HomeMy WebLinkAbout13010 WaterSupplyCreek - BCApplication #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 1
([Carey])
[Date]
Applicant AEA
Requested Grant Funds: $461,474 $
Cash Match: $0 $
In-kind Match: $75,000 $
Efficiency Match: $ $
Total Cost (Requested Phase): $536,474 $
Match Percentage: 14% %
Total Project Cost (Through Construction): $5,985,000 $
Expected Annual O&M cost $10,000 $
Current Cost of Heating Oil: $ /gal $ /gal
Current Cost of Diesel for Electricity: $ 2.72 /gal $ /gal
Estimated Capacity Factor: % %
Proposed Hydro Capacity: 300 kW kW
Estimated Hydro Penetration: % %
Annual Gross Electricity Produced from Hydro: 1,325,000 kWh/yr kWh/yr
Annual Reduction in Diesel Used for Electrical
Generation:
84,000 gal/yr gal/yr
Annual Net Electricity Used for Thermal Loads (Excess
Electricity):
0 kWh/yr kWh/yr
Installed thermal capacity:
Annual Heating Oil Displaced: 0 Gal/year Gal/year
Total Annual Reduction in Diesel plus Heating Oil in
the Community:
84,000 Gal/year Gal/year
Applicant B/C Ratio:
AEA B/C Ratio:
Explain any differences in the Applicant and AEA assumptions in this table and/or other factors
that will go into the economic analysis (e.g. changes in recovered heat). Applicant has fuel use of
84,000 gal. However, PCE data looks to be about 15 gal/kWh instead of 15.8 used would mean
additional fuel savings.
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 2
Project Description [Section 2.4]:
Requesting final design funds of $461,474 for Water Supply Creek Hydro.
Project Concerns:
With a small creek a drought would substantially reduce flow & energy. However, with the large
amount of diesel to displace during wet years the diesel displacement would be much greater.
Q&A Between Evaluator and Applicant [include dates, participants, means, etc.]:
Additional Details / Considerations:
IPEC & design firm have constructed two small hydro’s and able to fund cost over runs.
Fuel cost /gal agrees with PCE.
Fuel savings is conservative. App has 84k gal (15.8 kW/g) Using 15 kW/g saves 88k gal.
Construction cost estimate has contingency of 25%
Intent to lease letter from land owner
Energy produced by diesel significantly greater than proposed project energy such that even
with a significant drop in community demand the hydro project will be will be displacing diesel
used in economics.
Overall Recommendation (Full, full w/ special provision, partial, partial w/ special provision, not
recommended):
Justification for any recommendation besides Full:
Special provision recommended:
Official Stage 2 Follow-Up / Comments:
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 3
Stage 2 Scoring (Bold = field scored by evaluators)
Scoring Criteria Scoring Notes Preliminary
Score
(0-10)
1) Project Management, Development, and Operation 10
a) The proposed schedule is
clear, realistic, and
described in adequate detail.
[Section 3.1]
Yes
b) The cost estimates for
project development
[Section 3.2], operation,
maintenance [Section
5.4.6], fuel, and other project
items meet industry
standards or are otherwise
justified.
1) Development: Detailed funding plans
shown
2) Operations: based on actual data for IPEC
small hydro
3) Maintenance:
c) The Applicant’s
communications plan
[Section 3.3], including
monitoring and reporting
[Section 5.5], is described
in adequate detail.
1) Communications plan: Has form
2) Project monitoring & reporting:
d) Logistical, business, and
financial arrangements for
operating and maintaining
the project throughout its
lifetime and selling energy
from the completed project
are reasonable and
described in adequate detail
[Section 7].
1) Logistical:
2) Business:
3) Financial:
Project is for design. However, IPEC with
experience with several small hydro’s and
has reviewed impacts to system/ratepayers.
2) Qualifications and Experience 10
a) The Applicant, partners,
and/or contractors have
sufficient knowledge and
experience to successfully
complete [Section 4] and
operate the project [Section
7].1
1) Complete project:
Project team has designed & constructed
two small hydro projects using State funds
recently.
2) Operate project:
Currently operating 2-3 small hydro’s
1 If the applicant has not yet chosen a contractor to complete the work, qualifications and experience
points will be based on the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex
contracts.
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 4
a) The project team has
staffing, time, and other
resources to successfully
complete [Section 4.1.3]
and operate [Section 7] the
project.
1) Complete project:
Yes. Recent completion of Gunnuk small
hydro
2) Operate project:
Yes. Currently operating 2-3 small hydro’s
b) The project team is able to
understand and address
technical [Section 5.3.1],
economic [Section 6.1.3],
and environmental barriers
[Section 5.3.2] to successful
project completion and
operation.
1) Complete project:
Yes. Constructed a small hydro, mile or so,
from proposed location.
2) Operate project:
Yes. Currently operating close by hydro.
a) The project uses local labor
and trains a local labor
workforce [Section 4.2].
Previously has used local labor to construct
small hydro at this community.
3) Technical Feasibility 10
a) The renewable energy
resource is available on a
sustainable basis [Section
5.1], and project permits and
other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained
[Section 5.1.3 and DNR
input].
1) Resource sustainability:
yes
2) Permits & authorizations: Thought about &
addressed
b) A site is available and
suitable for the proposed
energy system [Section
5.2].
Proposer has advanced project with land
owner. Project near existing hydro project
by proposer on land owned by same owner.
c) Project technical [Section
5.3.1] and environmental
risks [Section 5.3.2] are
reasonable.
1) Technical risks: Addressed
2) Environmental risks: Instream flow issue
addressed.
d) The proposed energy
system can reliably produce
and deliver energy as
planned [Section 5.4.4-5].
Yes. Drought could be a risk. However, with
the amount of diesel used by community
increased production non-drought years
could all be used. All energy sold even if
community demand drops significantly.
Or, if a reconnaissance project is being proposed:
a) The renewable energy
resource is present [Section
5.1.1] and can potentially be
used for energy generation
[Section 5.4.4-5].
1) RE resource present:
2) RE resource useful:
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 5
a) The proposed technology is
suitable for the resources
and demands of the
community [Section 5.4.4-
5].
Yes
b) The proposed technology
has reached a level of
maturity necessary for the
proposed application
[Section 5.4.4-5].
Yes
4) Economic Feasibility
a) The project is shown to be
economically feasible (net
positive savings in fuel,
operation and maintenance,
and capital costs over the
life of the proposed project)
[Section 6 and Economic
Analysis].
B/C =
b) The project has an adequate
financing plan for completion
of the grant-funded phase
[Section 3.2.1-2] and has
considered options for
financing subsequent
phases of the project
[Section 3.2.4].
Project completion plan:
Addresses grants and other available funds.
Financing plan for subsequent phases:
Addresses grants, loans, and internal funds.
10
c) Other benefits to the Alaska
public are demonstrated
[Section 6.2]. Avoided costs
alone will not be presumed
to be in the best interest of
the public.2
Access road (2) 2
S2 Recommendation (Full, full w/ special provision, partial, partial w/ special
provision, not recommended)
Full
Justification for any recommendation besides Full
2
Other Public Benefits Score
Will the project result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, etc.) that can be used for other purposes? 0 – 2
Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.)? 0 – 2
Will the project solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.)? 0 – 2
Will the project generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the State? 0 – 2
Will this project either promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community? 0 – 2
Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? 0 – 2
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 6
Special provision recommended
Stage 3 Scoring (Bold = field scored by evaluators)
Scoring Criteria Scoring Notes Preliminary
Score
(0-10)
4) Project Readiness 10
For reconnaissance and feasibility projects:
a) Project is currently underway
with feasibility or
reconnaissance work,
design work related to the
project, or actual
construction of the project
and the applicant is using
their own funds, or funds
from another eligible source,
to finance the activity
[Section 8].
b) Applicant has completed
previous phase(s) of
proposed project and
desires additional funding to
complete the next phase
[Section 8].
c) The proposed work and
timeline is reasonable
[Section 3.1] and the project
team has been identified and
is qualified to complete the
work [Section 4].
d) Land access and use issues
have been identified and
resolved, or there is a
reasonable plan to address
potential land access and
use issues [Section 5.2].
For design and construction projects:
a) Project is currently underway
with feasibility or
reconnaissance work,
design work related to the
project, or actual
construction of the project
[Section 2.5 & 8] and the
applicant is using their own
Yes. Feasibility study completed this year.
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 7
funds, or funds from another
eligible source, to finance
the activity [Section 3.2].
b) Applicant has completed
previous phase(s) of
proposed project and
desires additional funding to
complete the next phase
[Section 2.5& 8].
Yes. Applicate has performed recent Feasibility
Study (2020) with current rates.
c) Applicant has completed
required feasibility and/or
design work for project
[Section 2.5] and is
prepared to place an order
for necessary equipment for
the project, such as an item
with a ‘long lead time’ to
procure [Section x.x].
Yes. Current FS completed.
d) Applicant has obtained all
necessary permits, met all
permit requirements, and
addressed all regulatory
agency stipulations [Section
5.1.3].
Has investigate required permits and
addressed.
e) Applicants have provided
evidence of investment in
and commitment to energy
efficiency in the building(s)
or system to be served by
the project [Section 8.2].
Recent study of IPEC service areas for heat
pump usage (save energy).
6) Sustainability 10
a) The grantee demonstrates
the capacity, both
administratively and
financially to provide for the
long-term operation and
maintenance of the
proposed project [Section
7.1.2].
1) Administrative capacity:
Yes. Operates several small hydro’s
and other power projects.
Financial capacity: Yes. Operates
several small hydro’s and other power
projects. Has been able to fund
construction cost overruns.
b) The resource will be
available over the life of the
project [Section 5.1.1].
Yes
c) There will be a market for
the energy produced over
the life of the project
[Section 6.1.3 & 5.4.3].
Trend for future sales: Yes. Even with energy
from this project there will be a substantial
amount of diesel to be displaced. If energy
demand decreases there will still be a market
for this energy.
Application #13010
[Water Supply Creek Hydro Final Design]
[Inside Passage Electric Cooperative] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 8
Integration assessment: The assigned PM named below is responsible for providing an assessment of
issues related to integrating the proposed project into the existing system. The assessment should
indicate if the existing system can successfully support (from a technical perspec tive) integration of the
proposed renewable system and if not, what changes are necessary to facilitate successful renewable
integration.
Integration PM Name:
Based on the application and supplementary material provided as part of the evaluation process,
evaluate the feasibility of the integration of the proposed project into the existing system. Please not
any deficiencies in existing or proposed infrastructure, controls strategy, etc. that could hamper the
success of the proposal.
Additional questions should be directed through Grants Manager. Please include the lead evaluator in
the correspondence.
Diesel engines (Spinning reserve, Electronic/mechanical injection, RPM, Minimum kW rating, startup
time)
PH Controls (Genset controls & switchgear)
Distribution system (Step-up transformer sizing, transformer capacity at interconnection, secondary
loads, system voltage)
Heat recovery & Cooling system
Secondary loads & Energy storage
Summary: