Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMt Village Wind Rnd7 Final ALL 09242013Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Application Page 1 of 24 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 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 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 24 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. Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project in the subsections below. 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name. 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. Mountain Village is on the north bank of the Yukon River, approximately 20 miles west of St. Mary’s. Mountain Village is located at approximately 62.0856, -163.7294 (T. 23 N, R. 79 W, SM). 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. This project will benefit the community of Mountain Village (pop. 830). 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 X Feasibility and Conceptual Design Construction and Commissioning 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project. AVEC proposes to complete a conceptual design report (CDR) for a wind energy project in Mountain Village. This project will move the project towards the goal of reducing fuel usage by establishing a renewable energy resource in the community. A met tower collected data east of Mountain Village from November 2009 to August 2011. A wind resource report was completed and revealed a low Class 5 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 24 7/1/2013 (excellent) wind resource with an average wind speed of 7.62 m/s. Work under this grant will include updating the wind resource report, conducting a geotechnical investigation at a proposed wind site, completing the CDR with the preliminary design of a 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.) Project benefits are summarized here and further explained in Section 5.1.1. Mountain Village (population: 830) is a traditional Yup’ik Eskimo village with most residents supported by subsistence activities. Local economies are a mix of commercial fisheries and local wage positions at the schools, cities, and Native corporations. According to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 31.01% of the population was unemployed in 2012. According to the 2007- 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), 20.58% of the population is living below the poverty level. The median household income was $47,000, as compared with the median household income for Alaska at $69,014. High energy costs are an extreme hardship for the residents of Mountain Village. The primary benefit of this project is to reduce and stabilize the long term energy costs in Mountain Village by providing a renewable energy resource that will displace significant amounts of fuel annually. When this project is constructed, electricity costs to non-PCE customers will be decreased, which is expected to have many positive community benefits. The households and other PCE-eligible customers may see a small reduction in their rates but certainly the steep rise of energy costs will be eased. Non- PCE customers will see a more significant decrease in electric rates. A detailed description of the economic, social, and environmental benefits is found in Section 5.1.1. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. The project cost of this wind energy feasibility and conceptual design in Mountain Village is $130,000 of which $123,500 is requested in grant funds from AEA’s renewable energy fund. The remaining $6,500 will be matched in cash by AVEC. 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 $123,500 2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $6,500 2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $ 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) $130,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 24 7/1/2013 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. $4,833,000 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) $326,617 (first year) $5,331,447 (lifetime) 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. $ 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 Mountain Village, will provide grant administration, overall project management and support. 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 power and interties between villages. Previously, Mr. Gilbert worked at Chugach Electric for 17 years managing three power plants and serving as lead electrical engineer for a 1 MW fuel cell and micro-turbine projects and wind energy project development. Mr. Gilbert is recognized as an industry leader on wind energy and has been active on a national level in operation and maintenance of wind power plants. He was Alaska’s Electrical Engineer of the Year in 2000 and for the 12 western states in 2001. He has been a regular lecturer at schools and universities on renewables, especially wind. He also worked with BP Wind in London assessing European wind prospects. To better evaluate investment opportunities for his employer, Mr. Gilbert recently completed his MBA. Meera Kohler, President and CEO 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 24 7/1/2013 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: Authorization to Proceed: August 2014 Wind Resource Report Update: December 2014 Geotechnical Field Work: October 2014 Geotechnical Report: December 2014 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate: August 2015 The AEA milestones will be accomplished as detailed below. Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date 1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation AVEC will select contractor(s) for the limited geotechnical analysis and conceptual design immediately following AEA’s authorization to proceed. August 1, 2014 August 15, 2014 2. Detailed energy resource analysis There will be no need to conduct additional wind resource fieldwork. Instead, AVEC will update the wind resource report previously drafted with 21 months of met tower data to provide an analysis of all the sites near the village. The goal will be to find the best location for a wind farm on Corporation land. September 1, 2014 December 31, 2014 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues AVEC currently has site control from Azachorok Incorporated for a wind farm; therefore, no work will be needed under this task. n/a n/a 4. Permitting and environmental analysis Research will be completed to determine needed environmental permits for the design and construction phases of the project. January 1 2015 March 30, 2015 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 24 7/1/2013 5. Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market AVEC will analyze the existing and future energy costs and markets in Mountain Village. The information will be based on AVEC records and community plans. A community meeting will be held to determine future community energy needs. Information regarding energy demands will be incorporated into the CDR. February 1, 2015 March 30, 2015 6. Assessment of alternatives AVEC will analyze turbine and site alternatives and options for interties to St. Mary’s. February 1, 2015 March 30, 2015 7. Conceptual design and costs estimate Various wind turbines will be examined to determine which will be best suited to fit the needs of Mountain Village. A reconnaissance level geotechnical study will be completed. A conceptual design and cost estimate will be prepared using information gathered from the wind study and geotechnical fieldwork. April 1, 2015 August 15, 2015 8. Economic and financial analyses An economic and financial analysis, which examines potential final design and construction costs, operating and maintenance costs, user rates, and other funding mechanisms, will be developed and included in the CDR. March 1, 2015 July 31, 2015 9. Conceptual business and operations plan Draft business and operational plans will be developed working with the City of Mountain Village and Azachorok Incorporated. May 1, 2015 June 31, 2015 10. Final report and recommendations All of the memoranda and reports written for the project will be combined in a final report and submitted to AEA. The Final CDR will include the following information:  Wind Resource Report  Existing and Future Energy Costs and Markets  Economic and Financial Analysis  Conceptual Business and Operations Plan  Geotechnical Report  Analysis of geographic diversification of wind, an intertie to St. Mary’s, and needed power plant improvements.  Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate for a wind farm and intertie to St. Mary’s. July 15, 2015 August 15, 2015 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 24 7/1/2013 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 used to successfully design and construct 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 include:  Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.  Steve Gilbert, Projects Development Manager, will act as Program Manager and will lead the project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.  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 in-house design of power plants, distribution lines, controls and other AVEC facilities. Mr. Stamm has worked at AVEC since 1994. Mr. Stamm was the AVEC line superintendent before he was appointed to Manager of Engineering in 2012. Mr. Stamm’s unit will provide engineering design and supervision.  Mark Bryan, Manager of Operations, is a Certified Journeyman Electrician and supervises AVEC’s line operations, generation operations and all field construction programs. He has worked at AVEC since 1980, was appointed Manager of Construction in May 1998 and was promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003. Mr. Bryan’s unit will oversee operation of this project as part of the AVEC utility system.  Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, will communicate directly with Mountain Village residents to ensure the community is informed. An AVEC project manager, working under the direction of the Program Manager, will lead this project and ensure that deliverables are on time and within budget. He or she will be responsible for site control and community involvement, working with AVEC’s Community Liaison. The project manager will be responsible for selecting, coordinating, and managing the geotechnical, engineering, and environmental permitting consultants listed below:  Geotechnical consultant. AVEC will select and employ an experienced geotechnical consultant who will conduct a detailed geotechnical and natural hazards field study and report of the project area.  Engineering consultant. AVEC currently has an on-call contract with CRW Engineering Group LLC for engineering services. Under an existing AEA REF award, CRW has completed permitting Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 24 7/1/2013 and design work for a proposed AVEC wind farm in nearby St. Mary’s. CRW will provide the preliminary design and CDR.  Environmental Consultant. CRW will consult with agencies to determine what permits will be needed of the wind farm.  Wind Resource Consultant. Under an existing on-call contract, V3 Energy, LLC., prepared the wind resource report and has provided technical assistance on this project. V3 will continue to provide assistance on an as-needed basis. Resumes are included under Tab A. 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 state and federal grants. An independent financial audit and an independent auditor’s management letter completed for AVEC for FY2012 did not identify any 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 contractors. 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 month. 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 risks associated with this project are low because wind resource data has been collected and because AVEC obtained site control years ago for a wind project. Much of the work has been completed and the project has valuable community support. Weather. Weather could delay consultants getting in and out of the community to conduct site visits and/or the geotechnical survey. However, AVEC will select consultants familiar with Alaskan weather conditions and getting work done in rural Alaska. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 24 7/1/2013 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 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. Based on a wind resource report completed by V3 Energy (Tab G), the wind resource measured near Mountain Village is very good. The wind power was measured as a Class 5. In addition to high average wind speeds and high wind power density, the met tower site experienced very low turbulence and low extreme wind speed probability. An average wind speed of 7.62 m/s was measured over the 21 months of data collection. Due to cool summers and cold winters, Mountain Village experiences higher than standard air density, exceeding the standard density of 1.220 kg/m3 by 6.3 percent at a 50-meter elevation. 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.  Generating power from the hydrokinetic power is not yet an established technology or commercially available technology.  Hydropower resources are not available in the area.  Biomass resources are limited by the lack of resources near the communities. Wind energy as a supplement to diesel generators for electricity generation is considered the most viable and developable source of renewable energy for Mountain Village. 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 24 7/1/2013 Four diesel generators power Mountain Village. The power plant efficiency in 2012 was 13.25 kW/gal (AVEC estimate) or 13.51 (PCE estimate). Generator models, size and age are listed below: Engine Make Model Kw Rating Age (Yrs) Caterpillar 3412 1200 350 28.9 Caterpillar 3456 505 8.3 Caterpillar 3412 1800 601 30.4 MTU 12V2000 710 9.6 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. Mountain Village uses diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler (thermal) and home heating, and diesel and gasoline fuel for transportation needs. Diesel fuel consumption for power generation in Mountain Village in 2012 was 209,103 gallons. The primary effect of a wind farm in Mountain Village will be decreased usage of diesel fuel for electrical power generation. Also, diesel generator loads will be decreased, potentially decreasing generator operations and maintenance costs. Another anticipated effect of this project will be decreased use of heating fuel for boiler operations due to injection of excess wind power as thermal heat to a community system. This feasibility level project will help to determine the anticipated effects. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The electricity generated in Mountain Village was 2,824,188 kWh in FY 2012. The load is highest during the winter months, when the community experiences heavy winds and extended periods of darkness. The average load was 330kWh/month with the peak load occurring in January at 600 kWh. With no renewable energy systems in place, the community relies on diesel fuel to meet its energy needs. The 20-year average cost of diesel in the community is estimated to be approximately $5.14/gal (ISER 2012, medium projection plus social cost of carbon.) In FY 2012, the cost of delivered diesel fuel to Mountain Village for the AVEC power generation was $3.99/gal. The addition of one or more wind turbines to the electric generation system could reduce the amount of diesel fuel used for power generation, thereby decreasing the costs to produce power. Additional project impacts on energy consumers are discussed in Section 5. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 24 7/1/2013 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. Wind power is the renewable energy option of choice for Mountain Village. Based on the wind resource report compiled by V3 Energy, LLC., with 21 months of data collection, Mountain Village is has a Class 5 (excellent) wind resource. In addition to high average wind speeds, the mean power density is 523 W/m2 and the site experiences very low turbulence and low extreme wind probability. Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated capacity factor/Anticipated annual generation. The purpose of this work is to gather background information and plan a future alternative energy facility. Anticipated capacity and generation will be examined for a number of turbine types to determine the best option for the community. Anticipated barriers. Weather, permitting, site control, and construction funding are common barriers to wind project success, but none are anticipated to be barriers to this project. Weather is a minor barrier and does not pose a threat to the completion of this project. Permitting, based on an initial investigation, does not appear to be a significant hurdle to completing this phase of the project. Construction funding will be easier to obtain with design and permits in hand. Site control has been obtained (See Section 8 and Tab G). Basic integration concept/Delivery methods. The wind turbines will interconnect with the existing diesel power plant. Secondary load control will be studied to determine whether dispatch boilers could be installed to use excess wind energy while allowing the diesel generators to continue running at efficient levels. Conceptual design, to be completed as a part of this project, will further detail how power from a wind turbine will be integrated and delivered into the existing electric system in Mountain Village. The delivery method will also be examined. 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. Azachorok, Inc., the Native Corporation for Mountain Village has issued a 50 year lease to AVEC to construct wind turbines and any associated infrastructure. The community is in full support of the wind project, and no additional work will be needed to gain site control. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 24 7/1/2013 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 No permits will be needed to complete the work proposed under this grant. The previously installed met tower operated under a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and under a “no effect on endangered or threatened species” finding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Geotechnical field work is allowable in wetlands under a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). After design of the wind farm is further developed AVEC will seek permits and authorizations for construction from the Corps, USFWS, FAA, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), depending on site conditions and agency input. AVEC will develop a list of needed environmental permits and authorizations in the CDR developed during this phase. 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 Because this is a feasibility and conceptual design effort, environmental permits and authorizations will not be sought during this phase; however, based on an understanding of environmental conditions in Mountain Village and approvals typically needed for wind projects, it is likely that the following topics will be addressed in the CDR: Threatened or Endangered species. The USFWS will need to be consulted to ensure that the construction of the wind farm will have no harmful impact on threatened or endangered species. Construction will need to be timed to avoid impacts to migratory birds in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Habitat issues. During permitting, the project team will work with agencies to ensure that the project will not impact any state refuges, sanctuaries or critical habitat areas, federal refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks. Wetlands and other protected areas. It is likely that the wind turbine could be placed in designated wetland locations. A Corps wetlands permit will be sought after more detailed design is available. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 24 7/1/2013 Archaeological and historical resources. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the undertaking will need to be reviewed by the SHPO. During formal Section 106 consultation, the SHPO will determine whether additional surveys and mitigation will be required. Land development constraints. AVEC has been granted a 50-year lease to the project site by Azachorok, Inc., the Native Corporation of Mountain Village. The lease allows for the construction of turbines as well as any infrastructure needed to support the project. Aviation considerations. A finding of “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” will be sought from the FAA once the turbines and site have been selected and in a future phase. The proposed project site was already issued a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” for installation of the met tower. Based on the finding issued for the met tower at the project site, AVEC does not foresee issues with obtaining this determination for a future wind farm. Visual, aesthetics impacts. The turbines will be constructed outside the community and along an existing road; therefore, it is likely that there will be little concern for visual or aesthetic impacts. Communities often note that turbines 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 Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase/requested grant funding/matching funds. AVEC plans to conduct a feasibility analysis and conceptual design to assess the possibility of using wind power in Mountain Village. This work will cost $130,000. AVEC requests $123,500 from AEA. AVEC will provide $6,500 as a matching cash contribution. Identification of other funding sources. It is possible that the funding for this work could come from future AEA funding, USDA Rural Utilities Service, or another grant program. Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system/projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system. Once the turbine type and site is determined, the next phase of this project Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 24 7/1/2013 will be final design and construction. Without an assessment it is difficult to determine the type, size, and number of turbines that will be needed. Currently, AVEC expects that final design and construction of a 450 kW capacity system will cost $4,833,000. (This is assuming two 225 kW Aeronautica AW29-225 wind turbines; gross AEP each at 50 m hub height; two turbines with 80% availability: 1,137 MWh/year.) AVEC will provide a 5% cash match for the permitting and design phase of the project and a 10% cash match for the construction. 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.) Once the turbines are installed, AVEC estimates the cost of operating and maintaining to be around $55,756 annually. These estimates are based on AEA’s default cost of wind energy of $0.049/kWh. AVEC will provide the funds to maintain consistent operation of the turbines. 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 Mountain Village, is a member-owned cooperative electric utility. It 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. 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 5 (excellent); 7.62 m/s mean annual wind speed; 507 W/m2 WPD (at 50 meters). 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) 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 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 24 7/1/2013 i. Number of generators/boilers/other 4 ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 2,166 kW iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel generators iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 28.9 years, 8.3 years, 30.4 years, 9.6 years v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.51 kWh/gal (FY 2012 PCE report) b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor $620,666 ($0.23kWh sold) labor and non-labor (FY2012 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] 2,824,188 kWh gross generation (2012 PCE report) ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 209,103 gal Other iii. Peak Load 600 kW iv. Average Load 330 kW v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency 13.51 kWh/gal (2012 PCE report) 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] Wind. Two 225 kW Aeronautica AW29-225 wind turbines: 450 kW capacity. (Proposed for evaluation) b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 711,175 kWh gross AEP each at 50 m hub height; two turbines with 80% availability: 1,137 MWh/year ii. Heat [MMBtu] c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 24 7/1/2013 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 $4,833,000 (ISER 2013 assumption of $10,740/kW) b) Development cost c) Annual O&M cost of new system $55,756 (ISER assumption of $0.049/kWh) d) Annual fuel cost Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 84,225 gal/year (at 13.51 kWh/gal) ii. Heat iii. Transportation b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.74/gal (2012 PCE report); average fuel price 2016 to 2035 $5.28 (ISER 2013 medium projection plus social cost of carbon) c) Other economic benefits d) Alaska public benefits Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale Project Analysis a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio 1.28 Payback (years) 11.6 4.4.5 Impact on Rates Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit area. If the is for a PCE eligible utility please discus what the expected impact would be for both pre and post PCE. As a feasibility project there will be no impact on rates; however, upon completion of the Mountain Village Wind Energy Project (post construction) there will be a reduction of electrical rates resulting from reduced use of fuel for generators. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 24 7/1/2013 Mountain Village is a PCE eligible community. Mountain Village consumers received $417,624 in FY12 in PCE credits for eligible kWh sales (1,111,280 kWh) to residences and community facilities. About 58% of sales in Mountain Village were not eligible for PCE and, as a result, those consumers will receive the entire benefit of wind energy generated reduction in 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 The primary benefit of this project is to reduce energy costs in Mountain Village by providing a renewable energy resource. Potential annual fuel displacement. Integration of wind turbine power into the proposed electrical power generation system will offset diesel consumption in Mountain Village by 84,225 gal/year (based on current generator efficiency of 13.51 kWh/gal and 80% availability). 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 Mountain Village is a traditional Yup’ik Eskimo village with most residents supported by subsistence activities. Local economies are a mix of commercial fisheries and local wage positions at the schools, cities, and Native corporations. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS), the average unemployment rate for those years was 31.1%. In Mountain Village, 20.58% of the population was living below the poverty level. The median household income was $47,000, as compared to the average Alaskan median household income of $69,014. The high cost of electricity in Mountain Village, even considering Power Cost Equalization credits where they do apply, at $0.22/kWh is an extreme hardship for these low income families; therefore, the reduction of the cost of power and any other direct or indirect economic benefits associated with this project will be very beneficial to this community. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 24 7/1/2013 It is likely that energy costs for PCE customers will be reduced. As stated in Section 4.4.5, customers who 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. 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, community governments will be able to better focus on providing important community services and functions. 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 like Mountain Village, which in turn makes economic development and the addition of local jobs more likely. 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 turbine(s) 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. Locally produced, affordable energy will empower community residents and could help avert rural-to-urban migration. Project construction will benefit local businesses and residents. During construction the local economy could benefit from the project’s purchase of local services (such as worker housing) and goods (such as food) and construction materials (such as sand or gravel). 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. The state could see 95% of the benefit of reduced electric costs once this project is constructed. Non-economic public benefits The CDR will include information regarding the geographic diversity of wind in the Mountain Village and St. Mary’s area. (When the wind is blowing in Mountain Village it may not be in St. Mary’s, for example.) It will also include information regarding how a system in Mountain Village will work in tandem with the planned wind farm in St. Mary’s. This data will provide information for other Alaskan wind projects, perhaps including the intertie between Mountain Village and St. Mary’s. The Yukon River is located adjacent to the planned turbine location. 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. Another public benefit will be reduced fossil fuel emissions, which results in improved air quality and decreased contribution to global climate change. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 24 7/1/2013 This project will take a big step forward in achieving state and federal renewable energy goals in Mountain Village. 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. This project will not provide power to any large private sector businesses. By reducing the cost of power production, small businesses in Mountain Village, including the Store (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 AVEC has the capacity and experience to administer this grant and this project. As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to finance, operate, and maintain this wind energy project for its design life. It has, with financial assistance from the State of Alaska, the Rural Utilities Service and the Denali Commission, installed 34 turbines in 11 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 turbine 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. How O&M would be financed for the life of the project: The costs of operations and maintenance (estimated at $55,756/yr) will be funded through ongoing energy sales to AVEC’s member-owners in the villages. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 24 7/1/2013 Operational issues which could arise: Integration of the wind power into the new diesel power plant will be fully evaluated during the next phase of the project, but are not anticipated to be a barrier to successful completion of the project. Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: AVEC currently monitors overall generator and plant efficiencies, maintenance costs, fuel costs, and electric system reliability in all their member communities. Monthly and annual average statistics are analyzed by AVEC staff continuously. AVEC is fully committed to sharing all information accrued from this project with its members and to sharing information regarding savings and benefits 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. AVEC is ready to move forward on this project. Once funding is known to be secured, AVEC will complete the geotechnical work before winter. Because the wind resource report has been completed and only needs to be updated, conceptual design will begin quickly following the geotechnical work of summer 2014. No other grants have been secured for this work in the past. AVEC completed the wind resource with its operating funds and some federal funds. 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 community supports this project and is very committed to moving it forward. Letters of support for the project have been received from the City of Mountain Village, the Asa’carsarmiut Tribe, and Azachorok, Incorporated (Tab B). Equally important, this project can demonstrate the real commitment of the community through their contributions of their land. Azachorok, Inc., the Native Corporation for Mountain Village has issued, as an in-kind contribution, a 50-year lease to AVEC to construct wind turbines and any associated infrastructure. 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. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 24 7/1/2013 AVEC plans to complete a feasibility assessment and conceptual design of a new wind project in Mountain Village. This work will cost $130,000. AVEC requests $123,500 from AEA and will provide $6,500 as a cash contribution. A detail of the grant budget follows. AVEC expects the final construction and commissioning phase of the project will cost approximately $4,833,000. AVEC will seek funding assistance for this project after it is designed and permitted. AVEC will likely provide a 10% cash match for construction of the project. Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 24 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. Project scoping and contractor solicitation August 2014 $0 $0 $0 2. Detailed energy resource analysis December 2014 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000 3. Identification of land and regulatory issues N/A $0 $0 Cash $0 4. Permitting and environmental analysis March 2015 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000 5. Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets March 2015 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000 6. Assessment of alternatives March 2015 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000 7. Conceptual design and costs estimate August 2015 Geotech December 2014 $19,000 $1,000 Cash $20,000 Concept design and costing August 2015 $61,750 $3,250 Cash $65,000 8. Economic and financial analysis July 2015 $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000 9. Conceptual business and operations plans June 2015 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000 10. Final Report and Recommendations August 2015 $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000 $123,500 $6,500 $130,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000 Travel & Per Diem $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000 Equipment $0 $0 Cash Materials & Supplies $0 $0 Contractual Services $104,500 $5,500 Cash $110,000 Construction Services $0 $0 Other $0 $0 TOTALS $123,500 $6,500 $130,000 Tab A Resumes                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  V3 Energy, LLC Douglas Vaught, P.E. 19211 Babrof Drive Eagle River, AK 99577 USA tel 907.350.5047 email dvaught@mtaonline.net Consulting Services : • Wind resource analysis and assessment, including IEC 61400-1 3 rd ed. protocols • Wind turbine siting, FAA permitting, and power generation prediction • Wind-diesel power plant modeling and configuration design • Cold climate and rime icing environment analysis of wind turbine operations • Met tower/sensor/logger installation and removal (tubular towers 10 to 60 meters in height) Partial List of Clients: • Alaska Village Electric Cooperative • NANA Pacific, LLC • enXco Development Corp. • Bristol Bay Native Corp. • Naknek Electric Association • Kodiak Electric Association • Barrick Gold • Alaska Energy Authority • North Slope Borough • Manokotak Natives Ltd. Representative Projects: • Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Site selection, FAA permitting, met tower installation, data analysis/wind resource assessment, turbine energy recovery analysis, rime icing/turbine effects analysis, powerplant system modeling. Contact information: Brent Petrie, Key Accounts Mgr, 907-565-5358 • Kodiak Electric Association. Met tower installation, data analysis and modeling for Alaska’s first utility scale turbines (GE 1.5sle) on -line July 2009. Contact information: Darron Scott, CEO, 907 -486-7690. • NANA Pacific, LLC. Site reconnaissance and selection, permitting, met tower installation, wind resource assessment and preliminary power system modeling for Northwest Arctic Borough villages and Red Dog Mine. Contact information: Jay Hermanson, Program Manager, 907-339-6514 • enXco Development Corp. Met tower installation documentation, site reconnaissance , analysis equipment management for utility-sca le wind projects, including Fire Island near Anchorage. Contact information: Steve Gilbert, Alaska Projects Manager, 907-333-0810. • Naknek Electric Association. Long -term wind resource assessment at two sites (sequentially), including site selection, met tower installation, data analysis, turbine research, performance modeling, and project economic analysis. Contact information: Donna Vukich, General Manager, 907-246-4261 • North Slope Borough (with Powercorp Alaska, LLC). Power system modeling, site reconnaissance and selection, FAA permitting, wind turbine cold climate and icing effects white paper. Contact information: Kent Grinage, Public Works Dept., 907-852-0285 Recent Presentations: • Wind Power Icing Challenges in Alaska: a Case Study of the Native Village of Saint Mary’s, presented at Winterwind 2008, Norrköping, Sweden, Dec. 8, 2008. 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 Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Mountain Village met tower site, view upriver (southeast), D. Vaught photo August 12, 2011 Douglas Vaught, P.E. V3 Energy, LLC Eagle River, Alaska Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 2 Summary The wind resource measured at the Mountain Village met tower site 0068 is very good with measured wind power class 5 (excellent). In addition to high average wind speeds and high wind power density, the site experiences very low turbulence and low extreme wind speed probability. Met tower data synopsis Data dates November 5, 2009 to August 9, 2011 (21 months), status: operational Wind power class Low Class 5 (excellent) Power density mean, 50 m 523 W/m2 Wind speed mean, 50 m 7.62 m/s Max. 10-min wind speed average 26.5 m/s Maximum 2-sec. wind gust 31.8 m/s (Feb. 2011) Weibull distribution parameters k = 2.12, c = 8.65 m/s Wind shear power law exponent 0.180 (moderate) Roughness class 2.28 (few trees) IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. classification Class III-c Turbulence intensity, mean 0.072 (at 15 m/s) Calm wind frequency (at 46 m) 16% (< 4 m/s) Community Description Mountain Village has a population of 813 people (2010 census) and is located on north bank of the Yukon River, approximately 20 miles west of St. Mary's and 470 miles northwest of Anchorage. It is at the foot of the 500 ft elevation Azachorok Mountain, the first mountain encountered by those traveling up the Yukon. The climate is continental with maritime influences. Temperatures range from -44 to 80 °F. Annual precipitation averages 16 inches, with snowfall of 44 inches. High winds and low visibility are common during winter. The Lower Yukon is ice-free from mid-June to October. Mountain Village was a summer fish camp until the opening of a general store in 1908. This prompted residents of Liberty Landing and Johnny's Place to immigrate. A Covenant Church missionary school was also built in that same year. A post office was established in 1923, followed by a salmon saltery in 1956 and a cannery in 1964. The city government was incorporated in 1967. Mountain Village became a regional education center in 1976 when it was selected as headquarters for the Lower Yukon School District. A federally-recognized tribe is located in the community -- the Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council. Mountain Village is a Yup'ik Eskimo community with traditional subsistence practices. Commercial fishing and fish processing provide income. The sale and importation of alcohol is banned in the village. According to Census 2010, there were 211 housing units in the community and 184 were occupied. The Mountain Village population is 91.9 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.2 percent white, 0.7 percent Asian, and 3.2 percent of the residents have multi-racial backgrounds. Additionally, 0.4 percent of the population is of Hispanic descent. Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 3 Water is derived from a well and is treated. Mountain Village operates a piped water and sewer system that serves 200 households and facilities. A landfill is available. Electricity is provided by AVEC. There is one school in the community, attended by 242 students. Local hospitals or health clinics include George Waskey Memorial Clinic in Mountain Village. Emergency service is provided by a health aide. A summer road links Mountain Village to Pitka's Point, Andreafsky, and St. Mary's. Mountain Village is accessible by riverboat or barge. A state-owned 3,500' long by 75' wide gravel airstrip is available, and floatplanes land on the Yukon River. In the winter passengers, cargo, and mail are flown in by plane. Snowmachines and skiffs are used for local transportation. Test Site Location The met tower is installed on an a broad, flat ridge on Mountain Village Native Corporation land east of the Mountain Village Airport and near the road that connects Mountain Village to the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point to the east. The site is large enough to accommodate several or more large turbines. Although the site is not at present near electrical distribution lines, near-term plans call for construction of an intertie adjacent to the road between Mountain Village and Saint Mary’s, which would make wind development on the site more advantageous. Site information Site number 0068 Latitude/longitude N 62° 05’ 37.66” W 163° 35’ 24.68”, WGS 84 Site elevation 44 meters (144 ft) Datalogger type NRG Symphonie, 10 minute time step Tower type NRG 50-meter XHD tall tower, 254 mm diameter Anchor type Plate and /or duckbill Topographic maps Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 4 Google Earth image Tower sensor information Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 anemometer 50.3 m (50 m A) 0.760 0.36 000° T 2 NRG #40 anemometer 50.5 m (50 m B) 0.757 0.41 135° T 3 NRG #40 anemometer 40.8 m (40 m) 0.761 0.33 000° T 13 NRG #40 anemometer 41.1 m (41 m) 0.758 0.33 135° T Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 5 14 NRG #40 anemometer 31.8 m (31 m) 0.758 0.34 000° T 15 NRG #40 anemometer 32.0 m (32 m) 0.761 0.33 135° T 7 NRG #200P wind vane 46.1 m 0.351 270 090° T 8 NRG #200P wind vane 40.0 m 0.351 270 090° T 9 NRG #110S Temp C 3 m 0.138 -86.3 N 10 RH-5 relative humidity 2 m 0.098 0 N 12 iPack batter voltmeter n/a 0.021 0 n/a Data Quality Control Data quality is generally good with data recovery of all six anemometers greater than 90 percent and data recovery of the two wind vanes less but also greater than 90 percent. Data loss is limited to winter months only and is attributable to icing events, which are characterized by non-variant output of the anemometer at the minimum offset value (essentially zero) and by non-variant output of the direction vane at the last operable direction. Rime icing conditions have been observed at the nearby Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point met towers, but it is not known if icing conditions observed in the data are due to rime ice or freezing rain. Given the site elevation and known rime icing experience in Saint Mary’s, caution would err toward the former. Data recovery summary table Possible Valid Recovery Label Units Height Records Records Rate (%) Speed 50 m A m/s 50.3 m 92,472 85,955 93.0 Speed 50 m B m/s 50.5 m 92,472 86,241 93.3 Speed 40 m m/s 40.8 m 92,472 87,252 94.4 Speed 41 m m/s 41.1 m 92,472 87,349 94.5 Speed 31 m m/s 31.8 m 92,472 87,168 94.3 Speed 32 m m/s 32 m 92,472 86,449 93.5 Direction 46 m ° 46 m 92,472 83,646 90.5 Direction 40 m ° 40 m 92,472 85,157 92.1 Temperature °C 92,472 92,376 99.9 RH-5 Humidity %RH %RH 92,472 87,632 94.8 Voltmeter volts 92,472 92,382 99.9 Anemometer data recovery 50 m A anem. 50 m B 40 m 41 m 31 m 32 m Possible Valid Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Year Month Records Records Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2009 Nov 3,744 3,660 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 94.3 2009 Dec 4,464 4,113 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 2010 Jan 4,464 4,038 90.5 90.2 98.5 91.9 95.1 93.3 2010 Feb 4,032 3,111 77.2 75.7 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.2 2010 Mar 4,464 3,516 78.8 78.5 87.9 92.5 86.3 85.3 2010 Apr 4,320 4,320 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 6 2010 May 4,464 4,464 100.0 99.8 99.2 99.2 100.0 99.5 2010 Jun 4,320 4,320 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2010 Jul 4,464 4,464 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2010 Aug 4,464 4,464 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2010 Sep 4,320 4,320 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2010 Oct 4,464 3,829 85.8 83.5 91.9 91.9 91.9 86.0 2010 Nov 4,320 4,037 93.5 92.3 89.1 91.8 88.3 90.2 2010 Dec 4,464 4,132 92.6 91.8 94.9 96.0 96.5 90.9 2011 Jan 4,464 3,791 84.9 92.4 92.6 91.2 92.5 92.1 2011 Feb 4,032 2,211 54.8 60.5 55.6 57.8 57.4 57.7 2011 Mar 4,464 4,464 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2011 Apr 4,320 4,320 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2011 May 4,464 4,421 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 2011 Jun 4,320 4,320 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2011 Jul 4,464 4,464 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2011 Aug 1,176 1,176 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 92,472 85,955 93.0 93.3 94.4 94.5 94.3 93.5 Icing Event Data indicating an apparent icing event in February 2011 is shown below. In the days preceding the event, characterized by loss of anemometer function, the temperature had been -15° C, warming to 0° C. Relatively humidity had been moderate but increased to 100 percent coinciding with the temperature warm-up to the freezing point. At this time, on February 7, all six anemometers ceased functioning. The moderate temperature and high humidity conditions continued for two days which were followed by a rapid decrease of temperature to -32° C on February 11. Anemometers remained inoperative and presumably encased in ice until February 16 and 17 when the temperature again warmed to 0° C and humidity rose to 100 percent, indicating another precipitation event. High winds and warming temperatures were sufficient to break loose the anemometers and they resumed normal function. Apparent icing event, Feb. 2011, temp. and RH Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 7 Apparent icing event, Feb. 2011, anemometers Data Gap-fill Although the overall loss of anemometer data due to icing was less than 90 percent, this includes the summer months which of course do not experience icing conditions. Wintertime icing loss was much higher, with data recovery of the anemometers as low as the 50 percent range in February 2011. Ice event data is removed from the file to avoid biasing the mean wind speed low (zero wind speed when the wind is likely blowing), but that can create the opposite situation, where the data set bias is high (no recorded wind speed during the ice periods, leaving just higher wind speeds in the data set). To overcome these errors, a data gap-fill algorithm contained in Windographer software was employed to synthesize missing data and create a statistically truer representation of the Mountain Village wind resource than the file without data gap-fill. Note: dotted lines below are synthesized data. Gap-fill of Feb. 2011 icing event Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 8 Wind Speed Anemometer data obtained from the met tower, from the perspectives of both mean wind speed and mean wind power density, indicate an excellent wind resource. Mean wind speeds are greater at higher elevations on the met tower, as one would expect. Note that cold temperatures contributed to a higher wind power density than otherwise might have been expected for the mean wind speeds. Also note, as discussed in the previous section, that anemometer summary information is the table below is post gap- fill. None gap-filled mean wind speeds and power densities are slightly higher than below. Anemometer data summary Variable Speed 50 m A Speed 50 m B Speed 41 m Speed 40 m Speed 32 m Speed 31 m Measurement height (m) 50.3 50.5 41.1 40.8 32.0 31.8 Mean wind speed (m/s) 7.57 7.67 7.32 7.31 7.06 7.02 MMM wind speed (m/s) 7.52 7.63 7.28 7.26 7.02 6.97 Max 10-min wind speed (m/s) 26.6 26.5 26.0 26.0 25.4 25.2 Max gust wind speed (m/s) 31.5 31.8 31.8 32.7 31.5 31.4 Weibull k 2.13 2.12 2.09 2.12 2.10 2.12 Weibull c (m/s) 8.54 8.65 8.25 8.24 7.96 7.91 Mean power density (W/m²) 510 534 472 462 421 409 MMM power density (W/m²) 500 523 463 452 413 401 Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 4,469 4,674 4,133 4,047 3,686 3,585 MMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 4,379 4,580 4,054 3,958 3,615 3,513 Energy pattern factor 1.79 1.80 1.84 1.81 1.83 1.81 Frequency of calms (< 4 m/s) 17.3 16.8 18.9 18.5 19.8 20.2 1-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.926 0.929 0.926 0.924 0.922 0.921 Diurnal pattern strength 0.020 0.020 0.022 0.020 0.025 0.021 Hour of peak wind speed 22 22 21 21 19 20 Time Series Time series calculations indicate high mean wind speeds during the winter months with more moderate mean wind speeds during summer months. This correlates well with the village load profile where winter months have a high electric and heat demand and summer months a lesser demand. 50 m B anemometer data summary Mean Max Gust Std. Dev. Weibull k Weibull c Year Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (-) (m/s) 2009 Nov 7.67 24.8 31.1 3.71 2.16 8.66 2009 Dec 9.40 25.1 28.4 4.50 2.18 10.59 2010 Jan 8.91 19.7 23.5 3.49 2.76 9.97 2010 Feb 8.92 20.6 23.1 3.84 2.49 10.05 2010 Mar 8.02 16.2 19.0 3.06 2.83 8.95 2010 Apr 7.34 22.2 27.3 3.91 1.94 8.26 2010 May 6.05 15.6 17.8 2.87 2.22 6.83 2010 Jun 7.40 20.0 26.5 3.26 2.41 8.34 2010 Jul 5.48 13.9 17.4 2.36 2.47 6.16 Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 9 2010 Aug 6.16 19.9 25.0 3.37 1.91 6.94 2010 Sep 8.13 19.6 23.1 3.63 2.39 9.16 2010 Oct 6.91 19.7 25.0 3.57 2.03 7.80 2010 Nov 7.08 17.5 20.5 2.69 2.82 7.93 2010 Dec 7.15 17.0 20.8 3.01 2.52 8.01 2011 Jan 10.70 21.9 25.8 4.19 2.74 11.96 2011 Feb 9.51 26.2 31.8 4.86 2.04 10.72 2011 Mar 7.99 23.6 27.3 3.78 2.15 8.96 2011 Apr 8.28 26.5 30.7 4.06 2.11 9.33 2011 May 7.14 16.9 19.7 2.94 2.62 8.03 2011 Jun 5.91 18.2 21.6 2.97 2.08 6.67 2011 Jul 6.97 19.1 25.0 3.53 2.08 7.88 2011 Aug 8.59 18.4 22.4 3.28 2.81 9.64 All data 7.67 26.5 31.8 3.77 2.12 8.65 Annualized time series graph Annual daily wind profile Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 10 Monthly daily wind profile Probability Distribution Function The probability distribution function (PDF), or histogram, of wind speed indicates a near-normal shape curve, defined as the Raleigh distribution (k=2.0), defined as standard for wind power sites. As one can see in the PDF, the most frequently occurring wind speeds are between 5 and 8 m/s with very few wind events exceeding 25 m/s, the cutout speed of most wind turbines. PDF of 50 m B anemometer Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 11 Wind Shear and Roughness A wind shear power law exponent (α) of 0.180 indicates moderate wind shear at the site. Related to wind shear, a calculated surface roughness of 0.114 meters (indicating the height above ground level where wind velocity would be zero) indicates moderately uneven terrain (roughness description: few trees) surrounding the met tower. This indicates that it would be beneficial to construct turbines at higher hub heights in order to maximum power production. Vertical wind shear profile Comparative wind shear profiles Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 12 Wind shear by direction sector, wind speed > 4 m/s Mean Wind Speed Direction Sector Time Steps Wind Sector (%) Speed 50 m A (m/s) Speed 40 m (m/s) Speed 31 m (m/s) Power Law Exp (α) Surface Roughness (m) 345° - 15° 8,938 13.0% 7.91 7.64 7.37 0.148 0.0465 15° - 45° 10,312 15.0% 8.66 8.22 7.81 0.215 0.3811 45° - 75° 7,928 11.6% 8.68 8.18 7.83 0.214 0.3741 75° - 105° 8,142 11.9% 9.98 9.63 9.28 0.153 0.0578 105° - 135° 5,781 8.4% 9.47 9.18 8.75 0.167 0.0970 135° - 165° 5,163 7.5% 9.21 8.98 8.48 0.172 0.1137 165° - 195° 6,024 8.8% 9.55 9.20 8.73 0.189 0.1950 195° - 225° 3,088 4.5% 7.53 7.37 7.08 0.130 0.0179 225° - 255° 2,924 4.3% 7.13 7.16 6.96 0.052 0.0000 255° - 285° 1,946 2.8% 7.45 7.46 7.19 0.076 0.0001 285° - 315° 2,927 4.3% 7.09 6.86 6.61 0.146 0.0407 315° - 345° 5,425 7.9% 7.49 7.25 7.00 0.143 0.0352 Extreme Winds A modified Gumbel distribution analysis, based on monthly maximum winds vice annual maximum winds, was used to predict extreme winds at the Mountain Village met tower site. Extreme wind analysis indicates a highly desirable situation in Mountain Village: relatively high mean wind speeds combined with low extreme wind speed probabilities. Industry standard reference of extreme wind is the 50 year 10-minute average probable wind speed, referred to as Vref. For Mountain Village, this calculates to 31.5 m/s (at 50 meters), below the threshold of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400-1, 3rd edition criteria for a Class III site. Note that Class III extreme wind classification is the lowest defined. All wind turbines are designed for a Class III wind regime. Extreme wind probability table, 50 m B data Vref Gust IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. Period (years) (m/s) (m/s) Class Vref, m/s 2 24.7 29.8 I 50.0 10 28.1 33.8 II 42.5 15 28.9 34.9 III 37.5 30 30.4 36.6 S designer- specified 50 31.5 37.9 100 32.9 39.6 average gust factor: 1.20 Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 13 Extreme wind graph Temperature, Density, and Relative Humidity Mountain Village experiences cool summers and cold winters with resulting higher than standard air density. Calculated air density during the met tower test period exceeds the 1.220 kg/m3 standard air density for a 44 meter elevation by 6.3 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 RH Month Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (%) Jan -13.3 -29.5 2.5 1.352 1.274 1.441 65.5 Feb -12.3 -33.3 2.6 1.348 1.273 1.464 73.1 Mar -13.0 -30.6 2.6 1.350 1.273 1.447 59.0 Apr -6.2 -21.1 13.2 1.316 1.226 1.393 71.0 May 5.0 -6.9 23.7 1.263 1.183 1.319 62.9 Jun 9.2 -3.9 24.3 1.244 1.180 1.304 68.2 Jul 10.6 1.2 24.0 1.237 1.181 1.280 78.9 Aug 10.2 3.2 18.3 1.239 1.205 1.270 85.4 Sep 7.7 -5.2 19.2 1.250 1.201 1.310 74.2 Oct -1.1 -10.1 7.8 1.290 1.250 1.335 83.5 Nov -9.3 -23.8 3.2 1.330 1.220 1.408 85.9 Dec -12.5 -29.4 4.0 1.348 1.220 1.440 80.3 MMM -2.0 -33.3 24.3 1.297 1.180 1.464 73.9 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Wind Speed, m/s Period, years 10-min max gust Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 14 Temperature boxplot Relative humidity boxplot Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 15 Air density DMap Wind Speed Scatterplot The wind speed versus temperature scatterplot below indicates that a substantial percentage of wind at the Mountain Village met tower site coincides with cold temperatures, as one would expect. However, during the met tower test periods, temperatures did not fall below -40°C, which is the minimum operating temperature for arctic-capable wind turbines, and fell below -30°C on just a few occasions. Colder temperatures may occur during particular severe winters, but it is likely that temperatures colder than -40°C are extremely rare at the site. Hence, restrictions of wind turbine operations due to extreme cold should not be expected. Wind speed/temperature Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 16 Wind Direction Wind frequency rose data indicates that winds at the Mountain Village met tower site are not especially directional, although northerly and easterly winds predominate overall. The mean value rose indicates that easterly and southerly winds, when they do occur, are of high energy and hence likely storm winds. The wind energy rose indicates that for wind turbine operations the majority of power-producing winds are from the north-northeast, east, southeast and south. Calm frequency (percent of time that winds at the 50 meter level are less than 4 m/s) was 17 percent during the met tower test period. Wind frequency rose, 46 m Mean value rose, 46 m Wind energy rose, 46 m Scatterplot rose of 50 m A WPD, 46 m vane Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 17 Wind density roses by month Turbulence Turbulence intensity at the Mountain Village met tower test site is well within acceptable standards with an IEC 61400-1, 3rd edition (2005) classification of turbulence category C, which is the lowest defined. Turbulence intensity, 50 m B, all direction sectors Mountain Village, Alaska Wind Resource Report Page | 18 Turbulence table, 50 m B data Bin Bin Endpoints Records in Bin Standard Representative TI Midpoint Lower Upper Mean Deviation Peak (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) TI of TI TI 1 0.5 1.5 1,574 0.407 0.168 0.622 1.538 2 1.5 2.5 2,857 0.206 0.114 0.352 1.500 3 2.5 3.5 5,181 0.136 0.069 0.224 1.030 4 3.5 4.5 7,323 0.102 0.046 0.161 0.564 5 4.5 5.5 8,530 0.090 0.041 0.142 0.440 6 5.5 6.5 9,431 0.082 0.037 0.129 0.452 7 6.5 7.5 9,298 0.078 0.035 0.122 0.439 8 7.5 8.5 9,095 0.074 0.033 0.116 0.346 9 8.5 9.5 7,675 0.071 0.030 0.109 0.447 10 9.5 10.5 6,270 0.071 0.028 0.106 0.242 11 10.5 11.5 5,236 0.069 0.028 0.105 0.245 12 11.5 12.5 4,026 0.069 0.026 0.103 0.203 13 12.5 13.5 2,761 0.070 0.025 0.102 0.167 14 13.5 14.5 2,001 0.070 0.024 0.100 0.163 15 14.5 15.5 1,490 0.072 0.024 0.102 0.171 16 15.5 16.5 979 0.074 0.020 0.100 0.150 17 16.5 17.5 646 0.073 0.019 0.098 0.149 18 17.5 18.5 416 0.071 0.019 0.095 0.125 19 18.5 19.5 251 0.073 0.019 0.097 0.145 20 19.5 20.5 168 0.076 0.017 0.098 0.138 21 20.5 21.5 192 0.081 0.020 0.106 0.189 22 21.5 22.5 137 0.082 0.018 0.106 0.145 23 22.5 23.5 71 0.080 0.020 0.106 0.150 24 23.5 24.5 34 0.074 0.013 0.091 0.113 25 24.5 25.5 20 0.072 0.010 0.084 0.097 26 25.5 26.5 20 0.067 0.009 0.079 0.086 27 26.5 27.5 1 0.064 0 0.064 0.064