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 $6,202,000
Tab A
Resumes
Tab B
Letters of Support
Tab D
Governing Body Resolution
Tab E
Certification
Tab F
Additional Materials
5%#.' 241,'%6#4'#/#2
)4#2*+%
35% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
SHEET INDEX
SEPTEMBER 2012
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
ST. MARY'S
RUSSIA
ANCHORAGE
NOME
KOTZEBUE
BARROW
JUNEAU
FAIRBANKS
CANADA
KODIAK
BETHEL
UNALASKA
PILOT STATION
ST. MARY'S TO PILOT STATION
INTERTIE PROJECT
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street
5%#.' '.'%64+%#.4'('4'0%'2.#0)4#2*+%
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' (Ä20655%#.' 'Ä#6&+4'%65'621.'50655%#.' /Ä0655%#.' 'Ä#62+.'(170+105065
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' /Ä#6&+4'%65'621.'50655%#.' /Ä#62+.'(170+1050655%#.' )4+&4'(.'%6145065
Anchorage, Alaska 995034831 Eagle Street5%#.' '0.#4)'�).'&'6#+.0655%#.' '0.#4)'&21.'$#0&&'6#+.0655%#.' /Ä 2+.'#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 )