HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPP_13013-AEA REF 13 Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment Project ApplicationCordova Electric Cooperative
REF Round 13 Grant Application
11 Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment Project"
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
SECTION 1 -APPLICANT INFORMATION
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion.
I Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity)
I Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Tax ID # 92-0069167
Date of last financial statement audit: April 30, 2020
Mailina Address: Physical Address:
PO Box 20 705 Second Street
Cordova, Alaska 99574 Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-424-5555 907-424-5027 emerritt@cordovaelectric.com
11.1 Applicant Point of Contact I Grants Manager
I Name: Clay Koplin, PE Title: CEO
Mailing Address:
PO Box 20
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: Fax : Email:
907-424-5555 907-424-5027 ckoJLiin@cordovaelectric.com
1.1.1 Applicant Signatory Authority Contact Information
Name: Clay Koplin Title: CEO
Mailing Address:
PO Box 20
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-424-5555 907-424-5027 cko__Qjill@cordovae lectr ic.com
1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact
Name Telephone: Fax : Email:
Scott Newlun (907) 424-5044 snewlun@cordovaelectric.com
Emma Merritt (907) 424-5024 (907) 424-5527 emerritt@cordovaelectric.com
AE A 21010 Page 1 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements
Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements, the application
will be rejected.
1 1.2.1 Applicant Type
IZ! An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05
CPCN # 160
D An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1)
CPCN # , or
D A local government, or
D A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
AddT t 1 1ona mm1mum reqUiremen s
IZI 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)
IZI 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)
IZI 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 www.akenergyauthority .org /what-we -
do/grants-loans/renewab le-energy-fund -ref-grants /2020-ref-agQi ication (Any exceptions
should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) (Indicate yes by checking the
box)
IZI 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)
AEA 21010 Page 2 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
A LASKA
ENERGY
AU T HOR ITY
I SECTION 2 -PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Title
Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project. Type in the space below.
I Cordova Hydro Storage Assessment Project
I 2.2 Project Location
2.2.1 Location of Project-Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or
community name.
Note: One hydro assessment project; multiple sites with various levels of prior work.
Latitude I I Longitude I
Raging Creek (conventional/pumped storage) 60°41 '21.03"N, 145°44'5.82"W (dam site)
Snyder Falls Creek (conventional storage) 60°39'52.82"N, 145°33'29 .54"W (dam site)
Humpback Creek (conventional storage) 60°36'46.17"N, 145°40'45 .76"W (power plant)
Power Creek {add conventional storage) 60°35'19.16"N, 145°36'14 .38"W (power plant)
Radian LatiLon:
Raging Creek (conventional/pumped storage) 60 .689567 , -145 .734403 (dam site)
Snyder Falls Creek (conventional storage) 60 .680401, -145.536054 (dam site)
Humpback Creek (conventional storage) 60.635104, -145.641631W (power plant)
Power Creek (add conventional storage) 60 .587106, -145.618668 (power plant)
2.2.2 Community benefiting-Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
I Cordova, Alaska
Prince William Sound
2.3 Project Type
Please check as appropriate .
I 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
D Wind
181 Hydro, Including Run of River
D Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps
D Solar Photovoltaic
D Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
D Hydrokinetic
D Transmission of Renewable Energy
181 Storage of Renewable
I D Other (Describe) D Small Natural Gas
I 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
181 Reconnaissance D Final Design and Permitting
181 Feasibility and Conceptual Design D Construction
AEA 21010 Page 3 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
2.4 Project Description
Provide a brief, one-paragraph description of the proposed project.
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) is requesting $295,000 to conduct an analysis of the
hydroelectric resources in the area, per AEA recommendation in attached letter AEA Regional
Hydro Resource Assessment dated April13, 2017. CEC intends to collect LIDAR imagery and
develop feasibility assessments on at least four potential storage locations . The results of this
analysis will inform the strategic direction of CEC in the short and long term. The priority
assessment is for storage capacity upstream of the existing Humpback Creek Hydroelectric
Project. The potential storage location is on private lands with low permitting and regulatory
overheads and is a low-cost, high value supplement to the existing infrastructure. The next priority
is at the Raging Creek hydroelectric site, for which CEC has already conducted a desktop
feasibility assessment. Raging Creek would be a long-term hydro prospect that faces moderate
permitting and regulatory barriers that has the potential to bring CEC to 100% renewable. A more
comprehensive feasibility assessment would be conducted as part of this application. The last two
locations and reports includes an updated feasibility report on Snyder Falls and a pre-feasibility on
storage potential at Power Creek would. To maximize the LIDAR equipment, McMillen-Jacobs
professional staff mobilization, and helicopter support, CEC proposes to conduct aerial
reconnaissance of Boy Scout Lake, No Name Lake #1, and No Name Lake #2, per AEA
recommendation.
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.
Humpback Creek : Gather LIDAR and geotechnical I ground penetrating radar to assess storage
potential upstream of existing project works. A feasibility assessment of conventional and pumped
storage will be performed from LIDAR and field data/observations.
Raging Creek: Gather LIDAR imagery and feasibility study. This project holds promise per
attached McMillen Jacobs reconnaissance study excerpts, and good ground control will allow CEC
to proceed with detailed feasibility analysis as a long-term prospect for 100% renewable.
Snyder Falls Creek: Gather LIDAR imagery while performing area reconnaissance and update
feasibility study. The project is large, but holds future promise, particularly if the Shepard Point
Road, which would provide access and cut construction costs by up to 50%, is built per the
UACOE permit it received last year. See attached McMillen-Jacobs 2013 Snyder Falls Creek
Project Final Feasibility Cost Estimate.
Power Creek: Gather LIDAR imagery and field geotechnical observations while performing area
reconnaissance on other potential project sites, and a pre-feasibility assessment of storage
potential.
All sites are either on Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) land which allow access with simple
application forms, and USFS which allows access to their public lands without permits but
appreciates the verbal notifications and collaboration when CEC does field work to avoid helicopter
conflicts with users.
Aeria l Reconnaissance: inspect aerial prospects and, if feasible, land and make geotechnical and
other field observations . This leverages the helicopter 4-hour flight minimums from
Valdez/Girdwood into the highest reconnaissance value .
Boy Scout Lake Aerial Reconnaissance
No Name Lake #1 Aerial Reconnaissance
No Name Lake #2 Aerial Reconnaissance
AEA 21010 Page 4 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
2.6 Previous REF Applications for the Project
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
See Section 1.15 of the RFA for the maximum 12er 12roject cumulative grant award amount
Round Title of application Application Did you Amount of REF
Submitted #,if known receive a grant awarded
_grant? Y/N ($)
N/A Note that CEC received round 1 and
3 funding for Humpback Creek
Project, this application is for
upstream storage assessment
outside current project boundaries on
ANC lands
~ SECTION 3 -Project Management, Development, and Operation
I 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 (1. Reconnaissance , II. Feasibility and
Conceptual Design, Ill. 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 Start End
# Milestones Tasks Date Date Deliverables
1 Project Kickoff Team Meeting 7/2021 Meeting minutes
2 LIDAR Mapping A key element, McMillen CEC Site Visit,
weather LIDAR Mapping, Site visits
dependent 7/2021 10/2021 and Geotech surveys
3 Snyder Falls Update $75,000 Feasibility assessment,
Creek Feasibility McMillen conceptual design using
assessment using new LIDAR data and
new Ll DAR data 10/2021 7/2022 contemporary rates
4 Raging Creek McMillen Jacobs Feasibility assessment,
Feasibility Proposal 10/2021 7/2022 conceptual design
5 Humpback McMillen Jacobs Feasibility assessment,
Storage feasibility with CEC Support 10/2021 7/2022 conceptual design
6 Power Creek Per McMillen Feasibility assessment,
storage feasibility Proposal 10/2021 7/2022 conceptual design
7 Final report and Per McMillen Draft Report for Review
recommendation Proposal 7/2022 10/2022 Final Report
8 (1) Site Overview -McMillen Jacobs Contractor Selected -see
Hydro and Storage Selected -see CEC Board Resolution ..
Assessment letters of support note; list ed as task 1
Report 7/2022 10/2022 McMillen Proposal
9 CEC Board Based on Task 1 Pursue Hydro Storage
Go/No-Go summary and Option on CEC grid
recommendation outcome 10/2022 12/2022
A EA 21010 Page 5 o f 26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
3.2 Budget
3.2.1 Funding Sources
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHOR ITY
Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request.
Grant funds requested in this application $ 294,642
Cash match to be provided 3 $ 50,000
In-kind match to be provided 3 $ 100,000
Energy efficiency match providedb $ N/A
Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of $ $444,642
above)
Budget: McMillen Jacobs Proposal: $344,642 (attached)
CEC Cash match : ~ 50 ,000 (CEC sha re of McMille n ProQosal)
AEA Reguested Funding: ~294,642 (difference)
Additional CEC in-kind: ~100,000 (attached excel SQreadsheet "CEC In-Kind"
Total (last 3 lines) $444,642
Note that CEC and McMillen-Jacobs have completed substantial out-of-pocket work to pre-assess
and assess projects in this proposal, including McMillen-Jacobs pro-bono assessment of Snyder
Falls Creek (report appended) and for which a current cost was estimated and included in this
proposal for reference ($76,267 estimated value).Numerous regional site visits, field assessments,
steam gaging, and geotechnical work by CEC as follows:
Snyder Falls Creek Total to Date: $214,517
Crater Lake Total to Date: $660,853
Raging Creek Total to Date: $16,436
Work Order Cost Summaries are attached, and CEC is not requesting that these be included as
match. These costs demonstrate CEC's financial commitment to pursuing its strategic goal of
renewable energy. CEC has aggressively pursued goals whether awarded AEA funds or not
(Crater Lake high ranking but unfunded AEA REF request). However, given past investments,
CEC cannot proceed with this full area assessment without AEA assistance which might overlook
the best cosUbenefit option for CEC and the community without the proposed analysis.
CEC has strong cash reserves and staff capacity to meet the commitment for cash and in-kind
match for this proposal and has the full support of the CEC Board of Directors (see attached Board
Resolution). A CEC present cash flow (even after pandemic impacts) is included to demonstrate
financial capacity including over $1,000,000 in average cash reserves and a $2,100,000 line of
credit which CEC has not accessed since paying it down to zero in 2009. CEC has been paying
capital credits for the last 3 years, another confirmation of financial capability to buy down member
equity.
CEC is tackling its strategic goals from every angle, and has made significant investments in
operational improvements and incremental efficiency upgrades including installation of a grid scale
battery (BESS) to free up spinning reserves at Power Creek with an estimated 50,000 gallons per
year fuel based on 2020 performance-$2,000,000; $850,000 DOE and $1,150,000 CEC, and
electric boiler to utilize excess hydropower (including additional excess created from BESS
project) approximately $100,000; $80,000 DOE and $20,000 CEC and $20,000 CEC in-kind. This
is expected to save 10,000 gallons per year based on 2020 performance .
AEA 21010 Page 6 of26 7/20/2020
I
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
3.2.2 Cost Overruns
Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding .
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
McMillen Jacobs has a strong track record , including project work for CEC, of bringing projects in
on time and on budget in Alaska. Projects for CEC include Crater Lake feasibility study and
geotechnical evaluation, Snyder Falls Creek Feasibility Cost Estimate (at no cost to CEC). See
attached letters of support. CEC has a long performance history of project execution and suffered
the pain of cost overruns on both Power Creek hydroelectric Project and Humpback Creek
hydroelectric project. However, through agile project management CEC has been able to deliver
additional value from additional costs. Net result for Power Creek; $24M total cost, $35M diesel
fuel savings alone. Humpback Creek: Nearly doubled fuel offset and sharply reduced maintenance
cost and down time. The agile project management methodology assists in identifying and
managing or avoiding cost overruns . CEC typically funds any cost overruns out of pocket, unless
an out-of-scope opportunity to add significant value warrants seeking grant partners . In general ,
CEC does not seek grant support for any work we are not willing to execute out-of-pocket, but for
accelerating and/or leveraging CEC projects into greater value for residents when the scope is
slightly beyond our capacity or risk tolerance in uncertain times. All CEC McMillen-Jacobs work to
date has been executed on time and budget except for weather-related delays that were
anticipated as contingencies .
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 [Actual/Estimated] $ N/A
Feasibility and Conceptual Design Estimated (firm) $444,642
Final Design and Permitting [Actual/Estimated] $TBD
Construction [Actual/Estimated] $TBD
Total Project Costs (sum of above) Estimated $TBD
Metering/Tracking Equipment [not included in project Estimated $TBD
cost]
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.
CEC anticipates a high likelihood of short-term construction of a Humpback Creek storage on ANC
lands and anticipate 50% Tribal Energy Program funds and 50% CEC conventional funding with an
option for Eyak and/or Chugach Alaska Corporation funding for project-related costs that add
additional value (site development, recreational, tribal access, etc.). Raging Creek is a moderately
likely long-term project that will require significant land access and permitting work if deemed
feasible. A 50% Native Corporation and CEC in-kind effort with consultants is anticipated. The
construction phase is also most likely to include 50% ANC tribal energy funds, 50% CEC
conventional funds as a likely funding mix. There is a potential for private participation in water
resources and/or co-located aquaculture and mariculture farms proliferating near Raging Creek,
which would reduce the contribution by CEC and ANCs ..
AEA 21010 Page 7 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
3.2.3 Budget Forms
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
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, Ill.
Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction . Please use the tables provided below to detail
your proposed project's total budget. Be su r e to use one ta b le for each phase of your p roject, a nd
delete any unne cessary 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 Manager Karin St. Clair by email at
grants@akenergyauthoritv.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081.
Phase 2 -Feasibility and Conceptual Design
Source of
Matching
Anticipated Grantee Funds:
RE-Fund Cash/In-Milestone or Task Completion Grant Funds Matching kind/Federal TOTALS
Date Funds Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
(Our Project Milestones do not $ $ $ neatly follow or fit AEA format.
$ $ $
$ $ $
Task 1 (Task 8 below) $ $ $
Task 2 LIDAR Mapping $ 49 ,542 $ 8,743 Cash $ 58 ,285
Task 3 Snyder Falls $ 9.404 $ 1,660 Cash $ 11,064
Task 4 RaQinQ Creek Feasible $ 52 ,863 $ 9 ,329 Cash $ 62 ,192
Task 5 Humpback Storage $ 57 ,875 $ 10 ,213 Cash $ 68 ,088
Task 6 Power Creek Storage $ 38 ,026 $ 6,710 Cash $ 44,736
Task 7 Project Review MtQ . $ 5,560 $ 834 Cash $ 5 .560
Task 8 Site Overview-Report $ 80 ,509 $ 14 .208 Cash $ 94,717
CEC In-kind Tasks1-7 $ $100 ,000 In-kind/Cash $100,000
TOTALS $ 292,945 $151,697 $444,642
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 219 ,691 $ 104 ,769 $
Travel & Per Diem $ 9 ,269 $ 1,636 $
Equipment $ $ $
Materials & Supplies $ $ $
Contractual Services $ 63 ,985 $ 95,292 $
Construction Services $ $ $
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $ 292 ,945 $ 201,697 $444.642
AE A 21010 Page 8 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
3.2.4 Cost Justification
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget, including costs for future
phases not included in this application.
Cost estimates were derived from CEC engineering (Clay Koplin, PE) with significant prior
hydroelectric project reconnaissance and feasibility assessment and estimating experience, and
McMillan-Jacobs estimates. The costs for future phases are highly dependent upon the outcomes
of feasibility assessment. A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate based on Clay Koplin
Experience and work to date: $4M for Humpback Creek Storage all costs including CEC,
Raging Creek, low cost I low storage options $25-50M, with pumped storage high storage options,
$35M-70M
I 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?
Clay Koplin and designee(s) will track project progress. CEC has executed several AEA, RUS,
DOE, and partner grants consistently deliver timely, accurate, and insightful reports. In the past
AEA indicated that they used our reports as examples of best practices and as AEA training
materials. A sample is attached. CEC follows RUS accounting and have tight enough pay cycles
to identify when project progress is diverging from progress billing (budge creep). CEC internals
controls of CEO, staff or contract manager, and CEC Manager of Finance and office follow CEC
procurement, accounting, and project management best practices .
I 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.
All financial reporting will be performed internally by Emma Merritt, CEC Manager of Administration
and Finance, in collaboration with Clay Koplin and/or project manager designee under the
supervision of Clay Koplin. CEC is experienced in the administration of State and Federal grants,
and provide clear, concise, and accurate accounting for grants. All applications for reimbursement
are prepared and/or reviewed for compliance by Emma Merritt and reviewed for compliance and
approved by Clay Koplin before submittal to AEA.
AEA 21010 Page 9 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
I SECTION 4-QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
4.1 Project Team
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
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.
Clay Koplin, CEC (resumes attached)
Scott Newlun, CEC
Emma Merritt, CEC
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.
All financial accounting will be also performed internally by Emma Merritt, in collaboration and with
the support of project manager Clay Koplin or designee under his supervision.
I 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: McMillen Jacobs and staff as outlined
in project budgets will directly execute project tasks 1-7. CEC staff will participate in all field
work, all project meetings, all decision points for scope adjustments, reviews of all field data,
reviews and clarifications of all project report drafts, and final reports. CEC (Clay Koplin, Scott
Newlun, Emma Merritt as outlined above supplemented with CEC operational staff) will also
arrange helicopter support, contractor logistics . Contractors include LIDAR vendor sub to
McMillen-Jacobs (proposal attached) and final report publishing vendor.
• the knowledge, skills, and experience that will be used to successfully deliver the tasks; CEC
Staff, particularly Clay Koplin and Scott Newlun, have participated in numerous renewable
energy projects at every level ranging from demonstration to reconnaissance to feasibility to
construction and project management. We know our skills and limitations and are quick to
recognize when something is getting beyond our scope of expertise and control and adjust
accordingly. CEC's past performance and reporting on AEA projects will validate this.
• how time and other resource conflicts will be managed to successfully complete the task. CEC
has added staff for 2021, and have DOE projects being completed to free up resources
(Battery Energy Storage System or BESS is substantially complete) and the RADIANCE
project, a three-year grid modernization project with US DOE is completed in July 2021. CEC
budgets for these projects and have already considered them in our 2021 and 2022 work plans .
This project is a priority for CEC.
See McMillen Jacobs attached proposal, the excerpts from Snyder Falls Creek and Raging Creek
projects (full copies available upon request), and letters of reference from other project owners.
AEA 21010 Page 10 of 26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
4.2 Local Workforce
Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce .
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
The CEC in-kind budget include staff participation by operational staff. CEC promotes a "ground
up" process that includes operating and maintenance staff in the earliest stages of projects to
assist in their shaping/review from an O&M perspective. This constitutes a training element for
relatively new talent at CEC. CEC often, as opportunity and helicopter seat space is available ,
includes community leadership or local high school students in field visits for natural sciences
courses, and exposure to various phases of renewable energy project development.
I SECTION 5-TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
I 5.1 Resource Availability
5.1.1 Assessment of Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average
resource availability on an annual basis. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to
the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility
documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this
application (See Section 11 ). Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project.
See the "Resource Assessment" section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional
guidance.
The feasibility nature of this study is to assess project capacities, estimated construction costs,
barrier and fatal flaws; and compare and contrast them toward a best-fit for CEC current and future
needs. Past and estimated production capacities: Humpback: 1.25MW, 3.3 GWh, Power Creek
6MW, 20 GWh, Snyder Falls Creek -5MW, 30 GWh, Raging Creek-5MW, 20-30 GWh
depending upon option . ·
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.
CEC has improved diesel plant efficiency, evaluated wind and solar, is currently assessing marine
hydrokinetic (MHK). None of these resources can reach feasibility when CEC is already spilling
excess hydro as much as 50% of the time (with BESS now in operation). The problem is that CEC
has to supplement with almost 100% diesel when rivers freeze up. Bulk storage solves this
problem . Strategically deploy HBC as a 1,250 kW resource when needed and a 0 kW resource
when Power Creek meets needs. This project actually assesses alternatives toward a best
solution based on years of 1-second resolution operating data to model best fit for now and future.
5.1.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues. See the "Environmental and Permitting Risks" section of the appropriate
Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance.
• List of applicable permits
• Anticipated permitting timeline
• Identify and describe potential barriers including potential permit timing issues, public
opposition that may result in difficulty obtaining permits, and other permitting barriers
The only permits needed for this study are land access permits, no water take, or resource take will
be involved so simple access to public lands will not create permitting dependencies. The
AEA 21010 Page 11 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
necessary permits and timeliness vary from project to project with resource ownership and land
status. CEC has independently applied for and received USACOE, ADF&G, DNR, ADEC, USFS,
FERC, City of Cordova, and Alaska Native Corporation permits. Future phases will rely on
strategic approach. For example, it is likely that CEC will pursue a non-jurisdictional determination
for HBC if storage looks feasible. CEC was able to successfully execute this for a very similar
project for $3,000 and CEC minimal staff time in under 6 months. This would likely save millions of
dollars in re-licensing fees in the future with FERC and would remove any question of whether an
upstream storage is jurisdictional. CEC is highly experienced in apply for, receiving, and
administering permits to their successful complete and final reporting phases .
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 .
At this feasibility stage, the site control is not a factor given the partnerships and working
relationship with ANC and USFS. Brief access for surface assessments and aerial I surface
imagery are the minimal on-site work efforts anticipated to be no more than one day at each site.
I 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.
These feasibility and reconnaissance assessments are specifically to identify and mitigate
technical risks -access and errors/omissions are primary risks to feasibility/reconnaissance
studies. This is mitigated by the experience and collaboration I cross checking amongst CEC staff
and McMillen-Jacobs team. The project risk is weather delays for field access, but the July-
October field access season is the perfect window between avalanche danger and fall storms, and
can be planned accordingly-CEC and helicopter support vendors are experienced in these tasks .
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
These considerations have been identified and managed/mitigated on CEC existing hydro projects,
and field reconnaissance to date indicates that there are no unanticipated barriers to next phases
of project execution. The Snyder Falls Creek, Raging Creek, and Power Creek sites are on USFS
AEA 21010 Page 12 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
land and would require a FERC licensing process with no anticipated fatal flaws. The Raging
Creek, site, however, has restrictive covenants on the land portion that much of the project and
transmission lines would occupy, which could take years or decades to resolve, even though they
are on corporation lands. One reason Raging Creek is a priority is that a better understanding of
the potential cost/benefit could elevate it to a land swap or land selection priority for the Alaska
Native Corporations (Eyak/Chugach Alaska) who are very enthusiastic about a potential project but
concerned about surface development restrictions . This is the primary project risk . However, the
existing logging roads and laydown area would likely save millions of dollars of development cost,
and occupy existing surface developments at Raging Creek.
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.
CEC operates two hydroelectric plants, a diesel generation plant, and a battery energy storage
system. All have been fully automated and are remotely operable. We have recently implement
high resolution power system monitoring in partnership with the US Dept. Of Energy (micro phasor
management units) and high resolution fuel metering which is giving us insights into hydro, diesel,
and energy storage technologies to best optimize additional generation on the grid.
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 ).
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, l!nit #3 (2500 KW13600 HP, EMD Model mechanical inj~c!Jon _
Unit 2: Diesel, Unit #4 (2403 KW) 3360 HP Fairbanks Morse Model mechanical injection
Unit 3: Diesel, Unit #5 (1090 KW 1469 HP Caterpilla~ Model 3516 mechanical inj_ection
Unit 4: Diesel, Unit #6 0090 KWJ 1469 HP CaterpiiiC!_r_Model 3~16 !!lec_ha~ical inj~~ion
Unit 5: Diesel, Unit #7 (3600 KW) 5000 HP EMD Model electronic injection
Unit 6: Hydro'-Unit #1 (~QO KW Dep_e_!ldable TurbLnes, Francis Turbine
Unit 7: H~dro, Unit #2 {500 KW} Dependable Turbines, Francis Turbine
Unit 8: !:!ydr_P., Unit #3 (250_KW) Dep~ndable Turbines, Francis Turbine
Unit 9J::!_ydro, Unit #4 {3000 K~} __ _
Unit 10: Hydro,_ Unit #5 (3000 KW) ---------
AEA 21010 Page 13 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) If yes estimated
annual displaced heating fuel (gallons)
5.4.2.2 Existing Distribution System
No
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
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 CEC distribution system is 100% underground and of a low average age of approximately 20
years due to an aggressive conversion from overhead to underground 1980-2010. The standard
voltage is 12.47 though Caterpillars and Humpback Creek generation is 480V and steps up to
12.47kV, and power Creek is 4160 and steps up to 25kV transmission and stepped down to
12.47kVa at the one central substation. Unit 3 EMD is also 4160V and steps up to 12.47 onto the
Orca Diesel Plant bus. The proposed projects would use 12.4 7 or 25 kV standard voltages due to
short distances and relatively small size (5MW or less).
_§~4~~_.3 Existin_g Th~rll!_al Generation Units (if appUcable to 110ur project)
Generation Resource/ Design Make Model Average Year Hours
unit Fuel type capacity annual Installed
(MMBtu/hr) _ _ efficiency
N/A ---r------
----------
----r---
5.4.2.4 O&M and replacement costs for Power Generation Thermal Generation
existing units
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $ 714,869
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $483,803
iii. Replacement schedule and cost for Diesels are likely to not
existing units be replaced but rebuilt
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 Generatio Gener Fuel Fuel Peak Minimu
Hydro n Diesel at ion Consumptio Consump Load m Load
(kWh) (kWh) (Type n tion
3) (Diesel-[Other]
(kWh) Gallon~
January 777,609 1,04,0626 76.~50 2362 758
February 507 ,380 1,000,245 J-76,149 -3570 1611
March 972 ,222 720 ,760 51_,355 3154 1590 ---
April 1 '195 , 129 534,532 38,780 4618 1470
May 1,907,452 58,223 4,127 4183 1678
June 2_!839_,_991 57,599 4,129 7602 2050 -July _1,294 ,275 393,999 29 ,521 8106 2431
August ~317,552 1,683 ,~05 120 ,294 8761 2565
Sep~mber 1,796,182 296,808 20,698 5795 1004
October "L 474_,836 185.!408 13,690 3345 1449 ---
AE A 21010 Page 14 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
A LASKA
ENERGY
AU T HORITY
----~ November 1,511,337 __lj ,284 r--5_! 177 3175 1168 -December
j
1,322,834 251,002 1?__.793 2927 1359
Total 19,916,800 6,293 ,691 458,064 r-
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 IQ.ads. Only include heat loads affected by_ th t!.project.
Month Diesel Electricity Propane Coal Wood Other
Januar~
February
March
-~~~ll ______
May
June J -
Jul
Al!gust -
September
October
November
December
Total
(Gallons) (Gallons) (Tons) (Cords,
~075
1,245
2 ,065
2 684
2,715
2,169
2,243
1,234
1,268
2,016
2,158
2,375
24 ,246
-----
green tons,
dry tons)
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.
CEC has very consistent 1% overall load growth in most rate classes except processor rate class
which vary widely with the volume of seafood processed in summer months. However, there is
strong and growing interest in Air Source Heating and EV adoption. CEC has not performed a power
requirements study but staff has very accurate, accessible, and visible data and contemplate the
following scenarios:
Worst Case: sudden loss of a large processor and sharp (20%) reduction in revenues
Likely Case: a continued gradual acceleration of load growth to 2%
Best Case: interruptible and dispatchable loads plus ASH and EVs result in 3-4% growth
The projects will perform well in all of these scenarios, because it offsets winter diesel which is the
stable and insurmountable barrier to 100% renewable without some bulk storage or badly overbuilt
wind/solar etc.
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
AEA 21010 Page 15 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
• 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 .
CEC assisted in the design and construction of both existing hydro plants and have the good fortune
of applying this institutional knowledge, in hand with a strong partner like McMillen , into best practices
projects. The feasibility studies will advise the designs, and CEC is experienced at integrating new
and complementary technologies onto our grid.
5.4.4.1 Pro osed Power Generation Units
Unit# Resource/ Design Make Model Expected Expected Expected
Fuel type capacity capacity life Availability
(kW) factor (years)
Raging_ 5,000 Pelton 30-40% 50 --l Pelton _§D.Y9~L. 5,000 30-40% 50
HBC stor~_ge l PC storage l --
L -
5.4.4.2 Proposed Thermal Generation Units (if applicable)
Generation Resource/ Design Make Model Expected Expected
unit Fuel type capacity Average life
(MMBtu/hr) annual
-efficiency
N/A -----c----
-!----~ ------1---
·----
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.
The CEC automation system will develop best practice controls manually, then embed them into our
automation algorithms to maximize fuel use, minimize operating costs, and maximize service
AEA 21010 Page 16 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENE RGY
AUTHORI T Y
reliability amongst these competing constraints. Hydro storage can be deployed instead of spilling
water, and the storage will be used instead of operating diesels. It is that simple .
l5.4.3.1 Expected Capacity I
Factor
40%
estimated
5.4.5.2 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Proposed System)
Month Generation Generation Generation Fuel Fuel Secondary
(Proposed (Type 2) (Type 3) Consumption Consumption load
System) (kWh) (kWh) (Diesel-[Other] (kWh)
.(kWh)_ Gallon~)
January -I
February feasibility
March will
April determine
Ma~ this
June -r July
August I
t September
October --
r November ---
December
Total
5.4.5.3 Annual Heating___fuel Consumption _(Proposed Syste"m)
Month Diesel Electricity Propane Coal
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
AUQ!!St
September
October¥.1
November
December
Total
(Gallons) (Gallons) (Tons)
Wood
(Cords,
green tons,
dry tons)
5.4.6 Proposed System Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
i
r
Other
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
AEA 21010 Page 17 of26 7/20/2020
Storage
(kWh)
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
A LAS KA
ENERGY
AU T HORITY
generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for
periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M .
Option 1: Diesel generation ON
For projects that do not result in shutting down $
diesel generation there is assumed to be no
impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate
the estimated annual O&M cost associated with
the proposed renewable project.
Option 2: Diesel generation OFF
For projects that will result in shutting down
diesel generation please estimate: 1. $30,000 storage
1. Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off 2. $75,000 new hydro (larger diesels off)
diesel generation
2. Estimated hours that diesel generation 3. Hours diesel OFF/year: 1500 storage
will be off per year.
3. Annual O&M costs associated with the 4. Hours diesel Off/year: 3000 new hydro
proposed renewable project.
5. $15,000/yr storage
4. $300,000/yr new hydro
5.4.7 Fuel Costs
Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system (Year 1 of
operation)
Unit cost
_($)
Annual
Units
Total
Annual
cost_($}_
_j
Diesel
lGallons)
N/A
Electricity
5.5 Performance and O&M Reporting
For construction projects only
5.5.1 Metering Equipment
Propane
(Gallons)
Coal
(Ton~
Wood Other
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be
used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request
for Applications.
CEC uses standard PQMs (power quality meters) on generation and switchgear busses, revenue
accuracy, and high-resolution fuel metering on all fuel. CEC is skilled in the procurement, calibration,
operation of the standard meters in our system. We seldom stray from standardized equipment in
new installations.
l 5.5.2 O&M reporting
AEA 21010 Page 18 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
Please provide a short narrative about the methods that will be used to gather and store reliable
operations and maintenance data, including costs, to comply with the operations reporting
req uirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Req uest for Ap p lications
CEC reports all of this information to the ADEC for fuel quality purposes, and the to the Rural Utility
Services in annual reports . We keep monthly generation, operations, and maintenance records that
are included in our Board of Director meeting packets and shared with attorney and lender on a
monthly or quarterly basis . We have robust and accurate accounting . This is not a
construction/o peration, but a feasibi l it y study application .
I SECTION 6-ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS
I 6.1 Economic Feasibility
1 6.1.1 Economic Benefit
Annual Lifetime
Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power
Generation (gallons)
Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat
(gallons)
Total Fuel displaced (gallons)
Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power
Generation ($)
Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat ($)
. 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
6.1.2 Economic Benefit
The economic costs and benefits are the key outcome of feasibility assessment. It is exactly why
CEC feels this process is important to conduct on a comprehensive scale, to assure that the right,
costly decisions are made by very careful and honest assessment of available options. CEC has
been continuously developing hydro projects and applying incremental improvements on a very
aggressive basis, with s ignificant support from AEA and federal partners, and have kept rates flat
for 20 years while supporting a rapidly growing economy with the stable electricity rates. CEC has
gone from 100% diesel to as high as 78% renewable while keeping rates flat, and that is one
project criteria; keep rates at least flat when developing renewables.
AEA 2 1010 Page 19 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
6.1.3 Economic Risks
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
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
There are no new or anticipated risk to future projects at these sites that we do not already have
some level of exposure to at other sites, which is why we harden them for seismic and other risks.
Cordova is a food/seafood producing community of significance ranking as high as top five in US
delivery in a sector where the US imports 94% of seafood. We have a stable (1 00 year) but
fluctuating industrial base, and many of the current threats of economic instability, pandemic, super
storms and global warming impacts, have done little to disrupt our business model or economics . A
risk to any new project threatens existing infrastructure. However, once a hydro project is built , it
provides secure energy to a region, and are not generally torn down or decommissioned if the owner
becomes insolvent: in the worst case scenarios they will support a community and provide a platform
for recovery from economic disaster. And they store water, another valuable community resource.
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 .
CEC only sells to members. We do not currently have, nor do we anticipate, special service
agreements for private customers.
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 ($)
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 :
Existing CEC hydro projects have elevated our community from 26th largest seafood port in the
U.S. on average ($50M economy) to 11th largest ($100M economy). More hydro and less diesel
would further support this industry, and allow better utilization and afford ability for winter seafood
processing and the growing aquaculture and mariculture farm applications which are gaining
momentum in and around Cordova (blue economy). Perhaps most exciting is the opportunity to
deploy renewables to offset diesel on the supply side for CEC, and on the customer side for
heating and transportation (air source heat pumps and EVs).
A E A 21010 Page 20 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application-Standard Form
SECTION 7-SUSTAINABILITY
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
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 plaA 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
CEC has operated and remained in compliance and best operating practices with our Power Creek
and Humpback Creek hydroelectric projects, overcoming design flaws and a classic dam failure at
Humpback Creek to the high performing projects we enjoy today. Both projects were recognized
by the International Engineering Associations global "best practices" list for environmental and
operational excellence. CEC is considered expert in hydro operations and often host training and
virtual tours of our projects for AEA and other industry partners when requested.
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.
CEC follows NARUC rate setting, even though we are an unregulated utility. We recognize when
infrastructure needs drive a need for a new rate analysis. We are embarking on one in 2020 due
to significant fuel reductions from the Battery Energy Storage System, and shifts in our customer
utilization since our last study almost 7 years ago .
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)
A EA 21010 Page 21 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
• Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
We collect revenues through our rate structure. CEC has been able to distribute capital credits for
the past three years to our customers; another indication of financial strength .
7.1.2.2 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price-at a minimum indicate a price range (consistent with the
Section 3.16 of the RFA)
Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price
range. Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project. Include letters of support
or power purchase agreement from identified customers.
All power purchase would follow our existing and proven rate recovery models, which are utility
and national standards driven.
II 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.
CEC already has this work in a steady process of execution, and the REF 13 grant opportunity just
happened to coincide with the CEC board and staff recognition that it was time to take a more
comprehensive look at several sites. CEC is ready to proceed upon award .
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.
CEC is, in conjunction with the Department of Energy, developing optimization of EV charging and
other dispatchable loads on our grids . Even modest hydro storage plus solar plus dispatchable
loads would elevate CEC to 90% renewable.
~ SECTION 9-LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
AEA 21010 Page 22 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
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 July 20, 2020. Please note that letters of
support from legislators will not count toward this criterion .
A CEC Board Resolution and letters of support from the primary landholder; the Eyak Corporation
and Chugach Alaska Corporation are included for reference.
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.
CEC has been awarded grants for Humpback Creek hydro reconstruction, a Diesel plant upgrade
that included Organic Rankine heat recovery, and a Power Creek renewable energy loan fund loan
for design. CEC has met reporting requirements for all of these projects and maintained
communication with AEA even after the reporting timelines (5 years) were exceeded. CEC has
also executed Emerging Energy Technology grants, Dept. of Energy and RUS grants.
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.
Snyder Falls Creek feasibility and Raging Creek Reconnaissance are included .
SECTION 12-LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
In the space below, please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration.
Mcmillen bas1s of est1mates and other reference documents above are Included for rev1ew .
AEA 21010 Page 23 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
I SECTION 13-AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM
Community/Grantee Name: Cordova, Alaska; Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Regular Election is held: March I Date: Annually
I Authorized Grant Signer(s):
Printed Name Title Term Signature
Clay R. Koplin CEO N/A ~;t"~ _:£)
I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents:
Must be authorized by the highest ranking organization/community/municipal official)
Printed Name Title Term Signature
Clay R. Koplin CEO N/A ~?/~~~,-~
/ ' I Grantee Contact Information:
Mailing Address: PO Box 20, Cordova, AK 99574-0020
Phone Number: (907) 424-5026 direct , (907) 253-5026 Mobile
Fax Number: (907) 424-5527
Email Address: ckoplin@cordovaelectric.com
Federal Tax ID #: 92-0069167
Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information.
AEA 21010 Page 24 of26 7/20/2020
Renewable Energy Fund Round 13
Grant Application -Standard Form
SECTION 14-ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
ALASKA
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Contact information and resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project Accountant(s),
key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1, 3.4 and
3.6.
Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic
documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site.
B. Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 9.
C. For projects involving heat: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel
for the building(s) impacted by the project.
D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing
body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
• Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match
amounts indicated in the application.
• Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the
organization to the obligations under the grant.
• Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
'application.
• Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws
including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFA
Section 1.7.
F. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and
that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations.
Print Name ti~Y /{~?JL/IJ
Signature ~/l~
Title t;eo
Date 9 jz gj:z u
A E A 21010 Page 25 of 26 7/20/2020
Table of Contents
Attachments :
• CEC Board Resolution of Support and Commitment (1 page)
• CEC Staff Resumes (4 pages)
• Cordova Hydro Feasibility map (1 page)
• Snyder Fall Feasibility Cost Study Excerpts (22 pages)
• Raging Creek Reconnaissance Excerpts (11 Pages)
• McMillen Proposal and Basis of Estimate (17 Pages)
• CEC Project Costs to Date (8 pages)
• AEA Letter Encouraging Regional Assessment (8 pages)
• McMillen Letters of Reference (6 pages)
• Chugach I Eyak Letters of Support (2 pages)
• Lidar Proposal (3 pages)
• AEA Grant Progress Report Sample (3 pages)
• CEC Budget Sheets (2 pages)
• CEC August 2020 Cash Flow (1 page)
COR DO
CTRIC
OOPERA TlVE IN
P.O. Box 20, 705 Second Street, Cordova, Alaska 99574-0020 • (907) 424-5555 * Fax (907) 424-5527
CEC BOARD RESOLUTION 20-04
A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR A RENEW ABLE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
GRANT THROUGH THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR THE CORDOVA AREA
HYDRO ASSESSMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS it is the strategic goal of Cordova Electric Cooperative to provide 90% of electricity with
renewable energy by 2025 and reduce dependence upon fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, on average CEC provides 70% of electricity with renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, CEC has institutional knowledge and expertise in building, operating, and maintaining
hydroelectric facilities; and
WHEREAS the potential to increase the hydro resource at the existing hydro power plant locations of
Humpback Creek and Power Creek has not been assessed; and
WHEREAS there are multiple locations surrounding the Cordova region that may be feasible for a
hydroelectric facility; and
WHEREAS there is an economy of scale in assessing several potential sites simultaneously; and
WHEREAS, in a memo dated April 13, 2017 titled Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment,
the Alaska Energy Authority recommends CEC consider Raging Creek hydro resources; and
WHEREAS, CEC has prioritized alternative hydro resources and conducted a pre-feasibility study on
Raging Creek that indicates a feasibility study is warranted for conventional and pumped storage hydro,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Cordova Electric Cooperative
Inc. approve and endorse the PROJECT.
Passed and approved this .l.:, day of ktt ... t.v..._, 2020.
Res 20-04 -AEA Round 13 Grant.docx
Cordova Electric
Cooperative
MCMILLEN, LLC
Snyder Falls Creek
Hydroelectric Project
Final Feasibility Cost Estimate
Prepared For: Cordova Electric
Cooperative
Prepared By: McMillen, LLC
October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Pertinent Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 1
1.5 Report Organization ...................................................................................................................... 2
Section 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Engineering Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Engineering Geology and Dam Considerations ............................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Engineering Geology .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Dam Types .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Construction Materials .................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 Future Investigations ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Dam ............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Reservoir ..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Intake ........................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.5 Power Conduit ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.6 Powerhouse ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2. 7 Transmission Facilities ............................................................................................................... 11
Section 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Construction Approach and Cost Estimate ................................................................................................. 12
3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 General ........................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Basis of Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................ 12
3.3 Cost Items ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Project Construction .................................................................................................................... \3
3.4.1 Site Access .................................................................................................................................. \3
3.4.2 Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 13
3 .4.3 Construction Methodology ......................................................................................................... 13
3.4.4 Unusual Conditions (Soil, Water, and Weather) ......................................................................... 13
3 .4.5 Unique Construction Techniques ................................................................................................ 13
3.5 Construction Approach ............................................................................................................... L 4
3.5 .1 Mobilization ................................................................................................................................ 14
3.5.2 Site Access .................................................................................................................................. 14
3.5.3 Dam Structure ............................................................................................................................. 14
3 .5 .4 Penstock ...................................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.5 Electrical and Communication .................................................................................................... 15
3.5.6 Powerhouse & Equipment .......................................................................................................... 15
3.5.7 Switchyard & Transmission Line ............................................................................................... 15
3.6 Project Cost Summary ................................................................................................................ 15
3.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 15
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page ii October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Section 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 17
TABLES
Table 1-1. Report Organization and Purpose ............................................................................................... 2
Table 2-1. Preliminary Evaluation of Dam Types ....................................................................................... 6
Table 3-1. Estimated Project Costs (October 2013 dollars) ....................................................................... 16
FIGURES
Figure 2-1. This USGS topographic map of the project area presents some of the glacial and tectonic
features present relative to the lower dam site. Note the lineament mapped immediately southeast of the
lower dam site ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2-2. This photograph is an oblique view of the lower dam site during the winter season. Note the
abrupt vegetation line on the west side of the creek and the recent slide activity emanating from the snow
chutes on the eastern ridge. Photograph source is Google Maps .................................................................. 6
Figure 2-3. Area Map of Snyder Falls Creek Project.. ............................................................................... 10
Appendix A -Cost Estimate Assumptions
Appendix B -Bid Totals and Cost Reports
Appendix C-Figures
Appendix D-Photographs
Feasibility Cost Estimate
APPENDICES
Page iii October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
1.0 Introduction
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Section 1 presents the overall project organization, scope, and background as well as the purpose of the
cost estimate study.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present a feasibility level discussion of the construction approach and
estimated project cost for the proposed Snyder Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project).
1.2 Scope
The scope of this feasibility level cost estimate study included:
• Visit the project site to view the proposed location and site conditions for the proposed Project;
• Obtain available data related to the Project development including photos, previous reports and
studies, and proposed project features;
• Develop options for accessing the project site and constructing the project features;
• Prepare a feasibility level cost estimate for the Project.
• Summarize the analysis and results in a cost estimate report.
1.3 Background
Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) submitted a Notice of Intent to file for an original license to
construct and operate the Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located near Cordova,
Alaska in 2009. Within this submittal, a Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the Project was included
which outlined the basic features of the project which included:
• A 100-to 150-foot high concrete dam impounding a 433 to 933 acre reservoir, respectively;
• A power conduit approximately 3600 feet long from the reservoir to the powerhouse;
• A powerhouse, switchyard, and other appurtenant facilities near tidewater; and
• A primary transmission line of submarine and overhead or underground construction.
1.4 Pertinent Data Sources
The following data sources were used in developing the cost estimate study:
• "Site Reconnaissance and Hydrology, Snyder Falls Creek" PowerPoint presentation prepared by
Cordova Electric Cooperative, April 16 2013.
• "Application for Preliminary Permit for the Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project near
Cordova, Alaska", submitted by Cordova Electric Cooperative to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, November 2008.
• "Notice of Intent, Pre-Application Document, Request to Use Alternative Licensing Procedures,
Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13238-000", prepared by Cordova Electric
Cooperative, October 2009.
• Aerial Images and Site Photos provided by Cordova Electric Cooperative, September 2013.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 1 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
1.5 Report Organization
The report presents the feasibility level review and cost estimate preparation for the Project. The report is
organized to provide a logical representation of the cost estimate preparation for the Snyder Creek
Hydroelectric Project. The major report sections and intended purpose are presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Report Organization and Purpose
Section D~crlption Purpose
1 Introduction Summarizes the project purpose back~round and scoiJe
Presents the engineering considerations and assumptions
2 Engineering Considerations which served as the baseline for preparing the project cost
estimates
3 Construction Approach and Cost Outlines the construction approach and associated cost
Estimate estimates for the proposed project
4 Conclusions Summarizes the approach, conclusions, and
recommendations from the study work effort
Appendices
A Cost Estimate Assumptions Outlines the assumptions used in developing the cost
estimates
B Cost Estimates Contains the cost breakdown and data
c Access Options Presents sketches of the proposed access options
considered for project construction
D Photographs Consists of relevant photos of the proposed project site
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 2 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
2.0 Introduction
SECTION2
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Section 2 presents a brief overview of the engineering considerations associated with the Project. The
information presented within this section was obtained from the reference documents (see paragraph 1.4)
and the project team judgment related to the Project development.
2.1 Engineering Geology and Dam Considerations
2.1.1 Engineering Geology
The project site is located within a glacially-carved cirque valley and the lower dam site is sited at the lip
of this geologic feature (Figure 1 ). Based on reconnaissance photographs a small cirque nick-point is
present at the lip, creating the incised channel that present today. The sides of this nick-point appear to be
bedrock.
Bedrock geology at the project site is anticipated to consist of thinly to thickly bedded greywacke
sandstone with interbedded fine-grained rock types. The beds are steeply dipping (-80 degrees) to the
south and are readily evident in bedrock exposed along valley walls. Published geologic maps and
reconnaissance lineament mapping indicate there is a prominent lineament that trends north northeast
across the valley immediately upstream ofthe lower dam site. Bedrock in the vicinity of this lineament is
likely highly fractured due to movement along it.
The majority of major lineaments mapped in the area have similar trends as that shown on Figure 1.
However; there are mapped lineaments that trend to the northwest. This is a similar orientation as the
Snyder Falls Creek drainage. Several northwest trending joints are visible in oblique aerial photographs of
the nick point. The potential for a lineament trending down the drainage access should be evaluated as
part of the site investigation.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 3 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Figure 2-1. This USGS topographic map of the project area presents some of the glacial and tectonic
features present relative to the lower dam site. Note the lineament mapped immediately southeast of the lower
dam site.
Just upstream ofthe cirque lip, the valley floor is mantled by glacial soils that appear to be a combination
of gravelly morainal and alluvial deposits. The thickness of these soils is unknown but is not likely to
extend significantly below the depth of nick-point. Further up the valley, bedrock outcrop exposures are
predominant in the valley floor.
Based on preliminary evaluations the primary engineering geology uncertainty that could influence
project feasibility and cost include:
• Rock mass quality of the lower dam abutments
• Seepage along faults and fractures
• Slope stability at the dam abutments and slopes surrounding the reservoir
• Snow avalanches
Rock Mass Quality-Rock mass quality at the lower dam abutments will influence foundation support
capacity for the dam and the configuration of how the dam connects into the abutment hill slopes. The
rock lip lacks passive support on the downstream side as the slopes drop steeply off to the north. Aerial
oblique photographs collected at the site indicate the rock appears to be moderately to highly fractured
with thin to thick bedding. The thin interbeds are likely to be significantly weaker than the greywacke.
Rock quality may also be compromised due to the presence of a large lineament immediately south of the
lower dam site. Rock quality will need further evaluation to determine bearing capacity and the potential
for rock block failure. These evaluations will influence the selection of the type of dam that most suitable
for the site.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 4 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Seepage -Seepage is the loss of reservoir water through fractures and openings in a rock mass or
interstitially in soils. Seepage is often worsened by the presence of highly fractured or faulted bedrock. If
not controlled, seepage through rock and soil can lead to local slope instabilities or worst case, dam
foundation failure. In addition, water volume loss through seepage under and around the dam would
represent a significant drop in overall project efficiency.
The through-going lineament mapped near the downstream abutment is likely to have created zones of
higher permeability bedrock. Since the lineament roughly parallels the primary drainage to the north, the
potential for seepage pathways perpendicular to the dam axis may have limited through-going pathways
by the presence of fine-grained bedrock interbeds. However, the potential for a northwest trending
lineament through the nick-point could create a preferential pathway for seepage to the north.
Slope Stability -The primary slope stability hazards within the project area are rockfall and rock slides.
Rock cliffs along the eastern ridge above both dam sites are likely to produce small to large rockfall
events. These are unlikely to significantly impact the lower dam site but could damage the penstock and
ancillary structures within the project area. Therefore , the project infrastructure should be designed to
either avoid or resist rockfall impacts.
Rockslides are typically much less frequent but can be significantly more damaging. A moderate
rockslide may result in minor to moderate damage to project infrastructure . Large rockslide events may
discharge directly to the reservoir, potentially producing a seiche that could overtop the dam when the
reservoir is full. Evidence of large scale rock slope failure was not observed in the reconnaissance
photographs.
Snow Avalanche -There is significant exposure to snow avalanche hazards within the project area. At
the lower dam site there are several avalanche chutes that extend over 900 feet above the dam foundation.
Vegetation and recent snow slide history (Photograph l) indicate that snow slides regularly reach the
creek channel. Similar hazards are present at the upper dam site in association with the eastern ridgeline.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 5 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Figure 2-2. This photograph is an oblique view of the lower dam site during the winter season. Note the
abrupt vegetation line on the west side of the creek and the recent slide activity emanating from the snow
chutes on the eastern ridge. Photograph source is Google Maps.
2.1.2 Dam Types
A preliminary evaluation of suitable dam types is summarized in Table 2-l. Based OI} site and seasonal
construction constraints it appears that a concrete arch dam would be the most favorable type of structure
based on current information. Alternative dam types may be considered based on geologic and site
constraints.
Table 2-1. Preliminary Evaluation of Dam Types.
Dam Advantages Key Considerations Structure
• Limited amounts of concrete • Rock needs to be hard, durable, and resistant to
required weathering-high quality rock appears to be present in
• Simpler to construct relative to valley upstream
concrete structures -need • Structure requires relatively wide footprint -slopes on
earthmoving equipment only the order of 1.5H: 1 V -2H: 1 V
• Can be constructed in poor • Requires an impermeable membrane-a natural source
Rockfill Dam weather (rainfall does not (clay) is unlikely so would require artificial barrier such
significantly impact) as concrete
• Materials almost entirely • Settlement needs to be limited to maintain impermeable
available on site membrane distress
• Lowest foundation demands
• Adaptable to a range of
foundation and abutment
conditions
Concrete • Structure has a smaller • A high quality rock source for aggregate required for
Gravity/RCC footprint than a rockfill RCC or PCC -It appears that local rock quality is
Dam-structure suitable for aggregate
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 6 October 30,2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
• Foundation demands less than • Structure width in between rockfill and concrete arch -
concrete arch typical width ranges from 2/3x to lx height of
• Adaptable to a range of structure .
foundation and abutment • Limited suitable aggregates source materials <3" in
conditions size. Aggregate would likely have to be processed on
• Can be curved or straight site.
• Needs competent rock foundation
• More weather sensitive than rockfill
• Smallest structural footprint • Structure requires a relatively narrow gorge, typically
• Structure requires lowest crest length:height ratio Is <1 0 : I -the site appears to
concrete volume, therefore meet this criteria
potentially least expensive • A high quality rock source for aggregate required for
RCC or PCC -It appears that local rock quality is
suitable for aggregate
Concrete Arch • Limited suitable aggregates source materials <3" in
Dam size. Aggregate would likely have to be processed on
site.
• Very high foundation and abutment load demands -
need high quality rock in foundation and abutments
Need high quality rock source for concrete aggregate-
rock would be processed on site
• More weather sensitive than rockfill
Dam Site Evaluation. Based on review of the site topography, geomorphology, and aerial photos, it
appears that the site is favorable both geologically and geometrically for the siting of a dam structure.
The rock appears to have both high strength and weathering resistance which indicates that the foundation
bearing capacity is likely sufficient for a concrete arch-type structure. This type of structure generally
requires the highest foundation demands of any dam type, and thus the site may also be feasible for
alternative structures such as a concrete or roller compacted concrete (RCC) gravity dam. The visible
rock conditions and geomorphology also suggest a low to moderate risk of encountering significant
seepage, and that seepage may be adequately controlled with a foundation and abutment grouting
program.
A concrete arch dam is potentially the most economical structure as it requires the least amount materials
to construct. Such a structure also has the most stringent foundation requirements.
Upper Dam Site Options. Potential sites for a second, shorter storage dam exist in the basin above the
lower dam. Based on photos from the area, rock outcrops at the surface in these areas. These structures
would have relatively large crest length to height ratios, and rockfill or gravity structures would be
applicable. These sites would take advantage of favorable foundation and topographic conditions but
would also be more vulnerable to rock fall and avalanche conditions.
2.1.3 Construction Materials
The cost of any dam structure in a remote location is highly influenced on the availability high quality
construction materials for use in fill and for concrete aggregate. The valley upstream of the dam appears
to have a limited volume of fine aggregates due to glaciation; however, rock shallow rock is prevalent,
which could be mined for use as aggregate.
The rock quality in the valley appears to be high . Weaker, more highly fractured rock has likely been
scoured from the valley due to glacial erosion, leaving stronger, more highly resistant rock. There are near
vertical rock outcrops in the east side of the basin that have accumulated very little rock talus. This
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 7 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
suggests rock of high strength and durability, as talus has not been produced due to weathering of
fractures and freeze-thaw action. It is anticipated that the native rock quality is sufficient for concrete
aggregates.
It is likely that material processing will be required to generate aggregates and other construction
materials required for any dam structure. Processing will include sorting, screening, crushing, and
potentially mining of rock.
Native rock characteristics, durability, and suitability for use in concrete will be identified during future
site investigations. These investigations will also characterize the thickness of overburden soils, and their
potential for use as construction materials as well.
The sand, gravel and cobble deposits at the lower dam site could also be processed and used for concrete
aggregate. An additional benefit to using this material as an aggregate source is that the unit volume of
material removed results in additional reservoir storage.
2.1.4 Future Investigations
A number of issues need to be investigated further to characterize the suitability of the site for a concrete
arch dam:
• Overburden Soils: Based on aerial photos, it appears that there may be 20 feet or more of
overburden soils along the creek channel at the dam site. These materials will need to be
excavated to competent rock for any new structure. Deep soils may require the use of temporary
shoring and dewatering systems.
• Abutment Strength: The ridge that the dam abutments will tie into is oriented perpendicular to the
line of thrust generated· at these locations. The abutment rock strength will need to be investigated
to determine if sufficient strength/mass of rock is present to support the structure.
• Downstream Geometry: The dam site is located near the crest of a significant slope dropping to
the valley floor at sea level. The stability of this slope will need to be evaluated, especially in
light of the large foundation loads for a concrete arch structure. The foundation may also provide
limited passive resistance due to geometry.
Characterization of the site should be conducted in a phased approach due to investigation cost and
logistics associated with the site location. The preliminary investigation phase would be broken down into
the following work phases.
Phase 1 Preliminary Geological Reconnaissance: This effort would focus on collecting geologic
information at the site though non-invasive methods. An initial desktop study would be followed by a
field reconnaissance to map and characterize rock outcrops and soil deposits as well as identification of
geological hazards. Particular attention would be focused on characterizing the rock mass in the vicinity
of mapped lineaments. Potential abutments would be mapped to identify potential rock blocks for stability
analysis. A geophysical program could be included to define the depth of unconsolidated deposits as well
as potentially image the major north northeast lineament that crosses the drainage. A primary objective of
this work would be identification of potential fatal flaws associated with the project location and proposed
structure type.
Samples of the surficial deposits would be collected to characterize onsite aggregate suitability for
potential use as fill or in concrete mixes. These samples would be tested for strength, durability, and
soundness.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 8 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Ground base survey of a remote location can be a considerable project cost at this phase of the project. An
alternative to this is the collection of a high resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey of
the basin area. With sufficient ground control absolute accuracy of the final OEM would likely be well
below a foot for the entire basin. This data could be obtained at considerable cost savings and used for
preliminary engineering. This date could also be used for basin hydraulics, avalanche hazard analysis and
identification of rock blocks in the vicinity of the dam abutments. Actual ground survey would be limited
to the immediate dam areas as part of final design.
Phase 2 Preliminary Subsurface Investigation. The initial geotechnical investigation would be
designed to collect sufficient subsurface information to inform preliminary design and identify potential
fatal flaws. This would include subsurface explorations along the ridge at the lip of the glacial cirque to
assess their suitability as abutments. Borings would be intercepted to target potential lineaments for
characterization. The proposed foundation locations for both the lower and upper would be investigated
for overburden thickness and to characterize bedrock conditions. Because the bedrock is rotated to a near
vertical orientation, angled borings will be required to better characterize the rock mass.
Both insitu and laboratory testing would be conducted to develop rock mass characteristics. Insitu testing
would include packer testing and the installation of vibrating wire piezometers to characterize rock mass
permeability and groundwater levels. Laboratory testing would include index testing of surficial soils as
well as strength testing of rock samples. This information would be used to characterize the rock mass for
geotechnical engineering analyses.
Future Phases: Based on the results of the preliminary phases of investigation, future phases would
likely entail additional detailed geologic mapping and supplementary subsurface investigations to further
characterize geotechnical conditions and develop dam design.
2.2 Project Description
2.2.1 Location
The Project would be located approximately 5 miles north of Cordova, Alaska (Figure 2-3). The Project
is located on the Alaskan mainland, within the Unorganized Borough of the State of Alaska. The
approximate geographic coordinates for the Project are: N60 deg 39", Wl45 deg 35".
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 9 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Figure 2-3. Area Map of Snyder Falls Creek Project
2.2.2 Dam
As outlined in the PAD, the dam would be a concrete arch design located in the narrow canyon
approximately 4 miles from tidewater. The existing canyon appears to support a maximum dam height of
approximately 150 feet based on topographic features. The arch nature of the dam structure would
transfer the loads from the dam section into the rock abutments allowing a thin concrete section to be
utilized. In order to develop estimated quantities to support the cost estimate effort, similar concrete arch
dams located in Alaska were used to determine an estimated dam configuration. The Blue Lake Dam
located near Sitka Alaska is a thin shell concrete arch dam approximately 149 feet tall which is currently
being raised by 83 feet to a height of 269 feet. The dam crest is approximately 256 feet long with a
conventional 140 foot long ogee crest overflow spillway located in the center of the dam. The dam
thickness varies from 25 feet at the base to 8 feet at the crest. Swan Lake Dam located near Ketchikan,
Alaska is a thin shell concrete arch dam with a height of 174 feet and a crest with of 480 feet. Similar to
Blue Lake, the dam has a conventional ogee overflow spillway located in the center of the dam. The dam
thickness varies from 17 feet at the base to 6 feet at the crest. Using these two dam configurations, the
Snyder Creek Dam was assumed to have the following characteristics:
• Height of 150 feet
• Crest length of 250 feet
• Conventional ogee crest overflow spillway 100 feet long
• Dam thickness ranging from 24 feet at the base to 8 feet at the crest with an average of 12 feet
used to determine the estimated concrete volume.
• Dam is keyed into the rock abutment and foundation.
2.2.3 Reservoir
The reservoir created by the 150 foot dam would create a reservoir with a surface area of approximately
25.1 acres . The reservoir volume would be approximately 943 acre-feet.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 10 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
2.2.4 Intake
During construction, it is anticipated that Snyder Creek will be diverted through a hard rock tunnel
excavated through the rock abutment. For the purpose of developing the cost estimate, it was assumed
that the powerhouse intake would be constructed on the diversion tunnel with the penstock routed to the
powerhouse. This would allow the spillway to discharge into the canyon downstream from the dam. An
isolation gate would be constructed on the upstream face of the intake to allow dewatering of the intake
structure and penstock for inspection purposes. A low level release would also be provided through the
dam.
2.2.5 Power Conduit
The power conduit would consist of a welded steel penstock approximately 3600 feet in length extending
from the dam to the powerhouse. The penstock would be routed through the diversion tunnel then be
surface mounted along the lower reaches of the penstock alignment.
2.2.6 Powerhouse
The powerhouse would consist of a pre-engineered metal building constructed on a reinforced concrete
foundation. The building would have a footprint of approximately 50 feet by 80 feet and a structure
height of approximately 30 feet. A concrete thrust block would be located on the upstream side of the
powerhouse to resist the thrust loads from the penstock loading. The powerhouse would be placed at
approximately 20 feet with the maximum operating reservoir level of 1464 feet providing a rated head on
the turbine of approximately 1430 feet. Assuming an average discharge of 53 cubic feet per second ( cfs)
based on existing hydrology, the powerhouse would have a rated capacity of approximately 3 MW. The
powerhouse would be fitted with a single impulse turbine.
2.2. 7 Transmission Facilities
The Project power would be conveyed from the powerhouse switchyard to the existing Humpback Creek
project transmission facilities located approximately 4.5 miles from the Project site. A new 12.5 kilovolt
(kV) transmission cable would be constructed between the Snyder Creek and Humpback Creek project
sites. The transmission line would consist of either overhead or submarine lines depending on the site
specific characteristics. The new transmission line would connect with CEC's existing transmission
facilities at the Humpback Creek hydroelectric project located approximately 5.1 miles North of Cordova.
This existing line currently connects the Humpback Creek project with CEC's electrical distribution
network in the Cordova service area.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page II October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
SECTION 3
CONSTRUCTION APPROACH AND COST ESTIMATE
3.0 Introduction
This section presents the conceptual cost estimate for the Project. The cost estimate was prepared based
upon recent similar projects and past historical costs. A discussion of the basis for developing the
estimate is presented in the following paragraphs.
3.1 General
The pricing presented within this section is considered a feasibility level cost estimate for the Project.
The presented costs are budgetary estimates based upon reasonable assumptions (see Appendix A) for
work in this location and under the anticipated conditions found in the area. These prices are not intended
to represent the lowest possible cost to perform the work under competitively bid conditions, but instead
are intended for budgetary purposes only. The cost estimate for this project has been broken into the
following cost items:
• General Conditions
• Mobilization
• Site Access
• Dam Structure
• Penstock
• Powerhouse & Equipment
• .switchyard & Transmission Line
Appendix A presents additional clarifications and assumptions used in developing the cost estimate .
3.2 Basis of Cost Estimate
The included cost estimate for the Project is based upon the information provided by Cordova Electric
Cooperative in the Application for Preliminary Permit for the Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project.
The provided costs are based upon the quantities and dimensions stated in the application document
referenced above. Additionally, several options for site access routes for personnel and equipment to
reach the dam and intake location were developed. Each of these access options have been priced are
included in the provided cost estimate backup.
3.3 Cost Items
The cost estimate prepared and presented in Table 1-1 reflects the anticipated construction cost based
upon current market conditions for similar work. The presented costs are based upon current prices and
should be escalated appropriately to the anticipated mid-point of construction for accurate future costs.
Costs are based upon construction work only the client can expect to pay to the general contractor, and do
not include the costs for permitting, design, or construction inspection and oversight.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 12 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
3.4 Project Construction
3.4.1 Site Access
The project site is located 7.4 miles north of Cordova, Alaska on the Snyder Falls Creek. It is assumed
that all construction operations will take place on property owned or operated by CEC. Multiple options
have been identified for access to the upper limits of the project and are presented in the included cost
estimate backup . It is assumed that the necessary amount of space required for project staging, material
laydown, and job office set-up will be available the various work locations.
3.4.2 Materials
Readily available construction materials are assumed to be used on this project including the use of onsite
aggregates for use as sub-base material as well as in onsite hatched concrete. The following equipment
and materials required for this project would be considered long lead items and the
submittal/approval/fabrication process should be started as early as feasible and expedited where possible:
• Steel Penstock Pipe
• Gates, Valves, and Operators
• Electrical and Communication Cable
• Turbine/Generator Equipment
• Powerhouse Building
• Bridge Crane
• Switchyard Equipment
• Transmission Line
3.4.3 Construction Methodology
Standard construction practices, materials, and equipment are anticipated on this project with any possible
exceptions being noted in Appendix A.
3.4.4 Unusual Conditions (Soil, Water, and Weather)
The work season near Cordova, Alaska is anticipated to be approximately June through October. With
the short work season and remote location, it is assumed that the selected general contractor will maintain
working operations for multiple shifts in each day as well as a minimum of 6 working days per week.
Wet conditions are anticipated requiring dewatering during below grade activities. Additionally, it is
assumed that diversion of water via cofferdams will likely be required for the construction of the dam
structure as well construction of the tailrace channel.
3.4.5 Unique Construction Techniques
While the techniques are not atypical to the installation of hydropower facilities, careful planning shall be
put into the following work items, with specific thought put towards activity sequencing, worker safety,
and task efficiency. These considerations should include:
• Location and construction of barge landing facilities for mobilization and staging.
• Installation of site access roads to allow safe and efficient transport of personnel and equipment
to all work areas.
• Tunneling for both access purposes as well as possible dual use for penstock routing.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 13 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
• Construction of the 100 or 150 foot tall arch dam structure.
• Penstock installation through steep terrain
• Weather protection; especially pertaining to cold weather concreting.
3.5 Construction Approach
3.5.1 Mobilization
Mobilization of equipment and materials will be accomplished via barge transport from major port
locations, likely Seattle/Tacoma or Bellingham, Washington as well as Anchorage, Alaska. It is
anticipated that a barge landing location will be developed either at the Humpback Creek hydro-facility
location or further north in Nelson Bay, closer to Snyder Falls Creek. Early efforts will be required to
develop the barge landing facility prior to arrival of heavy equipment and full material deliveries.
3.5.2 Site Access
Several site access options were identified in an attempt to determine both the most cost effective as well
as the most feasible option for safe and efficient personnel and equipment transport to the dam and intake
location. While the options all vary in scope and cost, all contain varying lengths of a lower access road,
a tunnel section through the steep terrain, and an upper access road. The options explored include the
following:
• Option 1: Barge Lan ding at Humpback Creek -This option involves the development of a barge
landing and offloading facility near to the existing Humpback Creek hydropower facility on
Nelson Bay. Access to the upper work areas will be through the further development of the
existing humpback creek intake road to the location of the lower tunnel portal (see Appendix C).
• Option 2: Barge Landing at Humpback Creek w/ Roadway at Shoreline-This option involves
the development of a barge landing and offloading facility near to the existing Humpback Creek
hydropower facility on Nelson Bay. An access road will be constructed along the shoreline to the
north until the first suitable location (identified as Option 2 in Appendix C) for an access road up
the hill can be created. It is assumed that multiple "avalanche sheds" will be required for this
option to protect the shoreline road from being buried by avalanching snows.
• Option 3: Barge Landing at Humpback Creek w/ Roadway at Shoreline-This option is similar to
Option 2 as described above, but requires additional road at the shoreline prior to beginning the
access road up to the dam site. The tunnel length required for Option 3 is shorter than that in
Option 2.
• Option 4: Barge Landing near Snyder Falls Creek -This option involves the development of a
barge landing and offloading facility in the northern reach of Nelson Bay near to the proposed
powerhouse location. Dredging near the shoreline may be required to allow for barges to access
the shoreline near the northern reaches of Nelson Bay. This option allows for the shortest tunnel
distance as well as upper access road from the upper tunnel exit portal to the dam site.
3.5.3 Dam Structure
Construction of the dam structure will require the construction of a batch plant facility onsite, likely near
to the dam structure location where gravel deposits are available for use in hatching. In addition to the
batchplant, it is also anticipated that a small crusher or screen plant will also be required to process the
gravels for use as structural fill, sub-base, and for use in the structural concrete mix. While equipment
sizes will ultimately be based upon the site access limitations (% grade of roads and tunnel diameter), a
crane will be required at the dam location for the placement and lifting of formwork, lifting of rebar
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 14 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
cages, and the placement of concrete material. Either a mobile crane or a tower crane has potential for
use on this project assuming the necessary picking heights and capacities can be met. Prior to
construction of the dam, diversion of the existing Snyder Falls Creek will be required through the use of
bulk sandbags, temporary sheetpile, or other flow diversion methods. This may require construction of
the dam in a phased approach, until water can be passed through the intake structure located at the base of
the dam.
3.5.4 Penstock
The 24 inch steel penstock will be installed either above ground with the use of anchor blocks and pipe
supports or direct buried. In either scenario and depending upon the decided site access location, is
possible to use the created access tunnel for penstock routing as well. If it is not possible to route the
penstock through the access tunnel, than steep portions of the project may require the use of a cable crane
or helicopter support to transport, stage, and place penstock segments.
3.5.5 Electrical and Communication
An allowance of $2.5 million was included to account for electrical and communication cables which will
be installed alongside the penstock routing to allow for control of the intake gates from powerhouse
location.
3.5.6 Powerhouse & Equipment
The cost of a 50 foot by 80 foot pre-engineered metal building powerhouse facility, which will include the
complete turbine/generator equipment, switchgear, and overhead bridge crane. Additionally, this item
includes the installation of an assumed cast-in-place concrete tailrace channel.
3.5. 7 Switch yard & Transmission Line
This line item is based upon the installation of a pre-engineered switchgear building, a standby generator
with enclosure, and a step up transformer building, all located immediately adjacent to the powerhouse
building. Additionally, the cost for installation of the 4.5 submarine transmission line from the new
powerhouse to the existing humpback powerhouse switchyard.
3.6 Project Cost Summary
This conceptual cost estimate was generated in October of 2013 and is based upon the provided
Application for Preliminary Permit of the Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project. The cost estimate is
reflective of current market pricing and the best information available for the anticipated project direction
for those areas where complete details or specifications are not currently available. Additional cost
backup for each option is provided in Appendix B.
3.7 Conclusions
Table 3-1 indicates the Total Construction Cost associated with the varwus project access options.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 15 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
Table 3-1. Estimated Project Costs (October 2013 dollars)
Bld:Oolltii' · Hob ,~~ ... t -'A.::r'_,-JJ _ ., ..
Estimate Low (-30%) High (+30%)
Access Option 1 $91,032,000 $63,722,000 $118,341,000
Access Option 2 $90,080,000 $63,056,000 $117,104,000
Access Option 3 $83 ,647,000 $58,553 ,000 $108,742,000
Access Option 4 $67,713,000 $47,399,000 $88,027,000
See Appendix B for supporting cost estimate data.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 16 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
SECTION 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
The available data related to the Project was collected and reviewed to develop a finn understanding of
the site specific characteristics of the proposed hydroelectric project. In reviewing the project features, it
was evident that access for construction equipment, labor, and materials was a driving factor affecting the
overall project construction cost. The remote location coupled with challenging site topography has a
significant impact on the ability to access the dam site. Several options were identified and developed as
part of the cost estimate preparation. Once construction access is established, the short construction
window is the second major challenge. The main construction window of June through October in the
upper basin where the dam is located presents construction sequencing challenges requiring multiple
work shifts to execute the dam construction within the available weather window.
Based on the available topographic mapping and geologic information, a 150 foot concrete thin shell dam
located within the existing natural narrow canyon appears feasible . Extending the dam above a 150 foot
height may be feasible, but additional site specific topographic mapping will be required as well geologic
investigations to determine the extent of suitable rock in which to concrete dam abutments. For the
purpose of the cost estimate preparation, a 150 foot dam height was assumed. Upper storage dams
constructed from local rock were also considered. These dams, thought feasible, present more challenges
related to long term stability due to the harsh environmental conditions.
Overall, the Snyder Creek Hydroelectric Project was determined to be a feasible project with costs
ranging from $88 million to $118 million depending on the selected access route option.
4.2 Recommendations
Based on the feasibility level cost review, the Snyder Creek Hydroelectric Project is considered to be
technically feasible with an estimated cost range of $88 million to $118 million. Additional on-site
investigations and engineering analysis will be required to refine the design layout, dam characteristics,
construction schedule and sequencing, construction access, and overall project development.
Feasibility Cost Estimate Page 17 October 30, 2013
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Feasibility Cost Estimate
Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS
October 30, 2013
Snyder Falls Creek Hyd roelectric Pro jec t
Genera l Assumptions
• General Conditions have been applied at 12% of the project total costs
• Mobilization has been set at 8% of the project total costs
• Cost estimate based on current day pricing.
• Construction assumed to be spread over two work seasons.
• Cost estimate based upon the ability to install barge landing sites on Nelson Bay. Improvements
including dredging may be required to accomplish this.
• Cost estimate based upon access roads and tunnels remaining in place following the completion of
construction.
• Cost estimate based upon construction of the larger height ( 150') dam described in the application for
preliminary permit document.
• Cost estimate based upon an average dam thickness of 12'.
• An allowance of $1,000,000 has been included for intake gates, trash racks, and other mise metals
required at the intake location.
• Cost estimate based upon a 24" steel penstock as described in the application for preliminary permit.
• An allowance of$2,500,000 has been included for electrical and communication cables running from
the powerhouse to the dam/intake structure location.
• Cost estimate based upon the construction of a 50' x 80' Pre-Engineered Metal Building structure for
use as the powerhouse facility.
• Cost estimate based upon the installation of a 3.0 MW impulse type turbine as described in the
application for preliminary permit.
• Cost estimate based upon the installation of 4 .5 miles of submarine transmission line as described in
the application for preliminary permit. Transmission Line to be buried on floor ofNelson Bay,
assuming the presence of loose, sandy/silty materials.
Technical Memorandum
To : Mr. Clay Koplin, CEO Project: Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Submitted By : Morton D. McMillen, P.E. cc: File
McMillen Jacobs Associates
Prepared By : Sean P. Ellenson Job No.: 18-078
McMillen Jacobs Associates
Date: 06/05/2020
Subject: Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
Revision Log
Revision No. Date Revision Description
0 03/01/2019 Prelim inary Draft -Client Review
1 06/05/2020 Final Draft
1.0 ·Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This technical memorandum (TM) presents a summary of the reconnaissance study performed for the
proposed Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project).
1.2 Location
The proposed project site is located in the southeastern end of Prince William Sound, approximately 9
miles north ofthe city of Cordova, Alaska. The Project includes the si t ing of a new dam , power
conveyance, and hydroelectric powerhouse on Raging Creek, in addition to a new submarine transmission
cable running across Orca Inlet/Nelson Bay. As proposed, the Project involves impounding a portion of
Raging Creek to create a new reservoir with the intent to provide year-round hydroelectric energy to
Cordova and the surrounding communities. A location map showing an overview of the area is provided
in Figure 1-1.
1.3 Background
As part of ongoing planning efforts, CEC requested that the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) review the
Crater Lake Feasibility Study (McMillen Jacobs, 2016) to solicit feedback from the agency and set the
stage for future cost-sharing opportunities, if available. At that time, AEA provided comments and
feedback on Crater Lake, but also indicated the potential for other hydroelectric project development in
Rev . No. 1/June 2020 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project
Figure 1-1. Project Location Map
Rev. No. 1/June 2020 2 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
the Cordova area. One potential candidate, Raging Creek, was recommended by AEA for additional
evaluation. Based on discussions and document review of the site, it appears that Raging Creek has
suitable topography, drainage, and access that may make this an attractive site for future hydropower
development. One of the most attractive features is that it may be suitable for a storage-based
hydroelectric reservoir configuration, which would provide CEC with flexible reserve power outside of
normal run-of-river generation limits. A storage-based hydro project would also enable CEC to
significantly reduce reliance on diesel generation.
1.4 Study Limitations
The reconnaissance study presented in this memorandum relies on limited available data and is based on
numerous assumptions. Basin-specific hydrologic data is unavailable and must be approximated from an
average basin unit discharge calculated from similar drainages within the area. Available topographic
maps of the region are coarse and are not intended for highly accurate determination of potential reservoir
storage volumes and accurate dam sizing. The results presented in this memorandum are intended to be
taken as a reconnaissance-level investigation of the potential for a project within the Raging Creek
watershed .
2.0 Hydraulic Analysis
2.1 Hydrology
The Raging Creek Watershed currently has no existing stream gage data for determining expected future
inflows to the proposed reservoir. A recent assessment performed by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA,
2017) determined a regional average unit streamflow discharge based on three local gaged streams,
provided below in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 (AEA, 20 17).
Table 2-1. Average Unit Discharge of Regional Stream Gages.
Mean Unit Discharge, cfs[sg.mi.
15215900 15216000 15219000 Regional
GLACIER R TRIB NR POWERCNR WF OLSEN BAY C Average Month CORDOVA AI< CORDOVAAK NR CORDOVA AK
Jan 5.4 3.6 3.3 4.1
Feb 3.9 3.1 2.9 3.3
Mar 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.2
Apr 4 .5 2.9 3.6 3.7
May 10 10.4 10.2 10.2
Jun 11.1 22 12.5 15.2
Jul 10 25.6 9.3 15.0
Aug 12.8 24.5 7.3 14.9
Sep 15.1 24.6 10.2 16.6
Oct 8.3 16.9 10.1 11.8
Nov 4.3 8.1 6.2 6.2
Dec 2.2 4.5 2.8 3.2
cfs =cubic feet per second
Rev . No. 1/June 2020 3 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
30
25 -·e
~ 20
~
g:, 15 ....
I'll .r:. u
Ill i:5 10 ....
'i:
::J
5
0
Jan
--GLACIER R TRIB NR CORDOVA AK --POWER C NR CORDOVA AK
--WF OLSEN BAY C NR CORDOVA AK-Regional Average
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-1. Average Unit Discharge of Regional Stream Gages.
The Raging Creek Watershed is estimated to have an area of approximately 8.3 square miles. Based on
the regional average unit discharges shown in the figures above, the discharge from Raging Creek is
expected to range from an average of 18 cfs to 140 cfs in the winter and summer months, respectively.
Expected inflows to the reservoir are a function of the attributable watershed area upstream of the
proposed dam site.
2.2 Reservoir Siting
A desktop review of the terrain along Raging Creek was followed by a single day flyover of the canyon to
identify potential locations for siting the proposed Raging Creek Reservoir. Two locations were
identified which exhibit advantageous natural terrain features for maximizing potential storage volume
while minimizing the costs of dam construction. The majority of Raging Creek consists of narrow
canyons, steep streambed gradients, and waterfalls, however there exist numerous locations in which the
creek opens into a wide flat plain, ideal for maximizing reservoir storage volume.
The two locations identified for further evaluation in this reconnaissance study are located approximately
1.6 miles and 3.1 miles upstream of the mouth of Raging Creek, shown in the project layouts in Appendix
A and discussed further in the following subsections.
2.3 Storage Estimation
Topographical data for the Raging Creek watershed was extracted from publicly available maps provided
by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)'s National Elevation Dataset. The data used for the
analysis had an accuracy of 10 meters (33 feet), which provides a reasonable approximation of the
watershed terrain, but exhibits inherent error in the approximation of reservoir storage volumes.
Rev . No. 1/June 2020 4 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Rag ing Creek Hydroelectri c Project Reconnaissance Study
The two proposed locations for the Raging Creek Reservoir were analyzed to determine expected storage
volumes at varying dam heights. For the purposes of this analysis, three dam heights were investigated at
each location, representing a range of storage volumes for determining expected flows through the
proposed hydroelectric powerhouse. The expected storage volumes as a function of dam height for each
location are provided below in Table 2-2. The approximate inundation areas for each alternative are
provided in Figure 2-2.
Table 2-2. Expected Storage Volumes of Reservoir Alternatives.
Maximum Water Anticipated Storage Location Option Dam Height (ft) Crest Width (ft) Surface Elevation
(ft msl) Volume (Acre-Ft)
A 100 350 888 590
1 B 150 650 938 2,470
c 200 900 988 5,390
A so 300 1,218 810
2 B 100 550 1,268 2,580
c 150 700 1,318 5,880
o· 1000" 2000"
Locatlon ll
'
Figure 2-2. Inundation Extents of Varying Dam Heights at each Proposed Location.
2.4 Reservoir Release Schedule
As discussed in Section 2 .1, streamflow varies significantly throughout the average year. By creating a
new storage reservoir on Raging Creek, increased streamflow throughout the summer months may be
captured and released throughout the winter to provide a hydroelectric energy baseload year-round. The
Rev . No . 1/June 2020 5 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
average monthly inflow/outflow for various dam heights at each location is shown below in Figure 2-3
and Figure 2-4.
120
ii 100
Q) .... ro c::: 80
3:
0 u:::
~ 60 ..c ..... c
0
::?; 40
Q)
bO ro
1....
Q) 20 > <(
0
120
~ 100 ~
Q) ..... ro c::: 80
3:
0 u:::
~ 60 ..c ..... c
0
::?; 40
Q)
bO ro
1....
~ 20
<(
0
-Inflow - --100Ft. Dam ----·150Ft. Dam ......... 200Ft. Dam
............... ···············"············· .......................................................................... ·········· ... .
~----------------------, ...
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-3. Reservoir Inflows/Outflow; Location #1.
-Inflow - --50Ft: Dam ----·100Ft. Dam ......... 150Ft. Dam
................. ····························
---------------------------------------·······
~----------------------------~ --
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2-4. Reservoir Inflows/Outflows; Location #2.
The attributable watershed area for each reservoir, and thus the expected inflow from Raging Creek are
not identical for each reservoir due to the varying distances into the watershed between each location. Out
of the 8.3 square miles of total watershed area, location #1 is estimated to have an attributable watershed
area of approximately 6.8 square miles and location #2 is estimated to have an attributable watershed area
Rev . No. 1/June 2020 6 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
of approximately 5.0 square miles. The reservoir storage and release schedule additionally considers a 1
cfs constant average minimum streamflow release, this is accounted for in the above figures. Although
natural barriers prevent anadromous fish species from utilizing the creek for spawning and rearing
purposes, it is anticipated that the entirety of Raging Creek wiii need to remain wetted throughout the year
to support local wildlife habitat. Additional sensitivity analyses can be easily performed for alternate
release assumptions with the study spreadsheet model.
3.0 Energy Analysis
3.1 Turbine Selection
For each reservoir location and dam sizing alternative investigated, a preliminary turbine selection was
made to determine the forecasted energy output of the powerhouse throughout the average year. As
shown in Appendix A, each alternative considers a power conveyance tunnel and penstock feeding a
powerhouse located near the mouth of the creek upstream of the first major waterfall (initial fish barrier)
at approximately elevation I 00 ft msl. Since the available hydrologic data was provided on a monthly
average basis, the maximum monthly average flows were multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to determine the
rated turbine flow rate .
For the purposes of this analysis, an assumed 3% friction loss was included in determination of the net
head on the turbine, providing a rated head ranging from approximately 800 ft to I ,200 ft. Due to the high
head available to the project, a Pelton turbine is ideal for this application. A Pelton turbine is an impulse-
type hydroelectric generating unit that converts all available head into kinetic or velocity energy through
the use of contracting nozzles. The jets of water from the nozzles act on the runner buckets to exert a
force in the direction of flow. This force, or impulse as it is referred to, turns the turbine. Water flow to an
impulse turbine is controlled by a needle valve. The position of the needle valve is controlled by a
governor to change speed or load. A moveable deflector plate, controlled by the governor, is rapidly
positioned in front of the nozzle to deflect the water away from the turbine during a load rejection.
A Pelton turbine has additional benefits that may reduce installation costs, such as the ability to discharge
to atmosphere requiring no submergence, and the ability to control load rejections through the use of
deflectors, minimizing pressure transients within the power conveyance tunnel and/or penstock. The
preliminary turbine sizing alternatives are provided in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Rated Turbine Characteristics.
Dam Rated Flow Power Output Location Height Net Head (ft)
(ft) (cfs) (MW)
100 760 41 2.4
1 150 840 56 3.5
200 890 77 5.1
so 1080 32 2.6
2 100 1130 47 4.1
150 1180 62 5.6
Rev. No. 1/June 2020 7 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
3.2 Energy Production
The monthly average flow rate, reservoir storage volume and associated net head were utilized to
calculate the average monthly energy generation assuming a turbine efficiency of 90%. Figure 3-1 and
Figure 3-2 below show the expected monthly energy generation estimates for each alternative dam height
and location in comparison to the existing generation ofCEC's diesel generation plant.
3,000,000
..:;
~ 2,500,000
c
0
·~ 2,000,000 ....
QJ
c
QJ
~ 1,500,000
tlll ro ....
QJ
~ 1,000,000
]!;
..:; ....., 6 500,000
~
0
3,000,000
..:;
~ 2,500,000
c
0
·~ 2,000,000 ....
QJ c
QJ
~ 1,500,000
tlll ro ....
QJ
~ 1,000,000
]!;
..:; ....., 6 500,000
~
0
--Diesel - --100Ft Dam -----150Ft Dam ......... 200Ft Dam
························································ .. . ·~. ..·· .......... . .. ·· ··... ...
......... ···· ....... ····· ·········· ...
··· ..... ··· .... ·· ~----------------------------------~; ',, ,, ' , ',~
Jan
,---.... ............ ,""
Feb Mar Apr
,-----------
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Figure 3-1. Monthly Average Energy Generation; Location #1.
--Diesel - --50Ft Dam -----100Ft Dam ......... 150Ft Dam
Nov Dec
.
............... ····· ........... ·············································· ............................................... .
··...... ,,-----------------------------------, ·· ..... · ,, ................. .,, .. " ',,
,,~ ',, ..... , ..... , ..... ,
Jan Feb Mar Apr
~--------------------,
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Figure 3-2. Monthly Average Energy Generation; Location #2.
Dec
Rev. No. 1/June 2020 8 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
The powerhouse is anticipated to produce a steady baseload of energy to CEC's grid throughout the year,
including the entirety of winter. Maximum potential output could occur throughout the summer months.
Annual energy estimates range from 12 GWh/Yr to 29 GWh/Yr, dependent on location and dam raise
height. The capacity factor for the project is estimated to be approximately 60%. Refer to Appendix B for
detailed calculations describing the energy analysis.
Table 3-2. Average Annual Energy Output.
Dam Annual
Location Raise Energy Capacity
(ft) Output Factor(%)
(GWh/Yr)
100 12 58%
1 150 18 60%
200 26 59%
so 14 62%
2 100 21 60%
150 29 60%
4.0 Recommendations and Conclusions
This reconnaissance study investigates the potential for a new reservoir and hydroelectric project on the
Raging Creek Watershed. A number of locations on Raging Creek have favorable natural topography to
locating a new dam and reservoir in order to provide clean, renewable energy to Cordova Electric
Cooperative's grid year-round. Dependent on the location and anticipated impoundment volume, the dam
may range from approximately 50ft to 200ft in height, impounding up to 6,000 acre-ft of water to be
released throughout the year. An impulse-type Pelton hydroelectric generation unit is recommended for
the Raging Creek Powerhouse, ranging in size from 2 to 6 MW, with the capability of producing
approximately 12 to 29 GWh/Yr of energy. If constructed, the project could significantly reduce or
eliminate Cordova's reliance on diesel-based generation.
Due to the limitations in available data used in this analysis, it is recommended that more refined
streamflow data be utilized for future investigations. Daily streamflow information approximated from
neighboring creeks, or ideally stream gage data on the Raging Creek Watershed would significantly
improve the accuracy of future energy analyses and feasibility investigations. Additionally, topographic
maps with higher accuracy would improve the estimated reservoir impoundment volumes and dam sizing.
This memorandum has been completed within the limitations identified herein to provide a preliminary
engineering study for the Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project. We look forward to being involved in the
Project during continuing assessments of Project feasibility and conceptual design. If you have any
questions regarding our recommendations and Project understanding, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Rev. No . 1/June 2020 9 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Respectfully submitted,
MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES
Morton D. McMillen, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Rev. No . 1/June 2020
Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
10 McMillen Jacobs Associates
Cordova Electric Cooperative Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study
5.0 References
AEA, 2017. Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment Memorandum. Alaska Energy Authority.
McMillen Jacobs, 2016. Crater Lake Feasibility Study. Cordova Electric Cooperative.
Rev . No. 1/JuM 2020 11 McMillen Jacobs Associates
September 28, 2020
Mr. Clay Koplin
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Via email: ckoplin@cordovaelectric.coril
Subject:
Re:
Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Application, Rev 01
Proposal for the Hydropower and Storage Assessment Projects
Dear Mr. Koplin:
McMillen Jacobs Associates (McMillen Jacobs) prepared a scope of work and budget for eligible
renewable energy projects that could be funded by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) through their
Renewable Energy Fund (REF). This letter proposal is to presents a scope of work designed to further
define and develop eligible storage-based renewable energy projects in the Cordova region. McMillen
Jacobs' proposed work tasks are presented in the following paragraphs and the budget estimate for
engineering are provided as Attachments A to this document.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The AEA is seeking applications for eligible renewable energy projects through REF. The application
period opened on July 20, 2020 and will close on September 28, 2020. AEA will evaluate all applications
received and will consult with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REF AC) to make final
recommendations to the Alaska State Legislature for Fiscal Year 2022 funding. All funding decisions,
including ifthere will be any funding available, will be made by the legislature. CEC is in the process of
completing an application to submit to AEA and has named McMillen Jacobs as their teaming partner to
complete engineering design for eligible renewable energy projects.
Snyder Falls Creek, Raging Creek, Humpback Creek, and Power Creek were recommended by CEC as
eligible renewable energy projects (Projects) for additional evaluation. As part of this analysis, CEC
would like the feasibility analysis to consider a pumped storage alternative and other storage alternatives
into the Projects. This would consist of adding storage reservoirs, which could be used to pump excess
water up to during the spring runoff, then be able to generate with the stored water through the winter and
peak fish plants operation during the summer. A storage-based hydro project may also enable CEC to
significantly reduce reliance on diesel generation. The overall project goal is to characterize the four
hydro site opportunities more accurately for adding hydro storage to the CEC grid, and decide which of
the four alternatives are the most feasible.
CEC has asked McMillen Jacobs to develop a scope and budget to complete a feasibility level analysis
and cost estimate of the Projects. The focus of this analysis is to develop a more defined project
McMillen Jacobs Associates Rev. No. 01/September 2020
arrangement and associated capital cost estimate to incorporate into CEC's long-term community energy
planning work efforts.
WORK TASKS
The following paragraphs represent the proposed work tasks for the Project.
Task 1 -Site Overview-Hydropower and Storage Assessment Report
This work task consists of the following:
• Project Kickoff Meeting. This work task consists of a kickoff meeting with CEC and McMillen
Jacobs via teleconference. The purpose of the kickoff meeting is to formally initiate the Project,
review the previous studies completed by McMillen Jacobs, and discuss any informational
requests.
• Site visit to Cordova, AK to visit up to four sites.
• Review of available hydrology/topography of the four recommended Projects (Snyder Falls
Creek, Raging Creek, Humpback Creek, and Power Creek).
• Recommendations of potential configurations and recommended further studies of the proposed
sites.
• Desktop review of other alternative sites in the region.
• Summary of the four Projects developed in Tasks 3 through 6 in a Site Evaluation Matrix.
• Summarize the findings and recommendations of Tasks 3 through 6 in a Hydropower and Storage
Assessment Report that will incorporate a summary of the Snyder Falls Creek work completed to
date, the analysis and results of the Raging Creek, Humpback Creek, Power Creek, and one
potential project found in the desktop review.
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope of work for Task 1:
• The site visit assumes that up to three engineers (Project Manager [PM], mechanical engineer,
and geotechnical engineer) will travel to and from Boise, 10 to Cordova, AK.
• Airfare assumed to be $2,200 per person.
• Lodging rate assumed to be $140 per night based upon maximum per diem rates outside the
continental United States for Cordova, Alaska. Six overnight stays assumed per person.
• Daily meal rate assumed to be $85 per day based upon maximum per diem rates outside the
continental United States for Cordova, Alaska. Seven days assumed per person.
• The site visit will take two travel days and up to 5 working days to complete the site visit, which
allows flexibility for inclement weather.
Deliverab/es:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• Draft Hydropower and Storage Assessment Report, PDF format.
• Final Hydropower and Storage Assessment Report, PDF format.
McMillen Jacobs Associates 2 Rev. No . 01/September 2020
Task 2-LiDAR Mapping
This work task consists of a subconsultant to complete LiDAR mapping of up to four Project sites. The
work will be performed by aircraft and will be bounded by an Area oflnterest (AOI) encompassing the
extents of each proposed Project. A ground survey crew will be used to calibrate the data collected from
LiDAR imagery. The vertical accuracy of the resultant imagery will be within 10 em RSME. If a ground
survey crew is unable to reach each Project site, the LiDAR will be validated based on ground points in
Cordova, AK which would provide a vertical accuracy of 10-15 em RSME. The data will be transmitted
to CEC and McMillen Jacobs in both point cloud and digital elevation model format.
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope of work for Task 2:
• Coordination hours with McMillen Jacobs and the survey subconsultant have been assumed for
McMillen Jacobs' Project Manager, Mechanical/Civil Engineer, and Senior CADD.
• Due to the dense vegetation at each Project site, a resolution of 20 points per square meter (ppsm)
is assumed to be required for this work
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• LiDAR Survey Files, AutoCAD, latest format.
Task 3-Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
In October 2013 McMillen Jacobs completed a Feasibility Study of the Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric
Project. McMillen Jacobs completed this Project in 2013 for CEC. The purpose of the report was to
present a feasibility level discussion of the construction approach and estimated project cost for the
proposed Snyder Falls Hydroelectric Project. The budget associated with this task represents the labor to
develop the 013 feasibility study for CEC and includes an additional budget to reevaluate the 2013
findings with more accurate. iD R data. A summary of the 2013 study and any updates to the site
configuration and analysis will be summarized in Task 1. l1R£11J<OOWIV ; P'RIIJ/{ SFC .: lllp lii4-
RiiAH ES<; iii tl JjA~ TillS PILOIJtJ5AL ; # 'Tlt.12.b'l
Assumptions: t.:; '-isj,
T he followin g assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope fr~ork for Task 3:
• LiDAR will be completed for the Snyder Falls Creek site in Task 2.
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• Analysis and findings will be summarized in the Task 1 Deliverable.
McMillen Jacobs Associates 3 Rev. No. 01/September 2020
Task 4-Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project
CEC would like to advance the Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project with the goal of constructing a larger
hydro facility with storage on their grid and moving the City of Cordova's forward to a 100% renewable
generation profile. CEC has asked McMillen Jacobs to develop a scope and budget to complete a
feasibility level analysis and cost estimate of the Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project. The focus of this
analysis is to develop a more defined project arrangement and associated capital cost estimate to
incorporate into CEC's long-term community energy planning work efforts. As part of this analysis, CEC
would like the feasibility analysis to consider a pumped storage alternative into the Raging Creek
Hydroelectric Project. This would consist of adding a secondary storage reservoir, which <Xmld be used to
pump excess water up to during the spring runoff, then be able to generate with the stored water through
the winter and peak fish plant operation during the summer.
This work task consists of the review and development of the overall Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project.
This will include conceptual level layout of dams, generation facilities, conveyance, transmission, and
access roads to the site to support the cost estimate development. The analysis will include preliminary
sizing and placement ofkey features, identification of potential fatal flaws, comparison of key Project
alternatives for the purpose of planning and the development of initial cost estimates for the Project
alternatives.
The conceptual design development will include general analysis of the proposed facility components
such as the size of the powerhouse, pump station, penstock/tunnel, transmission, dam, and reservoir.
McMillen Jacobs will utilize information we have obtained through numerous hydropower and pumped
storage projects. A preliminary evaluation of suitable dam types will be investigated. The dam types that . . .
will be investigated include, but are not limited to, rockfill dam, concrete/gravity/RCC dam, and a
concrete arch dam.
This task includes examination of available soil information, geological maps, and other available
information to support recommendations on the Project configuration and geotechnical development of
the dam design. The investigation will include review of the Project site to identify geotechnical risks and
potential fatal flaws. The analysis will identify and recommend future geotechnical studies to support the
final Project design.
This task will also include the conceptual, feasibility level cost estimate for up to three Project alternative
configurations. The cost estimate will be based upon similar projects and historical construction costs.
The Project construction approach will be determined based upon site access, readily available
construction materials, and standard construction practices, materials, and equipment.
A basic alternatives analysis of the three alternatives will be performed, comparing the costs and benefits
of each Project and the ability of the alternative to meet CEC's goals. McMillen Jacobs will recommend
one alternative configuration from the analysis and will review the alternative with CEC. A report will be
prepared and submitted to CEC in Task 1 documenting the engineering analysis, construction approach,
and cost estimate. The cost estimates will use data obtained by McMillen Jacobs for our self-executed
construction work in Alaska, as well our database of completed hydroelectric projects in Alaska.
McMillen Jacobs Associates 4 Rev . No . 01/September 2020
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope of work for Task 4:
• A total of three project alternative configurations will be developed and analyzed.
• A Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) will be prepared in accordance with
the hydropower industry criteria established by the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE).
• The construction season near Cordova, Alaska is assumed to be approximately June through
October.
Deliverab/es:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• Analysis and findings will be summarized in the Task 1 Deliverable.
Task 5-Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project Storage Assessment
Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project is an existing run-of-river hydro project which has been in
operation since 1989. The Project is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed project
P-8889. CEC would like to assess the feasibility of adding storage upstream of the existing Humpback
Creek Project site using the updated LiDAR collected in Task 2. The addition of storage will not
necessarily result in a capacity change, just a storage shift, allowing for flexibility in the power output of
the existing powerhouse and stored energy for the grid. The proposed storage site is located upstream of
the existing project site on native corporation lands.
The addition of storage at Humpback Creek could result in a non-capacity change to add energy storage
to the grid at relatively low cost. From CEC perspective, it is critical to identify the basin geometry and
grade in detail to quantify storage potential and required coffer dam height. The Humpback Creek project
is a good candidate for a FERC non-jurisdictional determination, if necessary. An additional pumped
storage alternative may be considered for this site, including a pumping station downstream of the
existing facility.
The analysis will include preliminary sizing and placement of key features, identification of potential fatal
flaws, comparison of up to two key Project alternatives, one storage option and one pumped storage
option, for the purpose of planning and the development of initial cost estimates for the Project
alternatives. The conceptual design development will include general analysis on facility components
such as the size of the dam and will be based on information McMillen Jacobs has obtained through
numerous hydropower projects. A preliminary evaluation of suitable dam types will be investigated. An
energy and operations model will be developed to quantify the benefits of the proposed storage and/or
pumped storage components to existing operations.
This task includes examination of available soil information, geological maps, and other available
information to provide recommendations on the Project configuration and geotechnical development of
the dam design. The investigation will include review of the Project site to identify geotechnical risks and
McMillen Jacobs Associates 5 Rev . No. 01/September 2020
potential fatal flaws. The analysis will identify and recommend future geotechnical studies to support the
final Project design.
It is anticipated that quantification of the bedrock depth at the proposed storage site is critical to
understanding costs for this task. In addition to the geotechnical development discussed above, a seismic
refraction survey will be performed at the proposed dam site to provide further information on the rock
properties of the basin and bedrock depths.
This task will also include the conceptual, feasibility level cost estimate for the proposed Project. The cost
estimate will be based upon similar projects and historical construction costs. The Project construction
approach will be determined based upon site access, readily available construction materials, and standard
construction practices, materials, and equipment.
McMillen Jacobs will recommend a Project configuration to CEC. A report will be prepared and
submitted to CEC in Task 1 documenting the engineering analysis, construction approach, and cost
estimate. The cost estimate will use data obtained by McMillen Jacobs for our self-executed construction
work in Alaska, as well as our database of completed hydroelectric projects in Alaska.
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope of work for Task 5:
• Up to two project alternative configurations will be developed and analyzed, one storage only
configuration and if determined feasible, one pumped storage configuration.
• A Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) will be prepared in accordance with
the hydropower industry criteria established by the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE).
• The construction season near Cordova, Alaska is assumed to be approximately June through
October.
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• Analysis will be summarized in the Task 1 Deliverable.
Task 6-Power Creek Hydroelectric Project Storage Assessment
Power Creek Hydroelectric Project is an existing run-of-river hydro project which has been in operation
since November 2001, providing on average 65% of Cordova's energy. Similar to Humpback Creek, CEC
would like to assess the feasibility of adding storage upstream of the existing Power Creek Project site
using the updated LiDAR collected in Task 2. The storage component is anticipated to be located
upstream of the existing site on United States Forest Service lands. There may be storage potential where
the canyon narrows into vertical rock walls with an upstream basin behind. An additional pumped
storage alternative may be considered for this site, including a pumping station downstream of the
existing facility.
McMillen Jacobs Associates 6 Rev. No . 01/September 2020
The analysis will include preliminary sizing and placement of key features, identification of potential fatal
flaws, comparison ofkey Project alternatives for the purpose of planning and the development of initial
cost estimates for the Project alternatives. The conceptual design development will include general
analysis of the facility components such as the size of the dam and will be based on information
McMillen Jacobs has obtained through numerous hydropower projects. A preliminary evaluation of
suitable dam types will be investigated.
This task includes examination of available soil information, geological maps, and other available
information to provide recommendation on the Project configuration and geotechnical development of the
dam design. An energy and operations model will be developed to quantify the benefits of the proposed
storage and/or pumped storage components to existing operations. The investigation will include review
of the Project site to identify geotechnical risks and potential fatal flaws. The analysis will identify and
recommend future geotechnical studies to support the final Project design.
This task will also include the conceptual, feasibility level cost estimate for the up to two Project
configurations, one storage only configuration and one pumped storage configuration . The cost estimate
will be based upon similar projects and historical construction costs. The Project construction approach
will be determined based upon site access, readily available construction materials, and standard
construction practices, materials, and equipment.
McMillen Jacobs will recommend a Project configuration to CEC. A report will be prepared and
submitted to CEC in Task I documenting the engineering analysis, construction approach, and cost
estimate. The cost estimates will use data obtained by McMillen Jacobs for our self-executed construction
work in Alaska, as well our database of completed hydroelectric projects in Alaska.
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope of work for Task 6:
• Up to two project alternative configurations will be developed and analyzed, one storage only
configuration and if determined feasible, one pumped storage configuration.
• A Class 4 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) will be prepared in accordance with
the hydropower industry criteria established by the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE).
• The construction season near Cordova, Alaska is assumed to be approximately June through
October.
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• Analysis will be summarized in the Task 1 Deliverable.
McMillen Jacobs Associates 7 Rev. No . 01/September 2020
Task 7-Project Review Meeting
A design review meeting will be scheduled to review and discuss the Draft report with CEC. McMillen
Jacobs will provide written responses to CEC comments and provided meeting minutes documenting the
meeting discussion. Comments will be incorporated, and the Final Report issued under Task 1.
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were made when developing the engineering scope of work for Task 7 :
• The meeting with CEC will be a conference call meeting.
• CEC will have two weeks to review the Draft report.
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be provided to CEC as part of this work task:
• Meeting Minutes, PDF format.
BUDGET ESTIMATE
The budget estimate for McMillen Jacobs to provide support to CEC for the Hydropower and Storage
Assessment Projects is presented in the attached Table 1 and the detailed estimates are provided in
Attachment A. The work will be executed on a lump sum basis.
Table 1 -Pricing for Hydroelectric and Storage Assessment Project
Task No. Description Total Price
1 Site Overview-Hydropower and Storage Assessment $94,717.00 Report
2 LiDAR Mapping $58,285.00 y.KIO
~ 3 Snyder Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project ~ __,--~Jl-:tm-
4 Raging Creek Hydroelectric Project $62,192.00 711
5 Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project Storage $68,088.00 ~ Assessment
6 Power Creek Hydroelectric Project $44,736.00
7 Project Review Meeting $5,560.00
Total $4~9,999.99 4
t£S$ SK.f/1./0R :1' fl~ 2
SCHEDULE
A detailed schedule will be developed after CEC receives grant funds and provides McMillen Jacobs with
notice to proceed (NTP) for the Project.
McMillen Jacobs Associates 8 Rev. No . 01/September 2020
We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with CEC on the Hydropower and Storage Assessment
Projects. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (208) 342-4214.
Sincerely,
Morton D. McMillen, P .E.
Executive Vice President
cc: Mara McMillen
President, McMillen, LLC
File
McMillen Jacobs Associates 9
Jodi Burns
Project Manager
Rev. No. 01/September 2020
Rev 01 I September 2020 10
Attachment A
Budget Estimates
McMillen Jacobs Associates
9/23/2020
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Hydropower and Storage Assessment Projects
Task 1 Site Overview
McMillen Jacobs Team
9/23/2020
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Hydropower and Storage Assessment Projects
Task 2 LiDAR Mapping
McMillen Jacobs Team
9/23/2020
I
! ~
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Hydropower and Storage Assessment Projects
Task 3 Snyder Falls Creek Hydro
rl'/15
PIVIJI<
McMillen Jacobs Team
/(:)/(
'15
f?JZfO/l
!
9/2312020
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Hydropower and Storage Assessment Projects
Task 4 Raging Creek Hydro
McMillen Jacobs Team
9123/2020
Cordova Eledrtc Cooperative
Hydropower and Storage Assessment Pmjects
Task 5 Humback Creek Storage
McMillen Jacobs Team
9/23/2020
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Hydropower and Storage Assessment Projects
Task 6 Power Creek Storage
McMillen Jacobs Team
9/23/2020
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Hydropower and ·storage Assessment Projects
Task 7 Project Review Mee~ng
McMillen Jacobs Team
CEC Costs to Date
Hydro Reconnaissance/Feasibility
Raging Creek $ 16,435.60
Snyder Falls Creek $ 214,516.53
Crater Lake Feasibility $153,285.75
Crater Lake Hydrology $ 96,307.64
Crater Lake FERC non-jurisdiction $6,029.30
Crater Lake Geotechnical $ 369,782.76
DOE Crater Lake Grant $ 100,000.00
Total : $ 956,357.58
cdemmam
Cordova Electric Cooperative 1n• WO-Category Summary Page I of 1
9/28/2020 4: 11: 18PM
Work Order Status
0
WOType WO SubType
A CP RC-001 -Raging Creek Feasibility
Location: Raging Creek Start Date: I 0/12/2017 Form 219ID:
107.20-CWIP-FORCE ACCOUNT
Category Net Amount
DC -Direct Charge
00 12,563.78
12,563.78
INL-Payroll Indirect Labor
00 1,965.28
1,965.28
OH-Admin Overhead
00 134.33
134.33
PR -Direct Labor
00 1,750.90
1,750.90
TR -Transportaion
00 21.31
21.31
GLAcct 1D Total $16,435.60
Work Order Total $16,435.60
Report Total $16,435.60
Database: Live
Parameters: ( {WOMaint. WOlD = 'RC-00 1')
~eport:D:\Program Files\PCS\Insight Accounting\lnstalledReports\ WO-Category
Last Modified: 9/28/25!!(}1mary.rpt
cdemmam
Cordova Electric C ooperative ln1 Project Summary
FundiD-E
SF-Snyder Falls Hydroelectric
SectoriD -00
DIR -DIRECT CHARGES
LBR-LABOR CHARGES
Project Total
Report Total
Page I of 1
9/28/2020 4: I 7:22PM
213,027.29
1,489.24
$214,516.53
214,516.53
Report: 0:\HomeDir\PCS\Reports\PCSCustom\PC-Project Charges_ Summary .rpt
Last Modified: 9/28/2020
cdemmam
Cordova Electric Coop erat ive In• WO-Category Summary
Work Order
CL-001 -Crater Lake Feasiblity
Location:
107.20-CWIP-FORCE ACCOUNT
Cateeory
CC -Contribution
DC -Direct Charge
Start Date:
00
00
INL -Payroll Indirect Labor
00
OH -Admin Overhead
00
PR -Direct Labor
00
TR -Transportaion
00
GLAcct ID Total
Work Order Total
Status
c
WOType
D
Form 21910:
Pagel of5
9/28/2020 4:26:33PM
WO SubType
CP
~~~::~Iectric cooperative Inc WO-Category Summary Page 2 of5
9/28/2020 4:26:33PM
Work Order
CL-002-Crater Lake Hydrology
Location:
107.20-CWIP-FORCE ACCOUNT
Category
DC -Direct Charge
Start Date:
00
INL-Payroll Indirect Labor
00
OH -Admin Overhead
00
PR -Direct Labor
00
TR -Transportaion
00
G L Acct ID Total
Work Order Total
Status
c
WOTyne WO SubTyne 740C
D CP
Form 219ID:
Net Amount
80,161.38
80,161.38
7,279.62
7,279.62
703.58
703.58
7,369.38
7,369.38
793.68
793.68
$96,307.64
$96;-3 07.64
cdemmam
Cordova Electric Cooperative In• WO-Category Summary
Work Order
CL-003 -Crater Lake FERC Determination
Location:
107.20-CWIP-FORCE ACCOUNT
Cate~:ory
DC -Direct Charge
Start Date:
00
INL -Payroll Indirect Labor
00
OH-Admin Overhead
00
PR -Direct Labor
00
TR -Transportaion
00
G L Acct ID Total
Work Order Total
Status
c
WOType
D
Form 219ID:
Net Amount
3,600.00
3,600.00
1,043.61
1,043.61
141.46
141.46
1,236.97
1,236.97
7.26
7.26
$6,029.30
$6,029.30
Page 3 of5
9/28/2020 4:26:33PM
WO SubType
CP
cdemmam
Cordova Electric Cooperative In• WO-Category Summary Page 4 of5
9/28/2020 4:26:33PM
Work Order
CL-004 -Crater Lake Geotechnical Assesment
Status
c
WOType WO SubType 740C
D C P
Location: Start Date: 12/01/2016 Form 219ID:
107.20-CWIP-FORCE ACCOUNT
Category
DC -Direct Charge
00
INL-Payroll Indirect Labor
00
OH -Admin Overhead
00
PR -Direct Labor
00
TR -Transportaion
00
GLAcct 1D Total
Work Order Total
Net Amount
328,696.33
328,696.33
19,402.25
19,402.25
1,234.63
1,234.63
18,817.13
18,817.13
1,632.42
1,632.42
$369,782.76
$369,782.76
cdemmam
Cordova Electric Cooperative Int WO-Category Summary Page 5 of5
9/28/2020 4:26 :33PM
Work Order Status
c
WOType WO SubType 740C
D CP CL-005 -Crater Lake Funding
Location: Start Date: 02 /28/2017 Form 219ID:
107.20-CWIP-FORCE ACCOUNT
Category Net Amount
DC -Direct Charge
00 9,441.93
9 ,441.93
INL-Payroll Indirect Labor
00 11,755 .16
11,755.16
OH-Admin Overhead
00 2,787 .70
2,787 .70
PR -Direct Labor
00 11 ,210.09
11,210 .09
TR -Transportaion
00 252.43
252.43
GLAcct ID Total $35,447.31
Work Order Total $35,447.31
Report Total $660,852.76
Database : Live {eport:D:\Program Files \PCS \Insight Accounting\lnstalledReports\ WO-Category
Parameters: ( {WOMaint. WOlD} in ['CL-00 1', 'CL-002', 'CL-003', 'CL-004', 'CL-005']) AND Last Modified: 9/28/2S!l()lmary .rp t
not ({WO Category.Ca tee.orv iD } in f'XCLS'])
Memorandum
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Introduction
Craig Kuntz, Cordova Electric Cooperative
Daniel Hertrich
Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
April13, 2017
Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) recently completed a feasibility assessment of the Crater Lake
resource and requested that AEA review of the study. In the course of reviewing the Crater Lake
feasibility study AEA performed a more comprehensive desktop level analysis of Cordova's existing
hydro generation and other regional hydro resources. This memo presents the evaluation of the existing
electric energy generation configuration in Cordova, AK and looks at the potential benefits of both the
Crater Lake resource and the Raging Creek resource. Other resources not examined include adding
storage to Power Creek (due to previously cited geotech concerns), Rogue Creek, Beartrail Creek, Heney
Creek, and an unnamed creek near Scott Lake and various others and/or pump storage projects
although the hydrology analysis presented here enables preliminary evaluation of those projects.
CEC currently operates two hydroelectric and one diesel generation stations. The hydroelectric projects
are Power Creek, a 6 MW run of river project, and Humpback Creek, a 1.2 MW run of river project. Even
during the summer there are times when the demand exceeds the peak hydro capacity and diesel
generation is required. Through the remainder of the year, and particularly in the late winter,
significantly more diesel generation is required because the hydro projects have reduced power output
due to low flow.
Existing System configuration
The table below shows the average monthly power generated along with the peak demand (from PCE
data):
Month Avg Diesel Power, kW Avg Hydro Power, kW Avg Total Demand, kW Avg Peak Demand, kW
1 1,579 888 2.467 3,653
2 1.487 747 2,234 3,407
3 2,100 469 2,570 3,951
4 2,011 649 2,660 3,734
5 601 2,312 2,913 4,272
6 373 3,310 3,683 5,978
7 533 4,000 4,533 6,541
8 814 3,501 4,315 6,453
9 759 2,193 2,951 4,761
10 638 1,686 2,323 3,367
11 1,201 1,207 2,408 3.451
12 1,621 921 2,541 3,520
Average 1,143 1,823 2,967
' I ' ., . T ~l ) lJ : j, .~ I I ! v . (· 1 {'
813 West Northern Lights Bo ulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907 771 3000 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888 .300 .8534 F 907.771.3044
Alaska Energy Authority
Annual energy generation by resource:
Power Cost Equalization Data
Diesel kWh Hydro kWh
Year Generated Generated
2001 11,333,549 868,128
2002 13,882,408 10,675,290
2003 8,398,479 15,515,849
2004 7,418,138 16,622,683
2005 6,056,449 19,400,702
2006 11,813,931 13,470,088
2007 13,259,268 13,627,195
2008 10,827,607 14,830,533
2009 10,921,141 15,062,381
2010 9,774,568 17,740,374
2011 9,155,217 16,759,928
2012 10,967,881 17,021,008
2013 9,364,225 19,482,939
2014 7,747,532 19,481,409
2015 7,884,868 21,013,732
2016 5,733,054 19,410,370
Average 9,658,645 15,686,413
Existing hydroelectric project configurations:
Humpback Creek Project
Description Value Unit
Hydraulic Capacity, cfs 95 cfs
Spill Elevation 188 ft
Turbine Elevation 0 ft
Static Head 188 ft
Friction loss 7.22 ft
Net Efficiency 86%
Net Power 1255 kW
Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
Total kWh
Generated
12,201,677
24,557,698
23,914,328
24,040,821
25,457,151
25,284,019
26,886,463
25,658,140
25,983,522
27,514,942
25,915,145
27,988,889
28,847,164
27,228,941
28,898,600
25,143,424
25,345,058
Power Creek Project
Description Value
Hydraulic Capacity, cfs 320
Spill Elevation 283
Turbine Elevation 0
Static Head 283
FriCtion loss 2.58
Net Efficiency 79%
Net Power 6001
Unit
cfs
ft
ft
ft
ft
kW
Energy: Demand and Generation by: Resource
Humpback Creek and Power Creek Generation Evaluation:
Humpback Creek Annual Energy Generation, kWh
Month 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average
1 79,530 230,192 365,290 307,506 309,368 258,377
2 165,269 178,878 72,706 197,951 285,027 179,966
3 35,733 54,816 66,577 162,988 230,067 110,036
4 232,680 59,942 105,963 247,495 420,553 213,327
5 571,073 524,232 262,595 378,507 546,957 456,673
6 529,777 712,795 299,053 368,872 353,139 452,727
7 552,595 457,924 245,471 262,251 290,584 361,765
8 469,704 394,095 508,541 193,980 559,426 425,149
9 446,024 316,522 372,111 255,821 336,241 345,344
10 284,713 338,531 258,668 369,795 78,348 266,011
11 71,358 156,680 257,077 216,153 234,323 187,118
12 71,772 83,869 112,350 86,575 88,642
Total 3,512,240 3,510,489 2,816,066 3,075,684 3,732,624 3,345,135
Total PCE Hydro 17,021,008 19,482,939 19,481,409 21,013,732 19,410,370 19,281,892
Percent of Total 21% 18% 14% 15% 19% 17%
Power Creek 13,508,768 15,972,450 16,665,343 17,938,048 15,677,746 15,952,471
April13, 2017 Page 2 of 8
Alaska Energy Authority Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
Hydrology
Cordova Regional Stream Gauge Data Sets
Drainage
Number Station Name Dec Lat Dec Long Area, sq mi HUC code
15195000 DICK C NR CORDOVA AK 60.3416822 -144.3047573 7.9 19010402
15215900 GLACIER R TRIB NR CORDOVA AK 60.5327973 -145.3806148 2.2 19020104
15215990 NICOLET C NR CORDOVA AK 60.5186253 -145.7917173 0.7 19020201
15215992 HENEY CAT CANYON MOUTH NR CORDOVA AK 60.52335006 -145.7633808 1.53 19020201
15216000 POWER C NR CORDOVA AK 60.58667537 -145.620022 20.6 19020104
15216003 MIDDLE ARM EYAK LK TR NR CORDOVA AK 60.5575101 -145.6308655 2.9 19020104
15216008 MURCHISON C NR CORDOVA AK 60.5364038 -145.716152 0.37 19020104
15216100 HUMPBACK C NR CORDOVA AK 60.6108405 -145.6786214 4.37 19020201
15219000 WF OLSEN BAY C NR CORDOVA AK 60.7608659 -146.174225 4.9 19020201
Record Count
toat 15195000 15215900 15215990 15215992 15218000 15216003 15210008 15216100 15219000
194 7 130
1948 366
1949 365
1950 365
1951 365
1952 366
1953 365
1954 365
1955 365
1956 366
1957 365
1958 365
1959 365
1960 366
1961 365
1962 365
1963 365
1964 366 122
1965 365 365
1966 365 365
1967 365 365
1968 366 366
1969 365 365
1970 214 365 365
1971 365 365 365
1972 366 366 366
1973 365 365 92 365
1974 365 365 365 365
1975 365 365 273 365
1976 366 366 366
1977 365 365 365
1978 365 365 365
1979 365 365 365
1980 366 366 366
1981 273 365 33
1982 365
1983 365
1984 366
1985 365
1986 365
1987 365
1988 366
1989 365
1990 365
1991 92 365 92 92
1992 366 366 366 366
1993 273 365 273 273
1994 365
1995 273
1999 125
2000 366
2001 365
2002 365
2003 365
2004 366
2005 365
2006 365
2007 365
2008 366
2009 365
2010 365
2011 180 136
2012 366
2013 365
2014 365
2015 365
2016 351
2017 18
Total 4140 2010 4279 731 17570 n1 731 730 5909
April13, 2017 Page 3 of 8
Alaska Energy Authority Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
Median Unit Discharge, cfs I sq mi
15195000 15215900 15215990 15215992 15216000 15216003 15216008 15216100 15219000
HENEY CAT
CANYON MIDDLE ARM WFOLSEN BAY
DICK C NR GLACIER R TRIB NICOLET C NR MOUTH NR POWERCNR EYAK LK TR NR MURCHISON C N R HUMPBACK C NR CNRCORDOVA
Month CORDOVAAK NR CORDOVA AK CORDOVA AK CORDOVA AK CORDOVAAK CORDOVAAK CORDOVAAK CO RDOVA AK AK
1 2.0 3.1 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.8 0 .7 1.5 1.0
2 1.5 2.3 2.1 1.6 2 .2 2.6 1.4 0.8 0.7
3 1.4 1.0 2.6 3.3 1.8 3.8 1.4 0.6 0.6
4 5.1 3.5 7.4 9 .8 2.1 7.6 1.8 3.4 2.7
5 19.6 9 .1 10.8 25 .2 9 .6 19.8 13.8 11.7 9.4
6 23 .2 10.0 2.1 23.5 20.4 24.5 26 .2 16.0 11.6
7 18.4 7.5 1.7 15 .0 23.0 16.0 10.8 11.2 8.2
8 12.0 8 .2 2.1 12.7 20.1 16.4 3.9 6.4 5.1
9 12.2 8.4 5.5 7 .5 17.5 16.0 3.8 15.9 5.0
10 18.5 5.5 9.6 14.7 11.7 10.0 4.1 10.5 6.1
11 5.4 2.5 5.4 7.5 5.1 7.4 2 .7 3.1 2.7
12 3 .2 1.2 2.9 3.0 3 .3 3.2 1.4 2.6 1.5
Average Unit Discharge , cfs I sq mi
15195000 15215900 15215990 15215992 15216000 15216003 15216008 15216100 15219000
HENEY CAT
CANYON MIDDLE ARM WFOLSEN BAY
DICK C NR GLACIER R TRIB NICOLET C NR MOUTH NR POWERCNR EYA K LK TR NR MURCH ISO N C NR HUMPBACK C N R CNRCORDOVA
Month CORDOVAAK NR CORDOVA AK CORDOVAAK CORD OVAAK CORDOVAAK CORDOVAAK CORDOVAAK CO RD O VA AK AK
1 11.0 5.4 12.1 5.1 3 .6 3.3 3.2 1.6 3.3
2 10.0 3.9 10.6 6 .9 3.1 7.0 1.7 0.9 2.9
3 4.6 2.3 7.5 6.2 2.3 5.2 6.9 0.6 1.9
4 9.9 4.5 14.9 9.9 2.9 8.3 4.4 3.8 3.6
5 24.2 10.0 14.2 26.4 10.4 21.1 19.2 13.3 10.2
6 25 .8 11.1 5.7 25 .0 22.0 24.9 27 .2 16.6 12.5
7 22.7 10.0 6 .9 19 .8 25.6 17.6 16.1 14.2 9 .3
8 22.8 12.8 11 .5 27 .2 24 .5 29.0 17 .5 8.2 7.3
9 24.0 15 .1 15.4 17 .1 24 .6 23.6 22 .1 19.2 10.2
10 28.9 8 .3 20.9 19.8 16.9 13 .7 7.9 14.4 10.1
11 16.0 4.3 17.6 11.9 8.1 11.1 5.2 8.3 6 .2
12 7 .2 2.2 14.7 6.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 2.8
25.0
20.0
--GLAC IER R TRIB NR CORDO VA A
--PO W ER C NR CORDOVA A K
15 0 --WF OLSEN BAY C NR COR OOV
-selecte d Reg io nal ave rage
10 .0
5.0
00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Energy analysis used sites highlighted in green (also sites shown in chart above).
April13, 2017 Page 4 of 8
Alaska Energy Authority Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
Project Configuration Analysis
The four projects analyzed using the hydrology data above are Humpback Creek Project, Power Creek
Project, Crater Lake (storage) Project, and Raging Creek Project. The Crater Lake Project performance
analysis uses the average unit discharge because it is a storage project. The remaining three use the
median unit discharge because they are run of river projects. The analysis used monthly
medians/averages only. A more detailed multiyear daily or better analysis should be performed.
Below shows the two new project configurations.
Crater Lake Proj ect Raging Creek Proj ect
Description Value Unit Description Value Unit
Hydraulic Capacity, cfs 6 cfs Hydraulic Capacity, cfs 95 cfs
Spill Elevation 1500 ft Spill Elevation 850 ft
Turbine Elevation 100 ft Turbine Elevation 100 h
Static Head 1400 ft Static Head 750 ft
Friction Loss 48.45 h Friction Loss 21.09 ft
Net Efficiency 85 % Net Efficiency 86 %
Net Power 580 kW Net Powe r 5009 kW
Energy Generation Analysis
The monthly average median and average unit discharge of the selected USGS gauge data is presented
below. For Power Creek only the Power Creek USGS site was used.
Power Creek Unit
Unit Discharge (cfs/sq mi) Discharge (cfs/sq m i )
Median (run Average Median
Month of river) (storage)
1 2.2 4 .1 2.5
2 1 .7 3.3 2.2
3 1.2 2 .2 1.8
4 2 .8 3.7 2.1
5 9.3 10.2 9 .6
6 14 .0 15.2 20.4
7 12 .9 15.0 23 .0
8 11.1 14.9 20.1
9 10 .3 16.7 17.5
10 7 .8 11.8 11 .7
11 3.4 6 .2 5 .1
12 2.0 3 .2 3 .3
Average 6 .6 8 .9 9 .9
April13, 2017 Page 5 of 8
Alaska Energy Authority Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
Using the above hydrology values the predicted potential power and energy from all four alternatives is shown below.
Humpback Creek, Watershed 4.3
Power Creek, Watershed 19.4 sq mi sq m i Crater lake, Watershed 0.29 sq mi Raging Creek, Watershed 8.3 sq mi
Discharge, Power, Discharge, Power, Energy, Discharge, Power, Energy, Discharge, Power,
Month cfs kW Energy, kWh cfs kW kWh cfs kW kWh cfs kW Energy, kWh
1 48 900 669,952 10 126 93,824 1.17 117 87,087 17.5 923 686,579
2 42 795 552,997 7 99 68,768 0.94 94 65,174 13.7 723 503,225
3 36 671 499,180 5 66 48,902 0 .63 63 46,528 9 .1 481 357,850
4 41 777 559,353 12 158 113,785 1.05 105 75,433 21 .9 1156 832,651
5 186 3478 2,587,855 40 533 396,680 2 .91 291 216,674 74.0 3902 2,902,810
6 396 6000 4,320,000 61 799 575,256 4 .35 435 312,864 110.9 5007 3,604,680
7 446 6000 4,464,000 56 735 547,070 4 .29 429 319,103 102.1 5007 3,724,836
8 391 6000 4,464,000 48 636 472,895 4 .25 425 316,070 88.3 4651 3,460,533
9 339 6000 4,320,000 44 587 422,805 4 .76 476 342,814 81.5 4297 3,093,982
10 228 4273 3,178,990 34 443 329,950 3 .37 337 250,388 61.6 3245 2,414,498
11 99 1854 1,334,820 15 195 140,322 1 .77 177 127,746 27.1 1426 1,026,840
12 64 1201 893,270 9 114 84,777 0 .90 90 67,067 15 .8 834 620,379
Avg/Sum 193 27,844,416 28 3,295,032 2 .5 2,226.948 52.0 23,228,863
The predicted generation above based on the USGS data shows that the average Humpback Creek generation is about 3.30 GWh which is very
close to the apparently fully utilized performance of that project over the last 4 years which was 3.35 GWh. The Power Creek project potential is
consistent with previous studies. The Power Creek project utilization based on performance data is about 16 GWh indicating there are often
times with spill occurring.
April13 , 2017 Page 6 of 8
Alaska Energy Authority Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
System Modeling
The modeling of the integration of Raging Creek evaluates its performance against the current average
amount of diesel generation. A more detailed multiyear daily model would be appropriate to better
evaluate the project and particularly relating to peak demand and to establish required storage if it is
feasible . Load growth factors should also be applied in the analysis.
Remaining Diesel Raging Creek,
Average of CEC Diesel Raging Creek Energy, Generation or Energy Equivalent Storage
Month kWh Generated Useful kWh Storage Required, kWh Volume reqd, acre-ft
1 1,174,975 686,579 488,396 747
2 1,034,687 503,225 531,461 813
3 1,562,669 357,850 1,204,819 1844
4 1,447,849 832 ,651 615,198 942
5 447,389 447,389 0 0
6 268,507 268 ,507 0 0
7 396,807 396,807 0 0
8 605,569 605 ,569 0 0
9 546,307 546,307 0 0
10 474,396 474,396 0 0
11 864,759 864,759 0 0
12 1,205,736 620,379 585,357 896
Total 10,029,649 6,604,418 3,425,232 5,242
In summary, this analysis concludes the Raging Creek project could displace approximately 6.6 GWh of
diesel generation.
The Crater Lake project energy (2.2 GWh) would be nearly fully utilized. If that project is pursued then
modeling with the multiyear daily record of aggregated USGS data would be required to establish the
storage requirements which are likely to very minimal for this project.
Summary
A significant amount of additional work would be required to say whether development of the Raging
Creek resource should be pursued. AEA notes the project is very similar to the Hiilangaay (formerly
named Reynolds Creek) Hydro being constructed on Prince of Wales Island for about $20 million.
At first glance, the Raging Creek project appears to be a better resource than Crater Lake and AEA
recommends Cordova Electric continue to look at it as a potential generation resource in addition to any
other alternatives available.
April13, 2017 Page 7 of 8
Alaska Energy Authority Cordova Regional Hydro Resource Assessment
Raging Creek Project Location
April 13, 2017 Page 8 of 8
ELECTRIC
A l!mchstonc Encrgy'Coo perative ~
June 23, 2014
To: Whom It May Concern
Copper Valley Electric Association has hired McMillen LLC to perform as Design/Builder of the
Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project in Valdez Alaska. This $50 million project is located in a
remote area and under very difficult terrain and access challenges.
Despite the difficulty of the job, McMillen has been outstanding. The design featured many cost
reduction measures that reduced the project from $60 million to $50 million. In addition,
McMillen spearheaded the procurement effort for all "Owner direct to Subcontractor" contracts
to help reduce mark-ups that added no value to the project.
We are now 1 month into construction and McMillen is already 2 weeks ahead of schedule. This
schedule advancement was helped by good weather but would not have been possible without
good management and excellent planning.
McMillen has already proven to me that they understand building in Alaska, building in a remote
area and building under difficult terrain. Their use oflocal resources and personnel to move the
contract is noteworthy. They understand that projects like this help the community in two ways:
First to enjoy the benefit of the completed project and second to provide prosperity to local
businesses and people while the project is being built.
I would recommend McMillen to any Alaska Community that has a need for a designer, builder
or both. I have been working with them for 2 years now on Allison Creek and they continue to
impress me with their outstanding services. For additional comments, I would be happy to speak
to you by phone. I can be reached at (907) 822-8301.
Sincerely,
Allison Creek Project Manager
P.O . Box 45 • Glennallen, AK 99588 • C o pper Ba sin 907-822-3211 • Valdez 907-835-4301 • cvea.org
SEAPA
Southeast Alaska Power Agency
1900 1"1 Avenue, Suite 318
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Ph: (907} 228-2281 • Fa><:: (907) 225-2287
www .seapahydro .org
June 23, 2014
Re: Recent McMillen Lie consulting services provided to SEAPA
Dear Reader;
Since 2011 SEAPA has retained McMillen Lie to provide both environmental assessment consulting
services and hydropower engineering services; these services were retained for two independent
projects; our Swan Lake dam raise project and our hydro site evaluation initiative.
Swan Lake Dam Raise, 2011 to present: McMillen completed our Swan Lake dam raise feasibility
study on an accelerated schedule (1 month for draft) and has since followed with excellent license
amendment advice and consulting. After careful consultation between agency representatives and
SEAPA. McMillen proposed a modified schedule and process to the agencies that ultimately shortened
our license amendment filing by approximately one year.
Hydro Site Evaluation, 2013 to present: In 2013 SEAPA issued an RFP to evaluate potential hydro
sites along our 175 mile transmission corridor. McMillen was chosen for this 5 year project because of
their recent record with us and because they offered a unique combination of environmental ,
engineering, and construction consulting expertise . Since award of that 2013 contract, McMillen has
quantified value (hydrology, head , and storage), construction cost, and licensing ri.sk for 15+ hydro
sites . This multiple objective project is on schedule and within budget.
Please feel free to call me at (907) 230-1424 (cell), or email ewolfe@seapahydro.org if you would like
to discuss projects that McMillen Lie has completed or is in the process of completing for SEAPA.
-·' t." .-~
Cc: S. Thomson, Trey Acteson, SEAPA
Eric Wolfe, PE, Civil Engineering, Idaho, Alaska
Director of Special Projects
(907) 230-1424
23 June 2014
The City of Akutan, Alaska contracted with McMillen, LLC in May 2012 to perform
design and engineering services for two hydroelectric projects on Akutan Island in the
eastern Aleutians of Alaska. The Loud Creek project consisted of stream gaging, flow
analysis, preliminary design and technical reports, related to the feasibility of
constructing a 400 kW power plant near the mouth of Loud Creek. The Town Creek
project required design and cost estimating for a variety of improvements to an existing
115 kW generation system, and preparation of an application for a State of Alaska
Permit to Modify or Repair a Dam.
Based on McMillen's work, the City was authorized to proceed with an extensive
program of repairs and upgrades to the Town Creek system, totaling more than $1.5
million of State grant and City funds. In view of McMillen's satisfactory completion of
phase one of the project, the City issued a contract amendment to McMillen for project
construction. The McMillen team successfully completed construction, commissioning,
preparation of 0 & M manuals, and training within a single summer construction
season, despite the remoteness of the job site.
McMillen's efforts resulted in the City receiving a State permit to operate the Town
Creek hydroelectric system, and the system remains fully operational , which means a
substantial cost savings for our community. We greatly appreciate the efforts of Mort
·McMillen and his team in completing this important community project.
Sincerely,
Joe Bereskin
Mayor
City and Borough of Sitka
To Whom it May Concern,
Electric Department
105 Jarvis Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
(907) 747-1827, FAX (907)747-3208
dea no@ c ityofsitka.com
Dean Orbison, P .E.
6/23/14
McMillen LCC has been retained by the City and Borough of Sitka as Construction Manager for
the Blue lake Expansion Project. McMillen and their sub Jacobs have performed this work in a
very organized, efficient and well-coordinated manner. This is best demonstrated by the fact
that the project is under budget and on schedule.
In addition to construction management McMillen has performed other work as needed. They
performed engineering when changes in the design where necessary, and in one case McMillen
LLC fabricated a trash rack on short notice to protect the low level dam outlet valve.
I would not hesitate to employ McMillen for engineering construction management or
construction on future projects.
Please contact me at 907-747-1827 or d ea no @cityo fs it ka.co m should you have any questions .
. Thanks,
Dean Orbison P.E.
Project Manager
Ho'lner Electric Association, I nc~
June 20, 2014
McMillen, LLC
1401 Shoreline Drive, Suite 100
Boise, ID 83702
Corporate omc~
3977 Lake Street
Homer, Alaska 99603-7680
Phone (907) 2.l5-H55 I
FAX (907) 235-33 I 3
Ref: McMillen Letter of Recommendation
To Whom It May Concern,
Central Penin!iula Ser\•iee <:enter
2RO Airpon Wny
Kenai. Alaska 996 I I -5280
Phonc(907)2H3-5831
FAX ( 907) 283-7 I 22
In my position as Manager of Fuel Supply & Renewable Energy Development for Homer Electric
Association, I have worked with McMillen on our proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric project for over five
years . McMillen has provided comprehensive licensing consultation and strategic support throughout
our ongoing licensing efforts. In 2012 McMillen was contracted to conduct our detailed quantitative
natural resources studies. The natural resources work was competitively priced and the work was
finished on time and actually under budget. More impressive was the experience level of the personnel
involved and the quality science that was conducted. Our success with McMillen's licensing and natural
resources study teams led us to evaluate McMillen's engineering capabilities. We are currently engaged
with McMillen in an engineering feasibility contract where I have been pleased by their early efforts. Of
particular note, is the expensive modeling and analysis that has been accomplished to date.
I have been pleased with McMillen's comprehensive abilities throughout the licensing process and if we
are fortunate enough to gain a license for our project, McMillen will definitely be on the bidders list
when we seek proposals for final design and construction of the project.
Sincerely,
"rk~
Mike Salzetti
Homer Electric Association
Manager of Fuel Supply & Renewable Energy Development
ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY
June 19,2014
To Whom It May Concern:
(907) 780·2222 FAX (907) 463·3304
5601 Tonsgard Court, Juneau, AK 99801-7201
We have been asked to write a letter of recommendation for McMillen, LLC.
We are using McMillen in a consulting capacity to assist us with PERC relicensing for a
hydro project consisting of two small plants. One of the things we have appreciated most
is their flexibility. They are willing to work at whatever level we need them to. That
allows us to do the activities that we can, while also allowing us to have McMillen work
on the activities that we may not have the time or expertise to handle ourselves.
Another advantage is that there is a wide range of resources available through McMillen.
If in the course of the project a need arises for another area of expertise, this is often
available from McMillen, saving the effort of engaging another firm with another
contract.
We have recently hired them to provide engineering services for penstock alignment and
cost estimation on a new project that we are considering developing. While this scope of
work has not yet been completed, so far we are satisfied with the communication and
quality of product seen to date.
Sincerely,
Scott Willis, P.E.
V .P. Generation
~ Cliugach
ALASKA CORPORATION
September 24, 2020
Clay Koplin, Mayor
Chief Executive Officer
Cordova Electric Cooperative
PO Box 20
Cordova, AK 99574-0020
Dear Mr. Koplin:
Chugach Alaska Corporation (Chugach) is the Alaska Native Regional Corporation for the
Chugach Region established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, as
amended, 43 U.S.C. § 1601, et ~· ("ANCSA"). Chugach owns or has valid selection rights to
over 928,000 acres of full fee estate and subsurface estate in the area around Cordova and
Chugach Region.
Chugach supports Cordova Electric Cooperative's request for Renewable Energy Grant funds to
assess hydroelectric potential near Cordova, and the potential development of hydroelectric
projects in the region. We have worked closely with CEC to develop hydroelectric projects at
Humpback Creek and Power Creek project sites in Cordova, Alaska, and have found the projects
to be mutually beneficial to our Corporation and shareholders, and to the citizens of
Cordova. In the past we have contributed staff time, facilitated permits on short notice to aid
construction, and secured $12,000,000 dollars in Federal Indian Energy program funding for the
Power Creek project. The projects generate lease revenues for the Corporation, and reduce the
costly and polluting use of diesel fuel in Cordova which aligns with our Corporation goals for our
region.
Chugach has lands located in the Raging Creek, Snyder Falls Creek, Power Creek, and Humpback
Creek basins, and potential at other sites in the area in the form of small, high elevation lakes
near the CEC grid. We are confident the grant will result in tremendous benefits for the entire
community of Cordova.
Sincerely,
Sheri Buretta
Chairman of the Board
Interim President and CEO
-· -·-ch-ugach Alaska Corporation • 3800 Centerpoint Dr., Suite 1200, Anchorage, AK 99503 • T: 907.563.8866 • F: 907.563.8402
The Ey a k Co rporat ion
6 15 E 8 2nd Ave, Suite 300
Anchora ge , AK 9951 8
Phone (907) 334-6 9 71
Fax (907) 334-6973
September 23, 2020
Clay Koplin
Chief Executive Officer
Cordova Electric Cooperative
PO Box 20
Cordova,AK 99574-0020
RE: Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Dear Mr. Koplin :
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
The Eyak Corporation (TEC) is the Alaska Native Village Corporation for the Eastern Prince
William Sound, Cordova and Copper River area established pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 ("ANCSA"). We have 584 Shareholders, with approximately 170
living in Cordova. The Corporation has substantial real property within the city limits and in the
surrounding area. We are submitting this letter in support of Cordova Electric Cooperative's
(CEC's) application for a grant from the Renewable Energy Fund.
TEC supports CEC's grant request for funds to assess hydro near Cordova. We have worked
with CEC to develop hydroelectric projects at Humpback Creek and Power Creek project sites
and have found the projects to be mutually beneficial to our Corporation, our Shareholders,
and to the community at large. In the past we have contributed staff time, waived materials
extraction fees, facilitated permits on short notice to aid construction, and secured $12,000,000
dollars in Federal Indian Energy program funding for the Power Creek project. The projects
generate lease revenues for the Corporation and reduce the costly and polluting use of diesel
fuel in Cordova.
TEC has lands located in the Raging Creek, Snyder Falls Creek, Power Creek, and Humpback
Creek basins, and potential at other sites in the area in the form of small, high elevation lakes
near the CEC grid. We are confident the grant will result in significant benefits for the entire
community of Cordova.
Sincerely,
The Eyak Corporation
Rod Worl
Chief Executive Officer
Nancy C. Barnes
President
Brooke Mallory
Acting Chair
RE: Lidar Cost Proposal -2021 Cordova Lidar
September 23, 2020
Sean Elleson
McMillen Jacobs Associates
208.985.1511
ell enson @mcm ja c.com
Quantum Spatial appreciates the opportunity to present McMillen Jacobs Associates (MJA) a brief scope
of work and associated price for acquiring and processing topographic lidar over four preliminary
hydropower sites near Cordova, Alaska. This data will help support site investigation for purposes of
reservoirs storage estimates, dam site locations, powerhouse location, etc. The following provides a brief
synopsis of our services, specifications, and associated costs for these areas of interest.
Area of Interest-Cordova, Alaska
The areas of interest (AOI) for this price proposal include 4 areas; Humpback Creek, Power Creek, Raging
Creek, and Snyder Falls Creek located 5 to 10 miles north of Cordova, Alaska (Figure 1 ). The AOI will be
buffered by 100 meters to ensure complete coverage and adequate point densities around study area
boundaries .
Figure 7. Areas of interest for lidar acquisition near Cordova, AK
Quantum Spatial-2021 Cordova Lidar Proposal 1
Services
Airborne Lidar
Quantum Spatial will collect airborne topographic lidar data using a Riegl1560i/i i (or equivalent) system
to produce a highly accurate, high resolution (~ 20 pulses/m 2) lidar dataset with no gaps and ample
buffers around project boundaries. Data will be collected at a :5 60° field of view (+/-30° from nadir), with
at least 50% overlap among swaths to minimize gaps and laser shadowing . The lidar system records up
to four range measurements (returns) per pulse (first, second, third, and last). All overlapping flight lines
will be flown in opposing directions to maximize detection of swath-to-swath inconsistencies and used to
resolve system m isalignments .
Lidar Specifications Summary
Sensor Riegl1560i or 1560ii
Multi-Swath Pulse Density ~ 20 pulses/m2
Scan Angle :560 ° (+/-30 ° from Nadir)
Target Pulse Rate 135kHz
Laser Wavelength 1 064 nm
Laser Pulse Diameter 15-40 em
Intensity Range 8 bit
Swath Overlap 50% side-lap (1 00 % overlap)
Bare Earth Vertical Accuracy (RMSE) :515cm
Horizontal Accuracy (RMSE) :5 30cm
Using a combination of automated
and manual techniques that are
tailored to the particular land cover
and terrain of the study area, lidar
pr ocessing will include kinematic
corrections, calculation of laser point
position, relative accuracy testing
and calibrations, classification of
ground and non-ground points,
assessments of statistical absolute
accuracy, and creation of ground
surface models (if requested).
Absolute accuracy assessments will
compare known RTK ground survey
points to derived lidar points.
Accuracies are described as the
mean and standard deviation
(sigma-a) of d ivergence from RTK
ground survey point coordinates . All
accuracy statist ics (RMSEz,
Accuracyz-1.96cr, skewness/distribution, and percentile deviations) will be reported in the final report .
Statements of statistical accuracy will apply to fixed terrestrial surfaces only.
Survey Control
Quantum Spatial will use one or more appropriate methods to enable geo-spatial correction of aircraft
positional coordinate data . These include conventional base supported ('BS') survey control, TerraPos®
Precise Point Positioning ('PPP'), or Trimble® CenterPoint'" Post-Processed Real-Time Extended ('PP-
RTX'). To verify lidar point calibration and enable accuracy assessment, our field crew will collect ground
check points (GCPs) using GPS -based real -time kinematic (RTK) survey techniques . For an RTK survey,
the ground crew uses a roving unit to receive radio-relayed corrected positional coordinates for all ground
points from a GPS base unit set up over a survey control monument. The roving unit records prec i se
location measurements w ith an error (cr) of :51 .5 em relative to the base control. Our team will distribute a
suitable number of hard, bare earth ground check points (GCPs) on level slope within flown data swathes,
as feasible given road access and GPS conditions . The techniques for establishing all ground check
points will be outlined in the Report of Survey, including the identity, locations, and position residuals of all
GCPs used to evaluate survey accuracy.
Timeline & Delivery
Data acquisition is anticipated for summer 2021. Quantum Spatial will work with MJA to coordinate a
delivery schedule as best meets the needs of the proj ect.
Quantum Spatial-2021 Cordova Lidar Proposal 2
Deliverables
Point Cloud
• All returns. Las 1.4 format
Point files will include the following fields: X,Y,Z, Return Intensity, Return Number, Point Classification
(ground, default), Scan Angle, Adjusted GPS Time
Surface Models
• Bare Earth (DEM), 1-m resolution, Esri Grid format
• Highest hit (DEM), 1-m resolution, Esri Grid format
• Intensity Images, 0.5-m resolution, GeoTiff format
Vectors
• Survey Boundary, shapefile format
• Tile delineation , shapefile format
Reporting
• Methods. Resu lts. Accuracy Assessments
• FGDC-compliant Metadata
Coordinate Svstem : Data will be delivered in UTM Zone 6, horizontal datum NAD83(2011 ), vertical datum
NAVD88 (Geoid 12B), Meters.
Pricing
Prices for topographic lidar options are provided below for the study area portrayed in Figure 1, assuming
the deliverables and timeline outlined above. For pricing purposes. mo bilization must be added to the
~u i sition and processing of the areas selected.
Cordova, Alaska
Mobilization
Humpback Creek Acquisition and Processing
Power Creek Acquisition and Processing
Raging Creek Acquisition and Processing
Snyder Falls Creek Acquisition and Processing
ALL Areas of Interest Acquisition and Processing
Quantum Spatial Representative
Total Cost
$18,170
$27,275
$28,288
$29,084
$28,616
$35,107
-----~-·--
Caitlin Vernlund and Adam McCullough will represent us during the performance of the services to be
provided under this agreement. They have the authority to transmit and receive instructions and make
decisions with respect to the services and are authorized to commit the necessary resources towards
completing the services described herein. We look forward to working with you and your staff to complete
this project in a timely and cost-effective manner. Should you have any questions, please call me at 907-
272-4495 or email me at the address shown below.
Sincerely,
Caitlin Vernlund
Alaska Project Manager
cvernlund@guantumspatial.com
Quantum Spatial-2021 Cordova Lidar Proposal 3
Progress Report for AEA Grant
Grantee: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Project Name: Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Construction
Grant #7030009 (R3) and 219S386 (R1)
Period of Report:
Prepared:
April1, 2011 to April 30, 2011
May 22,2011
Project Activities Completed:
April Construction progressed well. Minor setbacks were all expedited and resolved
(mismatched gate parts, broken rammer attachment for mucker, etc.). The primary
activities in April included crane and gate installations with the small concrete pours
associated with those project features, and the plugging, backfill, and compaction of the
Temporary Diversion Tunnel.
The temporary diversion tunnel was constructed to dewater the stream for diversion
dam and intake construction. The tunnel was plugged by concrete on the upstream end
with a 6' thick concrete plug. There was a so' long section of tunnel that left a thin wall
(as little as 20' of cover) between the Dam left abutment and the tunnel. The permanent
fill solution for assuring a stable dam structure for so+ years was to build an 18" thick
concrete diaphragm wall, place grout tubes along the tunnel walls to so' downstream,
backfill with original tunnel muck and compact, then pour another 18" thick diaphragm
wall. Then grout was pumped into the grout tubes to fill in around compacted gravels to
make, in essence, a so' long concrete plug. Grout was pumped until it came out the top
of the lower diaphragm, ensuring the tunnel was full between diaphragms.
Electrical work to gates and crane were completed in April as were the last of concrete
pours. The downstream bridge that allowed tunnel muckers to haul gravel into the
tunnel was removed, and all equipment moved back upstream of the intake diversion
dam.
Existing or Potential Problems:
The minor problems encountered during April construction were facilitated by the
contractor and CEC to essentially preserve the project schedule.
Activities Targeted for Next Reporting Period:
Installation and factory acceptance of the Obermeyer gate and Hydrogate Sluice gates,
replacement of poorly welded stainless steel Obermeyer piping with threaded stainless
steel, electrical inspection on May 19th, substantial completion inspection on May 2oth,
and SCAD A automation and generator commissioning the last week of the May.
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC April 2011 .docx
Preparing to Divert Back into the Stream
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC April 2011.docx
Silty Water flushed through the left bay (RH
side of picture) and pumped to tideline-first
water thro u h the new intake Structure!
Jib Crane Parapet Wall and Purge Valve
Cabinet
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC April 2011.docx
CEC McMillen
Cordova Area Hydro Assessment
Budget Details
CEC In-Kind Match
9/23/2020 CK
CEC Staff Billable Rates
Staff
Billable Rates
Laborer
$ so
*-CEO (engineering and project management capacity) and Manager, Generation and Distribution
+-Linecrew, Power Production technicians
Note : CEC Recognizes that AEA in-kind will consist of actual and allowable costs, CEC
traditionally exceeds estimated match by significant (10% or more) margins
Based on Sept. 2020 Rates Alpine Air
Helicopter Access TOTAL
Minimum Hourly 5-hr Day Days (3) Standby (2) N/A
Helicopter Support Subtotal $ 7,875 $ 2,250 $ 5 $ 33,750 $ 250 $34,000
CEC In -Kind Match Hours Cost (Billable Rates)
CEC Staff Support Ops Mgr Ops Admin Ops Mgr Ops Admin
Task 1 -Site Overview -Report 36 12 12 $ 6,660 $ 1,380 $
Task 2 -LiDAR Mapping 16 12 8 $ 2,960 $ 1,380 $
Task 3 -Snyder Falls (reassess) 16 16 8 $ 2 ,960 $ 1,840 $
Task 4-Raging Creek Feasibility 72 40 12 $ 13,320 $ 4 ;600 $
Task 5-Humpback Creek Storage 72 40 12 $ 13,320 $ 4,600 $
Task 6 -Power Creek Assessment 12 8 4 $ 2,220 $ 920 $
Task 7-Project Review Meeting 20 12 4 $ 3,700 $ 1,380 $
Helicopter logistics/participation 36 24 4 $ 6,660 $ 2 ,760 $
Contractor Tasks/Field Subtotal 280 164 64 $ 51,800 $ 18,860 $
Total Helicopter+ Project Note: Round to $100,000 match, does not include grant admin
Estimate by Clay Koplin , PE, based on prior project participation and support-18 months
* -Note : CEC staff participates in all meetings, reviews all draft documents, participates in all field work
**-Note that CEC executes a significant amount of the reconnaissance and pre -feasibility work by
participating so heavily in contractor assessments and growing internal capacity. This also manages and
complements contracto r time to assure quality, timely, and on-budget performance.
Site nuances; both challenges and opportunities, stay withing CEC staff's field of view which can
ultimately save millions of dollars in project construction and optimization for value.
960
640
640
960
960
320
320
320
5,120
Totals
$ 9,000
$ 4 ,980
$ 5,440
$ 18,880
$ 18,880
$ 3,460
$ 5,400
9740
$ 75,780
$109,780
CEC McMillen
Cordova Area Hydro Assessment
Budget Details
AEA-CEC Cash Worksheet
9/23/2020 CK
Project Task Per McMillen Proposal
Task 1 -Site Overview-Report
Task 2 -LiDAR Mapping
Task 3-Snyder Falls (reassess)
Task 4 -Raging Creek Feasibility
Task 5-Humpback Creek Storage
Task 6 -Power Creek Assessment
Task 7-Project Review Meeting
Sub Totals
IeEe In-Kind
Project Budget
Project Totals
Project Match
Project
$ 94,717.00
$ 58,285.00
$ 11,064.00
$ 62,192.00
$ 68,088.00
$ 44,736.00
$ 5,560.00
$ 344,642.00
Total
$ 444,642.00
N/A
AEA (85%) CEC {15%)
$ 80,509.00 $ 14,208.00
$ 49,542 .00 $ 8,743 .00
$ 9,404.00 $ 1,660.00
$ 52,863.00 $ 9,329 .00
$ 57,875.00 $ 10,213.00
$ 38,026.00 $ 6,710.00
$ 4,726.00 $ 834 .00
$ 292,945.00 $ 51,697 .00
1 s 1oo,ooo.oo 1
AEA CEC
$ 292,945.00 $ 151,697.00
66% 34%
Cordova Electric Cooperative ~ /JtwU l M;,.
Cash Flow Report c~ August-20
II Aug-19 YTD-19 II II Aug-20 YTD -20 II
Beginning Cash Balance $ 544 ,677 $ 1,417,388
Receipts
General Sales 697,180 4,225,425 758,615 4,084 ,111
Other 218,764 711,809 71,928 1,115,826
Total Receipts $ 915,944 $ 4,937 ,234 $ 830,543 $ 5,199,938
Total Cash Available $ 1,460,622 $ 2,247,931
Disbursements
Employee Expenses 251,724 1,851 ,373 222,241 1,849,078
Loan Payments 47,668 877,625 36,722 866,502
Headquarters 14,014 69,101 7,700 65,581
Vehicle Expense 5,604 55 ,317 4,700 48,943
Operating Expenses 568,156 2,428,640 173,743 2,035,529
Capital: Distribution 23,543 48,729 4,496 114,551
Capital: Generation 36,844 1,407,500 75,921 243,427
Capital: Crater Lake 70,499
Capital Credits 142 3,056 2,681 14,385
Total Disbursements $ 947,695 $ 6,811,840 $ 528,203 $ 5,237,997
Ending Cash Balance $ 512,927 $ 1,719,728
Net Gain (Loss) $ (31 ,751) $ (1 ,874,606) $ 302,340 $ (38,059)
Cash Flow 13 month cycle
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
(500,000)
(1 ,000,000)
(1 ,500,000)
2019-8 2019-9 2019-10 2019-11 2019-12 2020-1 2020-2 2020-3 2020-4 2020-5 2020-6 2020-7 2020-8
-Revenue -Exp ense Capit al ...,_Ending Cash Balance
\\cecnas\EMerritt\Excel\1 Cash Management\Board Cash Flow Reports\2020 Cash Flow