HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW WaterfallCreek AppRound 9Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 27 7/8/14
SECTION 1 –APPLICANT INFORMATION
Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion.
Name (Name of utility, IPP,local government,or other government entity)
City of King Cove
Type of Entity:Fiscal Year End:
Municipality June 30
Tax ID #92-6001247
Tax Status:☐For-profit ☐Non-profit ☒Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit:September 2014
Mailing Address:Physical Address:
3380 C Street same
Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone:274-7555 Fax:276-7569 Email:ghennigh@kingcoveak.org
1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Manager
Name:Title:
Gary Hennigh City Administrator
Mailing Address:
3380 C Street
Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone:Fax:Email:
274-7555 276-7569 ghennigh@kingcoveak.org
1.1.1 APPLICANT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY CONTACT INFORMATION
Name:Title:
Gary Hennigh City Administrator
Mailing Address:
3380 C Street
Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone:Fax:Email:
274-7555 276-7569 ghennigh@kingcoveak.org
1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact
Name Telephone:Fax:Email:
Bonnie Folz 274-7555 276-7569 bfolz@kingcoveak.org
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 27 7/8/14
1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements
Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements,the application
will be rejected.
1.2.1 Applicant Type
☐An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or
☐An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
☒A local government, or
☐A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
☒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 gover ning
authority is necessary.(Indicate by checking the box)
☒1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA).(Indicate by checking the box)
☒1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9.(Any
exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.)(Indicate by
checking the box)
☒1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries.(Indicate yes by checking the box)
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 27 7/8/14
SECTION 2 –PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Title
Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project. Type in the space below.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
2.2 Project Location
2.2.1 Location of Project –Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or
community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact
AEA at 907-771-3031.
The project will be located on a small creek located approximately 5 miles north of downtown King
Cove. This creek is adjacent to and west of an existing hydroelectric project on Delta Creek that
was constructed in 1995. The creek has a noticeable waterfall that is visible from the Delta Creek
hydroelectric powerhouse.(Delta Creek Valley; King Cove, Alaska;55.069129 -162.313385)
2.2.2 Community benefiting –Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The residents, small businesses, and major seafood processing plant in City of King Cove will
benefit from this project.
2.3 Project Type
Please check as appropriate.
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐Wind ☐Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
☒Hydro, Including Run of River ☐Hydrokinetic
☐Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐Transmission of Renewable Energy
☐Solar Photovoltaic ☐Storage of Renewable
☐Other (Describe)☐Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐Reconnaissance ☐Final Design and Permitting
☐Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☒Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 27 7/8/14
2.4 Project Description
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project.
The Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project will result in a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric
facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500 feet
HDPE penstock pipeline, 16 feet by 40 feet metal powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton Impulse
Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000 feet access road.
This facility will be a working partner to the City’s existing and highly successful Delta Creek
hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last eighteen years.It will produce 1.07
megawatt (MW) of electricity.
2.5 Scope of Work
Provide a 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.
This is a hydroelectric construction project. The scope of work includes the construction of the
above mentioned components.The specific tasks are:
Process aggregate, construct road, install bridge
Construct Powerhouse: excavation, foundation concrete,framing/siding/roofing
Install generating equipment, mechanical, electrical in powerhouse
Construct Intake: excavation, intake concrete, build dam, built control building, electrical
Penstock installation and pressure test penstock
Procurement: penstock materials, bridge, sluice gate, metal building
Transmission: install transformer, intake power and communications
Start up and Testing
Operations
SECTION 3 –Project Management, Development, and Operation
3.1 Schedule and Milestones
Criteria:Stage 2-1.A: The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail.
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 in 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 of your proposed project. Add additional rows as needed.
1.Design and feasibility requirements:complete
2.Bid documents:complete
3.Vendor selection and award:complete
4.Construction:Sept 1, 2015-Dec 31, 2016
5.Integration and testing:Jan 1, 2017-March 31, 2017
6. Decommissioning of old system:N/A
7. Final acceptance, commissioning and start-up:Jan 1,2017-March 31, 2017
8. Operations reporting:Final Report March 31, 2017
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 27 7/8/14
Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverables
Feasibility (CDR)
submitted to
AEA
Completed
2007
CDR submitted to
AEA
Design 95% /Owner Review/Finalize
Bid Docs/100%Submit to
AEA 9/2013 9/12/14
Final Design submitted
to AEA
Permitting All permit applications/
Permits received 9/30/13
Permits submitted to
AEA
Bid Documents 9/2014 1/9/2015
Vendor Selection
And Award 1/2015 8/2015
CONSTRUCTION:
Turbine/Generator Specs/Bid/Order/Manufactur
e/Deliver 10/2014 9/2015
Construction
Inspection/Progress
Reports submitted to
AEA
Mobilization & Logistics 8/2015 9/2015
Road 9/2015 11/2015
Permanent Bridge 4/2016 4/2016
Powerhouse Structure &
Improvements 10/2015 4/2016
Intake/Dam & Penstock 11/2015 7/2016
Turbine & Generator Install
& Testing 10/2015 12/2015
Accessory Electrical
/Substation Equipment 6/2016 7/2016
Integration/Testing 7/2016 8/2016
Decommissioning
of old system
N/A
Final Acceptance,
Commissioning
and Start Up 9/2016 9/2016
Final Report
Operations
Reporting 9/2016 On-going
Reports to AEA
3.2 Budget
Criteria:Stage 2-1.B: The cost estimates for project development, operation, maintenance,fuel,
and other project items meet industry standards or are otherwise justified.
3.2.1 Budget Overview
Describe your financial commitment to the project. List the amount of funds needed for project
completion and the anticipated nature and sources of funds.Consider all project phases, including
future phases not covered in this funding request.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 27 7/8/14
The total project cost for the construction phase of the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project in King
Cove is $6,950,000 of which $675,000 is requested in REF Round 9 grant funds from AEA.
Project funds include King Cove’s Alaska Municipal Bond Bank loans and its Power Project Fund
loan, Aleutians East Borough Grant and City of King Cove funds in the amounts listed below:
This REF Round IX request $ 675,000
Alaska Energy Authority past grants $2,800,000
Aleutians East Borough grant $ 500,000
City of King Cove Matching Funds $ 150,000
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank loan #1 $ 525,000
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank loan #2 $1,000,000
AEA Power Project Fund loan $1,300,000
Total Project $6,950,000
Construction phase funds:
This REF Round IX request $ 675,000
Aleutians East Borough grant $ 500,000
Alaska Energy Authority past grants $2,600.000
Power Project Loan $1,300,000
City of King Cove cash and loans $1,125,000
Total Construction $6,200,000
Please also see Table 4 in the attachments for Debt Assumptions.
3.2.2 Budget Forms
Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in
section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final
Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail your
proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project.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 at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants
Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org.
Milestone or Task
RE-Fund
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on phase
and type of project. See sections
2.3 thru 2.6 of the RFA )
$$$
Turbine/Generator $$ 430,000 REF Round 6 is 42%$ 430,000
Construction $675,000 $4,880,000 of total construction.$ 5,555,000
Integration/Testing $$ 60,000 City Cash & Loans =$60,000
Final Acceptance, Commissioning
and Start Up $$ 55,000 47% of total con-$55,000
Operations Reporting $$100,000 struction.$100,000
Remaining 11% is $
this REF request.$
TOTALS $675,000 $5,525,000 $6,200,000
Please also see Table 11 in the attachments.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 27 7/8/14
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 100,000 REF Round 6 = 42%$ 100,000
Travel & Per Diem $$ 20,000 of total construction.$ 20,000
Equipment $$ 430,000 City Cash & Loans =$ 430,000
Materials &Supplies $$ 670000 47% of total con-$ 670,000
Contractual Services $$ 915,000 struction.$ 915,000
Construction Services $675,000 $3,090,000 Remaining 11% is $ 3,765,000
Other $$ 300,000 this REF request.$ 300,000
TOTALS $675,000 $5,525,000 $ 6,200,000
3.2.3 Cost Justification
Indicate the source(s)of the cost estimates used for the project budget.
Over the last six months,HDR Alaska’s engineers have reviewed their previous construction cost
estimate, refined it, and compared it to the final construction costs of the Gartina Falls hydroelectric
project in Hoonah, which is being predominantly funded through AEA. The cadre of HDR
engineers who worked on the Gartina Falls construction are the same individuals working on
Waterfall Creek.This estimate also reflects the City’s firm belief and expectation that its
Guaranteed Maximum Price contract with Sunland Development Company is the best way to
control the project construction costs at this point and throughout construction.
3.2.4 Funding Sources
Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request.
Grant funds requested in this application $675,000
Cash match to be provided $2,925,000
Other State Funds-Past REF $2,600,000
Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above)$6,200,000
3.2.5 Total Project Costs
Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use
actual costs for completed phases.
Reconnaissance $0
Feasibility and Conceptual Design $200,000
Final Design and Permitting $550,000
Construction $6,200,000
Total Project Costs (sum of above)$6,950,000
3.2.6 Operating and Maintenance Costs
O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed RE projects
will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel generation to be turned
off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for periods of time; these
projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M.
Options O&M Impact of proposed RE project
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.
$
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 27 7/8/14
Option 2: Diesel generation OFF
For projects that will result in shutting down
diesel generation please estimate:
1.Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off
diesel generation
2.Estimated hours that diesel generation
will be off per year.
3.Annual O&M costs associated with the
proposed renewable project.
1.$280,831 net savings
2.Hours diesel OFF/year:Almost All
3. $25,000 (Other O&M already contained in
Delta Creek Hydroelectric costs)
3.3 Project Communications
Criteria:Stage 2-1.C: The applicant’s communications plan,including monitoring and reporting, is
described in adequate detail.
Describe how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Progress reports will detail accomplishments and on-going tasks and will relate them to the work
schedule. The reports will include issues or problems encountered and their resolutions. They will
describe upcoming tasks and may include any assistance required. Each progress report will be
submitted to the designated contact person at AEA for information and review.The City will
require written progress reports with each monthly invoice from the contractor.The on-site
manager will be required to approve and sign all progress reports.
As identified milestones are achieved, including those pre and post construction, they will be
communicated to AEA. Written and verbal inquiries from AEA regarding the project will be
responded to in a timely fashion. Any presentations or updates provided to King Cove’s City
Council will also be shared with AEA, including invitations for AEA to attend meetings and/or
observe the project firsthand.
3.4 Operational Logistics
Criteria:Stage 2-1.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.
Describe the anticipated logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and
maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project.
Energy production from Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric will be added to the hydroelectric produced
by King Cove’s existing Delta Creek facility. The City’s existing logistical, businesses and financial
systems now serving Delta Creek will be expanded, requiring minimal effort,to include the
Waterfall Creek system.
SECTION 4 –QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
4.1 Project Team
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 27 7/8/14
Criteria:Stage 2-2.A: The Applicant, partners, and/or contractors have sufficient knowledge and
experience to successfully complete and operate the project. 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.
Criteria:Stage 2-2.B: The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully
complete and operate the project.
Criteria:Stage 2-2.C: The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and
environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation.
Criteria:Stage 2-2.D: The project team has positive past grant experience.
4.1.1 Project Manager
Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information,and a
resume. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant
would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. 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.
The City of King Cove will manage this project with assistance from HDR Alaska, Inc. The City has
all administrative and accounting systems necessary for a successful construction project, as
proven by successful large construction projects and with past audit reports. HDR will provide on -
site construction management.
Project Manager will be Gary Hennigh.Mr. Hennigh has been King Cove’s City Administrator for
the last 25 years. He is responsible for the overall delivery and management of public services
including all general government programs, port and harbors, police and fire services, all utilities,
and recreational programs. He directly supervises the City’s annual operating budget of
approximately $5 million and its five department heads. Gary directs the City’s lobbying efforts in
Juneau and Washington, D.C.
Gary also oversees and administers the City’s major capital construction projects, grant/loan
agreements and professional services contracts. Throughout his tenure and with his guidance and
advocacy, the City has successfully acquired over $60 million in federal and state grants for
hydroelectric, water and transportation projects. This includes the Delta Creek Hydroelectric
project, which in 1995 was awarded an “Excellence in Engineering Design” from the American
Consulting Engineering Council.
Gary has a B.A. degree in geography form Mansfield University of Pennsylvania and a Master’s
degree in regional planning from Pennsylvania State University.His resume is attached.
George Simmons is responsible for the operations of the King Cove power plant.George has
been King Cove’s Electric Department Head since February 2008.The summer after George was
hired the new power plant came on line and George has been instrumental in providing the City
with power since that time. George has become proficient in coordinating the hydro and diesel
generators to maximize the benefit of the hydro.Prior to coming to work for the City he worked for
PPSF in King Cove as their power plant operator for over 10 years.
4.1.2 Expertise and Resources
Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors. Provide sufficient
detail for reviewers to evaluate:
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 27 7/8/14
•the extent to which the team has sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully
complete and operate the project;
•whether the project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete
and operate the project;
•how well the project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and
environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation.
If contractors have not been selected to complete the work, provide reviewers with sufficient detail
to understand the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex
contracts. Include brief resumes for known key personnel and contractors 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
The City of King Cove has an existing term contract with HDR Alaska which was amended to
include provision for the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Facility final design and permitting, as well
as assistance with the construction bid and award process. Bob Butera, Justin Markham, and Paul
Berkshire are the primary HDR staff who will continue to be involved with Waterfall Creek through
construction management.
HDR is the leading hydroelectric consulting firm based in Alaska.HDR founded its office in
Anchorage in 1979 and over the past 34 years developed a solid business practice in planning,
licensing, design, and construction administration of hydroelectric project renovation and new
facilities. Examples of projects include Delta Creek in King Cove, Solomon Gulch in Valdez,
Gartina Creek in Hoonah, Eklutna Lake in Anchorage, and Cooper Lake on the Kenai
Peninsula.HDR has offices in Anchorage, Palmer, and Fairbanks that contain over 120
employees who practice a wide range of engineering, planning, permitting, and regulatory services.
Nationally, HDR was founded in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1917.Today, with more than 190 offices
across the country and worldwide and a professional staff of more than 8,000, HDR provides a full
range of engineering,architectural, and construction management services to clients.HDR’s
hydropower services include:
Engineering and design (civil, hydraulics/hydrology, structural, mechanical, controls, and
electrical)
Regulatory services (FERC consultation and licensing; local, state, and federal agency
permitting; and stakeholder engagement)
Environmental sciences (fisheries, water quality, wildlife, botanical, recreation, visual, and
cultural resources)
Construction management
Support during startup and operations
HDR has worked for the City of King Cove for the past 30 years, and during that time prepared
engineering planning and designs for numerous water, sewer, solid waste, and master planning
projects. HDR worked with the City to prepare the feasibility study for the Delta Creek Hydroelectric
Project and assisted the City in obtaining construction funding for it. The City then retained HDR to
prepare the construction documents and provide construction oversight services. This extremely
successful hydroelectric project has been providing low cost energy to the City’s electrical utility for
the last 20 years. The Delta Creek received the American Council of Civil Engineers Grand Award
for the project’s innovation and engineering excellence.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 27 7/8/14
Canyon Industries will provide the turbine and generator packages. Control Power Inc. recently re-
built the Delta Creek hydro control systems. They will be used to integrate the controls of the
Waterfall Creek project into the City’s overall energy control and monitoring systems.
As always, the City will follow its local government and state procurement policies for all services,
materials and construction contracts for this project.
HDR Alaska,Inc. will provide construction management services.Bob Butera will be the
Construction Phase Manager. Bob will oversee construction management tasks of submittal
review, responses to design questions, processing change order requests, and contractor
negotiations. He will be the direct contact with the general contractor’s project manager. Bob can
provide 50% of his time through the completion of this project.
Paul Berkshire, PE will be the Design and Commissioning Engineer. Paul will provide assistance in
design clarification and general construction assistance quality control management. Paul will be in
King Cove during plant startup and commissioning working with the control contractor to integrate
the project into the City’s energy production systems. Paul can provide up to 20% of his time to this
project and is committed to being in King Cove full time during the plant startup and commissioning
process.
Justin Marcum, PE will be the Resident Construction Engineer.Justin will be on-site in King Cove
working with the general contractor during construction. Justin will provide construction
observation, process pay requests, and assist with plan and specification interpretation. Justin can
commit the time period to for construction of the project and be in King Cove for the project
duration should this be needed.
Resumes are attached for the engineers listed above working on the Waterfall Creek Hydro
project.
4.1.3 Project Accountant(s)
Indicate who will be performing the accounting of this project for the grantee and include a resume.
In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like
those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project
accountant indicate how you intend to solicit financial accounting support.
Bonnie Folz has been with the City of King Cove for nine years as Administrative Manager.She
partners with the city administrator to develop the annual City budget and supervises the staff in
the King Cove city office. She approves, codes,and monitors payment of all accounts payable
invoices. She oversees the monthly bank reconciliation and financial statements following proper
accounting practices set forth by the auditors.Each year an audit is conducted and Bonnie is
instrumental in overseeing the pre-audit preparation.
4.1.4 Financial Accounting System
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 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 27 7/8/14
Banyon Data Systems (BDS) software will be used to account for project costs, and Bonnie Folz
will be the primary user of the system. BDS was designed specifically for municipalities and has
worked well for the City with grant accounting in the past.
4.2 Local Workforce
Criteria:Stage 2-2.E: The project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce.
Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce.
The City Administrator and managers from Sunland Development Company have had several
conversations about local hire on the Waterfall Creek Hydro Construction Project. This project has
already seen the addition of two local laborers to the Sunland payroll. Sunland expects to hire at
least three, perhaps as many as five, more laborers and heavy equipment operators. As a result of
over $5,000,000 of road projects in past years, the City and the Aleutians East Borough have
assisted many King Cove residents with training, especially for heavy equipment operations.
SECTION 5 –TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
5.1 Resource Availability
Criteria:Stage 2-3.A: The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and
project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained.
5.1.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average
resource availability on an annual basis.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.
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.
Documents, previously submitted to AEA,which describe the extent/amount of energy available
from Waterfall Creek,include:
1.)“King Cove –Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Concept Design Report (CDR)”
prepared by HDR in September 2007 for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
2.)Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Design Criteria. December 2013
.
3.)Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Final plans and specifications.September 2014
Projected amount of energy to be produced is 1.07MW.
The benefits of hydroelectric power in King Cove are clearly demonstrated in the existing
Delta Creek hydroelectric system.The City of King Cove has a successful track record that is
demonstrated in both word and deed. The City’s prior investment in its existing Delta Creek
system,and its willingness to provide similar matching funds for this very successful project, are
excellent indicators of ability and follow through.
The expansion of the existing Delta Creek powerhouse to accommodate the Waterfall Creek
turbine and generator is a much less expensive proposition than constructing a new powerhouse.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 27 7/8/14
Expanding the Delta Creek powerhouse offers an excellent location for integrating both hydro
control systems for better operator monitoring, troubleshooting, security and total system efficiency.
The shared electrical transmission line (original cost = $1,000,000) from the site five miles to
“downtown” King Cove is also a plus.The existence of this transmission line is a significant
financial factor contributing to the overall cost feasibility of the Waterfall Creek project
There are no disadvantages of hydroelectric power when compared to other alternative
power resources.Given King Cove’s 20 years of successful hydro experience,the proposed
project has the confidence of the residents, the Agdaagux and Belkofski Tribes in King Cove, the
King Cove Village Corporation and other organizations in town.
Wind energy may be another viable energy source for King Cove in the future. However, the wind
resource is unproven at this time.A MET tower collected one year of wind data in the Delta Creek
Valley in 2005/2006. Per this data from the Delta Creek Valley, the City understands class 6 winds
are available but with a very high turbidity factor.Another location in King Cove may prove to have
a better wind resource.The City continues to be interested in wind energy and particularly learning
more about Kodiak Electric Association’s combo hydro-diesel-wind system.
5.1.2 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and describe potential barriers
After three years of significant negotiations, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) Title 16 (Fish Habitat) permit was received on July 31, 2013. For this permit, ADF&G and
the City of King Cove agreed that the City will reduce the diverted water from Waterfall Creek by 1
cfs which has decreased the energy output expectation by 30%from the project’s original estimate
of 1.4 MW of energy to 1.07 MW. A copy of this permit has been previously provided to AEA.
Subsequent to the Title 16 permit,the other required permits have been issued, including: 1) State
of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Mining, Land, and Water -Water
Rights Permit was issued on September 30, 2013; and 2) Clean Water Act permit (DOE Section
404) was issued on September 23, 2013.
No other permit requirements and/or potential barriers are expected.
5.2 Project Site
Criteria:Stage 2-3.B: A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system.
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.
The entire project will be located on lands presently owned by the King Cove Corporation (KCC).
The King Cove Corporation is in full support of this project. The City and the KCC have agreed on
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 27 7/8/14
a land purchase agreement as expressed in Resolution 15-17 and the August 12, 2015 letter of
agreement. Both are attached.
5.3 Project Risk
Criteria:Stage 2-3.C: Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
5.3.1 Technical Risk
Describe potential technical risks and how you would address them.
There is always risk involved in construction projects, and particularly so in rural, remote Alaska. In
King Cove the most problematic risk comes from frequent heavy rains and high winds. Travel in
and out of the community is unreliable and severe weather during construction may cause short
delays. However, King Cove clearly communicates this risk to potential construction companies
and only contracts with companies with experience in remote Alaskan villages.
King Cove’s previous experience with the Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project and other major
construction projects has provided lessons well learned. By having HDR on board for this project,
as they were with the Delta Creek project, the City is extremely confident in the partnership’s
abilities to minimize project risks. The combined hands-on experience and ability to work as a
team will benefit the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric construction project.
5.3.2 Environmental Risk
Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
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
All environmental issues are been addressed through the permit processes, including
threatened or endangered species, habitat issues, wetlands and other protected areas,
and archaeological and historical resources.
There are no aviation considerations or telecommunications interference concerns.
Land development constraints.The King Cove Corporation is in full support of this project and
the City has an agreement in place to purchase the necessary 15 acres from the Corporation.
Visual, aesthetics impacts.Because this project is about 4 miles from any of King Cove’s
residential and commercial areas,and because it is supported by the community, visual and
aesthetic resources are not an issue.
Other barriers. No other barriers are anticipated.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 27 7/8/14
5.4 Existing and Proposed Energy System
Criteria:Stage 2-3.D: The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as
planned.
5.4.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System
Describe the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
Three Caterpillar diesel engines (1-model 3512,with a maximum kWh output of 1050; and 2-model
3456,each with a maximum kWh output of 475 were all manufactured in 2006/2007)were added
to the City’s diesel engine Caterpillar 3512 (16 years old, low hours and a top/bottom rebuild in
2004; maximum output of 650 kWh).
Efficiency of these generators ranges between 13.5 to 14.5 gallons/kWh. They provide diesel
production, when necessary to supplement the Delta Creek hydro system. Together, these
generators have a generating capacity of 2.4 MW.The three newest generators have relatively
low hours for their respective age because they are used less than 50% of their design life
because of the Delta Creek hydro system. The Waterfall Creek hydro project will continue to keep
the demand on these diesels relatively low. The required service maintenance (and costs) on
these generators because of low hours due to the Delta Creek hydro, and soon-to-be Waterfall
Creek hydro, is a significant cost savings for the City’s electric utility.
The diesel system adds to the 850 kWh that the hydroelectric system at Delta Creek can produce
under optimum summer conditions, usually from May through October. In winter months,Delta
Creek hydro produces around 50-200 kWh daily, rising in the spring/fall months to between 400-
600 kWh.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 27 7/8/14
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a)Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i.Number of generators/boilers/other 4 generators and 1 hydro turbine/generator
ii.Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other All gens –2,450 kWh/& Delta Creek hydro = 850kw
iii.Generator/boilers/other type (2) CAT 3512 & (2) CAT 3456 & Gilkes generator
iv.Age of generators/boilers/other 3 Gen 6 yrs; 1 Gen 13 yrs; hydro Gen 20 yrs.
v.Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
vi.Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) if yes
estimated annual displaced heating fuel (gallons)
13.5 –14.5 kWh
Yes
35,000/gallons
b)Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i.Annual O&M cost for labor $248,000
ii.Annual O&M cost for non-labor $1,076,000
c)Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i.Electricity [kWh]4,500,000kWh
ii.Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]167,000 gallons
Other
iii.Peak Load 1020 kW
iv.Average Load 500-600 kW
v.Minimum Load 200 kW
vi.Efficiency 13kW/gal
vii.Future trends Annual growth
d)Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i.Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii.Electricity [kWh]
iii.Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv.Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v.Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi.Other
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 27 7/8/14
5.4.2 Future Trends
Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community over the life of the project.
While many rural communities around Alaska are experiencing a period of population decline, t he
City of King Cove, based on its history,anticipates continuing its small but steady growth of .5%
annual population growth into the future. Economic growth will center on Peter Pan Seafoods’
ability to expand its operations using additional hydroelectric power upon completion of this project.
The community’s plans for the near future include improvements to its wastewater system and
major landfill improvements including the addition of an incinerator that will use electric power
(rather than diesel fuel). Projects planned for the next three to six years that will also require
additional power are:
Convert the downtown community center to a senior assisted living center.
Construct a new public safety building.
Construct a community swimming pool which will take advantage of additional recovered
heat produced by Waterfall Creek Hydro, as planned in the completed feasibility study.
5.4.3 Impact on Rates
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit
area over the life of the project.For PCE eligible communities,please describe the expected
impact would be for both pre and post PCE.
With this project, the City will stabilize the cost of energy for its customers: residential, business,
industry and community services well into the future.The City does not anticipate any impact in
the future on kWh rate increases resulting from the Waterfall Creek project. See Table 4 in the
attachments which indicates that with the City’s assumed debt expenditure and preferred loan
repayment plan, no unreasonable increases in customer rates will be instituted. However, if the
State significantly reduces the PCE program subsidy, the City will make any necessary, future rate
adjustments. This is one of the reasons the city’s goal of an electric fund balance of $500,000 by
FY21 has been established as a realistic goal and basis from which to make future decisions
cost/rate decisions.
The City of King Cove requests AEA look at this comparison of how well they were able to stabilize
energy costs since the Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project was built:
In 1994, prior to hydroelectric in King Cove:
Fuel -$0.60 per gallon (AEA assumed $0.90 per gal)
Electricity –the City rate was $0.20 per kWh
In 2014 with hydroelectric from Delta Creek:
Fuel -$4.12 per gallon
Electricity –the City rate is only $0.30 per kWh
The City believes these numbers tell a compelling story and with Waterfall Creek, the City
anticipates providing the same, continuing level of energy cost stability.
5.4.4 Proposed System Design
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 27 7/8/14
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Integration plan
Delivery methods
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project is a run-of-the-river project,which will use the renewable
resource of water and elevation available in Waterfall Creek to generate clean electricity. The
design criteria for the project are contained in Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Design Criteria
report referenced in Section 4.1 of this application which is summarized here.
•A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
The project will use proven technology for this location to generate electricity from
Waterfall Creek. The City has operated a hydroelectric project at Delta Creek
successfully for 20 years and the Waterfall Creek project will be constructed as an
addition to the Delta Creek project. The W aterfall Creek project will construct a
building addition to the Delta Creek powerhouse to house the new turbine and
generator. The new generator will be connected to the existing switchgear and
power delivery system. The other project components –intake, penstock, roads,
and operating equipment –are modeled after the Delta Creek project to maximize
their success and minimize the operator’s learning curve.
•Optimum installed capacity
The selected installed capacity of the generator is 375 kW, 480 V. This size was
selected as the optimal equipment size based on available head,permitted water
use, reduced from the maximum available by resource agencies during permit
acquisition.
•Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated capacity factor = 0.29, or 1.07 MW projected generation/3.5MWh
theoretical maximum generation
•Anticipated annual generation
Projected annual generation = 1.07 MW
•Anticipated barriers
There are no anticipated barriers to construction in or operation of the hydroelectric
plant.
•Basic integration concept
The new hydroelectric plant will be integrated into the existing hydroelectric plant
switchgear and control systems. It will be operated as another generation source in
the City’s existing hydroelectric and diesel generation system.
•Delivery methods
The power will be delivered to the City through the existing transmission cable
between the Delta Creek powerhouse and the city downtown.
For more information, please see the Concept Design Report, the Design Criteria Report and Final
Design and Specs.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 27 7/8/14
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a)Proposed renewable capacity (Wind,
Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
Hydroelectric –1.07 MW
b)Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i.Electricity [kWh]1,070,000
ii.Heat [MMBtu]
c)Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i.Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii.Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii.Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
iv.Other
d) i. Estimate number of hours renewable
will allow powerhouse to turn diesel engines
off (fill in as applicable)
5.4.5 Metering Equipment
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be
used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request
for Applications.
The monitoring equipment necessary for the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric is already in place and
no additional funds are needed for the monitoring requirements. Waterfall Creek will be connected
to the existing facilities and equipment at the Delta Creek Hydroelectric plant. The minimum flow in
Waterfall Creek needed for fish habitat, as required by the Fish Habitat permit, and the power
output, as reported to AEA, will be monitored using the existing equipment.
SECTION 6 –ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS
6.1 Economic Feasibility
Criteria:Stage 2-4.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).
6.1.1 Economic Benefit
Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of
Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following:
Anticipated annual and lifetime fuel displacement (gallons and dollars)
Anticipated annual and lifetime revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement
price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate)
Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 27 7/8/14
The economic model used by AEA is available at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9. This
economic model may be used by applicants but is not required.The final benefit/cost ratio used
will be derived from the AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants.If used, please
submit the model with the application.
The economic benefits which will accrue upon completion of this project are both immediately
significant and profound in their ramifications over the life of the Waterfall Creek project.
Waterfall Creek is projected to displace approximately 77,000 gallons of fuel annually and
3,846,154 gallons in the total project lifetime that would otherwise have to be purchased and
consumed annually. This represents approximately 1.07 MW of electrical power, year after year,
from a clean, renewable resource.
The estimated annual savings of 77,000 gallons of diesel fuel is $306,460 at AEA’s 2015 assumed
price of $3.98/gallon. Of this amount, 54,000 gallons of diesel will be displaced by Waterfall Creek
in the City’s system. The other 23,000 gallons of diesel will be displaced in Peter Pan Seafood’s
(PPSF) power generation system and replaced with the purchase of renewable energy from the
City.The City savings of $214,920 from displaced fuel, combined with the PPSF revenue of
$108,000 for surplus power, will total $322,920 annually.
The City’s expected annual net revenue increase to its electrical utility fund is estimated to be
$120,000. This amount has been estimated by subtracting the anticipated, annual debt service
from the “savings” of displaced fuel costs. This amount will increase by about $10,000 for every 5%
increase in the cost of diesel fuel. It is reasonable to assume the annual fuel cost savings with
Waterfall Creek will reach $200,000 within the next 5-7 years.
This additional revenue should ensure the City is able to maintain its current $0.30/kWh rate and
position the community to offset any future, reasonable PCE program reductions.
The Waterfall Creek project also offers a redundancy for Delta Creek. If, or when, repairs or
maintenance requires Delta Creek operations to go off line, Waterfall Creek could provide power at
significantly lower costs than switching entirely to the diesel generators.
6.1.2 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
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
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.
Peter Pan Seafoods (PPSF), one of the largest seafood processors in the state, operates the
largest “wild” salmon processing facility in the state in King Cove.Their facility uses a diesel
system, which serves all their processing needs and provides power for all its support facilities
including worker housing. Their peak demand is at least three times greater than the City’s peak
demand.PPSF’s plant expansion has been limited by the lack of additional power available to the
plant.For many years, PPSF has been interested in purchasing any amount of the City-generated
“surplus power” from the Delta Creek hydro facility and/or the proposed Waterfall Creek hydro
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 27 7/8/14
facility. Unfortunately, the available power from Delta Creek in the past has not been enough to
seriously warrant a power sales agreement.
However, from both Delta Creek and Waterfall Creek hydro sources, the City anticipates being able
to sell PPSF at least 600,000 kWh of power at a cost of $0.18/kWh. Of this amount, 300,000 kWh
is anticipated from Waterfall Creek and 300,000 kWh from Delta Creek. This additional annual
revenue is estimated to be $108,000.As documented in the 2005 “Concept Design Report”, PPSF
is interested in purchasing between 500,000 kWh to 1.0 MW on an annual basis.
The City is working with Steve Stassel to implement a metering program within the PPSF complex
(bunkhouses, mess hall, laundry, etc.) to determine their domestic load and demand. Preliminary
demand estimates are between 500,000 and 800,000kWh.
The City’s initial revenue basis for the cost of “surplus power” at $0.18/kWh has been developed
using the same cost methodology used in a number of recoverable heat sales agreement the City
has with a number of government and tribal organizations. A 60% factor of the city’s current
electric cost of $.30/kWh (i.e. 60% of $0.30/kWh = $0.18/kWh) has been proposed to PPSF.
At this point no power purchase agreement has been negotiated by the City with PPSF so further
details are not available.Please also see Table 4B footnote 3.
6.1.3 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
For projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines,
etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the
project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the
Request for Applications for more information.
The City is not specifically focused on lowering the price of doing business for PPSF; however, it is
a good economic development strategy, particularly in hard-hit commercial fishing years, to offer
the lowest reasonable cost to PPSF for power.With additional power,PPSF may be able to
expand its business which is good for its work force (more hours of work and/or more workers
hired) and fishermen (more fish will be purchased and/or the catch will be diversified) and, in turn,
could result in increased fish taxes to the city, borough and state.
Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month)83,000 kWh –
monthly/average
Estimated sales (kWh)600,000 kWh
annually
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses
($)
$108,000/annually
Estimated sales (kWh)400,000kWh
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($)$120,000/annually
6.2 Financing Plan
Criteria:Stage 2-4.B: The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant -
funded phase and has considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 27 7/8/14
6.2.1 Additional Funds
Identify the source and amount of all additional funds needed to complete the work in the phase(s)
for which REF funding is being applied in this application. Indicate whether these funds are
secured or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that the timing of addition al
funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant.
6.2.2 Financing opportunities/limitations
If the proposed project includes final design or construction phases, what are your opportunities
and/or limitations to fund this project with a loan, bonds, or other financing options?
The City of King Cove has in place a loan from the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank that will provide
$525,000 and will borrow another $1,000,000 (already approved) from the Bond Bank in
September 2015. This month the City completed a loan application to AEA’s Power Project Fund
(PPF)an amount between $1,300,000 and $1,975,000, depending on the success of this REF
application.
6.2.3 Cost Overruns
Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding.
With the Guaranteed Maximum Price contract for construction in hand and the engineers’ best
estimate using their knowledge of the Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project construction, the City is
confident that costs are well known and reflected accurately here.Also, to date the geo-technical
work done at the construction site has proven to be accurate.
However, overruns do happen even in the most carefully planned projects, especially in rural
Alaska. As always with all construction projects, the City recognizes that cost overruns are their
responsibility. A 6% contingency is built into the budget and there is a potential additional
contingency of $100,000 possible from the combining the costs of switchgear, bridge/pipe and
startup.
6.2.4 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.
There are no subsequent phases for the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project.
6.3 Other Public Benefit
Criteria:Stage 3-4.C: Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Avoided costs alone
will not be presumed to be in the best interest of the public.
Describe the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project. For the
purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered
unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased
greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category.
Some examples of other public benefits include:
The project will result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails,pipes, power lines,etc.) that
can be used for other purposes
The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.)
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 27 7/8/14
The project will solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.)
The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of
the state
The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the
community
The non-economic benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project include:
Significant public health benefits. The estimated annual 77,000 gallons of diesel fuel
which will be replaced by renewable energy from the Waterfall Creek translates into more
than 600 metric tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions. Cleaner air for all the residents
of King Cove and the western end of the Alaska Peninsula and the eastern Aleutian Islands
means better air quality for the residents and less respiratory illnesses and a cleaner
environment for everyone.
Environmental benefits.This project will reduce the potential for fuel spills and
contamination, since less fuel would be transported into the community.With a reduced
potential for fuel spills the environmental benefits are easy to see but in a fishing community
it means much more. It also reduces the threat of an accidental spill into the waters that
support so many families.
Sustainable energy future.With the addition of Waterfall Creek, the City expects to
derive 70% to 75% of its total, annual demand for electrical power from renewable sources
in its own backyard by 2017.
Fuel storage infrastructure repair and replacement.It should also be noted that the
costs of repairing and replacing fuel storage infrastructure will be greatly reduced with this
project.This means City resources can provide benefits elsewhere in the budget.
SECTION 7 –SUSTAINABILITY
Describe your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable throughout its
economic life.
Include at a minimum:
Capability of the Applicant to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to
provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project
Is the Applicant current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal agencies?
Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project
Likelihood of a sufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project
After planning and constructing the very successful Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project and
operating and maintaining it for the past 20 years, there can be no doubt that the City of King Cove
knows why and what it is doing in the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project.
The sustainability and operability of this project will follow the model of the existing highly
successful Delta Creek hydroelectric facility that could be a blueprint for how small, rural
communities can succeed with a small hydro project.King Cove has demonstrated that it is able to
finance its maintenance and operations through its record of PCE reporting. Lessons have been
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 24 of 27 7/8/14
learned about what constitutes adequate operations and management resources. The idea with
this project, as it was with Delta Creek, is to build infrastructure that lasts through conscientious
operations and diligent maintenance.
Operations & Maintenance: One of the contractor requirements for the Waterfall Creek hydro
facility is to develop a comprehensive O&M manual for all aspects of this new facility. The same
requirement for the Delta Creek facility was successfully accomplished by HDR and the contractors
and subcontractors. The existing O&M document is a constant source of information for plant
employees and routinely serves as a technical guide.
The operational costs and overall financial viability of this project will be integrated into the City’s
overall power distribution system. The financial operations of this system are part of the City’s
electrical enterprise fund, which by definition, is to achieve and maintain financial solvency by
regulating and maintaining electric user rates to generate the necessary annual revenue to meet
annual operating expenses, as well as adequate funding for a repair and replacement fund for any
major unanticipated needs.
The commitment to reporting “savings” will always be ongoing as part of the City reviewing and
amending, as circumstances allow, the electric user rates in King Cove. Any such savings will also
be reported in the monthly and annual PCE utility costs reports.
The City will continue to tout the benefits of renewable energy. Staff does this in periodic reports to
users, as well as to the government agencies, which have helped achieve these benefits. King
Cove is known not to be shy about publishing news releases to share with others around the state
and elsewhere.
SECTION 8 –PROJECT READINESS
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
All previous phases of this project are complete including permitting; the phase proposed in this
application is final construction.
The City’s desired schedule for this project has been problematic until recently.With the
construction contract signed in August 2015 and the land secured,the City provided a Notice to
Proceed to its selected contractor, Sunland Development Company, on August 1, 2015.
Mobilization started on August 3, 2015 and was completed on September 1. Construction began
the 3rd week of August.
SECTION 9 –LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application -Standard Form
Waterfall Creek (King Cove) Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 25 of 27 7/8/14
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. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July
8,2015.
The entire community of King Cove is in favor of the City pursuing funding for the Waterfall Creek
Hydroelectric Project. This support is further reflected by the attached letters from the King Cove
Corporation and the Agdaagux and Belkofski Tribes.Although it dates back several years,the
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and PPSF speaks to their unchanging,favorable
interest in the project.
The City has not heard any opposition to the project.
SECTION 10 –COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS
Identify other grants that may have been previously awarded to the Applicant by the Authority 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.
The City was awarded a $200,000 FY13 grant and a $2,600,00 grant from Round 6 of the AEA
Renewable Energy Fund.The City of King Cove is current with all requirements of the previous
grants and intends to stay current throughout the life of this project.
The City has an exemplary record of achievements with over $30 million in various state and
federal grants for a variety of community projects over the last 10-15 years. A review of the City’s
annual audits can further substantiate these statements.
SECTION 11 –LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES
In the space below please provide a list additional documents attached to support completion of
prior phases.
The following reports are attached to this application in Tab A:
Conceptual Design Report
Design Criteria Report
Final Design and Specifications
SECTION 12 –LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
In the space below please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration.
City of King Cove Resolution 16-02, Authorization to submit REF Round 9 (Tab B)
August 4, 2015 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Report with Tables (Tab C)
City of King Cove Resolution 15-17 Land Purchase (Tab D)
August 12, 2015 Letter from the City to the King Cove Corporation re: land purchase (Tab
D)
Letters of Support from the King Cove Corporation,Agdaagux and Belkofski Tribes (Tab E)
Resumes of Gary Hennigh, Bonnie Folz, and HDR Engineers Paul Berkshire, Justin
Marcum and Bob Butera (Tab F)
Tab A
Support Documents
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 1 of 10
Memorandum
To: Steve Stassel, Alaska Energy and Engineering
From: Bob Butera, HDR Project: King Cove “Waterfall Creek”
Hydroelectric Project
Concept Design Report - Final
CC:
Date: September 12, 2007 Job No: 201662/43449
Introduction
This Technical Memorandum (TM) documents engineering studies conducted by HDR Alaska, Inc.
to develop a concept design for the proposed Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project (“Project”).
This concept design is intended to provide sufficient information to Alaska Energy and Engineering,
Inc. to determine whether to proceed further with this project. Additional mapping, surveying,
geotechnical exploration, design and permitting will be necessary to further this project should a
decision be made to move forward.
This concept design was preceded by a site reconnaissance done on May 18, 2005 and a follow up
reconnaissance study dated August 5, 2006. This concept design study includes:
• Description of project setting
• Hydrologic analysis
• General project arrangement
• Diversion/intake structure concept design
• Pipeline concept design
• Powerhouse concept design
• Cost estimate
• Power generation estimate
• Economic analysis
Project Setting
The Project will be located on a small unnamed creek approximately 5 miles north of the City of
King Cove. This creek is adjacent to and west of an existing hydroelectric project on Delta Creek
that was constructed in 1995. The creek has a noticeable waterfall that is visible from the Delta
Creek hydroelectric powerhouse. For the purposes of this memorandum we will call this creek
“Waterfall Creek”.
The drainage basin for this creek is generally south facing, and ranges in elevation from
approximately 3000 feet down to 700 feet near the top of the waterfall and 190 feet where Waterfall
Creek meets Delta Creek. The basin can best be observed from near the water tank at the high point
on the King Cove Airport Road.
A preliminary fisheries investigation and a summer fish monitoring program were done in 2006 in
the portion of Waterfall Creek from its confluence with Delta Creek upstream to approximately 500
feet upstream of the confluence. The results from both sampling efforts found Dolly Varden present
in Waterfall Creek and no salmon species were observed. This work is documented in a
memorandum dated April 23, 2006. This fish monitoring program will be continued in 2007 to
verify that no off year salmon migration went unnoticed.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 2 of 10
There is little vegetation in the upper portion of the basin upstream of the waterfall. Vegetation in
the lower portion of the project area is typical of the Alaska Peninsula, with a mix of open areas and
dense shrubs. There are no trees. There are some muskeg areas on flatter areas.
Bedrock is exposed at the falls and within portions of the creek ravine but its depth throughout the
remainder of the project area is unknown.
The entire project is located on lands owned by the King Cove Native Corporation.
Aerial photography for the area is available from October 30, 1995 at a scale of 1”=2000’.
Additional lower level photography was taken on the same date at a scale of 1”= 500’. Both sets of
photography were taken for the Delta Creek Water Project. Mapping for that project was done at a
scale of 1” = 200” and a 2 foot contour interval. This mapping covered the lower portion of the
project site, up to the extent of the lower level photography. Additional mapping for the remainder
of the project could be completed from the higher elevation photography, with a contour interval of
10 feet.
Hydrology
Based on USGS mapping the drainage area of Waterfall Creek upstream of the waterfall is
approximately 0.7 square miles. There are three forks above the waterfall with the main fork to the
west. At the time of the site reconnaissance there was a snowfield above 1000 feet elevation.
Review of aerial photography from October 30, 1995 did not show any glaciers in the basin.
Waterfall Creek includes four distinct sections:
• A steep gradient reach from the headwaters to the top of the waterfall.
• The waterfall.
• A steep gradient reach approximately 2,000 feet long extending from the Waterfall to a
bench above Delta Creek where the creek bends 90 degrees to flow south, and
• A moderate gradient reach (5 to 9 percent) approximately 800 feet long extending from the
bench to the confluence with Delta Creek.
The drainage basin of Waterfall Creek is similar to the upper basins of Delta Creek in aspect and
elevation. A drainage area comparison to previous stream gaging on Delta Creek gives an estimated
range of flows for Waterfall Creek of 4 to 12 cubic feet per second (cfs). The estimated bank full
flow (approximately equivalent to the mean annual flood) was estimated from channel slope and
cross section to be approximately 20 cfs.
Flow measurements were done near the confluence of Delta Creek and upstream of the waterfall.
These measurements showed that the creek was neither losing nor gaining much water from
groundwater in the reach between the waterfall and the confluence with Delta Creek. This is
consistent with the observation that the creek appears to be incised to bedrock.
A 120° V-notch weir was constructed on Waterfall Creek on May 20, 2005. It is located at a
bedrock control in the streambed approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence of Waterfall
Creek and Delta Creek at an approximate elevation of 280 feet. A stage recorder was installed on
May 20, 2005 and set to record on an hourly basis. The recorder was retrieved on November 1, 2005
prior to ice conditions in the creek. Periodic readings of the staff gage were done throughout the
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 3 of 10
winter of 2005-2006. On February 23, 2006 the recorder was reinstalled and data collected to June
19, 2006. The stage data was converted to flow data using a weir equation. Data collected for the
period of May 20, 2005 to November 1, 2005 and February 23, 2006 to June 19, 2006 is of excellent
quality. Data for the period of November 1, 2005 to February 23, 2006 was interpolated based on
the periodic staff gage observations. Average monthly flows and maximum and minimum monthly
flows are shown in Table 1. Daily flows are shown in Figure 1. An annual flow duration curve for
this site is shown in Figure 2. The flow duration curve was used to make an initial determination of
the range of flows that would be usable for power generation.
Table 1
Waterfall Creek Flow Data*
MONTH Average Monthly
Flow, cfs
Maximum Monthly
Flow, cfs
Minimum Monthly
Flow, cfs
January 2.5 3.4 1.8
February 1.6 1.8 1.3
March 2.6 12.6 1.5
April 2.9 11.3 0.7
May 5.4 15.0 1.2
June 11.2 18.6 9.1
July 5.8 8.9 4.3
August 6.3 18.3 3.2
September 10.8 21.3 6.6
October 7.7 12.9 4.6
November 3.7 5.5 2.5
December 4.0 5.0 2.5
Annual 5.8 21.3 0.7
*Based on flow data from 5-20-2005 to 6-19-2006
The flood peaks for Waterfall Creek have been estimated from USGS regression equations detailed
in WRI Report 03-4188. Estimated peak flood estimates are shown in Table 2:
Table 2
Waterfall Creek Peak Flood Estimates
Flood Frequency Discharge (cfs)
2 years 120
100 years 330
500 years 416
The peak hourly flow for the period of 5-20-2005 to 6-19-2006 was 37.4 cfs on August 18, 2005.
General Project Arrangement
The project will capture the streamflow approximately 500 feet upstream of the falls and return it to
Delta Creek at the existing Delta Creek tailrace. The general project arrangement will include the
following main features and is shown in Figure 3 with a detail of the lower portion shown in Figure
4.
• An intake structure located 500 upstream of the waterfall at approximately elevation 720 feet.
• A pipeline located to the northeast side of Waterfall Creek.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 4 of 10
• A powerhouse constructed as an addition to the existing Delta Creek Hydro Project
powerhouse.
• Use of the existing 480V - 12.5 kV transformer and 5.6 mile 12.5 kV transmission line
connecting the existing Delta Creek Hydro powerhouse to the City of King Cove diesel
powerhouse.
• An access road to the intake structure that branches off of the newly constructed King Cove
to Leonard Harbor Road and generally located on the west and north side of Waterfall Creek.
Portions of the project will be similar to the existing Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project and these
pertinent drawings are attached to indicate the type of construction expected.
Diversion/Intake Structure
The evaluation of alternatives for the diversion/intake structure is based only on a brief field
reconnaissance. There is no topography or geological information for this area. We recommend a
topographic survey at the proposed site and a geotechnical exploration to confirm presence and
depth of bedrock.
A potential intake site was identified approximately 500 feet upstream of the waterfall at
approximately elevation 720 feet (measured by altimeter). It is located downstream of the forks and
is at a narrow confined section. It is the highest elevation site that will allow road and pipeline
access. There is a bedrock outcrop on the east side of the creek at this site.
The diversion pond depth should be the lowest possible to minimize the cost of the structure, but at
the maximum turbine flow it should be high enough to prevent formation of a vortex in the pond. A
deeper pond is also valuable in limiting frazil ice effects on project operation; it is likely that frazil
ice occurs in Waterfall Creek, but that has not been confirmed. For this concept design we assume
that the dam height will be less than 10 feet.
Based on the field reconnaissance the diversion will be approximately 20 feet wide at the base and 40
feet wide at the top (assuming a 10 foot tall dam).
The diversion structure will create only a small head pond with very limited storage. As a result, it
should be possible to design the structure for a relatively small flood, since overflow and subsequent
failure would not release a damaging amount of water. The 100-year flood is recommended as the
design flood.
The Waterfall Creek basin does not contain any glaciers and appears to have a stable bed at the
intake site. The basin upstream of the falls is steep with a ready supply of sediment. Waterfall
Creek likely generates a fair amount of bedload (sand and gravel) during extreme events. The
bedload will tend to accumulate in the diversion pond, and the diversion/intake structure will need to
include facilities to periodically flush the accumulated material to prevent it from being drawn into
the pipeline.
The characteristics of this site are similar, although peak flows are smaller and the crest length will be
shorter, than the diversion and intake structure constructed at Clear Creek on the Delta Creek Hydro
Project. For this concept design report we will assume that the Waterfall Creek diversion and intake
structure will be similar to the Clear Creek structure. Use of a similar structure to Clear Creek will also
aid operator familiarity with the project.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 5 of 10
The recommended diversion structure consists of a central concrete core wall with rock fill on both
sides to provide stability. The core wall will be keyed into the rock foundation, and the outer face of
the rock fill will be grouted with concrete to prevent erosion of the fill. The abutments are relatively
narrow, which will minimize the concrete and fill volume of the structure. The recommended
arrangement is shown in the attached drawing from the Delta Creek Hydro Project.
Pipeline
A buried pipeline will be constructed from the intake to the powerhouse. The pipeline diameter will be
16 to 18 inches, and the pipeline will be approximately 4,500 feet long. The upper (lower pressure)
portion of the pipeline will be High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and the lower (higher
pressure) portion will be steel pipe.
Two potential concept level alignments for the pipeline are shown in Figure 2. Determination of the
optimum route will need to await mapping, soils exploration and a site visit. One route is longer but
lower gradient. The other is steeper and approximately1000 feet shorter but may be more difficult to
construct and will deviate from the proposed access road route. The longer route is assumed for the
purpose of this study.
The pipeline route will cross Delta Creek. The existing mapping does not cover this crossing
location but from review of aerial photography it appears that a pipeline without a sag can be
constructed across the creek and to the existing powerhouse. This will need to be verified with
additional mapping and by conventional surveying methods. During low flows this crossing of
Delta Creek can be significantly dewatered by diverting the flow into the existing hydroelectric
penstock. This will aid construction of this creek crossing.
Optimal pipe size is a balance of pipe cost vs. head loss. For the range of flows expected on the
project an inside pipe diameter of about 15 to 16 inches is optimal.
HDPE will be an ideal material for the low pressure segment of the pipe line. It is relatively light in
weight, which minimizes shipping and handling costs, and requires little maintenance. The pipe
segments are heat-fused to form watertight joints to minimize leakage. It is a tough and durable
material, which will simplify construction and allow a less restrictive bedding specification. It is
also very smooth to minimize friction losses. HDPE pipe is produced in standard sizes and
thicknesses. It is generally specified by outer diameter and Standard Dimension Ratio (SDR). The
pressure rating for the pipe varies linearly with the SDR. Some SDR classes are more common, and
we have assumed that only the 3 most common classes would be used (SDR 26, 17, and 11,
corresponding to pressure ratings of 64, 100, and 160 psi).
At some point along the conduit alignment, the cost for HDPE pipe will be more than the cost of a
stronger type of pipe (such as steel) because of the relatively low strength of HDPE. For the
purposes of this evaluation, we have continued the HDPE to where the static pressure is 160 psi
(estimated as approximately 2800 feet downstream of the intake). The transition point is highly
dependent on the cost of the pipe materials, and so it should be re-evaluated when detailed survey
data is available and again when the time comes for ordering the pipe. The nominal size of HDPE
pipe selected is 18” which depending on the wall thickness ranges in inside diameter from 14.7 to
16.6 inches.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 6 of 10
The optimal nominal size of the steel penstock is 16 inches, which will have a similar inside
diameter to the adjoining 18” HDPE pipe. The recommended thickness for the steel pipe is 3/16
inch (assuming the steel has an allowable stress of 18,000 psi). This thickness should allow for
transient pressure requirements which will be determined during design. The steel pipe will need to
be coated for corrosion protection. An epoxy lining and polyurethane coating will provide
longevity.
A breakdown of the pipeline materials and dimensions are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Pipeline Materials and Dimensions
Pipeline Segment 1 2 3 4
Horizontal Alignment
Starting Station (feet)
Ending Station (feet)
Horizontal Length (feet)
0+00
11+00
1,100
11+00
17+00
600
17+00
28+00
1,100
28+00
45+00
1,700
Vertical Alignment¹
Starting Elevation (feet)
Ending Elevation (feet)
Average Slope (%)
720.0
572.0
13%
572.0
490.0
13%
490.0
350.0
13%
350.0
216.0
8%
Pipe Information
Total Length (feet)
Nominal Diameter (inch)
Material
SDR (Std. Dim. Ratio)
Wall Thickness (inches)
Pressure Rating (psi)
1,100
18
HDPE
26
1.154
64
600
18
HDPE
17
1.412
100
1,100
18
HDPE
11
2.182
160
1,700
16
Steel
NA
0.188
359²
Construction Information
Support Type
Adjacent to Road?
Buried
Yes
Buried
Yes
Buried
Yes
Buried
Partial
¹ All elevations based on an assumed slope of 13% from intake to west bluff of Delta Creek.
² Based on allowable stress of 18,000 psi.
Powerhouse
A powerhouse could be located on either the east or west side of Delta Creek. A powerhouse on the
east side would be located adjacent to the existing powerhouse. This would allow use of the existing
mechanical and electrical systems within the existing powerhouse and would provide for ease of
operator access. A site on the west side of Delta Creek was also considered because it would allow
the tailrace water to be returned to Waterfall Creek upstream of potential anadromous fish habitat
areas. Anadromous fish habitat was not found during the reconnaissance fisheries work and this
alternative was dropped due to the advantages of co-location with the existing Delta Creek
powerhouse.
A 16’ x 40 foot addition on the east side of the existing powerhouse is proposed. The penstock
would enter on the north wall of this addition. Discharge from the turbine will flow through a
concrete channel in the powerhouse foundation, then into the existing powerhouse tailrace channel to
Delta Creek.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 7 of 10
The powerhouse includes the following features:
• A 16’×40’ slab-type reinforced concrete foundation, with column footings and perimeter
walls similar to the existing powerhouse.
• A 16’×40’ pre-engineered insulated metal building superstructure, designed for the
appropriate snow, seismic, crane, and wind loads. The existing building shell will be
modified to include doors to access the addition.
• A double nozzle Pelton impulse turbine with hydraulically-operated needle valves and jet
deflectors. Rotational speed would be 720 rpm.
• An induction generator rated at 375 kW, 480V.
• A butterfly-type turbine shutoff valve.
• A hydraulic power unit for operating the turbine valves.
• An overhead monorail hoist for assembling and loading turbine and generator components.
The existing powerhouse work area will be extended to the north to allow hoist loads to be
set or picked up from trucks in the work area. The existing backup diesel generator will need
to be relocated.
• A control system designed for remote-automatic operation of the generating unit.
• This arrangement will piggyback on the existing DC power system, HVAC equipment
plumbing systems and substation equipment.
Access Road
A road will be required to access the intake site and to construct and maintain the pipeline. A
potential access route was identified along the northeast side of the creek (right side when facing
waterfall). From the intake area, this route would traverse a bench to exit the creek canyon and then
swing downhill and to the south to connect with the recently constructed road to Leonard Harbor.
This access route would take advantage of the new bridge across Delta Creek. The length of this
road is approximately 5,000 feet. The average slope over this route would be 10% with some
steeper sections. Winter access on this road may be difficult as a photograph of the site from winter
of 2006 showed that there may be significant snow drifting along the upper sections of the roadway.
Mapping, surveying and soils exploration will be necessary to further define this route.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 8 of 10
Cost Estimate
The estimated total cost of this project is $3,700,000. This cost includes construction, contingency,
design, permitting, construction management, escalation and construction financing. A detailed cost
estimate is attached.
The estimated cost of the turbine, generator and controls is based on a preliminary quotation from
Canyon Industries, a firm located in Washington that specializes in the manufacture of small Pelton
turbines. The estimated cost of the HDPE pipe is based on preliminary quotations from Arctic Pipe
in Anchorage, Alaska. The estimated cost of the steel pipe is based on preliminary quotations from
Northwest Pipe in Seattle, Washington.
The remainder of the costs including mobilization, intake and diversion, powerhouse and access
roads, are based upon bid prices from the King Cove Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project that was bid
in 1994. There were 10 bidders on this project and bidders provided both lump sum prices for
project components and unit prices for additional work. Average bid prices were used and were
inflated from 1994 to 2007 by 147% based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost
Indices.
Power Generation
The annual generation of the project has been estimated using a spreadsheet that calculates the
generation for each hour of the available streamflow record. As discussed in the hydrology section,
this streamflow record consists of approximately one year of flow record from May 20, 2005 to June
19, 2006. It is unknown whether this period represents a high, low or average period of streamflow.
Where there are overlapping dates an average was used.
The primary assumptions and parameters used by the model in calculating the energy generation are
as shown below:
Installed capacity: 375 kW
Maximum turbine flow: 12.0 cfs
Minimum turbine flow: 0.6 cfs
Gross head: 500 feet (headwater at El 720, turbine CL at El 220)
Type of operation: Run-of-river
Pipeline length: 4,560 feet
Pipeline inside diameter: 16”
Conduit friction coefficient: 140 for both steel and HDPE (Hazen Williams)
Turbine type: 2-jet Pelton
Turbine/generator efficiency: Varies (30 to 84% depending on flow)
Transformer efficiency: 99%
Transmission efficiency: 95%
Instream Flow Requirements 0 cfs
Streamflow record Average hourly flows, 1 year record
The maximum turbine flow of 12 cfs is the maximum that this type of generator can handle.
Increases in flow will cause an incremental increase in generator costs. As it works out, this 12 cfs
maximum flow is about the optimum flow for the project. The minimum flow is set as 5% of the
maximum flow. Generation from the project will also be limited by the loads to be met. It is
assumed that electric demand is great enough to use all available hydroelectric power.
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street
Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone (907) 644-2000
Fax (907) 644-2022
www.hdrinc.com
Page 9 of 10
The estimated generation by the project for the assumptions discussed above is 1,400 MWh per
year. Below is the theoretical power generation by month based on flows from May 2005 to June
2006.
Table 4
Estimated Energy Generation
Month Energy (kWh)
January 57,056
February 30,489
March 57,464
April 63,286
May 109,660
June 228,564
July 137,837
August 141,334
September 210,610
October 177,471
November 86,001
December 97,155
Annual 1,400,000
Economic Analysis
The table below provides a simple economic analysis of the project.
Project Annual Energy (kWh/yr) 1,400,000
Estimated Project Cost $3,700,000
Annual Debt Service (25 yr @6%, 100% financing of entire project cost) $260,000
Annual O&M Allowance $10,000
First Year Energy Cost per kWh, 2007 dollars $0.20
Estimated Diesel Efficiency (kWh/gallon) 14
Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $2.45 per gallon (2007 cost) $245,000
Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $3.00 per gallon $300,000
Annual Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel at $3.5 per gallon $350,000
Waterfall Creek Mean Daily Flow - 2005-2006DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, 5/20/2005 - 6/19/2006DAILY MEAN VALUESDAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP1 12.7 5.5 2.5 3.4 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.4 9.8 8.4 4.4 6.72 10.6 5.3 3.1 3.3 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.4 10.3 8.1 4.1 7.33 9.5 5.1 3.7 3.3 1.7 1.6 11.3 1.6 9.6 8.9 4.2 7.14 12.9 5.0 4.4 3.2 1.7 1.6 9.6 1.8 9.1 7.8 4.2 8.85 11.4 4.9 5.0 3.1 1.7 1.6 3.5 2.2 9.7 7.0 3.8 10.46 11.7 4.8 5.0 3.1 1.6 1.6 3.1 1.7 10.8 6.5 3.6 8.37 10.1 4.7 4.9 3.0 1.6 1.5 5.0 1.6 10.8 6.2 3.4 7.28 9.0 4.5 4.8 2.9 1.6 1.5 5.9 1.5 11.8 5.8 3.3 9.89 10.6 4.4 4.7 2.8 1.5 1.5 4.5 1.2 16.1 5.5 3.2 8.410 8.9 4.3 4.6 2.8 1.5 2.2 3.4 1.4 12.3 5.3 5.3 7.211 8.1 4.2 4.5 2.7 1.5 12.6 4.8 1.8 10.7 5.2 4.3 8.012 7.8 4.0 4.4 2.6 1.5 3.9 4.6 2.4 10.4 5.7 3.7 6.613 7.7 3.9 4.3 2.6 1.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 9.1 5.0 3.6 7.114 7.7 3.8 4.2 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.9 9.2 4.7 3.6 12.215 7.4 3.7 4.1 2.4 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.8 10.2 5.3 4.4 11.316 6.6 3.5 4.0 2.3 1.6 3.5 2.0 2.9 15.1 5.7 7.0 8.417 7.5 3.4 4.0 2.3 1.6 3.0 1.8 4.3 18.6 5.2 10.9 11.518 6.7 3.3 3.9 2.2 1.6 2.5 1.6 3.9 12.4 4.7 18.3 11.319 6.8 3.2 3.9 2.2 1.6 2.9 1.8 15.0 10.9 4.5 12.0 21.320 6.9 3.0 3.9 2.1 1.6 2.4 1.8 7.3 11.8 4.3 8.7 13.021 6.3 2.9 3.9 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.3 5.0 12.4 4.5 7.4 11.722 6.1 2.8 3.8 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.0 4.6 11.0 4.3 8.3 14.423 5.9 2.8 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.9 1.0 6.0 9.9 4.7 7.2 10.924 5.7 2.7 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.7 8.2 11.3 5.5 7.1 9.325 5.2 2.7 3.8 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.8 11.3 11.1 4.6 8.5 8.526 4.9 2.7 3.7 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.2 12.0 10.1 7.7 7.0 13.827 4.9 2.6 3.7 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.4 11.9 10.2 7.0 6.1 13.128 5.8 2.6 3.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.6 11.9 11.0 5.7 6.3 16.529 5.1 2.5 3.6 1.9 2.3 1.1 13.4 11.0 5.2 5.7 16.830 4.6 2.5 3.5 1.8 5.9 1.3 10.7 9.3 5.0 7.9 16.131 4.7 3.4 1.8 3.0 9.7 4.7 7.5MEAN 7.7 3.7 4.0 2.5 1.6 2.6 2.9 5.4 11.2 5.8 6.3 10.8MEDIAN 7.4 3.6 3.9 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.9 10.8 5.3 5.7 10.1MAX 12.9 5.5 5.0 3.4 1.8 12.6 11.3 15.0 18.6 8.9 18.3 21.3MIN 4.6 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.3 1.5 0.7 1.2 9.1 4.3 3.2 6.6Values from May 20, 2005 to November 1, 2005 and February 23, 2006 to June 19, 2006 are calculated from hourly stream gage data. Values from November 1, 2005 to February 23, 2006 are interprolated from periodic staff gage readings. Values from overlapping days are an average of each day.
WATERFALL CREEKFLOW DURATION CURVE HOURLY DATA2005-200605101520253035400 20 40 60 80 100EXCEEDENCE IN PERCENTFLOW IN CFS
KING COVE "WATERFALL CREEK" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPT DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
FERC Unit Total
Acc No Description Quantity Unit Price ($)
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Penstock, access roads ACRE $0 0
.2 Royalty on Materials CY $0 0
Subtotal - Acc No. 330 - Land and Land Rights 0
330.5 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS
.1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 L.S.418,077$ 418,077$
Subtotal - Acc No. 330.5 - Mobilization and Logistics 418,077$
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Powerhouse Addition (16' X 40') 640 sf
.1 Clearing (Powerhouse/Switchyard)0 ACRE 2,208$ -$
.2 Excavation 178 C.Y.11$ 1,973$
.3 Backfill 142 C.Y.30$ 4,257$
.4 Riprap (tailrace)50 C.Y.59$ 2,943$
.5 Concrete (including reinforcing)28 C.Y.1,152$ 32,655$
.6 Metal Fabrications 500 LB.6$ 3,000$
.7 Furnishings and Fixtures 1 L.S.5,000$ 5,000$
.8 Pre-eng'd Metal Building 640 S.F.100$ 64,000$
.9 HVAC and Plumbing 1 L.S.5,000$ 5,000$
1.0 Grounding Grid 1 L.S.5,000$ 5,000$
Subtotal - Acc No. 331 - Stuctures and Improvements 123,828$
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS
.1 Grouted Rock Dam 1 L.S.611,144$ 611,144$
Subtotal - Grouted Rock Dam 611,144$
.2 Penstock
.1 Clearing (30' wide)3.1 ACRE 2,208$ 6,842$
.2 Pipe Supply, Steel, 16", 3/16" wall thickness 1,700 LF 55$ 93,500$
.3 Pipe Supply, HDPE, 18" SDR 26 1,100 LF 17$ 18,810$
.4 Pipe Supply, HDPE, 18" SDR 17 600 LF 26$ 15,342$
.5 Pipe Supply, HDPE, 18" SDR 11 1,100 LF 38$ 41,888$
.7 Rock Excavation 300 C.Y.48$ 14,504$
.8 Common Excavation 5,000 C.Y.11$ 55,483$
.9 Bedding 1,700 C.Y.32$ 54,842$
1.0 Backfill 3,600 C.Y.10$ 37,087$
1.1 Riprap (Delta Creek Crossing)74 C.Y.59$ 4,361$
1.2 Install Pipe 4,500 LF 15$ 67,500$
Subtotal - Penstock 410,158$
Subtotal - Acc No. 332 - Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways 1,021,302$
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 325 kW Pelton turbine, generator, controls 1 LS 385,000$ 385,000$
Subtotal - Acc No. 333 - Turbines and Generators 385,000$
9/12/2007
KING COVE "WATERFALL CREEK" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONCEPT DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Supply Power Cable (powerhouse to intake)4,500 LF 9$ 39,736$
.1 Supply Fiber Optic Cable (powerhouse to intake)4,500 LF 3$ 13,245$
.1 Cable Installation (powerhouse to intake)4,500 LF 9$ 39,736$
.1 Splice Vaults (powerhouse to intake)2 EA 4,415$ 8,830$
Subtotal - Acc No. 334 - Accessory Electrical Equipment 101,548$
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Monorail Crane 1 L.S.22,076$ 22,076$
Subtotal - Acc No. 335 - Miscellaneous Mechanical Equipment 22,076$
336 ROADS
Intake Access Road, 4500 LF 1 L.S.278,979$ 278,979$
Subtotal - Acc No. 336 - Roads 278,979$
SUMMARY
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS -$
330.5 MOBILIZATION AND LOGISTICS 418,077$
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 123,828$
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS 1,021,302$
333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS 385,000$
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 101,548$
335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 22,076$
336 ROADS 278,979$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 2,350,810$
Equipment Contingency (Accts. 333,334,335)10%51,000$
General Contingency (Accts 330,330.5,331,332,336)20%368,000$
CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE 18%Average 419,000$
TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES 2,769,810$
Design Engineering, Surveying & Geotechnical 12%332,377$
Licensing/Permitting 2%55,396$
Construction Management 4%110,792$
Escalation 2007 to 2008 (1 year at 5% per year)5%138,491$
Construction Financing (1 year at 10% per year)10%276,981$
TOTAL OTHER COSTS 914,037$
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (2007 DOLLARS, ROUNDED)3,700,000$
Annual Debt Service (30 yr @ 6%, 100% financing of entire project cost)$266,200
Annual O&M Allowance $10,000
Project Annual Energy (MWh/yr)1,397
First Year Energy Cost per kWh $0.20
Diesel Fuel Cost 2.45$ GAL
Diesel Efficiency 14.0 kWh/gal
Value of Displaced Diesel Fuel 244,475$
9/12/2007
September 12, 2007
Mr. Robert Butera, P.E.
HDR Alaska
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 995032632
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your email regarding the Waterfall Creek hydroelectric project. We appreciate the
opportunity to update our estimate for this equipment package.
Canyon Hydro has been building the highest quality equipment for hydroelectric power
equipment since 1976. We feel that when you choose a hydroelectric equipment package you
are also choosing a company to work with. Our company’s reputation has been developed by
building the best turbines available and by providing our customers with responsive service
throughout the project.
From the information sent, we understand the static head is planned for 500 feet and that the
net head is assumed to be 450 feet for the sake of this feasibility study. For this estimate, we
have increased the turbine’s capacity to 12 cfs. We expect an output of 375KW at the rated
flow.
We are pleased to offer a package to include Canyon double nozzle Pelton turbine with
hydraulically actuated needle nozzles and jet deflectors, 720rpm – 375KW – 3/480/60 induction
generator, hydraulic power unit, TIV, controls and switchgear to parallel with the local grid.
Budget estimate for the package as described is …………..$385,000.00 USD
Estimate is FOB Deming, 30 - 34 weeks after receipt of order
The equipment offered will be custom designed to meet the particular requirements of the sites
assuring the most efficient system possible. As the projects progress and any further
requirements are determined, we would be pleased to offer complete Preliminary Design
Specifications and quotation as necessary.
I look forward to discussing this proposal with you. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
Brett Bauer
BWB:pan
Load double1.5%2.5%3.5%5.2% generator mod. Gen combined7.5% 76.60% 73.100% 55.63% 55.63%10.0% 88.40% 84.900% 67.92% 67.92%15.0% 92.70% 89.200% 74.75% 74.75%20.0% 95.00% 91.500% 78.32% 78.32%25.0% 95.90% 92.400% 80.85% 80.85%30.0% 96.40% 92.900% 82.22% 82.22%40.0% 97.20% 93.700% 83.86% 83.86%50.0% 97.50% 94.000% 83.19% 83.19%55.0% 97.50% 94.000% 82.72% 82.72%60.0% 97.50% 94.000% 83.24% 83.24%70.0% 97.50% 94.000% 84.22% 84.22%80.0% 97.60% 94.100% 84.27% 84.27%90.0% 97.50% 94.000% 84.13% 84.13%100.0% 97.50% 94.000% 83.19% 83.19%110.0% 96.90% 93.400% 80.79% 80.79%LOAD EFFICIENCY10% 67.9%20% 78.3%30% 82.2%40% 83.9%50% 83.2%60% 83.2%70% 84.2%80% 84.3%90% 84.1%100% 83.2%EXPECTED PELTON TURBINE/GENERATOR COMBINED PERFORMANCEWATERFALL CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%LOADCOMBINED TURBINE/GENERATOR EFFICIENCY9/4/2007
Quote
Date
7/27/2007
Quote #
7-790
Customer
HDR Engineering
2525 C STREET SUITE 305
ANCHORAGE, AK 99503
Attn: Mr. Bob Butera, PE
Arctic Insulation & Mfg
Phone Number
644-2028
Terms
Net 30
Quote by
jrh
FOB
Seattle
Our products are warranted only to the extent that we will replace without charge, products proved to have manufacturing defects within six months of the date of
delivery there and provided we have been given an opportunity to inspect the product alleged to be defective. No warranty is included against any expense for
removal, re-installation or other consequential damages arising from any defect. Due to the widely varying conditions under which our products are installed and
used, we cannot be and are not bound, and no person is authorized to bind us by any further warranty whatsoever expressed or implied including the warranty or
merchant ability and fitness for a particular purpose, Arctic Insulation & manufacturing will not accept any purchase orders involving retainge and/or liquidated
damages. Arctic Insulation & Manufacturing terms are net 30 days.
Total
1704 Ship Ave
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 677-9540 ~ Main Office
(907) 677-9541 ~ Fax
DescriptionUnitQty.WeightUnit Price TotalItem #
18" HDPE SDR 26 PE3408
PIPE 40' LENGTH BLK
LF1,000 16.4817.10 17,100.001.
18" HDPE SDR 17 PE3408 PIPE
40' LENGTH BLK
LF520 24.6325.57 13,296.402.
18" HDPE SDR 11 PE3408 PIPE
40' LENGTH BLK
LF1,000 36.7038.08 38,080.003.
FREIGHT FROM FACTORY
TO SEATTLE DOCK
EA1 2,400.00 2,400.004.
Bob,
Sorry about the delay with this
quote.
If you have any questions please
let me know.
Thank you.
John Helie
$70,876.40
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Prepared for:
City of King Cove
3880 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
December 2013
Revision
Pages
No. Date Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By
First Draft 10/21/09 P.Berkshire/B. Butera B.Carey, AEA
G. Hennigh, City of KC
Second Draft 08/23/13 P.Berkshire/B. Butera
Updated Pipe 12/5/2013 B.Butera/D.Elwood
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Table of Contents
Page
Section I - General Design Criteria
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ I-1
2.0 References .............................................................................................................................. I-1
3.0 General Description of Facilities ........................................................................................... I-2
4.0 Materials ................................................................................................................................. I-3
4.1 Unit Weights .............................................................................................................. I-3
4.2 Concrete ..................................................................................................................... I-3
4.3 Reinforcement ............................................................................................................ I-3
4.4 Earth and Rock........................................................................................................... I-4
4.5 Steel ............................................................................................................................ I-4
4.6 Timber ........................................................................................................................ I-4
Section II - Diversions and Intake
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... II-1
2.0 References ............................................................................................................................. II-1
3.0 Description of Facilities ........................................................................................................ II-1
4.0 Hydraulic Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... II-3
4.1 General Project Operation ........................................................................................ II-3
4.2 Design Maximum Water Surface Elevation............................................................. II-3
4.3 Normal Maximum Water Surface Elevation ............................................................ II-3
4.4 Minimum Operating Water Surface Elevation......................................................... II-3
4.5 Design Flow .............................................................................................................. II-3
4.6 Intake Submergence.................................................................................................. II-4
4.7 Fish Screen Velocity ................................................................................................. II-4
4.8 Trash Rack Velocity ................................................................................................. II-4
4.9 Trajectory of Flow .................................................................................................... II-4
5.0 Structural Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... II-4
5.1 Crest Elevation of Diversion Structure ..................................................................... II-4
5.2 Foundation Bearing Pressures .................................................................................. II-5
5.3 Stability ..................................................................................................................... II-5
Section III - Pipeline
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... III-1
2.0 References ........................................................................................................................... III-1
3.0 Pipeline ................................................................................................................................ III-1
3.1 General ..................................................................................................................... III-1
3.2 Materials .................................................................................................................. III-2
3.3 Design Loads ........................................................................................................... III-2
4.0 Thrust Blocks ...................................................................................................................... III-4
5.0 Elbows ................................................................................................................................. III-5
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Table of Contents
(Continued)
Page
Section III - Pipeline (Continued)
6.0 Pipeline Appurtenances ..................................................................................................... III-5
6.1 Manholes .................................................................................................................. III-5
6.2 Air-release and Air-vacuum Valves ........................................................................ III-5
6.3 Leak Detection System ............................................................................................ III-6
7.0 Trenching ............................................................................................................................ III-6
Section IV - Roads and Site Drainage
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... IV-1
2.0 References ........................................................................................................................... IV-1
3.0 Access Roads....................................................................................................................... IV-1
4.0 Clear Creek Crossing .......................................................................................................... IV-3
5.0 Site Drainage ..................................................................................................................... IV-3
5.1 Ditches .................................................................................................................... IV-3
5.2 Culverts ................................................................................................................... IV-3
5.3 Peak Flow Rates...................................................................................................... IV-3
5.4 Conveyance Sizing ................................................................................................. IV-3
Section V - Powerhouse
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... V-1
2.0 References ............................................................................................................................ V-1
3.0 General Description of Facilities ......................................................................................... V-1
4.0 Turbine/Generator ................................................................................................................ V-1
5.0 Plant Controls ....................................................................................................................... V-2
5.1 Load Controls ........................................................................................................... V-2
5.2 Backup Power ........................................................................................................... V-4
5.3 Intake Control ........................................................................................................... V-4
5.4 Other Powerhouse Equipment .................................................................................. V-5
6.0 Powerhouse Structure........................................................................................................... V-6
6.1 General ...................................................................................................................... V-6
6.2 Earthquake Loads ..................................................................................................... V-7
6.3 Snow Loads............................................................................................................... V-7
6.4 Wind Loads ............................................................................................................... V-7
Section VI - Transformer
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... VI-1
1.1 Replace or Upgrade ................................................................................................ VI-1
Appendix: AEA Comments on First Draft Design Criteria
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section I
General Design Criteria
1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the general design criteria to be used in preparing final designs of the
diversion and intake structures, pipeline, powerhouse, transmission line and access roads for the
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project. Section I presents general design criteria to be used for these
project facilities. Sections II, III, and IV present specific design criteria for the diversion and intake,
pipeline, and roads and site drainage respectively, and should be used in conjunction with the general
criteria in this section. Design criteria for the powerhouse, powerhouse equipment, and switchyard
changes are covered in Sections V and VI.
These design criteria are to be used as the basis for preparing detailed design drawings, calculations,
and specifications.
2. REFERENCES
Design engineers should also refer to applicable information contained in the following documents:
1. USGS 1:63,360 scale contour map, Cold Bay, Alaska, 1983 edition.
2. Aero-Metric, 1”=400’ mapping based on photography acquired 10-30-1995 at a nominal
scale of 1’=2000’.
3. HDR Alaska, Inc., King Cove “Waterfall Creek” Hydroelectric Project, Concept Design
Report –Final, September 12, 2007.
4. HDR Alaska, Inc., King Cove Hydroelectric Project Record Drawings, February 28, 1994.
5. HDR Alaska, Inc., King Cove Hydroelectric Project Contract Documents for General
Construction, January 1994.
6. Shannon and Wilson, Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project, Reconnaissance Report,
September 21, 2009.
7. FERC "Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects," 1991.
8. Gemperline, Eugene, J. M., ASCE, Considerations in the Design and Operation of Hydro
Power Intake, Cold Regions Hydrology and Hydraulics, pgs. 157-556, 1990. A State of the
Practice prepared by the Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. Edited by William L. Ryan and Randy D. Crissman.
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The Project will be located on a small unnamed creek approximately 5 miles north of the City of
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
King Cove. This creek is adjacent to and west of an existing hydroelectric project on Delta Creek
that was constructed in 1995. The creek has a noticeable waterfall that is visible from the Delta
Creek hydroelectric powerhouse. For the purposes of this memorandum we will call this creek
“Waterfall Creek”.
The drainage basin for this creek is generally south facing, and ranges in elevation from
approximately 3000 feet down to 700 feet near the top of the waterfall and 190 feet where
Waterfall Creek meets Delta Creek. The basin can best be observed from near the water tank at
the high point on the King Cove Airport Road.
The project will capture the streamflow approximately 500 feet upstream of the falls and discharge
it to Delta Creek at the existing Delta Creek tailrace. The general project arrangement will
include the following main features and is shown in Figure 3 with a detail of the lower portion
shown in Figure 4.
An intake structure located 500 feet upstream of the waterfall at approximately elevation
680 feet.
A pipeline located to the northeast side of Waterfall Creek.
A powerhouse constructed as an addition to the existing Delta Creek Hydro Project
powerhouse.
A new 480V - 12.5 kV transformer and use of the existing 5.6 mile 12.5 kV transmission line
connecting the existing Delta Creek Hydro powerhouse to the City of King Cove.
An access road to the intake structure that crosses Delta Creek with a bridge and is
generally located on the northeast side of Waterfall Creek.
Based on the field reconnaissance the diversion structure will be approximately 20 feet wide at the
base and 40 feet wide at the top (assuming a 10 foot height). The intake will be designed to divert
water at a rate of up to 12 cfs for hydroelectric power generation. The intake will be constructed of
cast-in-place concrete keyed to the diversion structure and will include provisions for sluicing
bedload, preventing debris from entering the pipeline with a trash rack, releasing a 1 cfs instream
flows, and dewatering the pipeline with a shutoff valve. A buried pipeline will be constructed from
the intake to the powerhouse. The pipeline diameter will be 20 inches, and the pipeline will be
approximately 4,000 feet long. The pipeline will be constructed from high density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe. Electrical power and control signal cables will be run to the intake and a spare conduit
will be included.
A road will be required to construct and access the intake site and the pipeline. The road will
switchback up the northeast side of the creek (right side when facing waterfall). A bridge will be
required across Delta Creek. The length of this road is approx imately 3,600 feet. The average
slope over this route would be 13% with some steeper sections. Winter maintenance of this road
may be difficult as a photograph of the site from winter of 2006 showed that there may be
significant snow drifting along the upper sections of the roadway.
A powerhouse would be located adjacent to the existing powerhouse. This would allow use of
much of the existing mechanical and electrical systems within the existing powerhouse and would
provide for ease of operator access. A 19-foot x 40-foot addition on the east side of the existing
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
powerhouse is proposed. The penstock would enter on the north wall of this addition. Discharge
from the turbine will flow through a concrete channel in the powerhouse foundation, then into a
short new tailrace and then into the existing powerhouse tailrace channel to Delta Creek.
The powerhouse includes the following features:
A 19’×40’ slab-type reinforced concrete foundation, with column footings and perimeter
walls similar to the existing powerhouse.
A 19’×40’ pre-engineered insulated metal building superstructure, designed for the
appropriate snow, seismic, crane, and wind loads. The existing building shell will be
modified to access the addition.
A double nozzle horizontal Pelton impulse turbine with hydraulically-operated needle
valves and jet deflectors. Rotational speed would be 600 rpm.
An induction generator rated at 400 kW, 480V.
A butterfly-type turbine shutoff valve.
A hydraulic power unit for operating the turbine valves.
An overhead monorail hoist for assembling and loading turbine and generator components.
The existing powerhouse work area will be extended to the north to allow hoist loads to be
set or picked up from trucks in the work area. The existing backup diesel generator will
need to be relocated.
A control system designed for remote-automatic operation of the generating unit.
This arrangement will piggyback on the existing DC power system, HVAC equipment
plumbing systems and substation equipment.
4. MATERIALS
4.1. Unit Weights
The following standard unit weights (pounds per cubic foot) shall be used, where applicable.
Water 62.4
Steel 490
Concrete 150
Wood 25
Ice 60
Snow at intake area 25
Snow at powerhouse site 10
Backfill 100
4.2. Concrete
The analysis and design of new reinforced concrete structures shall follow the latest revision of ACI
Code 318 and applicable sections of ACI 350. Reinforced concrete structures shall be analyzed on
the basis of the theory of elastic frames, but design of a section shall be carried out using the ultimate
strength design method.
Concrete used for the project shall achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi at 28 days.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Lean concrete for pipe slurry bedding (if used) will have a minimum 1,000 psi compressive strength.
Cement used for the project shall be Type I or Type III, conforming to ASTM C 150.
4.3. Reinforcement
Reinforcement detailing will be performed in accordance with the ACI Manual of Standard Practice
for Detailing Reinforced Concrete Structures. Reinforcement shall conform to the requirements of
ASTM A 615, Grade 60.
4.4. Earth and Rock
Engineering properties for soils, including allowable temporary and permanent excavated slopes, and
characteristics of borrow material will be determined by a geotechnical analysis provided prior to
final design.
4.5. Structural Steel
Steel members shall be designed in accordance with the Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, and the Manual of Steel Construction published by the
AISC. Structural steel and miscellaneous steel will comply with the following ASTM requirements:
Structural steel shapes, plates and bars A36
Structural Steel Tubing A500 Grade B
Aluminum Members B209
Bolts A193, Grade B8 or better
Grating A36 or Aluminum
Checkered Plate A108 Grade 1016,1018,1019
Handrail A120 Std. Wt.
Stainless Steel A304 (ANSI 18 Cr 8 Ni)
Exposed metal surfaces will be hot dip galvanized or stainless, except for gates and valves. All
exterior stairs, and checkered plate will be hot dip galvanized in accordance with ASTM A123. All
exposed bolts, nuts, and washers will be type 304 stainless. Gates and valves inside powerhouse will
be painted, outside gates and valves will have a weather resistant factory applied paint.
4.6. Timber
Timber used for structural purposes shall be treated West Coast Douglas Fir, designed in accordance
with the UBC and American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC).
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section II
Diversion and Intake Structure
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents the hydraulic, structural, and mechanical design criteria for the diversion and
intake structure.
2. REFERENCES
1. USBR, "Design of Small Dams," third edition, 1987.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Hydraulic Design Criteria."
3. U.S. Geological Survey, "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Alaska and Conterminous
Basins of Canada," Provisional Report, September 1992.
3. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The diversion structure will be approximately 20 feet wide at the base and 40 feet wide at the top
(assuming a 10 foot height). The intake will be designed to divert water at a rate of up to 12 cfs for
hydroelectric power generation. The intake will be constructed of cast-in-place concrete keyed to
the diversion structure and will include provisions for sluicing bedload, preventing debris from
entering the pipeline with a trash rack, releasing a 1 cfs instream flow, and dewatering the pipeline
with a shutoff valve. A buried pipeline will be constructed from the intake to the powerhouse. The
pipeline diameter will be 20 inches, and the pipeline will be approximately 4,000 feet long. The
pipeline will be constructed from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. Electrical power and
control signal cables will be run to both intakes.
Basic requirements of the diversion and intake structure are as follows:
1. The diversion and intake structure will be designed as similar as possible to the existing
structure at Clear Creek to aid operator familiarity.
2. A small amount of bedload is expected to accumulate behind the diversion structure. With
the sluice arrangement, a channel will be kept open through the reservoir to the intake
channel by the action of a sluiceway. The sluiceway will also keep the area in front of the
trashrack free of sediment. The sluice way will be designed to pass the largest bedload as
determined during final design. Discharge through the sluiceway will be controlled by a
conventional flat sluice gate. The gate will be capable of operating remotely. Power and
controls for the gate will be designed by HDR.
3. A submerged HDPE trash rack will be installed between the sluiceway and the intake box to
keep debris from entering the intake box. HDPE will be used to minimize any frazil ice
issues. The trash rack will be set with freeboard above the bottom of the sluiceway to
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
allow bedload to pass by. Vertical bar spacings will be selected after turbine supplier
recommendations are reviewed in the final design. Provision will be made for installation
of pressure differential measuring instruments. When the difference in water level
upstream and downstream of the trashrack exceeds a preset limit, plugging is occurring, and
the plant control computer will sound an alarm and call for operator.
4. The intake box will be designed to limit water velocities to less than 1 ft/sec which will
allow settling of larger material which passes through the trashrack, preventing it from
entering the pipeline. Settling area below the pipeline invert will be designed into the
intake box. An outlet pipe with a gate valve will be included in the intake box to expedite
clean-out if sediment accumulates. A second outlet with an orifice plate will be included to
release instream flow. The orifice plate will be field calibrated to pass 1 cfs. A gate valve
will be included on the outlet to allow removal and replacement of the orifice plate during
calibration.
5. The sluiceway, intake box, and intake controls will be housed and heated. A manhole will
extend from this housing into a small structure that extends above the snow line to allow
winter access.
6. A butterfly valve will be installed to shut off flow to the pipeline and allow the pipeline to
be drained. The valve will be capable of operating remotely and manually. Valve shafts
and disc edges and other exposed hardware shall be stainless steel. The valve will be
inside a roofed intake box. An atmospheric air vent will be placed downstream of the
shutoff gate. Valve operators will have metal security enclosures.
7. The diversion and intake facilities will be designed with future maintenance in mind.
Principal maintenance tasks are expected to be:
Lubrication of motor operators
Removal of sediment deposits in intake
Removal of sediment deposits upstream of the diversion structure to maintain
unrestricted flow to the intake
Removal of floating debris against trash racks
8. Project facilities shall be designed against potential vandalism. For example, hinges shall
be concealed, bolts tacked down and solid covers provided over openings in the intake
deck. OSHA standards shall apply. Fencing will not be installed around the
diversion/intake.
9. Sluiceway stop-logs will be made of timber.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
4. HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA
4.1. General Project Operation
The project will be operated in a run-of-river mode. Fluctuation of the water levels of the pond
behind the diversion will be kept to a minimum.
4.2. Design Maximum Water Surface Elevation
The design maximum water surface elevation will be based on the 100-year instantaneous flood as
determined by HDR. The diversion structure will have 2 feet of freeboard over the design maximum
water surface elevation.
4.3. Minimum Operating Water Surface Elevation
Flow from the intake will be controlled by a headwater level measurement device sending a signal to
the powerhouse Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The PLC will modulate opening or closing
of the turbine nozzles to regulate the intake water surface elevation. The device will be programmed
by HDR to maintain the pool elevation behind the diversion structure within an approx. 3-inch range.
Assuming there will be times when the pool level will temporarily drop below the 3-inch range, the
minimum operating water surface elevation will be set at 12 inches below the diversion crest. The
powerplant will be shut down when the water surface elevation drops below the minimum operating
water surface elevation, or if the turbine flow is below the minimum discharge setting. The minimum
discharge setting may be determined either by freezing conditions inside the turbine tailrace, or by
flow less than necessary to produce power.
4.4. Design Flow
The trash rack and pipeline from the intake to the junction of the powerhouse will be sized to convey
a maximum flow of no less than 12 cfs to the turbine.
4.5. Intake Submergence
The maximum intake invert elevation will be set based on an article by J. L. Gordon (Water Power,
April 1970). The equation is:
S = CVD0.5
where:
S = Elevation difference between min. operating elevation and crown of intake, ft
C = 0.4 (for lateral approach flow)
V = Velocity of flow in pipeline, fps
D = Diameter of pipeline, ft
4.6. Minimum Instream Flow
The Waterfall Creek diversion dam and water intake will be designed to spill a constant flow of 1 cfs;
this spill requirement will not be increased over the life of the project. The flow from the Waterfall
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Creek diversion will be established by a fixed orifice plate. During times when Waterfall Creek flow
is naturally less than 1 cfs at the intake, all available water will be spilled into Waterfall Creek. When
Waterfall Creek flow ranges between 1 and 13 cfs at the intake, the 1 cfs of spill will be maintained.
Flow greater than 13 cfs will be spilled into Waterfall Creek.
4.7. Trash Rack Velocity
Maximum flow velocity through the trash rack shall not exceed 3 fps. The trash rack will be
designed to withstand full differential pressure across the rack.
4.8. Trajectory of Flow
The downstream apron of the diversion structure shall be sized to minimize undermining of the
diversion structure and to direct flows along the natural lines of the creek.
5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA
5.1. Design Loads
The diversion and intake structure shall be designed to resist overturning and sliding in accordance
with FERC's "Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects." The diversion
structure shall be analyzed for four loading cases: I) normal operating, II) flood, III) normal
operating with earthquake, and IV) construction.
5.1.1. Hydrostatic Pressure
Hydrostatic levels shall be as determined by the hydraulic design criteria.
5.1.2. Uplift Pressure
Uplift will be assumed to act over 100 percent of the area of the intake structures and to vary as a
straight line from the maximum differential between headwater and tail water.
5.1.3. Earthquake
Equivalent static earthquake inertia forces will be computed in accordance with the UBC for Zone 4,
with a site coefficient of 1.0. Vertical seismic loads are assumed to be zero.
5.1.4. Ice and Snow
The magnitude of pressure exerted by ice sheets against the diversion and intake structure shall be
assumed to be 5 kips per linear foot. Snow load for the intake structures located in gullies where
snow deposition occurs will be 160 pounds per square foot.
5.1.5. Silt
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
For determining the pressure against structures caused by silt, the unit weight of silt shall be 85 pcf for
computing horizontal pressures and 120 pcf for computation of vertical pressures.
5.1.6. Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls and other backfilled structures shall be determined from the
formula:
F = 0.5KwH2
where:
F = Horizontal earth pressure
K = Coefficient of earth pressure
Kactive = (to be determined)
Kat rest = (to be determined)
Kpassive = (to be determined)
w = Unit weight of soil plus ground water, pcf
H = Height of soil, ft
5.1.7. Wind Load
Design will be per UBC with a basic wind speed of 110 mph, exposure factor D.
5.2. Foundation Bearing Pressure
Bedrock is assumed.
5.3. Stability
Structures will be designed to meet FERC-standard factors of safety for low hazard dams as shown
below for each of the following load cases:
Case I: Normal Operating Condition
- Pool elevation at spillway crest
- Silt loading
Case II: Flooding Condition
- 100-year flood level
Case III: Earthquake Condition
- Same loads as Case I plus earthquake loads using static seismic coefficients.
Case IV: Construction Condition
- Construction completed with no water behind diversion structure
- Earthquake forces applied as in Case III
5.3.1. Overturning
Structures will be considered safe against overturning for each load case if the vertical stress at the
heel, without uplift, exceeds uplift pressure at that point. For the extreme loading conditions, the
structure will be considered safe against overturning if the pressure at the toe is less than the allowable
stress in the concrete and the foundation, and the resultant is within the middle half of the foundation.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Factors of safety as in Section 5.3.2, sliding will apply.
5.3.2. Sliding
For structures on soils, the factor of safety (F.S.) against sliding, defined as the ratio of friction
resisting forces to horizontal driving forces, will be calculated by the formula:
where V = summation of all vertical forces and H = summation of all horizontal forces. Minimum
factors of safety for various load conditions, and coefficients of friction for various soil types are
given below:
Minimum Factor of Safety Coefficient of Sliding Friction
Case FS Soil (f)
I 2.00 Clay 0.3
II 1.25 Sand 0.4
III 1.25 Gravel 0.5
IV 1.10
For structures on rock, stability against sliding will be determined by the shear-friction factor.
where:
Q = Shear friction factor
C = Cohesion value of concrete on rock, psf
A = Area of base considered, sf
W = Sum of vertical forces (except uplift), lb
U = Uplift forces, lb
tan Ö = Coefficient of internal friction
H = Sum of horizontal forces, lb
Minimum factors of safety will be 2.0 for Case I, 1.25 for Case II, and 1.1 for Cases III and IV.
5.3.3. Flotation
Stability for uplift pressure will have minimum factors of safety of 1.5 for Case I, 1.25 for Case II and
1.1 for Cases III and IV.
H
V(f)x = FS
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section III
Pipeline
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents the design criteria to be used as the basis for preparing detailed design drawings,
calculations, and specifications for the pipeline and thrust blocks.
2. REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 8th edition.
2. American Water Works Association, Steel Pipe Design and Installation M-11.
3. American Iron and Steel Institute, Welded Steel Pipe, Steel Plate Engineering Data Volume 3,
1983.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Pipelines and Tunnel Liners, Steel Plate Engineering
Data Volume 4, 1984.
5. American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Plate Engineering Data Volume 4, 1992. Buried
Steel Pipelines.
3. PIPELINE
3.1. General
The pipeline will extend from the intake to the powerhouse and will be approximately 4,000 feet
long. The pipeline will be constructed from HDPE and will be buried throughout its length. The
HDPE pipeline will transition to steel pipe just upstream of the powerhouse thrust block. The outside
diameter of the pipeline will be 20 inches based on life cycle costs. The recommended class of HDPE
pipe by pressure zone is summarized in following table:
Zone Pipe Class Diameter Wall
Thickness
Minimum
Head
Maximum
Head
Minimum Depth
of Cover
non-dim inches inches feet feet feet
1 SDR 13.5 20 1.48 0 40 1.83
2 SDR 17 20 1.18 40 286 2.25
3 SDR 13.5 20 1.48 286 368 1.83
4 SDR 11 20 1.82 368 460 1.83
5 SDR 9 20 2.22 460 470 1.83
The pipeline will follow the access road from just downstream of the intake to the Delta Creek
crossing. For the majority of the route, the pipe will be located in the centerline of the access road.
The pipeline will cross Delta Creek on the downstream side of the road bridge and will be supported
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
in a steel casing. The steel casing will be supported on the concrete bridge abutments with
intermediate supports from the bridge structure. The gap between the HDPE pipe and the steel
casing will be maintained with casing spacers and filled with insulating foam. Casing spacers will
be designed to accommodate the electrical and communication conduits. Boots will be installed on
the ends of the pipe.
A small water catchment structure and pipeline will also be installed on a small unnamed stream
north of Waterfall Creek (locally known as Springs Creek). The Springs Creek diversion will convey
all of the available water (up to the capacity of the pipeline) to Waterfall Creek through an 8-inch
diversion pipe. A magnetic flux flow meter will be installed on the Springs Creek pipeline to measure
discharge from Springs Creek. An energy dissipation structure will be located at the end of the pipe.
Springs Creek water will be discharged near location WC-7, identified during field investigations.
3.2. Materials
High Density Polyethylene pipe shall be designed in accordance with ASTM 3350, Standard
Specification for Polyethylene Plastic Pipe and Fittings Materials and design guidelines from the
Handbook of PE Pipe published by the Plastic Pipe Institute. The HDPE material shall conform to
ASTM F412, “Standard Terminology Relating to Plastic Piping Systems”, Grade PE4710.
Pipeline specifications will include all appurtenances and bulkheads required for field hydrotesting of
the completed pipeline.
3.3. Design Loads
The following design criteria shall be used for the design of the HDPE pipeline. The pipeline will be
designed to resist internal pressure, external live loads, buckling loads during construction,
overpressure/vacuum due to water hammer, and hydrostatic leak testing to 125 percent of static head.
3.3.1. Internal Pressure
The internal pressure rating (PR) of the HDPE pipe shall be based on the following equation from the
Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 6:
where:
D = Outside diameter of the pipe (in)
t = Wall thickness of the pipe (in)
HDS = Hydrostatic design stress (1000 psi for PE4710 material)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
FT = Service temperature design factor (1.0 for water temperature less than 73 Deg. F)
AF = Environmental application factor (1.0 for fresh water)
3.3.2. Live Load
The live load on the buried pipe shall be calculated for the same live load cases described previously
for the steel pipe. Timoshenko’s equation for soil pressure shall be used to calculate the combined
earth and live load on the buried pipe. The minimum depth of cover for the pipe under the roadway
shall be not less than one pipe diameter (22 inches) per guidance from the Handbook of PE Pipe. The
following equation shall be used to calculate the live loads on the buried pipe:
[
]
where:
PL = Vertical soil pressure due to live load (lb/ft2)
If = Impact factor (2.0)
Ww = Wheel load (lbs)
ac = Wheel contact area (ft2)
H = Depth of cover (ft)
rT = Equivalent radius (ac/π)1/2
3.3.3. Allowable Live Load Pressure at Pipe Crown
The allowable live load pressure at the pipe crown shall be calculated to ensure that the live loads on
the roadway will not damage the pipe. The following equation for the Handbook of PE Pipe shall be
used to calculate the allowable live load pressure (PWAT):
(
)
where:
w = Unit weight of soil (lb/ft3)
K = Passive earth coefficient (3.0)
Hc = Depth of cover (feet)
I = Pipe wall moment of inertia (in4)
SF = Safety factor (Minimum factor of safety of 3.0)
c = Outer fiber to pipe wall centroid (in)
SMAT = Material yield strength (3,600 psi for 4710 HDPE)
D0 = Outside diameter of pipe (inches)
t = Pipe wall thickness (inches)
3.3.4. De-watered Buckling of Pipe
The allowable buckling pressure for the constrained evacuated pipe during construction shall be
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
calculated to ensure that the pipe will not collapse during construction. The Luscher equation shall be
used to calculate the allowable constrained buckling pressure (PWC) for the pipe:
√
where:
SF = Safety factor (Minimum factor of safety of 2.0)
H = Depth of cover (feet)
E’ = Soil reaction modulus (psi)
E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe (32,000 psi for HDPE pipe)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
3.3.5. Water Hammer
The transient pressure surge in the HDPE pipeline shall be based on a sudden slam of one of the
turbine needle valves resulting in instantaneous reduction in flow of 50% through the pipeline. The
maximum pressure due to surge shall not exceed 2.0 times the design pressure per the design
guidelines from the Handbook of PE Pipe. The absolute vacuum pressure due to surge shall be no
more than 0.33 times the allowable unconstrained pipe wall buckling pressure (PWU).
The amplitude of the surge pressure wave (PS) shall be calculated using the following equations from
the Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 6:
(
)
√
where:
a = Wave celerity (ft/s)
ΔV = Sudden velocity change (ft/s)
g = Gravitational constant (32.174 ft/s2)
KBULK = Bulk modulus of fluid (300,000 psi for fresh water)
Ed = Dynamic instantaneous effective modulus of pipe (150,000 psi for PE4710 material)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
The allowable unconstrained pipe wall buckling pressure (PWU) shall be calculated using the
following equation from the Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 6:
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
(
)
where:
f0 = Ovality correction factor (0.76 based on guidance from Handbook of PE Pipe)
NS = Factor of safety (Minimum factor of safety of 2.0)
Ed = Dynamic instantaneous effective modulus of pipe (150,000 psi for PE4710 material)
μ = Poisson’s ration of pipe (0.45 for HDPE)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
4. THRUST RESTRAINT
The pipeline will be retrained joint design for its entire length. The powerhouse thrust block will
be designed to resist the load on the guard valve and will be designed into the powerhouse foundation
. Anchor rings will be designed for powerhouse thrust block to accept dead-end thrust.
Hydrostatic thrust at bends will be calculated according to the following equation:
where:
T = Thrust force, kips
ã = Unit weight of water, 0.0624 kip/ft3
H = Head on the pipeline centerline, feet
A = Area of the pipe, sq feet
Ä = Deflection angle of bend, degrees
Hydrodynamic thrust at bends will be calculated according to the following equation:
where:
T = Thrust force, lb
ñ = Density of water, 1.94 slug/ft3
V = Water velocity, ft/sec
Q = Flow rate, ft3/sec
Thrust blocks will be designed according to the following equation:
Area required = (Total thrust)(1.5)/Horizontal bearing capacity of soil
5. ELBOWS
Elbows for steel pipe bends will have a minimum radius of seven pipe diameters and will be
fabricated in accordance with AWWA C208. The maximum deflection per joint will be 1 degree.
Miter ends will have a maximum deflection angle of 5 degrees. Elbows will be two piece through
22.5 degrees, three piece through 45 degrees, four piece through 67.5 degrees, and five piece through
90 degrees.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Elbows for HDPE pipe bends will be fabricated in accordance with D 3261 “Standard Specification
for Butt Heat Fusion Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Fittings for Polyethylene Plastic Pipe and Tubing.”.
6. PIPELINE APPURTENANCES
6.1. Pipeline Failure Detection System
A pipeline failure detection system will be designed to close the intake valves in the event of a
pipeline failure. Pipeline pressure will be monitored at the power house and if it drops below a set
level the intake valves will close and the system will shut down. Design and programming of
controls to perform this function will be by HDR.
7. TRENCHING
The pipeline will be in a cut-and-cover trench having a bottom width a minimum of 1 foot wider (6
inches each side) than the pipe outside diameter. Trench depths will be 6 inches below the grade of
the outside bottom of the pipeline to provide a uniform bedding support for the entire length.
Bedding and backfill to a height of 6 inches above the pipe will be compacted 2 inch minus screened
pit run material for HDPE and 3/4 inch minus screened pit run material for steel. Material suitable
for this use with minimal screening is available at a pit near the airport. A minimum soil cover will
be provided over the top of the pipe to handle H20 surface loads. Pipe will not be buried below the
frost line. It is assumed the pipe will either be flowing or drained and will not be left full when plant
is not operational during the winter. Trench details will show power and communication cables to
be installed along with the pipe.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section IV
Roads and Site Drainage
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents design criteria for the project access roads and site drainage. It covers the
design of permanent access roads and site drainage for the entire project.
2. REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, 2001.
2. AASHTO Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads, 2001.
3. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Highway Preconstruction
Manual, 2005.
4. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Standard Specifications for
Highway Construction, 2004.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Standard
Specification for Highway Bridges.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Design of
Highway Culverts, September 1985.
3. ACCESS ROADS
A permanent road will be constructed to the intake site. The access route is generally along the
northeast side of Waterfall Creek (right side when facing waterfall). The road will begin near the
existing powerhouse and cross Delta Creek upstream of the existing powerhouse with a bridge.
The length of this road is approximately 4,300 feet. Winter maintenance of this road may be
difficult as a photograph of the site from winter of 2006 showed that there may be significant snow
drifting along the upper sections of the roadway.
Specific details of road design are shown in the following table.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Project: Waterfall Creek Access Road
New Construction / Reconstruction Rehabilitation (3R) Other:
Design Functional Classification: Rural Industrial Access Road (GDVLVLR, Page 7)
Rural Local Road (PGDHS, Page 383)
Terrain Hill, up to 16%
Design Year: 2030
Present Year ADT: Construction traffic 2014
Design Year ADT: Service & Inspection traffic after construction
Directional Split (50/50% D): 50/50 Dead end Road
Design Vehicle: Single Unit truck, SU; Largest truck is a cement truck
Design Speed: 20 MPH (PGDHS, Exhibit 5-1)
Stopping Sight Distance: 90 Feet (GDVLVLR, Exhibit 12)
Passing Sight Distance: N/A
Maximum Allowable Grade: 16.0%, (PCM, Figure 1120-1)
Minimum Allowable Grade: N/A
Minimum Curve Radius: 190ft at 3% super; 160 Ft at 6% super (PCM, Figure 1120-5) see
note below
Minimum K-value for Vertical Curves: Sag Crest
10, see note below 4 (GDVLVLR, Exhibit 12)
Roadway Widths:
Single lane Road
16 Feet
Side Slope Ratios: Foreslopes Backslopes
1.5:1 3:1
Road cross slope: 3%
Superelevation: None
Road surfacing material: ADOT E-1
GDVLVLR = Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads
PGDHS = A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
PCM = Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual
Curve Radii
The road uses switchbacks to ascend the slope with grades up to 16%. While the design speed is 20mph,
the expected vehicle speed will be much lower. The minimum curve radius for the switchback curves is
50ft to accommodate the expected turning radius of the cement truck.
Vertical Curves
The GDVLVLR does not define the curvature (k) for sag curves; it refers to the PGDHS Exhibit 5 -2. To
determine the ratio between the GDVLVLR crest k and the PGDHS crest k was multiplied by the PGDHS
sag k to find the low volume sag k. (4/7 x 17 = 10).
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
4. DELTA CREEK CROSSING
The road will cross Delta Creek about 750 feet upstream of the existing powerhouse at approximately
the 235-foot contour level. The crossing will have a span of approximately 50 to 60 feet and a top
width of 16feet and will be a pre-manufactured bridge. The road grade across the bridge will be
approximately 10 percent. The bridge will span the entire creek and will be designed to pass the
100-year flood flow. Riprap will be placed at the east abutment, the west abutment is bedrock. A
short dike will be extended upstream on the east side of the creek to connect the east abutment to a
low hill to prevent flood flows from running along the toe of the road fill.
The concrete abutments will be prefabricated in order to expedite construction of the bridge to allow
access for road construction. Concrete abutments will be extended to support the pipeline.
5. SITE DRAINAGE
5.1. Ditches
Drainage ditches will have a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum slope of 2 percent.
Runoff velocities will be limited to 3 fps where no armor protection of the ditch is provided.
Appropriate armor protection will be designed where velocities exceed 3 fps. Ditches at select
portions of the roadway will have a perforated pipe installed and the ditch backfilled with cobbles to
support the weak soil in these areas.
5.2. Culverts
Culverts will be corrugated HDPE with a minimum diameter of 18 inches. The minimum depth of
cover over culverts will be 12 inches. Culverts will have slopes of at least 2 percent.
5.3. Peak Flow Rates
Flow rates produced by storm water runoff from small drainage areas will be determined by the
Rational Formula:
Q = CIA
where:
Q = Peak flow, cfs
C = Runoff coefficient, 0.5
I = Rainfall intensity, 1.0 in/hr, (25-year, 1 hr)
A = Drainage area, Acres
5.4. Conveyance Sizing
Drainage ditches will be sized for the calculated runoff flow rate for the area drained. Sizes will be
determined by Manning's Equation:
where:
Q = Flow rate, cfs
n = 0.024 for ditches
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
R = Hydraulic radius = A/P, ft
A = Area of flow, sf
P = Wetted perimeter, ft
S = Slope of ditch, ft/ft
Culverts will be sized and designed in accordance with FHA requirements. Manning's roughness
coefficient for corrugated culverts will be 0.024.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section V
Powerhouse
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents design criteria for the powerhouse and related powerhouse equipment. It
covers the design of the powerhouse structure, turbine generator, auxiliary equipment, indoor
switchgear and controls.
2. REFERENCES
1. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, 2007.
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal structure extension on the north side of the existing
powerhouse, housing a turbine, generator, switchgear, and controls. All equipment will be located
on a single level, with a reinforced concrete slab on grade floor. The turbine will discharge into a
tailrace with depth similar to the existing turbine. The exterior of the building will be designed to
match the original for a pleasant appearance. Approximately half the length of the north wall of the
existing building will be opened by removing the siding, to connect the inside of the new section.
The wall footing will be cut flush with the floor slab, and the new floor will match the existing floor
elevation. Floor drains will be directed to the existing oil/water separator sump. No new
ventilation openings are planned.
Conduits for electric power and controls will be installed overhead from the new switchgear and
control panels to the controls in the existing building, routed to avoid interference with the operation
of the existing unit. Conduits from the controls to the turbine and generator will be embedded in the
floor.
The generating unit will be designed for fully automatic shutdown and for one-button start-up. All
controls would be at the powerhouse. The powerhouse will continue to be checked daily but a full
time operator will not be necessary. The plant addition will be designed to interface with the
SCADA system that allows remote monitoring of the plant from the city over existing
communication lines. Manual operation will be possible from the powerhouse.
Enough floor and access space will be provided to disassemble the turbine and to remove the
generator for maintenance.
4. TURBINE/GENERATOR
The turbine will be an impulse type Pelton machine rated 560 Horsepower at 12 CFS discharge under
450 ft net head.
The turbine unit will have one or two jets and will have a horizontal shaft. The nozzles and deflector
position controls will be either electrically or hydraulically operated. The turbine needles and
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
deflectors shall be equipped with self lubricating bushings and stainless steel stems and linkage pins.
The turbine generator main shafting shall be equipped with four bearings and a rigid shaft coupling
and a flywheel between turbine and generator. All main shaft bearings shall be sleeve oil self
lubricating type, designed for continuous operation at runaway speed. All bearings shall be equipped
with Resistance Temperature Devices (RTDs). One generator bearing shall be insulated to prevent
circulating current. One bearing shall be equipped with thrust capability in both directions to keep
the turbine runner aligned with the nozzles. If water cooling of the bearings is required the bearings
shall be equipped with internal stainless steel or copper-nickle bronze cooling coils.
The rating of the induction generator will be 400 kw, 480 volts AC, 60 Hz. The generator shall be
open drip proof construction. The generator housing shall have a provision for connecting duct to
the cooling air discharge to exhaust it from the building. The generator specifications shall
accommodate use of a standard catalog design induction motor with normal industrial options.
A speed governor may not be required as the unit will only generate when paralleled with another
generating source on the system which will govern frequency. However, the benefits of adding
speed governing for pick up of a step increase in load, such as following a system outage, will be
evaluated during final design, and such speed governing will be included if it is beneficial.
Power Factor Correction may be required for the induction generator. The existing 12 kV
underground power line already provides a significant capacitive load, estimated to be about 130
kVAR. The amount of capacitive load will be verified. The generator is expected to consume
approximately 240 kVAR which can be supplied from the other generator(s) that are on line, or it can
be provided by a switched capacitor bank. The need for and sizing of switched capacitors will be
determined during final design. The plant controls described below assume that a switched
capacitor bank will be added in the powerhouse expansion.
5. PLANT CONTROLS
5.1. Load Controls
It is assumed that the existing plant PLC I/O and logic can be expanded to include control of the new
turbine-generator.
During final design, evaluate whether the existing Programmable Logic Control (PLC) equipment
and program logic can be economically expanded to control the new unit. If not, provide a new
PLC with sufficient I/O and logic for fully automatic start, stop and intake water level regulation,
with either a communication port or discrete I/O points to interface with the existing SCADA
RTU. If the new turbine-generator controls cannot be located close to the existing control panels,
then additional metering such as bus voltage and frequency shall be provided on a new control
panel or the face of the new switchgear.
5.1.1. Local Monitoring
Local monitoring will be via the exiting turbine control panel in the Delta Creek powerhouse. If
additional investigations indicate that space is not available in the existing panel then a new panel
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
shall be designed.
5.1.2. Circuit Protection
The generator shall be equipped with a Woodward GCP-31 genset controller or equal, with the
following protective relaying:
One multi-function induction motor protective relay incorporating at least the following
relay functions: 27, 46, 49, 50, 59, 81 O/U, with RTD inputs
A speed sensing relay shall provide functions 12,13 and 14
59N relay may be included in the multi-function relay or be a separate device.
The capacitor feeder shall be equipped with a 50/51 over-current relay.
5.1.3. Metering
metering incorporated in the GCP-31 to include:
Volts phase to phase, phase Amperes, kilowatts, kilovar.
One speed indicator
Two turbine needle position indicators
One deflector position indicator
Intake water level indicator
One three element digital ammeter for the capacitor feeder.
5.1.4. Status indicators
Turbine Shutoff Valve
Generator Circuit Breaker
Capacitor circuit breaker
5.1.5. Control Switches
Turbine Start/Stop control switch with 2 indicating lights
Turbine Shutoff Valve control switch with 2 indicating lights
Generator Circuit Breaker control switch with 2 indicating lights
Capacitor Circuit Breaker control switch with 2 indicating lights
Off/Manual/Auto mode selector control switch
Two Needle position control switches
Deflector position control switch
Hand reset Lockout relay with indicating lights
5.2. Backup Power
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
The existing 15 kW diesel backup generator with diesel storage and day tanks will provide power
during any extended outage and to keep station batteries charged during outages. The new
equipment will not add significant load to that generator. The backup generator equipment may be
relocated if necessary to minimize the size of the powerhouse addition.
5.3. Intake Control
When operating, the turbine will be controlled to regulate the water surface elevation at the intake
pool. The unit controls will function to produce the maximum power from the available stream
flow. Following a system shutdown, the unit will restart as soon as the system voltage and
frequency are normal.
During final design it will be analyzed whether allowing temporary drawdown of the intake level
adds significantly to the system regulation when picking up step increases in load. If so, this scenario
will be incorporated into the logic in the PLC.
Starting: If all permissives to start are OK the turbine will automatically open the deflectors and
gradually open one needle until the generator accelerates to normal operating speed. When speed
reaches synchronous speed, the generator circuit breaker will close, putting the unit on line with little
inrush current. The capacitor breaker will close immediately following the generator breaker
closing.
Running: The turbine discharge shall be controlled to regulate the intake pond surface elevation to the
normal level. The turbine needles will be positioned to regulate the pond level within a range of
about 3 inches. For higher efficiency, the operation of the needles will be sequenced so that one
needle opens to approximately 90%, and then the second needle opening as the available flow
increases, and vice-versa for decreasing flow. The intake pond level control shall be performed in
the unit PLC with a Proportional-Integral-Differential control block. Separate logic will override
and shut down the unit if the pond level falls too low.
Stopping: In the event of a power system fault, the generator circuit breaker and the capacitor break
will open. The deflectors will close, diverting the power from the turbine, and the unit will coast to a
stop. The control system will continue to pass water through the turbine to regulate the pond level,
and when the bus voltage is normal the machine will reconnect and quickly return to producing the
same load as prior to the fault. The controls will include provision for preventing this via SCADA
input if the connected system load is less than 400 kW, and no diesel generators are on line, since this
unit is not expected to have a speed governor.
Any time the generator circuit breaker trips, or system voltage or frequency exceed allowable values,
the Capacitor circuit breaker will trip to avoid over excitation of generators.
5.4. Other Powerhouse Equipment
5.4.1. 480 Volt Switchgear
The existing switchgear is presumed to not be extendable. New 480 V switchgear shall be added
for the new induction generator. HDR will work with AEA to conform the new equipment to
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
match existing equipment for common spares parts and maintenance personnel familiarity.
5.4.2. Generator Circuit Breaker 52G-2,
The generator breaker shall be closed by turbine controller when water is available, the system
voltage is normal and the generator speed is within approximately 2% of the rated speed.
The generator breaker shall be tripped by any of the following:
The generator multifunction protective relay
The generator electrical lockout relay 86E
The generator mechanical lockout relay 86N
The circuit breaker control switch 52G2/CS
5.4.3. Capacitor Breaker 52C-2
The capacitor circuit breaker shall close to connect the power factor correcting capacitor to the 480
VAC bus when the generator circuit breaker closes.
The breaker shall be opened when the generator breaker open, or by the over -frequency relay or
the overvoltage relay if the system operates above the normal frequency or voltage to prevent self
excitation of the generator.
5.4.4. Power Factor Correction capacitor
Power factor correction capacitors shall be connected to the Generator 2 bus to provide excitation
for the induction generator. The capacitors shall be sized to the nearest nominal rating to correct
the power factor at rated voltage to approximately 95% lagging power factor, with allowance for
the capacitive load of the powerline. The capacitor units shall be individually fused with blown
fuse indicating lights (LED type). The capacitor bank shall be connected in Delta and shall not be
grounded.
5.4.5. Motor Control
Survey the existing plant motor control center to determine what spaces are available. The
following motor loads for the new unit may be required.
Turbine HPU – 2 AC motors, each rated 1 HP
If turbine needles are electrically operated – Two 125 VDC motors rated 1/3 HP each
Turbine Lube Oil pump – 1 AC motor rated 1/3 HP (if turbine requires circulating oil)
Ventilation fan – the new generator will add up to 20 kW (68,000 BTU/Hr) of heat load to
the building and a additional ventilation fan may be necessary.
Note that using the existing turbine HPU was considered and rejected in order to have higher
running reliability, and avoid adding risk to the tripping reliability of the existing unit.
If adequate motor starter spaces are not available in the existing MCC, then provide a single
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
feeder to the area of the new turbine and include either a small MCC or, a new panelboard, with
individual motor starters supplied as components of the new oil systems.
5.4.6. System Grounding
The new generator shall be supplied with a wye connection, and the neutral of the winding shall be
connected to high resistance grounding similar to existing generator1.
5.4.7. Miscellaneous
Other powerhouse equipment that will be included in the design includes:
Cooling water system
Building HVAC extension to existing system, if required.
Lighting
6. POWERHOUSE STRUCTURE
6.1. General
The powerhouse extension will be a prefabricated metal structure with a poured reinforced concrete
foundation. The equipment foundation will be used to resist the thrust loads on the guard valve to the
extent possible. An open tailrace channel approximately 4 feet wide will convey water back to Delta
Creek.
Excavation for the powerhouse extension shall be designed to protect the footings of the existing
powerhouse building.
6.2. Earthquake Loads
The building extension shall be designed for seismic zone 4 in accordance with Section 2330 of the
UBC with an importance factor of 1.25 and a site coefficient of 1.0.
6.3. Snow Loads
The powerhouse extension shall be designed to carry a basic roof snow load of 30 pounds per square
foot in addition to the dead load of the structure.
6.4. Wind Loads
Design will be per UBC with a basic wind speed of 110 mph, exposure factor D, and an importance
factor of 1.15 applied in accordance with Section 2311 of the UBC.
Section VI
Transformer
1. INTRODUCTION
It is assumed that a new 480V/12.5 kV transformer will be required for the Waterfall Creek unit.
However, the existing Delta Creek generator step up (GSU) transformer may be capable of handling
the load of both units.
U N I M A KI S L A N DB A YB R I S T O LCOLD BAYFROSTY PEAKFALSE PASSMT DUTTONPAVLOFVOLCANOSAND POINTPROJECT LOCATION MAPN.T.S.GENERALINTAKEAnchoragePROJECTLOCATIONKing CoveKodiakJuneauKetchikanNomeBarrowPROJECTAREAKINGCOVEPROJECT VICINITY MAPN.T.S.PROJECT AREA MAPN.T.S.C-361EMBANKMENT FILL PLAN AND PROFILEC-362 TYPICAL SECTIONSC-363 TYPICAL SECTIONSC-364TYPICAL SECTIONSC-365ACCESS ROAD DETAILSC-366ACCESS ROAD SUPERELEVATIONC-001 PROJECT MAPS & DRAWING INDEXC-002PROJECT SITE OVERVIEW MAPC-003GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS, LEGEND & SYMBOLSC-004SURVEY CONTROL DIAGRAM RECORD OF SURVEYC-005ARCHITECTURAL CODE TEXT IC-006ARCHITECTURAL CODE TEXT IIC-101 SITE PLANC-102 INTAKE PLANC-111INTAKE SECTIONS, SHEET 1C-112INTAKE SECTIONS, SHEET 2C-121INTAKE REINFORCEMENT PLANC-122INTAKE REINFORCEMENT SECTIONSELECTRICALMISCELLANEOUS DETAILSE-600ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION LEGENDE-601INTAKE ELECTRICAL PLAN (NIC)E-601AINTAKE EMBEDDED CONDUIT AND GROUNDING PLANE-602POWER HOUSE ELECTRICAL SITE PLANE-603POWER HOUSE ELECTRICAL PLANS (NIC)E-603APOWER HOUSE EMBEDDED CONDUIT AND GROUNDING PLANE-604ELECTRICAL GENERATOR ONE LINE DIAGRAM (NIC)E-605480V PANELBOARD GENERATOR ONE LINE DIAGRAM (NIC)E-606ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS (NIC)E-607ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES (NIC)E-608ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD SCHEDULES (NIC)E-609ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS (NIC)E-610ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION DETAILS (NIC)E-611P&ID (NIC)E-612COMMUNICATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BLOCK DIAGRAMSC-801MISCELLANEOUS STEEL DETAILS, SHEET 1C-802MISCELLANEOUS STEEL DETAILS, SHEET 2C-803MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE DETAILSNO.REVISIONSDATEDESCRIPTIONBYCHKAPPROV.ACCESS ROADCONTINUED1ACCESS ROADC-350ACCESS ROAD & PIPELINE SHEET KEY INDEXC-351 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 1+00 TO Sta 5+50C-352 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 5+50 TO Sta 10+50C-353ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 10+50 TO Sta 14+70C-354ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 14+70 TO Sta 20+10C-355ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 20+10 TO Sta 25+00C-356ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 25+00 TO Sta 30+50C-357ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 30+50 TO Sta 35+50C-358 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 35+50 TO Sta 39+50C-359 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 39+50 TO Sta 43+75C-360ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE STA 43+75 TO STA 47+67.16POWERHOUSEC-501POWERHOUSE SITE PLANC-521POWERHOUSE PLANC-522POWERHOUSE SECTIONS, SHEET 1C-523POWERHOUSE SECTIONS, SHEET 2C-531POWERHOUSE REINFORCEMENT PLANC-532POWERHOUSE REINFORCEMENT SECTIONSC-551POWERHOUSE ELEVATIONSC-400PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 60+00 TO Sta 64+50C-401PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 64+50 TO Sta 69+50C-402PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 69+50 TO Sta 73+80C-403PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 73+80 TO Sta 79+50C-404PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 79+50 TO Sta 84+50C-405PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 84+50 TO Sta 89+50C-406PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 89+50 TO Sta 94+50C-407PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 94+50 TO Sta 98+50C-408PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 98+50 TO Sta 103+50C-409PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 103+50 TO STA 106+04.61C-410SPRING CREEK DIVERSION PIPE PLAN AND PROFILEC-411PIPE DETAILSC-412PIPE DETAILSPIPELINE AND DIVERSIONMECHANICALM-151INTAKE MECHANICAL PLAN AND SECTIONSLWDBRFB9-5-2014ISSUED FOR BID
Tab B
Authorization to Submit
tug 26 2015 07;'13Pf4 Oty of lftg Cove 907 497 2594 page 3
CITY OF KING COVE
Resolution t6-02
A RESOIUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPTICATION TO
THE AIASI(A ENERcy AUTHOITTS RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND (ROUND e)
FOR THE WATERFAn CREEK HYDROELECTRTC PROIECT
WHEREAS, the final permitted and fully designed Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric
Project is expected to cost $6.95 million;
WHEREAS, the City expects to award the construction contract for the project in
August ?OLS and this tirning is essential for completing the project and have it
operational by the end of 20L6;
WHEREAS, all proiect permits have been secured, project sirc control has been
finalized, and flnal plans/specs and construction bid docurnents have been
completed; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FARTHER RBOLVED, this grant application for AEA's
Renewable Energy Fund (Round 9) funding is for $675,000;
BE IT FURTHER &ESOLI/F,D, that the City's FINAL tunding plan has been developed,
See attached Table 6 fWaterfall Creek Update - Project Cost and Funding
AlternativesJ. Note Project Cost Scenario #A where this REF#9 grant request for
$675,000 is shown; and,
BE IT FARTHER RESOLVED, that City Administrator, Gary Hennigh, is hereby
authorized to represent the City of King Cove on all matters related to this grant
request and the overall execution of the projecE and
FINALLY BE IT FARTHER RESOLVED, that the City of King Cove is in good standing
with respect to all existing city debt and federal tax obligations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by a duly constituted
Council this &4 daf of Aut 2015.
quorum of the City of King Cove
d"^* ^,',*h
HenryMachMayor
nyes 5Nays I
Abstained
Absent
-*t.
Tab C
Report with Tables
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
August 12, 2015
Project Overview
Waterfall Creek will be the second run-of-the-river hydroelectric facility owned and
operated by the City of King Cove. This project will consist of a concrete
diversion/intake structure, 4,500’ HDPE penstock pipeline, 16”x40” metal
powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton impulse turbine and induction generator,
remote-automatic control system, and 5,000’ access road. This facility is expected to
produce 1.07 megawatt (MW) of annual energy.
The project is fully permitted and designed. The project’s 375 kW turbine and
generator are 90% fabricated by Canyon Industries and will be ready for shipment
to King Cove this fall.
The City is posed to sign a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract with Sunland
Development Company for $3,587,298. The City conducted a very thorough review
of our procurement alternatives and concluded this type of contract arrangement
best serves our needs to get this project completed now and with the confidence of
cost controllability. Each procurement step along the way has been closely
coordinated with our City Attorney and authorized through a number of City
resolutions.
Project construction is starting next week and expected to be completed by next
August (2016) and online by early fall.
Waterfall Creek, along with our existing Delta Creek hydro facility, are expected to
produce up to 75% of the City’s annual power demand of around 4.5 to 4.7 MW.
King Cove’s renewable energy status is already fairly unique compared to other
single-site power grids in rural Alaska, and with the addition of Waterfall Creek, will
be even more unique!
A series of graphs and tables accompany this memo.
City’s Power Generation by Source – FY11-FY15 and FY16-FY21
As shown in Table 1, the total annual, system-wide demand for energy has
decreased from 5.18 MW in FY11 to 4.45 in FY15. This represents about a 14%
decrease which is primarily due to a series of conservation measures, including: 1)
replacing all street & harbor lighting with new LED lights; 2) decreasing overall
2
energy awareness and use in about 30 homes with “Smart Meters,” which allows
consumers to observe and react to their daily kWh’s demand; 3) lower diesel fuel
costs, which in turn, decreases the demand for space heat needs being met with
electric heat; and 4) weatherization upgrades for approximately 30 residents and a
number of public buildings.
Between FY11-FY15, the split between diesel and Delta Creek hydro generation has
been about 50-50. Recent control and monitoring upgrades to the Delta Creek
hydro will hopefully increase available renewable energy to FY11/12 levels of
approximately 2.9 MW. However, the City’s 20-year experience with Delta Creek
has shown that there are a number of reoccurring weather and sedimentation issues
which do impact annual hydro energy availability, including the amount of rain and
snow, air temperatures (particularly in fall and spring), and stream bed load (i.e.
occasionally big rocks and large amounts of gravel which need to be excavated out
causing temporary hydro shutdowns).
Table 2 is the City’s forecast of annual power generation demand for this year
(FY16) and the following five years (FY17-FY21). A 1% annual demand increase has
been assumed for these years.
Delta Creek generation is assumed to be 2.6 MW in FY16 and FY17 and slowly
increasing to 2.75 MW by FY21. As noted earlier, in FY11 and FY12, Delta Creek was
averaging about 2.9 MW. Waterfall Creek generation is more speculative at this
point. The City’s current assumption is that about 700,000 kWh (70%) of the
expected annual generation of 1.07 MW (i.e. based on the 12 cfs permitted amount)
should ultimately be available from Waterfall Creek for the City’s power generatio n
demand.
The anticipated amount of Waterfall Creek hydro energy should replace about
52,000 gallons of diesel in the city’s system. Combined with the existing Delta Creek
hydro, and the City’s current power generation demand, approximately 220,000
gallons of diesel fuel, annually, will be replaced with renewable energy in King Cove.
Two other items should be noted. First, the project’s original permit applications
(2009) were for 13 cfs of water from Waterfall Creek, which was estimated to
produce 1.4 MW of annual energy. However, a prolonged Title 16 permit process
resulted in the above documented 12 cfs and 1.07 MW parameters. This permit
reduction resulted in about 24% less energy from Waterfall Creek than originally
expected and previously endorsed by the Alaska Energy Authority at that time.
Second, the City assumes there may be an annual, average “surplus” of
approximately 300,000 to 500,000 kWh from the Delta Creek hydro facility.
Waterfall Creek could add another 200,000 to 300,000 “surplus” to that amount for
a total available energy surplus between 500,000 to 800,000 kWhs. See Table 4B
(footnote #3 for more discussion).
3
City’s Electric Fund
Starting in FY11, the City has been maintaining an annual “excess” revenue balance
with this fund. A $.04 kWh increase in residential and commercial rates and $.08
kWh increase in harbor electric rates went into effect in FY11. FY12 was a minor
exception due to $100,000 being transferred from the fund towards Waterfall Creek.
However, prior to FY11 this fund accrued a deficit of approximately $360,000. This
deficit has been paid by a “loan” from the City’s general fund, which must ideally be
paid back. Also, the City Council adopted a resolution in FY12 establishing a repair &
replacement fund for the electric utility and directed the administration to keep this
fund in a separate account and to accrue an initial fund balance of $250,000. At the
end of FY15, there is $120,000 in this fund.
Tables 3 and 4 show the City’s electric fund status. Table 3 covers FY11 through
FY15 (FY15 is the year-end budget numbers and will be audited later this month).
Footnotes accompany these tables and further explain the revenue and expenditure
categories.
Table 4 shows the current fiscal year (FY16) and forecasts the next five years (FY17-
21). Two key determinants are essential for the City in moving forward with the
Waterfall Creek project at this time (August 2015). Foremost is identifying the
amount of annual debt that the City is comfortable in committing to for the Waterfall
Creek project. At this time, the City is willing to accept and commit up to $2.82
million in long-term debt for the project (see Table 6 – Project Cost A).
Second is to develop a realistic and long-term fund with financial sustainability in
consideration of many variables, including weather/environmental factors, PCE
program longevity, the timing and need for customer rate increases, and the
unknown, long-term price of diesel fuel (i.e. even with declining dependency).
In consideration of these factors, the City administration has determined that a fund
balance of $500,000 by the end of FY21 meets this definition of fund sustainability.
However, if the City is not successful in receiving our REF#9 grant request for
$675,000, and needs to borrow this amount of additional funding, that will likely
add $40,000 to $50,000 in additional annual debt and fund expenditures.
Tables 4A (Annual Debt Cost Assumptions) and 4B (Waterfall Creek Energy/Fuel
Assumptions) provide additional cost data and information for Table 4.
Current/Final Project Cost
Table 5 presents the current/final Waterfall Creek project cost estimate of $6.95
million. This estimate has been fine-tuned over the last six months using a
combination of information, sources, and independent estimates. It also reflects the
City’s firm belief and expectation that our GMP contract agreement with Sunland is
4
our best way to control the project being constructed at a cost, which we are able
and willing to commit to at this time.
Note the project costs’ breakdown by major categories in Table 5. The City has
closely scrutinized the 6% project contingency ($200,000 reserved in the cost
estimate + the potential addition $100,000 from the other cost categories– see table
footnote) and is comfortable with this amount.
Also, as noted in Table 5, this amount includes the cost of a winter shut down. If a
winter shut down is not necessary, then there could be additional contract savings
up to $100,000.
The other project costs of $250,000 shown in Table 5 (and further detailed in Table
7) represent less than 4% of the total project cost.
Project Funding Alternatives
Table 6 presents the City’s two most realistic funding alternatives. Alternative A is
the City’s preference. This alternative assumes a REF#9 grant for $675,000 and an
addition $2.3 million in debt ($1.0 million from the Bond Bank in September 2015
and $1.3 million from the State Power Project Fund (PPF) available in early 2016).
The City’s assumption that an additional $675,000 from the Renewable Energy Fu nd
is predicated on an “equitable fairness” factor when Waterfall Creek is contrasted
with other similar sized and remote run-of-the-river hydro projects, which have
been funded by the State over the last 5-7 years.
Alternative B is our less preferred funding alternative. If the City is not successful
with its REF#9 grant request, then an additional $675,000 in PPF loan approval will
be requested. The City realizes that with this additional loan amount our annual
PPF debt payment would be approximately $130,000. See table 4A for a further
summary of annual debt cost assumptions for alternatives A and B.
Note the following information that was reviewed and considered in these funding
alternatives. First, AS 42.45.010, prohibits AEA from entering into a loan from the
Power Project Fund for a major project unless it has legislative approval of the
project and the amount. An appropriation for the loan that names the project
constitutes approval required by this subsection. A major project is a project in
which the cumulative state monetary involvement, through loans, grants, and bonds,
is at least $5,000,000 or a project for which a loan of more than $5,000,000 has been
requested.
After considerable discussion with AEA and Alaska Municipal Bond Bank (AMMB)
staff it was determined that “bonds” issued by AMMB for the Waterfall Creek project
are NOT included in this definition. This opinion has been verbally shared with the
City from each of these organizations and supported by a draft opinion from the
5
Department of Law.
In consideration of this statute, both of the City’s funding alternatives in Table 6 are
under the $5.0 million threshold. Consequently, the City has no need to seek
legislative authorization per AS 42.45.010.
Also, as noted in Table 6 both funding alternatives will require less than $2.0 million
in long-term loans from the PPF. The significance of this is less review time (6-8
weeks) for loan approval by AEA staff. Loans over $2.0 million requires AIDEA
Board approval and could require 3 to 4 months.
Project Cash Flow Plan
Table 8 summarizes the total project funding summary from FY12 through FY17
(assumes project completed and operational by Oct/Nov 2016). As noted in Table 6,
the City expects the maximum, total project cost not to exceed $6.95 million.
Table 9 provides a summary of the project’s estimated, monthly cash flow
requirements of $3,405,000 for the remainder of FY16 (August through December
2015). The anticipated sources of funding to meet this cash flow requirement are
also addressed in this table.
The City will be formally requesting that AEA provide a CASH ADVANCE of the
September and October amounts ($1.3 million) by no later than September 15,
2015.
Table 10 provides a summary of the project’s estimated, monthly cash flow
requirements of $1,725,000 for the remainder of FY16 (March through June 2016).
The anticipated sources of funding to meet this cash flow requirement are also
addressed in this table. As noted in this table, the City anticipates starting to use
PPF loan funds starting in early 2016. This is predicated on the City’s expectation
that its PPF loan application will be approved in late 2015.
Table 11 provides a summary of the project’s estimated, monthly cash flow
requirements of $1,070,000 for FY17 (July through September 2016). The
anticipated sources of funding to meet this cash flow requirement are also
addressed in this table. As noted in this table, the City anticipates using the
remaining PPF loan funds in July 2016 and then followed by the last 10% ($260,000
of the REF#6 grant funds).
Alternatively, the City’s MOST PREFERRED funding for the FY17 costs of $1,070,000
will be a REF#9 grant for $675,000, the remaining $260,000 (REF#6 grant funds),
and $135,000 from the City.
6
City of King Cove
Waterfall Creek Project
Table of Contents
Table 1 Power Generation FY11-FY15
Table 2 Power Generation FY16-FY21
Table 3 Electric Fund FY11-FY15
Table 4 Electric Fund FY16-FY2I
Table 44 Debt Assumptions
Table 48 Energy/Fuel Assumption
Table 5 Revised Project Costs
Table 6 Project Cost & Funding Alternatives
Table 7 City Administrative Costs
Table B Project Cash Flow FY12-FY19
Table 9 Project Expenditures & Revenues Aug - Dec 2015
Table 10 Project Expenditures & Revenues Mar - June 2016
Table 11 Project Expenditures & Revenues FY17
City of King Cove
Table 1
Power Generation By Source
FY1l-FY15
(MW)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
._*i Total MW Generated
s Diesel
Hydro
FY11"FYt2 FY13 FY15
Total
Gene
FYl1 FYLZ FY13 FY14 FY15
5.18 5.22 4.84 4.5I 4.45
2.35 45o/o 2.2O 42o/o 2'66 55o/o 2.77 49o/o 2.L3 4
2.83 55o/o 3.O2 59o/o Z.IB 45o/o 2'34 52o/o 2'32 5
3 YR AVG 5 YR AVG
4.60 4.84
2.32 50o/o 2.3O 48
2.28 50o/o 2.54 52
June 22, 2OL5
CitY of King Cove
Table 2
Projected Power Generation By Source
FY16.FY21
(MW)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
x Total
Projected MW
: Diesel
e Hydro
TOTAI FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY2O FY21
Proiected MW 4.45 4,50 4'55 4.55 4'60 4'65
Diesel 1.90 43o/o 1.60 35olo 1.25 27o/o 1.25 27o/o L'20 260/o 1.2O 260/o
Hydro 2.60 58o/o 2.95 660/o 3.30 73o/o 3.30 73o/o 3'40 74o/o 3.45 74o/o
Delta 2.60 2.60 2'65 2'65 2'7O 2'75
waterfall 0.00 0.35 0.65 0.65 0.70 0'70
Total 2.60 2.95 3.3O 3.30 3'40 3'45
June 22, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 3
Electric Fund FYl1- FY15
REVENUES
Customers
City Facilities
Harbor
Rec Heatl
Other2
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
Fuel
Person nel
Debt3
Supplies
S. Subsidya
I nsu ra nce
Utilitiess
Repair/Replace6
OtherT
Capital/GFB
TOTAL
EXCESS REVENUE
BEGIN FUND BALANCE
END FUND BALANCE
FY11
$777,020
349,227
t65,282
81,743
10.600
$t,323,872
$6L7,2tr
22r,050
t33,726
75,969
46,181
16,980
0
0
2L,622
q
$L,L32,739
$ 19 1,1 33
($348,476)
($ 1 57,343)
FY12
$653,193
366,234
180,120
L4B,026
316
$t,347,889
$555,104
230,152
145,000
72,O24
5r,2O2
16,000
35,165
30,000
34,775
q
$L,L69,422
$t78,467
($ 157,343)
$27,r24
FY13
$679,682
353,698
136,640
754,277
398
$L,324t695
$684,159
245,906
145,000
7r,og7
44,I34
76,977
33,r74
30,000
26,295
0
$L,296,732
$27,963
$2r,r24
$49,087
FYL4
$640,857
326,977
L25,430
82,539
78.823
$1,254,566
$573,017
239,490
145,000
7 t,t66
40,981
17,692
32,501
30,000
17,000
100.000
$L,266,847
($ 12,281)
$49,087
$36,806
FY15
$64o,ooo
330,000
135,000
75,000
80,000
$1,260,OO0
$440,000
250,000
160,000
65,000
45,000
20,000
50,000
30,000
17,000
60,000
$1,137,OOO
$ 123,000
$36,806
$ 159,806
June 25, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 3
Electric Fund FYl1 - FY15
FY10-14: Audited.
REVENUES
lRecoverable Heat Sales: City sells recoverable heat to the Aleutians East Borough School District, Eastern
Aleutian Tribes, and Aleutian Housing Authority. Prior to FYl4, this line item also included the PCE and PERS
revenue.
tother: State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization (PCE) subsidy & PERS (retirement system) adjustments.
EXPENDITURES
3Debt: Includes current, annual debt service on Delta Creek hydro facility. See Table 4A.
aSenior Subsidy: 50o/o of the City's senior citizen subsidy costs are included in this fund.
sUtilities: Hydro & diesel plants, lights, computer costs, electric boiler; not recorded prior to FY12.
6Repair/Replacement Fund: Line item fund with FY15 ending balance of $120,000. Regulated by City policy for
an initial fund accrual to $250,000'
'Other: Travel, phone, vehicle & fuel.
sCapital/GF Costs: Electric Fund contribution to Waterfall Creek hydro engineering/permit costs in FY14 &starting
in Fy15 paying back g60,000 annually to the City's general fund "loan" of $360,000 to the Electric Fund. A
6-year pay back plan of this loan has been established'
June 25,2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 4
Electric Enterprise Fund
FY16 - FY2T
REVENUES
Customers
City Facilities
Harbor
Other Rec Heat
Surplus Power
Othe13
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
Fuel
Personnel
Debt
Supplies
S. Subsidy
Insurance
Utilities
Repair/Replace
Other
General Fund
TOTAL
EXCESS REVENUE
BEGIN FUND BALANC
END FUND BALANC
FY 16
$640,000
330,000
135,000
80,000
0
80.000
$1,265,O0O
$410,000
263,000
191,000
65,000
60,000
22,OOO
36,000
110,000
19,000
60,000
$1,235,OOO
$30,000
$ 160,000
$ 190,000
FYLT
$640,000
330,000
135,000
85,000
0
80.000
$1,270,OO0
$375,000
275,OOO
209,000
75,000
60,000
24,OOO
37,000
50,000
19,000
60.000
$1,184,OOO
$86,000
$ 190,000
$276,000
FY18
$640,000
330,000
135,000
90,000
0
80.000
$1,275,0O0
$306,000
289,000
259,000
75,000
60,000
25,000
38,000
50,000
20,000
60.000
$1,182,0O0
$93,000
$276,00O
$369,000
FY19
$645,000
335,000
125,000
100,000
0
80.000
$1,285,OOO
$335,000
303,000
258,000
80,000
60,000
25,000
38,000
50,000
21,000
60.000
$1,23O,OOO
$55,000
$369,000
$424,000
FY20
$650,000
335,000
135,000
100,000
0
80.000
$1,3OO,OO0
$370,000
318,000
262,OOO
80,000
60,000
27,OOO
40,000
50,000
22,OOO
60.000
$1,289,OOO
$ 1 1,000
$424,0OO
$435,000
FY2T
$650,000
335,000
135,000
100,000
0
80.000
$1,3OO,OOO
$400,000
334,000
205,000
80,000
60,000
28,000
40,000
50,000
22,OOO
a
$1,219,OOO
$81,000
$435,000
$516,000
August 3,2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 4
Electric Enterprise Fund
FY16 - FYZT
REVENUES
lRecoverable Heat Sales: City sells recoverable heat to the Aleutians East Borough School District, Eastern
Aleutian Tribes, and Aleutian Housing Authority. Prior to FY14, this line item also included the PCE and PERS
revenue.
2Surplus power: City has the potential to sell 'surplus power" to PeterPan Seafoods from both the Waterfall Creek & Delta
Creek hydroelectric facilities. See footnote #3 in Table 48.
tother: State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization (PCE) subsidy & PERS (retirement system) adjustments.
EXPENDITURES
aFuel: Decrease in fuel consumption for diesel system due to increase in renewable energy. See Table 48'
tDebt: Includes current, annual debt service on Delta Creek hydro facility. See Table 44 for annual debt costs &
assumPtions.
6Senior Subsidy: Starting in FY16, 600/o of the City's senior subsidy costs are included in this fund.
tutilities: Hydro & diesel plants, lights, computer costs, electric boiler; not recorded prior to FY12.
sRepair/Replacement Fund: Line item fund with FY21 ending balance of $400,000. Regulated by City policy.
nother: Travel, phone, vehicle & fuel.
toGF Reimbursements: Annual payments of $60,000 towards payment of the "loan" to the City's general fund from the
Electric Fund. A 6-year pay eack plan of this loan, starting in FY15, has been established.
August 3,2075
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 4A
Electric Fund
Annual Debt Cost AssumPtions
FY16 - FY21
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY2O FY21
Debt # t 143,000 139,000 139,000 138,000 142,0OO 0
(DC ReFi)
Debt#Z22,OOO22,OOO22,OOO22,OOO22,OOO40'000
(wc-BB1)
Debt#326,00048,00048,00048,00048,00075'000
(wc-BB2)
Debt #4 q g 50,000 50'000 50'000 90'000
(wc-PPF)*191,000 209,000 259,000 258,000 262,000 205'000
NOTES:
Debt #1: payoff & Refi of Delta Creek via AK Bond Bank; last annual payment June 2020 (FY20).
Debt #2: g525,000 Bond Bank debt incurred in June 2014;25-year loan @ approximately 4o/o annually; interest only
payments of g22,000 through FY2A; starting in FY21 average annual P&I payments of $40,000 through June
203e (FY3s).
Debt #3' g1,000,000 Bond Bank debt assumed in September 2015;25-year loan @apProximately 4olo annually;
interest payments only of g4B,O00 starting in FY17 through FY20; starting in FY21 average annual P&I
payments of $75,000 through June 2046'
Debt #4: g1,300,000 loan from power Fund Project assumed in spring 2OL6;3o-year loan @ approximately 3.5olo
annually; interest only payments of 950,000 starting in FY1B through FY20; starting in FY21 average annual
P&I payments of $90,000 through lune 2051'
If the City is not successful in receiving a REF#9 grant for $675,000, the requested PPF debt will be $1.975
million for 30 years. Annual debt payment estimate is approximately $135,00'
August 3,201s
City of King Cove
Waterfall Creek Energy/Fuel Assumptions
Table 48
Construction contract signed July 2015
2015 - Project construction begins (FY16); shut down for winter, if
necessary [cost to shut-down included in cost)
Z0t6 - Project completion by later summer & online by November
[FY17]
Power Generation Assumptions
kwh
350,000
650,000
700,000
Diesel/kWh Gallons
2,1-30,000 154,000 x
1,900,000 134,000 x
1,600,000 1L3,000 x
1,205,000 85,000 x
1,205,000 85,000 x
1,200,000 85,000 x
L,200,000 85,000 x
FY1-7
FY18 & FY19
FYZO & FYZ1
Fuel Assumptions (gallons demand & price)
FY15
FY16
FY1.7
FY18
FY19
FYzO
FY27
Price
2.85
3.06
3.30
3.60
3.95
4.35
4.75
Total
$440,000
410,000
375,000
306,000
335,000
370,000
400,000
Notes
1l Assume 1 gallon/diesel= 14.2 kWh
2) Fuel price assumptions: [a) 7.5% annua] increase in fuel prices for FY16 & FY17; (b) 10% per year
increase for FY1B - FYz1
3) No surplus power sales agreement assumed, with Peter Pan Seafoods [PPS) at this point in the
project. However, PPS continues to reinforce their interest in purchasing surplus hydro energy from
the City. PPS has requested more specific information on how much surplus energy we expect to
have for sale, timing and seasonality of the sales and cost, The City is working with Steve Stassel to
implement a metering program within the PPS complex to determine their domestic load/demand
fbunkhouses, mess hall, laundry, etc.). Preliminary, annual demand estimates are between 500,000
to 800,000 kWhs. The City's goal is to sell the "surplus" power from both Delta Creek and Waterfall
Creek to meet this demand. No sales price has been determined yet.
luly 20,2075
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 5
WATERFALL CREEK
REVISED PROJECT COSTS
Revised Cost Estimate (July 2015)
Assumes construction begins in August 2015 and completed in summer 2076.
Revised construction contract with SunLand includes a winter shut-down cost provisior
Major Project Costs
Turbine & Generator & Install
HDR (Design/plans & specs/CA)
Land & Material Royalty
Sunland GMP Contract
Electric Subcontract
Control Power/Switchgea r
Bridge/Pipe
Startup & Testing
Contingency*
Other Projects Costs
FYl2 Permitting
FY14 Geotechnical
Consu lta nts
Legal
City Administration (Personnel & travel)
xAn additional $100,000 in contingency is possible from
for the switchgear, bridge/pipe, and startup,
Engineer's Cost Estimate (March 2OL4)
(construction 2015 assumed)
Other Project Costs
FY12 Permitting
FY 14 Geotechnical
Consu lta nts
Legal
City Administration (Personnel & travel
$590,000
830,000
300,000
3,590,000
460,000
200,000
470,000
60,000
200,000
$6,700,000 $6,700,000
$30,000
15,000
40,000
60,000
105.000
$250,000 $250.000
$6,95O,0OO
the combined $730,000 costs
$28,000
20,000
15,000
20,000
87,000
$170,000
6,430,000
170.000
6160OrOOO
August 3, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 6
Waterfall Creek Update
Project Cost and Funding Alternatives
$6.95 Million Funding PlanProject Cost #A
Project Cost #B
Notes:
Project Cost #A
Project Cost #B
Grants & Cash
State (FY13 & FY14
State (FY17)
AEB
City
Subtotal
$2,800,000
$675,000
500,000
150,000
$4,125,000 $4,125,000
$2,825,000
$6,95O,OOO
$3,450,000
Debt
Bond Bank #1
Bond Bank #2
PPF #1
Subtotal
Total
g6.es
Grants & Cash
State(REF5&6)
AEB
City
Subtotal
Debt
Bond Bank #1
Bond Bank #2
PPF #T
Subtotal
Total
$525,000
1,000,000
1,300.000
$2,825,000
Million Funding Plan
$2,800,000
500,000
150.000
$3,450,000
$525,000
1,000,000
7,975,OOO
$3,500,000 $3,500,000
$6,95O,OOO
Total State funding $4.775m (Grants $3.475m / Loan $1.3m)
Total State funding $4.775m (Grants $2.8m / Loan $1.975m)
August 3,2OI5
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 7
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WATERFALL CREEK
FYTZ.FYL7
FY72
FY13
FYL4
FY15
FY16
FY1.7
Permitting
Geotechnical
Legal
Subtotal
Legal
Consultants
City Personnel
Travel/Misc
Subtotal
Legal
Consultant
City Personnel
Travel/Misc
Subtotal
Consultants
City Personnel
Travel/Misc
Subtotal
Total Administrative Costs
$30,000
0
$15,000
10,000
$25,000
$35,000
15,000
25,000
10.000
$85,000
$20,000
20,000
35,000
5,000
$80,000
$10,000
15,000
5.000
$30,000
$25O,OOO
Note: City Administrative costs are 3.5o/o of the estimated total project
of $6.95 million.
July 21, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 8
Waterfall Creek
Project Cash Flow
FY12 . FYTT
Cumulative
Project Costs City AEB State Costs by FY
FYLZ $28,876 $28,876 $0 $0
$28,876
FY13 37,322 15,661 0 15,661
60,198
FYt4 545,920 386,134 0 159,786
606,118
FY15 r43,BB2 L3r,344 0 12,538
75O,OOO
Fy16 5,130,000 2,277,985 500,000 2,352,015
5,88O,OOO
FY77 1,070.000 810.000 g 260.000
$5,95O,O0O $3,650,000 $5OO,OOO $2,8OO,OOO $6,950,000
August 10, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 9
Waterfall Creek Project Expenditure and Revenues
August - December 2O15
Expenditures
Sunland
Turbine/Gen
KCC
HDR
Pipe & Bridge
Administration
Total
Revenues
City of King Cove
Aleutians East Borough
State/AEA Grant #1
State PPF
Total
$335,000 $125,000250,000 250,000
0 605,000a0
$585,OOO $98O,OOO
$000
695,000 755,00000
$695,OOO $755,OOO
$105,000 $565,0000 500,000
285,000 2,340,000gq
$39O,OOO $3,4O5,OOO
August
$500,000
0
50,000
25,000
0
10.000
$585,OOO
September
$B0o,0oo
135,000
0
35,000
0
10.000
$980,0OO
October
$550,000
0
0
35,000
100,000
10.000
$695,O0O
November
$500,000
160,000
50,000
35,000
0
10.000
$755,0O0
December
$250,000
100,000
0
30,000
0
10.000
$39O,OO0
Total
$2,600,000
395,000
100,000
160,000
100,000
50.000
$3,4O5,0OO
August 10, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 1O
Waterfall Creek Project Expenditure and Revenues
March - June 2016 and Total FY16
Aus - o"" I
;::l
395,0001
100,0001
1600001
.,:;l
.iffd
Mar
$175,000
35,000
30,000
190,000
200,000
Apr
$175,000
30,000
180,000
200,000
May
$ 175,000
30,000
60,000
Jun
$175,000
30,000
10.000
$215,OOO
Mar - Jun
FY16 Total
$700,000
$35,000
$0
$ 120,000
$370,000
$460,000
$o
$o
$o
$40.000
$1,725,OOO
$3,300,000
$430,000
$ 100,000
$280,000
$470,000
$460,000
$0
$0
$0
$90,000
$5,13O,OOO
FY16
Total
Expenditures
Sunland
Canyon
KCC
HDR
Pipe & Bridge
Electrical
Switchgear
Startup & Testing
Contingency
Administration
Total
Revenues
City of King Cove
Aleutians East Boro
State/AEA Grant #1
State PPF
Total
10,000
$64O,OOO
10.000
$595,OOO
10.000
$275,OOO
$200,000
0
0
440.000
$64O,OOO
$200,000
0
0
395,000
$595,OOO
$100,000
0
0
175,000
$275,OOO
$0
0
0
215,000
$215,OOO
$500,000
0
0
1,225,000
$1,725,OOO
$ 1,052,985
$500,000
$2,352,0L5
$ 1.225.000
$5,13O,OOO
August 10, 2015
CITY OF KING COVE
Table 11
Waterfall Creek Project Expenditure and Revenues
FYLT and Combined FY16 and FY17
Expenditures
Sunland
Turbine / Gen
KCC
HDR
Pipe & Bridge
Electrical
Switchgear
Startup & Testing
Contingency
Administration
Total
Revenues
City of King Cove
Aleutians East Boro
State/AEA Grant #1
State PPF
Total
Jul
$265,000
40,000
100,000
100,000
10,000
$515,OOO
Aug sep
FY'.7
Total
$265,000
$o
$200,000
$115,000
$0
$o
$200,000
$60,000
$200,000
$30.000
$1,O7O,OOO
FY16
Total
$3,300,000
$430,000
$100,000
$280,000
$470,000
$460,000
$o
$0
$o
$90.000
$5,13O,OOO
$1,052,985
500,000
2,352,OLs
1.225.000
$5,13O,OO0
FY16 &
FYLT Total
$3,565,000
$430,000
$3oo,ooo
$395,000
$470,000
$460,000
$200,000
$60,000
$200,000
$120,000
$6,20O,OOO
200,000
40,000
100,000
60,000
100,000
10,000
$51O,OOO
35,000
10,000
$45,OOO
$70,000
0
0
445000
$515,OO0
$250,000
0
260,000
q
$51O,OOO
$45,000
0
0
0
$45,0O0
$365,000
0
$260,000
$44s,000
$t,o7o,ooo
$ 1,417,985
500,000
2,6L2,Ots
$ 1,670.000
$6,2OO,OOO
August 10, 2015
Tab D
Land Resolution and Letter
CITY OF KING COVE, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 15.17
A RESOLUTION OF THE KING COVE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE
CITY OF KING COVE TO PURCHASE LAND FROM KING COVE
CORPORATION FOR THE WATERFALL CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of King Cove (the "City") has a need for clean, efficient, and
renewable electrical power and has identified a hydroelectric project at Waterfall Creek
("Project") as a source of such power; and
WHEREAS, King Cove Corporation owns certain properfy, consisting of approximately
14.38 acres ("the Property") located at or near the Project and presently required for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, King Cove Corporation is willing to sell the Property as set forth in the
terms and conditions of the land purchase agreement (the "Land Purchase Agreement")
attached to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Property has an estimated fair
market value of $6,000.00 per acre; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to demonstrate certain site controls at the Project,
including its right to the Property, in order to obtain funding for the Project;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that, due to the immediate funding needs of the
Project, it is not practical to survey the land or obtain a title insurance policy prior to
entering into the Land Purchase Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has considered all the terms and conditions of the proposed Land
Purchase Agreement and believes that the purchase of the Property is in the best interests
of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into the Land Purchase Agreement with King Cove
Corporation for the purchase of the Property as authorized by KCC $ 8.10.110 and KCC
$ 8.10.210; and
WHEREAS, the King Cove City Council seeks to approve the Land Purchase Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of King Cove,
that the City Council finds and determines, for the above stated reasons, it is in the best
interest of the City to purchase the property for ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) subject
to the terms and conditions of the Land Purchase Agreement; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
King Cove, that the Mayor is authorized on behalf of the City to enter into the attached
Land Purchase Agreement, or its substantially similar equivalent with King Cove
Corporation for the purchase of the Properly; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
King Cove, that the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized and directed to do or
cause to be done any and all such fuither acts necessary to execute and deliver any and all
such additional documents as either may deem necessary or appropriate in order to carry
into effect the purposes and intent of the foregoing resolution, and all prior actions taken
by the Mayor and City Administrator in connection herewith are ratified, confirmed, and
approved.
e*K-
Cheryl Berntsen, Acting City Clerk
Abstained €-
Absent 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of King Cove, Alaska,
on this /-day of$4Q.-,z6ts,
ATTEST:
nyes 4
Nays -9
CITY OF KING COVE
A L.A.S.K A
City of King Cove
PO Box 37
King Cove, AK 99612
August L2,201,5
Dean Gould, President
King Cove Corporation
P.O Box 38
King Cove, Alaska 99612
Subject: Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Proj ect Construction Coordinati on
Dear Dean:
As you know, the City will start construction of the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project in
the next 7-10 days. As previously discussed with you, the City will be purchasing gravel
from the Corporation's material site at the King Cove Airport. The City requests the
following information from KCC with respect to the purchase of the material from the pit.
t. A map showing the surveyed boundaries of the pit and the specific area authorized
for the City's use.
2. The reporting requirements for use of the pit, such as volume mined, volume used,
material types used, or other information.
3. The desired payment schedule for the material used by the City.
4. Any other information KCC may require for use of the pit.
The City also understands that the royalty for all KCC purchased material is $6/cy.
In addition to purchasing construction material from KCC, the City has entered into an
agreement to purchase the Iand from KCC for the hydroelectric project. The purchase
agreement is based on a construction corridor set forth in the project construction drawings
and approximately 1,4-LS acres. The City understands this land will be purchased for
$6,000 acre and that the City and KCC have agreed to the possibility of an installment plan
for these land payments.
Furthermore, the actual land purchased will be determined by a survey of the constructed
project footprint. This letter requests confirmation from KCC that the purchase agreement
is sufficient authorization for the City to access the agreed upon Iand corridor to start the
construction process. Please let me know if the City requires any additional authorization
from KCC to access the construction corridor starting in the next 7-10 days'
Finally, as a good faith gesture I am willing to authorize a $50,000 payment to KCC by
September 1, 20L5. This payment will be towards the land purchase agreement and
material royalty. In the meantime, KCC and City will proceed to finalize our agreement for
the above requests. OK?
Let me know if you want to further discuss these requests, Dean. I plan to be in King Cove
from Friday, August 21.t until Wednesday, August 26th. I will be out of Alaska for the next
few days, but can be reached on my cell phone (907-982-7505).
MW
City Administrator
Tab E
Letters of Support
Belkofski Tribal Council
P.O. Box 57
King Cove, Alaska 99612
Phone: 907-497-3122/Fax: 907-497-3123
kcbtc@arctic.net
September 15, 2014
Mr. Henry Mack, Mayor
City of King Cove
P.O. Box 37
King Cove, AK 99612
Re: Letter of Support for Waterfall Creek Hydro-Electric Project
Dear Mayor Mack:
The Native Village of Belkofski wishes to express its strong support for the City of King Cove's efforts to
complete the construction of the Waterfall Creek hydroelectric project. We recognize that in order to
accomplish this project it will take more financial resources than the City of King Cove can afford to take
on alone. We are pleased to learn that the City is again requesting the Alaska Energy Authority
(Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 Grant Application) to partner with King Cove in providing funding for
this renewable energy facility. We support these efforts.
The success of the City's current Delta Creek hydroelectric project, including now over 20 years of
successful plant operation and management, is a blueprint for how to succeed with a small community
hydro-electric project. It should serve as a strong indicator to potential grant and/or lending agencies that
King Cove knows what it is proposing where the Waterfall Creek hydro project is concerned.
Our Belkofski tribal members have already seen the improvement that the Delta Creek hydro-electric
facility has made in our lives. In the immediate term, we have enjoyed stable and cheaper utility rates and
breathed cleaner air. But, it is the knowledge that we aren't completely at the mercy of the diesel fuel that
brings the most comfort to our tribe members. Since we are always planning long-term, it is reassuring
to know that we have a completely sustainable source of electric power available to our families for
generations to come. This peace of mind from the Delta Creek hydroelectric facility will be enhanced by
the additional hydro power from Waterfall Creek, and while it will not keep completely diesel-free, it will
go a long way to delivering a clean and secure energy future for our grandchildren and beyond.
We wish you well as you pursue this funding and strongly support the City's efforts on the Renewable
Energy Fund and any other funding that may come available to construct this proj ect just as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Lynn Mack
President
tu
phone 907.497 .2648 fax 90?.497.2803
September 15,2014
Mr. Henry Mack. Mayor
City of King Cove
P.O. Box 37
King Cove, AK 99612
Re: Letter of Support for Waterfall Creek Hydro-Electric Project
Dear Mayor Mack:
The Agdaagux Tribal Council (ATC) wishes to express its strong support for the City of King
Cove's efforts to complete the construction of the Waterfall Creek hydroelectric project. We
recognize that in order to accomplish this project it will take more financial resources than the
City of King Cove can afford to take on alone. We are pleased lo learn that the City is again
requesting the Alaska Energy Authority (Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 Grant Application) to
partner with King Cove in providing funding for this renewable energy facility. We support these
efforts.
The success of the City's current Delta Creek hydroelectric project, including now over 20 years
of successful plant operation and management, is a blueprint for how to succeed with a small
community hydro-electric project. lt should serve as a strong indicator to potential grant and/or
lending agencies that King Cove knows what it is proposing where the Waterfall Creek hydro
project is concerned.
ATC has already seen the improvement that Delta Creek hydro-electric facility has made in our
lives. ln the immediate term, we have enjoyed stable and cheaper utility rates and breathed
cleaner air. But, it is the knowledge that we aren't completely at the mercy of the diesel fuel that
brings the most comfort to our tribe members. Since we are always planning longterm, it is
reassuring to know that we have a completely sustainable source of electric power available to
our families for generations to come. This peace of mind from the Delta Creek hydroelectric
facility will be enhanced by the additional hydro power from Waterfall Creek, and while it will not
keep completely diesel-free, it will go a long way to delivering a clean and secure energy future
for our grandchildren and beyond.
We wish you well as you pursue this funding and strongly support the City's efforts on the
Renewable Energy Fund and any other funding that may come available to construct this
project just as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
(---tf,-. --:\/,
'-Eifa Kuzakin ,/
President
ING
COVE
CORPOMIION
PO Box.38, King Gove, AoF 99612 '
(Phone) 907497-2312 (Faxl 907497'2444 kcc@arctic.net
September 15,2014
Mr. Henry Mack, Mayor
P.O. Bcix 37
King Cove, AK 99612
Re: Letter of Support for Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mayor Mack:
Once again, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) wlshes to express its strongest support for the
City of King Cove's efforts to complete the construction of the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric
Project. We know the community will be greatly served by this project and applaud the City's
current request for additional funding from the State of Alaska's Renewable Energy Fund Round
#8 funding.
Furthefmore, as you know.th'e '15 acres of land required for this project is owned by KCC. '
l'lowever, I want to assure'you that the necessary agreement establishing City site controlfor
this land will be finalized soon. KC'C fully understands that the City needs this site control
documentation now to proceed with this.project.
KCC has already seen the impiovements that the Delta Creek hydroelectric facility has made in
all our lives and we are looking forward to even. more hydroelectric production from the Waterfall
ireek addition. We applaud the Gity fgr its onloing commitinent to renewable energy and
making bleaner air, reUuced dep6ndince on expensive diesel, and stabilized energy rates a
reality in our community......
We wish you.well as you pursue this funding. Please include this letterof support in your .
Renewablb. Energy Grant Round #8 application, and for any otheruppropriate grant,or loan
prograins. 'We want to see this piojecte! get constructed as soon as possible! . :
..j