HomeMy WebLinkAboutFalse Pass - AEA Round 8 application.small fileRenewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 46 7/2/14
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of False Pass
Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End:
Government June 30, 2014
Tax ID # 92-0135411
Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit X Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: City of False Pass does CFS at end of every fiscal
year. Last audit was for 2005, and was finished November 21, 2006.
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
P.O. Box 50 180 Unimak Dr.
False Pass, AK 99583-0050 False Pass, Alaska
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-548-2319 907-548-2214 cityoffalsepass@ak.net
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name: Title:
Genetta McLean Ocean Renewable Power Company
Grants & Licensing Manager
Mailing Address:
Ocean Renewable Power Company
120 Exchange Street, Suite 508
Portland, ME 04101
Telephone: Fax: Email:
207-221-0961 207-772-7708 gmclean@orpc.co
1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Chris Emrich 907-548-2319 907-548-2214 cityoffalsepass@ak.net
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 46 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
X A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
X 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box)
X 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box)
X 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted
and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking the box)
X 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 46 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.
Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska
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’s physical location at False Pass, Alaska:
54.853940° North Latitude and -163.408830° West Longitude. (Sec. 34, T061S, R094W, Seward
Meridian.)
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The community that will benefit from this Project:
City of False Pass
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 X Hydrokinetic
☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy
☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable
☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting
X Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 46 7/2/14
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of False Pass requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding in the amount of $428,646
through the Renewable Energy Grant Program (RFA 15003) to complete Phase II Feasibility
Analysis and Conceptual Design for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project proposed for the Isanotski
Straight. The City of False Pass, like most communities of the Aleutian Islands, has extremely high
energy costs and depends completely on diesel fuel to meet their electricity and heating needs.
While diesel fuel is currently the most practical option for such communities, it also creates
economic, energy security and environmental problems—it has a disproportionately high carbon
dioxide (CO2) output compared to other power generation systems—at both local and global levels.
The City of False Pass, fortunately, is situated near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the
Isanotski Straight that offers a potential to significantly reduce, or eliminate, the use of diesel fuel.
A significant amount of work has been accomplished for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project,
including completion of Phase I Reconnaissance. This Project proposes to build on the completed
reconnaissance study and accelerate efforts to develop the False Pass Tidal Energy Project. The
Project Team is comprised of the City of False Pass; Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.
(APIA); Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA); University of
Alaska Anchorage (UAA); Benthic GeoScience, Inc.; and Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC
(ORPC).
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
In Alaska 78,000 people depend on diesel-fired generation to meet 90% of their electrical demand,
consuming over 450,000 MWh annually while burning 27 million gallons of diesel fuel.1 This means
fuel costs for electricity generation in rural Alaska averages $0.30/kWh. Electricity costs for False
Pass, however, are even higher than average at $0.42/kWh for residential and community
customers, $0.36 $/kWh for commercial customers.2
Converting even a small portion of this diesel-
reliant population to hydrokinetic energy, a completely clean and renewable energy source, would
have a significant impact for the people of Alaska.
Direct Beneficiary
The direct beneficiary of this Project (Phase II) specifically, and the False Pass Tidal Energy
Project generally, will be the City of False Pass, which has a population 35 (77% Alaska Native)3
comprised of 21 residential, 11 commercial, 1 federal/state facility and 9 community facilities
customers. Here the Project will reduce energy costs and create high-quality jobs, including
fabrication/assembly, deployment/installation, and operations/maintenance.
Regional Beneficiary
The regional beneficiary is Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC), the designated
state of Alaska Regional Development Organization (ARDOR) for Southwest Alaska, which
includes the Aleutian’s East Borough and the City of False Pass. SWAMC ha s been tasked with
expanding public-private partnerships and growing Southwest Alaska based on sound strategic
planning efforts. Working in close collaboration with communities and regional organizations,
SWAMC develops and updates a Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) every five
years. The False Pass tidal energy project will address four of the five main goals identified in the
2014-2019 Southwest Alaska CEDS:
1 AEA, Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, 2012 2 Wright, B & Worthington, M. DOE False Pass Presentation, 2012 3 U.S. Census 2010
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 46 7/2/14
Goal II: Support Access to and Development of Resources
Goal III: Infrastructure Improvements
Goal IV: Energy Infrastructure that Reduces the Delivered Cost of Power and Increases
Regional Efficiency
Goal V: Regional Partnerships
Specifically, this proposal will address the following Southwest Alaska CEDS objectives:
Goal II, Objective 1: (Fisheries Development)-by offsetting diesel consumption of False
Pass’ small businesses and fish processing plant with a sustainable supply and stabilized
cost of electricity, increasing the competiveness and viability of the community’s core
economic driver
Goal III, Objective I: (Strategic Infrastructure Investments) -by supporting long term
renewable energy infrastructure in the community that will enhance quality of life for
residents and spur future population growth
Goal IV, Objective II: (Ownership of Energy Systems)-by aiding in the development of a
locally owned and operated renewable energy system that is resilient to the cost and supply
fluctuations of diesel and GIV, Objective III (Supply of Low Cost Power)-by levelizing the
cost of power at a rate below the cost of diesel generated electricity, thereby allowing more
energy dollars to be recirculated in the community and investments to stay in-region
Goal V, Objective II: (Communications)-by supporting the continued strong team of public
and private entities involved in this project that have been leaders in addressing energy
challenges and forwarding tidal energy development in rural Alaska.
This Project will also address the Southwest Alaska Development Strategy by eliminating the
barriers associated with diesel dependency and aiding in an increased quality of life and economic
opportunities in False Pass. The jobs created and retained as a result of this project will contribute
to wealth retention and long term viability of the community.
In addition, there are many other communities throughout the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula in
Southeast Alaska and isolated areas in Northwest Alaska that are dependent on diesel resources
and situated adjacent to strong tidal resources which could likely have economic tidal hydrokinetic
installations once a project has been demonstrated at False Pass. These include Elfin Cove,
Angoon, Hydaburg, Atka, Newtok, and Teller.
Environmental Benefits
There are also environmental benefits from a tidal energy project, which will displace the use of
fossil fuels and result in avoided emissions. By displacing fossil fuels the risk of fuel spills in
Alaska’s waterways during transport and storage will also be mitigated. See Section 5 Project
Benefit for data on reduction of CO2 emissions.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 46 7/2/14
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
The Project will amount to $491,146 with the anticipated sources of funding as follows: (1)
$428,646, AEA award and (2) 62,500, in-kind matching funds from APICDA.
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 $428,646
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $0
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $62,500
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $0
2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $491,146
Other items for consideration
2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved
USDA Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Cost Grant. Pending 2015 $3,000,000
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.
$6,870,575
2.7.8 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not
covered by the project but required for the Grant
Only applicable to construction phase projects
$0
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.
$1,854,871
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.
$8,200,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 46 7/2/14
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.1 Project Manager
The City of False Pass has selected Monty Worthington, Director – Project Development, Alaska,
Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (ORPC), to be Project Manager:
Monty Worthington
Director – Project Development, Alaska
Ocean Renewable Power Company
c/o Professional Growth Systems
911 West 8th Avenue, Suite 205
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
207-772-7707
mworthington@orpc.co
(Resume attached)
Monty Worthington will serve as Project Manager and will report to the city of False Pass under
the direction of Chris Emrich. Mr. Worthington will be responsible for maintaining the quality of work
produced by the Project Team. He will oversee and review all milestones and provide supervision
on all project phases. He will ensure proper communications with the City of False Pass and AEA.
An Assistant Project Manager (new hire TBD) will assist with these efforts.
ORPC will provide project management support and all grant, contractual and administrative
activities, and will work at the direction of Mr. Worthington and Ms. Salmon. ORPC offers extensive
project development and strategic management services, and is staffed by a highly skilled team of
professionals with an extended network of top technical and scientific experts. ORPC is pioneering
river hydrokinetic power systems for remote off-grid and micro-grid communities. The company has
successfully installed, operated, monitored and retrieved the RivGen® Power System, which
generated electricity from the Kvichak River and transmitted it to shore at the Village of Igiugig,
Alaska. ORPC also provided project development and permitting services to a wave energy
demonstration project in Yakutat. Among their prestigious awards, ORPC was named one of the
World’s Top 10 Most Innovative Energy Companies by Fast Company in 2013.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 46 7/2/14
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Milestones Tasks
Start
Date
End
Date
Phase II
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation
completed
ADCP expedition planning and
procurement completed
7/1/15 8/1/15
2. Detailed resource
assessment completed
ADCP survey of 3-5 sites completed
8/7/15 11/1/15
3. Identification of land and
regulatory issues
Initial meetings with project stakeholders
and regulatory agencies, desktop
environmental literature surveys completed
and presented to regulatory agencies 10/1/15 2/1/16
4. Permitting and environmental
analysis completed
Draft study plans developed and submitted
to regulatory agencies 1/1/16 3/1/16
5. Detailed analysis of current
cost of energy and future
market completed
Analysis of current energy costs,
anticipated load growth and future energy
costs completed 1/1/16 3/1/16
6. Assessment of alternatives Alternative energy generation options
analyzed 1/1/16 3/1/16
7. Conceptual design and costs
estimate completed
Latest cost data incorporated into financial
model 11/1/15 1/15/16
8. Detailed economic and
financial analyses completed
Updated pro forma model developed
incorporating ADCP data from survey and
UAA modeling effort 1/15/16 3/1/16
9. Additional required field data
collected
Sub bottom survey completed and data
incorporated into conceptual design 5/1/16 6/1/16
10. Conceptual business and
operations plan completed
Project partners collaborate on business
plan for tidal energy project hold
stakeholder meeting 3/1/16 7/1/16
11. Final report and
recommendations completed
Final report submitted to AEA
5/1/16 7/1/16
3.3 Project Resources
The False Pass Project Team, described below, has significant experience working together as
partners and contractors on various projects. The organizational structure of the Project Team is
illustrated in Figure 1. Resumes are attached.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 46 7/2/14
Figure 1. Project Team Organizational Structure
City of False Pass
The City of False Pass, located within the boundaries of the Aleutians East Borough, will serve as
Business Contact for this Project, under the direction of Chris Emrich, City Clerk. The City is
eligible to receive funding through AEA’s grant program, and the False Pass City Council has
signed a resolution (15-04) supporting the submittal of this application on September 16, 2014 (see
attached Section 11.D.).
False Pass has significant marine capacity locally and regionally available for a community of its
size. This includes marine assets and expertise of Project Partner APICDA and subsidiary Bearing
Pacific Seafoods, Coastal Marine and Western Pioneer Shipping companies, as well as the fleet of
fishing vessels that operate and transit through the area.
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA)
APIA is a federally recognized tribal organization of the Aleut people in Alaska. It is a nonprofit
corporation founded to advance the overall economic, health, social and cultural development of
the people within the Aleutian and Pribilof Regions in the State of Alaska.
Bruce Wright, Senior Scientist, is a regional leader in energy conservation and alternative energy
projects, including onsite weatherization applications. He has managed large state and federally
funded projects.
Karen Pletnikoff, Community Environment and Safety Manager, has provided environmental
technical assistance and project management in rural Alaska for 12 years. She has worked on
large federally funded efforts from construction, environmental sampling and site remediation.
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA)
APICDA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Alaska to develop the
commercial and sport fishing industry for the long-term social and economic viability of
communities in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It is one of several Aleut Region organizations
working to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by exploring alternate energy resources. APICDA will
provide $77,820 in cost match for vessels, captains, and room and board for field work (Letter of
Verification: Section 11 B).
Angel Drobnica is the Renewable Energy and Fisheries Liaison for APICDA and has been
working on energy planning and projects in diesel dependent communities throughout Alaska for
the past three years. She will be helping to coordinate vessel and ground support for this project.
City of False Pass
ORPC - Project Manager
Consultants and Contractors
APIA APICDA Benthic
GeoScience UAA
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 46 7/2/14
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
UAA under the leadership of Prof. Tom Ravens, Ph.D., Dr. Ravens has 20 years of research
experience in the areas of coastal hydrodynamics and sediment transport, flume testing, and
renewable energy assessment. In the past 10 years, he has supervised $2 million of research
projects funded by NOAA, AEA, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (through the Electronic Power
Research Institute), and others. Dr. Ravens has played a leading role in two hydrokinetic
assessment projects for the State of the Alaska and for the contiguous United States.
UAA will continue the development of a 3D, high-resolution model of circulation and turbulence in
False Pass using Delft3D software. We will calibrate and validate the model using velocity, water
level, and turbulence data collected using two ADCP’s that were deployed in the summer of 2012.
Once the model is performing satisfactorily, we will use the model to produce plots showing the
spatial distribution of power density and turbulence. Using these plots, and after consulting with
team members, we will propose the locations of 5 ADCPs (and two ADVs) scheduled to be
deployed in the summer of 2014. After the 2014 field season, the model will then be validated
using the ADCP and ADV data. Adjustments to the model will be made as necessary and following
consultation with the team. The model will be used for any additional computations required by the
team during the course of the project.
Benthic GeoScience, Inc.
Benthic GeoScience provides professional geophysical and hydrographic surveying services
throughout the world. Strong geophysical and oceanographic staff complements their technical
surveying services for renewable energy project planning.
David Oliver, Director of Operations, is a geophysicist with more than 25 years in the geotechnical
industry and 14 years working directly with the marine geophysical industry. He established
Benthic GeoScience, Inc. after serving the renewable energy community for many years. David
has lead the Site Characterization and Resources Assessment work on many marine and riverine
hydrokinetic projects in Alaska, including Ruby, Eagle, Nenana, Igiugig, and ORPC’s tidal energy
sites. David is a member of the following organizations: Renewable Energy Alaska Project
(member of the Policy and Rural Community Energy Committees) for five years, Alaska
Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center Advisory Board, AEA Hydrokinetic Working Group, and
shadow committee for ANSI TC-114’s Tidal Resource Assessment Project Team representing U.S.
interests as international standards for Renewable Energy Resource Assessment are being
established by the International Electrotechnical Commission. David strives to stay abreast of the
dynamic oceanographic, geophysical, and hydrographic industry advancements to continuously
match the appropriate technologies to the marine renewable industry. In particular, Benthic has
worked to downscale the size, weight, and cost requirements of operations in remote Alaska
without sacrificing quality.
Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (ORPC)
ORPC brings tidal energy technology and project management expertise to the Project. ORPC is a
global leader in hydrokinetic technology and project development. With corporate headquarters in
Portland, Maine, ORPC develops hydrokinetic power systems and eco-conscious projects that
harness the power of oceans and rivers to create clean, predictable renewable energy. ORPC
works in partnership with coastal and river communities to create and sustain local jobs while
promoting energy independence and protecting the environment.
In 2012 ORPC made history by starting operation of the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project, the
first commercial, grid-connected hydrokinetic tidal energy project in North America. Located at the
mouth of the Bay of Fundy near Eastport and Lubec, Maine, this is the only ocean energy project,
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 46 7/2/14
other than one using a dam, which delivers power to a utility grid anywhere in the Americas. The
TidGen™ Power System is connected to the Bangor Hydro Electric utility grid at an on-shore
station in North Lubec. The Project received a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pilot project
license and the first Maine Department of Environmental Protection General Permit issued for a
tidal energy project. In addition, ORPC received approval for the first power purchase agreement
for tidal energy from the Maine Public Utilities Commission.
ORPC has been developing and licensing projects at world-class tidal energy sites in North
America’s most robust tidal energy resources: the Bay of Fundy, and Cook Inlet, Alaska. These
project sites have the potential to generate more than 300 megawatts of electricity—enough to
power roughly a quarter of a million homes. The development of ORPC’s power systems and
projects is also creating substantial job growth and other economic opportunities, while helping to
reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil. ORPC’s letter of support is attached in Section 11.B.
Christopher R. Sauer, P.E.—President & CEO
Mr. Sauer provides overall management and leadership in all of ORPC’s technical and commercial
activities. Mr. Sauer is a professional engineer, energy entrepreneur, and strategic development
consultant with more than 40 years of experience in executive management, engineering,
construction, project development, marketing, financing, and startup company formation in the
electricity, cogeneration, renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Involved in the energy
transaction business since 1977, Mr. Sauer has played an instrumental role in the development of
more than $2 billion in energy assets and companies. Mr. Sauer is a founding member of ORPC.
Brenda LeMay—Vice President of Finance and Administrations and CFO
Ms. LeMay manages all financial and administrative matters for ORPC. She has more than 15
years of development experience in the energy industry, including negotiating commercial
transactions, permitting, structuring policy, financial analysis and management. Most recently Ms.
LeMay held senior management positions at EDP Renewables, the third largest wind energy
company in the world, where she was responsible for energy management across Europe and
project development throughout the Pacific Southwest Region of the United States.
Jarlath McEntee, P.E.—Vice President of Engineering and CTO
Mr. McEntee leads the development of the company’s proprietary hydrokinetic energy technology.
He earned his Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering at University College in Dublin,
Ireland in 1986 and his Master of Science at Dartmouth College in 1989. He comes to ORPC after
spending more than 25 years in engineering and project management, having developed technical
expertise in tidal power turbines, combined heat and power systems, Stirling engine and
refrigeration systems, control system design and analysis, micro-mechanical structures, and
marine engineering systems. Mr. McEntee has taught courses in engineering at the Maine
Maritime Academy, holds multiple engineering-related patents, and has submitted numerous
patents on behalf of ORPC. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Maine.
John Ferland—Vice President of Project Development
Mr. Ferland leads ORPC’s project development, environmental permitting and project licensing
activities, as well as subsidiary companies focused on international business development and
providing strategic and tactical expertise and support to other ocean energy developers and related
parties. He draws on over 30 years of experience encompassing technology commercialization,
renewable energy development, port emergency response operations and coastal resources
management. He has served as CEO of an oil spill response company, mentored numerous
startups as director of a technology entrepreneur assistance program, and was the founding
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 46 7/2/14
president of the Environmental & Energy Technology Council of Maine, now the leading industry
association for clean technology companies in northern New England.
Monty Worthington, ORPC Director of Project Development – Alaska, will serve as Project
Manager of this Project. He has over ten years of experience designing, implementing, and
maintaining renewable energy systems in Alaska, western U.S., and Asia. He assumes oversight
of the Project, including managing resource assessment.
Ryan Tyler, ORPC Project Engineer, supports the engineering of ORPC's power system. He
provides field engineering and project management for the deployment of the RivGen® System in
Igiugig, Alaska. A registered Engineer-in-Training in the state of Washington, he has four years
experience as a project engineer and researcher in the marine hydrokinetics field, and one-and-a-
half years experience as a business strategy consultant.
Doug Johnson, ORPC Director of Projects – Alaska, will also assist with this project. Mr. Johnson
has over thirty years of project development experience in Alaska, having worked as an investor, a
business owner, an entrepreneur, a professional manager and a business consultant. He has
developed projects ranging from the launch of Alaska’s first biotech company to the planning and
execution of a $2 billion hospital in Abu Dhabi. He is responsible for developing present and future
business opportunities for the ORPC in Alaska.
Nathan Johnson, ORPC Director of Environmental Affairs, leads ORPC’s site licensing and
permitting efforts, developing innovative approaches to federal and state marine hydrokinetic
permitting and environmental monitoring. Mr. Johnson has a diverse background that includes
marine renewables, solar energy site development, marine and coastal geology, hydrogeology,
and construction management. Projects have ranged from marine and coastal projects in New
England to determining fluvial geomorphology impacts at solar power projects in the southwestern
United States.
Genetta McLean, Ph.D., ORPC Grants and Licensing Manager, negotiates with government
agencies to secure grants and loans for ORPC technology and project development. She works
directly with project management, development, engineering, finance and writing teams to gather
and organize materials, prepare reports, conduct analyses and generate budgets. She oversees
and contributes to applications for new loans and grants. Dr. McLean also plays a similar role in
ORPC’s licensing efforts and is responsible for aspects of licensing or permitting applications, as
well as managing the post-licensing and permit periodic report process.
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 Project Manager—Monty Worthington, ORPC—will report to the City of False Pass (Chris
Emrich) – the grantee, and the Project Team (City of False Pass, APIA, APICDA, UAA, Benthic
GeoScience, and ORPC) on the Project’s performance. All members of the Project Team have an
established working relationship with each other as well as with AEA and will continue best efforts
to maintain communications. ORPC’s project management practices are geared towards carefully
monitoring scope, schedule and budget to ensure the Project is tracking as planned. Any
significant changes to any aspect of the Project will be reported promptly to AEA.
ORPC will monitor the Project through a detailed Project Management Plan with status and
general project management tools. ORPC’s project management practices are geared towards
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 46 7/2/14
carefully monitoring scope, schedule and budget to ensure the Project is tracking as planned and
will include the following:
1. Gantt Chart
2. Risks Log (Failure Mode Effects Analysis-based and is a live document)
3. Milestones Log (will be used for the quarterly reports, and easier to read than the Gantt)
4. Issues Log (major issues impacting schedule, budget and technical objectives, showing
action plans and status)
5. Actions Log (an internal tool for overall actions not accounted for in the Gantt or in addition
to the Gantt).
To ensure that the Project Team and AEA are thoroughly informed on the Project’s progress,
ORPC will use the tools created in the Project Management Plan. ORPC will hold weekly meetings
with the Project Team to provide updates with the project manager, contractors, and key ORPC
personnel, which is the standard procedure for other state and federally projects. All members of
the Project Team have an established working relationship with each other on other federal and
state funded projects and will continue best efforts to maintain their excellent communications.
The Project Manager will submit regular quarterly progress reports to AEA after the City of False
Pass’s review and approval. The Project Team will schedule meetings with AEA as necessary or
as requested to update AEA on the Project. Any significant changes to any aspect of the Project
will be reported promptly to AEA.
If the Project falls behind, the Project Team will inform AEA and propose solutions for managing
any problems and correcting schedule lapses.
Alternative Contact Person
Chris Emrich, City Clerk
907-548-2319
cityoffalsepass@ak.net
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 46 7/2/14
3.5 Project Risk
The Project Team has approached the investigation of tidal energy at False Pass with a focus on
minimizing project risk. The Project’s reconnaissance phase established the viability of the
resource early on in order to rule out the financial risk associated with an unknown resource.
Having established the viability of the resource, Project development will continue in a way that
minimizes risk through a phased approach.
Each phase of the False Pass Tidal Energy Project has risks associated with the successful
execution of the scope of work. The primary project risks of this Project are associated with field
work. While the deployment and retrieval of scientific equipment in highly energetic tidal
environments are challenging, ORPC has significant experience deploying and retrieving
equipment in these environments and has successfully completed two month-long deployments in
the False Pass area, increasing confidence that this work can be successfully executed. These
and any other potential risks will be mitigated by the Project Team, which collectively has extensive
experience working on marine technology projects and is committed to proactively managing risk.
While the City of False Pass is a remote community, it has the advantage that its marine
operations are serviced directly from the Port of Seattle. In comparison to other coastal Alaskan
towns that are serviced out of Alaskan ports, False Pass has access to a greater diversity of
marine infrastructure and more regular and reliable shipping from an ice free heavily industrialized
port. This access increases the reliability of marine services and available resources into a longer
field season, and decreases the cost of services. Furthermore, for a community like False Pass,
dedicated equipment, such as the retrieval catamaran (Figure 1), will likely be incorporated into the
project making the key operations and maintenance equipment proximal to the deployment site
year round.
Figure 1. Retrieval catamaran used in to raise ORPC’s TidGen® device in Cobscook Bay, Maine
The Project Team has identified environmental concerns and the permitting process as risks that
need to be managed. While obtaining permits are not perceived to pose a risk to the completion of
Phase 2, there are potential environmental concerns that could impact that ability to execute the
overall project successfully and economically. The Project Team has already identified the permits
and licenses required for this Project and will collect the required permits and licenses
An additional project risk is the remote nature of operations in False Pass. While this is again well
understood for the level of field operations entailed in the Feasibility phase of the Project, it will be
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 46 7/2/14
necessary to design the Project so that it can be installed and maintained with equipment and
capacity appropriate to False Pass. The Project Team will continue to develop an understanding of
this capacity through the execution of the Feasibility Phase.
If problems arise, the Project Management Plan (described in Section 3.4) will provide a protocol
for addressing them.
3.6 Project Accountant(s)
The City of False Pass, the Grantee, will perform the accounting under the direction of Chris
Emrich, City Clerk (resume attached).
907-548-2319
cityoffalsepass@ak.net
3.7 Financial Accounting System
The City of False Pass uses Quickbooks Pro for all accounting purposes. All expenditures are
classed, to differentiate various revenue/expenditures by the various projects/departments. The
City Council of False Pass reviews an updated P&L comparison to the budget, at all council
meeting and includes bank statements. All expenditures are done with the signature of two council
members.
3.8 Financial Management Controls
The City Council of False Pass reviews an updated P&L comparison to the budget, at all council
meetings and includes bank statements. All expenditures are done with the signature of two
council members. Throughout this Project, all expenditures will be cross-referenced with invoices,
and will be summarized in the quarterly progress reports. All expenditures will be submitted by the
Project Manager and verified by the City Clerk and Mayor.
The State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development’s Division
of Community and Regional Affairs conducts a Rural Utility Business Advisor assessment of False
Pass, and the report is available online. The City of False Pass also meets 26 of 26 essential
indicators per Glen Hamburg, Local Government Specialist. This assessment validates our
accounting systems, finances, tax problems, personnel systems, organizational management, and
operation of utility.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 46 7/2/14
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Description of Potential Available Energy Resource
The City of False Pass is located near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the Isanotski
Straight (Figure 2), which has a tidal energy resource with an impressive capacity factor in the
range of 40-50% of rated capacity. This is the strongest tidal energy resource measured in Alaska,
making it an ideal tidal energy project.
Figure 2. City of False Pass at the Isanotski Straight
Phase 1: Reconnaissance (Completed, 2012)
Significant preparation for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project has been completed. In 2008 and
2010, two AEA-funded studies confirmed the need to formally study the area’s potential for tidal
power.4 In 2012, a DOE-funded study concluded that “a tidal energy project could be provided to
the City of False Pass at a rate at or below the cost of diesel generated electricity and sold to
commercial customers at rates competitive with current market rates, providing a stable, flat priced,
environmentally sound alternative to the diesel generation currently utilized for energy in the
community.” 5
4 2008: Village end use energy efficiency measures program, AEA Grant 2195225. Administered by Alaska
Building Science Network. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/EndUseEfficiency/VEUM/07-08_NW-SW -
FalsePassFinalReport.pdf). 2010: Renewable Energy Resource Assessment for the Communities of Cold
Bay, False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon. Andy Baker and Lee Bolling. April 2010. AEA funded.
AEA also provided programmatic funding to support a bathymetric survey that was
completed in 2013 as well as additional circulation modeling currently underway at the University of
Alaska Anchorage. ORPC performed a reconnaissance tidal current survey to obtain a preliminary
assessment of the potential for a tidal energy project as an energy alternative for the City of False
5 Wright, B. (2014). Feasibility of Tidal and Ocean Current Energy in False Pass, Aleutian Islands, Alaska,
Final Report, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy
Development and Deployment in Indian Country: DE-EE0005624.000
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 46 7/2/14
Pass in 2012 (Section 11.G. Attachments), (Figure 3).6 As next steps, prior to construction of a
tidal energy system, AEA recommended, but did not fund, the City of False Pass’s request for
Phase II Feasibility Study. 7
This Project proposal is a resubmittal of that request.
Figure 3. Contour plot of average energy density, flood tide (left). Contour plot of average energy
density, ebb tide (right). Source: UAA, Final Report: Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment in False
Pass, Alaska, September 4, 2013.
Based on ADCP data collected in 2012 at False Pass, ORPC analyzed the anticipated capacity
factor of a single TidGen® device at site N2 based on a rated capacity of 200 kW, about ½ mile
from the False Pass grid and at site S2, about two miles from the False Pass grid (Figure 4). Table
1 shows the relative capacity factor at these sites. At site S2, the most likely candidate for device
placement, an impressive capacity factor of 44.2% can be achieved, and with the added benefit of
predictable delivery of this power, its value to the local energy portfolio is high. Table 1 also shows
the sites’ anticipated annual generation in kWh. Figure 5 shows a “tidal rose” adapted from a wind
rose to show the directionality and magnitude of the tidal current velocities at False Pass. This rose
shows robust currents at site S2 that are very symmetrical on the ebb and flood allowing efficient
energy capture in both flow directions.
6 ORPC, Reconnaissance Current Survey Report, Prepared for the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, April
1, 2013 7 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study, AEA application no. 1062.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 46 7/2/14
Figure 4. Deployment locations for ADCPs (AWAC and RDI ADCP) at False Pass
Figure 5. Tidal rose image from ADCP data collected at site S2 10 meters above the seafloor,
showing high current velocities and symmetric direction on ebb and flood tides.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 46 7/2/14
Table 1. Annual generation and anticipated capacity factor at two sites near False Pass based on
ADCP data collected in 2012
Site N2 10.5 m above seafloor S2 10.7 m above seafloor
Annual recoverable energy, 200 kW
TidGen® device 94% availability
359,510 kWh
21.6% capacity factor
730,128 kWh
44.2% capacity factor
Further investigation of project development considerations and constructability of a tidal energy
project in the vicinity of False Pass will be completed during this Project to assess the economics
of installing a tidal energy project near one of these sites. Of key importance in this assessment will
be incorporating data from a bathymetric survey covering the area of potential device locations and
submarine power cable routes, and analysis of technical and cost considerations for a power cable
line to connect the project to False Pass. The Project Team has collected this bathymetric data
under programmatic hydrokinetic funding from AEA provided to the Southwest Alaska Municipal
Conference who contracted Benthic GeoScience to complete this survey with assistance and cost
sharing from APICDA who provided a vessel and captains to support the field effort (Figure 6).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 46 7/2/14
Figure 6. Bathymetric image from data collected at False Pass in August 2013
The next steps in the feasibility effort of this Project will be to enhance the fidelity of the circulation
model developed by UAA by incorporating the bathymetric data into their model domain to allow
finer scale resolution. This modeling has also been supported by programmatic hydrokinetic
funding provided by AEA and is ongoing. Based on this modeling data, the Project Team will select
sites that appear suitable for tidal turbine placement based on both UAA modeling efforts and the
bathymetric data in the vicinity of the highest current velocities and any locations that are
suggested by the model to have viable current velocities for energy extraction and reasonable
transmission distances to the False Pass grid. Three to five of these sites will then be selected for
deployment of ADCPs to measure current velocities over a full lunar cycle and for deployment of
Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADVs) to measure turbulence. These measurements will help to
quantify the amount of extractable energy available from the resource.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 46 7/2/14
The data collected from this field effort will then be utilized to further enhance UAA circulation
model, both through verification of the models accuracy by hindcasting the model to the
deployment time period and comparing its output to actual field measurements. The model will also
be enhanced to output information on turbulence that will also be validated with the data from field
measurements. By incorporating the ADCP data, UAA modeling work, and bathymetric data the
project team will be enabled to select viable sites for tidal turbine placement. Having chosen these
sites, we will assess the environmental concerns associated with deployment in these areas,
conduct outreach with stakeholders to incorporate stakeholder input in the selection of candidate
sites, and perform an economic analysis of deployment at the viable locations to identify the
optimal site(s) for tidal turbine placement.
Pros and Cons of Proposed Energy Resource versus Other Alternatives
Circulation modeling conducted by UAA, discussed above, shows False Pass as a premier tidal
energy resource, having the strongest tidal energy resource yet investigated by ORPC and
stronger than any measured tidal resources in Alaska. This resource, coupled with the proximity to
the load at False Pass, makes it an ideal tidal energy project that will serve as a demonstration
project for other coastal Alaska applications.
The City of False Pass is currently investigating other energy alternatives, including a design for a
wind turbine installation. There is uncertainty associated with any of these renewable energy
alternatives and the ultimate cost and reliability of the electricity they will produce. At this point the
quality of the wind resource is arguably less well defined than the tidal resource. Even if a wind
project were installed, the unpredictable energy associated with wind would not make it a
replacement for a predictable tidal energy resource. Being predictable, tidal energy would be a
dispatchable resource that could be more economically and effectively integrated with the False
Pass grid, reducing diesel more significantly than a wind project could.
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
The City of False Pass owns and operates a diesel generation plant for approximately 25
residential customers, 13 commercial customers, 11 community structures, 3 federal/state
structures and the harbor. Bering Pacific Seafood, a subsidiary owned by APICDA, owns and
operates a separate diesel generation plant for its processing operations. APICDA purchases
electricity from the city for its bunk house and for its construction related activities during the non-
processing months.
Following is information regarding the two power houses (Figure 7):
City of False Pass
Unit 1: 180 kW John Deere with 10,000 hrs (new install September 2014)
Unit 2: 125 kW John Deere with over 44,000 hrs (rebuilt twice)
Unit 3: 175 kW John Deere with over 18,000 hrs (will require rebuild soon)
Bering Pacific Seafood
Unit 1: 365 kW Caterpillar (C-15) with 2412 hrs (new in 2013)
Unit 2: 350 kW Caterpillar (3406 B) with 9,388 hrs (reconditioned once)
Unit 3: 350 kW Caterpillar (3406 D1) with unknown hrs (reconditioned once)
Unit 4: 185 kW Perkins with unknown hrs (not in operation)
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 46 7/2/14
The City of False Pass strives to operate its generators to adequately carry the City’s loads while
balancing efficiency and maintenance costs. In 2012 the City’s generation efficiency was 11.24
kW h per gallon of fuel. In 2012, the City’s line loss averaged 14.7% but has decreased to 6.2% this
summer, likely due to valve replacements on its primary generator.8
In 2013, the generation
efficiency increased to 13.38 kWh per gallons, possibly due to line loss improvements in 2012.
Figure 7. False Pass power plant with 5,000 gal. fuel tank
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Existing Energy Resources
The City of False Pass relies completely on fossil fuels for all of its energy needs. In 2013 the City
of False Pass burned 53,153 gallons of fuel to meet the city’s electricity loads. The community
uses another approximately 18,000 gallons of fuel for heating.
Bering Pacific Seafood is the largest single energy load in the community, almost equaling the
total combined community load. The plant’s production and associated energy needs have
8 The existing energy system was described in detail by Marsh Creek, “False Pass Kinetic Hydro Power,”
2013, and included in Wright, B. (2014). Feasibility of Tidal and Ocean Current Energy in False Pass,
Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Final Report, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., U.S. Department of Energy,
Renewable Energy Development and Deployment in Indian Country: DE-EE0005624.000.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 46 7/2/14
increased significantly over the past five years. Loads nearly doubled during 2011-2012, and due
to recent expansions grew another 33% from 2013. So far in 2014, the plant has burned 53,907
gallons of fuel for electricity generation, up from 40,355 gallons the year before. Bering Pacific
Seafood anticipates to further increase their operations from five months to ten months a year
when Pacific cod processing begins in January 2015 and expects continued growth over the next
five years with a goal of year round processing. Refrigeration compressors already require power
on a 24-7 basis when the plant is in operation. The plant has experienced significant fluctuations in
the price per gallon of fuel over the past five years from a low of $2.78 to a high of $4.70. These
price fluctuations have considerable impact on the plant’s production costs and makes it very
difficult to plan and budget for yearly operations.
Impact the Project May Have on Existing Energy Infrastructure and Resources
The development of a tidal project will help stabilize volatile energy costs, aiding in the
sustainability of the community and the local seafood plant’s operations. Both of the diesel plants
will continue to be maintained for load balancing and energy security purposes after the
development of the tidal project.
There will be the ability to optimize Bering Pacific Seafood plant operations to make best use of
peak tidal power by targeting ice making at times when tidal energy peaks, as this is an intermittent
activity that can be scheduled as needed. False Pass’s primary ‘storage capacity’ could be making
and storing ice. Additionally, when Bering Pacific Seafood is offline, False Pass can schedule
turbine maintenance.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Existing Energy Use and its Market
The City of False Pass operates the community’s power utility and serves a mixture of residential
and commercial customers: 21 residential; 11 commercial, including a seafood processing plant; 1
federal/state facility; and 9 community facilities. The Community’s average monthly electric
demand is 30,739 kWh, and residents pay between 28 and 53 cents per kWh for electricity. (The
national average is 9.92 cents per kWh.9
) Currently, nearly all electricity and heat generated at
False Pass comes from imported diesel fuel. In 2013, the City of False Pass utilized 53,153 gallons
of diesel fuel for electrical generation, while the Bering Pacific Seafood plant utilized 40,355 gallons
for self generation. Using the current price of $3.81 and the annual amount of fuel, electricity cost
$202,513 in 2013 for the City of False Pass and $181,597 for the Bering Pacific Seafood Plant.
The plant purchased an additional $48,159 worth of electricity from the City prior to processing
operations beginning in 2013. Electricity generation with diesel fuel, therefore, is expensive for the
community and local businesses and also has environmental impacts and risks associated with the
transport, storage, and burning of this fuel.
Impacts the Project May Have on Energy Customers
At the currents measured at site S2 in False Pass, ORPC ‘s TidGen® device with a rated capacity
of 200 kW and an availability of 95% would generate 60,833 kWh monthly (730,000 kWh/yr). This
Project will determine what configuration of power system and number of devices will be needed to
supply a reasonable amount of power to the community; additional TidGen® devices could be
deployed to meet future energy demands.
9 U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 2013
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 24 of 46 7/2/14
As Table 2 shows, a 200 kW TidGen® Power System would produce enough power to displace all
of the electrical load of the False Pass utility, producing 126% of this annual load. However, since
the tidally produced energy is cyclical there are times when no power will be produced and other
times when the power produced from the TidGen® device exceeds the needs of the community.
The amount of energy that could be utilized by the utility is less than the total produced. Analysis
shows that ultimately slightly more than half of the energy produced by the TidGen® Power
System can be utilized to existing utility loads, providing for 64% of the False Pass utility’s load
while the remainder of the tidally produced power can be sold to Bering Pacific Seafood to offset
self generation at the Bering Pacific Seafood plant. Currently the plant uses and additional 136,000
kWh a month when in operation, but is forecast to have a load growth to 170,000 kWh a month and
year round operations.
Using a clean, renewable energy source would also have the added benefit of giving a value-
added green label to the local business such as the Bering Pacific Seafood plant, which could have
a multiplier effect on the demand for the locally-produced seafood. In addition, the dollar amount
that the City of False would save annually will only increase as fossil fuel prices rise.
Table 2. ORPC 200 kW TidGen® Power System
Monthly generation of in-stream device 60,833 kWh
False Pass utility average monthly electric demand 48,256 kWh
Monthly generation utilizable by City of False Pass 30,833 kWh
Percentage of False Pass Utility electric demand produced by TidGen® device 126%
Percentage of False Pass Utility demand actually offset by TidGen® device 64%
4.3 Proposed System
4.3.1 System Design
To forecast the Project’s energy production and financial analysis, the Project Team has chosen
ORPC’s TidGen® Power System as a model technology, which also will be considered for
deployment for the proposed False Pass Tidal Energy Project. This selection allows the Project
Team to assess the viability of the Project with an existing technology for which economic and
power output data is available.
1. Description of Renewable Energy Technology Specific to Project Location
ORPC power systems are designed around a proprietary turbine generator unit (TGU) containing
advanced design cross flow (ADCF) turbines which drive the TGU’s underwater permanent magnet
generator. The ADCF turbines are built with marine composite materials, and resist corrosion in
both fresh and salt water. The TGU is gearless, requires no lubricants, and has no emissions. The
TGU has a modular design adaptable to varying characteristics at different tidal installation sites.
Multiple TGUs can be incorporated into complete power systems to convert the kinetic energy of
water moving at tidal and riverine sites into grid-compatible electric power by means of various
power electronics stages.
The ORPC TidGen® device is a four-turbine TGU that is mounted on a bottom support frame
securing it to the sea floor (Figure 8). It is designed to operate in water depths of 60 to 150 ft and
generate up to 200 kilowatts (kW) at peak water flow conditions. For analysis purposes
measurements are based on the TidGen® device’s rated capacity of 200 kW in a 5.4 knot current.
A complete TidGen® Power System can include up to several dozen TidGen® devices, depending
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 25 of 46 7/2/14
upon market conditions, community needs, site characteristics and other considerations, deployed
nearby or adjacent to one another, with individual TidGen® devices connected together by means
of an underwater power consolidation module. Electricity is carried to shore through a single
underwater power and data cable that terminates beyond the high-water mark at an on-shore
station. The on-shore station is interconnected directly to the local utility power grid. The first grid-
connected TidGen® Power System was installed with a single TidGen® device in Cobscook Bay in
September 2012 (Figure 9).
Figure 8. TidGen® device showing TGU and bottom support frame.
Figure 9. TidGen® device installation in Cobscook Bay, Maine
The TidGen® Power System that will be considered for the Project will be benchmarked at ORPC’s
Nikiski test site near East Foreland in Cook Inlet, Alaska, over a 12 month test period.10
10 Funded in part by a $2 million grant from AEA to ORPC, “Cook Inlet TidGen® Project,” no. 7040059
This
benchmarking will confirm the power system has been adapted to challenging Alaskan conditions
and is ready for deployment at the remote False Pass site. The power system will be refurbished to
bring it to new condition before being shipped to False Pass.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 26 of 46 7/2/14
2. Optimal Installed Capacity
The proposed False Pass tidal energy project will begin with the installation of a single 200 kW
TidGen® Power System. This is the optimal installed capacity to suit the existing loads and
electrical configuration of the City. Currently the load for the False Pass utility averages around 66
kW. Based on analysis, the power produced by the TidGen® Power System will offset 64% of this
average load; the remaining generated power will be sold to the Bering Pacific Seafood plant to
offset their self generation. Without an energy storage component it will be challenging to
economically increase the penetration of the tidal energy system into the False Pass utility as the
largest impact on the ability to displace diesel fuel use is due to times when no tidal energy is
available and diesel generation is required. Bering Pacific Seafood is likely to have the largest
impact on future load growth as recent upgrades to the plant and increased operations increased
the peak monthly energy use by 30% over last year to 155,000 kWh/month during processing, an
average load of 215 kW. Bering Pacific Seafood anticipates that the load will increase by another
30% over the next five years and expand from seasonal operations to year round operations with a
monthly load of 177,000 kWh, an average load of 245 kW. During times of peak generation, power
from the TidGen® Power System will exceed load requirements for the False Pass Utility and allow
additional power to be passed onto the Bering Pacific Seafood plant demonstrating the
effectiveness of high penetration of tidally generated electricity into the Bering Pacific Seafood
plant’s electrical usage. The system could eventually be built out to include additional TidGen®
devices that would supply full power to the City and Bearing Pacific Seafood plant during times of
tidal generation. In the future, it may also be economical to consider adding energy storage
capacity to allow the False Pass Utility to meet its loads without the use of diesel fuel during times
when tidally produced power is not available.
3. Anticipated Capacity Factor
Based on a full lunar cycle of ADCP data collected in 2012 at False Pass, ORPC analyzed the
anticipated capacity factor of a 200 kW TidGen® device at site N2, about ½ mile from the False
Pass grid and at site S2, about two miles from the False Pass grid. As described above (Section
4.1), Table 1 shows the relative capacity factor at these sites. At site S2, the most likely candidate
for tidal turbine placement at this time, an impressive capacity factor of 44.2% can be achieved,
and with the added benefit of predictable delivery of this power, its value to the local energy
portfolio is high.
4. Anticipated Annual Generation
Table 3 also shows the anticipated annual generation in kWh at each of the sites.
5. Anticipated Barriers
ORPC demonstrated the technical effectiveness of the TidGen® Power System in 2012 when the
company built and operated the TidGen® Power System, becoming the first federally licensed
hydrokinetic tidal energy project to deliver electricity to a power grid under a power purchase
agreement in North America. Located in Cobscook Bay between Eastport and Lubec, Maine, the
TidGen™ Power System was connected to the utility grid at an on-shore station in North Lubec on
September 13, 2012. ORPC obtained a FERC pilot project license for the Project on February 12,
2012 and the first Maine Department of Environmental Protection General Permit issued for a tidal
energy project on January 31, 2012. In addition, ORPC received approval for the first power
purchase agreement for tidal energy from the Maine Public Utilities Commission on January 1,
2013.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 27 of 46 7/2/14
With $6 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and Maine Technology Institute for
technology optimization in 2014-2015,11
ORPC is now working to reduce risk by increasing
reliability and extraction efficiency and lowering costs – the very same challenge that every new
technology faces and the challenge that has, or is being, overcome with wind and solar
technologies. ORPC has learned from these other renewable energy industries so overcoming the
reliability, efficiency and cost challenges will be done in a more expedient and effective manner.
We anticipate a continual and significant lowering of the cost of energy within the next couple of
years. An example of the types of cost savings that are achievable is the innovative installation and
retrieval techniques developed towards the end of the Project that reduced the cost of these
operations by two-thirds.
In managing the challenging conditions of new technology installed in the underwater marine
environment, ORPC has also become an industry leader in the development and implementation
of the adaptive management approach for environmental compliance, including using it as a
mechanism for license modifications.
6. Basic Integration Concept
Once the power reaches shore and the False Pass grid, it will be power conditioned at ORPC’s on-
shore station to grid compatible three phase AC power with appropriate voltage for the location of
interconnect. ORPC has been working with Marsh Creek to refine the power electronics for
ORPC’s RivGen® Power System to interconnect with isolated diesel grids to maximize the ability
to offset diesel consumption. This technology will be leveraged and transferred to the TidGen®
Power System’s power electronics to ensure it will be capable of a reliable and efficient
interconnect to the False Pass diesel electric grid. Initially, the project will be run in parallel with the
diesel generation system offsetting the power required from the diesel. If it appears that the
TidGen® Power System could meet all of the electrical loads of the False Pass Utility, the Project
Team will consider retrofitting the power electronics to allow the TidGen® Power System to run in
grid forming mode, which will allow diesel generators in False Pass to be shut off completely during
these times, thereby maximizing the use of tidal energy and minimizing the diesel required for
energy generation. Because independent generation capacity is maintained both by the City of
False Pass and Bering Pacific Seafood it will be necessary to perform an integration study to
optimize operations of both of these generation facilities when tidal energy is available to ensure
that it will reduce diesel fuel usage at the maximum benefit.
The power transmission system must also be considered for successful operation. If the ADCP
survey performed in this Project confirms that the best location for tidal turbine placement will be in
the vicinity of site S2, a power transmission at least two miles long will be required to transmit the
power to shore. This cable must be designed and appropriately installed to ensure it will endure
continued operations in the tidal environment and deliver reliable power to shore. ORPC has
designed the TidGen® Power Systems with transmission distances similar to this and will condition
the power from the TidGen® device underwater to allow it to be efficiently and reliably transmitted
to the interconnect point.
The Project Team has also considered the cost of the transmission line from the site two miles
south of town in the project budget. Based on ORPC’s experience in the Cobscook Bay, Maine
project, the TidGen® power and data cable—a submarine cable slightly under a mile long and
capable of transmitting the power from five TidGen® devices, cost $423,000. The Project Team
11 ORPC, “Advanced Energy Harvesting Control Schemes for Marine Renewable Energy Devices,” DE-
EE0006397; “Power Take-off System for Marine Renewable Devices,” DE-EE0006398; and Maine
Technology Institute, “ORPC Technology Enhancements,” DL3604.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 28 of 46 7/2/14
used this number as the base for calculating the cost of a power and data cable installation at
False Pass and factored it into the project budget. If a portion of the cable could be installed
terrestrially this would further reduce these costs. In addition, the proposal was directed at
identifying additional optional sites closer to town; this is one of the reasons we submitted the
proposal for additional funding.
7. Delivery Method
Power from the TidGen® Power System will be delivered to the False Pass grid where it will be
dispatched, first to serve residential and community loads and then to provide power to the Bering
Pacific Seafood plant, an existing customer of the utility. The Bering Pacific Seafood facility also
has self generation capability, and the power from this project that is in excess of the current load
demand of the utility will be utilized to offset the self generation needs of the Bering Pacific
Seafood facility, further reducing diesel consumption in the community (See Section 5.5.1).
4.3.2 Land Ownership
The shipping, mobilization and deployment of the tidal turbine will take place exclusively on the
water using vessels and platforms. Land ownership concerns will be limited to transmission line
access. During the 2013 bathymetric survey there were two preliminary sites identified for the
submersible line to come ashore: (1) at the southern end of the airport and (2) at a dock owned by
the Aleutians East Borough (AEB).
The tideland access near the airport at False Pass (Unit # R22-06) is considered a municipal
tideland. This area is retained in state ownership and managed by the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF). If the transmission line route is designed within the
boundaries of the airport’s jurisdiction, applications and approvals would be needed from the
Airport Leasing, Utilities and Right of Way sections within ADOT/PF. The City of False Pass will be
required to apply for a utility permit through ADOT/PF for access to the electrical grid. A permit is
required for land use through Airport Leasing, and a charge is applied by the square footage. Once
a permit for land use is in place, a building permit is applied for through the Right of Way section.
An FAA 7460-1 airspace obstruction approval may also be required. The normal timeframe for
issuance of these permits is 60 days.
The second option would use the AEB dock, the end of which is approximately ¼ mile from the
nearest interconnection with the City of False Pass owned transmission line. Use of the dock for
supporting transmission line access would require a permit and review process through AEB’s
planning commission. The City of False Pass has a management agreement with AEB for the dock
and would modify this agreement to include the operation and maintenance of a new transmission
line.
4.3.3 Permits
This Project will identify federal and state licensing and permitting requirements for a tidal turbine
installation at the site. The only permits or licenses that would be required to complete this
investigation will be submerged land use permits from the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR) for the deployment of bottom mounted scientific equipment, particularly the
ADCP.
At the federal level, tidal energy projects are under the jurisdiction of FERC. To facilitate these
projects, FERC has implemented an expedited hydrokinetic permitting system through its pilot
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 29 of 46 7/2/14
license program as an alternative to the traditional full long-term hydropower licensing process.
This pilot project process is intended to give projects that are small scale and short term an
expedited licensing process, provided they are intensively monitored for environmental effects and
able to be shut down on short notice if unacceptable environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated are encountered. Through this Project, we will determine the appropriate FERC licensing
process.
The Project Team will continue relationships with appropriate agency personnel as the permitting
pathway for the larger tidal energy project is defined through this Project.
Table 3 summarizes the applicable permits and anticipated permitting timeline for this Phase II
project.
Table 3. Permits for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project
APPLICABLE PERMITS ANTICIPATED PERMITTING TIMELINE
ADNR Submerged Land Use Permit Apply May 2015.
FERC Preliminary Permit Phase II Feasibility work will not require a
preliminary permit but may be prudent for site
control
Potential Barriers
The Project Team believes potential permitting barriers will be minimal. They maintain ongoing
relationships with federal and state agencies who would be involved in developing the permitting
pathway for this tidal energy project and are diligent about keeping regulatory agencies appraised
of Project milestones. In addition, ORPC has significant experience in working with FERC and
holds a pilot project license for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project (P-12711)—one of only
three pilot project licenses for hydrokinetic energy issued in the U.S.
4.3.4 Environmental
A goal of this Project is to identify any environmental and permitting issues that would need to be
addressed before installing a hydrokinetic turbine. The appropriate environmental studies and
analyses must be completed to provide a basis for operating that minimizes the chance of potential
impacts on the marine environment. The Project Team takes this task very seriously. While current
reports of ORPC’s technology deployment and operation in Maine suggest that the turbines have
no negative effects on fish, marine mammals, or other marine species, studies occur at each
unique site to verify use by fish and other wildlife, and to assess any potential site-specific effects
that would need to be monitored for or mitigated. We will consult with agencies, including (but not
limited to) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS)
and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to scope proper studies and identify areas of
environmental concern and complete a comprehensive literature review in support of this effort.
Additional assessments are anticipated in conjunction with the Endangered Species Act, Marine
Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) and USFWS National
Wildlife Refuge Management Plan.
As part of Milestone 3 government consultations and stakeholder meetings with be completed
within 8 months from the beginning of the project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 30 of 46 7/2/14
Threatened or Endangered Species
While current reports of ORPC’s technology deployment and operation in Maine suggest that their
turbines have no negative effects on fish, marine mammals, or other marine species, ORPC
anticipates that studies will occur at False Pass to verify local use by fish and other wildlife, and to
assess any potential site-specific effects that would need to be monitored for or mitigated. We will
consult with agencies, including (but not limited to) NMFS, USFWS and ADF&G to scope proper
studies and identify areas of environmental concern and complete a comprehensive literature
review in support of this effort. Additional assessments are anticipated in conjunction with the
Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson Stevens Act (Essential Fish
Habitat) and USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan.
Informational available on the USFWS’s website indicates the following endangered species may
be present at the site:
• Stellar sea-lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
• Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyon)
Habitat Issues
Environmental studies to date indicate no negative interactions with ORPC power systems.
Nevertheless, ORPC anticipates collaborating with State and Federal regulators to develop
environmental monitoring plans specifically for False Pass that are appropriate for a long term
installation.
Wetlands and Other Protected Areas
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetland Inventory indicates no data is available for the
location of the proposed project (Figure 9).
Figure 9. National Wetland Inventory results for False Pass.
The City of False Pass is located in an area not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Figure 10). However, since the subsea transmission cable will
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 31 of 46 7/2/14
connect to the existing electric grid it is anticipated that portions of the route will be located in
floodplains.
Figure 10. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map results for False Pass
As of July 1, 2011, Alaska no longer has a federally approved coastal management program and
federal consistency does not apply to Alaska.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
A search of the National Register of Historic Places for Aleutians East County in Alaska indicated
there are no records for the area (Figure 11).
Figure 11. National Register of Historic Places search results for Aleutians East County
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 32 of 46 7/2/14
Land Development Constraints
There are no land development constraints. Shipping, mobilization and deployment of the tidal
turbine will take place exclusively on the water using vessels and platforms. Land ownership
concerns will be limited to transmission line access. During the 2013 bathymetric survey there were
two preliminary sites identified for the submersible line to come ashore: (1) at the southern end of
the airport and (2) at a dock owned by the Aleutians East Borough (AEB).
The tideland access near the airport at False Pass (Unit # R22-06) is considered a municipal
tideland. This area is retained in state ownership and managed by the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF). If the transmission line route is designed within the
boundaries of the airport’s jurisdiction, applications and approvals would be needed from the
Airport Leasing, Utilities and Right of Way sections within ADOT/PF. The City of False Pass will be
required to apply for a utility permit through ADOT/PF for access to the electrical grid. A permit is
required for land use through Airport Leasing, and a charge is applied by the square footage. Once
a permit for land use is in place, a building permit is applied for through the Right of Way section.
An FAA 7460-1 airspace obstruction approval may also be required. The normal timeframe for
issuance of these permits is 60 days.
The alternative option would use the AEB dock, the end of which is approximately ¼ mile from the
nearest interconnection with the City of False Pass owned transmission line. The City of False
Pass has ownership of the dock and would provide a permit. This permit would include language to
account for the operation and maintenance of a new transmission line.
Telecommunications Interference
There is no anticipated telecommunications interference. ORPC, for example, will be able to
design the Project to have no impact on fiber optic cable or any terrestrial transmission lines.
Aviation Considerations
Because ORPC power systems are fully submerged underwater, there are no aviation concerns,
including float planes.
Visual, Aesthetics Impacts
Because ORPC power systems are fully submerged underwater, they are completely invisible from
the surface, and have no effect on natural water landscapes.
Other Potential Barriers
Isanotski Strait is a dynamic and prolific marine environment and an important migratory pathway.
The Project Team realized this early on and has been planning the project to account for costs that
may be associated with monitoring plans for protected, threatened, or endangered species. Part of
the feasibility study will focus on researching the marine species of concern and beginning agency
consultation on study plans that may be required. Once the studies are defined and budgeted the
project team intends to pursue outside funding sources for this work, reducing as much as possible
the need to provide funding for environmental study costs through the REF. Sediment
transportation is, however, not seen as a likely concern for this project. The water at False Pass is
clear and the bottom at the preferred site is dense coble, hence there are little suspended
sediment or sediment transport processes happening at this location.
During the summer of 2013 Benthic GeoScience completed a site characterization defining the
bathymetry, geomorphology, and geologic interpretation for areas which will include turbine siting
and power cable infrastructure. As part of this effort, hazard assessment for the tidal project was
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 33 of 46 7/2/14
addressed. Although additional information from future measurements is expected to increase our
understanding of site dynamics, this was a significant stage in identifying the potential for
necessary environmental studies. The results from the 2013 site characterization identified low
concern potential related to site geology and sediment transport. The seafloor throughout the
project area consists of both consolidated and unconsolidated geology with bedrock presenting for
much of the area. The areas currently targeted for turbine installation present as bedrock with a
cobble to small boulder (boulder is defined by any clast 10 cm diameter or larger) scattering across
the surface. Based upon the data available, Benthic GeoScience does not foresee nor recommend
significant transport studies for the False Pass Tidal Power Project. Benthic GeoScience has
recommend confirmation of this interpretation through “ground truth” efforts accomplished during
future expeditions to site, these efforts are expected to accrue trivial cost increases and can be
accomplished using optic video, Secchi disk, acoustic or optical backscatter, as well as water
samples, some of which will be required for final design regardless. Again, this effort is trivial to
accomplish and should ultimately confirm that sediment transport studies are unnecessary for the
False Pass Tidal Energy Project
With the data available, the Site Characterization Report does not identify significant issues related
to ice nor debris. The site characterization is a significant accomplishment in addressing the
specific concerns stated by AEA regarding fears related to unidentified environmental study costs
and all indications do not warrant the same level of study as other areas within Alaskan waters.
The concerns on lower availability and cost estimation are valid; however, all of the assumptions
used in the proposal were grounded in actual experience operating a tidal energy project in Maine
and adjusting costs for the Alaskan environment and remote conditions.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
The total anticipated cost for this proposed tidal energy project is $6,870,575. This includes
$491,146for the Feasibility Phase of the project proposed here: $428,646 in AEA funding and
$62,500 in matching funds. These matching funds will be supplied by APICDA ($62,500 for
vessels, captains, and room and board for field work).
The projected capital cost of the tidal energy project is $5,122,446 installed, while the project
development cost is expected to cost $1,748,129 including the $ 491,146 proposed for the
Feasibility Phase work.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
There will be no Operating and Maintenance Costs for this Phase II Feasibility Analysis and
Conceptual Design Project.
Anticipated O&M costs for a 200 kW tidal energy project, inclusive of environmental monitoring,
inspections, maintenance, and repair, is estimated to be $160,000 per year. At $0.22/kWh this
O&M number is realistic and substantially lower than the power sales price in False Pass, leaving a
comfortable margin to service any capital cost debts and to provide a profit margin needed by the
City of False Pass.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 34 of 46 7/2/14
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
Potential Power Customers
The City of False Pass operates the community’s power utility, which serves the community of
False Pass. The residents and businesses in False Pass are the customers.
Potential Power Purchase/sales Price
Commercial customers pay $0.36 / kWh, while community facilities and residential customers pay
$0.42/kWh.
Proposed Rate of Return
For the economic analysis in this application a blended rate of $0.39/kWh escalated at 2% annually
was assumed. At this rate the return on investment would be 2%. These rates will be used until the
proposed system has been in operation for several months and a clear picture of energy savings
has been developed. At that time a new rate may be implemented, but the savings will likely go
towards a replacement and repairs account.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 35 of 46 7/2/14
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Source
Annual average resource availability. Capacity Factor 44.2% availability 94%
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomass fuel)
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 12
i. Number of generators/boilers/other
grid, leave this section blank)
3 generators owned and operated by City of False
Pass
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other (1) John Deere 6090AHM 180 kW generator set
(1) John Deere 6081TF 125 kW generator set
(1) John Deere 6081AF 175 kW generator set
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 5 years old
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.38 kWh/gallon
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $22,123
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $17,034
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] 706,037 kWh City
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 56,315 City. 40,355 by BPS plant
Other
iii. Peak Load 190 kW City. 456 kW BPS plant
iv. Average Load 66 kW City. 245 kW BPS plant
v. Minimum Load 56 kW City
vi. Efficiency 12.5 kWh/gallon
vii. Future trends Load expected to grow with additional production capacity at BPS to 245 kW
average load. Already in 2014 fuel usage has increased to 53,970.
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 730,000
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
12 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
AEA 15003 Page 36 of 46 7/2/14
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
iv. Other
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $5,122,446
b) Development cost $1,748,129
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $160,000
d) Annual fuel cost NA
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 58,400 gallons
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $ 3.81/ Gallon, $222,504 displaced annually
c) Other economic benefits $1,300,000 of project capital costs will be spent on
installation in Alaska and $140,000 of annual O&M
costs will be spent on work in Alaska. The added
direct and indirect economic benefit to the Alaskan
economy through this is estimated at two times the
locally invested funding and will be approximately
$2,600,000 during installation and $280,000 annually
during operation for a total of $8,200,000 over the 20
year lifetime of the project in Alaska and $140,000 of
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 37 of 46 7/2/14
annual O&M costs will be spent on work in Alaska.
The added direct and indirect economic benefit to the
Alaskan economy through this will be approximately
$2,600,000 during installation and $280,000 annually
during operation.
d) Alaska public benefits This Project will add value to local business in False
Pass by enabling green labeling of seafood products
and tourism services.
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale $0.39/kWh
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio .19
Payback (years) NA
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
The current electric rate for PCE customers is $.42 kWh with a PCE rate of $.2777, making an
effective rate of $.1430 for the first 500 kWh of usage for residential customers and all of the
Community Facility usage. The non-PCE customer rate for commercial, federal and state
customers is $.36 kWh.
These rates are so low only because the City of False Pass subsidizes the fuel costs to their
electric utility with State Revenue Sharing. Less fuel usage will not change the rates, but will allow
the City of False Pass to use that money now used to subsidize fuel costs towards maintenance on
the added equipment and a Replacement and Repairs account.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 38 of 46 7/2/14
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Communities that are partially powered by renewable energy technologies reap economic, social,
and environmental benefits. A good example close to False Pass is King Cove, which has a hydro
project and the lowest charges for electricity in the Aleutians. Obvious benefits resulting from a
False Pass tidal project are sustainable, high-quality job creation, enhanced quality of life, and
energy independence for the community. Community members will have a renewed sense of pride
knowing that their community is partially powered with renewable energy. A tidal energy project at
False Pass would offer emission-free power that will both decrease the use of fuel oil and provide a
flat-priced alternative as fossil fuel prices continue to rise.
Potential Annual Fuel Displacement over the lifetime of the Evaluated Renewable Energy Project
A single ORPC TidGen® device will be rated to produce 200 kW in a 5.4-knot current, in the robust
currents measured at False Pass this device would produce enough power to save 222,504
gallons of fuel over the course of a year. This would amount to offsetting the production of
1,500,000 pounds of CO2 annually. By offsetting this diesel fuel usage alone, significant
environmental risk associated with the threat of fuels spills in the transportation, storage, and use
of the diesel fuel will also be mitigated. Furthermore, as an Alaskan community dependent on
fishing as a resource, the reduction in CO2 will mitigate both climate change and ocean
acidification, which both threaten to negatively affect the marine environment, jeopardizing fish
stocks and compromising the commercial and subsistence livelihood of the community. This
project allows the community of False Pass to proactively address these risks to the environment
and promote economic development.
Anticipated Annual Revenue
The Project will generate revenue to the City of False Pass through the amount of diesel it offsets
for energy production. The energy produced from this project will offset 58,400 gallons annually, at
the current fuel price of $3.81.gallon this amounts to a cost savings of $222,504.
Potential Additional Annual Incentives
This Project will contribute to the local economy by providing local employment opportunities as
well as business enhancement. These local jobs will have substantial multiplier effects in a small
economy such as that in False Pass. It is estimated that $1,300,000 will be spent in Alaska during
project installation, while $140,000 will be spent locally for annual maintenance. Conservatively
doubling this amount over the lifetime of the project would mean $8,200,000 in added economic
benefit from the project.
Potential Additional Annual Revenue Streams
The possibility of adding value to local seafood products through a development of products that
feature sustainable labeling highlighting the tidal energy used in processing would add value to the
local business and economy of False Pass. This will add to or enhance the revenue stream from
the Bering Pacific Seafood processing plant that already significantly benefits the community.
Non-economic Public Benefits to Alaskans over the Lifetime of the Project
In addition to associated benefits of economic development and job creation in the community,
other economic developments and benefits could result from the tidal project. It could be
expanded, for example, to provide all of the power to the local Bering Pacific Seafood plant. Using
a clean, innovative source of energy would give a value-added green label to the local business,
which could have a multiplier effect on the demand for the locally-produced seafood.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 39 of 46 7/2/14
5.1 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
While the City of False Pass will be the primary recipient of the power from a tidal energy project,
there will be times when the output of the project exceeds the load of the city of False Pass. At
these times it is anticipated that excess energy will be sold to and utilized by the expanded Bering
Pacific Seafood plant at a slightly reduced rate to encourage maximum utilization of the tidally
produced energy to offset self-generation and diesel use at the facility. Based on ADCP data
collected at False Pass it is anticipated that 50% of the time a TidGen® Power system will produce
more than the average load at False Pass of 66 kW. During these times approximately 360,000
kWh of energy annually will not be utilizable by the city and will be sold to the processing plant.
Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) 60,833
Estimated sales (kWh) 30,000
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at
private sector businesses ($)
$10,800
Estimated sales (kWh) 30,833
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the
Alaskan public ($)
$12,024
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Proposed Business Structures and Concepts that may be considered
There are two business structures under consideration for the ownership and power sales
associated with the installed tidal energy project. In either scenario that tidal energy project would
be locally owned and operated, either by the City of False Pass, or by Bering Pacific Seafood.
Financing the Maintenance and Operations for the Life of the Project
The owner and operator of the project will be responsible for installation, operation and
maintenance of the project and would sell the power produced at a rate that is competitive with
diesel generation and provides adequate cash flow to perform operations, maintenance, and
monitoring and to service any debt incurred in the installation of the project.
Identification of Operational Issues that Could Arise
As this is a marine renewable energy project operational issues will be largely handled through on-
water operations requiring the owner to have marine construction experience or to contract to a
company with this capacity. ORPC has established a model for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy
Project in Maine where a subcontractor is responsible for all on water installation and maintenance
operations and this may be a good example to follow for the project. Operational issues will include
routine yearly maintenance of the TidGen® Power System, routine maintenance of environmental
and project monitoring equipment, and unexpected maintenance of the TidGen® Power System.
Description of Operational Costs, Including On-going Support
The operational costs associated with this project will include yearly maintenance costs inclusive of
major maintenance events scheduled for every five years, environmental and project monitoring,
and project management costs. The City of False Pass and Bering Pacific Seafood will continue to
operate and maintain their diesel electric generation facilities, as these will be required to provide
power during periods of slack tide and to make up the power differential when the tidally produced
power does not meet the demand of the community or facility.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 40 of 46 7/2/14
Commitment to Reporting the Savings and Benefits
The City of False Pass will report the savings and benefits from the Project, and these will be
reflected in the cost of delivered power to the customers of the utility.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
The City of False Pass demonstrates readiness and compliance with other grants by serving as
grantee of the following ongoing projects:
• AEA, False Pass Wind Energy Project, $69,075. Project period: July 1, 2011 – June 30,
2014.
• State of Alaska, Community Development Block Grant, Generator Replacement, $142,500.
Project period: August 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014.
• USDA Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Cost Grant. Pending 2015.
The City of False Pass has the financial management capabilities to meet the requirements of
these grants and project management capabilities by working collaboratively with their respective
Project Teams to bring them to completion.
Preliminary work on this Project was completed by a $206,956 project awarded to APIA by DOE to
conduct a study of False Pass to determine whether a tidal energy project could provide renewable
energy. The project scope included circulation modeling of False Pass, initial site visit to perform
reconnaissance bathymetry, electrical infrastructure and load analysis, and initiation of permitting
consultation. The Project was completed in 2014.
If this Project is awarded, the Project Team intends to begin in summer 2015, the first available
field season.
SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
The City of False Pass has received enthusiastic local support for a tidal energy project. Alaskan
organizations and communities see tidal energy’s potential to help diversify the sources of our
electricity as well as ameliorate the cost of diesel fuel.
The Project Team, which has a strong record of community engagement and public support, will
continue their ongoing work with scientists, fishers, and regulatory agencies to ensure that
adequate means are in place to understand the marine environment. Throughout the Project
period the Project Team will consult with stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and the public through
regular project update mailings and meetings, addressing any concerns in a collaborative,
proactive manner.
Letters of Support from the following communities are included as in Section 11 B:
• Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC Alaska)
• Aleutians East Borough
• Isanotski Corporation
• Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.
• Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 41 of 46 7/2/14
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
9.1 Funding sources and Financial Commitment
To date a total of $465,518 has been invested in the project. This included $206,956 award to
complete a reconnaissance survey of the project through funding from DOE’s Tribal Energy
Program. Project partners provided cost shares for this work amounting to $17,762 from ORPC
and $17,500 from APICDA. The project also benefited from $150,000 in programmatic funding
from AEA that was provided to the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference to support a
bathymetric survey of the Project area for which APICDA provided a cost share of $43,300. AEA
has also provided an additional $25,000 to support UAA circulation modeling utilizing this
bathymetric data.
All of the funds requested in this Phase II Feasibility proposal will be used by the City of False
Pass for contractual services. These contractual services will be performed by ORPC, APIA,
Benthic GeoScience and UAA, and will be matched by funding from APICDA. ORPC will provide
project and grant management services amounting to a total of $138,360 and an ADCP survey for
$136,686. APIA will perform an environmental literature survey and assist ORPC with drafting
study plans for the project for $47,305. Benthic GeoScience will perform a sub bottom survey of
the planned deployment area and cable route of the project for $81,000. UAA will validate the
circulation modeling performed with AEA programmatic funding with ADCP field data collected
during this effort for $25,295. APICDA will provide field work support for a cost share of $62,500.
Looking ahead, the City of False plans to complete construction of the False Pass Tidal Energy
with the following pending proposal – USDA Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Cost Grant, $3
million, pending 2015.
Federal and state support of the False Pass Tidal Energy Project is summarized in Table 4:
Table 4. False Pass Tidal Energy Project Grant Funding
Project Phase Grants Status
Phase I
Reconnaissance
• AEA, 2008
• AEA, 2010
• DOE Tribal 2012
Completed
Phase II
Feasibility and Conceptual
Design
• AEA Programmatic funding 2012-2014
• AEA, REF Round 8, 2014:
Application pending
2015
Phase III
Final Design and Permitting
• AEA, REF Round 9, 2015 2016
Phase IV
Construction and
Commissioning
• USDA RUS, 2014: Application pending
2017
While future funding for nearly every REF application has uncertainty, in the case of the False
Pass Tidal Energy Project there is a high potential for significant investment from APICDA, one of
the project partners with a large amount of investment already committed to the Bering Pacific
Seafood plant. The success of this business hinges largely on the availability of reliable, affordable,
clean energy, and APICDA has expressed strong interest in supporting a tidal energy project at
False Pass. This reduces the uncertainty for future funding compared with other hydrokinetic
projects that do not have a strong commercial partner onboard with a vested interest in the local
energy market.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 42 of 46 7/2/14
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.
It will be necessary to meter the power coming in from the Tidal energy project that is actually
utilized to offset power that would otherwise be produced by the City of False Pass Diesel
Electrical Generation (DEG) Plant or the Bering Pacific Seafood DEG Plant. The SCADA system
provided for the tidal energy project will monitor how much power is produced by the tidal energy
project and delivered to the grid, however, it may be necessary to add two meters to measure the
power contributed to both the City of False Pass and that which is dispatched to the Bering Pacific
Seafood grid.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 43 of 46 7/2/14
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
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project.
See Milestone list below. )
$ $ $
ADCP expedition planning
and procurement
completed
8/1/15
$5,677 $ $5,677
ADCP survey of 3-5 sites
completed 11/1/15 $142,363 $46,936 APICDA
contribution $189,299
Initial meetings with
project stakeholders and
regulatory agencies,
desktop environmental
literature surveys
completed and presented
to regulatory agencies 2/1/16
$51,208 $ $51,208
Draft study plans
developed and submitted
to regulatory agencies 3/1/16
$53,409 $ $53,409
Analysis of current energy
costs, anticipated load
growth and future energy
costs completed 3/1/16
$5,677 $ $5,677
Alternative energy
generation options
analyzed 3/1/16
$5,676 $ $5,676
Latest cost data
incorporated into financial
model 1/15/16
$11,354 $ $11,354
Updated pro forma model
developed incorporating
ADCP data from survey 3/1/16
$42,972 $ $42,972
Sub bottom survey
completed and data
incorporated into
conceptual design 6/1/16
$93,557 $15,564 $109,121
Project partners
collaborate on business
plan 7/1/16
$11,077 $ $11,077
Final Report Submitted to
AEA 7/1/16 $5,676 $ $5,676
TOTALS $428,646 $62,500 $491,146
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 15003 Page 44 of 46 7/2/14
Travel & Per Diem $ $ $
Equipment $ $ $
Materials & Supplies $ $ $
Contractual Services $428,646 $62,500 $491,146
Construction Services $ $ $
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $428,646 $62,500 $491,146
SECTION 11.B. LETTERS OF SUPPORT
302 Gold Street, Suite 202 • Juneau, Alaska 99801 • (907) 586-0161 • Fax: (907) 586-0165
717 K Street, Suite 100 • Anchorage, Alaska 99501 • (907) 929-5273 • Fax: (907) 929-5275
September 20, 2014
Mayor Tom Hoblet
180 Unimak Drive
False Pass, Alaska 99583
Dear Tom:
The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA) is pleased to
provide a cost share match towards the City of False Pass’ proposal under Round VIII of the
Alaska Energy Authority’s Renewable Energy Fund. The city’s Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study
represents a critical stage in determining the viability of tidal power to reduce the community’s
fossil fuel use.
APICDA helped to provide vessel and ground support for the first two phases of feasibility work
for this project. Next summer we will provide $62,500 worth of support in vessel time, crew,
lodging, board, fuel and personnel during the remaining resource study efforts. We are very
excited to participate in this endeavor and are hopeful that it will provide a path towards a more
sustainable energy source for the city and our fish processing operations.
APICDA has been working diligently with the city and other regional entities on energy
planning, fuel security issues and exploring renewable alternatives to diesel generated electricity.
We look forward to our continued partnerships and helping to shape a vibrant and healthy future
for residents and businesses throughout the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region.
Sincerely,
Larry Cotter
Chief Executive Officer, APICDA
SECTION 11.D. GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
SECTION 11.G. ATTACHMENTS
ORPC, Reconnaissance Current Survey Report, Prepared for the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association,
April 1, 2013
<
RECONNAISSANCE TIDAL CURRENT SURVEY
REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLAND ASSOCIATION
April 1, 2013
ORPC Alaska, LLC
725 Christensen Dr., Suite 6
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone (207) 772-7707
www.orpc.co
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 2 of 15
Contents
Figures............................................................................................................................................. 2
Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4
Data Collection Summary ............................................................................................................... 4
Data Analysis and Quality Control ................................................................................................. 7
Recoverable Energy ...................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 15
Figures
Figure 1. Location of AWAC and RDI ADCP deployments. ........................................................ 6
Figure 2. Location of ADCP and HOBO deployments in the vicinity of False Pass. .................... 6
Figure 3. Tidal Rose for RDI ADCP deployed at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. .......... 10
Figure 4. Tidal Rose for AWAC deployed at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ............... 10
Figure 5. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from RDI ADCP data collected
at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from Nortek AWAC data
collected at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ..................................................................... 11
Figure 7. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in
degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment, water surface level is shown at top (note
velocity scale is different in Figures 5 and 6). .............................................................................. 12
Figure 8. Nortek AWAC data from N2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction
in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment (note velocity scale is different in Figure 5
and 6). ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration.
A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood residual current while a negative current
velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image
represents the tidal velocity 10.7 meters above the seafloor. ....................................................... 13
Figure 10. AWAC data from N2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A
positive current is indicative of the northerly flood current while a negative current velocity is
indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the
tidal velocity 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ............................................................................... 14
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 3 of 15
Tables
Table 1. Data logging parameters of AWAC and RDI ADCP. ....................................................... 7
Table 2. Energy density and current velocity comparison at N2 and S2. ....................................... 9
Table 3. Recoverable energy comparison at N2 and S2 approximately 10.5 meters above
seafloor. ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendices
Appendix A: Tidal Rose for each bin in the water column at sites N2 and S2
Appendix B: Tabular data from all bins in water column with quality data
Appendix C: Photos from Deployment and Retrieval Operations
Appendix D: Field Report, False Pass ADCP Deployment, September 28-October 3, 2012
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 4 of 15
Executive Summary
ORPC Alaska, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC
(collectively ORPC), performed a reconnaissance tidal current survey (Survey) to obtain a
preliminary assessment of the potential for a tidal energy project as an energy alternative for the
community of False Pass, Alaska under contract with Aleutian Pribilof Island Association
(APIA). ORPC successfully collected Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) current
velocity data from two sites in Isanotski Strait in the vicinity of False Pass over the course of a
lunar cycle (one month) during the period from September to November 2012. The collected
data was normalized through a quality control and data analysis process to allow for a
comparison of the available tidal energy resource between the two sites. The Survey analysis
shows that site “N2” in the near vicinity of False Pass has a marginal tidal energy resource, while
site “S2” in the narrowest portion of the Isanotski Strait is an extremely robust tidal energy
resource for tidal energy extraction utilizing currently existing hydrokinetic technologies. Based
on the results of the Survey, the tidal energy resource in the vicinity of False Pass has sufficient
energy for a viable tidal energy project. The results justify further investigation of the site
characteristics, project development considerations, and project economics to determine the
ultimate feasibility of a tidal energy project in the False Pass area.
Data Collection Summary
ORPC collected a lunar cycle (29.5 days) of current velocity data at two sites near False Pass that
was used to make a preliminary determination of the potential for a tidal energy project.1
ORPC
had agreed to provide data from at least one site, but was able to collect data at two sites as the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) supplied one additional ADCP for the project
period. This enabled two sites to be measured at the same time, allowing a comparison of the
energy resource of the two sites during the same time period.
The field work and data collection was performed as described below:
• September 28, 2012
ORPC deployed a team to False Pass to perform this tidal/ocean current resource
reconnaissance under contract to APIA. Team members Monty Worthington, ORPC,
David Oliver, Benthic GeoScience, and Levi Kilcher, NREL, mobilized to False Pass and
met with Shane Hoblet contracted by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community
Development Association (APICDA) to skipper the Nightrider, a vessel of opportunity
for the equipment deployment operations. The goal of this expedition was to deploy two
ADCPs to measure current velocities at sites likely to have viable resources over a full
lunar cycle (29.5 days), and to deploy two HOBO water level sensors to validate the
University of Alaska Anchorage’s (UAA’s) modeling efforts.
1 A full lunar cycle of data allows analysis of the energy available through a full orbit of the moon around the earth.
As the effect of the moon’s gravity is the primary constituent in tidal exchanges, this analysis provides an accurate
estimate of annual energy potential from a site, provided tidal forces are the primary influence on current velocity at
the site.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 5 of 15
• September 29-30, 2013
ORPC investigated ADCP deployment sites, selected on the basis of UAA modeling
efforts, local knowledge, and known bathymetry with a SeaKing Tritech Scanning Sonar.
Seven sites were assessed for hazards to ADCP deployments in the vicinity of two
prospective ADCP locations, and ultimately two sites “N2” in the vicinity of False Pass
and “S2” approximately two miles south of the town of False Pass near Whirl Point were
selected for deployment (Figure 1).
• September 30, 2012
At 19:50 AKDT a 600 kHz Nortek Acoustic Wave and Current (AWAC) profiler
provided by NREL was deployed and began collecting data at N2 (lat -163.3870W long
54.8515N).
• October 2, 2012
At 19:59 AKDT a 300 kHz RDI ADCP was deployed and began collecting data at S2 (lat
-163.3676W long 54.8174N). The HOBO water level sensors were also deployed
approximately 7 nm North and South of False Pass (Figure 2).
• October 29, 2012
Monty Worthington, ORPC, mobilized back to False Pass for ADCP recovery operations
where he met Calvin Kashevarof under contract to APICDA to skipper the Nightrider for
these efforts.
• October 30, 2012
At 12:44 AKDT the AWAC ADCP was recovered and completed its data collection,
logging 29.7 days of data.
• November 3, 2012
The HOBO deployed north of False Pass was recovered at 12:30 AKDT.
• November 4, 2012
The RDI ADCP deployed at S2 was recovered at 17:45 AKDT. This ADCP had stopped
recording data on October 3, 2012 at 3:57 AKDT due to premature battery depletion,
logging 28.35 days of data.
March 25, 2012
The HOBO deployed south of False Pass was recovered by Shane Hoblet and his crew
while commercial fishing. It had washed up on the beach near its deployment site and
will be returned to UAA for data analysis.
The location of the two sites at which the ADCPs were deployed is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 6 of 15
Figure 1. Location of AWAC and RDI ADCP deployments.
Figure 2. Location of ADCP and HOBO deployments in the vicinity of False Pass.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 7 of 15
Data Analysis and Quality Control
ADCP Configuration
Both the RDI AWAC and Nortek ADCP were configured in the field and calibrated for each of
the sites, including calibration of the magnetic compass on each device, setting of the
deployment depth, and configuring the data acquisition parameters. Each device passed the
configuration checks performed under the guidance of NREL and Benthic Geoscience personnel.
Differences in the two devices necessitated programming each device to sample and store data at
different intervals while optimizing for the maximum rate of data collection, storage and battery
life. This programming allowed the data to be utilized to the maximum extent for analysis of the
strength of the resource, direction of the currents, and potential analysis of turbulence (Table 1).
Each device also had a slightly different “blanking distance.” This is the distance between the
device and the first bin of data. This resulted in a 0.2 meter difference in the height above the
seafloor of nearest data bins between the two devices.
Table 1. Data logging parameters of AWAC and RDI ADCP.
Data Quality Control
The data from the AWAC and RDI ADCPs was downloaded from the devices, and data quality
and accuracy was verified independently by NREL and ORPC. Data analysis was focused
approximately 10.7 meters above the bottom for the RDI ADCP and 10.5 meters above the
bottom for the AWAC ADCP—the anticipated height of ORPC’s TidGen™ device and a likely
hub height for medium sized tidal turbines. Data was also analyzed throughout the water column
for comparison purposes (see Appendix A and B). The strongest near surface current velocities
and highest energy densities were also identified. As the RDI had a pressure sensor, it also
collected data on the water level and identified the surface of the water. The AWAC did not have
a pressure sensor, so water surface and “false” data bins from above the water surface were
identified by unrealistic trends in the data. At site N2, the deployment depth was 26 meters (85
feet) and at least 22 bins of quality data were collected above. The data, however, appeared
Device
and
Site
Data
Collection
Start
(AKDT)
Data
Collection
End
(AKDT)
Data
Collection
Duration
Blanking
Distance
(meters)
Bin Size
(meters)
Sample
Rate
Data
Storage
RDI
ADCP
at site
S2
10/2/12 at
19:59
10/31/12 at
3:57
28.35 days 3.2 1 Ping
every
1.8 sec
Average of
5 pings
stored
every 9 sec
Nortek
AWAC
at site
N2
9/30/12 at
19:50
10/30/12 at
12:44
29.7 days 1 1 Ping
every 1
sec
Average of
60 pings
stored once
a minute
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 8 of 15
unreliable due either to surface reflection or possibly interference from the submerged buoy used
in the deployment. At site S2 the deployment depth was 35 meters (114 feet), and 32 bins of
quality data were collected.
One challenge encountered in performing a comparative analysis of the sites was due to the fact
that the RDI ADCP, deployed at site S2, had stopped logging data before the end of the synodic
full lunar cycle (28.35 days of data instead of 29.53 days). This was likely due to premature
battery depletion. The ADCP had been programmed to use 90% of its battery over a 29.5 day
deployment which should have left reserve capacity; but this was not the case. Because of this, it
was necessary to determine how to normalize the data for comparison purposes between the two
sites because a full lunar cycle of data was not collected at S2. ORPC analyzed the difference
between the data collected by first comparing the data from a full lunar cycle which was
collected at N2 to the data from site N2 during the 27.5 days during which concurrent data was
collected at site S2. Mean velocities at the selected depth (10.5 meters above the seafloor) were
1.24 m/s for the flood tide for both durations, while for the ebb tide, the mean velocity was
slightly higher for the full lunar cycle at 1.25 m/s (as opposed to 1.24 m/s for the 27.5 day cycle,
a difference of less than 1%). The average energy density also differed slightly between 1.57
kW/m^2 for the full lunar cycle as compared to 1.54 kW/m^2 for the period of concurrent data
collection. This represents a 1.9% difference in energy density; a larger difference than the
current velocity as it varies as a cube of current velocity. This difference is within the acceptable
range for extrapolating annual energy output as natural variations between concurrent lunar
cycles may exhibit similar differences. It was therefore deemed a correct approach to focus on
the 27.5 day time period of concurrent data collection for comparison of energy at the two sites
and for extrapolation of annual energy production. The data presented in this report was analyzed
over the 27.5 day time period of concurrent deployment.
Current velocity, energy density and flow symmetry comparison
Table 2 shows the comparative current velocities and energy density at sites N2 and S2 using the
27.5 days of direct overlap in deployment of the two devices. At 10.5 meters above the seafloor,
the N2 site had a maximum velocity of 2.51 m/s and average velocity of 1.24 m/s and an average
energy density of 1.54 kW/m^2. By comparison, at 10.7 meters above the seafloor the S2 site
had a maximum current of 3.68 m/s an average velocity of 1.62 m/s and an average energy
density of 3.68 kW/m^2—over twice the available energy of site N2. At both sites, the strongest
currents occurred during the ebb (southerly) flows. Peak current velocities and energy densities
occurred near the surface of each site, but, here again, energy density at site S2 was more than
double that of N2.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 9 of 15
Table 2. Energy density and current velocity comparison at N2 and S2.
The flow direction and its symmetry between flood and ebb events at tidal sites can be highly
variable, and this can have adverse effects on energy capture using tidal turbines. It is important
to analyze this aspect of tidal currents as asymmetric currents can have adverse effects on total
recoverable energy. In addition to analysis of the mean direction and standard deviation of the
currents direction in Table 2, ORPC generated a “Tidal Rose” for each site at the tidal turbines
hub height to graphically depict current direction, symmetry, and magnitude. These Tidal Roses
reveal that the flow is highly symmetric (near to180 degrees opposed) at sites S2 and N2 and that
viable current velocities for energy production occur a large amount of the time. However,
current velocities and overall energy at N2 are significantly lower as noted above. Figures 3 and
4 show the Tidal Rose for the selected depth for energy analysis of each site. A Tidal Rose for
each bin of data is included in Appendix A. A similar analysis, highlighting the current direction
and magnitude with scatter plots, is displayed in Figures 5 and 6.
Site (depth above seafloor) N2
(10.5 m)
S2
(10.7m)
N2
(20.5 m)
S2
(32.7m)
Flood Mean Direction (deg) -33.8 -19.7 -34.7 -23.8
Std. Deviation from Mean axis
(deg) 3.90 13.30 3.89 9.91
Mean Speed (m/s) 1.24 1.47 1.41 1.67
Max Sustained Speed (m/s) 2.30 2.96 2.64 2.92
Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.49 2.56 2.21 3.72
Ebb Mean Direction (deg) 154 167 162 162
Std. Deviation from Mean axis
(deg) 2.94 3.03 4.33 1.96
Mean Speed (m/s) -1.24 -1.76 -1.41 -2.14
Max Sustained Speed (m/s) -2.51 -3.68 -2.85 -4.46
Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.60 4.82 2.34 8.76
Combined Mean Speed (m/s) 1.24 1.62 1.41 1.91
Max Sustained Speed (m/s) 2.51 3.68 2.85 4.46
Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.54 3.68 2.27 6.21
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 10 of 15
Figure 3. Tidal Rose for RDI ADCP deployed at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor.
Figure 4. Tidal Rose for AWAC deployed at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 11 of 15
Figure 5. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from RDI ADCP data collected
at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor.
Figure 6. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from Nortek AWAC data
collected at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 12 of 15
Data Analysis over the entire water column
The following figures illustrate the data of the site inclusive of the entire water column to
provide a perspective on how the resource varies as a function of depth and time. Figures 5 and 6
show the temporal and spatial variation of current velocity magnitude and direction at sites S2
and N2 correspondingly.
Figure 7. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in
degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment, water surface level is shown at top (note
velocity scale is different in Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 8. Nortek AWAC data from N2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction
in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment (note velocity scale is different in Figure 5
and 6).
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 13 of 15
Figures 7 and 8 show the spatial and temporal variation of the “residual” current velocity
correspondingly at sites S2 and N2. This residual current is the net flow of water over the
deployment period with the tidally influenced flows extracted. These residual currents are only at
a single column in the cross section of the channel and can be explained by circulation patterns
where ebb currents are enhanced in one portion of a channel and flood currents are enhanced in
another area while the net current is essential zero. Fresh water input at one end of an estuary can
also lead to residual currents being stronger in one direction than another. These currents are not
generally of large consequence for tidal energy extraction, but the information is included here to
provide differentiation of tidal versus ocean currents at False Pass as the influence of each was
not well understood at the onset of this study. During initial desktop investigation into the False
Pass project site, it was suspected that the northwesterly flowing Alaska ocean current might
have an influence in creating a stronger northerly flood current while diminishing the southerly
ebb current. As these residual current velocity charts suggest, larger tidal variations resulted in a
stronger residual southerly ebb current at both sites and overall energy was higher on the ebb tide
over the course of the month. Smaller tidal variations corresponded to a stronger residual
northerly flood current though overall flood energy was lower at both sites.
Figure 9. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration.
A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood residual current while a negative current
velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image
represents the tidal velocity 10.7 meters above the seafloor.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 14 of 15
Figure 10. AWAC data from N2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A
positive current is indicative of the northerly flood current while a negative current velocity is
indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the
tidal velocity 10.5 meters above the seafloor.
Recoverable Energy
For a tidal energy device such as ORPC’s TidGen™ turbine generator unit (TGU), deployed
with a hub height 10.5 meters above the bottom, a swept area of 59 m^2 and an efficiency of
32.3%, the annual energy delivery from site N2 would be 284,490 kWh, resulting in a capacity
factor of 21.6%. By comparison the same device deployed 10.5 meters above the bottom at S2
would have an annual generation of 577,655 kWh and a 43.9% capacity factor. For higher
efficiency (36%) turbines with the same swept area, such as future versions of ORPC power
systems, the annual energy delivered would increase to 318,972 kWh and 24% capacity factor at
N2 and 624,941 kWh and 47.5 % capacity factor at S2. By comparison to other sites which
ORPC has studied in Alaska and Maine, site S2 represents a robust and very attractive tidal
energy resource, while site N2 is a marginal resource for energy production using a device
analogous to ORPC’s TidGen™ TGU.
Table 3. Recoverable energy comparison at N2 and S2 approximately 10.5 meters above
seafloor.
Site N2 10.5 m above seafloor S2 10.7 m above seafloor
Annual recoverable energy (59 sq
m turbine with 32.2% efficiency)
284,490 kWh 577,655 kWh
Annual recoverable energy (59 sq
m turbine with 36 % efficiency)
317,107 kWh 625,258 kWh
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 15 of 15
Conclusion
Based on the results of the reconnaissance tidal current survey performed in the False Pass area,
it is clear that, from strictly a resource perspective, site S2 has great potential and site N2 is
marginal at best. However, many other factors come into play when evaluating the feasibility of
a site for a tidal energy project. These factors include bathymetric and geotechnical
considerations, access to the site, proximity to the interconnection point with the local grid, etc.
The evaluation of the feasibility of a tidal energy project at a marginal resource site such as N2 is
highly dependent on the costs associated with the development and construction of the project
and the value of the power that is delivered. While the energy density found at site N2 is much
lower than that encountered at S2, the short transmission distance from site N2 to the
interconnect locations in False Pass (approximately ½ mile) and the relative easy access to the
site could reduce associated construction costs significantly and make a project in its vicinity
economically viable. It is also entirely possible that better tidal current velocities exist in the near
vicinity of site N2 that could increase the site’s energy density to a point where development of a
project is more attractive. ORPC believes it would be worthwhile to enhance circulation
modeling efforts in the vicinity of N2 to determine if local variations in the velocity profile
would lead to identification of one or more specific sites with higher energy density. This could
tip the scales in favor of a tidal energy project in the vicinity of site N2, and if so, make it
desirable to follow up with an ADCP survey at the location(s) of interest.
The robust tidal energy resource at site S2 will provide exceptional output from a tidal energy
project with impressive capacity factors in the range of 40-50% of rated capacity. Site S2 is,
however, more remote than site N2, and construction costs will likely be higher, especially for
the associated power transmission line which would be at least 2 miles long. Further
investigation of project development considerations and constructability of a tidal energy project
at site S2 are warranted to assess the economics of installing a tidal energy project at this site. Of
key importance in this assessment will be a bathymetric survey covering the area of potential
device locations and submarine power cable routes, and analysis of technical and cost
considerations for a power cable line to connect the project to False Pass.