexo, ICRC Energy Inc. Executive Summary The legal - financial structure of implementing a comprehensive energy program will vary from case to case, however some basic elements remain the same. This report explains the key issues of an energy conservation program complimented by a cost effective energy supply program. Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) ECOs are relatively new in the energy business. In the past, electric utilities concentrated on building new electrical capacity. This is obviously important in a region of strong popualtion growth where one has a growing demand on the electrical grid. In the early 1970’s, during the oil crisis, the projected increases in the cost of fuel created a movement toward the conservation of energy. When the crisis subsided, so did the interest in conservation. Energy conservation arrived for good however in the late 1980’s as a result of the concern for the environment. Other factors such as the NIMBY syndrome(“Not in My Backyard”) prevented the successful siting of new power plants. As a result, the Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), which regulate nearly all aspects of the electric utility business, began a push to force the elecrtic utilities to look at ways to reduce energy consumption before building new generating capacity. There is an environmental benefit from conservation measures is the fact that less power plants will be constructed thereby creating fewer air and water emissions. However, there can also be an economic benefit. The cost to construct a new power plant can be from $1000 to $4000 per kilowatt. If by installing energy efficient equipment, you can reduce energy consumption at the installed cost of $500 per kilowatt, then there is an economic advantage as well. This is especially true where the cost of electricity is high such as it is in the Alaska villages. Ina home in one of the lower 48 states, the consumer might pay 6 to 8 cents per kw for electricity. If that consumer changes all the lights to new high efficiency light bulbs, even though the new lighting will cost more than the standard bulbs normally used, the payback may be just 2 to 3 55 years. In the village, where the cost might be 25 cents per kw, the payback will be 3 times faster. The lighting could pay for itself in less than a year and create savings for each ensuing year. The PUCs created incentives for the electric utilities to implement these types of programs. Essentially, they allowed the electric utilities to earn a return on any money invested in conservation measures. This has created a whole industry around new energy saving technologies and services. The legal - financial structure which came about to support this industry is based on the concept of Shared Energy Savings (SES). The concept is relatively simple. The consumer is presently spending x dollars every month for energy. The energy service company (ESCO) makes a proposal to install energy saving devices which will reduce the consumers cost each month by a certain amount of money. The ESCO pays the cost to install the new equipment for which the consumer will pay for out of the savings in the energy bill. In the early years when the ESCO is paying off the cost of the installation, the largest share of the savings will go to the ESCO. Nonetheless, the consumer will realize a reduction in energy costs immediately. As the installation is amortized, the savings to the consumer will increase making the proposition even more attractive financially. The money earned by the ESCO is based on receiving a reasonable return on its investment and takes into account the fact that it has some performance requirements to meet. The end result is that everyone wins. The consumer saves money, the ESCO makes money and there is an environmental benefit from the reduced use of electricity. Obviously, this scenario will not work in all cases. All parameters must be examined such as the cost of electricity, the cost of the installation, the projected savings and the ability to attract financing at an attractive rate. With regard to financing Shared Energy Savings contracts, the mix of equity and debt and the guarantees provided by the parties is basically the same as discussed below with regard to financing energy production facilities. The most significan difference in the financing of ECOs versus power plants is the number of contracts needed to secure the project. The ECOs have one crucial agreement whereas the financing of a power plant might require a dozen or more legal contracts. Energy Production Facilities The implementation of energy production facilities is more complex and time consuming than energy conservation measures. First, there must be a project sponsor. This can be the local electric utility or coop or it could be a private entity such as an Independent Power Producer. The project will require a feasibility study that takes into account the best solution for the site; 56 source of fuel; construction and operation costs; economic feasibility, environmental permitting requirements and so on. The effort involved to develop this type project can be time consuming and expensive however the payoff is an asset that can last 20 years or longer for the owners of the plant. The key elements of the contractual structure include the following: Site Agreement. A site suitable to the public must be identified and secured through lease or purchase for a period that will exceed the duration of the financing. It must also have the technical characteristics necessary and be free of any liabilities from prior use. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The local distributor of power must agree to purchase the electricity by contract at the agreed upon price. This is called a “take or pay” contract where even if the utility cannot accept the electricity it will have to pay as if it did. The power producer, likewise, may have penalties for not being able to deliver the power. The purchase price must have a minimum value and the price may be adjusted according to the cost of the fuel used in the plant. Construction Contract. It is important that the project sponsor have a construction agreement with an experienced and qualified firm in order to guarantee the construction cost of the facility, the date at which it will able to deliver power and that it will operate as intended during a performance test. Construction cost overruns can spell disaster for the owner and the financing institutions. Operations Contract. Similar to the construction contract, it is important to secure the cost and performance of the facility with an experienced and qualified operator. This agreement includes the cost of labor, maintenance, consumables such as water and chemicals and a sinking fund for the eventual replacement of certain equipment. Some of the cost factors in this agreement will have an inflation adjustment factor. Environmental Permits. The project must secure all the national, state and local environmental permits needed to operate the facility. These issues address the air emissions, water treatment, operating procedures, reporting requirements and so on. Financing the facility. Financing occurs when the contractual structure is in place and the economic analysis is sufficient to interest equity and debt participants. Key elements of the financing include the following: 57 Ownership. There are numerous possibilities here. Public ownership, of course, means some government entity or government controlled entity is the owner. This could be a utility, a cooperative or some other public institution. Even though a public entity would own it, the lenders will check to make certain the public entity is a good credit risk. Private ownership could be an Independent Power Producer, a limited partnership made up of interested parties or other combinations of private entities. There are examples of Public/ Private ownership scenarios. It might be that the private company performs most of the development work and perhaps constructs and operates the facility and the public entity owns it because financing is cheaper. Other variations of this scenario exist and it is becoming more and more popular. Financial instruments Equity. Equity is the money put in the project by private individuals. It could be funds from the developer or it could be equity from third parties interested in the expected rate of return. Equity generally comprises 10-30% of the total financing. Those who are lending the debt, which earns a lower return, like to have equity in the project because in the event of a financial shortfall, the equity is used first. Equity investors generally expect to earn 15 to 30% on their investment depending upon the level of risk involved. Debt. Debt is the remaining amount of funds needed to implement the project. This money usually comes from institutional investors or it may come from the sale of bonds. The interest on the debt will depend on the rating given the project. A minimal risk will attract debt close to the prime interest rate which the government borrows money. Loan Agreement. This agreement describes all the conditions under which the funds are loaned to the project. Those issues include; insurance, conditions of default; flow of funds, etc. Offering Statement. This document explains the project from beginning to end. It gives a description of the facility; plan of financing; sources and uses of funds; security and guarantee structure; ownership; ratings; feasibility analyses and economic pro formas. Usually all issues are addressed. The two issues that could revert back to the debt holders would be the risks of change in law and force majeure or uncontrollable risks. What does this mean for the villages of Alaska? The financing of the ECOs and power plants described above generally involve large scale facilities. For example, a energy conservation project might typically involve facilities with one million square feet of space. For power plants, the scale generally runs from SOMW to 2000 58 MW. By contrast, the villages do not have the need for even 1 MW, it is usually 200-600 KW. As a result, it will be difficult to attract outside investors due to the small size of the opportunity. Conservation Measures. Our analysis of energy in the villages is that measures to reduce the amount of energy consumption will have the biggest impact. These measures could include better insulation and more efficient heating stoves. One measure which does not cost anything is to reduce the temperature in the homes even a few degrees. Many homes seem to keep the room temperature higher than normally found elsewhere. It would be very difficult to find third party financing for conservation measures in the villages. Since the State subsidizes the cost of electricity in the villages, they might find it advantageous to work with the Housing authorities to make the homes more energy efficient and hopefully more comfortable at the same time. Power production facilities. Third party development and financing of power generating facilities of the size found in the villages, even though they are small, is available. There is one private firm we are aware of that does this in Alaska and then there are the rural electric cooperatives, which have the ability and expertise to develop and finance these facilities. Most of the villages have diesel generator sets to produce electricity. This is a reliable source of power, but several factors make it interesting to investigate other sources of power. One factor is the future cost of fuel to run the diesels. Not only is the price uncertain, but the transportation cost may go up due to new environmental safeguards being imposed. Another factor is the amount of fuel that is spilled in the village causing potential environmental liabilities. As a result, it is interesting to examine the possibilities for using renewable resources such as wind, hydro, solar, geothermal and biomass. If a village has good access to any of these sources of energy, it would be prudent to examine the potential. Realizing the grant would not allow us to examine all possibilities, ICRC Energy developed a computer model that will assist any village in planning for its future energy needs. The model includes all facets of the village’s consumption and production of energy. With the site specific data entered in the model, it will simulate numerous scenarios for the village to consider. In addition to analyzing the best technical approach, it will also provide an economic analysis of each scenario. Financing Village Energy Programs. Presently, there are two entities who will benefit from reducing the cost of electricity in the villages. The first, of course, are the consumers themselves. Everyone would like to have a lower electric bill. The second beneficiary is the State of Alaska. As the State subsidizes the cost of electricity in the villages through the price equalization program called PCE. This creates several possible scenarios. First, the village or the village electric co-op can implement and fund projects as is most commonly done now. A second possibility we see is 59 having the village make an agreement with a private entity creating a public/ private enterprise. In this instance, the public entity provides its assets such as the site, the distribution system, payment collection and so on. The private entity can develop the project donating expertise and/or money. The private entity would then want to build and operate the facility for a fee, however with that it will have performance obligations to meet. A fair distribution of the risks and rewards can be crafted just as though it were a joint venture between two private entitities. The third possibility could involve the PCE program, but this would require further investigation. Any effort that reduces the amount of money the state spends in the village on electrical production will obviously benefit the state and therefore it is reasonable to assume the State would be willing to assist in any such efforts. (We understand the PCE program will be phased out in the coming years, which makes it all the more important that the villages plan now for an economical energy program for the future.) CONCLUSION This paper outlines the legal and financial aspects of implementing an energy program. Proper planning is the key to any successful venture. We strongly recommend the village consider all the options before embarking on a specific path. Providing power to residents is the most costly infrastructure expense, even more than telecommunications or transportation. Therefore, it is important to plan carefully. Low power rates, in comparison to other jurisdictions in the region, can be very important in attracting industry as well. A fish cannery, for example, uses an enormous amount of energy which must then be included in the final price of its product. If the cannery has two equally suitable sites available to it and the cost of electricity in one village is twice that of the other village, the cannery will select the site with the lower electric rates. We believe the computer model tool developed by ICRC Energy, under the DOE grant, will be a valuable planning tool for the future energy needs in the village. It provides all the key technical and financial parameters needed to make well informed decisions. 60 Attachment G - Greenplug Information 61 Attachment H - List of Village Attendees at VESOP model Presentations OLD HARBOR Rick Beros, Mayor Allen W. Christians Jennifer Castof Phyllis Clough Michael Alexander Tony Azuyak Carl Christansten Ron Berntser James Nestio OUZINKIE Danny Clarion Alex Ambrosia Chris Quick Katherine Panamarioff Nick Katelovikcff Allen Austerman Box 44 Old Harbor, AK Box 134 Old Harbor, AK Box 62 Old Harbor, AK Tribal Council Box 124 Old Harbor,AK AVEC Rep Box 54 Old Harbor,AK Box 48 Old Harbor,AK Box 94 Old Harbor,AK Box 27 Old Harbor,Ak Box 117 Old Harbor,AK Box 29 Ouzinkie, AK Box 36 Ouzinkie, AK Box 110 Ouzinkie, AK Box 74 Ouzinkie, AK Box 180 Ouzinkie, AK P.O. Box 2368 Kodiak, AK State Rep. 63 GREENPLUuG...WHOo Says IT Works? “If GreenPlugs were installed on all pre-1990 refrigerators still in use in tbe United States, the average savings of 225 kWh per refrigerator per year would yield total savings of over 17,000 GWh per year.” «Bill LeBlanc, Project Director, Barakat & Chamberlin, Final Report, Savings Projections for Refrigerators Using GreenPlugs, March 28, 1995 "We have carefully evaluated the GreenPlug, and have confirmed energy savings for our customers ranging from 5% to 25%. Our confidence level is so high that we have invested in Green Technologies.’ ..Thomas J. Hurcomb, VP, Marketing & Public Affairs, Central Vermont Public Service "With the GreenPlug, I found an efficiency increase of 24% in the short percentage, and 30% in long percentage. The resultant savings amount to a payback period of about 8-1/2 months after which the unit will save those dollars. I have conducted further tests for the benefit of my students with a lab refrigerator and found similar results." ..Eric David, Professor, Electrical Technology, Long Beach Community College "Our results indicate that the GreenPlug can reduce the power use of electric motors and improve motor efficiency. In summary, I believe that the GreenPlug can reduce electrical demand, save energy, and prolong motor life." ...Michael J. Brandemuehl, Ph.D., P.E.,Acting Director, Joint Center for Energy Management, University of Colorado . "The average savings of about 15-18% at a nominal voltage of 115 volts is a realistic figure which was also confirmed in our tests.” ..A.L. Morey, Supervisor, Niagara Mohawk Standards Laboratory "We measured the voltage being received by a five-year-old Kenmore refrigerator with and without the GreenPlug. Without the GreenPlug, the refrigerator was receiving the full line of 120 volts. With the GreenPlug, it was receiving only 104 volts, and was running quieter than before. Measure the same performance in watts, and it's even more dramatic: 309 with the GreenPlug and 360 without." ..Tom Carter, Staff Writer, Knight-Ridder Wire Service, Miami, Florida "Based on very preliminary power-quality testing, Public Service Co. feels that the GreenPlug is a legitimate energy-saving device and may be valid for certain applications." ..Update, March 1994, Public Service Company of Colorado "This voltage controller technology can improve the efficiency, power factor, and lifetime of electric motors and appliances in retrofit, new and OEM installations." ...January 1993 Report to the California Energy Commission "For someone who doesn't want to spend the $600 for a new refrigerator, the GreenPlug offers an attractive alternative. And the GreenPlug is better for the environment than purchasing a new refrigerator if the old one isnot destroyed.” ...William L. Beard, Jr., P.E. , President, Beard Engineering, Inc., Evansville, Indiana "The "GreenPlug" sample is rated as GOOD in accordance with the "Home Depot Product Test Rating System" for evaluating the effectiveness of the sample to reduce electricity consumption as claimed by the manufacturer.” ..Law Engineering, Inc. Atlanta, GA (2-28-94 report commissioned by Home Depot) "From the testing, it is evident that a savings in wattage and lower operating power requirements can provide savings and possibly prolong the expected lifetime of equipment operation.” ..Jim Dalton, Sr. Instructor, Universal Technical Institute, Phoenix, AZ GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Technical Questions How does a GreenPlug work? The GreenPlug uses patented voltage feedback integration to maintain a load discriminating output voltage (efficiency voltage) whose RMS value is regulated to between 104 vac to 112 vac, depending on the nature of the load (resistive or inductive). The output voltage is modulated by thyristor switching. How does the GreenPlug technology differ from the Nola voltage controller developed by NASA and advertised as energy saving devices 10 years ago? The Nola Controller uses power factor as a feedback to determine the best operating voltage. This controller is otherwise blind in that it has no voltage feedback to prevent under-voltage errors. Additionally, power factor correction does not always result in the lowest current for every situation. How does the GreenPlug differ from other voltage controllers, including Green Technologies Load Factor Controller? There are several differences between the GreeenPlug and these other products. The GreenPlug does not require a current or power factor feedback to achieve its regulating behavior. Since the GreenPlug "knows" the voltage it is applying, there is no possibility of under-voltage during normal line conditions. The motor start detection circuitry further separates the GreenPlug from the other offerings on the market. Second, we do not claim that our product is all things to all people. We have tried to narrowly market the GreenPlug to refrigerators, freezers, washers and gas dryers. Even so, we recognize that the savings may vary from one refrigerator to another. For this reason, we are having an independent party test over 30 refrigerators a month, and have commissioned Barakat and Chamberlin to conduct a statistical analysis of the refrigerators we've tested to give us more precise savings estimates for specific refrigerators. Other voltage controllers have gone in just the opposite direction, trying to imply that ‘savings, realized under very limited conditions, will apply across the board. Finally, we are the only voltage controller, to the best of our knowledge, that has performed laboratory tests consistent with DOE protocols. The amount of independent lab and field tests is far greater for the GreenPlug than for other voltage controlling products. This trend of acquiring more and more field and laboratory test data will continue in the future. 5490 SPINE ROAD + BOULDER. COLORADO 80301 USA + TEL: (303) 581-9600 FAX: (303) 581-9824 If the GreenPlug reduces voltage, doesn't amperage increase, thereby causing the motor to run warmer and shorten the motor life? Appliance design practices anticipate the supply voltage variations specified in ANSI C-84. In application, appliance nameplates often specify the acceptable input voltage as 115 vac+ 10%. This “design margin” causes the current to be generally reduced at the low end of the design voltage. How is the motor's torque and work output (RPM) effected by using the GreenPlug? Refrigerator and freezer compressors have motors with synchronous behavior. They are designed to run at a pre-set RPM (rate of work) within a voltage range of 115 vac + 10% (103.5 vac - 126.5 vac) at 60 cycles. Therefore, lowering the voltage to 106 vac does not in any way slow the motor down or result in less work being performed. In order for available torque and, hence, RPM to be effected, the supply voltage would need to be exceedingly low (95 or less), in which case the current and thermal stress would increase proportionally. What is the effect on the motor's power factor? Anytime a motor's torque/speed requirements can be satisfied with less current, power factor is improved. Current reduction is the central objective of the GreenPlug. If the GreenPlug delivers voltage to a motor at the low end of the acceptable range, isn't there a danger a motor will run on too little voltage if the utility's line voltage suddenly drops? Since the GreenPlug functions as an RMS voltage regulator, the output voltage value is preserved. If the line drops below the GreenPlug setpoint, then all available voltage is passed without reduction. If the GreenPlug is providing power at 106 volts, doesn't a damaging low voltage situation occur when ancillary loads, such as the refrigerator light, come on? No, the GreenPlug senses this additional load and increases the voltage accordingly. r GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. WHOLESALE PRICING for the GreenPlug> Electricity.Saver GreenPlug® ~~ Wholesale Pricing © 5 Unit Price Case Price (12 units} Refrigerator / Freezer i $268.80 Model #: IVC-0001 Washer / Gas Dryer $268.80 Model #: IVC-0003 Shop / Garden / Small Appliance , $268.80 Mode! #: IVC-0004 Wholesale Pricing Commercial Refrigeration 7 $287.68 Model #: IVC-1501 Pumps & Motors le $287.68 Model #: IVC-1503 ~ = Wholesale Pricing =. Unit Price Case Price : (8 units): Commercial Refrigeration 7 $307.92 Modei #: IVC-2001 Pumps & Motors . $307.92 Model #: IVC-2003 * Please see reverse for shipping and payment information. “ Prices are subject to change without notice. 8/8/95 5490 SPINE ROAD + BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 USA + TEL: (303) 581-9600 FAX: (303) 581-9824 Terms: Order Quantity: Case Quantity: Minimum Order: Order Placement: Lead Time: Freight: Return Policy: 1 Shi -¢6 I fe ti 1st order prepaid or C.0.D. Net 30 days upon credit approval. All orders must be prepaid or C.O.D. until credit approval. Credit approval requires the signing and completion of a Green Technologies, Inc. credit application with bank and trade references. 1 case 7 Amp = 12 units 15Amp= 8 units 20Amp= _ 8 units 2 cases Orders may be placed by phone, mail, or fax. The fax number is 303-581-9824. Orders are shipped within 72 hours of receipt. Large opening orders may require more time. Prepaid on two (2) plus cases in continental US, F.O.B. Boulder, CO. Defective merchandise may be returned for credit only by calling customer service at 303-581-9600 and obtaining a return authorization number (RA) prior to shipping. This number must appear on the outside of the box and on any correspondance. Green Technologies, Inc. 5490 Spine Road, Boulder, Colorado Phone: 303-581-9600 Fax: 303-581-9824 = Sete AP ee ee! GREEN TECHN OLOGIES, INC. Why a GreenPlag is trot a Power Factor Controller. The original NASA PFC technology, which was tested, and subsequently discarded by 170 licensees back in the 1970's & 1980's, had several major drawbacks: The PFC has only power factor as the feedback for determining applied voltage as line and load conditions change. The range of these changes far exceeds the change in power factor, which may only be minor, thereby limiting the performance of any PFC. Us Due to the limited range of power factor feedback, the controller had to be tuned for each load and/or line condition which made it unrealistic as a user- * friendly device, especially in varying load and line conditions. This would result in under-voltage starts — and/or start failures in high load conditions. This causes high currents, overheating, and possible motor damage. Solution: To correct these deficiencies, GTI has developed a dedicated voltage controller with patented feedback technology, which integrates line and load conditions. This eliminates the possibility of voltage errors by maintaining a tightly controlled efficiency voltage of 106 VAC to the appliance. During a compressor motor start the GreenPlug's feedback saturates allowiag a soft ramp up to full voltage on the motor for up to 3 seconds. A compressor motor will typically start within 1 second. This design philosophy has yielded an intelligent and rugged controller capable of efficiently managing the voltage needs of today's appliances in the real world. These control features are unique to GTI's GreenPlug and far surpass the earlier technologies. This is the only controller of it's kind currently on the market. 5490 SPINE ROAD + BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 USA = Normal Line Voltage ® Soft Start eee 106 VAC Efficiency Voltage + TEL: (303) 581-9600 FAX: (303) 581-9824 a tit saa | GreenPlugs 15 Product Specifications . | Commercial Refrigeration / Pumps & Motors For use on: Soft Drink Machines ¢ Commercial Single & Double Door Refrigerators ¢ Reach-In Coolers ¢ Ice Machines « Water Coolers & Fountains e Sump Pumps ¢ Pool Pumps e Well Pumps e Circulating Water Pumps ¢ Small Motors The GreenPlug is a smart voltage controller designed for use on commercial sized refrigeration appliances that draw up to 15 amps continuous current. Motor-driven appliances are designed to operate over a range of voltages, generally 115V + 10%, due to fluctuations in line voltage. The patented smart circuitry in the GreenPlug saves electricity by maintaining the voltage at approximately 106V and it ensures that the appliance motor will receive the full available line voltage at start up. During unusually low line voltage conditions or "brown outs" the GreenPlug delivers the full available line voltage to the appliance. Appliance motor life should be extended because less motor heat is generated when the operating current is reduced. Operating Temperature: -10° to 40°C (14° to 104°F) Derate current at 30% for each 10°C (50°F) over 40°C (104°F) to a maximum of 60°C (140°F) Operating Voltage: 95 VAC - 130 VAC, 60 Hz Output Voltage Variations: 106 VAC (-2% to +5%) with soft-start Surge Protection: MOV - 38 Joules, 2500 amps (2 times), clamping 400 volts Continuous Load Current: 15 amps (within rated temperature) Intermittent Load Current: 25 amps c Non Repetitive Surge Current 1 Cycle 60Hz: 250A Failure bypass: Yes Full voltage start: Yes Warranty: 2 years Patents: Patented in US with International patents granted and pending UL Listing: UL244A (Solid-State controls for appliances, indoor use) +7 amp models for Refrigerators/Freezers, Washers/Gas Dryers, Shop & Garden Tools & Small Household Appliances +20 amp models for Commercial Refrigeration, Pumps & Motors Also available: IMPORTANT. The specifications provided may vary depending on normal manutactunng tolerances. Therefore, this unit may not precisely match the listed specifications. Also. this product is tested and calibrated under closely controlled conditions, and some minor differences in performance can be expected if those conditions are changed. Green Technologies, Inc. ¢ 5490 Spine Rd. ¢ Boulder, CO 80301 © 303-581-9600 TIS | GreenPluge 20 Product Specifications Commercial Refrigeration / Pumps & Metors For use on: Soft Drink Machines e Commercial Single & Double Door Refrigerators ¢ Reach-In Coolers ¢ Ice Machines « Water Coolers & Fountains ¢ Sump Pumps e Pool Pumps e Well Pumps ¢ Circulating Water Pumps e Small Motors The GreenPlug is a smart voltage controller designed for use on commercial sized refrigeration appliances that draw up to 20 amps continuous current. Motor-driven appliances are designed to operate over a range of voltages. generally 115V + 10%. due to fluctuations in line voltage. The patented smart circuitry in the GreenPlug saves electricity by maintaining the voltage at approximately 106V and it ensures that the appliance motor will receive the full available line voltage at start up. During unusually low line voltage conditions or "brown outs” the GreenPlug delivers the full available line voltage to the appliance. Appliance motor life should be extended because less motor heat is generated when the operating current is reduced. Operating Temperature: Operating Voltage: Output Voltage Variations: Surge Protection: Continuous Load Current: Intermittent Load Current: Non Repetitive Surge Current 1 Cycle 60Hz: Failure bypass: Full voltage start: Warranty: Patents: UL Listing: -10° to 40°C (14° to 104°F) Derate current at 30% for each 10°C (50°F) over 40°C (104°F) to a maximum of 60°C (140°F) 95 VAC - 130 VAC, 60 Hz 106 VAC (-2% to +5%) with soft-start MOV - 38 Joules, 2500 amps (2 times), clamping 400 volts 20 amps (within rated temperature) 25 amps 250A Yes Yes 2 years Patented in US with International patents granted and pending UL244A (Solid-State controls for appliances, indoor use) *7 amp models for Refrigerators/Freezers, Washers/Gas Dryers, Shop & Gardes Tools, Small Household Appliances +15 amp models for Commercial Refrigeration, Pumps & Motors Also available: IMPORTANT. The specitications provided may vary depending on normal manutactunny tolerances. Hherctore. this unit may nol precisely match the listed specications. . \lso this product is tested and cahbrated under closely controlled conditions, and some minor differences in performance can _be expected if those conditions are changed. Green Technologies, Inc. ¢ 5490 Spine Rd. ¢ Boulder, CO 80301 © 303-581-9600 4795S October 9, 1993 SATURDAY 135th year, No. 170 Business YEAR ONE By David Lewis Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer A subsidiary of Vermont’s biggest utility company has invested $1.2 million in Boulder-based Green Tech- nologies Inc. “Green Technologies has products that fit within our corporate goals of providing our customers with energy efficient, environmentally-friendly products and services,” said Mark Gabriel, vice president and general manager of SmartEnergy Services Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary oi Central Vermont Public Service Corp. Central Vermont serves about 145,000 residential and commercial customers in Vermont and New Hamp- shire, Gabriel said. “The fit is particularly good given the green nature of Vermont,” he said. “And we really believe in the work the people at Green Technologies are doing.” Green Technologies manufactures the GreenPlug, a device designed to reduce the amount of electricity used by various household appliances. The company brought the GreenPlug to market early this year. The $1.2 million investment equals 5% of Green Technologies’ equity, Gabriel said. The investment was part of a $2.8 million private placement of company stock that marketing vice president Wyck Hay said “sold out in about 72 hours. We were oversub- scribed by $800,000 in less than a week. Vermont utility subsidiary invests in Boulder company Our original intention was to raise money to keep up with our production requirements.” According to Hay, Green Technol- ogies now is selling 75,000 units per month and expects sales of 100,000 units by November. The company also has signed an agreement to place GreenPlugs in 500 Wal-Mart stores per month for the next four months, and “as soon as that is done, then we plan to roll out into all 2400 Kmarts,” Hay said. Green Technologies also is nego- tiating with buyers in Japan, Canada, South America and New Zealand, he said. GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 5490 SPINE ROAD + BOULDER * COLORADO * USA (REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION) BARAKAT (65 CHAMBERLIN - Final Report - SAVINGS PROJECTIONS FOR REFRIGERATORS USING GREENPLUGS Prepared for: SMART ENERGY SERVICES Prepared by: Bill LeBlanc, Project Director Ellen Rubinstein, Senior Associate Scott Dimetrosky, Associate BARAXAT & CHAMBERLIN, INC. March 28, 1995 PD96032S/emerten_spu3-27-95 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Barakat & Chamberlin has been retained by Smart Energy Services to: ‘= Perform statistical analyses to estimate GreenPlug savings for a wide variety of refrigerators; = Assess the national and state-specific historical shipment and consumption data that can be used to estimate the savings potential for the residential refrigerator GreenPlug; and = Develop a method to predict GreenPlug savings, based on this savings assessment, that electric utilities can use to estimate the savings potential for specific refrigerators in utility service territories. Our analysis has yielded the following key results: = GreenPlug savings vary somewhat by refrigerator vintage: the greatest GreenPlug savings occur with the oldest refrigerators. Based on the refrigerators targeted for this study, we find: Preis7s | 11.6% ieee [os [oe] wretsee | 95% | sax | sax | 1055 | 1985-1989 a = Refrigerator energy consumption provides a sound basis for estimating GreenPlug energy savings. Refrigerator consumption and GreenPlug savings, by refrigerator vintage and freezer location, are estimated below under two scenarios. One, test results for “used” refrigerators represent actual Jaboratory results of old refrigerators that have been used in homes and Lave degraded over time. Two, labeled values for “new” refrigerators represent predicted savings ES-1 based on manufacturers’ statements of energy use when refrigerators were first sold or shipped. Side-Mount } 1978-1984, | Top-Mount 1978-1984, 3,007 Side-Mount | 1985-1989, 34.4% 2,370 Top-Mount 1985-1989, 1,393 Side-Mount *The “top-mount” category includes single door refrigerator/freezers; the —— category includes refrigerators with bottom-mounted freezers. = As illustrated in the above table, re‘c:--xator degradation appears to be significantly more severe than had previously been thought by industry experts; on average, we find that refrigerators acquired through turn-in programs consume 92% more energy thas they consumed when new (based on data from ARCA and Planergy). The results from SMUD’s Refrigerator Turn-In program were similar: SMUD found turned-in refrigerators consume roughly 77% morc energy than they did when they were new. = If GreenPlugs were installed on all pre-1990 refrigerators still in use in the United States, the average savings of 225 kWh/refrigerator/year would yield total savings of over 17,000 GWh/ycar. Nationwide, refrigerator consumption 2nd potential GreenPlug savings, by refrigerator vintage and freezer locaticr, are estimated to be: ES-2 Technical Potential Based | Technical Potential Based on x Test Results for: “Used” .. om Labeled. ‘Values for eee : “New” peas 1978, Jis,387,622 | 40,777 4, 689 2337 Top-Mount | Pre-1978, 2,944,261 7,099 Side-Mount | 1978-1984, 121,325,986 ener 4,868 21,977 Top-Mount . | 1978- 1984, 4,070,899 6,783 -479 ] Side-Mount 1985-1989, 26, 119 506 22, 084 Top-Mount 1985-1989, 6,089,694 18,549 8,483 Side-Mount Total = «475,937,968 | 191,257 17,124 | 86,749 *The “top-mount” category includes single door refrigerator/freezers; the “side-mount” category includes refrigerators with bottom-mounted freezers. .= Based 7 the extremely limited voltage testing performed to date, it appears that the higher the voltage, the greater the baseline refrigerator consumption and the greater the GreenPlug savings. To perform the assessment and to assist Smart Energy in evaluating the conditions in which the GreenPlug would be most cost-effective, Barakat & Chamberlin developed an eight-step methodclogy. The highlights of this approach include: = Conducting a comprehensive literature search and contacting key trade allies and industry experts to determine the availability and scope of residential refrigerator data; = Performing initial statistical analyses to assess the relative importance of key refrigerator characteristics to overall consumption; = Ascertaining that the savings attributable to GreenPlugs are statistically related to baseline refrigerator energy consumption; = Designing statistical models to predict refrigerator energy consumption, given key refrigerator characteristics; ES-3