Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPilot Station-St MarysFinalApplication09222012Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA 13-006 Application Page 1 of 24 7/3/2011 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Type of Entity: Not-for-profit corporation Fiscal Year End: December 31 Tax ID # 92-0035763 Tax Status: For-profit or X non-profit ( check one) Mailing Address 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Physical Address 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone 800-478-1818 Fax 800-478-4086 Email 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name Brent Petrie Title: Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts Mailing Address 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Telephone 907-565-5358 Fax 907-561-2388 Email BPetrie@avec.org 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or A local government, or A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) Yes 1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement. Yes 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Yes 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 24 7/3//2012 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) St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction Project 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project in the subsections below. This electric intertie to wind energy will be constructed between St. Mary’s and Pilot Station. Both Western Alaskan communities are approximately 450 air miles west-northwest 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. This project will be located between the communities of St. Mary’s and Pilot Station which are about eleven (11) miles apart. The City of St. Mary's encompasses the Yup'ik villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky. It lies at approximately 62.053060 North Latitude and -163.165830 West Longitude. (Sec. 26, T023N, R076W, Seward Meridian.) Pilot Station is located about 11 miles east of St. Mary’s and about 26 miles west of Marshall. It lies at approximately 61.938890 North Latitude and -162.875000 West Longitude. 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. This project will benefit St. Mary’s (2011 population of 554) and Pitka’s Point (2011 population of 93), which have already intertied electrical systems, and Pilot Station (2011 population of 583). Another Round 6 Renewable Energy Fund application requests funding to add a wind turbine to the St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point existing energy generation system. This project will construct an intertie between Pilot Station and that wind energy system. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 24 7/3//2012 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X 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 X Other (Describe) Electric Intertie to a wind energy system 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre-Construction Construction Reconnaissance Design and Permitting Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning Conceptual Design 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $5,581,800 from this Grant Program to construct an electrical intertie between the communities of St. Mary’s and Pilot Station, the total cost of which is $6,202,000. AVEC will contribute $625,000 cash as its match. The intertie will be designed with 14 miles of new connection through undeveloped terrain. The completed design work-to-date indicates the three-phase electrical intertie will require two river crossings and six slough/lake crossings, must be constructed in winter months, and will need pole spacing of 185 feet. Completed design work on the intertie is included in Tab F. At present, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected by a distribution power line, but Pilot Station is a stand-alone, diesel-powered community. This project would connect the electric system of Pilot Station to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point system. Standby generation capability will be provided with a new standby generation module in Pilot Station, but primary generation will be delivered by the existing St. Mary’s power plant and an EWT wind turbine. Another Round 6 Renewable Energy Grant Program application requests funding to build a wind energy system for the intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This project will add Pilot Station, about eleven miles from St. Mary’s, to that proposed wind system. 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.) Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 24 7/3//2012 This project would help stabilize the existing high energy costs in Pilot Station by avoiding the costs of a new power plant and associated tank farm. The St. Mary’s Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Report says, “Airspace restrictions around Pilot Station preclude the option of wind turbines for the village, but with an intertie, the wind power project plan for St. Mary’s will be available to also serve Pilot Station. Although the intertie itself is projected to cost $5.95 million), the net cost of the intertie, with avoided capital costs considered, is a very modest $260,000.” (Note, this has been updated to $6.2 million, but the benefits remain large.) This project would stabilize energy cost for households in Pilot Point, St. Mary’s, and Pitka’s Point by sharing the benefits of a wind project between the three communities. The EWT turbine installation proposed in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point would be able to be fully exploited to a greater potential. The costs of power generation via diesel generation would also be shared among three communities, helping to stabilize energy costs. In addition, this project would reduce overall operations and maintenance costs. By shifting to only a stand-by power plant in Pilot Station, AVEC will save approximately $170,000 per year in labor, generator consumables, and replacement parts in Pilot Station. Finally, this project would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and the overall contribution to global climate change by eliminating a separate power plant in Pilot Station and by employing more of the proposed wind turbine’s output to serve the larger electric loads of the intertied communities than would be the case for St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point alone . Please see Section 5: Project Benefits for additional details. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. AVEC is proposing a project to construct an electrical intertie between the communities of St. Mary’s and Pilot Station. The estimated construction cost is $6,202,000. AVEC requests $5,581,800 from the State of Alaska through a Renewable Energy Fund award for this construction project. AVEC will provide $620,200 cash (10% of the total costs) as a match contribution. The land necessary for this project and grant administration are additional contributions to this effort. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 24 7/3//2012 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. $5,581,800. 2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $620,200. 2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $ 2.7.4 Other grant applications not yet approved $ 2.7.5 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.3) $6,202,000. 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 estimates through construction) $6,202,000 2.7.7 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $15,063,000 (50 year project period and 3% discount rate) 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.) $ 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. AVEC, as the electric utility serving Pilot Station and St. Mary’s, will provide overall project management and oversight. Brent Petrie, Manager of Community Development and Key Accounts, will lead the project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors. He has worked for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 1998, where he manages the development of alternatives to diesel generation for AVEC such as using wind, hydropower, solar and heat recovery. He also is the program manager for AVEC’s major construction projects. Mr. Petrie has worked in the energy and resource field for more than thirty years, having worked for the federal and state governments as consultant, planner, and project manager. He has been a utility manager or management consultant since 1993. As General Manager of Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 24 7/3//2012 Iliamna- Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative from 1994 to 1998, he reported to a seven-member, elected board of directors, and served as project manager on its hydroelectric project development. He is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Utility Wind Interest Group representing rural electric cooperatives and serves on the Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Advisory Group of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Mr. Petrie has a Master’s Degree in Water Resource Management and a Bachelor's Degree in Geography. His resume is attached. Also involved with the project management and grant administration is Meera Kohler as the President and CEO of AVEC. Ms. Kohler has more than 30 years of experience in the Alaska electric utility industry. She was appointed Manager of Administration and Finance at Cordova Electric Cooperative in 1983, General Manager of Naknek Electric Association in 1990, and General Manager of Municipal Light & Power in Anchorage in 1997. Since May 2000, Ms. Kohler has been the President and CEO of AVEC and in this position has ultimate grant and project responsibilities. 3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project. The schedule organized by AEA milestones is as follows: Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are complete. May 2013 All permits received May 2013 Completion of bid documents May 2013 Contractor/vendor selection and award July 2013 Construction activities December 2013-March 2014 Integration and testing March 2014 Decommissioning old systems n/a Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up April 2014 Operations Reporting May 2014 3.3 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, accounting or bookkeeping personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 24 7/3//2012 AVEC will use a project management approach that includes a team of AVEC staff and external consultants, and which has been successful in the design, permitting and construction of other intertie systems in rural Alaska: AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:  Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.  Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, will lead the project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors . Together with his group, Brent will provide oversight for the completion of the final design and permitting to install two wind turbines. The group’s resources include a project coordinator, accountant, project/construction manager (PM/CM), and a community liaison. Mr. Petrie will be the program manager for this project and will assign project manager resources to implement the project .  Debbie Bullock, Manager of Administrative Services, will provide support in accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.  Bill Stamm, Manager of Engineering, leads AVEC’s Engineering Department which is responsible for the in-house design of power plants, distribution lines, controls, and other AVEC facilities. Mr. Stamm has worked at AVEC since 1994. Mr. Stamm was an AVEC line superintendent before he was appointed to Manager of Engineering in 2012. Mr. Stamm’s unit will provide engineering design and supervision.  Mark Bryan, the Manager of Operations, is a Certified Journeyman Electrician and supervises the AVEC’s line operations, generation operations and all field construction programs. He has worked at AVEC since 1980, was appointed Manager of Construction in May 1998 and was promoted to Manager of Operations in June 2003. Mr. Bryan’s unit will oversee operation of this project as part of the AVEC utility system.  Anna Sattler, Community Liaison, will communicate directly with Pilot Station residents to ensure that the community is informed. Material and equipment procurement packages will be formulated by the CM in collaboration with AVEC’s purchasing manager. Each package will be procured from vendors or issued from the Cooperative’s materials. Purchase orders will be formulated with delivery dates consistent with dates required for barge or air transport consolidation. Multip le materials and/or equipment will be detailed for consolidated shipments to rural staging points, where secondary transport to the village destination is provided. The CM will track the shipments and arrange handling services to and around the destination project sites. The CM will be responsible for the construction activities for all project components of the facility upgrade. Local labor forces will be utilized to the maximum extent possible to construct the projects. Local job training will be provided as a concurrent operation under the management and direction of the CM. All construction costs, direct and indirect , will be reimbursed on a cost-only basis to the CM, or paid directly by AVEC. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 24 7/3//2012 For the proposed facilities, AVEC is responsible for managing the commissioning process in concert with the CM, designers and vendors. That entails testing and training of operational personnel, as well as providing for all contract closeout documents. Selection Process for Contractors/Vendors: The construction contractor/vendor selection will be made from a pre-qualified list of contractors/vendors with a successful track record with AVEC. Pre-qualified contractors/vendors have been selected based upon technical competencies, past performance, written proposal, quality, cost, and general consensus from an internal AVEC technical steering committee. The selection of contractors/vendors would occur in strict conformity with AVEC’s procurement policies, and conformance with OMB circulars. 3.4 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Please provide an alternative contact person and their contact information. AVEC has systems in place to accomplish reporting requirements successfully. In 2011, AVEC successfully met reporting requirements for 16 state and 19 federal grants. An independent financial audit and an independent auditor’s management letter completed for AVEC for 2011 did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that were considered to be material weaknesses. In addition, the letter stated that AVEC complied with specific loan and security instrument provisions. The project will be managed out of AVEC’s Community Development Department. For financial reporting, the Community Development Department’s accountant, supported by the Administrative Services Department, will prepare financial reports. The accountant will be responsible for ensuring that vendor invoices and internal labor charges are documented in accordance with AEA guidelines and are included with financial reports. AVEC has up-to-date systems in place for accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines. AVEC would require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice submitted from contractors. The progress reports would include a summary of tasks completed, issues or problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from AVEC. Project progress reports would be collected, combined, and supplemented as necessary and forwarded as one report to the AEA project manager each quarter. Quarterly face-to-face meetings will occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all projects funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Fund program. Individual project meetings will be held, as required or requested by AEA. Meera Kohler, AVEC’s President and CEO, may be contacted as an alternative manager. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 24 7/3//2012 3.5 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. AVEC recognizes and makes plans to avoid major consequences for falling behind schedule on this project. Since construction has specific windows it must comply with (e.g., placement of poles in this project must be done in th e winter when the ground is frozen.); missing upfront tasks like ordering parts and assigning labor could play havoc with the schedule. The project could be delayed an entire year if the tasks are not completed on time. Weather could delay shipping materials into the community; weather can impact the construction schedule. However, an experienced Alaskan contractor, expecting bad weather, will be selected and will be prepared for weather-related problems. AVEC is responsible to its member communities and a board of directors, and provides a cash match; therefore, staying on schedule and within budget is essential. This project will result in decreasing electricity costs, and AVEC’s member communities are very interested in this project because energy costs can be a large portion of their budgets. AVEC member communities expect status updates on village projects including when and what work will occur, who will be involved, and when it will be completed. If work does not occur according to the schedu le, AVEC’s CEO and Board of Directors are usually alerted by member communities, and there are repercussions. SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS  The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds.  If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this application. Another Round 6 Renewable Energy Fund application requests funding to add a wind turbine to St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point existing energy generation system. This project will construct an intertie between Pilot Station and the planned new wind energy system in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point to take advantage of the wind energy. The wind resource measured at the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point site is outstanding with measured wind power a Class 6 by measurement of wind power density and wind speed. Extensive wind Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 24 7/3//2012 resource analysis has been conducted in the St. Mary’s region, with met towers at a lower elevation site closer to the village of St. Mary’s, one near Mountain Village, and one near Pitka’s Point. Documented in St. Mary’s Area Wind Power Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated July 20, 2010, the wind resource measured at the nearby St. Mary’s met tower site is less robust than that measured at Pitka’s Point, and appears to experience similar icing problems. Considering the inland location of St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind resource measured at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is highly unusual and very favorable, with its combination of a high annual average wind speed, relatively low elevation, likely good geotechnical conditions, and proximity to existing roads and infrastructure. See Tab F for more information. The Pitka’s Point wind resource is comprehensively described in Pitka’s Point, Alaska Wind Resource Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated April 25, 2012 (Tab F). 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. The existing diesel power plant in Pilot Station consists of one Cummins 397 kW (installed in 1998), one Cummins 499 kW (installed in 2005), and one Detroit Diesel 324 kW (installed in 2002). Pilot Station’s power plant produced 1,770,301 kWh in 2011 using 134,999 gallons of diesel. Aggregate generator efficiency in Pilot Station in 2011 was 13.06 kWh/gallon. The peak load was 381 kW (in December) with an average load of 202 kW. 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. Existing energy infrastructure in Pilot Station is diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for boiler (thermal) and home heating, thermal heat recovery from the diesel engines at the power plant, and diesel and gasoline fue l for transportation needs. Another Round 6 proposed project would add one EWT wind turbine to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point electrical power system. This project would intertie Pilot Station to energy generation via the new turbine, and to the existing power plant in St. Mary’s. The anticipated effects are reduced consumption of diesel fuel for electrical power generation, and less usage of heating fuel for boiler operations through dispatch of excess electrical energy to selected heating loads. Greatly reduced diesel generator use would decrease generator operation and maintenance costs, enabling generators to last longer and need fewer overhauls. The existing power plant in Pilot Station is old and at risk for flooding. With this new intertie , the Pilot Station power plant could be decommissioned. A new back-up generator would be installed in Pilot Station should the intertie be offline for any reason. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 24 7/3//2012 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. Pilot Station is located on the northwest bank of the Yukon River, about 11 miles east of St. Mary's on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. The climate is maritime, averaging 60 inches of snowfall with 16 inches of precipitation per year. Temperatures can range from -44 to 83 °F. The Lower Yukon is ice-free from mid-June through October. Currently, Pilot Station has a stand-alone, electric power system with no intertie or connection beyond the village itself. The total electricity generated in Pilot Station in 2011 was 1,770,301 kWh. The load is highest during the winter months (peak use was 381 kW), when the community experiences heavy winds and extended periods of darkness. The addition of the wind turbines (from another Round 6 application) to the electric generation system (from this application) could reduce the amount of diesel fuel used for power generation. An intertie connecting to the wind project in St. Mary’s will enable the EWT turbine installation proposed in St. Mary/Pitka’s Point to be exploited to a greater potential. The costs of power generation via diesel generation will also be shared among three communities, thereby helping to stabilize energy costs. An isolated village, Pilot Station is only accessible by airplane, barge, snowmachine or small boat, and so relies mainly on air transportation, especially for delivery of medical goods and the transport of sick or injured individuals, or mothers nearing childbirth. Reliable electric service is essential to maintaining vital navigation aids for the safe operation of aircraft; runway lights, automated weather observation stations, VASI lights, DMEs and VORs (aircraft navigation systems) are all powered by electricity. This project will increase efficiencies and stabilize the costs of the energy system in Pilot Station. Emergency medical service is provided in the health clinic by a health aide. Medical problem s and emergencies must be relayed by telephone or by some other communication means for outside assistance. Tele-medicine is rapidly growing in rural Alaska as a means of regular and emergency care, as winter conditions sometime impede air transport and ac cessibility. Reliable telephone service and tele-medicine require reliable and affordable electric service. Like all of Alaska, Pilot Station is subject to long periods of darkness in the winter. Reliable and affordable electric service is essential for the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting. Residents rely on subsistence resources including salmon, moose, bear, and waterfowl. Subsistence food is gathered and harvested, and stored in refrigerators and freezers. Refrigeration is essential for the extended storage of perishable foodstuffs, and reliable electric service is essential for proper freeze storage of food. The construction of the proposed project would augment and improve the existing power generation system by reducing maintenance and operations costs. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 24 7/3//2012 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 AVEC is requesting funding to design and construct an intertie between Pilot Station and St. Mary’s. The primary purpose of the intertie is to connect Pilot Station to the proposed St. Mary’s wind energy project (see separate round 6 application). Doing so is projected to reduce fuel consumption on the order of 30,000 gallons/year and will also reduce power plant emissions. Additional benefits of the intertie would include;  The ability to power both communities from a centralized power plant in St Mary’s. This would improve generation efficiency and reduce O&M costs on the order of $250,000/year.  Avoidance of the replacement cost (approximately $7.9 million) for a new power plant and bulk fuel facility in Pilot Station. The existing facilities have been damaged by past flood event and are nearing the end of their useful lives. The intertie as currently designed would begin at the northeast end of the existing power distribution system in St. Mary’s, travel west for approximately 4 miles, then southeast for another 10 miles, looping around the east end of the new airport planned for Pilot Station. Construction of the intertie would include the installation of 14 miles of 3 -phase overhead power line including;  Two river crossings, one across the Andreafsky River approximately 2 miles north of St Mary’s, and the second one across the East Fork of the Andreafsky River near the midpoint of the intertie. The first crossing would be on the order of 1500 feet in length and the second one approximately 600 feet.  Six slough/lake crossings varying in length from 260 feet to 600 feet. The entire alignment with the exception of the connection points in St Mary’s and Pilot Station will be constructed through undeveloped terr ain. Typical line poles will be spaced approximately 185 feet apart. Poles in the relatively flat wetland areas will be pile supported. Poles in the hilly upland areas will most likely be direct set. Because of the wet terrain and limited access, the project would be constructed during the winter. AVEC, using funding from The Denali Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 24 7/3//2012 Commission, will complete permitting of the intertie by December 2012 and final design by May 2013. Completed design work on the intertie is included in Tab F. Renewable Energy Technology. The intertie would not have an installed capacity of annual generation; however, the intertie would connect to a 900 kW 52-900 EWT planned to be installed near Pitka’s Point. Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated annual generation. The EWT turbine, at 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed) would produce 2,483,000 kWh annually, once connected to Pilot Station. (This is even higher generation than if the turbine where serving St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point alone.) The intertied electrical load would be 6,058,000 kWh/year. The capacity factor would be 34.5%. Wind generation could be increased once the system is connected to Mountain Village. (See separate Round 6 application.) Anticipated barriers. No unique barriers to successful construction of the intertie are expected. Basic Integration Concept. This intertie project includes upgrades in St. Mary’s and Pilot Station to tie into the existing power systems. AVEC is currently developing the integration concept for the wind turbine with the St. Mary’s power plant, which will be completed by the end of 2012. Delivery methods. The project will connect to the existing power lines in Pilot Station and St. Mary’s. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. AVEC has held a number of meetings regarding the project with community members and representatives from the cities, villages, and the Native Corporations of Pilot Station and St. Mary’s. Land owners (the corporations) have been provided with draft zone easements, and have meetings scheduled in September 2012 to review and approve them. Copies of the unsigned zone easements are included under Tab F. 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues.  List of applicable permits  Anticipated permitting timeline  Identify and discussion of potential barriers It is likely that the following permits would be needed to construct the intertie:  Federal Aviation Administration Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic  Section 404 Permit (Wetlands Permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 24 7/3//2012  Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . AVEC will submit permit applications in October 2012, and expect to have permits in hand by the end of 2012. There are no barriers identified for the successful permitting of this project. 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed:  Threatened or Endangered species  Habitat issues  Wetlands and other protected areas  Archaeological and historical resources  Land development constraints  Telecommunications interference  Aviation considerations  Visual, aesthetics impacts  Identify and discuss other potential barriers Threatened or Endangered species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field Office, Section 7 Consultation Guide, there are no endangered or listed species, or federally designated critical habitat areas listed between St. Mary’s and Pilot Station. Habitat issues. During permitting, the project team would work with agencies to ensure that the project would not impact any State refuges, sanctuaries or critical habitat areas, federal refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks. Wetlands and other protected areas. It is likely that the intertie poles would be placed in designated wetland locations. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit would be needed. Archaeological and historical resources. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be conducted prior to construction of the intertie. Land development constraints. AVEC is acquiring a zone easement for the intertie. Corporation land owners are currently reviewing the easement language. Aviation considerations. A Federal Aviation Administration Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic would be sought for the installation of the poles near the airports in both communities. Because the intertie would be constructed between the communities, it is likely that there would be very little concern for visual or aesthetic impacts. AVEC would conduct community meetings to discuss visual impacts and how they could be minimized, in the unlikely event that visual issues arise. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 24 7/3//2012 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 AVEC is seeking $5,581,800 from this Grant Program to construct a 14 mile electrical intertie between Pilot Station and St. Mary’s. AVEC would provide $620,200 as a cash match contribution. The total cost of the intertie is $6,202,000. 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) Intertie operating and maintenance costs are expected to be approximately $20,000/year. The costs of operations and maintenance would be funded through ongoing energy sales to AVEC’s customers (member owners) in the villages. 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following:  Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)  Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range  Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project Energy produced from the proposed wind project and carried to Pilot Station through this proposed intertie project would be sold to AVEC’s existing customer base in the communities of Pilot Station and St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point. The sales price for the wind-generated electricity would be determined by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska as is done in all AVEC villages. The delivered cost of energy would be reduced as much as possible for customers within these communities under current regulations. Currently, of AVEC’s 55 villages, those with wind power systems experience the lowest electricity cost of within the utility. Similar energy cost Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 24 7/3//2012 reductions are expected upon project completion, as proposed in this application. The project has an expected payback of 11.4years assuming a 50-year life and wind turbines in St. Mary’s. 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. At Pitka’s Point site; accessible via proposed intertie: Class 6 (outstanding); mean annual speed 7.63 m/s at 38 m; Weibull k=1.94; Weibull c=8.64 m/s; mean annual power density=559 W/m^2; classifies as IEC Class II-c site Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3 generators ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 397kW; 499kW, 324kW iii. Generator/boilers/other type Cummins, Cummins, Detroit Diesel iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 14 years old; 6 year old; 10 years old v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.06 kWh/gallon b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] 1,770,301 kWh/year ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 134,999 gallon/year 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 St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 24 7/3//2012 Other iii. Peak Load 381 kW iv. Average Load 202 kW v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency 13.06 kWh/gallon vii. Future trends d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] ii. Electricity [kWh] iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] Intertie enables connection to proposed 900 kW EWT 52-900 turbine at St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point site b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] EWT 52-900 turbine at St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point: 2,483,000 kWh/yr (80% availability) ii. Heat [MMBtu] c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] iv. Other Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $6,202,000 b) Development cost c) Annual O&M cost of new system Intertie: $20,000/year d) Annual fuel cost $3.76/gal, Pilot Station (2011 AVEC); cost/benefit analysis based on projected fuel price average of $5.90/gal in St. Mary’s and $5.12/gal in Pilot Station over 50 year project period Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 24 7/3//2012 Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity Based on 1 EWT in St. Mary’s (Pitka’s Point site) serving both communities vs. 3 NW100s serving only St. Mary’s: 122,963 gal/yr ii. Heat iii. Transportation b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.76 (2011 Pilot Station, AVEC data) c) Other economic benefits d) Alaska public benefits Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale Project Analysis a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio B/C = 1.12 for 50 year project period (wind turbines and generators replaced every 20 years) Payback (years) 11.4 years, assuming a 50-year project life 4.4.5 Proposed Biomass System Information Please address the following items, if know. (For Biomass Projects Only) n/a 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 Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 24 7/3//2012 Potential Annual Fuel Displacement. Considering the intertie alone, the enhanced power plant efficiency would likely be offset by intertie power losses; however, if you consider a scenario in which Pilot Station and St. Mary’s are served by separate wind systems, positive benefits of an intertie are apparent. Approximately 68,900 more gallons of fuel would be displaced for power generation with an intertie connecting to an EWT turbine in St. Mary’s compared to Pilot Station being served by three (3) Northwind 100s, and St. Mary’s being served by three (3) Northwind 100s. Anticipated Annual Revenue. This project by itself would not produce revenue. Non-economic Public Benefits. In St. Mary’s and Pilot Station the average annual price for residential electricity for the calendar year 2011 was $0.5902 per kilowatt hour (kWh), which far exceeds the national benchmark of $0.264/kWh. The average annual residential cost of electricity per household in 2011 was $4,197.18. According to the 2010 Census, 15.6% of St. Mary’s residents and 26.5% of Pilot Station residents had incomes below the poverty level. The median household income in St. Mary’s was $38,000 and, in Pilot Station, it was $37,917. The poorest residents in rural Alaska, including St. Mary’s and Pilot Station, pay almost half their household incomes for home energy costs, according to a study by the Institute of Social and Economic Research. Furthermore, these households use less than half as much energy as those whose power comes from natural gas or hydro-electric sources. This project, as well as this Renewable Energy Program, is part of the solution to the difficult costs of living rural Alaska. The project would reduce diesel exhaust emissions and noise in Pilot Station by allowing the retirement of a diesel power plant and tank farm (with other financing). Wind generation in St. Mary’s will also offset diesel exhaust produces when diesel fuel is used for power generation. The community facilities such as the school and homes are connected to a piped water and sewer system. Reliable and affordable electric service is required for the continuous operation of the water and wastewater systems, and to prevent freezing of those systems, which would cause extensive damage and interruptions in service. Poor efficiency is a problem that continues to plague small, remote villages that lack an economic structure to support utilities. In many communities across the country, small and large businesses -- and perhaps industrial facilities-- pay a larger share of utility costs than do residential users. In doing so, they help pay for the necessary upgrades and improvements. Some Alaskan communities have seafood processing pla nts or tourist facilities that pay a larger share of the utility’s costs. But many Alaskan villages, including these two, have only state and federal programs , and their own-- many times very poor -- households to rely on to operate and maintain what they can, and--in rare cases--expect to build for the future. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 24 7/3//2012 Approximately 54 Pilot Station residents commercial fish, which is a part-time job at best. However, these proud communities have a strong Native culture , and residents desire to maintain their communities and way of life which revolves around hunting, fishing and other subsistence activities, as well as arts and crafts production. This project will support their goal. SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum:  Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.  How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project  Identification of operational issues that could arise.  A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation  Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC is completely able to finance, operate, and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has the capacity and experience to operate this project. AVEC has experience in designing, constructing, operating and maintaining energy systems throughout rural Alaska, including intertie projects. Past successful design and construction projects include fully functional interties between Toksook Bay and Tununak, Toksook Bay and Nightmute, and Emmonak and Alakanuk. Business Plan Structures and Concepts which may be considered: The intertied systems would be incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant operators provide daily servicing. AVEC technicians provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and are supported by AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing. How O&M would be financed for the life of the project: The costs of operations and maintenance would be funded through ongoing energy sales to AVEC’s consumers (member owners) in the villages. Operational issues which could arise: AVEC will use the knowledge gained through the operations of other intertied systems to address any operational issues that might arise. Operating costs: The operational costs are expected to be around $20,000/year. Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits: AVEC is fully committed to sharing the savings and benefits accrued from this project information with its member-owners , and sharing information regarding savings and benefits with AEA. SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 24 7/3//2012 with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. Work under this grant award will be initiated immediately. Once funding is known to be secured, AVEC will prepare and sign contracts with its contractors. With Denali Commission funding, AVEC installed met towers and completed wind studies between 2007 and 2009 at two locations between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. AVEC also used their own funding to examine possible intertie routes to Mountain Village and Pilot Station. This project is the next logical step in energy infrastructure development in the area. Final design and permitting work has been funded by the Denali Commission and AVEC’s cash match, and is presently underway. AVEC expects this work to be completed well before the announcement of grant awards under this Round 6. Land use agreements are also underway, and this application will likely be updated with all necessary land documents. 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. This project has the full support of St. Mary’s and Pilot Station lea dership. Please see the attached letters of support in Tab B. 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. AVEC plans to construct an intertie between Pilot Station and St. Mary’s. This work would cost $6,202,000. AVEC requests $5,581,800 from AEA and will provide $620,200 as a cash contribution. A detail of the grant budget follows. AVEC, with Denali Commission funding, will complete final design and permitting of this project. To date the work on this project has involved a geotechnical survey, route alternative analysis, and cost estimations. This fall AVEC will obtain LIDAR for the intertie route. Design and permitting will be completed by May 2013. Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 Grant Application St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction AEA13-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 24 7/3//2012 Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: TOTALS Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are complete. May 2013 $0 $0 $0 Completion of bid documents May 2013 $0 $0 $0 Contractor/vendor selection and award July 2013 $0 $0 $0 Construction activities December 2013-March 2014 $5,355,000 $595,000 Cash $5,950,000 Integration and testing March 2014 $226,800 $25,200 $252,000 Decommissioning old systems n/a $0 $0 $0 Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start- up April 2014 $0 $0 $0 Operations Reporting May 2014 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $5,581,800 $620,200 $6,202,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $0 $0 $0 Travel & Per Diem $0 $0 $0 Equipment $0 $0 $0 Materials & Supplies $1,719,900 $191,100 Cash $1,911,000 Contractual Services $0 $0 $0 Construction Services $3,861,900 $429,100 Cash $4,291,000 Other $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $5,581,800 $620,200 $6,202,000 Tab A Resumes Tab B Letters of Support Tab D Governing Body Resolution Tab E Certification Tab F Additional Materials 5%#.'241,'%6#4'#/#2 )4#2*+% 35% DESIGN SUBMITTAL SHEET INDEX SEPTEMBER 2012 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street ST. MARY'S RUSSIA ANCHORAGE NOME KOTZEBUE BARROW JUNEAU FAIRBANKS CANADA KODIAK BETHEL UNALASKA PILOT STATION ST. MARY'S TO PILOT STATION INTERTIE PROJECT Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street 5%#.''.'%64+%#.4'('4'0%'2.#0)4#2*+% Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.'(Ä20655%#.''Ä#6&+4'%65'621.'50655%#.'/Ä0655%#.''Ä#62+.'(170&#6+105065 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.'/Ä#6&+4'%65'621.'50655%#.'/Ä#62+.'(170&#6+1050655%#.')4+&4'(.'%6145065 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.''0.#4)'&#0).'&'6#+.0655%#.''0.#4)'&21.'$#0&&'6#+.0655%#.'/Ä2+.'#66#%*/'060655%#.'7Ä$1.6&'6#+.065 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.'%0655%#.'%#0655%#.'%#0655%#.'%Ä065 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.')#0)12'4#6'&59+6%*0655%#.'(Ä*ÄÄ#0&(Ä*ÄÄ065 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.'5.17)*%4155+0)(4#/+0)126+105065 Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.'5.17)*%4155+0)(4#/+0)126+105065 December 23, 2009 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 !Attention:!Matt Metcalf !Subject:!Intertie Alignment Reconnaissance !!St Marys - Mountain Village - Pilot Station !!Reference: 4253.008 Duane Miller Associates (DMA), with representatives of STG, Inc. and Errico Electrical Engineering LLC, conducted a helicopter reconnaissance along the proposed powerline interties between St. Marys and Mountain Village and St. Marys and Pilot Station on October 9, 2009. The purpose of the work was to conduct an aerial reconnaissance of the proposed alignment(s) developed for AVEC between these villages. The proposed intertie alignments were developed from base maps, images, and aerial photography with limited ground truthing. The reconnaissance flights were conducted to observe the proposed intertie routes and to locate potential alternate routes, if feasible. Based on the reconnaissance level assessment, the inferred geology and recommendations for additional field assessment along the intertie route(s) are summarized below. The aerial reconnaissance was conducted with a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter from Yukon Helicopters of Bethel. At the the time of the flights, no snow cover was present and weather was generally light overcast with good visibility. Summary reconnaissance findings and conceptual-level geologic and geotechnical engineering considerations for the St. Marys to Mountain Village and the St. Marys to Pilot Station alignments are provided separately. All proposed alignments will require land status assessment, in particularly corporation lands and allotments. Determination of land ownership along the reconnaissance alignments was not conducted under this scope of services. St. Marys to Mountain Village Powerline Intertie Alignment The proposed St. Marys to Mountain Village alignment roughly follows the existing gravel roadway between the villages, Plate 1. The existing gravel accessway with additional tundra protection at required areas may allow for summer intertie construction. The existing roadway generally follows higher, better drained topography but crosses surface drainages, ponded wet areas, or other lower lying areas along the alignment. The powerline alignment may cross undisturbed areas to reduce length along the existing roadway curves. In general, one significant surface drainage crossing was noted along the existing roadway, as noted on Plate 1, along with other culvert and smaller surface drainage areas along the alignment. In addition, the roadway is north of the existing Mountain Village airstrip, which may pose an airspace restriction requirement for an overhead powerline. An alternative may be to route the powerline south of the airstrip through a lower topographic area. Existing site-specific geotechnical information was not available for the existing roadway. In general, the alignment should be suitable for a conventional pile supported powerline intertie. However, the general geology in St. Marys and Mountain Village indicates a variable thickness of icy silt and frozen organic soil is present over bedrock in the area. Bedrock is generally shallow and may limit pile embedment depths. A shallow pile embedment may result in frost jacking if a driven pile foundation is being considered for the powerline intertie. In general, driven pile embedments on the order of 40 feet are typically recommended in the Yukon Kuskokwim region to resist seasonal frost uplift. Lateral loads, particularly along powerline tangent points will need to be determined for guy anchor design to resist longer-term creep deformation in icy soil. Areas with the potential for deeper surface thaw, such as stream crossings and areas subject to deeper winter snow drifting, may be experiencing permafrost degradation. These areas may pose specific geotechnical engineering challenges. St Marys Area Powerline Intertie Reconnaissance!Duane Miller Associates December 23, 2009! Page 2!A member of the Golder Group of Companies Draft Letter for AVEC Review, December 23, 2009 St. Marys to Pilot Station Powerline Intertie Alignment AVEC developed a preliminary alignment for the St. Marys to Pilot Station intertie, denoted as the red lined alignment presented on Plate 2. Based on the overflight alignments, three general terrains were noted. First, the upland area around Pilot Station was observed. The upland areas are generally well-drained, hilly areas with established ATV or snowmachine trails. The upland area from Pilot Station is well defined with multiple ridges and accessways opportunities toward St. Marys. The AVEC alignment portion near Pilot Station is near the airstrip. An alternate route near the village water tank may reduce airspace conflicts. A similar upland area was identified near St. Marys along the north side of the Andreasfsky River. If feasible, an alternative alignment along the north side of the river would reduce the length within the wetter lowland area and appears to reduce both the span and number of river crossings. The general location of the alternative alignment is denoted as the dark blue and green flight lines presented on Plate 2. The geology of these upland areas is undefined but is expected to be icy soils overlying relatively shallow bedrock. As with the Mountain Village alignment, shallow bedrock, if present, may impact pile embedment depth required to control seasonal frost heave. The second terrain is a lowland area between the upland area near Pilot Station and St. Marys. From the upland area near Pilot Station toward St. Marys, the topography slopes to a lowland area with numerous lakes and drainages. The lowland area is expected to have thicker sediments over bedrock. These areas are also expected to have degrading permafrost and possibly thicker organic sequences, particularly along oxbows. Careful routing through the lowland area is recommended, with attempts to keep the intertie along higher ground as best possible. St Marys Area Powerline Intertie Reconnaissance!Duane Miller Associates December 23, 2009! Page 3!A member of the Golder Group of Companies Draft Letter for AVEC Review, December 23, 2009 The final terrain will be the river crossings. Depending on the final alignment, at least two larger river crossing will be required. These crossings will most likely be overhead. The alternate alignments noted on Plate 2 will increase the intertie distance. However, the alternative alignments result in a reduced overall cost and improved reliability if the intertie foundations are located along upland areas. In addition, if the powerline intertie can be founded on taller towers to permit longer spans, the lowland and river crossing area may be traversed with greater long-term reliability. The depth to bedrock and geotechnical conditions (soil and thermal states) along the lowland areas should be determined as part of the engineering evaluation. If larger towers are being considered for the river spans and the lowland areas, pile groups may be feasible. Site-specific geotechnical assessments should be considered at the tower sites, if taller structures are planned. If you have any questions on our findings or recommendations, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, Duane Miller Associates LLC A member of the Golder Group of Companies draft submittal, no signature Richard Mitchells, P.E. Attachments !Plate 1:!St. Marys to Mountain Village Powerline Intertie Alignment !Plate 2:!St. Marys to Pilot Station Powerline Intertie Alignment! St Marys Area Powerline Intertie Reconnaissance!Duane Miller Associates December 23, 2009! Page 4!A member of the Golder Group of Companies Draft Letter for AVEC Review, December 23, 2009 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis September 17, 2012 Douglas Vaught, P.E. dvaught@v3energy.com V3 Energy, LLC Eagle River, Alaska Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | i This report was prepared by V3 Energy, LLC under contract to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative to assess the technical and economic feasibility of installing wind turbines at the Pitka’s Point wind site near the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. This analysis is part of a conceptual design report and final project design funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund administered by Alaska Energy Authority Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Synopsis of Economic Modeling Results ................................................................................................... 1 Village of St. Mary’s/Andreafsky ............................................................................................................... 1 Wind Resource at Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s ......................................................................................... 2 Wind Speed ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Extreme Winds .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Wind Direction .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Temperature and Density ......................................................................................................................... 6 Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment ................................................................................................. 7 Diesel Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 8 Wind Turbines ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Northern Power 100 ARCTIC ................................................................................................................. 8 EWT52-900 ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Load Demand ................................................................................................................................................ 9 St. Mary’s Electric Load ............................................................................................................................. 9 Combined Saint Mary’s-Pilot Station Electric Load ................................................................................ 10 Thermal Load .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Diesel Generators ................................................................................................................................... 11 WAsP Modeling, Wind Turbine Layout ....................................................................................................... 12 Orographic Modeling .............................................................................................................................. 12 Wind Turbine Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 14 Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout ......................................................................................... 14 WAsP Modeling Results for Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array ........................................................ 14 EWT52-900 Turbine Layout .................................................................................................................... 16 WAsP Modeling Results for EWT 52-900 Turbine ............................................................................... 16 Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | ii Wind Turbine Costs ................................................................................................................................. 18 St. Mary’s to Pilot Station Intertie Cost .................................................................................................. 18 Fuel Cost .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 19 Homer Software Modeling Results ......................................................................................................... 22 Configuration 1: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, NP 100 Turbine Option .................... 22 Configuration 2: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option ......................... 23 Configuration 3: St. Mary’s Intertied to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option...................................... 24 Appendix A, WAsP Wind Farm Report, Pitka’s Point Site, NP 100 Turbines............................................... 25 Appendix B, WAsP Turbine Site Report, Pitka’s Point Site, EWT Turbine ................................................... 26 Appendix C, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 3 NP 100 Turbines .......................................................... 27 Appendix D, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 1 EWT-500 Turbine ........................................................ 28 Appendix E, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s + Pilot Station, 1 EWT-500 Turbine ................................. 29 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 1 Introduction Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the electric utility for the City of Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky as well as the interconnected village of Pitka’s Point. AVEC was awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to complete feasibility and design work for installation of wind turbines, with planned construction in 2014. Wind resource studies of the St. Mary’s area began in 2007 with identification of possible wind turbine sites on Pitka’s Point Corporation land and Saint Mary’s corporation land, located relatively near each other between the villages of Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. Both sites were equipped with 40 meter met towers, but the Pitka’s Point site eventually proved to have the superior wind resource and was chosen as the primary site for conceptual design and feasibility work. CRW Engineering Group, LLC was contracted by AVEC to develop a conceptual design report and design package for a wind turbine project in Saint Mary’s. This analysis is a component of that larger effort. Synopsis of Economic Modeling Results Three wind turbine options were modeled for energy balance and economic benefit and cost with Homer software. • Configuration 1 considers three Northern Power 100 turbines serving only the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal load. • Configuration 2 serves the same load, but substitutes one EWT 52-900 turbine in place of the Northern Power turbines. • Configuration 3 maintains use of the EWT turbine, but adds the Pilot Station electrical load via construction of an intertie. Basic economic modeling results are presented in the table below. Project configuration economic modeling results Configuration No. Wind Turbine Type and Electric Loads Served Benefit-to-Cost Ratio Simple Payback Period 1 NP 100’s; Saint Mary’s 0.94 n/a 2 EWT 52-900; Saint Mary’s 1.03 13.6 years 3 EWT 52-900; Saint Mary’s + Pilot Station 1.06 10.9 years Village of St. Mary’s/Andreafsky St. Mary's is located 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage on the north bank of the Andreafsky River, five miles from its confluence with the Yukon River. The City of St. Mary's encompasses the Yupik villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky. St. Mary's is a Yupik Eskimo community that maintains a fishing and subsistence lifestyle. The sale of alcohol is prohibited in the city. According to Census 2010, 507 people live in St. Mary’s and Andreafsky. There are 209 housing units in the community and 151 are occupied. Its population is 91.5 percent Alaska Native, 3.8 percent Caucasion, and 4.7 percent multi- racial. Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 2 Water is derived from Alstrom Creek reservoir and is treated. Most homes in the village have complete plumbing and are connected to the piped water and sewer system. Waste heat from the power plant supports the circulating water system. A 1.7-million-gallon sewage lagoon provides waste treatment. A washeteria is available nearby at Pitka's Point. An unpermitted landfill is shared with Pitka's Point. Electricity is provided by AVEC with interconnection to the village of Pitka’s Point and the St. Mary’s airport (station code KSM). There is one school located in the community, attended by 185 students. There is a local health clinic staffed by a health practitioner and four health aides. Emergency Services have river, limited highway, and air access. Wind Resource at Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s The wind resource measured at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is outstanding with measured wind power class 6 by measurement of wind power density and wind speed. Extensive wind resource analysis has been conducted in the Saint Mary’s region, with met towers at a lower elevation site closer to the village of Saint Mary’s and near Mountain Village, in addition to the Pitka’s Point met tower. Documented in Saint Mary’s Area Wind Power Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated July 20, 2010, the wind resource measured at the nearby Saint Mary’s met tower site is less robust than that measured at Pitka’s Point and appears to experience similar icing problems. The Mountain Village wind resource is very good as well with mean wind speed near that measured at Pitka’s Point. Considering the inland location of Saint Mary’s/Pitka’s Point, the wind resource measure at the Pitka’s Point met tower site is highly unusual, and very favorable, with its combination of a high annual average wind speed, relatively low elevation, likely good geotechnical conditions, and proximity to existing roads and infrastructure. A 40 meter NRG Systems, Inc. tubular-type meteorological (met) tower was installed on Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land on the bluff immediately above the Yukon River with excellent exposure to northeasterly winds down the Andreafsky River, northerly winds from the mountains and southerly winds from the flat, tundra plains leading toward Bethel. The met tower site is near an active rock quarry and visual inspection of that quarry indicates the likelihood of excellent geotechnical conditions for wind turbine foundations. Also of advantage for the site is near proximity of the road connecting Saint Mary’s to Pitka’s Point, the airport and Mountain Village. A two-phase power distribution line (connecting the St. Mary’s powerplant to Pitka’s Point as one phase and to the airport as the second phase) routes on the south side of the road. This line could be upgraded to three-phase at minimal cost to connect wind turbines to three-phase distribution in Saint Mary’s. The Pitka’s Point wind resource is comprehensively described in Pitka’s Point, Alaska Wind Resource Report by V3 Energy, LLC, dated April 25, 2012. Pitka’s Point met tower data synopsis Data dates October 26, 2007 to February 12, 2009 (16 months) Wind power class Class 6 (excellent), based on wind power density Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 3 Wind power density mean, 38 m 558 W/m2 Wind speed mean, 38 m 7.62 m/s (17.0 mph) Max. 10-min wind speed 29.5 m/s Maximum 2-sec. wind gust 26.3 m/s (81.2 mph), January 2008 Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.93, c = 8.63 m/s Wind shear power law exponent 0.176 (low) Roughness class 2.09 (description: few trees) IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. classification Class II-c (at 38 meters) Turbulence intensity, mean (at 38 m) 0.076 (at 15 m/s) Calm wind frequency (at 38 m) 20% (< 4 m/s) (16 mo. measurement period) Google Earth image, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s Pitka’s Point met tower location St. Mary’s Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 4 Wind Speed Anemometer data obtained from the met tower, from the perspectives of both mean wind speed and mean wind power density, indicate an outstanding wind resource. Note that cold temperatures contributed to a higher wind power density than standard conditions would yield for the measured mean wind speeds. Anemometer data summary Variable Speed 38 m Speed 29 m Speed 28 m IceFree Speed 21 m Measurement height (m) 38 28.8 28.2 21 Mean wind speed (m/s) 7.68 7.29 7.33 6.83 MoMM wind speed (m/s) 7.62 7.24 7.33 6.78 Median wind speed (m/s) 7.20 6.80 7.00 6.40 Max wind speed (m/s) 29.50 29.20 27.50 28.40 Weibull k 1.94 1.89 2.22 1.88 Weibull c (m/s) 8.64 8.20 8.26 7.68 Mean power density (W/m²) 573 502 441 414 MoMM power density (W/m²) 559 490 441 404 Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 5,015 4,396 3,861 3,627 MoMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 4,897 4,294 3,861 3,541 Energy pattern factor 1.95 2.00 1.73 2.01 Frequency of calms (%) (< 4 m/s) 20.4 21.9 17.6 24.7 MoMM = mean of monthly means Time series calculations indicate high mean wind speeds during the winter months with more moderate, but still relatively high, mean wind speeds during summer months. This correlates well with the Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky/Pitka’s Point village load profile where winter months see high demand for electricity and heat and the summer months have lower demand for electricity and heat. The daily wind profiles indicate relatively even wind speeds throughout the day with slightly higher wind speeds during night hours. 38 m anemometer data summary Mean Median Max 10- min avg Max gust (2 sec) Std. Dev. Weibull k Weibull c Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (-) (m/s) Jan 10.17 10.70 29.5 35.9 5.34 1.97 11.45 Feb 9.21 9.20 20.1 23.3 4.07 2.41 10.36 Mar 8.62 8.50 21.8 26.3 4.33 2.07 9.71 Apr 7.98 7.80 16.9 20.6 2.83 3.05 8.90 May 7.27 6.90 21.8 27.1 3.67 2.06 8.19 Jun 5.70 5.80 13.2 15.3 2.62 2.28 6.40 Jul 7.98 7.70 21.7 26.3 3.33 2.55 8.99 Aug 5.89 5.70 15.3 17.9 2.95 2.05 6.62 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 5 Sep 6.37 6.70 12.5 16.8 2.44 2.85 7.11 Oct 6.80 6.60 20.1 24.8 3.81 1.80 7.62 Nov 7.32 6.40 24.1 29.8 4.48 1.72 8.23 Dec 8.97 8.90 22.9 27.5 4.69 1.95 10.07 Annual 7.62 7.20 29.5 35.9 4.09 1.94 8.64 Monthly time series, mean wind speeds Extreme Winds A modified Gumbel distribution analysis, based on monthly maximum winds vice annual maximum winds, was used to predict extreme winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site. Sixteen months of data though are minimal at best and hence results should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless, with data available the predicted Vref (maximum ten-minute average wind speed) in a 50 year return period (in other words, predicted to occur once every 50 years) is 41.6 m/s. This result classifies the site as Class II by International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-1, 3rd edition (IEC3) criteria. IEC extreme wind probability classification is one criteria – with turbulence the other – that describes a site with respect to suitability for particular wind turbine models. Note that the IEC3 Class II extreme wind classification, which clearly applies to the Pitka’s Point met tower site, indicates relatively energetic winds and turbines installed at this location should be IEC3 Class II rated. Site extreme wind probability table, 38 m data Vref Gust IEC 61400-1, 3rd ed. Period (years) (m/s) (m/s) Class Vref, m/s 3 29.2 35.5 I 50.0 10 35.4 43.1 II 42.5 20 37.0 45.0 III 37.5 30 39.6 48.2 S designer- specified 50 41.6 50.6 100 44.2 53.8 average gust factor: 1.22 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 6 Wind Direction Wind frequency rose data indicates that winds at the Pitka’s Point met tower site are primarily bi- directional, with northerly and east-northeasterly winds predominating. The mean value rose indicates that east-northeasterly winds are of higher intensity than northerly winds, but interesting, the infrequent south-southeasterly winds, when they do occur, are highly energetic and likely indicative of storm winds. Wind frequency rose (38 m vane) Wind energy rose (38 m anem.) Temperature and Density The Pitka’s Point met tower site experiences cool summers and cold winters with resulting higher than standard air density. Calculated annual air density during the met tower test period exceeds the 1.204 kg/m3 standard air density for a 177 meter elevation by 5.7 percent. This is advantageous in wind power operations as wind turbines produce more power at low temperatures (high air density) than at standard temperature and density. Temperature and density table Temperature Air Density Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Month (°F) (°F) (°F) (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) Jan 4.7 -20.2 39.0 -15.1 -29.0 3.9 1.325 1.204 1.416 Feb 4.1 -24.7 32.4 -15.5 -31.5 0.2 1.343 1.264 1.430 Mar 11.0 -14.3 38.8 -11.7 -25.7 3.8 1.275 1.204 1.397 Apr 19.5 -6.3 44.2 -7.0 -21.3 6.8 1.299 1.235 1.372 May 39.4 13.8 65.5 4.1 -10.1 18.6 1.247 1.185 1.314 Jun 49.2 29.5 70.2 9.5 -1.4 21.2 1.223 1.174 1.272 Jul 50.5 37.9 81.9 10.3 3.3 27.7 1.220 1.149 1.250 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 7 Aug 51.3 33.1 70.9 10.7 0.6 21.6 1.218 1.173 1.263 Sep 45.1 30.0 64.6 7.3 -1.1 18.1 1.233 1.187 1.270 Oct 22.7 5.0 37.2 -5.2 -15.0 2.9 1.290 1.252 1.339 Nov 16.3 -14.6 44.6 -8.7 -25.9 7.0 1.308 1.234 1.398 Dec 13.9 -16.2 45.0 -10.1 -26.8 7.2 1.307 1.204 1.403 Annual 27.4 -24.7 81.9 -2.5 -31.5 27.7 1.273 1.149 1.430 Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment Wind-diesel power systems are categorized based on their average penetration levels, or the overall proportion of wind-generated electricity compared to the total amount of electrical energy generated. Commonly used categories of wind-diesel penetration levels are low penetration, medium penetration, and high penetration. The wind penetration level is roughly equivalent to the amount of diesel fuel displaced by wind power. Note however that the higher the level of wind penetration, the more complex and expensive a control system and demand-management strategy is required. This is a good compromise between of displaced fuel usage and relatively minimal system complexity and is AVEC’s preferred system configuration. Installation of three Northern Power 100 wind turbines or one EWT52/54-900 wind turbine at the Pitka’s Point would be configured at the medium penetration level. Categories of wind-diesel penetration levels Penetration Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements Instantaneous Average Low 0% to 50% Less than 20% Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum loading level. Requires minimal changes to existing diesel control system. All wind energy generated supplies the village electric load; wind turbines function as “negative load” with respect to diesel generator governor response. Medium 0% to 100+% 20% to 50% Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum loading level. Requires control system capable of automatic generator start, stop and paralleling. To control system frequency during periods of high wind power input, system requires fast acting secondary load controller matched to a secondary load such as an electric boiler augmenting a generator heat recovery loop. At high wind power levels, secondary (thermal) loads are dispatched to absorb energy not used by the primary (electric) load. Without secondary loads, wind turbines must be curtailed to control frequency. High (Diesels-off Capable) 0% to 150+% Greater than 50% Diesel generator(s) can be turned off during periods of high wind power levels. Requires sophisticated new control system, significant wind turbine capacity, secondary (thermal) load, energy storage such as batteries or a flywheel, and possibly additional components such as demand- managed devices. HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Saint Mary’s power System. HOMER was designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 8 sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid development of Alaska village wind power projects. Diesel Power Plant Electric power (comprised of the diesel power plant and the electric power distribution system) in Saint Mary’s is provided by AVEC. The existing power plant in Saint Mary’s consists of one Cummins diesel generator model QSX15G9 rated at 499 kW output, and two Caterpillar diesel generators, a model 3508 rated at 611 kW output and a model 3512 rated at 908 kW output. St. Mary’s power plant diesel generators Generator Electrical Capacity Diesel Engine Model 1 499 kW Cummins QSX15G9 2 611 kW Caterpillar 3508 3 908 kW Caterpillar 3512 Wind Turbines This report considers installation of three Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for 300 kW installed wind capacity to serve only the Saint Mary’s load, or one EWT 52-900 for 900 kW installed wind capacity to serve Saint Mary’s initially but then both Saint Mary’s and Pilot Station upon completion of the intertie, which can be considered a companion project. With capacity considerations, three Northern Power 100 turbines best match the St. Mary’s load while the EWT52-900 turbine, given its much higher energy output, works best when serving an intertied St. Mary’s-to-Pilot Station load. Northern Power 100 ARCTIC The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC, formerly known as the Northwind 100 (NW100) Arctic, is rated at 100 kW and is equipped with a permanent magnet, synchronous generator, is direct drive (no gearbox), and is equipped with heaters and has been tested to ensure operation in extreme cold climates. The turbine has a 21 meter diameter rotor operating at a 37 meter hub height. The turbine is stall-controlled and in the proposed version will be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at temperatures down to -40° C. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC is the most widely represented village- scale wind turbine in Alaska with a significant number of installations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and on St. Lawrence Island. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbine is manufactured in Barre, Vermont, USA. More information can be found at http://www.northernpower.com/. The turbine power curve is shown below. Northern Power 100 ARCTIC power curve Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 9 EWT52-900 The EWT52-900 is an IEC Class II-A wind turbine rated at 900 kW, equipped with a direct drive, permanent magnet, synchronous generator, a 52 meter diameter rotor, and 40, 50 or 75 meter high towers. The turbine is pitch-controlled, variable speed, and can be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at temperatures down to -40° C. A variant of this turbine is the EWT54- 900 which is identical to the EWT52-900 but equipped with a 54 meter diameter rotor and limited to IEC Class III sites. The wind resource analysis of the Pitka’s Point met tower indicated sufficiently strong wind gust potential to classify the site as IEC Class II by extreme wind probability (see earlier discussion in this report). Three EWT-900 wind turbines are presently operational in Alaska, one in Delta Junction and two in Kotzebue. The EWT52-900 wind turbine is manufactured in Amersfoort, The Netherlands, with North American representation in Bloomington, Minnesota. More information can be found at http://www.ewtinternational.com/?id=4 . The turbine power curve is shown below. EWT52-900 power curve Load Demand This analysis includes stand-alone electric and thermal load demand in St. Mary’s (which includes Andreafsky and Pitka’s Point) and the combined electric load demand of St. Mary’s and nearby Pilot Station once the proposed electrical intertie is complete. St. Mary’s Electric Load Saint Mary’s/Andreafsky load data, collected from December 26, 2009 to October 27, 2011, was received from Mr. Bill Thompson of AVEC. These data are in 15 minute increments and represent total electric load demand during each time step. The data were processed by adjusting the date/time stamps nine hours from GMT to Yukon/Alaska time, multiplying each value by four to translate kWh to kW (similar to processing of the wind turbine data), and creating a January 1 to December 31 hourly list for export to HOMER software. The resulting load is shown graphically below. Average load is 354 kW with a 621 kW peak load and an average daily load demand of 8,496 kWh. Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 10 St. Mary’s electric load Combined Saint Mary’s-Pilot Station Electric Load Pilot Station is not equipped with automated logging equipment to document the electric load. But, with plant operator logs, AVEC tracks the electric load which is documented in AVEC’s annual generation report and also in the power cost equalization reports that AVEC submits to Regulatory Commission of Alaska. It is assumed that the Pilot Station electrical load is similar to that of St. Mary’s load on a daily and monthly basis. Hence, the measured St. Mary’s load was scaled to a daily load demand of 13,726 kWh to represent a combine St. Mary’s-Pilot Station electrical system when the intertie is complete. St. Mary’s-Pilot Station combined electric load Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 11 Thermal Load The thermal load demand in St. Mary’s is well quantified and described in a report entitled St. Mary’s, Alaska Heat Recovery Study, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. and dated August 31, 2011. This report is quite comprehensive and won’t be summarized here. Thermal load data needed for HOMER modeling was extracted from a heat demand/heat available graph on page 5 of the report. Monthly thermal heat demand is graphed as a heating fuel equivalent in gallons per month, which was converted to kW demand with a conversion of 0.0312 gallons heating fuel per kWh. Although not entirely precise, the monthly heat demand was equalized across the entire day for each month and then randomized a bit with a five percent day-to-day and five percent time step-to- time step random variability. Resulting thermal load is show below. Saint Mary’s thermal load Diesel Generators The HOMER model was constructed with all three St. Mary’s generators. For cost modeling purposes, AEA assumes a generator O&M cost of $0.020/kWh. For HOMER modeling purposes, this was converted to $2.50/operating hour for each diesel generator. Other diesel generator information pertinent to the HOMER model is shown in the table below. Note that the Saint Mary’s power plant operates is equipped with automated switchgear and can operate in automatic mode with generators in parallel. Diesel generator HOMER modeling information Diesel generator Cummins QSX15G9 Caterpillar 3508 Caterpillar 3512 Power output (kW) 499 611 908 Intercept coeff. (L/hr/kW rated) .0222 0.0233 0.0203 Slope (L/hr/kW output) 0.215 0.238 0.233 Minimum electric load (%) 0% (0 kW) 0% (0 kW) 0% (0 kW) Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 12 Diesel generator Cummins QSX15G9 Caterpillar 3508 Caterpillar 3512 Heat recovery ratio (% of waste heat that can serve the thermal load) 22 22 22 Intercept coefficient – the no-load fuel consumption of the generator divided by its capacity Slope – the marginal fuel consumption of the generator Fuel efficiency curve, QSX15G9 Fuel efficiency curve, Cat 3508 Fuel efficiency curve, Cat 3508 WAsP Modeling, Wind Turbine Layout WAsP (Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program) and is PC-based software for predicting wind climates, wind resources and power production from wind turbines and wind farms and was used to model the Pitka’s Point terrain and wind turbine performance. WAsP software calculates gross and net annual energy production (AEP) for turbines contained within wind farms, such as an array of two or more turbines in proximity to each other. For s single turbine array, WAsP calculates gross AEP. With one turbine, net AEP is identical to gross AEP as there is no wake loss to consider. Orographic Modeling WAsP modeling begins with import of a digital elevation map (DEM) of the subject site and surrounding area and conversion of coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). UTM is a geographic coordinate system that uses a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to identify locations on the surface of Earth. UTM coordinates reference the meridian of its particular zone (60 longitudinal zones are further subdivided by 20 latitude bands) for the easting coordinate and distance from the equator for the northing coordinate. Units are meters. Elevations of the DEMs are converted to meters if necessary for import into WAsP software. A met tower reference point is added to the digital elevation map, wind turbine locations identified, and a wind turbine(s) selected to perform the calculations. WAsP considers the orographic (terrain) effects on the wind (plus surface roughness and obstacles) and calculates how wind flow increases or decreases at each node of the DEM grid. The mathematical model has a number of limitations, including the assumption of overall wind regime of the turbine site is the same as the met tower reference site, prevailing weather conditions are stable over time, and the surrounding terrain at both sites is Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 13 sufficiently gentle and smooth to ensure laminar, attached wind flow. WAsP software is not capable of modeling turbulent wind flow resulting from sharp terrain features such as mountain ridges, canyons, shear bluffs, etc. Orographic modeling of the wind across the site, with the Pitka’s Point met tower as the reference site, indicates an outstanding wind resource on the top edge of the bluff, especially downhill from the met tower toward the Yukon River and the village of Pitka’s Point. Orographic modeling of Pitka’s Point site area, plan view Orographic modeling of Pitka’s Point site area, view to west Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 14 Wind Turbine Project Site The project site is Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land on and near the location of the Pitka’s Point met tower, with boundaries of the Pitka’s Point/Saint Mary’s Airport road to the north, a rock quarry to the east, the bluff to the south, and a Native Allotment to the west. More specifically, AVEC has obtained site control on Lot 6 within these general boundaries for turbine siting. Site control of Lot 6 is adequate to site one EWT52-900 turbine, but lease rights to additional Pitka’s Point Native Corporation property on the bluff edge would be necessary for an ideal layout of Northern Power 100 turbines. It is important to note that winds at the project site, though very robust as a Class 6 wind resource, are prone to rime icing conditions in winter. Rime icing is more problematic for wind turbine operations than freezing rain (clear ice) given its tenacity and longevity in certain climatic conditions. Anti-icing and/or de-icing features may be necessary to sustain availability during the winter months. Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Layout The Northern Power turbines are located on the bluff edge, which is on and near Lot 6 on Pitka’s Point Native Corporation land. Using WAsP software, turbine locations were selected that have high gross energy production based on predicted site wind speeds, but at the same time result in minimal array loss, thus yielding a high net energy production. NP 100 Turbine Layout Turbine UTM (easting, northing) Latitude, Longitude NP 100 wtg 1 Zone 3V 591577, 6879392 62.035691° N, 163.24939° W NP 100 wtg 2 Zone 3V 591646, 6879471 62.036383° N, 163.24803° W NP 100 wtg 3 Zone 3V 591715, 6879552 62.037093° N, 163.24667° W WAsP Modeling Results for Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Array The following table presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production and capacity factor performance of the Northern Power 100 in a three turbine array at 100% turbine availability (percent of time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy production). The Northern Power 100 performs very well in the Pitka’s Point wind regime with excellent annual energy production and minimal array wake loss. Note that the standard (atmospheric conditions) power curve was compensated to the measured mean annual site air density of 1.273 kg/m3. For the stall-controlled Northern Power 100, power output (for each m/s wind speed step) of the standard power curve was multiplied by the ratio of site air density to standard air density of 1.225 kg kg/m3 and capped at a maximum 100 kW output. Northern Power 100 annual energy production 3 turbine array, 100% availability Parameter Total (MWh/yr) Average Each (MWh/yr) Minimum Each (MWh/yr) Maximum Each (MWh/yr) Net AEP 1,025 341.8 337.6 345.1 Gross AEP 1,043 347.8 345.9 350.6 Wake loss 1.71 % - - - Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 15 Northern Power 100 turbines, view to north Northern Power 100 turbines, view to south Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 16 EWT52-900 Turbine Layout Although orographic modeling indicates highest wind resource on the bluff edge downhill from the met tower, toward the Yukon River and the village of Pitka’s Point, land use restrictions dictated placement of the turbine in the southeast corner of Lot 6. This location, though, should still be considered highly desirable for wind energy production by any standard. EWT 52-900 Turbine Layout Turbine UTM (easting, northing) Latitude, Longitude EWT 52-900 Zone 3V 591648, 6879454 62.036230° N, 163.24800 W° WAsP Modeling Results for EWT 52-900 Turbine The following table presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production for the EWT 52-900 wind turbine at 100% turbine availability (percent of time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy production). The EWT turbine is predicted to perform extremely well in the Pitka’s Point wind regime with excellent capacity factors and annual energy productions. Note that the standard (atmospheric conditions) power curve was compensated to the measured mean annual site air density of 1.273 kg/m3. For the pitch-controlled EWT 52-, power output (for each m/s wind speed step) is multiplied by the ratio of site air density to standard air density of 1.225 kg kg/m3, raised to the one-third power. EWT 52-900 annual energy production, variable turbine availability EWT 52-900 (50 meter hub height) Turbine Availability Energy Production (KWh/yr) Capacity Factor (%) 100% 3,397,000 43.1 95% 3,227,000 40.9 80% 2,717,000 34.5 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 17 EWT turbine, view to southwest (village of Pitka’s Point top center) EWT turbine, view to east (village of St. Mary’s top right) Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 18 Economic Analysis Homer software was used to model static energy balance of the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal power system at one hour increments of time. For both wind turbines considered, they are modeled as connected to the electrical distribution system with first priority to serve the electrical load and second priority to serve the thermal load via a secondary load controller and electric boiler. Wind Turbine Costs Capital and installation costs of three Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbines to serve the village of St. Mary’s are based on AVEC’s cost estimate in their Renewable Energy Fund Round V proposal. Total proposed project cost, including distribution system extension and AVEC cost share, is $4,443,244, based on a cost estimate developed in 2011 for a Renewable Energy Fund Round 5 analysis. An alternative consideration, which would serve only the village of St. Mary’s initially but later would also serve the village of Pilot Station once the intertie is complete, is installation of one EWT52-900 wind turbine on a 50 meter tower. Total project cost for the EWT52-900 turbine, including distribution system extension and power plant upgrades, is $6,153,991. St. Mary’s to Pilot Station Intertie Cost An economic analysis of the EWT 52-900 wind turbine in a combined Saint Mary’s/Pilot Station electrical system must include the cost of connection as the intertie does not presently exist. This cost, though, is more than simply the cost to build the intertie. It includes avoided costs such as a power plant and bulk fuel upgrade in Pilot Station that will not be built if an intertie to Saint Mary’s is constructed instead. Interestingly, this also includes the opportunity of wind power. Airspace restrictions around Pilot Station preclude the option of wind turbines for the village, but with an intertie, the wind power project plan for St. Mary’s will be available to also serve Pilot Station. A preliminary cost analysis of non-intertie vs. intertie scenarios is presented in the table below. Although the intertie itself is projected to cost $5.95 million, the net cost of the intertie, with avoided capital costs considered, is a very modest $260,000. Without Intertie With Intertie St. Mary’s Pilot Station St. Mary’s Pilot Station Notes Powerplant capital cost $5.50 M $5.50 M $5.80 M $0.75 M Bulk fuel capital cost $4.61 M $2.39 M $5.76 M 0 Wind turbine capital cost $4.44 M 0 $6.15 M 0 NP100’s for St. M., or EWT for both Intertie capital cost $5.95 M Cost Difference (no turbines) Total Cost (wind turbines not included) $18.00 M $18.26 M $260,000 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 19 Beyond the avoided capital costs, the benefits of an electrical intertie between Saint Mary’s and Pilot Station include increased efficiency of the diesel generators in Saint Mary’s as they will operate at higher loading levels and hence more efficient points of their fuel curves, reduced operating and maintenance expenses with fewer diesel generators on line, lower labor costs, reduced maintenance expenses, and reduced repair and emergency expenses with operations consolidated in Saint Mary’s. A separate economic analysis indicates a benefit-to-cost ratio of approximately 1.20 for 20 to 50 year evaluation periods. Fuel Cost A fuel price of $5.02/gallon ($1.33/Liter) was chosen for the initial HOMER analysis by reference to Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035, prepared for Alaska Energy Authority by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), dated July, 2012. The $5.02/gallon price reflects the average value of all fuel prices between the 2014 (assumed project start year) fuel price of $4.53/gallon and the 2033 (20 year project end year) fuel price of $5.48/gallon using the medium price projection analysis with social cost of carbon (SCC) included (see ISER spreadsheet for Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 analysis). By comparison, the fuel price for Stebbins (without social cost of carbon) reported to Regulatory Commission of Alaska for the 2011 PCE report is $2.71/gallon ($0.716/Liter). Fuel cost table Cost Scenario 2014 (/gal) 2033 (/gal) Average (/gallon) Average (/Liter) Medium w/ SCC $4.53 $5.48 $5.02 $1.33 Modeling Assumptions HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Saint Mary’s power System. HOMER is a static energy model designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. Homer software is widely used in the State of Alaska to aid development of village wind-diesel power projects. HOMER modeling assumptions are detailed in the table below. Many assumptions, such as project life, discount rate, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, etc. are AEA default values. Other assumptions, such as diesel overhaul cost and time between overhaul are based on general rural Alaska power generation experience. The base or comparison scenario is the existing St. Mary’s/Andreafsky powerplant with its present configuration of diesel generators. Also assumed in the base or comparison scenario is that excess powerplant heat serves the thermal load via a heat recovery loop. Wind turbines constructed at the Pitka’s Point site are assumed to operate in parallel with the diesel generators. Excess energy will serve thermal loads via a secondary load controller and electric boiler. Installation cost of either three NW100 wind turbines or one EWT-500 wind turbine assumes a three- phase distribution line extension from the road to the wind turbine site plus a two-phase to three-phase Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 20 upgrade of the distribution system from the line extension tie-in to an existing three-phase distribution point on the west side of the village of St. Mary’s. Basic modeling assumptions Economic Assumptions Project life 20 years (2014 to 2033) Discount rate 3% System fixed O&M cost (non-fuel) $683,198/year (St. Mary’s only); $964,500/year (St. Mary’s + Pilot Station) Operating Reserves Load in current time step 10% Wind power output 50% Fuel Properties (both types) Heating value 43.2 MJ/kg (18,600 BTU/lb) Density 820 kg/m3 (6.85 lb/gal) Price $5.02/gal ($1.33/Liter) Diesel Generators Generator capital cost $0 (gensets already exist) O&M cost $2.50/hour (at $0.02/kWh) Time between overhauls 20,000 hours (run time) Overhaul cost (all diesel gensets) $75,000 Minimum load 0 kW; based on AVEC’s inverter/battery integration plan to enable diesels-off operation of the wind-diesel system Schedule Optimized Wind Turbines Availability 80% (note that EWT turbine is guaranteed by manufacturer to achieve 95% availability, less downtime due to icing) O&M cost $0.0469/kWh for NP 100 and $0.018/kWh for EWT 52-900 (equates to $41,900/year for 3 NP 100 turbines and $48,250/year for EWT 52-900; based on 34% turbine CF both turbines) Wind speed 7.69 m/s at the Pitka’s Point wind; scaled to 6.75 m/s in Homer software for 80% turbine availability (38 meter level) Energy Loads Electric: St. Mary’s 8.74 MWh/day measured in St. Mary’s power plant Electric: St. Mary’s + Pilot Station 13.73 MWh/day; St. Mary’s power plant data scaled to accommodate Pilot Station load Thermal 5.22 MWh/day based on recovered heat report written by AEE, Inc. Project Cost Assumptions Three basic project configuration and benefit-to-cost evaluations are considered with Homer modeling, as listed below. Configuration Number: 1. Three Northern Power 100 wind turbines serving only the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal load; total project cost of $4,443,244. Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 21 2. One EWT 52-900 wind turbine serving only the Saint Mary’s electrical and thermal load; total project cost of $6,153,991. 3. One EWT 52-900 wind turbine serving an intertied Saint Mary’s and Pilot Station electrical load and Saint Mary’s thermal load; total project cost of $6,413,991. This cost estimate reflects the cost of installing one EWT 52-900 turbine in St. Mary’s plus the cost the St. Mary’s to Pilot Station intertie less the avoided capital costs when closing the Pilot Station powerhouse and consolidating generation operations to Saint Mary’s (see below). Configuration 3: Saint Mary’s to Pilot Station cost summary Project Item Cost EWT turbine project cost, St. Mary’s $6.15 M Intertie project cost + $5.95 M Combined powerplant and bulk fuel upgrades (if intertied) + $12.31 M Individual village powerplant and bulk fuel upgrades (no intertie - $18.00 M Total cost: turbine project + St. Mary’s-to-Pilot Station intertie = $6.41 M Percent cost increase from turbine project alone +4.2% Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 22 Homer Software Modeling Results Configuration 1: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, NP 100 Turbine Option Three NP 100’s, 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed) NP100 Initial capital Operating cost ($/yr) Total NPC COE ($/kWh) Wind fraction Diesel (L) Heating oil arctic (L) Gen 1 (hrs) Gen 2 (hrs) Gen 3 (hrs) Fuel use avoided (gal) Wind energy (MWh) Excess electric (%) Excess thermal (%) Base $0 1,905,939 $28,355,560 0.515 0.00 772,756 112,770 8,006 753 1 - - - - 3 $4,443,244 1,734,959 $30,255,056 0.556 0.17 586,700 138,341 8,486 274 0 42,400 836 - - Project economics, turbine project compared to base case Metric Value Present worth ($1,899,513) Annual worth $ -127,677/yr Return on investment 3.86% Internal rate of return n/a Simple payback n/a Discounted payback n/a Benefit-to-cost ratio 0.94 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 23 Configuration 2: St. Mary’s Only; No Intertie to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option One EWT 52-900, 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed) EWT Initial capital Operating cost ($/yr) Total NPC COE ($/kWh) Wind fraction Diesel (L) Heating oil arctic (L) Gen 1 (hrs) Gen 2 (hrs) Gen 3 (hrs) Fuel use avoided (gal) Wind energy (MWh) Excess electric (%) Excess thermal (%) 1 $6,153,991 1,449,923 $27,725,176 0.502 0.43 405,133 104,250 7,865 154 0 99,377 2,484 21.5 18.6 Base $0 1,905,939 $28,355,560 0.515 0.00 772,756 112,770 8,006 753 1 - - - - Project economics, turbine project compared to base case Metric Value Present worth $630,370 Annual worth $ 42,371/yr Return on investment 7.42% Internal rate of return 4.08% Simple payback 13.6 yrs Discounted payback 17.9 yrs Benefit-to-cost ratio 1.03 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 24 Configuration 3: St. Mary’s Intertied to Pilot Station, EWT Turbine Option EWT 52-900 turbine option, 80% wind turbine availability (6.75 m/s mean wind speed) EWT Initial capital Operating cost ($/yr) Total NPC COE ($/kWh) Wind fraction Diesel (L) Heating oil arctic (L) Gen 1 (hrs) Gen 2 (hrs) Gen 3 (hrs) Fuel use avoided (gal) Wind energy (MWh) Excess electric (%) Excess thermal (%) 1 $6,413,689 2,205,058 $39,219,376 0.465 0.33 778,409 85,173 4,478 2143 2137 128,075 2,484 6.3 9.9 Base $0 2,801,976 $41,686,320 0.498 0.00 1,301,806 46,540 1,478 2675 4654 - - - - Project economics, turbine project compared to base case Metric Value Present worth $2,466,946 Annual worth $ 165,818/yr Return on investment 9.30% Internal rate of return 6.82% Simple payback 10.9 yrs Discounted payback 13.6 yrs Benefit-to-cost ratio 1.06 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 25 Appendix A, WAsP Wind Farm Report, Pitka’s Point Site, NP 100 Turbines 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 1/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html 'Northern P ower 100' wind farm P ro d u ce d o n 9 /1 2 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 0 :4 9 :3 0 AM b y lice n ce d u s e r: Do u g la s J . Va u g h t, V3 En e rg y, U SA u s in g W As P ve rs io n : 1 0 .0 2 .0 0 1 0 Summary re s ults Pa r a m e te r To ta l A v e r a ge Minimum Ma x imum Ne t AE P [MWh]1 0 2 5 .5 0 7 3 4 1 .8 3 6 3 3 7 .6 4 7 3 4 5 .1 0 5 Gross AE P [MWh]1 0 4 3 .3 6 5 3 4 7 .7 8 8 3 4 5 .9 4 2 3 5 0 .6 2 8 Wa k e lo ss [%]1 .7 1 --- Site re s ults Site Lo c a tion [m]Tur bine Ele v a tion [m ]He ight [m]Ne t AE P [MWh]Wa k e lo s s [%] wtg 1 (5 9 1 5 7 7 , 6 8 7 9 3 9 2 )NW P 1 0 0 1 6 2 .1 8 0 9 3 8 3 3 7 .6 4 7 2 .4 wtg 2 (5 9 1 6 4 6 , 6 8 7 9 4 7 1 )NW P 1 0 0 1 6 9 .5 6 1 1 3 7 3 4 2 .7 5 6 2 .2 5 wtg 3 (5 9 1 7 1 5 , 6 8 7 9 5 5 2 )NW P 1 0 0 1 7 0 3 8 3 4 5 .1 0 5 0 .4 9 Site wind climate s Site Lo c a tion [m]H [m]A [m/s]k U [m/s ]E [W/m²]RIX [%]dRIX [%] wtg 1 (5 9 1 5 7 7 , 6 8 7 9 3 9 2 )3 8 8 .5 2 .0 2 7 .5 6 5 1 9 4 .0 0 .7 wtg 2 (5 9 1 6 4 6 , 6 8 7 9 4 7 1 )3 7 8 .6 2 .0 1 7 .6 3 5 3 6 3 .6 0 .4 wtg 3 (5 9 1 7 1 5 , 6 8 7 9 5 5 2 )3 8 8 .5 2 .0 2 7 .5 7 5 2 1 3 .5 0 .3 T h e win d fa rm lie s in a m a p ca lle d KW I GU Ku tm DV. 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 2/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html T h e win d fa rm is in a p ro je ct ca lle d P itca P o in t_te s tca s e A win d a tla s ca lle d W in d a tla s 2 wa s u s e d to ca lcu la te th e p re d icte d win d clim a te s Calculation of annual output for 'Northe rn Powe r 100' De ca y co n s ta n ts : 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 Se cto r 1 (0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 9 .7 2 .2 9 5 .6 4 8 .5 8 2 4 .1 1 1 2 4 .1 1 1 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .9 2 .2 8 5 .7 8 8 .7 4 2 5 .3 2 7 2 5 .3 2 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .7 2 .3 0 5 .6 2 8 .6 0 2 4 .0 7 4 2 4 .0 7 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 to ta l ----7 3 .5 1 2 7 3 .5 1 2 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 (1 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 9 .4 2 .2 5 5 .5 1 8 .2 9 2 2 .3 6 8 2 2 .3 6 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .5 2 .2 4 5 .6 0 8 .4 3 2 3 .2 7 3 2 3 .2 7 3 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .4 2 .2 5 5 .5 6 8 .3 4 2 2 .7 7 5 2 2 .7 7 5 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 to ta l ----6 8 .4 1 7 6 8 .4 1 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 (2 0 °) 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 3/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 8 .7 2 .1 2 4 .5 9 7 .7 2 1 6 .6 5 1 1 6 .6 5 1 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .8 2 .1 0 4 .5 8 7 .7 9 1 6 .8 2 9 1 6 .8 2 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .8 2 .1 3 4 .6 9 7 .8 0 1 7 .2 9 8 1 7 .2 9 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 to ta l ----5 0 .7 7 8 5 0 .7 7 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 4 (3 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 8 .1 2 .0 9 3 .7 8 7 .1 7 1 2 .1 2 3 1 0 .7 3 9 8 8 .5 8 wtg 2 8 .2 2 .1 0 3 .7 7 7 .2 5 1 2 .3 3 6 1 0 .9 8 4 8 9 .0 4 wtg 3 8 .2 2 .0 9 3 .8 4 7 .2 3 1 2 .5 1 3 1 2 .5 1 3 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 4 to ta l ----3 6 .9 7 2 3 4 .2 3 6 9 2 .6 Se cto r 5 (4 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 8 .1 2 .3 4 3 .5 2 7 .1 6 1 1 .2 6 8 7 .0 4 2 6 2 .4 9 wtg 2 8 .2 2 .3 3 3 .5 7 7 .2 8 1 1 .7 9 7 8 .5 8 6 7 2 .7 8 wtg 3 8 .2 2 .3 4 3 .5 8 7 .2 3 1 1 .6 4 5 1 1 .6 4 5 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 5 to ta l ----3 4 .7 1 0 2 7 .2 7 3 7 8 .5 7 Se cto r 6 (5 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 8 .9 2 .4 0 4 .1 1 7 .8 7 1 5 .5 0 3 1 2 .8 4 6 8 2 .8 6 wtg 2 8 .9 2 .3 9 4 .0 8 7 .9 1 1 5 .4 8 7 1 3 .6 1 2 8 7 .8 9 wtg 3 9 .0 2 .4 0 4 .1 8 7 .9 5 1 6 .0 1 3 1 6 .0 1 3 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 6 to ta l ----4 7 .0 0 2 4 2 .4 7 0 9 0 .3 6 Se cto r 7 (6 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 1 0 .0 2 .2 2 5 .1 9 8 .8 7 2 3 .0 6 4 2 3 .0 3 7 9 9 .8 8 wtg 2 1 0 .1 2 .2 1 5 .2 0 8 .9 3 2 3 .2 8 4 2 3 .2 8 4 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 1 0 .1 2 .2 2 5 .2 9 8 .9 7 2 3 .8 1 8 2 3 .8 1 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 7 to ta l ----7 0 .1 6 7 7 0 .1 3 9 9 9 .9 6 Se cto r 8 (7 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 9 .8 2 .1 0 4 .9 3 8 .6 6 2 1 .0 1 9 2 1 .0 1 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .7 2 .0 8 4 .8 0 8 .6 1 2 0 .2 9 8 2 0 .2 9 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .8 2 .0 9 4 .9 6 8 .7 0 2 1 .2 3 0 2 1 .2 3 0 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 8 to ta l ----6 2 .5 4 8 6 2 .5 4 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 9 (8 0 °) T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%] wtg 1 9 .1 2 .0 3 4 .2 3 8 .0 4 1 6 .2 1 9 1 6 .2 1 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .0 2 .0 2 4 .1 2 8 .0 0 1 5 .6 5 7 1 5 .6 5 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .1 2 .0 3 4 .2 2 8 .0 4 1 6 .1 6 3 1 6 .1 6 3 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 9 to ta l ----4 8 .0 3 9 4 8 .0 3 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 0 (9 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .3 2 .1 3 3 .6 7 7 .3 8 1 2 .3 6 9 1 2 .3 6 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .3 2 .1 2 3 .5 8 7 .3 5 1 2 .0 0 5 1 2 .0 0 5 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .3 2 .1 3 3 .6 6 7 .3 8 1 2 .3 4 1 1 2 .3 4 1 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 0 to ta l ----3 6 .7 1 5 3 6 .7 1 5 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 1 (1 0 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 4/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html wtg 1 8 .0 2 .1 5 3 .4 1 7 .0 9 1 0 .7 5 3 1 0 .7 5 3 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .0 2 .1 4 3 .3 5 7 .0 8 1 0 .5 2 6 1 0 .5 2 6 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .0 2 .1 5 3 .3 7 7 .0 7 1 0 .5 7 7 1 0 .5 7 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 1 to ta l ----3 1 .8 5 5 3 1 .8 5 5 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 2 (1 1 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 7 .8 2 .1 0 2 .8 8 6 .9 0 8 .6 5 1 8 .6 5 1 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 7 .8 2 .0 9 2 .8 6 6 .9 0 8 .5 7 7 8 .5 7 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 7 .8 2 .1 0 2 .8 3 6 .8 8 8 .4 3 7 8 .4 3 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 2 to ta l ----2 5 .6 6 4 2 5 .6 6 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 3 (1 2 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .0 2 .1 0 2 .3 2 7 .0 8 7 .2 8 3 7 .2 8 3 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .0 2 .0 9 2 .3 2 7 .0 8 7 .2 8 2 7 .2 8 2 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .0 2 .1 0 2 .2 7 7 .0 5 7 .0 8 9 7 .0 8 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 3 to ta l ----2 1 .6 5 4 2 1 .6 5 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 4 (1 3 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .4 2 .1 2 1 .9 3 7 .4 6 6 .6 1 6 6 .6 1 6 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .5 2 .1 1 1 .9 4 7 .4 9 6 .7 0 7 6 .7 0 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .4 2 .1 2 1 .8 9 7 .4 1 6 .4 2 6 6 .4 2 6 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 4 to ta l ----1 9 .7 4 9 1 9 .7 4 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 5 (1 4 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .9 1 .9 4 2 .0 0 7 .9 1 7 .4 2 4 7 .4 2 4 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .0 1 .9 6 1 .9 9 7 .9 4 7 .4 5 5 7 .4 5 5 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .8 1 .9 4 1 .9 6 7 .8 5 7 .2 0 9 7 .2 0 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 5 to ta l ----2 2 .0 8 7 2 2 .0 8 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 6 (1 5 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 9 .5 1 .6 7 2 .2 6 8 .4 5 8 .8 0 2 8 .8 0 2 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .6 1 .6 7 2 .2 9 8 .5 8 9 .0 6 2 9 .0 6 2 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .4 1 .6 7 2 .2 2 8 .4 0 8 .6 1 4 8 .6 1 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 6 to ta l ----2 6 .4 7 7 2 6 .4 7 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 7 (1 6 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 9 .6 1 .6 9 2 .4 2 8 .6 0 9 .6 5 1 9 .6 5 1 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .8 1 .6 7 2 .4 7 8 .7 4 9 .9 7 4 9 .9 7 4 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .6 1 .6 8 2 .3 9 8 .5 5 9 .4 4 6 9 .4 4 6 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 7 to ta l ----2 9 .0 7 1 2 9 .0 7 1 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 8 (1 7 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 9 .7 1 .8 2 2 .4 3 8 .6 0 9 .9 1 0 9 .9 1 0 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .9 1 .8 2 2 .4 8 8 .7 7 1 0 .3 6 6 1 0 .3 6 6 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .7 1 .8 2 2 .4 2 8 .6 0 9 .8 6 4 9 .8 6 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 8 to ta l ----3 0 .1 3 9 3 0 .1 3 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 9 (1 8 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .4 1 .7 2 2 .1 0 7 .5 2 7 .1 5 0 7 .1 5 0 1 0 0 .0 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 5/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html wtg 2 8 .6 1 .7 1 2 .1 5 7 .6 4 7 .4 5 6 7 .4 5 6 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .5 1 .7 3 2 .1 2 7 .6 0 7 .3 2 4 7 .3 2 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 1 9 to ta l ----2 1 .9 3 1 2 1 .9 3 1 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 0 (1 9 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 7 .2 1 .7 9 1 .8 7 6 .3 7 4 .9 0 2 4 .9 0 2 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 7 .3 1 .7 9 1 .9 0 6 .4 5 5 .1 0 0 5 .1 0 0 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 7 .2 1 .7 8 1 .8 9 6 .4 4 5 .0 4 1 5 .0 4 1 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 0 to ta l ----1 5 .0 4 3 1 5 .0 4 3 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 1 (2 0 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 6 .4 1 .9 6 1 .5 4 5 .7 1 3 .2 1 8 3 .2 1 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 6 .5 1 .9 5 1 .5 4 5 .7 6 3 .2 7 1 3 .2 7 1 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 6 .5 1 .9 6 1 .5 8 5 .7 7 3 .3 6 4 3 .3 6 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 1 to ta l ----9 .8 5 3 9 .8 5 3 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 2 (2 1 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 5 .9 2 .0 7 1 .2 0 5 .2 5 2 .0 1 8 2 .0 1 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 6 .0 2 .0 7 1 .1 8 5 .3 0 2 .0 3 8 1 .7 2 3 8 4 .5 4 wtg 3 6 .0 2 .0 6 1 .2 2 5 .3 0 2 .1 0 8 1 .7 0 1 8 0 .7 3 Se cto r 2 2 to ta l ----6 .1 6 4 5 .4 4 3 8 8 .3 Se cto r 2 3 (2 2 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 5 .7 2 .3 5 0 .9 7 5 .0 9 1 .4 3 7 1 .4 3 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 5 .8 2 .3 7 0 .9 7 5 .1 6 1 .4 8 2 0 .8 0 0 5 4 .0 2 wtg 3 5 .8 2 .3 5 0 .9 9 5 .1 4 1 .4 9 9 0 .6 5 8 4 3 .8 8 Se cto r 2 3 to ta l ----4 .4 1 7 2 .8 9 5 6 5 .5 4 Se cto r 2 4 (2 3 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 6 .1 2 .7 9 0 .9 2 5 .4 5 1 .5 3 5 1 .5 3 5 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 6 .1 2 .7 8 0 .9 2 5 .4 7 1 .5 4 2 1 .1 1 0 7 2 .0 1 wtg 3 6 .2 2 .7 9 0 .9 4 5 .5 0 1 .6 0 2 1 .1 6 0 7 2 .4 Se cto r 2 4 to ta l ----4 .6 7 9 3 .8 0 6 8 1 .3 3 Se cto r 2 5 (2 4 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 6 .0 2 .7 2 1 .1 7 5 .3 7 1 .8 8 9 1 .8 8 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 6 .0 2 .7 1 1 .1 7 5 .3 7 1 .8 8 9 1 .8 8 2 9 9 .6 6 wtg 3 6 .1 2 .7 2 1 .1 9 5 .4 2 1 .9 6 9 1 .9 6 9 9 9 .9 9 Se cto r 2 5 to ta l ----5 .7 4 6 5 .7 4 0 9 9 .8 9 Se cto r 2 6 (2 5 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 6 .0 2 .5 5 1 .1 4 5 .3 5 1 .8 6 8 1 .8 6 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 6 .0 2 .5 3 1 .1 2 5 .3 3 1 .8 1 5 1 .8 1 5 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 6 .1 2 .5 4 1 .1 5 5 .3 8 1 .9 1 6 1 .9 1 6 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 6 to ta l ----5 .5 9 9 5 .5 9 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 7 (2 6 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 5 .9 2 .4 1 1 .0 1 5 .2 6 1 .6 0 9 1 .6 0 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 5 .9 2 .4 0 0 .9 8 5 .2 3 1 .5 5 0 1 .5 5 0 1 0 0 .0 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 6/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html wtg 3 5 .9 2 .4 1 1 .0 1 5 .2 7 1 .6 1 8 1 .6 1 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 7 to ta l ----4 .7 7 7 4 .7 7 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 8 (2 7 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 5 .9 2 .4 2 1 .0 5 5 .2 7 1 .6 7 7 1 .6 7 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 5 .9 2 .4 2 1 .0 2 5 .2 5 1 .6 1 8 1 .6 1 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 6 .0 2 .4 4 1 .0 7 5 .2 9 1 .7 2 8 1 .7 2 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 8 to ta l ----5 .0 2 3 5 .0 2 3 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 9 (2 8 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 6 .4 2 .5 5 1 .4 3 5 .7 1 2 .7 6 3 2 .7 6 3 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 6 .4 2 .5 4 1 .3 9 5 .6 8 2 .6 5 6 2 .6 5 6 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 6 .5 2 .5 6 1 .4 3 5 .7 4 2 .7 9 5 2 .7 9 5 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 2 9 to ta l ----8 .2 1 4 8 .2 1 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 0 (2 9 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 7 .1 2 .6 3 1 .6 3 6 .3 0 3 .9 5 9 3 .9 5 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 7 .1 2 .6 2 1 .6 0 6 .2 8 3 .8 6 3 3 .8 6 3 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 7 .1 2 .6 3 1 .6 2 6 .2 9 3 .9 0 9 3 .9 0 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 0 to ta l ----1 1 .7 3 1 1 1 .7 3 1 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 1 (3 0 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 7 .6 2 .2 9 1 .7 1 6 .7 0 4 .8 3 4 4 .8 3 4 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 7 .6 2 .3 1 1 .6 9 6 .7 1 4 .7 7 9 4 .7 7 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 7 .5 2 .2 9 1 .6 9 6 .6 7 4 .7 2 7 4 .7 2 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 1 to ta l ----1 4 .3 3 9 1 4 .3 3 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 2 (3 1 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .1 2 .0 3 2 .1 3 7 .1 5 6 .7 9 8 6 .7 9 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .1 2 .0 3 2 .0 9 7 .1 8 6 .7 3 3 6 .7 3 3 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .0 2 .0 3 2 .1 0 7 .1 1 6 .6 3 8 6 .6 3 8 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 2 to ta l ----2 0 .1 6 9 2 0 .1 6 9 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 3 (3 2 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 7 .5 2 .1 4 2 .8 2 6 .6 0 7 .7 9 1 7 .7 9 1 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 7 .5 2 .1 0 2 .7 9 6 .6 8 7 .8 7 7 7 .8 7 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 7 .4 2 .1 3 2 .7 7 6 .5 5 7 .5 2 6 7 .5 2 6 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 3 to ta l ----2 3 .1 9 5 2 3 .1 9 5 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 4 (3 3 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 8 .2 2 .4 9 3 .4 2 7 .2 5 1 1 .1 8 8 1 1 .1 8 8 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 8 .3 2 .4 7 3 .4 5 7 .3 3 1 1 .5 1 6 1 1 .5 1 6 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 8 .1 2 .4 9 3 .3 6 7 .1 9 1 0 .8 1 4 1 0 .8 1 4 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 4 to ta l ----3 3 .5 1 7 3 3 .5 1 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 5 (3 4 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 9 .0 2 .5 7 4 .1 1 8 .0 4 1 6 .1 0 4 1 6 .1 0 4 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .2 2 .5 6 4 .1 8 8 .1 6 1 6 .7 4 9 1 6 .7 4 9 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .0 2 .5 6 4 .0 4 7 .9 7 1 5 .6 3 8 1 5 .6 3 8 1 0 0 .0 9/12/12 Wind farm report for 'Northern Pow er 100' 7/7file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html Se cto r 3 5 to ta l ----4 8 .4 9 1 4 8 .4 9 1 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 6 (3 5 0 °) T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 9 .7 2 .4 5 4 .9 5 8 .6 0 2 1 .4 1 7 2 1 .4 1 7 1 0 0 .0 wtg 2 9 .9 2 .4 4 5 .0 6 8 .7 6 2 2 .4 5 4 2 2 .4 5 4 1 0 0 .0 wtg 3 9 .7 2 .4 6 4 .8 9 8 .5 7 2 1 .0 4 7 2 1 .0 4 7 1 0 0 .0 Se cto r 3 6 to ta l ----6 4 .9 1 8 6 4 .9 1 8 1 0 0 .0 All Se cto rs T ur bine Lo c a tio n [m]MWh (fre e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%] wtg 1 (5 9 1 5 7 7 , 6 8 7 9 3 9 2 )3 4 5 .9 4 2 3 3 7 .6 4 7 9 7 .6 wtg 2 (5 9 1 6 4 6 , 6 8 7 9 4 7 1 )3 5 0 .6 2 8 3 4 2 .7 5 6 9 7 .7 5 wtg 3 (5 9 1 7 1 5 , 6 8 7 9 5 5 2 )3 4 6 .7 9 4 3 4 5 .1 0 5 9 9 .5 1 W in d f a rm -1 0 4 3 .3 6 5 1 0 2 5 .5 0 7 9 8 .2 9 Data origins information T h e m a p wa s im p o rte d b y 'U s e r' fro m a file ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \U s e r\Do cu m e n ts \W in d C o n s u ltL L C \Ala s k a \M AP S\KW I GU Ku tm DV.m a p ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'SER VER '. T h e m a p file d a ta we re la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 2 /7 /2 0 1 2 a t 6 :0 8 :3 7 P M T h e re is n o in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e win d a tla s a s s o cia te d with th is win d f a rm . T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r a s s o cia te d with th is win d fa rm wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \W in d T u rb in e s \W As P tu rb in e cu rve s \NW 1 0 0 B_2 1 , 3 7 m e te r.wtg ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r file wa s la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 8 /2 9 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 0 :3 5 :4 8 AM Proje ct parame te rs T h e win d fa rm is in a p ro je ct ca lle d P itca P o in t_te s tca s e . H e re is a lis t o f a ll th e p a ra m e te rs with n o n -d e fa u lt va lu e s : Air d e n s ity: 1 .2 7 2 (d e f a u lt is 1 .2 2 5 ) Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 26 Appendix B, WAsP Turbine Site Report, Pitka’s Point Site, EWT Turbine 9/11/12 Turbine site report for 'EWT turbine site' 1/3file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html 'EWT turbine site' Turbine site P ro d u ce d o n 9 /1 1 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 1 :3 7 :1 9 P M b y lice n ce d u s e r: Do u g la s J . Va u g h t, V3 En e rg y, U SA u s in g W As P Ve rs io n : 1 0 .0 2 .0 0 1 0 Site information Locati on i n the map T h e tu rb in e is lo ca te d a t co -o rd in a te s (5 9 1 6 4 8 ,6 8 7 9 4 5 4 ) in a m a p ca lle d 'Kwig u k A3 '. T h e s ite e le va tio n is 1 7 0 .0 m a .s .l. Site e ffe cts Se c to r Angle [°]Or .Spd [%]Or.Tur [°]Obs.Spd [%]Rgh.Spd [%]Rix [%] 1 0 2 7 .4 8 -6 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .2 2 1 0 2 2 .7 1 -6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .0 3 2 0 1 8 .0 3 -5 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 4 3 0 1 4 .0 6 -4 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 5 4 0 1 1 .3 6 -2 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .4 6 5 0 1 0 .3 6 -0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .3 7 6 0 1 1 .2 4 2 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .7 9/11/12 Turbine site report for 'EWT turbine site' 2/3file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html 8 7 0 1 3 .8 4 4 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .1 9 8 0 1 7 .7 5 5 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .5 1 0 9 0 2 2 .4 0 6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .7 1 1 1 0 0 2 7 .1 8 6 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 3 .6 1 2 1 1 0 3 1 .5 4 5 .3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 .4 1 3 1 2 0 3 5 .0 0 3 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .3 1 4 1 3 0 3 7 .2 4 2 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .5 1 5 1 4 0 3 8 .0 4 0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .2 1 6 1 5 0 3 7 .3 3 -1 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .3 1 7 1 6 0 3 5 .1 9 -3 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .5 1 8 1 7 0 3 1 .7 9 -5 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .9 1 9 1 8 0 2 7 .4 8 -6 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .4 2 0 1 9 0 2 2 .7 1 -6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 5 .1 2 1 2 0 0 1 8 .0 3 -5 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .3 2 2 2 1 0 1 4 .0 6 -4 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .3 2 3 2 2 0 1 1 .3 6 -2 .5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 7 .7 2 4 2 3 0 1 0 .3 6 -0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .9 2 5 2 4 0 1 1 .2 4 2 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .8 2 6 2 5 0 1 3 .8 4 4 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .9 2 7 2 6 0 1 7 .7 5 5 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .0 2 8 2 7 0 2 2 .4 0 6 .4 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 .0 2 9 2 8 0 2 7 .1 8 6 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 .7 3 0 2 9 0 3 1 .5 4 5 .3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 0 .6 3 1 3 0 0 3 5 .0 0 3 .8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 .1 3 2 3 1 0 3 7 .2 4 2 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .8 3 3 3 2 0 3 8 .0 4 0 .1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .8 3 4 3 3 0 3 7 .3 3 -1 .9 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 3 5 3 4 0 3 5 .1 9 -3 .7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 3 6 3 5 0 3 1 .7 9 -5 .2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 T h e a ll-s e cto r R I X (ru g g e d n e s s in d e x ) f o r th e s ite is 3 .4 % The pre dicte d wind climate at the turbine s ite -T o ta l Wind a t ma x imum powe r de nsity dis tributio n Me a n wind s pe e d 8 .4 5 m /s 1 3 .3 9 m /s Me a n po we r de nsity 7 2 5 W /m ²6 3 (W /m ²)/(m /s ) 9/11/12 Turbine site report for 'EWT turbine site' 3/3file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html Re s ults Site Lo c a tion [m]Tur bine He ight [m ]Ne t AEP [GWh]Wa k e los s [%] EW T tu rb in e s ite (5 9 1 6 4 8 , 6 8 7 9 4 5 4 )EW T 5 2 -9 0 0 5 0 3 .3 9 7 0 .0 T h e co m b in e d (o m n id ire ctio n a l) W e ib u ll d is trib u tio n p re d icts a g ro s s AEP o f 3 .4 3 2 GW h a n d th e e m e rg e n t (s u m o f s e cto rs ) d is trib u tio n p re d icts a g ro s s AEP o f 3 .3 9 7 GW h . (T h e d if fe re n ce is 1 .0 2 % ) Proje ct parame te rs T h e s ite is in a p ro je ct ca lle d Sa in t M a ry's EW T . H e re is a lis t o f a ll th e p a ra m e te rs with n o n -d e fa u lt va lu e s : Air d e n s ity: 1 .2 7 3 (d e f a u lt is 1 .2 2 5 ) Data origins information T h e m a p wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \AVEC \St M a rys \W As P \Su rf e r co n ve rs io n \Kwig u k A3 .m a p ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e m a p file d a ta we re la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 8 /3 1 /2 0 1 2 a t 9 :4 7 :3 8 AM T h e re is n o in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e win d a tla s f ile . T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' fro m a file ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \W in d T u rb in e s \W As P tu rb in e cu rve s \EW T 5 2 -9 0 0 , 5 0 m .wtg ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r file we re la s t m o d if ie d o n th e 8 /3 1 /2 0 1 2 a t 1 :1 2 :5 8 P M Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 27 Appendix C, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 3 NP 100 Turbines 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Sys te m Repor t - St M a r ys -Pilo t Stn, REF 6 a na lys is Sensitivity case Prim a ry Load 1 Scal ed Average:8,496 kWh/d Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:6.75 m /s EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.2 72 Capital Cos t Mu l tiplier:1 Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:683,1 98 $/yr System architecture Wind tu rbine 3 Northwin d100B, rho=1.272 QSX15 G9 499 kW Cat 3508 611 kW Cat 3512 908 kW Cost summary Total net pres ent cos t $ 30,255,056 Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.556/kWh Operating cos t $ 1,734,959 /yr Ne t Pre se nt Costs Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Sa lvage Total ($)($)($)($)($)($) North w i nd100B, rho=1.27 2 4,443,24 4 0 623,366 0 0 5,066,61 1 QSX15G9 0 444,142 315,626 1 0,940,718 -21 ,344 11,679,14 2 Cat 35 08 0 0 10,191 668,347 -30 ,148 648,39 0 Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -40 ,695 -40,69 5 Boiler 0 0 0 2,737,356 0 2,737,35 6 Other 0 0 10,164,263 0 0 10,164,26 3 Sys te m 4,443,24 4 444,142 11,113,448 1 4,346,421 -92 ,187 30,255,06 4 Annua li z e d Costs Component Capital Replacement O&M Fue l Salvage Total 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm ($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr) North w i nd100B, rho=1.27 2 298,656 0 41,900 0 0 340,556 QSX15G9 0 29,853 21,215 735,3 88 -1,435 785,022 Cat 35 08 0 0 685 44,9 23 -2,026 43,582 Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -2,735 -2,735 Boiler 0 0 0 183,9 93 0 183,993 Other 0 0 683,198 0 0 683,198 Sys te m 298,656 29,853 746,998 964,3 05 -6,196 2 ,033,616 Electrical Com ponent Production Fraction (kWh/yr) Wind turbines 836,2 47 27% QSX15G9 2,140,2 60 69% Cat 35 08 125,7 17 4% Cat 35 12 0 0% Total 3,102,2 23 100% Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) AC pri m a ry load 3,1 01,035 100 % Total 3,1 01,035 100 % Qua ntity Value Units Exces s electricity 1,183 kWh /yr 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Unm et load 0.000549 kWh /yr Capa ci ty s hortage 0.00 kWh /yr Rene w able fraction 0.166 Thermal Component Pr oduction Fraction (kWh/yr) QSX15G9 72 6,109 38% Cat 35 08 4 5,463 2% Boiler 1,13 8,333 60% Exces s electricity 1,183 0% Total 1,91 1,089 100% Loa d Consumption Fraction (kWh /yr) Therm al load 1,905 ,663 100% Total 1,905 ,663 100% Quantity Value Units Exces s therm al energy 5,426 kWh/yr AC Wind Turbine: N orthw ind100B, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rate d capacity 300 kW Mean output 95.5 kW Capa ci ty factor 31.8 % Total pro duction 8 36,247 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minim um output 0.0 0 kW Maxim u m output 29 5 kW Wind pe netration 27 .0 % Hours of operation 7,33 9 hr/yr Levelized cos t 0.40 7 $/kWh 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm QSX15G9 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 8,486 hr/yr Num ber of s tarts 88 s tarts /yr Operational life 2.36 yr Capa ci ty factor 49.0 % Fixed g eneration cos t 21.0 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.285 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 2,140,260 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 252 kW Min. ele ctrical output 1.32 kW Max. electrical output 453 kW Therm al production 726,109 kWh/yr Mean therm al output 85.6 kW Min. the rm al output 24.3 kW Max. therm al output 135 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 552,923 L /yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.258 L /kWh Fuel ene rgy input 5,440,765 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 39.3 % Mean total efficiency 52.7 % Cat 3508 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 274 hr/yr 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Num ber of s tarts 87 s tarts /yr Operational life 73.0 yr Capa ci ty factor 2.35 % Fixed g eneration cos t 25.2 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.316 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 125,717 kWh /yr Mean electrical output 459 kW Min. ele ctrical output 308 kW Max. electrical output 546 kW Therm al production 45,463 kWh /yr Mean therm al output 166 kW Min. the rm al output 121 kW Max. therm al output 192 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 33,777 L/yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.269 L/kWh Fuel ene rgy input 332,366 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 37.8 % Mean total efficiency 51.5 % Cat 3512 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Num ber of s tarts 0 s tarts /yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capa ci ty factor 0.00 % Fixed g eneration cos t 30.8 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.310 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. ele ctrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Therm al production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean therm al output 0.00 kW Min. the rm al output 0.00 kW Max. therm al output 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 0 L/yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.000 L/kWh Fuel ene rgy input 0 kWh /yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon d i oxide 1,911,0 06 Carbon m onoxide 3,8 14 Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 4 22 Particula te m atter 2 87 Sulfur d i oxide 3,8 51 Nitrog en oxides 34,0 29 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 28 Appendix D, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s, 1 EWT-500 Turbine 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Sys te m Repor t - St M a r ys -Pilo t Stn, REF 6 a na lys is Sensitivity case Prim a ry Load 1 Scal ed Average:8,496 kWh/d Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:6.75 m /s EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.2 72 Capital Cos t Mu l tiplier:1 Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:683,1 98 $/yr System architecture Wind tu rbine 1 EWT 52 -90 0, rho=1.272 QSX15 G9 499 kW Cat 3508 611 kW Cat 3512 908 kW Cost summary Total net pres ent cos t $ 27,725,176 Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.502/kWh Operating cos t $ 1,449,923 /yr Ne t Pre se nt Costs Component Capital Re placement O&M Fuel Salvage Total ($)($)($)($)($)($) EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 6,153,991 0 717,838 0 0 6,871,830 QSX15G9 0 393,079 292,528 7,6 40,398 -5,60 6 8,320,399 Cat 35 08 0 0 5,728 3 75,983 -35,13 1 346,580 Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -40,69 5 -40,695 Boiler 0 0 0 2,0 62,807 0 2,062,807 Other 0 0 1 0,164,263 0 0 10,164,263 Sys te m 6,153,991 393,079 1 1,180,359 10,0 79,184 -81,43 2 27,725,180 Annua li z e d Costs Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm ($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr) EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 413,645 0 4 8,250 0 0 46 1,895 QSX15G9 0 26,421 1 9,663 513,555 -377 55 9,262 Cat 35 08 0 0 385 25,272 -2,361 2 3,296 Cat 35 12 0 0 0 0 -2,735 -2,735 Boiler 0 0 0 138,653 0 13 8,653 Other 0 0 68 3,198 0 0 68 3,198 Sys te m 413,645 26,421 75 1,496 677,480 -5,474 1,86 3,568 Electrical Component Production Fraction (kWh /yr) Wind turbine 2,483,95 0 63% QSX15G9 1,394,67 0 35% Cat 35 08 70,73 1 2% Cat 35 12 0 0% Total 3,949,35 1 100% Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) AC pri m a ry load 3,1 01,035 100 % Total 3,1 01,035 100 % Qua ntity Value Units Exces s electricity 84 8,323 kWh /yr 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Unm et load 0.000183 kWh /yr Capa ci ty s hortage 0.00 kWh /yr Rene w able fraction 0.425 Thermal Component Pr oduction Fraction (kWh/yr) QSX15G9 52 9,058 23% Cat 35 08 2 5,573 1% Boiler 85 7,821 38% Exces s electricity 84 8,323 38% Total 2,26 0,776 100% Loa d Consumption Fraction (kWh /yr) Therm al load 1,905 ,663 100% Total 1,905 ,663 100% Quantity Value Units Exces s therm al energy 355,113 kWh /yr AC Wind Turbine: E WT 52-900, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rate d capacity 900 kW Mean output 284 kW Capa ci ty factor 31.5 % Total pro duction 2 ,483,950 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minim um output 0.0 0 kW Maxim u m output 88 5 kW Wind pe netration 80 .1 % Hours of operation 8,21 8 hr/yr Levelized cos t 0.18 6 $/kWh 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm QSX15G9 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 7,865 hr/yr Num ber of s tarts 232 s tarts /yr Operational life 2.54 yr Capa ci ty factor 31.9 % Fixed g eneration cos t 21.0 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.285 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1,394,670 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 177 kW Min. ele ctrical output 0.188 kW Max. electrical output 453 kW Therm al production 529,058 kWh/yr Mean therm al output 67.3 kW Min. the rm al output 24.0 kW Max. therm al output 135 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 386,131 L /yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.277 L /kWh Fuel ene rgy input 3,799,532 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 36.7 % Mean total efficiency 50.6 % Cat 3508 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 154 hr/yr 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Num ber of s tarts 59 s tarts /yr Operational life 130 yr Capa ci ty factor 1.32 % Fixed g eneration cos t 25.2 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.316 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 70,731 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 459 kW Min. ele ctrical output 368 kW Max. electrical output 546 kW Therm al production 25,573 kWh/yr Mean therm al output 166 kW Min. the rm al output 139 kW Max. therm al output 192 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 19,001 L/yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.269 L/kWh Fuel ene rgy input 186,974 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 37.8 % Mean total efficiency 51.5 % Cat 3512 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Num ber of s tarts 0 s tarts /yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capa ci ty factor 0.00 % Fixed g eneration cos t 30.8 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.310 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. ele ctrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Therm al production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean therm al output 0.00 kW Min. the rm al output 0.00 kW Max. therm al output 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 0 L/yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.000 L/kWh Fuel ene rgy input 0 kWh /yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon d i oxide 1,342,6 80 Carbon m onoxide 2,6 33 Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 2 92 Particula te m atter 1 99 Sulfur d i oxide 2,7 07 Nitrog en oxides 23,4 98 Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Conceptual Design Analysis Page | 29 Appendix E, HOMER System Report, St. Mary’s + Pilot Station, 1 EWT-500 Turbine 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Sys te m Repor t - St M a r ys -Pilo t Stn, REF 6 a na lys is Sensitivity case Prim a ry Load 1 Scal ed Average:13,72 6 kWh/d Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:6.75 m /s EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.2 72 Capital Cos t Mu l tiplier:1.04 Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:964,5 00 $/yr System architecture Wind tu rbine 1 EWT 52 -90 0, rho=1.272 QSX15 G9 499 kW Cat 3508 611 kW Cat 3512 908 kW Cost summary Total net pres ent cos t $ 39,219,376 Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.465/kWh Operating cos t $ 2,205,058 /yr Ne t Pre se nt Costs Component Capital Re placement O&M Fuel Salvage Total ($)($)($)($)($)($) EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 6,413,689 0 717,838 0 0 7,131,528 QSX15G9 0 218,024 166,553 3,8 32,180 -21,67 6 4,195,081 Cat 35 08 0 100,115 79,706 4,9 15,244 -35,58 8 5,059,477 Cat 35 12 0 100,004 79,483 6,6 54,991 -35,83 7 6,798,643 Boiler 0 0 0 1,6 85,331 0 1,685,331 Other 0 0 1 4,349,329 0 0 14,349,329 Sys te m 6,413,689 418,143 1 5,392,909 17,0 87,746 -93,10 1 39,219,392 Annua li z e d Costs Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm ($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr) EWT 5 2-900, rho=1.272 431,101 0 48,250 0 0 479,351 QSX15G9 0 14,655 11,195 257,5 83 -1,457 281,975 Cat 35 08 0 6,729 5,358 330,3 82 -2,392 340,076 Cat 35 12 0 6,722 5,343 447,3 20 -2,409 456,976 Boiler 0 0 0 113,2 81 0 113,281 Other 0 0 9 64,500 0 0 964,500 Sys te m 431,101 28,106 1,0 34,645 1,148,5 65 -6,258 2 ,636,159 Electrical Component Production Fraction (kWh /yr) Wind turbine 2,483,95 0 46% QSX15G9 672,03 8 13% Cat 35 08 916,91 7 17% Cat 35 12 1,275,51 8 24% Total 5,348,42 2 100% Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) AC pri m a ry load 5,0 09,989 100 % Total 5,0 09,989 100 % Qua ntity Value Units Exces s electricity 338 ,447 kWh/yr 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Unm et load 0.00555 kWh/yr Capa ci ty s hortage 0.00 kWh/yr Rene w able fraction 0 .332 Thermal Component Pr oduction Fraction (kWh/yr) QSX15G9 27 1,406 13% Cat 35 08 33 6,030 16% Cat 35 12 44 7,474 21% Boiler 70 0,847 33% Exces s electricity 33 8,447 16% Total 2,09 4,204 100% Loa d Consumption Fraction (kWh /yr) Therm al load 1,905 ,663 100% Total 1,905 ,663 100% Quantity Value Units Exces s therm al energy 188,542 kWh /yr AC Wind Turbine: E WT 52-900, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rate d capacity 900 kW Mean output 284 kW Capa ci ty factor 31.5 % Total pro duction 2 ,483,950 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minim um output 0.0 0 kW Maxim u m output 88 5 kW Wind pe netration 49 .6 % Hours of operation 8,21 8 hr/yr Levelized cos t 0.19 3 $/kWh 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm QSX15G9 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 4,478 hr/yr Num ber of s tarts 431 s tarts /yr Operational life 4.47 yr Capa ci ty factor 15.4 % Fixed g eneration cos t 21.0 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.285 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 672,038 kWh /yr Mean electrical output 150 kW Min. ele ctrical output 0.413 kW Max. electrical output 499 kW Therm al production 271,406 kWh /yr Mean therm al output 60.6 kW Min. the rm al output 24.0 kW Max. therm al output 146 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 193,671 L /yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.288 L /kWh Fuel ene rgy input 1,905,724 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 35.3 % Mean total efficiency 49.5 % Cat 3508 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 2,143 hr/yr 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Num ber of s tarts 680 s tarts /yr Operational life 9.33 yr Capa ci ty factor 17.1 % Fixed g eneration cos t 25.2 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.316 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 916,917 kWh /yr Mean electrical output 428 kW Min. ele ctrical output 22.6 kW Max. electrical output 555 kW Therm al production 336,030 kWh /yr Mean therm al output 157 kW Min. the rm al output 37.4 kW Max. therm al output 194 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 248,407 L /yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.271 L /kWh Fuel ene rgy input 2,444,326 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 37.5 % Mean total efficiency 51.3 % Cat 3512 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 2,137 hr/yr Num ber of s tarts 302 s tarts /yr Operational life 9.36 yr Capa ci ty factor 16.0 % Fixed g eneration cos t 30.8 $/hr Margi nal generation co s t 0.310 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1,275,518 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 597 kW Min. ele ctrical output 89.2 kW Max. electrical output 814 kW 9/17/12 System Report - St Marys-Pilot Stn, RE F 6 analysis 6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Marys-Pilot_Stn,_RE F_6_ana lysis.htm Therm al production 447,474 kWh/yr Mean therm al output 209 kW Min. the rm al output 65.2 kW Max. therm al output 271 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel cons um ption 336,331 L /yr Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.264 L /kWh Fuel ene rgy input 3,309,494 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 38.5 % Mean total efficiency 52.1 % Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon d i oxide 2,275,1 65 Carbon m onoxide 5,0 60 Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 5 60 Particula te m atter 3 81 Sulfur d i oxide 4,5 77 Nitrog en oxides 45,1 48 Saint Mary's to Pilot Station Project Title Analysis Title 1 Analysis Title 2 Cost Basis (Year)Recovered Heat Revenues (Pct of Savings)50% Cost Escalation (Percent) Non Fuel Fuel Escalation Diesel Generation 15 20 0% Years 1 - 5 Bulk Fuel Storage 30 40 0% Years 6 - 10 Wind 15 20 0% Year 11 and thereafter Recovered Heat 15 20 0% Interconnections 30 40 0% Discount Rate Locations: Load Center 1 Load Center 2 Load Center 3 Primary Ops Ctr Must be either Load Center 1 or Load Center 2 (Select from drop-down list) Include Grants in Econ Analysis Saint Mary's Pilot Station Test Location 3 Generating Fuel Price ($/gallon)$4.270 $3.710 $0.000 ISER 2013 med proj + SCC Heating Fuel Price ($/gallon)$4.270 $3.710 $0.000 Sales: Base Year Base Year Amount (kWh/year)3,083,325 1,685,467 0 Load Growth entered on "Power Stats-Without Intertie" sheet. Base Year Generation (kWh/year)3,220,283 1,770,301 - Losses (Pct of Generation)4.3%4.8%0.0% Existing Fuel Storage (gal)- - - Wind Turbine O&M 0.0469$ Diesel O&M 0.0200$ Saint Mary's to Pilot Station Pilot Station to Test Location 3 Interconnection Distrance (miles)14.0 Interconnection Cost $6,202,000 Waiting for final cost from STG Cost per Mile $425,000 $0 Year Energized 2013 3000 Transmission Losses 2.0%2.0% Annual Operating Costs $20,000 Grant (Percent) Saint Mary's Pilot Station Test Location 3 Saint Mary's Pilot Station Test Location 3 Diesel Generation Fuel Efficiency (kWh gen/gallon)13.83 13.06 13.00 14.00 14.00 Denali Commission Report St. Mary's to Pilot Station Subtitle 2 Future Grants 2013 2.00% Note: Year for first interconnect must be before or same as second interconned 2013 Without Interconnection With Interconnection Depr Period Replacement Period No Pilot Station Test Location 3 Saint Mary's Saint Mary's 3.00% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% Saint Mary's to Pilot Station Generating Upgrades Capital Cost $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,800,000 $750,000 Grant (Percent) Year of Capital Cost Expenditure 2014 2014 2013 2013 Annual Operating Costs (non fuel)$683,198 $421,302 $964,500 Bulk Fuel Upgades Capital Cost $4,605,600 $2,387,000 $5,757,000 Grant (Percent) Year of Capital Cost Expenditure 2013 2013 2013 Total Gallon after Upgrade Annual Fuel Usage (Maximum)186,978 142,558 0 189,830 0 0 Annual Operating Costs Wind Number of Turbines 3 1 Capital Cost/Turbine $1,480,000 $6,153,991 Grant (Percent) Year of Capital Cost Expenditure 2013 2013 2013 Usable Energy per Turbine (kWh/year)273,333 2,717,600 80% availability Operating Costs ($/year)$38,458 $0 $127,455 Recovered Heat Capital Cost Grant (Percent) Year of Capital Cost Expenditure Heating Fuel Savings (gallons/year) With Wind Without Wind Annual Operating Costs Other Losses For REF 6 proposal 2,230,391 Total cost of intertie less cost if not intertied Denali Commission Report St. Mary's to Pilot Station Subtitle 2 30 year 0.00%3.00%B/C Without Intertie 142,688$ 94,788$ With Intertie 119,326$ 81,618$ 1.16 50 year 0.00%3.00%B/C Without Intertie 286,718$ 137,857$ With Intertie 249,688$ 120,723$ 1.14 20 year 0.00%3.00%B/C Without Intertie 82,014$ 64,954$ With Intertie 70,683$ 57,466$ 1.13 Net Present Value at Net Present Value at Economic Analysis (x $1,000) Economic Analysis (x $1,000) Net Present Value at Economic Analysis (x $1,000) St. Mary’s Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 1 of 4 ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION ZONE EASEMENT The GRANTOR, ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION, (herein called the GRANTOR), whose address is P.O. Box 149, St. Mary’s, Alaska, 99658, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Alaskan non-profit electric cooperative membership corporation, whose address is 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, hereinafter called the GRANTEE, an easement and right-of-way in perpetuity for the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, repairing, operating, improving, upgrading and updating above, beneath and on the surface of the below-described lands, electric transmission, distribution, and/or communication lines(s) and/or systems, including poles, towers, conductors, transformers, pads, pedestals and associated apparatus, and such other structures as the GRANTEE may now or shall from time to time deem necessary, in the following described parcel(s) of land situated in the Bethel Recording District, Fourth Judicial District, State of Alaska, along, under, through and across the entire parcel described as follows: Seward Meridian, Township 23 North, Range 76 West, Sections 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 and 36. After construction and survey by GRANTEE, the easement will be fifty (50) feet on each side of the centerline of the facilities described above. GRANTEE shall provide a copy of the survey to GRANTOR, and GRANTEE will record a Record of Survey. Upon recording of the Record of Survey, the extent of this easement shall be reduced to the dimensions shown on the Record of Survey. GRANTEE’s rights shall include the right: 1. of ingress and egress to said lands as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes described above; 2. to cut, trim, excavate, remove, and control the growth of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation on, above, or adjoining said lands which, in the sole, good faith judgment of Grantee, might interfere with the proper functioning and maintenance of said line or system; and 3. to license, permit or otherwise agree to the exercise of these rights by any other authorized person or entity for electrical or communications purposes. St. Mary’s Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 2 of 4 Reserving unto the GRANTOR the right to use said property in any way and for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby acquired; provided that GRANTEE shall have the right, as may be necessary, to enter upon said property for the purposes herein described, and provided that no building or buildings or other permanent structures shall be constructed or permitted to remain within the boundaries of said easement without written permission of GRANTEE, its successors or assigns. GRANTOR agrees that all facilities, including any main service entrance equipment, installed on the above described lands at the GRANTEE’s expense shall remain the property of the GRANTEE, removable at the option of the GRANTEE, upon termination of service to or on said lands. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the GRANTOR, heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever. If the GRANTOR requires lands within this zone easement in the future, this easement may be amended contingent on agreement between the GRANTEE and GRANTOR. If the intertie is not constructed within 15 years from the date of this grant, the zone easement will automatically terminate. St. Mary’s Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this ____________ day of ____________________, 2012. Attachment: Exhibit A GRANTOR: ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION By: Elsie Boudreau Its: President ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. ______________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came ______________________, for and on behalf of ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION and acknowledged that this Easement was signed and sealed on behalf of ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION by proper authority delegated and vested in himself/herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of ST. MARY’S NATIVE CORPORATION. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. (place seal here) Notary Public for Alaska My Commission expires: St. Mary’s Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 4 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTEE has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this day of _____________, 2012. GRANTEE: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. By: ______________________________________ Meera Kohler Its: President & CEO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came Meera Kohler, President & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. and acknowledged that this Easement Agreement was signed and sealed on behalf of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. by proper authority delegated and vested in herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska My Commission Expires: After recording in the Bethel Recording District, please return to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Pitka’s Point Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 1 of 4 PITKA’S POINT NATIVE CORPORATION ZONE EASEMENT The GRANTOR, PITKA’S POINT NATIVE CORPORATION, (herein called the GRANTOR), whose address is P.O. Box 289, St. Mary’s, Alaska, 99658, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Alaskan non-profit electric cooperative membership corporation, whose address is 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, hereinafter called the GRANTEE, an easement and right-of-way in perpetuity for the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, repairing, operating, improving, upgrading and updating above, beneath and on the surface of the below-described lands, electric transmission, distribution, and/or communication lines(s) and/or systems, including poles, towers, conductors, transformers, pads, pedestals and associated apparatus, and such other structures as the GRANTEE may now or shall from time to time deem necessary, in the following described parcel(s) of land situated in the Bethel Recording District, Fourth Judicial District, State of Alaska, along, under, through and across the entire parcel described as follows: Seward Meridian, Township 22 North, Range 75 West, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29 and 33, and Seward Meridian, Township 22 North, Range 76 West, Sections 1, 2, 12 and 13. After construction and survey by GRANTEE, the easement will be fifty (50) feet on each side of the centerline of the facilities described above. GRANTEE shall provide a copy of the survey to GRANTOR, and GRANTEE will record a Record of Survey. Upon recording of the Record of Survey, the extent of this easement shall be reduced to the dimensions shown on the Record of Survey. GRANTEE’s rights shall include the right: 1. of ingress and egress to said lands as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes described above; 2. to cut, trim, excavate, remove, and control the growth of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation on, above, or adjoining said lands which, in the sole, good faith judgment of Grantee, might interfere with the proper functioning and maintenance of said line or system; and 3. to license, permit or otherwise agree to the exercise of these rights by any other Pitka’s Point Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 2 of 4 authorized person or entity for electrical or communications purposes. Reserving unto the GRANTOR the right to use said property in any way and for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby acquired; provided that GRANTEE shall have the right, as may be necessary, to enter upon said property for the purposes herein described, and provided that no building or buildings or other permanent structures shall be constructed or permitted to remain within the boundaries of said easement without written permission of GRANTEE, its successors or assigns. GRANTOR agrees that all facilities, including any main service entrance equipment, installed on the above described lands at the GRANTEE’s expense shall remain the property of the GRANTEE, removable at the option of the GRANTEE, upon termination of service to or on said lands. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the GRANTOR, heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever. If the GRANTOR requires lands within this zone easement in the future, this easement may be amended contingent on agreement between the GRANTEE and GRANTOR. If the intertie is not constructed within 15 years from the date of this grant, the zone easement will automatically terminate. Pitka’s Point Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this ____________ day of ____________________, 2012. Attachment: Exhibit A GRANTOR: PITKA’S POINT NATIVE CORPORATION By: Anna Tinker Its: President ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. ______________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came ______________________, for and on behalf of PITKA’S POINT NATIVE CORPORATION and acknowledged that this Easement was signed and sealed on behalf of PITKA’S POINT NATIVE CORPORATION by proper authority delegated and vested in himself/herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of PITKA’S POINT NATIVE CORPORATION. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. (place seal here) Notary Public for Alaska My Commission expires: Pitka’s Point Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 4 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTEE has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this day of _____________, 2012. GRANTEE: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. By: ______________________________________ Meera Kohler Its: President & CEO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came Meera Kohler, President & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. and acknowledged that this Easement Agreement was signed and sealed on behalf of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. by proper authority delegated and vested in herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska My Commission Expires: After recording in the Bethel Recording District, please return to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Pilot Station Incorporated INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 1 of 4 PILOT STATION INCORPORATED ZONE EASEMENT The GRANTOR, PILOT STATION INCORPORATED, (herein called the GRANTOR), whose address is P.O. Box 5059, Pilot Station, Alaska, 99650, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Alaskan non-profit electric cooperative membership corporation, whose address is 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, hereinafter called the GRANTEE, an easement and right-of-way in perpetuity for the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, repairing, operating, improving, upgrading and updating above, beneath and on the surface of the below-described lands, electric transmission, distribution, and/or communication lines(s) and/or systems, including poles, towers, conductors, transformers, pads, pedestals and associated apparatus, and such other structures as the GRANTEE may now or shall from time to time deem necessary, in the following described parcel(s) of land situated in the Bethel Recording District, Fourth Judicial District, State of Alaska, along, under, through and across the entire parcel described as follows: Seward Meridian, Township 21 North, Range 74 West, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18, and Seward Meridian, Township 21 North, Range 75 West, Section 1, 2, 11, 12 and 13, and Seward Meridian, Township 22 North, Range 74 West, Sections 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, and Seward Meridian, Township 22 North, Range 75 West, Sections 24, 25, 35 and 36. After construction and survey by GRANTEE, the easement will be fifty (50) feet on each side of the centerline of the facilities described above. GRANTEE shall provide a copy of the survey to GRANTOR, and GRANTEE will record a Record of Survey. Upon recording of the Record of Survey, the extent of this easement shall be reduced to the dimensions shown on the Record of Survey. GRANTEE’s rights shall include the right: 1. of ingress and egress to said lands as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes described above; 2. to cut, trim, excavate, remove, and control the growth of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation on, above, or adjoining said lands which, in the sole, good faith Pilot Station Incorporated INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 2 of 4 judgment of Grantee, might interfere with the proper functioning and maintenance of said line or system; and 3. to license, permit or otherwise agree to the exercise of these rights by any other authorized person or entity for electrical or communications purposes. Reserving unto the GRANTOR the right to use said property in any way and for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby acquired; provided that GRANTEE shall have the right, as may be necessary, to enter upon said property for the purposes herein described, and provided that no building or buildings or other permanent structures shall be constructed or permitted to remain within the boundaries of said easement without written permission of GRANTEE, its successors or assigns. GRANTOR agrees that all facilities, including any main service entrance equipment, installed on the above described lands at the GRANTEE’s expense shall remain the property of the GRANTEE, removable at the option of the GRANTEE, upon termination of service to or on said lands. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the GRANTOR, heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever. If the GRANTOR requires lands within this zone easement in the future, this easement may be amended contingent on agreement between the GRANTEE and GRANTOR. If the intertie is not constructed within 15 years from the date of this grant, the zone easement will automatically terminate. Pilot Station Incorporated INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this ____________ day of ____________________, 2012. Attachment: Exhibit A GRANTOR: PILOT STATION INCORPORATED By: Arthur Heckman, Sr. Its: President ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. ______________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came ______________________, for and on behalf of PILOT STATION INCORPORATED and acknowledged that this Easement was signed and sealed on behalf of PILOT STATION INCORPORATED by proper authority delegated and vested in himself/herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of PILOT STATION INCORPORATED. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. (place seal here) Notary Public for Alaska My Commission expires: Pilot Station Incorporated INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 4 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTEE has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this day of _____________, 2012. GRANTEE: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. By: ______________________________________ Meera Kohler Its: President & CEO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came Meera Kohler, President & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. and acknowledged that this Easement Agreement was signed and sealed on behalf of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. by proper authority delegated and vested in herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska My Commission Expires: After recording in the Bethel Recording District, please return to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Nerklikmute Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 1 of 4 NERKLIKMUTE NATIVE CORPORATION ZONE EASEMENT The GRANTOR, NERKLIKMUTE NATIVE CORPORATION, (herein called the GRANTOR), whose address is P.O. Box 87, St. Mary’s, Alaska, 99658, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Alaskan non-profit electric cooperative membership corporation, whose address is 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, hereinafter called the GRANTEE, an easement and right-of-way in perpetuity for the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, repairing, operating, improving, upgrading and updating above, beneath and on the surface of the below-described lands, electric transmission, distribution, and/or communication lines(s) and/or systems, including poles, towers, conductors, transformers, pads, pedestals and associated apparatus, and such other structures as the GRANTEE may now or shall from time to time deem necessary, in the following described parcel(s) of land situated in the Bethel Recording District, Fourth Judicial District, State of Alaska, along, under, through and across the entire parcel described as follows: Seward Meridian, Township 21 North, Range 75 West, Section 3, and Seward Meridian, Township 22 North, Range 75 West, Section 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 34, and Seward Meridian, Township 23 North, Range 75 West, Sections 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, and Seward Meridian, Township 23 North, Range 76 West, Sections 15, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 34. After construction and survey by GRANTEE, the easement will be fifty (50) feet on each side of the centerline of the facilities described above. GRANTEE shall provide a copy of the survey to GRANTOR, and GRANTEE will record a Record of Survey. Upon recording of the Record of Survey, the extent of this easement shall be reduced to the dimensions shown on the Record of Survey. GRANTEE’s rights shall include the right: 1. of ingress and egress to said lands as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes described above; 2. to cut, trim, excavate, remove, and control the growth of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation on, above, or adjoining said lands which, in the sole, good faith Nerklikmute Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 2 of 4 judgment of Grantee, might interfere with the proper functioning and maintenance of said line or system; and 3. to license, permit or otherwise agree to the exercise of these rights by any other authorized person or entity for electrical or communications purposes. Reserving unto the GRANTOR the right to use said property in any way and for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby acquired; provided that GRANTEE shall have the right, as may be necessary, to enter upon said property for the purposes herein described, and provided that no building or buildings or other permanent structures shall be constructed or permitted to remain within the boundaries of said easement without written permission of GRANTEE, its successors or assigns. GRANTOR agrees that all facilities, including any main service entrance equipment, installed on the above described lands at the GRANTEE’s expense shall remain the property of the GRANTEE, removable at the option of the GRANTEE, upon termination of service to or on said lands. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the GRANTOR, heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever. If the GRANTOR requires lands within this zone easement in the future, this easement may be amended contingent on agreement between the GRANTEE and GRANTOR. If the intertie is not constructed within 15 years from the date of this grant, the zone easement will automatically terminate. Nerklikmute Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this ____________ day of ____________________, 2012. Attachment: Exhibit A GRANTOR: NERKLIKMUTE NATIVE CORPORATION By: William Alstrom Its: President ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. ______________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came ______________________, for and on behalf of NERKLIKMUTE NATIVE CORPORATION and acknowledged that this Easement was signed and sealed on behalf of NERKLIKMUTE NATIVE CORPORATION by proper authority delegated and vested in himself/herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of NERKLIKMUTE NATIVE CORPORATION. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and yea r first above written. (place seal here) Notary Public for Alaska My Commission expires: Nerklikmute Native Corporation INTERTIE ZONE EASEMENT Page 4 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTEE has caused this Easement Agreement to be executed this day of _____________, 2012. GRANTEE: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. By: ______________________________________ Meera Kohler Its: President & CEO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the day of , 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of Alaska, duly commissioned and sworn as such, personally came Meera Kohler, President & CEO of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. and acknowledged that this Easement Agreement was signed and sealed on behalf of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. by proper authority delegated and vested in herself, and acknowledged further said instrument to be the free act and deed of ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska My Commission Expires: After recording in the Bethel Recording District, please return to: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, AK 99503 LOW ER YUKON ENERGY UPGRADES ZONE EAS EM ENT 30704.05 FJD GRA PHIC AUG 2012 EXHIBIT AFILE NAME:Project No: Drawn By : Figure: Date: Sc ale: SAINT M ARY'S T O P ILOT STAT ION INTE RT IE PROJECT !! !! 022N076W 022N075W 022N074W 023N076W 023N075W 023N074W 021N076W 021N075W 021N074W 024N074W024N075W024N076W 23(SMNC) 13(SMNC) 35(SMNC)36(SMNC) 26(SMNC) 11(SMNC) 25(SMNC) 24(SMNC) 14(SMNC) 12(SMNC) 1(SMNC) 1(PPNC)2(PPNC) 28(PPNC) 13(PPNC) 5(PPNC) 20(PPNC) 4(PPNC) 17(PPNC) 9(PPNC) 29(PPNC) 33(PPNC) 12(PPNC)8(PPNC) 19(PPNC) 18(PPNC) 7(PPNC) 6(PPNC) 16(PPNC) 21(PPNC) 20(PSI) 35(PSI) 28(PSI) 24(PSI) 12(PSI) 16(PSI) 32(PSI) 11(PSI) 25(PSI) 13(PSI) 2(PSI) 36(PSI) 4(PSI) 8(PSI) 33(PSI) 1(PSI) 8(PSI) 5(PSI) 21(PSI) 17(PSI) 29(PSI) 34(PSI) 18(PSI) 27(PSI) 7(PSI) 6(PSI) 31(PSI) 30(PSI) 19(PSI) 18(PSI) 7(PSI) 6(PSI) 34(NNC) 22(NNC) 32(NNC) 15(NNC) 28(NNC)26(NNC) 21(NNC) 27(NNC) 33(NNC) 20(NNC)21(NNC) 2(NNC) 17(NNC) 34(NNC) 10(NNC) 3(NNC) 1(NNC) 14(NNC)13(NNC) 16(NNC) 22(NNC) 26(NNC) 8(NNC) 3(NNC) 11(NNC) 36(NNC) 29(NNC)27(NNC) 34(NNC) 35(NNC) 28(NNC) 12(NNC) 27(NNC) 23(NNC) 31(NNC) 30(NNC) 19(NNC) 18(NNC) 7(NNC) 6(NNC) 22(NNC) 15(NNC) Saint Mar y's Pilot S tation ³ Miles0241 Nerkli km ute N ativ e C or po rat ion (N NC ) Pilot S tation In co rpo rat ed (P SI) Pitk a's Po int Na tive C orp or atio n (PP NC ) St M ary's N at ive C orp ora tio n (SM NC )