HomeMy WebLinkAbout13008 City of Chignik - BCApplication #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 1
([Bryan Carey])
[Date]
Applicant AEA
Requested Grant Funds: $1,276,656 $
Cash Match: $0 $
In-kind Match: $0 $
Efficiency Match: $ $
Total Cost (Requested Phase): $1,276,656 $
Match Percentage: % %
Total Project Cost (Through Construction): $7,438,000 $
Expected Annual O&M cost $ $
Current Cost of Heating Oil: $ /gal $ /gal
Current Cost of Diesel for Electricity: $ 3.69 /gal $ /gal
Estimated Capacity Factor: % %
Proposed Hydro Capacity: 385 kW kW
Estimated Hydro Penetration: % %
Annual Gross Electricity Produced from Hydro: 1,125,708 kWh/yr kWh/yr
Annual Reduction in Diesel Used for Electrical
Generation:
63,500 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:
63,500 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).
Application #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 2
Project Description [Section 2.4]:
Conceptual & final design 385 kW Run or river hydroelectric project
Project Concerns:
Q&A Between Evaluator and Applicant [include dates, participants, means, etc.]:
Additional Details / Considerations:
ANTHC management.
Current water supply from dam flows through pipe installed 1947 (wood stave) through mid -
1980’s. City water supply pipe is in immediate need of replacement because of deterioration.
City has FERC license.
Decrease in load? Heat in estimate?
No 2019 PCE data.
App diesel has $3.69. PCE 2016-2018 has $2.25-$2.69
Energy divided by gallons saved comes out as 17.7 eff. Using eff of 14 kW/gal saves 80k gal.
Sect 3.1 has Concep design in 2021-2022. Yet3.2.3 has an actual cost of Feasibility &
Conceptual design. Amount to be requested is for final design.
2014 Hatch/CE2 Const cost $7.8m which includes $250K geotech. Table 5-2 shows contractor
cost of $6.7m and development costs (FERC, Geotech, survey, historic, owner adm) of
$1.13m.
2018 ANTHC report gives cost of $7.4m for hydro & drinking water. Drinking water only project
would be only $4.9m. Access trail of $390,000 may have been built in 2018 so would account
for lower estimate of $7.4m. Report also gives design budget $379,829 for dam, access, water
supply pipe, & hydro turbine. Likely $379k does not include geotech/FERC/survey
Overall Recommendation (Full, full w/ special provision, partial, partial w/ special provision, not
recommended): Partial
Justification for any recommendation besides Full: Requested amount seems to be
substantially above 2018 ANTHC design cost estimate and above similar final design projects.
Special provision recommended:
Official Stage 2 Follow-Up / Comments:
Application #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] 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 7
a) The proposed schedule is
clear, realistic, and
described in adequate detail.
[Section 3.1]
Start date prior to having State funding. Will
have trouble doing all studies shown in the
period (prior to 2022 spring) if funds not
available until July.
City has FERC license. Documents may need
to be submitted to FERC and agencies which
will cause delays.
b) The cost estimates for
project development
[Section 3.2], operation,
maintenance [Section
5.4.6], fuel, and other project
items meet industry
standards or are otherwise
justified.
1) Development: Cost estimate for final design
& permitting seems on the high side.
$278,000 for PM & contingency. Feasibility
Report has funds in cost estimate for
working with FERC. Hatch/CE2 had
development costs of $1.13m yet ANTHC
design cost estimate has $380k. So design
costs not clear.
2) Operations: Response to 5.4.6 #1 (non-fuel
savings) is given as $234,315. That
amount is the fuel savings.
3) 5.4.2.3 shows $55k O&M for existing
system. 5.4.6 Option 1 (diesels partially on)
gives est annual O&M cost for renewable
project as $27,543. Believe this was to be
new system (project plus diesel). 6.1 shows
O&M savings of $8,848. Unsure where this
number came from. 5.4.5 notes first 5 years
hydro O&M is est to cost 0.75% of the
overall construction cost. With est cost of
$6.161m (Feasibility has a higher
construction cost). Feasibility Report states
the %0.75 is for est monitoring work (fish)
so it should be added to hydro O&M
estimate.
4) 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: Yes
2) Project monitoring & reporting: Yes. Will be
filled out more once project
Application #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 4
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: Reasonable in that the hydro
system should be able to produce more
than enough energy for City loads and have
excess to sell to processor if price is right.
2) Qualifications and Experience 7
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: Management has little
experience with hydroelectric projects &
FERC. They need experienced contractors.
Feasibility Report has a higher cost
estimate from 6 years ago. Concerned that
design/construction/license cost higher than
stated because of inflation & experience.
2) Operate project: City has experience
operating a small hydro. With the condition
of existing hydro there has not been enough
O&M being performed.
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
2) Operate project: Yes
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.
2) Operate project: Yes. Aside from declining
population reduced rainfall is a risk.
a) The project uses local labor
and trains a local labor
workforce [Section 4.2].
Yes, as available.
3) Technical Feasibility 10
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 #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 5
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: As long as it rains.
2) Permits & authorizations: Requires
coordination with FERC which increases the
cost & time.
b) A site is available and
suitable for the proposed
energy system [Section
5.2].
Yes
c) Project technical [Section
5.3.1] and environmental
risks [Section 5.3.2] are
reasonable.
1) Technical risks: Existing dam at site for 50 +
years so site should be suitable.
2) Environmental risks:
d) The proposed energy
system can reliably produce
and deliver energy as
planned [Section 5.4.4-5].
Yes
Or, if a reconnaissance project is being proposed:
a) The renewable energy
resource is present [Section
5.1.1] and can potentially be
used for energy generation
[Section 5.4.4-5].
1) RE resource present:
2) RE resource useful:
a) The proposed technology is
suitable for the resources
and demands of the
community [Section 5.4.4-
5].
b) The proposed technology
has reached a level of
maturity necessary for the
proposed application
[Section 5.4.4-5].
4) Economic Feasibility
a) The project is shown to be
economically feasible (net
positive savings in fuel,
operation and maintenance,
and capital costs over the
life of the proposed project)
[Section 6 and Economic
Analysis].
B/C =
Application #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 6
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:
Grantee unlikely to be able to get additional
grants in the middle of work to complete it if they
are running over budget. However, requested
amount should be more than sufficient.
Financing plan for subsequent phases: Non-
specific.
7
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
Water supply to City is the primary benefit of
this project (2)
Excess energy that can be sold to large
commercial users at lower than self generation
cost. Can make community more economic by
reducing cost (2).
4
S2 Recommendation (Full, full w/ special provision, partial, partial w/ special
provision, not recommended)
Justification for any recommendation besides Full
Special provision recommended
Stage 3 Scoring (Bold = field scored by evaluators)
Scoring Criteria Scoring Notes Preliminary
Score
(0-10)
4) Project Readiness 10
For reconnaissance and feasibility projects:
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 #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 7
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
funds, or funds from another
eligible source, to finance
the activity [Section 3.2].
Feasibility Study completed in 2014. ANTHC
work in 2018.
b) Applicant has completed
previous phase(s) of
proposed project and
desires additional funding to
complete the next phase
[Section 2.5& 8].
FS completed. Ready to proceed to design.
Application #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 8
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].
Feasibility completed.
d) Applicant has obtained all
necessary permits, met all
permit requirements, and
addressed all regulatory
agency stipulations [Section
5.1.3].
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].
6) Sustainability 7
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:
2) Financial capacity: Feasibility study has
almost all O&M cost on electric utility
rates. Yet City water supply is the
primary purpose of this project. Able to
fund R&R projects in the future?
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: Depends on fishing.
From data appears to be stable.
Application #13008
[Chignik Hydroelectric Dam]
[City of Chignik] HYDRO
AEA REF Review Summary P a g e | 9
Integration assessment: The assigned PM named below is responsible for providing an assessment of
issues related to integrating the proposed project into the existing system. The assessment should
indicate if the existing system can successfully support (from a technical perspec tive) integration of the
proposed renewable system and if not, what changes are necessary to facilitate successful renewable
integration.
Integration PM Name:
Based on the application and supplementary material provided as part of the evaluation process,
evaluate the feasibility of the integration of the proposed project into the existing system. Please not
any deficiencies in existing or proposed infrastructure, controls strategy, etc. that could hamper the
success of the proposal.
Additional questions should be directed through Grants Manager. Please include the lead evaluator in
the correspondence.
Diesel engines (Spinning reserve, Electronic/mechanical injection, RPM, Minimum kW rating, startup
time)
PH Controls (Genset controls & switchgear)
Distribution system (Step-up transformer sizing, transformer capacity at interconnection, secondary
loads, system voltage)
Heat recovery & Cooling system
Secondary loads & Energy storage
Summary: