Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutManokotak Power Company, Roun_1MANOKOTAK POWER COMPANY P.O. BOX 149 MANOKOTAK, ALASKA 99628 (907) 289-2ayl Fax (907) 289-3-012. September 17, 2012 Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495 Re: Alaska Renewable Energy Fund, Round 6 Dear Alaska Energy Authority: The Manokotak Power Company (MPC) respectfully submits an application for consideration to the Alaska Energy Authority for a wind and heat feasibility study. The project proposes to install met towers in search of a higher wind speed and class to help offset our dependence on diesel. The end result would be a conceptual design report that includes in broad categories a wind resource analysis, electrical system overview, heat load overview, business overview, environmental and permitting overview. We understand the Bristol Bay Native Association would be responsible for managing the project in consultation and partnership with MPC and several contractors. We are ready and willing to provide the necessary information to partners, and host consultants when visiting the community. We prefer to work with. professionals who have a working knowledge of Manokotak and the Bristol Bay region. The project has broad local support. Letters from the city, tribe and village corporation are included, as, well as a resolution of support from the MPC Board of Directors. Thank you for consideration. Sincerely, Michael Alakayak Sr. President Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®® Grant Application WOOD ENERGY AUTHORITY SECTION 1— APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Manokotak Power Company Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End Tax ID # 92-0096111 Tax Status: X For -profit or:non-profit (check one) Mailing Address Physical Address P.O. Box 149 Manokotak, Alaska Manokotak, Alaska 99628 Telephone Fax Email 907.289.2041 907.289.2042 mucky@gci.net 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name Title Melody Nibeck Tribal Energy Program Manager Mailing Address P.O. Box 310 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Telephone Fax Email 907.842.6224 907.842.5932 mnibeck@bbna.com 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or A local government, or A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its or board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the No applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant's governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) Yes 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow or procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant No agreement. Yes 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached or grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the No application.) Yes 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds or No for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORrrY SECTION 2 — PROJECT SUMMARY This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project. 2.1 Project Title — (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project) Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study 2.2 Project Location — Include the physical location of your project and name fs) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project in the subsections below. Manokotak is located on the Igushik River 25 miles southwest of Dillingham and 347 miles southwest of Anchorage. 2.2.1 Location of Project — Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name. Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project's location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting "What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact AEA at 907-771-3031. The community lies at approximately 58.981390° North Latitude &-159.0583300 West Longitude 2.2.2 Community benefiting— Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. Manokotak is the community benefiting from the project with a population of 443. 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type X Wind Biomass or Biofuels Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic Solar Storage of Renewable Other (Describe) 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre -Construction Construction Reconnaissance Design and Permitting X Feasibility Construction and Commissioning X Conceptual Design Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®© Grant Application ®ENERGYAUTHORMY 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project. The Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Project proposes a further look at the viability of wind to produce electricity for residential and non-residential uses. A 2009 wind resource report written by V3 Energy, LLC indicates a mid -Class 2 (marginal) resource, but given the position of the community in relation to nearby elevation (for a higher wind class) and an old landing strip (for a solid foundation) a further look is warranted. The project proposes using the Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program (WASP), a software application from Denmark, to further analyze the current met tower data and investigate options for the installation of 3-4 small met towers for additional resource data collection and analysis. The end result would be a conceptual design report in compliance with the Alaska Wind Program Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports that includes in broad categories a wind resource analysis, electrical system overview, and heat load overview. 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, etc.) The greatest public benefit would be to determine whether the wind resource is suited to provide power to the community for residential and non-residential use, and whether to pursue the project beyond the feasibility phase into the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a wind - diesel system. It is generally believed that offsetting the need for diesel imported into a community can help reduce the operating and maintenance expenses associated with the fuel, and lower and/or stabilize energy costs for consumers. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. The total project cost is $200,000 but only $193,000 is requested in grant funds from the Alaska Energy Authority. The remaining $7,000 of the total project cost would be matched by the Manokotak Power Company, Manokotak Natives Limited and Bristol Bay Native Association via in -kind contributions. The nature of the in -kind contributions is related to overall project management and services provided to contractor(s) while working while in the community and monitoring of the met towers. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®® MIND Grant Application GENIED ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Include a summary of grant request and your project's total costs and benefits below. Grant Costs (Summary of funds requested) 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $193,000 2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $0 2.7.3 In -kind match to be provided $7,000 2.7.4 Other grant applications not yet approved $0 2.7.5 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.3) $200,000 Project Costs & Benefits (Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully operational project) 2.7.6 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet including $1,020,000 estimates through construction) 2.7.8 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application (Section 5.) $ to be determined $ to be determined SECTION 3 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application. 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. The Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA) would provide overall project management and oversight in consultation and partnership with Manokotak Power Company (MPC). BBNA is a regional tribal consortium providing a variety of services to the people of the Bristol Bay region, including a Tribal Energy Program. Melody Nibeck, Tribal Energy Program Manager, would lead the project management team in consultation with Michael Alakayak and selected contractors. Melody has worked for BBNA for several years managing energy -related projects. The Tribal Energy Program promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and is the lead entity for regional planning in partnership with the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference in contract with the Alaska Energy Authority. Melody is monitored by Patty Heyano, Program Development Director. Resumes are attached. Melody's contact information is as follows: Bristol Bay Native Association P.O. Box 310 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application ®ENERGYAUTHORITY 842.6224 (direct) 842.5932 (fax) mnibeck@bbna.com Michael Alakayak would provide leadership and direction as President of Manokotak Natives Limited, the major landowner in Manokotak and owner of the Manokotak Power Company. Michael's contact information is as follows: Manokotak Power Company P.O. Box 149 Manokotak, Alaska 99628 289.6825 (cell) 289.2041 or 289.2044 289.2042 (fax) mucky@gci.net 3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project. Milestones Project scoping and contractor solicitation Detailed energy resource analysis (plus purchase of met towers) Identification of land and regulatory issues Permitting and environmental analysis MPC and BBNA would procure three contractors for the wind resource assessment, environmental permitting and engineering services. This task would include the procurement process and writing of contracts. The Wind Resource Consultant would be responsible for identification of potential sites, placement, monitoring, collection and assessment of the resource. This task would also include using the WAsP software and purchase of small met towers. The Environmental Permitting Consultant would work with land owners for authorization and associated permits. This task would also include site -specific assessment of resources for environmental plans and addressing any potential environmental impacts and permitting. The Environmental Permitting Consultant would work with land owners for authorization and associated permits. This 7/1/13 1 8/31/14 9/1/13 1 12/31/14 9/1/13 1 3/31/14 9/1/13 6/30/14 Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®® Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORITY task would also include site -specific assessment of resources for environmental plans and addressing any potential environmental impacts and permitting. BBNA and MPC would host a community Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and meeting to discuss the project and discuss markets existing and future energy projections for 10/1/13 11/1/13 both residential and non-residential uses using city, tribe and village corporation comprehensive plans. Conceptual design analysis The Engineering Consultant would coordinate all engineering services related to 10/1/13 3/31/14 geotechnical, electrical, structural and civil services to allow for a conceptual design. BBNA and MPC would work with consultants Detailed economic and financial analysis / to determine the economic and financial Conceptual business and analysis based off the conceptual design 10/1/13 3/31/14 operations plans analysis and incorporate a business and operational plan. 4/1/14 Final report and The Engineering Consultant would coordinate 6/30/14 Recommendations all of the above efforts into a final report. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 �® Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORITY 3.3 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, accounting or bookkeeping personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. BBNA project resources would include: Patty Heyano, Program Development Director, would service as project executive and maintain ultimate program authority. Resume is attached. Michael Moore, Comptroller, would serve as project executive and maintain ultimate financial authority. BBNA has an established Accounting Department with the appropriate financial management systems and controls in place. Resume is attached. Melody Nibeck, Tribal Energy Program Manager, would serve as the grantee project manager and oversee all phases of the project in partnership with the Manokotak Power Company and contractors. Resume is attached. MPC project resources would include: Michael Alakayak would provide leadership and direction as president of Manokotak Natives Limited, the major landowner in Manokotak. Edward Nick would provide technical support for contractors and serve as a key contact for the Manokotak Power Company. Contractors for the project would include: • Wind Resource Consultant. The Wind Resource Consultant would provide services related to the detailed energy resource analysis including met tower purchase, monitoring and reporting. • Environmental and Permitting Consultant. The Environmental and Permitting Consultant would provide services related to land ownership, access, site control, agreements and consult with state and federal agencies for the necessary permitting. • Engineering Consultant. The Engineering Consultant would provide coordination of all engineering services related to geotechnical, electrical, structural and civil services. • Business Consultant. The Business Consultant would provide assistance with the economic and financial analysis based off the conceptual design analysis and incorporate a business and operational plan. The contractor selection process would follow procurement standards as required by grant agreement and BBNA's purchasing (procurement) policies and procedures related to standards of conduct, process, documentation, preferences and protest. 3.4 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. provide an alternative contact person and their contact information. Please Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®© Grant Application ENERGYAUTHORITY BBNA would require monthly progress reports with invoices submitted from Manokotak and contractors. The reports would include a detailed account of project activities completed, existing or potential problems, and activities targeted for the next reporting period. BBNA would collect, compile and summarize all progress reports before forwarding via email to the Alaska Energy Authority project manager in accordance with the schedule established in the grant agreement. The alternative contact person for the project would be Patty Heyano. Contact Information: Patty Heyano, Program Development Director Bristol Bay Native Association P.O. Box 310 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 907.842.5257 Phone 907.842.5932 Fax pheyano@bbna.com 3.5 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. Wind Resource Study: Site control and access to a viable site could be a potential problem with met tower placement. To help mitigate any issues, BBNA and MPC would hire a Wind Resource Consultant who is familiar with the Bristol Bay region and has already worked with the community of Manokotak. Electrical System Overview & Heat Load Overview: Access to sufficient data for an engineer to perform an electrical system overview and heat load overview could be a potential problem. If there is not sufficient data, field work would be required adding to cost and time. A letter of support for the project is attached from the Manokotak Power Company who is committed to working with a consultant. If a site visit is deemed necessary, both overviews would be performed simultaneously reducing the risk even further. Environmental Permitting: As permits would be necessary, BBNA and MPC would hire an Environmental and Permitting Consultant who is familiar with the Bristol Bay region and the permitting process and agencies required to communicate with for wind projects in Alaska. General: Other inherent risks working in Alaska include weather and scheduling of site visits around subsistence activities. These risks can be mitigated with a strong knowledge of the Bristol Bay region, its people, hunting and fishing seasons. These risks can also be mitigated with a clear communication strategy and Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application planning process. SECTION 4— PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS © ENERGY AUTHORITY • The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. _ 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. For pre -construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this lication. A 2009 wind resource report written by V3 Energy, LLC indicates a mid -Class 2 (marginal) resource, but given the position of the community in relation to nearby elevation (for a higher wind class) and an old landing strip (for a solid foundation) a further look is warranted. The wind resource report is attached showing a topographical picture of town, old landing strip and proximity to elevation. The project proposes using the Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program (WASP), a software application from Denmark, to further analyze the current met tower data and investigate options for the installation of 3-4 small met towers for additional resource data collection and analysis. At present, other alternatives are unknown except for energy efficiency and conservation. However, BBNA will be contracting with technical experts for Phase I of the regional energy planning effort which includes an extensive collection of data and inventory of resources. This effort will include the identification of any additional potential alternatives for Manokotak, including the identification of sub- regions for a far-reaching search. The effort will look at the broad categories of biomass, diesel efficiency, energy efficiency and conservation, geothermal energy, hydroelectric power, ocean and river energy, solar energy, transmission and distribution, and wind energy. This is expected to be completed by early 2013 and will be identified and referenced in the final report. 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. Manokotak has participated in the Rural Power Systems Upgrade Program. Number of Generator(s): 1 Size of Generator(s): 260 kW Age of Generator(s): 2006 Efficiency of Generator(s): 13 kWh Type of Generator(s): John Deere Note: Manokotak Power Company is about to install one more generator. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®© Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORITY 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. The existing energy resources used is diesel. Diesel is imported into the community for the production of electricity, hot water and space heating, street lighting, transportation, water and sewer needs. In 2011, 102,227 gallons of diesel fuel was used to generate a total of 1,260,465 kWh for both residential and community facilities. It is generally believed that offsetting the need for diesel imported into a community can help reduce the operating and maintenance expenses associated with the fuel, and lower and/or stabilize energy costs for consumers. A wind -diesel system would impact the current physical energy infrastructure in place, but the extent and impact is unknown at this time. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The energy market for Manokotak has been unstable based on its direct dependence on diesel and the components and costs associated with fuel logistics: refining, purchasing, transportation/distribution, storage, and transportation/distribution to a village. In some cases inclement weather and low water levels make it impossible for a delivery by barge requiring fuel to be flown into the community impacting the price and creating instability even further. Electric Market: The Manokotak Power Company is a stand-alone utility with no intertie connection to another community. Manokotak participates regularly in the Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) in which 33 percent of the total kWh sold in 2011 was eligible for the program. The bulk of electricity is consumed by residences and the school. The following statistics are based on the FY11 PCE report: Total kWh Sold: 1,230,588 Total Fuel Used: 102,227 gallons Total Kwh Generated: 1,260,465 Average Residential Rate: .5500 per kWh PCE Rate: .2727 per kWh Effective Residential Rate:.2773 per kWh Average Price of Fuel: $3.54 per gallon Total kWh Sold for PCE: 408,733 Heating Fuel Market: The Manokotak Natives Limited (MNL) is the retailer for storage and dispensing of heating fuel for the community. MNL piggy -backs with the Southwest Region School District Bulk Fuel RFP for its needs helping to keep the price down. The current price for stove oil is $6.00 per gallon. Gasoline Market: The Manokotak Natives Limited (MNL) is the retailer for storage and dispensing of gasoline for the Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ®® Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORITY community. The current price for gasoline is $5.85 per gallon. It is generally believed that offsetting the need for diesel imported into a community can help reduce the operating and maintenance expenses associated with the fuel, and lower and/or stabilize energy costs for consumers. 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity • Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Basic integration concept • Delivery methods The proposed project calls for the installation of 3-4 met towers to help further analyze the wind regime in Manokotak and to better determine an appropriate system design. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. projectJor Site locations for met towers have not been identified. For illustration purposes, a GIS map is attached showing the boundary of land ownership surrounding the community. The major land owner is the Manokotak Natives Limited. The Wind Resource Consultant, Environmental and Permitting Consulting and the Manokotak Natives Limited would need to work closely together to mitigate any issues and obtain the necessary agreements related to access. 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to a outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Ident and discussion of potential barriers The Environmental and Permitting Consultant would provide services related to permitting and permit issues. A list of applicable permits, anticipated permitting timetable, and identification and discussion of potential barriers would be identified and discussed in the final report. 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed: Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 ©® Grant Application ENERGYAUTHORITY • Threatened or Endangered species • Habitat issues • Wetlands and other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources • Land development constraints • Telecommunications interference • Aviation considerations • Visual, aesthetics impacts • identify and discuss other potential barriers The Environmental and Permitting Consultant would provide services related to environmental permitting and permit issues. The Threatened or Endangered species, habitat issues, wetlands and other protected areas, archaeological and historical resources, land development constraints, telecommunications interference, aviation considerations, visual, aesthetics impacts, and the identification and discuss of other potential barriers would be identified and discussed in the final report. 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants records or analysis, industry standards, consultant or manufacturer's estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: • Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase • Requested grant funding • Applicant matching funds — loans, capital contributions, in -kind • Identification of other funding sources • Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system • Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system The total anticipated project cost for this phase is $200,000. The total amount of grant funds requested is $193,000. The total amount of applicant matching funds is $7,000 as in -kind contributions by the Manokotak Power Company, Manokotak Natives Limited and Bristol Bay Native Association via in -kind contributions. The nature of the in -kind contributions relates to overall project management and services provided to contractor(s) while working while in the community and monitoring of the met towers. Other funding sources, if necessary, could come from local entities and/or regional entities supporting energy and economic development. The projected capital cost of a proposed renewable energy system and development cost is unknown, given current knowledge and understanding of the project. 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 �4NED Grant Application ®ENERGYAUTHORITY applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) The MPC would monitor the met towers, and if necessary perform maintenance. The time dedicated to operating and maintenance would be counted towards in -kind contributions. 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant -funded project A power/purchase sale does not apply to this project. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Please fill out the form provided below Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average resource availability. Wind Class 4 (24.0 Net CF) Class 2 has been demonstrated but we are searching for a higher class Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt' grid, leave this section blank) a i. Number of generators/boilers/other ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other iii. Generator/boilers/other type diesel iv. Age of generators/boilers/other v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13 kWh Annual 0&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor ii. Annual 0&M cost for non -labor c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) I. Electricity [kWh] 1,260,465 ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] Other 102,227 C 1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application J4EIID MWDENERGYAUTHoRrn iii. Peak Load 365 kW iv. Average Load 220 kW v. Minimum Load 240 kW vi. Efficiency 13 kWh vii. Future trends To be determined d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 0 ii. Electricity [kWh] 0 iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] 0 vi. Other 0 Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Wind, 100 kW (24% net CF and 80% system availability) Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 168,192 kWh ii. Heat [MMBtu] 0 c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] 0 iv. Other 0 Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $1.02 million ($10,200 per kW installed cost) b) Development cost 0 c) Annual O&M cost of new system $10,123 (.0469 per kWh) d) Annual fuel cost 0 Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 12,938 gallons/year ii. Heat 0 iii. Transportation 0 b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.54 per gallon c) Other economic benefits 0 d) Alaska public benefits 0 Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale 0 Project Analysis Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 �® Grant Application fMEW)ENERGY AUTHORITY a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio .51 Payback (years) 19.2 4.4.5 Proposed Biomass System Information 1 Please address the following items, if know. (For Biomass Projects Only) • What woody biomass technology will be installed (cord wood, pellets, chips, briquettes, pucks). • Efficiency of the biomass technology. • Thermal or electric application. • Boiler efficiency. • Displaced fuel type and amount. • Estimated tons of wood pellets or chips (specify) to be used per year, and average moisture percentage. • Estimated cords of wood to be used per year, specify whether dry or green and the moisture percentage. • Ownership/Accessibility. Who owns the land and are their limitations and restrictions to accessing the biomass resource? • Inventory data. How much biomass is available on an annual basis and what types (species) are there, if known? SECTION 5— PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: • Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate) • Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) • Discuss the non -economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project The potential annual fuel displacement is about 12,938 gallons/year or 258,757 gallons over the lifetime of the project. Using the current price of fuel of $3.54, $45,800 is expected to be saved each year. It is generally believed that offsetting the need for diesel imported into a community can help reduce the operating and maintenance expenses associated with the fuel, and lower and/or stabilize energy costs for consumers. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 �® Grant Application ® ENERGY AUTHORITY The anticipated annual revenue, incentives or any additional annual revenue streams are unknown at this time. In general, the non -economic public benefits include activities related to a healthy and sustainable community. By stabilizing energy costs and keeping wealth within the community, local entities can focus on schools, promoting safe and healthy families, creating more local jobs and supporting traditional and cultural activities — the foundation of a community connected to its land and waters. The project would also help local entities plan for and promote infrastructure development in partnership with state and federal agencies. These include projects linked to land use, housing and the environment; community wellness, culture and education, public services, facilities and transportation. If a higher wind resource is not found in the area to demonstrate a more favorable B/C ratio, BBNA and MPC would be interested in partnering with a private wind turbine manufacturer who is capturing wind at a lower speed to demonstrate the possibilities based on real returns. This could help serve as a model for other communities in the region and across the state. SECTION 6— SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum: • Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. • How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project • Identification of operational issues that could arise. • A description of operational costs including on -going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation • Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits The MPC is a proven utility, and has successfully implemented state and federal funded projects including, participation in the Rural Power Systems Upgrade and Bulk Fuel Upgrade programs that required a proposed business structure and plan. The MPC is committed to working with a consulting firm and/or the state and/or the wind turbine manufacture to take an in-depth look at a true business plan and concepts associated with the operations and maintenance of a wind -diesel system. This plan would include the identification of operational issues and costs associated with the chosen wind turbine. It is generally accepted that additional training would be required of the power plant operators and those costs would be factored into an overall plan. It is expected that maintenance and operations expenses would be funded through energy sales. MPC is committed to reporting and sharing the savings and benefits associated with the project. SECTION 7 — READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the uirements of previous grants. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6©_ Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORITY BBNA and Manokotak have worked together to compile this application. We intend to proceed with work upon finalization of award documents. i SECTION 8— LOCAL SUPORT Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project. There is broad local support for the project. Letters of support are included from the following: Manokotak Power Company/Manokotak Natives Limited City of Manokotak Bristol Bay Native Association No opposition is expected from the community. SECTION 9 — GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the project. The total project cost is $200,000 but only $193,000 is requested in grant funds from the Alaska Energy Authority. The remaining $7,000 of the total project cost would be matched by the Manokotak Power Company, Manokotak Natives Limited, and Bristol Bay Native Association via in -kind contributions. The nature of the in -kind contributions is related to overall project management and services provided to contractor(s) while working while in the community and monitoring of the met towers. Direct Labor & Benefits BBNA and Manokotak would ask for about $4,000 for direct labor and benefits related to project scoping and contractor solicitation, identification of lands and monitoring of met towers over the course of one year. The remaining would be an in -kind contribution. Travel & Per Diem BBNA would ask for $2,000 for travel and per diem related to the detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, the remaining would be an in -kind contribution. Equipment The Energy Consultant would ask for about $5,000 for purchase of 3-4 small met towers. Contractual BBNA and Manokotak would ask for about $182,000 in contractual services for the Wind Resource Consultant, Environmental and Permitting Consultant, Engineering Consultant and Business Consultant. Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in section Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application ®®EN7=RGYAUTHORITY 2.3.2 of this application, (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Conceptual Design, Design and Permitting, and Construction). Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project's budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grant Administrator, Shawn Calfa, atscalfa@aideo.org. Source of Matching Funds: Cash/ln- Anticipated RE -Fund Grantee kind/Federa Milestone or Task Completion Grant Funds Matching I TOTALS Date Funds Grants/Oth er State Grants/Oth er In -Kind $5,000 Project scoping and 8/31/14 $4,000 $1,000 contractor solicitation 12/31/14 In -Kind $36,000 Detailed energy resource $35,000 $1,000 analysis (plus met towers) $5,000 Identification of land and 3/31/14 $1,000 In -Kind $6,000 regulatory issues Permitting and environmental 6/30/14 $7,000 $500 In -Kind $7,500 analysis Detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and 11/1/13 $2,000 $2,000 In -Kind $4,000 markets Assessment of alternatives 3/31/13 Part of regional $0.00 $0.00 energy planning process $0.00 Conceptual design analysis 6/30/14 $20,000 $250 In -Kind $20,250 and cost estimate Conceptual business and operations plans & economic 6/30/14 $50,000 $1,000 In -Kind $51,000 and financial analysis Final report and 6/30/14 $70,000 $250 In -Kind $70,250 recommendations J TOTALS $193,000 $7,000 $200,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $4,000 $2,000 $7,000 Travel & Per Diem $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 Equipment $5,000 $0 $5,000 Materials & Supplies $0 $0 $0 Contractual Services $182,000 $0 $182,000 Construction Services $0 1 $0 $0 Other $0 $3,000 1 $2,000 TOTALS $193,000 $7,000 1. $200,000 Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application I SECTION 10 -AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM u Comunity/Grantee Name: _ MM644t, P"M CD� Regular Election is held: Date Authorized Grant Sianerlsl: ALASKA . ENERGY AUTHORITY Printed Name Title Term Signature IM � ��►z1 A�kti� - �s � ��r i '� � C I I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents - (Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official) Printed Name Title Term Signature Grantee Contact Information: Mailing Address- PD FOIX 14q AYl D ('¢� Phone -Number: )_81. 2ON 1 Fax Number: E-mail Address: Federal Tax ID #: pj t a b Cn i( j 1 Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 20 7/3//2012 Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 r ALASKA Grant Application ram: : ENERGY AUTHORITY SECTION 11 -- ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A. Contact information, resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4. Applicants are asked to separate resumes submitted with applications, if the individuals do not want their resumes posted. B. Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section 8. C. An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.7. D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: - Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. - Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. - Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. E. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations. Print Name , ` 1 t Cy1CiZl ICE: K�-1.jc_c Signature Title�- Date�- AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 20 7/3H2012 Manokotak Power Company P.O. Box 149 Manokotak, Alaska 99628 RESOLUTION 13-01 A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR A WIND AND HEAT FEASBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, the Manokotak Power Company (MPC) owned by the Manokotak Natives Limited (MNL), provides electricity for the village, and WHEREAS, the MPC and MNL are in compliance with local, state and federal laws including credit and tax obligations, and WHEREAS, the MPC and community at -large is interested in further studying wind as a potential resource to provide power and help offset a dependence on diesel and stabilize prices, and WHERAS, energy costs contribute significantly to the cost of living in our village and causing hardship, and WHEREAS, the MPC supports the Bristol Bay Native Association serving as the grant manager and identifies Melody Nibeck, Tribal Energy Program Manager, as the point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application only, and WHEREAS, the MPC commits to providing in -kind resources towards the project as indicated in the application, and authorizes Michael Alakayak, President, to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Manokotak Pox#4r Company will submit a grant application for funding of a wind and heat feasibility study under Round 6 of the Renewable Energy Fund for proposal process. Adopted on this day 4Wkd2,X c Z 2012, with a vote of -3 yes 0 no 47— abstention. ATTEST: City of Manokotak P.O. Box 170 Manokotak, AK. 99628 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This letter is to certify that as Mayor, City of Manokotak shows full commitment and support with Manokotak Natives Limited, owner of Manokotak Power Company and Manokotak Gas & Oil on their pursuit of Renewable Energy — Wind Power Feasibility Study. Without energy and/or fuel, our community will declare immediate disaster. Fuel prices are going up rapidly, as well as our community is becoming more reliant to Low Income Energy Assistance Program which Obama Administration is trying to dissolve in the next few years if reelected. With wind and/or solar power in our community, it will help us to not rely on LIHEAP or any other assistance programs from the State and Federal Governments. Furthermore, fossil fuel may not always be there in the next 50 years for our future generation and from where will our community get its fuel and energy from if they're all depleted? Thank you. Mayor Mike Minista City of Manokotak 11 BRISTOL BAY NATIVt ASSOCIATION DILLINCHAM; ALAS KA 99576 PHONE {907} 845257 September 20, 2012 Tribal Councils Manokotak Power Company Served by BBNA: P.O. Box 149 Aleknagik Manokotak, Alaska 99629--' Chignik Bay Chignik Lagoon RE: Letter of Support—Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study —AEA Renewable Cbignik Lake Energy Fund (Round 6) Clarks Point Curyung Dear Michael: Egegik Ekuk The Bristol Bay Native Association is writing to express full support of the application Ekwok submitted by the Manokotak Power Company for feasibility and conceptual design of the Igiugig Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study. Iliamna Manokotak currently relies on diesel for the production of electricity, hot water, space Ivanof Bay heating and street lighting. It is generally believed that offsetting the need for diesel Kanatak imported into a community can help lower and/or stabilize energy costs for consumers. King Salmon The study proposes a further look at the viability of wind to produce electricity for Kokhanok residential and non-residential uses. A 2009 wind resource report written by V3 Energy, Koliganek LLC indicates a mid -Class 2 (marginal) resource, but given the position of the Levelock community in relation to nearby elevation (for a higher wind class) and an old landing Manokotak strip (for a solid foundation) a further look is warranted. Naknek New Stuyahok The Bristol Bay Native Association, as a point of contact for regional energy planning, Newhalen again expresses full support of the application and recognizes there is broad local support Nondalton for the project as well. Pedro Bay Perryville Sincerely, Pilot Point Port Heiden Portage Creek 4Radlpndersen South Naknek president and Chief Executive Officer Togiak Twin Hills Ugashik Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Report written by: Douglas Vaught, P.E., V3 Energy, LLC Date of Report: February 10, 2009 Photos © Doug Vaught v V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 1 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Summary Information The wind resource at the proposed wind power site in Manokotak shows fair potential for wind energy development as a mid -Class 2 wind power resource with good turbulence behavior. This is a bit lower than expected and it had been thought that the site, chosen with considerable care as the most promis- ing developable wind power site in Manokotak, might yield a better wind resource. Viability for wind power development, though, depends on the price of electricity, so given the high cost of diesel fuel and hence electrical power in Manokotak and despite the lower than desired wind resource, a wind power project may still make good sense for the community. An economic analysis of this question, however, was not within the scope of this study. Test Site Location 31 •q. •�.. ' L J-� �-� � � _ r� Yam: IlelE.Jr..""'• { :" • =`�� t�f' -% � : icy 1. � . �� •,•. �-- �' ---.- � � . ._ _ .�- '�: Manokolak Met Tower Site { r 44 ,aye �+ /"1�._ � rr,�-�. .�.�,i ,e; _ �. _• +�� r' �M. 1 � �—.; Meteorological Tower Data Synopsis Wind power class Wind speed annual average (30 meters) Maximum 10-minute wind speed avg (30 m) Maximum two second wind gust Wind power density (50 meters) Wind power density (30 meters) IEC 61400-13rd edition classification Weibull distribution parameters Surface roughness Power law exponent V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska Class 2 - Marginal 4.95 m/s (11.1 mph) 18.1 m/s 26.0 m/s (58.1 mph) (May 2008) 227 W/m2 (projected) 183 W/m2(measured) Class III C- k = 1.62, c = 5.52 m/s .0772 m (few trees) 0.174 (moderate wind shear) 2 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Frequency of calms (4 m/s threshold) 44% Mean turbulence intensity (30 meters) 0.104 (excellent) Data start date September 24, 2007 Data end date December 15, 2008 Tower Sensor Information Channel Sensortype Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 anemometer 30 m (A) 0.765 0.35 E 2 NRG #40 anemometer 30 m (B) 0.765 0.35 WSW 3 NRG #40 anemometer 20 m 0.765 0.35 E 7 NRG #200P wind vane 30 m 0.351 325 145° T (SE) 9 NRG #1105 Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 N/A General Site Information Site number 5262 Site Description Slightly northeast and uphill of the school in "New Manokotak" (new roads and development not shown in topo map above) Latitude/longitude N 58° 58' 4.74", W 158° 56' S4.42", WGS 84 Site elevation 58 meters Data logger type NRG Symphonie Tower type NRG 30-meter tall tower, 152 mm (6 in) diameter Measured Wind Speeds The 30 meter anemometer annual wind speed averages (anemometer A and B) are 4.91 and 4.92 m/s. The 20 meter anemometer annual average wind speed is 4.58 m/s. The maximum recorded wind gust was 26.0 m/s recorded in May, 2008. Month Mean (m/s) Max 10 min. avg (m/s) 30 m A speed Max 2 Weibull sec. gust k (m/s) Weibull c (m/s) 30 m B speed Max 2 Mean sec. gust (m/s) (m/s) 20 m speed Max 10 Mean min. avg (m/s) (m/s) Jan 4.23 17.5 23.3 1.28 4.57 4.28 23.7 3.96 16.4 Feb 7.04 16.7 21.8 1.79 7.85 7.10 21.4 6.65 15.6 Mar 4.65 15.2 19.9 1.58 5.18 4.69 19.9 4.39 14.4 Apr 4.44 15.0 19.5 1.73 4.97 4.46 19.1 4.14 14.1 May 5.14 15.2 25.2 1.82 5.78 5.14 26.0 4.79 14.2 Jun 4.65 13.0 19.1 1.94 5.25 4.64 18.7 4.30 12.2 Jul 4.61 11.4 15.6 2.34 5.19 4.64 16.1 4.28 10.5 Aug 3.70 14.2 20.6 1.87 4.16 3.64 20.6 3.39 13.1 Sep 4.39 14.3 20.2 1.73 4.90 4.47 20.2 4.08 13.3 l V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 3 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Oct 4.72 15.9 21.8 Nov 5.44 18.1 22.9 Dec 6.10 17.9 23.7 Annual 4.91 18.1 25.2 Wind Speed Sensor Summary Variable Mean wind speed (m/s) MMM wind speed (m/s) Median wind speed (m/s) Min wind speed (m/s) Max wind speed (m/s) Mean power density (W/mZ) MMM power density (W/m2) Mean energy content (kWh/m2/yr) MMM energy content (kWh/mZ/yr) Energy pattern factor Frequency of calms (%) 1-hr autocorrelation coefficient Diurnal pattern strength Hour of peak wind speed Seasonal Wind Profile 1.67 1.60 1.59 5.27 4.67 6.07 5.34 6.76 6.12 21.8 22.9 24.0 4.40 5.09 5.68 15.1 17.5 17.2 1.62 5.52 4.92 26.0 4.58 17.5 Speed 30 m Speed 30 m Speed 20 A B m 4.94 4.95 4.62 4.91 4.92 4.58 4.50 4.40 4.20 0.4 0.4 0.4 18.1 18.1 17.5 186 187 155 182 184 152 1,628 1,638 1,357 1,597 1,609 1,332 2.39 2.40 2.44 44.2 44.4 48.4 0.903 0.905 0.901 0.056 0.055 0.064 17 17 16 th n. V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 4 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Monthly Time Series of Wind Sneed Spl 30 m A sp o30mB speed 20 m sw - Gp - irr. .. ,- � -.. .. ne. 2w2 2M Daily Wind Profile The daily wind profile indicates that the lowest wind speeds of the day occur in the morning hours of 2 a.m. to 9 a.m. and the highest wind speeds of the day occur during the afternoon and evening hours of 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. The daily variation of wind speed is minimal on an annual basis but more pronounced on a monthly basis (second graph). MH.04 2 O" S30mA 5p W30 m B — Spe.eE 20 m 0 V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 5 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 wee. u.nr i Jn 1 No / AW AW —So p«dA n� —s�a r t *fir t r—so.mzo� � _ 7 i 1 17 It 74 , II A I 8 1 - f r 1 . e 4 1: eat x+ 1 + la *e L Sey 1 Ihl i 1f0. ! [bc G 56 H e 12 1b •cw dQ r Wind Shear The power law exponent was calculated at 0.164 with wind speeds filtered to include only those greater than 4 m/s, the cut -in speed for most turbines, indicating moderate wind shear at the Manokotak met tower site. The practical application of this data is that a higher turbine tower height may be desirable as there will be a worthwhile marginal gain in wind speed and hence power recovery with additional height. A tower height/power recovery/construction cost tradeoff study is advisable. v. _1Y)ne Sn.a. ft . _ At rwelxr_!-IM m. V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Wind Power Density Another view of wind shear is wind power density by height above ground level. Wind power density is defined as the power per unit area of the wind with units of Watts per square meter. It is calculated by multiplying Y2 times the air density times the wind speed cubed for each time step. The equation is P/A = Y2*p*U3. The time step values are averaged to produce an overall wind power density. The wind power density at 50 meters elevation is a wind industry standard method of comparing and evaluating sites. If the anemometer measurement heights are at other than 50 meters, the wind analy- sis software uses the power law exponent derived from the two (or more) measurement heights to extrapolate up or down. As can be seen in the figure below, power density and hence potential turbine power production in- creases substantially with turbine hub height in Manokotak, as is true at most sites. Note that the meas- ured power densities in the figure below differ from those reported in the data summary table on page 2 of this report. The figure below uses all collected data (September 2007 through December 2008) while in the summary table these data are presented as annual averages. Plot We: (_ Lnew F' Logaiillnrc E 3 c i Height Above Ground tm) O't, _ L.- N b" fir Measured data kmghl Mann Wnd Pawn Im) Dandy rWhn21 30 183 20 152 Best -Fit parameters horn log -log plot -- - -- Intercept: 3 G53 Slope: 0 458 e 1000 Results -- ---- -- - -- - - - - ----- --- Power density at 50m: 231 W hrt Wind power class: 2 (Marginal) For reference Wix1 Dascr91ion Meer Pow" Pawn d Density et 50rn 171ast 0 rWlm21 1 PM 02M 2 Marginal 200-300 3 Fair 300-400 4 Good 400.5W 5 Excellent 5W0 w 6 Outstanding b00 Cc70 7 Superb WO 2. Scatterplot An observation of some interest is to compare by scatterplot the power density and, separately, the mean wind speed to temperature. As one can see below, the power producing winds (winds greater than 4 m/s, the typical wind turbine cut -in speed) are present through all temperature ranges, even as low as -30° C, although high winds at extreme low temperatures are uncommon in Manokotak. A tur- bine selected for Manokotak should be capable of operation to -25n C. IV3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 speed 30 x1 n vs, LenN- awro ;Sp;no_10 m A 12 �f � - "4� �- y>,.- .fi . �!wr•K ice_ f�{�i� !: . F irk' i-�-i;•ri:..' _ �' �:., - r - Temperature (-C) tix SUA*d 30 M A WPp rd. Iemgralllre; Speed ]n m A a; mrs xi X kC 10 Temperature pC) i V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 8 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Extreme Wind Analysis Using a modified Gumbel distribution, one can predict the probability of winds exceeded a certain value within a defined period of time. Another way to consider the analysis though is by the concept of return period. In other words, in a defined period of time, typically 50 years, one can determine the maximum wind speed likelyto occur. This is important when selecting a wind turbine as manufacturers classify their turbines by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards of Class (per IEC 61400-1, edition 3). At the Manokotak test site, the maximum predicted 50 year wind speed (ten minute aver- age) at 30 meters is 21.8 m/s, and the maximum predicted 50 year wind gust (two second average) at 30 meters is 29.9 m/s. The 50 year return period, ten minute wind speed average prediction qualifies the site as IEC Class III, the lowest and most common extreme wind designation. Average Gust RETURN PERIOD SPEED Factor 1.38 RETURN 10 min average, Manokotak YR m/s 2 sec gust, m/s 30 meter 2 17.9 24.6 10 19.8 27.3 15 20.3 28.0 30 21.1 29.1 50 21.8 29.9 100 22.6 31.1 Extreme Wind Speed vs. Return Period 1)11 n Max. Wind Speed, m/s Power (Max. Wind Speed, m/s) Probability Distribution Function The probability distribution function provides a visual indication of measured wind speeds in one meter per second "bins". Note that most wind turbines do not begin to generate power until the wind speed at hub height reaches 4 m/s, known as the "cut -in" wind speed. The black line in the graph is a best fit V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 9 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Weibull distribution. At the 30 meter level, Weibull parameters are k = 1.62 and c = 5.52 m/s ("k" is the shape factor and "c" is the scale factor) for the data period. This shape factor is indicative of a normal wind distribution for wind power sites. The PDF information is shown visually in another manner in the second graph, the Cumulative Distribu- tion Function. In this view, one can see that about 45 percent of winds (at 30 meters) are less than 4 m/s, the standard cut -in speed of most turbines and 100 percent of the winds are less than 25 m/s, the standard high wind cut-out speed for most turbines. Speed 30 m A Jp s) Atluel dab — B -M W" deAndeup (e U, L=5 5 m ) s.e MeA speed M m 9 — speed 20 n, w.a speed �, PV3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 10 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Wind Roses Manokotak's winds are highly directional with the wind frequency rose indicating mostly northeast winds with a minor component of westerly winds. This observation is reinforced with reference to the mean value and total value power density roses. Although the wind is nearly equal strength from all directions, the power producing winds are entirely northeasterly due to the dominance of wind fre- quency from that sector. The practical application of this information is that a wind turbine site should be selected with adequate freedom from ground interference to the northeast and if more than one turbine is installed, the turbines should aligned along an axis of 120' to 300°, perpendicular to the power wind direction of 030' (true bearings). Note also that a wind threshold of 4 m/s was selected for the definition of calm winds. This wind speed represents the cut -in wind speed of most wind turbines. By this definition, Manokotak experienced 44 percent calm conditions during the measurement period (see wind frequency roses below). Wind Frequency Rose Wind Frequency Rose ,M +ne: 30• 31'.' 3M' At' 2ro' +3s' a3• �zr 10 M Z,.. fax 1sr ti9,� sg5' V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 11 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Mean Value Rose Mean of Speed 30 m A 2or 22V 210• I_n 0.N 2a' 22s• ;f0' I Y3• Total Value (power density) Rose Tolal Wind Energy (30 m) xq' 3�5• 2T0' V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 12 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Turbulence Intensity The turbulence intensity is acceptable with a mean turbulence intensity of 0.102 and a representa- tive turbulence intensity of 0.127 at 15 m/s wind speed, indicating quite smooth air for wind turbine operations. This equates to an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 3rd Edition (2005) turbulence category C, which is the lowest defined category. Turbulence Table Turbulence Intensity (TI) Table, 30 m A speed Bin Bin Endpoints Records Standard Midpoint Lower Upper In Mean Deviation Representative (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin TI of TI TI Peak TI 1 0.5 1.5 5,654 0.467 0.175 0.691 1.429 2 1.5 2.5 6,847 0.250 0.129 0.415 1.000 3 2.5 3.5 8,066 0.185 0.093 0.304 0.880 4 3.5 4.5 8,871 0.162 0.075 0.258 0.722 5 4.5 5.5 8,177 0.151 0.065 0.234 0.553 6 5.5 6.5 6,320 0.145 0.060 0.222 0.534 7 6.5 7.5 4,678 0.138 0.054 0.206 0.492 8 7.5 8.5 3,614 0.130 0.049 0.193 0.398 9 8.5 9.5 2,551 0.124 0.044 0.180 0.424 10 9.5 10.5 2,006 0.117 0.038 0.166 0.396 11 10.5 11.5 1,404 0.111 0.037 0.158 0.290 12 11.5 12.5 1,045 0.105 0.033 0.148 0.303 13 12.5 13.5 788 0.104 0.032 0.146 0.304 14 13.5 14.5 429 0.102 0.028 0.137 0.226 15 14.5 15.5 264 0.102 0.019 0.127 0.191 16 15.5 16.5 80 0.107 0.018 0.131 0.148 17 16.5 17.5 17 0.117 0.014 0.135 0.135 18 17.5 18.5 5 0.117 0.006 0.124 0.123 19 18.5 19.5 0 V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 13 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 IEC 31'd Edition Turbulence Category Graph )T' 1urouience rayenany. mi eciyra -Md� ) 54 l ..{_. )41 1 % ._ a Wind IV*" (misl Representative TI IEC Category A IEC Category B IEC Category C Air Temperature and Density Over the reporting period, Manokotak had an average temperature of 1.7° C. The minimum recorded temperature during the measurement period was -29.0° C and the maximum temperature was 26.90 C, indicating a wide variability of an ambient temperature operating environment important to wind turbine operations. Consequent to Manokotak's cool temperatures, the average air density of 1.277 kg/m3 is nearly five percent higher than the stan- dard air density of 1.218 kg/m3 (14.6° C and 100.6 kPa standard 9,rns„(kg ) temperature and pressure at 58 m elevation), indicating that Manokotak has denser air than the stan- 1, V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 14 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 dard air density used to calculate turbine power curves (note that all turbine power curves are calcu- lated at a sea level standard of 15° C and 101.3 kPa pressure). Temperature Air Density Month Mean Min Max Mean Min Max CC) (°C) (-C) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) Jan -10.5 -29.0 4.1 1.336 1.264 1.436 Feb -9.6 -27.1 5.8 1.331 1.256 1.424 Mar -4.9 -21.0 5.8 1.307 1.256 1.390 Apr -1.6 -14.0 11.3 1.291 1.232 1.352 May 6.1 -3.8 16.9 1.256 1.208 1.301 Jun 10.4 0.9 24.5 1.236 1.178 1.279 Jul 13.0 6.1 26.9 1.225 1.168 1.255 Aug 14.0 4.1 24.4 1.221 1.178 1.264 Sep 9.5 1.2 17.7 1.240 1.205 1.278 Oct 1.2 -11.5 12.1 1.278 1.229 1.340 Nov -2.9 -21.2 8.0 1.298 1.247 1.391 Dec -4.8 -22.2 7.0 1.307 1.251 1.397 Annual 1.7 -29.0 26.9 1.277 1.168 1.436 uanuar wv.ucs en i.nw.+a�un ] I' N�T' V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 15 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 Data Quality Control Data was filtered to remove presumed icing events that yield false zero wind speed data. Data that met the following criteria were filtered: wind speed < 1 m/s, wind speed standard deviation = 0, and tem- perature < 3 T. Other obvious icing event data not meeting these criteria were filtered manually. In general, data recovery from the Manokotak met tower was very good, with some icing loss presumably due to freezing rain during the autumn through spring months. Year Month Ch1,30mA Recovery Records Rate, % Ch2,30mB Recovery Records Rate, % Ch3,20m Recovery Records Rate, 2007 Sep 1,008 100.0 1,008 100.0 1,008 100.0 2007 Oct 4,440 99.5 4,360 97.7 4,360 97.7 2007 Nov 3,858 89.3 3,822 88.5 3,887 90.0 2007 Dec 4,324 96.9 4,420 99.0 4,389 98.3 2008 Jan 4,464 100.0 4,337 97.2 4,284 96.0 2008 Feb 3,969 95.0 3,972 95.1 3,966 95.0 2008 Mar 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 2008 Apr 4,191 97.0 4,191 97.0 4,191 97.0 2008 May 4,411 98.8 4,411 98.8 4,411 98.8 2008 Jun 4,320 100.0 4,320 100.0 4,320 100.0 2008 Jul 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 2008 Aug 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 2008 Sep 4,320 100.0 4,320 100.0 4,320 100.0 2008 Oct 4,257 95.4 4,220 94.5 4,227 94.7 2008 Nov 4,250 98.4 4,250 98.4 4,091 94.7 2008 Dec 1,438 69.5 1,469 71.0 1,453 70.2 All data 62,642 97.0 62,492 96.8 62,299 96.5 Ch 7, vane Ch 9, temp Recovery Recovery Year Month Records Rate, % Records Rate, % 2007 Sep 1,008 100.0 1,008 100.0 2007 Oct 4,354 97.5 4,464 100.0 2007 Nov 3,570 82.6 4,320 100.0 2007 Dec 4,197 94.0 4,464 100.0 2008 Jan 3,952 88.5 4,464 100.0 2008 Feb 4,109 98.4 4,176 100.0 2008 Mar 4,333 97.1 4,464 100.0 2008 Apr 4,234 98.0 4,320 100.0 2008 May 4,399 98.5 4,464 100.0 2008 Jun 4,320 100.0 4,320 100.0 V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 16 Manokotak, Alaska Wind Resource Report, rev. 1 2008 Jul 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 2008 Aug 4,464 100.0 4,464 100.0 2008 Sep 4,320 100.0 4,320 100.0 2008 Oct 4,228 94.7 4,464 100.0 2008 Nov 3,808 88.2 4,320 100.0 2008 Dec 1,519 73.4 2,070 100.0 All data 61,279 94.9 64,566 100.0 Turbine Analysis Estimating turbine performance in Manokotak's wind regime can be accomplished by matching the tur- bine manufacturer's power curve to each ten-minute average wind speed to derive a corresponding power output. This output is adjusted for increased or decreased air density due to temperature and summed as an annual energy output in kilowatt-hours. Output can also be reported as capacity factor, defined as the percent of maximum possible power output a turbine is capable of delivering (if it were operating at 100% power, 100% of the time). Typical capacity factors for wind sites vary from perhaps 15% at a low wind resource site to 50% at a very high wind resource site. Based on data collected in this study, wind turbines operating in Manokotak's wind regime, depending on the model, hub heights, and blade pitch technology, are estimated to operate at 15 to 20 percent capacity factor. To estimate potential annual turbine energy output, multiply the turbine's rated power (maximum kW output) X 8,760 (number of hours per year) X the capacity factor expressed as a unitless ratio X the turbine availability (percent of time it is available for normal operation), also expressed as a unitless ratio. For instance, if one were to consider a turbine rated at 100 kW, assume an 18% capacity factor, and assume that the turbine availability is 90%, then the expected annual energy production would be: r hkWhr Energy ( yr kWhr ) = 100 kW * 8,760 r * 0.18 * 0.90 = 141,900 y r If two or more identical 100 kW turbines will be installed, multiply the annual energy result by the num- ber of turbines. A precise estimate of turbine capacity factor at the Manokotak wind site can be calcu- lated once a specific wind turbine is identified. I V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 17 � �� •'�. 1.I_i•:r =��?. i5w .}. �•�Y ik\•' •-� �§Si rr � �� -' .fix r w--�,l t ti • ` 5 17 Iry _ � � ate. ��, r. I ' ��� 1 "•' 'rs i!w�_'= `r`.^-t''- •y--e•�:s �',. l- ~.".... -• .. •� AYK.�r� ��?VE�ik-•'� _ .. _V._' r '� 1 - i' r• Ll � -�! r~ � r•L . �' �: ��' ':C •rrT • , f S•�.-4=�5 � � art 4�-� two -{' ;x` � -' • M �-.►.� .. its' -� �`� � Y 3 ���'�, f�a��-_ .�; y•f. "��_.1.} , 1 �L. - -ti '�.�.- '�j Ti •�-"•----•---'^• �_ � - � 'stir'-�. �' � i .��� � • y � 'j �`�i�''�� fall -ter ��`�+.. ro:y �.-.- �%� r': a _ f• b" 1 n` �� r ' ' ManakatakNatives. Ltd. 2,lip' • •r ,�,� ff .� � :.••"vt)r � _. .. ' ` r� °`SerV. PrDV. Area _ ` �f li �.; • Manokotalt��. •�--- +. y4 ► it ,i 4 fl n r i4• ~ - ;r i• ice?,• '74 - _ Y•::�'. _ '-_- -_ - r''} 1❑ t - _�..k r. sb•- : _ .'1�� y,� w.� li� � -:. _ ..',�S =gyp'='�'�: y'+ -�:: �ti_ _ �: - E :w: •. _ -�`Jyl.. �'1�. _+� `.,rs,:. ,.' W "•� '-1 �� I% j� 'Z^•Ad -L5rIS :d .y. . _fir 4. i . �. _ ;_ : � . •� .. r _ — lam_.. . ,° _�, .,fps' 4 I�31. 26 j,f • .p - �n 27 26 25 . J. A -_.. .' r -�:. . _ ' •. ..,rat-.. iy,•.' i - Se". Prov. Area. i ti P �'•r ; _ "Dillingham 3 ^ Z �., IT t- 1 inch 1.2 miles t Native Allotment Information Legend Bristol Bay (background image - USGS quadrangle mapping) Native Allotments � Service Provider Areas l j Restricted Allotment City of Dillingham Parcels (2011) ® - Native Y i Other Private Parcels Partial/Full Unrestricted Allotment '- -, Rename:.—d 0� Roads Association D.I.: 8/3/2012