HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachments for Round IX Grant - CLPWPAttachments for Round IX Grant
Appendix A – Board Resolution
Appendix B – Reconnaissance Report
Appendix C – Strategic Plan
Appendix D- Feasibility Analysis RFP
Appendix E - Sample report for reporting construction progress
Appendix F – Resumes (See separate electronic document)
Appendix G – Water Rights Permit
Appendix H – FERC Non-Jurisdictional determination
Appendix I – AEA Cost/Benefit Calculator and Excel Source file (See separate electronic
document)
Appendix J – Tariff Rate Sheets
Appendix K – Permitting Quote (Confidential – See separate electronic document)
Appendix L - Letters of Support
Appendix
Exhibit A
Appendix
Exhibit B
Crater Lake
Reconnaissance
Report
9/19/2014 Cordova Electric Cooperative - Clay Koplin, PE
This report summarizes a preliminary feasibility assessment of Crater Lake near
Cordova, Alaska for a community hydroelectric supply and water storage project.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 2
REPORT ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Proposed Energy Resource ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Existing Energy System ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Proposed System Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Proposed System Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Project Benefits ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Energy Purchase/Sale ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Land Ownership .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Permits .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Environmental ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Analysis and Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Exhibit A – Crater Lake Site Map and Conceptual Plan View
Exhibit B – Crater Lake Watershed
Exhibit C – Crater Lake Energy Estimate
Exhibit D – CEC kW and kWh Peak Loads 2011-2014
Exhibit E – CEC Tariff Rates
Exhibit F - Photos
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 2
Crater Lake Reconnaissance
Report
H Y D R O E L E C T R I C A N D W A T E R S T OR A G E P R E -F E A S IB I L I T Y
I N T R O D U C T I O N
NEED: Over the past decade the community of Cordova, Alaska has experienced a growing demand for
electricity and water. The growth is not only contributed to Cordova often ranking in the top 10 seafood
delivery ports in the US by both volume and dollar value but the associated businesses, infrastructure and
employees as well as increased tourism and population rebound. In 2002, Cordova Electric Cooperative
(CEC) completed construction of the 6,000 kW Power Creek Hydroelectric Project. In 2011, CEC completed
reconstruction of the 1,250 kW Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project. The peak electrical demands for
Cordova now exceed 9,000 kW, and the annual electrical supply averages 65% hydroelectric and 35%
diesel generation. Both hydro projects are run-of-river and cannot store excess water for winter use. The
City of Cordova municipal water supply is similarly inadequate to provide peak and annual water use, often
relying on an expensive pumping and filtering plant to deliver water from Eyak Lake.
OPPORTUNITY: Crater Lake has been considered as a water and hydroelectric energy source for Cordova in
various studies including an early 1960 design for dam storage (Summit Lake Hydro-Electric Plant, Stan
Sporseen, PE, North Pacific Consultants, Portland, OR and Anchorage, AK). A more recent and comprehensive
study was performed by Merrell & Associates/Black & Veatch – January 1980, “Cordova Water Supply
Feasibility Study” of which CEC has a copy.
As the City of Cordova contemplated an expansion or upgrade of an existing water catchment from the
Crater Lake outflow at elevation 200’, CEC evaluated the watershed, elevation, and land ownership of the
Crater Lake basin, and determined that a hydroelectric project on the site was likely feasible. On June 30th
of 2014, the CEC Board of Directors approved a $100,000 internal reconnaissance study to determine the
pre-feasibility of Crater Lake for hydroelectric and community water storage and supply.
FINDINGS: This report documents the results of this study, and recommends a feasibility study to develop a
cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not the site warrants design and construction of a combined
energy and water storage project.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 3
REPORT ELEMENTS
P R O P O S E D E N E RG Y R E S O U R C E
The proposed Crater Lake power and water project would consist of a small (20’ x 30’) concrete dam at
elevation 1560’ , a 3800’ long steel penstock, and a tidewater power plant of 500 – 2000 kW; Appendix
Exhibit A, Crater Lake Site Map and Conceptual Plan View. From a careful tracement of an ARCGIS
topographic map of the Crater Lake basin, the watershed was identified as approximately 167 acres of
drainage per Appendix Exhibit B, Crater Lake Watershed. Cordova averages 148” of annual rainfall
(http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/cordova/alaska/united-states/usak0061 ). The outflow elevation of
Crater Lake is at 1560’ of elevation. From these parameters, with an estimated accuracy of +/- 10%, Crater
Lake is estimated to produce 2,000,000 kWh annually, with an annual water resource of 540,000,000
gallons per Appendix C, Crater Lake Energy Estimate. The generation unit(s) can be sized to assist CEC with
meeting up to 16% of peak (kW) demands, and 7% of annual (kWh) use to meet the growing demand for
electricity in Cordova and offset up to 30% of existing use of diesel fuel. The City of Cordova presently
delivers approximately 350,000,000 gallons of potable water to the community, of which Crater Lake could
provide a more significant amount of annual water needs.
E X I S T I N G E N E RG Y S Y S T EM
BASIC CONFIGURATION: CEC currently operates three power generation facilities and over 70 miles of
underground and submarine power lines serving 1500 meters in Cordova. The three power plants, Orca
Power Plant (diesel), Humpback Creek Hydro Plant (HBC – hydro), and Power Creek Hydro Plant (PC –
hydro) have the following generation assets as itemized in Table 1 Below:
TABLE 1 – CEC ELECTRIC GENERATORS AND BOILERS
Plant Generator
Make/Model
kW Rating Age (years) Efficiency
(kWh/gal)* or cfs
rating
Operating Hours to
Date
Orca Plant (diesel) Electromotive Diesel
(EMD) 710-20
4000 7 12-15.5 kWh/gal 8471
Orca Plant (diesel) Electromotive Diesel
(EMD) 645-20
2500 36 12-14 kWh/gal 117839
Orca Plant (diesel) Fairbanks-Morse
(FM) OP 38TD81/8
2400 30 12-13.5kWh/gal 75681
Orca Plant (diesel) Caterpillar 3516 1125 30* 13.5-15 kWh/gal 35726*
Orca Plant (diesel) Caterpillar 3516 1125 30* 13.5-15 kWh/gal 40654*
Orca Plant (diesel) Boiler #1 PV905A 0.394 MMBTU/hr 30 150000 estimated
Orca Plant (diesel) Boiler #2 AFG 0.394 MMBTU/hr 30 150000 estimated
HBC (hydro) Francis –
Dependable Turbine
500 25 50 cfs 8056 **
HBC (hydro) Francis –
Dependable Turbine
500 25 50 cfs 11490 **
HBC (hydro) Turgo – Dependable
Turbines
250 25 25 cfs 20604 **
PC (hydro) Turgo - Gilkes 3000 15 160 cfs 38012
PC (hydro) Turgo - Gilkes 3000 15 160 cfs 44404
* 1984 vintage Cats were purchased used in 1999 with an additional assumed 60,000 hours of use at that time
** Since July 2011 operation following turbine and generator rebuilds
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 4
E X I S T I N G E N E RG Y S Y S T E M ( C ON TI N U E D … . )
CAPITAL AND REPLACEMENT COSTS: Capital and replacement costs vary widely by project. CEC endeavors
to insure plants at their replacement value, and current insured plant values are as follows:
Orca Diesel Power Plant (tanks, building equipment, etc) . . . $ 15,284,105
Humpback Creek Hydro Project (building, intake, turbines, xfmr, etc.)* . . $ 23,886,000
Power Creek Hydro Project (building, intake, turbines, xfmr, etc.)* . . $ 19,063,500
*Note: Bridges at HBC and PC are excluded from insurance binders
ANNUAL O&M COST AND SCHEDULE: Annual O&M costs, by plant, are as follows:
TABLE 2 – 2013 GENERATION PLANT ANNUAL O & M COSTS
PLANT OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE TOTAL
Orca Diesel Power Plant $359,522 $602,609 $962,131
Humpback Creek Hydro $144,736 $30,595 $175,331
Power Creek Hydro $378,303 $251,242 $629,545
TOTAL $882,561 $884,446 $1,767,007
Annual O&M schedules are determined by engine hours per manufacturer’s recommendations for the diesel
generators. In general, diesel plant maintenance is during late fall when system electrical loads are in the
3,000 – 4,000 kW range and hydro plants provide 100% of the system energy. The general O&M schedule
for hydro maintenance is in April for Power Creek when the plant output is at an annual minimum and loss of
diesel fuel savings is minimized. The general O&M schedule for Humpback Creek is June, when Power Creek
can provide 100% of system power needs before peak demands increase in late June.
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION AND FUEL PRICE: The three year average fuel consumption for 2011-2013
was 781,032 gallons, 827,976 gallons, and 711,526 gallons respectively. Average price per gallon for
each year was $3.58 for 2011, $3.82 for 2012, and $3.58 for 2013. Fuel costs were $2,796,095 for
2011, $3,162,868 for 2012, and $2,547,263 for 2013.
LOAD INFORMATION: CEC has a highly variable load and kWh use profile. In general, residential, street
light, and general electrical service rate classes are reducing their consumption per meter each year, with a
record low 414 kWh per month per meter residential use in 2013. For these rate classes, and the large
power rate class, monthly use is fairly consistent throughout the year. The processor (industrial) rate class has
had a dramatic increase in summer peak system demands during the months of June, July, and August,
accompanied by a modest increase in kWh energy use. The greatest demands occur during July and August.
CEC set a new record peak demand of 9,400 kW in August 2014, with record kWh sales of over 4,000,000
kWh for July 2014. Annual sales have increased from 25,000,000 kWh annually to 28,000,000 kWh in
2013. A summary of August 2011 – August 2014 kWh use and kW peak demands by month are included in
the Appendix Exhibit D.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 5
PLANS FOR SYSTEM UPGRADES: In 2011, CEC converted the last overhead power distribution lines to
underground. The Orca Power Plant was built in 1984, Humpback Creek was built in 1991 with significant
rebuild in 2011, and Power Creek was built in 2002. The relatively new infrastructure is in good operating
condition with decades of expected life. A new distribution feeder was built to accommodate load growth
and concentration in the industrial core of Cordova. Including standard diesel plant engine rebuilds and
regular replacements, CEC does not anticipate significant system upgrades except for a substation upgrade,
additional hydro development, and conservation and efficiency initiatives to offset and, ultimately, eliminate
diesel fuel use in Cordova.
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RATES: See Appendix Exhibit E, CEC Tariff Rates. Note that 2013 bus cost
of hydropower was only 16.9% of the bus cost of diesel power.
AVOIDED COST OF ENERGY: The fuel cost of energy from diesel generation is the dominating avoided cost
of power with a hydro plant. The estimated Crater Lake avoided fuel cost for diesel generation at the
current fuel price is $527,246. However, the variable costs of diesel maintenance, lube oil, fuel and oil filters,
engine rebuilds, and higher general O&M costs are all additional avoided costs.
PRO P O S E D S Y S TE M D E S IG N
The basic system design proposal for Crater Lake is a conventional dam-penstock-pelton wheel high head
hydroelectric project. The first tier of value resides in a design that fully utilizes the available water to
directly offset the use of diesel fuel and delivers it to the City of Cordova municipal water system after the
energy has been extracted. A second layer of value could result from designing the project to control
Cordova system frequency to liberate 500 kW of hydroelectric capacity at the Power Creek Project and
optimize diesel plant efficiency by providing spinning reserve with Crater Lake. System frequency control
and the complex dispatch of both energy and water to balance an electric utility and a water utility’s
demands will require robust modeling and system analysis. For purposes of reconnaissance, the effort was
directed at assessing the energy value of the Crater Lake project as a simple storage and delivery project to
develop a reasonable cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a detailed feasibility study is warranted.
The proposed design for these purposes is the dam, penstock, and turbine power plant configuration of
Appendix Exhibit A.
DAM: A small concrete dam would raise the lake elevation. The 22 acre surface of the lake could increase to
approximately 28 acres or more, resulting in 400 acre-feet of storage, or approximately ¼ of the annual
water resource or 500,000 kWh of storage. Field reconnaissance indicates there are additional opportunities
to expand the storage volume of the lake by building a larger dam or drawing the lake down on a seasonal
basis pending regulatory restrictions and other stakeholder constraints. The dam will be one of the two most
significant cost elements of the project.
PENSTOCK: A 3800’ (plan view, actual would be somewhat longer) penstock will present one of the greatest
project challenges. The penstock can follow the stream canyon with multiple angles and thrust blocks where
suitable ground support can be contrived. An alternate route would embed the penstock in a talus slope for
avalanche protection and support and would limit the penstock route to several very slight bends for
improved hydraulic performance and reduced thrust block requirements. Alternatives could include a lake tap
option, a partial lake tap option, or other conveyance means.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 6
TURBINE: The 2.42 cfs average stream flow results in an average kW output of 236 kW. However, low
winter flows and fall flood events result in widely varying stream flows which would likely result in water
spilling if the generator is sized to 250 kW or less. A 750 kW Pelton wheel generator would allow for use as
a summer peaking plant when the current 9,400 kW peak demands exceed the combined 7,250 kW of
existing hydro capacity in Cordova. A 750 kW Pelton would allow a +/- 300 kW of spinning reserve
operating range around a 375 kW operating midpoint for sudden system load fluctuations.
POWER PLANT: The power plant would be pre-fabricated off site as a modular plant that could be installed
on a custom foundation built in Cordova to accommodate it. The dam, penstock, and power plant could be
designed to facilitate construction and installation by local contractors if capabilities and availability suit
construction design and schedule. Local contractors can sometimes be more flexible and avoid costly
mobilization, demobilization, and standby costs when weather or other delays occur. On the other hand, local
contractors can lack skills or capabilities essential to the quality and execution of the project construction.
P R O P O S E D S Y S TE M C O S T S
Project costs, based on historical Cordova construction costs, are anticipated to range from $5,000,000 to
$10,000,000 for the proposed conventional dam, penstock, and Pelton wheel design. Additional project cost
for a second 750 kW Pelton wheel for peaking and associated increases in switchgear, plant footprint, and
penstock size are anticipated to add an additional $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 to project cost. Frequency
control for providing system spinning reserve and time error correction are estimated to add an additional
$1,000,000 to $3,000,000 for modeling, design, custom switchgear and turbine-generator-flywheel design.
Cost estimates to date have been more qualitative than quantitative, and have considered the following cost
elements;
FEASIBILITY STUDY: A feasibility study for a conventional hydro project is anticipated to cost between
$50,000 and $75,000 based upon rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimates from 3 different engineering
firms. The deliverables for the feasibility study will include conceptual (20%) design, and an engineering
cost/benefit analysis including lifecycle costs and net present value.
ENGINEERING DESIGN: Engineering and Design are anticipated to range from $500,000 (conventional) to
$1,000,000 (integrated system frequency control) and include field engineering, 90% design, preparation of
construction and bid documents and bid support. Project management, construction engineering, and
geotechnical evaluation would not be included.
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION: A geotechnical evaluation including a minimum of two bore holes, one either
side of dam footprint and associated assessment report are estimated to cost $500,000.
PERMITTING: CEC anticipates that the project will be determined a non-jurisdictional FERC project. CEC has
solicited estimates for all necessary permits with the State of Alaska Office of Project Management and
Permitting (OPMP), and has received a quote for all necessary permits, which are not expected to exceed
$100,000. There is a State DNR Dam Safety Permitting Process with associated fees that are estimated to
cost $31,000 for a $10,000,000 project.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 7
CONSTRUCTION: Construction is estimated to range in cost from $4,000,000 to $8,000,000 including
concrete dam, steel penstock, power plant and tailrace. The design would favor methods and means
conducive to local contractors to minimize mobilization, demobilization, and standby costs and utilize locally
available batch plants and construction resources where appropriate. The construction is anticipated to be
completed in one season.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT: The intention for project management is to use a combination of contract owners’
field representation and project management, and CEC project management and accounting staff. Project
Management is estimated to cost $200,000.
TRANSMISSION LINE: The preferred project site is located within 300’ of existing Humpback Creek project
transmission line which has capacity to deliver more than 2,000 kW of additional load. The power
transformer, pad, transmission line, and connection switch would be installed by CEC line crew force account
labor. Electrical transformer and distribution are estimated to cost less than $250,000.
LAND LEASES AND PURCHASES: CEC anticipates land leases not to exceed $25,000 annually.
O&M AND FUEL COSTS: This project is anticipated to provide a net reduction of O&M costs. The project is
anticipated to reduce fuel use costs as presented in the “Benefits” section below.
PROJECT FINANCING: CEC anticipates a blended project financing portfolio including City of Cordova cost
share for water storage and conveyance (dam and penstock), state and federal grant funds and financing,
conventional financing through CoBank and/or CFC, and/or financing by Chugach Alaska Corporation or
other project stakeholders.
P R O J E C T B E N E F IT S
The Crater Lake Power and Water Project offers the opportunity to provide community benefits that far
exceed the benefits of a conventional hydropower plant. The direct, indirect, and intangible benefits include:
Reduced operations and maintenance cost of diesel alternative
Reduced fuel cost and regulatory/permitting requirements for internal combustion plant
Stored community water supply to provide adequate annual and peak demands
Leverage 500kW of hydro from Power Creek project – 2,000,000 kWh of diesel base load offset
Improve CEC diesel plant efficiency from an average 13.6 kWh/gallon to 14.1 kWh/gallon or better
Improve water and energy security (with storage) for community or regional disasters
Provide local and tribal economic benefits through construction and lease agreements
Demonstrate hybrid diesel-hydro micro grid technology and demonstrate agile project management
Reduce environmental impacts and the risks of handling and storing diesel fuel
Reduce Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate, and Carbon Emissions by hundreds of tons per year
FUEL DISPLACEMENT: At current diesel fuel average price of $3.58 per gallon and average diesel plant
efficiency of 13.58 kWh/gallon, the project is anticipated to result in annual fuel savings of 147,275 gallons
or $527,246 annually.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 8
ANNUAL REVENUE: Since fuel costs are passed through to customers of the CEC system, the customers are
anticipated to appreciate a significant reduction in cost of power adjustment (COPA) for fuel. Base rates
would increase, if necessary, to amortize debt service on the project, which would offset, to some extent, the
fuel savings.
INTANGIBLE BENEFITS: The past development of hydropower in Cordova has positioned electric energy to
be more cost effective than diesel fuel. As a result, the Cordova commercial fish processing rate class has
invested tens of millions of dollars in shore-based processing that has resulted in sharp increase in State of
Alaska and City of Cordova raw fish tax revenues. Stored energy and water provide essential services for
community health and security. The benefits of a new, large volume, shared-cost water supply opportunity for
the City of Cordova may offset necessary maintenance and upgrades of aged infrastructure.
E N E R G Y P U R C H A S E / S A L E
The Crater Lake Power and Water Project would immediately sell all available power and water into the
existing CEC and City of Cordova systems. The 2,000,000 kWh resource would be strategically dispatched
to offset a portion of the 6,000,000 – 9,000,000 kWh of annual diesel generation. The extended benefits
of the capabilities of a frequency-control spinning reserve could result in an additional 2,000,000 kWh of
diesel offset through Power Creek base loading and diesel plant efficiency. CEC would be
owner/operator/retail seller of all energy produced by Crater Lake Power and Water project.
L A N D O W N E RS H I P
Crater Lake is bisected by a property line with The Eyak Corporation owning the north side, and State of
Alaska with City of Cordova reservation on the south side. The penstock route could cross The Eyak
Corporation, State of Alaska, City of Cordova, and Private (Orca Adventure Lodge) lands to a power plant
located on City of Cordova, Private, The Eyak Corporation lands or a combination thereof per Appendix
Exhibit A. CEC has met early and often with land owners and has enthusiastic support for the project from all
4 of them. CEC has executed MOUs to develop the project with The City of Cordova, The Eyak Corporation,
and The Native Village of Eyak. CEC has met with community members and businesses of various rate classes
and has met with no direct resistance or disapproval of the project, though recreational access has been a
frequent question or concern. Cordova is very supportive of hydroelectric projects in general, and a storage
project to offset winter diesel use in particular. The success of CEC’s two existing hydro projects has
contributed significantly to the strong community support for hydropower.
P E R M I T S
All permits necessary for the project have been identified, and long-lead permits have already been
received or are pending including Alaska DNR water rights and FERC non-jurisdictional determination.
Additional permits have been identified by OPMP with a quoted budgetary cost of $52,000 for OPMP
coordination, application, and processing of permits necessary for the project. There is a demonstrated
presence of breeding stocked Rainbow Trout in Crater Lake, and CEC is currently working with the local office
of Alaska Department of Fish and Game to assess the resource and necessary considerations for hydro
development. The permitting timeline is not anticipated to create a bottleneck for the project. CEC
anticipates executing an MOU with OPMP within 12 months if feasibility proves favorable. There are no
anticipated regulatory barriers.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 9
E N V I R O N M E N T A L
There are few known environmental barriers to the development of the Crater Lake Power and Water
project. Stocked Rainbow trout are a concern. A trail easement along the lakeshore would be inundated in
places. Early discussions indicate that relocating the trail will not be unduly difficult to administer or execute.
The project has an otherwise small footprint, with a small pipeline that may be partially or completely buried,
a small height concrete dam, and underground power lines.
A N A L Y S IS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T IO N S
CEC anticipates that it will prove feasible to develop Crater Lake as a combined hydropower and water
supply for the community of Cordova, and anticipates proceeding with a feasibility study to develop a
conceptual design and a cost-benefits analysis. It is recommended that the feasibility study consider
frequency control and the dispatch of water to the City of Cordova water supply to maximize the net present
value of the project and replace aging infrastructure or costly diesel fuel-based energy generation or use at
both utilities.
Crater Lake Reconnaissance Report
Page 10
APPENDIX
ExhibitAExhibit ACrater Lake Reconnaissance ReportSitMdCtlPlViSite Map and Conceptual Plan ViewSeptember 16, 2014
CRATERLATESITEMAPCRATER LATE SITE MAPOrcaLodgePower HouseCORDOVA Orca LodgePenstockDamProject BoundaryCRATER LAKECITY CENTERExisting Transmission/USGSCORDOVAC5Water Supply Line CorridorUSGS CORDOVA C‐5 QUADRANGLE
EXHIBIT BCRATERLAKECRATERCRATER LAKEWATERSHEDCRATER LAKE WATERSHED~167ACRES~ 167 ACRES
Crater Lake ROM Power Generation Estimate Values (units vary)Elevation 1560Precipitation (in) 148Watershed (acres) 167Annual Resource (Acre‐feet) ‐ 85% capture 1751Annual Resource (cubic feet) 76,261,218 Annual Resource (gallons) 570,473,566 Average Streamflow (Q, cfs) 2.418 Humpback Creek Elevation 160Humpback Creek kW/cfs 10Crater Lake / Humpback Creek Ratio 9.75Crater Lake kW/cfs 97.5Crater Lake Average kW 235.78 Annual Average kWh 2,065,408 Note: An independent assessment for ROM generation by an engineering firm estimated 2,250,000 kWh annual productionExhibit C ‐ Crater Lake Energy Estimate
Date kWh Sold KW Peak Date kWh Sold KW PeakAug‐11 3,066,102 6758 Mar‐13 1,640,298 4658Sep‐11 2,068,692 4667 Apr‐13 2,032,306 4205Oct‐11 1,418,199 3518 May‐13 2,176,962 4495Nov‐11 1,628,132 4562 Jun‐13 2,629,938 6631Dec‐11 1,865,154 4056 Jul‐13 3,651,519 7840Jan‐12 1,946,941 2928 Aug‐13 3,783,163 8396Feb‐12 1,792,022 3884 Sep‐13 2,075,300 4750Mar‐12 1,795,815 4533 Oct‐13 1,586,898 3378Apr‐12 1,824,633 3731 Nov‐13 1,689,405 3828May‐12 2,048,301 4313 Dec‐13 1,703,060 3663Jun‐12 2,439,076 6598 Jan‐14 1,554,991 3662Jul‐12 3,522,358 7360 Feb‐14 1,474,237 3444Aug‐12 2,886,570 7153 Mar‐14 1,626,098 3496Sep‐12 2,036,470 5084 Apr‐14 1,783,648 4173Oct‐12 1,684,246 3393 May‐14 1,986,747 4436Nov‐12 1,789,609 3758 Jun‐14 2,823,285 7422Dec‐12 1,847,452 3781 Jul‐14 4,007,454 8942Jan‐13 1,841,637 2798 Aug‐14 3,219,165 9385Feb‐13 1,691,507 3895EXHIBIT DCEC kW and kWh PEAK LOADS 2011‐2014
EXHIBIT F – PHOTOS
Picture 1 Crater Lake Panoramic East End Facing West 11‐5‐13
Picture 2 Crater Lake Outflow/Dam Site 11‐5‐13
Picture 3 Crater Lake East End Facing West 5‐17‐14
Picture 4 Crater Lake Facing West Toward Outflow 5‐17‐14
Picture 5 Crater Creek City Water Catchment El 200 6‐10‐14
Picture 6 Crater Creek @ Tidewater ‐ note 10' drop from culvert 6‐10‐14
Picture 7 Crater Lake Outflow Stream Gage/Dam Site 8‐23‐14
Picture 8 Crater Lake Outflow ‐ note deep channel and helicopter reference to picture 7 8‐23‐14
Picture 9 Crater Lake approaching steep grade facing west 8‐23‐14
Picture 10 Facing East toward lake outflow with back facing picture 9 8‐23‐14
Appendix
Exhibit C
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Strategic Plan (2025) & Operating Plan (2015-2016)
February 25, 2015
Our Vision
CEC will provide secure, affordable, and 100% renewable energy
CEC_2015_Strategic_Plan_Final 2-23-15
Our Core Purpose
Produce and Distribute Electricity for the benefit of our Members
Our Core Values
Collaborative – partner with others
Sustainable – in for the long run
Reliable – the lights stay on
Accountable – we answer to our members
Affordable – reasonably priced
Responsible – best business practices
Renewable – clean energy
Ten-Year Goal (2025)
90% of the electricity for Cordova will be provided with renewable energy by 2025
Reduce diesel use 50% by 2025
Vivid Description for Long-Term Goal:
Strategically add hydro-based or alternative generation capacity to reduce energy costs by 50%.
CEC will maintain a debt to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization)
ratio below 12.5
Strengthen ability of CEC, through partnerships, to secure outside funding to decrease CEC’s debt
and improve sustainability.
CEC will have successfully established, fostered, and leveraged statewide and regional relationships
with the outcome of developing a regional power grid.
Mid-Term Goal (2018-2019)
Vivid Description for Mid-Term Goal:
Align the workforce to meet CEC’s strategic goals
Reduce operating expenses by 5%
Debt reduction will not preclude CEC from pursuing cost effective capital projects to meet the Ten-
Year goal.
Evaluate and Compare Alternative Energy Sources
Develop a regional electric grid strategy that will increase electric sales by 30%.
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Strategic Plan (2025) & Operating Plan (2015-2016)
February 25, 2015
Our Vision
CEC will provide secure, affordable, and 100% renewable energy
CEC_2015_Strategic_Plan_Final 2-23-15
Annual Operating Plan (2015-2016)
1-12 Month Goals
Maintain CEC Plant and Equipment
o Unit 4 reliably operational
o Test and clean 1 breaker at Orca Plant. Budgeted item. $5,000.
o Staff presents the appraised value, options to replace, repair, or sell CEC HQ Bldg.
o Electrical facility upgrades Budgeted item. $77,000.
o CEC Power Creek Intake road maintenance. Budgeted item. $24,000.
o Replace HBC Unit 1 bearing. (Maintenance budget).
o No lost time accidents
Replace or Upgrade worn out or retired equipment
o First and Second Street replacement of service feeders. Budgeted item. $206,000.
o 13 Mile Feeder replacements from the substation to Eyak Lake. Budgeted $94,500
o Replace 5 streetlight poles on annual replacement schedule. Budgeted $21,000.
o Two replacement vehicles. Budgeted $60,000.
o New Cable puller. Budgeted $55,000
o GE Relays Replacement-Power Creek. Budgeted $34,000
o Overhead Line Removal, FAA Sheridan Road. Budgeted $30,000
o Copper River Seafoods High Voltage metering pole removal. Budgeted $26,500.
o Complete Power Creek intake communications and power upgrade.
o Upgrade Power Creek Road (partnership with NVE/DOT).
New initiatives or improvements – longer term impact
o Crater Lake Feasibility Study. Budgeted $100,000
o Improve drainage at the Orca Power plant
o New services as requested by members. Budgeted 30,000
o Complete Power Creek instream flow FERC approval, pursue extension
o Install electric boiler at Orca for engines keep-warm
o Evaluate Opportunities for Regionalization
o Evaluate aligning rate structure to reduce peak summer demand
o Develop CEC communication strategy for 2015 by March 25
o Whitshed Road Culvert Replacement at CEC cost – not in budget
o Prepare HR plan - develop CEC transition/organizational strategy by March 25.
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Strategic Plan (2025) & Operating Plan (2015-2016)
February 25, 2015
Our Vision
CEC will provide secure, affordable, and 100% renewable energy
CEC_2015_Strategic_Plan_Final 2-23-15
12-18 Month Goals
o Develop a guide to the status of energy generation and storage options
Snyder Falls Creek Complete feasibility report and recommend strategy.
LNG
Crater Lake
Wind
Solar
Tidal
Power Creek - evaluate adding an additional turbine/efficiency
Evaluate HBC turbine efficiency upgrades
Storage Options
Net Metering
o Grow sales, particularly hydro, through partnerships and initiatives and possible
regionalization
o Crater Lake Design $500,000 - $1,000,000 Scored high on $500,000 AEA Grant
Application for 50% match. Depends on feasibility results & partnerships
o Humpback Creek Penstock Coating
o Orca Power Plant Engine Exhaust Coating
o Update the CEC website. Evaluate electronic metering, online payment, smart
phone bill pay, online member account access, etc.
o Evaluate the Upgrade and Replacement of electronics in hydro and diesel plants.
Appendix
Exhibit D
1
Crater Lake, October 2014
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For:
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
CRATER LAKE POWER AND WATER PROJECT
Prepared By:
CORDOVA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
PO Box 20, CORDOVA, ALASKA, 99574
May, 2015
2
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CEC) of Cordova, Alaska, and on behalf of project partner
The City of Cordova ("Cordova") is soliciting proposals for Feasibility Analysis (FA) related to
the Crater Lake Water and Power Project (“Project”, “CLWPP”). The CLWPP would be a 500-
1500 kilowatt (kW) electrical generation and water supply development as described in further
sections of this RFP.
Cordova and CEC require the services of a qualified multi-service firm to evaluate the feasibility
of the CLWPP. The selected contractor will develop various Project design alternatives and
evaluate those alternatives in terms of Benefit-Cost ratios, engineering and environmental
factors. If one or more Project alternatives prove to be feasible, CEC will continue with more
advanced engineering, economic and environmental studies leading to a build/no-build decision.
Based on performance by the selected contractor, CEC may elect to retain the current contractor
to conduct further studies, design, and construction depending upon performance.
BACKGROUND
Electric Generation
Over the past decade the community of Cordova, Alaska, has experienced growing demand for
both electricity and water. This demand stems from a growing seafood processing industry and
associated businesses, infrastructure and employees as well as increased tourism and population
rebound.
CEC's electrical generation resources currently include the 6000 kilowatt (kW) installed capacity
Power Creek Hydroelectric Project (FERC 11243), the 1,250 kW Humpback Creek
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 8889) and the 11,150 kW Orca diesel generation plant. Both
hydro projects are run-of-river and cannot store water for winter use. Diesel generation is
necessary to supplement power production in winter or during dry periods.
Peak electrical demand in the CEC service area now exceeds 9,000 kW. CEC's system meets
this annual need through a contribution of 65 percent hydroelectric and 35 percent diesel
generation. Generation of one kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity using hydro currently costs
CEC 9.6 cents. The same energy generated by the Orca diesel plant costs 43.1 cents, not to
mention the environmental effects of diesel generation. Clearly, it is in the best interest of
Cordova's businesses and inhabitants to strive to reduce diesel generation. CEC policy is to
reduce fossil fuel utilization to as low a level as possible, using increased capacity and efficiency
of hydroelectric or other alternative forms of generation.
Municipal Water Supply
The Cordova municipal water supply is similarly struggling to meet current and growing peak
and annual water use, often relying on an expensive pumping and filtering plant to deliver water
from Eyak Lake. Cordova municipal water peak GPH demands during summer fish processing
are currently reducing system pressures to regulatory thresholds. These demands are expected to
increase and are also limited by current reservoir sizes and locations.
3
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the solicited Feasibility Analysis are to determine the feasibility of the
highest value Hydro-Water Supply project to:
Meet Cordova's growing electricity needs;
Offset diesel generation;
Provide firm (stored, dispatchable) renewable electric energy; and
Supply additional firm water to meet Cordova's drinking and industrial water needs.
CLWPP EFFORTS to DATE
CEC and the City of Cordova began CLWPP studies in November, 2013, focusing on conceptual
design of facilities at Crater Lake, along the proposed water/power conduit and at generation
facilities and tie-in to the existing City of Cordova water supply system. From these efforts, the
following will be available to the selected contractor:
Existing aerial photo and satellite image-based Mapping of the Crater Lake Basin;
Streamflow data from recently-Installed stream gage(s) at Crater Lake Outlet;
Notes, photos and videos from ground and helicopter site visits in the Crater Lake basin;
Conceptual Project design including hydrology, Project feature layout, electrical
generation, and water quantity supply;
Request for Determination of Jurisdictionality under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) regulations; and
Receipt of Declaration of Non-Jurisdictionality from the FERC. As a result of this
Declaration, it will not be necessary for Cordova to obtain a FERC license or license
exemption to construct and operate the hydroelectric component of the Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT AREA
The Crater Lake basin is approximately 0.26 sq. mi. in area (Figure 1) and ranges from EL 2560
(elevation in feet above mean sea) to sea level. Topography in the Crater Lake/Creek basin is
generally quite steep and rugged. Existing vegetation in the basin is sparse, and access by foot is
afforded by a USFS trail and easement from the east side of Mt Eyak. It takes 2 hours to hike the
trail in one direction.
Crater Lake is a small lake east of Cordova, Alaska, with approximately 22 acres (ac.) surface
area at El 1560. The outflow waterway of Crater Lake (called Crater Creek in this and further
documents) descends through steep terrain to sea level near Orca Adventure Lodge at the end of
Orca Inlet Road north of Cordova.
4 Figure 1. Crater Lake Project Area and Site Map.
5
CURRENT PROJECT LAYOUT
As currently envisioned, the Project would use Crater Lake water storage (as enhanced by
construction of a small dam), supplied through a newly-constructed Penstock to the existing City
of Cordova water supply system (Figure 2). At or near the Penstock's juncture with the existing
City water line, a small hydroelectric generating unit (Powerhouse) would be installed to
augment CEC's existing electrical generation system. A short transmission line would connect
the Powerhouse with an existing CEC transmission line.
Crater Lake Area
Project features at or near Crater Lake would include a 10-25 ft. dam and/or snorkel, an intake
structure and a dam spillway (See Figure 2).
Generation and Transmission Areas
Hydroelectric Generation
Hydroelectric generating features in this area would include a small (250-500 sq. ft.) Powerhouse
which would house a 500-1000 kilowatt (kW) installed capacity Pelton-wheel type turbine.
Adjacent to the Powerhouse would be a switchyard (500-1000) kVA distribution-class
transformer and pad to transform generated electricity to CEC system voltage and station service
transformer for house power.
Electrical Transmission
The output from the Switchyard would connect to the existing CEC Humpback Creek
Transmission Line rated 12.47/Y7.2 kilovolts (kV) three-phase (See Figure 2).
Cordova Municipal Water Supply
A City of Cordova chlorination facility is supplied by a pipeline from a catchment facility in the
Crater Lake outflow at El 263. A 16 in. outflow line delivers water to the community of
Cordova. The 16 in. pipe allows for chlorine contact time before the water reaches the
distribution system and storage facilities in the City of Cordova approximately 2.3 mi. to the
south.
LAND USE and OWNERSHIP
The lands containing the watershed, outflow, and adjacent properties are in various ownerships
including the City of Cordova, The Eyak Corporation, the State of Alaska, and Orca Adventure
Lodge. No federally owned or managed lands are located in the potential area of Project effect.
6 Figure 2. Detail of Crater Lake Project Features and Layout.
7
TASK LIST
The contract for this work phase will require completion of the following primary Tasks:
TASK 1. INFORMATION and DATA REVIEW
The contractor will review the provided data to inform contract personnel of the Project setting,
in terms of engineering and environmental issues. CEC will make available any additional
Project information as available and appropriate upon request. CEC will host A non-mandatory
pre proposal teleconference on June 2, 2015, 10AM Alaska Daylight Time to solicit any
questions or suggestions to date.
An important aspect of the Information and Data Review Task will be to organize the existing
hydrologic data from the currently-installed stream gages at Crater Lake. This data organization
will have as an objective, use as input to a spreadsheet Operations Model to simulate Project
operations based on existing and synthesized hydrology. Data will be provided via a drop box
link accompanying this RFP or by inquiry via email to ckoplin@cordovaelectric.com and copied
to bbailer@cordovaelectric.com .
TASK 2. SITE VISIT
The selected contractor will travel to Cordova and, in association with CEC/City of Cordova
personnel, visit the sites of various Project components. Access to the Crater Lake site will be
by helicopter. The contractor will be able to drive to the hydroelectric generation/water supply
tie-in area(s), accompanied by CEC/City of Cordova employee(s). These field visits will
familiarize the contractor with site and access conditions necessary to develop cost and
constructability estimates.
TASK 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, PROJECT OPERATION and ESTIMATED
GENERATION
The contractor, using information from Tasks 1 and 2, will prepare conceptual designs for a
range of alternative Project configurations. For the purposes of this RFP, proposers should
assume a 30 percent design level.
The contractor will develop alternative designs according to the following steps, arranged as
Subtasks:
Subtask 3-1. Prepare Initial Conceptual Design Alternatives
The contractor will develop alternative designs based on satellite imagery, aerial imagery
or topographic maps. For each alternative design, the contractor will prepare plan and
profile drawings showing locations of Project features including dam, diversion, power
conduit, powerhouse, switchyard and connections to existing electrical transmission and
water supply facilities.
8
Output of this Sub-Task will be a set of reasonable Project design and layout alternatives.
For the purposes of this RFP, bidders should assume development of no more than three
design alternatives representing various potential Project feature locations, designs,
capacities and costs. It is expected that alternatives will be limited by terrain, access and
other physical factors.
Subtask 3-2. Develop and Utilize Operations Model
The contractor will utilize available hydrologic data from Crater Lake and other stream
gages in the area as bases for development of a spreadsheet Operations Model (OM).
The contractor will use the OM to simulate operational scenarios in terms of electrical
generation and water supply.
Subtask 3-3. Predict Capacity, Generation and Water Supply.
The contractor will utilize the OM and ancillary information to estimate, for each
alternative:
Installed Generation Capacity;
Annual and Seasonal Energy Generation; and
Annual and Seasonal Water Supply.
Depending on evaluation of the modeling capabilities, CEC may request modeled output
for a 30-year forecast period.
TASK 4. ADDITIONAL FEASIBILITY FACTORS
The contractor will, after development of conceptual design and operation descriptions, evaluate
the following, and others as they become known, additional factors which might affect Project
feasibility:
Land ownership and access restrictions;
Constructability of major features given terrain, access, surface conditions and safety
considerations;
Environmental impact issues resulting from Project construction and long-term operation;
Permitting requirements and potential roadblocks to Project development.
TASK 5. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
The project cost estimate will include, at a minimum, the estimated full cost of post-feasibility
design, construction, and commissioning for each alternative with minimum, maximum, and
likely cost scenarios. A summary of risk factors, assumptions, and methodology for
development of cost estimates will be included.
9
TASK 6. HYDROELECTRIC and WATER SUPPLY PROJECT ECONOMICS and
BENEFIT/COST ANALYSES
The contractor will determine, and provide in report format and as spreadsheets usable by CEC,
project economics for each selected hydroelectric/water supply Alternative (Microsoft excel with
all supporting/linked files):
Estimated capital costs across a range of materials prices and financing rates available at
the time of the report
Operation and Maintenance cost;
Estimated costs of electricity and water to CEC and Water Department service area
customers, across a range of projected fuel costs and water sales prices; and
Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCR’s) for selected Project alternatives. BCR’s will be based on
parameters and assumptions provided from Task 3 results. These will include, but not be
limited to: fuel cost, plant factors, power and water sales estimates, and development
timeframe and discount and escalation rates.
CEC expects that an important selection factor will be the proposer’s description of method(s) to
calculate BCR’s for selected alternatives of the combined hydroelectric and water supply project.
We recognize that there are a number of existing methods for determining BCR for singular
hydro or water supply projects. We are especially interested, however, in methods which reflect
joint benefits of the combined project purposes, and will favor proposals presenting sound and
creative approaches to this objective.
TASK 7. SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The contractor will select, from the initial list of alternatives, or a list resulting from comparative
analysis described in the Sub-Tasks above, the one or two project configuration/operation
systems which best meet the selection criteria established below for this Feasibility Analysis.
TASK 8. REPORTING
The contractor will prepare a 90% Draft Report due to CEC by October 15, 2015 documenting
results of Tasks 1-7, above, with final submittal by November 15th, 2015. The contractor will
submit the Draft Report for review and will finalize the report based on CEC comments returned
by October 31, 2015. The Final Report will present the contractor’s selected alternatives with
detailed specifications and criteria for evaluation. The contractor will also select, from among
these alternatives, the Preferred Alternative.
CEC expects the contractor to strive toward a succinct and focused report. Exact format for the
draft and final reports will be developed as the project proceeds. However, CEC at this time
expects the reports to include the following sections:
10
REPORT SECTIONS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVES
ANALYTIC METHODS for HYDRO and WATER SUPPLY COMPONENTS
INDIVIDUALLY and CONJUNCTIVELY
OPERATIONS MODEL DEVELOPMENT
RESULTS for HYDRO and WATER SUPPLY COMPONENTS INDIVIDUALLY
and CONJUNCTIVELY
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION including PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
REFERENCES or LITERATURE CITED
PROPOSAL CONTENT
Proposals must contain the following sections or chapters:
1. SCOPE of WORK;
2. COST ESTIMATE;
3. SCHEDULE;
4. PROJECT TEAM; and
5. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
as described in the following:
1. SCOPE of WORK
Proposals must contain a Scope or Work section describing the contractor’s proposed approach
to meet overall Project Objectives, and to finalize each of the Tasks in this RFP. The Scope of
Work must be less than 30 single-sided, single-spaced pages in length. CEC will evaluate
clarity and succinctness of written material in the proposal. Writing and communications
aptitude will be prominent selection factors.
11
Overall Feasibility Analysis Description
For the Feasibility Analysis as a whole, the contractor, in the Scope of Work proposal section
will provide a concise but comprehensive statement of how the contractor will reach the goal of
identifying the Preferred Project Alternative.
Task Proposals
For each Task and Sub-Task above, the contractor will propose:
1. Overall approach;
2. Analytic methods, as applicable;
3. Decision process, as applicable; and
2. COST ESTIMATE
For each Task, the contractor will submit a cost estimate, broken down according to Labor,
(including rates and overhead) and Expenses. To the Task total cost estimate, the contractor will
provide additional company-related cost factors, as applicable.
Proposers should assume travel expenses to and from Cordova via reasonable airfare rates.
Lodging in Cordova may include use of an efficiency apartment below the CEC office, which is
adequate for one lodger. CEC will cover costs for two helicopter access trips to the Project site
of two days or less each.
3. SCHEDULE
The contractor will submit a proposed Project Schedule as a Gantt-type chart showing start and
end dates of Tasks as well as dependencies from one Task to the next. The Schedule will be
presented in terms of most likely completions, as well as early and late completions based on
rationale stated in this Proposal section.
4. PROJECT TEAM
In this section, proposers will provide members of their proposed Project team, with concise
descriptions of the qualifications and expected role of each team member.
5. STATEMENT of QUALIFICATIONS
General Statement of Qualifications
Proposals must be accompanied by a Statement of Qualifications, not to exceed 20 pages,
documenting the proposer’s qualifications to conduct the work described in Tasks 1-4. CEC will
evaluate qualifications relative to experience in hydro and water supply project feasibility
evaluation, design, cost estimating and alternative selection with preference for experience in
south central or south eastern coastal Alaska.
12
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Four (4) bound, paper copies of the Proposal or an electronically submitted proposal must be
received by CEC no later than 5:00 PM, Alaska Daylight Time on June 30, 2015.
Address Proposal packages to:
Clay Koplin-CEO
Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
705 Second Street
P.O. Box 20
Cordova, AK 99574
(907) 424 5031
ckoplin@cordovaelectric.com and copied to
bbailer@cordovaelectric.com
All Proposals must have the Words:
“CRATER LAKE HYDRO AND WATER SUPPLY PROJECT PROPOSAL”
written prominently on the mailing envelope or electronic submittal subject line/filename.
Questions about this RFP must be submitted to Mr. Koplin or Barbara Bailer via email. All
questions and answers will be transmitted by CEC to all proposers electronically.
CEC reserves the right to reject any or all proposals. CEC reserves the right to waive minor
irregularities. Proposals shall be valid 60 days from June 30, 2015. CEC intends to award a
Notice to Proceed to the selected responsive and responsible proposer on or before July 31, 2015.
PROPOSAL SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated by Cordova Electric Cooperative and City of Cordova staff, and
technical consultants as deemed appropriate.
Proposals will be scored on a percentage basis with a maximum total score of 100% weighted to
proposal content as follows:
1. SCOPE of WORK . . . . . . . . 25%
2. COST ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . 15%
3. SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . 10%
4. PROJECT TEAM . . . . . . . . 25%
5. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS . . . . . 25%
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . 100%
Appendix
Exhibit E
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
Progress Report for AEA Grant
Grantee: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Project Name: Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Construction
Grant #2195386
Period of Report: November 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010
Prepared: December 7, 2010
Project Activities Completed:
November was a productive month, and while winter weather and low daylight hours impacted
productivity, progress was good, though Thanksgiving week and weekend consumed a week.
With the bentonite in the creek bed contained between the two sheet pile walls, the contractor
was able to fully clean and expose rock for geotechnical inspections and confirmation of the
grouting plan. Rock along the tailrace was excavated, and electrical, tunnel walkway, and other
inside work advance significantly through the month. Bridge modifications including adding
structural support, removing the suspension cable, and jacking and shimming the penstock to
the proper camber across the bridge were also completed this month. Approximately 1/3 of
the new penstock supports were added to the penstock, but the concrete foundations will need
to be added next summer, along with the balance of supports. This work will be accomplished
with the penstock full and the project in operation. Penstock coating and dresser coupling
maintenance work will commence once the supports are in place next summer.
Please note attached pictures reflecting the activities outlined above. They are taken from daily
reports and are in chronological order. Daily reports are available upon request.
Based on current progress due the project is now scheduled to be in operation by January 2011.
Existing or Potential Problems:
There are currently no additional problems anticipated. The creek bed has been exposed, and
all project activities, excavations, and foundation work are clearly defined.
Activities Targeted for Next Reporting Period:
December activities include pressure testing the grout holes, pressure grouting (curtain
grouting) the grout holes, forming and pouring the diversion dam structure. High voltage
electrical and fiber options will be installed, and the majority (95%) of inside electrical work will
be completed.
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
The Transformer Vault
Cleaning Rock at the Diversion Site – Note Hard Rock
Lyle Darbying External Sluice Ramp Pour
First Conduit Pulled to Power House (high voltage)
Closeup of Diversion Location
Another High Flow Event – 275 CFS
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
Diversion Tunnel Handles High Flow Adequately
Tunnel Air Duct Ready For Pour
Lyle Patched and Smoothed Control Room
Debris Slab Nearly Completed
Forming the E+6 Wall for Dental Concrete in Creek
Transformer Vault Forms
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
Electrical Conduits Complete in Tunnel
Manway Welded to Penstock – last steel piece
Pouring E‐Line Dental Concrete
E+6 Wall Ready to Pour
A‐Line Pilaster With a Hole for Vibrating
Pouring the Air Vent at C‐4
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
Extreme Access Shimming the Penstock Across Bridge
Welding the High Voltage Junction Box Lower Portal
Forms and Bending Table in the Creek
“D” Line Upstream Edge of the Dam
Site Safety During Penstock Coating Work
8” HDPE to Carry Bentonite Water and Silt to Beach
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
Diversion Dam Rebar, Note Straddles Hard Rock Seam
Heating the Roof for Waterproof Membrane
Intake Rebar Matrix Hugging the Rock
Lighting In the Control Room
Gary Insulating the Control Room
Rebar Mat Looking Left Toward E Line
Progress Report for AEA Grant HBC November10.docx
Intake Pour Between E and D lines
Control Room Insulation
Elevation 257 Slab
Tunnel Lighting Completed – On Temporary Power
Control Room Panel A
Intake After Thanksgiving Break
Appendix
Exhibit F
Resumes
(See separate electronic document)
Appendix
Exhibit G
Appendix
Exhibit H
150 FERC ¶ 62,058
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Cordova Electric Cooperative Docket No. DI14-05-000
ORDER RULING ON DECLARATION OF INTENTION
AND FINDING LICENSING NOT REQUIRED
(Issued January 22, 2015)
1.On July 18, 2014, Cordova Electric Cooperative filed a Declaration of Intention
(DI) concerning the proposed Crater Lake Water and Power Hydroelectric Project, which
will be located on a Crater Lake outflow stream (Crater Creek), northeast of the City of
Cordova, in the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, Alaska, at T. 15 S., R. 3 W, Copper River
Meridian.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.The proposed Crater Lake Water and Power Project will consist of: (1) the natural
reservoir of water in Crater Lake, with a current estimated capacity of 400 acre-feet; (2) a
20-foot-high, concrete dam at an elevation of 1,580 feet above mean sea level; (3) a
3,800-foot-long, 1.05-foot diameter above-ground steel penstock; (4) a steel-frame
powerhouse containing a single, one-megawatt generating unit rated at 1,450 feet of net
head and a discharge of 2.85 cubic feet per second (cfs); (5) a tailrace that would extend
approximately 20 yards south from the powerhouse to discharge into Crater Creek, a
tributary of the Orca Inlet; (6) a short 1.47 kV three-phase transmission line conveying
power to an existing 12.47 kV distribution line; (7) a pipe or channel conduit linking the
powerhouse outflow with the water supply pipeline; and (8) and appurtenant facilities.
PUBLIC NOTICE
3.Notice of the DI was published on August 12, 2014. Protests, comments, and
petitions to intervene were to be filed by September 12, 2014. No protests, comments, or
petitions to intervene have been received.
JURISDICTION
4.Pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 817(1)
(2006), a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid
pre-1920 federal permit) if it:
(a) is located on a navigable water of the United States;
20150122-3065 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/22/2015
Docket No. DI14-05-000 - 2 -
(b) occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
(c) utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
(d) is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, is
constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935, and affects the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce.
DISCUSSION
5.Based upon available information it does not appear that the proposed project
would be located on a navigable water of the United States. It will not occupy any public
lands or reservations of the United States, and will not use surplus water or waterpower
from a Federal government dam. The proposed project would be constructed after
August 26, 1935, and would use water from a Commerce Clause stream,1 but would not
affect interstate commerce because it would not be connected to an interstate grid and
would not have a significant effect on anadromous fish. Therefore, the project does not
require licensing under Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA.
CONCLUSION
6.Consequently, section 23(b)(1) of the FPA does not require licensing of the
proposed Crater Lake Water and Power Hydroelectric Project. If evidence sufficient to
require licensing is found in the future, section 23(b)(1) would require licensing. Under
section 4(g) of the FPA, the project owner could then be required to apply for a license.
The Director orders:
(A) Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act does not require licensing of the
proposed Crater Lake Water and Power Hydroelectric Project. This order is issued
without prejudice to any future determination upon new or additional evidence that
licensing is required.
1 For purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), Commerce Clause streams are the
headwaters and tributaries of navigable waters of the United States. See FPC v. Union
Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90, 94-96 (1965). The Crater Lake outflow stream drains into the
Orca Inlet, a navigable water of the United States. See Cordova Elec. Coop., Inc., 40
FERC ¶ 62,172 (1987).
20150122-3065 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/22/2015
Docket No. DI14-05-000 - 3 -
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in
section 313(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s regulations at
18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2014). The filing of a request for rehearing does not operate as a
stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this order. A
party’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this order.
Charles K. Cover
Chief, Project Review Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
20150122-3065 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/22/2015
Appendix
Exhibit I
AEA Cost/Benefit Calculator
and Excel Source File
(See separate electronic document)
Appendix
Exhibit J
Appendix
Exhibit K
Permitting Quote
(See separate electronic document)
Appendix
Exhibit L