HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt Mary's Rnd 7 Final ALL 09242013Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Application Page 1 of 25 7/2/2013
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Type of Entity: Not-for-profit corporation Fiscal Year End: December 31
Tax ID # 92-0035763 Tax Status: For-profit X Non-profit Government ( check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: March 8, 2013
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
800-478-1818
Fax
800-478-4086
Email
sgilbert@avec.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Steve Gilbert
Title
Manager, Projects Development and Key Accounts
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK. 99503
Telephone
907.565.5357
Fax
907.561.2388
Email
sgilbert@avec.org
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)
X 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);
Yes
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 Yes or No in the box )
Yes
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).
Yes
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/veep/Grant-Template.pdf. (Any exceptions
should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.)
Yes
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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 25 7/1/2013
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.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project in the subsections below.
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s location on the map
and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google
search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining
this information please contact AEA at 907-771-3031.
This project will be constructed near Pitka’s Point (62.032780, -163.28778; Sec. 06, T022N, R076W,
Seward Meridian) and will service that community and its neighbor, St. Mary’s, 5 miles away. The
communities are approximately 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage.
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
This project will benefit St. Mary’s (2012 population of 647) and Pitka’s Point (2012 population of 109),
which currently have intertied electrical systems. Pitka’s Point is located in the Bethel Recording
District. Pitka’s Point is about 3 miles from the St. Mary’s airport. The City of St. Mary's encompasses
the Yup'ik villages of St. Mary's and Andreasfski.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
x Wind Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
Hydro, Including Run of River Hydrokinetic
Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps Transmission of Renewable Energy
Solar Photovoltaic Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe) Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
Reconnaissance Final Design and Permitting
Feasibility and Conceptual Design X Construction and Commissioning
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 25 7/1/2013
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project.
AVEC proposes to complete construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of four wind turbines to
supplement the existing power generation system for currently intertied communities of St. Mary’s and
Pitka’s Point. As a part of this project, AVEC will upgrade the electrical distribution line between St.
Mary’s and Pitka’s Point to a 3- phase line and upgrade the joint power plant to accommodate wind
turbine energy generators. This project has been in planning for over 10 years, and with funding from
this grant AVEC will complete the St. Mary’s wind farm.
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.)
This project will provide the following benefits which are listed here and described in further detail in
Section 5 of this application:
St. Mary’s, which is connected to Pitka’s Point via an existing single-phase distribution line (two-phase to
the Pitka’s Point road with the other phase feeding the Saint Mary’s airport), uses diesel fuel for
electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler and home heating uses, thermal heat recovered from
the power plant for heating community facilities, and diesel fuel and gasoline for transportation needs.
The proposed project will add four Northern Power Systems NPS 100-21 wind turbines to supplement
the existing electrical power system. During the first year of operation, there will be a reduction in
diesel fuel used for village power generation of 83,834 gallons/year valued at $342,925 the first year of
operation (ISER R7Prototype model). The turbines are expected to produce approximately 34% of the
electricity and supply 3% of the thermal energy consumed by both villages.
In addition, the following important benefits will be realized:
Reduction in diesel fuel used for heat by about 1,416 gallons/year, valued at $7,815 the first year.
Reduced and stabilized energy costs through the reduction of generator fuel use for both villages.
Regional benefits to the Health Clinic that serves St. Mary’s, Andreafski, Pitka’s Point, Mountain
Village, Pilot Station, and Marshall through reduced energy costs.
Regional benefits to the St. Mary’s Regional Training Center through reduced energy costs.
Benefits to other non-PCE (Power Cost Equalization) community institutions through reduced energy
costs, which may allow for increased or improved community or social services.
Reduced energy costs to other non-PCE users such as the stores, which may pass along savings to
customers.
Increased opportunity for economic development.
Increased longevity of the PCE fund through a reduction in PCE payments for St. Mary’s and Pitka’s
Point residents and community facilities.
A reduction in fossil fuel emissions, which results in improved air quality and decreased contribution
to global climate change.
Reduced fuel consumption reduces the volume of fuel transported and the potential for fuel spills
and contamination.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 25 7/1/2013
This project will take a big step forward in achieving state and federal renewable energy goals in St.
Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. It is also an important first step toward providing renewable energy in the
future to nearby Mountain Village and Pilot Station with future interties.
Please see Section 5 for detailed information on project benefits.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project.
AVEC is proposing to construct four NPS 100-21 wind turbines in Pitka’s Point to serve the communities
of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. The project will cost $4,782,528. AVEC requests $4,274,575 from the
State of Alaska through a Renewable Energy Fund (REF) award. AVEC will provide $474,953 (10% of
construction costs) as a match contribution. The Pitka’s Point Native Corporation is committed to
providing an in-kind contribution of $33,000, which represents their contribution of a 33-acre parcel
valued conservatively at $1,000/acre.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Grant Costs
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $4,274,575
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $474,953
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $33,000
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $
2.7.5 Other grant applications not yet approved $
2.7.6 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $4,782,528
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.
$4,782,528
2.7.8 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not covered
by the project but required for the Grant Only applicable to
construction phase projects.
$
2.7.9 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $350,739 (First Year)
Power and heat
$5,701,322 (20 year project
life; 3% discounted value)
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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 25 7/1/2013
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.
AVEC, as the electric utility serving St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, will provide overall project management
and oversight.
Steve Gilbert, Manager, Project Development and Key Accounts
Steve Gilbert is manager of energy projects development for AVEC where he leads a team focused on
lowering the cost of energy in rural Alaskan villages through improved power plant efficiency, wind and
other renewable power and interties between villages.
Previously, Mr. Gilbert worked at Chugach Electric for 17 years managing three power plants and served
as lead electrical engineer for a 1 MW fuel cell and micro-turbine projects and wind energy project
development. Mr. Gilbert is recognized as an industry leader on wind energy and has been active on a
national level in operation and maintenance of wind power plants. Mr. Gilbert was Alaska’s Electrical
Engineer of the Year in 2000 and for the 12 western states in 2001. He has been a regular lecturer at
schools and universities on renewables, especially wind. He also worked with BP Wind in London
assessing European wind prospects. To better evaluate investment opportunities for his employer, Mr.
Gilbert recently completed his MBA.
Meera Kohler, President and CEO of AVEC
Ms. Kohler has more than 30 years of experience in the Alaska electric utility industry. She was
appointed Manager of Administration and Finance at Cordova Electric Cooperative in 1983, General
Manager of Naknek Electric Association in 1990, and General Manager of Municipal Light & Power in
Anchorage in 1997.
Since May 2000, Ms. Kohler has been the President and CEO of AVEC and in this position has ultimate
grant and project responsibilities.
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your
project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please
clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project.
The key tasks and their completion dates are:
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 25 7/1/2013
Grant Award Announcement: July 2014
Turbine Procurement: December 2014
Construction Activities: June – September 2015
Final Acceptance and Start-up: November 2015
Milestones Tasks
Start
Date
End
Date
1. Design and Feasibility
Requirements are Complete
AVEC will work with the engineering
contractor to confirm that all the design
needs are in place prior to moving forward
with selection of the construction
contractor.
Aug
2014
2. Bid Documents Completed Bid documents will be completed by the
engineers.
Oct
2014
3. Vendor Selected and Award in
place
The construction contractor will be selected,
and a construction task order will be
prepared.
May
2015
4. Construction Phase Dec
2014
Nov
2015
Land Acquisition Completed. Pitka’s Point Native Corporation
provided 33 acres of land as a match to this
grant funding.
done
Turbine Procurement
About six months is required before the
turbines and towers can be shipped to the
site ship. The turbines and towers will be
ordered by December 2014 and arrive in St.
Mary’s by June 2015.
Dec
2014
Jun
2015
Mobilization
Construction equipment will be mobilized to
the site by barge as soon as possible
following break up.
Site Access Improvements Access roads will be built once construction
equipment is on site.
Jun
2015
Jul
2015
Foundation Installation Four foundations will be installed once the
site work is completed and pads are
installed. Jul
2015
Aug
2015
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 25 7/1/2013
Turbine Installation The four turbines will be installed in about
one month’s time.
Aug
2015
Aug
2015
Electrical Distribution
Improvements
Upgrades to the electrical distribution line
between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point to a
three phase line will be completed, and the
tie line connecting the turbines to the power
plant will be installed.
Aug
2015
Sept
2015
Demobilization The construction contractor will move
equipment from Pitka’s Point via barge prior
to freeze up. Sept
2015
Sept
2015
5. Integration and Testing
Upgrades to the power plant will be
completed. Once the turbines are installed,
integration and testing of the system will
occur.
Jul
2015
Sept
2015
6. Decommissioning Old Systems N/A
7. Final Acceptance,
Commissioning and Start-up
Final acceptance, commissioning, and
startup will be done immediately following
installation of the turbines.
Sept
2015
Nov
2015
8. Operations Reporting AVEC will begin operations reporting after
system start up.
Nov
2015
3.3 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, accounting or bookkeeping personnel or firms, equipment,
and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments
with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any
existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or
contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and
suppliers as an attachment to your application.
AVEC will use a project management strategy that has been successful in the design and construction of
its wind turbines throughout rural Alaska. That strategy includes a team of AVEC staff and external
consultants. AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will
maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Steve Gilbert, Energy Projects Manager, will act as Program Manager and will lead the project
management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 25 7/1/2013
Debbie Bullock, Manager of Administrative Services, will provide support in accounting,
payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
Bill Stamm, Manager of Engineering, leads AVEC’s Engineering Department which is responsible
for the in-house design of power plants, distribution lines, controls, and other AVEC facilities.
Mr. Stamm has worked at AVEC since 1994. Mr. Stamm was the AVEC line superintendent
before he was appointed to Manager of Engineering in 2012. Mr. Stamm’s unit will provide
engineering design and supervision.
Mark Bryan, the Manager of Operations, is a Certified Journeyman Electrician and supervises
the AVEC’s line operations, generation operations and all field construction programs. He has
worked at AVEC since 1980, was appointed Manager of Construction in May 1998, and was
promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003. Mr. Bryan’s unit will oversee operation of
this project as part of the AVEC utility system.
Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, will communicate directly with St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point
residents to ensure that the community is informed.
Material and equipment procurement packages will be formulated by the construction contractor in
collaboration with AVEC’s purchasing manager. Purchase orders will be formulated with delivery dates
consistent with dates required for barge or air transport consolidation. Multiple materials and/or
equipment will be detailed for consolidated shipments to rural staging points, where secondary
transport to the village destination is provided. The construction contractor will track the shipments
and arrange handling services to and around the destination project sites.
The construction contractor will be responsible for the construction activities for all project components
of the facility upgrade. Local labor forces will be utilized to the maximum extent possible to construct
the projects. All construction costs, direct and indirect, will be reimbursed on a cost-plus basis to the
construction contractor, or paid directly by AVEC.
For this project, AVEC is responsible for managing the commissioning process in concert with the
construction contractor, designers, and vendors. That entails testing and training of operational
personnel, as well as completing all contract closeout documents.
Selection Process for Contractors: The construction contractor selection will be made from a list of pre-
qualified contractors with a successful track record with AVEC. Pre-qualified contractors have been
selected based upon technical competencies, past performance, written proposal, quality, cost, and
general consensus from an internal AVEC steering committee. The selection of the contractor will occur
in strict conformity with AVEC’s procurement policies and conformance with OMB circulars.
3.4 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Please provide an alternative contact person and their contact information.
AVEC has systems in place to accomplish reporting requirements successfully. In 2012, AVEC
successfully met reporting requirements for 56 grants. An independent financial audit and an
independent auditor’s management letter completed for AVEC for FY2012 did not identify any
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 25 7/1/2013
deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that were considered to be material weaknesses.
In addition, the letter stated that AVEC complied with specific loan and security instrument provisions
The project will be managed out of AVEC’s Project Development Department. For financial reporting,
the Project Development Department’s accountant, supported by the Administrative Services
Department, will prepare financial reports. The accountant will be responsible for ensuring that vendor
invoices and internal labor charges are documented in accordance with AEA guidelines and are included
with financial reports. AVEC has up-to-date systems in place for accounting, payables, financial
reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
AVEC will require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice submitted from
key contractor(s). The progress reports will include a summary of tasks completed, issues or problems
experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from AVEC. Project progress reports will be
collected, combined, and supplemented as necessary, and forwarded as one report to the AEA project
manager each quarter.
Quarterly face-to-face meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all projects
funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project meetings will be held, as
required or requested by AEA.
Meera Kohler, AVEC’s President and CEO, may be contacted as an alternative manager.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
The project site, though very robust as a Class 6 wind resource, is prone to rime icing conditions in
winter. Although thousands of turbines around the world operate in rime icing conditions, rime icing is
more problematic for wind turbine operations than freezing rain (clear ice), given its tenacity and
longevity in certain climatic conditions. Anti-icing and/or de-icing features may be necessary to sustain
wind turbine availability during the winter months. One planned feature is use of black color
hydrophobic rotor blades. The very smooth, hydrophobic surface of the blade retards ice retention
while the black color enhances solar gain to heat the blade and force ice to slough off.
Weather could delay shipping materials into the community; weather can impact the construction
schedule. However, an experienced Alaskan construction contractor, expecting bad weather, will be
selected and will be reasonably prepared for weather-related problems.
Since, for the most part, installation cannot occur in the winter, missing upfront tasks like ordering parts
and assigning labor could result in missing the summer window. The project could be delayed an entire
year if the tasks are not completed on schedule.
AVEC is a cooperative and follows the International Co-operative Alliance’s Seven Principles of
Cooperatives. One of the most important of those principles is titled Democratic Member Control and
refers to the men and women who serve as representatives being accountable to the membership.
AVEC’s member communities, especially the community involved in a grant program such as the REF,
have expectations for projects regarding outcomes, schedule, budget, and quality of work. AVEC
member communities and Board of Directors receive regular project status updates. When problems
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 25 7/1/2013
are reported (either formally through status reports or informally through other communications),
member communities expect solutions.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe
the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please
provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as
attachments to this application.
As documented in St. Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind Diesel Project Analysis dated September 2013 and Pitka’s
Point, Alaska Wind Resource Report dated April 2012 by V3 Energy, LLC, (both attached in Tab G), a 40
meter NRG Systems, Inc. tubular-type meteorological (met) tower was installed on Pitka’s Point Native
Corporation land on the bluff immediately above the Yukon River with excellent exposure to northeasterly
winds down the Andreafsky River, northerly winds from the mountains, and southerly winds from the flat,
tundra plains leading toward Bethel. A synopsis of the Pitka’s Point met tower data follows:
Data dates October 26, 2007 to February 12, 2009 (16 months)
Wind power class Class 6 (outstanding), based on WPD
Wind power density mean, 38 m 558 W/m2
Wind speed mean, 38 m 7.62 m/s (17.0 mph)
Max. 10-min wind speed 29.5 m/s
Maximum 2-sec. wind gust 26.3 m/s (81.2 mph), January 2008
Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.94, c = 8.64 m/s
Wind shear power law exponent 0.176 (low)
Roughness class 2.09 (description: few trees)
IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. classification Class II-c (at 38 meters)
Turbulence intensity, mean (at 38 m) 0.076 (at 15 m/s)
Calm wind frequency (at 38 m) 20% (< 4 m/s) (16 mo. measurement period)
Considering the inland location of Saint Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind resource measured at the Pitka’s
Point met tower site is highly unusual, and very favorable, with its combination of a high annual average
wind speed, relatively low elevation, good geotechnical conditions, and proximity to existing roads and
electrical grid infrastructure.
More details regarding the wind resource are found in Tab G.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 25 7/1/2013
Other energy resources are not feasible for the following reasons:
The installed cost of photovoltaic solar arrays will be higher per kW produced than the installed
costs of wind, and the energy production capacity factor will be lower.
Generating power from the ocean tidal motion is not yet an established technology or a
commercially available technology.
Hydropower resources are not available in the area.
Biomass resources are limited by the lack of resources near the communities.
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy syst em. Include information about
the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The existing diesel power plant in St. Mary’s consists of three generators: a 499 kW Cummins QSX15G9, a
611 kW Caterpillar 3508, and a 908 kW Caterpillar 3512. The ages of these generators in years are 6.6,
26.1, and 17.7, respectively. Aggregate generator efficiency in St. Mary’s in FY 2012 was 13.03 kWh/gal.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point use diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler (thermal)
and home heating, thermal heat recovery from the diesel engines at the power plant, and diesel and
gasoline fuel for transportation needs. The proposed project will add four NPS100-21 direct-drive wind
turbines to the electrical power system. The anticipated effects are less usage of diesel fuel for electrical
power generation, and less usage of heating fuel for boiler operations due to injection of excess wind
power into the thermal heat recovery loop in St. Mary’s. Between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 254,624
gallons of diesel fuel were consumed to generate 3,318,614 kWh (gross generation; 2012 PCE Report) for
the communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Installation of wind turbines for the communities would decrease the amount of diesel fuel used for
power generation and heating. Diesel generator load will be curtailed thereby decreasing generator
operations and maintenance costs.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected by an intertie to the power plant in St. Mary’s. The electricity
produced at the St. Mary’s power plant in FY 2012 was 3,318,614 kWh (total gross). The load is highest
during the winter months with the bulk of electricity consumed by residences and the school. The
addition of wind turbines to the electric generation system will reduce the amount of diesel fuel used for
power generation, and energy costs will be reduced and stabilized in St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Like all of Alaska, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are subject to long periods of darkness in the winter.
Affordable electric service is essential for the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 25 7/1/2013
Residents rely on subsistence resources including salmon, moose, bear, and waterfowl. Subsistence food
is gathered and harvested and stored in refrigerators and freezers. Refrigeration is essential for the
extended storage of perishable foodstuffs, and affordable electric service is essential for proper freeze
storage of food. The construction of the proposed project will improve the existing power generation
system by incorporating a locally available renewable resource. Electricity rates will decrease as a result
of this project.
Additional socio-economic impacts are discussed in Section 5: Project Benefits.
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Renewable Energy Technology. The project will construct four NPS 100 turbines near Pitka’s Point. The
project site is Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land on and near the location of the Pitka’s Point met
tower, with boundaries of the Pitka’s Point/St. Mary’s Airport road to the north, a rock quarry to the east,
the bluff to the south, and a Native Allotment to the west. More specifically, AVEC has obtained site
control on Lot 6 within these general boundaries for turbine siting. Site control of Lot 6 is adequate to
place four NPS 100-21 turbines and additional turbines could be placed at this location in the future, if
needed. (See the St. Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind –Diesel Analysis under Tab G for more information.)
Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated annual generation. Four Northern Power Systems NPS 100-21
wind turbines at 80% availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed) will generate 1,147,750 kWh/year when
serving St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point (1.092 MWh/yr of this amount will serve the electric load with the
remainder serving thermal loads). This equates to a 32.8% capacity factor. Wind generation could be
increased in the future should St. Mary’s be interconnected to Pilot Station and/or Mountain Village.
Anticipated barriers. No barriers to successful installation and integration of wind turbines in
St.Mary’s/Pitka’s Point are expected. The project will be constructed using knowledge of previous
successful wind-diesel projects.
Basic integration concept. The existing St. Mary’s power plant already contains some of the equipment
necessary (upgraded engine controls and switchgear) to accept wind-generated electric power. Upgrades
to the power plant will include a 600A breaker and feeder installed into the switchgear line-up, a 600 A
secondary load controller (SLC) switching cabinet, dispatcher cabinet and interface cabling with the
switchgear and switching cabinet, and an electric boiler with associated mechanical and electrical controls
for secondary load.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 25 7/1/2013
Delivery methods. The project will construct a new distribution line from the turbines to the existing
intertie between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, which connects to the power plant in St. Mary’s. This
project will upgrade existing intertie from 2-phase to 3-phase so that it can accommodate wind turbine
generators.
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.
Pitka’s Point Native Corporation has provided 33 acres for the wind farm as a match for this grant. No
issues exist related to land ownership on this project.
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 discussion of potential barriers
Clean Water Act (Section 401) Permit. A Section 404 Permit (Wetlands Permit) was obtained from the
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The design plan has since changed to maximize the benefit of the
project. A permit modification for the new design will be sought from the USACE. The permit will be
modified by the end of 2013.
FAA Air Navigation Hazard Permitting. A FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic was obtained for
a previous design, but will expire before the AEA REF Round 7 award announcements are made. A new
determination will be obtained from the FAA for the new design by the end of 2013. No barriers to
obtaining this approval are expected since FAA approved the installation of higher turbines in the past.
There are no barriers identified for the successful re-permitting of this project.
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
Threatened or Endangered species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field
Office, Section 7 Consultation Guide, there are no endangered or listed species, or federally designated
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 25 7/1/2013
critical habitat listed near St. Mary’s or Pitka’s Point.
Habitat issues. There are no habitat issues associated with this project. A wetlands permit was previously
obtained and no new issues should arise.
Wetlands and other protected areas. As mentioned above, there are wetlands in the area. A Section 404
Permit (Wetlands Permit) has been obtained under the old design plan, but will need to be modified for
the new design.
Archaeological and historical resources. There are no known cultural resources within the area that could
be affected by St. Mary's/Pitka’s Point Wind Turbine Project. The specific project locale has not been
archaeologically surveyed, but is located in an area of low probability for undiscovered historic and
archaeological properties. (See Cultural Resources Memorandum under Tab G.) Compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act through the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was previously
conducted during the wetlands permitting process. Consultation is complete.
Land development constraints. AVEC has site control for the wind turbines; therefore, there are no land
development constraints.
Aviation considerations. As previously mentioned, FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic has
been obtained for the project under the old design plan, but the finding will be expired before grant
awards are announced. A new finding will be sought from the FAA under the new design plan, but is not
expected to be an issue.
Visual, aesthetics impacts. The turbines will be placed between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. Because the
turbines will be constructed between the communities, it is likely that there will be little concern for visual
or aesthetic impacts. Communities often note that their wind turbines and tie lines offer a helpful visual
guide point when traveling outside the village. AVEC will conduct community meetings to discuss visual
impacts and how they could be minimized, in the unlikely event that visual issues arise.
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
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 25 7/1/2013
AVEC is proposing to construct four NPS100-21 wind turbines in Pitka’s Point. The total project cost is
$4,782,528. AVEC requests $4,274,575 from the State of Alaska through a Renewable Energy Fund award.
AVEC will provide $474,953 (10%) cash as a match contribution. The Pitka’s Point Native Corporation has
provided an in-kind match of 33 acres of land for the project. The very conservative value of their
contribution is $33,000.
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.)
O&M costs for the installed turbines in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point are $53,525 (ISER; 2013) annually. This
number is based on $0.049/kWh. The maintenance costs will be funded through ongoing energy sales to
AVEC’s customers (member owners) in the villages.
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
AVEC, the existing electric utility serving St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, is a member-owned cooperative
electric utility and typically owns and maintains the generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in
the villages it serves. No power purchase or sale will be needed for this project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 25 7/1/2013
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. Class 6 (outstanding); mean annual speed 7.63 m/s
at 38 m; Weibull k=1.94; Weibull c=8.64 m/s; mean
annual power density=559 W/m^2; classifies as IEC
Class II-c site
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 499 kW; 611 kW, 908 kW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Generators
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 6.6 years, 26.1 years, and 17.7 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.03 kWh/gallon
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $657,416 ($0.23kWh sold) labor and non-labor (FY 2012
PCE report)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 3,318,614 kWh (FY 2012 gross total); 2,805,462 (FY 2012 sold);
reference: 2012 PCE Report
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 254,624 gallons (FY 2012)
Other
iii. Peak Load 699 kW (February 2012)
iv. Average Load 377 kW (2012)
v. Minimum Load
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 25 7/1/2013
vi. Efficiency 13.03 kWh/gal (FY 2012)
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
400 kW
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 1,147,750 kWh (55,398 kWh to heat)
ii. Heat [MMBtu] 189 MMBtu (55,398 kWh)
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
iv. Other
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $4,782,528
b) Development cost
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $53,525 ($0.049/kWh; ISER 2013)
d) Annual fuel cost
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 83,834 gallons
ii. Heat 1,416 gallons
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $4.73 (ISER R7Prototype, 2013; includes cost of carbon)
c) Other economic benefits
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 25 7/1/2013
d) Alaska public benefits
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.30
Payback (years) 11.2
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the pro posed benefit
area. If the is for a PCE eligible utility please discus what the expected impact would be for both
pre and post PCE.
St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are PCE-eligible communities. St. Mary’s consumers received $366,379 in
FY12 in PCE credits for eligible kWh sales (kWh) to residences and community facilities and Pitka’s Point
customers received $61,799. About 61.2% of sales in St. Mary’s and 52.1% in Pitka’s Point were not
eligible for PCE and as a result those consumers will receive the entire benefit of reduced power costs
through their electric rates.
Power sales that are eligible for PCE will see 5% of the benefit of reduced electric costs in their electric
rates, with the other 95% accruing to the state of Alaska through reduced PCE credits to end users.
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 annual fuel displacement
The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power and heat generation in St. Mary’s and
Pitka’s Point could be about 85,250 gallons/year and 1,704,994 gallons over the project’s 20-year
lifetime (assuming 80% turbine availability). About 83,834 gallons/year will be displaced for village
power generation, and about 1,416 gallons/year will be displaced from heat generation. This project
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 25 7/1/2013
could save $350,739 during its first full year of operation (ISER R7Prototype model; 2015): $342,925
from power generation and $7,815 from heat generation.
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional annual
revenue streams
Tax credits are not expected to be beneficial to the project due to AVEC’s status as a non-profit entity.
Nonetheless, in addition to saving the direct cost of fuel, AVEC could sell green tags from the project.
Additional economic benefits
In St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, the average annual price for residential electricity for the calendar year
2012 was $0.5902 per kilowatt hour (kWh), which far exceeds the 2012 national average of
$0.1188/kWh (U.S. Energy Information Administration). According to the 2007-2011 American
Community Survey (ACS), 14.97% of St. Mary’s residents and 32.6% of Pitka’s Point residents had
incomes below the poverty level. The median household income in St. Mary’s was $38,162, and in
Pitka’s Point it was $41,563. The poorest residents in rural Alaska, including St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point,
spend almost half of their household incomes for overall home energy costs, according to a study by the
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). Furthermore, this does not result from greater
consumption, as these households use less than half as much electricity as those whose power comes
from natural gas or hydro-electric sources. This project is part of the solution to stabilize the rising cost
of energy for these communities.
It is likely that energy costs for PCE customers will be reduced. As stated in Section 4.4.5, power sales
that are eligible for PCE will see 5% of the benefit of reduced electric costs in their electric rates, with
the other 95% accruing to the state of Alaska through reduced PCE credits to end users. In St. Mary’s,
this includes 184 residential and 19 eligible community facility customers. In Pitka’s Point, this includes
29 residential and 6 eligible community facilities customers.
It is likely that energy costs for non-PCE community institutions will be reduced allowing for better
community services. Once the wind project is constructed and wind-to-heat systems are in place, costs
to operate important community facilities (e.g. school, health clinic, tribal office, etc.) will be decreased
(see Section 4.4.5), enabling managing entities (e.g., city governments, tribe, school district) to operate
more economically. With these savings, local governing bodies will be able to better focus on providing
important community services and functions.
St. Mary’s is an important hub community in Western Alaska for education and health care. The St.
Mary’s Area Regional Training Center (SMART) is a facility that is available to provide adult job training
and is also used for retreats and conferences, both educational and cultural, for western Alaska. The St.
Mary’s Health Clinic provides services to residents of St. Mary’s and the surrounding communities of
Andreafski, Pitka’s Point, Mountain Village, Pilot Station, and Marshall. Affordable and reliable electric
service for all the community institutions is crucial but these facilities have regional, as well as local,
importance.
St. Mary’s has ten facilities and Pitka’s Point has six facilities (community buildings and commercial
enterprises) that are not eligible for PCE credits and have decreased their services, hours of operations
or made other cut-backs as their electric bills have risen. Reducing their power bills will have a marked
positive effect on services to residents.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 25 7/1/2013
David Herbert, Superintendent of St. Mary’s City School District said in a phone conversation with
AVEC’s Community Liaison on August 28, 2013, “If the school district were to see additional savings in
energy bills, the district will certainly utilize those savings towards instruction, facilities, salaries, benefits
or other needs determined by the district.”
It is likely that energy costs for non-PCE commercial energy customers will be reduced and savings will
be passed along to residents. Commercial enterprises in the communities are excluded from the PCE
program. Once this project is constructed, these entities will see a savings in the cost of electricity.
Local businesses, especially the store, may pass this savings along to customers. The development and
growth of local businesses like these are crippled by the high cost of energy. Decreases in electricity
costs make small businesses more viable in rural Alaskan communities, which in turn makes economic
development and the addition of local jobs more likely. By reducing the cost of power production, the
stores and other small businesses will see a cost savings that may be passed along to residents in the
form of lower product or services prices.
Reduced commercial energy costs will benefit the entire community by increasing opportunities for
local economic development. Lower costs of energy may allow local businesses to start and flourish.
The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines will be reducing the negative impact of the
cost of energy by providing a renewable energy alternative. This project could help stabilize energy
costs and provide long-term socio-economic benefits to village households.
Project construction will benefit local businesses and residents. During construction the local economy
will benefit through the project’s purchase of local services (workers’ housing, for example) and goods
(food, for example) and construction materials (sand or gravel, for example). In most AVEC construction
projects some local hire takes place and this project will not be an exception.
The State of Alaska will pay less in PCE subsidies. In FY 2012, the state paid $428,178 in PCE subsidies
for St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point customers. The state could see 95% of the benefit of reduced electric
costs once this project is constructed.
Non-economic public benefits. The wind turbines will provide a visual landmark for river, air, and
overland travelers, which will help navigation in the area. Wind turbine orientation and rotor speed will
provide visual wind information to residents.
A project benefit will be reduced fossil fuel emissions, which results in improved air quality and
decreased contribution to global climate change.
Locally produced, affordable energy will empower community residents and could help avert rural-to-
urban migration.
This project will advance state and federal renewable energy goals in both communities.
5.1.1 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
Projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines,
etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the
project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in
the Request for Applications for more information.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 25 7/1/2013
This project will not provide power to any large private-sector businesses. By reducing the cost of
power production, small businesses in St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, including the stores (not eligible for
PCE), will see a cost savings, which may be passed along to residents in the form of lower product or
services prices.
Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) n/a
Estimated sales (kWh) n/a
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at privet sector businesses ($) n/a
Estimated sales (kWh) n/a
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) n/a
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
As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is able to oversee construction of, operate,
and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has successfully, with financial assistance from the
State of Alaska, the Rural Utilities Service, and the Denali Commission, installed 34 turbines in eleven
communities with interties to three other communities. In 2012, wind turbines generated 4,487,594 kWh
(net) and displaced an estimated 341,886 gallons of diesel fund, saving more than $1,315,000 in diesel
generating costs.
Business Plan Structures and Concepts which may be considered: The wind turbines will be incorporated
into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant operators provide daily servicing. AVEC technicians
provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and are supported by AVEC headquarters staff,
purchasing, and warehousing. The sales of excess electric heat will be incorporated into agreements with
the City of St. Mary’s.
Operating costs: O&M costs for four NPS 100-21 wind turbines in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point are projected
to be $53,525 annually (at $0.049/kWh).
How O&M would be financed for the life of the project: The costs of operations and maintenance will be
funded through ongoing energy sales to AVEC’s consumers (member owners) in the villages.
Operational issues which could arise: Integration of the secondary load controllers for thermal dump (of
excess wind-generated energy) and frequency controls will be addressed. AVEC will use the knowledge
gained through the operations of other village wind-diesel systems, including its own, to address these
issues.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 25 7/1/2013
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: AVEC is fully committed to sharing the savings and
benefits information accrued from this project with its member owners and with 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.
Work provided under this grant award will be initiated immediately. Once funding is known to be
secured, AVEC will prepare and sign contracts with selected contractors. Site control has been obtained.
Previously awarded REF funds have accomplished the design, which is being reviewed by AEA. FAA
approval has been obtained under an earlier design and will need minor modification. Geotechnical
work has been completed and permits have been obtained for a previous project alternative. Permits
will be modified in hand by December 2013.
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,
2013.
The communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point support this project. Letters of support have been
received from all entities in the area, including: Pitka’s Point Traditional Council and Native Corporation,
and the City of St. Mary’s, St. Mary’s Native Corporation, Nerklikmute (St. Mary’s) Native Corporation,
and the Yupiit of Andreafski (tribe). Please see attached letters of support under Tab B.
Another important demonstration of support is the real commitment of the communities through their
contributions of their land to past and future AVEC capital projects. Pitka’s Point has contributed as an
in-kind match of the land (50-year lease and agreement) for the wind turbines. Using their very
conservative value of $1,000/acre for the 33 acre parcel, this represents very strong community support
and a significant in-kind contribution to the project. Please see attached letters of support and
commitment.
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.
AVEC is proposing to construct four Northern Power Systems NPS-21 100 wind turbines in Pitka’s Point.
The construction of this project will cost $4,782,528. AVEC requests $4,274,575 from the State of Alaska
through a Renewable Energy Fund award. AVEC will provide $474,953 as a match contribution. Pitka’s
Point Native Corporation has provided a $33,000 in-kind contribution of a 33-acre parcel of land for this
project. A detailed budget follows.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Construction Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 23 of 25 7/1/2013
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
1. Design and Feasibility
Requirements are Complete Complete
2. Bid Documents
Completed Complete $20,070 $2,230 AVEC Cash $22,300
3. Vendor Selected and
Award in place Complete
4. Construction Phase 2014-2015
Land Acquisition Complete $33,000 PPNC In-kind $33,000
Turbine Procurement De 2014 $1,219,320 $135,480 AVEC Cash $1,354,800
Mobilization Jun 2015 $315,000 $35,000 AVEC Cash $350,000
Site Access
Improvements July, 2015 $292,125 $32,459 AVEC Cash $324,584
Foundation Installation Aug 2015 $499,500 $55,500 AVEC Cash $555,000
Turbine Installation Aug 2015 $287,626 $31,958 AVEC Cash $319,584
Electrical Distribution
Improvements Sept 2015 $992,693 $110,299 AVEC Cash $1,102,992
Demobilization Sept 2015 $175,500 $19,500 AVEC Cash $195,000
5. Integration and Testing Sept 2015 $360,795 $40,089 AVEC Cash $400,884
6. Decommissioning Old
Systems N/A
7. Final Acceptance,
Commissioning and Start-up Nov 2015 $111,946 $12,438 AVEC Cash $124,384
8. Operations Reporting Dec 2015
TOTALS $4,274,575 $507,953 $4,782,528
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $144,572 $16,064 AVEC Cash $160,636
Travel & Per Diem
Equipment $500,670 $55,630 AVEC Cash $556,300
Materials & Supplies $1,588,320 $176,480 AVEC Cash $1,764,800
Contractual Services
Construction Services $1,550,513 $172,279 AVEC Cash $1,722,792
Other $490,500 $54,500 AVEC Cash $545,000
Land $ 33,000 PPNC In-Kind $33,000
TOTALS $4,274,575 $507,953 $4,782,528
Tab A
Resumes
Key Staff Experience
The key staff from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative for this project include:
Steve Gilbert, Manager Energy Projects Development
Steve Gilbert is manager of energy projects development for Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) where he leads a team focused on lowering the cost of energy in
rural Alaskan villages through improved power plant efficiency, wind power, and
interties between villages.
Before starting at AVEC he served as senior manager of Alliant Energy’s wind farms in
three states (Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) where he organized the company’s new
wind Operations and Maintenance (O&M) group. Prior to Alliant Energy, Mr. Gilbert
worked for EDF Renewables, a major owner and operator of wind power plants. He
worked at Chugach Electric for 17 years managing three of the company’s four power
plants, served as lead electrical for a 1 megawatt fuel cell and micro turbine project and
for wind energy project development.
Mr. Gilbert is recognized as an industry leader on wind energy and has been active on a
national level in operations and maintenance of wind power plants. He is the current
chair of the UWIG, O&M users group. The UWIG’s membership owns and operates
approximately 50,000 megawatts of wind generation. Mr. Gilbert recently received a
professional achievement award for his pioneering work in wind power plant operations
and maintenance.
After completing training in electrical power engineering in Wisconsin, Mr. Gilbert
started his career in 1980 in start‐up of large coal, nuclear, and gas turbine power
plants. He provided consulting and technical services to client companies across the U.S.
He was Alaska’s electrical engineer of the year in 2000 and for the 12 western states in
2001. He has been a regular lecturer at schools and universities on renewables,
especially wind. He also worked with BP wind in London assessing European wind
prospects. To better evaluate investment opportunities for his employer Mr. Gilbert
recently completed his MBA.
Meera Kohler, President and CEO
Meera Kohler has more than 30 years of experience in the Alaska electric utility
industry. She was appointed Manager of Administration and Finance at Cordova Electric
Cooperative in 1983, General Manager of Naknek Electric Association in 1990, and
General Manager of Municipal Light & Power in Anchorage in 1997.
Since May 2000, Ms. Kohler has been the President and CEO of AVEC, headquartered in
Anchorage, Alaska. AVEC employs approximately 80 employees and serves more than
7,500 consumers located in 54 communities throughout Alaska which encompasses 40‐
percent of Alaska’s village population.
Meera Kohler’s credentials consist of a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics and a Master’s
Degree in Business Administration from the University of Delhi, India.
Bill Stamm, Manager of Engineering
Bill Stamm leads AVEC’s Engineering Department which is responsible for the in‐house
portion of designing power plants, distribution lines, controls, and other AVEC facilities.
Mr. Stamm has worked at AVEC since 1994. Mr. Stamm was an AVEC Line
Superintendent before he was appointed to Manager of Engineering in 2012. In his
previous position, Mr. Stamm was responsible for the oversight of construction,
personnel, and logistics of numerous AVEC infrastructures projects. Before joining AVEC,
Mr. Stamm worked as a civil engineer for McGuire Group designing water, wastewater,
and road projects. Mr. Stamm has a Bachelor’s Degree in civil engineering from the
University of Connecticut.
Mark Bryan, Manager of Operations
Mark Bryan supervises the AVEC’s line operations, generation operations and all field
construction programs. He has worked at AVEC since 1980, was appointed Manager of
Construction in May 1998 and was promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003.
Mr. Bryan previously held a position as a field plant instructor where he supervised the
installation of diesel generators and hydronic systems. He has also assisted in the
calibration of new generator installations, and designed and installed special research
and development projects for the construction department.
Mr. Bryan is a Certified Journeyman Electrician. He attended American Diesel College,
and is educated in many different areas including fire safety, electrical distribution
systems, and hazardous waste operations and emergency responses.
Debbie Bullock, Manager of Administrative Services
Debbie Bullock is the Manager of Administrative Services. Ms. Bullock has been
employed with AVEC since 1993 and is responsible for all administrative and financial
records. She is responsible for preparing USDA‐RUS reports, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska rate filings, financial forecasts, budgets and Power Cost Equalization reports, as
well as overseeing the day‐to‐day office operations.
Ms. Bullock has worked for previous employers as an office manager, bookkeeper and
has held a tax internship where she prepared individual, partnership, and corporate tax
returns. Ms. Bullock has a BBA in Accounting and has attended various specialized
training programs in her area of expertise including National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association’s management internship program.
Katie Millen, Member and Employee Relations Manager
Katie Millen is the Member and Employee Relations Manager at AVEC. Ms. Millen has
been employed with AVEC since 2003 and is responsible for consumer relations,
education, collections and monthly billing, as well as employee relations, human
resource compliance, payroll and benefits administration.
Ms. Millen began her career with AVEC as a Member Services Representative, and has
also worked as a Human Resource and Payroll Administrator. Ms. Millen has been
responsible for consumer accounts, billing, collections and reporting, as well as payroll
administration, benefits design and administration, HR compliance and employee
relations. Ms. Millen has a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration specializing in
Human Resource Management. She is also a certified Professional in Human Resources.
William Thomson, Technology and Training Superintendent
William Thomson has worked for AVEC since 2001, where he provides the expertise
necessary for AVEC to effectively integrate new technology and systems into its power
plants. This includes selecting equipment, obtaining the necessary technical disclosures
from suppliers and modifying systems as required for AVEC’s unique technical needs,
particularly in the areas of wind‐diesel operation and automated power plants. He also
manages AVEC technician training in these technical areas.
Since moving to Alaska in 1994, Mr. Thomson has concentrated on diesel power
systems. From 1994 to 1997 he was a director of Alaska Power Systems, and from 1997
through 2001 was a co‐owner of Catalina Software. He began working for AVEC in 2001
starting with design work for the new Denali series of power plants, and then managed
the systems integration of wind and secondary loads into these systems starting in
2003. Periodically, he has provided professional presentations on hydro‐electric
controls, and more recently, wind‐diesel hybridization.
Mr. Thomson has a Bachelor’s Degree of Applied Science from the University of British
Columbia, and is a professional engineer registered in both Canada and in Alaska.
AVEC is a full service utility that employees a strong workforce in the field that includes
journeymen linemen, qualified apprentices and unskilled village labor.
Tab B
Letters of Support
Tab C
Heat Project
Information
No information provided in this section.
Not applicable to this project.
Tab D
Authority
Tab E
Electronic Version
of Application
Tab F
Certification
Tab G
Additional Materials
St. Marys Wind Turbines
Golder Associates Inc.
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99507 USA
Tel: (907) 344-6001 Fax: (907) 344-6011 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
September 11, 2012 113-95706
Mr. Jeff Stanley, PE
CRW Engineering Group LLC
3940 Arctic Blvd, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99503
RE: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND CONCEPTUAL LEVEL FOUNDATION
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSED WIND ENERGY PROJECT, ST. MARYS, AK
Dear Mr. Stanley:
This report presents the results of Golder Associates Inc . (Golder) geotechnical exploration, laboratory
testing and conceptual level foundation recommendations for the proposed wind energy project in St.
Marys, Alaska. Our work has been conducted in general accordance with Golder’s proposal to CRW
Engineering Group, LLC (CRW), dated August 23, 2011 and our Letter of Authorization from you.
Wind turbines are proposed for both the Yukon River villages of St. Marys and Mountain Village, Figure 1.
Golder conducted geotechnical reconnaissance in both villages and a subsequent geotechnical
exploration at the St. Marys turbine site. This report discusses our reconnaissance findings for one tower
array location in St. Marys and two tower array locations in Mountain Village as well as the geotechnical
exploration effort and conceptual-level foundation recommendations for the St. Marys tower array
location.
The proposed St. Marys wind turbines site is an undeveloped area southwest of the village, near Pitkas
Point Borrow Site No. 3, Figure 2. Based on information provided by CRW, we understand the Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is considering either three Northwind 100 or a single EWT 52/900
wind turbine system at the St. Marys site. The foundation design loads have not been developed nor
provided to us at this time.
1.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
1.1 Site Reconnaissance
A reconnaissance of the proposed wind turbine site at St. Marys and of the proposed wind turbine sites
(primary and alternate) in Mountain Village was conducted on August 18 and 19, 2011 by Mr. Matt Dillon
of Golder. Thaw probes were advanced at the sites to determine the active layer depth at the time of the
reconnaissance. Thaw probes were conducted with ½-inch diameter by 5 foot long steel T-probe
advanced by hand to refusal or the safe working length of the probe. In late summer, thaw probe
penetration refusal is inferred to be the contact with permafrost or relict seasonal frost.
1.1.1 St. Marys Site
The St. Marys site (where the former AVEC meteorological tower was located) is generally flat terrain on
a gradual, north-facing slope. Probe refusal was typically between one to two feet below ground surface
at the time of our site work (bgs). Tundra vegetation covers the site with some taller brush along drainage
areas, primary in the north end of site. Surface mounds were noted in aerial photography as well as on
the ground. Probe refusal on the top of the mounds was at about 2 feet bgs. Surface water was not
noted at the proposed turbine locations.
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 2 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
1.1.2 Mountain Village (Primary Site)
The primary site for the wind turbines at Mountain Village had a meteorological tower at the time of our
site visit. The site is several miles east of the village, north of the road to St. Marys, Figure 3. The site is
located on a level plateau overlooking the Yukon River. Typical vegetation is tundra and short grass.
Probe refusal was between 1 to 2 feet bgs. A shallow hand dug test pit was advanced to 2.1 feet bgs in a
tundra area near the roadway. Organic soil (peat) was observed in the test pit to the refusal surface in
frozen fibrous peat.
1.1.3 Mountain Village (Alternate Site)
The alternate site for the wind turbines Mountain Village site is between the primary site and the village.
The site is located on a level plateau overlooking the Yukon River, Figure 3. Typical vegetation includes
tundra and short grass. Probe refusal at the site was typically between 1 to 2 feet bgs. Water-filled
troughs were present on the west end of the site. The shallowest probe refusal depths in the wet areas
on the west side were 4 feet bgs and probe refusal was not encountered to the 5-foot probe depth in
some of the wet areas.
1.2 St. Marys Wind Turbine Site Geotechnical Field Exploration
The field investigation and subsurface exploration was conducted October 26 and 27, 2011. The field
exploration consisted of excavating and sampling a total of three test pits, Figure 4. The test pits were
advanced with the city of St. Marys Public Works Cat 330 track excavator and operator. Mr. Jacob
Randazzo was Golder’s on-site representative for the field explorations.
One test pit was excavated at each proposed wind t urbine location as identified by CRW . The test pit
locations were identified in the field with a hand held GPS instrument based on GPS coordinates provided
by CRW . Utility locates were coordinated with statewide and local utilities by Golder prior to conducting
the geotechnical explorations.
The test pits were logged and sampled as they were excavated. Disturbed, but representative, soil
samples were collected from either the excavator bucket or the stockpile of excavated soil. The
recovered samples were visually classified in the field and sealed in plastic bags. The samples were
transported to Golder’s Anchorage laboratory for further examination, cl assification, and geotechnical
index property testing. Upon completion of the explorations, the test pits were backfilled with soil
removed during the excavation. A sealed 1.25-inch inside diameter (ID) schedule-40 PVC casing was
installed in test pit TP-1 prior to backfilling for future ground temperature measurements by others.
The soils observed were visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soils Classification System
(USCS) shown in Figure 5. Visual ice in recovered samples was classified in general accordance with the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM D4083 -89) for frozen soil classification, as described in
Figure 6. The test pit logs are presented in Figures 7 through 9. Consistency or density of the
subsurface materials, as described in this report and shown in the test pit logs, was estimated based on
excavation effort and sidewall stability and should be considered approximate.
Groundwater levels were noted during the excavation are presented on the respective test pit logs, where
observed. Groundwater monitoring standpipes were not installed in any of the test pits.
1.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed to determine index properties of select soil samples to confirm field
classifications and to determine geotechnical properties for engineering analysis . Moisture content tests
were generally conducted according to procedures described in ASTM D -2216. Particle size distributions
were conducted in general conformance with procedures described in AST M D-422.
A summary of laboratory test results is presented in the Sample Summary, Appendix A. Laboratory test
results are also summarized graphically on the test pit logs.
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 3 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND CLIMATE
2.1 Regional Geologic Conditions
St. Marys is located on the Andreafsky River near its confluence with the Yukon River. The village is
located near the southern termination of the Nulato Hills. The village occupies a gently sloping hillside on
the north bank of the Andreafsky River. The Nu lato Hills rise to the north and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
extends to the south and west.
Local terrain is characterized by gently sloping hills covered with tundra, moss, grass, scattered patches
of dense willow brush and occasional black spruce. The Nul ato Hills are composed of Cretaceous
sedimentary bedrock, consisting mostly of siltstone, shale, and fine-grained sandstone. Bedrock is
generally overlain by a mantel of fine-grained alluvial, colluvial and eolian deposits. Solifluction lobes are
apparent on some upper slopes. In many places, fragments of the weathered bedrock surface have
been incorporated into the overlying silt by wind, frost, and gravity action.
2.2 Regional Climate Conditions
St. Marys lies in an area influenced by both maritime and continental climate. Temperatures average
about 50°F in summer and about 15°F in winter, with extremes from -44 to 83°F. Annual snowfall
averages 60 inches, and total annual precipitation averages 16 inches. The Yukon River is typically ice-
free from June through October.
Design climate data, including average thawing and freezing indices, are summarized below for the St.
Marys area. The indices are calculated from data available by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (SNAP). Design indices are based on the three coldest winters
(Design Freezing Index) and the three warmest summers (Design Thawing Index) observed or projected
during the analysis period. Climate indices for the thirty year periods for 1947-1978 and 1979-2009 are
based on the UAF SNAP data. The projected climate indices for 2012-2042 are based on SNAP model
scenarios.
St. Marys Recommended
Climate Indices 1947-1978 1979-2009 2012-2042
Average Air Temperature 29.4 °F 31.4 °F 33.7 °F
Average Freezing Index 3730 °F-days 3220 °F-days 2560 °F-days
Design Freezing Index 4710 °F-days 4190 °F-days 3180 °F-days
Average Thawing Index 2770 °F-days 3010 °F-days 3740 °F-days
Design Thawing Index 3100 °F-days 3440 °F-days 3945 °F-days
SNAP data are distributed as two separate products , historical data and forward looking projections.
Historical records were calculated using the PRISM model by combining climate data from multiple
meteorological records across the state of Alaska from 1901 to 2009 . These data area modeled across
the state in a manner that accounts for variations in slope, aspect, elevation, and coastal proximity.
Forward-looking projections were prepared from 2009 to 2099 utilizing multiple global climate models and
several carbon emission scenarios. The ECHAM5 global climate model results were used for the 2012 -
2042 climate data projection. The ECHAM5 model was determined by the SNAP group to be most
applicable to Alaska. The A1B carbon emission scenario was used for our projected climate data. This
carbon emission model is considered a mid-range future emissions scenario.
Climate trends show that air temperatures in Alaska are rising. As indicated by the reviewe d data, the
average air temperature from 1979 to 2009 is approximately 2°F higher than the prior 30-year period. As
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 4 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
a result of increasing air temperatures, the near surface permafrost in the area is expected to warm and
possibly thaw in some areas.
3.0 GENERALIZED SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The general subsurface conditions at the wind turbine site consist of a thin surficial organic mat one to
two feet thick, overlying a wind-blown silt to a contact with shallow weathered bedrock. The bedrock is
weathered and fractured near the bedrock contact becoming more difficult to excavate with depth. The
greater excavation effort is inferred to represent increasing rock competency. The highly fractured
bedrock is weathered to soil-like fabric and has been logged as dense gravel with cobble size clasts with
some silt. Less fractured bedrock was observed and is logged as bedrock on the test pit logs.
Observations conducted at the nearby Pitkas Point material site indicate that within the competent
bedrock, silt infilling within rock fractures and discontinuities is not significant.
The site is generally underlain by shallow permafrost observed within at 2 feet bgs in test pits TP-1 and
TP-2. Frozen ground was not inferred by excavator action or behavior in test pit TP-3 where granular
material was observed beneath the organic mat.
Test pit TP-1 is located nearest to the road and was excavated to 11 feet bgs. The upper two feet
consisted of soft, wet peat and organic silt. Ground water was observed at one foot deep in the test pit
near the permafrost contact. Frozen ice-rich silt was observed to eight feet deep . Frozen gravelly
material with silt was observed between 8 and 11 feet deep and is interpreted as highly fractured and
weathered bedrock. The test pit was excavated to refusal in a less fractured weathered bedrock at 11
feet bgs.
Test pit TP-2 was excavated to 12 feet bgs. An unfrozen organic layer was observed in the upper two
feet, consisting of peat and organic silt. Frozen ice-rich silt was observed to 9 feet bgs. Silty gravel was
observed between 9 and 11 feet, and is interpreted as highly fractured, weathered bedrock. Less
fractured, more competent bedrock was observed at 11 to 12 feet bgs.
Test pit TP-3 was located at the highest elevation of the three proposed turbine sites and was excavated
to a depth of 12 feet bgs. . An unfrozen organic layer consisting of peat and organic silt was observed to
1 foot bgs, underlain by medium dense gravel sized material, interpreted as highly fractured and
weathered bedrock. Less fractured, weathered bedrock was observed at 6 feet to 11 feet bgs, becoming
harder between 11 and 12 feet bgs. The fractured rock did not exhibit significant ice-bonding and may be
unfrozen or if frozen, it is considered an ice-poor, unbonded material.
4.0 LABORATORY RESULTS
Laboratory test results conducted on frozen silty material above the bedrock indicates soil moisture
contents in excess of thawed state saturation levels are present. Soil moisture contents in the weathered
bedrock samples are significantly lower than in the overlying ice -rich silt y material. Summary soil
moisture content as a percent of dry weight and general soil type are shown below.
Jeff Stanley September 11, 2012
CRW 5 113-95706
St. Marys Wind Turbines
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL
FOUNDATION RECOMMEND ATIONS
The locations explored at the proposed St. Marys wind turbine site should be suitable for gravity mat
foundation systems for the Northwind 100 units. A gravity mat foundation system will most likely be
suitable for an EWT 52/900 unit also. The foundations must extend to the competent bedrock (siltstone)
and should not be founded on the ice-rich silty soil or highly fractured bedrock . The reinforced concrete
mat foundations may be cast on a properly prepared rock surface. Alternatively, a non-frost susceptible
structural fill can be placed between the exposed bedrock and the base of the foundation as a leveling
course, if needed. Structural fill should be well graded sand and gravel placed in a fully thawed state and
compacted to at least 95 percent of modified Proctor, ASTM D-1557. A material meeting the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) Subbase “A” specification is considered
suitable for structural fill. We recommended at least two feet of structural fill be placed under the wind
turbine foundations. Backfill above the wind turbine foundations should be clean, well graded sand and
gravel. Backfill above the foundations should be compacted as recommended for structural fill.
The foundation embedment depth will be determined once final design loads are provided and we are
able to coordinate with the structural engineer. However, the depth of embedment must be sufficiently
deep to resist overturn load with an appropriate factor of safety and not allow the foundation mat to
experience a tension load state under any load condition. If a tension load state is expected based on
foundation geometry and environmental loads, we should be contacted during the design phase.
If structural fill is placed over bedrock as discussed above, a prel iminary allowable bearing capacity of
3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used. A 50-percent increase in the allowable bearing capacity
can be used for short-term transient loads.
The structural fill should extend at least three feet horizontally from the foundation perimeter then at a
1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope to the exposed bedrock surface, provided the structural fill is fully
constrained by in-place soil or bedrock. If the foundations are prepared as discussed above, settlements
are expected to be less than 1-inch total with 0.5-inch differential.
The site has ice-rich permafrost and the overlying icy soils that may produce water and the material may
slough as it thaws. Construction methods should anticipate and control sidewall slough and water. It is
critical the excavations extend to a bedrock surface with minimal silt filling along rock discontinuities to
control settlement. If overexcavation is required to expose a suitable bedrock surface, structural fill is
required to the base of the foundation mat. We should be retained to observe the exposed bedrock
0 ft
2 ft
4 ft
6 ft
8 ft
10 ft
12 ft
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Depth below ground sruface
(% of dry weight)
Soil Moisture Content
Silt (ML) Gravel (GP - GM, GM)
≤
REFERENCE
TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP PROVIDED U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY
CHECK
REVIEW
DESIGN
CADD
SCALE
FILE No.
PROJECT No.
TITLEAS SHOWN
REV.J:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\Vicinity Map.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:04 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA1
NA ----
DBC 1/9/11
RAM 9/10/12
RAM 9/10/12
0 ----
FIG.
113-95706
Vicinity Map.dwg
AVEC / ST MARYS/ AK
VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED WIND TURBINES
SAINT MARYS , ALASKA
SAINT MARYS
PROJECT AREA
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
PROJECT AREA
SCALE
0
MILES
5 5
PROJECT
AREA
J:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\site-map.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:06 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA
2--------DBC1/5/12RAM9/10/12RAM9/10/120----FIG.113-95706site-map.dwgAVEC / ST MARYS/ AKSAINT MARYS PROJECT AREA MAPPROPOSED WIND TURBINES SAINT MARYS, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.SCALE01/21/2MILESAINT MARYSAIR
P
O
R
T
R
DPROJECT LOCATIONAIRPORTIMAGE DATED:SUPPLIED BY AND SOURCED UNDER LICENCEFROM GOOGLE EARTH PRO ON :IMAGE GEOREFERENCED BY GOLDER ANDINTENDED FOR INDICATIVE PURPOSES ONLYSource: Google Earth Pro 201009/03/200609/03/2006
J:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\Mointain_Village.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:08 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA
3NA----DBC1/10/12RAM9/10/12RAM9/10/120----FIG.113-95706Mointain_Village.dwgAVEC / MOINTAIN VILLAGE / AKMOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROJECTAREA MAPPROPOSED WIND TURBINES MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.REFERENCE1.BASE MAP IMAGERY COLLECTED BYGEOEYE DATED 06/09/2006 AND PROVIDEDBY ALASKA STATEWIDE DIGITAL MAPPINGINITIATIVE.2.TOPO BASEMAP IS DRG PROVIDED BYU.S.GEOLOGIC SURVEY.SCALE01/21/2MILEPRIMARY SITEALTERNATE SITE
TP-1TP-2TP-31.BASE MAP PROVIDED BY CRW ENGINEERING GROUP LLC.FROM SAINT MARYS ALASKA, WIND TURBINE PROJECTDATED 8/17/11.LEGENDLEGENDTP-1GOLDER TEST PIT NAME ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONJ:\2011 jobs\113-95706 avec st marys mtn village wind recon\CAD\site-map.dwg | 9/10/2012 10:09 AM | MFurrer | ALASKA
4--------DBC1/5/12RAM9/10/12RAM9/10/120----FIG.113-95706site-map.dwgAVEC / ST MARYS/ AKSAINT MARYS TEST PIT LOCATION MAPPROPOSED WIND TURBINES SAINT MARYS, ALASKACHECKREVIEWDESIGNCADDSCALEFILE No.PROJECT No.TITLEAS SHOWNREV.REFERENCESAINTMARYSAIRPORTAIRPORT RDPITKA'S
P
O
I
N
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
D
SCALE0FEET15001500
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR
PERCENTAGES (ASTM D 2488-00)
CU 6 AND 1 CC 3
CU < 6 AND/OR 1 > CC > 3
CLEAN SANDS
<5% FINES
SANDS AND FINES
>12% FINES
SANDS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT <50
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT 50
50% OF COARSE
FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE
If soil contains 15% gravel, add"with gravel"VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
COMPACT
DENSE
VERY DENSE
VERY SOFT
SOFT
FIRM
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
CONSISTENCY
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
RELATIVE DENSITY
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50
COHESIONLESS SOILS (a)COHESIVE SOILS(b)
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY ESTIMATE
USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) VALUES
D 30( )
2
PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR
SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO 4. SIEVE
DPLASTICITY INDEX (PI)Figure
5SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND
LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC_SOIL_LEGEND] 1/12/12Gravels or sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols (GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC)
and add "with clay" or "with silt" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML for GM or SM, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
Optional Abbeviations: Lower case "s" after USCS group symbol
denotes either "sandy" or "with sand" and
"g" denotes either "gravelly" or "with gravel"
N1 (BLOWS/
FOOT)(c)
N1 (BLOWS/
FOOT)(c)
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (TSF)(d)
10D =
LL (oven dried)
LL (not dried)
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
(OH, OL) if:
(4 PI 7)
x
60
DC
60
PEATCOARSE-GRAINED SOILS>50% RETAINED ONNO. 200 SIEVEGRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS
<5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
>12% FINES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7
CC
10D=U
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
CL
ML
OL
CH
MH
OH
TRACE
FEW
LITTLE
SOME
MOSTLY
DESCRIPTIVE
TERMS
RANGE OF
PROPORTION
0 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 25%
30 - 45%
50 - 100%
LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
C
TW
MS
GP
RC
AG
Core (Rock)
Thin Wall (Shelby Tube)
Modified Shelby
Geoprobe
Air Rotary Cuttings
Auger Cuttings
SS
SSO
HD
BD
CA
GS
SAMPLER ABBREVIATIONS
CRITERIA FOR DESCRIBING
MOISTURE CONDITION (ASTM D 2488-00)
SIZE RANGE
ABOVE 12 IN.
3 IN. TO 12 IN.
3 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm)
3 IN. TO 3/4 IN.
3/4 IN. TO NO. 4 (4.76 mm)
NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
NO. 4 (4.76 mm) TO NO. 10 (2.0 mm)
NO. 10 (2.0 mm) TO NO. 40 (0.42 mm)
NO. 40 (0.42 mm) TO NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
SMALLER THAN NO. 200 (0.074 mm)
0.074 mm TO 0.005 mm
LESS THAN 0.005 mm
SPT Sampler (2 in. OD, 140 lb hammer)
Oversize Split Spoon (2.5 in. OD, 140 lb typ.)
Heavy Duty Split Spoon (3 in. OD, 300/340 lb typ.)
Bulk Drive (4 in. OD, 300/340 lb hammer typ.)
Continous Core (Soil in Hollow-Stem Auger)
Grab Sample from Surface / Testpit
BOULDERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
COARSE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
SAND
COARSE SAND
MEDIUM SAND
FINE SAND
SILT AND CLAY
SILT
CLAY
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS BY GRADATION
COMPONENT
ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH
DAMP BUT NO VISIBLE WATER
VISIBLE FREE WATER, USUALLY SOIL IS BELOW
WATER TABLE
DRY
MOIST
WET
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
WELL-GRADED SAND
POORLY GRADED SAND
SILTY SAND
CLAYEY SAND
LEAN CLAY
SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
FAT CLAY
ELASTIC SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
4
MATERIAL
TYPES
FINE-GRAINED SOILS>50% PASSESNO. 200 SIEVELIQUID LIMIT (LL)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
(PI > 7)
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
PT
GROUP
SYMBOL
If soil contains 15% sand, add"with sand"If soil contains coarse-grained soil from15% to 29%, add "with sand" or "withgravel" for whichever type is prominent,or for 30%, add "sandy" or "gravelly"PLASTICITY CHARTUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 2487-00)
(a) Soils consisting of gravel, sand, and silt, either separately or in combination possessing no characteristics of
plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior.
(b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undrained behavior.
(c) Refer to ASTM D 1586-99 for a definition of N. Values shown are based on N values corrected for overburden
pressure (N1). N values may be affected by a number of factors including material size, depth, drilling method,
and borehole disturbance. N values are only an approximate guide for frozen soil or cohesive soil.
(d) Undrained shear strength, su= 1/2 unconfined compression strength, Uc. Note that Torvane measures su and
Pocket Penetrometer measures Uc
< 0.75
CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES
AND GROUP SYMBOLS USING LABORATORY TESTS
(PI < 4)
Con
Comp
Dd
K
MA
NP
OLI
Consolidation
Proctor Compaction (D698/D1557)
Dry Density
Thermal Conductivity
Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis
Non-plastic
Organic Loss
Percent Fines (Silt & Clay)
Soil pH
Photoionization Detector
Modified Proctor
Pocket Penetrometer
Point Load
Sieve Analysis
P200
pH
PID
PM
PP
PTLD
SA
Specific Gravity
Thaw Consolidation/Strain
Torvane
Unconfined Compression
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL)
Soil Resistivity
SpG
TC
TV
TX
WC
WP
(a t o r a b o v e "A " lin e )ML
CL
MH
CH
CU 4 AND 1 CC 3
CU < 4 AND/OR 1 > CC > 3
CL-ML (LL < 50)(LL 50)"A " L IN E
(b e lo w "A " lin e )
Excess
ice
Well
bonded
Individual ice crystals
or inclusions
FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND
LIBRARY-ANC(9-20-11).GLB [ANC_ICE_LEGEND] 1/12/12No ice-bonded soil observed
Poorly bonded or friable
Well bonded
ICE BONDING SYMBOLS
Figure
6
3. MODIFY SOIL
DESCRIPTION BY
DESCRIPTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL
ICE STRATA
2. MODIFY SOIL
DESCRIPTION BY
DESCRIPTION OF
FROZEN SOIL
1. DESCRIBE SOIL
INDEPENDENT
OF FROZEN STATE
DEFINITIONS
DESIGNATION
Nf
Nbn
Nbe
Vx
Vc
Vr
Vs
Vu
ICE+soil type
ICE
SUBGROUP
DESIGNATION
N
V
ICE
FROZEN SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 4083-89)
TYPICAL USCS SOIL CLASSGENERAL SOIL TYPE
% FINER
THAN 0.02
mm BY
WEIGHT
(a) Gravels
Crushed stone
Crushed rock
(b) Sands
GW, GP
SW, SP
(a) Gravels
Crushed stone
Crushed rock
(b) Sands
GW, GP
SW, SP
PFS(4)
[MOA NFS]
S1
[MOA F1]Gravelly soils GW, GP GW-GM, GP-GM,
GW-GC, GP-GC
[MOA F2]
S2
[MOA F2]Sandy soils SW, SP SW-SM, SP-SM,
SW-SC, SP-SC
Gravelly soils GM, GC, GM-GC, GW-GM,
GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC
GW, GP GW-GM, GP-GM,
GW-GC, GP-GC(a) Gravelly soils
(b) Sands
FROST
GROUP(2)
1.5 to 3
3 to 10
3 to 6
3 to 6
6 to 10
10 to 20
6 to 15
F1
[MOA F1]
SM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SC,
SW-SC, SP-SC, SM-SC
(a) Gravelly soils
(b) Sands, except very fine silty sands
(c) Clays, PI>12
GM, GC, GM-GC
SM, SC, SM-SC
CL, CH
(a) Silts
(b) Very fine silty sands
(c) Clays, PI<12
ML, MH, ML-CL
SM, SC, SM-SC
CL, ML-CL
FROST DESIGN SOIL CLASSIFICATION (1)
--
Over 15
--
(d) Varved clays or other fine-
grained banded sediments --CL or CH layered with ML, MH,
ML-CL, SM, SC, or SM-SC
DESCRIPTION
MAJOR GROUP
Segregated
ice not
visible by eye
Segregated
ice visible by
eye (ice less
than 25 mm
thick)
F3
[MOA F3]
F4
[MOA F4]
Over 20
Over 15
--
Ice greater
than 25 mm
thick
DESCRIPTION
Poorly bonded
of friable
Ice without
soil inclusions
Ice with soil
inclusions
Uniformly
distributed ice
Stratified or distincltly
oriented ice formations
Random or irregularly
oriented ice formations
Ice coatings
on particles
CLASSIFY SOIL BY THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
No excess
ice
Candled Ice is ice which has rotted or
otherwise formed into long columnar
crystals, very loosely bonded together.
Clear Ice is transparent and contains only
a moderate number of air bubbles.
Cloudy Ice is translucent, but essentially
sound and non-pervious
Friable denotes a condition in which
material is easily broken up under light to
moderate pressure.
Granular Ice is composed of coarse, more
or less equidimensional, ice crystals weakly
bonded together.
Ice Coatings on particles are discernible
layers of ice found on or below the larger
soil particles in a frozen soil mass. They
are sometimes associated with hoarfrost
crystals, which have grown into voids
produced by the freezing action.
Ice Crystal is a very small individual ice
particle visible in the face of a soil mass.
Crystals may be present alone or in a
combination with other ice formations.
Ice Lenses are lenticular ice formations in
soil occurring essentially parallel to each
other, generally normal to the direction of
heat loss and commonly in repeated layers.
Ice Segregation is the growth of ice as
distinct lenses, layers, veins and masses in
soils, commonly but not always oriented
normal to direction of heat loss.
Massive Ice is a large mass of ice,
typically nearly pure and relatively
homogeneous.
Poorly-bonded signifies that the soil
particles are weakly held together by the
ice and that the frozen soil consequently
has poor resistance to chipping or
breaking.
Porous Ice contains numerous voids,
usually interconnected and usually resulting
from melting at air bubbles or along crystal
interfaces from presence of salt or other
materials in the water, or from the freezing
of saturated snow. Though porous, the
mass retains its structural unity.
Thaw-Stable frozen soils do not, on
thawing, show loss of strength below
normal, long-time thawed values nor
produce detrimental settlement.
Thaw-Unstable frozen soils show on
thawing, significant loss of strength below
normal, long-time thawed values and/or
significant settlement, as a direct result of
the melting of the excess ice in the soil.
Well-Bonded signifies that the soil
particles are strongly held together by the
ice and that the frozen soil possesses
relatively high resistance to chipping or
breaking.
NFS(3)
[MOA NFS]
F2
[MOA F2]
(1) From U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EM 1110-3-138, "Pavement Criteria for Seasonal Frost Conditions," April 1984
(2) USACE frost groups directly correspond to frost groups listed in Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) design criteria manual (DCM), 2007;
except as noted.
(3) Non-frost susceptible
(4) Possibly frost susceptible, requires lab test for void ratio to determine frost design soil classification. Gravel with void ratio > 0.25 would
be NFS; Gravel with void ratio < 0.25 would be S1; Sands with void ratio > 0.30 would be NFS; Sands with void ratio < 0.30
would be S2 or F2
0 to 1.5
0 to 3
1
2
3 Test Pit w/ excavatorPT
OL
ML
GM
Notes:
1) Test pit excavated to refusal on inferred
bedrock, at 11 feet deep
2) Groundwater observed at 1 foot during
excavation
3) Frozen ground observed at 2 feet during
excavation
3) Sealed 1.25 inch schedule 40 PVC installed to
11 feet
4) Test pit backfilled with excavated material
1.0
2.0
8.0
0.0 - 1.0
Moist, dark brown, PEAT
(PT)
1.0 - 2.0
Wet, brown, ORGANIC SILT
(OL)
2.0 - 8.0
Frozen, brown, SILT, well bonded with
approximately 10-15% visible ice by volume as
individual ice crystals
(ML-Vx)
8.0 - 11.0
Frozen, brown, SILTY GRAVEL, angular gravel
up to 3 inch diameter, some silt, well bonded
(GM)
Borehole completed at 11.0 ft.
GS
GS
GS
1.25 inch
schedule 40
PVC
1 ft
during
excavationTYPEDESCRIPTIONELEV.BORING METHOD10 20 30 40
10 20 30 40
DEPTH
(ft)WL
UNCORRECTED
BLOWS / FT
SALINITY (ppt)
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
(inch)BLOWSPER FTWP
REC
ATT
RECORD OF BOREHOLE TP-1
VEGETATION: Tundra
SOIL PROFILE
GRAPHICLOGW
ICE BONDSAMPLES
USCSNUMBERNOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
GRAPHICDEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
PROJECT: Saint Marys Wind Turbines
PROJECT NUMBER: 113-95706
LOCATION: Saint Marys, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
DRILLING DATE: 10/26/2011
EQUIPMENT: CAT 330 CL w/ 4' bucket
Figure
7
DATUM: NAD 83
ELEVATION: n/a
COORDS: 62.03892° N 163.24719° W
LOGGED: J. Randazzo
CHECKED: M. Hess
CHECK DATE: 12/21/2011
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 2.5 feet
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: City of St. Marys
DRILLER: Max
113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC BOREHOLE] MFurrer 9/10/1280
1
2
3 Test Pit w/ excavatorPT
OL
ML
ML
ML
GM
Notes:
1) Groundwater observed at 2 feet during
excavation
2) Frozen ground observed at 2 feet during
excavation
2) Test pit backfilled with excavated material
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
9.0
11.0
0.0 - 1.0
Moist, dark brown, PEAT
(PT)
1.0 - 2.0
Moist to wet, brown, ORGANIC SILT
(OL)
2.0 - 3.0
Frozen, brown, SILT, well bonded with
approximately 25% visible ice by volume as
individual ice crystals
(ML, Vx)
3.0 - 4.0
Frozen, light gray, SILT, trace subrounded
gravel up to 0.75 inch diameter, well bonded
with approximately 20% visible ice by volume as
individual ice crystals
(ML, Vx)
4.0 - 9.0
Frozen, gray, SILT, well bonded
(ML, Nb)
9.0 - 11.0
Frozen, gray, SILTY GRAVEL, angular gravel
up to 3 inch diameter, some silt, well bonded
(GM)
11.0 - 12.0
Gray, BEDROCK, flat, fractured rock, mostly
flat, angular cobble sized clasts, well bonded
Borehole completed at 12.0 ft.
GS
GS
GS
Backfilled
with
excavated
material
2 ft
during
excavationTYPEDESCRIPTIONELEV.BORING METHOD10 20 30 40
10 20 30 40
DEPTH
(ft)WL
UNCORRECTED
BLOWS / FT
SALINITY (ppt)
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
(inch)BLOWSPER FTWP
REC
ATT
RECORD OF BOREHOLE TP-2
VEGETATION: Tundra
SOIL PROFILE
GRAPHICLOGW
ICE BONDSAMPLES
USCSNUMBERNOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
GRAPHICDEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
PROJECT: Saint Marys Wind Turbines
PROJECT NUMBER: 113-95706
LOCATION: Saint Marys, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
DRILLING DATE: 10/26/2011
EQUIPMENT: CAT 330 CL w/ 4' bucket
Figure
8
DATUM: NAD 83
ELEVATION: n/a
COORDS: 62.03683° N 163.24900° W
LOGGED: J. Randazzo
CHECKED: M. Hess
CHECK DATE: 12/21/2011
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 2.5 feet
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: City of St. Marys
DRILLER: Bossa
113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC BOREHOLE] MFurrer 9/10/12193
1
2
3 Test Pit w/ excavatorPT
OL
GP-GM
Notes:
1) Groundwater not encountered during excavation
2) Frozen ground not encountered during
excavation
3) Test pit backfilled with excavated material
0.5
1.0
6.0
9.0
0.0 - 0.5
Dry to moist, brown, PEAT
(PT)
0.5 - 1.0
Brown, ORGANIC SILT, fibrous roots
(OL)
1.0 - 6.0
Dry to moist, brown, poorly graded GRAVEL
with silt and sand, angular gravel up to 3 inch
diameter, few silt
(GP-GM)
6.0 - 9.0
Gray, BEDROCK, fractured rock, mostly flat,
angular cobble sized clasts
9.0 - 12.0
Gray to white, BEDROCK, flat plates up to 48
inch diameter
Borehole completed at 12.0 ft.
GS
GS
GS
Backfilled
with
excavated
materialTYPEDESCRIPTIONELEV.BORING METHOD10 20 30 40
10 20 30 40
DEPTH
(ft)WL
UNCORRECTED
BLOWS / FT
SALINITY (ppt)
WATER CONTENT (PERCENT)
(inch)BLOWSPER FTWP
REC
ATT
RECORD OF BOREHOLE TP-3
VEGETATION: Tundra
SOIL PROFILE
GRAPHICLOGW
ICE BONDSAMPLES
USCSNUMBERNOTES
TESTS
WATER LEVELS
GRAPHICDEPTH(ft)0
5
10
15
20
PROJECT: Saint Marys Wind Turbines
PROJECT NUMBER: 113-95706
LOCATION: Saint Marys, Alaska
CLIENT: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
DRILLING DATE: 10/27/2011
EQUIPMENT: CAT 330 CL w/ 4' bucket
Figure
9
DATUM: NAD 83
ELEVATION: n/a
COORDS: 62.03464° N 163.25083° W
LOGGED: J. Randazzo
CHECKED: M. Hess
CHECK DATE: 12/21/2011
SHEET 1 of 1
DEPTH SCALE: 1 inch to 2.5 feet
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: City of St. Marys
DRILLER: Max
113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC BOREHOLE] MFurrer 9/10/12
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TP-1 1 3.0 3.5 100 GS 80 ML
TP-1 2 9.5 10.0 100 GS 11 ML
TP-1 3 10.0 10.5 100 GS Rock
TP-2 1 2.0 2.5 100 GS 193 ML
TP-2 2 3.0 3.5 100 GS 46 ML
TP-2 3 10.0 10.5 100 GS 23 GM
TP-3 1 1.5 2.0 100 GS 7 GP-GM
TP-3 2 10.0 10.5 100 GS Rock
TP-3 3 11.0 11.5 100 GS RockTOPBOTTOMDEPTH (ft)SAMPLE LOCATIONSAMPLING DATA CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1: SAMPLE SUMMARY
Sheet 1 of 1
11/28/2011S. WilsonReviewed By:
QA/QC By:11/28/2011J. Randazzo Date:
Date:SAMPLE NUMBERProject:
Location:
Client:Project No.:
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder Associates Inc.
Saint Marys, Alaska
Saint Marys Wind Turbines
CRW Engineering Group, LLC 113-95706
2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100, Anchorage, AK
Tel: (907) 344-6001 Fax: (907) 344-6011 www.golder.com113-95706 LOGS.GPJ LIBRARY-ANC(7-2-12).GLB [ANC_SAMPLE_SUMMARY] MFurrer 9/10/12PLASTIC LIMIT(PL) (%)LIQUID LIMIT(LL) (%)PLASTICITY INDEX(PI) (%)FINES(SILT & CLAY)GRAVELSANDGRADATION (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%)DESCRIPTION(USCS)SALINITY (ppt)[ (d) is directly meas.]SAMPLE TYPERECOVERY (%)BLOWS PER FOOTNATURAL MOISTURECONTENT (%)TESTS /OTHER TESTS
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis
September 17, 2013
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
dvaught@v3@energy.com
V3 Energy, LLC
Eagle River, Alaska
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | i
This report was prepared by V3 Energy, LLC under contract to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative to
assess the technical and economic feasibility of installing wind turbines at the Pitka’s Point wind site,
which is located near the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This analysis is part of a conceptual
design report and final project design funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund administered
by Alaska Energy Authority.
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Village of St. Mary’s/Andreafsky ............................................................................................................... 1
Wind Resource at Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s ......................................................................................... 1
Wind Speed ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Extreme Winds .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Wind Direction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Temperature and Density ......................................................................................................................... 6
Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment ................................................................................................. 7
Diesel Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 8
Wind Turbine ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC ................................................................................................................. 8
Load Demand ................................................................................................................................................ 9
St. Mary’s Electric Load ............................................................................................................................. 9
Thermal Load .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Diesel Generators ................................................................................................................................... 10
WAsP Modeling, Wind Turbine Layout ....................................................................................................... 11
Orographic Modeling .............................................................................................................................. 11
Wind Turbine Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 12
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout ......................................................................................... 13
WAsP Modeling Results for Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array ........................................................ 13
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Alternate Turbine Layout ......................................................................... 15
WAsP Modeling Results for Alternate Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array ........................................ 15
Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Project Capital Cost ................................................................................................................................. 16
Fuel Cost .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 17
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | ii
Economic Valuation ................................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A, WAsP Wind Farm Report, Pitka’s Point Site, NP 100 Turbines .............................................. 21
Appendix B, WAsP Turbine Site Report, NPS100 ARCTIC Layout ................................................................ 22
Appendix C, WAsP Turbine Site Report, Alternate NPS100 ARCTIC Layout ............................................... 23
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 1
Introduction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the electric utility for the City of Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky as
well as the interconnected village of Pitka’s Point. AVEC was awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) to complete feasibility and design work for installation of wind turbines, with planned
construction completion and commencement of operational status in 2015.
Wind resource studies of the St. Mary’s area began in 2007 with identification of possible wind turbine
sites on Pitka’s Point Corporation land and Saint Mary’s corporation land, located relatively near each
other between the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. Both sites were equipped with 40 meter
met towers, but the Pitka’s Point site eventually proved to have the superior wind resource and was
chosen as the primary site for conceptual design and feasibility work.
CRW Engineering Group, LLC was contracted by AVEC to develop a design package for a wind turbine
project in Saint Mary’s. This analysis is a component of that larger effort.
Village of St. Mary’s/Andreafsky
St. Mary's is located 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage on the north bank of the Andreafsky
River, five miles from its confluence with the Yukon River. The City of St. Mary's encompasses the Yupik
villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky. St. Mary's is a Yupik Eskimo community that maintains a fishing
and subsistence lifestyle. The sale of alcohol is prohibited in the city. According to Census 2010, 507
people live in St. Mary’s and Andreafsky. There are 209 housing units in the community and 151 are
occupied. Its population is 91.5 percent Alaska Native, 3.8 percent Caucasian, and 4.7 percent multi-
racial.
Water is derived from Alstrom Creek reservoir and is
treated. Most homes in the village have complete plumbing
and are connected to the piped water and sewer system.
Waste heat from the power plant supports the circulating
water system. A 1.7-million-gallon sewage lagoon provides
waste treatment. A washeteria is available nearby at Pitka's
Point. An unpermitted landfill is shared with Pitka's Point.
Electricity is provided by AVEC with interconnection to the
village of Pitka’s Point and the St. Mary’s airport (station
code KSM). There is one school located in the community, attended by 185 students. There is a local
health clinic staffed by a health practitioner and four health aides. Emergency Services have river,
limited highway, and air access.
Wind Resource at Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s
The wind resource measured at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is Class 6 (outstanding) by measurement
of wind power density and wind speed. Extensive wind resource analysis has been conducted in the
Saint Mary’s region, with a met tower at a lower elevation site near Saint Mary’s and another met tower
near Mountain Village, in addition to the Pitka’s Point met tower. Documented in Saint Mary’s Area
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 2
Wind Power Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated July 20, 2010, the wind resource measured at the nearby
Saint Mary’s met tower site is less robust than that measured at Pitka’s Point and appears to experience
similar icing problems. The Mountain Village wind resource is excellent with mean wind speed near that
measured at Pitka’s Point. Considering the inland location of Saint Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind
resource measure at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is highly unusual, and very favorable, with its
combination of a high annual average wind speed, relatively low elevation, likely good geotechnical
conditions, and proximity to existing roads and infrastructure.
A 40 meter NRG Systems, Inc. tubular-type meteorological (met) tower was installed on Pitka’s Point
Native Corporation land on the bluff immediately above the Yukon River with excellent exposure to
northeasterly winds down the Andreafsky River, northerly winds from the mountains and southerly
winds from the flat, tundra plains leading toward Bethel. The met tower site is near an active rock
quarry and visual inspection of that quarry indicates the likelihood of excellent geotechnical conditions
for wind turbine foundations. Also of advantage for the site is near proximity of the road connecting
Saint Mary’s to Pitka’s Point, the airport and Mountain Village. A two-phase power distribution line
(connecting the St. Mary’s powerplant to Pitka’s Point as one phase and to the airport as the second
phase) routes on the south side of the road. This line could be upgraded to three-phase at relatively low
cost to connect wind turbines to three-phase distribution in Saint Mary’s.
The Pitka’s Point wind resource is comprehensively described in Pitka’s Point, Alaska Wind Resource
Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated April 25, 2012 and included in Appendix A of this report.
Pitka’s Point met tower data synopsis
Data dates October 26, 2007 to February 12, 2009 (16 months)
Wind power class Class 6 (excellent), based on wind power density
Wind power density mean, 38 m 558 W/m2
Wind speed mean, 38 m 7.62 m/s (17.0 mph)
Max. 10-min wind speed 29.5 m/s
Maximum 2-sec. wind gust 26.3 m/s (81.2 mph), January 2008
Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.94, c = 8.64 m/s
Wind shear power law exponent 0.176 (low)
Roughness class 2.09 (description: few trees)
IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. classification Class II-c (at 38 meters)
Turbulence intensity, mean (at 38 m) 0.076 (at 15 m/s)
Calm wind frequency (at 38 m) 20% (< 4 m/s) (16 mo. measurement period)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 3
Google Earth image, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s
Pitka’s Point met tower location
Wind Speed
Anemometer data obtained from the met tower, from the perspectives of both mean wind speed and
mean wind power density, indicate an outstanding wind resource. Note that cold temperatures
contributed to a higher wind power density than standard conditions would yield for the measured
mean wind speeds.
St. Mary’s
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 4
Pitka’s Point met tower anemometer data summary
Variable
Speed 38
m
Speed 29
m
Speed 28
m IceFree
Speed 21
m
Measurement height (m) 38 28.8 28.2 21
Mean wind speed (m/s) 7.68 7.29 7.33 6.83
MoMM wind speed (m/s) 7.62 7.24 7.33 6.78
Median wind speed (m/s) 7.20 6.80 7.00 6.40
Max wind speed (m/s) 29.50 29.20 27.50 28.40
Weibull k 1.94 1.89 2.22 1.88
Weibull c (m/s) 8.64 8.20 8.26 7.68
Mean power density (W/m²) 573 502 441 414
MoMM power density (W/m²) 559 490 441 404
Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 5,015 4,396 3,861 3,627
MoMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 4,897 4,294 3,861 3,541
Energy pattern factor 1.95 2.00 1.73 2.01
Frequency of calms (%) (< 4 m/s) 20.4 21.9 17.6 24.7
MoMM = mean of monthly means
Time series calculations indicate high mean wind speeds during the winter months with more moderate,
but still relatively high, mean wind speeds during summer months. This correlates well with the Saint
Mary’s/Andreafsky/Pitka’s Point village load profile where winter months see high demand for
electricity and heat and the summer months have lower demand for electricity and heat. The daily wind
profiles indicate relatively even wind speeds throughout the day with slightly higher wind speeds during
night hours.
38 m anemometer data summary
Mean Median
Max 10-
min avg
Max
gust (2
sec)
Std.
Dev.
Weibull
k
Weibull
c
Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (-) (m/s)
Jan 10.17 10.70 29.5 35.9 5.34 1.97 11.45
Feb 9.21 9.20 20.1 23.3 4.07 2.41 10.36
Mar 8.62 8.50 21.8 26.3 4.33 2.07 9.71
Apr 7.98 7.80 16.9 20.6 2.83 3.05 8.90
May 7.27 6.90 21.8 27.1 3.67 2.06 8.19
Jun 5.70 5.80 13.2 15.3 2.62 2.28 6.40
Jul 7.98 7.70 21.7 26.3 3.33 2.55 8.99
Aug 5.89 5.70 15.3 17.9 2.95 2.05 6.62
Sep 6.37 6.70 12.5 16.8 2.44 2.85 7.11
Oct 6.80 6.60 20.1 24.8 3.81 1.80 7.62
Nov 7.32 6.40 24.1 29.8 4.48 1.72 8.23
Dec 8.97 8.90 22.9 27.5 4.69 1.95 10.07
Annual 7.62 7.20 29.5 35.9 4.09 1.94 8.64
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 5
Monthly time series, mean wind speeds
Extreme Winds
A modified Gumbel distribution analysis, based on monthly maximum winds vice annual maximum
winds, was used to predict extreme winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site. Sixteen months of data
though are minimal at best and hence results should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, with data
available the predicted Vref (maximum ten-minute average wind speed) in a 50 year return period (in
other words, predicted to occur once every 50 years) is 41.6 m/s. This result classifies the site as Class II
by International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-1, 3rd edition (IEC3) criteria. IEC extreme wind
probability classification is one criteria – with turbulence the other – that describes a site with respect to
suitability for particular wind turbine models. Note that the IEC3 Class II extreme wind classification,
which applies to the Pitka’s Point met tower site, clearly indicates relatively energetic winds and
turbines installed at this location should be IEC3 Class II rated.
Site extreme wind probability table, 38 m data
Vref Gust IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed.
Period (years) (m/s) (m/s) Class Vref, m/s
3 29.2 35.5 I 50.0
10 35.4 43.1 II 42.5
20 37.0 45.0 III 37.5
30 39.6 48.2 S designer-
specified 50 41.6 50.6
100 44.2 53.8
average gust factor: 1.22
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 6
Wind Direction
Wind frequency and wind energy roses indicate that winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site are
primarily bi-directional, with northerly and east-northeasterly winds predominating. A mean value rose
indicates that east-northeasterly winds are of higher intensity than northerly winds, but interesting, the
infrequent south-southeasterly winds, when they do occur, are highly energetic and likely indicative of
storm winds.
Wind frequency rose (38 m vane) Wind energy rose (38 m anem.)
Temperature and Density
The Pitka’s Point met tower site experiences cool summers and cold winters with resulting higher than
standard air density. Calculated annual air density during the met tower test period exceeds the 1.204
kg/m3 standard air density for a 177 meter elevation by 5.7 percent. This is advantageous in wind power
operations as wind turbines produce more power at low temperatures (high air density) than at
standard temperature and density.
Temperature and density table
Temperature Air Density
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Month (°F) (°F) (°F) (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³)
Jan 4.7 -20.2 39.0 -15.1 -29.0 3.9 1.325 1.204 1.416
Feb 4.1 -24.7 32.4 -15.5 -31.5 0.2 1.343 1.264 1.430
Mar 11.0 -14.3 38.8 -11.7 -25.7 3.8 1.275 1.204 1.397
Apr 19.5 -6.3 44.2 -7.0 -21.3 6.8 1.299 1.235 1.372
May 39.4 13.8 65.5 4.1 -10.1 18.6 1.247 1.185 1.314
Jun 49.2 29.5 70.2 9.5 -1.4 21.2 1.223 1.174 1.272
Jul 50.5 37.9 81.9 10.3 3.3 27.7 1.220 1.149 1.250
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 7
Temperature Air Density
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Month (°F) (°F) (°F) (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³)
Aug 51.3 33.1 70.9 10.7 0.6 21.6 1.218 1.173 1.263
Sep 45.1 30.0 64.6 7.3 -1.1 18.1 1.233 1.187 1.270
Oct 22.7 5.0 37.2 -5.2 -15.0 2.9 1.290 1.252 1.339
Nov 16.3 -14.6 44.6 -8.7 -25.9 7.0 1.308 1.234 1.398
Dec 13.9 -16.2 45.0 -10.1 -26.8 7.2 1.307 1.204 1.403
Annual 27.4 -24.7 81.9 -2.5 -31.5 27.7 1.273 1.149 1.430
Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment
Wind-diesel power systems are categorized based on their average penetration levels, or the overall
proportion of wind-generated electricity compared to the total amount of electrical energy generated.
Commonly used categories of wind-diesel penetration levels are low penetration, medium penetration,
and high penetration. The wind penetration level is roughly equivalent to the amount of diesel fuel
displaced by wind power. Note however that the higher the level of wind penetration, the more
complex and expensive of a control system and demand-management strategy required. Medium
penetration is a good compromise between of displaced fuel usage and relatively minimal system
complexity and is AVEC’s preferred system configuration. Installation of four Northern Power 100 wind
turbines at the Pitka’s Point site would be configured at the medium penetration level.
Categories of wind-diesel penetration levels
Penetration
Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements
Instantaneous Average
Low 0% to 50% Less than
20%
Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum
loading level. Requires minimal changes to existing diesel
control system. All wind energy generated supplies the
village electric load; wind turbines function as “negative
load” with respect to diesel generator governor response.
Medium 0% to 100+% 20% to
50%
Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum
loading level. Requires control system capable of
automatic generator start, stop and paralleling. To control
system frequency during periods of high wind power input,
system requires fast acting secondary load controller
matched to a secondary load such as an electric boiler
augmenting a generator heat recovery loop. At high wind
power levels, secondary (thermal) loads are dispatched to
absorb energy not used by the primary (electric) load.
Without secondary loads, wind turbines must be curtailed
to control frequency.
High
(Diesels-off
Capable)
0% to 150+% Greater
than 50%
Diesel generator(s) can be turned off during periods of
high wind power levels. Requires sophisticated new
control system, significant wind turbine capacity, secondary
(thermal) load, energy storage such as batteries or a flywheel,
and possibly additional components such as demand-
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 8
Penetration
Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements
Instantaneous Average
managed devices.
HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Saint Mary’s power System. HOMER was
designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy
sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid
development of Alaska village wind power projects.
Diesel Power Plant
Electric power (comprised of the diesel power plant and the electric power distribution system) in Saint
Mary’s is provided by AVEC. The existing power plant in Saint Mary’s consists of one Cummins diesel
generator model QSX15G9 rated at 499 kW output, and two Caterpillar diesel generators, a model 3508
rated at 611 kW output and a model 3512 rated at 908 kW output.
St. Mary’s power plant diesel generators
Generator Electrical Capacity Diesel Engine Model
1 499 kW Cummins QSX15G9
2 611 kW Caterpillar 3508
3 908 kW Caterpillar 3512
Wind Turbine
This report considers installation of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for 400 kW installed wind
capacity to serve the Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky and Pitka’s Point combined load.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC
The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC, formerly known as the Northwind 100 (NW100) Arctic, is rated at 100
kW and is equipped with a permanent magnet, synchronous generator, is direct drive (no gearbox), and
is equipped with heaters and has been tested to ensure operation in extreme cold climates. The turbine
has a 21 meter diameter rotor operating at a 37 meter hub height. The turbine is stall-controlled and in
the proposed version will be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at
temperatures down to -40° C. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC is the most widely represented village-
scale wind turbine in Alaska with a significant number of installations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and
on St. Lawrence Island. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbine is manufactured in Barre,
Vermont, USA. More information can be found at http://www.northernpower.com/. The turbine
power curve is shown below.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 9
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC power curve
Load Demand
This analysis includes stand-alone electric and thermal load demand in St. Mary’s (which includes
Andreafsky and Pitka’s Point).
St. Mary’s Electric Load
Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky load data, collected from December 26, 2009 to October 27, 2011, was
received from Mr. Bill Thompson of AVEC. These data are in 15 minute increments and represent total
electric load demand during each time step. The data were processed by adjusting the date/time
stamps nine hours from GMT to Yukon/Alaska time, multiplying each value by four to translate kWh to
kW (similar to processing of the wind turbine data), and creating January 1 to December 31 hourly load
data for export to HOMER software. The resulting load is shown graphically below. Average load is 354
kW with a 621 kW peak load and an average daily load demand of 8,496 kWh. This was revised to an
average daily load demand of 9,092 kWh in this report to account for recent load growth in the
community.
St. Mary’s electric load
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
20
40
60
80
100
Power (kW)Power Curve
Wind Speed (m/s)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 10
Thermal Load
The thermal load demand in St. Mary’s is well quantified and described in a report entitled St. Mary’s,
Alaska Heat Recovery Study, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by Alaska Energy and Engineering,
Inc., dated August 31, 2011. Thermal load data needed for HOMER modeling was extracted from a heat
demand/heat available graph on page 5 of the report. Monthly thermal heat demand is graphed as a
heating fuel equivalent in gallons per month, which was converted to kW demand with a conversion of
0.0312 gallons heating fuel per kWh. Although not entirely precise, the monthly heat demand was
equalized across the entire day for each month and then randomized with a five percent day-to-day and
five percent time step-to-time step random variability. Resulting thermal load is show below.
Saint Mary’s thermal load
Diesel Generators
The HOMER model was constructed with all three St. Mary’s generators. Information pertinent to the
HOMER model is shown in the table below. Note that the Saint Mary’s power plant is equipped with
automated switchgear and can run in automatic mode with generators operating in parallel.
Diesel generator HOMER modeling information
Diesel generator
Cummins
QSX15G9
Caterpillar
3508
Caterpillar
3512
Power output (kW) 499 611 908
Intercept coeff. (L/hr/kW
rated) .0222 0.0233 0.0203
Slope (L/hr/kW output) 0.215 0.238 0.233
Minimum electric
load (%)
0%
(0 kW)
0%
(0 kW)
0%
(0 kW)
Heat recovery ratio (% of
waste heat that can serve the
thermal load)
22 22 22
Intercept coefficient – the no-load fuel consumption of the generator divided by its capacity
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 11
Slope – the marginal fuel consumption of the generator
Diesel generator efficiency curves
Fuel efficiency curve, QSX15G9 Fuel efficiency curve, Cat 3508 Fuel efficiency curve, Cat 3508
WAsP Modeling, Wind Turbine Layout
WAsP (Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program) and is PC-based software for predicting wind
climates, wind resources and power production from wind turbines and wind farms and was used to
model the Pitka’s Point terrain and wind turbine performance.
WAsP software calculates gross and net annual energy production (AEP) for turbines contained within
wind farms, such as an array of two or more turbines in proximity to each other. For s single turbine
array, WAsP calculates gross AEP. With one turbine, net AEP is identical to gross AEP as there is no wake
loss to consider.
Orographic Modeling
WAsP modeling begins with import of a digital elevation map (DEM) of the subject site and surrounding
area and conversion of coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). UTM is a geographic
coordinate system that uses a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to identify locations on the
surface of Earth. UTM coordinates reference the meridian of its particular zone (60 longitudinal zones
are further subdivided by 20 latitude bands) for the easting coordinate and distance from the equator
for the northing coordinate. Units are meters. Elevations of the DEMs are converted to meters (if
necessary) for import into WAsP software.
A met tower reference point is added to the digital elevation map, wind turbine locations identified, and
a wind turbine(s) selected to perform the calculations. WAsP considers the orographic (terrain) effects
on the wind (plus surface roughness and obstacles) and calculates how wind flow increases or decreases
at each node of the DEM grid. The mathematical model has a number of limitations, including the
assumption of overall wind regime of the turbine site is the same as the met tower reference site,
prevailing weather conditions are stable over time, and the surrounding terrain at both sites is
sufficiently gentle and smooth to ensure laminar, attached wind flow. WAsP software is not capable of
modeling turbulent wind flow resulting from sharp terrain features such as mountain ridges, canyons,
shear bluffs, etc.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 12
Orographic modeling of wind across the site, with the Pitka’s Point met tower as the reference site,
indicates an outstanding wind resource on the top edge of the bluff, especially downhill from the met
tower toward the Yukon River and the village of Pitka’s Point.
Wind modeling of Pitka’s Point site area, plan view
Wind modeling of Pitka’s Point site area, view to west
Wind Turbine Project Site
The project site is Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land on and near the location of the Pitka’s Point met
tower, with boundaries of the Pitka’s Point/Saint Mary’s Airport road to the north, a rock quarry to the
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 13
east, the bluff and Lot 10 to the south, and a Native Allotment to the west. More specifically, AVEC has
obtained site control on Lot 6 within these general boundaries for turbine siting. Site control of Lot 6 is
adequate to site four NPS100 ARCTIC turbines.
It is important to note that winds at the project site, though robust as a Class 6 wind resource, are prone
to rime icing conditions in winter. Rime icing is more problematic for wind turbine operations than
freezing rain (clear ice) given its tenacity and longevity in certain climatic conditions. Anti-icing and/or
de-icing features may be necessary to sustain availability during the winter months.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout
Using WAsP software, locations for four NPS100 ARCTIC wind turbines were selected that have high
gross energy production, but at the same time result in minimal array loss, thus yielding a high net
energy production. Site constraints necessitated that the turbines be located on the southern boundary
of the available lot but yet maintain sufficient offset from the quarry to accommodate its possibly future
expansion.
NPS 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout
Turbine UTM (easting, northing)
Pitkas 1 Zone 3V 591490, 6879581
Pitkas 2 Zone 3V 591616, 6879581
Pitkas 3 Zone 3V 591564, 6879490
Pitkas 4 Zone 3V 591690, 6879490
WAsP Modeling Results for Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array
The following table presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production and capacity factor
performance of the NPS100 ARCTIC turbines in a four turbine array at 100% turbine availability (percent
of time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy production). The turbines perform very well
in the Pitka’s Point wind regime with excellent annual energy production and minimal array wake loss.
WAsP modeling results are included in Appendix B of this report.
Note that the standard (atmospheric conditions) power curve was compensated to the measured mean
annual site air density of 1.273 kg/m3. For the stall-controlled NPS100 ARCTIC, power output (for each
m/s wind speed step) of the standard power curve was multiplied by the ratio of site air density to
standard air density of 1.225 kg kg/m3 and capped at a maximum 100 kW output.
WAsP model results, fourNPS100 ARCTIC turbine array, 100% availability
Parameter Total
(MWh/yr)
Average Each
(MWh/yr)
Minimum Each
(MWh/yr)
Maximum Each
(MWh/yr)
Net AEP 1,384 346.0 339.5 358.8
Gross AEP 1,420 355.2 348.2 365.8
Wake loss 2.59 % - - -
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 14
NPS100 ARCTIC turbine layout, view to north
NPS100 ARCTIC turbine layout, view to southwest
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 15
Alternate Turbine Layout
Using WAsP software, locations for five NPS100 ARCTIC wind turbines (four planned plus a possible
future fifth turbine) were selected that have similar high gross energy production and minimal array loss
as the first layout, but allow for electrical distribution line routing that will not cross the access road (a
problem noted by AVEC Engineering with respect to the layout above). As with the layout above, site
constraints necessitated that the turbines be located on the southern boundary of the available lot but
yet maintain sufficient offset from the quarry to accommodate its possibly future expansion.
NPS 100 ARCTIC alternate layout
Turbine UTM (easting, northing)
Pitkas 1 Zone 3V 591490, 6879499
Pitkas 2 Zone 3V 591595, 6879499
Pitkas 3 Zone 3V 591700, 6879499
Pitkas 4 Zone 3V 591543, 6879580
Pitkas 5 (future) Zone 3V 591648, 6879580
WAsP Modeling Results for Alternate Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array
The following table presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production and capacity factor
performance of the NPS100 ARCTIC turbines in a four turbine array at 100% turbine availability (percent
of time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy production). As with the layout above, the
turbines perform very well in the Pitka’s Point wind regime with excellent annual energy production and
minimal array wake loss. WAsP modeling results are included in Appendix C of this report.
Annual energy production alternate four turbine array, 100% availability
Parameter Total
(MWh/yr)
Average Each
(MWh/yr)
Minimum Each
(MWh/yr)
Maximum Each
(MWh/yr)
Net AEP 1,391 347.7 341.7 361.9
Gross AEP 1,430 357.4 348.2 365.8
Wake loss 2.69 % - - -
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 16
Northern Power 100 turbines, view to north
Economic Analysis
Homer software was used to model static energy balance of the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal
power system at one hour increments of time. Wind turbines are modeled as connected to the
electrical distribution system with first priority to serve the electrical load and second priority to serve
the thermal load via a secondary load controller and electric boiler.
Project Capital Cost
Capital and installation costs of four NPS100 ARCTIC wind turbines to serve the village of St. Mary’s,
including distribution system extension is $4,749,528. This cost estimate was developed by CRW
Engineering, Inc. for AVEC’s Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 construction project proposal. Pitka’s
Point Native Corporation is making an in-kind contribution of $33,000 for the project site; hence total
cost for this project is $4,782,528.
Fuel Cost
A fuel price of $5.27/gallon ($1.39/Liter) was chosen for the initial HOMER analysis by reference to
Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035, dated June 30, 2013, which was prepared for the Alaska Energy
Authority by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), and the
2013_06_R7Prototype_final_07012013 Excel spreadsheet, also written by ISER. The $5.27/gallon price
reflects the average value of all fuel prices between the 2015 (the assumed project start year) fuel price
of $4.47/gallon and the 2034 (20 year project end year) fuel price of $6.45/gallon using the medium
price projection analysis with an average social cost of carbon (SCC) of $0.61/gallon included.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 17
By comparison, the fuel price for Saint Mary’s (without social cost of carbon) reported to Regulatory
Commission of Alaska for the 2012 PCE report is $3.26/gallon ($1.02/Liter), without inclusion of SCC.
Assuming an SCC of $0.40/gallon (ISER Prototype spreadsheet, 2013 value), the 2012 Saint Mary’s fuel
price was $3.66/gallon ($1.13/Liter).
Heating fuel displacement by excess energy diverted to thermal loads is valued at $6.42/gallon
($1.70/Liter) as an average price for the 20 year project period. This price was determined by reference
to the 2013_06_R7Prototype_final_07012013 Excel spreadsheet where heating oil is valued at the cost
of diesel fuel (with SCC) plus $1.05/gallon, assuming heating oil displacement between 1,000 and 25,000
gallons per year.
Fuel cost table (SCC included)
ISER medium
cost projection 2015 (/gal) 2034 (/gal)
Average
(/gallon)
Average
(/Liter)
Diesel fuel $4.47 $6.45 $5.37 $1.42
Heating oil $5.52 $7.50 $6.42 $1.70
Modeling Assumptions
HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Saint Mary’s power System. HOMER is a
static energy model designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and
renewable energy sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. Homer
software is widely used in the State of Alaska to aid development of village wind-diesel power projects.
HOMER modeling assumptions are detailed in the table below. Many assumptions, such as project life,
discount rate, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, etc. are AEA default values. The base or
comparison scenario is the existing St. Mary’s/Andreafsky powerplant with its present configuration of
diesel generators. Also assumed in the base or comparison scenario is that excess powerplant heat
serves the thermal load via a heat recovery loop.
Wind turbines constructed at the Pitka’s Point site are assumed to operate in parallel with the diesel
generators. Excess energy will serve thermal loads via a secondary load controller and electric boiler,
but this SLC/boiler combination may not be part of the diesel generator recovered heat loop.
Installation cost of four NPS100 ARCTIC wind turbines assumes a three-phase distribution line extension
from the road to the wind turbine site plus a two-phase to three-phase upgrade of the distribution
system from the line extension tie-in to an existing three-phase distribution point on the west side of
the village of St. Mary’s.
Homer and ISER modeling assumptions
Economic Assumptions
Project cost $4,782,528
Project life 20 years (2015 to 2034)
Discount rate 3% (reference: ISER 2013 Prototype spreadsheet)
Operating Reserves
Load in current time step 10%
Wind power output 100% (Homer setting to force diesels on)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 18
Fuel Properties (no. 2 diesel for
powerplant)
Heating value 46.8 MJ/kg (140,000 BTU/gal)
Density 830 kg/m3 (6.93 lb./gal)
Price (20 year average; ISER 2013,
medium projection plus SCC)
$5.27/gal ($1.38/Liter)
Fuel Properties (no. 1 diesel to serve
thermal loads)
Heating value 44.8 MJ/kg (134,000 BTU/gal)
Density 830 kg/m3 (6.93 lb./gal)
Price (20 year average; ISER 2013,
medium projection plus SCC)
$6.32/gal ($1.66/Liter)
Diesel Generators
Generator capital cost $0 (new generators already funded)
O&M cost $0.02/kWh (reference: ISER 2013 Prototype spreadsheet)
Minimum load 50 kW; based on AVEC’s operational criteria of 50 kW
minimum diesel loading with their wind-diesel systems
Schedule Optimized
Wind Turbines
Availability 80%
O&M cost $0.049/kWh (reference: ISER 2013 Prototype spreadsheet)
Wind speed 7.69 m/s at 30 m, 100% turbine availability
6.75 m/s at 30 m, 80% turbine availability
Density adjustment 1.273 kg/m^3; note that standard air density is 1.225 kg/m^3;
Homer wind resource elevation set at -350 meters to simulate
the Pitka’s Point air density
Energy Loads
Electric 9.09 MWh/day average Saint Mary’s electric load
Thermal 5.22 MWh/day average Saint Mary’s thermal load
Economic Valuation
Homer software was used in this feasibility analysis to model the wind resource, wind turbine energy
production, effect on the diesel engines when operated with wind turbines, and excess wind energy that
could be used to serve thermal loads. Although Homer software is designed to evaluate economic
valuation by ranking alternatives, including a base or “do nothing” alternative by net present cost, AEA
economic valuation methodology differs in its assumptions of O&M costs, fuel cost for each year of the
project life, and disposition of excess energy. Excess energy is valued in the ISER spreadsheet with an
assumption that the powerplant is not co-generation. In other words, excess energy is valued without
consideration of possible thermal production loss due to reduced diesel engine loading as would occur
in a co-generation system configuration.
In an effort to align economic valuation of project alternatives with Alaska Energy Authority methods,
this feasibility analysis uses AEA’s economic evaluation methods. Although ISER developed the cost
evaluation spreadsheet, AEA determined the assumptions and methods of the model. The model is
updated every July in preparation for the next round of Renewable Energy Fund requests for proposals
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 19
in the form of an explanation report and an Excel spreadsheet. The latest version of the spreadsheet
has a file name of 2013_06-R7Prototype_final_07012013 and is available on ISER’s website.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 20
Project Economic Valuation
Additional Information
Turbine
Type
Wind
Capacity
(kW)
Diesel
Efficiency
(kWh/gal)
Wind
Energy
(kWh/yr)
Excess
Electricity
(kWh/yr
Net Wind
Energy
(kWh/yr)
Project
Capital Cost
Diesel
Efficiency
(kWh/gal)
NPV
Benefits
NPV Capital
Costs
NPV Net
Benefit
B/C
Ratio
Diesel and
Heat Oil
Displaced
(gal/yr)
NPS100 400 15.1 1,147,750 55,398 1,092,352 $4,782,528 13.03 $5,757,260 $4,346,491 $1,410,769 1.32 85,250
Notes:
Wind energy at 80% availability
NPV benefits and capital costs at 3% discount rate; base year is 2012 (ISER spreadsheet)
Diesel efficiency for ISER cost model from 2012 PCE Report
Assumes excess wind energy to thermal loads not connected to recovered heat loop
Homer Model ISER Model
Turbine
Type
Hub
Height
(m)
No.
Turbines
Diesel Fuel
Displaced
(gal/yr)
Wind
Energy to
Thermal
(kWh/yr)
Heating
Oil Equiv.
(gal)
Wind
Penetration
(% electrical)
Wind
Penetration
(% thermal)
NPS100 37 4 83,834 55,398 1,416 34.6 2.9
Note: wind energy at 80% availability
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 21
Appendix A, WAsP Wind Farm Report, Pitka’s Point Site, NP 100
Turbines
Pitka’s Point , Alaska Wind Resource Report
Pitka’s Point met tower, photo by Doug Vaught
April 25, 2012
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
V3 Energy, LLC
Eagle River, Alaska
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 2
Summary
The wind resource measured at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is outstanding with measured wind
power class 6 by measurement of wind power density and wind speed. Extensive wind resource analysis
has been conducted in the Saint Mary’s region, with met towers at a lower elevation site closer to the
village of Saint Mary’s and near Mountain Village in addition to the Pitka’s Point met tower.
Documented in another report, the wind resource measured at the nearby Saint Mary’s met tower site
is less robust than that measured at Pitka’s Point and appears to experience similar icing problems. The
Mountain Village wind resource classification appears to be between those measured at Pitka’s Point
and Saint Mary’s. Considering the inland location of Saint Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind resource
measure at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is highly unusual, and very favorable, with its combination of
a high annual average wind speed, relatively low elevation, likely good geotechnical conditions, and
proximity to existing roads and infrastructure.
Met tower data synopsis
Data dates October 26, 2007 to February 12, 2009 (16 months)
Wind power class Class 6 (excellent), based on wind power density
Wind power density mean, 38 m 558 W/m2
Wind speed mean, 38 m 7.62 m/s (17.0 mph)
Max. 10-min wind speed 29.5 m/s
Maximum 2-sec. wind gust 26.3 m/s (81.2 mph), January 2008
Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.93, c = 8.63 m/s
Wind shear power law exponent 0.176 (low)
Roughness class 2.09 (description: few trees)
IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. classification Class II-c (at 38 meters)
Turbulence intensity, mean (at 38 m) 0.076 (at 15 m/s)
Calm wind frequency (at 38 m) 20% (< 4 m/s) (16 mo. measurement period)
Test Site Location
A 40 meter NRG Systems, Inc. tubular-type meteorological (met) tower was installed on Pitka’s Point
Native Corporation land on the bluff immediately above
the Yukon River with excellent exposure to northeasterly
winds down the Andreafsky River, northerly winds from
the mountains and southerly winds from the flat, tundra
plains leading toward Bethel. The met tower site is near
an active rock quarry and visual inspection of that quarry
indicates the likelihood of excellent geotechnical
conditions for wind turbine foundations. Also of
advantage for the site is near proximity of the road
connecting Saint Mary’s to Pitka’s Point, the airport and
Mountain Village. A two-phase power distribution line (connecting the St. Mary’s powerplant to Pitka’s
Point as one phase and to the airport as the second phase) routes on the south side of the road. This
line could be upgraded to three-phase at minimal cost to connect wind turbines to the system.
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 3
Photo of St. Mary’s from Pitka’s Point site, view to NE, Andreafsky River in background
Site information
Site number 0066
Latitude/longitude N 62° 02.252” W 163° 14.820”
Time offset -9 hours from GMT (Yukon/Alaska time zone)
Site elevation 177 meters (580 ft.)
Datalogger type NRG Symphonie, 10 minute time step
Tower type Tubular tall tower, 8-inch diam., 40 meter height
Tower sensor information
Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation
1 NRG #40C anemometer 38.0 m 0.765 0.35 NNE
2
NRG IceFree III
anemometer 28.2 m 0.572 1.0 WNW
3 NRG #40C anemometer 28.8 m 0.765 0.35 NNE
4 NRG #40C anemometer 21.0 m 0.765 0.35 NNE
7 NRG #200P wind vane 38 m 0.351 260 080° T
8 NRG IceFree III wind vane 29 m 0.351 350 350° T
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 4
9 iPack Voltmeter 0.021 0
10 NRG #110S Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 N/A
12 RH-5 relative humidity 2 m 0.097 0
Google Earth image, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s
Topographic maps
St. Mary’s
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 5
Data Quality Control
Data was filtered to remove presumed icing events that yield false zero wind speed data and non-variant
wind direction data. Data that met criteria listed below were automatically filtered. In addition, data
was manually filtered for obvious icing that the automatic filter didn’t catch, and invalid or low quality
data for situations such as logger initialization and other situations.
• Anemometer icing – data filtered if temperature < 1°C, speed SD = 0, and speed changes < 0.25
m/s for minimum 2 hours
• Vane icing – data filtered if temperature < 1°C and vane SD = 0 for minimum of 2 hours
• Tower shading of 29 meter and 28 meter (IceFree) paired anemometers – refer to graphic below
Because the met tower site is a known rime icing environment, it was thought that installation of a
heated anemometer and wind vane would result in much better data recovery than from standard non-
heated sensors, but that did not prove entirely true. As one can see in the table below, data loss due to
icing was actually higher from the IceFree anemometer than the standard anemometers, although data
loss due to icing from the IceFree wind vane is not quite half that from the standard vane. It is not clear
why data recovery from the heated anemometer was so poor. One possible explanation is excessive
voltage drop from the power line tie-in to the sensor on the met tower. Another explanation is simply
the difficult nature of the rime icing environment at the site.
Note also that all data was lost for the period from December 27, 2008 to January 7, 2009. The tower
itself collapsed during a severe rime icing event on February 12, 2009, although temperature and
relative humidity data collection continued for two additional weeks until March 1, 2009. The February
12 ice storm also resulted in the collapse of the nearby St. Mary’s met tower. The St. Mary’s met tower
was replaced in order to continue that study but with more than one year of Pitka’s Point data obtained,
it was decided not to replace the Pitka’s Point met tower.
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 6
Sensor data recovery table
Sensor
Possible
Records
Valid
Records
<Unflagged
data> Icing Invalid
Low
quality
Tower
shading
Recovery
Rate (%)
Speed 38 m 74,016 52,519 52,519 15,962 2,702 0 0 70.96
Speed 28 m
IceFree 74,016 47,014 47,014 17,676 2,706 648 6,252 63.52
Speed 29 m 74,016 51,775 51,775 14,605 2,702 0 4,294 69.95
Speed 21 m 74,016 54,025 54,025 13,971 2,702 0 0 72.99
Direction 38 m 74,016 51,528 51,528 17,608 2,772 0 0 69.62
Direction 29 m
IceFree 74,016 58,876 58,876 9,803 2,772 0 0 79.54
iPack
Voltmeter 74,016 69,122 69,122 0 245 0 0 93.39
Temperature 74,016 68,694 68,694 0 673 0 0 92.81
RH-5 Relative
Humid.
(installed on
1/8/2009) 74,016 7,344 7,344 0 62,023 0 0 9.92
Sensor data recovery rate by month
anemometers vanes
Year Month 38 m
28 m
IceFree 29 m 21 m 38 m
29 m
IceFree
2007 Oct 86.9 75.4 88.3 88.3 79.2 28.1
2007 Nov 53.7 82.9 51.9 54.0 44.5 100.0
2007 Dec 74.1 69.3 80.1 82.7 77.5 79.0
2008 Jan 28.7 23.8 27.6 43.2 54.8 72.5
2008 Feb 76.3 73.5 79.2 78.5 65.8 86.7
2008 Mar 89.5 78.0 92.7 96.6 77.7 89.6
2008 Apr 39.3 71.1 49.1 42.4 66.9 76.5
2008 May 98.5 85.5 89.5 97.3 96.3 98.2
2008 Jun 100.0 89.8 89.3 100.0 100.0 100.0
2008 Jul 100.0 93.6 93.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
2008 Aug 100.0 92.6 97.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2008 Sep 100.0 89.6 99.0 100.0 96.7 100.0
2008 Oct 97.9 88.2 98.3 97.9 93.8 95.6
2008 Nov 62.3 28.1 58.0 56.4 54.9 79.0
2008 Dec 65.4 31.9 65.5 64.6 46.6 72.6
2009 Jan 53.6 36.7 50.1 58.0 45.2 51.1
2009 Feb 40.9 22.7 42.3 42.3 37.9 36.6
2009 Mar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Data 71.0 63.5 70.0 73.0 69.6 79.5
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 7
Data loss due to icing conditions
Tower shading filter plot
Documentation of Icing
Rime icing is more problematic for wind turbine operations than freezing rain (clear ice) given its
tenacity and longevity in certain climatic conditions. For this reason, wind power at the Pitka’s Point site
should be developed with consideration to the possible need for anti-icing and de-icing measures.
These may include redundant control sensors, air-heated rotor blades, leading edge blade heaters, and
active operational intervention during winter months to visually detect and de-ice the turbines.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%OctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFebData Loss due to Icing, percent Anemometer Icing Data Loss
38 m
28 m IceFree
29 m
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 8
An icing event leading to data recovery loss from the sensors is indicated in the January 15, 2009
photographs below, which clearly indicate the presence of icing conditions. This icing event is also
shown in the data graphs of January 15 below. Note that temperature is below freezing, relative
humidity is high, wind speed standard deviation equals zero, and the wind speeds are stopped at their
offset values of 0.4 m/s. These conditions met the criteria of icing conditions and were automatically
flagged by the wind analysis software.
Pitka’s Point Icing Event Photographs, 1/15/2009
Pitka’s Point Icing Event Data, 1/12/2009 to 1/16/2009
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 9
Wind Speed
Anemometer data obtained from the met tower, from the perspectives of both mean wind speed and
mean wind power density, indicate an outstanding wind resource. Note that cold temperatures
contributed to a higher wind power density than standard conditions would yield for the measured
mean wind speeds.
Anemometer data summary
Variable
Speed 38
m
Speed 29
m
Speed 28
m IceFree
Speed 21
m
Measurement height (m) 38 28.8 28.2 21
Mean wind speed (m/s) 7.68 7.29 7.33 6.83
MoMM wind speed (m/s) 7.62 7.24 7.33 6.78
Median wind speed (m/s) 7.20 6.80 7.00 6.40
Max wind speed (m/s) 29.50 29.20 27.50 28.40
Weibull k 1.94 1.89 2.22 1.88
Weibull c (m/s) 8.64 8.20 8.26 7.68
Mean power density (W/m²) 573 502 441 414
MoMM power density (W/m²) 559 490 441 404
Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 5,015 4,396 3,861 3,627
MoMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 4,897 4,294 3,861 3,541
Energy pattern factor 1.95 2.00 1.73 2.01
Frequency of calms (%) (< 4 m/s) 20.4 21.9 17.6 24.7
MoMM = mean of monthly means
Time Series
Time series calculations indicate high mean wind speeds during the winter months with more moderate,
but still relatively high, mean wind speeds during summer months. This correlates well with the Saint
Mary’s/Andreafsky/Pitka’s Point village load profile where winter months see high demand for
electricity and heat and the summer months have lower demand for electricity and heat. The daily wind
profiles indicate relatively even wind speeds throughout the day with slightly higher wind speeds during
night hours.
38 m anemometer data summary
Mean Median
Max 10-
min avg
Max
gust (2
sec)
Std.
Dev.
Weibull
k
Weibull
c
Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (-) (m/s)
Jan 10.17 10.70 29.5 35.9 5.34 1.97 11.45
Feb 9.21 9.20 20.1 23.3 4.07 2.41 10.36
Mar 8.62 8.50 21.8 26.3 4.33 2.07 9.71
Apr 7.98 7.80 16.9 20.6 2.83 3.05 8.90
May 7.27 6.90 21.8 27.1 3.67 2.06 8.19
Jun 5.70 5.80 13.2 15.3 2.62 2.28 6.40
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 10
Jul 7.98 7.70 21.7 26.3 3.33 2.55 8.99
Aug 5.89 5.70 15.3 17.9 2.95 2.05 6.62
Sep 6.37 6.70 12.5 16.8 2.44 2.85 7.11
Oct 6.80 6.60 20.1 24.8 3.81 1.80 7.62
Nov 7.32 6.40 24.1 29.8 4.48 1.72 8.23
Dec 8.97 8.90 22.9 27.5 4.69 1.95 10.07
Annual 7.62 7.20 29.5 35.9 4.09 1.94 8.64
Monthly time series, mean wind speeds
Daily wind profiles (annual)
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 11
Probability Distribution Function
The probability distribution function (PDF), or histogram, of the Pitka’s Point met tower site wind speed
indicates a shape curve dominated by moderate wind speeds and is reflective of a “normal” shape
curve, known as the Rayleigh distribution (Weibull k = 2.0), which is defined as the standard wind
distribution for wind power analysis. As seen below in the wind speed distribution of the 38 meter
anemometer, the most frequently occurring wind speeds are between 5 and 10 m/s with very few wind
events exceeding 25 m/s (the cutout speed of most wind turbines; see following wind speed statistical
table).
PDF of 38 m anemometer (17months’ data)
Weibull k shape curve table
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 12
Weibull values table, 38 m anemometer
Weibull Weibull Mean Proportion Power R
k c
Above Density Squared
Algorithm (m/s) (m/s) 7.678 m/s (W/m2)
Maximum likelihood 1.940 8.644 7.666 0.452 543.6 0.990
Least squares 1.898 8.692 7.713 0.454 566.8 0.988
WAsP 1.998 8.725 7.732 0.461 541.3 0.990
Actual data
7.678 0.461 541.3
Occurrence by wind speed bin (38 m anemometer)
Bin Endpoints
(m/s) Occurrences
Bin Endpoints
(m/s) Occurrences
Lower Upper No. Percent Cumul. Lower Upper No. Percent Cumul.
0 1 955 1.82% 1.82% 15 16 893 1.70% 96.52%
1 2 1,918 3.65% 5.47% 16 17 615 1.17% 97.69%
2 3 3,409 6.49% 11.96% 17 18 373 0.71% 98.40%
3 4 4,050 7.71% 19.67% 18 19 306 0.58% 98.98%
4 5 4,141 7.88% 27.56% 19 20 181 0.34% 99.33%
5 6 4,982 9.49% 37.04% 20 21 133 0.25% 99.58%
6 7 5,320 10.13% 47.17% 21 22 93 0.18% 99.76%
7 8 4,975 9.47% 56.65% 22 23 58 0.11% 99.87%
8 9 4,911 9.35% 66.00% 23 24 29 0.06% 99.92%
9 10 3,976 7.57% 73.57% 24 25 11 0.02% 99.94%
10 11 3,177 6.05% 79.62% 25 26 7 0.01% 99.96%
11 12 2,681 5.10% 84.72% 26 27 11 0.02% 99.98%
12 13 2,246 4.28% 89.00% 27 28 5 0.01% 99.99%
13 14 1,707 3.25% 92.25% 28 29 5 0.01% 100.00%
14 15 1,349 2.57% 94.82% 29 30 2 0.00% 100.00%
Wind Shear and Roughness
Wind shear at the Pitka’s Point met tower site was calculated with the three standard (non-heated)
anemometers installed on the met tower. The calculated power law exponent of 0.176 indicates
relatively low shear at the site. Calculated surface roughness at the site is 0.11 m (the height above
ground where wind speed would be zero) for a roughness class of 2.08 (description: few trees).
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 13
Vertical wind shear profile
Comparative wind shear profiles
Wind shear by direction sector table
Time Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Best-Fit Surface
Direction
Sector Steps
Speed 38
m
Speed 29
m
Speed 21
m
Power Law
Exp
Roughness
(m)
345° - 15° 7,444 8.55 8.02 7.61 0.197 0.1777
15° - 45° 5,176 7.53 7.08 6.63 0.214 0.2655
45° - 75° 7,501 9.62 9.06 8.66 0.176 0.0973
75° - 105° 5,627 8.93 8.30 7.57 0.280 0.7842
105° - 135° 3,004 7.71 7.38 7.00 0.165 0.0645
135° - 165° 2,779 8.28 8.04 7.71 0.121 0.0070
165° - 195° 2,364 7.42 7.21 6.95 0.111 0.0035
195° - 225° 456 3.83 3.57 3.35 0.224 0.3280
225° - 255° 1,636 4.73 4.45 4.27 0.172 0.0857
255° - 285° 1,478 4.86 4.59 4.42 0.161 0.0572
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 14
285° - 315° 2,821 6.24 6.00 5.88 0.098 0.0011
315° - 345° 4,845 6.92 6.54 6.38 0.136 0.0189
Extreme Winds
A modified Gumbel distribution analysis, based on monthly maximum winds vice annual maximum
winds, was used to predict extreme winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site. Sixteen months of data
though are minimal at best and hence results should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, with data
available the predicted Vref (maximum ten-minute average wind speed) in a 50 year return period (in
other words, predicted to occur once every 50 years) is 41.6 m/s. This result classifies the site as Class II
by International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-1, 3rd edition (IEC3) criteria. IEC extreme wind
probability classification is one criteria – with turbulence the other – that describes a site with respect to
suitability for particular wind turbine models. Note that the IEC3 Class II extreme wind classification,
which clearly applies to the Pitka’s Point met tower site, indicates relatively energetic winds and
turbines installed at this location should be IEC3 Class II rated.
Site extreme wind probability table, 38 m data
Vref Gust IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed.
Period (years) (m/s) (m/s) Class Vref, m/s
3 29.2 35.5 I 50.0
10 35.4 43.1 II 42.5
20 37.0 45.0 III 37.5
30 39.6 48.2 S designer-
specified 50 41.6 50.6
100 44.2 53.8
average gust factor: 1.22
Extreme wind graph, by annual method
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 15
Temperature, Density, and Relative Humidity
The Pitka’s Point met tower site experiences cool summers and cold winters with resulting higher than
standard air density. Calculated mean-of-monthly-mean (or annual) air density during the met tower
test period exceeds the 1.204 kg/m3 standard air density for a 177 meter elevation by 5.7 percent. This
is advantageous in wind power operations as wind turbines produce more power at low temperatures
(high air density) than at standard temperature and density.
Temperature and density table
Temperature Air Density
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Month (°F) (°F) (°F) (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³)
Jan 4.7 -20.2 39.0 -15.1 -29.0 3.9 1.325 1.204 1.416
Feb 4.1 -24.7 32.4 -15.5 -31.5 0.2 1.343 1.264 1.430
Mar 11.0 -14.3 38.8 -11.7 -25.7 3.8 1.275 1.204 1.397
Apr 19.5 -6.3 44.2 -7.0 -21.3 6.8 1.299 1.235 1.372
May 39.4 13.8 65.5 4.1 -10.1 18.6 1.247 1.185 1.314
Jun 49.2 29.5 70.2 9.5 -1.4 21.2 1.223 1.174 1.272
Jul 50.5 37.9 81.9 10.3 3.3 27.7 1.220 1.149 1.250
Aug 51.3 33.1 70.9 10.7 0.6 21.6 1.218 1.173 1.263
Sep 45.1 30.0 64.6 7.3 -1.1 18.1 1.233 1.187 1.270
Oct 22.7 5.0 37.2 -5.2 -15.0 2.9 1.290 1.252 1.339
Nov 16.3 -14.6 44.6 -8.7 -25.9 7.0 1.308 1.234 1.398
Dec 13.9 -16.2 45.0 -10.1 -26.8 7.2 1.307 1.204 1.403
Annual 27.4 -24.7 81.9 -2.5 -31.5 27.7 1.273 1.149 1.430
Pitka’s Point temperature boxplot graph
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 16
Wind Speed Scatterplot
The wind speed versus temperature scatterplot below indicates cold temperatures at the Pitka’s Point
met tower site with a preponderance of below freezing temperatures. During the met tower test
periods, temperatures were often below -20° C (-4° F), the minimum operating temperature for most
standard-environment wind turbines. Note that arctic-capable (ratings to -40°C) wind turbines would be
required at Pitka’s Point.
Wind speed/temperature
Wind Direction
Wind frequency rose data indicates that winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site are primarily bi-
directional, with northerly and east-northeasterly winds predominating. The mean value rose indicates
that east-northeasterly winds are of higher intensity than northerly winds, but interesting, the
infrequent south-southeasterly winds, when they do occur, are highly energetic and likely indicative of
storm winds.
Calm frequency (the percent of time that winds at the 38 meter level are less than 4 m/s, a typical cut-in
speed of larger wind turbines) was a very low 20 percent during the 16 month test period.
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 17
Wind frequency rose (38 m vane) Mean value rose (38 m anem.)
Wind energy rose (38 m anem.) Scatterplot rose of 38 m wind power density
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 18
Wind density (38 meter height) roses by month (common scale)
Turbulence
The turbulence intensity (TI) is acceptable with a mean turbulence intensity of 0.076 and a
representative turbulence intensity of 0.105 at 15 m/s wind speed, indicating quite smooth air for wind
turbine operations. This equates to an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 3rd Edition (2005)
turbulence category C, which is the lowest defined category. These data are shown in the turbulence
intensity graph below. As seen, representative TI (90th percentile of the turbulence intensity values,
assuming a normal distribution) at 15 m/s is well under IEC Category C criteria at the Pitka’s Point met
tower site.
Turbulence synopsis
38 m anem. 29 m anem. Legend
Sector
Mean TI
at 15
m/s
Repres.
TI at 15
m/s
IEC3
Category
Mean TI
at 15
m/s
Repres.
TI at 15
m/s
IEC3
Category
IEC3
Categ.
Mean TI at
15 m/s
all 0.076 0.105 C 0.088 0.117 C S >0.16
315° to 045° 0.060 0.084 C 0.067 0.094 C A 0.14-0.16
045° to 135° 0.079 0.105 C 0.093 0.119 C B 0.12-0.14
135° to 225° 0.089 0.119 C 0.093 0.117 C C 0-0.12
045° to 135° 0.074 0.099 C 0.071 0.084 C
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 19
Turbulence rose, 38 m anemometer, 38 m vane
Turbulence rose, 29 m anemometer, 29 m vane
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 20
Turbulence intensity, 38 m, all direction sectors
Turbulence intensity, 29 m, all direction sectors
Pitka’s Point, Alaska Met Tower Wind Resource Report
Page | 21
Turbulence table, 38 m data, all sectors
Bin Bin Endpoints Records
Standard
Representative Midpoint Lower Upper In Mean Deviation Peak
(m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin TI of TI TI TI
1 0.5 1.5 1,336 0.403 0.185 0.640 1.833
2 1.5 2.5 2,692 0.197 0.105 0.331 1.111
3 2.5 3.5 3,834 0.139 0.070 0.228 0.600
4 3.5 4.5 4,076 0.114 0.059 0.190 0.917
5 4.5 5.5 4,528 0.100 0.051 0.165 0.827
6 5.5 6.5 5,278 0.091 0.041 0.144 0.364
7 6.5 7.5 5,126 0.085 0.039 0.135 1.169
8 7.5 8.5 5,027 0.079 0.034 0.122 0.637
9 8.5 9.5 4,538 0.073 0.030 0.112 0.449
10 9.5 10.5 3,503 0.074 0.028 0.110 0.255
11 10.5 11.5 2,881 0.074 0.026 0.108 0.229
12 11.5 12.5 2,488 0.074 0.024 0.105 0.271
13 12.5 13.5 1,966 0.075 0.023 0.105 0.197
14 13.5 14.5 1,519 0.075 0.022 0.104 0.191
15 14.5 15.5 1,054 0.076 0.022 0.105 0.241
16 15.5 16.5 777 0.079 0.022 0.107 0.177
17 16.5 17.5 484 0.082 0.022 0.111 0.163
18 17.5 18.5 322 0.089 0.023 0.118 0.203
19 18.5 19.5 260 0.086 0.020 0.112 0.144
20 19.5 20.5 148 0.085 0.018 0.109 0.138
21 20.5 21.5 113 0.088 0.012 0.103 0.130
22 21.5 22.5 75 0.087 0.013 0.104 0.112
23 22.5 23.5 49 0.085 0.010 0.098 0.107
24 23.5 24.5 11 0.092 0.010 0.105 0.105
25 24.5 25.5 8 0.097 0.014 0.114 0.127
26 25.5 26.5 7 0.089 0.024 0.119 0.137
27 26.5 27.5 10 0.081 0.013 0.098 0.104
28 27.5 28.5 7 0.075 0.013 0.091 0.100
29 28.5 29.5 2 0.071 0.013 0.087 0.080
30 29.5 30.5 1 0.085 0.000 0.085 0.085
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 22
Appendix B, WAsP Turbine Site Report, NPS100 ARCTIC Layout
C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\St Marys\WAsP 2013\Northern Power 100 array, Pitkas Pt. Turbine Cluster 5.docx 1 18-08-13
Pitka’s Point 'Turbine cluster 5' wind farm
Produced on 8/18/2013 at 7:16:33 PM by licenced user: Douglas J. Vaught, V3 Energy, USA
using WAsP version: 10.02.0010.
Summary results
Parameter Total Average Minimum Maximum
Net AEP [MWh] 1384.010 346.002 339.467 358.841
Gross AEP [MWh] 1420.792 355.198 348.148 365.825
Wake loss [%] 2.59 - - -
Site results
Site Location
[m]
Turbine Elevation
[m a.s.l.]
Height
[m a.g.l.]
Net AEP
[MWh]
Wake loss
[%]
Pitkas 1 (591490,
6879581)
NPS100-21 170 38 339.467 2.49
Pitkas 2 (591616,
6879581)
NPS100-21 170 38 342.907 1.73
Pitkas 3 (591564,
6879490)
NPS100-21 170 38 342.794 4.22
Pitkas 4 (591690,
6879490)
NPS100-21 169.3152 38 358.841 1.91
Site wind climates
Site Location
[m]
Height
[m a.g.l.]
A
[m/s]
k U
[m/s]
E
[W/m²]
RIX
[%]
dRIX
[%]
Pitkas 1 (591490,
6879581)
38 8.5 1.98 7.53 527 3.5 0.3
Pitkas 2 (591616,
6879581)
38 8.5 1.99 7.54 526 3.6 0.3
Pitkas 3 (591564,
6879490)
38 8.6 1.99 7.66 552 3.8 0.5
Pitkas 4 (591690,
6879490)
38 8.8 1.99 7.77 577 3.6 0.4
The wind farm lies in a map called 'KWIGUKutmDV'.
C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\St Marys\WAsP 2013\Northern Power 100 array, Pitkas Pt. Turbine Cluster 5.docx 2 18-08-13
The wind farm is in a project called 'Pitkas Point REF 7'
A wind atlas called 'Wind atlas 2' was used to calculate the predicted wind climates
Data origins information
The map was imported by 'User' from a file called
'C:\Users\User\Documents\WindConsultLLC\Alaska\MAPS\KWIGUKutmDV.map', on a
computer called 'SERVER'. The map file data were last modified on the 2/7/2012 at 6:08:37
PM
There is no information about the origin of the wind atlas associated with this wind farm.
The wind turbine generator associated with this wind farm was imported by 'Doug' from a file
called 'C:\Users\Doug\Documents\Wind Turbines\WAsP turbine curves\NW100B_21, 37
meter.wtg', on a computer called 'V3ENERGYACER-PC'. The wind turbine generator file was
last modified on the 8/10/2013 at 5:45:29 PM
C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\St Marys\WAsP 2013\Northern Power 100 array, Pitkas Pt. Turbine Cluster 5.docx 3 18-08-13
Project parameters
The wind farm is in a project called Pitkas Point REF 7.
Here is a list of all the parameters with non-default values:
Air density: 1.281 (default is 1.225)
G oogle Earth Overlays
Saint Mary’s, Alaska REF 7 Wind-Diesel Project Analysis Page | 23
Appendix C, WAsP Turbine Site Report, Alternate NPS100 ARCTIC Layout
Saint Mary’s Project (Pitka’s Point site) 1 24-08-13
'8-24-13 iteration' wind farm
Produced on 8/24/2013 at 12:01:04 PM by licenced user: Douglas J. Vaught, V3 Energy, USA
using WAsP version: 10.02.0010.
Summary results
Parameter Total Average Minimum Maximum
Net AEP [MWh] 1711.923 342.385 335.662 355.510
Gross AEP [MWh] 1780.054 356.011 348.232 365.776
Wake loss [%] 3.83 - - -
Site results
Site Location
[m]
Turbine Elevation
[m a.s.l.]
Height
[m a.g.l.]
Net AEP
[MWh]
Wake loss
[%]
Pitkas 1 (591490,
6879490)
NPS100-21 170 38 338.589 4.81
Pitkas 2 (591595,
6879490)
NPS100-21 170 38 339.526 5.63
Pitkas 3 (591700,
6879490)
NPS100-21 168.5835 38 355.510 2.81
Pitkas 4 (591543,
6879580)
NPS100-21 170 38 335.662 3.61
Pitkas 5 (591648,
6879580)
NPS100-21 170 38 342.636 2.26
Site wind climates
Site Location
[m]
Height
[m a.g.l.]
A
[m/s]
k U
[m/s]
E
[W/m²]
RIX
[%]
dRIX
[%]
Pitkas 1 (591490,
6879490)
38 8.6 1.99 7.63 548 3.8 0.5
Pitkas 2 (591595,
6879490)
38 8.7 1.99 7.68 558 3.7 0.4
Pitkas 3 (591700,
6879490)
38 8.8 1.99 7.77 576 3.6 0.4
Pitkas 4 (591543,
6879580)
38 8.5 1.99 7.53 526 3.5 0.2
Pitkas 5 (591648,
6879580)
38 8.5 1.99 7.56 531 3.5 0.3
The wind farm lies in a map called 'KWIGUKutmDV'.
Saint Mary’s Project (Pitka’s Point site) 2 24-08-13
The wind farm is in a project called 'Pitkas Point REF 7'
A wind atlas called 'Wind atlas 2' was used to calculate the predicted wind climates
Saint Mary’s Project (Pitka’s Point site) 3 24-08-13
Data origins information
The map was imported by 'User' from a file called
'C:\Users\User\Documents\WindConsultLLC\Alaska\MAPS\KWIGUKutmDV.map', on a
computer called 'SERVER'. The map file data were last modified on the 2/7/2012 at 6:08:37
PM
There is no information about the origin of the wind atlas associated with this wind farm.
The wind turbine generator associated with this wind farm was imported by 'Doug' from a file
called 'C:\Users\Doug\Documents\Wind Turbines\WAsP turbine curves\NW100B_21, 37
meter.wtg', on a computer called 'V3ENERGYACER-PC'. The wind turbine generator file was
last modified on the 8/10/2013 at 5:45:29 PM
Project parameters
The wind farm is in a project called Pitkas Point REF 7.
Here is a list of all the parameters with non-default values:
Air density: 1.281 (default is 1.225)
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 8+%+0+6;/#2
)4#2*+%
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 5+6'2.#0
)4#2*+%
%
%
5%#.' '.'%64+%#.4'('4'0%'2.#0)4#2*+%Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 2#46+#.'.'%64+%#.&+564+$7+6102.#0
)4#2*+%
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 9+0&674$+0'&+564+$76+102.#0)4#2*+%
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' (Ä20655%#.' 'Ä0655%#.' /Ä0655%#.' /Ä065
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' %0655%#.' %#0655%#.' %#0655%#.' %Ä065
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' )#0)12'4#6'&59+6%*0655%#.' %Ä:065
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' ):0655%#.' 674$+0'4'('.'80655%#.' )4170&+0)2.#0065
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' 619'42#0'.Ä5+&''.'80655%#.' C619'42#0'.'.'80655%#.' E/#+0/'6'4)4170&+0).7)0655%#.' D/#56Ä5+&''.'80655%#.' F&190619'4$1:9+4+0)0655%#.' /#56'.'8065