HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFRound8_KingCove_Application_09-22-2014g
'A S.K A
3380 C Street, Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
907-274-7563
September 19,2OL4
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
Attn: Shawn Calfa
RE: Renewable Energy Fund Round #8 Application
Dear Mr. Calfa and Review Panel:
The City of King Cove respectfully submits the enclosed application for grant funds in the
amount of 51,800,000 through the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. Our application
requests assistance with the construction of the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project. We
estimate that our construction phase total cost will be 55,461,000.
The City, with continued assistance of HDR Engineering, our project designer, have put our best
efforts into thls grant application using the information contained in the project's final design
plans and specifications and final contract bid package. Together, we are looking forward to the
construction of this project, which will connect to our existing Delta Creek hydro facilities and
further stabilize the cost of energy in King Cove into the future. Our next step is to be ready to
award the general construction contract in early 2AL5, so that we can have Waterfall Creek,
serving our community, online by December 2015.
Additionally, there is one other comment the City wishes to submit. We could not identify an
appropriate place to address this in the application, so determined it appropriate to include in
this letter. Our concern is with the "Cost of Energy'' scoring criterion in Stage 3 of the
application. The 35-point weight for this criterion continues to be unfavorable to King Cove
because our current cost of energy is relatively low, because of the City's investment into our
existing Delta Creek hydro facility.
The City was forward thinking about renewable energy in the early 199d-s and aggressively and
successfully constructed our Delta Creek hydro facility. We have benefited with low cost of
renewable energy during the plant's 2O-year operations, and this benefit will continue into the
future. AEA was very supportive of our efforts to construct the Delta Creek project at that time.
However, because of our current affordable residential energy cost of $.a0 per kWh, we simply
don't score very well on this evaluation criterion, the most heavily weighted scoring criteria.
Because of this, we would like to request that AEA consider the following items when
evaluating our application :
1) About 5O% of our current total power generation comes from our dieset system, which
costs us about so.+s to s0.48 kwh to generate;
2l The other 5O% of our power generation comes from our Delta Creek hydro facility,
which costs us about SO.fS to SO.tg kWh to generate;
3) The Delta Creek hydro project is already close to capacity, particularly in the late
spring/summer/early fallseasons when electrical demands are high; and
4l Waterfall Creek hydro project will supplement these strong demand seasons, as well as
provide additional power on the shoulder seasons, and in total is expected to "displace"
up to 700,000 kWh's of diesel-generated electricity for the city system.
For these reasons the City requests that AEA use the cost of diesel generated power, 50.45 to
50.+A kwh, in the "Cost of Energy'' scoring criterion in Stage 3 of the application, since those
costs are what will replace with the construction of the Waterfall Creek hydro project. The City
respectfully believes this better compares our application to our peer communities.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions.
City Administrator
''-ts":'
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND VIII
GRANT APPLICATION
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
City of King Cove
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 27 7/2/14
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of King Cove
Type of Entity: Municipality Fiscal Year End: June 30
Tax ID # 92-6001247
Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: September 2013
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
3380 C Street same
Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: 274-7555 Fax: 276-7569 Email: ghennigh@kingcoveak.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name: Title:
Gary Hennigh City Administrator
Mailing Address:
3380 C Street
Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: Fax: Email:
274-7555 276-7569 ghennigh@kingcoveak.org
1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Bonnie Folz 274-7555 276-7569 bfolz@kingcoveak.org
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 27 7/2/14
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
☐ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or
☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
☒ A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. (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 VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 27 7/2/14
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
This section is intended to be no more than a 2-3 page overview of your project.
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project in the subsections below.
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, 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.
The project will be located on a small creek located approximately 5 miles north of downtown King
Cove. This creek is adjacent to and west of an existing hydroelectric project on Delta Creek that
was constructed in 1995. The creek has a noticeable waterfall that is visible from the Delta Creek
hydroelectric powerhouse. (Delta Creek Valley; King Cove, Alaska; 55.069129 -162.313385)
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The residents, small businesses, and major seafood processing plant in City of King Cove will
benefit from this project.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
☒ Hydro, Including Run of River ☐ Hydrokinetic
☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy
☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable
☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting
☐ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☒ Construction
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 27 7/2/14
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project.
The Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project will result in a modest, run-of-the-river hydroelectric
facility using Waterfall Creek and consisting of a concrete diversion/intake structure, 4,500 feet
HDPE penstock pipeline, 16 feet by 40 feet metal powerhouse on a concrete slab, Pelton Impulse
Turbine and induction generator, remote-automatic control system, and 5,000 feet access road.
This facility will be a working partner to the City’s existing and highly successful Delta Creek
hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last eighteen years. It will produce 1
megawatt (MW) of electricity.
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced
fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.)
The public benefits and financial savings which will accrue upon completion of this project are both
immediately significant and profound in their ramifications over the life of the Waterfall Creek
project.
Waterfall Creek is projected to displace approximately 77,000 gallons of diesel fuel that would
otherwise have to be purchased and consumed annually. This represents approximately 1 MW of
electrical power, year after year, from a clean, renewable resource.
The estimated annual savings of 77,000 gallons of diesel fuel is $317,240 at the current price of
$4.12/gallon. Of this amount, 54,000 gallons of diesel will be displaced by Waterfall Creek in the
City’s system. The other 23,000 gallons of diesel will be displaced in Peter Pan Seafood’s (PPSF)
power generation system and replaced with the purchase of renewable energy from the City.
PPSF, one of the largest seafood processors in the state, operates the largest “wild” salmon
processing facility in the state in King Cove. PPSF’s plant expansion has been limited by the lack
of additional power available to the plant. PPSF has been continuously interested in purchasing
any amount of the City-generated “surplus power” from the Delta Creek hydro facility and/or the
proposed Waterfall Creek hydro facility. Unfortunately, the available power from Delta Creek in the
past has not been enough to seriously warrant a power sales agreement.
However, from both hydro sources, the City anticipates being able to sell PPSF at least 600,000
kWh of power at a cost of $0.18/kWh. Of this amount, 300,000 kWh is anticipated from Waterfall
Creek and 300,000 kWh from Delta Creek. This additional annual revenue is estimated to be
$108,000.
The City’s initial revenue basis for the cost of “surplus power” at $0.18/kWh has been developed
using the same cost methodology used in a number of recoverable heat sales agreement the City
has with a number of government & tribal organizations. A 60% factor of the city’s current electric
cost of $.30/kWh (i.e. 60% of $0.30/kWh = $0.18/kWh) has been proposed to PPSF.
The City is not specifically focused on lowering the price of doing business for PPSF; however, it is
a good economic development strategy, particularly in these hard-hit commercial fishing years, to
offer the lowest reasonable cost to PPSF for power. However, with additional power PPSF may be
able to expand its business which is good for its work force (more hours of work and/or more
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 27 7/2/14
workers hired) and fishermen (more fish will be purchased and/or the catch will be diversified) and,
in turn, could result in increased fish taxes to the cit and state.
The City savings of $317,240 from displaced fuel, combined with the PPSF revenue of $108,000
for surplus power, will total $425,240.
The City’s expected annual net revenue increase to its electrical utility fund is estimated to be
$120,000. This amount has been estimated by subtracting the anticipated, annual debt service
from the “savings” of displaced fuel costs. This amount will increase by about $10,000 for every 5%
increase in the cost of diesel fuel. It is reasonable to assume the annual fuel cost savings with
Waterfall Creek will reach $200,000 within the next 5-7 years.
This additional revenue should ensure the City is able to maintain its current $0.30/kWh rate and
position the community to offset any future, reasonable PCE program reductions.
The Waterfall Creek project also offers a redundancy for Delta Creek. If, or when, repairs or
maintenance requires Delta Creek operations to go off line, Waterfall Creek could provide power at
significantly lower costs than switching entirely to the diesel generators.
This project has significant public health benefits. The estimated annual 77,000 gallons of diesel
fuel which will be replaced by renewable energy from the Waterfall Creek translates into more than
600 metric tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions. Cleaner air will benefit all the residents of
King Cove. Other environmental benefits include the potential for reduced fuel spills and
contamination, since less fuel would be transported into the community.
With the addition of Waterfall Creek, the City expects to derive 70% to 75% of its total, annual
demand for electrical power from renewable sources in its own backyard by 2017. Consequently,
King Cove will be able to mitigate the increasing cost of diesel fuel and make significant progress
towards a sustainable energy future.
It should also be noted that the costs of repairing and replacing fuel storage infrastructure will be
reduced with this project, although the actual saving is not easily measurable.
Please see Section 5 of this application for additional benefits.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and
source of other contributions to the project.
The total project cost for the construction phase of the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project in King
Cove is $5,461,000 of which $1,800,000 is requested in grant funds from AEA. HDR Alaska’s
engineers recently reviewed their previous construction cost estimate, refined it, and compared it to
the current construction costs of the Gartina Falls hydro project for IPEC in Hoonah, which is being
predominantly funded through AEA. The same cadre of HDR engineers that are working on the
Gartina Falls construction, presently underway, are the same individuals working on Waterfall
Creek. This current experience, contemporary cost information, and knowledge has given the
HDR engineers confidence to reduce their previous higher cost estimates for Waterfall Creek.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 27 7/2/14
The remainder of the $3,661,000 in construction funds will come from two sources. First, the City’s
Renewable Energy Fund Round VI funding of $2,600,000 will be used. Second, the City will fund
the remaining $1,061,000 in construction costs using a combination of cash and loan funds. The
City has already approved and has the capacity to spend up to $2,000,000 (includes past and
future project expenses). Cash for this project is $500,000 and the City may borrow, and is
capable of repaying up to $1,500,000 in loan funds for this project, if necessary, but hopes to limit
its loan amount to $561,000.
This total construction cost does not include previous project expenditures: $400,000 for Design
and Permitting ($200,000 AEA and $200,000 City of King Cove); and $533,000 Turbine and
Generator Purchase (City of King Cove).
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Costs for the Current Phase Covered by this Grant
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $ 1,800,000
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided ($500,000 cash; $561,000 loan) $ 1,061,000
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided (REF Round 6) $ 2,600,000
2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4)
$5,461,000
Other items for consideration
2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved $
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 27 7/2/14
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.7 Total Project Cost
Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section 4.4.4, including
estimates through construction.
$ 5,461,000
2.7.8 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not
covered by the project but required for the Grant
Only applicable to construction phase projects
$ 0 (already in place at Delta
Creek Hydro)
2.7.9 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)
The economic model used by AEA is available at
www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. This
economic model may be used by applicants but is not
required. Other economic models developed by the
applicant may be used, however the final benefit/cost
ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to ensure
a level playing field for all applicants.
$ 8.6 million (NPV)
2.7.10 Other Public Benefit
If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please
provide that number here and explain how you
calculated that number in Section 5 below.
$108,000 Annual revenue
from PPSF to be applied to
loan repayment
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume
and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate
PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the
applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management
support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government
entity, state that in this section.
The City of King Cove will manage this project with assistance from HDR Alaska, Inc. The City has
all administrative and accounting systems necessary for a successful construction project, as
proven by successful large construction projects and with past audit reports. HDR will provide on-
site construction management.
Project Manager will be Gary Hennigh. Mr. Hennigh has been King Cove’s City Administrator for
the last 25 years. He is responsible for the overall delivery and management of public services
including all general government programs, port and harbors, police and fire services, all utilities,
and recreational programs. He directly supervises the City’s annual operating budget of
approximately $5 million and its five department heads. Gary directs the City’s lobbying efforts in
Juneau and Washington, D.C.
Gary also oversees and administers the City’s major capital construction projects, grant/loan
agreements and professional services contracts. Throughout his tenure and with his guidance and
advocacy, the City has successfully acquired over $60 million in federal and state grants for
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 27 7/2/14
hydroelectric, water and transportation projects. This includes the Delta Creek Hydroelectric
project, which in 1995 was awarded an “Excellence in Engineering Design” from the American
Consulting Engineering Council.
Gary has a B.A. degree in geography form Mansfield University of Pennsylvania and a Master’s
degree in regional planning from Pennsylvania State University. His resume is attached.
George Simmons is responsible for the operations of the King Cove power plant. George has
been King Cove’s Electric Department Head since February 2008. The summer after George was
hired the new power plant came on line and George has been instrumental in providing the City
with power since that time. George has become proficient in coordinating the hydro and diesel
generators to maximize the benefit of the hydro. Prior to coming to work for the City he worked for
PPSF in King Cove as their power plant operator for over 10 years.
Bonnie Folz has been with the City of King Cove for eight years as Administrative Manager. She
partners with the city administrator to develop the annual City budget and supervises the staff in
the King Cove city office. She approves, codes, and monitors payment of all accounts payable
invoices. She oversees the monthly bank reconciliation and financial statements following proper
accounting practices set forth by the auditors. Each year an audit is conducted and Bonnie is
instrumental in overseeing the pre-audit preparation.
HDR Alaska, Inc. will provide construction management services. Bob Butera will be the
Construction Phase Manager. Bob will oversee construction management tasks of submittal
review, responses to design questions, processing change order requests, and contractor
negotiations. He will be the direct contact with the general contractor’s project manager. Bob can
provide 50% of his time in 2015 to this project.
Paul Berkshire, PE will be the Design and Commissioning Engineer. Paul will provide assistance in
design clarification and general construction assistance quality control management. Paul will be in
King Cove during plant startup and commissioning working with the control contractor to integrate
the project into the City’s energy production systems. Paul can provide up to 20% of his time to this
project and is committed to being in King Cove full time during the October plant startup and
commissioning process.
Justin Marcum, PE will be the Resident Construction Engineer. Justin will be on-site in King Cove
working with the general contractor during construction. Justin will provide construction
observation, process pay requests, and assist with plan and specification interpretation. Justin can
commit the April to October 2015 construction period to the project and be in King Cove for the
project duration should this be needed.
Resumes are attached for the engineers listed above working on the Waterfall Creek Hydro
project. HDR’s company experience and expertise is described in section 3.3.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 27 7/2/14
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below. 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.
Please fill out form provided below. You may add additional rows as needed.
The schedule of project milestones is shown below and based on a revised, critical path schedule.
Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date
Feasibility (CDR) submitted to
AEA
Completed
2007
Design 95% /Owner Review/Finalize Bid
Docs/100% Submit to AEA 9/2013 9/12/14
Permitting All permit applications/ Permits received 9/30/13
Turbine/Generator Specs/Bid/Order/Manufacture/Deliver 10/2014 7/2015
General Construction
Bid documents Bid Prep/Distribute 9/2014 1/9/2015
Vendor selection and award Bid Evaluation/Contract Award 1/2015 1/2015
Construction Mobilization & Logistics 3/2015 4/2015
Road & Bridge 5/2015 8/2015
Powerhouse Structure & Improvements 5/2015 7/2015
Intake/Dam & Penstock 6/2015 8/2015
Turbine & Generator Install & Testing 8/2015 9/2015
Accessory Electrical /Substation
Equipment 9/2015 9/2015
Controls Construction Bid Prep/Distribute/Evaluate/Award 2/2015 4/2015
Mobilization and Logistics 7/2015 8/2015
Installation 9/2015 10/2014
Integration and testing Start-up & testing 10/2015 10/2015
Final acceptance,
commissioning and start-up
11/2015 11/2015
Operations reporting 11/2015 12/2015
3.3 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to
accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or
anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the
selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes
and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your
application.
The City of King Cove has an existing term contract with HDR Alaska which has been amended to
include provision for the final design and permitting for this project, as well as assistance with the
construction bid and award process. Bob Butera, Justin Markham, and Paul Berkshire are the
primary HDR staff who will continue to be involved with Waterfall Creek.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 27 7/2/14
HDR is the leading hydroelectric consulting firm based in Alaska. HDR founded its office in
Anchorage in 1979 and over the past 34 years developed a solid business practice in planning,
licensing, design, and construction administration of hydroelectric project renovation and new
facilities. Examples of projects include Delta Creek in King Cove, Solomon Gulch in Valdez,
Gartina Creek in Hoonah, Eklutna Lake in Anchorage, and Cooper Lake on the Kenai
Peninsula. HDR has offices in Anchorage, Palmer, and Fairbanks that contain over 120
employees who practice a wide range of engineering, planning, permitting, and regulatory services.
Nationally, HDR was founded in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1917. Today, with more than 190 offices
across the country and worldwide and a professional staff of more than 8,000, HDR provides a full
range of engineering, architectural, and construction management services to clients. HDR’s
hydropower services include:
Engineering and design (civil, hydraulics/hydrology, structural, mechanical, controls, and
electrical)
Regulatory services (FERC consultation and licensing; local, state, and federal agency
permitting; and stakeholder engagement)
Environmental sciences (fisheries, water quality, wildlife, botanical, recreation, visual, and
cultural resources)
Construction management
Support during startup and operations
HDR worked for the City of King Cove for the past 30 years, and during that time prepared
engineering planning and designs for numerous water, sewer, solid waste, and master planning
projects. HDR worked with the City to prepare the feasibility study for the Delta Creek Hydroelectric
Project and assisted the City in obtaining construction funding for it. The City then retained HDR to
prepare the construction documents and provide construction oversight services. This extremely
successful hydroelectric project has been providing low cost energy to the City’s electrical utility for
the last 20 years. The Delta Creek received the American Council of Civil Engineers Grand Award
for the project’s innovation and engineering excellence.
Canyon Industries will provide the turbine and generator packages. Control Power Inc. recently re-
built the Delta Creek hydro control systems. They will be used to integrate the controls of the
Waterfall Creek project into the City’s overall energy control and monitoring systems.
As always, the City will follow its local government and state procurement policies for all services,
materials and construction contracts for this project.
3.4 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Please
provide an alternative contact person and their contact information.
The City will require written progress reports with each monthly invoice from the contractor.
Progress reports will detail accomplishments and on-going tasks and will relate them to the work
schedule. The reports will include issues or problems encountered and their resolutions. They will
describe upcoming tasks and may include any assistance required. Each progress report will be
submitted to the designated contact person at AEA for information and review. The on-site
manager will be required to approve and sign all progress reports.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 27 7/2/14
As identified milestones are achieved, including those pre and post construction, they will be
communicated to AEA. Written and verbal inquiries from AEA regarding the project will be
responded to in a timely fashion. Any presentations or updates provided to King Cove’s City
Council will also be shared with AEA, including invitations for AEA to attend meetings and/or
observe the project firsthand.
The alternative contact person is Bonnie Folz, King Cove’s Administrative Manager.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
There is always risk involved in construction projects, and particularly so in rural, remote Alaska. In
King Cove the most problematic risk comes from frequent heavy rains and high winds. Travel in
and out of the community is unreliable and severe weather during construction may cause short
delays. However, King Cove clearly communicates this risk to potential construction companies
and would only contract with companies with experience in remote Alaskan villages.
King Cove’s previous experience with the Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project and other major
construction projects has provided lessons well learned. By having HDR on board for this project,
as they were with the Delta Creek project, the City is extremely confident in the partnership’s
abilities to minimize project risks. The combined hands-on experience and ability to work as a
team will benefit the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric construction project.
3.6 Project Accountant(s)
Tell us who will be performing the accounting of this Project for the Grantee and include contact
information, a resume and references for the project accountant(s). 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 project management support.
Bonnie Folz, Administrative Manager, will fill the role of accountant f or this project with oversight
from the city administrator. Bonnie’s resume is attached.
3.7 Financial Accounting System
Discuss the accounting system that will be used to account for project costs and whom will be the
primary user of the accounting system.
Banyon Data Systems (BDS) software will be used to account for project costs , and Bonnie Folz
will be the primary user of the system. BDS was designed specifically for municipalities and has
worked well for the City with grant accounting in the past.
3.8 Financial Management Controls
Discuss 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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 27 7/2/14
City Administrator Gary Hennigh, with 30 years of project management and grant administration,
will review and provide the accounting code all invoices and requests for reimbursement. It is
expected that he will call on HDR construction management staff for assistance. Administrative
Manager Bonnie Folz will double check all accounting codes and will forward invoices and
requests for payment to the accounts payable staff in King Cove.
The City’s BDS accounting system allow Gary and Bonnie unrestricted access to all reports and
records so that they may track expenses at any time.
Purchase orders, task orders and contracts are used.
To further simplify the project accounting, the City is not charging an administrative fee or any
other indirect cost rate to this project.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake
with grant funds.
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
satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss 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.
Documents, previously submitted to AEA, which describe the extent/amount of energy available
from Waterfall Creek, include:
1.) “King Cove – Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Concept Design Report (CDR)”
prepared by HDR in September 2007 for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
2.) Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Design Criteria. December 2013
.
3.) Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Final plans and specifications. September 2014
Projected amount of energy to be produced is 1MW.
The benefits of hydroelectric power in King Cove are clearly demonstrated in the existing
Delta Creek hydroelectric system. The City of King Cove has a successful track record that is
demonstrated in both word and deed. The City’s prior investment in its existing Delta Creek
system, and its willingness to provide similar matching funds for this very successful project, are
excellent indicators of ability and follow through.
The expansion of the existing Delta Creek powerhouse to accommodate the Waterfall Creek
turbine and generator is a much less expensive proposition than constructing a new powerhouse.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 27 7/2/14
Expanding the Delta Creek powerhouse offers an excellent location for integrating both hydro
control systems for better operator monitoring, troubleshooting, security and total system efficiency.
The shared electrical transmission line (original cost = $1,000,000) from the site five miles to
“downtown” King Cove is also a plus. The existence of this transmission line is a significant
financial factor contributing to the overall cost feasibility of the Waterfall Creek project
There are no disadvantages of hydroelectric pow er when compared to other alternative
power resources. Given King Cove’s 20 years of successful hydro experience, the proposed
project has the confidence of the residents, the Agdaagux and Belkofski Tribes in King Cove, the
King Cove Village Corporation and other organizations in town.
Wind energy may be another viable energy source for King Cove in the future. However, the wind
resource is unproven at this time. A MET tower collected one year of wind data in the Delta Creek
Valley in 2005/2006. Per this data from the Delta Creek Valley, the City understands class 6 winds
are available but with a very high turbidity factor. Another location in King Cove may prove to have
a better wind resource. The City continues to be interested in wind energy and particularly learning
more about Kodiak Electric Association’s combo hydro-diesel-wind system.
Like much of rural Alaska, King Cove’s “energy market” is a single-site, off-the-grid market.
However, the potential for sale of surplus power from the Waterfall Creek project (and Delta Creek)
to PPSF is excellent. The attached Memorandum of Understanding between PPSF and the City
documents the general terms and cost parameters that are presently being finalized into a power
sales agreement.
As documented in the 2005 “Concept Design Report”, PPSF is interested in purchasing between
500,000 kWh to 1.0 MW on an annual basis. Further validation of PPSF interest/desire to
purchase power from the City has been their referrals over the last couple years of two wind
energy manufacturers to the City (as opposed to pursuing wind energy themselves).
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
AEA is familiar with King Cove’s diesel energy system, having assisted in the completion of a $3
million upgrade/replacement of King Cove’s diesel system. Three Caterpillar diesel engines (1-
model 3512, with a maximum kWh output of 1050; and 2-model 3456, each with a maximum kWh
output of 475 were all manufactured in 2006/2007) were added to the City’s diesel engine
Caterpillar 3512 (14 years old, low hours and a top/bottom rebuild in 2004; maximum output of 650
kWh).
Efficiency of these generators ranges between 13.5 to 14.5 gallons/kWh. They provide diesel
production, when necessary to supplement the Delta Creek hydro system. Together, these
generators have a generating capacity of 2.4 MW. The three newest generators have relatively
low hours for their respective age because they are used less than 50% of their design life
because of the Delta Creek hydro system. The Waterfall Creek hydro project will continue to keep
the demand on these diesels relatively low. The required service maintenance (and costs) on
these generators because of low hours due to the Delta Creek hydro, and soon-to-be Waterfall
Creek hydro, is a significant cost savings for the City’s electric utility.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 27 7/2/14
The diesel system adds to the 850 kWh that the hydroelectric system at Delta Creek can produce
under optimum summer conditions, usually from May through October. In winter months, Delta
Creek hydro produces around 50-200 kWh daily, rising in the spring/fall months to between 400-
600 kWh.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
The City’s existing diesel plant and Delta Creek hydroelectric facility have adequate capacity to
meet the City’s power generation demands. However, the costs and environmental impacts to the
community and local industry can be significantly reduced with the addition of Waterfall Creek
hydroelectric to King Cove’s power generation system--specifically, the replacement of 77,000
gallons of annual diesel fuel that would otherwise be required.
King Cove has demonstrated a desire and the ability to foresee the long-term financial and
environmental advantages that come with renewable energy. It has enjoyed the benefits provided
by Delta Creek hydro power and the city intends to expand those benefits with the power of water
to achieve even a higher level of energy independence.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Existing energy market consists of approximately 130 residential households, two major boat
harbors, the new 40,000 square-foot school, and the old school of comparable size that has been
transformed into the community’s multi-purpose center. There are also numerous public facilities
and a major municipal water system requiring constant well field pumping.
PPSF operates a diesel system, which serves all their processing needs and provides power for all
its support facilities including worker housing. Their peak demand is at least three times greater
than the City’s peak demand. PPSF’s business expansion is constrained by their inability to
expand their power generation capacity. Therefore, the company is eager to purchase any amount
of energy the City can make available for purchase.
The Waterfall Creek project’s impact will be to stabilize the energy cost per kWh into the future.
The City of King Cove provides this history of stabilized energy costs since the Delta Creek
Hydroelectric Project was built and predicts similar success for the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric
Project. In 1994, prior to hydroelectric in King Cove, fuel costs were $0.60/gal and the city electric
rate was $0.20/kWh. In 2014, 20 years later, with hydroelectric power from Delta Creek and with a
650% increase in fuel costs to $4.12/gal, the City rate has increased only to $0.30/kWh!
4.3 Proposed System
Describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land
ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 27 7/2/14
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project is a run-of-the-river project, which will use the renewable
resource of water and elevation available in Waterfall Creek to generate clean electricity. The
design criteria for the project are contained in Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project Design Criteria
report referenced in Section 4.1 of this application which is summarized here.
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
The project will use proven technology for this location to generate electricity from
Waterfall Creek. The City has operated a hydroelectric project at Delta Creek
successfully for 20 years and the Waterfall Creek project will be constructed as an
addition to the Delta Creek project. The W aterfall Creek project will construct a
building addition to the Delta Creek powerhouse to house the new turbine and
generator. The new generator will be connected to the existing switchgear and
power delivery system. The other project components – intake, penstock, roads,
and operating equipment – are modeled after the Delta Creek project to maximize
their success and minimize the operator’s learning curve. Both of these will
maximize project success.
• Optimum installed capacity
The selected installed capacity of the generator is 375 kW, 480 V. This size was
selected as the optimal equipment size based on available head, permitted water
use, reduced from the maximum available by resource agencies during permit
acquisition.
• Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated capacity factor = 0.29, or 1 MW projected generation/3.5MWh
theoretical maximum generation
• Anticipated annual generation
Projected annual generation = 1 MW
• Anticipated barriers
There are no anticipated barriers to construction in or operation of the hydroelectric
plant.
• Basic integration concept
The new hydroelectric plant will be integrated into the existing hydroelectric plant
switchgear and control systems. It will be operated as another generation source in
the City’s existing hydroelectric and diesel generation system.
• Delivery methods
The power will be delivered to the City through the existing transmission cable
between the Delta Creek powerhouse and the city downtown.
For more information, please see the Concept Design Report, the Design Criteria Report and Final
Design and Specs.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 27 7/2/14
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project
or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
The entire project will be located on land presently owned by the King Cove Corporation. The City
understands the requirement for site control prior to the release of any funding. The final terms of
a site control agreement are presently being negotiated and will consist of either a fee simple
purchase or long-term lease (40-50 years). A final agreement is expected by the end of October
2014.
4.3.3 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 discuss potential barriers
After three years of significant negotiations, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) Title 16 (Fish Habitat) permit was received on July 31, 2013. For this permit, ADF&G and
the City of King Cove agreed that the City will reduce the diverted water from Waterfall Creek by 1
cfs which has decreased the energy output expectation by 30% from the project’s original estimate
of 1.4 MW of energy to 1.0MW. A copy of this permit has been previously provided to AEA.
Subsequent to the Title 16 permit, the other required permits have been issued, including: 1) State
of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Mining, Land, and Water - Water
Rights Permit was issued on September 30, 2013; and 2) Clean Water Act permit (DOE Section
404) was issued on September 23, 2013.
No other permit requirements and/or potential barriers are expected.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address 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 discuss other potential barriers
All environmental issues are been addressed through the permit processes, including
threatened or endangered species, habitat issues, wetlands and other protected areas,
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 27 7/2/14
and archaeological and historical resources. There are no aviation considerations or
telecommunications interference.
Land development constraints. The King Cove Corporation is in full support of this project and
the City expects to purchase the necessary 15 acres from the Corporation by the end of 2014.
Visual, aesthetics impacts. Because this project is about 4 miles from any of King Cove’s
residential and commercial areas, and because it is supported by the community, visual and
aesthetic resources are not an issue.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants records or analysis, industry standards,
consultant or manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
The cost for this (final) construction and commissioning phase of the project is $5,461,000. This
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII request is for $1,800,000. Please see the attached cost
estimate.
The City has also purchased the equipment necessary for 2015 construction: $533,000 for turbine
and generator. In order to meet the schedule and have Waterfall Creek online by the end of 2015,
these two long lead time items had to be ordered prior to the submission of this application. The
City recognizes the financial risk with this decision.
The sources for the remaining construction budget of $3,661,000 are:
Renewable Energy Fund Round VI balance $2,600,000
City of King Cove cash: $ 500,000
City of King Cove loans: $ 561,000
The City has a contingency available by increasing its loan amount.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the
applicant.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 27 7/2/14
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities
they serve.)
Annual operating costs of the King Cove power generation system with the new Waterfall Creek
facilities are minimal in that all costs except supplies are shared with the already budgeted Delta
Creek hydro operating costs. The City estimates operating and maintenance costs at
$25,000/year, excluding anticipated debt repayment for the new facilities of the Waterfall Creek
Hydroelectric Project.
All annual O&M costs are paid for through the cost of customer user fees (i.e. kWh/cost).
The City operates its electrical utility as an enterprise fund in a manner to achieve and maintain
financial solvency, including a repair and replacement line item.
4.4.3 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
The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and PPSF documents the
company’s acknowledged interest in purchasing power to reduce their operating costs in King
Cove and the City’s anticipated capacity and capability to sell power to the company. The next
step will be to finalize the power sales agreement with an expected cost of $0.18/kWh for at least
600,000 kWh of “surplus” energy from a combination using Waterfall Creek and Delta Creek hydro
facilities. The MOU will be signed and forwarded to AEA by October 31, 2014.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Please fill out the form provided below.
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability.
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomass fuel)
1 MW will be available on a sustainable basis.
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 27 7/2/14
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 4 generators and 1 hydro turbine/generator
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other All gens – 2,450 kWh/& Delta Creek hydro = 850kw
iii. Generator/boilers/other type (2) CAT 3512 & (2) CAT 3456 & Gilkes generator
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 3 Gen 6 yrs; 1 Gen 13 yrs; hydro Gen 20 yrs.
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.5 – 14.5 kWh
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $248,000
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $1,076,000
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] 4,500,000 kWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel 167,000 gallons
Other
iii. Peak Load 1020 kW
iv. Average Load 500-600 kW
v. Minimum Load 200 kW
vi. Efficiency 13 kW/gal
vii. Future trends annual growth
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
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]
Hydroelectric 1 MW
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 1 MW
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 27 7/2/14
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
iv. Other
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $5,461,000
b) Development cost $400,000 (final design & permitting) & $533,000
(turbine & generator cost)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $25,000/year
d) Annual fuel cost
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 77,000 gallons (City system 54,000 gallons; PPSF system 23,000
gallons)
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $4.12
c) Other economic benefits
d) Alaska public benefits Reduced carbon emissions and less dependency on
PCE program for rate stabilization
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale $0.18/kWh X 600,000 kWh = $108,000 annually
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.67
Payback (years) 17 years
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 27 7/2/14
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit
area. If the is for a PCE eligible utility please discuss what the expected impact would be for both
pre and post PCE.
With this project, the City will stabilize the cost of energy for its customers: residential, business,
industry and community services well into the future.
The City of King Cove requests AEA look at this comparison of how well they were able to stabilize
energy costs since the Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project was built:
In 1994, prior to hydroelectric in King Cove:
Fuel - $0.60 per gallon (AEA assumed $0.90 per gal)
Electricity – the City rate was $0.20 per kWh
In 2014 with hydroelectric from Delta Creek:
Fuel - $4.12 per gallon
Electricity – the City rate is only $0.30 per kWh
The City believes these numbers tell a compelling story and with Waterfall Creek, the City
anticipates providing the same, continuing level of energy cost stability.
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public 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:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA
tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy
subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
PPSF is the largest “wild” salmon processing facility in Alaska. They have stated that they are
unable to expand their operations in the King Cove plant because they lack the capacity and ability
to produce necessary additional power. Their Clean Air Permit will not allow any increase their
diesel power emissions.
With the additional power from the City’s hydroelectric facilities, PPSF will be able to expand
operations and thereby provide additional jobs or additional work time for the existing workforce,
buy more fish from commercial fishermen, and pay more taxes to the city, borough, and state.
Potential annual fuel displacement over the life of the project (assume 40 years) is estimated to be
2.4 million gallons of fuel costing a minimum $1.30 million dollars.
Potential anticipated revenue from power sales over the life of the project is estimated to be $2.5
million.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 27 7/2/14
Potential annual incentives (tax credits) or revenue streams (like green tag sales, etc.) are
unknown at this time.
Non-economic public benefits to Alaska have been previously summarized in Section 2.4. The
health benefits that result from avoidance of 600 metric tons of annual, carbon emission in King
Cove and the western end of the Alaska Peninsula and the eastern Aleutian Islands means better
air quality for the residents and less respiratory illnesses and a cleaner environment for everyone.
The community gives this project its strongest support in part because it reduces the amount of
fuel brought into this commercial fishing community. Thereby, it reduces the threat of an
accidental spill into the waters that support so many families.
5.1 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
Projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines,
etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the
project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the
Request for Applications for more information.
Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) 83,000 kWh – monthly/average
Estimated sales (kWh) 600,000 kWh annually
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at
private sector businesses ($)
$108,000 annually
Estimated sales (kWh) 400,000 kWh
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the
Alaskan public ($)
$120,000 annually
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
After planning and constructing the very successful Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project and
operating and maintaining it for the past 20 years, there can be no doubt that the City of King Cove
knows why and what it is doing in the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project. It also knows how to
sustain and operate it.
The sustainability and operability of this project will follow the model of the existing Delta Creek
hydroelectric facility. The successful Delta Creek project, could be a blueprint for how small, rural
communities can succeed with a small hydro project. King Cove has demonstrated that it is able to
finance its maintenance and operations through its record of PCE reporting. Lessons have been
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 27 7/2/14
learned about what constitutes adequate operations and management resources. The idea with
this project, as it was with Delta Creek, is to build infrastructure that lasts and then is well
maintained.
Operations & Maintenance: One of the contractor requirements for the Waterfall Creek hydro
facility is to develop a comprehensive O&M manual for all aspects of this new facility. The same
requirement for the Delta Creek facility was successfully accomplished by HDR and the contractors
and subcontractors. The existing O&M document is a constant source of information for plant
employees and routinely serves as a technical guide.
The operational costs and overall financial viability of this project will be integrated into the City’s
overall power distribution system. The financial operations of this system are part of the City’s
electrical enterprise fund, which by definition, is to achieve and maintain financial solvency by
regulating and maintaining electric user rates to generate the necessary annual revenue to meet
annual operating expenses, as well as adequate funding for a repair and replacement fund for any
major unanticipated needs.
The commitment to reporting “savings” will always be ongoing as part of the City reviewing and
amending, as circumstances allow, the electric user rates in King Cove. Any such savings will also
be reported in the monthly and annual PCE utility costs reports.
The City will continue to tout the benefits of renewable energy. Staff does this in periodic reports to
users, as well as to the government agencies, which have helped achieve these benefits. King
Cove is known not to be shy about publishing news releases to share with others around the state
and elsewhere. A copy of the City’s recent (summer 2014) media article talking about the role of
renewable energy in the community is attached to this application.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
The City’s desired schedule for this project has been problematic until recently. However, now with
the Title 16 permit finalized, and 100% plans & specs and construction bid documents IN HAND,
there are no further expected delays. The schedule presented in Section 3.2 is realistic and
obtainable.
The City acknowledges that its previous schedules and administrative reporting requirements have
not always been as timely or responsive as desired. However, these situations have now
significantly changed and the City is driven to complete this project as expeditiously as possible.
The City is well aware that every year’s delay will likely cost the City over $250,000.
The City fully expects to have Waterfall Creek in operation by the end of 2015.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 24 of 27 7/2/14
The City was been awarded a $200,000 FY13 grant from Round 5 and a $2,600,000 FY15 grant
from Round 6 of the AEA renewable Energy Grant Fund.
The City has an exemplary record of achievements with over $30 million in various state and
federal grants for a variety of community projects over the last 10-15 years. A review of the City’s
annual audits can further substantiate these statements.
SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Discuss local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters of
support 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 2,
2014
The entire community of King Cove is in favor of the City pursuing funding for a second
hydroelectric project. This support is further reflected by the attached letters from the King Cove
Corporation and the Agdaagux and Belkofski Tribes. In addition, the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and PPSF speaks to their favorable interest in the project.
The City has not heard any opposition to the project.
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you are seeking in grant funds. Include any investments to date and funding
sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as
an applicant.
9.1 Funding sources and Financial Commitment
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding source and your financial commitment to the
project
The City has approval to submit and has the capacity to sustain a loan for $1,500,000. However,
the City remains optimistic that only $500,000 in cash and $561,000 in loans will be necessary to
complete this project.
The City also will apply its REF Round 6 grant funds in the amount of $2,600,000 to this
construction project.
9.2 Cost Estimate for Metering Equipment
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment, and its
related use to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the
Request for Applications.
The monitoring equipment necessary for the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric is already in place and
no additional funds are needed for the monitoring requirements. Waterfall Creek will be connected
to the existing facilities and equipment at the Delta Creek Hydroelectric plant. The minimum flow in
Waterfall Creek needed for fish habitat, as required by the Fish Habitat permit, and the power
output, as reported to AEA, will be monitored using the existing equipment.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
AEA 15003 Page 25 of 27 7/2/14
Project Budget
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
City cash/loan
=29%
REF Rd 6=
71%
$
Construction
Mobilization & Logistics 4/2015 $237,600 $482,400 $ 720,000
Road & Bridge 8/2015 $590,000 $1,200,000 $1,790,000
Powerhouse Structure 7/2015 $99,000 $201,000 $ 300,000
Intake, Dam, Penstock 8/2015 $481,500 $978,500 $1,460,000
Turbine Generator Install 9/2015 $194,600 $395,400 $ 590,000
Accessory Elect Equip 9/2015 $35,670 $74,330 $ 110,000
Substation Equip 9/2015 $16,500 $33,500 $ 50,000
Construction Management 12/31/2015 $145,130
$ 295,870
$ 441,000
TOTAL $1,800,000 $3,661,000 $5,461,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ $
City cash/loan
=29%
REF Rd 6 =
71%
$
Travel & Per Diem $ $ $
Equipment $ $ $
Materials & Supplies $ $ $
Contractual Services $ 145,130 $ 295,870 $ 441,000
Construction Services $1,656,600 $3,363,400 $5,020,000
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $1,801,730 $3,659,270 $5,461,000
Renewable Energy Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form ) ENERGY AUTHORITY
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
SECTION 10 -AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM I
Community/Grantee Name: The City of King Cove
Regular Election is held: Date:
Annually I First Tuesday in October
[lAuthorized Grant Signer(s):
Printed Name Title Term
Gary Hennigh Administrator n/a
Bonnie Folz Administrative Manager n/a
I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents:
(Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official)
Printed Name Title Term Signature
Henry Mack Mayor -2015
Lej
Grantee Contact Information:
Mailing Address: 3380 C Street, Suite 205
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone Number:
907-274-7563
Fax Number:
907-276-7569
E-mail Address:
gheimigh@kingcoveak.org
Federal Tax ID #:
92-6001247
Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information.
AEA 15003 Page 26 of 27 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII — ALASKA
Grant Application - Standard Form I ENERGY AUTHORITY
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
SECTION 11 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A.Contact information and resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project
Accountant(s), key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form
Section 3.1, 3.4 and 3.6.
Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic
documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site.
B.Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 8.
C.For projects involving heat: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating
fuel for the building(s) impacted by the project.
D.Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing
body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
- Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the
match amounts indicated in the application.
- Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit
the organization to the obligations under the grant.
- Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
- Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local,
laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
E.An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per
RFA Section 1.7.
F.CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and
that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations.
GnHennigh
:n:::
Title City of Ki41ove Admnistrat ~)r
Date September 18, 2014
AEA 15003 Page 27of27 7/2/14
APPENDIX B
Letters of Support
Belkofski Tribal Council
P.O. Box 57
King Cove, Alaska 99612
Phone: 907-497-3122/Fax: 907-497-3123
kcbtc@arctic.net
September 15, 2014
Mr. Henry Mack, Mayor
City of King Cove
P.O. Box 37
King Cove, AK 99612
Re: Letter of Support for Waterfall Creek Hydro-Electric Project
Dear Mayor Mack:
The Native Village of Belkofski wishes to express its strong support for the City of King Cove's efforts to
complete the construction of the Waterfall Creek hydroelectric project. We recognize that in order to
accomplish this project it will take more financial resources than the City of King Cove can afford to take
on alone. We are pleased to learn that the City is again requesting the Alaska Energy Authority
(Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 Grant Application) to partner with King Cove in providing funding for
this renewable energy facility. We support these efforts.
The success of the City's current Delta Creek hydroelectric project, including now over 20 years of
successful plant operation and management, is a blueprint for how to succeed with a small community
hydro-electric project. It should serve as a strong indicator to potential grant and/or lending agencies that
King Cove knows what it is proposing where the Waterfall Creek hydro project is concerned.
Our Belkofski tribal members have already seen the improvement that the Delta Creek hydro-electric
facility has made in our lives. In the immediate term, we have enjoyed stable and cheaper utility rates and
breathed cleaner air. But, it is the knowledge that we aren't completely at the mercy of the diesel fuel that
brings the most comfort to our tribe members. Since we are always planning long-term, it is reassuring
to know that we have a completely sustainable source of electric power available to our families for
generations to come. This peace of mind from the Delta Creek hydroelectric facility will be enhanced by
the additional hydro power from Waterfall Creek, and while it will not keep completely diesel-free, it will
go a long way to delivering a clean and secure energy future for our grandchildren and beyond.
We wish you well as you pursue this funding and strongly support the City's efforts on the Renewable
Energy Fund and any other funding that may come available to construct this proj ect just as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Lynn Mack
President
tu
phone 907.497 .2648 fax 90?.497.2803
September 15,2014
Mr. Henry Mack. Mayor
City of King Cove
P.O. Box 37
King Cove, AK 99612
Re: Letter of Support for Waterfall Creek Hydro-Electric Project
Dear Mayor Mack:
The Agdaagux Tribal Council (ATC) wishes to express its strong support for the City of King
Cove's efforts to complete the construction of the Waterfall Creek hydroelectric project. We
recognize that in order to accomplish this project it will take more financial resources than the
City of King Cove can afford to take on alone. We are pleased lo learn that the City is again
requesting the Alaska Energy Authority (Renewable Energy Fund Round 8 Grant Application) to
partner with King Cove in providing funding for this renewable energy facility. We support these
efforts.
The success of the City's current Delta Creek hydroelectric project, including now over 20 years
of successful plant operation and management, is a blueprint for how to succeed with a small
community hydro-electric project. lt should serve as a strong indicator to potential grant and/or
lending agencies that King Cove knows what it is proposing where the Waterfall Creek hydro
project is concerned.
ATC has already seen the improvement that Delta Creek hydro-electric facility has made in our
lives. ln the immediate term, we have enjoyed stable and cheaper utility rates and breathed
cleaner air. But, it is the knowledge that we aren't completely at the mercy of the diesel fuel that
brings the most comfort to our tribe members. Since we are always planning longterm, it is
reassuring to know that we have a completely sustainable source of electric power available to
our families for generations to come. This peace of mind from the Delta Creek hydroelectric
facility will be enhanced by the additional hydro power from Waterfall Creek, and while it will not
keep completely diesel-free, it will go a long way to delivering a clean and secure energy future
for our grandchildren and beyond.
We wish you well as you pursue this funding and strongly support the City's efforts on the
Renewable Energy Fund and any other funding that may come available to construct this
project just as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
(---tf,-. --:\/,
'-Eifa Kuzakin ,/
President
ING
COVE
CORPOMIION
PO Box.38, King Gove, AoF 99612 '
(Phone) 907497-2312 (Faxl 907497'2444 kcc@arctic.net
September 15,2014
Mr. Henry Mack, Mayor
P.O. Bcix 37
King Cove, AK 99612
Re: Letter of Support for Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mayor Mack:
Once again, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) wlshes to express its strongest support for the
City of King Cove's efforts to complete the construction of the Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric
Project. We know the community will be greatly served by this project and applaud the City's
current request for additional funding from the State of Alaska's Renewable Energy Fund Round
#8 funding.
Furthefmore, as you know.th'e '15 acres of land required for this project is owned by KCC. '
l'lowever, I want to assure'you that the necessary agreement establishing City site controlfor
this land will be finalized soon. KC'C fully understands that the City needs this site control
documentation now to proceed with this.project.
KCC has already seen the impiovements that the Delta Creek hydroelectric facility has made in
all our lives and we are looking forward to even. more hydroelectric production from the Waterfall
ireek addition. We applaud the Gity fgr its onloing commitinent to renewable energy and
making bleaner air, reUuced dep6ndince on expensive diesel, and stabilized energy rates a
reality in our community......
We wish you.well as you pursue this funding. Please include this letterof support in your .
Renewablb. Energy Grant Round #8 application, and for any otheruppropriate grant,or loan
prograins. 'We want to see this piojecte! get constructed as soon as possible! . :
..j
APPENDIX C
Additional Supporting Materials
Memorandum of Understanding
between
Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. and City of King Cove, Alaska
D evel o pm ent and ^#:ilit#t"tl;*.. sal es Agreem ent
(September 2014)
Background
The Concept Design Report and Construction Cost Estimate for Energy Infrastructure
Projects in the Community of King Coye estimated the "domestic load" at Peter Pan
Seafoods, Inc. [PPSF) in King Cove, Alaska to be 876,000 annual kW hours. This
report was prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by Alaska Energy and
Engineering, Inc. in 2005.
PPSF's "domestic load" has been broadly defined as their residential living quarters
and other support facilities for most/all of their non-production activities, In
particular, these domestic loads do NOT involve any fish processing and production
operations.
Without any additional or specific information to validate the estimate of PPSF's
domestic load, the City of King Cove (City) presents this potential demand in a range
of between 600,000 to 900,000 kwh, annually.
PPSF continues to acknowledge a strong interest to purchase any reasonable
amount of available surplus power, which the City can consistently and responsibly
provide to the company on an annual basis.
PPSF and City understand that the current available, annual surplus power from the
existing Delta Creek hydro facility is estimated to be 200,000 to 300,000 kWh, and
that this amount, alone, would be marginally feasible to incorporate into a power
sales agreement.
However, with the addition of an expected amount of surplus energy from the
Waterfall Creek hydro facility, the range of available, annual surplus power is
anticipated to be in a range of 500,000 to 700,000 kwh.
Subsequent to the 2005 CDR, the City now has a new diesel power plant which has a
generating capacity of 2.4 megawatt hours. The potential significance of having this
back-up diesel generation would be to guarantee PPSF, if so desired, to have an
uninterrupted power sales agreement if the two hydro facilities could not always
fulfill the terms of a power sales agreement demand.
If a combination of hydro and diesel generation is occasionally required by the City
to fulfill an uninterrupted power sales agreement, it is understood that it would
need to contain favorable and advantageous cost terms for both PPSF and City.
Current
PPSF has agreed to allow metering to be installed in their complex to record current
domestic load levels, as well as, to measure the consistency and characteristics of
the load levels.
The City, with technical assistance from Gray Stassel Engineering, Inc. (Steve
Stassel) will be responsible for providing, coordinating, and monitoring a metering
program with PPSF. The City will pay all costs related to this electric data collection
and reporting task.
The goal is to have this metering program in place by November L, 20t4, and
continue through june 30, 2015. These eight months of data are expected to provide
an acceptable basis for establishing the power demand levels and characteristics to
be used for a final power sales agreement.
Gray Stassel Engineering Inc. will prepare a brief summary report of the electric
load data collected from the PPSF metering program. The draft report will only be
distributed to PPSF and the City for internal use prior to finalizing a power sales
agreement.
At this point, the City is advocating the cost of "surplus power" to be sold to PPSF at
$0.18/kwh. This cost has been developed using the same methodology used in the
City's recoverable heat sales agreements with the Aleutians East Borough School
District, Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc. and the Aleutian Housing Authority. The
financial underpinnings of this cost are based on a 600/o factor of the City's current
$0.30/kwh rate used in these agreements.
However, if PPSF desires an uninterrupted sales agreement, a final power sales
agreement may be proposed, which incorporates some amount of City provided
diesel generation.
The City will provide a DRAFT power sales agreement to PPSF by no later than
October 3L, 201,4. This agreement will incorporate the above cost parameters, and
assumptions, where necessary. However, it is understood that this draft agreement
will likely be further modified after the metering program is completed and PPSF
has had adequate time to consider its desire for an uninterrupted power sales
agreement.
Summary
In summary this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) represents the following:
1) A good-faith description and summary of a potential power sales
agreement based on known andf or estimated surplus power amounts,
expressed in annual kwh, which the City expects to have via a
combination of its exiting Delta Creek hydro facility and new Waterfall
Creek hydro facility;
2) A continuing desire and interest from PPSF to purchase a dependable,
significant, and cost-attractive rate of surplus energy from the City of
King Cove;
3) A possibility of PPSF wishing to supplement the available surplus hydro
energy with some amount of City diesel generation at a cost-attractive
rate; and
4) A continuing willingness and goal to work towards a FINAL power sales
agreement with the City by no later than August 1, 20L5.
Finally, PPSF and City agree to continue working towards the goal of a power sales
agreement per the expressed statements, processes, and expectations documented
in this MOU.
However, it is also understood and agreed to that this MOU implies no legal,
technical, or financial obligations from either PPSF or the City. Furthermore, this
MOU can be voided at any time with a written statement by either of the below
signatures.
This MOU and the terms expressed herein have been reviewed and accepted by:
Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc.City of King Cove, Alaska
Name & Title
q-ig-fLl
D"t" IDate
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project
P.O. Box 37 King Cove, Alaska 99612
3380 C Street Suite 205 Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project King Cove, Alaska
The City of King Cove is
proposing the construction of
the Waterfall Creek
Hydroelectric Project. It will be
a run-of-the-river hydroelectric
facility consisting of a concrete
diversion/intake structure,
4,500 ft HDPE penstock
pipeline, Peton Impulse
Turbine, and an induction
generator, remote-automatic
control system. Access will be
provided by a 5,000 ft road.
The existing powerhouse will
be expanded to accommodate
the Waterfall Creek turbine and
generator.
King Cove is a predominantly Aleut fishing
community situated in a narrow valley
overshadowed by rugged mountains reaching down
to the water's edge. The city is located on the south
side of the Alaska Peninsula and in the midst of a
storm corridor, which often brings extreme fog and
high winds. The city's economy depends on the
year-round commercial fishing and seafood
processing industries. Peter Pan Seafoods, in King
Cove, is one of the largest cannery operations in
Alaska. The community offers a full range of
dockage and marine services for commercial
fishing, cargo, passenger and recreational vehicles.
Port
Graha
m’s
Canne
ry
Dock
is well
past
its
desig
n life.
Waterfall Creek will be King Cove’s second hydroelectric
facility. It will work in concert with the Delta Creek Hydro
(pictured above) which has been successfully producing
power for the past eighteen years.
Project Costs: Construction
Estimate: $5,461,000
Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk
experience the highest energy costs
in Alaska. Oftentimes, fuel must be
flown into Shungnak because the
Kobuk River is too low for the barge
delivery. A recent study of the
Project benefits include:
Stabilized energy costs into the future for residents, small businesses and the large
seafood processing facility in King Cove
Annual production of approximately one megawatt of power from a clean, renewable
energy resource
Displacement of 77,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually and 2.4 million gallons over the 40-
year life of the project
Annual savings to the City from displaced fuel of more than $250,000 at the current price
of diesel and $1.3 million over the 40-year life of the project
Annual revenue to the City from power sales to Peter Pan Seafoods of approximately
$75,000
Approximately 600 metric tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions annually
Increased opportunity for economic and community development through stable energy
costs
New jobs for residents during construction
Increased revenue for local businesses during construction
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting important commercial and subsistence resources)
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
Increased longevity of the PCE Fund through stabilized energy costs for residents
The Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project is construction-ready with a final
design by HDR Engineering, comprehensive business and operations plans,
and all necessary permits in hand. It is expected to produce up to 1.0
megawatts of energy annually for the residents and small businesses of King
Cove as well as a portion of the electrical needs of the large Peter Pan
Seafoods processing facility (shown in the mid-ground of the photo above).
Doubling Down on Small Hydro in Rural Alaska
Government that Works
Summer 2014
King Cove, Alaska Citizens know when government really works for them, particularly
if reminders of that work arrive in their homes whenever they turn on a light switch or reach for
their utility bill. King Cove residents can testify first-hand to being on the receiving end of
twenty years worth of dividends. These dividends are the result of city leaders taking a calculated
gamble on one of the energy trends of the future. Hydroelectric generation is one of those trends.
And because that gamble paid off, we are the beneficiaries of shrinking electric fuel bills -
approximately $1,000/yr for every household - from a self-sufficient source of power that flows,
quite literally, into our homes and our businesses. Our hydro facility is the reason that King
Cove’s $0.30/kWh is one of the “cheapest” power costs among all of Alaska’s more than 150
rural communities.
For some perspective on how unlikely all this sounded in the early 1990’s, in the beginning of our
extensive homework in renewable energy options, consider this: King Cove is a community of
960 people located 625 air miles southwest of Anchorage. We are tucked up against tall and
treeless mountains on one side and the vast expanse of the North Pacific Ocean on the other.
High winds are commonplace, along with ample amounts of precipitation and melting glaciers
The early 90’s were a time when no one in rural Alaska, and certainly no community with the
isolated geography of King Cove, had dared to imagine hydroelectricity as a viable alternative to
diesel fuel. After all, the price of diesel was still a modest $.60/gallon and the world of
hydropower in rural Alaska was pretty foreign. Yet it was when our cit y leaders, curious about
the progress of small-scale hydro technology, decided to learn about run-of-the-river hydro power
projects. Diesel costs were headed up and so the greater risk was deemed to be to do nothing.
We sought out experts who were up to the challenge and who would help us to manage the risk
and we successfully constructed our first hydro project. That dream became reality by 1994 and
the switch was on for the Delta Creek Hydroelectric Project. A 800 kWh turbine was operational,
transmission lines delivered power where it was needed and two tributaries this modest creek
have kept our lights burning brightly ever since. Almost from the beginning, this hydro plant has
met over 50% of the city’s power needs, even as our power demands have significantly increased
since the project’s inception. Today, Delta Creek provides over 2.5 MW (megawatts) of the
annual 4.7 MW that we need to provide electricity to the community.
With this history in mind, it should come as no surprise that King Cove is working on its second
hydro project using Waterfall Creek. As another tributary to Delta Creek, its proximity is
advantageous in both time and money. The existing powerhouse and transmission lines can be
used in both projects. The powerhouse will be expanded to house another turbine and generator,
which are about 1/2 the size of the Delta Creek turbine and generator.
A major regulatory hurdle had to be resolved with the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game to bring
Waterfall Creek’s water volume to within parameters safe for fish. This agreement required a
significant compromise on reducing the amount of flow (i.e. energy) from Waterfall Creek by
about 30%. Even with this compromise, the project is still feasible – as long as Mother Nature
cooperates.
Though we are revved up and ready to go, we were disappointed to not receive any additional
State grant funding in FY15 for the project. However, we are very optimistic for funding next
year. While Delta Creek will eventually pay for itself in diesel fuel cost savings, the reality is that
we are still paying off annual debt from the construction of that project of $150,000. Similarly,
we expect to incur additional debt to make Waterfall Creek happen, but we are not yet sure how
much new debt we are willing and able to incur for Waterfall Creek.
After all, the upfront costs of this undertaking are financially challenging. Our current Waterfall
Creek project cost estimate is $6.0 million, two million more than the original $4.0 estimate more
than six years ago. That is a significant difference to a community of our size and revenue stream.
Rather than be crushed by it, or worse yet, allow it to halt our progress, we are not standing still.
The Waterfall Creek turbine and generator ($550,000) are on order from Canyon Industries, with
an estimated delivery date in spring of 2015, and at this point the city expects Waterfall Creek to
be constructed in 2015 and in operation the end of that year.
Waterfall Creek is expected to produce 1 MW of power annually for the city. And, like with
Delta Creek, most of our hydro energy (about 80%) is produced in spring, summer, and early fall.
This reality provides the city with “surplus energy” (i.e. more supply than demand), and Waterfall
Creek will increase this amount of surplus energy. This is not bad, since Peter Pan Seafoods, the
large seafood processor in King Cove, has expressed strong interest in buying this surplus energy,
which could displace as much as 50,000 gallons in diesel fuel for the company.
At current fuel prices, this would save Peter Pan over $200,000 annually on their fuel bill, reduce
their carbon footprint and help the city’s electric enterprise fund with additional revenue by
selling this surplus energy.
Finally, we walk our conservation talk in many ways. We have been successful in retrofitting
most of our public facilities. All of our street and harbor lighting now use energy -saving LEDs,
and consequently, has reduced energy demand by about 100,000 kWh a year. And recoverable
heat, produced from both our diesel system, when needed to supplement our hydro system, and
surplus hydro energy converted into heat via an electric boiler, heats several public buildings,
including our school and clinic. Our recoverable heat system is displacing another 25,000 to
30,000 gallons of diesel fuel previously used for these space heat sources.
All of this is to say that we have put our belief in that renewable and reusable energy is our future
and fossil fuels are on their way out. We think dreaming big, planning well and practicing budget
discipline is a formula that will secure for our grandchildren a viable community powered by
clean, dependable, renewable and reusable energy. Wouldn’t you agree?
U N I M A KI S L A N DB A YB R I S T O LCOLD BAYFROSTY PEAKFALSE PASSMT DUTTONPAVLOFVOLCANOSAND POINTPROJECT LOCATION MAPN.T.S.GENERALINTAKEAnchoragePROJECTLOCATIONKing CoveKodiakJuneauKetchikanNomeBarrowPROJECTAREAKINGCOVEPROJECT VICINITY MAPN.T.S.PROJECT AREA MAPN.T.S.C-361EMBANKMENT FILL PLAN AND PROFILEC-362 TYPICAL SECTIONSC-363 TYPICAL SECTIONSC-364TYPICAL SECTIONSC-365ACCESS ROAD DETAILSC-366ACCESS ROAD SUPERELEVATIONC-001 PROJECT MAPS & DRAWING INDEXC-002PROJECT SITE OVERVIEW MAPC-003GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS, LEGEND & SYMBOLSC-004SURVEY CONTROL DIAGRAM RECORD OF SURVEYC-005ARCHITECTURAL CODE TEXT IC-006ARCHITECTURAL CODE TEXT IIC-101 SITE PLANC-102 INTAKE PLANC-111INTAKE SECTIONS, SHEET 1C-112INTAKE SECTIONS, SHEET 2C-121INTAKE REINFORCEMENT PLANC-122INTAKE REINFORCEMENT SECTIONSELECTRICALMISCELLANEOUS DETAILSE-600ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION LEGENDE-601INTAKE ELECTRICAL PLAN (NIC)E-601AINTAKE EMBEDDED CONDUIT AND GROUNDING PLANE-602POWER HOUSE ELECTRICAL SITE PLANE-603POWER HOUSE ELECTRICAL PLANS (NIC)E-603APOWER HOUSE EMBEDDED CONDUIT AND GROUNDING PLANE-604ELECTRICAL GENERATOR ONE LINE DIAGRAM (NIC)E-605480V PANELBOARD GENERATOR ONE LINE DIAGRAM (NIC)E-606ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS (NIC)E-607ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES (NIC)E-608ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD SCHEDULES (NIC)E-609ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS (NIC)E-610ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION DETAILS (NIC)E-611P&ID (NIC)E-612COMMUNICATION AND MISCELLANEOUS BLOCK DIAGRAMSC-801MISCELLANEOUS STEEL DETAILS, SHEET 1C-802MISCELLANEOUS STEEL DETAILS, SHEET 2C-803MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE DETAILSNO.REVISIONSDATEDESCRIPTIONBYCHKAPPROV.ACCESS ROADCONTINUED1ACCESS ROADC-350ACCESS ROAD & PIPELINE SHEET KEY INDEXC-351 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 1+00 TO Sta 5+50C-352 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 5+50 TO Sta 10+50C-353ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 10+50 TO Sta 14+70C-354ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 14+70 TO Sta 20+10C-355ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 20+10 TO Sta 25+00C-356ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 25+00 TO Sta 30+50C-357ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 30+50 TO Sta 35+50C-358 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 35+50 TO Sta 39+50C-359 ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 39+50 TO Sta 43+75C-360ACCESS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE STA 43+75 TO STA 47+67.16POWERHOUSEC-501POWERHOUSE SITE PLANC-521POWERHOUSE PLANC-522POWERHOUSE SECTIONS, SHEET 1C-523POWERHOUSE SECTIONS, SHEET 2C-531POWERHOUSE REINFORCEMENT PLANC-532POWERHOUSE REINFORCEMENT SECTIONSC-551POWERHOUSE ELEVATIONSC-400PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 60+00 TO Sta 64+50C-401PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 64+50 TO Sta 69+50C-402PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 69+50 TO Sta 73+80C-403PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 73+80 TO Sta 79+50C-404PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 79+50 TO Sta 84+50C-405PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 84+50 TO Sta 89+50C-406PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 89+50 TO Sta 94+50C-407PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 94+50 TO Sta 98+50C-408PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE Sta 98+50 TO Sta 103+50C-409PIPE PLAN AND PROFILE STA 103+50 TO STA 106+04.61C-410SPRING CREEK DIVERSION PIPE PLAN AND PROFILEC-411PIPE DETAILSC-412PIPE DETAILSPIPELINE AND DIVERSIONMECHANICALM-151INTAKE MECHANICAL PLAN AND SECTIONSLWDBRFB9-5-2014ISSUED FOR BID
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Prepared for:
City of King Cove
3880 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
December 2013
Revision
Pages
No. Date Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By
First Draft 10/21/09 P.Berkshire/B. Butera B.Carey, AEA
G. Hennigh, City of KC
Second Draft 08/23/13 P.Berkshire/B. Butera
Updated Pipe 12/5/2013 B.Butera/D.Elwood
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Table of Contents
Page
Section I - General Design Criteria
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ I-1
2.0 References .............................................................................................................................. I-1
3.0 General Description of Facilities ........................................................................................... I-2
4.0 Materials ................................................................................................................................. I-3
4.1 Unit Weights .............................................................................................................. I-3
4.2 Concrete ..................................................................................................................... I-3
4.3 Reinforcement ............................................................................................................ I-3
4.4 Earth and Rock........................................................................................................... I-4
4.5 Steel ............................................................................................................................ I-4
4.6 Timber ........................................................................................................................ I-4
Section II - Diversions and Intake
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... II-1
2.0 References ............................................................................................................................. II-1
3.0 Description of Facilities ........................................................................................................ II-1
4.0 Hydraulic Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... II-3
4.1 General Project Operation ........................................................................................ II-3
4.2 Design Maximum Water Surface Elevation............................................................. II-3
4.3 Normal Maximum Water Surface Elevation ............................................................ II-3
4.4 Minimum Operating Water Surface Elevation......................................................... II-3
4.5 Design Flow .............................................................................................................. II-3
4.6 Intake Submergence.................................................................................................. II-4
4.7 Fish Screen Velocity ................................................................................................. II-4
4.8 Trash Rack Velocity ................................................................................................. II-4
4.9 Trajectory of Flow .................................................................................................... II-4
5.0 Structural Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... II-4
5.1 Crest Elevation of Diversion Structure ..................................................................... II-4
5.2 Foundation Bearing Pressures .................................................................................. II-5
5.3 Stability ..................................................................................................................... II-5
Section III - Pipeline
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... III-1
2.0 References ........................................................................................................................... III-1
3.0 Pipeline ................................................................................................................................ III-1
3.1 General ..................................................................................................................... III-1
3.2 Materials .................................................................................................................. III-2
3.3 Design Loads ........................................................................................................... III-2
4.0 Thrust Blocks ...................................................................................................................... III-4
5.0 Elbows ................................................................................................................................. III-5
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Table of Contents
(Continued)
Page
Section III - Pipeline (Continued)
6.0 Pipeline Appurtenances ..................................................................................................... III-5
6.1 Manholes .................................................................................................................. III-5
6.2 Air-release and Air-vacuum Valves ........................................................................ III-5
6.3 Leak Detection System ............................................................................................ III-6
7.0 Trenching ............................................................................................................................ III-6
Section IV - Roads and Site Drainage
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... IV-1
2.0 References ........................................................................................................................... IV-1
3.0 Access Roads....................................................................................................................... IV-1
4.0 Clear Creek Crossing .......................................................................................................... IV-3
5.0 Site Drainage ..................................................................................................................... IV-3
5.1 Ditches .................................................................................................................... IV-3
5.2 Culverts ................................................................................................................... IV-3
5.3 Peak Flow Rates...................................................................................................... IV-3
5.4 Conveyance Sizing ................................................................................................. IV-3
Section V - Powerhouse
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... V-1
2.0 References ............................................................................................................................ V-1
3.0 General Description of Facilities ......................................................................................... V-1
4.0 Turbine/Generator ................................................................................................................ V-1
5.0 Plant Controls ....................................................................................................................... V-2
5.1 Load Controls ........................................................................................................... V-2
5.2 Backup Power ........................................................................................................... V-4
5.3 Intake Control ........................................................................................................... V-4
5.4 Other Powerhouse Equipment .................................................................................. V-5
6.0 Powerhouse Structure........................................................................................................... V-6
6.1 General ...................................................................................................................... V-6
6.2 Earthquake Loads ..................................................................................................... V-7
6.3 Snow Loads............................................................................................................... V-7
6.4 Wind Loads ............................................................................................................... V-7
Section VI - Transformer
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... VI-1
1.1 Replace or Upgrade ................................................................................................ VI-1
Appendix: AEA Comments on First Draft Design Criteria
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section I
General Design Criteria
1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the general design criteria to be used in preparing final designs of the
diversion and intake structures, pipeline, powerhouse, transmission line and access roads for the
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project. Section I presents general design criteria to be used for these
project facilities. Sections II, III, and IV present specific design criteria for the diversion and intake,
pipeline, and roads and site drainage respectively, and should be used in conjunction with the general
criteria in this section. Design criteria for the powerhouse, powerhouse equipment, and switchyard
changes are covered in Sections V and VI.
These design criteria are to be used as the basis for preparing detailed design drawings, calculations,
and specifications.
2. REFERENCES
Design engineers should also refer to applicable information contained in the following documents:
1. USGS 1:63,360 scale contour map, Cold Bay, Alaska, 1983 edition.
2. Aero-Metric, 1”=400’ mapping based on photography acquired 10-30-1995 at a nominal
scale of 1’=2000’.
3. HDR Alaska, Inc., King Cove “Waterfall Creek” Hydroelectric Project, Concept Design
Report –Final, September 12, 2007.
4. HDR Alaska, Inc., King Cove Hydroelectric Project Record Drawings, February 28, 1994.
5. HDR Alaska, Inc., King Cove Hydroelectric Project Contract Documents for General
Construction, January 1994.
6. Shannon and Wilson, Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project, Reconnaissance Report,
September 21, 2009.
7. FERC "Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects," 1991.
8. Gemperline, Eugene, J. M., ASCE, Considerations in the Design and Operation of Hydro
Power Intake, Cold Regions Hydrology and Hydraulics, pgs. 157-556, 1990. A State of the
Practice prepared by the Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. Edited by William L. Ryan and Randy D. Crissman.
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The Project will be located on a small unnamed creek approximately 5 miles north of the City of
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
King Cove. This creek is adjacent to and west of an existing hydroelectric project on Delta Creek
that was constructed in 1995. The creek has a noticeable waterfall that is visible from the Delta
Creek hydroelectric powerhouse. For the purposes of this memorandum we will call this creek
“Waterfall Creek”.
The drainage basin for this creek is generally south facing, and ranges in elevation from
approximately 3000 feet down to 700 feet near the top of the waterfall and 190 feet where
Waterfall Creek meets Delta Creek. The basin can best be observed from near the water tank at
the high point on the King Cove Airport Road.
The project will capture the streamflow approximately 500 feet upstream of the falls and discharge
it to Delta Creek at the existing Delta Creek tailrace. The general project arrangement will
include the following main features and is shown in Figure 3 with a detail of the lower portion
shown in Figure 4.
An intake structure located 500 feet upstream of the waterfall at approximately elevation
680 feet.
A pipeline located to the northeast side of Waterfall Creek.
A powerhouse constructed as an addition to the existing Delta Creek Hydro Project
powerhouse.
A new 480V - 12.5 kV transformer and use of the existing 5.6 mile 12.5 kV transmission line
connecting the existing Delta Creek Hydro powerhouse to the City of King Cove.
An access road to the intake structure that crosses Delta Creek with a bridge and is
generally located on the northeast side of Waterfall Creek.
Based on the field reconnaissance the diversion structure will be approximately 20 feet wide at the
base and 40 feet wide at the top (assuming a 10 foot height). The intake will be designed to divert
water at a rate of up to 12 cfs for hydroelectric power generation. The intake will be constructed of
cast-in-place concrete keyed to the diversion structure and will include provisions for sluicing
bedload, preventing debris from entering the pipeline with a trash rack, releasing a 1 cfs instream
flows, and dewatering the pipeline with a shutoff valve. A buried pipeline will be constructed from
the intake to the powerhouse. The pipeline diameter will be 20 inches, and the pipeline will be
approximately 4,000 feet long. The pipeline will be constructed from high density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe. Electrical power and control signal cables will be run to the intake and a spare conduit
will be included.
A road will be required to construct and access the intake site and the pipeline. The road will
switchback up the northeast side of the creek (right side when facing waterfall). A bridge will be
required across Delta Creek. The length of this road is approx imately 3,600 feet. The average
slope over this route would be 13% with some steeper sections. Winter maintenance of this road
may be difficult as a photograph of the site from winter of 2006 showed that there may be
significant snow drifting along the upper sections of the roadway.
A powerhouse would be located adjacent to the existing powerhouse. This would allow use of
much of the existing mechanical and electrical systems within the existing powerhouse and would
provide for ease of operator access. A 19-foot x 40-foot addition on the east side of the existing
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
powerhouse is proposed. The penstock would enter on the north wall of this addition. Discharge
from the turbine will flow through a concrete channel in the powerhouse foundation, then into a
short new tailrace and then into the existing powerhouse tailrace channel to Delta Creek.
The powerhouse includes the following features:
A 19’×40’ slab-type reinforced concrete foundation, with column footings and perimeter
walls similar to the existing powerhouse.
A 19’×40’ pre-engineered insulated metal building superstructure, designed for the
appropriate snow, seismic, crane, and wind loads. The existing building shell will be
modified to access the addition.
A double nozzle horizontal Pelton impulse turbine with hydraulically-operated needle
valves and jet deflectors. Rotational speed would be 600 rpm.
An induction generator rated at 400 kW, 480V.
A butterfly-type turbine shutoff valve.
A hydraulic power unit for operating the turbine valves.
An overhead monorail hoist for assembling and loading turbine and generator components.
The existing powerhouse work area will be extended to the north to allow hoist loads to be
set or picked up from trucks in the work area. The existing backup diesel generator will
need to be relocated.
A control system designed for remote-automatic operation of the generating unit.
This arrangement will piggyback on the existing DC power system, HVAC equipment
plumbing systems and substation equipment.
4. MATERIALS
4.1. Unit Weights
The following standard unit weights (pounds per cubic foot) shall be used, where applicable.
Water 62.4
Steel 490
Concrete 150
Wood 25
Ice 60
Snow at intake area 25
Snow at powerhouse site 10
Backfill 100
4.2. Concrete
The analysis and design of new reinforced concrete structures shall follow the latest revision of ACI
Code 318 and applicable sections of ACI 350. Reinforced concrete structures shall be analyzed on
the basis of the theory of elastic frames, but design of a section shall be carried out using the ultimate
strength design method.
Concrete used for the project shall achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi at 28 days.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Lean concrete for pipe slurry bedding (if used) will have a minimum 1,000 psi compressive strength.
Cement used for the project shall be Type I or Type III, conforming to ASTM C 150.
4.3. Reinforcement
Reinforcement detailing will be performed in accordance with the ACI Manual of Standard Practice
for Detailing Reinforced Concrete Structures. Reinforcement shall conform to the requirements of
ASTM A 615, Grade 60.
4.4. Earth and Rock
Engineering properties for soils, including allowable temporary and permanent excavated slopes, and
characteristics of borrow material will be determined by a geotechnical analysis provided prior to
final design.
4.5. Structural Steel
Steel members shall be designed in accordance with the Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, and the Manual of Steel Construction published by the
AISC. Structural steel and miscellaneous steel will comply with the following ASTM requirements:
Structural steel shapes, plates and bars A36
Structural Steel Tubing A500 Grade B
Aluminum Members B209
Bolts A193, Grade B8 or better
Grating A36 or Aluminum
Checkered Plate A108 Grade 1016,1018,1019
Handrail A120 Std. Wt.
Stainless Steel A304 (ANSI 18 Cr 8 Ni)
Exposed metal surfaces will be hot dip galvanized or stainless, except for gates and valves. All
exterior stairs, and checkered plate will be hot dip galvanized in accordance with ASTM A123. All
exposed bolts, nuts, and washers will be type 304 stainless. Gates and valves inside powerhouse will
be painted, outside gates and valves will have a weather resistant factory applied paint.
4.6. Timber
Timber used for structural purposes shall be treated West Coast Douglas Fir, designed in accordance
with the UBC and American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC).
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section II
Diversion and Intake Structure
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents the hydraulic, structural, and mechanical design criteria for the diversion and
intake structure.
2. REFERENCES
1. USBR, "Design of Small Dams," third edition, 1987.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Hydraulic Design Criteria."
3. U.S. Geological Survey, "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Alaska and Conterminous
Basins of Canada," Provisional Report, September 1992.
3. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The diversion structure will be approximately 20 feet wide at the base and 40 feet wide at the top
(assuming a 10 foot height). The intake will be designed to divert water at a rate of up to 12 cfs for
hydroelectric power generation. The intake will be constructed of cast-in-place concrete keyed to
the diversion structure and will include provisions for sluicing bedload, preventing debris from
entering the pipeline with a trash rack, releasing a 1 cfs instream flow, and dewatering the pipeline
with a shutoff valve. A buried pipeline will be constructed from the intake to the powerhouse. The
pipeline diameter will be 20 inches, and the pipeline will be approximately 4,000 feet long. The
pipeline will be constructed from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. Electrical power and
control signal cables will be run to both intakes.
Basic requirements of the diversion and intake structure are as follows:
1. The diversion and intake structure will be designed as similar as possible to the existing
structure at Clear Creek to aid operator familiarity.
2. A small amount of bedload is expected to accumulate behind the diversion structure. With
the sluice arrangement, a channel will be kept open through the reservoir to the intake
channel by the action of a sluiceway. The sluiceway will also keep the area in front of the
trashrack free of sediment. The sluice way will be designed to pass the largest bedload as
determined during final design. Discharge through the sluiceway will be controlled by a
conventional flat sluice gate. The gate will be capable of operating remotely. Power and
controls for the gate will be designed by HDR.
3. A submerged HDPE trash rack will be installed between the sluiceway and the intake box to
keep debris from entering the intake box. HDPE will be used to minimize any frazil ice
issues. The trash rack will be set with freeboard above the bottom of the sluiceway to
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
allow bedload to pass by. Vertical bar spacings will be selected after turbine supplier
recommendations are reviewed in the final design. Provision will be made for installation
of pressure differential measuring instruments. When the difference in water level
upstream and downstream of the trashrack exceeds a preset limit, plugging is occurring, and
the plant control computer will sound an alarm and call for operator.
4. The intake box will be designed to limit water velocities to less than 1 ft/sec which will
allow settling of larger material which passes through the trashrack, preventing it from
entering the pipeline. Settling area below the pipeline invert will be designed into the
intake box. An outlet pipe with a gate valve will be included in the intake box to expedite
clean-out if sediment accumulates. A second outlet with an orifice plate will be included to
release instream flow. The orifice plate will be field calibrated to pass 1 cfs. A gate valve
will be included on the outlet to allow removal and replacement of the orifice plate during
calibration.
5. The sluiceway, intake box, and intake controls will be housed and heated. A manhole will
extend from this housing into a small structure that extends above the snow line to allow
winter access.
6. A butterfly valve will be installed to shut off flow to the pipeline and allow the pipeline to
be drained. The valve will be capable of operating remotely and manually. Valve shafts
and disc edges and other exposed hardware shall be stainless steel. The valve will be
inside a roofed intake box. An atmospheric air vent will be placed downstream of the
shutoff gate. Valve operators will have metal security enclosures.
7. The diversion and intake facilities will be designed with future maintenance in mind.
Principal maintenance tasks are expected to be:
Lubrication of motor operators
Removal of sediment deposits in intake
Removal of sediment deposits upstream of the diversion structure to maintain
unrestricted flow to the intake
Removal of floating debris against trash racks
8. Project facilities shall be designed against potential vandalism. For example, hinges shall
be concealed, bolts tacked down and solid covers provided over openings in the intake
deck. OSHA standards shall apply. Fencing will not be installed around the
diversion/intake.
9. Sluiceway stop-logs will be made of timber.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
4. HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA
4.1. General Project Operation
The project will be operated in a run-of-river mode. Fluctuation of the water levels of the pond
behind the diversion will be kept to a minimum.
4.2. Design Maximum Water Surface Elevation
The design maximum water surface elevation will be based on the 100-year instantaneous flood as
determined by HDR. The diversion structure will have 2 feet of freeboard over the design maximum
water surface elevation.
4.3. Minimum Operating Water Surface Elevation
Flow from the intake will be controlled by a headwater level measurement device sending a signal to
the powerhouse Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The PLC will modulate opening or closing
of the turbine nozzles to regulate the intake water surface elevation. The device will be programmed
by HDR to maintain the pool elevation behind the diversion structure within an approx. 3-inch range.
Assuming there will be times when the pool level will temporarily drop below the 3-inch range, the
minimum operating water surface elevation will be set at 12 inches below the diversion crest. The
powerplant will be shut down when the water surface elevation drops below the minimum operating
water surface elevation, or if the turbine flow is below the minimum discharge setting. The minimum
discharge setting may be determined either by freezing conditions inside the turbine tailrace, or by
flow less than necessary to produce power.
4.4. Design Flow
The trash rack and pipeline from the intake to the junction of the powerhouse will be sized to convey
a maximum flow of no less than 12 cfs to the turbine.
4.5. Intake Submergence
The maximum intake invert elevation will be set based on an article by J. L. Gordon (Water Power,
April 1970). The equation is:
S = CVD0.5
where:
S = Elevation difference between min. operating elevation and crown of intake, ft
C = 0.4 (for lateral approach flow)
V = Velocity of flow in pipeline, fps
D = Diameter of pipeline, ft
4.6. Minimum Instream Flow
The Waterfall Creek diversion dam and water intake will be designed to spill a constant flow of 1 cfs;
this spill requirement will not be increased over the life of the project. The flow from the Waterfall
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Creek diversion will be established by a fixed orifice plate. During times when Waterfall Creek flow
is naturally less than 1 cfs at the intake, all available water will be spilled into Waterfall Creek. When
Waterfall Creek flow ranges between 1 and 13 cfs at the intake, the 1 cfs of spill will be maintained.
Flow greater than 13 cfs will be spilled into Waterfall Creek.
4.7. Trash Rack Velocity
Maximum flow velocity through the trash rack shall not exceed 3 fps. The trash rack will be
designed to withstand full differential pressure across the rack.
4.8. Trajectory of Flow
The downstream apron of the diversion structure shall be sized to minimize undermining of the
diversion structure and to direct flows along the natural lines of the creek.
5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA
5.1. Design Loads
The diversion and intake structure shall be designed to resist overturning and sliding in accordance
with FERC's "Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects." The diversion
structure shall be analyzed for four loading cases: I) normal operating, II) flood, III) normal
operating with earthquake, and IV) construction.
5.1.1. Hydrostatic Pressure
Hydrostatic levels shall be as determined by the hydraulic design criteria.
5.1.2. Uplift Pressure
Uplift will be assumed to act over 100 percent of the area of the intake structures and to vary as a
straight line from the maximum differential between headwater and tail water.
5.1.3. Earthquake
Equivalent static earthquake inertia forces will be computed in accordance with the UBC for Zone 4,
with a site coefficient of 1.0. Vertical seismic loads are assumed to be zero.
5.1.4. Ice and Snow
The magnitude of pressure exerted by ice sheets against the diversion and intake structure shall be
assumed to be 5 kips per linear foot. Snow load for the intake structures located in gullies where
snow deposition occurs will be 160 pounds per square foot.
5.1.5. Silt
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
For determining the pressure against structures caused by silt, the unit weight of silt shall be 85 pcf for
computing horizontal pressures and 120 pcf for computation of vertical pressures.
5.1.6. Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls and other backfilled structures shall be determined from the
formula:
F = 0.5KwH2
where:
F = Horizontal earth pressure
K = Coefficient of earth pressure
Kactive = (to be determined)
Kat rest = (to be determined)
Kpassive = (to be determined)
w = Unit weight of soil plus ground water, pcf
H = Height of soil, ft
5.1.7. Wind Load
Design will be per UBC with a basic wind speed of 110 mph, exposure factor D.
5.2. Foundation Bearing Pressure
Bedrock is assumed.
5.3. Stability
Structures will be designed to meet FERC-standard factors of safety for low hazard dams as shown
below for each of the following load cases:
Case I: Normal Operating Condition
- Pool elevation at spillway crest
- Silt loading
Case II: Flooding Condition
- 100-year flood level
Case III: Earthquake Condition
- Same loads as Case I plus earthquake loads using static seismic coefficients.
Case IV: Construction Condition
- Construction completed with no water behind diversion structure
- Earthquake forces applied as in Case III
5.3.1. Overturning
Structures will be considered safe against overturning for each load case if the vertical stress at the
heel, without uplift, exceeds uplift pressure at that point. For the extreme loading conditions, the
structure will be considered safe against overturning if the pressure at the toe is less than the allowable
stress in the concrete and the foundation, and the resultant is within the middle half of the foundation.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Factors of safety as in Section 5.3.2, sliding will apply.
5.3.2. Sliding
For structures on soils, the factor of safety (F.S.) against sliding, defined as the ratio of friction
resisting forces to horizontal driving forces, will be calculated by the formula:
where V = summation of all vertical forces and H = summation of all horizontal forces. Minimum
factors of safety for various load conditions, and coefficients of friction for various soil types are
given below:
Minimum Factor of Safety Coefficient of Sliding Friction
Case FS Soil (f)
I 2.00 Clay 0.3
II 1.25 Sand 0.4
III 1.25 Gravel 0.5
IV 1.10
For structures on rock, stability against sliding will be determined by the shear-friction factor.
where:
Q = Shear friction factor
C = Cohesion value of concrete on rock, psf
A = Area of base considered, sf
W = Sum of vertical forces (except uplift), lb
U = Uplift forces, lb
tan Ö = Coefficient of internal friction
H = Sum of horizontal forces, lb
Minimum factors of safety will be 2.0 for Case I, 1.25 for Case II, and 1.1 for Cases III and IV.
5.3.3. Flotation
Stability for uplift pressure will have minimum factors of safety of 1.5 for Case I, 1.25 for Case II and
1.1 for Cases III and IV.
H
V(f)x = FS
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section III
Pipeline
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents the design criteria to be used as the basis for preparing detailed design drawings,
calculations, and specifications for the pipeline and thrust blocks.
2. REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 8th edition.
2. American Water Works Association, Steel Pipe Design and Installation M-11.
3. American Iron and Steel Institute, Welded Steel Pipe, Steel Plate Engineering Data Volume 3,
1983.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Pipelines and Tunnel Liners, Steel Plate Engineering
Data Volume 4, 1984.
5. American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Plate Engineering Data Volume 4, 1992. Buried
Steel Pipelines.
3. PIPELINE
3.1. General
The pipeline will extend from the intake to the powerhouse and will be approximately 4,000 feet
long. The pipeline will be constructed from HDPE and will be buried throughout its length. The
HDPE pipeline will transition to steel pipe just upstream of the powerhouse thrust block. The outside
diameter of the pipeline will be 20 inches based on life cycle costs. The recommended class of HDPE
pipe by pressure zone is summarized in following table:
Zone Pipe Class Diameter Wall
Thickness
Minimum
Head
Maximum
Head
Minimum Depth
of Cover
non-dim inches inches feet feet feet
1 SDR 13.5 20 1.48 0 40 1.83
2 SDR 17 20 1.18 40 286 2.25
3 SDR 13.5 20 1.48 286 368 1.83
4 SDR 11 20 1.82 368 460 1.83
5 SDR 9 20 2.22 460 470 1.83
The pipeline will follow the access road from just downstream of the intake to the Delta Creek
crossing. For the majority of the route, the pipe will be located in the centerline of the access road.
The pipeline will cross Delta Creek on the downstream side of the road bridge and will be supported
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
in a steel casing. The steel casing will be supported on the concrete bridge abutments with
intermediate supports from the bridge structure. The gap between the HDPE pipe and the steel
casing will be maintained with casing spacers and filled with insulating foam. Casing spacers will
be designed to accommodate the electrical and communication conduits. Boots will be installed on
the ends of the pipe.
A small water catchment structure and pipeline will also be installed on a small unnamed stream
north of Waterfall Creek (locally known as Springs Creek). The Springs Creek diversion will convey
all of the available water (up to the capacity of the pipeline) to Waterfall Creek through an 8-inch
diversion pipe. A magnetic flux flow meter will be installed on the Springs Creek pipeline to measure
discharge from Springs Creek. An energy dissipation structure will be located at the end of the pipe.
Springs Creek water will be discharged near location WC-7, identified during field investigations.
3.2. Materials
High Density Polyethylene pipe shall be designed in accordance with ASTM 3350, Standard
Specification for Polyethylene Plastic Pipe and Fittings Materials and design guidelines from the
Handbook of PE Pipe published by the Plastic Pipe Institute. The HDPE material shall conform to
ASTM F412, “Standard Terminology Relating to Plastic Piping Systems”, Grade PE4710.
Pipeline specifications will include all appurtenances and bulkheads required for field hydrotesting of
the completed pipeline.
3.3. Design Loads
The following design criteria shall be used for the design of the HDPE pipeline. The pipeline will be
designed to resist internal pressure, external live loads, buckling loads during construction,
overpressure/vacuum due to water hammer, and hydrostatic leak testing to 125 percent of static head.
3.3.1. Internal Pressure
The internal pressure rating (PR) of the HDPE pipe shall be based on the following equation from the
Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 6:
where:
D = Outside diameter of the pipe (in)
t = Wall thickness of the pipe (in)
HDS = Hydrostatic design stress (1000 psi for PE4710 material)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
FT = Service temperature design factor (1.0 for water temperature less than 73 Deg. F)
AF = Environmental application factor (1.0 for fresh water)
3.3.2. Live Load
The live load on the buried pipe shall be calculated for the same live load cases described previously
for the steel pipe. Timoshenko’s equation for soil pressure shall be used to calculate the combined
earth and live load on the buried pipe. The minimum depth of cover for the pipe under the roadway
shall be not less than one pipe diameter (22 inches) per guidance from the Handbook of PE Pipe. The
following equation shall be used to calculate the live loads on the buried pipe:
[
]
where:
PL = Vertical soil pressure due to live load (lb/ft2)
If = Impact factor (2.0)
Ww = Wheel load (lbs)
ac = Wheel contact area (ft2)
H = Depth of cover (ft)
rT = Equivalent radius (ac/π)1/2
3.3.3. Allowable Live Load Pressure at Pipe Crown
The allowable live load pressure at the pipe crown shall be calculated to ensure that the live loads on
the roadway will not damage the pipe. The following equation for the Handbook of PE Pipe shall be
used to calculate the allowable live load pressure (PWAT):
(
)
where:
w = Unit weight of soil (lb/ft3)
K = Passive earth coefficient (3.0)
Hc = Depth of cover (feet)
I = Pipe wall moment of inertia (in4)
SF = Safety factor (Minimum factor of safety of 3.0)
c = Outer fiber to pipe wall centroid (in)
SMAT = Material yield strength (3,600 psi for 4710 HDPE)
D0 = Outside diameter of pipe (inches)
t = Pipe wall thickness (inches)
3.3.4. De-watered Buckling of Pipe
The allowable buckling pressure for the constrained evacuated pipe during construction shall be
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
calculated to ensure that the pipe will not collapse during construction. The Luscher equation shall be
used to calculate the allowable constrained buckling pressure (PWC) for the pipe:
√
where:
SF = Safety factor (Minimum factor of safety of 2.0)
H = Depth of cover (feet)
E’ = Soil reaction modulus (psi)
E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe (32,000 psi for HDPE pipe)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
3.3.5. Water Hammer
The transient pressure surge in the HDPE pipeline shall be based on a sudden slam of one of the
turbine needle valves resulting in instantaneous reduction in flow of 50% through the pipeline. The
maximum pressure due to surge shall not exceed 2.0 times the design pressure per the design
guidelines from the Handbook of PE Pipe. The absolute vacuum pressure due to surge shall be no
more than 0.33 times the allowable unconstrained pipe wall buckling pressure (PWU).
The amplitude of the surge pressure wave (PS) shall be calculated using the following equations from
the Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 6:
(
)
√
where:
a = Wave celerity (ft/s)
ΔV = Sudden velocity change (ft/s)
g = Gravitational constant (32.174 ft/s2)
KBULK = Bulk modulus of fluid (300,000 psi for fresh water)
Ed = Dynamic instantaneous effective modulus of pipe (150,000 psi for PE4710 material)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
The allowable unconstrained pipe wall buckling pressure (PWU) shall be calculated using the
following equation from the Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 6:
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
(
)
where:
f0 = Ovality correction factor (0.76 based on guidance from Handbook of PE Pipe)
NS = Factor of safety (Minimum factor of safety of 2.0)
Ed = Dynamic instantaneous effective modulus of pipe (150,000 psi for PE4710 material)
μ = Poisson’s ration of pipe (0.45 for HDPE)
DR = Controlled pipe dimension ration (D/t)
4. THRUST RESTRAINT
The pipeline will be retrained joint design for its entire length. The powerhouse thrust block will
be designed to resist the load on the guard valve and will be designed into the powerhouse foundation
. Anchor rings will be designed for powerhouse thrust block to accept dead-end thrust.
Hydrostatic thrust at bends will be calculated according to the following equation:
where:
T = Thrust force, kips
ã = Unit weight of water, 0.0624 kip/ft3
H = Head on the pipeline centerline, feet
A = Area of the pipe, sq feet
Ä = Deflection angle of bend, degrees
Hydrodynamic thrust at bends will be calculated according to the following equation:
where:
T = Thrust force, lb
ñ = Density of water, 1.94 slug/ft3
V = Water velocity, ft/sec
Q = Flow rate, ft3/sec
Thrust blocks will be designed according to the following equation:
Area required = (Total thrust)(1.5)/Horizontal bearing capacity of soil
5. ELBOWS
Elbows for steel pipe bends will have a minimum radius of seven pipe diameters and will be
fabricated in accordance with AWWA C208. The maximum deflection per joint will be 1 degree.
Miter ends will have a maximum deflection angle of 5 degrees. Elbows will be two piece through
22.5 degrees, three piece through 45 degrees, four piece through 67.5 degrees, and five piece through
90 degrees.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Elbows for HDPE pipe bends will be fabricated in accordance with D 3261 “Standard Specification
for Butt Heat Fusion Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Fittings for Polyethylene Plastic Pipe and Tubing.”.
6. PIPELINE APPURTENANCES
6.1. Pipeline Failure Detection System
A pipeline failure detection system will be designed to close the intake valves in the event of a
pipeline failure. Pipeline pressure will be monitored at the power house and if it drops below a set
level the intake valves will close and the system will shut down. Design and programming of
controls to perform this function will be by HDR.
7. TRENCHING
The pipeline will be in a cut-and-cover trench having a bottom width a minimum of 1 foot wider (6
inches each side) than the pipe outside diameter. Trench depths will be 6 inches below the grade of
the outside bottom of the pipeline to provide a uniform bedding support for the entire length.
Bedding and backfill to a height of 6 inches above the pipe will be compacted 2 inch minus screened
pit run material for HDPE and 3/4 inch minus screened pit run material for steel. Material suitable
for this use with minimal screening is available at a pit near the airport. A minimum soil cover will
be provided over the top of the pipe to handle H20 surface loads. Pipe will not be buried below the
frost line. It is assumed the pipe will either be flowing or drained and will not be left full when plant
is not operational during the winter. Trench details will show power and communication cables to
be installed along with the pipe.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section IV
Roads and Site Drainage
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents design criteria for the project access roads and site drainage. It covers the
design of permanent access roads and site drainage for the entire project.
2. REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, 2001.
2. AASHTO Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads, 2001.
3. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Highway Preconstruction
Manual, 2005.
4. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Standard Specifications for
Highway Construction, 2004.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Standard
Specification for Highway Bridges.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Design of
Highway Culverts, September 1985.
3. ACCESS ROADS
A permanent road will be constructed to the intake site. The access route is generally along the
northeast side of Waterfall Creek (right side when facing waterfall). The road will begin near the
existing powerhouse and cross Delta Creek upstream of the existing powerhouse with a bridge.
The length of this road is approximately 4,300 feet. Winter maintenance of this road may be
difficult as a photograph of the site from winter of 2006 showed that there may be significant snow
drifting along the upper sections of the roadway.
Specific details of road design are shown in the following table.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Project: Waterfall Creek Access Road
New Construction / Reconstruction Rehabilitation (3R) Other:
Design Functional Classification: Rural Industrial Access Road (GDVLVLR, Page 7)
Rural Local Road (PGDHS, Page 383)
Terrain Hill, up to 16%
Design Year: 2030
Present Year ADT: Construction traffic 2014
Design Year ADT: Service & Inspection traffic after construction
Directional Split (50/50% D): 50/50 Dead end Road
Design Vehicle: Single Unit truck, SU; Largest truck is a cement truck
Design Speed: 20 MPH (PGDHS, Exhibit 5-1)
Stopping Sight Distance: 90 Feet (GDVLVLR, Exhibit 12)
Passing Sight Distance: N/A
Maximum Allowable Grade: 16.0%, (PCM, Figure 1120-1)
Minimum Allowable Grade: N/A
Minimum Curve Radius: 190ft at 3% super; 160 Ft at 6% super (PCM, Figure 1120-5) see
note below
Minimum K-value for Vertical Curves: Sag Crest
10, see note below 4 (GDVLVLR, Exhibit 12)
Roadway Widths:
Single lane Road
16 Feet
Side Slope Ratios: Foreslopes Backslopes
1.5:1 3:1
Road cross slope: 3%
Superelevation: None
Road surfacing material: ADOT E-1
GDVLVLR = Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads
PGDHS = A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
PCM = Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual
Curve Radii
The road uses switchbacks to ascend the slope with grades up to 16%. While the design speed is 20mph,
the expected vehicle speed will be much lower. The minimum curve radius for the switchback curves is
50ft to accommodate the expected turning radius of the cement truck.
Vertical Curves
The GDVLVLR does not define the curvature (k) for sag curves; it refers to the PGDHS Exhibit 5 -2. To
determine the ratio between the GDVLVLR crest k and the PGDHS crest k was multiplied by the PGDHS
sag k to find the low volume sag k. (4/7 x 17 = 10).
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
4. DELTA CREEK CROSSING
The road will cross Delta Creek about 750 feet upstream of the existing powerhouse at approximately
the 235-foot contour level. The crossing will have a span of approximately 50 to 60 feet and a top
width of 16feet and will be a pre-manufactured bridge. The road grade across the bridge will be
approximately 10 percent. The bridge will span the entire creek and will be designed to pass the
100-year flood flow. Riprap will be placed at the east abutment, the west abutment is bedrock. A
short dike will be extended upstream on the east side of the creek to connect the east abutment to a
low hill to prevent flood flows from running along the toe of the road fill.
The concrete abutments will be prefabricated in order to expedite construction of the bridge to allow
access for road construction. Concrete abutments will be extended to support the pipeline.
5. SITE DRAINAGE
5.1. Ditches
Drainage ditches will have a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum slope of 2 percent.
Runoff velocities will be limited to 3 fps where no armor protection of the ditch is provided.
Appropriate armor protection will be designed where velocities exceed 3 fps. Ditches at select
portions of the roadway will have a perforated pipe installed and the ditch backfilled with cobbles to
support the weak soil in these areas.
5.2. Culverts
Culverts will be corrugated HDPE with a minimum diameter of 18 inches. The minimum depth of
cover over culverts will be 12 inches. Culverts will have slopes of at least 2 percent.
5.3. Peak Flow Rates
Flow rates produced by storm water runoff from small drainage areas will be determined by the
Rational Formula:
Q = CIA
where:
Q = Peak flow, cfs
C = Runoff coefficient, 0.5
I = Rainfall intensity, 1.0 in/hr, (25-year, 1 hr)
A = Drainage area, Acres
5.4. Conveyance Sizing
Drainage ditches will be sized for the calculated runoff flow rate for the area drained. Sizes will be
determined by Manning's Equation:
where:
Q = Flow rate, cfs
n = 0.024 for ditches
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
R = Hydraulic radius = A/P, ft
A = Area of flow, sf
P = Wetted perimeter, ft
S = Slope of ditch, ft/ft
Culverts will be sized and designed in accordance with FHA requirements. Manning's roughness
coefficient for corrugated culverts will be 0.024.
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
Section V
Powerhouse
1. INTRODUCTION
This section presents design criteria for the powerhouse and related powerhouse equipment. It
covers the design of the powerhouse structure, turbine generator, auxiliary equipment, indoor
switchgear and controls.
2. REFERENCES
1. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, 2007.
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
The powerhouse will be a prefabricated metal structure extension on the north side of the existing
powerhouse, housing a turbine, generator, switchgear, and controls. All equipment will be located
on a single level, with a reinforced concrete slab on grade floor. The turbine will discharge into a
tailrace with depth similar to the existing turbine. The exterior of the building will be designed to
match the original for a pleasant appearance. Approximately half the length of the north wall of the
existing building will be opened by removing the siding, to connect the inside of the new section.
The wall footing will be cut flush with the floor slab, and the new floor will match the existing floor
elevation. Floor drains will be directed to the existing oil/water separator sump. No new
ventilation openings are planned.
Conduits for electric power and controls will be installed overhead from the new switchgear and
control panels to the controls in the existing building, routed to avoid interference with the operation
of the existing unit. Conduits from the controls to the turbine and generator will be embedded in the
floor.
The generating unit will be designed for fully automatic shutdown and for one-button start-up. All
controls would be at the powerhouse. The powerhouse will continue to be checked daily but a full
time operator will not be necessary. The plant addition will be designed to interface with the
SCADA system that allows remote monitoring of the plant from the city over existing
communication lines. Manual operation will be possible from the powerhouse.
Enough floor and access space will be provided to disassemble the turbine and to remove the
generator for maintenance.
4. TURBINE/GENERATOR
The turbine will be an impulse type Pelton machine rated 560 Horsepower at 12 CFS discharge under
450 ft net head.
The turbine unit will have one or two jets and will have a horizontal shaft. The nozzles and deflector
position controls will be either electrically or hydraulically operated. The turbine needles and
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
deflectors shall be equipped with self lubricating bushings and stainless steel stems and linkage pins.
The turbine generator main shafting shall be equipped with four bearings and a rigid shaft coupling
and a flywheel between turbine and generator. All main shaft bearings shall be sleeve oil self
lubricating type, designed for continuous operation at runaway speed. All bearings shall be equipped
with Resistance Temperature Devices (RTDs). One generator bearing shall be insulated to prevent
circulating current. One bearing shall be equipped with thrust capability in both directions to keep
the turbine runner aligned with the nozzles. If water cooling of the bearings is required the bearings
shall be equipped with internal stainless steel or copper-nickle bronze cooling coils.
The rating of the induction generator will be 400 kw, 480 volts AC, 60 Hz. The generator shall be
open drip proof construction. The generator housing shall have a provision for connecting duct to
the cooling air discharge to exhaust it from the building. The generator specifications shall
accommodate use of a standard catalog design induction motor with normal industrial options.
A speed governor may not be required as the unit will only generate when paralleled with another
generating source on the system which will govern frequency. However, the benefits of adding
speed governing for pick up of a step increase in load, such as following a system outage, will be
evaluated during final design, and such speed governing will be included if it is beneficial.
Power Factor Correction may be required for the induction generator. The existing 12 kV
underground power line already provides a significant capacitive load, estimated to be about 130
kVAR. The amount of capacitive load will be verified. The generator is expected to consume
approximately 240 kVAR which can be supplied from the other generator(s) that are on line, or it can
be provided by a switched capacitor bank. The need for and sizing of switched capacitors will be
determined during final design. The plant controls described below assume that a switched
capacitor bank will be added in the powerhouse expansion.
5. PLANT CONTROLS
5.1. Load Controls
It is assumed that the existing plant PLC I/O and logic can be expanded to include control of the new
turbine-generator.
During final design, evaluate whether the existing Programmable Logic Control (PLC) equipment
and program logic can be economically expanded to control the new unit. If not, provide a new
PLC with sufficient I/O and logic for fully automatic start, stop and intake water level regulation,
with either a communication port or discrete I/O points to interface with the existing SCADA
RTU. If the new turbine-generator controls cannot be located close to the existing control panels,
then additional metering such as bus voltage and frequency shall be provided on a new control
panel or the face of the new switchgear.
5.1.1. Local Monitoring
Local monitoring will be via the exiting turbine control panel in the Delta Creek powerhouse. If
additional investigations indicate that space is not available in the existing panel then a new panel
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
shall be designed.
5.1.2. Circuit Protection
The generator shall be equipped with a Woodward GCP-31 genset controller or equal, with the
following protective relaying:
One multi-function induction motor protective relay incorporating at least the following
relay functions: 27, 46, 49, 50, 59, 81 O/U, with RTD inputs
A speed sensing relay shall provide functions 12,13 and 14
59N relay may be included in the multi-function relay or be a separate device.
The capacitor feeder shall be equipped with a 50/51 over-current relay.
5.1.3. Metering
metering incorporated in the GCP-31 to include:
Volts phase to phase, phase Amperes, kilowatts, kilovar.
One speed indicator
Two turbine needle position indicators
One deflector position indicator
Intake water level indicator
One three element digital ammeter for the capacitor feeder.
5.1.4. Status indicators
Turbine Shutoff Valve
Generator Circuit Breaker
Capacitor circuit breaker
5.1.5. Control Switches
Turbine Start/Stop control switch with 2 indicating lights
Turbine Shutoff Valve control switch with 2 indicating lights
Generator Circuit Breaker control switch with 2 indicating lights
Capacitor Circuit Breaker control switch with 2 indicating lights
Off/Manual/Auto mode selector control switch
Two Needle position control switches
Deflector position control switch
Hand reset Lockout relay with indicating lights
5.2. Backup Power
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
The existing 15 kW diesel backup generator with diesel storage and day tanks will provide power
during any extended outage and to keep station batteries charged during outages. The new
equipment will not add significant load to that generator. The backup generator equipment may be
relocated if necessary to minimize the size of the powerhouse addition.
5.3. Intake Control
When operating, the turbine will be controlled to regulate the water surface elevation at the intake
pool. The unit controls will function to produce the maximum power from the available stream
flow. Following a system shutdown, the unit will restart as soon as the system voltage and
frequency are normal.
During final design it will be analyzed whether allowing temporary drawdown of the intake level
adds significantly to the system regulation when picking up step increases in load. If so, this scenario
will be incorporated into the logic in the PLC.
Starting: If all permissives to start are OK the turbine will automatically open the deflectors and
gradually open one needle until the generator accelerates to normal operating speed. When speed
reaches synchronous speed, the generator circuit breaker will close, putting the unit on line with little
inrush current. The capacitor breaker will close immediately following the generator breaker
closing.
Running: The turbine discharge shall be controlled to regulate the intake pond surface elevation to the
normal level. The turbine needles will be positioned to regulate the pond level within a range of
about 3 inches. For higher efficiency, the operation of the needles will be sequenced so that one
needle opens to approximately 90%, and then the second needle opening as the available flow
increases, and vice-versa for decreasing flow. The intake pond level control shall be performed in
the unit PLC with a Proportional-Integral-Differential control block. Separate logic will override
and shut down the unit if the pond level falls too low.
Stopping: In the event of a power system fault, the generator circuit breaker and the capacitor break
will open. The deflectors will close, diverting the power from the turbine, and the unit will coast to a
stop. The control system will continue to pass water through the turbine to regulate the pond level,
and when the bus voltage is normal the machine will reconnect and quickly return to producing the
same load as prior to the fault. The controls will include provision for preventing this via SCADA
input if the connected system load is less than 400 kW, and no diesel generators are on line, since this
unit is not expected to have a speed governor.
Any time the generator circuit breaker trips, or system voltage or frequency exceed allowable values,
the Capacitor circuit breaker will trip to avoid over excitation of generators.
5.4. Other Powerhouse Equipment
5.4.1. 480 Volt Switchgear
The existing switchgear is presumed to not be extendable. New 480 V switchgear shall be added
for the new induction generator. HDR will work with AEA to conform the new equipment to
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
match existing equipment for common spares parts and maintenance personnel familiarity.
5.4.2. Generator Circuit Breaker 52G-2,
The generator breaker shall be closed by turbine controller when water is available, the system
voltage is normal and the generator speed is within approximately 2% of the rated speed.
The generator breaker shall be tripped by any of the following:
The generator multifunction protective relay
The generator electrical lockout relay 86E
The generator mechanical lockout relay 86N
The circuit breaker control switch 52G2/CS
5.4.3. Capacitor Breaker 52C-2
The capacitor circuit breaker shall close to connect the power factor correcting capacitor to the 480
VAC bus when the generator circuit breaker closes.
The breaker shall be opened when the generator breaker open, or by the over -frequency relay or
the overvoltage relay if the system operates above the normal frequency or voltage to prevent self
excitation of the generator.
5.4.4. Power Factor Correction capacitor
Power factor correction capacitors shall be connected to the Generator 2 bus to provide excitation
for the induction generator. The capacitors shall be sized to the nearest nominal rating to correct
the power factor at rated voltage to approximately 95% lagging power factor, with allowance for
the capacitive load of the powerline. The capacitor units shall be individually fused with blown
fuse indicating lights (LED type). The capacitor bank shall be connected in Delta and shall not be
grounded.
5.4.5. Motor Control
Survey the existing plant motor control center to determine what spaces are available. The
following motor loads for the new unit may be required.
Turbine HPU – 2 AC motors, each rated 1 HP
If turbine needles are electrically operated – Two 125 VDC motors rated 1/3 HP each
Turbine Lube Oil pump – 1 AC motor rated 1/3 HP (if turbine requires circulating oil)
Ventilation fan – the new generator will add up to 20 kW (68,000 BTU/Hr) of heat load to
the building and a additional ventilation fan may be necessary.
Note that using the existing turbine HPU was considered and rejected in order to have higher
running reliability, and avoid adding risk to the tripping reliability of the existing unit.
If adequate motor starter spaces are not available in the existing MCC, then provide a single
Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design Criteria
feeder to the area of the new turbine and include either a small MCC or, a new panelboard, with
individual motor starters supplied as components of the new oil systems.
5.4.6. System Grounding
The new generator shall be supplied with a wye connection, and the neutral of the winding shall be
connected to high resistance grounding similar to existing generator1.
5.4.7. Miscellaneous
Other powerhouse equipment that will be included in the design includes:
Cooling water system
Building HVAC extension to existing system, if required.
Lighting
6. POWERHOUSE STRUCTURE
6.1. General
The powerhouse extension will be a prefabricated metal structure with a poured reinforced concrete
foundation. The equipment foundation will be used to resist the thrust loads on the guard valve to the
extent possible. An open tailrace channel approximately 4 feet wide will convey water back to Delta
Creek.
Excavation for the powerhouse extension shall be designed to protect the footings of the existing
powerhouse building.
6.2. Earthquake Loads
The building extension shall be designed for seismic zone 4 in accordance with Section 2330 of the
UBC with an importance factor of 1.25 and a site coefficient of 1.0.
6.3. Snow Loads
The powerhouse extension shall be designed to carry a basic roof snow load of 30 pounds per square
foot in addition to the dead load of the structure.
6.4. Wind Loads
Design will be per UBC with a basic wind speed of 110 mph, exposure factor D, and an importance
factor of 1.15 applied in accordance with Section 2311 of the UBC.
Section VI
Transformer
1. INTRODUCTION
It is assumed that a new 480V/12.5 kV transformer will be required for the Waterfall Creek unit.
However, the existing Delta Creek generator step up (GSU) transformer may be capable of handling
the load of both units.
Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model Updated July 2014 (Alejandra Villalobos Meléndez, ISER Research Associate)
Project Description Comments: (Please assign comment ID and hyperlink next to applicable column/row)
Community ID
Nearest Fuel Community 1
Region
RE Technology
Project ID
Applicant Name
Project Title
Results
NPV Benefits $8,605,665.72
NPV Capital Costs $5,160,552
B/C Ratio 1.67
NPV Net Benefit $3,445,113
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 1,000,000
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 50,000,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 77,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 3,846,154
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 782
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 39,038
Proposed System Unit Value
Capital Costs $5,461,000$
Project Start year 2015
Project Life years 50
Displaced Electric kWh per year 1,000,000
Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year
Displaced Transportation gallons displaced per year
Renewable Generation O&M $ per kWh 0.025
Electric Capacity kW
Electric Capacity Factor %
Heating Capacity Btu/hr
Heating Capacity Factor %
Total Public Benefit 2013$ (Total over the life of the project)
Base System Unit Value
Diesel Generator O&M $ per kWh 0.020$
Applicant's Diesel Generator
Efficiency kWh per gallon 13
Diesel Generation Efficiency kWh per gallon 13.00
Parameters Unit Value
Heating Fuel Premium $ per gallon -$
Transportation Fuel Premium $ per gallon -$
Discount Rate % per year 3%
Crude Oil $ per barrel EIA Mid
Natural Gas $ per mmBtu
King Cove
Rural Before using this new feature, please read the accompanying notes:
Hydro (Run of River)
Description
PUBLIC BENEFITS. Two options are now available to include public benefit estimates in the B/C ratio calculations.
Public Benefits
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Annual Cost Savings Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 PV
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year 461,000$ 5,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $5,160,552
Electric Cost Savings $ per year -$ 280,831$ 272,856$ 264,781$ 262,977$ 264,440$ 268,924$ 273,892$ 279,546$ 285,300$ 291,430$ 297,131$ 302,386$ 306,736$ 312,339$ 316,867$ 321,688$ 325,757$ 331,117$ 337,187$ 343,158$ 348,854$ 354,571$ 359,982$ 366,148$ 372,064$ 379,665$ 388,048$ 392,112$ 396,252$ 400,470$ 404,769$ 409,150$ 413,615$ 418,167$ 422,808$ 427,541$ 432,368$ 437,292$ 442,314$ 447,439$ 452,668$ 458,005$ 463,452$ 469,012$ 474,689$ 480,486$ 486,406$ 492,452$ 498,628$ 504,938$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $8,605,666
Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Transportation Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Total Cost Savings $ per year -$ 280,831$ 272,856$ 264,781$ 262,977$ 264,440$ 268,924$ 273,892$ 279,546$ 285,300$ 291,430$ 297,131$ 302,386$ 306,736$ 312,339$ 316,867$ 321,688$ 325,757$ 331,117$ 337,187$ 343,158$ 348,854$ 354,571$ 359,982$ 366,148$ 372,064$ 379,665$ 388,048$ 392,112$ 396,252$ 400,470$ 404,769$ 409,150$ 413,615$ 418,167$ 422,808$ 427,541$ 432,368$ 437,292$ 442,314$ 447,439$ 452,668$ 458,005$ 463,452$ 469,012$ 474,689$ 480,486$ 486,406$ 492,452$ 498,628$ 504,938$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $8,605,666
Net Benefit $ per year ($461,000)($4,719,169)$272,856 $264,781 $262,977 $264,440 $268,924 $273,892 $279,546 $285,300 $291,430 $297,131 $302,386 $306,736 $312,339 $316,867 $321,688 $325,757 $331,117 $337,187 $343,158 $348,854 $354,571 $359,982 $366,148 $372,064 $379,665 $388,048 $392,112 $396,252 $400,470 $404,769 $409,150 $413,615 $418,167 $422,808 $427,541 $432,368 $437,292 $442,314 $447,439 $452,668 $458,005 $463,452 $469,012 $474,689 $480,486 $486,406 $492,452 $498,628 $504,938 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,445,113
($4,899,338)($4,626,482)($4,361,701)($4,098,724)($3,834,284)($3,565,361)($3,291,468)($3,011,922)($2,726,622)($2,435,193)($2,138,062)($1,835,676)($1,528,940)($1,216,601)($899,734)($578,045)($252,289)$78,828 $416,015 $759,172 $1,108,026 $1,462,598 $1,822,579 $2,188,727
Electric Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 PV
Renewable Generation kWh per year - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Renewable O&M $ per year -$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $624,509
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Proposed Generation Cost $ per year -$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $624,509
Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Price $ per gallon 4.17$ 3.98$ 3.87$ 3.77$ 3.74$ 3.76$ 3.82$ 3.89$ 3.96$ 4.03$ 4.11$ 4.19$ 4.26$ 4.31$ 4.39$ 4.44$ 4.51$ 4.56$ 4.63$ 4.71$ 4.79$ 4.86$ 4.93$ 5.00$ 5.08$ 5.16$ 5.26$ 5.37$ 5.42$ 5.48$ 5.53$ 5.59$ 5.64$ 5.70$ 5.76$ 5.82$ 5.88$ 5.95$ 6.01$ 6.08$ 6.14$ 6.21$ 6.28$ 6.35$ 6.42$ 6.50$ 6.57$ 6.65$ 6.73$ 6.81$ 6.89$ 6.97$ 7.06$ 7.15$ 7.24$ 7.33$ 7.42$ 7.52$ 7.61$ 7.71$ 7.82$ 7.92$
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Fuel Use gallons per year - 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 76,923 - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 305,831$ 297,856$ 289,781$ 287,977$ 289,440$ 293,924$ 298,892$ 304,546$ 310,300$ 316,430$ 322,131$ 327,386$ 331,736$ 337,339$ 341,867$ 346,688$ 350,757$ 356,117$ 362,187$ 368,158$ 373,854$ 379,571$ 384,982$ 391,148$ 397,064$ 404,665$ 413,048$ 417,112$ 421,252$ 425,470$ 429,769$ 434,150$ 438,615$ 443,167$ 447,808$ 452,541$ 457,368$ 462,292$ 467,314$ 472,439$ 477,668$ 483,005$ 488,452$ 494,012$ 499,689$ 505,486$ 511,406$ 517,452$ 523,628$ 529,938$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $9,230,175
Base Generation Cost $ per year -$ 305,831$ 297,856$ 289,781$ 287,977$ 289,440$ 293,924$ 298,892$ 304,546$ 310,300$ 316,430$ 322,131$ 327,386$ 331,736$ 337,339$ 341,867$ 346,688$ 350,757$ 356,117$ 362,187$ 368,158$ 373,854$ 379,571$ 384,982$ 391,148$ 397,064$ 404,665$ 413,048$ 417,112$ 421,252$ 425,470$ 429,769$ 434,150$ 438,615$ 443,167$ 447,808$ 452,541$ 457,368$ 462,292$ 467,314$ 472,439$ 477,668$ 483,005$ 488,452$ 494,012$ 499,689$ 505,486$ 511,406$ 517,452$ 523,628$ 529,938$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $9,230,175
Heating Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 PV
Renewable Heat gallons displaced per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value Renewable Heat O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Cost $ per gallon 4.17$ 3.98$ 3.87$ 3.77$ 3.74$ 3.76$ 3.82$ 3.89$ 3.96$ 4.03$ 4.11$ 4.19$ 4.26$ 4.31$ 4.39$ 4.44$ 4.51$ 4.56$ 4.63$ 4.71$ 4.79$ 4.86$ 4.93$ 5.00$ 5.08$ 5.16$ 5.26$ 5.37$ 5.42$ 5.48$ 5.53$ 5.59$ 5.64$ 5.70$ 5.76$ 5.82$ 5.88$ 5.95$ 6.01$ 6.08$ 6.14$ 6.21$ 6.28$ 6.35$ 6.42$ 6.50$ 6.57$ 6.65$ 6.73$ 6.81$ 6.89$ 6.97$ 7.06$ 7.15$ 7.24$ 7.33$ 7.42$ 7.52$ 7.61$ 7.71$ 7.82$ 7.92$
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Annual Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Transportation Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 PV
Renewable Transportation Use gallons displaced per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs ($)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Proposed Transportation Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Transportation Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transportation Fuel Cost $ per gallon 4.17$ 3.98$ 3.87$ 3.77$ 3.74$ 3.76$ 3.82$ 3.89$ 3.96$ 4.03$ 4.11$ 4.19$ 4.26$ 4.31$ 4.39$ 4.44$ 4.51$ 4.56$ 4.63$ 4.71$ 4.79$ 4.86$ 4.93$ 5.00$ 5.08$ 5.16$ 5.26$ 5.37$ 5.42$ 5.48$ 5.53$ 5.59$ 5.64$ 5.70$ 5.76$ 5.82$ 5.88$ 5.95$ 6.01$ 6.08$ 6.14$ 6.21$ 6.28$ 6.35$ 6.42$ 6.50$ 6.57$ 6.65$ 6.73$ 6.81$ 6.89$ 6.97$ 7.06$ 7.15$ 7.24$ 7.33$ 7.42$ 7.52$ 7.61$ 7.71$ 7.82$ 7.92$
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs ($)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Annual Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Base Transportation Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0
Base
Proposed
Base
Proposed
Base
Proposed