Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFalse Pass - REF Round IX_09112015Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 1 of 41 9/11/15 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) City of False Pass Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End: Government June 30, 2015 Tax ID # Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit X Government (check one) Date of last financial statement audit: City of False Pass does CFS at end of every fiscal year. Last audit was for 2005, and was finished November 21, 2006. Mailing Address: Physical Address: P.O. Box 50 180 Unimak Dr. False Pass, AK 99583-0050 False Pass, Alaska Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-548-2319 907-548-2214 cityoffalsepass@ak.net 1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Manager Name: Title: Genetta McLean ORPC Alaska Grants & Licensing Manager Mailing Address: ORPC Alaska 66 Pearl Street, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: Fax: Email: 207-722-6251 207-772-7708 gmclean@orpc.co 1.1.1 APPLICANT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY CONTACT INFORMATION Name: Title: Nicole Hoblet Mayor Mailing Address: P.O. Box 50 False Pass, AK 99583-0050 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-548-2319 907-548-2214 cityoffalsepass@ak.net 1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Chris Emrich 907-548-2319 907-548-2214 cityoffalsepass@ak.net Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 2 of 41 9/11/15 1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements 1.2.1 Applicant Type ☐ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or ☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or X A local government, or ☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities) 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued) X 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) X 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) X 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) X 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 3 of 41 9/11/15 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 Project Title Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska 2.2 Project Location 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or community name. The Project’s physical location at False Pass, Alaska: 54.853940° North Latitude and -163.408830° West Longitude. (Sec. 34, T061S, R094W, Seward Meridian.) 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. The City of False Pass community will be the beneficiary of this Project. The regional beneficiary will be the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference. 2.3 Project Type 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type ☐ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only) ☐ Hydro, Including Run of River X Hydrokinetic ☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy ☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable ☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre-Construction Construction ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting X Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 4 of 41 9/11/15 2.4 Project Description The City of False Pass requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding in the amount of $440,319 through the Renewable Energy Fund Round IX program (RFA 16012) to complete Phase II Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project proposed for the Isanotski Strait. The City of False Pass, like most communities of the Aleutian Islands, has very high energy costs and depends completely on diesel fuel to meet their electricity and heating needs. While diesel fuel is currently the most practical option for such communities, it also creates economic, energy security and environmental problems—it has a disproportionately high carbon dioxide (CO2) output compared to other power generation systems—at both local and global levels. The City of False Pass, fortunately, is situated near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the Isanotski Strait that offers a potential to significantly reduce, or eliminate the use of diesel fuel. Circulation modeling conducted by University of Alaska Anchorage shows False Pass as a premier tidal energy resource, having the strongest tidal energy resource measured in Alaska. The City seeks to lower its very high cost of energy by utilizing this resource and proposes the False Pass Tidal Energy Project. The completed Project will be the first commercial installation of a tidal hydrokinetic power system in the state of Alaska and is a key part of our quest for sustainability. In addition, the Project will benefit local industry by selling excess energy to the expanded Bering Pacific Seafood plant. This Phase II proposal follows the successful completion of the AEA-funded Phase I Reconnaissance research, which proved a significant tidal energy resource in the Isanotski Strait. This Project proposes to build on this work, thereby accelerating development of the False Pass Tidal Energy Project. The Project Team has previously worked together and is comprised of the City of False Pass; Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA); University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA); Benthic GeoScience, Inc.; and ORPC Alaska, LLC (ORPC). 2.5 Scope of Work The Project Team will complete the Phase II Feasibility and Conceptual design of a tidal energy project in Isanotski Strait to provide power to the City o False Pass. This Project will build on work completed to date under funding provided by the US Department of Energy Tribal Energy Program and AEA programmatic funding. The following tasks will be completed: Task 1 • Based on measurements of current velocities completed in 2011, a bathymetric survey completed in 2013 and circulation modeling performed by UAA, the Project Team will select 3-5 potential project sites for ADCP current velocity measurements. Task 2 • The Project Team will mobilize a vessel and crew to False Pass with three ADCP devices. These devices will be deployed for one month if three sites are chosen or two months if five sites are chosen. Two ADCPs will be moved half way through the deployment in the five sites – 2 month scenario. • The ADCP data will be analyzed to assess the available power at each site and will be utilized to inform turbulence modeling underway at UAA. Task 3 • The Project Team will organize initial meetings with local stakeholders during one of the field expeditions to False Pass. The Project Team will also organize meetings with key regulatory personnel in Anchorage to discuss the project and permitting and licensing requirements for the work. • Based on these meetings the Project Team will complete literature surveys of existing environmental data and provide these to the relevant permitting agencies. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 5 of 41 9/11/15 Task 4 • The Project Team will complete draft study plans for the Project and present these to the agencies for comment. Task 5 • The Project Team will gather information on the current energy load of the City of False Pass and the Bering Pacific Seafood (BPS) processing plant. • The Project Team will assess the anticipated load growth of both the City of False Pass and BPS plant. • Based on this load information and current energy generation portfolio, the Project Team will complete analysis of future costs of energy and anticipated for the community. Task 6 • The Project Team will assess any existing or planned alternatives to the Project and the impact this will have on the Project. Task 7 • The Project Team will complete a conceptual design for a proposed tidal energy project at one or more of the sites where ADCP measurements were taken. This design will be used to refine the estimate of the cost of installation and maintenance of the project. Task 8 • Cost information from conceptual design, data from ADCP survey, and information from UAA modeling efforts will be incorporated into an updated pro forma financial analysis of the project. Task 9 • Based on the results from updated financial analysis, ADCP data and modeling information, the most promising site(s) for Project deployment will be selected, and the Project Team will organize a sub bottom survey of the areas of interest. • The Project Team will complete required permitting for the sub-bottom survey of the areas of interest. • The Project Team will mobilize a vessel, crew, and sub bottom equipment to False Pass and complete the sub bottom survey. • The sub bottom survey data will be analyzed, integrated into existing bathymetric data sets, and a report on the survey will be completed. • Any implications from the sub bottom survey on the conceptual design will be incorporated into the conceptual design, project cost and pro forma, and a final site for the proposed tidal energy project will be selected. Task 10 • The Project partners will collaborate on a complete business plan for the tidal energy project at False Pass. • This Plan will be presented to Project stakeholders. Task 11 The Project Team will complete a final report on the Feasibility and Conceptual design and submit this report to AEA, closing out the Phase II portion of this project. SECTION 3 – Project Management, Development, and Operation Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 6 of 41 9/11/15 3.1 Schedule and Milestones Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverables 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation completed ADCP expedition planning and procurement completed 7/1/2016 9/1/2016 Contracts in place for ADCP deployment, locations identified for deployment 2. Detailed resource assessment completed ADCP survey of 3-5 sites completed 9/15/2016 12/15/2016 Report summarizing analysis of ADCP data complete 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues Initial meetings with project stakeholders and regulatory agencies, desktop environmental literature surveys completed and presented to regulatory agencies 10/1/2016 2/15/2017 Record of consultations with agencies complete, summary of literature survey complete 4. Permitting and environmental analysis completed Draft study plans developed and submitted to regulatory agencies 2/15/2017 4/15/2017 Draft study plans complete and submitted to agencies for input 5. Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market completed Analysis of current energy costs, anticipated load growth and future energy costs completed 2/5/2017 5/1/2017 Cost of energy and future trends summary complete 6. Assessment of alternatives Alternative energy generation options analyzed 2/15/2017 5/1/2017 Analysis of other energy options complete 7. Conceptual design and costs estimate completed Conceptual design completed to allow project costing 2/15/2017 5/1/2017 Estimated cost of tidal energy project complete 8. Detailed economic and financial analyses completed Updated pro forma model developed incorporating ADCP data from survey and UAA modeling effort 2/15/2017 5/1/2017 Updated pro forma 9. Additional required field data collected Sub bottom survey completed and data incorporated into conceptual design 5/1/2017 9/1/2017 Report from sub bottom survey, Layout of proposed turbine sites complete 10. Conceptual business and operations plan completed Project partners collaborate on business plan for tidal energy project hold stakeholder meeting 9/1/2017 10/1/2017 Stakeholder meeting consultation record, updated business plan 11. Final report and recommendations completed Final report submitted to AEA 10/1/2017 11/1/2017 Final Report Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 7 of 41 9/11/15 3.2 Budget 3.2.1 Budget Overview The Project will amount to $502,819 with the anticipated sources of funding as follows: (1) $440,319 AEA award and (2) 62,500, in-kind matching funds from APICDA. 3.2.2 Budget Forms Milestone or Task RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See sections 2.3 thru 2.6 of the RFA ) $ $ $ 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation completed $32,733 $ $32,733 2. Detailed resource assessment completed $160,526 $50,000 APICDA Contribution $210,526 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues $46,820 $ $46,820 4. Permitting and environmental analysis completed $29,840 $ $29,840 5. Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market completed $8,240 $ $8,240 6. Assessment of alternatives $7,240 $ $7,240 7. Conceptual design and costs estimate completed $10,640 $ $10,640 8. Detailed economic and financial analyses completed $6,240 $ $6,240 9. Additional required field data collected $100,240 $12,500 APICDA Contribution $112,740 10. Conceptual business and operations plan completed $14,880 $ $14,880 11. Final report and recommendations completed $23,040 $ $23,040 TOTALS $440,319 $62,500 $502,819 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $ Travel & Per Diem $ $ $ Equipment $ $ $ Materials & Supplies $ $ $ Contractual Services $440,319 $62,500 $502,819 Construction Services $ $ $ Other $ $ $ TOTALS $440,319 $62,500 $502,819 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 8 of 41 9/11/15 3.2.3 Cost Justification Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget. The cost estimates in the budget are based on quotes from the subcontractors on the project. 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 $440,319 Cash match to be provided $0 In-kind match to be provided $62,500 Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $502,819 3.2.5 Total Project Costs Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use actual costs for completed phases. Reconnaissance $0 Feasibility and Conceptual Design $502,819 Final Design and Permitting $0 Construction $0 Total Project Costs (sum of above) $502,819 3.2.6 Operating and Maintenance Costs O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed RE projects will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M. Options O&M Impact of proposed RE project Option 1: Diesel generation ON For projects that do not result in shutting down diesel generation there is assumed to be no impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate the estimated annual O&M cost associated with the proposed renewable project. $ Option 2: Diesel generation OFF For projects that will result in shutting down diesel generation please estimate: 1. Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off diesel generation 2. Estimated hours that diesel generation will be off per year. 3. Annual O&M costs associated with the proposed renewable project. 1. $17,424 2. 3898 Hours diesel OFF/year: 3. $160,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 9 of 41 9/11/15 3.3 Project Communications The Project Manager—Monty Worthington, ORPC—will report to the City of False Pass (Chris Emrich) – the grantee, and the Project Team (City of False Pass, APICDA, UAA, Benthic GeoScience, and ORPC) on the Project’s performance. All members of the Project Team have an established working relationship with each other as well as with AEA and will continue best efforts to maintain communications. ORPC’s project management practices are geared towards carefully monitoring scope, schedule and budget to ensure the Project is tracking as planned. Any significant changes to any aspect of the Project will be reported promptly to AEA. ORPC will monitor the Project through a detailed Project Management Plan with status and general project management tools. ORPC’s project management practices are geared towards carefully monitoring scope, schedule and budget to ensure the Project is tracking as planned and will include the following: 1. Gantt Chart 2. Risks Log (Failure Mode Effects Analysis-based and is a live document) 3. Milestones Log (will be used for the quarterly reports, and easier to read than the Gantt) 4. Issues Log (major issues impacting schedule, budget and technical objectives, showing action plans and status) 5. Actions Log (an internal tool for overall actions not accounted for in the Gantt or in addition to the Gantt). To ensure that the Project Team and AEA are thoroughly informed on the Project’s progress, ORPC will use the tools created in the Project Management Plan. ORPC will hold weekly meetings with the Project Team to provide updates with the project manager, contractors, and key ORPC personnel, which is the standard procedure for other state- and federally-funded projects. The Project Manager will submit regular quarterly progress reports to AEA after the City of False Pass’s review and approval. The Project Team will schedule meetings with AEA as necessary or as requested to update AEA on the Project. Any significant changes to any aspect of the Project will be reported promptly to AEA. If the Project falls behind, the Project Team will inform AEA and propose solutions for managing any problems and correcting schedule lapses. 3.4 Operational Logistics The Project will be owned and operated by the City of False Pass. As this will be the first deployment of a tidal energy device in Alaska, the Project Team will work collaboratively to develop the capacity to install and maintain the Project. ORPC, with un-matched experience in hydrokinetic energy project development, deployment and operations, and APICDA, with extensive experience in marine operations and logistics in the Aleutian region, will be the key project partners in this phase of the project. During this time, the City of False Pass will have a five-year maintenance and operations contract with ORPC to ensure availability of the Power System during the initial operations of the project. During this time the Project Team will complete technology transfer to the City of False Pass enabling ongoing maintenance and operations to be managed by the City of False Pass. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 10 of 41 9/11/15 As the owner and operator of the Project, the City of False Pass will realize financial benefit by reduced dependence on diesel fuel manifesting itself in lower annual diesel fuel purchases and stabilized costs of energy for the community. The City of False Pass will also increase cash flow through the sale of power to the BPS plant without the associated cost of fuel for diesel powered generation. This revenue will be used to offset ongoing operations and maintenance of the Project. This model and the forecasts for cash flow will be further refined through Tasks 5-8 and 10 of this Phase II effort. SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 4.1 Project Team 4.1.1 Project Manager The City of False Pass has selected Monty Worthington, Director – Project Development, ORPC Alaska, LLC (ORPC), to be Project Manager: Monty Worthington Director – Project Development, Alaska ORPC Alaska P.O. Box 241608 Anchorage, AK 99524 207-772-7707 mworthington@orpc.co (Resume attached) Monty Worthington will serve as Project Manager and will report to the City of False Pass under the direction of Chris Emrich. Mr. Worthington will be responsible for maintaining the quality of work produced by the Project Team. He will oversee and review all milestones and provide supervision on all project phases. He will ensure proper communications with the City of False Pass and AEA. An Assistant Project Manager (new hire TBD) will assist with these efforts. ORPC will provide project management support and all grant, contractual and administrative activities, and will work at the direction of Mr. Worthington and Mr. Emrich. ORPC offers extensive project development and management services, and is staffed by a highly skilled team of professionals with an extended network of top technical and scientific experts. 4.1.2 Expertise and Resources The False Pass Project Team, described below, has significant experience working exceptionally well together as partners and contractors on various projects. The organizational structure of the Project Team is illustrated in Figure 1. Resumes were emailed separately. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 11 of 41 9/11/15 Figure 1. Project Team Organizational Structure City of False Pass The City of False Pass, located within the boundaries of the Aleutians East Borough, will serve as Business Point of Contact for this Project, under the direction of Chris Emrich, City Clerk. The City is eligible to receive funding through AEA’s grant program, and the False Pass City Council has signed a resolution (16-04) supporting the submittal of this application on August 27, 2015 (see attached Section 14.D.). False Pass has significant marine capacity locally and regionally available for a community of its size. This includes marine assets and expertise of Project Partner APICDA and subsidiary Bearing Pacific Seafoods, Coastal Marine and Western Pioneer Shipping companies, as well as the fleet of fishing vessels that operate and transit through the area. Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA) APICDA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Alaska to develop the commercial and sport fishing industry for the long-term social and economic viability of communities in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It is one of several Aleut Region organizations working to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by exploring alternate energy resources. APICDA will provide $62,500, in cost match for vessels, captains, and room and board for field work (Letter of Support: Section 14 B). Angel Drobnica is the Renewable Energy and Fisheries Liaison for APICDA and has been working on energy planning and projects in diesel dependent communities throughout Alaska for the past three years. She will be helping to coordinate vessel and ground support for this project. University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) UAA under the leadership of Prof. Tom Ravens, Ph.D., Dr. Ravens has 20 years of research experience in the areas of coastal hydrodynamics and sediment transport, flume testing, and renewable energy assessment. In the past 10 years, he has supervised $2 million of research projects funded by NOAA, AEA, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through the Electronic Power Research Institute, and others. Dr. Ravens has played a leading role in two hydrokinetic assessment projects for the State of the Alaska and for the contiguous United States. UAA will continue the development of a 3D, high-resolution model of circulation and turbulence in False Pass using Delft3D software. They will calibrate and validate the model using velocity, water level, and turbulence data collected using two ADCPs that were deployed in the summer of 2012. City of False Pass ORPC - Project Manager Consultants and Contractors APICDA Benthic GeoScience UAA Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 12 of 41 9/11/15 Once the model is performing satisfactorily, we will use the model to produce plots showing the spatial distribution of power density and turbulence. Using these plots, and after consulting with team members, they will propose the locations of five ADCPs (and two ADVs) scheduled to be deployed in the summer of 2016. After the 2016 field season, the model will then be validated using the ADCP and ADV data. Adjustments to the model will be made as necessary and following consultation with the team. The model will be used for any additional computations required by the team during the course of the project (Letter of Support: Section 14 B). Benthic GeoScience, Inc. Benthic GeoScience provides professional geophysical and hydrographic surveying services throughout the world. Strong geophysical and oceanographic staff complements their technical surveying services for renewable energy project planning. David Oliver, Director of Operations, is a geophysicist with more than 25 years in the geotechnical industry and 14 years working directly with the marine geophysical industry. He established Benthic GeoScience, Inc. after serving the renewable energy community for many years. David has led the site characterization and resources assessment work on many marine and riverine hydrokinetic projects in Alaska, including Ruby, Eagle, Nenana, Igiugig, and ORPC’s tidal energy sites. David is a member of the following organizations: Renewable Energy Alaska Project (member of the Policy and Rural Community Energy Committees) for five years, Alaska Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center Advisory Board, AEA Hydrokinetic Working Group, and shadow committee for ANSI TC-114’s Tidal Resource Assessment Project Team representing US interests as international standards for Renewable Energy Resource Assessment are being established by the International Electrotechnical Commission (Letter of Support: Section 14 B). Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (ORPC) ORPC brings tidal energy technology and project management expertise to the Project. ORPC is a global leader in marine hydrokinetic (MHK) power system technology and project development. In 2012, ORPC built and operated the first revenue-generating, grid-connected tidal energy project in North America, becoming the first ocean energy project to deliver power to a utility grid anywhere in the Americas. In 2014, ORPC installed and tested its first river energy project, delivering power to the remote Alaskan village of Igiugig. ORPC is the only company in the world to have built, operated and delivered power to shore from both a MHK tidal and river project. ORPC also provided project development and permitting services to a wave energy demonstration project in Yakutat. Among their prestigious awards, ORPC was named one of the World’s Top 10 Most Innovative Energy Companies by Fast Company in 2013. ORPC has a proven ability to manage the gamut of project development activities, from technical site assessment to community outreach, and construction management to governmental affairs, which allows them to create an executable project plan that brings the appropriate level of expertise to your project at the right time. They bring the following resources to the Project: • Project management • Resource and site assessment • Permitting and licensing • Grant management • Grid interconnection and integration analysis • Management of device operations, inspection and maintenance • Strategic planning services • Environmental monitoring strategies • Community and stakeholder outreach Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 13 of 41 9/11/15 • Supply chain development and management • Equipment for measuring hydrokinetic resources • Marketing and communications ORPC is committed to recruiting and retaining Alaska contractors and partners for projects and advancing the industry through executed contracts with technical and project support resources. ORPC employs local companies and contracts whenever the required work capacity is available or can be developed within a local organization. ORPC has worked with Alaskan private companies and public institutions to build the capacity to support tidal and river energy project development in Alaska, including Marsh Creek, TerraSond, LGL Alaska Research Associates, HDR, Benthic GeoScience, Illiamna Lake Contractors, ASRC Energy Services, Metal Magic, Aquacousitics, PND Engineering, Stephen Braund and Associates, University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for Energy and Power, and many others. ORPC’s letter of support is attached in Section 14.B. Christopher R. Sauer, P.E.—President & CEO Mr. Sauer provides overall management and leadership in all of ORPC’s technical and commercial activities. Mr. Sauer is a professional engineer, energy entrepreneur, and strategic development consultant with more than 40 years of experience in executive management, engineering, construction, project development, marketing, financing, and startup company formation in the electricity, cogeneration, renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Involved in the energy transaction business since 1977, Mr. Sauer has played an instrumental role in the development of more than $2 billion in energy assets and companies. Mr. Sauer is a founding member of ORPC. Jarlath McEntee, P.E.—Vice President of Engineering and CTO Mr. McEntee leads the development of the company’s proprietary hydrokinetic energy technology. He earned his Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering at University College in Dublin, Ireland in 1986 and his Master of Science at Dartmouth College in 1989. He comes to ORPC after spending more than 25 years in engineering and project management, having developed technical expertise in tidal power turbines, combined heat and power systems, Stirling engine and refrigeration systems, control system design and analysis, micro-mechanical structures, and marine engineering systems. Mr. McEntee has taught courses in engineering at the Maine Maritime Academy, holds multiple engineering-related patents, and has submitted numerous patents on behalf of ORPC. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Maine. John Ferland—Vice President of Project Development Mr. Ferland leads ORPC’s project development, environmental permitting and project licensing activities, as well as subsidiary companies focused on international business development and providing strategic and tactical expertise and support to other ocean energy developers and related parties. He draws on over 30 years of experience encompassing technology commercialization, renewable energy development, port emergency response operations and coastal resources management. He has served as CEO of an oil spill response company, mentored numerous startups as director of a technology entrepreneur assistance program, and was the founding president of the Environmental & Energy Technology Council of Maine, now the leading industry association for clean technology companies in northern New England. Abbey Manders—Vice President of Finance and Administrations Ms. Manders manages all financial and administrative matters for ORPC, including accounting, contracts, insurance, strategic planning, financial analysis, treasury, and budgetary control. With more than six years at ORPC, she has been involved in all financial and administrative aspects of Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 14 of 41 9/11/15 company operations, including grant compliance, human resources, purchasing, inventory control, accounts payable, and accounts receivable, and currently oversees these functions. Monty Worthington, ORPC Director of Project Development – Alaska, will serve as Project Manager of this Project. He has over fifteen years of experience designing, implementing, and maintaining renewable energy systems in Alaska, western U.S., and Asia. He assumes oversight of the Project, including managing resource assessment. Ryan Tyler, ORPC Project Engineer, supports the engineering of ORPC's power system. He provides field engineering and project management for the deployment of the RivGen® System in Igiugig, Alaska. A registered Engineer-in-Training in the state of Washington, he has four years experience as a project engineer and researcher in the marine hydrokinetics field, and one-and-a- half years experience as a business strategy consultant. Doug Johnson, ORPC Director of Projects – Alaska, will also assist with this project. Mr. Johnson has over thirty years of project development experience in Alaska, having worked as an investor, a business owner, an entrepreneur, a professional manager and a business consultant. He has developed projects ranging from the launch of Alaska’s first biotech company to the planning and execution of a $2 billion hospital in Abu Dhabi. He is responsible for developing present and future business opportunities for the ORPC in Alaska. Nathan Johnson, ORPC Director of Environmental Affairs, leads ORPC’s site licensing and permitting efforts, developing innovative approaches to federal and state marine hydrokinetic permitting and environmental monitoring. Mr. Johnson has a diverse background that includes marine renewables, solar energy site development, marine and coastal geology, hydrogeology, and construction management. Projects have ranged from marine and coastal projects in New England to determining fluvial geomorphology impacts at solar power projects in the southwestern United States. Genetta McLean, Ph.D., ORPC Grants and Licensing Manager, negotiates with government agencies to secure grants and loans for ORPC technology and project development. She works directly with project management, development, engineering, finance and writing teams to gather and organize materials, prepare reports, conduct analyses and generate budgets. She oversees and contributes to applications for new loans and grants. Dr. McLean also plays a similar role in ORPC’s licensing efforts and is responsible for aspects of licensing or permitting applications, as well as managing the post-licensing and permit periodic report process. 4.1.3 Project Accountant(s) The City of False Pass, the Grantee, will perform the accounting under the direction of Chris Emrich, City Clerk (resume attached). 907-548-2319 cityoffalsepass@ak.net Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 15 of 41 9/11/15 4.1.4 Financial Accounting System The City of False Pass uses Quickbooks Pro for all accounting purposes. All expenditures are classed, to differentiate various revenue/expenditures by the various projects/departments. The City Council of False Pass reviews an updated P&L comparison to the budget, at all council meeting and includes bank statements. All expenditures are done with the signature of two council members. 4.2 Local Workforce False Pass has significant marine capacity locally and regionally available for a community of its size. This includes marine assets and expertise of Project partner APICDA and subsidiary Bearing Pacific Seafoods, Coastal Marine and Western Pioneer Shipping companies, as well as the fleet of fishing vessels that operate and transit through the area. This Project will contribute to the local economy by providing local employment opportunities as well as business enhancement. These local jobs will have substantial multiplier effects in a small economy such as that in False Pass. It is estimated that $1,300,000 will be spent in Alaska during project installation, while $140,000 will be spent locally for annual maintenance. Conservatively doubling this amount over the lifetime of the project would mean $8,200,000 in added economic benefit from the project. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 16 of 41 9/11/15 SECTION 5 – TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY 5.1 Resource Availability 5.1.1 Proposed Energy Resource Description of Potential Available Energy Resource The City of False Pass is located near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the Isanotski Strait (Figure 2), which has a tidal energy resource with an impressive capacity factor in the range of 40-50% of rated capacity. This is the strongest tidal energy resource measured in Alaska, making it an ideal tidal energy project. Figure 2. City of False Pass at the Isanotski Strait Phase 1: Reconnaissance (Completed, 2012) Significant preparation for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project has been completed. In 2008 and 2010, two AEA-funded studies confirmed the need to formally study the area’s potential for tidal power.1 In 2012, a DOE-funded study concluded that “a tidal energy project could be provided to the City of False Pass at a rate at or below the cost of diesel generated electricity and sold to commercial customers at rates competitive with current market rates, providing a stable, flat priced, environmentally sound alternative to the diesel generation currently utilized for energy in the community.” 2 1 2008: Village end use energy efficiency measures program, AEA Grant 2195225. Administered by Alaska Building Science Network. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/EndUseEfficiency/VEUM/07-08_NW-SW - FalsePassFinalReport.pdf). 2010: Renewable Energy Resource Assessment for the Communities of Cold Bay, False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon. Andy Baker and Lee Bolling. April 2010. AEA funded. AEA also provided programmatic funding to support a bathymetric survey that was completed in 2013 as well as additional circulation modeling currently underway at the University of Alaska Anchorage. ORPC performed a reconnaissance tidal current survey to obtain a preliminary 2 Wright, B. (2014). Feasibility of Tidal and Ocean Current Energy in False Pass, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Final Report, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy Development and Deployment in Indian Country: DE-EE0005624.000 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 17 of 41 9/11/15 assessment of the potential for a tidal energy project as an energy alternative for the City of False Pass in 2012 (Section 11.G.), (Figure 3).3 As next steps, prior to construction of a tidal energy system, AEA recommended, but did not fund, the City of False Pass’s request for Phase II Feasibility Study. 4 This Project proposal is a resubmittal of that request. Figure 3. Contour plot of average energy density, flood tide (left). Contour plot of average energy density, ebb tide (right). Source: UAA, Final Report: Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment in False Pass, Alaska, September 4, 2013. Based on ADCP data collected in 2012 at False Pass, ORPC analyzed the anticipated capacity factor of a single TidGen® device at site N2 based on a rated capacity of 200 kW, about ½ mile from the False Pass grid and at site S2, about two miles from the False Pass grid (Figure 4). ORPC has recently reanalyzed these locations to account for their latest TidGen® design utilizing a buoyant tensioned mooring system. This design allows the device to be located higher in the water column where current velocities are stronger. In this case the sites were analyzed for a location approximately 10 meters (33 ft) below the MLLW water level. Table 1 shows the relative capacity factor at these sites. At site S2, the most likely candidate for device placement, an impressive capacity factor of 49% can be achieved, and with the added benefit of predictable delivery of this power, its value to the local energy portfolio is high. Table 1 also shows the sites’ anticipated annual generation in kWh. Figure 5 shows a “tidal rose” adapted from a wind rose to show the directionality and magnitude of the tidal current velocities at False Pass. This rose shows robust currents at site S2 that are very symmetrical on the ebb and flood allowing efficient energy capture in both flow directions. 3 ORPC, Reconnaissance Current Survey Report, Prepared for the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, April 1, 2013 4 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study, AEA application no. 1062. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 18 of 41 9/11/15 Figure 4. Deployment locations for ADCPs (AWAC and RDI ADCP) at False Pass Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 19 of 41 9/11/15 Figure 5. Tidal rose image from ADCP data collected at site S2 30 meters above the seafloor, 10 meters below the surface showing high current velocities and symmetric direction on ebb and flood tides. Table 1. Annual generation and anticipated capacity factor at two sites near False Pass based on ADCP data collected in 2012 Site N2 16.5 m above seafloor (10 m below MLLW ) S2 25.7 m above seafloor (10 m below MLLW) Annual recoverable energy, 200 kW TidGen® device 94% availability 369,111 kWh 21% capacity factor 858,000 kWh 49% capacity factor Further investigation of a tidal energy project in the vicinity of False Pass will be completed during this Project to assess the economics of installing a tidal energy project near one of these sites. Of key importance in this assessment will be incorporating data from a bathymetric survey covering the area of potential device locations and submarine power cable routes, and analysis of technical and cost considerations for a power cable line to connect the project to False Pass. The Project Team has collected this bathymetric data under programmatic hydrokinetic funding from AEA provided to the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference who contracted Benthic GeoScience to complete this survey with assistance and cost sharing from APICDA who provided a vessel and Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 20 of 41 9/11/15 captains to support the field effort (Figure 6). This data will be utilized while completing the conceptual design and updated cost estimate in milestone 7 of this project. Figure 6. Bathymetric image from data collected at False Pass in August 2013 The next steps in the feasibility effort of this Project will be to enhance the fidelity of the circulation model developed by UAA by incorporating the bathymetric data into their model domain to allow finer scale resolution. This modeling has also been supported by programmatic hydrokinetic funding provided by AEA and is ongoing. Based on this modeling data, the Project Team will select sites that appear suitable for tidal turbine placement based on both UAA modeling efforts and the bathymetric data in the vicinity of the highest current velocities and any locations that are suggested by the model to have viable current velocities for energy extraction and reasonable transmission distances to the False Pass grid. Three to five of these sites will then be selected for deployment of ADCPs to measure current velocities over a full lunar cycle and for deployment of Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADVs) to measure turbulence. These measurements will help to quantify the amount of extractable energy available from the resource. The data collected from this field effort will then be utilized to further enhance UAA circulation model, both through verification of the models accuracy by hindcasting the model to the deployment time period and comparing its output to actual field measurements. The model will also be enhanced to output information on turbulence that will also be validated with the data from field measurements. By incorporating the ADCP data, UAA modeling work, and bathymetric data the project team will be enabled to select viable sites for tidal turbine placement. Having chosen these sites, we will assess the environmental concerns associated with deployment in these areas, conduct outreach with stakeholders to incorporate stakeholder input in the selection of candidate sites, and perform an economic analysis of deployment at the viable locations to identify the optimal site(s) for tidal turbine placement. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 21 of 41 9/11/15 Pros and Cons of Proposed Energy Resource versus Other Alternatives Circulation modeling conducted by UAA, discussed above, shows False Pass as a premier tidal energy resource, having the strongest tidal energy resource yet investigated by ORPC and stronger than any measured tidal resources in Alaska. This resource, coupled with the proximity to the load at False Pass, makes it an ideal tidal energy project that will serve as a demonstration project for other coastal Alaska applications. The City of False Pass is currently investigating other energy alternatives, including a design for a wind turbine installation. There is uncertainty associated with any of these renewable energy alternatives and the ultimate cost and reliability of the electricity they will produce. At this point the quality of the wind resource is arguably less well defined than the tidal resource. Even if a wind project were installed, the unpredictable energy associated with wind would not make it a replacement for a predictable tidal energy resource. Being predictable, tidal energy would be a dispatchable resource that could be more economically and effectively integrated with the False Pass grid, reducing diesel more significantly than a wind project could. 5.1.2 Permits This Project will identify federal, state and local licensing and permitting requirements for a tidal turbine installation at the site. The only permits or licenses that would be required to complete this investigation will be submerged land use permits from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) for the deployment of bottom mounted scientific equipment, particularly the ADCP. At the federal level, tidal energy projects are under the jurisdiction of FERC. To facilitate these projects, FERC has implemented an expedited hydrokinetic permitting system through its pilot license program as an alternative to the traditional full long-term hydropower licensing process. This pilot project process is intended to give projects that are small scale and short term an expedited licensing process, provided they are intensively monitored for environmental effects and able to be shut down on short notice if unacceptable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated are encountered. Through this Project, we will determine the appropriate FERC licensing process. The Project Team will continue relationships with appropriate agency personnel as the permitting pathway for the larger tidal energy project is defined through this Project. Table 3 summarizes the applicable permits and anticipated permitting timeline for this Phase II project. Table 3. Permits for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project (AEA Phase II) APPLICABLE PERMITS ANTICIPATED PERMITTING TIMELINE ADNR Submerged Land Use Permit Apply May 2016. FERC Preliminary Permit Phase II Feasibility work will not require a preliminary permit but may be prudent for site control Potential Barriers The Project Team believes potential permitting barriers during the AEA Phase II Project will be minimal. They maintain ongoing relationships with federal and state agencies who would be involved in developing the permitting pathway for this tidal energy project and are diligent about Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 22 of 41 9/11/15 keeping regulatory agencies appraised of Project milestones. In addition, ORPC has significant experience in working with FERC and holds a pilot project license for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project (P-12711-005)—one of only three pilot project licenses for hydrokinetic energy issued in the U.S. In addition, ORPC in partnership with the Igiugig Village Council completed the FERC pre-filing process for the Igiugig Hydrokinetic Project in Alaska in August 2015 and will submit the final pilot license application on November 2, 2015. 5.2 Project Site Preliminary assessments of the Project site indicate a suitable resource for tidal energy development. Shipping, mobilization and deployment of the tidal turbine will take place exclusively on the water using vessels and platforms. Land ownership concerns will be limited to transmission line access. During the 2013 bathymetric survey there were two preliminary sites identified for the submersible line to come ashore: (1) at the southern end of the airport and (2) at a dock owned by the Aleutians East Borough. This project will include additional community engagement activities to identify and minimize any potential site conflicts. In addition, consultations will be held with state and federal regulators regarding environmental aspects of the project. 5.3 Project Risk 5.3.1 Technical Risk The Project Team has approached the investigation of tidal energy at False Pass with a focus on minimizing project risk. The Project’s reconnaissance phase established the viability of the resource early on in order to rule out the financial risk associated with an unknown resource. Having established the viability of the resource, Project development will continue in a way that minimizes risk through a phased approach. Each phase of the False Pass Tidal Energy Project has risks associated with the successful execution of the scope of work. The primary project risks of this Project are associated with field work. While the deployment and retrieval of scientific equipment in highly energetic tidal environments are challenging, ORPC has significant experience deploying and retrieving equipment in these environments and has successfully completed two month-long deployments in the False Pass area, increasing confidence that this work can be successfully executed. These and any other potential risks will be mitigated by the Project Team, which collectively has extensive experience working on marine technology projects and is committed to proactively managing risk. While the City of False Pass is a remote community, it has the advantage that its marine operations are serviced directly from the Port of Seattle. In comparison to other coastal Alaskan towns that are serviced out of Alaskan ports, False Pass has access to a greater diversity of marine infrastructure and more regular and reliable shipping from an ice free heavily industrialized port. This access increases the reliability of marine services and available resources into a longer field season, and decreases the cost of services. Furthermore, for a community like False Pass, dedicated equipment, similar to the retrieval catamaran (Figure 7), will likely be incorporated into the project making the key operations and maintenance equipment proximal to the deployment site year round. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 23 of 41 9/11/15 Figure 7. Retrieval catamaran used in to raise ORPC’s TidGen® device in Cobscook Bay, Maine The Project Team has identified environmental concerns and the permitting process as risks that need to be managed. While obtaining permits are not perceived to pose a risk to the completion of Phase 2, there are potential environmental concerns that could impact that ability to execute the overall project successfully and economically. ORPC has successfully permitted and licensed hydrokinetic projects in Maine and Alaska and is familiar with the requirements and timeframes associated with this process. An additional project risk is the remote nature of operations in False Pass. While this is again well understood for the level of field operations entailed in the Feasibility phase of the Project, it will be necessary to design the Project so that it can be installed and maintained with equipment and capacity appropriate to False Pass. The Project Team will continue to develop an understanding of this capacity through the execution of the Feasibility Phase. If problems arise, the Operational Logistics (described in Section 3.4) will provide a protocol for addressing them. 5.3.2 Environmental Risk A goal of this Project is to identify any environmental and permitting issues that would need to be addressed before installing a hydrokinetic turbine. The appropriate environmental studies and analyses must be completed to provide a basis for operating that minimizes the chance of potential impacts on the marine environment. The Project Team takes this task very seriously. ORPC’s technology deployment and operation in Alaska and Maine has indicated that the turbines have no negative effects on fish, marine mammals, or other marine species, studies occur at each unique site to verify use by fish and other wildlife, and to assess any potential site-specific effects that would need to be monitored for or mitigated. We will consult with agencies, including (but not limited to) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to scope proper studies and identify areas of environmental concern and complete a comprehensive literature review in support of this effort. Additional assessments are anticipated in conjunction with the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) and USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 24 of 41 9/11/15 As part of Task 3 government consultations and stakeholder meetings with be completed within eight months from the beginning of the project. Threatened or Endangered Species While current reports of ORPC’s technology deployment and operation in Alaska and Maine suggest that their turbines have no negative effects on fish, marine mammals, or other marine species, ORPC anticipates that studies will occur at False Pass to verify local use by fish and other wildlife, and to assess any potential site-specific effects that would need to be monitored for or mitigated. We will consult with agencies, including (but not limited to) NMFS, USFWS and ADF&G to scope proper studies and identify areas of environmental concern and complete a comprehensive literature review in support of this effort. Additional assessments are anticipated in conjunction with the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) and USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. Informational available on the USFWS’s website indicates the following endangered species may be present at the site: • Stellar sea-lion (Eumetopias jubatus) • Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyon) Habitat Issues Environmental studies to date indicate no negative interactions with ORPC power systems. Nevertheless, ORPC anticipates collaborating with state and federal regulators to develop environmental monitoring plans specifically for False Pass that are appropriate for a long term installation. Wetlands and Other Protected Areas The USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory indicates no data is available for the location of the proposed project (Figure 8). Figure 8. National Wetland Inventory results for False Pass. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 25 of 41 9/11/15 The City of False Pass is located in an area not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Figure 9). However, since the subsea transmission cable will connect to the existing electric grid it is anticipated that portions of the route will be located in floodplains. Figure 9. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map results for False Pass As of July 1, 2011, Alaska no longer has a federally approved coastal management program and federal consistency does not apply to Alaska. Archaeological and Historical Resources A search of the National Register of Historic Places for Aleutians East County in Alaska indicated there are no records for the area (Figure 10). Figure 10. National Register of Historic Places search results for Aleutians East County Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 26 of 41 9/11/15 Land Development Constraints There are no land development constraints. Shipping, mobilization and deployment of the tidal turbine will take place exclusively on the water using vessels and platforms. Land ownership concerns will be limited to transmission line access. During the 2013 bathymetric survey there were two preliminary sites identified for the submersible line to come ashore: (1) at the southern end of the airport and (2) at a dock owned by the Aleutians East Borough. The tideland access near the airport at False Pass (Unit # R22-06) is considered a municipal tideland. This area is retained in state ownership and managed by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF). If the transmission line route is designed within the boundaries of the airport’s jurisdiction, applications and approvals would be needed from the Airport Leasing, Utilities and Right of Way sections within ADOT/PF. The City of False Pass will be required to apply for a utility permit through ADOT/PF for access to the electrical grid. A permit is required for land use through Airport Leasing, and a charge is applied by the square footage. Once a permit for land use is in place, a building permit is applied for through the Right of Way section. An FAA 7460-1 airspace obstruction approval may also be required. The normal timeframe for issuance of these permits is 60 days. The alternative option would use the Aleutians East Borough dock, the end of which is approximately ¼ mile from the nearest interconnection with the City of False Pass owned transmission line. The City of False Pass has ownership of the dock and would provide a permit. This permit would include language to account for the operation and maintenance of a new transmission line. Telecommunications Interference There is no anticipated telecommunications interference. ORPC, for example, will be able to design the Project to have no impact on fiber optic cable or any terrestrial transmission lines. Aviation Considerations Because ORPC power systems are fully submerged underwater, there are no aviation concerns, including float planes. Visual, Aesthetics Impacts Because ORPC power systems are fully submerged underwater, they are not visible from the surface, and have no effect on natural water landscapes. Other Potential Barriers Isanotski Strait is a dynamic and prolific marine environment and an important migratory pathway. The Project Team realized this early on and has been planning the project to account for costs that may be associated with monitoring plans for protected, threatened, or endangered species. Part of the feasibility study will focus on researching the marine species of concern and beginning agency consultation on study plans that may be required. Once the studies are defined and budgeted, the Project Team intends to pursue outside funding sources for this work, reducing as much as possible the need to provide funding for environmental study costs through the REF. Sediment transportation is, however, not seen as a likely concern for this project. The water at False Pass is clear and the bottom at the preferred site is dense coble, hence there are little suspended sediment or sediment transport processes happening at this location. During the summer of 2013 Benthic GeoScience completed a site characterization defining the bathymetry, geomorphology, and geologic interpretation for areas which will include turbine siting Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 27 of 41 9/11/15 and power cable infrastructure. As part of this effort, hazard assessment for the tidal project was addressed. Although additional information from future measurements is expected to increase our understanding of site dynamics, this was a significant stage in identifying the potential for necessary environmental studies. The results from the 2013 site characterization identified low concern potential related to site geology and sediment transport. The seafloor throughout the project area consists of both consolidated and unconsolidated geology with bedrock presenting for much of the area. The areas currently targeted for turbine installation present as bedrock with a cobble to small boulder (boulder is defined by any clast 10 cm diameter or larger) scattering across the surface. Based upon the data available, Benthic GeoScience does not foresee nor recommend significant transport studies for the False Pass Tidal Power Project. Benthic GeoScience has recommend confirmation of this interpretation through “ground truth” efforts accomplished during future expeditions to site, these efforts are expected to accrue trivial cost increases and can be accomplished using optic video, Secchi disk, acoustic or optical backscatter, as well as water samples, some of which will be required for final design regardless. Again, this effort is trivial to accomplish and should ultimately confirm that sediment transport studies are unnecessary for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project. With the data available, the Site Characterization Report does not identify significant issues related to ice nor debris. The site characterization is a significant accomplishment in addressing the specific concerns stated by AEA regarding fears related to unidentified environmental study costs and all indications do not warrant the same level of study as other areas within Alaskan waters. The concerns on lower availability and cost estimation are valid; however, all of the assumptions used in the proposal were grounded in actual experience operating a tidal energy project in Maine and river hydrokinetic project in Alaska and adjusting costs for the False Pass site conditions. 5.4 Existing and Proposed Energy System 5.4.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System The City of False Pass owns and operates a diesel generation plant for approximately 25 residential customers, 13 commercial customers, 11 community structures, 3 federal/state structures and the harbor. Bering Pacific Seafood, a subsidiary owned by APICDA, owns and operates a separate diesel generation plant for its processing operations. APICDA purchases electricity from the city for its bunk house and for its construction related activities during the non- processing months. Following is information regarding the two power houses (Figure 11): City of False Pass Unit 1: 180 kW John Deere with 10,000 hrs (new install September 2014) Unit 2: 125 kW John Deere with over 44,000 hrs (rebuilt twice) Unit 3: 175 kW John Deere with over 18,000 hrs (will require rebuild soon) Bering Pacific Seafood Unit 1: 365 kW Caterpillar (C-15) with 2412 hrs (new in 2013) Unit 2: 350 kW Caterpillar (3406 B) with 9,388 hrs (reconditioned once) Unit 3: 350 kW Caterpillar (3406 D1) with unknown hrs (reconditioned once) Unit 4: 185 kW Perkins with unknown hrs (not in operation) Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 28 of 41 9/11/15 The City of False Pass strives to operate its generators to adequately carry the City’s loads while balancing efficiency and maintenance costs. In 2012 the City’s generation efficiency was 11.24 kW h per gallon of fuel. In 2012, the City’s line loss averaged 14.7% but has decreased to 6.2% this summer, likely due to valve replacements on its primary generator.5 In 2013, the generation efficiency increased to 13.38 kWh per gallons, possibly due to line loss improvements in 2012. Figure 11. False Pass power plant with 5,000 gal. fuel tank, 2004 5 The existing energy system was described in detail by Marsh Creek, “False Pass Kinetic Hydro Power,” 2013, and included in Wright, B. (2014). Feasibility of Tidal and Ocean Current Energy in False Pass, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Final Report, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy Development and Deployment in Indian Country: DE-EE0005624.000. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 29 of 41 9/11/15 Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 6 i. Number of generators/boilers/other grid, leave this section blank) 3 generators owned and operated by City of False Pass ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other (1) John Deere 6090AHM 180 kW g4enerator set (1) John Deere 6081TF 125 kW generator set (1) John Deere 6081TF 175 kW generator set iii. Generator/boilers/other type iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 5 years old v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 12.34 kWh/gallon vi. Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) If yes estimated annual displaced heating fuel (gallons) b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor $21,440.42 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $4,679 c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] 672,095 City ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 79,248 Other iii. Peak Load 145 iv. Average Load 97.51 v. Minimum Load 66 vi. Efficiency 12.34 kw/gallon vii. Future trends d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 2163 gal ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other 6 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 30 of 41 9/11/15 5.4.2 Future Trends . Currently the demand for the False Pass utility averages around 66 kW. False Pass has a stable population and anticipates normal load growth over the life of the project. Bering Pacific Seafood had a load of 155,000 kWh/month during processing, an average demand of 215 kW an increase of 30% over the previous year. Bering Pacific Seafood anticipates that the load will increase by another 30% over the next five years and expand from seasonal operations to year round operations with a monthly load of 177,000 kWh, an average load of 245 kW . 5.4.3 Impact on Rates The current electric rate for PCE customers is $.42 kWh with a PCE rate of $.2777, making an effective rate of $.1430 for the first 500 kWh of usage for residential customers and all of the Community Facility usage. The non-PCE customer rate for commercial, federal and state customers is $.36 kWh. These rates are so low only because the City of False Pass subsidizes the fuel costs to their electric utility with State Revenue Sharing. Less fuel usage will not change the rates, but will allow the City of False Pass to use that money now used to subsidize fuel costs towards maintenance on the added equipment and a Replacement and Repairs account. 5.4.4 Proposed System Design To forecast the Project’s energy production and financial analysis, the Project Team has chosen ORPC’s TidGen® Power System as a model technology, which also will be considered for deployment for the proposed False Pass Tidal Energy Project. This selection allows the Project Team to assess the viability of the Project with an existing technology for which economic and power output data is available. 1. Description of Renewable Energy Technology Specific to Project Location ORPC power systems are designed around a proprietary turbine generator unit (TGU) containing advanced design cross flow (ADCF) turbines which drive the TGU’s underwater permanent magnet generator. The ADCF turbines are built with marine composite materials, and resist corrosion in both fresh and salt water. The TGU is gearless, requires no lubricants, and has no emissions. The TGU has a modular design adaptable to varying characteristics at different tidal installation sites. Multiple TGUs can be incorporated into complete power systems to convert the kinetic energy of water moving at tidal and riverine sites into grid-compatible electric power by means of various power electronics stages. The ORPC TidGen® device proposed for False Pass is a four-turbine TGU that utilizes a buoyant tensioned mooring system to secure it to the sea floor (Figure 12). It is designed to operate in water depths of 60 ft and greater and generate up to 200 kilowatts (kW) at peak water flow conditions. For analysis purposes measurements are based on the TidGen® device’s rated capacity of 200 kW in a 5.4 knot current. A complete TidGen® Power System can include up to several dozen TidGen® devices, depending upon market conditions, community needs, site characteristics and other considerations, deployed nearby or adjacent to one another, with individual TidGen® devices connected together by means of an underwater power consolidation module. Electricity is carried to shore through a single underwater power and data cable that Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 31 of 41 9/11/15 terminates beyond the high-water mark at an on-shore station. The on-shore station is interconnected directly to the local utility power grid. The first grid-connected TidGen® Power System was installed with a single TidGen® device in Cobscook Bay in September 2012 (Figure 13). Figure 12. TidGen® device showing TGU and buoyant tensioned mooring system Figure 13. TidGen® device installation in Cobscook Bay, Maine 2. Optimal Installed Capacity The proposed False Pass tidal energy project will begin with the installation of a single 200kW TidGen® Power System. This is the optimal installed capacity to suit the existing loads and electrical configuration of the City. Currently the load for the False Pass utility averages around 66 kW. Based on analysis, the power produced by the TidGen® Power System will offset 64% of this average load; the remaining generated power will be sold to the Bering Pacific Seafood plant to offset their self generation. Without an energy storage component it will be challenging to economically increase the penetration of the tidal energy system into the False Pass utility as the largest impact on the ability to displace diesel fuel use is due to times when no tidal energy is Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 32 of 41 9/11/15 available and diesel generation is required. Bering Pacific Seafood is likely to have the largest impact on future load growth as recent upgrades to the plant and increased operations increased the peak monthly energy use by 30% over last year to 155,000 kWh/month during processing, an average load of 215kW. Bering Pacific Seafood anticipates that the load will increase by another 30% over the next five years and expand from seasonal operations to year round operations with a monthly load of 177,000kWh, an average load of 245kW. Load requirements from the TidGen® Power System will exceed 44.5% of the time for the False Pass Utility and allow the diesel generators for the City to be shutdown and additional power to be passed onto the Bering Pacific Seafood plant. At these times not only will the City of False Pass realize diesel fuel savings, a reduction of O&M costs required for their diesel generators due to reduced run time, but also positive cash flow from power sales to the Bering Pacific Seafood plant. The system could eventually be built out to include additional TidGen® devices that would supply full power to the City and Bearing Pacific Seafood plant during times of tidal generation. In the future, it may also be economical to consider adding energy storage capacity to allow the False Pass Utility to meet its loads without the use of diesel fuel during times when tidally produced power is not available. 3. Anticipated Capacity Factor Based on a full lunar cycle of ADCP data collected in 2012 at False Pass, ORPC analyzed the anticipated capacity factor of a 200 kW TidGen® device at site N2, about ½ mile from the False Pass grid and at site S2, about two miles from the False Pass grid. As described above (Section 4.1), Table 1 shows the relative capacity factor at these sites. At site S2, the most likely candidate for tidal turbine placement at this time, an impressive capacity factor of 49% can be achieved, and with the added benefit of predictable delivery of this power, its value to the local energy portfolio is high. 4. Anticipated Annual Generation Table 1 also shows the anticipated annual generation in kWh at each of the sites. For the preferred site at S2 the annual generation would be 858,000 kWh, while at site N2 the annual generation would be 369,111 kWh. 5. Anticipated Barriers ORPC demonstrated the technical effectiveness of the TidGen® Power System in 2012 when the company built and operated the TidGen® Power System, becoming the first federally licensed hydrokinetic tidal energy project to deliver electricity to a power grid under a power purchase agreement in North America. Located in Cobscook Bay between Eastport and Lubec, Maine, the TidGen® Power System was connected to the utility grid at an on-shore station in North Lubec on September 13, 2012. ORPC obtained a FERC pilot project license for the Project on February 12, 2012 and the first Maine Department of Environmental Protection General Permit issued for a tidal energy project on January 31, 2012. In addition, ORPC received approval for the first power purchase agreement for tidal energy from the Maine Public Utilities Commission on January 1, 2013. With $6 million in funding from the US Department of Energy and Maine Technology Institute for technology optimization in 2014-2015,7 7 ORPC, “Advanced Energy Harvesting Control Schemes for Marine Renewable Energy Devices,” DE- EE0006397; “Power Take-off System for Marine Renewable Devices,” DE-EE0006398; and Maine Technology Institute, “ORPC Technology Enhancements,” DL3604. ORPC is now working to reduce risk by increasing reliability and extraction efficiency and lowering costs – the very same challenge that every new Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 33 of 41 9/11/15 technology faces and the challenge that has, or is being, overcome with wind and solar technologies. ORPC has learned from these other renewable energy industries so overcoming the reliability, efficiency and cost challenges will be done in a more expedient and effective manner. We anticipate a continual and significant lowering of the cost of energy within the next couple of years. An example of the types of cost savings that are achievable is the innovative installation and retrieval techniques developed towards the end of the Project that reduced the cost of these operations by two-thirds. In managing the challenging conditions of new technology installed in the underwater marine environment, ORPC has also become an industry leader in the development and implementation of the adaptive management approach for environmental compliance, including using it as a mechanism for license modifications. 6. Basic Integration Concept Once the power reaches shore and the False Pass grid, it will be power conditioned at ORPC’s on- shore station to grid compatible three phase AC power with appropriate voltage for the location of interconnect. ORPC has been working with Marsh Creek to refine the power electronics for ORPC’s RivGen® Power System to interconnect with isolated diesel grids to maximize the ability to offset diesel consumption. This technology will be leveraged and transferred to the TidGen® Power System’s power electronics to ensure it will be capable of a reliable and efficient interconnect to the False Pass diesel electric grid. Initially, the project will be run in parallel with the diesel generation system offsetting the power required from the diesel. If it appears that the TidGen® Power System could meet all of the electrical loads of the False Pass Utility, the Project Team will consider retrofitting the power electronics to allow the TidGen® Power System to run in grid forming mode, which will allow diesel generators in False Pass to be shut off completely during these times, thereby maximizing the use of tidal energy and minimizing the diesel required for energy generation. Because independent generation capacity is maintained both by the City of False Pass and Bering Pacific Seafood it will be necessary to perform an integration study to optimize operations of both of these generation facilities when tidal energy is available to ensure that it will reduce diesel fuel usage at the maximum benefit. The power transmission system must also be considered for successful operation. If the ADCP survey performed in this Project confirms that the best location for tidal turbine placement will be in the vicinity of site S2, a power transmission at least two miles long will be required to transmit the power to shore. This cable must be designed and appropriately installed to ensure it will endure continued operations in the tidal environment and deliver reliable power to shore. ORPC has designed the TidGen® Power Systems with transmission distances similar to this and will condition the power from the TidGen® device underwater to allow it to be efficiently and reliably transmitted to the interconnect point. The Project Team has also considered the cost of the transmission line from the site two miles south of town in the project budget. Based on ORPC’s experience in the Cobscook Bay, Maine project, the TidGen® power and data cable—a submarine cable slightly under a mile long and capable of transmitting the power from five TidGen® devices, cost $423,000. The Project Team used this number as the base for calculating the cost of a power and data cable installation at False Pass and factored it into the project budget. If a portion of the cable could be installed terrestrially this would further reduce these costs. In addition, the proposal was directed at identifying additional optional sites closer to town; this is one of the reasons we submitted the proposal for additional funding. 7. Delivery Method Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 34 of 41 9/11/15 Power from the TidGen® Power System will be delivered to the False Pass grid where it will be dispatched, first to serve residential and community loads and then to provide power to the Bering Pacific Seafood plant, an existing customer of the utility. The Bering Pacific Seafood facility also has self generation capability, and the power from this project that is in excess of the current load demand of the utility will be utilized to offset the self generation needs of the Bering Pacific Seafood facility, further reducing diesel consumption in the community. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] 200 kW b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 859,303 kWh ii. Heat [MMBtu] c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons, dry tons] iv. Other d) i. Estimate number of hours renewable will allow powerhouse to turn diesel engines off (fill in as applicable) 3898 hours per year 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. It will be necessary to meter the power coming in from the Tidal energy project that is actually utilized to offset power that would otherwise be produced by the City of False Pass Diesel Electrical Generation (DEG) Plant or the Bering Pacific Seafood DEG Plant. The SCADA system provided for the tidal energy project will monitor how much power is produced by the tidal energy project and delivered to the grid, however, it may be necessary to add two meters to measure the power contributed to both the City of False Pass and that which is dispatched to the Bering Pacific Seafood grid. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 35 of 41 9/11/15 SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS 6.1 Economic Feasibility 6.1.1 Economic Benefit Communities that are partially powered by renewable energy technologies reap economic, social, and environmental benefits. A good example close to False Pass is King Cove, which has a hydro project and the lowest charges for electricity in the Aleutians. Obvious benefits resulting from a False Pass tidal project are sustainable, high-quality job creation, enhanced quality of life, and energy independence for the community. Community members will have a renewed sense of pride knowing that their community is partially powered with renewable energy. A tidal energy project at False Pass would offer emission-free power that will both decrease the use of fuel oil and provide a flat-priced alternative as fossil fuel prices continue to rise. Anticipated Annual and Lifetime Fuel Displacement over the lifetime of the Evaluated Renewable Energy Project A single ORPC TidGen® device will be rated to produce 200 kW in a 5.4-knot current, in the robust currents measured at False Pass this device would produce enough power to save 69,529 gallons of fuel over the course of a year. This would amount to offsetting the production of 1,500,000 pounds of CO2 annually. By offsetting this diesel fuel usage alone, significant environmental risk associated with the threat of fuels spills in the transportation, storage, and use of the diesel fuel will also be mitigated. Furthermore, as an Alaskan community dependent on fishing as a resource, the reduction in CO2 will mitigate both climate change and ocean acidification, which both threaten to negatively affect the marine environment, jeopardizing fish stocks and compromising the commercial and subsistence livelihood of the community. This Project allows the community of False Pass to proactively address these risks to the environment and promote economic development. Anticipated Annual and Lifetime Revenue The Project will generate revenue to the City of False Pass through the amount of diesel it offsets for energy production. The energy produced from this project will offset 69,529 gallons annually, at the average fuel price of the 20-year lifetime of this project of $4.22/gallon this amounts to a cost savings of $292,860. Potential Additional Incentives This Project will contribute to the local economy by providing local employment opportunities as well as business enhancement. These local jobs will have substantial multiplier effects in a small economy such as that in False Pass. It is estimated that $1,300,000 will be spent in Alaska during project installation, while $140,000 will be spent locally for annual maintenance. Conservatively doubling this amount over the lifetime of the project would mean $8,200,000 in added economic benefit from the project. Potential Additional Revenue Streams The possibility of adding value to local seafood products through a development of products that feature sustainable labeling highlighting the tidal energy used in processing would add value to the local business and economy of False Pass. This will add to or enhance the revenue stream from the Bering Pacific Seafood processing plant that already significantly benefits the community. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 36 of 41 9/11/15 6.1.2 Power Purchase/Sale Potential Power Customers The City of False Pass operates the community’s power utility, which serves the community of False Pass. The residents and businesses in False Pass are the customers. Potential Power Purchase/sales Price Commercial customers pay $0.36 / kWh, while community facilities and residential customers pay $0.42/kWh. Proposed Rate of Return from Grant-funded Project For the economic analysis in this application a blended rate of $0.39/kWh escalated at 2% annually was assumed. At this rate the return on investment would be 2%. These rates will be used until the proposed system has been in operation for several months and a clear picture of energy savings has been developed. At that time a new rate may be implemented, but the savings will likely go towards a replacement and repairs account. 6.1.3 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales While the City of False Pass will be the primary recipient of the power from a tidal energy project, there will be times when the output of the project exceeds the load of the city of False Pass. At these times it is anticipated that excess energy will be sold to and utilized by the expanded Bering Pacific Seafood plant at a slightly reduced rate to encourage maximum utilization of the tidally produced energy to offset self-generation and diesel use at the facility. Based on ADCP data collected at False Pass it is anticipated that 45.5% of the time a TidGen® Power system will produce more than the average load at False Pass of 66 kW. During these times approximately 455,340 kWh of energy annually will not be utilizable by the city and will be sold to the processing plant. The table below assumes an average fuel cost of $4.22/gallon of diesel for the period of project operation from 2018 to 2038 based on the fuel cost projections in AEA’s Round 9 evaluation model. Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) 71,133 Estimated sales (kWh) 37,945 Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) $12,976.34 Estimated sales (kWh) 33,188 Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) $11,349.51 6.2 Financing Plan 6.2.1 Additional Funds APICDA has provided a Letter of Support, and is committed to their in-kind match, to see this phase of the project gets completed. There are no other funds required for this phase of the project, therefore this phase of the project is not reliant on other grant/funding entities. 6.2.2 Financing opportunities/limitations The City of False has the capacity to finance various phases of this project, through conventional loans. The City has reserve funds set aside to help facilitate immediate financing needs this project Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 37 of 41 9/11/15 has. If it becomes imperative the City could look into issuing bonds or have the Aleutians East Borough help with bond financing. 6.2.3 Cost Overruns The City of False has the capacity to finance various phases of this project, through conventional loans. The City has reserve funds set aside to help facilitate immediate financing needs this project has. If it becomes imperative the City could look into issuing bonds or have the Aleutians East Borough help with bond financing. The City currently uses State Revenue sharing funds to purchase diesel for the generators. These funds eliminate a surcharge for diesel prices. This surcharge could be implemented again. 6.2.4 Subsequent Phases The City of False Pass will pursue subsequent phases – Phase III, Final Design and permitting, and Phase IV, Construction and Commissioning – in following years. Anticipated funding sources will be US Department of Energy. 6.3 Other Public Benefit In addition to associated benefits of economic development and job creation in the community, other economic developments and benefits could result from the tidal project. It could be expanded, for example, to provide all of the power to the local Bering Pacific Seafood plant. Using a clean, innovative source of energy would give a value-added green label to the local business, which could have a multiplier effect on the demand for the locally-produced seafood. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 38 of 41 9/11/15 SECTION 7 – SUSTAINABILITY Proposed Business Structures and Concepts that may be considered There are two business structures under consideration for the ownership and power sales associated with the installed tidal energy project. In either scenario that tidal energy project would be locally owned and operated, either by the City of False Pass, or by Bering Pacific Seafood. Financing the Maintenance and Operations for the Life of the Project The owner and operator of the project will be responsible for installation, operation and maintenance of the project and would sell the power produced at a rate that is competitive with diesel generation and provides adequate cash flow to perform operations, maintenance, and monitoring and to service any debt incurred in the installation of the project. Identification of Operational Issues that Could Arise As this is a marine renewable energy project operational issues will be largely handled through on- water operations requiring the owner to have marine construction experience or to contract to a company with this capacity. ORPC has established a model for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project in Maine where a subcontractor is responsible for all on water installation and maintenance operations and this may be a good example to follow for the project. Operational issues will include routine yearly maintenance of the TidGen® Power System, routine maintenance of environmental and project monitoring equipment, and unexpected maintenance of the TidGen® Power System. Description of Operational Costs, Including On-going Support The operational costs associated with this project will include yearly maintenance costs inclusive of major maintenance events scheduled for every five years, environmental and project monitoring, and project management costs. The City of False Pass and Bering Pacific Seafood will continue to operate and maintain their diesel electric generation facilities, as these will be required to provide power during periods of slack tide and to make up the power differential when the tidally produced power does not meet the demand of the community or facility. Commitment to Reporting the Savings and Benefits The City of False Pass will report the savings and benefits from the Project, and these will be reflected in the cost of delivered power to the customers of the utility. SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS The City of False Pass has the financial management capabilities to meet the requirements of this Project. It also has project management capabilities by working collaboratively with their respective Project Teams to bring the Project to completion. Preliminary work on this Project was completed by a $206,956 project awarded to APIA by DOE to conduct a study of False Pass to determine whether a tidal energy project could provide renewable energy. The project scope included circulation modeling of False Pass, initial site visit to perform reconnaissance bathymetry, electrical infrastructure and load analysis, and initiation of permitting consultation. The Project was completed in 2014. If this Project is awarded, the Project Team intends to begin in summer 2016, the first available field season. Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Grant Application - Standard Form AEA 16012 Page 39 of 41 9/11/15 SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION The City of False Pass has received enthusiastic local support for a tidal energy project. Alaskan organizations and communities see tidal energy’s potential to help diversify the sources of our electricity as well as ameliorate the cost of diesel fuel. The Project Team, which has a strong record of community engagement and public support, will continue their ongoing work with scientists, fishers, and regulatory agencies to ensure that adequate means are in place to understand the marine environment. Throughout the Project period the Project Team will consult with stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and the public through regular project update mailings and meetings, addressing any concerns in a collaborative, proactive manner. Letters of Support from the following communities are included as in Section 14 B: • Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC Alaska) • University of Alaska Anchorage • Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association • Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. • Aleutians East Borough • False Pass Tribal Council SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS I The City of False Pass was awarded the following AEA grant and completed all requisite project deadlines, reporting, and information requests: • AEA, False Pass Wind Energy Project, $69,075. Project period: July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2014. SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES ORPC Alaska, Reconnaissance Current Survey Report, Prepared for the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, April 1, 2013 SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND Round IX Application: Pre-Construction – Feasibility and Conceptual Design City of False Pass: Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska SECTION 14B. LETTERS OF SUPPORT Sept. 3, 2015 In support of the False Pass Tidal Power project, the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) will continue the development of a 3D, high-resolution model of circulation and turbulence in False Pass using Delft3D software. We will calibrate and validate the model using velocity, water level, and turbulence data collected using two ADCP's that were deployed in the summer of 2012. Once the model is performing satisfactorily, we will use the model to produce plots showing the spatial distribution of power density and turbulence. Using these plots, and after consulting with team members, we will propose the locations of five ADCPs (and two ADVs) scheduled to be deployed in the summer of 2016. After the 2016 field season, the model will then be validated using the ADCP and ADV data. Adjustments to the model will be made as necessary and following consultation with the team. The model will be used for any additional computations required by the team during the course of the project. Tom Ravens Professor of Civil Engineering University of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage AK 99508 302 Gold Street, Suite 202 • Juneau, Alaska 99801 • (907) 586-0161 • Fax: (907) 586-0165 717 K Street, Suite 100 • Anchorage, Alaska 99501 • (907) 929-5273 • Fax: (907) 929-5275 September 6, 2015 Mayor Nikki Hoblet 180 Unimak Drive False Pass, Alaska 99583 Dear Nikki: The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA) is pleased to provide a cost share match towards the City of False Pass’ proposal under Round IX of the Alaska Energy Authority’s Renewable Energy Fund. The city’s Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study represents a critical stage in determining the viability of tidal power to reduce the community’s fossil fuel use. APICDA helped to provide vessel and ground support for the first two phases of feasibility work for this project. Next summer we will provide $62,500 worth of support in vessel time, crew, lodging, board, fuel and personnel during the remaining resource study efforts. We are very excited to participate in this endeavor and are hopeful that it will provide a path towards a more sustainable energy source for the city and our fish processing operations. APICDA has been working diligently with the city and other regional entities on energy planning, fuel security issues and exploring renewable alternatives to diesel generated electricity. We look forward to our continued partnerships and helping to shape a vibrant and healthy future for residents and businesses throughout the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region. Sincerely, Larry Cotter Chief Executive Officer, APICDA Benthic GeoScience Inc Measuring our Earth and Earth's Energies 1 August 30, 2015 City of False Pass Attn: Chris Emrich City Clerk False Pass, AK RE: Round 9, Renewable Energy Fund (REF#9) Benthic GeoScience (Benthic) is pleased to continue our support to the City of False Pass with all geophysical interpretation and seafloor mapping efforts regarding the False Pass Tidal Power Project. We look forward to providing expert assistance as the city continues to develop through REF#9 funds, and ultimately, as it generates power through the completion of the False Pass Tidal Power Project. The shallow water Sub-Bottom Survey and Interpretation effort detailed in REF#9 will require payment totaling $75,957. Benthic has previously demonstrated a high success rate for the planning and execution of hydrographic, oceanographic, and geophysical studies in the Alaskan waters, including the immediate vicinity of False Pass area. We are focused upon measuring, interpreting, and communicating the natural seafloor geology and measured energies of the Earth. We are very pleased to be included in this Project. Sincerely, David Oliver, Geophysicist Director of Operations doliver@BenthicGeo.com +1 (907) 715-8144 Benthic GeoScience Inc. 19595 N. Granite Creek Ranch Sutton, AK 99674 USA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND Round IX Application: Pre-Construction – Feasibility and Conceptual Design City of False Pass: Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska SECTION 14D. GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND Round IX Application: Pre-Construction – Feasibility and Conceptual Design City of False Pass: Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska SECTION 11. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES: ORPC Alaska, Reconnaissance Current Survey Report, Prepared for the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, April 1, 2013 < RECONNAISSANCE TIDAL CURRENT SURVEY REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLAND ASSOCIATION April 1, 2013 ORPC Alaska, LLC 725 Christensen Dr., Suite 6 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone (207) 772-7707 www.orpc.co Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 2 of 15 Contents Figures............................................................................................................................................. 2 Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Data Collection Summary ............................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis and Quality Control ................................................................................................. 7 Recoverable Energy ...................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 15 Figures Figure 1. Location of AWAC and RDI ADCP deployments. ........................................................ 6 Figure 2. Location of ADCP and HOBO deployments in the vicinity of False Pass. .................... 6 Figure 3. Tidal Rose for RDI ADCP deployed at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. .......... 10 Figure 4. Tidal Rose for AWAC deployed at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ............... 10 Figure 5. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from RDI ADCP data collected at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. ..................................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from Nortek AWAC data collected at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ..................................................................... 11 Figure 7. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment, water surface level is shown at top (note velocity scale is different in Figures 5 and 6). .............................................................................. 12 Figure 8. Nortek AWAC data from N2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment (note velocity scale is different in Figure 5 and 6). ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood residual current while a negative current velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the tidal velocity 10.7 meters above the seafloor. ....................................................... 13 Figure 10. AWAC data from N2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood current while a negative current velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the tidal velocity 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ............................................................................... 14 Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 3 of 15 Tables Table 1. Data logging parameters of AWAC and RDI ADCP. ....................................................... 7 Table 2. Energy density and current velocity comparison at N2 and S2. ....................................... 9 Table 3. Recoverable energy comparison at N2 and S2 approximately 10.5 meters above seafloor. ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Appendices Appendix A: Tidal Rose for each bin in the water column at sites N2 and S2 Appendix B: Tabular data from all bins in water column with quality data Appendix C: Photos from Deployment and Retrieval Operations Appendix D: Field Report, False Pass ADCP Deployment, September 28-October 3, 2012 Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 4 of 15 Executive Summary ORPC Alaska, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (collectively ORPC), performed a reconnaissance tidal current survey (Survey) to obtain a preliminary assessment of the potential for a tidal energy project as an energy alternative for the community of False Pass, Alaska under contract with Aleutian Pribilof Island Association (APIA). ORPC successfully collected Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) current velocity data from two sites in Isanotski Strait in the vicinity of False Pass over the course of a lunar cycle (one month) during the period from September to November 2012. The collected data was normalized through a quality control and data analysis process to allow for a comparison of the available tidal energy resource between the two sites. The Survey analysis shows that site “N2” in the near vicinity of False Pass has a marginal tidal energy resource, while site “S2” in the narrowest portion of the Isanotski Strait is an extremely robust tidal energy resource for tidal energy extraction utilizing currently existing hydrokinetic technologies. Based on the results of the Survey, the tidal energy resource in the vicinity of False Pass has sufficient energy for a viable tidal energy project. The results justify further investigation of the site characteristics, project development considerations, and project economics to determine the ultimate feasibility of a tidal energy project in the False Pass area. Data Collection Summary ORPC collected a lunar cycle (29.5 days) of current velocity data at two sites near False Pass that was used to make a preliminary determination of the potential for a tidal energy project.1 ORPC had agreed to provide data from at least one site, but was able to collect data at two sites as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) supplied one additional ADCP for the project period. This enabled two sites to be measured at the same time, allowing a comparison of the energy resource of the two sites during the same time period. The field work and data collection was performed as described below: • September 28, 2012 ORPC deployed a team to False Pass to perform this tidal/ocean current resource reconnaissance under contract to APIA. Team members Monty Worthington, ORPC, David Oliver, Benthic GeoScience, and Levi Kilcher, NREL, mobilized to False Pass and met with Shane Hoblet contracted by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA) to skipper the Nightrider, a vessel of opportunity for the equipment deployment operations. The goal of this expedition was to deploy two ADCPs to measure current velocities at sites likely to have viable resources over a full lunar cycle (29.5 days), and to deploy two HOBO water level sensors to validate the University of Alaska Anchorage’s (UAA’s) modeling efforts. 1 A full lunar cycle of data allows analysis of the energy available through a full orbit of the moon around the earth. As the effect of the moon’s gravity is the primary constituent in tidal exchanges, this analysis provides an accurate estimate of annual energy potential from a site, provided tidal forces are the primary influence on current velocity at the site. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 5 of 15 • September 29-30, 2013 ORPC investigated ADCP deployment sites, selected on the basis of UAA modeling efforts, local knowledge, and known bathymetry with a SeaKing Tritech Scanning Sonar. Seven sites were assessed for hazards to ADCP deployments in the vicinity of two prospective ADCP locations, and ultimately two sites “N2” in the vicinity of False Pass and “S2” approximately two miles south of the town of False Pass near Whirl Point were selected for deployment (Figure 1). • September 30, 2012 At 19:50 AKDT a 600 kHz Nortek Acoustic Wave and Current (AWAC) profiler provided by NREL was deployed and began collecting data at N2 (lat -163.3870W long 54.8515N). • October 2, 2012 At 19:59 AKDT a 300 kHz RDI ADCP was deployed and began collecting data at S2 (lat -163.3676W long 54.8174N). The HOBO water level sensors were also deployed approximately 7 nm North and South of False Pass (Figure 2). • October 29, 2012 Monty Worthington, ORPC, mobilized back to False Pass for ADCP recovery operations where he met Calvin Kashevarof under contract to APICDA to skipper the Nightrider for these efforts. • October 30, 2012 At 12:44 AKDT the AWAC ADCP was recovered and completed its data collection, logging 29.7 days of data. • November 3, 2012 The HOBO deployed north of False Pass was recovered at 12:30 AKDT. • November 4, 2012 The RDI ADCP deployed at S2 was recovered at 17:45 AKDT. This ADCP had stopped recording data on October 3, 2012 at 3:57 AKDT due to premature battery depletion, logging 28.35 days of data. March 25, 2012 The HOBO deployed south of False Pass was recovered by Shane Hoblet and his crew while commercial fishing. It had washed up on the beach near its deployment site and will be returned to UAA for data analysis. The location of the two sites at which the ADCPs were deployed is shown in Figures 1 and 2. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 6 of 15 Figure 1. Location of AWAC and RDI ADCP deployments. Figure 2. Location of ADCP and HOBO deployments in the vicinity of False Pass. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 7 of 15 Data Analysis and Quality Control ADCP Configuration Both the RDI AWAC and Nortek ADCP were configured in the field and calibrated for each of the sites, including calibration of the magnetic compass on each device, setting of the deployment depth, and configuring the data acquisition parameters. Each device passed the configuration checks performed under the guidance of NREL and Benthic Geoscience personnel. Differences in the two devices necessitated programming each device to sample and store data at different intervals while optimizing for the maximum rate of data collection, storage and battery life. This programming allowed the data to be utilized to the maximum extent for analysis of the strength of the resource, direction of the currents, and potential analysis of turbulence (Table 1). Each device also had a slightly different “blanking distance.” This is the distance between the device and the first bin of data. This resulted in a 0.2 meter difference in the height above the seafloor of nearest data bins between the two devices. Table 1. Data logging parameters of AWAC and RDI ADCP. Data Quality Control The data from the AWAC and RDI ADCPs was downloaded from the devices, and data quality and accuracy was verified independently by NREL and ORPC. Data analysis was focused approximately 10.7 meters above the bottom for the RDI ADCP and 10.5 meters above the bottom for the AWAC ADCP—the anticipated height of ORPC’s TidGen™ device and a likely hub height for medium sized tidal turbines. Data was also analyzed throughout the water column for comparison purposes (see Appendix A and B). The strongest near surface current velocities and highest energy densities were also identified. As the RDI had a pressure sensor, it also collected data on the water level and identified the surface of the water. The AWAC did not have a pressure sensor, so water surface and “false” data bins from above the water surface were identified by unrealistic trends in the data. At site N2, the deployment depth was 26 meters (85 feet) and at least 22 bins of quality data were collected above. The data, however, appeared Device and Site Data Collection Start (AKDT) Data Collection End (AKDT) Data Collection Duration Blanking Distance (meters) Bin Size (meters) Sample Rate Data Storage RDI ADCP at site S2 10/2/12 at 19:59 10/31/12 at 3:57 28.35 days 3.2 1 Ping every 1.8 sec Average of 5 pings stored every 9 sec Nortek AWAC at site N2 9/30/12 at 19:50 10/30/12 at 12:44 29.7 days 1 1 Ping every 1 sec Average of 60 pings stored once a minute Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 8 of 15 unreliable due either to surface reflection or possibly interference from the submerged buoy used in the deployment. At site S2 the deployment depth was 35 meters (114 feet), and 32 bins of quality data were collected. One challenge encountered in performing a comparative analysis of the sites was due to the fact that the RDI ADCP, deployed at site S2, had stopped logging data before the end of the synodic full lunar cycle (28.35 days of data instead of 29.53 days). This was likely due to premature battery depletion. The ADCP had been programmed to use 90% of its battery over a 29.5 day deployment which should have left reserve capacity; but this was not the case. Because of this, it was necessary to determine how to normalize the data for comparison purposes between the two sites because a full lunar cycle of data was not collected at S2. ORPC analyzed the difference between the data collected by first comparing the data from a full lunar cycle which was collected at N2 to the data from site N2 during the 27.5 days during which concurrent data was collected at site S2. Mean velocities at the selected depth (10.5 meters above the seafloor) were 1.24 m/s for the flood tide for both durations, while for the ebb tide, the mean velocity was slightly higher for the full lunar cycle at 1.25 m/s (as opposed to 1.24 m/s for the 27.5 day cycle, a difference of less than 1%). The average energy density also differed slightly between 1.57 kW/m^2 for the full lunar cycle as compared to 1.54 kW/m^2 for the period of concurrent data collection. This represents a 1.9% difference in energy density; a larger difference than the current velocity as it varies as a cube of current velocity. This difference is within the acceptable range for extrapolating annual energy output as natural variations between concurrent lunar cycles may exhibit similar differences. It was therefore deemed a correct approach to focus on the 27.5 day time period of concurrent data collection for comparison of energy at the two sites and for extrapolation of annual energy production. The data presented in this report was analyzed over the 27.5 day time period of concurrent deployment. Current velocity, energy density and flow symmetry comparison Table 2 shows the comparative current velocities and energy density at sites N2 and S2 using the 27.5 days of direct overlap in deployment of the two devices. At 10.5 meters above the seafloor, the N2 site had a maximum velocity of 2.51 m/s and average velocity of 1.24 m/s and an average energy density of 1.54 kW/m^2. By comparison, at 10.7 meters above the seafloor the S2 site had a maximum current of 3.68 m/s an average velocity of 1.62 m/s and an average energy density of 3.68 kW/m^2—over twice the available energy of site N2. At both sites, the strongest currents occurred during the ebb (southerly) flows. Peak current velocities and energy densities occurred near the surface of each site, but, here again, energy density at site S2 was more than double that of N2. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 9 of 15 Table 2. Energy density and current velocity comparison at N2 and S2. The flow direction and its symmetry between flood and ebb events at tidal sites can be highly variable, and this can have adverse effects on energy capture using tidal turbines. It is important to analyze this aspect of tidal currents as asymmetric currents can have adverse effects on total recoverable energy. In addition to analysis of the mean direction and standard deviation of the currents direction in Table 2, ORPC generated a “Tidal Rose” for each site at the tidal turbines hub height to graphically depict current direction, symmetry, and magnitude. These Tidal Roses reveal that the flow is highly symmetric (near to180 degrees opposed) at sites S2 and N2 and that viable current velocities for energy production occur a large amount of the time. However, current velocities and overall energy at N2 are significantly lower as noted above. Figures 3 and 4 show the Tidal Rose for the selected depth for energy analysis of each site. A Tidal Rose for each bin of data is included in Appendix A. A similar analysis, highlighting the current direction and magnitude with scatter plots, is displayed in Figures 5 and 6. Site (depth above seafloor) N2 (10.5 m) S2 (10.7m) N2 (20.5 m) S2 (32.7m) Flood Mean Direction (deg) -33.8 -19.7 -34.7 -23.8 Std. Deviation from Mean axis (deg) 3.90 13.30 3.89 9.91 Mean Speed (m/s) 1.24 1.47 1.41 1.67 Max Sustained Speed (m/s) 2.30 2.96 2.64 2.92 Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.49 2.56 2.21 3.72 Ebb Mean Direction (deg) 154 167 162 162 Std. Deviation from Mean axis (deg) 2.94 3.03 4.33 1.96 Mean Speed (m/s) -1.24 -1.76 -1.41 -2.14 Max Sustained Speed (m/s) -2.51 -3.68 -2.85 -4.46 Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.60 4.82 2.34 8.76 Combined Mean Speed (m/s) 1.24 1.62 1.41 1.91 Max Sustained Speed (m/s) 2.51 3.68 2.85 4.46 Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.54 3.68 2.27 6.21 Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 10 of 15 Figure 3. Tidal Rose for RDI ADCP deployed at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. Figure 4. Tidal Rose for AWAC deployed at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 11 of 15 Figure 5. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from RDI ADCP data collected at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. Figure 6. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from Nortek AWAC data collected at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 12 of 15 Data Analysis over the entire water column The following figures illustrate the data of the site inclusive of the entire water column to provide a perspective on how the resource varies as a function of depth and time. Figures 5 and 6 show the temporal and spatial variation of current velocity magnitude and direction at sites S2 and N2 correspondingly. Figure 7. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment, water surface level is shown at top (note velocity scale is different in Figures 5 and 6). Figure 8. Nortek AWAC data from N2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment (note velocity scale is different in Figure 5 and 6). Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 13 of 15 Figures 7 and 8 show the spatial and temporal variation of the “residual” current velocity correspondingly at sites S2 and N2. This residual current is the net flow of water over the deployment period with the tidally influenced flows extracted. These residual currents are only at a single column in the cross section of the channel and can be explained by circulation patterns where ebb currents are enhanced in one portion of a channel and flood currents are enhanced in another area while the net current is essential zero. Fresh water input at one end of an estuary can also lead to residual currents being stronger in one direction than another. These currents are not generally of large consequence for tidal energy extraction, but the information is included here to provide differentiation of tidal versus ocean currents at False Pass as the influence of each was not well understood at the onset of this study. During initial desktop investigation into the False Pass project site, it was suspected that the northwesterly flowing Alaska ocean current might have an influence in creating a stronger northerly flood current while diminishing the southerly ebb current. As these residual current velocity charts suggest, larger tidal variations resulted in a stronger residual southerly ebb current at both sites and overall energy was higher on the ebb tide over the course of the month. Smaller tidal variations corresponded to a stronger residual northerly flood current though overall flood energy was lower at both sites. Figure 9. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood residual current while a negative current velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the tidal velocity 10.7 meters above the seafloor. Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 14 of 15 Figure 10. AWAC data from N2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood current while a negative current velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the tidal velocity 10.5 meters above the seafloor. Recoverable Energy For a tidal energy device such as ORPC’s TidGen™ turbine generator unit (TGU), deployed with a hub height 10.5 meters above the bottom, a swept area of 59 m^2 and an efficiency of 32.3%, the annual energy delivery from site N2 would be 284,490 kWh, resulting in a capacity factor of 21.6%. By comparison the same device deployed 10.5 meters above the bottom at S2 would have an annual generation of 577,655 kWh and a 43.9% capacity factor. For higher efficiency (36%) turbines with the same swept area, such as future versions of ORPC power systems, the annual energy delivered would increase to 318,972 kWh and 24% capacity factor at N2 and 624,941 kWh and 47.5 % capacity factor at S2. By comparison to other sites which ORPC has studied in Alaska and Maine, site S2 represents a robust and very attractive tidal energy resource, while site N2 is a marginal resource for energy production using a device analogous to ORPC’s TidGen™ TGU. Table 3. Recoverable energy comparison at N2 and S2 approximately 10.5 meters above seafloor. Site N2 10.5 m above seafloor S2 10.7 m above seafloor Annual recoverable energy (59 sq m turbine with 32.2% efficiency) 284,490 kWh 577,655 kWh Annual recoverable energy (59 sq m turbine with 36 % efficiency) 317,107 kWh 625,258 kWh Ocean Renewable Power Company Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report April 1, 2013 Confidential Page 15 of 15 Conclusion Based on the results of the reconnaissance tidal current survey performed in the False Pass area, it is clear that, from strictly a resource perspective, site S2 has great potential and site N2 is marginal at best. However, many other factors come into play when evaluating the feasibility of a site for a tidal energy project. These factors include bathymetric and geotechnical considerations, access to the site, proximity to the interconnection point with the local grid, etc. The evaluation of the feasibility of a tidal energy project at a marginal resource site such as N2 is highly dependent on the costs associated with the development and construction of the project and the value of the power that is delivered. While the energy density found at site N2 is much lower than that encountered at S2, the short transmission distance from site N2 to the interconnect locations in False Pass (approximately ½ mile) and the relative easy access to the site could reduce associated construction costs significantly and make a project in its vicinity economically viable. It is also entirely possible that better tidal current velocities exist in the near vicinity of site N2 that could increase the site’s energy density to a point where development of a project is more attractive. ORPC believes it would be worthwhile to enhance circulation modeling efforts in the vicinity of N2 to determine if local variations in the velocity profile would lead to identification of one or more specific sites with higher energy density. This could tip the scales in favor of a tidal energy project in the vicinity of site N2, and if so, make it desirable to follow up with an ADCP survey at the location(s) of interest. The robust tidal energy resource at site S2 will provide exceptional output from a tidal energy project with impressive capacity factors in the range of 40-50% of rated capacity. Site S2 is, however, more remote than site N2, and construction costs will likely be higher, especially for the associated power transmission line which would be at least 2 miles long. Further investigation of project development considerations and constructability of a tidal energy project at site S2 are warranted to assess the economics of installing a tidal energy project at this site. Of key importance in this assessment will be a bathymetric survey covering the area of potential device locations and submarine power cable routes, and analysis of technical and cost considerations for a power cable line to connect the project to False Pass.