Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APPLICATION - GVEA AEA REF Round 15 Grant Application
December 5, 2022 Grants Coordinator Email: grants@akenergyauthority.org Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 To Whom It May Concern: GVEA, an experienced leader in the development of Alaska renewable energy projects, understands the long-term economic benefits of maximizing the upfront accuracy of renewable energy site assessments. To that end, we request additional financial support to deploy remote sensing LIDAR equipment which will enhance the successful results obtained from the on-going deployment of meteorological towers in Interior Alaska. LIDAR measurements of higher altitude wind speeds, when paired with met towers, are expected to increase the accuracy of the final energy assessment, resulting in lower-cost financing for a utility scale wind power project sufficient in size to contribute to the energy needs of the overall Railbelt. The LIDAR equipment will initially be installed to support the Murphy Dome wind energy assessment. When this assessment is complete, the LIDAR equipment will become available for use at other Interior Alaska assessment sites funded under the existing REF grant and at future locations jointly planned by the Railbelt utilities. In addition to supporting this supplemental grant effort with internal staff and resources, GVEA is committed to providing a one third match of $125,000 towards purchase of the LIDAR equipment and contractor services. As President and CEO, I hereby authorize Dan Bishop, Director of Engineering Services, to commit GVEA to the obligations under the grant; and certify GVEA is in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. I also appoint Keith Palchikoff as the point of contact and project manager for this grant application. As we are doing with the measurement data from the existing REF grant funded meteorological towers near Murphy Dome, GVEA will ensure the supplemental LIDAR data and subsequent analysis will be available to the public. We appreciate the opportunity from Alaska Energy Authority to apply for this grant and look forward to your response. Sincerely, John Burns President and CEO Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 1 of 39 10/04/2022 Application Forms and Instructions This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for Round 15 of the Renewable Energy Fund (REF). A separate application form is available for projects with a primary purpose of producing heat (see Request for Applications (RFA) Section 1.5). This is the standard form for all other projects, including projects that will produce heat and electricity. An electronic version of the RFA and both application forms is available online at: https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy-Fund/2022- REF-Application. What follows are some basic information and instructions for this application: If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. Multiple phases (e.g. final design, construction) for the same project may be submitted as one application. If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones and grant budget for each phase of the project (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2.2). In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 Alaska Administrative Code (ACC) 107.605(1). If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, reports, conceptual or final designs, models, photos, maps, proof of site control, utility agreements, business and operation plans, power sale agreements, relevant data sets, and other materials. Please provide a list of supporting documents in Section 11 of this application and attach the documents to your application. If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. Please provide a list of additional information; including any web links, in Section 12 of this application and attach the documents to your application. For guidance on application best practices please refer to the resource-specific Best Practices Checklists; links to the checklists can be found in the appendices list at the end of the accompanying REF Round 15 RFA. In the Sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient space for the information, or attach additional sheets if needed. If you need assistance with your application, please contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 2 of 39 10/04/2022 REMINDER: AEA is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted to AEA may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. Please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by AEA. If you want information to be kept confidential the applicant must: o Request the information be kept confidential. o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their application. o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential, it will be treated as a public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 3 of 39 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) Golden Valley Electric Association Tax ID # 92-0014712 Date of last financial statement audit: December 31, 2021 Mailing Address: Physical Address: 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907 451 5640 907 458 6365 kepalchikoff@gvea.com 1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Coordinator Name: Title: Keith Palchikoff Grid Modernization Manager Mailing Address: 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907 451 5640 907 458 6365 kepalchikoff@gvea.com 1.1.1 Applicant Signatory Authority Contact Information Name: Dan Bishop Title: Director of Engineering Services Mailing Address: 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, AK 99701 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907 451 5610 907 458 6365 drbishop@gvea.com 1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Dan Bishop 907 451 5610 907 458 6365 Drb@gvea.com Sarah Villalon 907 458-5734 907 458 6365 sjvillalon@gvea.com Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 4 of 39 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 #______, 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) Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 5 of 39 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. LIDAR Improvement to Interior Wind Energy Assessments 2.2 Project Location 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or community name. Initial LIDAR installation will be at the wind assessment underway near Murphy Dome, northwest of Fairbanks. If grant funding is sufficient, LIDAR equipment will be relocated in 2024 to the next Interior Alaska wind assessment location funded under the REF 14 grant. The location for the redeployment in 2024 is TBD, based on results from Railbelt wide wind resource desktop study currently in progress by third party consultant. Latitude 64.946 Longitude -148.4393 The above is location of initial LIDAR equipment deployment. Refer to Attachment 9 - Murphy Dome - Shovel Creek W ind Resource Assessment Map.pdf for additional information and Google Maps link: https://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&z=12&q=64.946,-148.4393&ll=64.946,-148.4393 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. The communities that will benefit from the project are within Interior Alaska and along the Railbelt transmission corridor down to the Kenai Peninsula. Interior communities include Ester, Fox, Delta, Fairbanks, Healy, Cantwell, Nenana, Two Rivers, North Pole and Salcha. Excess energy would be exported south of the Alaska Range and benefit the Railbelt utility customers in South-Central and the Kenai Peninsula. 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 ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting ☒ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 6 of 39 10/04/2022 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 7 of 39 10/04/2022 2.4 Project Description Provide a brief, one-paragraph description of the proposed project. Funds from this project will be used to improve the outcome of Phase 2 – Feasibility and Conceptual Design of one or more proposed 100 MW wind farms. Ground based remote sensing (LIDAR) equipment will be specified, procured, installed and operated to enhance the higher altitude accuracy of wind speed measurements at meteorological towers currently installed with the REF 14 grant funding. In addition, the LIDAR measurements could fill in data gaps during periods when MET mast sensors are frozen or out of service. Figure 1 – Self-contained remote sensing trailer for wind assessments. Image courtesy of Sentrex Wind Services 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 grant will expand the scope of the existing REF 14 grant by adding observable wind speed and directional measurement data at elevations above the 60 meter height of the meteorological towers and to fill in missing data when MET mast sensors are frozen. Without physical measurements, a wind energy assessment relies on calculated / modelled estimates of conditions up through 200 meters above ground level (rotor sizes of modern utility scale wind turbines), resulting in a lower accuracy energy assessment and higher cost wind farm project financing. DNV, the consulting company guiding the GVEA assessments, will specify a self-contained and re- usable LIDAR trailer for cold weather remote wind energy assessments. These are available pre- assembled from wind assessment suppliers with integrated four-season power supplies and wireless communication capability. When installed and calibrated with the 60 meter tall MET mast installations, the resulting LIDAR measurements are accepted by financial institutions and improve the P99/P50 ratio calculated in the final energy assessment report. The P99/P50 ratio is what the banks use to size the debt on the project and establish the financing terms. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 8 of 39 10/04/2022 An alternative to LIDAR for higher altitude measurements is to install additional MET masts that are 80 meters or higher. DNV estimated this alternative approach could cost more and take longer to collect the data. Scope Summary – 1. Specify and procure a self-sufficient LIDAR unit capable of operating of the grid in a sub- arctic environment. 2. LIDAR delivery, installation and commissioning adjacent to existing met. masts near Murphy Dome in fall of 2023. 3. Two month calibration of LIDAR measurements against met. mast data. 4. One year LIDAR measurement data collection and ongoing equipment maintenance near Murphy Dome. 5. Relocate LIDAR to second wind assessment site in 2024 (after installation of met. masts) and future Railbelt sites afterwards. 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 ($) REF 14 Interior Alaska Wind Energy Resource Assessment 14029 Y $855,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 9 of 39 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 1 Equipment Specification, Procurement and Delivery Specify and procure LIDAR Equipment Apr., 2023 Oct., 2023 LIDAR equipment delivered to GVEA warehouse in Fairbanks 2 LIDAR Installation and Calibration Site 1 Install and Calibrate LIDAR equipment near Murphy Dome Oct., 2023 Dec., 2023 LIDAR commissioning and calibration report 3 LIDAR Operation Site 1 Collect LIDAR measurements at sites of three existing met. masts near Murphy Dome Dec., 2023 Oct., 2024 LIDAR measurement data 4 LIDAR Relocation, Installation and Data Collection at Additional Wind Assessment Sites (TBD based on available project funds) Transport and setup LIDAR at additional wind assessment sites (TBD based on available project funds) Oct., 2024 Oct., 2027 LIDAR data from other sites (TBD based on available project funds) Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 10 of 39 10/04/2022 3.2 Budget 3.2.1 Funding Sources Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request. Grant funds requested in this application $250,000 Cash match to be provideda $125,000 In-kind match to be provideda (GVEA will support project with internal labor and incidental costs. These are not included in grant budget) $ Energy efficiency match providedb $ Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) Includes $50,000 contingency recommended by GVEA consultant for unexpected costs of operation in remote area during winter. $375,000 The grant funds will be used solely to cover the cost of LIDAR equipment and contracted services. All other work will be covered in-kind by GVEA and not included in this application. Any cost overruns will be covered by GVEA. a 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. Unanticipated/unbudgeted costs and shortfalls in funding will be addressed through minimizing the number of relocations of the LIDAR unit. Any cost overruns will be covered by GVEA through the GVEA internal budgeting processes. 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 per assessment site - not applicable $NA Feasibility and Conceptual Design Estimated Cash $375,000 Final Design and Permitting – not applicable [Actual/Estimated] $NA Construction – not applicable [Actual/Estimated] $NA Total Project Costs (sum of above) Estimated Cash $375,000 Metering/Tracking Equipment [not included in project cost] Estimated $NA 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) [Actual/Estimated] Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 11 of 39 10/04/2022 No subsequent phases are required beyond the scope of the project. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 12 of 39 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 13 of 39 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 Equipment Procurement and Delivery Oct., 2023 $173,333 $86,667 Cash $260,000 LIDAR Installation and Calibration Site 1 Dec., 2023 $20,000 $10,000 Cash $30,000 LIDAR Operation Site 1 (includes $50,000 contingency) Oct., 2024 $56,667 $28,333 Cash $85,000 LIDAR Relocation, Installation and Data Collection at Additional Wind Assessment Sites (TBD based on available project funds) Oct., 2027 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTALS $ $ $375,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $0 $0 GVEA $0 Travel & Per Diem $0 $0 GVEA $0 Equipment $173,333 $86,667 Cash $260,000 Materials & Supplies $0 $0 GVEA $0 Contractual Services $76,667 $38,333 Cash $ Construction Services $0 $0 NA $0 Other $0 $0 NA $0 TOTALS $250,000 $125,000 $375,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 14 of 39 10/04/2022 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 15 of 39 10/04/2022 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 16 of 39 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. Costs for equipment and contract services were estimated using a recent cost estimate from DNV, the wind assessment consultant, equipment supplier and services firm overseeing the GVEA wind assessment activities. Refer to Attachment 3 – DNV Cost and Accuracy Improvement Estimate.pdf. dated December 2, 2022. Note – this cost estimate includes $50,000 contingency which for this grant application was added to the LIDAR operation task. 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? Using standard project management software and methods, project progress will be measured, documented, forecasted and reported on a quarterly or as requested basis by both GVEA and the contracted wind resource service provider (DNV). Each quarter or when requested by AEA, GVEA will provide AEA a summary report describing the progress, updating the Gantt chart, identifying issues or upcoming risks, costs versus budget and forecast / look ahead of upcoming payments. 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. Competitive procurement methods will be applied to acquisition of equipment and services. GVEA accounting department will assign a project ID number that will be used to track, aggregate, analyze and report on all projects financial activities and transactions directly related to this effort. All purchase orders and internal GVEA labor charges will be reported under this project number. All costs will be itemized and summarized in a monthly project cost summary report linked to each individual transaction. The report will show budget versus actual dollars spent and estimate upcoming expenses / payments based on updated task completion dates. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 17 of 39 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. Keith Palchikoff, GVEA Grid Modernization Manager, (907) 451-5640 or kep@gvea.com. Mr. Palchikoff will be assisted by Dan Bishop, GVEA Director of Engineering Services. Details about the project team are in Attachment 4 – Resumes of Key Project Staff 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. Kathryn Strle, GVEA Controller, (907) 451-5620, KAStrle@gvea.com 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. To complete the LIDAR work, GVEA will substantially rely on expertise and resources of DNV, the full service wind resource project support firm assisting with all phases of the GVEA wind assessments. DNV will be responsible for 3.1 Tasks 1,2,3,4. DNV has the knowledge, skills and experience to successfully deliver the LIDAR tasks. They were successful installing the three MET masts near Murphy Dome and support all phases of wind resource assessments at sites throughout North America and around the world. In addition, GVEA has a wide breadth of committed staff to support all aspects of the wind energy assessment and project feasibility analysis, including licensed professional electrical, civil and environmental engineers and specialists in land acquisition, procurement, contracting, legal reviews, surveying, permitting, mapping and CAD. GVEA has a long and reputable history Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 18 of 39 10/04/2022 developing, constructing and operating solar, wind, battery, gas turbine and coal power plants. 4.2 Local Workforce Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce. GVEA personnel supporting this project consist of professionals based out of the GVEA headquarters in Fairbanks. As needed, local Fairbanks contractors and suppliers will be trained and utilized for ongoing LIDAR support / maintenance services. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 19 of 39 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. The boundary of the in-progress Murphy Dome area wind assessment is estimated to support 108 MW wind farm. Refer to Attachment 2 – GVEA-Murphy Dome Met Campaign, prepared by an independent wind assessment consultant, which estimates the nameplate rating of a future wind farm. The additional area along the ridgelines to the southwest could support an additional 100 MW of wind turbine capacity. The resource availability is under study. The purpose of this grant work is to determine the energy capacity and average resource availability over the life of a wind farm. A previous assessment conducted at the same locations near Murphy Dome nearly 20 years ago found between 30 and 40% annual capacity factor. 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. Alternative technologies such as solar photovoltaic generation, fusion generation, tidal generation, hydroelectric generation, and small modular nuclear generation are unlikely to displace wind generation in the next few years. Wind energy is likely to be an important part of the Railbelt’s generation for the foreseeable future. 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 The LIDAR system will initially be used within the existing areas of the three MET masts installed near Murphy Dome. GVEA obtained a five year DNR land use permit for these areas. See attached. The use of the LIDAR trailer at additional locations will require modifying the DNR permit to include other locations in the vicinity. Relocating the LIDAR trailer to different geographic region will require further investigation of land ownership and permitting. This work is in progress with a third party consultant. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 20 of 39 10/04/2022 The long term land use requirements for wind plant development and operation will be separately evaluated and possibly obtained in parallel during the wind energy resource assessment grant work time period. 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. GVEA has already acquired a temporary land use permit for wind assessment activities near Murphy Dome and is working with the other Railbelt utilities and a third party consultant on permitting requirements for other locations. Refer to Attachment 1 – DNR Land Use Permit Murphy Dome Area.pdf For an eventual wind farm project, GVEA and private wind farm developers are currently working with DNR on land permitting for the proposed locations. The GVEA land use department is experienced with acquiring land for utility projects. 5.3 Project Technical & Environmental Risk 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. Due to the relatively remote locations and harsh climate, maintaining a reliable and secure LIDAR system for multiple years of data collection will require ongoing diligence and experienced personnel. According to DNV, the technical risks associated with LIDAR include: LIDAR measurements are affected by complexity of terrain and good results are not assured. The hilly ridgelines in the Murphy Dome area is complex terrain. Data modeling methods can compensate for some disagreement between the LIDAR measurements and MET tower sensors, which are considered the reference measurements. In addition to in-house experienced personnel, GVEA will leverage the expertise of DNV. This internationally recognized firm supports LIDAR installations and operation around the world, including in northern latitudes and environments similar to Alaska. The project budget includes a 15% contingency dollar amount to address unplanned logistical challenges or LIDAR equipment failure. The amount of contingency was recommended by DNV. 5.3.2 Environmental Risk Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 21 of 39 10/04/2022 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 Identify and describe other potential barriers The initial LIDAR wind measurement campaign will occur within the boundaries of the current Murphy Dome area wind assessment. The environmental risks associated with a wind assessment were addressed through the DNR permit process for the MET tower installation and post installation reviews by the FAA. The LIDAR equipment is contained within an approximately 16 ft. cargo trailer to be co-located with the existing MET towers as short distance from established roads / access routes and GVEA does not anticipate environmental risks. The environmental risks for installation of LIDAR at future sites will be addressed in a desktop study jointly commissioned by the Railbelt utilities. The study results will be available and addressed prior to relocating the LIDAR trailer. 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. The existing Railbelt transmission and generation network consists of four vertically integrated electric cooperatives and a small number of independent power producers. The four utilities serve as balancing authorities for their respective service areas. Using short term load forecasting and unit commitment software tools, the four utilities mutually agree each day to an hourly generation dispatch and transmission schedule for the following day. Unplanned deviations from the schedule are implemented as needed to maintain Railbelt and balancing area reliability. Each utility is required to have online spinning reserve to contribute during a system disturbance that results in a loss of supply. The total combined reserves are enough to recover from the loss of the largest single contingency – e.g., generator trip offline. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 22 of 39 10/04/2022 Each utility uses Automatic Generation Control (AGC) software and SCADA systems to automate real time control of voltage, frequency and energy exchanges between balancing area connection points. 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 The Railbelt generation fleet consists of many manufacturers, models, vintage, fuel sources and operating characteristics – the predominate type is fossil fuel fired gas and steam turbines with a typical nameplate size of 50 – 100 MVA and digital control systems. 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 proposed wind project size requires a voltage step-up connection to a transmission line. The Eva Creek wind farm uses a 35 kV to 138 kV step-up transformer to interconnect to the Northern Intertie transmission line. GVEA owns and operates a 138 kV and 69 kV transmission network that interconnects with South- Central over the Alaska Intertie. Project sites were selected to minimize effort and cost to interconnect a future wind plant to the GVEA transmission network. GVEA is qualified to evaluate, specify and estimate the cost of the electrical infrastructure requirements for each potential wind plant. 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 GVEA Example Gas Turbine High sulfur diesel 600 at full output GE Frame 7 44% 1972 5694 per year 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 23 of 39 10/04/2022 Refer to Economic Model in Attachment 6 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 Generati on (Type 1) (kWh) Generatio n (Type 2) (kWh) Generatio n (Type 3) (kWh) Fuel Consumptio n (Diesel- Gallons) Fuel Consumptio n [Other] Pea k Loa d Minimu m Load January February March April May June July August Septembe r October November December Total Not Applicable to the Project 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 5.4.2.4 O&M and replacement costs for existing units Power Generation Thermal Generation i. Annual O&M cost for labor ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor iii. Replacement schedule and cost for existing units Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 24 of 39 10/04/2022 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. The most recent GVEA load forecast, completed in 2020, projects a 1% load growth rate over 30 years. GVEA is completing an update to its 30-year load forecast and will account for expected growth due to adoption of electric vehicles and other types of beneficial electrification. Historical system load data compiled by all four Railbelt utilities over the past few years show a modest decrease in average hourly Railbelt loading. Overall electrification of transportation and other forms of beneficial electrification such as heat pumps are expected to significantly increase Railbelt loads. 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. To meet Railbelt carbon reduction goals, one option is the installation of 1000 MW of installed wind power. The wind resource assessments covered by REF 14 grant funds will identify multiple candidate sites to construct 100 MW wind plants. The current assessment area near Murphy Dome is expected to conservatively support a 109 MW wind farm and the adjacent ridge lines could support an additional 100 MW. Each project site will consist of an interconnect collection of modern, large capacity wind turbines with an initial estimated combined nameplate power output size target of 100 MW. The actual /optimum total capacity at each site will be determined by the assessment work and will consider size of available land and project economics guided by bank ready wind energy models with a defined level of uncertainty. Part of the study will include an initial evaluation of required upgrades to electrical and civil infrastructure. A 100,000-kW wind power plant (multiple turbines) was used for evaluation in the economic Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 25 of 39 10/04/2022 model. The capacity factor, expected life and availability are estimates based on data reported by the US Department of Energy. 5.4.4.1 Proposed Power Generation Units Unit # Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (kW) Make Model Expected capacity factor Expected life (years) Expected Availability 1 wind 100,000 TBD TBD 39% 20 98% 2 3 4 5 Below Table is Not Applicable 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 26 of 39 10/04/2022 The wind plant will interconnect with the transmission system. Grid operators will have the capability to curtail output if needed and use wind forecasting tools to produce useful short term energy production forecasts. 5.4.3.1 Expected Capacity Factor 39% Refer to results in “Economic Model” tab of Attachment 6 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 February March April May June July August September October November December Total Not Applicable to This Project 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 September October November December Total Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 27 of 39 10/04/2022 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. $30 per kW per year. This value is the higher end of O&M cost range, reported by US Department of Energy 2021 data, for recently installed turbines / newer projects. Refer to DOE report reference in the “Assumptions” tab of Attachment 6 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. This option was not used. 1. $ 2. Hours diesel OFF/year: 3. $ 5.4.7 Fuel Costs Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system (Year 1 of operation) This does not apply. The fuel for the wind plant is free or possibly subject to a small State of Alaska tariff. 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. This requirement does not apply to the wind resource assessment phase and would be appropriate for construction of a wind power plant. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 28 of 39 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 Wind Resource Assessment contractors and GVEA staff will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the LIDAR equipment over the data collection period. The O&M data will be summarized in the progress reports to AEA. SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS 6.1 Economic Feasibility 6.1.1 Economic Benefit – refer to results in “Economic Model” tab of Attachment 6. Results below are for a single representative 100 MW project site. Annual Lifetime Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power Generation (gallons) 25,964,640 (Economic Model D21) 519,292,800 (Economic Model D22) Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat (gallons) NA NA Total Fuel displaced (gallons) 25,964,640 519,292,800 Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power Generation ($) $ 4,700,314 (Economic Model average I79:AB79) $94,006,288 (Economic Model sum I79:AB79) Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat ($) NA NA Anticipated Power Generation O&M Cost Savings Not Calculated Not Calculated Anticipated Thermal Generation O&M Cost Savings Not Calculated Not Calculated Total Other costs savings (taxes, insurance, etc.) Not Calculated Not Calculated Total Fuel, O&M, and Other Cost Savings $4,700,314 $94,006,288 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 29 of 39 10/04/2022 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 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. Refer to Attachment 6 for a copy of the model applied to an example 108 MW future wind project. Energy production estimates required by financial institutions to finance wind projects will be supported by data from the proposed meteorological towers and LIDAR equipment. The data collected by the proposed meteorological instrumentation will supplement and verify projected wind resources as shown on wind resource maps available from the Alaska Energy Authority and AW S Truepower (aka UL Windnavigator). In the case of the Murphy Dome area, the wind data will also supplement the wind data that GVEA collected from 30 meter MET towers installed at the same locations in 2003-2005. The data will be made publicly available for use by Railbelt utilities and independent power producers considering building wind projects. The data will both quantify the available energy and provide insight into the potential value added by locating projects in areas with different wind regimes. The data will benefit the people of Alaska by completing prerequisite studies for the development of potentially inexpensive power from utility-scale wind projects (60MW or more). Given the limited availability and rising cost of natural gas in the Railbelt, efforts to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide and the unpredictable cost of diesel generation, wind energy is likely to be an economically attractive alternative option for serving Railbelt electricity needs. The wind assessment studies are critical-path, due diligence tasks for the development of wind energy and the use of supplemental LIDAR can improve the outcome of these studies. By making the data publicly available, GVEA expects to foster a more competitive environment for the acquisition of wind energy by Railbelt utilities. The addition of large scale wind projects in Interior Alaska, combined with proposed electric transmission upgrades, battery energy projects, and hydroelectric projects has the potential to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with generation of electric power and to control the rising cost of generating electric power. 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 30 of 39 10/04/2022 Other factors This project will not become uneconomic unless other technologies overtake the potential of wind generation to produce low-carbon energy at competitive prices. Technologies that have this potential, such as solar photovoltaic generation, fusion generation, tidal generation, hydroelectric generation, and small modular nuclear generation are unlikely to displace wind generation in the next few years. Wind energy is likely to be an important part of the Railbelt’s generation for the foreseeable future. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 31 of 39 10/04/2022 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. Not applicable to this project. Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) NA Estimated direct sales to private sector businesses (kWh) NA Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) NA Estimated sales for use by the Alaskan public (kWh) NA Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) NA 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 accelerate the development of sustainable long-term economic development in the form of utility-scale wind generation projects. If this project demonstrates attractive wind resources that lead to successful wind project development there will be long-term increases in quality jobs due not only to the wind projects, but also in industries that depend on electric power. These industries include large-scale gold mines like those currently in the Fairbanks area and marijuana grow operations. Successful wind generation projects may also increase the economic development associated with beneficial electrification (e.g. heat pumps & electric vehicles) that would help reduce the emissions that cause recurring air pollution in the Fairbanks area, resulting in violation of air quality standards. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 32 of 39 10/04/2022 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 This section has lesser relevance to the wind resource assessment phase of the wind plant study. The proposed LIDAR equipment requires routine minor maintenance and inspection. GVEA or a local renewable energy contractor will travel to the LIDAR unit at regular intervals, check the power supply equipment and add windshield washer fluid to the LIDAR tank. The LIDAR equipment has capability for remote monitoring and diagnostics of equipment heath issues. As needed, DNV can provide remote or onsite assistance. 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. This section does not apply to the wind resource assessment phase of the wind plant study. 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 33 of 39 10/04/2022 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) Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) Determining the impact to utility rates of adding multiple large scale wind plants is under investigation by a Railbelt group developing an integrated resources plan. 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. The details for this are not yet known. It is expected that an IPP developing a wind project based on the results from this State funded resource assessment would provide a competitively priced power purchase agreement. 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 34 of 39 10/04/2022 Obtaining all necessary permits Securing land access and use for the project 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. All prior phases and permits are complete to allow LIDAR installation and DNV will develop a LIDAR equipment specification and measurement campaign plan prior to procurement in July 2023 or sooner if allowed by the AEA REF 15 grant process. According to DNV, the GVEA wind resource assessment provider, LIDAR equipment would be delivered to Fairbanks within three months of placing an order. If the order is placed July 1, 2023, installation and commissioning would occur in October 2023. GVEA has proven with the REF 14 wind assessment project work it can execute projects on time. Within three months of receiving spending approval from AEA, GVEA worked with DNV and contractors to install and commission three 60 meter MET towers near Murphy Dome - the largest wind assessment underway in Alaska. 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. This aspect may not apply to a wind resource assessment. However, the results from these assessments and data from other areas along the Railbelt will help a time series energy correlation analysis. The Railbelt utilities have commissioned a study by a third party consultant to evaluate the overall capacity factory for wind on the Railbelt based on geographic diversity of the resources. The results from this study are expected in April 2023 and will assist with optimizing the wind production capacity and generation profile relative to Railbelt load profile. 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 35 of 39 10/04/2022 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. During recent public meetings with the GVEA Board of Directors and in letters to the editor in the Daily News Miner, community members vocalized strong support for pursuing large scale renewable energy projects. See Attachment 9 for a few examples. We anticipate potential IPPs, the State of Alaska and the Alaska public will support efforts to identify and document candidate projects for economically viable development of renewable energy. 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. Earlier this year, GVEA was awarded and AEA REF 14 grant for wind resource assessments in Interior Alaska. GVEA is compliant with the requirements of that grant. Refer to Attachment 7 – REF 14 Q3 Progress Report. In addition, GVEA was awarded an AEA REF grant in 2011 to assist with construction of the Eva Creek wind farm. The grant was successfully administered and work completed. Refer to Attachment 8 - Eva Creek Wind Project - 2011 REF Round IV and Legislative Grant.pdf 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. Refer to Attachment 7 – REF 14 Q3 Progress Report and supporting documentation. SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION In the space below, please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration. 1. Attachment 1 – DNR Land Use Permit Murphy Dome Area.pdf 2. Attachment 2 – GVEA-Murphy Dome Met Campaign.pdf 3. Attachment 3 – DNV Estimate for LIDAR Cost and Accuracy Improvement.pdf 4. Attachment 4 – Resumes of Key Project Staff.pdf 5. Attachment 5 – Community Support.pdf 6. Attachment 6 – 2022.11.01 REF Round 15 Evaluation Model.xlsx 7. Attachment 7 – REF 14 Q3 Progress Report.pdf 8. Attachment 8 – Eva Creek Wind Project – 2011 REF Round IV and Legislative Grant.pdf 9. Attachment 9 – Murphy Dome – Shovel Creek Wind Resource Assessment Map.pdf Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 36 of 39 10/04/2022 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 37 of 39 10/04/2022 SECTION 13 – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Community/Grantee Name: Golden Valley Electric Association Regular Election is held: Three-year rolling term for Board of Directors Date: December 5, 2022 Authorized Grant Signer(s): Printed Name Title Term Signature Dan Bishop Director of Engineering Services N/A I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents: (Must be authorized by the highest ranking organization/community/municipal official) Printed Name Title Term Signature John Burns CEO N/A Grantee Contact Information: Mailing Address: 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Phone Number: (907) 452 5610 Fax Number: (907) 458-6365 Email Address: drbishop@gvea.com Federal Tax ID #: 92-0014712 Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 38 of 39 10/04/2022 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. 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 Dan Bishop Signature Title Director of Engineering Services Date 12/5/2022 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23046 Page 39 of 39 10/04/2022 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER Northern Regional Land Office Memorandum of Decision LAS 34236 Golden Valley Electric Association Application for Land Use Permit AS 38.05.850 Requested Action The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW), Northern Regional Land Office (NRO) has received a Land Use Permit (LUP) application from Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) for the installation of 3 to 4 meteorological (MET) towers on Murphy Dome. The MET towers will be a maximum height of 80 meters and made of lattice or tubular steel structures. They will be supported by anchored guy wires. The purpose of the MET towers is to support a wind assessment project. The equipment will be installed near existing roads and trails for easy access but in locations that do not interfere with trail use. During installation and decommissioning the sites will be accessed with a truck and trailer. During operation winter access will be via snowmachine and summer access will be via ATV. Proposed Action DMLW proposes to issue a 5-year permit for installation of MET towers on state land. Scope of Decision The scope of this decision is limited to determining if it is appropriate for DNR to issue an authorization for the proposed land use activities. Statutory Authority This permit is being adjudicated pursuant to AS 38.05.850. Administrative Record The administrative record for the proposed action consists of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Alaska Land Act as amended, applicable statutes and regulations referenced here-in, the 2015 Eastern Tanana Area Plan (ETAP), and other classification references described herein, and the casefile for the application serialized by DNR as LAS 34236. Location Information Geographic Location: On ridgetops within 6 miles north and west of Murphy Dome. Sites are centered around the following GPS point: Latitude: 64.987 N Longitude: -148.476 W Datum: WGS 84 Latitude: 64.946 N Longitude: -148.439 W Datum: WGS 84 Latitude: 64.927 N Longitude: -148.522 W Datum: WGS 84 LAS 34236 Memorandum of Decision Page 2 of 6 Legal Description: Section 24 Township 2 North, Range 5 West, Fairbanks Meridian Section 6 Township 1 North, Range 4 West, Fairbanks Meridian Section 11 Township 1 North, Range 5 West, Fairbanks Meridian Other Land Information Municipality: Fairbanks North Star Borough Regional Corporation: Doyon, Limited Title The land is managed by the State, acquired under the following Patents: MTRS Acquisition Patent No. Date of Patent Reservations F002N005W24 GS 432 50-87-0233 6/18/1987 Standard Reservations F001N004W06 GS 27 50-73-0017 7/28/1972 Standard Reservations F001N005W11 GS 432 50-80-0115 7/15/1980 Standard Reservations Planning & Classification The three sites are within the Tanana Valley State Forest (AS 41.17.400). Per AS 41.17.200 state forests are to be managed for timber resources while allowing other beneficial uses of public land. The proposed activity is within the intent of the Tanana Valley State Forest (TVSF) Management Plan. Third Party Interests The are no third-party interests overlapping with the proposed locations. Background In a complete application dated July 20, 2022, Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) applied to DMLW for a LUP to install up to 4 MET towers, on state managed lands, as part of a wind assessment project. A grant was awarded from the Alaska Energy Authority through the Renewable Energy Fund to install three to four MET towers on Murphy Dome. Data will be collected for at least two years. Each MET tower will be a maximum of 80m tall and supported by guy wires covering an area of land of about two acres. A small control and power box will be at the base of the towers for data collection and transmission. The towers will be powered by solar panels that will charge lead acid batteries and the power will be supplemented by a small generator when needed. This assessment project is in support of the Shovel Creek Wind Project. DMLW has received an application for a lease for wind turbine installations for the Shovel Creek Wind Project. The lease application is serialized as ADL 421704 and the associated access easement is serialized as ADL 421869. Public Notice & Agency Review Public Notice Summary LAS 34236 Memorandum of Decision Page 3 of 6 Public Notice of the application was conducted from July 20, 2022, to August 3, 2022. The notice was posted to the State of Alaska Online Public Notice System. Public Notice Comment and Response No public comments were received. Agency Review Summary Agency Review of the application was conducted from July 20, 2022, to August 3, 2022. The notice was sent to the following recipients: • DNR Office of History and Archaeology • Alaska Department of Fish and Game • Alaska Division of Forestry • US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) Agency Review Comment and Response FWS Comment: Provided substantive comments that are related to the entire Shovel Creek Wind project. A portion of the comments that relate to the MET tower installation recommend minimizing guy wires and placing bird nesting and roosting deterrents on the towers. DMLW Response: DMLW forwarded the comments to the applicant No other agency comments were received. Environmental Considerations This decision considers the environmental factors directly related to the authorization for use of state lands, specifically whether the approval of the authorization is in the State’s interest. The purpose of this consideration is to identify any associated mitigation measures or other requirements necessary to protect the public interest while informing the overall decision of whether or not to approve the authorization. At the end of the assessment project the MET towers will be removed. All guy wires will be removed, and the site will be left free of debris. The environmental risk associated with the proposed activity is negligible. The infrastructure left on site, during the project, is limited to the towers, solar panels, sealed batteries, and a small generator as needed. The batteries will be stored in spill proof containers and marked accordingly. The sites will be accessed by snow machine in the winter and by ATVs in the summer by up to four individuals. There is the potential risk of contamination by hazardous substance leaks from motorized vehicles. There is also a potential risk of degradation to vegetation and trails with ATV use. Environmental risks can be mitigated by following permit stipulations. Discussion In adjudicating a LUP, DMLW seeks to facilitate development, conservation, and enhancement of state lands for present and future Alaskans while minimizing disturbance to vegetative, hydrologic, and topographic characteristics. The installation of these MET towers is in support of a wind energy project referred to by GVEA as the Murphy Dome Project and by Alaska Renewables as the Shovel Creek Wind Project. LAS 34236 Memorandum of Decision Page 4 of 6 Two special stipulations were added to the permit to address some unique circumstances. One stipulation requires GVEA to post a sign on each of the towers with an explanation of what the towers are for and a contact name and number for more information. The other stipulation requires GVEA to mark the guy wires so they are highly visible to people and wildlife. Because the application and stipulations contained in the resulting LUP address all state concerns, and the proposed activities will further state objectives of natural resource conservation and enhancement, no alternatives to the application were considered. Performance Guaranty Performance guarantees are means to assure performance and to provide ways to pay for corrective action if the permittee fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the permit document. They are also used to protect state land from damage and to make certain that improvements are removed and that the land is returned in a usable condition upon termination of the permit. When using the DMLW bonding matrix, a recommended bond of $3,000 was calculated due to the acreage of the footprint. Pursuant to 11 AAC 96.060, a PG in the amount of $3,000, typically in the form of a bond or other security, will be required. Insurance Insurance is a means to protect the state from liabilities incurred through the use of state property, or from damage to state property as a result of accidental or catastrophic events. This type of protection is necessary in the event of an accident or negligence that was consequentially connected to activities conducted on state land, and/or if the state is named in a lawsuit as a result of an accident or negligence. Consistent with to 11 AAC 96.065 the Grantee shall secure or purchase at its own expense, and maintain in force at all times during the term of this permit, liability coverage and limits consistent with what is professionally recommended as adequate to protect the Grantee (the insured) and Grantor (the State, its officers, agents and employees) from the liability exposures of ALL the insured's operations on state land. Certificates of Insurance must be furnished to the AO prior to the issuance of this permit and must provide for a notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or material change of conditions in accordance with policy provisions. The Grantee must provide for a 60-day prior notice to the State before they cancel, not renew or make material changes to conditions to the policy. Failure to furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance, or lapse of the policy, are material breaches of this permit and shall be grounds, at the option of the State, for termination of the permit. All insurance policies shall comply with, and be issued by, insurers licensed to transact the business of insurance under Alaska Statute, Title 21. The policy shall be written on an "occurrence” form and shall not be written as a "claims-made" form unless specifically reviewed and agreed to by the Division of Risk Management, Department of Administration. The State must be named as an additional named insured on the policy with respect to the operations of the Grantee on or in conjunction with the permitted premises, LAS 34236 Memorandum of Decision Page 5 of 6 referred to as LAS 34236. Fees Per 11 AAC 05.180(d)(2)(F), the annual use fee for the commercial use of a structure or facility which cannot be occupied is $600 annually for the first acre, $240 for each additional acre. As the structures are spread out over a large area the fee will be $600 for the first tower and $240 for the remaining two towers. Fee: $1,080.00 Relevant Fee Regulation(s): 11 AAC 05.180(d)(2)(F) and Director’s Fee Order Number 3. Term 5-years Effective Date: August 25, 2022 Expiration Date: August 24, 2027 LAS 34236 Memorandum of Decision Page 6 of 6 Recommendation Based upon the information provided by the applicant, as well as review of relevant planning documents, statutes, and regulations related to this application, it is my recommendation to issue this Land Use Permit on condition that all permit stipulations are followed as described in the attached permit. During the period of the permit an inspection may be conducted at the discretion of the Department of Natural Resources to ensure permit compliance. Becky Baird Date Natural Resource Specialist Manager’s Decision It is the decision of this office to take the action as recommended above. This decision may be rescinded by written notification if, after 60 days from the effective date of this decision, the applicant has not completed all requirements outlined in this decision for issuance of the permit. Additional time may be allotted to complete these requirements at the applicant’s request and concurrence of the Authorized Officer, however this will not extend the total term of the authorizations issued under this decision. Dianna Leinberger Date Natural Resource Manager Attachments • Permit An eligible person affected by this decision may appeal to the DNR Commissioner per AS 44.37.011 and 11 AAC 02. Any appeal must be received within twenty (20) calendar days after issuance of this decision under 11 AAC 02.040. An eligible person must first appeal a decision to the Commissioner before seeking relief in superior court. The Alaska Court System establishes its own rules for timely appealing final administrative orders and decisions of the department. Appeals may be mailed or hand-delivered to the DNR Commissioner’s Office, 550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501; or faxed to (907)-269-8918; or sent by electronic mail to dnr.appeals@alaska.gov. Appeals must be accompanied by the fee established in 11 AAC 05.160(d)(6), which has been set at $200 under the provisions of 11 AAC 05.160 (a)- (b). A .pdf or print copy of 11 AAC 02 may be obtained by contacting Erik Fossum via phone at (907) 269-8429, via email at erik.fossum@alaska.gov, and is also available on the department’s website at https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/pdf/DNR-11-AAC-02.pdf. 9/6/2022 9/6/2022 28 August 2022 Mr. Keith E. Palchikoff Mr. Dan R. Bishop Golden Valley Electric Association 758 Illinois Street Fairbanks, AK 99701 Re: Thoughts and recommendations for the upcoming meteorological campaign for your prospective Murphy Dome wind farm development site Dear Keith and Dan: Thanks one more time for inviting me to offer some thoughts on the Murphy Dome project. My goals for this effort included (1) review and incorporation of the historical data GVEA collected from two 30-m met towers in the 2000s, (2) teasing out specific meteorological conditions that will pertain to a far more comprehensive monitoring program to commence in September 2022, (3) assess the merits of DNV’s thoughts on the subject per their report titled “10372460- HOU-XL-01-A-Murphy Dome Measurement Campaign.xlsx,” and (4) try to fine tune the measurement plan to maximize the benefits of the study. The latter is particularly important, given that GVEA plan to give the wind information to prospective developers who will seek a PPA with you. Since one of the key elements of any bid will include an evaluation of confidence limits in long-term projections, we want to minimize these uncertainties as best as possible within your budget. The goal here is that PPA terms will be somewhat contingent on the uncertainty levels, which plays a large part in obtaining optimal financial terms for sponsoring the wind farm development. The better the terms, the l ess cost to your ratepayers, which is obviously a key factor in the process. I’ve addresses numerous points below, recognizing that I am somewhat stepping into a process already underway. As we discussed during our Teams meeting last week, let’s consider this report subject to further modification after your review and comments. DNV’s General Recommendations. I’d like to point out that the DNV report noted above (and dated 17 August 2022) only lists prospective locations for four 60 -m met towers. However, we have discussed their subsequent suggestions after realizing that the southwestern half of the Murphy Dome project is impractical to access, from which they reduced the number of met towers from four to three and shifted one of them. Before getting into the details, I conclude that DNV’s new plan for three met tower locations will certainly meet basic fi nancial attributes. Amount of Land Needed for a 100-MW Array. GVEA’s goal is to have a 100-MW nameplate Messrs Palchikoff and Bishop Page 2 Rating. The first question to be answered is how much land will be needed to accomplish this — and more importantly would a project this size require utilization of the currently inaccessible southwestern part of the identified ridgelines. The 6 years of historical wind data from Murphy Dome Site 101 show generally prevailing east and west winds, which includes four “concentrated” directions. We reprocessed that historical data to evaluate wake losses between adjacent wind turbines as a function of their azimuth orientation and rotor-diameter spacing. I then laid out a potential turbine array using the Vestas V-163 (4.5-MW) turbine, which I chose because there likely won’t be lower-rated turbines on the market in a few years (possible exception the GE-3.4/140), and its 163-rotor diameter (RD) is equivalent to the 5-6 MW turbines currently available commercially. This array is shown in Figure 1. Wake losses between adjacent turbines were kept to a maximum 2% (2½% in a few cases), which is why the spacing between turbines isn’t consistent across the array (e.g., between turbines 4 and 5). Plus I used a minimum 3-RD spacing even for orientations that the historical data suggest could be as close as 2 RD, just to be on the safe side. One turbine (#15) turns out to be on private land, and turbine 20 is close to some private land. Otherwise, there are no known landowner issues, and presumably the landowners would be amenable to having revenue from turbines. There are 24 turbines, which at 4.5-MW rating equals 108 MW. My conclusion: you do not need to go south of the identified area for your 100-MW project. Also, larger turbines will require less land area. Where Best to Place Met Towers. A meteorological campaign should address the geographic and topographic diversity of the study area. Having worked in many mountain locations (including northern countries like Canada, Norway, Iceland and Scotland), the winds generally are stronger the higher once can get above the valleys, because the influence of cold -season temperature inversions is very important. I do not need to stress the strength of such inversions in interior Alaska! Looking more carefully at the two historical Murphy Dome met towers, old Site 102 at a higher elevation (2730’ elevation) yet a somewhat sheltered local exposure was predicted to have a long-term 80-m wind speed 2½% stronger than Site 101 (2564’ elevation). Based on this plus the fact that the ridges likely to be developed primarily run in north/south orientations, the natural conclusion is that elevation will be the driving factor in determining long-term wind speeds along the ridgelines of interest. Figure 1. Possible Array Plan for 4.5-MW Turbines, Northeast Half of Murphy Dome Area Messrs Palchikoff and Bishop Page 4 Figure 2 has the same turbine locations as Figure 1, but now adds DNV’s and Simon Wind’s (SW) met tower recommendations. For simplicity, I’ve based numbering for the met towers on the original towers, so 101 is the old Murphy Dome met tower, 102 is the area to the southwest, and the third new area is 103. As you’ll see, my basic recommendations are similar to those of DNV in terms of geography. Note I had to estimate the 103dnv position, since I only saw that approximate location on Keith’s screen during our Teams call. Here are elevations for the various met towers. Note that old Site 101 is too close to M urphy Dome Road, and I’ve made alternate locations for it below: Site Number DNV Elevation (ft) Simon Wind Elevation (ft) 101 2564 (old site) 2564 (old site) 102 2458 (estimated) 2793 103 2190 2048 Thus, the DNV elevations have a range of 374’ in elevation, whereas the Simon Wind elevations have a range of 745’—almost double. For this reason, I believe the project, GVEA and consumers will be better served by the Simon Wind recommendations. This especially makes a difference when doing computer flow modeling, as the more disparate elevations allow one to calibrate the model results with more confidence. The second issue, as pointed out verbally, is that the original Site 101 is too close to Murphy Dome Road to support the nominal 50-m guy wire radius of 60-m tiltup towers. (NRG allows a 35-m guy radius, but I would not recommend that with the icing that will occur.) Figure 3 is a Google Earth image of what might be suitable replacements. We can’t just move old Site 101 west, because the terrain starts dropping too quickly. The original Site 101 is at 2564’ elevation Site 101a is at 2555’ elevation, 336’ at an azimuth of 20° from the original location Site 101b is also 2555’ elevation, 300’ at an azimuth of 115° from the original location Ultimately, the new position for Site 101 will have to be confirmed in the field, as topographic mapping and Google Earth are probably not fully reliable in this remote location. The goal is to maintain as close an elevation to the original tower (to minimize flow differences, which can be reasonably modeled but better to keep them small), and the outer guy wire anchors should be a maximum of 10 feet in elevation different from the mast base (up to 20 feet is technical ly feasible, but best to keep it at 10 feet for stability. Figure 2. DNV and Simon Wind Met Tower Recommendations for Murphy Dome Messrs Palchikoff and Bishop Page 6 Figure 3. The Original Site 101 at Murphy Dome and Two Possible Relocation Sites Which Are Sufficiently Flat and Only 9 Feet Lower in Elevation Here are latitudes and longitudes for all Simon Wind met tower recommendations. They use WGS84/NAD83 map datum. The coordinates are derived from topographic mapping and Google Earth, which should be sufficiently accurate. Met Tower Latitude Longitude Remarks 101a 64° 56’ 50.59”N 148° 26’ 28.06”W Flat, a few trees (like old 101) 101b 64° 56’ 46.20”N 148° 26’ 24.33”W Flat, very scattered short trees 102sw 64° 55’ 35.24”N 148° 31’ 19.10”W Near top of highest hill, should be more than 300 feet from the nearest private property parcel 103sw 64° 58’ 56.13”N 148° 28’ 08.55”W In low point of saddle along northern ridgeline, scattered trees, near access road. If the trees are too much of an issue, there are a few less trees (but 50’ higher elevation) at 64° 58’ 45.00”N, 148° 28’ 00.46”W. Messrs Palchikoff and Bishop Page 7 Meteorological Equipment List. GVEA has already ordered four complete 60-m tower kits with pertinent sensors, data loggers, communications options, installation hardware, etc. There is no “concern” with what will be delivered around September 9, and we could find no obvious omission in hardware. One thought for consideration is that there are many redundant sensors that one normally wouldn’t need for a three-met tower monitoring network. Each met tower comes with two thermometers, a barometer and hygrometer (relative humidity). Normally for a project this size, one would be fine with one tower having 2 thermometers, the others just one, and only one barometer and hygrometer for the network. If the equipment is already sent, then that’s fine—there is no harm in redundant equipment! As a meteorologist, I will never ever complain with more data! Another item we’ve already discussed is the viability of 60-m versus 50-m met towers, in particular the tiltup variety. The two 80-m met towers erected at Eva Creek survived at least the first 2-3 years; however, they were of the triangular lattice variety. The concern with 60-m towers comes from my colleague at one of the prime tower installation companies in the US, who has installed manty met towers near the Gulf, where presumably there is more moisture. He tells me all 60-m towers have fallen eventually, no 50-m towers. I would not necessarily conclude that Murphy Dome can’t support 60-m towers, but wanted to re-mention this for completeness. Perhaps the biggest issue, which we also discussed last week, is the lack of ice-free (heated) anemometers and wind vanes. I understand it’s expensive to provide such sensors, and there is a budget limit. So let me suggest that one ice-free anemometer and one ice-free wind vane be installed at the new Site 101. With respect to icing on the anemometers: I agree with DNV that the ice-free equipment at the old Site 101 didn’t perform well. However, upon reviewing my notes and correspondence, the real problem was that the small wind turbine power supply got iced as well, so there was effectively no power to heat the sensors. Here it is 20 years later, there are much better sensors, and with a reliable power supply, you’ll get much improved results. In the spirit of helping get a good project with suitable PPA pricing, one of the big challenges in data processing is to establish when there is PARTIAL icing on an anemometer. In other words, recorded winds are slowed down, but not to zero. If a 10-mps wind speed is being recorded at 6 mps, how can one be sure? By keeping in such (false) low readings, the long-term wind resource characteristics are downgraded and the PPA prices will be higher. As you’ve stated, Murphy Dome is an icing haven, and you could easily have 1000 hours or more per year with this kind of icing. Messrs Palchikoff and Bishop Page 8 I understand DNV’s concerns on this issue, and there clearly is no perfect resolution. But with all the money being spent to collect data, I would highly recommend exploring a workable option for heating two sensors. Tower Sensor Configurations. I did not receive from you any information from DNV how to configure the sensors on the towers. The equipment list calls for 6 anemometers (presumably two each at 3 levels), 2 wind vanes, 2 temperature sensors, 1 barometric pressure sensor , and 1 relative humidity sensor per tower. My meteorological frame of reference tells me that we should have as complete a documentation of the wind speeds across the full 60 m tower. Normally one installs anemometers at 32 m (just above where the tower shrinks from 10” to 8” diameter) and just below the top of the tower (say 58.5 or 59 m). I agree fully that these two levels should be measured at all towers. I would also recommend the third level be 50 m. Since you have extra booms and anemometers from the fourth tower (that will be kept in reserve), I would highly recommend that a lower, fourth anemometer level be measured. For the replacement of Site 101, I would use the same 10-m level as the original met tower. If you install 102sw, there appear to be no trees of significance, so I’d suggest 10 m as well for that tower. For Site 103, if the trees are of concern (can’t tell without being there), then a 15-m level should be sufficient. There is no downside to having this fourth level. Given the unusual meteorology of interior Alaska mountains, we will learn valuable information. Especially if there will be no sodar/lidar to measure winds above 60 m. The better we understand the “full-tower” shear at met towers, the more confidence we would have in extrapolating the shears to potential hub heights. Anemometer booms should be oriented due north and due south from the met tower, which minimizes so-called tower shadow effects, when an anemometer is downwind of the tower. As for the other sensors, yes on the basics: both wind vanes about 2 m below the upper anemometer levels, a thermometer near the top and the ground (for inversions and atmospheric stability calculations), and the other sensors near the ground. All fine and standard. I believe I have now addressed everything pertinent to the Purchase Order. I’ve worked through nearly all the allotted funding; however, I want to see this through with you. So please feel free to get back to me with any thoughts, questions, comments, requests, etc. Messrs Palchikoff and Bishop Page 9 Sincerely, Richard L. Simon, President Attachment 4 - Resumes and Organization of Key Project Staff Project Sponsor Project AdvisorProject Manager Project Accountant DNV - Primary Consultant and Service Provider The key project team members are introduced below with detailed resumes in the succeeding pages. In addition, GVEA has a wide breadth of committed staff to support all aspects of the wind energy assessment and project feasibility analysis, including licensed professional electrical, civil and environmental engineers and specialists in land acquisition, procurement, contracting, legal reviews, surveying, permitting, mapping and CAD. GVEA has a long and reputable history developing, constructing and operating solar, wind, battery, gas turbine and coal power plants. Project Sponsor John Burns, GVEA President and CEO Project Advisor Dan Bishop, PE, GVEA Director of Engineering Services Project Accountant Kathryn Strle, GVEA Controller Wind Resource Assessment (WRA) Service Provider DNV provides comprehensive services for all phases of pre-construction wind energy assessments. GVEA hired DNV to assist with the Murphy Dome area assessment, including MET tower installation, operation, data collection and analysis https://www.dnv.com/services/pre-construction-wind-energy-assessment-3819 David DeLuca Technical Sales Lead, Energy Analytics and Measurements Renewables and Power Grids, North America Energy Systems DNV Energy USA Inc. david.deluca@dnv.com Mobile +1 518 530 6973 Project Manager Keith Palchikoff, PE, GVEA Grid Modernization Manager – Post date: Wed, 12/15/2021 - 4:22pm Renewables at scale can strengthen Alaska’s economic and energy security If you’re like us, you might feel that the pace of technology breakthroughs is astounding. The phone you’re holding in your hand was scarcely imaginable 20 years ago, and continues to relentlessly advance in performance, reliability, and usability. Remember ip-phones and family feuds over who was to blame for such a high bill from texting? Today, paying per text is obsolete, with waterproof smartphones now commonplace. When Matt rst entered the energy industry in the mid-2000s, renewable energy was like those old ip-phones — clumsy and with limited capabilities. Solar was just for o -grid cabins, wind power cost more than coal, batteries were not cost e ective for balancing the times when the wind didn’t blow, and the bottom line was that these new technologies still had unresolved component issues that got in the way of critical reliability. And that reliability is required, since electricity is more foundational for human society than ever before. But now, thanks to billions of hours of engineering and hard work by the 11.5 million people who work in renewable energy around the world, we’ve achieved what many thought was impossible: Renewable energy is the cheapest, fastest-growing source of power globally — and the most reliable. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, solar, wind, and batteries together will account for more than 80% of power plant capacity additions this year. Meanwhile, not a single coal- red power plant is under construction in North America. Instead, wind and solar have become “ rm” — where the intermittency of the resource is balanced out by smart system engineering and enabled by massive declines in the cost of batteries. Economies of scale and manufacturing consistencies have enabled downtime of just a few hours per year, which is ten times less than a typical gas or coal power plant. And the same software advances on your phone and computer have transformed the controls for renewables so that operators can monitor the plant from the comfort of the control room, and head out for maintenance on their own timetable. The dollars and cents of renewable energy speak for themselves: It’s now the cheapest source of power in nearly every part of the globe, including Alaska. And best of all, there’s no variation in fuel pricing month-to-month, meaning that projects can o er a xed, low rate of power for the entire 40- By: Andrew McDonnell (/authors/andrew-mcdonnell),Matt Perkins (/authors/matt-perkins), (/) Advertisement Updated: 12/20/2021 - 4:32pm year life of today’s equipment, without unpleasant surprises due to global economic forces. Put simply, renewable energy o ers Alaskans more a ordable and reliable energy resulting in more money in their pockets. Right here in Alaska, those advances in reliability and cost are manifesting in real time. Recently, Homer Electric Association installed a grid-stabilizing, 93-megawatt-hour battery. It’s one of the largest in the U.S., and both Golden Valley Electric Association and Chugach Electric Association have released visionary calls for renewable energy proposals to help the community achieve the goals of low-priced, zero-carbon sustainable power; all signs that the electric co-ops are listening to the persistent requests from their members for the smart implementation of renewables. At the same time, it’s important to note that there is a well established and diligent permitting process at both the state and federal level that’s required for these large projects, covering every angle of analysis from aviation to wildlife. The immediate nancial bene ts to communities of today’s proven technologies like wind and solar are now clearer than ever, and taking action to accelerate this industry sector today positions our state to become the future leader in new energy technologies, from green fuels to tidal power and beyond. A renewable power plant is an upfront investment that eliminates typical recurring costs such as fuel and emissions controls, and drives down the long-term energy cost of energy with stable, xed prices that beat out in ation. It’s an investment in the future of our state that enhances our economic and energy security while protecting land and air quality for generations to come. Alaska’s future is intertwined with renewable energy; we invite you to join us in working to make that future happen today. Andrew McDonnell and Matt Perkins are the founders of Alaska Renewables, a renewable energy development rm based in Fairbanks, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Commerce 300 W. 31st Avenue Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: 907-257-4200 Outside Anchorage, toll-free: 800-478-4200 Copyright © Binkley Co. All rights reserved. Contact Us (/contact) Alaska Journal | A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms file:///C/...n Valley Electric Association/Engineering - Projects/2022 Wind Resource Assessments/AEA Grant/REF 15/Supporting Documents/Alaska Journal _ A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms.html[12/5/2022 11:30:35 AM] HOME OIL & GAS FISHERIES CONSTRUCTION & REAL ESTATE TRANSPORTATION TECH & TELECOM POLITICS ARCHIVE ABOUT Money & Finance Mining Small Business Health Opinion Movers & Shakers Special Sections Legal Notices Subscribe Top Forty Under 40 Nominations The 2023 Top Forty Under 40 Nominations are now open. Find the nomination form here. Post date: Wed, 10/12/2022 - 1:30pm Alaska Journal of Commerce / / A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s… A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms A Fairbanks man and his Lower 48 business partner are advancing plans to build what could become Alaska’s biggest wind farms, one each outside Anchorage and Fairbanks. Andrew McDonnell, formerly an oceanographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Matt Perkins, an engineer from Nevada, are taking steps to build wind farms that could be several times more powerful than the Eva Creek Wind Farm near Healy and the Fire Island Wind Project outside Anchorage. Those wind farms, currently the largest in Alaska, were built in 2012, the last major developments of their kind in the state. But today’s turbines are much more efficient, and there is strong and growing interest to support new renewable energy projects in Alaska and nationally, Perkins and McDonnell said in an interview. More wind power “will help our economy, stabilize energy costs and reduce the environmental impact of energy generation here, and allow us to participate in a broader By: Alex DeMarban,Anchorage Daily News, Subscribe Today Receive AJOC's e-Edition in your inbox every Sunday Alaska Journal | A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms file:///C/...n Valley Electric Association/Engineering - Projects/2022 Wind Resource Assessments/AEA Grant/REF 15/Supporting Documents/Alaska Journal _ A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms.html[12/5/2022 11:30:35 AM] Advertisement energy transition to renewable energy,” McDonnell said. Nearly two years ago, they launched Alaska Renewables, a private company. A subsidiary of the company, Shovel Creek Wind, has filed plans with the state seeking permission to lease land for 40 years about 20 miles northwest of Fairbanks near Murphy Dome. The site is large enough to support up to 60 wind turbines producing 200 megawatts of power, McDonnell said. That is eight times more capacity than Eva Creek Wind, the largest project in Alaska. An initial phase at Shovel Creek would likely consist of 15 to 30 turbines, McDonnell said. The site was burned in the Shovel Creek Fire in 2019, which will reduce the environmental impact of development there, he said. A different subsidiary of their company, Little Mount Susitna Wind, proposes building a wind farm more than 35 miles northwest of Anchorage, across Cook Inlet and north of Tyonek. That project could support up to 80 turbines, potentially cranking out up to 250 megawatts. McDonnell said each project’s size will be determined by various factors under consideration. They include utility needs, engineering and wind constraints at the site, cultural assessments of the land, and public input once the state releases a draft review of the projects, perhaps late this year. For the most part, the projects should not be noticeable from Anchorage or Fairbanks, he said. Chris Rose with the Renewable Energy Alaska Project said the proposals, if they can be fully built, could fulfill over 20% of the current power demand from Homer to Fairbanks, along the Alaska Railbelt. Rose said that would dramatically reduce the need for fossil fuel power sources that provide much of the region’s electricity. Projects of that size can help move Alaska quickly toward the renewable energy standard proposed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy last year, Rose said. Legislation introduced by the governor last session called for the Railbelt to use 80% sustainable power by 2040, significantly higher than today. Other clean-energy efforts in the state include Alaska’s largest solar farm going up in Houston, state-led development of an electric vehicle charging network, and utilities from Homer to Fairbanks proposing $200 million in upgrades to support more renewable power. RequiredEmail SUBSCRIBE Advertisement Follow Us: Invalid Location Dark Sky Loading... Alaska Journal | A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms file:///C/...n Valley Electric Association/Engineering - Projects/2022 Wind Resource Assessments/AEA Grant/REF 15/Supporting Documents/Alaska Journal _ A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms.html[12/5/2022 11:30:35 AM] The activity comes amid an infusion of federal funds into clean energy. Rose said the wind projects could benefit substantially from tax incentives included in the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August. Concern about future supplies of Cook Inlet natural gas, the primary source of power for most Alaskans, is also driving interest in renewables. Chugach Electric Association is interested in adding wind power from the Anchorage project to its portfolio when it is available, said Julie Hasquet, a spokeswoman with the Anchorage-area utility. It will reduce the utility’s reliance on natural gas and reduce carbon emissions. “We have initiated feasibility studies for this project located near Little Mount Susitna (about 7 miles west of Mount Susitna) that could connect to Chugach’s existing transmission lines on the west side of Cook Inlet,” Hasquet said. “A key condition of the project is that it will not result in higher electric rates.” Purchases from the project will depend on completion of studies involving economics, interconnection and integration, and approval from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Hasquet said. At Golden Valley Electric Association in the Fairbanks area, wind provides about 5% of power. The utility is looking to add more renewable power as spelled out in a strategic generation plan that’s designed to offset carbon emissions and control costs, said Meadow Bailey, a spokeswoman with that utility. Diesel fuel and coal are the utility’s main sources of power. Reducing Golden Valley’s carbon emissions can be a benefit to companies, such as some mining entities, Bailey said. “We need to reduce our carbon footprint because our commercial customers want to reduce their carbon” dependence, Bailey said. McDonnell said he left his university job this summer after many years to focus on Alaska Renewables. He met Perkins, who liked traveling to Alaska to participate in endurance races, not long before they formed the company. Perkins previously worked with General Electric and has helped launch clean energy startups in the Lower 48. As an oceanographer, McDonnell said, he has studied the impacts of carbon emissions on water and land, helping spark his interest in renewable energy. He has served on a solar power committee at Golden Valley Electric, where he saw the public’s growing interest in renewables. He said sites for the projects were selected based on earlier studies of wind characteristics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and elsewhere, as well as terrain features and other data. Wind prospects at the sites are being studied under state land-use permits, he said. 7-Day Forecast » Advertisement Advertisement Alaska Journal | A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms file:///C/...n Valley Electric Association/Engineering - Projects/2022 Wind Resource Assessments/AEA Grant/REF 15/Supporting Documents/Alaska Journal _ A small Fairbanks company wants to build Alaska’s biggest wind farms.html[12/5/2022 11:30:35 AM] Updated: 10/12/2022 - 1:30pm Perkins said Alaska Renewables has received financial support from Alaska and Lower 48 investors. He declined to name them. He said clean energy projects are attracting investors because they provide a long-term, low-risk supply of sustainable energy. “The investment communities of the world are desperate to make clean energy happen,” he said. “People realize it’s an investment in the future.” Alaska Journal of Commerce 300 W. 31st Avenue Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: 907-257-4200 Outside Anchorage, toll-free: 800-478-4200 Copyright © Binkley Co. All rights reserved. Contact Us Interior Alaska Wind Energy Resource Assessment Grant Agreement # 7014029 Page 27 of 31 ttachment 2 Progress Report Form Project Name: Interior Alaska Wind Energy Resource Assessment Grantee: Golden Valley Electric Association Grant # 7014029 Period of Report: __________ to ________________ Project Activities Completed: Existing or Potential Problems: Activities Targeted for Next Reporting Period: Prepared By: Date: Printed Name: 10/26/2022 Keith Palchikoff