HomeMy WebLinkAboutBethelHeatRecoveryREFApp09192014VEC
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
September 22, 2014
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
Attn: Grant Manager: Shawn Calfa
Re: Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program Round 8:
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
Dear Mr. Calfa and Review Panel:
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) respectfully submits the enclosed
application for grant funds available through the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. Our
application requests $645,613 to assess the efficiency of the 40-year-old recovered heat system
currently in place at the Bethel power plant.
With funding obtained through AEA's program and an AVEC cash match of $33,980, AVEC
proposes to complete a detailed assessment of the recovered heat system, prepare conceptual
design of essential upgrades and identify potential new recovered heat connections to increase
the benefit to the community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Steve Gilbert, AVEC's Projects Development and Key
Accounts Department Manager, if you have questions.
Sincerely,
%-CA,,_ a ~U
Meera Kohler
President and CEO
cc: Steve Gilbert, AVEC
Enclosures
4831 Eagle Street • Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 • (907) 561-1818 • In State (800)478-1818 • Fax (907)561-2388 • In State (866)561-2388
Grant Application
Bethel Power Plant Heat
Recovery System Assessment
and Conceptual Design
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 41 7/2/14
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End:
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Not for Profit
December 31
Tax ID #92-0035763
Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☒ Non-profit ☐ Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: April 7, 2014
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503 Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: Fax: Email:
800.478.1818 800.478.4086 sgilbert@avec.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name: Steve Gilbert Title: Manager, Projects Development and Key Accounts
Mailing Address:
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907.565.5357 907.561.2388 sgilbert@avec.org
1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Meera Kohler 800.478.1818 800.478.4086 mkohler@avec.org
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 41 7/2/14
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
☒ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or
☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
☐ A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted
and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 41 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.
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
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.
Bethel is located on the Kuskokwim River about 40 miles inland from the Bering Sea. It is
approximately 400 air miles west of Anchorage. It is the regional hub for the Yukon Kuskokwim
Delta region and is located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and the Calist a region.
It sits at 60.7922 N latitude and -161.7558 W longitude. The exact location of this project is the
area in and near the Bethel power plant.
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
This project will provide benefits to the community of Bethel (population: 6,278 according the
DCCED 2013).
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐ Wind to Heat ☐ Biomass or Biofuels
☐ Hydro to Heat ☐ Solar Thermal
☒ Heat Recovery from Existing Sources ☐ Heat Pumps
☐ Other (Describe) ☐
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting
☒ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 41 7/2/14
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed heat project.
For over 40 years, the Bethel power plant has provided recovered heat to nearby facilities owned
by the Alaska Department of Corrections, the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, and the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. The recovered heat system has provided valuable heat to users
and funds to the utility without significant improvement or investment; however, the system
needs to be upgraded and many connections need to be reestablished. In addition, not all the
available heat is being captured and used. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC), who
purchased Bethel Utilities in May 2014, is requesting funding through the REF funding to complete
a detailed assessment of the recovered heat system and prepare conceptual design of essential
upgrades and identify potential new recovered heat connections to increase the benefit to the
community. The proposed feasibility and conceptual design work is based on the
recommendations of a recently completed AVEC-funded reconnaissance assessment of the heat
recovery system.
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this heat project, (such as
reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.)
Based on a preliminary inspection of the existing Bethel power plant recovered heat system
funded by AVEC, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. The power system,
which is cooled by the recovered heat system, is at risk of failure because of corroded pipes. The
recovered heat system is not operating at full potential and heat must be rejected after running
through the loop. The recovered heat system is not metered, and it is unknown whether rates are
appropriate.
This phase of the project would involve detailed assessment of the existing recovered heat system
and conceptual design of improvements and expansion. Assessment and preliminary design of
improvements is a necessary step in a process that will reduce fuel used in the community for
heating. There would be many benefits to this work. It would identify immediate recovered heat
system needs and priorities. It would determine actual system efficiency and potential
improvements. The work would identify new users of the system. Finally, it would enable AVEC to
calculate the value of the heat and rates to assure sustainable operation for another 20 or more
years.
Once the recovered heat system is improved and new users are connected, savings for heat
customers are estimated to exceed 1.2 million gallons of fuel per year for heating facilities or an
average of about $7.7 million/year. The savings to local facilities would positively impact the
services they provide. The savings would stay in the community. In addition, additional revenue to
AVEC would be put toward operations and maintenance and long term up keep of the heat
recovery system.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 41 7/2/14
A detailed description of the potential project benefits is found Section 5 of this application and in
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Inspection and Recommendations (Tab F).
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and
source of other contributions to the project.
The total project cost for completing an assessment and conceptual design of the recovered heat
system in Bethel is $679,592, of which $645,613 is requested in grant funds from AEA. The
remaining $33,980 will be matched in cash by AVEC.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Summarize the grant request and the 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 $645,613
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $33,980
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $
2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $679,592
Other items for consideration
2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved $
2.7.7 Biomass or Biofuel Inventory on hand $
2.7.8 Energy efficiency improvements to buildings
to be heated (upgraded within the past 5 years or
committed prior to proposed project completion) $
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.9 Total Project Cost
Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section 4.4.4,
including estimates through construction.
$9,000,000 (initial investment)
(+ $750,000 each year for
maintenance)
2.7.10 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not
covered by the project but required for the Grant
Only applicable to construction phase projects
$
2.7.11 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)
(AEA/ISER Model)
$16,656,000 (over 20 years,
assuming $750,000 put into
system maintenance each year)
2.7.12 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.
$
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 41 7/2/14
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume
and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate
PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the
applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management
support. If the applicant anticipates project management assistance from AEA or another
government entity, state that in this section.
AVEC, as the electric utility serving Bethel, will provide overall project management and oversight.
Steve Gilbert, Manager, Projects Development and Key Accounts
Steve Gilbert is manager of Projects Development and Key Accounts Department for AVEC where
he leads a team focused on lowering the cost of energy in rural Alaskan villages through improved
power plant efficiency, wind and other renewable power generation and interties between
villages.
Previously, Mr. Gilbert worked at Chugach Electric for 17 years managing three power plants and
served as lead electrical engineer for a 1 MW fuel cell and micro-turbine projects and wind energy
project development.
Mr. Gilbert is recognized as an industry leader on wind energy and has been active on a national
level in operation and maintenance of wind power plants. He was Alaska’s Electrical Engineer of
the Year in 2000 and for the 12 western states in 2001. He has been a regular lecturer at schools
and universities on renewables, especially wind. He also worked with BP Wind in London
assessing European wind prospects. To better evaluate investment opportunities for his
employer, Mr. Gilbert recently completed his MBA.
Meera Kohler, President and CEO
Ms. Kohler has more than 30 years of experience in the Alaska electric utility industry. She was
appointed Manager of Administration and Finance at Cordova Electric Cooperative in 1983,
General Manager of Naknek Electric Association in 1990, and General M anager of Municipal Light
& Power in Anchorage in 1997. Since May 2000, Ms. Kohler has been the President and CEO of
AVEC and in this position has ultimate grant and project responsibilities.
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your
project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please
clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project.
This project will involve inspecting piping and other components of the Bethel power plant heat
recovery system; preparing a detailed engineering evaluation that will document the system’s
engineering issues and economics; and preparing conceptual design report for improvements to
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 41 7/2/14
the system and new connections. The table on the next page includes AEA’s required milestones
for a feasibility project.
Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation
Contracting documents will be developed.
Jul 2015 Jul 2015
2. Detailed resource
assessment
Engineers will complete a detailed inspection
of all aspects of the existing recovered heat
system, including conducting ultrasonic
testing (UT) of the pipe condition. The
engineer will determine the issues with
connections that are no longer operational.
The engineer will also investigate other
facilities that could be served by the system. Jul 2015 Jul 2015
As-built drawings will be prepared. Aug 2015 Sept 2015
Engineering Evaluation Report will be drafted. Jul 2015 Sept 2015
3. Identification of land
and regulatory issues
A summary of land and regulatory issues will
be prepared for potential new user
connections and improvements requiring
additional property or ground disturbing
activities. Aug 2015 Aug 2015
4. Permitting and
environmental analysis
A summary of environmental issues and
needed permits will be prepared for potential
new user connections and improvements that
require ground disturbing activities. Aug 2015 Aug 2015
5. Detailed analysis of
current cost of energy
and future market
An economic analysis will be completed and
included in the engineering analysis.
Jul 2015 Jul 2015
6. Assessment of
alternatives
System upgrade and connection alternatives
will be considered in the engineering analysis. Aug 2015 Aug 2015
7. Conceptual design
and costs estimate
Engineers will complete 35% design
documents and cost estimates for repairs and
new connections. Aug 2015 Sept 2015
8. Detailed economic
and financial analyses
An analysis will be conducted to determine
cost and rates associated with improvements
and new connections. Aug 2015 Sept 2015
9. Conceptual business
& operations plan
AVEC currently has a business plan for the
Bethel power system, which includes the
recovered heat system; however, rates would
be reviewed. Aug 2015 Sept 2015
10. Final report and
recommendations
The conceptual design and cost estimates will
be incorporated into the conceptual design
report. Sept 2015 Sept 2015
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 41 7/2/14
3.3 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to
accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or
anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the
selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes
and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your
application.
AVEC has been providing electrical services to rural, isola ted, and economically disadvantaged
Alaskan communities since 1968. The cooperative began with three communities and a very small
staff, and has steadily grown to the impressive non-profit organization it is today with 56 member
villages. AVEC now has over 90 employees with managers, engineers, expediters, and others in its
Anchorage central office and plant operators within the communities.
Since 2000, AVEC has reliably and responsibly spent over $212 million of grant funds and its own
money to construct over 80 major projects. This includes 29 bulk fuel tank farm upgrades or
replacements, 12 new diesel-fired power plants, 4 standby backup power plants, 4 recovered heat
systems, 11 wind farms (34 total wind turbines), 5 village-to-village interties, 1 PV solar array, and
17 other generation and distribution upgrades. Funding for these projects has come from the
Denali Commission ($181 million), the Alaska Energy Authority ($24 million), USDA Rural Utilities
Service direct awards ($9 million), other grants ($3 million) and AVEC matching contributions ($20
million).
AVEC will use a project management strategy that has been used to successfully design projects
throughout rural Alaska. The strategy includes a team of AVEC staff and external consultants.
AVEC staff and their role on this project include:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will
maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Steve Gilbert, Projects Development and Key Accounts Manager Development, will act as
Program Manager and will lead the project management team consisting of AVEC staff,
consultants, and contractors.
Bill Stamm, Manager of Engineering, leads AVEC’s Engineering Department which is
responsible for in-house design of power plants, distribution lines, controls and other AVEC
facilities. Mr. Stamm has worked at AVEC since 1994. Mr. Stamm was the AVEC line
superintendent before he was appointed to Manager of Engineering in 2012. Mr. Stamm’s unit
will provide engineering design and supervision.
Mark Bryan, Manager of Operations, is a Certified Journeyman Electrician and supervises
AVEC’s line operations, generation operations, and all field construction programs. He has
worked at AVEC since 1980, was appointed Manager of Construction in May 1998 and was
promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003. Mr. Bryan’s unit oversees the operation of
heat recovery system.
Debbie Bullock, Manager of Administrative Services, will provide support in accounting,
payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 41 7/2/14
Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, will communicate directly with Bethel residents to ensure
the community is informed.
An AVEC project manager will lead this project. The project manager will be responsible for:
Selecting, coordinating, and managing the engineering and environmental consultants to
ensure that deliverables are on time and within budget.
Working with AVEC’s Community Liaison to involve the Bethel residents and potential users in
the project.
The project manager will work with:
Engineering Consultant. AVEC currently has an on-call contract Coffman Engineers (Coffman)
for engineering services. Coffman will conduct the system condition investigation, prepare an
engineering analysis, and draft 35% design for repairs and new connections to the heat system.
Environmental Consultant. AVEC currently has an on-call contract with Solstice Alaska
Consulting, Inc. (Solstice) to provide environmental and permitting assistance. Solstice will
assist with identification of land and regulatory issues and permitting and environmental
analysis for the project.
Resumes are included in Tab A.
Selection Process for Contractors/Vendors: Coffman and Solstice were selected through a Request
for Proposals process. The selection of contractors conforms in strict conformity with AVEC’s
procurement policies, and conformance with OMB circulars.
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.
AVEC has systems in place to accomplish reporting requirements successfully. In 2013, AVEC
successfully met reporting requirements for 21 state and 26 federal grants. An independent
auditor’s report on compliance with aspects of contractual agreements and regulatory
requirements, independent auditor’s report on internal control over financial reporting and on
compliance and other matters, and an independent auditor’s report on compliance for each major
federal program and report on internal control over compliance required by OMB Circular A-133
for AVEC for 2013 did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that they
considered to be a material weakness. In addition, the independent auditor’s report on
compliance with aspects of contractual agreements and regulatory requirements stated that
nothing indicated AVEC failed to comply with the terms, covenants, provisions, or conditions of
loan, grants, and security instruments as specified in 7 CFR part 1773.
The project will be managed out of AVEC’s Projects Development and Key Accounts Department.
For financial reporting, the Projects Development and Key Accounts Department’s accountant,
supported by the Administrative Services Department, will prepare financial reports. The
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 41 7/2/14
accountant will be responsible for ensuring that vendor invoices and internal labor charges are
documented in accordance with AEA guidelines and are included with financial reports. AVEC has
computerized systems in place for accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of
assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
AVEC will require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice submitted
from contractor(s). The progress reports will include a summary of tasks complete d, issues or
problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from AVEC. Project progress
reports will be collected, combined, and supplemented as necessary and forwarded as one
package to the AEA project manager each quarter.
Quarterly face-to-face meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all
projects funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project meetings
will be held, as required or requested by AEA.
Meera Kohler, AVEC’s President and CEO, may be contacted as an alternative manager.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
This project involves conducting an assessment of the existing recovered heat system. A pipe
assessment will be conducted using an inline inspection tool. As with any pipeline work, there is a
possibility that the inspection could render a fitting or section of pipe inoperable. The risk is
considered low, and the cost to repair any a failed joint or pipe segment would be under $25,000.
Should the inspection tool get stuck in the pipeline, a pipe segment can be removed to retrieve the
tool for similar repair costs.
During the pipe inspection, low pressure water will be used to “push” the inspection tool (“pig”)
through the pipeline. The water will be drawn from a tank (probably a truck) and returned to a
tank. It is not considered hazardous waste; although it will be dirty. There is a risk of a water spill
causing unspecified consequences, although the risk is considered low in both probability and
consequential impacts.
To reduce these risks, AVEC will hire a qualified company experienced with conducting pipe
inspections throughout Alaska. The company will be vetted by contacting references.
Because of the importance of this project and the timing of the REF program funding cycle, AVEC is
proposing an aggressive four month schedule to complete the work in order to apply for design
funding in September 2015. AVEC believes that this schedule can be achieved; however,
unforeseen issues could result in delays. To decrease the timeline risks associated with contractor
delays, AVEC will:
Contract with an engineering company (Coffman) with the staff capacity and expertise to
complete the work on schedule.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 41 7/2/14
Obtain a written commitment from a pipe inspection company to arrange for the work to be
completed in July, immediately following the grant award.
Require weekly updates on the project’s status.
AVEC is a cooperative and follows the International Co-operative Alliance’s Seven Principles of
Cooperatives. One of the most important of those principles is titled Democratic Member Control
and refers to the men and women who serve as representatives being accountable to the
membership. AVEC’s member communities, especially Bethel as a new member, have
expectations for projects regarding outcomes, schedule, budget, and quality of work. AVEC
member communities and Board of Directors receive re gular project status updates. When
problems are reported, either formally through status reports or informally t hrough other
communications, member communities expect solutions.
3.6 Project Accountant(s)
Tell us who will be performing the accounting of this Project for the Grantee and include contact
information, a resume and references for the project accountant(s). In the electronic submittal,
please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web
posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you
intend to solicit project accounting support.
Debbie Bullock, Manager of Administrative Services, will provide support in accounting, payables,
financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
3.7 Financial Accounting System
Discuss the accounting system that will be used to account for project costs and who will be the
primary user of the accounting system.
AVEC’s accounting system consists of software, procedures and controls driven by the daily inputs
and other actions of competent employees throughout the organization. The software is
comprised of a comprehensive suite of Daffron-brand modules including accounting
(payables/payroll/general ledger), inventory, payroll, work orders, purchase orders, customer
service and billing, and warehouse/inventory. Some ancillary functions are accomplished on
spreadsheets with data downloaded from the various Daffron modules. Procedures and controls
include but are not limited to adequate separation of duties, manager-level approval of all
expenditures, CEO-level approval of all major expenditures, a formal purchasing system (including
purchase orders) for acquisition of materials and components, and a formal contracting system
(including task orders) for acquisition of contractual services (consultants, construction, etc.).
Virtually all AVEC employees are users of the accounting system, at least to a minimal extent.
Primary users include the Accounting Department; all managers due to their involvement in
controlling and ensuring the propriety of costs; and the Project s Development and Key Accounts
Department, particularly its Project Manager, its Office Administrator and its Senior Accountant;
these three employees are primarily responsible for all grant reporting.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 41 7/2/14
3.8 Financial Management Controls
Discuss the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and
necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that
no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement
from the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
AVEC’s team, with years of experience and knowledge of managing AEA-funded project costs and
grant reimbursements, has a system in place for ensuring that only costs that are reasonable,
ordinary, and necessary are charged to a Project, and that only costs that are eligible are
submitted for reimbursement. First, AVEC’s Project Manager (PM) is responsible for determining
whether costs are appropriate and acceptable. The PM reviews all invoices from contractors and
vendors and all in-house labor and equipment charges. Second, the Projects Development and
Key Accounts Department Manager (DM) reviews costs associated with outsourced services,
including consultant and contractor invoices, to ensure that the charges are reasonable. The DM
also reviews his department’s staff labor charges (timesheets) to the project. Third, the
Operations and Engineering Department Managers review all in-house labor (timesheets) for their
department and expense reports to make sure that the charges are acceptable. Finally, the
Projects Development and Key Accounts Department Senior Accountant, while preparing AEA
financial reports and reimbursement requests, provides a review of both out sourced and in-house
charges to determine whether they are allowable costs. The Senior Accountant is very
experienced with REF grant reporting and grant agreements and understands what costs would be
accepted by AEA.
AVEC has systems in place to keep unacceptable overhead costs from being charged to and
reimbursed through the REF Grant Fund Program. Upon project initiation, an AVEC work order
number is created to track all project labor and expenses. AVEC staff and contractors reference
this number on all timesheets and invoices when working on the project, ensuring that project
costs are known. Purchase orders are universally used to establish spending limits for purchases
of materials, which are then monitored by the Accounting Department through the enterprise
accounting system. Task orders and contracts are universally used to establish spending limits for
purchases of contractual services, which are then monitored by the Project s Development and Key
Accounts Department utilizing spreadsheets. Direct labor expenses (gross payroll) are tracked
separately from overhead costs including employee benefits and payroll taxes. Once labor hours
have been calculated, overhead including employee benefits and payroll taxes are applied in a
separate transaction on the work order. AVEC and AEA have an agreed rate cap for employer
costs of payroll, consisting only of employee benefits and payroll taxes. AVEC can ensure that only
allowable costs would be requested for reimbursement because the direct labor and
indirect/overhead costs are separate transactions (and thus the indirect/overhead amounts can be
easily omitted from reimbursement), and because the allowable rate has been established (and
thus can be easily included for reimbursement).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 41 7/2/14
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake
with grant funds.
If some work has already been completed on the project and the funding request is for an
advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are
satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available, in the market, to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe
the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please
provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as
attachments to this application.
One of the purposes of this project is to quantify the available heat at the Bethel power plant.
Based on the reconnaissance assessment completed by Coffman Engineers, AVEC believes there is
a great deal more recoverable heat that could be made available to the community.
Conservatively at current power generation levels, the Bethel power plant has the potential to
provide a net of approximately 45,500 MBTUH. This will displace the burning of over 1.2 million
gallons of fuel in commercial consumer’s boilers (heaters).
The above estimate is based on the following assumptions:
A standard generating unit is equal to 2.2MW
A year-long average of 2.4 concurrently operating units
Diesel generation is 40% thermal efficiency (fuel-to-wire)
Only half of the theoretical gross heat capacity is utilized (it is likely a good deal more heat is
could be delivered to customers to the benefit of the community)
It should be noted that the abovementioned available recovered (net) heat resource is based on a
very conservative estimate. If greater than half of the heat can be utilized, which could be
expected in future years as the system is upgraded, the benefits will increase proportionately. It
can also be fairly stated that in very cold weather when heating demand is the greatest, the power
plant operates at above average utilization and can provide above average heat to the users.
Recovered heat is an existing and viable energy resource in Bethel. There is a proven recovered
heat system that has served the community for over 40 years. Wind energy is under investigation
in Bethel. A future wind project would work together with the recovered heat system.
4.1.1 For Biomass Project only
Identify any wood inventory questions, such as:
Ownership/Accessibility. Who owns the land and are their limitations and restrictions to
accessing the biomass resource?
Inventory data. How much biomass is available on an annual basis and what types (species)
are there, if known? Please attach any forest inventory reports
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 41 7/2/14
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Heating Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The Bethel power plant consists of six, water-cooled diesel powered EMD 16-645 E4D generators
rated at 2.2MW. The generators are housed in a single building. Four generators are 38 years old
and two generators are 22 years old. The efficiency of the power plant in 2013 was 13.86
kWh/gallon (PCE 2013 data).
The engine generators are cooled through a combined cooling and heat recovery system. The
cooling system is directly connected to the heat recovery loop without an isolation heat
exchanger. There are several large radiators to dissipate excess heat not used in the heat recovery
loop. The cooling fluid is corrosion inhibited water with no glycol for freeze protection.
The cooling/heat recovery is distributed through one continuous (distribution) piping system
consisting of a 10 inch mainline with some 6 inch and 4 inch loops extending to the customer
facilities (users). The system consists of steel pipe with mechanical couplings, foam insulation, and
metal jacketing. The piping is mounted above ground on steel pipe supports. Users have heat
exchangers in their facilities to transfer the heat to their internal piping systems.
The diesel prime movers are arranged in the center of the power plant building. A separate room
to the north houses four booster pumps, five expansion tanks, and one open make -up tank to hold
a reserve quantity of cooling fluid. An arrangement of thermostatic valves and isolation valves
diverts the fluid in whole or in part to the radiators.
Additional details regarding the recovered heat system is found in AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field
Report (Tab F).
4.2.2 Existing Heating Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
According to the AEA’s Alaska Energy End Use Study: 2012, Bethel uses approximately 1.3 million
MMBTUs of energy per year. About 72% and 76% of all energy use is for heating homes and non-
resident buildings, respectively. Like most of rural Alaska, most homes and facilities are heated
using diesel fuel drums which feed oil-fired heaters or boiler. Heating fuel is typically delivered by
a truck from large storage tanks owned by Crowley or Northstar Gas. The cost of heating fuel #1 in
Bethel was $6.40/gallon in January 2013 according to DCCED’s Alaska Fuel Report: Current
Community Conditions January 2013.
As mentioned throughout this application, four entities are currently provided recovered heat
from the Bethel power plant.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 41 7/2/14
Once the recovered heat system is upgraded and additional users are connected, this project will
significantly decrease diesel heating fuel use at community buildings.
4.2.3 Existing Heating Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The market for recovered heat from the power plant can be identified as two groups: The
buildings that are currently served by the system or have been served in the past and the buildings
that will be served by a future expansion of the system.
Currently the Bethel power plant recovered heat system serves four main customers:
The YKHC Hospital, Unit 800 (apartment) building, and the new PATC building. YKHC has
opened and closed other locations when completing existing building remodeling. There are
eleven other YKHC lines were connected in the past. Fuel oil displacement from the existing
heat recovery system is estimated at roughly 76,500 gallons/year. (See Section 4.4.5 below.)
State of Alaska Department of Corrections Adult Corrections Center has one building that is
served. Fuel oil displacement from the existing heat recovery system is estimated at roughly
30,600 gallons/year. (See Section 4.4.5 below.)
Department of Corrections Bethel Youth Facility has one building that is served. Fuel oil
displacement from the existing heat recovery system is estimated at roughly 13,680
gallon/year. (See Section 4.4.5 below.)
University of Alaska, Fairbanks Kuskokwim Campus has three buildings that are served. Fuel oil
displacement from the existing heat recovery system is estimated at roughly 27,000
gallon/year/. (See Section 4.4.5 below.)
In prior years the heat recovery system served the City of Bethel’s Fire Station, City Hall, the
television and radio station (KYUK), and the State Court House. (AVEC wishes to eventually
seek to reconnect these facilities.)
This project will benefit these customers by helping to ensure that their recovered heat systems
operate into the future. This project could allow AVEC to determine the condition of currently
closed connections and recommend solutions to reconnecting the facilities. In addition, this
project will help AVEC calculate the amount of heat used by each facility, and would help to more
accurately determine appropriate rates.
There are other buildings not currently connected that could be served by the recovered heat
system. They include:
The new City Aquatic Center, a facility with major energy needs, is under construction is about
800 yards away from the power plant.
The Yuut Elitnaurviat Vocational School is about 800 yards away from the power plant.
The US Post Office is about 400 yards away from the power plant.
New YKHC Alcohol Treatment Center (PATC) is under construction about 300 yards away from
the power plant.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 41 7/2/14
The new YKHC Pre-Maternal Center is under construction about 150 yards from an existing
distribution heating main line.
The New YKHC Long-Term Care building is under construction and is planning to connect to the
AVEC heat recovery system.
YKHC Shop/Storage building about 250 yards south of the power plant is unconnected.
The new AVEC offices near KYUK are about 200 yards from an existing distribution heating
main line.
Many other large, public buildings found near the power plant that would be evaluated during
this phase of the project.
This project, once constructed, will benefit new users by significantly decreasing their heating
costs.
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Renewable Technology
While not technically a renewable technology, this project involves a heat recovery system. The
Bethel power plant heat recovery system is currently functioning on a commercial scale serving
several facilities. It provides heat, displacing fuel that community buildings would otherwise have to
purchase at a higher cost than the recovered heat from the power plant. Details on the system are
found in Section 4.2 of this application and in AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report (Tab F).
Optimum Installed Capacity
All gensets are currently connected to the heat recovery system. Conservatively speaking,
recovered heat could displace up to 1.2 million gallons of heating fuel. AVEC believes the current
utilization is well below that figure, meaning the community is not yet taking full advantage of
available heat. Optimally, utilization would approach 90% of available heat.
Anticipated Capacity Factor
It is expected that 90% of available recovered heat will be used. Approximately 10% of the
recovered heat could be lost in the distribution through pipe heat loss, heat exchanger
inefficiencies, and other factors.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 41 7/2/14
Anticipated Annual Generation
At current utilization levels, the Bethel power plant has the potential to provide a net of
approximately 45,500 MBTUH.
Anticipated Barriers
For purposes of this assessment and preliminary design there are no significant barriers. Minor
barriers may exist in the future when integrating the new piping system with the older recovered
heat system. Additionally, some minor modifications to the new user’s existing heating systems
may be required to integrate the heat recovery loop with their system. As integration will be
isolated to tie in locations, replacement of some piping and components would result.
Basic Integration Concept
Integration will include: The only new installation resulting from this funding is a BTU meter at the
power plant to allow AVEC to measure the heat leaving the plant and used by the community. 1)
New BTU meter installation (would most likely be installed on the outside of pipe to limit system
shutdown or impact to existing piping); 2) In the future, funding for a new heat exchanger in the
power plant to isolate the heat recovery loop from the genset cooling system; and 3) Standard
connections to new facilities outlined below.
All future connections to energy users will be built using a standard configuration. Existing users will
be examined for conformance with this standard. AVEC will determine the standard configuration
by preparing drawings and specifications. This configuration will include at least the following
elements:
Flow Diagram and P&ID
Design criteria for water velocity
Piping and insulation materials
Pipe support
Seismic restraint and vibration isolation
Isolation valves
Pumps
Heat exchangers
Automatic controls and monitoring
BTU meter
Electrical design (power and controls)
Installer qualifications
Testing and commissioning
Allowable variations
User mechanical room requirements
Delivery Methods
Delivery for recovered heat will be via existing main heat recovery piping distribution system and
branch lines to the specific facilities.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 41 7/2/14
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project
or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
It is unknown whether land ownership issues exist. During this phase of work, AVEC will
investigate land ownership and Bethel Utilities’ records to determine whether the heat
distribution piping has existing easements. If no easements exist, AVEC will work to determine
what easements may be needed and begin to work with the land owners to acquire rights -of-way.
During this phase, once new connections are identified, AVEC will determine land ownership and
work begin negotiations to obtain necessary easements.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discuss potential barriers
It is assumed that the existing heat recovery system piping from the power plant was permitted in
the past; however, no records have been found. During t his phase of work, AVEC will review
existing Bethel Utilities files on the heat recovery system and talk with agencies to determine
whether permits were obtained for placement of the piping system. If permits are needed for the
existing system, AVEC will detail a strategy for obtaining needed environmental authorizations.
It is expected that construction of new pipe connections will require an Army Corps of Engineers’
Wetlands Permit; however, permitting needs for new infrastructure will be determined and
summarized in the concept design report which would be a deliverable under this funding request.
Permits will be obtained during the design and permitting phase of work.
Because of the significant benefits and minor impacts of this project, there are no anticipated
barriers to obtaining permits for existing and new pipe connections. We expect that construction
of the future project would fall under Regional (Alaska) General Permit 2011-124 for City of Bethel,
which authorizes placement of fill material into wetlands for the purpose of creating foundation
pads for structures, utilities, associated roads, driveways, parking areas, and other domestic,
governmental, and commercial development; Also authorizes excavation activities, including
mechanized land clearing, ditching, and other excavation activities that can result in the re -
deposition of material; Also authorizes activities where the placement of pilings and/or
boardwalks would have the effect of a discharge of fill material.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
Threatened or endangered species
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 41 7/2/14
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
Currently, AVEC does not expect any notable environmental issues associated with this project.
Environmental and land issues will be determined during this phase. Solstice will identify and
summarize land and regulatory issues and permitting and environmental issues in the concept
design report. Then, during the final design and permitting phase, AVEC will consult with
regulatory agencies as necessary to obtain environmental approvals.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicant’s records or analysis, industry standards,
consultant or manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase/requested grant funding/matching
funds. This application is for completing an assessment and conceptual design of the recovered
heat system in Bethel. The total project cost is $679,592, of which $645,613 is requested in grant
funds from AEA, and AVEC will provide $33,980 as a match.
Identification of other funding sources. AVEC expects the funding for design and permitting and
final construction of a future heat recovery improvement project will come from AEA’s Renewable
Energy Fund program, USDA Rural Utility Service Program, another grant program, or direct
appropriation with matching funds from AVEC.
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system. The final phase of this project will
be Construction and Commissioning. AVEC estimates this phase could cost $9,000,000 over
several years and funding cycles. AVEC anticipates providing a 10% cash match of the construction
project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 41 7/2/14
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system. At this point, development
costs of the future heat recovery project are unknown; however, it is likely that they would be
about 20% of the total construction costs or about $1.8 million.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for any new facilities constructed and how these would be funded
by the applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of recording the impacts of AEA projects on the
communities they serve.)
Former Bethel Utilities (now AVEC) employees have stated that about $20,000 was spent annually
to operate the recovered heat system at the Bethel power plant. However, no appreciable
reinvestment or attempts to expand the system were made. It is expected that operation and
maintenance of the system after improvements and new connections are constructed operation
and maintenance could cost up to $750,000 annually which would be recovered in rates. This
estimate is preliminary and based on best available information at this time. AVEC will provide the
funds to maintain consistent operation of the system.
4.4.3 Heating Purchase/Sale
The heat purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential energy buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential heat purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
Bethel Utilities charged the following for recovered heat in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012,
respectively:
The YKHC Hospital, Unit 800 (apartment) building, and the new PATC building was charged
approximately $559,000, $510,500, $624,000, and $739,000
The State of Alaska Department of Corrections Adult Corrections Center was charged
approximately $172,000, $145,000, $185,000, and $286,000.
The Department of Corrections Bethel Youth Facility was charged $52,000, $55,000, $76,000,
and $96,000.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks Kuskokwim Campus was charged approximately $74,000,
$73,500, $116,000, and $136,000.
It should be noted that heat energy metering is an industry standard not currently utilized in the
Bethel heat recovery system. Users are charged for heat by a formula based on the facility’s
history and the monthly weather (heating degree days). Metering of the heat leaving the plant
and consumed at each user to current standards is a priority upgrade for the future project. AVEC
understands that this upgrade is valuable for management decisions as well as client b illing. It was
also reported that BTU meters (meters to measure the heat delivered to a user) have been
unreliable in the past. A meter plan and design considering new robust and accurate BTU meters,
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 41 7/2/14
AVEC and user benefits, and code or state regulation will be developed during this phase of work
and will proceed throughout all future development of the system.
Potential new customers are listed in Section 4.2.3 of this application and detailed in AVEC Bethel
Heat Recovery Field Report (Tab F). Existing and new customers will be metered once
improvements are constructed.
AVEC’s typical charge for heat delivered to a community owned heat loop is ½ AVEC’s cost per BTU
based on the heating value of its fuel. In the case of Bethel, AVEC delivers hea t to the customer.
Therefore the cost of the heat will be reflective of the cost of delivered heat. In any case, the cost
of delivered heat is expected to be well below the cost of the customer ’s self-generated heat in
their own boilers since AVEC purchases fuel at significantly lower prices than any commercial
entity in Bethel
In 2012, the recovered heat system brought in approximately $1,258,000. Once the system is
improved and expanded, it is likely that the system could bring in between $6 and $8 million/year
in revenue to AVEC (ISER Model).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 41 7/2/14
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Please fill out the form provided below and provide most recent heating fuel invoice that supports
the amount identified in “Project Benefits” subpart b below Requested from Liz 7/30/14.
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability.
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomass fuel)
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 6
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 2.2MW each
iii. Generator/boilers/other type EMD 16-645 E4D
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 4 generators are 38 years old; 2 generators are
22 years old
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.86 (kWh/gal) (2013 PCE Calculated)
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor 20,000 (labor and nonlabor; Bethel Utilities)
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] 44,326,400 kWh generated (2013 PCE)
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 3,197,401 gallons (2013 PCE)
Other
iii. Peak Load 7,850 kW (2012 BUC generation report)
iv. Average Load 5,060 kW (2013 PCE calculated)
v. Minimum Load 2,875 kW (2013 BUC generation report)
vi. Efficiency 13.86 (kWh/gal) (2013 PCE Calculated)
vii. Future trends
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 41 7/2/14
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] Unknown
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
Recovered heat
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Heat [MMBtu] 45,500 MBTUH
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 $9,000,000
b) Development cost $1,800,000 (estimated based on 20% capital costs)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $750,000/year
d) Annual fuel cost $0
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat 1,200,000 gallons/year
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $6.40/gallon (DCCED’s Alaska Fuel Report: Current
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 24 of 41 7/2/14
Community Conditions January 2013)
c) Other economic benefits
d) Alaska public benefits
Heat Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for heat purchase/sale TBD based on study results (likely 50% to 60% of
AVEC’s cost per BTU of the fuel it purchases)
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 5.56
Payback (years) About 1.5 years
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 25 of 41 7/2/14
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
Please address the following items related to the proposed location of the heating project. If more
than one building will be impacted, please address this information for each building.
Because little is known about the buildings that are served by the existing recovered heat system
and because they are not metered, the following assumptions were used to determine the
following pages of information:
1) Building square footage is estimated based on Google Map and internet research.
2) Each building’s annual heating oil and electricity consumption is based on published energy
utilization indices from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s White Paper on Energy Use in
Alaska’s Public Facilities for the Bethel region. Further adjustments were made to this index to
account for each building’s estimated energy usage pattern.
3) The existing buildings use recovered heat and diesel heating fuel. For consistency and because
the exact benefit of recovered heat is unknown, the combined annual recovered heat and
heating fuel consumption was estimated in terms of gallons of heating oil.
4) Existing buildings receive 90% of their heat from the recovered heat system.
In addition, there are about 10 facilities which could be served by expansion of the recovered heat
system. It has not been determined which buildings will be connected by expansion of the system.
Four new “representative” buildings (City Aquatic Center, YKHC Long-Term Care Building, and
YKHC Alcohol Treatment Center) were selected to analyze in this evaluation. These buildings are
under construction; therefore assumptions were made about their size and heating use.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 26 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
Yukon Kuskokwim Delta Regional Hospital (operated by YKHC) (currently connected)
Type or primary usage of the building
Hospital and clinic
Location
700 Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
24 hours/day
Single structure or multiple units
Single Structure
Total square footage
100,000 square feet (estimated)
Electrical consumption per year
1,009,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
The building utilizes recovered heat from the Bethel power plant and diesel heating fuel. The
combined consumption is estimated at 85,000 gallons/year.
Average number of occupants
37 hospital beds; estimate occupancy at 75 (staff and patients)
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and anticipated
savings associated with upgrades.
Unknown
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
76,500 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned building
envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include anticipated
savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 27 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
State of Alaska Department of Corrections Adult Corrections Center (currently connected)
Type or primary usage of the building
Prison
Location
1000 Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
24 hours/day
Single structure or multiple units
Single Structure
Total square footage
40,000 square feet (estimated)
Electrical consumption per year
403,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
The building utilizes recovered heat from the Bethel power plant and diesel heating fuel. The
combined consumption is estimated at 34,000 gallon/year.
Average number of occupants
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
Unknown
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
30,600 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 28 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
State of Alaska Department of Corrections Youth Facility (currently connected)
Type or primary usage of the building
Youth Corrections Facility
Location
1000 Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
24 hours/day
Single structure or multiple units
Single Structure
Total square footage
18,000 square feet (estimated)
Electrical consumption per year
181,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
The building utilizes recovered heat from the Bethel power plant and diesel heating fuel. The
combined consumption is estimated at 15,200 gallon/year
Average number of occupants
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
Unknown
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
13,680 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
Unknown
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 29 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Kuskokwim Campus (currently connected to system)
Type or primary usage of the building
Education
Location
201 Akiak Drive (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
12 hours/day
Single structure or multiple units
3 units
Total square footage
35,200 square feet (estimated)
Electrical consumption per year
355,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
The building utilizes recovered heat from the Bethel power plant and diesel heating fuel. The
combined consumption is estimated at 30,000 gallon/year.
Average number of occupants
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
Unknown
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
27,000 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
Unknown
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 30 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
City Aquatic Center (under construction)
Type or primary usage of the building
Public swimming pool
Location
Under construction near the power plant. (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
12 hours/day (expected)
Single structure or multiple units
Single story (expected)
Total square footage
21,164 square feet (estimated)
Electrical consumption per year
342,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
28,500 gallons/year (estimated)
Average number of occupants
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
New building; expect that efficiency measures are incorpo rated in design.
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
25,650 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
Unknown
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 31 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
YKHC Long-Term Care Building (under construction; planning on connecting to system)
Type or primary usage of the building
Healthcare
Location
Under construction near the power plant. (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
24 hours/day
Single structure or multiple units
Single story
Total square footage
15,000 square feet (estimated)
Electrical consumption per year
151,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
12,600 gallon/year (estimated)
Average number of occupants
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
New building; expect that efficiency measures are incorporated in design.
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
11,340 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
Unknown
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 32 of 41 7/2/14
Building name
YKHC Alcohol Treatment Center (PATC) (under construction)
Type or primary usage of the building
Heathcare
Location
Under construction near the power plant. (See attached map.)
Hours of operation
24 hours/day (expected)
Single structure or multiple units
Single story
Total square footage
3,100 square feet
Electrical consumption per year
31,000 kWH/year (estimated)
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
Estimated at 2,600 gallon/year (estimated)
Average number of occupants
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
Unknown; but will be determined during the next phase of work.
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
New building; expect that efficiency measures are incorporated in design.
Estimated annual heating fuel savings
2,340 gallon/year (estimated; 90% of total heat)
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
Unknown
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 33 of 41 7/2/14
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and
how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project. In order for the applicant to receive credit for heating fuel
displaced the applicant must provide the most recent invoice for heating fuel purchased.
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Heat Purchase Agreement price, RCA
tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy
subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
AVEC hired Coffman Engineers to complete a preliminary, reconnaissance-level assessment to
determine the scope and scale of further evaluations of the recovered heat system to prioritize
initial upgrades and determine potential new users. The assessment indicated that the existing
system:
Could be at risk for catastrophic failure. Bethel’s power generators are cooled by the heat
recovery system. The system’s pipes are corroding and leaking and use water (not anti-freeze).
Corrosion has compromised the system’s strength and elevated the risk of leaks or
catastrophic failure. If the system were to fail, the power plant would need to shut down, and
manually switch to another water source, to keep the generators from overheating.
In addition, if the recovered heat system were to fail, it is expected that some of the users do not
have a backup heating system that would meet the building’s heating demand. While the
buildings may not be damaged by lower temperatures, it is expected that the faculties would not
be suited for operations and business.
Is not adequately metered. It is unknown whether customers are charged appropriately for
recovered heat. BTU meters have failed on most connections. Bethel Utilities determined
rates to charge each facility based on a complicated calculation which AVEC continues to
employ; however, upgraded metering is necessary to ensure that customers are charged
appropriately.
Is not operating at full potential. Heat must be rejected after running through the system and
not all the power plant’s available heat is being captured. There are about 10 community
buildings within a 1-mile radius of the power plant that could be served by an expanded
system.
This project will involve an assessment of the existing recovered heat system, an investigation of
new potential users, and preliminary (35%) design of system improvements and new connections.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 34 of 41 7/2/14
The immediate benefits of this phase of work would be significant, since AVEC would:
Identify immediate system needs. AVEC would be able to prioritize resources and efforts in
order to keep the power plant running and maintain heat service to users.
Determine system efficiency and potential improvements . AVEC would better understand
the available heat resource, how much heat is available and wasted, and how it could be
improved to raise the net output of the system.
Identify new connections. The study would determine new buildings that could be served,
and it would initiate design and cost estimates on the new connections.
Determine economic benefits to current and future connections. Rough economic benefits
are summarized below and throughout this application; however, this phase would better
determine the costs and benefits of improving and expanding the system.
Once the recovered heat system improvements are implemented and new connections are
installed numerous benefits would arise:
Substantial Heating Fuel Savings. Since there is no metering on the existing heat recovery
system, current heating fuel displacement at the four facilities now connected to the heat
recovery system can only be estimated at 147,780 gallon/year. (See section 4.2.3.) Assuming
1,200,000 gallon/year minimum potential fuel savings (see Coffman reconnaissance
assessment) fuel savings is estimated at approximately at approximately $6.72 million during
the first year. assuming the current fuel price of $6.40/gallon.
Fuel Savings Benefits to Key Facilities. Reduced heating costs will benefit all of Bethel and the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area, since it would increase available funds for the operations of
important community facilities that provide services such as health care and job training.,
Less Risk of Plant Shut Downs. AVEC and the community would benefit because costly plant
shut downs would be avoided; community safety would be ensured by continued operations of
the hospital and correction facilities; and valuable community resources, like the water and
system systems, would be protected from failing.
Improved Revenue to the Cooperative. AVEC would waste less heat and add revenue to the
cooperative. In 2012, the recovered heat system brought in approximately $1,258,000. Once
the system is improved and expanded, it is likely that the system could bring in between $6
and $8 million/year in revenue to AVEC (ISER Model). Additional revenue would be put toward
the operations and maintenance of the entire AVEC system, helping to stabilize the cost of
power in the 56 rural, low income communities that AVEC serves.
In addition, the following important benefits will be realized:
New jobs will be created for local residents during project construction.
Reduced fossil fuel emissions, which results in improved air quality and decreased contribution
to global climate change.
Reduced fuel consumption, which reduces the volume of fuel transported and the potential for
fuel spills and environmental impacts.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 35 of 41 7/2/14
Additional Non-Economic Benefits
Bethel residents’ health and safety will be enhanced by the environmental benefits resulting from
a reduction of hydrocarbon use for heating, including:
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources);
Improved air quality;
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional annual revenue streams
Tax credits are not expected to be beneficial to the project due to AVEC’s status as a non-profit
entity. In addition, the project would not be eligible for green tag sales, since it is not a renewable
technology.
A detailed description of the potential project benefits are found Section 5 of this application and
in AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Inspection and Recommendations (Tab F)
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss the operation of the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How the maintenance and operations of the completed project will be financed for the life of the
project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
As a successful utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to finance,
operate, and maintain this project for the design life.
Business Plan Structures and Concepts which may be considered: AVEC currently has heat
agreements with the entities that are served by the recovered heat system. The work proposed
during this phase will help to determine whether rates for existing users should be reconsidered.
Additionally, rates for new connections will be investigated.
How O&M will be financed for the life of the project: The costs of operations and maintenance
will be funded through ongoing heat and energy sales.
Operational issues which could arise: As mentioned throughout this application, the purpose of
this work will be to identify priority operational issues that need immediate attention. Issues will
be addressed during future phases of work.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 36 of 41 7/2/14
Operating costs: Once improvements and new connections are constructed, AVEC woul d spend
approximately $750,000/year over the 20 year life of the project to operate and maintain the
recovered heat system. This cost has been incorporated into the ISER Cost Benefit Model.
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: AVEC is fully committed to sharing all
information accrued from this project with their members and to sharing information regarding
savings and benefits with AEA.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 37 of 41 7/2/14
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
Once Bethel joined the AVEC cooperative in May 2014, an investigation of the condition of the
existing power plant and recovered heat system was initiated.
In July, AVEC funded a reconnaissance-level inspection of the recovered heat system. The
reconnaissance report, completed in August, includes a summary of the existing system and
potential improvements and connections and recommendations for a detailed engineering
evaluation and assessment, which is proposed in this grant application.
AVEC is ready to move forward immediately with feasibility work; however, funding is needed.
Once a grant is secured, the proposed work will be completed quickly (within 4 month) and
funding will be sought for design in the next round of REF funding and through other sources.
According to the plant operator, little work was done on the recovered heat system over the last
40 years. No other grants have been previously awarded for the recovered heat system in Bethel.
SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Discuss local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters of
support or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from this
project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July 2,
2014.
The community of Bethel supports this project and is interested in moving forward with this
important project and ultimately the upgrades and expansion to the recovered heat system. A
letter of support has been received by the City of Bethel , the Yukon Kuskokwim Health
Corporation and the Department of Corrections. YKHC’s letter includes an interest to purchase
additional heat for their facilities that are under construction (Tab B).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 38 of 41 7/2/14
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you are seeking in grant funds. Include any investments to date and funding
sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as
an applicant.
9.1 Funding sources and Financial Commitment
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding source and your financial commitment to the
project
The total project cost for completing an assessment and conceptual design of the recovered heat
system in Bethel is $679,592, of which $645,613 is requested in grant funds from AEA. The
remaining $33,980 will be matched in cash by AVEC.
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.
Two BTU meters will be installed to measure the flow rate and temperature rate to and from the
Bethel power plant and radiators. Using the meters, a calculation will be performed on the flow
and temperature change in order to obtain the gross and net heat recovery as well as th e heat
rejected to atmosphere. Ultrasonic technology with ±1% accuracy and strap -on transducers is a
suitable non-intrusive technology that is accurate and robust enough for application on the m ain
lines in the power plant. For this application, a GE Panametrics model AT868 with two-channel
capability and pulse or 4-20 mA isolated output per channel will be used. The total cost of the
meters and associated equipment and labor is $17,620. (Metering costs are included in the
project budget.)
In the future, meters will be installed on all connections to the recovered heat system.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
AEA 15003 Page 39 of 41 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
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation Jul 2015 $974 $51 Cash $1,025
2. Detailed resource
assessment Jul 2015 $451,839 $23,781 Cash $475,621
3. Identification of land and
regulatory issues Sept 2015 $2,434 $128 Cash $2,563
4. Permitting and
environmental analysis Sept 2015 $2,434 $128 Cash $2,563
5. Detailed analysis of
current cost of energy and
future market Aug 2015
$9,738 $513 Cash $10,250
6. Assessment of
alternatives Aug 2015 $61,560 $3,240 Cash $64,801
7. Conceptual design and
costs estimate Jul 2015 $92,289 $4,857 Cash $97,146
8. Detailed economic and
financial analyses Aug 2015 $9,738 $513 Cash $10,250
9. Conceptual business &
operations plan Sept 2015 $4,869 $256 Cash $5,125
10. Final report and
recommendations Sept 2015 $9,738 $513 Cash $10,250
TOTALS $645,613 $33,980 $679,592
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $16,140 $849 Cash $16,990
Travel & Per Diem $- $-
Equipment $- $-
Materials & Supplies $- $-
Contractual Services $629,472 $33,130 Cash $662,603
Construction Services $- $-
Other $- $-
TOTALS $645,613 $33,980 $679,592
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
SECTION 10—AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM I
Community/Grantee Name:
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Regular Election is held: Annually I Date: March
Authorized Grant Signer(s):
Printed Name Title Term Signature
Meera Kohler President and CEO Unlimited
I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents:
(Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official)
Printed Name Title Term Signature
Meera Kohler President and CEO Unlimited
ZJII
Grantee Contact Information:
Mailing Address: 4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK. 99503
Phone Number: 800.478.1818
Fax Number: 800.478.4086
E-mail Address: sgilbert@avec.org
Federal Tax ID #: 92-0035763
Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information.
AEA 15003 Page 40 of 41 7/2/14
Tab B
Letters of Support
THE STATE
ofALASKA DepanrrnentofCorrections
Institutions
Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Center
1000 Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway
Bethel,Alaska 99559-0400
Main:907.543.5245
Fax:907.543.3097
GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL
August 26,2014
Meera Kohler
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,Inc.
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage,AK 99503
RE:Letter supporting AVEC's Bethel Heat Recovery Assessment
Dear Ms.Kohler,
The Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Center is a multi-function,state-operated adult correctional institution.
The institution has a capacity of207 male and female inmates and employs a staff of 45.As an AVEC
customer,we are pleased to provide this letter support for the Bethel Heat Recovery Assessment Project.
AVEC has provided recovered heat to the Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Center and the Youth Facility over
the past years.We would welcome an assessment of the heat recovery system and we support any subsequent
system improvements to the system.We believe the assessment A VEC is proposing is a good and appropriate
use of State of Alaska funds and will result in better service while keeping our heating costs as low as possible.
Our support for this project is strong because we believe it will help AVEC to continue to provide reliable,cost-
effective,and clean heat for our building.It will allow us to continue to spend less on diesel fuel for heat and
more on providing important services to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region.
The community benefits of this project are significant.An improvement recovered heat system will reduce
overall fuel consumption in Bethel,provide for cleaner air for residents,and contribute to the shift of reliance
away from fossil fuels to more sustainable and cleaner resources.Please submit this letter of support with your
proposal to the State of Alaska in Round Eight of the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
Sincerely,
L.Dean Marshall
Superintendent
“Working Together to Achieve Excellent Health”
YUKON-KUSKOKWIM HEALTH CORPORATION
P.O. Box 528 • Bethel, Alaska 99559 • 907-543-6000 • 1-800-478-3321
August 18, 2014
Meera Kohler
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: Letter supporting the Bethel Heat Recovery Assessment Project Proposal
Dear Ms. Kohler,
The Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation is the principle healthcare organization for Alaska’s YK
Delta. We provide primary, secondary and tertiary care for 56 communities throughout Western Alaska.
Our service area is the size of the state of Oregon. YKHC administers community clinics, dental and
behavioral health services, and more. We are headquartered in Bethel where we also operate the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Hospital, general medical and surgical hospital with 37 beds. As
one of AVEC’s biggest customers, we are pleased to provide this letter of support for the Bethel Heat
Recovery Assessment Project.
AVEC has provided recovered heat to fourteen YKHC locations over the past years although only three
are currently in service. In the apartment building, new PATC building and at the hospital, AVEC’s heat
recovery system is working well to stabilize our heating costs. We would welcome an expansion of the
system to include previously served or new YKHC locations. We believe the Assessment Project you are
proposing is a good and appropriate use of State of Alaska funds and will result in better service while
keeping the YKHC’s heating costs as low as possible.
Our support for this project is strong because we believe it will lead to reliable, cost-effective and clean
heat for important community buildings. In the end, it will reduce fuel consumption in Bethel, provide for
cleaner air for residents, and contribute to the shift of reliance away from fossil fuels to more sustainable
and cleaner resources. Please submit this letter of support with your proposal to the State of Alaska in
Round Eight of the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
Sincerely,
Dan Winkelman
President/CEO
Tab C
Heat Project
Information
Generating Capacity (watts per unit)2,200,000
Diesel Engine Thermal Efficiency (TF)0.40
Conversion (BTU/Watt-Hour)3.412
= (1 - .4) x 2,200,000 x 3.412 ÷ .4 (See note 1)1.13E+07 BTUH
Cost of fuel oil ($/Gallon)6$
Heat per gallon (BTU/ Gallon)140,000
Average boiler efficiency 70%
Therm per Gallon 98,000
Cost per therm 6.12$ (See note 2)
Heat per operating unit (BTUH)1.13E+07 BTU/Hr
Heat per operating unit (Therm)1.13E+02 Therm/Hr
Equivalent gallons for same heat 115 Gallons/Hr (See note 3)
Cost of equivalent gallons for same heat 689$ $/Hour (See note 4)
Cost per year of equivalent fuel 6,038,822$ $/Year
Gen. Units Hours Heat value
Recoverable
Heat (Therm)
Fuel Gallons
Avoided
Gallons
Avoided at
70% eff.
boilers
Gallons
Avoided with
only 1/2 heat
January 3 744 1,538,659$ 251,314 179,510 256,443 128221.5673
February 3 672 1,389,756$ 226,994 162,138 231,626 115813.0286
March 2.5 744 1,282,216$ 209,429 149,592 213,703 106851.3061
April 2.5 720 1,240,854$ 202,673 144,766 206,809 103404.4898
May 2 744 1,025,773$ 167,543 119,673 170,962 85481.0449
June 1.5 720 744,512$ 121,604 86,860 124,085 62042.69388
July 1.5 744 769,329$ 125,657 89,755 128,222 64110.78367
August 2 744 1,025,773$ 167,543 119,673 170,962 85481.0449
September 2.5 720 1,240,854$ 202,673 144,766 206,809 103404.4898
October 2.5 744 1,282,216$ 209,429 149,592 213,703 106851.3061
November 3 720 1,489,025$ 243,207 173,720 248,171 124085.3878
December 3 744 1,538,659$ 251,314 179,510 256,443 128221.5673
Total 2.4 8760 14,567,625$ 2,379,379 1,699,556 2,427,937 1,213,968.71
Section 2 Avoided Cost
Section 3 Value of Heat Per Unit
Monthly Averages
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery System Upgrades
Section 1 Heat Recovery Potential
= (1-TF.) x Watts x Conversion ÷ TF
Potential heat recovery per hour per unit operating
(11.3 million BTUH)
Notes:
3. It will take 115 gallons of fuel oil at 98,000 per gallon to deliver 11,300,000 BTU/H.
4. 115 gallons at $6 per gallon = $698.
1. Input energy for 2.2 megawatt generator (operating unit) at .4 efficiency requires (1 - .4) x 2,200,000 x 3.412 ÷ .4.
This calculation says that 60% of the 2.2MW is wasted and then converts the waste to 11,300,000 BTU/H. (This is
also 113 therms/hr).
2. A gallon of fuel oil has 140,000 btu at perfect efficiency. At 70% efficiency it has 98,000 BTU. At $6 per gallon we
pay ($6/98,000 BTU), or $6.12 per therm.
Tab D
Authority
Tab E
Certification
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Heat Recovery Form
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System Assessment and Conceptual Design
SECTION 11—ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A.Contact information and resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project
Accountant(s), key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form
Section 3.1, 3.4 and 3.6.
Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic
documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site.
B.Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 8.
C.For heat projects only: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel for
the building(s) impacted by the project.
D.Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing
body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
- Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the
match amounts indicated in the application.
- Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit
the organization to the obligations under the grant.
- Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
- Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local,
laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
E.An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per
RFA Section 1.7.
F.CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and
that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations.
Print Name Meera Kohler
Signature VfA
Title President and CEO
Date
AEA 15003 Page 4lof4l 7/2/14
Tab F
Additional Materials
Table of Contents
BETHEL POWER PLANT HEAT RECOVERY ...................................................................................................... 2
PRELIMINARY INSPECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Project Background............................................................................................................................................. 3
Facility Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Recommendations for detailed evaluations ........................................................................................................ 4
Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Repairs/Upgrades to Systems and Components ........................................................................................... 4
System Expansion ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Maintenance and Operability Improvements ................................................................................................. 6
Industry Standards and Code Compliance ..................................................................................................... 7
Provide Additional 20-Year Lifespan .............................................................................................................. 7
Economic Analysis of Applicable Modifications ............................................................................................ 7
Facility Description ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Facility Operation ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Photographic Record ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Appendix 1, Fee Proposal for Detailed Engineering Evaluations ...................................................................... 18
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Inspection and Recommendations
To Steve Gilbert, AVEC Report Date August 22, 2014
From Walter K Heins, PE Inspection Date July 30, 2014
Subject Field Report Location Bethel, Alaska
Project No. CEI #140632
Present at Site
during Visit
Lenny Welch, AVEC
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 2 of 18
(907) 276-6664
BETHEL POWER PLANT HEAT RECOVERY
PRELIMINARY INSPECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AVEC engaged Coffman Engineers at its own expense to conduct an initial, high level investigation of
the heat recovery system in Bethel. We found the AVEC Bethel power plant heat recovery system
(“the system”) is currently functioning on a commercial scale serving several facilities. It provides
heat, displacing fuel that community members would otherwise have to purchase at a higher cost than
the recovered heat from the power plant. The system is reported to operate with minimal intervention
and acceptable reliability. However, having operated for nearly 40 years without significant
improvement or investment, the system needs improvement and repair in several areas. The most
significant issues are:
1. Leakage from aged and corroded heat distribution pipes poses a risk not only to the community
with the potential loss of heat but also to electrical generation in the power plant.
2. The system uses water in lieu of anti-freeze solution which presents a freezing risk, but changeover
to anti- freeze is not possible with the system as is.
3. Expansion of the system has not kept pace with growth in the community and it could serve more
facilities.
4. Metering of the heat recovery and utilization (BTU Meters) has failed and should be replaced to
allow for optimization of the system.
5. The system is very near the end of its useful life.
In this assessment we observed the external characteristics of the system and investigated the current
operations through interviews with the operations manager, Mr. Lenny Welch. Pipes, equipment, and
operating strategies were reviewed. Customer facilities were inspected at a very cursory level. A
brief history of the heat utilization was discussed.
The system provides a valuable benefit to the community of Bethel. Heat recovered at the power
plant can displace fuel burned for heating businesses, and institutions. The resulting savings are
meaningful in keeping money in the local economy as well as reducing consumer costs and fuel
burning emissions. An expansion of the system would reduce the utility’s wasted heat and related
expenses, such as operating radiator fans to dissipate the heat.
AVEC funded this study in order to determine the scope and scale of further evaluations and to
prioritize initial upgrades necessary to optimize the heat recovery system. Optimization would
include enhancing operations, increasing life span, improving performance, and developing system
expansion and overall economic viability. All of these are crucial to maximizing the benefits to the
community of Bethel.
This report will recommend detailed engineering evaluations of the system in order to proceed
effectively on a path leading to optimization of the system and greater community benefits. Some
optimization measures are self-evident; others may not be as clear. Based on a more thorough
investigation, we will recommend proceeding with conceptual design documents (35% design).
Other measures will become evident once the evaluations have concluded. For these we may
recommend proceeding to more detailed design once the optimization path is clear. To evaluate
corrosion, wear, and wall thickness of the off-site distribution piping we will offer two approaches.
The best approach, 100% inline inspection, has significant advantages.
The recommendations in this brief report require further, detailed evaluation to draw conclusions or to
make informed decisions. It is our understanding that AVEC plans to apply for funding through the
renewable energy fund to pay for these efforts. A detailed engineering evaluation of the system
engineering, performance, configuration, operation, and expansion, or “Engineering Study”, is
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 3 of 18
(907) 276-6664
estimated to cost approximately $62,000. Engineering design on measures ready now are estimated
at $94,000. A corrosion, wear, and wall thickness study of the mains will add $450,000. Attached to
the end of this report is a detailed proposal for this work which will clearly present the options and
recommendations.
While it is expected that greater use of recovered heat from the power plant in Bethel would result in
economic benefit to the community, the economics of the operation were not the subject of this
current high level evaluation effort. Plant economics and market studies could have important
benefits to business operations, but are not part of the Engineering Study and are not currently
included in the proposal at the end of this report.
INTRODUCTION
Project Background
The AVEC electrical power plant in Bethel, Alaska, formerly owned by Bethel Utility Company
(BUC), is operated with a combined cooling and heat recovery system. The subject of this report is a
preliminary inspection of the heat recovery system conducted by Coffman Engineers on July 30,
2014.
Funded by AVEC, the purpose of the preliminary inspection was to gather information necessary to
set the scope of detailed evaluations and upgrades to the heat recovery system. Coffman Engineers’
inspector, Walter K. Heins, PE, was accompanied on the inspection by AVEC Bethel power plant
operator Mr. Lenny Welch. Mr. Welch has 40 years’ tenure at the plant and was instrumental to
understanding the system. Based on observations during my site visit, this report will make the
following recommendations:
Further, detailed evaluations:
Identify system improvements to increase efficiency and effectiveness,
Identify necessary repairs/upgrades to systems and components nearing the end of their useful life,
Identify potential new heat “off takers” to expand the use and benefit of the system (as applicable),
Identify improvements to maintenance and operability,
Identify updates to comply with current industry standards and applicable codes,
Identify improvements to provide for an additional 20 year life span,
Prepare an economic analysis of applicable modifications (benefit/cost).
Determine permitting and regulatory requirements impacting system expansion
Design upgrades for:
Generate as-built drawings, system flow diagrams, and P&IDs for the existing configurations,
Adding heat recovery and utilization metering,
Adding a heat exchanger isolating the plant from the off-site distribution,
Develop the standards for User hook-ups to be used for all new implementations leading to greater
use of the system and more accurate monitoring and control.
Recommendations are followed by brief description of the plant, its operations, and of conclusions
made in this preliminary phase. A proposal for completing the recommendations is included at the
end of this report.
Facility Summary
The Bethel generation plant consists of six, water-cooled diesel powered generators housed in a single
building. The cooling water (heated by the engines) is routed through the heat recovery system and
then to heat rejection fin-fans (radiators). The heat recovery system is a network of piping that
distributes the hot water to several nearby commercial and institutional buildings (Users) for domestic
heating.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 4 of 18
(907) 276-6664
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DETAILED EVALUATIONS
Efficiency
The AVEC heat recovery system is inherently efficient due to its simplistic nature. All heat rejected
to the diesel engine water jackets is available to the heat recovery system. A detailed evaluation
would look closely at the efficiency of the water pumps, in-plant heat losses, distribution pipe
insulation, piping design (size, material, routing, and etc.), piping interior condition (roughness, open
bore, and etc.), User heat exchanger design, and BTU (heat) metering capabilities. Optimum water
temperature for the diesel prime movers should be evaluated.
Under most current operating conditions, excess heat must still be rejected to atmosphere. If heating
demand by users were to increases, additional effectiveness of the heat recovery system would be
needed to raise the net output of the heat recovery system. A detailed evaluation should look closely
at effectiveness increases by adding exhaust gas heat scavenging. This was included in the original
system but later abandoned due to failures caused by long-term disuse.
Repairs/Upgrades to Systems and Components
Attributable to good maintenance, the systems and major components inside the plant exhibit stable
condition with considerable life remaining. However, the distribution piping has obvious
deficiencies. A detailed evaluation should look closely at the state of wall thickness and corrosion,
alignment, fittings, and insulation on all sections of the distribution piping.
Corrosion in the piping system has compromised its strength and elevated the risk of leaks or
catastrophic failure. Testing is necessary to determine the remaining pipe wall thickness
throughout the pipeline. A preventive maintenance plan and replacement schedule would be
developed based on the findings. A range of options and costs are available:
1. Superficial observations (obvious corrosion noted, catalogued, and repaired). Wall thickness
could be spot-checked. This survey has the least cost and provides a short list of the most
egregiously corroded areas.
2. Ultrasonic Testing (UT) of 100% of the pipeline using an inline inspection tool (“Pig”). This
survey produces the most accurate, thorough, and useful results. The pipeline would be shut
down (presumably in summer) in order to conduct this testing. The pig would measure the
pipeline mains. Short 4” branches to individual Users would not warrant the expense of UT.
While this test may miss a pin-hole (typical to bacterial corrosion) it would reliably determine
the wall thickness throughout the pipeline.
3. Observations based on potential detected by X-Ray surveillance was evaluated but dropped
from the recommendations due to cost. Its only advantage is that it can be done while the
pipeline is in service. This survey provides a “high potential” list of corroded locations.
Suspect areas detected by the X-Ray tool would have insulation removed for further wall
thickness measurement.
Alignment continually changes as pipe supports jack and settle in the soil. This creates stresses in
the pipeline with leak and breakage potential. Pipe support design should be evaluated to determine
a more stable configuration for high-movement areas.
Expansion loop design should be evaluated to relieve stresses from thermal expansion and
contraction.
Pipe supports and foundations should be evaluated to stabilize the seasonal movement described in
the bullet points above.
The original mechanical (Victaulic) fittings no longer have their original resiliency. It was reported
that movement of the pipe that is normal from alignment changes, heating and cooling stresses, or
maintenance operations can allow new leaks to appear at old fittings. A detailed evaluation should
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 5 of 18
(907) 276-6664
look closely at replacement of the fittings, or at least replacement gaskets if new ones are
compatible with the original fittings.
Original isolation valves are reportedly unable to close completely tight. This is a problem when
a pipe section needs maintenance. A detailed evaluation should look closely at replacing valves
either wholesale on a scheduled basis. Evaluation of the overall isolation strategy should also be
reviewed to see if additional isolation locations are warranted.
Insulation is in various states of decay. Missing in some areas and damaged in others, insulation is
in good condition in still other locations. A detailed evaluation should look closely at the insulation
using thermal imaging thermography. An inventory of all insulation segments should be
catalogued and evaluated for economic viability and estimated remaining useful life.
Pipe sizing for capacity growth should be considered whenever a section of distribution piping is
replaced, or when evaluating the economics of a contemplated replacement.
Additional opportunities for systems and components improvements will be discussed i n other
sections.
System Expansion
System expansion is an unqualified win-win. As AVEC wastes less heat, it optimizes its economic
viability and ensures its stability in the community. As Bethel consumers utilize more recovered heat
they burn less fuel. The reduced fuel consumption cuts air pollution in the community, reduces
Bethel’s collective carbon footprint, and saves consumers money from their heating budgets. All of
these cost savings result in more local dollars staying in the local economy.
The system currently is under-subscribed by Users. Heat is routinely rejected to atmosphere in all
weather conditions, although in previous years this was not always the case. Growth of the electrical
demand in recent years has now given the power plant enough engines running to produce more heat
than is needed by the connected Users.
This is not to say that all the heat that could be collected is collected. Nor does it say that individual
Users are optimized. It is almost certain that the system could sell more heat if it had more Users. A
detailed evaluation of system expansion should look closely at both the maximum capacity of the heat
collection end and the optimum subscription rate for the User end.
The heat collection could increase from the installation of new exhaust gas heat exchangers. These will
scavenge heat from the hot exhaust and add it to the heat recovery water.
New User potential includes several unconnected or under-utilized facilities in the vicinity making User
subscription and energy sales increases possible. A detailed evaluation should look closely at
optimizing User heat exchanger design. All major new construction within a 1-mile radius of the plant
should be evaluated for new User feasibility. Following is a list of potential facilities within this zone:
City Aquatic Center, a facility with energy intensiveness is about 800 yards away and quite close
to the vocational school (see next bullet). This represents a significant year-round opportunity that
is unconnected. It is our understanding this facility has an onsite 100 kW wind turbine which
should be considered in evaluating the viability of serving this facility.
The Yuut Elitnaurviat (YE) vocational school currently has solar and wind generation capacities.
It is about 800 yards away and quite close to the Aquatic Center (see previous bullet). It is our
understanding that YE is also connected to wind and solar energy systems. An evaluation of the
potential at this 501c (3) Corporation is warranted for its relevance, community importance, and
heat utilization potential.
The US Post Office, about 400 yards away, is unconnected.
New YKHC Alcohol Treatment Center (PATC), in construction about 300 yards away, is
unconnected.
New YKHC Pre-Maternal Center, in construction about 150 yards from an existing distribution
heating main line, is unconnected.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 6 of 18
(907) 276-6664
New YKHC Long-Term Care building in construction is already planning to connect to the AVEC
heat recovery system.
YKHC Shop/Storage building about 250 yards south of the plant is unconnected.
Although YKHC building 800 (residential apartment) is currently connected and subscribing to the
AVEC heat recovery system, new and other existing YKHC housing units are potential subscribers.
One housing tract across the street from the US Post Office could use a central heat exchanger and
distribute hot glycol to each of 13 small housing units to displace potentially dangerous fuel oil
heaters. Recently demolished YKHC housing units had been subscribers, so replacement facilities
should be considered high potential subscribers.
Large Swanson’s shopping center across Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway from the Department of
Corrections is close enough (500 yards from the plant and 250 yards from an existing heating
distribution main) but technical, easement, or political barriers may make this a lower potential
User.
Department of Corrections (DOC) expansion to the youth Correctional Center currently is utilizing
the AVEC heat recovery system. The growth of facility raises the opportunity to optimize the User
heat exchanger to suit the expanded needs.
The DOC adult Correctional Center User heat exchanger may not be optimized. It is reported that
their boiler plant is too small causing DOC to rely heavily on the AVEC heat recovery system.
Further study of their heat exchanger system is recommended.
The radio station KYUK was once on the AVEC heat recovery system but was disconnected due
to distribution piping problems. It is about 200 yards from an existing distribution heating main
line. This subscription potentially could be reinstated.
The new AVEC offices near KYUK are about 200 yards from an existing distribution heating main
line.
Several buildings in the city center, including City offices, AC Store, and other commercial
businesses are potential subscribers. The City was once a subscriber who disconnected. City center
is within a few hundred yards of an existing distribution heating main line.
The water utility should be evaluated for its potential as a subscriber. Many cold-climate utilities
pre-heat domestic water to a moderate temperature, say 50°F, as a freeze protection measure. This
is also as an energy savings measure for water customers who save 10% - 30% on their water
heating bills.
Raised outdoor walkways, trails, and 4-wheeler tracks where permafrost preservation is not an issue
should be evaluated for snow and ice control.
In -floor radiant heating for elevated floors should be evaluated where permafrost preservation is
not an issue.
Snow melt systems to reduce plowing and minimize dangerous ice is not likely to present many
opportunities due to permafrost and ice-rich soils.
Maintenance and Operability Improvements
All system controls are manually operated, a condition that plant operators have mastered and have
achieved consistent operation. However, a detailed evaluation should look closely at the possibility of
adding alarm monitoring and make-up water/water pressure control automation. Both of these will
help to optimize the operation, increase the reliability of the heat recovery system and the power plant
in general.
A design to separate the power plant from the outside heat distribution lines with a bank of heat
exchangers should be evaluated. This could simplify the feed water system and improve maintenance
and operability by allowing isolation of areas for service without impacting all areas. It would reduce
risk and improve reliability by preventing a line failure in the heating distribution from shutting down
generation the power plant. (See also the Industry Standards and Codes section of this report.)
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 7 of 18
(907) 276-6664
Cooling water is circulated continuously in the radiators with heat rejection capacity modulated by
manually engaging radiator fans. A detailed evaluation should look closely at capacity control
automation at the radiators.
The original BUC heat recovery system implemented several shell-and-tube heat exchangers. These
were removed several years ago reportedly due to a lack of understanding of their purpose as well as
ongoing maintenance issues with them. A detailed evaluation should look closely at the record
drawings of this system and reinstate the heat exchangers if found to be viable.
Status monitoring of temperatures, pressures, flow rates, equipment operation, power output, BTU
production and use, and other pertinent characteristics would allow managers to optimize the plant
based on the evaluation of real time data. This would also enhance reliable operation. A detailed
evaluation should look closely at the characteristic most beneficial to these goals.
Industry Standards and Code Compliance
Energy metering is an industry standard not utilized in the Bethel heat recovery system. Users are
reportedly charged for heat by a formula based on the facility’s history and the monthly weather
(heating degree days). Metering of the heat leaving the plant and consumed at each user should be a
priority upgrade to the current system. This upgrade is valuable for management decisions,
forecasting, as well as client billing. It was also reported that BTU meters (meters to measure the
heat delivered to a User) have been unreliable in the past. A meter plan and design considering new
robust and accurate BTU meters, AVEC and User benefits, in addition to code or state regulation,
should start now and proceed throughout all future development/upgrades of the system.
The industry standard design would include heat exchangers to separate the in-plant cooling water
system from the off-site distribution and User system. Adding a central plant heat exchanger should
be a priority upgrade to the current system. This upgrade is necessary for protecting the plant from a
rapid loss of water that would shut down the power plant generators. A design should start now that
would decouple the in-plant piping from off-site systems while accommodating future development
and growth of the power plant. As it would from many other power plant upgrades, the community of
Bethel benefits from this upgrade through improved reliability of electrical power in addition to the
heat recovery reliability.
Provide Additional 20-Year Lifespan
Most of the items noted in the Repairs/Upgrades, Maintenance, and Standards and Codes sections
above would add life to the AVEC heat recovery system. Perhaps the largest single risk of failure at
this point is the distribution piping system. A detailed evaluation should look closely at the corrosion
and mechanical couplings first, as these may be the largest risk to continued system operation.
Economic Analysis of Applicable Modifications
A detailed evaluation should look closely at the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of any changes to the AVEC
heat recovery system. This evaluation should be at minimum a simple payback ratio but more
sophisticated life cycle cost (LCC) analysis would be preferred. AVEC should advise whoever
conducts the economic analysis on the type of analysis AVEC finds most useful in its accounting,
procurement, and long-range planning decisions. The State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
program should also be considered in the economic analyses for impacts to the utility as well as on
Users.
Accuracy of the economic analysis will be compromised by lack of data from heat collection and
sales. All available records will be needed, but how well they represent the actual value of the heat
remains to be seen. Metering of the heat should be a priority for economic optimization of the
system. However, a brief examination of energy costs and power plant configuration reveals the
following costs and benefits:
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 8 of 18
(907) 276-6664
Each generating unit can produce approximately 495,000 therms, or $3 million of heat per year
based on the following statistics:
Assume only half of the heat can readily be utilized. If greater than half, the benefits above would
increase proportionally.
Standard generating unit = 2.2 Megawatts.
Diesel generation is 40% thermal efficiency (fuel-to-wire)
Fuel cost of $6 per gallon (consumer price) at 140,000 BTU per gallon.
Therm cost at 70% efficient boilers = $6.12/therm.
Based on the foregoing brief analysis and assuming an estimated year-long average of 2.4
concurrently operating units, the power plant could displace the burning of over 1.2 million
gallons of fuel in consumer boilers with a fuel cost savings of over $7.2 million. If AVEC1
charged $3/therm (hypothetically half its retail value), the heat recovery system would facilitate
retaining $7.2 million in the local economy annually while paying back $7.2 million for plant
upgrades and improvements.
The benefits/cost ratios of select measures described in this report can be calculated in rough terms at
this time.
Exhaust gas heat exchangers:
Benefit = $750,000 per year based on scavenging an additional 25% of the available heat per
Unit.
Cost = $6 million ($1 million each)
B/C over 20 years = 2.5
UT Testing and scheduled maintenance of distribution piping:
Benefit = $7.2 million per year based keeping the system on line continuously for 20 years
Cost = $3 million first year (testing and critical repairs) and $750,000/year thereafter
(scheduled repairs)
B/C over 20 years = 8.0
Determining an accurate B/C ratio is complicated by several issues;
That the system is currently in service
That it is running sub-optimally
That without evaluation its future is uncertain
and that there is no BTU metering on the main line.
It is also likely that some measures would not be pertinent to LCC, B/C, or simple payback
evaluations as they may have code, safety, and reliability related impetus that does not calculate well.
These may be some of the most important modifications, so a holistic evaluation should look at
importance as well as investment.
Additionally, the condition of related components should be evaluated when recommending new
work. For example, it would be shortsighted to install new insulation on a failing pipe or new piping
on a failing pipe support. Associated repairs or upgrades should be included in any evaluations for
cost and economic impacts of recommended work.
1 Hypothetical number for illustration of heating value only. This is not a presumption or su ggestion of AVEC
pricing policy or business practices.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 9 of 18
(907) 276-6664
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The Bethel generation plant consists of six diesel prime movers, all EMD 16-645 E4D generators
rated at 2.2MW each. The engine generators are cooled through a combined cooling and heat
recovery system. The cooling system is directly connected to the heat recovery loop without an
isolation heat exchanger. There are several large radiators to dissipate excess heat not used in the heat
recovery loop. The cooling fluid is corrosion inhibited water with no glycol for freeze protection.
The cooling/heat recovery is distributed through one continuous (distribution) piping system
consisting of a 10” mainline with some 6” and 4” loops extending to the customer facilities (Users).
The system consists of steel pipe with mechanical couplings, foam insulation, and metal jacketing.
The piping is mounted above ground on steel pipe supports. Users have heat exchangers in their
facilities to transfer the heat to their internal piping systems.
The diesel prime movers are arranged in the center of the generator building. A separate room to the
north houses four booster pumps, five expansion tanks, and one open make-up tank to hold a reserve
quantity of cooling fluid. An arrangement of thermostatic valves and isolation valves diverts the fluid
in whole or in part to the radiators. The distribution piping to the Users could be isolated at this point.
The distribution piping is fabricated with mechanical (Victaulic™) couplings and valves. These have
proven to last adequately although at least the gaskets are at the end of their useful life. Newer
polymer gasket compounds are available that are more flexible under thermal stresses and that retain
their watertight seal throughout the range of normal pipe movement.
The steel pipe supports are built in a “Tee” configuration with 4” steel pipe uprights and steel cross-
members. The height of the uprights varies as the pipeline passes over varied terrain. Frost jacking
occurs at most uprights and many adjustments have been made over the years. Pipes are typically
clamped to the cross-members although many rest in place by gravity.
Pipe supports generally appeared in good condition. Corrosion may be an issue in certain locations
but the supports observed on this inspection should have 20 years’ additional life potential. While
frost jacking is a separate issue, the status of all the support uprights should be evaluated.
Insulation condition was variable. Insulation tended to be intact on the straight run of pipe where
protected by its steel jacketing. However, fittings, joints, and valves often were missing their
protective jacket leaving the foam insulation exposed. At many exposed sections the insulation was
eroded. At other exposed sections it was full-thickness, painted, and potentially sound. Rainwater
intrusion through cracks and gaps in the exposed insulation has caused long-term corrosion damage
as well as reducing the insulation value.
FACILITY OPERATION
Water heated in the prime movers is pumped at approximately 185°F and 32 PSI through the
distribution system with two of the four 20 horsepower distribution pumps. Two pumps stand by in
reserve. As the water returns it is diverted by a thermostatically controlled valve to the radiators as
needed for additional cooling. As the water temperature rises and falls, fluid expansion and
contraction is accommodated with the expansion tanks and make-up tank. Plant operators make
regular observations and adjust the system to maintain the correct temperatures and pressures.
Operators currently seek to maintain constant temperatures in the distribution pipeline to reduce
changing thermal stresses on the old gaskets. As the water is pumped continuously (24/7/365) it loses
heat in transmission or at the Users. The return water is diverted to the radiators automatically, and
the radiator fans are energized manually based on operators’ observations of return water
temperature. Water will be manually added/removed from/to the make-up tank in order to maintain
the desired pressure.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 10 of 18
(907) 276-6664
Maintenance in the power plant appears to be competent and effective. The distribution system
maintenance is in need of a more scheduled and proactive approach in order to maintain the value of
system and new upgrades. While the power plant operating personnel are obviously capable of
performing this maintenance, the recommendations that would come from this report and future
evaluations are crucial to preserving the heat recovery system.
CONCLUSION
The AVEC Bethel power plant heat recovery system has a proven record of serving the community.
It currently has unmet needs and promising potential to do even greater good for the community of
Bethel. By developing the heat recovery system to its fullest, the system will:
Reliably continue in operation for 20 years and more,
Enhance the reliability of electrical generation at the power plant,
Better serve consumers and the community both economically and environmentally.
Upgrades and other improvement measures show positive benefit/cost ratios and present good
investment value. Certain measures are important and clear enough to start design now. Other
measures, while important, should pass through additional study and evaluation in order to scope and
prioritize them properly.
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 11 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
1. A typical diesel engine generator at the Bethel Power Plant. Piping on the far wall is for the heat
recovery system.
2. Aerial view of Bethel Power Plant with heat recovery distribution system piping highlighted.
3. Heat recovery system distribution piping 4. Heat recovery system distribution piping
(center) to a new YKHC facility in construction.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 12 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
5. Heat recovery system 10” distribution piping as
it leaves the power plant. One of the horizontal
radiators is visible on the right.
6. Heat recovery system distribution piping on a
pipe support
7. Heat recovery system distribution piping on
pipe supports
8. Pipe supports driven into the wet soil. Frost
jacking is noted as an ongoing issue
9. Typical new mechanical coupling. 10. Typical old style mechanical coupling
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 13 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
11. Heat recovery system distribution piping on a
pipe support with valves, tees, and branch loop
visible.
12. Fitting on heat recovery system distribution
piping with insulation eroding away.
13. Corrosion observed at a bare pipe section 14. Corrosion observed at a bare pipe section
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 14 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
15. Power plant building from northeast with
radiator penthouse visible on the upper right.
Note the four generator exhaust mufflers and
stacks.
16. Opposite view of power plant building with
generator and piping visible through the
overhead door. Note the generator exhaust
muffler and stack visible on the upper left
17. Cooling water system at the point where it exits
the building to the heat recovery system
distribution piping.
18. Cooling water system adjacent to view in photo
#16. Note the water pumps.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 15 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
19. Cooling water system heat rejection radiators.
View from inside penthouse.
20. Cooling water system heat rejection radiators.
View from outside penthouse. Each opening
has an overhead door that can be closed to
reduce heat loss.
21. Make-up water tank 22. Make-up water tank open to atmosphere with
level control floats visible on opposite side.
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 16 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
23. Cooling water tank on generator used by
operators to determine water level. 24. Typical piping inside generator building.
25. Typical piping inside User heat exchanger
room. Blue square item is the heat exchanger.
26. Typical piping inside User heat exchanger
room. Blue square item is the heat exchanger.
27. View of failed flow meter once used for BTU
metering. 28. Typical temperature sensor used for BTU meter
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 17 of 18
(907) 276-6664
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
29. View of flow meter still in operation for BTU
meter. 30. Typical temperature sensor used for BTU meter
31. Heat recovery User: UAF Cultural Center. 32. Heat recovery User: UAF Campus.
33. YKHC housing tract is a potential User. 34. New YKHC facility is a potential new User.
End of Report
AVEC Bethel Heat Recovery Field Report Inspection Date
July 30, 2014
Coffman Engineers www.Coffman.com Page 18 of 18
(907) 276-6664
Appendix 1, Fee Proposal for Detailed Engineering Evaluations
A detailed engineering evaluation of the subjects defined in the foregoing report by its nature would
include certain clear cut technical engineering issues and economic analysis. Issues become less clear
cut, however, when many issues are combined such as market analysis for new Users, reduced heat
production costs, reduced maintenance costs, new efficiencies, enhanced capacities, regulatory and
safety enhancements, and the effect of government subsidies. In short, the detailed engineering
evaluation would be an estimate based on as much hard data as reasonably attainable but not
everything needed to generate firm, fixed values for all factors. For example, it would be reasonably
straightforward to estimate the cost of a new heat exchanger and the heat attainable from it, but the
amount of that heat that can actually be sold would not be a straightforward estimate.
The attached fee proposal is divided into two categories: engineering evaluation and corrosion study.
One can be done without the other although there are economies of scale from doing both together.
Both include options which may be exercised or excised at AVEC’s direction. The fees and rentals
costs are reasonable estimates of the likely amount of effort involved. An accounting of all effort and
expense would be available to AVEC if a cost-plus contract were entered into for this work.
Engineering Evaluation
Labor Effort $ 58,220
Travel Expenses $ 2,992
$61,212 Total
Pipe Condition Study (UT Inspection)
Labor Effort $ 67,400
Travel Expenses $ 7,733
Tools and Consultants $352,000
Freight Charges (estimate) $ 22,000
$449,133 Total
Design and Drafting
Labor Effort $ 88,030
Travel Expenses $ 6,022
$94,052 Total
A spreadsheet with the fee proposal details follows this page.
Client
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Proposal Number 1
Steve Gilbert Project Name
4831 Eagle Street Discipline Energy Engineering
Anchorage, AK 99503-7497 Prepared By WKH
Date 8/8/2014
Task Order
Project Name Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical
Labor Code In Charge Specialist Designer III
Rate 200.00$ 180.00$ 165.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 95.00$ 75.00$
Hours 19.0 340.0 210.0 370.0 84.0 330.0 48.0 20.0 0.0
Total 3,800$ 61,200$ 34,650$ 49,950$ 13,440$ 44,550$ 4,560$ 1,500$ -$
Item a.Direct Labor Costs Total 213,650.00$
Subcontracts for this contract
Discipline UT Inspection Corrosion Inst Fabricator Freight Charges
Total 240,000$ -$ 80,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Item b.Subcontract Costs Total 340,000$
% Handling Fee on Subcontracts 10%(incl)34,000$
Total (b)374,000$
Item c. Travel Expenses (no labor)
Rental Car - Day 7.00 @ 100$ 700$
Per Diem - Overnight 30.00 @ 250$ 7,500$
Per Diem - Day 1.00 @ 60$ 60$
Air Fare - Anchorage 12.00 @ 500$ 6,000$
Taxi - Airport Anchorage 22.00 @ 25$ 550$
Taxi - Day (Bethel)20.00 @ 20$ 400$
Airport Parking 1.00 15$ 15$
Other 0.00 -$ -$
Subtotal 15,225$
% Handling Fee on Travel 0$ 1,523$
Total (d)16,748$ 16,748$
TOTAL (a through d)604,398$
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Fee SummaryBethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Confidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 1 of 15 Summary Page
Proposal Number 1
Task 100 Project Name
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical 0
Labor Code In Charge 0 0 0 Specialist Designer III 0 0 0
Rate 200.00$ 180.00$ 165.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 95.00$ 75.00$ -$
Hours 10.0 304.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0
Total 2,000.00$ 54,720.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,500.00$ -$
Item a.Direct Labor Costs Total 58,220.00$
Subcontracts for this contract
Discipline UT Inspection Corrosion Inst Fabricator Freight Charges 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Item b.Subcontract Costs Total -$
% Handling Fee on Subcontracts 10%-$
Total (b)-$
Item c. Travel Expenses (no labor)
Rental Car - Day units @ 100.00$ -$
Per Diem - Overnight 0 6 units @ 250.00$ 1,500.00$
Per Diem - Day 0 units @ 60.00$ -$
Air Fare - Anchorage 2 units @ 500.00$ 1,000.00$
Taxi - Airport Anchorage 4 units @ 25.00$ 100.00$
Taxi - Day (Bethel)6 units @ 20.00$ 120.00$
Airport Parking units @ 15.00$ -$
Other units @ -$ -$
Sub Total 2,720.00$
% Handling Fee on Travel 10%272.00$
Total (d)2,992.00$ 2,992.00$
TOTAL (a through d)61,212.00$
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Detailed Engineering EvaluationsDetailed Engineering Evaluations Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Confidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 2 of 15 TASK 100
Proposal Number 1
Task 100 Detailed Engineering Evaluations Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical 0
Labor Code In Charge 0 0 0 Specialist Designer III 0 0 0
Rate 200$ 180$ 165$ 135$ 160$ 135$ 95$ 75$ -$
Hours 10 304 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
Total 2,000.00$ 54,720.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,500.00$ -$
Labor Detail
Detailed Engineering Evaluations 20
Efficiency 60
Repairs/Upgrades 40
System Expansion 40
Maintenance & Operability 40
Code & Standards Study 20
Provide Additional 20 Year Life 24
Economic Analysis 60
Administrative
Travel time, 2 trips from Anchorage 20
Travel time, 1 trips from
Management & QC 10
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Detailed Engineering EvaluationsConfidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 3 of 15 Task 100 Labor Detail
Proposal Number 1
Task 300 Project Name
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical 0
Labor Code In Charge 0 0 0 Specialist Designer III 0 0 0
Rate 200.00$ 180.00$ 165.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 95.00$ 75.00$ -$
Hours 4.0 20.0 120.0 280.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 800.00$ 3,600.00$ 19,800.00$ 37,800.00$ -$ 5,400.00$ -$ -$ -$
Item a.Direct Labor Costs Total 67,400.00$
Total (a through g)67,400.00$
Subcontracts for this contract
Discipline UT Inspection Corrosion Inst Fabricator Freight Charges 0 0 0 0 0
Total $240,000 $80,000.00 $20,000
Item b.Subcontract Costs Total 340,000.00$
% Handling Fee on Subcontracts 10%34,000.00$
Total (h)374,000.00$
Item c. Travel Expenses (no labor)
Rental Car - Day 7 units @ 100.00$ 700.00$
Per Diem - Overnight 0 14 units @ 250.00$ 3,500.00$
Per Diem - Day 0 units @ 60.00$ -$
Air Fare - Anchorage 5 units @ 500.00$ 2,500.00$
Taxi - Airport Anchorage 10 units @ 25.00$ 250.00$
Taxi - Day (Bethel)4 units @ 20.00$ 80.00$
Airport Parking units @ 15.00$ -$
Other units @ -$ -$
Sub Total 7,030.00$
% Handling Fee on Travel 10%703.00$
Total (d)7,733.00$ 7,733.00$
TOTAL (a through d)449,133.00$
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
UT Inspection (Pigging)UT Inspection (Pigging)Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Confidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 6 of 15 TASK 300
Proposal Number 1
Task 300 Labor Detail UT Inspection (Pigging)Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical 0
Labor Code In Charge 0 0 0 Specialist Designer III 0 0 0
Rate 200.00$ 180.00$ 165.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 95.00$ 75.00$ -$
Hours 4.0 20.0 120.0 280.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 800.00$ 3,600.00$ 19,800.00$ 37,800.00$ -$ 5,400.00$ -$ -$ -$
Labor Detail
Pigging feasibility eval 40 40 40
Pigging procedure 60
Additrional service trips 40 40
Field Effort/execution 100
Closeout & reporting 20 40 40
Administrative
Travel time, 5 trips from Anchorage
Travel time, 0 trips from
Management & QC 4
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
UT Inspection (Pigging)Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Confidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 7 of 15 Task 300 Labor Detail
Proposal Number 1
Task 400 Project Name
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical 0
Labor Code In Charge 0 0 0 Specialist Designer III 0 0 0
Rate 200.00$ 180.00$ 165.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 95.00$ 75.00$ -$
Hours 5.0 16.0 90.0 90.0 84.0 290.0 48.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,000.00$ 2,880.00$ 14,850.00$ 12,150.00$ 13,440.00$ 39,150.00$ 4,560.00$ -$ -$
Item a.Direct Labor Costs Total 88,030.00$
Subcontracts for this contract
Discipline UT Inspection Corrosion Inst Fabricator Freight Charges 0 0 0 0 0
Total
Item b.Subcontract Costs Total -$
% Handling Fee on Subcontracts 10%-$
Total (b)-$
Item c. Travel Expenses (no labor)
Rental Car - Day units @ 100.00$ -$
Per Diem - Overnight 0 10 units @ 250.00$ 2,500.00$
Per Diem - Day 0 1 units @ 60.00$ 60.00$
Air Fare - Anchorage 5 units @ 500.00$ 2,500.00$
Taxi - Airport Anchorage 8 units @ 25.00$ 200.00$
Taxi - Day (Bethel)10 units @ 20.00$ 200.00$
Airport Parking 1 units @ 15.00$ 15.00$
Other units @ -$ -$
Sub Total 5,475.00$
% Handling Fee on Travel 10%547.50$
Total (d)6,022.50$ 6,022.50$
TOTAL (a through d)94,052.50$
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Bridging Documents (35% Design)Bridging Documents (35% Design)Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Confidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 8 of 15 TASK 400
Proposal Number 1
Task 400 Labor Detail Bridging Documents (35% Design)Project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Direct Labor Costs
Staffing Principal Sr Project Mrg Sr Engineer Engineer II Pipe Designer Technician III Drafter Clerical 0
Labor Code In Charge 0 0 0 Specialist Designer III 0 0 0
Rate 200.00$ 180.00$ 165.00$ 135.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 95.00$ 75.00$ -$
Hours 5.0 16.0 90.0 90.0 84.0 290.0 48.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,000.00$ 2,880.00$ 14,850.00$ 12,150.00$ 13,440.00$ 39,150.00$ 4,560.00$ -$ -$
Labor Detail
Drawings: As-Built, Flow Diagrams, P&ID 4 32 60
Central Plant Heat Exchanger 4 40 32 60 16
BTU Meters 4 20 40 80 16
User Standard connection 4 20 40 80 16
Administrative
Travel time, 5 trips from 10 10 20 10
Travel time, 0 trips from
Management & QC 5
PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Bridging Documents (35% Design)Bethel Heat Recovery Evaluation Study
Confidential Information
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
www.Coffman.com
907-276-6664 T 907-276-5042 F Page 9 of 15 Task 400 Labor Detail
Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model
Project Description
Community
Nearest Fuel Community
Region
RE Technology
Project ID
Applicant Name
Project Title
Results
NPV Benefits $103,541,793.52
NPV Capital Costs $18,609,529
B/C Ratio 5.56
NPV Net Benefit $86,000,528
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year -
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh -
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 1,200,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 24,000,000
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 12,180
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 243,600
Proposed System Unit Value
Capital Costs $23,250,000$
Project Start year 2017
Project Life years 20
Displaced Electric kWh per year
Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 1,200,000
Displaced Transportation gallons displaced per year
Renewable Generation O&M $ per kWh
Electric Capacity kW
Electric Capacity Factor %
Heating Capacity Btu/hr
Heating Capacity Factor %
Total Public Benefit 2013$ (Total over the life of the project)
Base System Unit Value
Diesel Generator O&M $ per kWh 0.020$
Applicant's Diesel Generator
Efficiency kWh per gallon
Diesel Generation Efficiency kWh per gallon 12.50
Parameters Unit Value
Heating Fuel Premium $ per gallon -$
Transportation Fuel Premium $ per gallon -$
Discount Rate % per year 3%
Crude Oil $ per barrel EIA Mid
Natural Gas $ per mmBtu
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC)
Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery System
Bethel
Rural
Heat Recovery
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Annual Cost Savings Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year -$ 9,000,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$
Electric Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ 6,879,746$ 6,829,624$ 6,855,248$ 6,950,849$ 7,057,466$ 7,179,758$ 7,304,078$ 7,436,870$ 7,559,399$ 7,671,265$ 7,761,773$ 7,881,087$ 7,975,076$ 8,075,554$ 8,158,174$ 8,270,461$ 8,398,896$ 8,524,640$ 8,643,608$ 8,762,658$ -$
Transportation Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ 6,879,746$ 6,829,624$ 6,855,248$ 6,950,849$ 7,057,466$ 7,179,758$ 7,304,078$ 7,436,870$ 7,559,399$ 7,671,265$ 7,761,773$ 7,881,087$ 7,975,076$ 8,075,554$ 8,158,174$ 8,270,461$ 8,398,896$ 8,524,640$ 8,643,608$ 8,762,658$ -$
Net Benefit $ per year $0 $0 $0 ($2,120,254)$6,079,624 $6,105,248 $6,200,849 $6,307,466 $6,429,758 $6,554,078 $6,686,870 $6,809,399 $6,921,265 $7,011,773 $7,131,087 $7,225,076 $7,325,554 $7,408,174 $7,520,461 $7,648,896 $7,774,640 $7,893,608 $8,012,658 $0
$4,709,370 $12,934,872 $13,056,097 $13,258,315 $13,487,224 $13,733,836 $13,990,948 $14,246,269 $14,480,665 $14,683,039 $14,892,860 $15,106,163 $15,300,630 $15,483,727 $15,678,635 $15,919,357 $16,173,536 $16,418,248 $16,656,266
Electric Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Renewable Generation kWh per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Renewable O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Generation Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Price $ per gallon 6.35$ 6.06$ 5.90$ 5.73$ 5.69$ 5.71$ 5.79$ 5.88$ 5.98$ 6.09$ 6.20$ 6.30$ 6.39$ 6.47$ 6.57$ 6.65$ 6.73$ 6.80$ 6.89$ 7.00$ 7.10$ 7.20$ 7.30$ 7.40$
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Base Generation Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Heating Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Renewable Heat gallons displaced per year - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 -
Entered Value Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Renewable Heat O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fuel Use gallons per year - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 -
Fuel Cost $ per gallon 6.35$ 6.06$ 5.90$ 5.73$ 5.69$ 5.71$ 5.79$ 5.88$ 5.98$ 6.09$ 6.20$ 6.30$ 6.39$ 6.47$ 6.57$ 6.65$ 6.73$ 6.80$ 6.89$ 7.00$ 7.10$ 7.20$ 7.30$ 7.40$
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Annual Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ 6,879,745.85$ 6,829,624.07$ 6,855,247.93$ 6,950,848.88$ 7,057,466.06$ 7,179,757.81$ 7,304,078.47$ 7,436,869.69$ 7,559,399.40$ 7,671,265.27$ 7,761,773.24$ 7,881,086.71$ 7,975,076.27$ 8,075,553.68$ 8,158,173.59$ 8,270,461.46$ 8,398,896.02$ 8,524,640.05$ 8,643,608.44$ 8,762,657.83$ -$
Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ 6,879,745.85$ 6,829,624.07$ 6,855,247.93$ 6,950,848.88$ 7,057,466.06$ 7,179,757.81$ 7,304,078.47$ 7,436,869.69$ 7,559,399.40$ 7,671,265.27$ 7,761,773.24$ 7,881,086.71$ 7,975,076.27$ 8,075,553.68$ 8,158,173.59$ 8,270,461.46$ 8,398,896.02$ 8,524,640.05$ 8,643,608.44$ 8,762,657.83$ -$
Transportation Units 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Renewable Transportation Use gallons displaced per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs ($)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Proposed Transportation Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Transportation Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transportation Fuel Cost $ per gallon 6.35$ 6.06$ 5.90$ 5.73$ 5.69$ 5.71$ 5.79$ 5.88$ 5.98$ 6.09$ 6.20$ 6.30$ 6.39$ 6.47$ 6.57$ 6.65$ 6.73$ 6.80$ 6.89$ 7.00$ 7.10$ 7.20$ 7.30$ 7.40$
Entered Value Scheduled Repairs ($)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Entered Value O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Annual Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Base Transportation Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Base
Proposed
Base
Proposed
Base
Proposed