HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPLICATION - AVEC REF 15 New Stuyahok SolarRenewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 1 of 40 10/04/2022
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion.
Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Tax ID # 92-0035763 Not-for-Profit
Date of last financial statement audit: December 2021
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503 Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 561 – 1818 (800) 478 – 1818 fbutton@avec.org
1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Coordinator
Name: Title:
Forest Button Manager, Project Development & Key Accounts
Mailing Address:
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 646 - 5961 (800) 561 - 2388 fbutton@avec.org
1.1.1 Applicant Signatory Authority Contact Information
Name: Title:
William R. Stamm President and CEO
Mailing Address:
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 565 - 5351 (800) 562 - 4086 bstamm@avec.org
1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Onya Stein (907) 561 – 1818 (800) 478 -1818 ostein@avec.org
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 2 of 40 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 #169, 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 3 of 40 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.
New Stuyahok Solar Energy and Battery Storage Project
2.2 Project Location
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or
community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information, please contact
AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-
3081.
Latitude 59.2503 North Longitude -157.313 West
New Stuyahok (zip code 99636) is located on the Nushagak River, about 52 miles northeast of
Dillingham and approximately 280 air miles from Anchorage.
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The project will benefit the communities of New Stuyahok (population of 512 people) and Ekwok
(population of 111 residents). Ekwok is connected to New Stuyahok’s electric grid by an eight-mile
distribution intertie.
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 4 of 40 10/04/2022
2.4 Project Description
Provide a brief, one-paragraph description of the proposed project.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is requesting $2,520,000 through an Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant to complete final design and
construction of a local solar energy and battery storage in New Stuyahok, Alaska that would also
serve Ekwok, Alaska. The proposed project involves completing final solar design and construction
of a 300-kW solar array with a 500-kW power conversion system and a 500 kWh battery storage to
supplement the existing power generation system which serves New Stuyahok and Ekwok. Like
many communities in Alaska, New Stuyahok and Ekwok experiences high and unstable energy
costs. The communities depend on diesel fuel to power the three local generators and two back up
generators responsible for all available energy in the communities.
To provide renewable energy to the communities, a distributed solar-battery hybrid system would
be constructed in New Stuyahok next to the existing power plant. The existing diesel system would
operate at a lower capacity to supplement solar energy in the winter and when the solar resource
is low. It is anticipated that solar generation would be the primary energy source during periods of
prolonged sun exposure by installing a power converter and energy storage system. Solar energy
has proven a viable energy resource in the similar communities in western Alaska. As solar
becomes a proven feasible energy source for communities in Alaska, AVEC hopes to secure
funding from AEA to reduce energy costs for New Stuyahok and Ekwok through the installation of
solar power and battery storage.
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.
The AEA REF grant funds will be used to complete a solar array with battery storage project in
New Stuyahok, and if funded by AEA, this effort will be supplemented by AVEC contributions. The
scope of work under this funding request includes final design and construction for a 300-kW solar
array with a 500-kW power conversion system and a 500-kWh battery storage to supplement the
existing power generation system which serves New Stuyahok and Ekwok.
Specific tasks include the following:
- Issue RFP for design-build solar contractor/vendor.
- Complete geotechnical evaluation.
- Finalize system design, including exact size of PV array and total budget.
- Procure and ship materials and equipment to New Stuyahok.
- Hire local labor for installation.
- Install, commission, and integrate PV array and battery storage with existing system.
- Train local utility staff for ongoing O&M, troubleshooting, system optimization with design-build
contractor/vendor and AVEC staff.
To complete this work, AVEC requests $2,520,000 in AEA REF grant funds and will provide
$280,000 cash match to support the project. AVEC anticipates solar infrastructure in New
Stuyahok to be online as soon as 2025.
2.6 Previous REF Applications for the Project
See Section 1.15 of the RFA for the maximum per project cumulative grant award amount
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 5 of 40 10/04/2022
Round
Submitted
Title of application Application
#, if known
Did you
receive a
grant? Y/N
Amount of REF
grant awarded
($)
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 6 of 40 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 Project scoping
and contractor
solicitation
AVEC will select a solar
contractor/vendor for the solar
design and construction
immediately following AEA’s
authorization to proceed.
Aug 1,
2023
Aug 15,
2023
Contractor
Agreements
Final Design
3.1 Geotech
Analysis
AVEC will work with the selected
contractor/vendor to perform a
geotechnical analysis of the
project site.
Sep 1,
2023
Sep 15,
2023
Final
Geotech
report
3.2 Final Design AVEC will work with the solar
contractor/vendor to develop
final design that is compatible
with AVEC’s existing generation
system.
Sep 1,
2023
Dec 30,
2023
Final system
design
Construction
4.1 Project
Management
AVEC and the selected
contractor/vendor will develop a
detailed construction timeline.
AVEC will manage the tasks and
coordinate next steps with the
contractor/vendor.
Dec 15,
2023
Dec 31,
2024
Detailed
construction
timeline
Ongoing
project
management
4.2 Procurement
and Delivery of
Materials and
Equipment
Once final design is complete,
AVEC will order and schedule
the delivery of all equipment
needed. AVEC will develop a
delivery plan for all materials
and will place the order as soon
as possible to prevent any
delays from material shortages.
AVEC will plan to barge the
materials to New Stuyahok once
the ice has melted in Spring
2024.
Jan 1,
2024
June 1,
2024
Materials list
Delivery plan
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 7 of 40 10/04/2022
4.3 Construction AVEC, the selected
contractor/vendor, and local
labor will install the solar PV
array, power conversion system,
and battery.
June 1,
2024
Sep 1,
2024
PV array and
battery
installation
(photos of
progress)
Monthly
contractor
reports
4.4 Final
acceptance,
commissioning,
and start up
After testing, AVEC and the
solar contractor/vendor will
complete final acceptance of the
new system, commissioning,
and start up
Oct 1,
2024
Dec 1,
2024
Completed
commissioni
ng punch list
Final
performance
report
4.5 Post-
Construction
certification and
report
Final construction and
commissioning reports will be
used to finalize grant close out
and ensure that the new system
is in operating order.
Nov 1,
2024
Dec 31,
2024
Grant close
out forms
Final
performance
report
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 8 of 40 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 $2,520,000
Cash match to be provideda $280,000
In-kind match to be provideda $0
Energy efficiency match providedb $0
Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of
above)
$2,800,000
Describe your financial commitment to the project and the source(s) of match. Indicate whether
these matching funds are secured or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that
the timing of additional funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant.
AVEC commits a 10% cash contribution of the total cost of the New Stuyahok Solar Power and
Battery Project should it receive AEA funding, totaling $280,000.
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.
AVEC does not anticipate any cost increases or shortfalls in funding, basing the project budget off
recent solar installations for comparable communities in Alaska. Should the project experience a
funding issue, AVEC will seek additional funding sources or allocate a larger cash contribution to
the effort. With additional opportunities for renewable energy funding from the recent Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, AVEC anticipates that there will be
increased funding opportunities from federal organizations like the DOE, USDA, and BIA that
would be able to cover any cost overruns.
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 Estimated $0
Feasibility and Conceptual Design Estimated $0
Final Design and Permitting Estimated $112,000
Construction Estimated $2,688,000
Total Project Costs (sum of above) Estimated $2,800,000
Metering/Tracking Equipment [not included in project
cost]
Estimated $400
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)
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 9 of 40 10/04/2022
Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
No subsequent phases are required beyond this project.
Unlike wind, hydro, or other alternative energy sources, the process for solar construction is more
streamline and does not require an extensive local feasibility effort. Feasibility of solar was proven
by a statewide feasibility study conducted by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in
2016 and through similar solar PV array and battery storage projects completed by AVEC. AVEC
would select a solar contractor/vendor who would use existing data and modeling from the NREL
model and nearby communities to determine the final design for the solar array and battery for
New Stuyahok. AVEC would work with the contractor/vendor to complete final designs that
integrate with AVEC’s existing generation system. Together, AVEC and the solar contractor/vendor
would begin construction. The estimated timeline from procurement to final construction is one
year.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 10 of 40 10/04/2022
3.2.3 Budget Forms
Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in
Section 2.3.2 of this application — I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III.
Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail
your proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project, and
delete any unnecessary tables. The milestones and tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above.
If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing
the application please feel free to contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at
grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081.
Phase 3 — Final Design and Permitting
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project.
See Sections 2.3 thru 2.6 of
the RFA )
1. Project Scoping and
Contractor/vendor Solicitation
Aug 15,
2023
$ - $ - N/A $ -
3.1 Geotech Sept 15,
2023 $ 1,800 $ 200 Cash $ 2,000
3.2 Final Design Dec 30,
2023 $ 99,000 $ 11,000 Cash $ 110,000
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
TOTALS $ 100,800 $ 11,200 $ 112,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 99,000 $ 11,000 Cash $ 110,000
Travel & Per Diem $ - $ - - $ -
Equipment $ - $ - - $ -
Materials & Supplies $ - $ - - $ -
Contractual Services $ 1,800 $ 200 Cash $ 2,000
Construction Services $ - $ - - $ -
Other $ - $ - - $ -
TOTALS $ 100,800 $ 1,200 $ 12,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 11 of 40 10/04/2022
Phase 4 — Construction
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project.
See Sections 2.3 thru 2.6 of
the RFA )
$ $ $
4.1 Project Management Dec 31,
2024 $ 4,500 $ 500 Cash $ 5,000
4.2 Equipment Procurement
and Delivery
Jun 1,
2024 $ 925,200 $ 102,800 Cash $ 1,028,000
4.3 Construction Sept 1,
2024 $ 1,468,800 $ 163,200 Cash $ 1,632,000
4.4 Final Acceptance,
Commissioning and Start-up
Dec 1,
2024 $ 18,000 $ 2,000 Cash $ 20,000
4.5 Post Construction
Certification and Report
Dec 31,
2024 $ 2,700 $ 300 Cash $ 3,000
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
TOTALS $ 2,419,200 $ 268,800 $ 2,688,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 29,700 $ 3,300 $ 33,000
Travel & Per Diem $ 4,500 $ 500 $ 5,000
Equipment $ - $ - $ -
Materials & Supplies $ 916,200 $ 101,800 $ 1,018,000
Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Construction Services $ 1,468,800 $ 163,200 $ 1,632,000
Other $ - $ - $ -
TOTALS $ 2,419,200 $ 268,800 $ 2,688,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 12 of 40 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.
AVEC based the proposed project budget for this grant application on past experience successfully
completing solar projects, including a 2022 solar array in Shungnak and Noatak where AVEC
supported the Northwest Arctic Borough with solar integration, and projects completed by others in
similar locations in the state. A detailed construction budget is attached in Tab G.
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?
AVEC has systems in place to accomplish reporting requirements successfully. AVEC has
received millions of dollars in funding and successfully administered grants from AEA, Denali
Commission, US Department of Agriculture, and US Department of Energy, completing more than
100 major projects in its service area over the last 20 years. See Tab G for a list of complete and
in-progress AEA projects.
The project will be managed out of AVEC’s Projects Development Department. For financial
reporting, the Projects Development Department’s accountant, supported by the Administrative
Services Department, will prepare financial reports. The accountant will be responsible for ensuring
that vendor invoices and internal labor charges are documented in accordance with AEA
guidelines and are included with financial reports. AVEC has sophisticated systems in place for
accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with the State
of Alaska’s guidelines.
AVEC will require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice submitted
from primary contractor(s). The progress reports will include a summary of tasks completed, issues
or problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from AVEC. Project progress
reports will be collected, combined, and supplemented as necessary and forwarded as one
package to the AEA project manager each quarter.
Because AVEC is responsible to its member communities and a board of directors, staying on
schedule and within budget is essential. This project will result in an analysis and
recommendations for clean, renewable energy from a solar array with battery storage. New
Stuyahok and Ekwok residents are very interested in this project because their energy costs can
be a large portion of their budgets. AVEC member communities expect status updates on village
projects, including when and what work will occur, who will be involved, and when it will be
completed. Community members are also able to contact AVEC’s President and CEO and Board
of Directors directly if they have an inquiry or concern about a project.
An independent auditor’s report on compliance for each major federal program and report on
internal control over compliance required by Title 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance) for AVEC in 2021
did not identify any deficiencies in internal control the auditor considered to be a material
weakness. In addition, the independent auditor’s report on compliance with aspects of contractual
agreements and regulatory requirements for AVEC in 2021 stated that nothing indicated AVEC
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 13 of 40 10/04/2022
failed to comply with the terms, covenants, provisions, or conditions of loans, grants, and security
instruments as specified in 7 CFR part 1773. A copy of AVEC’s audit is available upon request.
Quarterly meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all projects funded
through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project meetings will be held, as
required or requested by AEA.
Forest Button will be responsible for tracking progress of project communications, and Onya Stein,
may be contacted as an alternative manager.
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.
AVEC’s accounting system consists of software, procedures, and controls driven by the daily
inputs and other actions of competent employees throughout the organization. The software is
comprised of a comprehensive suite of Daffron-brand modules including accounting
(payables/payroll/general ledger), work orders, purchase orders, customer service and billing, and
warehouse/inventory. Some ancillary functions are accomplished on spreadsheets with data
downloaded from the various Daffron modules.
Procedures and controls include but are not limited to adequate separation of duties, manager-
level approval of all expenditures, CEO-level approval of all major expenditures, a formal
purchasing system (including purchase orders) for acquisition of materials and components, and a
formal contracting system for acquisition of contractual services (consultants, construction
contractors, etc.). Accounts payable are processed and recorded by the AVEC Accounting
Department, all expenditures are coded to budget categories and assigned to appropriate work
orders. The Projects Development and Key Accounts Department, particularly its Project Manager,
and Senior Accountant are primarily responsible for all grant reporting.
AVEC’s team, with years of experience and knowledge of managing AEA-funded project costs and
grant reimbursements, has a system in place for ensuring that only costs that are reasonable,
ordinary, and necessary are charged to a project, and that only costs that are eligible are submitted
for reimbursement. First, AVEC’s Project Manager (PM) is responsible for determining whether
costs are appropriate and acceptable. The PM reviews all invoices from contractors and vendors
and all in-house labor and equipment charges. Second, the Projects Development and Key
Accounts Department Manager (DM) reviews costs associated with outsourced services, including
consultant and contractor invoices, to ensure that the charges are reasonable. The DM also
reviews his department’s staff labor charges (timesheets) to the project. Third, the Operations and
Engineering Department Managers review all in-house labor (timesheets) and expense reports for
their respective departments to make sure that the charges are acceptable. Finally, the Projects
Development and Key Accounts Department Senior Accountant, while preparing AEA financial
reports and reimbursement requests, provides a review of both outsourced and in-house charges
to determine whether they are allowable costs.
AVEC has systems in place to keep unacceptable overhead costs from being charged to and
reimbursed through the REF Grant Fund Program. Upon project initiation, an AVEC work order
number is created to track all project labor and expenses. AVEC staff and contractors reference
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 14 of 40 10/04/2022
this number on all timesheets and invoices when working on the project, ensuring that project costs
are known. Purchase orders are universally used to establish spending limits for purchases of
materials, which are then monitored by the Accounting Department through the enterprise
accounting system. Task orders and contracts are universally used to establish spending limits for
purchases of contractual services, which are then monitored by the Projects Development and Key
Accounts Department utilizing spreadsheets. Direct labor expenses (gross payroll) are tracked
separately from overhead costs including employee benefits and payroll taxes. Once labor hours
have been calculated, overhead including employee benefits and payroll taxes are applied in a
separate transaction on the work order.
AVEC and AEA have an agreed rate cap for employer costs of payroll, consisting only of employee
benefits and payroll taxes. AVEC can ensure that only allowable costs would be requested for
reimbursement because the direct labor and indirect/overhead costs are separate transactions
(and thus the indirect/overhead amounts can be easily omitted from reimbursement), and because
the allowable rate has been established and agreed upon (and thus can be easily included for
reimbursement).
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 15 of 40 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.
Forest Button is the Project Manager and has served as manager of the Projects Development
Department for AVEC since 2016 where he leads a team focused on stabilizing the cost of energy
in rural Alaskan villages through improved power plant efficiency, renewable power generation,
wind to heat, recovered heat, and interties between villages.
Previously, Mr. Button worked as a project manager under contract to AVEC. He was responsible
for the management of the design and construction of capital projects and has 30 years of
experience managing construction projects throughout Alaska. Mr. Button has a degree in Mining
Engineering from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
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.
Rebecca Lopez is the Chief Financial Officer at AVEC, which includes the Accounting Department,
Purchasing, IT, and Human Resources. Ms. Lopez has more than 9 years of experience in the
Alaska electric utility industry. She joined AVEC in 2021. She is responsible for all administrative
and financial records including preparing grant reports, Regulatory Commission of Alaska rate
filings, financial forecasts, budgets and Power Cost Equalization (PCE), as well as overseeing the
day-to-day office operations.
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.
AVEC would use a project management approach that has been used to successfully design and
construct renewable energy projects throughout rural Alaska: a team of AVEC staff and an external
contractor/vendor.
AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
• William R. Stamm, President and Chief Executive Officer, would act as Project
Executive and will maintain ultimate program and financial authority.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 16 of 40 10/04/2022
• Forest Button, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, would lead the
project management team consisting of AVEC staff, and solar contractor/vendor. Together
with the Assistant Project Manager, Forest would provide coordination final design and
construction. The group’s resources include a project coordinator, accountant,
project/construction manager (PM/CM), and a community liaison. Mr. Button will be
responsible for managing all the project milestones listed in Section 1 (project
management). He will also be responsible for reporting directly to AEA on the status of the
project.
• Onya Stein, Assistant Project Manager, will assist on all milestones of the project. In
particular, she will be responsible for managing the contractor. Onya would ensure that all
milestones and tasks are completed. Specifically, she would be responsible for selecting,
coordinating, and managing the solar resource specialist and ensuring that their
deliverables are on time and within budget (milestones 1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5).
• Daniel Allis, Manager of Operations, would provide oversight and input in planning for
construction, distribution, and solar energy generation components of the project.
Specifically, he would provide input on the final design (milestone 3.2), construction of the
solar PV array (milestone 4.3), acceptance and startup of the array (milestone 4.4), and
post construction certification (milestone 4.5).
• Darren Westby, Manager of Engineering, would provide technical assistance and
information on the existing power system and possible issues and project needs.
Specifically, Darren would provide input on the final design (milestone 3.2) and the final
report (milestone 4.5).
• Rebecca Lopez, Chief Financial Officer, would assist with grant management, she would
provide support in accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in
accordance with AEA guidelines.
• Christian Diamond, Grant Accountant and Project Manager, would support the CFO
with grant management (milestone 4.1), assisting with accounting and financial reporting.
• Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, would communicate directly with New Stuyahok
residents to ensure that the community is informed. Specifically, Anna would assist by
working with the community on final site control (milestone 3.1) and relaying information
from the final report (milestone 4.5).
The contractor/vendor for this project would include:
• Solar Resource Contractor/Vendor. AVEC would seek a contractor/vendor best suited for
assisting with this effort based on experience in Alaska. This contractor/vendor would:
- Draft the final solar design (milestone 3.2)
- Assist in construction of solar PV array and battery storage (milestone 4.3)
- Work with AVEC in final acceptance, commissioning, and start up (milestone 4.4)
- Finalize the post construction certification and report with AVEC (milestone 4.5)
Selection Process for the Contractor: The solar contractor/vendor selection would be based upon
technical competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost, and general consensus
from an internal AVEC technical steering committee. The selection of the consultant would occur in
strict conformity with AVEC’s procurement policies, and conformance with OMB circulars.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 17 of 40 10/04/2022
Resumes for key staff can be found attached in Tab A.
4.2 Local Workforce
Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce.
AVEC uses local labor whenever possible in both daily operations and special projects;
recognizing that local labor is good for its customers’ families. Local wages circulate, often multiple
times, within the community thereby benefitting the community as a whole. AVEC project
managers also know there are tasks that are more competently done by local folks; for example,
equipment operators, bear guards, bird monitors, and four-wheeler drivers.
AVEC requires a 20% minimum local hire on all construction projects. For this effort, it is expected
that local labor will assist with the construction and installation of the solar panels and battery
storage.
Local labor saves money within special project budgets as demonstrated in comparing budgets
with local labor wages against imported labor wages, travel, and per diem. This is true for not only
AVEC’s own projects but also for its contractors. Therefore, AVEC includes local hire language in
the construction bid documents and contract.
AVEC has included the following language in bid documents in the past:
“Local Labor and Local Firms Participation Goal: The participation goal for this project has
been established as a percentage of the total dollar amount awarded to the successful bidder in
the amount of 20% to local labor and local firms. The successful bidder shall provide the Owner
documentation to demonstrate compliance with this goal. If this goal cannot be reached and good
faith efforts were demonstrated through documentation to the Owner, the Owner has the right to
issue a variance to this section.”
“Use of Local Labor and Local Firms: To the maximum extent practicable, Contractor shall
accomplish the Project using local labor and Alaska firms.”
In most AVEC communities, New Stuyahok being one of them, the power plant operators are
employees of their city government. Through a contract process, AVEC reimburses the city for the
wages and fringe benefits of the power plant operators. During project feasibility, design, and
construction phases, plant operators provide necessary assistance; typically, with tasks like bird
monitoring, taking photographs, changing sim cards, hosting and assisting engineers and others
coming into the community for project work.
AVEC is very proud of its training program wherein power plant operators are trained by an
itinerant training supervisor who travels continuously to AVEC communities and works one-on-one
with the operators as needed and throughout the year.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 18 of 40 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.
AVEC completed a review of solar potential in New Stuyahok. According to the NREL PVWatts
Calculator tool, a 300-kW solar array system in New Stuyahok has the potential to produce
276,413 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually (CF=10.5%) (Tab G). The highest energy production would
be in May (42,160 kWh) and June (38,224 kWh).
Additionally, based on existing knowledge and solar feasibility studies conducted for comparable
communities in similar Alaska locations, it is assumed New Stuyahok has conditions appropriate
for a viable solar PV system. A 2016 U.S. Department of Energy office of Indian Energy report
found that solar was a feasible system in nearby Kasigluk. The full study is attached in Tab G. As
the costs for solar installation have drastically decreased since the time of the study, AVEC
assumes that solar will be an even more viable option for New Stuyahok.
The 2016 study provided a statewide analysis of solar that is often referenced when determining
the feasibility of solar across the state. As noted in Figure 1 taken from the 2016 NREL study, New
Stuyahok is located in a relatively high kWh/m2/Day region of the state.
Figure 1. NREL Estimated Solar Resource Output for the State of Alaska
New Stuyahok
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 19 of 40 10/04/2022
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.
Solar energy has proven a viable energy resource in multiple communities with similar
environmental and climate conditions. Diesel fuel is the primary source of energy, which is
expensive. Other alternative energy resources (wind, hydroelectric and geothermal) are not
anticipated to be as cost effective or viable as solar energy with battery storage in New Stuyahok.
The wind resource is low; a wind resource report completed by V3 Energy for New Stuyahok in
2003 and again in 2015 found the wind resource to be “Class 2 - Marginal” and not cost effective
for New Stuyahok.
There are no geothermal opportunities nearby, and hydroelectric power opportunities do not exist
because of the landscape and unsuitable waterbodies. Further, hydroelectric power is not a
popular alternative in the Bristol Bay region because of the perceived impact on salmon runs.
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
No permits would be needed for the installation of the solar panels.
When examining the feasibility of this project, AVEC researched potential permitting requirements.
Based on a wetland delineation completed for the power plant and adjacent area (attached in Tab
G), there are no wetlands in the project area. Further, there are no other environmental resources
(fish streams, historic resources, airspace, etc.) that could be impacted by the project (report
attached in Tab G).
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.
AVEC would place the 300-kW PV on land adjacent to the AVEC power plant (Figure 2). The
proximity to the facility would allow for easy energy incorporation into the existing system and
operations and maintenance. This land is owned by the Stuyahok Limited, the local Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act Native Corporation, the board of directors have approved signature of site
control for the project and the Quit Claim Deed will be signed and recorded in January 2023.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 20 of 40 10/04/2022
Figure 2. New Stuyahok power plant and PV array location.
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.
This is a simple project. The typical risks, such as permitting and site control, have already been
addressed.
A recent study completed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies
Office found that supply chain issues may limit availability of solar panels and other supplies, which
could impact this timeline for this project. While this is out of AVEC’s control, to minimize these
risks to the schedule, AVEC plans to place the order for the panels in January 2024.
5.3.2 Environmental Risk
Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so, which project
team members will be involved and how the issues will be addressed. See the “Environmental and
Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance.
Threatened or endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 21 of 40 10/04/2022
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and describe other potential barriers
AVEC has already completed all the work to mitigate environmental risks for this project:
Threatened or endangered species: Based on consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
there are no listed species in the project area (Tab G).
Habitat issues: Because the array would be installed next to the power plant, habitat issues are
not expected.
Wetlands and other protected areas: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed that there
are no wetlands in the project area in a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (Tab G).
Archaeological and historical resources: Based on a review of the Alaska Heritage Resource
Survey, there are no cultural or historic sites near the solar panel site (Tab G). The State Historic
Preservation Officer concurred with a finding of no effect to historic resources for the construction
of the power plant, which is adjacent to the project.
Land Development Constraints: A Quit Claim deed will be signed and recorded by New
Stuyahok Ltd. in January 2023.
Telecommunications Interference: Solar panels do not emit any kind of radiofrequency waves,
so they do not affect telecommunications.
Aviation Considerations: Based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Notice Criteria Tool, the
New Stuyahok solar panels meets airspace navigation requirements and would not require filing for
Obstruction Evaluation /Airport Airspace Analysis.
Visual Impacts: The solar panels would be located next to the power plant and would not be
easily seen. AVEC received letters of support from all public entities in New Stuyahok.
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 power generation system in New Stuyahok consists of three diesel generators,
generating 277/480V three phase. In the first position is a 499 kilowatt (kW) rated Cummins
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 22 of 40 10/04/2022
QSX15 G9 that was installed in 2003. In the second position is a 363 kW rated Detroit Diesel
S60K4 1800 RPM engine installed in 2010. A 505 kW rated Caterpillar 3456 engine is in the third
position and was brought online in 2020. All units are able to load share and parallel. The most
efficient available engine is dispatched to meet the load through manual control of the plant
operator. Individual generator efficiency is not tracked, but the aggregate diesel generator
efficiency in 2021 was 13.62 kilowatt hours per gallon (kWh/gallon). AVEC is in the process of
replacing the engine controls and distribution feeders with automated switchgear with funding that
is not part of this application. The automated switchgear has been constructed and is scheduled for
installation in 2023 to ready the plant for integration of renewable generation.
Generation from New Stuyahok is connected to Ekwok by an eight-mile intertie. There are two
backup generators in Ekwok. Those generators ran for only five hours in 2021. In the second
position (behind the intertie), is a PER PKXL05-9YH1 and in the third position is a JD 6081HF070;
both were installed in 2011 and used to provide electric power to the community before the intertie
was constructed.
5.4.2.1 Existing Power Generation Units
Include for each unit include: resource/fuel, make/model, design capacity (kW), minimum
operational load (kW), RPM, electronic/mechanical fuel injection, make/model of genset
controllers, hours on genset
Unit 1: Diesel generator, Cummins QS15 G9, 499 kW, 50kW min, Electronic Fuel Injection, NEW
Generator model HC I534F1, 48,582 hours, installed 2003.
Unit 2: Diesel generator, Detroit Diesel Series 60 K4 1800 RPM, 363 kW, 50kW min, Electronic
Fuel Injection, NEW Generator model HC I504C1, 55,920 hours, installed 2010.
Unit 3: Diesel generator, Caterpillar 3456, 505 kW, 50kW min, Mechanical Fuel Injection,
Caterpillar generator model LC6 KT Generator model 4P3-1475, 6,944 hours, installed 2020.
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 New Stuyahok power plant generates at 277/480V three phase. There are seven manual
breakers, serving two circuits in New Stuyahok and the 3-phase tieline to Ekwok. Three of the feeder
breakers feed three each 100 kVA step up transformers. One feeder breaker feeds three each 50
kVA step up transformers. One feeder breaker feeds three each 100 KVA transformers for Ekwok.
Voltage is 7200/12470 GNRDY. All distribution is overhead. The step-up transformers are pad
mounted. AVEC is in the process of replacing the engine controls and distribution feeders with
automated switchgear with funding that is not part of this application. The switchgear has been
constructed and is scheduled for installation in 2023.
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)
Yes, operational heat recovery to school.
There will be minimal effect to heat
recovery during the shoulder seasons.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 23 of 40 10/04/2022
The New Stuyahok power plant serves Ekwok, three phase, through an eight-mile intertie. There is
three phase service to the school, airport, lift station, and water treatment plant, and single phase
service to residential areas in New Stuyahok and Ekwok.
5.4.2.4 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Existing System)
Use most recent year. Replace the section (Type 1), (Type 2), and (Type 3) with generation
sources
Month Generation
(Diesel)
(kWh)
Generation
(Type 2)
(kWh)
Fuel
Consumption
(Diesel-
Gallons)
Fuel
Consumption
[Other]
Peak
Load
Minimum
Load
(Assumed
1/2 of
average
load)
January 170,976 N/A 12,301 N/A 291.0 145.5
February 165,183 9,164 342.0 171.0
March 191,573 16,501 242.0 121.0
April 165,333 12,463 289.0 144.5
May 137,391 10,227 198.0 99.0
June 140,896 10,201 202.0 101.0
July 126,973 9,406 252.0 126.0
August 148,932 10,806 307.0 153.5
September 143,470 10,859 294.0 147.0
October 154,291 11,951 347.0 173.5
November 192,496 14,490 398.0 199.0
December 184,194 13,858 381.0 190.5
Total 1,921,708 142,677 Average 295.0 138.5
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.
According to U.S. Census data, New Stuyahok and Ekwok’s populations have remained stable over
the past 20 years. The 2020 estimated population for New Stuyahok was 512 people and 111 people
for Ekwok. Diesel energy costs in New Stuyahok are high. Power costs for residences and
community facilities are subsidized through Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. For
2022, the average household monthly cost of power before the PCE was $352 in both New Stuyahok
and Ekwok, and with the PCE subsidy the average household monthly cost was $215 in Ekwok and
$231 in New Stuyahok.
5.4.2.3 O&M and replacement costs for
existing units
Power Generation Thermal Generation
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $28,000
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 40 10/04/2022
Currently, major projects and increases in population are not planned or expected in New Stuyahok
or Ekwok. However, as more parts of rural Alaska become connected with better internet service,
energy demand and peak load could moderately increase in the foreseeable future due to more
electronics use. In addition, the communities are always looking to bring new businesses and
opportunities. Since energy demand is expected to rise in the future, solar energy development could
be used to reduce the cost of energy and offset energy production from diesel fuel.
Stabilizing the cost of energy provides various economics benefits to community, including reducing
household energy costs, allowing commercial entities to pass along savings to residents, and
increasing available funds to invest in improved community and social service. These economic
benefits will reduce outmigration of individuals in response to excessive utility costs energy costs
and ensure a consistent local energy market.
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.
Once AVEC secures funding for this project, they will distribute a request for proposal to potential
contractor/vendor. AVEC’s selection committee, electric and civil engineers, will select the
contractor /vendor which proposes the best suited PV solar and battery storage system for the site
and communities’ needs. Once selected, the contractor/vendor will design the solar array layout to
best take advantage of the solar regime in New Stuyahok. The contractor/vendor would also
design the civil infrastructure needed for the project including the screw-pile foundations for solar
panels.
Once AVEC’s Engineering Department reviews and approves the design, materials would be
secured and transported to New Stuyahok by barge. It is expected the PV array would be
constructed and incorporated into the existing system over one summer/fall.
Renewable energy technology: AVEC will review the contractor/vendor recommendation for
solar generation, conversion, and energy storage components to determine the best suited
technology for the communities.
Based off of information available now, AVEC anticipates connecting a distributed solar-battery
hybrid system to the power plant and electric grid to serve New Stuyahok and neighboring Ekwok.
Specifically, AVEC would install a 300-kW solar array with a 500-kW power conversion system and
500 kWh of battery storage.
Proposed capacity/capacity determination:
According to the NREL PVWatts Calculator tool, a 300-kW solar array system in New Stuyahok
has the potential to produce 276,413 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually (CF=10.5%). The highest
energy production would be in May (42,160 kWh) and June (38,224KWh) (report found in Tab G).
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 25 of 40 10/04/2022
Final design and engineering would determine distribution and power plant upgrades that would be
needed prior to the installation of a solar array and battery storage.
Integration plan: The solar infrastructure would connect to the existing diesel power plant. As
planned, the diesel generators would continue running. The existing power plant with diesel fuel
generators and power distribution system would be maintained to supplement the system and
provide full power.
Civil infrastructure: No civil infrastructure would be needed. The 300-kW PV array would be
placed on and adjacent to the AVEC power plant’s gravel pad. The proximity to the facility would
allow for easy energy incorporation into the existing system and operations and maintenance. The
panels would be supported by simple screw-piles.
Backup/supplemental system: The existing power plant with diesel fuel generators and the
existing power distribution system will be maintained to provide for the full power needs of the
community.
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 Solar 300 CSI Solar BiHiKu7 10.5%
(NREL
model)
25 276,413
kWh/year
(NREL
model)
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
N/A
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 40 10/04/2022
The solar infrastructure would connect to the existing diesel power plant. As planned, the existing
power plant with diesel fuel generators and power distribution system would be maintained to
provide the full power needs to the communities.
It is anticipated to make solar generation the primary energy source during periods of prolonged
sun exposure would require a 500-kW power conversion system and a 500-kW energy storage
system. The power conversion system and batteries would be located at the existing power plant.
The selected contractor would design the solar energy system in New Stuyahok to supplement the
existing diesel generators. During the summer, when the solar output is highest, electricity
produced would provide periods of full power to New Stuyahok and Ekwok’s loads accompanied by
the battery storage system.
The anticipated effect of the proposed system is lower diesel fuel use for electrical power generation.
Also, power generator use in New Stuyahok would be decreased, thereby decreasing generator
operations and maintenance costs, enabling generators to last longer and need fewer overhauls.
5.4.3.1 Expected Capacity Factor 10.5% (from NREL calculator)
5.4.5.2 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Proposed System)
Month Generation
(Proposed
System:
Solar PV,
from NREL)
(kWh)
Generation
(Type 2:
Diesel)
(kWh)
Generatio
n
(Type 3)
(kWh)
Fuel
Consumption
(Diesel-
Gallons)
Assume
13kW/gal
Fuel
Consumption
[Other]
Secondary
load
(kWh)
Stora
ge
(kWh)
January 5,782 165,194 NA 12,707 NA NA TBD
February 13,019 152,164 11,705
March 28,954 162,619 12,509
April 36,201 129,132 9,933
May 42,160 95,231 7,325
June 38,224 102,672 7,898
July 35,224 91,749 7,058
August 29,799 119,133 9,164
September 22,387 121,083 9,314
October 13,159 141,132 10,856
November 6,722 185,774 14,290
December 4,780 179,414 13,801
Total 276,411 1,645,297 126,561
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 N/A
February
March
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 27 of 40 10/04/2022
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
5.4.6 Proposed System Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed renewable
energy projects will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel
generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for
periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M.
Option 1: Diesel generation ON
For projects that do not result in shutting down
diesel generation there is assumed to be no
impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate
the estimated annual O&M cost associated with
the proposed renewable project.
For the purpose of this analysis, $30/kW is
assumed.
NREL estimates a solar array’s O&M cost is
estimated a $0.02/W which equates to
$20/kW. The Northwest Arctic Borough uses
$30/kW based on their experience with solar
projects.
Option 2: Diesel generation OFF
For projects that will result in shutting down
diesel generation please estimate:
1. Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off
diesel generation
2. Estimated hours that diesel generation
will be off per year.
3. Annual O&M costs associated with the
proposed renewable project.
5.4.7 Fuel Costs
Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system (Year 1 of
operation - 2025)
Diesel
(Gallons)
Electricity Propane
(Gallons)
Coal
(Tons)
Wood
Other
Unit cost
($)
$3.55
(based on
AVEC 5
year fuel
cost
average)
NA NA NA NA NA
Annual
Units
126,561
gals (see
Table
5.4.5.2)
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 28 of 40 10/04/2022
Total
Annual
cost ($)
$449,292
5.5 Performance and O&M Reporting
For construction projects only
5.5.1 Metering Equipment
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be
used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request
for Applications.
AVEC installs meters on all renewable projects and will install a meter panel for this solar energy
project. Metering equipment specifications and costs would be determined during the final design
project phase.
5.5.2 O&M reporting
Please provide a short narrative about the methods that will be used to gather and store reliable
operations and maintenance data, including costs, to comply with the operations reporting
requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications
Reporting O&M data to AVEC’s management and funding agencies are included in the total O&M
costs for the Cooperative. These costs are shared by all AVEC operations in all member
communities.
SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS
6.1 Economic Feasibility
6.1.1 Economic Benefit
Annual Lifetime
Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power
Generation (gallons)
20,295 (Assuming
276,413 kWh
produced from
renewables, and
13.62 kWh per gallon
efficiency according to
AVEC.)
507,366
Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat
(gallons) 0 0
Total Fuel displaced (gallons) 20,295 507,366
Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power
Generation ($)
$72,046 (Assuming
AVEC fuel cost of
$3.55 in 2025 from
AVEC five-year
average)
$1,315,772 (See REF
Model, based on 2025 fuel
cost of $3.55 and an annual
1 percent increase)
Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat ($) 0 0
Anticipated Power Generation O&M Cost
Savings 0 0
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 29 of 40 10/04/2022
Anticipated Thermal Generation O&M Cost
Savings n/a n/a
Total Other costs savings (taxes, insurance,
etc.) 0 0
Total Fuel, O&M, and Other Cost Savings $72,046 $1,315,772
6.1.2 Economic Benefit
Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings and other economic
benefits, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. Note that additional revenue
sources (such as tax credits or green tags) to pay for operations and/or financing, will not be
included as economic benefits of the project.
Where appropriate, describe the anticipated energy cost in the community, or whatever will be
affected by the project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and
provide year-by-year forecasts
The economic model used by AEA is available at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-
Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy-Fund/2021-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.
Assuming the installation of a 300-kW capacity system, it could produce 276,413 kWh annually.
The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for power generation in New Stuyahok could be
approximately 20,295 gallons per year. Using AVEC’s five-year average of fuel prices to New
Stuyahok of $3.55, this project could save $72,046 during the first year of operation. Over the 25-
year life of the project, the estimated savings would be $1,315,772, based on 2025 fuel cost of
$3.55 and an annual 1 percent increase.
New Stuyahok’s economic goals expressed in their Comprehensive Plan (2005) include increasing
employment and business opportunities for local residents. Ekwok’s Comprehensive Plan (2006)
includes a number of economic goals, including “Decrease cost of living by developing alternative
energy sources and increasing fuel capacity.”
The goal for this project is to meet New Stuyahok and Ekwok’s economic goals and address the
relative economic distress and energy-burdened circumstances by incorporating renewable solar
energy into the local power generation system.
To meet this goal, AVEC developed the following objectives:
1) Install a photo-voltaic (PV) solar array, power conversion system, and battery energy
storage system in New Stuyahok.
2) Incorporate the renewable energy project into the existing power generation and distribution
system to serve New Stuyahok and Ekwok.
To achieve this goal and objective, AVEC proposes to install a 300-kW solar array with a 500-kW
power conversion system and a 500-kWh battery storage to supplement the existing power
generation system which serves New Stuyahok and Ekwok. The distributed solar-battery hybrid
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 30 of 40 10/04/2022
system would be constructed in New Stuyahok next to the existing power plant. The existing diesel
system would remain in operation at a lower capacity to supplement solar energy.
New Stuyahok and Ekwok have a strong Yup’ik culture and the desire to maintain a way of life
which revolves around hunting, fishing, and other subsistence activities. Those activities are time
consuming and often in conflict with the cash economy. This conflict, along with scarce jobs, is
reflected in high unemployment and low family incomes. Within this economic backdrop, the cost of
power in relation to income is steep. As of December 2022, the residential cost of electric power in
New Stuyahok and Ekwok is $0.2376 per kWh for the first 750 kWh consumed in a given month,
$0.6261 /kWh for power use in excess of 750 kWh in a month (AVEC Community Permanent
Rates 2022). The reason the cost for rural power generation is so high is due to the high cost of
diesel fuel delivered to the community used to create electrical power using diesel generators.
This project will decrease the amount of diesel needed to generate power, which will help to lower
the cost of energy in New Stuyahok and Ekwok. The energy costs for entities that are not
subsidized by PCE are expected to decrease for residents and commercial entities in both
communities, providing immediate savings. Reduced energy costs for non-PCE community
institutions may allow for increased or improved community or social services. Similarly, reduced
energy costs for other non-PCE commercial energy customers such as stores might result in
savings to residents.
6.1.3 Economic Risks
Discuss potential issues that could make the project uneconomic to operate and how the project
team will address the issues. Factors may include:
Low prices for diesel and/or heating oil
Other projects developed in community
Reductions in expected energy demand: Is there a risk of an insufficient market for energy
produced over the life of the project.
Deferred and/or inadequate facility maintenance
Other factors
Economic risks from this project are primarily from the high startup costs, and economic viability is
dependent on successful implementation and operation of solar energy infrastructure over a 25-year
lifetime. Pilot projects and larger scale solar energy installations in Alaska have proven solar projects
in similar locations to be economically viable.
Although New Stuyahok and Ekwok have a small population, it is stable and isn’t expected to drop
substantially in the near future. Electricity demand will remain and could increase if energy costs
drop or if new opportunities arise.
AEA projections suggest the cost of fuel in New Stuyahok will increase for the foreseeable future,
suggesting costs for continued dependence on diesel powered electricity in New Stuyahok could
become prohibitive. With implementation of solar energy, energy costs will likely decrease and help
to ensure a stable population in New Stuyahok and Ekwok and a reliable energy market.
Success of this project is dependent on maintenance of the existing energy infrastructure and the
distribution system and the new solar array. AVEC has a complete and thorough process for tracking
and maintaining energy infrastructure in all 58 communities the cooperative serves.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 31 of 40 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
The primary benefit of this project is to lower energy costs in New Stuyahok and Ekwok and to
promote the local economy. As outlined in New Stuyahok and Ekwok’s community plans,
subsistence is an important economic activity for many households. However, while subsistence
may provide economic benefits, the cost of living (particularly energy costs) is still a major concern
in Bristol Bay communities, and it threatens the sustainability of communities which do not have a
strong cash economy.
Lower costs of services
Electric customers not eligible for PCE will receive the entire benefit of reduced power costs
through their electric rates. Many businesses and community facilities pay the full cost of power:
$0.6261/kWh, including local stores and schools. The savings these customers retain with a
reduced electricity bill is likely to have a positive impact on the whole community. Local
businesses, especially stores, may pass savings along to customers. The development and growth
of local businesses are currently crippled by the high cost of energy. Decreases in electricity costs
make small businesses more viable in these rural Alaska communities, which in turn makes
economic development and the addition of local jobs more likely.
Similarly, because schools pay the exorbitant, full price for electricity, there is less funding available
in school budgets for programs which directly benefit students. The school may be able to increase
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 32 of 40 10/04/2022
the hours of the open-to-the-public gym with the savings in the electric costs. (This is especially
beneficial in the long, dark, and cold winter.)
The local economies of New Stuyahok and Ekwok has been hard hit by the rising costs of fuel and
electricity, and by the State of Alaska budget shortfall. All of these factors affect the health and
well-being and economic survival of rural Alaska communities and residents. Lowering the cost of
electric services will help the communities recover and build a stronger economic foundation.
Increased Food Security
This project will supply affordable energy to support subsistence and food security. Lower
electricity costs will increase community food security as lower energy costs will help residents
keep freezers and refrigerators plugged in. New Stuyahok and Ekwok residents rely on a
subsistence lifestyle where food is gathered and harvested and then stored for when it is needed.
Salmon are harvested in the summer and expected to sustain families for the entire year.
Refrigeration is essential for the extended storage of perishable foods, and low electric costs is
essential for maintaining refrigeration.
Reduced Risk of Spills and Emissions
New Stuyahok and Ekwok are located on the Nushagak River about 80 miles upriver from Bristol
Bay. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery is the world’s largest wild salmon fishery. Historically it has
been one of the most lucrative in terms of harvest and product value. Because of the bay’s remote
environment away from industrial development, and its healthy, largely untouched watershed,
Bristol Bay is a vital refuge for both oceanic and freshwater fish species – including sockeye
salmon, other fish species, and marine mammals. As such, it is important for the surrounding
communities to protect the valuable salmon fishery and to reduce risk of spill and contamination
into its productive waters. With the installed solar system, fuel consumption would be reduced, the
volume of fuel transported by barge on the Nushagak River would be less, and the potential for
accidental spills in this important watershed would be lessened.
The solar energy project will offset diesel consumption and reduce emissions due to burning diesel
fuel. Air quality would be better. According to the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse
Gas Equivalencies Calculator, a 300-kW solar array and battery storage project in New Stuyahok
would decrease CO2 emissions by 216 metric tons per year and 5,412 tons over the 25-year life of
the project.
Promote Self-Sufficiency and Economic Diversification
To maintain a community, it must be affordable to live there. The high cost of power is one reason
many residents feel forced to leave rural Alaska. Affordable power makes it possible for residents
to maintain a basic quality of life, to grow existing businesses, and to start new ones. Knowing
power costs will be affordable now and, in the future, has a stabilizing effect on the local economy.
Affordable power is the foundation for energy self-sufficiency and diversification in the economy.
With this project, and its goals of more affordable power, AVEC is providing a foundation for growth
in the local economy. More affordable and reliable power will allow for new and existing businesses
to be more self-sufficient and for the local economy to diversify.
The high cost of energy limits the economic development. In turn, the lack of commercial and
industrial development keeps electrical loads small, limiting the spread of fixed costs to fewer
kilowatt-hour sales. In many communities across the country, small and large businesses – and
perhaps industrial facilities – pay a larger share of utility costs than residential users. In doing so,
they help pay for necessary upgrades and improvements to utility systems. Some areas in Alaska
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 33 of 40 10/04/2022
have seafood processing plants or tourist facilities which pay a larger share of their community’s
utilities costs. Neither New Stuyahok nor Ekwok have such industry support and rely on state and
federal programs and its own low- and moderate-income households to operate and maintain local
utility systems. This project will help fund improvements which lower electricity costs for New
Stuyahok and Ekwok residents.
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
As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to finance,
operate, and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has capacity and experience to operate
this project. AVEC has operating renewable energy projects throughout the state and is familiar
with planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining solar systems. See section 10 for a
complete discussion of AVEC’s success with similar or related long-term operations.
AVEC has a large and geographically diverse staff capable of operating and maintaining energy
infrastructure. AVEC follows established and proven protocols for training existing and future
employees to operate and maintain diesel and renewable generation facilities. Throughout AVEC’s
time as a leading energy cooperative, AVEC has had success with training and onboarding of
renewable infrastructure projects in Alaska. See section 4 for a detailed discussion of key
personnel assigned to ensure successful completion of this project.
AVEC will use tracking protocols already in practice to track necessary tasks associated with the
proposed solar and battery project in New Stuyahok. The solar array system would be incorporated
into AVEC’s established and proven power plant operation and maintenance system. Local plant
operators would provide daily servicing. AVEC technicians would continue to provide periodic
preventative or corrective maintenance and would be supported by AVEC headquarters staff,
purchasing, and warehousing.
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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 34 of 40 10/04/2022
If you will not be selling energy, explain how you will ensure that the completed project will be
financially sustainable for its useful life.
The capital costs of a solar PV array and battery are estimated from previous AVEC experience.
The costs of operations and maintenance of the proposed project would be determined by through
the feasibility study. Currently, the estimated annual O&M for this project is $6,000 based on NREL
guidance and Northwest Arctic Borough costs. All AVEC facilities O&M costs are funded through
ongoing energy sales.
AVEC has well established and proven processes in place to account for setting rates, ensuring
revenue is collected, and maintaining financial sustainability of infrastructure over their operational
lives.
Rates are inclusive of a kWh charge, a fuel charge, a flat customer charge fee, sale tax (in some
communities), and a demand charge (if service billed on a demand meter). Many residential and
community facilities receive a PCE deduction for up to 750kWh per month. As a recipient of PCE,
AVEC’s rates are reviewed and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. When
renewable energy is added to an existing diesel generation system, AVEC determines the cost of
electricity based lower fuel use for generation and the cost of operating the new renewable energy
system.
AVEC ensures that bills are collected through monthly billing and easy payment options (mail,
online, over the phone, autopay, by credit card, etc.). AVEC helps customers obtain financial
assistance when needed. As a last resort, AVEC can disconnect customers for nonpayment.
7.1.2.1 Revenue Sources
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit
area over the life of the project. If there is expected to be multiple rates for electricity, such as a
separate rate for intermittent heat, explain what the rates will be and how they will be determined
Collect sufficient revenue to cover operational and capital costs
What is the expected cost-based rate (as consistent with RFA requirements)
If you expect to have multiple rate classes, such as excess electricity for heat, explain what
those rates are expected to be and how those rates account for the costs of delivering the
energy (see AEA’s white paper on excess electricity for heat).
Annual customer revenue sufficient to cover costs
Additional incentives (i.e., tax credits)
Additional revenue streams (i.e., green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
As previously described, this project will decrease the amount of diesel needed to generate power,
which will help to lower the cost of energy in New Stuyahok and Ekwok. The energy costs for
entities that are not subsidized by PCE are expected to decrease.
As a non-profit utility cooperative, AVEC’s 58 member communities share the project and O&M
costs and the benefits renewable energy development have on electric bills. AVEC’s rates are
established by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and cover all costs needed to maintain an
electric cooperative.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 35 of 40 10/04/2022
There will be no separate rates, costs, incentives, or additional revenue associated with this
project.
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.
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s): AVEC, the existing electric utility serving
New Stuyahok and Ekwok, is a non-profit, member-owned cooperative electric utility and typically
owns and maintains the generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in the villages it serves.
No power purchase or sales agreements would be needed for this project.
There are 99 residential accounts in New Stuyahok and 43 in Ekwok who purchase power from
AVEC. There are also 18 combine community accounts which include the health clinic, city offices,
school, and water treatment plan who also purchase power from AVEC.
Potential power purchase/sales price: There will be no potential power purchase/sales
associated with this project.
SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS
8.1 Project Preparation
Describe what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Specifically address your progress towards or readiness to begin, at a minimum, the following:
The phase(s) that must be completed prior to beginning the phase(s) proposed in this application
The phase(s) proposed in this application
Obtaining all necessary permits
Securing land access and use for the project
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.
A 2016 NREL study quantified the solar potential across Alaska and completed a solar resource
assessment that is used in most feasibility work for solar in the state. The full feasibility study is
attached in Tab G. NREL modeling for this project also showed a system output of 276,413
kWh/year in New Stuyahok. AEA REF modeling showed that the installation of a 300-kW capacity
system could produce 276,413 kWh annually. The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for
power generation in New Stuyahok could be approximately 21,246 gallons per year. Using AEA’s
community fuel oil price projections, this project could save $61,196 during the first year of
operation. Over the 25-year life of the project, the estimated savings would be $1,030,198.
AVEC has identified and secured a location for the solar array and battery storage system adjacent
to the existing power plant. The land is owned by the New Stuyahok Limited, and they have agreed
to provide a Quit Claim Deed to AVEC to authorize use of the land, which is will be signed and
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 36 of 40 10/04/2022
recorded in January 2023. New Stuyahok residents are engaged and ready to work on this
important community project.
AVEC has completed the needed research and determined that there are no permits or
environmental approvals needed. (See section 5.2.)
AVEC does not anticipate any issues in procuring necessary equipment and materials. While
supply chain issues related to solar panel demand have caused some delays in project equipment,
AVEC would order materials and making a shipping plan as soon as the final design is complete at
the beginning of 2024.
No other grants have been secured for this work in the past.
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.
New Stuyahok and Ekwok have worked on many energy efficiency upgrades over the years to
make best use of its electricity and resources. In 2017, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
(ANTHC), completed a comprehensive energy audit of the New Stuyahok Water Plant. AEA also
supported Ekwok (Grant #219225) in Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program to
provide energy efficiency upgrades to 11 community buildings in 2009 and 2010. Through the
same program, AEA also supported New Stuyahok (Grant #219225) to provide energy efficiency
upgrades to 15 community buildings and two teacher-housing units in 2009.
SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Describe local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters,
resolutions, or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from
this project. Provide letters of support, memorandum of understandings, cooperative agreements
between the applicant, the utility, local government and project partners. The documentation of
support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of November 16, 2021. Please note that
letters of support from legislators will not count toward this criterion.
The community is committed to moving this project forward and fully supports evaluating solar
energy as a viable option for sustainable energy infrastructure in the community. Letters of support
for this project have been received from the City of New Stuyahok, City of Ekwok, New Stuyahok
Village, Ekwok Village Tribal Council, Stuyahok, Ltd., and Ekwok Natives, Ltd. Letters of support
can be found under Tab B.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 37 of 40 10/04/2022
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.
AVEC has been providing electrical services to rural, isolated, and economically-disadvantaged
Alaskan communities since 1968. The Cooperative began with three communities and a very small
staff, and has steadily grown to the impressive non-profit organization it is today, with 58-member
villages. AVEC started out with loans from the USDA RUS, and became a Denali Commission
partner in 2001. AVEC now has over 90 employees. There are generation technicians, linemen,
managers, engineers, expediters, and others in its central office in Anchorage, and plant operators
within member communities. With the signatures on this application, AVEC certifies that it is a
legally incorporated, non-profit entity eligible to receive federal grant funding for the proposed
project. Documentation of incorporation is available upon request.
AVEC has the largest geographic service area of any retail electric cooperative in the world. It has
demonstrated non-stop dedication to bringing stable and efficient sources of electricity to homes,
schools, clinics, water and sewer systems, businesses, and communications infrastructure in its
member villages. AVEC operates 160 diesel generators throughout its service area and purchases
over 9 million gallons of fuel annually. The generators produce electric power for member
communities, running a cumulative total of more than 420,000 hours per year. In 2021, AVEC
generated 124 million kWh in power sales.
Each of AVEC’s 58 villages conducts an annual village meeting for the express purpose of electing
a delegate to represent their community at AVEC’s Annual Cooperative Meeting held in Anchorage
each April. At the Annual Meeting, the delegates discuss AVEC business and elect members to
serve on the seven-member board of directors. AVEC and the local governments operate as a
partnership. Under operating agreements with all member communities, local control is exercised.
The village governments hire the plant operators and oversee the day-to-day operation of power
generation plants.
The AVEC Board of Directors and staff are committed to the on-going effort of increasing the
efficiencies and effectiveness of power-producing facilities and distribution lines in all member
villages. They believe that by improving the power generation and distribution in each community,
they are helping to improve the future of all impacted residents.
Since 2000, AVEC has reliably and responsibly spent over $299 million of grant funds plus its own
money to construct over 120 major projects. This includes 36 bulk fuel tank farm upgrades or
replacements, 19 new diesel-fired power plants, 7 standby backup power plants, 22 (grant funded
or AVEC funded) recovered heat systems, 14 wind farms (32 total wind turbines), 8 village-to-
village interties, 1 photovoltaic (PV) solar array, and 33 other generation and distribution upgrades.
Funding for these projects has come from the Denali Commission ($227 million), the Alaska
Energy Authority ($38 million), USDA RUS direct awards ($14 million), USDE Office of Indian
Energy ($4 million), other grants ($18 million), and AVEC matching contributions ($37 million).
AVEC has been awarded over 41 AEA grants, details for these grants are attached in Tab G.
Renewable Energy Fund Round 15
Grant Application – Standard Form
AEA 23046 Page 38 of 40 10/04/2022
SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES
In the space below, please provide a list of additional documents attached to support completion of
prior phases.
NREL Solar PV Alaska Study
Wetlands determination
Endangered species determination
No historic properties affected document
Construction estimate
SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
In the space below, please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration.
Tab A – Resumes
Tab B – Letters of Support
Tab C – Heat
Tab D – Authority
Tab E – Electronic Application
Tab F – Certification
Tab G – Additional Materials (Construction Estimate; REF Round 15 Economic Evaluation Model;
AVEC AEA Grant Summary; NREL Solar PV Alaska Study; Wetlands Determination; Endangered
Species Determination; No historic properties affected document)
Tab A
Resumes
Tab B
Letters of Support
Tab C
Heat Project Information
No information provided in this section.
Not applicable to this project.
Tab D
Authority
Tab E
Electronic Application
Application was submitted electronically.
Not applicable to this project.
Tab F
Certification
Tab G
Additional Materials
‐ Construction Budget
‐ AVEC AEA Grant Summary
‐ Evaluation Model
‐ NREL PV Watts Calculation
‐ NREL Solar Energy Prospecting
in Rural Alaska Report
‐ Endangered Species Report
‐ Complete Wetland delineation
‐ No historic properties affected
document
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP
Detailed Cost Estimate:REF Application New Stuyahok Date 12/5/2022
Description: Install 300 kWHr Solar Arrays and 500 kW Battery Storage - New Stuyahok
cost ($)cost ($)
Design Permitting Construction Solar Array - SubTotal 1,937,000
Geotechnical Services 2,000 Construction BESS - Sub Total 751,000
Design and Permitting 110,000 Total Construction Cost Estimate 2,688,000
Design/Permitting 112,000
Design/Permitting Total Estimated Cost 112,000 Total Estimated Cost 2,800,000
Qty cost ($)Qty cost ($)
1 Metering - Bidirectional, CT Cabinet 12,000 1 Battery Building/Connex 50,000
1 AC Disconnect 5,000 1 Lot Batteries, Li Fe Phosphate, 500 kWh 225,000
3 DC Combiner Panels 60,000 1 Lot 500 kVA Inverter 150,000
1 Auxilary Power Center 18,000 1 Lot Battery Management Control System 80,000
3 String Inverter - 100 kVA, UL 1741 185,000 1 Lot Fire Suppression 25,000
1 AC Combiner Switchbd, 480V, 600A 75,000 1 Lot Ventilation ducts, dampers 20,000
462 Solar Modules - 650W AC, Bifacial 416,000 1 Lot Conduit, wiring 10,000
1 Lot Solar Panel mounting & supports 180,000 1 Lot Grounding 2,000
1 Lot AC Conduit/ wiring 80,000 1 Lot Lighting fixtures, outlets, etc.2,000
1 Lot DC Conduit/ wiring, 850VDC 100,000 1 Lot Breaker panels 30,000
1 Lot Fiber/Communication 55,000 1 Lot Heating, Cooling, & controls 25,000
1 Lot Grounding 8,000 1 Lot Site Preparation 10,000
1 Lot Site work 95,000 1 Lot Metering - Bidirectional, CT Cabinet 12,000
1 Lot Fencing 75,000 BESS - Design for Construction 32,000
1 Lot Integration PV Controls 125,000 Miscellaneous/Contingencies 64,000
1 Lot Distribution Interconnection 130,000 Project Management 2,500
Miscellaneous/Contingencies 162,000 Final Acceptance/Commissioning 10,000
PV - Design for Construction 142,000 Post-Construction Cert. & Report 1,500
Project Management 2,500 Sub-Total BESS Construction 751,000
Final Acceptance/Commissioning 10,000
Post-Construction Cert. & Report 1,500
Sub-Total PV Construction 1,937,000
Construction - Battery Storage - 500 kWHrConstruction - 300 kWHr Solar Array
Summary of CostsDesign/Permitting - PV/BESS
Grant # /
Application #No.Description Notes Year Funded
Grant #2195244 Wind Turbine Foundation Design & Testing Project (DC project 27D Toksook Bay)Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2005 AES
Grant #2195281 Chevak Wind Farm Project (DC project 29E)Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2007 AES
Grant #2195412 Ambler Solar PV Construction Failed early feasibility evaluation, returned bulk of funds.2008 RD1
Grant #2195432 Bethel Wind Farm Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1
Grant #2195413 Cosmos Hills Hydro Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2008 RD1
Grant #2195384 Mekoryuk Wind Farm Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1
Grant #2195431 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Final Design Completed successfully (design). FERC licensure in place.2008 RD1
Grant #2195383 Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1
Grant #2195385 Toksook Bay Wind Farm Expansion Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1
Grant #2195463 Shaktoolik Wind Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2009 RD2
Grant #2195464 Teller Wind Analysis Completed successfully; feasibility only.2009 RD2
Grant #2195468 Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind Design and Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2009 RD2
Grant #7030006 New Stuyahok Wind Analysis Completed successfully; feasibility only.2009 RD2
Grant #7030016 Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & Conceptual Design Completed successfully; feasibility only.2010 RD3
Grant #7040008 Stebbins Wind Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4
Grant #7040014 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Completed successfully (design). FERC licensure in place.2011 RD4
Grant #7040017 St. Mary's/ Pitka's Point Wind Design and Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2011 RD4
Grant #7040019 Eek Wind Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4
Grant #7040021 Marshall Wind Feasibility Study Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4
Grant #7040022 Scammon Bay Wind Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4
Grant #7040030 Selawik Hybrid Wind Diesel System Turbine Upgrade Assessment Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4
Grant #7040049 Kaltag Solar Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2011 RD4
Grant #7040052 Koyuk Wind Feasibility Study Community declined to participate. Returned funding.2011 RD4
Grant #7040053 Elim Wind Feasibility Study Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4
Grant #7050870 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5
Grant #7050871 Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5
Grant #7050875 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5
Grant #7050876 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5
Grant #7060939 Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2013 RD6
Grant #7071067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Completed successfully; feasibility only.2014 RD7
Grant #7071068 Stebbins St. Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Completed successfully; final design and permitting.2014 RD7
Grant #7081118 Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Assessment & Conceptual Design Completed successfully; feasibility and coceptual design.2015 RD8
Grant #7091223 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and CDR In progress. 2018 RD9
Grant #7091224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Project Completed successfully; facilities constructed. 2018 RD9
Grant #7110056 Togiak RPSU Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2017
Grant #7110082 Anvik DERA Replace Engine Position 3 Completed successfully; new engine commissioned and on-line.2019
Grant #7210025 Holy Cross BFU Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2017
Grant #7310305 Grid Bridging System Research and Development In progress.2019
Application #13002 Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility & Conceptual Design Project In progress.2020 RD13
Application #13003 Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility & Conceptual Design Project In progress.2020 RD13
Application #14004 Pilot Station Wind Energy Feasibility Study & Conceptual Design Project In progress.2021 RD14
Application #14002 Holy Cross Solar Energy & Battery Storage Feasibility Project In progress.2021 RD14
Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model
Project Description
Community
Nearest Fuel Community
Region
RE Technology
Project ID
Applicant Name
Project Title
Results
NPV Benefits $856,192.49
NPV Capital Costs $2,718,447
B/C Ratio 0.31
NPV Net Benefit ($1,706,204)
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 276,413
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 6,910,325
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 20,295
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 507,366
Displaced Natural Gas MCF per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime MCF -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 207
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 5,170
Proposed System Unit Value
Capital Costs $2,800,000$
Project Start year 2025
Project Life years 25
Displaced Electric kWh per year 276,413
Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year
Renewable Generation O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000
Renewable Generation O&M (Heat)$ per year
Diesels OFF time Hours per year
Electric Capacity kW 300
Electric Capacity Factor %11%
Heating Capacity Btu/hr
Heating Capacity Factor %#DIV/0!
Total Other Public Benefit 2021$ (Total over the life of the project)0
Base System
Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/hr
Diesel Generator O&M 151-360kW 9.35$
Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon 13.62
Total current annual diesel generation kWh/gallon
1,921,708 13.62 Diesel Generation Efficiency
Solar PV
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
New Stuyahok Solar Energy and Battery Storage Project
NOTICE: By default, this sheet is locked. If you need to unlock the sheet go to 'Review' in ribbon bar, select
'Unprotect Sheet', then input passcode: REFRound15
New Stuyahok
New Stuyahok
Rural
Annual Cost Savings Units 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year 2,800,000$
CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year 44,046$ 44,766$ 45,494$ 46,229$ 46,971$
CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year 44,046$ 44,766$ 45,494$ 46,229$ 46,971$
CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year (2,755,954)$ 44,766$ 45,494$ 46,229$ 46,971$
2700000 2,655,234$ 2,609,739$ 2563510.433 2516539.104
Electric Units 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$
REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit
CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel
Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 3.55$ 3.59$ 3.62$ 3.66$ 3.69$
Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year 72,046$ 72,766$ 73,494$ 74,229$ 74,971$
CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year 72,046$ 72,766$ 73,494$ 74,229$ 74,971$
Proposed
Base
Annual Cost Savings Units 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year
CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year 47,721$ 48,478$ 49,243$ 50,015$ 50,796$
CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year 47,721$ 48,478$ 49,243$ 50,015$ 50,796$
CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year 47,721$ 48,478$ 49,243$ 50,015$ 50,796$
2468818.063 2420339.811 2,371,096.78$
Electric Units 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$
REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit
CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel
Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 3.73$ 3.77$ 3.81$ 3.84$ 3.88$
Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year 75,721$ 76,478$ 77,243$ 78,015$ 78,796$
CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year 75,721$ 76,478$ 77,243$ 78,015$ 78,796$
Proposed
Base
Annual Cost Savings Units 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year
CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year 51,584$ 52,379$ 53,183$ 53,995$ 54,815$
CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year 51,584$ 52,379$ 53,183$ 53,995$ 54,815$
CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year 51,584$ 52,379$ 53,183$ 53,995$ 54,815$
Electric Units 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039
Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit
CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel
Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 3.92$ 3.96$ 4.00$ 4.04$ 4.08$
Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year 79,584$ 80,379$ 81,183$ 81,995$ 82,815$
CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year 79,584$ 80,379$ 81,183$ 81,995$ 82,815$
Proposed
Base
Annual Cost Savings Units 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year
CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year 55,643$ 56,480$ 57,324$ 58,178$ 59,039$
CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year 55,643$ 56,480$ 57,324$ 58,178$ 59,039$
CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year 55,643$ 56,480$ 57,324$ 58,178$ 59,039$
Electric Units 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044
Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit
CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel
Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 4.12$ 4.16$ 4.20$ 4.25$ 4.29$
Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year 83,643$ 84,480$ 85,324$ 86,178$ 87,039$
CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year 83,643$ 84,480$ 85,324$ 86,178$ 87,039$
Proposed
Base
Annual Cost Savings Units 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year
CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year 59,910$ 60,789$ 61,677$ 62,574$ 63,479$
CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year 59,910$ 60,789$ 61,677$ 62,574$ 63,479$
CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year 59,910$ 60,789$ 61,677$ 62,574$ 63,479$
Electric Units 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049
Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit
CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$
REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413 276,413
REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel
Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 4.33$ 4.37$ 4.42$ 4.46$ 4.51$
Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295 20,295
CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year 87,910$ 88,789$ 89,677$ 90,574$ 91,479$
CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year 87,910$ 88,789$ 89,677$ 90,574$ 91,479$
Proposed
Base
Solar Energy Prospecting
in Remote Alaska
An Economic Analysis of Solar Photovoltaics
in the Last Frontier State
by Paul Schwabe, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy | Office of Indian Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington DC 20585 | 202-586-1272
energy.gov/indianenergy | indianenergy@hq.doe.gov
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
ii
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the
United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States government or any agency thereof.
Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
OSTI http://www.osti.gov
Phone: 865.576.8401
Fax: 865.576.5728
Email: reports@osti.gov
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Road
Alexandra, VA 22312
NTIS http://www.ntis.gov
Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000
Fax: 703.605.6900
Email: orders@ntis.gov
energy.gov/indianenergy | indianenergy@hq.doe.gov
DOE/IE-0040 • February 2016
Cover photo from Alamy EPC220. Credit to Design Pics Inc / Alamy Stock Photo.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
iii
Acknowledgements
This work is made possible through support from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Indian Energy
Policy and Programs. The author would like to thank Christopher Deschene, Givey Kochanowski and
Douglas Maccourt for their support of this work. The author would also like to thank the following reviewers
for their insightful review comments: Robert Bensin of Bering Straits Development Company; Brian Hirsch
of Deerstone Consulting; David Lockard of Alaska Energy Authority; Ingemar Mathiasson of Northwest
Arctic Borough; David Pelunis-Messier of Tanana Chiefs Conference; and Erin Whitney of Alaska Center for
Energy and Power. The author also wishes to thank Elizabeth Doris, Sherry Stout, and Jared Temanson of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for their strategic guidance throughout this effort as well as
Jeffrey Logan and David Mooney, of NREL, for their insightful review of the document. The author is
grateful for the technical editing of Heidi Blakley, Karen Petersen, and Rachel Sullivan of NREL. Finally the
author also wishes to thank Jared Wiedmeyer for assistance with development of the analytical model and
Pilar Thomas for her guidance and support early in this work. The author is solely responsible for any
remaining errors or omissions.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
iv
List of Acronyms
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
Btu British thermal unit
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCOE levelized cost of energy
m2 square meter
MW megawatt
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O&M operations and maintenance
PCE Power Cost Equalization
PV photovoltaic
W watt
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
v
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Analysis Description and Limitations ............................................................................................ 7
Analysis Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 8
Data Input Assumptions: Diesel Generation Costs, Solar Costs, and Solar Resource
Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 11
Input Parameters for Diesel Generation Costs .......................................................................... 11
Input Parameters for Solar Electricity Generation ..................................................................... 13
Summary of Input Assumptions .................................................................................................. 17
Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 22
References ................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A. Model Overview and Description ........................................................................... 27
Appendix B. Levelized Cost of Energy Results ........................................................................... 28
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Solar resource comparison of Alaska and Germany .................................................... 2
Figure 2. Annual solar production percentage across four regions in Alaska by month ........... 3
Figure 3. Solar PV installations at water treatment facilities in the remote villages of
Ambler, Shungnak, Deering, and Kobuk, Alaska ................................................................... 5
Figure 4. The seasonal sun paths of Kotzebue, Alaska, and Denver, Colorado ..........................
Figure 5. Villages included in solar analysis ................................................................................. 7
Figure 6. PV Installations in Nome and Galena ..............................................................................
Figure 7. Average wholesale diesel prices in $/gal for the 11 villages tested in 2013
and 2014 ............................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8. Screenshot and callout of diesel fuel purchases in Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska ......... 13
Figure 9. PVWatts solar resource estimate tool screenshot for Adak, Alaska ........................ 14
Figure 10. PVWatts solar resource estimate tool for a 100-kW PV system in Adak, Alaska .. 15
Figure 11. Indexed diesel and solar PV prices from 2002 to 2015 .............................................
Figure 12. Servicing a PV system in remote Alaska .................................................................. 17
Figure 13. Cost of electricity comparison between solar PV and diesel generation .............. 21
Figure 14. Schematic of LCOE model used in this analysis ..................................................... 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Cost Estimates for a 100-kW PV System .................................................................... 17
Table 2. Annual Solar Energy Estimates .................................................................................... 18
Table 3. Wholesale Diesel Fuel Costs for Electricity Generation ............................................. 19
Table 4. Solar PV LCOE Modeling Results ................................................................................. 28
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
1
Introduction
Exploitation and utilization of energy resources within the state of Alaska has predominantly and historically
centered on its abundance of fossil-fuel deposits including oil, natural gas, and coal. Within the last decade,
however, renewable energy technologies have been deployed across the state for both demonstration purposes
and commercial ventures (REAP 2016). This diversification of energy sources has been driven from at least
three primary factors: (1) the economic exposure of many Alaskan communities to oil price fluctuations and
other petroleum market influences (2) technological advancements and reductions in the cost of renewable
energy equipment, and (3) efforts to improve self-sufficiency for remote Alaskan communities. Due to these
factors and more, renewable energy resources are increasingly being considered to meet Alaska’s energy
needs (Foster et al. 2013).
Renewable energy technologies used in Alaska have included small and large hydroelectric facilities, utility-
scale and distributed wind generation, geothermal and air heat pumps, and woody biomass for electricity and
heating (REAP 2016, CCHRC 2016). In addition to these endemic natural resources, a previously dismissed
but pervasive form of renewable energy is also increasingly being analyzed and deployed in Alaska: solar
electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) panels.
The lack of historical solar energy development in Alaska is due to a multitude of factors, but not surprisingly
starts with one fundamental problem: minimal to no sunlight in the winter months, particularly for the
northern latitudes. Of course, Alaska also experiences prolonged and sunlight rich summer days, but many of
the biggest energy needs arise during the cold and dark months of winter. Despite this seemingly obvious
barrier for solar electricity in Alaska, upon deeper examination there are several factors that may support the
deployment of solar energy in particular locations across the state.
First, Alaska is an immense state with a large geographic range along both the north-to-south and east-to-west
directions. Many Alaskans will proudly and dryly note that if one was to hypothetically cut the state into two,
Texas would be only the third largest state in the Union. This expansive and diverse geographic range means
that there are significant differences in both the amount and seasonal variation of the solar resource across the
state. Additionally many of the meteorological conditions experienced in certain regions of Alaska can
actually be beneficial to solar energy production, including low ambient temperatures that improve the
efficiency of solar modules and the reflectivity of sunlight off of snow cover on the ground. As shown in
Figure 1, the solar resource (i.e., the amount of solar insolation received in kilowatt-hours (kWh)/square
meters (m2)/day) in some regions of Alaska is at-least comparable to that of Germany, which leads the world
in PV installations with more than 38,500 megawatts (MW) of solar installed as of October 2015 (Wirth
2015).1
1 To put 38,500 MW in perspective, with a population of roughly 80 million, Germany has installed approximately 480 watts (W) of
PV per capita, or roughly two average-sized 250-W PV panels for every person in the country.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
2
Figure 1. Solar resource comparison of Alaska and Germany 2
Source: Billy J. Roberts, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Second, both the expected monthly solar production and the seasonal load profile of communities can vary
significantly across Alaska, meaning some communities may be better suited for solar production than others.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of expected annual solar production by month across the Arctic, Interior,
Southwest, and Southeast geographic regions of Alaska.3 The Arctic and Interior regions of Alaska could
2 This map was produced by NREL for the U.S. Department of Energy. Annual average solar resource data are for a solar collector
oriented toward the south at tilt equal to local latitude. The data for Alaska is derived from a 40-km satellite and surface cloud cover
database for the period of 1985 to 1991. The data for Germany was acquired from the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission and is the average yearly sum of global irradiation on an optimally inclined surface for the period of 1981 to 1990.
3 For comparison to Figure 1, each region’s specific solar insolation measure is also shown in the figure heading.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
3
expect high solar production predominantly from March through August, with a steep drop off in the shoulder
months and little to no production in the winter. The Southeast and Southwest regions of Alaska show a more
gradual transition of solar production levels from the sunlight rich spring and summer months to the
shortening days of fall and winter. Although the electricity load peaks for many Alaska Native villages in the
winter months when solar is minimally producing, these villages are also often running primarily on diesel-
based generation during summer months for basic electricity needs such as lighting, refrigeration, cooking,
and electronics when solar PV energy could offset fossil-fuel consumption. Furthermore, despite the cold and
dark winters in Alaska that result in high energy demands, some Alaska communities have summer-peaking
energy demands primarily because of commercial fishing activities and higher seasonal populations in the
summer, which is generally compatible with solar availability.4
Figure 2. Annual solar production percentage across four regions in Alaska by month
Source: NREL 2015
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, Alaska has more than 175 remote village populations that rely almost
exclusively on diesel fuel for electricity generation and heating oil for heat (Goldsmith 2008, AEA 2014a).
Although oil is extracted in the North Slope of Alaska, the in-state production does not result in a below
4 Additionally, Sidebar 1 compares the path of the sun in the village of Kotzebue, Alaska to Denver, Colorado, to illustrate solar
production in the Arctic region with a reference point in the contiguous 48 states.
0%
4%
15%
17%17%
14%15%
10%
5%
3%0%0%
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Arctic Alaska Annual Solar Production
Percentage by Month (2.3 kWh/m2/day)
1%2%
11%
12%
14%14%15%
13%
7%7%
2%1%
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Interior Alaska Annual Solar Production
Percentage by Month (3.4 kWh/m2/day)
3%
9%
13%14%
12%
11%10%
8%7%
6%
4%
3%
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Southwest Alaska Annual Solar Production
Percentage by Month (3.1 kWh/m2/day)
3%
5%
11%
14%15%
9%
14%
10%
8%
5%5%
2%
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Southeast Alaska Annual Solar Production
Percentage by Month (3.1 kWh/m2/day)
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
4
market price for oil within the state. Chris Rose, Renewable Energy Alaska Project Executive Director notes,
“We [Alaskans] pay the world commodity oil price. We’ve never received some sort of ‘hometown’ discount
for oil.” (Gerdes 2015). Unprocessed crude oil extracted within the state is transported via the TransAlaska
pipeline from the North Slope to refineries in the Interior and South-Central regions of Alaska and then
delivered locally as diesel and gasoline to rural communities a few times per year. Most fuel deliveries to
remote communities are made via barge, ice road, or air transport, which also contributes to the high local
prices for diesel and gasoline.5 The local markup to retail pricing also adds to the “all-in” prices for fuel in
rural villages. Due to these and other factors, electricity generated by diesel fuel in some rural communities
can be $1.00/kilowatt-hour (kWh) or more, which is more than 8 times the national average of $0.12/kWh
(AEA 2014a, EIA 2014). As described later in this report, the State of Alaska has enacted various programs
for both renewable and diesel energy sources to help reduce the energy costs in rural Alaska, but many of
these programs are limited to certain sectors, or are increasingly under scrutiny with the budget difficulties
being experienced by the state (AEA 2016a, AEA 2016b, Johnson 2015).
For these reasons and more, alternative forms of electricity generation including solar PV are increasingly
being pursued in remote Alaska communities (see Figure 3 for examples of solar PV recently installed in the
Northwest Arctic Borough). This analysis provides a high-level examination of the potential economics of
solar energy in rural Alaska across a geographically diverse sample of remote villages throughout the state. It
analyzes at a high level what combination of diesel fuel prices, solar resource quality, and PV system costs
could lead to an economically competitive moderate-scale PV installation at a remote village. The goal of this
analysis is to provide a baseline economic assessment to highlight the possible economic opportunities for
solar PV in rural Alaska for both the public and private sectors.
5 The cost of transportation is even more pronounced in regions that require regular fuel deliveries via air shipments, if for example,
barge or ice road transport is unavailable due to freezing, thawing, low runoff, high silting, or other conditions.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
5
Figure 3. Solar PV installations at water treatment facilities in the remote villages of Ambler,
Shungnak, Deering, and Kobuk, Alaska 6
Source: Mathiasson 2015b, Northwest Arctic Borough
6 Clockwise from top left, the 8.4-kW Ambler array uses a pole-mounted array design and the 7.5-kW Shungnak installation utilizes a
roof-mounted design with 90° directional offsets. The 11.55-kW and 7.38-kW design in Deering and Kobuk respectively incorporate a
180° circular system design that wraps around the east, south, and west facing walls of water treatment towers. These designs are
utilized to even out the daily solar production profile (compared to systems installed facing just to the south) which can ease
integration with existing diesel generators.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
6
Sidebar 1. Seasonal Sun Path in Kotzebue, Alaska, Compared to Denver, Colorado
The state of Alaska is well known for its long summer days and prolonged winter nights. Given the immense size of the
state from the Northern to Southern latitudes, however, there is a wide range of expected daylight hours throughout the
state. For example, on the shortest day of the year the capital city of Juneau located in the South can expect 6 hours, 22
minutes of daylight while the Northern city of Barrow is in the midst of 67 straight days of total winter darkness
(Alaska.org 2015). To highlight the seasonal sun path variations of one region of Alaska compared to a representative
point in the contiguous 48 United States (lower 48 states), Figure 4 below shows the sun’s path for Kotzebue, Alaska,
located in the Northwest Arctic Borough, compared to Denver, Colorado, which is an approximate latitudinal mid-point of
the lower 48 states. This figure shows both the spring and fall equinoxes when the total length of day and night are
equal across the globe and the summer and winter solstices when the longest and shortest days of the year occur.
The path of the sun’s altitude for Kotzebue illustrates how the sun never falls completely below the horizon on the
summer solstice, while on the winter solstice, it never quite rises above. The shape of the sun’s path for Kotzebue also
illustrates a flatter and more gradual curve compared to the relatively steep curve for Denver. While solar electricity
production in Kotzebue would be minimal during the winter months, the long summer days would provide a period of
extended production. The spring and fall months would also produce a moderate amount of solar electricity and benefit
from low ambient temperatures and increased production from sunlight reflected off of snow cover on the ground.
Figure 4. The seasonal sun paths of Kotzebue, Alaska, and Denver, Colorado
Source: Suncalc 2015 with visual concept adapted from Time and Date 2015
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
7
Analysis Description and Limitations
This analysis examines the economics of solar electricity at a sampling of 11 remote villages across the state.
The villages were selected to represent major geographical regions across the state including the Arctic Slope,
the Interior, the Southwest, the Southeast, and the Aleutian Islands. In general, these regional variations were
selected to capture the variations in meteorological conditions across the state, different delivery options, and
possible ranges in diesel fuel prices. All of the villages are off of Alaska’s road system. The villages included
in this analysis include Adak, Ambler, Anaktuvuk Pass, Hughes, Kasigluk, Shungnak, St. Paul, Tenakee
Springs, Venetie, Yakutat, and Wainwright. Figure 5 shows the location of each of the 11 villages across the
state and their estimated solar insolation.
Figure 5. Villages included in solar analysis 7
Source: Billy J. Roberts, NREL
7 This map was produced by NREL for the U.S. Department of Energy. Annual average solar resource data are for a solar collector
oriented toward the south at tilt equal to local latitude. The data is derived from a 40-km satellite and surface cloud cover database for
the period 1985–1991.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
8
The analysis uses the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) as a metric to compare the costs of solar electricity
to diesel fuel rates, reported in cents per kilowatt-hour. LCOE is a metric that takes the entire lifecycle
expenditures of an energy technology including capital costs, transportation, operating, and fuel costs (zero
for solar) discounted to the present term and divided by the expected annual energy production of the energy
system. While there is not a single universally accepted definition or methodology to calculate LCOE, in its
basic form LCOE is often used to compare the cost of different energy technologies that can have very
different cost and generation profiles (i.e., capital intensive versus operational intensive, project life, fuel
costs, etc.). A common criticism for LCOE is that it does not differentiate between energy sources that are
generally considered non-variable such as diesel generation from variable energy sources such as wind or
solar energy. Moreover, project-level feasibility and economic evaluations are not typically made with just
one metric, but instead incorporate a variety of analytical criteria including LCOE, net present value, internal
rate of return, payback period, and a benefit to cost ratio, among others. For these reasons and more, LCOE is
a useful though not singular metric to compare the cost of solar to the fuel-only cost of diesel generation (EIA
2015).8
To conduct the analysis, a spreadsheet-based pro-forma tool was created to calculate the LCOE for solar PV
systems. This model was based on a simplified version of NREL’s Cost of Renewable Energy Spreadsheet
Tool that allows for basic LCOE evaluations and includes capital, operating, and financial costs, performance
and inflation adjustments, as well federal, state, and local policy support schemes (NREL 2011). This model
includes the ability to model the economically significant federal tax benefits given to solar energy
technologies such as the 30% investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation. The model used in this
analysis was tested and reviewed by two outside entities.9 See Appendix A for more information on the model
used in this analysis.
Analysis Limitations
It is important to note that there are many factors that will impact both the technical and economic
characteristics of solar electricity, which are beyond the scope of this initial analysis. From a technical
standpoint, this analysis does not explicitly consider the impact of integrating high penetration levels of
variable solar electricity with a baseload diesel generation system. Instead, this analysis makes a few
simplifying assumptions on integrating solar and diesel generation:
• First, the analysis assumes that a kilowatt-hour produced from solar electricity is able to offset a
kilowatt-hour produced from diesel generation. This one-to-one offset may not always be achievable
as diesel generators are often most fuel-efficient at a given power level and generation from PV could
impact the generator’s power level and thus fuel efficiency. Moreover, because diesel generators
provide both energy (i.e., kilowatt-hours of generation) as well as other grid services such as voltage
and frequency regulation, this analysis assumes that some level of diesel generation will always be
running for grid operations and is not attempting to model a “diesel-off” scenario.
• Second, the analysis also assumes the PV system would be sized small enough relative to the existing
diesel generator to not require extensive energy storage systems (i.e., batteries) to integrate the solar
8 See the Data Input Assumptions Section for why only the fuel-cost component of diesel fired generation is used in this analysis.
9 These entities include the original developers of the Cost of Renewable Energy Spreadsheet Tool at Sustainable Energy Advantage
and researchers at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at University of Alaska Anchorage.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
9
and diesel generators.10 As shown previously in Figure 3, the Northwest Arctic Borough recently
installed a series of PV arrays at water treatment plants in remote regional villages using PV system
designs that smooths the daily solar generation profile and thus integrates more easily with the
existing diesel generators. Furthermore, comparatively smaller integration upgrades such as advanced
power electronics and controls installed at either the diesel powerhouse or at the PV system are
assumed to be utilized and implicitly included into the all-in PV system price. As an example, a 2014
study conducted by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power found that a remote Alaskan village with
a peak load of about 1.1 MW could accommodate a 135-kW PV system with no control system
upgrades, and a 205-kW PV system with some control system upgrades (Mueller-Stoffels 2014).11
Conversely, whole system upgrades, or a new, but smaller diesel generator is not assumed to be
included in the all-in PV system price.
From an economic standpoint, this analysis also does not attempt to examine the interplay of state-derived
financial relief of diesel fuel purchases by remote villages through its Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
program. Instead it makes a simplifying assumption that PV would be targeted at installations not eligible for
PCE such as commercial businesses, schools, or state or federal buildings.12 Although the simplifying
assumptions incorporated here are useful for the purposes of this high-level investigation, more research is
required in order to further refine the analysis and provide project-specific economic feasibility.
10 Existing research has attempted to quantity what levels of PV integration would require extensive integration costs for a single
village, though more investigation is required for broader applicability (Jensen et al. 2013, Mueller-Stoffels 2015).
11 The range of installed costs for the PV systems described in the Data Inputs Assumptions Section is likely sufficiently wide enough
to include at least one case where the control upgrades are included in the PV system pricing.
12 See Sidebar 2 for more information on the Power Cost Equalization program.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
10
Sidebar 2. Power Cost Equalization and Renewable Energy
In Alaska, a long-standing state policy program known as Power Cost Equalization attempts to equalize
electricity costs between high-cost rural communities with comparatively cheaper urban population centers
connected by the rail and road system from Fairbanks in the Interior through Anchorage to Homer in the South-
Central region (known as the “Railbelt”) and Juneau in the Southeast. The PCE program provides significant
financial relief to many of the rural communities throughout Alaska, in particular those not on the rail or road
system, by using a state endowment fund to subsidize rural electricity rates to be in-line with rates experienced
in the Railbelt and Southeast Regions. Although several components contribute to the PCE rate amount, a
sizable portion of it is determined from the cost of diesel fuel used to generate electricity in eligible remote
Alaskan communities (AEA 2014b). In this sense the PCE has been suggested by some as a financial
disincentive for rural Alaskan communities to reduce their diesel dependency as doing so can also reduce the
amount of PCE financial support (Hirsch 2015, Fay et al. 2012). Others note that the impacts from a renewable
energy installation on PCE payments can be more pronounced on certain customer classes than others and a
more nuanced assessment is appropriate (Drolet 2014). In any case, the current PCE structure has
unquestionably led to a debate around if, how, and to what extent the economic value of renewable energy—
principally the ability offset diesel fuel costs—is restricted by the PCE.
As mentioned above, this analysis does not dive into the complex assessment of determining the net impact of
renewable energy to diesel savings to PCE subsidies at the village level. Instead it makes a simplifying
assumption that under the current PCE structure, the solar installation is logically targeted at a facility not
currently eligible for PCE. These non-PCE eligible facilities include schools, local businesses such as a village or
Native corporation, or state and federal facilities (AEA 2014b). An early example of this type of installation is the
16.8-kW system installed at Bering Straits Native Corporation in Nome in 2008, shown on the left in Figure 6
(AEA 2016c). Another example is the 6.7-kW PV project (originally installed in 2012 and expanded to more than
10 kW in 2015) developed on the school in Galena, Alaska, shown on the right in Figure 6 (Galena 2012,
Pelunis-Messier 2015). Given that schools are among the largest energy users at many remote village
communities, schools seem like an especially likely candidate for solar PV installations without impacting PCE
as it is currently structured.
Figure 6. PV Installations in Nome and Galena
Source: AEA 2016c and Pelunis-Messier 2015
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
11
Data Input Assumptions: Diesel Generation Costs, Solar Costs, and
Solar Resource Estimates
This section briefly describes each of the data sources used for this analysis and presents the range of input
cost parameters tested.
Input Parameters for Diesel Generation Costs
For diesel-based generation, this analysis focuses principally on the costs attributed to purchasing and
transporting the diesel fuel used to run the village’s electricity generators (i.e., “fuel costs”). Other fixed costs
(i.e., “non-fuel costs”) also contribute to the overall electricity prices; however, because these non-fuel costs
would likely not be offset by adding solar generation, they are ignored for purposes of this analysis.13
Examples of non-fuel costs excluded from this analysis are the capital and operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs for a diesel generator and a utility’s administrative charges.
The costs for wholesale diesel fuel prices in remote Alaskan villages are comprehensively reported by the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in their annual report “Power Cost Equalization Program Statistical Data by
Community” for the years 2013 and 2014 (AEA 2014a, AEA 2015).14 Utility purchases of diesel fuel for
electricity generation at remote villages are typically made at wholesale rather than retail rates. The 11
villages included in this analysis present a wide range of wholesale diesel fuel costs. For example, wholesale
diesel fuel prices range from a low of $3.95/gallon (gal) in Wainwright up to $6.90/gal in Ambler in 2014.
Figure 7 shows the diesel fuel prices distribution for the years 2013 and 2014 for each of the 11 villages tested
(AEA 2014a, AEA 2015).15 There was no consistent trend for fuel prices across the 11 villages from 2013 to
2014. Some village’s diesel fuel prices stayed relatively flat or even decreased while others increased
substantially. This price variation could be due to several factors including oil commodity price fluctuations
throughout the course of the year, fuel purchase prices that may or may not have been locked-in a year or
more in advance, cost factors from logistical and transportation challenges from one year to the next,16 or
simple reporting errors.17 Given these cost fluctuations from year to year, this analysis uses the reported diesel
price points for a village as illustrative rather than precise.
13 See the Analysis Description and Limitations Section for a discussion on the costs associated with integrating the diesel and solar
systems.
14 The reporting period for this report is through the end of June in the preceding year. Prices are shown in nominal dollars.
15 The years 2013 and 2014 were included in the analysis as these were the only years that a comprehensive data source with a
consistently applied methodology was available. Note that the 2015 version of the AEA Power Cost Equalization Program Statistical
Data by Community report was released in February 2016, shortly before the publication of this report (AEA 2016d). The analysis in
this report does not incorporate the AEA 2015 data.
16 Ambler and Shungnak, for example, receive fuel shipments via barge in some years and through air transport in others.
17 Note, for example, that several reviewers suspected that a few of the outlying statistics presented in AEA 2014a and AEA 2015
were likely due to imperfect reporting or other data errors (particularly for Hughes in 2013) but generally acknowledged that these
data reports are among the best available sources at this time.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
12
Figure 7. Average wholesale diesel prices in $/gal for the 11 villages tested in 2013 and 2014
Source: AEA 2014a and AEA 2015
Although the most familiar reporting term for diesel fuel prices is in dollars per gallon, in the context of
electricity generation a different cost metric is used here. AEA reports the “fuel cost per kilowatt-hour sold”
($/kWh) metric for any village that receives energy price support through the PCE program. Figure 8 shows a
screenshot and callout of the fuel cost per kWh data reported for the village of Anaktuvuk Pass in the AEA
report (AEA 2015). For this analysis, the fuel cost per kWh sold metric is compared to the calculated solar
LCOE. Note that the terms “diesel costs”, “diesel electricity costs”, or “diesel fuel costs” are used
interchangeably in this narrative to represent the “fuel costs per kWh sold” metric.
$4.88 $4.96
$4.20
$6.90
$5.94
$6.83
$6.17
$5.92
$4.18
$3.91
$5.10
$6.84
$4.84 $4.77$4.78
$4.61
$5.59 $5.51
$3.95
$4.31$4.36
$4.08
2013 2014
Wainwright
Kasigluk
Ambler
Yakutat
Tenakee SpringsSt. Paul
Adak
Shungnak
Venetie
Anaktuvuk Pass
Hughes
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
13
Figure 8. Screenshot and callout of diesel fuel purchases in Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska
Source: AEA 2015
Input Parameters for Solar Electricity Generation
There are three primary data inputs used to estimate the solar LCOE: (1) the all-in installation costs for a solar
PV system, (2) the ongoing O&M costs for the PV system, and (3) solar resource estimates to determine the
amount of electricity produced at a given location. The input parameters for the solar resource estimates are
described first followed by the solar cost estimates (both installation and O&M).
This analysis uses PVWatts to simulate solar electricity production at a given village under study (NREL
2015). PVWatts utilizes the NREL National Solar Radiation database and combines solar radiation data with
weather data for the years 1991–2010 to estimate a PV system’s electricity production. For this analysis, the
closest available meteorological data was used to determine the electricity production at each of the 11
villages.18 Figure 9 shows a PVWatts screenshot of the village of Adak, which had data available for that
exact location.
18 Five of the eleven villages had weather and solar resource data available in PVWatts. The remaining six villages were based on data
from the nearest available data collection site, which ranged from 24 to 117 miles from the village under analysis.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
14
Figure 9. PVWatts solar resource estimate tool screenshot for Adak, Alaska
Source: NREL 2015
After selecting the exact or nearest location, PVWatts requires a few basic assumptions about the PV system
to estimate the solar electricity production at a given site. These assumptions include system size, module type
(standard or premium), mounting type (roof versus ground mounted), expected losses,19 orientation, and
others. For this analysis, a 100-kW system size was assumed with an open rack-mounting system common for
ground-mounted systems. Figure 10 shows a screenshot of the estimated annual kilowatt-hour production for
a 100-kW PV system in Adak, Alaska (67,949 kWh per year). To estimate the solar production for a 100-kW
system at all 11 villages, the process shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10 was simply repeated for each of the
villages.20
19 Importantly, this analysis assumes a 5% loss factor due to snow accumulation. Snow accumulation has both positive and negative
impact on a PV system’s electricity production. Snow cover on the PV panels themselves dramatically reduces the system’s ability to
generate electricity. However, snow coverage on the ground can actually increase a PV system’s production through enhanced
reflectivity or albedo. This analysis assumes efficient removal of snow from the panels themselves due to the easy access that ground-
mounted systems provide and the steep tilt of PV panels at northern latitudes. More research is required to refine this assumption.
20 Note that in the model used in this analysis, both the installed and O&M costs of the system as well as estimated energy production
scale proportionally with the size of the PV system. Therefore the PV system’s size does not directly impact the LCOE results. To
illustrate, a 50-kW system would cost 50% of a 100-kW system, but correspondingly only produce half of the energy. Thus, a 50-kW,
100-kW, or any other sized system would return the same modeled LCOE. In reality, however, we would expect to see slight
variations in the actual pricing due to economies of scale and other non-scaling cost and production factors.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
15
Figure 10. PVWatts solar resource estimate tool for a 100-kW PV system in Adak, Alaska
Source: NREL 2015
The solar system PV cost estimates used in this analysis are based on approximate multiples of PV pricing
reported in the lower 48. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports a 100-kW commercial-scale PV
system at a median price point of approximately $3.40/watt (W) in the first half of 2015 (Barbose et al. 2015).
As prices continued to fall in the second half of 2015 and 2016, this analysis assumes a flat $3/W pricing as
the lower 48 base level price, which is then increased to account for higher costs for nearly all goods and
services in remote Alaskan communities. This analysis multiplies the lower 48 base level price by 2, 3, or 4
times to get a range of estimates for remote village pricing. These multiples correspond to $6/W, $9/W, and
$12/W for low-cost, base-case, and high-cost cases respectively. There is some limited evidence of PV
installed pricing at both the low and high end of the range presented in Table 1. For example, Pelunis-Messier
2014 reports PV installed at approximately $5/W, Mathiasson 2015a indicates that ten small sized PV projects
ranged in pricing from nearly $6/W to over $11/W, and Irwin 2013 cites a 2013 installation at nearly $11/W.
Given this wide variation in pricing, this analysis uses a range of possible Alaskan village PV costs rather than
a single point estimate as there is significant uncertainty in both the low and high end of the installed PV price
ranges in the remote village locations.
The O&M costs are treated in a similar fashion. Assuming a lower 48 cost of $20/kW per year for O&M
expenditures, the low-cost, base-case, and high-cost cases for remote Alaskan villages is estimated at
$40/kW/year, $60/kW/year, and $80/kW/year respectively.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
16
Sidebar 3. Cost Trajectories of Diesel Fuel and Solar PV
Figure 11 below illustrates the cost trajectories of wholesale diesel fuel rates compared to the installed price of solar
PV (based on commercial sector pricing from the lower 48) from 2002 through mid-year 2015 (EIA 2016a, Barbose et
al. 2015). This chart indexes diesel fuel and solar PV prices in $/gal and $/W respectively, to a base value of 100 in
2002. Figure 11 highlights the percentage change based on real dollars over time. Several trends are apparent in
Figure 11.
The cost of diesel fuel has been rising steadily since 2002 with two noticeably steep price declines in 2008 and
2014. Diesel fuel prices quickly recovered in 2009, but as of November 2015 remain at their lowest price point since
2003. Even at the low historic pricing levels, the indexed value of diesel fuel costs rose by more than 50% from a
base value of 100 in 2002 to 153 in late 2015. Solar PV pricing has shown a steady cost decline in every year since
2002 from a base index value of 100 in 2002 to 32 in 2015 – a reduction of over 67%.
Given this cost comparison over time, several factors contribute to an improving relative economic case over time for
solar PV. First, solar PV price declines exhibited both predictability and an overall declining cost path. Conversely,
diesel prices have been more volatile and have shown an overall increase from 2002 to 2015. Unpredictability in
diesel fuel costs makes long-term village electricity cost projections difficult to manage. As a repercussion, some
villages have locked in future diesel fuel purchases at a previous year’s pricing and therefore are not paying current
market rates (both on a premium or a discount). Moreover, even while diesel fuel prices are currently lower than any
time since 2003, there are other ramifications of the low commodity price. Perhaps most noteworthy is that Alaska’s
state budget has been drastically reduced from the low price of oil. This means that many state funded programs
could be at risk in the current budget environment, including ones targeted at rural communities such as PCE
(Johnson 2015 and Forgey 2015). Moreover, as described later, several sources are predicting a rise in diesel rates
as soon as mid- year 2016 (EIA 2016b). Solar PV can therefore offer a pricing hedge against the volatile nature of
diesel fuel prices and potential changes to PCE that could impact remote communities.
Figure 11. Indexed diesel and solar PV prices from 2002 to 2015
Source: EIA 2016a and Barbose et al. 2015. Diesel and solar PV pricing data underlying the index values use 2014
real dollars. Note that this comparison does not normalize for energy content. For comparison, a gallon of diesel has
approximately 128,488 British thermal units (Btu) while 1 kWh of electricity has approximately 3,414 Btu (AFDC
2014).
153
32
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15
Diesel
Solar PV
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
17
Summary of Input Assumptions
Table 1 presents the solar capital and O&M cost estimates for a low-, base-, and high-cost scenario. Figure 12
visually captures the at-times difficult conditions of installing and maintaining all types of equipment,
including PV, in remote Alaska. The occasionally harsh conditions contribute in part to the uncertainty in
costs of installing and maintaining different energy generation technologies in remote communities and thus,
the wide ranges of input parameters used.
Table 1. Cost Estimates for a 100-kW PV System
Village Case
Lower 48
Cost Multiple
Capital Costs
($/W)
O&M Costs
($/kW/yr)
All
Low Cost 2 X $6 $40
Base Case 3 X $9 $60
High Cost 4 X $12 $80
Figure 12. Servicing a PV system in remote Alaska
Source: Bensin 2015
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
18
Table 2 shows the annual kilowatt-hour production for a 100-kW system installed across the 11 villages. The
capacity factor is also shown for illustrative purposes.21
Table 2. Annual Solar Energy Estimates
Annual Solar
Energy
Solar
Capacity Factor
Village (kWh) (%)
Adak 67,979 7.8%
Ambler 86,230 9.8%
Anaktuvuk Pass 85,138 9.7%
Hughes 90,456 10.3%
Kasigluk 91,764 10.5%
Shungnak 86,230 9.8%
St. Paul 62,268 7.1%
Tenakee Springs 88,547 10.1%
Venetie 101,824 11.6%
Wainwright 73,881 8.4%
Yakutat 73,934 8.4%
Source: NREL 2015
Table 3 summarizes the wholesale diesel fuel cost data gathered for the 11 villages in this analysis. Because
diesel fuel is a world commodity with constantly changing prices, price data from both 2013 and 2014 are
included in this analysis and represent the range of years in which the comprehensive and consistent data
source is available.22 While the continued drop in oil and diesel fuel rates experienced in 2015 is not captured
in AEA 2014a and AEA 2015, some analytical projections indicate that diesel commodity prices will begin to
rise in mid-2016 (EIA 2016b). Future research could provide an update to the results presented here based the
most current pricing data available for both diesel fuel and installed solar PV prices.
21 Capacity factor is a common metric reported for electrical generation, which is a ratio that compares the amount of actual electric
generation produced in a year divided by its potential generation if it could operate at full capacity for the entire year.
22 Is it is also important to note that while the two metrics of fuel costs, $/gal and $/kWh, track one another fairly well, they are not
perfectly correlated from one year to the next nor village to another. This is because fuel costs in $/kWh calculations are impacted by
other factors such as changing diesel engine efficiency (particularly if a newer, more efficient generator is installed), electrical line
losses, and other factors. It is also likely that simple data reporting inconsistencies from year to year influence how closely fuel costs
in $/gal and $/kWh track one another.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
19
Table 3. Wholesale Diesel Fuel Costs for Electricity Generation 23
2013 Diesel
Fuel Cost
2014 Diesel
Fuel Costs
Village ($/gal) ($/kWh) ($/gal) ($/kWh)
Adak $4.96 $0.57 $4.96 $0.67
Ambler $4.27 $0.33 $6.90 $0.53
Anaktuvuk Pass $6.04 $0.47 $6.83 $0.55
Hughes 24 $6.27 $0.88 $5.92 $0.41
Kasigluk $4.25 $0.47 $3.91 $0.40
Shungnak $5.18 $0.65 $6.84 $0.87
St. Paul $4.92 $0.41 $4.77 $0.36
Tenakee Springs $4.86 $0.43 $4.61 $0.45
Venetie $5.68 $0.64 $5.51 $0.75
Wainwright $4.01 $0.34 $4.31 $0.35
Yakutat $4.43 $0.34 $4.08 $0.31
Source: AEA 2014a, AEA 2015
Finally, the utilization of federal tax benefits such as the 30% investment tax credit and accelerated
depreciation benefit are assumed in this analysis. In the lower 48, nearly all PV projects of the scale
considered here (small commercial at 100 kW) will utilize federal tax incentives for renewable energy as part
of the project’s overall economic value. In the context of Alaska, however, this concept is still relatively
nascent with little precedent, but is gaining attention as state-based dollars for grants (which generally reduce
the inherent value of federal tax credits) are expected to diminish in the coming years following reduced oil
revenue flowing into the state (Johnson 2015). The utilization of for-profit business ownership structures
adapted to Alaska’s unique business climate will likely be a critical market requirement to expanding solar
development in the state.
23 Diesel fuel price inputs shown in 2014 dollars.
24 As mentioned previously, a data reporting error for Hughes in 2013 likely contributes to the high cost shown for 2013 (AEA 2014a).
This data outlier is excluded from the results and conclusion discussion.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
20
Analysis Results
Figure 13 presents the LCOE results for solar PV under the low-cost, base-case, and high-cost scenarios
across the 11 villages analyzed.25 The LCOE under each PV pricing scenario is shown as a different shade of
blue. As an example, for the village of Venetie the low-cost scenario of $6/W results in an LCOE of just
under 40 cents/kWh; the base-case scenario of $9/W results in an LCOE of approximately 60 cents/kWh; and
the high-cost scenario of $12/W results in an LCOE of nearly 80 cents/kWh. Figure 13 also shows the diesel
fuel costs per kilowatt-hour for each of the 11 villages in 2013 and 2014. Several interesting findings emerge
from comparing the range of PV cost estimates ($6/W to $12/W) to the 2013 and 2014 fuel-only diesel
electricity costs.
First, a select number of villages experience diesel electricity generating costs high enough that they are
approaching or nearly on par with the LCOE from even the highest PV cost scenarios. These cases include
Venetie for both 2013 and 2014 and Shungnak based on reported 2014 diesel prices.26 Under these cases,
achieving cost savings from a PV installation appears among the most likely scenarios as PV installation
prices of $9/W or more could be cost competitive with the reported diesel electricity generating costs. PV
pricing falling below $9/W would show a larger economic savings.
Second, several other villages also show cases where diesel prices are still high enough that PV could
potentially compete economically at the low-cost PV price scenario of $6/W. In addition to the high cost
examples mentioned above, these villages include Ambler (2014), Shungnak (2013), Anaktuvak Pass (2014),
Kasigluk (2013), and Adak (2014). In these examples, PV pricing at $6/W could be expected to result in
economic savings when compared to the recent fuel expenditures.
Third, many villages appear to show cases where the PV LCOE could be considered marginally or borderline
cost competitive, even at the assumed $6/W pricing level and diesel prices reported in 2013 and 2014. In these
cases, the solar PV to diesel fuel cost comparison is considered within the level of specificity of these
modeling results, so a more detailed investigation could produce results with favorable solar PV economics.
These situations include Kasigluk (2013), Hughes (2013), Tenakee Springs (2013, 2014), Anaktuvuk Pass
(2013), and Adak (2013). Finally, there are a few cases where the diesel fuel prices in some villages are below
even the lowest estimated PV LCOE, and a solar PV installation does not appear to be economically
competitive at the pricing levels assumed in this analysis. These cases include the villages of Yakutat,
Wainwright, and St. Paul.
Importantly, and what is not captured in Figure 13, is the benefit of price predictability that solar PV can
provide from zero fuel costs. As shown previously in Figure 7 and Sidebar 3, diesel fuel prices have
experienced significant fluctuations from one year to the next and accurate price projections are difficult to
make. Solar PV, by contrast, experiences the vast majority of its costs (with the exception of maintenance
expenses) upfront and therefore offers a predictable energy price for the remainder of the system’s life—often
20 years or more. Additionally, because PV prices have historically been falling rapidly, a $6/W pricing point
that is assumed as a low pricing scenario in the current analysis, could likely be reduced even further in the
near future, particularly if the market for solar PV in Alaska begins to mature and efficiencies develop.
25 The full listing of LCOE results can also be found in Appendix B. Results are shown in cents per kWh rather than the equivalent
$/kWh. Note that all results are presented in 2014 dollars.
26 The high diesel generation cost for the village of Hughes in 2013 appears as an outlier as significant diesel efficiency gains were
reported in 2014 (AEA 2015).
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
21
Figure 13. Cost of electricity comparison between solar PV and diesel generation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Cost of Electricty (cents/kWh)
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
22
Conclusion
This analysis compares the cost of installing and operating a moderately sized solar PV system to recent diesel
fuel expenditures for electricity generation for several remote villages across Alaska. The high-level results
indicate there are plausible scenarios in which PV can be economically competitive with diesel fuel prices at
low PV penetration levels. In this analysis, the cases where PV appears economically competitive generally
required a combination of (1) high diesel fuel prices (at least 40 cents/kWh), (2) relatively low, for Alaska, PV
prices (approximately $6 to $9 per W installed), (3) relatively high, for Alaska, solar production levels
(capacity factor of nearly 10% or higher), and (4) the ability to make use of economically valuable tax
benefits provided by the federal government. Solar development is likely to be favorable for other Alaskan
villages not considered in this analysis but that have a similar combination of characteristics. However, to
advance this high-level analysis to more precise estimates and eventually a large increase in deployed solar
projects in Alaska, a select number of potential barriers noted previously will require further research or
business ingenuity to address. Some of these barriers include, but are not limited to, the following.
• The integration of solar PV with a diesel generator is an ongoing area of study and demonstration.
The simplifying integration assumptions, including seasonal variability, made in this analysis should
be revised when better information is available.
• Regulatory and business structures such as how to work with the current PCE formula and how to
utilize the valuable federal tax incentives will need to be addressed by the stakeholders involved.
• Further refinements in real-world installation and maintenance costs of large-scale PV systems in
rural Alaska will provide more accurate inputs to the economic modeling.
Despite each of the simplifying assumptions made here, this analysis suggests that solar PV—along with fuel
and other electricity savings measures—can be economically competitive in many remote Alaskan villages
and could have a number of benefits including reducing a village’s dependency on diesel fuel, improving
electricity price predictability, providing local environmental benefits, and more.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
23
References
Alaska.org. 2015. “Shortest Day in Alaska,” accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.alaska.org/advice/shortest-day-in-alaska.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2014a. Power Cost Equalization Program: Statistical Data by Community.
Reporting Period: July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. Issued February 2014.
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2014b. Power Cost Equalization Program Guide. Updated July 2014.
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/PCEProgramGuideJuly292014EDITS.
pdf.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2015. Power Cost Equalization Program. Statistical Data by Community.
Reporting Period: July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. Amended March 2015.
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/
FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2016a. “Renewable Energy Fund,” accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/RenewableEnergyFund.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2016b. “Rural Power System Upgrade Program,” accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/RPSU.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2016c. “Solar Projects,” accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/AEEE/Solar/solarprojects.
Alaska Energy Authority. 2016d. Power Cost Equalization Program. Statistical Data by Community.
Reporting Period: July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. Issued February 2016.
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Portals/0/Programs/PCE/Documents/
FY15PCEAnnualbyCommunity.pdf?ver=2016-02-09-072244-933.
Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). 2014. “Fuel Properties Comparison.” October 29, 2015.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.
Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., Millstein, D., Spears, M., Wiser, R., Buckley, M., Widiss, R., Grue, N. 2015.
Tracking the Sun VIII. The Installed Price of Residential and Non-Residential Photovoltaic Systems in the
United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. August 2015. Accessed January
20, 2016. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-188238_1.pdf.
Bensin, R. 2015. Bering Straits Native Corporation, personal correspondence, May 7, 2015.
Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC). 2016. “Geothermal Heat Pumps,” accessed January 20,
2016, http://www.cchrc.org/ground-source-heat-pumps.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
24
Drolet, J. 2014. “Power Cost Equalization: AEA Perspective.” Presented by Alaska Energy Authority. Alaska
Rural Energy Conference, September 25, 2014. http://www.akruralenergy.org/2014/PCE-AEA's_Perspective-
Jed_Drolet.pdf.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. “Electric Power Monthly: Table 5.6.A. Average Price of
Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State,” October 2015, accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a.
Energy Information Administration. 2015. Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation
Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015. Annual Energy Outlook 2015. June 3, 2015.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm.
Energy Information Administration. 2016a. “Petroleum and Other Liquids. U.S. No 2 Diesel
Wholesale/Resale Price by Refiners,” January 4, 2016, accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPD2D_PWG_NUS_DPG&f=A.
Energy Information Administration. 2016b. “Short Term Energy Outlook. Real Prices Viewer. Diesel Fuel
Retain Prices” January 12, 2016. Accessed February 5, 2016, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/.
Fay, G., Meléndez, A., and SchwÖrer, T. 2012. Power Cost Equalization Funding Formula Review. Prepared
by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, March 2012. Accessed February 5, 2016.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2012_03_14-NREL_PCEfinal.pdf.
Forgey, P. 2015. “Alaska lawmakers look to once-forbidden sources for money,” Alaska Dispatch News,
March 22, 2015, accessed February 5, 2016. http://www.adn.com/article/20150322/alaska-lawmakers-look-
once-forbidden-sources-money.
Foster, M.A., Yanity, B., Holt, B., and Hermanson, J. 2013. Renewable Energy in Alaska. NREL/SR-7A40-
47176. Prepared by WH Pacific, Inc. for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Energy, Golden, CO, March 2013. Accessed January 5, 2016.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/47176.pdf.
Galena City School District. 2012. “Galena Solar Energy Project,” accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.galenaalaska.org/solar.html.
Gerdes, J. 2015. “The Triumph of Clean Energy,” Alaska Beyond. Alaska Energy Magazine, April 2015,
accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.paradigmcg.com/digitaleditions/aam-0415/index.html.
Goldsmith, S. 2008. Understanding Alaska’s Remote Rural Economy. UA Research Summary No. 10,
January 2008, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Accessed
January 20, 2016. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/researchsumm/UA_RS10.pdf.
Hirsch, B. 2015. “A partial solution to rural Alaska energy challenges,” Alaska Dispatch News, October 24,
2015, accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.adn.com/article/20151024/partial-solution-rural-alaska-energy-
challenges.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
25
Irwin, C. 2013. “Displacing Diesel May Prove Cost-Prohibitive in Rural Alaska,” Breaking Energy, August 1,
2013, accessed January 20, 2016, http://breakingenergy.com/2013/08/01/displacing-diesel-may-prove-cost-
prohibitive-in-rural-alaska/.
Jensen, R., Baca, M., Schenkman, B., and Brainard, J. 2013. Venetie, Alaska Energy Assessment. SAND2013-
6185. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, July 29, 2013. Accessed January 20, 2016.
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2013/136185.pdf.
Johnson, K. 2015. “As Oil Prices Fall, Alaska’s New Governor Faces a Novel Goal, Frugality,” New York
Times, January 25, 2015, accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/us/as-oil-falls-
alaskas-new-chief-faces-a-novel-goal-frugality.html?_r=1.
Mathiasson, I. 2015a. “2011 NAB Synergy Project.” 2015 Alaska Solar Energy Workshop, accessed January
20, 2016. http://acep.uaf.edu/media/131247/2015-SEW-Case-Studies-from-Around-the-State-Solar-PV-PCE-
Calculations-Ingemar-Mathiasson.pdf.
Mathiasson, I. 2015b. Northwest Arctic Borough, personal correspondence, December 7, 2015.
Mueller-Stoffels, M. 2014. Adding PV Capacity: Initial Assessment and Recommendations for Galena,
Alaska. Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks. January 2014. Accessed
January 20, 2016. http://acep.uaf.edu/media/82430/initialAssessmentReport-3.pdf.
NREL. 2011. “CREST Cost of Energy Models,” Renewable Energy Project Finance, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, accessed January 20, 2016, https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/crest-cost-energy-
models.
NREL. 2013. “Renewable Energy In Alaska”. WH Pacific, Inc. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
accessed February 5, 2016. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/47176.pdf.
NREL. 2015. “PVWatts Calculator,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, accessed January 20, 2016,
http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/.
Pelunis-Messier, D. 2014. “Interior Alaska’s Solar Resource.” 2014 Rural Energy Conference, accessed
January 20, 2016, http://www.akruralenergy.org/2014/Opportunities_for_Solar_PV_in_Alaska's_Interior-
David_Pelunis-Messier.pdf.
Pelunis-Messier, D. 2015. Personal correspondence, December 7, 2015.
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP). 2016. “Alaska’s Renewable Energy Projects,” accessed January
20, 2016, http://alaskarenewableenergy.org/why-renewable-energy-is-important/alaskas-renewable-energy-
projects/.
Suncalc. 2015. “Computation path of the sun for Kotzebue, Alaska, and Denver, Colorado,” accessed January
20, 2016, www.suncalc.org.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
26
Time and Date. 2015. “Today’s Sun Position,” Time and Date AS, accessed January 20, 2016,
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/denver.
Wirth, H. 2015. Recent Facts about Photovoltaics in Germany. Fraunhofer ISE, Freiburg, Germany,
December 25, 2015. Accessed January 20, 2015.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-
konzeptpapiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf.
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
27
Appendix A. Model Overview and Description
The analysis utilized an NREL-developed cost-of-energy spreadsheet model intended to assist in the
evaluation of the costs of an electricity generation system for a representative remote Alaskan town (model
schematic depicted in Figure 14. The model calculates the cost of energy for three different types of load:
Primary, Deferrable, and Thermal, based on inputs defining project installation (size, capital costs, etc.),
financing, and operational costs and the ratios of each generation price and load type. Users can choose to run
the model in one of three calculation modes: Target Internal Rate of Return, Target Payback Period, or Target
Energy Cost, holding that variable constant and returning values for the other two variables along with debt
metrics, fuel savings, and other costs.
For this analysis, all revenue was assumed to be generated from the AC Primary Load, thus the inputs for the
Deferrable Load and Thermal Load were set to zero. In addition to the inputs shown in Table 1 and Table 2,
this analysis also assumed that the project was financed with 100% equity, generated an 8% Internal Rate of
Return, and that both the LCOE and annual O&M expenditures increased by 1.5% annually.
Figure 14. Schematic of LCOE model used in this analysis
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
28
Appendix B. Levelized Cost of Energy Results
Table 4 shows the solar PV LCOE for each of the 11 villages under analysis for the low-cost, base-case, and
high -cost scenarios.
Table 4. Solar PV LCOE Modeling Results
Low-Cost Base-Case High-Cost
Village (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh)
Venetie $39.91 $59.44 $78.96
Kasigluk $44.29 $65.95 $87.62
Hughes $44.93 $66.91 $88.89
Tenakee Springs $45.90 $68.35 $90.80
Ambler $47.13 $70.19 $93.24
Shungnak $47.13 $70.19 $93.24
Anaktuvuk Pass $47.74 $71.09 $94.44
Yakutat $54.97 $81.86 $108.75
Wainwright $55.01 $81.92 $108.83
Adak $59.79 $89.03 $118.28
St. Paul $65.27 $97.20 $129.12
12/2/22, 3:18 PM PVWatts Calculator
https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php 1/2
Caution: Photovoltaic system performance
predictions calculated by PVWatts® include
many inherent assumptions and
uncertainties and do not reflect variations
between PV technologies nor site-specific
characteristics except as represented by
PVWatts® inputs. For example, PV modules
with better performance are not
differentiated within PVWatts® from lesser
performing modules. Both NREL and private
companies provide more sophisticated PV
modeling tools (such as the System Advisor
Model at https://sam.nrel.gov) that allow for
more precise and complex modeling of PV
systems.
The expected range is based on 30 years of
actual weather data at the given location
and is intended to provide an indication of
the variation you might see. For more
information, please refer to this NREL report:
The Error Report.
Disclaimer: The PVWatts® Model ("Model")
is provided by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), which is
operated by the Alliance for Sustainable
Energy, LLC ("Alliance") for the U.S.
Department Of Energy ("DOE") and may be
used for any purpose whatsoever.
The names DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE shall not
be used in any representation, advertising,
publicity or other manner whatsoever to
endorse or promote any entity that adopts or
uses the Model. DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE shall
not provide any support, consulting, training
or assistance of any kind with regard to the
use of the Model or any updates, revisions or
new versions of the Model.
YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY
DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE, AND ITS AFFILIATES,
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES
AGAINST ANY CLAIM OR DEMAND,
INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEYS'
FEES, RELATED TO YOUR USE, RELIANCE,
OR ADOPTION OF THE MODEL FOR ANY
PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. THE MODEL IS
PROVIDED BY DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE 'AS IS'
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE BE LIABLE FOR ANY
SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOSS OF DATA OR
PROFITS, WHICH MAY RESULT FROM ANY
ACTION IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHER TORTIOUS CLAIM THAT ARISES OUT
OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
PERFORMANCE OF THE MODEL.
The energy output range is based on
analysis of 30 years of historical weather
data, and is intended to provide an
indication of the possible interannual
variability in generation for a Fixed (open
rack) PV system at this location.
276,413 kWh/Year*RESULTS
System output may range from 258,889 to 296,868 kWh per year near this location.
Month Solar Radiation
( kWh / m2 / day )
AC Energy
( kWh )
January 0.77 5,782
February 1.78 13,019
March 3.54 28,954
April 4.88 36,201
May 5.61 42,160
June 5.41 38,224
July 4.93 35,224
August 4.09 29,799
September 3.09 22,387
October 1.71 13,159
November 0.91 6,722
December 0.68 4,780
Annual 3.12 276,411
Location and Station Identification
Requested Location new stuyahok ak
Weather Data Source Lat, Lng: 59.45, -157.3 0.5 mi
Latitude 59.45° N
Longitude 157.30° W
PV System Specifications
DC System Size 300 kW
Module Type Premium
Array Type Fixed (open rack)
System Losses 14.08%
Array Tilt 20°
Array Azimuth 180°
DC to AC Size Ratio 1.2
Inverter Efficiency 96%
Ground Coverage Ratio 0.4%
Albedo From weather file
Bifacial Yes (0.7)
Monthly Irradiance Loss Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Performance Metrics
12/2/22, 3:18 PM PVWatts Calculator
https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php 2/2
DC Capacity Factor 10.5%
December 04, 2022
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office
4700 Blm Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Phone: (907) 271-2888 Fax: (907) 271-2786
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0021301
Project Name: New Stuyahok Solar Energy and Battery Storage Project
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated
critical habitat, and some candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed
project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please note that candidate species are not
included on this list. We encourage you to visit the following website to learn more about
candidate species in your area:
http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/endangered/
candidate_conservation.htm
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Endangered Species: The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under
sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.),
Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect
12/04/2022 2
threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a Federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no Federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds.php
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
12/04/2022 3
▪
▪
▪
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm
http://www.towerkill.com
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
Migratory Birds
12/04/2022 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office
4700 Blm Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
(907) 271-2888
12/04/2022 2
Project Summary
Project Code:2023-0021301
Project Name:New Stuyahok Solar Energy and Battery Storage Project
Project Type:New Constr - Above Ground
Project Description:new 300 kW solar array in New Stuyahok, Alaska
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@59.448687699999994,-157.32709586592574,14z
Counties:Dillingham County, Alaska
12/04/2022 3
1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 0 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
1
12/04/2022 1
USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish
Hatcheries
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
12/04/2022 1
1.
2.
3.
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
1
2
12/04/2022 2
1.
2.
3.
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
"Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
12/04/2022 3
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
12/04/2022 4
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency:Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc
Name:Robin Reich
Address:2607 Fairbanks Street
Address Line 2:Suite B
City:Anchorage
State:AK
Zip:99503
Email robin@solsticeak.com
Phone:9079295960
Upland (non-wetland) - 1.35 acres
Mapping Area 1
AVEC Tank Farm/Dispensing Site
Figure 3
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
New Stuyahok
0 50 100 15025
Feet
Map Notes.
1. Wetland and waterbody mapping based on aerial photograph
interpreation. No fieldwork has been conducted to verify
boundaries.
2. Boundaries were delineated on color orthorectified aerial
photography taken on July 13, 2003 (nominal scale 1"=800’)
Legend
Note: No wetlands were identified in the mapped area
shown above.
Mapping Area Boundary
Upland (non-wetland) - 5.39 acres
Mapping Area 4
AVEC Proposed Power Plant Site
Figure 6
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
New Stuyahok
0 50 100 15025
Feet
Map Notes.
1. Wetland and waterbody mapping based on aerial photograph
interpreation. No fieldwork has been conducted to verify
boundaries.
2. Boundaries were delineated on color orthorectified aerial
photography taken on July 13, 2003 (nominal scale 1"=800’)
Legend
Note: No wetlands were identified in the mapped area
shown above.
Mapping Area Boundary
Upland (non-wetland) - 15.26 acres
Mapping Area 4
AVEC Proposed Wind Turbine Site
Figure 6
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
New Stuyahok
0 100 200 30050
Feet
Map Notes.
1. Wetland and waterbody mapping based on aerial photograph
interpreation. No fieldwork has been conducted to verify
boundaries.
2. Boundaries were delineated on color orthorectified aerial
photography taken on July 13, 2003 (nominal scale 1"=800’)
Legend
Note: No wetlands were identified in the mapped area
shown above.
Mapping Area Boundary
DEe 2;4 2.008
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC.
December 17,2008
Judith Bittner,State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of History and Archeology
550Westih Avenue,Suite 1310
Anchorage,Alaska 99501-3565
Subject:File nuniber 3130-4R AVEC-AVEC:Mekoryuk Wind Turbines Project and AVEC New Stuyahok Bulk
Fuel Storage and Power System Upgrades Project
Dear Ms.Bittner:
Thank you for your December 9,2008 letters to Robin Reich of Solstice Environmental Consulting (Solstice)
regarding the above mentioned Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)projects.Included in this letter are
responses to your requests stated in the letter and during a telephone conversation between Tracie Krauthoefer and
Robin on December 16,2008 .
.•.•"o-ardingthe federal agency fnnding,permitting,or licensing these projects:Planning funds for the
."rind project and the New Stuyahok bulk fuel storage project was obtained through the Denali
-"-<>Jcoryukproject will require a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit Construction
'.~~ently undetermined.
~sion:The contact person at the Denali Commission
~Jhe Denali Commission,510 L Street,Suite 410,
~-~~ber is 271-1415.
-.•,r1th environmental
.l.~National