HomeMy WebLinkAbout13017 Knutson Creek - BCApplication #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 1
([Lead Evaluator])
[Date]
Applicant AEA
Requested Grant Funds: $1,710,000 $
Cash Match: $1,000 $
In-kind Match: $4,000 $
Efficiency Match: $ $
Total Cost (Requested Phase): $1,715,000 $
Match Percentage: % %
Total Project Cost (Through Construction): $6,927,870 $
Expected Annual O&M cost $ $
Current Cost of Heating Oil: $ /gal $ /gal
Current Cost of Diesel for Electricity: $ 4.62/gal $ 4.06/gal fm 2020
PCE
Estimated Capacity Factor: % %
Proposed Hydro Capacity: 150 kW kW
Estimated Hydro Penetration: % %
Annual Gross Electricity Produced from Hydro: 190,000 kWh/yr kWh/yr
Annual Reduction in Diesel Used for Electrical
Generation:
17,050 gal/yr gal/yr
Annual Net Electricity Used for Thermal Loads (Excess
Electricity):
317,000 kWh/yr kWh/yr
Installed thermal capacity:
Annual Heating Oil Displaced: 8,032 Gal/year Gal/year
Total Annual Reduction in Diesel plus Heating Oil in
the Community:
25,000 Gal/year Gal/year
Applicant B/C Ratio: 0.71
AEA B/C Ratio:
Explain any differences in the Applicant and AEA assumptions in this table and/or other factors
that will go into the economic analysis (e.g. changes in recovered heat). Applicant b/c
spreadsheet has O&M going from $76k to $15k/yr (reduction $61k). App used fuel at $4.62/gal
(2020). B/C of 0.71
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 2
Project Description [Section 2.4]:
Project is a 150 kW run of river hydroelectric project on Knutson Creek near Pedro Bay. The
scope for this funding request is for phase 1 to construct access road & trail for future
penstock.
Project Concerns:
Cost estimate is likely significantly low for entire project. Breaking project up over
many years with multiple mobilization and longer project management have much
higher costs. Funding to complete project not identified so break of many years before
construction can resume if ever.
Design funding period of performance started 7/1/13. Final deliverables has not yet
been received by AEA and Grant being extended to 3/31/2021. If design takes nearly
eight years then have low confidence that proposed schedule can be followed.
School closed in 2011. Demand appears to be trending down.
Q&A Between Evaluator and Applicant [include dates, participants, means, etc.]:
Additional Details / Considerations:
Overall Recommendation (Full, full w/ special provision, partial, partial w/ special provision, not
recommended):
Justification for any recommendation besides Full:
Special provision recommended:
Official Stage 2 Follow-Up / Comments:
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 3
Stage 2 Scoring (Bold = field scored by evaluators)
Scoring Criteria Scoring Notes Preliminary
Score
(0-10)
1) Project Management, Development, and Operation 5
a) The proposed schedule is
clear, realistic, and
described in adequate detail.
[Section 3.1]
Not realistic with design grant from 2013 still not
finished. Supporting documents does not have
final design & cost estimate so unknown if some
of the request is for finishing design prior to
bidding.
b) The cost estimates for
project development
[Section 3.2], operation,
maintenance [Section
5.4.6], fuel, and other project
items meet industry
standards or are otherwise
justified.
1) Development: Cost estimate entire project
likely low since it will be stretched out over
many years. No cost estimate back up.
Last cost estimate in 2013 Feasibility
Report for ~200 kW system at $4.5m.
References a September 2020 cost
estimate but it is not provided.
2) Operations:
3) Maintenance: O&M to go from $76k to
$15k. Seems like $15k too low since O&M
will need to be done on hydro & diesel
generators.
c) The Applicant’s
communications plan
[Section 3.3], including
monitoring and reporting
[Section 5.5], is described
in adequate detail.
1) Communications plan:
2) Project monitoring & reporting: Monthly
d) Logistical, business, and
financial arrangements for
operating and maintaining
the project throughout its
lifetime and selling energy
from the completed project
are reasonable and
described in adequate detail
[Section 7].
1) Logistical:
2) Business:
3) Financial: A substantial amount of diesel
displace is dispatchable electric for heating
at a different rate. Buildings would need
second meter and electric heater.
2) Qualifications and Experience 5
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 4
a) The Applicant, partners,
and/or contractors have
sufficient knowledge and
experience to successfully
complete [Section 4] and
operate the project [Section
7].1
1) Complete project: Design firm has
completed similar projects. PB Adm will be
Project Manager. Resume has no
experience in construction PM.
2) Operate project: Community has not
operated a hydro project.
a) The project team has
staffing, time, and other
resources to successfully
complete [Section 4.1.3]
and operate [Section 7] the
project.
1) Complete project: Multiple amendments to
extend period of performance for final
design is a concern for staffing/time.
2) Operate project: Should be able to
b) The project team is able to
understand and address
technical [Section 5.3.1],
economic [Section 6.1.3],
and environmental barriers
[Section 5.3.2] to successful
project completion and
operation.
1) Complete project: Project engineer has
experience
2) Operate project: Should
a) The project uses local labor
and trains a local labor
workforce [Section 4.2].
Limited availability.
3) Technical Feasibility 10
a) The renewable energy
resource is available on a
sustainable basis [Section
5.1], and project permits and
other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained
[Section 5.1.3 and DNR
input].
1) Resource sustainability: Yes. May not be
available at times in the winter.
2) Permits & authorizations:
b) A site is available and
suitable for the proposed
energy system [Section
5.2].
Yes
1 If the applicant has not yet chosen a contractor to complete the work, qualifications and experience
points will be based on the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex
contracts.
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 5
c) Project technical [Section
5.3.1] and environmental
risks [Section 5.3.2] are
reasonable.
1) Technical risks: Yes
2) Environmental risks: Yes
d) The proposed energy
system can reliably produce
and deliver energy as
planned [Section 5.4.4-5].
Yes
Or, if a reconnaissance project is being proposed:
a) The renewable energy
resource is present [Section
5.1.1] and can potentially be
used for energy generation
[Section 5.4.4-5].
1) RE resource present:
2) RE resource useful:
a) The proposed technology is
suitable for the resources
and demands of the
community [Section 5.4.4-
5].
b) The proposed technology
has reached a level of
maturity necessary for the
proposed application
[Section 5.4.4-5].
4) Economic Feasibility
a) The project is shown to be
economically feasible (net
positive savings in fuel,
operation and maintenance,
and capital costs over the
life of the proposed project)
[Section 6 and Economic
Analysis].
B/C =
b) The project has an adequate
financing plan for completion
of the grant-funded phase
[Section 3.2.1-2] and has
considered options for
financing subsequent
phases of the project
[Section 3.2.4].
Project completion plan: No detail aside from
proactive management or own resources. May
be limited with size of utility.
Financing plan for subsequent phases: No
detail. Will consider grants/loans.
5
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 6
c) Other benefits to the Alaska
public are demonstrated
[Section 6.2]. Avoided costs
alone will not be presumed
to be in the best interest of
the public.2
New access road/trail 2
S2 Recommendation (Full, full w/ special provision, partial, partial w/ special
provision, not recommended)
Justification for any recommendation besides Full
Special provision recommended
Stage 3 Scoring (Bold = field scored by evaluators)
Scoring Criteria Scoring Notes Preliminary
Score
(0-10)
4) Project Readiness 5
For reconnaissance and feasibility projects:
a) Project is currently underway
with feasibility or
reconnaissance work,
design work related to the
project, or actual
construction of the project
and the applicant is using
their own funds, or funds
from another eligible source,
to finance the activity
[Section 8].
b) Applicant has completed
previous phase(s) of
proposed project and
desires additional funding to
complete the next phase
[Section 8].
2
Other Public Benefits Score
Will the project result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, etc.) that can be used for other purposes? 0 – 2
Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.)? 0 – 2
Will the project solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.)? 0 – 2
Will the project generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the State? 0 – 2
Will this project either promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community? 0 – 2
Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? 0 – 2
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 7
c) The proposed work and
timeline is reasonable
[Section 3.1] and the project
team has been identified and
is qualified to complete the
work [Section 4].
d) Land access and use issues
have been identified and
resolved, or there is a
reasonable plan to address
potential land access and
use issues [Section 5.2].
For design and construction projects:
a) Project is currently underway
with feasibility or
reconnaissance work,
design work related to the
project, or actual
construction of the project
[Section 2.5 & 8] and the
applicant is using their own
funds, or funds from another
eligible source, to finance
the activity [Section 3.2].
Grantee has received funds for design and
permitting yet only document submitted in
application was 65% drawings dated Sept 2020.
Start date of grant was July 1, 2013 so unable
to finish design SOW in seven years.
b) Applicant has completed
previous phase(s) of
proposed project and
desires additional funding to
complete the next phase
[Section 2.5& 8].
Final design not completed.
c) Applicant has completed
required feasibility and/or
design work for project
[Section 2.5] and is
prepared to place an order
for necessary equipment for
the project, such as an item
with a ‘long lead time’ to
procure [Section x.x].
Has not completed.
d) Applicant has obtained all
necessary permits, met all
permit requirements, and
addressed all regulatory
agency stipulations [Section
5.1.3].
Seems to have most permits.
e) Applicants have provided
evidence of investment in
and commitment to energy
efficiency in the building(s)
or system to be served by
the project [Section 8.2].
Energy upgrades to buildings in 2008.
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 8
6) Sustainability 5
a) The grantee demonstrates
the capacity, both
administratively and
financially to provide for the
long-term operation and
maintenance of the
proposed project [Section
7.1.2].
1) Administrative capacity:
Concern with grants not being
completed in a timely manner.
2) Financial capacity: Small utility so would
have trouble if any large
repair/replacement.
b) The resource will be
available over the life of the
project [Section 5.1.1].
Yes
c) There will be a market for
the energy produced over
the life of the project
[Section 6.1.3 & 5.4.3].
Trend for future sales: More summer seasonal
& less winter load. School closed 2011. Trend
of demand appears to be decreasing.
Application #13017
[Knutson Creek Hydro Project Construction]
[Pedro Bay Village Council] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 9
Integration assessment: The assigned PM named below is responsible for providing an assessment of
issues related to integrating the proposed project into the existing system. The assessment should
indicate if the existing system can successfully support (from a technical perspec tive) integration of the
proposed renewable system and if not, what changes are necessary to facilitate successful renewable
integration.
Integration PM Name:
Based on the application and supplementary material provided as part of the evaluation process,
evaluate the feasibility of the integration of the proposed project into the existing system. Please not
any deficiencies in existing or proposed infrastructure, controls strategy, etc. that could hamper the
success of the proposal.
Additional questions should be directed through Grants Manager. Please include the lead evaluator in
the correspondence.
Diesel engines (Spinning reserve, Electronic/mechanical injection, RPM, Minimum kW rating, startup
time)
PH Controls (Genset controls & switchgear)
Distribution system (Step-up transformer sizing, transformer capacity at interconnection, secondary
loads, system voltage)
Heat recovery & Cooling system
Secondary loads & Energy storage
Summary: