Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AVEC REF 14 Pilot Station Application FINAL
Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 1 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion. Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Tax ID # 92-0035763 Not-for-Profit Date of last financial statement audit: December 2020 Mailing Address: Physical Address: 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 561 – 1818 (800) 478 – 1818 fbutton@avec.org 1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Coordinator Name: Title: Forest Button Manager, Project Development & Key Accounts Mailing Address: 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 646 - 5961 (800) 561 - 2388 fbutton@avec.org 1.1.1 Applicant Signatory Authority Contact Information Name: Title: William R. Stamm President and CEO Mailing Address: 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 565 - 5351 (800) 562 - 4086 bstamm@avec.org 1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Onya Stein (907) 561 – 1818 (800) 478 -1818 ostein@avec.org Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 2 of 38 11/16/2021 1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements, the application will be rejected. 1.2.1 Applicant Type ☒ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05 CPCN #169, or ☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1) CPCN #______, or ☐ A local government, or ☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities) Additional minimum requirements ☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate yes by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement (Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate yes by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy- Fund/2021-REF-Application (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) (Indicate yes by checking the box) ☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box) Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 3 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 Project Title Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project. Type in the space below. Pilot Station Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design 2.2 Project Location 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or community name. Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information, please contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771- 3081. Latitude 61.9362 Longitude -162.892 Pilot Station is located on the northwest bank of the Yukon River, 11 miles east of St. Mary's and 26 miles west of Marshall on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. The project will benefit the entire community of Pilot Station (population of 568 in 2010 Census). 2.3 Project Type Please check as appropriate. 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type ☒ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only) ☐ Hydro, Including Run of River ☐ Hydrokinetic ☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy ☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable ☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre-Construction Construction ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting ☒ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 4 of 38 11/16/2021 2.4 Project Description Provide a brief, one-paragraph description of the proposed project. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is requesting $229,500 and will provide a match of $25,500 to conduct a wind power and wind-to-heat feasibility and conceptual design project for the community of Pilot Station. AVEC, with the cooperation of the community, would assess the feasibility of wind resources suited to provide power to the community and prepare a conceptual design of a wind facility. 2.5 Scope of Work Provide a short narrative for the scope of work detailing the tasks to be performed under this funding request. This should include work paid for by grant funds and matching funds or performed as in-kind match. AVEC proposes to install and operate a ZX300 wind LIDAR profiler to collect and analyze wind data, complete a reconnaissance-level geotechnical effort, and work with the community to determine the feasibility, location, turbine type, and conceptual design of a wind project in Pilot Station. AVEC proposes to use the feasibility study to examine the potential for wind energy production and wind-to-heat generation for community buildings Pilot Station. The effort would culminate in a Concept Design Report (CDR), including an alternatives evaluation and conceptual design, that could be used to seek future wind turbine construction funding. 2.6 Previous REF Applications for the Project See Section 1.15 of the RFA for the maximum per project cumulative grant award amount Round Submitted Title of application Application #, if known Did you receive a grant? Y/N Amount of REF grant awarded ($) N/A Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 5 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 3 – Project Management, Development, and Operation 3.1 Schedule and Milestones Please fill out the schedule below (or attach a similar sheet) for the work covered by this funding request. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points, including go/no go decisions, in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction) of your proposed project. See the RFA, Sections 2.3-2.6 for the recommended milestones for each phase. Add additional rows as needed. Task # Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverables 1 Project scoping and contractor solicitation AVEC would select contractor(s) for the wind feasibility and wind- to-heat study, geotechnical analysis, and CDR immediately following AEA’s authorization to proceed. Aug 1, 2022 Aug 15, 2022 Contracts/ task Orders 2 Resource identification and detailed resource analysis AVEC would purchase, ship, and install a ZX 300 Wind LIDAR station to bring online promptly in fall 2022. AVEC will identify the LIDAR station site and obtain a letter of non- objection from the landowner, along with any other approvals from permitting agencies before the grant is awarded to expedite the start of data collection. AVEC would operate and monitor the LIDAR station for one year, after which it would be dismantled. A wind resource report would be drafted immediately following completion of data collection. Wind-to-heat feasibility would also be examined to explore the potential of using available wind power to heat city facilities. Sep 15, 2022 Oct 31, 2022 Wind Resource Analysis Report and Preliminary Geotechnical Report 3 Identification of land and regulatory issues If needed, AVEC would obtain a letter of non-objection for the placement of the LIDAR station and geotechnical work. Based on the outcome of the wind study and meteorological data analysis, AVEC would identify a site for constructing Sep 1, 2022 Jun 1, 2023 Site Control Agreement for LIDAR station Section in the CDR Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 6 of 38 11/16/2021 wind infrastructure and initiate negotiations for site control for turbine placement. 4 Permitting and environmental analysis AVEC would research and conduct consultations with agencies to determine needed environmental permits for construction of the project. Sep 15, 2023 Dec 15, 2023 Section in the CDR 5 Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market AVEC would analyze the existing and future energy costs and markets in Pilot Station. The information would be based on AVEC records and community plans. A community meeting would help determine future energy markets. Information regarding energy markets would be incorporated into the CDR. Feb 1, 2023 Mar 30, 2023 Section in the CDR 6 Assessment of alternatives AVEC would review turbine types and turbine locations to determine a recommended location and turbine system best suited for local conditions and community preferences. AVEC would also review wind- to-heat location possibilities and determine recommended systems to provide heat from wind power, if feasible. May 1, 2022 Sep 30, 2024 Section in the CDR 7 Conceptual design report and costs estimate AVEC would examine various wind turbines to determine the best suited system to fit the energy demand and existing energy generation system in Pilot Station, including the possibility of adding wind-to- heat. The reconnaissance level geotechnical study will support a conceptual design and cost estimate which will be included in the CDR. Sep 1, 2023 Nov 1, 2023 Conceptual Design Report and Cost Estimate 8 Detailed economic and financial analyses AVEC would conduct an economic and financial analysis to be conducted by examining potential final design and construction, operating and maintenance costs, user rates, and other fiscal components. Jun 1, 2023 Aug 30, 2023 Section in the CDR Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 7 of 38 11/16/2021 This analysis will be included in the CDR. 9 Conceptual business and operations plan As a utility cooperative, AVEC has business and operation plans currently in place for the cooperative as a whole. Operating and business plans may be updated to include wind energy. Aug 1, 2023 Dec 15, 2023 Section in CDR 10 Final report and recommendations AVEC would combine all of the memoranda and reports written for the project in a final report for submission to AEA. The Final CDR will include the following information: • Wind Resource Analysis • Site Control Agreements Needs • Existing and Future Energy Costs and Markets Analysis • Economic and Financial Analysis • Wind to heat opportunities and agreements, if feasible • Geotechnical Report • Conceptual Design Report and Cost Estimate, including turbine evaluation Sep 15, 2023 Dec 31, 2023 Final Conceptual Design Report 3.2 Budget 3.2.1 Funding Sources Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request. Grant funds requested in this application $229,500 Cash match to be provideda $25,500 In-kind match to be provideda $0 Energy efficiency match providedb $0 Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $255,000 Describe your financial commitment to the project and the source(s) of match. Indicate whether these matching funds are secured or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that the timing of additional funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant. AVEC will commit a 10% cash contribution ($25,500) of the total cost ($255,000) of the Pilot Station Wind Feasibility Study. a Attach documentation for proof (see Section 1.18 of the Request for Applications) b See Section 8.2 of this application and Section 1.18 of the RFA for requirements for Energy Efficiency Match. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 8 of 38 11/16/2021 3.2.2 Cost Overruns Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding. AVEC does not anticipate any cost increases or shortfalls in funding, basing the project budget on years of experience conducting wind feasibility studies for comparable communities in Alaska. However, cost overruns do happen – particularly in rural Alaska where extreme weather or logistical obstacles beyond AVEC’s control can increase the justified cost estimates. Should the project experience a funding issue, AVEC will seek alternative funding or allocate a larger cash match contribution. If needed, AVEC will cover any cost increase or shortfall in funding necessary to complete a started project. 3.2.3 Total Project Costs Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use actual costs for completed phases. Indicate if the costs were actual or estimated. Reconnaissance Estimated $0 Feasibility and Conceptual Design Estimated $255,000 Final Design and Permitting Estimated $350,000 Construction Estimated $5,000,000 Total Project Costs (sum of above) Estimated $5,605,000 Metering/Tracking Equipment [not included in project cost] Estimated $400-1000 (pending results of feasibility study) 3.2.4 Funding Subsequent Phases If subsequent phases are required beyond the phases being applied for in this application, describe the anticipated sources of funding and the likelihood of receipt of those funds. State and/or federal grants Loans, bonds, or other financing options Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits) Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) Assuming wind energy proves to be a viable local energy resource and following successful completion of the Pilot Station Wind Feasibility Study, AVEC will proceed with seeking funding for final design and project construction. Although the proposed feasibility study and CDR will be used to determine type, size, and number of turbines needed and subsequent costs, AVEC anticipates that final design and construction of a wind energy system in Pilot Station will cost about $350,000 and $5 million respectively, for a total cost of approximately $5,605,000. Recognizing the trend AEA has established for encouraging other-than-REF funds for construction phase projects, AVEC will research and apply for federal grants or grant/loan funds for the construction phase of this project. It is possible that the funding could come from upcoming federal infrastructure funding, a USDA Rural Utilities Service program, or another state or federal grant program. AVEC expects to provide a 10% cash match for the final design and construction phases of the Pilot Station wind project. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 9 of 38 11/16/2021 3.2.3 Budget Forms Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in Section 2.3.2 of this application — I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project, and delete any unnecessary tables. The milestones and tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081. Phase 2 — Feasibility and Conceptual Design Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In- kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation Aug 15, 2022 $2,700 $300 Cash $3,000 2. Resource identification and detailed resource analysis Oct 31, 2022 $144,000 $16,000 Cash $160,000 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues Jun 1, 2023 $7,200 $800 Cash $8,000 4. Permitting and environmental analysis Dec 15, 2023 $4,500 $500 Cash $5,000 5. Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market Mar 30, 2023 $7,200 $800 Cash $8,000 6. Assessment of alternatives Sep 30, 2024 $7,200 $800 Cash $8,000 7. Conceptual design report and costs estimate Nov 1, 2023 $22,500 $2,500 Cash $25,000 8. Detailed economic and financial analyses Aug 30, 2023 $15,300 $1,700 Cash $17,000 9. Conceptual business and operations plan Dec 15, 2023 $2,700 $300 Cash $3,000 10. Final report and recommendations Dec 31, 2023 $16,200 $1,800 Cash $18,000 TOTALS $229,500 $25,500 $255,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $14,400 $1,600 Cash $16,000 Travel & Per Diem $15,300 $1,700 Cash $17,000 Equipment $112,500 $12,500 Cash $125,000 Materials & Supplies $0 $0 -- 0 Contractual Services $87,300 $9,700 Cash $97,000 Construction Services $0 $0 -- 0 Other $0 $0 -- 0 TOTALS $229,500 $25,500 $255,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 10 of 38 11/16/2021 3.2.4 Cost Justification Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget, including costs for future phases not included in this application. AVEC based the proposed project budget for this grant application and estimates for subsequent phases on experiences developing wind energy in rural Alaska. AVEC has successfully completed wind resource feasibility studies and wind energy infrastructure projects in multiple remote Alaska communities, including comparable projects in St. Mary’s, Emmonak, and Mekoryuk. Costs for final design and construction are based on lessons learned from recent projects including St. Mary’s, Stebbins, and Bethel. In addition, AVEC’s ample in-house knowledge of rural Alaska construction projects, wind turbine technologies, logistics, and the existing wind and construction market have helped to determine potential future costs. . 3.3 Project Communications 3.3.1 Project Progress Reporting Describe how you plan to monitor the progress of the project and keep AEA informed of the status. Who will be responsible for tracking the progress? What tools and methods will be used to track progress? AVEC has systems in place to accomplish reporting requirements successfully. AVEC has received funding and successfully administered grants from AEA, Denali Commission, US Department of Agriculture, and US Department of Energy, completing more than 100 major projects in its service area over the last 20 years. The project will be managed out of AVEC’s Project Development and Key Accounts Department. For financial reporting, the department’s accountant, supported by the Administrative Services Department, will prepare financial reports. The accountant will be responsible for ensuring that vendor invoices and internal labor charges are documented in accordance with AEA guidelines and are included with financial reports. AVEC has sophisticated systems in place for accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with the State of Alaska’s guidelines. AVEC will require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice submitted from primary contractor(s). The progress reports will include a summary of tasks completed, issues or problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from AVEC. Project progress reports will be collected, combined, and supplemented as necessary and forwarded as one package to the AEA project manager each quarter. Because AVEC is responsible to its member communities and a board of directors, staying on schedule and within budget is essential. This project will result in an analysis and recommendation of a renewable energy from a wind farm and decreasing electricity costs in a rural, isolated, and impoverished community. Pilot Station residents are very interested in this project because their energy costs can be a large portion of their budgets. Pilot Station residents will expect status updates on this project, including when and what work will occur, who will be involved, and when it will be completed. Community members will be able to contact AVEC’s president and CEO and Board of Directors directly if they have an inquiry or concern about a project. An independent auditor’s report on compliance for each major federal program and report on internal control over compliance required by Title 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance) for AVEC in 2020 Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 11 of 38 11/16/2021 did not identify any deficiencies in internal control the auditor considered to be a material weakness. In addition, the independent auditor’s report on compliance with aspects of contractual agreements and regulatory requirements for AVEC in 2020 stated that nothing indicated AVEC failed to comply with the terms, covenants, provisions, or conditions of loans, grants, and security instruments as specified in 7 CFR part 1773. A copy of AVEC’s audit is available upon request. Quarterly meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all projects funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project meetings will be held, as required or requested by AEA. Forest Button will be responsible for tracking progress of project communications, and Onya Stein, may be contacted as an alternative project manager. 3.3.2 Financial Reporting Describe the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement from the REF Grant Program. AVEC’s accounting system consists of software, procedures, and controls driven by the daily inputs and other actions of competent employees throughout the organization. The software is comprised of a comprehensive suite of Daffron-brand modules including accounting (payables/payroll/general ledger), work orders, purchase orders, customer service and billing, and warehouse/inventory. Some ancillary functions are accomplished on spreadsheets with data downloaded from the various Daffron modules. Procedures and controls include but are not limited to adequate separation of duties, manager- level approval of all expenditures, CEO-level approval of all major expenditures, a formal purchasing system (including purchase orders) for acquisition of materials and components, and a formal contracting system for acquisition of contractual services (consultants, construction contractors, etc.). Accounts payable are processed and recorded by the AVEC Accounting Department, all expenditures are coded to budget categories and assigned to appropriate work orders. The Project Development and Key Accounts Department, particularly its Manager, Assistant Project Manager, and Grant Accountant/Administrator are primarily responsible for all grant reporting. AVEC’s team, with years of experience and knowledge of managing AEA-funded project costs and grant reimbursements, has a system in place for ensuring that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary, and necessary are charged to a project, and that only costs that are eligible are submitted for reimbursement. First, AVEC’s Assistant Project Manager (PM) is responsible for determining whether costs are appropriate and acceptable. The PM reviews all invoices from contractors and vendors and all in-house labor and equipment charges. Second, the Project Development and Key Accounts Department Manager (DM) reviews costs associated with outsourced services, including consultant and contractor invoices, to ensure that the charges are reasonable. The DM also reviews his department’s staff labor charges (timesheets) to the project. Third, the Operations and Engineering Department Managers review all in-house labor (timesheets) and expense reports for their respective departments to make sure that the charges are acceptable. Finally, the Project Development and Key Accounts Department Grant Accountant/Administrator, while preparing AEA financial reports and reimbursement requests, provides a review of both outsourced and in-house charges to determine whether they are allowable costs. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 12 of 38 11/16/2021 AVEC has systems in place to keep unacceptable overhead costs from being charged to and reimbursed through the REF Grant Fund Program. Upon project initiation, an AVEC work order number is created to track all project labor and expenses. AVEC staff and contractors reference this number on all timesheets and invoices when working on the project, ensuring that project costs are known. Purchase orders are universally used to establish spending limits for purchases of materials, which are then monitored by the Accounting Department through the enterprise accounting system. Task orders and contracts are universally used to establish spending limits for purchases of contractual services, which are then monitored by the Project Development and Key Accounts Department utilizing spreadsheets. Direct labor expenses (gross payroll) are tracked separately from overhead costs including employee benefits and payroll taxes. Once labor hours have been calculated, overhead including employee benefits and payroll taxes are applied in a separate transaction on the work order. AVEC and AEA have an agreed rate cap for employer costs of payroll, consisting only of employee benefits and payroll taxes. AVEC can ensure that only allowable costs would be requested for reimbursement because the direct labor and indirect/overhead costs are separate transactions (and thus the indirect/overhead amounts can be easily omitted from reimbursement), and because the allowable rate has been established and agreed upon (and thus can be easily included for reimbursement). Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 13 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 4.1 Project Team Include resumes for known key personnel and contractors, including all functions below, as an attachment to your application. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. 4.1.1 Project Manager Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information. If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. Forest Button is the Project Manager and has served as manager of the Project Development and Key Accounts Department for AVEC since 2016 where he leads a team focused on stabilizing the cost of energy in rural Alaskan villages through improved power plant efficiency, renewable power generation, wind to heat, recovered heat, and interties between villages. Previously, Mr. Button worked as a project manager under contract to AVEC. He was responsible for the management of the design and construction of capital projects and has 25 years of experience managing construction projects throughout Alaska. Mr. Button has a degree in Mining Engineering from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 4.1.2 Project Accountant Indicate who will be performing the accounting of this project for the grantee. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you intend to solicit financial accounting support. Rebecca Lopez is the Chief Financial Officer at AVEC, which includes the Accounting Department, Purchasing, IT, and Human Resources. Ms. Lopez has more than 8 years of experience in the Alaska electric utility industry. She joined AVEC in 2021. She is responsible for all administrative and financial records including preparing grant reports, Regulatory Commission of Alaska rate filings, financial forecasts, budgets and PCE, as well as overseeing the day-to-day office operations. 4.1.3 Expertise and Resources Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors. For each member of the project team, indicate: the milestones/tasks in 3.1 they will be responsible for; the knowledge, skills, and experience that will be used to successfully deliver the tasks; how time and other resource conflicts will be managed to successfully complete the task. If contractors have not been selected to complete the work, provide reviewers with sufficient detail to understand the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex contracts. AVEC would use a project management approach that has been used to successfully design and construct wind turbines throughout rural Alaska: a team of AVEC staff and external consultants. AVEC staff and their role on this project includes: • Bill Stamm, President and Chief Executive Officer, would act as Project Executive and will maintain ultimate programmatic and financial authority. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 14 of 38 11/16/2021 • Forest Button, Manager, Project Development and Key Accounts, would lead the project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors. Mr. Button will be the program manager for this project and will assign an assistant project manager to implement the project. He will also be responsible for reporting directly to AEA on the status of the project. Together with the Assistant Project Manager, Forest would coordinate the wind data analysis, geotechnical work, conceptual design, and the concept design report. • Onya Stein, Assistant Project Manager. will assist on all milestones of the project. In particular, she will be responsible for managing the consultant team. Onya would ensure that all milestones and tasks are completed. Specifically, she would be responsible for selecting, coordinating, and managing the wind resource specialist, engineers, and permitting consultants and ensuring that their deliverables are on time and within budget. • Daniel Allis, Manager of Operations, would provide oversight and input in planning for construction, distribution, and energy generation components of the project. Specifically, he would provide input on analysis of current cost (milestone 5); the assessment of alternatives (milestone 6); the CDR (milestone 7); and the final report (milestone 10). • Darren Westby, Manager of Engineering, would provide technical assistance and information on the existing power system, possible issues, and project study needs. Specifically, Darren would provide input on the detailed resource analysis (milestone 2); analysis of current cost (milestone 5); the assessment of alternatives (milestone 6); the CDR (milestone 7); and the final report (milestone 10). • Rebecca Lopez, Chief Financial Officer, would assist with questions arising out of the economic and financial analysis (milestone 8) and the business and operations plan (milestone 9). In addition, related to grant management, she would provide support in accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines. • Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, would communicate directly with Pilot Station residents to ensure that the community is informed. Specifically, Anna would assist by working with the community on identification of land issues (milestone 3); assessment of alternatives (milestone 6); and relaying information and recommendations from the CDR (milestone 7 and 10). It is likely that one of AVEC’s in-house engineering contractors would lead the work. They would be responsible for: • Obtaining site control/access and permits for geotechnical work (milestone 2) • Selecting, coordinating, and managing the wind resource, geotechnical, engineering, and permitting consultants and ensuring that deliverables are on time and within budget (milestones 2, 3, and 4) • Prepare the CDR and cost estimates (milestone 7) • Develop the existing and future energy costs and markets information and the conceptual business and operating plan (milestone 8 and 9) Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 15 of 38 11/16/2021 Contractors for this project would include: • Wind Resource Consultant. AVEC would seek a consultant best suited for assisting with this effort based on experience in Alaska. This consultant would: - Draft the wind resource report (milestone 2) • Geotechnical consultant: AVEC would select and employ an experienced geotechnical consultant who would: - Conduct a reconnaissance level geotechnical and natural hazards field study and report of the project area (milestone 2) • Engineering consultant: AVEC would select and employ an engineering consultant who would: - Provide conceptual design and engineering specifications for the wind turbines and reporting the information in the CDR and final report (Milestone 7 and 10) • Environmental Consultant: AVEC currently has an on-call contract with Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. for environmental permitting. Robin Reich’s (Solstice’s president) resume is attached. Solstice would: - Consult with agencies - Document permit needs and environmental requirements for a future wind project (milestone 4) Selection Process for Contractors: The geotechnical and engineering consultant selection would be based upon technical competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost, and general consensus from an internal AVEC technical steering committee. The selection of the consultant would occur in strict conformity with AVEC’s procurement policies, conformance with OMB circulars, and DCAA principles. Resumes for key staff, partners, and consultants can be found attached in Tab A. 4.2 Local Workforce Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce. Recognizing that local labor boosts communities and families, AVEC uses local labor whenever possible for daily operations and special projects. Local wages circulate, often multiple times, within the community thereby benefitting the community as a whole. AVEC is very proud of its training program wherein power plant operators are trained by an itinerant training supervisor who travels continuously to AVEC communities and works one-on-one with the operators as needed and throughout the year. Local labor saves money as demonstrated when comparing local labor wages against imported labor wages, travel, and per diem. Therefore, AVEC addresses local labor in its bid documents as appropriate and allowed by law. For this feasibility effort, it is expected that local labor could assist with some aspects of the project including helping to determine a suitable location to set up the LIDAR station, setting up the LIDAR station, downloading data, and demobilizing the station. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 16 of 38 11/16/2021 Assuming the proposed wind feasibility study shows wind to be a viable resource in Pilot Station, AVEC could include language similar to below in the construction bid documents and contract. AVEC has included the following language in bid documents in the past: “Local Labor and Local Firms Participation Goal: The participation goal for this project has been established as a percentage of the total dollar amount awarded to the successful bidder in the amount of 20% to local labor and local firms. The successful bidder shall provide the Owner documentation to demonstrate compliance with this goal. If this goal cannot be reached and good faith efforts were demonstrated through documentation to the Owner, the Owner has the right to issue a variance to this section.” “Use of Local Labor and Local Firms: To the maximum extent practicable, Contractor shall accomplish the Project using local labor and Alaska firms.” In most AVEC communities, the power plant operators are employees of their city government. Through a contract process, AVEC reimburses the city for the wages and fringe benefits of the power plant operators. During project feasibility, design, and construction phases, plant operators provide necessary assistance; typically, with tasks like taking photographs, changing met tower sim cards, and hosting and assisting engineers and others coming into the community for project work. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 17 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 5 – TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY 5.1 Resource Availability 5.1.1 Assessment of Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average resource availability on an annual basis. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this application (See Section 11). Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project. See the “Resource Assessment” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. According to existing knowledge and wind feasibility studies and the operational wind turbine in nearby Saint Mary’s, it is assumed Pilot Station is rated as a class 6 wind regime. The purpose of the feasibility study is to collect local wind data and conduct a thorough analysis to determine the wind energy potential in the community. The proposed feasibility study will identify a potential wind farm location, turbine, and method of operation to maximize the renewable capacity factor while maintaining power quality for the community. 5.1.2 Alternatives to Proposed Energy Resource Describe the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. Wind energy has proven a viable energy resource in 12 AVEC communities with similar environmental and climate conditions, including St. Mary’s, Bethel, and Emmonak. Barging in diesel fuel is the primary source of local power, which is costly. Other alternative energy resources (solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal) are not anticipated to be as cost effective or viable as wind energy. 5.1.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. See the “Environmental and Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. List of applicable permits Anticipated permitting timeline Identify and describe potential barriers including potential permit timing issues, public opposition that may result in difficulty obtaining permits, and other permitting barriers FAA Air Navigation Hazard Permitting: The LIDAR station placement would be selected based on airspace availability and limitations for a future wind turbine to meet the FAA’s Notice Criteria. If the project proves to be feasible, AVEC would seek a no-hazard determination from FAA for the potential project after the turbine location and type have been finalized. Endangered Species Act/Migratory Bird Treaty Act Consultation: Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act would not be required for a LIDAR station. AVEC would begin discussions with USFWS during this phase to determine whether there are wildlife or habitat issues with a future wind project. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 18 of 38 11/16/2021 Clean Water Act (Section 401) Permit: Because many locations within Pilot Station are wetlands, it is possible that a wetlands permit would be needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to install the LIDAR station and to conduct geotechnical work. Based on an expected limited footprint, it is likely that a non-reporting “Nationwide Permit” would be sufficient for the effort and no application/preconstruction notice would be needed. During this phase, AVEC would determine whether a future wind farm would have wetlands impacts to determine needed permitting requirements. 5.2 Project Site Describe the availability of the site and its suitability for the proposed energy system. Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. See the “Site control” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. AVEC has not determined the exact location for the placement of the LIDAR station but expects to place it on the old runway or fenced within the AVEC plant. AVEC will consult with the Pilot Station residents and landowners to select a site and to obtain site control for placement of the LIDAR station and geotechnical fieldwork. A letter of non-objection or another approval will be sought from the landowner, depending on location, after project funding is assured. Starting with a community meeting to announce that the project has been funded, AVEC’s community liaison will lead the effort to gain site control. Since the community supports the project (see attached letters of support, Tab B), site control is not expected to be an obstacle to the placement of the LIDAR station and in conducting geotechnical fieldwork. The feasibility study and geotechnical analysis of this project will help AVEC determine if the old runway is a feasible location in the future. The City of Pilot Station is currently in the process of acquiring the runway land from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Additionally, discussions have occurred between AVEC and the City. The City has confirmed that they would lease a small section of the runway to AVEC for the wind turbine. 5.3 Project Technical & Environmental Risk 5.3.1 Technical Risk Describe potential technical risks and how you would address them. Which tasks are expected to be most challenging? How will the project team reduce the risk of these tasks? What internal controls will be put in place to limit and deal with technical risks? See the “Common Planning Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The feasibility effort will help to identify and overcome the few technical risks that might be expected with the implementation of a wind project in Pilot Station. Some initial challenges that AVEC will overcome could be: Site Control/Access: Sometimes site control for the placement of study sites or turbines is difficult; however, because the community supports the project (see letters of support), it is not expected that gaining site control would be difficult. See discussion above. Turbine Selection: AVEC will have to identify a suitable turbine which will involve AVEC managers, consultants, and the community working together to determine the best choice for the system’s needs. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 19 of 38 11/16/2021 Weather: Weather could delay geotechnical fieldwork and/or the installation of the LIDAR station; however, experienced consultants and contractors, familiar with Alaska weather conditions, would be selected to do this work. It is unlikely that a delay in the total project schedule would occur if the fieldwork or the LIDAR station start up is delayed. It is possible to mobilize and start the LIDAR station during winter months, and the station would be installed to handle Pilot Station’s winter weather conditions. The LIDAR station would be monitored by local AVEC personnel to ensure it is up and functioning properly throughout the year. 5.3.2 Environmental Risk Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so which project team members will be involved and how the issues will be addressed. See the “Environmental and Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. Threatened or endangered species Habitat issues Wetlands and other protected areas Archaeological and historical resources Land development constraints Telecommunications interference Aviation considerations Visual, aesthetics impacts Identify and describe other potential barriers During the final design and permitting phases, once the wind project is better scoped, AVEC would work with agencies to address the following potential environmental issues: Threatened or endangered species: According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field Office, Section 7 Consultation Guide, there are no endangered or listed species, or federally designated critical habitat areas listed in Pilot Station. Habitat issues: This proposed wind feasibility project would not have habitat impacts. During future permitting efforts, the project team would work with agencies to ensure that the project would not impact any State refuges, sanctuaries or critical habitat areas, federal refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks. Wetlands and other protected areas: As previously mentioned, it is likely that a non-reporting “Nationwide Permit” would be sufficient if the LIDAR station is placed in wetlands, and no application/preconstruction notice would be needed. During this feasibility phase, AVEC would determine whether a future wind farm would have wetlands impacts and determine needed permitting requirements. Archaeological and historical resources: Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be during the design phase if a wind project proves feasible. Land development constraints: No land development constraints have been identified; however, if any should arise, AVEC will work with the landowners to obtain site control. Telecommunications interference: The LIDAR station and wind project would be placed in a location that would not interfere with the telecommunications service. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 20 of 38 11/16/2021 Aviation considerations: Unlike a met tower, the LIDAR station placement would not have aviation airspace issue. The LIDAR station location, however, would be selected based on a future turbine’s airspace availability and limitations to meet the FAA’s Notice Criteria. Visual, aesthetics impacts: AVEC will conduct community meetings to discuss possible visual impacts of a potential future wind farm and how they could be mitigated. 5.4 Technical Feasibility of Proposed Energy System In this section you will describe and give details of the existing and proposed systems. The information for existing system will be used as the baseline the proposal is compared to and also used to make sure that proposed system can be integrated. Only complete sections applicable to your proposal. If your proposal only generates electricity, you can remove the sections for thermal (heat) generation. 5.4.1 Basic Operation of Existing Energy System Describe the basic operation of the existing energy system including: description of control system; spinning reserve needs and variability in generation (any high loads brought on quickly); and current, voltage, frequency, and outage issues across system. See the “Understanding the Existing System” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The existing power generation system in Pilot Station consists of 3 diesel generators in a three- phase electrical system: two 499 kilo-watt (kW) Cummins QSX15 and one 324 kW Detroit Diesel S60K4c 1800 RPM. The plant operator selects which engine to run and manually controls which engine(s) are online. The most efficient available engine is used to meet the load. The Cummins engines were installed in 2018 and 2019 and the Detroit Diesel engine was installed in 2002. Individual generator efficiency is not tracked, but the aggregate diesel generator efficiency in 2020 was 12.5 kilo-watt hours per gallon (kWh/gallon). 5.4.2.1 Existing Power Generation Units Include for each unit include: resource/fuel, make/model, design capacity (kW), minimum operational load (kW), RPM, electronic/mechanical fuel injection, make/model of genset controllers, hours on genset Unit 1: Diesel generator, Cummins QSX15 Engine, 499 kilo-watt (kW), 50 kW min, 1800 RPM, electronic fuel injection (FI), Cummins DFEK 72509375 Generator,6,741 hours, installed 2019 Unit 2: Diesel generator, Cummins QSX15 Engine, 499 kilo-watt (kW), 50 kW min, 1800 RPM, electronic fuel injection (FI), NEW HC1534F1 Generator, 12,307 hours, installed 2018 Unit 3: Diesel generator, Detroit Diesel S60K4c 1800 Engine, 324 kilo-watt (kW), 50 kW min, 1800 RPM, electronic fuel injection (FI), NEW HC I504C1L Generator, 57,704hours, installed 2002 5.4.2 Existing Energy Generation Infrastructure and Production In the following tables, only fill in areas below applicable to your project. You can remove extra tables. If you have the data below in other formats, you can attach them to the application (see Section 11). Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) If yes estimated annual displaced heating fuel (gallons) No operational heat recovery. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 21 of 38 11/16/2021 5.4.2.2 Existing Distribution System Describe the basic elements of the distribution system. Include the capacity of the step-up transformer at the powerhouse, the distribution voltage(s) across the community, any transmission voltages, and other elements that will be affected by the proposed project. The Pilot Station Power plant generates at 277/480V three phase. There are six distribution feeder breakers, four are in use and two are spare. Three of the feeder breakers feed three each 100 kVA step up transformers. One feeder breaker feeds three each 50 kVA step up transformers. Voltage is 7200/12470 GNRDY. All distribution is overhead. There is three phase service to the school, airport, lift station, and water treatment plant, single phase service to residential areas. 5.4.2.3 Existing Thermal Generation Units (if applicable to your project) Generation unit Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (MMBtu/hr) Make Model Average annual efficiency Year Installed Hours N/A 5.4.2.5 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Existing System) Use most recent year. Replace the section (Type 1), (Type 2), and (Type 3) with generation sources Month Generation (Diesel) (kWh) Fuel Consumption (Diesel- Gallons) Fuel Consumption [Other] Peak Load Minimum Load (assumed half of average load) January 201,721 15,563 N/A 281.0 135.6 February 182,440 13,986 254.0 131.1 March 189,457 14,686 262.0 127.3 April 159,804 12,047 238.0 111.0 May 125,942 10,225 190.0 84.6 June 127,081 10,136 194.0 88.3 July 117,177 9,744 143.0 78.8 August 125,218 10,968 186.0 84.2 September 129,176 10,640 204.0 89.7 October 135,334 11,015 209.0 91.0 November 157,053 12,680 233.0 109.1 December 173,833 14,100 223.0 116.8 Total 1,824,236 145,790 Average 218.0 103.9 5.4.2.4 O&M and replacement costs for existing units Power Generation Thermal Generation i. Annual O&M cost for labor $28,000 Based on AVEC aggregate number ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor iii. Replacement schedule and cost for existing units Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 22 of 38 11/16/2021 5.4.2.6 Annual Heating Fuel Consumption (Existing System) Use most recent year. Include only if your project affects the recovered heat off the diesel genset or will include electric heat loads. Only include heat loads affected by the project. Month Diesel (Gallons) at Clinic and Water Treatment Plant Electricity Propane (Gallons) Coal (Tons) Wood (Cords, green tons, dry tons) Other January 631 February 367 March 502 April 129 May 122 June 109 July 97 August 95 September 109 October 102 November 129 December 283 Total 2,695 5.4.3 Future Trends Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community, or whatever will be affected by the project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and provide year by year forecasts. As appropriate, include expected changes to energy demand, peak load, seasonal variations, etc. that will affect the project. According to U.S. Census data, Pilot Station’s population has grown by about 7% in the last ten years (pop. 568 in 2010 to pop. 604 in 2019), suggesting trends in energy demands for the existing diesel generator system could possibly increase, although not substantially. Additional information will be gathered during CDR phase to more accurately determine future trends. Currently, major projects and increases in population are not planned or expected in Pilot Station. Pilot Station could receive better internet service in the future which would increase energy demand and peak loads could moderately increase in the foreseeable future due to more electronics used. It is expected that more energy will be used in the darker and colder winter months than in the lighter and warmer summer. With climate change, the need for light will likely stay the same but the potential benefit of wind-to-heat could offset the costs associated with the unpredictability of heat needs. Diesel energy costs in Pilot Station are high. Power costs for residences and community facilities are stabilized through Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. For 2020, the average monthly cost of power before the PCE was $410, and with the PCE subsidy, the average monthly cost was $291. With a median income of $32,750, these costs represent approximately 12% of a household’s income. Future wind energy development could be used to reduce the cost of energy and offset energy production from diesel fuel. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 23 of 38 11/16/2021 5.4.4 Proposed System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location The total proposed capacity and a description of how the capacity was determined Integration plan, including upgrades needed to existing system(s) to integrate renewable energy system: Include a description of the controls, storage, secondary loads, distribution upgrades that will be included in the project Civil infrastructure that will be completed as part of the project—buildings, roads, etc. Include what backup and/or supplemental system will be in place See the “Proposed System Design” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. Renewable energy technology: Understanding that nearby Saint Mary’s has a Class 6 wind regime, AVEC plans to conduct a feasibility analysis, resource assessment, and conceptual design to assess the possibility of also using wind power in Pilot Station. This feasibility study is intended to determine how a wind energy project could be properly integrated into the existing power system and what modifications would be required to have a meaningful impact on diesel consumption. If the wind resource proves suitable and funding is obtained, wind turbines would be installed to serve the community. Proposed capacity/capacity determination: Anticipated capacity and generation would be examined to determine the best turbine option and number, secondary load options, and control schemes for the community. The potential for wind to heat would also be considered to determine the best capacity options for the community. A primary goal of this feasibility study is to evaluate the economic benefit of large capacity wind generation relative to the size of the grid. Currently, AVEC anticipates that a 900-kW EWT wind turbine would be installed, similar to AVEC’s turbine in Bethel and St. Mary’s. AVEC’s past experience implementing 900 kW EWT turbines is field proven to be exceptionally reliable in the harsh weather conditions. The 900 kW turbine is the smallest size manufactured by EWT, the generator can reliably curtail and export power below its rated power curve through EWT’s advanced technology utilizing direct drive, variable pitch blades and fully inverted power output.. Although the community’s electric demand peaks at about 280 kW in January, AVEC envisions providing wind-to-heat to at least two community buildings. AVEC also expects the electricity demand to moderately increase with continued population growth (detailed above). The proposed feasibility study will help AVEC better estimate the total annual power generation expected for Pilot Station’s wind conditions and optimize the size of components for wind generation, energy storage and dispatchable loads for the community. For the economic evaluation of this application a 900 kW EWT was selected and a capacity factor of 15% was applied. The somewhat low capacity factor is assumed due to the size of the turbine relative to the existing load. (The 900 kW EWT in St. Mary’s, with a community load double that of Pilot Station had a CF=24 in 2020.) This feasibility study will help AVEC better understand the monthly generation potential for wind, how that compares to the varying monthly load of the community, and the potential opportunities for dispatchable loads for heat, energy storage, or other beneficial electrification. Integration plan: In every deployment, the integration of intermittent generation to the energy grid is a key component to a successful project. The purpose of this feasibility work is to plan a future wind facility and its integration. AVEC expects that the wind turbines would connect to the existing diesel power plant via existing and possibly new transmission lines. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 24 of 38 11/16/2021 During development of the CDR, AVEC would examine whether and what upgrades to the power plant would be needed to incorporate wind energy, including supervisory controls to interface with the power plant, controls for the diesel engines, and controls on the wind turbine to ensure optimal power production and generator efficiency. Secondary load control could be dispatched boilers as needed to use excess wind energy. Currently, AVEC is assuming that the turbine would provide excess energy to boilers at the health clinic and water treatment plant (WTP). Based on energy audits completed by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), the clinic and the WTP use about 2,295 gallons and 836 gallons of heating fuel each year, respectively. In addition, the WTP uses about 2,300 gallons of diesel fuel to heat the circulation loops to keep lines from freezing. The feasibility study would also examine the potential for using excess wind energy to replace the loops’ diesel needs; however, only building heat is modelled for this application. There are six other community buildings that might be able to accept wind-to-heat, including the school, which uses about 36,150 gallons of heating fuel annually. The proposed feasibility study will help determine other buildings that may benefit from wind-to-heat in Pilot Station. Depending on the components of the proposed system, the diesel generators would continue running at minimum levels, or the power plant could go diesel-off. Location: The physical location of the turbine will be determined during the feasibility study and would depend on the wind regime, site access, land ownership and the landowner’s desire to sell or lease, geotechnical and environmental conditions (wetlands, streams, topography), and community support. Civil infrastructure: Civil infrastructure access to a LIDAR station will be included in implementation of the proposed feasibility study. Assuming wind energy proves a viable resource in Pilot Station, access roads and wind turbine pad foundation will be included in the concept design and subsequent final design and construction phases of the project. Backup/supplemental system: The existing power plant with diesel fuel generators and the existing power distribution system will be maintained to provide for the full power needs of the community. 5.4.4.1 Proposed Power Generation Units Unit # Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (kW) Make Model Expected capacity factor Expected life (years) Expected Availability 1 Wind 900 EWT Directwind 900/52 15% 20 2025 These values are speculative and used in the AEA/ISER model for the purpose of this application. The proposed study would determine the design capacity, turbine, and capacity factor. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 25 of 38 11/16/2021 5.4.4.2 Proposed Thermal Generation Units (if applicable) Generation unit Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (MMBtu/hr) Make Model Expected Average annual efficiency Expected life N/A 5.4.5 Basic Operation of Proposed Energy System To the best extent possible, describe how the proposed energy system will operate: When will the system operate, how will the system integrate with the existing system, how will the control systems be used, etc. When and how will the backup system(s) be expected to be used See the “Proposed System Design” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. Wind System Operations The primary use of wind generation would be for the displacement of diesel power generation. Dispatch of the wind turbine, diesel power plant, secondary loads and possible energy storage would be controlled through a central dispatch control panel at the power plant. The wind study and conceptual design and report completed for this project would detail how a wind turbine would operate and be integrated into the existing diesel power system in Pilot Station. One option is that the existing diesel system would operate at a lower capacity but remain on line to supplement wind energy. In this scenario wind could be the primary energy source and contribute significantly to the existing energy system, but the diesel generator(s) would remain online to ensure consistent energy access during wind fluctuations and function as a backup should wind energy go offline at any point. Another option is that energy storage would be used for spinning reserve to help stabilize energy outputs and maintain power quality allowing the system to run with diesels off. AVEC would research this option and the expected feasibility and fuel savings. Dispatchable Load Operations It is expected that a 900kW wind turbine would produce more electricity than would be needed by existing customers at certain times. AVEC expects that excess electricity could be provided to new boilers installed at the health clinic, water treatment plant, and other locations. Dispatchable loads, including energy storage, would be studied to determine how they could be used to optimize the output from wind and diesel generation for maximum economic benefit. The anticipated effect of the proposed system is a decreased use of fuel for electrical power generation. Also, the diesel generator use in Pilot Station would be reduced, thereby decreasing diesel operations and maintenance costs, enabling generators to last longer and need fewer overhauls. 5.4.3.1 Expected Capacity Factor 15% This value is speculative and will be determined through the work proposed here. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 26 of 38 11/16/2021 5.4.5.2 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Proposed System) Month Generation (Proposed System, Wind) (kWh) Generation (Type 2, Diesel) (kWh) Generation (Type 3) (kWh) Fuel Consumption (Diesel- Gallons) 12.19 kW/gal Fuel Consumption [Other] Secondary load (kWh) Storage (kWh) January 100,000 101,721 8,345 February 100,000 82,440 6,763 March 100,000 89,457 7,339 April 100,000 59,804 4,906 May 100,000 25,942 2,128 June 100,000 27,081 2,304 July 100,000 17,177 1,409 August 100,000 25,218 2,069 September 100,000 29,176 2,343 October 100,000 35,334 2,899 November 100,000 57,053 4,680 December 100,000 73,833 6,057 Total 1,200,000 624,236 51,242 5.4.5.3 Annual Heating Fuel Consumption (Proposed System) Month Diesel (Gallons) Electricity Propane (Gallons) Coal (Tons) Wood (Cords, green tons, dry tons) Other January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 5.4.6 Proposed System Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed renewable energy projects will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M. Option 1: Diesel generation ON For projects that do not result in shutting down diesel generation there is assumed to be no impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate $ 28,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 27 of 38 11/16/2021 the estimated annual O&M cost associated with the proposed renewable project. Option 2: Diesel generation OFF For projects that will result in shutting down diesel generation please estimate: 1. Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off diesel generation 2. Estimated hours that diesel generation will be off per year. 3. Annual O&M costs associated with the proposed renewable project. We have assumed “0” hours of diesel-off in the economic analysis. However, the final project would likely include the ability to go diesels off. 5.4.7 Fuel Costs Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system (Year 1 of operation - 2025) Diesel (Gallons) Electricity Propane (Gallons) Coal (Tons) Wood Other Unit cost ($) $3.85/gal Annual Units 51,242gals Total Annual cost ($) $197,282 5.5 Performance and O&M Reporting For construction projects only 5.5.1 Metering Equipment Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications. Because this project involves feasibility, geotechnical and conceptual design work only, no meter would be installed. AVEC installs meters on all renewable projects (primarily wind turbines) and would install a meter on the turbine if the project proves feasible and AVEC moves forward with wind energy construction. Metering equipment specifications and costs would be determined during the proposed conceptual design work and subsequent final design project phases. When this project is constructed, it is likely that the meter would be an Elster 16s (part number ZD3300K0082). This meter costs about $400. 5.5.2 O&M reporting Please provide a short narrative about the methods that will be used to gather and store reliable operations and maintenance data, including costs, to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications As a cooperative, AVEC pools O&M costs of all member communities. Based on existing wind turbines, current annual O&M costs are approximately $28,000. The LIDAR station would require monthly monitoring and data management. It is expected that this would cost $700 total for the year that the LIDAR station is installed. The cost would be funded by this grant. If the turbines prove feasible, their maintenance would be funded by AVEC’s general operating costs. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 28 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS 6.1 Economic Feasibility 6.1.1 Economic Benefit Annual Lifetime (assume 20 yrs) Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power Generation (gallons) 96,000 1,920,000 Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat (gallons) 2,695 53,900 Total Fuel displaced (gallons) 98,695 1,973,900 Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power Generation ($) $369,401 (first year) $8,182,769 Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat ($) $10,376 (first year) $229,720 Anticipated Power Generation O&M Cost Savings ($) Anticipated Thermal Generation O&M Cost Savings Total Other costs savings (taxes, insurance, etc.) Total Fuel, O&M, and Other Cost Savings $379,777 $8,412,489 6.1.2 Economic Benefit Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings and other economic benefits, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. Note that additional revenue sources (such as tax credits or green tags) to pay for operations and/or financing, will not be included as economic benefits of the project. Where appropriate, describe the anticipated energy cost in the community, or whatever will be affected by the project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and provide year-by-year forecasts The economic model used by AEA is available at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We- Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy-Fund/2021-REF-Application. This economic model may be used by applicants but is not required. The final benefit/cost ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants. If used, please submit the model with the application. The purpose of this proposed feasibility study and CDR is to assess technical and economic viability of wind infrastructure in Pilot Station. The installation of a 900-kilowatt (kW) capacity turbine (CF=15) in Pilot Station is estimated to produce 1,200,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually, three-quarters of Pilot Stations annual electric load. Based on this assumption, the possible displacement of diesel fuel used for electricity generation would be approximately 96,000 gallons per year. Also, with the incorporation of wind-to-heat system with boilers at the clinic and water treatment plant, an additional 2,695 gallons for heating the buildings could be saved. Using AEA’s community fuel oil price projections and evaluation model, this project could save $291,777 during the first year of operation. Over the life of the project, the estimate would be $7,792,488. The project would be expected to pay for itself within about 13 years. Please see the attached economic evaluation model in Tab G. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 29 of 38 11/16/2021 AVEC intends to utilize this intermediate phase of the project to identify an economically viable system for wind energy in Pilot Station. For the majority of time in operation, a 900 kW turbine on a small grid like Pilot Station’s will have surplus capacity to produce electricity. The proposed feasibility study will help the community determine the viability of dispatchable loads such as energy storage and wind to heat and if a 900 kW or other sized wind generation system is suitable for the community. Pilot Station qualifies for Alaska’s power cost equalization program, providing economic assistance to communities with high energy costs and subsidized energy rates up to 500 kWh. The average annual price for residential electricity in Pilot Station without PCE is $0.51 per kilowatt hour (kWh) as of December 2021. The price per kWh in Pilot Station can be compared to the “extremely high” cost benchmark established by U.S. Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of $0.3627/kWh or can be compared to Anchorage’s average cost of $0.1348/kWh. The residents of Pilot Station would benefit from this project as it would mitigate the volatile energy costs found in rural Alaska. Immediate savings from this project will directly benefit AVEC and reduce Pilot Station’s dependence on the PCE program. The high cost of energy is an extreme hardship for the low-income families of Pilot Station, even considering PCE credits. Un-subsidized energy costs are expected to decrease for residents and commercial entities in Pilot Station, providing immediate savings. Reduced energy costs for non-PCE community facilities may allow for increased or improved community or social services. Similarly, reduced energy costs for other non-PCE commercial energy customers such as stores that might pass along savings to residents. Residents in Pilot Station were severely impacted by the low salmon runs in 2021. Summer and fall Chum Salmon, which community members in Pilot Station depend on for food and commercial fishing income, had the lowest run ever recorded according to federal officials. There were not even enough salmon to allow for subsistence harvests for residents along the Yukon River. For many local fishermen, earnings from commercial fishing and the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend constitute the majority of their annual income in a normal year. In addition to commercial fishing, other sources of income come from wildland firefighting with some limited jobs from local infrastructure like the Pilot Station School, health clinic, Municipal office, the Tank Farm, the Village Corporation office, the U.S. Postal Service, and community stores. According to the 2017 Alaska Taxable, the median household income in Pilot Station is $32,750, with approximately 79.3% of the population considered low-to-moderate income. The 2009 Pilot Station Community Development Plan lists the potential for wind energy as a critical issue identified by tribal members to address the rising costs of electrical power. The Natasha Evan Memorial Clinic has one of the highest energy consumption rates in Pilot Station. Many other buildings are old and inefficient. The high cost of electricity is a constraint to fulfilling the needs of maintenance, repair and development within the community. This project, by reducing and stabilizing the cost of electricality and by providing heat to community buildings would help meet the goals of the community plan. Stabilizing the rising costs of energy production would ease the burden felt by the residents and allow for progress in achievement of community goals. Sources: Pilot Station Community Development Plan, Alaska Commerce Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 30 of 38 11/16/2021 6.1.3 Economic Risks Discuss potential issues that could make the project uneconomic to operate and how the project team will address the issues. Factors may include: Low prices for diesel and/or heating oil Other projects developed in community Reductions in expected energy demand: Is there a risk of an insufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project. Deferred and/or inadequate facility maintenance Other factors Economic risks from this project are primarily from the high startup costs, and economic viability is dependent on successful implementation and operation of wind energy infrastructure over a 20-year lifetime. Wind energy has proven an economically viable option for multiple communities in the lower Yukon-Kuskokwim region, including the nearby villages of Stebbins and Saint Mary’s. Although Pilot Station has a small population, it is slowly growing. Electricity demand will remain and could increase if energy costs drop or if new opportunities arise. AEA projections suggest the cost of fuel in Pilot Station to increase for the foreseeable future, suggesting costs for continued dependence on diesel powered electricity in Pilot Station could become prohibitive. With implementation of wind energy, energy costs will likely stabilize and help to ensure jobs in the community and a reliable energy market. Success of this project is dependent on maintenance of the existing energy infrastructure and the distribution system and the new wind turbine. AVEC has a complete and thorough process for tracking and maintaining energy infrastructure in all 58 communities the cooperative serves. 6.1.4 Public Benefit for Projects with Direct Private Sector Sales For projects that include direct sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines, etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See Section 1.6 in the Request for Applications for more information. Not applicable to this project. Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) Estimated direct sales to private sector businesses (kWh) Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) Estimated sales for use by the Alaskan public (kWh) Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 31 of 38 11/16/2021 6.2 Other Public Benefit Describe the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project. For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category. Some examples of other public benefits include: The project will result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, pipes, power lines, etc.) that can be used for other purposes The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.) The project will solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.) The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the state The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community Other public benefits from the proposed project include providing a reliable renewable resource that would benefit all of Alaska as it mitigates potential hazardous environmental incidents that could threaten water and land resources. Implementing wind infrastructure and reducing dependency on diesel powered electricity will reduce the potential for fuel spills or contamination, improve air quality, and decrease reliance on fossil fuels. Data from this project will provide important information regarding wind resources in rural Alaska to be applied in future projects. Pilot Station is an isolated village that relies on air transportation for many essential resources. Reliable electric service is essential to maintaining vital navigation aids for the safe operation of aircraft. Runway lights, automated weather observation stations, VASI lights, DME’s and VOR’s are all powered by electricity. This project could lead to lower airport operating costs. Incorporating wind energy into the community power system will help stabilize costs associated with emergency medical service (EMS) provided in a health clinic by a health aide and a Pilot Station volunteer fire, volunteer search and rescue and EMS response team. Like all of Alaska, Pilot Station is subject to long periods of darkness. Reliable electric service is essential for the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting. Wind power could help stabilize the cost of outside safety and security lighting of homes, roads (streetlights), the airport runway, and other locations. This project could help reduce the costs associated with lighting the community, which could leave more funds available for other community programs and infrastructure. Additionally, the LIDAR station purchased to measure wind feasibility in Pilot Station can be used by other AVEC communities to measure wind feasibility. The LIDAR station is a singular unit that can be reused and transported more easily than a met tower. The investment in the LIDAR station will lower the cost and increase the ease of producing wind feasibility studies in the future. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 32 of 38 11/16/2021 SECTION 7 – SUSTAINABILITY Describe your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable throughout its economic life. At a minimum for construction projects, a business and operations plan should be attached and the applicant should describe how it will be implemented. See Section 11. 7.1.1 Operation and Maintenance Demonstrate the capacity to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project for its expected life Provide examples of success with similar or related long-term operations Describe the key personnel that will be available for operating and maintaining the infrastructure. Describe the training plan for existing and future employees to become proficient at operating and maintaining the proposed system. Describe the systems that will be used to track necessary supplies Describe the system will be used to ensure that scheduled maintenance is performed As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to finance, operate, and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has the capacity and experience to operate this project. AVEC has operating wind projects throughout the state and is very familiar with planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining wind systems. See Section 10 for a complete discussion of AVEC’s success with similar or related long-term operations. AVEC has a large and geographically diverse staff capable of operating and maintaining energy infrastructure. Immediate tasks during this project phase include operation and maintenance of the LIDAR station, coordinated between AVEC and a local-hire technician. AVEC follows established and proven protocols for training existing and future employees to operate and maintain the proposed system. Throughout AVEC’s time as a leading energy cooperative, AVEC has had success with training and onboarding of renewable infrastructure projects in Alaska. See Section 4 for a detailed discussion of key personal assigned to ensure successful completion of this project. AVEC will use tracking protocols already in practice to track necessary tasks associated with the proposed feasibility study and conceptual design report, along with any subsequent project phases. Should wind power prove a viable resource in Pilot Station and AVEC successfully implements wind energy infrastructure, the local wind turbine would be incorporated into AVEC’s established and proven operation and maintenance system. Local plant operators would provide daily servicing. AVEC technicians would provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and be supported by AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing. 7.1.2 Financial Sustainability Describe the process used (or propose to use) to account for operational and capital costs. Describe how rates are determined (or will be determined). What process is required to set rates? Describe how you ensure that revenue is collected. If you will not be selling energy, explain how you will ensure that the completed project will be financially sustainable for its useful life. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 33 of 38 11/16/2021 The capital costs of the proposed wind turbine(s) in Pilot Station would be determined through the feasibility study and associated CDR. Wind experts and engineers would prepare a cost estimate for installation of a suitable system. The costs of operations and maintenance of the proposed project would be funded through ongoing energy sales. Different turbines have different operating costs; however, using AVEC’s average cost of O&M for wind energy, estimated O&M for this project would cost $28,000 annually. AVEC has well established and proven processes in place to account for setting rates, ensuring revenue is collected, and maintaining financial sustainability of infrastructure over their operational lives. Rates are inclusive of a kWh charge, a fuel charge, a flat customer charge fee, sales tax (in some communities), a demand charge (if service is billed on a demand meter). Many residential and community facilities receive a PCE deduction for up to 500kWh per month. As a recipient of PCE, AVEC’s rates are reviewed and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. When renewable energy is added to an existing diesel generation system, AVEC determines the cost of electricity based on fuel use for generation and the cost of operating the new renewable energy system. AVEC ensures that bills are collected through monthly billing and easy payment options (mail, online, over the phone, autopay, by credit card, etc.). AVEC helps customers obtain financial assistance when needed. As a last resort, AVEC can disconnect customers for nonpayment. 7.1.2.1 Revenue Sources Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit area over the life of the project. If there is expected to be multiple rates for electricity, such as a separate rate for intermittent heat, explain what the rates will be and how they will be determined Collect sufficient revenue to cover operational and capital costs What is the expected cost-based rate (as consistent with RFA requirements) If you expect to have multiple rate classes, such as excess electricity for heat, explain what those rates are expected to be and how those rates account for the costs of delivering the energy (see AEA’s white paper on excess electricity for heat).. Annual customer revenue sufficient to cover costs Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits) Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) Given that this project is in the feasibility and concept design stage, revenue and incentives are unknown. Tax credits are not expected to be beneficial to the project due to AVEC’s status as a non-profit entity. Nonetheless, in addition to saving the direct cost of fuel, AVEC could sell green tags from the project. 7.1.2.2 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range (consistent with the Section 3.16 of the RFA) Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 34 of 38 11/16/2021 Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price range. Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project. Include letters of support or power purchase agreement from identified customers. Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s): AVEC, the existing electric utility serving Pilot Station, is a member-owned cooperative electric utility and owns and maintains the generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in the villages it serves. No power purchase or sales agreements would be needed for this project. Pilot Station has approximately 127 households and a health clinic, city office, school, and water treatment plant/washeteria, which purchase power from AVEC. Potential power purchase/sales price: At this point in project development, the potential power price and rate of return on the project is unknown. Work done under this grant would determine this information. SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS 8.1 Project Preparation Describe what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Specifically address your progress towards or readiness to begin, at a minimum, the following: The phase(s) that must be completed prior to beginning the phase(s) proposed in this application The phase(s) proposed in this application Obtaining all necessary permits Securing land access and use for the project Procuring all necessary equipment and materials Refer to the RFA and/or the pre-requisite checklists for the required activities and deliverables for each project phase. Please describe below and attach any required documentation. AVEC will take steps to prepare a LIDAR station for delivery and identify a location for its installation before the AEA REF Grant is to be awarded to ensure project readiness. AVEC has term agreements with engineering and wind consultants, which will allow work to begin on the wind analysis and CDR quickly. FAA permitting process is to be completed by the time this grant is awarded. Once funding is known to be secured, AVEC would seek a lease for the LIDAR station, and begin the environmental permitting process. AVEC would seek contractors to install the LIDAR station and complete the geotechnical work once the grant agreement is in place. The LIDAR station installation and geotechnical work would occur before winter. Work that can be completed before the wind study is completed would occur over the winter, including analysis of current cost of energy and future market, and the economic and financial analyses. Once the wind study is completed, the conceptual design and permitting would occur. The geotechnical work would be completed under the direction of the engineering consultants, which have completed this type of work in the past. This would enable the geotechnical field effort to occur before winter. Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 35 of 38 11/16/2021 Furthermore, Pilot Station residents are energized by the idea of a wind project in their community and are prepared to work with AVEC on land agreements. With the wind analysis, geotechnical data, and site selection in hand, completion of the CDR would be seamless. No other grants have been secured for this work in the past. 8.2 Demand- or Supply-Side Efficiency Upgrades If you have invested in energy efficiency projects that will have a positive impact on the proposed project, and have chosen to not include them in the economic analysis, applicants should provide as much documentation as possible including: 1. Explain how it will improve the success of the RE project 2. Energy efficiency pre and post audit reports, or other appropriate analysis, 3. Invoices for work completed, 4. Photos of the work performed, and/or 5. Any other available verification such as scopes of work, technical drawings, and payroll for work completed internally. Not applicable to this project. SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION Describe local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters, resolutions, or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from this project. Provide letters of support, memorandum of understandings, cooperative agreements between the applicant, the utility, local government and project partners. The documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of November 16, 2021. Please note that letters of support from legislators will not count toward this criterion. The community is very committed to moving this project forward and supports evaluating wind energy as a viable option for sustainable energy infrastructure in the community. Letters of support for this project have been received from the City of Pilot Station, Pilot Station Traditional Village, and Pilot Station Incorporated. Letters of support can be found under Tab B. SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS Identify other grants that may have been previously awarded to the Applicant by AEA for this or any other project. Describe the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants including project deadlines, reporting, and information requests. AVEC has been providing electrical services to rural, isolated, and economically disadvantaged Alaska communities since 1968. The Cooperative began with three communities and a very small staff and has steadily grown to the impressive non-profit organization it is today, with 58-member villages. AVEC started out with loans from the USDA RUS and became a Denali Commission partner in 2001. AVEC now has over 90 employees. There are generation technicians, linemen, managers, engineers, expediters, and others in its central office in Anchorage, and plant operators within member communities. With the signatures on this application, AVEC certifies that it is a legally incorporated, non-profit entity eligible to receive federal grant funding for the proposed project. Documentation of incorporation is available upon request. AVEC has the largest geographic service area of any retail electric cooperative in world. It has demonstrated non-stop dedication to bringing stable and efficient sources of electricity to homes, schools, clinics, water and sewer systems, businesses, and communications infrastructure in its member villages. AVEC operates 170 diesel generators throughout its service area and purchases Renewable Energy Fund Round 14 Grant Application – Standard Form AEA 23001 Page 36 of 38 11/16/2021 over 8 million gallons of fuel annually. The generators produce electric power for member communities, running a cumulative total of more than 400,000 hours per year. In 2020, AVEC generated 121 million kWh in power sales. Each of AVEC’s 58 villages conducts an annual village meeting for the express purpose of electing a delegate to represent their community at AVEC’s Annual Cooperative Meeting held in Anchorage each March. At the Annual Meeting, the delegates discuss AVEC business and elect members to serve on the seven-member board of directors. AVEC and the local governments operate as a partnership. Under operating agreements with all member communities, local control is exercised. The village governments hire the plant operators and oversee the day-to-day operation of power generation plants. The AVEC Board of Directors and staff are committed to the on-going effort of increasing the efficiencies and effectiveness of power-producing facilities and distribution lines in all member villages. They believe that by improving the power generation and distribution in each community, they are helping to improve the future of all impacted residents. Since 2000, AVEC has reliably and responsibly spent over $299 million of grant funds plus its own money to construct over 120 major projects. This includes 36 bulk fuel tank farm upgrades or replacements, 19 new diesel-fired power plants, 7 standby backup power plants, 22 (grant funded or AVEC funded) recovered heat systems, 14 wind farms (32 total wind turbines), 8 village-to- village interties, 1 photovoltaic (PV) solar array, and 33 other generation and distribution upgrades. Funding for these projects has come from the Denali Commission ($225 million), the Alaska Energy Authority ($38 million), USDA RUS direct awards ($14 million), USDE Office of Indian Energy ($4 million), other grants ($18 million), and AVEC matching contributions ($37 million). AVEC has been awarded 39 AEA grants, details for these grants are attached in Tab G. SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES In the space below, please provide a list of additional documents attached to support completion of prior phases. Not applicable to this project. SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION In the space below, please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration. Tab A – Resumes Tab B – Letters of Support Tab C – Heat Tab D – Authority Tab E – Electronic Application Tab F – Certification Tab G – Additional Materials (REF Round 14 Economic Evaluation Model; AVEC AEA Grant Summary) Page 37 of 38 Tab A Resumes Tab B Letters of Support P.O. Box 5040 *PILOT STATION, AK 99650 * PHoNE: (907) 549-3211 nnx: (907) 549-3014 December 15,2021 William R. Stamm, President and CEO Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Regarding: Pilot Station Wind Power Feasibility Project Dear Mr. Stamm, The City of pilot Station understands that AVEC is preparinga grarrt application to study the feasibility of wind power in Pilot Station and conduct a geotechnical study to determine ground conditions. The study will involve setting up a LIDAR system to monitor wind near the community for a year. If the study shows that the wind is a good resource, AVEC will prepare preliminary design including determining the type and capacity of wind turbines to serve our community. We fully support this study, as it will help determine if wind power is a solution to high and unstabli po*.. cost in our community. The City of Pilot Station is willing to work with AVEC to find a good site for the LIDAR station and to help AVEC get approvals for placement of the equipment. AVEC is welcome to include this letter in the grant applications package. Sincerely, AO/ /)'/ t t/' '^ltttx-->/tVl,ruh e- - uVV Nicky Myers, Mayor Tab C Heat Project Information ‐ Recent Heat Invoice ‐ Health Clinic Energy Audit ‐ Water Treatment Plant Energy Audit From: Martin Kelly <mpkelly_963@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:27 PM To: Anna Sattler <asattler@avec.org> Subject: Re: Heating Fuel at Clinic for grant application Hey Anna, The most fuel Pilot Station Clinic burns during the cold months is 275 gallons (Winter Dec., 2021/Jan, 2022). August of 2021 PSTV bought 1,800 gallons of heating fuel from Ruby, Marine @ $4.01/gal. Heating system @ the Pilot Station Health Clinic is programmed. The last 2 months = 550.5 averages 275 gallons/month (cold winter months). Total cost will be $1,102.75/month (Dec, 21, Jan, 22). I can be reached @ (907) 549-3373 or my email mpkelly_963@hotmail.com Martin Kelly Tribal Administrator Pilot Station Traditional Village From: Anna Sattler <asattler@avec.org> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:33 PM To: Martin Kelly <mpkelly_963@hotmail.com>; robin@solsticeak.com <robin@solsticeak.com> Subject: FW: Heating Fuel at Clinic for grant application Hi Martin, Could we please get a heating fuel bill for the Clinic for the wind study grant application? Reply all so that I am not being the go between messenger. We have a deadline of tomorrow. Quyana, Anna, 907-561-7972 CCompr Pilot 3 rehens t Statio Pr Pilot Station Ma Pr 3900 Ambass Anchora sive En For on Hea repared For n Traditional rch 30, 2013 epared By: ANTHC sador Drive, S age, Alaska 99 nergy A lth Clin Council Suite 301 9508 Audit nic 1 2 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Audit Description ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Pilot Station Health Clinic ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Building Description ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Predicted Energy Use .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs .................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) .............................................................................................................. 12 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation ......................................................................................................... 13 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects ........................................................................................................... 14 Appendix A – Listing of Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Websites ........................................ 16 Appendix B – Direct Vent Oil Heater Programming .................................................................................... 17 PREFACE The Energy Projects Group at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) prepared this document for the Pilot Station Traditional Council. The authors of this report are Carl Remley, Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) and Gavin Dixon. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive document that summarizes the findings and analysis that resulted from an energy audit conducted over the past couple months by the Energy Projects Group of ANTHC. This report analyzes historical energy use and identifies costs and savings of recommended energy efficiency measures. Discussions of site specific concerns and an Energy Efficiency Action Plan are also included in this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Energy Projects Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the clinic staff and the staff of the traditional council. 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Pilot Station Traditional Council. The scope of the audit focused on Pilot Station Health Clinic. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the time of the audit, the annual predicted energy costs for the buildings analyzed are $5,718 for Electricity and $15,328 for #1 Oil, with total energy costs of $21,046 per year. It should be noted that this facility Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Pilot Station Health Clinic. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Heat Tape Water The heat tape should be shut off when the water circulation pump is in operation. $507 $10 313.58 0.0 2 Ventilation Adjust Dampers, Clean Filter on Furnace intake and discharge air $4,755 $1,200 53.75 0.3 3 Setback Thermostat: Health Clinic Space Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Health Clinic Space space. $1,897 $3,000 8.58 1.6 4 Lighting - Power Retrofit: Exterior Lighting Replace with 3 LED 17W Module Electronic Fixtures $117 + $10 Maint. Savings $800 1.34 6.8 TOTAL, all measures $7,276 + $10 Maint. Savings $5,010 18.85 0.7 Table Notes: 1 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life‐cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost‐effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 4 2 Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first‐year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $7,276 per year, or 34.6% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $5,010, for an overall simple payback period of 0.7 years Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $16,60 3 $0 $1,022 $1,475 $0 $1,946 $0 $0 $0 $21,046 With All Proposed Retrofits $9,951 $0 $1,022 $1,357 $0 $1,440 $0 $0 $0 $13,770 SAVINGS $6,652 $0 $0 $117 $0 $507 $0 $0 $0 $7,276 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Pilot Station Health Clinic. The scope of this project included evaluating building shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life‐cycle‐cost techniques, which include the initial cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation. 2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates: • Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) 5 • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) • Lighting systems and controls • Building‐specific equipment The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. Details collected from Pilot Station Health Clinic enable a model of the building’s energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different activity areas of the building. Pilot Station Health Clinic is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) Health Clinic Space: 2,295 square feet In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used. The factors include: • Occupancy hours • Local climate conditions • Prices paid for energy 2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighting, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Our analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life‐Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices as projected by 6 the Department of Energy are included. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time‐value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost‐effective—total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, simple payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time‐value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. Measures are implemented in order of cost‐effectiveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re‐ simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re‐ evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost‐effective measure is implemented. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed. It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effective measure. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example implementing a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relatively high savings. Implementing a reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will result in lower relative savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs include labor and equipment to estimate the full up‐front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. 2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This 7 report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. 8 3. Pilot Station Health Clinic 3.1. Building Description The 2,295 square foot Pilot Station Health Clinic was constructed in 2011, with a normal occupancy of 4 people. The number of hours of operation for this building averages 7 hours per day, Monday through Friday. Description of Building Shell The exterior walls are 2 x 6 structurally insulated panel construction with 5.5 inches of polyurethane insulation. The roof of the building is a warm roof with 5.5 inches of polyurethane insulation. The floor of the building is built on pilings with 5.5 inches of polyurethane insulation. Typical windows throughout the building are double paned glass windows with insulated vinyl windows. Doors are metal with urethane insulation. Description of Heating Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Warm Air Furnace Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input Rating: 174,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 84 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Air Bock C Glass Hot water Heater Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input Rating: 125,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 85 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Space Heating Distribution Systems Heat is distributed through in ceiling ducted ventilation. A 2 horsepower furnace ventilation fan brings in a portion of outside air and distributes heat through the ventilation ducting. 9 Domestic Hot Water System A 60 gallon oil fired Bock C glass hot water heater supplies hot water to the facility, though only about 5 gallons of hot water is used per day. Lighting Lighting in the building is made up of T8 electronic ballasts with 32 watt electronic bulbs. Plug Loads Plug loads are made up of a few desktop computers, a Xerox printer, a VHF radio, a coffee pot, a pharmacy refrigerator, and another refrigerator for the staff. Major Equipment A pair of heat tapes on the sewer line and the water line are the two largest electrical loads in the facility. A 192 watt circulation pump circulates water to the facility. A large bank of telecomm servers is in operation in the facility. 3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building. If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt‐hours (kWh) and maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumption is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of service provided: Electricity: AVEC‐Pilot Station ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and utility customer charges: 10 Table 3.1 – Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.18/kWh #1 Oil $ 7.32/gallons 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, Pilot Station Traditional Council pays approximately $21,046 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Pilot Station Health Clinic. Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use Figure 3.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Existing Retrofit Space Heating Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use 11 Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type Figure 3.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. 12 Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Other_Electrical 1194 1088 1194 1156 817 447 462 462 447 1194 1156 1194 Lighting 727 662 727 703 684 622 643 643 622 727 703 727 Ventilation_Fans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHW 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 8 7 8 7 8 Space_Heating 1086 989 1083 1042 1070 1032 1065 1066 1034 1075 1046 1086 Fuel Oil #1 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12 Space_Heating 297 265 257 179 97 43 27 38 75 160 221 299 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. 13 Table 3.4 Pilot Station Health Clinic EUI Calculations Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 31,768 kWh 108,423 3.340 362,134 #1 Oil 2,094 gallons 276,401 1.010 279,165 Total 384,824 641,299 BUILDING AREA 2,295 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 168 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 279 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site ‐ Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, the Pilot Station Health Clinic was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Pilot Station was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Limitations of AkWarm© Models • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Pilot Station. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. • The heating and cooling load model is a simple two‐zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. 14 • The model does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulations. 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descriptions later in this report for more detail. Calculations and cost estimates for analyzed measures are provided in Appendix C. Table 4.1 Pilot Station Health Clinic, Pilot Station, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Heat Tape Water Shut off heat tape on the water line while the water circulation pump is in operation. $507 $10 313.58 0.0 2 Ventilation Adjust Dampers, Clean Filter on Furnace intake and discharge air $4,755 $1,200 53.75 0.3 3 Setback Thermostat: Health Clinic Space Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Health Clinic Space space. $1,897 $3,000 8.58 1.6 4 Lighting - Power Retrofit: Exterior Lighting Replace with 3 LED 17W Module Electronic Fixtures $117 + $10 Maint. Savings $800 1.34 6.8 TOTAL, all measures $7,276 + $10 Maint. Savings $5,010 18.85 0.7 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example, if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a larger load. In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be attributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. 15 Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air‐conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting‐efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating requirements. Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis. 4.3 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.3.1 Ventilation System Measures 4.4.3 Night Setback Thermostat Measures 4.4 Electrical & Appliance Measures 4.4.1 Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present any lighting energy conservation measures that may also be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy‐efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. 4.4.1a Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Description Recommendation 2 Adjust Dampers, Clean Filter on Furnace intake and discharge air Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $4,755 Breakeven Cost $64,502 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 53.8 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: Currently the dampers for outsider air intake are locked open. The facility is receiving too much outside air, and requiring the furnace to heat too much cold air. Rank Building Space Recommendation 3 Health Clinic Space Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Health Clinic Space space. Installation Cost $3,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,897 Breakeven Cost $25,735 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 8.6 Simple Payback yrs 2 Auditors Notes: THE DDC system that currently controls the facilities heating level should be replaced with a simpler setback thermostat. The facility should be heated to only 60 degrees when the facility is unoccupied, such as at nights and on weekends. 16 4.4.2 Other Electrical Measures 5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN Through inspection of the energy‐using equipment on‐site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy‐saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. Appendix A – Listing of Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Websites Lighting Illumination Engineering Society ‐ http://www.iesna.org/ Energy Star Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program ‐ www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls DOE Solid State Lighting Program ‐ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ‐ http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star – http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=lighting.pr_lighting Hot Water Heaters Heat Pump Water Heaters ‐ http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12840 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Exterior Lighting 3 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Daylight Sensor Replace with 3 LED 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)10 Energy Savings (/yr) $117 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $10 Breakeven Cost $1,074 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback yrs 7 Auditors Notes: Replacing the exterior lighting with LED lighting will reduce energy use, improve performance in the cold, and result in longer bulb life. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Heat Tape Water Water Line Heat Trace with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $507 Breakeven Cost $3,136 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 313.6 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: Water Line heat tape should be shut off and used only for recovery. The water circulation pump should keep the line from freezing. 17 Solar Water Heating FEMP Federal Technology Alerts – http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/FTA_solwat_heat.pdf Solar Radiation Data Manual – http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook Plug Loads DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – http:apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star – http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product The Greenest Desktop Computers of 2008 ‐ http://www.metaefficient.com/computers/the‐greenest‐pcs‐of‐ 2008.html Wind AWEA Web Site – http://www.awea.org National Wind Coordinating Collaborative – http:www.nationalwind.org Utility Wind Interest Group site: http://www.uwig.org WPA Web Site – http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov Homepower Web Site: http://homepower.com Windustry Project: http://www.windustry.com Solar NREL – http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/ Firstlook – http://firstlook.3tiergroup.com TMY or Weather Data – http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991‐2005/tmy3/ State and Utility Incentives and Utility Policies ‐ http://www.dsireusa.org Appendix B – Direct Vent Oil Heater Programming Using the temperature setbacks built into most direct vent oil heaters, such as Toyotomi Lasers and Monitor MPIs is a simple, cost effective way to save energy. We recommend setback temperatures of 60 degrees for nights and weekends in offices and other frequently occupied facilities. In buildings that are occupied intermittently, such as Bingo Halls, we recommend a setback of 50 or 55 degrees. Facilities that are never occupied, such as lift stations and well houses, should be setback to 40 degrees, to prevent freezeups. Check the following websites for tips on programming the built in temperature setback capabilities of your specific direct vent oil heater. http://www.toyotomiusa.com/ownersManuals_ventedHeaters.php 18 http://www.monitorproducts.com/customer‐support/manuals C Pilot Compr t Statio 3 rehens on Wat Pr City o Ma Pr AN 3900 Ambass Ancho sive En For ter and repared For of Pilot Statio rch 18, 2013 epared By: NTHC‐DEHE sador Drive, S rage, AK 995 nergy A d Sewe on Suite 301 508 Audit er Systeem 1 2 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Audit Description ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3. Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................ 7 3. Pilot Station Water and Sewer System .................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Building Description ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Predicted Energy Use ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs ................................................................................................................ 10 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) .............................................................................................................. 12 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation ......................................................................................................... 13 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects ........................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A – Listing of Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Websites ........................................ 19 Appendix B – Direct Vent Oil Heater Programming .................................................................................... 20 PREFACE The Energy Projects Group at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) prepared this document for the Pilot Station Traditional Council. The authors of this report are Carl Remley, Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) and Gavin Dixon. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive document that summarizes the findings and analysis that resulted from an energy audit conducted over the past couple months by the Energy Projects Group of ANTHC. This report analyzes historical energy use and identifies costs and savings of recommended energy efficiency measures. Discussions of site specific concerns and an Energy Efficiency Action Plan are also included in this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Energy Projects Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the water plant staff and the tribal council. 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the City of Pilot Station. The scope of the audit focused on Pilot Station Water and Sewer System. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the time of the audit, the annual predicted energy costs for the buildings analyzed are $17,136 for Electricity and $19,671 for #1 Oil, with total energy costs of $36,807 per year. It should be noted that this facility received the power cost equalization (PCE) subsidy from the state of Alaska last year. If this facility had not received the PCE subsidy, total electrical costs would have been $59,975. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Pilot Station Water and Sewer System. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Tank Circulation Pump Shut off circulation pump, unless town water use declines. $1,258 $10 778.68 0.0 2 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Well A Heat Tape Shut off the well heat tape. The well pump operates on a VFD; heat tape should be only used for recovery. $2,140 $500 26.49 0.2 3 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Lift Station Electric Heating/ Heat Tapes Shut off heat tape except when the line is frozen. $3,606 $3,000 7.44 0.8 4 HVAC And DHW Boilers need to be cleaned and tuned. A boiler should be isolated in spring and fall seasons to reduce losses and increase efficiency. The backup circulation pump should be valved off to reduce the load on the active circulation pump. Boilers should be shut off in mid May and turned back on in October. $1,361 + $100 Maint. Savings $2,000 6.73 1.5 4 Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 5 Circulation Loops Heat add controls need to be fixed for circulation Loop #1The loops should be set to 40 degrees and maintained at 40 degrees based on return temperature. Current copper service lines should be replaced with 150 feet of pex pipe and a small circulation pump in each home on the loop. $8,366 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $78,500 1.10 9.4 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $16,731 + $1,100 Maint. Savings $84,010 1.70 5.0 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 6 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Lift Station Pumps and Controls The pumps are currently running too often because of high ground water infiltration. Finding the source of the infiltration and stopping it will reduce pump run time, and keep the lagoon from over filling. $98 $2,000 0.30 20.4 7 Window/Skylight: Water Plant Replace existing window with U-0.35 wood window $0 $329 0.00 999.9 8 Window/Skylight: Water Plant Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $0 $297 0.00 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $16,830 + $1,100 Maint. Savings $86,637 1.66 5.1 Table Notes: 1 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life‐cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost‐effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 2 Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first‐year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $16,830 per year, or 45.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $86,637, for an overall simple payback period of 5.1 years. If only the cost‐effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $16,731 per year, or 5 45.5% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $84,010, for an overall simple payback period of 5.0 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Clothes Drying Circulation Loops Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $3,285 $0 $21 $127 $0 $16,634 $0 $16,740 $0 $36,807 With All Proposed Retrofits $1,923 $0 $21 $127 $0 $9,532 $0 $8,374 $0 $19,977 SAVINGS $1,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,102 $0 $8,366 $0 $16,830 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Pilot Station Water and Sewer System. The scope of this project included evaluating building shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life‐cycle‐cost techniques, which include the initial cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation. 2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates: • Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) • Lighting systems and controls • Building‐specific equipment Water consumption, treatment (optional) & disposal 6 The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. Details collected from Pilot Station Water and Sewer System enable a model of the building’s energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different activity areas of the building. Pilot Station Water and Sewer System is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1) Pilot Station Water Plant: 800 square feet In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used. The factors include: • Occupancy hours • Local climate conditions • Prices paid for energy 2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighting, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Our analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life‐Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices as projected by the Department of Energy are included. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time‐value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the 7 measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost‐effective—total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, simple payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time‐value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. Measures are implemented in order of cost‐effectiveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re‐ simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re‐ evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost‐effective measure is implemented. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed. It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effective measure. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example implementing a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relatively high savings. Implementing a reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will result in lower relative savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs include labor and equipment to estimate the full up‐front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. 2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. 8 3. Pilot Station Water and Sewer System 3.1. Building Description The 800 square foot Pilot Station Water and Sewer System was constructed in 2005, with a normal occupancy of 1 people. The number of hours of operation for this building average 2 hours per day, considering all seven days of the week. Water is sourced from a well, pumped with a VFD well pump up to the water storage tank. Water is treated with chlorine. Two circulation loops distribute water to the town. Many services off the loops are copper and freeze and break often. A lift station low in the town pumps water up to a sewage lagoon in the middle of town. The town uses about 1.2 million gallons of water per month. Description of Building Shell The exterior walls are six inch structurally insulated panels with 5.5 inches of polyurethane insulation. The roof of the building is a warm roof with six inches of polyurethane insulation. The floor of the building is built on pilings with six inches of polyurethane insulation. Typical windows throughout the building are double paned vinyl frame windows, however two of the windows are broken. Doors are metal with a polyurethane core. Description of Heating Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Weil McLain WGO‐07 Gold Oil Boiler #1 Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input Rating: 200,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 70 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year Notes: .85 gph, 140 PSI Weil McLain WGO‐07 Gold Oil Boiler #2 Fuel Type: #1 Oil 9 Input Rating: 200,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 70 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year Notes: .85 gph, 140 PSI OM‐148 Fuel Type: #1 Oil Input Rating: 148,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency: 93 % Idle Loss: 0 % Heat Distribution Type: Water Boiler Operation: All Year Space Heating Distribution Systems Unit heaters off the boilers supply heat to the facility. Domestic Hot Water System An OM 148 Hot water heater is shut off at the breaker and never used. Lighting Electronic T8 fluorescent lighting with 32 watt bulbs makes up all the lighting in the facility. Major Equipment A VFD controlled well pump is operated 24/7, pumping about 28 gallons per minute of water at full throttle. A tank circulation pump is currently operating, but valved off. The town uses water so quickly that the tank never fills completely and water is exchanged rapidly. Two 5 horsepower circulation pumps circulate water in the town’s two circulation loops. An LMI chemical pump injects chlorine into the water supply. A small heat tape is used to keep the building drain sump from freezing. A long heat tape labeled Heat Tape A runs to the well. The lift station operates a pair of grinder/discharge pumps, which at the time of the audit were set to operate based on a single float level. They were adjusted to have a high and low level settings. 10 The lift station has three heat tapes, one for the water service, one for the arctic box, and one for the force main up to the lagoon. Additionally the building is heated by a pair of electric heaters, which are set by hand at 60 degrees. The facility is in good condition and well insulated. 3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building. If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt‐hours (kWh) and maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumption is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of service provided: Electricity: AVEC‐Pilot Station ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and utility customer charges: Table 3.1 – Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.14/kWh #1 Oil $ 7.32/gallons 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates, City of Pilot Station pays approximately $36,807 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Pilot Station Water and Sewer System. Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use [Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.] 11 Figure 3.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type Figure 3.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 Existing Retrofit Space Heating Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Clothes Drying Annual Energy Costs by End Use Space Heating Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Circulation Loops 12 Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Other_Electrical 14101 12850 14101 13646 9512 5042 5210 5210 5042 6357 13646 14101 Lighting 77 70 77 75 77 75 77 77 75 77 75 77 Circulation Loops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ventilation_Fans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHW 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fuel Oil #1 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Circulation Loops 469 427 469 454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 469 DHW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Space_Heating 34 31 34 33 34 33 34 34 33 34 33 34 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. 13 Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Table 3.4 Pilot Station Water and Sewer System EUI Calculations Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 122,398 kWh 417,743 3.340 1,395,263 #1 Oil 2,687 gallons 354,726 1.010 358,274 Total 772,470 1,753,537 BUILDING AREA 800 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 966 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 2,192 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site ‐ Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, the Pilot Station Water and Sewer System was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. 14 Climate data from Pilot Station was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Limitations of AkWarm© Models • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Pilot Station. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. • The heating and cooling load model is a simple two‐zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. • The model does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm© simulations. 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descriptions later in this report for more detail. Calculations and cost estimates for analyzed measures are provided in Appendix C. Table 4.1 Pilot Station Water and Sewer System, Pilot Station, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Tank Circulation Pump Shut off circulation pump, unless town water use declines. $1,258 $10 778.68 0.0 2 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Well A Heat Tape Shut off the well heat tape. The well pump operates on a VFD, heat tape should be only used for recovery. $2,140 $500 26.49 0.2 3 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Lift Station Electric Heating/ Heat Tapes Shut off heat tape except when the line is frozen. $3,606 $3,000 7.44 0.8 15 Table 4.1 Pilot Station Water and Sewer System, Pilot Station, Alaska PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 4 HVAC And DHW Boilers need to be cleaned and tuned. A boiler should be isolated in spring and fall seasons to reduce losses and increase efficiency. The backup circulation pump should be valved off to reduce the load on the active circulation pump. Boilers should be shut off in mid May and turned back on in October. $1,361 + $100 Maint. Savings $2,000 6.73 1.5 5 Circulation Loops Heat add controls need to be fixed for circulation Loop #1The loops should be set to 40 degrees and maintained at 40 degrees based on return temperature. Current copper service lines should be replaced with 150 feet of pex pipe and a small circulation pump in each home on the loop. $8,366 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $78,500 1.10 9.4 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $16,731 + $1,100 Maint. Savings $84,010 1.70 5.0 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 6 Other Electrical - Controls Retrofit: Lift Station Pumps and Controls The pumps are currently running too often because of high ground water infiltration. Finding the source of the infiltration and stopping it will reduce pump run time, and keep the lagoon from over filling. $98 $2,000 0.30 20.4 7 Window/Skylight: Water Plant Replace existing window with U-0.35 wood window $0 $329 0.00 999.9 8 Window/Skylight: Water Plant Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $0 $297 0.00 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $16,830 + $1,100 Maint. Savings $86,637 1.66 5.1 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example, if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a larger load. 16 In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be attributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air‐conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting‐efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating requirements. Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis. 17 4.3 Building Shell Measures 4.3.1 Window Measures 4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.4.1 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure 4.5 Electrical & Appliance Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 7 Window/Skylight: Water Plant Glass: Single, Glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.52 Replace existing window with U‐0.35 wood window Installation Cost $329 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) $ Breakeven Cost $ Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 1000 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 8 Window/Skylight: Water Plant Glass: No glazing ‐ broken, missing Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Half Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.94 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.11 Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window Installation Cost $297 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) $ Breakeven Cost $ Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.0 Simple Payback yrs 1000 Auditors Notes: Rank Recommendation 4 Boilers need to be cleaned and tuned. A boiler should be isolated in spring and fall seasons to reduce losses and increase efficiency. The backup circulation pump should be valved off to reduce the load on the active circulation pump. Boilers should be shut off in mid May and turned back on in October. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)10 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,361 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $100 Breakeven Cost $13,456 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 6.7 Simple Payback yrs 1 Auditors Notes: 18 4.5.1 Other Electrical Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Tank Circulation Pump Grundfos C4100 6063 P1 9818, 1.5 HP with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,258 Breakeven Cost $7,787 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 778.7 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: Shut off circulation pump, as it is not needed. It should be used if there is trouble maintaining heat in the water storage tank, but currently the well pump is putting warm enough water into the tank, and water is getting used so quickly in the town that there is no need to even circulate water. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 2 Well A Heat Tape Well A Heat Tape with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,140 Breakeven Cost $13,245 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 26.5 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: The heat tape is currently on all winter long. The well pump is on a VFD and is running almost 24/7. As long as the pump is running the heat tape can be off. A flow switch should be installed so that when the well pump shuts off in the winter time, the heat tape will turn on. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 3 Lift Station Electric Heating/ Heat Tapes 3 Electric Heat Tapes, Two Electric Heaters with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $3,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,606 Breakeven Cost $22,325 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 7.4 Simple Payback yrs 1 Auditors Notes: For the force main heat trace: The heat tape should be turned on only if the high level alarm and both pumps are running, or you are using a pumper truck. This line is an emergency heat tape, and should be shut off the majority of the time. For the water service heat trace: A small circulation pump (15‐85W) should be put on the water line coming into the lift station and used in place of the heat tape. Additionally an RPZA needs to be installed on the water line to prevent sewage from accidently flowing back from the lift station to the water main. Electric heaters in the facility should be set to 40 degrees, and only manually tuned up for comfort when working in the facility for extended periods. Otherwise there is no need to keep the facility heated above the freezing point. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 6 Lift Station Pumps and Controls 2 Grinder/Discharge Pumps and Control Panels with Manual Switching Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)7 Energy Savings (/yr) $98 Breakeven Cost $608 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback yrs 20 Auditors Notes: Currently groundwater is infiltrating the system and supply about 25% of the water that is being pumped up to the lagoon. Finding the source of this groundwater and stopping it would reduce pump run time and help prevent the lagoon from flooding. 19 4.5.2 Circulation Loop Measures 5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN Through inspection of the energy‐using equipment on‐site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy‐saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. Appendix A – Listing of Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Websites Lighting Illumination Engineering Society ‐ http://www.iesna.org/ Energy Star Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program ‐ www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls DOE Solid State Lighting Program ‐ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 5 Heat add controls need to be fixed for circulation Loop #1. turning the loop temperature up to 40 degrees does not prevent freezeups, it only serves to use more fuel to heat leaking water. Old service lines and leaky mains are what is breaking and causing freezups, not too low of temperatures. The loops should be set to 40 degrees and maintained at 40 degrees based on return temperature. Because the lines are buried the heat losses through the circulation loops should be quite low. Current copper service lines should be replaced with 150 feet of pex pipe and a small circulation pump in each home on the loop. Assume one day of work for the operator and one local laborer, plus 3 hours of backhoe time per house. 40 houses. Provide three days of training for the operator on maintenance and heating demand of circulation loops and water service. (67,500 for project, 6,000 for training, 5,000 for two days fixing controls on loops in the plant.) Maintenance costs are based on reduced winter freeze up repairs. Installation Cost $78,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)10 Energy Savings (/yr) $8,366 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $1,000 Breakeven Cost $86,321 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback yrs 9 Auditors Notes: 20 DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ‐ http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star – http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=lighting.pr_lighting Hot Water Heaters Heat Pump Water Heaters ‐ http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12840 Solar Water Heating FEMP Federal Technology Alerts – http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/FTA_solwat_heat.pdf Solar Radiation Data Manual – http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook Plug Loads DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – http:apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_workplace/ Energy Star – http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product The Greenest Desktop Computers of 2008 ‐ http://www.metaefficient.com/computers/the‐greenest‐pcs‐of‐ 2008.html Wind AWEA Web Site – http://www.awea.org National Wind Coordinating Collaborative – http:www.nationalwind.org Utility Wind Interest Group site: http://www.uwig.org WPA Web Site – http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov Homepower Web Site: http://homepower.com Windustry Project: http://www.windustry.com Solar NREL – http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/ Firstlook – http://firstlook.3tiergroup.com TMY or Weather Data – http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991‐2005/tmy3/ State and Utility Incentives and Utility Policies ‐ http://www.dsireusa.org Appendix B – Direct Vent Oil Heater Programming 21 Using the temperature setbacks built into most direct vent oil heaters, such as Toyotomi Lasers and Monitor MPIs is a simple, cost effective way to save energy. We recommend setback temperatures of 60 degrees for nights and weekends in offices and other frequently occupied facilities. In buildings that are occupied intermittently, such as Bingo Halls, we recommend a setback of 50 or 55 degrees. Facilities that are never occupied, such as lift stations and well houses, should be setback to 40 degrees, to prevent freezeups. Check the following websites for tips on programming the built in temperature setback capabilities of your specific direct vent oil heater. http://www.toyotomiusa.com/ownersManuals_ventedHeaters.php http://www.monitorproducts.com/customer‐support/manuals Tab D Authority Tab E Electronic Application Application was submitted electronically. Not applicable to this project. Tab F Certification Page 38 of 38 Tab G Additional Materials ‐ AVEC AEA Grant Summary ‐ Evaluation Model Grant # / Application #No.Description Notes Year Funded Grant #2195244 Wind Turbine Foundation Design & Testing Project (DC project 27D Toksook Bay)Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2005 AES Grant #2195281 Chevak Wind Farm Project (DC project 29E)Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2007 AES Grant #2195412 Ambler Solar PV Construction Failed early feasibility evaluation, returned bulk of funds.2008 RD1 Grant #2195432 Bethel Wind Farm Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1 Grant #2195413 Cosmos Hills Hydro Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2008 RD1 Grant #2195384 Mekoryuk Wind Farm Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1 Grant #2195431 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Final Design Completed successfully (design). FERC licensure in place.2008 RD1 Grant #2195383 Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1 Grant #2195385 Toksook Bay Wind Farm Expansion Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2008 RD1 Grant #2195463 Shaktoolik Wind Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2009 RD2 Grant #2195464 Teller Wind Analysis Completed successfully; feasibility only.2009 RD2 Grant #2195468 Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind Design and Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2009 RD2 Grant #7030006 New Stuyahok Wind Analysis Completed successfully; feasibility only.2009 RD2 Grant #7030016 Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & Conceptual Design Completed successfully; feasibility only.2010 RD3 Grant #7040008 Stebbins Wind Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4 Grant #7040014 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Completed successfully (design). FERC licensure in place.2011 RD4 Grant #7040017 St. Mary's/ Pitka's Point Wind Design and Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2011 RD4 Grant #7040019 Eek Wind Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4 Grant #7040021 Marshall Wind Feasibility Study Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4 Grant #7040022 Scammon Bay Wind Feasibility Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4 Grant #7040030 Selawik Hybrid Wind Diesel System Turbine Upgrade Assessment Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4 Grant #7040049 Kaltag Solar Construction Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2011 RD4 Grant #7040052 Koyuk Wind Feasibility Study Community declined to participate. Returned funding.2011 RD4 Grant #7040053 Elim Wind Feasibility Study Completed successfully; feasibility only.2011 RD4 Grant #7050870 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5 Grant #7050871 Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5 Grant #7050875 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Chevak Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5 Grant #7050876 Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2012 RD5 Grant #7060939 Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2013 RD6 Grant #7071067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Completed successfully; feasibility only.2014 RD7 Grant #7071068 Stebbins St. Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Completed successfully; final design and permitting.2014 RD7 Grant #7081118 Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Assessment & Conceptual Design Completed successfully; feasibility and coceptual design.2015 RD8 Grant #7091223 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and CDR In progress. 2018 RD9 Grant #7091224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Project Completed successfully; facilities constructed. 2018 RD9 Grant #7110056 Togiak RPSU Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2017 Grant #7110082 Anvik DERA Replace Engine Position 3 Completed successfully; new engine commissioned and on-line.2019 Grant #7210025 Holy Cross BFU Completed successfully; facilities now in service.2017 Grant #7310305 Grid Bridging System Research and Development In progress.2019 Application #13002 Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility & Conceptual Design Project Currently waiting for AEA's authorization to proceed.2020 RD13 Application #13003 Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility & Conceptual Design Project Currently waiting for AEA's authorization to proceed.2020 RD13 Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Results NPV Benefits $5,247,631.09 NPV Capital Costs $4,854,369 B/C Ratio 1.08 NPV Net Benefit $805,196 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year 1,200,000 Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 24,000,000 Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 98,695 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 1,973,900 Displaced Natural Gas MCF per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime MCF - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 1,002 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 20,035 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $5,000,000$ Project Start year 2025 Project Life years 20 Displaced Electric kWh per year 1,200,000 Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 2,695 Renewable Generation O&M (Electric)$ per year 28,000 Renewable Generation O&M (Heat)$ per year Diesels OFF time Hours per year - Electric Capacity kW 900 Electric Capacity Factor %15% Heating Capacity Btu/hr Heating Capacity Factor %#DIV/0! Total Other Public Benefit 2021$ (Total over the life of the project)0 Base System Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/hr Diesel Generator O&M 60-150kW 7.01$ Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon 12.19 Total current annual diesel generation kWh/gallon 1,824,236 12.50 NOTICE: By default, this sheet is locked. If you need to unlock the sheet go to 'Review' in ribbon bar, select 'Unprotect Sheet', then input passcode: REFRound14 Pilot Station Rural Wind Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Pilot Station Wind Energy Infrastructure Diesel Generation Efficiency Annual Cost Savings Units Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year Electric Units Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric) $ per year REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year Heating Units Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D35 Renewable Heat O&M $ per year Entered Value Renewable Heat Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Heat)green tons/kWh/etc. Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per year CALCULATION Proposed Generation Cost (Heat)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D33 Displaced Fossil Fuel Use gallons per year Entered Value Displaced Fossil Fuel Price $ per gallon Entered Value Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year Entered Value Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Heating Displaced Cost $ per year Base Proposed Base Proposed 1 2 3 4 5 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 5,000,000$ 341,401$ 348,873$ 354,287$ 359,399$ 364,217$ (49,624)$ 10,580$ 10,732$ 10,875$ 11,011$ 291,777$ 359,453$ 365,019$ 370,275$ 375,227$ (4,708,223)$ 359,453$ 365,019$ 370,275$ 375,227$ 4,708,223 4,348,770$ 3,983,752$ 3,613,477$ 3,238,249$ 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 3.85$ 3.93$ 3.98$ 4.04$ 4.09$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 369,401$ 376,873$ 382,287$ 387,399$ 392,217$ 369,401$ 376,873$ 382,287$ 387,399$ 392,217$ 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 3.85$ 3.93$ 3.98$ 4.04$ 4.09$ 10,376$ 10,580$ 10,732$ 10,875$ 11,011$ 10,376$ 10,580$ 10,732$ 10,875$ 11,011$ Annual Cost Savings Units Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year Electric Units Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric) $ per year REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year Heating Units Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D35 Renewable Heat O&M $ per year Entered Value Renewable Heat Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Heat)green tons/kWh/etc. Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per year CALCULATION Proposed Generation Cost (Heat)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D33 Displaced Fossil Fuel Use gallons per year Entered Value Displaced Fossil Fuel Price $ per gallon Entered Value Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year Entered Value Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Heating Displaced Cost $ per year Base Proposed Base Proposed 6 7 8 9 10 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 368,745$ 372,988$ 376,953$ 380,643$ 384,062$ 11,138$ 11,257$ 11,368$ 11,472$ 11,568$ 379,882$ 384,245$ 388,321$ 392,114$ 395,629$ 379,882$ 384,245$ 388,321$ 392,114$ 395,629$ 2,858,367$ 2,474,122$ 2,085,801$ 1,693,686$ 1,298,057$ 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 4.13$ 4.18$ 4.22$ 4.26$ 4.29$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 396,745$ 400,988$ 404,953$ 408,643$ 412,062$ 396,745$ 400,988$ 404,953$ 408,643$ 412,062$ 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 4.13$ 4.18$ 4.22$ 4.26$ 4.29$ 11,138$ 11,257$ 11,368$ 11,472$ 11,568$ 11,138$ 11,257$ 11,368$ 11,472$ 11,568$ Annual Cost Savings Units Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year Electric Units Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric) $ per year REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year Heating Units Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D35 Renewable Heat O&M $ per year Entered Value Renewable Heat Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Heat)green tons/kWh/etc. Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per year CALCULATION Proposed Generation Cost (Heat)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D33 Displaced Fossil Fuel Use gallons per year Entered Value Displaced Fossil Fuel Price $ per gallon Entered Value Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year Entered Value Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Heating Displaced Cost $ per year Base Proposed Base Proposed 11 12 13 14 15 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 387,213$ 390,101$ 392,727$ 395,095$ 397,206$ 11,656$ 11,737$ 11,811$ 11,878$ 11,937$ 398,869$ 401,838$ 404,538$ 406,972$ 409,143$ 398,869$ 401,838$ 404,538$ 406,972$ 409,143$ 899,188$ 497,350$ 92,812$ (314,160)$ (723,303)$ 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 4.33$ 4.36$ 4.38$ 4.41$ 4.43$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 415,213$ 418,101$ 420,727$ 423,095$ 425,206$ 415,213$ 418,101$ 420,727$ 423,095$ 425,206$ 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 4.33$ 4.36$ 4.38$ 4.41$ 4.43$ 11,656$ 11,737$ 11,811$ 11,878$ 11,937$ 11,656$ 11,737$ 11,811$ 11,878$ 11,937$ Annual Cost Savings Units Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year Electric Units Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric) $ per year REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year Heating Units Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D35 Renewable Heat O&M $ per year Entered Value Renewable Heat Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Heat)green tons/kWh/etc. Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per year CALCULATION Proposed Generation Cost (Heat)$ per year REFERENCE: Cell D33 Displaced Fossil Fuel Use gallons per year Entered Value Displaced Fossil Fuel Price $ per gallon Entered Value Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year Entered Value Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year CALCULATION Base Heating Displaced Cost $ per year Base Proposed Base Proposed 16 17 18 19 20 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 399,064$ 400,668$ 402,022$ 403,126$ 403,981$ 11,989$ 12,034$ 12,072$ 12,103$ 12,127$ 411,052$ 412,702$ 414,094$ 415,229$ 416,108$ 411,052$ 412,702$ 414,094$ 415,229$ 416,108$ (1,134,356)$ (1,547,058)$ (1,961,152)$ (2,376,381)$ (2,792,489)$ 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 28,000$ 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 4.45$ 4.47$ 4.48$ 4.49$ 4.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 96,000 427,064$ 428,668$ 430,022$ 431,126$ 431,981$ 427,064$ 428,668$ 430,022$ 431,126$ 431,981$ 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,695 4.45$ 4.47$ 4.48$ 4.49$ 4.50$ 11,989$ 12,034$ 12,072$ 12,103$ 12,127$ 11,989$ 12,034$ 12,072$ 12,103$ 12,127$