HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarshall Rnd 7 ALL FINAL 09242013Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Application Page 1 of 26 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
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 26 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.
Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting 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 located near the community of Marshall (population 414) which is located on the
north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the east bank of the Yukon River in the Yukon-
Kuskokwim Delta. It lies on the northeastern boundary of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. It
lies at approximately 61.877780, -162.081110. (Sec. 27, T021N, R070W, Seward Meridian.)
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 Marshall, Alaska.
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 X Final Design and Permitting
Feasibility and Conceptual Design Construction and Commissioning
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 26 7/1/2013
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project.
Building on the results of the completed Conceptual Design Report (attached in Tab G), Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is proposing to complete the final design and permitting to install three
Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24 turbines, each with a 95 kilowatt (kW) installed wind capacity
(aggregate generating capacity of 285 kW), to the existing diesel power generation system in Marshall.
Once work done under this grant is completed, AVEC will seek funding to construct the turbines. A met
tower in the proposed turbine site has collected 21 months of data. A wind resource report has been
completed based on data from the met tower and has revealed a Class 4 (good) wind resource at the
site with an average wind speed of 6.30 m/s.
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.
The primary financial benefit of this project is to reduce the long term cost of energy in the community
of Marshall by offsetting the diesel fuel usage by the power generators. The Concept Design Report
conducted for this project (Tab G) shows that three Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24 turbines could
offset 45,678 gallons of diesel fuel per year while generating 592,895 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr)
at 80% efficiency. The energy generated from this project will produce approximately 35% of the total
energy demand of the community. Assuming 80% turbine availability, this project could save $190,273
during its first full year of operation and $3,078,220 over the 20-year lifetime of the project.
In addition, the following important benefits will be realized:
Stabilized energy costs into the future for Marshall through decreased fuel use.
Reduced energy costs for non-PCE community institutions, which may allow for increased or
improved community or social services, in particular at the new school.
Reduced energy costs to other non-PCE commercial energy customers, such as the store, which may
pass along savings to residents.
Reduced diesel fuel use for heat (thermal loads) by 3,286 gallons/year or about $17,141 (based on
ISER fuel costs; 2015).
Increased opportunity for local economic development.
Increased revenue for local businesses during the construction phase.
Local hire during project construction.
Increased access to subsistence areas.
Increased longevity of the PCE fund through a reduction in PCE payments for residents and PCE-
eligible community facilities.
Reduced fossil fuel emissions, which results in improved air quality and decreased contribution to
global climate change.
Reduced fuel consumption, which reduces the volume of fuel transported and the potential for fuel
spills and contamination.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 26 7/1/2013
This project will take a big step forward in achieving local, state, and federal renewable energy goals in
Marshall.
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.
The total project cost for final design and permitting of three turbines in Marshall is $372,000 of which
$353,400 is requested in grant funds from AEA. The remaining $18,600 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 $353,400
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $ 18,600
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) $372,000
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.7 Total Project Cost Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section
4.4.4, including estimates through construction.
$3,214,875
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) $ 190,273 (first year)
$3,078,220 (20-year life)
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.
$ 17,141 (first year)
(displaced fuel for heat)
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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 26 7/1/2013
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 Marshall, 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. 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
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:
Grant Award Announcement: May 2014
Authorization to Proceed: June 2014
Complete Permitting: February 2015
Complete Site Control: February 2015
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 26 7/1/2013
Complete Final Design: May 2015
Complete Final Business and Operational Plan: July 2015
The schedule organized by AEA milestones is as follows:
Milestones Tasks Start Date
End
Date
Project Scoping and Contractor
Award for Planning and Design
The engineering contractor will be selected
and a task order will be prepared for work
planned for this phase.
June 1,
2014
Aug 1,
2014
Permit Applications Permit applications, such as FAA, wetlands,
and migratory birds/endangered species
consultations, will be prepared and
submitted.
Aug 1,
2014
Oct 31,
2014
Final Environmental
Assessment and Mitigation
Plans
Working with regulatory agencies,
environmental documents will be prepared
as needed.
Aug 1,
2014
Feb 1,
2015
Resolution of Land Use, ROW
Issues (surveying)
Working with the communities and
corporations, AVEC will secure site control
for the wind turbines.
Aug 1,
2014
Feb 1,
2015
Permitting, rights-of-way, site
control
Permits will be issued from the Federal
Aviation Administration, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Feb 1,
2015
Final System Design The engineering contractor will complete
final design of the wind system and intertie.
The design will be reviewed by AVEC
personnel prior to final approval.
May 1,
2015
Final Cost Estimate Using the final design, the engineers will
prepare the cost estimate for the project.
June 1,
2015
Updated Economic and
Financial Analysis
Using the number developed in the cost
estimate, an updated economic assessment
and financial analysis will be prepared.
July 1,
2015
Power or Heat Sales Agreement N/A N/A
Final Business and Operational
Plan
AVEC will work with the all the
communities to finalize the Operational
Plan.
July 1,
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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 26 7/1/2013
AVEC will use a project management strategy that has been used to successfully design and construct its
wind turbines throughout rural Alaska. The strategy includes a team of AVEC staff and external
consultants. AVEC staff and their role on this project include:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will
maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Steve Gilbert, Project 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 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 Stebbins and St. Michael
residents to ensure the community is informed.
An AVEC project manager will lead this project. The project manager will be responsible for:
Selecting, coordinating, and managing the geotechnical, engineering, and permitting consultants
and ensuring that their deliverables are on time and within budget; gain site control.
Working with AVEC’s Community Liaison to involve the community in the project and gain site
control.
Geotechnical consultant. AVEC will select and employ an experienced geotechnical consultant
who would 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 Hattenburg Dilley and
Linnell LLC (HDL) for engineering services. HDL will provide final design, engineering
specifications, and a cost estimate for the wind turbines.
Environmental Consultant. HDL will consult with agencies and develop and submit permit
applications for the wind farm.
Wind Resource Consultant. Under an existing on-call contract, V3 Energy, LLC prepared the
wind resource report and provided technical assistance on previous phases of this project. V3
will continue to provide assistance on an as needed basis.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 26 7/1/2013
Resumes are included under Tab A.
Selection Process for Contractors/Vendors: The 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 technical steering committee. The selection of contractors 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 all reporting requirements for 56 state and federal grants. An independent financial
audit and an independent auditor’s management letter completed for AVEC for FY 2012 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
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 package to the AEA project
manager each quarter.
Quarterly face-to-face meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all projects
funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project meetings will be held, as
required or requested by AEA.
Meera Kohler, AVEC’s President and CEO, may be contacted as an alternative manager.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Site Control/Access and Environmental Permitting. Currently, AVEC has a lease from Maserculiq, Inc.,
for the met tower site. Site control has not been established for the turbines; because the community
supports the project, however, it is expected that gaining site control will proceed smoothly. Letters of
support have been received from community leaders (see Tab B).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 26 7/1/2013
Environmental Permitting. AVEC has hired HDL, an engineering consultant familiar with permitting
wind projects in Alaska. HDL will begin consultation with agencies in order to flesh out location, natural
and social environment, specific species, and mitigation issues. The consultant will work openly with the
agencies and conduct studies as appropriate.
Weather. Weather could delay getting consultants into the community to conduct site visits and/or the
geotechnical survey. However, an experienced consultant, familiar with Alaskan weather conditions,
will be selected.
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.
AVEC was awarded a grant from the AEA to complete wind feasibility and concept design work in Marshall.
A met tower was installed at the proposed wind turbine site in Marshall on December 18, 2008 and was in
continuous operation until October 10, 2009 when an anchor failed during an exceptionally strong wind
storm and the tower collapsed. The met tower was re-established in the same location in September 2012
and continues to collect data. A wind resource report was completed using the available 21 months of
data and revealed a Class 4 (good) wind resource with a mean annual wind speed of 6.30 m/s at 30 meters.
Other aspects of the wind resource are also promising for wind power development. By International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400-1 3rd edition classification, Marshall is Category III-c, indicating
low turbulence (mean turbulence intensity (TI) at 15 m/s = 0.095) with a low probability of extreme winds.
The latter measure is more difficult to quantify with only twenty-one months of data, but the site clearly is
not energetic enough to be IEC extreme wind Class I. The Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24 is designed
for IEC Class III conditions, so the Marshall site is well within the design parameters of the turbine. Icing
has also proven not to be a significant issue in the met tower data.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 26 7/1/2013
Please refer to the Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study (Tab G) for more detailed wind resource
information.
Wind energy as a supplement to diesel generators for electricity generation is considered the most viable
and developable source of renewable energy for Marshall. AVEC has looked at other common renewable
energy sources for Marshall but none are feasible at this point. Solar power is limited by the high cost and
low capacity factor. Hydropower potential has not been fully investigated in Marshall, but is not likely to
be viable unless a run-of-the-river system is considered. Biomass derived energy potential is limited by the
lack of resources near Marshall.
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.
AVEC’s power plant is located within the community of Marshall. The plant was first energized in 1971 and
consists of a “Butler Building,” wood dock, control module, storage van, crew module, and pad mounted
transformers. The building and modules are constructed on a mixture of elevated timber post, grade
beam and crib foundations. The “Butler Building” contains the following generator sets:
(1) Cat 3456 with Cat 1C6 Generator, rated at 505KW
(1) Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 with Kato 6P4-1450, rated at 363KW
(1) Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 with Kato 6P4-1450, rated at 207KW
1,075 kW Total Generation Capacity
In 2012, the aggregate generator efficiency was 13.13 kW/gal. The generator ages are 2.8 years, 7.7 years,
and 19.1 years respectfully. The power plant also includes generator appurtenances, day tank,
miscellaneous tools and equipment, transfer pump, starting batteries, and station service equipment. The
building contains a combined cooling system for all three generators with two remote radiators. Power is
generated at 277/480 V three phase and there are five fused distribution switches that distribute power to
the village: one switch is a low voltage feed to the water plant, one is a single phase switch feeding the
west part of town, and the other three are “A, B, and C” switches feeding the east part of town, the school,
and airport respectively. Distribution voltage is 7,200 V.
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.
Marshall uses diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler (thermal) and home heating
(with limited wood burning), thermal heat recovery from the diesel engines at the power plant, and diesel
and gasoline fuel for transportation needs. Between January and December 2012, 126,539 gallons were
consumed to generate 1,663,112 kWh (gross) at the AVEC facility.
One of the anticipated effects of this project is decreased usage of diesel fuel for electrical power
generation. Another is the decreased use of heating fuel for boiler operations due to injection of excess
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 26 7/1/2013
wind power to the thermal heat recovery loop. Both will decrease diesel 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.
Currently, Marshall has a stand-alone electric power system with no intertie or connection beyond the
village itself. The electricity consumption (sold) in Marshall in FY2012 was 1,576,449kWh. The load is
highest during the winter months, when the community experiences heavy winds and extended periods of
darkness. According to a 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) about 12% of Marshall residents
live below the poverty line, with a median household income of $38,333. As a comparison, the mean
household income for all Alaskans is $69,014.
The addition of the wind turbines to the electric generation system will reduce the amount of diesel fuel
used for power generation and will reduce the cost to produce power in Marshall.
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 Marshall. Of
the wind turbine options available on the market, the Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24, formerly
known as the Northwind 100, at a 48-meter height, is considered most appropriate for the load profile of
Marshall. When installed at the project site, this turbine is expected to have a benefit/cost ratio of 1.08
and produce a total of 721,365 kWh/yr. More details on the proposed wind technology are included in the
CDR under Tab G.
Optimum installed capacity. AVEC proposes to install three Northern Power turbines to operate as a
wind-diesel hybrid power system that will supply wind-generated electricity to Marshall. The aggregate
installed wind capacity would be 285 kW.
Anticipated capacity factor. HOMER software was used to estimate capacity factor and system
penetration (or renewable fraction) of three Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24 turbines in a power
system for Marshall. Using the wind data discussed in the CDR under Tab G, at 80% availability the turbine
capacity factor is predicted to be 22.5%.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 26 7/1/2013
Anticipated annual generation. HOMER software estimates wind production with three Northern Power
Systems NPS 100-24 turbines at 592,895 kWh annually (at 80% turbine availability).
Basic integration concept. No barriers to successful installation and integration of wind turbines in
Marshall are expected. The project will be designed and modeled using knowledge of previous successful
wind-diesel projects.
Delivery Method. Power generated by the wind turbines will be distributed via the existing electrical
distribution system in Marshall.
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.
The proposed turbine site in Marshall is noted in the Google Earth image below. It is on the high spot of
the road between the village and the airport, and very near the intersection of the new road leading to a
communication tower on Mt. Pilcher (off-screen, upper center). This site was selected during a site
reconnaissance visit in 2007 due to its proximity to Marshall, distance from the airport, good exposure to
the prevailing winds, village corporation ownership, and ease of access. At the present time, AVEC has a
lease agreement for the met tower, which is in the same location as the proposed turbine site. The project
has enthusiastic and positive community support. (See letters of support from the community in Tab B.)
AVEC will secure site control for the project upon approval of AEA REF Round 7 grant funding.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 26 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
FAA Air Navigation Hazard Permitting: On November 13, 2012, a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation from the FAA was issued for two NPS 100 turbines (Reference Nos. 2012-WTW-7872-OE and
2012-WTW-7873-OE) at the met tower site. This determination will need to be modified based on the final
tower configuration determined during design, but no issues with receiving this modification are expected.
Endangered Species Act/Migratory Bird Treaty Act Consultation: Consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act will
be required to construct the wind turbines. A finding letter will be drafted and submitted to the USFWS
stating that the constructed project would not be expected to impact threatened or endangered species
(including Spectacled Eiders) or birds. It is expected that AVEC would receive concurrence from the Service
within one month. Additional details on wildlife resources within the project vicinity can be found in the
CDR.
Clean Water Act (Section 401) Permit: To permit the turbines, an individual nationwide wetland permit
will be sought from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The application will be submitted once conceptual
design has been completed. It is expected that the permit will be issued within 3 months.
National Historic Preservation Act Consultation: According to the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS)
files, there are no known historic or archaeological sites within the proposed project site. According to
existing research and the findings of previous investigations, there is a relatively low probability of
undiscovered archaeological and historic sites within the area proposed for development. 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.
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
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 26 7/1/2013
Threatened or Endangered species: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted to ensure that the
construction of the wind turbines would have no harmful impact on threatened or endangered species.
Construction will be timed to avoid impacts to migratory birds in compliance with the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Initial research indicates threatened and endangered species will not be affected by this
project.
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 turbines could be placed within areas
classified as wetlands. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit will be needed.
Archaeological and historical resources: Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act with the
State Historic Preservation Officer will be conducted prior to construction of the wind turbines.
Land development constraints: Negotiations with Maserculiq, Inc. (the Native corporation for Marshall) to
obtain site control will be needed. Since the location of the met tower was accepted by the community,
and the community supports this project, it is expected that there will not be any land issues associated
with the project.
Aviation considerations: If needed, an FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic will be sought for the
installation of the wind turbines. This determination has already been received for two NPS 100’s
(Reference Nos. 2012-WTW-7872-OE and 2012-WTW-7873-OE) at the met tower site. This determination
will need to be modified based on the final tower configuration determined during design, but no issues
with receiving this modification are expected.
Visual, aesthetics impacts: The turbines will be constructed outside the community and it is likely that
there will be little concern for visual or aesthetic impacts. Communities often note that the 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
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 26 7/1/2013
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase/requested grant funding/matching
funds. This application is for the final design and permitting of three Northern Power Systems NPS 100-24
turbines in Marshall. AVEC is requesting $353,400 from AEA through the REF grant program, and AVEC will
provide $18,600 as a cash match for this phase.
Identification of other funding sources. AVEC expects the final construction and commissioning phase of
the project will cost $3,214,875. It is possible that the funding for this work will come from AEA’s
Renewable Energy Fund program, USDA Rural Utility Service Program, or another grant program.
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system/projec ted development cost of proposed
renewable energy system. The final phase of this project will be Construction and Commissioning. AVEC
estimates this phase could cost $3,214,875. AVEC will provide a 10% cash match for the construction
project.
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
$29,052 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 Marshall, 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.
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s). Energy produced from the completed wind
project will be sold to AVEC’s existing customer base in the community of Marshall.
In FY2012, Marshall had 110 households and 16 PCE-eligible and approved community facilities and 24
non-PCE customers with purchase power from AVEC.
Potential power purchase/sales price/Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project. The sales price
for the wind-generated electricity will be determined by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska as is done in
all AVEC villages. The delivered cost of energy will be reduced as much as possible for customers within
Marshall under current regulations. Currently, AVEC villages with wind power systems experience the
lowest electricity cost within the utility (55 villages). Similar energy cost reductions are expected upon
project completion, as proposed in this application.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 26 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. Mean annual wind speed of 6.30 m/s at 30 meters was
measured, with a wind power density of 400 W/m2
(Class 4 wind resource)
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 CAT=505kw; DD=363kW; DD=207kW
Total=1,075kW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel generators
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 2.8 years; 7.7 years; 19.1 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $399,130 ($0.25kWh 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] 1,663,112 kWh (2012 gross) ; 1,576,449 kWh sold
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 126,539 gal (2012 actual)
Other
iii. Peak Load 339 kW (2012 actual)
iv. Average Load 189 kW (2012 actual)
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
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 26 7/1/2013
vi. Efficiency 13.13 kWh/gallon
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, 285 kW capacity(three Northern Power Systems
NPS 100-24 turbines on 48-meter lattice towers)
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 592,895 kWh/year; 80% avail
ii. Heat [MMBtu] 128,470 kWh/year; 438 MMBtu
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
iv. Other
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $3,214,875
b) Development cost
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $29,052 (based on $0.049/kWh for wind energy)
d) Annual fuel cost
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 45,678 gallons
ii. Heat 3,286 gallons
iii. Transportation
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 26 7/1/2013
b) Current price of displaced fuel
c) Other economic benefits
d) Alaska public benefits
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.08
Payback (years) 13.3
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 design and permitting project there will be no impact on rates; however, upon completion of the
Marshall Wind Energy Project (post construction) there will be a reduction of electrical rates from the
reduced use of generator fuel.
Marshall is a PCE eligible community. Marshall consumers received $227,075 in FY12 in PCE credits for
eligible kWh sales (663,289 kWh) to 110 residences and 16 community facilities. About 58% of sales in
Marshall 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
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 26 7/1/2013
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
Placing three NPS 100 turbines (a 300kW capacity) in Marshall could decrease diesel fuel use by 45,678
gallons per year, and 979,232 gallons over a project lifetime of twenty years (based on preliminary
numbers and 80% turbine availability). Based on ISER’s 2015 estimated fuel costs for Marshall, this
project could save $190,273 during its first full year of operation and $3,078,220 over its 20-year
lifetime.
The project will also displace 3,286 gallons/year for heat. This project could save an additional $17,141
in its first year (ISER model; 2015) of operation.
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
Marshall, population 414 (Alaska DCCED 2012), is a traditional Yup’ik Eskimo village with most residents
supported by subsistence activities. During the summer season, fishing, fish processing, and BLM jobs
are available. Long-term positions are limited to positions with the city, school and few local businesses.
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS), 32.7% of the population was
unemployed, with 12% living below the poverty level. The median household income was $38,333,
compared to the median household income for all Alaska of $69,014. Reducing the reliance on diesel
fuel power generation will provide long-term socio-economic benefits to village households. The high
cost of energy is an extreme hardship for the low income families of Marshall, even considering Power
Cost Equalization credits, at $0.22/kWh.
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.
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.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 26 7/1/2013
With these savings, community governments will be able to better focus on providing important
community services and functions. For example, a new K-12 school was constructed in Marshall in 2011.
The new facility is 32,577 ft2 and contains the first kitchen to meet the Lower-Yukon School District’s
new food service program requirements. The school also includes space for future teacher housing. The
school was designed so that the classroom wing can be easily separated from the gym and public areas
to allow for community gatherings after regular school hours. The expanded school and increased use
as a meeting place for community gatherings will likely result in an increase in energy use. Stabilizing
the cost of energy in Marshall will allow the new facilities to be utilized by the community, without
placing additional strain on the school’s budget.
In addition, this project will help AVEC to determine if recovered heat is an option. If it proves feasible,
potential locations to be served by recovered heat will be evaluated and agreements will be negotiated.
Once the wind project is constructed, costs to operate important community facilities (e.g. clinics,
schools, washeteria) will be decreased, enabling managing entities such as city governments, tribes, and
school districts to operate more economically.
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 are crippled by the high cost of energy. Decreases in electricity costs make
small businesses more viable in rural Alaskan communities like Marshall 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 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 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 would 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 anticipated benefits from the installation of 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.
Marshall residents’ health and safety will be enhanced by the environmental benefits resulting from a
reduction of hydrocarbon use, including:
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 26 7/1/2013
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources);
Improved air quality; and
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use.
The wind turbines will provide a visual landmark for sea, air, and overland travelers, which will help
navigation in the area. Wind turbine orientation and rotor speed will provide visual wind information to
residents.
See also section 2.5 Project Benefits Summary.
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 would not provide power to any large private sector businesses. By reducing the cost of
power production, small businesses in Marshall, 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
private 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 completely able to finance, operate, and
maintain this project for the design life. It has, 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
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 26 7/1/2013
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 will be financed for the life of the project: The costs of operations and maintenance will be
funded through ongoing energy sales to the villages.
Operational issues which could arise: The Northern Power Systems turbine has a proven performance
record in rural communities and is rated for arctic climates.
Operating costs: Using AEA’s default cost of wind energy, estimated O&M will cost $29,052 (based on
$0.049/kWh for wind energy).
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: AVEC is fully committed to sharing all information
accrued from this project with their members and to sharing information regarding savings and benefits
with AEA.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how q uickly 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. The wind report, geotechnical work, analysis of current
cost of energy and future market, the economic and financial analyses, and conceptual design was
provided to AEA (Tab G). AVEC and HDL will address AEA’s comments on the document once received.
AVEC and HDL stand ready to move forward with final design and permitting. All required permitting will
be completed prior to initiation of construction.
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 of Marshall supports this project and is interested in moving forward with this project
and ultimately, the installation of wind energy facilities. Letters of support have been received by all
governing entities. Please see Tab B.
Another important demonstration of support is the real commitment of the community through its
contributions of Native land to past and future AVEC capital projects. The Marshall Native corporation,
Maserculiq, Inc., contributed the land necessary for the met tower with a no-cost lease. It intends to
contribute the land for the wind turbines as an in-kind match for the project in the construction phase.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 23 of 26 7/1/2013
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 plans to complete final design and permitting of a wind farm in Marshall. This work will cost
$372,000. AVEC requests $353,400 from AEA and will provide $18,600 as a cash contribution. A detail of
the grant budget follows.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
Marshall Wind Design and Permitting Project
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 24 of 26 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
Project Scoping and
Contractor Solicitation
August 1,
2014 $2,375 $125 Cash $2,500
Permit Applications October 31,
2014 $12,968 $682 Cash $13,650
Final Environmental
Assessment and Mitigation
Plans
February 1,
2015 $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000
Resolution of Land Use,
ROW Issues (surveying)
February 1,
2015 $36,575 $1,925 Cash $38,500
Permitting, rights-of-way,
site control
February 1,
2015 $12,825 $675 Cash $13,500
Final System Design May 1, 2015
Turbine Layout, Wind
Resource Asssistance $17,243 $907 Cash $18,150
Geotech Study $86,212 $4,538 Cash $90,750
Geotech Engineering $26,125 $1,375 Cash $27,500
Civil Design $47,975 $2,525 Cash $50,500
Structural Design $37,620 $1,980 Cash $39,600
Electrical Design $40,232 $2,118 Cash $42,350
Final Cost Estimate June 1, 2015 $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000
Updated Economic and
Financial Analysis July 1, 2015 $7,125 $375 Cash $7,500
Power or Heat Sales
Agreements
Not
Applicable N/A N/A N/A
Final Business and
Operational Plan July 1, 2015 $7,125 $375 Cash $7,500
TOTALS $353,400 $18,600 $372,000
Direct Labor & Benefits $49,400 $2,600 Cash $52,000
Travel & Per Diem $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000
Equipment $ $ $
Materials & Supplies $ $ $
Contractual Services $294,500 $15,500 Cash $310,000
Construction Services $ $ $
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $353,400 $18,600 $372,000
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
DRAFT
MARSHALL WIND PROJECT
CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT
Prepared By:
Mark Swenson, PE
3335 Arctic Blvd., Ste. 100
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 907.564.2120
Fax: 907.564.2122
August 29, 2013
Prepared For:
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
i
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared for the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) to provide
conceptual design and cost analysis for development of wind power generation in the
community of Marshall, Alaska. Marshall is a rural community of approximately 407 year–
round residents located on the north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the east
bank of the Yukon River in the Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta. Integration of wind generated power
into the existing electrical power generation system will offset diesel consumption costs and
provide a renewable energy resource for this rural community.
On December 18, 2008, a meteorological (met) tower was installed along the airport access
road approximately 0.8 miles from Marshall. The met tower collapsed on October 12, 2009 due
to an anchor failure during a strong wind event. The met tower was reinstalled at the same
location during September 2012 to obtain additional wind data. The met tower is equipped
with instrumentation and data loggers to evaluate and record the wind resource. The wind
data collected during the met tower operation suggests that the existing wind regime is suitable
for wind power generation. The results of the data acquisition and analysis of the wind
resource are included in the “Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility Study” dated August 29, 2013
(Appendix A).
On August 7, 2012 AVEC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL), and V3 Energy performed a site visit
to Marshall to investigate three separate locations near the community, where computer
modeling identified good wind resource potential. During the site visit it was confirmed that the
site where the met tower was installed is the most suitable location for installing wind
turbines.
For this report, AVEC selected three wind turbine configurations for evaluation.
• The first configuration includes (3) Northern Power 100 Arctic turbines (NP100), formerly
known as the Northwind 100. The Northern Power 100 Arctic turbines installed in Marshall
will include 48 meter (158‐foot) lattice towers and 24‐meter blades. The 24‐meter blades
reduce the maximum energy production to 95 kW instead of the 100 kW normal rating but
increase energy production a lower wind speeds to better fit Marshalls wind regime. The
NP100s are permanent magnet, direct drive wind power generator that AVEC previously
installed in 10 other villages in rural Alaska. The (3) Northern Power 100 Arctic tower array
has a maximum power generation output of 285 kW.
• The second turbine configuration consists of (3) Vestas V20 turbines. The Vestas V20
turbine is a 32 meter (105‐foot), 120 kW, induction generator. This configuration has a
maximum power generation output of 360 kW and requires a cold weather kit modification
for use in Marshall. The generators will be controlled using a simple inverter with soft start
and soft breaking capabilities or a more complex variable speed drive (VSD) inverter at each
turbine. The turbine blades are fixed pitch.
• The third turbine configuration consists of (1) Aeronautica AW33‐225 turbine. The AW33‐
225 turbine is a 40 meter (131‐foot), 225 kW, induction generator. This configuration has a
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
ii
maximum power generation output of 225 kW. The generator will be controlled using a
simple inverter with soft start and soft breaking capabilities or a more complex variable
speed drive (VSD) inverter at each turbine. The turbine blades are stall regulated to limit
rotation speed and torque in extreme wind events.
It is anticipated that the Northern Power 100 turbines and the V20 turbines would be installed
on lattice towers and the AW33‐225 turbine would be installed on a monopole tower.
Foundations will likely include precast concrete gravity mats with rock anchors, if additional
resistance is required to counteract the overturning moment of the turbines. A comparison of
the three turbine configurations installed at preferred location in Marshall is presented in
Tables EX‐1 and EX‐2 below.
Table EX‐1: Turbine Alternative Comparison Summary
Alt Turbine Selection Site
Generation
Capacity (kW)
Estimated
Capital Cost
Estimated
Capital Cost
per Installed
kW
Estimated
Annual Energy
Production
@ 100 %
Availability
1 (3) NP 100s Met Tower 285 $ 3.2 M $11,280 901,731 kWh
2 (3) V20s Met Tower 360 $ 2.9 M $8,029 724,601 kWh
3 (1) AW33‐225 Met Tower 225 $ 2.7 M $11,824 619,828 kWh
Source: Annual Energy Production data taken from V3 Energy’s August 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility Analysis
Table EX‐2: Economic Analysis Summary
Alt
Annual Wind
Generation @
80% Availability
(kWh)
Wind Energy For
Power (kWh/yr)
Wind
Energy For
Heat
(kWh/yr)
Wind as %
Total Power
Production (%)
Power
Generation:
Fuel Displaced
by Wind
Energy (gal/yr)
Heating Fuel
Displaced By
Wind Energy
(gal/yr)
1 721,385 592,895 128,470 40 48,962 3,284
2 579,681 471,050 108,631 32.5 39,067 2,777
3 520,692 462,698 58,264 30 37,136 1,489
Source: Annual Energy Production data taken from V3 Energy’s August 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility
Analysis
We recommend AVEC proceed with design and permitting for installation of Alternative 1
(three Northern Power 100 Arctic turbines with 24 meter blades) in Marshall. This alternative is
recommended because it maximizes the power output for Marshall’s wind regime. Also, as
described in detail in the report, the NP100 option results in a Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio of 1.08,
meaning that the savings from fuel saved by wind power generation outweigh the costs of
construction and maintenance of the wind system for the 20 year design life.
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
iii
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 LOCATION .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 ELECTRICAL DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 2
1.5 EXISTING ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 3
1.6 MARSHALL RECOVERED HEAT POTENTIAL ........................................................................... 3
1.7 TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENSIONS ........................................................................................ 4
1.8 REQUIRED POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................... 4
1.9 GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 4
1.10 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 MARSHALL WIND SITE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 5
2.1 WIND TURBINE SITE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 METEOROLIGICAL (MET) TOWER SITE ...................................................................... 6
2.1.2 ALTERNATIVE SITE 1 .................................................................................................. 7
2.1.3 ALTERNATIVE SITE 2 .................................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE 3 .................................................................................................. 7
3.0 WIND DATA ACQUISITION AND MODELING ........................................................................ 8
3.1 MARSHALL WIND RESOURCE ................................................................................................ 8
4.0 WIND TURBINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 9
4.1 MARSHALL WIND TURBINE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 9
4.1.1 NORTHERN POWER 100 ARCTIC ............................................................................... 9
4.1.2 Vestas V20 ............................................................................................................... 10
4.1.3 Aeronautica AW33‐225 ........................................................................................... 10
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ‐ (3) NP100 TURBINES ............................................................................ 11
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 ‐ (3) V20 TURBINES .................................................................................. 11
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 ‐ (1) AW33‐225 TURBINES ....................................................................... 11
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
iv
4.5 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY ............................................................................ 12
5.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 12
5.1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ....................................................................................... 12
5.2 ECONOMIC EVALUATION RESULTS ..................................................................................... 13
6.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 13
7.0 PERMITTING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND LAND OWNERSHIP ............................................... 14
7.1 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) ..................................................................... 14
7.2 US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) .......................................................................... 14
7.3 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO) ................................................................ 15
7.4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) ...................................................................................... 16
7.5 CONTAMINATED SITES, SPILLS, AND UNDERGROUND TANKS ........................................... 16
7.6 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................ 16
7.7 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW (NEPA) ................................................ 16
7.8 LAND OWNERSHIP .............................................................................................................. 17
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 17
9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 18
FIGURES
Figure 1: AEA Wind Resource Map ................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2: Wind Tower Site Alternatives .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Airport Access Road Adjacent to Met Tower Site and Alternative Site 1 ....................... 7
Figure 4: Alternative Site 2 ............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 5: UUI Access Road and Utility Poles on Approach to Alternative Site 3 ............................ 8
Figure 6: NP100 Turbine Installed in Emmonak .......................................................................... 10
TABLES
Table 1: Energy Consumption Data ............................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Alternative Comparison Summary .................................................................................. 12
Table 3: Economic Evaluation Summary ....................................................................................... 13
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
v
APPENDICIES
Appendix A: V3 Energy’s August 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility
Appendix B: ANTHC Marshall Alaska Heat Recovery Study
Appendix C: August 3, 2012 Marshall Wind Site Investigation Report
Appendix D: Marshall Wind Project Feasibility Design Drawings
Appendix E: Concept Level Capital Cost Estimate
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
vi
ABBREVIATIONS
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AHRS Alaska Heritage Resource Survey
AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
B/C Benefit‐to‐Cost Ratio
CRC Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC
DA Department of Army
EA Environmental Assessment
ER Environmental Review
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FY Fiscal Year
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
HDL Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell
ISER Institute for Social and Economic Research
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt Hour
M Million
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Met Meteorological
Mph Miles per hour
MWh Megawatt hour
NLUR Northern Land Use Research
NP100 Northern Power 100 Arctic
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWP Nationwide Permit
OEAAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis
PCE Power Cost Equalization
PCN Pre‐Construction Notification
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
Sec Section
USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Services
USGS United States Geological Services
WAsP Wind Atlas and Application Program
Yr Year
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
This report has been prepared for the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). The purpose
of this report is to provide AVEC with conceptual design and cost information for the feasibility
of developing the wind energy resource in Marshall. Analysis in this report includes an
assessment of the wind resource, investigation and selection of wind turbine installation
locations, evaluation of permitting required for site development, preliminary wind turbine
generator comparison, and economic analysis of selected turbine alternatives.
The wind turbines are necessary to reduce AVEC’s dependence on diesel fuel and provide a
source of renewable energy. Preliminary findings included in the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Alaska high resolution wind resource map indicate that the Marshall region has a borderline
Class 4 wind regime suitable for wind power development.
Figure 1: AEA Wind Resource Map
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
2
1.2 LOCATION
The proposed wind turbine project is located near the village of Marshall. Marshall is a rural
community located on the north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the east bank
of the Yukon River in the Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta. It lies approximately 75 air miles northeast
of Bethel at approximately 61.878° North Latitude and ‐162.081° West Longitude (Sec. 27,
T021N, R070W, Seward Meridian). Marshall is located in the Bethel Recording District. No
roads connect Marshall to the rest of the state, so access is primarily by air or water. Marshall
has a state‐owned gravel airstrip providing year‐round access on a 3,200’ long and 100’ wide
runway. Barge service is available seasonally from approximately mid‐June through October.
Marshall has a population of 407 year‐round residents (2010 U.S. Census Population), with
94.7% being Alaska Native or American Indian. The local residents depend heavily on the
subsistence harvest of fish, moose, bear, and waterfowl. The economy is based on a mix of
commercial fisheries and public sector jobs.
1.3 CLIMATE
Marshall has a maritime climate with extreme temperatures ranging from ‐54°F to 86°F.
Average annual precipitation measures 16 inches. Average summer temperatures range from
40 to 60°F. Winters are typically cold and dry with average winter temperatures ranging from ‐5
to 15°F.
1.4 ELECTRICAL DEMAND
Historical AVEC and AEA Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) report data was analyzed to
determine trends in Marshall’s energy consumption. The Alaska PCE program is a reliable
source of historic power, fuel consumption, and energy cost information for rural communities
throughout the state. The PCE program provides funding subsidies to electric utilities in rural
Alaskan communities for the purpose of lowering energy costs to customers. This program pays
for a portion of kilowatt hours sold by the participating utility. The exact amount paid varies per
location, and is determined by the amount of energy generated and sold, the amount of fuel
used to generate electricity, and fuel costs.
Each year, AEA publishes PCE program information including fuel consumption, power
generation and sales, and electricity rates for eligible communities. During the fiscal year 2012
(July 1, 2011 to June 30 2012), 126 residential and community facilities in Marshall were eligible
to receive PCE assistance. Marshall customers received funding for 42.3% of kilowatt hours
sold and had electricity rates reduced from an average of 58 cents per kilowatt hour to 22 cents
per kilowatt hour. Table 1 provides FY 2012 PCE and AVEC generated diesel and electricity
statistics for Marshall.
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
3
Table 1: Energy Consumption Data
Community Gross
KWhs
Generated
Diesel Fuel Used Average
kWh Load
Peak kWh
Load
Customers
(Residential
and
Community
Facilities)
Gallons Cost ($) Average
Fuel Price
($/gallon)
Diesel
Efficiency
(kWh/gallon)
Marshall 1,643,535 126,625 408,268 3.22 12.97 190 339 150
*Source: 2012 AVEC Annual Generation Report, AVEC Operations Personnel, and Annual PCE Report FY 2012
AVEC recorded data from December 2011 to December 2012 shows Marshall’s average load
was 190 kW with a peak load at 339 kW. Winter electrical demands increase approximately
50% compared to summer demand, with data showing the average load in June and July was
approximately 150 kW compared to approximately 220 kW in January and February.
1.5 EXISTING ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS
Existing Marshall Power Plant:
AVEC’s power plant is located within the community of Marshall. The plant was first energized
in 1971 and consists of a “Butler Building”, wood dock, control module, storage van, crew
module, and pad mounted transformers. The building and modules are constructed on a
mixture of elevated timber post, grade beam and crib foundations. The “Butler Building”
contains the following generator sets:
(1) Cat 3456 with Cat LC6 Generator, rated at 500KW
(1) Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 with Kato 6P4‐1450, rated at 363KW
(1) Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 with Kato 6P4‐1450, rated at 236KW
1,099 kW Total Generation Capacity
The power plant also includes generator appurtenances, day tank, miscellaneous tools and
equipment, transfer pump, starting batteries, and station service equipment. The building
contains a combined cooling system for all three generators with two remote radiators. Power
is generated at 277/480V three phase and there are five fused distribution switches that
distribute power to the village, one switch is a low voltage feed to the water plant, one is a
single phase switch feeding the west part of town and the other three are “A, B, and C”
switches feeding the east part of town, the school, and airport. Distribution voltage is 7200V.
According to historic AVEC records, the power plant generated a total of 1,644,176 kWh and
sold a total of 1,594,247 kWh in 2011 with an average of 14.44 kWh per gallon of diesel
consumed.
1.6 MARSHALL RECOVERED HEAT POTENTIAL
The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Division of Environmental Health and
Engineering prepared a Heat Recovery Study dated July 16, 2012. The report provides the
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
4
findings for utilizing recovered heat from the existing power plant to heat the existing
community store and water treatment building. According to the report, a heat recovery
system was installed in 2007 in the existing power plant but it did not work as designed.
Funding to repair the existing recovered heat system is not currently programmed and there
are no plans to get the system operational at this time. The report shows thermal load demand
in Marshall is far less than available heat from the existing generators and the all heat demand
could be met if the existing recovered heat system was operational. See Appendix B for the
ANTHC heat recovery study.
Since the current heat recovery system is not operational, a better option to use excess wind
energy from wind turbines is to install an electric boiler secondary load controller remotely at
the water treatment plant facility. Therefore, excess wind power could by‐pass the existing
recovered heat system and be used to offset approximately 3,200 gallons of the 6,200 gallons
of fuel oil currently used to heat the facility.
1.7 TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENSIONS
Currently three phase transmission lines are installed from the AVEC power plant to the existing
school which is approximately 0.6 miles from the Met Tower Site. Utility poles with
communication wires are already in place along the airport access road, which extends beyond
the Met Tower Site to the United Utilities Inc. (UUI) communication tower. These existing
utility poles will likely accommodate the future wind power transmission lines.
1.8 REQUIRED POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
Upgrades to the existing power plant switch gear and control panels are anticipated in order to
accommodate wind turbine energy. AVEC is currently evaluating the power plant and will
provide recommendations for necessary upgrades in the early stages of the design phase. The
preliminary cost estimate included in this report considers the costs for replacement of the
existing switch gear and upgrades to the control panels.
1.9 GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION
The Alaska Department of Transportation performed a geotechnical investigation in 1997 along
the alignment of what is now the existing airport access road. The results of their findings are
published in the July 1998 Geotechnical Report for Marshall Airport Runway Relocation. Two of
the boreholes from that investigation were advanced on August 28, 1997 within approximately
400 feet of the met tower installation location. These boreholes indicate ice‐rich fine‐grained
soils to a depth of 9’ and 11.5’ below ground surface. The drill encountered refusal in both
boreholes, interpreted as bedrock.
From the above‐referenced report, bedrock in the Marshall area is known to consist of both
Permio‐Triassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks. The
metamorphic rocks have been recrystallized locally to hornfels by contact metamorphism
where they are near igneous intrusive rocks. The metamorphic rocks are mostly gray and green,
fine‐ to medium‐grained, and massive to schistose. The Cretaceous igneous rocks are medium‐
grained, light gray to greenish gray and weakly foliated. Small bodies of intrusive granitic rock
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
5
have been mapped on the surrounding mountains, and a small light green‐gray granodiorite is
exposed in the material site near the abandoned former runway at Marshall.
Due to the presence of different rock types and variable degrees of hornfelsing around the
intrusive rocks, the metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks probably exhibit variable degrees
of competence in the project area. A site specific geotechnical investigation is needed to
support the selection of a wind turbine foundation type and to formulate a detailed foundation
design. Based on existing information a mass gravity foundation with rock anchors will likely be
utilized.
1.10 LIMITATIONS
This report, titled Marshall Wind Project Concept Design Report, was prepared in support
of a grant funding request for design and permitting a wind tower project in Marshall,
Alaska. Design information contained herein is conceptual for planning and budgetary cost
estimation purposes only.
2.0 MARSHALL WIND SITE ANALYSIS
2.1 WIND TURBINE SITE INVESTIGATION
On August 3, 2012, Brent Petrie (AVEC), Matt Metcalf (AVEC), Doug Vaught (V3 Energy), and
Ryan Norkoli (HDL) traveled to Marshall. The purpose of the site visit was to investigate the
Met Tower Site (described below) and three additional potential wind sites that had been
identified through WAsP wind modeling software as possible alternatives to the Met Tower
Site, see Figure 1 for locations of the Met Tower Site and three alternative sites. A memo
summarizing preliminary office research and the trip report for the site investigation is included
in Appendix C. Upon completion of the site investigation, the existing Met Tower Site was
determined to be the most cost effective location for installing wind turbines near Marshall.
Below is a summary of each potential wind turbine site.
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
6
Figure 2: Wind Tower Site Alternatives
2.1.1 METEOROLIGICAL (MET) TOWER SITE
The met tower site is located at 61˚52’33.3” North Latitude, 162˚03’55.98” West Longitude. At
this location a met tower was installed to record data starting on December 18, 2008 and
collapsed October 12, 2009 due to an anchor failure. Low‐lying tundra vegetation covers the
area and the topography is generally flat. The site is adjacent to the existing airport access road
and communication wires are strung across utility poles adjacent to the airport access road.
These existing poles would likely accommodate transmission lines to route power to the plant.
A 1998 geotechnical report developed by the Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT)
provides borehole information within 400 feet of this location. Upon review of other available
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
7
sites, the met tower site was the preferred site for wind tower development.
Figure 3: Airport Access Road Adjacent to Met Tower Site and Alternative Site 1
2.1.2 ALTERNATIVE SITE 1
Alternative Site 1 is located at 61˚52’22.78” North Latitude, 162˚04’07.79” West Longitude. This
location was identified though wind modeling to have 7% greater annual energy production
(AEP) than the Met Tower Site. Although the site development costs would be comparable to
the Met Tower Site, Alternative Site 1 is located within an existing Native Allotment (NA) and
due to property ownership limitations, the location was eliminated from further consideration.
2.1.3 ALTERNATIVE SITE 2
Alternative Site 2 is located at 61˚53’09.58” North Latitude, 162˚02’59.58” West Longitude.
Alternative Site 2 wind modeling indicates 3% less AEP compared to the Met Tower Site. The
site is located approximately 1 mile further from the AVEC power plant than the Met Tower
Site. Alternative 2 site development would result in additional transmission line costs and site
development costs for a lower quality wind source compared to the Met Tower Site.
Alternative Site 2 was eliminated from consideration.
Figure 4: Alternative Site 2
2.1.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE 3
Alternative Site 3 is located at 61˚53’43.99” North Latitude, 162˚03’08.6” West Longitude.
Alternative Site 3 was identified through wind modeling to have 14% greater AEP than the Met
Tower Site. The site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the existing maintained road
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
8
system. The area is accessed via a rough single lane gravel trail which follows the existing
United Utilities Inc. (UUI) communication lines alignment to a communication tower on a
nearby mountain top. The existing utility poles that route communication lines back to
Marshall would likely be able to accommodate power transmission lines. However, some of the
existing utility poles are leaning over due to inadequate foundation soil support. The utility
poles were installed within the last 5 years and considering the amount of movement that has
already taken place, maintenance costs and useful life are significant concerns with this site.
Due to the following considerations, Alternative Site 3 was not selected for further evaluation:
higher initial construction costs, increased maintenance concerns for transmission lines, line
losses due to additional transmission length, and lack of year‐round overland access to the site.
Figure 5: UUI Access Road and Utility Poles on Approach to Alternative Site 3
3.0 WIND DATA ACQUISITION AND MODELING
3.1 MARSHALL WIND RESOURCE
On December 18, 2008, a meteorological (met) tower was installed along the airport access
road approximately 0.8 miles from Marshall. The met tower collapsed on October 12, 2009 due
to an anchor failure during a strong wind event. The met tower was reinstalled at the same
location in September 2012 to obtain additional wind data and fill in data gaps for the portion
of the year that no site specific data exists. It should be noted that the met tower failed in 2009
during a strong wind event and the months which no data exists for are likely conducive to
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
9
power generation. The met tower is equipped with instrumentation and data loggers to
evaluate and record the wind resource. The wind data collected during met tower operation
suggests that the existing wind regime in this location is suitable for wind power generation.
The results of the data acquisition and analysis of the wind resource are included in “Marshall
Wind‐Diesel Feasibility Study” dated August, 2013 (Appendix A).
4.0 WIND TURBINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
4.1 MARSHALL WIND TURBINE ANALYSIS
Three types of wind turbines were selected by AVEC for preliminary cost analysis to assess cost
feasibility: Northern Power Systems Arctic (NP100) turbines; Vestas V20 turbines; and the
Aeronautica AW22‐225. These turbines were selected because they can be installed in
configurations that provide 225 kW to 360 kW to the existing power generation system and
have fixed pitch blades. These configurations are classified as medium wind‐diesel penetration
systems having a goal to offset 20% to 50% of the community’s energy demand with wind
power. A medium penetration system provides a balance between the amount of energy
provided and the complexity of the wind generation and integration systems.
4.1.1 NORTHERN POWER 100 ARCTIC
The analyzed turbine configuration consists of (3) NP100 turbines on 48 meter lattice towers.
The NP100’s are manufactured by Northern Power Systems in Barre, Vermont. The NP100
turbine is normally rated at 100 kW. However, the Marshall installation is anticipated to
include 24 meter rotor diameter, which reduces the maximum energy rating to 95 kW per
turbine. The 24 meter blades have a larger swept area and can generate more power at lower
wind speeds, which better matches Marshall’s wind regime. The NP‐100s are permanent
magnet, synchronous, direct drive wind power generators. AVEC has previously installed
similar turbines with hub heights ranging 22 to 30 meters, in the following rural Alaska villages:
Chevak ‐400 kW
Emmonak – 400 kW
Gambell – 300 kW
Hooper Bay – 300 kW
Kasigluk – 300 kW
Mekoryuk – 200 kW
Quinhagak – 300 kW
Savoonga – 200 kW
Shaktoolik – 200 kW
Toksook Bay – 400 kW
3,000 kW AVEC’s Existing Total NP100 Power Generation Capacity
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
10
Each turbine is equipped with active yaw control, but does not have blade pitch control
capability.
Figure 6: NP100 Turbine Installed in Emmonak
4.1.2 Vestas V20
The second option is installing (3) remanufacturer Vestas Wind Systems A/S V20 turbines. The
V20 is a 120 kW rated, fixed pitch turbine with active yaw and a high speed rotor with three
blades. Vestas is an international turbine manufacturer based in the Denmark, with their
American operations based in Portland, Oregon. The V20s were commonly used as small scale
industrial wind turbines in the 1980’s and 1990’s. More recently, these turbines have been
replaced in wind farms with new large scale turbines with 1 megawatt capacity or greater. The
decommissioned V20s were sold to independent contractors, such as Halus Power Systems in
San Leandro, CA, for refurbishment and resale. The V20 is a 32‐meter (85‐foot) high, 120 kW,
induction generator. The turbines are equipped with a 20‐meter diameter rotor. Installing
three V20s in Marshall would produce a maximum output of 360 kW at a wind speed of 15
mph. The generator power output can be controlled using a simple inverter and soft breaking
or a variable speed drive (VSD) complex inverter. V20 turbines are the same wind turbines as
the Vestas V17 (except that the blades are 20 meters long instead of 17 meters long). V17
turbines have been previously installed in Alaska at Kokhanok.
4.1.3 Aeronautica AW33‐225
The third turbine option is installing one Aeronautica AW33‐225 turbine. Aeronautica
Windpower Inc. started in 2008 as a turbine refurbishment company. In 2010 they purchased
the rights to manufacture and sell the Norwin 225 and Norwin 750 turbines under their name.
The AW33‐225 turbine is a 40‐meter (131‐foot) high, 225 kW, induction generator. The
turbines are equipped with a 33‐meter diameter rotor. This configuration has a maximum
power generation output of 225 kW. The blades are fixed pitch and stall regulated at high wind
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
11
speeds. The blades are aerodynamically designed to stall during extreme wind events in order
to maintaining a safe operating speed. This method of control eliminates the mechanical and
electric blade control systems involved with pitch controlled turbines. There are no
Aeronautica turbines installed in Alaska at this time.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ‐ (3) NP100 TURBINES
This alternative proposes installation of (3) NP100 turbines at met tower for a total cumulative
generation capacity of 285 kW. The project includes construction of 900 feet of 16‐foot wide
gravel access trail and (3) 2,600 square foot gravel pads at the wind tower locations. The
proposed trail and wind tower pads are anticipated to be 4 feet thick and consist of locally
available sands and gravels compacted to 90% maximum density. The turbines are installed on
a 48‐meter high, lattice tower. The tower foundation is anticipated to include precast concrete
gravity above shallow volcanic bedrock. Power is delivered from the wind turbines to the
Marshall power plant by a 0.8 mile long transmission line. Reference Sheet C1.02, Appendix D
for a site plan of Alternative 1.
The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy’s August, 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility
Analysis (Appendix A) predicts that this alternative will add 721 MWh/year of annual energy
production to the Marshall power generation system at 80% turbine availability. The
construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $11,280 per installed kW assuming the
new power plant is complete and operational. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 ‐ (3) V20 TURBINES
This alternative proposes installation of (3) V20 turbines at the met tower site for total
cumulative generation capacity of 360 kW. The project includes construction of 900 feet of 16‐
foot wide gravel access trail and (3) 2,600 square foot gravel pads at the wind tower locations.
The proposed trail and wind tower pads are anticipated to be 4 feet thick and consist of locally
available sands and gravels compacted to 90% maximum density. The turbines are installed on
a 32‐meter high lattice tower. The tower foundation is anticipated to include precast concrete
gravity above shallow volcanic bedrock. Power is delivered from the wind turbines to the
Marshall power plant by a 0.8 mile long transmission line. Reference Sheet C1.03, Appendix D
for a site plan of Alternative 2.
The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy’s August, 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility
Analysis (Appendix A) and predicts that this alternative will add 579 MWh/year of annual
energy production to the Marshall power generation system at 80% turbine availability . The
construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $8,029 per installed KW assuming the
new power plant is complete and operational. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 ‐ (1) AW33‐225 TURBINES
This alternative proposes installation of (1) AW33‐225 turbines at met for a potential
generation capacity of 225 kW. The project includes construction of a 300‐foot gravel access
trail and (1) 2,600 square foot wind tower pads. The proposed trail and wind tower pads are
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
12
anticipated to be 4 feet thick and consist of locally available sands and gravels compacted to
90% maximum density. The turbine is installed on a 40‐meter high, conical, monopole tower.
The tower foundation is anticipated to include precast concrete gravity mats with rock anchors
to resist the increased overturning moment. The AW33‐225 towers are anticipated to require
larger foundations than the NP100 turbines due to larger reaction forces from the increased
tower weight, longer blade diameters, and increased swept area. Power is delivered from the
wind turbines to the Marshall power plant by a 0.75 mile long transmission line. Reference
Sheet C1.04, Appendix D, for a site plan of Alternative 3.
The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy’s August 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility
Analysis (Appendix B) and predicts that this alternative will add 520 MWh/year of annual
energy production to Marshall power generation system at 80% turbine availability . The
construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $11,824 per installed KW assuming the
new power plant is complete and operational and 225 kW of power is delivered from the new
turbine. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E.
4.5 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY
Table 2 below summarizes the capital costs and estimated annual energy production for each
turbine alternative.
Table 2: Alternative Comparison Summary
Alt
Turbine Selection
Site
Generation
Capacity (kW)
Estimated
Capital Cost
Estimated Capital
Cost per Installed
kW
Estimated Annual
Energy Production
@ 80 %
Availability
1 (3) NP 100s Met Tower 285 $ 3.2 M $11,280 721,365 kWh
2 (3) V20s Met Tower 360 $ 2.9 M $8,029 579,681 kWh
3 (1) AW33‐225 Met Tower 225 $ 2.7 M $11,824 520,962 kWh
*Source: Annual Energy Production data taken from V3 Energy’s August 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility Analysis
5.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
5.1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
The Marshall Wind Diesel Feasibility Analysis prepared by V3 Energy (Appendix A) includes a
wind power analysis of the Marshall power generation system using HOMER energy modeling
software with the previously described wind turbine alternatives. The software was configured
for a medium, with the first priority to meet the community’s electrical demands and the
second priority to serve the recovered heat system through a secondary load controller (electric
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
13
boiler). The analysis considered an average diesel fuel price of $4.99 per gallon for the
projected 20‐year project life. The modeling assumptions and results of V3’s analysis are
presented in Appendix A.
V3 inserted the power generation and fuel consumption results from the HOMER modeling into
the economic modeling program developed by the Institute for Social and Economic Research
(ISER). AEA’s uses the ISER economic model as the standard approach for scoring wind project
design and construction grant applications. The ISER model considers the capital cost of
construction and annual cost of operating and maintaining the wind turbines and weighs them
against the benefit cost savings realized from the volume of displaced diesel fuel required for
power generation and heating public facilities. The analysis develops a benefit/cost ratio that
can be used to compare wind turbine alternatives. See V3’s economic analysis results in
Appendix A.
5.2 ECONOMIC EVALUATION RESULTS
Table 3 below summarizes the findings of the V3’s economic evaluation for each turbine
alternative.
Table 3: Economic Evaluation Summary
Alt
Annual
Wind
Generation
@ 80%
Availability
(kWh)
Wind
Energy
For Power
(kWh/yr)
Wind
Energy
For Heat
(kWh/yr)
Wind as %
Total
Power
Production
(%)
Power
Generation:
Fuel
Displaced by
Wind Energy
(gal/yr)
Thermal
Generation:
Heating Fuel
Displaced by
Wind Energy
(gal/yr)
Benefit/ Cost
Ratio
1 721,365 592,895 128,470 40 48,962 3,284 1.08
2 579,681 471,050 108,631 32.5 39,067 2,777 0.96
3 520,962 462,698 58,264 30 37,136 1,489 0.98
*Source: Annual Energy Production data taken from V3 Energy’s August 2013 Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility Analysis
6.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the findings of the site analysis, wind modeling, and economic evaluation, Alternative
1 is the preferred alternative for Marshall wind turbine development. This alternative consists
of construction of (3) NP100 turbines at the Met Tower Site. Each turbine has the potential to
generate 95 kW, for an aggregate total power generation of 285 kW. The NP100 turbine is the
preferred alternative because it has the highest benefit/cost ratio and matches AVEC’s existing
turbine fleet so that maintenance and operational procedures are consistent among AVEC
turbine installations. The three turbine installation would allow for redundancy in the system
and the ability to perform turbine maintenance without eliminating wind power from the
system. The economic evaluation above assumes that the turbine array operates at the 285 kW
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
14
energy output level. However, for better system performance, the turbine should be modulated
by occasionally shutting down turbines to consistently provide medium penetration to the
Marshall grid and adequate excess energy to meet recovered heat demands.
7.0 PERMITTING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND LAND OWNERSHIP
7.1 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
The FAA requires an Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) and submittal
of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (45‐days prior to construction) for projects
proposing construction or alteration of any of the following:
1. A structure that exceeds 200 feet above ground level
2. A structure located in proximity to an airport and will not exceed the slope ratio
3. A structure involving construction of a traverse way
4. A structure emitting frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co‐
location Policy
5. A structure located in an instrument approach area that might exceed part 77 Subpart C
6. A structure located on an airport or heliport
On November 13, 2012, a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the FAA was
issued for two Northern Power 100 wind turbines (Reference No. 2012‐WTW‐7872‐OE and
2012‐WTW‐7873‐OE) at the met tower site. This determination will have to be modified based
on the final tower configuration determined during design.
7.2 US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
Marshall is located within the Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta Ecoregion and lies on the northeastern
boundary of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. According to Alaska’s 32 Ecoregions:
“The area is characterized by lakes, streams, tidal flats, wet tundra, and sedge flats that support
an abundant population of waterfowl and shorebirds; providing breeding grounds for more
than 20 species of waterfowl and 10 species of shorebirds. The Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta
supports 50% of the world’s black brant, the majority of the world’s emperor geese, all of North
America’s nesting cackling Canada geese, and the highest density of nesting tundra swans. The
long‐tailed duck, scaup, common eider, spectacled eider, northern pintail, green‐winged teal,
and northern shoveler can also be found here.”
The USFWS lists the spectacled eider as threatened. Spectacled eiders typically nest on coastal
tundra near shallow ponds or lakes, usually within 10 feet of the water. The current range map
does not depict spectacled eider use of the area. However, since historic use has been
documented, informal consultation with USFWS is encouraged in order to identify the
likelihood of spectacled eider presence within the project area, define potential effects, and
determine whether measures to avoid and minimize effects are necessary. USFWS
recommends avoiding vegetation clearing for regions throughout the state of Alaska. For the
Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta region the following avoidance periods apply:
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
15
1. Shrub and Open Habitat – May 5th through July 25th (except in habitat that supports
Canada geese, swan, and black scoter)
2. Canada geese and swan habitat – April 20th through July 25th
3. Black scoter habitat – May 5th through August 10th
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA):
“It is illegal for anyone to “take” migratory birds, their eggs, feathers or nests. “Take” includes
by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing
or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof. Take and possession under MBTA
can be authorized through regulations, such as hunting regulations, or permits (e.g., salvage,
research, depredation, or falconry). The MTBA does not distinguish between intentional and
unintentional take. In Alaska, all native birds except grouse and ptarmigan (protected by the
State of Alaska) are protected under the MBTA.”
The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge also supports spawning and rearing habitat for 44
species of fish including all five North American Pacific Salmon. A review of ADF&G’s
Anadromous Waters Catalog lists Poltes Slough (AWC Code: 334‐20‐11000‐2375) as the closest
fish‐bearing stream to the project area. The Slough supports the presence of chum, coho, and
king salmon and connects to the main stem of the Yukon River (AWC Code: 334‐20‐11000). The
project is located far enough from the Slough that secondary indirect impacts from construction
related activities are unlikely to impact water quality.
Informal consultation with USFWS is recommended to identify potential impacts to threatened
and endangered species, such as eiders, define potential strike impacts to general avian species
and determine whether measures to avoid and minimize effects are necessary. USFWS may
recommend an avian survey to identify which species are present in Marshall and general flight
patterns in relation to the proposed wind tower sites.
7.3 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO)
Preliminary research by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC was performed on the Met Tower
Site. According to the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) files there are no known historic
or archaeological sites within the proposed project area. In addition, the project area is located
outside of an area defined as “highest potential for cultural resources” which extends two to
three blocks from the river and includes a cemetery and two other areas of reported graves.
This high potential area does not include the proposed wind tower locations. An historic and
archaeological survey was conducted along the roadway from the town site of Marshall to the
airstrip. Results of the survey suggested that, although the airport access road had been
constructed prior to the survey, it appeared to have no impact on historic or prehistoric sites.
Preliminary research results did reveal one known historic resource within the proposed project
area, the Paimute‐Marshall Trail (RST 168). The Paimute ‐ Marshall Trail is an historic trail used
as a connecting route from the Yukon River at Paimute through Russian Mission to Marshall.
The trail is shown in the 1973 Department of Transportation and Public Facilities trails
inventory, on Maps 73 and 74 (Russian Mission Quadrangle), as Trail #18. The trail does not
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
16
have an AHRS number, but since it is listed as a qualified RS2477 right‐of‐way, it is very likely
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Based on existing AHRS information and the findings of previous investigations, there is a
relatively low probability of undiscovered archaeological and historic sites within area proposed
for development. 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.
7.4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit for placement of fill in wetlands and
waters of the United States. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database does not have
data for the Marshall area. However, current wetland mapping in adjacent areas with similar
habitat and landform features indicates the area contains wetlands under DA jurisdiction.
A new Nationwide Permit (NWP) issued in 2012 for Land Based Renewable Energy General
Facilities (NWP 51) authorizes discharge of fill for wind tower construction if loss of wetlands
does not exceed 1/2 acre. This permit also covers other associated work, including utility lines,
parking lots, and roads inside of the wind generation facility. Access roads and transmission
lines used to connect the facility to existing infrastructure require separate permitting (NWP 12
or 14). Submittal requirements for NWP 51 includes Pre‐Construction Notification (PCN) and
PCN requires a wetlands delineation documenting project impacts.
Completion of wetlands delineation for the area proposed for development is recommended.
The DA recommends that wetlands delineation is completed within the designated growing
season for specific regions. Marshall is located within Alaska’s Interior Forested Lowlands and
Uplands Ecoregion, which has a growing season that begins on May 3rd and ends on October
3rd.
7.5 CONTAMINATED SITES, SPILLS, AND UNDERGROUND TANKS
A search of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) contaminated sites
database revealed three active contaminated sites within the Village of Marshall. No known
contaminated sites are located within the area proposed for development.
7.6 AIR QUALITY
According to Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 18 AAC 50, the community of Marshall is
considered a Class II area. As such, there are designated maximum allowable increases for
particulate matter 10 (PM‐10) micrometers or less in size, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
Activities in these areas must operate in such a way that they do not exceed listed air quality
controls for these compounds. The nature and extent of the proposed project is not likely to
increase emissions or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard or cause a
maximum allowable increase for a Class II area.
7.7 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW (NEPA)
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
17
The federal government’s role in regulating wind power development is limited to projects
occurring on federal lands or projects that have some form of federal involvement. The federal
nexus for the proposed wind tower site in Marshall is likely with the DA for placement of fill in
wetlands. Construction of the wind towers at the proposed development site would require
preparation of an Environmental Review (ER) document. Similar to an Environmental
Assessment (EA), an ER will provide an assessment of potential environmental impacts and
identify avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. A Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) determination by the funding agency will be needed.
Results from a preliminary environmental review are summarized below:
1. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 consultation will
be required for the project.
2. A wetlands delineation of the proposed site is necessary to obtain a preliminary
jurisdictional determination and Section 404/10 DA Permit.
3. Informal consultation with the USFWS is recommended to identify potential effects to
threatened or endangered species and possible avoidance and minimization measures.
4. Vegetation clearing shall be scheduled to take place outside appropriate recommended
time periods of avoidance, per the USFWS’s recommendations.
5. File FAA form 7460‐1 at least 45 days prior to construction. This has been filed for
NP100 turbines.
7.8 LAND OWNERSHIP
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Special Management Lands Division
indicates the proposed tower site is located within the designated city boundary of Marshall.
The Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) Area Use Map for Marshall
indicates the proposed tower site is located on land owned by Maserculiq, Inc. AVEC and
Maserculiq, Inc. have an existing lease agreement in place June 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013
for the installation of the meteorological tower.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The high cost of diesel fuel and available wind resource near Marshall makes wind power an
attractive component to the electrical power generation system. A wind site investigation and
subsequent wind modeling analysis determined that Marshall has a Class 4 wind resource and is
suited for wind site development. Economic analysis of the turbine alternatives presented in
this report included a configuration of three NP100 turbines installed at the Met Tower Site.
The economic analysis projected that three NP100 turbines could offset approximately 42,846
gallons of diesel fuel per year while generating 721,365 kWh/yr.
The following actions are recommended to continue the progress of wind turbine development
in Marshall:
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
18
Recommendations
1. Enter into negotiations with Maserculiq, Inc. for site control and access for a
geotechnical investigation and wind project development at the Met Tower Site.
2. Consult with Marshall community leaders to understand and minimize the impacts to
subsistence activities from wind project development at the Met Tower Site.
3. Perform wetland delineation at the Met Tower Site and proceed with permitting per the
recommendations included in Section 5 of this report.
4. Perform a geotechnical investigation at the Met Tower Site to develop wind tower
foundation design.
5. Perform additional investigation and design of improvements to incorporate wind
power into the existing power plant at Marshall.
6. Continue to evaluate turbine alternatives, perform detailed design of a selected
alternative, and apply for construction grant funds.
9.0 REFERENCES
Alaska Community Database, Community Information Summaries (CIS)
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.html, accessed on 9/12/2012
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program,
Fiscal Year 2011. Twenty Third Edition. April 2012.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control: As
Amended through August 1, 2012.
ADEC. Division of Spill Prevention and Response. Last accessed on September 6, 2012.
http://dec.alaska.gov/applications/spar/CSPSearch/results.asp.
State of Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) Northern Region Technical Services
Geology. Geotechnical Report, Marshall Airport Runway Relocation. July 1998.
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Division of Environmental Health and
Engineering. Marshall, Alaska Heat Recovery Study. July 16, 2012.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). Wildlife Action Plan Section IIIB: Alaska’s 32
Ecoregions
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/wildlife_action_plan/section3b.pdf. Last
accessed on September 6, 2012.
ADF&G. Anadromous Waters Catalog. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/. Last
accessed on September 6, 2012.
ADF&G. 2012c. Refuges, Sanctuaries, Critical Habitat Areas and Wildlife Refuges.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=protectedareas.locator. Last accessed on
September 7, 2012.
ADNR. 2012. Division of Special Management Lands.
http://www.navmaps.alaska.gov/specialmanagementlands/. Last accessed on
September 7, 2012.
DRAFT
Alaska Village Marshall Wind Project
Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report
19
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development; Division of
Community and Regional Affairs. Marshall Area Use Map. 2006.
FAA. Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA).
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp012. Last accessed on August 26, 2012.
USACE. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska
Region (Version 2.0).
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/erdc‐el_tr‐
07‐24.pdf. Last accessed on September 6, 2012.
USFWS. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species: Listed and Candidate
Species in Alaska, Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri).
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/species/spectacled_eider.htm. Last
accessed on September 6, 2012.
USFWS. Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=74540. Last accessed on September
6, 2012.
USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Clearing Guidance for Alaska: Recommended Time
Periods to Avoid Vegetation Clearing.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/pdf/vegetation_clearing.pdf. Last
accessed on September 7, 2012.
USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory.
http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#. Last accessed on September 6,
2012.
V3 Energy. Marshall Wind‐Diesel Feasibility Study. September 14, 2012.
Northern Economics. Proposed Wind Project in Marshall: Economic Evaluation Report.
September 17, 2012.
Appendix A
V3 Energy's August 2013
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis
August 29, 2013
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
dvaught@v3energy.com
V3 Energy, LLC
Eagle River, Alaska
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility 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 in Marshall. This analysis is part
of a conceptual design project funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund administered by the
Alaska Energy Authority.
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Village of Marshall .................................................................................................................................... 1
Wind Resource .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Measured Wind Speeds ............................................................................................................................ 4
Wind Roses ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Wind Frequency Rose ........................................................................................................................... 5
Total Value (power density) Rose ......................................................................................................... 5
Extreme Winds .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Wind-Diesel Hybrid System Overview .......................................................................................................... 5
Low Penetration Configuration ................................................................................................................. 6
Medium Penetration Configuration .......................................................................................................... 7
High Penetration Configuration ................................................................................................................ 7
Wind-Diesel System Components ............................................................................................................. 8
Wind Turbine(s) .................................................................................................................................... 8
Supervisory Control System .................................................................................................................. 8
Synchronous Condenser ....................................................................................................................... 9
Secondary Load ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Deferrable Load .................................................................................................................................. 10
Interruptible Load ............................................................................................................................... 10
Storage Options .................................................................................................................................. 10
Wind Turbine Options ................................................................................................................................. 11
Northern Power Systems 100-24 Arctic .................................................................................................. 11
Vestas V20 ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Aeronautica 33-225 ................................................................................................................................ 13
Homer Software Wind-Diesel Model .............................................................................................................. 13
Diesel Power Plant .................................................................................................................................. 13
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | ii
Wind Turbines ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Electric Load ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Thermal Load .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Diesel Generators ................................................................................................................................... 15
Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Wind Turbine Costs ................................................................................................................................. 17
Fuel Cost .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 17
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 21
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 1
Introduction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the electric utility for the City of Marshall. AVEC was
awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to complete feasibility work for installation of
wind turbines, with planned construction in 2015.
Village of Marshall
Marshall is located on the north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the east bank of the
Yukon River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. It lies on the northeastern boundary of the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge. The climate of Marshall is maritime with temperatures ranging between -54
and 86 °F. Average annual rainfall measures 16 inches. Heavy winds in the fall and winter often limit air
accessibility. The Lower Yukon is ice-free from
mid-June through October.
An expedition came upon an Eskimo village called
"Uglovaia" at this site in 1880. Gold was
discovered on nearby Wilson Creek in 1913.
"Fortuna Ledge" became a placer mining camp,
named after the first child born at the camp,
Fortuna Hunter. Its location on a channel of the
Yukon River was convenient for riverboat
landings. A post office was established in 1915,
and the population grew to over 1,000. Later, the
village was named for Thomas Riley Marshall,
Vice President of the United States under Woodrow Wilson from 1913-21. The community became
known as "Marshall's Landing." When the village incorporated as a second-class city in 1970, it was
named Fortuna Ledge but was commonly referred to as Marshall. The name was officially changed to
Marshall in 1984.
A federally-recognized tribe is located in the community -- the Native Village of Marshall. Marshall is a
traditional Yup'ik Eskimo village. Subsistence and fishing-related activities support most residents.
Members of the Village of Ohogamiut also live in Marshall. The sale, importation, and possession of
alcohol are banned in the village.
According to Census 2010, there were 108 housing units in the community and 100 were occupied. Its
population was 94.7 percent American Indian or Alaska Native; 2.7 percent white; 0.2 percent Asian; 2.4
percent of the local residents had multi-racial backgrounds. Additionally, 0.2 percent of the population
was of Hispanic descent.
Water is derived from five wells. Approximately 70% of the city (60 homes) is served by a piped
circulating water and sewer system and has full plumbing. The remainder of the city must haul water
and use honey buckets. An unpermitted landfill is available, and the city has a refuse collection service.
Electricity is provided by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. There is one school located in the
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 2
community, attended by 133 students. Local hospitals or health clinics include Agnes Boliver Health
Clinic (Marshall). Emergency Services have river and air access. Emergency service is provided by a
health aide.
Marshall has a seasonal economy with most activity during the summer. Fishing, fish processing, and
BLM firefighting positions are available seasonally. In 2010, 39 residents held commercial fishing
permits. Subsistence activities supplement income. Salmon, moose, bear, and waterfowl are harvested.
Trapping provides some income.
No roads connect Marshall to other communities, so access to Marshall is primarily by air or water. The
city has a State-owned 3,201' long by 100' wide gravel airstrip. The community is also serviced by barge.
Many residents have boats and in winter they rely on snow machines and dog teams for travel.
Wind Resource
A met tower was installed at the proposed wind turbine site in Marshall on December 18, 2008 and was
in continuous operation until October 10, 2009 when an anchor failed during a wind storm and the
tower collapsed. The met tower was replaced in September 2012 and is presently operational. With the
data through July 2013, an average wind speed of 6.30 m/s was measured, with a wind power density of
400 W/m2 (Class 4 wind resource).
Other aspects of the wind resource also are promising for wind power development. By IEC 61400-1 3rd
edition classification, Marshall is category IIIC, indicating low turbulence (mean TI at 15 m/s = 0.095) and
a low probability of extreme wind events. The latter measure is more difficult to quantify with only 21
months of data, but the site clearly is not energetic enough to be IEC Class I. All three wind turbines
profiled in this report are certified for IEC Class III conditions.
Marshall met tower data synopsis
Data start date December 18, 2008
Data end date Operational (data gap from Oct. 2009 to Sept. 2012);
data thru July 2013 for analysis
Wind power class (by WPD) Class 4 (good)
Wind speed average (30 meters) 6.30 m/s measured
Maximum 10-min average wind speed 30.8 m/s
Maximum wind gust 37.8 m/s (January 2009)
IEC 61400-1 3rd ed. extreme winds Class III (note: 21 months data)
Wind power density (30 meters) 400 W/m2
Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.60, c = 7.02 m/s
Roughness Class 0.65 (lawn grass)
Power law exponent 0.118 (low wind shear)
Frequency of calms (4.0 m/s threshold) 34%
Mean Turbulence Intensity 0.090 (IEC 61400-1 3rd ed. turbulence category C)
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 3
Topographic map
Google Earth image
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 4
Measured Wind Speeds
Measured wind speeds in Marshall are excellent for an inland site and very promising for wind power
development.
Wind Speed Sensor Summary
Variable
Speed 30 m
A
Speed 30 m
B
Speed 22
m
Measurement height (m) 30 30 22
Mean wind speed (m/s) 6.30 6.35 6.09
MoMM wind speed (m/s) 6.26 6.30 6.04
Max 10-min wind speed (m/s) 26.7 30.8 26.6
Weibull k 1.60 1.57 1.58
Weibull c (m/s) 7.02 7.05 6.77
Mean power density (W/m²) 392 413 360
MoMM power density (W/m²) 380 400 347
Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 3,434 3,615 3,151
MoMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 3,333 3,502 3,041
Energy pattern factor 2.39 2.48 2.44
Frequency of calms (%) 33.3 33.4 35.2
Marshall Wind speed graph
Wind Roses
Winds at the Marshall met tower test site are primarily east-northeast, north-northwest with occasional
winds from south-southeast (wind frequency rose), with the strongest winds east-northeast (mean value
rose). The power density rose indicates that the power producing winds at the site are predominately
east-northeast. Multiple wind turbines should oriented an axis north-northeast to south-southwest to
provide good exposure to ENE and SSE winds and avoid tower shadowing.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 5
Note that a wind threshold of 4.0 m/s was selected for the definition of calm winds. With this threshold,
the Marshall met tower site experienced 34 percent calm conditions during the test period.
Wind Frequency Rose Total Value (power density) Rose
Extreme Winds
The relatively short duration (21 months) of collected Marshall met tower data should be considered
minimal for calculation of extreme wind probability, but nevertheless it can be estimated with a
reasonable level of confidence with a Gumbel distribution analysis modified for entry of monthly data
versus annual data. Analysis indicates that the Marshall met tower site experiences relatively few
extreme wind events and by reference to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400-1, 3rd
edition (2005), classifies as IEC Class III for extreme wind probability, the lowest defined and typical of
many wind power sites. All wind turbines are designed to meet this criterion.
Extreme wind speed probability table
Vref Gust IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed.
Period (years) (m/s) (m/s) Class Vref, m/s
2 26.6 33.4 I 50.0
10 31.5 39.5 II 42.5
15 32.7 41.0 III 37.5
30 34.8 43.6 S designer-
specified 50 36.3 45.6
100 38.4 48.2
average gust factor: 1.25
Wind-Diesel Hybrid System Overview
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,
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 6
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 a control system and demand-management strategy is required.
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-
managed devices.
Low Penetration Configuration
Low-penetration wind-diesel systems require the fewest modifications to a new or existing power
system in that maximum wind penetration is never sufficient to present potential electrical stability
problems. But, low penetration wind systems tend to be less economical than higher penetration
systems due to the limited annual fuel savings compared to a relatively high total wind system
installation costs. This latter point is because all of the fixed costs of a wind power project – equipment
mobilization and demobilization, distribution connection, new road access, permitting, land acquisition,
etc. – are spread across fewer turbines, resulting in relatively high per kW installed costs.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 7
Medium Penetration Configuration
Medium penetration mode is very similar to high penetration mode except that no electrical storage is
employed in the system and wind capacity is designed for a moderate and usable amount of excess wind
energy that must be diverted to thermal loads. All of AVEC’s modern wind power systems are designed
as medium penetration systems.
High Penetration Configuration
Other communities, such as Kokhanok, are more aggressively seeking to offset diesel used for thermal
and electrical energy. They are using configurations which will allow for the generator sets to be turned
off and use a significant portion of the wind energy for various heating loads. The potential benefit of
these systems is the highest, however currently the commissioning for these system types due to the
increased complexity, can take longer.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 8
Wind-Diesel System Components
Listed below are the main components of a medium to high-penetration wind-diesel system:
• Wind turbine , plus tower and foundation
• Supervisory control system
• Synchronous condenser
• Secondary load
• Deferrable load
• Interruptible load
• Storage
Wind Turbine(s)
Village-scale wind turbines are generally considered as 50 kW to 250 kW rated output. This turbine size
once dominated with worldwide wind power industry but has been left behind in favor of much larger
1,000 kW plus capacity turbines for utility grid-connected projects. Conversely, many turbines are
manufactured for home or farm application, but generally these are 10 kW or smaller. Consequently,
few new manufacture village size-class turbines are on the market, although a large supply of used
and/or remanufactured turbines are available. The latter typically result from the repower of older wind
farms in the Continental United States and Europe with new, larger wind turbines.
Supervisory Control System
Medium- and high-penetration wind-diesel systems require fast-acting real and reactive power
management to compensate for rapid variation in village load and wind turbine power output. A wind-
diesel system master controller, also called a supervisory controller, would be installed inside the
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 9
existing Marshall power plant or in a new module adjacent to it. The supervisory controller would select
the optimum system configuration based on village electric load demand and available wind power.
Synchronous Condenser
A synchronous condenser, sometimes called a synchronous compensator, is a specialized synchronous
electric motor with an output shaft that spins freely. Its excitation field is controlled by a voltage
regulator to either generate or absorb reactive power as needed to support the grid voltage or to
maintain the grid power factor at a specified level. This is necessary for diesels-off wind turbine
operations, but generally not required for wind systems that maintain a relatively large output diesel
generator online at all times.
Synchronous condenser in Kokhanok
Secondary Load
To avoid curtailing wind turbines during periods of high wind/low load demand, a secondary or “dump”
load is installed to absorb excess system (principally wind) power beyond that required to meet the
electrical load. The secondary load converts excess wind energy into heat via an electric boiler typically
installed in the diesel generator heat recovery loop. This heat can be for use in space and water heating
through the extremely rapid (sub-cycle) switching of heating elements, such as an electric boiler
imbedded in the diesel generator jacket water heat recovery loop. As seen in Figure 16, a secondary
load controller serves to stabilize system frequency by providing a fast responding load when gusting
wind creates system instability.
An electric boiler is a common secondary load device used in wind-diesel power systems. An electric
boiler (or boilers), coupled with a boiler grid interface control system, in a new module outside the
Marshall power plant building, would be sized to absorb up to 200 kW of instantaneous energy (full
output of the wind turbines). The grid interface monitors and maintains the temperature of the electric
hot water tank and establishes a power setpoint. The wind-diesel system master controller assigns the
setpoint based on the amount of unused wind power available in the system. Frequency stabilization is
another advantage that can be controlled with an electric boiler load. The boiler grid interface will
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 10
automatically adjust the amount of power it is drawing to maintain system frequency within acceptable
limits.
Deferrable Load
A deferrable load is electric load that must be met within some time period, but exact timing is not
important. Loads are normally classified as deferrable because they have some storage associated with
them. Water pumping is a common example - there is some flexibility as to when the pump actually
operates, provided the water tank does not run dry. Other examples include ice making and battery
charging. A deferrable load operates second in priority to the primary load and has priority over
charging batteries, should the system employ batteries as a storage option.
Interruptible Load
Electric heating either in the form of electric space heaters or electric water boilers should be explored
as a means of displacing stove oil with wind-generated electricity. It must be emphasized that electric
heating is only economically viable with excess electricity generated by a renewable energy source such
as wind and not from diesel-generated power. It is typically assumed that 41 kWh of electric heat is
equivalent to one gallon of heating fuel oil.
Storage Options
Electrical energy storage provides a means of storing wind generated power during periods of high
winds and then releasing the power as winds subside. Energy storage has a similar function to a
secondary load but the stored, excess wind energy can be converted back to electric power at a later
time. There is an efficiency loss with the conversion of power to storage and out of storage. The
descriptions below are informative but are not currently part of the overall system design.
Flywheels
A flywheel energy system has the capability of short-term energy storage to further smooth out short-
term variability of wind power, and has the additional advantage of frequency regulation. However, the
flywheel system is designed for much larger load systems and would not be economical for Marshall.
Batteries
Battery storage is a generally well-proven technology and has been used in Alaskan power systems
including Fairbanks (Golden Valley Electric Association), Wales and Kokhanok, but with mixed results in
the smaller communities. Batteries are most appropriate for providing medium-term energy storage to
allow a transition, or bridge, between the variable output of wind turbines and diesel generation. This
“bridging” period is typically 5 to 15 minutes long. Storage for several hours or days is also possible with
batteries, but this requires higher capacity and cost. In general, the disadvantages of batteries for utility-
scale energy storage, even for small utility systems, are high capital and maintenance costs and limited
lifetime. Of particular concern to rural Alaska communities is that batteries are heavy and expensive ship
and most contain hazardous substances that require special removal from the village at end of service
life and disposal in specially-equipped recycling centers.
There are a wide variety of battery types with different operating characteristics. Advanced lead acid
and zinc-bromide flow batteries were identified as “technologically simple” energy storage options
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 11
appropriate for rural Alaska in an Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) July, 2009 report on
energy storage. Nickel-cadmium (NiCad) batteries have been used in rural Alaska applications such as
the Wales wind-diesel system. Advantages of NiCad batteries compared to lead-acid batteries include a
deeper discharge capability, lighter weight, higher energy density, a constant output voltage, and much
better performance during cold temperatures. However, NiCads are considerably more expensive than
lead-acid batteries and one must note that the Wales wind-diesel system had a poor operational history
and has not been functional for over ten years.
Because batteries operate on direct current (DC), a converter is required to charge or discharge when
connected to an alternating current (AC) system. A typical battery storage system would include a bank
of batteries and a power conversion device. The batteries would be wired for a nominal voltage of
roughly 300 volts. Individual battery voltages on a large scale system are typically 1.2 volts DC. Recent
advances in power electronics have made solid state inverter/converter systems cost effective and
preferable a power conversion device. The Kokhanok wind-diesel system is designed with a 300 volts DC
battery bank coupled to a grid-forming power converter for production of utility-grade real and reactive
power. Following some design and commissioning delays, the solid state converter system in Kokhanok
should be operational by late 2013 and will be monitored closely for reliability and effectiveness.
Wind Turbine Options
Several village-scale wind turbines are considered suitable for Marshall. The guiding criteria are turbine
output rating in relation to electric load, simplicity of design, AVEC Operations department preferences,
redundancy, and cost considerations. The turbines chose for review in this CDR are the Northern Power
Systems NPS 100, the Vestas V17, and the Windmatic WM17S.
Northern Power Systems 100-24 Arctic
The Northern Power 100-24 Arctic (NPS100-24), formerly known as the Northwind 100 (NW100) in the
more common earlier A and B model versions, is rated at 95 kW and is equipped with a permanent
magnet, synchronous generator, is direct drive (no gearbox), can be equipped with heaters and
insulation, and has been tested to ensure operation in extreme cold climates. The turbine has a 24
meter diameter rotor and is available with a 30 or 37 meter monopole towers, or a 48 meter lattice
tower. The rotor blades are fixed pitch for stall control but the turbine is also inverter regulated for
maximum 95 kW power output. For Marshall, the NPS100-24 will be equipped with an arctic package
enabling a minimum operating temperature of -40° C. The Northern Power 100 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 wind turbine is manufactured in
Barre, Vermont, USA. More information can be found at http://www.northernpower.com/.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 12
Vestas V20
The Vestas V20 was originally manufactured by Vestas Wind Systems A/S in Denmark and is no longer in
production. It is, however, available as a remanufactured unit from Halus Power Systems in California
(represented in Alaska by Marsh Creek, LLC) and from Talk, Inc. in Minnesota. The V20 is rated at 120
kW and is a higher output version of the two Vestas V17 wind turbines installed in Kokhanok in 2011.
The V20 has a fixed-pitch, stall-regulated rotor coupled to an asynchronous (induction) generator via a
gearbox drive. The original turbine design included low speed and high speed generators in order to
optimize performance at low and high wind speeds. The two generators are connected to the gearbox
with belt drives and a clutch mechanism. In some installations though – especially sites with a high
mean wind speeds – the low speed generator is removed to eliminate a potential failure point.
Vestas V17 wind turbines in Kokhanok
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 13
Aeronautica 33-225
The Aeronautica AW33-225 wind turbine is manufactured new by Aeronautica in Durham, New
Hampshire. This turbine was originally designed by the Danish-manufacturer Norwin in the 1980’s with
a 29 meter rotor diameter and had a long and successful history in the wind industry before being
replaced by larger capacity turbines for utility-scale grid-connect installations. The original 29 meter
rotor diameter design is available as the AW29-225 for IEC Class IA wind regimes, which the AW33-225 is
a new variant designed for IEC Class II and III winds. The AW225 turbine is stall-regulated, has a
synchronous (induction) generator, active yaw control, is rated at 225 kW power output, and is available
with 30, 40, or 50 meter tubular steel towers. The AW33-225 is fully arctic-climate certified to -40° C
and is new to the Alaska market with no in-state installations at present. While the AW29-225 has a
typical cut-out wind speed of 25 m/s, the larger rotor diameter AW33-225 is designed for a cut-out
speed of 22 m/s. More information can be found at http://aeronauticawind.com/aw/index.html.
Aeronautica AW 33-225 wind turbine (29-225 version shown)
Homer Software Wind-Diesel Model
Homer energy modeling software was used to analyze the existing Marshall power plant. Homer
software 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. It is a static energy balance
model, however, and is not designed to model the dynamic stability of a wind-diesel power system,
although it will provide a warning that renewable energy input is potential sufficient to result in system
instability.
Diesel Power Plant
Electric power (comprised of the diesel power plant and the electric power distribution system) in
Marshall is provided by AVEC with the following diesel configuration.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 14
Marshall powerplant diesel generators
Generator Electrical Capacity Diesel Engine Model Generator
1 500 kW Caterpillar 3456 Cat LC6
2 363 kW Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 Kato 6P4-1450
3 236 kW Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 Kato 6P4-1450
Wind Turbines
This CDR evaluates installation of three new Northern Power Systems NPS100-24 turbines for 285 kW
installed capacity, three remanufactured Vestas V20 turbines for 360 kW installed capacity, or one new
Aeronautica AW33-225 turbines for 225 KW installed capacity. Standard temperature and pressure
(STP) power curves are shown below. Note that for the Homer analysis, site elevation was adjusted to
reflect the measured site mean annual air density of 1.294 kg/m3.
Northern Power 100-24 Arctic Vestas V20
Aeronautica AW33-225
Electric Load
Marshall load data, collected from December 2010 to December 2011, was received from William
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 a January 1 to December 31 hourly list for export to HOMER
software. The resulting load is shown graphically below. Average load is 191 kW with a 299 kW peak
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
20
40
60
80
100
Power (kW)Power Curve
Wind Speed (m/s)
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Power (kW)Power Curve
Wind Speed (m/s)
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 15
load and an average daily load demand of 4,582 kWh. This compares to a 185 kW average load reported
to the RCA for the 2012 PCE report.
Electric load
Thermal Load
Powerplant heat recovery in Marshall is non-functional at present with fairly long distances to relatively
large heat loads. Homer modeling indicates that excess wind energy from the wind turbine
combinations considered would be large enough to warrant construction of a recovered heat system or
remote placement of a secondary load controller/electric boiler in a building with high thermal demand,
such as the new school or the water plant. Due to the relatively modest amount of predicted excess
energy from wind turbine operation, it is assumed that the school and/or water plant can use this excess
energy to displace heating oil usage.
Diesel Generators
The HOMER model was constructed with all three Marshall diesel generators. For cost modeling
purposes, AEA assumes a generator O&M cost of $0.020/kWh. For HOMER modeling purposes, this was
converted to $1.00/operating hour for each diesel generator (based on Marshall’s modeled average
electrical load of 191 kW). Other diesel generator information pertinent to the HOMER model is shown
below. Individual generator fuel curve information is available but Homer modeling with generator-
specific fuel curves indicated fuel efficiency of 15.3 kWh/gal in the base case (no wind turbines). This is
higher than AVEC’s reported fuel efficiency of 12.98 kWh/gal to Regulatory Commission of Alaska for the
2012 Power Cost Equalization Report, and the 14.44 kWh/gal efficiency for Marshall documented in
AVEC’s 2011 annual generation report.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 16
Diesel generator HOMER modeling information
Diesel generator Caterpillar
3456
Detroit Series
60 DDEC4
Detroit Series
60 DDEC4
Power output (kW) 500 363 236
Intercept coeff. (L/hr/kW
rated)
0.00651 0.0195 0.0146
Slope (L/hr/kW output) 0.2382 0.2122 0.2384
Minimum electric
load (%)
5.0%
(25 kW)
6.9%
(25 kW)
10.6%
(25 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
Slope – the marginal fuel consumption of the generator
Cat 3456 fuel efficiency curve DD60 DDEC4 Gen 2
DD60 DDEC4 Gen 3
Economic Analysis
Installation of wind turbines in medium penetration mode is evaluated in this report to demonstrate the
economic impact of these turbines with the following configuration: turbines are 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.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 17
Wind Turbine Costs
Project capital and construction costs for the three evaluated wind turbines were obtained from HDL,
Inc. and are presented below. Detailed information regarding HDL’s cost estimates is available in their
portion of this conceptual design report.
Project cost estimates
Turbine
No.
Turbines
HDL
Estimated
Project Cost
Installed
kW
Cost per kW
Capacity Tower Type
Tower
Height
(meters)
Northern Power
NPS100-24 Arctic 3 $3,441,275 285 $12,074 Lattice 48
Vestas V20 3 $3,102,175 360 $8,617 Monopole 32
Aeronautica
AW33-225 1 $2,808,025 225 $12,480 Monopole 40
Fuel Cost
A fuel price of $4.99/gallon ($1.32/Liter) was chosen for the initial HOMER analysis by reference to
Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035, prepared for Alaska Energy Authority by the Institute for Social
and Economic Research (ISER), dated June 30, 2013 and the 2013_06_R7Prototype_final_07012013
Excel spreadsheet, also written by ISER. The $4.99/gallon price reflects the average value of all fuel
prices between the 2015 (the assumed project start year) fuel price of $4.17/gallon and the 2034 (20
year project end year) fuel price of $5.98/gallon using the medium price projection analysis with an
average social cost of carbon (SCC) of $0.61/gallon included.
By comparison, the fuel price for Marshall (without social cost of carbon) reported to Regulatory
Commission of Alaska for the 2012 PCE report is $3.32/gallon ($0.88/Liter), without inclusion of the SCC.
Assuming an SCC of $0.40/gallon (ISER Prototype spreadsheet, 2013 value), the Marshall’s 2012 diesel
fuel price was $3.72/gallon ($0.98/Liter).
Heating fuel displacement by excess energy diverted to thermal loads is valued at $6.32/gallon
($1.67/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 med.
projection 2015 (/gal) 2034 (/gal)
Average
(/gallon)
Average
(/Liter)
Diesel Fuel $4.17 $5.98 $4.99 $1.32
Heating Oil $5.22 $7.03 $6.04 $1.60
Modeling Assumptions
As noted previously, HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze a wind-diesel hybrid power
plant to serve Marshall. HOMER is designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 18
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.
Modeling assumptions are detailed in the table below. Assumptions such as project life, discount rate,
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, etc. are AEA default values and contained in the ISER
spreadsheet model. Other assumptions, such as diesel overhaul cost and time between overhaul are
based on general rural Alaska power generation experience.
The base or comparison scenario is the existing power plant with no functional heat recovery loop. Note
that wind turbines installed in Marshall will operate in parallel with the diesel generators. Excess energy
will serve thermal loads via a secondary load controller and electric boiler (to be installed). Installation
cost of wind turbines assumes construction of three phase power distribution to the selected site, plus
civil, permitting, integration and other related project costs.
Homer modeling assumptions
Economic Assumptions
Project life 20 years (2015 to 2034)
Discount rate 3%
Operating Reserves
Load in current time step 10%
Wind power output 100% (Homer setting to always force diesels on)
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 social cost of
carbon)
$4.99/gal ($1.32/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 social cost of
carbon)
$6.04/gal ($1.60/Liter)
Diesel Generators
Generator capital cost $0 (new generators already funded)
O&M cost $0.02/kWh (reference: ISER 2013 Prototype spreadsheet)
Diesel generator efficiency (Homer) 15.2 kWh/gal (from diesel fuel curves)
Diesel generator efficiency (ISER) 13.0 kWh/gal (from 2012 PCE report)
Minimum load 25 kW; based on AVEC’s operational criteria of 25 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 6.30 m/s at 30 m, 100% turbine availability
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 19
5.60 m/s at 30 m, 80% turbine availability
Density adjustment 1.242 kg/m^3 (mean of monthly means of 18 months of
Marshall met tower data; Homer wind resource elevation set
at -150 meters to simulate the Marshall air density
Power law exponent 0.118 (met tower data)
Hub height/tower type NPS100-24 Arctic: 48 meter lattice
V20: 32 meter lattice
AW33-225: 50 meter monopole
Energy Loads
Electric 4.58 MWh/day average Marshall power plant load
Thermal Undefined at present; assumed large enough to absorb excess
wind energy
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility 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
Diesel #2
Displaced
(gal/yr)
B/C
Ratio
NPV Net
Benefit
NPS100 285 15.2 721,365 128,470 592,895 $3,214,875 13.0 $3,078,220 $2,856,375 48,962 1.08 $221,845
V20 360 15.2 579,681 108,631 471,050 $2,890,575 13.0 $2,459,217 $2,568,238 39,067 0.96 ($109,021)
AW33 225 15.2 520,962 58,264 462,698 $2,660,400 13.0 $2,315,288 $2,363,731 37,136 0.98 ($48,443)
Note: wind energy at 80% availability
Diesel efficiency for ISER model per 2012 PCE Report
Homer Model Input ISER Model Results
Turbine
Type
Hub
Height
(m)
No.
Turbines
Wind
Energy to
Thermal
(kWh/yr)
Heating
Fuel
Equiv.
(gal)
Wind
Penetration
(% electrical)
Excess Energy
(%)
NPS100 48 3 128,470 3,284 40.0 7.1
V17 32 3 108,631 2,777 32.5 6.1
AW33 40 1 58,264 1,489 30.0 3.4
Note: wind energy at 80% availability
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Analysis Page | 21
Conclusion and Recommendations
Marshall has a very good wind resource for wind power development, especially considering its distance
from the Bering Sea coast. Wind behavior is desirable with low turbulence, low wind shear, low extreme
wind probability, and little evidence of severe icing conditions.
The analysis in this report considered construction of three Northern Power 100-24 wind turbines, three
remanufactured Vestas V20 wind turbines, and one Aeronautica AW33-225 wind turbine, all in a
medium penetration configuration no electrical storage and a presumed thermal load at the school or
the water plant.
It is recommended that this project proceed to the design phase. Further analysis and discussion may
better highlight advantages and disadvantages of each option considered, but at present a wind project
with three Northern Power NPS100-24 wind turbines on 48 meter lattice towers is recommended.
Appendix B
ANTHC Marshall Alaska Heat Recovery Study
Appendix C
August 3, 2012 Marshall Wind Site Investigation
Report
Marshall WAsP Site Options Analysis
July 23, 2012
Using ten months of wind data collected from the Marshall met tower (Site 0050), WAsP software was
used to model the wind regime of Marshall and to predict mean wind speed and turbine performance at
the met tower site and three possible alternative wind power sites, shown in the maps below.
Topographic maps
Google Earth map
WAsP wind speed map
Predicted site wind speed and turbine performance
Wind speed and turbine annual energy production (AEP) are calculated by the WAsP software. Turbine
AEP is based on the NW100B turbine at a 30 meter hub height, the height of the met tower upper level
anemometers. Turbine hub height is 37 meters, hence actual turbine AEP would be better than
indicated below, but setting turbine hub height at anemometer height simplifies the analysis and the
purpose here is comparative, not actual. Once a site is chosen and the CDR written, turbine type and
actual hub height will be adjusted to obtain true predicted performance.
Site comparison table
Mean
wind
speed
Mean
power
density AEP
AEP
compared
to met
tower site
m/s W/m² MWh/yr %
Met tower site 6.19 336 239.5 100%
Alternate Site 1 6.44 388 255.7 107%
Alternate Site 2 6.09 330 231.9 97%
Alternate Site 3 6.72 441 274.2 114%
Recommendation
The wind site options in Marshall, in a general sense, are good considering Marshall’s distance upriver
from the coast. The met tower site is roughly comparable to alternate site 2, but nearby alternate site 1,
just 315 meters straight downhill from the met tower site toward the Yukon River, is predicted at 7
percent higher energy production. Alternate site 3, located on a rise on the road leading to the UUI
tower on Pilcher Mountain, is the best of the four sites with predicted 14 percent higher turbine energy
production than at the met tower site.
It is recommended that all four possible wind sites be investigated for landownership and access issues.
Distribution line construction costs should be compared to turbine performance over time to determine
highest net present value; this will help determine the preferred turbine site for development.
H:\jobs\12-025 Marshall Wind Project\Site Visit 8-3-12\PHOTOLOG.docx Page 1 Photo 1: Met Tower Site Photo 2: Seasonal Access Road to Alternative Sites 2 and 3 Photo 3: Existing UUI Communication Pole Settlement Photo 4: Access Road to Airport, between Marshall and Wilson Creek
H:\jobs\12-025 Marshall Wind Project\Site Visit 8-3-12\PHOTOLOG.docx Page 2 Photo 5: Native Allotment near Alternative Site 1 Photo 6: Inside Existing AVEC Power Plant
Appendix D
Marshall Wind Project Feasibility Design Drawings
MARSHALL WIND PROJECTMARSHALLFEASIBILITY DESIGN DRAWINGSMARSHALL, ALASKASHEET INDEX NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND EARTHWORK TUNDRA PROTECTION NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Appendix E
Concept Level Capital Cost Estimate
Concept Level EstimateMarshall Wind Farm ConstructionAlternative Cost Summary 8/12/13SUMMARYDescription Estimated Construction Installed kW Estimated Construction Tower TypeCost Cost/ Installed kWAlternative 1 - (3) Northwind 100's $ 3,441,275.00 300 $ 11,470.92 Monopole Alternative 2 - (3) V20's $ 3,102,175.00 360 $ 8,617.15 Monopole Alternative 3- (1) AW29-225 $ 2,808,025.00 225 $ 12,480.11 Monopole
Concept Level Estimate
Marshall Wind Farm Construction
Alternative 1
8/12/13
Item Estimated
Quantity Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($)
Alternative 1 ‐ (3) Northwind 100's
1 4,123 CY Borrow 25 103,075
2 530 CY Surfacing Course 75 39,750
3 24,000 SF Geotextile 2 48,000
4 270 CY Topsoil 65 17,550
5 2,500 SY Seed 5 12,500
63 Each Concrete Gravity Mat Foundations 104,000 312,000
73 Each Northwind 100B Wind Turbines 375,000 1,125,000
8 3,500 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 129,500
91 Sum Wireless Communication System 75,000 75,000
10 1 Sum Wind Turbine Power Integration 250,000 250,000
11 1 Sum Labor 130,000 130,000
12 1 Sum Equipment 150,000 150,000
13 1 Sum Freight 450,000 450,000
14 1 Sum Indirects 150,000 150,000
Subtotal Construction 2,992,375$
Land Acquisition $0
Project Contingency @ 15% 448,900$
0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0
Total 3,441,275$
Installed Generation Capacity 300 kW
Total Cost 3,441,275$
Cost/Installed kW $11,471
Description
Concept Level Estimate
Marshall Wind Farm Construction
Alternative 2
8/12/13
Item Estimated
Quantity Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($)
Alternative 2 ‐ (3) V20's
1 4,123 CY Borrow 25 103,075
2 530 CY Surfacing Course 75 39,750
3 24,000 SF Geotextile 2 48,000
4 270 CY Topsoil 65 17,550
5 2,500 SY Seed 5 12,500
63 Each Concrete Gravity Mat Foundations 104,000 312,000
73 Each Vestas V20 Wind Turbines 225,000 675,000
8 3,100 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 114,700
91 Sum Wireless Communication System 75,000 75,000
10 1 Sum Wind Turbine Power Integration 375,000 375,000
11 1 Sum Labor 150,000 175,000
12 1 Sum Equipment 100,000 150,000
13 1 Sum Freight 332,000 400,000
14 1 Sum Indirects 175,000 200,000
Subtotal Construction 2,697,575$
Land Acquisition $0
Project Contingency @ 15% 404,600$
0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0
Total 3,102,175$
Installed Generation Capacity 360 kW
Total Cost 3,102,175$
Cost/Installed kW $8,617
Description
Concept Level Estimate
Marshall Wind Farm Construction
Alternative 3
8/12/13
Item Estimated
Quantity Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($)
Alternative 3‐ (1) AW29‐225
1 1,400 CY Borrow 25 35,000
2 175 CY Surfacing Course 75 13,125
3 8,000 SF Geotextile 2 16,000
490 CY Topsoil 65 5,850
5 850 SY Seed 5 4,250
61 Each Concrete Gravity Mat Foundations 275,000 275,000
71 Each Vestas V20 Wind Turbines 600,000 600,000
8 2,500 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 92,500
91 Sum Wireless Communication System 75,000 75,000
10 1 Sum Wind Turbine Power Integration 400,000 400,000
11 1 Sum Labor 25,000 175,000
12 1 Sum Equipment 150,000 150,000
13 1 Sum Freight 525,000 400,000
14 1 Sum Indirects 200,000 200,000
Subtotal Construction 2,441,725$
Land Acquisition $0
Project Contingency @ 15% 366,300$
0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0
Total 2,808,025$
Installed Generation Capacity 225 kW
Total Cost 2,808,025$
Cost/Installed kW $12,480
Description
9/3/13 Tur bine site repor t for 'M tn Villag e 4th Site, met tower '
file:///C:/Users/Doug /AppData/Local/Temp/WaspRepor ting TemporaryFile.html 1/3
'Mtn Village 4th Site, met tower' Turbine site
P ro d u ce d o n 9 /3 /2 0 1 3 a t 1 2 :3 0 :4 3 P M b y lice n ce d u s e r: Do u g la s J. Va u g h t, V3 En e rg y, U SA u s in g W As P Ve rs io n :
1 0 .0 2 .0 0 1 0
Site information
Locati on i n the map
T h e tu rb in e is lo ca te d a t co -o rd in a te s (5 7 3 6 1 4 ,6 8 8 5 4 2 8 ) in a m a p ca lle d 'KW I G A4 '. T h e s ite e le va tio n is 8 1 .2 m a .s .l.
Site e ffe cts
Se c to r Angle [°]Or .Spd [%]Or.Tur [°]Obs.Spd [%]Rgh.Spd [%]Rix [%]
1 0 7 .0 1 -1 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
2 1 0 6 .2 0 -1 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 2 0 5 .7 3 -0 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
4 3 0 5 .6 6 0 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
5 4 0 5 .9 8 0 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .1
6 5 0 6 .6 7 1 .3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .1
7 6 0 7 .6 3 1 .6 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
9/3/13 Tur bine site repor t for 'M tn Villag e 4th Site, met tower '
file:///C:/Users/Doug /AppData/Local/Temp/WaspRepor ting TemporaryFile.html 2/3
8 7 0 8 .7 4 1 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
9 8 0 9 .8 6 1 .6 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
1 0 9 0 1 0 .8 6 1 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 .6 3 0 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
1 2 1 1 0 1 2 .0 8 0 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
1 3 1 2 0 1 2 .1 5 -0 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .2
1 4 1 3 0 1 1 .8 4 -0 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .9
1 5 1 4 0 1 1 .1 9 -1 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .5
1 6 1 5 0 1 0 .2 6 -1 .6 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .1
1 7 1 6 0 9 .1 7 -1 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .9
1 8 1 7 0 8 .0 4 -1 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .5
1 9 1 8 0 7 .0 1 -1 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .7
2 0 1 9 0 6 .2 0 -1 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .5
2 1 2 0 0 5 .7 3 -0 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .6
2 2 2 1 0 5 .6 6 0 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .8
2 3 2 2 0 5 .9 8 0 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .0
2 4 2 3 0 6 .6 7 1 .3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .2
2 5 2 4 0 7 .6 3 1 .6 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .9
2 6 2 5 0 8 .7 4 1 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .4
2 7 2 6 0 9 .8 6 1 .6 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
2 8 2 7 0 1 0 .8 6 1 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
2 9 2 8 0 1 1 .6 3 0 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 0 2 9 0 1 2 .0 8 0 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 1 3 0 0 1 2 .1 5 -0 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 2 3 1 0 1 1 .8 4 -0 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .3
3 3 3 2 0 1 1 .1 9 -1 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 4 3 3 0 1 0 .2 6 -1 .6 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 5 3 4 0 9 .1 7 -1 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
3 6 3 5 0 8 .0 4 -1 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0
T h e a ll-s e cto r R I X (ru g g e d n e s s in d e x ) f o r th e s ite is 0 .6 %
The pre dicte d wind climate at the turbine s ite
-T o ta l Wind a t ma x imum powe r de nsity dis tributio n
Me a n wind s pe e d 7 .6 0 m /s 1 2 .0 4 m /s
Me a n po we r de nsity 5 0 7 W /m ²4 9 (W /m ²)/(m /s )
9/3/13 Tur bine site repor t for 'M tn Villag e 4th Site, met tower '
file:///C:/Users/Doug /AppData/Local/Temp/WaspRepor ting TemporaryFile.html 3/3
Re s ults
Site Loc a tion [m]T ur bine He ight [m]Ne t A EP [MWh]Wa k e los s [%]
Mtn Villa g e 4 th Site , m e t to we r (5 7 3 6 1 4 , 6 8 8 5 4 2 8 )AW 2 9 -2 2 5 5 0 7 1 1 .1 7 5 0 .0
T h e co m b in e d (o m n id ire ctio n a l) W e ib u ll d is trib u tio n p re d icts a g ro s s AEP o f 7 1 4 .4 6 3 M W h a n d th e e m e rg e n t (s u m o f
s e cto rs ) d is trib u tio n p re d icts a g ro s s AEP o f 7 1 1 .1 7 5 M W h . (T h e d if fe re n ce is 0 .4 6 % )
Proje ct parame te rs
T h e s ite is in a p ro je ct ca lle d M o u n ta in Villa g e .
All o f th e p a ra m e te rs in th e p ro je ct a re d e f a u lt va lu e s .
Data origins information
T h e m a p wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \AVEC \M o u n ta in Villa g e \W As P \KW I G
A4 .m a p ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e m a p f ile d a ta we re la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 8 /2 8 /2 0 1 3 a t 1 1 :4 3 :1 2
AM
T h e re is n o in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e win d a tla s f ile .
T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' fro m a file ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \W in d T u rb in e s \W As P
tu rb in e cu rve s \AW 2 9 -2 2 5 , 5 0 m .wtg ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r file we re la s t
m o d if ie d o n th e 9 /3 /2 0 1 3 a t 1 2 :1 2 :1 4 P M