Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpper Yukon Regional Energy Project Draft Scooping 2004 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT Draft Scoping Report July 2004 Prepared for: The Denali Commission Infrastructure Subcommittee Meeting August 10, 2004 Prepared by: State of Alaska Alaska Energy Authority/Rural Energy Group 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 269-3000 In Conjunction with: CRW Engineering Group Aurora Consulting 3940 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 300 880 H St, Ste 105 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 562-3252 (907) 245-9245 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION/ TITLE PAGE 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ......sscssssessessesessescenescssesenensesceeensessensssssseessssscssssssesseessesasensenents 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DESIGN CHALLENGES 2.1 Accessibility 2.2 Environmental Conditions 2.3 Vicinity Map vee 2.4 Regional Population and School Enrollment Dynamics... 2.5 Existing Energy Facilities 3.0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK 3.1 Alternative Energy Sources.... 4.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY........cssssceessseeeesseeeeesneeeessseceessaneesoees 7 5.0 REGIONAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.......csccssscssseesssceesseeseseoessessseseneons 8 5.1 Background 5.2 Regional Capacity Analysis .... 5.3 Regional Energy Management Plan 6.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ......ssscssssssssseseeeeeesesceeeeeeeessnssneconeees 10 7.0 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE .......cccssssssssssseseesseeesseeeeenseeeesseeeeesseeesssseeessaeesonss 12 Table 1 Community Populations Table 2 Change in Community Populations Table 3 School Enrollments .. Table 4 Proposed Scope of Work... we Table 5 Power Cost Equalization Program FY99 - FY03 PCE Rate... 7 Table 6 Power Cost Equalization Program FY99 - FY03 Effective Residential Rate........ 9 Table 7 Construction Schedule - UYREP Table 8 Bulk Fuel Upgrade Conceptual Cost Estimate - UYREP Table 9 Power System Upgrade Conceptual Cost Estimate - UYREP.... FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Example Regional Energy Management Plan. Page i UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY This report lays out the approach and methodology for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)- sponsored Upper Yukon Regional Energy Project (UYREP), and provides a conceptual level cost estimate for completing necessary energy system upgrades based upon preliminary investigation completed to date. The ultimate goal of the UYREP is to develop a holistic approach to solving the mechanical and managerial deficiencies which plague the Upper Yukon Region’s fuel handling and power generation systems, resulting in code compliant, sustainable facilities. Specific project goals will include: " Collect historical data on existing bulk fuel handling and storage facilities, power plants, electrical distribution systems and related energy facilities; perform site visits to confirm the condition of existing facilities; and prepare written recommendations for required upgrades at each community, " Design and construct appropriate fuel storage and power generation related facilities in each community, = Evaluate the recently constructed AEA-funded powerplants and facilities in the communities of Stevens Village and Arctic Village, " Develop a comprehensive strategy for sustainable operation, maintenance and management of the region’s bulk fuel storage and power generation related facilities; including the preparation of economic capacity analysis’ for each participant and development of a regional energy management plan providing for third-party oversight and management of local utilities. The Upper Yukon region of Alaska, including the traditional villages of Rampart, Stevens Village, Beaver, Circle, Venetie, Birch Creek, Arctic Village, Fort Yukon and Chalkyitsik represents one of the most remote and harshest living environments in the state. Critical to survival in these isolated locations is the community’s economic and managerial capacity to purchase and store fuel in bulk quantities, and utilize this fuel for efficient power and heat generation. Fuel costs have risen steeply in the last five years and now represent the single largest cash expenditure for residents living in these economically distressed areas. Existing tank farms, power plants and other energy related facilities throughout the region are in poor condition. Many facilities are non-code compliant and pose imminent threats to operators, local residents and the surrounding environment. Historically, small, rural communities tend to have difficulty economically justifying energy system upgrade projects to granting agencies due to their inherent lack of local resources. Combining a group of small village projects into a regional project provides opportunity for significant cost savings through standardized design and construction methods, and synergistic freight and equipment logistics. This regional project provides these small, disadvantaged communities with the best hope of addressing the growing health, safety and efficiency concerns. Finally, this project approach will encourage sustainable management practices through the implementation of business operating plans and a regionalized management infrastructure. Each project milestone is explained in further detail in following report sections. Page 1 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DESIGN CHALLENGES 2.1 Accessibility The UYREP includes nine communities dispersed along a 200-mile reach of the Yukon River. Four of these communities (Rampart, Stevens Village, Beaver, Circle and Fort Yukon) are located on the banks of the Yukon and are accessible by barge; the remaining four villages (Venetie, Birch Creek, Chalkyitsik and Arctic Village) are located on relatively shallow tributaries and are limited to airfreight service. Local residents rely mainly on river transportation in the summer due to the absence of roads in the region, (with the exception of Circle), and the relatively high cost of air transportation. In the winter, when temperatures regularly dip to -50°F, snow machines are the sole means of inter-community ground transportation. 2.2 Environmental Conditions The Upper Yukon Region has a continental climate typical to interior Alaska. The winters ate long and harsh and the summers are short but warm. Daily minimum temperatures between November and March are usually below 0. Extended periods of -50 to -60 are common. Summer high temperatures run 65 to 72; brief periods of 90+ degrees have been recorded. Total annual precipitation averages 6 to 7 inches, including around 40 inches of snowfall. The Yukon River is typically ice-free from the end of May through mid-September. Hight of the nine villages have experienced significant flooding in the past. Due to ice jams during spring breakup and/or snow melt; Venetie was relocated in the late 1970’s and is now above the floodplain of the nearby Chandalar River. In winter, many villagers transport heating fuel in drums on the river using snow machines and sleds. In Alaska, lives are lost each year in rural communities from villagers falling through thin ice. With the recent warmer winters, the exposure to thin ice in the fall and spring has increased significantly. The environmental hazards of a fuel spill on the river ice are also a major concern. For example, the residents of Rampart travel over 100 miles round trip to Tanana or Stevens Village to buy heating fuel because there is no safe and reliable fuel storage available in their village. 2.3. Vicinity Map The UYREP is inclusion of the communities of Beaver, Venetie, Arctic Village, Chalkyitsik, Circle, Rampart, Stevens Village, Birch Creek and Fort Yukon. See the following map for community layouts and a regional overview: Page 2 of 12 “VENETIE eQE iN AG Pd | | | C 5 LC oles eo Toritna Eree* “eh : a) BRE FB Rees (ee as —— STEVENS VILLAGE (86) BIRCH CREEK (33) _ CIRCLE (9 ) 25 oO 25 50 GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) LARGE MAP DATE UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ULY 2004 ENERGY PROJECT (UYREP (8 (UYREP) = etenitaeemindhermias VICINITY MAP GRAPHIC PROJECT: 30401.22 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT 2.4 Regional Population and School Enrollment Dynamics The Upper Yukon region is comprised of small villages, most having a population of 100 or less. The exceptions are the villages of Fort Yukon (population 570), Venetie (population 200) and Arctic Village (150). Table 1— Community Populations 2% 8 & 2 4» 3 Eee 2 8 oS q v 2 oO eo 8 2 bb <5 g 4 So: Gee = g Year a 9 Ba 1950 53 101 0 0 83 446 94 84 81 942 1960 110 101 32 57 41 701 49 102 107 1300 1970 85 101 45 130 54 448 36 74 112 1085 1980 111 66 32 100 81 619 50 96 132 1287 1990 96 103 42 90 73 580 68 102 182 1336 2000 152 84 28 83 100 595 45 87 202 1376 % Change 1990-2000 58.33 -18.45 -33.33. -7.78 36.99 2.59 -33.82 -14.71 10.99 2.99 Over the last 20 years populations in the majority of the villages have slowly decreased. Overall population in the region is approximately 1,300. Table 2 — Changes in Community Populations (Excluding Fort Yukon) Page 3 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT Since 1996 school enrollment in the Upper Yukon villages has generally been on the decline, with the exception of Chalkyitsik, Circle and Venetie. Additionally, since 1996 schools have been closed in both Rampart and Birch Creek. Table 3 — School Enrollments = § ~ eg g #2 £2 2» F &82e 8 § Ss 2 Oo ° a og o Bp fe 23 4 & ct £88 §&§ 8 - > ma g A & SAF > & Year ce a 1996 43 23 6 16 22 160 19 33 54 37 2000 50 26 0 19 35 144 0 18 46 33 2004 36 14 0 25 23 118 0 16 52 28 % Ch e)6=— -16.28 §=- -39.13.— -100.0 = 556.25 4.55 -26.25 -33.82 -14.71 10.99 2.99 Note: School closures are targeted within enrollment falls below 10 students. 2.5 Existing Energy Facilities With the exception of new energy facilities recently completed by AEA in Stevens Village and Arctic Village, the regions’ power generation / distribution and bulk fuel storage systems ate in poor condition. Diesel-powered generating plants in these locations are typically more than 20 years old, unreliable, and grossly inefficient compared to more modern equipment. The majority of power plants in the region fail to meet minimal health and safety requirements, and pose real threats to local operators. Indirectly, the condition of the power plants threatens all residents, many elderly, who rely on electricity for day-to-day functions such as cooking, radio communication and control heating. Similarly, fuel handling systems in the area are not code compliant. Leaking tanks, piping, and fittings are widespread. Additionally, many large tanks in the region sit on foundations which are not structurally sound, increasing the possibility of catastrophic failures and large spills due to earthquakes, flooding or other geo-hazard. State and federal governments are ultimately responsible for responding to incidents that threaten residents’ life, health and safety, such as restoring power after a transformer fails or cleaning up a fuel spill near a community’s water source, etc. If left uncorrected, the existing power and fuel facilities will almost certainly be responsible for significant power outages and fuel spills within the next ten years. Page 4 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT 3.0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work was developed using a combination of historical data and preliminary level investigations into the individual needs of each community. Table 4 — Proposed Scope of Work vo op x § s v = s £ £2 2» § §& 8% 8 > a 2 ff 8 s Bone 2 ¢ 3 4 3 5} 5 t oa g 5 me 5 a 3 oe AF > ia faa) Oo om Proposed Bulk Fuel Upgrades (Capacity in Gallons) | T School Tank -® 6000 -® | 6000 | 6000} —-4 | -© 6,000 | 9,000 Facilities gt a | = ank | | : Fuel T | - 18,000 12,000 | 18,000 | 6,000 | -® 12,000 | 18,000 | 27,000 Proposed Power System Upgrades (Capacity in Kilowatts) = 7 eee nse 3000 | 250 | 250 | 250 | ~a | 2 | 250 | 3700 | 500 Plants | | | | Eieasic Scope of electric distribution systeme upgrades will be based upon future field evaluation of exists Daianation cope of electric ution system upgrades . a ased upon future field evaluation of existing System 1- Power plant or tank farm recently constructed by AEA. No further upgrades are necessary. 2- Existing power plant to be upgraded as small scale retrofit. 3- School was closed due to low student population 4 Local commercial fuel provider, no bulk fuel storage required. This scope of work was used to develop the conceptual level cost estimate included in Section 7.0. In addition to the items listed above, each participating entity will be required to sign a Business Operating Plan (BOP) and the proposed Regional Energy Management Plan (REMP); these requirements are explained in further detail in Section 5.2. Where new powerhouses are required, one of AEA’s standardized prototype designs will be used (32’x48” framed, single or double module). When possible, the powerhouse will be located near public buildings which can utilize recovered heat from the diesel engines. Powerhouse foundations will vary based upon local soil conditions, the availability of fill material and historic flood elevations. Foundation configurations may include driven steel piles, concrete slab on grade or post and pad. Bulk fuel tank farms and other new fuel handling facilities will be designed in accordance with the 2000 International Fire Code and other applicable state, federal and AEA standards. Tank farm configurations will vary based upon the specific needs of each community; standardized tank types and sizes will be utilized whenever possible to provide cost savings due to economy of scale. Page 5 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT The total energy capacity proposed in this project will meet the projected 10-year needs based on historic annual fuel deliveries and nominal growth rates. The total fuel capacity for the UYREP is currently estimated at approximately 144,000 gallons. The total estimated proposed powerhouse generation capacity for the five UYREP villages proposed to receive new power houses is approximately 1500 kW. 3.1 Alternative Energy Sources Diesel generators are typically considered the simplest and most reliable method of power production in rural communities. However, rising fuel costs and mounting regulatory concern over fuel spills and power plant emissions warrant a close evaluation of potential alternative energy sources. With proper planning, design and management, today’s alternative energy technologies could reduce the region’s dependence upon fossil fuels in the future. Brief discussions of some fuel-saving technologies are proved below. 3.1.1 Heat Recovery Heat recovery technology, sometimes referred to as co-generation, provides a means of reclaiming energy lost to heat during the burning of fossil fuels. Co-generation systems in rural Alaska typically consist of a heat exchanger connected to the liquid cooling system of power plant diesel generators. The heat exchanger uses heat from the engine cooling system to supplement heat-reliant processes in adjacent buildings, such as pre-heating hydronic system return water to reduce boiler firing, or pre-heating raw well water to make treatment easier, etc. The opportunity for incorporating successful heat recovery systems in the UYREP will depend upon the size of the power plant engines, available power plant sites and cooperation from potential heat receptors. The generally accepted maximum distance between the power plant and heat receptor is 800 linear feet. This distance will decrease for very small power plants and/or high demand heat receptors (ie. refrigeration processes). 3.1.2 Wind and Hydroelectric Power Generation According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas published by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Upper Yukon vicinity is designated as a Class 1 wind zone on a scale of 1 to 7. This designation indicates that the potential for beneficial use of wind as an energy resource in the region is very low. Based upon this designation, there is no potential for the development of wind resources in the region. 3.1.3 Coal Bed Methane The feasibility and economic viability of meeting Fort Yukon energy needs using Coal Bed Methane extraction technology is currently under study by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Recent work in Fort Yukon, including the collection of methane samples from a 1994 USGS boring and completion of a shallow seismic study in 2001 indicate that the region’s coal bed methane resources are promising. ADNR is planning additional drilling in the summer of 2004 to further characterize the areas geologic strata and potential. If the planned studies continue to produce positive results, funding may be secured to move forward with long-term pump tests and other analysis to determine if production is feasible. If feasible and cost effective, implementation is projected to be five to ten years into the Page 6 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT future. Therefore, coal bed methane is judged to be a potential future energy resource. Like Fort Yukon, other communities in the Upper Yukon Region may have potential coal bed methane resources; however the lack of research to date in these locals pushes implementation out ten to twenty years into the future. 3.1.4 Geothermal No known studies have been conducted to evaluate the feasibility of harnessing geothermal energy in the Upper Yukon Region to date. Though a few obvious geothermal areas exist to the south of the Yukon Flats (ie. Manley and Chena Hot Springs), no known resources exist near the Upper Yukon Region communities. Given the lack of existing data and the relatively high exploration and development costs associated with this resource, no geothermal energy recovery systems are anticipated in the foreseeable future. 3.1.5 Solar Photovoltaic Power The typical solar energy system consists of multiple arrays of photovoltaic panels situated on top of buildings, towers or other relatively high structures. The fact that sunlight intensity varies from minute to minute due to changes in cloud cover, smoke from fires, blowing dust etc., requires that most solar systems have substantial battery storage. Due to the dramatic solar radiation fluctuations in northern latitudes and the practical limitations of storing and disposing of battery banks, solar systems are rarely capable of providing more than a minor amount of the total power necessary for a community. However, residential scale solar installations may be capable of meeting essential household electrical demands during the summer months. 4.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY The AEA has a proven history of administering bulk fuel and power system upgrade projects on a "modified" force-account basis. AEA will assign a single construction management firm to coordinate the procurement, recruitment of local workers, and construction activities in all UYREP communities. This method has successfully achieved a high percentage of local hire during past projects, and is typically viewed positively by local community governments and funding agencies. AEA will select the construction management firm early in the design process to allow the design engineer to work closely with those who will oversee the work. AEA intends for the designers and construction superintendents to form working relationships early in the ptocess, and combine their technical and “on the ground” knowledge to produce concise plans and specifications resulting in the best finished product possible. The technical nature of some aspects of the project will require a limited number of workers with specific experience and expertise to be brought into the community, when not available locally. All work will be supervised and managed by a superintendent with extensive experience in the construction of rural fuel facilities. Skilled craftsmen, with appropriate certifications, will perform all specialty work, such as pipe welding and electrical panel installation. The design engineer will provide construction support and quality control services through communication with the construction manager, review of shop drawings and periodic site inspections. Page 7 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT 5.0 REGIONAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 5.1 Background The federal legislation enacting the Denali Commission (DC) charged it to develop infrastructure to serve rural Alaskan communities. Prior to funding any project, the Denali Commission requires some assurance that the grantee has the capacity to sustain (Le. operate, maintain and, eventually, replace) the new facilities. Accordingly, prior to release of grant funding, the grantee is required to enter into a Business Operating Plan (BOP) with the Denali Commission. As part of the BOP, each participant is obligated to perform necessary operations and maintenance activities and to establish a long term set-aside fund for the purpose of recapitalizing the facilities, as needed, over time. The Denali Commission has expressed concern over the ability of existing local utilities in the Upper Yukon Region to effectively manage new fuel storage and/or power generation facilities. | Specifically, none of the existing utilities have established “Repair and Replacement,” or R&R, accounts for future renovation of their existing infrastructures. A measure of the management and administrative difficulties currently faced by the existing local utilities is the low percentage of community participation in the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program, which is an electric generation cost reimbursement program for rural residents. Currently, only two of the region’s communities are participating in the PCE program; a potential loss of an estimated $100,000 per year of cash flow into the regions’ villages. These “lost” PCE dollars could ultimately assist with the funding of “operations and maintenance” and “renewal and replacement” costs. Table 5 — Power Cost Equalization Program FY99 - FY03 PCE Rate Cents/kWh Community FY00 Fy01 Beaver $0.30 | $0.21 | DNF DNF Chalkyitsik $0.15 | $0.26 : L Circle $0.21 | $0.18 Fort Yukon $0.14 | $0.11 Venetie ; : $0.96 $0.11 Arctic Village DNF DNF SS Birch Creek DNF ___DNF DNF Stevens Village $0.14 | DNF __|__DNF Rampart DNF | —SoDNF DNF DNF | (1) Chalkyitsik Village Energy System reported only 2 months of data. (2) Circle Electric Utility reported only 11 months of data. (3) Venetie Village Electric reported only 9 months of data. (4) Beaver Joint Utilities reported only 7 months of data. (5) Venetie Village Electric reported only 10 months of data. (6) Chalkyitsik Village Energy System reported only 4 months of data. DNF: Did not file. Page 8 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT Table 6 — Power Cost Equalization Program FY99 - FY03 Effective Residential Rate Cents/kWh Community FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Beaver $0.18 ___ $0.20 $0.19 (4) DNF _DNF © Chalkyitsik $0.47 ©) $0.25 | $0.14 | $0.22 (1) | DNF Circle $0.28 | $029 | $0.32 Fort Yukon —_$0.27 oo. $0.22 Venetie $0.41 $0.41 | $0.41 © Arctic Village DNF DNF DNF Birch Creek DNF | DNF DNF Stevens Village $0.41. | DNF DNF DNF DNF Rampart DNF DNF DNF DNF DNF (1) Chalkyitsik Village Energy System reported only 2 months of data. (2) Circle Electric Utility reported only 11 months of data. (3) Venetie Village Electric reported only 9 months of data. (4) Beaver Joint Utilities reported only 7 months of data. (5) Venetie Village Electric reported only 10 months of data. (6) Chalkyitsik Village Energy System reported only 4 months of data. DNF: Did not file. 5.2 Regional Capacity Analysis In order to address these sustainability concerns, the AEA will prepare an Economic Capacity Analysis Report (ECAR) for each community as part of the conceptual design process. The ECAR will look at the overall utility management structure in each community, including such functions as fuel handling, electrical power, water / sewer and solid waste service, etc. The ECAR will tabulate all funding sources (user fees, grants, loans, fish and sales taxes, etc.) and compare this cash flow to the sinking costs of operating and maintaining each community’s infrastructure. The capacity analysis efforts will accomplish three goals: e Increase each community’s awareness of their specific cash flow sources and outlays, e Provide a clearer picture of each community’s ability to sustain new bulk fuel and power generation related facilities, e Provide “base line data” to assist in the development and operation of a future regional utility management program. 5.3 Regional Energy Management Plan Given the current operating and management challenges facing many of the regions’ bulk fuel and electric utility operations, it would seem that a coordinated regional strategy, or Regional Energy Management Plan, would make good sense. The Alaska Energy Authority has initiated discussions with several regional organizations including the Council of Athabaskan Tribal Governments (CATG), Tanana Chiefs Conference (ICC) and Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) regarding regional energy management strategies. A potential model for such a regional energy management plan would include a central administrative management entity, most likely located in either Fort Yukon or Fairbanks, which would provide overall management expertise, administrative and accounting services as well as oversight of ongoing operations and maintenance and long-term renewal and Page 9 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT replacement activities. Ongoing maintenance and operational functions could be handled by a team of operators working in sub regional zones. Sub regional zones might include: * Zone 1: Venetie, Arctic Village and Beaver * Zone 2: Chalkyitsik, Ft Yukon, Birch Creek and Circle * Zone 3: Rampart and Stevens Village While it is likely that each community will need a basic operator/manager to deal with immediate and routine issues and activities, this regional concept would rely upon a cadre of operators, one or more per zone, to provide technical and long-term maintenance and upkeep. Figure 2 Example Regional Energy Management Plan Administration Billing PCE Training Costing - O&M -R&R REGIONAL MANAGING ENTITY Operations and Maintenance ZONE 2: ZONE 3: ZONE 1: Venetie Chalkyitsik Rampart Arctic Village Ft Yukon Stevens Village Beaver Birch Creek Circle 6.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The UYREP is a multiyear undertaking which consists of three specific phases: Phase I will include gathering the necessary background information, visiting each community, completing capacity analysis reports, choosing and securing site control for ptoposed new facilities, preparing 35% design drawings, specifications and a detailed conceptual cost estimate. If Phase I funding is secured by September 1, 2004, this task could be completed by March 2005. Phase II deliverables will include the final construction documents, all required permits, a signed Business Operating Plan (including Regional Energy Management Plan), finalized site control documents and a detailed construction cost estimate. If Phase II funding is secured by April 1, 2005, this task could be completed by October 2005. Phase III is the construction phase of the project. The construction manager will complete all procurement, freight logistics, recruitment of local hire and construction tasks during this phase. If construction funding is secured by January 1, 2006, this project can be substantially completed by October 31, 2008 with final completion planned for December 31, 2008. A summary of anticipated milestones dates are shown in Table 7. Page 10 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT Table 7 — Construction Schedule - UYREP Tak 26 2/82/88 PH. I TASKS 2004 Gather Background Info Site Visits FEB AUG SEP oct NOV DEC Capacity Analysis PH. I TASKS 2005 Capacity Analysis (cont) CDR / 35% Design PH. II TASKS 2005 35%-95% Design Permitting Final Design Business Plan PH. III TASKS 2006 OrderTanks ”””°:°:»;+%xx-xa | fF FT TT |. TO rr rr rr Community Coordination | General Procurement Mobilization Tank Farm Construction Spill Plans and Closeout PH. III TASKS 2007 & 2008 Power Plant Procurement General Procurement Mobilization Power Plant Construction Electrical Distribution System Upgrades Plant Startup and Commissioning | Project Closeout 7.0 CONCEPTUAL CosT ESTIMATE The cost estimate presented here is based upon actual costs incurred during the design and construction of bulk fuel and power system upgrade projects in similarly sized Alaskan communities; a 10% contingency is included in the final cost. The combined project estimate for Phases I to III is approximately $21,700,000 million. This includes all design, business planning, permitting, construction, AEA project administration and inspection setvices. A breakdown of costs is shown on the following budget spreadsheets: Page 11 of 12 UPPER YUKON REGIONAL ENERGY PROJECT Table 8 — Bulk Fuel Upgrade Conceptual Cost Estimate - UYREP Estimate Tankage Assumed __ Estimated Community (Gal) Unit Cost Construction ($/Gal) ; Cost Arctic Village (Air) $0 Beaver (Barge Birch Creek (Air _Chalkyitsik (Air) $480,000 $480,000 Circle (Road) Fort Yukon (Barge) Rampart (Barge) Stevens Village (Barge) _Venetie (Air) $340,000 $510,000 Contingency (20%) “$1, 014, 000 Bulk Fuel Upgrade | Cost Estimate | $6,088,800 Note: Bulk Fuel Upgrade unit costs are based upon existing CDR documents and previously completed projects in similar locations. Table 9 — Power System Upgrade Conceptual Cost Estimate - UYREP Estimated Estimated Generation Capacity Construction Powerhouse Community (kW) Cost Type Arctic Village (Air) 300 | Beaver (Barge) | 20 | _ Single Module Birch Creek (Air) : 250 : $1,500,0 _ | Single Module Chalkyitsik (Air) : 250 | $1,500,000 [Single Module _ Circle (Road) ‘Small Scale Retrofit $500,000 | _ Fort Yukon (Barge) Small Scale Retrofit $500,000 | Rampart (Barge) 250 $1,300,000 Single Module _ Stevens Village (Barge) 3700 $0 Complete “Venetie (Air) | | 000 | Dual Module 1. et Electrical Distribution Upgrades | Season So | $860, 000 | Engineering (8%) | 12%) | |_ 81, 300,000 - — "Sub Total | $13,000,000 | Contingency (20%) | $2,600,000 Power System Upgrade Cost Estimate | $15,600,000 Note: Rural Power System Upgrade power plant module costs are based upon estimates provided by AEA. Estimated Project Overall Cost $21,700,000 Page 12 of 12