HomeMy WebLinkAboutNAB REF AttachmentsNorthwest Arctic Borough
Design and Permitting for Solar PV and Battery Storage for Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and
Selawik
Summary of Attachments
Document Page Number
Northwest Arctic Borough Resolution 2
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska 4
Feasibility Studies Introduction 39
Ambler 41
Kiana 62
Noorvik 84
Selawik 106
Detailed Capital Budget 128
Solar and Battery O&M Calculations 129
Diesels Off Replacement Costs 129
AVEC Maintenance Schedule
130
Team Resumes
132
Letters of Support 139
• NANA Lands Commitment Letters
• Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
• City of Ambler
• City of Selawik
• Maniilaq Association
• Launch Alaska
• NANA Regional Corporation (Commitment
Letter)
B/C Ratio Model Separate File
NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH ASSEMBLY
RESOLUTION 21-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE NORTHWEST ARCTIC
BOROUGH ASSEMBLY TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR
FUNDING TO THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY'S
RENEW ABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND 14 FOR THE FINAL
DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
AND BATTERY SYSTEMS FOR THE COMMUNITIES OF
SELA WIK, NOORVIK, AMBLER, AND KIANA, AND FOR
RELATED PURPOSES.
WHEREAS: the Northwest Arctic Borough Assembly ts the
governing body of the Northwest Arctic Borough; and
WHEREAS: the Borough is a home rule regional government
providing essential programs and services to improve the quality oflife for
all residents in the 11 communities within our boundaries, including
Noorvik, Selawik, Ambler, and Kiana; and
WHEREAS: the communities of Noorvik, Selawik, Ambler, and
Kiana are almost completely dependent on diesel-based electricity
generation with extremely high costs for electricity; and
WHEREAS: the Northwest Arctic Borough/NANA region has
successfully demonstrated solar photovoltaic (PV) projects in all 11
communities in our region with the local water plants and with high
penetration solar and battery utility-scale projects in 3 NAB communities;
and
WHEREAS: to help address the extremely high cost of energy, the
four above-identified communities have requested that the Borough
support an application to the Renewable Energy Fund for 2022 in an
amount up to $1 million to develop the final design and permitting of high
penetration solar-battery systems to connect to their stand-alone diesel
power plants and distribution systems; and
WHEREAS: the Borough will commit to contributing a 7% cost
share of the total budget by providing in-kind staff time associated with
grant and project management; and
WHEREAS: if awarded, the four co1mnunities will directly benefit
by having "shovel-ready" projects ready to advance to construction of high
RSN 21-69 AEA Funding Page I of 2
2
penetration solar-battery hybrid projects that will reduce fossil fuel
consumption and lower electricity production costs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the Northwest Arctic
- -++ ----.-.,emmgh,;\ssemblyctpproves-the-NAB½ic1ppfrcatiorr-fo1 the 202.-r----i star -r--
Energy Authority's Renewable Energy Fund Program, on behalf of the
communities of Noorvik, Selawik, Ambler, and Kiana and supports the
Borough's provision of necessary administrative and grant management in-
k.ind support if the funding request is awarded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 28 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 28 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021.
Dickie Moto, Sr., Mayor
SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 28 th DAY OF DECEMBER
2021.
Helena Hildreth, Borough Clerk ATTEST:
RSN 21-69 AEA Funding Page 2 of 2
3
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
5
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.
6
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.
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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.
11
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.
12
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)
13
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.
14
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.
15
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
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.
19
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
20
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.
21
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
22
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.
23
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.
24
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.
25
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
26
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
27
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 $/kWh track one another.
28
Solar Energy Prospecting in Remote Alaska
19
Table 3. Wholesale Diesel Fuel Costs for Electricity Generation 23
2013 Diesel
Fuel Cost
2014 Diesel
Fuel Costs
Village ($/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.
29
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).
30
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)31
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.
32
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.
33
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.
34
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.
35
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.
36
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
37
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
38
The Native Villages of Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and Selawik, with support from NANA Regional
Corporation’s Village Energy Program and the Northwest Arctic Borough, approached Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) to identify optimum sizing and expected performance
of high-penetration solar PV and Battery Energy Storage Systems for the communities of
Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and Selawik, Alaska. In response, ANTHC performed feasibility
analyses for high-penetration distributed solar-battery hybrid systems to be connected to each
local village electric grid. This project concept, proposed for replication in Ambler, Kiana,
Noorvik, and Selawik, is very similar to the high-penetration solar array and battery system in
Noatak, Alaska that is currently funded and under development, with construction expected to
be complete in 2023. This approach and configuration are quickly becoming the industry
standard for rural Alaska. The technical design also draws heavily from the highly successful
Shungnak-Kobuk, Deering, and Buckland projects in our region that are now performing with
many hours of diesels-off power generation in all three communities. The projects in Shungnak-
Kobuk, Deering, and Buckland were funded in part by the US Department of Energy – Office of
Indian Energy and by the US Department of Agriculture’s High Energy Cost Grant Program.
The solar-battery hybrid systems have also proved their value by utilizing stored power from the
batteries to avert black-outs in the middle of winter, when temperatures can be lower than -40
degrees Fahrenheit. The power reserve in the batteries affords operators the time required to
bring back-up generators online during unplanned generator faults without causing a power
outage.
Solar PV installations have the added benefit of minimal downtime due to mechanical issues.
This has been an important lesson-learned from the Deering and Buckland projects which both
have wind-solar-battery hybrid systems. The combination of the harsh arctic environment and
the limited access to technical experts and replacement parts have resulted in long periods of
downtime when the wind turbines have mechanical or communication malfunctions. Solar PV,
on the other hand, tolerates the harsh arctic weather conditions well and presents few issues.
Although our models accurately capture the low-cost of solar PV maintenance, this added
benefit of minimal downtime, relative to other renewable power installations, is not fully
represented in our financial models, but it is an important consideration in the harsh, remote
environments of Alaskan villages.
To determine if a hybrid solar-battery project was viable and to identify the optimum sizing and
expected performance of each system, ANTHC developed a HOMER model for each village.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the analyses for Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and Selawik as
compared to the current diesels-only power system configuration in each village. The detailed
results are provided in the attached feasibility studies which include the HOMER System
Simulation Reports.
139
Feasibility Introduction
Table 1 – Summary of Feasibility Study Results
For each village, Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and Selawik, the HOMER model data showed that a
solar-battery hybrid project was technically viable and would add resiliency to each village’s
power system while reducing their reliance on diesel fuel, including some hours of diesels-off
operation. In addition to securing funding, each feasibility study identified confirming the size of
the solar PV array, converter, and battery storge system and finalizing the solar PV array site
location as important next steps in pursuing these projects.
240
Ambler Solar PV and Battery Storage
System Feasibility Study
Prepared For
Ambler Native Village
Airport Way
Ambler, AK 99786
Prepared By
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)
4000 Ambassador Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
And
DeerStone Consulting
3200 Brookside Drive
Anchorage, AK 99517
December, 2021
41
Purpose of Report
The Native Village of Ambler has expressed interest in developing a utility-scale solar
PV and battery storage system and integrating it into their existing power system. The
purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the HOMER modeling that was
conducted by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for the performance
of this type of system in Ambler. The information from this report will be presented to
Ambler Native Village, NANA Energy Program, and Northwest Arctic Borough (NAB) to
assist in determining whether and how to move forward with this energy project.
Background
In Ambler, the only source of electricity comes from diesel generators. The cost of
diesel fuel in Ambler is driven by the price of oil and the cost of delivery. The high cost
of transporting fuel is the primary factor in the high price of fuel Ambler. Much of the fuel
for Ambler must be flown in because the water level in the Kobuk River is often too low
for fuel barges to access the village. As a result, fuel prices in Ambler are often double
that of other nearby villages. In 2020, the average delivered fuel cost was $6.43/gallon
in Ambler as compared to $3.35/gallon in Selawik.
The high cost of diesel fuel, reduced reliance on diesel fuel, and enhanced resiliency of
the power system are factors which motivated the Village of Ambler to explore the
possibility of developing a solar PV with battery storage system.
HOMER Modeling Outcomes
System Sizing
The HOMER model identified the most effective system size to be a 390 kW solar PV
array with a 384 kWh battery energy storage system and a 500 kW converter.
Approximately 3.5 acres will be required to construct a solar array of this size.
Solar Resource
The HOMER model utilized local solar insolation data in combination with the above
system sizing to calculate an expected solar capacity factor of 11.2%. Although the
solar resource is poor during the winter at this latitude due to limited daylight hours, a
solar capacity factor exceeding 10% is an indication that there is a strong solar resource
in Ambler and this is a viable technology when evaluated across all the seasons.
Power Generation and Fuel Savings
A system of this size will generate 298,368 kWh/year and have a solar penetration of
28.7%. Solar penetration is the percentage of electricity that is sourced from solar
generation sources. This will save approximately 22,190 gallons of diesel fuel annually
for an annual fuel cost savings of $142,682. It is estimated that the system will be able
to operate with diesels off for 2,060 hours per year.
Installation Cost and B/C ratio
The estimated cost of installation is $1,150,500 for the solar PV and $1,265,000 for the
battery energy storage system. The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be
$2,415,500. Over the 25-year lifetime of the project, based on Alaska Energy Authority’s
(AEA’s) B/C Ratio Model, the B/C ratio is 1.24.
142
A summary of the HOMER model results is given below. The complete HOMER model
is provided as an attachment.
243
Solar PV Siting
Siting the solar PV panels is an important aspect of developing a successful solar PV
and battery storage project. In particular, it is important to identify a location for the solar
PV panels that is both technically suitable and compatible with the community
development plan.
Land ownership and site control issues are the first considerations in this process. It is
possible to site the panels on land that is owned by either the City or NANA Regional
Corporation. For past projects, NANA has been receptive to navigating site control
issues by first providing villages with land leases, and then having the land surveyed
and transferred to the village afterwards to help reduce immediate barriers to project
progress related to site control.
The next consideration in site selection is the technical feasibility of site. Typically, solar
PV panels are most effective when they are oriented south or southeast. Locating solar
PV panels on elevated land that is at a distance from large buildings will also increase
the effectiveness of the panels by minimizing the shading of the panels. Finally, the
proximity of the solar PV panels to an existing power line will help to reduce the overall
project costs by limiting the need to construct new power lines. According to the sizing
configuration identified by the HOMER model, this installation will require approximately
3.5 acres.
At this stage, Ambler’s community development plan has been taken into account
through discussions with several individuals who are familiar with their plan. In order to
make a final siting determination it is imperative that additional discussions with
members of the community take place to verify that the final site selection is compatible
with Ambler’s community development plan.
Given the above constraints, several site options have been identified that may be
suitable for this project. The below recommendations do not include a full list of possible
sites and they should not be taken as final siting locations. The red star marks the
location of the power plant.
344
Figure 1 - Overview of Ambler Siting Areas
Figure 2 - Ambler Site Area #1 Figure 3 - Ambler Site Area #2
Siting Area #1
This site is located on NANA Regional Corporation owned land and is approximately 5
acres in size. There is minimal shading from nearby buildings and the land is elevated
relative to the rest of the village. There are no known conflicts with Ambler’s community
development plan. This location is the best option identified so far.
Siting Area #2
This site is located on NANA Regional Corporation owned land and is approximately 5
acres in size. There is no shading from nearby buildings and the land to the south is at a
lower elevation. There are no known conflicts with Ambler’s community development
plan. This site would require a significant addition of fill to fully grade the old sewage
lagoon. It is already clear of vegetation. This location is the second-best option identified
so far.
445
Recommendation
From the analysis conducted above, it is expected that, if constructed, this solar PV and
battery energy storage system project would meet the Village of Ambler’s goals of
reducing the high cost of diesel fuel, reducing reliance on diesel fuel, and enhancing the
resiliency of the power system. The B/C ratio for the project is >1 indicating it is a
financially viable project. If the Village of Ambler is interested in pursuing this project the
next steps would be to secure funding and finalize the system size and solar PV siting.
The NANA Energy Program and the Northwest Artic Borough are willing and able to
provide support if Ambler would like to further pursue this project.
Attachments
Ambler HOMER Model – System Simulation Report
546
System Simulation Report
File: Ambler_Solar+Battery.homer
Author: Bailey Gamble
Location: 34PX+CC Ambler, AK, USA (67°5.2'N, 157°51.1'W)
Total Net Present Cost: $9,785,630.00
Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh): $0.610
Notes: Ambler microgrid model for REF application
647
Table of Contents
System Architecture ................................................................................................... 3
Cost Summary ........................................................................................................... 4
Cash Flow ................................................................................................................. 5
Electrical Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
Generator: DD S60K4 1800 363 (Diesel) ....................................................................... 7
Generator: CMS K19G2 1200 271 (Diesel) ..................................................................... 8
Generator: CMS K19G2 1800 397 (Diesel) ..................................................................... 9
PV: Generic flat plate PV ........................................................................................... 10
Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion .................................................................................... 11
Converter: System Converter ..................................................................................... 12
Fuel Summary ......................................................................................................... 13
Compare Economics .................................................................................................. 14
748
System Architecture
Component Name Size Unit
Generator #1 DD S60K4 1800 363 363 kW
Generator #2 CMS K19G2 1200 271 271 kW
Generator #3 CMS K19G2 1800 397 397 kW
PV Generic flat plate PV 390 kW
Storage Generic 1kWh Li-Ion 384 strings
System converter System Converter 500 kW
Dispatch strategy HOMER Cycle Charging
Schematic
849
Cost Summary
Net Present Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K19G2
1200 271 $1.00 $4,714 $0.00 -$59,306 $51,419 -$3,171
CMS K19G2
1800 397 $1.00 $1,029 $0.00 -$59,770 $10,693 -$48,047
DD S60K4 1800
363 $1.00 $855,767 $110,535 -$17,170 $6.04M $6.99M
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $600,000 $12,928 $169,710 -$31,941 $0.00 $750,696
Generic flat
plate PV $1.15M $50,417 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.20M
System
Converter $665,000 $12,928 $190,923 -$35,934 $0.00 $832,917
System $2.42M $937,783 $471,168 -$204,120 $6.11M $9.73M
Annualized Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K19G2
1200 271 $0.0774 $364.65 $0.00 -$4,588 $3,978 -$245.31
CMS K19G2
1800 397 $0.0774 $79.60 $0.00 -$4,623 $827.13 -$3,717
DD S60K4 1800
363 $0.0774 $66,197 $8,550 -$1,328 $467,524 $540,943
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $46,413 $1,000 $13,128 -$2,471 $0.00 $58,070
Generic flat
plate PV $88,996 $3,900 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $92,896
System
Converter $51,441 $1,000 $14,769 -$2,780 $0.00 $64,430
System $186,850 $72,542 $36,447 -$15,790 $472,328 $752,377
-1,600,000
0
1,600,000
3,200,000
4,800,000
6,400,000
8,000,000
Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource
System Converter
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
DD S60K4 1800 363
CMS K19G2 1800 397
CMS K19G2 1200 271
950
Cash Flow
-3,600,000
-2,700,000
-1,800,000
-900,000
0
900,000
1,800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Salvage
Replacement
Operating
Fuel
Capital
-3,600,000
-2,700,000
-1,800,000
-900,000
0
900,000
1,800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
System Converter
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
DD S60K4 1800 363
CMS K19G2 1800 397
CMS K19G2 1200 271
1051
Electrical Summary
Excess and Unmet
Quantity Value Units
Excess Electricity 85,633 kWh/yr
Unmet Electric Load 0 kWh/yr
Capacity Shortage 0 kWh/yr
Production Summary
Component Production (kWh/yr) Percent
Generic flat plate PV 384,001 28.7
DD S60K4 1800 363 943,708 70.6
CMS K19G2 1200 271 8,078 0.604
CMS K19G2 1800 397 1,622 0.121
Total 1,337,409 100
Consumption Summary
Component Consumption (kWh/yr) Percent
AC Primary Load 1,241,365 100
DC Primary Load 0 0
Deferrable Load 0 0
Total 1,241,365 100
1152
Generator: DD S60K4 1800 363 (Diesel)
DD S60K4 1800 363 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 943,708 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 142 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 64.8 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 363 kW
DD S60K4 1800 363 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 275,014 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.291 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 2,706,136 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 34.9 %
DD S60K4 1800 363 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 6,653 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 397 starts/yr
Operational Life 15.0 yr
Capacity Factor 29.7 %
Fixed Generation Cost 27.3 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.391 $/kWh
DD S60K4 1800 363 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
100
200
300
400
kW1253
Generator: CMS K19G2 1200 271 (Diesel)
CMS K19G2 1200 271 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 8,078 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 207 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 27.1 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 271 kW
CMS K19G2 1200 271 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 2,340 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.290 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 23,023 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 35.1 %
CMS K19G2 1200 271 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 39.0 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 38.0 starts/yr
Operational Life 2,564 yr
Capacity Factor 0.340 %
Fixed Generation Cost 24.7 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.430 $/kWh
CMS K19G2 1200 271 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
75
150
225
300
kW1354
0
62.5
125
187.5
250
kWGenerator: CMS K19G2 1800 397 (Diesel)
CMS K19G2 1800 397 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 1,622 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 203 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 191 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 214 kW
CMS K19G2 1800 397 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 487 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.300 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 4,788 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 33.9 %
CMS K19G2 1800 397 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 8.00 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 8.00 starts/yr
Operational Life 12,500 yr
Capacity Factor 0.0466 %
Fixed Generation Cost 28.6 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.430 $/kWh
CMS K19G2 1800 397 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1455
0
125
250
375
500
kWPV: Generic flat plate PV
Generic flat plate PV Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 414 kW
PV Penetration 30.9 %
Hours of Operation 4,378 hrs/yr
Levelized Cost 0.242 $/kWh
Generic flat plate PV Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Rated Capacity 390 kW
Mean Output 43.8 kW
Mean Output 1,052 kWh/d
Capacity Factor 11.2 %
Total Production 384,001 kWh/yr
Generic flat plate PV Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1556
Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Properties
Quantity Value Units
Batteries 384 qty.
String Size 1.00 batteries
Strings in Parallel 384 strings
Bus Voltage 6.00 V
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Result Data
Quantity Value Units
Average Energy Cost 0.360 $/kWh
Energy In 52,680 kWh/yr
Energy Out 47,412 kWh/yr
Storage Depletion 0 kWh/yr
Losses 5,268 kWh/yr
Annual Throughput 49,977 kWh/yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Autonomy 2.17 hr
Storage Wear Cost 0.366 $/kWh
Nominal Capacity 384 kWh
Usable Nominal Capacity 307 kWh
Lifetime Throughput 749,648 kWh
Expected Life 15.0 yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion State of Charge (%)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
20
40
60
80
100
%1657
0
35
70
105
140
kWConverter: System Converter
System Converter Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 943 hrs/yr
Energy Out 45,041 kWh/yr
Energy In 47,412 kWh/yr
Losses 2,371 kWh/yr
System Converter Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Capacity 500 kW
Mean Output 5.14 kW
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 139 kW
Capacity Factor 1.03 %
System Converter Inverter Output (kW)
System Converter Rectifier Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
75
150
225
300
kW1758
0
25
50
75
100
L/hrFuel Summary
Diesel Consumption Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Total fuel consumed 277,840 L
Avg fuel per day 761 L/day
Avg fuel per hour 31.7 L/hour
Diesel Consumption (L/hr)
Emissions
Pollutant Quantity Unit
Carbon Dioxide 726,713 kg/yr
Carbon Monoxide 4,944 kg/yr
Unburned Hydrocarbons 200 kg/yr
Particulate Matter 19.8 kg/yr
Sulfur Dioxide 1,781 kg/yr
Nitrogen Oxides 396 kg/yr
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1859
Compare Economics
IRR (%):2.11
Discounted payback (yr):N/A
Simple payback (yr):22.7
Base System Proposed System
Net Present Cost $9.19M $9.79M
CAPEX $2.00 $2.42M
OPEX $711,089 $570,112
LCOE (per kWh) $0.573 $0.610
CO2 Emitted (kg/yr) 946,422 726,713
Fuel Consumption (L/yr) 361,840 277,840
1960
Proposed Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Base System Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Cumulative Discounted Cash Flows
-4,000,000
-3,200,000
-2,400,000
-1,600,000
-800,000
0
800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Proposed System
-1,000,000
-833,333
-666,667
-500,000
-333,333
-166,667
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Base System
-9900000-8250000-6600000-4950000-3300000-16500000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cash Flow ($)year
Base System Proposed System
2061
Kiana Solar PV and Battery Storage
System Feasibility Study
Prepared For
Native Village of Kiana
69 Kozak Street
Kiana, AK 99749
Prepared By
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)
4000 Ambassador Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
And
DeerStone Consulting
3200 Brookside Drive
Anchorage, AK 99517
December, 2021
62
Purpose of Report
The Native Village of Kiana has expressed interest in developing a utility-scale solar PV
and battery storage system and integrating it into their existing power system. The
purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the HOMER modeling that was
conducted by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for the performance
of this type of system in Kiana. The information from this report will be presented to
Kiana Native Village, NANA Energy Program, and Northwest Arctic Borough (NAB) to
assist in determining whether and how to move forward with this energy project.
Background
In Kiana, the only source of electricity comes from diesel generators. The cost of diesel
fuel in Kiana is driven by the price of oil and the cost of delivery. In general, fuel is
delivered to Kiana by barge. Fuel deliveries can only occur after the ice has melted in
the spring and when the water levels are sufficient for the barge to travel the
approximately 60-mile distance up the Kobuk River. The ability to receive fuel deliveries
by barge helps to keep Kiana’s fuel affordable relative to nearby communities such as
Ambler, where most fuel must be delivered by plane. In 2020, the average delivered fuel
cost was $3.42/gallon in Kiana as compared to $6.43/gallon in Ambler.
There is a long-term risk that the route and water level of the Kobuk River may change
in a way that will make Kiana inaccessible by barge in the future. This uncertainly
combined with the long-term uncertainty in the price of oil is part of what motivated the
Village of Kiana to explore the possibility of developing a solar PV with battery storage
system. Additionally, the Village of Kiana is motivated by their goals to reduce their
reliance on diesel fuel and enhance the resiliency of their power system.
HOMER Modeling Outcomes
System Sizing
The HOMER model identified the most effective system size to be a 297 kW solar PV
array with a 384 kWh battery energy storage system and a 500 kW converter.
Approximately 2.7 acres will be required to construct a solar array of this size.
Solar Resource
The HOMER model utilized local solar insolation data in combination with the above
system sizing to calculate an expected solar capacity factor of 10.9%. Although the
solar resource is poor during the winter at this latitude due to limited daylight hours, a
solar capacity factor exceeding 10% is an indication that there is a strong solar resource
in Kiana and this is a viable technology when evaluated across all the seasons.
Power Generation and Fuel Savings
A system of this size will generate 274,741 kWh/year and have a solar penetration of
16.7%. Solar penetration is the percentage of electricity that is sourced from solar
generation sources. This will save approximately 18,118 gallons of diesel fuel annually
for an annual fuel cost savings of $61,964. It is estimated that the system will be able to
operate with diesels off for 735 hours per year.
163
Installation Cost and B/C ratio
The estimated cost of installation is $876,150 for the solar PV and $1,265,000 for the
battery energy storage system. The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be
$2,141,150. Over the 25-year lifetime of the project, based on Alaska Energy Authority’s
(AEA’s) B/C Ratio Model, the B/C ratio is 0.63.
264
A summary of the HOMER model results is given below. The complete HOMER model
is provided as an attachment.
365
Solar PV Siting
Siting the solar PV panels is an important aspect of developing a successful solar PV
and battery storage project. In particular, it is important to identify a location for the solar
PV panels that is both technically suitable and compatible with the community
development plan.
Land ownership and site control issues are the first considerations in this process. It is
possible to site the panels on land that is owned by either the City or NANA Regional
Corporation. For past projects, NANA has been receptive to navigating site control
issues by first providing villages with land leases, and then having the land surveyed
and transferred to the village afterwards to help reduce immediate barriers to project
progress related to site control.
The next consideration in site selection is the technical feasibility of site. Typically, solar
PV panels are most effective when they are oriented south or southeast. Locating solar
PV panels on elevated land that is at a distance from large buildings will also increase
the effectiveness of the panels by minimizing the shading of the panels. Finally, the
proximity of the solar PV panels to an existing power line will help to reduce the overall
project costs by limiting the need to construct new power lines. According to the sizing
configuration identified by the HOMER model, this installation will require approximately
2.7 acres.
At this stage, Kiana’s community development plan has been taken into account
through discussions with several individuals who are familiar with their plan. In order to
make a final siting determination it is imperative that additional discussions with
members of the community take place to verify that the final site selection is compatible
with Kiana’s community development plan.
Given the above constraints, one site option has been identified that may be suitable for
this project. The below recommendation does not include a full list of possible sites and
it should not be taken as the final siting location. The red star marks the location of the
power plant.
466
Figure 1 - Overview of Kiana Siting Area Figure 2 - Kiana Site Area #1
Siting Area #1
This site is located on NANA Regional Corporation owned land and is approximately 2
acres in size. There is no shading from nearby buildings and the land is sloped downhill
to the south. There are no known conflicts with Kiana’s community development plan.
There is a risk that this location would have a glint and glare impact for the airport,
although it is expected that a south-facing array would be acceptable. A glint and glare
assessment must be conducted to confirm this location meets FAA regulations. This
location is the best option identified so far.
Recommendation
From the analysis conducted above, it is expected that, if constructed, this solar PV and
battery energy storage system project would meet the Village of Kiana’s goals of
reducing the high cost of diesel fuel, reducing reliance on diesel fuel, and enhancing the
resiliency of the power system. The B/C ratio for the project is <1 indicating that the
financial benefits of the project will not offset the capital costs under the current
economic constraints. If the economic constraints change, such as from an increase in
the cost of fuel or a reduction in the capital costs, the B/C ratio will increase. Capital
costs may be reduced through economies of scale, leveraging local experience from
similar projects, or decreases in the cost of solar and battery infrastructure as the
technologies continue to mature. That said, the long-term benefits to the community
may outweigh the financial risks at the current B/C ratio, provided the village can secure
funding for the capital costs. If the Village of Kiana is interested in pursuing this project
the next steps would be to secure funding and finalize the system size and solar PV
siting. The NANA Energy Program and the Northwest Artic Borough are swilling and
able to provide support if Kiana would like to further pursue this project.
567
Attachments
Kiana HOMER Model – System Simulation Report
668
System Simulation Report
File: Kiana_Solar+Battery.homer
Author: Bailey Gamble
Location: Kiana Airport, Kiana, AK 99749, USA (66°58.2'N, 160°26.4'W)
Total Net Present Cost: $8,207,228.00
Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh): $0.375
Notes: Kiana microgrid model for REF application
Sensitivity variable values for this simulation
Variable Value Unit
Diesel Fuel Price 0.900 $/L
769
Table of Contents
System Architecture ................................................................................................... 3
Cost Summary ........................................................................................................... 4
Cash Flow ................................................................................................................. 5
Electrical Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
Generator: DD S60K4c 1800 324 (Diesel) ...................................................................... 7
Generator: DD S60K4 1800 363 (Diesel) ....................................................................... 8
Generator: CMS K19G4 499 (Diesel) ............................................................................. 9
PV: Generic flat plate PV ........................................................................................... 10
Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion .................................................................................... 11
Converter: System Converter ..................................................................................... 12
Fuel Summary ......................................................................................................... 13
Compare Economics .................................................................................................. 14
870
System Architecture
Component Name Size Unit
Generator #1 DD S60K4c 1800 324 324 kW
Generator #2 DD S60K4 1800 363 363 kW
Generator #3 CMS K19G4 499 499 kW
PV Generic flat plate PV 297 kW
Storage Generic 1kWh Li-Ion 384 strings
System converter System Converter 500 kW
Dispatch strategy HOMER Cycle Charging
Schematic
971
Cost Summary
Net Present Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K19G4
499 $0.00 $1,029 $0.00 -$71,724 $7,366 -$63,329
DD S60K4 1800
363 $0.00 $2,573 $0.00 -$59,590 $20,015 -$37,003
DD S60K4c
1800 324 $0.00 $966,616 $326,150 -$11,141 $4.50M $5.78M
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $600,000 $12,928 $169,710 -$31,941 $0.00 $750,696
Generic flat
plate PV $876,150 $38,395 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $914,545
System
Converter $665,000 $12,928 $190,923 -$35,934 $0.00 $832,917
System $2.14M $1.03M $686,782 -$210,329 $4.52M $8.18M
Annualized Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K19G4
499 $0.00 $79.60 $0.00 -$5,548 $569.79 -$4,899
DD S60K4 1800
363 $0.00 $199.00 $0.00 -$4,610 $1,548 -$2,862
DD S60K4c
1800 324 $0.00 $74,772 $25,229 -$861.78 $347,766 $446,905
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $46,413 $1,000 $13,128 -$2,471 $0.00 $58,070
Generic flat
plate PV $67,774 $2,970 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $70,744
System
Converter $51,441 $1,000 $14,769 -$2,780 $0.00 $64,430
System $165,627 $80,021 $53,126 -$16,270 $349,884 $632,387
-1,200,000
0
1,200,000
2,400,000
3,600,000
4,800,000
6,000,000
Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource
System Converter
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
DD S60K4c 1800 324
DD S60K4 1800 363
CMS K19G4 499
1072
Cash Flow
-3,600,000
-2,700,000
-1,800,000
-900,000
0
900,000
1,800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Salvage
Replacement
Operating
Fuel
Capital
-3,200,000
-2,400,000
-1,600,000
-800,000
0
800,000
1,600,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
System Converter
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
DD S60K4c 1800 324
DD S60K4 1800 363
CMS K19G4 499
1173
Electrical Summary
Excess and Unmet
Quantity Value Units
Excess Electricity 9,891 kWh/yr
Unmet Electric Load 0 kWh/yr
Capacity Shortage 0 kWh/yr
Production Summary
Component Production (kWh/yr) Percent
Generic flat plate PV 284,632 16.7
DD S60K4c 1800 324 1,409,659 82.8
DD S60K4 1800 363 6,722 0.395
CMS K19G4 499 2,209 0.130
Total 1,703,223 100
Consumption Summary
Component Consumption (kWh/yr) Percent
AC Primary Load 1,691,045 100
DC Primary Load 0 0
Deferrable Load 0 0
Total 1,691,045 100
1274
0
87.5
175
262.5
350
kWGenerator: DD S60K4c 1800 324 (Diesel)
DD S60K4c 1800 324 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 1,409,659 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 176 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 48.3 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 324 kW
Thermal Production 598,145 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 74.8 kW
Min. thermal output 34.4 kW
Max. thermal output 121 kW
DD S60K4c 1800 324 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 386,406 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.274 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 3,802,238 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 37.1 %
DD S60K4c 1800 324 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 7,997 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 239 starts/yr
Operational Life 12.5 yr
Capacity Factor 49.7 %
Fixed Generation Cost 18.8 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.207 $/kWh
DD S60K4c 1800 324 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1375
0
87.5
175
262.5
350
kWGenerator: DD S60K4 1800 363 (Diesel)
DD S60K4 1800 363 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 6,722 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 336 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 328 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 350 kW
Thermal Production 2,551 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 128 kW
Min. thermal output 125 kW
Max. thermal output 132 kW
DD S60K4 1800 363 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 1,720 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.256 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 16,927 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 39.7 %
DD S60K4 1800 363 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 20.0 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 12.0 starts/yr
Operational Life 5,000 yr
Capacity Factor 0.211 %
Fixed Generation Cost 20.3 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.207 $/kWh
DD S60K4 1800 363 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1476
Generator: CMS K19G4 499 (Diesel)
CMS K19G4 499 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 2,209 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 276 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 260 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 292 kW
Thermal Production 1,206 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 151 kW
Min. thermal output 144 kW
Max. thermal output 158 kW
CMS K19G4 499 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 633 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.287 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 6,230 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 35.5 %
CMS K19G4 499 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 8.00 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 8.00 starts/yr
Operational Life 12,500 yr
Capacity Factor 0.0505 %
Fixed Generation Cost 23.3 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.221 $/kWh
CMS K19G4 499 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
75
150
225
300
kW1577
PV: Generic flat plate PV
Generic flat plate PV Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 319 kW
PV Penetration 16.8 %
Hours of Operation 4,378 hrs/yr
Levelized Cost 0.249 $/kWh
Generic flat plate PV Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Rated Capacity 297 kW
Mean Output 32.5 kW
Mean Output 780 kWh/d
Capacity Factor 10.9 %
Total Production 284,632 kWh/yr
Generic flat plate PV Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
87.5
175
262.5
350
kW1678
50
62.5
75
87.5
100
%Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Properties
Quantity Value Units
Batteries 384 qty.
String Size 1.00 batteries
Strings in Parallel 384 strings
Bus Voltage 6.00 V
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Result Data
Quantity Value Units
Average Energy Cost 0.188 $/kWh
Energy In 11,572 kWh/yr
Energy Out 10,415 kWh/yr
Storage Depletion 0 kWh/yr
Losses 1,157 kWh/yr
Annual Throughput 10,978 kWh/yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Autonomy 1.59 hr
Storage Wear Cost 0.366 $/kWh
Nominal Capacity 384 kWh
Usable Nominal Capacity 307 kWh
Lifetime Throughput 164,672 kWh
Expected Life 15.0 yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion State of Charge (%)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1779
0
15
30
45
60
kWConverter: System Converter
System Converter Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 383 hrs/yr
Energy Out 9,894 kWh/yr
Energy In 10,415 kWh/yr
Losses 521 kWh/yr
System Converter Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Capacity 500 kW
Mean Output 1.13 kW
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 50.9 kW
Capacity Factor 0.226 %
System Converter Inverter Output (kW)
System Converter Rectifier Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
50
100
150
200
kW1880
Fuel Summary
Diesel Consumption Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Total fuel consumed 388,760 L
Avg fuel per day 1,065 L/day
Avg fuel per hour 44.4 L/hour
Diesel Consumption (L/hr)
Emissions
Pollutant Quantity Unit
Carbon Dioxide 1,016,833 kg/yr
Carbon Monoxide 6,918 kg/yr
Unburned Hydrocarbons 280 kg/yr
Particulate Matter 27.7 kg/yr
Sulfur Dioxide 2,492 kg/yr
Nitrogen Oxides 553 kg/yr
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
25
50
75
100
L/hr1981
Compare Economics
IRR (%):N/A
Discounted payback (yr):N/A
Simple payback (yr):N/A
Base System Proposed System
Net Present Cost $6.62M $8.21M
CAPEX $0.00 $2.14M
OPEX $511,860 $469,238
LCOE (per kWh) $0.303 $0.375
CO2 Emitted (kg/yr) 1,196,365 1,016,833
Fuel Consumption (L/yr) 457,399 388,760
2082
Proposed Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Base System Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Cumulative Discounted Cash Flows
-3,000,000
-2,400,000
-1,800,000
-1,200,000
-600,000
0
600,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Proposed System
-1,000,000
-800,000
-600,000
-400,000
-200,000
0
200,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Base System
-8400000-7000000-5600000-4200000-2800000-14000000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cash Flow ($)year
Base System Proposed System
2183
Noorvik Solar PV and Battery Storage
System Feasibility Study
Prepared For
Noorvik Native Community
PO Box 209
Noorvik, AK 99763
Prepared By
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)
4000 Ambassador Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
And
DeerStone Consulting
3200 Brookside Drive
Anchorage, AK 99517
December, 2021
84
Purpose of Report
The Native Village of Noorvik has expressed interest in developing a utility-scale solar
PV and battery storage system and integrating it into their existing power system. The
purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the HOMER modeling that was
conducted by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for the performance
of this type of system in Noorvik. The information from this report will be presented to
Noorvik Native Village, NANA Energy Program, and Northwest Arctic Borough (NAB) to
assist in determining whether and how to move forward with this energy project.
Background
In Noorvik, the main source of electricity comes from diesel generators, but there is a
small existing solar PV array. The 23 kW array generated 11,418 kWh in 2020, less
than 1% of the system’s total power. The cost of diesel fuel in Noorvik is driven by the
price of oil and the cost of delivery. In general, fuel is delivered to Noorvik by barge.
Fuel deliveries can only occur after the ice has melted in the spring and when the water
levels are sufficient for the barge to travel the approximately 35-mile distance up the
Kobuk River. The ability to receive fuel deliveries by barge helps to keep Noorvik’s fuel
affordable relative to nearby communities such as Ambler, where most fuel must be
delivered by plane. In 2020, the average delivered fuel cost was $3.44/gallon in Noorvik
as compared to $6.43/gallon in Ambler.
There is a long-term risk that the route and water level of the Kobuk River may change
in a way that will make Noorvik inaccessible by barge in the future. This uncertainly
combined with the long-term uncertainty in the price of oil is part of what motivated the
Village of Noorvik to explore the possibility of developing a solar PV with battery storage
system. Additionally, the Village of Noorvik is motivated by their goals to reduce their
reliance on diesel fuel and enhance the resiliency of their power system.
HOMER Modeling Outcomes
System Sizing
The HOMER model identified the most effective system size to be a 358 kW solar PV
array with a 384 kWh battery energy storage system and a 500 kW converter.
Approximately 3.2 acres will be required to construct a solar array of this size.
Solar Resource
The HOMER model utilized local solar insolation data in combination with the above
system sizing to calculate an expected solar capacity factor of 10.9%. Although the
solar resource is poor during the winter at this latitude due to limited daylight hours, a
solar capacity factor exceeding 10% is an indication that there is a strong solar resource
in Noorvik and this is a viable technology when evaluated across all the seasons.
Power Generation and Fuel Savings
A system of this size will generate 327,784 kWh/year and have a solar penetration of
17.1%. Solar penetration is the percentage of electricity that is sourced from solar
generation sources. This will save approximately 22,477 gallons of diesel fuel annually
185
for an annual fuel cost savings of $77,321. It is estimated that the system will be able to
operate with diesels off for 729 hours per year.
Installation Cost and B/C ratio
The estimated cost of installation is $1,056,100 for the solar PV and $1,265,000 for the
battery energy storage system. The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be
$2,321,100. Over the 25-year lifetime of the project, based on Alaska Energy Authority’s
(AEA’s) B/C Ratio Model, the B/C ratio is 0.69.
286
A summary of the HOMER model results is given below. The complete HOMER model
is provided as an attachment.
387
Solar PV Siting
Siting the solar PV panels is an important aspect of developing a successful solar PV
and battery storage project. In particular, it is important to identify a location for the solar
PV panels that is both technically suitable and compatible with the community
development plan.
Land ownership and site control issues are the first considerations in this process. It is
possible to site the panels on land that is owned by either the City or NANA Regional
Corporation. For past projects, NANA has been receptive to navigating site control
issues by first providing villages with land leases, and then having the land surveyed
and transferred to the village afterwards to help reduce immediate barriers to project
progress related to site control.
The next consideration in site selection is the technical feasibility of site. Typically, solar
PV panels are most effective when they are oriented south or southeast. Locating solar
PV panels on elevated land that is at a distance from large buildings will also increase
the effectiveness of the panels by minimizing the shading of the panels. Finally, the
proximity of the solar PV panels to an existing power line will help to reduce the overall
project costs by limiting the need to construct new power lines. According to the sizing
configuration identified by the HOMER model, this installation will require approximately
3.2 acres.
At this stage, Noorvik’s community development plan has been taken into account
through discussions with several individuals who are familiar with their plan. In order to
make a final siting determination it is imperative that additional discussions with
members of the community take place to verify that the final site selection is compatible
with Noorvik’s community development plan.
Given the above constraints, several site options have been identified that may be
suitable for this project. The below recommendations do not include a full list of possible
sites and they should not be taken as final siting locations. The red star marks the
location of the power plant.
488
Figure 1 - Overview of Noorvik Siting Area Figure 2 - Noorvik Site Area #1
Figure 3 - Noorvik Site Area #2 Figure 4 - Noorvik Site Area #3
589
Siting Area #1
This site is located on NANA Regional Corporation owned land and is approximately 6
acres in size. There is no shading from nearby buildings and the land to the south drops
off sharply after the boundary of the proposed siting area. It is directly adjacent to
existing power lines. There are no known conflicts with Noorvik’s community
development plan. This location is the best option identified so far.
Siting Area #2
This site is located on ADA and NANA Regional Corporation owned land adjacent to the
old airport and is approximately 5 acres in size. There is no shading from nearby
buildings and the land is flat and clear of vegetation and structures to the south. It is
directly adjacent to existing power lines. There may be a potential subsistence conflict
with this land. It is designated as a berry picking area on the Noorvik Area Use Map.
This location is the second-best option identified so far.
Siting Area #3
This site is located on ADA and City of Noorvik owned land and is approximately 9
acres in size. A portion of this land is the old airport parcel that was owned by the FAA.
The current ownership of this land should be verified before proceeding with this siting
location. There is no shading from nearby buildings and the land is flat and clear of
vegetation and structures to the south. It is not directly adjacent to existing power lines
and therefore would incur slightly higher project costs than other sites. There are no
known conflicts with Noorvik’s community development plan. This location is the third-
best option identified so far.
Recommendation
From the analysis conducted above, it is expected that, if constructed, this solar PV and
battery energy storage system project would meet the Village of Noorvik’s goals of
reducing the high cost of diesel fuel, reducing reliance on diesel fuel, and enhancing the
resiliency of the power system. The B/C ratio for the project is <1 indicating that the
financial benefits of the project will not offset the capital costs under the current
economic constraints. If the economic constraints change, such as from an increase in
the cost of fuel or a reduction in the capital costs, the B/C ratio will increase. Capital
costs may be reduced through economies of scale, leveraging local experience from
similar projects, or decreases in the cost of solar and battery infrastructure as the
technologies continue to mature. That said, the long-term benefits to the community
may outweigh the financial risks at the current B/C ratio, provided the village can secure
funding for the capital costs. If the Village of Noorvik is interested in pursuing this project
the next steps would be to secure funding and finalize the system size and solar PV
siting. The NANA Energy Program and the Northwest Artic Borough are willing and able
to provide support if Noorvik would like to further pursue this project.
Attachments
Noorvik HOMER Model – System Simulation Report
690
System Simulation Report
File: Noorvik_Solar+Battery.homer
Author: Bailey Gamble
Location: RXQ8+8V Noorvik, AK, USA (66°50.3'N, 161°2.0'W)
Total Net Present Cost: $9,339,119.00
Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh): $0.363
Notes: Noorvik model for REF grant
Sensitivity variable values for this simulation
Variable Value Unit
Diesel Fuel Price 0.910 $/L
791
Table of Contents
System Architecture ................................................................................................... 3
Cost Summary ........................................................................................................... 4
Cash Flow ................................................................................................................. 5
Electrical Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
Generator: DD S60 1800 363 kW (Diesel) ..................................................................... 7
Generator: CMS K19G4 1800 499 (Diesel) ..................................................................... 8
Generator: MTU 12V2000 710 (Diesel) .......................................................................... 9
PV: Generic flat plate PV ........................................................................................... 10
Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion .................................................................................... 11
Converter: System Converter ..................................................................................... 12
Fuel Summary ......................................................................................................... 13
Compare Economics .................................................................................................. 14
892
System Architecture
Component Name Size Unit
Generator #1 DD S60 1800 363 kW 363 kW
Generator #2 CMS K19G4 1800 499 499 kW
Generator #3 MTU 12V2000 710 710 kW
PV Generic flat plate PV 358 kW
Storage Generic 1kWh Li-Ion 384 strings
System converter System Converter 500 kW
Dispatch strategy HOMER Cycle Charging
Schematic
993
Cost Summary
Net Present Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K19G4
1800 499 $0.00 $4,245 $0.00 -$71,274 $41,847 -$25,183
DD S60 1800
363 kW $0.00 $1.03M $311,162 -$15,157 $5.41M $6.73M
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $600,000 $12,928 $169,710 -$31,941 $0.00 $750,696
Generic flat
plate PV $1.06M $46,281 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.10M
MTU 12V2000
710 $0.00 $1,568 $0.00 -$107,585 $8,957 -$97,061
System
Converter $665,000 $12,928 $190,923 -$35,934 $0.00 $832,917
System $2.32M $1.11M $671,795 -$261,891 $5.46M $9.29M
Annualized Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K19G4
1800 499 $0.00 $328.35 $0.00 -$5,513 $3,237 -$1,948
DD S60 1800
363 kW $0.00 $79,501 $24,070 -$1,172 $418,231 $520,629
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $46,413 $1,000 $13,128 -$2,471 $0.00 $58,070
Generic flat
plate PV $81,694 $3,580 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $85,274
MTU 12V2000
710 $0.00 $121.28 $0.00 -$8,322 $692.83 -$7,508
System
Converter $51,441 $1,000 $14,769 -$2,780 $0.00 $64,430
System $179,547 $85,530 $51,966 -$20,258 $422,161 $718,946
-3,000,000
-1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,000,000
4,500,000
6,000,000
Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource
System Converter
MTU 12V2000 710
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
DD S60 1800 363 kW
CMS K19G4 1800 499
1094
Cash Flow
-3,600,000
-2,700,000
-1,800,000
-900,000
0
900,000
1,800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Salvage
Replacement
Operating
Fuel
Capital
-3,600,000
-2,700,000
-1,800,000
-900,000
0
900,000
1,800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
System Converter
MTU 12V2000 710
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
DD S60 1800 363 kW
CMS K19G4 1800 499
1195
Electrical Summary
Excess and Unmet
Quantity Value Units
Excess Electricity 14,665 kWh/yr
Unmet Electric Load 0 kWh/yr
Capacity Shortage 0 kWh/yr
Production Summary
Component Production (kWh/yr) Percent
Generic flat plate PV 342,449 17.1
DD S60 1800 363 kW 1,647,173 82.1
CMS K19G4 1800 499 12,973 0.647
MTU 12V2000 710 2,598 0.130
Total 2,005,193 100
Consumption Summary
Component Consumption (kWh/yr) Percent
AC Primary Load 1,988,155 100
DC Primary Load 0 0
Deferrable Load 0 0
Total 1,988,155 100
1296
0
100
200
300
400
kWGenerator: DD S60 1800 363 kW (Diesel)
DD S60 1800 363 kW Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 1,647,173 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 206 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 36.3 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 363 kW
Thermal Production 1,006,334 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 126 kW
Min. thermal output 47.9 kW
Max. thermal output 198 kW
DD S60 1800 363 kW Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 459,595 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.279 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 4,522,413 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 36.4 %
DD S60 1800 363 kW Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 7,990 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 253 starts/yr
Operational Life 12.5 yr
Capacity Factor 51.8 %
Fixed Generation Cost 20.7 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.214 $/kWh
DD S60 1800 363 kW Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
1397
Generator: CMS K19G4 1800 499 (Diesel)
CMS K19G4 1800 499 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 12,973 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 393 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 377 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 419 kW
Thermal Production 6,609 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 200 kW
Min. thermal output 194 kW
Max. thermal output 211 kW
CMS K19G4 1800 499 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 3,557 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.274 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 35,003 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 37.1 %
CMS K19G4 1800 499 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 33.0 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 14.0 starts/yr
Operational Life 3,030 yr
Capacity Factor 0.297 %
Fixed Generation Cost 23.4 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.223 $/kWh
CMS K19G4 1800 499 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
125
250
375
500
kW1498
Generator: MTU 12V2000 710 (Diesel)
MTU 12V2000 710 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 2,598 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 325 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 306 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 343 kW
Thermal Production 1,468 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 184 kW
Min. thermal output 176 kW
Max. thermal output 191 kW
MTU 12V2000 710 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 761 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.293 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 7,492 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 34.7 %
MTU 12V2000 710 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 8.00 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 8.00 starts/yr
Operational Life 12,500 yr
Capacity Factor 0.0418 %
Fixed Generation Cost 33.9 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.223 $/kWh
MTU 12V2000 710 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
87.5
175
262.5
350
kW1599
0
100
200
300
400
kWPV: Generic flat plate PV
Generic flat plate PV Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 384 kW
PV Penetration 17.2 %
Hours of Operation 4,376 hrs/yr
Levelized Cost 0.249 $/kWh
Generic flat plate PV Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Rated Capacity 358 kW
Mean Output 39.1 kW
Mean Output 938 kWh/d
Capacity Factor 10.9 %
Total Production 342,449 kWh/yr
Generic flat plate PV Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
16100
Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Properties
Quantity Value Units
Batteries 384 qty.
String Size 1.00 batteries
Strings in Parallel 384 strings
Bus Voltage 6.00 V
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Result Data
Quantity Value Units
Average Energy Cost 0.195 $/kWh
Energy In 12,006 kWh/yr
Energy Out 10,806 kWh/yr
Storage Depletion 0 kWh/yr
Losses 1,201 kWh/yr
Annual Throughput 11,390 kWh/yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Autonomy 1.35 hr
Storage Wear Cost 0.366 $/kWh
Nominal Capacity 384 kWh
Usable Nominal Capacity 307 kWh
Lifetime Throughput 170,851 kWh
Expected Life 15.0 yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion State of Charge (%)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
50
62.5
75
87.5
100
%17101
0
15
30
45
60
kWConverter: System Converter
System Converter Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 382 hrs/yr
Energy Out 10,265 kWh/yr
Energy In 10,806 kWh/yr
Losses 540 kWh/yr
System Converter Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Capacity 500 kW
Mean Output 1.17 kW
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 58.1 kW
Capacity Factor 0.234 %
System Converter Inverter Output (kW)
System Converter Rectifier Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
50
100
150
200
kW18102
Fuel Summary
Diesel Consumption Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Total fuel consumed 463,913 L
Avg fuel per day 1,271 L/day
Avg fuel per hour 53.0 L/hour
Diesel Consumption (L/hr)
Emissions
Pollutant Quantity Unit
Carbon Dioxide 1,213,408 kg/yr
Carbon Monoxide 8,252 kg/yr
Unburned Hydrocarbons 334 kg/yr
Particulate Matter 33.1 kg/yr
Sulfur Dioxide 2,974 kg/yr
Nitrogen Oxides 661 kg/yr
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
30
60
90
120
L/hr19103
Compare Economics
IRR (%):N/A
Discounted payback (yr):N/A
Simple payback (yr):N/A
Base System Proposed System
Net Present Cost $7.77M $9.34M
CAPEX $0.00 $2.32M
OPEX $600,761 $542,875
LCOE (per kWh) $0.302 $0.363
CO2 Emitted (kg/yr) 1,436,093 1,213,408
Fuel Consumption (L/yr) 549,051 463,913
20104
Proposed Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Base System Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Cumulative Discounted Cash Flows
-3,000,000
-2,400,000
-1,800,000
-1,200,000
-600,000
0
600,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Proposed System
-1,500,000
-1,200,000
-900,000
-600,000
-300,000
0
300,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Base System
-9600000-8000000-6400000-4800000-3200000-16000000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cash Flow ($)year
Base System Proposed System
21105
Selawik Solar PV and Battery Storage
System Feasibility Study
Prepared For
Selawik Native Community
59 North Tundra Street
Selawik, AK 99770
Prepared By
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)
4000 Ambassador Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
And
DeerStone Consulting
3200 Brookside Drive
Anchorage, AK 99517
December, 2021
106
Purpose of Report
The Native Village of Selawik has expressed interest in developing a utility-scale solar
PV and battery storage system and integrating it into their existing power system. The
purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the HOMER modeling that was
conducted by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for the performance
of this type of system in Selawik. The information from this report will be presented to
Selawik Native Village, NANA Energy Program, and Northwest Arctic Borough (NAB) to
assist in determining whether and how to move forward with this energy project.
Background
In Selawik, the only source of electricity comes from diesel generators. The cost of
diesel fuel in Selawik is driven by the price of oil and the cost of delivery. In general, fuel
is delivered to Selawik by barge. Fuel deliveries can only occur after the ice has melted
in the spring and when the water levels are sufficient for the barge to travel up the
Selawik River. The ability to receive fuel deliveries by barge helps to keep Selawik’s fuel
affordable relative to nearby communities such as Ambler, where most fuel must be
delivered by plane. In 2020, the average delivered fuel cost was $3.35/gallon in Selawik
as compared to $6.43/gallon in Ambler.
The long-term uncertainty in the price of oil is part of what motivated the Village of
Selawik to explore the possibility of developing a solar PV with battery storage system.
Additionally, the Village of Selawik is motivated by their goals to reduce their reliance on
diesel fuel and enhance the resiliency of their power system.
HOMER Modeling Outcomes
System Sizing
The HOMER model identified the most effective system size to be a 398 kW solar PV
array with a 384 kWh battery energy storage system and a 750 kW converter.
Approximately 3.6 acres will be required to construct a solar array of this size.
Solar Resource
The HOMER model utilized local solar insolation data in combination with the above
system sizing to calculate an expected solar capacity factor of 10.8%. Although the
solar resource is poor during the winter at this latitude due to limited daylight hours, a
solar capacity factor exceeding 10% is an indication that there is a strong solar resource
in Selawik and this is a viable technology when evaluated across all the seasons.
Power Generation and Fuel Savings
A system of this size will generate 375,356 kWh/year and have a solar penetration of
13.5%. Solar penetration is the percentage of electricity that is sourced from solar
generation sources. This will save approximately 24,946 gallons of diesel fuel annually
for an annual fuel cost savings of $83,569. It is estimated that the system will be able to
operate with diesels off for 193 hours per year.
Installation Cost and B/C ratio
The estimated cost of installation is $1,174,100 for the solar PV and $1,285,000 for the
battery energy storage system. The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be
1107
$2,459,100. Over the 25-year lifetime of the project, based on Alaska Energy Authority’s
(AEA’s) B/C Ratio Model, the B/C ratio is 0.71.
2108
A summary of the HOMER model results is given below. The complete HOMER model
is provided as an attachment.
3109
Solar PV Siting
Siting the solar PV panels is an important aspect of developing a successful solar PV
and battery storage project. In particular, it is important to identify a location for the solar
PV panels that is both technically suitable and compatible with the community
development plan.
Land ownership and site control issues are the first considerations in this process. It is
possible to site the panels on land that is owned by either the City or NANA Regional
Corporation. For past projects, NANA has been receptive to navigating site control
issues by first providing villages with land leases, and then having the land surveyed
and transferred to the village afterwards to help reduce immediate barriers to project
progress related to site control.
The next consideration in site selection is the technical feasibility of site. Typically, solar
PV panels are most effective when they are oriented south or southeast. Locating solar
PV panels on elevated land that is at a distance from large buildings will also increase
the effectiveness of the panels by minimizing the shading of the panels. Finally, the
proximity of the solar PV panels to an existing power line will help to reduce the overall
project costs by limiting the need to construct new power lines. According to the sizing
configuration identified by the HOMER model, this installation will require approximately
3.2 acres.
At this stage, Selawik’s community development plan has been taken into account
through discussions with several individuals who are familiar with their plan. In order to
make a final siting determination it is imperative that additional discussions with
members of the community take place to verify that the final site selection is compatible
with Selawik’s community development plan.
Given the above constraints, one site option has been identified that may be suitable for
this project. The below recommendation does not include a full list of possible sites and
it should not be taken as the final siting location. The red star marks the location of the
power plant.
4110
Figure 1 - Overview of Selawik Siting Area Figure 2 - Selawik Site Area #1
Siting Area #1
This site is located on NANA Regional Corporation and Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) owned land and is approximately 4 acres in size. To pursue the
use of this siting area, it would be important to discuss land use and ownership options
with AVEC as soon as possible. There is minimal shading from nearby structures and
the land is relatively flat with lower elevation land to the south. This land is above the
documented flood line. The flood line is an important consideration as Selawik
experiences severe flooding annually in the spring. There are no known conflicts with
Selawik’s community development plan. This location is the best option identified so far.
Recommendation
From the analysis conducted above, it is expected that, if constructed, this solar PV and
battery energy storage system project would meet the Village of Selawik’s goals of
reducing the high cost of diesel fuel, reducing reliance on diesel fuel, and enhancing the
resiliency of the power system. The B/C ratio for the project is <1 indicating that the
financial benefits of the project will not offset the capital costs under the current
economic constraints. If the economic constraints change, such as from an increase in
the cost of fuel or a reduction in the capital costs, the B/C ratio will increase. Capital
costs may be reduced through economies of scale, leveraging local experience from
similar projects, or decreases in the cost of solar and battery infrastructure as the
technologies continue to mature. That said, the long-term benefits to the community
may outweigh the financial risks at the current B/C ratio, provided the village can secure
funding for the capital costs. If the Village of Selawik is interested in pursuing this
project the next steps would be to secure funding and finalize the system size and solar
PV siting. The NANA Energy Program and the Northwest Artic Borough are willing and
able to provide support if Selawik would like to further pursue this project.
Attachments
Selawik HOMER Model – System Simulation Report
5111
System Simulation Report
File: Selawik_Solar + Battery.homer
Author: Bailey Gamble
Location: JX3V+H6 Selawik, AK, USA (66°36.2'N, 160°0.4'W)
Total Net Present Cost: $13,729,120.00
Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh): $0.381
Notes: Selawik Solar and Battery Energy Storage
Sensitivity variable values for this simulation
Variable Value Unit
Diesel Fuel Price 0.880 $/L
6112
Table of Contents
System Architecture ................................................................................................... 3
Cost Summary ........................................................................................................... 4
Cash Flow ................................................................................................................. 5
Electrical Summary ..................................................................................................... 6
Generator: CMS QST30 750 (Diesel) ............................................................................. 7
Generator: CMS QSX15 G9 499 (Diesel) ........................................................................ 8
Generator: CMS K38G4 1800 900 (Diesel) ..................................................................... 9
PV: Generic flat plate PV ........................................................................................... 10
Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion .................................................................................... 11
Converter: System Converter ..................................................................................... 12
Fuel Summary ......................................................................................................... 13
Renewable Summary ................................................................................................ 14
Compare Economics .................................................................................................. 15
7113
System Architecture
Component Name Size Unit
Generator #1 CMS QST30 750 750 kW
Generator #2 CMS QSX15 G9 499 499 kW
Generator #3 CMS K38G4 1800 900 900 kW
PV Generic flat plate PV 398 kW
Storage Generic 1kWh Li-Ion 383 strings
System converter System Converter 750 kW
Dispatch strategy HOMER Cycle Charging
Schematic
8114
Cost Summary
Net Present Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K38G4
1800 900 $0.00 $530,169 $0.00 -$87,738 $221,354 $663,785
CMS QST30
750 $0.00 $685,172 $0.00 -$97,138 $117,490 $705,525
CMS QSX15 G9
499 $0.00 $1.77M $277,977 -$63,394 $7.54M $9.52M
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $598,438 $12,894 $169,268 -$31,858 $0.00 $748,741
Generic flat
plate PV $1.17M $51,452 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.23M
System
Converter $685,000 $0.00 $190,923 -$35,934 $0.00 $839,990
System $2.46M $3.05M $638,168 -$316,062 $7.88M $13.7M
Annualized Costs
Name Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource Total
CMS K38G4
1800 900 $0.00 $41,011 $0.00 -$6,787 $17,123 $51,347
CMS QST30
750 $0.00 $53,001 $0.00 -$7,514 $9,088 $54,575
CMS QSX15 G9
499 $0.00 $136,824 $21,503 -$4,904 $583,235 $736,658
Generic 1kWh
Li-Ion $46,292 $997.40 $13,094 -$2,464 $0.00 $57,918
Generic flat
plate PV $90,822 $3,980 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $94,802
System
Converter $52,988 $0.00 $14,769 -$2,780 $0.00 $64,977
System $190,101 $235,813 $49,365 -$24,449 $609,446 $1.06M
-4,500,000
-2,250,000
0
2,250,000
4,500,000
6,750,000
9,000,000
Capital Operating Replacement Salvage Resource
System Converter
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
CMS QSX15 G9 499
CMS QST30 750
CMS K38G4 1800 900
9115
Cash Flow
-4,000,000
-3,000,000
-2,000,000
-1,000,000
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Salvage
Replacement
Operating
Fuel
Capital
-3,600,000
-2,700,000
-1,800,000
-900,000
0
900,000
1,800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
System Converter
Generic flat plate PV
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
CMS QSX15 G9 499
CMS QST30 750
CMS K38G4 1800 900
10116
Electrical Summary
Excess and Unmet
Quantity Value Units
Excess Electricity 7,317 kWh/yr
Unmet Electric Load 0 kWh/yr
Capacity Shortage 0 kWh/yr
Production Summary
Component Production (kWh/yr) Percent
Generic flat plate PV 377,253 13.5
CMS QST30 750 36,582 1.31
CMS QSX15 G9 499 2,318,328 82.9
CMS K38G4 1800 900 63,515 2.27
Total 2,795,677 100
Consumption Summary
Component Consumption (kWh/yr) Percent
AC Primary Load 2,787,505 100
DC Primary Load 0 0
Deferrable Load 0 0
Total 2,787,505 100
11117
0
175
350
525
700
kWGenerator: CMS QST30 750 (Diesel)
CMS QST30 750 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 36,582 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 411 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 107 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 622 kW
Thermal Production 19,513 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 219 kW
Min. thermal output 91.3 kW
Max. thermal output 308 kW
CMS QST30 750 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 10,328 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.282 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 101,625 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 36.0 %
CMS QST30 750 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 89.0 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 29.0 starts/yr
Operational Life 1,124 yr
Capacity Factor 0.557 %
Fixed Generation Cost 33.5 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.215 $/kWh
CMS QST30 750 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
12118
0
125
250
375
500
kWGenerator: CMS QSX15 G9 499 (Diesel)
CMS QSX15 G9 499 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 2,318,328 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 281 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 49.9 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 499 kW
Thermal Production 1,260,991 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 153 kW
Min. thermal output 55.0 kW
Max. thermal output 245 kW
CMS QSX15 G9 499 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 662,767 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.286 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 6,521,631 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 35.5 %
CMS QSX15 G9 499 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 8,258 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 127 starts/yr
Operational Life 12.1 yr
Capacity Factor 53.0 %
Fixed Generation Cost 23.5 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.216 $/kWh
CMS QSX15 G9 499 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
13119
Generator: CMS K38G4 1800 900 (Diesel)
CMS K38G4 1800 900 Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Electrical Production 63,515 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Output 289 kW
Minimum Electrical Output 90.0 kW
Maximum Electrical Output 487 kW
Thermal Production 38,384 kWh/yr
Mean thermal output 174 kW
Min. thermal output 91.0 kW
Max. thermal output 258 kW
CMS K38G4 1800 900 Fuel Summary
Quantity Value Units
Fuel Consumption 19,458 L
Specific Fuel Consumption 0.306 L/kWh
Fuel Energy Input 191,463 kWh/yr
Mean Electrical Efficiency 33.2 %
CMS K38G4 1800 900 Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 220 hrs/yr
Number of Starts 7.00 starts/yr
Operational Life 455 yr
Capacity Factor 0.806 %
Fixed Generation Cost 35.5 $/hr
Marginal Generation Cost 0.215 $/kWh
CMS K38G4 1800 900 Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
125
250
375
500
kW14120
PV: Generic flat plate PV
Generic flat plate PV Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 425 kW
PV Penetration 13.5 %
Hours of Operation 4,380 hrs/yr
Levelized Cost 0.251 $/kWh
Generic flat plate PV Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Rated Capacity 398 kW
Mean Output 43.1 kW
Mean Output 1,034 kWh/d
Capacity Factor 10.8 %
Total Production 377,253 kWh/yr
Generic flat plate PV Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
125
250
375
500
kW15121
75
81.25
87.5
93.75
100
%Storage: Generic 1kWh Li-Ion
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Properties
Quantity Value Units
Batteries 383 qty.
String Size 1.00 batteries
Strings in Parallel 383 strings
Bus Voltage 6.00 V
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Result Data
Quantity Value Units
Average Energy Cost 0.221 $/kWh
Energy In 4,326 kWh/yr
Energy Out 3,893 kWh/yr
Storage Depletion 0 kWh/yr
Losses 433 kWh/yr
Annual Throughput 4,104 kWh/yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Autonomy 0.963 hr
Storage Wear Cost 0.366 $/kWh
Nominal Capacity 383 kWh
Usable Nominal Capacity 306 kWh
Lifetime Throughput 61,555 kWh
Expected Life 15.0 yr
Generic 1kWh Li-Ion State of Charge (%)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
16122
Converter: System Converter
System Converter Electrical Summary
Quantity Value Units
Hours of Operation 159 hrs/yr
Energy Out 3,698 kWh/yr
Energy In 3,893 kWh/yr
Losses 195 kWh/yr
System Converter Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Capacity 750 kW
Mean Output 0.422 kW
Minimum Output 0 kW
Maximum Output 78.6 kW
Capacity Factor 0.0563 %
System Converter Inverter Output (kW)
System Converter Rectifier Output (kW)
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
25
50
75
100
kW0
20
40
60
80
kW17123
Fuel Summary
Diesel Consumption Statistics
Quantity Value Units
Total fuel consumed 692,553 L
Avg fuel per day 1,897 L/day
Avg fuel per hour 79.1 L/hour
Diesel Consumption (L/hr)
Emissions
Pollutant Quantity Unit
Carbon Dioxide 1,811,626 kg/yr
Carbon Monoxide 12,197 kg/yr
Unburned Hydrocarbons 499 kg/yr
Particulate Matter 50.6 kg/yr
Sulfur Dioxide 4,439 kg/yr
Nitrogen Oxides 1,021 kg/yr
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year
0
50
100
150
200
L/hr18124
Renewable Summary
Capacity-based metrics Value Unit
Nominal renewable capacity divided by total nominal capacity 15.6 %
Usable renewable capacity divided by total capacity 12.9 %
Energy-based metrics Value Unit
Total renewable production divided by load 13.5 %
Total renewable production divided by generation 13.5 %
One minus total nonrenewable production divided by load 13.2 %
Peak values Value Unit
Renewable output divided by load (HOMER standard) 141 %
Renewable output divided by total generation 100 %
One minus nonrenewable output divided by total load 100 %
Instantaneous Renewable Output Percentage of Total Generation
Instantaneous Renewable Output Percentage of Total Load
100% Minus Instantaneous Nonrenewable Output as Percentage of Total Load
0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year 0
25
50
75
100
%0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year 0
40
80
120
160
%0
6
12
18
24
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360Hours
Year -30
7.5
45
82.5
120
%19125
Compare Economics
IRR (%):N/A
Discounted payback (yr):N/A
Simple payback (yr):N/A
Base System Proposed System
Net Present Cost $12.0M $13.7M
CAPEX $0.00 $2.46M
OPEX $931,635 $871,906
LCOE (per kWh) $0.334 $0.381
CO2 Emitted (kg/yr) 2,058,973 1,811,626
Fuel Consumption (L/yr) 786,958 692,553
20126
Proposed Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Base System Annual Nominal Cash Flows
Cumulative Discounted Cash Flows
-3,500,000
-2,800,000
-2,100,000
-1,400,000
-700,000
0
700,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Proposed System
-1,500,000
-1,250,000
-1,000,000
-750,000
-500,000
-250,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Base System
-15000000-12500000-10000000-7500000-5000000-25000000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cash Flow ($)year
Base System Proposed System
21127
Category and Task Man-hours Rate Total Man-hours Rate Total Cash and
In-kind
Administrative
NAB Energy Program Manager 40 $ 88.78 3,551$ 120 $ 88.78 -$ 10,654$
NAB Finance Director/Treasurer 20 $ 118.38 2,368$ 60 $ 118.38 -$ 7,103$
Subtotal 5,919$ -$ 17,756$
Engineering
Battery System
Battery Sizing, Specification 40 175.00$ 7,000$ 120 175.00$ 21,000$
Battery Building Design 100 150.00$ 15,000$ 200 150.00$ 30,000$
Battery Building Foundation Design 40 150.00$ 6,000$ 160 150.00$ 24,000$
Subtotal 28,000$ 75,000$
Solar PV System
Final panel location selection 40 150.00$ 6,000$ 162 150.00$ 24,300$
Solar PV Geotech 120 150.00$ 18,000$ 480 175.00$ 84,000$
Solar PV Design 60 150.00$ 9,000$ 240 150.00$ 36,000$
Subtotal 33,000$ 144,300$
Powerplant Upgrade
Switchgear Upgrade Design (Ambler and
Kiana, partial for Noorvik and Selawik)200 175.00$ 35,000$ 500 175.00$ 87,500$
Subtotal 35,000$ 87,500$
Electrical and Controls
Transmission Integration 50 175.00$ 8,750$ 200 175.00$ 35,000$
Battery, PV, and Diesel Controls Integration 500 175.00$ 87,500$ 1,000 175.00$ 175,000$
Subtotal 96,250$ 210,000$
Permitting
FAA 40 150.00$ 6,000$ 160 150.00$ 24,000$
Land Use 16 150.00$ 2,400$ 64 150.00$ 9,600$
Subtotal 8,400$ 33,600$
Business Plan 100 165.00$ 16,500$ 98 165.00$ -$ 16,244$
Total 223,069$ 550,400$ 34,000$
Project Management/Procurement
Support/Technical Support 80 150.00$ 12,000$ 240 165.00$ 39,600$
Total per Solar/Battery Design $ 235,069 Sub Total $ 590,000 $ 34,000
Total for 4 projects 940,275$ Total Cost 624,000$
Per Community 156,000$
% Match 5.76%
Budget per Community Total Project Budget for 4 Communities
NAB Design and Permitting for Solar PV and Battery Storage for Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and Selawik
128
Community Diesels off Hours Lifetime Hours Generator Life t of Genset Replcem
Percent Reduction
in Replacement
Costs Total Savings
Annual Savings
over 25 year
project life
Ambler 2060 51500 100000 75,000$ 0.515 38,625$ 1,545$
Kiana 735 18375 100000 75,000$ 0.18375 13,781$ 551$
Noorvik 729 18225 100000 75,000$ 0.18225 13,669$ 547$
Selawik 193 4825 100000 75,000$ 0.04825 3,619$ 145$
Diesels Off Replacement Costs
Community
Battery Capital
Cost
Battery O&M
percentage of Capital
Battery O&M
annual Cost
Solar PV install
Capacity (kW)
O&M rate per
kW installed
Solar PV O&M
Cost
Annual O&M Cost -
Total
Ambler 1,265,000$ 1% 12,650$ 390 20$ 7,800$ 20,450$
Kiana 1,265,000$ 1% 12,650$ 297 20$ 5,940$ 18,590$
Noorvik 1,265,000$ 1% 12,650$ 358 20$ 7,160$ 19,810$
Selawik 1,285,000$ 1% 12,850$ 398 20$ 7,960$ 20,810$
Solar and Battery Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimates
Village Information Engine Data Generator Data
AVEC Fleet Information for Ambler, Kiana, Noorvik, and Selawik
NAME
POS #ENG
MAKE ENG MODEL N ENG
ARRANG #
KW
RATING
GEN
MAKE GEN MODEL GEN SER #PITCH Commissioning
Date
Gen-Set
Controllers
Gen-Set
Hours
AMBLER 1 DD S60K4c 1800 0 6063 TK35 363 KT 4P3-1475 89143-2 0.667 8/9/20 ComAps 1875
AMBLER 2 CMS K19G2 1200 CPL 672 271 KT 6P4-2000 99699-03 0.778 8/25/93 ComAps 7573
AMBLER 3 CMS K19G2 1800 CPL 672 397 NEW HC I504 C1 G980771665 12/5/90 ComAps 73732
KIANA 1 DD S60K4c 1800 0 6063 TK35 324 NEW HC I504 C1L B010213495 9/17/01 ComAps 18239
KIANA 3 DD 14L S60K4 1800 0 6063 HK35 363 MAR 433RSL4021 WA-523718-0300 8/12/19 ComAps 6519
KIANA 4 CMS K19G4 1800 CPL 4153 499 NEW HC I544E1 D990890546 8/1/00 ComAps 9295
NOORVIK 1 DD S60K4c 1800 0 6063 TK35 363 NEW HC I504C1 D960605038 9/27/97 ComAps 12452
NOORVIK 2 CMS K19G4 1800 CPL 4153 499 NEW HC I504F1 C980703086 9/2/16 ComAps 9041
NOORVIK 3 MTU 12V2000 710 MAR 750ROZD4 699449 12/7/03 ComAps 8836
SELAWIK 1 CMS QST30 750 10/3/20 ComAps 47
SELAWIK 2 CMS QSX15 G9 CPL 8142 499 NEW HC I544F 0163207/01 4/12/19 ComAps 75840
SELAWIK 3 CMS K38G4 1800 900 CMS 1000DF JD G960612453 4/14/14 ComAps 18221
129
ENG
MAKE ENG MODEL
OVERHAUL TOP END TUNE UP
OVERHAUL
HOURS
TOP END
HOURS
TUNE UP
HOURS
OIL
CHANGE
HOURS
AC 3500 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
AC 685I 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3208 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3304 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3456 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3508 39,000 19,000 2,500 40,000 20,000 3,000 1,500
CAT 3512 39,000 19,000 2,500 40,000 20,000 3,000 1,500
CAT 3516 39,000 19,000 2,500 40,000 20,000 3,000 1,500
CAT 3306DI 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3306PC 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3406B 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3406BDITA 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT 3412 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
CAT 3412 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT C27 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CAT D342 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
CAT D353 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
CMS K19G2 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
CMS K19G2 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CMS K19G4 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CMS K38G2 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 1,500
CMS K38G2 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 1,500
CMS LTA10 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
CMS LTA10 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CMS QSK23 G1 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CMS QSK23 G7 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
CMS QST30 14,000 7,000 2,500 15,000 7,500 3,000 750
CMS QSX15 G9 14,000 6,500 2,500 15,000 7,500 3,000 500
DD S60D3 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
DD S60D3 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
DD S60K4 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
DD S60K4 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
DD S60K4c 1200 27,500 14,000 3,000 30,000 15,000 3,500 500
DD S60K4c 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
DD S60Kc 1800 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
JD 6081HF070 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
JD 6619AF 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
MTU 12V2000 19,000 9,000 4,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 750
MTU 8V2000 19,000 9,000 4,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 750
PER PKXL05-9YHI 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
PER YPKXL03.8AKI 19,000 9,000 2,500 20,000 10,000 3,000 500
11/2019 per Dan Allis MTU oil changes at 750 hours
K-Kohler with Decision Maker 550
Kc-Built to Kohler spec without Decision Maker 550
Correct In Chart
OIL CHANGES
Due every 1500 hours for CAT 3500 series and CMS K38 3/20/2014 kse
Every 500 hours for MTU, etc.3/20/2014 kse
MTU-Publication 6SE2011 Operations Guide Section D Pink at 4,000
Page 40Table 17 Pink at 5000 06R06604Service at 5,000
KT19 1200 Pink at 27,500 for overhaul 3/20/2014 kse
QSK15-Valve adjust 6000 has pink at 5,000
Overhaul Pink at 14,000 3/20/2014 kse
AVEC Maintenance Schedule
TURN PINK AT:Maintenance Schedules
None in Fleet
Page 6A of Publication 3666423 130
138
January 13, 2022
Mr. Ingemar Mathiasson
Energy Manager
Northwest Arctic Borough
P.O. Box 1110
Kotzebue, AK 99752
RE: Site selection for Solar Array and Battery project (Alaska Energy Authority -
Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application)
Dear Mr. Mathiasson:
NANA supports the proposed Solar Array and Battery project for Noorvik. NANA supports infrastructure
projects which will help reduce the costs for diesel generation and improve the infrastructure and quality
of life for shareholders.
Pending approval of the grant, NANA commits to working with the City of Noorvik to enter into a land lease
at the selected site location for the project. Final approval of the lease will be contingent on NANA Article VIII
Committee concurance.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Cravalho
Vice President of Lands
139
January 13, 2022
Mr. Ingemar Mathiasson
Energy Manager
Northwest Arctic Borough
P.O. Box 1110
Kotzebue, AK 99752
RE: Site selection for Solar Array and Battery project (Alaska Energy Authority -
Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application)
Dear Mr. Mathiasson:
NANA supports the proposed Solar Array and Battery project for Ambler. NANA supports infrastructure
projects which will help reduce the costs for diesel generation and improve the infrastructure and quality
of life for shareholders.
Pending approval of the grant, NANA commits to working with the City of Ambler to enter into a land lease
at the selected site location for the project. Final approval of the lease will be contingent on NANA Article VIII
Committee concurance.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Cravalho
Vice President of Lands
140
AVEC-
December 28, 2021
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
--
RE: Northwest Arctic Borough REF Application for Solar PV and Battery Design and Permitting
Dear Renewable Energy Fund Review Committee:
On behalf of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC} I am writing in full support of the
Northwest Arctic Borough's (NAB) grant application for the design and permitting of high
penetration solar and battery energy storage systems in Ambler, Noorvik, Selawik, and Kiana.
These proposed systems would integrate with AVEC's diesel powerplants in each of the four
communities to reduce dependence on shipped in diesel fuel used to generate electricity. The
design of these systems would target providing up to 15% of the communities' total electricity
demand with clean renewable energy and completely shut down the diesel generators for periods
oftime when there is sufficient solar and battery power. AVEC is currently partnering with the
NAB and NANA Regional Corporation on the successfully installed solar PV and battery system in
Shungnak-Kobuk and the soon-to-be constructed solar PV and battery system in Noatak. Diesels-
off operation has been a vision for rural Alaska for many years, and these projects are turning this
vision into reality in the Northwest Arctic.
The Northwest Arctic Borough has some of the highest energy costs in the United States and
within the AVEC system. Support from AEA's Renewable Energy Fund will help to establish four
shovel ready projects to reduce the local energy costs and improve the standard of living for the
community members in these communities. This support will position these projects to better
leverage infrastructure funding and other clean energy opportunities in a shorter time frame and
demonstrate the state's commitment to reducing energy costs and increasing reliability in rural
Alaska.
As you are likely aware, AVEC provides electric utility services to 58 villages throughout rural
Alaska. We are highly dependent on diesel fuel for electricity generation and are always searching
for more fuel efficient alternatives. We welcome the NAB's and NANA's initiative in pursuing
these projects and preparing them for ultimate integration into our powerplants. We have
witnessed their commitment to their communities and developing clean energy projects and are
confident that if funded, the NAB will coordinate with AVEC to identify the best mutually beneficial
4831 Eagle Street * Anchorage, Alaska 99503 * Phone (907) 561-1818 • Toll-Free (800) 478-1818 * Fax: 907-562-4086 * www.avec.org
141
solutions; and together, we will reduce diesel fuel consumption and increase energy resiliency
across the communities.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information.
Sincerely, wBill Stamm
President & Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street * Anchorage, Alaska 99503 * Phone (907) 561-1818 * Toll-Free (800) 478-1818 * Fax; 907-562-4086 * www.avec.org
142
January 10, 2021
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
City of Ambler
Po Box 09
Ambler Ak 99786
PH: 1(907)445-2122 Fax:1(907)445-2174
Em :amblercity@gmail.com
Re: Northwest Arctic Borough REF Application for Solar PV and Battery Design Permitting
Dear Renewable Energy Fund Review Committee:
On behalf of Ambler, we are writing in full support of the Northwest Arctic Borough's (NAB) grant
application for the design and permitting of high penetration solar and battery and energy storage
systems in Ambler, Noorvik, Selawik, and Kiana.
Our community has extremely high energy costs and is almost completely dependent on diesel fuel to
generate electricity in AVEC's powerplant. We have seen the success of high penetration solar and
battery projects demonstrated in our neighboring communities of Deering, Buckland, Kotzebue,
Shungnak, and Kobuk, and are aware that Noatak has also received funding to construct a similar
system. These projects demonstrate that the NAB and their energy partner NANA Regional Corporation,
have committed and succeeded in turning diesel generators off while providing for reliable clean power
in communities in or region, and AVEC's participation further enhances the replication value in our
community, where AVEC is the local utility provider.
By combining several projects' engineering and permitting needs, this effort will lower both design and
eventual construction costs and increase economic opportunities for our community and the region.
AEA REF support of this effort will also advance this effort to shovel ready status and bring us one step
closer to construction funding. We will be working closely with the NAB on this project and provide
whatever we can in the form of data, site selection and other community support. This is an exciting and
important opportunity for our community as we are once again facing rising fuel costs, an extreme
winter, and uncertain prospects into the future. By developing four projects at once, this effort may
offer career paths and jobs for some in our community and region as well as reduce electricity costs for
commercial customers and stabilize rates for everyone.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Mary Hailstone, City Administrator
143
December 27, 2021
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund
NQttve vLLLQge of seLQwU ,
Selawik Tribal Council
PO Box59
Selawik, AK 99770
(907) 484-2165 phone/ (907) 484-2226 fax
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: Northwest Arctic Borough REF Application for Solar PV and Battery Design and
Permitting
Dear Renewable Energy Fund Review Committee:
On behalf of the Native Village of Selawik we are writing in full support of the Northwest
Arctic Borough's (NAB) grant application for the design and permitting of high penetration solar
and battery energy storage systems in Ambler, Noorvik, Selawik, and Kiana.
Our community has extremely high energy costs and is almost completely dependent on diesel
fuel to generate electricity in A VEC' s powerplant. We have seen the success of high penetration
solar and battery projects demonstrated in our neighboring communities of Deering, Buckland,
Kotzebue, Shungnak, and Kobuk, and are aware that Noatak has also received funding to
construct a similar system. These projects demonstrate that the NAB and their energy partner
NANA Regional Corporation, have committed and succeeded in turning diesel generators off
while providing for reliable clean power in communities in our region, and AVEC's participation
further enhances the replication value in our community, where A VEC is the local utility
provider.
By combining several projects' engineering and permitting needs, this effort will lower both
design and eventual construction costs and increase economic opportunities for our community
and the region. AEA REF support of this effort will also advance this effort to shovel ready
status and bring us one step closer to construction funding. We will be working closely with the
NAB on this project and provide whatever we can in the form of data, site selection and other
community support. This is an exciting and important opportunity for our community as we are
once again facing rising fuel costs, an extreme winter, and uncertain prospects into the future. By
developing four projects at once, this effort may offer career paths and jobs for some in our
community and region as well as reduce electricity costs for commercial customers and stabilize
rates for everyone.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information at the number above or
email at tribeadmin@akuligaq.org.
spectfully,
a
istrator
Native Village of Selawik
144
Letter of support for Northwest Arctic Borough REF Application
for Solar PV and Battery Design and Permitting
January 2, 2022
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: Northwest Arctic Borough REF Application for Solar PV and Battery Design and Permitting
Dear Ms. St. Clair:
On behalf of Maniilaq Association, I am writing in full support of the Northwest Arctic Borough’s
grant application for the design and permitting of high penetration solar and battery systems in the
Native Village of Ambler, Noorvik, Selawik, and Kiana, which are all in the Maniilaq service area.
The Northwest Arctic Borough (Maniilaq service area) has some of the highest cost of energy in
the United States. Support from AEA’s Renewable Energy Fund will help to establish four shovel
ready projects to reduce the local energy costs and improve the standard of living for the community
members of in these communities. This support will position these projects to better leverage
infrastructure funding and other clean energy opportunities in a shorter time frame and demonstrate
the state’s commitment to reducing energy costs and increasing reliability in rural Alaska.
The high penetration solar and battery systems will integrate with the existing diesel power-plant
to reduce dependence on imported and expensive diesel fuel. Once constructed, these systems will
enable the villages to meet up to 15% of their total electricity demand with clean renewable energy
and completely shut down the diesel generators for periods of time when there is sufficient solar
and battery power to meet local needs, thus extending time between required overhauls on diesel
generators. Diesels-off operation has been a vision for rural Alaska for many years, and the
Northwest Arctic Borough and NANA Regional Corporation’s solar-battery hybrid projects are
making this vision a reality throughout our region.
Maniilaq Association provides health, tribal and social services to residents of Northwest Alaska.
A non-profit corporation, Maniilaq Association represents twelve federally recognized tribes
located in Northwest Alaska, including all villages in the Northwest Arctic Borough. Maniilaq
manages health, tribal and social services for about 8,000 people within the Northwest Arctic
Borough and the village of Point Hope. With approximately 550 in its workforce, Maniilaq
Association is also the largest employer and a large commercial energy consumer that does not
receive Power Cost Equalization subsidies for our electricity consumption, so cost savings
associated with renewable electricity production will contribute significantly to our operational
bottom line, thus allowing us to provide additional services and benefits to our health care
consumers.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Tim Gilbert, President/CEO
145
January 13, 2022
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: Northwest Arctic Borough REF Application for Solar PV and Battery Design and Permitting
Dear Review Committee:
As Alaska’s first deployment accelerator with a mission to accelerate the resource revolution by deploying
technologies that decarbonize and electrify critical systems, Launch Alaska is pleased to endorse the
Northwest Arctic Borough’s (NAB) application for the design and permitting of high penetration solar and
battery projects in Ambler, Noorvik, Selawik, and Kiana.
Launch Alaska and some of our portfolio companies have successfully worked with the NAB and NANA
Regional Corporation on several of their earlier solar PV and battery projects, including in the
communities of Deering, Buckland, Shungnak and Kobuk. We have seen their team execute projects and
demonstrate new technology for the state with our selected companies that provide durable, replicable,
and inspiring solutions to difficult problems. We have also seen the NAB and NANA team exhibit tenacity
and creativity with, for example, negotiating the first Power Purchase Agreement with the largest electric
utility in rural Alaska, and aggressively work toward cutting project costs and developing local capacity.
Because of these past efforts, we enthusiastically support the approach presented in this proposal to
bundle several projects together to achieve economies of scale and cost savings. It is clear at this time
that capital expenses are the single largest obstacle to widespread high penetration renewable hybrid
deployment in rural Alaska, and this approach, which includes project aggregation and step-wise
development to bring the proposed projects to “shovel ready” status through this funding request from
AEA, will facilitate and accelerate the eventual construction of these projects. In fact, Launch Alaska is
very interested in these projects moving through the design and permitting stage with AEA support so we
can assist with the construction financing of these four projects.
Founded in 2017, Launch Alaska has facilitated the growth of nearly 40 high-growth tech startups. Launch
Alaska’s unique Tech Deployment Track pairs startup companies with Alaska asset owners and
decision-makers to deploy game-changing technology in Alaska. Market-ready startups work with
investors, policy professionals, and customers in a collaborative and structured program - all focused on
advancing solutions for communities like those in the NAB that need them most.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer our support for this initiative. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions or would like additional information.
Sincerely,
Rob Roys
Launch Alaska, Chief Innovation Officer
rob@launchalaska.com
www.launchalaska.com
146