HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPLICATION - REF Round 15 Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project FinalRenewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 1 of 35 10/04/2022
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion.
Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity)
Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc.
Tax ID # 92-0177236
Date of last financial statement audit: December 31, 2021
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
3977 Lake Street, Homer, AK 99603 Same
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-283-2375 msalzetti@homerelectric.com
1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Coordinator
Name: Mike Salzetti Title: Manager of Renewable Energy
Development
Mailing Address:
3977 Lake Street, Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-283-2375 msalzetti@homerelectric.com
1.1.1 Applicant Signatory Authority Contact Information
Name: Bradley P. Janorschke Title: General Manager
Mailing Address: 3977 Lake Street, Homer, AK 99603
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-283-2312 907-283-7122 bjanorschke@homerelectric.com
1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
David Thomas 907-283-2364 dthomas@homerelectric.com
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 2 of 35 10/04/2022
1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements
Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements, the application
will be rejected.
1.2.1 Applicant Type
☒ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05
CPCN # 640 , or
☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1)
CPCN #______, or
☐ A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
Additional minimum requirements
☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate yes by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy-
Fund/2022-REF-Application (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.) (Indicate yes by checking the box)
☐ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no, please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
Beneficiaries will be the Homer Electric Association’s member-owners, however the
ownership model of a project (AEEC, Hilcorp, or another IPP) will be determined in a future
phase, based on environmental liabilities, project economics, and operations & maintenance
considerations.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 3 of 35 10/04/2022
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Title
Provide a 4-to-7-word title for your project. Type in the space below.
Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project
2.2 Project Location
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or
community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information, please contact
AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-
3081.
Latitude 60.73544 Longitude -151.51176
This phase of the proposed project is a Reconnaissance effort to study the possibility of locating
offshore wind turbines on end-of-service oil platforms in the Cook Inlet. This study will evaluate the
possibility of converting Hilcorp’s A, C, Baker and Dillion oil platforms to offshore wind turbine
substructures and installing offshore class wind turbines on them.
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The member-owners of Homer Electric Association will benefit from these grant funds. Homer
Electric’s certificated territory encompasses a vast majority of the population and communities on
the Kenai Peninsula and essentially all the populated portions of the central and western Kenai
Peninsula including the incorporated cities of Kenai, Soldotna, and Homer and the
villages/communities of Nikiski, Salamatof, Sterling, Kasilof, Clam Gulch, Ninilchik, Anchor Point,
Kachemak City, Halibut Cove, Seldovia, Port Graham and Nanwalek.
2.3 Project Type
Please check as appropriate.
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☒ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
☐ Hydro, Including Run of River ☐ Hydrokinetic
☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy
☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable
☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 4 of 35 10/04/2022
☒ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting
☒ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction
2.4 Project Description
Provide a brief, one-paragraph description of the proposed project.
Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA) through its generation subsidiary Alaska Electric & Energy
Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC), plans to construct approximately 30-MWs of wind energy generation
located on or near the Kenai Peninsula. The proposed project will evaluate construction of three to
four offshore wind turbines on the A, C, Baker, and Dillion offshore oil platforms and electrically
interconnected to the HEA transmission system at the Bernice Lake Substation located near the
coast in the East Forelands of Nikiski, Alaska. The proposed project is a Reconnaissance level
effort to study the possibility of the proposed project along with a partial Feasibility stage effort to
collect and process one years’ worth of offshore wind data by installing an IEC classified vertical
profiling Lidar with finance-grade data capable of measuring wind speed to a height of 300 M.
2.5 Scope of Work
Provide a short narrative for the scope of work detailing the tasks to be performed under this
funding request. This should include work paid for by grant funds and matching funds or performed
as in-kind match.
This funding request is for a Reconnaissance level effort to study the possibility of the proposed
project along with a partial Feasibility stage effort to collect and process one years’ worth of
offshore wind data. The Reconnaissance studies will be a collaborative effort between HEA and
Hilcorp with the assistance of specialized expertise where required. The Scope of Work will
include:
Phase I – Reconnaissance Scope of Work:
1. A Desk Top Wind Resource Characterization
a. The wind power density in the Cook Inlet narrows of the Forelands where the platforms
are located will be modeled using publicly available sources such as Global Wind Atlas.
b. A wind site assessment report will be generated for the proposed site using a
proprietary subscription service such as Windnavigator to model site characteristics,
develop a wind rose and estimate monthly distribution of the wind resource.
c. The above information will be analyzed and compiled into the Reconnaissance Report
with an opinion as to its suitability as a viable offshore wind resource.
2. Preliminary Engineering Analysis
a. Research will be conducted on the available sizes and mounting requirements for the
three leading wind turbine manufacturers, GE, Siemens, and Vestas.
b. An engineering opinion will be obtained as to the structural capability of the oil platform
to act as a substructure for an offshore wind turbine and if it is suitable, the maximum
size of offshore wind turbine that could be installed on the platforms.
c. The possibility of using an abandoned oil or gas pipeline form one of the rigs as a
“conduit” or anchoring system for the power transmission cable will be evaluated.
d. A high level conceptual design will be developed
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 5 of 35 10/04/2022
e. The result of the engineering analysis will be compiled and presented in the
Reconnaissance Report.
3. Project Costs and Economic Evaluation
a. Budgetary quotes for appropriately sized wind turbines will be obtained.
b. Avoided costs associated with existing platform substructure infrastructure supports will
be developed.
c. An analysis of how existing offshore oil and gas support services will support and
impact O&M costs of the project will be conducted.
d. A projected project cost estimate will be completed.
e. An investigation of possible financial incentives such as Investment Tax Credits,
Production Tax Credits, grants or loan programs will be completed.
f. Evaluation of financing options and available interest rates.
g. Analysis of possible ownership scenarios.
h. The results of the analysis will be provided in the final Reconnaissance Report along
with an overall simple economic analysis of the project.
4. Energy System Modeling
a. The proposed wind generation will be added to HEA’s existing power production
model(s).
b. Several model iterations will be run at anticipated capacity factors and power levels at
various costs to assist in establishing project economic thresholds.
c. The modeling results will be incorporated into the final Reconnaissance Report.
d. The model will predict natural gas fuel displacement associated with the proposed
project.
e. The model will optimize existing HEA generation, optimally dispatch HEA’s Battery
Energy Storage System (BESS) to establish system project economic thresholds and
impacts to the balance of the system.
5. Permitting and Licensing Evaluation
a. Investigate wind leasing requirements in these waters.
b. Interface with government agencies such as the FAA, U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA and
others to establish a preliminary list of permitting requirements.
c. Evaluate how existing platform permits would be impacted by the proposed project.
d. The final Reconnaissance Report will present the findings of this evaluation.
6. Environmental Screening
a. A screening will be conducted to identify any environmental impacts that the proposed
project may have as a result of modifying the existing oil platforms.
b. The results of the screening and any environmental barriers will be compiled and
presented in the Reconnaissance Report.
7. Secondary Benefit Analysis
a. Investigate the potential for platforms to also act as collectors for and power
transmission assets for other offshore renewable energy projects such as tidal and
other wind projects.
b. Analyze how this could be a template for other offshore platforms.
c. Identify benefits to the oil and gas industry.
d. Investigate how this might improve Cook Inlet communications by establishing a cell
tower, a microwave shot, or fiber optic link in the Cook Inlet.
8. Analysis and Recommendations
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 6 of 35 10/04/2022
a. As noted previously, the information, analysis, and modeling results from this scope of
work will be compiled and presented in the Reconnaissance Report.
b. The Reconnaissance Report will also include the result of the Lidar data gathered as
part of the resource assessment associated with the partial Feasibility Analysis stage of
the project.
c. The final Report will include a recommendation on whether to continue the pursuit of
this project and if so what the recommended next steps should be.
Phase II – Feasibility
1. Resource Evaluation
a. Select a platform and site to install a lidar system.
b. Design and develop a power feed for the lidar system on the platform.
c. Procure a lidar system and contract for lidar system installation and data monitoring
d. Install an IEC classified vertical profiling lidar on one of the Hilcorp oil platforms to
gather at least one year’s worth of wind data.
e. Monitor, collect, and QC wind data.
f. Conduct a wind resource assessment of the collected data.
g. The wind data and assessment will be presented in the final Reconnaissance Report.
2.6 Previous REF Applications for the Project
See Section 1.15 of the RFA for the maximum per project cumulative grant award amount
Round
Submitted
Title of application Application
#, if known
Did you
receive a
grant? Y/N
Amount of REF
grant awarded
($)
NA
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 7 of 35 10/04/2022
SECTION 3 – Project Management, Development, and Operation
3.1 Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below (or attach a similar sheet) for the work covered by this funding
request. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points, including go/no go decisions, in your
project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please
clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and
Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction) of your proposed
project. See the RFA, Sections 2.3-2.6 for the recommended milestones for each phase. Add
additional rows as needed.
Task
# Milestones Tasks
Start
Date
End
Date Deliverables
PI-1 Contractor
Solicitation
Develop and issue
RFPs for consulting
services and award
contracts
8/23 11/23 Contracts Awarded
PI-2 Wind Resource
Characterization
Conduct Desktop
Wind Resource
Characterization
1/24 10/24 Desktop Wind Data
PI-3 Engineering
Analysis
Complete Preliminary
Engineering Analysis
1/24 10/24 Preliminary Results of
Engineering Analysis
PI-4 Cost and Economic
Evaluation
Complete Project Cost
and Economic
Evaluation Scope of
Work
1/24 10/24 Preliminary Results of
Evaluation
PI-5 Energy System
Modeling
Energy System
Modeling per Scope
of Work
1/24 10/24 Model Results
PI-6 Permitting and
Licensing
Evaluation
Permitting and
Licensing Evaluation
per Scope of Work
1/24 10/24 Permitting and Licensing
Evaluation
PI-7 Environmental
Screening
Environmental
Screening per Scope
of Work
1/24 10/24 Preliminary Screening Results
PI-8 Secondary Benefits
Analysis
Secondary Benefits
Analysis per Scope of
Work
1/24 10/24 Preliminary Analysis Results
PI-9 Final
Reconnaissance
Report
Final Reconnaissance
Report per Scope of
Work
11/24 2/25 Final Reconnaissance Report
PII-1 Wind Resource
Evaluation
Wind Resource
Evaluation per Scope
of Work
8/23 11/24 Wind Resource Data
3.2 Budget
3.2.1 Funding Sources
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 8 of 35 10/04/2022
Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request.
Grant funds requested in this application $214,400
Cash match to be provideda $41,000
In-kind match to be provideda $56,448
Energy efficiency match providedb $0
Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of
above)
$311,848
Describe your financial commitment to the project and the source(s) of match. Indicate whether
these matching funds are secured or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that
the timing of additional funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant.
HEA’s generation subsidiary’s (AEEC’s) Board of Directors has passed Resolution 01.2022.12,
“Grant Funding Authorization for Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project” which is attached. Also
attached is a certification by the AEEC General Manager, Bradley P. Janorschke, that the
Cooperative will honor the match amounts and is in a financial condition to do so.
Hilcorp Alaska, LLC’s letter of November 23, 2022 commits Hilcorp to provide access, logistical
and in-kind support in the pursuit of this project.
All three documents are included as Attachment C.
an Attach documentation for proof (see Section 1.18 of the Request for Applications)
b See Section 8.2 of this application and Section 1.18 of the RFA for requirements for Energy Efficiency
Match.
3.2.2 Cost Overruns
Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding.
HEA/AEEC would cover any cost overruns required to complete the Scope of Work described in
Section 2.5 of this grant application.
3.2.3 Total Project Costs
Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use actual
costs for completed phases. Indicate if the costs were actual or estimated.
Reconnaissance [Actual/Estimated] $148,198
Feasibility and Conceptual Design [Actual/Estimated] $300,000
Final Design and Permitting [Actual/Estimated] $2,500,000
Construction [Actual/Estimated] $50,000,000
Total Project Costs (sum of above) Estimated $52,948,198
Metering/Tracking Equipment [not included in project
cost]
Estimated $
Note that AEEC estimates the construction cost to be $100,000,000. With the passage of the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that provides for direct pay of Investment Tax Credits (ITC) to non-
profit entities such as AEEC, we believe that we will qualify for a 50% ITC. We therefore estimate
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 9 of 35 10/04/2022
our construction costs for this project to be $50,000,000 and have entered that value as the
Construction Cost.
3.2.4 Funding Subsequent Phases
If subsequent phases are required beyond the phases being applied for in this application,
describe the anticipated sources of funding and the likelihood of receipt of those funds.
• State and/or federal grants
• Loans, bonds, or other financing options
• Additional incentives (i.e., tax credits)
• Additional revenue streams (i.e., green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
For the Balance of the Feasibility & Conceptual Design phase AEEC would seek future grant
opportunities, explore partnership potentials and / or self fund this phase of the work.
For design and construction phases, AEEC would seek applicable state or federal grant and
funding opportunities. HEA/AEEC is working with McAllister & Quinn and Strategies 360 to identify
and pursue federal funding opportunities to implement all of HEA’s renewable energy goals.
HEA/AEEC is also working with McAllister & Quinn and Strategies 360 on gaining an
understanding of the direct pay ITCs made possible by the IRA. As noted above AEEC believes
that it will qualify for a 50% ITC for this project.
HEA/AEEC would examine current interest rates and loan terms from its two primary lenders
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) – a not-for-profit lender set up by
its member electrical utilities and the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS). AEEC would also
contact the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to explore other financing
options and opportunities through that organization.
Renewable Energy Certificates would be obtained for all energy eventually put onto the grid (as
CEA already does with Fire Island wind energy) and monetized, although that has historically
yielded less than $1/MWh. Should a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) be enacted in
Alaska, HEA would diligently monetize any excess RECs (beyond HEA’s own statutory
requirements) for resale to other utilities at rates of potentially $10-20/MWh which is a significant
portion of the energy cost.
HEA/AEEC has been successful in the past in obtaining grant funding and securing attractive
financing terms for its capital projects and anticipates it will continue to do so for future projects.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 10 of 35 10/04/2022
3.2.3 Budget Forms
Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in
Section 2.3.2 of this application — I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III.
Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail
your proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project and
delete any unnecessary tables. The milestones and tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above.
If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing
the application please feel free to contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at
grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081.
Phase 1 — Reconnaissance
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Sections 2.3 thru 2.6 of the
RFA)
$ $ $
Contractor Solicitation
11/23 $0 $4,344 In-Kind $4,334
Wind Resource
Characterization 10/24 $9,590
$2,410
Cash $12,000
Engineering Analysis
10/24 $47,948 $23,672 Cash&In-Kind $71,620
Cost and Economic
Evaluation 10/24 $3,996 $7,400 Cash&In-Kind $11,396
Energy System Modeling
10/24 $0 $7,240 In-Kind $7,240
Permitting and Licensing
Evaluation 10/24 $3,996 $9,452 Cash&In-Kind $13,448
Environmental Screening
10/24 $3,996 $4,210 Cash&In-Kind $8,206
Secondary Benefits
Analysis 10/24 $0 $4,248 In-Kind $4,248
Final Reconnaissance
Report 2/25 $7,990 $7,706 Cash&In-Kind $15,696
TOTALS $77,516 $70,682 $148,198
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $0 $51,198 In-Kind $51,198
Travel & Per Diem $0 $0 $0
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Materials & Supplies $0 $0 $0
Contractual Services $77,516 $19,484 Cash $97,000
Construction Services $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0
TOTALS $77,516
$70,682
$148,198
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 11 of 35 10/04/2022
Phase 2 — Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Sections 2.3 thru 2.6 of the
RFA)
$ $ $
Wind Resource Evaluation 11/24 $136,884 $26,766 Cash&In-Kind $163,650
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
TOTALS $136,884 $26,766 Cash&In-Kind $163,650
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $
Travel & Per Diem $0 $5,000 In-Kind $5000
Equipment $103,691 $16,309 Cash $120,000
Materials & Supplies $0 $250 In-Kind $250
Contractual Services $33,193 $5,207 Cash $38,400
Construction Services $ $ $
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $136,884 $26,766 Cash&In-Kind $163,650
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 12 of 35 10/04/2022
3.2.4 Cost Justification
Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget, including costs for future
phases not included in this application.
This is a Phase I Reconnaissance Study, so the cost estimates are preliminary at this point. Part
of the proposed work scope is the development of a high-level project cost estimate. The cost
estimates do incorporate recent experience and quotes on other wind project reconnaissance
studies and feasibility analysis, as well as the team’s experience in project development and
knowledge of prudent industry practices.
3.3 Project Communications
3.3.1 Project Progress Reporting
Describe how you plan to monitor the progress of the project and keep AEA informed of the status.
Who will be responsible for tracking the progress? What tools and methods will be used to track
progress?
The Project Manager will conduct regularly scheduled meetings with the contractors providing the
reconnaissance work and wind resource assessment for this Project to track progress, schedule,
and budget.
Project management and financial control will issue reports to AEA on a mutually agreeable
schedule throughout the life of the grant. These reports can be customized to meet AEA needs.
3.3.2 Financial Reporting
Describe the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary,
and necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure
that no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement
from the REF Grant Program.
HEA has a dedicated financial controller. Ms. Clymer, HEA’s Controller has acted as financial
control for several other AEA awarded grants. HEA uses Southeastern Data Corporation (SEDC)
for our financial services software to assist with accounting and financial control systems. Every
year, HEA’s and AEEC’s financial statements and accounting procedures are audited by an
outside firm (which in recent years has been BDO USA, Inc).
Financial control of the project will be done at no cost to the project, and it is not included or
claimed in any of the in-kind matching labor funds outlined in this grant application.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 13 of 35 10/04/2022
SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
4.1 Project Team
Include resumes for known key personnel and contractors, including all functions below, as an
attachment to your application. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate
PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application.
4.1.1 Project Manager
Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information. If the
applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management
support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government
entity, state that in this section.
HEA’s Manager of Renewable Energy Development, Mike Salzetti, will be the Project Manager for
this Project. He has 32 years of engineering experience with 22 of those years including Project
Management responsibilities.
Mr. Salzetti’s contact information in shown in Section 1.1 of this application and his professional
qualifications are included in Attachment A.
4.1.2 Project Accountant
Indicate who will be performing the accounting of this project for the grantee. If the applicant does
not have a project accountant indicate how you intend to solicit financial accounting support.
Katheryn Parke, HEA’s Plant Accounting Supervisor will be performing the accounting for this
Project.
Accounting work for the project will be done at no cost to the project, and it is not included or
claimed in any of the in-kind matching labor funds outlined in this grant application.
4.1.3 Expertise and Resources
Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors.
For each member of the project team, indicate:
• the milestones/tasks in 3.1 they will be responsible for.
• the knowledge, skills, and experience that will be used to successfully deliver the tasks.
• how time and other resource conflicts will be managed to successfully complete the task.
If contractors have not been selected to complete the work, provide reviewers with sufficient detail
to understand the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex
contracts.
HEA’s Manager of Renewable Energy Development, Mike Salzetti, will be the Project Manager for
this Project. Mike has over 32 years of engineering experience with 22 of those years including
Project Management responsibilities. Mr. Salzetti played an integral role in the design of Homer
Electric’s new generation facilities and successfully shepherded the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project through an original FERC licensing process.
Mr. Salzetti has the guidance, support, staffing, and resources of Homer Electric Association to
support him in all phases of this project. The professional biographies of HEA’s Executive
Management Team are included as part of Attachment A to this application.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 14 of 35 10/04/2022
HEA is working with Hilcorp on this project who owns the oil platforms associated with this Project
study. Hilcorp has extensive experience and knowledge of operating and maintaining offshore
assets and they bring a suit of knowledgeable staff to assist in performing the identified work
scope. Hilcorp will also provide access to the platform location(s) as needed by work boat and
helicopter, plus equipment and crew housing support.
4.2 Local Workforce
Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce.
HEA Management Directives governing contracting and procurement include considerations for
such things as material procurement from pre-qualified businesses operating on the Kenai
Peninsula, possession of an Alaska Business license, maintenance of an office and staff within
Alaska and advertisements in general circulation publications as defined by Alaska State Statutes
that promote local contracting and procurement.
Pursuit to Board Policy 401 – Contracting and Purchasing, Section II, part H, HEA and AEEC give
a 5% preference to vendors maintaining an office or place of business in the cooperative’s service
area (unless prohibited by statute, regulation or grant).
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 15 of 35 10/04/2022
SECTION 5 – TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
5.1 Resource Availability
5.1.1 Assessment of Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average
resource availability on an annual basis. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to
the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility
documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this
application (See Section 11). Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project.
See the “Resource Assessment” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional
guidance.
AEEC plans to construct approximately 30-MWs of wind energy generation located on or near the
Kenai Peninsula. The proposed project would consist of three to four offshore wind turbines
mounted on the A, C, Baker, and Dillion offshore oil platforms and electrically interconnected to the
HEA transmission system at the Bernice Lake Substation located near the coast in the East
Forelands of Nikiski, Alaska.
A preliminary review of Global Wind Atlas data showed better wind density values offshore in the
East Forelands area than that of the onshore data analyzed for our proposed onshore East
Forelands Wind Project which has a forecast capacity factor of 35.8%. Part of the scope of this
Project is to Characterize the wind resource but generally speaking, offshore winds are stronger
than onshore winds. Additionally, offshore wind turbines are larger in size than their onshore
counter parts with significantly better capacity factors. The three leading wind turbine
manufacturers, GE, Siemens, and Vestas have announced 12- to 15-MW offshore wind turbines
with capacity factors of over 60%.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 16 of 35 10/04/2022
This grant application also includes a partial Feasibility stage effort to collect and process one
years’ worth of offshore wind data by installing an IEC classified vertical profiling Lidar with finance-
grade data capable of measuring wind speed to a height of 300 M. Gathering offshore wind data is
very difficult and expensive to accomplish. Installing and powering a Lidar unit on an existing
platform in the Cook Inlet is a very economical way to gather offshore meteorological data.
Additionally, a Lidar unit is capable of measuring wind speeds to a height of 300 M which is
important since offshore wind turbines heights are approaching 850 ft. We believe that this
offshore wind data set would meaningfully add to the State’s body of knowledge for future wind
projects.
5.1.2 Alternatives to Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
Homer Electric Association’s Board of Directors has developed a Board Policy (505 - Renewable
Portfolio Goal) that states, “It is the policy of the Cooperative to use best efforts to meet a
renewable portfolio goal of 50% of its annual energy needs by the end of 2025.” HEA staff is in the
process of analyzing and developing a suite of firm and non-firm renewable energy projects to
meet this goal. It is anticipated that a mix of renewable energy projects will be needed to cost
effectively achieve this goal.
HEA is evaluating and in some cases actively pursuing additional hydro, wind, solar, landfill gas,
tidal, and geothermal resources.
Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project Pros:
1. It is forecast to provide an excellent capacity factor.
2. Reduced Access costs. No need to build roads to construct and maintain it.
3. Higher energy production in winter months which matches HEA’s seasonal load profile.
4. An anticipated cost of energy comparable to the cost of avoided gas consumption.
5. Ease of permitting since it will be constructed on an existing (permitted) infrastructure
6. It would extend the life of an existing asset and avoid some costly offshore construction costs
7. The existing offshore oil & gas support industry could be utilized to maintain these assets.
8. AEEC already possesses a BESS of sufficient capacity to integrate this non-firm resource.
9. The project is likely to qualify for a 50% ITC
10. As a not-for-profit entity, HEA has the following advantages over an IPP executing a similar
project:
a. No profit margin required
b. Access to lower financing rates
c. No property taxes
d. Access to an existing work force and remote dispatch system
This project would be beneficial for HEA owner-member, citizens of the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
the oil & gas industry, and the environment.
Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project Cons:
1. Wind is intermittent and while HEA possesses an adequately sized BESS, the use of the
BESS is not free. The round-trip efficiency of the BESS ranges from 85% if cycled fully to 93% if
kept in a tighter range. Any use of a BESS consumes energy that must be replaced in the hours
ahead – ideally when generation assets have excess, economic energy available, but will not
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 17 of 35 10/04/2022
always be the case. However, this intermittent energy will have a higher capacity factor than most
other intermittent renewable resources.
2. Offshore maintenance is more expensive than onshore maintenance
3. The project will exist in the corrosive sea inenviroment
3. AEECs generation assets will be more complicated to operate, maintain and dispatch with
the addition of new, non-firm projects. For instance, AEEC’s gas deliveries must be “nominated” in
6-hour blocks, 24 hours in advance which will require forecasting how wind occurs throughout the
next day – something that adds uncertainty to the process and potential costs if penalties are
assessed for deviating from one’s nominated quantities.
5.1.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues. See the “Environmental and Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate
Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance.
• List of applicable permits
• Anticipated permitting timeline
• Identify and describe potential barriers including potential permit timing issues, public
opposition that may result in difficulty obtaining permits, and other permitting barriers
Permit Name Permit Trigger
Unknown Unknown
Since this is a request to fund a first stage Reconnaissance level effort, permitting requirements for
this project are unknown at this time. Part of the proposed work scope of this grant request is to
develop a preliminary list of permitting requirements.
We are hopeful that the permitting process will be somewhat simplified since it will be installed on
an existing, fully permitted, offshore structure.
5.2 Project Site
Describe the availability of the site and its suitability for the proposed energy system. Identify
potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how
you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. See the “Site control” section of the
appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance.
The owner of the oil platforms, Hilcorp, is supportive of this study effort and is cooperating and
assisting with the study. At this time, we see no issue with the availability of the site.
As mentioned above, a preliminary review of Global Wind Atlas data showed better wind density
values offshore in the East Forelands area than that of the onshore data analyzed for our proposed
onshore East Forelands Wind Project and generally, offshore winds are stronger than onshore
winds. This offshore site is close to an existing onshore substation and transmission infrastructure
which should be economically advantageous. No road will need to be built to construct and
maintain the facility. The project would utilize existing infrastructure and prolong the life of an
existing asset. The site is located in an area with an established offshore support industry.
Additionally, HEA now owns and operates the largest Battery Energy Storage System in Alaska,
which was acquired, in part, to more economically and reliably integrate non-firm renewable energy
resources.
5.3 Project Technical & Environmental Risk
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 18 of 35 10/04/2022
5.3.1 Technical Risk
Describe potential technical risks and how you would address them.
• Which tasks are expected to be most challenging?
• How will the project team reduce the risk of these tasks?
• What internal controls will be put in place to limit and deal with technical risks?
See the “Common Planning Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional
guidance.
It is not known at this time if an offshore wind turbine can be mounted on an existing platform and if
it can, what size of offshore wind turbine could be installed. The address this engineering risk, this
Reconnaissance study will perform a Preliminary Engineering Analysis analysis as outline in
Section 2.5 of this grant application.
Another risk is the availability of the wind resource. This risk will be mitigated by the desktop wind
resource characterization scope of work and the Lidar wind measurements described in Section
2.5.
One risk to wind turbine projects is the ability and cost to get large turbine components to the
project site. This risk is mitigated by the fact that the components can be delivered by ship to the
proposed site. The risk is further mitigated by Hilcorp’s operational experience and capabilities in
the Cook Inlet. Hilcorp operates and maintains a large network of workboats and coordinates
extensive tug-barge logistics required to support the transfer of drilling rigs, heavy equipment and
material logistics throughout the Cook Inlet. Additionally, all of the platforms have operational
cranes and lifting equipment installed onboard.
As the proposed project progresses through futures development phases, HEA will include
contingency planning for critical milestones throughout the design and construction phases of the
project.
At this time, we do not know if there will be any opposition to the proposed project. Considering
public advocacy in favor of renewable resources voiced at several HEA Board meetings and during
public forums we anticipate some public support for the project. Additionally, we anticipate that the
oil and gas industry and support industry on the Kenai Peninsula will be in favor of the proposed
Project.
5.3.2 Environmental Risk
Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so, which project
team members will be involved and how the issues will be addressed. See the “Environmental and
Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance.
• Threatened or endangered species
• Habitat issues
• Wetlands and other protected areas
• Archaeological and historical resources
• Land development constraints
• Telecommunications interference
• Aviation considerations
• Visual, aesthetics impacts
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 19 of 35 10/04/2022
• Identify and describe other potential barriers
Species Name Scientific Name Status Presence
Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis Endangered May Occur
Short-Tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered May Occur
Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Endangered May Occur
Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas Endangered May Occur
Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris Threatened May Occur
Steller's Eider Polysticta stelleri Threatened Not Likely to Occur
Habitat issues
The species identified above may occur within or around the project footprint. However the below
water infrastructure currently exists, there should be no new impact to the marine mammals listed
above.
Wetlands and other protected areas
Being an offshore project there should be no wetlands impact.
Archaeological and historical resources
The project site is a brownfield location at sea so no archaeological and historical impacts are
anticipated.
Land development constraints
The owner of the oil platforms, Hilcorp, is supportive of this study effort and is cooperating and
assisting with the study. At this time, we see no issue with the availability of the site or land
development constraints.
Telecommunications interference
No telecommunication interference analysis has been conducted to-date.
Aviation considerations
No aviation analysis has been conducted to date. As part of this work scope, a preliminary FAA
screening would be completed.
Visual, aesthetics impacts
No visual or aesthetic analysis has been conducted to-date, but the site is offshore on an existing
oil platform(s).
5.4 Technical Feasibility of Proposed Energy System
In this section you will describe and give details of the existing and proposed systems. The
information for existing system will be used as the baseline the proposal is compared to and also
used to make sure that proposed system can be integrated.
Only complete sections applicable to your proposal. If your proposal only generates electricity, you
can remove the sections for thermal (heat) generation.
5.4.1 Basic Operation of Existing Energy System
Describe the basic operation of the existing energy system including description of control system;
spinning reserve needs and variability in generation (any high loads brought on quickly); and
current voltage, frequency, and outage issues across system. See the “Understanding the Existing
System” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 20 of 35 10/04/2022
AEEC owns and operates three plants that are fueled by natural gas. The Nikiski Plant is an 80
MW baseload generating plant fueled by natural gas and recovered heat. HEA has two backup
generating plants: the Soldotna Plant, a 48 MW generating plant; and the Bernice Lake Plant, a 73
MW generating plant that are used for backup, peaking, and reserve capacity. Additionally, AEEC
has access to 14 MW of purchased power capacity at the State’s Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
facility.
5.4.2.1 Existing Power Generation Units
Include for each unit include resource/fuel, make/model, design capacity (kW), minimum
operational load (kW), RPM, electronic/mechanical fuel injection, make/model of genset
controllers, hours on genset
Unit 1: Nikiski Combined Cycle Plant: Natural Gas/ Steam, CT GE Frame 6B Combustion
Turbine, 40-MW ST GE SC2-22, HRSG Deltak Dino 4128 Heat Recovery Steam Generator,
40-MW, NCC design capacity 80 MW, NCC minimum operational load 20 MW, CT RPM
5105, ST RPM 3600, Emerson Ovation DCS
Unit 2: Soldotna Combustion Turbine Plant: Natural Gas, GE LM6000 Combustion Turbine
Generator, design capacity 48 MW, minimum operational load 3 MW, RPM 3600, Emerson
Ovation DCS
Unit 3: Bernice Lake Combustion Turbine Plant: Natural Gas, GE Frame 5 Combustion
Turbine, design capacity 19 MW, design capacity 27 MW, design capacity 27 MW, minimum
operational load 3 MW, minimum operational load 6 MW, minimum operational load 6 MW,
RPM 3600, Emerson Ovation DCS
Unit 4: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Hydro), Fuji generators, Andritz hydro runners,
design capacity 64 MW per unit (HEA 14 MW share), no minimum operational load, RPM
300, Emerson Ovation DCS
Unit 5:
Unit 6:
5.4.2.2 Existing Distribution System
Describe the basic elements of the distribution system. Include the capacity of the step-up
transformer at the powerhouse, the distribution voltage(s) across the community, any transmission
voltages, and other elements that will be affected by the proposed project.
The HEA system has a total of 2,499 miles of energized line that distributes power to 35,865 meters
in a 3,166 square-mile service area on the Kenai Peninsula.
At 30 MW, it is likely that this project will need to tie into the transmission system at transmission
voltages not distribution lines and voltages. One of the advantages of this proposed site is its
proximity to the Bernice Lake Substation with access to a ringed transmission system. As part of the
Construction and Final Design stage of the Project, a complete Interconnection Impact Study would
be completed.
5.4.2 Existing Energy Generation Infrastructure and Production
In the following tables, only fill in areas below applicable to your project. You can remove extra
tables. If you have the data below in other formats, you can attach them to the application (see
Section 11).
Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) If yes estimated
annual displaced heating fuel (gallons)
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 21 of 35 10/04/2022
5.4.2.3 Existing Thermal Generation Units (if applicable to your project)
Generation
unit
Resource/
Fuel type
Design
capacity
(MMBtu/hr)
Make Model Average
annual
efficiency
Year
Installed
Hours
Nikiski
Combined
Cycle Plant
Natural
Gas/Steam
CT 40 MW,
ST 40 MW CT
GE, ST
GE
HRSG
Deltak
CT frame
6B
Combustion
Turbine, ST
SC2-22,
HRSG Dino
4128 Heat
Recovery
Steam
Generator
CT 35-
42%
NCC
60%
CT
1986,
HRSG
2001,
ST 2014
CT
168,983
Hours (as
Of EOY
2019)
Soldotna
Combustion
Turbine
Plant
Natural
Gas
CT 48 MW CT GE CT LM6000
Combustion
Turbine
Generator
Peak CT
2014
CT
13,326
Hours
(as of
EOY
2019)
Bernice
Lake
Combustion
Turbine
Plant
Natural
Gas
Soldotna
Combustion
Turbine
Plant
CT GE CT Frame 5
Combustion
Turbine
Peak CT
1971,
CT
1978,
CT
1981
5.4.2.5 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Existing System)
Use most recent year. Replace the section (Type 1), (Type 2), and (Type 3) with generation
sources
Month Generation
Nikiski
Combined
Cycle Plant
(kWh)
Generation
Soldotna
Combustion
Turbine
Plant
(kWh)
Generation
Bernice
Lake
Combustion
Plant
(kWh)
Fuel
Consumption
(Diesel-
Gallons)
Fuel
Consumption
Natural Gas
(MCF)
Peak
Load
MWh
Minimum
Load
5.4.2.4 O&M and
replacement
costs for
existing
units
Power Generation
i. Annual O&M
cost for labor
AEEC does not track labor &
non-labor separately so O&M cost are below. This
excludes natural gas costs.
ii. Annual O&M
cost for non-labor
$7,975,397
iii. Replacement
schedule and
cost for existing
units
NCC retirement 2043,
SCT retirement 2054,
BCT retirement 2034
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 22 of 35 10/04/2022
January 41,899,405 2,097 1,256 2306 368,042 1,553 1,319
February 37,527,357
109,052 1,526 415 334,878 1,563 1,351
March 39,406,815 1,000,229 203,136 2601 365,365 1,572 1,323
April 35,481,301 2,767 151,421 16 319,225 1,456 1,201
May 17,186,990 13,800,750 344,021 9 305,346 1,303 1,182
June 26,701,127 4,402,566 200,985 1036 292,899 1,288 1,071
July 32,859,596 0 3 1182 298,043 1,386 1,209
August 32,356,522 14,203 1,764 44 296,783 1,388 1,044
September 20,007,288 10,537,928 321,433 453 286,838 1,443 1,182
October 39,997,133 2,714,565 10,067 15 392,830 1,437 1,277
November 42,267,368 18,194 2,385 1974 380,941 1,683 1,348
December 41,720,850 685,731 1,376 8904 380,057 1,810 1,479
Total 407,501,750 33,288,083 1,239373 18955 4,021,248
5.4.2.6 Annual Heating Fuel Consumption (Existing System)
Use most recent year. Include only if your project affects the recovered heat off the diesel
genset or will include electric heat loads. Only include heat loads affected by the project.
Month Diesel
(Gallons)
Electricity Propane
(Gallons)
Coal
(Tons)
Wood
(Cords,
green tons,
dry tons)
Other
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
5.4.3 Future Trends
Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community, or whatever will be affected by the
project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and provide year by
year forecasts. As appropriate, include expected changes to energy demand, peak load, seasonal
variations, etc. that will affect the project.
HEA has 25,077 member-owners and provides power to 35,865 meters located throughout
the Kenai Peninsula. HEA sold 452 million kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2020. HEA’S latest
published Equity Management Plan indicates a 1% per year growth rate over the next 15 years but
actual results indicate flat to a slight decline in load due to member efficiency and conservation
efforts. A significant portion of that decline was the shuttering of the LNG and fertilizer-production
facilities on our systems after the rising price of natural gas made them uneconomic.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 23 of 35 10/04/2022
Predicting the future is difficult but HEA is hopeful that the adoption of electric vehicles along with
other beneficial electrification technologies will result in a return to a 1% per year load growth for the
life of this project.
Additionally, HEA is interconnected to a regional Alaskan grid known as the “Railbelt” via a three
phase, 115 kV transmission line. The Railbelt is generally defined as the service areas of five
regulated public utilities: Chugach Electric Association (Chugach), Golden Valley Electric
Association (GVEA), HEA, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), and the City of Seward Electric
System (SES). This region grid covers a significant area of the state and contains the majority of the
state’s population and economic activity; it extends from Homer to Fairbanks and includes areas
such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. HEA can and has regularly
provided power to Alaskan residents from Anchorage to Fairbanks via wholesale and economy
energy sales to the other four interconnected electric utilities.
5.4.4 Proposed System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
• The total proposed capacity and a description of how the capacity was determined
• Integration plan, including upgrades needed to existing system(s) to integrate renewable
energy system: Include a description of the controls, storage, secondary loads, distribution
upgrades that will be included in the project
• Civil infrastructure that will be completed as part of the project—buildings, roads, etc.
• Include what backup and/or supplemental system will be in place
See the “Proposed System Design” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional
guidance.
The technology to be used is the modern offshore wind energy turbine, an emission-free
technology for generating electricity. AEEC has not selected a turbine at this point. As a reasonable
proxy at this initial stage a 12 MW GE Haliade-X was selected. GE is a world leader in the industry.
GE turbines are one of the most widely used wind turbine in the United States and is part of a fleet
of more than 62 GW of installed capacity. The 12 MW GE Haliade-X turbine has a total height of up
to 260 meters, a 220 meter rotor diameter and a capacity factor of 63%.
With four oil platforms available this could provide up to 48 MW of installed capacity. Given the
regional electric demand, and interconnection capacity, the optimum installed wind capacity would
be approximately 30 MW. The energy modeling effort associated with scope of work described in
Section 2.5 of this grant application will model the effects of 24 MW, 36 MW and 48 MW of installed
on the HEA system. The project will be integrated to the regional electric grid through the existing
Bernice Lake or Nikiski Substation, owned by HEA. This will permit delivery of electricity to the bulk
power system.
Since the project will be installed on existing oil platform infrastructure at sea, no additional civil
infrastructure is anticipated for this project.
The wind generation will be backed up by HEA’s other generation assets and our BESS.
5.4.4.1 Proposed Power Generation Units
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 24 of 35 10/04/2022
Unit # Resource/
Fuel type
Design
capacity
(kW)
Make Model Expected
capacity
factor
Expected
life
(years)
Expected
Availability
3 Wind 36,000 GE 12 MW GE
Haliade-X
63 25 94.6%
5.4.4.2 Proposed Thermal Generation Units (if applicable)
Generation
unit
Resource/
Fuel type
Design
capacity
(MMBtu/hr)
Make Model Expected
Average
annual
efficiency
Expected
life
5.4.5 Basic Operation of Proposed Energy System
• To the best extent possible, describe how the proposed energy system will operate: When will
the system operate, how will the system integrate with the existing system, how will the
control systems be used, etc.
• When and how will the backup system(s) be expected to be used
See the “Proposed System Design” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional
guidance.
Because wind is a zero-cost fuel, wind projects generally operate whenever the wind is blowing. The
only times the project would need to be curtailed would be if the load on the system was such that
the energy produced by the wind farm was too much for the system and the BESS to handle. HEA
is experienced with integrating renewable hydro power into their system and is committed to
integrating wind into their system as well. HEA recently installed a battery energy storage system
(BESS), partially to prepare their electric system to handle the intermittent nature of wind generation.
Sized at 46.5 MW, the BESS has the ability to inject into (or absorb from) the system more power
than the proposed wind facility could generate, Hence, it can immediately replace power in periods
when wind speed and power production decrease. Conversely, should wind output suddenly
increase beyond the turn-down ratio or ramp rate of other combustion or hydro generation assets,
the BESS can be charged during those periods and largely avoid curtailment of the wind energy.
With 93 MWh of energy storage capacity, the BESS could theoretically store (or stand in for) 3 hours
of wind production from the proposed project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 25 of 35 10/04/2022
Wind data from other wind resource reconnaissance studies conducted on the Kenai Peninsula
predicted greater energy production in winter months which matches HEA’s seasonal load profile as
the lower average wind speeds in summer also match HEA’s lower system loads in summer and
may provide a more suitable window for tower erection and nacelle and blade lifting and installation
during summer months. Studies and measurements will be done to study the hourly and sub-hourly
production ramp rates to determine what is necessary to integrate this project into HEA’s system
while maintaining consistent power for member needs.
5.4.3.1 Expected Capacity
Factor
63%
As stated above, AEEC has not selected a turbine at this point. As a reasonable proxy at this initial
stage three 12 MW GE Haliade-X were selected. The published Capacity Factor for the 12 MW GE
Haliade-X wind turbine is 63% for An IB IEC Wind Class.
5.4.5.2 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Proposed System)
Month Generation
(Proposed
System)
(kWh)
Generation
(Type 2)
(kWh)
Generation
(Type 3)
(kWh)
Fuel
Consumption
(Diesel-
Gallons)
Fuel
Consumption
[Other]
Secondary
load
(kWh)
Storage
(kWh)
January 20,802,221
February 18,185,252
March 18,425,588
April 14,820,581
May 13,405,283
June 12,524,059
July 12,337,132
August 12,230,318
September 15,007,506
October 17,090,400
November 19,787,478
December 20,268,146
Total 194,883,963
5.4.5.3 Annual Heating Fuel Consumption (Proposed System)
Month Diesel
(Gallons)
Electricity Propane
(Gallons)
Coal
(Tons)
Wood
(Cords,
green tons,
dry tons)
Other
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 26 of 35 10/04/2022
September
October
November
December
Total
5.4.6 Proposed System Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed renewable
energy projects will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel
generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for
periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M.
Option 1: Diesel generation ON
For projects that do not result in shutting down
diesel generation there is assumed to be no
impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate
the estimated annual O&M cost associated with
the proposed renewable project.
$
Option 2: Diesel generation OFF
For projects that will result in shutting down
diesel generation please estimate:
1. Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off
diesel generation
2. Estimated hours that diesel generation
will be off per year.
3. Annual O&M costs associated with the
proposed renewable project.
1. $
2. Hour’s diesel OFF/year:
3. $600,000 annual estimate
5.4.7 Fuel Costs
Estimate annual costs for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system (Year 1 of
operation)
Diesel
(Gallons)
Electricity Propane
(Gallons)
Coal
(Tons)
Wood
Other
Unit cost
($)
Annual
Units
Total
Annual
cost ($)
5.5 Performance and O&M Reporting
For construction projects only
5.5.1 Metering Equipment
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be
used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request
for Applications.
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 27 of 35 10/04/2022
5.5.2 O&M reporting
Please provide a short narrative about the methods that will be used to gather and store reliable
operations and maintenance data, including costs, to comply with the operations reporting
requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications
N/A
SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS
6.1 Economic Feasibility
6.1.1 Economic Benefit
Annual Lifetime
Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power
Generation (gallons)
Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat
(gallons)
Total Fuel displaced (gallons)
Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power
Generation ($)
Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat ($)
Anticipated Power Generation O&M Cost
Savings
Anticipated Thermal Generation O&M Cost
Savings
Total Other costs savings (taxes, insurance,
etc.)
Total Fuel, O&M, and Other Cost Savings $18,050,153
6.1.2 Economic Benefit
Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings and other economic
benefits, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. Note that additional revenue
sources (such as tax credits or green tags) to pay for operations and/or financing, will not be
included as economic benefits of the project.
Where appropriate, describe the anticipated energy cost in the community, or whatever will be
affected by the project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and
provide year-by-year forecasts
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 28 of 35 10/04/2022
The economic model used by AEA is available at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-
Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy-Fund/2022-REF-Application. This economic model may be
used by applicants but is not required. The final benefit/cost ratio used will be derived from the
AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants. If used, please submit the model with
the application.
In addition to a lower cost of energy arising from HEA’s avoided cost for natural gas, this wind project
allows HEA to diversify their energy sources and therefore be less sensitive to increasing natural-
gas prices and less vulnerable to gas availability issues.
To the extent that HEA reduces their gas consumption, the life of finite gas resources in Cook Inlet
is extended for all users in the region and seasonal gas availability issues are diminished. Likewise,
the availability of sustainable power generated onboard the platforms will reduce Hilcorp's
consumption of natural gas required to fuel routine operations. This fuel system conversion will make
more natural gas available to the market and extend the productive life of all gas fields in the inlet.
If financed by HEA, the debt service and depreciation costs would be nearly constant in 2026/2027
dollars and therefore decreasing, in real dollars, throughout the project projected 25-year life
meaning that in addition to an initial downward pressure on consumer rates, the project’s output
would continue to resist the inflationary pressure of HEA’s combustion assets.
6.1.3 Economic Risks
Discuss potential issues that could make the project uneconomic to operate and how the project
team will address the issues. Factors may include:
• Low prices for diesel and/or heating oil
• Other projects developed in community
• Reductions in expected energy demand: Is there a risk of an insufficient market for energy
produced over the life of the project.
• Deferred and/or inadequate facility maintenance
• Other factors
Logistical, supply-chain and tax policy risks are detailed in the table below:
Risk Importance Mitigation Strategy
Unexpected increase in turbine
component or delivery costs
High Early coordination with turbine vendors to
protect against price volatility
Labor shortages for construction or
operations phases
Medium Establish a labor resource plan in advance of
construction activities
Foreign exchange risk with
European or Asian based turbine
manufacturers
Low Explore domestic content options
Lack of federal tax incentive
extension
Low Vigilant monitoring of developments in
Washington
Availability of Jones Act compliant
heavy lift and transportation vessels
Medium Proactive and early discussions with vessel
contractors
6.1.4 Public Benefit for Projects with Direct Private Sector Sales
For projects that include direct sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships,
mines, etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from
the project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See Section 1.6 in
the Request for Applications for more information.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 29 of 35 10/04/2022
N/A
6.2 Other Public Benefit
Describe the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project. For the
purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered
unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased
greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category.
Some examples of other public benefits include:
• The project will result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, pipes, power lines, etc.) that can be used
for other purposes
• The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.)
• The project will solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.)
• The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the state
• The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community
This project will repurpose aging oil & gas infrastructure in the Nikiski area that has seen a
significant decline in industrial activity and employment.
The project could also act as a model for repurposing other oil platforms in the Cook Inlet and
elsewhere.
The project could help sustain the offshore oil & gas support industry in the area since it is likely
that some of the same services will be needed.
The project could provide offshore infrastructure for other renewable energy opportunities such as
tidal power development.
The offshore wind data set gathered as part of the Feasibility Phase of this project would
meaningfully add to the State’s body of knowledge for future wind projects.
A full analysis of secondary benefits will be performed as part of this Reconnaissance study.
SECTION 7 – SUSTAINABILITY
Describe your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable throughout its
economic life.
At a minimum for construction projects, a business and operations plan should be attached, and
the applicant should describe how it will be implemented. See Section 11.
7.1.1 Operation and Maintenance
Demonstrate the capacity to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed
project for its expected life
• Provide examples of success with similar or related long-term operations
• Describe the key personnel that will be available for operating and maintaining the
infrastructure.
• Describe the training plan for existing and future employees to become proficient at operating
and maintaining the proposed system.
• Describe the systems that will be used to track necessary supplies
• Describe the system will be used to ensure that scheduled maintenance is performed
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 30 of 35 10/04/2022
The facility will be remotely operated and monitored utilizing HEA’s existing SCADA infrastructure
from the existing HEA Dispatch Center, which is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a
year.
Any onsite operations and maintenance activities will be cooperatively facilitated by HEA and
Hilcorp. Where possible, existing company vehicles, tooling, and equipment would support the
maintenance of the facility.
HEA operates the Bradley Lake Hydro Facility for the State of Alaska and is experience at
operating and maintaining equipment in remote areas.
HEA would use its existing maintenance scheduling, inventory control, outage scheduling,
warehousing, and accounting procedures to coordinate and track scheduled and unscheduled
maintenance on these new assets. HEA’s existing staff would supply support services such as
accounting, HR, IT, engineering support, payroll, etc.
7.1.2 Financial Sustainability
• Describe the process used (or propose to use) to account for operational and capital costs.
• Describe how rates are determined (or will be determined). What process is required to set
rates?
• Describe how you ensure that revenue is collected.
• If you will not be selling energy, explain how you will ensure that the completed project will be
financially sustainable for its useful life.
It is anticipated that this generation asset will be owned and operated by AEEC / HEA which will
use established and existing utility accounting practices, procedures, financial systems, accounting
personnel, and outside independent audits to account for operational and capital costs.
HEA rates are set by the member-elected Board of Directors on an annual basis (and modified
each mid-year). HEA develops its annual budget to cover all its operational expenses, debt
service, fuel costs, and margins required to comply with lender’s loan covenants, HEA’s own
capital-credits policy, and provide sufficient funds for system maintenance and upgrades. Those
rates (tariffs) are then reviewed and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
As part of the existing AEEC / HEA generation fleet revenues would be collected through HEA’s
existing monthly billing process and systems.
7.1.2.1 Revenue Sources
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit
area over the life of the project. If there is expected to be multiple rates for electricity, such as a
separate rate for intermittent heat, explain what the rates will be and how they will be determined
Collect sufficient revenue to cover operational and capital costs
• What is the expected cost-based rate (as consistent with RFA requirements)
• If you expect to have multiple rate classes, such as excess electricity for heat, explain what
those rates are expected to be and how those rates account for the costs of delivering the
energy (see AEA’s white paper on excess electricity for heat).
• Annual customer revenue sufficient to cover costs
• Additional incentives (i.e., tax credits)
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 31 of 35 10/04/2022
• Additional revenue streams (i.e., green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
HEA / AEEC expects to add this environmentally friendly, beneficial, renewable-energy project to
AEEC’s generation portfolio without negatively impacting rates. This will depend on the final actual
cost of the project, any grants, direct pay tax incentives, legislative appropriations, power-
production-incentives, greenhouse-gas, and / or renewable-energy credits received and the capital
financing terms of the project.
Operational and capital costs will be covered through revenues received from the sale of power to
HEA’s members. The purchased-power rates are set by HEA’s member elected Board of Directors
and reviewed and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
Since HEA is a not-for-profit entity, no rate of return is incorporated into the rates that HEA charges
its members. HEA provides power at cost plus an allowed RCA specified operational margin. As
mentioned above it is HEA’s hope that this project will not increase HEA’s current rates
(https://www.homerelectric.com/member-services/my-bill/rates/) but will provide a downward
pressure on rates upon commissioning and into the future.
7.1.2.2 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range (consistent with the
Section 3.16 of the RFA)
Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price
range. Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project. Include letters of support
or power purchase agreement from identified customers.
It is anticipated that this generation asset will be owned and operated by AEEC / HEA which are
RCA certificated utilities, no power purchase / sales agreement will be needed. The generation will
be incorporated into AEEC’s existing generation portfolio that provides power to HEA members.
Since HEA is a not-for-profit entity, no rate of return is incorporated into the rates that HEA charges
its members. HEA provides power at cost plus an allowed, RCA-specified operational margin.
As noted in Section 2.5, part of the scope of work is to analyze possible ownership scenarios. If it
is more advantageous and economically beneficial to AEEC for an IPP to own and operate this
facility, HEA/AEEC would work with the appropriate IPP to develop power purchase / power sales
agreements.
SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS
8.1 Project Preparation
Describe what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Specifically address your progress towards or readiness to begin, at a minimum, the following:
• The phase(s) that must be completed prior to beginning the phase(s) proposed in this application
• The phase(s) proposed in this application
• Obtaining all necessary permits
• Securing land access and use for the project
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 32 of 35 10/04/2022
• Procuring all necessary equipment and materials
Refer to the RFA and/or the pre-requisite checklists for the required activities and deliverables for
each project phase. Please describe below and attach any required documentation.
HEA/AEEC has existing RFPs for similar work that can be used as templates to quickly and
efficiently specify and solicit the equipment and resources required to compete this
Reconnaissance Study and Resource Assessment. AEEC will work with Hilcorp to be ready to
quickly move if a grant is awarded.
8.2 Demand- or Supply-Side Efficiency Upgrades
If you have invested in energy efficiency projects that will have a positive impact on the proposed
project, and have chosen to not include them in the economic analysis, applicants should provide
as much documentation as possible including:
1. Explain how it will improve the success of the RE project
2. Energy efficiency pre and post audit reports, or other appropriate analysis,
3. Invoices for work completed,
4. Photos of the work performed, and/or
5. Any other available verification such as scopes of work, technical drawings, and payroll for
work completed internally.
HEA/AEEC has installed the largest Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Alaska. It has been
tested, found able to exceed the maximum discharge rates specified in procurement contracts, and
will allow more flexible, efficient operation of our current thermal and future renewable assets.
With capacities of 46.5 MW and 93 MWh, this $41M project was untaken to give HEA the ability to
bring large intermittent projects online without incurring the costs of rapidly cycling thermal units
and without adversely affecting the Railbelt grid.
SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Describe local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters,
resolutions, or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from
this project. Provide letters of support, memorandum of understandings, cooperative agreements
between the applicant, the utility, local government, and project partners. The documentation of
support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of October 4, 2022. Please note that letters
of support from legislators will not count toward this criterion.
Included as Attachment B are letters of support from the following:
Erin McKittrick, the Board President, Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative.
Kurtis Gibson, Vice President, Hilcorp Alaska, LLC.
Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District.
Tony Izzo, CEO, Matanuska Electric Association.
Brentwood Higman, Ground Truth Alaska.
SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS
Identify other grants that may have been previously awarded to the Applicant by AEA for this or
any other project. Describe the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous
grants including project deadlines, reporting, and information requests.
Homer Electric Association through its wholly own subsidiary Kenai Hydro, completed some Phase
I Reconnaissance studies, which were completed in January 2009 and were partially funded by
a $100,000 AEA grant. Kenai Hydro received partial funding for Phase II activities in the amount of
$2,000,000 through two separate awards of $816,000 and of $1,184,400 through AEA Renewable
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 33 of 35 10/04/2022
Energy Grants.
Kenai Hydro complied with all terms of the grant agreements from previously award grants, which
included timely quarterly progress reports, delivery of agreed upon deliverables, and closeout of
the grants.
HEA/AEEC was the recipient of four Phase II wind resource assessment feasibility grants and a
Phase III final design grant for a landfill gas project in the AEA REF Round 14 solicitation. The
finalized AEA grant agreements for the wind projects were received on 10/31/2022 and the
finalized landfill gas grant agreement was received on 11/14/2022 so we are just getting started on
the administration and compliance requirements of those grants but AEEC has the processes in
place to ensure compliance with these grants.
SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES
In the space below, please provide a list of additional documents attached to support completion of
prior phases.
NA
SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
In the space below, please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration.
Attachment A: Resumes, submitted as a separate file
Attachment B: Letters of Support
Attachment C: Board Resolution & Authorization
Attachment D: BESS Informational Flyer
Attachment E: Hilcorp Middle Ground Shoal Platform Vicinity Map
SECTION 13 – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM
Community/Grantee Name:
Regular Election is held:
Date:
Authorized Grant Signer(s):
Printed Name Title Term Signature
I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents:
(Must be authorized by the highest-ranking organization/community/municipal official)
Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc.
Annually June
Bradley P. Janorschke General Manager N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 34 of 35 10/04/2022
Printed Name Title Term Signature
Grantee Contact Information:
Mailing Address:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Federal Tax ID #:
Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information.
SECTION 14 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Contact information and resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, Project Accountant(s),
key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1, 3.4 and
3.6.
Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic
documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site.
B. Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 9.
C. For projects involving heat: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel
for the building(s) impacted by the project.
D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s governing
body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
• Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match
amounts indicated in the application.
• Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the
organization to the obligations under the grant.
• Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
• Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws
including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
Bradley P. Janorschke General Manager N/A
3977 Lake Street, Homer, AK 99603
907-235-8551
907-235-3323
bjanorschke@homerelectric.com
92-0177236
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 35 of 35 10/04/2022
E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFA
Section 1.7.
F. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and
correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all
federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and that they
can indeed commit the entity to these obligations.
Print Name
Signature
Title
Date
AEEC Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project REF Round 15 Application
Attachment A: Resumes (attached as a separate file)
AEEC Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project REF Round 15 Application
Attachment B: Letters of Local Support
To whom it may concern,
Homer Electric Association (HEA) is a member-owned electric cooperative serving customers
on the Kenai Peninsula, governed by a nine-member board. As a democratically elected body,
our board represents the interests of HEA’s 25,000 members, and speaks on their behalf.
In our commitment to providing affordable and reliable electricity, we regularly review the
cooperative’s finances, analyzing cost drivers, risks, and opportunities. Natural gas costs are
responsible for around a third of members’ bills. This gas is only available from a single source,
and at the time of our last contract negotiation, only from a single provider. That provider has
stated that there is a strong likelihood of gas shortages in the future, and encouraged its
customers to reduce dependence on its natural gas. HEA’s gas contract will be the first to expire
in the Railbelt, in early 2024, making the need to reduce gas dependence particularly urgent for
our members. The board has determined that this reliance on a single energy source is a
substantial risk to our members. We have created an ambitious renewable energy policy to
address this issue, seeking 50% renewable energy by 2025.
We have determined that incorporating diverse renewable sources of energy into our energy
portfolio will benefit HEA members, reduce our vulnerability to price or supply shocks, and
reduce upward pressure on electric rates.
For the past several years, HEA has been assessing wind resources, collaborating with IPPs
and other Railbelt utilities to assess the technical and economic feasibility at numerous sites. To
our knowledge no measurement of offshore wind has been performed in South Central Alaska
but desktop-level reconnaissance work is promising. This project could identify a previously
undocumented resource within a few miles of the existing grid. Offshore wind is often stronger
and more consistent than onshore wind, but with higher capital costs. The existing oil platform
infrastructure could substantially reduce these capital costs, while providing HEA with a
motivated partner eager to find a use for that infrastructure -- which would otherwise be
expensive to decommission..
This project could provide higher-capacity-factor wind, a new use for existing infrastructure,
downward pressure on electric rates, and reduced vulnerability to natural gas supply or price
shocks. I encourage AEA to fund this request towards wind resource assessment at existing
Cook Inlet oil platforms.
Sincerely,
Erin McKittrick
Board President, Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative
(Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative is a generation and transmission cooperative with HEA
as its sole member, sharing a governing body. AEEC is responsible for generating and
providing all the energy to HEA)
To Whom it may Concern:
I am a resident of the Kenai Peninsula, a Homer Electric Association ratepayer, and executive
director of Ground Truth Alaska, a local science education nonprofit. I'd like to express my
support for HEA's proposed study of two possible renewable energy projects in Cook Inlet:
Geothermal at Augustine Volcano, and wind generation on oil platforms in upper Cook Inlet.
The need for diverse renewable energy on our electric grid is urgent. Currently we rely almost
exclusively on natural gas, but we need to move away from this as quickly as possible. We need
this transition first because we have no other choice - the natural gas supply in Cook Inlet is
dwindling, and we are very likely to face increasingly dire shortages in the coming years and
decades. Additionally, we have to do our part in the face of a climate emergency - both the CO2
emissions from combustion, and fugitive methane that escapes from our aged and thinly spread
gas lines and distribution.
Wind generators atop abandoned platforms seems worth studying - available estimates of wind
energy show upper Cook Inlet as having excellent wind potential. The details of installation,
maintenance, transmission, and generation variability will all bear on whether this is a practical
source of electricity - exactly the analysis that the proposed study will attempt.
Geothermal production at Augustine Volcano is in some ways more speculative - the
transmission distances are long, and geologic hazards may doom a project here. However, this
very active volcano could be a major source of electricity, providing baseload or even balancing
generation to complement variable renewables such as wind and solar. The devil is in the
details, but I strongly support a careful study of the potential before we rule out this potentially
beneficial development. I would suggest that some consideration be given to combining
geothermal energy production at Augustine with offshore wind near Anchor Point, since they
might benefit from the same transmission infrastructure, and the geography appears favorable
for offshore wind in this area.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bretwood Higman, Executive Director
December 2, 2022 Email: grants@akenergyauthority.org
Grants Coordinator
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Re: Support of Homer Electric Association’s REF Round 15 Grant Application
To whom it may concern:
Alaska Renewables LLC (AKR) is a privately-held company seeking to develop wind projects around
the Railbelt.
Alaska Renewables LLC strongly supports HEA's request for funding via AEA's REF 15, with a
particular interest in HEA's application to utilize existing oil platforms in Cook Inlet for the installation of
offshore wind. Feasibility work towards making sustainable use of existing stranded infrastructure,
potentially reducing the complexity of installation, and ultimately identifying cost-effective alternatives
for energy security is critical to Electric Cooperative Members. Fuel diversity will play a key role in the
future of Alaska's sustainable energy transition, to create downward pressure on rates and minimize risk
of future cost increases as natural gas becomes scarcer. Offshore wind costs have dramatically decreased
in recent years, and starting close-to-home with these large power plants makes the existing platforms an
excellent launch pad for bringing this industry to Alaska.
The resulting publicly-available met data from the platform will give, for the first time, some Cook
Inlet offshore wind data such that IPPs such as AKR as well as off-takers like the Railbelt utilities can all
compare and contrast on-shore and off-shore prospects more objectively, as well as seek system
optimization among multiple power plants.
Sincerely,
Matt Perkins
CEO
Alaska Renewables LLC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7CA93A32-71D1-48CE-96D8-72738532BEC2
AEEC Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project REF Round 15 Application
Attachment C: Board Resolution & Authorizations
Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. 3977 Lake Street Homer, Alaska 99603 (907) 235-8551
RESOLUTION 01.2022.12
GRANT FUNDING AUTHORIZATION FOR COOK INLET OIL PLATFORM
WIND PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED that Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC) hereby
authorizes the General Manager to proceed with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) application
process to seek grant funding for the Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind project.
CERTIFICATION
I, Jim Duffield, do hereby certify that I am the Secretary/Treasurer of Alaska Electric &
Energy Cooperative, Inc., and that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a meeting of the
Directors of Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc., held on November 15, 2022, at which
meeting a quorum was present.
Jim Duffield, Secretary/Treasurer
Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. 3977 Lake Street Homer, Alaska 99603 (907) 235-8551
CERTIFICATE OF GENERAL MANAGER OF ALASKA ELECTRIC AND ENERGY
COOPERATIVE, INC. (AEEC) IN SUPPORT OF COOK INLET OIL PLATFORM
WIND PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION
I am the General Manager of Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (the
“Cooperative”). I am authorized by the Board of Directors of the Cooperative pursuant to Board
Policy 203, and by formal action of the Board of Directors of the Cooperative at a meeting held
on November 15, 2022 to certify as follows:
1. The Board of Directors of the Cooperative has authorized the application for project
funding and agrees that the Cooperative will honor the match amounts contained in the
application to which this certificate is attached.
2. The Cooperative is in good standing with respect to any existing credit and federal tax
obligations.
Signed and dated in Homer, Alaska, on November 15, 2022.
____________________________________
Bradley P. Janorschke
General Manager
AEEC Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project REF Round 15 Application
Attachment D: BESS Informational Flyer
Battery ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM
potential savings
Fuel Reduction: 477,074 MCF/yr
CO2 Total Reduction: 28,320.35 tons/yr
CO2 Reduction/Day: 77.59 tons/day
Fuel Efficiency Increase: 11.49%
(*Based on actual vs. modeled for January - June 2019)
For more details
contact:
Brad Janorschke
HEA General
Manager
(907) 283-2312
bjanorschke@
homerelectric.com
The BESS Project is
a 93 megawatt hour
(MWh) energy storage
system sited at our
Soldotna, Alaska
Facilities as depicted
above.
BESS will be in service
in late 2021 and has a
projected cost of $38
million.
BESS site
Regulation, spinning reserve
and emergency reserve.
Integration of renewables
(wind, solar, tidal).
Islanding or Bradley Lake
outages no longer require a second thermal unit.
Potential to sell Spin/Regulation.
Provides system stability by reducing frequency swings
and load sheds.
Helps to stabilize energy
costs during islanding events.
benefitsBATTERY SUPPLY
37 battery units with integrated chargers and
inverters, control system and monitoring.
93 mwh storage
46 mw for 2 hours
delivered power
soldotna combustion
turbine facility
soldotna substation
Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc.
AEEC Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project REF Round 15 Application
Attachment E: Hilcorp Middle Ground Shoal Platform Vicinity Map
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
East Foreland
BakerLAT: 60.828673LON: -151.48589NAD 1983T09N-R13W SEC. 31
DillonLAT: 60.734892LON: -151.514971NAD 1983T08N-R13W SEC. 35
A
C
DILLON
CIFO
OSK Heliport
MGSOnshore EAST FORELAND
Platform ALAT: 60.795223LON: -151.497796NAD 1983T08N-R13W SEC. 11
Platform CLAT: 60.763413LON: -151.504296NAD 1983T08N-R13W SEC. 23
Outfall LocationLAT: 60.738646LON: -151.353565NAD 1983Platform C to Platform APlatform A to MGS Onshore
WEST MCARTHURRIVER UNIT
TRADINGBAY UNIT
REDOUBT UNIT
KITCHENLIGHTS UNIT
MIDDLE GROUNDSHOAL UNIT
16 15 1417
3
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15
22
19 20 21 22 23
27
30 29 28 27 26
34
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
10
9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
14
35
34
201924
2930252627
4561
10
1415
32313635
16171813
2423
1718131415
2221201924232221201924232221
25
262728293025262728282930252627
363534333433323136353433323136
23456123234561
23
11109871211109871211109871211
18131415161718131415161718131415
25262728
2423222120192423222120192423
29302526272829302526
32313635
34
3332313635
5612345612
871211
871211109S009N014WS009N013WS009N014WS008N014WS009N013WS009N012WS009N013WS008N014WS009N013WS008N013W S009N012WS009N011WS009N012WS008N013W S009N012WS008N012W S009N011WS008N011W
S008N014WS008N013WS008N014WS007N014W S008N013WS008N012WS008N013WS007N013W S008N012WS008N011WS008N012WS007N012W S008N011WS007N011W
S007N014WS007N013WS007N013WS007N012WS007N012WS007N011WK E N A I S P U R H W Y
E03,800 7,600 Feet
0 725 1,450 Meters
Map Date: 11/16/2022
Hilcorp Middle Ground Shoal PlatformsBaker, Platforms A, C and DillonHEA Wind Assessment
Legend
Existing Pipelines "Offshore Platform
"Hilcorp Onshore Facilities
Parcels
Oil and Gas Units
"
""
"
"
"
"
""""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
!
Nikolai Creek
Bishop CreekChuitna River
M
id
dle River
Tyonek Creek
Big River
Chuitna River
M
c
A
rth
ur River
Kustatan River Swans
on Ri
verKenai
Nikiski
Tyonek
Soldotna
KALOAJCT.
EFFACILITY
DRIFT RIVER
CIFO
TBPF
KPL JCT
GPTF
Ladd Landing
Moose Point Pad
MGS
!
!
!
!!
Alaska
CanadaNome
Juneau
Fairbanks
Anchorage
Utqiagvik (Barrow)
Area of Detail
Document Path: O:\Alaska\GIS\cook_inlet\infrastructure\pipelines\MGS\mxds\CookInlet_Pipelines_MGS_AToShore_PipelineReplacement_TWUPA_Fig1_11x17L_v01.mxd