Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 2 Exhibits APPLICATION FOR AN ORIGINAL HYDROKINETIC POWER PILOT PROJECT LICENSE FOR THE WHITESTONE PONCELET RISEC PROJECT FERC Project No. 13305 INITIAL STATEMENT 1. Whitestone Power and Communications (WPC) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a hydrokinetic pilot project license, under guidance of FERC’s Licensing Hydrokinetic Pilot Projects whitepaper, for the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project as described herein. The project number assigned by FERC to this project is 13305. 2. The location of the project is: a. State or territory: Alaska b. County: N/A c. Township or nearby town: Whitestone d. Stream or other body of water: Tanana River 3. The exact name, address and telephone number of the applicant are: Whitestone Power and Communications P.O. Box 1630 Delta Junction, AK 99737 907-895-4938 4. The exact name, address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this application, if applicable are: Steven M. Selvaggio President 907-803-5432 Steven A. Selvaggio Registered Agent 907-803-3021 Address for both agents is the same as that for the applicant as listed above. Page 1 EXHIBIT A 5. The applicant is a domestic non-profit entity and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. See 16 U.S.C. 796. 6. (a) The statutory or regulatory requirements of the state(s) in which the project would be located that affect the project as proposed with respect to bed and banks and the appropriation, diversion and use of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage in the business of developing, transmitting and distributing power and in any other business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the Federal Power Act, are included along with, (b) The steps which the applicant has taken or plans to take to comply with each of the laws cited: 7. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE a. Clean Water Act i. Statutory Regulation Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, any activity requiring a federal license or permit that may result in discharge into navigable waterways, requires certification from the state that confirms that any such discharge will comply with applicable state water quality standards. This requires WPC to obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to issuance of the Pilot Project License and a subsequent Letter of Permission from the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The project is not subject to the auspices of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act since it requires no excavation of the river bed and will have no discharge of any material into the water. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has received a Section 10 Letter of Permission from the United States Army Corps of Engineers which precludes the need for a clean water certification since USACE considers the project to have no substantial individual or cumulative effects. b. Endangered Species Act i. Statutory Regulation Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires an authorizing or acting federal agency to consult with USFWS/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on any actions that might affect listed species or their habitats. If the authorizing/acting agency or USFWS/NMFS determines an action is likely to adversely affect a species, formal consultation is required Page 2 EXHIBIT A with USFWS or NMFS depending on their jurisdiction over the listed species. Formal consultation consists of submittal by the authorizing/acting agency of a Biological Assessment (BA) for review by USFWS or NMFS. Upon review of the BA, USFWS/NMFS would each prepare a Biological Opinion (BO) which assesses whether the action is likely to jeopardize the existence of the listed species. The BO may include binding or discretionary recommendations to reduce potential impact. An Incidental Take Statement may be attached to the BO if there is potential jeopardy to the species. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has been advised by the USFWS that there are no endangered species within the proposed project boundary. A copy is provided in the USFWS section of Attachment A- Communication Records c. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 i. Statutory Regulation Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effect of federally permitted projects on historic and cultural resources and requires consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) prior to authorizing a project. Compliance with Section 106 of the Act also requires consultation with the tribes in the region. FERC typically satisfies Section 106 requirements for license term through Historic Properties Management Plans developed by the applicant in consultation with SHPO or a Programmatic Agreement to which FERC, SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) are typically the signatories. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance As part of a separate project conducted with the Denali Commission from 2007–2009, the Alaska SHPO conducted a study of the proposed project area and concluded that there were no historic landmarks or resources within the proposed project location. WPC has received a letter from SHPO confirming that there are no affected historic properties within the project boundary. This location is not part of any tribal lands as shown on the map in Exhibit G. Page 3 EXHIBIT A d. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act i. Statutory Regulation The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires WPC to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether the proposed project will have adverse impacts to the habitat or migratory paths of fish species which are deemed important by NMFS and which are a food resource. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has been advised by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that there are no concerns regarding the habitat or safety of species protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and that they will not require WPC to develop an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFH). These emails can be found in the in Attachment A - Communication Records, which are organized alphabetically by agency. e. Coastal Zone Management Act This statute is not applicable to the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project. WPC received a letter of concurrence from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. A copy is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A- Communication Records. f. Alaska Fish and Game Code i. Statutory Regulation The Alaska Fish and Game Code (AS16.05.817) gives the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) the responsibility of protecting the states wildlife resources. As such, this statute grants ADFG the responsibility of issuing permits for projects which have the potential to impact the wildlife population. State law requires WPC to receive a Title 16 permit from ADFG before beginning construction. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has received a Title 16 permit from ADFG. A copy is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A - Communication Records. Page 4 EXHIBIT A g. Alaska Water Use Act i. Statutory Regulation The Alaska Water Use Act (Title 46) give the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the power to adjudicate water usage rights for waters owned by the State of Alaska. This regulation requires WPC to receive a water use permit from DNR prior to deployment of the proposed project. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has received the following Title 46 permit from DNR. A copy is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A - Communication Records. h. Alaska Land Act i. Statutory Regulation The Alaska Land Act (Title 38) grants DNR the authority to issue permits for the use of state lands. This statute requires WPC to receive a Land Use Permit from DNR prior to the construction or deployment of the proposed project since the project will be entirely constructed and deployed on state owned land. ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has received the following Land Use Permit from DNR. A copy is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A - Communication Records. i. Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Act This statute is not applicable to the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project. j. Code of Federal Regulations Navigation and Navigable Waterways (Title 33) i. Statutory Regulation CFR Title 33 gives the United States Coast Guard (USCG) the responsibility of monitoring the nation’s waterways to insure the safety of the public among other concerns. This regulation requires WPC to receive a permit and PATON regulations from USCG prior to deployment of the proposed project. Page 5 EXHIBIT A ii. WPC Consultation and Compliance WPC has received a permit and PATON specification from the USCG. A copy is provided in the USCG section of Attachment A - Communication Records. k. Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act This statute is not applicable to the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project. 8. Brief Project Description a. 100 kW b. Check appropriate box: □Existing Dam □Unconstructed Dam □Existing Dam, major modified project (see §4.30(b)(14)) ■Hydrokinetic Pilot Project 9. Lands of the Unites States affected (shown on Exhibit G): a. National Forest: N/A b. Indian Reservation: N/A c. Public Lands Under Jurisdiction of: N/A d. Other: N/A e. Total U.S. Lands: 0 f. Check appropriate box: □Surveyed Land ■Unsurveyed Land Construction of the project is planned to start within 18 months and be completed within 24 months from the date of the issuance of the license. In no event will construction begin later than 2 years from the issuance of the license. Page 6 EXHIBIT A (In Compliance With CFR Title 18, Subpart G. 4.61(c)) 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OVERVIEW Whitestone Power and Communications is proposing to develop the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC project near the confluence of the Delta and Tanana rivers (See map in Figure 1) under the Commission’s new Hydrokinetic Pilot Project Licensing Process. The project would consist of the following:  One pontoon-mounted, 12-foot wide, 16-foot diameter Poncelet undershot water wheel with a nominal capacity of 100 kW  A float with a total footprint on the water surface of 34-feet by 19-feet  Float-to-shore mooring system and electrical power transmission cabling  Vessel mounted switch gear and appropriate navigational safety appurtenances  A staging area with two 40-ft storage connexes Whitestone Power and Communications proposes to develop the project as follows:  2011-2016: Obtain hydrokinetic pilot project license and test project for at least three years under its auspices. a. Project Specifications Key Component Description No. Gen Units, Capacity 100kw (at 25-35% efficiency) Turbine Type Epicyclic Transmission, Permanent Magnet Generator (36-Pole, 480 V, 3-phase, 30:1 gear ratio) Plant Operation Automatic, Non-Peaking Estimated Annual kWh Production 217 MWh Estimated Average Head NA* Reservoir Capacity NA* Estimated Hydraulic Capacity Cubic Feet/Sec NA* Estimated Average Flow, Feet/Sec Min=5fps, Max=16fps Size, Capacity, Materials: Wheel 12’ Long, 16’ Diameter Cylinder. 5086 Aluminum Page 7 EXHIBIT A Key Component Description Size, Capacity, Materials: Blades 36 blades, 4’wide, 2’deep. HDPE Size, Capacity, Materials: Float 2 pontoons (42” and 36” dia). Total Area 34’x19’ Size, Capacity, Materials: Mooring System See mooring specifications Size, Capacity, Materials: Power Transmission Lines See product specifications, total cable length: 900 ft., 480 volts Interconnection Line Voltage 14,400 volts Estimated Project Cost $1.4 million (see detail below) Estimated Environmental Monitoring Cost See Testing, Monitoring and Surveillance Table Estimated Environmental Components Cost See Testing, Monitoring and Surveillance Table *hydrokinetic run-of-river design precludes these project dimensions b. Project Construction Cost Estimate PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAIL Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Components Aluminum Wheel Frame and Chassis Fabrications $120,000 Structural Pipe $6,444 Screw jacks $5,000 Fifth Wheel $2,000 Fasteners $4,000 Pontoons Debris Cone $1,500 Pontoons $22,000 Pulling Heads $11,000 Blades $50,000 Transmission $45,000 Electronics and Generator $180,298 Page 8 EXHIBIT A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAIL Anchoring Rock Anchors $10,000 Stabilizer Bridge $30,000 Rigging $10,000 Safety Railings $12,000 Demarcation $5,000 Shipping $10,000 Component Materials Total (FOB Seattle) $524,242 Shipping Seattle to Anchorage $15,000 Anchorage to Whitestone $4,800 Shipping Total $19,800 Survey Fees Survey Total $15,000 Assembly Assemble at Munson's Plant 4 Men, 4 weeks $60,000 $90/hr shop charge Disassemble and crate at Munson's Plant 4 Men, 2 weeks $30,000 Re-assemble at Whitestone 3 Men, 4 weeks $24,000 $50/hr skilled labor Assembly Total $114,000 Intertie Intertie 3 Men, 6 weeks $36,000 $50/hr skilled labor GVEA Hookup Contractor $30,000 Parts $50,000 Intertie Total $116,000 Deployment Mule Boat $95,000 Page 9 EXHIBIT A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAIL Staging Materials $15,000 Anchoring 2 Men, 4 weeks $10,000 $25/hr Laborer Stabilizer Bridge 3 Men, 1 week $3,000 $25/hr Laborer Float 3 Men, 1 week $3,000 Deployment Total $126,000 Equipment Rental Loader 4 weeks $5,000 Skidsteer 4 weeks $2,000 Excavator (for intertie) 2 weeks $3,000 Anchor driving equipment 3 week $3,000 Transportation 12 weeks $15,000 Equipment Rental Total $28,000 Testing Initial operational cross check 2 Men, 1 week $8,000 Engineering Contractor Initial verification of debris management 2 Men, 1 week $8,000 Testing of electronic capabilities and optimization 2 Men, 2 weeks $16,000 Continuing testing and optimization over following two years estimated at 360 hours per year at an average cost of $100 per hour $72,000 Testing Subtotal $104,000 Project Supervisor Manufacturing Oversight 150 hours $11,250 $75/hr project manager Plant Visit Travel $15,000 Procurement 80 hours $6,000 Page 10 EXHIBIT A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAIL Assembly Oversight 160 hours $12,000 Project Coordination 80 hours $6,000 Project Supervisor Subtotal $50,250 Per Diem Intertie $16,800 $100/day/man Mechanical $25,200 Per Diem Subtotal $42,000 Fuel 1000 gal 4.00/ gal $4,000 Fuel Subtotal $4,000 Contractor's Fees Contractor's Fees Subtotal $240,000 TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST $1,383,292 Page 11 EXHIBIT A ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Annual operations and maintenance costs are estimated in the matrix below. ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Deployment Stabilizer Bridge 3 Men, 1 week $3,000 $25/hr Laborer Float 3 Men, 1 week $3,000 Deployment Subtotal $6,000 Testing, Monitoring and Surveillance Initial operational cross check 2 Men, 1 week $8,000 Engineering Contractor Initial verification of debris management 2 Men, 1 week $8,000 Testing of electronic capabilities and optimization 2 Men, 2 weeks $16,000 Continuing testing and optimization over following two years by contract with Hasz Consulting LLC Hasz $36,000 Estimated Environmental Monitoring Cost Hasz Costs included in contract with Hasz Consulting Estimated Environmental Components Cost Hasz Costs included in contract with Hasz Consulting Testing Subtotal $68,000 TOTAL $74,000 c. Annual Operation and Maintenance Expense Narrative The purpose of the project as proposed is to determine the maintenance and operations costs and compare them with construction costs and the energy produced in order to confirm that the design is feasible for energy production in remote locations. All systems and operations will be insured by the Whitestone Community Association's general liability insurance policy which offers coverage up to $1,000,000.00. All necessary Page 12 EXHIBIT A administrative staff, equipment and supplies are already maintained by WPC at its own costs and will not be charged to the project. WPC will seek to obtain a funding agreement with a third party which will provide funding not only for manufacturing and construction of the device but also for monitoring, testing, maintenance and operation on a time and materials basis. WPC plans to purchase enough extra parts from the manufacturers as part of the purchase price to facilitate three years of testing. In addition to this, WPC will seek funding for an engineer and a technician to test the various segments of the design in order to recommend and implement any necessary changes and upgrades to the design during the test period. WPC expects these costs to be less than $200,000.00 and will seek funding for them as part of funding for construction. Deployment and recovery costs will be part of the construction cost. In the event of an emergency or required shut down or end of license recovery, WPC will assume all costs for removal of the turbine and appurtenant systems using labor and infrastructure it maintains at its own expense on a perpetual basis. d. Project Specifications Narrative The following Project and Operations description follows the requirements of §4.61(c) for Exhibit A, with some needed expansions and adjustments to accurately describe a hydrokinetic project Whitestone Power and Communications’ RISEC device includes an undershot water wheel arranged according to the method of General Poncelet. The wheel drives an epicyclic transmission and permanent magnet generator. The main structure of the wheel as well as the chassis and other structural elements are constructed from aluminum with stainless steel fasters as needed. The blades of the wheel are a proprietary curved design constructed from high density polyethylene (HDPE). The pontoons on which the wheel is suspended are constructed from HDPE. The entire float will be moored to the shore and will have no submarine structures or cabling. At the date of this writing, the project is in the design phase and no construction has taken place. The Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 consists of five major components:  Main wheel with 36 fixed blades  Support chassis and flotation  Transmission and generator system  Electronic controls and grid intertie  Mooring and propulsion systems Page 13 EXHIBIT A e. Turbine Wheel A 12-ft-diameter wheel constructed from 5086 aluminum will be used for this design. HDPE blades with a profile of 2-ft depth and 4-ft width will be fastened to the frame of the wheel. The design of the blades was formulated by Hasz Consulting, LLC (Hasz) of Delta Junction, Alaska and will be manufactured by Ferguson Industrial Plastics (FIP) of Washougal, WA. The wheel is a modular, 3-stage design which gives an improved power signal and smoother operation. If the wheel needs to be stopped for repair or inspection, it can be braked manually through the generator for a short period of time then lifted from the water; or it can be lifted from the water and allowed to coast to rest. f. Chassis And Flotation The wheel is supported on one side by the transmission flange and on the other side by a spherical, self-aligning bearing. Both supports can be adjusted for plunge depth of the blades in the water by the use of high-load, manual screw jacks. These jacks are also to be used for lifting the wheel entirely out of the water for the purpose of transportation or repair. The entire frame is constructed of 5086 aluminum and consists of closed box beams which are bolted together to create the decking of the float. These are bolted to long C-channels which run the entire length of either pontoon providing both the mounting surface for the structure as well as adding strength to the pontoons for the deployment and recovery operations. Due to the extreme harshness of Alaska winters, the craft will have to be deployed in the spring and removed from service during the winter. The pontoons are manufactured from HDPE by Ferguson Industrial Plastics of Washougal, Washington. The drive train is on one side, causing uneven weight distribution. Therefore, one pontoon will be 42-in diameter and the other 36-in diameter. The ends of the pontoons will be capped with pulling heads capable of sustaining loads in excess of 200,000 lb which far exceeds the requirements of this application but represents the standard in the industry. Both pontoons are 34 feet long. The entire craft will weigh approximately 20,000 lb. All appurtenances other than cables and mooring equipment will be located on the craft in order to minimize the footprint and increase ease of deployment and recovery. The entire deck is surrounded by safety railings both between the wheel and the deck and shielding the deck from the surrounding river environment. g. Transmission And Power Generation System Page 14 EXHIBIT A The transmission is an epicyclic or planetary transmission having a gear ratio of 30:1. This transmission is produced by Brevini USA. This design is recommended for several reasons. The slow speed of the wheel renders a belt system ineffective due to its prohibitively large size and the inefficiency of belts at low speed. The weight and expense associated with a chain drive system render it unsatisfactory. In addition, the life expectancy of chains is substantially lower than that for gear transmissions. Synchronized belt drives are slightly more advantageous than chains in that they do not require lubrication and sealed cases, but the dependability of these systems at low speed is unfavorable. Due to the expense of designing a gear transmission and having it custom made, it is recommended to use a stock transmission and the Brevini design is ideal for this particular application. The life expectancy of the transmission is 100,000 hours. The AC electric generator is a 36-pole, 480 V, 3-phase, permanent magnet generator which is designed for low speed applications with its operating range between 0-rpm and 200-rpm. This generator allows the turbine to be used as a grid-tie system, standalone power producer or as a parallel assist to small power producers on finite grids. The versatility of the design is key to producing power in remote locations with severe conditions where the grid conditions are widely variable and unpredictable. h. Electronic Controls And Intertie The electronic controls system will be supplied by Energetic Drives, LLC. The system is based on Parker variable frequency drives which work efficiently to accept a wide range of frequencies and voltages and produce a clean power signal with a unity power factor. This control system allows for remote monitoring, startup, shutdown and manipulation and control of the turbine at all times either remotely or on site. In addition, the controls allow the operator to optimize the operation for grid-tie, standalone or parallel operation depending on the situation at hand. The programmable logic controller (PLC) also allows these settings to be changed automatically based on load or a daily, weekly or monthly time cycle depending on changing demand, parallel generators coming on or off line or other predictable changes to the active grid to which the unit is tied. The grid-tie portion of the system is controlled by a Schweitzer relay which gives the system the ability to sense load, frequency, power factor and other critical values including taking the system offline in the case of a power failure on a large grid or any other emergency. The system is then also capable of bringing the turbine back online once the problem is corrected. The entire system can also be disconnected and connected remotely or on site by an operator. Marine grade, sealed shore plugs including breakaways will be used for all electrical connections. The breakaways will also be disconnects so that, in the unlikely event that Page 15 EXHIBIT A the craft breaks loose from its moorings or some other emergency arises, the power can be quickly disconnected without injury or damage to operators or equipment. The cable running from the output side of the inverter/rectifier system is a 4-conductor, 4-ought, armored copper cable. It will be anchored at various points along its route from the float to the grid-tie-point. In order to satisfy the Commission's requirements for the system to be easily removable, the cable will be run along the surface of the ground and anchored using grouted ground anchors. The anchoring system is being developed by Williams Form Engineering, of Portland, Oregon. i. Mooring And Propulsion Systems Because of the harsh Alaskan winters, the turbine will have to be deployed each spring and recovered in the fall. For this reason, easily manipulated moorings systems will be needed. A well formulated approach to deployment and recovery will be necessary to avoid high labor costs and potential equipment damage. The turbine will be assembled on shore near the location of its deployment and slid into the water on the HDPE pontoons via an earthen ramp constructed for the purpose. The deployment process will be aided by a workboat which will be docked to the float and will help maneuver it in the water. This boat will push the float into position near the final mooring location. Once in position, the float will be docked to a gangway using a similar device to the fifth- wheel and pin connector used for large trucks and trailers. This gangway will hold the float at the desired distance from the shore and will have its own anchoring cable. The float will have an additional anchoring cable which will run at water level to the shore. This cable will act as a debris diverter as well as an anchor cable and will be a 3/4"- diameter stainless steel aircraft cable. The gangway and the cable will work together to hold the float in position and hold it parallel to the direction of flow. Both anchoring systems will be adjustable for height as the river level rises and falls. Secondary tether cables will be in place in the event that the primary anchoring system fails. One of the cables will be attached to the rear of the craft and one to the front. These secondary cables will be designed to swing the craft to shore in the event of a mooring system failure. At the time of this writing, it is expected that the distance from the shore to the inner pontoon of the float will be approximately 30 ft. The first advantage of anchoring to the shore rather than the river bed is that the tremendous down force that would accompany such an anchoring system is eliminated. The second advantage is that by keeping the cable out of the water, it is not subject to catching submerged debris which would greatly increase the load upon it and possibly jeopardize its integrity. Finally, by anchoring the float to the shore with the cable making an angle of approximately 30 degrees to the direction of flow, the cable will act as a debris diversion device. Although it will not divert all debris, it will divert that debris Page 16 EXHIBIT A which has an above water profile greater than six inches. This will keep large root wads and trees with large branches and protrusions from impinging on the wheel. Proximity to the shore also offers the advantage that most debris tends toward the middle of the stream. An additional debris consideration is the risk of rocks falling from the rock face to which the float is moored. The risk of this incident is minimal and would probably require an earthquake to break rocks loose from the face of the cliff. Although there are rock slides on the bluff to which the project is moored and although these rocks do reach the river, these slides tend to occur where the slopes are less steep and the surface is covered with loose rocks. The proposed project has avoided these locations. It is moored at the base of a solid rock face which could be subject to rocks breaking loose but probably only in the event of a natural disaster. The work boat mentioned above will be supplied by Munson Boats based in Seattle, Washington. It will be a variation of their 30-ft Packcat design equipped with pushing knees for assistance in deployment of the float. It will have twin 150 hp Honda outboard motors and will be built as a landing craft to assist in maintenance and installation duties. j. Staging and Storage Facilities The project staging area would be located approximately 1400 ft downstream of the project location on the opposite side of the river as shown in Exhibit G. This area is approximately 150 ft upstream of the docking area used by the community of Whitestone. The equipment at the site would consist of two 40-foot connex storage containers. These containers will contain the parts when the turbine is shipped to the site and will be retained after construction is complete to house tools and spare parts. The connexes will be painted to minimize their visual impacts on the docking area. Also located at the staging area will be an earthen ramp which will be built for the purpose of deploying the turbine to the water and will only be necessary at low water levels such as in the spring and fall. Should a summer time recovery or deployment become necessary, the ramp would not be necessary. The ramp itself will be a small area of the bank roughly the width of the float (19-ft) which will be smoothed from the shore to the water line in order to make the sliding of the turbine float into the water a smoother and more controllable process. This will be accomplished using a backhoe and will need to be done each spring and fall. The reason for this is that the ramp will be washed away or refilled with silt and gravel by the river each summer during the high water time. No other people or entities will make use of this ramp or staging area and the project will not use any other facilities for these purposes. k. Project Design, Manufacturing And Construction Page 17 EXHIBIT A The prototype to be tested as part of this project is being designed in full by Hasz. The design paradigm has focused around the objective of maximizing the use of commercial- off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies and integrating them with new ideas to create a system robust enough to withstand the harsh and demanding power generation environment in Alaska. This design process will be ongoing as the system is tested in situ over the license term. All design costs to date have been funded by WPC and through the Department of Energy's 2010 Marine Hydokinetic Technology Advancement grant opportunity. l. Manufacturing As stated above, a major tenet of the design paradigm was to maximize the use of COTS technologies. In keeping with this design goal, most of the important components are being integrated into the design from established manufacturers. The transmission is manufactured by Brevini USA Power Transmission based in Yorktown, Indiana. The generator and electronic controls are being supplied by Energetic Drives, LLC based in Gresham, Oregon. The pontoons are being manufactured by Ferguson Industrial Plastics based in Washougal, Washington. The blades (Hasz proprietary design) are being manufactured by ACI Plastics based in Kansas City, Missouri. The anchoring systems are being supplied by Williams Form Engineering based in Portland, Oregon. All custom aluminum parts comprising the chassis, wheel frame, struts and other parts will be manufactured by qualified aluminum fabricators in Alaska, certified in aluminum welding procedures. m. Construction Construction of the system must take place on site due to the size of the float and wheel. At this point, WPC plans to construct the device in partnership with CE2 Engineers, Inc. (CE2) of Anchorage, Alaska and with personnel from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), a state agency which has assisted WPC throughout the process of design and will play a continued role in the deployment of these systems throughout the state pending a successful test period. CE2 is a highly respected remote construction management firm working exclusively in rural locations throughout Alaska, and has over 25 years of experience in constructing and operating complex technical systems in adverse and isolated conditions. Pending the necessary funding and timely decision on the part of the Commission, WPC plans to commence the manufacturing and construction of the device over the summer and winter of 2011 with the goal of deploying the turbine during May 2012. Page 18 EXHIBIT A The grid-tie system will be constructed by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) personnel assisted by WPC personnel during Spring 2012. WPC will supply all materials for the project. WPC expects the total ground disturbance to be less than 0.25 acre. The only permanent components will be the drilled rock anchors for anchoring the turbine and securing the grid-tie cabling. The anchors for mooring the turbine to the shore will be threaded rods of 2-inch diameter or less and will be less than 30 in number. The anchors for securing the power transmission line will be threaded rods of 1-inch diameter or less and will be less than 100 in number. Having all necessary permits in hand by the end of 2011, WPC expects to begin construction in 2011 in order to deploy the turbine as quickly as possible following the Commission's decision. WPC expects the cost to manufacture and construct its Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 prototype to be $1,400,000.00. n. Efficiency And Return-On-Investment Projections For a horizontal axis water wheel arranged according to the method of General Poncelet, the maximum efficiency is obtained when the tip speed of the blades on the wheel is 40% of the velocity of the water. WPC has chosen a controls system which is comprised of a permanent magnet generator and a variable frequency inverter/rectifier system. This system will allow the generator to control the speed of the wheel and maintain the most efficient ratio of the rotational speed of the wheel to the speed of the water at all water velocities. This technology provides a significant efficiency upgrade over the standard induction generator design. The wheel is designed for a maximum water speed of 16 fps. During the summer of 2010, the University of Alaska, Anchorage (UAA) completed a velocity survey for the purposes of this project over a 3,500 ft section of the Tanana River including the project area. The purpose of this study was to provide a benchmark from which return-on-investment numbers could be generated and to allow WPC to determine the best location for the float to be installed. There are many considerations that affect this decision, including: distance from intertie point to the main grid, ease of anchoring, aquatic habitat concerns, and others. However, the principle consideration was the location of fast-moving water within 100 feet of the shore line. The survey was conducted using an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) which measures water velocity as a function of depth and distance from a set point on the shore. The UAA team took measurements at 10 different transects spanning the entire project area as well as some measurements above and below the project area. This allowed WPC to make an informed decision concerning the location of the float and final project boundary delineation. Page 19 EXHIBIT A Monthly Flow Duration Curve 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 April May June July August September October MonthAverage Velocity (fps) The numbers returned from the study were somewhat better than expected, particularly considering that the study was conducted in early June when the water is not at its highest point. Based on the June study results with an allowance for higher peak velocities during July, WPC expects to operate in water velocities at or exceeding 12 fps for a majority of the summer. The output of the turbine is 107 kW at 15 fps and 7 kW at 6 fps, as shown in the diagram below. Figure A.1 Monthly FLow Duration Curve Page 20 EXHIBIT A Power vs. Water Velocity, 12 ft Wheel 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 Water Velocity (fps)Power Output (kW) Although the cost of electricity is widely variable, the average cost of power in remote communities in Alaska is approximately $0.50. This number was used for the return on investment calculation depicted in the chart below. Figure A.2 Power vs. Water Velocity, 12 ft Wheel Page 21 EXHIBIT A Return on Investment (Assumes $0.50 per kWh, $1m installation cost and 3600 hrs running time per year) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 Water Velocity (fps)Time (yr) o. Project Operation And Maintenance The Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project will operate using the natural river currents of the Tanana River. The WPC design captures energy efficiently from the flow of the current using an undershot wheel arranged according to the Poncelet method. The blade construction is from high density polyethylene (HDPE). This gives the system excellent resistance to both corrosion and the destruction from repeated impingement by trees and other debris which is so prevalent in Alaskan rivers. The electronic control system chosen for this design will control all aspects of power generation including disconnecting the generator from the grid in the event of blackout and dissipating the power produced by the wheel until the grid can be reconnected. Additionally, these controls will bring the system back online when the grid is stabilized or after a repair. The controls will also act to optimize the speed of the wheel relative to the water. The blades and wheel are designed to withstand the impact of a 1,500 lb tree without sustaining any damage or interrupting operations. The debris diversion cable which runs at an acute angle to the flow of the river is designed to deflect any debris with a large profile. In the event that a large log or tree is ingested by the turbine and damage is Page 22 EXHIBIT A caused or power is interrupted, the controls system will alert technicians of the issue via an alarm system which operates via Ethernet connection. This will alert the team to the need for repair or clearing of debris from the system. Technicians will be in place to deal with these issues although WPC is confident that the debris management systems formulated in this design will be effective. Data acquisition will be controlled from the shore where the health and power variables of the unit can be read, interpreted and stored. A combination of these techniques will provide advance warning of failure and timely response should a failure occur. Night time inspections will also be necessary periodically in the spring and fall to insure that the marker lights and beacons are all operational. For a majority of the time during which the unit will operate, there will be 24 hour daylight. It is expected that the turbine will operate 24 hours per day while it is deployed with less than one day per month down time. Much of the necessary maintenance such as greasing of the axle and checking integrity of the unit can be performed during operation. Because the unit will be removed from the water each winter, any extensive repairs can be completed during the winter months. Remote monitoring software allows the generator to controlled and connected and disconnected from the grid manually in the case of a failure of the automatic controls. However, the system is designed to operate unattended the majority of the time. It is not expected that the system will have to be monitored more often than a weekly inspection. Maintenance should be minimal. The float will need to be visually checked for debris caught on it. In addition, it will need periodic inspections to verify that it has not been compromised in any way. However, all this should be possible from the shore. The health of the system should be readily observable both by sight and by inspection of the on- shore gauges monitoring power output. Should any of the blades be destroyed or should any part of the transmission or wheel be compromised, the power output signal will signal this to the monitor equipment and alert the operator. The oil level in the transmission will need to be checked every 1,000 hours along with the tightness of the belts. Other than this, the system should require very little maintenance. Although the specific design considerations are not articulated here, the float will be demarcated in such a way that it will be clearly visible at night and complies with all USCG regulations. It is recommended that high efficiency LED strobes be used for this purpose. They could easily be powered by batteries and last for several weeks or even months at a time. This will not necessitate more maintenance but is a vital safety consideration. The deck on the front of the float as well as the railing should be sufficient to prevent any boat, however small, from floating into the wheel while it is in operation in case of an Page 23 EXHIBIT A emergency. Should an emergency arise, medical and rescue personnel and equipment will be available from the nearby community of Whitestone to respond. The anchoring cables will run from either side of the craft to the shore at the water line. These cables will have an angle to the direction of the current of not more than 30 degrees. This will allow them to deflect an unpowered boat from floating into the craft. In addition, after additional consultation with the USCG at the request of FERC, it was decided to add signs above and below the installation warning boaters to avoid the north shore of the river. This should further diminish the chance of collision. WPC will also employ on-craft video surveillance as well as daily inspections to insure that the system is operating properly. p. Annual Energy Production In order to develop an estimate of the dependable capacity and average annual energy production in kilowatt-hours for a hydrokinetic facility using river current, a slightly different approach to hydrologic analysis must be outlined compared to the conventional hydroelectric requirements under the license application regulations.  The minimum, mean and maximum flow (in cfs) is not applicable. Instead a velocity versus time profile must be developed which shows the variation of the river current during the spring, summer and fall. Because the river in question is glacially fed, there is a large amount of variability in its level and current velocity.  Since there is no impoundment, area-capacity curves are not applicable.  The estimated minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity (typically flow Q on the y-axis and efficiency on the x-axis) is redefined for a hydrokinetic RISEC device as velocity on the y-axis and efficiency on the x-axis. Therefore rather than a flow duration curve, a river current exceedance curve is generated. As there are no control wicket gates, efficiency is further defined as cut-in speed and best efficiency of the unit. Generator output under these conditions is easily defined.  Tail-water rating curves are not applicable since this is an open-channel device.  Power plant capability versus head and maximum, normal and minimum heads are also not applicable since the river current velocity determines the output of the generator. During the summer of 2010, the University of Alaska, Anchorage (UAA) sent a surveying team to the project location to determine the velocity distribution of the river at that point and to ascertain whether suitable velocities were available for power production. They conducted velocity measurements at 10 different transects of the river over a total distance of approximately 3,500 feet along the path of the Tanana River. The survey was conducted using an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) which gives velocity as a function of depth and horizontal distance from a set point on the bank of the river. The results of this study have led to the conclusion that this is a favorable site for Page 24 EXHIBIT A power production with velocities as high as 14 fps measured relatively near the shore. WPC believes that, given the time frame of the study (June 11-12) and the known river behavior, it is likely that high velocities will be available for at least 5 months of each year, with the possibility of 6-7 months of operation depending on temperatures and river conditions. Chart 1-Velocity distribution in a cross-section of the Tanana River at the site selected for project deployment Because the Tanana River is glacially fed, the level and velocity of the river is highly variable within each season. This variation follows a fairly reliable trajectory within each season that varies little from year to year based upon USGS discharge charts dating back to the early 1970s as shown below. Losses due to the effects of an array do not apply to this project since it is a single unit application. q. Water-To-Wire Efficiency Figure A.4 Velocity Distribution Page 25 EXHIBIT A A key metric for all developers of kinetic hydropower is the water-to-wire efficiency which is the ultimate efficiency of the entire system from the power in the flowing water to the electrical power inserted into the grid or other end-use. This includes the cascaded efficiencies of the rotor, load-matching, drive train, seals, bearings, gearing, generator, cabling and power conditioning. The overall efficiency of the Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 is projected between 25% and 35%. WPC has determined that the following requested information in Exhibit A is not applicable, based on kinetic hydropower technology and projects:  The estimated average head on the plant  The reservoir surface area in acres and, if known, the net and gross storage capacity  The estimated minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of the plant (flow through the plant) in cubic feet per second and estimated average flow of the stream or water body at the plant or point of diversion; for projects with installed capacity of more than 1.5 megawatts, monthly flow duration curves and a description of the drainage area for the project site must be provided  Sizes, capacities, and construction materials, as appropriate, of pipelines, ditches, flumes, canals, intake facilities, powerhouses, dams, transmission lines and other appurtenances 2. PURPOSE OF PROJECT The Whitestone Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 would be interconnected to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid system which supplies power to interior Alaska. Direct connection to the grid as a small power producer will be administered under the auspices of GVEA QF-1 tariff which governs renewable power production plants with a capacity greater than 25 kW. 3. LICENSE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT COST Whitestone Power and Communications estimates the cost of developing this application to be in excess of $200,000. Due to the fact that this project is still in its infancy, much of the costs of this application have been spent in developing the design and researching and preparing the various permits and licenses necessary to install the device. 4. ON-PEAK AND OFF-PEAK PROJECT POWER VALUES Page 26 EXHIBIT A The project operates in run-of-river mode and therefore will not create on-peak or off-peak power values. 5. IMPACT TO EXISTING POWER PRODUCTION AND POWER VALUES WPC is applying for an original license. No existing project power will increase or decrease as a result. 6. REMAINING UNDEPRECIATED NET INVESTMENT OR BOOK VALUE The project is a new development project and no underappreciated net investment or book value will result. 7. DETAILED SINGLE-LINE ELECTRICAL DIAGRAM. 8. SAFE MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE STATEMENT (as per Appendix C, Licensing Hydrokinetic Pilot Projects White Paper, April 2008) a. Monitoring Plans i. Environment: Fish, Wildlife, Plants, Soils, Recreation, Land Use Because of the small footprint of the proposed installation, the project is expected to have minimal impacts. The turbine moves at slow speeds and incurs a low pressure differential. The only moving parts below surface are the turbine blades and these have only two-foot penetration below the river surface. The pressure differential is small enough (under 1 psi) that juvenile salmon are not endangered, and the turbine moves slowly enough (at 40% river velocity) that no danger to fish or waterfowl is anticipated. Additionally no components are mounted on or anchored to the river bottom, so no shore or river bottom disturbance is predicted. Nonetheless, during inspections of the craft, technicians will specifically check for injured or trapped waterfowl, game or fish, or project site disturbances. Public safety is another important consideration. As mentioned previously, the purpose of this project is to determine craft suitability under a variety of loading and environmental conditions; it is anticipated that for the duration of deployment, at least one technician will be on site full-time during business hours; this will allow for observation and attenuation of any boating-related hazards. Surveillance cameras will also be added for site monitoring; additionally signs and LED buoys complying with USCG regulations for night time and inclement weather visibility will be installed and checked as part of daily routine craft/site inspections. Since this section of the Tanana is not heavily traveled Page 27 EXHIBIT A (approximately one boat per hour between 6 AM and 8 PM), and since debris diversion cables will prevent accidental collisions, it is not anticipated that this installation will pose a danger to the public. An additional level of protection for boaters is provided by the decking which prevents anything taller than 18-in from river surface from traveling between the pontoons and into the turbine. Additional consultation with the USCG resulted in the addition of two signs above and below the project warning boaters to avoid the north shore of the river. Record of this consultation and the drawing received from the Coast Guard detailing the implementation of the additional signage can be found in the communication record. Hasz will be responsible for observing and recording any environmental damages above threshold levels for the following environmental factors: cultural heritage, ecology, landscape, lighting, noise and vibration, pollution, topsoil, traffic, recreation, and waste disposal. For the purposes of this application, it is proposed to define threshold levels as those which would inflict permanent or irreversible environmental damages during or after the licensing period; disrupt or halt the livelihood or recreation of residents or visitors, or impose a landscape change that would inhibit or prevent transportation, incur habitat loss, and/or which could not be reversed before the end of licensing period. These observations will be summarized by Hasz in an annual report provided to FERC. Environmental Emergency Incident Reporting Protocol In the event of craft failure or potential public safety emergency, it is the responsibility of supervising responder to alert relevant authorities and agencies regarding the nature of the emergency. In the event of an environmental emergency, it is the responsibility of the supervising responder to alert, and if necessary, coordinate emergency response procedures with local authorities, as well as appraise Hasz which shall notify the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of an environmental incident. In the event of an accident involving personnel injury, the supervisor must alert and coordinate with local emergency medical personnel. Hasz shall be responsible for contacting relevant authorities within 24 hours of an incident, and shall also record the incident and include it in its annual report. General Project Facility and Operations Monitoring Page 28 EXHIBIT A The RISEC float and its location will be monitored on a weekly basis by trained technicians. All scheduled maintenance will be logged as well as important device events and repairs. A workboat equipped for repairs and recovery of the float will be available at all times along with a trained crew. The RISEC float will be monitored by a web based monitoring system which will record power values and video feed of the device and its surroundings as well as GPS location. All operations and procedures will be OSHA-compliant. b. Safeguard Plan Project Safety Plan The RISEC float and its location will be monitored on a weekly basis by trained technicians. All scheduled maintenance will be logged as well as important device events and repairs. A workboat equipped for repairs and recovery of the float will be available at all times along with a trained crew. The RISEC float will be monitored by a web based monitoring system which will record power values and video feed of the device and its surroundings as well as GPS location. All operations and procedures will be OSHA-compliant. Worker Safety Hasz shall be responsible for training and supervising full and part-time laborers involved with craft assembly and deployment, and shall establish and enforce worker safety protocols as follows:  Require hearing protection near loud equipment.  Require hard hats on site.  Require eye protection on site.  Ensure safety shoes for workers.  Provide first-aid supplies and trained personnel on site  Require personal floatation device usage for marine activity  Require strict adherence to all applicable OSHA safety standards Personnel Responsibilities Page 29 EXHIBIT A Hasz will supervise environmental monitoring and assessment including engineering and technical supervision and assembly and deployment site inspections. The development of procedures to monitor construction to achieve the environmental and safety objectives as well as training for assembly personnel and emergency technical response personnel will also be the responsibility of Hasz. Purchasing and maintenance of environmental monitoring and emergency response equipment, and coordination with local emergency response teams as well as local, state and federal authorities and agencies will be the responsibility of the project supervisor. Additionally Hasz shall conduct weekly “tool-box talks” with workers to discuss environmental and safety standard compliance. Also Hasz shall coordinate with all local and state authorities regarding environmental compliance, and shall be responsible to appraise relevant authorities of any environmental incident or breach of environmental objectives. Pre-Construction Monitoring Prior to craft assembly, preconstruction activities shall be as follows: transport of materials to assembly site, unloading and staging construction materials, and basic site preparation for the assembly process. During this phase, Hasz shall discharge the following responsibilities: daily inspections to ensure compliance with environmental objectives, training of workers (including relevant environmental and safety training), and weekly “tool-box talks” with workers regarding safety and environmental standards. Also Hasz shall coordinate with all local and state authorities regarding environmental compliance, and shall be responsible to appraise relevant authorities of any environmental incident or breach of environmental objectives. Construction and Assembly Phase Monitoring Craft assembly and installation activities will involve a crew of five to ten workers, and shall involve the usage of heavy equipment such as a front end loader for installing heavy components, and a cable skidder for moving assembled craft. During this phase, Hasz shall be responsible for daily inspections and supervision to ensure compliance with environmental objectives. Additionally Hasz shall be responsible to train all temporary personnel involved in construction, assembly and deployment in relevant safety and environmental standards. Also, Hasz shall conduct weekly “tool-box talks” with workers to discuss safety and environmental compliance. Hasz shall coordinate with all local and state authorities regarding environmental compliance, and shall be responsible to appraise relevant authorities of any environmental incident or breach of environmental or safety objectives. Page 30 EXHIBIT A Deployment and Operations Phase Monitoring This proposal involves the assembly and deployment of craft at low water levels during spring, followed by an intensive testing regime during operational months, and disestablishment and disassembly during fall. During operational months, Hasz shall be responsible for procurement and maintenance of secure storage facilities and appropriate tools for emergency environmental response. Additionally, Hasz shall train personnel as on-call emergency responders to environmental incidents or breach of project environmental objectives. Hasz shall conduct daily inspections of deployment site during the first summer season of operation to ensure compliance with environmental and safety objectives. Additionally, Hasz shall be responsible to appraise relevant authorities of any environmental incident or breach of environmental or safety objectives. Remote Safety Monitoring System The proposed project shall follow a safety objectives plan to protect personnel and public interest, as well as concurrently protecting against environmental hazards. Hasz shall be responsible to provide engineering and technical supervision for the proposed project. Additionally, Hasz shall be responsible to procure, install, and maintain a robust and comprehensive remote monitoring and control system. This SCADA interface will provide remote access to real-time information from onboard sensors including load, voltage and current outputs, and turbine speed. Integrated into this system is a positional monitoring unit which senses craft motion and alerts a response team in the incident of craft movement; additionally, an array of surveillance cameras will be installed, both as a visible deterrent to unauthorized access, and to monitor and record such access. These cameras will also provide remote visual inspection capability for debris buildup or other threats to the integrity of the float. Inspection Schedule Safety and environmental inspections shall be conducted concurrently by Hasz. During the assembly and construction phase, inspections shall be conducted daily. During the initial summer season of operation, inspections shall be conducted daily. Detailed records of these inspections shall be maintained and available to FERC personnel or other resource agencies upon request. This shall include both inspections of craft and mooring integrity and function, as well as function of remote monitoring system itself. After the first season of deployment, Hasz shall assess the results of the inspection regime to determine if weekly inspections will be sufficient to protect against breach of safety or environmental objectives. Page 31 EXHIBIT A Daily craft and site inspections will include checking cables for wear, fraying, or corrosion and mooring components for signs of wear, stress or lodged debris; inspecting turbine, transmission, and generator components for wear, improper installation, and signs of vandalism or damage; inspection and testing of monitoring and alarm system, including testing and inspection of surveillance cameras, and cellular alarm dialing systems; and inspection of signage and buoys. The following inspection checklist will be used as the basis of the daily inspections. Daily Monitoring and Inspection Checklist: 1. Mooring connections securely fastened 2. Mooring locations free from erosion/damage 3. Mooring system and float free of debris 4. Turbine operating normally, gauges, instruments, and surveillance equipment operational 5. Boating traffic characterization a. Size of crafts b. Density of traffic c. Interaction between turbine and boat traffic 6. Wildlife interaction with the mooring system 7. Avian and aquatic interaction with the turbine wheel 8. Recreational and wildlife interaction with the electrical intertie structures and easement 9. Impact of turbine operation on river conditions including wake, turbulence, current redirection, etc. Data from each daily inspection shall record all the above information and daily reports shall be stored in a secure location. Within 30 days of the end of each operating season, Hasz Consulting, LLC shall submit a summary of the daily inspections to WPC detailing the interaction of the turbine with its surrounding environment. The report shall specifically address the following items: 1. A characterization of the total downtime during the season, the causes for the lost operational time and recommended solutions 2. A characterization of the type and density of boat traffic and the nature of its interaction with the turbine float Page 32 EXHIBIT A 3. A characterization of any deficiencies in operating procedures and an assessment of necessary safety and environmental measure to be taken during the next season Additionally Hasz shall be responsible to provide training for emergency response personnel on a seasonal basis including mock-up emergency shut-down procedures to ensure that emergency response personnel remain competent and familiar with tools and techniques needed to address environmental or safety incidents. Annual assessment of safety equipment and functionality shall be conducted prior to final installation at the beginning of each operating season. This shall include a test of functionality of GPS locating device, cellular dialing system, and SCADA control system. Additionally Technicians will conduct annual tests of the emergency shutdown procedure, including receiving an emergency signal from onboard sensors, meeting at rally point, accessing craft, disconnecting power, and raising wheel to stop turbine. Progress Report Schedule Hasz shall report annually to relevant local, state, and federal authorities and agencies as required regarding environmental and safety incidents, and any protocol changes or meaningful feedback from emergency and technical personnel crews. Additionally, Hasz shall alert relevant authorities within 24 hours of any environmental or safety incident, and shall include record of violation in periodic progress reports. At this time WPC has been advised that no state or local agencies will require progress reports unless major changes to the project scope occur or unless there is an unforeseen incident which would harm the environment or public safety. For this reason, Hasz will publish an annual progress report detailing the findings of each season of operation as relates to public safety and environmental integrity. Page 33 EXHIBIT A Anticipated Level of Effort The previously mentioned SCADA monitoring system will require a fiber- optic/Ethernet connection. A remote GPS position monitoring and alert system will be included. The proposed project implementation budget includes provision for costs of environmental and safety training, equipment procurement and maintenance, and engineering supervision. Facility Failure Safety Plan Several precautionary measures shall be employed to reduce possibility of failure, identify and attenuate failure modes, and design proper monitoring/alarm systems. Significant reduction in failure probability is afforded by the mooring system design. First, a rigid linkage structure between shore and craft which is rated for a 20,000 pound load would prevent craft motion outside of linkage pivot range in the event of a mooring or debris diversion cable failure. Additionally redundant mooring cables on the rear of the craft are installed to prevent the craft drifting downriver with the current in the event of mooring system failure. It is not anticipated that either the primary or redundant safety mooring cables would break since they are designed with a factor of safety of 3. Nonetheless some consideration of equipment recovery in case that craft should drift downriver is still necessary. To attenuate risk of equipment loss and to facilitate emergency craft recovery, deployment efforts shall involve two boats; thus in the instance of engine failure or mechanical incident, the extra boat shall be used to secure craft and prevent a safety or environmental incident. Before and during mooring cable attachment, the craft shall be securely fastened to the work boat with attachment cables as depicted in Figure 4, below. Page 34 EXHIBIT A Figure 4: Boat Attachment Apparatus Typically, if even one of the mooring components is intact and correctly attached, the craft will not drift more than thirty feet downstream, and would easily be recovered by towing into position with the work boat, whereupon it would be fastened by cables. Instrumentation for Mooring System Failure Alarm Since the event of an unaddressed remote location craft mooring cable failure would be detrimental in terms of power output and craft damage, mooring system integrity will be evaluated using a SCADA type positional monitoring system employing a Dynamic Global Positioning System coupled with an excursion monitoring/reporting software package. If the system senses the craft moving outside of the defined excursion envelope, an alarm will sound to indicate mooring cable failure; this system interrogates onboard GPS sensors for craft position every five seconds, updates a five-year data-logged history of craft positions and headings at a one-minute sampling rate, and additionally records alarms and events in a data log. Figure A.5 Boat Attachment Apparatus Page 35 EXHIBIT A The proposed positional monitoring system is tolerant of power outages and currently supports the following industry standard communication protocols:  MODBUS RTU Over TCP  MODBUS ASCII/RTU/TCP  NMEA 0183 Means of Alerting Technicians The proposed SCADA system interfaces with a Protalk CV3 alarm dialing system with cellular amplification, integrated cellular module with voice and SMS text capabilities. This alarm system is tolerant of power outages, and may be programmed for four different shifts, is highly modular, and has low footprint. It will continue to dial numbers in its database until technicians give confirmation of alarm notification. The proposed system also has built-in radio port and public address systems which may be programmed with redundant alert capability in after-hours situations. An additional consideration for the SCADA monitoring/alarm system is alarm cascade. Since the Protalk interface is capable of supporting a wide array of specific alarm messages from digital and analog inputs, it is important that the acquisition and broadcast of craft data be configured to give technicians optimum awareness of the mode of failure and extent in the event of emergency involving several alarms from multiple component failures. The integrated PLC interface would then organize the alarm cascade such that technicians would be able to differentiate a transmission rotation stoppage caused by a debris jam from one caused by mooring cable failure or transmission component failure. This allows emergency personnel and technicians to best prepare themselves to address emergency situations. Emergency Response Plan This proposal includes the following delineation for full-time and emergency personnel responsibilities and methodology: Rapid emergency response by technical personnel is available at any time during operational months. A rotating personnel schedule system will allow for a senior technical supervisor, a pilot and crew of two technicians to be selected from a pool of qualified workers as first responders at any given time. Trained technicians shall be equipped with cellular phones or use their personal cellular Page 36 EXHIBIT A devices as well as redundant CB or Military Spec- long range radio system such as used by volunteer fire departments and emergency medical service teams to rally members. Emergency Response crew responsibilities are as follows: The technical supervisor is responsible for assembling a response crew, assessing the nature of emergency, and following emergency attenuation procedures in the event of emergency. Additionally, he/she is responsible for the maintenance of safety equipment and tools used in emergency response. Technical supervisors also are responsible for coordinating with relevant local, state, and federal authorities and agencies in the event of an emergency. The pilot is responsible for the operation of work boats and vehicles in the event of emergency, and for their maintenance (ie: fueling and basic repairs). Each member of the response crew is responsible for his/her availability for the duration of their scheduling period. This means that each member must keep their cellular phones and/or radios charged and working during this interval. Figure 5: Workboat Hauling Rigid Strut Support Sections Emergency Responder Response Time Response time varies with technician proximity. During day-time emergency response, a down-river technician is expected to confirm alarm in under a minute, and reach a motor vehicle rally point in under fifteen minutes. An up-river technician may require up to fifteen minutes to reach an upriver boat launch and a Figure A.6 Workboat Hauling Rigid Strut Support Sections Page 37 EXHIBIT A further five minutes to reach downriver boat launch. It is anticipated that departure of a repair/emergency response team from boat launch in work boat may be effected in under thirty minutes. The boat trip from launch to craft area is less than one minute. It is anticipated that night-time response may require up to twenty-five minutes for team departure from down-river boat launch. In either case, docking the craft and disembarking will likely require no more than one minute. The purpose of this installation is primarily to test the proposed design for suitability under a variety of loading and environmental conditions. Consequently it will already be subject to a robust monitoring protocol. A full craft and site inspection will be carried out by a qualified technician daily. During business hours, at least one technician will be on duty monitoring craft. Technicians have full or part-time jobs within a 1.5 mile radius of the craft. Each of these technicians is equipped with a cell-phone. During day-time emergency response, a technician is expected to confirm a cell-phone text or voice alarm in under a minute, and reach a motor vehicle rally point in less than ten minutes. It is anticipated that departure of a repair/emergency response team from boat launch in work boat may be effected in under fifteen minutes. The boat trip from launch to craft area is less than one minute. After business hours, technicians reside in domiciles within a 1 mile radius of craft. It is anticipated that night-time response may require up to twenty minutes for team departure from down-river boat launch. In either case, docking the craft and disembarking will likely require no more than one minute. Location of Emergency Response Personnel The proposed technicians all have full or part-time jobs, with varying proximity to craft site. Since emergency response is inherently time-critical, response teams would be picked based on proximity rather than scheduling during day-time hours from 6 AM to 6 PM. From 6 PM to 6 AM, it is proposed to employ a rotating schedule of technicians who would be alerted first to an emergency condition. Consequently response type would be categorized as day-time or night-time type response. A day-time approach would be based on proximity of technicians based upon work-place locations. Under this paradigm, the technician first reaching the rally point would assume the role of senior technician, and would assemble a response team from available workers. Page 38 EXHIBIT A The night-time approach would be based upon a rotating scheduling system that spreads after-hours emergency response among a pool of qualified individuals. This ensures that a number of persons remain qualified for emergency operations. In event of an emergency, the first responder to reach the rally point shall assume the role of technical supervisor, and will be responsible for designating piloting and technical responsibilities among the remaining responders. Additionally, the technical supervisor shall coordinate with local emergency responders if need be and is responsible for appraising the project supervisor at Hasz, of environmental or safety incidents within 8 hours of incident occurrence. Emergency Response Guidelines In the event of an alarm, technicians would respond in accordance with following general procedure:  Alarm input triggers alarm system, which broadcasts radio and cellular signals until confirmation is received, and logs alarm event in database.  Technicians give single button confirmation response, and converge to a common rally point.  Supervisor confirms that appropriate team members have assembled, assigns team duties, determines and acquires required safety equipment and tools based on SCADA system.  For teams converging to "downriver" rally point, pilot technician uses specialized off-road motor vehicle to transport response team and equipment to boat launch area.  Senior Technician confirms that appropriate team members are present at work boat.  Pilot activates project work boat, which is equipped with safety equipment including spot-lights, crane and winch, high visibility personal floatation devices, and anchoring and towing equipment. Work boat is piloted to craft site.  Senior Technician assesses damage, hazards, and potential risks, and determines suitable attenuation plan.  Response team carries out appropriate attenuation plan, ensuring operator safety and craft integrity as primary goals.  Technician team ensures that all tools, equipment, and vehicular conveyances used are properly stowed and maintained after usage, and if necessary, senior technician alerts a repair crew to attend or modify craft as needed.  Senior Technician reports to supervisor at Hasz within 8 hours. Page 39 EXHIBIT A Annual Coordination with Responding Agencies Local EMS and fire department services are exclusively volunteer-based, and have no watercraft. Consequently, the proposed plan does not rely upon local emergency response services, and no effort shall be made to coordinate with such agencies. Instead, Hasz shall supervise and train a specialized response team equipped with proper tools, as well as land and aquatic transportation. Prevention of Unauthorized Access During operation, the proposed installation is located in swift water, and anchored by submerged cables to the vertical face of a 250-ft high rock cliff; it is practically accessible exclusively by boat. It is anticipated that the probability of unauthorized or accidental access will be substantially attenuated by the remote location and difficulties associated with accessing craft. Unauthorized access is further discouraged by warning signs, which will alert boaters to hazards caused by the presence of submerged cables, rotating turbine components, and high voltage wires and electrical hardware. Surveillance cameras will be visibly mounted on the craft to discourage vandalism or theft as well as monitoring interaction between the public and the installation. Additionally, operator safety and unauthorized access prevention will be maintained by two fences on the craft. The outer perimeter fence railing system prevents unauthorized persons from accessing the craft deck, and protects operators and technicians from falling off the craft. The rotating turbine components are cordoned off by an additional inner fence which prevents unauthorized or accidental access to turbine should unauthorized persons gain access to craft. All onboard adjustable controls, including onboard SCADA controls, electrical panel boxes, screw-jack height controls, and craft fifth-wheel attachments and anchoring attachments, will be maintained in lockout mode when not in use by qualified personnel. This will prevent unauthorized tampering with craft or turbine settings, or accidental release of craft from anchoring system. Signage Warning signage shall be installed on craft in accordance with US Coast Guard protocols, both to warn public against unauthorized access to deployed craft and alert workers to potentially hazardous situations. As shown in below, these signs shall include three standard USCG signs warning marine traffic of submerged cable and other navigational hazards. Additionally crush hazard placards in Page 40 EXHIBIT A accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z535.2 color coding shall be placed at each corner of fencing surrounding the turbine, as well as on both height adjustment mechanisms (see figure I-1011). Electrical shock hazard placards shall be placed by generator, as well as upon both cabinets, and a non-skid floor sign shall mark a trip zone by the bridge strut. Also, signs warning against access by unauthorized personnel shall be posted on both ends of the craft, as well as by the bridge strut (see figure I-1011, I-1012). Page 41 EXHIBIT A Page 42 EXHIBIT A c. Project Removal Plan The proposed craft is designed to be installed and disestablished rapidly and safely at the beginning and end of each operating season. It is anticipated that two technicians will be able to raise the water wheel entirely out of the water using a screw jack array, and bring it to a halt in approximately three minutes. The turbine may be readily removed from water while craft remains stationary, which allows the easy implementation of emergency measures to modify or temporarily cease craft operation. Additionally, in the proposed plan, technicians will be able to completely remove all project components from the site (except the threaded rock anchors in cliff face) in less than five hours. The following measures will be applicable for the duration of the operating season. In the event that the Senior Technician's assessment dictates a temporary cessation of power generation, a crew of two technicians may apply load breaks and use screw jack adjustors to raise turbine out of stream flow to stop turbine. This procedure will require less than five minutes, and stops all moving parts on craft. In the event that the assessment requires a complete removal of all craft components from installation site, a full disestablishment may be effected in 9 hours. Ideally two boats will be utilized to remove craft from deployment site as follows:  Pilot docks work boat into rear craft fitting; technician buckles attachment cables on boat to craft.  Two technicians utilize screw jacks to lift turbine out of water. Load breaks are thrown, and power cables are disconnected. (The above two steps will require approximately one an hour.)  Work boat pushes craft forward to remove tension from mooring cables.  Technicians on secondary boat detach primary and secondary mooring cables from the bluff, maintaining secure hold on cable ends.  Technician on craft reels in mooring cables while work boat prevents craft from sliding downstream.  Technician on craft releases fifth wheel pin lock, allowing work boat to move craft freely. It is anticipated that the above four steps will require approximately three hours.  Pilot guides work boat and craft to shore, where craft may be winched entirely out of water. Staging the craft on a level section of shore, winching it in using a skidder, and safely preparing it for off-season storage will probably require five hours. Page 43 EXHIBIT A It is predicted that withdrawing craft from deployment site will require nine hours for a crew of four technicians. d. Navigation Safety Plan Signs and LED buoys complying with USCG regulations for night time and inclement weather visibility will be installed and checked as part of daily routine craft/site inspections. Since this section of the Tanana is not heavily traveled (approximately one boat per hour between 6 AM and 8 PM), it is not anticipated that this installation will pose a danger to the boating public. An additional level of protection for boaters is provided by the decking which prevents anything taller than 18-in from river surface from traveling between the pontoons and into the turbine. e. Emergency Shutdown and Removal The proposed craft is designed to be installed and disestablished rapidly and safely at the beginning and end of each operating season. The turbine may be readily removed from water while craft remains stationary, which allows the easy implementation of emergency measures to modify or temporarily cease craft operation. Additionally, in the proposed plan, technicians will be able to completely remove all project components from site except the threaded rock anchors in cliff face in less than five hours. The following measures will be applicable for the duration of the operating season: In the event that the Senior Technician's assessment dictates a temporary cessation of power generation, a crew of two technicians may apply load breaks and use screw jack adjustors to raise turbine out of stream flow to stop turbine. This procedure will require less than five minutes, and stops all moving parts on craft. In the event that the assessment requires a complete removal of all craft components from installation site, a full disestablishment may be effected in 9 hours. Ideally two boats will be utilized to remove craft from deployment site as follows:  Pilot docks work boat into rear craft fitting; technician buckles attachment cables on boat to craft.  Two technicians utilize screw jacks to lift turbine out of water. Load breaks are thrown, and power cables are disconnected. The above two steps will require approximately one an hour.  Work boat pushes craft forward to remove tension from mooring cables.  Technicians on secondary boat detach primary and secondary mooring cables from the bluff, maintaining secure hold on cable ends. Page 44 EXHIBIT A  Technician on craft reels in mooring cables while work boat prevents craft from sliding downstream.  Technician on craft releases fifth wheel pin lock, allowing work boat to move craft freely. It is anticipated that the above four steps will require approximately three hours.  Pilot guides work boat and craft to shore, where craft may be winched entirely out of water. Staging the craft on a level section of shore, winching it in using a skidder, and safely preparing it for off-season storage will probably require five hours. It is predicted that withdrawing craft from deployment site will require nine hours for a crew of four technicians. Figure 6: Strut Assembly Diagram Figure A.7 Strut Assembly Diagram Page 45 EXHIBIT A Site Maintenance after Removal Once the craft has been removed from deployment site, and cables reeled in, the only remaining mooring components are the rigid suspension support member (Figure 6), rock anchoring system, and power intertie components with GVEA grid (including a run of armored cable). The rigid support member is a compact modular design which prevents the current from sweeping the craft toward the shore and is an important component in the mooring system. The support is comprised of three modular 10-foot sections pinned together, and secured to the shore by a pintle-hitch assembly; it is anticipated that a pilot, supervisor, and two engineers may require six hours to disassemble and remove bridge. The five-foot threaded rock anchors are designed by Williams Form Engineering. These are permanent structural components that are grouted into the rock face. Over winter these will be covered with plastic caps to prevent thread corrosion. If required, these rock anchors may be cut or ground flush with the rock to leave minimal long-term impacts at installation site. The only permanent fixture at the deployment site are four sets of one inch diameter rock anchors for securing the bridge and mooring cables, and a 900-foot by 20-foot easement for the armored cable. The easement will need to be cleared of brush for the installation of cable, however the armored cable only requires a one foot wide clearance, and no large trees will be cut down. The armored cable will be anchored into the ground using grouted thread anchors, which may be either capped or cut flush with rock face. Since no trees of substantial size shall be cleared, there is no anticipated need for replanting efforts following removal of craft due to emergency or license termination. Page 46 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE In accordance with FERC’s whitepaper, WPC is providing financial assurance for all project costs including complete project removal and site remediation at the conclusion of the license term or at the request of the Commission. Page 47 Page 48 Whitestone Farms PO BOX 1229 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Phone: (907) 895-4938 * Fax: (907) 895-4787 August 21, 2013 LETTER OF GUARANTEE This letter will serve as notification that Whitestone Farms will irrevocably continue to financially support Whitestone Community Association, dba Whitestone Power & Communications. This guarantee insures a continuance of all payments on the part of Whitestone Farms for all costs and debts incurred by Whitestone Power& Communications. It is in our best interest to continue to pay for this service in exchange for the benefit that this utility provides. We have interlocking directorships on the two boards, including Mr. David DiGloria, the treasurer; Mr. Nathan Vereide and Mr. Gabriel Greenleaf. Signed: David J. DiGloria Treasurer Page 49 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 1. GENERAL AREA DESCRIPTION The Tanana River is the largest tributary of the Yukon River. Its headwaters are located at the confluence of the Chisana and Nabesna Rivers just north of Northway in eastern Alaska. It flows northwest from near the Canada border and Yukon Territory, and laterally along the northern slope of the Alaska Range, roughly paralleled by the Alaska Highway. In central Alaska, it flows into a lowland marsh region known as the Tanana Valley and passes to the south of the city of Fairbanks. In the marsh regions it is joined by several large tributaries, including the Nenana and Kantishna rivers. It empties into the Yukon River near the town of Tanana. Altogether, the river drains an area of over 45,000 square miles according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. It is a glacially fed river with many tributaries and a total length of approximately 515 miles. This project is located at its confluence with the Delta River at River Mile 361, approximately 90 miles southeast of Fairbanks and about ½ mile downstream of the Alyeska Pipeline Bridge which crosses the Tanana River. a. Topography The proposed project is located in the Tanana Valley between the Alaska Range to the South and the Brooks Range to the north. In the immediate vicinity of the project area, is the confluence of the Delta and Tanana rivers. The north side of the project area is a bluff rising approximately 250-feet above the surface of the river at normal high water. On the south side of the project area the river lowlands form sandy beaches along both the Delta and Tanana rivers. Approximately 1 mile south of the project location another bluff is situated. The Tanana River runs approximately from east to west through the project area. A map showing the topography of the area can be seen in Exhibit G. b. Climate The project area located at mile 361 of the Tanana River where the Delta Rivers flows in. The climate in this part of interior Alaska is arid, with an average annual precipitation of 22 inches. Attached are temperature charts taken for the year of 2005 which are representative of the normal temperature distributions for the project area. The temperature readings were taken about a mile downstream of the project area during a wind resource study conducted for a different project. Also included is a histogram showing temperature distributions for the entire year. Exhibit E-1Page 50 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Temperature Trend - January -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Degrees F Temperature Trend - February -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Degrees FFigure E.1: Temperature Trend - January Figure E.2: Temperature Trend - February Exhibit E-2Page 51 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Temperature Trend - March 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Degrees F Temperature Trend - April 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Degrees FFigure E.4: Temperature Trend - April Figure E.3: Temperature Trend - March Exhibit E-3Page 52 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Temperature Trend - May 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Degrees F Temperature Trend - June 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Degrees FFigure E.5: Temperature Trend - May Figure E.6: Temperature Trend - June Exhibit E-4Page 53 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Temperature Trend - July 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Degrees F Temperature Trend - August 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Degrees FFigure E.7: Temperature Trend - July Figure E.8: Temperature Trend - August Exhibit E-5Page 54 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Temperature Trend - September 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Degrees F Temperature Trend - October 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Degrees FFigure E.9: Temperature Trend - September Figure E.10: Temperature Trend - October Exhibit E-6Page 55 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Temperature Trend - November -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Degrees F Temperature Trend - December -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Degrees F Figure E.11: Temperature Trend - November Figure E.12: Temperature Trend - December Exhibit E-7Page 56 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wind is also a major consideration in the project area. The particular area of the Tanana River Basin in which the project is located in a 50-mile radius has periods of high winds. The following wind distributions show a representative year of wind data. January 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Windspeed (mph) Figure E.13: Temperature Distribution Figure E.14: Windspeed - January Exhibit E-8Page 57 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E February 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Wind Speed (mph) March 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Wind Speed (mph) Figure E.15: Windspeed - February Figure E.16: Windspeed - March Exhibit E-9Page 58 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E April 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Wind Speed (mph)May 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wind Speed (mph)Figure E.17: Windspeed - April Figure E.18: Windspeed - May Exhibit E-10Page 59 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E June 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Speed (mph)July 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Speed (mph)Figure E.19: Windspeed - June Figure E.20: Windspeed - July Exhibit E-11Page 60 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E August 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wind Speed (mph)September 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Wind Speed (mph)Figure E.21: Windspeed - August Figure E.22: Windspeed - September Exhibit E-12Page 61 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E October 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Wind Speed (mph) November 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Wind Speed (mph) Figure E.23: Windspeed - October Figure E.24: Windspeed - November Exhibit E-13Page 62 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E December 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Wind Speed (mph) 2. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SCOPE a. Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR §1508.7), an action may cause cumulative effects on the environment if its effects overlap in time or space with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities. This project is a test project with a maximum life of five (5) years. At the end of five years the structures will be permanently removed. Within this short time duration it is expected that no cumulative effects will accumulate. Currently no other projects are operating in the area, nor are there any projects planned for the area during the life of the project. b. Geographic Scope And Effects The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed actions’ effect on the resources. Because the proposed action would affect resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. The geographic scope of the effect analysis broadly includes the Tanana River and the mouth of the Delta Figure E.25: Windspeed - December Exhibit E-14Page 63 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E River in the area of the proposed project. The surface area occupied by the project boundary is approximately 540,000 sq. ft. Please refer to the area maps in Exhibit G. The proposed project will extend into the Tanana River from the right (north) bank approximately 50-feet. Thus it will cause a 9% restriction in the channel which is 600 ft wide at the project location. In addition, approximately 100 rock anchors will be used to anchor the craft and power transmission cable to the bluff at the project location. It is expected that the project will create some turbulence in the river channel that will be no wider than 50-feet and no longer than 100-yards. In consideration of the size of the river channel in question and the light nature of the traffic both in size and frequency, these are not expected to be significant impacts. WPC has consulted with State agencies such as Fish and Game, Natural Resources, and Historic Preservation, as well as federal representatives from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, and Coast Guard. After reviewing our proposed project none of the agencies found that their particular area of jurisdiction or resource management would be impacted. All consultations with agencies and local governments are documented in Attachment A – Communication Records. The documentation is organized alphabetically by agency. Although hydrokinetic technology is applicable in most river environments, WPC has a responsibility primarily to the residents of the community of Whitestone. For this reason, no other sites were considered for this project as the site chosen is the only one in proximity to the community with sufficient resource. c. Temporal Scope And Effects The temporal scope of analysis includes a discussion of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on cumulatively affected resources. This Pilot Project License Application is for a 5-year term which would expire in 2017. At the present time there are no riverine projects in the vicinity of the project boundary. From a historical perspective, the project location and any resources it might affect have not been disturbed by any events other than the normal course of nature. While the project is in operation, it is not expected to impact any resources outside the footprint of the float, nor is it expected that any changes made to the surrounding environment cannot be completely reversed at the conclusion of the project. The electrical power transmission cable will not be strung overhead on poles nor will it be buried so no excavation will be required. Instead, the cable will be laid on the ground and anchored to the rock faces of the bluff using drilled rock anchors. These anchors will be less than 1-inch diameter and less than five feet long. At the conclusion of the project they will be cut off and ground down to the level of the earth leaving no discernable projection. These anchors will be less than 100 in number. Small brush covering 4,500 sq. ft. will be cleared to make room for the cable. It can be reasonably projected that all this brush will be regrown within five years of the end of the project. Exhibit E-15Page 64 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Rock anchors will also be used to moor the craft to the bluff face during operation. These will also be ground flat at the end of the project and will not have any protrusions remaining. All other facilities and equipment used for the project are portable and completely removable and will not leave any evidence of their presence after they have been removed. Since this is a test project which will be permanently removed at the end of the license period, there will be no long term economic, social, or recreational impacts. In consideration of the inaccessibility of the project location, the fact that it has not been used historically for any purpose and the fact that there are no plans for the project location in the future, it can be reasonably asserted that there will be no long term cumulative impacts resulting from the project. 3. APPLICABLE LAWS a. Section 401, Clean Water Act Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, any activity requiring a federal license or permit that may result in discharge into navigable waterways, requires certification from the state that confirms that any such discharge will comply with applicable state water quality standards. This requires WPC to obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to issuance of the Pilot Project License and a subsequent Letter of Permission from the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The project is not subject to the auspices of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act since it requires no excavation of the river bed and will have no discharge of any material into the water. Consultation: WPC has received a Section 10 Letter of Permission from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) which precludes the need for a clean water certification since USACE enforces the Clean Water Act in Alaska and considers the project to have no substantial individual or cumulative effects. This documentation is provided in the USACE section of Attachment A – Communication Records. b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires an authorizing or acting federal agency or designated non-federal representative to consult with USFWS/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on any actions that might affect listed species or their habitats. If the authorizing/acting agency or USFWS/NMFS determines an action is likely to adversely affect a species, formal consultation is required with USFWS or NMFS depending on their jurisdiction over the listed species. Formal consultation consists of submittal by the authorizing/acting agency of a Biological Assessment (BA) for review by USFWS or NMFS. Upon review of the BA, USFWS/NMFS would each prepare a Exhibit E-16Page 65 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Biological Opinion (BO) which assesses whether the action is likely to jeopardize the existence of the listed species. The BO may include binding or discretionary recommendations to reduce potential impact. An Incidental Take Statement may be attached to the BO if there is potential jeopardy to the species. Consultation: WPC has been advised by the USFWS that there are no endangered species within the proposed project boundary. This documentation is provided in the USFWS section of Attachment A – Communication Records. c. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effect of federally permitted projects on historic and cultural resources and requires consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) prior to authorizing a project. Compliance with Section 106 of the Act also requires consultation with the tribes in the region. FERC typically satisfies Section 106 requirements for license term through Historic Properties Management Plans developed by the applicant in consultation with SHPO or a Programmatic Agreement to which FERC, SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) are typically the signatories. Consultation: As part of a separate project conducted with the Denali Commission from 2007–2009, the Alaska SHPO conducted a study of the proposed project area and concluded that there were no historic landmarks or resources within the proposed project location. WPC has received a letter from SHPO confirming that there are no affected historic properties within the project boundary. This documentation is provided in Attachment A – Communication Records. Additionally, this location is not part of any tribal lands as shown on the map in Exhibit G. d. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires WPC to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether the proposed project will have adverse impacts to the habitat or migratory paths of fish species which are deemed important by NMFS and which are a food resource. Consultation: WPC has been advised by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that there are no concerns regarding the habitat or safety of species protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and that they will not require WPC to develop an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFH). This documentation is provided in Attachment A – Communication Records. Exhibit E-17Page 66 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E e. Coastal Zone Management Act This statute is not applicable to the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project. Consultation: A concurrence letter from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A – Communication Records. f. Alaska Fish and Game Code The Alaska Fish and Game Code (AS16.05.817) gives the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) the responsibility of protecting the states wildlife resources. As such, this statute grants ADFG the responsibility of issuing permits for projects which have the potential to impact the wildlife population. State law requires WPC to receive a Title 16 permit from ADFG before beginning construction. Consultation: WPC has received a Title 16 permit from ADFG. This documentation is provided in the ADFG section of Attachment A – Communication Records. g. Alaska Water Use Act The Alaska Water Use Act (Title 46) give the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the power to adjudicate water usage rights for waters owned by the State of Alaska. This regulation requires WPC to receive a water use permit from DNR prior to deployment of the proposed project. Consultation: WPC has received a Title 46 permit from DNR. This documentation is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A – Communication Records. h. Alaska Land Act The Alaska Land Act (Title 38) grants DNR the authority to issue permits for the use of state lands. This statute requires WPC to receive a Land Use Permit from DNR prior to the construction or deployment of the proposed project since the project will be entirely constructed and deployed on state owned land. Consultation: WPC has received a Title 46 permit from DNR. This documentation is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A – Communication Records. Exhibit E-18Page 67 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E i. Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Act This statute is not applicable to the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project. j. Code of Federal Regulations Navigation and Navigable Waterways (Title 33) CFR Title 33 gives the United States Coast Guard (USCG) the responsibility of monitoring the nation’s waterways to insure the safety of the public among other concerns. This regulation requires WPC to receive a permit and PATON regulations from USCG prior to deployment of the proposed project. Consultation: WPC has received a permit and PATON specification from the USCG. This documentation is provided in the USCG section of Attachment A – Communication Records. k. Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act This statute is not applicable to the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project. 4. PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATION a. Project Description As described in Exhibit A, and illustrated with maps and diagrams in Exhibit G, the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC project is in the design stage and is the basis for the design and proposed action contemplated in this Draft Pilot License application. The proposed action for which the applicant seeks a pilot license is the development, testing and environmental monitoring of a 100 kW River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) system using run-of-river current. This pilot project would consist of:  A single Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 having a wheel of 16-ft diameter and 12-ft width producing a maximum of 100 kW  Mooring and power cables running above the water from the float to the shore  Appurtenant facilities for navigation safety and operation. Based on the resource analysis of the current velocity and the projection of the annual duration of operation, the proposed project is expected to have an annual average power generation of 200 MWh. Exhibit E-19Page 68 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E b. Location And Layout Based upon the velocity study completed by the University of Alaska, Anchorage survey team during the summer of 2010, the turbine will be anchored approximately 30 feet from the shore of the bluff shown on the northern edge of the project boundary. The total footprint of the device in the water will be 34 feet long and 19 feet wide. The total water surface area enclosed by the project boundary as shown in Exhibit G is approximately 540,000 sq. ft. (12.4 acres). For a complete project description as well as operation, maintenance and monitoring plans, see Exhibit A of this draft application. c. Alternatives Considered WPC has studied various technologies over a period of three years and consulted with many developers, researchers and regulatory agencies in order to arrive at the conclusion that there is a need for a new technology. As such, WPC has formulated a new design in order to produce a technology that is uniquely suited to environments characterized by shallow water and heavy debris loads. i. Alternative Sites Considered Although this technology is applicable in most river environments, WPC has a responsibility primarily to the residents of the community of Whitestone. For this reason, no other sites were considered for this project as the site chosen is the only one in proximity to the community with sufficient resource. ii. Alternative Facility Designs, Processes, and Operations Considered WPC has had the opportunity to be involved in statewide discussions regarding the advent of hydrokinetic technology in Alaska from its inception. Over the last several years, WPC has had the advantage of observing many of the initial attempts to apply this technology to Alaskan rivers. Many of these technologies are available, although the vertical axis turbines have gained the most traction here in Alaska. All these designs have two problems. None of them is able to shed debris effectively in a manner that does not obstruct the flow of water to the rotor. Secondly, none of them has proven satisfactory to the various regulatory agencies particularly in the area of interaction with aquatic life. For these reasons, WPC Exhibit E-20Page 69 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E considers these technologies ineffective for application to the Tanana River site near Whitestone. 5. PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The potential impacts of the proposed action on the environment are analyzed in this section. Each “Resource Area” listed in the Commission’s White Paper (and in CFR Title 18, 5.6(d)(3)) is described below in detail using standard FERC NEPA format. Consideration has been given to all relevant resource areas identified for analysis in the Commission’s whitepaper on hydrokinetic projects in Appendix B of whitepaper §5.18(b)(5)(ii)(B). As stated earlier, this exhibit has been developed in cooperation with resource agencies and has been based on detailed environmental information collected. The exhibit has been designed to avoid and minimize all environmental impacts. Exhibit A includes a description of the environmental monitoring plan under section 9: “Safe Management, Operations, and Maintenance Statement”, subpart a: “Monitoring Plans”, sub- subpart i: “Environment: Fish, Wildlife, Plants, Soils, Recreation, Land Use”. The plan presented in Exhibit A applies to all the “Resource Effects Measures” described in this section. a. Geology And Soils i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION The proposed Whitestone Poncelet RISEC project would not excavate, disturb or make any use of the river bed. For this reason, there are no expected effects to the geology and soils of the river bottom due to anchoring. In addition, because the plunge of the blades is very small compared to the depth of the river, there should be no adverse effects as a result of turbulence disturbing the river bed. The lands which will be used for construction of the project and storage of project maintenance and operation materials will not require any clearing of trees or brush. The existing sandy shore area near the river which has been granted to WPC to be used under ADNR Permit # ADL 417428 will be used for this purpose. Since this project will be removed after five years of testing, the use of this land will be temporary and non-invasive. Connexes will be used to store tools and materials and will be set on wood cribbing for the project duration. All of these materials will be removed at the conclusion of the project. The craft will be moored to the opposite bank. The mooring location of the craft and power line intertie is an almost shear rock face. The rock is composed of schist and biotite gneiss. A map showing project area geology can be found in Exhibit G. Exhibit E-21Page 70 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E These rocks have been recommended as being relatively hard and advantageous for anchoring. Not more than 100 individual anchors having a length not greater than 5-ft and a diameter of not more than 2-in will be drilled into the rock faces to support the mooring of the float and the anchoring of the overland armored electrical cable. These anchors will not require any digging or soils removal; they will be drilled into the rock and grouted in place. At the conclusion of the project, they will be cut off and ground flat with the rock surface. This proposal has been approved by the ADNR as evidenced by the land use permit received by WPC for the purpose of this project (Permit # ADL 414914). A copy of this permit is also provided in Attachment A – Communication Records. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS It is not expected that there will be any environmental effects to the river bed soils or geology. The wheel and the blades will contact only the surface of the water, a minor penetration relative to the depth of the river, and there should be no adverse effects as a result of turbulence disturbing the river bed. The rock faces immediately bordering the river at the project location will be have rock anchors permanently grouted into them. These will be small, few in number and of a color similar to the existing rock. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effects on river bed soils or geology will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. 8 Exhibit E-22Page 71 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on river bed soils or geology is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is presented in Attachment A – Communication Records. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. b. Water Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION The proposed project will be situated in the Tanana River at the site of its confluence with the Delta River, i.e. the mouth of the Delta River. The river-mile mark on the Tanana is 361. The surface area occupied by the project boundary is approximately 540,000 sq.-ft. The Tanana River is a relatively large river having discharge rates as high as 8,000 cfs in the summer months. Due to the high sediment load and remote location its water is not used for commercial purposes other than incidental transportation. The device will extend into the Tanana River from the right (north) bank approximately 50-feet. Thus it will cause a 9% restriction in the channel which is 600 ft wide at the project location. In addition, approximately 100 rock anchors will be used to anchor the craft and power transmission cable to the bluff at the project location. It is expected that the project will create some turbulence in the river channel, the wake of which will be no wider than 50-feet and no longer than 100- yards. 8 Exhibit E-23Page 72 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E On June 11 and 12, 2010, the University of Alaska, Anchorage (UAA) surveyed the project area using an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler and recorded water velocities to determine which spots were viable for power production. Velocities recorded at the project site were as high as 14 fps measured relatively near the shore. The following graphic shows the bathymetry and velocity distribution at the chosen location for the project during the time of the study. Please note that velocities range from magenta (low) to red (high) and that the proposed turbine will be situated approximately 50 ft from the left side of the plot. Velocity distribution at the site selected for project deployment. The complete study results can be found here. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS In consideration of the size of the river channel in question and the light nature of the traffic both in size and frequency, these are not expected to be significant impacts. WPC has received assurances from all the appropriate local resource agencies that they do not expect any impacts to wildlife as a result of the project. WPC has also received assurances from the DNR that they do not expect any significant impacts to soils, terrain or water resources in the project area. Figure E.26: Velocity Distribution Exhibit E-24Page 73 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Documentation is provided in the DNR section of Attachment A – Communication Records. WPC believes that, given the time frame of the UAA velocity study (June 11-12) and the known river behavior, it is likely that high velocities will be available for at least 5 months of each year with the possibility of 6-7 months of operation depending on temperatures and river conditions. This proposed project will not remove any water from the river nor will it discharge any water or other liquid into the river. For this reason, and because the amount of energy being harvested from the river is minute in comparison to the energy available, there would not be any noticeable changes to the river either with regard to hydrodynamics, water quality, river level or discharge rate. The proposed project would have approximately the same effect on the river as a large boat moving at low speed. For this reason, no substantive effects to the river environment are expected as a result of the proposed project. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effects on water resource will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on water resources is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION 8 8 Exhibit E-25Page 74 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Consultation with the USCG, the USACE, and the Alaska DNR are documented in Attachment A – Communication Records. The documents are organized alphabetically by entity. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative, especially in light of the velocity study done by UAA, and described in this section. c. Fish And Aquatic Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION The Tanana River is a relatively large river having discharge rates as high as 8,000 cfs in the summer months. The area includes a sensitive, high priority spawning area and migration path for several species of anadromous fish, most notably chum, coho and chinook salmon. The project will not have any effects outside the project area and even these effects should be minimal given the fact that this is a single unit which is similar in action to paddle wheel powered boats, many of which frequent Alaska’s rivers with no deleterious effects on the fish populations. The official species listing detailing the aquatic life which is present in the proposed project area at any given time throughout the year is as follows: Common Name Scientific Name arctic lamprey Lampetra japonica least cisco Coregonus sardinella broad whitefish Coregonus nasus humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum inconnu (sheefish) Stenodus leucichthys chinook (king) salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chum (dog) salmon Oncorhynchus keta coho (silver) salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Exhibit E-26Page 75 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E northern pike Esox lucius lake chub Couesius plumbeus longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus burbot Lota lota slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus Many of these fish are anadromous and migratory although a few of them live their entire lives more locally. The primary concern for these species with regard to the proposed project is the potential effects to out-migrating juveniles which can be found in the proposed project area for much of the summer. A secondary concern regards the adults returning to spawn in fall. ADFG has raised some concerns that, without proper location, the proposed project may interfere with the migrating patterns. WPC is in discussions with ADFG in an effort to satisfy their concerns. It is likely that the initial project location will be in a less sensitive portion of the proposed project area. This will allow ADFG to monitor the effects of the float on fish behavior during the initial stages of the project in order to determine whether the proposed project is too invasive to operate in more sensitive locations. ii. SEASONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TANANA RIVER The Tanana River, in which the proposed project would be located, is the largest tributary of the Yukon River. During the summer months, it is fed primarily by glacial melt. As a result of this, it is heavily silt laden. The Tanana River is also considered a braided stream even though not all portions of the river are braided. The project area is a reach of the river which is not braided. The river levels vary by as much as 10 feet throughout the year. During the winter, the river is entirely spring fed and the water becomes clear. The portion of the Tanana River in which the proposed project would be located does not freeze over during the winter. This is a result of the large amount of upwelling spring water which holds the water temperature high enough to avoid freezing. The river experiences small ice flows in October and November each year which are dumped into it by the Delta River which empties into the Tanana River at the proposed project location. The river also experiences large ice flows in May. These usually only last for two or three days and are a result of the annual ice breakup that occurs on the Goodpaster River which is several miles upstream of the project location. The depths of the river vary from less than 5 feet in some places to depths exceeding 30 feet in other areas. The proposed project location has an average summer depth less than 20 feet. iii. UNDERWATER NOISE Table E.1: Aquatic Life Present in Project Area Exhibit E-27Page 76 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E WPC does not expect there to be high levels of underwater noise generated as a result of this installation. To begin with, the drive train and generator will not be submerged. In addition, the plunge depth of the blades on the wheel is only 2 feet. Additionally, these blades will be moving at about 50% of the speed of the water producing a pressure drop of only 0.51 psi at the tips of the blades. The amount of noise generated would be smaller than that of a small boat propelled by an outboard motor which is very common in Alaska’s rivers. iv. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 and related systems will have little or no environmental effects on the aquatic environment because of its noninvasive design. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has advised WPC that the pressure drop of 0.51 psi at the tips of the blades associated with power production is safe for all fish species which frequent the proposed project location. WPC will continue to consult with the local regulatory agencies as the project develops to ensure the safety and well-being of the aquatic species in the proposed project area. Additionally, WPC has received approval from ADFG and USFWS to given the known migration patterns of the anadromous fish populations (see Consultation Section below). v. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effects on aquatic resources will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vi. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. vii. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. viii. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on aquatic resources is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. 8 8 Exhibit E-28Page 77 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E ix. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is presented in Attachment A – Communication Records. x. LITERATURE CITED Durst, J. D. (2000). Fish habitats and use in the Tanana River floodplain near Big Delta, Alaska, 1999-2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, Juneau. Technical Report No. 01-05. 57 pp. Smith, Laurence C. Bryan L. Isacks, Brad Murray, and Arthur L. Bloom (1996). “Estimation of discharge from three braided rivers using synthetic aperture radar satellite imagery: Potential application to ungaged basins” Water Resources Research, Vol 32, No. 7, July 1996, pp. 2021-2034 Yarie, John, Leslie Viereck, Keith Van Cleve, and Phyllis Adams (1998). “Flooding and Ecosystem Dynamics Along the Tanana River” BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 9, Flooding: Natural and Managed (Sep., 1998), pp. 690-695 xi. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. d. Wildlife And Botanical Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Upland Plants A listing of the main plant species which can be found in the proposed project area is as follows: Common Name Scientific Name white spruce Picea glauca black spruce Picea mariana balsam poplar Populus balsamifera quaking aspen Populus tremuloides paper birch Betula papyrifera dwarf arctic birch Betula nana Exhibit E-29Page 78 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Common Name Scientific Name alder Alnus spp. willow Salix spp. bush cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa prickly rose Rosa acicularis highbush cranberry Viburnum edule wild iris Iris setosa reed-grass Calamagrostis spp. grass Gramineae sedge Carex spp. horsetail Equisetum spp. Wetland Plants There are no wetland plant communities within the project boundary nor will the project have any significant impact on wetland communities upstream or downstream of the installation. Wildlife Resources A list of local terrestrial wildlife species is given below. Black Bear Short-tailed Weasel Mink Red Squirrel Brown Bear Lynx Moose River Otter Beaver Marmot Muskrat Wolf Coyote Marten Red Fox Wolverine Avian Resources A list of local bird species is given below. Avian Resource Common Name Migratory Status Breeding Status Sp Su Fa Wi LOONS and GREEBES Red-throated Loon R no X X X Pacific Loon R no X X X Common Loon U probable X X X Horned Grebe U yes X X X Red-necked Grebe U probable X X X DUCKS, GEESE, and SWANS Trumpeter Swan U yes X X X Tundra Swan U no X X X Canada Goose U no X X X Table E.2: Botanical Life Present in Project Area Table E.3: Wildlife Present in Project Area Exhibit E-30Page 79 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Avian Resource Common Name Migratory Status Breeding Status Sp Su Fa Wi Greater White-fronted Goose C no X X X Lesser Snow Goose R no X X Green-winged Teal U yes X X X Blue-winged Teal R no X X X Mallard U yes X X X Northern Pintail U yes X X X Northern Shoveler U yes X X X American Wigeon U yes X X X Redhead R possible X X Canvasback R possible X X X Ring-necked Duck U probable X X X Greater Scaup U yes X X Lesser Scaup U probable X X X Long-tailed Duck R no X X X Surf Scoter R no X X X Black Scoter R possible X X X White-winged Scoter R possible X X X Harlequin Duck R no X X X Common Goldeneye C yes X X X Barrow’s Goldeneye R possible X X X Bufflehead U yes X X X Common Merganser U possible X X X X Red-brested Merganser U possible X X X Osprey R no X X X HAWKS, EAGLES, and FALCONS Bald Eagle R no X X X X Northern Harrier U probable X X X Sharp-shinned Hawk U probable X X X Northern Goshawk U yes X X X X Swainson's Hawk R no X X X Red-tailed Hawk U yes X X X Rough-legged Hawk R possible X X Golden Eagle R yes X X X American Kestrel R probable X X X Merlin R probable X X X Peregrin Falcon R possible X X X Gyrfalcon R possible X X X X GROUSE Spruce Grouse C yes X X X X Ruffed Grouse C yes X X X X Exhibit E-31Page 80 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Avian Resource Common Name Migratory Status Breeding Status Sp Su Fa Wi Sharp-tailed Grouse C yes X X X X Willow Ptarmigan U yes X X X X Rock Ptarmigan R yes X X X X White-tailed Ptarmigan R possible X X X X CRANES Sandhill Crane C possible X X X PLOVERS Black-bellied Plover R no X X X American Golden-Plover U probable X X X Semipalmated Plover U probable X X X SANDPIPERS, PHALAROPES, and ALLIES Killdeer R no X X X Greater Yellowlegs R yes X X X Lesser Yellowlegs U yes X X X Solitary Sandpiper R yes X X X Wandering Tattler R no X X X Spotted Sandpiper C yes X X X Upland Sandpiper C yes X X X Whimbrel R possible X X Long-billed Dowitcher R no X X X Ruddy Turnstone R no X Semipalmated Sandpiper R no X X X Western Sandpiper R no X X Surfbird R possible X X X Least Sandpiper U possible X X X Dunlin U no X X X Wilson's Snipe U yes X X X Red-necked Phalarope R possible X X X JAEGERS Parasitic Jaeger R no X X Long-tailed Jaeger R no X X X GULLS and TERNS Bonaparte’s Gull R no X X X Mew Gull C yes X X X Herring Gull U no X X X Glaucous-winged Gull R no X X Arctic Tern U possible X X X Rock pigeon R possible X X X X Great Horned Owl yes X X X X Snowy Owl R no X Exhibit E-32Page 81 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Avian Resource Common Name Migratory Status Breeding Status Sp Su Fa Wi Northern Hawk Owl yes X X X X Great Gray Owl probable X X X X Boreal Owl probable X X X X Short-eared Owl R yes X X X Belted Kingfisher R probable X X X Downy Woodpecker yes X X X X Hairy Woodpecker yes X X X X Three-toed Woodpecker yes X X X X Black-backed Woodpecker yes X X X X Yellow-shafted Flicker U yes X X X Olive-sided Flycatcher R yes X X X Western Wood-Pewee R yes X X X Alder Flycatcher C yes X X X Hammond’s Flycatcher U yes X X X Say's Phoebe U X X X Horned Lark U yes X X X Tree Swallow U yes X X X Violet-green Swallow U probable X X X Bank Swallow C yes X X X Cliff Swallow C yes X X X Barn Swallow R possible X X X Gray Jay C yes X X X X Black-billed Magpie U possible X X X X Common Raven C yes X X X X Black-capped Chickadee C yes X X X X Boreal Chickadee C yes X X X X Red-breasted Nuthatch R possible X X X X Ruby-crowned Kinglet C yes X X X Brown Creeper R no X X X X American Dipper R probable X X X X Northern Wheatear R possible X X X Townsend’s Solitaire R possible X X X Mountain Bluebird R yes X X X Gray-cheeked Thrush R yes X X X Swainson’s Thrush C yes X X X Hermit Thrush C yes X X X American Robin C yes X X X Varied Thrush R yes X X X American Pipit U probable X X X Bohemian Waxwing U probable X X X X Exhibit E-33Page 82 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Avian Resource Common Name Migratory Status Breeding Status Sp Su Fa Wi Northern Shrike R probable X X X X Orange-crowned Warbler C yes X X X Yellow Warbler C yes X X X Yellow-rumped Warbler C yes X X X Townsend’s Warbler R yes X X X Blackpoll Warbler R yes X X X Common Yellowthroat R no X Wilson’s Warbler C yes X X X Northern Waterthrush R yes X X X American Tree Sparrow C yes X X X Savannah Sparrow C yes X X X Fox Sparrow C yes X X X Chipping Sparrow U yes X X X Lincoln’s Sparrow U yes X X X Golden-crowned Sparrow R no X X X White-crowned Sparrow C yes X X X Dark-eyed Junco C yes X X X Lapland Longspur U possible X X X Smith's Longspur R probable X X X Snow Bunting U no X X X X Red-winged Blackbird R no X X X Brown-headed Cowbird R no X X X Rusty Blackbird R possible X X X Gray-crowned Rosy-finch R no X X X X Pine Grosbeak U probable X X X X White-winged Crossbill U yes X X X X Common Redpoll C yes X X X X Hoary Redpoll R no X X X Pine Siskin R no X X X X ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS WPC has no reason to believe that any of the local terrestrial wildlife species listed above will be impacted by the proposed project in any way nor have any of the regulatory agencies we have approached expressed any concern for any wildlife species. The lack of any significant effect on aquatic resources would avoid harming the food sources of many birds and wildlife species. The traffic of wild game within the project location is extremely limited. The sheer rock faces at the mooring location of the float prohibit most species other than small furbearers such as squirrels, marmots and weasels. In addition, the swift water at the mooring Table E.4: Avian Life Present in Project Area Exhibit E-34Page 83 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E location renders it an unattractive location for predators to fish or hunt. At the construction location, there is also very limited activity although moose frequent the location as well as bears and other species listed below. The construction of the project will cover 6 weeks during the spring and will not recur until the project is dismantled in approximately the same amount of time or less three years later. Storage of maintenance materials at the location will not be an additional disturbance to the wildlife as the location is already in use as a boat landing and staging area for the Community of Whitestone (see Consultation Section below). iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effects on terrestrial resources will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on terrestrial resources is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is presented Attachment A – Communication Records. Documentation is organized alphabetically by agency. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. 8 8 Exhibit E-35Page 84 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. e. Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitat i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION There are no wetlands within the project area. Shore-based facilities are located on lands with no hydrophilic vegetation or saturated soils. Likewise, no riparian or littoral habitats will be impacted. The craft will be moored to the opposite bank. The mooring location of the craft and power line intertie is an almost sheer rock face. The rock is composed of schist and biotite gneiss. A map showing project area geology can be found in Exhibit G. These rocks have been recommended as being relatively hard and advantageous for anchoring. Not more than 100 individual anchors having a length not greater than 5-ft and a diameter of not more than 2-in will be drilled into the rock faces to support the mooring of the float and the anchoring of the overland armored electrical cable. These anchors will not require any digging or soils removal, they will be drilled into the rock and grouted in place. At the conclusion of the project, they will be cut off and ground flat with the rock surface. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The shore-based supports of the proposed project will be situated on solid rock, sand, and cobble sediments. No wetland, riparian, or littoral environmental will be impacted. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effects on wetland, riparian, or littoral environments will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 8 Exhibit E-36Page 85 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on wetland resources is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is presented Attachment A – Communication Records. Documentation is organized alphabetically by agency viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. f. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION WPC has received assurance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service that there are no rare, threatened or endangered species present or migratory through the project area. Documentation is provided in Attachment A – Communication Records. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS No rare, threatened, or endangered species are present at the proposed project location. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES 8 Exhibit E-37Page 86 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Any effects on rare, threatened, or endangered species will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on rare, threatened, or endangered species is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is presented Attachment A – Communication Records. Documentation is organized alphabetically by agency. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. g. Recreational Land Use and Boating Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION The portion of the Tanana River being proposed for use under this pilot project license application is not a recreational resource. Due to its remoteness, temperature and unpredictable flow patterns, it is not a popular place for 8 8 Exhibit E-38Page 87 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E swimming, fishing or recreational boating. The proposed project is approximately ¼ mile downstream of the only observed recreational fishing spot in the project vicinity. It is also on the opposite side of the river from it and at a location almost completely inaccessible from shore. There are no trails, lookouts or other known recreational resources within the project boundary. There is a small amount of boating transportation that occurs in this portion of the river. This traffic has been reported and observed to include only commuter traffic that does not make use of the proposed project area of the river. This traffic amounts to about 1 boat per hour during the daylight hours. This portion of the river has not been designated a state or federal park or wildlife refuge and is not part of any tribal lands. In addition, because it is not in an organized borough or county, there is very little interest from the public in developing new recreational resources in this area. For the purpose of this discussion there are almost no recreational activities within the project boundary. There have been some observed climbing/hiking activities upstream of the project area. These incidents are infrequent and tend to occur at least 100 yards upstream of the project location for the nearest reported activities. Generally, these occurrences are fewer than once per week and generally involve only 2-3 people at a time. The location of the power transmission line is in very dense vegetation and extremely steep slopes which have no reported traffic at all. In addition, the armored cable will be placed on the ground (no poles or excavations) and is designed to survive high force impacts of sharp objects without sustaining significant damage. Casual hikers are very unlikely to access this area and if they do will be even less likely to be able to be hurt due to the electricity in the cable or any part of this installation. WPC has reached out to the Tanana Valley Watershed Council and the Fairbanks Paddlers Association. WPC received a response from the Fairbanks Paddlers Association indicating that there is very little recreational boating in the area and that if proper demarcation is used, it should not pose a risk to boaters. A copy of this comment can be found in the communication record. Due to the extremely low incidence of recreational boating an estimate of its amount is very difficult. It is certain that it never occurs earlier than June or later than September. Overall it probably includes fewer than a dozen boats each summer. In addition no local residents have raised any concerns during comment periods or at any other time regarding the impact on recreational resources. WPC also received a letter from the NFWS stating that recreational fishing would not be negatively impacted by the project. Measures to protect the recreating public from any harmful interaction with the device are described in the Safeguard Plan in Exhibit A. Signs will be placed on the Exhibit E-39Page 88 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E craft warning the public of any dangers. In addition, one railing around the outer edge of the craft will make entry difficult. Should this be trespassed, a second railing will protect the intruder from the wheel. All electrical controls and mechanical levers will be locked and made as inaccessible to unauthorized personnel as possible. WPC has received a temporary water use permit from the ADNR which states that there are no anticipated impacts to boating within the project boundary. There is a boat launch approximately ½ mile upstream from the project location. However, almost none of the traffic from that location flows downstream. Instead, the great majority of it uses the launch to access recreational homes on the Goodpaster River several miles upstream of the project location. The location where the project will be constructed is used as a boat launch for the community of Whitestone. However, local consultation has shown there is enough room for the project to be constructed without disturbing the use of the location as a boat launch. Additionally, the project is planned to be constructed in April which is before the boating season really begins at Whitestone due to the cold weather. The lands being used for the power line intertie easement are wholly unused at this time since they are on an almost shear bluff face. WPC has already been issued an exclusive easement for the use of these lands from the ADNR. The low density of traffic in the area further decreases the danger of a collision or other catastrophe. WPC’s studies have estimated average boating traffic to be less than one small craft per hour between the hours of 6 AM and 8 PM. Night time traffic is almost non-existent. The largest observed boats are 30 ft outboard boats used by residents of the nearby community of Whitestone for transportation and commuting. The debris diversion cable at the front of the craft will also help divert boats from the craft in the case of a collision. Should a boat make it over this cable, the front of the craft is an aluminum deck 18” from the water line. This will provide a full stop for any boats that are not diverted by the cable. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The proposed project will have a small foot print on one of the shores of the Tanana River located at the confluence of the Delta and Tanana Rivers. The project will be located on the north bank of the river. Land use in the area is limited. All lands proposed to be used for the purposes of the project are owned in full by the State of Alaska. WPC has received permits from the ADNR to use the proposed lands for the project. Exhibit E-40Page 89 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Approximately 900-feet downstream of the proposed project location a high voltage power distribution line owned and operated by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) crosses the river from the bluff on the north side of the river to the low bank on the south shore. Approximately 1,500-feet downstream of the proposed project location and on the opposite bank of the river from the proposed project location is the primary docking location for the residents of the community of Whitestone. Whitestone has a population of 167 people according to the 2010 US Census. At any given time, as many as 6 boats are moored at the dock. Over the past two years WPC has been conducting a debris study at the proposed project location. At no time during this period has more than 6 boats been seen docked at the boat launch. This dock will not be used for any part of the construction or maintenance of the project. The traffic past the project location averages about 1 boat every hour. Traffic is somewhat slower at night than during the day. All the traffic on the river at the proposed project location is commuter traffic. There is no recreational boating in the area. WPC has contacted the Tanana Valley Watershed Association and the Fairbanks Paddlers and has not received any comment from them regarding this area. The Richardson Highway Bridge 524 (owned and operated by the Department of Transportation) is located approximately 1/2 mile upstream of the proposed project location. The proposed project location is partially visible from the bridge due to the protrusion of the bluff located on the north shore of the river. Approximately 500-feet upstream of the Richardson Highway Bridge 524 is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline bridge which is operated and maintained by the Alyeska Service Company. Between these two bridges, a boat launch is located on the south shore of the river which is used by residents of Whitestone as well as by recreational boaters who go upstream to cabins and fishing spots on the Goodpaster and Clearwater rivers. Approximately one mile upstream of the proposed project location, Rika's Roadhouse and Landing, a State of Alaska Historical Park, is located. This park is open for tourist traffic in the summer from May 15 through September 15. This state park constitutes the only economic activity in the proposed project area. WPC has no reason to believe that the infrequent use of the area for recreational land use will be impacted by the proposed project. No recreational organizations responded to letters requesting input. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Fairbanks Paddlers. Responses received are located in Attachment A - Communication Record. Exhibit E-41Page 90 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Any effect on recreating boaters, hikers, or other users of the proposed project area will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). The annual costs for “Testing, Monitoring and Surveillance” are detailed in Exhibit A, Section 7. We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on recreational uses is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with the National Park Service, the US Coast Guard (USCG), the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and local government and tribal entities is documented in Attachment A – Communication Records. Documentation is organized alphabetically by agency. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. h. Aesthetic Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 8 8 Exhibit E-42Page 91 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E The proposed project location is a very lightly populated area (fewer than 200 people and only one waterfront property) which is largely virgin forest land. The impact of this small installation is unlikely to be significant. The float itself has a footprint of 28-ft x 23-ft and the on shore foot print will be even smaller. Although some trees may need to be cut down, the project will use the existing GVEA easement as much as possible to facilitate installations. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The installation of the device, which will be removed each winter, will not cause significant environmental effects to the aesthetics of the area. However, the project will be partially visible from the Richardson Highway Bridge 524. The turbine itself would be visible from the bridge but the support struts, mooring anchors and power transmission line would not be visible. The use of muted colors (black, gray, forest green) for all components of the float and turbine will help the installation to be less obtrusive to the viewshed. The entire installation will be visible from the Whitestone dock and dock parking some 1500 feet downstream of the installation. However, the transmission line will be obscured by the heavy vegetation which grows along the transmission line path. Although a small easement (5-10 ft wide) will be cleared to install the transmission line, it is expected that this easement vegetation will regrow within one season. The staging area which will also be the storage area for spare parts and equipment will be located near the Whitestone dock (approximately 150 ft away) and will be entirely visible from the dock and dock parking area. As mentioned previously, high efficiency LED lighting will be used to demarcate the craft in low lighting or bad weather. These lights will not be designed to illuminate the area but merely to serve as marker lights similar to those found on automobiles. These lights will run only at night and will be as few in number as possible while still properly demarcating the boundaries of the installation. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES In general, muted, flat colors which do not contrast with the surrounding environment will be used whenever possible. Black plastics, unpolished aluminum in its natural gray color and any steel components in a gray galvanized color will be used for the great majority of all visible surfaces, minimizing aesthetic impacts. Exhibit E-43Page 92 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Any effect of the project’s on the aesthetics of the proposed project area will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The project will add two small installations which will be visible both during the day and at night. Their aesthetic effect will be minimal. Mockups of appearance of the installation can be seen in the following figures. Figure 1: West-Facing Projected View of Craft Appearance E.27: West-Facing Projected View of Craft Appearance 8 Exhibit E-44Page 93 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E Figure 2: North-facing Projected View of Craft Appearance v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). The annual costs for “Testing, Monitoring and Surveillance” are detailed in Exhibit A, Section 7. We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on recreational uses is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and local government and tribal entities documented in Attachment A – Communication Records. E.28: North-Facing Projected View of Craft Appearance Table A.3. 8 Exhibit E-45Page 94 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. i. Cultural Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, federal agencies must take into account the effects of federal actions in historic properties and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opportunity to comment on actions and decisions. Consultation related to historic properties is conducted with state historic preservation officers. Also under the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992), federally recognized Native American Tribes can assume the position of a state historic preservation officer for any activities affecting tribal lands. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS Due to the absence of historical significance associated with any artifacts or locations within the project area, there are no expected impacts to the cultural environment of the area. As part of a project conducted with the Denali Commission from 2007 – 2009, the Alaska SHPO conducted a study of the proposed project area and concluded that there were no historic landmarks or resources within the proposed project location. WPC has received a letter from the Alaska SHPO confirming that the earlier finding does apply to the proposed project and that no historic properties exist within the project boundary. WPC consulted with the SHPO and both parties discussed the project area in relation to the study performed for the above referenced Denali Commission project. A copy of this study can be found in the communication record. Mr. Selvaggio indicated to the SHPO that the anchoring location would be 600-ft – 1,000-ft upstream of the GVEA power line which can be seen in the drawings in Exhibit G. The SHPO emailed a certification of no expected impacts. This email can be found in the communication record. Exhibit E-46Page 95 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effect the proposed project may have on cultural resources will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on recreational uses is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer is documented in Attachment A – Communication Records. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. j. Socioeconomic Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 8 8 Exhibit E-47Page 96 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E The community of Whitestone has been recorded as a separate community designated place under the auspices of the U.S. Census Bureau for the first time in 2010. The total population of the community is under 167 people. During the genesis of this project, the community was paying over $0.30 per kWh. In 2009, the community was tied into the GVEA grid for the first time which resulted in a cost reduction of 50%. However, this installation promises to produce power even more reasonably. In addition, the overriding purpose of this project is to produce a solution that is applicable state wide and provide energy cost reductions for communities with far higher energy costs. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The proposed project would not likely have any negative impact to the local economy. To the contrary, the proposed project will benefit the local economy through job creation and reduced energy prices. The job creation aspect of the project would only apply to the construction part of it since staff already employed by WPC to monitor its various facilities would take on the minimal maintenance of this facility in addition to their current duties. Unfortunately, due to the limited resources of the area, the Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 would likely be manufactured in either Fairbanks or Anchorage and then shipped to Whitestone for installation. As such, the job creation is likely to include fewer than five people and only for a few months. The cost of construction, deployment and intertie is not expected to exceed $1,400,000. At this point in time WPC hopes to obtain the necessary funds through various federal and state grant opportunities. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effect the proposed project may have on socioeconomics will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). The annual costs for “Testing, Monitoring and Surveillance” including the wage rates and man-hour estimates are detailed in Exhibit A, Section 7. We expect no 8 Table A.3. Exhibit E-48Page 97 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires the Commission to consider whether or not, and under what conditions, the project would be consistent with relevant comprehensive plans on the Commission’s comprehensive plan list. WPC has reviewed the plans on the list and believes that none of them are relevant to the proposed project. However, at the Commission's request, WPC investigated the relevance of 5 comprehensive plans relative to the proposed project. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with US Coast Guard, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and local government and tribal organizations is documented in Attachment A – Communication Record. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. k. Tribal Resources i. RESOURCE DESCRIPTION This location is not part of any tribal lands. In addition, at the request of the Commission, WPC attempted to contact 5 tribal councils. WPC received feedback from only the Dot Lake Traditional Council stating interest in the outcome of the project and support for the effort to lower energy prices for remote communities in Alaska. WPC believes the project will not affect any tribal resources and this is corroborated by the lack of interest in participating the process despite repeated efforts both by the Commission and WPC to contact them. The letters and response can be found in the Communication Record. The map in Exhibit G shows the relative size and location of the project boundary with relation to the nearest tribal Exhibit E-49Page 98 FERC Project 13305 - Exhibit E lands. As can be seen from the map, the proposed project will not have any impacts on these tribal resources. ii. RESOURCE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The proposed project will not have any impact on tribal resources. iii. RESOURCE EFFECTS MEASURES Any effect the proposed project may have on tribal resources will be observed as part of the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. iv. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project is not expected to create any unavoidable adverse impacts. v. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The construction cost of the project is detailed in Exhibit A, Section 1(b). We expect no additional construction or developmental resource costs that might relate to protection, mitigation, or enhancement of this resource area. vi. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Monitoring any effect of the proposed project on recreational uses is consistent with the environmental monitoring plan described in this application’s Exhibit A, Section 9.a.i. vii. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION Consultation with local tribal organizations is documented in Attachment A – Communication Record. viii. LITERATURE CITED No literature cited. ix. ACTION ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternatives were considered as part of this Environmental Exhibit. The proposed project design and geographic situation are considered the single best possible alternative. 8 8 Exhibit E-50Page 99 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A APPROXIMATE WATER LEVEL 3.50 DEBRIS DIVERSION CONE ANCHORING/ DEBRIS DIVERSION CABLE (APPROXIMATE LENGTH 100 FT) BRIDGE ANCHORING CABLES (APPROXIMATE LENGTH 60 FT) 40.0 N/A 12/13/2011ANCHOR CABLE ELEVATION 50:1 SEW N/A N/A N/A Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A R18R18 150ƒ1.00 1.00 1.00 14.879.87 48.0 13.7 6.1 R9 65ƒ B2000 SERIES MARCH 1, 2011 D 1000 0.13:1 SAS 36 1 BLADE Page 103 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A DEBRIS DEFLECTION CONE 48" DRAPE FORMED HDPE BLADE ANCHORING/DEBRIS DIVERSION CABLE HDPE PONTOON BREVINNI EPICYCLIC TRANSMISSION PERMANENT MAGNET GENERATOR 5TH WHEEL/KINGPIN ATTACHMENT PINNED MODULAR STRUT/BRIDGE SCREW JACK HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM 40:1 CRAFT FRONT VIEW 12/13/2011 SEW Page 104 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A SHORELINE DEBRIS DIVERSION CABLE 40:1 CRAFT ISOMETRIC VIEW 12/13/2011 SEW Page 105 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A DEBRIS DEFLECTION CONE CHOKE TRANSFORMER ELECTRICAL CONTROLS CABINET 48" DRAPE FORMED HDPE TURBINE BLADES 3/8" BRIDGE MOORING CABLE 3/4" ANCHORING/DEBRIS DEFLECTION CABLE HDPE PONTOONS 430.00 198.0 ALUMINUM DECKING MODULAR ALUMINUM WHEEL FRAME FLOW DIRECTION 40:1 CRAFT RIGHT SIDE VIEW 12/13/2011 SEW Page 106 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A BREVINNI EPICYCLIC TRANSMISSION PERMANENT MAGNET GENERATOR FLOW DIRECTION DEBRIS DEFLECTION CONE RIGID STRUT/BRIDGE 12/13/2011 SEW CRAFT TOP VIEW 40:1 Page 107 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTANIED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A 112ƒ 36 75.4 36 38.0 111ƒ 71.676.8 84.6 16 24 20 45.6 18.018.0 618 4 18 4 18 .5 .5 12 4 12 1 1 QUANTITY: 1 EA. PART CONSTRUCTED FROM 5086 H34 ALUMINUM. ALL CONSTRUCTION FROM 1 8 " SHEET EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL JOINTS FULL WELDED (1 4 " FILLET WELDS). ALL HOLES DRILLED AT ASSEMBLY. 120.0 26" DIA. (TYP OF 2) DRILL THRU BOTTOM PLATE 1.03" DIA. (TYP OF 24) 30 STOCK SIZE STOCK SIZE .375", 4 SIDES .25" 4 SIDES C1007 1 MARCH 1, 2011 SAS NON-TORQUE SIDE WALKWAY C3000 SERIES1/8 N/A Page 108 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTANIED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A 36 120 180 48 6 6 4.3 4 48.9 4 102 168 133 .25 .75 12.610.8 42.9 408 QUANTITY: 1 EA. PART CONSTRUCTED FROM 5086 H34 ALUMINUM. ALL JOINTS FULL WELDED (1 4 " FILLET WELDS). ALL HOLES DRILLED AFTER WELDMENT IS COMPLETE. 4.5 4.0 7.00 4.75 23.00 46.00 28.00 HOLES DRILLED AT ASSY. (TYP OF 8) 28.00 28.00 36.128.00 DRILL THRU .78" DIA. (TYP OF 32) STOCK SIZE STOCK SIZE 1 STOCK SIZE Transmission Side Pontoon Mounting Plate SASC 1003 1:30 MARCH 1, 2011 C- SERIES 1 HOLES DRILLED AT ASSEMBLY (TYP OF 4) 24 90.0 248.0 360.0 26" DIA. (TYP OF 4) DRILL THRU 1.03" DIA. (TYP OF 48) ALL HOLES EQUALLY SPACED 15.0ƒ 30.0ƒ N/A 0.25 408See Note Page 109 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTANIED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A 124.042.0 18 32.0 81818 4 32 32 135ƒ135ƒ 36.8 36.8 36 36 12 4 8 1 1 30.0ƒ 15.0ƒ QUANTITY: 1 EA. CONSTRUCT PART FROM 5086 H34 ALUMINUM. CONSTRUCTION FROM 1 8 " SHEET UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ALL JOINTS FULL WELDED (1 4 " FILLET WELDS). DRILL ALL HOLES AT ASSEMBLY. 30 15.0158.00 26" DIA. (TYP OF 2) DRILL THRU BOTTOM PLATE 1.03 DIA. (TYP OF 24) 1/8 C 1001 TRANSMISSION WALKWAY 1:1 MARCH 1, 2011 SAS C- SERIES 11 Page 110 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 A A B B C C D D HASZ CONSULTING, LLC QUANTITY TOLERANCES DRAWN BY PAGE DRAWING TITLE PROJECT NAME DATE APPROVED BY PART NUMBERTHE DESIGN CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING WAS ORIGINATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HASZ CONSULTING, LLC. IT IS FURNISHED FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION ONLY, AND IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION OR TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS. 931 INDUSTRIAL LOOP DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737-1229 STOCK SIZE SCALE MATERIAL REVISION HEAT TREAT ASSEMBLY NUMBER J HASZ, PE PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 5086 H34 ALUMINUM 1 OF 11 0 DEC. +/- .125 1 DEC. +/- .063 2 DEC. +/- .01 3 DEC. +/- .005 DIMENSIONS IN INCHES N/A 36.00 12.00 P28.00 14.76 60.00 42.00 145.0029.50 148.00 43.75 MOUNTING FLANGE TRANSMISSION MOUNTING FLANGE 12/13/2011 SEW 40:1 WHEEL FRAME ASSEMBLY Page 111 EXHIBIT G PROJECT BOUNDARY MAPS The project boundary is within that granted under the preliminary permit issued to WPC under Project No. 13305 and is shown below. The exact location of the device within the project boundary is proposed to be 64°09'22.66" N, 145°51'39.88" W on the right bank of the Tanana River near the community of Whitestone. Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 1 of 51 Final Project Report Project Title: Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Covering Period: October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 Date of Report: September 23, 2011 Recipient: Whitestone Power and Communications Award Number: DE-EE0004573 Working Partners: Hasz Consulting, LLC; CE2 Engineers; Energetic Drives, LLC; Applied Power and Control Cost-Sharing Partners: Hasz Consulting, LLC Contacts: John R. Hasz, President, 907-895-4770 jrhasz@haszconsulting.com DOE Project Team: DOE HQ Program Manager – Jacques Beaudry-Losique DOE Field Contract Officer – Pam Brodie DOE Field Contract Specialist – Jane Sanders DOE Field Project Officer – Tim Ramsey DOE/NAVARRO Project Monitor – Samantha Quinn Page 118 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 2 of 51 Table Of Contents___________________________ Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................3 Project Objectives .........................................................................................................................5 Design Paradigm ...........................................................................................................................7 Components Outline ...................................................................................................................11 Float/Craft ..............................................................................................................................12 Decking ..................................................................................................................................13 Anchoring ..............................................................................................................................19 Turbine/Transmission ............................................................................................................25 Power Generation/Conditioning ............................................................................................45 Electrics/Controls/Monitoring ...............................................................................................47 Collaboration...............................................................................................................................50 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................50 Page 119 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 3 of 51 Executive Summary The efforts of this project were primarily devoted toward developing a practical River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) device for Alaskan rivers. This resulted in several important benefits to RISEC research specifically, and for alternative energy research in general. 1. Surveying and site analysis - This project contributed significantly toward determining suitable sites for RISEC application in Alaska, as well as providing precisely surveyed maps of the area. 2. Theoretical Modeling - The project also contributed theoretical models for all structural components. These models were thoroughly analyzed using analytical closed-form equations as well as finite element analysis. Additionally, kinetic flux and power output calculations were applied and validated. 3. Prototyping and Experimentation - Several important components, notably turbine blade and mounting components were prototyped and tested. These tests validated analytical predictions; resulted in refined, broadly applicable engineered solutions; and contributed to a cohesive body of knowledge regarding RISEC design methodology. 4. Application Paradigms- This project required the formulation of specific strategies regarding logistics, debris management, craft assembly and deployment, RISEC/grid interfacing and craft anchoring. Many of these approaches simplified RISEC implementation across a broad scope of project scenarios. Effectiveness and Feasibility Four crucial factors justify the economic and technical applicability of the device as follows: 1. Efficiency Paradigm - This project analyzed attempted applications of RISEC technology in Alaska, and concluded that two primary factors determine system efficiency - turbine efficiency and operational up-time. Many turbines with high theoretical efficiency were investigated, but in the debris laden Alaskan waters, potential down-time and costly maintenance and repairs prevented meaningful application. This project formulated a design which combined efficient power extraction with high robustness. This ensured continuous and consistent output across a wide range of environmental conditions. 2. Remote Location Application - Economic effectiveness is largely contingent on the pay-off period of an installed device. This particular device is designed for Alaskan villages, which may have kilowatt-hour costs of up to $0.90. A current economic model for a 100 KW model operating 8 months a year includes a 1.8 million dollar project cost covering component cost, assembly and installation. An average load of 100 kW at $0.90/kWh equates to $259,200 annually. A $1,800,000 installation will then yield a simplified return on investment of 7 years. Each installation is anticipated to function for 30 years, which would mean an average power cost of approximately $0.21/kWh. The project return on investment would be prohibitively long for locations with ready access to inexpensive power; however this installation is readily justifiable for application in Page 120 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 4 of 51 remote Alaskan villages. It is worth noting that the entire project cost is comparable to the price of a new diesel power plant. 3. Component Methodology - An important factor in providing efficient and low cost power was the design choice to integrate Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technology into the design wherever possible. This project integrated stock items for mechanical craft components such as pontoons, transmission, generator, connection and anchoring hardware. Additionally, the project integrated a novel electrical control system designed by Energetic Drives, LLC. This system integrated stock electrical components to provide efficient and clean power output, optimal turbine performance, and operational versatility. The choice to employ commercially available technology was beneficial for three reasons. First, the time devoted to designing new components was reduced, allowing more time to meaningful application research. Additionally, proper application of state of the art technology improved overall product performance. Finally, installation and replacement time and cost was reduced. 4. Permitting - Many novel concepts in RISEC technology have been discussed; however, many designs require permanent structures or involve disturbance of the riverbed and/or significant alteration of wildlife habitats. While these devices may eventually be successfully permitted, such design choices imply extensive permitting efforts. In contrast, this project involved closely working with permitting agencies to specifically engineer a design with streamlined and realistic permitting goals. While requiring adherence to strict design constraints, the resulting environmentally friendly design will ultimately pay off by reducing permitting time at each deployment site. Page 121 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 5 of 51 Project Objectives a) A feasibility study that describes the basic properties and operational characteristics of the technology, and identifies the technical and economic merits of the concept (TRL 1-2) i) Completed prior to the start of the project b) A preliminary design and engineering (TRL 1-2) i) Completed prior to the start of the project c) A systems engineering analysis that may include a needs analysis, requirements flowdown to define R&D pathways, work breakdown structure, concept definition, management plan, and risk assessment (TRL 1-2) i) Completed during the second quarter of the grant period d) Consider and identify potential deployment sites and the associated potential resource i) Completed prior to the start of the project e) Identification of the intended marine resource application, with potential extractable energy estimates i) Completed during the second quarter of the grant period f) Engineering and design focused on advancing the device/component for proof of concept modeling, developing solutions to technology hurdles, determining all components/subsystems, developing high fidelity estimates of such values as device/component size, weight, layout, interfacing and performance (TRL 3) i) Completed during the second quarter of the grant period g) Small scale prototyping and testing of components to reduce uncertainty provide input into numeric models and validate high level assumptions (TRL 3) i) Planned Work for the Quarter: It was planned to complete this task during the fourth quarter. ii) Actual Work Completed During the Quarter: This task was partially complete when the project began. The gearbox transmission, permanent magnet generator, electronic controls systems, floatation systems, anchoring systems and propulsion systems were individually tested to the satisfaction of the WPC technical team. However, the design of the prime mover wheel and the blades which engage with the water required more resources than originally planned. As a result, the process of prototyping this component and initiating the completion of a scale model of the entire system was delayed until the fourth quarter. iii) Explanation of Variance: The design of the blades changed substantially from the conceptual design model delineated in the conceptual design report (CDR) submitted with the initial application to DOE. For this reason, prototyping was delayed till the fourth quarter. All component prototyping has now been completed. h) Assess Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) equipment that can be employed within the system i) Completed prior to the start of the project i) Develop specifications for a proof-of-concept model and fabrication plan/costing i) Completed during the second quarter of the grant period j) Test and integration plan i) Completed during the third quarter of the grant period k) Numerical model(s) and simulation(s) i) Planned Work for the Quarter: It was planned to complete this task during the fourth quarter. ii) Actual Work Completed During the Quarter: This task was completed in full during the quarter. iii) Explanation of Variance: Due to a greater research burden than originally anticipated, the design of the blades for the prime mover was not ready for prototyping as quickly as planned. That process is now complete with the result of full validation of the theoretical design. Page 122 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 6 of 51 l) Assessment of risks and barriers - resource, environmental, ecological, stakeholder, etc. Define a proposed follow-on RD&D effort that seeks to prove out the concept i) Completed during the third quarter of the grant period m) Conduct stage transition design reviews (go/no-go commitment criteria) i) Completed during the second quarter of the grant period n) Consider and discuss Permitting and NEPA requirements where needed to meet future testing and deployment plans. i) Completed prior to the start of the project Page 123 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 7 of 51 Design Paradigm Overall Design Criteria Alaskan river environments and permitting requirements have placed significant design constraints on hydrokinetic turbine development to date. Alaskan rivers tend to be swift, shallow and debris laden; and many potential areas for hydro power development are not readily accessible. Additionally, many rivers and streams are sensitive and environmentally significant habitats. This incurs significant challenges for RISEC development; consequently, the following stringent design criteria were developed: Environmental Criteria 1. Turbine shall not disturb the river bed, incur risks of pollution, or harm either land or aquatic habitats. 2. The system shall not involve any permanent structures. 3. The turbine shall not require impoundments or races to constrict or substantially alter water flow. Assembly Criteria 1. Turbine design shall be modular; turbines shall be easily specified and outfitted for a wide range of remote locations and power needs. 2. Turbine assembly and deployment shall be readily accomplished in remote locations without requiring on-site welding or machining. 3. All components shall be sized for easy shipping to any potential deployment location. Performance Criteria 1. Turbine must be able to produce power over a wide range of river height and velocity levels, and withstand high debris load flows. 2. Turbine shall have simple mechanical operation and low maintenance effort and costs. 3. Turbine shall be able to function consistently to provide standalone power, provide power cooperatively in tandem with one or more power sources, and provide power on an infinite grid. Engineered Solutions Modern research in hydrokinetic technology has typically focused on axial flow turbines such as Darrieus turbines, and vertical cross flow turbines such as Grashov or Kaplan turbines. Considerable research effort has been devoted to improving the coefficient of performance (power output/power available) for these turbines. These turbines typically turn at comparatively high RPM (60-100 RPM). Page 124 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 8 of 51 Most of the turbines above share the common drawback of requiring rapid rotation for efficient power production. Such lightly built turbine assemblies provide low torque, high speed operation, and are efficient when running. However, they remain vulnerable to debris collision. Additionally, full submersion demands a deployment depth no less than turbine height, and potentially threatens aquatic life. The solution considered here was an undershot cross flow turbine. The Poncelet style turbine extracts optimum energy when blade tips travel at 40% water speed, implying a high torque, low speed turbine. This would require a transmission for practical electric generation. It allowed for deployment in shallow water and a robust design attenuated problems encountered with debris collision. This design was eventually chosen for the project. Consequently the general design paradigm was as follows: The craft would consist of two pontoons supporting a deck. On this would be mounted the Poncelet style turbine, a transmission, an electrical generator, and any controls and electrical components. This assembly would be positioned in the current using an anchoring system entirely fastened to the river bank. Paradigm Shifts Within the context of the engineering solution above, several significant paths of design methodology were considered during development. Figure 1: Early embodiment of RISEC device Page 125 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 9 of 51 Navigation and Deployment Initial design concepts included a pilot station, controls, and motor on the craft itself. A self- propelled craft was certainly the most compact method of deployment, and eliminated the need for another vessel for moving the craft. However, this method required installing control, fuel storage, and a motor which would be used infrequently, and could not be otherwise utilized. Additionally, expensive and unmonitored components of this nature in a remote environment might increase the incidence of vandalism or theft. For this reason, a paradigm shift was made toward utilizing another boat to deploy the craft. To this end, a workboat with "pushing knees" was specified. This boat would be capable of pulling or pushing the craft into position, and would additionally be useful for transporting workers, tools, and components to and from the craft. The boat would be secured to the craft using a cabling system. In many remote communities, such boats are likely to be available to be rented for the project allaying any need to purchase additional hardware. Figure 2: Early Embodiment of RISEC device Power Generation The initial design involved using a compact, inexpensive induction generator for power. This paradigm involved low costs for the generator, but implied certain design constraints. For instance, an inductive generator required excitation to produce power, and had specific synchronous speeds it must exceed before it would produce power. This meant that certain mechanical braking controls would be installed. Additionally, an induction generator could not Page 126 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 10 of 51 be relied upon to provide standalone power. Essentially, the initial design would be more compact and inexpensive, but less versatile in application. A number of factors contributed to a significant paradigm shift regarding power generation. It was desirable to design a craft able to provide standalone power, interface with other power generation sources, and provide power to an infinite grid. Additionally, a search was conducted for a more efficient solution for providing clean power; this led to the discovery of and collaboration with Energetic Drives, LLC. The benefits in terms of power generation and mechanical simplification caused a significant paradigm shift; the final model had a more expensive and heavier permanent magnet generator. It was anticipated that, on balance, the benefits from mechanical simplification, efficiency, and versatility, would outweigh the costs of a permanent magnet generator. Figure 3: Final embodiment of RISEC device Page 127 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 11 of 51 Components Float/ Craft I. Pontoons 1. General Design Requirements (loading, debris, fastening) 2. Previous Designs (material selection process, manufacturing availability etc.) 3. Advantages of current design II. Decking 1. General Design Requirements (loading, twisting moment) 2. Design parameters (size, material, section geometry) 3. Advantages of current design Anchoring I. Cables 1. General Design Requirements 2. Vortex Shedding 3. Mounting Considerations (pulleys, height adjustments) 4. Debris (Shedding, deflection etc.) II. Rigid Strut 4. General Design Requirements a. Buckling Load b. Vertical Load c. Assembly d. Water level variation 5. Previous Designs a. Monopole b. Sliding Unit Types c. Fastening Types 6. Advantages of Current Design Turbine/ Transmission I. Blade Design 1. Previous Designs. 2. Geometry (dictated by Poncelet) 3. Materials (dictated by geometry <machinability issues>, loading) 4. FEA, analytical, experimental results II. Turbine Section Design 1. Design Requirements (modularity, simplicity, loading, etc.) 2. Previous Designs (axle/spoke, etc.) 3. Materials III. Bearings/adjustments 1. Design Requirements 2. Methods (screw jack, ball screw actuators etc.) IV. Transmission 1. Design Requirements (required gear reduction ratios) Page 128 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 12 of 51 2. Previous Designs (chain, belt drives etc.) 3. Benefits of Brevini two-stage epicyclic (coupling options, maintenance etc.) Power Generation/ Conditioning I. Generator 1. Design Requirements (rotation speed, power output, flexibility, cost, weight) 2. Previous Designs (induction generator) 3. Advantages of PM motor II. Conditioning 1. Design Requirement ( universal grid, stand-alone, diesel pairing) 2. Previous Designs 3. Advantages of Energetic Drives System Electrics/ Controls/ Monitoring I. SCADA controls 1. Design Requirements II. Emergency Alert System 1. Design Requirements Float/Craft The craft design was subject to specific operational requirements. In order to maximize stability and load handling, a pontoon mounted craft was specified. Pontoons The pontoon design had several requirements. Pontoons are required to be light, resistant to debris, tough, and equipped with appropriate fastening hardware. Initially, an aluminum design was considered. A pontoon with required floatation and weight was specified; however some concern was voiced that debris collision or dragging along rocky terrain during launch might dent or permanently deform pontoon skin. Additionally, aluminum pontoons are comparatively heavy. Fiberglass pontoons were also investigated. However, fiberglass was considered more likely to crack or splinter under collision or abrade if dragged over gravel or rocks during deployment. Having rejected the idea of using fiberglass or aluminum pontoons, the concept of high-density- polyethylene (HDPE) pontoons was investigated. HDPE has low flexural stiffness; however a stiffening channel section fastened on top attenuated this problem. It was recommended to fill the pontoon with closed cell foam to ensure continued floatation in case of hull failure. Additionally a steel plated pulling head option for cable attachment was offered with a load capacity of over 200,000 lbs. This exceeded operational requirements for anchoring. An Page 129 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 13 of 51 aluminum cone would be installed over the pulling head to reduce the energy loss due to the occurrence of turbulent flow around the pontoons. The advantages of this design were numerous. The resulting pontoons were comparatively light, structurally sound, tough, relatively inexpensive, and offered robust performance during deployment and operational phases. Decking Due to a combination of design choices, the craft was specified with a turbine mounted with a generator on one side and a free bearing on the other. During operation, this implied a twisting moment between the torque (generator mount) side and the non-torque (plain bearing) side of the craft. The force distribution through the pontoons, decking, and frame components was complex. Understanding the forces and designing components to withstand them, was a crucial aspect of project development. The torque is transmitted to the frame through the generator mount and exerts a rotational moment on the pontoon which "buries" the upstream side of the pontoon and lifts the downstream side. The torque is transmitted through the decking (which is rigidly attached to the mounting channels on each pontoon) to the plain bearing mount pontoon. Thus the pontoons share the torque loading of the blades by rotating to equilibrium. Any difference in co-planarity of the pontoons would be due to distortion in the decking. Additionally, anchor cable placement implied a compressive axial load in the decking. First it was desirable to determine what angle of heel the craft would assume due to the torque, and then assess the internal stresses in the craft frame the moment would create. Assuming a static equilibrium, it was assumed that the torque moment must be resisted by an equal and opposite "righting moment". This may be related to the angle of heel by the following equation: cmetacentridisplacedHeightVolumeMR.. where α is the angle of heel, in radians, γ is the density of water, and metacentric height the distance between the metacenter and center of gravity of the craft. To determine values for substitution, first the center of gravity was calculated. For a given number of objects with known heights and weights, this may be expressed: n nn WeightWeightWeight HeightWeightHeightWeightHeightWeight   .... ... 21 2211 A simplified center of gravity for craft + wheel was estimated as follows: A 15,000 pound craft with CG at 4 feet, 5000 pound wheel with CG at 7 feet. Page 130 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 14 of 51 75.4000,20 750004000,15  Thus a simplified estimate of CG is 4.75 feet. The center of buoyancy could be readily calculated by determining the CG of displaced water. This was done by simplifying the model analytically by assuming the minor center of buoyancy change under loading makes a negligible difference in calculations- this was validated later. A weight of 20,000 lbs in water with a density of 62.5 pounds per cubic foot required 320 cubic feet of displacement. To simplify calculations, the pontoons were considered to have a square rather than round cross section - the difference being assumed negligible (this too was validated later, as will be seen). For a 34 foot simplified pontoon of 3.5 foot width and height, the immersion height is 2.68 feet. Metacentric Height is calculated as follows: buoyancygravity displaced cmetacentri CenterCenterVolume IHeight  It is clear that the primary factor in metacentric height is inertia controlled, so the simplifications of square pontoons and small heel angle are validated since they have negligible effect- the metacentric height was then 194.47 - 4.75 + 2.68 = 192.4 feet Thus the overall craft angle of heel is calculated by substituting into equation above: deg56.1027.0 4.1923204.62 000,105.. 3 3   radians ftftft lb lbft HeightVolume MR cmetacentridisplaced  Since the decking provides the sole structural interface between these elements, the decking must be sufficiently stiff to withstand this torque. To this end, a decking solution was sought which would fasten between the pontoons. Such a decking design would need to be lightweight and resistant to bending and twisting- that is, a high polar and area moment of inertia. feetVolume LengthWidth Volume I displaced craftcraft displaced 47.19432012 3419 12 33    Page 131 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 15 of 51 Figure 4: Hollow decking section showing cross section with support rib Hollow, closed, geometric sections were chosen for decking cross-section, since they combine high area and polar inertial moment with low weight. The decking had an additional design constraint of being flat- this led to the choice of a hollow rectangular cross section. The area moment of inertia would be analytically expressed: 1212 33 innerinnerouterouterHeightWidthHeightWidth and bending stresses would be expressed: I CMoment where C is the distance from neutral axis to outer edge of beam, and I is area moment of inertia For an axial torque, the maximum shear loading for a thin walled beam is determined by first calculating shear flow in the hollow section: midlineArea Torqueq2 where q is the shear flow, and midline area is the area defined by the midline of the beam cross section. Page 132 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 16 of 51 Shear stresses are found by dividing the shear flow by wall thickness. Then shear stresses and bending stresses are combined to determine principal stresses. yx yxyx ba , 2 ,22    Alternatively, the von Mises effective stress may be calculated in terms of applied stresses: 222'3 xyyxyx The problem with this method was that the specific geometry of the craft implied that the highest bending stresses occurred at the ends, with lower stresses in the middle - since for a given angle difference between the pontoons, the forces were not equally distributed. It was very difficult to develop an accurate closed form equation to describe the stresses due to a combination of bending and twisting. The design methodology was as follows: the decking would be of uniform height, and would need to be able to transmit torque between the pontoons without incurring unacceptable stress levels. The pontoons themselves were considerably less stiff than the mounting channels on top of them. Thus the mounting channels were designed to maintain shape and integrity under axial twisting and transverse bending loads - the small displacements were not anticipated to produce high stresses in the pontoons (see FEA results in figures 5, 6, and 8). Material selection was an important design decision. Steel was considered for its ease of welding and construction, and high strength. However, certain aluminum alloys offered superior strength to weight ratios and better corrosion resistance. Below is a table of relevant mechanical properties for several candidate materials. Material Properties Table Material Type Density (lb/in) Elastic Modulus (psi) Yield Strength (psi) Fatigue Strength1 (psi) 440 C annealed Stainless Steel 0.28 30,000,000 65,000 33,000 304 annealed Stainless Steel 0.28 30,000,000 35,000 17,000 5086-H32 Aluminum 0.10 10,300,000 33,000 23,000 5086-T0 Aluminum 0.l0 10,200,000 17,000 N/A 7075-T6 Aluminum 0.10 10,400,000 83,000 23,000 6061-T6 Aluminum 0.10 10,000,000 40,000 14,000 6061-T0 Aluminum 0.10 10,000,000 8,000 9000 1 At 500,000,000 cycles- measured in fully reversed bending using R.R. Moore apparatus and sample type Page 133 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 17 of 51 Several noteworthy details with regard to design are shown in the table above. First, heat treatment and tempering make considerable differences in mechanical properties. Additionally, high yield strength is not necessarily an indication of fatigue performance. The performance of candidate materials under repeated load cycling was of definite significance in material choice. Eventually 5086 (aluminum-magnesium alloy) was chosen for decking construction. The resulting deck pieces were constructed of hollow rectangular sections with widths varying from 18-24 inches and a height of 8 inches. Since the individual bending loads in the decking sections were difficult to calculate utilizing closed form analysis, an FEA model was developed to ensure that the decking and channel components were sufficient. In this model, a moment was developed at the generator mount pontoon, and a cable anchoring force at the pulling head of the other pontoon. Both pontoons were constrained at the ends using theoretical radially flexible spring bearings to simulate water buoyancy and floatation, and a roller constraint was applied at a decking section to simulate the rigid strut constraint (more detail about this design element will be presented in a later section). A limitation of the model is that the spring bearings are an imperfect model of water support in several ways. First, they constrain in every radial direction rather than merely providing buoyant forces. This causes artificial resistance to anchor cable force where water floatation opposes vertical but not horizontal motion. Furthermore, since all bearing was at the ends of the pontoons, the FEA bearing stresses would be higher than actual stresses. Additionally, the moment in the model was exerted, not at the generator mount, but at the pontoon (see Figure 5). Figure 5: FEA stress and deflection plot showing loads and constraints Nevertheless, the FEA testing resulted in displacements and stress which validated expectations. Note the deviation from planarity caused by warping in deck elements in figures above and Page 134 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 18 of 51 below. The deflections are normalized to make small deflections visible; hence, the aspect ratios are skewed. Figure 6: FEA results of decking and frame deflection under operational loading. To obtain a more precise picture of stress distributions, Solidworks "Iso Clipping" was utilized to select minimum stress value to display. Note that the only locations above 2000 psi are in the inner deck plates and mounting channels, with a maximum stress of 5,341.4 psi. For 5086 aluminum, this indicates an acceptable factor of safety of 4.31. Figure7: ISO clipping- stress <2000 psi Page 135 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 19 of 51 To isolate and examine the stresses in the pontoons, a minimum display value of 102 psi was determined. As anticipated, most stresses in the pontoons were lower than this value. For yield strength of 3000 psi, this indicates a factor safety of 29. Figure 8: ISO clipping- stress > 102 psi Anchoring Cables An anchoring system was required to prevent craft motion during deployment. Several significant environmental factors incurred design requirements on the anchoring system. 1. Permitting constraints required any system to have a small footprint. Any design including disturbance of, or anchoring to, the river bottom, or involving any permanent structure would require prohibitive permitting efforts (not to mention that river bottom profile changes could involve undesirable anchor point motion). Consequently all system components must be portable, environmentally friendly, and non-invasive of the river bed. This implied a system anchored to the shore. 2. It was desirable to integrate debris diversion with anchoring systems since such systems would necessarily bridge between the craft and shore. Although all craft components were designed with debris collision survivability in mind, the intent of anchoring design was to eliminate this hazard as much as was practically feasible. 3. An anchoring system was desired which would not substantially hamper flow to the turbine, or harmfully accrue debris on any individual component. Page 136 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 20 of 51 4. Water elevation changes substantially (up to ten feet over the course of a season). This required any anchoring system to be either adjustable or otherwise configured to provide support at a variety of water levels. 5. Any anchoring system would require some configuration to prevent the craft from moving toward the shore. Although apparently self evident, this requirement necessitated the inclusion of some rigid elements to hold the craft a fixed distance from the river bank. To satisfy these general requirements, several designs were considered. The preliminary design was a monopole which was installed perpendicular to the bank. Cables would be installed to each pontoon. Height adjustment required that the pole have some articulation at its connection points on the craft and on the shore. The other potential design plan was to mount a cable from the shore to the opposite front corner of the craft. This cable would provide an anchoring point and would be run just under the water surface to provide debris diversion. It was anticipated that large trees, especially those with root wads, would strike the taught cable and be diverted from craft. This method would imply a sideways force tending to push the craft toward the bank. Preventing this would require a rigid strut to maintain position. Several variants of this design were considered. A preliminary proposal suggested providing vertical adjustment by mounting all components on dollies such as those used for overhead shop hoists. These dollies would then be actuated by a servo or crank controlled ball screw system. The dollies themselves would track on vertically oriented I-beams which would be fastened to the river bank. This would afford controllable height adjustment varying with river levels. Another potential design to reduce cable size involved the use of pulleys running through sheaves attached to the anchor points and craft. A single capstan on the craft would then reel the cable in or out. These designs were eventually abandoned in favor of a simpler design. A rigid strut member would consist of modular suspension bridge segments. These could be individually installed as suspension bridge segments above the water surface at low water. The connection between the craft and this suspension strut would be a king-pin/fifth wheel connection such as is employed for RV or trailer towing. The suspension strut would be fastened to the shore by a custom pintle- style mount. This would allow it to bear axial loading, and also to tilt to accommodate varying river levels from a single shore position. The debris diversion cable would be strung from the shore to the opposite side of the craft. On the shore side, a series of rock anchor tie off points would be provided. As water levels vary, the cable could be installed at different points to ensure proper cable depth and functionality. The actual installation height of the rigid strut relative to high/low water levels was a significant design consideration. An initial suggestion of splitting the difference between minimum and maximum water level height was made. However, at the desired installation site, water level varies approximately ten feet seasonally. At maximum water height (and maximum force in the strut) a five foot vertical difference over a thirty foot span makes a 9.5 degree angle between Page 137 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 21 of 51 strut and water. The vertical force is equal to the axial force in the strut multiplied by the sin of the angle- for a 10,000-pound strut force, this meant a 1,643-pound vertical force. This force stresses fifth wheel mounting structure. Considering that the highest forces are at high water, the bridge anchoring position was changed to 3/4 high water mark to make forces more equalized over deployment time. Having determined the general method of securing and anchoring the device, individual component design was considered. Both the cables and suspension strut components were designed to be anchored into the shear rock face of the bluffs at the river bank. To this end, threaded rock anchors were specified for fastening components to the rock face. Manufactured by Williams Form Engineering, these rock anchors are one inch in diameter and five feet long. They are grouted into a pre-drilled holes and have a pullout strength of 60,000 lbs in the quartz- biotite-gneiss rock which comprises the bulk of the bluffs. The cables were specified with the following design criteria: The cables must be strong enough to bear the operational loading of the current flow plus any forces set up by debris impacts or accumulation. A flow of approximately 15 feet per second was calculated to exert a force of approximately 14,000 lb in the direction of the current. An additional debris impact was calculated to exert approximately 3000 lb. Thus the total load in direction of the current is approximately 17,000 lb. If the angle θ between the cable and current direction is approximately 30 degrees, then the actual force in the cable is expressed F = 1/cos(θ) = 19,600 lbs Using simple force equilibrium principles, the resulting force in the rigid strut is expressed: F = (1/cos(θ))sin(θ) = 9800 lbs Several dynamic considerations were made in cable design. Some concern was discussed that at certain river speeds, vortex shedding frequency from the diversion cable might approach the cable's natural frequency, causing cable flutter. An equation was derived for the natural frequency and dynamic behavior of a flexible cylinder under tension with pinned ends. The natural frequency of a tensioned cable in water may be very closely approximated as follows2: cablelengthunitwaterlengthunit n MassMass Tension Lengthf  __2 1 71.10000937.0000731.0 000,20 14402 1 nf Hz 2 Dauchin, Benoit. Flow Induced Vibrations on a Cable Caused by Waves Plus Current. Diss. Ecole Centrale de Lyon France, 1996. Page 138 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 22 of 51 The vortex shedding frequency is governed by the Strouhal number, a dimensionless parameter which is itself dependent on the Reynolds number: fluid cable ityVis DiameterVelocity cosRe The Strouhal/Reynolds relation is graphically presented in the following figure: Figure 9: Chart relating dimensionless parameters for a cylinder in cross-flow For a velocity of 15 feet per second, the resulting Reynolds number is approximately 65,400. The Strouhal number is approximately 0.21; this results in a shedding frequency of 42 hertz. The vortex shedding frequency is described by the following equation: cable shed Diameter VelocityStrouhalf Since a 1.71 Hz shedding frequency only occurs at speeds of approximately 1.286 inches per second, there was no anticipated risk of flutter at operational flow rates. Rigid Strut A rigid strut component was required to maintain craft position in current flow. Such a component was subject to several design constraints. First, modularity was desirable for two reasons. Page 139 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 23 of 51 First, assembly and disassembly was facilitated by employing small, individual subcomponents which could be installed and uninstalled sequentially rather than handling the entire cumbersome strut. Secondly, since variable positioning in the current was potentially critically important, it was desirable to be able to add or subtract segments to optimize craft placement. The importance of modularity led to a design specification that the strut be comprised of ten foot sections which could be fastened together to create a strut of arbitrary length (as long as resulting strut is safe from buckling). Obviously buckling failure was a significant design consideration, especially since the strut would be a long, slender design comprised of several sections. Several methods of analysis were considered to ensure that material and installation costs were minimized without compromising buckling resistance. An initial design specification was for six inch diameter 6061 T-6 Aluminum alloy structural tubes with quarter inch wall thickness to be used. Each section would be comprised of two such tubes placed 30 inches apart on center and cross braced with 1" x 0.125" square tubing. Since the primary axial loading would be through the kingpin on the bottom of the strut, eccentric loading was anticipated. An analytical application of the secant method for calculating critical loading was used first. This formula is expressed as follows3:      tioncross effective yieldecompressiv tioncross AreaE Load k Length k ec Strength Area Load sec _ sec 4sec1 where tioncrossArea xIk sec 2 ec is the eccentricity (for this calculation it was assumed to be five inches) E is the elastic modulus. Since the closest approximation to realistic end constraints was a pinned-pinned condition, the effective length was the same as real length, 30 feet. This was iterated with varying loads until convergence to solution - the critical load was 12,550 lbs for a single 30 foot length. Since each strut section would include two such components, linear superposition was used to determine total assembled strut buckling load- 25,100 lbs. Since the anticipated maximum loading (operational forces + debris striking) is approximately 10,000 lbs at the bridge, this provides a factor safety of approximately 2.5. The limitations of this calculation are that no transverse loading scenario is considered in the secant formula. Some concerns were discussed that gravitational loading over the 30 foot span, as well as any other 3 Norton, Robert L. Machine Design, and Integrated Approach. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, New Jersey, 2006 Page 140 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 24 of 51 transverse loading, might significantly decrease buckling resistance. Additionally a higher moment of inertia was desired to increase buckling factor of safety, thus an 8 inch pipe was specified for analysis. To this end, the Solidworks finite element analysis software was employed to create a buckling study. At this time, the design suggestion had been made to fasten each strut section together with pipes which would fit tightly on the inside of the eight inch pipes. These would have a length of 48 inches and would be plug welded on one side to the outer pipe. The other side would have a hole for a pin, which corresponds to a hole in the outer pipe. This way, each section may be pinned onto the last, with transverse bending support provided by the inner pipe, and axial bearing provided by the outer pipe. The FEA model included these inner pipes. Additionally, the FEA model included the gravitational load, and a transverse load of 500 lb, as well as an axial load of 5000 lb (with an eccentricity of one foot). FEA limitations were as follows: the Solidworks package was not able to calculate differences in buckling/bending resistance at the joints due to pipe clearances; therefore all touching surfaces were assumed in bonded contact. Additionally the actual design included a kingpin which gave a further pinned degree of freedom perpendicular to the bearing constraint. This was not included in the model. The Solidworks package utilized an eigenvalue calculation to predict buckling shape and occurrence; this resulted in a loading safety factor of 8.4. This was determined to be acceptable; thus a final design decision was made to create individual bridge sections from ten foot sections of 8” x 0.25" structural tubing, and pin each section together with 48 inch connecting tubes. Figure 10: FEA model of rigid struts Page 141 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 25 of 51 Figure11: Results of FEA model Turbine/ Transmission Blade Design A number of requirements were imposed upon turbine blade design. In terms of size, the ratio of radial length to turbine diameter was fixed for optimum efficiency. Additionally, it was desirable to design a blade that would prove survivable and robust under operational conditions and debris strikes. It was also desirable to make any mechanisms highly robust to withstand submersion in silty water, and reduce moving parts as much as possible to decrease manufacturing and assembly costs, as well as maintenance. Geometrically, a curved profile to trap water was desired to increase efficiency. Initial blade designs were also tapered to save material costs and weight while maintaining constant stress in the blade. This concept was eventually abandoned due to manufacturing constraints. A primary design concern was the collision of a log or piece of debris with the blade; a number of potential designs were considered. Blade Design Calculations The power developed by an undershot waterwheel in unconfined flow is expressed4: g uvvuSBFu )( where F is the force in pounds developed by the water on the blades of the wheel, B is a constant determined experimentally to be 0.8, S is the total surface area of the blades in the water in square feet, v is the velocity of the water in feet per second, u is the tip velocity of the blades in 4 Bresse, Jacques Antoine Charles, Water Wheels or Hydraulic Motors, University Press of the Pacific, 2003 (reprinted from 1876 edition) Page 142 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 26 of 51 feet per second, π is the weight of water equal to 64 pounds per cubic foot, and g is the acceleration of gravity equal to 2sec/2.32 ft . For the case of wheels in unconfined flow, the maximum efficiency is obtained when 4.0v u . The force developed against the wheel could be determined by dividing the above equation by the tip speed of the blades u. In the case of this design, 9 blades were considered to be in the water at one time, with each blade having a total area of 28ft perpendicular to the direction of flow. The velocity of the wheel could be considered constant due to the high gear ratio between the wheel and generator. The electronic controls would use the generator to hold the optimal speed ratio between the wheel and the water of 4.0v u at all times regardless of water velocity. Experimental results indicated that the depth of the blades should be less than or equal to ¼ of the wheel radius. In addition, experiment dictated that for a wheel 16 ft in diameter, the number of blades should be 12. The curvature of the blades was determined by the water flow regime and was optimized to minimize shock as the blades entered and exited the fluid. In addition, the curvature allowed the blades to absorb more energy than they would otherwise do by lifting the water as the wheel turns. The theoretical efficiency of such a wheel in a confined flow is 100%, however the maximum attainable efficiency given friction and fluid escape was somewhat less than 60%. The curvature of the blades was determined by the approach of the blade into the water and the angle of the root of the blade to the circumference of the wheel. Experimental results showed that the approach angle of the blade to the water should be 30 degrees and that the root of the blade should be perpendicular to the circumference of the wheel. The total force developed on the wheel by the water at 8 ft/sec is 4,500 lb which computed to approximately 31,500 ft-lb of torque. At 15 ft/sec the total force developed on the wheel by the water is 15,500 lb which corresponded to a torque of 108,500 ft-lb. At these water speeds, the wheel produced 17 kW and 107 kW respectively. This power output took into account the inefficiencies of the drive train, generator, and inverter equipment. Blade Design Process The first embodiment of the above criteria was a curved plastic or aluminum plate with aluminum support ribs. This assembly would be pinned at the top with a coil spring. A heavy log strike would cause the assembly to rotate about the pin, with the spring absorbing energy from the moving log and allowing it to pass under the turbine. This concept was abandoned due to concerns that the aluminum ribs would permanently distort and that the coil spring would be constantly in angular displacement under operational load. Additionally, the coil springs would add prohibitive cost, weight, and installation difficulty. Page 143 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 27 of 51 Figure 12: Early blade design with aluminum ribs A second embodiment was to utilize a detente notch in the side of a metal disk and roller under spring pressure to hold the blade in place during normal operation. In the event of a log strike, the collision would cause the ball to pop out of the detente and the blade would rotate out of the way. When the blade was raised out of the water, gravity would cause it to rotate back to detente position. Potential designs were generated using Belleville washers, leaf springs, cantilever springs, and helical springs to provide the force to secure the roller in the detente notch. Figure 13: Detail of paddle with detente notch mount Page 144 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 28 of 51 Figure 14: Early all-plastic blade design For a detente disk with radius r, and notch angle 2 x θ, the roller would only move in the notch if force in the spring F was equal to upward force on roller. This may be expressed: springFrTorque)(cos1 / 2  A third embodiment considered was the result of concerns that logs and other debris might not only damage the blades in the event of a direct collision, but also might become pinned under the turbine and exert a radial force against the outer tip of the blades. A turbine assembly that was robust to tangential impact forces as well as radial forces required to push a log under water was desired. To this end, a design employing a rod and coil spring which could move radially inside a sleeve guide on the wheel spoke was created. This would soften the impact of pushing a log under water. Ultimately this design was abandoned for three reasons. First, it involved numerous small moving parts, prompting concerns about silting and corrosion, as well as high maintenance and installation costs. Secondly, when the spring was compressed, the blade was still subjected to full buoyant force of the log. Finally, an unrelated design constraint caused the spoked wheel design to be eliminated, making the guide sleeve and spoke method unwieldy in the design context. Page 145 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 29 of 51 Essentially, all three mechanical methods of reducing log impacts were abandoned because they required numerous moving components, implying high assembly and maintenance costs. This prompted a change in design paradigm away from mechanically actuated blade protection assemblies in favor of a simply fastened but robust blade design. This required a more careful selection of available materials. Initial design ideas had relied heavily on mechanical breakaway safety mechanisms to reduce impact loading on the blades. Abandoning these mechanisms meant that the blade would need to be able to undergo full impact loading in both tangential and radial directions. Early designs included fully aluminum blades, and plastic blades with aluminum ribs. While these designs were typically able to handle operational loads, it was anticipated that debris collisions would permanently deform metal components. Consequently, considerable research was conducted to determine a suitable material which would be both reasonably light and inexpensive, strong enough to hold shape under operational loading, and flexible enough to bend without permanent set in the event of a log strike. Aluminum was considered for its machinability and corrosion resistance. However a design strong enough to withstand a log strike would require a prohibitively high material weight and cost. A number of engineering plastics were available, ranging from acetals5 (yield strength: 10,200 psi, elastic modulus: 435,000 psi), polyethylene terephthalate, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene6 (yield strength: 3100 psi, elastic modulus: 100,000 psi), polyimides, ABS plastics, and high density polyethylene. Since the simplified blade design would need to be flexible enough to recover after the potentially substantial distortion of a log strike, percent elongation was evaluated along with yield strength and elastic modulus for candidate materials. Besides mechanical properties, a suitable material would also need to be inexpensive in terms of material and machining costs. These requirements eliminated polyimides and acetals and PET because of the limited machining options and high manufacturing and material costs. Additionally these materials had limited flexibility (45% elongation of acetal copolymer and 7% elongation of polyimide). ABS plastics were more easily machined, but had unsuitable mechanical properties. Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylenes had similar properties to HDPE, with a slightly lower modulus of elasticity. This meant that it would provide a more flexible blade; this was initially attractive, but UHMW cannot be welded, which severely limited its application. High density polyethylene was eventually selected as the material for final blade design. The requirement of a 20 degree bend in the blade profile required forming that was unavailable for any other engineering plastic. Especially notable is its 500% elongation at rupture, and its high degree of shape recovery after distortion. HDPE7 has an elastic modulus of approximately 175,000 psi and an ultimate tensile strength of approximately 3500 psi. 5 Dupont Delrin Acetal Resin- Product Property Guide- 2010 6 Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Harvey L. Stein, PE. Reprinted from Engineered Materials Handbook Volume 2: Engineering Plastics, 1999 7 HDPE Data Sheet, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, 2009 Page 146 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 30 of 51 Below is a table with relevant mechanical properties of some of the candidate engineering plastics. Material Elastic Modulus (psi) Yield Strength (psi) % Elongation at Rupture Machinability Acetals 435,000 10,300 35 Stamped, extruded, small parts only UHMW 100,000 3100 350 Small sheet extrusion, no bending HDPE 175,000 3000 500 Sheets may be drape formed, bent, and welded Analytical Predictions The following analytical method was employed to determine the stresses due to standard operation and potential debris strike: A turbine blade-debris collision was modeled analytically as a case of horizontal striking impact using the kinetic energy method. The system was simplified by considering the log or debris as a moving mass with kinetic energy and the blade as an elastic member. In a collision, if we assume dissipation to be negligible*, all kinetic energy from moving mass (log) is converted to elastic energy stored in the struck member (turbine blade). This may be expressed: 22 2 loglog 2 Velocitymass k Force paddle  where k is the stiffness of the paddle, and η is the internal dissipation of kinetic energy in the blade (where a value of zero would imply total dissipation, and one no dissipation)* which may be further reduced: paddlekmassVelocityForceloglog The stiffness of the paddle (force/displacement) was determined by modeling the paddle as a cantilever beam with a cross-sectional profile similar to that of paddle. The displacement under load for a cantilever beam is expressed: EI FL 3 3  where δ is the displacement, F the force, L the beam length, E modulus of elasticity of beam material, and I the area moment of inertia. Rearranging for force/displacement, stiffness may be expressed: Page 147 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 31 of 51 3 3 L EIk The area moment of inertia of the paddle was estimated by considering a simplified cross section consisting of a composite of three rectangles as shown in Figure 11. According to the parallel axis theorem, linear superposition of these individual beams may be used to express the moment of inertia as follows: 121212 3 33 3 22 3 11 hbhbhbI Roark and Young provide a factor of correction value8 log 1 1 mass massblade  A conservative (and fairly accurate for large logs) simplification is to assume η = 1. Employing the equations above, the following assumptions were made: - A log with weight of 1000 lbs, or a mass of 2.6 in lbs 2sec and an absolute speed of 10 feet per second (120 inches per second). - A high density polyethylene ( elastic modulus = 100,000 psi, yield strength in tension = 3000 psi) paddle with cross sectional dimensions as shown in figure 10 velocity 40% that of flowing water, or 4 feet per second. The area moment of inertia was calculated to be: 4444 333 404181812 148 12 61 12 61 ininininxxxI The stiffness was then expressed: in lb in inxin lbx L EIk 78113824 40000,10033 3 4 2 3  These values may be substituted to determine the maximum force: 7816.21sec72loglog xxxinkmassVelocityForcepaddle= 3240 lb To determine maximum stress in paddle, the following equation is employed: I Mc 8 R.J. Roark and W.C. Young, Formulas for Stress and Strain. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1989 Page 148 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 32 of 51 where σ is the bending stress, M is the moment, c is the distance from neutral axis to outer edge of beam, and I is the moment of inertia. This implied that the maximum stress would be found in those parts of the beam which were furthest from the neutral axis. In this case, 3 inches was the furthest distance. Substituting these values: psiin ininxlbx 583240 3243240 4max  This particular analytical method of ascertaining stress implied several limitations. First, as seen in Figure 15, the model geometry differed from actual profile in two important ways. First the analytical model was a straight beam, while the actual profile was a curved blade. Secondly, the actual beam tapered, whereas the analytical model was of constant cross-section. The first error caused the model to be less stiff than a more accurate representation would suggest. The second error caused the model to be stiffer than a more accurate representation would suggest. Since the analytical model exhibited considerably smaller deflections with higher stresses than either experimental or FEA results, it was concluded that the analytical model required refinement to represent a less stiff blade with lower stresses. Figure 15: Comparison closed form model to actual model FEA Predictions A solid model and finite element mesh equivalent of the blade prototype was generated using the solid model/finite element software package Autodesk Inventor. The native finite element mesh generator employed elements with an average size of 0.1 inches, with automatic detection and Page 149 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 33 of 51 recalculation of element groups with poor aspect ratios. This allowed very close geometric tolerances. A static test was conducted with the following parameters: 1. Material- blade constructed of thermoplastic resin 2. Constraints- fixed constraints on mounting surfaces (see Figure 15) 3. Loads- Pressure load (operational water load) on turbine faces, 3000 lb force at middle of blade tip (log strike impact force). The maximum stresses were found in the support ribs at the sides of the blade, as predicted by the analytical formula. However, the maximum stress was considerably lower and the displacement higher than predicted by the analytical method. This was concluded to be the result of limitations in the analytical method; specifically that it did not account for lowered stiffness due to tapered profile. Figure 16: FEA results of paddle loading Page 150 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 34 of 51 Experimental Testing Two manufacturers built prototype turbine blades based upon the design requirements and drawings. A steel fixture was constructed with two primary design considerations. First its fastening system resembled the actual fastening brackets as closely as possible; and secondly its spring system made static force calculations feasible. The experimental testing regimen was two-fold. First it was desired to validate the FEA predictions of load response and survivability by observing behavior under known loads. Additionally, it was desired to validate analytical predictions of forces generated by placing the turbine blade in moving water. Figure 17: Testing jig with springs The first test was conducted by securing the blade in the steel jig-shown above, which was itself securely constrained. Then a spring with known stiffness (3000 lb/in) with a steel end was pressed against the paddle at the tip, and the spring deflection measured. This test was applied to both paddles to simulate a log strike. Page 151 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 35 of 51 Figure 18: Log strike test- note cracking at weld seam. Figure 19: Blade deformation recovery after log strike test Page 152 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 36 of 51 One paddle failed under the load, and one survived. Both blades exhibited excellent recovery from the distortion- see figure above. The second test was performed on both blades; in this case the jig was fastened to a metal beam with U-bolts (see figure below) and the blade secured in the jig; the blade was placed into flowing water. The forces generated by the flowing water were calculated as follows: spring cp Rl YForce  where Ycp is the center of pressure l is the distance from the pin to the spring, and R is the reaction force at the spring. Figure 20: Water flow test setup Page 153 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 37 of 51 Figure 21: Blade under water flow test Figure22: Deformed spring under water flow test Page 154 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 38 of 51 Conclusions After experimental testing was concluded, the final design was a turbine blade constructed of one inch thick HDPE plate. This was bent and groove-welded to form a curve as specified, and one inch thick ribs were groove-welded onto the sides. In experimental testing, these blades were both able to sustain tip displacements of at least five inches, and tip loading of at least three thousand pounds, although a crack did appear at a welded seam of one of the blades when loaded. Turbine Section Design The turbine section itself underwent considerable design changes. Initially, a spoked wheel design with a central axle was considered. The initial design incorporated spokes which transferred torque from the blades to the central axle, which also supported the transverse load of the total turbine weight. Figure 23: Early turbine and blade assembly An initial design specification of an 8 inch diameter axle with 0.75 inch wall thickness and raised bosses for spoke attachment was suggested. An FEA calculation was made upon this model. The FEA model included no gravitational loading and simplified the mounting as a fixed restraint at the transmission end of the axle and a axial/radial bearing restraint at the other. A cumulative 96,000 foot pound torque was applied in 19,200 lb increments to each of the Page 155 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 39 of 51 mounting bosses. This model had limited accuracy since the axial/radial bearing artificially forced alignment, and no gravitational force over the axle span was accounted for. Nonetheless, the model showed stress of 22,300 psi. Figure 24: FEA results of axle torque test The axle was designed to operate in fully reversed bending. Aluminum 6061 T-6 alloys have fully reversed bending yield strength of 14,000 psi at 500 million cycles. This gives an unacceptable factor of safety (0.627). Eventually, the axle method of wheel support and torque transfer was abandoned because the 96000 foot pound torque required an exceptionally heavy axle, which incurred high material and logistic costs. Additionally, the need for a more flexible application implied the requirement of a modular design which could be applied in varying conditions. The following requirements were determined for a satisfactory turbine section design: 1. High moment of inertia in torsion and transverse bending 2. Low weight 3. Ease of assembly 4. Modularity A turbine comprised entirely of plastic was designed. However, although low stresses could be maintained, it was not able to hold geometric stability and could not be applied. Page 156 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 40 of 51 Figure 25: All plastic turbine design Eventually a novel design using tubes mounted in an offset pattern from the center of end plates of a modular turbine section was presented. Using a plurality of tubes further from the central axis of rotation reduces the amount of material required for a desired polar or area moment of inertia. The basic dimensions were analytically derived to achieve acceptable multi-axial stress levels in bending and torque: 2 2 max 2 xy yx yx       where σ is the principal normal stress, and τ is the principal shear. Page 157 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 41 of 51 Figure 26: Final turbine design The analytical results led to more specific parameters for an FEA analysis using 12 inch tubes at a five foot offset from center, and a thickness of 0.25 inches (see Figure 22). The FEA model was evaluated using the Autodesk Inventor static analysis package. The built-in mesh generator used 0.1" tetrahedral elements to produce a very realistic geometric mesh. It was desired to refine the design and validate analytical predictions by modeling the combined stress of transverse loading due to turbine weight and moment loading from turbine torque (the anticipated max torque being operational torque plus log strike). To this end, a fixed constraint was applied to the transmission flange, and a bearing constraint applied to the mounting flange on the other side. The bearing constraint prevented radial motion but not axial or tangential (rotational) motion. A torque was applied to the mounting flange (a limiting case whereby torques are not evenly distributed along turbine sections, but concentrated at one end - not anticipated during operation). A second load, gravitational acceleration, was employed along the transverse axis to simulate turbine weight. Page 158 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 42 of 51 Figure 27: FEA results, turbine frame torque test The limitations of this FEA analysis were primarily two fold; first the bearing constraints in Autodesk Inventor static analysis package could not specify a self-aligning bearing, giving the turbine a false degree of angular restraint. Additionally, the effects of fatigue loading in fully reversed bending could not be immediately evaluated using this software package. However, it was concluded that the stress plots provided useful data insomuch that stresses were generally low in the structure (under 5000 psi, as predicted by analytical methods). Materials selection for the turbine section structure centered around acquiring a material which possessed sufficient mechanical properties in terms of strength to weight ratio, fatigue and corrosion resistance, and which could be easily machined, welded, and manufactured to specification. Steel alloys were initially considered, due to their high fatigue resistance, reasonable weldability and machinability, and comparatively low cost. However, steel alloys typically require additional corrosion protection in marine environments, and are fairly heavy. Various aluminum alloys were considered. 7075-T-651 aluminum features unimpressive corrosion resistance, but has a 74,000 to 78,000 psi yield strength, and 23,000 psi fatigue Page 159 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 43 of 51 strength in fully reversed bending at 500 million cycles9. Nevertheless it cannot be welded, and is a high cost alloy. 6061-T6 aluminum has a 14,000 psi fatigue strength at 500 million cycles in fully reversed bending10. 5086-H116 aluminum is a marine grade type aluminum with excellent yield (30,000 psi) and fatigue strength (21,800 psi at 500,000,000 cycles fully reversed bending stress)11 and light weight. Welding causes a local reduction in strength to O temper (yield strength at 17,000 psi), but it can be welded, and a FEA analysis of stress locations predicted acceptably low stress at welds. The excellent fatigue and corrosion resistance of 5086 series aluminum alloys made it a preferred material for turbine and craft components. Bearings and Adjustments The turbine was specified with several inter-related design considerations in terms of mounting and adjustment. First it was desirable for the transmission input shaft to act as the mounting component for one side of the wheel. Second, the turbine should be vertically adjustable. That is, it could be lowered into water for operation (and raised out for maintenance) without moving craft. Finally, the structural potential for misalignment due to deck twisting moments and vertical adjustment necessitated a robust self-aligning bearing system. The design considerations concerning the transmission in particular will be discussed in more detail in a later section; however it was specified with a low speed input flange rated for the shear load of the turbine as well as the twisting moment. On the other side, a pillow block with an integral self-aligning housing and precision plane bearing was specified. Both the pillow block support and transmission assembly were designed to be fastened to vertically sliding mounts actuated by linear actuation system. Initially, servo controlled linear actuators such as those employed for machine tool positioning were discussed. These were abandoned in favor of a more robust system, hand crank actuated screw jacks. Some concern about screw jacks potentially failing under buckling was discussed; however the rating of the screw jacks specified was considerably greater than the specified load required, and no risk of buckling was anticipated. 9 Aerospace Specification metals Inc. Aluminum 7075 T-6, T- 651http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA7075T6 Accessed Online, August 18, 2011 10 Aerospace Specification metals Inc. Aluminum 6061 T-6, T-651 http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6061t6 Accessed Online, August 18, 2011 11 Aerospace Specification metals Inc. Aluminum http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA5086H116 Accessed Online, August 18, 2011 Page 160 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 44 of 51 Figure 28: Assembly view- transmission and power generation components Transmission The general paradigm of the Poncelet turbine system is to provide low speed, high torque power output. Optimum efficiency is obtained by running the wheel such that blade tip speed is 40% of current speed, so a 15 foot diameter turbine constrained to run at optimum speed* in a 15 foot per second current will rotate at approximately 8 revolutions per minute. Efficient electrical power generation typically requires generator input with higher speeds and lower torques; to this end, a transmission system was specified. Several design requirements were formulated to narrow the field of potential transmissions. The generator chosen was a low speed 36 pole AC permanent magnet generator with optimum efficiency in the 150-200 RPM range (More discussion on this design paradigm will be conducted in a later section). Thus the transmission must have a speed ratio of 30:1 with a 5-8 RPM input. The transmission must be weight and cost effective, and be readily mounted and coupled to turbine and generator. It must be sufficiently compact to fit on the slider mechanism and be sealed and protected from wind, silt and water. If lubricated, the lubricant must be sufficiently sealed so as to present no environmental hazard. Several transmission variants were considered for potential application. A caged belt drive was initially considered. However, belt drives are most efficient at high speeds, and a 30:1 reduction would require multiple sets of prohibitively large sheave/belt combinations. A chain drive would be more efficient at low speeds, but would be large and require lubrication; additionally concerns about noise pollution were discussed. Page 161 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 45 of 51 It was concluded that most custom transmission solutions were excessively large and expensive; therefore a commercial off the shelf option was explored. A Brevini epicyclic two-stage transmission was selected. This transmission used planetary gear sets in series to provide compact, light, zero maintenance transmission solution. This planetary gearset package offered custom couplings and mounts on both high and low speed ends. It was concluded that the transmission itself would be specified with tapped holes by which it would be fastened to the sliding mount, which would bear the torque load of the generator resistance. A love-joy gear coupling would provide misalignment tolerance on the turbine side, and the generator would be rigidly mounted to the output side of the transmission. Braking and Turbine Control It was desired to maintain control over turbine speeds for three reasons: First in the event of emergency, it would be desirable to stop the turbine. Secondly, concerns were discussed about the risk of turbine "runaway" if inductive motor power output was exceeded. Finally, concerns regarding inductive motor cut-in speeds, and the need to potentially slow and control wheel rotation were discussed. More discussion regarding generators and generator controls is available in a later section. Initially, the general design paradigm regarding turbine design was as follows: the turbine would provide motive power to the inductive generator, and any modification of rotational speed would be executed mechanically. A hydraulic brake was specified to slow or stop the wheel if necessary. This brake would require servo-actuation interfacing with the electrical generator controls, or an operator to set cut-in speed and slow turbine if need be. Due to design paradigm changes (discussed in more detail in a later section) regarding the generator and control setup, a partnership with Energetic Drives led to the specification of a new control system. This novel power generation/conditioning and controls system utilized a permanent magnet generator, and automatically controlled generator resistance to provide optimum torque and could cut in and out either automatically (by preset setpoints), manually (by on-craft actuation) or remotely (by SCADA control). The system designed by Energetic Drives allowed for considerable simplification of the mechanical system, and elimination of numerous components, including the mechanical braking system. In the current embodiment, the generator could be signaled by the control system to provide back emf, or regenerative braking, and could cut in or out at any velocity that was anticipated. This eliminated the hydraulic reservoir, lines, brakes, and actuation components. Power Generation/ Conditioning Specific application and design specifications were developed for pairing a generator with the turbine prime mover. It was desired to employ a generator compatible with three modes of application. The generator must function as a stand-alone power source (such as a backup power source in the event of grid power failure); it must be capable of pairing with diesels to provide Page 162 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 46 of 51 power, and it must function as a source connected to infinite grid power. Functionally, a generator must be compact, inexpensive, robust, and tolerant of variance in rotor speed. To this end, both permanent magnet and induction generator solutions were considered. Induction generators function by forcing the prime mover to drive the rotor above a synchronous speed, which is defined by following relation: pairsNumberRPSHertz That is, the frequency of power generated depends on the rotational speed and number of pairs of poles on the stator. Induction generators are typically larger, but lighter, for a given rated power output than permanent magnet generators because they require no brushes or commutator. This also makes them more rugged. Induction generators also tend to be less expensive than their permanent magnet counterparts. The drawback of the induction generator is that they require a source of excitation current for magnetizing flux; thus an induction generator is not a suitable solution for stand-alone power. Additional concerns were that an error in controls could allow an induction generator connected to an infinite grid to run at lower speeds (ie: the rotor turning slower than rotating flux) whereby the machine would function like an induction motor and use grid power to bring wheel up to speed. A permanent magnet solution was selected, because although such generators are more expensive, and contain more moving parts, they are more readily suitable for stand-alone power production. An off the shelf solution was provided, which had 36 poles (enabling low speed operation), and a wide operating band. Paired with an effective power signal conditioning system (A more detailed discussion of the particulars of this system will be discussed later), this solution offers a very acceptable range of operational productivity and flexibility. Figure 29: Circuit diagram of Energetic Drives Active Front End system Page 163 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 47 of 51 Electrics/ Controls/ Monitoring Generator Control Algorithm and SCADA Controls The operational imperatives driving craft design require a robust and complex feedback control and monitoring system with integral remote access and supervision capacity. To this end, a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system was specified. This system was subject to several design requirements. First, it must modulate generator resistance to maintain optimum ratio of blade tip speed to water speed, maintain cooperative master/slave power sharing in the event of diesel pairing power production, and provide real-time data for water velocity, wheel speed, voltage and reactive power production. Additionally, the SCADA system must be capable of producing alarm outputs to an integral personnel alarm system in the event of specific operating conditions. Figure 30: Energetic Drives control cabinet Generator Efficiency Optimization The theoretical Poncelet efficiency was optimized by adhering to specific geometric and relative velocity constraints. It was considered important for the control system to be designed such that it would increase or decrease generator torque to maintain proper velocity for maximum power output. Page 164 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 48 of 51 Figure 31: Control cabinet components Diesel Generator Pairing As mentioned previously, it was desired to design the hydrokinetic turbine for three modes of application. It had to be able to provide stand-alone power to a small grid; it had to be able to pair with other small power sources (such as existing diesel generators) to power a grid, or it had to be able to feed the infinite grid. The standalone and infinite grid modes are fairly simple for a permanent magnet generator and controls. However diesel pairing introduces a potentially problematic feedback loop since the craft and most generators would have individual load sensing governor controls. Some concern was discussed that this might result in an unstable response, which would not only affect power output, but would cause oscillations which would cause diesel prime movers to run at inefficient speeds. To attenuate this concern, a PLC driven control system with Schweitzer relay sensors was designed. If the relay sensed the activation/deactivation of another power source on a finite grid, it signaled a master/slave set point control which set an optimal speed for the diesel prime mover, and assigned the remaining load to the hydro-kinetic turbine. Real-Time Monitoring and Control Since the hydrokinetic turbine is designed for remote locations, it was considered desirable to enable remote monitoring. Thus voltage output, river current speed, and wheel rotational speed Page 165 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 49 of 51 would be available at a power plant computer remotely. Additionally, manual control and programming changes to PLC set points could be executed remotely from a computer using the SCADA interface. Alarm Systems Since the hydrokinetic turbine was designed for potential swift water deployment in remote locations, some concerns were discussed concerning potential mooring component failure. A positional monitoring system employing a Dynamic Global Positioning System coupled with an excursion monitoring/reporting software package was specified for integration into the SCADA control system. If the system sensed the craft moving outside of the defined excursion envelope, an alarm would sound to indicate mooring cable failure; this system queries onboard GPS sensors for craft position every five seconds, updates a five-year data-logged history of craft positions and headings at a one-minute sampling rate, and additionally records alarms and events in a data log. The proposed positional monitoring system is tolerant of power outages and currently supports the following industry standard communication protocols: 1. MODBUS RTU Over TCP 2. MODBUS ASCII/RTU/TCP 3. NMEA 0183 Means of Alerting Technicians The proposed SCADA system interfaces with a Protalk CV3 alarm dialing system with cellular amplification, integrated cellular module with voice and SMS text capabilities. This alarm system is tolerant of power outages, and may be programmed for four different shifts, is highly modular, and has low footprint. It will continue to dial numbers in its database until technicians give confirmation of alarm notification. The proposed system also has built-in radio port and public address systems which may be programmed with redundant alert capability in after-hours situations. An additional consideration for the SCADA monitoring/alarm system was alarm cascade. Since the Protalk interface was capable of supporting a wide array of specific alarm messages from digital and analog inputs, it was important that the acquisition and broadcast of craft data be configured to give technicians optimum awareness of the mode of failure and extent in the event of emergency involving several alarms from multiple component failures. The integrated PLC interface would then organize the alarm cascade such that technicians would be able to differentiate a transmission rotation stoppage caused by a debris jam from one caused by mooring cable failure or transmission component failure. This allows emergency personnel and technicians to best prepare themselves to address emergency situations. Page 166 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 50 of 51 Partnerships and Collaboration Energy Stability Solutions and Energetic Drives, LLC During a survey of available power generation and control solutions, Hasz Consulting collaborated with Energetic Drives, a company which provides power generation solutions specifically for small (10 kW to 1.5 MW) projects. The "active front end" power generation platform designed by Energetic Drives provides an exceptionally efficient production of clean power, and significantly simplifies mechanical requirements in terms of turbine control. Most engineered solutions for a variable speed prime mover involve a diode bridge rectifier to convert "dirty" AC power to DC, and can only provide between 1-3% reactive power (volt-amp- reactive) to compensate for reactive loads. The design utilized by Energetic Drives employs an active bridge and LCL filter to eliminate harmonics while also providing the necessary reactive power to maintain a stable power factor regardless of the phase of the load. Potential Power Generation for Alaska and the Nation A large portion of the project was completed by CE2 Engineers, Inc. of Anchorage, AK. As a company with a successful history of completing highly technical projects in remote communities, it was decided they would be an excellent partner to help determine the viability of the chosen design. To this end, Hasz Consulting contacted them and they agreed to complete the portions of the project which would analyze extractable energy estimates as well as the obstacles to successful integration of the engineered system into the open market place. Their full report is attached to this document. Their study was focused primarily on Alaskan communities. These communities specifically, being remote, operating in harsh environmental conditions and experiencing the highest cost of energy in the nation, are not only in the greatest need, they are also the best test beds of this technology. The full study includes an estimate of the extractable energy nationwide as well as the significant obstacles to full integration in the market. Conclusion The project was considered successful in three ways. First, site specific engineering solutions were developed for applying RISEC technology effectively in Alaskan river environment. Secondly, the wide integration of stock components reduced design, construction and component replacement costs. Finally, the modular construction design and flexible control system designed by Energetic Drives, contributed toward methodology with broad potential application to remote village power needs. The effective deployment of RISEC technology in Alaskan rivers is tremendously significant in light of the extremely high costs of energy in remote communities. Providing an energy source which is both sustainable and economically feasible is crucial in preventing the extinction of Page 167 DE-EE0004573 Whitestone Poncelet RISEC Project Whitestone Power and Communications FY2011 Page 51 of 51 remote Alaskan villages, many of which cannot remain financially solvent in the face of increasing fossil fuel costs. A significant aspect of this project was a study conducted by CE2 Engineers which compiled a list of sites for potential commercial application of the project device. The study, which took into account topography, river speed, and local community power needs, concluded that this device would potentially be applicable at 46 village sites in Alaska alone, and 150 sites in the continental United States. RISEC implementation offers the benefit of flexible, comparatively inexpensive power solutions for remote communities as well as providing a substantial step forward in the technical and commercial viability of alternative technology. Page 168 Riverine Resource Assessment Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Hydrokinetic Device Prepared by: CE2 Engineers, Inc. DRAFT Report Date: February 2011 Communities located on rivers in Alaska may potentially benefit by integrating an RHK100 hydrokinetic device into their existing power system. Potential benefit will depend on the community’s proximity to water, the estimated stream velocity, the distance between the river and the community, the amount of summer power supplanted, and the future changes in community population and fuel costs. Benefits result from displacing some or all of a community’s summer power load. Benefits to larger communities like Mountain Village, Tok, and Galena, will differ from those to smaller communities like Red Devil, Sleetmute, and McGrath. Page 169 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. i Report Date: February 2011 Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Method .................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Community List ................................................................................................................................. 2 B. River Velocity Data ............................................................................................................................ 3 C. Community Distance to River ........................................................................................................... 3 D. Suitable River Hydrokinetic Power Capacity ..................................................................................... 3 E. Potential Monetary Benefits of the RHK100..................................................................................... 4 III. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 6 A. Community List ................................................................................................................................. 6 B. River Velocity Data ............................................................................................................................ 6 C. Community Distance to River ........................................................................................................... 7 D. Suitable River Hydrokinetic Power Capacity ..................................................................................... 7 E. Potential Monetary Benefits of the RHK100..................................................................................... 8 List of Appendices Appendix A—Alaska Community List Appendix B—Analysis of Alaska Community Power Consumption and Potential Energy Offset Page 170 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 1 Report Date: February 2011 I. Introduction Whitestone Power and Communications (WPC) is in the process of developing and trademarking an electrical generation device called “the Poncelet Kinetics RHK100”. This River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) device, can be used in communities located in proximity to a sufficient water resource to generate electrical power from the hydrokinetic water flow. The RHK100 is a pontoon- mounted Poncelet undershot water wheel (estimated at 12-foot-wide with a 16-foot diameter) with a nominal electrical power output capacity of 100 kW. The float footprint is estimated at 34 feet by 19 feet, with a weight of approximately 15,000 pounds. The installation will be moored to the shore and protected with Coast Guard-approved safety equipment. WPC contracted CE2 Engineers, Inc. (CE2) to perform a preliminary assessment of Alaska communities located near flowing rivers that might benefit from integrating a hydrokinetic device into its present power generation system. The assessment includes: 1. a list of communities situated near Alaska rivers where the RHK100 would be suitable, 2. an inventory and summary of existing river velocity data for rivers near these communities, 3. a description of the approximate distance between the river and the community’s power plant, 4. an estimation of the potential amount of hydrokinetic-derived power needed for each community, and 5. an estimation of the potential monetary benefit to each community from the maximum suitably-sized RHK100 hydrokinetic device. This assessment assumes that the production capacity of the RHK100 can be adjusted to work in rivers with velocity/flow rates as low as 1 foot/second, and depths of three feet or greater. Page 171 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 2 Report Date: February 2011 II. Method The five pieces of the assessment were done mainly independent of one another. The methods employed in each piece of the assessment are described here. A. Community List A community list was developed by consulting the data published on the website of the Alaska Community Database maintained by the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). From a list of all currently identified Alaska communities (presented in Appendix A), the following communities were initially eliminated: Communities listed with zero or very small population, Communities with no electrical power distribution system, North Slope communities (due to the extremely short ice-free season for the Arctic rivers) Communities whose geography includes the absence of viable rivers, including no rivers, extremely slow-moving rivers, steep rivers, and rivers subject to the influence of tides were not evaluated, nor were those communities in the Railbelt. The list was further reduced to those located on major river systems, away from the lower, slower reaches of the rivers (such as Yukon River communities like Alakanuk and Kotlik, or Kuskokwim River communities like Tuluksak). The result was a list of 45 communities primarily situated on major Alaska Rivers. From north to south, generally, those rivers include: Noatak, Kobuk, Koyukuk, Yukon, Tanana, Kuskokwim, Kvichak, Nabesna, and Copper. The following matrix is a summary list of the communities initially selected for the RHK100 device assessment. River Community Copper Chitina, Slana Kobuk Ambler, Kiana, Shungnak Koyukuk Allakaket/Alatna, Bettles, Hughes, Huslia Kuskokwim Aniak, Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Kalskag (Upper and Lower), McGrath, Nikolai, Red Devil, Sleetmute, Stony River Kvichak Igiugig Noatak Noatak Nabesna Northway Tanana Tok/Dot Lake/Tanacross, Tanana, Manley Hot Springs Page 172 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 3 Report Date: February 2011 River Community Yukon Anvik, Circle, Fort Yukon, Galena, Grayling, Holy Cross, Kaltag, Koyukuk, Marshall, Mountain Village, Nulato, Pilot Station, Ruby, Russian Mission, St. Mary’s, Pitka’s Point, Steven’s Village B. River Velocity Data Data that describes flow rates for Alaska rivers and streams exists in several places on the web: the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/nwisgmap/; the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Hydrologic Survey Streams Database at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/water/hydro/streams.cfm; and a presentation entitled “Assessment of Hydrokinetic Energy Resources in Alaska Rivers” written by faculty and staff at the University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Engineering, and published on the Alaska Energy Authority website at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/OceanRiver/TomRavens_REC4-2010.pdf. Research staff at CE2 were surprised by the apparent scarcity of stream velocity data. However, several knowledgeable hydrologists with the USGS, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management confirmed that stream velocity data are very rare in Alaska, mainly due to cost of recording and collecting those data. C. Community Distance to River Google Earth mapping tools were used to approximate the distance between the river channel and the vicinity of the power plant. Distances were rounded up to the nearest 100 feet. D. Suitable River Hydrokinetic Power Capacity The amount of river hydrokinetic power suitable for use in a community’s existing power system will depend on the average load (measured in kilowatts) carried by that community during the months the RHK100 device would be working. The State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program published data on the power production, fuel and non- fuel costs, and population for many communities in rural Alaska. For those communities initially deemed viable (see II.A), PCE data were collected, when available. Not all viable communities were included on the PCE roster, and some were on the roster but contained limited power production data. Some communities share power via an intertie, such as Tok, Tanacross, and Dot Lake, and similar groupings were treated as one entity. Page 173 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 4 Report Date: February 2011 Because the RHK100 device will only operate during summer months (estimated here to be the four-month period from May 15 to September 15), an estimate of the average summer load was necessary to estimate how many kilowatts would be available to offset. Although a few communities have facilities such as fish processing plants that create a higher load on their community power system during the summer, most of these examples are balanced out by the power demands of the school building during the non-summer months. Brent Petrie, Manager of Community Development at the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), which owns and operates power production and distribution systems in some 50 rural communities, estimated that the average community will require ten percent less power during the summer months than they will during the non-summer months. That is the measure used to determine the average monthly summer load for each community with published PCE data. The Analysis of Alaska Community Power Consumption and Potential Energy Offset, presented in Appendix B, contains most of the data discussed in this assessment. As shown in this table, some communities have a summer load as low as 13 kilowatts (Stony River) or 15 (Red Devil), while others have loads of 300 kilowatts (St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, and Fort Yukon) and 400 kilowatts per month (Galena). The Tok/Tanacross/Dot Lake intertie pulls a load of approximately 1,200 kilowatts during an average summer month. It is important to note that the published PCE data covers community power information for the years 2002-2009. A statistical method of projecting future numbers based on a known trend, “least square”, was used to project power production, cost, and population data through the year 2020. An “average year”, here and elsewhere in this report, represents the average PROJECTED figure for the twelve years from 2009-2020. E. Potential Monetary Benefits of the RHK100 The monetary benefit of using an RHK100 hydrokinetic device will vary between communities insofar as each community has a unique set of energy production and cost characteristics. While the amount of diesel-generated electricity may be similar between communities (and, correspondingly, the amount of diesel displaced) the cost of generating that electricity will vary between any two communities. For the community where diesel-produced energy costs more, supplemental power from the RHK100 will realize greater cost savings than for a community where energy is more affordable. The customer base and distribution of costs will also affect the potential benefit of supplementing a community’s electrical production, where small communities pay more per capita than their more populous neighbors. Page 174 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 5 Report Date: February 2011 “Least square” trend lines were produced for power production, fuel costs, and population for each community. These projections varied greatly from one community to the next, being based on the fluctuations over the years 2002-2009, the years for which PCE data exist. These data were used to make a general determination of: 1) the cost of producing power using diesel for each community; and 2) the amount of cost savings resulting from the RISEC-derived supplementary power initially identified as suitable for each community. Monetary benefit was calculated to reflect both the average annual per-capita cost savings, as well as the average annual overall cost savings to the community. The amounts presented in this study for cost savings do not account for any of the costs for RHK100 construction (capital costs) or maintenance. And while the community’s average non- fuel related expenses are shown in Appendix B, they do not affect any of the cost savings figures; cost savings only reflect displacement of diesel. Page 175 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 6 Report Date: February 2011 III. Results and Discussion A. Community List The matrix introduced on page 2 of this report contains the list of Alaska communities initially judged viable for introduction of the RHK100 hydrokinetic device. These communities are, using the best available information: situated close to a river, where the flow rate is sufficiently rapid, where the river and the channel is not too steep or too shallow, and where the influence of coastal tides, waves, and shifts in flow direction will not interfere with the RHK100’s operation. Other communities are listed as non-viable due to one of the following reasons: insufficient population base, coastal influence, insufficient water flow, intertie-connected. Several locations were rejected because they are government facilities, such as Eielson AFB, and two were rejected as corporate or private utilities. Certain communities are marked non-viable for “environmental” considerations; where the presence of a popular sport fishery or an urban setting was seen as a significant impediment to the RHK100 hydrokinetic device implementation. Twenty seven additional communities are considered potential sites for implementation of a hydrokinetic device, but additional data must be gathered for a full assessment. These communities are marked in Appendix A with the selection code “P”. B. River Velocity Data Appendix B presents the summary data discussed in this report, including river velocity measurements from the three sources mentioned above. River velocity data McGrath, Aniak, and Sleetmute were extracted from the DNR Hydrologic Survey database, found at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/water/hydro/streams.cfm. Stream data for Kalskag, Aniak, Chuathbaluk, Mountain Village, Saint Mary’s, Pilot Station, Marshall, Holy Cross, Anvik, Grayling, Nulato, Koyukuk, and Galena were drawn from UAA Professor Tom Ravens’ presentation prepared for AEA and titled “Assessment of Hydrokinetic Energy Resources in Alaska Rivers, which is found at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/OceanRiver/TomRavens_REC4-2010.pdf. Stream data for Chitina, Kiana, Noatak, Tanana, Steven’s Village, and Stony River were extracted from the USGS database, found at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/nwisgmap/. Page 176 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 7 Report Date: February 2011 For most an average flow rate, in feet per second, as well as a maximum flow rate are shown in the Analysis of Community Power Consumption and Potential Energy Offset presented in Appendix B. The measurements of river velocity vary widely, even for the same community. For example, flow rates recorded for the Noatak River near the village of Noatak average 0.9 feet/second, but a maximum rate was reported on the same day as 4.49 feet/second. Because the RHK100 will produce power at an even, fixed level of output, the average velocity figure should be considered the baseline for devising the mechanical transfer of water flow to electricity production. Both the USGS and the DNR websites have large amounts of stream data, but most of that is for streams that are near villages but are nonetheless very small, and slow-moving. These were not included in this analysis. C. Community Distance to River Appendix B identifies the approximate distances between each community and the river where the RHK100 would be placed. Many communities are located very close to their rivers, and 500 feet was the standard estimated distance incremental value. Some communities are farther away, between 1,000 feet and 4,000 feet. For Manley Hot Springs, a distance of approximately two (2) miles separates the community from the Tanana River channel. A shorter distance would certainly result in a less-expensive, more efficient connection of the RHK100 to the community power grid, and a greater distance would be correspondingly more expensive and less efficient. The resulting expense and efficiency, however, are not included in this analysis. D. Suitable River Hydrokinetic Power Capacity The Analysis of Alaska Community Power Consumption and Potential Energy Offset (Appendix B) includes a column (“Water Turbine kW”) that assigns a number of kilowatts to each community. This number represents a river hydrokinetic energy output level, in kilowatts, suggested for each community as a supplement to its summer energy load. In some cases, this amount will supplant a good portion of the community’s summer energy load. In others, it will provide for the entire load amount. Because Red Devil and Stony River have such a low summer load level, an RHK100 hydrokinetic device that produces 25 kilowatts will result in maximum savings for those communities. For the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point as well as for the Tok/Tanacross/Dot Lake intertie, an RHK100 producing 400 kilowatts appears optimal. Because WPC’s initial RHK100 hydrokinetic device proposal Page 177 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 8 Report Date: February 2011 indicated a per-device output of 25 kilowatts, the figures identified in this column are in increments of 25kW. The relationship between summer load levels, stream velocity, and the RHK100 capacity was only cursorily addressed in discussions between CE2 and WPC. WPC indicated that the RHK100 could be adjusted down for a low load situation, as well as ramped up at will to supplant larger loads. Therefore, nearly all communities show the RHK100 supplanting 100% of the power production requirements for the four-month-long summer period. Mathematically, that would eliminate the need to produce diesel power for one-third of the year (resulting in a 30% annual reduction, which accounts for the slightly higher power usage during the non-summer months). E. Potential Monetary Benefits of the RHK100 Appendix B shows the “Yearly Production Cost Savings” for the RHK100 device configuration recommended for each community. Based on the projections tracking the cost of fuel (an increase, in nearly all cases) and the amount of power required (increase in some cases, decrease in others), supplementing summer power requirements with RHK100 devices will produce annual overall community cost savings in the $20,000 range for communities like Koyukuk; the $30,000 range for communities like Ruby, Chitina, and Hughes); upwards to annual savings of $300,000 and $400,000 in places like McGrath, Galena, St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, and Fort Yukon. The annual per-capita cost savings measure shows how the members of a smaller community may benefit, since fewer people will pay a greater percentage of the community’s total power costs and will benefit more from an overall reduction in community power production costs. Red Devil, for example, may only save $27,177 yearly with a 25kW RHK100 device, but based on the high per-capita cost of energy in that community, each individual may save an estimated $1,182 annually. Figure 1, on the next page, illustrates both the annual per capita savings and the annual overall community savings for all of the communities evaluated. Because the analysis presented here does not account for any of the costs for RHK100 device construction or maintenance, these cost savings figures must only be viewed as a baseline from which to develop a more extensive, precise economic assessment. Page 178 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 9 Report Date: February 2011 Figure 1 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 Annual Projected Community Cost Savings: Per Capita and Total Page 179 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Adak 165 NE Tidal Influence Afognak 0 R Insufficient Population Akhiok 80 NE Water flows require further evaluation Akiachak 645 NE Water flows need further evaluation Akiak 346 NE Water flows need further evaluation Akutan 846 NE Water flows need further evaluation Alakanuk 686 NE Water flows need further evaluation Alatna 22 E Alcan Border 26 NE Water flows need further evaluation Aleknagik 229 P Aleneva 67 R No Power Distrib System Allakaket 100 E Alpine 0 R Insufficient Population Ambler 261 E Anaktuvuk Pass 287 NE Water flows need further evaluation Anchor Point 1772 NE Railbelt Anchorage 290588 NE URBAN Anderson 275 NE Railbelt Andreafsky 140 P Angoon 442 NE Water flows need further evaluation Aniak 485 E Anvik 75 E Arctic Village 139 NE Water flows need further evaluation Atka 71 NE Hydro in use Atmautluak 296 NE Water flows need further evaluation Atqasuk 201 R Short Season Attu Station 15 R Govt Facility Barrow 4119 R Short Season Bear Creek 2009 NE Water flows need further evaluation Beaver 58 P Belkofski 0 R Insufficient Population Beluga 24 NE Railbelt Bethel 5803 NE Water flows need further evaluation Bettles 19 E Big Delta 840 NE Railbelt Big Lake 3331 NE Railbelt Bill Moore's Slough 0 R Insufficient Population Birch Creek 31 P Brevig Mission 358 NE Water flows need further evaluation Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 1 of 10 Page 180 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Buckland 432 NE Water flows need further evaluation Buffalo Soapstone 738 NE Railbelt Butte 3255 NE Railbelt Cantwell 200 NE Railbelt Central 96 NE Water flows need further evaluation Central 96 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chalkyitsik 60 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chase 35 R No Power Distrib System Chefornak 475 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chenega Bay 71 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chevak 945 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chickaloon 277 NE Railbelt Chicken 23 R No Power Distrib System Chignik Lagoon 73 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chignik Lake 105 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chignik 62 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chiniak 48 NE Water flows need further evaluation Chisana 9 R No Power Distrib System Chistochina 95 P Chitina 117 E Chuathbaluk 111 E Chuloonawick 0 R Insufficient Population Circle 99 E Clam Gulch 166 NE Water flows need further evaluation Clark's Point 61 NE Water flows need further evaluation Coffman Cove 192 NE Water flows need further evaluation Cohoe 1332 NE Water flows need further evaluation Cold Bay 84 P Coldfoot 13 R No Power Distrib System College 12552 NE Railbelt Cooper Landing 344 NE Railbelt Copper Center 297 P Copperville 131 P Cordova 2126 NE Water flows need further evaluation Council 8 R No Power Distrib System Covenant Life 89 P Craig 1101 NE Water flows need further evaluation Crooked Creek 131 E Crown Point 77 NE Water flows need further evaluation Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 2 of 10 Page 181 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Cube Cove 0 R Insufficient Population Deering 118 P Delta Junction 1128 NE Railbelt Deltana 2355 NE Railbelt Diamond Ridge 860 P Dillingham 2264 NE Water flows need further evaluation Diomede 117 NE Water flows need further evaluation Dot Lake Village 37 E (see Tok/Dot Lake/Tanacross) Dot Lake 16 E (see Tok/Dot Lake/Tanacross) Douglas 4890 NE Water flows need further evaluation Dry Creek 87 R No Power Distrib System Eagle River-Chugiak 30,000 (2000 pop.)NE Railbelt Eagle Village 54 P Eagle 146 P Edna Bay 49 R No Power Distrib System Eek 282 NE Water flows need further evaluation Egegik 73 NE Water flows need further evaluation Eielson AFB 2896 R Govt Facility Eklutna 384 NE Railbelt Ekuk 0 R No Power Distrib System Ekwok 109 NE Water flows need further evaluation Elfin Cove 25 NE Water flows need further evaluation Elim 337 NE Water flows need further evaluation Emmonak 774 NE Water flows need further evaluation Ester 2034 NE Railbelt Evansville 13 P Excursion Inlet 11 R No Power Distrib System Eyak 107 NE Water flows need further evaluation Fairbanks 32506 NE Railbelt False Pass 41 NE Water flows need further evaluation Farm Loop 1313 NE Railbelt Ferry 36 R No Power Distrib System Fishhook 3337 NE Railbelt Flat 0 R No Power Distrib System Fort Greely 413 R Govt Facility Fort Yukon 585 E Four Mile Road 39 NE Railbelt Fox River 604 NE Water flows need further evaluation Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 3 of 10 Page 182 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Fox 390 NE Railbelt Fritz Creek 1818 NE Water flows need further evaluation Funny River 796 NE Water flows need further evaluation Gakona 202 P Galena 564 E Gambell 666 NE Water flows need further evaluation Game Creek 16 R No Power Distrib System Gateway 4068 NE Railbelt Georgetown 3 R No Power Distrib System Girdwood 2000 NE Railbelt Glacier View 246 NE Railbelt Glennallen 473 NE Water flows need further evaluation Golovin 154 NE Water flows need further evaluation Goodnews Bay 237 NE Water flows need further evaluation Grayling 168 E Gulkana 131 P Gustavus 451 NE Water flows need further evaluation Haines Borough 2286 P Halibut Cove 27 NE Water flows need further evaluation Hamilton 0 R No Power Distrib System Happy Valley 561 NE Water flows need further evaluation Harding-Birch Lakes 287 NE Railbelt Healy Lake 10 NE Water flows need further evaluation Healy 1002 NE Railbelt Hobart Bay 1 R No Power Distrib System Hollis 193 NE Water flows need further evaluation Holy Cross 187 E Homer 5551 NE Water flows need further evaluation Hoonah 764 NE Water flows need further evaluation Hooper Bay 1158 NE Water flows need further evaluation Hope 151 NE Railbelt Houston 1664 NE Railbelt Hughes 83 E Huslia 265 E Hydaburg 340 NE Water flows need further evaluation Hyder 87 R Terrain Igiugig 64 E Iliamna 91 P Ivanof Bay 0 R Insufficient Population Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 4 of 10 Page 183 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Jakolof Bay 0 R Insufficient Population Juneau 30661 NE Hydro in use Kachemak 430 R Environmental sensitivity Kaguyak 0 R Insufficient Population Kake 497 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kaktovik 286 R Short Season Kalifornsky 7495 R Environmental sensitivity Kaltag 172 E Kanatak 0 R No Power Distrib System Karluk 38 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kasaan 56 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kasigluk 567 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kasilof 536 R Environmental sensitivity Kenai 7115 R Environmental sensitivity Kenny Lake 412 NE Water flows need further evaluation Ketchikan 7503 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kiana 374 E King Cove 744 P King Island 0 R No Power Distrib System King Salmon 383 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kipnuk 671 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kivalina 410 NE Water flows need further evaluation Klawock 782 NE Water flows need further evaluation Klukwan 72 P Knik River 631 NE Railbelt Knik-Fairview 13824 NE Railbelt Kobuk 122 P Kodiak Station 1321 R Govt Facility Kodiak 6626 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kokhanok 184 NE Water flows need further evaluation Koliganek 182 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kongiganak 465 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kotlik 618 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kotzebue 3154 NE Water flows need further evaluation Koyuk 358 E Koyukuk 105 E Kupreanof 24 R No Power Distrib System Kwethluk 764 NE Water flows need further evaluation Kwigillingok 365 NE Water flows need further evaluation Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 5 of 10 Page 184 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Lake Louise 100 NE Railbelt Lake Minchumina 17 NE Water flows need further evaluation Larsen Bay 79 NE Water flows need further evaluation Lazy Mountain 1446 NE Railbelt Levelock 88 NE Water flows need further evaluation Lime Village 19 P Livengood 24 R No Power Distrib System Lowell Point 76 NE Water flows need further evaluation Lower Kalskag 251 E Lutak 38 R No Power Distrib System Manley Hot Springs 81 E Manokotak 438 NE Water flows need further evaluation Marshall 414 E Mary's Igloo 0 R No Power Distrib System McCarthy 51 R No Power Distrib System McGrath 322 E McKinley Park 168 NE Railbelt Meadow Lakes 7319 NE Railbelt Mekoryuk 174 NE Water flows need further evaluation Mendeltna 57 NE Water flows need further evaluation Mentasta Lake 120 NE Water flows need further evaluation Metlakatla 1499 NE Water flows need further evaluation Meyers Chuck 16 R No Power Distrib System Miller Landing 0 R Insufficient Population Minto 191 NE Water flows need further evaluation Moose Creek 729 NE Railbelt Moose Pass 189 NE Railbelt Mosquito Lake 235 NE Water flows need further evaluation Mountain Village 782 E Mud Bay 178 R No Power Distrib System Naknek 516 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nanwalek 226 NE Water flows need further evaluation Napaimute 0 R No Power Distrib System Napakiak 337 NE Water flows need further evaluation Napaskiak 428 NE Water flows need further evaluation Naukati Bay 118 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nelchina 51 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nelson Lagoon 60 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nenana 479 NE Railbelt Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 6 of 10 Page 185 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes New Allakaket 37 P New Stuyahok 519 NE Water flows need further evaluation Newhalen 162 P Newtok 355 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nightmute 264 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nikiski 4465 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nikolaevsk 315 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nikolai 87 E Nikolski 33 NE Water flows need further evaluation Ninilchik 824 R Environmental sensitivity Noatak 486 E Nome 3468 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nondalton 186 NE Water flows need further evaluation Noorvik 628 R Tidal Influence North Pole 2200 NE Railbelt Northway Junction 60 P Northway Village 76 P Northway 88 E Nuiqsut 424 R Short Season Nulato 240 E Nunam Iqua 193 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nunam Iqua 193 NE Water flows need further evaluation Nunapitchuk 539 NE Water flows need further evaluation Ohogamiut 0 R No Power Distrib System Old Harbor 193 NE Water flows need further evaluation Oscarville 109 NE Water flows need further evaluation Ouzinkie 170 NE Water flows need further evaluation Paimiut 2 R No Power Distrib System Palmer 5532 NE Railbelt Pauloff Harbor 0 R No Power Distrib System Paxson 16 NE Private utility Pedro Bay 48 NE Water flows need further evaluation Pelican 122 R Terrain Perryville 122 NE Water flows need further evaluation Petersburg 2973 NE Water flows need further evaluation Petersville 6 R No Power Distrib System Pilot Point 66 NE Water flows need further evaluation Pilot Station 577 E Pitkas Point 113 E Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 7 of 10 Page 186 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Platinum 57 NE Water flows need further evaluation Pleasant Valley 765 NE Railbelt Point Baker 11 R No Power Distrib System Point Hope 713 R Short Season Point Lay 234 R Short Season Point MacKenzie 273 NE Railbelt Pope-Vannoy Landing 5 R No Power Distrib System Port Alexander 61 R No Power Distrib System Port Alsworth 118 NE Water flows need further evaluation Port Clarence 23 R Govt Facility Port Graham 137 NE Water flows need further evaluation Port Heiden 83 NE Water flows need further evaluation Port Lions 200 NE Water flows need further evaluation Port Protection 72 R No Power Distrib System Port William 0 R No Power Distrib System Portage Creek 7 R No Power Distrib System Primrose 65 NE Water flows need further evaluation Prudhoe Bay 3 R Short Season Prudhoe Bay 3 R Short Season Quinhagak 680 NE Water flows need further evaluation Rampart 12 R Insufficient Population Red Devil 44 E Red Dog Mine 35 NE Corporate generators Ridgeway 2050 NE Water flows need further evaluation Ruby 149 E Russian Mission 363 E Saint George 111 NE Water flows need further evaluation Saint Mary's 553 E Saint Michael 446 NE Water flows need further evaluation Saint Paul 459 NE Water flows need further evaluation Salamatof 855 R Environmental sensitivity Salcha 985 NE Railbelt Sand Point 1001 NE Water flows need further evaluation Savoonga 721 NE Water flows need further evaluation Saxman 434 NE Water flows need further evaluation Scammon Bay 528 NE Water flows need further evaluation Selawik 849 NE Water flows need further evaluation Seldovia Village 166 NE Water flows need further evaluation Seldovia 265 NE Water flows need further evaluation Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 8 of 10 Page 187 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Seward 2609 NE Water flows need further evaluation Shageluk 97 NE Water flows need further evaluation Shaktoolik 231 NE Water flows need further evaluation Shemya Station 27 R Govt Facility Shishmaref 606 NE Water flows need further evaluation Shungnak 270 E Silver Springs 198 P Sitka 8627 R Terrain Skagway 865 NE Water flows need further evaluation Skwentna 73 R No Power Distrib System Slana 102 E Sleetmute 71 E Soldotna 4021 R Environmental sensitivity Solomon 0 R Insufficient Population South Naknek 68 NE Water flows need further evaluation Stebbins 605 NE Water flows need further evaluation Sterling 5348 R Environmental sensitivity Stevens Village 64 E Stony River 48 E Sunrise 19 NE Railbelt Susitna 16 R No Power Distrib System Sutton-Alpine 1407 NE Railbelt Takotna 53 NE Water flows need further evaluation Talkeetna 894 NE Railbelt Tanacross 203 E (see Tok/Dot Lake/Tanacross) Tanaina 7407 NE Railbelt Tanana 251 E Tatitlek 83 NE Water flows need further evaluation Tazlina 207 NE Water flows need further evaluation Telida 3 R Insufficient Population Teller 261 NE Water flows need further evaluation Tenakee Springs 104 R Terrain Tetlin 169 NE Water flows need further evaluation Thom's Place 6 R Insufficient Population Thorne Bay 424 NE Water flows need further evaluation Togiak 820 NE Water flows need further evaluation Tok 1429 E Toksook Bay 596 NE Water flows need further evaluation Tolsona 26 NE Water flows need further evaluation Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 9 of 10 Page 188 Alaska Community List from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Community Database Appendix A COMMUNITY DCCED POPULATION Evaluation Code Notes Tonsina 78 NE Water flows need further evaluation Trapper Creek 444 NE Railbelt Tuluksak 471 NE Water flows need further evaluation Tuntutuliak 384 NE Water flows need further evaluation Tununak 330 NE Water flows need further evaluation Twin Hills 74 NE Water flows need further evaluation Two Rivers 663 NE Railbelt Tyonek 166 NE Railbelt Uganik 0 R Insufficient Population Ugashik 15 R No Power Distrib System Umkumiute 0 R No Power Distrib System Unalakleet 725 NE Water flows need further evaluation Unalaska 3662 NE Water flows need further evaluation Unga 0 R No Power Distrib System Upper Kalskag 223 E Valdez 4498 R Terrain Venetie 185 NE Water flows need further evaluation Wainwright 551 R Short Season Wales 148 NE Water flows need further evaluation Wasilla 7245 NE Railbelt Whale Pass 60 NE Water flows need further evaluation White Mountain 202 NE Water flows need further evaluation Whitestone 173 NE Railbelt Whittier 159 NE Railbelt Willow Creek 157 NE Water flows need further evaluation Willow 2218 NE Railbelt Wiseman 16 R No Power Distrib System Womens Bay 740 NE Water flows need further evaluation Woody Island 0 R No Power Distrib System Wrangell 2058 NE Water flows need further evaluation Y 1057 NE Railbelt Yakutat 628 NE Water flows need further evaluation Total 636500 382 Evaluation code: E = Evaluated NE or P = Potential sites, require additional data for evaluation R = Rejected Page 10 of 10 Page 189 CE2 Engineers, Inc. Analysis of Alaska Community Power Consumption and Potential Energy Offset Whitestone Power & Communications Community River Avg Velocity (Ft/Sec) Max Velocity (Ft/Sec) Est intertie distance (ft) Avg Fuel Cost Per kWh Avg Non-Fuel Cost (2009-2020) Average Annual kWh (2009- 2020) Avg Ratio Non- Fuel to Fuel Average Summer Load (2009-2020) Summer Load Range (2009-2020) Load Range Trend Water turbine kW Summer Production Offset Yearly Production/ Cost Savings (Pct) Yearly Production/ Cost Savings ($) Avg Population (2009-2020) Per Capita Cost Savings Allakaket/Alatna Koyukuk 500 $0.46 $121,985 703,077 0.38 72 68-76 Up 100 100%30%$96,646 132 $732 Ambler*Kobuk 700 $0.62 $350,750 1,385,110 0.41 142 127-148 Up 150 100%30%$255,872 249 $1,028 Aniak Kuskokwim 3.70 9.00 500 $0.50 $1,042,858 2,541,020 0.83 261 266-262 Even 300 100%30%$378,902 465 $815 Anvik*Yukon 3.70 9.00 1,750 $0.49 $123,050 445,992 0.56 46 41-45 Up 75 100%30%$65,420 86 $761 Bettles Koyukuk 500 $0.45 $117,802 464,822 0.56 48 67-33 Down 100 100%30%$63,373 58 $1,093 Chitina Copper 5.57 7.25 4,000 $0.32 $60,320 392,778 0.48 40 44-37 Down 50 100%30%$38,042 111 $343 Chuathbaluk Kuskokwim 4.00 8.00 500 $0.55 $118,867 350,666 0.61 36 28-43 Up 50 100%30%$58,049 78 $744 Circle Yukon 500 $0.45 $85,445 347,571 0.54 36 34-35 Even 50 100%30%$47,057 115 $409 Crooked Creek Kuskokwim 500 $0.51 $114,630 306,349 0.74 31 29-34 Up 50 100%30%$46,693 131 $356 Fort Yukon Yukon 3,000 $0.35 $125,768 3,384,401 0.11 348 318-380 Up 400 100%30%$352,032 608 $579 Galena*Yukon 3.60 13.00 1,000 $0.39 $1,368,500 3,918,056 0.90 403 669-100 Down 500 100%30%$458,442 486 $943 Grayling*Yukon 3.60 9.00 500 $0.50 $143,750 637,308 0.45 65 60-70 Up 100 100%30%$95,376 142 $672 Holy Cross*Yukon 3.10 10.00 3,500 $0.52 $170,430 516,535 0.64 53 66-60 Down 100 100%30%$80,372 169 $476 Hughes**Koyukuk 500 $0.28 $75,446 432,056 0.63 44 40-54 Up 75 100%30%$35,654 71 $503 Huslia*Koyukuk 500 $0.39 $255,300 1,007,445 0.65 104 95-108 Up 150 100%30%$117,386 224 $524 Igiugig Kvichak 1,000 $0.70 $28,605 252,108 0.16 26 24-27 Up 50 100%30%$53,242 63 $850 Kalskag*Kuskokwim 3.70 8.00 750 $0.15 $308,200 1,223,304 1.64 126 123-126 Even 150 100%30%$56,461 255 $221 Kaltag*Yukon 3.50 11.00 500 $0.31 $540,500 799,384 2.16 82 76-87 Up 100 100%30%$75,009 167 $449 Kiana*Kobuk 1.00 3.92 500 $0.46 $437,000 1,710,873 0.56 176 171-183 Up 200 100%30%$234,637 391 $600 Koyukuk*Yukon 3.00 9.00 750 $0.30 $12,650 255,000 0.17 27 25-27 Even 50 100%31%$23,345 80 $292 Manley Hot Springs Tanana 2 mi $0.48 $82,643 272,515 0.64 28 29-27 Down 50 100%30%$38,948 68 $571 Marshall*Yukon 3.80 8.00 500 $0.37 $331,200 1,436,418 0.62 148 130-165 Up 200 100%30%$160,476 409 $392 McGrath Kuskokwim 2.80 4.47 500 $0.45 $206,391 2,467,219 0.19 253 285-225 Down 300 100%30%$333,912 237 $1,409 Mountain Village*Yukon 2.10 7.00 500 $0.31 $709,550 2,774,392 0.83 285 281-291 Up 300 100%30%$256,870 823 $312 Nikolai Kuskokwim 500 $0.26 $54,787 454,863 0.47 47 45-48 Up 75 100%30%$35,242 82 $430 Noatak Noatak 0.90 4.49 4,000 $0.67 $508,300 2,109,448 0.36 217 200-247 Up 300 100%30%$422,645 519 $814 Northway Nabesna 1,000 $0.18 $59,755 1,195,788 0.27 123 143-105 Down 150 100%30%$66,265 141 $469 Nulato*Yukon 2.80 10.00 500 $0.43 $273,700 997,004 0.64 102 107-95 Down 150 100%30%$128,925 230 $561 Pilot Station*Yukon 2.50 7.00 1,000 $0.41 $46,000 1,773,393 0.06 182 181-187 Up 200 100%30%$216,596 612 $354 Red Devil Kuskokwim 500 $0.62 $129,170 145,085 1.43 15 15-15 Even 25 100%30%$27,177 23 $1,182 Ruby*Yukon 2,000 $0.15 $73,600 669,601 0.72 69 68-68 Even 100 100%30%$30,758 161 $191 Russian Mission*Yukon 750 $0.38 $224,250 924,302 0.65 95 92-101 Up 150 100%30%$104,294 354 $295 Shungnak*Kobuk 500 $0.60 $394,450 1,501,060 0.44 154 151-154 Up 200 100%30%$268,663 272 $988 Slana**Copper 750 $0.32 $97,430 931,425 0.33 96 53-135 Up 150 100%30%$44,439 94 $473 Sleetmute Kuskokwim 2.90 4.00 500 $0.63 $118,116 329,862 0.57 34 26-40 Up 50 100%30%$62,131 67 $927 St. Mary's/Pitka's*Yukon 2.70 9.00 3,500 $0.44 $717,600 3,239,575 0.51 333 319-347 Up 400 100%30%$423,426 842 $503 Stevens Village*/**Yukon 4.00 6.04 1,000 $0.50 $28,825 280,000 0.21 29 29-29 Even 50 100%30%$41,796 71 $589 Stony River Kuskokwim 2.90 3.24 500 $0.71 $134,565 133,293 1.43 14 13-13 Down 25 100%30%$28,238 36 $784 Tanana Tanana 1.60 500 $0.43 $592,766 1,233,407 1.13 127 140-121 Down 150 100%30%$157,404 238 $662 Tok/Dot Lake/Tanacross Tanana 500 $0.33 $1,187,229 11,852,560 0.30 1,218 1245-1204 Down 400 33%10%$385,638 1742 $221 * Non-Fuel Costs based on highest value of 2008 and 2009 data, plus 15% **Community PCE data too wide-ranging for realistic projection. These figures are estimates. NOTES 1. Summer Load Range is the expected change (using PCE data trend to 2020) for monthly load between May 15 to September 15. 2. Percent Summer Percent Offset: Calculated using average of each year's (actual and projected) summer load minus turbine supplement. 3. Per Capita Savings: Calculated using an average of each year's estimated fuel offset, fuel cost, and population. Summary Table Rivers Village 5 Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Report Date: February 2011Page 190 Nationwide River Resource Assessment Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Hydrokinetic Device Prepared by: CE2 Engineers, Inc. Report Date: March 2011 Communities located throughout the Lower 48 states and Hawaii may potentially benefit by integrating an RHK100 hydrokinetic device into their existing power system. Potential benefit will depend on the community’s proximity to water, the estimated stream velocity, the estimated amount of power derived from the stream, and the value of electricity offset. In each of these states there are several hundred streams and rivers that may prove adequate for hydrokinetic power generation using the RHK100. Stream velocity data collected by the United States Geological Survey demonstrate this potential by state providing an approximation of the value of power offset. Although there appears to be considerable river energy in each state, the potential benefit of adding an RHK100 to a community’s existing system remains unclear and will require a community-by-community and a river-by-river analysis. Page 191 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. i Report Date: March 2011 Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Method .................................................................................................................................... 2 A. List of River Gauge Site Data by State ............................................................................................... 2 B. Residential Rates by State ................................................................................................................. 3 III. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 4 A. River Gauge Site Data by State ......................................................................................................... 4 B. Residential Rates by State ................................................................................................................. 5 C. Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Appendices Appendix A—Stream Gauging Sites Appendix B—Potential Energy (kW) Production Appendix C—Energy Production and Residential Cost Savings Projections Appendix D—Residential Rate Projections Page 192 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 1 Report Date: March 2011 I. Introduction Whitestone Power and Communications (WPC) is in the process of developing and trademarking an electrical generation device called “the Poncelet Kinetics RHK100”. This River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) device can be used in communities located in proximity to a sufficient water resource to generate electrical power from the hydrokinetic water flow. The RHK100 is a pontoon- mounted undershot water wheel with a nominal electrical power output capacity of 100 kW. The preliminary float footprint is estimated at 34 feet long by 19 feet wide, with a weight of approximately 15,000 pounds. The installation will be moored to the shore and protected with Coast Guard-approved safety equipment. WPC contracted CE2 Engineers, Inc. (CE2) to perform a preliminary assessment of river energy in the Lower 48 states. The aim of the preliminary assessment was to identify the potential to extract energy from rivers using the RHK100. The assessment includes: 1. a summary count of USGS surface water gauging data sites, per state, where average stream velocity measurements fall between 3 feet/second and 16 feet/second, 2. a summary estimate of potential kilowatts, by velocity range, by state, 3. a summary table of projected residential cost per kilowatt hour, by state, 4. a summary table of potential energy cost savings, by state. Page 193 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 2 Report Date: March 2011 II. Method The four components of the assessment were performed independently. The methods employed are described here. A. List of River Gauge Site Data by State Data describing surface water flow for rivers and streams in the Lower 48 states and Hawaii exist in several formats on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/measurements. The “Field Measurements” database provided the most comprehensive data set used in this assessment. USGS NWIS has stream gauge velocity data available for thousands of locations in all 50 states. Many recordings are taken at sites along minor and major rivers throughout the country. Multiple measurements are taken at each site, and any number of sites may be situated along a particular river or stream. Therefore, a “site” refers only to a gauging station along a river. The site data are downloadable from the NWIS website on a state-by-state basis. The data obtained for this assessment contained many tens of thousands of data entries per state. The site velocity data were analyzed through a three-step process. First, all sites measurements of less than 3 feet/second were filtered out due to an insufficient quantity of economically- recoverable energy. Then, an average velocity was calculated for each site. The sites were then categorized and counted based on average velocity measurement. Identifying the location of the sites was not attempted in this assessment. Each river gauge site is identified in the database by a “Site Code” that refers to a separate list of site location descriptions. These data exist in a text format (e.g. “# USGS 03410045 PINE CREEK ABOVE MOUTH NEAR ONEIDA, TN”) and do not lend themselves easily to either a database or a geographic analysis. The site code description was included in the downloadable data records for each state. The NWIS database does contain county information for each gauging site, but these data are not available for download. County information, as well as latitude and longitude information for each site, are only available as “display” when viewing the data for an individual site. For the purposes of summarizing large amounts of site data for this assessment, the geographical data for each particular site were not included. Page 194 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 3 Report Date: March 2011 At this preliminary stage no geographical examination of river velocity data was performed. River names, latitude/longitude coordinates, and county information are available for further analysis as needed. B. Residential Rates by State The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains a website with data on various measurements of energy production, consumption, and cost throughout the nation. A simple cross-tabulation of the data tables downloaded from the EIA website (http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/) provided an overview of the prices residential customers are paying for electricity. Page 195 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 4 Report Date: March 2011 III. Results and Discussion A. River Gauge Site Data by State The table in Appendix A shows a count of the gauging station sites within rivers and streams in each of the Lower 48 states and Hawaii. Each site has multiple velocity measurements, and the average velocity was computed. Each site enumerated in the assembly of this table should not be confused with a single river or stream. Any single river may have a number of river gauging sites along its length. While every site listed in this table will not prove to be acceptable for deployment of the RHK100 device, it is assumed for the purposes of assessing the magnitude of the potential resource, that each site represents a potential RHK100 device location. The USGS NWIS database does not describe a particular method of sampling. The standard, if any, for the placement of river gauging sites is unknown. The site measurements are treated simply as individual spots on a river where velocity measures were taken. The number of sites varies by state for obvious reasons of size, geography, and topography. Some states covering small geographic areas have fewer rivers and streams, and thus fewer data sites: Delaware has 23, Rhode Island has 40, and Vermont has 49. Louisiana only has 58 sites with data, possibly because a large percentage of the water in that state moves slowly. The states with the most sites are California (774), Idaho (629), and New York (564). Generally, the more sites per state, the more potential energy for the RHK100 to capture. Site data revealed that the majority of the gauging sites in most states are on streams with an average velocity ranging between 3 to 4 feet/second. In California, for example, 378 of the 774 sites are in the 3-4 ft/sec range. In each state, the number of stream sites where the velocity averaged greater than 6 feet/second represents a small portion of the total sites, including California (43 out of 774 = 5.6%), Kansas (4.5%), Massachusetts (4.3%). In Florida, 14.4% of sites had an average velocity of 6 or greater, which points to a sampling pattern where slower rivers had fewer gauging sites compared to other states. The table in Appendix B shows the potential amount of energy generated if a 100kW RHK100 device were installed at every data site in every state. Although this is certainly an unrealistic expectation, the estimate is useful in this energy assessment in showing how the riverine resources are distributed BY STATE, as well as the distribution of potential energy between rivers of different velocities. Page 196 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 5 Report Date: March 2011 The amount of energy potentially derived from a river depends on the river’s velocity. In this assessment, the lowest range stream velocity of 3.0 to 4.0 feet/second was considered the baseline, where one RHK100 installed at one of these sites would generate 100kW of power. As the velocity increases by 1 feet/second, the amount of potential extracted energy increases by a power of 3. With 3.5 feet/second as the baseline where 100kW are generated, each incremental increase of 1 foot/second was calculated. So, for every site in the 4-5 ft/sec range, approximately 200% more energy is generated than at the 3-4 ft/sec range. In the 5-6 ft/sec range, 400% more energy would be generated. At the 9-10 ft/sec range, the increase would be 2000%. And at the top of this table, the 15-16 ft/sec range, 8600% more energy would be generated than if the same device were installed at the 3-4 ft/sec velocity site. Some states have enough high-velocity sites to potentially generate a large amount of electricity. North Carolina has two (2) sites in the 15-16 ft/sec range, as does Florida, Illinois, and Texas. Using this formula to estimate potential energy generation at stream sites in each of the velocity ranges from 3 to 16 feet/second, an estimate for the total potential energy was created BY STATE. The states with the lowest kilowatt generation potential are Rhode Island (5,200), Vermont (8,400), and New Hampshire (17,300). Other low-potential states are New Hampshire (17,300), Maine (19,700), and Delaware (23,200). The states with the highest kilowatt generation potential are California (198,000), New York (176,600), Colorado (116,800), and Pennsylvania (108,900). B. Residential Rates by State The Energy Information Administration publishes residential electricity rate data for each of the United States from 1999 to 2009. These figures were used to compute a “least squares” trend line, a statistical instrument useful for observing mathematical trends in the real world and using those to predict future trends. Residential electric costs, per state, were projected through the year 2030. Appendix C shows energy production and residential cost saving projections for each state. Currently, customers in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island pay the most among the contiguous 48 states. Hawaii is highest overall. The 2010 costs (in cents) and projected costs for 2020 and 2030 are shown in the matrix on the next page. Page 197 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 6 Report Date: March 2011 State 2010 Rate (Projected) 2020 Rate (Projected) 2030 Rate (Projected) Hawaii 25.8 34.4 43.0 New York 17.3 20.1 22.9 Connecticut 17.3 21.4 25.5 Massachusetts 15.9 19.3 22.7 Rhode Island 14.8 17.3 19.8 The cost of electricity is not expected to rise above 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in a number of states, including: Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, and South Dakota. Costs will remain below 9 cents in Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah and West Virginia. Appendix D shows the projected costs for residential electricity per kWh, per state. These figures are used to calculate the potential benefit of using an RHK100 to capture hydrokinetic power, as reflected in cost savings to residential customers. C. Analysis The data published by the USGS and the EIA provide a basis for estimating both the potential river and stream energy in each of the Lower 48 states and Hawaii, and the potential cost savings of capturing stream energy using an RHK100 hydrokinetic device. To recap, the analysis represents a situation where an RHK100 is deployed at each and every gauging site reported in the USGS database, after eliminating sites where velocity measurements were under 3 feet/second. Nothing was done to determine a site’s viability, and it is certain that many sites included in this assessment may be either difficult or impossible to equip with an RHK100. Reasons include terrain (steepness, narrowness), volume, depth, seasonal ice, proximity to a community, environmental impact, shipping, or recreational use, among others. None of these variables are considered in this assessment. The cost savings figures, likewise, do not take into consideration the cost of building, deploying, or operating/maintaining an RHK100. They reflect only the high-end potential deferred cost of deploying the maximum number of RHK100s in any given state. The table in Appendix C shows the estimated projected potential cost savings by state. California, with its middle-high residential energy rates and its large number of potential RHK100 locations (with a higher percentage of those in fast-moving waters), could potentially benefit the most from installation of the RHK100 hydrokinetic device. Any one site in California could save the equivalent of $31.6 million in 2010 residential rate dollars. With 774 RHK100s deployed throughout the entire state, California could save $24.5 billion (in 2010 residential rate Page 198 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 7 Report Date: March 2011 dollars). With the projected increase in residential rates, these potential savings rise to $40.5 million per site, and $31.4 billion statewide, in 2030 (Appendix D). The following matrix, data taken from Appendix D, shows the five states with the highest and lowest potential savings, by site and by state. State 2010 2020 2030 Highest Savings Per Site (in millions Delaware $106.3 $125.8 $145.3 Hawaii $55.2 $73.7 $92.1 Florida $45.1 $53.8 $62.5 New York $47.4 $55.1 $62.8 Texas $38.5 $47.7 $57.0 Lowest Savings Per Site (in millions) Michigan $12.2 $13.8 $15.3 South Dakota $12.5 $13.6 $14.7 Missouri $13.2 $13.7 $14.1 North Dakota $13.2 $14.4 $15.6 Kansas $14.8 $15.5 $16.3 Highest Savings Per State (in billions) California $24.5 $27.9 $31.4 New York $26.8 $31.1 $35.4 Texas $17.2 $21.3 $25.4 Idaho $10.8 $12.7 $14.6 Colorado $9.7 $11.2 $12.7 Lowest By State (In billions) Rhode Island $0.7 $0.8 $0.9 Vermont $1.1 $1.3 $1.5 Louisiana $1.6 $1.7 $1.9 North Dakota $2.0 $2.2 $2.4 West Virginia $2.3 $2.4 $2.6 While the analysis of the EIA data showed the cost of residential power rising in all states, some states will rise faster than others. That difference in rate of increase affects the annual fixed RHK100 cost savings, and causes some states’ cost savings to increase more rapidly than others. Page 199 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. 8 Report Date: March 2011 In sum, rivers and streams in the Lower 48 states and Hawaii may potentially contain vast amounts of moving water where an RHK100 hydrokinetic device would successfully generate electricity. The estimates used in this report represent a possible maximum amount of energy generated by the RHK100 in these rivers and streams (with a velocity over 3 feet/second), and a broad comparison of potential cost savings between states. The estimates should only serve as a general guideline to each state’s potential. Data were not screened or corrected for issues relating to sampling bias, river dimensions, seasonal ice, proximity to a community power plant, boat traffic conditions, recreation, or environmental sensitivity, and any particular proposal to develop a hydrokinetic device would have to take all these into close consideration. The cost savings estimates do not include any accounting for the cost of engineering, building, deploying, operating, or maintaining the RHK100 device. Those capital and operational costs would reduce the cost savings reported here. Page 200 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. Report Date: March 2011 Appendix A—Stream Gauging Sites Page 201 STREAM GAUGING SITES GROUPED BY AVERAGE VELOCITY Appendix A Average Feet/Second AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI 3-4 128 106 97 378 278 43 5 115 324 37 223 318 146 129 128 175 37 89 75 33 127 4-5 50 64 72 256 187 49 7 44 117 18 125 218 49 51 53 92 17 38 53 40 51 5-6 12 20 34 97 63 7 3 14 36 10 31 55 6 7 9 22 8 18 21 7 6-7 5 8 8 20 10 4 2 7 11 8 15 12 2 4 4 6 2 6 7-8 3 4 3 6 6 4 2 5 9 6 11 4 3 2 11 1 3 5 8-9 2 6 1 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 9-10 2 1 3 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 10-11 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 11-12 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 12-13 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 13-14 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 14-15 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 15-16 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 State Total 204 211 215 774 546 112 23 202 507 74 412 629 216 201 199 313 58 141 164 94 185 Appendix A Page 1 of 3 Page 202 STREAM GAUGING SITES GROUPED BY AVERAGE VELOCITY Appendix A Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 State Total MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX 177 203 111 203 139 94 125 29 147 106 159 240 112 109 137 303 30 87 135 133 239 89 112 54 112 76 40 47 32 71 72 62 199 60 71 141 132 9 18 65 81 126 20 46 12 46 29 8 5 14 18 10 16 73 13 15 48 27 1 7 3 24 38 11 4 4 4 12 4 1 4 11 5 7 22 3 7 10 9 2 6 9 12 3 2 4 2 4 5 1 4 2 3 9 2 3 3 2 5 6 13 3 3 1 3 8 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 309 369 192 369 271 152 182 79 258 201 252 564 196 206 337 481 40 119 215 257 446 Appendix A Page 2 of 3 Page 203 STREAM GAUGING SITES GROUPED BY AVERAGE VELOCITY Appendix A Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 State Total UT VA VT WA WI WV WY State Total 147 165 24 144 180 52 150 6871 88 78 20 157 64 48 98 3873 33 27 5 64 18 28 15 1143 21 6 15 6 4 5 338 1 1 4 4 2 173 3 1 3 1 62 1 1 50 1 1 39 29 1 1 23 25 1 1 23 16 294 278 49 388 276 136 269 12665 Appendix A Page 3 of 3 Page 204 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. Report Date: March 2011 Appendix B—Potential Energy (kW) Production Page 205 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE 3-4 12,800 10,600 9,700 37,800 27,800 4,300 500 4-5 10,000 12,800 14,400 51,200 37,400 9,800 1,400 5-6 4,800 8,000 13,600 38,800 25,200 2,800 1,200 6-7 3,000 4,800 4,800 12,000 6,000 2,400 1,200 7-8 3,000 4,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 8-9 2,800 - - 8,400 - 1,400 1,400 9-10 - 4,000 2,000 6,000 - 4,000 - 10-11 - 2,700 - 2,700 - - 2,700 11-12 - 7,000 - 10,500 - - - 12-13 - 4,500 - 9,000 - - - 13-14 11,400 11,400 - - - 5,700 5,700 14-15 7,100 - - 7,100 14,200 7,100 7,100 15-16 8,600 8,600 - 8,600 - - - Total Potential kW 63,500 78,400 47,500 198,100 116,600 41,500 23,200 Total Number of State Sites 204 211 215 774 546 112 23 kW Per Site (B33/B34)311 372 221 256 214 371 1,009 Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760)2,726,765 3,254,900 1,935,349 2,242,062 1,870,725 3,245,893 8,836,174 Total kWh Year State (B33*8760)556,260,000 686,784,000 416,100,000 1,735,356,000 1,021,416,000 363,540,000 203,232,000 Appendix B Page 1 of 8 Page 206 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) FL GA HI IA ID IL IN 11,500 32,400 3,700 22,300 31,800 14,600 12,900 8,800 23,400 3,600 25,000 43,600 9,800 10,200 5,600 14,400 4,000 12,400 22,000 2,400 2,800 4,200 6,600 4,800 9,000 7,200 1,200 2,400 5,000 9,000 - 6,000 11,000 4,000 3,000 4,200 5,600 - 5,600 5,600 1,400 1,400 8,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 6,000 5,400 2,700 - 2,700 - 5,400 - 10,500 3,500 - 7,000 7,000 - - 13,500 4,500 - 4,500 13,500 9,000 - - 11,400 - - 5,700 5,700 - - - - 7,100 14,200 - 21,300 17,200 - - 8,600 8,600 17,200 - 93,900 115,500 18,100 114,200 174,200 72,700 60,000 202 507 74 412 629 216 201 465 228 245 277 277 337 299 4,072,099 1,995,621 2,142,649 2,428,136 2,426,060 2,948,389 2,614,925 822,564,000 1,011,780,000 158,556,000 1,000,392,000 1,525,992,000 636,852,000 525,600,000 Appendix B Page 2 of 8 Page 207 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) KS KY LA MA MD ME MI 12,800 17,500 3,700 8,900 7,500 3,300 12,700 10,600 18,400 3,400 7,600 10,600 8,000 10,200 3,600 8,800 - 3,200 7,200 8,400 2,800 2,400 3,600 - 1,200 3,600 - - 2,000 11,000 1,000 3,000 5,000 - - 1,400 4,200 - 1,400 1,400 - - - 2,000 - - 2,000 - - 2,700 2,700 2,700 - 8,100 - - - 3,500 3,500 - 3,500 - - 4,500 - - - - - - - 5,700 5,700 - 5,700 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40,000 77,400 20,000 25,300 54,600 19,700 25,700 199 313 58 141 164 94 185 201 247 345 179 333 210 139 1,760,804 2,166,211 3,020,690 1,571,830 2,916,439 1,835,872 1,216,930 350,400,000 678,024,000 175,200,000 221,628,000 478,296,000 172,572,000 225,132,000 Appendix B Page 3 of 8 Page 208 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) MN MO MS MT NC ND NE 17,700 20,300 11,100 20,300 13,900 9,400 12,500 17,800 22,400 10,800 22,400 15,200 8,000 9,400 8,000 18,400 4,800 18,400 11,600 3,200 2,000 6,600 2,400 2,400 2,400 7,200 2,400 600 3,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 1,000 4,200 - - - 4,200 - 1,400 - - 6,000 - 4,000 - - 8,100 2,700 - 2,700 - - 2,700 7,000 - 3,500 - 7,000 3,500 - - - 9,000 - 9,000 - - 5,700 5,700 - 5,700 - - - - - 7,100 - - - 7,100 - - - - 17,200 - - 78,100 73,900 58,700 73,900 93,300 31,500 36,700 309 369 192 369 271 152 182 253 200 306 200 344 207 202 2,214,097 1,754,374 2,678,188 1,754,374 3,015,897 1,815,395 1,766,440 684,156,000 647,364,000 514,212,000 647,364,000 817,308,000 275,940,000 321,492,000 Appendix B Page 4 of 8 Page 209 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK 2,900 14,700 10,600 15,900 24,000 11,200 10,900 6,400 14,200 14,400 12,400 39,800 12,000 14,200 5,600 7,200 4,000 6,400 29,200 5,200 6,000 2,400 6,600 3,000 4,200 13,200 1,800 4,200 - 4,000 2,000 3,000 9,000 2,000 3,000 - 4,200 - - 11,200 1,400 - - 6,000 4,000 2,000 6,000 4,000 - - - - 5,400 10,800 2,700 - - - 7,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 - - - 4,500 - - - - - 5,700 - - 22,800 - 5,700 - - - 7,100 7,100 - - - - 8,600 - - 8,600 - 17,300 62,600 58,100 59,900 176,600 52,400 44,000 79 258 201 252 564 196 206 219 243 289 238 313 267 214 1,918,329 2,125,488 2,532,119 2,082,238 2,742,936 2,341,959 1,871,068 151,548,000 548,376,000 508,956,000 524,724,000 1,547,016,000 459,024,000 385,440,000 Appendix B Page 5 of 8 Page 210 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) OR PA RI SC SD TN TX 13,700 30,300 3,000 8,700 13,500 13,300 23,900 28,200 26,400 1,800 3,600 13,000 16,200 25,200 19,200 10,800 400 2,800 1,200 9,600 15,200 6,000 5,400 - 1,200 3,600 5,400 7,200 - 3,000 - 2,000 5,000 6,000 13,000 - - - - 1,400 - 1,400 2,000 - - 2,000 - 2,000 10,000 - 8,100 - 2,700 - 2,700 10,800 - 3,500 - - - 3,500 - - - - - - 4,500 4,500 - 5,700 - - - - 11,400 - 7,100 - 7,100 - - 21,300 - 8,600 - - - - 17,200 69,100 108,900 5,200 30,100 37,700 63,200 161,100 337 481 40 119 215 257 446 205 226 130 253 175 246 361 1,796,190 1,983,293 1,138,800 2,215,765 1,536,056 2,154,210 3,164,206 605,316,000 953,964,000 45,552,000 263,676,000 330,252,000 553,632,000 1,411,236,000 Appendix B Page 6 of 8 Page 211 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) UT VA VT WA WI WV WY 14,700 16,500 2,400 14,400 18,000 5,200 15,000 17,600 15,600 4,000 31,400 12,800 9,600 19,600 13,200 10,800 2,000 25,600 7,200 11,200 6,000 12,600 3,600 - 9,000 3,600 2,400 3,000 1,000 1,000 - 4,000 4,000 2,000 - 4,200 1,400 - 4,200 1,400 - - - - - 2,000 2,000 - - - - - - - 2,700 2,700 - - - - - - - - - - - 4,500 4,500 - - - - - - - - 7,100 - - - 7,100 - - - - - - - - - 70,400 48,900 8,400 90,600 60,600 37,600 46,300 294 278 49 388 276 136 269 239 176 171 234 220 276 172 2,097,633 1,540,878 1,501,714 2,045,505 1,923,391 2,421,882 1,507,762 616,704,000 428,364,000 73,584,000 793,656,000 530,856,000 329,376,000 405,588,000 Appendix B Page 7 of 8 Page 212 POTENTIAL ENERGY (kW) PRODUCTION GROUPED BY VELOCITY (BASED ON 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix B Average Feet/Second 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) All States 687,100 774,600 457,200 202,800 173,000 86,800 100,000 105,300 101,500 103,500 142,500 163,300 137,600 3,235,200 12,665 255 2,237,691 28,340,352,000 Appendix B Page 8 of 8 Page 213 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. Report Date: March 2011 Appendix C—Energy Production and Residential Cost Savings Projections Page 214 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE Total Potential kW 63,500 78,400 47,500 198,100 116,600 41,500 23,200 Total Number of State Sites 204 211 215 774 546 112 23 kW Per Site (B33/B34)311 372 221 256 214 371 1,009 Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760)2,726,765 3,254,900 1,935,349 2,242,062 1,870,725 3,245,893 8,836,174 Total kWh Year State (B33*8760)556,260,000 686,784,000 416,100,000 1,735,356,000 1,021,416,000 363,540,000 203,232,000 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 9.40 8.35 9.32 14.10 9.50 17.28 12.04 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 11.16 8.67 9.55 16.10 10.96 21.40 14.24 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 12.93 8.99 9.78 18.09 12.42 25.52 16.45 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 $25,625,274 $27,174,650 $18,032,460 $31,613,546 $17,765,687 $56,091,591 $106,364,281 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 $30,443,036 $28,211,079 $18,477,445 $36,086,376 $20,501,728 $69,457,836 $125,861,664 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 $35,260,799 $29,247,508 $18,922,429 $40,559,205 $23,237,770 $82,824,081 $145,359,047 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 $5.2 billion $5.7 billion $3.9 billion $24.5 billion $9.7 billion $6.3 billion $2.4 billion Potential Savings Per State, 2020 $6.2 billion $6.0 billion $4.0 billion $27.9 billion $11.2 billion $7.8 billion $2.9 billion Potential Savings Per State, 2030 $7.2 billion $6.2 billion $4.1 billion $31.4 billion $12.7 billion $9.3 billion $3.3 billion Appendix C Page 1 of 8Page 215 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 FL GA HI IA ID IL IN 93,900 115,500 18,100 114,200 174,200 72,700 60,000 202 507 74 412 629 216 201 465 228 245 277 277 337 299 4,072,099 1,995,621 2,142,649 2,428,136 2,426,060 2,948,389 2,614,925 822,564,000 1,011,780,000 158,556,000 1,000,392,000 1,525,992,000 636,852,000 525,600,000 11.09 9.18 25.79 9.65 7.06 9.26 8.41 13.23 10.21 34.40 10.68 8.30 8.92 9.47 15.36 11.24 43.01 11.70 9.54 8.59 10.54 $45,166,008 $18,317,388 $55,256,653 $23,438,668 $17,119,176 $27,287,805 $21,980,512 $53,863,154 $20,377,229 $73,706,791 $25,927,964 $20,132,963 $26,311,068 $24,769,242 $62,560,300 $22,437,070 $92,156,929 $28,417,260 $23,146,751 $25,334,331 $27,557,971 $9.1 billion $9.3 billion $4.1 billion $9.7 billion $10.8 billion $5.9 billion $4.4 billion $10.9 billion $10.3 billion $5.5 billion $10.7 billion $12.7 billion $5.7 billion $5.0 billion $12.6 billion $11.4 billion $6.8 billion $11.7 billion $14.6 billion $5.5 billion $5.5 billion Appendix C Page 2 of 8Page 216 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 KS KY LA MA MD ME MI 40,000 77,400 20,000 25,300 54,600 19,700 25,700 199 313 58 141 164 94 185 201 247 345 179 333 210 139 1,760,804 2,166,211 3,020,690 1,571,830 2,916,439 1,835,872 1,216,930 350,400,000 678,024,000 175,200,000 221,628,000 478,296,000 172,572,000 225,132,000 8.41 7.27 8.97 15.86 11.43 15.47 10.11 8.84 8.37 9.97 19.27 13.78 17.96 11.36 9.27 9.47 10.96 22.68 16.13 20.46 12.62 $14,812,439 $15,752,343 $27,087,955 $24,930,130 $33,340,424 $28,404,617 $12,297,331 $15,565,084 $18,134,850 $30,101,377 $30,285,697 $40,190,986 $32,981,184 $13,828,009 $16,317,728 $20,517,356 $33,114,799 $35,641,264 $47,041,547 $37,557,752 $15,358,687 $2.9 billion $4.9 billion $1.6 billion $3.5 billion $5.5 billion $2.7 billion $2.3 billion $3.1 billion $5.7 billion $1.7 billion $4.3 billion $6.6 billion $3.1 billion $2.6 billion $3.2 billion $6.4 billion $1.9 billion $5.0 billion $7.7 billion $3.5 billion $2.8 billion Appendix C Page 3 of 8Page 217 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 MN MO MS MT NC ND NE 78,100 73,900 58,700 73,900 93,300 31,500 36,700 309 369 192 369 271 152 182 253 200 306 200 344 207 202 2,214,097 1,754,374 2,678,188 1,754,374 3,015,897 1,815,395 1,766,440 684,156,000 647,364,000 514,212,000 647,364,000 817,308,000 275,940,000 321,492,000 9.25 7.57 9.57 9.00 9.28 7.30 7.78 10.67 7.81 11.27 10.91 10.11 7.95 8.75 12.08 8.06 12.98 12.82 10.94 8.61 9.72 $20,486,458 $13,272,670 $25,620,105 $15,796,383 $27,988,315 $13,251,522 $13,748,478 $23,615,160 $13,704,536 $30,186,314 $19,144,731 $30,490,829 $14,438,490 $15,462,190 $26,743,862 $14,136,403 $34,752,523 $22,493,079 $32,993,343 $15,625,457 $17,175,902 $6.3 billion $4.9 billion $4.9 billion $5.8 billion $7.6 billion $2.0 billion $2.5 billion $7.3 billion $5.1 billion $5.8 billion $7.1 billion $8.3 billion $2.2 billion $2.8 billion $8.3 billion $5.2 billion $6.7 billion $8.3 billion $8.9 billion $2.4 billion $3.1 billion Appendix C Page 4 of 8Page 218 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK 17,300 62,600 58,100 59,900 176,600 52,400 44,000 79 258 201 252 564 196 206 219 243 289 238 313 267 214 1,918,329 2,125,488 2,532,119 2,082,238 2,742,936 2,341,959 1,871,068 151,548,000 548,376,000 508,956,000 524,724,000 1,547,016,000 459,024,000 385,440,000 15.18 13.73 9.23 12.18 17.31 9.58 8.44 17.13 15.50 9.44 15.74 20.10 10.39 9.48 19.08 17.28 9.66 19.30 22.90 11.20 10.51 $29,110,745 $29,179,935 $23,359,468 $25,357,057 $47,469,398 $22,439,544 $15,796,344 $32,857,978 $32,954,355 $23,908,728 $32,774,365 $55,135,389 $24,332,128 $17,728,749 $36,605,210 $36,728,775 $24,457,989 $40,191,673 $62,801,380 $26,224,713 $19,661,154 $2.3 billion $7.5 billion $4.7 billion $6.4 billion $26.8 billion $4.4 billion $3.3 billion $2.6 billion $8.5 billion $4.8 billion $8.3 billion $31.1 billion $4.8 billion $3.7 billion $2.9 billion $9.5 billion $4.9 billion $10.1 billion $35.4 billion $5.1 billion $4.1 billion Appendix C Page 5 of 8Page 219 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 OR PA RI SC SD TN TX 69,100 108,900 5,200 30,100 37,700 63,200 161,100 337 481 40 119 215 257 446 205 226 130 253 175 246 361 1,796,190 1,983,293 1,138,800 2,215,765 1,536,056 2,154,210 3,164,206 605,316,000 953,964,000 45,552,000 263,676,000 330,252,000 553,632,000 1,411,236,000 8.50 10.74 14.80 9.46 8.19 8.28 12.18 10.56 11.54 17.29 10.84 8.91 9.86 15.10 12.62 12.33 19.78 12.22 9.62 11.44 18.02 $15,265,251 $21,295,662 $16,854,060 $20,970,580 $12,578,438 $17,839,014 $38,551,024 $18,962,296 $22,878,569 $19,687,874 $24,027,836 $13,681,164 $21,239,589 $47,782,893 $22,659,341 $24,461,475 $22,521,688 $27,085,091 $14,783,890 $24,640,163 $57,014,762 $5.1 billion $10.2 billion $0.7 billion $2.5 billion $2.7 billion $4.6 billion $17.2 billion $6.4 billion $11.0 billion $0.8 billion $2.9 billion $2.9 billion $5.5 billion $21.3 billion $7.6 billion $11.8 billion $0.9 billion $3.2 billion $3.2 billion $6.3 billion $25.4 billion Appendix C Page 6 of 8Page 220 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 UT VA VT WA WI WV WY 70,400 48,900 8,400 90,600 60,600 37,600 46,300 294 278 49 388 276 136 269 239 176 171 234 220 276 172 2,097,633 1,540,878 1,501,714 2,045,505 1,923,391 2,421,882 1,507,762 616,704,000 428,364,000 73,584,000 793,656,000 530,856,000 329,376,000 405,588,000 7.77 9.11 14.94 7.53 11.08 6.87 8.14 8.38 10.16 17.83 9.30 13.75 7.34 9.44 8.98 11.20 20.71 11.06 16.42 7.80 10.74 $16,304,678 $14,035,855 $22,440,828 $15,403,192 $21,307,633 $16,650,314 $12,266,359 $17,570,039 $15,649,374 $26,772,878 $19,017,431 $26,448,872 $17,766,565 $14,229,284 $18,835,401 $17,262,893 $31,104,929 $22,631,669 $31,590,111 $18,882,816 $16,192,208 $4.8 billion $3.9 billion $1.1 billion $6.0 billion $5.9 billion $2.3 billion $3.3 billion $5.2 billion $4.4 billion $1.3 billion $7.4 billion $7.3 billion $2.4 billion $3.8 billion $5.5 billion $4.8 billion $1.5 billion $8.8 billion $8.7 billion $2.6 billion $4.4 billion Appendix C Page 7 of 8Page 221 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL COST SAVINGS PROJECTIONS (BASED ON PRODUCTION RATE OF 100kW PER 3.5 FEET/SECOND) Appendix C Description Total Potential kW Total Number of State Sites kW Per Site (B33/B34) Total kWh Year Site (B52*8760) Total kWh Year State (B33*8760) Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2010 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2020 Est. Price per kWh (cents) 2030 Potential Savings Per Site, 2010 Potential Savings Per Site, 2020 Potential Savings Per Site, 2030 Potential Savings Per State, 2010 Potential Savings Per State, 2020 Potential Savings Per State, 2030 All States 3,235,200 12,665 255 2,237,691 28,340,352,000 $1,232,498,247 $1,427,663,367 $1,622,828,486 $294.0 billion $338.3 billion $382.6 billion Appendix C Page 8 of 8Page 222 PONCELET KINETICS RHK100 RIVERINE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CE2 Engineers, Inc. Report Date: March 2011 Appendix D—Residential Rate Projections Page 223 Residential Rate Projections based on EIA data from 1990-2009 Appendix D Rates are expressed in cents per kWh Residential Rates Year State 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 AL 6.59 7.05 9.40 11.16 12.93 AR 8.07 7.45 8.35 8.67 8.99 AZ 9.04 8.44 9.32 9.55 9.78 CA 9.98 10.89 14.10 16.10 18.09 CO 7.02 7.31 9.50 10.96 12.42 CT 10.01 10.86 17.28 21.40 25.52 DE 8.39 8.54 12.04 14.24 16.45 FL 7.77 7.77 11.09 13.23 15.36 GA 7.46 7.60 9.18 10.21 11.24 HI 10.26 16.41 25.79 34.40 43.01 IA 7.81 8.37 9.65 10.68 11.70 ID 4.87 5.39 7.06 8.30 9.54 IL 9.92 8.83 9.26 8.92 8.59 IN 6.87 6.87 8.41 9.47 10.54 KS 7.83 7.65 8.41 8.84 9.27 KY 5.69 5.47 7.27 8.37 9.47 LA 7.41 7.67 8.97 9.97 10.96 MA 9.66 10.53 15.86 19.27 22.68 MD 7.22 7.95 11.43 13.78 16.13 ME 9.30 12.49 15.47 17.96 20.46 MI 7.83 8.52 10.11 11.36 12.62 MN 6.80 7.52 9.25 10.67 12.08 MO 7.36 7.04 7.57 7.81 8.06 MS 6.89 6.93 9.57 11.27 12.98 MT 5.45 6.49 9.00 10.91 12.82 NC 7.84 7.97 9.28 10.11 10.94 ND 6.26 6.44 7.30 7.95 8.61 NE 6.23 6.53 7.78 8.75 9.72 NH 10.34 13.15 15.18 17.13 19.08 NJ 10.36 10.27 13.73 15.50 17.28 NM 8.94 8.36 9.23 9.44 9.66 NV 5.70 7.28 12.18 15.74 19.30 NY 11.44 13.97 17.31 20.10 22.90 OH 8.05 8.61 9.58 10.39 11.20 OK 6.58 7.03 8.44 9.48 10.51 OR 4.73 5.88 8.50 10.56 12.62 PA 9.22 9.53 10.74 11.54 12.33 RI 9.84 11.28 14.80 17.29 19.78 SC 7.15 7.58 9.46 10.84 12.22 Appendix D Page 1 of 2 Page 224 Residential Rate Projections based on EIA data from 1990-2009 Appendix D Rates are expressed in cents per kWh Residential Rates Year State 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 SD 6.95 7.42 8.19 8.91 9.62 TN 5.69 6.33 8.28 9.86 11.44 TX 7.20 7.96 12.18 15.10 18.02 UT 7.13 6.29 7.77 8.38 8.98 VA 7.25 7.52 9.11 10.16 11.20 VT 9.27 12.30 14.94 17.83 20.71 WA 4.39 5.13 7.53 9.30 11.06 WI 6.63 7.53 11.08 13.75 16.42 WV 5.90 6.27 6.87 7.34 7.80 WY 5.97 6.50 8.14 9.44 10.74 Maximum Rate 11.44 16.41 25.79 34.40 43.01 Note: 1990 and 2000 data are unprojected costs reported by EIA. The 2010, 2020, and 2030 rates are projected. Appendix D Page 2 of 2 Page 225