HomeMy WebLinkAboutClearwater REF Round IX - FINAL
September 11, 2015
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
813 West Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: REF Round 9 Grant Application
Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase II Grant Application
Dear AEA:
Enclosed, on behalf of Alaska Power Company (APC), in response to Requests for
Grant Applications (RFA) AEA 16012, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program
(ROUND IX) is an application requesting funding for the Clearwater Creek
Hydroelectric Project for Phase II – Feasibility.
If you have any questions, please call either Glen Martin (Resource Assessment &
Permits) 360-385-1733 x122, Christine Overly (Grant Funds Administrator) 360-385-
1733 x137, or Bob Grimm (President) 360-385-1733 x120.
Sincerely,
Glen D. Martin
Resource Assessment & Permits
Enc. (as stated)
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 49 7/8/14
Application Forms and Instructions
This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for
Round IX of the Renewable Energy Fund. A separate application form is available for projects with
a primary purpose of producing heat (see RFA section 1.5). This is the standard form for all other
projects, including projects that will produce heat and electricity. An electronic version of the
Request for Applications (RFA) and both application forms is available online at:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9.
• If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the
Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org.
• If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms
for each project.
• Multiple phases (e.g. final design, construction) for the same project may be submitted as
one application.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones
and grant budget for each phase of the project.
• In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit
recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC
107.605(1).
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. Supporting documentation
may include, but is not limited to, reports, conceptual or final designs, models, photos, maps,
proof of site control, utility agreements, power sale agreements, relevant data sets, and other
materials. Please provide a list of supporting documents in Section 11 of this application and
attach the documents to your application.
• If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your
submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. Please provide
a list of additional information; including any web links, in section 12 of this application and
attach the documents to your application. For guidance on application best practices please
refer to the resource specific Best Practices Checklists; links to the checklists can be found
in the appendices list at the end of the accompanying REF Round IX RFA.
• In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided. You may add
additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient space for the information, or attach
additional sheets if needed.
REMINDER:
• Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
• All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations
are made to the legislature.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 49 7/8/14
• In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary
company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you
want information to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential.
If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in
accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 49 7/8/14
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion.
Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity)
Alaska Power Company (APC) – Subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T)
Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End:
Utility December, 2014
Tax ID #
Tax Status: ☒ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☐ Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit:
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
Jason Custer [Same]
136 Misty Marie Lane
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-225-1950 x 29 907-225-6450 Jason.c@aptalaska.com
1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Manager
Name: Title:
Jason Custer, Business Development Director – AP&T
Mailing Address:
Jason Custer
136 Misty Marine Lane
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-225-1950 x 29 907-225-6450 Jason.c@aptalaska.com
1.1.1 APPLICANT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY CONTACT INFORMATION
Name: Title:
Robert Grimm President & CEO
Mailing Address:
193 Otto Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone: Fax: Email:
800-982-0136 x 120 NA Bob.g@aptalaska.com
1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Glen Martin 360-385-1733 x 122 Glen.m@aptalaska.com
Christine Overly 360-385-1733 x 137 Christine.o@aptalaska.com
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 49 7/8/14
1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements
Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements, the application
will be rejected.
1.2.1 Applicant Type
☒ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or
☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
☐ A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement (Section
3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9. (Any
exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking
the box)
☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 49 7/8/14
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Title
Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project. Type in the space below.
Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II
2.2 Project Location
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or community
name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact AEA
at 907-771-3031.
Google Map Coordinates: 63.1513.-143.198217
Approximately 15 miles south of Tok, Alaska
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok,
Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.45 kWh
pricing for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour.1
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit from the presence of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if
Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village become connected to Tok, they will benefit
from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent
on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70 / kWh
pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour 2.
2.3 Project Type
Please check as appropriate.
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
☒ Hydro, Including Run of River ☐ Hydrokinetic
1 Source:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf
2 Source:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 49 7/8/14
☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy
☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable
☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting
☒ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 49 7/8/14
2.4 Project Description
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project.
Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests
$386,000 in AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round IX grant funding support for Phase II Feasibility /
Conceptual Design activities for the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. APC proposes a match
of $100,000 in private funds supplied by AP&T / APC. The proposed project is a 1 MW run-of-river
hydroelectric project on Clearwater Creek, which is located approximately 15 miles southwest of the
community of Tok on the Tok-Cutoff Highway (Glenn Highway). The project would supply
approximately 3.4 GWh annually to Tok and surrounding interconnected communities. Clearwater
Creek’s project features would consist of a small diversion structure, a 1 MW generating system
(Turgo turbine), approximately 20,000 feet of penstock, an open tailrace channel, substation,
approximately 5 miles of access road, and a distribution line. The project would interconnect with the
Tok region grid via a 14 mile transmission connection utilizing existing highway right-of-way.
The AEA’s econometric workbook specifies a B/C ratio of 1.86, $27.8m in NPV benefits, and a NPV
net benefit of $13.7m
Outputs of the AEA’s Econometric Workbook for 2015 are
provided below.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 49 7/8/14
2.5 Scope of Work
Provide a scope of work detailing the tasks to be performed under this funding request. This
should include work paid for by grant funds and matching funds or performed as in-kind match.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 49 7/8/14
APC is seeking $386,000 in AEA REF Round IX grant funding for Phase II activities, which would
be matched by $100,000 in private funds supplied by AP&T / APC.
APC in-kind investment to date (estimated $5,000) has funded initial reconnaissance activities,
including: stream flow investigation and analysis; preliminary economic benefit and financial
modelling; a review of existing studies, reports, and literature; and filing for and receiving a FERC
Non-Jurisdictional Determination. FERC issued the Non-Jurisdictional Decision in July 2012.
Phase I: Reconnaissance: Completed 2012
Initial reconnaissance and non-jurisdictional determination request filed with FERC. FERC
determined a federal license was not required [07/31/2012].
Phase II: Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design: 2015-2016
In 2015, after AEA Round VIII funding is released to the project, the following would occur:
• Site visit by engineering team (AP&T / APC)
• Consultation with agencies (AP&T / APC)
• Topographic mapping of the project site (Aerometric – Anchorage)
• Stream gage installation and maintenance (APC)
• Fish Surveys (Fisheye Consulting – Anchorage)
• TES Botanical Survey (HDR – Anchorage)
• Wetland Delineation Survey (HDR – Anchorage)
• Wildlife Assessment (HDR – Anchorage)
• Cultural Resource Survey
• Feasibility Analysis (APC)
• Conceptual Design (APC)
PHASE II -
Milestones
Tasks Start Date End Date
Agency Consultation Consult with agencies & file for
permits to conduct studies.
7/1/2016 12/1/2017
Site Visit by
Engineering
APC engineering team inspects
project site for conceptual design
and studies.
7/1/2016 9/30/2016
Stream gage
installation
& maintenance
APC installs their stream gauge
and downloads data and maintains
as needed for two years. 8/1/2016 8/1/2017
Wetland delineation Contractor hired to conduct study. 6/1/2017 8/31/2017
TES botanical survey Contractor hired to conduct study. 6/1/2017 8/31/2017
Fish survey Contractor hired to conduct study. 8/1/2016 10/31/2017
Wildlife Survey
(Avian)
Contractor hired to conduct study. 5/1/2017 8/31/2017
Water quality
sampling
Quarterly sampling regime. 8/1/2016 10/1/2017
Cultural Resource
Survey
Contractor hired to conduct study. 6/1/2017 8/31/2017
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 49 7/8/14
Topographic
mapping
Contractor hired to conduct study. 8/1/2016 10/31/2017
Feasibility Analysis
& Conceptual
Design
APC will conduct an analysis of
the collected data for project
feasibility and develop a
conceptual design and then provide
a draft and final reports for AEA.
10/1/2017 12/31/2017
SECTION 3 – Project Management, Development, and Operation
3.1 Schedule and Milestones
Criteria: Stage 2-1.A: The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail.
Please fill out the schedule below (or attach a similar sheet) for the work covered by this funding
request. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your project along with estimated
start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and
ending of all phases of your proposed project. Add additional rows as needed.
Milestones Tasks
Start
Date
End
Date Deliverables
Agency
Consultation
Consult with agencies and file
for permits to conduct studies 7/1/16 12/1/17
Permit filings completed.
Site Visit by
Engineering
Engineering team inspects
project site in preparation for
conceptual design and studies 7/1/16 9/30/16
Completion of site visit, and
notes.
Stream Gauge
Installation &
Maintenance
Installation of stream gauge.
Data downloaded and
maintained as needed for 2
years. 8/1/16 8/1/17
Stream gauge data files.
Wetland
Delineation
Hire contractor to complete
study. 6/1/17 8/31/17
Completed wetland
delineation report.
TES Botanical
Survey
Hire contractor to complete
study. 6/1/17 8/31/17
Completed TES botanical
study.
Fish Survey Hire contractor to complete
study. 8/1/17 10/31/17
Completed fish survey study.
Water Quality
Sampling
Complete quarterly water
sampling 8/1/16 10/1/17
Water quality sample data.
Wildlife Survey
(Avian)
Hire contractor to complete
study. 5/1/17 8/31/17
Completed wildlife study.
Cultural Resource
Survey
Hire contractor to complete
study. 6/1/17 8/31/17
Completed cultural resource
study.
Topographic
Mapping
Hire contractor to complete
study 8/1/16 10/31/17
Completed topo maps.
Feasibility Analysis
& Conceptual
Design
Analyze all collected data for
project feasibility and develop
a conceptual design. Provide
a draft and final reports to the
AEA. 10/1/17 12/31/17
Feasibility and conceptual
design completed. Draft and
final reports provided to and
reviewed by AEA.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 49 7/8/14
3.2 Budget
Criteria: Stage 2-1.B: The cost estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and
other project items meet industry standards or are otherwise justified.
3.2.1 Budget Overview
Describe your financial commitment to the project. List the amount of funds needed for project
completion and the anticipated nature and sources of funds. Consider all project phases, including
future phases not covered in this funding request.
Clearwater Creek Hydro Budget
AEA APC
Phase Grant Funds Matching Funds Total
I – Reconnaissance (1) $0 $5,000 $5,000
II – Feasibility/Conceptual Design $386,000 $100,000 $486,000
III - Design and Permitting $320,000 $80,000 $400,000
IV – Construction $4,000,000 $11,000,000 (2) $15,000,000
Total $4,706,000 $11,185,000 $15,891,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 49 7/8/14
(1) AP&T conducted site reconnaissance activities
in 2012
(2) Would include low-interest loans
APC is seeking $386,000 in AEA REF Round IX grant funding for Phase II activities, which would
be matched by $100,000 in private funds supplied by AP&T / APC.
APC investment to date (estimated $5,000) has funded initial reconnaissance activities, including:
stream flow investigation and analysis; preliminary economic benefit and financial modelling; a
review of existing studies, reports, and literature; and filing for and receiving a FERC Non-
Jurisdictional Determination. FERC issued the Non-Jurisdictional Decision in July 2012.
Depending upon outcomes of Phase II activities, APC anticipates funding future project activities
through a combination of private debt/equity, and would seek to utilize grant programs including the
AEA REF program to help supply clean, affordable renewable energy.
Alaska Power & Telephone is very interested in participating as an equity investor in the project,
providing a technically feasible design can be developed, and an economically and financially feasible
financing package can be developed. Activities proposed for AEA REF Round IX funding will
support development of the level of knowledge required to develop a viable design and business case
for the project, which will be used to gain investment commitments.
3.2.2 Budget Forms
Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in section
2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design
and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed
project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project. The milestones and
tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above.
If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing
the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants
Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 49 7/8/14
APC – Indicates cash match provided by APC / AP&T.
3.2.3 Cost Justification
Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget.
In-house estimate by Alaska Power & Telephone Company’s engineering department based on
budgets and pricing for many similar projects. AP&T has the unique perspective and experience of
having completed many numerous small hydropower projects in southeast Alaska.
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 $ 386,000
RE- Fund Grantee Matching
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Grant Funds Funds
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
Agency Consultation $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 APC $ 25,000.00
Site Visit by Engineering $ 12,800.00 $ 3,200.00 APC $ 16,000.00
Stream Gauge Installation & Maintenance $ 40,000.00 $ 13,000.00 APC $ 53,000.00
Wetland Delineation $ 28,400.00 $ 7,600.00 APC $ 36,000.00
TES Botanical Survey $ 8,000.00 $ 2,000.00 APC $ 10,000.00
Fish Survey $ 168,800.00 $ 42,200.00 APC $211,000.00
Water Quality Sampling $ 12,000.00 $ 3,000.00 APC $ 15,000.00
Wildlife Survey $ 12,000.00 $ 3,000.00 APC $ 15,000.00
Cultural Resource Survey $ 8,000.00 $ 2,000.00 APC $ 10,000.00
Topographical Mapping $ 40,000.00 $ 10,000.00 APC $ 50,000.00
Feasibility Analysis $ 16,000.00 $ 4,000.00 APC $ 20,000.00
Conceptual Design $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 APC $ 25,000.00
TOTALS $ 386,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $486,000.00
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 102,400.00 $ 25,600.00 APC $128,000.00
Travel & Per Diem $ 6,400.00 $ 1,600.00 APC $ 8,000.00
Equipment $ $ $ -
Materials & Supplies $ $ $ -
Contractual Services $ 277,200.00 $ 72,800.00 APC $350,000.00
Construction Services $ $ $ -
Other $ $ $ -
TOTALS $ 386,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $486,000.00
Milestone or Task TOTALS
Budget Categories:
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 49 7/8/14
Cash match to be provided $ 100,000
In-kind match to be provided $ NA
Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $ 486,000
3.2.5 Total Project Costs
Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use actual
costs for completed phases.
1. Reconnaissance $ 5,000
2. Feasibility and Conceptual Design $ 486,000
3. Final Design and Permitting $ 400,000
4. Construction $ 15,000,000
Total Project Costs (sum of above) $ 15,891,000
3.2.6 Operating and Maintenance Costs $75,000
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.
NA
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. AEA model estimates $91,607.85
2. Hours diesel OFF/year: 4,380
3. $75,000
3.3 Project Communications
Criteria: Stage 2-1.C: The applicant’s communications plan, including monitoring and reporting, is
described in adequate detail.
Describe how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
APC is willing to utilize any reasonable communication, monitoring, and reporting methodology
which may be preferred by the AEA. Some suggestions based on typical practices and past
experience follow below.
Communications:
APC will designate a Project Manager to coordinate communications with the AEA in a timely
manner which is responsive to the AEA’s needs.
Reporting and Monitoring:
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 49 7/8/14
APC will adhere to AEA quarterly reporting requirements, and will make itself available on a
continual basis to address any additional needs, concerns, or requests for information from the AEA.
We suggest utilizing a series of key project milestones to help monitor progress and key deliverables.
As a regulated private utility with a 58 year history in Alaska, APC and its parent company AP&T
have been the recipient of numerous State and Federal grants, are accustomed to fulfilling all agency
requirements in a timely manner, and performs requirements on an ongoing basis. APC/AP&T has
extensive State-wide experience in successful partnership, application of grant funds, communication,
and reporting in association with the Alaska Energy Authority. APC/AP&T maintains a capable and
experienced staff with diverse skill sets well suited to performing all management, accounting,
administrative, and other requirements.
At the completion of the project, APC will provide the AEA with a copy of all reports, deliverables,
and data developed through State of Alaska investment.
3.4 Operational Logistics
Criteria: Stage 2-1.D: Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and maintaining
the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and
described in adequate detail.
Describe the anticipated logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and
maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project.
Logistical Arrangements:
The Clearwater Creek hydropower project will be operated by APC, primarily through automation.
The project’s powerhouse will be located adjoining the existing highway, allowing for easy access
for scheduled maintenance, and any emergencies. Access roads will allow personnel to access the
project’s other facilities as may be needed.
Business Arrangements:
APC will utilize clean hydropower produced by the Clearwater Creek project as an alternative to
diesel generation in their existing operations.
Financial Arrangements:
APC will utilize clean hydropower produced by the Clearwater Creek project as an alternative to
diesel generation in their existing operations.
SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
4.1 Project Team
Criteria: Stage 2-2.A: The Applicant, partners, and/or contractors have sufficient knowledge and
experience to successfully complete and operate the project. If the applicant has not yet chosen a
contractor to complete the work, qualifications and experience points will be based on the applicant’s
capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex contracts.
Criteria: Stage 2-2.B: The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully
complete and operate the project.
Criteria: Stage 2-2.C: The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and
environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation.
Criteria: Stage 2-2.D: The project team has positive past grant experience.
4.1.1 Project Manager
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 49 7/8/14
Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, and a
resume. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would
like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project
manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects
project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Project Management Team:
Robert Grimm – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
President & CEO
360-385-1733 x 120
Bob.g@aptalaska.com
Jason Custer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Business Development Director
907-225-1950 x 33
Jason.c@aptalaska.com
Greg Mickelson – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Project Manager
907-755-4822
greg.m@aptalaska.com
Vern Neitzer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Engineer
Vern.n@aptalaska.com
907-983-2202
Larry Coupe – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Civil Engineer
Larry.c@aptalaska.com
360-385-1733 x155
Bob Berreth – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Electrical Engineer
Bob.b@aptalaska.com
360-385-1733 x 123
Glen Martin – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Co-Grant Writer
360-385-1733 x 122
Glen.M@aptalaska.com
Christine Overly – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Accountant – Grant Administrator
360-385-1733 x137
Christine.o@aptalaska.com
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 49 7/8/14
Additional APC senior engineers and project managers can be used as needed to assist with
management and execution of the project.
4.1.2 Expertise and Resources
Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors. Provide sufficient detail
for reviewers to evaluate:
• the extent to which the team has sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully
complete and operate the project;
• whether the project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete
and operate the project;
• how well the project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and
environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation.
If contractors have not been selected to complete the work, provide reviewers with sufficient detail
to understand the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex
contracts. Include brief resumes for known key personnel and contractors as an attachment to your
application. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant
would like those excluded from the web posting of this application
The extent to which the team has sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete
and operate the project: AP&T/APC will manage the grant, and project. AP&T’s existing staff
and engineers are responsible for the design, construction, and completion of four small low-impact
hydropower projects (Black Bear Lake, Goat Lake, South Fork, Kasidaya Creek), and own and
operate a total of 7 hydropower projects (the aforementioned, plus Falls Creek, Dewey Lakes, and
Lutak Hydro). AP&T’s engineers have worked on scores of small hydropower and other utility
projects for prior employers. AP&T/APC staff resources include highly competent civil, mechanical,
and electrical engineers; permitting specialists; certified linemen; economists and financial
specialists; grant managers and administrators; project managers; and more. AP&T is accustomed to
contracting for additional specialized skillsets and workforce capability as may be needed. APC is
economically regulated by the RCA, and is operated in accordance with all associated laws,
regulations, and requirements.
The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate
the project: AP&T/APC attests that it has adequate resources to successfully complete and operate
the project. As a private utility, AP&T is very careful not to undertake projects which cannot be
completed, or are otherwise wasteful of resources.
The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental
barriers to successful project completion and operation: As discussed above, AP&T/APC
specializes in small hydropower development and diesel/hydropower hybrid systems, and has proven
successful and competent in designing, constructing, owning, and operating numerous small
hydropower projects in Alaska’s challenging conditions. Small hydropower is a core competency of
our business.
Key Personnel and Contractors:
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 49 7/8/14
APC’s personnel will conduct all Phase II engineering work and will utilize contractors for the
environmental studies in Phase II. Resumes of key personnel are enclosed.
• Site visit by engineering team (AP&T / APC)
• Consultation with agencies (AP&T / APC)
• Topographic mapping of the project site (Aerometric – Anchorage)
• Stream gauge installation and maintenance (APC)
• Fish Surveys (Fisheye Consulting – Anchorage)
• TES Botanical Survey (HDR – Anchorage)
• Wetland Delineation Survey (HDR – Anchorage)
• Wildlife Assessment (HDR – Anchorage)
• Cultural Resource Survey
• Feasibility Analysis (APC)
• Conceptual Design (APC)
AP&T/APC Project Team:
Robert Grimm – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
President & CEO
360-385-1733 x 120
Bob.g@aptalaska.com
Jason Custer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Business Development Director
907-225-1950 x 33
Jason.c@aptalaska.com
Greg Mickelson – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Project Manager
907-755-4822
greg.m@aptalaska.com
Vern Neitzer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Engineer
Vern.n@aptalaska.com
907-983-2202
Larry Coupe – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Civil Engineer
Larry.c@aptalaska.com
360-385-1733 x155
Bob Berreth – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Electrical Engineer
Bob.b@aptalaska.com
360-385-1733 x 123
Glen Martin – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Co-Grant Writer
360-385-1733 x 122
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 49 7/8/14
Glen.M@aptalaska.com
Christine Overly – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Accountant – Grant Administrator
360-385-1733 x137
Christine.o@aptalaska.com
4.1.3 Project Accountant(s)
Indicate who will be performing the accounting of this project for the grantee and include a resume.
In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those
excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant
indicate how you intend to solicit financial accounting support.
AP&T’s utility finance department will perform project accounting tasks under the leadership of
CFO Chad Haggar.
Chad Haggar, CPA, CFO – Lead Accountant
Christine Overly – Accountant
RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL ATTACHED.
4.1.4 Financial Accounting System
Describe the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and
necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that no
expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement from the
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
APC is economically regulated by the RCA, and as such, is accustomed to carefully controlling,
documenting, and monitoring costs of its business operations to assure that costs do not exceed what
is reasonable, ordinary, necessary, and allowable. APC will exercise this same high standard of care
in its performance of project accounting, management, and financial oversight tasks for the
Clearwater Creek project. As a recipient of numerous State and Federal grants, AP&T/APC is well
aware that unallowable expenses will not be recoverable via grants, and thus will become expenses
of AP&T – this strongly motivates AP&T to avoid unallowable expenses.
AP&T/APC has been involved in numerous AEA REF-funded projects, and is accustomed to
following AEA specifications regarding allowable expenses, and working on projects under close
oversight by the AEA. Typically, allowable expenses and any restrictions are clearly defined by the
AEA in advance of project activities. As activities are completed, allowable expenses are submitted
to the AEA for reimbursement. The AEA reviews all expenses to ensure that they are necessary and
appropriate, and that unallowable expenses are not included. The AEA then reimburses the expenses,
deducting any unallowable costs which may have been inadvertently included. APC is glad to follow
this process, or any other reasonable process which the AEA may prefer.
4.2 Local Workforce
Criteria: Stage 2-2.E: The project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce.
Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 49 7/8/14
The majority of technical skills required for Phase II activities proposed for funding are not available
in the Tok region. APC will utilize its existing workforce, and also seek technical assistance from
specialists, prioritizing use of Alaska-based contractors whenever possible.
Local workforce will be utilized more extensively during construction phases of the project. AP&T
anticipates it would serve as the construction contractor using its incumbent workforce, which is
predominantly located in Alaska. AP&T has power linemen, engineers, accounting and bookkeeping,
and project management personnel located at AP&T’s service center in Tok, with additional staff
capacity throughout the state of Alaska. If additional workforce or experience is needed, AP&T will
follow its standard practice of drawing from its labor pool of personnel throughout its Alaska service
areas, and/or will hire additional contractors, focusing on Alaska-based entities whenever feasible.
The reality is that rural communities such as Tok often lack some of the specialized skills which are
required for renewable energy development tasks. In situations where “shop local” is not a viable
option, Yerrick Creek construction contractor AP&T has a standard practice of looking for in-State
specialists in nearby communities. Tok is a 3.5 hour drive from Fairbanks, and a 7 hour drive from
Anchorage, making access to larger Alaskan talent pools feasible and affordable.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 49 7/8/14
SECTION 5 – TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
5.1 Resource Availability
Criteria: Stage 2-3.A: The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project
permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained.
5.1.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average
resource availability on an annual basis. Describe the pros and cons of your proposed energy
resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. For
pre-construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting
or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting
documents (if applicable) as attachments to this application.
Potential Extent/Amount of Resource
Initial reconnaissance studies indicate that Clearwater Creek project would supply approximately 3.4
GWh annually to Tok and surrounding interconnected communities (Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot
Lake), which are currently 100% dependent upon diesel-fired generation of electricity.
Reconnaissance information can be provided to the AEA upon request.
Amount of Energy Available, and Pros and Cons of Project:
The 1 MW Clearwater Creek hydropower project has the estimated potential to provide 3,400,000
average annual kilowatt hours (akWh) of affordable, renewable energy to Tok and surrounding
communities (Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake), which are currently 100% dependent upon diesel-
fired generation, which produces energy costs of $0.45 / kWh (before PCE).3 These communities are
currently served by Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone
(AP&T). This project is located entirely on lands owned by the State of Alaska, and received a FERC
non-jurisdictional determination in 2012, eliminating the need for a more expensive and time-
consuming FERC licensing process.
The project will eliminate use of 242,857 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year operating life,
avoiding a total of 12.1m gallons of diesel fuel over its initial 50 year period of operations. The
project would help replace approximately 36% of the region’s diesel-fired generation of electricity
with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact source, helping to support the State of
Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025.
The AEA’s econometric workbook specifies a B/C ratio of 1.86, $27.8m in NPV benefits, and a NPV
net benefit of $13.7m
AEA Econometric Workbook Outputs:
3 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 49 7/8/14
Note: Period of analysis for the above calculations is 50 years. However, hydropower projects have
a useful life of over 100 years, which would effectively double these numbers.
APC is also working to complete the Yerrick Creek hydropower project, and has prioritized Yerrick
Creek project for completion and commissioning in 2017. Clearwater Creek would serve as the
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 49 7/8/14
subsequent increment of hydro for the Tok region, which would help further reduce the cost of energy,
and provide energy needed for continued economic growth within the Tok community.
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become
connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-
fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization
subsidization savings.
PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh;
if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with
approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.
Lowers Energy Costs. It is estimated that the project will be able to produce clean energy for less
than the cost of diesel-fired generation of electricity. Over time, annual savings will increase as the
cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over stable hydropower pricing.
Stabilizes Energy Costs Long Term. The project will stabilize local energy costs by reducing
dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalate faster than the rate of
inflation. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low compared to those
associated with diesel-fired generation.
Long Project Lifespan with Additional Cost-Savings Available Beyond Capital Cost
Repayment – The project has an estimated useful life of over 50 years. Properly constructed
hydropower sites can provide over 100+ years of reliable service. (For example, APC’s Dewey Lakes
hydropower project has been operating continuously for 113 years.) After the financing period is
complete and capital costs are paid off, the cost of maintaining and operating a hydropower project
drops to very low levels.
Diesel Fuel Displacement Benefit. The project will displace approximately 36% of the region’s
diesel-fired generation of electricity with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact
source. The project will eliminate use of 242,857 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year
operating life, avoiding a total of 12.1m gallons of diesel fuel during the project’s first 50 years of
operations. The project displaces 2,465 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, avoiding 98,068
metric tons of carbon dioxide over the project’s initial 50-year period of operation. This is equivalent
to approximately $10.4m in Social Cost of Carbon savings. (Calculated using the average of all four
federal calculation methodologies specified by the US Interagency Working Group for Social Cost of
Carbon, as required for US EO 12866 review.) Hydropower projects have 100-year lifespans, which
means that total savings will be twice that displayed above (or higher, depending on future SCC
valuations).
Supports State Renewable Energy Policy Goals. By supplanting diesel-fired generation with clean,
renewable hydropower, the project will help to support the State of Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable
energy by 2025.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 24 of 49 7/8/14
No Difficulties with Power Sales Agreements – The project is being proposed by APC, the
incumbent utility, as a self-build project. This eliminates uncertainty regarding the possibility of
achieving a power purchase agreement with the incumbent utility.
Avoids Costly, Time-Consuming Federal Permitting Requirements. The project is located on
State lands and has received a non-jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), making it possible to develop this low-impact hydropower project in a timely
fashion without undergoing lengthy federal permitting processes through FERC.
Benefits Communities which are Still 100% Diesel Dependent. The project will benefit the
interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot
Lake. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok and surrounding communities of the upper Tanana
region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel-fired generation to an energy
mix including renewables. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.45 kWh pricing
for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.24 per eligible kilowatt hour.
Potential to Extend Benefit to Additional Communities -- If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid
becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit from the presence of the
Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway
Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. All of these communities
are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently
available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average
PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour.
Generates Significant Power Cost Equalization Savings for the State of Alaska. PCE statistics
indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio
holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with
approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.
A Reasonable Increment of Hydropower. Economic viability of many hydropower projects in
Alaska is challenged by the difficulty of matching the utility’s incremental load growth to the size of
locally available hydropower resources; this produces the frequently occurring situation in which a
portion of a project’s power and energy from a new hydropower project cannot be sold during initial
years of operation. Clearwater Creek is a small increment of power and energy, which APC
anticipates can be integrated within the regional utility system without these types of challenges to
economic and financial feasibility.
Experienced Hydropower Developer. APC has significant experience developing, owning, and
operating low impact hydropower projects, currently owning 7 hydropower projects: Dewey Lakes,
Lutak, Black Bear Lake, Goat Lake, South Fork, Kasidaya Creek, and Falls Creek. APC has
developed 4 new hydropower projects in Alaska in the last 20 years, with a 5th hydropower project
(Reynolds Creek) currently entering final construction. APC has over 50 years of experience as a
private sector Alaskan business engaged in ownership, development, and reliable operation of
hydropower projects. AP&T / APC have assisted a number of other Alaskan utilities with
hydropower and energy development projects on a contractual basis.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 25 of 49 7/8/14
Support for State of Alaska Resource Development and Economic Development Policy. The
upper Tanana region is challenged by high energy costs, which limit economic development and
employment opportunities. While businesses are actively pursuing new value-adding opportunities
within the forest products sector and are conducting mining exploration activities, commercial
feasibility of these resource-driven opportunities is limited by high local energy costs. The current
situation creates constraints to realizing State of Alaska’s Natural Resource Policy, as defined in
Article 8 Section 1 of the State of Alaska Constitution, which is as follows: “It is the policy of the
State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them
available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.”
Responds to Governor Walker’s Administrative Order 272 by addressing the Consumer
Energy Crisis in Interior Alaska. Tok is a prime example of a community which faces the
consumer energy crisis articulated by Governor Walker in Administrative Order 272.4 With some
support from the State of Alaska, the Clearwater project can leverage private sector expertise and
capital to make an important stride in addressing Alaska’s interior energy crisis.
Existing Investment and Activity to Date. During the initial reconnaissance phase, APC spent
$5,000 for site inspection, one-time stream gaging for a benchmark, and filing of a FERC Non-
Jurisdictional Determination in 2012. APC also performed a review of existing studies, reports, and
literature, and conducted preliminary reconnaissance-level financial and economic analysis.
Willing Private Sector Investor. Alaska Power & Telephone is very interested in participating as
an equity investor in the project, and is committing to develop and implement an economically and
financially feasible financing package. After economically and financially feasible loan terms can be
negotiated, APC would be in the position to make a final financial commitment to the project.
Disadvantage – Large Capital Expenditure Requirement. The major drawback of hydropower
projects is that they are extremely capital intensive. While hydropower projects have very long useful
lifespans (50+ or even 100+ years), commercial financing is typically available for a 30 year period
at most. Clearwater Creek is a relatively small increment of new hydropower (1 MW), which helps
reduce the total capital expenditure required.
Ease of Integration – Hydropower can be readily incorporated alongside diesel-fired generation
within a small utility system, with minimum integration concerns. APC believes that Clearwater
Creek would complement the Yerrick Creek hydropower project – another small hydropower project
which is currently scheduled for construction and completion in advance of Clearwater Creek.
Discussion of Energy Technology Alternatives in the Tok Region.
APC’s “Technology-Neutral” Approach for Lowering Energy Costs for Ratepayers:
APC utilizes a “technology neutral” approach, and considers all possible technologies which may
produce clean, reliable energy at a lower rate for the benefit of the ratepayers. While APC considers
solar, wind, river hydrokinetic, hydropower, biomass, and alternative fuels, the company ultimately
focuses on the opportunities which meet the criteria of providing ratepayers with the most affordable,
4 Administrative Order 272. http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker_media/documents/20150116-administrative-order-272.pdf
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 26 of 49 7/8/14
reliable, and low-risk clean energy possible. After studying a wide variety of options, APC has
identified low impact hydropower options such as Clearwater Creek and Yerrick Creek as the
renewable energy options offering the best value to ratepayers within the Tok and upper Tanana
region.
Solar: Challenged by Intermittency – Solar power is an intermittent resource
which is only available when the sun is shining in sufficient quantity to produce
useable energy and power. Solar is not yet competitive with diesel-fired generation
in the Tok and Upper Tanana region; part of the reason for this is that even in the
presence of solar, dispatchable generation sources such as diesel power plants are still
needed to supply power to fully serve the local load at times when the sun is not
shining – for example, at night, during times of cloud-cover, and during the interior’s
long winters when hours of sunshine are scarce. Diesel power plants must still be
staffed, maintained, and operated – and so while installation of solar panels may
eliminate purchase of some diesel-fired generation, it does not reduce these “fixed
costs” incurred by the utility and its ratepayers. While storage and load-shaping
technology is available to help to mitigate intermittency, these technologies are not
yet commercially competitive versus the cost of diesel-fired generation.
There are also limits to the amount of intermittent resources which can be integrated
into a small, insular system before significant transmission line and other upgrades
are necessary to preserve system stability.
The article below, published by the Economist, looks at the costs of “intermittency,”
which are oftentimes not reflected in levelized energy costs or comparisons of solar
power versus other generation alternatives.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-
solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
Despite these challenges, APC is investigating new opportunities and business
models for deployment of solar in APC service regions. While solar deployment
may be economically feasible in future years as technology advances and diesel
costs continue to rise, the economics of the Clearwater Creek hydropower
project are currently estimated to be more attractive. Activities proposed for
funding through the REF Round VIII program should help provide more
information regarding the cost of hydropower from Clearwater vs. solar.
Wind: Challenged by Intermittency – Like solar, wind is an intermittent resource
which requires availability of dispatchable back-up from thermal or hydropower plant
sources, and can present significant integration challenges / expenses to small, insular
grid systems. APC is studying opportunities for wind deployment and integration in its
service regions – however, the economics of the Clearwater Creek hydropower
project are currently estimated to be more attractive. Activities proposed for
funding through the REF Round IX program should help provide more information
regarding the cost of hydropower from Clearwater vs. wind.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 27 of 49 7/8/14
Biomass CHP: Challenged by Lack of Viable Market for Heat, and Fuel Supply
Risks – With the support of State funding, APC has studied the opportunity for a
commercial-scale biomass CHP power plant in the Tok and Upper Tanana region.
While studies found that biomass-fired generation of electricity is feasible,
hydropower projects such as Yerrick Creek and Clearwater Creek appear more
economically attractive than a biomass CHP plant, and offer a better value to
the Tok and upper Tanana region’s ratepayers, with significantly less risk. The
business case for biomass could be improved upon if a market can be found for the
heat produced by a CHP biomass power plant; however, no viable markets currently
exist. Other risks and challenges to biomass implementation in the Tok region
include securing a long-term timber supply which assures financially feasible
operations for a period coinciding with project financing, and obtaining assurances
of sufficient fuel quality. It would be necessary to find a supplier with the willingness
and financial means to commit to a long-term supply agreement which addresses
liquidated damages in the event that fuel of agreed-upon quality is not delivered in a
timely manner. Another consideration is fuel cost escalation that could occur over
time as nearby biomass is exhausted, creating a need to obtain fuel supply from
locations further away, at a higher cost of transportation.
LNG: Currently Challenged by Supply Availability, Economies of Scale, and
Technology Issues – While APC has investigated LNG options, an economically
viable business model for small-scale LNG has not yet been identified. Challenges
include lack of currently available supply, significant transportation/logistics
challenges, and lack of commercially viable and cost-competitive technology for
LNG storage and powerplants in a service area as small as Tok. Emissions from
natural-gas fired generation are lower than those from diesel-fired generation,
however, they are still considerably higher than emissions from hydropower
generation. APC remains strongly interested in LNG as a fuel alternative that can
eventually substantially replace diesel-powered generation in its energy generation
portfolio.
Diesel: A Costly and Unsustainable Energy Source – Tok and the upper Tanana
region are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. This energy source
is very costly, with pricing escalating faster than inflation due to the rising price of
petroleum – a volatile commodity sensitive to a wide variety of supply risks and
political factors. The high cost of diesel-fired generation places financial pressure on
rural communities, businesses, and schools, forcing migration to other regions with a
more affordable cost of living and doing business. Diesel fuel expenditures are made
outside of the community Tok, resulting in ongoing financial leakage and attrition.
Diesel-fired generation also has high environmental costs, producing a significant
level of emissions and carbon, and carrying risks of fuel spills. Continued 100%
dependency on diesel-fired generation is not a sustainable way of life for
residents of the Tok and upper Tanana region. Residents in this service area have
been increasingly outspoken about the unsustainability of continued 100% reliance
on diesel-fired generation. However, diesel-fired generation does present advantages
in terms of dependability, dispatchability, and the ability to quickly respond to and
match load requirements. It is likely that diesel-fired generation will maintain some
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 28 of 49 7/8/14
presence within the Tok region’s energy mix until a commercially viable and
financially feasible thermal generation alternative becomes available.
Other Hydropower Options – Yerrick Creek
APC and its partners Tanacross Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross are also
working to complete the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. APC has prioritized
Yerrick Creek project for completion and commissioning in 2017, which means that
Yerrick Creek would be operational in advance of Clearwater Creek. Clearwater
Creek would serve as a subsequent increment of hydro for the Tok region, which
would help further reduce the cost of energy, and provide energy needed for continued
economic growth within the Tok community. The two projects would be
complimentary (not redundant) components of a future renewable-dominated Tok
regional utility grid.
APC believes it is timely to advance our understanding of the Clearwater Creek
hydropower project as the Yerrick Creek project proceeds through construction, so
that Clearwater can be developed subsequently, in a timely manner, to further increase
ratepayer and PCE savings.
5.1.2 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
• List of applicable permits
• Anticipated permitting timeline
• Identify and describe potential barriers
The following permits will be necessary to construct this project:
• State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) – Land permit
• ADNR – Water Use Permit – won’t be issued until after operations begin
• State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game – Habitat Permit (is likely but not sure yet)
• ADNR – State Historical Preservation Office – Review of data and will provide a
determination of impacts or not.
• State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation – 401 Water Quality
Certification
• U.S. Army Corp of Engineers – 404 Certification (Nation Wide or Individual Permit)
Anticipated permitting timeline: Permitting activities would not be completed until Phase III,
subsequent to the Phase II activities proposed within the scope of this grant application.
Potential barriers: In this region, weather is the single greatest potential barrier to accomplishing
any tasks in this part of Alaska. No barriers to permitting anticipated.
5.2 Project Site
Criteria: Stage 2-3.B: A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 29 of 49 7/8/14
Describe the availability of the site and its suitability for the proposed energy system. Identify
potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how
you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
This project’s features will be located entirely on lands owned by the State of Alaska. The project is
located in both the Tanana State Forest and the Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, both of
which are within the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Nearby native allotments can be
avoided.
Description of Project Features: The proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of a
1.0 MW generating system that will provide hydroelectric power to the isolated Tok-region grid
system; currently 100% reliant upon diesel generation. Project features will include a small diversion
structure; approximately 20,000 feet of penstock; and a powerhouse that will house one Turgo turbine
and associated generator and switchgear equipment.
Diversion Structure – A small diversion structure approximately 300 feet long by 10 feet high that
will be rock fill with a concrete spillway and intake. The diversion will have a water surface at
approximately 2550 feet above MSL. The intake will convey water from the diversion structure pond
through a penstock to the powerhouse.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 30 of 49 7/8/14
Penstock – The 24-inch-diameter ductile iron penstock will be buried a distance of approximately
20,000 feet to the powerhouse, at elevation 2050 feet.
Powerhouse – The 30-foot by 50-foot powerhouse will contain one 1,000 KW Turgo turbine unit
and associated generator and switchgear equipment, designed for 500 feet gross head and a hydraulic
capacity of 35 cfs.
Tailrace – An open tailrace channel will transport the turbine discharge back into Clearwater Creek
for a distance of approximately 400 feet.
Substation – A small substation to change the voltage to 34.5 kV will be located adjacent to the
powerhouse.
Access Road – An existing 0.5 mile road into the Clearwater Campground will be used in addition
to an additional 0.5 mile to the powerhouse and 4 miles to the diversion structure. Current design
includes two bridges crossing the creek.
Transmission Line – The transmission line will follow the access road out to the highway a distance
of 1.0 miles and will be buried in this stretch. At the highway, the transmission line will be place on
single wood pole structures of 45-55 feet in height. The transmission line will travel north to the Tok
grid; a distance of approximately 14 miles. The Tok grid is owned and operated by APC, and is
within APC’s certificated service area.
5.3 Project Risk
Criteria: Stage 2-3.C: Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
5.3.1 Technical Risk
Describe potential technical risks and how you would address them.
APC currently owns and operates 7 hydropower projects in Alaska, with an 8th (Reynolds Creek)
scheduled for near-term construction. APC believes that its experience designing, constructing, and
operating similar small hydropower projects in Alaska; its longstanding vendor, technical service,
supply chain relationships and industry knowledge; and its incumbent project development resources
will help minimize risks and control costs. APC has a strong understanding of risks through
development/construction experience, as well as an understanding of the processes involved in
creating a durable hydropower asset capable of 50+ years of reliable, safe operation. APC / AP&T
have also assisted other utilities with hydropower development activities on a contractual basis.
Activities currently proposed for AEA REF Round IX funding support will include pre-development
activities which assist in identifying and mitigating risks.
Typical risks of developing a hydropower project in the Tok region which may apply to Clearwater
are described below.
Inclement Weather – Working conditions in Alaska’s interior can be very harsh during the winter.
The proposed construction schedule assumes little/no work at the project site during winter months.
If it appears likely that a harsh winter would occur and extend for an unusually long time period, APC
and its contractor(s) can consider options such as double-shift work during long summer days, or
completing limited work during winter months.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 31 of 49 7/8/14
Cost-Overrun – APC believes that its experience constructing similar small hydropower projects in
Alaska and its mature supply chain relationships shall minimize cost-overrun risks, and inform
determination of a reasonable contingency margin.
Environmental Opposition – No environmental opposition to the project is known. However, there
is significant environmental opposition to continued diesel-fired generation in the Tok region, which
will be addressed through development of the project.
Risks of Non-Development – Failing to develop the renewable energy assets due to lack of interest
or support by the State of Alaska and others will leave the residents of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and
Dot Lake dependent on a significant amount of diesel-fired generation of electricity. If diesel-
dependency persists, these communities can expect exacerbated socioeconomic distress, continued
lack of economic opportunity, long term job loss, continued population outmigration, and the inability
to respond to emerging commercial opportunities and support new economic development.
Private Sector Investment Helps Mitigate Risks – Alaska Power & Telephone subsidiary APC will
be undertaking development of the project. In addition to providing cash match to predevelopment
activities, AP&T anticipates investing substantially in construction of the project. Because private
sector businesses are motivated by the ability to earn a profit, as well as the adverse financial impacts
of cost-overruns or project failure, AP&T – as an active investor – will be strongly motivated to
mitigate risks, and assure the project is a success.
5.3.2 Environmental Risk
Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
• Threatened or endangered species
• Habitat issues
• Wetlands and other protected areas
• Archaeological and historical resources
• Land development constraints
• Telecommunications interference
• Aviation considerations
• Visual, aesthetics impacts
• Identify and describe other potential barriers
TES: APC will consult with USF&WS as to what concerns they may have in regards to avian and
terrestrial species. The project is small, and should be able to avoid any concerns.
Habitat: Fish habitat assessment will occur during this grant funded project phase (Phase II). Other
species habitat will also be evaluated by the project biologist during field studies.
Wetlands: Field studies will be carried out in support of development of a wetland determination.
Archaeological / Historical: An archaeologist will be hired to conduct an initial literature review,
and further evaluation as needed or required by SHPO. The historic “Eagle Trail” passes through the
project’s access road in the area of the state campground. Further review will occur during this grant
funded phase.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 32 of 49 7/8/14
Land Development Constraints: The state campground could potentially produce constraints; this
will be determined as part of proposed Phase II activities.
Telecommunications: This project will not affect telecommunications, but could enhance telephone
service at a later date if the distribution line to Tok is installed.
Aviation: Nothing in this grant funded phase will affect aviation. In the construction and operation
phase, the distribution line along the highway will generally be 45-55 feet tall, similar in height to
trees along the highway. For this reason, if the project is constructed there should be no obstruction
from the project to aviation. In addition, the project stops well short of an abandoned airport just
south of downtown Tok.
Visual: During this phase of grant funded effort, no visual impacts should occur. The powerhouse
and access road from the construction phase could have some visual impact to the campground, but
it is too early to know at this time when project design is only conceptual, at best. If necessary, the
distribution line could be buried along the access road out to the highway to minimize visual impacts.
5.4 Existing and Proposed Energy System
Criteria: Stage 2-3.D: The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as
planned.
5.4.1 Basic Configuration of Existing Energy System
Describe the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
The Tok powerplant includes five diesel gensets:
Unit #3 = CAT Model D3516, 1320 kW, Purchased / Installed 1999
Unit #4 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1989
Unit #5 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1995
Unit #8 = CAT/KATO Model D3508, 440 kW, Purchased / Installed 1985
Unit #9 = CAT/KATO Model 3512C, 1050 kW, Purchased / Installed 2008
Overall efficiency is 14.45 kWh per gallon of diesel.5 No heat recovery due to distance from potential
beneficiaries.
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit from the presence of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if
Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will
benefit from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100%
dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.70
5Source:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 33 of 49 7/8/14
/ kwh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt.6
Fuel efficiency in these communities is 11.17 kWh / gallon.7
Chistochina 1 110 kW John Deere model 6068TF250
Chistochina 2 110 kW John Deere model 6068TF250
Northway 1 330 kW Caterpillar model 3412
Northway 2 300 kW Caterpillar model 3456
Northway 3 400 kW Caterpillar model 3456
Slana 1 150 kW John Deere model 6081TA
Slana 2 110 kW John Deere model 6068TF250
Slana 3 127 kW John Deere model 6081AF001
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 8 grid, leave this section blank) – SEE
ABOVE
i. Number of generators/boilers/other
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
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 $0.19 / kwh non-fuel cost (labor and non-labor)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $0.19 / kwh non-fuel cost (labor and non-labor)
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] 9,499,440 kWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 637,326
Other
iii. Peak Load 2.2 MW
iv. Average Load 1.1 MW
v. Minimum Load 0.5 MW
vi. Efficiency 30%
6 Source:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf
7 Source
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/PCE/Documents/FY14PCEStatisticalRptByComtAmended.pdf
8 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 15003 Page 34 of 49 7/8/14
vii. Future trends Transition to non-diesel sources, increased distributed generation
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
5.4.2 Future Trends
Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community over the life of the project.
Near-term Trends:
In recent years, the Tok service region experienced decreased per kWh sales as consumers made
energy efficiency (EE) improvements; this created upward pressure on rates due to the fact that fixed
costs must be spread across a reduced levels of sales. We believe that consumers have largely
maximized possible EE improvements, halting the downward demand trend attributable to EE
improvements.
We anticipate increased distributed generation (DG), motivated by trends of rising diesel fuel prices,
and/or consumer concern with environmental and climate impacts associated with fossil fuels.
Development of intermittent renewables via DG projects does not allow the utility to retire diesel
plant capacity, as this capacity is still required to meet electrical needs when intermittent renewables
are not available (ex: winter, when solar power is not possible). Thus, DG will have an impact similar
to EE, reducing the total volume of sales across which fixed-costs are spread, and putting upward
pressure on rates. Development of utility scale renewables (ex: Clearwater Creek) would help
mitigate this phenomena by satisfying consumer demand for renewables.
If the Tok region remains reliant upon diesel-based generation, rising diesel costs could force
increasing numbers of residents to migrate to railbelt communities with lower energy costs.
Long-Term Trends:
We anticipate that as diesel prices rise long-term, conversion to renewables is inevitable.
Natural resource development may eventually create an economic “boom” period in the region. (Ex:
Tetlin Mine.) This would support future population growth and community sustainability.
Transmission interconnections to CVEA and/or GVEA may eventually become feasible, allowing for
sharing of clean energy assets, and development of renewables with larger economies of scale.
If the Tok region remains reliant upon diesel-based generation, rising diesel costs could force
increasing numbers of residents to migrate to railbelt communities with lower energy costs.
5.4.3 Impact on Rates
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit area
over the life of the project. For PCE eligible communities, please describe the expected impact would
be for both pre and post PCE.
The RCA will Require that the Project Reduces Electrical Rates
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 35 of 49 7/8/14
AP&T subsidiary Alaska Power Company – the incumbent utility for the Tok interconnected region
– is economically regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). The RCA will not
provide authorization for a new energy generation project which produces power which is more costly
than the business-as-usual (BAU) case of diesel-generation, or otherwise creates increased hardship
for the public. APC would not want to worsen the BAU case, which is already tremendously
challenging. The RCA will thoroughly investigate the Clearwater Creek project’s financial and
economic qualities to ensure that it is in the best interest of the public.
As an economically regulated utility, APC will not be permitted to charge in excess of revenue
requirements; a function of allowable expenses plus regulated return on ratebase. APC will not be
able to determine its own rates; rates will be determined by the RCA in accordance with laws,
regulations, and requirements governing private sector electrical utilities. The formula is as follows:
[Expenses] + [Regulated Return on Ratebase] = [Revenue Requirement]
[Return on Ratebase] = [Net Plant x Regulated Rate of Return] + [Recoverable Taxes]
The Clearwater Creek project is in an early development stage and still requires significantly more
analysis which will help determine financial and economic feasibility. Based on preliminary
reconnaissance activities, APC anticipates utilizing a combination of grants and low interest loans to
make the Clearwater Creek economically and financially viable, and to help ensure that it is capable
of providing power at lower than the cost of diesel fuel, and receiving RCA approvals.
Impact on PCE
State PCE statistics indicate the 37.4% of total kWh sold in the Tok region in FY14 are PCE-eligible
kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings,
with approximately 62.6% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.
5.4.4 Proposed System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
• Optimum installed capacity
• Anticipated capacity factor
• Anticipated annual generation
• Anticipated barriers
• Integration plan
• Delivery methods
Renewable Energy Technology: Run-of-river hydropower.
Optimum Installed Capacity: 1.0 MW
Anticipated Annual Generation: 3,400,000 average annual kilowatt hours.
Capacity Factor: 40%
Integration Concept: The Clearwater Creek hydropower project will be integrated within the
incumbent Alaska Power Company utility system as an alternative to current diesel-fired generation.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 36 of 49 7/8/14
The project will supplant 3,400,000 average annual kilowatt hours of diesel-fired generation, or
approximately 36% of the Tok region’s load.
Description of Project Features: The proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of a
1.0 MW generating system that will provide hydroelectric power to the isolated APC grid around
Tok; currently 100% reliant upon diesel generation. The project will have a small diversion structure,
approximately 20,000 feet of penstock, and a powerhouse that will house one Turgo turbine and
associated generator and switchgear equipment.
Diversion Structure – A small diversion structure approximately 300 feet long by 10 feet high that
will be rock fill with a concrete spillway and intake. The diversion will have a water surface at
approximately 2550 feet above MSL. The intake will convey water from the diversion structure pond
through a penstock to the powerhouse.
Penstock – The 24-inch-diameter ductile iron penstock will be buried a distance of approximately
20,000 feet to the powerhouse, at elevation 2050 feet.
Powerhouse – The 30-foot by 50-foot powerhouse will contain one 1,000 kW Turgo generating unit
with 500 feet gross head and a hydraulic capacity of 35 cfs.
Tailrace – An open tailrace channel will transport the turbine discharge back into Clearwater Creek
for a distance of approximately 400 feet.
Substation – A small substation to change the voltage to 34.5 KV will be located adjacent to the
powerhouse.
Access Road – An existing 0.5 mile road into the Clearwater Campground will be used in addition
to an additional 0.5 mile to the powerhouse and 4 miles to the diversion structure. Current design
includes two bridges crossing the creek.
Transmission Line – The transmission line will follow the access road out to the highway, a distance
of 1.0 miles and will be buried in this stretch. At the highway, the transmission line will be place on
single wood pole structures of 45-55 feet in height. The transmission line will travel north to the Tok
grid, a distance of approximately 14 miles. The Tok grid is owned and operated by APC and is within
APC’s certificated service area.
This project will be a step toward energy independence for this remote area that is geographically
isolated and 100% reliant upon diesel generation for its electrical needs. This project will help to
avoid the high costs and emissions associated with diesel generation.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 37 of 49 7/8/14
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PROJECT LAYOUT
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind,
Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
1 MW
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 3,400,000 kWh
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] NA
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] NA
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
NA
iv. Other
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 38 of 49 7/8/14
d) i. Estimate number of hours renewable
will allow powerhouse to turn diesel engines
off (fill in as applicable)
720
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.
Clearwater Creek’s project design and construction budget includes a SCADA system, which will
track and generate reliable data on energy usage from the project. This data can be supplied to the
State of Alaska. APC is required to report on details of operations in order to comply with PCE
eligibility and RCA requirements – this will include energy acquired from Clearwater Creek. This
information can be supplied to the AEA.
If the AEA has an additional metering requirements, or preferences for monitoring project use, APC
would be glad to accommodate these requests.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 39 of 49 7/8/14
SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS
6.1 Economic Feasibility
Criteria: Stage 2-4.A: The project is shown to be economically feasible (net positive savings in fuel,
operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the life of the proposed project).
6.1.1 Economic Benefit
Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of
Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following:
• Anticipated annual and lifetime fuel displacement (gallons and dollars)
• Anticipated annual and lifetime revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement
price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate)
• Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits)
• Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or
programs that might be available)
The economic model used by AEA is available at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Programs/Renewable-Energy-Fund/Rounds#round9. This
economic model may be used by applicants but is not required. The final benefit/cost ratio used will
be derived from the AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants. If used, please submit
the model with the application.
The AEA’s econometric workbook specifies a B/C ratio of 1.86, $27.8m in NPV benefits, and a NPV
net benefit of $13.7m
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 40 of 49 7/8/14
6.1.2 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 41 of 49 7/8/14
Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price range.
Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project.
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
Self-build project. APC will own and operate the project, and utilize it as a source of power for its
ratepayers in the Tok region.
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
APC is subject to economic regulation by the RCA. As an economically regulated utility, APC will
not be permitted to charge in excess of revenue requirements; a function of allowable expenses plus
regulated return on ratebase. The RCA and applicable laws and regulations – not APC – will
determine the price of energy produced by Clearwater Creek.
[Expenses] + [Regulated Return on Rate Base] = [Revenue Requirement]
[Return on Ratebase] = [Net Plant x Regulated Rate of Return] + [Recoverable Taxes]
The RCA will not provide approvals for the project unless it is capable of delivering energy at a
cost lower than the cost of diesel fuel. We estimate an inception rate of $0.20-$0.25 per kWh,
which drops to near-zero levels as private investment is recovered over time through depreciation of
net plant.
The cost of power produced by the project will depend upon: 1) level of grant funding available; 2)
level of private equity (“net plant”) involved in the project; and 3) low interest loan terms and
conditions.
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
The RCA does not allow economically regulated utilities to earn a profit on grants, or to collect
depreciation expenses on grants. Thus, APC will not earn any “profit” on any grant funds invested
in the Clearwater Creek hydropower project, and there will be no “rate of return” from the grant-
funded portion of the project.
APC will only earn a regulated return on private equity (net plant). The RCA, not APC, determines
the allowable regulated return. APC anticipates its regulated return would be approximately 12.8%,
consistent with its usual return on private equity. This return can only be fully achieved if APC
carefully controls and minimizes expenses; any costs in excess of what are reasonable and
necessary are deducted from “profits,” consistent with RCA requirements.
6.1.3 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
For projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines,
etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the
project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the
Request for Applications for more information.
NA
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 42 of 49 7/8/14
Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) NA
Estimated sales (kWh) NA
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) NA
Estimated sales (kWh) NA
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) NA
6.2 Financing Plan
Criteria: Stage 2-4.B: The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded
phase and has considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project.
6.2.1 Additional Funds
Identify the source and amount of all additional funds needed to complete the work in the phase(s)
for which REF funding is being applied in this application. Indicate whether these funds are secured
or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that the timing of additional funds would
have on the ability to proceed with the grant.
6.2.2 Financing opportunities/limitations
If the proposed project includes final design or construction phases, what are your opportunities
and/or limitations to fund this project with a loan, bonds, or other financing options?
NA – Phase II activities only.
6.2.3 Cost Overruns
Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding.
AP&T and its subsidiary APC are accustomed to carefully managing project costs to avoid cost
overruns, and funding shortfalls.
Because AP&T’s private capital is at risk, the company is strongly motivated to avoid these situations.
AP&T has a very strong history of responsible budgeting, and cost-control on utility sector projects.
AP&T believes its construction cost estimate includes responsible and realistic contingency and cost-
escalation margins.
6.2.4 Subsequent Phases
If subsequent phases are required beyond the phases being applied for in this application, describe
the anticipated sources of funding and the likelihood of receipt of those funds.
APC anticipates completion of the project using a combination of private investment, and state or
federal funding support (grants or low interest loans). APC recognizes that the current grant-making
climate is particularly challenging, especially for the State of Alaska, and anticipates that the project’s
financing package may be predominantly composed of private equity and loan funding. APC would
seek to use the Power Project Fund, or a similar low interest loan funding source, to help keep energy
pricing as low as possible.
Clearwater Creek Hydro Budget
AEA APC
Phase Grant Funds Matching Funds Total
I – Reconnaissance (1) $0 $5,000 $5,000
II – Feasibility/Conceptual Design $386,000 $100,000 $486,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 43 of 49 7/8/14
III - Design and Permitting $320,000 $80,000 $400,000
IV – Construction $4,000,000 $11,000,000 (2) $15,000,000
Total $4,706,000 $11,185,000 $15,891,000
(1) AP&T conducted site reconnaissance activities
in 2012
(2) Would include low-interest loans
6.3 Other Public Benefit
Criteria: Stage 3-4.C: Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Avoided costs alone will
not be presumed to be in the best interest of the public.
Describe the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project. For the
purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered
unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased
greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category.
Some examples of other public benefits include:
• The project will result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, pipes, power lines, etc.) that
can be used for other purposes
• The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.)
• The project will solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.)
• The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of
the state
• The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the
community
Transmission Extension
The Clearwater Creek project would bring APC’s existing transmission system in Tok 14 miles closer
to the Mentasta/Chistochina/Slana transmission system, bringing these two isolated grid systems
nearer to eventual interconnection for increased operational efficiency.
The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the
community.
High energy costs make it very difficult to operate an economically viable rural business. This is
certainly true in the Tok region, where energy costs are $0.45 per kWh. Meanwhile, the high cost of
energy in interior Alaska, described in Governor Walker’s Administrative Order No. 272, forces
many rural Alaskans to leave their communities and traditional villages for other communities which
have lower energy costs.9 Typically, communities lose their most highly skilled workers first, as
skilled workers tend to have the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) and financial means to locate
new employment and transfer to a new region. This combination of factors leaves rural communities
with limited economic opportunities, and a limited workforce with constricted skillsets. Young
people tend to leave early, seeking to relocate to communities where they can raise families as
prosperous adults. This leads to a “graying” of the local workforce, and creates a situation where
transfer and succession of many critical skills, roles, functions within the rural communities may not
be possible in the future.
9 Administrative Order 272. http://gov.alaska.gov/Walker_media/documents/20150116-administrative-order-272.pdf
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 44 of 49 7/8/14
Clearwater Creek will produce significant energy cost-savings long term. This will create new
economic opportunities, and promote long-term economic development and employment for the Tok
interconnected region.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 45 of 49 7/8/14
SECTION 7 – SUSTAINABILITY
Describe your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable throughout its
economic life.
Include at a minimum:
• Capability of the Applicant to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to
provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project
• Is the Applicant current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal agencies?
• Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project
• Likelihood of a sufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project
• Capability of the Applicant to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and
financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project
AP&T’s subsidiary APC will operate and maintain the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. AP&T
was founded in 1957, and since that time, has provided reliable and affordable utility service,
including operation of hydropower projects. Today, the company operates in 40 Alaska communities.
AP&T owns and operates 7 hydropower projects – Dewey Lakes, Lutak, Goat Lake, Black Bear Lake,
South Fork, Kasidaya Creek, and Falls Creek, and will soon be completing an 8th project at Reynolds
Creek. AP&T’s subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the RCA, and operate according to all
standard utility practices and requirements.
• Is the Applicant current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal
agencies?
APC is current on all loans and required reporting to state and federal agencies.
• Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project
Properly constructed, operated, and maintained hydropower assets are capable of over 100 years of
useful service. AP&T’s Dewey Lakes project was recently recognized by HydroWorld for being in
service continuously since 1902 (113 years).
• Likelihood of a sufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project
The project is a self-build project which APC will use to provide energy in its existing certificated
service areas as an alternative to diesel generation of electricity.
SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS
Describe what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Specifically address your progress towards or readiness to begin, at a minimum, the following:
• The phase(s) that must be completed prior to beginning the phase(s) proposed in this application
• The phase(s) proposed in this application
• Obtaining all necessary permits
• Securing land access and use for the project
• Procuring all necessary equipment and materials
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 46 of 49 7/8/14
APC has completed Phase I reconnaissance activities, and is prepared to initiate Phase II activities
immediately upon execution of a grant agreement with the AEA, consistent with the timeline
provided in Section 3.1 above.
SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Describe local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters,
resolutions, or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from
this project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July
8, 2015.
There is significant local support for development and integration of renewable resources.
There is significant community opposition to continued reliance upon diesel-fired generation.
SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS
Identify other grants that may have been previously awarded to the Applicant by the Authority for this
or any other project. Describe the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous
grants including project deadlines, reporting, and information requests.
APC has a long history of collaborating successfully with the AEA to complete grant-funded projects
benefitting our ratepayers, and the State of Alaska. APC has remained current on all project deadlines,
reporting, and information requests.
Recent grant-funded projects have included:
Kasidaya Creek
Chistochina-Mentasta-Slana Line Extension
Tok Wind Recon
South Fork Hydro
Haines 5-10 Mile Line Extension
Lutak Line Extension
Kasaan Broadband
South Thorn Bay Electrification
Tetlin Intertie
Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project
North Prince of Wales Intertie (Coffman Cove / Naukati)
Reynolds Creek Hydropower Project
Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project
Schubee Lake Hydro Recon
Connelly Lake Hydro Recon
Carlson Hydro Recon
Neck Lake Hydro Recon
Eagle River Hydrokinetic
Tok Organic Rankine Cycle Unit
Tok Biomass Feasibility Analysis
Eagle Solar Installation
SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES
Renewable Energy Fund Round IX
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 47 of 49 7/8/14
In the space below please provide a list additional documents attached to support completion of prior
phases.
Phase I Activities already completed:
• Applied for and received FERC jurisdictional determination [no FERC license needed]
• Numerous site visits to collect spot stream flow data
• Evaluation of area property owners via checking available information on web.
SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION
In the space below please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration.
NA
APPENDICES
Governing Body Resolution
Certification
Figures
FERC Non-Jurisdictional Determination
Letters of Support
Resumes
Permitting
Photos
GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
CERTIFICATION
FIGURES
FERC NON-JURISDICTION DETERMINATION
140 FERC ¶ 62,091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Alaska Power & Telephone Company Docket No. DI12-4-000
ORDER FINDING LICENSING NOT REQUIRED
(July 31, 2012)
1. On March 29, 2012, Alaska Power & Telephone Company (APT) filed a
Declaration of Intention (DI) concerning the proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
(project), which will be located on Clearwater Creek, near the town of Tok, Alaska, at
T. 16 N., R. 11 E., secs. 1, 2, 3, and 12; T. 16 N., R. 12 E., secs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, and
18; T. 17 R. 12 E., secs. 14, 23, 26, and 35, Copper River Meridian.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2. The proposed run-of-river Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of: (1) an
approximately 300–foot-long, 10-foot-high rock-filled and concrete diversion structure
on Clearwater Creek diverting water into a 20,000-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter ductile
iron buried penstock; (2) a proposed 30-foot wide, 50-foot-long powerhouse, containing a
1,000-kW Turgo generating unit and electrical generating equipment; (3) an open, 400-
foot-long tailrace from the powerhouse to Clearwater Creek; (4) a 14-mile-long
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The power will be used by local
communities.
PUBLIC NOTICE
3. Notice of the DI was published on April 3, 2012. Protests, comments, and/or
motions to intervene were to be filed by May 3, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG), State of Alaska, filed a motion to intervene, but had no
comments relating to the jurisdictional status of the proposed project. The DFG
commented that it has identified a number of fish and wildlife resource concerns, but
these concerns were not related to the jurisdictional determination, and would be sent to
APT separately. No other protests, comments, or motions to intervene have been
received.
Docket No. DI12-4-000 - 2 -
JURISDICTION
4. Pursuant to Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 817(1),
a non-federal hydroelectric project must (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal
permit) be licensed if it:
is located on a navigable water of the United States;
occupies lands of the United States;
utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause
jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935,
and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.
DISCUSSION
5. Based on available information it does not appear that the proposed project would
be located on a navigable water of the United States. It will not occupy any public lands
or reservations of the United States, and will not use surplus water or waterpower from a
Federal government dam. The proposed project would be constructed after August 26,
1935, and would use water from a Commerce Clause stream,1 but would not affect
interstate commerce because it would not be connected to the interstate grid. Therefore,
the project does not require licensing under Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA.
CONCLUSION
6. Consequently, Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA does not require licensing of the
proposed Clearwater Creek H ydro Project. If evidence sufficient to require licensing is
found in the future, section 23(b)(1) would require licensing. Under section 4(g) of the
FPA, the project owner could then be required to apply for a license.
The Director orders:
(A) Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act does not require licensing of the
proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project. This order is issued without prejudice to any
future determination upon new or additional evidence that licensing is required.
1 For purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), Commerce Clause streams are the
headwaters and tributaries of navigable waters of the United States. See FPC v. Union
Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90, 94-96 (1965). Clearwater Creek is tributary to the Tok River,
which is tributary to the Tanana and Yukon Rivers.
Docket No. DI12-4-000 - 3 -
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request
for rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in
section 313(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2006), and the Commission’s regulations at
18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2012). The filing of a request for rehearing does not operate as a
stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this order. The
licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this order.
Charles K. Cover, P.E.
Chief, Project Review Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
(blank on purpose)
March 29, 2012
Kimberly D. Bose
Office of Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
Petition for Declaratory Order
Dear Ms. Bose:
We respectfully submit this e-filing of the following Declaration of Intent and Petition for
Declaratory order that the Clearwater Creek Hydro Project is not under the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission’s jurisdiction. The Applicant believes, after reviewing
Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act, that none of the criteria in Section 23(b) is met
by this project. Therefore, this project should not be under the Commission’s
jurisdiction.
Respectfully Submitted,
Glen D. Martin
Project Manager
(360) 385-1733 x122
(360) 385-7538 fax
Enc. (as stated)
ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY
DECLARATION OF INTENT
FOR THE
CLEARWATER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
Submitted to:
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
MARCH 2012
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 2
DECLARATION OF INTENT
The location of the project:
State: Alaska
Town: N/A
Street: N/A
County: (Alaska does not have counties)
Census Tract: Census Tract 1, Southeast Fairbanks Census Area,
Alaska
Stream: Clearwater Creek
River Basin Name: Tok River
Township, Range, and Meridian: T16N, R11E, CRM & T16N, R12E, CRM
Applicant Info:
Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T), an Alaska Corporation
193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-1733 x122
(360) 385-7538 FAX
glen.m@aptalaska.com
Local Electric Utility Company:
Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T), an Alaska Corporation
P.O. Box 207
Tok, AK 99780-0207
(907) 883-5101
(360) 883-5815 FAX
john.h@aptalaska.com
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document is a declaration of intent to develop a 1.0 MW hydropower project
at Clearwater Creek approximately 16 miles south of Tok in South Central
Alaska, as in Figure 1. The Project is located within the Copper River Meridian
(CRM), the Township of T16N, the Range of R11E, and the Sections 1, 2, and
12, and CRM, T16N, R12E, Sections 7, 17, and 18 as shown in Figure 1. The
Project will utilize the natural flows in Clearwater Creek. The creek has an
estimated drainage area of approximately 26.7 SQMI at the point of the proposed
diversion structure.
The proposed project is located on lands not owned by the United States and is
on a non-navigable stream. The project will provide hydroelectric power to an
area solely reliant upon diesel generation. The area grid this project would
intertie with is operated by the Applicant. The communities to be served would
be Tok, Dot Lake, Healy Lake, Dry Creek, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Northway.
These communities are on an ‘isolated’ grid, owned and operated by the
Applicant; currently fed by 100% diesel generation. The distance to intertie with
the Tok grid would be approximately 14 miles north. Transmission poles (single
wood structures) would be place within the right-of-way (ROW) of the Glenn
Highway. Land ownership is primarily state land including the highway ROW.
There would be no interconnection to an interstate power grid, as none exists.
AP&T, an Alaska Corporation, further petitions the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for a Declaratory order that the proposed Clearwater Creek
Hydropower Project is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Applicant has
reviewed Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to determine whether the
project falls within the stated jurisdictional criteria and believe that none of the
four stated jurisdictional criteria are met by the Clearwater Creek Project.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTlON
The proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of a 1.0 MW
generating system that will provide hydroelectric power to the isolated AP&T grid
around Tok; currently 100% reliant upon diesel generation. The project will have
a small diversion structure, approximately 20,000 feet of penstock and a
powerhouse that will house one Turgo generating unit.
Diversion Structure – A small diversion structure approximately 300 feet long
by 10 feet high that will be rock fill with a concrete spillway and intake. The
diversion will have a water surface at approximately 2550 feet above MSL. The
intake will convey water from the diversion structure pond through a penstock to
the powerhouse.
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 4
Penstock – The 24-inch-diameter ductile iron penstock will be buried a distance
of approximately 20,000 feet to the powerhouse, at elevation 2050 feet.
Powerhouse – The 30-foot by 50-foot powerhouse will contain one 1,000 kW
Turgo generating unit with 500 feet gross head and a hydraulic capacity of 35
cfs.
Tailrace – An open tailrace channel will transport the turbine discharge back into
Clearwater Creek for a distance of approximately 400 feet.
Substation – A small substation to change the voltage to 34.5 kV will be placed
adjacent to the powerhouse.
Access Road – An existing 0.5 mile road into the Clearwater Campground will
be used in addition to an additional 0.5 mile to the powerhouse and 4 miles to the
diversion structure. Current design includes two bridges crossing the creek.
Transmission Line – The transmission line will follow the access road out to the
highway, a distance of 1.0 miles and will be buried in this stretch. At the
highway, the transmission line will be place on single wood pole structures of 45-
55 feet in height. The transmission line will travel north to the Tok grid, a
distance of approximately 14 miles. The Tok grid is owned and operated by the
Applicant and is within the Applicant’s certificated service area.
This project will be a step toward energy independence for this remote area that
is geographically isolated and is reliant upon fossil fuel for its energy needs. This
project will help to avoid the related costs and air quality emissions associated
with diesel generation.
The Project would typically be automatically operated and run-of-river.
2. JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS
Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act would require licensing of the
project only if:
a. It is located on a “Navigable Water” of the United States:
b. It occupies lands of the United States:
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 5
c. It utilizes surplus water or water power from a government dam;
d. There was a “post-1935 construction” at the project and the
project affected the interest of interstate commerce.
The petitioner’s project does not meet any of these criteria, as discussed below:
a. Navigability
Clearwater Creek is a small mountain stream emanating from the Alaska
Range dropping from approximately 5,100 feet above MSL to the Tok
River at 1,850 feet MSL over a distance of about 12 miles (averaging
about 270 feet elevation change per mile).
The photo below of this creek, although snow covered, shows a narrow
channel that is boulder strewn. The width of the creek after spring flood
has a range between 6-12 feet, depending on the location. Down by the
campground it is about 12 feet wide. The creek channel consists of a
gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. Water depths are generally less
than one foot except during flood periods in the late spring and early
summer.
Figure 1: Photo of Clearwater Creek looking downstream
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 6
Clearwater Creek is not considered navigable for any portion of its length.
b. Land Status
The proposed project is located on State of Alaska land; a combination of
State Forest and Dept of Transportation (DOT) ROW. No portion of the
project is on Federal land.
Figure 2: Glenn Highway (Tok Cutoff) north of Clearwater Creek.
Photo courtesy of Google Earth.
The photo above shows the shoulder of the highway in which the wood
pole structures for the transmission line would be placed. Land along the
highway is primarily state land with some private lands outside the DOT
ROW, including a few Native allotments; please see Figure 3 and Figure
3a.
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 7
As shown in Figure 3: Land Management, the project diversion and
penstock are on state land. The powerhouse is placed on the west side of
the creek to stay on state land, avoiding the Native allotments on the
opposite side of the creek. The project will construct a short access road
from the powerhouse to meet up with the state campground access road
and place a buried transmission line along this route out to the Glenn
Highway (a.k.a. Tok Cutoff). The transmission line is then above ground
to the community of Tok to the north. The overhead transmission line will
consist of single wood pole structures that will be within the DOT ROW.
Three Native allotments are found up in Sections 35 and 26 that will be
avoided by staying within the highway ROW. It should be noted that we
are avoiding the Native allotments because working with BIA is time
consuming and thus expensive; we do not believe that Native allotments
are federal lands and thus not lands of the United States because of the
BIA Trust relationship with individuals. However, we would appreciate the
Commissions input on whether this is true.
In Figure 3a, the project transmission line is shown meeting the existing
Tok power grid, a 7.2 kV distribution line, in Section 14. The Tok
distribution line is scheduled to be upgraded to 34.5 kV in the next few
years. Only state lands (ADOT) are utilized along this portion of the
projects transmission line.
As shown, no federal lands are encountered within the project boundary.
c. Surplus Water from Government Dam
There are no government (Federal or State) dams near or above the
project, nor will the project use water from a government dam.
d. Affect on Interstate Commerce
The Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric Project will generate and sell power to
APC (Alaska Power Company; a subsidiary of the Applicant) which
supplies power to communities around Tok on the Alaska Highway. The
project will not be connected to any interstate power grid, because none
exists. The project, having no storage and not being on a navigable
stream will have no effect on shipping or interstate commerce in any form.
The project is within the applicant’s present certificated service area.
Clearwater Creek is not cataloged as an anadromous stream and would
have its discharge reenter the creek
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 8
above the state campground, well above the Tok River which is listed as
an anadromous stream (334-40-11000-2490-3660; CO present).
3. CONCLUSION
In AP&T’s review of the applicable jurisdictional criteria found in Section 23(b) of
the Federal Power Act, there was no evidence found that the Clearwater Creek
Project meets any one of these criteria. AP&T therefore requests that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issue a Declaratory order finding that
the project falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and does not require a
license or permit under the Federal Power Act.
The facts presented herein are true to the best knowledge of the Applicant.
Sincerely,
Director Permitting & Licensing
Enc. (as stated)
(blank on purpose)
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
August 28, 2015
Sara Fisher-Goad
Executive Director AEA
Dear Sara,
It has been many years since I was a voting member of the Alaska Senate, however when it comes to resolving
Tok’s energy costs it truly seems like yesterday all over again.
We remain off the Rail-belt grid and any other major grid for that matter. Fossil fuel costs continue to close our
businesses. Seniors have to choose between food on the table, heat in their stoves and keeping a few lights on.
I saw the Four Dam Pool set aside fund (rail-belt energy fund) squandered on pet political projects while here we
sit at the junction of 2 of the main entrance highways into the state and our little grocery store paying $30,000.00
dollars a month for electricity.
Our success with biomass in our school was not initiated by AEA, but supported as the project was pushed locally. I
mention this because my friends and neighbors are a can do and positive bunch of folks who will not accept no for
an answer.
We need the Yerrick Creek project. We need long term energy costs that will stabilize and can be predicted over
time. Our businesses are small and the only way they can be carried on by the next generation is with reasonable
power costs.
I respectfully ask your assistance in getting this small in-stream hydro into play. Our utility has a long history in this
area of expertise. Now that the political pieces are in place with Tanacross and have the green light we need AEA’s
assistance.
Both Senator Bishop, and Representative Talerico support this project as does our Chamber. It is a perfect fit with
biomass in the winter when Joe Young’s project comes on line which he has funding for and is moving ahead with.
Governor Walker liked what he saw in Tok and it never hurts to score a project in areas he has an interest in.
If this letter seems a bit more personal than professional, please excuse me. We all go back a ways in the process
and I knew you would not expect a political letter from me.
Thank you for hearing me out and thank you for supporting the Tok School Projects. Let’s expand that success and
all know we did the right thing with our resources designate for worthy projects.
Sincerely,
Dick Shultz
Tok Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 389
Tok, Alaska 99780
907-883-5775 P
907-883-5773 F
John A. Rusyniak, President
907-883-3124 H, 907-505-0305 C john@rusyniak.com
August 27, 2015
Ms. Sara Fisher-Goad
Executive Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Ms. Goad;
We as a Chamber of Commerce are sure you are well aware of the
accomplishments in alternative energy solutions that have been achieved in Tok.
The level of cooperation and the assistance from the Alaska Energy Authority has
made such positive strides possible for our School District.
Now it is time to add to the mix support for our community as a whole in
replacing fossil fuel generation with hydro through the Yerrick Creek project.
With a new and exciting degree of cooperation involving the Tanacross
Community and Corporation along with our utility AP&T the efforts and
investments of the past in this project may now come to fruition.
APA’s support to keep this project moving forward is supported by our
Chamber and our Legislative Delegation as well as our former Senator Dick
Shultz. Governor Walker too has seen the type of progress that often occurs on
APA’s project list but has too seldom achieved the goals needed to justify
expenditure of State revenue, especially during such lean times in the budget
process.
We encourage you to move forward with the completion of Yerrick Creek and
demonstrating that I willing and united communities the high costs of energy can
be mitigated through clean energy solution.
We stand ready to support AEA in this endeavor. The future of a healthy
community through commerce depends upon it.
Sincerely,
John Rusyniak / Tok Chamber President
August 27, 2015
Sara Fisher-Goad
Executive Director /Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Ms. Fisher-Goad,
Young’s Timber is a vibrant and growing company adding to its portfolio value added forest products in
the Upper Tanana region of our state.
Critical to the continued progress in creating jobs and using our forest resources for economic
expansion, are long term, affordable, and stable power rates.
To achieve this we must move away from the volatility and erratic cycles of fossil fuel in the production
of power. Two sources of such sustainable and affordable energy are now possible in Tok. The first is
small hydro through Yerrick Creek. The second is biomass if and when heat production and sales
become part of the overall generation plan.
Our operation at Young’s Timber is critical to both as we use very large amounts of power and will have
as waste enough biomass to convert to the electrical energy and heat we and the community need.
First and foremost we need your support for Yerrick Creek as it is key for the summer months especially
in completing the energy challenges in our area.
We urge you to see the accomplishment and high support we have in our area to build upon by
supporting and funding the Yerrick Creek project.
I hope to see you in Juneau this year as I continue to update the legislature on our progress.
Sincerely
Joe Young
President of Young’s Timber Inc.
PERMITTING
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DIVISION OF SPORT FISH
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
Research and Technical Services
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
PHONE: (907) 267-2312
FAX: (907) 267-2422
May 4, 2011
Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street
Washington D.C. 20426
Subject: DI12-4-000 Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric
Dear Ms. Bose:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the request for a Non-Jurisdictional Determination
filed with the Commission by Alaska Power and Telephone (APT).
After discussions with ADF&G staff with management authority over fish and wildlife
resources, habitat issues and departmental permitting, ADF&G will make no comment on the
request for Non-Jurisdictional Determination.
A number of fish and wildlife resource concerns have been identified but are not nexus to the
request made by APT and will be sent to APT separately.
Thank You for the opportunity to review this project request.
Sincerely,
Monte Miller
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fish/RTS
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
907 267-2312
monte.miller@alaska.gov
E Copy: Glen Martin, AP&T
Henry Ecton, FERC, Washington D.C.
Jim Durst, ADF&G Habitat Division, Fairbanks
William Morris, ADF&G Habitat Division, Fairbanks
Joseph Klein, ADF&G Sport Fish Division/RTS, Anchorage
Bonnie Borba, ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division, Fairbanks
Audra Brase, ADF&G Sport Fish Division, Fairbanks
Brandy Baker, ADF&G Sport Fish Division, Delta Junction
Torsten Bentzen, ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, Fairbanks
Marla Carter, ADF&G Sport Fish Division, Anchorage
PHOTOS