HomeMy WebLinkAbout092214_AEA - Clearwater Creek Hydro - REF Round VIII
September 22, 2014
Alaska Energy Authority
AEA 15003 Renewable Energy Grant Application
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase II Grant Application
AEA 15003 Renewable Energy Grant Application
Dear AEA:
Enclosed in response to RFA AEA 15003 Renewable Energy Grant Application
program, is an application requesting funding for the Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project for
Phase II & III activities.
If you have any questions, please call either Glen Martin (Resource Assessment &
Permits) 360-385-1733 x122, Karl Wood (Grant Funds Administrator) 360-385-1733
x128, or Bob Grimm (President) 360-385-1733 x120.
Sincerely,
Glen D. Martin
Resource Assessment & Permits
Enc. (as stated)
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Application Forms and Instructions
This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for
Round VIII of the Renewable Energy Fund. A separate application form is available for projects
with a primary purpose of producing heat (see RFA section 1.5). This is the standard form for all
other projects, including projects that will produce heat and electricity. An electronic version of the
Request for Applications (RFA) and both application forms is available online at:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html.
• If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the
Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org.
• If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms
for each project.
• Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones
and grant budget for each phase of the project.
• In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit
recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC
107.605(1).
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
• If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your
submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
• In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided, often under the section
heading. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient space for
the information, or attach additional sheets if needed.
REMINDER:
• Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
• All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations
are made to the legislature.
• In accordance with 333 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data
be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want information
is to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential.
If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in
accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request.
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Power Company (APC) – A Subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone Co. (AP&T)
Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End:
Utility December, 2014
Tax ID #92-0153693
Tax Status: ☒ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☐ Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: April, 2014 (Available in AP&T Annual Report)
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
Jason Custer [Same]
136 Misty Marie Lane
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-225-1950 x 29 907-225-6450 Jason.c@aptalaska.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name: Title:
Jason Custer -- Business Development Director, Alaska Power & Telephone
Mailing Address:
Jason Custer
136 Misty Marie Lane
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: Fax: Email:
907-225-1950 x 29 907-225-6450 Jason.c@aptalaska.com
1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Glen Martin 360-385-1733 x 122 Glen.m@aptalaska.com
Karl Wood 360-385-1733 x 128 Karl.w@aptalaska.com
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
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)
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
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.
Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project in the subsections below.
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact AEA
at 907-771-3031.
Google Map Coordinates: 63.1513.-143.198217
Approximately 15 miles south of Tok, Alaska
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok,
Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.50 kwh
pricing for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour.1
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit from the presence of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if
Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit
from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent
on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.69 / kwh pricing
for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour 2.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐ Wind ☐ Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
☒ Hydro, Including Run of River ☐ Hydrokinetic
☐ Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐ Transmission of Renewable Energy
1 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
2 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
☐ Solar Photovoltaic ☐ Storage of Renewable
☐ Other (Describe) ☐ Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Final Design and Permitting
☒ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐ Construction
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project.
Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests
$413,600 in AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII grant funding support for Phase II Feasibility
/ Conceptual Design activities for the Clearwater Creek hydropower project, and proposes a match
of $100,400 in private funds supplied by AP&T / APC; an additional $8,000 in-kind 3 is being
provided, making APC’s contribution 21%. The proposed project is a 1 MW run-of-river
hydroelectric project on Clearwater Creek, which is located approximately 15 miles southwest of the
community of Tok on the Tok-Cutoff Highway (Glenn Highway). The project would supply
approximately 3.4 GWh annually to Tok and surrounding interconnected communities. Clearwater
Creek’s project features would consist of a small diversion structure, a 1 MW generating system
(Turgo turbine), approximately 20,000 feet of penstock, an open tailrace channel, substation,
approximately 5 miles of access road, and a distribution line. The project would interconnect with
the Tok region grid via a 14-mile transmission connection made utilizing existing highway right-of-
way (ROW).
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced
fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.)
The 1 MW Clearwater Creek hydropower project will significantly reduce the cost of electricity in
the Tok service area, which also includes the communities of Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. These
communities are currently 100% dependent upon diesel-fired generation, and pay energy costs of
$0.50 kWh (before PCE).4 It is anticipated that with State AEA support, the Clearwater Creek project
can provide clean, affordable energy at 50% the cost of diesel-fired generation in year one of
operations, with cost savings increasing long term as the cost of diesel fuel continues to rise.
It is anticipated that this project would be developed subsequent to the more advanced Yerrick Creek
hydropower project as a follow-up increment of hydropower for the Tok service region. The Yerrick
Creek hydropower project will supplant 40% of diesel-fired generation. Clearwater Creek would
supplant 31% of the region’s current diesel-fired generation, or approximately 50% of the diesel-fired
generation remaining after Yerrick Creek’s completion. The two projects would be complimentary
(not redundant) components of a future renewable-dominated Tok regional utility grid.
AEA Econometric Workbook Outputs:
3 $5,000 for Phase I and $3,000 for Phase II in equipment (stream gauge).
4 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Note: Period of analysis for the above calculations is 50 years. However, hydropower projects have
a useful life of over 100 years, which would effectively double these numbers.
Additional Project Benefits:
Will reduce energy costs by providing more affordable clean energy. Current
estimates indicate the project may be able to supply energy for half of the cost of
diesel-fired generation. Estimates will be refined subsequent to the completion of the
proposed scope of work.
Replaces approximately 31% of diesel-fired generation of electricity in the Tok and
Upper Tanana Region with clean, renewable hydropower. (50% of diesel-fired
generation remaining after completion of Yerrick Creek.)
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these
communities will also benefit. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and
Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project.
All these communities are served by APC and are currently 100% dependent upon
diesel generation.
State PCE statistics indicate the 58.2% of total kWh sold in FY13 are PCE-eligible
kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE
subsidization savings, with approximately 41.8% of cost-savings being realized by
current ratepayers.5
Helps to support the State of Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025.
5 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
Results
NPV Benefits $15,957,327.33
NPV Capital Costs $9,588,161
B/C Ratio 1.66
NPV Net Benefit $6,369,166
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 3,400,000
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 170,000,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 242,857
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 12,142,857
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 2,465
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 123,250
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Will stabilize energy prices long term by reducing dependency upon diesel fuel – a
volatile commodity with pricing which escalates significantly faster than inflation.
By replacing diesel-fired generation, the project will reduce emissions, avoid “social
cost of carbon” costs, and will reduce ambient noise associated with operation of
diesel-fired generators in Tok.
Leverages private investment in the regional energy market, allowing the private
sector to share project development costs and risks.
Reduces operating costs for resident businesses, supporting retention, growth and
expansion.
Supports new economic development and resource development activities in the
upper Tanana region. (Ex: growth of value-added manufacturing of forest products
from locally harvested timber, and ancillary loads associated with an expanding local
workforce.)
Reduces operating expenses for local schools, medical facilities, and other non-profit
organizations, helping to support long-term sustainability.
Provides enhanced stability to the regional utility system.
Allows Tok and the surrounding Upper Tanana region to “home source” its energy
supply from local, renewable sources, reducing fuel purchases from outside of the
community, and allowing more wealth to remain and recirculate within the
community.
Reduces dependence on foreign oil.
Displaces 242,857 gallons of diesel fuel per year, or 12.1 million gallons during the
project’s initial 50-year period of operations.
Displaces 2,465 tons of carbon dioxide per year, avoiding 123,250 tons of carbon
dioxide over the project’s initial 50-year period of operation. This is equivalent to
approximately $10.4m in Social Cost of Carbon savings. (Calculated using the
average of all four federal calculation methodologies specified by the US Interagency
Working Group for Social Cost of Carbon, as required for US EO 12866 review.)
Hydropower projects have 100-year-plus lifespans, which means that total savings
will be twice that displayed above (or higher, depending on future SCC valuations).
Reduces the need to transport fuel from Fairbanks to Tok, lowering the potential for
leaks and spills along the Alaska Highway. Transferring fuel from a supply truck to
APC’s storage tank would be less frequent, reducing the potential for spills during
fueling, and keeping groundwater safer for the area.
APC is also working to complete the Yerrick Creek hydropower project, and has prioritized Yerrick
Creek project for completion and commissioning in 2016. Clearwater Creek would serve as the
subsequent increment of hydro for the Tok region, which would help further reduce the cost of energy,
and provide energy needed for continued economic growth within the Tok community. APC owns
and operates the existing Tok region grid, including all transmission, distribution, and generation
equipment.
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
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.
APC anticipates needing $517,000 for Phase II activities. APC is seeking $413,600 in AEA REF
Round VIII grant funding for Phase II activities, which would be matched by $100,400 in private
funds supplied by AP&T / APC. APC is also supplying $3,000 in in-kind funding in the form of a
stream gauge to bring the total contribution to $103,400. Previously utilized funds of $5,000 for
reconnaissance brings APC’s total commitment to $108,400, or 21% matching funding.
APC investment to date (estimated $5,000) has funded initial reconnaissance activities, including:
stream flow investigation and analysis; preliminary economic benefit and financial modelling; a
review of existing studies, reports, and literature; and filing for and receiving a FERC Non-
Jurisdictional Determination. FERC issued the Non-Jurisdictional Decision in July 2012.
AEA APC APC In-Kind
Funds
Phase Grant Funds Matching Funds Total
I – Reconnaissance (1) $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
II – Feasibility/Conceptual Design (2) $413,600 $100,400 $3,000 $517,000
III - Design and Permitting $320,000 $80,000 $400,000
IV – Construction $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $15,000,000
Total $8,733,600 $7,180,400 $8,000 $15,922,000
(1) APC conducted a site reconnaissance in 2012.
(2) APC stream gauge equipment.
Depending upon outcomes of Phase II activities, APC anticipates funding future project activities
through a combination of private debt/equity, and would seek to utilize grant programs including the
AEA REF program to provide affordably-priced clean energy for ratepayers in the Tok region.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Costs for the Current Phase Covered by this Grant
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $413,600
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $100,400
1. New Match to New State Investment: N/A
2. Match to Date: [$5,000 (Phase I)]
3. Funds currently available: Matching funds will come from APC’s O&M budget
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $3,000
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $None Identified
2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $517,000
Other items for consideration
2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved NA
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.7 Total Project Cost
Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section 4.4.4, including
estimates through construction.
$15,922,000
2.7.8 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not
covered by the project but required for the Grant
Only applicable to construction phase projects
Does not Apply
2.7.9 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)
The economic model used by AEA is available at
www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. This
economic model may be used by applicants but is not
required. Other economic models developed by the
applicant may be used, however the final benefit/cost
ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to ensure
a level playing field for all applicants.
AEA model displays:
$16m NPV Benefits
$9.5m NPV Capital Costs
BCR of 1.66
NPV Net Benefit of $6.3m
(See below.)
(See
2.7.10 Other Public Benefit
If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please
provide that number here and explain how you
calculated that number in Section 5 below.
State PCE statistics indicate the
58.2% of total kWh sold in
FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if
this ratio holds true, the State of
Alaska would realize significant
PCE subsidization savings, with
approximately 41.8% of cost-
savings being realized by
current ratepayers.6
See below for social cost of
carbon and fuel displacement
statistics.
6 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA Econometric Workbook Outputs:
Note: Period of analysis for the above calculations is 50 years. However, hydropower projects have
a useful life of over 100 years, which would effectively double these numbers.
Displaces 2,465 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, avoiding 123,250 metric tons of carbon
dioxide over the project’s initial 50-year period of operation. This is equivalent to approximately
$10.4m in Social Cost of Carbon savings. (Calculated using the average of all four federal calculation
methodologies specified by the US Interagency Working Group for Social Cost of Carbon, as required
for US EO 12866 review.) Hydropower projects have 100-year-plus lifespans, which means that total
savings will be twice that displayed above (or higher, depending on future SCC valuations).
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume
and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate
PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the
applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management
support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government
entity, state that in this section.
Results
NPV Benefits $15,957,327.33
NPV Capital Costs $9,588,161
B/C Ratio 1.66
NPV Net Benefit $6,369,166
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 3,400,000
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 170,000,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 242,857
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 12,142,857
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 2,465
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 123,250
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Project Management Team:
Resume and references attached.
Greg Mickelson – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Project Manager
907-755-4822
greg.m@aptalaska.com
Vern Neitzer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Engineer
Vern.n@aptalaska.com
907-983-2202
Larry Coupe – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Civil Engineer
Larry.c@aptalaska.com
360-385-1733 x155
Bob Berreth – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Senior Electrical Engineer
Bob.b@aptalaska.com
360-385-1733 x 123
Glen Martin – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Co-Grant Writer
360-385-1733 x 122
Glen.M@aptalaska.com
Jason Custer – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Business Development Director
907-225-1950 x 33
Jason.c@aptalaska.com
Karl Wood – Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Grant Administrator
360-385-1733 x128
Additional APC senior engineers and project managers can be used as needed to assist
with management and execution of the project.
Greg Mickelson, APC’s V.P. of Power Operations will be the Project Manager for all phases of
work. Mr. Mickelson is an engineer with extensive experience in project management and
electrical generation, transmission and distribution. Mr. Mickelson has been a part of APC’s team
for over 30 years and has been an essential part of their success. He has overseen numerous
projects that have also had grant funding and is familiar with procedures put in place for their use.
Mr. Mickelson’s resume is enclosed.
APC’s personnel will conduct all Phase II engineering work and will utilize contractors for the
environmental studies in Phase II. Resumes of key personnel are enclosed.
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
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.
Phase I: Reconnaissance: Completed 2012
Initial reconnaissance and non-jurisdictional determination request filed with FERC. FERC
determined a federal license was not required.
Phase II: Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design: 2015-2016
In 2015, after AEA Round VIII funding is released to the project, the following would occur:
PHASE II MILESTONES
PHASE II - Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date
Agency Consultation Consult with Agencies & file for permits
to conduct studies 07/01/15 12/01/16
Site Visit by Engineering APC engineering team inspects project
site for conceptual design and studies 08/01/15 09/30/15
Stream gage installation
& maintenance
APC installs their stream gauge and
downloads data and maintains as
needed for two years
08/01/15 08/01/17
Wetland delineation Contractor hired to conduct study 06/01/16 08/31/16
TES botanical survey Contractor hired to conduct study 06/01/16 08/31/16
Fish survey Contractor hired to conduct study 08/01/15 10/31/16
Wildlife Survey (Avian) Contractor hired to conduct study 05/01/16 08/31/16
Water quality sampling Quarterly sampling regime 08/01/15 10/01/16
Cultural Resource
Survey Contractor hired to conduct study 06/01/16 08/31/16
Topographic mapping Contractor hired to conduct study 08/01/15 10/31/16
Feasibility Analysis &
Conceptual Design
APC will conduct an analysis of the
collected data for project feasibility and
develop a conceptual design and then
provide a draft and final reports for AEA
10/01/16 12/31/16
A bar schedule of the expected feasibility analysis and conceptual design sequence is provided below
along with the entire development sequence; activities funded by this grant will be Phase II activities
only.
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
FIGURE 1: TIMELINE FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
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.
APC: APC will manage the grant. APC has been providing power to Alaskan communities since
1957. Since then, from only a handful of employees, APC has grown to 134 employee-owners (all
of AP&T) who provide electrical service to 24 communities. APC has experience with renewable
resources after constructing 4 hydroelectric projects in S.E. Alaska and experimenting with a
hydrokinetic turbine in the Yukon River. APC owns and operates 7 hydroelectric projects in
Southeast Alaska and has extensive experience with the integration between diesel generation and
renewable energy generation. One of APC’s service centers is in Tok where diesel generation
supplies power to Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, and Dot Lake. Other small nearby grids such as the (1)
Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta, and (2) Northway-Northway Village-Northway Junction are also served
by APC, but are currently not connected to Tok. APC has power linemen, engineers, accounting and
bookkeeping personnel in Tok as well as at the APC corporate headquarters in Port Townsend,
Washington for managing the grant, managing field studies, feasibility analysis, conceptual design,
permitting, and final design as well as operating and maintaining a hydropower project.
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
PHASE I: Reconnassaince
Reconnaissance (completed)
PHASE II: Resource Assement/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design
Agency Consultation/Permitting
Resource Assessment (studies)
Stream Gauging
Topographic Mapping
Feasibility & Conceptual Design
PHASE III: Final Design and Permitting
Permitting
Final Design
PHASE IV: Construction
Order Materials
Mobilization
Access Road
Diversion & Intake
Penstock
Generating Equipment Procurement
Powerhouse
Install Distribution Line
Test and Start-Up
LEGEND:<-- Procurement and off-site fabrication <-- On-site construction
2020
CLEARWATER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCHEDULE
20192015201620172018
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
APC has personnel certified as electrical, civil, and mechanical engineers who maintain existing
facilities to the highest professional standards. APC has a consistent history of excellent performance
in reliability, customer service, and a long-standing reputation for being a low cost provider of electric
service. Additionally, APC is committed to transitioning from fossil fuel power generation to
renewable energy.
APC’s budgets have included several 50% grant funded projects for installation of transmission lines
on Prince of Wales Island, and three RUS (Rural Utilities Service) 100% grants for the installation of
transmission lines from Tok to Tetlin and Haines to Lutak, and communities along the Haines
Highway.
APC’s engineering staff has been involved in the design, construction and operation of hydroelectric
projects since the 1980’s. APC currently maintains over 250 miles of transmission line and has
seasoned staff to maintain diesel generators and hydro power plants. APC has administrators
responsible for multi-million dollar budgets, including the management of 60+ employees,
equipment, and all generation and distribution resources.
Resumes of key APC Staff are enclosed.
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.
APC proposes to provide quarterly reports to AEA regarding the status of the work and use of the
grant funds. APC will be glad to respond promptly to any AEA questions, and is pleased to consider
any reasonable reporting method preferred by the AEA.
APC has a strong and enduring track record of accurate and timely reporting for grants provided by
the AEA and other agencies over the past decade, and is capable of producing necessary reports and
responding to AEA questions in a timely and reliable manner.
As previously mentioned, Karl Wood will be the grant administrator responsible for filing quarterly
reports and funding reimbursements. Additional AP&T administrative staff can be utilized as
necessary.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
APC currently owns and operates 7 hydropower projects in Alaska, with an 8th (Reynolds Creek)
scheduled for near-term construction. APC believes that for the following reasons, risks and costs
can be minimized:
Experience designing, constructing, and operating similar small hydropower projects in
Alaska
Longstanding vendor, technical service, supply chain relationships and industry knowledge
and their incumbent project development resources
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Has a strong understanding of risks through development/construction experience, as well as
an understanding of the processes involved in creating a durable hydropower asset capable of
50+ years of reliable, safe operation
Experience with assisting other utilities with hydropower development activities on a
contractual basis.
Activities currently proposed for AEA REF Round VIII funding support will include pre-
development activities which assist in identifying and mitigating risks through a feasibility analysis
and conceptual design.
Typical risks of developing a hydropower project in the Tok region which may apply to Clearwater
are described below.
Inclement Weather – Working conditions in Alaska’s interior can be very harsh during the winter.
The proposed construction schedule assumes little/no work at the project site during winter months.
If it appears likely that a harsh winter would occur and extend for an unusually long time period, APC
and its contractor(s) can consider options such as double-shift work during long summer days, or
completing limited work during winter months.
Cost-Overrun – APC believes that its experience constructing similar small hydropower projects in
Alaska and its mature supply chain relationships shall minimize cost-overrun risks, and inform
determination of a reasonable contingency margin.
Environmental Opposition – No environmental opposition to the project is known. However, there
is significant environmental opposition to continued diesel-fired generation in the Tok region, which
will be addressed through development of the project.
Risks of Non-Development – Failing to develop the renewable energy assets due to lack of interest
or support by the State of Alaska and others will leave the residents of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and
Dot Lake dependent on a significant amount of diesel-fired generation of electricity. If diesel-
dependency persists, these communities can expect exacerbated socioeconomic distress, continued
lack of economic opportunity, long term job loss, continued population outmigration, and the inability
to respond to emerging commercial opportunities and support new economic development.
3.6 Project Accountant(s)
Tell us who will be performing the accounting of this Project for the Grantee and include contact
information, a resume and references for the project accountant(s). In the electronic submittal, please
submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting
of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you intend to
solicit project management support.
Enclosed is a resume for Karl Wood, Financial Analyst and Grant Administrator for APC.
If needed, supplemental accounting assistance can be supplied by APC.
3.7 Financial Accounting System
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Discuss the accounting system that will be used to account for project costs and whom will be the
primary user of the accounting system.
APC is a regulated utility, and is required to track and substantiate expenses in a manner which is
acceptable to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. APC is also accustomed to maintaining project
records in a manner which is acceptable to the AEA, and the State of Alaska, for grant-funded
projects. Thus, APC is accustomed to maintaining data on utility costs and expenditures which meets
with a very high standard in terms of assuring that expenses are reasonable, ordinary, and necessary.
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.
APC is a regulated utility, and is required to track and substantiate expenses in a manner which is
acceptable to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Thus, APC is accustomed to maintaining data
on utility costs and expenditures which meets with a very high standard in terms of assuring that
expenses are reasonable, ordinary, and necessary.
APC is a private sector business which is accustomed to managing and controlling costs in order to
maximize value and return on investment while ensuring sustainable benefits.
ECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with
grant funds.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an
advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are
satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe the
resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide
feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments
to this application.
Work on Previous Phases:
The following documents are enclosed for AEA to demonstrate that sufficient reconnaissance work
has been completed to support issuance of a FERC non-jurisdictional determination.
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. July 2012. Order Finding License Not Required.
• Alaska Power Company. March 2012. Request for a Jurisdictional Determination by FERC.
Feasibility analysis and conceptual design still needs to occur to determine if this project should
continue to the final design and construction phases. With the release of State REF Round VIII funds,
Phase II activities can begin.
Amount of Energy Available, and Pros and Cons of Project:
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
The 1 MW Clearwater Creek hydropower project has the estimated potential to provide 3,400,000
average annual kilowatt hours (aKWH) of affordable, renewable energy to Tok and surrounding
communities (Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake), which are currently 100% dependent upon diesel-
fired generation, which produces energy costs of $0.50 / kWh (before PCE).7 These communities are
currently served by Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone
(AP&T). This project is located entirely on lands owned by the State of Alaska, and received a FERC
non-jurisdictional determination in 2012, eliminating the need for a more expensive and time-
consuming FERC licensing process.
The project will eliminate use of 242,857 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year operating life,
avoiding a total of 12.1m gallons of diesel fuel over its initial 50 year period of operations. The
project would help replace approximately 31% of the region’s diesel-fired generation of electricity
with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact source, helping to support the State of
Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025.
AEA Econometric Workbook Outputs:
Note: Period of analysis for the above calculations is 50 years. However, hydropower projects have
a useful life of over 100 years, which would effectively double these numbers.
APC is also working to complete the Yerrick Creek hydropower project, and has prioritized Yerrick
Creek project for completion and commissioning in 2016. Clearwater Creek would serve as the
subsequent increment of hydro for the Tok region, which would help further reduce the cost of energy,
and provide energy needed for continued economic growth within the Tok community.
7 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
Results
NPV Benefits $15,957,327.33
NPV Capital Costs $9,588,161
B/C Ratio 1.66
NPV Net Benefit $6,369,166
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 3,400,000
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 170,000,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 242,857
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 12,142,857
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 2,465
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 123,250
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become
connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. Due to current 100% dependency on diesel-
fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power Cost Equalization
subsidization savings.
State PCE statistics indicate the 58.2% of total kWh sold in FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio
holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with
approximately 41.8% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.8
Lowers Energy Costs. It is currently estimated that the project will be able to produce clean energy
for half of the cost of diesel-fired generation of electricity. Over time, annual savings will increase
as the cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over stabile hydropower pricing.
Stabilizes Energy Costs Long Term. The project will stabilize local energy costs by reducing
dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalate faster than the rate of
inflation. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low compared to that those
associated with diesel-fired generation.
Long Project Lifespan with Additional Cost-Savings Available Beyond Capital Cost
Repayment – The project has an estimated useful life of over 50 years. Properly constructed
hydropower sites can provide over 100+ years of reliable service. (For example, APC’s Dewey Lakes
hydropower project has been operating for 109 years.) After the financing period is complete and
capital costs are paid off, the cost of maintaining and operating a hydropower project drops to very
low levels.
Diesel Fuel Displacement Benefit. The project will displace approximately 31% of the region’s
diesel-fired generation of electricity with clean, renewable hydropower from a local, low-impact
source. The project will eliminate use of 242,857 gallons of diesel fuel per year for a 50+ year
operating life, avoiding a total of 12.1m gallons of diesel fuel during the project’s first 50 years of
operations. The project displaces 2,465 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (plus 62 tons of NOx),
avoiding 123,250 metric tons of carbon dioxide (plus 3,100 tons of NOx) over the project’s initial 50-
year period of operation. This is equivalent to approximately $10.4m in Social Cost of Carbon
savings. (Calculated using the average of all four federal calculation methodologies specified by the
US Interagency Working Group for Social Cost of Carbon, as required for US EO 12866 review.)
Hydropower projects have 100-year-plus lifespans, which means that total savings will be twice that
displayed above (or higher, depending on future SCC valuations).
Supports State Renewable Energy Policy Goals. By supplanting diesel-fired generation with clean,
renewable hydropower, the project will help to support the State of Alaska’s goal of 50% renewable
energy by 2025.
8 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
No Difficulties with Power Sales Agreements – The project is being proposed by APC, the
incumbent utility, as a self-build project. This eliminates uncertainty regarding the possibility of
achieving a power purchase agreement with the incumbent utility.
Avoids Costly, Time-Consuming Federal Permitting Requirements. The project is located on
State lands and has received a non-jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), making it possible to develop this low-impact hydropower project in a timely
fashion without undergoing lengthy federal permitting processes through FERC.
Benefits Communities which are Still 100% Diesel Dependent. The project will benefit the
interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot
Lake. Unlike other communities in Alaska, Tok and surrounding communities of the upper Tanana
region have not yet had the opportunity to transition from 100% diesel-fired generation to an energy
mix including renewables. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.50 kWh pricing
for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour.
Potential to Extend Benefit to Additional Communities -- If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid
becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit from the presence of the
Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway
Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project. All of these communities
are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently
available AEA PCE report identifies $0.69 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average
PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour.
Generates Significant Power Cost Equalization Savings for the State of Alaska. Due to current
100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience significant Power
Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the 58.2% of total kWh sold in
the Tok service region in FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska
would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 41.8% of cost-savings being
realized by current ratepayers.9
A Reasonable Increment of Hydropower. Economic viability of many hydropower projects in
Alaska is challenged by the difficulty of matching the utility’s incremental load growth to the size of
locally available hydropower resources; this produces the frequently occurring situation in which a
portion of a project’s power and energy from a new hydropower project cannot be sold during initial
years of operation. Clearwater Creek is a small increment of power and energy, which APC
anticipates can be integrated within the regional utility system without these types of challenges to
economic and financial feasibility.
Experienced Hydropower Developer. APC has significant experience developing, owning, and
operating low impact hydropower projects, currently owning 7 hydropower projects: Dewey Lakes,
Lutak, Black Bear Lake, Goat Lake, South Fork, Kasidaya Creek, and Falls Creek. APC has
developed 4 new hydropower projects in Alaska in the last 20 years, with a 5th hydropower project
9 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
(Reynolds Creek) currently entering final construction. APC has over 50 years of experience as a
private sector Alaskan business engaged in ownership, development, and reliable operation of
hydropower projects. AP&T / APC have assisted a number of other Alaskan utilities with
hydropower and energy development projects on a contractual basis.
Support for State of Alaska Resource Development and Economic Development Policy. The
upper Tanana region is challenged by high energy costs, which limit economic development and
employment opportunities. While businesses are actively pursuing new value-adding opportunities
within the forest products sector and are conducting mining exploration activities, commercial
feasibility of these resource-driven opportunities is limited by high local energy costs. The current
situation creates constraints to realizing State of Alaska’s Natural Resource Policy, as defined in
Article 8 Section 1 of the State of Alaska Constitution, which is as follows: “It is the policy of the
State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them
available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.”
Existing Investment and Activity to Date. During the initial reconnaissance phase, APC spent
$5,000 for site inspection, one-time stream gaging for a benchmark, and filing of a FERC Non-
Jurisdictional Determination in 2012. APC also performed a review of existing studies, reports, and
literature, and conducted preliminary reconnaissance-level financial and economic analysis.
Willing Private Sector Investor. APC is very interested in participating as an equity investor in the
project, and is committing to develop and implement an economically and financially feasible
financing package. After economically and financially feasible loan terms can be negotiated, APC
would be in the position to make a final financial commitment to the project.
Disadvantage – Large Capital Expenditure Requirement. The major drawback of hydropower
projects is that they are extremely capital intensive. While hydropower projects have very long useful
lifespans (100+ years)10, commercial financing is typically available for a 30 year period at most.
Clearwater Creek is a relatively small increment of new hydropower (1 MW), which helps reduce the
total capital expenditure required.
Ease of Integration – Hydropower can be readily incorporated alongside diesel-fired generation
within a small utility system, with minimum integration concerns. APC believes that Clearwater
Creek would complement the Yerrick Creek hydropower project – another small hydropower project
which is currently scheduled for construction and completion in advance of Clearwater Creek.
Discussion of Energy Technology Alternatives in the Tok Region.
APC’s “Technology-Neutral” Approach for Lowering Energy Costs for Ratepayers:
APC utilizes a “technology neutral” approach, and considers all possible technologies which may
produce clean, reliable energy at a lower rate for the benefit of the ratepayers. While APC considers
solar, wind, river hydrokinetic, hydropower, biomass, and alternative fuels, the company ultimately
focuses on the opportunities which meet the criteria of providing ratepayers with the most affordable,
10 Current knowledge is based on how long hydropower has been utilized; these projects could just as well go 200+
years, or more.
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
reliable, and low-risk clean energy possible. After studying a wide variety of options, APC has
identified low impact hydropower options such as Clearwater Creek and Yerrick Creek as the
renewable energy options offering the best value to ratepayers within the Tok and upper Tanana
region.
Solar: Challenged by Intermittency – Solar power is an intermittent resource
which is only available when the sun is shining in sufficient quantity to produce
useable energy and power. Solar is not yet competitive with diesel-fired generation
in the Tok and Upper Tanana region; part of the reason for this is that even in the
presence of solar, dispatchable generation sources such as diesel power plants are still
needed to supply power to fully serve the local load at times when the sun is not
shining – for example, at night, during times of cloud-cover, and during the interior’s
long winters when hours of sunshine are scarce. Diesel power plants must still be
staffed, maintained, and operated – and so while installation of solar panels may
eliminate purchase of some diesel-fired generation, it does not reduce these “fixed
costs” incurred by the utility and its ratepayers. While storage and load-shaping
technology is available to help to mitigate intermittency, these technologies are not
yet commercially competitive versus the cost of diesel-fired generation.
There are also limits to the amount of intermittent resources which can be integrated
into a small, insular system before significant transmission line and other upgrades
are necessary to preserve system stability.
The article below, published by the Economist, looks at the costs of “intermittency,”
which are oftentimes not reflected in levelized energy costs or comparisons of solar
power versus other generation alternatives.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-
solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
Despite these challenges, APC is investigating new opportunities and business
models for deployment of solar in APC service regions. While solar deployment
may be economically feasible in future years as technology advances and diesel
costs continue to rise, the economics of the Clearwater Creek hydropower
project are currently estimated to be more attractive. Activities proposed for
funding through the REF Round VIII program should help provide more
information regarding the cost of hydropower from Clearwater vs. solar.
Wind: Challenged by Intermittency – Like solar, wind is an intermittent resource
which requires availability of dispatchable back-up from thermal or hydropower plant
sources, and can present significant integration challenges / expenses to small, insular
grid systems. APC is studying opportunities for wind deployment and integration in
its service regions – however, the economics of the Clearwater Creek hydropower
project are currently estimated to be more attractive. Activities proposed for
funding through the REF Round VIII program should help provide more
information regarding the cost of hydropower from Clearwater vs. wind.
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Biomass CHP: Challenged by Lack of Viable Market for Heat, and Fuel Supply
Risks – With the support of State funding, APC has studied the opportunity for a
commercial-scale biomass CHP power plant in the Tok and Upper Tanana region.
While studies found that biomass-fired generation of electricity is feasible,
hydropower projects such as Yerrick Creek and Clearwater Creek appear more
economically attractive than a biomass CHP plant, and offer a better value to
the Tok and upper Tanana region’s ratepayers, with significantly less risk. The
business case for biomass could be improved upon if a market can be found for the
heat produced by a CHP biomass power plant; however, no viable markets currently
exist. Other risks and challenges to biomass implementation in the Tok region
include securing a long-term timber supply which assures financially feasible
operations for a period coinciding with project financing, and obtaining assurances
of sufficient fuel quality. It would be necessary to find a supplier with the willingness
and financial means to commit to a long-term supply agreement which addresses
liquidated damages in the event that fuel of agreed-upon quality is not delivered in a
timely manner. Another consideration is fuel cost escalation that could occur over
time as nearby biomass is exhausted, creating a need to obtain fuel supply from
locations further away, at a higher cost of transportation.
LNG: Currently Challenged by Supply Availability, Economies of Scale, and
Technology Issues – While APC has investigated LNG options, an economically
viable business model for small-scale LNG has not yet been identified. Challenges
include lack of currently available supply, significant transportation/logistics
challenges, and lack of commercially viable and cost-competitive technology for
LNG storage and powerplants in a service area as small as Tok. Emissions from
natural-gas fired generation are lower than those from diesel-fired generation,
however, they are still considerably higher than emissions from hydropower
generation.
Diesel: A Costly and Unsustainable Energy Source – Tok and the upper Tanana
region are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired generation. This energy source
is very costly, with pricing escalating faster than inflation due to the rising price of
petroleum – a volatile commodity sensitive to a wide variety of supply risks and
political factors. The high cost of diesel-fired generation places financial pressure on
rural communities, businesses, and schools, forcing migration to other regions with a
more affordable cost of living and doing business. Diesel fuel expenditures are made
outside of the community Tok, resulting in ongoing financial leakage and attrition.
Diesel-fired generation also has high environmental costs, producing a significant
level of emissions and carbon, and carrying risks of fuel spills. Continued 100%
dependency on diesel-fired generation is not a sustainable way of life for
residents of the Tok and upper Tanana region. Residents in this service area have
been increasingly outspoken about the unsustainability of continued 100% reliance
on diesel-fired generation. However, diesel-fired generation does present advantages
in terms of dependability, dispatchability, and the ability to quickly respond to and
match load requirements. It is likely that diesel-fired generation will maintain some
presence within the Tok region’s energy mix until a commercially viable and
financially feasible thermal generation alternative becomes available.
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Other Hydropower Options – Yerrick Creek
APC and its partners Tanacross Inc. and the Native Village of Tanacross are also
working to complete the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. APC has prioritized
Yerrick Creek project for completion and commissioning in 2016, which means that
Yerrick Creek would be operational in advance of Clearwater Creek. Clearwater
Creek would serve as a subsequent increment of hydro for the Tok region, which
would help further reduce the cost of energy, and provide energy needed for continued
economic growth within the Tok community. The two projects would be
complimentary (not redundant) components of a future renewable-dominated Tok
regional utility grid.
APC believes it is timely to advance our understanding of the Clearwater Creek
hydropower project as the Yerrick Creek project proceeds through construction, so
that Clearwater can be developed subsequently, in a timely manner, to further increase
ratepayer and PCE savings.
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The existing electrical energy market in the Upper Tanana area consists of an isolated power grid
serving the communities of Tok, Tetlin, Dot Lake and Tanacross, as well as other, scattered rural
ratepayers. A diesel powerplant located in Tok supplies this small grid system.
The Tok powerplant is comprised of five diesel gensets:
Unit #3 = CAT Model D3516, 1320 kW, Purchased / Installed 1999
Unit #4 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1989
Unit #5 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW, Purchased / Installed 1995
Unit #8 = CAT/KATO Model D3508, 440 kW, Purchased / Installed 1985
Unit #9 = CAT/KATO Model 3512C, 1050 kW, Purchased / Installed 2008
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit from the presence of the Clearwater Creek project. Similarly, if Northway, Northway
Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this project.
All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel-fired
generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.69 / kwh pricing for these
service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt 11.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
11 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 24 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
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.
Existing power plant resources are described in section 4.2.1. above.
Existing potential renewable / alternative energy resources are discussed in section 4.1 above.
Clearwater Creek will not produce the types of system stability problems which could be produced
by attempting to integrate a high degree of intermittent resources such as wind and solar.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Existing Energy Use and Market
The project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including
Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake, as well as additional rural customers. The most recently
available AEA PCE report identifies $0.50 kWh pricing for this service region, with an average
PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour.
The figures below provide a characterization of this energy market:
i. Electricity [kWh] 10.9 GWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 778,571
Other NA
iii. Peak Load 2.2 MW
iv. Average Load 1.1 MW
v. Minimum Load 0.5 MW
vi. Efficiency 30%
vii. Future trends Transition to non-diesel sources, increased distributed generation
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit from the presence of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if
Northway, Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will
benefit from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100%
dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.69
/ kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt
hour.
Impacts upon Energy Customers
As discussed at length above, the high and rising cost of energy in these communities severely limits
economic opportunities; contributes to unemployment and population outmigration; places
pressures upon household budgets, as well as budgets of schools, community facilities, and
government entities; and inhibits realization of the State of Alaska’s natural resource policy goals.
Development of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project will help mitigate these conditions, and
AEA 15003 Page 25 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
create energy cost and economic parity between the Tok and upper Tanana region, and other areas
of Alaska.
Lowers Energy Costs. It is currently estimated that the project will be able to produce clean
energy for half of the cost of diesel-fired generation of electricity. Over time, annual savings
will increase as the cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over stabile hydropower pricing.
Stabilizes Energy Costs Long Term. The project will stabilize local energy costs by
reducing dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalate faster
than the rate of inflation. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low
compared to that those associated with diesel-fired generation.
Long Project Lifespan with Additional Cost-Savings Available Beyond Capital Cost
Repayment – The project has an estimated useful life of over 50 years. Properly constructed
hydropower sites can provide over 100+ years of reliable service. (For example, APC’s
Dewey Lakes hydropower project has been operating for 109 years.) After the financing
period is complete and capital costs are paid off, the cost of maintaining and operating a
hydropower project drops to very low levels.
Potential to Extend Benefit to Additional Communities – If the Slana-Chistochina-
Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit
from the presence of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway,
Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit
from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100%
dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies
$0.69 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per
eligible kilowatt hour.
Generates Significant Power Cost Equalization Savings for the State of Alaska. Due to
current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience
significant Power Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the
58.2% of total kWh sold in the Tok service region in FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio
holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with
approximately 41.8% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.12
4.3 Proposed System
Describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land
ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
Renewable Energy Technology: Run-of-river hydropower.
Optimum Installed Capacity: 1.0 MW
12 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 26 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Anticipated Annual Generation: 3,400,000 average annual kilowatt hours.
Capacity Factor: 38.9%
Integration Concept: The Clearwater Creek hydropower project will be integrated within the
incumbent Alaska Power Company utility system as an alternative to current diesel-fired generation.
The project will supplant 3,400,000 average annual kilowatt hours of diesel-fired generation, or
approximately 31% of the Tok region’s load.
Description of Project Features: The proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of a
1.0 MW generating system that will provide hydroelectric power to the isolated APC grid around
Tok; currently 100% reliant upon diesel generation. The project will have a small diversion structure,
approximately 20,000 feet of penstock and a powerhouse that will house one Turgo generating unit.
Diversion Structure – A small diversion structure approximately 300 feet long by 10 feet high that
will be rock fill with a concrete spillway and intake. The diversion will have a water surface at
approximately 2550 feet above MSL. The intake will convey water from the diversion structure pond
through a penstock to the powerhouse.
Penstock – The 24-inch-diameter ductile iron penstock will be buried a distance of approximately
20,000 feet to the powerhouse, at elevation 2050 feet.
Powerhouse – The 30-foot by 50-foot powerhouse will contain one 1,000 kW Turgo generating unit
with 500 feet gross head and a hydraulic capacity of 35 cfs.
Tailrace – An open tailrace channel will transport the turbine discharge back into Clearwater Creek
for a distance of approximately 400 feet.
Substation – A small substation to change the voltage to 34.5 kV will be placed adjacent to the
powerhouse.
Access Road – An existing 0.5 mile road into the Clearwater Campground will be used in addition
to an additional 0.5 mile to the powerhouse and 4 miles to the diversion structure. Current design
includes two bridges crossing the creek.
Transmission Line – The transmission line will follow the access road out to the highway, a distance
of 1.0 miles and will be buried in this stretch. At the highway, the distribution line will be place on
single wood pole structures of 45-55 feet in height. The distribution line will travel north to the Tok
grid, a distance of approximately 14 miles. The Tok grid is owned and operated by the
Applicant and is within the Applicant’s certificated service area.
This project will be a step toward energy independence for this remote area that is geographically
isolated and is reliant upon fossil fuel for its energy needs. This project will help to avoid the related
costs and air quality emissions associated with diesel generation.
AEA 15003 Page 27 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PROJECT LAYOUT
Delivery methods:
Project will deliver energy to Alaska Power Company via conventional distribution lines and
substations.
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.
This project’s features will be located entirely on lands owned by the State of Alaska. The project is
located in both the Tanana State Forest and the Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, both of
which are within the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Nearby native allotments can be
avoided.
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
AEA 15003 Page 28 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
APC received a FERC non-jurisdictional determination in 2012, eliminating the need for FERC
license.
The following permits will be necessary to construct this project:
• State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) – Land permit
• ADNR – Water Use Permit – won’t be issued until after operations begin
• State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game – Habitat Permit (is likely but not sure yet)
• ADNR – State Historical Preservation Office – Review of data and will provide a
determination of impacts or not.
• State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation – 401 Water Quality
Certification (they may waive with COE involvement)
• U.S. Army Corp of Engineers – 404 Certification (Nation Wide or Individual Permit)
Anticipated permitting timeline: Permitting activities would not be completed until Phase III,
subsequent to the Phase II activities proposed within the scope of this grant application.
Potential barriers: Weather is the single greatest potential barrier to accomplishing any tasks in this
part of Alaska.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
• Threatened or endangered species
• Habitat issues
• Wetlands and other protected areas
• Archaeological and historical resources
• Land development constraints
• Telecommunications interference
• Aviation considerations
• Visual, aesthetics impacts
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers
TES: APC will consult with USF&WS as to what concerns they may have in regards to avian species
in particular and terrestrial mammals as well. The project is small and should be able to avoid any
concerns.
Habitat: Fish habitat assessment will occur during this grant funded phase (Phase II). Other species
habitat will also be evaluated by the project biologist during field studies.
Wetlands: The project site will have a wetland delineation made by field study.
Archaeological / Historical: An archaeologist will be hired to conduct initially a literature review
and further evaluation as needed or required by SHPO. The historic “Eagle Trail” passes through the
project’s access road in the area of the state campground. Further review will occur during this grant
funded phase.
Land Development Constraints: The state campground could potentially produce constraints; this
will be determined as part of proposed Phase II activities.
AEA 15003 Page 29 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Telecommunications: This project will not affect telecommunications, but could enhance landline
telephone service south of Tok at a later date; would be separate from this project.
Aviation: Nothing in this grant funded phase will affect aviation. In the construction and operation
phase, the distribution line along the highway will generally be 45-55 feet tall, similar in height to
trees along the highway. For this reason, if the project is constructed there should be no obstruction
from the project to aviation. In addition, the project stops well short of an abandoned airport just
south of downtown Tok.
Visual: During this phase of grant funded effort, no visual impacts should occur. The powerhouse
and access road from the construction phase could have some visual impact to the campground, but
it is too early to know at this time when project design is only conceptual, at best. The distribution
line may be buried along the access road out to the highway to minimize this visual impact.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any
previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of
their cost data. For example: Applicants records or analysis, industry standards, consultant or
manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the
project. Cost information should include the following:
• Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
• Requested grant funding
• Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
• Identification of other funding sources
• Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
• Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
Anticipated Project costs (based on APC’s knowledge and experience at building hydroelectric
projects):
AEA APC APC In-Kind
Funds
Phase Grant Funds
Matching
Funds Total
I – Reconnaissance (1) $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
II – Feasibility/Conceptual Design
(2) $413,600 $100,400 $3,000 $517,000
III - Design and Permitting $320,000 $80,000 $400,000
IV – Construction $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $15,000,000
Total $8,733,600 $7,180,400 $8,000 $15,922,000
(1) APC conducted a site reconnaissance in 2012.
(2) APC stream gauge
equipment.
AEA 15003 Page 30 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Proposed Costs for Phase II: Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design
Phase II Milestones
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE - Funds
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
Consult with Agencies
& file for Permits to
conduct studies
July 2015 - Dec
2016 $20,000 $5,000 APC $25,000
Site Visit by
Engineering Aug-Sept 2015 $12,800 $3,200 APC $16,000
Conduct studies Aug 2015-Oct
2016
Stream gage
installation &
maintenance
Aug 2015 -Aug
2017 $40,000 $10,000 $3,000 $53,000
Wetland
delineation June-Aug 2016 $32,800 $8,200 APC $41,000
TES botanical
survey June-Aug 2016 $8,000 $2,000 APC $10,000
Fish survey Aug 2015-Oct
2016 $168,800 $42,200 APC $211,000
Wildlife Survey (Avian) May-Aug 2016 $16,000 $4,000 APC $20,000
Water quality
sampling
Aug 2015-Oct
2016 $12,000 $3,000 APC $15,000
Cultural Resource
Survey June-Aug 2016 $24,800 $6,200 APC $31,000
Topographic
mapping
Aug 2015-Oct
2016 $40,000 $10,000 APC $50,000
Feasibility Analysis Oct-Dec 2016 $16,000 $4,000 APC $20,000
Conceptual Design Oct-Dec 2016 $20,000 $5,000 APC $25,000
Totals July 2015 - Dec
2016 $411,200 $102,800 $3,000 $517,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor &
Benefits $102,400 $25,600 APC $128,000
Travel & Per Diem $6,400 $1,600 APC $8,000
Equipment $3,000 $3,000
Materials & Supplies $0
Contractual Services $302,400 $75,600 APC $378,000
Construction Services $0
Other $0
TOTALS $411,200 $102,800 $3,000 $517,000
AEA 15003 Page 31 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Requested Grant Funding: $413,600 (80% of total cost for Phase II)
Applicant Matching Funds: $100,400 (19.4% of total cost for Phase II)
$8,000 ($5,000 Phase I; $3,000 in-kind stream gauge Phase II)
$108,400 (total APC investment; 21%)
Other Funding Sources: Other funding sources have not been identified at this time. AP&T will
provide the $100,400 in matching funds for Phase II from its normal operating funds.
Projected Capital Cost of Renewable Energy System: $15,000,000 (assumed to be the cost of
Phase IV Construction)
Projected Development Cost of Proposed Renewable Energy System: $922,000 (assumed to
be the sum of Phase I, II, and III costs).
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the
applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities
they serve.)
The O&M cost for the Project is estimated to be approximately $100,000 per year. APC will
operate and maintain the Project with proceeds from sale of power to its customers. No grant
funding shall be requested for operation and maintenance.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
The customer for power is Alaska Power Company – the applicant requesting grant funds.
Potential sales price is currently estimated to be half the cost of diesel-fired generation in year 1 of
operations. This estimate will be refined and examined in further detail following the outcome of
Phase II activities.
Proposed Rate of Return from Grant-Funded Project:
The rate of return for Clearwater Creek would be regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
The project would generate a regulated return on private investment only, consistent with the rate of
return for similar APC projects. As a regulated utility, APC / AP&T is not permitted to earn a rate of
return on grant funds, or otherwise include grant funds in the rate base. APC would sell power at a
cost-based rate, consistent with AEA requirements.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
AEA 15003 Page 32 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Please fill out the form provided below.
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable
basis.
Annual average resource availability. 3,400,000 aKWH
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 13 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 5
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other Unit #3 = CAT Model D3516, 1320 kW,
Purchased / Installed 1999
Unit #4 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW,
Purchased / Installed 1989
Unit #5 = CAT/KATO Model 3516, 1135 kW,
Purchased / Installed 1995
Unit #8 = CAT/KATO Model D3508, 440 kW,
Purchased / Installed 1985
Unit #9 = CAT/KATO Model 3512C, 1050 kW,
Purchased / Installed 2008
iii. Generator/boilers/other type As noted above
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other As noted above
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 14 kwh per gallon of diesel (aggregate for all
generators)
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $80,000 (approximate)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $20,000 (approximate)
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] 10.9 GWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 778,571
Other NA
iii. Peak Load 2.2 MW
iv. Average Load 1.1 MW
v. Minimum Load 0.5 MW
13 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.
AEA 15003 Page 33 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
vi. Efficiency 30%
vii. Future trends Transition to non-diesel sources, increased distributed generation
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] NA
ii. Electricity [kWh] NA
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] NA
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] NA
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] NA
vi. Other NA
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
1 MW Run-of-River hydropower
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 3,400,000 aKWH
ii. Heat [MMBtu] NA
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] NA
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] NA
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
NA
iv. Other NA
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $15,000,000
b) Development cost $922,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $100,000 (approximately)
d) Annual fuel cost None
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity Estimated 242,857 gallons of diesel per year
ii. Heat NA
iii. Transportation NA
b) Current price of displaced fuel $4 / gallon – equivalent to $0.2857 / kwh
AEA 15003 Page 34 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
c) Other economic benefits $75,000 in deferred maintenance/replacement of
diesel generator at Tok power plant
d) Alaska public benefits Significant PCE savings for the State of Alaska. State
PCE statistics indicate the 58.2% of total kWh sold in
FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the
State of Alaska would realize significant PCE
subsidization savings, with approximately 41.8% of
cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.14
Social Cost of Carbon avoidance is calculated below.
AEA Econometric Workbook Outputs:
Note: Period of analysis for the above calculations is 50 years. However, hydropower projects have
a useful life of over 100 years, which would effectively double these numbers.
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale Currently estimated at half the cost of diesel-fire
generation, however, this is a reconnaissance-level
14 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
Results
NPV Benefits $15,957,327.33
NPV Capital Costs $9,588,161
B/C Ratio 1.66
NPV Net Benefit $6,369,166
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 3,400,000
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 170,000,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 242,857
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 12,142,857
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 2,465
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 123,250
AEA 15003 Page 35 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
estimate which will be revised subsequent to the
outcome of proposed Phase II activities.
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio AEA-generated BCR of 1.66
Payback (years) Currently estimated at 30 years based upon a 50 year project
period, divided by 1.66 BCR.
AEA Econometric Workbook Outputs:
Note: Period of analysis for the above calculations is 50 years. However, hydropower projects have
a useful life of over 100 years, which would effectively double these numbers.
Displaces 2,465 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, avoiding 123,250 metric tons of carbon
dioxide over the project’s initial 50-year period of operation. This is equivalent to approximately
$10.4m in Social Cost of Carbon savings. (Calculated using the average of all four federal
calculatation methodologies specified by the US Interagency Working Group for Social Cost of
Carbon, as required for US EO 12866 review.) Hydropower projects have 100-year-plus lifespans,
which means that total savings will be twice that displayed above (or higher, depending on future
SCC valuations).
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit
area. If the is for a PCE eligible utility please discuss what the expected impact would be for both
pre and post PCE.
State PCE Savings:
Results
NPV Benefits $15,957,327.33
NPV Capital Costs $9,588,161
B/C Ratio 1.66
NPV Net Benefit $6,369,166
Performance Unit Value
Displaced Electricity kWh per year 3,400,000
Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 170,000,000
Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 242,857
Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 12,142,857
Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year -
Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu -
Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 2,465
Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 123,250
AEA 15003 Page 36 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
PCE is a complex calculation with outputs which are a function of a variety of variables, including:
1) level of legislatively authorized appropriation; 2) the performance of the PCE endowment, and
level of investment income produced during a given period; 3) current power and energy prices in
“benchmark” communities used as a point of comparison, which in turn are determined by their own
unique set of variables; 4) the cost of diesel fuel.15 The extent to which PCE subsidization is
deployed in recipient communities is a function of the level of energy consumed by eligible
recipients, and in the case of “community facilities,” a function of local population. This makes it
difficult to forecast PCE savings. However, State PCE statistics indicate the 58.2% of total kWh
sold in the Tok region in FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio holds true, the State of Alaska
would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with approximately 41.8% of cost-savings
being realized by current ratepayers.16 Due to the fact that PCE subsidizes the first 500 kwh per
month of residential energy purchases, and the first 70 kwh per month x the community population of
community facility expenses, the State of Alaska is “at the front of the line” to experience cost savings
for PCE-eligible ratepayer classes. These PCE savings can be used to assist other, less fortunate
communities in other parts of Alaska.
The project will benefit the interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok,
Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.50 kWh
pricing for this service region, with an average PCE payment of $0.28 per eligible kilowatt hour.
If the Slana-Chistochina-Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities
will also benefit from the presence of the Yerrick Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway,
Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit from this
project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100% dependent on diesel-
fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies $0.69 / kWh pricing for these
service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per eligible kilowatt hour.
Impacts upon Energy Customers
As discussed at length above, the high and rising cost of energy in beneficiary communities severely
limits economic opportunities; contributes to unemployment and population outmigration; places
pressures upon household budgets, as well as budgets of schools, community facilities, and
government entities; and inhibits realization of the State of Alaska’s natural resource policy goals.
Development of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project will help mitigate these conditions, and
create energy cost and economic parity between the Tok and upper Tanana region, and other areas
of Alaska.
Lowers Energy Costs. It is currently estimated that the project will be able to produce clean
energy for half of the cost of diesel-fired generation of electricity. Over time, annual savings
will increase as the cost of diesel fuel continues to escalate over stable hydropower pricing.
Stabilizes Energy Costs Long Term. The project will stabilize local energy costs by
reducing dependency on diesel fuel – a volatile commodity with costs which escalate faster
15 Source: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/PCEProgramGuideJuly292014EDITS.pdf
16 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 37 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
than the rate of inflation. Hydropower maintenance and operating costs are extremely low
compared to that those associated with diesel-fired generation.
Long Project Lifespan with Additional Cost-Savings Available beyond Capital Cost
Repayment – The project has an estimated useful life of over 50 years. Properly constructed
hydropower sites can provide over 100+ years of reliable service. (For example, APC’s
Dewey Lakes Hydropower Project has been operating for 109 years.) After the financing
period is complete and capital costs are paid off, the cost of maintaining and operating a
hydropower project drops to very low levels.
Potential to Extend Benefit to Additional Communities -- If the Slana-Chistochina-
Mentasta grid becomes connected to Tok in the future, these communities will also benefit
from the presence of the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. Similarly, if Northway,
Northway Junction, and Northway Village also become connected to Tok, they will benefit
from this project. All of these communities are served by APC, and are currently 100%
dependent on diesel-fired generation. The most recently available AEA PCE report identifies
$0.69 / kWh pricing for these service regions, with an average PCE Payment of $0.47 per
eligible kilowatt hour.
Generates Significant Power Cost Equalization Savings for the State of Alaska. Due to
current 100% dependency on diesel-fired generation, the State of Alaska would experience
significant Power Cost Equalization subsidization savings. State PCE statistics indicate the
58.2% of total kWh sold in the Tok service region in FY13 are PCE-eligible kWh; if this ratio
holds true, the State of Alaska would realize significant PCE subsidization savings, with
approximately 41.8% of cost-savings being realized by current ratepayers.17
17 Source: Most recently available AEA PCE report:
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/pcereports/FY13StatisticalRptComt.pdf
AEA 15003 Page 38 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and
how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
• Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
• Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA
tariff, or cost based rate)
• Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
• Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy
subsidies or programs that might be available)
• Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
Potential Fuel Displacement
1 Year – 242,857 gallons -- $971,428 ($2014, assuming $4 / gallon)
50 Years – 12,142,850 gallons -- $48,571,400 ($2014, assuming $4 / gallon)
100 Years – 24,285,700 gallons -- $97,142,800 ($2014, assuming $4 / gallon)
Anticipated Annual Revenue
To be determined based upon outcome of activities proposed for AEA REF Round VIII funding.
Potential Additional Annual Incentives
Produces significant PCE savings for the State of Alaska, as discussed above.
Potential Additional Annual Revenue Streams
While Alaska does currently not have Renewable Portfolio Standards, these conditions could change,
and there may potentially be a market for Renewable Energy Certificates or other environmental
attributes from the project at a future date.
5.1 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
Projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines, etc.),
please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the project
as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the Request
for Applications for more information.
Does not apply.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
• Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
• How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
• Identification of operational issues that could arise.
• A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems
that may be require to continue operation
• Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
AEA 15003 Page 39 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
Project would be developed as an asset owned and operated by the incumbent utility, Alaska Power
Company.
Proposed Operations & Maintenance
Project would be owned and operated by APC, an AP&T subsidiary. APC currently operates 7
hydropower projects in Alaska, with an 8th (Reynolds Creek) scheduled for near term construction,
and an 9th (Yerrick Creek) scheduled for construction in advance of Clearwater Creek.
Back-up requirements
There will be no back-up systems installed. APC’s existing Tok-based diesel power plant will provide
100% back-up power supply capacity.
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
Mechanical:
Well designed and constructed hydroelectric projects generally have few major mechanical
operational issues once the inevitable initial bugs have been worked out. Mechanical operational
issues are typically replacement of worn parts.
Other:
A potential operational issue is the impact of climate change on inflows to the project. It is not certain
what changes will occur, but there is some support for the belief that hydropower operation in Alaska
may be beneficially affected by climate change in that there will be more precipitation in the winter
in the form of rain rather than snow, which may result in additional energy during winter months
when hydropower flows tend to be lowest.
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
In the event of State investment, project partners would be glad to commit to reporting of savings and
benefits in a manner consistent with AEA requirements.
As a regulated utility serving PCE-eligible communities, APC is required to keep highly detailed
records of costs. These records can also be used to help identify savings to the AEA.
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.
APC invested its own private sector resources in funding initial project site reconnaissance activities.
Activities included initial stream gauging, which supported a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) Non-Jurisdictional Determination filing. FERC informed APC on July 31, 2012, that a
federal license will not be required for this project (document enclosed). Because of this, APC has
elected to not involve FERC in any stage of environmental review, project design, or construction.
AEA 15003 Page 40 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
To date, no grants have been utilized for work on this project. AP&T / APC has also conducted
reconnaissance-level economic and financial modelling, which demonstrates that the Clearwater
Creek project would be beneficial to the Tok service region, and supports additional investment in
advancing the project. APC has received cost estimates from consultants to conduct field studies and
topographic mapping starting in July 2015, as soon as Round VIII grant funds are released. A timeline
for the different phases of this project can be found in Section 3.2 – Project Schedule and Milestones.
APC anticipates that it would complete the Yerrick Creek hydropower prior to the Clearwater Creek
project. APC hopes to continue advancing the Clearwater Creek project so that it can be available
for timely development, subsequent to the Yerrick project.
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
There is significant local support for development and integration of renewable resources. The two
letters of support enclosed are directed toward the Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project, but are
equally representative of support for any renewable energy for the Tok area, and therefore have a
place with this grant application for Clearwater Creek.
There is significant community opposition to continued reliance upon diesel-fired generation.
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
APC is seeking $413,600 in AEA REF Round VIII grant funding for Phase II activities, which would
be matched by $100,400 in private funds PLUS $3,000 in in-kind equipment supplied by AP&T /
APC for a total 20% match.
APC investment to date (estimated $5,000) has funded initial reconnaissance activities, including:
stream flow investigation and analysis; preliminary economic benefit and financial modelling; a
review of existing studies, reports, and literature; and filing for and receiving a FERC Non-
Jurisdictional Determination. FERC issued the Non-Jurisdictional Decision in July 2012.
AEA 15003 Page 41 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
PHASE II GRANT BUDGET
See below for a cost breakdown.
Depending upon outcomes of Phase II activities, APC anticipates funding future project activities
through a combination of private debt/equity, and would seek to utilize grant programs including the
AEA REF program to provide affordably-priced clean energy for ratepayers in the Tok region.
APC is very interested in participating as an equity investor in the project, providing a technically
feasible design can be developed, and an economically and financially feasible financing package can
be developed. Activities proposed for AEA REF Round VIII funding will support development of
the level of knowledge required to develop a viable design and business case for the project, which
will be used to gain investment commitments.
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.
Does not apply.
AEA APC
Phase Grant Funds Matching Funds Total
I – Reconnaissance (1) $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
II – Feasibility/Conceptual Design (2)$413,600 $100,400 $3,000 $517,000
III - Design and Permitting $320,000 $80,000 $400,000
IV – Construction $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $15,000,000
Total $8,733,600 $7,180,400 $8,000 $15,922,000
(1) APC conducted a site reconnaissance in 2012.
(2) APC stream gauge equipment.
APC In-Kind
Funds
AEA 15003 Page 42 of 45 7/2/14
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Phase II Budget: Clearwater Creek Hydro
APC – Indicates cash match provided by APC / AP&T.
Phase II Milestones Anticipated
Completion Date
RE - Funds
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching Funds
Source of
Matching Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
Consult with Agencies & file
for Permits to conduct studies July 2015 - Dec 2016 $20,000 $5,000 APC $25,000
Site Visit by Engineering Aug-Sept 2015 $12,800 $3,200 APC $16,000
Conduct studies Aug 2015-Oct 2016
Stream gage installation &
maintenance Aug 2015 -Aug 2017 $40,000 $10,000 $3,000 $53,000
Wetland delineation June-Aug 2016 $32,800 $8,200 APC $41,000
TES botanical survey June-Aug 2016 $8,000 $2,000 APC $10,000
Fish survey Aug 2015-Oct 2016 $168,800 $42,200 APC $211,000
Wildlife Survey (Avian)May-Aug 2016 $16,000 $4,000 APC $20,000
Water quality sampling Aug 2015-Oct 2016 $12,000 $3,000 APC $15,000
Cultural Resource Survey June-Aug 2016 $24,800 $6,200 APC $31,000
Topographic mapping Aug 2015-Oct 2016 $40,000 $10,000 APC $50,000
Feasibility Analysis Oct-Dec 2016 $16,000 $4,000 APC $20,000
Conceptual Design Oct-Dec 2016 $20,000 $5,000 APC $25,000
Totals July 2015 - Dec 2016 $411,200 $102,800 $3,000 $517,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $102,400 $25,600 APC $128,000
Travel & Per Diem $6,400 $1,600 APC $8,000
Equipment $3,000 $3,000
Materials & Supplies $0
Contractual Services $302,400 $75,600 APC $378,000
Construction Services $0
Other $0
TOTALS $411,200 $102,800 $3,000 $517,000
AEA 15003 Page 43 of 45 7/2/14
APPENDICES
Governing Body Resolution
Certification
Figures
FERC Non-Jurisdictional Determination
Letters of Support
Resumes
Permitting
Photos
GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
CERTIFICATION
FIGURES
FERC NON-JURISDICTION DETERMINATION
140 FERC ¶ 62,091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Alaska Power & Telephone Company Docket No. DI12-4-000
ORDER FINDING LICENSING NOT REQUIRED
(July 31, 2012)
1. On March 29, 2012, Alaska Power & Telephone Company (APT) filed a
Declaration of Intention (DI) concerning the proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
(project), which will be located on Clearwater Creek, near the town of Tok, Alaska, at
T. 16 N., R. 11 E., secs. 1, 2, 3, and 12; T. 16 N., R. 12 E., secs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, and
18; T. 17 R. 12 E., secs. 14, 23, 26, and 35, Copper River Meridian.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2. The proposed run-of-river Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of: (1) an
approximately 300–foot-long, 10-foot-high rock-filled and concrete diversion structure
on Clearwater Creek diverting water into a 20,000-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter ductile
iron buried penstock; (2) a proposed 30-foot wide, 50-foot-long powerhouse, containing a
1,000-kW Turgo generating unit and electrical generating equipment; (3) an open, 400-
foot-long tailrace from the powerhouse to Clearwater Creek; (4) a 14-mile-long
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The power will be used by local
communities.
PUBLIC NOTICE
3. Notice of the DI was published on April 3, 2012. Protests, comments, and/or
motions to intervene were to be filed by May 3, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG), State of Alaska, filed a motion to intervene, but had no
comments relating to the jurisdictional status of the proposed project. The DFG
commented that it has identified a number of fish and wildlife resource concerns, but
these concerns were not related to the jurisdictional determination, and would be sent to
APT separately. No other protests, comments, or motions to intervene have been
received.
Docket No. DI12-4-000 - 2 -
JURISDICTION
4. Pursuant to Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 817(1),
a non-federal hydroelectric project must (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal
permit) be licensed if it:
is located on a navigable water of the United States;
occupies lands of the United States;
utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause
jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935,
and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.
DISCUSSION
5. Based on available information it does not appear that the proposed project would
be located on a navigable water of the United States. It will not occupy any public lands
or reservations of the United States, and will not use surplus water or waterpower from a
Federal government dam. The proposed project would be constructed after August 26,
1935, and would use water from a Commerce Clause stream,1 but would not affect
interstate commerce because it would not be connected to the interstate grid. Therefore,
the project does not require licensing under Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA.
CONCLUSION
6. Consequently, Section 23(b)(1) of the FPA does not require licensing of the
proposed Clearwater Creek H ydro Project. If evidence sufficient to require licensing is
found in the future, section 23(b)(1) would require licensing. Under section 4(g) of the
FPA, the project owner could then be required to apply for a license.
The Director orders:
(A) Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act does not require licensing of the
proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project. This order is issued without prejudice to any
future determination upon new or additional evidence that licensing is required.
1 For purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), Commerce Clause streams are the
headwaters and tributaries of navigable waters of the United States. See FPC v. Union
Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90, 94-96 (1965). Clearwater Creek is tributary to the Tok River,
which is tributary to the Tanana and Yukon Rivers.
Docket No. DI12-4-000 - 3 -
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request
for rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in
section 313(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2006), and the Commission’s regulations at
18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2012). The filing of a request for rehearing does not operate as a
stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this order. The
licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this order.
Charles K. Cover, P.E.
Chief, Project Review Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
(blank on purpose)
March 29, 2012
Kimberly D. Bose
Office of Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
Petition for Declaratory Order
Dear Ms. Bose:
We respectfully submit this e-filing of the following Declaration of Intent and Petition for
Declaratory order that the Clearwater Creek Hydro Project is not under the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission’s jurisdiction. The Applicant believes, after reviewing
Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act, that none of the criteria in Section 23(b) is met
by this project. Therefore, this project should not be under the Commission’s
jurisdiction.
Respectfully Submitted,
Glen D. Martin
Project Manager
(360) 385-1733 x122
(360) 385-7538 fax
Enc. (as stated)
ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY
DECLARATION OF INTENT
FOR THE
CLEARWATER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
Submitted to:
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
MARCH 2012
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 2
DECLARATION OF INTENT
The location of the project:
State: Alaska
Town: N/A
Street: N/A
County: (Alaska does not have counties)
Census Tract: Census Tract 1, Southeast Fairbanks Census Area,
Alaska
Stream: Clearwater Creek
River Basin Name: Tok River
Township, Range, and Meridian: T16N, R11E, CRM & T16N, R12E, CRM
Applicant Info:
Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T), an Alaska Corporation
193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-1733 x122
(360) 385-7538 FAX
glen.m@aptalaska.com
Local Electric Utility Company:
Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T), an Alaska Corporation
P.O. Box 207
Tok, AK 99780-0207
(907) 883-5101
(360) 883-5815 FAX
john.h@aptalaska.com
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document is a declaration of intent to develop a 1.0 MW hydropower project
at Clearwater Creek approximately 16 miles south of Tok in South Central
Alaska, as in Figure 1. The Project is located within the Copper River Meridian
(CRM), the Township of T16N, the Range of R11E, and the Sections 1, 2, and
12, and CRM, T16N, R12E, Sections 7, 17, and 18 as shown in Figure 1. The
Project will utilize the natural flows in Clearwater Creek. The creek has an
estimated drainage area of approximately 26.7 SQMI at the point of the proposed
diversion structure.
The proposed project is located on lands not owned by the United States and is
on a non-navigable stream. The project will provide hydroelectric power to an
area solely reliant upon diesel generation. The area grid this project would
intertie with is operated by the Applicant. The communities to be served would
be Tok, Dot Lake, Healy Lake, Dry Creek, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Northway.
These communities are on an ‘isolated’ grid, owned and operated by the
Applicant; currently fed by 100% diesel generation. The distance to intertie with
the Tok grid would be approximately 14 miles north. Transmission poles (single
wood structures) would be place within the right-of-way (ROW) of the Glenn
Highway. Land ownership is primarily state land including the highway ROW.
There would be no interconnection to an interstate power grid, as none exists.
AP&T, an Alaska Corporation, further petitions the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for a Declaratory order that the proposed Clearwater Creek
Hydropower Project is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Applicant has
reviewed Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to determine whether the
project falls within the stated jurisdictional criteria and believe that none of the
four stated jurisdictional criteria are met by the Clearwater Creek Project.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTlON
The proposed Clearwater Creek Hydro Project will consist of a 1.0 MW
generating system that will provide hydroelectric power to the isolated AP&T grid
around Tok; currently 100% reliant upon diesel generation. The project will have
a small diversion structure, approximately 20,000 feet of penstock and a
powerhouse that will house one Turgo generating unit.
Diversion Structure – A small diversion structure approximately 300 feet long
by 10 feet high that will be rock fill with a concrete spillway and intake. The
diversion will have a water surface at approximately 2550 feet above MSL. The
intake will convey water from the diversion structure pond through a penstock to
the powerhouse.
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 4
Penstock – The 24-inch-diameter ductile iron penstock will be buried a distance
of approximately 20,000 feet to the powerhouse, at elevation 2050 feet.
Powerhouse – The 30-foot by 50-foot powerhouse will contain one 1,000 kW
Turgo generating unit with 500 feet gross head and a hydraulic capacity of 35
cfs.
Tailrace – An open tailrace channel will transport the turbine discharge back into
Clearwater Creek for a distance of approximately 400 feet.
Substation – A small substation to change the voltage to 34.5 kV will be placed
adjacent to the powerhouse.
Access Road – An existing 0.5 mile road into the Clearwater Campground will
be used in addition to an additional 0.5 mile to the powerhouse and 4 miles to the
diversion structure. Current design includes two bridges crossing the creek.
Transmission Line – The transmission line will follow the access road out to the
highway, a distance of 1.0 miles and will be buried in this stretch. At the
highway, the transmission line will be place on single wood pole structures of 45-
55 feet in height. The transmission line will travel north to the Tok grid, a
distance of approximately 14 miles. The Tok grid is owned and operated by the
Applicant and is within the Applicant’s certificated service area.
This project will be a step toward energy independence for this remote area that
is geographically isolated and is reliant upon fossil fuel for its energy needs. This
project will help to avoid the related costs and air quality emissions associated
with diesel generation.
The Project would typically be automatically operated and run-of-river.
2. JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS
Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act would require licensing of the
project only if:
a. It is located on a “Navigable Water” of the United States:
b. It occupies lands of the United States:
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 5
c. It utilizes surplus water or water power from a government dam;
d. There was a “post-1935 construction” at the project and the
project affected the interest of interstate commerce.
The petitioner’s project does not meet any of these criteria, as discussed below:
a. Navigability
Clearwater Creek is a small mountain stream emanating from the Alaska
Range dropping from approximately 5,100 feet above MSL to the Tok
River at 1,850 feet MSL over a distance of about 12 miles (averaging
about 270 feet elevation change per mile).
The photo below of this creek, although snow covered, shows a narrow
channel that is boulder strewn. The width of the creek after spring flood
has a range between 6-12 feet, depending on the location. Down by the
campground it is about 12 feet wide. The creek channel consists of a
gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. Water depths are generally less
than one foot except during flood periods in the late spring and early
summer.
Figure 1: Photo of Clearwater Creek looking downstream
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 6
Clearwater Creek is not considered navigable for any portion of its length.
b. Land Status
The proposed project is located on State of Alaska land; a combination of
State Forest and Dept of Transportation (DOT) ROW. No portion of the
project is on Federal land.
Figure 2: Glenn Highway (Tok Cutoff) north of Clearwater Creek.
Photo courtesy of Google Earth.
The photo above shows the shoulder of the highway in which the wood
pole structures for the transmission line would be placed. Land along the
highway is primarily state land with some private lands outside the DOT
ROW, including a few Native allotments; please see Figure 3 and Figure
3a.
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 7
As shown in Figure 3: Land Management, the project diversion and
penstock are on state land. The powerhouse is placed on the west side of
the creek to stay on state land, avoiding the Native allotments on the
opposite side of the creek. The project will construct a short access road
from the powerhouse to meet up with the state campground access road
and place a buried transmission line along this route out to the Glenn
Highway (a.k.a. Tok Cutoff). The transmission line is then above ground
to the community of Tok to the north. The overhead transmission line will
consist of single wood pole structures that will be within the DOT ROW.
Three Native allotments are found up in Sections 35 and 26 that will be
avoided by staying within the highway ROW. It should be noted that we
are avoiding the Native allotments because working with BIA is time
consuming and thus expensive; we do not believe that Native allotments
are federal lands and thus not lands of the United States because of the
BIA Trust relationship with individuals. However, we would appreciate the
Commissions input on whether this is true.
In Figure 3a, the project transmission line is shown meeting the existing
Tok power grid, a 7.2 kV distribution line, in Section 14. The Tok
distribution line is scheduled to be upgraded to 34.5 kV in the next few
years. Only state lands (ADOT) are utilized along this portion of the
projects transmission line.
As shown, no federal lands are encountered within the project boundary.
c. Surplus Water from Government Dam
There are no government (Federal or State) dams near or above the
project, nor will the project use water from a government dam.
d. Affect on Interstate Commerce
The Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric Project will generate and sell power to
APC (Alaska Power Company; a subsidiary of the Applicant) which
supplies power to communities around Tok on the Alaska Highway. The
project will not be connected to any interstate power grid, because none
exists. The project, having no storage and not being on a navigable
stream will have no effect on shipping or interstate commerce in any form.
The project is within the applicant’s present certificated service area.
Clearwater Creek is not cataloged as an anadromous stream and would
have its discharge reenter the creek
Petition for Declaratory Order-FERC Clearwater Creek Hydro Project
March 2012 Page 8
above the state campground, well above the Tok River which is listed as
an anadromous stream (334-40-11000-2490-3660; CO present).
3. CONCLUSION
In AP&T’s review of the applicable jurisdictional criteria found in Section 23(b) of
the Federal Power Act, there was no evidence found that the Clearwater Creek
Project meets any one of these criteria. AP&T therefore requests that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issue a Declaratory order finding that
the project falls outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and does not require a
license or permit under the Federal Power Act.
The facts presented herein are true to the best knowledge of the Applicant.
Sincerely,
Director Permitting & Licensing
Enc. (as stated)
(blank on purpose)
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
PERMITTING
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DIVISION OF SPORT FISH
SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR
Research and Technical Services
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
PHONE: (907) 267-2312
FAX: (907) 267-2422
May 4, 2011
Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street
Washington D.C. 20426
Subject: DI12-4-000 Clearwater Creek Hydroelectric
Dear Ms. Bose:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the request for a Non-Jurisdictional Determination
filed with the Commission by Alaska Power and Telephone (APT).
After discussions with ADF&G staff with management authority over fish and wildlife
resources, habitat issues and departmental permitting, ADF&G will make no comment on the
request for Non-Jurisdictional Determination.
A number of fish and wildlife resource concerns have been identified but are not nexus to the
request made by APT and will be sent to APT separately.
Thank You for the opportunity to review this project request.
Sincerely,
Monte Miller
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Sport Fish/RTS
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1565
907 267-2312
monte.miller@alaska.gov
E Copy: Glen Martin, AP&T
Henry Ecton, FERC, Washington D.C.
Jim Durst, ADF&G Habitat Division, Fairbanks
William Morris, ADF&G Habitat Division, Fairbanks
Joseph Klein, ADF&G Sport Fish Division/RTS, Anchorage
Bonnie Borba, ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division, Fairbanks
Audra Brase, ADF&G Sport Fish Division, Fairbanks
Brandy Baker, ADF&G Sport Fish Division, Delta Junction
Torsten Bentzen, ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, Fairbanks
Marla Carter, ADF&G Sport Fish Division, Anchorage
PHOTOS