Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuslia REF Round 9 Application RFA#16012 Biomass Alaska Energy Authority – AEA 16012 Renewable Energy Grant Application H CITY OF HUSLIA City of Huslia ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – AEA 16012 RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT APPLICATION APPLICATION CONTENTS AEA HEAT PROJECT APPLICATION – SECTION 1 THROUGH 12 AUTHORIZED SIGNERS – SECTION 13 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION – SECTION 14 RESUMES LETTERS OF SUPPORT INVOICES GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION APPENDIX PLAN SET DRAWINGS HUSLIA BIOMASS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND CALCULATIONS PROJECT COST ESTIMATE O&M COST ESTIMATE HUSLIA BIOMASS DRAFT OPERATIONAL PLAN HUSLIA ASSESSMENT OF WOODY BIOMASS ENERGY RESOURCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES DOCUMENTATION HUSLIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT AUDIT REPORT (2014) HUSLIA ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAINING PLAN HUSLIA TRIP REPORT (2-3-2015) HUSLIA WO8 JOB COST HISTORY HUSLIA Z48 JOB COST HISTORY LIST OF AEA GRANTS THAT ANTHC HAS MANAGED (2009-2014) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects Application Forms and Instructions This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for Round VIII of the Renewable Energy Fund Heat Projects only. If your application is for energy projects that will not primarily produce heat, please use the standard application form (see RFA section 1.5). An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and both application forms are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy- Fund/Rounds#round9. •If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org. •If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. •Multiple phases (e.g. final design, construction) for the same project may be submitted as one application. •If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones and budget for each phase of the project. •In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC 107.605(1). •If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, reports, conceptual or final designs, models, photos, maps, proof of site control, utility agreements, power sale agreements, relevant data sets, and other materials. Please provide a list of supporting documents in Section 11 of this application and attach the documents to your application. •If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. Please provide a list of additional information; including any web links, in section 12 of this application and attach the documents to your application. For guidance on application best practices please refer to the resource specific Best Practices Checklists; links to the checklists can be found in the appendices list at the end of the accompanying REF Round IX RFA. •In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient space for the information, or attach additional sheets if needed. REMINDER: •Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. •All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. AEA 16012 Page 1 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects • In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want information to be kept confidential the applicant must: o Request the information be kept confidential. o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their application. o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request. AEA 16012 Page 2 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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 Huslia Type of Entity: Municipality Fiscal Year End: 2015 Tax ID #:92-0070378 Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one) Date of last financial statement audit: 11/9/2014 (State of Alaska DCRA) Mailing Address: Physical Address: PO Box 70 58 Dakli Street Huslia, Alaska 99746 Huslia, Alaska 99746 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 829-2294 907-829-2224 elslesv@gci.net 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name: Eric Hanssen, P.E., LEED AP Title: Program Manager, Rural Energy Initiative Mailing Address: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Division of Environmental Health & Engineering Rural Energy Program 3900 Ambassador Drive, Suite 301 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 729-3620 (907) 729-4090 echanssen@anthc.org 1.1.1 APPLICANT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY CONTACT INFORMATION Name: S. Joyce Sam Title: Mayor, City of Huslia Mailing Address: City of Huslia PO Box 70 Huslia, AK 99746 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 829-2266 (907) 829-2224 elsiesv@gci.net 1.1.2 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Sharnel Vale (907) 729-3942 Sharon Anderson (907) 729-3480 (907) 729-3571 sdvale@anthc.org (907) 729-3652 smanderson@anthc.org AEA 16012 Page 3 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) ☐ 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 governing 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) AEA 16012 Page 4 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY This section is intended to be no more than a 2-3 page overview of your project. 2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below. Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project in the subsections below. 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. 65.701462, -156.389489 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. Huslia, Alaska 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type ☐ Wind to Heat ☒ Biomass or Biofuels ☐ Hydro to Heat ☐ Solar Thermal ☐ Heat Recovery from Existing Sources ☐ Heat Pumps ☐ Other (Describe) 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 and Commissioning AEA 16012 Page 5 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed heat project. In 2013, AEA provided funding to the community of Huslia through the Renewable Energy Fund for initial planning and conceptual design of a biomass heating system to serve community buildings. Under this previous grant, Huslia partnered with ANTHC to engineer a conceptual design and to develop a draft biomass operations plan. In addition, ANTHC contracted with Tanana Chiefs Conference to complete an Assessment of Woody Biomass Resources for Huslia, which provides local wood resource harvesting guidance. The proposed project will build from this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia, Alaska. Specifically, this project will install a prefabricated, containerized cordwood boiler and cordwood storage area (fenced area including covered wood storage) adjacent to the Clinic and Washeteria. Biomass heating will be integrated into the end user buildings using circulating glycol heat transfer loops from the containerized biomass boiler. Modifications to end user building heating systems will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of biomass heat. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is projected to save the Clinic and Water Treatment Plant 8,474 gallons of heating oil per year. For more detailed information refer to the attached Huslia, Alaska Biomass Feasibility Study. 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. The follow activities are planned to be carried out to complete the scope of the proposed project: Design: The design effort will build from the existing conceptual design to provide construction ready design documents using the containerized biomass heating system. Design phase activities will include a kickoff meeting, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering, as well as CAD and survey support. Pre-Construction: Prior to construction, ANTHC will work with the community, AEA and other stakeholders to complete a detailed “Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan” based on current AEA planning guidance. Pre-construction activities by ANTHC or its subcontractor will include production of a final construction cost estimate (or bid), construction schedule, material take-off, heavy equipment and tool take off, work force planning, establishing local labor force accounts and insurance policies, and a pre-construction conference. Construction: Installation of the system as designed, on-site testing and inspections, field survey, construction management reporting, materials ordering and expediting, compiling of manufacturer’s literature, creation of O&M manual, local labor force payroll administration, as-built redlines, quarterly grant reports, superintendent supervision and assistance Post-Construction: Pre-final and final inspections, closeout documentation, record drawings, demobilization, start-up and operator training Project Management (Match): ANTHC will provide project management as an in-kind match, which will be ongoing through all project phases; this will include but is not limited to: coordinating with the funding agency on reporting, working as the liaison between stakeholders and the community, providing status updates, managing the project budget, establishing and managing design and/or construction contracts, and coordinating with design and construction personnel. AEA 16012 Page 6 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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. Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverables 1.) Project Planning Conduct Kickoff Meeting 11/1/2016 11/1/2016 Meeting Notes 65% design w/cost estimate 11/1/2016 4/1/2017 65% Plans & Est. Biomass Business & Operations Plan 4/1/2017 6/1/2017 Final Plan Final Design documents 4/1/2017 6/1/2017 100% Plans & Est. 2.) Construction Pre-construction meeting 7/1/2017 7/1/2017 Meeting Notes Construction 7/1/2017 9/1/2017 Progress Reports Commissioning & Training 9/1/2017 10/1/2017 Trip Report Final Inspection and follow-up 10/1/2017 11/1/2017 Inspection Report 3.) Project Closeout Project closeout, Warranty Period 11/1/2017 11/1/2018 Closeout Docs. 4.) Project Management and Match Activities Project management throughout (ANTHC in-kind) 11/1/2016 12/1/2018 Progress Reports 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. The total requested grant funding is $491,610. Design requested AEA funding: $52,590 Construction requested AEA funding: $350,358 15% Contingency requested AEA funding: $60,442 2 year escalation at 3% per year requested AEA Funding: $28,220 AEA 16012 Page 7 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects ANTHC In-Kind Match: The total anticipated project cost is $496,526 including Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium’s in-kind contribution of $4,916 for project and project management services. Energy efficiency improvements to buildings to be heated (upgraded within the past 5 years or committed prior to proposed project completion): $43,851 has been expended from three funding sources for these improvements: State of Alaska direct legislative appropriation to ANTHC to implement energy efficiencies in rural communities; Denali Commission Energy Efficiency funding and USDA RD Rural Alaska Village Grant Program, Technical Assistance and Training Grant. Documents are attached to this application to verify this information including: Huslia Training & Retrofits Plan, Huslia Energy Efficiency Trip Report, WTP Audit, and Job Cost History reports. Total ANTHC in-kind match funds ($4,916+ $43,851) equals $48,767 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. AEA 16012 Page 8 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects DESIGN PHASE Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In- kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Milestone list below. ) Project Management Throughout $0 $526 In-kind 1% ANTHC project/program management $526 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 11/1/2016 $1,000 $1,000 65% design w/cost estimate 4/1/2017 $34,184 $34,184 Biomass Business/Ops Plan 6/1/2017 $6,000 $6,000 Final Design documents 6/1/2017 $11,406 $11,406 TOTALS $52,590 $526 $53,116 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $0 Travel & Per Diem $0 Equipment Materials & Supplies Contractual Services $52,590 $526 $53,116 Construction Services Other TOTALS $52,590 $526 $53,116 AEA 16012 Page 9 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects CONSTRUCTION PHASE Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In- kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Milestone list below. ) Project Management Throughout $4,390 In-kind ANTHC project/program management $4,390 Pre-construction meeting 7/1/2017 $1,500 $1,500 Construction 9/1/2017 $412,995 $412,995 Commissioning & Training 10/1/2017 $16,705 $16,705 Final Inspection and follow-up 11/1/2017 $5,300 $5,300 Project Closeout 11/2/2018 $2,520 $2,520 $439,020 $4,390 $443,410 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits Travel & Per Diem $0 Equipment Materials & Supplies $0 Contractual Services $439,020 $4,390 $443,410 Construction Services Other TOTALS $439,020 $4,390 $443,410 3.2.3 Cost Justification Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget. The cost estimates presented in the table below represent the anticipated costs of the proposed system, taking into account recent design and construction costs of similar projects. Large financial risks are associated with construction work in rural Alaska. Expenses for potential changes in site conditions, unknown or unforeseen issues, and logistics have been incorporated into these costs. ANTHC’s match may actually work out to be much higher than shown, as this work may be performed at ANTHC’s billing rate and may exceed the hours anticipated. Any excess time/value of the project management in-kind match does not replace other financial cost elements of this project. The anticipated dates of completion are assumed based on the likelihood of funding, other ongoing work in the city, and other heat recovery work going on around the state. 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 $ 491,610 Cash match to be provided $ AEA 16012 Page 10 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects In-kind match to be provided (*Does not include Energy Efficiency Upgrades) $ 4,916 Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $ 496,526 For heat projects using building efficiency completed within the last 5 years as in-kind match, the applicant must provide documentation of the nature and cost of efficiency work completed. Applicants should provide as much documentation as possible including: 1. Energy efficiency pre and post audit reports, 2. Invoices for work completed, 3. Photos of the building and work performed, and/or 4. Any other available verification such as scopes of work, technical drawings, and payroll for work completed internally. 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 $ Feasibility and Conceptual Design (*Phase is Complete) $ 29,582 Final Design and Permitting $ 53,116 Construction $ 443,410 Total Project Costs (sum of above) $ 526,108 3.2.6 Operating and Maintenance Costs (non-fuel) Estimate annual non-fuel O&M costs associated with the proposed system $ 8,182 3.2.7 Fuel Costs Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system Fuel type Annual cost ($) Cord wood $ 23,136 $ $ AEA 16012 Page 11 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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. During the course of the project, the project manager will be responsible for ensuring consistent and open communication between ANTHC, City and Tribal leadership in Huslia, AEA, IRHA, TCC, and other project stakeholders to ensure a common understanding of project status and to address any concerns. Formal coordination meetings of project stakeholders will be held during design and construction at specific milestones, including, but not limited to: project kickoff, design reviews, construction kickoff and final inspection. Written project progress reports and financial reporting will be provided to the AEA project manager and shared with as required by the grant. Upon completion and startup of the proposed system, ANTHC will work with the community to ensure performance reporting requirements of the grant are fulfilled. BTU metering and remote monitoring of the system will be installed to assist in tracking, optimizing and reporting of system performance. 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. To ensure long-term sustainability of the proposed biomass heating system, this project will include the critical elements of training and completion of a detailed “Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan.” This planning and training during the course of the project will aim to develop local capacity for technical operations and maintenance, as well as business management required to maximize the benefits of biomass heating to the local community year after year. Hands-on operator training and planning with local administrative staff will follow the operational planning guidance recently published by AEA to capture maintenance requirements of the biomass system and existing heating systems, relationships of stakeholders regarding harvesting of wood resources, financial management, heat sales, wood purchases, processing and storage of wood, and project reporting, among other subjects outlined in AEA’s guidance. ANTHC has completed a draft operations plan through coordination with the City of Huslia (attached), and will work with the community and AEA to complete a detailed “Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan” prior construction of the proposed system. SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 4.1 Project Team 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. AEA 16012 Page 12 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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. ANTHC will be partnering with the City of Huslia to manage the proposed project and administer this grant. Project Manager: ANTHC Rural Energy Initiative Program Manager Eric Hanssen, P.E., LEED AP has been with ANTHC since 2007. As part of ANTHC’s Rural Energy Initiative, he oversees project development, design, and construction of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for remote communities across the entire state of Alaska. During his time with ANTHC, Eric has also served as a Project Manager for rural water and wastewater infrastructure projects, as well as a Health Facilities Engineer focused on hospital and clinic construction and renovation projects. Prior to joining ANTHC, Eric served seven years as a civil engineer and officer for the US Air Force in Alaska, Washington DC, Florida, and Iraq. He holds a BS in Environmental Engineering from the US Air Force Academy in Colorado and a Master’s in Environmental Policy and Economics from the University of Maryland, College Park. Please see attached resume for additional detail. 4.1.2 Expertise and Resources Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors. Provide sufficient detail for reviewers to evaluate: • 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 ANTHC Rural Energy Initiative has created alternative ways to continue serving our customer Owners—Working collaboratively with ANTHC’s Rural Utility Technicians, the Alaska Energy Authority, Tribal organizations, rural power companies and several others to reduce energy costs and improve overall sustainability throughout Alaska. The Rural Energy Initiative has experience helping communities identify renewable energy projects that reduce costs, while increasing energy efficiency and operator training and maintenance. ANTHC’s Division of Environmental Health and Engineering (DEHE) has a full service engineering group to utilize for this project if designed internally. Our projects are focused on the planning, design, construction and operations of public health infrastructure throughout the state of Alaska. Professional engineers at DEHE are involved in all aspects of a project, from planning to design to force account construction. AEA 16012 Page 13 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects ANTHC has extensive experience constructing projects, including several biomass heating systems across rural Alaska, and has the capability of completing the construction phase of the project through in-house licensed tradesmen or by establishing and managing subcontract construction services. In addition, local labor resources will be employed to support construction of the project. DEHE's Tribal Utility Support Program has utility operations consultants that will be available post construction to provide both operational and managerial advice to the project and community operators, as well as to help guide the production of operations and maintenance materials. 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. The City of Huslia will use the accounting resources of ANTHC. ANTHC’s Division of Environmental Health accounting department is led by the Construction Controller, Diane Chris. The Construction Finance Department is comprised of 10 staff that handle all DEHE’s accounting functions. A Senior Accountant has been designated to support any ANTHC Grant awards including AEA financial reporting. Key Staff resumes are included in this application. ANTHC has a 16-year history of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in accordance with the Single Audit Act. 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. The project finances will be kept in Spectrum job cost accounting software used by ANTHC. The software accounts expenditures by phase code and cost types. Purchasing, contracting, and accounting are the primary users of the system with the information always available to the project team. The City will enter into a cooperative project agreement (CPA) with ANTHC to implement the project as well as financial management. ANTHC’s cost controls have been implemented to comply with OMB cost control principles and requirements of all state and federal grants. ANTHC has a 16-year history of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in accordance with the Single Audit Act. ANTHC will provide records and accounting records available to state and federal auditors on request. 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. ANTHC has extensive experience utilizing force account labor. For our rural construction projects we work with community leaders to identify local labor resources to work on our projects. We anticipate hiring local labor for the construction effort. ANTHC recognizes the value of using local labor to yield enhanced local control and ownership of a project and is committed to providing opportunities to the local workforce. AEA 16012 Page 14 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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. To prepare for this project, Huslia has partnered with ANTHC to complete an assessment of local wood resources. ANTHC, in turn, contracted with the Tanana Chief Conference (TCC) Forestry Program to assess the forest resources around Huslia that would supply the energy feedstock required to support the proposed biomass project.. Using LandFire imagery data, GIS, and relational database software, TCC has produced an “Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources” defining the biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius surrounding Huslia. The primary landowners in the Huslia area are the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), K’oyitl’ots’ina Ltd., Doyon Ltd., and the State of Alaska. Native Allotments are also present in the area but would not be considered for harvest for this project. Each landowner has an annual allowable cut that indicates the maximum amount of wood, in cords, that can be harvested without significantly affecting the resource sustainability. The amount of wood considered for this project is far below the annual allowable cut for each entity. As part of the proposed project, ANTHC will work with the community and AEA to document details of local wood harvest planning in a final “Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan,” though direct community involvement and coordination with the local ANCSA village corporation, K’oyitl’ots’ina Ltd., and other major landowners surrounding Huslia. According to the attached August 2014 “Huslia Alaska Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy” by the TCC Forestry Program, the annual allowable harvest within a 25-mile radius of Huslia is 73,644 tons or approximately 57,000 cords per year. With this project’s proposed wood resource requirement of 77 cords per year, the preliminary assessment indicates that local biomass can be sustainably harvested from as close as 1-2 miles from Huslia. The woody biomass resource in the vicinity of Huslia consists primarily of Black Spruce, Birch and White Spruce, which are all suitable for the proposed cordwood heating system. For additional biomass resource details, please refer to the attached August 2014 “Huslia, Alaska Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources.” The only realistic alternative to utilizing the biomass boiler system is to continue to burn fuel oil to provide the heat required by the water system and clinic. Heat recovery from the power plant was evaluated by ANTHC and was determined to be non-viable because the AVEC power plant is approximately 3500 ft. away from the project buildings. 5.1.2 Permits AEA 16012 Page 15 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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 No permits are anticipated for this biomass boiler project. If during the course of the project, it is determined that permits are required, ANTHC will ensure they are obtained and followed. 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 property on which the biomass boiler building is to be sited is owned by the City of Huslia. The Clinic is owned and operated by the Huslia Traditional Council. There are no apparent conflicts with rights-of-ways for the biomass boiler building and arctic piping between the biomass boiler building and the end user building, as they are entirely sited on City and/or Tribal property. 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. All biomass projects face the risk of improper operation and maintenance that could reduce heat produced by the system and overall benefit to the community. Training and a detailed operations plan are included in this project to develop local capacity for technical operations and maintenance, as well as business management required to make this biomass energy project successful and sustainable. ANTHC has completed a draft operations plan through coordination with the City of Huslia (attached), and will work with the community and AEA to complete a detailed “Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan” prior construction of the proposed system. In addition, a biomass resource assessment has been completed, with harvesting guidance to be incorporated into the final “Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan” to make certain that legal and regulatory aspects of resource harvesting are followed, and to ensure sustainability of the local wood resources. In general, there are minimal technical risks involved with the proposed plan to install a biomass boiler to provide heat to the water system, washeteria, and clinic. ANTHC’s experience in design, construction, commissioning and operating rural community biomass systems will serve to minimize risk during each phase of the 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 AEA 16012 Page 16 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects ANTHC will consider all potential environmental concerns associated with this project. ANTHC uses the comprehensive Indian Health Service (IHS) environmental review procedures for conducting environmental analysis of all health and sanitation facilities projects in all stages of development, as outlined in the IHS Environmental Review Manual issued in January 2007. 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. The water treatment plant, washeteria, and clinic use oil fired boilers and circulating glycol hydronic heating systems to provide building and domestic hot water and community water system heating. Unit heaters and baseboard heating elements are present to fulfill space heating requirements. The water treatment plant and washeteria building uses two boilers rated at 234 MBH each. The two boilers were installed in 2008. The boilers run at approximately 80% efficiency. The clinic uses two boilers rated at 175 MBH each. The two boilers were installed in 2005. Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1 grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 4 boilers, 2 per building ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other WTP boilers 234 MBH, Clinic boilers 175 MBH iii. Generator/boilers/other type Oil-Fired, #1 Diesel iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 5-10 years v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 80% vi. is there heat recovery and is it operational? Yes (only serves AVEC facilities) b) Annual O&M cost i. Annual O&M cost for labor $300 (existing boiler maintenance) ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $200 (existing boiler maintenance) c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] Other iii. Peak Load iv. Average Load v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency vii. Future trends d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) 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. AEA 16012 Page 17 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 14,580 gal ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other 5.4.2 Future Trends Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community over the life of the project. According to US Census data, Huslia’s population was 207 in 1990, 293 in 2000, and 275 in 2010. Assuming Huslia’s population remains in the same range of recent counts, the demand for heat in the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria and Clinic facilities will continue to be similar to the demand seen today. Thus the energy demand used in the feasibility analysis for this application is anticipated a valid approximation over the life of the project. 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. This biomass heating project is not expected to have an impact on electric rates in Huslia. By producing an overall energy cost savings for both the Water Treatment Plant/Washeteria and Clinic facilities, the proposed system is expected to enable lowing of water/sewer utility rates for community residents, as well as washeteria user fees, in addition to making operations of both facilities more affordable and sustainable in the long run. 5.4.4 Proposed System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity • Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Integration plan • Delivery methods Using cordwood as fuel, the containerized biomass boiler system will transfer heat via circulating glycol loops to heat the existing hydronic heating systems of the end-user buildings. The concept for this system has been developed through coordination between ANTHC and DECTRA Corp., the makers of GARN Wood Heating Systems. The proposed containerized biomass boiler builds from the existing GARNpac system, and will include a slightly larger container to accommodate for the installation of heat exchangers and pumps for both end user buildings inside the container unit. The modified GARNpac unit will be prefabricated by DECTRA Corp, including the biomass boiler, insulation, overhead and personnel doors, ventilation fan, combustion air intake and exhaust stack, pumps, heat exchangers, piping inside the unit, controls, lighting, electrical and sensor wiring, and tie-in for power as well as supply and return glycol lines. The unit will also include a pitched roof AEA 16012 Page 18 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects system to be field installed. Exterior siding for the unit, pre-insulated heat transfer piping, and any other required materials will be sourced separately and field installed. END-USER BUILDING TIE-IN Tie-ins of the supply and return glycol piping from the biomass boiler unit will typically occur on the return side of the boiler in each end user facility’s existing hydronic heating system. The circulating system will pass through the biomass system heat exchanger prior to entering the fuel-oil boilers. The glycol is preheated by the biomass heat and upon entering the fuel oil boilers at a higher temperature allows the boiler controls to keep the boilers running for a shorter period of time in order to maintain the system. Where required, a heat injection pump will be used to avoid introducing excessive pressure drop in the building heating system. The anticipated delivered biomass heat supply temperature is between 130-180F. When there is insufficient biomass heat to meet the building heating load, the building heating system will fire and add heat. Off-the-shelf controls will lock out the biomass boiler system when there is insufficient heat available. Typical indoor piping will be type L copper tube with solder joints. Isolation valves will be solder end bronze ball valves or flanged butterfly valves. All piping will be insulated with a minimum of 1- inch insulation with an all-service jacket. Flexibility will be provided where required for thermal expansion and differential movement. Air vents, thermometers, pressure gauges, drain valves, and pressure relief valves will also be provided. Although the proposed biomass system is estimated to fulfill roughly 80% of the heating requirement for the end user buildings, it is imperative that the water treatment plant/washeteria and clinic heating systems remain operational at all times. BTU metering is proposed for both the washeteria and clinic heating loops to understand renewable heat provided to each facility and to monitor totalized biomass heat. In addition, Remote Monitoring of energy performance will be installed by ANTHC under separate program funds, to provide continuous, real-time reporting of system data. 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] Biomass: 232,742 Btu/hr b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] ii. Heat [MMBtu] 1136 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] 77 Cords iv. Other Heating Oil: 6,106 gal 5.4.5 Metering Equipment AEA 16012 Page 19 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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. Metering and remote monitoring equipment are planned to be installed in conjunction with this project at an approximate cost of $15,000. A KEP BTU meter will be installed equipped with a Monnit pulse counter. This data is to be fed through a cellular internet connection to the central Monnit server and the ANTHC web site. This is will be funded out of ANTHC’s current remote monitoring program and is not included in the project budget. 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) 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 potential fuel displacement is 8,474 gallons of the 14,580 gallons of fuel to be used by the water system, washeteria, and clinic. The Clinic (a Tribally owned facility), pays the local retail price for heating oil of $7/gallon, while the Washeteria/Water Plant (City-owned) sees much lower bulk rate of $3.41/gallon, which is an average from the last two barge deliveries. The proportional fuel price based on heating demand of each building used in the attached feasibility analysis is $4.12/gallon. The annual savings of fuel displaced by the proposed biomass heating system is therefore estimated to be $34,907 (see attached feasibility analysis). Collection of wood is an important task that can create income and keep local funds within the community. To operate the biomass boiler, the city will have to purchase cords of wood from local harvesters, which is anticipated to sell at $300 per cord. This money is not exported to outside entities and creates local employment and stays within the community as a result. There are no other known incentives or revenue streams that will result from this project. The benefits to the community of this project include a reduction in the amount of fuel required by the community, and a direct benefit to each community member due to the lower cost to produce, store, and deliver water and operate the clinic. 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 AEA 16012 Page 20 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects • 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. The City of Huslia is the owner/operator of the Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant, and outlined in the draft Biomass Operations Plan, will also own and operate the new biomass heating system. The Huslia Traditional Council is the owner/operator of the community Health Clinic, and will pay $300 per cord of fuel wood used to heat the clinic. The quantity of wood used to heat the two end user facilities will be determined by BTU metering for each building. A formal agreement between the City and Traditional council will be established during development of the project’s final Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan prior to construction. 6.1.3 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales For projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines, etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the Request for Applications for more information. N/A Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) Estimated sales (kWh) Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) Estimated sales (kWh) Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) 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. 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 additional funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant. There are no additional funds needed to complete the work as currently identified. In-kind, match contributions from ANTHC for project management services and energy efficiency upgrades are from existing, already secured sources. 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 community has not expressed interest in applying for financing for this project at this time. 6.2.2 Cost Overruns Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding. ANTHC will make every effort to keep the project within the budget. In previous instances where there were project overruns, ANTHC has successfully tapped into other funding opportunities to overcome budget deficits. 6.2.3 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 further phases proposed for this project, beyond what is being applied for in this application. AEA 16012 Page 21 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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, etc.) that can be used for other purposes • The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.) • 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 As mentioned previously, this project will promote sustainability of the community by not only using local wood resources to reduce dependence on fuel oil for heating, but also by creating local jobs and by keeping monies spent on energy in the local economy. Using local renewable wood resources to heat the sanitation system and clinic in Huslia will result in lower operating costs for both facilities. This, in turn, is expected to enable the lowering of user fees in the community, increasing affordability of safe drinking water and piped sewer. Operating cost savings will also allow reserves to accumulate, which can be used to address operations and maintenance needs of the clinic and community sanitation system. AEA 16012 Page 22 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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 • This project increases the sustainability of the community water system and health clinic by reducing operating costs over the life of the project. The minimal maintenance and operating cost can be funded out of its revenue stream and out of its savings over the 25-year life of the project. The biomass harvest plan details how to proceed with the collection of wood in order to sustainably manage local biomass resources. Following the harvest plan will make sure that the collection of wood does not become more difficult by eliminating the option of collecting from the closest resources and moving further away. The attached draft Operations Plan details responsibilities and business structure required to operate the biomass system in a sustainable manner. A detailed Biomass Business and Operations Management Plan will be finalized through coordination between ANTHC, AEA and the community prior to construction of the proposed project. The City of Huslia is committed to meeting all reporting requirements over the entire length of the reporting period. 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 • Improving the thermal energy efficiency of the building(s) to be served by the heat project A detailed biomass feasibility analysis has been completed and is attached to this application. In addition, conceptual drawings have been completed and a biomass resource assessment has been developed and is attached to this document. The intent is to proceed with this project as soon as practical once design and construction funding is available. ANTHC has the capacity to secure all necessary permits and will work closely with the community and the survey department in securing land access and use for the project. All necessary equipment and materials can be coordinated by our DEHE construction group who is very familiar with mobilization and procurement best practices for projects in rural Alaska. ANTHC has developed its design and construction experience in the field of rural community biomass heating systems over the past several years and has completed or is currently completing biomass projects in the communities of Elim, Kobuk, Anvik, Hughes, and Koyukuk. AEA 16012 Page 23 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION 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 7, 2015 The City of Huslia is submitting the grant application. The Huslia Traditional Council, the local tribal entity, is also supportive of this project as demonstrated by their participation in the recently completed feasibility study and conceptual design. ANTHC is providing project management services as a match for the project, as well as a letter of support. In addition, IRHA has been working with the City of Huslia for several years on development of a community biomass heating system, and has demonstrated their region-level support and focus on enhancing the sustainability of Huslia’s and other Interior communities’ biomass systems (see attached letter of support). There is no known opposition to this project. AEA 16012 Page 24 of 28 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects 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 of Huslia is working in partnership with ANTHC to apply for this grant. ANTHC Grants Department, in operation since 1999, writes and complies with grants and cooperative agreements to the funders’ requirements and has not had an audit finding since inception. At any one time, ANTHC manages over 150 grants, ranging in the millions of dollars to several thousands of dollars each. ANTHC’s grant portfolio includes grants from; federal, state, and a variety of large to small nonprofit organizations and foundations. The Grants Management department provides comprehensive grants administration and assistance, coordinates grant reporting activities with a range of project managers, and ensures effective financial management of grant programs. Coordinates regular grant activities; works with ANTHC staff and funding agencies to ensure project goals and objectives are met, timely submittal of progress reports, or closeout data; and coordinates effort with project managers, supervisors, and accountants to manage grants according to granting agency regulations. ANTHC maintains a robust operating budget for all four divisions. ANTHC operates dozens of programs and projects. We receive funding from numerous well-recognized sources; this demonstrates our capacity to manage this grant. Funders include the United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Indian Health Service, Denali Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Commerce, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Mayo Clinic, National Native American AIDS Prevention Center, Rasmuson Foundation, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, State of Alaska, University of Washington, and others. Alaska Energy Authority Grants managed by ANTHC are listed in the attachments. 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. - Biomass feasibility analysis - Huslia, Alaska Biomass Heating System Conceptual Plans - 2014 “Huslia, Alaska Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources.” - Draft Biomass Operations Plan - Huslia Water Treatment Plant Energy Audit - Huslia Energy Efficiency Upgrades Trip Report - Huslia Training and Retrofits Plan SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION In the space below please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration See attached appendices for additional information referenced in this application. AEA 16012 Page 25 of 28 7/8/15 City of Huslia LETTERS OF SUPPORT  Tanana Chiefs Conference Tribal Empowerment through Health, Employment, Economic Development and Family Services 122 1st Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 907-452-8251 www.tananachiefs.org September 1st 2015 Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Committee 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 Re: Letter of Support for Huslia to the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Dear Alaska Energy Authority The Tanana Chiefs Conference is writing this letter to express its full support to Huslia Tribal Council’s application to the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF) for a biomass heating project in their community in partnership with ANTHC. Tanana Chiefs Conference appreciates the work of the AEA on funding these projects and supporting rural communities as they work to transition from community reliance on outside energy sources to self- reliance on local resources. TCC supports all of our tribal government’s efforts to reduce dependence on imported fuel oil, provide economic development in the community and make each village a more sustainable place to live. TCC has been actively involved in working with ANTHC, Interior Regional Housing Authority and other project partners on developing, implementing and supporting biomass projects across the interior of Alaska. TCC enthusiastically supports Huslia’s efforts to pursue the construction of a biomass system in their community and we commit that our rural energy department will provide staff time and travel to support them with the implementation of this project, if funded. We would appreciate AEA’s careful consideration of this application. Sincerely, David Pelunis-Messier Rural Energy Coordinator Tanana Chiefs Conference 122 1st Ave Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Dave.pm@tananachiefs.org City of Huslia FUEL INVOICES  City of Huslia GOVERNERING BODY   RESOLUTION  City of Huslia APPENDIX  PLAN SET DRAWINGS HUSLIA BIOMASS FEASIBILITY ANAYSIS AND CALCULATIONS PROJECT COST ESTIMATE O&M COST ESTIMATE HUSLIA BIOMASS DRAFT OPERATIONAL PLAN HUSLIA ASSESSMENT OF WOODY BIOMASS ENERGY RESOURCE HUSLIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT AUDIT REPORT (2014) HUSLIA ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAINING PLAN HUSLIA TRIP REPORT HUSLIA JOB W08 JOB COST HISTORY HUSLIA Z48 JOB COST HISTORY LIST OF AEA GRANTS THAT ANTHC HAS MANAGED (2009-2014) *75.+##.#5-# $+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/ %10%'267#. 2.#05'607/$'4*5.ÄÄ #06*%241,'%607/$'4#0Ä< 4755+# #0%*14#)' 01/' -16<'$7' $#4419 ,70'#7 (#+4$#0-5 %#0#&# -1&+#- $'6*'. 70#.#5-# *75.+# &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI 5JGGV.KUV6CDNG 5*''6 07/$'4 5*''66+6.' 5+6'5647%674'5 9#6'4 219'4#0&%1//70+%#6+10 5#0+6#4;5'9'4 6121#0&8')'6#6+10 #$$4'8+#6+105.+0'.#$'.5 9#6'4 5#0+6#4;5'9'4 6121)4#2*;#0&8')'6#6+10 219'4#0&%1//70+%#6+10 5+6' #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI %Ä  %+8+..')'0&*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#. #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI64+$#. * '#.6 *%1 0 5146+7/#.#5 -#0 #6 +8 '%Ä  %1//70+6;5+6'2.#0*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#.%1//70+6;5+6'2.#0 ž #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI64+$#. * '#.6 *%1 0 5146+7/#.#5 -#0 #6 +8 '%Ä  5+6')4#&+0)2.#0*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#.5+6')4#&+0)2.#0 ž #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI /Ä  /'%*#0+%#..')'0&*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#..+0'.')'0& '37+2/'06 8#.8'5 12'0 %.15'& (#+. 12'0 (#+. %.15'& +05647/'06#6+10 #$$4'8+#6+105 ¨ ¨ '37+2/'06.#$'.5 2+2+0)5;/$1.5 *8#% +05647/'06#6+105;56'/5#0&#761/#6+1051%+'6; +5# 6#)+&'06+(+%#6+10.'66'45 (+456.'66'4 57%%''&+0).'66'45 #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI /Ä  /'%*#0+%#. 5'37'0%'1( 12'4#6+105*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#.5'37'0%'1(12'4#6+10 $+1/#55$1+.'45;56'/ *2Ä*2Ä#0&*:Ä $+1/#55$1+.'4#+4+06#-'&#/2'4 ':*#756(#0 '(Ä  $+1/#55$1+.'45;56'/ *2Ä*2Ä#0&*:Ä *'#6':%*#0)'45%*'&7.' 5;/$1..1%#6+10 5'48+%' /#07(#%674'4 /1&'./$* 67$'5+&'#%1.&5*'..5+&'$*16 4'/#4-5 (.7+&)2/'96 .96 ¾2 (.7+&)2/')6 .)6 ¾2 27/25%*'&7.' 5;/$1..1%#6+10 5'48+%' /#07(#%674'4 /1&'. (.7+&)2/*'#& (6 42//1614 4'/#4-5 6;2'6'/2 *281.652* /+5%'..#0'175'37+2/'06.+56 5;/$1.36;.1%#6+10 5'48+%' /#07(#%674'4 /1&'.4'/#4-5 $1+.'45%*'&7.' 5;/$1./#07(#%674'/1&'.(7'.$.19'4 &+/'05+105 4'/#4-5 81.652* #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI64+$#. * '#.6 *%1 0 5146+7/#.#5 -#0 #6 +8 '/Ä  $+1/#55$1+.'4 411/2.#0*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#.%106#+0'4+<'&$+1/#55$7+.&+0)(.1142.#0 žÄ 016' 4'#4'.'8#6+105Ä)#402#% 065 (4106'.'8#6+105Ä)#402#% 065 )'0'4#.016'  #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI64+$#. * '#.6 *%1 0 5146+7/#.#5 -#0 #6 +8 '/Ä  $1+.'45%*'/#6+%*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#.$+1/#55$1+.'45%*'/#6+% 065 %.+0+%$1+.'4411/5%*'/#6+% 065 962$1+.'4411/5%*'/#6+% 065 &'5%4+26+10 #$$4'8+#6+105 )'0'4#.'.'%64+%#.914-52'%+(+%#6+1055;/$1.&'5%4+26+105;/$1. #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI 'Ä  '.'%64+%#..')'0&*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#. .+)*6+0)(+:674'5%*'&7.' 5;/$1.5 &'5%4+26+10 81.65 8#% .#/29#665 /#07(#%674'414 #22418'&'37#..1%#6+10 /1706+0) #ODCUUCFQT&TKXG5WKVG #PEJQTCIG#NCUMC  Ä & # $ %  &KXKUKQPQH'PXKTQPOGPVCN *GCNVJCPF'PIKPGGTKPI 'Ä  '.'%64+%#. 5%*'&7.'5*75.+##-$+1/#55*'#6+0)5;56'/%10%'267#. ANTHC DEHEDivision of Environmental Health & EngineeringAlaska Native Tribal Health Consortium3900 AMBASSADOR DR, SUITE 301Project Name:Huslia Biomass Boiler ProjectANCHORAGE, AK 99508Project Number:TBD(907) 729-4083Engineer:PKCChecked:________FAX (907) 729-4046Revision Date:e-mail: pkc@anthc.orgPrint:File: \\deh02\Energy Program\AEA\Renewable Energy Fund Round 8\Applications\Huslia\[Huslia Biomass Boiler Calcs.xlsx]CalcFind:Feasibility study of Biomass Boiler system for Huslia Water Treatment Plant and ClinicGiven:Heating Degree Days for Huslia33,800                BTU/H14,750                 BTU/H40,300                BTU/H23,640                 BTU/H5,000                  BTU/H47,100                 BTU/H30,000                BTU/H12,000                 BTU/H100,000              BTU/H74,400                 BTU/H35,500                BTU/H171,890              BTU/H24,320                 BTU/HAssumptions:Indirect hot water heater114,300BTU/HrDesign Air Temperature:-50Deg FWasher Load20.625MBH/MonthDesign Water Temperature40Deg FDesign Glycol Heat Trace Temperature75Deg FDesign Crawl space temperature50Deg FUtility buidling Space temperature70Deg FGround temperature @ 3" depth20Deg FWell water temperature35Deg F80000BTU/H20000BTU/HEfficiency of Biomass Boiler80%Cost of Wood$300.00per cordEstimated Boiler AFUE:80%Heating Value of Fuel 134000 BTU/GalCommunity Estimated Fuel Price:$4.10per galAVEC Estimated Fuel Price$4.10per galAVEC Heat Sales Agreement:30%Avoided fuel cost at AVEC's PriceFrozen Soil Conductivity0.12(Between 0.05 & 0.15 BTUH/Ft)MonthEst. WTP Fuel Demand (Gal) Est. Clinic Fuel Demand (Gal)Total Fuel Demand: WTP & Clinic (Gal)Avoided Fuel Use with Biomass  Boiler  (Gal)Total Wood Demand       (Cord)Cost of Wood (Dollars)Recovered Heat Avoided Fuel Cost (Dollars) Net Benefit to CommunityJanuary1,636 384 2,020 897 8 $2,450 $3,679 $3,679February1,619 376 1,995 837 8 $2,286 $3,433 $3,433March1,515 359 1,874 870 8 $2,375 $3,567 $3,567April1,166 291 1,457 878 8 $2,397 $3,600 $3,600May569 178 747 747 7 $2,040 $3,063 $3,063June242 48 290 290 3 $791 $1,188 $1,188July259 54 313 313 3 $855 $1,284 $1,284Aug306 76 383 383 3 $1,045 $1,570 $1,570Sept500 162 663 663 6 $1,809 $2,717 $2,717Oct639 191 830 830 8 $2,267 $3,404 $3,404Nov1,484 353 1,837 871 8 $2,377 $3,570 $3,570Dec1,762 408 2,170 894 8 $2,442 $3,667 $3,66711699 2881 14580 8474 77 $23,136 $34,742 $34,742Calculations:Biomass Project Final SummaryWater main heat add HX‐7:Raw water  Heat Add HX‐6:Clinic Space heatClinic  Crawl Space Space heat 275 person x 1 load per person per week x 4 week per month x 1 hour per load x 27000 Btu/Hr*load x 1 month/ 30day x  1day/ 24 hrCUHHeating CoilBuilding space heating: Crawl space space heating: 09-Sep-1419-Sep-14radiant floor + radiant panelbase boardunit heatersWater main Loop‐1 Heat Add HX‐2:Water main Loop‐1 Heat Add HX‐3:Water well heat trace HX‐4:Water Storage tank Heat Add HX‐1: ANTHC DEHEDivision of Environmental Health & EngineeringAlaska Native Tribal Health Consortium3900 AMBASSADOR DR, SUITE 301Project Name:Huslia Biomass Boiler ProjectANCHORAGE, AK 99508Project Number:TBD(907) 729-4083Engineer:PKCChecked:________FAX (907) 729-4046Revision Date:e-mail: pkc@anthc.orgPrint:File: \\deh02\Energy Program\AEA\Renewable Energy Fund Round 8\Applications\Huslia\[Huslia Biomass Boiler Calcs.xlsx]Calc09-Sep-1419-Sep-14WTP Building Heat Loss:Well Water Heat Loss:Building design heating loss:171,890         BTU/H Building design heating loss:5,000              BTU/HHeat loss / degree of OSA temp1,432.4          BTH/H* Deg F Heat loss / degree of OSA temp58.8                BTH/H* Deg FWTP Crawl Space Heat Loss:Process  Heat Loss:Building design heating loss:24,320           BTU/H Building design heating loss:109,600         BTU/HHeat loss / degree of OSA temp810.7             BTH/H* Deg F Heat loss / degree of OSA temp1,217.8          BTH/H* Deg FStorage Tank Heat Loss:Raw Water Heat Add:Building design heating loss:30,000           BTU/H Building design heating loss:100,000         BTU/HHeat loss / degree of OSA temp333.3             BTH/H* Deg F Heat loss / degree of OSA temp1,111.1          BTH/H* Deg FWasheteria  Washer Load:Clinic Building Heat Loss:Building design heating loss:21                   MBH/Month Building design heating loss:80,000            BTU/HHeat loss / degree of OSA temp666.7              BTH/H* Deg FClinic Crawl Space Heat Loss:Building design heating loss:20,000            BTU/HHeat loss / degree of OSA temp200.0              BTH/H* Deg FMonth Days / Month Htg Degree Days / Month (35F)Htg Degree Days / Month (40F)Htg Degree Days / Month (50F)Htg Degree Days / Month (65F)Htg Degree Days / Month (70F)Htg Degree Days / Month (160F)Design Air Temperature‐50Degrees FDesign Ground Surface Temperature‐10Degrees FJanuary 311,002                                              1,157                  1,622                          1,932             2,087             4,877                   Design Circulating Water Loop Temp160Degrees FFebruary 291,025                                              1,170                   1,605                            1,895               2,040               4,650                     Insulation:1.3Inch foam ins.March 30902                                                  1,052                  1,502                          1,802             1,952             4,652                   Carrier Pipe:2Pipe OD (Inches)April 30554                                                  704                      1,154                          1,454             1,604             4,304                   Insulation K value0.0133BTUH  / (ft x Deg F)May 31‐                                                   94                        559                             869                 1,024             3,814                   Ground K value0.12BTUH  / (ft x Deg F)June 30‐                                                    ‐                        ‐                              172                 322                3,022                   R value = 9.967 Ft x hr x Deg F July 31‐                                                    ‐                        ‐                              207                 362                3,152                   Depth of Bury =3.0feetAug 31‐                                                    ‐                       36                                346                 501                3,291                   Buried Pipe1400FtSept 30‐                                                   40                        490                             790                 940                3,640                   Design Heat Loss: 21,584                       BTU/hrOct 319                                                      164                      629                             939                 1,094             3,884                   Design Heat Loss per linear feet 15.42                         Nov 30871                                                  1,021                  1,471                          1,771             1,921             4,621                   Heat Loss / Degree OSA temp 103                             BTU/hrDec 311,127                                              1,282                  1,747                          2,057             2,212             5,002                   Calculations (Continued)Clinic Heating DemandWTP Heating DemandHeating Degree Days Buried Biomass Boiler Pipe Heat Loss ANTHC DEHEDivision of Environmental Health & EngineeringAlaska Native Tribal Health Consortium3900 AMBASSADOR DR, SUITE 301Project Name:Huslia Biomass Boiler ProjectANCHORAGE, AK 99508Project Number:TBD(907) 729-4083Engineer:PKCChecked:________FAX (907) 729-4046Revision Date:e-mail: pkc@anthc.orgPrint:File: \\deh02\Energy Program\AEA\Renewable Energy Fund Round 8\Applications\Huslia\[Huslia Biomass Boiler Calcs.xlsx]Calc09-Sep-1419-Sep-14Month Building Heat Loss (MBH) WST Heat Loss (MBH)Crawl Space Heat Loss (MBH)Washeteria washer load (MBH)Process Heat Loss (MBH)Well Water heat Trace (MBH)Total WTP Heat Demand MonthClinic  Building Heat Loss (MBH)Crawl Space Heat Loss (MBH)Total Clinic Heat DemandJanuary96 12                                                    17                        21 87 2236                      January45 10                  55                               February101 13                                                    18 21 94 2249                      February47 11                  58                               March93 12                                                    17 21 82 2226                      March43 10                  53                               April77 8                                                      13 21 55 1174                        April36 8                      43                                 May47 1                                                      6217082                        May22 4                    26                               June15‐                                                   0210036                        June7‐                 7                                 July17‐                                                   0210037                        July8‐                 8                                 Aug23‐                                                   0210044                        Aug11 0                    11                               Sept45 0                                                      5213075                        Sept21 3                    24                               Oct51 2                                                      72112092                        Oct24 4                    28                               Nov92 11                                                    16 21 79 2221                      Nov43 10                  52                               Dec102 14                                                    19 21 96 2254                      Dec48 11                  59                               MonthHeat Loss from Burried Pipe (MBH) MonthEstimated Available Biomass Heat  (MBH)WTP Heating Demand (MBH)Clinic Heating Demand (MBH)Total Heat Demand: WTP& Clinic (MBH)Available Biomass  Heat Benefit (MBH)Biomass Boiler Firing Interval3HrHeat available per manufacture specification325000BTU/HJanuary16January 129                      236 55 291129Heat available using Locally Available Wood232742BTU/HFebruary16February 129                      249 58 307129Boimass boiler Fire rate  5times per dayMarch16March 130                      226 53 279130Total Heat available by biomass per hour3491125.973BTU/dayApril15April 131                      174 43 217131Average heat available per hour with biomass boiler145463.5822BTU/H per dayMay13May 133                      82 26 108108June10June 135                      36 7 4343July10July 135                      37 8 4545Aug11Aug 135                      44 11 5555Heating value of Local Wood (average)18.4(millions Btu/cord)Sept12Sept 133                      75 24 9999Heating value of Red Oak (Manufacturer Default)25.7(millions Btu/cord)Oct13Oct 133                      92 28 120120Nov16Nov 130                      221 52 273130Dec17Dec 129                      254 59 313129Biomass Boiler Biomass Boiler Line Loss Available Biomass Heat (Note : Local wood is the extrapolated average from the biomass resource assessment. Manufacturer uses oak wood to calculate heat available from biomass boiler)Model : Garn 2000 Cost Estimate for Biomass Heating Project Qty Rate 134 126 124 115 124 131 85 108 48 66 82 Labor Civil 40 8 5,040$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$ Mechanical 120 8 15,120$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$ Electrical 45 8 5,670$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$ CAD 120 8 12,000$ Survey 40 8 4,360$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$ 42,190$ 4,400$ 4,400$ 6,000$ 52,590$ Construction Total hours 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 125.0 162.5 55.0 200.0 610.0 40.0 0.0 Mobilization Man-Days Equipment Shipping 2.0 1 1,700$ Equipment Rental 15 250$ 3,750$ 3,750.00$ Takeoffs 2.0 1 1 5,100$ Housing Rental 30 150$ 4,500$ 4,500.00$ Training 0.0 -$ Materials Receiving and Inventory 2.0 0.5 0.5 1 4,250$ Set up Materials Storage/Yard 1.0 0.5 0.5 1 2,125$ Expediting to Const Site 1.0 0.5 0.5 2 2,235$ -$ Sitework 3.0 1 2 1 8,100$ GARNpac 2200 WHS 1 120,000$ 120,000$ 7,800$ 127,800.00$ Container Placement 1.0 1 2 1 2,700$ Arctic Pipe 260 57$ 14,820$ 500$ 15,320.00$ Buried Heat Transfer Lines 3.0 1 2 6,120$ Exterior Siding 1 3,500$ 3,500$ 200$ 3,700.00$ Siding and Roofing 4.0 1 2 8,160$ Air Frieght (FAI-HSL) 1 31,500$ 31,500.00$ Plumbing 1.0 1 1 1,790$ Electrical & Controls 2.0 1 2,480$ Covered Wood Storage Erect Pole Barn 5.0 1 2 10,200$ Pole Barn Package 1 12,000$ 12,000$ 2,500$ 14,500.00$ Install Fencing 4.0 1 2 8,160$ Fencing 1 9,500$ 9,500$ 3,000$ 12,500.00$ Building Penetration 1.0 1 1 1,790$ Pipe & Fittings 2 2,000$ 4,000$ 350$ 4,350.00$ Plumbing 4.0 1 1 7,160$ Heating Elements 3 1,200$ 3,600$ 200$ 3,800.00$ Electrical & Controls 3.5 1 4,340$ Controls 2 2,000$ 4,000$ 100$ 4,100.00$ BTU Meter 2 1,400$ 2,800$ 75$ 2,875.00$ Connection and install 1.0 1 1 2,550$ Flow meter 2 1,150$ 2,300$ 75$ 2,375.00$ Programming and interface 1.0 1 1,240$ Sensors 2 450$ 900$ 50$ 950.00$ -$ -$ Glycol 1.0 0.5 1 1,135$ Glycol 1 675$ 675$ 400$ 1,075.00$ Equipment Maintenance 1.0 1 480$ Fuel and Lubricants 1.0 1 480$ Startup and Operator Training. Fill and Test Biomass Boiler 1.0 1 1 2 3,530$ Literature and References 2.0 1 2,520$ Publishing 4 500$ 2,000$ 30$ 2,030.00$ Training 2.5 1 0.5 2 7,188$ -$ -$ Job Clean Up/ Final Inspection -$ Final Inspection Punch List 1.0 1 1 1 3,030$ Final Clean Up 1.0 1 2 2,270$ -$ De-Mobe -$ Pack Up and Crate 1.0 0.5 655$ De-Mobe 1 2,500$ 2,500.00$ Shipping 1.0 0.5 425$ -$ -$ Travel 5 1,100$ 5,500$ 5,500.00$ Financial Close out/ Auditing 1.0 1 1,260$ Safety 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 100$ 2,100.00$ As builting 1.0 1 1,260$ Fuel 100 7$ 700$ 700.00$ 104,433$ 196,545$ 49,380$ 245,925$ Design/Pre-Construction 52,590$ Construction Labor 104,433$ Materials & Freight 245,925$ Subtotal 402,948$ 60,442$ 463,390$ 28,220$ Subtotal (Grant Requested) 491,610$ Project Management 1% ANTHC In-Kind Match 4,916$ Total Project Cost 496,526$ 34,907$ 13.3 yrs Huslia Biomass Cost Estimate PlumberShippingHuslia Biomass Cost Estimate Materials + FreightTotalItemOperatorFreight Production Rate EngineerDays (60hr. Week)Crew LeadSuperLABOR MechanicTotal Cost BTU Meter install Design / Pre-Construction End-User Building Integration ELEMENT Fixed estimate @ 109 /hr. Containerized Wood Heating System Fixed estimate @ 126 /hr. Fixed estimate @ 126 /hr. MATERIALS / SUBCONTRACT Local PlumberFixed estimate @ 126 /hr. Fixed estimate @ 100 /hr. No. Cost Ea Final Total Materials & Freight Support Activities LocalLabor ElectricianLocal OperatorEstimated annual savings Simple Payback Design/Pre-Construction Total 2 years escalation @ 3% / year Total Construction Labor 15% Contingency Design Travel TotalDesign Labor Design Travel Finalize Operations Plan All + contingency Huslia Biomass System Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Daily Operations Labor (hrs/yr) (hrs/day X 210 Days/yr)280Periodic Maintenance Labor (hrs/yr) (hrs/week X 28 wks/yr)49Total Annual Labor (hrs/yr)328.93Total Annual Labor Cost ($/yr) (wage rate = $22/hr)$7,236Annual Replacement Parts Cost ($/yr)$945Total Annual O&M Cost ($/yr)$8,182Garn Boiler Replacement Parts ListDescription QTY Unit Unit Price TotalFrequency/YearAnnual Cost VendorGasket Service Pack Horizontal Flue P-00 2 Ea $68.00 $136.00 0.5 $68.00 GarnIndoor Door Tadpole Gasket P-0008 1 Ea $77.00 $77.00 1 $77.00 GarnManway Cover gasket P-00011 1 Ea $19.00 $19.00 1 $19.00 GarnBlower Wheel P-0001 1 Ea $100.00 $100.00 0.5 $50.00 GarnBlower Motor for Garn JR 1000 H 1/2 Hp In1 Ea $331.00 $331.00 0.5 $165.50 GarnMotor Mount Kit P-0031 1 Ea $87.00 $87.00 0.5 $43.50 GarnBlower Wheel Puller P-0075 1 Ea $19.00 $19.00 0.25 $4.75 GarnAnode Rod P-0014 1 Ea $52.00 $52.00 0.5 $26.00 GarnRod and Brush Kit P-0053 1 Ea $68.00 $68.00 0.5 $34.00 GarnFibreglass Cleaning Rod 36" P-0045 1 Ea $8.00 $8.00 1 $8.00 GarnFlat Gasket Kit P-0073 1 Ea $32.00 $32.00 1 $32.00 GarnSeasonal Water Quality Testing 2 Ea $150.00 $300.00 1 $300.00 GarnGarn Chemicals 1 Set $235.00 $235.00 0.5 $117.50 Garn $945.25Total Annual Replacement Parts Huslia Water Plant Biomass Project Operational Plan Prepared By: Energy Projects Group Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 3900 Ambassador Drive, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99508 Prepared For: City of Huslia and Huslia Tribal Council August 2014 Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2 II. Community Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2 III. Management Structure ......................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Primary Operator .................................................................................................................................. 5 V. Secondary Operator .............................................................................................................................. 5 VI. Financial Data ........................................................................................................................................ 5 VII. Capital Replacement Schedule ............................................................................................................. 6 VIII. Legal Authority and Issues .................................................................................................................... 6 IX. Insurance ............................................................................................................................................... 6 X. Regulatory Compliance ......................................................................................................................... 7 XI. Inter-organizational Relationships ........................................................................................................ 7 XII. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 7 I. Executive Summary The City of Huslia and the Huslia Traditional Council are implementing a biomass heating system to supply heat to the water treatment plant, washeteria, and clinic in the community. The project will install a Garn 2000 cordwood boiler that will be located in a prefabricated building across the street from the end-user buildings. The heated water from the biomass boiler will be sent to the water plant/washeteria building and the clinic building where it will tie in with each existing heating system. The current total fuel usage for the end-user buildings is 14,850 gallons. The Garn 2000 will use approximately 77 cords of wood to annually displace 8,474 gallons of fuel. The cords will be purchased from local vendors for $300 per cord, providing jobs to the people of Huslia and increasing cash flow in the community. The project will save the community $34,742 annually. II. Community Overview The City of Huslia, Alaska is located along the northeast side of the Koyukuk River in the interior region of the state. It lies within the Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge just south of the Purcell Mountain range. Huslia is approximately 290 miles west of Fairbanks, the regional hub, which serves as the medical, economic, and transportation center of the region. Temperatures average - 20 to -9 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 52 to 70 during the summer. Temperature extremes have been recorded from -65 in the winter and 90 in the summer. Huslia is a Koyukon Athabascan village practicing a traditional subsistence lifestyle. Huslia is a second-class incorporated city inhabited predominantly by Koyukuk-hotana Athabaskans. The state listed population as of 2013 is 322 people. The village has a school, clinic, and grocery store. The community relies heavily on subsistence food gathering. According to the online Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs database, between the years of 1990 and 2010, the population trend for Huslia increased approximately 31%. Land transportation is mostly by ATV in the summer and snow machine in the winter. The Koyukuk River is navigable by small boats from breakup in mid-May through September. Daily passenger flights are available to Huslia from Fairbanks year round on Wright Air and Ravn Air. Freight service is available from Fairbanks. Huslia is located in remote Alaska and is not connected to the road system. Huslia does have a state-owned, gravel runway. Fairbanks International Airport in Fairbanks accommodates jet service from multiple locations in Alaska, the lower 48 states, and international destinations. When river water levels permit, goods are barged from Fairbanks up the Koyukuk River. Residents commonly travel by boat, snowmobile, and all-terrain vehicles; however, transportation to and from the village is predominantly by airplane. Huslia primarily has gravel roads within the village. Current infrastructure in Huslia consists of a K-12 school, City office building, Tribal office building, post office, health clinic, and water plant. Huslia is a piped community in that it has both water and sewer to all public facilities and homes. The primary energy source for the production of heat is #1 fuel oil, also known as “diesel fuel” and “home heating oil.” The oil is an arctic blend that does not gel in extremely low temperatures. Energy content of fuel oil is typically 125,000-135,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per gallon. Fuel oil is burned in boilers or furnaces to produce heat for commercial and residential facilities. While most residents of Huslia rely upon heating fuel to heat their homes and domestic hot water, many also supplement their oil heating with wood heat. Residents harvest and process (cut, haul, and chop) their own wood from the surrounding forest. The key assumptions of this operational plan are as follows: The biomass boiler system will only serve the water plant, washeteria, and clinic. The biomass boiler will be the primary heat source in the water plant/washeteria and clinic buildings and will be backed up by the two existing oil fired boilers in each building. The water plant and washeteria is owned and operated by the City of Huslia. The clinic is owned and operated by the Tribal Council. The City and The Tribal Council will purchase the wood from local suppliers. Specifications for the wood supplied will be as defined in the attached wood specification. The local suppliers of wood shall follow the attached forestry plan when gathering wood and shall supply wood that meets the attached wood specification. III. Management Structure The city water plant operator will operate the biomass boiler as part of their daily duties. This will include firing the biomass boiler (loading with wood) approximately three times per day and coordinating wood purchases with the City Mayor and the Tribal Administrator. The operator will also manage the fenced wood yard next to the biomass boiler building. The city water plant operator reports to the city council. The Administrator at the City of Huslia will handle all coordination and financial matters with ANTHC, Doyon Ltd., and with the local suppliers. The City Administrator is also responsible for assuring that wood is gathered as defined by the Forestry Plan and meets the wood specification attached to this document. The City Administrator is employed by the City of Huslia. As necessary, the city water plant operator and the Tribal Administrator will coordinate with the City Administrator. The City of Huslia owns the water plant. The City Administrator is employed by the City Council. Doyon Ltd. Is the primary landowner in the Huslia region. Doyon Ltd. will work with the City Administrator to assure that the wood taken from Doyon land is gathered in accordance with the Forestry Plan. The biomass boiler and associated equipment will be fully commissioned once the installation is complete. The water plant operator will take part in this commissioning and has been identified by the City as the future biomass operator. Training of the water plant operator after commissioning is the responsibility of the City of Huslia. Staffing the water plant with operators is a city responsibility. Normally, this is done by hiring and training local personnel and includes both a primary and back-up operators. In the unlikely situation that there are no local operators available, ANTHC will do what is necessary to train local personnel on biomass operations. The key personnel necessary to assure the initial success of this project are the project manager, the installation team, and the commissioning team. The project manager is Eric Hanssen, Energy Projects Manager for ANTHC. Mr. Hanssen has been directly involved in energy conservation and renewable energy projects since 2013. He will be supported by a construction manager, certified plumber, and certified electrician. Commissioning of the project will be accomplished by a team consisting of the project manager, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, and the operator. One assumption on this project is that $300 per cord will be enough of an incentive for the local wood suppliers to provide wood. The Tribal Council members have stated they think is will be an adequate price. This cost per cord is the equivalent of approximately $2.60 per gallon of # 1 fuel. The present cost for oil purchased by the City of Huslia is $4.10 per gallon. Therefore, the price of wood (white spruce) is approximately two-thirds the price of oil at $300 per cord. Another assumption made on this project is that the Alaska Forest Resources Act (FRPA) does not apply to this small scale (approximately 77 cords per year) project. It appears that biomass operations would not be considered “commercial” as defined by FRPA if the fuel consumption is less than roughly 80 to 150 cords per year. As of this writing, the issue of FRPA applicability for small rural energy projects is currently being considered by the Alaska Board of Forestry, with the expectation that issues such as the “commercial operation” threshold will be clarified in the near future. IV. Primary Operator The primary operator of the biomass system shall be the city water plant operator. As the operator of the water plant, the city is responsible to assure that the primary operator carries out his daily duties. Financial responsibilities are the responsibility of city management. On a day to day basis, that responsibility for this Huslia biomass project goes to the city clerk. It is his responsibility to assure that the operator is trained, punctual, and has the skills and materials necessary to perform his job. All expenses and revenue are handled and monitored by the City of Huslia. This includes any auditing and generation of the annual report V. Secondary Operator It is the responsibility of the City of Huslia to assure that a back-up operator is available in Huslia to operate the biomass system and the water plant when the primary operator is not available. VI. Financial Data Revenue for the biomass operation at the Huslia water plant is generated through water and sewer fees paid by the end users and heat purchased by the clinic. End users are the school, clinic, City office, Tribal Office, several other public facilities and all homeowners. The estimated annual expense for wood is 77 cords at a cost of $300 per cord or $23,100. This is significantly less than the 8,474 gallons of oil at $4.10 per gallon or $34,743 the water plant spends now. City funding previously set aside foil oil will now be used to purchase wood fuel Maintenance and operations are the responsibility of the city and are not expected to be significantly different than they are now. The annual revenue surplus will be used to lower the water and sewer rates, increase the maintenance fund, and provide for a long term replacement fund. The key assumptions are that the Tribal Administrator will be responsible for paying the wood suppliers. A 10 percent administrative fee may be added to the cost of the wood. Payment to the wood suppliers for a cord of wood that meets the attached wood specification shall be at the rate of $300. This amount may be changed by agreement of the Tribal Council and the city manager. VII. Capital Replacement Schedule The water plant is owned and operated by the City of Huslia. Capital replacement of the biomass system shall be handled in the same manner as the rest of the water plant equipment. The lower cost of fuel anticipated due to this biomass project will increase the funds available for capital replacement. The biomass boiler is the only high cost equipment in this project. It has an expected life of at least 20 years and a cost of $20,868. Maintaining the infrastructure for this project is the responsibility of the City of Huslia. The City of Huslia has the backing of ANTHC which has designed and built most of the water plants in rural Alaska and now plays a major role in helping these communities identify and implement both energy conservation and renewable energy projects. The ANTHC Tribal Utility Support Program (TUS) has the responsibility of responding to emergencies and developing contingency plans as necessary. VIII. Legal Authority and Issues A Cooperative Project Agreement (CPA) must be signed defining the responsibilities of the major parties involved and authorizing the installation of the biomass boiler. A detailed Forestry Plan has been generated specifically for this project. Detailed civil, mechanical, and electrical design drawings have been created, stamped, and signed that define all necessary modifications required to install the boiler. The required design review has been held. Authorization from the local land owner (Doyon Ltd.) to gather wood for this project is expected in the very near future. The Garn 2000 will be installed in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and all applicable local, state, and national codes. IX. Insurance The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium will carry the appropriate insurance during construction. Once installed, the insurance provided by the City of Huslia will cover the installed boiler and operator(s) employed by the City. X. Regulatory Compliance The Garn 2000 biomass boiler meets all Environmental Protection Agency requirements and the implementation approach has been approved by the manufacturer, Fire Marshall, and meets all local, state, and federal requirements XI. Inter-organizational Relationships The major organizations involved in this project are the Alaska Energy Authority (Grantor), City of Huslia (Grantee), Huslia Traditional Council (Operators of Clinic), ANTHC (Project Management & Design), Tanana Chiefs Conference (Forestry Plan), Doyon Ltd. (Owner of Biomass Resources), and Interior Regional Housing Authority (Construction Resources). As mentioned earlier, the only significant assumptions are that $300 per cord will be adequate to stimulate the wood gatherers in Huslia to sell wood to the City and that FRPA does not apply to this small project. As the operator of the Huslia water plant, the city is responsible for providing qualified primary and back-up operators. Site control of the water plant in Huslia has been established as the City of Huslia for many years. The City of Huslia is also the Grantee for this project. XII. Summary The main objectives of this biomass project for the Huslia water plant, washeteria, and clinic are to reduce operating costs and reduce the use of imported oil. Based on our analysis, this project should result in a major reduction in the 14,850 gallons of oil consumed in the end-user buildings each year. Biomass is estimated to displace 8,474 gallons of heating fuel per year. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources Huslia, Alaska Presented to: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 3900 Ambassador Drive Anchorage, AK 99508 By: Will Putman Tanana Chiefs Conference, Forestry Program 122 First Ave., Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 August, 2014 Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska i Executive Summary As part of an effort to assess the feasibility of proposed biomass energy projects at the community of Huslia in Interior Alaska, an assessment of woody biomass resources was conducted for the vicinity of Huslia. The assessment attempts to leverage existing information as much as possible, including forest inventory information compiled by Tanana Chiefs Conference for previous projects and classified satellite imagery. The area considered for the assessment was defined by a 25-mile radius from Huslia, approximately 1.25 million acres. A number of cost parameters were assumed and used to estimate costs of harvesting, transporting, and managing biomass resources across the landscape. The assessments result in woody biomass stocking and annual allowable cut estimates stored and maintained in a geodatabase, with the ability to query and report data by land cover type, ownership, biomass growth, biomass cost, distance from village, and other parameters. Highlights of the resulting data analysis include:  The percentage of land area determined to be associated with forested timber - bearing strata in the Huslia project area was determined to be 35%.  As determined in the analysis, total woody biomass in the Huslia project area was determined to be about 6.4 million air-dry tons.  Using some simple growth modeling and estimates of existing stocking, estimates of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) were generated. Total AAC for the entire Huslia project area was estimated at 73,644 tons.  Using the cost parameters assumed in the analysis, the cost of harvesting, transporting and managing the woody biomass was determined to range from $46 to $223 per ton. Not surprisingly, the most expensive biomass is farthest from the community because of the effect of the estimated transportation cost parameters.  There are extensive biomass stocks on Federal, State, and ANCSA corporation land holdings, but the area closest to the village is dominated by ANCSA corporation ownerships.  The data indicate the presence of significant amounts of recoverable woody biomass, particularly when viewed in terms of supporting relatively modest-sized thermal heating projects. Larger-scale projects, more demanding economic thresholds, and information demands required by more detailed planning will require the collection and analysis of additional data. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska ii Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 1: Location of Huslia in Alaska. ................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Location of 25-mile radius Huslia project area. ...................................... 3 Figure 3: Land ownership, Huslia project area. .................................................. 18 Figure 4: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Huslia project area. .......................... 19 Figure 5: Woody biomass cost, Huslia project area. ........................................... 20 List of Tables Table 1: Wood density of tree species in Interior Alaska. ...................................... 7 Table 2: Cost parameters used in the analyses. ................................................ 11 Table 3: Huslia Biomass by Land Ownership ..................................................... 15 Table 4: Huslia Biomass by Village Proximity. ................................................... 16 Table 5: Huslia Biomass by Estimated Cost. ...................................................... 16 Table 6: Huslia Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity. ................ 17 Table 7: Huslia Biomass by species. ................................................................ 17 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 DATA COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 4 Land Cover ................................................................................................... 4 Forest Inventory data .................................................................................... 5 Woody Biomass Units .................................................................................. 6 Land Ownership ............................................................................................ 7 Site class ................................................................................................... 8 Estimating AAC and assigning rotation and growth parameters ........................... 8 Cost modeling ............................................................................................. 11 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 12 RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 15 FUTURE STEPS............................................................................................. 21 Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 1 INTRODUCTION Rapidly increasing fossil fuel costs have resulted in a heightened sense of urgency when considering the ability of small communities to absorb thes e costs and maintain some sense of community sustainability. There are few places where this is more severe than rural communities in Interior Alaska, where fossil fuel dependence, energy costs, and remoteness are conspiring to produce an energy crisis that is becoming increasingly difficult for these small communities to deal with. These conditions have resulted in increased interest in any available form of alternative energy that may possibly be deployed. In Interior Alaska, the presence of apparently large amounts of woody biomass has increased the consideration of biomass energy systems to help address this crisis. Funding was provided by the Alaska Energy Authority to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to pursue biomass energy projects at a number of communities in Interior Alaska, including Huslia. A term contract was established between ANTHC and the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) Forestry Program to facilitate work related to assessing and managing the forest resources that would supply the energy feedstock required to support these proposed projects. There has been no prior work assessing the forest resource at Huslia in the context of a proposed biomass energy project; this document represents the initial attempt at this, and as such is a recon-level biomass resource assessment, designed to be preliminary in nature, and intended to leverage existing information as much as possible. Huslia, with a population of 275 (2010 Census data), is located on the Koyukuk River in western Interior Alaska (Figure 1). Huslia is not on a contiguous highway system, and is accessible only by air, water, or overland trails. The nearest regional hub is Galena (pop. 470, 2010 Census data), located about 68 miles south of Huslia. The largest nearby urban centers providing goods and services are Fairbanks and Anchorage, approximately 260 and 370 air miles away, respectively. With any proposed woody biomass energy project, a number of basic questions arise concerning the biomass supply, including:  How much biomass is there in the vicinity of the community?  What are the characteristics of the biomass (size, species, quality)?  Where is the resource located?  Who owns the resource?  What are the costs associated with getting the resource to an energy facility?  What management restrictions are there are on the resource?  Considering growth rates, cover type conversions, and other factors, what is the sustainability of the resource?  How large an array of biomass energy facilities could be economically supported on a sustainable basis by the local biomass resource? Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 2 Figure 1: Location of Huslia in Alaska. This report is an attempt to document an approach to answer these questions with available information, using information management tools such as a geographic information system (GIS) and relational databases. The process described here is meant to present a model for the handling of information to answer these questions, and in that regard does not constitute an end product. In those cases where information is lacking or unavailable, assumptions have been made and documented, with the idea that improved information in the future can be used to improve the model. It is intended that the model itself be a useful tool in the land management required to support proposed biomass energy projects. The geographic extent of the community’s assessment was defined as a radius of 25 miles surrounding Huslia (Figure 2). Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 3 Figure 2: Location of 25-mile radius Huslia project area. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 4 DATA COMPONENTS The biomass assessment relied heavily on computerized geographic information system (GIS) and relational database technologies to store, process, query, and analyze data. The GIS software used was ArcGIS 10.2.2 from ESRI, Inc., and the relational database software used was Microsoft Access. The GIS was used to spatially define the location of various attributes of the landscape, the combination of those attributes for any given location on the landscape, and to produce acreages and biomass stocking estimates associated with any combination of attributes. A relational database was used to relate the attribute information stored in GIS data layers to tabular datasets such as biomass stocking information derived from existing forest inventory datasets, cost parameters, and lookup tables, allowing the generation of GIS layers of derived information such as biomass stocking, annual allowable cut, and biomass cost estimates. The basic data input to the biomass assessment model consisted of land cover data, forest inventory data, and land ownership. Additional data components were derived from the basic input datasets, including raster datasets for site class, biomass stocking, biomass annual allowable cut, village proximity, and biomass cost estimates. Land Cover Typically, land cover is characterized from sources of remotely sensed image data such as aerial photography or satellite imagery. For Huslia, RapidEye medium-resolution imagery (spatial resolution of ~ 7m) covering a portion of the project area has been acquired, and there is the possibility of medium resolution (spatial resolution 2.5m) Spot 5 imagery becoming available through the Alaska Statewide Digital mapping Initiative (SDMI) for portions of the project area. However, the time and funding required to classify the imagery into classified land cover data layers was prohibitive given the scope of the project . As a result, it was decided instead to attempt to rely on classified image layers made available through the LandFire program, an interagency vegetation, fire and fuel characteristics mapping program sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (http://www.landfire.gov). LandFire data products consist of up to 50 data layers generated for all land areas within the United States, including Alaska. Within Alaska, the data layers are generated from classified LandSat satellite imagery at a spatial resolution of 30 meters. Existing vegetation is described in 3 layers; existing vegetation type (evt), existing vegetation height (evh) and existing vegetation cover, or density (evc). In addition, a layer for biophysical settings (bps) showed potential for attempting to model potential productivity of a site. The advantages of the LandFire data include the comprehensive coverage of the data over the entire country, and the apparent detailed vegetation classification that appeared to be relatable to forest inventory stocking data from old forest inventory data on file at TCC. Potential disadvantages of use of the LandFire datasets include their relatively coarse spatial resolution (30m), and anecdotal and objective evidence that would lead one to question the accuracy of the LandFire classifications. In either case, the landscape-level nature of this biomass assessment and the preliminary nature of the assessment led to the decision to utilize the LandFire datasets. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 5 The LandFire data layers are provided as raster datasets, with classifications provided for individual pixels, or cells in an image. This is in contrast to vector datasets, which define areas as polygons defined by line segments running between x-y coordinates. Using land cover data in a raster format dictated that the analyses for these assessments be based on raster techniques and processing. Forest Inventory data In Interior Alaska, as in many places, woody biomass is a forest resource. The process of trying to assess the amount and location of forest resources falls under the purview of forest inventories, a traditional and essential component of forestry and forest management. This project is essentially a form of forest inventory, with particular interests and requirements that are driven by the land management required to support proposed biomass energy projects. The most prominent forest inventory efforts to date in the vicinity of Huslia are inventories conducted by the Forestry Program at Tanana Chiefs Conference on village corporation lands and Native allotments. A village corporation inventory has not been conducted for Huslia, but past inventories on corporation lands have been conducted downriver at Koyukuk and upriver at Hughes, both in 1987. For Native allotment inventories, the entire TCC region was subdivided into 8 subunits, and a separate inventory project was conducted for each subunit, with the overall work occurring from 1987 to 1993. In the vicinity of Huslia, a forest inventory on Native allotment parcels was conducted for the Doyon-Koyukuk subunit. The Native allotment inventories were conducted on Native allotment parcels with a status of pending or better at the time of the inventories. For this assessment, the strata defined by the Doyon-Koyukuk Native allotment forest inventory were used to assign stocking levels to land cover types near Huslia, with the exception that a black spruce strata from a corporation inventory in the Melozitna region was used for black spruce types. The protocols and processes used in the corporation and allotment inventories were very similar, and utilized a process that included the following steps: 1. The area included in the inventory was interpreted for land cover type using high-altitude color-infrared aerial photographs dating from the late 1970s. 2. Forested stands delineated on the aerial photographs were attributed with a cover type code that included a determination of primary tree species, primary tree size class (dwarf, reproduction, poletimber, sawtimber), secondary tree species, secondary species tree size class, and overall tree density (low, medium, and high crown closure). Non-forested areas were attributed for cover types such as water, tall shrub, bog, barren/cultural, etc. 3. Forested cover types covering the highest proportion of area were selected for field sampling by randomly selecting accessible stands within those types. 4. Field sampling was accomplished by visiting the selected stands on the ground and installing a series of variable radius plots and conducting tree measurements. Sample trees were measured for species, tree diameter, Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 6 tree height, and percent defect, and a small number of white spruce trees were measured for radial growth and age. 5. The collected field data were processed and compiled in the office with a computer to produce timber volume per acre figures by species and size class within strata defined as groupings of similar cover types. 6. The volume per acre figures were then extrapolated to all forested areas within the extent of the project. 7. Some years after the completion of the inventories in the early ‘90s, the spatial data represented by the cover type maps prepared in the inventory were digitized into a GIS, and the processed timber volume data was incorporated into a digital relational database. The most important components provided to this biomass assessment as a result of the forest inventories are the tabular timber volume and stocking estimates. The stocking data generated from the field measurements are used to produce estimates of the amount of woody biomass present in each forested cover type. The tree data processing produced estimates of board-foot and cubic-foot timber volumes per acre by tree species and size class. For the purposes of evaluating a forest resource as an energy source, it is most appropriate to focus on the cubic-foot estimates, since they represent the total woody biomass volume on the main stem of trees below a minimum top diameter (usually 4”), and not just the amount of recoverable wood when processing trees for lumber. There are a number of serious limitations in this available forest inventory data that need to be considered. The inventories are quite “extensive”, that is, the geographic scope was relatively large and the intensity of the field sampling was relatively low, particularly for the allotment inventories. Forest cover types with relatively low acreages were not field sampled at all, but were lumped into similar types that were sampled, with resulting inaccuracies in the volume estimates. The photography used to produce the land cover typing was less than 15 years old at the time the inventories were conducted, but is now more than 30 years old, and does not take into account the changes that have no doubt occurred on the landscape. The data collection was focused on the standing stock, and what little growth information was collected is difficult to apply in any meaningful way with regards to estimates of site and forest growth. Only the biomass represented by the main boles of trees is included in the volume estimates, with no attention paid to whole tree biomass or non-timber species such as alder or willow. That being said, the data contained in these old inventory project still provide a useful starting point for evaluation of woody biomass energy resources. Woody Biomass Units As mentioned previously, the cubic-foot (CF) estimates of wood volume that are one of the products of a forest inventory analysis are appropriate when evaluating the volume of woody biomass as an energy source. However, the energy value of wood per unit volume varies somewhat by species because of varying wood densities, so it is common to report woody biomass in units of weight, commonly tons (1 ton=2,000 lbs). This matter is further complicated by the variability of wood weight per unit volume because of moisture levels in Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 7 Table 1: Wood density of tree species in Interior Alaska. White spruce, Paper birch, Aspen and Balsam poplar figures are from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce (http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ded/ dev/forest_products/forest_products5.htm); Black spruce figures are from a Canadian website maintained by Lakehead University in Ontario (http://www.borealforest.org/); Tamarack figures are from an engineering website (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt-wood-d_821.html). Tree Species Green Density (lbs/cubic foot) Air-dry density (lbs/cubic foot) Air-dry tons/cord White spruce 36 31 1.31 Black spruce 32 28 1.19 Paper birch 48 38 1.62 Aspen 43 27 1.15 Balsam poplar 38 24 1.02 Tamarack 47 37 1.57 the wood. There are three units commonly used to report woody biomass by weight: Green tons, or the weight of the wood in tons at moisture levels found when the material is freshly cut, often in the neighborhood of 50% moisture by weight; air dry tons, or the weight of the wood when enough moisture has been removed from the wood to make it feasible to efficiently recover energy from the wood through combustion, commonly in the neighborhood of 20% moisture by weight; and bone-dry tons, the weight of the wood with all moisture removed. For the purposes of this analysis, the unit of air-dry tons (also referred to in this document as “dry tons”) is used, the weight of the wood in the form most likely to be used in a heating project. The literature is inconsistent in terms of wood density values for the species found in Interior Alaska, but representative values (and their sources) are presented in Table 1. Another unit used to measure wood is the “cord”, traditionally used to measure fuelwood. A cord is defined as the amount of minimally processed wood (bucked, split) that can be stacked in a space measuring 4’x4’x8’. Because of the airspace and inconsistency inherent in stacking cordwood, the cord is a relatively imprecise measure, but is nonetheless in common use in fuelwood transactions. The volume space of a cord, 128 cubic feet, is sometimes thought to contain roughly 100 cubic feet of wood (a “cunit”) when the air space between wood chinks in the stacked wood is considered. Other estimates put the conversion at 85 cubic-feet of roundwood per cord. Using the conversion factors presented in Table 3 at 85 CF/cord, the number of air-dry tons in a cord varies from approximately 1.0 tons for balsam poplar to 1.6 tons for paper birch. Land Ownership A key component of the analysis is the determination of which individual or organization owns or has management responsibilities for the lands on which the biomass resource is found. In this analysis, this is accomplished through the use of a GIS layer that defines Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 8 land ownership in the vicinity of the project. Spatial data of land ownership were acquired from several sources and combined into the ownership layer:  Generalized land status, from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  ANCSA Corporation conveyed lands, also from BLM.  Native Allotments, from BLM. The data from the various sources vary in quality and precision; specifically, the generalized land status data is available statewide, but only shows categories of land ownership to the nearest section (square mile). Because of that, allotment lands and ANCSA corporation lands as defined in the other sources were given priority over the generalized land status when combining the land ownership data. Site class It was assumed that site productivity is a critical factor when attempting to determine the growth of biomass on the landscape, a key factor when evaluating biomass sustainability. For the purposes of this analysis, four broad site classes were defined to describe the location of site class areas in the project area. The four site classes defined were:  Site Class 0 – areas incapable of producing woody biomass such as rivers, lakes, seasonally submerged sandbars, wetland bogs, and other non-forest areas.  Site Class 1 – areas of relatively poor site in terms of woody biomass production, such as poorly drained areas and north-facing slopes with underlying continuous permafrost. These sites may have cover types such as tall shrubs, dwarf shrubs (dwarf birch, etc.), black spruce or other slow-growing unproductive cover types.  Site Class 2 – areas of intermediate productivity such as lower slopes adjacent to wetlands, areas underlain by permafrost but with some producti ve tree cover, etc.  Site Class 3 – Areas of relatively high productivity of woody biomass such as south- facing slopes, well-drained benchlands, and productive riparian sites. In the GIS, all parts of the project area were classified into one of the four site classes, using the LandFire biophysical settings (bps) layer and a lookup table in the database assigning a site class to each bps classification, creating site class raster datasets for covering the project area. Estimating AAC and assigning rotation and growth parameters In order to assess sustainability, the traditional forestry concept of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) was applied. AAC is deemed to be the maximum level of annual harvest that is possible in perpetuity without diminishment of the level of harvest or the amount and quality of the resource. There are a variety of techniques used to calculate AAC, including the “Hanzlik formula”, which was designed to attempt to deal with areas still in an unmanaged “old-growth” state. The Hanzlik formula uses mature standing volume, rotation length, and growth (increment) as parameters required to calculate AAC: Allowable cut (AAC) = (Mature Standing Volume / Rotation ) + Growth Standing volume is determined from the inventory data as described above, but relative maturity is difficult to determine. In this analysis, estimates of standing volume were assumed to be mature, based on the concept that most areas of younger stands would be Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 9 assigned a land cover type that would not have an associated timber volume. F igures for rotation length and growth are similarly difficult to determine or estimate. “Rotation”, or “rotation length” refers to the hypothetical length of ti me required for a forest stand to reforest, grow, and replace itself after harvest. At first glance this appears quite simple, but there are a number of complicating factors, including:  What species the stand regenerates to – different species will grow at different rates and mature at different time intervals.  Site potential may vary over time; in fact, in Interior Alaska, the act of harvesting (or other disturbances, such as fire) may change the growth potential of a site, and as a result, the anticipated rotation length.  Anything other than even-aged management may complicate the determination of rotation length, particularly if it involves multiple tree species and multiple stand entries in a rotation.  Differing economic conditions or other factors may dictate a different array of forest products requiring material to reach different sizes or ages to be marketable at a specific rotation length. Similarly, “growth” can be a concept that may be simple to visualize, but involves a number of factors that make it difficult to determine with any precision. The ability to gauge the capacity of woody biomass to grow and replace itself after harvest is a critical component of any assessment that would attempt to evaluate the sustainability of the resource. Unfortunately, this is one area where hard data to drive the analysis is in short supply. It is an exceedingly complex situation that is being modeled – growth rates of individual trees and the stands they grow in vary by site, species, tree age, stand age, stand density, reproductive capacity, disturbance regime, and other factors, and all in cumulative and interactive ways. Growth models for the boreal forest are in development at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and with the U.S. Forest Service and may prove to be useful. In the meantime, this effort applies some broad and exceedingly gross assumptions in an attempt to get a handle on growth and sustainability. For both growth and rotation, the approach taken was to establish an optimal value for each, then adjust the values based on other conditions. Based on TCC inventory data, maximum biomass stocking in high-volume spruce stands, presumably on good sites, is in the neighborhood of 60 tons/acre. Employing the concept of mean annual increment (MAI), and assuming a stand age of 120 years to produce this volume, this would indicate a maximum mean annual increment of 0.5 tons/acre/year on the best sites. Interestingly, roughly similar rates can be arrived at with productive hardwood stands; TCC’s inventory data indicates total biomass tons of well-stocked cottonwood, birch, or aspen stands to be in a somewhat lower range (~20-50 tons/acre), with lower stand ages to be expected to produce those volumes (~50-80 years). Based on this, a value of 0.5 tons/acre/year is assumed as an optimum mean annual growth rate. Optimal rotation length is assumed to be 60 years, based on a hypothetical rotation length for the deciduous broadleaf tree species (birch, aspen, and balsam poplar). Although white spruce has traditionally been the favored species for timber management in Interior Alaska, Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 10 it is assumed that managing for hardwoods is desirable from a woody biomass perspective because of faster juvenile growth rates, shorter rotations, ease in regenerating, importance in wildlife habitat, and desirability from a community wildfire protection perspective. Several key assumptions were made to facilitate adjusting the optimum growth and rotation figures based on the availability of existing information. The assumptions us ed in this analysis to estimate growth and rotation include: 1. Fully stocked stands will show best realization of potential growth. 2. Lower site quality will result in longer rotations and slower growth. The first assumption of stand stocking levels influencing relative growth can be dealt with most directly using the stand density component of the cover type calls coming from the LandFire evc layer. Each of the evc codes related to density of a tree canopy were assigned a relative growth rate expressed as a p roportion of optimum growth: LandFire evc Class Growth Proportion 151 (Tree Canopy >= 10 and < 25%) 0.3 152 (Tree Canopy >= 25 and < 60%) 0.6 153 (Tree Canopy >= 60 and <= 100%) 1.0 Similarly, the second assumption of relative growth varying by site quality was handled by taking the site class codes as assigned to areas on the landscape and adjusting the optimal rotation of 50 years upwards for poorer site classes, as well as assigning degraded growth proportions for lower sites: Site Class Growth proportion Rotation (years) 0 0 none 1 0.3 140 2 0.6 100 3 1.0 60 Using this approach, annual allowable cut was seriously degraded for those areas interpreted to be of poor site quality, by calculating a lower current growth and by usin g a longer rotation in the AAC formula. By applying a series of update queries in the database, allowable cut was determined for the project areas; since this was a raster analysis, this was done on a pixel -by-pixel basis based on the LandFire datasets. Growth for each pixel was determined by multiplying the optimum growth rate (0.5 tons/acre/year) by the growth proportion number assigned to the stand density of the pixel, and multiplied again by the growth proportion assigned to the site class of the pixel. Rotation length for each pixel was determined by applying the rotation length assigned to the site class of the area. The resulting figures for growth and rotation were used with the overall stocking of each pixel in the Hanzlik formula to generate an AAC for each pixel. The resulting AAC figures for each pixel are not meant to mean that some calculated portion of every pixel is a portion of the volume cut in any given time frame, but refers to the contribution that the resource represented by the area of that pixel contributes to the Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 11 Table 2: Cost parameters used in the analyses. Cost Type Cost Stumpage (payments to owner), cost per ton $5 Harvest Costs Costs per acre $300 Costs per ton of woody biomass $10 Transportation costs Cost/ton/mile off-road $6 Reforestation – cost per acre $100 Misc. Admin – cost per acre $20 harvestable volume of biomass over the project as a whole. Through the other attributes assigned to each pixel through the creation of overlaid raster datasets, both standing stock and AAC figures can be broken out by ownership, proximity to the village, or other area attributes. Cost modeling In addition to estimates of the amount and growth of the woody biomass resource, it is also useful to estimate the costs involved in making the biomass available to an energy facility. This estimation could include the modeling of costs associated with harvesting, transport, reforestation, stumpage, and other costs. At this stage of th e project, much is unclear in terms of type of harvest and equipment to be used, the nature and extent of the transportation network to be established and other cost factors, but all of these factors can be modeled in the GIS and reported back from the database. Table 2 presents a list of cost factors used in this analysis as an example of how these costs could be modeled. Per acre costs were converted into costs per ton. Per acre cost parameters such as harvest costs per acre and reforestation costs per acre have the effect of driving up relative costs per ton of woody biomass for low volume areas. Estimated transportation costs were driven solely by distances from the village, with the off-road transportation cost parameter of $6/ton/mile being applied. Harvest costs are broken into two components, cost per ton and cost per acre (Table 2). This is an attempt to recognize that some costs associated with harvesting will remain relatively fixed per ton, while other costs associated with mobilization, equipment movement, etc. may remain relatively fixed per unit area. Other costs associated with biomass supply could include reforestation costs and other management costs, and stumpage payments made to a landowner. The reforestation costs initially used in this analysis are based on a lowering of known planting costs, assuming that some level of natural regeneration or other techniques may be used. This cost modeling can be modified in the future with changes to the cost parameters, modification of the modeling used to assign costs, etc. to create updated cost scenarios. Since the cost per ton is determined by area, as is the annual allowable cut, one interesting ramification of this is that it is possible to evaluate AAC based on different cost thresholds. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 12 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS Starting with the basic datasets described above, there were several data processing steps that were conducted to prepare and analyze the data and prepare for the generation of tables and maps showing the analysis results. The spatial data raster processing steps described below used geoprocessing tools in the GIS software, with the use of the tools being automated somewhat through the creation of script tools written in Python, a scriptin g language used with ArcGIS software. The data processing steps implemented for the project area were: 1. Data were downloaded from the LandFire website for the LandFire data layers to be used in the analysis for an area covering the 25 -mile radius that defines the project for this analysis. Data were downloaded for the LandFire evt, evc, evh, and bps layers in ArcInfo GRID format. 2. A geodatabase was created, and the downloaded data were imported into it as raster datasets. All resulting datasets, both raster and vector, were also stored in the geodatabase, which was created as an ArcGIS personal geodatabase in MS Access format, and which also served as the repository for the other database structures in the analysis such as lookup tables, strata stock tables, queries, data entry forms, reports, etc. 3. The evt, evc, and evh layers were combined into a new raster layer (called lf_tch) containing the combined attributes of vegetation type, vegetation cover (density) and vegetation height. This produced a VAT (value attribute table) describing all possible combinations of the attributes from the combined raster layers. For this analysis for Huslia, this produced a table of 344 combinations of vegetation type, coverage, and height classes. 4. The VAT was exported into a database table, (called tch_classes), and a column was added to the table to hold information on strata ID. 5. Each row in the tch_classes table was assigned to strata defined in the TCC forest inventories, identified with a strata ID number. Non-forested vegetation types (shrubland, wetland, water, barren, etc.) were assigned to non-forested strata not associated with any timber volume. Forested vegetation types were subjectively assigned to the most appropriate strata from nearby TCC forest inventory projects , primarily the Doyon-Koyukuk Native allotment forest inventory. To aid in this rather complex, manual, and very subjective process, a form was developed in MS Access. 6. The database contained a table called strata_biomass that had been processed to contain biomass stocking values (in tons and cords) for all strata defined in the TCC inventories. In ArcGIS, the tch_classes table and the strata_biomass table were joined and the tch_classes table and the lf_tch VAT were joined to associate each cell in the combined vegetation raster with strata biomass stocking values. This joined raster is used to create a series of raster datasets of biomass stocking with the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst “lookup” command. Raster datasets were created for overall dry ton stocking, dry tons by species, and cords by speci es. 7. Similarly, a site class raster was created for the project area. The LandFire biophysical settings raster (lf_bps) VAT was exported to a database table (bps_classes) and a column for site class code was added to the bps_classes table, and each row of the bps_classes table was coded for site class using the codes 0 Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 13 through 3 described above. In ArcGIS, the bps_classes table was joined to the lf_bps raster layer, and the “lookup” command was used to create a site class raster for the project area. 8. A raster of annual allowable cut (AAC) was created by first creating rasters of growth adjustment by density values, growth adjustment by site values, and rotation adjustment by site values, and then executing a map algebra raster calculation for AAC using an application of the Hanzlik formula with the rasters for biomass stocking, growth as determined from the growth adjustment rasters, and rotation as determined from the rotation adjustment raster. The growth by density a djustment raster was created in a process similar to that used to create the stocking and site class rasters by joining the LandFire vegetation density raster (lf_evc) to a growth_by_density table in the database to relate the evc codes to a density adjustment factor and creating a growth by density adjustment raster with a lookup command. Similarly, the growth adjustment by site and rotation adjustment by site rasters were created by joining the site class raster to lookup tables in the database (growth_by_site, rotation_by_site) and creating the adjustment rasters with lookup commands. 9. A raster dataset was created defining the proximity to the nearest village (Huslia) in miles up to a 25 mile radius using ArcGIS spatial analyst commands. 10. A raster dataset of biomass costs per ton was created by applying the cost parameters described above to previously created raster datasets. A harvest cost raster was created by dividing the harvest per acre parameter by the biomass stocking per acre raster, and adding the result to the harvest cost per ton parameter. A transportation cost raster was created by multiplying the village proximity raster and multiplying it by the off-road transportation cost parameter. A total cost per ton raster was created by adding the harvest cost raster, the transportation cost raster, the reforestation parameter and the administration cost parameters divided by the biomass stocking raster (to convert those parameters to per-ton units), and the stumpage parameter. 11. A vector layer of land ownership was created for the project by overlaying generalized land status with conveyed ANCSA land data and Native allotment locations. These are overlapping datasets, but a unique ownership was identified for all areas through the overlay commands applied, with a priority given to the location of Native allotment parcels, the next lowest priority given to the conveyed ANCSA data, and the least priority given to the generalized land status. The resulting polygons were attributed for owner and owner class. Native allotments were coded with the BLM serial number as the owner and “Native allotment” as the owner class. ANCSA conveyed lands were coded with the name of the ANCSA corporation as the owner (K'oyitl'ots'ina, Ltd. or Doyon, Ltd.) and an owner class of “ANCSA corp”. The remaining lands were identified from the generalized land status data with some level of agency ownership; State lands were identified as “State patented” or “State selected” as the owner and “State of Alaska” as the owner Class; federal lands identify the agency (USFWS, NPS, BLM) as the owner and “Federal” as the owner class. To be compatible with the raster analysis used in these analyses, the tools Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 14 used to query the data convert the vector ownership layer to a raster dataset for processing. 12. The layers described above for ownership, village, village proximity, and biomass cost were combined together into a single raster layer, called the “combined parameters layer”, attributed for all parameters. To do this, vector layers such as ownership were converted to rasters, and to keep the number of parameter combinations to a reasonable number, layers containing continuous data (biomass cost and distance to village) were converted into class categories; for example, instead of using the calculated biomass cost numbers di rectly, the biomass costs were grouped into increments of $20/ton ($20-40/ton, $40-60/ton, etc.), and the distances in the village proximity raster were converted to 1-mile classes (1-2 miles, 2-3 miles etc.). 13. Using spatial analyst commands in ArcGIS, tables of statistics were generated by analyzing the stocking rasters with the combined parameters layer. Each table generated summarized one component of biomass stocking with all combinations of the parameters. Tables were generated for summary statistics for overall dry tons, dry ton annual allowable cut, dry tons by species, and cords by species. Once the statistics table were generated, it was possible to produce summary tables of biomass stocking by various attributes using standard database reporting tools. The datasets resulting from the process described above allow querying and displaying the data with multiple combinations of attributes. For example, one can query the data to show those areas and the biomass stocking amounts for a particular ownership and under a particular cost threshold. Or, perhaps one would want to query the data show the estimated annual allowable cut on a particular ownership within a specified distance of the village. Two tools were prepared as ArcGIS Python script tools to facilitate querying the data: 1. A GIS interactive query tool allows a user to interactively specify query parameters for village, ownership, owner class, and maximum biomass cost per ton, view the calculated values for total biomass and annual allowable cut in a brief tabular display, and have the areas in question highlighted on the map in ArcGIS. 2. A GIS statistics generation tool generates a table of statistics that is stored in the database and can be used to drive reports showing biomass stocking and ann ual allowable cut by distance class, cost class, owner, and owner class. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 15 Table 3: Huslia Biomass by Land Ownership Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres K'oyitl'ots'ina Ltd. 691,013 529,006 9,706 43,549 Doyon Ltd. 1,161,454 900,805 13,563 79,517 Native Allotment 81,989 62,933 1,158 5,062 USFWS 4,273,993 3,311,343 46,874 299,721 State of Alaska 158,242 127,643 2,343 9,988 All ownerships: 6,366,692 4,931,730 73,644 437,838 RESULTS Following are selected results of the analysis, with tabular results produced from the statistical summaries generated by the statistics generation tool described above, and sample maps of the generated spatial data. As indicated above, these results as displayed constitute only a portion of the possible combinations and ways to view the data, both in tabular form or on maps. “Forested area” refers to those portions of the project area that have been associated with a forest inventory stratum that have woody biomass estimates. It does not include those areas that have a LandFire classification not associated with any woody bioma ss stocking estimates, including low-volume types such as dwarf black spruce or shrubland types. As determined in this analysis, forested area for Huslia is 437,838 acres, or 35% of the project area. The amount of biomass found on ANCSA corporation lands (both regional and village) was about 29% of the total (Table 3). Perhaps more importantly, 77% of the biomass within 10 miles of the village was found on ANCSA lands (Table 6), highlighting the importance of the ANCSA corporations, particularly the village corporation, K'oyitl'ots'ina Ltd., in the ownership of the most accessible, least expensive biomass resources. The analysis indicates that the bulk of the biomass is comprised of black spruce (38%), birch (26%) and white spruce (25%), with smaller amounts of balsam poplar and aspen (Table 7). The nature of the LandFire classifications did not readily associate themselves with forest inventory cottonwood strata, and as a result, those strata may be underestimated in the analysis. The analysis of species composition in general is subject to substantial uncertainty because of the lack of local field data in the analysis. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 16 Table 4: Huslia Biomass by Village Proximity. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 7,939 6,468 106 549 1 - 2 32,342 26,593 441 2,215 2 - 3 43,608 33,649 574 2,876 3 - 4 70,493 53,176 953 4,458 4 - 5 83,303 63,541 1,168 5,276 5 - 6 88,355 67,704 1,183 5,672 6 - 7 90,402 68,010 1,113 6,040 7 - 8 111,102 84,865 1,294 7,586 8 - 9 150,597 115,257 1,664 10,359 9 - 10 164,023 126,438 1,809 11,343 10 - 11 162,650 125,922 1,761 11,486 11 - 12 192,014 148,119 2,136 13,485 12 - 13 226,561 174,815 2,480 15,859 13 - 14 265,901 207,366 3,062 18,240 14 - 15 309,983 242,264 3,477 21,720 15 - 16 309,325 240,445 3,438 21,909 16 - 17 357,443 274,178 4,192 24,424 17 - 18 380,803 293,142 4,436 26,155 18 - 19 429,458 331,938 4,994 29,625 19 - 20 442,778 341,969 4,920 31,051 20 - 21 452,365 350,388 5,170 31,123 21 - 22 454,361 352,779 5,157 31,331 22 - 23 464,114 359,765 5,407 31,692 23 - 24 508,171 399,805 5,985 34,780 24 - 25 568,600 443,134 6,724 38,586 Totals: 6,366,692 4,931,730 73,644 437,838 Table 5: Huslia Biomass by Estimated Cost. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 40 - 60 9,242 6,982 146 338 60 - 80 157,800 120,362 2,294 8,900 80 - 100 277,762 210,627 3,710 17,474 100 - 120 445,622 340,166 5,157 29,945 120 - 140 716,885 552,697 8,295 48,533 140 - 160 1,082,931 834,165 12,673 73,313 160 - 180 1,383,806 1,066,731 16,072 94,635 180 - 200 1,551,123 1,208,890 17,959 107,188 200 - 220 733,942 585,414 7,218 56,700 220 - 240 7,579 5,696 120 811 Totals: 6,366,692 4,931,730 73,644 437,838 Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 17 Table 6: Huslia Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity. Land Ownership: Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 7,112 827 7,939 1 - 2 29,932 2,410 32,342 2 - 3 41,659 1,873 76 43,608 3 - 4 65,203 1,518 3,772 70,493 4 - 5 72,914 5,954 4,435 83,303 5 - 6 74,122 5,944 8,289 88,355 6 - 7 71,942 3,853 14,608 90,402 7 - 8 83,790 3,689 23,623 111,102 8 - 9 99,936 7,401 43,260 150,597 9 - 10 99,736 6,556 57,731 164,023 10 - 11 105,705 1,998 54,947 162,650 11 - 12 132,406 1,293 58,315 192,014 12 - 13 128,157 3,225 91,791 3,389 226,561 13 - 14 146,502 1,003 115,304 3,092 265,901 14 - 15 131,988 5,351 143,797 28,847 309,983 15 - 16 115,578 3,058 165,071 25,618 309,325 16 - 17 93,554 3,080 237,274 23,535 357,443 17 - 18 77,041 2,911 268,503 32,348 380,803 18 - 19 51,676 4,179 347,366 26,236 429,458 19 - 20 30,293 3,735 398,706 10,044 442,778 20 - 21 31,834 5,997 409,401 5,133 452,365 21 - 22 33,015 413 420,932 454,361 22 - 23 30,247 2,519 431,349 464,114 23 - 24 37,524 3,201 467,446 508,171 24 - 25 60,603 507,998 568,600 Totals: 1,852,467 81,989 4,273,993 158,242 6,366,692 Table 7: Huslia Biomass by species. Tree Species Air-dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 1,566,166 1,188,741 24.6% Black Spruce 2,425,436 2,038,182 38.1% Birch 1,660,548 1,028,203 26.1% Aspen 219,645 191,412 3.4% Cottonwood 494,897 485,193 7.8% All Species 6,366,692 4,931,730 100.0% Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 18 Figure 3: Land ownership, Huslia project area. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 19 Figure 4: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Huslia project area. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 20 Figure 5: Woody biomass cost, Huslia project area. Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 21 FUTURE STEPS As plans for proposed biomass heating projects move forward, what steps need to be taken to implement effective and sustained use of forest resources as a woody biomass supply at villages in Interior Alaska? This report constitutes a first-look assessment designed to assist in determining if the potential supply of woody biomass warrants pursuing the development of proposed biomass energy projects. Additional steps that will need to be considered as proposed projects move forward include:  Develop agreements with major landowners. As owners of the resource required to fuel a biomass energy project, any proposed project needs to have the commitment and participation of the landowners involved. This means the required participation of the local ANCSA village corporation (K'oyitl'ots'ina Ltd.) as the owner of the bulk of the lands in the immediate vicinity of the community.  With the involved landowners, develop forest management plans. The forest stewardship program, administered by the State of Alaska with federal funds, is one option for a landowner to receive planning assistance. A project involving multiple landowners would require coordinated planning among the landowners to best serve the project and the affected community. Included in the issues to be addressed by these plans would be:  Managing the biomass resources in a sustainable manner through reforestation and other forestry Best management Practices (BMPs), and ensuring compliance with the Alaska Forest Resource Practices Act (FRPA);  Preparation of a transportation and access plan;  Detailed harvest plans;  Ensuring that the harvest of biomass for energy does not interfere with normal subsistence wood gathering and other forest products utilization by community residents;  Work to avoid the natural tendency to harvest the most available resource first, with the resultant effect of making fuel costs prohibitively more expensive in the future;  Coordinate biomass harvesting with other land management activities such as hazardous fuel mitigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, etc.  Work to develop local capacity for technical land management tasks, biomass harvesting and transportation, and other contractable services and small businesses required to make a biomass energy project functional.  Attempt to develop better biomass supply and growth data. This can include the development of more precise and accurate land cover mapping using higher- resolution imagery or aerial photography, and the installation of ground plots to determine more accurate estimates of biomass stocking. This work can be quite expensive, but can be scaled to fit the demands of a proposed project. For example, a combined heat and power project (CHP) projected to consume relatively large amounts of woody biomass would require tighter biomass stocking and sustainability estimates and more detailed planning than would a relatively small cordwood thermal heating project. The Alaska Energy Authority has recently worked to Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources, Huslia, Alaska 22 develop standards for required information for projects of varying size, complexity, resource demands, and stage of development.  As projects come on line, develop monitoring programs to collect information on harvest and transportation costs to better inform decisions made for current and future projects.       C Wate Compr er Trea 3 rehens atmen Pr Cit Novem Pr AN 3900 Ambass Ancho sive En For nt Plant repared For  ty of Huslia  mber 11, 201 epared By:    NTHC DEHE  sador Drive, S rage, AK 995   nergy A t & Wa 14  Suite 301  508  Audit asheter ria 1  2    Table of Contents   PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ 2  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 3  1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3  2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 5  2.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................................... 5  2.2 Audit Description ................................................................................................................................ 5  2.3. Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6  2.4 Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................ 7  3.  Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria ..................................................................................................... 8  3.1. Building Description ........................................................................................................................... 8  3.2 Predicted Energy Use ........................................................................................................................ 10  3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs ................................................................................................................ 10  3.2.2  Energy Use Index (EUI) .............................................................................................................. 13  3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation ......................................................................................................... 14  4.  ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 15  4.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 15  4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects ........................................................................................................... 16  5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN ......................................................................................................... 19  Appendix A – Energy Audit Report – Project Summary .............................................................................. 20  Appendix B – Actual Fuel Use versus Modeled Fuel Use ............................................................................ 21    PREFACE   The Energy Projects Group at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)  prepared  this document for The City of Huslia, Alaska. The authors of this report are Carl Remley,  Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) and Certified Energy Manager (CEM) and Gavin Dixon.      The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive document of the findings and analysis  that resulted from an energy audit conducted in January of 2014 by the Energy Projects Group  of ANTHC. This report analyzes historical energy use and identifies costs and savings of  recommended energy conservation measures.  Discussions of site‐specific concerns, non‐ recommended measures, and an energy conservation action plan are also included in this  report.     This energy audit was conducted using funds from the United States Department of Agriculture  Rural Utilities Service as well as the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.  Coordination with the State of Alaska RMW Program and associated RMW for each community  has been undertaken to provide maximum accuracy in identifying audits and coordinating  potential follow up retrofit activities.    In the near future, a representative of ANTHC will be contacting both the City of Huslia and  the water treatment plant operator to follow up on the recommendations made in this audit  report. A Rural Alaska Village Grant has funded ANTHC to provide the City with assistance in  understanding the report and in implementing the recommendations. Funding for  implementation of the recommended retrofits is being partially provided for by the above listed  funding agencies, as well as the State of Alaska.    3    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS      The ANTHC Energy Projects Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Water Treatment  Plant Operators Darrell Vent and Emil Sam, and Huslia Mayor Lorraine Pavlick.    1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This report was prepared for the City of Huslia.  The scope of the audit focused on the Water  Treatment Plant & Washeteria. The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which  included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, heating and  ventilating systems, and plug loads.    The total predicted energy cost for the WTP is $51,254 per year.  Electricity accounted for half  of the total energy cost with an annual cost of $25,394 per year.  This includes $9,461 paid by  the end‐users and $15,933 paid by the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program through the  State of Alaska.  The WTP is predicted to spend $25,860 for #1 heating oil.  These predictions  are based on the electricity and fuel prices at the time of the audit.    The State of Alaska PCE program provides a subsidy to rural communities across the state to  lower the electricity costs and make energy in rural Alaska affordable.  In Huslia, the cost of  electricity without PCE is $0.51/kWh, and the cost of electricity with PCE is $0.19/kWh. The  figures used in this report represent the unsubsidized cost of electricity.    Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Water Treatment  Plant & Washeteria.  Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed costs, and two  different financial measures of investment return.    Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Other – Pump Controls Connect well pump and raw water heat add controls; shut off heat add when pumping $2,855 $2,500 15.45 0.9 2 Other – Reprogram existing generator thermostat Lower unit heater set point from 60 to 45 degrees $373 $350 14.42 0.9 3 Lighting - Tank Hallway Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $19 $40 6.88 2.1 4 Lighting - Exterior Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED fixtures $308 $700 6.42 2.3 5 Lighting - Washeteria Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $354 $1,560 3.32 4.4 6 Lighting – Water Treatment Plant Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $357 $3,120 1.67 8.7 7 Lighting - Office Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $59 $520 1.67 8.8 8 Lighting - Restroom Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $30 $390 1.11 13.2 4    Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 9 Lighting - Mechanical Room Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $36 $500 1.04 14.1 TOTAL, all measures $4,390 $9,680 6.27 2.2 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 10 HVAC and Circulating Water Heating Add a Garn 2000 biomass boiler, Tekmar 256 controller, and shut off the boilers in the summer except when the washeteria is open. $10,358 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $276,000 10 HVAC And DHW TOTAL, all measures $14,748 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $285,680 TOTAL, all measures   Table Notes:    1 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life‐cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total  savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs.  The SIR is  an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the  project.  An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost‐effective project (i.e. more savings than cost).   Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure  (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first.    2 Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to  payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in  energy prices.  It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first‐year savings  of the EEM.    With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by  $4,390 per year, or 8.6% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to  cost $9,680, for an overall simple payback period of 2.2 years.  The City of Huslia will see $663  of electricity savings after PCE while the State of Alaska PCE program will see $1,116 of  electricity savings.    It should be noted that the biomass boiler, while not cost effective for installation at the water  plant alone, will also serve the nearby Huslia clinic. With the additional economy of scale, the  biomass boiler can be a cost effective energy option for the community of Huslia. Even if the  project should prove to be ineffective at reducing costs, replacing fuel oil consumption with  local jobs and income from spruce wood harvesting is an appealing alternative.     Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types,  such as space heating and water heating.  The first row in the table shows the breakdown for  the building as it is now.  The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the  building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented.  Finally, the last row shows  the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits.    5        Table 1.2    Annual Energy Cost Estimate  Description Space  Heating  Space  Cooling  Water  Heating  Ventilation  Fans Lighting Other  Electrical  Raw  Water  Heat  Add  Water  Circulation  Heat  Tank  Heat Other Total Cost  Existing  Building  $529 $0 $3,899 $0 $3,486 $20,809 $9,650 $7,377 $4,201 $1,243 $51,254  With  Proposed  Retrofits  $771 $0 $2,246 $0 $2,281 $20,871 $3,507 $4,019 $2,292 $458 $36,506  Savings ‐$242 $0 $1,653 $0 $1,205 ‐$62 $6,142 $3,358 $1,909 $785 $0 $14,748    2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description   This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the  Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria. The scope of this project included evaluating building  shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and heating and ventilating equipment, motors and  pumps.  Measures were analyzed based on life‐cycle‐cost techniques, which include the initial  cost of the equipment, life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and  a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation.     2.2 Audit Description   Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey  provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist  within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an  understanding of how each building operates:    • Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.)  • Heating and ventilation equipment  • Lighting systems and controls  • Building‐specific equipment   Water  consumption, treatment & disposal    The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The  site visit included detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building  occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs  provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to  determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption.    6    Details collected from Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria enable a model of the building’s  energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy  consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves  distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different  activity areas of the building.     Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria is classified as being made up of the following activity  areas:     1) Water Treatment Plant:  1,606 square feet   2) Washeteria:  561 square feet    In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the  building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used.  The factors  include:    • Occupancy hours  • Local climate conditions  • Prices paid for energy  2.3. Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings  for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on  the building envelope; heating and ventilating; lighting, plug load, and other electrical  improvements; and motor and pump systems that will reduce annual energy consumption.     EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building  construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future  plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering  estimations.     Our analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various  improvement options.  These tools utilize Life‐Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as  a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that  includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs.    Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment    Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the  improvement.  When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices as projected by  the Department of Energy are included.  Future savings are discounted to the present to  account for the time‐value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time).  The  Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the  measure.  An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost‐effective—total savings  exceed the investment costs.    7     Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided  by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the  cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the  system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a  savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years.  If the boiler has an expected  life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since  the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life.     The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due  to energy price increases.  As an offsetting simplification, simple payback does not consider the  need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time‐value of money).   Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment  indicator than the Simple Payback measure.    Measures are implemented in order of cost‐effectiveness.  The program first calculates  individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list.  An individual  measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut.  Next the building is modified and re‐ simulated with the highest ranked measure included.  Now all remaining measures are re‐ evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost‐effective measure is implemented.  AkWarm  goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and  installed.     It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on  implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the  next most cost effective measure. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the  savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is  implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example implementing a reduced  operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relatively high savings. Implementing a  reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will result in lower relative  savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation. If  multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, AkWarm calculates the combined  savings appropriately.    Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs  include labor and equipment to estimate the full up‐front investment required to implement a  change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors  and equipment suppliers.     2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an  approximation.  In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This  report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional or other persons  following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results.     8    3. Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria 3.1. Building Description   The 2,167 square foot Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria was constructed in 2008, with a  normal occupancy of 2 people.  The number of hours of operation for this building average  10  hours per day, considering all seven days of the week.    The Huslia Water Treatment Plant houses a circulating water system with two loops that  provide water to residents of the community.  The system consists of approximately 13,300  feet of pipe.  One loop extends approximately 2800 feet to residents near the airport while the  second loop is approximately 10,500 feet long and serves the rest of the residents while also  being circulated through the old water treatment plant building.  There is no additional heating  provided at the old water treatment plant building.  The water treatment plant also circulates  hot water to the washeteria located in the same building.  The washeteria contains four  washers and four dryers that are hydronically heated.    The raw water is treated with 2 vertical pressure filters.  A boost pump is used to keep the  pressure up and increase the circulation rate of the system.  The water is injected with chlorine  prior to entering the 150,000 gallon water storage tank.    The sewer system is gravity fed with a sewage lagoon located approximately 2000 feet from the  water treatment plant.  A force main section is located on the western end of town.    Description of Building Shell    The exterior walls are of 2X6 constructed of frames with 5.5” polyurethane insulation.  There is  1920 square feet of wall space.    The 2284 square foot roof of the building is a cathedral ceiling (hot roof).  The roof has standard  24” framing with 2x6 construction and 5.5” of polyurethane insulation.    The floor/foundation of the building is constructed with 2x6 lumber and 5.5” polyurethane  insulation.  There is 2167 square feet of floor space.    The windows in the building are double‐paned glass with wood frames.  The combined window  space area is 32 square feet.    There are two entrances with one for the water treatment plant and one for the washeteria.   The water treatment plant entrance has a single metal door with a polyurethane core.  The  washeteria has a single metal door in an arctic entry configuration.  The arctic entry has  another door on the exterior.  The total area of the doors is 42 square feet.    Description of Heating Plants    The Heating Plants used in the building are:  9      Burnham Boiler #1   Nameplate Information: Burnham Model PV89WT‐GBWF25   Fuel Type: #1 Oil   Input Rating: 234,500 BTU/hr   Steady State Efficiency: 80  %   Idle Loss: 1.5  %   Heat Distribution Type: Glycol   Boiler Operation: All Year   Notes: Boilers were new in 2008    Burnham Boiler #2   Nameplate Information: Burnham Model PV89WTGBWF2S   Fuel Type: #1 Oil   Input Rating: 234,500 BTU/hr   Steady State Efficiency: 80  %   Idle Loss: 1.5  %   Heat Distribution Type: Glycol   Boiler Operation: All Year   Notes: Boilers were new in 2008      Space Heating Distribution Systems    The water treatment plant is heated with three unit heaters and some baseboard.  The unit  heaters can each produce 10000 BTU/hr and had operational thermostats.  The washeteria is  heated with baseboard.    Lighting    The water treatment plant is lighted with 12 fixtures with four T8 light bulbs in each fixture.   The mechanical room is lighted with three fixtures with four T8 light bulbs in each fixture.  The  restroom is lighted with two fixtures with four T8 light bulbs in each fixture.  The office is  lighted with two fixtures with four T8 light bulbs in each fixture.  The washeteria is lighted with  six fixtures with four T8 light bulbs in each fixture.  The chemical room is lighted with two 150W  incandescent lights.  The tank hallway is lighted with two 26W fluorescent CFL lights.  The  exterior of the building is lighted with two 70W magnetic lights.    Plug Loads    The WTP has a variety of power tools, a telephone, an electric dryer, and some other  miscellaneous loads that require a plug into an electrical outlet.  The use of these items is  infrequent and consumes a small portion of the total energy demand of the building.    Major Equipment    10    The airport loop has a water circulation pump that uses 1880 watts.  This pump is located in the  water treatment plant and is constantly running from approximately November through May.    The downtown loop has a water circulation pump that uses 3320 watts.  This pump is located in  the water treatment plant and is constantly running from approximately November through  May.    There are two well pumps that are both operated at the same time.  They use approximately  2100 watts combined and operate approximately two days per week.    There are two pressure pumps that combine to use 2984 watts.  They are located in the water  treatment plant and run 20% of the time.    The generator building is heated with a temperature controlled block heater that uses 1500  watts when operating.  The heater has a setpoint of 60 degrees F.  The heater is in operation  50% of the time from November through May.    The washeteria has two electric washer units that combine to use 500 watts.  They operate  approximately 15% of the time during a 10‐hour day.      3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs   The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the  building.  If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was  calibrated to approximately match actual usage. The electric utility measures consumption in  kilowatt‐hours (KWH). One KWH usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. The  basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several  non‐utility generation charges.     The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building.  Fuel oil consumption is  measured in gallons.  One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy.    The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of  service provided:     Electricity:  AVEC‐Huslia ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm    The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1.  This  figure includes all surcharges and utility customer charges but does not reflect the PCE subsidy:    Table 3.1 – Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.51/kWh  #1 Oil $ 3.91/gallons  11      3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown  At current rates, City of Huslia pays approximately $51,254 annually for electricity and other  fuel costs for the Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria.     Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of  energy based on the AkWarm© computer simulation.   Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the  figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy  efficiency measures shown in this report.    Figure 3.1  Annual Energy Costs by End Use        Figure 3.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels  used by the building.  The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the  “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are  implemented.    $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 Existing Retrofit Service Fees Other Tank Heat Water Circulation Heat Raw Water Heat Add Other Electrical Lighting Water Heating Space Heating Annual Energy Costs by End Use 12    Figure 3.2  Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type        Figure 3.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs.  The figure shows how each heat loss component  contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused  by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors.  For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing  building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow  bar) are shown.    Figure 3.3  Annual Space Heating Cost by Component          The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the  building.  For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses.  Note, in the tables  below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating.    13    Electrical Consumption (kWh)   Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec  Space_Heating 24 22 25 24 25 24 25 25 24 35 24 24 DHW 64 59 65 63 65 64 66 66 64 65 62 64 Lighting 573 522 573 554 573 554 573 573 554 573 554 573 Other_Electrical 5340 4867 5340 5168 5340 884 914 914 884 914 5168 5340 Raw_Water_Heat_Add 33 31 34 33 34 36 37 37 35 35 32 33 Water_Circulation_Heat 45 41 46 45 47 0 0 0 0 0 44 45 Tank_Heat 34 28 26 13 0 0 0 0 2 15 26 34 Other 9 7 7 4 1 0 0 1 2 5 7 9   Fuel Oil #1 Consumption (Gallons)   Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec  Space_Heating 7 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 8 13 7 7 DHW 73 67 74 72 75 78 80 80 77 77 71 73 Raw_Water_Heat_Add 197 180 198 193 202 209 216 215 207 208 192 197 Water_Circulation_Heat 268 245 269 262 274 0 0 0 0 0 260 268 Tank_Heat 203 168 150 79 0 0 0 0 10 86 156 200 Other 52 44 41 26 8 1 0 4 13 29 42 51   3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI)   Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of  building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for  one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu, and dividing this number by the building square  footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for  comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National  Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of  Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website  determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and  in a specific region or state.    Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the  national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site  only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and  distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel  that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and  production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building.  The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building.  The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation  purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are  provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use.  The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 3.4 for details):    Building Site EUI    =    (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu)               Building Square Footage    Building Source EUI =   (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio)        Building Square Footage  where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel.    14    Table 3.4  Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria EUI Calculations    Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year  Site Energy Use  per Year, kBTU  Source/Site  Ratio  Source Energy Use  per Year, kBTU  Electricity 49,846 kWh 170,123 3.340 568,212 #1 Oil 6,614 gallons 873,018 1.010 881,748 Total  1,043,141  1,449,960   BUILDING AREA 2,167 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 481 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 669 kBTU/Ft²/Yr  * Site ‐ Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011.  3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal  performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and  central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the  building and the heat recovery equipment in place.    The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its  accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all  types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air  handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air  volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems.    For the purposes of this study, the Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria was modeled using  AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage.  Climate data from Huslia was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to  predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures.   Once annual energy savings from a  particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios  were approximated. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D.    Limitations of AkWarm© Models    • The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Huslia. This data represents the  average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas and  electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing  information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold  periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather.  • The heating and cooling load model is a simple two‐zone model consisting of the building’s  core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces.  This simplified approach loses  accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts  of the building.  • The model does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and  cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control  in the space).  15      The energy balances shown in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the  AkWarm© simulations.  4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1.  Please refer to the individual measure  descriptions later in this report for more detail.      Table 4.1 Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria, Huslia, Alaska  PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Other – Pump Controls Connect well pump and raw water heat add controls; shut off heat add when pumping $2,855 $2,500 15.45 0.9 2 Other – Reprogram existing generator thermostat Lower unit heater set point from 60 to 45 degrees $373 $350 14.42 0.9 3 Lighting - Tank Hallway Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $19 $40 6.88 2.1 4 Lighting - Exterior Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $308 $700 6.42 2.3 5 Lighting - Washeteria Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $354 $1,560 3.32 4.4 6 Lighting – Water Treatment Plant Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $357 $3,120 1.67 8.7 7 Lighting - Office Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $59 $520 1.67 8.8 8 Lighting - Restroom Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $30 $390 1.11 13.2 9 Lighting - Mechanical Room Lighting Replace lighting with new energy-efficient LED bulbs $36 $500 1.04 14.1 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $4,390 $9,680 6.27 2.2 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 10 HVAC and Circulating Water Heating Add a Garn 2000 biomass boiler, Tekmar 256 controller, and shut off the boilers in the summer except when the washeteria is open. $10,358 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $276,000 0.94 24.3 TOTAL, all measures $14,748 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $285,680 1.12 18.1     16    4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that  measure in the list are implemented.  If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining  EEMs will be affected.  For example, if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to  replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a  larger load.    In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not  also be attributed to another EEM.   By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis  accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings.    Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building.  When  the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building;  therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air‐conditioned  buildings.  Conversely, lighting‐efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating  requirements.  Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis.  4.3 Mechanical Equipment Measures     4.3.1 Heating Domestic Hot Water Measure 4.4 Electrical & Appliance Measures 4.4.1 Lighting Measures   The goal of this section is to present any lighting energy conservation measures that may also be cost  beneficial.  It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy‐efficient equivalents will  have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads.  The building cooling load will see a small  decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the  more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat.    4.4.1a Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Recommendation  10 Add a Garn 2000 biomass boiler, Tekmar 256 controller, and shut off the boilers in the summer except when the washeteria is open.  Installation Cost  $276,000 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)25 Energy Savings    (/yr) $10,358    Maintenance Savings (/yr) $1,000 Breakeven Cost $259,655 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback   yrs 24 Auditor’s Notes:   The Huslia area is located within a forest that can produce enough wood to operate a cordwood boiler.  The Huslia clinic is  located next to the water treatment plant/washeteria building that could make a biomass project more feasible.    17    Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  3 Tank Hallway 2 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 26 W with Manual Switching Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $40 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $19 Breakeven Cost $275 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 6.9 Simple Payback   yrs 2 Auditor’s Notes:   Convert tank hallway CFL lamps to LED.   Replace with 2 LED 12W module standard electronic lights.  LED lights should last  longer, use less energy, and perform better in the cold climate than other alternatives.     Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  4 Exterior Lighting 2 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $700 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $308 Breakeven Cost $4,497 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 6.4 Simple Payback   yrs 2 Auditor’s Notes:   Replace existing high pressure sodium exterior fixtures with new LED wall packs.   Replace with 2 LED 17W module standard  electronic lights. .  LED lights should last longer, use less energy, and perform better in the cold climate than other alternatives.   Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  5 Washeteria Lighting 6 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant  Standard Electronic with Manual Switching  Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $1,560 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $354 Breakeven Cost $5,173 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 3.3 Simple Payback   yrs 4 Auditor’s Notes:   Convert fluorescent fixtures in washeteria to LED.   Replace with 6 LED (4) 17W module standard electronic lights. These lights  can be replaced with LED replacement bulbs that are direct wired. The old fluorescent fixtures can be maintained, with the ballast and lights  removed. LED’s should last longer between replacements, and use less energy. Additionally, disposal of LED’s does not require hazmat recycling  as they do not contain mercury like their fluorescent counterparts.    Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  6 WTP 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant  StandardElectronic with Manual Switching  Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $3,120 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $357 Breakeven Cost $5,211 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback   yrs 9 Auditor’s Notes:   Convert water treatment plant fluorescent lighting to LED.    Replace with 12 LED (4) 17W module standard electronic lights.  These lights can be replaced with LED replacement bulbs that are direct wired. The old fluorescent fixtures can be maintained, with the ballast  and lights removed. LED’s should last longer between replacements, and use less energy. Additionally, disposal of LED’s does not require hazmat  recycling as they do not contain mercury like their fluorescent counterparts.   18       4.4.6 Other Measures Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  7 Office 2 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant  Standard Electronic with Manual Switching  Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $520 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $59 Breakeven Cost $867 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback   yrs 9 Auditor’s Notes:   Convert office fluorescent lighting to LED.   Replace with 2 LED (4) 17W module standard electronic lights.  These lights can be  replaced with LED replacement bulbs that are direct wired. The old fluorescent fixtures can be maintained, with the ballast and lights removed.  LED’s should last longer between replacements, and use less energy. Additionally, disposal of LED’s does not require hazmat recycling as they do  not contain mercury like their fluorescent counterparts.  Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  8 Restroom Lighting 2 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant  Standard Electronic with Manual Switching  Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $390 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $30 Breakeven Cost $431 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback   yrs 13 Auditor’s Notes:   Convert restroom fluorescent lighting to LED.   Replace with 2 LED (3) 17W module standard electronic lights.  These lights can  be replaced with LED replacement bulbs that are direct wired. The old fluorescent fixtures can be maintained, with the ballast and lights removed.  LED’s should last longer between replacements, and use less energy. Additionally, disposal of LED’s does not require hazmat recycling as they do  not contain mercury like their fluorescent counterparts.    Rank Location  Existing Condition Recommendation  9 Mechanical Room  Lighitng  3 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant  Standard Electronic with Manual Switching  Replace lighting with new energy‐efficient LED bulbs  and improve controls.  Installation Cost  $500 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)20 Energy Savings    (/yr) $36 Breakeven Cost $520 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback   yrs 14 Auditor’s Notes:   Convert mechanical room fluorescent lighting to LED.   Replace with 3 LED (4) 17W module standard electronic lights. These  lights can be replaced with LED replacement bulbs that are direct wired. The old fluorescent fixtures can be maintained, with the ballast and lights  removed. LED’s should last longer between replacements, and use less energy. Additionally, disposal of LED’s does not require hazmat recycling  as they do not contain mercury like their fluorescent counterparts.  Rank Location  Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation  1  Raw Water Heat Add Load Connect well pump and raw water heat add controls;  shut off heat add when pumping  Installation Cost  $2,500 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)15 Energy Savings    (/yr) $2,855 Breakeven Cost $38,629 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 15.5 Simple Payback   yrs 1 Auditor’s Notes:    Interlock well pump to raw water heat add and shut off heat add when pumping.  19    5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN   Through inspection of the energy‐using equipment on‐site and discussions with site facilities  personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy‐saving measures. The measures will  reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade  the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it.    Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will  require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases,  there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same  electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of  these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously.    In the near future, a representative of ANTHC will be contacting both the City of Huslia and the  water treatment plant operator to follow up on the recommendations made in this audit  report. A Rural Alaska Village Grant from USDA Rural Development has funded ANTHC to  provide the City with assistance in understanding the report and in implementing the  recommendations. Funding for implementation of the recommended retrofits is being partially  provided for by the State of Alaska and the Denali Commission.   Rank Location  Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation  2  Generator Heat Load Lower unit heater set point from 60 to 45 degrees  Installation Cost  $350 Estimated Life of Measure  (yrs)15 Energy Savings    (/yr) $373 Breakeven Cost $5,047 Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio 14.4 Simple Payback   yrs 1 Auditor’s Notes:   The generator room does not need to be heated beyond 45 degrees F because the primary concern is freezing.  20    APPENDICES ( Please Attach Documents for Appendixes A through D )  Appendix A – Energy Audit Report – Project Summary   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY General Project Information  PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION  Building: Water Treatment Plant & Washeteria Auditor Company: ANTHC DEHE  Address: PO Box 10 Auditor  Name: Carl Remley, Eric Hanssen, Cody Uhlig  City: Huslia Auditor Address: 3900 Ambassador Drive, Suite 301  Anchorage, AK 99508 Client Name: Darrell Vent & Emil Sam  Client Address: PO Box 10  Huslia, AK 99746  Auditor Phone: (907) 729‐3543  Auditor FAX:   Client Phone: (907) 829‐2218 Auditor Comment:   Client FAX:   Design Data  Building Area: 2,167 square feet Design Space Heating Load: Design Loss at Space:  0 Btu/hour   with Distribution Losses:  0 Btu/hour   Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety  Margin: 0 Btu/hour   Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW and other  plant loads, if served.  Typical Occupancy: 0 people  Design Indoor Temperature: 60 deg F (building average)  Actual City: Huslia Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐39.8 deg F  Weather/Fuel City: Huslia Heating Degree Days: 14,942 deg F‐days     Utility Information  Electric Utility: AVEC‐Huslia ‐ Commercial ‐ Sm Natural Gas Provider: None  Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.509/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf      Annual Energy Cost Estimate  Description Space  Heating  Space  Cooling  Water  Heating  Ventilation  Fans Lighting Other  Electrical  Raw  Water  Heat  Add  Water  Circulation  Heat  Tank  Heat Other Service  Fees  Total  Cost  Existing  Building  $529 $0 $3,899 $0 $3,486 $20,809 $9,650 $7,377 $4,201 $1,243 $60 $51,254  With  Proposed  Retrofits  $771 $0 $2,246 $0 $2,281 $20,871 $3,507 $4,019 $2,292 $458 $60 $36,506  Savings ‐$242 $0 $1,653 $0 $1,205 ‐$62 $6,142 $3,358 $1,909 $785 $0 $14,748        21    Appendix B – Actual Fuel Use versus Modeled Fuel Use The Orange bars show Actual fuel use, and the Blue bars are AkWarm’s prediction of fuel use.    Annual Fuel Use  Electricity Fuel Use    #1 Fuel Oil Fuel Use        0 200 400 600 800 1000 Electricit y Natural Gas Propane #1 Oil #2 Oil Birch Wood Spruce Wood Coal Steam District Ht Hot Wtr District Ht Modeled Actual 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Modeled Actual 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Modeled Actual Huslia RAVG Energy Improvements and Training Plan  Funded by the United States Department of Agriculture – Rural Development  Written By Cody Uhlig, Utility Support Engineer, ANTHC    Introduction  In January of 2014, a comprehensive energy audit of the water plant, washateria, and lift stations in the  community of Huslia was completed.  A report was published from the findings from this audit with  recommendations for energy efficiency upgrades.  These reports were used as the basis of this training  plan.  The general descriptions of the recommendations were detailed in the audit report.  They are  described in more detail below.  Convert exterior lighting to LED.  The exterior lights to the water plant/washateria, generator shed, and  lift stations are six 70‐watt high pressure sodium (HPS) and they are controlled manually.  Replacing  these lights with six 20‐watt LED lights controlled by a photovoltaic switch, would not only save  approximately 0.30KWh over the existing (while being used), but by using photovoltaic switches, would  completely eliminate the chances of accidentally leaving the lights on during the day and wasting  electricity.  These upgrades are estimated to cost $2000 in parts and shipping and will save an estimated  $750 the first year.  In addition, LED lights are considered to have over 4x’s the lifespan of high pressure  sodium lights, which reduces the maintenance costs for the community as well.  We will discuss the  energy savings of LED’s over conventional lighting, as well as train on installation and safety.  Reprogram the existing generator thermostat.  An existing thermostat was installed several years ago,  but it has been kept at 60 degrees making the generator shed much warmer than it has to be.  We will  discuss the heating requirements of the generator, as well as talk about the amount of energy used to  keep the generator shed at 60 degrees versus a proposed 45 degrees.  Programming the thermostat for  a temperature of 45 degrees, would save an estimated $373 in fuel at a cost of $500.  Convert interior lighting to LED.  The interior lights in the washateria are:    1. Tank Hallway: Two FLUOR 34‐Watt CFL with manual switching  2. Washateria:  Twenty‐Four FLUOR T8 4‐foot, 34‐watt fluorescent lights with manual switching  3. Water Treatment Plant:  Forty‐Eight FLUOR T8 4‐foot, 34‐watt fluorescent lights with manual  switching  4. Office:  Eight FLUOR T8 4‐foot, 34‐watt fluorescent lights with manual switching  5. Restrooms:  Eight FLUOR T8 4‐foot, 34‐watt fluorescent lights with manual switching  6. Mechanical Room:  Twelve FLUOR T8, 34‐watt fluorescent lights with manual switching  7. Generator Shed:  Two A19 Style 60‐watt incandescent lights with manual switching  8. Lift Stations:  Eight A19 style 60‐watt incandescent lights with manual switching  Replacing the generator shed and lift station A19 bulbs with 8‐watt LED lights and the water  plant/washateria’s fluorescent T8’s with 18‐watt LED lights controlled by a occupancy sensors, would  not only use approximately half the KWh over the existing, but by using occupancy sensors, would  completely eliminate leaving the lights on when no one is using the specific areas and wasting  electricity.  These upgrades are estimated to cost $7500 in parts and shipping and will save an estimated  $1000 the first year.  In addition, LED lights are considered to have over 6x’s the lifespan of fluorescent  lights, which reduces the maintenance costs for the community as well. We will discuss the energy  savings of LED’s over conventional lighting, as well as train on installation and safety.  Change raw water heat‐add and raw waterline heat‐add controls to only operate when necessary.  The  current raw water heat add and raw waterline heat adds are operating incorrectly and should be  upgraded.  Changing the raw waterline heat add to only run while the well pumps are no operating and  completely not using the raw water heat add could save up to $2855 the first year and only cost $2500.   We will discuss training on all the heat adds, proper usage, troubleshooting, and safety.    Train on generator testing, maintenance, and operation.  The operator requested training on the  generator.  This will cost about $2000 in parts for training and maintenance.    Boiler training.  Boiler training is a foundation of energy efficiency.  It is one of the easiest and most  effective ways of improving the efficiency of the plant and lowering energy costs.  Communities can lose  hundreds of dollars every year by trying to produce heat with dirty boilers.  We will spend an afternoon  cleaning, calibrating, and setting up the boilers for maximum efficiency.  This will cost $1500 in parts and  training.    Install fuel meter.  A fuel meter would help the operator see how much fuel he uses on a monthly basis.   A lot of times it helps to explain the connection between clean boilers and efficiency with real world  numbers.  An operator can see one on month with clean boilers fuel use versus another month with  dirty boilers fuel use.  This will cost $2000 in parts and shipping.  Requested to evaluate media.  The community has requested several times to have their media  evaluated.  Training the operator to do this himself on a yearly or bi‐yearly basis would be beneficial to  the community.  And could potentially save money by having premium media and using less chemicals.    Fix lift station VFD.  One of the lift stations has a burned out VFD.  Fixing this would save the community  maintenance money and provide the operator with critical lift station training.  It will cost around $1500.  Conclusion  The below table summarizes the improvements and estimated material costs.  Huslia Preliminary Estimate of Materials  All Convert exterior light fixtures to LED  $        2,000   Washateria Reprogram existing generator shed thermostat  $           500   All Convert interior lighting fixtures to LED  $        7,500   Washateria Change raw water and raw waterline heat add controls  $        2,500   Washateria Train on generator  $        2,000  Washateria Boiler Training  $        1,500  Washateria Fuel Meter  $        2,000  Lift Station Fix lift station VFD  $        1,500  Total:   $           19,500                             References  2014 Water Plant Audit Report  MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20, 2015 FROM: Utility Support Engineer SUBJECT: Trip Report, Huslia – Rural Alaska Village Grant (RAVG) Work Trip – February 3-6, 2015 TO: FOR THE RECORD OBJECTIVES: 1. To complete energy upgrades for the community’s utilities. 2. To train operators on proper operations and maintenance so the community operates its utilities at maximum efficiency. CONTACTS: Mr. Darrell Vent, Operator, Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Mrs. Elsie Vent, City Clerk Mr. Fred Kameroff, Remote Maintenance Worker, Tanana Chiefs Conference ACCOMPANIED BY: Mr. Mike Poe, Operations Specialist, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) FINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS: On February 3, 2015, Messrs. Poe, Kameroff, Vent, and I departed Fairbanks and arrived in Huslia around noon. Upon arrival at the plant, I inventoried our parts while Mr. Poe familiarized himself with the water plant. After finishing the inventory, we started installing LED (light- emitting diode) lights. We completed the installation of the new LED lights by that night. The new LED lights are expected to reduce the lighting load by 52%, reduce maintenance costs by lasting five times as long as fluorescent lights, and provide a brighter, cleaner light. Mr. Vent was impressed after he saw the result. Huslia Trip Report – RAVG – Work Trip Page 2 March 20, 2015 On February 4, Mr. Poe performed standby generator training and jetter/hot box training. The community recently received a new jetter and hot box and requested that while we were there, we provide training on it. Additionally, when I was in town for the energy audit a year ago, Mr. Vent had requested generator training for his standby generator. While Mr. Poe was training the operator, I installed outdoor lights and Mr. Kameroff installed indoor lights in the lift stations. On February 5, Messrs. Poe and Kameroff worked on installing the new variable frequency drive (VFD) in the lower lift station. In the morning, I finished installing outdoor lights on the lift stations. In the afternoon, I helped Messrs. Poe and Kameroff with the lower lift station. We discovered that the VFD we purchased was no good, right out of the box; additionally, the pump that it is to control (Pump #1), is fried. That afternoon, I discussed media evaluation with Mr. Vent. He was very adamant that there was nothing wrong with the filters and my visual and historical research seemed to confirm this, so I did not core the media or perform the evaluation. Messrs. Poe, Kameroff, and I departed Huslia the morning of February 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR CONCLUSIONS: Of the items on the training plan: 1. Convert exterior lighting to LED – Complete 2. Re-program the existing generator thermostat – Complete 3. Convert interior lighting to LED – Complete 4. Change raw water heat-add controls – Incomplete. Messrs. Poe, Kameroff, and I discussed this and decided the risk of freeze-up was not worth the minimal energy savings it would achieve. Additionally, Mr. Vent was very adamant that he did not want it changed. 5. Generator training – Complete 6. Boiler training – Incomplete. Messrs. Vent and Kameroff cleaned and tuned the boilers yearly and said they did not need training on boilers. 7. Install fuel meter – Incomplete. We were missing a couple of small parts. I ordered them from Ferguson in Fairbanks; however, the parts did not arrive before we left. Messrs. Vent and Kameroff said they will install. 8. Evaluate media – Incomplete. See above. 9. Lift station VFD – Incomplete. See above. I will order a new pump and exchange the bad VFD. Mr. Poe or one of our other operations specialists will follow up and install at a later date. 10. Jetter training – Complete Huslia Trip Report – RAVG – Work Trip Page 3 March 20, 2015 Overall, this completes the RAVG training for Huslia. There are two items outstanding: the fuel meter and the lift station VFD/pump; however, the fuel meters will be installed locally and the lift station will be completed at a later date. Cody Uhlig cc: Fred Kameroff, RMW, TCC, Fairbanks Kyle Wright, Supervisor, TCC, Fairbanks Darrell Vent, Operator, WTP, City of Huslia Elsie Vent, Clerk, City of Huslia David Lewshenia, DEHE, Anchorage ec: DEHE - Pierre Costello/Gavin Dixon/ Mike Poe/Kim Eisenberg/ Michael Roberts New Interior LED Lighting Exterior LED Lighting Report Selections:Job:HSL.w08vrd Phase: Cost Type: Tran. Type: Job Status: ALL ALL ALL Vendor: Employee: Inv. Item: ALL ALL ALL Phase Status: Division: Pre-Time Card Batch: Customer: Draw Appl. #: All ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure Job: HSL.W08VRD HUSLIA W08 FFY13 RAVG TAT Phase: E-EA GRA Cost Type: B POOL ALLOCATION GL08/15/14 PPE 8-9-14 263.50GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 8-9-14 GL09/26/14 PPE 9-20-14 108.50GL Journal Entry: 0019PPE 9-20-14 GL09/30/14 FY14 POOL TRUE UP 86.75GL Journal Entry: 0049FY14 TRUEUP GL11/21/14 PPE 11-15-14 77.50GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 11-15-14 GL12/19/14 PPE 12-13-14 7.75GL Journal Entry: 0010PPE 12-13-14 GL02/28/15 PPE 2-28-15 CO 15.50GL Journal Entry: 0014PPE 2-28-15 CO 0.00 0.00 559.50Subtotal for Phase: E-EA GRA Cost Type: B POOL ALLOCATION Phase: E-EA GRA Cost Type: I INDIRECT GL08/15/14 PPE 8-9-14 643.67GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 8-9-14 GL09/26/14 PPE 9-20-14 207.66GL Journal Entry: 0019PPE 9-20-14 GL09/30/14 FY14 FINAL ADJ TO INDIRECT 22.64GL Journal Entry: 0058FY14 FNL IDC AD GL09/30/14 IDC FY14 Q4 ADJ W08 84.24GL Journal Entry: 0025IDC FY14 Q4 AJE GL11/21/14 PPE 11-15-14 171.49GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 11-15-14 GL12/19/14 PPE 12-13-14 9.84GL Journal Entry: 0010PPE 12-13-14 GL12/31/14 IDC FY15 Q1 AJE W08VRD 19.51GL Journal Entry: 0022FY15 Q1 IDC AJE GL02/28/15 PPE 2-28-15 CO 46.39GL Journal Entry: 0014PPE 2-28-15 CO GL03/31/15 FY15 Q2 IDC AJE W08 PROJECTS 3.34GL Journal Entry: 0023FY15 Q2 IDC AJE 0.00 0.00 1,208.78Subtotal for Phase: E-EA GRA Cost Type: I INDIRECT Phase: E-EA GRA Cost Type: L LABOR GL08/15/14 PPE 8-9-14 2,428.93GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 8-9-14 GL09/26/14 PPE 9-20-14 783.61GL Journal Entry: 0019PPE 9-20-14 GL11/21/14 PPE 11-15-14 647.13GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 11-15-14 GL12/19/14 PPE 12-13-14 37.12GL Journal Entry: 0010PPE 12-13-14 GL02/28/15 PPE 2-28-15 CO 175.06GL Journal Entry: 0014PPE 2-28-15 CO 0.00 0.00 4,071.85Subtotal for Phase: E-EA GRA Cost Type: L LABOR Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:53:58PM Page 1 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure Job: HSL.W08VRD HUSLIA W08 FFY13 RAVG TAT Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: B POOL ALLOCATION GL10/24/14 PPE 10-18-14 47.75GL Journal Entry: 0014PPE 10-18-14 GL12/19/14 PPE 12-13-14 62.00GL Journal Entry: 0010PPE 12-13-14 GL01/02/15 PPE 12-27-14 85.25GL Journal Entry: 0007PPE 12-27-14 GL01/16/15 PPE 1-10-15 69.75GL Journal Entry: 0008PPE 1-10-15 GL01/30/15 PPE 1-24-15 108.50GL Journal Entry: 0009PPE 1-24-15 GL02/13/15 PPE 2-7-15 678.00GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 2-7-15 GL02/27/15 PPE 2-21-15 216.25GL Journal Entry: 0013PPE 2-21-15 0.00 0.00 1,267.50Subtotal for Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: B POOL ALLOCATION Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: I INDIRECT GL10/24/14 PPE 10-18-14 13.13GL Journal Entry: 0014PPE 10-18-14 GL12/19/14 PPE 12-13-14 109.35GL Journal Entry: 0010PPE 12-13-14 GL12/31/14 IDC FY15 Q1 AJE W08VRD 26.80GL Journal Entry: 0022FY15 Q1 IDC AJE GL01/02/15 PPE 12-27-14 145.43GL Journal Entry: 0007PPE 12-27-14 GL01/16/15 PPE 1-10-15 118.07GL Journal Entry: 0008PPE 1-10-15 GL01/30/15 PPE 1-24-15 184.43GL Journal Entry: 0009PPE 1-24-15 GL02/13/15 PPE 2-7-15 732.47GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 2-7-15 GL02/27/15 PPE 2-21-15 218.69GL Journal Entry: 0013PPE 2-21-15 GL03/31/15 FY15 Q2 IDC AJE W08 PROJECTS 450.15GL Journal Entry: 0023FY15 Q2 IDC AJE GL06/30/15 FINAL IDC ADJ *W08* PROJECTS -20.49GL Journal Entry: 0003FINAL IDC ADJ 0.00 0.00 1,978.03Subtotal for Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: I INDIRECT Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: L LABOR GL10/24/14 PPE 10-18-14 49.54GL Journal Entry: 0014PPE 10-18-14 GL12/19/14 PPE 12-13-14 412.64GL Journal Entry: 0010PPE 12-13-14 GL01/02/15 PPE 12-27-14 548.80GL Journal Entry: 0007PPE 12-27-14 GL01/16/15 PPE 1-10-15 445.54GL Journal Entry: 0008PPE 1-10-15 GL01/30/15 PPE 1-24-15 695.97GL Journal Entry: 0009PPE 1-24-15 GL02/13/15 PPE 2-7-15 2,764.05GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 2-7-15 GL02/27/15 PPE 2-21-15 825.23GL Journal Entry: 0013PPE 2-21-15 0.00 0.00 5,741.77Subtotal for Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: L LABOR Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: M MATERIALS AP02/16/15 ALASKA INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE INC 43.03Invoice 5047111 dated 2/ 4/15 AKINDU AP02/16/15 ALASKA INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE INC 35.49Invoice 5047113 dated 2/ 4/15 AKINDU JC03/30/15 AKINDU Invoice 5047111 2/4/15 -43.0315-06-023 Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:53:58PM Page 2 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure Job: HSL.W08VRD HUSLIA W08 FFY13 RAVG TAT Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: M MATERIALS JC03/30/15 AKINDU Invoice 5047113 2/4/15 -35.4915-06-023 0.00 0.00 0.00Subtotal for Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: M MATERIALS Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: T TRAVEL/PER DIEM AP02/20/15 ALASKA AIRLINES INC 284.70Invoice MCBUCHTA020315A dated 2/ 2/15 Cody UhligAKAIRL AP02/20/15 ALASKA AIRLINES INC 284.70Invoice MCBUCHTA020315B dated 2/ 3/15 MICHAEL POEAKAIRL 0.00 0.00 569.40Subtotal for Phase: W-WP WATER PLANT Cost Type: T TRAVEL/PER DIEM 0.00 0.00 15,396.83Total for Job: HSL.W08VRD HUSLIA W08 FFY13 RAVG TAT INDIRECT LABOR MATERIALS POOL ALLOCATION TRAVEL/PER DIEM Total E-EA GRA 0.00 1,208.78 0.00 4,071.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 559.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,840.13 W-WP WATER PLANT 0.00 1,978.03 0.00 5,741.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,267.50 0.00 569.40 0.00 9,556.70 Total 0.00 3,186.81 0.00 9,813.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,827.00 0.00 569.40 0.00 15,396.83 Amount Hours Job HSL.W08VRD Recap Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:53:58PM Page 3 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure records processed 0.00 0.00 15,396.83Report Totals INDIRECT LABOR MATERIALS POOL ALLOCATION TRAVEL/PER DIEM Total HSL.W08VRD HUSLIA W08 FFY13 RAVG TAT 0.00 3,186.81 0.00 9,813.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,827.00 0.00 569.40 0.00 15,396.83 Total 0.00 3,186.81 0.00 9,813.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,827.00 0.00 569.40 0.00 15,396.83 Amount Hours Report Recap by Job 50 Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:53:58PM Page 4 Report Selections:Job:HSL.Z48Den Phase: Cost Type: Tran. Type: Job Status: ALL ALL ALL Vendor: Employee: Inv. Item: ALL ALL ALL Phase Status: Division: Pre-Time Card Batch: Customer: Draw Appl. #: All ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure Job: HSL.Z48DEN HUSLIA Z48 Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: B POOL ALLOCATION GL01/30/15 PPE 1-24-15 413.00GL Journal Entry: 0009PPE 1-24-15 GL02/13/15 PPE 2-7-15 533.81GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 2-7-15 GL02/27/15 PPE 2-21-15 15.50GL Journal Entry: 0013PPE 2-21-15 GL03/13/15 PPE 3-7-15 81.00GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 3-7-15 GL03/27/15 PPE 3-21-15 32.75GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 3-21-15 GL04/24/15 PPE 4-18-15 532.63GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 4-18-15 GL05/08/15 PPE 5-2-15 38.75GL Journal Entry: 0006PPE 5-2-15 GL06/19/15 PPE 6-13-15 32.75GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 6-13-15 GL07/17/15 PPE 7-11-15 15.50GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 7-11-15 0.00 0.00 1,695.69Subtotal for Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: B POOL ALLOCATION Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: F FREIGHT AP02/04/15 LYNDEN TRANSPORT INC. 99.57Invoice 6015720 dated 1/28/15 LYNTRA AP02/17/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 165.43Invoice 360282 dated 1/29/15 WRIAIR AP02/20/15 MITI LLC 61.14Invoice MCSIMS022015 dated 1/23/15 PO 84364 FRT/SWITCH PULSE FUEL METER MITIMP AP02/20/15 STUSSER ELCTRIC CO. 60.26Invoice MCSIMS022015B dated 1/28/15 PO 84337 MAXLITE T8 LED STUELE AP03/09/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 20.00Invoice 367718 dated 2/ 6/15 WRIAIR AP04/07/15 RAVN ALASKA 71.84Invoice 6786495 dated 3/ 3/15 ERAAVI AP04/20/15 EVERTS AIR 308.02Invoice 29303072 dated 4/ 3/15 EVEAIR AP04/20/15 STUSSER ELCTRIC CO. 12.05Invoice MCSIMS042015F dated 4/13/15 PO 84924 FRT/8 PIN TIMEMARK STUELE AP04/20/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 96.58Invoice 231816 dated 10/11/14 WRIAIR AP04/20/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 91.80Invoice 235231 dated 10/15/14 WRIAIR AP04/20/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 107.10Invoice 397005 dated 3/ 6/15 WRIAIR AP05/20/15 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY 68.82Invoice MCSIMS052015 dated 4/27/15 PO 85567 FRTNORCOA JC04/30/15 NORCOA Inv #MCSIMS012015A 65.9315-07-005 Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:55:51PM Page 1 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure Job: HSL.Z48DEN HUSLIA Z48 0.00 0.00 1,228.54Subtotal for Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: F FREIGHT Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: I INDIRECT GL01/30/15 PPE 1-24-15 170.71GL Journal Entry: 0009PPE 1-24-15 GL02/13/15 PPE 2-7-15 579.17GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 2-7-15 GL02/27/15 PPE 2-21-15 13.36GL Journal Entry: 0013PPE 2-21-15 GL03/13/15 PPE 3-7-15 27.00GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 3-7-15 GL03/27/15 PPE 3-21-15 9.12GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 3-21-15 GL04/24/15 PPE 4-18-15 816.89GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 4-18-15 GL05/08/15 PPE 5-2-15 57.87GL Journal Entry: 0006PPE 5-2-15 GL06/19/15 PPE 6-13-15 5.49GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 6-13-15 GL07/17/15 PPE 7-11-15 31.33GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 7-11-15 0.00 0.00 1,710.94Subtotal for Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: I INDIRECT Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: L LABOR GL01/30/15 PPE 1-24-15 644.17GL Journal Entry: 0009PPE 1-24-15 GL02/13/15 PPE 2-7-15 2,185.54GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 2-7-15 GL02/27/15 PPE 2-21-15 50.40GL Journal Entry: 0013PPE 2-21-15 GL03/13/15 PPE 3-7-15 101.91GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 3-7-15 GL03/27/15 PPE 3-21-15 34.40GL Journal Entry: 0012PPE 3-21-15 GL04/24/15 PPE 4-18-15 3,082.61GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 4-18-15 GL05/08/15 PPE 5-2-15 218.37GL Journal Entry: 0006PPE 5-2-15 GL06/19/15 PPE 6-13-15 20.70GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 6-13-15 GL07/17/15 PPE 7-11-15 118.24GL Journal Entry: 0011PPE 7-11-15 0.00 0.00 6,456.34Subtotal for Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: L LABOR Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: M MATERIALS AP01/20/15 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 74.00Invoice MCSIMS012015A dated 1/ 7/15 PO 84354 3/8 ODX1/4 MIP FLR FERENT AP01/20/15 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 359.44Invoice MCSIMS012015B dated 1/ 8/15 PO 84352 A19 100W-EQ 5000K HOMECR AP02/20/15 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 16.66Invoice MCSIMS022015B dated 2/ 5/15 PO 84699 SPLICE&REPAIR KIT FERENT AP02/20/15 GRAINGER 187.00Invoice MCSIMS022015B dated 2/ 5/15 PO 84694 LAMP HOLDER 660 WLAMP GRAING AP02/20/15 MITI LLC 940.56Invoice MCSIMS022015 dated 1/23/15 PO 84364 FRT/SWITCH PULSE FUEL METER MITIMP AP02/20/15 STUSSER ELCTRIC CO. 4,762.81Invoice MCSIMS022015B dated 1/28/15 PO 84337 MAXLITE T8 LED STUELE AP03/11/15 CODY UHLIG 49.93Invoice TVL 2/5/15 CHK REQ dated 2/ 5/15 TVL 2/5/15 CHECK REQUEST UHLCOD Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:55:51PM Page 2 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure Job: HSL.Z48DEN HUSLIA Z48 Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: M MATERIALS AP03/20/15 HASCO, INC 1,293.32Invoice MCSIMS032015B dated 2/24/15 PO 84549 SINGLE STAGE TEMP CONTROL HASINC AP03/20/15 HASCO, INC 657.48Invoice MCSIMS032015H dated 3/ 5/15 PO 84549 COMBUSTION TEST KIT HASINC AP03/20/15 HASCO, INC -657.48Invoice MCANDREWS032015B dated 3/ 5/15 PO 84549 CHARGED WRONG CARD 4 PPO HASINC AP03/20/15 HASCO, INC 657.48Invoice MCANDREWS032015B dated 2/25/15 PO 84549 CHARGE WRONG CARD FOR PPO HASINC AP03/20/15 USA BLUEBOOK, INC 4,644.00Invoice MCSIMS032015I dated 3/11/15 PO 84865 ABS MODEL XFP100C PUMP USABLU AP04/20/15 ALASKA PUMP & SUPPLY, INC. 64.36Invoice MCSIMS042015B dated 4/13/15 PO 85663 SPLICE KITALAPUM AP04/20/15 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY 626.85Invoice MCSIMS042015 dated 4/ 6/15 PO 85567 22B- AO12N104 DRIVE NORCOA AP04/20/15 STUSSER ELCTRIC CO. 122.00Invoice MCSIMS042015F dated 4/13/15 PO 84924 FRT/8 PIN TIMEMARK STUELE JC03/30/15 AKINDU Invoice 5047111 2/4/15 43.0315-06-023 JC03/30/15 AKINDU Invoice 5047113 2/4/15 35.4915-06-023 JC04/30/15 NORCOA Inv #MCSIMS122014B 626.8515-07-005 0.00 0.00 14,503.78Subtotal for Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: M MATERIALS Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: T TRAVEL/PER DIEM AP02/12/15 MICHAEL POE 413.00Invoice TVL 02/3-6/15 HSL dated 2/ 3/15 TVL 02/3-6/15 HSL INSTALL DRIV POEMIC AP02/20/15 ALASKA AIRLINES INC 75.00Invoice MCPOE022015 dated 2/ 5/15 Michael PoeAKAIRL AP02/20/15 ALASKA PARK LLC 34.00Invoice MCPOE022015 dated 2/ 9/15 Michael PoeALAPAR AP02/20/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 972.90Invoice MCPOE022015 dated 2/ 4/15 Cody Uhlig/Mike PoeWRIAIR AP04/20/15 ALASKA AIRLINES INC 75.00Invoice MCPOE042015 dated 4/17/15 Michael PoeAKAIRL AP04/20/15 ALASKA AIRLINES INC 462.70Invoice MCBUCHTA041515F dated 4/15/15 Michael PoeAKAIRL AP04/20/15 WARBELOW'S AIR VENTURES, INC. 120.00Invoice MCPOE042015 dated 4/17/15 Michael PoeWARAIR AP04/20/15 WRIGHT AIR SERVICE 352.00Invoice MCPOE042015 dated 4/16/15 Michael PoeWRIAIR AP04/22/15 MICHAEL POE 209.00Invoice TVL 4/15/15 HSL dated 4/15/15 4/15/15 HSL REPAIR PUMP CORD POEMIC 0.00 0.00 2,713.60Subtotal for Phase: E-BU BUILDING UPDATES Cost Type: T TRAVEL/PER DIEM Phase: E-EO ENERGY OTHER Cost Type: F FREIGHT AP02/20/15 STUSSER ELCTRIC CO. 11.43Invoice MCSIMS022015D dated 2/18/15 PO 84756 FRT/TIMEMARK 261-DX-T120 RELAY STUELE 0.00 0.00 11.43Subtotal for Phase: E-EO ENERGY OTHER Cost Type: F FREIGHT Phase: E-EO ENERGY OTHER Cost Type: M MATERIALS AP02/20/15 STUSSER ELCTRIC CO. 134.00Invoice MCSIMS022015D dated 2/18/15 PO 84756 FRT/TIMEMARK 261-DX-T120 RELAY STUELE 0.00 0.00 134.00Subtotal for Phase: E-EO ENERGY OTHER Cost Type: M MATERIALS Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:55:51PM Page 3 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure 0.00 0.00 28,454.32Total for Job: HSL.Z48DEN HUSLIA Z48 FREIGHT INDIRECT LABOR MATERIALS POOL ALLOCATION TRAVEL/PER DIEM Total E-BU BUILDING UPDATES 0.00 1,228.54 0.00 1,710.94 0.00 6,456.34 0.00 14,503.78 0.00 1,695.69 0.00 2,713.60 0.00 28,308.89 E-EO ENERGY OTHER 0.00 11.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 134.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145.43 Total 0.00 1,239.97 0.00 1,710.94 0.00 6,456.34 0.00 14,637.78 0.00 1,695.69 0.00 2,713.60 0.00 28,454.32 Amount Hours Job HSL.Z48DEN Recap Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:55:51PM Page 4 ANTHC - DEHE Job Cost History Report From Inception To 09/13/15 Includes Posted Transactions Only Date Tran Type Reference Description Additional Information Hours Quantity Amount UnPosted? Unit of Measure records processed 0.00 0.00 28,454.32Report Totals FREIGHT INDIRECT LABOR MATERIALS POOL ALLOCATION TRAVEL/PER DIEM Total HSL.Z48DEN HUSLIA Z48 0.00 1,239.97 0.00 1,710.94 0.00 6,456.34 0.00 14,637.78 0.00 1,695.69 0.00 2,713.60 0.00 28,454.32 Total 0.00 1,239.97 0.00 1,710.94 0.00 6,456.34 0.00 14,637.78 0.00 1,695.69 0.00 2,713.60 0.00 28,454.32 Amount Hours Report Recap by Job 69 Printed by ECH as of 09/13/15 12:55:51PM Page 5 Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Grant Management for Communities 2009 - 2014 Community AEA Grant # ANTHC Grant # Ambler Heat Recovery 2195453 AN-09-Z06 Atmautluak Heat Recovery 7060935 AN-13-Z36 Huslia Biomass 7050821 AN-12-Z24 IRHA Biomass 7050820 AN-12-Z23 Kobuk Biomass 7050840 AN-12-Z22 Koyukuk VEEP 7520004 AN-14-Z47 Kwinhagak Heat Recovery 7060937 AN-13-Z33 Marshall Heat Recovery 7060940 AN-13-Z35 Noorvik Heat Recovery 7060941 AN-13-Z32 Russian Mission Heat Recovery 7050844 AN-12-Z23 Savoonga Heat Recovery 7060934 AN-13-Z34 Scammon Bay Hydro-electric 7060847 AN-12-Z21 Shishmaref Heat Recovery 7050856 AN-12-Z20 Sleetmute Heat Recovery 7060848 AN-12-Z18 Brevig Mission Heat Recovery 7071040 AN 14-Z42 Emmonak Heat Recovery 7071061 AN 14-Z41 Gambell Wind Energy Recovery 7050876 AN 13-Z26 St. Marys Heat Recovery 7071043 AN 14-Z43 Stebbins Heat Recovery 7060939 AN 13-Z31 Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery 7071085 AN 14-Z40 Venetie Heat Recovery 7071044 AN 14-Z39 AEA Round 9 - ANTHC