Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
REFRoundIXApplication - Heat - Kayhi
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 1 of 44 7/8/15 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 2 of 44 7/8/15 • 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 3 of 44 7/8/15 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) Ketchikan Gateway Borough Type of Entity: Second-Class Borough Fiscal Year End: June 30 Tax ID # 92-0084626 Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one) Date of last financial statement audit: Mailing Address: Physical Address: 1900 First Avenue, Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 1900 First Avenue, Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 228-6738 managersoffice@kgbak.us alexp@kgbak.us 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name: Title: Amy Briggs Borough Procurement Officer Mailing Address: 1900 First Ave., Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 228-6637 managersoffice@kgbak.us amyb@kgbak.us 1.1.1 APPLICANT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY CONTACT INFORMATION Name: Title: Dan Bockhorst Borough Manager Mailing Address: 1900 First Ave., Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: Fax: Email: (907) 228-6738 managersoffice@kgbak.us danb@kgbak.us 1.1.2 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Alex Peura (907) 228-6645 alexp@kgbak.us Morgan Barry (907) 228-6664 morganb@kgbak.us 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 4 of 44 7/8/15 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) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 5 of 44 7/8/15 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. Ketchikan Gateway Borough – Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction 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. 55.352793,-131.67743; 2610 Fourth Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. Ketchikan Gateway Borough 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 6 of 44 7/8/15 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed heat project. Ketchikan Gateway Borough seeks to secure its future energy independence through the construction of modifications to the existing heating system to install a containerized, 2,460-MBH biomass-fired boiler at the Ketchikan High School. The woody biomass fired boiler will be installed to replace outdated heating oil boilers, which will become more costly to maintain and are run on heating oil number 2, the price volatility of which is greater than with locally sourced woody biomass. These systems, in turn, will help to stabilize and secure the forest products industry of Southeast Alaska through the sourcing of locally produced wood pellets. Work will include construction of biomass system, including storage bin, collection bin, motors, fans, controls, circulation pumps, accumulator tanks and valves. 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 scope of work in this project consists of installing a 2,460 MBH biomass boiler adjacent to Ketchikan High School, a 180,614-square foot school facility located in Ketchikan, Alaska. Work includes piping, electrical improvements, and exterior construction necessary to interconnect the new biomass boilers with the existing fuel oil #2 boiler system. The intended location is within an alley abutting the gymnasium, vocational technology, and humanities wings. Work to date includes: Energy Audit: Energy Audit of the Ketchikan High School performed by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC in 2011 ($28,470 , funded by AHFC) Pre-Feasibility Study: Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems of Ketchikan High School by CTA in 2012 (funded by AEA) Feasibility Study: Heating System Retrofit Analysis by Alaska Engineering, LLC in 2013 ($43,560 funded by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District in the amount of $15,000 from AEA and USFS) Design: Schematic design currently underway is contracted to Wisewood, Inc. ($86,167.50 funded by USFS Woody Bug Utilization Grant; $28,722.50 paid by School Bond CIP Fund). Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 7 of 44 7/8/15 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. Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverables Energy Audit Complete 10/11 10/11 Ketchikan High School Energy Audit by AEE Pre-Feasibility Complete 2/13 10/13 Heating System Retrofit Analysis by AEE; Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report - Ketchikan High School by CTA Design: Discovery Complete 9/15 12/15 Design: Engineering Evaluation and Analysis Complete 12/15 2/15 Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation by Wisewood, Inc. Feasibility Study 12/15 2/15 Thermal Energy Modeling 12/15 2/15 Existing System Integration 12/15 2/15 Preliminary Site Investigation 12/15 2/15 Permitting, Scheduling and Construction Cost Estimation 12/15 2/15 Design: Engineered Drawings and Specifications 10/1/15 1/1/16 Complete set of bid drawings and specifications Facility and Site Evaluation 10/1/15 11/1/15 Building and Site Drawings 11/1/15 12/1/15 Mechanical Equipment and Piping 12/1/15 12/15/15 Fuel Storage and Conveyance System 12/1/15 12/15/15 Electrical Design and Engineering 12/1/15 1/1/16 Structural Design and Engineering 12/1/15 1/1/16 Engineering Specifications 12/15/15 1/1/16 Design: Permitting 1/1/16 3/1/16 Building & Zoning Permit Boiler Permit Building Permit Electrical Permit Bidding 3/1/16 5/1/16 Awarded Contract Construction: Civil/Structural 5/1/6 7/1/16 Prepared site and pad- mounted boiler building Site Preparation Excavation Concrete – building, Equipment, Fuel skids Boiler Building – Custom Shipping Container Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 8 of 44 7/8/15 Construction: Mechanical 5/1/16 10/1/16 Mechanical systems interconnected, silo on line Fuel Storage – Pellet Silo Fuel Storage – Pellet Auger Fuel Storage – Bucket Elevator, etc. Biomass Boiler – Pellet Boiler Biomass Boiler – Breeching and Stack (12”) Biomass Boiler – Boiler Trim Package Piping and Trenching – Steel Piping (6” Insul.) Piping and Trenching – Fittings 6” Piping and Trenching – Trenching and backfilling Piping and trenching – Valves 6” Piping and Trenching – Utilities (Water and Drain) Hydronic Equipment – Pumps, Duplex Boiler Feed Hydronic Equipment – Pumps Duplex Building Loop Hydronic Equipment – Tanks, Heating Water Buffer Hydronic Equipment – Air Separator – Boiler Loop Hydronic Equipment – Unit Heater Construction: Electrical 8//1/16 10/1/16 Control Wiring Power Distribution Construction: Commissioning 10/1/16 11/1/16 System operational, staff instructed as to use. Project completion. 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 Ketchikan Gateway Borough is requesting $1,251,000 through the Renewable Energy Fund Round IX to pay for the installation of (2) biomass fueled boilers at Ketchikan High School, intended to act as lead and lag boilers for heating the school. At this time, no matching funds for construction have been identified by the Borough. Funds towards assessing the project viability previously allocated towards this project include the AHFC-funded Energy Audit of the Ketchikan High School performed by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC in 2011; AEE funded a Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems of Ketchikan High School by CTA in 2012; and $43,860 from the Ketchikan Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 9 of 44 7/8/15 Gateway Borough School District towards the Heating System Retrofit Analysis by Alaska Engineering, LLC in 2015. Design funds allocated towards this project consist of $114,890 towards the design, of which $86,167.50 was provided by a USFS Woody Bug Utilization Grant (WBUG) and the remaining $28,722.50 paid from the School Bond CIP Fund. Pellets, utilities, maintenance and operations will be paid for by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District through its standard budget process upon completion. 3.2.2 Budget Forms Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction). Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project. The milestones and tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org. Milestone or Task RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS Construction – Civil/Structural $ 84,000 $ $ Construction – Mechanical $ 497,000 $ $ Construction – Electrical $ 36,000 $ $ Permitting $ 5,000 $ $ Construction – Miscellaneous $ 20,000 $ $ Construction – Contingency $ 128,000 $ $ General Contractor Cost $ 192,000 $ $ Engineering, Procurement and Construction $ 48,000 $ $ Alaska Cost Premium $ 241,000 $ $ TOTALS $ 1,251,000 $ 0 $ 1,251,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $ Travel & Per Diem $ $ $ Equipment $ $ $ Materials & Supplies $ $ $ Contractual Services $ 289,000 $ $ 289,000 Construction Services $ 962,000 $ $ 962,000 Other $ $ TOTALS $ 1,251,000 $ $ 1,251,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 10 of 44 7/8/15 3.2.3 Cost Justification Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget. Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation by Wisewood, Inc. dated February 2015. 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 $ 1,251,000 Cash match to be provided $ 00.00 In-kind match to be provided $ 00.00 Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $ 1,251,000 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 $ AHFC Feasibility and Conceptual Design $ 43,560 Final Design and Permitting $ 114,898 Construction $ 1,251,000 Total Project Costs (sum of above) $ 1,409,458 3.2.6 Operating and Maintenance Costs (non-fuel) Estimate annual non-fuel O&M costs associated with the proposed system $ 11,008/year 3.2.7 Fuel Costs Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system Fuel type Annual cost ($) Biomass $176,999 * Per Wisewood design B-2 ($194,700 per Evaluation Model) Electricity $ 1,504 * Per Wisewood design B-2 ($ 7,507 per Evaluation Model) Oil $ 16,132 * Per Wisewood design B-2 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 11 of 44 7/8/15 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. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough project manager will be responsible for project monitoring and direct contact with AEA. The project manager will, at a minimum, provide AEA with monthly progress reports, report dispersal of grant funds, and organize monthly update meetings. Progress Reports Written progress reports will highlight activities undertaken with dates, results achieved, progress towards stated milestones, and outline any unexpected delays, problems or difficulty that arise as the project progresses. Reports will be submitted on a monthly basis. Financial Reports Concurrent with the progress reports, a financial report will be submitted. This report will outline the utilization and dispersal of grant funding for the month, and over the life of the project. This report will also actively track project costs against the project budget. Propose budget modifications and manage cost overruns, as needed. Monthly Meetings Monthly meetings will take place via conference call or in person at a mutually agreed upon time. Meetings will routinely take place 3-5 business days after progress and financial reports are submitted. This is intended to allow AEA the opportunity to review the reports and ask questions regarding project progress and grant utilization. Monitoring and Performance Reporting Plan Regular monitoring and performance will be documented and submitted to AEA for approval. This will include continuous monitoring to verify and update projections and system efficiency. 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. The two areas in which the Borough anticipates entering into business arrangements are: • Wood Pellet Procurement: This purchase will be through the Borough’s standing procurement procedures per Ketchikan Gateway Borough Code Chapter 11.15 Open Market Purchasing Procedures and Contracts. For scoping purposes, attached is the proposal from Tongass Forest Enterprises. • Operations and Maintenance: This is considered regular maintenance and will be performed by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School Board under its power to provide custodial and regular maintenance of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s schools per Ketchikan Gateway Borough Code 2.35.080 Custodial Services and Maintenance. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 12 of 44 7/8/15 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. 4.1.1 Project Manager Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, and a resume. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. The Borough intends to release a Request for Proposals to hire a Project Manager capable of providing the appropriate guidance and recommendations to the Borough to ensure that the project is designed and executed to the maximum efficiencies, control scope, maintain the project schedule, and keep costs in line. In-house project oversight will be conducted by Alex Peura, Public Works Director for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, in partnership with Mike Williams, Ketchikan Gateway School District Maintenance Superintendent. 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 Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District regularly procure and construct projects with budgets well in excess of that for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler project, most of which have diverse funding sources that require matching requirements, project reporting, design and procurement requirements and tracking. All projects Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 13 of 44 7/8/15 performed by the applicants require tracking of a wide variety of bid processes, project inspection and administration, submittal review, and closeout. Resumes for the following individuals with a list of their qualifications are attached separately: Designer: Wisewood, Inc. Andrew Hayden, Principal Availability of Resources: Wisewood has sufficient capacity to provide the engineering support necessary for the successful completion of this project. Owner: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Dan Bockhorst, Borough Manager Alex Peura, Public Works Director – Project Manager and Owner’s Representative Amy Briggs, Procurement Officer Availability of Resources: With the completion of several significant sized, long-term projects (including the Dudley Field/Houghtaling Field Resurfacing project, Mike Smithers Pool Demolition, and Gateway Aquatic Center Roof Repairs) in the last year, there is capacity within the Public Works Department to administer the feasibility and design scopes in the project. Operator: Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Mike Williams, School District Maintenance Superintendent and Lead Operator Availability of Resources: The School District has four employees in the operations of mechanical systems throughout the district, with at least two of the personnel designated towards operating and maintaining the boiler systems. Contractor: To Be Determined. 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. Cynna Gubatayo, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Finance Director BA Accounting, MBA. Former Assistant Borough Manager, Cynna has over 20 years’ experience in accounting, including specialized project costing. Maureen Crosby, CPA., Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Controller Maureen has been a Certified Public Accountant for 13 years, and has been in public accounting for nearly 20. 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 Ketchikan Gateway Borough utilizes Financial Edge software by Blackbaud, of which the Borough’s Finance Department is the primary user. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 14 of 44 7/8/15 Throughout the project, costs allocated to the project will be reviewed by Borough staff tasked with Contract Administration to determine their compliance with grant conditions. Prior to issuance of reimbursement request, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s Finance Department staff also review the cost allocation to verify grant conditions have been met. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough also receives a yearly audit by the State of Alaska and employs a Third-Party auditor to prepare a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which is made publically available on the Ketchikan Gateway Borough website (http://www.kgbak.us), to verify that all internal controls are in order. Auditors also review each ongoing and finalized grant for compliance with all grant conditions. 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. All labor utilized in the regular operation of the Kayhi Biomass Boiler will be from within the local labor workforce within the employ of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District. While it will be necessary to pursue competitive procurement in order to fulfill Borough contract procedures, there is at least one local company (Tongass Forest Enterprises) currently producing wood pellets to fuel the biomass system. In the event the fuel supply procurement is awarded to a local bidder, their business and employees will be bolstered by the Borough’s business. 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. Pellet fuels are the most consistent of all biomass feedstocks. Pre-processing of pellets to standard specifications greatly reduces compatibility problems and operational issues with combustion equipment. It is anticipated that the project will seek Pellet Fuels Institute Standard-grade fuel pellets and equipment will be engineered to handle this grade. The higher allowable ash content in the Standard-grade pellet can be made from non-merchantable biomass containing some bark rather than the clean white heartwood required for Premium-grade pellets. Equipment designed for Standard-grade pellets will accept Premium-grade pellets if that is the only supply availability. It is expected that the recommended pellet boiler equipment be capable of processing microchip fuel should that become available in the area. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 15 of 44 7/8/15 Fuel pellet specifications can be found at the Pellet Fuels Institute website http://pelletheat.org/pfi standards/pfi-standards-program/. Feedstock will be delivered via bulk truckload delivery by fuel contractor. • Amount: Combined Approximately 708 tons/year • Pricing: 500 Tons/Year over 5 years: $275/ton • Infrastructure requirements: Pellet Silo, Feed Auger The Ketchikan Gateway Borough is committed to using locally sourced woody biomass in order to support Alaskan business. KGB has previously contacted Tongass Forest Enterprises to secure a long term supply of wood pellets. Tongass Forest Enterprises has identified two local entities from which they will be purchasing pulp-grade wood to produce wood pellets. • Leask Lakes sale • Brown mountain road boundary sale Other projects in progress in the Tongass National Forest from which biomass may become available include the Big Thorne and Saddle Lake sales. In a letter to the Borough, Tongass Forest Enterprises is on record as offering contracts up to 5 years in length, for volumes exceeding 500 tons/year at a price that is financially viable for this project. Southeast Alaska as a whole has an opportunity, and perhaps a need to leverage woody biomass resources for energy purposes. Moreover, in a 2010 study conducted by the USFS entitled “Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska: Envisioning a Sustainable Economy with Thriving Communities”, it is noted that: “A potential young growth market is biomass energy, although the potential remains unclear. Current demand for biomass in Southeast Alaska is relatively small; wood chips and other mill wastes are sufficient to meet local heating demands. But diesel is widely used for power and heat in Southeast Alaska, and biomass might be developed into a more cost-effective energy sources. Wood fiber produced from thinning young forests might be processed into wood pellets and other energy sources if demand comes to exceed supply of wastes.” This same report notes that 400,000 acres of Tongass National Forest are in young growth of various native species, thus ensuring an ample supply for this and other wood energy projects in the area. In the event of a shortfall in available pellets from local manufacturers, Ketchikan is easily accessible by barges from Seattle providing weekly scheduled service, by which means the Washington, Oregon and Idaho pellet manufacturers may be tapped. Prince Rupert, a Canadian town in British Columbia located ninety miles south of Ketchikan, also bears Pinnacle Renewable Energy, Inc., the largest pellet manufacturer in North America. 5.1.2 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Identify and describe potential barriers Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 16 of 44 7/8/15 Permits required for the performance of this project consist of: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Zoning Permit - determination of adherence to local zoning requirements. Schedule: This permit will likely be received with little or no issue from the Planning Department. City of Ketchikan Building Permit – Fire and life safety code plan review and building inspections. Schedule: 1-2 months for completion. City of Ketchikan Permit to Excavate – General permit to perform subsurface utility locates and notify emergency services providers of potential road blockages. Schedule: This permit requires three days prior to the mobilization of workers on site. It is anticipated the Contractor will submit their request immediately prior to mobilization. Anticipated permits for operation of this facility include a variety of federal, state and local environmental, construction and land use permits. It is likely that the facility will be below the air permitting requirements pursuant to Alaska Air Quality Regulations 18-AAC-50. An Air Quality Feasibility Study was conducted by Resource Systems Group, Inc. in conjunction with the Ketchikan High School Feasibility Study (Ketchikan HS Pre-Feasibility Assessment, Appendix 1B) which determined that project would not require an air permit. This will be reviewed early in the engineering and permitting process under this proposed grant. An analysis of the intended design detailing the fueling requirements, ash disposal, and hazard air pollutant (HAP) estimate is attached as Appendix 1c. Other permits are expected to be required, including EPA construction general permit and NPDES storm water permit for the High School facility building construction, local construction and operating approvals, and Boiler permitting and boiler operator licenses per Alaska Statutes, Sec. 18.60.210 (a) (9), and Sec. 18.60.395 (b) (2), respectively. It is not expected that these permitting and regulatory procedures will impact the overall project schedule or scope. 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 intended project is next to or within the Ketchikan High School. The area of the project is entirely within the Ownership of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, with no topographical features. The sole design consideration for this installation is the space availability for the system: at this time, the Borough is considering locating the intended system in a structure within the alleyway adjacent the existing boiler room. Ample room is available for the proposed installation. Biomass harvested for use in this project will be locally sourced: any ownership issues associated with biomass harvest will be the responsibility of the biomass supplier, not the applicant. 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 17 of 44 7/8/15 Overall technical risks should be minimal given that the existing heating system will be retained in its entirety. Some technical risk does exist around the fuel storage and delivery system. The system is designed to utilize a variety of wood fuels in addition to pellets. This is generally a great benefit as it provides opportunities to lower operational costs, and decrease payback periods, by allowing the Borough to source a variety of wood fuels, over the lifetime of the project. The specification for the fuel system is all wood particles 2” or smaller and up to 50% moisture content. There is a risk that if this fuel specification is not respected, the biomass boiler may not work as designed. The Borough is largely insulated from common sources of risk such as financial instability, though the funding source for the overall project has yet to be determined and will likely be through a mixture of local expenditures and federal and state grant, as they may become available. Moreover, per Volume 2 of the Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) by Black & Veach, in discussing the project development and operational risks, that document identifies resolving the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of individual projects through a coordinated process of developing biomass resources. With the ongoing Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Projects currently under design, the Borough has shown its intent to focus on biomass on a facility-wide scale in order to create the base for the industry. The Gateway Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant is consistent with this philosophy, given that it consolidates the heat availability for several facilities. Relative to feedstock availability, per the Southeast Area Integrated Resource Plan by Black & Veatch, Volume 2 section 17.1.28, “The region’s abundance of biomass resources… allows the opportunity for the region to provide the majority of their space heating needs through local sustainable renewable resources,” but it does identify the fuel supply risk as moderate, primarily due to the feedstock availability being within the Tongass National Forest. As noted in that report in section 15.7, “… the minimum amount of pellets necessary to initially support a mill is approximately 10,000 tons annually.” Amongst Borough facilities alone, the Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School will consume up to approximately 2,200 tons of pellets annually; the Gateway Borough Recreation/Schools Facility will effectively double this consumption. The community also hosts existing biomass boilers at the U.S. Forest Service Southeast Alaska Discovery Center, Ketchikan Federal Building, and City of Ketchikan Public Library. The progressive conversion of public facilities to biomass heat, alone, will likely provide the base for a local pellet industry. In terms of public support, the project is perceived positively throughout the community. As noted by Black & Veatch: “the concept of using a local renewable resource that creates local jobs is well received.” In terms of siting a complex, the Borough-owned property on which it is intended to be located has ample space for a new structure. Given the available space, factors such as favorable topography and geology, proximity to structures, and existing clearances will be easily resolved during the design process. Finally, while only the Gateway Recreation Center and Maintenance Facility have boilers requiring replacement within the next decade, the potential for establishing and stabilizing a sustainable industry and the potential operational savings to accrue to the Borough are more than enough cause to see this project accomplished within short order. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 18 of 44 7/8/15 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 • Threatened or endangered species /Habitat Issues o No endangered or threatened species will be impacted by the construction of this project. Per the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the following endangered species are listed and occur in the State of Alaska: Short-Tailed Albatross Polar Bear Wood Bison Eskimo Curlew Spectacled Eider Stellar’s Eider Northern Sea Otter Stellar Sea Lion Leatherback Sea Turtle Beluga Whale Blue Whale Bowhead Whale Finback Whale Humpback Whale Sperm Whale. None of the animals identified above are listed for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Most are associated with coastal marine environments or the northern Alaska Regions, and therefore outside the range of this project given its location approximately 1,200 feet mile inland, with a grade difference of approximately 180-feet between the shoreline and the school. o Biomass will only be purchased from vendors who practice sustainable harvesting techniques. • Wetlands and other protected areas O Direct disturbance associated with any new boiler structures outside the footprint of the Ketchikan High School will likely be on portions of the High School Tract that have been disturbed for over 40 years. A creek traversing the northwesterly portion of the Ketchikan High School Tract is well outside the project area and will not be impacted by the construction included in this project. Under any circumstances, appropriate environmental permitting will be sought to support the construction of this facility. O Biomass will only be purchased from vendors who practice sustainable harvesting techniques. • Archaeological and historical resources Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 19 of 44 7/8/15 O Construction will take place within the footprint of existing facilities which have undergone assessments for archaeological and historically significant sites. • Land development constraints o None anticipated • Telecommunications interference o None anticipated. Infrastructure will be at height with surrounding buildings. • Aviation considerations o None anticipated. Infrastructure will be at height with surrounding buildings. • Visual and Aesthetic Considerations o None anticipated. Given the extent of surrounding construction, any new construction can easily be visually shielded from any of the viewshed angles of Ketchikan High School or other surrounding public assets (i.e. playfields, streets, parking lots). Any aesthetic disturbance will be minimal. 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. Ketchikan High School uses fuel oil –fired boilers, and is heated by three units, one at 3.7 MMBTU/hr and two at 4.07 MMBTU/hr. Wisewood, Inc.’s preliminary design analysis indicates that the most viable boiler would be a 2.46 MMBtu/Hr pellet-fueled system in a standalone boiler housing adjacent Ketchikan High School’s boiler room. Existing oil-fired boiler equipment can be salvaged for use after installation of a pellet-fired heating system, and can account for 15% of average load requirements and peak heating needs, reducing capital cost and scale required for the pellet system. The primary fuel source presently used to generate heat in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is fuel oil. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s current contract for fuel oil #2 varies, but is currently from $1.90 - $2.25/gallon. While fuel consumption at Kayhi fluctuates based upon the weather patterns particular to each year, the average fuel usage is around 93,845-gallons per year. In 2013, the school district paid $460,643 for fuel oil. By contrast, in 2015, the School District paid $246,351 for fuel oil. The proposed project will help the community by reducing the use of expensive fuel oil. The key impact on infrastructure will involve changing buildings from liquid to solid fuel storage systems. This is anticipated to be accomplished by erecting storage facilities adjacent to the heating buildings. Existing Energy Generation and Usage Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 20 of 44 7/8/15 a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1 grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3 ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other (2) units @ 4.07 MMBtu/Hr (1) unit @ 3.7 MMBtu/Hr iii. Generator/boilers/other type Boilers – Oil Fueled iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 22 years v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 70% vi. is there heat recovery and is it operational? No b) Annual O&M cost i. Annual O&M cost for labor $ 4,000 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $ 1,000 c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] N/A 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) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 93,845 gallons (13,044 MMBtu/year) ii. Electricity [kWh] 3,507 kWh iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] 0 vi. Other 0 1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 21 of 44 7/8/15 5.4.2 Future Trends Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community over the life of the project. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough recognizes that fuel prices are currently depressed. Should the low oil prices continue for an extended period of time, the payback period for the biomass boiler project is extended. However, fluctuations in the oil rates render it impossible to predict the actual payback period of this project, until the project has been constructed and is operational. The system proposed by Wisewood, Inc. anticipates the potential for prolonged low oil prices which has been designed to receive and efficiently utilize a wide variety of wood fuels in addition to wood pellets, including sawdust, wood chips, industrial pellets, small briquettes and pucks, etc. provided the fuels are smaller than 2” in size and do not exceed 50% moisture content. 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 project will have no measurable impact on the local electrical rates over the lifetime of the project. 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 The Ketchikan Borough is proposing the construction of a boiler system to be installed at Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School. Preliminary feasibility studies have been performed for this system and can be found in the appendix. Pelleted woody biomass fuel will be produced by an independent biomass vendor, and transported to Ketchikan by barge. The wood pellets will then be transported to the boiler site, via truck. The heating area of Ketchikan High School is approximately 110,000 square feet and is presently serviced by one 3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers, all of which are run on fuel oil. These boilers are original to renovation work in the mid 1990’s and remain in good condition. However, a recent feasibility study determined that two 4.07 MMBtu/hr hot water boiler heaters would be able to pick up base load and peak load demands. It is estimated a single 4.07 MMBtu/hr hot water boiler is sufficient to meet base load demands equal to 85% the facility’s thermal usage in a given year: the second will cover the peak demand. The existing 3.7 MMBtu/hr fuel oil boiler is intended to remain as a standby for use during peak loading and biomass boiler downtime. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 22 of 44 7/8/15 To date, conceptual programming operated from the assumption that the project will entail a standalone boiler building with silo adjacent, and augur running from one to the other as a feedstock transfer system. Fuel flow is thereby automated. System ash will be removed manually according to vendor specifications and transported to the local landfill. Please note, however, that the current design contract with Wisewood, Inc. will consider the most appropriate location for the biomass boiler system, whether this is containerized, located within the footprint of the building, or installed adjacent to the school. 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] 2.457 MMBtu/hr Biomass Consumption b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] ii. Heat [MMBtu] 2.457 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] 2,457 MMBtu – 708 Tons/year iv. Other 16,431 kWh electricity 4.5-MMBtu 5.4.5 Metering Equipment Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications. Existing Direct Digital Controls (DDC) by which the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District operates and monitors the heating systems at the various school facilities will be integrated with the operating controls for the Kayhi Biomass Boiler project. Hardware and software necessary to monitor pump operations and cycling, calls for heating, boiler stop/start cycles, and temperature controls will be installed as a component of this project. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 23 of 44 7/8/15 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. Bioenergy facility construction produces multiple positive effects for a region or locality in which the facility is built. Firstly, it will displace the use of heating oil in the project’s effected area. Over a 20 year lifespan, the proposed system would displace over 2.20 Million gallons of diesel fuel, worth nearly $8 Million in today’s dollars. This displacement will save the Borough over 600 thousand dollars in direct fuel costs. Engineering and construction jobs will also be created during plant construction, and jobs for personnel to manage and operate the facility are also created. Indirect jobs and industries also benefit from the feedstock and other supply materials logistical requirements of the facility. The facility support impacts spread further and affect more industries than the facility itself. Known as multipliers, these effects are often far greater than the direct production of the facility. Per the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Code, there are provisions allowing the preferential bidding status of local contractors. Moreover, the intended design will included locally sourced materials where possible. Where possible, the intent is to enable the local distribution of funding dollars through the construction process. It is anticipated the prime contracting or any of the subcontracting work will be performed by local, qualified firms throughout the construction phase. Upon completion, the project is expected to create several direct full time positions for each facility in the form of qualified boiler operators. Additional job creation benefits will spread far into the community, including local pellet fuel providers, forest industry, civil and electrical facility maintenance services, and other local industries. A region-wide expansion to pellet fuel heat can produce cost savings on the order of $2.1 billion in cumulative net worth over a 50-yr period while increasing job opportunities and reinvesting capital directly into the community. Per the McDowell Group, for every 5 positions directly created through new economic activity, an additional 1.15 indirect positions will also be created. As the Borough’s intention is to become the anchor client for Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 24 of 44 7/8/15 a local pellet production industry, the vast majority of the economic activity generated will be within the community. Finally, a wood pellet boiler system has significant positive benefits relative to greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions. First, conceptually, biomass heat is a “cleaner” source of energy, as the carbons storage utilized for heating is being restored on a continual basis, as opposed to fossil fuels, in which case the carbon storage is effectively removed for all time. Moreover, Ketchikan is located amidst a myriad of potential biomass sources, such as longstanding logging operations on Prince of Wales Island, occasional resource extraction projects from the USFS and State of Alaska, and local site development and the resultant wood waste byproducts. All petroleum fuel sources are required to be shipped to southeast Alaska, requiring a significant carbon footprint on top of their development cost. The removal of wood wastes from clearcut areas may also promote the regrowth of logged areas as a sustainable long-term source of wood resources and fuel. 6.1.2 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price range. Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project. N/A. The intended recipient of the generated heat will be the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District as a subset of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough per Ketchikan Gateway Borough Code 2.35.020. The modular nature of the proposed system enables the Borough to plan future expansion without requiring its construction at this time. Other Borough and public entities in close proximity include Revilla High School, Houghtaling Elementary School, and the UAS Ketchikan complex: in the event the biomass boiler installation is successful, the system may provide heat to any of these entities, the implementation of which will be based upon a complete economic analysis. 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) n/a Estimated sales (kWh) n/a Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) n/a Estimated sales (kWh) n/a Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) n/a 6.2 Financing Plan Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 25 of 44 7/8/15 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. No additional funds have been determined at this time for the scope of work included in this request. 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 Ketchikan Gateway Borough has the ability to seek bond funding for this project, subject to the acceptance of the Assembly and School Board and a successful vote by the public during the general election or a special election. Historically, a project of this nature likely would have qualified for bond funding reimbursed at a rate of up to 70% by the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development: the State of Alaska’s fiscal condition limits the ability for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough d/b/a KGBSD to secure this funding. Nonetheless, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is committed to aggressively seeking other financing options where available. 6.2.2 Cost Overruns Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding. It is anticipated that cost increases or shortfalls in funding for construction will be accommodated through the School District CIP, a part of the yearly budget produced by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. To date, the Borough has expended School CIP funds in the amount of $28,722.50 for the design scope awarded to Wisewood, Inc., in order to cover the 25% match for the USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Grant (WBUG). The Kayhi Biomass Boiler project continues to be a priority for the School District: for FY 2016, this project scored the highest points of the local projects submitted to the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development for inclusion in the FY 2016 School Construction/Major Maintenance program. With a ranking of #32, this was not sufficient for the project to receive funding. This project has also been submitted with the FY 2017 CIP to DEED. 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. This project is standalone and not anticipated to require future funding. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 26 of 44 7/8/15 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 Bioenergy facility construction produces multiple positive effects for a region or locality in which the facility is built. Firstly, it will displace the use of heating oil in the project’s effected area. Over a 20 year lifespan, the proposed system would displace over 2.20 Million gallons of diesel fuel, worth nearly $8 Million in today’s dollars. This displacement will save the Borough over 600 thousand dollars in direct fuel costs. Engineering and construction jobs will also be created during plant construction, and jobs for personnel to manage and operate the facility are also created. Indirect jobs and industries also benefit from the feedstock and other supply materials logistical requirements of the facility. The facility support impacts spread further and affect more industries than the facility itself. Known as multipliers, these effects are often far greater than the direct production of the facility. Per the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Code, there are provisions allowing the preferential bidding status of local contractors. Moreover, the intended design will included locally sourced materials where possible. Where possible, the intent is to enable the local distribution of funding dollars through the construction process. It is anticipated the prime contracting or any of the subcontracting work will be performed by local, qualified firms throughout the construction phase. Upon completion, the project is expected to create several direct full time positions for each facility in the form of qualified boiler operators. Additional job creation benefits will spread far into the community, including local pellet fuel providers, forest industry, civil and electrical facility maintenance services, and other local industries. A region-wide expansion to pellet fuel heat can produce cost savings on the order of $2.1 billion in cumulative net worth over a 50-yr period while increasing job opportunities and reinvesting capital directly into the community. Per the McDowell Group, for every 5 positions directly created through new economic activity, an additional 1.15 indirect positions will also be created. As the Borough’s intention is to become the anchor client for a local pellet production industry, the vast majority of the economic activity generated will be within the community. Finally, a wood pellet boiler system has significant positive benefits relative to greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions. First, conceptually, biomass heat is a “cleaner” source of energy, as the carbons storage utilized for heating is being restored on a continual basis, as opposed to fossil fuels, in Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 27 of 44 7/8/15 which case the carbon storage is effectively removed for all time. Moreover, Ketchikan is located amidst a myriad of potential biomass sources, such as longstanding logging operations on Prince of Wales Island, occasional resource extraction projects from the USFS and State of Alaska, and local site development and the resultant wood waste byproducts. All petroleum fuel sources are required to be shipped to southeast Alaska, requiring a significant carbon footprint on top of their development cost. The removal of wood wastes from clearcut areas may also promote the regrowth of logged areas as a sustainable long-term source of wood resources and fuel. 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 • Proposed business structure: • The Ketchikan High School Wood Biomass Boiler project will not require a complicated business structure, as the resources for this project are entirely within the ownership of the Borough. The Borough does not intend to sell heat, so billing and business structures and reimbursements will not be necessary. All supplies and contractual services purchased during this project and through the subsequent operation will be per the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s procurement procedures. How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project: • Maintenance and operations of the Wood Biomass Boiler at the Ketchikan High School will be financed through the School District’s regular budgetary process, with funds to come from the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development and local matching funds. Operational Costs: • Wood pellet acquisition will be borne by the applicant comparable to the procurement currently in place for the diesel boiler system. Preliminary statements from local vendors indicate the material may be purchased from local suppliers at a rate of $300/ton of pellets for a period of five years. Operational issues: • A period of adjustment during which the maintenance staff familiarize themselves with the wood pellet boiler system is anticipated. In advance of that period, the administrative staff have been examining comparable systems, both locally and within the northwest, and consulted with energy engineers to identify known operational issues (i.e. clinkers, boiler load requirements, etc.) in order to minimize frustration during startup. Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: • The Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District are committed to tracking costs associated with the use of the biomass boiler system and any other economic metrics determined necessary by AEA to determine the impacts resulting from use of the wood pellet boiler system. In addition, as determined necessary, Staff are committed to providing Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 28 of 44 7/8/15 operational data to AEA for use in studying the viability of wood biomass projects in Southeast Alaska. 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 In the event this grant is awarded, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough intends to have a complete project ready and on the shelf for execution, with a City of Ketchikan Building Permit in hand at that time. This is not anticipated to take a significant quantity of time. Project design is approximately 65% complete, with completion certain prior to the completion of the AEA Grant process, which the Borough anticipates will be somewhat prior to June 30, 2016. All lands intended for this project are within the ownership of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, with no portion of the construction to take place outside the school property. All work is to take place on USS 1229, Block 18A, High School Tract per Plat 93-45 in the Ketchikan Recording District. Equipment and materials intended for this project will be purchased with funds to be received under the requested grant, and therefore will be incorporated into the bid documents. Prior energy improvements at Ketchikan High School performed recently include: ● High School Roof Replacement, which consisted of installing a minimum of 4” insulation: the completed roof has an R-value from 30 to 45. ● High School Humanities HVAC Repairs, which replaced unit ventilators, fan coil control valves, and DDC controls to improve operations of the HVAC system. Prior to apply for grant funding from AEA, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has taken multiple steps to ensure project success. Third party engineering firms have been hired to perform energy audits for all effected facilities, and to perform feasibility studies regarding construction of the proposed biomass boilers. In 2011, an energy audit to determine viable conservation measures for the Ketchikan High School was funded by AHFC (attached as Exhibit B-5), followed by the Heating System Retrofit Analysis performed for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s school facilities in 2012, for which the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and School District funded $48,860. The Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report by CTA Architects was funded by AEA and the USFS and issued on July 24, 2012 (see Exhibit B-3). Data from these studies was used to apply for the USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Grant. The Borough received $129,210 in grant funding from the USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Grant in May of 2013, which will be used to fund final design of facilities. $86,176.50 was allocated towards a design contract with Wisewood, Inc., with a local match of $28,722.50, for a total contract of Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 29 of 44 7/8/15 $114,890 awarded at the Assembly meeting of July 7, 2014. See attached Exhibit A-3 for the submitted proposal and agreement. In recognition of its efforts towards determining the viability of a biomass boiler project, the Alaska Energy Authority awarded the Ketchikan Gateway Borough a $620,000 grant through the Round VII Renewable Energy Fund. This was out of a request for $1,412,889 intended for construction of wood biomass boilers at the Ketchikan International Airport and at Ketchikan High School. The grant was reduced as additional evaluation of the intended system at Ketchikan High School was yet required. Please note that, simultaneously to the process underway for the Ketchikan High School, the legislature recognized the viability of these efforts by designating $1,197,500 in direct legislative grants for the Ketchikan International Airport biomass project. In-kind participation from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District will be provided by staff time necessary to oversee and internally manage the project. 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 Ketchikan Gateway Borough strongly supports the creation of a biomass industry in Southern Southeast Alaska. Resolution 2610, attached as Exhibit D authorizes the submittal of an application for the Renewable Energy Fund Round IX. It should be noted that this community has stated support for the expansion of the biomass program over several years. See attached letters of support from: David Martin, Assistant Manager for the City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities, and Robert Boyle, Superintendent of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District. Supporting resolutions from the Borough are also attached, as Exhibit B-2. These include: Resolution 2505-A, supporting a prior Renewable Energy Fund Grant, Resolution 2471-Amended, in which the Borough Assembly approved urging the U.S. Forest Service to include “biomass as a use designated by the Land Use Designation” in the Tongass Land Management Plan, and Resolution 2470, which authorized the submittal applications for grant funding for engineering services for wood-fired heating systems. In opposition, the Borough received the Ketchikan Heating System Retrofit Analysis from Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC (AEE) dated February 2013. That report recommended against the installation of a wood-fired boiler, as the projected savings did not exceed the 10% threshold for recommendation. This led to a back-and-forth discussion between AEE (in opposition to the project) and Robert Deering with USCG, Haa Aani, Daniel J. Parrent with USDA Forest Service, Ed Schofield with the Borough, and Devany Plentovich with AEA in support of the project. SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 30 of 44 7/8/15 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. Funds towards assessing the project viability previously allocated towards this project include the AHFC-funded Energy Audit of the Ketchikan High School performed by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC in 2011; AEA funded a Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems of Ketchikan High School by CTA in 2012; and $43,860.00 from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District towards the Heating System Retrofit Analysis by Alaska Engineering, LLC in 2013. Design funds allocated towards this project consist of $114,890 towards the design, of which $86,167.50 was provided by a USFS Woody Bug Utilization Grant (WBUG) and the remaining $28,722.50 paid from the School Bond CIP Fund. 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. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report – Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Ketchikan High School, by CTA Architects Engineers and Lars Construction Management Services, dated July 24, 2012 SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION In the space below please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan, high School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February, 2015 by Wisewood, Inc. Renewable Energy Fu nd Round IX Grant Application-Heat Projects I SECTION 13-AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Community/Grantee Name: Ketchikan Gateway_ B orough Regular Election is held : First Tuesday of October-October 6 , 2015 I Authorized G rant Signer(s): Printed Name Title Dan Bockhorst Borough manage r I Date : Term N/A I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents: JtkASKA~ ENER GY AUTHO RIT Y .....-... Sig!J4}Ur7J # I Apt (;lt&~ (Must be authorized below by the highest ranking organizati on/community/municipal official Printed Name Title Dan B ockho rs t Borough Manager I Grantee Contact Information: Mailing Addre s s: Phone Number: Fax Number: E-mail Address: Federal Tax ID #: Term Per B orough Resolution 2 6 10 1900 Fi rst Avenue, Ste . 210 Ketchika n, AK 99901 (907) 228-6625 (907) 228-6684 danb@kgbak.us 92-0084626 Please submit a n updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. AEA 15 00 3 Pag e 31 o f 44 7 /8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application-Heat Proj ec ts ALASKA __ EN ER GY AUTHORITY SECTION 14-ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION : A. Contact information and resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project Accountant(s), key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 , 3.4 and 3 .6 . Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic documents if the individuals do not want their resumes p osted to the project web site. B. Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 9. C. For projects involving heat: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel for the building(s) impacted by the project. D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application . Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFA Section 1.7. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compli ance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obl i gations and that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations. Print Name Signature Title Borough Manager Date September 15, 2015 AEA 15003 Page 32 of 44 7/8/15 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 33 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT A-1: Contact Information: Owner: Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 First Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 • Borough Manager: Dan Bockhorst, danb@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6641 • Assistant Borough Manager: Deanna Garrison, deannag@kgbak.us (907) 228-6633 • Project Manager: Alex Peura – Public Works Director, alexp@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6664 • Finance Director: Cynna Gubatayo, cynnag@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6649 • Controller: Maureen Crosby, maureenc@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6624 • Administrative Personnel: Amy Briggs – Administrative Assistant II, amyb@kgbak.us, (907) 228-6637 Operator: Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District 333 Schoenbar Road Ketchikan, AK 99901 • School District Superintendent: Robert Boyle, Robert.Boyle@kgbaksd.org, (907) 225-2118 • School District Maintenance: Mike Williams, Department Head, Mike.Williams@kgbaksd.org, (907) 225-2416 Design Engineer Wisewood, Inc. Pellet Supplier (Proposed): Tongass Forest Enterprises ATTN: Trevor Sande 355 Carlanna Lake Road, Suite 100 Ketchikan, AK 99901 info@akforestenterprises.com (907) 225-4541 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 35 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT A-3: • Submitted Proposal from Wisewood, Inc. • Contractual Services Agreement AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE KETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOL BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT This Agreement made and entered into this day of , 2014, by and between the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, hereinafter "Borough", · general law municipality and a Borough of the second class, whose address is: 1900 First Avenue, Suite 210, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, and Wisewood, Inc., whose address is: 1001 SE Water Avenue, Suite 255, Portland, Oregon 97214, and licensed and qualified to do business within the State of Alaska, hereinafter called "Engineer." Section 1. Engagement. The Borough agrees to engage the Engineer to perform those services described below, for Architectural and Engineering Services for the project described as Architecture and Engineering for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating Project, and for the term as set in Section 8. Section 2. Services. The Engineer warrants that it is qualified and properly licensed and agrees to perform certain services necessary for completion of the project, which is defined in Exhibit A -Scope of Service. Section 3. Relationship. The Engineer is an independent contractor and is not to be considered an agent or employee of the Borough. The Engineer has no authority to bind the Borough. Section 4. Compensation. As full compensation for the Engineer's professional services performed hereunder, the Borough shall pay the Engineer according to the Cost Estimate attached hereto as Exhibit B. The maximum payment under this contract shall not exceed $114,890. All payments are subject to lawful appropriation. No additional compensation in excess of this amount may be claimed unless previously provided for by written amendment. Section 5. Compensation for Additional Services. In the event the Borough requires services in addition to those described in Section 2, the Engineer shall be compensated at the rates provided for in the fee schedule in exhibit B. Section 6. Method of Payment. Payment will normally be from monthly invoices detailing the work, including duration, location & specific description, and acceptance of said work by the Borough. Section 7. Ownership. All original documents, including but not limited to, tracings, plans, specifications, maps, reports, basic work notes, sketches, charts, computations, photographs and original negatives thereof, and all other data prepared, obtained or received by Engineer, in the performance of this agreement, shall be and become the sole and exclusive property of the Borough. Section 8. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on signing, at which time the Engineer shall begin service and continue, subject to the termination provisions of Section 9, until the project is complete. Section 9. Termination. This agreement may be terminated: J ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE KETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOL BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT a. By either party at any time for failure of the other party to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement; b. by either party upon 1 0 days prior written notice to the other party; or c. upon mutual written agreement of both parties. In the event of termination, the Engineer shall stop work immediately and shall be entitled to compensation for professional service fees and for authorized expense reimbursement to the date of termination; and the Contractor shall provide to the Borough all work product completed or in progress at such date and communicate such recommendations and conclusions to the Borough as may have been formed by such date. Section 10. Insurance Requirements. During the entire period of the project or work, the Contractor shall provide the following types of insurance. All policies shall have a thirty (30) day cancellation clause. The Borough shall be insured as additional insured on all insurance policies except professional liability contracts. Each policy of insurance required by this section shall provide for no less than thirty (30) days' advance notice to the Borough prior to cancellation. Failure to provide evidence of adequate coverage is a material breach and grounds for termination of the contract. a. Workers' compensation as required by law and employer's liability coverage at a minimum of $500,000. The Workers' compensation policy shall include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. b. Commercial general liability insurance, not excluding explosion, contractual liability or product/completed operation liability insurance -$500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate. c. Comprehensive automobile liability, bodily injury and property damage, including all owned, hired and non-owned, automobile-$500,000 per each accident. d. Professional liability insurance covering errors and omissions at $1,000,000 per claim. Section 11. Non waiver. No delay or omission of the right to exercise any power by the Borough shall impair any such right or power, or shall be construed as a waiver of any default or as acquiescence therein. One or more waivers of any covenant, term or condition of this agreement by the Borough shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by the Borough to any act by the other party of a nature requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act. Section 12. Successor and Assigns. Except as otherwise provided herein, the covenants, agreements, and obligations herein contained shall extend to bind and inure to the benefit not only of the parties hereto but their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. Section 13. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each term, condition, covenant and provision of this agreement. Section 14. Hold Harmless and Indemnify. The Engineer agrees to appear and defend indemnify and hold the Borough, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all claims, lawsuits, liabilities, penalties, or fines, including attorney's fees and costs related to damages or loss during the course of and as a result of the Engineer's negligent acts, errors, or 2 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE KETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOL BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT omissions. Section 15. Contract Documents. The Contract, and the component parts of this Contract entered into by the acceptance of the Engineer's Proposal and the signing of this Agreement consist of the following documents, all of which are component parts of said Contract and are as fully a part thereof as if herein set forth in full, and if not attached, as if attached hereto: a. This Agreement, including: Exhibit A: Scope of Services; Exhibit B: Fee Proposal Summary; Exhibit C: Request for Proposals for Architectural and Engineering Services for the project described as Architecture and Engineering for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating Project, including Addendums; Exhibit D: Engineers Proposal as accepted; and Exhibit E: Project Schedule Section 16. Miscellaneous. a. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this agreement. b. Neither this agreement nor any rights or obligations hereunder shall be assigned or delegated by the Engineer without the prior written consent of the Borough. This agreement shall be modified only by a written agreement duly executed by the Borough and the Engineer. c. The Engineer shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, including but not limited to, wage and hour laws and non-discrimination laws. d. Should any of the provisions hereunder be found to be invalid, void or voidable by a court, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. e. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Alaska. f. All notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if and when deposited in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed to the party for whom intended at such party's address listed below, or when delivered personally to such party. A party may change its address for notice hereunder by given written notice to the other party. Owner: Dan Bockhorst Borough Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 First Avenue, Ste. 210 Ketchikan, AK 99901 3 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE KETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOL BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT Engineer: Andrew Haden Wisewood, Inc. 1001 SE Water Avenue, Suite 255 Portland, Oregon 97214 In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Attest: By: _f~~JfE~~~ Kacie Paxton Borough Clerk Approved as to Form: if;t_ Certified Funds Available: By~ Michael J. Houts Director of Finance BOROUGH ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF ALASKA ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on thi~ay od\.A ... ~tA .. tis~ , 2014, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Dan Bockhorst to me known to be the Borough Manager of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, a municipal corporation, the corporation which executed the above and foregoing instrument; who on oath stated that he was duly authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of said corporation; who acknowledged to me that he signed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in e certificate first above written. (Seal) STATE OF ALASKA ) FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ~r;::;::;~~ ~~~ THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on thia2 day of , 2014, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Alas duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Kacie Paxton to me known to be the Borough Clerk of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, a municipal corporation, the corporation which executed the above and foregoing instrument; who on oath stated that she was duly authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of said corporation; who acknowledged to me that she signed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. (Seal) WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in the certificate fi~ t above written. 5 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE KETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOL BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT CORPORATE CERTIFICATE I, Av1cl f evv H7{ J:i f:At"\ , certify that I am the Secretary of the Corporation named as Contractor in the foregoing instrument; that fsv\clstAA\ ~tt'.c\42:~~, , who signed said instrument on behalf of the Contractor, was then j1~,r·CSI(le•;,J;; of said Corporation; that said instrument was duly signed for and on behalf of said Corporation by authority of its body and is within the scope of its corporate powers. CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE ) ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT } THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this a,.cij,. day of me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State ""'~""-----'2014, before ........,.~r-"-'--------· duly 'ssioned n rn, personally appeared ,...; (Name) and ~Y...ll... (Name) known to be the President and Secretary of w~.,.>i;;;)o,,l:;; , the corporation which executed the above and foregoing instrument, and who on oath stated they were duly authorized to execute said instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said corporation for the purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day a d year in this certificate r\ve written. ·---·· "'VI Y PUBLIC F __ ('.. __ _ My Commission Expires: -\..ii t5 (Seal) Exhibit A Scope of Work 1 Scope of Work -Engineering and Design Services 1 Analysis This phase will lay the groundwork for the detailed engineering and design phases to follow. The results will help to quantify the technical and financial viability of the project. 1 .1 .1 Feasibility Study During this phase of the project, Wisewood will review and verify existing historical fuel oil consumption data for the school. We will assess the current heating system for viability to integrate with a new biomass heating system. This will require close work with facility staff to understand their heating system needs, including uncovering any known issues related to existing mechanical equipment that will interface with the biomass boiler. Based upon the information gathered, Wisewood will then estimate new biomass system installation, operation, maintenance and fuel costs. The results will be presented in the form of an economic analysis report that will include estimates of installed system costs and expected annual energy savings, including projected cash flows and payback schedules according the Borough's desired financial performance metrics (IRR, NPV, ROI, etc.). 1.1.2 Thermal Energy Modeling Using data from the Feasibility Study described in Section 1 .1 .1 , Wisewood will develop a comprehensive thermal energy model that will incorporate actual fuel consumption (the exisiting heat load) and Ketchikan-specific climate data. This data will also be used to establish the optimum size of a biomass heating system to cover at least 85% of the annual heating demand for Ketchikan High School. The result of this task will be a summary report with clear graphical data depiction describing the results and recommendations derived from the modeling effort. 1 .1 .3 Existing System Integration The new biomass heating system will be designed to readily integrate into the building's existing heat distribution systems. Requirements for integrating biomass heat into the existing domestic hot water system will also be investigated at this stage. Finally, the requirements for integrating the new biomass system into the existing oil boiler control system to allow for the exsting units to be retained for redundancy, peaking and shoulder heat demands will be evaluated. 1 .1 .4 Preliminary Site Investigation Wisewood will evaluate the available space for biomass system placement, including street access for fuel delivery and storage. We will also identify site constraints and locate incoming water lines and available sewer connections. Exhibit A Scope of Work 1.1.5 Permitting, Scheduling and Construction Cost Estimating The scope of this task includes establishing permit requirements for construction, building and all other agency requirements. Wisewood will also develop a thorough construction schedule, accommodating lead times for major capital equipment and components. Finally, a detailed construction cost estimate shall be prepared and presented as part of this task. 1.2 Specifications The objective of this phase is to provide stamped, bid-ready construction drawings and specifications necessary to develop a complete bid document set for the construction of the Ketchikan High School biomass heating system. 1.2.1 Facility and Site Evaluation Our focus will be to execute a design emphasizing ease of maintenance, high efficiency and long life. In order to accomplish this, Wisewood will visit the site to assess existing systems and establish interconnection and interoperability requirements, as well as definitive size and space constraints. These efforts will result in preliminary system drawings and equipment layouts. After this work is complete, Wisewood will review preliminary design options and technology selections with the Borough. 1.2.2 Building and Site Drawings This task includes the collection of existing historical design data, including archived drawings, specifications, O&M manuals and other relevant building data. From these, Wisewood will develop detailed site and building backgrounds that will be used to lay out equipment in existing spaces, as well as develop any new boiler room layouts and designs as required by the new biomass system. 1.2.3 Mechanical Equipment and Piping General equipment arrangement drawings (plans and elevations) will be produced as part of this task. In addition, detailed piping plans, sections, elevations and details will be generated for the heating water and domestic water system. This will include schematics and process and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID) to ensure the process requirements are well defined. Major equipment will be summarized in comprehensive equipment lists included as part of the mechanical drawing set. 1.2.4 Fuel Storage and Conveyance System The objective of this design is to develop a complete biomass fuel delivery, storage, and conveyance system. The system will be automated to an extent that user operational interfaces and maintenance are minimized. 1 .2.5 Electrical Design and Engineering The electrical design and engineering will include interacting with the local electrical utility to ensure any additional power requirements can be adequately satisfied. The Exhibit A Scope of Work school's existing power and control panel layouts will also be identified and included in the respective layout drawings as described above. A comprehensive electrical drawing package will be completed to a bid-ready stage. 1.2.6 Structural Design and Engineering Any new buildings and/or structures required to accommodate the new biomass system will be engineered and designed by a qualified structural engineering firm licensed to stamp drawings in Alaska. This includes all concrete work and steel support structures for the boiler, fuel handling and other large equipment included in the eventual system's scope of supply. Please note: The foundation design will be based upon available geotechnical information that can be verified during construction if test hole information is not available at the proposed site. A test pit investigation may be added to the scope of services; however, it may not be cost effective to perform a field investigation if there are no known problems at the site. An allowable soil pressure, obtained from the IBC Chapter 18, will be obtained for the soils anticipated to be encountered at the site. i .2.7 Engineering Specifications Wisewood will develop comprehensive engineering specifications for the Mechanical, Electrical and Structural disciplines in a format selected by the Borough. These specifications shall be included as a hardcopy binder and available in electronic (PDF) format as well. Specifications shall include, but not be limited to: • Biomass (wood) fuel, including storage, handling, delivery and feeding; • Boiler house construction, including concrete footings, slabs, etc.; • Specific design requirements of the biomass boiler plant(s); • Integration requirements with existing heating, air handling and domestic hot water systems; • All tanks, air separators, receivers and accumulators; • Equipment for meeting any Air Quality Permit requirements; • Chimney(s), breeching and other flue construction requirements; • Boiler de-ashing and ash removal from the biomass boiler plant(s); • Control system design and Direct Digital Control (DOC) interoperability; • Controls sequence of operations and commissioning plan for the complete installation; • Requirements for equipment installation and commissioning; and • Requirements for system operation and maintenance. 1 Construction I .3.1 Bid Assistance Exhibit A Scope of Work Assistance and Commissioning As part of this task, Wisewood will review contractor submittals for equipment, materials, etc. The team will also provide feedback as required on contractor- submitted requests for information. Wisewood's time on this project activity will be capped at 8 hours for Principal, 8 hours for Senior Engineer, and 8 hours for Designer. i .3.2 Commissioning Plan Wisewood will provide a detailed commissioning plan, outlining the objectives, tasks and documentation required to successfully commission the new biomass system and ensure that the system meets design objectives. 1.3.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan As part of the project deliverables, Wisewood will develop a comprehensive O&M schedule for the system. This will include, but not be limited to, items such as boiler firebox maintenance and cleaning, ash removal, emission equipment maintenance, fuel handling equipment maintenance, etc. Phase Task Scope Feasibility Study Economic Analysis and Thermal Energy Modeling Pre-Engineering Existing System Integration Preliminary Site Investigation Permitting, Scheduling and Construction Cost Estimating Facility and Site Evaluation Building and Site Drawings Engineered Drawings Mechanical Equipment and Piping and Specifications Fuel Storage and Conveyance System Electrical Design and Engineering Structural Design and Engineering Engineering Specifications Construction Bid Bid Assistance Assistance and Commissioning Plan Commissioning Operation and Maintenance Plan Exhibit B Price Proposal Ketchikan High School Engineering and Design Services Principal rEngineerroesignerr Analyst I Writer TOTAL$ By Phase 14 9 -8 5 $5,170 8 6 9 3 $3,540 4 8 2 $2,120 10 11 - - $3,450 10 3 $1,800 $16,080 11 14 8 9 -$5,780 8 19 27 --$6,990 12 66 82 - - $20,260 12 17 36 --$8,310 4 49 49 -$12,970 sub - --$19,600 3 19 --10 $4,390 $78,300 8 8 8 -$3,440 7 13 7 --$3,910 2 8 8 -10 $3,360 $10,710 103 257 227 26 31 $105,090 $105,090 FEE CALCULATIONS AND SUMMARY Classification HOURS RATE COSTS Principal 103 $180 $ 18,540 Engineer 257 $150 s 38,550 Designer 227 $100 $ 22,700 Analyst 26 $100 s 2,600 Report Wriler 31 $100 $ 3,100 Total Staff Fees $ 105,090 Mise Expenses $ BOO Travel s 9,000 Subtotal Expenses $ 9,800 Total Costs $ 114,890 Contingency ~$ Total Price $ 114,890 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 36 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT B-1: • Letters of support: o Robert Boyle, Superintendent, Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District o David Martin, Assistant General Manager, City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities o US Forest Service Issue Paper dated April, 2014 by Daniel Parrent Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District 333 Schoenbar Road Ketchikan, AK 99901 Kgbsd.org To: To Whom It May Concern From: Robert Boyle, Superintendent CC: file Date: April 2, 2013 Re: USFS Woody BUG 2013 Application Docs USFS Woody BUG 2013 Application Docs " , , I!ISB~il!l ,, , , '"' ~ -"' " " "' ? ~ " " "~ ; The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School has reviewed various options to reduce heating costs for our 8 buildings for more than 5 years. We have conducted two engineering studies and consulted with various experts on different heat sources. Bio-mass as a heat source appears to be viable and desirable. In particular the Ketchikan High School Building lends itself to bio-mass conversion. Statics detailing large consumption of diesel, age of current furnaces, multiple furnaces for redundancy, and available space all add up to this project being positive in term of reducing our heating budget. KGBSD is strongly in favor of installation of a bio-mass furnace in the Ketchikan High School building. Sincerely, Robert Boyle, Superintendent September 16, 2013 Borough Assembly Packet Page 48 of 243 Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District 333 Schoenbar Road Ketchikan, AK 99901 KGBSD.ORG TO: FROM: CC: DATE: To Whom It May Concern Robert Boyle, Superintendent File September 11, 2013 RE: Renewable Energy Grant Fund, Round VII, with the Alaska Energy Authority The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District has reviewed various options to reduce heating costs for the School Districts 8 school facilities for more than five years. Two engineering studies have been conducted with various experts on different heat sources. Biomass as a heat source appears to be the most viable and desired option. In particular the Ketchikan High School Facility lends itself to biomass conversion. Statistics detailing large consumption of diesel, age of current boiler, multiple boilers for redundancy, and available space all add up to this project being positive in terms of reducing the heating budget for the facility. In March 2013, the Borough Assembly adopted Resolution No. 2470 authorizing the submittal and acceptance of a $143,363 Woody Biomass Utilization Grant from The Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, State and Private Forestry {S&PF), Technology Marketing Unit for the purpose of design and engineering of biomass heating projects at both the Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School, and in August 2013, the Borough was awarded the grant in the full amount. An opportunity is now available to apply for funding for the construction of these biomass heating projects through the Renewable Energy Grant Fund, Round VII, with the Alaska Energy Authority. School District Staff believes that it would be in its best interest to apply for these funds, and is strongly in favor of installation of a biomass boiler in the Ketchikan High School Facility. Page 1 September 16,2013 Borough Assembly Packet Page 49 of 243 u G..-n<: rnl Manag:••.r ;>34 Front St:rccr !{e{chikan, AK 9)'9(.•1 Ph.,nc (9i'J7) 12<~·)(;()3 Fax (91l7) 225-5075 TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Carney, Manager-Ketchikan lnter{lational Airp6>rt FROM: David Martin, Assistant General Manag~~~" DATE: March 29, 2013 '\ Re: Letter of support to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough for a biomass heating system at the Ketchikan International Airport. Ketchikan Public Utilities supports the conversion of Ketchikan International Airport's heating system to biomass (wood pellets). Ketchikan Public Utilities recognizes that increases in oil prices have dramatically increased consumers electrical heat usage, placing additional demands on electric load. The rapidly increasing electric load results in increased use of diesel generation, and an increased cost to the community. Biomass energy provides a solution, including moderating the cost of home and commercial heating. Ketchikan Public Utilities promotes alternatives to electrical and oil heating systems and supports options such as renewable biomass. Ketchikan Public Utilities supports the Ketchikan International Airport and any other municipal buildings converting to a biomass heating system. September 16, 2013 Borough Assembly Packet Page 50 of 243 Woody Biomass Energy in Alaska Issue Paper April 2014 Background According to the U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, biomass accounted for more than 53% of all renewable energy consumed in the U.S. in 2010, with “wood and derived fuels” contributing ~25% of the total (http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/trends/pdf/table1.pdf). Alaska recognized this potential and has dramatically increased the number of wood-fired boilers in the State in recent years. Wood fuel has several environmental advantages over fossil fuel. The main advantage is that wood is a home-grown, locally available, renewable resource offering a sustainable, dependable supply. Other advantages include the fact that the net amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emitted during the burning process is ~90% less than when burning fossil fuel. Wood fuel contains minimal amounts of sulfur and heavy metals. It does not contribute to acid rain pollution and particulate emissions are controllable. Issues Seventeen percent of all U.S. forest land is located in Alaska. While parts of Alaska are treeless tundra, ice fields and mountains, much of Alaska is heavily forested. • For the forest landowner/manager, biomass utilization can provide opportunities to mitigate the costs associated with pre-commercial thinning, hazardous fuels reduction, forest restoration, and habitat enhancement (moose, deer and salmon are important sources of protein for many rural Alaskans). • For the forest products industry, biomass markets can mean new, or more profitable, local opportunities to utilize processing by-products, such as sawdust and bark. • For communities, biomass fuels can save facility operators money, create and sustain local jobs, and reduce local economic leakage (i.e., keep energy dollars in the community) There are more than 100 communities in Alaska that are only accessible by air or water. The prices of petroleum fuels in these communities are among the highest in the nation. Heating oil prices in some remote communities, where winter temperatures can reach -60oF, exceed $10.00 per gallon due largely to transportation costs. Some villages have had to close public libraries, community centers, and auxiliary school facilities, such as pools and gymnasiums, because they cannot afford to heat them. Biomass boiler (far left) with oil-fired back up boilers (center and right) Small diameter, low-value wood suitable for use as wood fuel Woody Biomass Energy in Alaska Page 2 of 2 Issue Paper April 2014 Programmatic Efforts 1. With Economic Action Program (EAP) funding from 2004–2008, Alaska Region State & Private Forestry was a key participant in the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group (AWEDTG), which was created to explore opportunities to increase the utilization of wood for energy in Alaska. With new Federal and matching State funds, AWEDTG was reinstituted in 2011. Additional funding was provided by a Statewide Wood Energy Team grant in 2013. A competitive application program was created, and selected private, public and not-for-profit applicants can receive initial feasibility assessments for heating local facilities with wood. More than 100 preliminary feasibility assessments have been conducted to date. A number of applicants from previous years have gone on to apply for and receive funding for engineered designs, construction, or both. There are ~25 non-industrial biomass heating now installed and operating in Alaska 2. USDA agencies, led by the Forest Service and Rural Development, have been directed to develop a strategy known as the Tongass Transition Framework to help Southeast Alaska communities transition to a more diversified economy. Renewable energy, forest restoration, and young-growth forest management are a few of the components of the transition strategy. In partnership with the State Division of Forestry and U.S. Coast Guard, work on the Southeast Alaska Wood-to-Energy Initiative began in October 2012. Staff are providing direct technical assistance, conducting public outreach and education, and drafting a strategy document to convert 30 percent of southeast Alaska’s heating oil consumption to biomass over the next 10 years. Recent Accomplishments In Alaska, wood biomass heating systems have already been successfully installed in a number of non-industrial facilities. The first large non-industrial biomass system was commissioned in Craig, Alaska in April 2008. The system provides heat to the Craig elementary and middle schools and the nearby community pool. Using 4 to 5 thousand pounds of mill residues daily, the system saves the community ~$85,000 annually in heating costs. Some other operational systems include: • Sealaska Corporation office building in Juneau, AK • Schools in Tok, Delta Junction, Tetlin, Tanana, Thorne Bay, and Coffman Cove • Washeteria and city offices in Tanana, AK • Ionia Community Center in Kasilof, AK • District heating system in Gulkana, AK • USDA Forest Service, Southeast Alaska Visitor Information and Discovery Center in Ketchikan, AK • Ketchikan Public Library in Ketchikan, AK • GSA Federal office building in Ketchikan, AK • University of Alaska, Fort Yukon Campus, Fort Yukon, AK • Galena Senior Center, Galena, AK Several more biomass heating systems are currently in development, including: • Chilkoot Indian Association, Haines, AK – Pellet plant designs (2013 WBU grant) • Fort Yukon School, Gymnasium, Vocational Education Center and Health Clinic, Fort Yukon, AK • Ketchikan, AK – Heating system designs for the airport and high school (2013 WBU grant) • Haines, AK – Biomass conversions at 10 city facilities including school and pool • City of Nulato, AK - water plant/washeteria/school (2012 Woody Biomass Utilization Grant recipient) • Fort Greely, U.S. Army, Delta Junction, AK More Information Daniel Parrent, Program Manager–Biomass Utilization & Forest Stewardship, USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry, Alaska Region, (907) 743-9467, djparrent@fs.fed.us. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 37 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT B-2: • Resolution 2470 – authorization the application for and acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, for wood energy projects that require engineering services. • Resolution 2471 – comments on the U.S. Forest Service Five Year review of its 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan • Resolution 2505-Amended – authorization the application for and of a grant from AEA for construction of wood energy projects at the Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. 2470 A Resolution Of The Assembly Of The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Authorizing The Application For And Acceptance Of A Grant From The U.S. Department Of Agriculture, Forest Service, State And Private Forestry, For Wood Energy Projects That Require Engineering Services RECITALS WHEREAS, t h e U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, and State and Private Forestry (S&PF), offer grants for wood energy projects that require engineering services; and WHEREAS , at this time, the Ketch i kan Gateway Borough (Borough) and Ketchikan Gateway Borough School D istrict (Sc hool District) do not have the means to fund the professional engineering services needed to begin upgrades to the currently aged systems, and without professional engineering design/ it limits the ability to secure Federal, State or private funding; and WHEREAS, in 2012, CTA Architects Engineers and Lars Construction Management Service conducted the Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems funded by the Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service for the School District, showing support for a wood biomass heating system ·at the Ketchikan High School; and WHEREAS, i n 2012, Devany Plentovich with Alaska Energy Authority conducted the Wood Heat Pre-Feasibility Assessment at the Ketchikan Internationa l Airport, showing support in moving forward with seeking grant funds to implement wood heat at the facility; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Ketchikan International Airport and the Ketc hika n High School were the best candidates for replacing the existing boilers with biomass heating alternatives; and WHEREAS, supplementing with biomass energy will help preserve hydroelectric resources . As the Southeast Integrated Resource Plan clearly pointed out, all of the region 's hydroelectric supp lies are th reatened by runaway load growth brought about by rapidly increasi ng oil prices, which are stimu lating a dramatic shift to electric heat. If this load growth continues, Ketchikan Public Utilities will have little choice but to increase rates to match the price of heating oil, thus tethering the e lectric rates to the future price of oil ; and WHEREAS , the Borough is presently pursuing economic development opportunities such as the construction of a mi ll by Heatherdale on Gravina Island for the processing of ore from the Resolution No. 2470 Page 2 prospective Niblack Mine. Such opportunities require a reliable source of energy at a reasonable cost. The proposed wood biomass heating systems upgrades appear to be particularly promising in terms of conserving the futur e electrical needs of Ketchikan; and WHEREAS, b iomass ene rgy production offers abu ndant opportuniti es to create new, economica lly rewarding and env i ronmentally susta i nable year-roundjobs in Ketchikan sourcing energy from local sources, and will keep local dolla rs circulating within Ketchikan 's economy; and WHEREAS, as the biomass energy industry m atures in Ketchikan, there is every rea son l o expect broader benefits to the community. Residents and facility owners will have o n e more opt ion for h eati n g their homes/facilities, hopefu lly at a lower cost than the current ly ava il able optio n s. NOW, THEREFORE , IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH as follows: Section 1 . The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly hereby authorizes the Borough Ma n ager to apply for and accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv ic e, and State and Private Forest ry fo r a w o od energy project w h ic h requ i res engi n eering services. Section 2 . This resolution is effective immediately. ADOPTED this 18th d ay of March, 2013. ~ EFFECTIVE DATE: M ARCH 18, 2013 Kiffer, Borough M ayor ROLLCALL YES NO ABSE NT Bai ley .J M oran .J Painter .J Ka cie Paxton, Bo i ough Clerk """" Phillips .J Rotecki .J APPROVED AS TO FORM : Van Horn .J Thompson .J Mayor (tie votes only) 4 AFFI RMATIVE VOTES REQUI RED FOR PASSAGE 7 Scott A. Brandt-Erichsen, Bo rough Attorney KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. 2471-Amended A Resolution of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Providing Comment on the U.S. Forest Service Five Year Review of its 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan RECITAL A. WHEREAS, the U.S. Forest Service 2008 Tongass Land & Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) evaluates its implementation five years after issuance to determine if the Forest Plan needs to be adjusted; and B. WHEREAS, the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (Assembly) encourages changes to the Forest Plan as reflected by this resolution to better facilitate the interests of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (Borough) and the goals of the Forest Plan; and C. WHEREAS, the Assembly encourages the Forest Plan to reflect a comprehensive perspective of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough that recognizes the relationship of the resources and the residents so that the Forest Plan works with, not against the economic and recreational interests of the residents and businesses of the Borough; and D. WHEREAS, the suggested amendments to the Forest Plan proposed by this resolution are compatible with the goals of the Forest Plan and are keeping with the best interests of both the U.S. Forest Service and the residents and businesses of the Borough. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THEKETCHIKAN GATWAY BOROUGH as follows: Section 1. Amend the Land Use Designation for Special Interest Areas. Connell Lake is identified in the Forest Plan Land Use Designation map as a Special Interest Area defined as Preserve areas with unique archeological, historicat scenic, geological, botanical, or zoological values. Fish Habitat Planning is identified in the Forest Plan as a permitted activity within the Special Interest Area and provides for the goal of restoring and maintaining fish production in the State of Alaska to optimum sustained yield levels and in a manner that adequately ensures protection, preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation of the Wilderness resource. Fish Habitat Planning is Resolution No. 2471-Amended Page 2 of4 further identified within the Forest Plan to provide improvements such as fishways, fish hatcheries, or aquaculture sites may be built. Appropriate landscape management techniques will be applied in the design and construction of such improvements to reduce impacts on recreational resources and scenery. The Assembly encourages the addition of a specific use designation for fish pens within the Special Interest Area, facilitating the use of Connell Lake by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association for salmon stock pens. Section 2. Inclusion of Biomass as a use designated by the Land Use Designation. The Forest Plan is silent on the use of the forest resource for regional biomass energy, a critical economic opportunity for the region. The Assembly hereby encourages that the Forest Plan be amended to include the use of the forest resource for local biomass as an energy source and a commercial industry for the region. Section 3. Recognize the Impacts of the Roadless Designation within the Land Use Designation. The Forest Plan's goal for management of the forest resource in the twelve areas designated by the Land Use Designation in a roadless state is to retain their wild-land character. The Forest Plan amends the previous Tongass Land Management Plan, which was approved in 1997 and incorporates the 2003 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations and 26 non-significant amendments. It entirely replaces the 1997 Plan, as of the effective date of this revised Plan. The Assembly encourages that the Forest Plan recognize the economic impacts created with the establishment of the "Roadless Rule" and the negative impacts incurred by the restrictive access to critical resources within the Borough. Section 4. Incorporate Lake Grace Hydropower into the Forest Plan. lake Grace has the potential to produce much needed hydropower to the southern southeast region of Alaska and should be incorporated into the Forest Plan. The Assembly encourages an amendment of the Forest Plan that reflects uses that provide sustainable, renewable, and affordable energy to Alaskans. Section 5. Recognition of the Vallenar Bay Road. The Vallenar Bay Road provides access for marketable timber sales, as well as access to residential properties that currently do not have roaded access. Access to the timber for harvest would provide significant economic benefit to the Borough residents. The Assembly encourages the U.S. Forest Service to amend the Forest Plan to recognize the proposed Vallenar Bay Road and include it on the land Use Designation Map. Resolution No. 2471-Amended Page 3 of 4 Section 6. The Assembly supports the efforts of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHT) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) that resulted in the proposed land exchange document dated September 4, 2012. The proposed land swap will provide much needed timber harvest activity for the southern southeast region economy. Section 7. Blank Inlet Land Access Route. The Assembly encourages recognition of a land access route from the Gravina Highway on Gravina Island to Blank Inlet on Gravina Island within the Forest Plan. The Assembly encourages the U.S. Forest Service to amend the Forest Plan to recognize a land access route to Blank Inlet. Land access to this area provides economic and recreational opportunities important to the Borough. Section 8. Access to the Misty Fjords National Monument, Traitors Cove Viewing Observatory. U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski wrote the U.S. Forest Service on March 22, 2013, expressing concern about the reduction of permits to the Misty Fjords Monument. The Assembly supports Senator Murkowski's position and encourages the U.S. Forest Service to amend the Forest Plan to include the use of recreation on the Land Use Designation map around Traitors Cove and the areas currently permitted for the Misty Fjords National Monument. Section 9. Renewable Energy Resource Plan. A Renewable Energy Resource Plan, including a Renewable Energy Resource Development LUD, should be added to the Forest Plan to promote and support all forms of renewable energy development (including geothermal) and related transmission lines within the Tongass National Forest consistent with Public Laws and National Security and National Energy Policies. The Renewable Energy Development LUD would take precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable laws) regardless of whether the underlying LUD is an "Avoidance LUD" or not. As such, it would represent a "window" through the underlying LUD through which renewable resources could be accessed and developed. Section 10. Federal Lands. The Assembly hereby requests the federal government to turn all federal lands over to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Section 11. Public comment provided. The Assembly hereby provides comment to address the U.S. Forest Service 2008 Tongass Land & Resource Management Plan; affirms its position for amending the Forest Plan; and strongly urges that the Land Use Designations be changed to accommodate the uses identified herein. Section 12. Distribution of Resolution. The borough manager shall provide a copy of Resolution 2471 to Federal and State legislative representatives of Alaska. Resolution No. 2471-Amended Page 4of4 Section13. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Adopted this lih day of June, 2013. er, Borough Mayor Bailey ...; Moran ...; Painter ...; Phillips ...; Rotecki ...; Thompson " Van Horn ...; Mayor (tie votes only) APPROVED AS TO FORM: i?ftttlltd~ Scott A Brandt-Erichsen, Borough Attorney Mr. Forrest Cole Forest Supervisor Tongass National Forest 648 Mission Street, Federal Building Ketchikan, Alaska 9960 l-6591 Dear Mr. Cole: March 22, 2013 I am writing to express concern about and to ask for reconsideration of U.S. Forest Service plans to reduce permit allocations for air taxi operators to visit parts of Misty F:iords National Monument and to take passengers to the Traitors Cove Bear Viewing Observatory, north of Ketchikan. With timber production so dramatically reduced from the Tongass National Forest, tourism income has become increasingly vital for the region's economy. As the most recent economic study of tourism prepared for the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development by The McDowell Group this year makes abundantly clear, tourism in 2011-12 made up 21 percent of Southeast's employment and 15 percent of its payroll. The 1.06 million visitors that came to Southeast Alaska out of the 1.82 million that visited Alaska in 2011- 12 produced l 0,200 jobs and $524 million in direct spending in Southeast, generating $1 billion of economic activity in the region. But tor tourism to continue its role in fueling the region's economy, tourists must have interesting activities to do and sights to see and the Forest Service reductions in permit allocations threaten that base tor the future. Misty f~ords obviously is only accessible by water or by air and yet the Forest Service is starting to treat tourism to the monument as if it was accessible by car or by foot. More than 99 percent of Misty Fjords visitors tour by floatplane. But by proposing to reduce the number of floatplane lake landings by 20 to 30 percent for 2013, the move threatens to shift floatplanes into greater numbers of saltwater landings that will increase conflicts with tour boats and private vessels, or will reduce tourism activities in the southern reaches of the national forest. Since the Forest Service charges $5.15 per passenger per landing, the reduction in allowable lake landings will curb Forest Service revenues from commercial operators. But, more importantly, it will curb revenues to Ketchikan tour operators by up to $700,000 a year. If the reductions were justified by either widespread visitor complaints about such levels diminishing the recreational experience or by impacts on wildlife, the r·eduction might be justified. But there is little anecdotal evidence that visitors are shying away from floatplane visits because of overuse of the monument's lakes tor tloatplane tours or because of wildlife population reductions. The reduction in such tour business in the past two summers appears largely the result of weather patterns that have resulted, because of colder than normal winters and "rainier" summers, in the later melting of lakes, which have shortened the summer season June 17,2013 Borough Assembly Packet Page 170 of 264 and thus reduced tourism usage. But a reduction in the number of lake landing permits below the 10,592 permitted for 10 Ketchikan operators as recently as 2011 will only harm the economy when more normal weather conditions return to the southern Panhandle. For Traitors Cove, the Forest Service permitted 3,436 floatplane passenger visits a year in 2005, a number that has been gradually reduced to where only 2,122 are proposed for this summer. While the Service may argue that the reduction is needed because of a reduction in bears that have visited the observatory, the more likely reason tor the reduction in bears showing up at the site is nol because of visitor-caused disturbance but because the Alaska Board of Game allowed bear hunting in the area bet ween the late 1990s and 2010. Now that the Board of Game has slightly increased the protected area that bars bear hunting around the bear viewing area, the number of bears visible at the site increased in 201 2. But the 38 percent reduction in visitor access-a reduction in "service days" of 1,314 for floatplane operators to land at the Cove--has reduced tourism income to Ketchikan operators by nearly $480,000 a year. Given that Ketchikan-based tour operators have traditionally not been favored in the allocation of permits to the Anan Creek bear viewing site further north- Wrangell-based operators have been -there is no way for Ketchikan operators to conveniently offset their revenue losses. Again, if wildlif:C preservation was the driving factor in the decision, it might well make sense. But local operators argue that hunting pressures and not tourist pressures were likely the cause in bear avoidance at Traitors Cove in the past decade-an argument bolstered by increased bear numbers and viewing experiences last summer. I ask that the Forest Service reconsider its proposed reductions in floatplane permit allocatjons ior both lake landings in Misty Fjords and for access to the Traitors Cove Bear Viewing Observatory and that the Service take into greater consideration weather impacts and other pressures on wildlii:C in making its visitor permit allocations-at least until more years of data arc available that would support the need for the proposed permit reductions. Clearly if overpopulation of tourists at natural attractions are ei lher harming wildlife or lessening the tourist experience, then permit reductions may make sense to avoid damaging the very reason why visitors come to Alaska. But there is scant evidence that that is the case currently in southern Southeast. But a reduction of nearly 4,500 visitor excursions in the southern Panhandle will clearly harm the local tourism economy and the tax base of municipal government. Given that local governments in Alaska in 20 ll-12 received $71.1 million in revenues from tour operations --Ketchikan leading the state in municipal dockage/moorage revenues --cutting popular attractions tor some 4,500 visitors a year, may over time harm the local economy, not counting reducing Forest Service revenues at a time of increasing budget pressures. I hope you will reconsider these proposed reductions as quickly as possible. Sincerely, js United States Senator June 17, 2013 Borough Assembly Packet Page 171 of 264 Request to Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly June 17th, 2013 Submitted by: Jason Custer-Technical Writer, Alaska Power & Telephone Company Contact: 907-617-3773 or Jason.c@aptalaska.com Request: Please add the following section to Ketchikan Gateway Borough Resolution No. 2471, or similar language addressing the need to include all potential renewable energy projects, of all types within the Tongass National Forest Plan: Section X [INSERT NUMBER]. Include a Renewable Energy Resource Plan, Including a Renewable Energy Resource Development Land Use Designation, within the Forest Plan -A Renewable Energy Resource Plan, including a Renewable Energy Resource Development LUD, should be added to the Forest Plan to promote and support all forms of renewable energy development (including geothermal) and related transmission lines within the Tongass National Forest consistent with Public Laws and National Security and National Energy Policies. The Renewable Energy Development LUD would take precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable laws) regardless of whether the underlying LUD is an "Avoidance LUD" or not. As such, it would represent a "window" through the underlying LUD through which renewable resources could be accessed and developed; and Justification: Ketchikan Gateway Borough's proposed Resolution No. 2471 requests that biomass and the Grace Lake hydroelectric project be incorporated into the Forest Plan. While these opportunities are certainly important to our region, it is also important to consider the hundreds of additional renewable energy resources within the Tongass National Forest, which also have significant potential for future development for the benefit of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, and other Southeast Alaskan communities. These projects can provide affordable, locally-produced renewable energy to help meet local energy needs, and support economic growth in energy-intensive mining, technology, and other sectors which create jobs, tax revenue, and local spending within the Ketchikan region's economy. Southeast Conference, the Alaska Miner's Association, Chamber of Commerce organizations, and others are all supporting the concept of including a Renewable Energy LUD within the TLMP. The approach and language described above is consistent with action currently being considered and undertaken by these entities. Thanks for your consideration, and all of your hard work in support of Ketchikan! Kacie Paxton From: Sent: To: Kacie Paxton [kaciep@kgbak.us] Monday, June 17, 2013 2:21 PM 'Mayor and Assembly (OMA format)' Cc: Subject: 'Dan Bockhorst'; 'Scott Brandt-Erichsen'; 'Tom williams' FW: Renewable Energy Request--TLMP LUD Attachments: RE LUD for Ketchikan Borough.pdf From: Dan Bockhorst [mailto:danb@kgbak.us] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:59 PM To: Tom Williams Cc: Scott Brandt-Erichsen; 'Cynna Gubatayao'; Kacie Paxton Subject: FW: Renewable Energy Request--TLMP LUD From: Jason Custer [mailto:jason.c@aptalaska.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: Renewable Energy Request --TLMP LUD Mayor Kiffer and Borough Assembly Members. Greetings from Alaska Power & Telephone. Tonight the Borough is scheduled to consider adopting a resolution (No. 2471) commenting on the USFS Tongass Land Management Plan. The Borough's draft resolution addresses renewable energy potential by requesting that the USFS include: 1) Grace Lake hydro, and 2) a land-use designation for biomass within the Forest Plan. While these are important opportunities, I believe that it is vital to request that the USFS include a land use designation (LUD) for all renewable energy projects within the Tongass National Forest. In doing so, you would be joining with other entities including SE Conference, the Alaska Miners Association, Alaska Power & Telephone Company, and Chamber of Commerce organizations in our region, who are also calling for a Renewable Energy LUD. The attached document includes suggested language for inclusion in the resolution, and would address the opportunity to create a Renewable Energy LUD by using language similar to that being used by other entities. Thanks so much for your consideration, and your hard work. 1 From: Jason Custer Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:33 PM To: 'boroclerk@kgbak.us' Subject: TLMP Renewable Energy Request Hello Kacie. I was hoping you could please make the following request available on the table for consideration by the Borough Assembly members tonight. (Attached.) I think that it is very important that the Borough consider joining with Alaska Power & Telephone, SE Conference, the Alaska Miners' Association, and other entities in requesting that the USFS revise the Tongass Land Management Plan to include a plan for use of .2!1 renewable energy resources within the Tongass National Forest. Thank you! Jason Custer Technical Writer Alaska Power & Telephone E: Jason.C@aptalaska.corh W: 907-225-1950 X 33 C: 907-617-3773 136 Misty Marie Lane Ketchikan, AK 99901 www.aptalaska.com CONRDEN71ALITY N071CE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in erro~ please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure/ copying/ distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 2 KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. 2505-AMENDED A Resolution of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Authorizing the Application for and Acceptance of a Grant of up to $4,000,000 from the Alaska Energy Authority for Construction of Wood Energy Projects at the Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School RECITALS WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority offers grants for construction of wood energy projects; and WHEREAS, in 2012, CTA Architects Engineers and Lars Construction Management Service conducted the Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems funded by the Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service for the School District, showing support for a wood biomass heating system at the Ketchikan High School; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Ketchikan International Airport and the Ketchikan High School were the best candidates for replacing the existing boilers with biomass heating alternatives; and WHEREAS, supplementing Ketchikan's needs with biomass energy will help preserve hydroelectric resources. As the Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan clearly pointed out, all of the region's hydroelectric supplies are threatened by runaway load growth brought about by rapidly increasing oil prices, which are stimulating a dramatic shift to electric heat. If this load growth continues, Ketchikan Public Utilities will have little choice but to increase rates to match the price of heating oil, thus tethering the electric rates to the future price of oil; and WHEREAS, the Borough is presently pursuing economic development opportunities such as the construction of a mill by Heatherdale on Gravina Island for the processing of ore from the prospective Niblack Mine. Such opportunities require a reliable source of energy at a reasonable cost. The proposed wood biomass heating systems upgrades appear to be particularly promising in terms of conserving the future electrical resources of Ketchikan; and· WHEREAS, Ketchikan Public Utilities promotes alternatives to electrical and oil heating systems and supports options such as renewable biomass; and supports the Ketchikan International Airport and any other municipal buildings converting to a biomass heating system; and WHEREAS, biomass energy production offers abundant opportunities to create new, economically rewarding, and environmentally sustainable year-round jobs in Ketchikan by Resolution No. 2505-Amended Page 2 utilizing energy from local sources, and will keep local dollars circulating within Ketchikan's economy; and WHEREAS, as the biomass energy industry matures in Ketchikan, there is every reason to expect broader benefits to the community. Residents and facility owners will have one more option for heating their homes/facilities, hopefully at a lower cost than the currently available options. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH as follows: Section 1. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly hereby authorizes the Borough Manager to apply for, accept, be the contact point for, and commit the Borough to the obligations of a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority for construction of wood energy projects at the Ketchikan International Airport and Ketchikan High School. Section 2. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough will provide the matching funds of up to 20% of the total project costs from sources including grants previously awarded to the Ketchikan International Airport for infrastructure and renovations and reconstruction, and from the School CIP fund. Section 3. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough certifies that it is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including existing credit and tax obligations . ..Section 4.: The Assembly hereby declares its strong commitment to completing these projects and to accomplish the objectives set out in the recitals. Section 5. This resolution is effective immediately. OP ED this 16th day of September, 2013. /-EFFECTIVE DATE: Van Horn Kacie Paxton, B rough Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor (tie votes only) Scott A. Brandt-Erichsen, Borough Attorney MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH AND THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING A PILOT PROJECT FOR INSTALLATION AND USE OF A WOOD BOILER AT NORTH POINT HIGGINS SCHOOL RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Superintendant has advised the Borough Manager that the District has the opportunity to conduct a pilot project testing the suitability of a wood boiler for space heating at the North Point Higgins Elementary School building, and B. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Superintendant has advised the Borough Manager that the District has received a proposal to conduct a pilot project testing the suitability of a wood boiler for space heating at North Point Higgins Elementary School building. The District recognizes that there may be additional parties with an interest in conducting a pilot wood boiler test; and C. WHEREAS, the proposed wood boiler pilot project will require installation of modular equipment and connection to the existing North Point Higgins School heating infrastructure; and D. WHEREAS, the installation and integration of the proposed wood boiler pilot project is estimated to be greater than $50,000 in work on a school facility; and E. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District and the Borough have previously identified $50,000 as a threshold beyond which a project will be considered major maintenance or rehabilitation to a school facility; and F. WHEREAS, AS 14.14.060(f) and Section 05.60.040(a) of the Borough Code provide that the Borough Assembly, through the Borough Manager, shall provide for all major rehabilitation, construction, and major repair of school buildings; and G. WHEREAS, AS 14.14.060(i) and Section 05.60.040(a) of the Borough Code provide that Borough Assembly and the Borough School Board may reallocate the duties imposed under AS 14.14.060(f) and Section 05.60.040(a) of the Borough Code by agreement between the Borough Assembly and Borough School Board; and H. WHEREAS, the Assembly desires to alter the responsibilities in AS 14.14.060(f) and Section 05.60.040(a) of the Borough Code such that the Borough School District shall be responsible for major rehabilitation, construction, and major repair of school buildings with respect to the proposed wood boiler pilot project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PURPOSE: This Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) outlines the terms under which the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (Borough) agrees to authorize the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District (District) to manage all aspects for major rehabilitation, construction, and major repair of school buildings with respect to the proposed wood boiler pilot project for space heating at the North Point Higgins Elementary School building. SECTION 2. TITLE OF PROJECT: The Project shall be identified as the "Wood Boiler Pilot Project." SECTION 3. AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: This Agreement shall be effective upon: execution of this Agreement by the Manager of the Borough and the Superintendent of the District; Ketchikan Gateway Borough Dan Bockhorst Borough Manager 1900 First Avenue, Suite 210 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Robert A. Boyle, Superintendent 333 Schoenbar Road Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 SECTION 4. AGREEMENT TERMINATION DATE: This agreement shall be terminated upon the first to occur of either completion of the Wood Boiler Pilot Project and removal of the pilot equipment or June 30, 2015. SECTION 5. LIMITATIONS ON SCOPE: The parties recognize that the Borough has the authority and duty to provide for all major rehabilitation, construction, and major repair of school buildings, but that the Borough Assembly and the Borough School Board may reallocate the duties imposed under AS 14.14.060(f) and Section 05.60.040(a) of the Borough Code by this Agreement. Further the parties desire that such delegation of authority and duty be given to the District for the Wood Boiler Pilot Project for the School District. This delegation is strictly limited to this project, and the division of the responsibility and authority for all other major rehabilitation, construction and major repair projects will remain as provided in AS 14.14.060 and KGB Code 5.60.035-5.60.040. SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOROUGH: The Borough shall: A. Cooperate with the District concerning any information required to conduct the project. B. Participate with the District in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Project. SECTION 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT: The District shall: A. Develop a request for proposals for firms to provide services for a pilot project testing the suitability of a wood boiler for space heating at the North Point Higgins Elementary School Building. B. Provide the Biomass Committee and the Assembly with the opportunity to review and comment on the RFP prior to advertising for proposals. C. Select the methodology to accomplish the projects; D. Engage a construction contractors as necessary; E. Supervise the design and installation of the project, including aesthetics and contingency plans for addressing any air quality complaints; F. Supervise the construction of the project; G. Provide any funds required to pay for heat provided by the project at a rate not to exceed the rates per BTU currently negotiated through the Borough and School District joint bulk fuel contract; H. Take responsibility for any costs arising in connection with the project I. Ensure that a suitable agreement is in place with the equipment provider and operator to protect the District and the Borough from liability for damages to persons or the School Facilities due to installation or operation of the pilot project. J. The Borough must be included as an additional insured on any insurance policy required for this purpose. K. Ensure that the agreement with the equipment provider and operator provides for restoration of the North Point Higgins Facility to its original condition upon completion of the project at no cost to the Borough or District. L. Ensure that upon completion of the Project the North Point Higgins facility is restored to its original condition, unless the District first make separate arrangements for the wood boiler to remain in place indefinitely, and to become part of the school facilities routinely maintained by the District; M. Comply with the terms of all laws governing the expenditure of funds including, but not limited to, the provisions in Titles 14 and 36 of the Alaska Statutes; and N. Provide the Borough with a copy of all agreements that the District enters into regarding the projects listed in the agreement. SECTION 8. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason, prior to its expiration date on ninety days' written notice to the other party. SECTION 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Borough and the District as to the matters stated herein. It supersedes all prior oral and written understandings and agreements as to such matters. It may be amended, supplemented, modified or canceled only by a duly executed written instrument. It shall bind the Borough and the District, its successors, executors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives. DATED the day and year last written below. Date: ___________ Date: ___ _ Dan R. Bockhorst, KGB Manager Ketchikan Gateway Borough Attest: By: _____________ _ Kacie Paxton Borough Clerk Robert A. Boyle, Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Superintendent Approved as to Form: By: ______________________ __ Scott A. Brandt-Erichsen Borough Attorney BOROUGH ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) Certified Funds Available: By: __________________ _ Mike Houts Finance Director THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 2013, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Dan Bockhorst to me known to be the Borough Manager of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, a municipal corporation, the corporation which executed the above and foregoing instrument; who on oath stated that he was duly authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of said corporation; who acknowledged to me that he signed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in the certificate first above written. (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ALASKA My Commission Expires: STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of ,2013, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Kacie Paxton to me known to be the Borough Clerk of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, a municipal corporation, the corporation which executed the above and foregoing instrument; who on oath stated that she was duly authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of said corporation; who acknowledged to me that she signed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in the certificate first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ALASKA (Seal) My Commission Expires: ____ _ DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 2013, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Robert A. Boyle to me known to be the Superintendent of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District, which executed the above and foregoing instrument; who on oath stated that he was duly authorized to execute said instrument on behalf of the District; who acknowledged to me that he signed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of the District for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in the certificate first above written. (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ALASKA My Commission Expires: Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 38 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT B-3: Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan, high School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February, 2015 by Wisewood, Inc. Option B-2 is the current system proposed to be installed. Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation Ketchikan, Alaska February 2015 Prepared for: Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District 333 Schoenbar Road | Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 | (907) 225-2118 and Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 1st Avenue | Ketchikan, Alaska 99901| (907) 228-6625 Prepared by: ! Wisewood, Inc. 2409 N Kerby Avenue Portland, OR 97227 Tel. (503) 608-7366 Fax. (503) 715-0483 Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! 1 Summary This brief report describes the Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Biomass Boiler Installation at Ketchikan High School. The goal of the report is to give the School District and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough the information they need to choose the most cost effective and functional biomass boiler system for Ketchikan High School (KHS). The key message of the report is that a 2,500 MBH pellet boiler housed in a pre- fabricated modular metal building and located behind the mechanical room in the area between the gymnasium, mechanical room, and school building represents the boiler option with the highest likelihood of generating the best return on investment of the four options studied. 2 Baseline Energy Analysis and Fuel Requirements In order to derive the optimum boiler size for the project, Wisewood utilized energy data available from the KHS staff, as well as data acquired directly from a series of sensors and data loggers that were placed on the boiler and allowed to continuously log data from 9/18/2014 until 11/7/2014. These data were combined into an energy model that correlates with weather data from the same period to recommend an optimum biomass boiler size, and predicts expected operating costs for the new boiler system. 2.1 Historical Oil Consumption In addition to data acquired directly from the data loggers, historical oil use for the past three years was gathered from school staff. A table of historical oil use is shown below. Table 1. Historical oil use of Ketchikan High School Year Gallons MMBtu 2011 110,896 15,414 2012 81,483 11,326 2013 89,158 12,393 Average 93,846 11,952 In addition to historical oil consumption, the electrical energy consumed by the oil boilers was estimated from total KHS electric use in order to make a more accurate comparison of operating costs between the existing oil system and the new Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! biomass system. The 3 year average cost of oil is approximately $322,000 per year at $3.43 per gallon. The details of the energy analysis are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Boiler Efficiency and Operating Schedule Using the fuel use data provided, combined with direct data acquisition from a series of sensors that were placed on the boilers and mechanical equipment, Wisewood estimates a net boiler efficiency of 72% for the existing oil boilers. This efficiency rate is used in the energy model to estimate the actual net heat input required by the building. The Siemens DDC system for the school is programmed to operate the boiler for 18 hours per day, and the data logger graph (shown below) of the burner ON/OFF on the boiler confirms this. In the graph, the blue continuous line represents temperature (°F) and corresponds to the scale on the left of the chart. The rectilinear purple line represents the oil burner ON/OFF cycle (up is on, down is off) and shows the periods throughout a typical day that the burner is firing and consuming oil. The scale at the bottom of the graph shows hours in a single representative day. Figure 1. Operating schedule of existing control system at Ketchikan High School 2.3 Biomass Boiler Sizing The salient factor governing biomass boiler performance is the size of the boiler (boiler output) in relation to the heat demand curve of the building. If the output requirements of a biomass boiler are estimated using traditional methods, which are based on oil and gas boilers, it will likely be oversized. Oversized boilers cycle frequently at moderate to low heat loads, which is not a problem for oil and gas boilers, but is a major problem for solid fuel boilers, which cannot turn their burners on and off quickly. Solid fuel boilers therefore end up smoldering for much of the heating season or, in extreme cases, not operating at all due to an inability to sustain a flame at low outputs. Ensuring that the size of the biomass boiler is precisely fit to the anticipated heating curve, and especially avoiding an oversized boiler, is a fundamental practice of biomass boiler system design. Wisewood’s energy model is designed to generate Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! an optimal biomass boiler size and indicates that a ~2,500 MBH boiler is ideal for KHS. The KHS project posed an interesting design challenge in that there is sufficient space inside the existing boiler room to house a biomass boiler, but there is only just enough space. Wisewood initially modeled a smaller biomass boiler (1,840 MBH), which was the largest boiler that could fit in the boiler room without having to modify the existing flue gas ducting of the existing oil boilers, although it still requires significant structural modifications for boiler placement and fuel handling equipment. This smaller boiler was termed Boiler 1, and the larger, ideally sized boiler, termed Boiler 2. Placing Boiler 2 (2,460 MBH) inside the existing boiler room would require the same demolition as boiler option 1, plus the added cost of rerouting the existing oil boiler flue gas ducting. 3 Boiler Location In order to derive the most cost effective overall system design for KHS, Wisewood modeled the placement of two boiler models (1 & 2) in two locations (A & B), for a total of four (4) options for comparison. The two boiler placement options considered were as follows: 1) Location A: In the existing boiler room 2) Location B: In a new structure located in the space between the mechanical room, school and gymnasium Table 2. Overview of boiler options considered Boiler 1 (1,840 MBH) Boiler 2 (2,460 MBH) Location A: Existing Boiler Room Option A1 Option A2 Location B: New Structure Option B1 Option B2 3.1 Existing Boiler Room Options A1 and A2 are located in the existing mechanical room. In both cases significant alterations are needed to move the boiler into place, enable fuel feeding while not disrupting foot traffic patterns, and maintain sufficient access to facilitate cleaning of the boiler tubes. Drawings M1.0, M1.1, M1.2, M2.0, M2.1 and M2.2 detail the extent of the potential demolition and alterations that could be needed to place the biomass boiler in the existing boiler room. These options are described further below. Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! 3.1.1 Option A1 Option A1 is designed to minimize the disruption to the existing boiler room by choosing a boiler size that maximizes output while minimizing footprint. This option would result in very little disruption to the overall foot traffic pattern of the boiler room, and would not require any major disruptions to the existing flue gas system. It would, however, require extensive civil/structural alterations. In order to not block access to the front of the existing boilers, the pellet feed auger is recessed into the floor. If blocking passage in front of the boilers were acceptable, a less expensive option would be to simply auger directly from the pellet silo into the feed auger of the pellet boiler, which could be located on either side of the boiler. This would obstruct passage with a pellet auger at waist height. Because some demolition will be required to get the boiler into the boiler room, whether by enlarging the door or by creating a new opening, Option A1, which includes a new overhead door in front of the boiler to facilitate boiler cleaning and long-term boiler access, is designed to maximize operator comfort. 3.1.2 Option A2 Option A2 is the same as Option A1, but using a larger 2,460 MBH boiler. This will entail the same amount of structural alterations as the Option A1, but may also require rerouting the existing oil flue gas ducting in order to make sufficient space available for the larger boiler and a multi-cyclone unit. 3.2 New Structure The alternative to placing the boiler in the existing boiler room is to place the boiler in a pre-fabricated and pre-plumbed “modular mechanical room” that would be located in the large rectangular “dead space” between the existing boiler room the school buildings and gymnasium, as shown in drawing M0.0. This option would result in the least overall disruption to traffic flow in the mechanical room and would involve the least amount of demolition and retrofitting, in comparison to either Option A1 or A2. 3.2.1 Option B1 Option B1 utilizes a smaller (1,850 MBH) boiler in the modular mechanical room. This option is only slightly less expensive than Option B2, and leaves a significant remaining oil bill. 3.2.2 Option B2 Option B2 places a larger boiler (2,460 MBH) in a modular mechanical room that is slightly larger than Option B1. This option is shown to generate the quickest payback and is therefore the most cost effective concept. Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! 3.3 Cost Effectiveness The Borough was clear at the outset that it would like to ensure that the design that is implemented is the most cost effective possible. Wisewood analyzed the relative simple payback of each of the four design concepts. This comparison was accomplished by dividing the capital expenditure (CapEx) anticipated for each of the boiler options by the net operating expenditure (OpEx) savings anticipated for each design. The CapEx figures are derived from the cost estimates provided in Appendix B and the OpEx savings figures are derived from the operating cost provided in Appendix C. Table 3. Capital expenditure (CapEx) and estimated operating expenditure (OpEx) savings Boiler Option CapEx OpEx Savings Simple Payback (Years) Option A1 $1,279,000 $106,840 12.0 Option A2 $1,447,000 $121,257 11.9 Option B1 $1,148,000 $106,840 10.7 Option B2 $1,251,000 $121,257 10.3 ! 3.4 Cost Uncertainty In order to communicate the level of certainty that exists in the cost estimates, Wisewood created a statistical model that compares the cost estimate categories for each boiler option. In short, the cost estimates are only estimates, and are provided to offer guidance to the Borough as to the relative costs of each design option. They are not a substitute for actual bids from qualified contractors, and the final costs for each project will not be known until the project is let out for bid. The cost uncertainty analysis is provided in Appendix D. 4 Fuel Storage and Handling The wood pellet production and distribution infrastructure in Ketchikan is in a nascent stage. There is an existing pellet producer in town - Tongass Forest Enterprises - who manufactures wood pellets from sawdust generated by their millwork shop. There has also been discussion of bringing larger quantities of pellets via barge from industrial-scale mills located nearby in Canada. Because the demand of a new 2,460 MBH pellet boiler is substantial (706 tons per year), a large volume of storage is recommended in order to ensure supply throughout the winter, while offering flexibility as to the size and frequency of each individual pellet delivery. The design goal was a month of storage at peak demand Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! (December). Boiler placement Option A, with three smaller silos, provides three weeks of fuel at peak demand. Boiler placement Option B provides 4.6 weeks with two larger silos. The large storage requirements necessitate multiple silos in each case. If the storage requirements can be decreased to two weeks of supply, one silo can be removed form each design, which will lower the overall project cost commensurately. Table 4. Silo capacity for a 2,460 MBH boiler at location options A and B Boiler Placement Option A B Silo Diameter (ft) 9 15.5 Silo Capacity (tons) 25 58 Number of Silos 3 2 Total Capacity (tons) 76 116 Design Storage at Peak Consumption (weeks) 3.0 4.6 Fills per year 9.3 6.1 4.1 Wood Chips Wood chips are also an option for KHS, but the space needed to adequately house a wood chip system, as well as to provide adequate access for wood chip deliveries, is not available in either of the two locations currently proposed. The volumetric energy density of the moist wood chips is roughly four times larger than wood pellets, and storing a sufficient quantity of wood chips in the two boiler location options is not practical. 5 Recommendations Given the School District and Borough’s stated goal of implementing the most cost effective option, Wisewood recommends boiler Option B2 (2,460 MBH boiler located in a modular mechanical room that would be located in the space between the existing boiler room the school buildings and gymnasium) as the scenario that has the highest likelihood of delivering maximum return on investment. Once Wisewood receives confirmation of the direction in which the Borough and School District would like to proceed, the detailed design for the boiler option chosen will commence. Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! Appendix A: Energy Models !! All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A1 & B1 Proposed System Analysis Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)1,840 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us $3.43 Energy of heating oil [MBtu/gal]139 Heating oil use [gal/yr]93,845 N/A Energy of propane [MBtu/gal]92 Heating oil cost [$/yr]$299,460 $2.91 Energy per kWh [MBtu/kWh]3.41 Propane use [gal/yr]N/A $0.09 Moisture of wood pellets [% MC WB]10%Propane cost [$/yr]N/A $250.00 Energy of bone dry wood [MBtu/ton]16,400 Heating electricity use [kWh/yr]0 Energy of actual biomass [MBtu/ton]14,760 Heating electricity cost [$/yr]$0 Total energy input [MMBtu/yr]13,044 Wood Pellets Fuel type Heating Oil Efficiency gains [via EEMs]0% 4 Max. electrical demand [kW]1.4 Total load carried by wood, as %84.1% 2.6 Average electrical demand [kW]1 Operating hours per year 5,850 1,840 Boiler output, high-fire [MBH]4,500 Biomass boiler output [% of peak]56% 230 Boiler output, low-fire [MBH]900 Operating hours per day 18 85%Boiler efficiency 72%Net heat demand [MMBtu/HHD]1.85 627 Oil consumption [gals/yr]14,852 Total fuel consumption [MMBtu/yr]10,614 $156,753 Oil cost [$/yr]$50,976 Total fuel cost [$/yr]$207,729 15,227 Electrical consumption [kWh/yr]5,208 Total electrical consumption [kWh/yr]20,435 $1,394 Electrical use charge [$/yr]$477 Total electrical use charge [$/yr]$1,871 $140 Electrical demand charge [$/yr]$48 Total electrical demand charge [$/yr]$187 September 165 425 305 305 484 20 October 410 1,058 759 759 1,205 51 November 602 1,555 1,115 1,115 1,770 75 December 757 1,954 1,401 1,401 2,225 94 January 647 1,672 1,199 1,199 1,904 80 February 700 1,808 1,296 1,296 2,059 87 March 705 1,821 1,306 1,306 2,073 88 April 512 1,322 948 948 1,505 64 May 271 700 502 502 797 34 June 153 395 283 283 450 19 July 71 183 131 131 208 9 August 58 151 108 108 172 7 Yearly Total 5,049 13,044 9,353 9,353 14,852 627 * Low-fire output includes the use of thermal storage to increase effective boiler system turndown Net oil savings [gal/yr]78,993 Projected trim boiler oil consumption [gal]Month Heating Degree Days [HDD] Current gross fossil energy consumption [MMBtu] Current net space heat energy input [MMBtu] Projected net space heat input after EEMs [MMBtu/mo]Projected wood fuel use [tons] Proposed System Values Fuel type Max. electrical demand [kW] Wood fuel consumption [tons/yr] Wood fuel cost [$/yr] Electrical consumption [kWh/yr] Electrical energy cost [$/yr] Electrical demand charge [$/yr] Proposed Totals Average electrical demand [kW] Boiler output, high-fire [MBH] Boiler output, low-fire* [MBH] Boiler efficiency Proposed Biomass Boiler Consumption and Cost Proposed Trim Boiler Consumption and Cost Fuel Prices Conversion Factors Wood Pellets ($/ton) Proposed Biomass Boiler Specifications Proposed Trim Boiler Specifications Current System Consumption Heating oil cost [$/gal] Propane cost [$/gal] Electricity demand cost [$/kW] Electricity cost [$/kWh] All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A1 & B1 Proposed System Analysis Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)1,840 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 9/1 9/15 9/29 10/13 10/27 11/10 11/24 12/8 12/22 1/5 1/19 2/2 2/16 3/2 3/16 3/30 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 Average Hourly Heat Demand (MBH) Estimated Heat Load Coverage by New Wood Chip-Fired Boiler Calculated Heat Load (MBH) Estimated Biomass Boiler Load Coverage (MBH) All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A1 & B1 Proposed System Analysis Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)1,840 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us Boiler Output [MBH]Fossil Fuel Displaced 84% 1,500 73.2% 1,600 76.7% 1,700 79.9% 1,800 83.0% 1,900 85.6% 2,000 88.0% 2,100 89.9% 2,200 91.7% 2,300 93.3% 2,400 94.4% 2,500 95.4% 2,600 95.9% 2,700 96.4% 2,800 96.6% 2,900 96.7% 3,000 96.8% 3,100 96.8% 3,200 96.8% 3,300 96.6% 3,400 96.5% 3,500 96.4% 3,600 96.2% 3,700 96.0% 3,800 96.0% 3,900 95.6% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 432 864 1,296 1,728 2,160 2,592 3,024 3,456 3,888 4,320 4,752 5,184 5,616 6,048 6,480 Estimated Heat Demand (MBH) Estimated Boiler Operating Hours per Year Estimated Annual Heat Load Coverage by New Wood Chip-Fired Boiler Calculated Heat Load (MBH) Estimated Biomass Boiler Load Coverage (MBH) All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A2 & B2 Proposed System Analysis Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)2,457 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us $3.43 Energy of heating oil [MBtu/gal]139 Heating oil use [gal/yr]93,845 N/A Energy of propane [MBtu/gal]92 Heating oil cost [$/yr]$299,460 $2.91 Energy per kWh [MBtu/kWh]3.41 Propane use [gal/yr]N/A $0.09 Moisture of wood pellets [% MC WB]10%Propane cost [$/yr]N/A $250.00 Energy of bone dry wood [MBtu/ton]16,400 Heating electricity use [kWh/yr]0 Energy of actual biomass [MBtu/ton]14,760 Heating electricity cost [$/yr]$0 Total energy input [MMBtu/yr]13,044 Wood Pellets Fuel type Heating Oil Efficiency gains [via EEMs]0% 4 Max. electrical demand [kW]1.4 Total load carried by wood, as %95.0% 2.2 Average electrical demand [kW]1 Operating hours per year 5,562 2,457 Boiler output, high-fire [MBH]4,500 Biomass boiler output [% of peak]75% 307 Boiler output, low-fire [MBH]900 Operating hours per day 18 85%Boiler efficiency 72%Net heat demand [MMBtu/HHD]1.85 708 Oil consumption [gals/yr]4,700 Total fuel consumption [MMBtu/yr]10,880 $176,999 Oil cost [$/yr]$16,132 Total fuel cost [$/yr]$193,130 12,244 Electrical consumption [kWh/yr]4,187 Total electrical consumption [kWh/yr]16,431 $1,121 Electrical use charge [$/yr]$383 Total electrical use charge [$/yr]$1,504 $140 Electrical demand charge [$/yr]$48 Total electrical demand charge [$/yr]$187 September 165 425 305 305 153 23 October 410 1,058 759 759 381 57 November 602 1,555 1,115 1,115 560 84 December 757 1,954 1,401 1,401 704 106 January 647 1,672 1,199 1,199 602 91 February 700 1,808 1,296 1,296 651 98 March 705 1,821 1,306 1,306 656 99 April 512 1,322 948 948 476 72 May 271 700 502 502 252 38 June 153 395 283 283 142 21 July 71 183 131 131 66 10 August 58 151 108 108 54 8 Yearly Total 5,049 13,044 9,353 9,353 4,700 708 * Low-fire output includes the use of thermal storage to increase effective boiler system turndown Net oil savings [gal/yr]89,145 Current System Consumption Heating oil cost [$/gal] Propane cost [$/gal] Electricity demand cost [$/kW] Electricity cost [$/kWh] Proposed Trim Boiler Consumption and Cost Fuel Prices Conversion Factors Wood Pellets ($/ton) Proposed Biomass Boiler Specifications Proposed Trim Boiler Specifications Proposed System Values Fuel type Max. electrical demand [kW] Wood fuel consumption [tons/yr] Wood fuel cost [$/yr] Electrical consumption [kWh/yr] Electrical energy cost [$/yr] Electrical demand charge [$/yr] Proposed Totals Average electrical demand [kW] Boiler output, high-fire [MBH] Boiler output, low-fire* [MBH] Boiler efficiency Proposed Biomass Boiler Consumption and Cost Projected wood fuel use [tons]Projected trim boiler oil consumption [gal]Month Heating Degree Days [HDD] Current gross fossil energy consumption [MMBtu] Current net space heat energy input [MMBtu] Projected net space heat input after EEMs [MMBtu/mo] All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A2 & B2 Proposed System Analysis Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)2,457 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 9/1 9/15 9/29 10/13 10/27 11/10 11/24 12/8 12/22 1/5 1/19 2/2 2/16 3/2 3/16 3/30 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/25 6/8 6/22 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 8/31 Average Hourly Heat Demand (MBH) Estimated Heat Load Coverage by New Wood Chip-Fired Boiler Calculated Heat Load (MBH) Estimated Biomass Boiler Load Coverage (MBH) All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A2 & B2 Proposed System Analysis Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)2,457 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us Boiler Output [MBH]Fossil Fuel Displaced 95% 1,500 73.2% 1,600 76.7% 1,700 79.9% 1,800 83.0% 1,900 85.6% 2,000 88.0% 2,100 89.9% 2,200 91.7% 2,300 93.3% 2,400 94.4% 2,500 95.4% 2,600 95.9% 2,700 96.4% 2,800 96.6% 2,900 96.7% 3,000 96.8% 3,100 96.8% 3,200 96.8% 3,300 96.6% 3,400 96.5% 3,500 96.4% 3,600 96.2% 3,700 96.0% 3,800 96.0% 3,900 95.6% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 432 864 1,296 1,728 2,160 2,592 3,024 3,456 3,888 4,320 4,752 5,184 5,616 6,048 6,480 Estimated Heat Demand (MBH) Estimated Boiler Operating Hours per Year Estimated Annual Heat Load Coverage by New Wood Chip-Fired Boiler Calculated Heat Load (MBH) Estimated Biomass Boiler Load Coverage (MBH) Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! Appendix B: Cost Estimates !! Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A1 - Existing Mechanical Room Boiler in Existing Boiler Room Cost Summary Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)1,840 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us Workbook Version 4.0.6 Address 2409 N Kerby Avenue Portland, OR 97227 Est. Install Install Install Line % Total Item Description Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Project Construction Costs Civil/Structural 440 -$ 72,000$ 33,000$ 147,000$ 11.5% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance 500 2,000$ 128,000$ 37,000$ 167,000$ 13.1% Biomass Boiler 100 1,000$ 220,000$ 8,000$ 229,000$ 17.9% Piping and Trenching 140 -$ 11,000$ 10,000$ 21,000$ 1.6% Hydronic Equipment 60 -$ 30,000$ 5,000$ 35,000$ 2.7% Mechanical Contractor -$ -$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 1.6% Subtotal: 800 3,000$ 389,000$ 81,000$ 473,000$ 37.0% Electrical 80 -$ 8,000$ 7,000$ 14,000$ 1.1% Permitting 2,000$ 0.1% Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.6% Contingency and Unlisted Items 131,000$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,320 3,000$ 469,000$ 121,000$ 787,000$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs 197,000$ 15.4% Subtotal Construction Costs 984,000$ 76.9% Engineering and Construction Management Costs Engineering and Construction Management Costs 49,000$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium 246,000$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 295,000$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,279,000$ 100.0% All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A1 - Existing Mechanical Room Biomass Boiler Installation Costs Boiler Option Wood Chip Boiler Orig. Date:08-Oct-14 Contact Andrew Haden Proposed System Output (MBH)Rev. Date:11-Feb-15 Phone (503) 706-6187 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Workbook Version 4.0.6 Email andrew@wisewood.us Unit Est. Install Install Install % of Item Description Unit Qty. Cost Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Total Construction Costs Civil/Structural Existing Boiler Room Demolition EA 1 15,000$ 80 -$ 15,000$ 6,000$ 21,000$ 1.6% New Boiler Pad and Auger Trench Excavation CY 23 100$ 40 -$ 2,300$ 3,000$ 5,300$ 0.4% New Concrete (Boiler and Silo Pads)CY 69 600$ Included Included Included Included 41,400$ 3.2% Boiler Room Wall Rebuild/Overhead Door EA 1 40,000$ 240 -$ 40,000$ 18,000$ 58,000$ 4.5% Boiler Room Stack Penetration, Demo + Finish EA 1 15,000$ 80 -$ 15,000$ 6,000$ 21,000$ 1.6% Subtotal Civil/Structural 440 -$ 72,300$ 33,000$ 146,700$ 11.5% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance Pellet Silos EA 3 19,000$ 96 1,200$ 57,000$ 7,200$ 65,400$ 5.1% Pellet Augers FT 70 300$ 80 -$ 21,000$ 6,000$ 27,000$ 2.1% Auger Vault Covers FT 50 400$ 80 -$ 20,000$ 6,000$ 26,000$ 2.0% Bucket Elevator, Cross Conveyor and Catwalk EA 1 30,000$ 240 1,000$ 30,000$ 18,000$ 49,000$ 3.8% Subtotal: 496 2,200$ 128,000$ 37,200$ 167,400$ 13.1% Biomass Boiler Pellet Boiler (1840 MBH)EA 1 200,000$ 40 1,200$ 200,000$ 3,000$ 204,200$ 16.0% Breeching and Stack (14")FT 50 300$ 32 -$ 15,000$ 2,400$ 17,400$ 1.4% Boiler Trim Package EA 1 5,000$ 32 -$ 5,000$ 2,400$ 7,400$ 0.6% Subtotal: 104 1,200$ 220,000$ 7,800$ 229,000$ 17.9% Piping Steel Insulated, 4"FT 120 60$ 80 -$ 7,200$ 6,000$ 13,200$ 1.0% Fittings, 4"EA 8 85$ 32 -$ 680$ 2,400$ 3,080$ 0.2% Valves, 4"EA 6 500$ 24 -$ 3,000$ 1,800$ 4,800$ 0.4% Subtotal: 136 -$ 10,880$ 10,200$ 21,080$ 1.6% Hydronic Equipment Pumps, Duplex Boiler Feed EA 2 1,500$ 18 -$ 3,000$ 1,350$ 4,350$ 0.3% Pumps, Duplex Building Loop EA 2 2,500$ 18 -$ 5,000$ 1,350$ 6,350$ 0.5% Tank, Heating Water Buffer EA 1 20,000$ 24 -$ 20,000$ 1,800$ 21,800$ 1.7% Air Separator, Boiler Loop EA 1 2,000$ 4 -$ 2,000$ 300$ 2,300$ 0.2% Subtotal: 64 -$ 30,000$ 4,800$ 34,800$ 2.7% Mechanical Contractor Per Diem Man Days 100.0 150$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 1.2% Travel Man Weeks 20.0 300$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 0.5% Subtotal: -$ -$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 1.6% Subtotal Mechanical Installation 800 3,400$ 388,880$ 81,000$ 473,280$ 37.0% Electrical Control Wiring 40 3,500$ 3,400$ 6,900$ 0.5% Power Distribution 40 4,000$ 3,400$ 7,400$ 0.6% Subtotal Electrical 80 -$ 7,500$ 6,800$ 14,300$ 1.1% Permitting Boiler Permit 500$ 0.0% Electrical Permit 1,000$ 0.1% Subtotal Permitting 1,500$ 0.1% Miscellaneous Freight to Project Site 20,000$ 1.6% Subtotal Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.6% 1,840 MBH All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Contingency and Unlisted Items % Above Costs Construction Contingency 10.0%65,578$ 5.1% Unlisted Items Allowance 10.0%65,578$ 5.1% Subtotal Contingency and Unlisted Items 131,156$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,320 3,400$ 468,680$ 120,800$ 786,936$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs % Direct Costs Overhead 10.0%78,694$ 6.2% Profit 15.0%118,040$ 9.2% Subtotal General Contractor Costs 25.0%196,734$ 15.4% Subtotal Construction Costs 983,670$ 76.9% Engineering and Construction Management Costs Engineering and Construction Management Costs % Total Cost Civil/Mechanical/Structural/Electrical Engineering 1.0%9,837$ 0.8% Commissioning and Start-up 2.0%19,673$ 1.5% Construction Administration 2.0%19,673$ 1.5% Subtotal:49,184$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium % Total Cost Alaska Cost Premium 25.0%245,918$ 19.2% Subtotal:245,918$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 295,101$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,278,771$ 100.0% Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION B1 - Containerized Boiler Boiler in New Structure Cost Summary Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)1,840 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us Workbook Version 4.0.6 Address 2409 N Kerby Avenue Portland, OR 97227 Est. Install Install Install Line % Total Item Description Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Project Construction Costs Civil/Structural 80 1,000$ 36,000$ 6,000$ 79,000$ 6.9% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance 360 2,000$ 100,000$ 27,000$ 129,000$ 11.2% Biomass Boiler 100 2,000$ 220,000$ 8,000$ 230,000$ 20.0% Piping and Trenching 210 -$ 18,000$ 16,000$ 33,000$ 2.9% Hydronic Equipment 70 -$ 31,000$ 5,000$ 37,000$ 3.2% Mechanical Contractor -$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 1.7% Subtotal: 740 4,000$ 369,000$ 76,000$ 449,000$ 39.1% Electrical 240 -$ 16,000$ 20,000$ 36,000$ 3.2% Permitting 5,000$ 0.4% Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.7% Contingency and Unlisted Items 118,000$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,060 5,000$ 421,000$ 102,000$ 706,000$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs 177,000$ 76.9% Subtotal Construction Costs 883,000$ 76.9% Engineering, Commissioning and Management Costs Engineering, Procurement and Construction 44,000$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium 221,000$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 265,000$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,148,000$ 100% All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION B1 - Containerized Boiler Biomass Boiler Installation Costs Boiler Option Wood Chip Boiler Orig. Date:08-Oct-14 Contact Andrew Haden Proposed System Output (MBH)Rev. Date:11-Feb-15 Phone (503) 706-6187 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Workbook Version 4.0.6 Email andrew@wisewood.us Unit Est. Install Install Install % of Item Description Unit Qty. Cost Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Total Construction Costs Civil/Structural Site Preparation SF 1,600 1$ 20 -$ 1,600$ 1,500$ 3,100$ 0.3% Excavation CY 40 100$ 16 800$ 4,000$ 1,200$ 6,000$ 0.5% Concrete (Building, Equipment and Fuel Skids)CY 60 600$ Included Included Included Included 36,000$ 3.1% Boiler Building (Custom Shipping Container)SF 360 85$ 40 -$ 30,600$ 3,000$ 33,600$ 2.9% Subtotal Civil/Structural 76 800$ 36,200$ 5,700$ 78,700$ 6.9% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance Pellet Silos EA 2 28,000$ 64 1,000$ 56,000$ 4,800$ 61,800$ 5.4% Pellet Auger FT 45 300$ 60 -$ 13,500$ 4,500$ 18,000$ 1.6% Bucket Elevator and Cross Conveyor and Catwalk EA 1 30,000$ 240 1,000$ 30,000$ 18,000$ 49,000$ 4.3% Subtotal: 364 2,000$ 99,500$ 27,300$ 128,800$ 11.2% Biomass Boiler Pellet Boiler (1840 MBH)EA 1 200,000$ 40 1,200$ 200,000$ 3,000$ 204,200$ 17.8% Breeching and Stack (14")FT 50 300$ 32 1,000$ 15,000$ 2,400$ 18,400$ 1.6% Boiler Trim Package EA 1 5,000$ 32 -$ 5,000$ 2,400$ 7,400$ 0.6% Subtotal: 104 2,200$ 220,000$ 7,800$ 230,000$ 20.0% Piping and Trenching Steel Piping, Insulated, 4"FT 70 60$ 32 -$ 4,200$ 2,400$ 6,600$ 0.6% Fittings, 4"EA 8 85$ 8 -$ 680$ 600$ 1,280$ 0.1% Trenching and Backfilling FT 60 50$ 32 -$ 3,000$ 2,400$ 5,400$ 0.5% Valves, 4"EA 8 500$ 16 -$ 4,000$ 1,200$ 5,200$ 0.5% Utilities (Water and Drain)FT 120 50$ 120 -$ 6,000$ 9,000$ 15,000$ 1.3% Subtotal: 208 -$ 17,880$ 15,600$ 33,480$ 2.9% Hydronic Equipment Pumps, Duplex Boiler Feed EA 2 1,500$ 18 -$ 3,000$ 1,350$ 4,350$ 0.4% Pumps, Duplex Building Loop EA 2 2,500$ 18 -$ 5,000$ 1,350$ 6,350$ 0.6% Tank, Heating Water Buffer EA 1 20,000$ 24 -$ 20,000$ 1,800$ 21,800$ 1.9% Air Separator, Boiler Loop EA 1 2,000$ 4 -$ 2,000$ 300$ 2,300$ 0.2% Unit Heater EA 1 1,200$ 8 -$ 1,200$ 600$ 1,800$ 0.2% Subtotal: 72 -$ 31,200$ 5,400$ 36,600$ 3.2% Mechanical Contractor Per Diem Man Days 93.5 150$ 14,025$ 14,025$ 1.2% Travel Man Weeks 18.7 300$ 5,610$ 5,610$ 0.5% Subtotal: -$ -$ 19,635$ 19,635$ 1.7% Subtotal Mechanical Installation 748 4,200$ 368,580$ 75,735$ 448,515$ 39.1% Electrical Control Wiring 120 8,000$ 10,200$ 18,200$ 1.6% Power Distribution 120 8,000$ 10,200$ 18,200$ 1.6% Subtotal Electrical 240 -$ 16,000$ 20,400$ 36,400$ 3.2% Permitting Boiler Permit 500$ 0.0% Building Permit 3,500$ 0.3% Electrical Permit 1,000$ 0.1% Subtotal Permitting 5,000$ 0.4% 1,840 MBH All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Miscellaneous Freight to Project Site 20,000$ 1.7% Subtotal Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.7% Contingency and Unlisted Items % Above Costs Construction Contingency 10.0%58,862$ 5.1% Unlisted Items Allowance 10.0%58,862$ 5.1% Subtotal Contingency and Unlisted Items 117,723$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,064 5,000$ 420,780$ 101,835$ 706,338$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs % Direct Costs Overhead 10.0%70,634$ 6.2% Profit 15.0%105,951$ 9.2% Subtotal General Contractor Costs 25.0%176,585$ 15.4% Subtotal Construction Costs 882,923$ 76.9% Engineering, Commissioning and Management Costs Engineering, Procurement and Construction % Total Cost Civil/Mechanical/Structural/Electrical Engineering 1.0%8,829$ 0.8% Commissioning and Start-up 2.0%17,658$ 1.5% Construction Administration 2.0%17,658$ 1.5% Subtotal:44,146$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium % Total Cost Alaska Cost Premium 25.0%220,731$ 19.2% Subtotal:220,731$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 264,877$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,147,799$ 100.0% Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A2 - Existing Mechanical Room Boiler in Existing Boiler Room Cost Summary Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)2,457 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us Workbook Version 4.0.6 Address 2409 N Kerby Avenue Portland, OR 97227 Est. Install Install Install Line % Total Item Description Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Project Construction Costs Civil/Structural 440 -$ 73,000$ 33,000$ 151,000$ 10.4% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance 500 2,000$ 128,000$ 37,000$ 167,000$ 11.6% Biomass Boiler 150 2,000$ 294,000$ 11,000$ 308,000$ 21.3% Piping and Trenching 140 -$ 13,000$ 10,000$ 24,000$ 1.6% Hydronic Equipment 60 -$ 30,000$ 5,000$ 35,000$ 2.4% Mechanical Contractor -$ -$ 22,000$ 22,000$ 1.5% Subtotal: 850 4,000$ 465,000$ 85,000$ 556,000$ 38.4% Electrical 80 -$ 8,000$ 7,000$ 14,000$ 1.0% Permitting 2,000$ 0.1% Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.4% Contingency and Unlisted Items 148,000$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,370 5,000$ 545,000$ 126,000$ 891,000$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs 223,000$ 15.4% Subtotal Construction Costs 1,113,000$ 76.9% Engineering and Construction Management Costs Engineering and Construction Management Costs 56,000$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium 278,000$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 334,000$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,447,000$ 100.0% All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A2 - Existing Mechanical Room Biomass Boiler Installation Costs Boiler Option Wood Chip Boiler Orig. Date:08-Oct-14 Contact Andrew Haden Proposed System Output (MBH)Rev. Date:11-Feb-15 Phone (503) 706-6187 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Workbook Version 4.0.6 Email andrew@wisewood.us Unit Est. Install Install Install % of Item Description Unit Qty. Cost Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Total Construction Costs Civil/Structural Existing Boiler Room Demolition EA 1 15,000$ 80 -$ 15,000$ 6,000$ 21,000$ 1.5% New Boiler Pad and Auger Trench Excavation CY 25 100$ 40 -$ 2,500$ 3,000$ 5,500$ 0.4% New Concrete (Boiler and Silo Pads)CY 75 600$ Included Included Included Included 45,000$ 3.1% Boiler Room Wall Rebuild/Overhead Door EA 1 40,000$ 240 -$ 40,000$ 18,000$ 58,000$ 4.0% Boiler Room Stack Penetration, Demo + Finish EA 1 15,000$ 80 -$ 15,000$ 6,000$ 21,000$ 1.5% Subtotal Civil/Structural 440 -$ 72,500$ 33,000$ 150,500$ 10.4% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance Pellet Silos EA 3 19,000$ 96 1,200$ 57,000$ 7,200$ 65,400$ 4.5% Pellet Augers FT 70 300$ 80 -$ 21,000$ 6,000$ 27,000$ 1.9% Auger Vault Covers FT 50 400$ 80 -$ 20,000$ 6,000$ 26,000$ 1.8% Bucket Elevator, Cross Conveyor and Catwalk EA 1 30,000$ 240 1,000$ 30,000$ 18,000$ 49,000$ 3.4% Subtotal: 496 2,200$ 128,000$ 37,200$ 167,400$ 11.6% Biomass Boiler Pellet Boiler (2457 MBH)EA 1 250,000$ 40 1,200$ 250,000$ 3,000$ 254,200$ 17.6% Breeching and Stack (14")FT 50 300$ 32 -$ 15,000$ 2,400$ 17,400$ 1.2% Boiler Trim Package EA 1 6,000$ 32 -$ 6,000$ 2,400$ 8,400$ 0.6% Demo Exisiting Oil Boiler Breaching and Stack EA 1 3,000$ 16 1,200$ 3,000$ 1,200$ 5,400$ 0.4% New Oil Boiler Breeching and Stack (24")FT 40 500$ 32 -$ 20,000$ 2,400$ 22,400$ 1.5% Subtotal: 152 2,400$ 294,000$ 11,400$ 307,800$ 21.3% Piping Steel Insulated, 6"FT 120 75$ 80 -$ 9,000$ 6,000$ 15,000$ 1.0% Fittings, 6"EA 8 100$ 32 -$ 800$ 2,400$ 3,200$ 0.2% Valves, 6"EA 6 600$ 24 -$ 3,600$ 1,800$ 5,400$ 0.4% Subtotal: 136 -$ 13,400$ 10,200$ 23,600$ 1.6% Hydronic Equipment Pumps, Duplex Boiler Feed EA 2 1,500$ 18 -$ 3,000$ 1,350$ 4,350$ 0.3% Pumps, Duplex Building Loop EA 2 2,500$ 18 -$ 5,000$ 1,350$ 6,350$ 0.4% Tank, Heating Water Buffer EA 1 20,000$ 24 -$ 20,000$ 1,800$ 21,800$ 1.5% Air Separator, Boiler Loop EA 1 2,000$ 4 -$ 2,000$ 300$ 2,300$ 0.2% Subtotal: 64 -$ 30,000$ 4,800$ 34,800$ 2.4% Mechanical Contractor Per Diem Man Days 106.0 150$ 15,900$ 15,900$ 1.1% Travel Man Weeks 21.2 300$ 6,360$ 6,360$ 0.4% Subtotal: -$ -$ 22,260$ 22,260$ 1.5% Subtotal Mechanical Installation 848 4,600$ 465,400$ 85,860$ 555,860$ 38.4% Electrical Control Wiring 40 3,500$ 3,400$ 6,900$ 0.5% Power Distribution 40 4,000$ 3,400$ 7,400$ 0.5% Subtotal Electrical 80 -$ 7,500$ 6,800$ 14,300$ 1.0% Permitting Boiler Permit 500$ 0.0% Electrical Permit 1,000$ 0.1% Subtotal Permitting 1,500$ 0.1% 2,457 MBH All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Miscellaneous Freight to Project Site 20,000$ 1.4% Subtotal Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.4% Contingency and Unlisted Items % Above Costs Construction Contingency 10.0%74,216$ 5.1% Unlisted Items Allowance 10.0%74,216$ 5.1% Subtotal Contingency and Unlisted Items 148,432$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,368 4,600$ 545,400$ 125,660$ 890,592$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs % Direct Costs Overhead 10.0%89,059$ 6.2% Profit 15.0%133,589$ 9.2% Subtotal General Contractor Costs 25.0%222,648$ 15.4% Subtotal Construction Costs 1,113,240$ 76.9% Engineering and Construction Management Costs Engineering and Construction Management Costs % Total Cost Civil/Mechanical/Structural/Electrical Engineering 1.0%11,132$ 0.8% Commissioning and Start-up 2.0%22,265$ 1.5% Construction Administration 2.0%22,265$ 1.5% Subtotal:55,662$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium % Total Cost Alaska Cost Premium 25.0%278,310$ 19.2% Subtotal:278,310$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 333,972$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,447,212$ 100.0% Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION B2 - Containerized Boiler Boiler in New Structure Cost Summary Location Ketchikan, AK Proposed System Biomass Boiler Installation Contact Andrew Haden Contact Mike Williams Proposed System Output (MBH)2,457 Phone (503) 706-6187 Date 2/11/15 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Email andrew@wisewood.us Workbook Version 4.0.6 Address 2409 N Kerby Avenue Portland, OR 97227 Est. Install Install Install Line % Total Item Description Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Project Construction Costs Civil/Structural 80 1,000$ 42,000$ 6,000$ 84,000$ 6.7% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance 360 2,000$ 100,000$ 27,000$ 129,000$ 10.3% Biomass Boiler 100 2,000$ 266,000$ 8,000$ 276,000$ 22.0% Piping and Trenching 210 -$ 20,000$ 16,000$ 35,000$ 2.8% Hydronic Equipment 70 -$ 31,000$ 5,000$ 37,000$ 2.9% Mechanical Contractor -$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 1.6% Subtotal: 740 4,000$ 417,000$ 76,000$ 497,000$ 39.7% Electrical 240 -$ 16,000$ 20,000$ 36,000$ 2.9% Permitting 5,000$ 0.4% Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.6% Contingency and Unlisted Items 128,000$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,060 5,000$ 474,000$ 102,000$ 770,000$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs 192,000$ 76.9% Subtotal Construction Costs 962,000$ 76.9% Engineering, Commissioning and Management Costs Engineering, Procurement and Construction 48,000$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium 241,000$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 289,000$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,251,000$ 100% All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION B2 - Containerized Boiler Biomass Boiler Installation Costs Boiler Option Wood Chip Boiler Orig. Date:08-Oct-14 Contact Andrew Haden Proposed System Output (MBH)Rev. Date:11-Feb-15 Phone (503) 706-6187 Proposed System Fuel Type Wood Pellets Workbook Version 4.0.6 Email andrew@wisewood.us Unit Est. Install Install Install % of Item Description Unit Qty. Cost Hours Equipment Materials Labor Total Total Construction Costs Civil/Structural Site Preparation SF 1,600 1$ 20 -$ 1,600$ 1,500$ 3,100$ 0.2% Excavation CY 40 100$ 16 800$ 4,000$ 1,200$ 6,000$ 0.5% Concrete (Building, Equipment and Fuel Skids)CY 60 600$ Included Included Included Included 36,000$ 2.9% Boiler Building (Custom Shipping Container)SF 360 100$ 40 -$ 36,000$ 3,000$ 39,000$ 3.1% Subtotal Civil/Structural 76 800$ 41,600$ 5,700$ 84,100$ 6.7% Mechanical Installation Fuel Storage and Conveyance Pellet Silos EA 2 28,000$ 64 1,000$ 56,000$ 4,800$ 61,800$ 4.9% Pellet Auger FT 45 300$ 60 -$ 13,500$ 4,500$ 18,000$ 1.4% Bucket Elevator and Cross Conveyor and Catwalk EA 1 30,000$ 240 1,000$ 30,000$ 18,000$ 49,000$ 3.9% Subtotal: 364 2,000$ 99,500$ 27,300$ 128,800$ 10.3% Biomass Boiler Pellet Boiler (2457 MBH)EA 1 250,000$ 40 1,200$ 250,000$ 3,000$ 254,200$ 20.3% Breeching and Stack (12")FT 50 300$ 32 1,000$ 15,000$ 2,400$ 18,400$ 1.5% Boiler Trim Package EA 1 600$ 32 -$ 600$ 2,400$ 3,000$ 0.2% Subtotal: 104 2,200$ 265,600$ 7,800$ 275,600$ 22.0% Piping and Trenching Steel Piping, Insulated, 6"FT 70 75$ 32 -$ 5,250$ 2,400$ 7,650$ 0.6% Fittings, 6"EA 8 100$ 8 -$ 800$ 600$ 1,400$ 0.1% Trenching and Backfilling FT 60 50$ 32 -$ 3,000$ 2,400$ 5,400$ 0.4% Valves, 6"EA 8 600$ 16 -$ 4,800$ 1,200$ 6,000$ 0.5% Utilities (Water and Drain)FT 120 50$ 120 -$ 6,000$ 9,000$ 15,000$ 1.2% Subtotal: 208 -$ 19,850$ 15,600$ 35,450$ 2.8% Hydronic Equipment Pumps, Duplex Boiler Feed EA 2 1,500$ 18 -$ 3,000$ 1,350$ 4,350$ 0.3% Pumps, Duplex Building Loop EA 2 2,500$ 18 -$ 5,000$ 1,350$ 6,350$ 0.5% Tank, Heating Water Buffer EA 1 20,000$ 24 -$ 20,000$ 1,800$ 21,800$ 1.7% Air Separator, Boiler Loop EA 1 2,000$ 4 -$ 2,000$ 300$ 2,300$ 0.2% Unit Heater EA 1 1,200$ 8 -$ 1,200$ 600$ 1,800$ 0.1% Subtotal: 72 -$ 31,200$ 5,400$ 36,600$ 2.9% Mechanical Contractor Per Diem Man Days 93.5 150$ 14,025$ 14,025$ 1.1% Travel Man Weeks 18.7 300$ 5,610$ 5,610$ 0.4% Subtotal: -$ -$ 19,635$ 19,635$ 1.6% Subtotal Mechanical Installation 748 4,200$ 416,150$ 75,735$ 496,085$ 39.7% Electrical Control Wiring 120 8,000$ 10,200$ 18,200$ 1.5% Power Distribution 120 8,000$ 10,200$ 18,200$ 1.5% Subtotal Electrical 240 -$ 16,000$ 20,400$ 36,400$ 2.9% Permitting Boiler Permit 500$ 0.0% Building Permit 3,500$ 0.3% Electrical Permit 1,000$ 0.1% Subtotal Permitting 5,000$ 0.4% 2,457 MBH All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Miscellaneous Freight to Project Site 20,000$ 1.6% Subtotal Miscellaneous 20,000$ 1.6% Contingency and Unlisted Items % Above Costs Construction Contingency 10.0%64,159$ 5.1% Unlisted Items Allowance 10.0%64,159$ 5.1% Subtotal Contingency and Unlisted Items 128,317$ 10.3% Subtotal Direct Costs 1,064 5,000$ 473,750$ 101,835$ 769,902$ 61.5% General Contractor Costs % Direct Costs Overhead 10.0%76,990$ 6.2% Profit 15.0%115,485$ 9.2% Subtotal General Contractor Costs 25.0%192,476$ 15.4% Subtotal Construction Costs 962,378$ 76.9% Engineering, Commissioning and Management Costs Engineering, Procurement and Construction % Total Cost Civil/Mechanical/Structural/Electrical Engineering 1.0%9,624$ 0.8% Commissioning and Start-up 2.0%19,248$ 1.5% Construction Administration 2.0%19,248$ 1.5% Subtotal:48,119$ 3.8% Alaska Cost Premium % Total Cost Alaska Cost Premium 25.0%240,594$ 19.2% Subtotal:240,594$ 19.2% Subtotal Development Costs 288,713$ 23.1% Total Project Costs 1,251,091$ 100.0% Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! Appendix C: Operating Costs !! All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © 2014, Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A1 & B1 Biomass Boiler Operating Costs (OpEx) Stabilized Year Contact Andrew Haden Date 2/11/15 Phone (503) 706-6187 Workbook Version 4.0.6 Email andrew@wisewood.us Item Total Existing Fossil Fuel Heating System Operating Cost Heating Oil Fuel Current heating oil consumption 93,845 gallons per year Current heating oil cost 3.43$ per gallon Subtotal: 322,102$ Electricity Current electricity for heating consumption 0 kWh per year Current electricity for heating demand 0.00 kW Current ancillary electrical use 3,507 kWh per year Current ancillary electrical demand 0.87 kW Electricity cost 0.09$ per kWh Electrical demand cost 2.91$ per kW Subtotal: 351$ Maintenance Maintenance labor 4,000$ per year Maintenance parts 1,000$ per year Subtotal: 5,000$ Existing Boiler Cost, Total 327,453$ Proposed Biomass Energy System Operating and Maintenance Cost Wood Fuel Wood use 627 tons per year Wood fuel cost 250$ per ton (@ 0.1 MC) Subtotal: 156,753$ Electricity to Run Boiler Total electrical consumption 20,435 kWh Total electrical use charge 1,871$ per year Total electrical demand charge 187$ per year Subtotal: 2,058$ Remaining Heating Oil Heating oil use (peak and low load)14,852 gallons Heating oil cost 3.43$ per gallon Subtotal: 50,976$ New Biomass System Fuel Cost, Total 209,787$ Ash Disposal All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © 2014, Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ash container removal 47 intervals Labor for ash container removal 20$ per interval Ash disposal fee 10$ per interval Subtotal: 1,408$ Weekly Maintenance Weekly boiler checklist 40 weeks Labor cost 75$ per week Subtotal: 3,000$ Monthly Maintenance Monthly boiler checklist 12 months Labor cost 150$ per month Boiler water treatment 50$ per month Subtotal: 2,400$ Remote Monitoring Remote monitoring 12 months per year Static IP and Internet connection 60$ per month Subtotal: 720$ Wood Fuel Handling & Delivery Volume of wood purchased 627 tons per year Tons per delivery container 12 tons per load Fuel deliveries needed 54 loads per year Cost to manage fuel delivery 40$ per load Subtotal: 2,150$ Administration Insurance 0.10% of Project Cost Subtotal: 1,148$ New Biomass System Operations and Maintenance Costs, Total 10,826$ New Biomass System Cost, Total 220,613$ Net Savings, Year 1 106,840$ All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © 2014, Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A2 & B2 Biomass Boiler Operating Costs (OpEx) Stabilized Year Contact Andrew Haden Date 2/11/15 Phone (503) 706-6187 Workbook Version 4.0.6 Email andrew@wisewood.us Item Total Existing Fossil Fuel Heating System Operating Cost Heating Oil Fuel Current heating oil consumption 93,845 gallons/year Current heating oil cost 3.43$ per gallon Subtotal: 322,102$ Electricity Current electricity for heating consumption 0 kWh per year Current electricity for heating demand 0.00 kW Current ancillary electrical use 3,507 kWh per year Current ancillary electrical demand 0.87 kW Electricity cost 0.09$ per kWh Electrical demand cost 2.91$ per kW Subtotal: 351$ Maintenance Maintenance labor 4,000$ per year Maintenance parts 1,000$ per year Subtotal: 5,000$ Existing Boiler Cost, Total 327,453$ Proposed Biomass Energy System Operating and Maintenance Cost Wood Fuel Wood use 708 tons per year Wood fuel cost 250$ per ton (@ 0.1 MC) Subtotal: 176,999$ Electricity to Run Boiler Total electrical consumption 20,435 kWh Total electrical use charge 1,871$ per year Total electrical demand charge 187$ per year Subtotal: 2,058$ Remaining Heating Oil Heating oil use (peak and low load)4,700 gallons Heating oil cost 3.43$ per gallon Subtotal: 16,132$ New Biomass System Fuel Cost, Total 195,188$ Ash Disposal All materials contained in this document are the intellectual property of Wisewood, Inc. and are provided exclusively to Client. Copyright © 2014, Wisewood, Inc. All rights reserved. Ash container removal 53 intervals Labor for ash container removal 20$ per interval Ash disposal fee 10$ per interval Subtotal: 1,590$ Weekly Maintenance Weekly boiler checklist 40 weeks Labor cost 75$ per week Subtotal: 3,000$ Monthly Maintenance Monthly boiler checklist 12 months Labor cost 150$ per month Boiler water treatment 50$ per month Subtotal: 2,400$ Remote Monitoring Remote monitoring 12 months per year Static IP and Internet connection 60$ per month Subtotal: 720$ Wood Fuel Handling & Delivery Volume of wood purchased 708 tons per year Tons per delivery container 12 tons per load Fuel deliveries needed 54 loads per year Cost to manage fuel delivery 40$ per load Subtotal: 2,150$ Administration Insurance 0.10% of Project Cost Subtotal: 1,148$ New Biomass System Operations and Maintenance Costs, Total 11,008$ New Biomass System Cost, Total 206,196$ Net Savings, Year 1 121,257$ Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! Appendix D: Cost Estimate Uncertainty Model ! Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTIONS A1, A2, B1, B2 Proposed System Cost Uncertainty Analysis Item Description Accuracy Value Uncertainty Accuracy Value Uncertainty Civil/Structural 25.0%147,000$ 36,750$ 10.0%79,000$ 7,900$ Mechanical - Fuel Storage and Conveyance 10.0%167,000$ 16,700$ 10.0%129,000$ 12,900$ Mechanical - Biomass Boiler 5.0%229,000$ 11,450$ 5.0%230,000$ 11,500$ Mechanical - Piping and Trenching 5.0%21,000$ 1,050$ 5.0%33,000$ 1,650$ Mechanical - Hydronic Equipment 5.0%35,000$ 1,750$ 5.0%37,000$ 1,850$ Mechanical - Contractor 10.0%21,000$ 2,100$ 10.0%20,000$ 2,000$ Electrical 10.0%14,000$ 1,400$ 10.0%36,000$ 3,600$ General Contractor 10.0%197,000$ 19,700$ 10.0%177,000$ 17,700$ Total 831,000$ 90,900$ 741,000$ 59,100$ Uncertainty on Difference 108,423$ Nominal Difference 90,000$ Maximum Difference 198,423$ Minimum Difference (18,423)$ Item Description Accuracy Value Uncertainty Accuracy Value Uncertainty Civil/Structural 25.0%151,000$ 37,750$ 10.0%84,000$ 8,400$ Mechanical - Fuel Storage and Conveyance 10.0%167,000$ 16,700$ 10.0%129,000$ 12,900$ Mechanical - Biomass Boiler 5.0%308,000$ 15,400$ 5.0%276,000$ 13,800$ Mechanical - Piping and Trenching 5.0%24,000$ 1,200$ 5.0%35,000$ 1,750$ Mechanical - Hydronic Equipment 5.0%35,000$ 1,750$ 5.0%37,000$ 1,850$ Mechanical - Contractor 10.0%22,000$ 2,200$ 10.0%20,000$ 2,000$ Electrical 10.0%14,000$ 1,400$ 10.0%36,000$ 3,600$ General Contractor 10.0%223,000$ 22,300$ 10.0%192,000$ 19,200$ Total 944,000$ 98,700$ 809,000$ 63,500$ Uncertainty on Difference 117,362$ Nominal Difference 135,000$ Maximum Difference 252,362$ Minimum Difference 17,638$ OPTION A1. Existing Boiler Room OPTION B1. Containerized Boiler OPTION A2. Existing Boiler Room OPTION B2. Containerized Boiler Preliminary Designs, Cost Estimates and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation February 2015 ! Appendix E: Fueling and Emissions Estimates ! ! Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A1 & B1 Fueling Requirements, Ash Disposal & Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Estimate Model inputs Calculated values Annual Estimated Air Pollutant Discharge Bulk density of wood, bone dry 36.00 lbs/ft.3 Total annual heat energy demand 9255 mmBtu Energy content of wood fuel 14.76 mmBtus/ton Delivery truck capacity 20 cu./yd. Bulk density, wet basis 43.2 lbs/ft.3 Delivery truck capacity 11.7 tons Wood fuel ash content 1.50%% by weight Bulk density of wood ash 6.33 lbs/gal. Annual fuel consumption 627.0 tons Annual wood fuel deliveries 53.8 deliveries Total wood ash generated, by weight 18810.3 lbs Total wood ash generated, by volume 2971.6 gal Ash container volume 240.00 liters Ash container volume 63.3 gals Ash container removal intervals 46.9 intervals Air emissions factors* CO 0.008 lbs/mmBtu NOx 0.137 lbs/mmBtu PM 0.038 lbs/mmBtu VOC (OGC)0.008 lbs/mmBtu Annual Estimated HAP Discharge CO 74.0 lbs NOx 1267.9 lbs PM 351.7 lbs VOC 74.0 lbs CO 0.037 tons NOx 0.634 tons PM 0.176 tons VOC 0.037 tons Total HAP Discharge 0.884 tons BESTATIGUNG CONFIRMATION uber die on the Typprufung der Heizkesselbaureihe hinsichtlich Erfullung der An- forderungen nach DIN EN 303-5 type testing of the heating boilers regarding the fulfillment of the requirements of DIN EN 303-5 Auftraggeber: Costumer: Prufgegenstand: Subject of Test: Typ: Type: Ausfuhrungen: Sizes: Grundlage der Prufung: Basis of Test: Prufstelle: Test Laboratory: Prufbericht: Test Report: Kob & Schafer GmbH, Flotzbachstrasse 33, A-6922 Wolfurt Holz-Spezialheizkessei-Baureihe fOr Hackgut und Presslinge als Brennstoff, automatisch be- schickt, mit Abgasgeblase heating boilers of a product range for chipped and compressed wood as fuel, automatically stocked, forced draught at flue gas side Pyrot Pyrot 100,150,220,300,400,540 DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 oder in Anlehnung fOr die Baugrol1en > 300 kW or following the requirements of the standard when nominal heat output > 300 kW TOV lndustrie Service GmbH TOV SOD Gruppe Abteilung Feuerungs-und Warmetechnik Dl N-PrOfstelle Nr. H-A 1116-01/05 vom 2005-07-11 Die PrOfung wurde mit positivem Ergebnis abgeschlossen. Die einzelnen Er- gebnisse der PrOfung, deren Bewertung und die sich daraus ergebenden Mal1gaben sind in dem angegebenen PrOfbericht wiedergegeben. Auf den Seiten 2, 3, 4 und 5 dieser Bestatigung erfolgen auszugsweise Angaben der in der Baureihe geprOften AusfOhrungen aus den entsprechenden Berichten Ober die TeilprOfung der heiztechnischen Anforderungen. Die Angaben der Emissionen wurden erganzend bezogen auf 11 o/o Restsauerstoff angegeben. The test was performed with a positive result. The results in detail, the evaluation of the results and the conclusions out of the results are described in the above mentioned test report. On pages 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this conformation there is an extract of the results out of the corresponding reports on the partial tests on the heating performance requirements. The results are given additionally refering to 11 % 02. Amtsgericht MOnchen HRB 96 869 Bankverbindung: HypoVereinsbank MOnchen Kto. 271 70 42 · BLZ 700 202 70 Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr. Axel Stepken GeschaftsfOhrer: Dr. Manfred Bayerlein (Sprecher) Dr. Udo Heisel Christian von der Linde Telefon: (0 89) 51 90-1027 Telefax: (0 89) 51 90-3307 E-mail: feuerung@tuev-sued.de www. tuev-sued.de Industria Service Kompetenz. Sicherheit. Qualitat. Datum: 2005-08-01 Unsere Zeichen: IS-TAF-MUC/sl Bericht-Nr. H 1116-02/05 Auftrags-Nr. 648026 Dokument: H 1116 02 05 Zusammenfassung Pyrot 2005.doc Seite 1 Das Dokument besteht aus 5 Seiten und -Anlagen Die auszugsweise Wieder- gabe des Dokumentes und die Verwendung zu Werbe- zwecken bedurfen der schrift- lichen Genehmigung der TOV lndustrie Service GmbH TUV SOD Gruppe. Die Pri.ifergebnisse beziehen sich ausschliel11ich auf die untersuchten Pri.ifgegen- stande. Any publication of this confirmation in part and its use for advertising requires a written allowance of TOV lndustrie Service GmbH TOV SOD Gruppe in advance. The test results are exclu- sively related to the exam- ined test samples. TOV lndustrie Service GmbH TOV SUD Gruppe Abteilung Feuerungs-u. Warmetechnik Ridlerstrar..e 65 80339 MOnchen Deutschland Seite 2/5 UnserZeichen, Erstelldatum, Kennzeichnung: 18-TAF-MUC/sl, 2005-08-01, Bericht-Nr. H 1116-02/05 H 1116 02 05 Zusammenfassung Pyrot 2005.doc Industria SeiVice AusfUhrung individual size Pyrot 100 - Versuch test Nennleistung Teillast Nennleistung Teillast nom. output partial output nom. output partial output Datum des Versuchs date of test 1999-11-10 1999-11-10 -- Dauer des Versuchs duration of test h 6,5 6,2 -- Art des Brennstoffs type of fuel according Hackgut (81) - nach EN 303-5 to EN 303-5 chipped wood - Sorte qualitiy Fichte Fichte -- spruce spruce -- Wasseranteil water content % 20 20 -- Zu_g_efOhrte Warmeleistung heat input kW 110,2 32,1 -- Nutzbare Warmeleistung nominal heat output einschl. PrOfstandsverlust including loss of test rig kW 98,6 28,7 -- Kesselwirkung_s_grad direkt boiler efficiency, direct method % 89,4 89,3 -- Mittlere Abgastemperatur mean flue gas temperature oc 164 87 -- Verbrennungslufttemperatur combustion air temperature oc 22 21 -- Forderdruck draught mbar 0,17 0,09 - - C02-Gehalt C02-content Vol.% 13,3 10,4 -- CO-Gehalt CO-content ppm 41 24 - - NOx-Gehalt NOx-content ppm 83 65 - - CxHv-Gehalt CxHv-content ppm 3 4 -- Staubgehalt dust content mg/m3 59 43 - - CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m 3 41 31 -- (bez. auf 10% 02) (refering to 10 % 02 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 136 134 -- (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10% 02) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 5 9 -- (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 47 44 -- (bez. auf 10 % 02) (refering to 10 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 38 27 -- (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 124 122 -- (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 5 8 -- (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 43 40 -- (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m 3 30 22 -- (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 100 99 -- (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) OGC -Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 4 6 -- (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 34 32 -- (bez. auf 13% 02) (refering_ to 13 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/MJ 19 14 -- NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/MJ 64 64 -- OGC-Emission OGC-emission mgC/MJ 2 3 -- Staubemission dust emission mg/MJ 22 21 -- Seite3/5 Unser Zeichen, Erstelldatum, Kennzeichnung: IS-TAF-MUC/sl, 2005-08-01 , Bericht-Nr. H 1116-02/05 H 1116 02 05 Zusammenfassung Pyrot 2005.doc lndustrie Service AusfOhrung individual size Pyrot 150 Versuch test Nennleistung Teillast Nennleistung Teillast nom. output partial output nom. output partial output Datum des Versuchs date of test 2005-05-18 2005-05-11 2005-05-12 2005-05-17 Dauer des Versuchs duration of test h 6,0 6,0 6,0 6,0 Art des Brennstoffs type of fuel according Presslinge (C) Hackgut (81) nach EN 303-5 to EN 303-5 compressed wood Sorte qualitiy Fichte Fichte spruce spruce Wasseranteil water content % 5,9 5,9 ZugefOhrte Warmeleistung heat input kW 158,9 47,6 Nutzbare Warmeleistung nominal heat output einschl. PrOfstandsverlust including loss of test rig kW 144,8 44,1 Kesselwirkungsgrad direkt boiler efficiency, direct method % 91,2 92,7 Mittlere Abgastemperatur mean flue gas temperature oc 156 73 Verbrennungslufttemperatur combustion air temperature oc 22 19 Forderdruck draught mbar 0,08 0,07 C02-Gehalt C02-content Vol.% 14,5 12,3 CO-Gehalt CO-content ppm 29 33 NOx-Gehalt NOx-content ppm 89 61 CxHv-Gehalt CxHv-content ppm 2 2 Staubgehalt dust content m_g/m 3 13 48 CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 26 35 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10% 02 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 133 106 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10% 02) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 3 3 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10% 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 9 41 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 1 0 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 24 32 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m 3 120 96 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m 3 3 3 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m 3 8 38 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering_ to 11 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 19 26 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13% 02) NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m 3 96 77 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) OGC -Emission OGC-emission mg/m 3 3 2 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 7 30 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/MJ 13 17 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/MJ 64 51 OGC-Emission OGC-emission mgC/MJ 1 1 Staubemission dust emission mg/MJ 4 20 *Abwe1chend von der Norm wurde Hackgut m1t emem Wassergehalt von 31,9 % als Brennstoff verwendet. Differing to the standard chipped wood with a water content of 31,9 % was used as fuel. chipped wood Fichte Fichte spruce spruce 31,9* 31 ,9* 155,1 48,5 140,2 44,5 90,3 91,7 157 82 20 22 0,11 0,09 14,3 11,2 37 13 100 38 2 1 72 53 34 15 149 72 2 2 52 49 31 14 136 65 2 2 47 44 24 11 109 52 2 2 38 35 16 7 72 35 1 1 25 24 Seite 4/5 UnserZeichen, Erstelldatum, Kennzeichnung: IS-TAF-MUC/sl, 2005-08-01, Bericht-Nr. H 1116-02/05 H 1116 02 05 Zusammenfassung Pyrot 2005.doc Industria Service AusfOhrung individual size Pyrot 300 Versuch test Nennleistung Teillast Nennleistung Teillast nom. output partial output nom. output partial output Datum des Versuchs date of test 1999-06-13 1999-06-14 2002-12-04 2002-12-03 Dauer des Versuchs duration of test h 6,0 9,0 6,0 6,0 Art des Brennstoffs type of fuel according Presslinge (C) Hackgut (81) nach EN 303-5 to EN 303-5 compressed wood chipped wood Sorte qualitiy --Fichte Fichte spruce spruce Wasseranteil water content % 11 11 30 20 ZugefOhrte W~rmeleistung heat input kW 310,2 88,9 301,9 88,9 Nutzbare W~rmeleistung nominal heat output einschl. PrOfstandsverlust including loss of test rig kW 280,6 82,2 279,1 81,9 Kesselwirkungsgrad direkt boiler efficiency, direct method % 90,4 92,5 92,4 92,2 Mittlere Abgastemperatur mean flue gas temperature oc 172 90 153 78 Verbrennungslufttemperatur combustion air temperature oc 27 24 25 18 Forderdruck draught mbar 0,04 0,10 0,14 0,10 C02-Gehalt oder 02-Gehalt C02-content or 02-content* Vol.% 6,2* 9, 1* 15,0 14,1 CO-Gehalt CO-content pj)_m 9 5 16 6 NOx-Gehalt NOx-content ppm 73 46 108 67 CxHv-Gehalt CxHv-content ppm 1 1 3 2 Staubgehalt dust content mg/m 3 44 4 69 47 CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 8 6 14 6 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10 % 02 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 111 87 157 103 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10 % 02) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 2 2 5 3 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 10 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 33 4 48 35 (bez. auf 1 0 % 02) (refering to 1 0 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 7 5 13 5 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 102 79 142 94 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 2 2 5 3 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 30 4 44 32 (bez. auf 11 % 02) (refering to 11 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 6 4 10 3 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 81 63 113 75 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13% 02) OGC -Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 1 1 4 3 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 24 3 35 26 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 02) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/MJ 4 3 7 3 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/MJ 52 41 78 49 OGC-Emission OGC-emission mgC/MJ 1 1 2 1 Staubemission dust emission mg/MJ 15 2 24 17 Seite5/5 UnserZeichen, Erstelldatum, Kennzeichnung: IS-TAF-MUC/sl, 2005-08-01, Bericht-Nr. H 1116-02/05 H 1116 02 05 Zusammenfassung Pyrot 2005.doc Industria Service AusfOhrung individual size Pyrot 540 Versuch test Nennleistung Teillast Nennleistung Teillast nom. output J~artial output nom. output partial output Datum des Versuchs date of test 2004-01-27 2004-02-04 2004-02-02 2004-02-03 Dauer des Versuchs duration of test h 6,0 6,0 6,0 6,0 Art des Brennstoffs type of fuel according Presslinge (C) Hackgut (82) nach EN 303-5 to EN 303-5 compressed wood chipped wood Sorte qualitiy Fichte Fichte Fichte Fichte spruce spruce spruce spruce Wasseranteil water content % 9 9 43 43 Zl!QefOhrte Warmeleistung heat input kW 543,9 153,9 549,3 153,0 Nutzbare Warmeleistung nominal heat output einschl. PrOfstandsverlust including_ loss of test rig_ kW 498,2 144,2 497,9 141,0 Kesselwirkungsgrad direkt boiler efficiency, direct method % 91,6 93,7 90,6 92,1 Mittlere Abgastemperatur mean flue gas temperature oc 143 79 152 83 Verbrennungslufttemperatur combustion air temperature oc 21 21 24 21 Forderdruck . draught mbar 0,10 0,11 0,12 0,11 C02-Gehalt C02-content Vol.% 14,8 13,5 14,7 13,0 CO-Gehalt CO-content ppm 14 1 9 1 NOx-Gehalt NOx-content ppm 96 67 85 74 CxHy-Gehalt CxHy-content ppm 1 1 1 1 Staubgehalt dust content mg/m3 60 34 23 19 CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 12 1 8 1 (bez. auf 1 0 % Oz) (refering to 10 % Oz NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 140 107 125 124 (bez. auf 1 0 % Oz) (refering to 10 % Oz) OGC-Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 2 1 2 1 (bez. auf 1 0 % Oz) (refering to 10% Oz) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 43 27 16 15 (bez. auf 10% Oz) (refering to 1 0 % Oz) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 11 1 7 1 (bez. auf 11 % Oz) (refering to 11 % Oz) NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m3 127 98 114 113 (bez. auf 11 % Oz) (refering to 11 % 0 2} OGC -Emission OGC-emission mg/m3 2 1 2 1 (bez. auf 11 % Oz) (refering to 11 % Oz) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 39 25 15 14 (bez. auf 11 % Oz) (refering to 11 % Oz) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/m3 9 1 6 1 (bez. auf 13 % Oz) (refering to 13 % Oz) NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/m 3 102 78 91 90 (bez. auf 13 % Oz) (refering to 13 % 02) OGC -Emission OGC-emission mg/m 3 1 1 1 1 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 0 2) Staubemission dust emission mg/m3 31 19 12 11 (bez. auf 13 % 02) (refering to 13 % 0 2) CO-Emission CO-emission mg/MJ 6 1 5 1 NOx-Emission NOx-emission mg/MJ 67 51 71 70 OGC-Emission OGC-emission mgC/MJ 1 0 1 1 Staubemission dust emission mg/MJ 20 13 9 9 Ketchikan High School WISEWOOD OPTION A2 & B2 Fueling Requirements, Ash Disposal & Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Estimate Model inputs Calculated values Annual Estimated Air Pollutant Discharge Bulk density of wood, bone dry 36.00 lbs/ft.3 Total annual heat energy demand 10450 mmBtu Energy content of wood fuel 14.76 mmBtus/ton Delivery truck capacity 20 cu./yd. Bulk density, wet basis 43.2 lbs/ft.3 Delivery truck capacity 11.7 tons Wood fuel ash content 1.50%% by weight Bulk density of wood ash 6.33 lbs/gal. Annual fuel consumption 708.0 tons Annual wood fuel deliveries 60.7 deliveries Total wood ash generated, by weight 21239.8 lbs Total wood ash generated, by volume 3355.4 gal Ash container volume 240.00 liters Ash container volume 63.3 gals Ash container removal intervals 53.0 intervals Air emissions factors* CO 0.037 lbs/mmBtu NOx 0.107 lbs/mmBtu PM 0.052 lbs/mmBtu VOC (OGC)0.008 lbs/mmBtu Annual Estimated HAP Discharge CO 386.7 lbs NOx 1118.2 lbs PM 543.4 lbs VOC 83.6 lbs CO 0.193 tons NOx 0.559 tons PM 0.272 tons VOC 0.042 tons Total HAP Discharge 1.066 tons CERTIFIED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN Report on the TOV SOD Industry Service More safety. More value. test of a heating boner according to DIN EN 303~5 Test report C Testing the heating performance requirements Testing Laboratory Test object Customer Production plant (final assembly) Scope of order Official in charge Testing period Bases of test Seat: Munich Local Court Munich HRB 96 869 TOV SOD lndustrie Service GmbH Fuel and heating engineering department DIN laboratory Special heating boiler for solid fuels Type: Pyrtec Construction size: Pyrtec 720 Fuel: pellets or wood chips 82 Fuel charging: automatic Ocrtef: !$. TAF ·MUC!s! Docurnenl H-C 1159-01 00 Report no. H·C 1159-0 tC6 Onler no 626150 Th:s document co,~sisis o' 7 p~s and -annexes Pa;~e 1 of7 Combustion air supply: with primary and secondary air blower as well as exhaust blower Kob & Schafer GmbH Flotzbachstrasse 33 A-6922 Wolfurt Kob & Schafer GmbH, A-6922 Wolfurt Any publ>cation c1 this conftrmafun in part and its use !or advertisif!<J requ,res the ..,;uen C(}.1sen! of T\JV SOD tncusllle Ser;ice GmbH Evaluation of the heating boiler regarding the fulfillment of the heating performance requirements of DIN EN 303-5 as a partial test The test resJ!ts are exci"srYely related to the examineQ !e>t ctjocts Dipl.-lng. Uwe Schlosser June 2006 According to DIN EN 303-5:1999-06, Section 4.2 Chairman ofthe SupeNisory Board: Or. Axel Stepken General managers: Or. Manfred Bayenein (spokesman) Or. Udo Helsel Christian von der Linde Phone: +49 0 89 5190 • 1027 Teletax: +49 0 89 5190-3307 www.tuev-sued.de TOY Industria SeNice GmbH Fuel and Heating Engineering Department Ridlerstrane 65 80339 Munich Germany Page 2 ol7 Ref.lissue date: fS-TAF-MUC/sl/13..06-2006 Document: H·C 1159-0106 TOV SUD Industry Service Report no. H-e 1159-01/06 1 Summary Customer Production plant (final assembly) Model Type denomination Construction size Ki:ib & Schafer GmbH, A-6922 Wolfurt Ki:ib & Schafer GmbH, A-6922 Wolfurt Special steel boiler designed for burning \'v'ood according to DIN EN 303-5 with a primary and secondary air blower as well as an exhaust blower Bum-out principle: gasification in the primary zone and combustion in the secondary zone Fuel charging: Grating type: Slag removal: Components: Pyrtec Pyrtec 720 automatic movable cast link grate drive automatic turbulators in all flue gas flues Nominal range of heating performance 220kW-720 kW Country of destination Boiler class Nominal inlet temperature AT, DE, IT, FR, NL, BE, LU, CH 3 100 oc Admissible operating overpressure 3 bar Necessary flue draught exhaust gas 0 Pa (information by manufacturer) Electrical connection data 400 V, 50 Hz, 9 kW 'Tne test was carried out on a testing stand according to Figure A.2 of DIN EN 304:2004-01 in the testing laboratory ofTUV SUD Industrie Service GmbH in Munich. The general conditions of the test, the results and their evaluation are shown in Section 5. The heating perfonnance requirements according to Section 4.2 of DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 as well as the additional requirements for the countries of destination according to Annex A of DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 are fulfilled accordingly. Fuel and Heat Engineering DIN Test Laboratory Signature illegible Johannes Steiglechner Page 3 of7 Ref./issue date: IS·TAF·MUC/sl/13·06·2006 Document: H-C 1159·01 06 Report no. H-C 1159.()1/06 2 Bases of test TUV SUD Industry Service DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 Heating boiler ·· heating boiler for solid fuels, manually and automatically charged furnaces, nominal heat output up to 300 kW, according to Section 4.2 3 Note The test was carried out according to the standard DIN EN 303-5, since the performance range of the heating boiler is partially beyond the application range of the standard. The present test report documents the test of the Pyrtec 720 heating boiler with the control type KPT- MOD. The preparation of the test report was carried out on the basis of the modified data of the flow temperature and the flue dmught exhaust gas by the manufacturer. The measuring results were adopted without change from test report no. H-C 1159-00/05. There were no objections against the modi tied data. The complete description of the heating boiler was included in report H-A 1159-00/06 dated 2006-06- 13. 4 Description of the heating boiler 'T'he complete description of the heating boiler can be seen in Report No. B-A 1159-00/06 dated 2006- 06-13. 5 Heat engineering test -.-.-----~--~-»-~>->• ----·-·---------"""'"""'--··-···"· 5.1 Test conditions Heat carrier: Watt-"1' Heat loss ofthe test stand: -0.8 kW Test no. 1 nom. output 2 partial 3 nom. output 4 partial output output Heating boiler type Pyrtcc 720 Date of test 2005-04-04 2005-04-05 2005-04-07 2005-04-08 _____ Duration of test h 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Number of bum-outs .. ------..... -.---~-~~-~ .. ······-··-·~»>»» -·~-~--., Control SPS control, type KPT-MOD of Messrs. Ki:ib & Schafer GmbH The fuel tests were carried out by the tollowing labomtorv: TUV SUD lndustrie Service GmbH 5.2 Fuels Type Pellets Pellets Chipped wood Chipped wood Quality Spruce/beech Sprucc/bet---ch Spruce/beech Spruce/beech Particle size in mm 06 06 10-100 \0-100 Water content % 5.9 5.9 • 46.9 46.9 Ash content kg/kg 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 Lower calorific value kWhJkg 4.92 4.92 2.46 2.46 Fuel quantitv input _ _leg __ 966.6 288.6 1909.3 540.9 ------~,·~----···~- ___ .,., ... fuel quanti tv consumed per hour kg/h 161.1 48.1 318.3 90.2 Combustion residue kg 3 2 3 I Combustible ratio in residue % 30 20 30 30 Heat input k\V 792.9 236.7 783.3 22!.9 I j Page 4 of 7 Refi1ssue date. IS-TAF -MUC/sl/13-06-2006 Document: H·C 1159-01 06 Report no. H-C 115'J-01l06 5.3. Exhaust gas measuring values and losses: oc .1\:!.":~tt~nl ___ c~l-~l!~!lCJll.l?:(!r.~tl!E~.~-----------------Combustion air tC1lJPcraturc oc • COrcontcnt Vol.% CO-content ppm NO,-contcnt C,H,.-coment Dust content Flue draught mbar Specific exhaust gas volume-dry Spccitic water vapour volume nr Losses through: free heat of the exhaust gases q, 'ja i_neon:~.!£ com£l!~tion <le ~~o Combustible material in rcsidu~Jl.f ___ ~-b radiation/convection q~ %1 Boiler cflicicncy-indirect method ~~o 5.4 Water-side measuring values Test no. Cooling water flow kg/h Operating pressure bar Return tcmpenlturc "C Cooling water: inlet tC1l1perature "C Cooling water: outlet tmnperature "C Nominal tu:at output incl. Joss of test stand kW Corresponds to % of nom. heat output % the panial load 0/ /0 ~Boiler e_ftic~~: direc!._!!~.t::l.l.l<:_<!_ Q/ /0 '"'"""-·--.··----~~--~· 5.5 Surface temperatures: Measured at test no. 3 Boiler body casing oc Doors, cleaning cover "C I C;:cJonsj_c-ashing, wom1 socket oc Uncoated tubes: de-ashing, exhaust gas "C Bottom ~c Operating handles "C - II I 130 8(> ; -----~----.i l·· 20 21 10.9 28 51 •··~ ··-·- TOV suo Industry Service 132 ~6 21 22 1.1.4 10.3 ---.. ---·-~---·-.. ft ...... .. _ .. 218 243 58 43 I I I I _I__ 1--3 5 67 50 75 60 1 O.o7 0.16 -0.02 0.13 .0 7.9 3.7 4.7 0. 7 0.7 1.0 1.0 i 5.8 4.3 8.0 I 5.6 0.0 0.0 6.1 I 0.2 ......... _. ·-···-··-- 0.6 0.3 0.2 I 0.2 I •··-"'-'--'-----·~--·-·b'-0""---· I lA 4.2 1.3 3.8 92.2 91.2 l 90.4 I 90.2 I --~-+-! i I 2 3 I 4 I I 8455 2533 8851\ 2418 1.5 1.5 ) 1.5 1.5 61.2 66.9 1 ----<-· 56.9 64 ., .) I SA 8.8 I 8.7 9.2 81.8 82.2 I 772 80.5 m»m•m~ 722.9 216.1 706.6 200.3 100.4 30.0 I 98.1 27.8 -98.2 91.0 -91.2 91.3 90.2 90.3 ....... ,,, ____ Medium value Maximum value Admissible 32 50 64+tR 52 I 98 1 OO+tR 53 ···~ ~··~-~--·2.?_·-"·-··"""····-+-~~ IOO+tR ~--v~"' ""'"~ 75 i 140* ! l OO+to 100 I 11 o• 65!.!.&_ ... ~--~- 36 47 1 60+to Page 5 of 7 Ref.flssue date: IS-TAF·MUC/sV13-06-2006 Document: H-C 1159..() 1 06 Report no. H·C 1159..()1106 5.6 Comparison 5.6.1 of the values with the requirements of DIN EN 303-5: 1999 for class 3 Boiler cfticiency CO-emission (referring to I 0 % 0 1) % mg/nY _ OGC-emission (referring to 10 °/o ou..._ ___ mg!m, Dust emission (referring to I 0% 0 1) mg/m' Exhaust ga~ temperature oc -·~-··----~----·--- Flue draught mbar Ashpan sutllcient - Combustion time of the test h --- -·-- Test no. I achieved admissible 91.2 >84.1 35 <1200 1 <SO 49 ----.. ::;150 130" > 160+tR 0.07 50.57 Yt'S -- 6.0 ;::6.0 5.6.2 the values with the requirements for Germany and Switzerland --.. TOV SUD Industry Service Test no. 2 achieved admissible 91.3 >84.1 34 < 1200 I <80 48 -- "·-~·-·-,··~"'."'f"~ .... . .......... 86' >J60+tR 0.16 <0.57 yes -- 6.0 >6.0 according to Annex A2 and A5 of DIN EN 303-5: 1999 and the I" BlrnSch V (Gennany) andtor the Swiss Ordinance on Air Pollution (Switzerland) l:)_(l~t~J.!li~~iQI_~-t~fe_!!i!lg __ tp_l_~_":1o __ qll_ m~at'm· 36 <150 35 <150 o••••-•oo•-»»••»•n•nn•.knm••n•"'•nn CO-emission (referring to 13 % O,) mglm·' 25 .::;500 and/or 600 25 _s:500 andior 600 I I I I 5.6.3 the value of the requirements f(x Austria aceording_to annex A I of . . . " [ DIN EN 303-5:1999 and the Austnan Act arttclc I )a "Agreement on protc'CtiOn mC'JSures regardtng small tum aces I and ''Agreement on saving energy". .. .. - Boiler efficiency ~~ 91.2 ;::86.0 91.3 >86.0 ·-- CO-emission rng/MJ 16 <500 16 <500 -·-NO -emission mg/MJ 45 .::;150 47 --- OGC-emission mg!MJ 1 <40 I <40 -Dust emission mgfMJ 23 <60 22 --- 1 Tbe requirements are fulfilled according to pilr. 4.2.6 of DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 2 Corresponding data according to Section 4.2.2 ofDIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 existing in the assembly and operating instructions 3 Test according to Article 8 ofthe Agreement ace. to Art. 15a B-VG not necessary • Due to the surface temperatures determined, adequate notes have to be entered in the assembly and operating instructions (installation, distance to inflammable comtruction materials) I I I Page 6 of 7 Ref.lissue date: IS-TAF-MUCisiJ13..06-2006 Document: H·C 1159..()1 0£ Report no. H·C 1159..01/06 TOV SUD Industry Service 5.7 Comparison Test no. 3 Test no. 4 5.7.1 of the values with the requirements achieved admissible Achieved ! admissible of DIN EN 303-5: 1999 for class 3 j Boiler efficiencv ~/o 90.2 2;84.1 90.3 >84.1 CO-emission (referring to 10 % 0 1 ) mginr' 214 <1200 311 <1200 OGC-emission (referring to 10% 0 2) lll\1/nl 5 <80 11*<80 Dust emission (referring to i 0% Oo} #'' <150 62 --4 132 5 ---·-··-· ·-86· : J60+tR Exhaust gas temperature >!60+tR Flue draught ....... .,_ .... -.... -0.02** s0.57 _____ .... ...2.:.!.~.. <0.57 Ash pan sutlicient ves --es -- Combustion time h 6.0 >6.0 ) >6Jl --· ---5.7.2 of the values with the re{juircments for Gennany and Switzerland according to Annex A2 and AS of DIN EN 303-5: !999 and the I" B1mSch V (Gennany) and! or the Swiss Ordinance on Air Pollution (Switzerland} Dust emission (referring to 13 % 0 2) mg/m 43 _:;:150 45 <150 CO-emission (referring to 13 % 0 2) mgfm' 156 ,5500 and/or 600 226 :<;500 and/or 600 ··- 5.7.3 of the value of the requirerm .. '11ts for Austria according to Annex A I of DIN EN 303-5:1999 and the Austrian Act Article 15a "Agreement on protection measures regarding small furnaces'' and "Agreement on saving em.'rgy". Boiler efticiencv ~-o 90.2 >86.0 90.3 >86.0 CO-emission lv!g/MJ 112 ::soo 163 <500 NO,-emission MgiMJ 49 <150 47 ·--" OGC-emission Mg/MJ 2 <40 5 <40 Dust emission Mg!MJ 31 ! <60 32 ---" ---- 5.8 Function test: accordinl! to Section 5.13 of DIN EN 303-5 Set value Switch point Behaviour Temperature regulator oc 80 80 Sliding Temperature limit safety switch oc 95 95 lock The schedule of the measuring means used is filed with the test laboratory. Te requirements are fulfilled according to par. 4.2.6 of DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 5 Corresponding data according to Section 4.2.2 of DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06 existing in the assembly and operating instructions 6 Test according to Article 8 of the Agreement ace. to Art. l5a B-VG not necessary " 'Due to the exhaust gas pressure an overpressure was measured at the measuring point for Pkc Page7 of 7 ReUissue date: IS-TAF·MUC1slf13-06-2006 Document: H-C 1159-01 06 Repon no H-C 1 1 59-01106 6 Expert opinon The presented for testing by Messrs. in the constmction size heating boiler according to DIN EN 303-5 Type: Pyrtec Ki:ib & Schafer Gmbtl Flotzbachstrasse 33 A-6922 \\'olfurt Pyrtec 720 TUV SUD Industry Service has been subject to a heat engineering test by the DH\ test laboratory ofTUV SUD Industrie Service GmbH in accordance with the requirements ofDIN EN 303-5: 1999-06, Section 4.2. The test showed that the heat engineering requirements for heating boilers during operation with pellets or chipped wood 82 according to DIN EN 303-5: 1999-06, Section 4.2 as well as the additional requirements for the destination countries AT, DE and CH according to Annex A, Section A. I, A.2 and A.5 of DIN EN 303-5 have been fulfilled. Fuel and Heat Engineering DIN Test Laboratory Signature illegible Johannes Steiglechner Official in charge Signature illegible Uwe Schlosser With reforenoo to my oath as an official Court Interpreter I certify that this Ia a true 811d corroot translation of the GermanP, ~ original t~ i/( :\ /.btenallj }....C I~ OPTION A:PELLETBOILER INEXISTINGBOILER ROOMOPTION B:PELLET BOILER INNEW STRUCTUREOFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEPROJECT SITE PLAN1M0.0SCALE: 1/16" = 1'1PROJECT SITEPLANM0.0N EXISTING SUMPAM2.1BM2.1OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER ROOM DEMOLITION PLAN1M1.0SCALE: 3/8" = 1'2OPTION A -BOILER ROOMDEMOLITION PLANM1.0N OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER ROOM DEMOLITION ELEVATIONAM1.1SCALE: 1/2" = 1'2OPTION A - BOILERROOM DEMOLITIONELEVATIONM1.1L \ I / II u u ~ I \ ' ' ,,,~ ' I )< ~ -~=======- OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER ROOM DEMO ELEVATIONBM1.2SCALE: 3/8" = 1'3OPTION A - BOILERROOM DEMOLITIONELEVATIONM1.2 9'AM2.1BM2.2OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER ROOM MECHANICAL PLAN1M2.0SCALE: 3/8" = 1'5OPTION A1 - BOILERROOM MECHANICALPLANM2.0N 25'-7"9'1'-7"55°15'35°OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER ROOM MECHANICAL ELEVATIONSAM2.1SCALE: 1/2" = 1'6OPTION A1 - BOILERROOM MECHANICALELEVATIONSM2.1 OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER ROOM MECHANICAL ELEVATIONSBM2.2SCALE: 3/8" = 1'7OPTION A1 - BOILERROOM MECHANICALELEVATIONSM2.2l l l l l l l --------, ,-I I l -() ~ M lJ D _t:_ _Q_ [= ("'f ~'--=';; -I ' ' I ,--' ' ' I ' ' -.' -.' -'""""" [-(:_j, r= () ' ~ '',,, 1/ ~~ I', jl[] ~I - 22' OVERHEAD DOOR82'-8"15'-6"17'-8"AM2.440'12'MAINTENANCE HATCHOFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER CONTAINER MECHANICAL PARTIAL PLAN1M2.3SCALE: 1/4" = 1'8OPTION B2 - BOILERCONTAINER MECH.PARTIAL PLANM2.3N 27'-8"15'-6"45°35°OFSHEETDESCRIPTIONDATEREVDRAWING NO.9DRAWN: J ABELPROJECT:CONTACT: A HADENDATE: 11/03/2014KHS.30IF IT DOES NOT MEASURE 2THIS LINE IS 2 INCHESAT FULL SCALEINCHES, SCALE ACCORDINGLYTEL. 503.608.7366FAX 503.715.0483INFO@WISEWOOD.USWWW.WISEWOOD.US2409 N KERBY AVENUEPORTLAND, OR 97227PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBWISEWOODKETCHIKAN HIGHSCHOOLBIOMASS BOILERINSTALLATION2601 4TH AVEKETCHIKAN, AK 99901ENGINEER'S STAMPPROJECT LOCATIONDRAWING TITLEPROJECTCUSTOMERDESIGN FIRMACDEFGH654321INITIAL REVIEWA12/03/20144TH AVEMONROE ST5TH AVEJACKSON ST7TH AVECOLLEGE AVEBOILER CONTAINER MECHANICAL ELEVATIONAM2.4SCALE: 1/4" = 1'9OPTION B2 - BOILERCONTAINER MECH.ELEVATIONM2.4 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 39 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT B-4: Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report – Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Ketchikan High School, by CTA Architects Engineers and Lars Construction Management Services, dated July 24, 2012 Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Final Report July 24, 2012 Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Ketchikan High School Ketchikan, Alaska Presented by CTA Architects Engineers Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz Lars Construction Management Services Rex Goolsby For Ketchikan Gateway Borough School Ketchikan Indian Association In partnership with Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group Funded by Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service 306 W. Railroad, Suite 104 Missoula, MT 59802 406.728.9522 www.ctagroup.com CTA Project: FEDC_KETCHCRAIG_KHS Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers i July 24, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Existing Building Systems.......................................................................................... 3 4.0 Energy Use ............................................................................................................... 3 5.0 Biomass Boiler Size ................................................................................................... 3 6.0 Wood Fuel Use .......................................................................................................... 4 7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access ....................................................................... 5 8.0 Integration with Existing Heating Systems ................................................................. 5 9.0 Air Quality Permits ..................................................................................................... 5 10.0 Wood Heating Options .............................................................................................. 6 11.0 Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 6 12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................... 6 13.0 Results of Evaluation ................................................................................................. 7 14.0 Project Funding ......................................................................................................... 7 15.0 Summary ................................................................................................................... 8 16.0 Recommended Action ............................................................................................... 8 Appendixes Appendix A: Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost .................................................. 1 page Appendix B: Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................................... 2 pages Appendix C: Site Plan ................................................................................................. 1 page Appendix D: Air Quality Report ............................................................................... 11 pages Appendix E: Wood Fired Heating Technologies ........................................................ 3 pages Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 1 of 7 July 24, 2012 1.0 Executive Summary The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system at the Ketchikan High School in Ketchikan, Alaska. The following tables summarize the current fuel use and the potential wood fuel use: Table 1.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal Cost High School Fuel Oil 127,900 $3.70 $473,230 Table 1.2 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary Chipped/ Fuel Wood Ground Oil Pellets Wood (Gallons) (Tons) (Tons) High School 127,900 1049.3 1715.9 Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use. Due to the large volume of wood needed to heat the building, pellet and chipped/ground fuel boilers were evaluated and cord wood systems were not considered. The options reviewed were as follows: Chipped/Ground Wood Boiler Options: A.1: A freestanding boiler building with interior wood storage. Wood Pellet Boiler Options: B.1: A freestanding boiler building with adjacent free standing pellet silo. The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option: Table 1.3 - Economic Evaluation Summary Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating System Year 1 NPV NPV 20 Yr 30 Yr Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC A.1 $1,793,000 $212,455 $10,179,110 $5,726,532 3.19 5.68 $8,187,188 $17,745,555 8 B.1 $1,400,000 $80,164 $6,373,815 $3,213,382 2.30 4.55 $4,694,187 $11,496,899 11 Ketchikan Gateway Borough School High School appears to be a good candidate for the use of a wood biomass heating systems. With the current economic assumptions and the current fuel use this wood chip boiler option has a very strong 20 year B/C ratio of 3.9, and the wood pellet boiler a strong 20 year B/C ratio of 2.3. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 2 of 8 July 24, 2012 Because of the site constraints and air quality issues, the pellet boiler system would be recommended over the chip system. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 3 of 8 July 24, 2012 2.0 Introduction The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system at the Ketchikan High School in Ketchikan, Alaska. 3.0 Existing Building Systems The Ketchikan High School is a steel and concrete framed building originally constructed in 1953 and expanded and remodeled extensively in mid 1990’s. The facility is approximately 110,000 square feet and is heated by one 3,770,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler and two 4,070,000 Btu/hr output hot water boilers. Domestic hot water is provided by three 120 gallon indirect water heaters using the boiler water as a heating source. These domestic water heaters then feed a single 1,500 gallon storage tank. The existing boilers are original to the renovation work in the mid 1990’s and are in good condition. Most of the heating system infrastructure was also updated in the mid 1990’s and is in good condition. Facilities Dropped from Feasibility Study No facilities were dropped from the feasibility study. Facilities Added to Feasibility Study No facilities were added to the feasibility study. 4.0 Energy Use Fuel oil bills for the facilities were provided. The following table summarizes the data: Table 4.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal Cost High School Fuel Oil 127,900 $3.70 $473,230 Electrical energy consumption will increase with the installation of the wood fired boiler system because of the power needed for the biomass boiler components such as augers, conveyors, draft fans, etc. and the additional pumps needed to integrate into the existing heating systems. The cash flow analysis accounts for the additional electrical energy consumption and reduces the annual savings accordingly. 5.0 Biomass Boiler Size The following table summarized the connected load of fuel fired boilers: Table 5.1 - Connected Boiler Load Summary Likely Peak System Output Load Peak MBH Factor MBH Gateway Borough School Boiler 1 Fuel Oil 3770 0.65 2451 Boiler 2 Fuel Oil 4070 0.65 2646 Boiler 3 Fuel Oil 4070 0.65 2646 Total 11910 7742 Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 4 of 8 July 24, 2012 Typically a wood heating system is sized to meet approximately 85% of the typical annual heating energy use of the building. The existing heating boilers would be used for the other 15% of the time during peak heating conditions, during times when the biomass boiler is down for servicing, and during swing months when only a few hours of heating each day are required. Recent energy models have found that a boiler sized at 50% to 60% of the building peak load will typically accommodate 85% of the boiler run hours. Table 5.2 - Proposed Biomass Boiler Size Likely Biomass System Biomass Boiler Peak Boiler Size MBH Factor MBH High School 7742 0.6 4645 6.0 Wood Fuel Use The types of wood fuel available in the area include wood pellets and chipped/ground wood fuel. The estimated amount of wood fuel needed for each wood fuel type for each building was calculated and is listed below: Table 6.1 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary Chipped/ Fuel Wood Ground Oil Pellets Wood (Gallons) (Tons) (Tons) High School 127,900 1049.3 1715.9 Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use. The amount of wood fuel shown in the table is for offsetting 85% of the total fuel oil use. The moisture content of the wood fuels and the overall wood burning system efficiencies were accounted for in these calculations. The existing fuel oil boilers were assumed to be 80% efficient. Wood pellets were assumed to be 7% MC with a system efficiency of 70%. Chipped/ground fuel was assumed to be 40% MC with a system efficiency of 65%. As can be seen from the potential wood fuel use, the volume of wood is such that a cord wood system is not really practical and further analysis will look at pellet and chipped/ground fuel options. There are sawmills and active logging operations in the region. Tongass Forest Enterprises has stared up a pellet plant in Ketchikan and is providing pellets to Sealaska. Pellets are also available from plants in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. There appears to be a sufficient available supply to service the boiler plant. The unit fuel costs for fuel oil and the different fuel types were calculated and equalized to dollars per million Btu ($/MMBtu) to allow for direct comparison. The Delivered $/MMBtu is the cost of the fuel based on what is actually delivered to the heating system, which includes all the inefficiencies of the different systems. The Gross $/MMBtu is the cost of the fuel based on raw fuel, or the higher heating value and does not account for any Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 5 of 8 July 24, 2012 system inefficiencies. The following table summarizes the equalized fuel costs at different fuel unit costs: Table 6.2 - Unit Fuel Costs Equalized to $/MMBtu Net Gross System System Delivered Gross Fuel Type Units Btu/unit Efficiency Btu/unit $/unit $/MMBtu $/MMBtu Fuel Oil gal 138500 0.8 110800 $3.50 $31.59 $25.27 $4.00 $36.10 $28.88 $4.50 $40.61 $32.49 Pellets tons 16400000 0.7 11480000 $300.00 $26.13 $18.29 $350.00 $30.49 $21.34 $400.00 $34.84 $24.39 Chips tons 10800000 0.65 7020000 $75.00 $10.68 $6.94 $100.00 $14.25 $9.26 $125.00 $17.81 $11.57 7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access The boiler room is not large enough to accommodate a new wood fired boiler so a new stand-alone plant would be required. The best location for a plant would be just northwest of the boiler room, adjacent to the tennis courts to the north. Any type of biomass boiler plant will require access by delivery vehicles, typically 40 foot long vans or some similar type of trailer. The school is built on a steep site, limiting vehicle access and space for constructing wood heating systems. A wood pellet boiler with adjacent silos appear to the most appropriate solution. Wood pellet fuel would need to be conveyed into the silo utilizing a pneumatic blower or grain auger. A pneumatic blower allows greater flexibility in the relationship between the delivery vehicle and silo. 8.0 Integration with Existing Heating System Integration of a wood fired boiler system would be relatively straight forward in the building. The field visit confirmed the location of the boiler room in order to identify an approximate point of connection from a biomass boiler to the existing building. Piping from the biomass boiler plant would be run below ground with pre-insulated pipe and extended to the face of each building, and extended up the exterior surface of the school in order to penetrate exterior wall into the boiler room. Once the hot water supply and return piping enters the existing boiler room it would be connected to existing supply and return pipes in appropriate locations in order to utilize existing pumping systems within each building. 9.0 Air Quality Permits Resource System Group has done a preliminary review of potential air quality issues in the area. Southeast Alaska is has meteorological conditions that can create thermal inversions, which are unfavorable for the dispersion of emissions. The proposed boiler size at this location is small enough, that the boiler is not likely to require any State or Federal permits. Since this plant will be located at a school and is also located in the populated area, the air quality will likely be scrutinized and modeling of emissions, the Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 6 of 8 July 24, 2012 stack height, and of air pollution control devices is recommended. RSG also recommends pellet systems over chip systems for the ability of pellets to burn cleaner than chip systems. See the air quality memo in Appendix D. 10.0 Wood Heating Options The technologies available to produce heating energy from wood based biomass are varied in their approach, but largely can be separated into three types of heating plants: cord wood, wood pellet and wood chip/ground wood fueled. See Appendix E for these summaries. Due to the large volume of wood needed to heat the building, pellet and chipped/ground fuel boilers were evaluated and cord wood systems were not considered. The options reviewed were as follows: Chipped/Ground Wood Boiler Options: A.1: A freestanding boiler building with interior wood storage. Wood Pellet Boiler Options: B.1: A freestanding boiler building with adjacent free standing pellet silo. 11.0 Estimated Costs The total project costs are at a preliminary design level and are based on RS Means and recent biomass project bid data. The estimates are shown in the appendix. These costs are conservative and if a deeper level feasibility analysis is undertaken and/or further design occurs, the costs may be able to be reduced. 12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions The cash flow analysis assumes fuel oil at $3.70/gal, electricity at $0.10/kwh, wood pellets delivered at $300/ton, and ground/chipped wood fuel delivered at $100/ton. The fuel oil and electricity costs were based on utility bills. Pellet costs were obtained from Tongass Forest Enterprises. It is assumed that the wood boiler would supplant 85% of the estimated heating use, and the existing heating systems would heat the remaining 15%. Each option assumes the total project can be funded with grants and non obligated capital money. The following inflation rates were used: O&M - 2%, Fossil Fuel – 5%, Wood Fuel – 3%, Discount Rate for NPV calculation – 3%. The fossil fuel inflation rate is based on the DOE EIA website. DOE is projecting a slight plateau with a long term inflation of approximately 5%. As a point of comparison, oil prices have increased at an annual rate of over 8% since 2001. The analysis also accounts for additional electrical energy required for the wood fired boiler system as well as the system pumps to distribute heating hot water to the buildings. Wood fired boiler systems also will require more maintenance, and these additional maintenance costs are also factored into the analysis. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 7 of 8 July 24, 2012 13.0 Results of Evaluation The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option: Table 13.1 - Economic Evaluation Summary Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating System Year 1 NPV NPV 20 Yr 30 Yr Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC A.1 $1,793,000 $212,455 $10,179,110 $5,726,532 3.19 5.68 $8,187,188 $17,745,555 8 B.1 $1,400,000 $80,164 $6,373,815 $3,213,382 2.30 4.55 $4,694,187 $11,496,899 11 The benefit to cost ratio (B/C) takes the net present value (NPV) of the net energy savings and divides it by the construction cost of the project. A B/C ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 indicates an economically advantageous project. Accumulated cash flow (ACF) is another evaluation measure that is calculated in this report and is similar to simple payback with the exception that accumulated cash flow takes the cost of financing and fuel escalation into account. For many building owners, having the accumulated cash flow equal the project cost within 15 years is considered necessary for implementation. If the accumulated cash flow equals project cost in 20 years or more, that indicates a challenged project. Positive accumulated cash flow should also be considered an avoided cost as opposed to a pure savings. Because this project involves as school, a life cycle cost analysis following the requirements of the State of Alaska Department of Education & Early Development was completed and the data is summarized in the following table: Table 13.2 Life Cycle Costs of Project Alternatives Alternate #1 Alternate #2 Existing Boiler Wood Pellet Boiler Initial Investment Cost $0 $1,400,000 Operations Cost $11,098,820 $6,160,797 Maintenance & Repair Cost $0 $56,725 Replacement Cost $0 $0 Residual Value $0 $0 Total Life Cycle Cost $11,098,820 $7,617,523 This life cycle cost analysis also indicates a pellet boiler system is a strong project. 14.0 Project Funding The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District may pursue a biomass project grant from the Alaska Energy Authority. Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Ketchikan High School Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Ketchikan, Alaska CTA Architects Engineers Page 8 of 8 July 24, 2012 The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District could also enter into a performance contract for the project. Companies such as Siemens, McKinstry, Johnson Controls and Chevron have expressed an interest in participating in funding projects of all sizes throughout Alaska. This allows the facility owner to pay for the project entirely from the guaranteed energy savings, and to minimize the project funds required to initiate the project. The scope of the project may be expanded to include additional energy conservation measures such as roof and wall insulation and upgrading mechanical systems. 15.0 Summary Ketchikan Gateway Borough School High School appears to be a good candidate for the use of a wood biomass heating systems. With the current economic assumptions and the current fuel use this wood chip boiler option has a very strong 20 year B/C ratio of 3.9, and the wood pellet boiler a strong 20 year B/C ratio of 2.3. Because of the site constraints and air quality issues, the pellet boiler system would be recommended over the chip system. Additional sensitivity analysis was performed on the wood pellet option. The cost of the wood fuel was varied, and the 20 year B/C ratio exceeds 1.0 up to $385/ton. 16.0 Recommended Actions Most grant programs will likely require a full feasibility assessment. A full assessment would provide more detail on the air quality issues, wood fuel resources, and a schematic design of the boiler systems and system integration to obtain more accurate costs. It is recommended that the best location for a boiler plant be reviewed in more detail. A boiler plant located further east than shown on the drawing may be avoid taking up parking spots, but a portion of the tennis court may be lost to accommodate the plant. The route and method of delivering pellets needs to be investigated further as this will affect the best location for the boiler plant as well. APPENDIX A Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost Ketchikan High School Biomass Heating Options Ketchikan, AK Option A.1 Wood Chip Chip Storage/ Boiler Building:$270,000 Wood Heating & Wood Handling System:$325,000 Stack/Air Pollution Control Device:$180,000 Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$150,000 Underground Piping $25,000 KHS Integration $56,000 Subtotal:$1,006,000 30% Remote Factor $301,800 Subtotal:$1,307,800 Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%: $196,170 Subtotal:$1,503,970 15% Contingency:$225,596 Total Project Costs 1,729,566$ Option B.1 Pellet Chip Storage/ Boiler Building:$270,000 Wood Heating & Wood Handling System:$265,000 Stack/Air Pollution Control Device:$50,000 Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$150,000 Underground Piping $25,000 KHS Integration $56,000 Subtotal:$816,000 30% Remote Factor $244,800 Subtotal:$1,060,800 Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%: $159,120 Subtotal:$1,219,920 15% Contingency:$182,988 Total Project Costs 1,402,908$ APPENDIX B Cash Flow Analysis Ketchikan High SchoolOption A.1Ketchikan, AKWood Chip Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:galgalgalgalCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70$3.60$3.60$3.60 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230$0$0$0$473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500138500 138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80%80%80%80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,00000014,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Chips$/ton: $100.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 40% MC 5400 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.2,019Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,71625 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.69 Project Capital Cost-$1,730,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use45000 kWhTypeHr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0Elec Rate$0.280 /kWhBiomass System4.040160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,730,000 Other0.0400 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning3.040120 $20.00 $2,400Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 8.1 yearsNet Benefit B/C Ratio$10,248,706$8,518,706 5.92$5,796,128$4,066,1283.35Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost7Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation3.0%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear Year YearYearYearYearCash flow DescriptionsUnit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 123456789101112131415202530Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70127900 gal$473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842 $809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.600 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$100.0085%1716 tons$171,590 $176,738 $182,040 $187,501 $193,126 $198,920 $204,888 $211,034 $217,365 $223,886 $230,603 $237,521 $244,646 $251,986 $259,545 $300,884 $348,807 $404,363Small load existing fuel$3.7015%19185 gal$70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282 $90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.6015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.6015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.6015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200$3,264$3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533$3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$2,400$2,448Additional Electrical Cost $0.280$12,600 $12,978 $13,367 $13,768 $14,181 $14,607 $15,045 $15,496 $15,961 $16,440 $16,933 $17,441 $17,965 $18,504 $19,059 $22,094 $25,613 $29,693Annual Operating Cost Savings$212,455$226,930$244,739$260,984$278,161$296,319$315,511$335,793$357,224$379,864$403,779$429,035$455,706$483,865$513,592$688,814$917,714$1,215,958Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow212,455 226,930 244,739 260,984 278,161 296,319 315,511 335,793 357,224 379,864 403,779 429,035 455,706 483,865 513,592 688,814 917,714 1,215,958Accumulated Cash Flow212,455 439,385 684,125 945,109 1,223,269 1,519,588 1,835,099 2,170,893 2,528,117 2,907,981 3,311,760 3,740,795 4,196,501 4,680,366 5,193,958 8,268,776 ######### 17,827,143Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis): Ketchikan High SchoolOption B.1Ketchikan, AKWood Pellet Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel OilFuel OilFuel Units:galgalgalgalCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70$3.70$3.70$3.70 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230$0$0$0$473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500138500138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80%80%80%80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,00000014,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Pellets$/ton: $300.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 70% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 7% MC 8200 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.1,234Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,04925 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.42 Project Capital Cost-$1,400,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use25000 kWhTypeHr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0Elec Rate$0.100 /kWhBiomass System4.040160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,400,000 Other0.0400 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning2.04080 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 17.5 yearsNet Benefit B/C Ratio$6,373,815$4,973,815 4.55$3,213,382$1,813,3822.30Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost11Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation3.0%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear Year YearYearYearYearCash flow DescriptionsUnit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units123456789101112131415202530Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70127900 gal$473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842 $809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$300.0085%1049 tons$314,781 $324,224 $333,951 $343,970 $354,289 $364,918 $375,865 $387,141 $398,755 $410,718 $423,039 $435,731 $448,803 $462,267 $476,135 $551,970 $639,885 $741,802Small load existing fuel$3.7015%19185 gal$70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282 $90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200$3,264$3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533$3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600$1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.100$2,500 $2,575$2,652 $2,732 $2,814 $2,898$2,985 $3,075 $3,167 $3,262 $3,360 $3,461 $3,564 $3,671 $3,781 $4,384 $5,082$5,891Annual Operating Cost Savings$80,164$90,662$103,543$115,552$128,366$142,030$156,594$172,108$188,628$206,211$224,916$244,806$265,950$288,416$312,280$455,438$647,168$902,321Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow80,164 90,662 103,543 115,552 128,366 142,030 156,594 172,108 188,628 206,211 224,916 244,806 265,950 288,416 312,280 455,438 647,168 902,321Accumulated Cash Flow80,164 170,827 274,370 389,922 518,287 660,317 816,910 989,019 1,177,647 1,383,858 1,608,773 1,853,580 2,119,529 2,407,946 2,720,226 4,694,187 7,524,448 11,496,899Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis): APPENDIX C Site Plan NEW BOILER BUILDINGNEW SILOSCHOOL94'-0"NORTHREF.LEGENDPIPE ROUTINGBOILER ROOM120'60'30'0SCALE: 1:60MISSOULA, MT(406)728-9522Fax (406)728-8287Date®BIOMASS PRE-FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTKETCHIKAN, ALASKAKETCHIKAN HIGH SCHOOLSSFNHR07/24/12FEDCJ:ketchSCOLSITE PLAN APPENDIX D Air Quality Report 55 Railroad Row White River Junction, Vermont 05001 TEL 802.295.4999 FAX 802.295.1006 www.rsginc.com INTRODUCTION At your request, RSG has conducted an air quality feasibility study for seven biomass energy installations in Ketchikan and Craig, Alaska. These sites are located in the panhandle of Alaska. The following equipment is proposed: Ketchikan o One 4,700,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan High School. o One 800,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility. o One 150,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School. o One 200,000 Btu/hr (heat output) pellet boiler at the old Ketchikan Indian Council Administration Building. Craig o One 450,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Craig Tribal Association Building. o One 450,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler near the Fire Hall. o One 250,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Shaan‐Seet Office. To: Nick Salmon From: John Hinckley Subject: Ketchikan‐Craig Cluster Feasibility Study Date: 24 July 2012 Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 2 A USGS map of the Ketchikan study area is provided in Figure 1 below. As shown, the area is mountainous, with Ketchikan located on the southwest side of a mountain range. Ketchikan has a population of 14,070. The area is relatively fairly well populated and developed relative to other areas in Alaska. The area is also a port for cruise ships, which are significant sources of air pollution. The topography, population, level of development, and existing emission sources has the potential to create localized, temporary problematic air quality. Figure 1: USGS Map Illustrating the Ketchikan Study Area Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 3 Figure 2 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the Ketchikan High School. The site slopes moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction with the grade becoming very steep to the northeast of the High School building. The school building is between two to three stories high. The biomass facility will be located in a stand‐alone building on the north side of the school building, which is the high side of the building. There are residential areas west, north, and east of the proposed biomass facility which are uphill (above) the facility. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. The degree of separation of the biomass building from the other buildings will create a buffer for emissions dispersion. Figure 2: Site Map of the Ketchikan High School Project Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 4 Figure 3 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility. The site slopes moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction. As a result, there are buildings above and below the site. The biomass facility will be located in a stand‐alone building on the northeast (uphill) side of the school building. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. The degree of separation of the biomass building from the other buildings will create a small buffer for emissions dispersion. Figure 3: Site Map of the Ketchikan Indian Council Medical Facility Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 5 Figure 4 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School (marked Stedman) and Ketchikan Indian Council Admin Building (marked Deermount). The sites slope moderately to steeply downward in the southeasterly direction. As a result, there are buildings above and below the sites. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. Figure 4: Site Map of Ketchikan Indian Council Votec School (Stedman) and the Admin Building (Deermount) Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 6 A USGS map is provided below in Figure 5. As shown, Craig Island is relatively flat with mountainous terrain to the west, and water in all other directions. The area is relatively sparsely populated. The population of Craig is 1,397. Our review of the area did not reveal any significant emission sources or ambient air quality issues. Figure 5: USGS Map Illustrating the Craig Study Area Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 7 Figure 6 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility and the surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and moderately populated with one and two story high buildings. The boiler plant is located in a stand‐alone building to the west of the Tribal Association Building and east of another building. The stack should be designed to provide plume rise above both of these buildings. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. Figure 6: Site Map of the Craig Tribal Association Building Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 8 Figure 7 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the proposed Shaan‐Seet biomass facility and the surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and moderately populated with one and two story high buildings. The boiler plant is located in a stand‐alone building. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined. Figure 7: Site Map of Shaan‐Seet Boiler Plant Site Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 9 METEOROLOGY Meteorological data from Annette, AK, was reviewed to develop an understanding of the weather conditions. Annette is the closest weather data representing the climactic conditions occurring in the Panhandle and is therefore a good proxy of Ketchikan and Craig weather conditions. This data indicates calm winds occur only 10% of the year when, which suggests there will be minimal time periods when thermal inversions and therefore poor emission dispersion conditions can occur.1 Figure 8: Wind Speed Data from Annette, AK 1 See: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Wind/Speed/Annette/ANN.html Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 10 DESIGN & OPERATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following are suggested for designing this project: Burn natural wood, whose characteristics (moisture content, bark content, species, geometry) results in optimal combustion in the equipment selected for the project. Do not install a rain cap above the stack. Rain caps obstruct vertical airflow and reduce dispersion of emissions. Construct the stack to at least 1.5 times the height of the tallest roofline of the adjacent building. Hence, a 20 foot roofline would result in a minimum 30 foot stack. Attention should be given to constructing stacks higher than 1.5 times the tallest roofline given higher elevations of surrounding residences due to the moderate to steep slopes present. Operate and maintain the boiler according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Perform a tune‐up at least every other year as per manufacturer’s recommendations and EPA guidance (see below for more discussion of EPA requirements) Conduct regular observations of stack emissions. If emissions are not characteristic of good boiler operation, make corrective actions. For the Ketchikan High School: install at minimum a multicyclone to filter particulate matter emissions. These design and operation recommendations are based on the assumption that state‐of‐the‐ art combustion equipment is installed. STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS This project will not require an air pollution control permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Quality given the boilers’ relatively small size and corresponding quantity of emissions. However, this project will be subject to new proposed requirements in the federal “Area Source Rule” (40 CFR 63 JJJJJJ). A federal permit is not needed. However, there are various record keeping, reporting and operation and maintenance requirements which must be performed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in the Area Source Rule. The proposed changes have not been finalized. Until that time, the following requirements are applicable: Submit initial notification form to EPA within 120 days of startup. Complete biennial tune ups per EPA method. Submit tune‐up forms to EPA. Please note the following: Oil and coal fired boilers are also subject to this rule. Ketchikan‐Craig Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc. 24 July 2012 page 11 Gas fired boilers are not subject to this rule. More requirements are applicable to boilers equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr heat input. These requirements typically warrant advanced emission controls, such as a baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The compliance guidance documents and compliance forms can be obtained on the following EPA web page: http://www.epa.gov/boilercompliance/ SUMMARY RSG has completed an air quality feasibility study for Ketchikan and Craig, Alaska. These boilers are not subject to state permitting requirements, but are subject to federal requirements. Design criteria have been suggested to minimize emissions and maximize dispersion. The following conditions suggest advanced emission control devices (ESP, baghouse) are not mandatory in Ketchikan and Craig: 1. The wood boilers will be relatively small emission sources. 2. Most of the wood boilers will be located in a separate building which will create a dispersion buffer between the boiler stack and the building. 3. There are no applicable federal or state emission limits. 4. Meteorological conditions are favorable for dispersion. The following conditions suggest additional attention should be given to controlling emissions in Ketchikan: 1. Presence of other emission sources. 2. Relatively high population density. 3. The sensitive populations housed by all Ketchikan buildings. While not mandatory, we recommend exploring the possibility of a cyclone or multi‐cyclone technology for control of fly ash and larger particulate emissions for all the aforementioned boilers. We also recommend developing a compliance plan for the aforementioned federal requirements. Given its size and sensitive population served, air dispersion modeling can be performed for the Ketchikan High School site to determine the stack height and degree of emission control (multicyclone vs ESP). Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. APPENDIX E Wood Fired Heating Technologies WOOD FIRED HEATING TECHNOLOGIES CTA has developed wood-fired heating system projects using cord wood, wood pellet and wood chips as the primary feedstock. A summary of each system type with the benefits and disadvantages is noted below. Cord Wood Cord wood systems are hand-stoked wood boilers with a limited heat output of 150,000- 200,000 British Thermal Units per hour (Btu/hour). Cord wood systems are typically linked to a thermal storage tank in order to optimize the efficiency of the system and reduce the frequency of stoking. Cord wood boiler systems are also typically linked to existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Garn, HS Tarm and KOB identify outputs of 150,000-196,000 Btu/hr based upon burning eastern hardwoods and stoking the boiler on an hourly basis. The cost and practicality of stoking a wood boiler on an hourly basis has led most operators of cord wood systems to integrate an adjacent thermal storage tank, acting similar to a battery, storing heat for later use. The thermal storage tank allows the wood boiler to be stoked to a high fire mode 3 times per day while storing heat for distribution between stoking. Cord wood boilers require each piece of wood to be hand fed into the firebox, hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer. Cordwood boilers are manufactured by a number of European manufacturers and an American manufacturer with low emissions. These manufacturers currently do not fabricate equipment with ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) certifications. When these non ASME boilers are installed in the United States, atmospheric boilers rather than pressurized boilers are utilized. Atmospheric boilers require more frequent maintenance of the boiler chemicals. Emissions from cord wood systems are typically as follows: PM2.5 >0.08 lb/MMbtu NOx 0.23 lb/MMbtu SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu CO2 195 lb/MMbtu Benefits: Small size Lower cost Local wood resource Simple to operate Disadvantages: Hand fed - a large labor commitment Typically atmospheric boilers (not ASME rated) Thermal Storage is required Page 1 Wood Pellet Wood pellet systems can be hand fed from 40 pound bags, hand shoveled from 2,500 pound sacks of wood pellets, or automatically fed from an adjacent agricultural silo with a capacity of 30-40 tons. Pellet boilers systems are typically linked to existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from KOB, Forest Energy and Solagen identify outputs of 200,000-5,000,000 Btu/hr based upon burning pellets made from waste products from the western timber industry. A number of pellet fuel manufacturers produce all tree pellets utilizing bark and needles. All tree pellets have significantly higher ash content, resulting in more frequent ash removal. Wood pellet boilers typically require hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash 2-3 times a week. Automatic ash removal can be integrated into pellet boiler systems. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer. Pellet storage is very economical. Agricultural bin storage exterior to the building is inexpensive and quick to install. Material conveyance is also borrowed from agricultural technology. Flexible conveyors allow the storage to be located 20 feet or more from the boiler with a single auger. Emissions from wood pellet systems are typically as follows: PM2.5 >0.09 lb/MMbtu NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu CO2 220 lb/MMbtu Benefits: Smaller size (relative to a chip system) Consistent fuel and easy economical storage of fuel Automated Disadvantages: Higher system cost Higher cost wood fuel ($/MMBtu) Page 2 Page 3 Wood Chip Chip systems utilize wood fuel that is either chipped or ground into a consistent size of 2-4 inches long and 1-2 inches wide. Chipped and ground material includes fine sawdust and other debris. The quality of the fuel varies based upon how the wood is processed between the forest and the facility. Trees which are harvested in a manner that minimizes contact with the ground and run through a chipper or grinder directly into a clean chip van are less likely to be contaminated with rocks, dirt and other debris. The quality of the wood fuel will also be impacted by the types of screens placed on the chipper or grinder. Fuel can be screened to reduce the quantity of fines which typically become airborne during combustion and represent lost heat and increased particulate emissions. Chipped fuel is fed from the chip van into a metering bin, or loaded into a bunker with a capacity of 60 tons or more. Wood chip boilers systems are typically linked to existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Hurst, Messersmith and Biomass Combustion Systems identify outputs of 1,000,000 - 50,000,000 Btu/hr based upon burning western wood fuels. Wood chip boilers typically require hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash daily. Automatic ash removal can be integrated into wood chip boiler systems. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer. Emissions from wood chip systems are typically as follows: PM2.5 0.21 lb/MMbtu NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu CO2 195 lb/MMbtu Benefits: Lowest fuel cost of three options ($/MMBtu) Automated Can use local wood resources Disadvantages: Highest initial cost of three types Larger fuel storage required Less consistent fuel can cause operational and performance issues Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 40 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT B-5: Price Proposal from Tongass Forest Enterprises – dated April 23, 2012 355 Carlanna Lake Road, Suite 100 • Ketchikan, AK 99901 Phone (907) 225-4541 • Fax (907) 220-0645 • info@akforestenterprises.com April 23, 2012 Mr. Dan Bockhorst Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1900 First Avenue, Suite 201 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Re: Wood Pellet Supply Contracts Dear Mr. Bockhorst, The purpose of this letter is to let potential customers know that there is a tremendous opportunity for Tongass Forest Enterprises to secure a long term supply of fiber here on Revillagigedo Island for making pellets. We are in talks with Alcan Forest Products to purchase the remaining pulp grade wood from the Leask Lakes sale which is winding down. We are also looking at purchasing much of the pulp grade wood from the Boundary Sale which is located near the Brown Mountain Road. The Boundary Sale will likely be the closest timber sale to Ketchikan for many years to come and offers very inexpensive trucking to Ketchikan. There is opportunity for future customers to take advantage of this sale by committing to long term pellet contracts with TFE. We offer the following pricing of premium grade wood pellets for long term commitments if agreements are signed by August 2012. Tons / Year 1 year 2 year 3 year 5 year 0 -200 305 300 295 290 200-500 300 295 290 280 ¾ 500 290 285 280 275 Please call if you have any questions with this pricing. (907) 617-1441. Sincerely Trevor Sande cc: Ed Schofield, Mike Williams, Robert Boyle Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 41 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT B-6: Energy Audit – Ketchikan High School, by Alaska Energy Engineering, LLC for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, dated October, 2011 Ketchikan High School Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Funded by: Final Report October 2011 Prepared by: Energy Audit Exhibit A Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary 2 Section 2: Introduction 8 Section 3: Energy Efficiency Measures 10 Section 4: Description of Systems 20 Section 5: Methodology 24 Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 27 Appendix A: Energy and Utility Data 38 Appendix B: Equipment Data 44 Appendix C: Abbreviations 50 Appendix D: Audit Team The energy audit is performed by Alaska Energy Engineering LLC of Juneau, Alaska. The audit team consists of: Jim Rehfeldt, P.E., Energy Engineer Jack Christiansen, Energy Consultant Brad Campbell, Energy Auditor Loras O’Toole P.E., Mechanical Engineer Will Van Dyken P.E., Electrical Engineer Curt Smit, P.E., Mechanical Engineer Philip Iverson, Construction Estimator Karla Hart, Technical Publications Specialist Jill Carlile, Data Analyst Grayson Carlile, Energy Modeler Exhibit A Section 1 Executive Summary An energy audit of the Ketchikan High School was performed by Alaska Energy Engineering LLC. The investment grade audit was funded by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify opportunities to improve the energy performance of public buildings throughout Alaska. Ketchikan High School is a 180,614 square foot building that contains offices, classrooms, commons, a library, a gym and auxiliary gym, an auditorium, shop and art spaces, and mechanical support spaces. Building Assessment The following summarizes our assessment of the building. Envelope The exterior of the building appears to have been well maintained and should provide many more years of service. Of particular interest was the newly completed re-roofing project that covered the majority of the building. The project showed good attention to detail, to include a reduction in the number of roof penetrations that often lead to integrity failures. The audit team was also informed that the roofing contractor had uncovered, identified, and successfully repaired a significant air leakage path around the perimeter of every one of the newly roofed spaces. In addition to this improvement to the building envelop integrity, additional insulation was added to the roof to increase the average insulation value of the tapered roof system to R-34. While this was an improvement over the previous roof insulation value, it is recommended that future roofing projects target the high performance building standard for roofing insulation of R-46 based on an optimization for life cycle cost. The Humanity Wing roof was also recently replaced using an Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA). This style roof typically has an initial waterproof layer such as EPDM, then a layer of foam insulation, then a fabric cloth cover then an LG board – a thinner layer of foam adhered to a roofing paver. The Humanity Wing utilized a base layer of foam that was approximately 4” thick at the inspected roof drain with 2” layer of foam on the underside of the LG board. The 6” total thickness at the inspected location would normally produce an insulation value of R-24 with the use of the expanded polystyrene foam, however it has been determined that the IRMA is a flawed system that is particularly ineffective and inefficient in Southeast Alaska. This is because the IRMA allows water to flow between the layers of insulation to the waterproof membrane below before it flows to the roof drains. This presents a two-fold problem. First, the expanded foam eventually becomes waterlogged and loses some of its insulating properties. Secondly, any outdoor temperature water moving through the foam against the warm roof surface below will remove heat as it travels to the roof drain. In a climate such as Ketchikan’s, imagine the number of days/year that the roof and underside of the ceiling is being cooled to the temperature of the rain water. That number is simply the number of rainy days/year. A similar roof is also used on the 2nd floor south facing balcony at the building entrance. A life cycle cost analysis for replacement of the Humanity Wing roof with a tapered roof system buildup to optimum insulation levels is outlined in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measure 25. Exhibit A The exterior tile wall surface appears to be problematic due to a lack of backer-board to provide additional support to the tile when it is impacted by an object. Without the backer board, impact results in a broken tile. The main entry double door system appears to be serving the facility well. The middle column provides two opportunities for weather stripping to properly seal the door, a design that is far superior to that used on similar applications. The windows of the school are failing at an unacceptable rate. Maintenance staff believes that the original window glazing is failing due to flexing of the internal and external panes. This may be due to an excessive gap between the panes or the glazing being too thin for the applied external forces. Solar gain and wind are two such forces. The larger the air gap between the panes, the greater the amount of potential expansion and contraction. An additional potential cause for failure is the expansion and contraction of the aluminum frames themselves. The failed windows were replaced by windows manufactured locally with a smaller air gap between the internal and external panes. The audit team was informed by maintenance staff that the new windows were also routinely failing. Maintenance staff replaced 51 windows last year alone and it appeared at the time of the audit that there were 10 more that had failed since. While aluminum is the material of choice by many architects for window wall curtains such as in the lobby and library, it has one of the poorest performances from the perspective of energy conservation due to high thermal conductivity of the aluminum and its ability to transfer heat from the interior spaces to the outside through the window frames. The insulation value for these large window curtains could be as low as R-1. If a simple solution to this reoccurring problem is not found, such as a window replacement with slightly smaller window dimensions, then an excellent opportunity exists to replace the windows with smaller, more energy efficient units. The exterior doors are not thermally broken. Future exterior door replacement selection should include this feature. Weather-stripping on a high percentage of the exterior doors is in need of replacement. Heating System The building is heated by three fuel oil boilers that provide heat to thirteen air handling unit systems, fan coil units, perimeter hydronic systems, and cabinet unit heaters in the humanity wing. At the time of the audit Boiler #1 was running and the remaining two boilers were on-line and not isolated. Circulating heating water through a non-necessary boiler results in a significant amount of heat loss. The boilers are reported to be significantly oversized—one boiler is capable of heating the building on all but the coldest days. All boilers have jacket losses and cycling losses from turning on and off; oversized boilers have greater losses with no benefit. Electric heating is less expensive when surplus hydroelectric power exists. Adding an electric boiler will utilize the cost advantage and provide a more efficient heating plant for warm days when loads are small. The pumping system does not utilize variable speed pumping to reduce energy costs. There is no incentive to convert due to the large number of three-way valves in the systems. The remainder of the fuel oil boiler heating system appears to be in good condition; however fairly simple improvements can be made to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. These are outlined in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures. Exhibit A Ventilation System The building ventilation systems consist of thirteen large air handling units located in four fan rooms. In addition to the large air handling units there are five return fans and thirty four exhaust fans mounted throughout the building and on the roof top for the purposes of cooling spaces, improving building air quality, and kitchen operations. The overall condition of the systems is good, however issues include: HVAC systems could be optimized to reduce ventilation and fan power through control sequence modifications. Once optimization is achieved then a retro-commissioning should be performed on all HVAC systems to integrate operations and further increase efficiencies. AHU-1 supply fan is improperly aligned. Short-circuiting of supply air flow due to an approximately 3” gap between the fan and housing is reducing the air flow supplied by the unit while maintaining full electrical demand of the 60 HP motor The cooling system for the building was removed, but all of the cooling coils still remain in the AHU systems. Removal of these unnecessary cooling coils will decrease the pressure that the supply fans are operating against. The fan schedules were found to be inconsistent with the occupancy and use of the building. This is true of both the school-year and the summer season. There is opportunity to fine-tune the schedules and reduce energy consumption. AHU-1 operates whenever functions occur in the gymnasium and auditorium. This system supplies the lobby and several school wings with a high rate of outside air flow. Reducing the operating hours of the system and the volume of outside air flow when it is operating will significantly reduce energy costs. The Humanity Wing does not recirculate building air, but instead heats full outside air whenever it operates. A significant amount of energy would be saved if a large portion of conditioned air was re-circulated. The fan belt guard had been removed and had not been replaced on AHU-11. Ventilation system capacity is determined by the amount of air flow needed to cool the building on the hottest day. The ventilation systems are oversized for a school building with no summer operation and located in a temperate rain forest climate. The existing peak air flow rate of 1.25 cfm/sqft is much higher than a more appropriate rate of 0.75 to 1.0 cfm/sqft. The existing continuous exhaust air requirement for the building is 29,000 cfm, which the ventilation systems must makeup with outside air. For the current population of 600 students and staff, the building ventilation rate is 48 cfm/person, more than 3 times the required rate of approximately 15 cfm/person. Typically, the heating of ventilation air is 60% to 80% of the building heating load, so there is substantial incentive to scrutinize and reduce exhaust air flows, which would allow a reduction in the ventilation air requirement, and save energy. To reduce energy consumption, it is recommended that the ventilation systems be tailored to the actual use, function, and occupancy, optimal control sequences be implemented, and the systems retro-commissioned. Opportunities include: Modify AHUs where applicable to operate as variable air systems with the addition of variable frequency drives Verify CO2 sensor controls and sequences to the associated space AHUs so that air flow can be reduced to save energy while maintaining healthy air quality within those spaces. CO2 sensors have been added to AHU-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13. Exhibit A Reduce the continuous exhaust air requirement for the school by reducing exhaust air flow from toilet rooms and other exhaust areas. Consider variable exhaust flow for toilet rooms to increase air flow when a room is in use. Optimize schedules. The current schedules appear to have unneeded operating hours and are not tailored to the current building use. Perform an integrated building-wide retro-commissioning upon implementation of optimization of control sequences. Cooling Systems There are two computer IT rooms that are cooled by mechanical cooling systems that reject the heat outdoors. The heat is generated continuously; recovering the heat will reduce the heating load on the boilers. Control System The building control system is a combination of pneumatic and electric components. Many of the original pneumatic system components are being replaced by outside contractors and maintenance staff. Upon completion of pneumatic component replacement, optimal control sequences should be implemented and the systems retro-commissioned to ensure proper operation. Lighting Interior lighting consists primarily of T5, T8, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lighting consists primarily of compact fluorescent and metal halide lighting. The maintenance staff have done an outstanding job of reducing energy consumption through lighting modifications. The interior lighting and all exterior lighting is controlled by staff and by photocells in a manner that minimizes lighting operational hours. Opportunities to further reduce lighting loads include the replacement of the metal halide lighting in the automotive bay and woodshop, the perimeter wall pack units, and the parking lot lighting. An excellent selection for replacement is the induction lighting systems that Dale Reed has already used on other applications. These fixtures will reduce energy consumption by approximately 50%. Summary It is the assessment of the energy audit team that the greatest potential for reducing energy consumption is through proper scheduling and right-sizing of the heating and ventilation systems. A building optimization analysis is recommended in which the building systems are reconfigured and optimized for the actual use. The analysis should evaluate if there is incentive to install electric boilers to take advantage of favorable electric rates when there is low-cost hydroelectric power. Integrating the four phases of construction through a building-wide commissioning effort is a necessary step towards improving the indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and energy efficiency of the building. While a complete optimization analysis is beyond the scope of this energy audit, several EEMs show that there is considerable financial incentive to tailor the systems to the actual building use. Exhibit A Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) All buildings have opportunities to improve their energy efficiency. The energy audit revealed numerous opportunities in which an efficiency investment will result in a net reduction in long-term operating costs at the Ketchikan High School. Behavioral and Operational EEMs The following EEMs require behavioral and operational changes in the building use. The savings are not readily quantifiable but these EEMs are highly recommended as low-cost opportunities that are a standard of high performance buildings. EEM-1: Weather-strip Doors EEM-2: Replace Failed Window Glazing EEM-3: Align AHU-1 Supply Fan EEM-4: Evaluate Electric Heating The summary table of high and medium Priority Energy Efficiency Measures recommended for the Ketchikan High School follows on the next page. Exhibit A High and Medium Priority EEMs The following EEMs are recommended for investment. They are ranked by life cycle savings to investment ratio (SIR). This ranking method places a priority on low cost EEMs which can be immediately funded, generating energy savings to fund higher cost EEMs in the following years. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings. 25-Year Life Cycle Cost Analysis Investment Operating Energy Total SIR High Priority EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours $8,900 $0 ($1,652,000) ($1,643,100) 185.6 EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers $5,000 $16,300 ($375,600) ($354,300) 71.9 EEM-7: Perform Boiler Combustion Test $1,000 $6,100 ($70,300) ($63,200) 64.2 EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System $8,900 $0 ($516,500) ($507,600) 58.0 EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls $5,000 $0 ($105,500) ($100,500) 21.1 EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System $29,300 $0 ($535,500) ($506,200) 18.3 EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System $12,400 $0 ($181,100) ($168,700) 14.6 EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery $9,800 $900 ($134,700) ($124,000) 13.7 EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads $3,000 $0 ($34,300) ($31,300) 11.4 EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System $41,700 $0 ($422,400) ($380,700) 10.1 EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers $6,400 $5,100 ($56,600) ($45,100) 8.0 EEM-16: Electric Room 208 Heat Recovery $13,500 $5,100 ($86,900) ($68,300) 6.1 EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 System $29,300 $0 ($142,000) ($112,700) 4.8 EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 $126,800 $3,400 ($516,000) ($385,800) 4.0 EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils $2,000 ($3,100) ($4,600) ($5,700) 3.9 EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery $87,000 $4,300 ($336,800) ($245,500) 3.8 EEM-21: Rooms 151 & 131 Heat Recovery $86,100 $5,100 ($253,300) ($162,100) 2.9 Medium Priority EEM-22: Install Auto Valves on Unit Heaters $7,100 $0 ($19,300) ($12,200) 2.7 EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers $140,400 $0 ($171,700) ($31,300) 1.2 EEM-24: Upgrade Motors $22,000 $0 ($22,700) ($700) 1.0 Totals* $645,600 $43,200 ($5,637,800) ($4,949,000) 8.7 *The analysis is based on each EEM being independent of the others. While it is likely that some EEMs are interrelated, an isolated analysis is used to demonstrate the economics because the audit team is not able to predict which EEMs an Owner may choose to implement. If several EEMs are implemented, the resulting energy savings is likely to differ from the sum of each EEM projection. Summary The energy audit revealed numerous opportunities for improving the energy performance of the building. It is recommended that the behavioral and high priority EEMs be implemented now to generate energy savings from which to fund the medium priority EEMs. Another avenue to consider is to borrow money from AHFCs revolving loan fund for public buildings. AHFC will loan money for energy improvements under terms that allow for paying back the money from the energy savings. More information on this option can be found online at http://www.ahfc.us/loans/akeerlf_loan.cfm. Exhibit A Section 2 Introduction This report presents the findings of an energy audit of Ketchikan High School located in Ketchikan, Alaska. The purpose of this investment grade energy audit is to evaluate the infrastructure and its subsequent energy performance to identify applicable energy efficiencies measures (EEMs). The energy audit report contains the following sections: Introduction: Building use and energy consumption. Energy Efficiency Measures: Priority ranking of the EEMs with a description, energy analysis, and life cycle cost analysis. Description of Systems: Background description of the building energy systems. Methodology: Basis for how construction and maintenance cost estimates are derived and the economic and energy factors used for the analysis. BUILDING USE The Ketchikan High School is a 180,614 square foot building that contains offices, classrooms, commons, a library, a gym and auxiliary gym, an auditorium, shop and art spaces, and mechanical support spaces. The building is occupied by 560 students and 40 staff members. It is occupied in the following manner: Offices & Commons: 6:00 am – 9:00 pm (M-F) Kitchen 6:00 am – 12:00 pm (M-F) Classrooms: 7:30 am - 3:30 pm (M-F) - lighting controlled by teachers Main Gym 6:00 am – 9:00 pm (M-F) 30-40 people Auxiliary Gym 3:00 pm – 9:00 pm Auditorium 12:00 pm – 10:30 pm (Mon and Thur) 600 people – 8x per year Building History The building was fully renovated in four phases from 1994 to 1996. Subsequent improvements from an energy perspective included complete mechanical and electric system replacements, in-house interior lighting upgrades, roof replacement to the Humanity’s Wing in 2005, and a roof renovation of the remainder of the building in 2011. Exhibit A Energy Consumption The building energy sources include an electric service and a fuel oil tank. Fuel oil is used for the majority of the heating loads and domestic hot water while electricity serves all other loads and a limited amount of space heating. The following table shows annual energy use and cost. Annual Energy Consumption and Cost Source Consumption Cost Energy, MMBtu Electricity 1,979,000 kWh $192,100 6,800 27% Fuel Oil 134,900 Gallons $461,400 18,300 73% Totals $653,500 25,100 100% Electricity This chart shows electrical energy use from 2007 to 2010. The staff was unable to offer insight into the reason for the monthly fluctuations in energy use. The effective cost—energy costs plus demand charges—is 9.7¢ per kWh. Fuel Oil This chart shows heating energy use from 2007 to 2010. The chart compares annual use with the heating degree days which is a measurement of the demand for energy to heat a building. A year with a higher number of degree days reflects colder outside temperatures and a higher heating requirement. The current cost of fuel oil in Ketchikan is $3.47 per gallon. Assuming a fuel oil conversion efficiency of 70% and an electric boiler conversion efficiency of 95%, oil heat at $3.47 per gallon equates to $35.79 per MMBtu. Since the current cost of electricity at 9.7¢ per kWh equates to $29.95 per MMBtu, electric heat is less expensive than fuel oil heat. Exhibit A Section 3 Energy Efficiency Measures The following energy efficiency measures (EEMs) were identified during the energy audit. The EEMs are priority ranked and, where applicable, subjected to energy and life cycle cost analysis. Appendix A contains the energy and life cycle cost analysis spreadsheets. The EEMs are grouped into the following prioritized categories: Behavioral or Operational: EEMs that require minimal capital investment but require operational or behavioral changes. The EEMs provide a life cycle savings but an analysis is not performed because the guaranteed energy savings is difficult quantify. High Priority: EEMs that require a small capital investment and offer a life cycle savings. Also included in this category are higher cost EEMs that offer significant life cycle savings. Medium Priority: EEMs that require a significant capital investment to provide a life cycle savings. Many medium priority EEMs provide a high life cycle savings and offer substantial incentive to increase investment in building energy efficiency. Low Priority: EEMs that will save energy but do not provide a life cycle savings. BEHAVIORAL OR OPERATIONAL The following EEMs are recommended for implementation. They require behavioral or operational changes that can occur with minimal investment to achieve immediate savings. These EEMs are not easily quantified by analysis because they cannot be accurately predicted. They are recommended because they offer a life cycle savings, represent good practice, and are accepted features of high performance buildings. EEM-1: Weather-strip Doors Purpose: The weather stripping on many of the single-wide exterior doors is in poor condition. Energy will be saved if doors are properly weather-stripped to reduce infiltration. Scope: Replace weather stripping on exterior doors. EEM-2: Replace Failed Window Glazing Purpose: An unacceptably high number of window glazing units have failed at the high school. Although 51 glazing units were replaced last year, an additional 10 window glazing assemblies have since failed. Energy will be saved if the failed units are replaced. Scope: Replace failed glazing sections. Exhibit A EEM-3: Align AHU-1 Supply Fan Purpose: The AHU-1 supply fan is improperly aligned. The supply air flow is short-circuiting through an approximately 3” gap between the fan and housing — recirculating air back to the fan cabinet while maintaining full electrical demand of the 60 HP motor. Scope: Properly align AHU-1 supply fan on the shaft. EEM-4: Evaluate Electric Heating Purpose: Energy will be saved if an electric boiler is installed to shift the heating load from oil to electricity when there is surplus hydroelectric power. Scope: Perform an analysis to determine if there is sufficient hydroelectric resource to invest in an electric boiler to heat the building. Electric heat is currently less expensive than fuel oil heat. With fuel oil inflation also predicted to be higher than electricity inflation, shifting 75% of the current fuel oil consumption to electric could have a life cycle savings of $4.9 million dollars. HIGH PRIORITY The following EEMs are recommended for implementation because they are low cost measures that have a high savings to investment ratio. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings. EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours Purpose: The HVAC systems average 3,000 occupied mode operating hours per year. While operating hours are rightly determined based on school and community use of the building, this is significantly higher than the average of 1,600-2,400 hours for high school. Energy will be saved if the operating schedules are reviewed and adjusted to minimize the operating hours for the systems. Scope: Optimize operating schedules. The following analysis is based on reducing fan system occupied mode operation to 2,200 hours per year. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($67,010) ($67,010) $8,900 $0 ($1,652,000) ($1,643,100) 185.6 Exhibit A EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers Purpose: Only one boiler is needed to heat the building; however the other two remain on-line and hot. In addition, the boilers are not turned off during the summer months when heating requirements are very low. Circulating hot water through an isolated boiler in a multiple boiler system can result in efficiency loss due to the isolated boilers acting as heat sinks. Energy will be saved by turning off the boilers in the summer and isolating the lag/standby boilers during the shoulder seasons. Scope: Isolate the lag/standby boilers during the shoulder seasons and turn off the boilers during the summer months. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $960 ($13,250) ($12,290) $5,000 $16,300 ($375,600) ($354,300) 71.9 EEM-7: Perform a Boiler Combustion Test Purpose: Operating the boiler with an optimum amount of excess air will improve combustion efficiency. Annual cleaning followed by a combustion test is recommended. Scope: Annually clean and perform a combustion test on the boiler. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $360 ($2,480) ($2,120) $1,000 $6,100 ($70,300) ($63,200) 64.2 EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System (Lobby, Classrooms) Purpose: The AHU-1 system has excessive outside air and exhaust air flows. Energy will be saved if AHU-1 control sequences and air flows are optimized to ensure the system is operating as efficiently as possible. Scope: Optimize AHU-1 as follows: - Reduce the minimum outside air volume by reducing the minimum outside air requirement for the science fume hoods and the exhaust fan make-up. The analysis is based on reducing the fume hood makeup from all fans to two fans operating concurrently. The toilets rooms have sporadic heavy use between classes but are lightly used much of the time. The analysis reduces the air exchange from 7.5 minutes per change to 10 minutes per change. - Reduce Operating Hours: The system operates with the auditorium and gym during non-school hours. We recommend not operating the system during these periods unless the commons is heavily used. - Modify the RF-1 pressure controls to preclude unnecessary exhaust of return air from the building. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($18,220) ($18,220) $8,900 $0 ($516,500) ($507,600) 58.0 Exhibit A EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls Purpose: The existing boiler burners do not properly modulate to increase the cycle time and decrease the number of cycles. The DDC system starts the burners on low fire, quickly modulates them up to high fire, and then overshoots the setpoint. Adjusting the DDC response rate using a rate-of-rise control is necessary to keep from ramping up the burner when the boiler is gaining on loop temperature. Energy will be saved if the DDC burner control is set up to monitor the rate of rise so it does not overshoot its setpoint. Scope: Modify the DDC control sequence to increase cycle run time. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($3,720) ($3,720) $5,000 $0 ($105,500) ($100,500) 21.1 EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System (Vocational Education) Purpose: The mixed air temperature control on AHU-13 is set at 50°F, which is bringing in more outside air than required. Energy will be saved if a direct-measure outside air damper is installed and the outside air flow reduced to match the exhaust air requirement. Scope: Optimize AHU-13 as follows: - Install direct-measure outside air damper. - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure. - Optimize the schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($18,890) ($18,890) $29,300 $0 ($535,500) ($506,200) 18.3 EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System (Gym Lockers) Purpose: The lockers exhaust air flow rate is excessive due to minimal use of showers by the students. Energy will be saved if the exhaust air flow is reduced and a direct-measure outside air damper is installed so the outside air flow is constant. Scope: Optimize AHU-12 as follows: - Reduce locker room exhaust air flow. - Reduce outside air by installing a direct measure outside air damper. - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure. - Optimize the schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($6,390) ($6,390) $12,400 $0 ($181,100) ($168,700) 14.6 Exhibit A EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery Purpose: The electrical room has a 225 kVA transformer in the space. The room has a 1,500 cfm exhaust grille which highly over-exhausts the room, transferring more heat from the building than the transformer produces. Energy will be saved if the heat generated from these transformers is transferred to the AHU-1 return air plenum. Scope: Cap the existing exhaust grille and rebalance the exhaust fan. Install a transfer fan to supply the warm air from the electric room to the AHU-1 return air plenum. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $50 ($4,750) ($4,700) $9,800 $900 ($134,700) ($124,000) 13.7 EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads Purpose: Energy and water will be saved by replacing the lavatory aerators and showerheads with low-flow models. Scope: Replace lavatory aerators and showerheads with water-conserving fixtures. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($1,960) ($1,960) $3,000 $0 ($34,300) ($31,300) 11.4 EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System (Auxiliary Gym) Purpose: AHU-8 is controlling to a 55°F mixed air temperature which is over-ventilating the building. Energy will be saved by using a direct measure outside air damper to maintain a constant outside air rate that matches the exhaust requirements. Scope: Optimize AHU-8 as follows: - Reduce outside air by installing a direct measure outside air damper. - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure. - Optimize the schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($14,900) ($14,900) $41,700 $0 ($422,400) ($380,700) 10.1 EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers Purpose: Currently, two of the boilers are kept hot but do not operate to supply heat. Air flow through an idle boiler carries heat up the chimney. Energy will be saved if flue dampers are installed on the boilers to reduce the air flow through the boiler when it is not firing. Scope: Install a flue damper on each boiler. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $300 ($2,000) ($1,700) $6,400 $5,100 ($56,600) ($45,100) 8.0 Exhibit A EEM-16: Electrical Room 208 Heat Recovery Purpose: The electrical room in the mezzanine has a 150 kVA and a 250 kVA transformer in the space. The heat from the transformers is exhausted to the outdoors via EF-34. Energy will be saved if the heat generated from these transformers is used within the building envelope. Scope: Modify the EF-34 ductwork to supply the heated exhaust air to the gym. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $300 ($2,630) ($2,330) $13,500 $5,100 ($86,900) ($68,300) 6.1 EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 (Music, Art, Kitchen) Purpose: AHU-7 is over-ventilating the building by providing makeup air for the kitchen hood which only operates 2 hours per week. Energy will be saved if the minimum outside air rate is reduced to ensure the system is operating as efficiently as possible. Scope: Optimize AHU-7 as follows: - Install a direct-measure minimum outside air damper. - Modulate the relief damper with building pressure. - Optimize the fan schedules. - Optimize the night setback. Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($5,010) ($5,010) $29,300 $0 ($142,000) ($112,700) 4.8 EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 (North Wing) Purpose: AHU-3 and AHU-4 are configured as full outside air systems. They are over- ventilating the spaces, resulting in excessive energy consumption. Energy will be saved if AHU-3 and AHU-4 controls and equipment are optimized to ensure the systems are operating as efficiently as possible. Scope: Optimize the AHU-3 and AHU-4 system by converting to mixed air systems. Additional optimization recommendations include: - Modulate the exhaust air damper with building pressure - Optimize the fan schedules - Optimize night setback sequence Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $200 ($18,210) ($18,010) $126,800 $3,400 ($516,000) ($385,800) 4.0 Exhibit A EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils Purpose: The cooling system for the school building was recently removed; however, cooling coils still remain in the AHU systems. Energy will be saved if these unnecessary cooling coils are removed to decrease the pressure that the supply fans are operating against. Scope: Remove the AHU-5 cooling coil and AHU-6 zone cooling coils. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR ($180) ($260) ($440) $2,000 ($3,100) ($4,600) ($5,700) 3.9 EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery Purpose: The boiler room utilizes a combustion air fan to cool the room when it gets too hot. The audit team found the room to be 65°F due to nearly continuous cooling fan operation. The boiler efficiency is lower if the combustion air is at a lower temperature. Energy will be saved if the boiler room is kept warmer and the heat generated in the boiler room is utilized within the building envelope rather than discharged outdoors. Scope: Install a heat pump in the boiler room and transfer the heat a fan coil unit installed in the gym. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $250 ($10,730) ($10,480) $87,000 $4,300 ($336,800) ($245,500) 3.8 EEM-21: Heat Recovery from Server Room 131 and Electrical Room 151 Purpose: Server Room 131 and Electrical Room 151 contains switches, servers, a 75 kVA transformer, and some additional heat generating electrical equipment. The spaces are cooled by three A/C units, which reject the heat outdoors. Energy will be saved if heat generated in the server spaces is transferred to Corridor 128. Scope: Install a split A/C unit to cool the server room and electrical room. Circulate air from the server and electrical rooms through the A/C unit evaporator to maintain the rooms at 65°F. Transfer the heat to corridor 128/100 by circulating it through the A/C unit condenser. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $300 ($8,080) ($7,780) $86,100 $5,100 ($253,300) ($162,100) 2.9 Exhibit A MEDIUM PRIORITY Medium priority EEMs will require planning and a higher level of investment. They are recommended because they offer a life cycle savings. The EEMs are listed from highest to lowest priority. Negative values, in parenthesis, represent savings. EEM-22: Install Automatic Valves on Unit Heaters Purpose: Energy will be saved if the ten unit heaters each have an automatic valve that shuts off the heating flow when heat is not needed. Currently the coils in the unit heaters are continuously hot and the thermostat turns on the fan to supply the heat to the room. When heat is not needed, convective heat loss from the coil occurs; some of the heat loss may be useful, but a large percentage is not. Scope: Install automatic valves in the heating supply to each unit heater and control them from the fan thermostat. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($680) ($680) $7,100 $0 ($19,300) ($12,200) 2.7 EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers Purpose: Existing transformers are not TP-1 rated. Energy will be saved if these less-efficient transformers are replaced with energy efficient models that comply with NEMA Standard TP 1-2001. Scope: Replace less-efficient transformers with NEMA Standard TP 1-2001 compliant models. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($9,790) ($9,790) $140,400 $0 ($171,700) ($31,300) 1.2 Exhibit A EEM-24: Upgrade Motors to Premium Efficiency Purpose: Although many motor labels were not accessible or had been painted during preservation efforts, the equipment inspection identified thirteen motors that could be upgraded with premium efficiency models to save energy. They are: AHU-3 5 HP AHU-5 20 HP AHU-6 15 HP AHU-11 3 HP AHU-12 7-½ HP AHU-13 15 HP RF-12 1-½ HP RF-13 7-½ HP EF-1 5 HP P-9A 3 HP P-9B 3 HP P-11A 7-½ HP P-11B 7-½ HP Scope: Replace identified motors with premium efficiency motors. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($1,300) ($1,300) $22,000 $0 ($22,700) ($700) 1.0 Exhibit A LOW PRIORITY Low priority EEMs do not offer a life cycle energy savings and are not recommended. EEM-25: Replace Humanity’s Wing Roof Insulation Purpose: A 112’ x 120’ section of the Humanity’s Wing roof uses an IRMA roof system with a base layer of foam that is approximately 4” thick at the inspected roof drain with a 2” layer of foam on the underside of the LG board. The 6” total thickness at the inspected location would normally produce an insulation value of R-24 with the use of the expanded polystyrene foam; however the IRMA roof system is de-rated by approximately 50% as outlined in the executive summary. This results in an overall roof insulation value of only R-12 for over 13,000 square feet of roofing. Replacing the Humanity’s Wing roof with a tapered roof system similar to that used in the school re-roofing project, with an optimum insulation value of R-46, will save energy; however, our analysis shows it will not produce a life cycle cost savings. Scope: Replace Humanity’s wing IRMA roof system with R-46 tapered roof system. Annual Costs Life Cycle Costs Operating Energy Total Investment Operating Energy Total SIR $0 ($8,050) ($8,050) $357,000 $0 ($228,100) $128,900 0.6 EEM-26: Install Toilet Room Lighting Control Purpose: Toilet room lighting is currently controlled with the corridor lights. Electric energy would be saved if the corridor lighting hours were reduced by installing a separate circuit to control the toilet room lighting with an occupancy sensor within the toilet rooms. Scope: Install separate circuit for toilet lights and control with occupancy sensors. A preliminary analysis determined that this EEM will not realize a savings over a 25- year life cycle because the lighting produces beneficial heat for the building. This heat would otherwise be provided by the fuel oil boilers. Fuel oil heat has much higher inflation than electric heat so over time the cost of the fuel oil heat is much higher than the cost of keeping the corridor lighting on. Exhibit A Section 4 Description of Systems ENERGY SYSTEMS This section provides a general description of the building systems. Energy conservation opportunities are addressed in Section 3, Energy Efficiency Measures. Building Envelope R-value Component Description (inside to outside) Existing Optimal Exterior Wall Tile panel, studs, R-19 batt, 1” foil faced insulation, 5/8” gyp bd R-20 R-24 Main Roof Metal roof deck, 6” rigid insulation, ½” OSB, Membrane R-34 R-46 Humanity’s Roof Metal roof deck, EPDM, 4” EPS, 2” EPS w/ 1/2” aggregate R-12 R-46 Floor Slab 4” Concrete slab-on-grade R-10 R-10 Foundation 8” concrete with 1-1/2” rigid insulation on interior surface R-8 R-15 Windows Aluminum double pane R-1.5 R-4 Doors Aluminum (main entries) and steel (all others) w/o thermal break, glazing where used is double pane R-1.5 R-4 Domestic Hot Water System Three indirect hot water heaters and an auxiliary storage tank supply domestic hot water to the fixtures. The water conservation efficiency of the lavatory aerators and the showerheads can be improved. Cooling Systems The building has three space cooling systems for temperature control of the two IT rooms. Automatic Control System The building has a DDC system to control the operation of the heating and ventilation systems. Lighting Interior lighting consists primarily of T5, T8, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lighting consists primarily of compact fluorescent and metal halide lighting. The maintenance staff has done an outstanding job of reducing energy consumption within the building envelope through lighting modifications. The interior lighting schedule and all exterior lighting is controlled by staff and by photocells in an effort to minimize lighting operational hours. Exhibit A Electric Equipment Commercial kitchen equipment for food preparation at Ketchikan High School is located in the food prep area. Heating System The building is heated by three fuel oil boilers that provide heat to thirteen air handling unit systems, 10 fan coil unit heaters, perimeter hydronic systems, and cabinet unit heaters located in the Humanity’s wing. The heating system has the following pumps: P-1A and P-1B are the building circulation pumps P-2A and P-2B are secondary building circulation pumps P-3A and P-3B are secondary building circulation pumps P-4A is a boiler circulation pump for boilers 1, 2, and 3 P-5 is a glycol make-up pump P-6A and P-6B are utilidoor sump pumps P-7A and P-7B are domestic hot water circulation pumps P-8A and P-8B are secondary building circulation pumps P-9A and P-9B are secondary building circulation pumps P-11A and P-11B are secondary building circulation pumps P-12A and P-12B are secondary building circulation pumps P-13 is a secondary building circulation pump P-14A and P-14B are domestic hot water circulation pumps P-15A and P-15B are domestic hot water circulation pumps Exhibit A Ventilation Systems Area Fan System Description Phase 1 Wing AHU-1 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a mixing box, filter section, supply fans, and heating coil East ½ Gymnasium AHU-2 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a mixing box, filter section, supply fans, and heating coil North Wing 1st Floor AHU-3 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan North Wing 2nd Floor AHU-4 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan Auditorium AHU-5 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Stage Area and Green Room AHU-6 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Music, Kitchen, and Art AHU-7 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Auxiliary Gym AHU-8 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Arts Room AHU-9 Not in service Auditorium AHU-11 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, and a supply fan Gym Lockers AHU-12 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Technology Complex AHU-13 Constant volume air handling unit consisting of a heating coil, mixing box, filter section, supply fan, and return fan Phase 1 Wing RF-1 35,500 cfm return fan with (2) 10 HP motors Auditorium RF-2 21,900 cfm 10 HP return fan Gym RF-3 13,500 cfm 7.5 HP return fan Classrooms RF-4 20,115 cfm 7.5 HP return fan Auxiliary Gym RF-5 11,800 cfm 5 HP return fan Toilet Rooms by Commons EF-1 739 cfm 5 HP Science Room EF-2 190 cfm for animal dissections Science Room EF-3 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood Science Room EF-4 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood Science Room EF-5 1495 cfm ½ HP fume hood Science Room EF-6 720 cfm ½ HP fume hood Exhibit A Ventilation Systems, continued. Area Fan System Description Science Rooms EF-7 2060 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Science Rooms EF-8 2180 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Science Rooms EF-9 2180 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Science Rooms EF-10 2440 cfm ½ HP general science exhaust Utilidor EF-11 2200 cfm ¾ HP ventilation AHU-3 Mechanical EF-13 9300 cfm 5 HP AHU-3 relief AHU-4 Mechanical EF-14 1200 cfm ¾ HP AHU-4 relief Auditorium EF-15 1000 cfm ½ HP spotlight exhaust air Stage Craft EF-16 2000 cfm ½ HP Stage Craft EF-17 500 cfm 1/6 HP bathroom exhaust Kitchen EF-18 4400 cfm 3 HP roof top mounted kitchen hood exhaust fan Kitchen EF-19 600 cfm ¼ HP roof top mounted dishwasher exhaust fan Art/Music Restrooms EF-20 1200 cfm ½ HP rooftop mounted exhaust fan Art Room EF-21 532 cfm ¼ HP art room main exhaust Kiln Room EF-22 880 cfm ¼ HP kiln exhaust fan Aux Gym Restrooms EF-23 2325 cfm ¾ HP exhaust fan Training Room EF-24 725 cfm general exhaust fan Locker Rooms EF-26 5,155 cfm 3 HP exhaust fan Applied Technology EF-27 810 cfm ½ HP exhaust fan Wood Shop EF-28 1,650 cfm 5 HP sawdust collection fan Auto Shop EF-29 2,000 cfm 1 ½ HP solvent collection tank exhaust fan Auto Shop EF-30 1,000 cfm 2 HP grinding table exhaust fan Auto Shop EF-31 2,000 cfm 5 HP automotive exhaust fan Hot Water Tank Room EF-32 1,500 cfm ½ HP general exhaust Auto Shop EF-33 2,250 cfm 2 HP outboard engine exhaust Electric Room EF-34 2,370 cfm ½ HP general exhaust Exhibit A Section 5 Methodology Information for the energy audit was gathered through on-site observations, review of construction documents, and interviews with operation and maintenance personnel. The EEMs are evaluated using energy and life cycle cost analyses and are priority ranked for implementation. Energy Efficiency Measures Energy efficiency measures are identified by evaluating the building’s energy systems and comparing them to systems in modern, high performance buildings. The process for identifying the EEMs acknowledges the realities of an existing building that was constructed when energy costs were much lower. Many of the opportunities used in modern high performance buildings—highly insulated envelopes, variable capacity mechanical systems, heat pumps, daylighting, lighting controls, etc.— simply cannot be economically incorporated into an existing building. The EEMs represent practical measures to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings, taking into account the realities of limited budgets. If a future major renovation project occurs, additional EEMs common to high performance buildings should be incorporated. Life Cycle Cost Analysis The EEMs are evaluated using life cycle cost analysis which determines if an energy efficiency investment will provide a savings over a 25-year life. The analysis incorporates construction, replacement, maintenance, repair, and energy costs to determine the total cost over the life of the EEM. Future maintenance and energy cash flows are discounted to present worth using escalation factors for general inflation, energy inflation, and the value of money. The methodology is based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Life cycle cost analysis is preferred to simple payback for facilities that have long—often perpetual— service lives. Simple payback, which compares construction cost and present energy cost, is reasonable for short time periods of 2-4 years, but yields below optimal results over longer periods because it does not properly account for the time value of money or inflationary effects on operating budgets. Accounting for energy inflation and the time value of money properly sums the true cost of facility ownership and seeks to minimize the life cycle cost. Construction Costs The cost estimates are derived based on a preliminary understanding of the scope of each EEM as gathered during the walk-through audit. The construction costs for in-house labor are $60 per hour for work typically performed by maintenance staff and $110 per hour for contract labor. The cost estimate assumes the work will be performed as part of a larger renovation or energy efficiency upgrade project. When implementing EEMs, the cost estimate should be revisited once the scope and preferred method of performing the work has been determined. It is possible some EEMs will not provide a life cycle savings when the scope is finalized. Exhibit A Maintenance Costs Maintenance costs are based on in-house or contract labor using historical maintenance efforts and industry standards. Maintenance costs over the 25-year life of each EEM are included in the life cycle cost calculation spreadsheets and represent the level of effort to maintain the systems. Energy Analysis The energy performance of an EEM is evaluated within the operating parameters of the building. A comprehensive energy audit would rely on a computer model of the building to integrate building energy systems and evaluate the energy savings of each EEM. This investment grade audit does not utilize a computer model, so energy savings are calculated with factors that account for the dynamic operation of the building. Energy savings and costs are estimated for the 25-year life of the EEM using appropriate factors for energy inflation. Prioritization Each EEM is prioritized based on the life cycle savings to investment ratio (SIR) using the following formula: Prioritization Factor = Life Cycle Savings / Capital Costs This approach factor puts significant weight on the capital cost of an EEM, making lower cost EEMs more favorable. Economic Factors The following economic factors are significant to the findings. Nominal Interest Rate: This is the nominal rate of return on an investment without regard to inflation. The analysis uses a rate of 5%. Inflation Rate: This is the average inflationary change in prices over time. The analysis uses an inflation rate of 2%. Economic Period: The analysis is based on a 25-year economic period with construction beginning in 2010. Fuel Oil Fuel oil currently costs $3.47 per gallon for a seasonally adjusted blend of #1 and #2 fuel oil. The analysis is based on 6% fuel oil inflation which has been the average for the past 20-years. Electricity Electricity is supplied by Ketchikan Public Utilities. The building is billed for electricity under their commercial service rate. This rate charges for both electrical consumption (kWh) and peak electric demand (kW). Electrical consumption is the amount of energy consumed and electric demand is the rate of consumption. Exhibit A Summary The following table summarizes the energy and economic factors used in the analysis. Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service Rate Electricity ($ / kWh ) $0.0897 Demand ( $ / kW ) $2.91 Customer Charge ( $ / mo ) $36.30 Summary of Economic and Energy Factors Factor Rate or Cost Factor Rate or Cost Nominal Discount Rate 5% Electricity $0.099/kwh General Inflation Rate 2% Electricity Inflation 2% Fuel Oil Cost (2012) $3.68/gal Fuel Oil Inflation 6% Exhibit A Appendix A Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School Basis Economic Study Period (years) 25 Nominal Discount Rate 5%General Inflation 2% Energy 2011 $/gal Fuel Inflation 2012 $/gal Fuel Oil $3.47 6% $3.68 Electricity $/kWh (2011)$/kW (2011)Inflation $/kWh (2012)$/kW (2012) w/ Demand Charges $0.090 $2.91 2% $0.091 $2.97 w/o Demand Charges $0.097 -2% $0.099 - EEM-5: Reduce HVAC System Operating Hours Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Reprogram operating schedules 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$750 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,725 Design fees 0 10%$748 Project management 0 8%$658 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -250,000 kWh $0.091 ($400,923) Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -12,000 gal $3.68 ($1,251,083) Net Present Worth ($1,643,100) EEM-6: Isolate Lag/Standby Boilers Energy Analysis Boiler Input MBH Loss %Loss MBH Hours, exist Hours, new kBtu η boiler Gallons B-1 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 6,840 -43,086 68%-457 B-2 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 2,160 -148,107 68%-1,573 B-3 4,488 0.50% 22 8,760 2,160 -148,107 68%-1,573 67 -339,300 -3,603 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Implement boiler operating procedure, DDC controls 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Annual Costs Boiler shutdown and restart 1 - 25 16 hrs $60.00 $16,346 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -3,603 gal $3.68 ($375,604) Net Present Worth ($354,300) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-7: Perform Boiler Combustion Test Energy Analysis Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal 134,900 -0.5% -675 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Purchase combustion analyzer 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Annual Costs Combustion test 1 - 25 6 hrs $60.00 $6,130 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -675 gal $3.68 ($70,321) Net Present Worth ($63,200) EEM-8: Optimize AHU-1 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-1 Existing -60,000 58 65 -454 1,800 -816,480 68%-8,669 Optimized 60,000 62 65 194 1,800 349,920 68%3,715 -466,560 -4,954 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Rebalance air systems 0 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$750 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,725 Design fees 0 10%$748 Project management 0 8%$658 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,954 gal $3.68 ($516,480) Net Present Worth ($507,600) EEM-9: Modify Boiler Burner Controls Energy Analysis Annual Gal % Savings Savings, Gal 134,900 -0.75% -1,012 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Modify and commisison DDC burner controls 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,012 gal $3.68 ($105,482) Net Present Worth ($100,500) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-10: Optimize AHU-13 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-13 Existing -14,930 50 66 -258 3,000 -773,971 68%-8,218 Optimized 14,930 60 66 97 3,000 290,239 68%3,082 .-483,732 -5,136 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$2,475 Overhead & profit 0 30% $5,692.50 Design fees 0 10% $2,466.75 Project management 0 8% $2,170.74 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -5,136 gal $3.68 ($535,489) Net Present Worth ($506,200) EEM-11: Optimize AHU-12 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-12 Existing -6,310 55 68 -89 3,000 -265,777 68%-2,822 Optimized 6,310 63 68 34 3,000 102,222 68%1,085 -163,555 -1,737 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Balance systems 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$1,050 Overhead & profit 0 30%$2,415 Design fees 0 10%$1,047 Project management 0 8%$921 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,737 gal $3.68 ($181,055) Net Present Worth ($168,600) EEM-12: Electrical Room 8 Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Exhaust Grille CFM Troom Tosa MBH Hours Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -1,510 70 40 -49 3,000 -146,772 82% -1,292 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Transfer ran, ductowrk, electrical, balancing 0 1 LS $5,500 $5,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$825 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,898 Design fees 0 10%$822 Project management 0 8%$724 Annual Costs Fan maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $50.00 $851 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,292 gal $3.68 ($134,736) Net Present Worth ($124,100) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-13: Replace Aerators and Showerheads Energy Analysis Fixture Existing Proposed Uses/day Days Water,Gals % HW kBTU kWh Summer Showerhead 20.0 10.0 20 60 -12,000 80% -6,405 -1,877 Lavatories 0.3 0.2 200 60 -2,160 80% -1,153 -338 School Year Showerhead 20.0 10.0 30 180 -54,000 80% -28,823 -8,448 Lavatories 0.3 0.2 1,800 180 -58,320 80% -31,129 -9,123 -126,480 -19,786 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Replace lavatory aerators 0 60 ea $35 $2,100 Replace showerhead 0 27 ea $35 $945 Energy Costs Electric Energy (Effective Cost)1 - 25 -19,786 kWh $0.099 ($34,313) Net Present Worth ($31,300) EEM-14: Optimize AHU-8 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-8 Existing -15,100 55 70 -245 1,800 -440,316 68%-4,675 Optimized 15,100 68 70 33 1,800 58,709 68%623 -381,607 -4,052 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 Balance system 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$3,525 Overhead & profit 0 30%$8,108 Design fees 0 10%$3,513 Project management 0 8%$3,092 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,052 gal $3.68 ($422,438) Net Present Worth ($380,700) Gallons per Use Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-15: Install Flue Dampers Energy Analysis Number CFM T,flue T,room MBH kBTU η boiler Gallons 3 -20 160 70 -6 -51,088 68% -542 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Install flue dampers 0 3 ea $1,200 $3,600 Estimating contingency 0 15%$540 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,242 Design fees 0 10%$538 Project management 0 8%$474 Annual Costs Flue damper maintenance 1 - 25 3 ea $100.00 $5,108 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -542 gal $3.68 ($56,555) Net Present Worth ($45,100) EEM-16: Electric Room 208 Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Transformer kVA ηnew KW kWh Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons 150 98.9% -1.7 -14,454 -49,317 82% -434 225 99.0% -2.3 -19,710 -67,251 82% -592 -116,568 -1,026 Heat Pump Energy Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -116,568 3 11,388 38,856 82% -342 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Seal EF-34 exhaust through roof 0 1 LS $600 $600 Install ductowrk to supply heated air to gym, balancing 0 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$1,140 Overhead & profit 0 30%$2,622 Design fees 0 10%$1,136 Project management 0 8%$1,000 Annual Costs A/C Unit maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $300.00 $5,108 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 11,388 kWh $0.091 $18,263 Electric Demand 1 - 25 36 kW $2.97 $1,876 Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,026 gal $3.68 ($107,009) Net Present Worth ($68,300) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-17: Optimize AHU-7 System Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-7 Existing -12,000 55 65 -130 1,800 -233,280 68%-2,477 Optimized 12,000 60.5 65 58 1,800 104,976 68%1,115 -128,304 -1,362 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs IAQ OSA damper 0 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 Control modifications 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15%$2,475 Overhead & profit 0 30%$5,693 Design fees 0 10%$2,467 Project management 0 8%$2,171 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -1,362 gal $3.68 ($142,032) Net Present Worth ($112,700) EEM-18: Optimize AHU-3 and AHU-4 Energy Analysis Ventilation SA CFM MAT T,room MBH Hours kBtu η boiler Gallons AHU-3 Existing -6,900 40 65 -186 1,800 -335,340 68%-3,561 Optimized 6,900 62 65 22 1,800 40,241 68%427 AHU-4 Existing -4,000 40 65 -108 1,800 -194,400 68%-2,064 Optimized 4,000 62 65 13 1,800 23,328 68%248 -466,171 -4,950 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs AHU-3 Reconfigure ductwork 0 1 LS $4,100 $4,100 Toilet exhaust fan 0 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 Copier room transfer fan 0 1 LS $2,700 $2,700 Convert EF-13 to return fan 0 1 LS $7,300 $7,300 General exhaust fan 0 1 LS $15,800 $15,800 Balancing 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 AHU-4 Return ductowrk 0 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 New exhaust fan 0 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 New return fan 0 1 LS $19,000 $19,000 Remove EF-14 System 0 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Balancing 0 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Estimating contingency 0 15% $10,710 Overhead & profit 0 30% $24,633 Design fees 0 10% $10,674 Project management 0 8%$9,393 Annual Costs Fan maintenance 1 - 25 2 LS $100.00 $3,405 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -4,950 gal $3.68 ($516,050) Net Present Worth ($385,800) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-19: Remove Chilled Water AHU Coils Energy Analysis Fan Energy Unit CFM ΔP η, fan BHP kW Hours kWh AHU-5 21,300 -0.25 50% -1.7 -1.2 1,040 -1,300 AHU-6 CC 12,880 -0.25 50% -1.0 -0.8 1,040 -786 -2.0 -2,086 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Remove AHU-5 coil 0 1 LS $500 $500 Remove AHU-6 reheat coils 0 5 LS $300 $1,500 Annual Costs Coil maintenance 1 - 25 -6 ea $30.00 ($3,065) Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -2,086 kWh $0.091 ($3,345) Electric Demand 1 - 25 -24.1 kW $2.97 ($1,254) Net Present Worth ($5,700) EEM-20: Install Boiler Room Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Heat Recovery Input, MBH Jacket Loss MBH Hours Loss, kBtu Factor Recovery, kBtu η boiler Gallons 4,848 -1.0% -48 8,760 -424,641 75% -318,481 82%-2,804 Heat Pump Energy Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -318,481 3 31,114 106,160 82% -935 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Boiler room heat pump 0 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Gym fan coil unit 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Piping between heat pump and fan coil 0 1 LS $22,000 $22,000 Controls 0 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$7,350 Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,905 Design fees 0 10%$7,326 Project management 0 8%$6,446 Annual Costs Heat pump maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $250.00 $4,257 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 31,114 kWh $0.091 $49,897 Electric Demand 1 - 25 60.0 kW $2.97 $3,126 Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -3,739 gal $3.68 ($389,819) Net Present Worth ($245,500) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-21: Electrical 151 and Server Room 131 Heat Recovery Energy Analysis Server Room Heat Recovery Input, MBH Hours Heat, kBtu Factor Recovery, kBtu η boiler Gallons -27 8,760 -239,113 100% -239,113 82% -2,105 Heat Pump Energy Recovery, kBtu COP kWh HP Heat, kBtu η boiler Gallons -239,113 3 23,360 79,704 82% -702 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Split A/C Unit with ducted condenser 0 1 LS $37,000 $37,000 Ductwork amd grilles, balancing 0 1 LS $8,500 $8,500 Piping 0 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$7,275 Overhead & profit 0 30% $16,733 Design fees 0 10%$7,251 Project management 0 8%$6,381 Annual Costs A/C Unit maintenance 1 - 25 1 LS $300.00 $5,108 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 23,360 kWh $0.091 $37,462 Electric Demand 1 - 25 36 kW $2.97 $1,876 Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -2,807 gal $3.68 ($292,673) Net Present Worth ($162,100) EEM-22: Install Automatic Valves on Unit Heaters Energy Analysis Loss, BTUH Number Factor Loss, kBTU Boiler Effic Fuel, gals -1,000 10 20% -17,520 70% -185 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Install automatic valves and connect to fan wiring 0 10 ea $400 $4,000 Estimating contingency 0 15%$600 Overhead & profit 0 30%$1,380 Design fees 0 10%$598 Project management 0 8%$526 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -185 gal $3.68 ($19,329) Net Present Worth ($12,200) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-23: Upgrade Transformers Energy Analysis Number kVA ηold ηnew KW kWh 2 75 97.4% 98.7% -1.95 -17,082 3 225 98.0% 99.0% -6.75 -59,130 1 300 98.0% 99.0% -3.00 -26,280 -11.7 -102,492 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Replace transformer, kVA 75 0 2 LS $10,400 $20,800 Replace transformer, kVA 225 0 3 LS $18,200 $54,600 Replace transformer, kVA 300 0 1 LS $22,800 $22,800 Estimating contingency 0 10%$9,820 Overhead & profit 0 30% $32,406 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -102,492 kWh $0.091 ($164,366) Electric Demand 1 - 25 -140 kW $2.97 ($7,315) Net Present Worth ($31,300) EEM-24: Upgrade Motors Energy Analysis Equip Number HP ηold ηnew kW Hours kWh RF-12 1 1.5 84.5% 86.5% -0.02 2,610 -58 AHU-11 1 3 86.5% 89.5% -0.07 2,160 -145 P-9A 1 3 81.5% 89.5% -0.18 4,380 -784 P-9B 1 3 81.5% 89.5% -0.18 4,380 -784 AHU-3 1 5 86.5% 89.5% -0.11 6,205 -694 EF-1 1 5 86.5% 89.5% -0.11 1,800 -201 AHU-12 1 7.5 88.5% 91.7% -0.18 1,530 -274 RF-13 1 7.5 88.5% 91.7% -0.18 1,800 -322 P-11A 1 7.5 86.5% 91.7% -0.29 4,380 -1,274 P-11B 1 7.5 86.5% 91.7% -0.29 4,380 -1,274 AHU-6 1 15 71.0% 92.4% -2.39 1,800 -4,310 AHU-13 1 15 90.2% 92.4% -0.25 1,800 -443 AHU-5 1 20 87.0% 93.0% -0.90 1,800 -1,611 -5.1 -12,177 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs HP Replace motor 1.5 0 1 LS 955 $955 Replace motor 3 0 3 LS 1,080 $3,240 Replace motor 5 0 2 LS 1,290 $2,580 Replace motor 7.5 0 4 LS 1,690 $6,760 Replace motor 15 0 2 LS 2,660 $5,320 Replace motor 20 0 1 LS 3,160 $3,160 Energy Costs Electric Energy 1 - 25 -12,177 kWh $0.091 ($19,529) Electric Demand 1 - 25 -62 kW $2.97 ($3,218) Net Present Worth ($700) Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Energy and Life Cycle Cost Analysis 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907.789.1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School EEM-25: Replace Humanity's Wing Roof Insulation Energy Analysis Component Area R,exist R,new ΔT MBH kBtu η boiler Gallons Roof 13,440 12 40 30 -23.5 -206,035 68%-2,188 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Year Qty Unit Base Cost Year 0 Cost Construction Costs Remove pavers and foam insulation 0 13,400 sqft $1 $13,400 Install polyisocyanurate insulation, 3"0 13,400 sqft $5 $67,000 Install polyisocyanurate insulation, 3"0 13,400 sqft $5 $67,000 Tapered insulation 0 13,400 sqft $4 $53,600 Estimating contingency 0 15% $30,150 Overhead & profit 0 30% $69,345 Design fees 0 10% $30,050 Project management 0 8% $26,444 Energy Costs Fuel Oil 1 - 25 -2,188 gal $3.68 ($228,080) Net Present Worth $128,900 Exhibit A Appendix B Energy and Utility Data Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School ELECTRIC RATE Ketchikan Public Utilities Commercial Service Electricity ($ / kWh )$0.0897 Cost of Power Adjustment ($ / kWh)$0.0000 Demand ( $ / kW )$2.91 Customer Charge ( $ / mo )$36.30 Sales Tax ( % )0.0% ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW Jan 188,200 454 200,800 470 157,600 457 181,200 483 181,950 Feb 182,300 485 212,000 464 172,600 457 198,000 539 191,225 Mar 153,900 509 164,600 450 134,800 481 172,400 465 156,425 Apr 209,700 479 180,500 445 183,200 529 180,800 467 188,550 May 153,200 476 154,200 492 169,600 463 174,400 439 162,850 Jun 172,900 263 135,900 440 199,400 443 158,800 467 166,750 Jul 93,300 294 116,200 209 108,000 311 126,800 301 111,075 Aug 107,800 474 69,200 311 131,600 273 102,200 255 102,700 Sep 159,400 502 177,000 421 157,800 427 166,800 423 165,250 Oct 191,000 477 148,600 427 184,400 469 112,200 419 159,050 Nov 208,100 450 175,000 471 181,600 473 235,000 507 199,925 Dec 182,900 472 165,800 457 225,800 495 197,400 465 192,975 Total 2,002,700 1,899,800 2,006,400 2,006,000 1,978,725 Average 166,892 445 158,317 421 167,200 440 167,167 436 164,894 Load Factor 51%51%52%53%435 ELECTRIC BILLING DETAILS Month Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total Energy Demand Cust & Tax Total % Change Jan $14,137 $1,257 $36 $15,430 $16,254 $1,333 $36 $17,623 14.2% Feb $15,482 $1,257 $36 $16,776 $17,761 $1,496 $36 $19,293 15.0% Mar $12,092 $1,327 $36 $13,455 $15,464 $1,280 $36 $16,781 24.7% Apr $16,433 $1,467 $36 $17,936 $16,218 $1,286 $36 $17,540 -2.2% May $15,213 $1,275 $36 $16,524 $15,644 $1,205 $36 $16,885 2.2% Jun $17,886 $1,216 $36 $19,139 $14,244 $1,286 $36 $15,567 -18.7% Jul $9,688 $832 $36 $10,556 $11,374 $803 $36 $12,213 15.7% Aug $11,805 $722 $36 $12,563 $9,167 $669 $36 $9,873 -21.4% Sep $14,155 $1,170 $36 $15,361 $14,962 $1,158 $36 $16,156 5.2% Oct $16,541 $1,292 $36 $17,869 $10,064 $1,147 $36 $11,247 -37.1% Nov $16,290 $1,304 $36 $17,630 $21,080 $1,403 $36 $22,518 27.7% Dec $20,254 $1,368 $36 $21,658 $17,707 $1,280 $36 $19,023 -12.2% Total $ 179,974 $ 14,486 $ 436 $ 194,896 $ 179,938 $ 14,346 $ 436 $ 194,720 -0.1% Average $ 14,998 $ 1,207 $ 36 $ 16,241 $ 14,995 $ 1,196 $ 36 $ 16,227 -0.1% Cost ($/kWh)$0.097 92% 7% 0% $0.097 -0.1% Month 2007 2008 2009 Average Electrical costs are based on the current electric rates. 2009 2010 2010 Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Electric Consumption 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Use (kWh)Month of the Year Electric Use History 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Demand (kW)Month of the Year Electric Demand History 2007 2008 2009 2010 Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Electric Cost 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School 2010 $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecElectric Cost (USD)Month of the Year Electric Cost Breakdown 2010 Electric Use (kWh) Costs Electric Demand (kW) Costs Customer Charge and Taxes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Electric Demand (kW)Electric Use (kWh)Month of the Year Electric Use and Demand Comparison 2010 Electric Use Electric Demand Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Annual Fuel Oil Consumption 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Ketchikan High School Year Fuel Oil Degree Days 2,007 136,000 7,430 2,008 106,835 7,385 2,009 131,125 7,538 2,010 137,556 7,390 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 Degree DaysGallons of Fuel OilYear Annual Fuel Oil Use Fuel Oil Degree Days Exhibit A Alaska Energy Engineering LLC Billing Data 25200 Amalga Harbor Road Tel/Fax: 907-789-1226 Juneau, Alaska 99801 jim@alaskaenergy.us Annual Energy Consumption and Cost Energy Cost $/MMBtu Area ECI EUI Fuel Oil $3.47 $35.79 180,614 $3.66 139 Electricity $0.097 $29.95 Source Cost Electricity 1,978,725 kWh $192,100 6,800 27% Fuel Oil 134,894 Gallons $468,100 18,300 73% Totals $660,200 25,100 100% Annual Energy Consumption and Cost Consumption Energy, MMBtu $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 Fuel Oil ElectricityCost $ / MMBtuCost of Heat Comparison Exhibit A Appendix C Equipment Data Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficP 2AB P 1 Utilidor 2 Secondary Unit Loop7.5 HP/ 480 VP 3AB P 1 Utilidor 2 Secondary Fan Loop3 HP/ 480 VP 4 P 1 Boiler Room Head Circulation2 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm/ 82.5% not usedP 5 P 1 Boiler Room Glycol Make up1/3 HP/ 120 V/ 3450 rpmP 6AB P 1 Utilidor Utilidor Sump Drain1/3 HP/ 120 VP 1AB Boiler Room Fuel Oil Circulation1/2 HP/ 120 V1/2 HP/ 120 V1 WP 2ABBoiler Room Generator Fee Water3 HP/ 208 VB1 Boiler Room Primary Boiler Weil Mclain 14943770 MBHPrimary Burner Gordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingB2 Boiler Room Lag BoilerWeil Mclain 15944070 MBHLag BurnerGordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingAC 1 UtilidorLab SystemChampion HR7B-25275 CFM 7 1/2 HP/ 480 V/ 1745 rpm/ 82.9% dual motorAC 2 Boiler Room Control System20 HP/ 480 VB3 Boiler Room Lag BoilerWeil Mclain 15942 HP/ 208 VLag BurnerGordon Piatt R-12-0-5011.7-35 GPH 5 HP/ 460 V/ 3450 rpmmodulatingPMP 7 ABBoiler Room DHW18.5 GPM 3/4 HP/ 460 VPMP 8ABUtilidor Unit VentsSecondary Heading Circulation 125 GPM 3 HP/ 1750 rpmPMP 9ABUtilidor Fan HCSecondary Heading Circulation 50 GPMPMP 11ABUtilidorSecondary Hydronic Loop260 GPM 7 1/2 HP/ 1150 rpmPMP 13 Boiler RoomSecondary Hydronic Loop62 GPM 3/4 HP/ 1750 rpmPMP 15ABBoiler RoomSecondary Hydronic Loop40 GPM 1/4 HP/ 120 VAHU 1 R1 Penthouse Phase 1 Constitution Temtrol DH-164P41000 CFM 60 HP/ 480 V/ 1780 rpm/ 94.1%SF AHU 160 HP/ 480 V/ 1780 rpm/ 94.1%AHU 2 R1 Penthouse GymTemtrol DH-27P13500 CFM 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpmAHU 3 Mechanical 303 Phase 2Pace6900 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 1750 rpm/ 87.5%AHU 4 Mechanical 301Pace 1A24AFST4000 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 1750 rpm/ 87.5%AHU 5 Mechanical Mezz.PACE 98-73200-0121900 CFM 20 HP/ 460 V/ 1758 rpm/ 87%Ketchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make Model Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelAHU 6 Mechanical Mezz.PACE DF 33AFSWSI13730 CFM 15 HP/ 480 V/ 1785 rpm/ 71%AHU 7 Mechanical Mezz. ClassroomPACE PF-40AFSWSI22615 CFM 40 HP/ 480 V/ 1480 rpmAHU 8 Auxiliary GymPACE PF-33AFSWSI13500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%AHU 9 Art & Pottery900 CFM 10 HPAHU 10 Corridor4500 CFM 5 HPAHU 11 P IV Penthouse Gym West Side Haakon AIRPAK13500 CFM 3 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 86.5%SF for AHU 1115 HP/ 460 V/ 4130 rpmRF 1A P1 Penthouse AHU 1 Return Fan35500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91.7%RF 1B P1 Penthouse AHU 1 Return Fan35500 CFM 10 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91.7%EF 1 P1 Penthouse Men's Bathroom Exhaust Greenheck SFB-18-50730 CFM 5 HP/ 480 V/ 1740 rpm/ 86.5%EF 2 Chemical Storage Animal Dissection Fan190 CFMLow UseEF 3 Room 123 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 4 Chemistry Lab 120 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 5 Physics Lab Fume hood1495 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 6 Science 115 Fume hood720 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 VLow UseEF 7 Science 115 General Science Exhaust2060 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 8 Physics 1252180 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 9 Chemistry Lab 120 General Science Exhaust2180 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 10 Biology 117 General Science Exhaust2440 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1750 rpm Low UseEF 11 Boiler Room Utilidor Vent2200 CFM 3/4 HP/ 480 V/ 830 rpm Low UseCF 1 Boiler Room Combustion Air Fan4200 CFM 1 1/2 HP/ 480 V/ 830 rpmEF 13 AHU 3 Mechanical Relief AHU 3 Pace U-30AFSTD9300 CFM 5 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 86.5%EF 14 AHU 4 Mechanical Relief AHU 4 Pace U-11FCSTD1200 CFM 3/4 HP/ 1750 rpmsecured, only used for 1 floorEF 15 BalconySpot Light Exhaust Air1000 CFM 1/2 HP/ 1750 rpmnever runsEF 16 Mechanical Mezz. Stage CraftPace PF-16B1SWS12000 CFM 1/2 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpm do efficiencyEF 17 Stage Craft Bathroom Exhaust Pace SCF65AM1500 CFM 1/6 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpm do efficiencyEF 18 Mechanical Mezz. Kitchen Fume Hood4400 CFM 3 HPEF 19 Above 247 Dishwasher Fan600 FRM 1/4 HPauto on w/dishwasherExhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelEF 20 Above 247 Bathroom Exhaust1200 CFM 1/2 HP/ 1725 rpmEF 21 Arts Room Art Main Exhaust532 CFM 1/4 HPEF 22 Kiln Room Kiln Exhaust880 CFM 1/4 HPEF 23Mechanical Room 8Auxiliary Gym BathroomPace SCF-124AM12325 CFM 3/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm no efficiency EF 24 Training Room Space Exhaust725 CFMRF 2Mech. Mezz. AuditoriumReturn AirPACE PF40 AFSWSQ21900 CFm 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%RF 3Mechanical Mezz. StageReturn AirPACE PF36 AFS113530 CFM 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1765 rpm/ 91.7%RF 4Mech. Mezz. ClassroomReturn AirPACE PF44 AFSWS129225 CFM 7.5 HP/ 48 VRF 5Mech. Mezz. Aux. GymReturn AirPACE PF 36 AFSWS11800 CFM 5 HP/ 480 V/ 1740 rpm/ 89.5%EF 26Boiler Room PenthouseLocker RoomsSnyder General22RDKB1CW5155 CFM 3 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 89.5%EF 27Boiler Room PenthouseApplied Tech810 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 1627 rpmEF 28 Sawdust 200A Collection Fan1640 CFM 5 HP/ 208 V/ 3450 rpmEF 29Welding Shop CeilingSolvent Tank HoodSnyder General16RPKB1CCW10 2000 CFM 1.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1730 rpmEF 30 Auto Shop Grinding Table1000 CFM 2 HP/ 460 V/ 1047 rpmEF 31Boiler Room PenthouseAutomotive ExhaustSnyder General110TCCW2000 CFM 5 HP/ 460 V/ 1750 rpmEF 32 203Hot Water Tank Room McQuay1500 CFM 1/2 HP/ 120 V/ 775 rpm offEF 33 Auto Shop Outboard Engine2250 CFM 2 HP/ 460 V/ 1810 rpmEF 34Boiler Room PenthouseElectric Room2370 CFM 1.5 HP/ 120 V/ 737 rpm 2nd deck191 Maintenance TransformerSquare D EE 150 T3HF150 KVA 115° Temp RiseTP RatedBoiler Room TransformerSquare D 225T3H225 KVA 150° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 75T3HETSNIP75 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 300T90HFTSNLP 300 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedMechanical Mezz. TransformerSquare D 225T3HFTSNLP 225 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedUtilidorTransformerSquare D 35549-17222-022 225 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedRoofFridge/Freezer Condenser20 B 30 13 Amp 6.3 KVAServer Room TransformerSquare D 34349-17212-064 75 KVA 115° Temp RiseNot TP RatedAHU 12 P-IV Penthouse Gym LockersHaakon AIRPak6310 CFM 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1755 rpm/ 88.5%3" water columnRF 12 204 Penthouse Return1660 CFM 1.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1745 rpm/ 84% Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelAHU 13 P-IV Penthouse Technology Complex Haakon AIRPak14930 CFM 15 HP/ 460 V/ 1750 rpm/ 90.2%RF 13 204 Penthouse Return10490 CFM 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1775 rpm/ 88.5%WH1 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectWH2 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectWH3 Hot Water Room DHWAutrol WHS 120 CDW120 gallonindirectCH1 Roof70 tonsAC 3 Boiler RoomIngersol Rand2-253E55 HP/ 230 V/ 1725 rpm/ 81.5%AC 4 Boiler Room Air Compressor ShopIngersol Rand234 D-22 HP/ 208 V/ 1725 rpm/ 78.5%AC 5 Boiler Room Dry Pipe SprinklerIngersol RandP307120T7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1725 rpm/ 85.5%3 KitchenHot Food Service Seco Elite 3-HF3 KVA 208 V/ 14 Amps5a KitchenBeverage Dispenser Servend MD-250.30 KVA 120 V/ 2.5 Amps5b KitchenIce DispenserServend Series C41.85 KVA 120 V/ 15.4 Amps8a KitchenShake Machine Sanserver 826E1.49 KVA 208 V/ 4.14 Amps8b KitchenSoft Serve Machine Sanserve 826E2.82 KVA 208 V/ 7.82 Amps9 KitchenHot CabinetPrecision RSU-4011.01 KVA 120 V/ 8.40 Amps10a KitchenConvection Oven Lang 2-ECCO-S111650 KVA 208 V/ 31.92 Amps10b KitchenConvection Oven Lang 2-ECCO-S111650 KVA 208 V/ 31.92 Amps11 KitchenRangeLang 3 6-521 KVA 208 V/ 58.29 Amps13 KitchenVentilatorLighting0.60 KVA 120 V/ 5 Amps14a KitchenBrazing PanMarketForge21.18 KVA 208 V/ 58.5 Amps14b KitchenBrazing PanMarketForge2.4 KVA 120 V/ 2 Amps15 KitchenSteamerMarketForge9.01 KVA 208 V/ 25 Amps17 KitchenKettle24.14 KVA 208 V/ 67 Amps20 KitchenWalk-in Freezer6.48 KVA 208 V/ 18.30 Amps22 KitchenWalk-in Cooler6.48 KVA 208 V/ 18.30 Amps25 KitchenDisposer2.82 KVA 208 V/ 7.82 Amps27 KitchenDishwashing44.17 KVA 208 V/ 51 AmpsP 1A Boiler RoomBoiler Circulation Pump LegPaco 11-40957-146201 728 gpm 20 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 93% 71 TPH Exhibit A MotorHP / Volts / RPM / EfficKetchikan High School - Major Equipment InventoryCapacityNotesUnit IDLocation Function Make ModelP 1B Boiler RoomBoiler Circulation Pump LeadPaco 11-40957-146201 728 gpm 20 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 93%P 7A Boiler Room DHW Circulation Taco 1615B3E2-6.853/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpm no efficiencyP 7B Boiler Room DHW Circulation Taco 1615B3E2-6.853/4 HP/ 480 V/ 1725 rpmP 12ASecondary Loop Taco FM50108.5B2H1C220 370 gpm 10 HP/ 460 V/ 1760 rpm/ 96.7%P 12BSecondary Loop Taco FM50108.5B2H16760 370 gpmP 14AHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 1611B3E14.55 gallon 1/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop legP 14BHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 1611B3E14.55 gallon 1/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop leadP 15AHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 122B3E14.31/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop leadP 15BHot Water Tank RoomDHW Circulation Taco 122B3E14.31/4 HP/ 115 V/ 1725 rpmrecirculation loop legP 2A UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco painted over224 gpm 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%P 2B UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco painted over224 gpm 7.5 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 91%P 3A UtilidorAHU 1&2Paco162 gpm 3 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 88.5%P 3B UtilidorAHU 1&2 Heating Loop Paco painted over162 gpm 3 HP/ 480 V/ 1760 rpm/ 88.5%P 11A UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco 10-30125-1A0001-1743 295 gpm 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1170 rpm/ 86.5%P 11B UtilidorBuilding Heating Loop Paco 10-30125-1A0001-1743 295 gpm 7.5 HP/ 460 V/ 1170 rpm/ 86.5%P 9A UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 16-30707-130101-1622E3 HP/ 208 V/ 1760 rpm/ 81.5%P 9B UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 16-30707-130101-1622E3 HP/ 203 V/ 1760 rpm/ 81.5%P 8A UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 13-15707-130101-14421 HP/ 208 V/ 1745 rpmP 8B UtilidorAHU 3/4 Heat Loop Paco 13-15707-130101-1442 Exhibit A Appendix D Abbreviations AHU Air handling unit BTU British thermal unit BTUH BTU per hour CBJ City and Borough of Juneau CMU Concrete masonry unit CO2 Carbon dioxide CUH Cabinet unit heater DDC Direct digital controls DHW Domestic hot water EAD Exhaust air damper EEM Energy efficiency measure EF Exhaust fan Gyp Bd Gypsum board HVAC Heating, Ventilating, Air- conditioning HW Hot water HWRP Hot water recirculating pump KVA Kilovolt-amps kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour LED Light emitting diode MBH 1,000 Btu per hour MMBH 1,000,000 Btu per hour OAD Outside air damper PSI Per square inch PSIG Per square inch gage RAD Return air damper RF Return fan SIR Savings to investment ratio SF Supply fan UV Unit ventilator VAV Variable air volume VFD Variable frequency drive Exhibit A Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 42 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT C: CURRENT CONTRACTUAL FUEL PRICES Per the attached Agreement for Delivered Heating Fuel and Fuel on a Card Reader System with Anderes Oil, Inc. at a cost of $0.39/gallon over OPIS for delivered fuel, dated August 28, 2015, along with a record of energy usage at Kayhi. 900 Srcdman St. -P.O. Box 5858 -Ketchikan, ,\J( 99901 Pli907-22S-2 163 -rt\X 907-2 25-0190 F A C S IMIL E TR ANSM I T T A L S H EE T ro HHIM 1\ pril i'vl c ndoz~t Dawn Ja hn ke CII MI'J\1'\''· fl r\ I'F.. KGBSD 08/28/2015 l ·M < NL'M III,tt · '1'()'1'.\1 N il. !\1· I 'AC:F~ I NC! U DINC 1'lJVI•I\ 247 -3823 N<>TES /COM\I F.N I S Bid price on Furnace Oil diesel for KGB for the week of 08/31 I 15 is S 1.76-14. (OPIS Sl.3744 plus .3900) Bid price on Stove Oil diesel for KGB ior the week 08/31 / IS is S 1.864-1 . (OPIS Sl.-t7-14 plus .3900) 'J'h:111k you , Dawn Jahnke r\nderc~ Oil, Inc. 900 Stedman Strccl Ketchikan, 1\ Iaska 9990 I (907) 225-2 163 ,\ 1\! D 1.; n E ~ ()I I., IN (, I'() II():\ 5 ~ ~ ~ f.: WI' C I I I "1\ 'I , ,\I, ~ <) V U I I' II () N t; Y IJ 7 • 2 2 S -2 1 (, ,\ I' A X : ') II 7 2 2 S (I I 9 IJ KETCHIKAN SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTRICITY AND HEATING OIL USAGE JULY 2014 TO JUNE 2015 MONTH KCS TSAS SUBTOTAL VP SCHOENBAR MAINTENANCE KAYHI TOTAL JUL 818.60$ 818.59$ 1,637.19$ 2,033.25$ 723.52$ 9,500.43$ 13,894.39$ AUG 992.46 992.46 1,984.92 2,647.05 708.97 8,781.15 14,122.09 SEP 1,189.39 1,189.38 2,378.77 4,065.13 727.15 13,567.77 20,738.82 OCT 1,192.34 1,192.33 2,384.67 4,313.90 773.03 14,212.51 21,684.11 NOV 1,323.72 1,323.71 2,647.43 4,965.47 829.75 15,219.39 23,662.04 DEC 1,073.20 1,073.20 2,146.40 3,760.91 700.73 19,784.79 26,392.83 JAN 1,121.45 1,121.44 2,242.89 3,607.30 659.03 16,034.37 22,543.59 FEB 1,332.02 1,332.02 2,664.04 4,845.64 919.60 16,527.45 24,956.73 MAR 1,204.20 1,204.19 2,408.39 3,776.22 754.55 15,456.87 22,396.03 APR 1,177.16 1,177.15 2,354.31 3,689.37 730.54 14,730.17 21,504.39 MAY 1,145.19 1,145.19 2,290.38 4,066.39 785.03 15,153.27 22,295.07 JUN 1,212.12 1,212.12 2,424.24 3,655.61 836.62 16,676.25 23,592.72 TOTAL 13,781.85$ 13,781.78$ 27,563.63$ 45,426.24$ 9,148.52$ 175,644.42$ 257,782.81$ MONTH KCS TSAS SUBTOTAL VP SCHOENBAR MAINTENANCE KAYHI TOTAL JUL - 210.70 2,500.00 2,710.70 AUG 430.27 554.33 984.60 2,900.00 3,884.60 SEP 166.06 213.94 380.00 1,858.20 19.90 3,500.00 5,758.10 OCT 556.56 717.04 1,273.60 1,319.50 610.80 5,100.00 8,303.90 NOV 579.77 746.93 1,326.70 2,474.00 520.90 12,231.20 16,552.80 DEC 870.94 1,122.06 1,993.00 2,340.20 818.00 12,850.40 18,001.60 JAN 777.47 1,001.63 1,779.10 3,541.20 1,228.90 13,296.10 19,845.30 FEB 643.74 829.36 1,473.10 1,760.70 765.10 10,929.80 14,928.70 MAR 537.86 692.94 1,230.80 2,795.40 665.00 9,600.00 14,291.20 APR 630.55 812.35 1,442.90 2,368.90 588.10 11,877.40 16,277.30 MAY 166.50 214.50 381.00 743.00 362.00 6,186.90 7,672.90 JUN 274.61 353.79 628.40 871.30 5,621.20 7,120.90 TOTAL 5,634.33 7,258.87 12,893.20 20,283.10 5,578.70 96,593.00 135,348.00 MONTH KCS TSAS SUBTOTAL VP SCHOENBAR MAINTENANCE KAYHI TOTAL JUL -$ 699.68$ 8,329.19$ 9,028.87$ AUG 1,462.77 1,884.53 3,347.30 9,806.88 13,154.18 SEP 604.22 778.43 1,382.65 6,730.52 70.30 12,522.45 20,705.92 OCT 1,684.07 2,169.63 3,853.70 4,093.94 1,883.86 15,825.63 25,657.13 NOV 1,711.28 2,204.69 3,915.97 7,376.31 1,528.42 36,081.58 48,902.28 DEC 2,241.36 2,887.62 5,128.98 6,197.87 2,174.66 32,962.73 46,464.24 JAN 1,563.24 2,013.96 3,577.20 7,302.83 2,563.01 27,270.59 40,713.63 FEB 1,419.45 1,828.72 3,248.17 3,838.00 1,758.97 24,532.65 33,377.79 MAR 1,230.52 1,585.32 2,815.84 6,432.76 1,512.21 22,156.21 32,917.02 APR 1,401.82 1,806.00 3,207.82 5,280.67 1,320.59 26,471.57 36,280.65 MAY 430.23 554.27 984.50 1,919.91 916.22 15,956.57 19,777.20 JUN 720.99 928.88 1,649.87 2,170.49 - 14,435.44 18,255.80 TOTAL 14,469.95$ 18,642.04$ 33,112.00$ 52,042.98$ 13,728.24$ 246,351.49$ 345,234.71$ ELECTRICITY HEATING OIL/ GALLONS HEATING OIL COST Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application – Heat Projects AEA 15003 Page 43 of 44 7/8/15 EXHIBIT D: RESOLUTION FROM GOVERNING BODY Resolution 2610 - A Resolution of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, Authorizing Application for and Acceptance of a Grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for Installation of the Biomass Heating System at Ketchikan High School and Pre-Feasibility Studies for Various Other Borough Facilities under Round IX of the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH RESOlUTION NO. 2610 A Resolution of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, Authorizing Application for and Acceptance of a Grant from the Alaska Energy Authority {AEA) for Installation of the Biomass Heating System at Ketchikan High School and Pre-Feasibility Studies for Various Other Borough Facilities under Round IX of the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the Renewable Energy Grant Fund was created in 2008 by the Alaska State Legislature to provide funding for renewable energy projects that can provide economic benefit and local energy sources to Alaska communities; and B. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is committed to developing a stable local energy conduit and reduce the use of fossil fuel within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough through the installation of biomass-fired space heating systems; and, C. WHEREAS, there is a present need for forest product industry development within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the development of a biomass-fired heating system for the Ketchikan High School and other Borough-owned facilities would support this development by driving local demand for biomass products; and D. WHEREAS, in 2012, CTA Architects Engineers and Lars Construction Management Service conducted the Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems funded by the Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service for the School District, showing support for a wood biomass heating system at the Ketchikan High School; and E. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan High School is presently under contract for the design and engineer of a biomass heating system intended to supplement the present oil fired heating boilers as the lead heating system; and F. WHEREAS, the Assembly has directed staff in the 2014 policy session to study renewable energy heating opportunities for the Gateway Aquatic Center and other borough facilities; and G. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough owns a number of facilities on the west side of Schoen bar Road, including Schoen bar Middle School, the Ketchikan Resolution No. 2610 Page 2 Gateway Borough School District Maintenance Facility, the Gateway Recreation/Gateway Aquatic Center, and Valley Park School; and H. WHEREAS, locating a central heating plant to serve the Borough-owned schools and recreation facilities on the Schoenbar Road property may provide the most economical opportunity to install a central biomass fueled heating system; and I. WHEREAS, supplementing with biomass energy would help preserve hydroelectric resources. As stated in the Southeast Integrated Resource Plan, all of the region's hydroelectric supplies are threatened by runaway load growth brought about by rapidly increasing oil prices, which are stimulating a dramatic shift to electric heat. If this load growth continues, Ketchikan Public Utilities will have little choice but to increase rates to match the price of heating oil, thus tethering the electric rates to the future price of oil; and J. WHEREAS, the Borough is presently pursuing economic development opportunities such as the construction of a mill by Heatherdale on Gravina Island for the processing of ore from the Niblack Mine. Such opportunities require a reliable source of energy at a reasonable cost. The proposed wood biomass heating systems upgrades appear to be particularly promising in terms of conserving the future electrical needs of Ketchikan; and K. WHEREAS, biomass energy production offers abundant opportunities to create new, economically rewarding and environmentally sustainable year-round jobs in Ketchikan sourcing energy from local sources, and will keep local dollars circulating within Ketchikan's economy; and l. WHEREAS, as the biomass energy industry matures in Ketchikan, there is every reason to expect broader benefits to the community. Residents and facility owners will have one more option for heating their homes/facilities, hopefully at a lower cost than the currently available options; and M. WHEREAS, while the Alaska Energy Authority favorably considers applications that commit the applicant to providing matching funds for the completion of a project, but such a pledge is not a requirement of the Renewable Energy Fund program. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS RESOlVED BY THE ASSEMBlY OF THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH as follows: Section 1. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly hereby authorizes the Borough Manager to apply for, accept, be the contact point for, and commit the Borough to the obligations of a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) through the Renewable Energy Grant Fund Round IX to construct a biomass boiler at Ketchikan Resolution No. 2610 Page 3 High School and design the Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant, with the total grant funds requested to be $1,508,018 as follows: Project Reguest Kayhi Biomass Heating Construction $1)88,018 Ketchikan Gateway Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant Design $220,000 Section 2. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough certifies that it is in compliance with applicable federat state, and local laws, including existing credit and tax obligations. Section 3. The Assembly hereby declares its strong commitment to completing these projects and to accomplish the objectives set out in the recitals. Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption. ADOPTED and EFFECTIVE this 8th day of September, 2015. David Lan ATTEST: I~ Kacie Paxton, Borough Clerk Scott A. Brandt-Erichsen, Borough Attorney Renewa Grant AEA 1500 Round IX Benefit/Co of Wood-F Ketchikan able Ener t Applica 03 Evaluation M ost scenario Fired Heating High Schoo rgy Fund ation – He Model by AE developed b g Systems F ol d Round eat Proje Page EXHIBIT E EA submitted by CTA as p Final Report IX ects e 44 of 44 : FINANCIA d with assum part of the Pr – Ketchikan AL ANALYS mptions. re-Feasibility n Gateway B SIS y Assessme Borough Sch 7/8 nt for Integra hool District 8/15 ation Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model - Diesels ON Project Description Comments: (Please assign comment ID and hyperlink next to applicable column/row) Community ID Nearest Fuel Community (non-railbelt only)1 Region 2 RE Technology 3 Project ID 4 Applicant Name 5 Project Title 6 7 Results 8 NPV Benefits $3,415,557.40 9 NPV Capital Costs $1,179,187 10 Four scenarios have been examined, with B/C coases calculated: B/C Ratio 2.90 High Fuel/Low Biomass: Given herein. Fuel price per tab "Diesel Fuel Prices." $275/ton per TFE and inflated per CPI rate given on "Carbon Pricing" tab. NPV Net Benefit $2,236,370 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year - Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh (328,620) Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 89,145 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 1,756,610 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 905 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 17,830 Proposed System Unit Value 1 Capital Costs $1,251,000$ 2 Project Start year 2016 3 Project Life years 20 4 Displaced Electric kWh per year (16,431) 5 Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 89,145 Renewable Generation O&M $ per year 13,919 Electric Capacity kW - Electric Capacity Factor %- Heating Capacity Btu/hr 2,460 Heating Capacity Factor %75 Total Other Public Benefit 2015$ (Total over the life of the project)0 Base System - Non-Railbelt Only Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/kWh Diesel Generator O&M 361-600kW 0.107$ Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon Total current annual generation kWh/gallon Diesel Generation Efficiency 12.50 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Annual Cost Savings Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 PV 6 Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year -$ 1,251,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,179,187 Electric Cost Savings $ per year -$ (7,507)$ (7,340)$ (7,204)$ (7,071)$ (6,936)$ (6,798)$ (6,654)$ (6,512)$ (6,368)$ (6,220)$ (6,068)$ (5,913)$ (5,754)$ (5,591)$ (5,424)$ (5,244)$ (5,066)$ (4,884)$ (4,689)$ (4,499)$ ($90,108) Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ 178,659$ 194,242$ 190,264$ 191,759$ 193,152$ 196,952$ 201,305$ 205,881$ 710,533$ 215,080$ 220,189$ 225,423$ 230,783$ 236,273$ 241,896$ 247,656$ 253,555$ 259,579$ 265,168$ 271,272$ $3,505,665 Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 Total Cost Savings $ per year -$ 171,152$ 186,902$ 183,061$ 184,689$ 186,216$ 190,154$ 194,651$ 199,369$ 704,166$ 208,860$ 214,122$ 219,510$ 225,029$ 230,682$ 236,472$ 242,411$ 248,489$ 254,695$ 260,480$ 266,773$ $3,415,557 Net Benefit $ per year -$ (1,079,848)$ 186,902$ 183,061$ 184,689$ 186,216$ 190,154$ 194,651$ 199,369$ 704,166$ 208,860$ 214,122$ 219,510$ 225,029$ 230,682$ 236,472$ 242,411$ 248,489$ 254,695$ 260,480$ 266,773$ $2,236,370 Electric Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 PV Renewable Generation kWh per year - (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) Entered Value Scheduled replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 Renewable O&M - Annual marginal change $ per year -$ 1,502$ 1,238$ 967$ 690$ 407$ 116$ (181)$ (486)$ (798)$ (1,117)$ (1,444)$ (1,779)$ (2,122)$ (2,473)$ (2,833)$ (3,201)$ (3,578)$ (3,964)$ (4,360)$ (4,765)$ ($15,733) Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 Proposed Generation Cost $ per year -$ 1,502$ 1,238$ 967$ 690$ 407$ 116$ (181)$ (486)$ (798)$ (1,117)$ (1,444)$ (1,779)$ (2,122)$ (2,473)$ (2,833)$ (3,201)$ (3,578)$ (3,964)$ (4,360)$ (4,765)$ ($15,733) Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year - (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) (16,431) Fuel Price $ per gallon 4.50$ 4.57$ 4.64$ 4.74$ 4.85$ 4.97$ 5.08$ 5.20$ 5.32$ 5.45$ 5.58$ 5.71$ 5.85$ 5.99$ 6.13$ 6.28$ 6.42$ 6.58$ 6.73$ 6.88$ 7.05$ Fuel Use gallons per year - (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) (1,314) Base Generation Avoided Cost $ per year -$ (6,005)$ (6,102)$ (6,236)$ (6,380)$ (6,530)$ (6,682)$ (6,835)$ (6,998)$ (7,166)$ (7,337)$ (7,512)$ (7,692)$ (7,876)$ (8,064)$ (8,257)$ (8,445)$ (8,644)$ (8,849)$ (9,048)$ (9,264)$ ($105,841) Heating Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 PV Renewable Heat gallons displaced per year - 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 Entered Value Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year $0 8 Entered Value Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 11,008$ 11,272$ 11,543$ 11,820$ 12,103$ 12,394$ 12,691$ 12,996$ 13,308$ 13,627$ 13,954$ 14,289$ 14,632$ 14,983$ 15,343$ 15,711$ 16,088$ 16,474$ 16,870$ 17,275$ $202,322 7 Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 9 Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 275.00$ 281.60$ 288.36$ 295.28$ 302.37$ 309.62$ 317.05$ 324.66$ 332.45$ 340.43$ 348.60$ 356.97$ 365.54$ 374.31$ 383.29$ 392.49$ 401.91$ 411.56$ 421.44$ 431.55$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 194,700$ 199,373$ 204,158$ 209,058$ 214,075$ 219,213$ 224,474$ 229,861$ 235,378$ 241,027$ 246,812$ 252,735$ 258,801$ 265,012$ 271,372$ 277,885$ 284,554$ 291,384$ 298,377$ 305,538$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ 205,708$ 210,645$ 215,700$ 220,877$ 226,178$ 231,607$ 237,165$ 242,857$ 248,686$ 254,654$ 260,766$ 267,024$ 273,433$ 279,995$ 286,715$ 293,596$ 300,643$ 307,858$ 315,247$ 322,813$ $3,670,702 Fuel Use gallons per year - 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 89,145 10 Entered Value Fuel Cost $ per gallon 3.59$ 4.26$ 4.48$ 4.50$ 4.57$ 4.64$ 4.74$ 4.85$ 4.97$ 5.08$ 5.20$ 5.32$ 5.45$ 5.58$ 5.71$ 5.85$ 5.99$ 6.13$ 6.28$ 6.42$ 6.58$ Entered Value Scheduled Repairs $ per year 500,000$ $485,437 Entered Value O&M $ per year 5,000$ 5,120$ 5,243$ 5,369$ 5,498$ 5,629$ 5,765$ 5,903$ 6,045$ 6,190$ 6,338$ 6,490$ 6,646$ 6,806$ 6,969$ 7,136$ 7,308$ 7,483$ 7,662$ 7,846$ $91,898 Annual Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 379,367$ 399,767$ 400,722$ 407,268$ 413,833$ 422,929$ 432,706$ 442,836$ 453,175$ 463,545$ 474,617$ 485,956$ 497,569$ 509,462$ 521,642$ 534,116$ 546,890$ 559,954$ 572,752$ 586,238$ $6,715,099 Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ 384,367$ 404,887$ 405,965$ 412,637$ 419,331$ 428,558$ 438,470$ 448,739$ 959,219$ 469,734$ 480,955$ 492,447$ 504,215$ 516,268$ 528,611$ 541,252$ 554,198$ 567,437$ 580,415$ 594,084$ $7,176,367 Proposed - Marginal cost only Base - Fuel and capacity cost only Proposed Base Biomass Consumption per Option B2 by Wisewood, Inc. (Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February 2015) Annual O&M cost calculated per Option A2/B2 biomass Boiler Operating Costs (OpEx) by Wisewood, Inc. (Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February 2015) Renewable fuel increases based upon CPI rate given on "Carbon Pricing" tab as provided. Base rate is provided by Tongass Forest Enterprises: no contract has been signed to date. Low Fuel/Low Biomass: $2.2502/gallon fuel, $275/ton per TFE and inflated per CPI rate given on "Carbon Pricing" tab. B/C = 0.24 Low Fuel/High Biomass: $2.2502/gallon fuel. High potential bid price of $325/ton and inflated per CPI rate given on "Carbon Pricing" tab. B/C = (0.30) High Fuel/High Biomass: Fuel price per tab "Diesel Fuel Prices." High potential bid price of $325/ton and inflated per CPI rate given on "Carbon Pricing" tab. B/C = 2.36 Ketchikan Gateway Borough does not anticipate extended period of low fuel prices. Prices in the past year have fluctuated from a high of $3.55/gallon to a low of $2.00/gallon. At $2.00 or less, B/C is essentially zero. 1140 Annual additional electrical consumption per A2/B2 Proposed System Analysis by Wisewood, Inc. (Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February 2015) Ketchikan Gateway Borough Annual oil consumption per A2/B2 Proposed System Analysis by Wisewood, Inc. (Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February 2015) Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Construction Cost per Option B2 by Wisewood, Inc. (Preliminary Designs, Cost Comparison and Boiler Placement Options for the Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Installation dated February 2015) Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Rural Project monitoring begins in 2016 Biomass AEA Standard Biomass life Description See Page 9 of the Application Ketchikan High SchoolOption B.1Ketchikan, AKWood Pellet Boiler Date: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSKHSTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel OilFuel OilFuel Units:galgalgalgalCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.70$3.70$3.70$3.70 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:127,900127,900Annual Heating Costs:$473,230$0$0$0$473,230ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):138500 138500138500138500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):17,714,150,000000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80%80%80%80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):14,171,320,00000014,171,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTWood Pellets$/ton: $300.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 70% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 7% MC 8200 Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.1,234Tons of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.1,04925 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.42 Project Capital Cost-$1,400,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use25000 kWhTypeHr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0Elec Rate$0.100 /kWhBiomass System4.040160 $20.00 $3,200Amount of Grants$1,400,000 Other0.0400 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning2.04080 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 17.5 yearsNet Benefit B/C Ratio$6,373,815$4,973,815 4.55$3,213,382$1,813,3822.30Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 0#N/AYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost11Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate3.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation3.0%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear Year YearYearYearYearCash flow DescriptionsUnit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units123456789101112131415202530Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.70127900 gal$473,230 $496,892 $521,736 $547,823 $575,214 $603,975 $634,173 $665,882 $699,176 $734,135 $770,842 $809,384 $849,853 $892,346 $936,963 $1,195,829 $1,526,214 $1,947,879Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Displaced heating costs $3.700 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$300.0085%1049 tons$314,781 $324,224 $333,951 $343,970 $354,289 $364,918 $375,865 $387,141 $398,755 $410,718 $423,039 $435,731 $448,803 $462,267 $476,135 $551,970 $639,885 $741,802Small load existing fuel$3.7015%19185 gal$70,985 $74,534 $78,260 $82,173 $86,282 $90,596 $95,126 $99,882 $104,876 $110,120 $115,626 $121,408 $127,478 $133,852 $140,544 $179,374 $228,932 $292,182Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Small load existing fuel$3.7015%0 gal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$3,200$3,264$3,329 $3,396 $3,464 $3,533$3,604 $3,676 $3,749 $3,824 $3,901 $3,979 $4,058 $4,140 $4,222 $4,662 $5,147$5,683Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600$1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.100$2,500 $2,575$2,652 $2,732 $2,814 $2,898$2,985 $3,075 $3,167 $3,262 $3,360 $3,461 $3,564 $3,671 $3,781 $4,384 $5,082$5,891Annual Operating Cost Savings$80,164$90,662$103,543$115,552$128,366$142,030$156,594$172,108$188,628$206,211$224,916$244,806$265,950$288,416$312,280$455,438$647,168$902,321Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow80,164 90,662 103,543 115,552 128,366 142,030 156,594 172,108 188,628 206,211 224,916 244,806 265,950 288,416 312,280 455,438 647,168 902,321Accumulated Cash Flow80,164 170,827 274,370 389,922 518,287 660,317 816,910 989,019 1,177,647 1,383,858 1,608,773 1,853,580 2,119,529 2,407,946 2,720,226 4,694,187 7,524,448 11,496,899Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):