HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_NJUS_Grant_Application_Wind_Optimization
Renewable Energy Fund Round 5
Grant Application
AEA 12-001 Application Page 1 of 29 7/1/2011
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS)
Type of Entity: Electric Utility Fiscal Year End: 12/31
Tax ID # 92-0019767 Tax Status: For-profit or X non-profit ( check one)
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 70, Nome, Alaska, 99762
Physical Address
1226 Port Road, Nome, Alaska, 99762
Telephone
907-443-6587
Fax
907-443-6336
Email
johnh@njus.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
John Handeland
Title
General Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 70, Nome, Alaska, 99762
Telephone
907-443-6587
Fax
907-443-6336
Email
johnh@njus.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
X 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
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 2 of 29 7/1//2011
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)
Nome Renewable Energy Optimization 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.
The project will be completed in Nome, Alaska and will provide benefits for all of Nome Joint
Utility System’s electrical ratepayers through the reduction and stabilization of energy prices.
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): Powerhouse controls to more efficiently manage wind energy supply
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance X Design and Permitting
Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
The project seeks to optimize existing installations and in-progress wind projects in the
community. NJUS is utilizing REF–Round I funding to install a 900 KW wind turbine in
summer 2012. Another REF–Round I project allowed NJUS to construct a power transmission
line to Banner Wind, an independent power producing facility privately owned by Sitnasuak &
Bering Straits Native Corporations, from which NJUS purchases wind power under a contract.
Through installation of a new wind integration control system and modification of the diesel
generation system at NJUS’ Power Plant, the project focuses on the optimization of existing
diesel generation equipment within the community in order to maximize benefits from renewable
energy supplies. Under the scope of this project smaller, peaking diesel generator sets will be
integrated into Nome’s Power Plant and plant controls will be reconfigured to provide system
wide benefits of reduced operating costs, greater stability, and improved efficiency. In the event
NJUS or Banner Wind expands wind generation capacity in the future, the community can
potentially recognize additional benefit from the project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 3 of 29 7/1//2011
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
The proposed project offers the potential of significant annual diesel fuel savings through the
optimization of existing renewable generation assets and reorganization of existing diesel
generation assets across NJUS’ system. Under the scope of this project, NJUS will gain abilities
to more efficiently manage both existing and expanded renewable energy systems in Nome,
primarily the Banner Ridge Wind Farm and the in-progress NJUS Wind Farm. The scope of
work proposed through this project is expected to reduce NJUS’ diesel fuel consumption by
400,000 gallons annually. At the most recent diesel price paid by NJUS ($3.45/gallon), NJUS
anticipates annual diesel fuel cost savings of $1,380,000 and the potential to reduce the
generation costs of electricity across the community by $.04/kWh or more.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project.
The total project costs of the Nome Renewable Energy Optimization Project are estimated to be
$2,600,000. The total grant request for the project is $2,400,000. NJUS will make available the
balance of project costs, $200,000, as a certified project match.
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. $ 2,400,000
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 200,000
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 2,600,000
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet
including estimates through construction)
$ 2,621,891
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Annual Savings) $ 1,380,000 annually
2.7.6 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.)
$ 0
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 4 of 29 7/1//2011
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a
resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager
indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project
management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
The NJUS general manager, John Handeland, will have ultimate responsibility and authority
over project decisions and will ensure that all grant requirements are fulfilled. Mr. Handeland
will be assisted by NJUS chief financial officer, Michael Cusack CPA, who will oversee all grant
accounting functions; NJUS superintendent of field operations, Toby Schield, will coordinate on-
going field operations with project contractors; NJUS power plant foreman, Doug Johnson, will
coordinate power plant operations with contractors during construction activities associated with
the project and manage any NJUS labor offering field support during project implementation.
(See Section 6 for a more detailed discussion of NJUS – its business structure, management,
operations, etc.)
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
Feasibility Study completed
Conceptual Design completed
Design and Permitting
Grant Award Announcement (5/1/2012)
Issuance of Grant Agreement/Notice to Proceed (8/1/2012)
Permitting Completed (11/1/2012)
Complete Electrical Design (12/1/2012)
Business/Operational Plan Completed (1/1/2013)
Construction
Procurement Activities (12/15/2012)
Begin Project Construction (2/15/2013)
System Commissioning and Testing (9/1/2013)
Complete Project Construction (10/1/2013)
Begin Operational Reporting (10/1/2013)
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The
Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to
manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.)
Specific project milestones are identified in the attached grant budget form. Narrative
descriptions of each project phase can be found below.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 5 of 29 7/1//2011
Feasibility and Conceptual Design
In 2009, NJUS was awarded funding through Round I of the Renewable Energy Fund to
complete installation of a community wind energy system. However, the award did not fully
fund the project scope and required NJUS to reevaluate the project to determine a revised scope
of work that could be completed with the available funding. Through this process, additional
wind studies were completed and various potential project designs were considered. Ultimately,
NJUS determined that the installation of a single, 900 KW turbine would provide the greatest
benefits from the awarded Round I funding.
Analysis completed to support the re-scoping of NJUS’ Round I project also revealed that
modification of NJUS existing diesel infrastructure and control systems would be necessary to
fully realize all of the benefits generated from existing (Banner Wind Farm) and planned (NJUS
Round I Wind Farm) wind generation assets. These system modifications have been outlined
through feasibility studies and conceptual designs completed as part of NJUS’ Round I projects.
These system modifications, which could be completed as a means to optimize existing and
planned community scale wind power projects, are the basis for this application.
Final Design and Permitting
Final design and permitting efforts will begin immediately following the issuance of a grant
agreement. NJUS anticipates the following schedule to complete project activities within this
phase of work:
1. Project scoping and contractor solicitation for planning and design (8/1/2012)
2. Permit applications (as needed) (8/1/2012)
3. Final environmental assessment and mitigation plans (as needed) (8/1/2012)
4. Resolution of land use, right of way issues N/A
5. Permit approvals (11/1/2012)
6. Final system design (12/1/2012)
7. Engineers cost estimate (12/15/2012)
8. Updated economic and financial analysis (1/1/2013)
9. Negotiated power sales agreements with approved rates N/A
10. Final business and operational plan (1/1/2013)
Construction Phase
Construction efforts will begin following the completion of all-final design and permitting
activities. NJUS anticipates the following schedule to complete activities within this phase of
work:
1. Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are complete (1/1/2013)
2. Completion of bid documents (1/15/2013)
3. Contractor/vendor selection and award (2/15/2013)
4. Construction activities (10/1/2013)
5. Integration and testing (9/1/2013)
6. Decommissioning old systems (10/1/2013)
7. Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up (10/1/2013)
8. Operations Reporting (10/1/2013)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 6 of 29 7/1//2011
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, 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.
NJUS has contracted with numerous firms to provide services while working to identify the work
plan identified in this application. It is expected many of these firms will continue to work with
NJUS to execute this scope of work due to their familiarity with NJUS’ operations, the work
plan, and their demonstrated levels of competence in designing and maintaining utility control
systems. To the extent possible, NJUS will utilize force account (its own employees) who
possess the requisite skills and abilities, and as may be required by existing labor agreements.
Services and contractors not already employed or customarily used by NJUS in its day-to-day
operations will follow competitive procedures meeting standards defined in the sample AEA
Grant Agreement. This project is also deeply connected to NJUS’ in-progress wind power
installation made possible through the utility’s Round I renewable energy fund award. It is
anticipated that NJUS will also utilize some of the same contractors involved with this project as
well to maximize efficiencies and reduce overall costs for both projects.
Some of the contractors and service providers likely to support the scope of work proposed
through this application include:
DNV Renewables will provide validation and analysis of wind resources as required.
DNV is a multi-discipline engineering and technology consulting firm providing services
to clients involved in the energy industry. Recognized as leaders in the wind energy
industry, the firm specializes in the analysis, design, testing and management of wind
energy systems and projects. DNV is intimately familiar with the proposed scope of
work, NJUS’ electrical system, and has completed the majority of project analysis to
date.
Hattenburg, Dilley & Linnell will be available to provide project permitting and
environmental services as required. HDL specializes in civil, geotechnical and
transportation engineering as well as providing permitting and environmental services.
HDL has extensive experience with rural Alaska energy projects including the recent
completion of permitting and environmental review for numerous wind power projects.
Electrical Power Systems will provide electrical engineering and integration services.
EPS has historically focused on providing substation, generation, control, protection,
system planning and analysis and distribution engineering for utility, industrial and
governmental clients. The majority of EPS’ clients are based in Alaska and the firm has
extensive experience working with NJUS through the design and construction of Nome’s
existing diesel power plant.
STG Incorporated will be available to provide construction services and management as
required. STG has over 20 years of experience executing heavy industry projects across
the state. In particular, STG possesses significant relevant experience as one of Alaska’s
leading constructors of community scale wind projects, pile foundations, power plants,
and associated electrical infrastructure.
Aurora Consulting will be available to provide project and business planning services.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 7 of 29 7/1//2011
Aurora Consulting has over 30 years of experience providing business and management
consulting services throughout Alaska to a wide variety of governmental and private
entities. Additionally, Aurora Consulting has assisted with the development of business
operating plans for over 75 rural utility projects, including water/sewer projects, bulk fuel
projects, electric utilities, hydro-electric projects and wind generation projects.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
As the grantee, NJUS general manager, John Handeland, will be the point of contact between
NJUS and the Alaska Energy Authority. As such, Mr. Handeland will be responsible to insure
submittal of AEA monthly reports, which will summarize the progress made during the reporting
period and identify any difficulties in completing tasks or meeting goals or deadlines as well as
financial reports. NJUS will utilize the AEA format for these reports.
In addition, any contractors engaged in the project will also share responsibilities to monitor the
project activities and to coordinate with NJUS. They will provide information to NJUS, as
required, for inclusion in AEA required monthly and quarterly reporting. Reporting will focus
on variance analysis, comparing actual project results to planned or expected results; a summary
of tasks completed during the reporting period; a summary of tasks scheduled for completion in
the next reporting period; and, identification of project challenges and problems. Contractors
will support the efficient dissemination of this information by providing information to NJUS in
the approved AEA format for these reports.
Change Process: Information contained within the project plan will likely change as the project
progresses. While change is both certain and required, it is important to note that any changes to
the project plan will impact at least one of three key success factors: available time, available
resources or project quality. The decision by which to make modifications to the project plan
will be coordinated using the following process:
Step 1: As soon as a change that impacts project scope, schedule, staffing or spending is
identified, the project manager will document the issue.
Step 2: The project manager will review the change and determine the associated impact to
the project and will forward the issue, along with a recommendation, to NJUS and/or
AEA for review and decision.
Step 3: Upon receipt, the NJUS general manager, project manager and/or AEA should reach
a consensus opinion on whether to approve, reject or modify the project plan based
upon the project manager’s recommendation and their own judgment.
Step 4: Following an approval or denial, the project manager will modify the project plan and
notify all the affected project partners.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Some project risk exists for integration/power plant activities but project partners believe this to
be low and can be addressed with normally available resources:
Issue: Coordinated integration; matching wind to the community.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 8 of 29 7/1//2011
Strategy to address: The value of a variable wind resource is maximized through the integrated
operation of both generation equipment and loads. This is accomplished with automated control
systems and ability to rapidly visualize, diagnose and make adjustments. This is enabled by
remote monitoring and diagnostics. Data, information and observations obtained from
operational monitoring are necessary to ensure on-going performance and reliability. Each
major system component will be monitored and its performance recorded and reported
automatically. This information will be readily available from NJUS SCADA and will allow the
system to be continuously recommissioned, insuring confirmation or proper operation of all
controls, communications and system components.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of
the RFA.
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a
plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.
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.
With the volatility in world oil prices and a desire to do our part in energy conservation, contain
community power costs, and pursue alternatives, wind generation is seen as an attractive option to
address these goals in Nome.
As a hub community for western Alaska, often projects with demonstrated success in Nome
radiate out to the surrounding communities as well. An example: Nome recently completed the
retrofitting of community street lights converting from conventional incandescent to LEDs. We
have already been contacted by a neighboring community and are sending linemen to the village
to assist them in making a similar energy saving conversion.
Before this project can be completed, nearly 2MW of wind generation capability will exist in
Nome. Nome's power system demand ranges from 2.4-6MW depending on time of year and
temperatures. A certain amount of diesel generation load must be maintained to regulate system
frequency, and Nome is currently limited to the use of 5.2MW generators for this purpose. At
times of low community demand, acceptance of wind power must be curtailed to maintain an
acceptable load on diesel equipment. Nome owns two smaller units, but they are currently
utilized only in emergencies - as they are not integrated into the New Power Plant buss or
SCADA and require additional personnel to manually operate the equipment at the off-site
location.
Maximum benefit of wind resources will be realized by this energy optimization project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 9 of 29 7/1//2011
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.
In 2007, NJUS put on-line a new $35 million state-of-the-art power generation plant that replaced
the antiquated plant, which served the community for the previous 50 years. Currently, the NJUS
electrical power generation system consists of diesel powered generators, as outlined below:
Brand/Model Size (kW) Age Avg. Efficiency (kWh/Gal. Diesel)
Caterpillar #3516 3,660 20 16.39
Caterpillar #3516B-LS 1,875 12 14.35
Wärtsilä #12V32B 5,211 6 16.32
Wärtsilä #12V32B 5,211 6 16.32
Caterpillar #3456B 430 6 Black start/peaking
Boiler 1.5M BTU 6 Emergency only – not yet used
Boiler 1.5M BTU 6 Emergency only – not yet used
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.
Currently, NJUS utilizes diesel to generate its electricity as the utility’s primary mover with
approximately 3% of power purchased from Banner Wind. During 2010, NJUS consumed 2.2
million gallons of diesel for power generation purposes; at a cost of $8.2 million. As with other
rural Alaska locations, the price of diesel fuel is rising exponentially - since 2003, the price of
diesel delivered to NJUS has increased by more than 250%. According to project planning
estimates, NJUS should achieve net generation of approximately 6,812 MWh utilizing the Banner
and NJUS wind turbines. Based upon an average diesel-generator efficiency of 16.4 kWh/Gal,
NJUS would realize an annual savings of 400,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year. At the current
price of $3.45 per gallon, NJUS would recognize an annual fuel savings of $1,380,000.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Currently, the majority (80%) of NJUS customers are residential (single phase) customers, with
commercial customers constituting the second largest (13%) number of customers.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 10 of 29 7/1//2011
Nome is a hub community for western Alaska and has a large population for one of the state’s
rural communities – the 2007 State of Alaska certified population for Nome was 3,497.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census data, Nome averages 2.90 persons per household. The vast
majority of Nome’s population is on the power-grid and is experiencing economic pressure from
the rapidly rising energy costs.
Additionally, as the regional hub, much of the Bering Straits region economy is focused on
commerce and industry based in or near the City of Nome. Residents in the Nome area are
negatively impacted as NJUS passes on rising fuel costs to its commercial customers. Currently,
while constituting only 15% of customers, the commercial and governmental customers (non-
PCE customers) purchase roughly 62% of the kWh produced.
As costs increase for this market segment, retailers and service providers must also pass along the
additional overhead to individual residents. This, in turn, contributes to the unhealthy and
unsustainable economic conditions currently experienced in Nome and, so many, other rural
communities.
Moreover, and as a hub for Western Alaska, it is imperative that Nome’s economy remains strong
in order to support the villages within the region. Both stable and affordable energy prices
become a necessity to support existing populations and infrastructure throughout the Bering Strait
Region. These points are well understood by many of the regional organizations that have
offered documented support of this application including Norton Sound Economic Development
Corporation, Norton Sound Health Corporation and the City of Nome. All of these parties
believe that Nome’s economy is in jeopardy due to energy inflation and the region’s dependence
on diesel-generated electricity.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 11 of 29 7/1//2011
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
The Nome Renewable Energy Optimization Project is proposed to integrate other diesel
generators owned by the City of Nome in to the existing Nome New Power Plant system. By
upgrading systems from mechanical to PLC-based controls, these units can be integrated in to the
New Power Plant SCADA system and electrical buss. This will allow for optimal dispatch of
diesel equipment, providing the opportunity to better match production from renewable energy
projects (Banner Wind Farm and the NJUS Renewable Energy Projects) with community
demand. With the development of wind generation resources, the diesel generators currently
utilized are oversized and not well matched to the community demand during most of the
calendar year. Because these additional units are in a physically detached location without
automatic controls, their use is limited as it requires additional personnel to operate and monitor
them.
DNV modeled the existing power system in Nome, considering existing wind and diesel assets,
and additional wind assets to be installed, with the option of incorporating one or more of the
additional diesel generators. The analysis revealed the greatest amount of diesel fuel savings
results from the integration of both the 1,875KW and 3,660KW diesel units not currently
connected to the New Power Plant. By integrating these units, it would allow for the most
efficient combination of generators to be utilized to meet Nome’s net electric demand during any
given day and insure that all generators are operating above their minimum-specified load. In the
modeled scenario, the 5.2MW Wartsila generators would not be used until the electric demand
warranted. The two Caterpillar units would supply the primary electric load as well as the
required operating reserve during dips in wind power production. An additional 400KW
Caterpillar unit in the New Power Plant, previously planned for “black start” only, can further
augment efficiency. The DNV model revealed that all three units must be incorporated for
maximum benefit; if only one or both of the 400KW and 1,875KW units are incorporated, it
would reduce the number of operating hours of the 5.2MW units below the 65% load level but
would not result in significant diesel fuel savings.
The modeling indicates maximum potential fuel savings by completing this project range from
12-20% (approximately 500,000 gallons per year) depending on the load growth scenario. The
DNV report concluded that if smaller sized diesel generators are not incorporated into the new
power plant, the installation of an additional wind turbine on Banner Peak will not result in
significant additional diesel fuel savings.
NJUS will also install a Secondary Load Controller and resistive dump boiler under the scope of
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 12 of 29 7/1//2011
this project.
No significant barriers are anticipated for the project.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
The project will be completed within existing properties currently owned by the City of Nome.
All project activities will be completed within the two power generation facilities currently owned
and operated by NJUS.
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
Based upon consultation with project permitting partners, the following chart has been prepared
to indicate applicable Federal and State permitting activities and their relevance to project
components:
Permit/Activity Applicability
EPA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Applicable (if
stormwater from
construction
disturbance)
National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Act Consultation Applicable
F&W Coordination Act Consultation, Marine Mammal Act Applicable
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
ESA Consultant Applicable
F&W Coordination Act Consultation
Migratory Bird Protection Act Consultation Applicable
Federal Aviation Administration
Tower/lighting permit Applicable
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Consistency
Review
Applicable (within
coastal zone)
Coastal Plan Questionnaire Applicable (within
coastal zone)
Cultural Resource Protection Applicable
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Air Permit Modifications (construction and operating) Applicable
Section 401 Certification Applicable
HDL will lead project permitting efforts and anticipates that the permitting process will be
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 13 of 29 7/1//2011
completed within 120 days of the start of the project. This is based upon similar project
experience and the following:
A field archaeological survey will not be needed for SHPO concurrence
There is no reason to assume there will be any significant environmental impacts
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment should not be needed
Field delineation of wetlands should not be needed
While there is no reason to believe the project will encounter any insurmountable barriers, there is
one potential challenges that could arise:
1. Relocation of the Caterpillar #3516B-LS generator is contained in the existing ADEC Air
Construction Permit. The NJUS Board believes system readiness and security, and the
public interest would be best served by relocating this generator adjacent to the Caterpillar
#3516, as opposed to the currently permitted location in the New Power Plant. The new
proposed location would provide a separated generation facility capable of meeting 100%
of the community’s current power requirements in the event of a catastrophic event (fire)
in the New Power Plant. (While fire protection is available in the new facility, the Nome
community in recent memory has experienced three power plant fires, two at the Utility
and one at the previously-operated privately owned Alaska Gold Power Plant. The Board
believes the community would be better served by segregating generation assets,
providing an enhanced level of emergency preparedness/protection for the community.
Strategy to Address: To avoid delay in implementing this project, if funded, and to more
quickly realize the significant benefits of its completion, NJUS, at its expense, will engage
its air permitting team to initiate the application/approval process of an Air Construction
Permit modification now.
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
Physical activities outside of facilities include relocation of a stack, and a concrete slab
and building addition constructed within the confines of an existing parking area. The
following are believed non-applicable, but will be verified in the environmental analysis.
If found applicable, they will be addressed as indicated:
Historical and Cultural Impacts. A search of the Alaska Historical Resource Survey
will be conducted. After consulting with the native tribes and corporations, we will
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 14 of 29 7/1//2011
seek a State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence of “No Historic
Properties Affected.”
Wetlands. A review of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands
Inventory will be conducted to identify wetlands in the project area. Where wetlands
are encountered, a delineation report will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for a jurisdictional determination. Wetlands impacts will be minimized to
the greatest extent feasible.
Threatened & Endangered Species. An informal U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USF&W) Section 7 Consultation is anticipated due to the concern generated from
wind towers and transmission lines with regards to migratory birds.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards,
Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
The total project cost of the NJUS Nome Renewable Energy Optimization Project is estimated to
be $2,621,891, inclusive of Phases I to IV. As discussed previously, this project has advanced
through Phases I and II and is ready for Phases III and IV activities.
Some of the Phase I and II activities were incidentally addressed in connection with a CDR
prepared for a separate REF-Round 1 project. Other costs of preliminary design and permit
strategizing were paid for by the NJUS general fund (i.e. rate payers). The total grant request for
the NJUS Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project is $2,400,000 based upon the following:
Total Project Costs $2,621,891
Less: Phase I and II Contributed Costs ($ 21,891)
Total Phase III and IV Costs $2,600,000
Less: Additional Investments ($ 200,000)
Total Grant Request $2,400,000
The additional investment of $200,000 in the project will be contributed by NJUS consisting of
up to $35,000 in contributed labor and equipment and $165,000 in cash.
As indicated in the following budget summary, project costs have been developed utilizing
contractor and vendor cost quotes. The professional, contractual and construction cost estimates
are expected to remain valid until summer 2012.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 15 of 29 7/1//2011
Additionally, the budget summary below indicates that approximately 8% of the total project cost
will be contributed by the NJUS and the City of Nome - $165,000 in cash, $35,000 in contributed
labor and equipment, and $21,891 in Phase I and II costs contributed.
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.)
Annual additional expenses associated with the Nome Renewable Energy Optimization Project
will be minimal, if any, and in all likelihood will result in a net reduction. Currently, NJUS must
provide heat, lights and light maintenance to the old power plant buildings. We must also
continue to energize old switchgear to have it ready and available in an emergency, as well as
have extra personnel available on standby to operate the old power plant manually. The
3,660KW Caterpillar is in a segregated “#12 building” that was constructed in the mid-1970s and
has low maintenance and operating costs. The 1,875KW and associated switchgear is located in
the un-insulated “main building” of old power plant, which was constructed in the late 1950s.
This unit would move to a small to-be-constructed addition to the “#12 building” maximizing
efficiency by allowing the “main building” and old switchgear to be turned down and
decommissioned completely, thereby avoiding excessive heating and electrical costs that cannot
be curtailed if the 1,875KW unit remains therein.
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
NJUS generates electricity for sale to the community of Nome. Currently, NJUS sells electricity
for an average price of $.36 per kWh and upon completion of the wind projects (REF-Round 1)
and this Energy Optimization Project anticipates an average price of $.32 per kWh.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
The project cost worksheet is attached.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 16 of 29 7/1//2011
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 (gal and $) 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
Based upon assumptions presented throughout this proposal, the potential annual displacement of
diesel fuel is expected to 400,000 gallons per year over the lifetime of the project. At an assumed
starting fuel price of $3.45 per gallon without considering expected annual energy inflation, the
annual dollar savings is estimated to be $1,380,000.
Two additional project benefits include potential community-wide tourism revenue and reduced
diesel-fuel storage costs for NJUS. The project economic analysis assumes that four individuals
will be motivated, at least partially, to travel to Nome to learn more about the wind project and to
visit the wind farm each year. Based upon economic research by the State of Alaska, Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (AVSP 2006), the average visitor to the
Nome area provides an economic benefit of $1,300 to the visited community; therefore,
additional community benefits would be $5,200 per year. When required, the cost to NJUS to
lease bulk fuel storage space for $.36 per gallon of fuel. At present, no additional fuel storage is
required, but in some years NJUS has paid as much as $540,000 to store additional fuel to meet
its requirements. With the ability to offset additional fuel use by wind power, the likelihood
additional storage and associated expense may be incurred is greatly reduced.
The utilization of wind power technology in Nome is also expected to provide benefits that are
less quantifiable or non-financial in nature. Through the implementation of this project and the
resulting volume of displaced fuel, NJUS will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse
gasses emitted through the use of diesel electricity generation. While this environmental benefit
can be quantified through emissions calculations and valued through the expected sale of green
tags, the project’s complete contribution towards global climate change mitigation efforts is
difficult to precisely determine.
The completed project is also expected to reduce volatility in electric rates across the community
of Nome and provide more stabilized prices for those who purchase energy from NJUS.
Additionally, it is also possible that Nome could experience an increase in local employment due
to a decrease in the amount of funds that previously have been leaving the community to cover
rapidly increasing fuel price expenditures. Finally, as a result of this decrease in fuel purchases,
the State of Alaska’s PCE program will also be able to free up funds to spend elsewhere in the
state due to the reduced need of PCE support of the Nome community.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 17 of 29 7/1//2011
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
The Nome Renewable Energy Optimization Project will be owned and operated by NJUS upon
completion of the project, which is a sustainable, well-managed, city-owned utility. As such, it is
anticipated that the on-going operations and maintenance – both short and long term – will be
incorporated into the existing NJUS utility operations and management plans. Below are
highlights of the NJUS management plan:
History and Business Structure
The City of Nome (“City” or “Nome”) is an Alaska municipal corporation, incorporated April 9,
1901. The City of Nome operates under the provisions of Alaska Statutes, Title 29 (“AS 29”), and
the Nome Code of Ordinances (“NCO”) as enacted and amended from time to time by the Nome
Common Council (“Council”). Nome has elected to utilize the Council-Manager form of
government, whereby a city manager is appointed to administer the operations of the city. A
mayor is also elected and performs the responsibilities outlined in AS 29, the NCO, and as
directed or delegated by the Council. The Nome Joint Utility System (“NJUS” or “Utility”) is a
component unit of the City created by NCO Chapter 15. The elected five-member Utility Board
(“Board”) is charged with operation and management of all utilities owned by the City and hiring
a utility manager.
Management Team
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 18 of 29 7/1//2011
The general manager is the chief operating and administrative officer whose areas of responsibility
include: manage and operate all public utilities; enforce the ordinances and regulations pertaining
to the policies and practices of the utility; manage public utility employees, prepare and administer
annual operating and capital improvement program budgets; prepare and submit reports on
finances and administrative activities; strategic planning; grant writing and administration;
operational reporting to elected Board and Council; assume such other authority and perform such
other duties as may be lawfully prescribed by the Board.
Additionally, as outlined above, the general manager will be assisted by the chief financial officer,
superintendent of field operations, power plant foreman and line foreman.
Utility Accounting
NJUS is operated from accounting funds separate from the general fund of the City of Nome.
Separate books, records and accounts are maintained to reflect the financial condition of the
utilities, their income and expenses and the status of their bond redemption funds. None of the
income, money or property of the Utility is placed in the general fund of the City or is used for the
benefit of anything other than NJUS, unless NJUS is compensated or due value is received in
return. The NJUS Board provides for an annual independent audit of the accounts and financial
transactions of the Utility, performed by an independent certified public accountant. For the past
20+ years, the NJUS’ independent auditors have issued “unqualified” (clean) opinions on the
utility’s financial records. Copies of the audit are available upon request.
Accounting functions of the Utility are performed under the direction of a chief financial officer,
appointed by the general manager, and a support staff of accounting technicians. The Utility is a
government enterprise fund. The Utility maintains separate accounts for electrical production and
distribution, water and sewer operations and construction projects, which are funded by general
fund appropriations, grant assistance from state and federal agencies and other contributors. The
Utility utilizes an integrated accounting software suite “Insight” for general accounting and
“Connect” for consumer accounting/billing, developed by Professional Computer Systems (PCS),
Denison, IA, and an automated electric meter reading program, referred to as “the Turtle system”,
developed by Hunt Technologies, Pequot Lakes, MN.
The Utility currently uses the following “Insight” accounting modules: General Ledger, Payroll,
Accounts Payable, Fixed Assets, Cash Management and Project Costing. “Connect” software
drives customer management and Accounts Receivable, and interfaces directly with “Insight”. As
noted previously, the Utility maintains separate cost centers within its accounting records for:
Power Generation, Power Distribution, Water & Sewer (with further segregation to water
distribution and wastewater collection), Consumer Accounting and General & Administrative
expenses and construction activities segregated by project. Within the Project Costing module,
costs are segregated by components such as labor, materials and supplies, services, equipment
rental, engineering, inspection, travel, etc., and allow for summary or detailed transaction listing,
as may be required for internal or external (grant) reporting.
Staffing Requirements
NJUS will require no additional manpower upon completion of the Renewable Energy
Optimization Project.
Staff Training
The NJUS SCADA system will automatically dispatch and control diesel generation as required to
more efficiently incorporate available wind resources with the implementation of the Renewable
Energy Optimization Project. Training of NJUS Power Plant Operators to become familiar with
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 19 of 29 7/1//2011
the new control systems, and to recognize the need, if any, for manual override, will be performed
by SCADA design engineers (EPS) and the Power Plant Foreman (Doug Johnson). Standard
Operating Procedure Documentation will be revised and updated prior to project activation to
reflect the new enhancements developed.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed
with work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
NJUS has engaged EPS to develop conceptual integration plans, equipment lists, and preliminary
budgets to retrofit generator controls to PLCs to allow them to be integrated in to the main power
plant SCADA system. The Banner Wind Farm has already been integrated, developing the
framework for addition of other wind assets as well as diesel units. NJUS has held preliminary
strategy meetings with HMH, air consultants, to determine air permit modifications that may be
required with the relocation of one generator. Reconnaissance and feasibility activities have been
substantially addressed, and remaining items will be completed in anticipation of funding being
made available to complete design, permitting and construction. It is anticipated these final
phases can be completed in less than one year, to allow maximum benefits from the Renewable
Energy Optimization Project to be realized as quickly as possible.
SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPPORT
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.
NJUS, through its connection to the City of Nome, enjoys relationships with varies community
and regional organizations that are both congenial and productive. NJUS also enjoys a
collaborative relationship with the owners of the Banner Wind Farm. No public opposition is
expected regarding the execution of this project and documentation of local support can be found
in the attached correspondence.
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.
Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget5.doc
The total project costs of the NJUS Nome Renewable Energy Optimization Project is estimated
to be $2,600,000, inclusive of Phases I to IV. As discussed previously, this project has advanced
through Phases I and II and is ready for Phases III and IV activities.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 20 of 29 7/1//2011
Some of the Phase I and II activities were incidentally addressed in connection with a CDR
prepared for a separate REF-Round 1 project. Other costs of preliminary design and permit
strategizing were paid for by the NJUS general fund (i.e. rate payers). The total grant request for
the NJUS Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project is $2,400,000 based upon the following:
Total Project Costs $2,621,891
Less: Phase I and II Contributed Costs ($ 21,891)
Total Phase III and IV Costs $2,600,000
Less: Additional Investments ($ 200,000)
Total Grant Request $2,400,000
The additional investment of $200,000 in the project will be contributed by NJUS consisting of
up to $35,000 in contributed labor and equipment and $165,000 in cash.
A completed Grant Budget is attached to this application.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 21 of 29 7/1//2011
SECTION 10 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Contact information, resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners,
consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4. Applicants
are asked to separate resumes submitted with applications, if the individuals do
not want their resumes posted.
B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4.
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 9.
D. Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section 8.
E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.7.
F. Authorized Signers Form.
G. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s
governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
- Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the
match amounts indicated in the application.
- Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to
commit the organization to the obligations under the grant.
- Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
- Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local,
laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
H. CERTIFICATION
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 23 of 30 7/1//2011
Resumes of Applicant’s
Project Manager, Key Staff,
Partners, Consultants and
Suppliers
STG Incorporated 11820 South Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 644-4664 www.stgincorporated.com STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Letter from the President Dear Reader: For the past two decades, STG has taken great pride in delivering valuable services that improve the quality of life for Alaskans in communities across the state. Executing heavy construction in bush Alaska presents a unique set of challenges that have helped us, as a company, develop qualifications that support high levels of performance while executing remote projects. STG is an Alaskan company comprised of an Alaskan workforce that enjoys not just the challenges of Arctic infrastructure development, but the satisfaction of getting the job done, and doing it well. As a result, we view our clients as partners and consider the community members where we operate as neighbors. Together, we work to build sustainable infrastructure that reduces energy costs, supports rural Alaska systems, and delivers 21st century technology to communities across the state. While STG has grown and developed its capabilities over the years, we have worked to adhere to a defining set of values since our work as a company began in Kotzebue, Alaska in 1991. Specifically, on every project STG undertakes, we strive to: • Provide a safe working environment for all employees. • Demonstrate sensitivity and respect for the communities in which we operate. • Constantly innovate through the completion of construction projects requiring new approaches to traditional problems. • Focus on projects that are relevant, necessary, and improve the local quality of life. • Deliver the highest level of quality craftsmanship in all projects that we complete. • Hold ourselves personally accountable to high levels of ethical standards. We feel privileged to share our expertise with the entities providing valuable community services across Alaska. We look forward to learning more about how we can put our abilities, passions, and skill sets to work for you. Sincerely, James St. George President Tuntutuliak Boardwalk Over a five-month period during the winter of 2007, STG constructed Alaska’s largest elevated boardwalk in the Southwest village of Tuntutuliak. The completed project stretches from the main village to the airport facilities. Over 800,000 pounds of piling, 750,000 pounds of structural steel, and 1.4 million pounds of treated lumber were used in the structure which was completed under contract with the State of Alaska’s Department of Transportation. Ruby Fuel Storage Facility STG’s work for the Alaska Energy Authority in Ruby involved the complete renovation of the Dineega Fuel Company’s bulk fuel storage facility. Throughout the duration of the project, STG supported uninterrupted operation of Dineega’s residential delivery and retail fuel sales operations by establishing temporary storage during construction. The newly redesigned facility, completed in 2009, provides for storage of 30,000 gallons of gasoline and 130,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and features a new retail dispensing facility to serve the entire community. Gambell Wind Turbine Installation Completed in 2009, STG’s installation of three 100kW wind turbines in the St. Lawarence Island community of Gambell is one of the ten village scale wind power installations STG has successfully completed for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Each of these wind power installations has involved unique foundation challenges and completed through a variety of solutions including driven pile, helical pile, pre-cast concrete, rock anchor and poured in place concrete. The Gambell foundations utilized over 360 cubic yards of concrete in total. 10 “STG had the most competitive bid of those reviewed to construct the Ruby bulk fuel project in the interior of Alaska. Because of the timing of barges to the project site, it was expected that the contractor would be pressed to have new tanks installed prior to the last fuel barge delivery of the season. STG received tanks on-site in July and was able to install them in time for the community’s winter fuel supply which was delivered in September. Along with working efficiently to install the tanks, STG quickly responded when the dispenser stopped working at more than 40 below temperatures to get the situation fixed so that the community had fuel. I would not hesitate to use STG on one of my projects in the future.” - Bryan Carey, P.E. Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority
Kasigluk Energy System Overhaul In the Kuskokwim village of Kasigluk, STG was able to demonstrate abilities to execute complex, multi-faceted projects while completing an energy system overhaul for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). This project was valued at $14.6 million and completed in 2006. The complete scope of work for the project involved the consolidation and renovation of three unique and isolated energy systems in the villages of Kasigluk, Akula Heights, and Nunapitchuk. Among other activities, this process involved the transfer of primary power generation from Nunapitchuk to Akula Heights and required STG to maintain power supplies to all three villages throughout the construction period. STG constructed foundations for and installed new power generation modules in Akula Heights to support this element of scope. The installation of these modules also included the construction of a new heat recovery system. A new, expanded village distribution system was also completed, including the installation of a new five mile intertie between Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk. This intertie was installed across various waterways between the communities and supported by pile foundations. Three 100 kW wind generators were installed through STG’s efforts on the project, all of which were supported by large diameter helical piles. STG also added significant bulk fuel storage capacity to the villages through its work on the Kasigluk Energy Upgrade project. This work entailed the construction of new retail facilities in the communities of Akula Heights and Kasigluk. In total, over 600,000 gallons of storage capacity were constructed through the project and all original fuel storage infrastructure was demoed and removed from the communities. All work completed through the project was executed under a construction management that has been in place between STG and AVEC since 2002. Through this relationship, STG has executed similar scopes of work for AVEC since the early 1990’s in communities across Alaska. Headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska, STG Incorporated (STG) is a heavy industry contractor offering construction services and management across the state of Alaska and beyond. STG remains one of Alaska’s most experienced constructors of remote energy systems and focuses specifically on projects involving utility-scale wind farms, tower construction, and pile foundations along with power generation and distribution, and bulk fuel storage facilities. Over the past two decades, STG has consistently delivered value to its client base while executing a diverse array of projects located in some of the most logistically and environmentally challenging locations in North America. Each project undertaken by STG presents new challenges that are addressed with a high level of institutional knowledge regarding remote systems, and a wide range of experience executing complex scopes in these locales. The passion maintained by STG’s team for the work the company does repeatedly and consistently translates directly into quality projects completed in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner. STG views its clients as partners in its efforts to support the sustainable development of remote communities through the delivery of superior construction services and management based on high levels of performance, professionalism, and quality craftsmanship. The company proactively addresses client needs by continually innovating throughout the duration of projects requiring new approaches to traditional problems, as well as through the utilization of STG’s strategic network of partners across the project development and implementation processes. STG’s team is a group of problem solvers which enthusiastically applies its experience managing and constructing remote infrastructure to substantially reduce risk and add value for the clients it serves. 2 9 “STG has been responsive and innovative to our schedules and budgets. We can count on them to get the job done right.” - Meera Kohler President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Company History Originally known as St. George Construction, STG began work in the Kotzebue region of northwest Alaska in 1991 and evolved into STG Incorporated in 1996. Since incorporation, STG has grown into a premier construction services and management firm serving a diverse group of service-based clients across the state of Alaska. In addition to completing numerous smaller independent contracts over the years, STG has maintained construction management agreements with the Alaska Energy Authority and United Utilities, Inc. and has continued to provide similar services to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 2002. Through contractual relationships with these entities, STG has managed the construction of some of the highest profile projects completed in rural Alaska to date. The company prides itself on these accomplishments and on its ability to not only get the job done in these environmentally and logistically complex locations, but to do the job well. While STG’s core competencies include bulk fuel systems, power plant construction, renewable energy systems, tower construction, and pile foundations, STG’s diverse base of skilled field personnel and its modern equipment spread allow the company to effectively implement heavy industry construction and civil projects involving countless conceivable applications. STG maintains one of the largest fleets of construction equipment across rural Alaska which allows the company to actively implement and perform almost any element of the construction process. The company’s knowledgeable management and experienced field crews are able to fully direct critical path activities and maintain tight controls on project schedules, thus directly benefiting clients by driving costs out of the project delivery process. As a result of STG’s work over the past two decades, the company has also grown into the predominant pile foundation contractor for Interior and Western Alaska and has also established itself as the leading installer of utility scale wind power technologies within the Featured Projects Barrow Hospital Foundation Installation STG completed the foundation for a new hospital located in Barrow, Alaska during the summer of 2009. Over 350 piles were installed at the project site and all logistics and construction activities were completed during a three-month window. Logistics for the project involved the management of supplies through four separate transportation firms in order to effectively mobilize, complete project activities, and demobilize project supplies during Barrow’s limited summer season. All aspects of STG’s scope of work were completed on-time and at budget under contract with UIC Construction. STG’s work on the Barrow Hospital followed previously executed foundation installation services for a new hospital in Nome, Alaska completed during the 2008-2009 winter season. DeltaNet Microwave Broadband System DeltaNet, constructed by STG for United Utilities, Inc. in 2008, is a 34-site broadband network designed to provide villages in the southwestern portion of the state with an array of improved communication abilities, including wireless phone service and broadband connectivity. The completed project, valued at over $44 million and financed by the US Department of Agriculture, provides residents of these southwest Alaska villages with expanded opportunities to utilize cell phones for convenience and safety and abilities to connect to the internet without the unreliability and slow speed of dial-up service. In terms of covered area, the system now exists as one of the largest microwave networks in the world. Unalakleet Wind Turbine Installation In 2009, STG completed the installation of one of the largest wind systems operating on Alaska’s west coast for Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative. Serving as Project Manager and General Contractor, STG managed all project activities from conception to completion of the six-turbine installation and three mile distribution line installation/upgrade. The project now exists as the largest single installation of Northwind 100 turbines and one of the first projects completed through the State of Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund. All elements of the project, valued at approximately $5.5 million were completed on an accelerated schedule over a six month period. Real time energy production information for the project can be accessed on-line at http://northernpower.kiosk-view.com/unalakleet. “STG’s knowledge and experience in rural Alaska with civil requirements and piling systems has proven to be a great benefit to the success of our school projects. With STG, I have always felt as if we were working with a partner instead of a contractor. A positive attitude and willingness to explore viable options are reasons why we look forward to a future association with STG.” - Bob Dickens Facility Director Bering Straits School District 3 8
construction projects of various scopes. STG’s fleet, valued at over $15 million, consists of some of the most versatile machinery available in rural Alaska including crawler and rough-terrain cranes (with 85 to 250 ton lift capabilities), excavators, dozers, loaders, drill rigs, graders, pile hammers, compactors, cement batch plants, dump trucks, and supporting equipment. Job Site Safety STG understands that its overall company success is directly linked to its safety efforts. The company’s goal is 100% accident-free work while ensuring quality services. STG’s work always presents new challenges due to the nature of heavy industry contracting and the environmental conditions encountered in remote job sites. All employees are expected to exercise good judgment while executing safe, responsible work practices and the company strives to make sure every employee goes home from work in the same condition in which he or she arrives. Safety is the greatest priority in all jobs STG undertakes. STG currently maintains an industry-leading workers’ compensation experience modification rating. This is an accomplishment which STG is very proud of and one that is a direct result of the company’s experienced workforce striving to maintain safe job sites at all times. Nonetheless, STG works to make continual improvements on the operational level that adhere to or exceed industry standards. Alaska market. STG crews have built innumerable foundations for hospitals, clinics, schools, tank farms, power plants and public facilities in locations stretching from Barrow, to the Aleutian Islands, to the south-central region of Alaska and everywhere in between. STG managed the construction of the largest deployment of broadband technology in Alaska through its work on the DeltaNet Project which entailed the installation of numerous pile tower foundations across the southwest region of the state. The company also constructed one of the largest steel-framed elevated boardwalks in North America located in the remote Alaskan village of Tuntutuliak. As a company, STG consistently succeeds where others struggle to perform. The company’s management and field crews face the challenges of their work with enthusiasm as these situations consistently provide opportunities for the STG team to demonstrate the value it offers to any remote infrastructure development. STG’s successful track record has helped it develop a reputation as one of the most capable contractors servicing the Alaska market. The company takes pride in its wealth of experience and its ability to effectively manage the diverse set of challenges that it encounters on nearly every project it undertakes. In today’s market of economic and energy-based uncertainties, this attitude ensures that company goals are in line with client objectives, and assures that STG will continue to deliver relevant projects on-time, on-budget, and beyond expectations. 7 “As a Project Manager with AEA, I have worked with STG on a couple of noteworthy bulk fuel storage projects in rural Alaska. The most notable was completed in Deering, Alaska on the northeast coast of the Seward Peninsula durring 2004-2005. Deering’s location and soil conditions posed many engineering, logistical, and construction related challenges. STG was up to the task when pile driving became an immediate issue that could have substantially increased the overall project cost. STG quickly located and transported a much larger hammer to complete the job and kept the project on schedule. The bulk fuel storage tanks were shipped to the site in the late fall and were welded in place before winter weather set in. The project was completed the following summer in time for the fall fuel delivery. STG was a good fit for partnering on the project due to their experience in the Northwest Arctic Borough region, their knowledge of heavy civil construction, and the equipment they had staged close by from another recently completed project. They worked well with the local community, providing jobs, and training to ensure a well constructed and commissioned project”. - Ron Brown Project Manager Alaska Energy Authority“STG has been responsive and innovative to our schedules and budgets. We can count on them to get the job done right.” - Meera Kohler President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4
Project Execution STG executes projects through a set of key deliverables to ensure appropriate management of jobs across the construction cycle including both development and actual construction activities. This approach ensures that clients have the ability to work with STG as a “one-stop shop” capable of providing a variety of product delivery options including encompassing design-build and engineer-procure-construct scopes of work to more limited task specific responsibilities as appropriate to individual projects. In all situations, clients can expect to receive the benefits of a successfully implemented project consisting of: a high-quality finished product delivered at a fair and reasonable price. adherence to budgetary and scheduling requirements. safe and professional performance on all work. proactive communication to address obstacles before project impacts are experienced. high levels of job site productivity generated through the use of modern equipment and cutting-edge industry practices. Team Based Approach STG’s professional management team and core crew of highly skilled employees is crucial to the company’s logistical and operational success at its remote job sites. Company officers, project managers, and assistants all have many years of experience planning and implementing remote projects. They understand the challenges inherent to projects in isolated locations outside of traditional support networks, and are able to pool their collective expertise to repeatedly execute projects in remote locations efficiently, on time, and with quality craftsmanship. All field activities are executed through a team-based approach supported by Anchorage-based project managers, logistics personnel, and administrators; staging centers located in Bethel and Nome; and field crews specially selected for each individual project. All members of STG’s staff maintain a professional commitment to delivering the highest level of quality within the industry, a philosophy which is consistently reflected in the work which STG performs. Pre-Construction Planning During the development process, pre-construction efforts are focused largely on planning and preparation. A project team is identified which includes management, administrative, and field supervision personnel. This team establishes budgets, production targets, a master construction schedule, and a detailed work plan for each project. The planning process involves key supervisory personnel as all aspects of the project are analyzed with particular attention to logistics, labor, and equipment resource needs, along with specific material requirements. This results in a clear understanding of client goals, contractual requirements, and scope of work while helping to identify potential obstacles that may impact the successful execution of the job. The project-planning phase also establishes key systems which help assure quality control throughout the actual construction phases of the project. This begins at the management level with a commitment to providing a quality project to the client and carries through to the administrative level with timely, accurate documentation and reporting. Finally, this is reinforced at the field level where clear production and quality targets are reinforced on-site through daily foremen reviews. Proactive Project Management STG maintains budgets for all labor, material, and equipment for each project allowing project leaders to effectively manage project costs. Expense categories are tracked and updated weekly by the project managers and this information is then communicated to the field supervision level for use in making proactive management decisions. The project manager and foremen work together through this reporting system to identify potential problems and direct resources as required to address issues before work is impacted. This proactive approach prevents STG from having to perform “crisis management” while providing clients with on-budget, on-time, turnkey deliveries of completed projects built to engineered specifications. On-site activities are supported through STG’s modern fleet of heavy equipment which is capable of supporting multiple on-going rural 6 5
Project Execution STG executes projects through a set of key deliverables to ensure appropriate management of jobs across the construction cycle including both development and actual construction activities. This approach ensures that clients have the ability to work with STG as a “one-stop shop” capable of providing a variety of product delivery options including encompassing design-build and engineer-procure-construct scopes of work to more limited task specific responsibilities as appropriate to individual projects. In all situations, clients can expect to receive the benefits of a successfully implemented project consisting of: a high-quality finished product delivered at a fair and reasonable price. adherence to budgetary and scheduling requirements. safe and professional performance on all work. proactive communication to address obstacles before project impacts are experienced. high levels of job site productivity generated through the use of modern equipment and cutting-edge industry practices. Team Based Approach STG’s professional management team and core crew of highly skilled employees is crucial to the company’s logistical and operational success at its remote job sites. Company officers, project managers, and assistants all have many years of experience planning and implementing remote projects. They understand the challenges inherent to projects in isolated locations outside of traditional support networks, and are able to pool their collective expertise to repeatedly execute projects in remote locations efficiently, on time, and with quality craftsmanship. All field activities are executed through a team-based approach supported by Anchorage-based project managers, logistics personnel, and administrators; staging centers located in Bethel and Nome; and field crews specially selected for each individual project. All members of STG’s staff maintain a professional commitment to delivering the highest level of quality within the industry, a philosophy which is consistently reflected in the work which STG performs. Pre-Construction Planning During the development process, pre-construction efforts are focused largely on planning and preparation. A project team is identified which includes management, administrative, and field supervision personnel. This team establishes budgets, production targets, a master construction schedule, and a detailed work plan for each project. The planning process involves key supervisory personnel as all aspects of the project are analyzed with particular attention to logistics, labor, and equipment resource needs, along with specific material requirements. This results in a clear understanding of client goals, contractual requirements, and scope of work while helping to identify potential obstacles that may impact the successful execution of the job. The project-planning phase also establishes key systems which help assure quality control throughout the actual construction phases of the project. This begins at the management level with a commitment to providing a quality project to the client and carries through to the administrative level with timely, accurate documentation and reporting. Finally, this is reinforced at the field level where clear production and quality targets are reinforced on-site through daily foremen reviews. Proactive Project Management STG maintains budgets for all labor, material, and equipment for each project allowing project leaders to effectively manage project costs. Expense categories are tracked and updated weekly by the project managers and this information is then communicated to the field supervision level for use in making proactive management decisions. The project manager and foremen work together through this reporting system to identify potential problems and direct resources as required to address issues before work is impacted. This proactive approach prevents STG from having to perform “crisis management” while providing clients with on-budget, on-time, turnkey deliveries of completed projects built to engineered specifications. On-site activities are supported through STG’s modern fleet of heavy equipment which is capable of supporting multiple on-going rural 6 5
construction projects of various scopes. STG’s fleet, valued at over $15 million, consists of some of the most versatile machinery available in rural Alaska including crawler and rough-terrain cranes (with 85 to 250 ton lift capabilities), excavators, dozers, loaders, drill rigs, graders, pile hammers, compactors, cement batch plants, dump trucks, and supporting equipment. Job Site Safety STG understands that its overall company success is directly linked to its safety efforts. The company’s goal is 100% accident-free work while ensuring quality services. STG’s work always presents new challenges due to the nature of heavy industry contracting and the environmental conditions encountered in remote job sites. All employees are expected to exercise good judgment while executing safe, responsible work practices and the company strives to make sure every employee goes home from work in the same condition in which he or she arrives. Safety is the greatest priority in all jobs STG undertakes. STG currently maintains an industry-leading workers’ compensation experience modification rating. This is an accomplishment which STG is very proud of and one that is a direct result of the company’s experienced workforce striving to maintain safe job sites at all times. Nonetheless, STG works to make continual improvements on the operational level that adhere to or exceed industry standards. Alaska market. STG crews have built innumerable foundations for hospitals, clinics, schools, tank farms, power plants and public facilities in locations stretching from Barrow, to the Aleutian Islands, to the south-central region of Alaska and everywhere in between. STG managed the construction of the largest deployment of broadband technology in Alaska through its work on the DeltaNet Project which entailed the installation of numerous pile tower foundations across the southwest region of the state. The company also constructed one of the largest steel-framed elevated boardwalks in North America located in the remote Alaskan village of Tuntutuliak. As a company, STG consistently succeeds where others struggle to perform. The company’s management and field crews face the challenges of their work with enthusiasm as these situations consistently provide opportunities for the STG team to demonstrate the value it offers to any remote infrastructure development. STG’s successful track record has helped it develop a reputation as one of the most capable contractors servicing the Alaska market. The company takes pride in its wealth of experience and its ability to effectively manage the diverse set of challenges that it encounters on nearly every project it undertakes. In today’s market of economic and energy-based uncertainties, this attitude ensures that company goals are in line with client objectives, and assures that STG will continue to deliver relevant projects on-time, on-budget, and beyond expectations. 7 “As a Project Manager with AEA, I have worked with STG on a couple of noteworthy bulk fuel storage projects in rural Alaska. The most notable was completed in Deering, Alaska on the northeast coast of the Seward Peninsula durring 2004-2005. Deering’s location and soil conditions posed many engineering, logistical, and construction related challenges. STG was up to the task when pile driving became an immediate issue that could have substantially increased the overall project cost. STG quickly located and transported a much larger hammer to complete the job and kept the project on schedule. The bulk fuel storage tanks were shipped to the site in the late fall and were welded in place before winter weather set in. The project was completed the following summer in time for the fall fuel delivery. STG was a good fit for partnering on the project due to their experience in the Northwest Arctic Borough region, their knowledge of heavy civil construction, and the equipment they had staged close by from another recently completed project. They worked well with the local community, providing jobs, and training to ensure a well constructed and commissioned project”. - Ron Brown Project Manager Alaska Energy Authority“STG has been responsive and innovative to our schedules and budgets. We can count on them to get the job done right.” - Meera Kohler President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4
Company History Originally known as St. George Construction, STG began work in the Kotzebue region of northwest Alaska in 1991 and evolved into STG Incorporated in 1996. Since incorporation, STG has grown into a premier construction services and management firm serving a diverse group of service-based clients across the state of Alaska. In addition to completing numerous smaller independent contracts over the years, STG has maintained construction management agreements with the Alaska Energy Authority and United Utilities, Inc. and has continued to provide similar services to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 2002. Through contractual relationships with these entities, STG has managed the construction of some of the highest profile projects completed in rural Alaska to date. The company prides itself on these accomplishments and on its ability to not only get the job done in these environmentally and logistically complex locations, but to do the job well. While STG’s core competencies include bulk fuel systems, power plant construction, renewable energy systems, tower construction, and pile foundations, STG’s diverse base of skilled field personnel and its modern equipment spread allow the company to effectively implement heavy industry construction and civil projects involving countless conceivable applications. STG maintains one of the largest fleets of construction equipment across rural Alaska which allows the company to actively implement and perform almost any element of the construction process. The company’s knowledgeable management and experienced field crews are able to fully direct critical path activities and maintain tight controls on project schedules, thus directly benefiting clients by driving costs out of the project delivery process. As a result of STG’s work over the past two decades, the company has also grown into the predominant pile foundation contractor for Interior and Western Alaska and has also established itself as the leading installer of utility scale wind power technologies within the Featured Projects Barrow Hospital Foundation Installation STG completed the foundation for a new hospital located in Barrow, Alaska during the summer of 2009. Over 350 piles were installed at the project site and all logistics and construction activities were completed during a three-month window. Logistics for the project involved the management of supplies through four separate transportation firms in order to effectively mobilize, complete project activities, and demobilize project supplies during Barrow’s limited summer season. All aspects of STG’s scope of work were completed on-time and at budget under contract with UIC Construction. STG’s work on the Barrow Hospital followed previously executed foundation installation services for a new hospital in Nome, Alaska completed during the 2008-2009 winter season. DeltaNet Microwave Broadband System DeltaNet, constructed by STG for United Utilities, Inc. in 2008, is a 34-site broadband network designed to provide villages in the southwestern portion of the state with an array of improved communication abilities, including wireless phone service and broadband connectivity. The completed project, valued at over $44 million and financed by the US Department of Agriculture, provides residents of these southwest Alaska villages with expanded opportunities to utilize cell phones for convenience and safety and abilities to connect to the internet without the unreliability and slow speed of dial-up service. In terms of covered area, the system now exists as one of the largest microwave networks in the world. Unalakleet Wind Turbine Installation In 2009, STG completed the installation of one of the largest wind systems operating on Alaska’s west coast for Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative. Serving as Project Manager and General Contractor, STG managed all project activities from conception to completion of the six-turbine installation and three mile distribution line installation/upgrade. The project now exists as the largest single installation of Northwind 100 turbines and one of the first projects completed through the State of Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund. All elements of the project, valued at approximately $5.5 million were completed on an accelerated schedule over a six month period. Real time energy production information for the project can be accessed on-line at http://northernpower.kiosk-view.com/unalakleet. “STG’s knowledge and experience in rural Alaska with civil requirements and piling systems has proven to be a great benefit to the success of our school projects. With STG, I have always felt as if we were working with a partner instead of a contractor. A positive attitude and willingness to explore viable options are reasons why we look forward to a future association with STG.” - Bob Dickens Facility Director Bering Straits School District 3 8
Kasigluk Energy System Overhaul In the Kuskokwim village of Kasigluk, STG was able to demonstrate abilities to execute complex, multi-faceted projects while completing an energy system overhaul for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). This project was valued at $14.6 million and completed in 2006. The complete scope of work for the project involved the consolidation and renovation of three unique and isolated energy systems in the villages of Kasigluk, Akula Heights, and Nunapitchuk. Among other activities, this process involved the transfer of primary power generation from Nunapitchuk to Akula Heights and required STG to maintain power supplies to all three villages throughout the construction period. STG constructed foundations for and installed new power generation modules in Akula Heights to support this element of scope. The installation of these modules also included the construction of a new heat recovery system. A new, expanded village distribution system was also completed, including the installation of a new five mile intertie between Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk. This intertie was installed across various waterways between the communities and supported by pile foundations. Three 100 kW wind generators were installed through STG’s efforts on the project, all of which were supported by large diameter helical piles. STG also added significant bulk fuel storage capacity to the villages through its work on the Kasigluk Energy Upgrade project. This work entailed the construction of new retail facilities in the communities of Akula Heights and Kasigluk. In total, over 600,000 gallons of storage capacity were constructed through the project and all original fuel storage infrastructure was demoed and removed from the communities. All work completed through the project was executed under a construction management that has been in place between STG and AVEC since 2002. Through this relationship, STG has executed similar scopes of work for AVEC since the early 1990’s in communities across Alaska. Headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska, STG Incorporated (STG) is a heavy industry contractor offering construction services and management across the state of Alaska and beyond. STG remains one of Alaska’s most experienced constructors of remote energy systems and focuses specifically on projects involving utility-scale wind farms, tower construction, and pile foundations along with power generation and distribution, and bulk fuel storage facilities. Over the past two decades, STG has consistently delivered value to its client base while executing a diverse array of projects located in some of the most logistically and environmentally challenging locations in North America. Each project undertaken by STG presents new challenges that are addressed with a high level of institutional knowledge regarding remote systems, and a wide range of experience executing complex scopes in these locales. The passion maintained by STG’s team for the work the company does repeatedly and consistently translates directly into quality projects completed in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner. STG views its clients as partners in its efforts to support the sustainable development of remote communities through the delivery of superior construction services and management based on high levels of performance, professionalism, and quality craftsmanship. The company proactively addresses client needs by continually innovating throughout the duration of projects requiring new approaches to traditional problems, as well as through the utilization of STG’s strategic network of partners across the project development and implementation processes. STG’s team is a group of problem solvers which enthusiastically applies its experience managing and constructing remote infrastructure to substantially reduce risk and add value for the clients it serves. 2 9 “STG has been responsive and innovative to our schedules and budgets. We can count on them to get the job done right.” - Meera Kohler President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Letter from the President Dear Reader: For the past two decades, STG has taken great pride in delivering valuable services that improve the quality of life for Alaskans in communities across the state. Executing heavy construction in bush Alaska presents a unique set of challenges that have helped us, as a company, develop qualifications that support high levels of performance while executing remote projects. STG is an Alaskan company comprised of an Alaskan workforce that enjoys not just the challenges of Arctic infrastructure development, but the satisfaction of getting the job done, and doing it well. As a result, we view our clients as partners and consider the community members where we operate as neighbors. Together, we work to build sustainable infrastructure that reduces energy costs, supports rural Alaska systems, and delivers 21st century technology to communities across the state. While STG has grown and developed its capabilities over the years, we have worked to adhere to a defining set of values since our work as a company began in Kotzebue, Alaska in 1991. Specifically, on every project STG undertakes, we strive to: • Provide a safe working environment for all employees. • Demonstrate sensitivity and respect for the communities in which we operate. • Constantly innovate through the completion of construction projects requiring new approaches to traditional problems. • Focus on projects that are relevant, necessary, and improve the local quality of life. • Deliver the highest level of quality craftsmanship in all projects that we complete. • Hold ourselves personally accountable to high levels of ethical standards. We feel privileged to share our expertise with the entities providing valuable community services across Alaska. We look forward to learning more about how we can put our abilities, passions, and skill sets to work for you. Sincerely, James St. George President Tuntutuliak Boardwalk Over a five-month period during the winter of 2007, STG constructed Alaska’s largest elevated boardwalk in the Southwest village of Tuntutuliak. The completed project stretches from the main village to the airport facilities. Over 800,000 pounds of piling, 750,000 pounds of structural steel, and 1.4 million pounds of treated lumber were used in the structure which was completed under contract with the State of Alaska’s Department of Transportation. Ruby Fuel Storage Facility STG’s work for the Alaska Energy Authority in Ruby involved the complete renovation of the Dineega Fuel Company’s bulk fuel storage facility. Throughout the duration of the project, STG supported uninterrupted operation of Dineega’s residential delivery and retail fuel sales operations by establishing temporary storage during construction. The newly redesigned facility, completed in 2009, provides for storage of 30,000 gallons of gasoline and 130,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and features a new retail dispensing facility to serve the entire community. Gambell Wind Turbine Installation Completed in 2009, STG’s installation of three 100kW wind turbines in the St. Lawarence Island community of Gambell is one of the ten village scale wind power installations STG has successfully completed for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Each of these wind power installations has involved unique foundation challenges and completed through a variety of solutions including driven pile, helical pile, pre-cast concrete, rock anchor and poured in place concrete. The Gambell foundations utilized over 360 cubic yards of concrete in total. 10 “STG had the most competitive bid of those reviewed to construct the Ruby bulk fuel project in the interior of Alaska. Because of the timing of barges to the project site, it was expected that the contractor would be pressed to have new tanks installed prior to the last fuel barge delivery of the season. STG received tanks on-site in July and was able to install them in time for the community’s winter fuel supply which was delivered in September. Along with working efficiently to install the tanks, STG quickly responded when the dispenser stopped working at more than 40 below temperatures to get the situation fixed so that the community had fuel. I would not hesitate to use STG on one of my projects in the future.” - Bryan Carey, P.E. Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority
STG Incorporated 11820 South Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 644-4664 www.stgincorporated.com STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Electric Power
Systems, Inc.
Statement of
Qualifications for
Engineering, Design,
Testing, Maintenance &
Construction
Statement of Qualifications
Electric Power Systems, Inc. (EPS) was incorporated in 1996 and was founded by David
Burlingame and Daniel Rogers. Their prior experience included working as engineers and
managers for a variety of utility and manufacturing interests focusing on power transmission,
distribution, generation, and control. EPS has historically focused on providing substation,
generation, controls, protection, system planning and analysis and distribution engineering for
utility, industrial, and governmental clients. EPS holds a number of long term and alliance type
contracts and relationships. Most of EPS’ clients are based in Alaska, and are long-term,
mature clients, which require little or no proposal effort to obtain work. For the past five years,
EPS has been successfully expanding into the Pacific Northwest and South Pacific markets.
KEY PERSONNEL
The following are brief overviews of ESG’s key personnel’s qualifications and experience:
DAVID BURLINGAME, PE, PRINCIPAL
David Burlingame has over 25 years of experience in power system operation, engineering and
administration. His experience includes a full range of services, from planning studies, design,
construction, and start-up/commissioning to periodic testing and maintenance. His specific
experience includes the following:
Bradley Lake Governor Project for Homer Electric Association, Homer, Alaska
Tyee Lake Governor Project, Four Dam Power Pool, Anchorage, Alaska
Unalaska Power Plant, City of Unalaska, Unalaska, Alaska
System Reliability Review, Guam Power Authority, Agana, Guam
System Stability and Reliability Studies, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Lihue, Hawaii
Marathon Substation Final Design, Startup and Commissioning, Homer Electric Association,
Inc., Kenai, Alaska
Seldovia and Port Graham Generation Plants, Homer Electric Association, Homer, Alaska
Nikiski Co-Gen Corrective Action, Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission
Cooperative, Homer, Alaska
RW Retherford Substation, Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska
Postmark Substation, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage, Alaska
Diamond Ridge Substation, Homer Electric Association, Homer, Alaska
Heidenview Station Design, Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc., Valdez, Alaska
Kukuulia Substation Design, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Kauai, Hawaii
ITSS switchgear design, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage, Alaska
Heidenview Substation Design, Copper Valley Electric Association, Valdez, Alaska
BP Substation Design, Homer Electric Association, Kenai, Alaska
DANIEL C. ROGERS, JR., PE, PRINCIPAL
Daniel Rogers has over 20 years of experience in electrical power system engineering. He
holds a Masters and Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering and a Bachelors degree in
Physics. His experience includes electrical design, project management and construction
management of electrical system projects throughout Alaska. His specific experience includes
the following:
Snake River Power Plant, Nome Joint Utilities, Nome, Alaska
SCADA System, City of Soldotna, Soldotna, Alaska
Kodiak Power Plant Generator Replacement, Kodiak Electric Association, Kodiak, Alaska
Statement of Qualifications
Facilities relocation in support of Water/Wastewater Upgrades, Nome Joint Utility Systems,
Nome Alaska
Power Creek Hydro Plant Design, Startup, and Commissioning, Cordova Electric
Cooperative, Cordova, Alaska
Pump Installation – Nome storage tank, Nome Joint Utility System, Nome, Alaska
PRV Design, Various Contractors/Developers for AWWU, Anchorage, Alaska
Orca Diesel Plant SCADA/Controls Upgrades, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Cordova,
Alaska
Elfin Cove Diesel Plant Control Systems Upgrade, Elfin Cove, Elfin Cove, Alaska
Humpback Creek Hydro Plant Design, Startup, and Commissioning, Cordova Electric
Cooperative, Cordova, Alaska
DR. JAMES W. COTE, P.E. PRINCIPAL
Dr. Cote has been involved in the planning and studies of electric power systems for over 25
years. His special area of expertise is analyzing the performance and planning requirements of
islanded power systems. In addition to studies involving the electrical grid of the continental US,
Dr. Cote has participated in the analysis, review and planning of islanded power systems from 5
MW up to the 1000 MW. This experience allows Dr. Cote to foresee many problems in isolted
power systems that are not prevalent in larger networks. His specific experience includes the
following:
Railbelt Operating Studies – Alaska Intertie Operating Committee
Wind Turbine Impact Study - Hawaiian Electric Light Company
Aero-derivative turbine modeling – Kauai Island Utility Cooperative
Bradley Lake Transient Stability Investigation – Chugach Electric Association
Reliability Assessment – Guam Power Authority
Static Var Compensation Study – Alaska Intertie Operating Committee
Loadshedding Study – Homer Electric Association
Bradley Governor Design & Operating Studies – Homer Electric Association
LM-2500 Impact Studies – Kauai Island Utility Cooperative
Transmission Long Range Plan – Chugach Electric Association
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
The following is an overview of EPS’s recent project experience:
PROTECTIVE RELAYING AND AUTOMATION UPGRADES, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
The Chugach Electric Association’s protective relaying and
automation upgrades consisted of both the design and the
subsequent project construction located at Chugach’s Beluga and
Douglas Substations. The projects included the design and
installation of protective relaying and automation on Chugach’s
critical generation station and transmission system. All projects
were completed in energized facilities without an outage. The
projects included relaying upgrades on two 28 MW gas-fired
turbines and station relaying on a 415 MW generation plant. The
design was performed by Electric Power Systems (EPS) and the
installation was performed by Electric Power Constructors (EPC).
Statement of Qualifications
WOODINVILLE SUBSTATION, BP OLYMPIC PIPELINE, WOODINVILLE, WASHINGTON
EPS completed the design and construction inspection for the new Portage Substation along
the Turnagain Arm south of Anchorage. The substation consisted of four 4.16 kV feeders in
metal-clad switchgear. EPS was responsible for the design of the substation civil work, bus
layout, grounding and lighting. EPS was responsible for the switchgear design and
specifications, station layout and protective relaying settings, and implementation. EPS
completed the quality control inspection, testing and commission for the substation construction.
Project cost: $0.500 million.
KUKUULIA SUBSTATION, KAUAI ISLAND UTILITY COOPERATIVE, KAUAI, HAWAII
EPS completed the civil, structural and electrical design for the 69 kV/ 12.47 kV Kukuuulia
Substation. Project included four 69 kV breakers, two 20 MVA transformers and provisions for
twelve 12.47 kV feeder breakers, control building, communication and relaying control panels.
EPS provided the structure design, electrical service, grounding, protective relaying and controls
design. Project cost: $2.500 million.
AIRAI SUBSTATION, PALAU PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, KOROR, PALAU
EPS completed the civil, structural and electrical design for the 34.5 kV / 12.47 kV Airai
Substation. Project included concrete block control building, relaying and control panels, four
12.47 kV breakers, installation of controls and modifications for one 34.5 kV breaker and three
34.5 kV motor-operated switches and SCADA control and monitoring for the station. EPS
provided the structure design, electrical service, grounding, protective relaying and controls
design. EPS completed the installation and commissioning. Project cost: $1.200 million.
HEIDENVIEW STATION DESIGN, COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., VALDEZ, AK
This project consisted of the complete design of a new 138/24.9 kV station, including one line
development, DC system design, controls and protection specification, equipment specification,
bid evaluation and award, commissioning and startup assistance. In addition, EPS constructed
the installed the controls into the station control house at our Anchorage facility, and shipped the
completed control structure to Valdez for installation on the pad.
INTERNATIONAL 35 KV METALCLAD SWITCHGEAR DESIGN, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,
INC., ANCHORAGE, AK
The project included development of design criteria, one
lines, three lines, DC schematics and physical drawings for
a common aisle 35 kV metalclad switchgear for Chugach’s
main bulk substation. Implicit in the design of the
switchgear was the limited space at the existing facility,
and the need to minimize outage times during constru
ction. The design included SEL-351, 287, 311C and 321
relays. The design included an evaluation of alternatives
and recommendations for service and replacement of the
existing station.
HUMPBACK CREEK POWER PLANT FIRE REBUILD, CORDOVA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
CORDOVA, ALASKA
Humpback Creek is a remote plant connected electrically to the Cordova Electric Cooperative
system. The plant has over 100’ of head, and three units, with a plant capacity of over 1 MW.
The plant had a fire in late 2005, with significant damage resulting from the heat, flames, and
smoke. Engineered Solutions Group, Inc. (ESG) was hired by the owner to design, procure,
and reconstruct the plant. The project scope included electrical design and construction,
Statement of Qualifications
general building construction, hydraulic system design and construction, and
control/communications design and construction. ESG personnel performed all of the work on
the project. The design was completed and a conformed set of drawings provided to the owner.
The construction was bid and performed under a separate construction contract based on the
conformed set of drawings. The project will be completed on time and on budget. The owner is
pleased with the work, and ESG is in negotiations for additional work at the forebay with the
owner following the completion of the power plant rebuild. Project cost: $1.5 million.
MAIN GENERATOR RELAY UPGRADES, ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY, VALDEZ,
ALASKA
In order to more reliably operate the power production facility at the Valdez Marine Facility,
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) decided to upgrade and install new microprocessor-
based protective relays in the three main turbine generators at the Valdez Marine Terminal
power plant. Electric Power Systems (EPS) acted as the design resource and Electric Power
Constructors (EPC) as the contractor to perform the installation. EPS performed the overall
project and construction management, as well as all of the electrical design. EPC personnel
performed the installation tasks working with Alyeska personnel. The relays have been in
operation since 2003 without any outages associated with the installation. The work was
completed on time and on budget. Project cost: $120,000.
NIKISKI POWER PLANT, ALASKA ELECTRIC GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVE,
NIKISKI, ALASKA
The Nikiski Power Plant project consisted of
feasibility studies, conceptual design, final
design, construction and testing services and
final acceptance testing associated with a 48
MW gas-turbine facility located on Alaska’s
Kenai Peninsula. The project included the
design and installation of protective relaying and
SCADA systems, the design and installation of
auxiliary power systems and the design and
installation of low and medium voltage power
systems. Electric Power Systems (EPS)
designed and installed medium voltage switchgear in the project substation, designed and
installed substation transformer electrical and fire protection systems. EPS was responsible for
final commissioning tests and procedures on the SCADA, protection and station control systems
and the protection improvements on six 3.5 MW gas-fired turbines and substations within the
Agrium Nitrogen facility.
LIFELINE SWITCHGEAR RELAY/CT UPGRADES, ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY, VALDEZ,
ALASKA
In order to more reliably operate the power distribution facility at the Valdez Marine Facility,
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) decided to upgrade and install new microprocessor-
based protective relays in the lifeline generator switchgear at the Valdez Marine Terminal. In
addition, CT’s were installed to replace outdated linear couplers on the switchgear. Electric
Power Systems (EPS) acted as the design resource and Electric Power Constructors (EPC)
performed the installation as the contractor. EPS performed the overall project management, as
well as all of the electrical design. EPC personnel performed the installation tasks. Some
coordination issues were addressed onsite by the crew and Alyeska personnel, allowing for
flexible operation of the terminal and no change orders to the project. The relays have been in
Statement of Qualifications
operation since 2005 without any outages associated with the installation. The work was
completed on time and on budget. Project cost: $100,000.
SNAKE RIVER POWER PLANT, NOME JOINT UTILITY SYSTEM, NOME, ALASKA
The Snake River Power Plant project consisted of
feasibility studies, site selection, conceptual design, final
design, construction, construction management and
testing services and final acceptance testing for the 30 MW
diesel power plant located in Nome, Alaska. The project
consists of the design and installation of a 30 MW plant (12
MW installed) to serve the community of Nome, Alaska.
The project includes site design, building design (25,000
sq. ft. facility), utility interconnections, SCADA/automation
design, protective relaying design, switchgear design,
construction and installation, coordination studies, fuel tank
and fuel delivery systems design and installation and project commissioning and testing.
The project is located at a remote site on the Seward Peninsula, in Nome Alaska. Nome has no
road connection to the rest of Alaska, and is served only during the summer by barge. The
plant, when commissioned, will serve as the primary
power source for the communities, and the
surrounding area.
During the course of the project, where the Board did
not receive bids that were responsive, either from a
cost or capabilities perspective, they have turned to
the ESG Companies to assist in the construction.
Subcontract portions that have been preformed by
ESG Companies, include the electrical rough in
(subgrade conduit), medium voltage switchgear
installation, power transformer installation, all medium
voltage plant work (480V through 15kV class equipment), PLC control/ SCADA installation and
electrical system startup and commissioning.
Final startup will be completed in 2007. Project cost: $28 million.
SCADA SYSTEM ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, CITY OF SOLDOTNA,
SOLDOTNA, ALASKA
The City of Soldotna desired to upgrade their existing control system, which was limited due to
age, technology employed, and the number of sites at which it was deployed. EPS teamed with
the prime contractor AirTek of Soldotna to provide the City a new SCADA system. EPS
performed all of the design engineering for the electrical installation and the UL 508A control
panels. In addition, EPS provided the materials for the control system, including a Wonderware
HMI (human-machine interface), four GE 90-30 PLC’s for the well sites and reservoir, and the
920 MHz radio system to allow the remote sites to communicate with the HMI at the treatment
plant. EPS programmed the PLC’s and HMI, assisted AirTek with construction-related
engineering, and provided final startup, commissioning, and training for the Owner. EPS staff
worked with the electrical contractor as a subcontractor, while keeping the goals of the owner in
mind. The project was completed on time and budget, with only minor changes required from
the original design. EPS has maintained a working relationship with both the owner and the
contractor in the ensuing years. In fact, EPS continues to work for the City upgrading and
adding facilities to their SCADA system. Since the completion of this project, EPS has added
Statement of Qualifications
two additional wells and one reservoir, and has discussed the costs and requirements for adding
the waster water facilities into the system. Project cost: $70,000.
SELDOVIA AND PORT GRAHAM POWER PLANTS, HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, ALASKA
The Seldovia and Port Graham Power Plant project
consisted of feasibility studies, conceptual design, final
design, construction and testing services and final
acceptance testing for two power plants located on
Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. The plants consisted of the
design and installation of a 600 kW plant installed in an
existing power plant in Port Graham and the removal of
an existing plant and design and construction of a new
3,000 kW plant in the town of Port Graham. Both
projects included system automation design and
installation, SCADA design and installation, protective
relaying design and installation, switchgear design,
construction and installation, coordination studies, fuel tank and fuel delivery systems design
and installation and project commissioning and testing. The projects were located in remote
sites on the Kenai Peninsula and served as back-up and emergency power sources for the two
communities. The EPS contract was $1,207,500. Electric Power Constructors performed the
construction.
UNALASKA POWER PLANT, CITY OF UN ALASKA, UNALASKA, ALASKA
The Unlaska Power Plant project consisted of feasibility
studies, site selection, conceptual design, final design,
construction, construction management and testing
services and final acceptance testing for the 22 MW
diesel power plant located in Unalaska, Alaska. The
project consists of the design and installation of a 22 MW
plant to serve the city and processors located in
Unalaska, Alaska. The project includes site design,
building design, utility interconnections,
SCADA/automation design, protective relaying design,
switchgear design, coordination studies, fuel tank and
fuel delivery systems design and project commissioning
and testing.
The project is located at a remote site on the Aleutian Islands, in Unalaska, Alaska.
Final startup will be completed in 2009. Project cost: $28 million.
HUMPBACK CREEK POWER PLANT FLOOD DAMAGE, CORDOVA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
CORDOVA, ALASKA
Humpback Creek is a remote plant connected electrically to the Cordova Electric Cooperative
system. The plant has over 100’ of head, and three units, with a plant capacity of over 1 MW.
The plant and associated facilities had major flood damage in late 2006. Power Builders, Inc.
(PBI) was hired by the owner to reconstruct the facilities damaged by the flood. The project
scope included replacing damaged outside electrical equipment, the access bridge, gravel and
fill material, replacement of stream bank riprap, and the replacement of the plants tailrace. ESG
Statement of Qualifications
personnel performed all of the work on the project. The work was predominantly replacement in
kind, and funded largely with FEMA monies. Project cost: $800,000.
KOTZEBUE SWITCHGEAR AND SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADES, KOTZEBUE ELECTRIC
ASSOCIATION, KOTZEBUE, ALASKA
Kotzebue is a remote hub-community that is electrically isolated from any other system. The
community runs predominantly on diesel and windpower. The windpower installation consists of
14 turbines, located on the edge of town. The project
consisted of completing a design for the switchgear,
SCADA, and mechanical/electrical instrumentation
systems. Following completion of the design and
acceptance by the Owner, the construction phase of the
project commenced, installing all of the switchgear and
controls in a phased manner to allow continuing plant
operation. EPS continues to work with the Owner to
implement additional upgrades to the plant and wind
system to further enhance operation. A performance
bond was required for the project, due to funding agency
rules. EPS met this requirement with a letter of credit.
Project cost: $1.1 million.
MEDIUM POWER TRANSFORMER MAINTENANCE/REPAIR, ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE
COMPANY, VALDEZ, ALASKA
To better assess the condition of medium power transformers at the Alyeska Valdez Marine
Terminal, Alyeska requested Electric Power Constructors (EPC) personnel to assist in the
testing, assessment, and repair of several medium power transformers on the terminal. EPC
personnel work with and under the direction of Alyeska personnel providing assistance and
technical expertise in assessing the condition of the VMT power transformers. EPC worked
cooperatively with Alyeska personnel performing DGA, power factor, and other testing to assess
the condition of the terminals medium power transformers. Some coordination issues were
addressed onsite by the crew and Alyeska personnel, allowing for flexible operation of the
terminal. The work was performed in 2005, with additional technical assistance on an as-
needed basis.
KODIAK GENERATOR REPLACEMENT, KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, KODIAK, ALASKA
Kodiak is an island community that is electrically isolated from any other system. The
community runs predominantly on diesel and
hydropower. The diesel plant, which provides the
majority of the peaking and emergency energy for
the community, consists of four large diesel
machines. During a four month period, two of the
engines experienced catastrophic failure. The
project consisted of completing a design for the
selection and installation of two new units, including
mechanical, electrical, and civil. Following
completion of the design and acceptance by the
Owner, the construction phase of the project
commenced with Power Builders personnel
Statement of Qualifications
performing the civil/structural portions, the mechanical portions being contracted to CRL
Services, and EPC doing the majority of the electrical installation, in conjunction with KEA
personnel. Project cost: $850,000.
SUBSTATION MAINTENANCE & TESTING, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE
ALASKA
EPC has completed substation testing and maintenance for
Chugach for the past 5 years on a task order basis under our
alliance contract. Testing and maintenance services have
included 34.5 kV – 230 kV oil circuit breaker testing and
maintenance, including bushing power factor, ductor, time travel,
speed adjustments and other tests associated with maintenance
activities. Power transformer testing and maintenance for
transformers up to 80 MVA and 230 kV. LTC testing and
maintenance and metal-clad breaker testing and maintenance.
KING SALMON SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE, CHEVRON , COOK INLET, ALASKA
EPC completed the design and rebuild of the existing main 600 V switchgear bus work for the
King Salmon Platform. The work included upgrading the bus for increased short circuit capacity,
installing bus bracing and fabrication of bus work. The project also included the installation of
protective relays for the switchgear, protective relay settings, testing and commissioning. The
project was completed in a scheduled shutdown of the platform on time and on budget. The
platform’s shutdown was a critical component and needed to be completed in the time allowed
to avoid well shutdowns on the platform.
PHILLIPS BELUGA RIVER , CHEVRON , COOK INLET, ALASKA
EPC completed the testing and maintenance of the facilities’ contactors, transformers, breakers,
RTDs and protective relays for the Beluga River gas field. The work was completed during a
scheduled shutdown of the facility and was completed on time and budget.
Tacoma Power Lincoln Avenue Line Relocation, TACOMA POWER
EPS is providing complete engineering services for the line relocations, including structure and
foundation design, coordination with the road designers, line design, plans and specifications for
material procurement and construction, and construction inspection.
CLIENT REFERENCES
MR. MIKE LEWIS
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
(907) 834-7356
MR. ROD RHOADES
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
(907) 834-7076
MR. BRAD REEVE
Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.
(907) 442-4391
MR. DARRON SCOTT
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
(907) 486-7739
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 24 of 30 7/1//2011
Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund Round 5
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA12-001 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-1-11
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. Will more efficiently utilize >6 m/s at wind site
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. 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 7
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 430 kW – 5,211 kW generators; 2x 1.5M BTU
boilers
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 6-20 yrs
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other Average plant efficiency: 16.43
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $1,300,000
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $2,894,000
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] 35,865,023
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 2,183,440
Other
iii. Peak Load 5,787 kW
iv. Average Load 4,200 kW
v. Minimum Load 1,764 kW
vi. Efficiency 16.43
vii. Future trends Expected 2% annual load growth over the next 20 years
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
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 5
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA12-001 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 7-1-11
3. 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]
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh]
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
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $2,600,000
b) Development cost $21,891
c) Annual O&M cost of new system Net -0- or reduction
d) Annual fuel cost Potential reduction of $1,380,000
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 400,000 gallons
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $3.45/gallon
c) Other economic benefits
d) Alaska public benefits
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 10.62 – based on 20 year project life
Payback (years) 1.9 years – not considering any escalation in fuel prices
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 25 of 30 7/1//2011
Grant Budget Form
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round V Grant Budget Form: Phase III Activities 7-1-11 Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS Project scoping and contractor solicitation for planning and design 8/1/2012 $ 4,600 $ 400 Cash $ 5,000 Permit applications 8/1/2012 $ 18,400 $ 1,600 Cash $ 20,000 Final environmental assessment and mitigation plans 8/1/2012 $ 4,600 $ 400 Cash $ 5,000 Resolution of land use, right of way issues N/A Cash N/A Permit approvals 11/1/2012 $ 0 $ 0 Cash $ 0 Final system design and engineers cost estimates 12/15/2012 $ 59,800 $ 5,200 Cash $ 65,000 Updated economic and financial analysis 1/1/3013 $ 4,600 $ 400 Cash $ 5,000 Negotiated power sales agreements with approved rates N/A Cash N/A Final business and operational plan 1/1/2013 $ 4,600 $ 400 Cash $ 5,000 TOTALS $ 96,600 $ 8,400 $105,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ 4,600 $ 400 $ 5,000 Travel & Per Diem Equipment Materials & Supplies Contractual Services $ 92,000 $ 8,000 $ 100,000 Construction Services Other TOTALS $ 96,600 $ 8,400 $ 105,000 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round V Grant Budget Form: Phase IV Activities 7-1-11 Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS Confirmation that all design and feasibility requirements are complete. 1/1/2013 $ 4,600 $ 400 Cash $ 5,000 Completion of bid documents 1/15/2013 $ 2,300 $ 200 Cash $ 2,500 Contractor/vendor selection and award 2/15/2013 $ 0 Construction 10/1/2013 $ 1,253,300 $104,200 Cash $1,357,500 Integration and testing 9/1/2013 $ 1,015,600 $ 84,400 Cash $1,100,000 Decommissioning old systems 10/1/2013 $0 Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up 10/1/2013 $ 27,600 $ 2,400 Cash $30,000 Operations Reporting 10/1/2013 $ 0 TOTALS $ 2,303,400 $ 191,600 $ 2,495,000 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $ 1,084,000 $ 91,000 $ 1,175,000 Travel & Per Diem $ 0 Equipment $ 180,400 $ 14,600 $ 195,000 Materials & Supplies $ 513,600 $ 41,400 $555,000 Contractual Services $ 248,400 $ 21,600 $ 270,000 Construction Services $ 277,000 $ 23,000 $ 300,000 Other TOTALS $ 2,303,400 $ 191,600 $ 2,495,000 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 26 of 30 7/1//2011
Project Correspondence &
Letters of Support
BdnnerWind.,U.4CP(>Box1129,Nome,AK9762(907)443-2561ta\(007)443-3063August25,2011JohnHandelandNomeJointUtilitySystemP.O.Box70Nome,Alaska99762DearMr.Handeland:TheManagementBoardofBannerWind,LLC,isinreceiptofyourletterofAugust10,2011,andweappreciatethepresentationmadetodayupdatingtheBoardonNJUS’plansrelatingtowindgenerationoptimizationandexpansioninthecommunity.Wesharethedesiretoseethegreatestpossiblebenefitfromrenewableenergy,andarepleasedthatourowndevelopmenthasbenefittedthecommunitybyreducingitsrelianceonfossilfuels.And,webelieve,thecooperationbetweenNome/NJUSandBannercanserveasamodeltoothercommunitiesinthestate.Youadvised:1.NJUShascompletedaConceptualDesignReport(CDR)fortheinstallationofawindturbine(fundedbyRound1oftheState’sRenewableEnergyFund(REF)program).YourequestedBannerWindcommittogoodfaithdiscussionstowardreachinganagreementallowingNJUStoco-locateturbinesattheBannerWindSite.2.TheCDRidentifiedadditionalbenefitsfromrenewableenergythatcanbeachievedbyincorporatingadditionaldieselgeneratorsnotcurrentlyconnectedtoNome’snewPowerPlant,aswellastheadditionofasecondwindturbinebyNJUS.NJUSispreparingtwoREF-Round5applications:(1)NomeRenewableEnergyOptimizationProject,and(2)NomeRenewableEnergyExpansionProject.BannerWindhereby:1.CommitstogoodfaithdiscussionstowardreachinganagreementtoallowNJUStoco-locateturbinesattheBannerWindSite;2.ExpressesitssupportandendorsesNJUS’REF-Round5Applicationtooptimizewind-dieselbyupgradesproposedintheNomeRenewableEnergyOptimizationProjectgrantapplication;and
3.ExpressesitssupportandendorsesNJUS’REF-Round5ApplicationtoexpanduseofrenewableproposedintheNomeRenewableEnergyExpansionProjectgrantapplication.Sincerely,RoyshenfelterManagementBoardChairBannerWind,LLC2
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 28 of 30 7/1//2011
Authorized Signers Form
GrantDocumentsAuthorizedSignersPleaseclearlyprintortypeallsectionsofthisform.AuthorizedGrantSigner(s):PrintedNameTitleTermSignatureJohnKHandelandGM/COO-NJUS(regularemployee)wd..ghDeniseMichelsMayor2011fk_i-tNIauthorizetheaboveperson(s)tosignGrantDocuments:(Highestrankingorganization/community/municipalofficial)PrintedNameTitleTermSignatureDeniseMichelsMayor2011GranteeContactInformation:MailingAddress:P0Box70,Nome,AK99762PhoneNumber:(907)443-6587FaxNumber:(907)443-6336E-mailAddress:johnh(änius.orqFiscalYearEnd:12/31EntityType(For-profitornon-profitstatus):ComponentUnitofMunicipalGovernmentFederalTaxID#:92-0019767Pleasesubmitanupdatedformwheneverthereisachangetotheaboveinformation.Pleasereturntheoriginalcompletedformto:AlaskaEnergyAuthority813W.NorthernLightsBlvd.Anchorage,AK99503Attn:ButchWhite,GrantsAdministratorj5K___)ENERGYAUTHORITYC:\DocumentsandSettings\JohnH\Localsettings\TemporaryInternetFiles\Content.Outlook\EK3TEYS3\GrantDocumentsAuthOriZedSigflerS5.dOCCommunity/GranteeName:CITYOFNOMEdbaNOMEJOINTUTILITYSYSTEMRegularElectionisheld:Date:AnnualMunicipalElections1stTuesdayinOctoberAugust22,2011
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 29 of 30 7/1//2011
Governing Body
Resolution
NOMEJOINTUTILITYSYSTEMNOMEJOINTUTIUTYBOARDRESOLUTION11-09ARESOLUTIONAUTHORIZINGANDSUPPORTINGThERENEWABLEENERGYFUNDGRANTAPPUCATIONTOThEALASKAENERGYAUTHORITYFORWINDGENERATIONINNOMEWHEREAS,theCityofNomethroughtheNomeJointUtilitySystemownsandoperatestheelectricutilityforthecommunityofNome,Alaska;and,WHEREAS,thecostofdieselfuelinruralAlaskaisextraordinarilyexpensiveandNome/NIUShasbeenpursuingalternativestotheuseofdieselgenerationtoprovideelectricitytothecommunitywhichcanreducerelianceondieselfuelandthecostofelectricitytoresidentsandbusinessesofthecommunity;and,WHEREAS,theAlaskaStateLegislaturehasestablishedaRuralEnergyGrantFundandtheAlaskaEnergyAuthorityissolicitingproposalsforfundingofrenewableenergyprojectsonbehalfoftheStateofAlaska;and,WHEREAS,Nome/NJUSisdesirousofsubstitutingdiesel-generatedpowerwithwind-generatedpower;NOW,THEREFOREBEITRESOLVED,thattheNomeJointUtilityBoardauthorizesmanagementtosubmittheNomeRenewableEnergyFundWindProjectgrantapplicationtotheAlaskaEnergyAuthority;and,BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thatNJUSauthorizessubmittaloftheNomeRenewableEnergyFundWindProjectapplicationatthematchlevelsindicatedintheapplication;and,BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheNomeJointUtilityBoarddesignatesandauthorizestheUtilityManagerasChiefOperatingOfficertobethepointofcontacttorepresentNomeforpurposesoftheapplication;and,BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thatNJUSatteststhatitisincompliancewithallfederal,state,andlocallaws,includingexistingcreditandfederaltaxobligationsSIGNEDTHISDAYOFAUGUST,2011ATNOME,ALASKA.BerdaWillson,ChairmanNOMEJOINTUTILiTYBOARDA1TEST:DavidBarron,SecretaryNOMEJOINTUTILITYBOARD
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 30 of 30 7/1//2011
Conceptual Design Report
Nome Wind Farm
Conceptual Design Report
AEA Grant #: 2195438
August 19, 2011
Table of Contents
Project Progress Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 1
Revised Project Scope……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Revised Project Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 5
Revised Project Budget…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 7
Performance Modeling………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Preliminary Engineering Considerations…………..……………………………………………………………………. 12
List of Included Attachments………………………………………………………………………………….……………… 14
Project Progress Summary
Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) submitted its original grant application in October, 2008 for a 3 MW
wind installation; the originally proposed project was estimated at $15.5 million and a $4 million partial
award was offered by the State of Alaska. NJUS has been engaged in analysis to solidify project plans for
the use of awarded funding focusing analytical efforts on determining what project designs could be
implemented with the reduced funding and, of those considered, which would present the largest
benefit to the community.
NJUS has worked to identify a revised scope of work that would meet the following objectives:
1. Reduce overall diesel fuel consumption in the community of Nome
2. Stabilize and/or reduce the cost of electricity for NJUS rate payers
3. Ensure a high level of system stability that incorporates wind production already on the system
from the existing Banner Wind system
4. Identify a project design that would be expandable should additional funding become available
5. Minimize any long-term damage and increased maintenance costs to the Utility’s 5.2 MW
Wartsila diesel generators that results from operating lower on the output curves when wind
resources are available and being injected into the power grid
Essentially, NJUS has been working to answer the question: Under the current capital limitations due to
reduced funding being available, what project design would produce the greatest value to the
community of Nome?
After submitting the 2008 grant application, two separate MET towers were installed at the originally
proposed project site on Newton Peak. Both of these installed towers collapsed during icing events
before much data could be collected. While NJUS and project partners believe a strong wind resource
could be utilized at the originally proposed project site on Newton, alternate sites have been considered
as a result of the icing experiences with Newton MET towers. Additionally, the potential to utilize
existing infrastructure (power line, access) to reduce overall project costs was evaluated.
The most attractive alternate site option was determined to be on Banner Ridge in proximity to the
existing 18 turbine wind installation completed in 2008. NJUS completed the installation of new
distribution line to Banner Ridge during the wind farm’s construction which has a total transmission
capacity of approximately 3 MW. Project partners believe that the existing wind farm can be expanded
to include wind turbine generators installed through NJUS’ AEA grant award. Moreover, the wind
resource at this project site is documented, roads to and within the farm are sufficient to support
project transportation requirements, and transmission capacity exists on the installed distribution line to
support an additional 1.9 MW of wind generation equipment. Three of the turbines installed with the
Banner Ridge Project have been installed with enhanced wind measurement equipment. This data has
been reviewed in detail and is also in the process of being correlated with data from two new MET
towers installed by NJUS on Banner Ridge.
1
Since construction of the Banner Wind Farm in 2008, NJUS has also worked closely with Banner Wind
Farm managers to support the project’s integration with the Utility’s existing infrastructure. Integration
of the project’s 18 induction wind turbine generators (approximate 1.1 MW total generation capacity),
has primarily involved generation and load management system adjustments. While the Banner Wind
Farm has helped to reduce some diesel fuel usage by the Utility, NJUS believes the addition of Banner’s
WTGs has resulted in some reduced diesel generation efficiencies during periods of high wind
production and low community demand. NJUS utilizes two relatively new 5.2 MW diesel generators for
primary generation in the community. While efficiencies are reduced as loading on these generators
decline, NJUS believes that low loading scenarios are also resulting in premature wear that is currently
being experienced through unscheduled maintenance activities on these particular generator sets. This
situation has encouraged NJUS to incorporate power house modifications into the scope of work to
modify existing switchgear and capitalize on the use of other diesel generation assets. This work to be
completed can result in electrical demands and wind generated electricity supplies being more
efficiently managed and long term damage to these generator sets can be limited.
Finally, the performance of the Banner Wind installation has been closely monitored by all that have
some level of involvement with the NJUS grant award. These individuals have also followed both NJUS’
progress integrating the technology as well as the owner’s projections about expected benefits.
Decisions on how to proceed with the partial grant funding received through the State of Alaska have
been delayed as city officials evaluate progress with and operation of the Banner project to determine a
defined scope of work that can be completed with available capital resources as well as an overall
design that the community believes will be in their best interest.
With these considerations in mind, NJUS hired a research and analysis firm, DNV Renewables, to
evaluate community generation and wind resource data to develop project recommendations. This
work was completed through assistance from NJUS and its’ larger project team including Electric Power
Systems (electrical engineering and integration) and STG Incorporated (construction services). DNV’s
produced report (Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska) incorporates the latest
progress completed with the NJUS project, has been included as an attachment, and serves as a
supporting element to the revised scope of work detailed in this document.
2
Revised Project Scope
NJUS proposes to utilize awarded grant funds through the State of Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund
program to complete a project with a reduced scope in comparison to that contained in the Utility’s
original grant application. NJUS originally proposed to complete a 3 MW project consisting of five 600
KW Vestas RRB wind turbines in the application submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) on
October 8, 2008. As a result of capital constraints resulting from a partial award, NJUS proposes to
utilize the funds allocated through the AEA program along with additional match contributions, to
implement a smaller 900 KW project consisting of a single EWT 900 KW wind turbine and, if residual
funds are available, begin modifications to NJUS’ power plant. The reduced project scope offers these
specific benefits:
1. All project activities can be completed though the total funding amount allocated to NJUS
2. Diesel fuel usage at NJUS will be reduced by 560,000 gallons annually (a 15% reduction in total
consumption)
3. Reduced scope of work will limit integration complexity and costs
4. Project costs can be reduced through the utilization of existing energy system assets recently
installed in Nome (Banner Wind Farm, Banner Wind Farm Line Extension, NJUS Power Plant
Upgrade)
5. Project construction expenses can be reduced if work is completed by summer 2012
6. Wind farm could be expanded at a later date if additional funding is obtained and NJUS chooses
to implement a larger wind system
NJUS intends to install the wind turbine on Banner Ridge within proximity to the existing Banner Wind
Farm. NJUS also proposes to complete power plant renovations under the scope of this project to more
efficiently balance system generation assets with community demand. Integration activities associated
with the project’s scope of work include:
1. Integration of existing 1875 KW and 3660 KW diesel generators with new power plant. These
generators are currently operated periodically, but usually only on an emergency basis being
they are not fully integrated with Nome’s primary generation system. The 1875 kW generator is
to be moved from its current location inside of the old NJUS power plant, an air permit
requirement. It is now planned to be reinstalled in a new connected structure adjacent to the
3600 kW generator or inside of the new power plant. NJUS’ old power plant cannot be fully
decommissioned until the 1875 KW generator is removed from this existing facility.
2. Integration of existing 400 KW diesel generator. This generator is located within the new
powerhouse, but is not utilized for primary generation – serving primarily as an emergency
“black start” unit. Under the scope of this project, the set can be integrated with existing
switchgear and SCADA controls.
3. Modification of existing switchgear and SCADA systems in new power plant. Switchgear will be
reconfigured to integrate existing diesel generation sets from the old facility and more
efficiently manage electrical supply/demand requirements from all generation assets connected
to the NJUS system. Without integration, operation is limited as it requires additional personnel
to be present to operate and monitor the equipment in the off-site location.
3
NJUS plans to utilize the same project team described in the initial grant application and follow a similar
implementation plan as proposed, with one exception. Due to the reduced project size, project partners
believe that the originally proposed system stability equipment (fly-wheel) is no longer a necessary
project component. The project remains as a Phase III / Phase IV Project (Final Design and Construction)
and, depending on NJUS’ ability to obtain turbines, could be completed during 2012. The reduced scope
of the wind project is also expected to simplify the integration process for the engineering team.
Total project costs for the revised scope of work are estimated to be $6,442,000. This project has
advanced through conceptual design activities; however, some pre-construction activities remain. Initial
conceptual design and planning efforts were borne by NJUS and project partners, but NJUS intends to
utilize awarded grant funding to proceed with the implementation of this revised scope moving forward.
NJUS is requesting that AEA make available awarded funding to proceed with the project based on the
following:
AEA REF Grant Funds: $ 4,000,000
NJUS REF Committed Match: $ 444,444
Additional Capital Contributions required for Integration Activities: $ 2,020,000
Total Project Cost $ 6,464,444
The completed project is estimated to provide the community of Nome with 3,675 MWH of wind
generated electricity annually and is expected to provide a net displacement of approximately 560,000
gallons of diesel per year. Considering a current average avoided fuel cost of $3.75 per gallon, the
project is estimated to reduce fuel costs for the utility by $2,100,000 annually.
Other benefits of the project include the reduction of atmospheric pollution, potential tourism
development within the Nome area, a contribution towards decreased reliance on imported fossil fuels
(national security) and anticipated operating cost reductions, which will also reduce the State of Alaska’s
PCE payments to the community due to the reduced electricity costs.
NJUS also believes the original project design (in terms of total wind generation capacity) remains a
viable option for the community. NJUS will use awarded grant funds for the installation of a single 900
KW turbine.
NJUS is currently engaged in efforts to obtain additional funding to install additional project
components. As this additional funding is obtained, it will be utilized to procure and install additional
wind turbine generators and integration equipment (generator, switchgear modifications, operational
adjustments) that will maximize overall system efficiency and allow NJUS to receive greater benefits
from the project’s (and existing wind generation assets in the community) wind generated electricity.
4
Revised Project Schedule
An updated project schedule for the proposed revised scope of work can be found on the following
page.
5
6
Revised Project Budget
Project activities for the NJUS wind project are currently underway. As of August, 2011, conceptual
design portions of the project have been completed and NJUS is prepared to move forward with
implementation activities. The revised budget is reflective of a 2012 turbine delivery and construction
schedule. NJUS and project partners believe that significant cost savings can be realized through
reduced mobilization costs if construction can be completed during 2012. A 250 Ton crawler crane,
necessary for the erection work associated with the project, will be leaving from Kotzebue, Alaska at the
beginning of the 2012 season. This equipment is generally staged in Anchorage (or made available from
lower 48 crane service providers). By avoiding a lengthy mobilization from Anchorage or some other
location further south to Nome, significant savings can be obtained.
Total project costs are estimated to be $6,464,444 and can be separated as follows:
900 kW EWT Turbine w/75 M Tower F.O.B. Seattle $ 1,965,000
Estimated Project Logistics Costs $ 750,000
Estimated Project Construction $ 1,729,444
Total Wind Project Costs $ 4,444,444
Total Integration/Control Costs $ 2,020,000
Total Project Costs $ 6,464,444
Consistent with NJUS’/AEA’s grant agreement, the project budget is included below. A detailed
construction budget will be completed under the next set of project deliverables.
A
TOTAL GRANT
BUDGET
BY TASK OR MILESTONE
$ 200,000
$ 259,346
$ 3,885,098
$ 100,000
$ 4,444,444
BY BUDGET CATEGORIES
$ 25,000
$ 5,000
$ 429,346
Construction Services $ 3,985,098
$ 4,444,444
BY FUND SOURCES
$ 4,000,000
$ 444,444
Other Contributions
$ 4,444,444 TOTAL
Grant Funds (90%)
Grantee Match – Cash (10%)
Contractural Services
Travel
Materials & Supplies
TOTAL
Equipment
TOTAL
Direct Labor and Benefits
BUDGET SUMMARY
Milestone 1 (Reconnaissance/Study)
Milestone 2 (Final Design)
Milestone 3 (Construction)
Milestone 4 (Project Close-Out)
7
NJUS intends to utilize funding awarded through this award for the installation of a single EWT turbine.
NJUS will also concurrently pursue funding for completion of the remaining project activities (generator,
switchgear, system adjustments) while completing this single turbine installation.
8
Performance Modeling
During the 2011 spring season, NJUS contracted with DNV Renewables to complete an analysis of the
Utility’s existing wind-diesel system to identify areas where changes could be made to improve overall
system efficiency and reduce diesel fuel consumption in the community. The conclusions and
recommendations offered from this study have served as the basis for the proposed scope of work to be
completed with awarded grant funds.
DNV’s completed study is included as an attachment to this document. The study included analysis to
document performance from the existing Banner Ridge Wind Farm (correlated against wind data
obtained from the project site), historic diesel generation data provided by NJUS, three potential load
growth scenarios and currently available mid-sized wind turbines (500 kW – 1 MW) to evaluate future
contributions of wind generated electricity on the Utility’s system, and integration modifications that
could be made to increase overall system efficiency. A more detailed description of the utilized
assumptions and methodology can be found in the attachment; however, the study offered the
following conclusions:
If smaller sized diesel generators are not incorporated into the new powerhouse, the installation
of an additional wind turbine on Banner Peak will not result in significant additional diesel fuel
savings. One of the 5.2-MW Wartsila generators will still be in use at all times to supply the base
electric load. Operating time of the second 5.2-MW Wartsila will not be reduced significantly as
the second Wartsila is still needed during peak hours to provide spinning reserve in case wind
power production drops off-line.
Installation of one or both of the 1875 KW and 3660 KW diesel generators would eliminate the
need to operate the second 5.2-MW Wartsila during peak hours and would reduce the
operating hours of the primary Wartsila when the wind power output and smaller diesel
generator are able to supply the community demand.
Assuming additional sizes of diesel generators are integrated into the new powerhouse,
installation of an additional wind turbine on Banner Peak would lead to increased diesel fuel
savings of up to 5%, or approximately 100,000 gallons per year.
All cases considered result in maximum wind penetration levels of about 60% or less, which will
decrease as the community electric demand increases. In general, these penetration levels do
not require the addition of an electric dump load or energy storage device to maintain system
stability: however, we recommend that NJUS monitor the performance of the wind-diesel
system closely during initial operations and consider adding such devices if power quality
problems are experienced.
Many cases considered result in a reduction in the cost of electricity of up to 5 cents per kWh,
meaning that the fuel cost savings outweigh the capital cost and maintenance costs of
implementing each scenario. Additional benefits of reduced diesel fuel consumption, such as
reduced fuel storage requirements, reduced risks of spills, and reduced emissions, we not
included in this analysis.
9
While NJUS believes that additional wind generation assets can be added to their electrical system in a
safe and efficient manner, DNV’s initial analysis considered only single turbine installations due to
budget constraints. Of the turbines considered, the 900 KW EWT turbine presented the most favorable
economic results in the modeling exercise. Analysis was completed to evaluate EWT turbine
performance with both 50M and 75M tower options. At the request of AEA, additional analysis was also
completed to evaluate the costs and benefits of installing a second turbine through the project. Cost
quotes were obtained from EWT and DNV executed additional analysis to complete the AEA request.
This work revealed the following:
Base Price for EWT Turbine w/ 50M Tower F.O.B. Seattle: $ 1,715,000
Base Price for EWT Turbine w/ 75M Tower F.O.B. Seattle: $ 1,965,000
Price Difference for Tower Options: $ 250,000
Annual fuel savings generated through 25M increase in tower height: 16,000 Gallons
Benefit/Cost Ratio for Tower Upgrade: 6.27*
Simple Payback for Tower Upgrade: 3.1 Years*
Based on budgetary limitations, the project team believes that the best project design to pursue with
currently available grant funds is the single turbine option on a 75M tower. NJUS also agrees with DNV
recommendations that additional integration activities (modification of existing diesel generation
system and switchgear) should also be completed to support more efficient/productive utilization of
wind generation equipment installed through this project. Funding for system integration activities will
be pursued concurrently with the implementation of the scope of work defined in this project
(installation of WTG).
A Benefit/Cost summary of project components can be found below:
Estimated Cost for Wind Turbine Installation: $ 4,444,000
Estimated Cost for Integration Activities: $ 2,020,000
Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 6,464,000
Annual Fuel Savings from single EWT Turbine Installation: 144,000 Gal
Additional Annual Fuel Savings from Integration Activities: 400,000 Gal
Total Estimated Annual Fuel Savings: 544,000 Gal
Benefit/Cost Ratio for Wind Turbine Installation: 3.18*
Benefit/Cost Ratio for Integration Activities: 19.41*
Benefit/Cost Ratio for Complete Project: 8.3*
Simple Payback for Wind Turbine Installation: 6.3 Years*
Simple Payback for Integration Activities: 1.0 Years*
Simple Payback for Complete Project: 2.4 Years*
Once installed and with the existing WTGs already operational on Banner Ridge, an average wind energy
penetration level of 7% is expected for the NJUS system. Considering the total possible wind generation
on Nome’s distribution grid, the minimum reported loads for the community, and projected load growth
10
scenarios, the maximum wind penetration level for the Nome system has been estimated at 42%. These
average and maximum instantaneous wind power contribution levels indicate that the proposed scope
of work will result in a low penetration system.
Greater details regarding energy contributions of the proposed wind system can be found in the
attached DNV analysis.
* Calculations based on an avoided fuel price of $4.90/gallon and a 20 year project life.
11
Preliminary Engineering Considerations
Civil Engineering
Project partners believe that the utilization of Banner Ridge as an installation site offers significant
benefits through an ability to expand upon existing infrastructure. Some civil works will be required to
provide minor improvements to existing roadways on the mountain itself, but the project will be able to
utilize existing electrical distribution lines previously constructed for the Banner Wind Farm. The
specific location for the proposed installation is included in the attached site plan and project partners
believe that site control can be negotiated and obtained relatively quickly.
NJUS and Banner Wind, a LLC comprised of the Sitnasuak Native Corporation and Bering Straits Native
Corporation, are currently engaged in discussions to enter in to a land agreement to allow installation of
NJUS turbines at the Banner site. Documentation of this progress is included in the attached
correspondence between NJUS and Banner Wind.
While the exact installation site is not finalized, project partners believe the EWT installation could be
completed at the existing site of WTG1 of the Banner Ridge Wind Farm. Over the past winter, WTG2 of
the Banner Farm was destroyed during a high wind event though the tower remains intact. NJUS and
Banner Wind are currently evaluating the possibility of moving the turbine currently installed at site
WTG1 to the WTG2 tower after which the existing WTG1 tower and foundation would be demolished.
Following this activity, the proposed EWT turbine would be installed at this location and tied into
existing distribution infrastructure.
Regardless of the final installation site, all efforts will be made to utilize existing infrastructure to the
greatest extent possible to reduce total project costs.
Geotechnical Engineering
Geotechnical conditions are expected to be similar to those documented during 2008 study at the
Banner Wind Farm Site. Approximately 25 test borings were drilled during the execution of this
previous study which consistently revealed relatively shallow bedrock depths between 5-15 feet across
the project site. Project partners believe that similar findings will be encountered when the proposed
project site is drilled. If this new geotechnical investigation/analysis reveals similar conditions to those
previously documented on Banner Ridge, the project team believes a foundation solution consisting of
either poured or pre-cast concrete with appropriate bedrock connections will provide adequate support
for the EWT turbine.
Geotechnical investigation/drilling has been scheduled for the fall, 2011 season pending agreement to
utilize the existing WTG1 site. If the existing WTG1 site can be utilized, it is possible that previously
completed geotechnical investigations can be used to complete structural designs.
12
Structural Engineering
The foundation design will be determined after geotechnical study at the proposed site is completed.
The final design is expected to be similar to what was deployed at Sand Point, Alaska to support an
installation of Vestas V-39 turbines. It is anticipated that BBFM Engineers will complete all of the
project’s structural engineering work. BBFM completed structural engineering work for the existing
Banner Ridge Wind Farm along with the foundation design for EWT turbines being installed in Kotzebue,
Alaska during 2012. BBFM also completed the foundation design for the referenced V-39 project in
Sand Point.
The foundation design for the Sand Point installation is included as an attachment and is for reference
purposes only. A review of existing geotechnical information along with some cost comparisons for
available options will be required to make a final determination as to the most appropriate foundation
solution for the project site. The development of foundation designs will begin after geotechnical
analysis is completed.
Electrical Engineering
Minor distribution system adjustments will be required to be completed at the project site. Integration
design for the modification of existing switchgear will begin during the fall, 2011 season.
13
List of Included Attachments
1. Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome Alaska
2. Report Addendum – FSRP0084-B Letter Report Update 20110616
3. Banner Ridge Geotechnical Analysis (8/23/2008)
4. Preliminary (potential) Foundation Design (BBMF V-39 project)
5. Preliminary Project Site Plan
6. NJUS/Banner Wind Correspondence
14
ATTACHMENT 1
Analysis of Wind Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Report No.: FSRP0084‐B
May 23, 2011
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System
in Nome, Alaska
CONFIDENTIAL
STG Incorporated
11820 South Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
DNV Report No.: FSRP0084-B
May 23, 2011
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 ii
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 iii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
2 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................1
3 PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF EXISTING WIND-DIESEL SYSTEM....................1
4 MODELING SCENARIOS...............................................................................................4
5 ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELING INPUTS................................................................5
5.1 Electric Load...............................................................................................................5
5.2 Diesel Generators and Diesel Fuel..............................................................................6
5.3 Wind Turbines ............................................................................................................7
5.4 Turbine Energy Losses ...............................................................................................9
5.5 Wind Resource..........................................................................................................10
5.6 Electric Dump Load..................................................................................................10
5.7 Energy Storage Options and Operating Reserve ......................................................11
6 MODELING RESULTS..................................................................................................11
6.1 Base Case..................................................................................................................12
6.2 Installation of a Smaller Diesel Generators at the New Powerhouse.......................12
6.3 Installation of Additional Wind Turbines.................................................................15
6.4 Demand-Side Management.......................................................................................20
7 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................20
Appendix A Diesel Fuel Curves
Tables
Table 3-1. Duration of Low Load Operation of 5.2-MW Wartsila Diesel Generators...............4
Table 5-1. Electric Load Growth Cases Considered...................................................................6
Table 5-2. Diesel Generator Options Considered.......................................................................7
Table 5-3. Wind Turbine Models Considered............................................................................8
Table 5-4. Estimated System Energy Losses..............................................................................9
Table 6-1. Performance Summary of Existing Power System .................................................12
Table 6-2. Comparison of Wind-Diesel System Options with Addition of Smaller Sized
Diesel Generators......................................................................................................................14
Table 6-3. Comparison of Wind-Diesel Options with Installation of Additional Wind
Turbines....................................................................................................................................16
Figures
Figure 3-1. Daily Electric Demand Profiles by Month for Nome, 2010 ...........................................3
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 1
1 INTRODUCTION
STG Incorporated (STG) retained DNV to evaluate the performance of the existing wind-diesel
hybrid power system in Nome, Alaska, and provide technical support in evaluating options for
improving the overall efficiency of the power system. This scope of work is governed by the
Master Services Agreement dated February 1, 2011, and Task Order Agreement 2 dated
February 3, 2011. This report presents the assumptions, methodology, and results of our analysis.
2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
In October 2008, DNV completed a preliminary energy estimate for a potential 3.6-MW wind
power project to be located on Newton Peak, in Nome, Alaska. As a result of the report, STG
and Nome’s utility provider, Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS), applied to the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) for grant funding to implement the wind energy project.
Meanwhile, in December 2008 the Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native
Corporation commissioned the Banner Wind Farm, a wind power plant located on Banner Peak,
also located in Nome approximately 1.5 miles west of Newton Peak. The Banner Wind Farm has
an installed capacity of 1.2 MW and is operated by Western Community Energy, LLC. Power is
sold to NJUS via a power sales agreement.
Current funding available to NJUS is limited to approximately $4.45 million, which is
insufficient to implement the originally proposed 3.6-MW Newton Peak wind project. NJUS is
interested in using the available AEA funding to improve the overall efficiency of the existing
wind-diesel power system, expand utilization of wind energy in Nome, if possible, and reduce
the cost of electricity in the community. To assist in this effort, DNV has evaluated operating
data from the existing power system to identify areas where efficiency could be improved.
Options for modifying the power system, including integration of different sizes of diesel
generators at the NJUS power plant or additional wind turbines at Banner Peak were evaluated to
estimate fuel savings of the various options.
3 PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF EXISTINGWIND-DIESEL SYSTEM
The existing power system in Nome consists of the new NJUS diesel powerhouse, the old NJUS
diesel powerhouse, and the Banner Wind Farm. The new powerhouse contains two Wartsila
diesel generators rated at 5.2 MW each, which typically alternate to supply the community
electric demand, and a 400 kW Caterpillar unit that is used only as an emergency starting unit in
the case of a blackout.
The old powerhouse contains two Caterpillar diesel generators rated at 3660 kW and 1875 kW
that are still in use. The 3660 kW unit is used during the summer in the morning hours instead of
the 5.2-MW unit when the community electric demand is low. The 1875 kW unit is used for
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 2
supplying peak loads during winter afternoons when the community demand exceeds the
capacity of one of the 5.2-MW Wartsila generators. These units are physically located in the old
powerhouse building and are not integrated into the new powerhouse switchgear or supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. When in use, they must be manually operated and
monitored.
The Banner Wind Farm consists of 18 Entegrity eW15 wind turbines rated at 66 kW each.
According to NJUS, the addition of the Banner Wind Farm has reduced the electric demand at
the new powerhouse, which results in the Wartsila diesel generators operating at loads below the
level recommended by the manufacturer.
NJUS provided a year of electric generation data representing the power production from the
new powerhouse, old powerhouse, and wind power plant on a 10-minute average basis. The data
are illustrated in Figure 3-1. In addition, Western Community Energy, LLC provided 1 year of
10-minute wind speed data as recorded from heated anemometers mounted at a height of 19 m
on 3 separate wind turbine towers.
Based on a review of the data, DNV offers the following conclusions.
The Banner Wind Farm energy production is lower than what would be expected given
the wind resource. DNV calculated the expected gross output of the Banner Wind Farm
based on the measured wind data, an assumed wind shear value of 0.14, and the
published power curve of the eW15 turbine. We applied a 24% reduction in gross output
due to expected energy loss factors, such as turbine availability, electrical line losses,
wake losses, and other factors. The actual energy delivered to the NJUS powerhouse is
approximately 65% of the expected net output.
The Banner Wind Farm represents a small fraction of Nome’s total electric generation
requirements. The measured powerhouse data show that the Banner Wind Farm currently
supplies 1% to 7% of Nome’s electricity needs on a monthly average basis and about 2%
on an annual basis. In ideal conditions, the maximum possible wind farm output is
1.2 MW. The minimum electric demand in Nome is 2 MW, which occurs during early
summer hours. Therefore, if the maximum wind output occurs during the minimum
electric demand, the maximum instantaneous wind contribution level is 60%, which is
considered to be a low instantaneous penetration level that has minimal impact on system
stability. According to NJUS, the power system has not experienced any power system
stability issues due to excessive voltage or frequency fluctuations that might be caused by
higher wind penetration levels.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 3
February
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
April
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
June
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
July
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
August
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourof Day
October
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
November
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourof Day
December
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourof Day
Daily Electric Demand with Max/Min Hourly Values
Daily Banner Wind Power Output with Max/ Min Hourly Values
January
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
September
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
May
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
March
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hour of Day
Figure 3-1. Daily Electric Demand Profiles by Month for Nome, 2010
The 1875 kW diesel generator in the old powerhouse is currently used only in December,
January, February, and March during the afternoons when the electric demand exceeds
the capacity of a single 5.2-MW generator. When used, the old powerhouse typically is
required to operate for up to 10 hours between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. at an output of
up to 800 kW. During a typical winter day, this amounts to approximately 2500 kWh of
energy on average and up to 7500 kWh on a high energy consumption day. To avoid
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 4
using the second 5.2-MW generator, this amount of energy would need to be supplied by
an energy storage device, by wind-generated electricity, or by energy efficiency/demand-
side management techniques.
The electric demand in Nome has a strong diurnal profile. During a typical winter day
electric demand ranges from 4 MW in the morning to over 5 MW in the afternoon and
evening. During a typical summer day, electric demand ranges from 2.5 to 4 MW from
morning to evening. As a result of this daily electric profile, the 5.2-MW diesel generator
operates between 70% and 98% of its rated power during a typical winter day and
between 50% and 80% of rated power during a typical summer day. Due to power
production from the Banner Wind Farm, the electric demand on this diesel generator is
occasionally reduced to 30% of rated power. Ideally, the 5.2-MW diesel generators
would consistently operate above 75% of rated power and only occasionally and briefly
operate below that level. Table 3-1 indicates that the 5.2-MW generators currently
operate below the manufacturer-recommended 75% level during over 4,000 hours per
year. Reducing these hours at low load would help extend the useful life of the generators
and improve overall diesel efficiency.
Table 3-1. Duration of Low Load Operation of 5.2-MW Wartsila Diesel Generators
Load on Wartsila
Generator
Number of Operating
Hours per Year
<30% rated output 10
<60% rated output 1330
<75% rated output 4380
4 MODELING SCENARIOS
Based on the current performance of the Nome power system, modifications to the system
should address the following goals:
1) Reduce overall diesel fuel consumption in Nome
2) Stabilize or reduce the cost of electricity for NJUS customers
3) Ensure the ability of the diesel power system to incorporate future wind-generated
electricity (if output from the Banner Wind Farm improves and/or additional wind
turbines are installed)
4) Minimize long-term damage to the 5.2-MW Wartsila diesel generators by reducing
occurrences of operation below the minimum recommended load level
DNV identified the following power system configuration modifications that could address one
or more of the goals listed above.
Incorporation of smaller-sized diesel generators at the new powerhouse.According
to NJUS, the new powerhouse was designed based on a high expected electrical demand
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 5
from operation and expansion of the Rock Creek Mine. The mine, while constructed,
only operated for a brief period of time and expansion did not materialize. Therefore, the
diesel generators in the new powerhouse are oversized and not well matched to the
community demand. Addition of wind-generated electricity exacerbates the problem by
further reducing the load on the 5.2-MW diesel generators. Installation of different sized
generators would add flexibility to match the fluctuating community demand and wind
power output and improve overall system efficiency. Space is available in the new
powerhouse for additional diesel generators, and the smaller generators currently located
in the old powerhouse could be incorporated into the new powerhouse to expand the mix
of sizes available.
Installation of additional wind turbines.Wind turbines would help to reduce diesel fuel
consumption and provide a hedge against rising fuel costs. The existing Banner Wind
Farm represents a small wind contribution level, and the existing power system
infrastructure could likely accept additional wind power output with minimal
modification to the existing system.
Implementation of demand-side management techniques.Shifting electric
consumption during peak hours to non-peak hours would allow the 5.2 MW Wartsila
generator to operate at more efficient levels during non-peak hours while eliminating the
need to use a second diesel generator during peak hours. Demand-side management
techniques could include energy efficiency measures, creating incentives in the
community to complete energy-intensive tasks during non-peak hours, or shutting off
non-essential loads when peak demand exceeds a certain level.
5 ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELING INPUTS
DNV used the software program HOMER to model the hybrid wind-diesel power system options
under consideration. HOMER compares the output of the wind turbines with the electric load of
the community during each time step and dispatches the appropriate diesel generator to make up
any difference in power needs. The minimum loading of the diesel engines, the diesel-fuel
efficiency curves, and the required spinning reserve are also taken into consideration to calculate
the fuel consumption of the system. Inputs into the model include the local wind resource, the
wind turbine power curve, the community’s hourly electric load, diesel dispatch strategy, and
diesel generator fuel curves. The HOMER model does not consider short-term power
fluctuations caused by system dynamics or component transients. The sections below summarize
the modeling inputs and assumptions made.
5.1 Electric Load
NJUS supplied 10-minute power production data from January 1, 2010, through December 31,
2010. The power production data represent Nome’s total electric demand and includes energy
supplied by the new powerhouse, the old powerhouse, and the Banner Wind Farm. Based on
these data, NJUS currently uses approximately 2.6 million gallons of diesel fuel and generates
over 35 GWh of electricity per year.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 6
According to NJUS, the electric demand in Nome has been growing by about 2% per year. In
addition, a new hospital is under development in Nome and is expected to increase the electric
demand on the powerhouse by an annual average of approximately 400 kW. Resumed operations
and expansion of the Rock Creek Mine may further increase the electric demand on the NJUS
powerhouse, although the magnitude and timing of the increase is unknown. For the purpose of
this analysis, the measured 2010 electric load data were used in the model as the baseline electric
load level in Nome. Medium and high electric load levels based on the addition of the hospital,
annual load growth, and expansion of the mine (1 MW average load) were modeled as sensitivity
cases.
Table 5-1. Electric Load Growth Cases Considered
Electric Load Case Description
Average
Electric Load
Annual Energy
Consumption (MWh/yr)
Baseline/ Low-load Measured 2010 electric usage 4.0 MW 35,000
Medium-load Baseline plus 2% annual growth over
20 years 6.0 MW 52,500
High-load
Baseline plus 2% annual load growth for
20 years, hospital (400 kW average), and
mine expansion (1 MW average)
7.4 MW 65,700
5.2 Diesel Generators and Diesel Fuel
Additional space has been allocated in the new powerhouse for the installation of additional
diesel generators if needed. Table 5-2 summarizes the existing 5.2-MW Wartsila diesel
generators and the additional options that are available to be relocated and incorporated into the
new powerhouse system.
According to NJUS, in order for the diesel generators in the old powerhouse to be incorporated
into the wind-diesel power system, automated switchgear must be installed and the units may
need to be relocated to the new powerhouse in order to better control and monitor the units. The
estimated cost of integrating these units, based on information obtained from Electric Power
System Inc., is listed in Table 5-2. Fuel curves for each diesel generator are provided in
Appendix A.
Although the minimum recommended load on the Wartsila generators is 75% of rated output, the
fuel curve indicates that the generator operates efficiently as low as 50% of rated power. In the
modeling analysis, a minimum load of 65% of rated power is specified. The minimum load of
the Caterpillar generators is specified at 65% of rated power.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 7
Table 5-2. Diesel Generator Options Considered
Description Rating
Minimum Load
(% of rated
capacity)
Cost to
Integrate
into New
Powerhouse
Estimated
Operating Hours
between Major
Overhauls
Cost of
Major
Overhaul
O&M Cost
($/hour of
operation)
Wartsila #15 5211 kW 3390 kW (65%) N/A 50,000 $500,000 $8
Wartsila #16 5211 kW 3390 kW (65%) N/A 50,000 $500,000 $8
#12 Caterpillar
3616 3,660 kW 2380 kW (65%) $500,000 40,000 $375,000 $8
#14 Caterpillar
3516B-LS 1,875 kW 1220 kW (65%) $1,500,000 33,000 $100,000 $5
#18 Caterpillar
3456B 400 kW 260 kW (65%) $20,000 15,000 $36,000 $5
According to NJUS, the delivered price of diesel fuel for the year 2011 is expected to be $3.75
per gallon, and fuel prices are expected to increase annually at a rate of 2%. In the model, we
assumed a fixed price of $4.90 per gallon over the 20-year life of the project.
5.3 Wind Turbines
The Banner Wind Farm currently consists of 18 Entegrity eW15 wind turbines that are rated at
50 kW but can reach a power output of 66 kW. The turbines are installed on lattice towers with a
hub height of 24 m. As stated previously, output from the Banner Wind Farm to date has been
lower than expected. To simulate this reduced production level in the model, we assumed that only
11 out of the 18 installed Entegrity wind turbines are available for operation at any given time.
Table 5-3 summarizes the additional wind turbine models considered in this analysis. NJUS has
stated a preference for wind turbines with a rated capacity of at least 400 kW to minimize the
installed footprint of the wind project. The manufacturer-provided power curves were adjusted to
the site average air density of 1.26 kg/m3 and are listed in Appendix A.
Aeronautica is a U.S.-based wind turbine manufacturer that offers a 750 kW wind turbine with a
rotor diameter of 54 m. These turbines were originally designed and manufactured by the Danish
company Danwin (now Norwin A/S). Although many of the Danwin turbines were installed in
California in the 1980s, DNV is not aware of any Aeronautica-manufactured turbines currently
installed in the U.S. Aeronautica’s manufacturing facility is located in New Hampshire and their
headquarters are located in Massachusetts.
RRB Energy Limited (formerly Vestas RRB India Ltd) is a wholly owned Indian company that
obtained rights to manufacture the 600 kW wind turbine designed by the Danish company Vestas
Wind Systems, which is a leading turbine manufacturer. Although RRB Energy provides wind
turbines primarily to the India market and the technical specifications list the generator output
frequency at 50 Hz, DNV is aware of at least one installation of a 60 Hz RRB Energy turbine in
the U.S. RRB Energy does not have offices in North America.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 8
The EWT54 is a 900 kW wind turbine with 54-m rotor diameter manufactured by Emergya
Wind Technologies, based in the Netherlands. Emergya licensed the turbine technology from the
Danish company Lagerwey. Emergya’s North American office is located in Minnesota.
Table 5-3. Wind Turbine Models Considered
Description Rating Installed Cost Annual O&M Cost Hub Height
RRB Energy PS-600 600 kW $3,600,000 $40,000 55 m
Aeronautica 47-750 750 kW $4,500,000 $40,000 50 m
Emergya EWT54 900 kW $5,400,000 $40,000 50 m, 75 m
All turbines considered, excluding the existing Entegrity units, are 3-bladed, upwind, horizontal-
axis designs with active blade pitch control that allows for adjustment of the blade operating
angle to optimize energy capture and to provide a primary mode of braking for the rotor. The
rotor is attached to a nacelle, which contains the main shaft, generator, mechanical brake, active
yaw components, controllers and some lightning protection. The Aeronautica and RRB Energy
turbines include a gearbox in the nacelle; the rotor of the Emergya turbine directly drives the
generator without the use of a gearbox. The nacelle is mounted on a tubular steel tower that
includes access ladders, platforms, internal lighting, and safety equipment. The Entegrity units
are 3-bladed, downwind, horizontal-axis designs with fixed blade pitch that use blade tip flaps
for braking. These units are mounted on lattice towers.
The Entegrity, Aeronautica, and RRB Energy wind turbines use induction generators that
consume reactive power, which must be supplied by the diesel generators or other external
equipment. If wind penetration levels are high enough, this demand for reactive power can
overwhelm the capacity of the diesel generator and cause voltage instability and a poor power
factor. NJUS has stated that they have not experienced any grid stability issues with the current
level of output from the Entegrity turbines at the Banner Wind Farm; however, if additional
turbines with induction generators are added to the system, additional balance of plant equipment
may be required, such as capacitors or a synchronous condenser, to maintain system stability. In
contrast, the EWT54 wind turbine utilizes a synchronous generator and integrated power
electronics that allow the turbine to export unity power factor AC power and to supply reactive
power to the grid if desired.
For all turbine models, DNV estimated an installed cost of $6,000 per kW of rated capacity and
operations and maintenance costs of $40,000 per turbine per year over the 20-year design life of
the turbines, which includes scheduled maintenance activities as well as an allowance for
unscheduled maintenance and repair.
DNV has not specifically evaluated the listed turbine models and hub heights in terms of
availability for delivery to northern Alaska, suitability for the project site and climatic
conditions, or long-term reliability. Site suitability should be evaluated by the turbine
manufacturer and/or an independent engineer to confirm that the conditions the proposed
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 9
turbines may experience at the project site do not exceed the loading conditions for which the
turbine was designed and certified.
5.4 Turbine Energy Losses
The wind turbine power curves represent the gross energy delivered at the base of the wind
turbine towers under ideal conditions for a given wind speed. Net energy production takes into
account typical losses and represents the energy delivered to the grid interconnection point for a
typical (average) year. Exact losses can vary significantly from project to project and are
strongly influenced by factors such as equipment reliability, owner/operator’s approach to
maintenance and repairs, turbine and subcomponent supplier responsiveness, and site conditions.
DNV evaluated each potential area of energy loss in the Nome wind power system and estimated
a correction factor to be applied to the projected diesel-fuel savings calculated by the HOMER
model, which otherwise assumes 100% turbine availability and zero system losses. Aggregate
energy losses are estimated to be 24% for the site, as listed in Table 5-4. Estimated values are
long-term averages over an expected 20-year project life. Year to year losses, particularly
availability, can fluctuate significantly.
Table 5-4. Estimated System Energy Losses
Description
Losses
(% of Energy)
Correction
Factor
Availability 11%0.89
Electrical 2%0.98
Turbine Performance 2%0.98
Environmental 7%0.93
Wake Effects 3%0.97
Curtailment 1%0.99
Total 24%0.76
Availability is the percent of time during the year that the wind turbines are online and available
to produce power. Factors affecting turbine availability include downtime due to routine
maintenance, faults, and minor or major component failures. Electrical losses represent the
difference between energy measured at each wind turbine and the point of revenue metering,
including transformers, collection wiring, and parasitic consumption within the wind turbines.
Turbine performance losses include a variety of issues related to the normal control of the wind
turbine that prevent performance in accordance with the reference power curve. These issues
include high-wind hysteresis (production lost during the time it takes to recover from automatic
high-wind shutdowns), low-wind hysteresis (startup and cut-in), off-yaw operations, and
turbulence. Environmental losses include weather-related shutdowns to avoid hail, lightning, or
other storm damage, reduced site access due to inclement weather conditions, and shut downs
due to ambient temperatures outside the turbine’s operating range. Also included in this category
is blade soiling and degradation, which occurs with the accumulation of dirt, insects, or ice,
impacts the aerodynamics of the blades, thus lowering production. Wake effects refer to lost
energy production caused by turbines located downwind of other turbines. Curtailment includes
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 10
commanded shutdowns related to wind sector management, losses due to the power purchaser
electing to not take power generated by the facility, and altered operations to reduce noise or for
bird mitigation.
Since each loss category is independent of the other categories, total losses are calculated by
multiplying each system loss correction factor to result in a total correction factor of 0.76.
HOMER does not incorporate energy losses into the power system model. As discussed above,
the actual energy losses from the Banner Wind Farm are taken into account by reducing the
number of Entegrity wind turbines included in the model. For the other wind turbine models
considered, the amount of diesel fuel displaced by the addition of these turbines and the resulting
cost of energy savings is reduced by the loss correction factor of 0.76. Therefore, the results
presented in this report include the expected energy losses summarized above.
5.5 Wind Resource
Western Community Energy, LLC provided 1 year of 10-minute wind speed data as recorded
from heated anemometers mounted at a height of 19 m on 3 separate wind turbine towers. The
data indicated an annual average wind speed of 6.0 m/s at a height of 19 m above ground level.
Although the quality of the wind speed data is marginal due to low data recovery rates and wake
effects from the wind turbine towers, in absence of other site-specific wind resource information,
this data set offers a reasonable baseline estimate of the wind speeds on Banner Peak.
Based on previous wind studies in the area1, the weather station at the Nome airport does not
provide a strong correlation to wind speeds around Banner Peak and is therefore not useful as a
long-term reference station. Lacking a long-term reference station, the one year of measured data
on Banner Peak cannot be adjusted to represent long-term trends. The Alaska wind map indicates
that the long-term annual average wind speed on Banner Peak ranges from 6.1 to 7.7 m/s at a
height of 19 m above ground level based on a wind shear of 0.14. Based on this information, we
used a conservative annual average wind speed of 6.0 m/s at a height of 19 m above ground level
in the model and adjusted the 10-minute wind speed measurements to the various hub heights
considered using a wind shear value of 0.14. We note that there is a high degree of uncertainty in
scaling the estimated wind resource from a height of 19 m to expected turbine hub heights up to
75 m above ground level. At least one year of on-site measurements at multiple heights above
ground level up to a minimum of 50 m in height would help to reduce the uncertainty of the wind
resource estimate at the proposed wind turbine sites.
5.6 Electric Dump Load
In northern climates, it is common to install an electric boiler with fast-acting electric resistive
heaters to help stabilize the frequency of the power system by absorbing excess electricity
resulting from wind gusts. The electric resistive heater also helps to minimize short-term power
fluctuations experienced by the diesel generators. The heat generated by the excess wind
electricity can be incorporated into the diesel generator heat recovery loop, which can
1 “Preliminary Energy Assessment for Nome Wind Energy Project”, DNV Global Energy Concepts, dated October 6, 2008.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 11
supplement the community heating system. Alternatively, an electric boiler could be installed at
the location where the heat is needed.
Incorporation of additional wind power into the Nome power system would result in low to
medium wind penetration levels. At these lower wind penetration levels, the installation of an
electric dump load and associated automated controls may not be required to maintain system
stability. An electric boiler could provide supplemental heat to the community water system
when wind power output is high and the diesel generators are operating at low load; however,
utilization of an electric boiler in a low-penetration system will likely not have a significant
impact on overall diesel fuel savings in the community. DNV recommends additional analysis
during final system design and/or monitoring of the expanded wind-diesel system during the
initial year of operation to determine if an electric dump load is required to maintain system
stability and to reduce large power excursions experienced by the diesel generators. For the
purpose of this report, the cost of an electric dump load and associated controls was not included
in this analysis.
5.7 Energy Storage Options and Operating Reserve
Typically, energy storage only proves economically beneficial in medium- to high-penetration
wind-diesel systems where one or more diesel generators can be shut down when the wind power
output is high enough to supply the community demand. In these systems, the storage device
provides the required operating reserve during diesel-off operation. If there is a brief dip in wind
power generation or if the wind turbines trip offline, the energy storage device supplies any
needed power just long enough (typically about 10 minutes) for the appropriate diesel generator
to start and take over supplying the load. The primary energy storage devices commercially
available include flywheels, ultra-capacitors, and batteries. Low-load diesel generators can also
serve as spinning reserve while consuming a minimal amount of diesel fuel.
For Nome, all system options considered in this analysis would result in low wind penetration
systems where at least one diesel generator will remain in operation at all times regardless of the
output of the wind turbines. Energy storage is not required if sufficient operating reserve can be
provided by the diesel generators. For the purpose of this analysis, the amount of operating
reserve required is calculated as 5% of the electric demand plus 50% of the wind farm output at
any given time. Enough operating reserve will be in place in the form of online diesel generators
to serve the electric load in the event that the electric demand increases by 5% and the wind
output drops by 50% at any time. Thus, the cost of energy storage devices is not included in this
analysis.
6 MODELING RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the HOMER modeling completed for each power system
option evaluated. The primary metrics for comparing the different power system options are the
diesel fuel savings in the community and the cost of energy savings. Results are based on the
modeling assumptions described above; any changes to the assumptions will impact the results.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 12
6.1 Base Case
The current power system in Nome consists of two 5.2-MW Wartsila diesel generators and the
Banner Wind Farm and represents the base case scenario for this analysis. Since the diesel
generators in the old powerhouse have not yet been incorporated into the new powerhouse and
SCADA system, they are excluded from the base case scenario. Table 6-1 summarizes the
performance of the existing power system under the low-, medium-, and high-load growth
scenarios. Fuel consumption of other power system options evaluated in the following sections is
compared to the baseline numbers in Table 6-1 to determine fuel savings. Note that the minimum
allowable load on the 5.2-MW Wartsila generators is reduced from 65% to 50% for the base case
scenario to more closely replicate the current operating strategy employed by NJUS.
Table 6-1. Performance Summary of Existing Power System
Wind
Turbines
Diesel Generator
Operating Hours
Load
Growth
Scenario eW151 66 kW 5211 kW 5211 kW
Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(gallons/year)
Annual Wind
Energy
Contribution2
Maximum
Wind
Penetration3
Low 11 8760 660 2,500,000 4%27%
Medium 11 8760 7170 3,770,000 3%18%
High 11 8760 8670 4,700,000 2%15%
1. Based on the performance history of the Banner Wind Farm, it is assumed in the model that 11 out of the 18 currently installed eW15 wind
turbines are available for operation at any given time.
2. Annual wind energy contribution is calculated as the annual electricity produced by the wind turbines divided by the total annual electricity
consumption of the community.
3. Maximum wind penetration is calculated as the maximum combined output of the wind turbines divided by the minimum electric load in the
community. A maximum wind penetration above 60% is generally considered to be a medium-penetration system that may require additional
balance of plant equipment to maintain power system stability.
As shown, with the current level of electric demand, the existing power system consumes
approximately 2.5 million gallons of diesel fuel. A single 5.2-MW Wartsila generator is
sufficient for supplying the electric load during the majority of the year. The second Wartsila is
needed for supplying peak loads during approximately 700 hours per year. During this time, both
Wartsilas operate at 50% load. Under the medium- and high-load growth scenarios, both
Wartsila generators are in operation most of the time.
6.2 Installation of a Smaller Diesel Generators at the New Powerhouse
The existing 5.2-MW diesel generators are oversized and not well matched to the community
demand, which fluctuates between 2.5 MW to nearly 6 MW throughout the year. Addition of
wind-generated electricity would further reduce the net electric load on the diesel generators.
Installation of the different sized diesel generators would add flexibility to match the fluctuating
community demand and wind power output and improve overall system efficiency.
Currently, when the peak community demand exceeds the 5.2-MW capacity of the Wartsila
generators, a diesel unit at the old powerhouse is used. According to NJUS, operating the diesel
units out of the old powerhouse is not a long-term solution as they must be manually operated
and are not able to be monitored or controlled through the new SCADA system. If wind power
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 13
capacity increases, the ability to monitor the diesel units in one location and to automatically
switch them will be necessary to maximize system efficiency.
DNV modeled the existing power system in Nome with the option of incorporating one or more
of the additional diesel generators from the old powerhouse. Table 6-2 compares the power
system options consisting of different combinations of diesel generators along with the existing
Banner Wind Farm. The performance of each power system configuration is shown for the low-,
medium-, and high-load growth scenarios. Results are summarized below.
The greatest amount of diesel fuel savings results from the integration of both the
1875 kW and 3660 kW diesel units into the new powerhouse system. This would allow
the most efficient combination of generators to be utilized to meet Nome’s net electric
demand during any given day and ensure that all generators are operating above their
minimum-specified load. In this scenario, the 5.2-MW Wartsila generators will not be
used until the electric demand in Nome increases. The 1875 KW and 3660 kW units will
supply the primary electric load as well as the required operating reserve during dips in
wind power production. The 400 kW diesel unit can optionally be used for up to 2,000
hours per year when the peak load and required operating reserve amount exceed the
capacity of the 1875 kW and 3660 kW units.
Incorporating only one or both of the 400 kW and 1875 kW units into the new
powerhouse would reduce the number of operating hours of the 5.2-MW generators
below the 65% load level but would not result in significant diesel fuel savings.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 14
Table 6-2. Comparison of Wind-Diesel System Options with Addition of Smaller Sized Diesel Generators
Operating Hours of the Diesel
Generators Included in ModificationCost of System
Modification 5211 kW 400 kW 1875 kW 3660 kW
Diesel Fuel
Savings2
(gallons/year)
Diesel Fuel
Savings2 (%)
Cost of Energy
Savings3
($/kWh)
Annual Wind
Energy
Contribution4
Maximum Wind
Penetration5
Low Load Growth Scenario
$ 2,020,000 2 1,879 4,892 8,759 380,000 15%$ 0.04 4%27%
$ 2,000,000 122 6,650 8,639 350,000 14%$ 0.04 4%27%
$ 520,000 4,894 6,397 3,936 180,000 7%$ 0.02 4%27%
$ 500,000 6,651 2,773 70,000 3%$ 0.01 4%27%
$ 20,000 8,829 4,937 0 0%$ 0.00 4%27%
$ 1,520,000 8,760 3,446 1,563 0 0%$ 0.00 4%27%
$ 1,500,000 8,760 1,575 0 0%$ 0.00 4%27%
Medium Load Growth Scenario
$ 2,020,000 5,273 2,137 4,125 8,084 400,000 11%$ 0.04 3%18%
$ 2,000,000 6,467 4,155 6,910 350,000 9%$ 0.03 3%18%
$ 520,000 8,711 2,971 6,319 220,000 6%$ 0.02 3%18%
$ 500,000 8,761 7,167 180,000 5%$ 0.02 3%18%
$ 1,520,000 9,907 5,879 6,557 170,000 5%$ 0.02 3%18%
$ 1,500,000 10,798 5,677 140,000 4%$ 0.01 3%18%
$ 20,000 15,031 3,430 0 0%$ 0.00 3%18%
High Load Growth Scenario
$ 2,020,000 7,900 2,939 3,467 8,534 430,000 9%$ 0.03 2%15%
$ 2,000,000 8,386 3,513 8,069 410,000 9%$ 0.03 2%15%
$ 520,000 10,102 3,749 7,842 320,000 7%$ 0.02 2%15%
$ 500,000 10,816 7,521 260,000 6%$ 0.02 2%15%
$ 1,520,000 13,921 5,659 6,394 130,000 3%$ 0.01 2%15%
$ 1,500,000 14,917 5,408 100,000 2%$ 0.01 2%15%
$ 20,000 17,039 5,352 0 0%$ 0.00 2%15%
1. Includes cost of integrating the diesel generators into the new powerhouse system.
2. Diesel fuel savings are calculated based on the estimated fuel consumption of the existing power system listed in Table 6-1 for each electric load growth scenario.
3. The cost of energy for each scenario is calculated by HOMER and includes the installation, maintenance, and fuel cost of each component. Other items that impact cost of energy,
such as administration and electrical infrastructure, are not expected to differ between scenarios and are therefore not included in the reported cost of energy savings.
4. Annual wind energy contribution is calculated as the annual electricity produced by the wind turbines divided by the total annual electricity consumption of the community.
5. Maximum wind penetration is calculated as the maximum combined output of the wind turbines divided by the minimum electric load in the community.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 15
6.3 Installation of Additional Wind Turbines
According to NJUS the existing distribution line to Banner Peak can support up to 3 MW of
additional wind power capacity. NJUS would like to evaluate the option of installing additional
wind turbines, each with a rated power of at least 400 kW, on Banner Peak to take advantage of
the existing infrastructure. DNV modeled the existing power system in Nome with the option of
adding a single wind turbine with a rated capacity of 600 kW to 900 kW. Additional wind
turbines could be installed for increased fuel savings; however, given the current funding
limitations, this analysis was limited to the addition of only a single wind turbine. Table 6-3
compares the cost and fuel savings of the system configurations consisting of different
combinations of wind turbine models and diesel generator sizes. Results are discussed below.
If smaller sized diesel generators are not incorporated into the new powerhouse, the
installation of an additional wind turbine on Banner Peak will not result in significant
additional diesel fuel savings. One of the 5.2-MW Wartsila generators will still be in use
at all times to supply the base electric load. Operating time of the second 5.2-MW
Wartsila will not be reduced significantly as the second Wartsila is still needed during
peak hours to provide spinning reserve in case wind power production drops off-line.
Installation of one or both of the 1875 kW and 3660 kW diesel generators would
eliminate the need to operate the second 5.2-MW Wartsila during peak hours and would
reduce the operating hours of the primary Wartsila when the wind power output and
smaller diesel generator are able to supply the entire community demand.
Assuming additional sizes of diesel generators are integrated into the new powerhouse,
installation of an additional wind turbine on Banner Peak would lead to increased diesel
fuel savings of up to 5%, or approximately 100,000 gallons per year.
All cases considered result in maximum wind penetration levels of about 60% or less,
which will decrease as the community electric demand increases. In general, these
penetration levels do not require addition of an electric dump load or energy storage
device to maintain system stability; however, we recommend that NJUS monitor the
performance of the wind-diesel system closely during initial operations and consider
adding such devices if power quality problems are experienced.
Many cases considered result in a reduction in the cost of electricity of up to 5 cents per
kWh, meaning that the fuel cost savings outweigh the capital cost and maintenance costs
of implementing each scenario. Additional benefits of reduced diesel fuel consumption,
such as reduced fuel storage requirements, reduced risk of spills, and reduced emissions,
were not included in this analysis.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 16
Table 6-3. Comparison of Wind-Diesel Options with Installation of Additional Wind Turbines
Wind Turbines Considered1
Diesel Generator Operating
Hours
Aero
750 kW
RRB
600 kW
EWT
900 kW
50-m height
EWT
900 kW
75-m height
5211
kW
400
kW
1875
kW
3660
kW Installed Cost2
Diesel Fuel
Savings3
(gal/yr)
Diesel Fuel
Savings3 (%)
Cost of Energy
Savings4
($/kWh)
Annual Wind
Energy
Contribution5
Maximum
Wind
Penetration6
Low Load Growth Scenario
1 0 1,820 4,400 8,740 $6,520,000 456,000 18% $ 0.05 8%56%
1 100 6,090 8,660 $6,500,000 418,000 17% $ 0.05 8%56%
1 4,390 5,450 4,430 $5,020,000 279,000 11% $ 0.03 8%56%
1 6,090 3,180 $5,000,000 176,000 7% $ 0.02 8%56%
1 8,810 3,920 $4,520,000 21,000 1% $ 0.00 8%56%
1 8,740 2,780 1,230 $6,020,000 33,000 1% $ 0.00 8%56%
1 8,760 1,230 $6,000,000 23,000 1% $ 0.00 8%56%
1 9,270 $4,500,000 0 0% $ 0.00 9%56%
1 0 1,860 4,530 8,750 $5,620,000 441,000 18% $ 0.05 7%50%
1 100 6,270 8,660 $5,600,000 403,000 16% $ 0.05 7%50%
1 4,520 5,750 4,300 $4,120,000 256,000 10% $ 0.03 7%50%
1 6,270 3,030 $4,100,000 146,000 6% $ 0.02 7%50%
1 8,820 4,190 $3,620,000 6,000 0% $ 0.00 7%50%
1 8,750 2,990 1,280 $5,120,000 18,000 1% $ 0.00 7%50%
1 8,760 1,280 $5,100,000 16,000 1% $ 0.00 7%50%
1 9,300 $3,600,000 0 0% $ 0.00 7%50%
1 0 1,790 4,190 8,730 $7,420,000 494,000 20% $ 0.06 11%62%
1 80 5,840 8,680 $7,400,000 456,000 18% $ 0.05 11%62%
1 4,160 5,070 4,640 $5,920,000 324,000 13% $ 0.04 11%62%
1 5,840 3,360 $5,900,000 222,000 9% $ 0.03 11%62%
1 8,810 3,520 $5,420,000 44,000 2% $ 0.00 11%62%
1 8,730 2,520 1,100 $6,920,000 56,000 2% $ 0.00 11%62%
1 8,760 1,090 $6,900,000 46,000 2% $ 0.00 11%62%
1 9,200 $5,400,000 8,000 0% $ 0.00 11%62%
1 0 1,780 4,140 8,730 $7,420,000 502,000 20% $ 0.06 13%62%
1 80 5,790 8,680 $7,400,000 464,000 19% $ 0.05 13%62%
1 4,110 5,000 4,690 $5,920,000 340,000 14% $ 0.04 13%62%
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 17
Wind Turbines Considered1
Diesel Generator Operating
Hours
Aero
750 kW
RRB
600 kW
EWT
900 kW
50-m height
EWT
900 kW
75-m height
5211
kW
400
kW
1875
kW
3660
kW Installed Cost2
Diesel Fuel
Savings3
(gal/yr)
Diesel Fuel
Savings3 (%)
Cost of Energy
Savings4
($/kWh)
Annual Wind
Energy
Contribution5
Maximum
Wind
Penetration6
1 5,790 3,400 $5,900,000 237,000 9% $ 0.03 13%62%
1 8,800 3,450 $5,420,000 51,000 2% $ 0.00 13%62%
1 8,730 2,460 1,100 $6,920,000 64,000 3% $ 0.00 13%62%
1 8,760 1,080 $6,900,000 54,000 2% $ 0.00 13%62%
1 9,190 $5,400,000 15,000 1% $ 0.00 13%62%
Medium Load Growth Scenario
1 4,860 2,020 4,670 7,880 $6,520,000 499,000 13% $ 0.04 6%38%
1 6,100 4,760 6,650 $6,500,000 449,000 12% $ 0.04 6%38%
1 8,650 3,090 5,990 $5,020,000 304,000 8% $ 0.02 6%38%
1 9,730 5,520 6,120 $6,020,000 271,000 7% $ 0.02 6%38%
1 8,750 6,930 $5,000,000 246,000 7% $ 0.02 6%38%
1 10,500 5,590 $6,000,000 239,000 6% $ 0.02 6%38%
1 14,630 3,410 $4,520,000 0 0% $ 0.00 6%38%
1 15,680 $4,500,000 0 0% $ 0.00 6%38%
1 4,970 2,030 4,520 7,960 $5,620,000 476,000 13% $ 0.04 5%34%
1 6,220 4,580 6,720 $5,600,000 418,000 11% $ 0.04 5%34%
1 8,680 3,050 6,080 $4,120,000 281,000 7% $ 0.02 5%34%
1 8,750 7,000 $4,100,000 226,000 6% $ 0.02 5%34%
1 9,780 5,590 6,270 $5,120,000 246,000 7% $ 0.02 5%34%
1 10,590 5,590 $5,100,000 208,000 6% $ 0.02 5%34%
1 14,750 3,420 $3,620,000 0 0% $ 0.00 5%34%
1 15,750 $3,600,000 0 0% $ 0.00 5%34%
1 4,700 1,980 4,950 7,720 $7,420,000 544,000 14% $ 0.05 7%42%
1 5,920 5,070 6,510 $7,400,000 494,000 13% $ 0.04 7%42%
1 8,610 3,100 5,860 $5,920,000 342,000 9% $ 0.03 7%42%
1 9,660 5,290 5,950 $6,920,000 317,000 8% $ 0.03 7%42%
1 10,390 5,520 $6,900,000 284,000 8% $ 0.02 7%42%
1 8,740 6,810 $5,900,000 269,000 7% $ 0.02 7%42%
1 14,470 3,340 $5,420,000 0 0% $ 0.00 7%42%
1 15,540 $5,400,000 0 0% $ 0.00 7%42%
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 18
Wind Turbines Considered1
Diesel Generator Operating
Hours
Aero
750 kW
RRB
600 kW
EWT
900 kW
50-m height
EWT
900 kW
75-m height
5211
kW
400
kW
1875
kW
3660
kW Installed Cost2
Diesel Fuel
Savings3
(gal/yr)
Diesel Fuel
Savings3 (%)
Cost of Energy
Savings4
($/kWh)
Annual Wind
Energy
Contribution5
Maximum
Wind
Penetration6
1 4,660 2,090 5,090 7,620 $7,420,000 560,000 15% $ 0.05 9%42%
1 5,890 5,210 6,410 $7,400,000 502,000 13% $ 0.04 9%42%
1 8,600 3,130 5,830 $5,920,000 349,000 9%$ 0.03 9%42%
1 9,640 5,260 5,940 $6,920,000 332,000 9%$ 0.03 9%42%
1 10,360 5,530 $6,900,000 299,000 8%$ 0.02 9%42%
1 8,730 6,780 $5,900,000 277,000 7%$ 0.02 9%42%
1 14,430 3,350 $5,420,000 0 0% $ 0.00 9%42%
1 15,520 $5,400,000 0 0% $ 0.00 9%42%
High Load Growth Scenario
1 7,800 2,840 3,230 8,280 $6,520,000 529,000 11% $ 0.04 5%30%
1 8,290 3,420 7,800 $6,500,000 501,000 11% $ 0.03 5%30%
1 9,910 3,450 7,760 $5,020,000 411,000 9% $ 0.03 5%30%
1 10,580 7,500 $5,000,000 351,000 7% $ 0.02 5%30%
1 13,590 5,480 6,080 $6,020,000 236,000 5% $ 0.01 5%30%
1 14,600 5,110 $6,000,000 191,000 4% $ 0.01 5%30%
1 16,950 4,840 $4,520,000 0 0% $ 0.00 5%30%
1 17,360 $4,500,000 0 0% $ 0.00 5%30%
1 7,830 2,910 3,210 8,370 $5,620,000 498,000 11% $ 0.03 4%27%
1 8,320 3,380 7,900 $5,600,000 478,000 10% $ 0.03 4%27%
1 9,950 3,540 7,780 $4,120,000 381,000 8% $ 0.03 4%27%
1 10,650 7,500 $4,100,000 328,000 7% $ 0.02 4%27%
1 13,670 5,510 6,180 $5,120,000 206,000 4% $ 0.01 4%27%
1 14,700 5,190 $5,100,000 168,000 4% $ 0.01 4%27%
1 16,980 4,980 $3,620,000 0 0% $ 0.00 4%27%
1 17,390 $3,600,000 0 0% $ 0.00 4%27%
1 7,740 2,670 3,310 8,140 $7,420,000 567,000 12% $ 0.04 6%33%
1 8,240 3,500 7,650 $7,400,000 547,000 12% $ 0.04 6%33%
1 9,840 3,310 7,670 $5,920,000 449,000 10% $ 0.03 6%33%
1 10,480 7,460 $5,900,000 397,000 8% $ 0.03 6%33%
1 13,450 5,300 5,990 $6,920,000 282,000 6% $ 0.02 6%33%
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 19
Wind Turbines Considered1
Diesel Generator Operating
Hours
Aero
750 kW
RRB
600 kW
EWT
900 kW
50-m height
EWT
900 kW
75-m height
5211
kW
400
kW
1875
kW
3660
kW Installed Cost2
Diesel Fuel
Savings3
(gal/yr)
Diesel Fuel
Savings3 (%)
Cost of Energy
Savings4
($/kWh)
Annual Wind
Energy
Contribution5
Maximum
Wind
Penetration6
1 14,460 5,030 $6,900,000 237,000 5% $ 0.01 6%33%
1 16,900 4,640 $5,420,000 19,000 0% $ 0.00 6%33%
1 17,320 $5,400,000 0 0% $ 0.00 6%33%
1 7,720 2,610 3,450 8,080 $7,420,000 582,000 12% $ 0.04 7%33%
1 8,220 3,630 7,590 $7,400,000 554,000 12% $ 0.04 7%33%
1 9,820 3,310 7,660 $5,920,000 457,000 10% $ 0.03 7%33%
1 10,460 7,450 $5,900,000 404,000 9%$ 0.03 7%33%
1 13,420 5,290 6,000 $6,920,000 297,000 6%$ 0.02 7%33%
1 14,430 5,050 $6,900,000 252,000 5%$ 0.02 7%33%
1 16,880 4,610 $5,420,000 34,000 1% $ 0.00 7%33%
1 17,310 $5,400,000 0 0% $ 0.00 7%33%
1. All considered scenarios include production from the existing Banner Wind Farm. Based on the performance history of the Banner Wind Farm, it is assumed in the model that 11 out of
the 18 currently installed eW15 wind turbines are available for operation at any given time.
2. Includes cost of integrating the diesel generators into the new powerhouse system.
3. Diesel fuel savings are calculated based on the estimated fuel consumption of the existing power system listed in Table 6-1 for each electric load growth scenario.
4. The cost of energy for each scenario is calculated by HOMER and includes the installation, maintenance, and fuel cost of each component as described in the Assumptions and Modeling
Scenarios section of this report. Other items that impact cost of energy, such as administration and electrical infrastructure, are not expected to differ between scenarios and are therefore
not included in the reported cost of energy savings.
5. Annual wind energy contribution is calculated as the annual electricity produced by the wind turbines divided by the total annual electricity consumption of the community.
6. Maximum wind penetration is calculated as the maximum combined output of the wind turbines divided by the minimum electric load in the community. A maximum wind penetration
above 60% is generally considered to be a medium-penetration system that may require additional balance of plant equipment to maintain power system stability.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 20
6.4 Demand-Side Management
The electric demand in Nome currently exceeds the 5.2-MW capacity of the Wartsila generators
during the winter months, requiring use of a generator in the old powerhouse to provide peak
power. If this peak energy consumption could be shifted to non-peak hours, a second diesel
generator would not be needed during peak hours. Possible demand-side management techniques
could include energy efficiency measures, creating incentives in the community to complete
energy-intensive tasks during non-peak hours, or shutting off non-essential loads when peak
demand exceeds a certain level.
To estimate potential fuel savings that could be realized by implementing demand-side
management techniques, DNV created an electric load profile where community demand is not
allowed to exceed 5.2 MW. Energy consumption during non-peak hours was increased to
account for the decrease in peak consumption, resulting in the same amount of annual energy
consumed. Under this scenario, assuming the low load growth case, the 5.2-MW generator
would supply the entire community demand throughout the day and the old powerhouse would
not be needed during peak hours. This smoothing of the daily electric demand would result in
approximately 5% fuel savings.
7 CONCLUSION
DNV evaluated the performance of the existing wind-diesel power system in Nome and
completed modeling of different system options aimed at improving overall fuel efficiency. The
electric demand in Nome ranges from 2.5 MW up to 6 MW throughout the year and is currently
served by two 5.2-MW diesel generators located in the new powerhouse. These generators are
not well matched to the existing community demand and fluctuating output from the Banner
Wind Farm. The two primary options that were evaluated for improving system efficiency
include the installation of smaller sized diesel generators in the new powerhouse and the
installation of an additional wind turbine on Banner Peak.
The modelling indicates the maximum diesel fuel savings results from the installation of an
additional wind turbine on Banner Peak in conjunction with integrating all three available sizes
of diesel generators (400 kW, 1875 kW, and 3660 kW) into the new powerhouse system. Diesel
fuel savings range from 12% to 20% (approximately 500,000 gallons per year) depending on the
load growth scenario; cost of energy savings range from 3 to 5 cents per kWh. Additional
benefits of reduced diesel fuel consumption, such as reduced fuel storage requirements, reduced
risk of spills, and reduced emissions, were not included in this analysis. If smaller sized diesel
generators are not incorporated into the new powerhouse, the installation of an additional wind
turbine on Banner Peak will not result in significant additional diesel fuel savings.
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 A-1
APPENDIX A
Diesel Fuel Curves and Wind Turbine Power Curves
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Power Output (kW)
#14 Cat3516B-LS
#12 Cat3616
#18 Cat 400kW
Wartsila
Figure A-1. Diesel Engine Generator Fuel Consumption Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Power Output (kW)
#14 Cat3516B-LS
#12 Cat3616
#18 Cat 400kW
Warsila
Figure A-2. Diesel Engine Generator Fuel Efficiency Data
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011 A-2
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Wind Speed (m/s)
RRB Energy PS-600
Aeronautica 54-750
EWT 54-900
Figure A-3. Wind Turbine Power Curves, Air Density of 1.26 kg/m3
Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Rpt. No.: FSRP0084
Version: B
Date: May 23, 2011
Det Norske Veritas:
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) is a leading, independent provider of services for managing risk with a global
presence and a network of 300 offices in 100 different countries. DNV’s objective is to safeguard life,
property and the environment.
DNV assists its customers in managing risk by providing three categories of service: classification,
certification and consultancy. Since establishment as an independent foundation in 1864, DNV has
become an internationally recognized provider of technical and managerial consultancy services and
one of the world’s leading classification societies. This means continuously developing new approaches
to health, safety, quality and environmental management, so businesses can run smoothly in a world full
of surprises.
Global impact for a safe and sustainable future
Learn more on www.dnv.com
ATTACHMENT 2
Report Addendum – Analysis of Wind Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska
DNV Report No.: FSRP0084‐B Letter Update
June 16, 2011
DNV RENEWABLES (USA) INC.
Wind Energy
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98101 USA
www.dnv.com/windenergy
Tel. 1-206-387-4200
Fax. 1-206-387-4201
June 16, 2011
Clinton White
STG Incorporated
11820 South Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Via email: Clinton@stgincorporated.com
Subject: Update to report “Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska”
Dear Clinton,
STG Incorporated (STG) retained DNV to evaluate the performance of the existing wind-diesel
hybrid power system in Nome, Alaska, and provide technical support in evaluating options for
improving the overall efficiency of the power system. As part of this work, DNV provided a
report titled, “Analysis of Wind-Diesel Power System in Nome, Alaska,” dated May 23, 2011
(Report FSRP0084). Subsequently, STG has requested that DNV complete additional analyses to
consider the installation of two 900 kW EWT54 wind turbines under the medium electric load
growth scenario. The original analysis considered one turbine. The purpose of this letter is to
present the results of the follow-up analysis. This scope of work is governed by the Master
Services Agreement dated February 1, 2011, and Task Order Agreement 2 dated February 3,
2011.
Table 6-3 below serves as an addendum to Table 6-3 in Report FSRP0084 and summarizes
system performance results based on the installation of two EWT54 wind turbines, at either a 50-
m or 75-m hub height.
Report FSRP0084 should be consulted for a complete description of the methodd and
assumptions. Specific modifications used for this analysis are noted below.
· Wake losses. The estimated system energy losses in Report FSRP0084 include 3% losses
due to turbine-to-turbine wake effects between the existing Banner Wind Farm turbines
and a proposed single additional turbine. The installation of two turbines rather than one
will likely result in wake losses greater than 3%. For the purpose of this analysis, we
assumed wake losses of 5%, which includes wake effects from the Banner Wind Farm
and between the two proposed EWT54 turbines.
· Electric dump load. Installation of two 900 kW wind turbines would result in a medium-
penetration wind-diesel system. Utilization of an electric boiler dump load may be
required to help maintain system stability and reduce large power excursions experienced
by the diesel generators. Sizing of the electric dump load is beyond the scope of this
analysis; however, for the purpose of calculating system costs, an installed cost of
$30,000 for the electric boiler and controls is assumed based on discussions with STG.
STG Incorporated
June 16, 2011
Page 2
· Operating reserve. The increased installed wind capacity of two turbines versus one will
expose the power system to a larger potential drop in wind power output if the turbines
fault and trip offline. To be conservative, the amount of operating reserve required in the
modeling is increased from 50% to 75% of the wind farm output. At least one diesel
generator will remain online at all times to provide this required operating reserve.
DNV has not specifically evaluated the EWT54 turbine model and listed hub heights in terms of
suitability for the project site and climatic conditions. Site suitability should be evaluated by the
turbine manufacturer and/or an independent engineer to confirm that the conditions the proposed
turbines may experience at the project site do not exceed the loading conditions for which the
turbine was designed and certified.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the analysis.
Best regards,
for DNV Renewables (USA) Inc.
Mia Devine
Senior Engineer
STG Incorporated June 16, 2011 Page 3 Table 6-3. Comparison of Wind-Diesel Options with Installation of Additional Wind Turbines Wind Turbines Considered1 Diesel Generator Operating Hours Aero 750 kW RRB 600 kW EWT 900 kW 50-m height EWT 900 kW 75-m height 5211 kW 400 kW 1875 kW 3660 kW Installed Cost2 Diesel Fuel Savings3 (gal/yr) Diesel Fuel Savings3 (%) Cost of Energy Savings4 ($/kWh) Annual Wind Energy Contribution5 Maximum Wind Penetration6 Medium Load Growth Scenario 2 4,820 2,070 5,730 6,860 $12,850,000 639,000 17% $ 0.05 13% 65% 2 6070 5,640 5,810 $12,830,000 567,000 15% $ 0.04 13% 65% 2 9700 4,360 5,710 $12,350,000 422,000 11% $ 0.03 13% 65% 2 8640 2,540 5,960 $11,350,000 382,000 10% $ 0.03 13% 65% 2 10490 5,420 $12,330,000 357,000 9% $ 0.02 13% 65% 2 8750 6,900 $11,330,000 297,000 8% $ 0.02 13% 65% 2 14600 2,720 $10,850,000 0 0% $ 0.00 13% 65% 2 16010 $10,830,000 0 0% $ 0.00 13% 65% 2 4780 2,070 5,830 6,790 $12,850,000 654,000 17% $ 0.05 14% 65% 2 6030 5,740 5,750 $12,830,000 582,000 15% $ 0.05 14% 65% 2 9680 4,250 5,640 $12,350,000 444,000 12% $ 0.03 14% 65% 2 8630 2,510 5,930 $11,350,000 389,000 10% $ 0.03 14% 65% 2 10460 5,400 $12,330,000 372,000 10% $ 0.03 14% 65% 2 8750 6,870 $11,330,000 312,000 8% $ 0.02 14% 65% 2 14560 2,660 $10,850,000 0 0% $ 0.00 14% 65% 2 15620 $10,830,000 0 0% $ 0.00 14% 65% 1. All considered scenarios include production from the existing Banner Wind Farm. Based on the performance history of the Banner Wind Farm, it is assumed in the model that 11 out of the 18 currently installed eW15 wind turbines are available for operation at any given time. 2. Includes cost of integrating the diesel generators into the new powerhouse system. 3. Diesel fuel savings are calculated based on the estimated fuel consumption of the existing power system listed in Table 6-1 for each electric load growth scenario. 4. The cost of energy for each scenario is calculated by HOMER and includes the installation, maintenance, and fuel cost of each component as described in the Assumptions and Modeling Scenarios section of this report. Other items that impact cost of energy, such as administration and electrical infrastructure, are not expected to differ between scenarios and are therefore not included in the reported cost of energy savings. 5. Annual wind energy contribution is calculated as the annual electricity produced by the wind turbines divided by the total annual electricity consumption of the community. 6. Maximum wind penetration is calculated as the maximum combined output of the wind turbines divided by the minimum electric load in the community. A maximum wind penetration above 60% is generally considered to be a medium-penetration system that may require additional balance of plant equipment to maintain power system stability.
ATTACHMENT 3
Banner Ridge Geotechnical Analysis
Duane Miller Associates ‐ #4179.005
August 23, 2008
August 23, 2008
STG, Inc.
11820 South Gambell St.
Anchorage, AK 99515
Attention:
Jim St. George
Subject:
Geotechnical Exploration and Tower Foundation
Recommendations
Banner Ridge Site
Nome, Alaska
DMA Job No. 4179.005
This letter summarizes our recent geotechnical field exploration and
foundation recommendations for the proposed wind towers proposed for Banner
Ridge in Nome, Alaska. Two site investigation efforts were conducted to support
our foundation recommendations. The initial site assessment was conducted on
June 30, 2008 by Richard Mitchells of DMA, Lee Wilson of STG and Brian Jackson
of Western Community Energy, LLC, (Western) the project developer. Western
provided preliminary tower locations in GPS format for the June 30 site work but
nearly all provided locations were field changed by Brian Jackson during this
field effort. Based on the field revised tower locations conducted concurrently by
Western, twenty-two shallow test pits were advanced near the proposed tower
sites. The shallow test pits were advanced with a small track hoe to determine
the depth to bedrock and general near surface geology and thermal states. The
track hoe was unable to advance into rock. Approximate locations for the test
pits advanced for the June 30 effort are presented on Plate 1, site location plan.
Depth to bedrock and visual bedrock classifications are summarized below.
Sample Number
Sample Depth (ft)
Rock Type
BR-1
5.5
banded phyllitic schist
BR-3
4.5
black gneiss
BR-5
6.0
phyllitic schist
BR-6
6.5
banded phyllitic schist w/thin
quartz stringers
BR-11
6.5
fine grained gneiss
BR-16
6.0
black phyllitic schist
BR-19
6.0
banded phyllitic schist
BR-21
6,5
mica schist
Based on the June 30 field work, several proposed tower sites raised
concerns for deep or poor bedrock conditions. In particular, tower sites near test
pits BR TP-4 and 7 found frozen soil conditions above deeply weathered bedrock.
Test pits BR TP-14, 15, and 16 encountered frozen soil conditions with visible ice
and the test pits BR-14 and 15 the track hoe could not penetrate to bedrock. Test
pit BR TP-17 encountered frozen soil that appeared to be a sheared zone material,
firm bedrock was not encountered at this location due to the equipment not able
to advance through frozen soil.
Western revised the field determined wind tower locations based on their
analysis in July 2008. The July 2008 tower sites were provided in GPS format to
us and STG. STG’s surveyor field located the July revision tower sites; these
locations are provided on Plate 1 also.
On August 18 -20, 2008, Melanie Hess of DMA returned to Banner Ridge to
verify subsurface conditions at several of the survey located tower locations and
at select locations were (1) limited test pit data were available and (2) at tower
locations of known or suspected poor bedrock conditions. During our August
field work, we were assisted by Jason Hill of STG Inc. A geotechnical technician
from NovaGold observed the drilling and obtained samples under STG’s
direction.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 2
During our August site work, twenty-two test borings were drilled at the
site. The test borings were drilled using an Ingersoll-Rand air track drill rig
owned and operated by STG Inc. Subsurface conditions were logged and
representative soil and rock chip samples were collected during the investigation.
Samples were obtained by collecting rock and soil chips in a wire mesh basket
that were returned by the air drill. The samples were sealed in plastic bags. GPS
coordinates were recorded with a hand-held instrument and as-built
measurements were determined by measuring with a cloth tape from staked
wind tower locations.
Subsurface conditions were inferred from the type of material returned by
the air drill, drilling action, and the driller’s interpretation of subsurface
conditions. Representative rock samples may be biased by the air track sampling
method since only small chip samples of rock are obtained. This drilling method
may result in misrepresenting cobbles, boulders and bedrock. In addition, the
small diameter drill bit advances rapidly through fractured rock and may not
accurate reflect the over burden contact.
Eight borings, TB-3 through TB-8, were drilled on the northern portion of
banner ridge in the areas of Wind Tower locations WTG 3-2 through 6-3. Most of
the borings were drilled on top of the ridge and on the southeast facing slope of
the ridge. A very thin organic mat, 1 to 4 inches thick, was underlain by angular
cobbles and gravel. Hard bedrock was encountered in all borings between 2 and
8 feet below the surface. Below the bedrock contact, the rock was consistent to
the depth drilled.
Three borings, TB-11 through TB-13, were drilled in the area of wind tower
site WTG 2-3. A thin organic mat, 3 to 6 inches thick, was underlain by brown
silty gravel and silty sand. Bedrock was encountered at 11 to 12 feet below the
surface. The upper 2 feet of bedrock is likely relatively soft underlain by harder
bedrock. The rock appeared to not be consistent, with lighter and darker color
intervals, changing at approximate 1 to 2-foot intervals.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 3
TB-14 and TB-15 were drilled in the area near wind tower sites WTG 1-1
through 2-2, on the southern portion of Banner Ridge. Bedrock was encountered
at approximately 5 and 6.5 feet, respectively. Bedrock appeared consistent to
boring termination depths.
Six borings were drilled near the wind tower site WTG 3-1, on the
southwest facing slope of Banner Ridge. Bedrock was not encountered in this
area to the depths explored, approximately 33 to 35 feet below grade. A thin
organic mat was underlain by cobbles, silty gravel and silty sand to the depths
explored. The material was likely frozen below about 6 to 10 feet deep. Water
was returned by the air drill for about 1 to 2 feet at 13 feet in boring TB-20 and
TB-22 and at 23 feet in TB-22.
Summary findings from the August 2008 field effort are presented below.
Of note is the absence of bedrock near tower location WTG 3-1 and the deeper
bedrock near tower location WTG 2-3.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 4
Air Track
Boring
Latitude
(WGS 84)
Longitude
(WGS 84)General Location Depth to Bedrock
(ft)
Total Boring
Depth (ft)
TB-3 64°34'20.0"165°25'31.4"10 ft NW of WTG 6-3 3 22
TB-4 64°34'18.0"165°25'39.3"10 ft S of WTG 6-1 4 13
TB-5 64°34'17.9"165°25'39.5"10 ft S of WTG 6-1 6 22
TB-6 64°34'15.9"165°25'38.1"20 ft SE of WTG 5-3 5 23
TB-7 64°34'09.0"165°25'38.8"9 ft N of WTG 4-2 5 22
TB-8 64°34'06.4"165°25'38.1"8 ft W of WTG 4-1 8 18
TB-9 64°34'04.2"165°25'43.0"11 ft E of WTG 3-3 6 22
TB-10 64°34'02.1"165°25'47.9"w/in 10 f of WTG 3-2 2 11
TB-11 64°33'54.5"165°26'01.5"7 ft E of WTG 2-3 12 23
TB-12 64°33'54.3"165°26'01.0"40 ft SE of WTG 2-3 10 23
TB-13 64°33'54.7"165°26'02.0"30 ft NW of WTG 2-3 11 23
TB-14 64°33'48.2"165°26'02.9"110 ft NE of WTG 2-1 5 22
TB-15 64°33'45.5"165°25'57.5"175 ft NW of WTG 1-1 6.5 11
TB-16 64°34'06.9"165°25'49.1"11 ft SE of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 34
TB-17 64°34'06.9"165°25'48.5"30 ft E of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 35
TB-18 64°34'06.5"165°25'49.2"40 ft S of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 35
TB-19 64°34'07.0"165°25'50.0"40 ft E of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 13
TB-20 64°34'07.5"165°25'48.9"60 N of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 35
TB-21 64°34'06.6"165°25'46.2"130 ft E of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 36
TB-22 64°34'07.3"165°25'52.6"140 ft W of WTG 3-1 Not Encountered 34
Discussion and Recommendations
Based on data provided by Western, we understand the towers will be a
nominal 100-ft tall 3 leg lattice structure. Design load (per leg) for wind and ice
conditions were provided by Western:
Uplift:
168 kips
Download:
158 kips
Shear:
14.6 kips
Tower foundation design has been coordinated with the structural engineer,
BBFM, Inc. The recommended tower foundation is a steel pipe riser seated to a
cast-in-place concrete/grout pad on competent bedrock. The riser will be
anchored to the bedrock with grouted anchor bars. Based on the structural
engineer’s assessment, the deflection at the tower leg base necessary to mobilize
the soil passive resistance may exceed the tower foundation pipe riser/base plate
connection allowable stress. Accordingly, the foundation design has assumed the
tower foundation pipe riser/base plate will control the lateral resistance with
minimal passive resistance along the pipe/soil interface. For design purposes,
the maximum allowable pipe riser length (tower leg base to concrete pad) for an
18-inch diameter pipe riser is 8-feet. Deeper embedment will require re-analysis
by the foundation design team.
In addition, an anchored concrete base/steel pipe riser will induce
additional uplift force on the anchor(s) and additional download force on the
bedrock surface. For the uplift condition, the force couple developed on the pipe
riser from the lateral shear force at the tower leg base will be transferred through
the anchor rod(s) over their horizontal separation. Thus, a maximum unfactored
per anchor uplift load in the range of 70-kips may be developed with an 8-foot
long, 18-inch diameter pipe riser with four (4) anchors per leg tensioned through
a nominal 3-ft square concrete pad.
The material in the test borings within the revised tower locations appeared
to be consistent, except at tower locations WTG 2-3 and WTG 3-1. Tower location
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 5
2-3 encountered bedrock at 10 to 12 feet below grade. This site will require
regarding to achieve the recommended maximum rise length (8 feet) or a
modified foundation system. Tower location WTG 3-1 did not encounter
bedrock to at least 30 feet below grade, thus the recommended anchored
foundation system is not suitable at this location. All other investigated tower
locations encountered a metamorphic bedrock below a frost-fractured zone.
Based on inferred geology at the revised tower sites, it is reasonable to assume a
jointed, metamorphic bedrock suitable for the concrete pad bearing surface
should be present no greater than 8 feet below grade at the proposed tower
locations. However, actual bearing surface elevation may vary in depth based on
site-specific conditions that may be encountered at time of foundation
construction. A variable thickness of frost-fractured rock is present above the in-
situ bedrock. The Banner Ridge area has several faults, and fault breccia or fault
gouge may be present along fault contacts. If such fractured or poor quality
bedrock zones are encountered at the proposed tower sites, we must be notified
immediately to verify or modify the foundation recommendations.
We have assumed the tower a foundations will be constructed prior to
freeze up 2008. If the tower foundation construction should not occur prior to
freeze up, we should review our recommendations prior to initiating
construction work.
Concurrent with tower foundations, several small transformer/control
structures will be constructed near the tower sites. Foundation recommendations
for these small structures are discussed after the tower foundation
recommendations.
Tower Foundation Recommendations
The investigated site appears suitable for tower foundation support,
provided the tower foundations are seated into hard (non-frost fractured)
bedrock. If heavily fractured rock is present under the tower foundations, the
following recommendations will require verification or modification.
For the tower, we recommend founding each tower leg on a steel pipe riser
over a cast-in-place concrete/grout leveling pad. The cast-in-place concrete/
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 6
grout pad will need to be anchored to competent bedrock with a series of
grouted rock anchors (threaded bar anchors). The tower foundation design is
comprised of three integrated elements, each discussed separately:
Rock anchors (bar anchors)
Cast-in-place concrete leveling pad
Steel pipe riser
Tower and ancillary structure foundations will require excavating frost-
fractured rock to hard, competent bedrock. We have assumed the contractor will
mass excavate the entire tower foundation footprint area rather than excavate
individual tower foundation bases. Based on our air track test boring data, we
estimate frost fractured rock may extend to 6 to 8 feet below grade, but final
excavation depths can be expected to vary depending on in-situ conditions
encountered in a larger excavation. We do not recommend use of explosives for
excavation since improper charge sets may lead to unnecessary over-excavation.
We should be advised if the contractor is considering use of explosives at or near
the tower foundation area.
Rock Anchors (Grouted Threadbar Anchors)
The cast-in-place concrete leveling pad and steel pipe riser should be
structurally connected to the bedrock with a series of grouted rock anchors under
each tower leg pad. Site preparation prior to anchor installation should include
removal of frost-fractured rock to a hard bedrock surface. Based on test borings,
frost-fractured rock should be expected to extend 6 to 8 feet below existing grade,
but actual field conditions can be expected to vary under each tower leg. The
bedrock surface should be cleared of all debris and deleterious matter with
compressed air or hand cleaning. Standing water, snow, ground or seasonal ice
should not be present in or on the surface of the bedrock prior to anchor
installation or concrete leveling pad construction.
After site preparation, we have assumed the bedrock surface under the
tower foundations will be relatively uniform but may not be level. While some
surface irregularities under the concrete leveling pad can be tolerated, excessive
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 7
slope, pockets of weathered material or other anomalies should not be present
under the concrete leveling pads. If such irregularities are present, select removal
with excavation equipment may be necessary. If excessive soft or loose materials
or other anomalies are encountered, we should be notified prior to installing rock
anchors or pouring the concrete leveling pad since adjustments to tower
foundation position may be necessary.
For design purposes, we have assumed a rough surface grade will be
present under the concrete leveling pad with a vertical variation of less than 6-
inches under each pad. Further, the bedrock surface at each pad need not be at
the same elevation, but all prepared rock surfaces under each pad are assumed to
be within a three to four foot horizon.
Rock anchors should be 150-ksi 1.25-inch nominal diameter DYWIDAG
Threadbars (or equivalent). Four anchors per each leg are required. We
recommend anchors be a continuous single length, but if necessary, splicing with
a manufacturer-supplied coupler is possible. A continuous single length, grouted
bar can be installed in a nominal 3 to 4-inch diameter air track borehole.
Boreholes should be advanced with a conventional air track or air down-hole
hammer drilling equipment. Boreholes should be plumb and true, with minimal
bit cuttings and debris along the borehole sidewall and at the bottom of the
borehole, prior to anchor installation and grouting. Borehole clearing can be
conducted with air lances or a venturi system if ground water is present. If
groundwater is present, repeated flushing with a venturi and air lance should be
conducted until clear water is returned.
Anchor rods should be installed to maintain a minimum 24-inch horizontal
separation between anchor rod centerlines to reduce group effect. Closer spacing
may be feasible, if necessary, but modification to our recommendations will be
necessary to accommodate group effects for closer spaced anchors. Some
overdrilling of the anchor rod boreholes can be conducted to assure adequate
anchor rod embedment.
Anchor bars should be inserted into a properly prepared borehole with
embedment depths confirmed prior to grouting. Also, anchor boreholes will need
to be properly oriented to align with the tower base assembly. Clean standing
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 8
water in the boreholes is not considered an impediment to installing and
grouting anchors. A properly prepared and placed grout will displace borehole
water. However, snow, ice or other deleterious materials cannot be present on
either the threadbars or the borehole sidewalls.
Anchor bars will require manufacturer centralizers at nominal 5 to 6 foot
intervals to maintain the anchor in the borehole annulus center during grouting.
The basal centralizer should be installed within 2-feet of the bottom of the
borehole.
The anchors should be supplied with corrosion protection suitable for the
expected environment. Full length hot dip galvanizing appears to be the
preferred corrosion protection method. Other options may be suitable, pending
assessment by an experienced corrosion protection designer.
If spliced anchor sections are being considered, a 5-inch diameter borehole
will be necessary to accommodate the coupler and grout encasement. If a
coupler is used, it should extend at least two (2) feet into the grout. The coupler
must be fully encased in grout.
Once embedment lengths are verified, the rock anchor will require grouting.
The anchor rods will require a nominal 3-foot free grout section (termed Lf)
immediately below the concrete pad. The grouted section below this Lf section is
the fixed bond length, termed Lb. The Lf section is necessary to develop adequate
pullout resistance of the rock cone under the entire foundation pad. The Lb
section is necessary to transfer the uplift loads to the bedrock.
In order to facilitate a single grout pour to the bedrock surface, we
recommend placing a nominal 1.5 to 2-inch diameter PVC pipe section over the
free length (Lf) portion of the anchor rod to the appropriate elevation and sealing
the ends of the PVC with heat shrink so that grout cannot enter between the PVC
and the anchor rod threads. In this manner, the entire embedded anchor rod
section can be grouted to the bedrock surface in one continuous pour. We have
assumed the cast-in-place concrete pad will be formed and poured while the
anchor rod grout cures. After the concrete pad and anchor rod grout cures, the
anchors will be tensioned and locked off to design loads as discussed below.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 9
Immediately prior to tensioning and lock off, the small anchor rod section
extending through the concrete pad can be grouted. In this manner, the entire
anchor rod will be encased in grout with no voids or pockets for water/ice to
form.
The Fondu grout/sand mixture should be approximately 3 parts Fondu
cement to 1 part washed fine sand (by mass). Washed fine sand should pass U.S.
Number 40 and be retained on U.S. Number 100 sieve size and not contain any
frozen or deleterious matter. A Number 70 washed silica sand is recommended.
Potable water is recommended for grout mixture at a water to Fondu plus sand
ratio of 0.40 to 0.45 (by mass). Superplasticizers and accelerants appropriate for
tremie placement with the contractor’s grout pump system and compatible with
Fondu grout can be used. Grout requires tremie placement from the borehole
bottom upward to the bedrock surface. Grout should be able to attain a
minimum compressive strength of 10,000-pounds per square inch (psi) at 28-days
following sampling and testing procedures discussed below.
If a 3 to 4-inch diameter borehole is used with the 1.25-inch diameter anchor
and a ½-inch diameter PVC (or similar) tremie pipe, the tremie pipe should be
removed concurrent with grout placement. After tremie placement, the grout
should be vibratory densified to remove air voids.
We recommend rock anchors be installed to at least 12-feet below the
prepared rock surface. This will provide a fixed grout section (Lb) of at least 8-
feet and a free length (Lf) of approximately 3-feet to the base of the concrete pad.
The anchor will also require sufficient length above the rock surface to
accommodate a cast-in-place concrete pad, the steel plate and 2 locking nuts with
2 to 3-inches of free end above the nuts.
Assuming full-contact grout along the entire fixed grout (Lb) section, each
anchor is expected to develop the adequate resistance to the design uplift with
four (4) anchors per leg with a factor of safety of at least 2. As discussed
previously, the design shear force imposed at the tower leg base will increase the
uplift load on the anchor(s). While the actual load increase will vary with wind
direction and anchor orientation, we have estimated the maximum transient load
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 10
any single anchor would experience with this additional uplift load would be
approximately 70-kips.
The Hoek and Brown criteria were used to estimate the shear resistance
developed along the assumed rock cone interface among the four anchors under
each tower leg. This shear resistance combined with the static weight of the rock
mass within the cone is expected to develop the design uplift resistance at each
tower leg with a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
Both the concrete base and anchor rod grout must be allowed to cure
adequately prior to tensioning. Curing rates for both the concrete and grout can
vary with the amount of water, superplasticizer and accelerant used for the
concrete and grout mix. In general, we would recommend that anchor rod
tensioning not be conducted until the anchor rod grout and concrete have
attained their specified compressive strengths (10,000 and 4,000-psi, respectively)
or as allowed by the design engineers and material testing specialist. However,
the cast-in-place concrete pad can be installed within 12 hours of rock anchor
grout placement.
Representative samples of the grout should be collected at the time of
tremie placement following procedures recommended in ASTM C-1107.
Retained samples should be submitted for compression testing at a certified
materials testing laboratory. At a minimum, we recommend two (2) grout
samples be collected at each anchor, and a 7 and 28-day compressive strength test
should be performed per ASTM C-109. The structural engineer or the material
testing firm may recommend additional testing or testing frequency.
Cast-in-Place Concrete Pad
A cast-in-place concrete pad is recommended between the rock surface and
the steel riser section. We estimate pad no greater than 2-inches thick would be
suitable, but structural analysis is needed to verify the concrete pad thickness
and steel reinforcement size and placement. Rock anchors should penetrate the
concrete pad but should not be in direct contact with the concrete during pad
pouring and concrete curing. A concrete form should be placed between the
anchor rod to maintain a clear space between the concrete and the anchor rod.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 11
The PVC sleeve discussed earlier should be adequate for the concrete form. This
space will be filled with grout prior to anchor rod tensioning as discussed
previously.
For geotechnical design purposes, we have assumed each cast-in-place
concrete pad will have a nominal 9 square foot (sf) bearing surface (3-ft square
dimension) and a compressive strength of at least 4,000-psi. The concrete pad
should be designed to withstand seasonal freeze/thaw cycles as well as seasonal
water saturation. Minimum offset between the anchor and the concrete pad edge
will be determined by the structural engineer, but is assumed to be at least 6-
inches for geotechnical purposes.
We expect the concrete will be cast directly on the rock surface to reduce
voids between the concrete and the rock surface. Snow, ice, standing water,
debris or fill material should not be present between concrete and the surface of
the bedrock prior to placing concrete. Download will be resisted by bearing on
the rock surface. We estimate a properly prepared, clean metamorphic bedrock
surface will develop bearing capacity resistance to the 18,500-pounds per square
foot (psf) design load (based on the 9 square foot concrete pad option) with a
factor of safety of at least 3. Under the extreme short-term download case (the
expected tower leg base shear induced load in addition to the design download),
a factor of safety of at least 1.5 for bearing capacity on a properly prepared
bedrock surface can be expected.
Steel Pipe Riser
Based on discussions with BBFM and STG, we have assumed a 18-inch
diameter steel pipe riser welded to a base plate with stiffeners will be used above
the concrete pad. We have assumed the base plate assembly will be set directly
over the rock anchors. To reduce stress concentrations between the base plate
and the concrete surface and reduce potential voids, the base plate should be
seated on a thin bed of pure Fondu grout placed over the cured concrete
immediately prior to placing the base plate/pipe rise assembly. Alternatively, the
base plate assembly can be placed over wet concrete to reduce voids under the
base plate. A shear key between the base place and the concrete does not appear
necessary based on discussions with BBFM.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 12
After the cast-in-place concrete pad and rock section grout has cured
adequately, the anchor rods must be tensioned. We have assumed tensioning
will be conducted against a manufacturer supplied anchor plate directly on the
steel base plate atop the concrete pad. We recommend tensioning each grouted
anchor to 100-kips (~ 150-percent of design load) then backing down to a lockoff
load of 40-kips. Deflection and load measurements should be collected during
anchor tensioning as part of the construction installation records. At 100-kips
tensioning load, the anchors will be subjected to approximately 60-percent their
maximum capacity (187.5-kips). DYWIDAG does not recommend tensioning
anchor rods in excess of 80-percent the maximum capacity. Also, at these tension
loads (up to 100-kips), extreme caution is recommended. If breakage or slippage
during tensioning should occur, extensive damage, flying debris and other
dangerous conditions may result.
Grouted rock anchors at each pad should be tensioned sequentially and in a
stepwise manner to balance tensioning loads. We recommend at least a four
stage tensioning process. All four grouted anchors (per leg) should be tensioned
to an initial seating load of approximately 20 to 25-kips. After an initial seating
load, each anchor should be sequentially tensioned to approximately 70-kips
then 100-kip load. At each step load, the primary anchor nut should be seated
prior to moving the hydraulic cylinder (ram). The 100-kip tension load should be
maintained for 15-minutes then step reduced to zero load, then reseated to the
lockoff load. Tensioning should not be attempted until both the concrete pad and
grout along the bedrock and anchor rod interface have attained their respective
specified compressive strengths.
We recommend a hollow plunger cylinder be used for tensioning with a
digital pressure gauge (±1-psi resolution), calibrated to the cylinder. At each
tensioning stage, pressure should be maintained to allow elastic strain and grout
seating to develop. If field strain measurements are not collected, we recommend
maintaining cylinder pressure until digital pressures are maintained to within
±10-psi of target pressures.
Once the lockoff load is attained, the primary anchor nuts require seating.
Seating should consist of a tensioning to the 40-kip lockoff load and torque
tightening the primary anchor nut until gauge pressure has reduced to near zero.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 13
After lockoff, a second locking anchor nut is recommended for each anchor bolt
since the anchor assembly will be backfilled and not easily inspected. The
second locking nut should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations. If desired, a fully grouted end cap can be placed over the
entire tensioned and locked off anchor nut assembly.
The tower foundations must be backfilled with locally available rock or
excavation backfill. Compaction of coarse rock backfill may be impractical. Final
grades should slope away from the tower foundations.
If the cast-in-place concrete pad is seated and the rock anchors grouted into
competent bedrock and tensioned as discussed above, we anticipate settlement
(both total and differential) to be less than 0.25-inch during the life of the
structure. The pipe risers are considered to behave as short, rigid piles. Lateral
loads will be resisted at the pipe riser/base plate connection as discussed
previously.
Transformer Structure Foundation Recommendations
A small transformer structure will be used for each bank of three wind
towers. This is a lightly loaded, non heated structure with a fiberglass or
aluminum building. This structure will be pre-fabricated. These structures can
be founded on grouted 4-inch diameter steel open or closed-end pipes into
nominal 6-inch diameter air track holes drilled at least four (4) feet into
competent bedrock. A fine sand/Fondu grout similar to that recommended for
the tower anchors is recommended. A minimum 12-inch center-to-center
horizontal separation between multiple pipes is recommended.
Lateral resistance will be developed at the bedrock surface with additional
resistance developed from rock material along the pipe risers. For design
purposes, we recommend the point of fixity be established at the bedrock surface
for sustained loads. Lateral resistance developed along the pipe/backfill
interface can be considered as additional capacity to further resist transient loads.
All buried steel foundation components should have corrosion protection
suitable for the environment. Upon completion of the ancillary structures work,
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 14
the site should be backfilled and compacted as recommended for the tower
foundations with seeding to promote vegetative cover.
Construction Activity Control
Based on observed surface conditions, we do not anticipate any significant
adverse thermal impact from construction related site disturbance. However, the
regional geology at the proposed tower site is expected to have faulting and
other structural geology features. We recommend a trained and experienced
DMA engineer or geologist observe the tower foundation bedrock surface prior
to anchor drilling and placement. The geologic conditions at each tower anchor
borehole should also be observed and logged to confirm that site conditions are
in accordance with our recommendations. As part of the construction planning
process, provisions should be included for adjusting the tower foundation
anchor rod locations to avoid less desirable geologic conditions, if encountered
during construction.
It has been a pleasure to work with you on this project. Please feel free to
contact us if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Duane Miller Associates LLC
draft for review, no signature Aug 25, 2008
Richard Mitchells, P.E.
STG- Banner Ridge Wind Towers
Duane Miller Associates, LLC
August 23, 2008
Page 15
ATTACHMENT 4
Preliminary (potential) Foundation Design
BBFM Engineers #210077
Sand Point Wind Turbine (V‐39 project) Foundations
August 10, 2010
ATTACHMENT 5
Preliminary Project Site Plan
Meteorological Tower Location ‐ Banner
August 15, 2011
ATTACHMENT 6
NJUS/Banner Wind Correspondence
NJUS to Banner Wind, re co‐location at Banner
August 10, 2011
NOMEJOINTUTILITYSYSTEMacomponentunitof‘!!!P.O.Box70•Nome,Alaska99762•(907)443-NJUS•Fax(907)443-6336August10,2011ManagementBoardBANNERWIND,LLCNome,Alaska99762RE:Co-locationofNJUSwindturbine(s)atBannerWindSiteLadiesandGentlemen:Withthevolatilityinworldoilprices andadesiretodoourpartinconservation,containcommunitypowercosts,andpursue“green”alternatives,theinstallationofadditionalwindgenerationcapacityisseenasanoptiontoaddressthesegoals.WeapplaudtheactionsofBannerWindanditsaffiliatesinstartingthecommunitydownthispath.NJUShasworkedcooperativelywithBanner,obtainingthefundingfromtheAlaskaEnergyAuthoritytoconstructaccessandthepowerline,andfromtheDenaliCommissiontoconstructacommunicationsline.Ourongoingrelationship,andwiththePowerPurchaseAgreementineffect,iscongenialandproductive,andofbenefittothecommunityanditsresidents.Asyouare aware,NJUShasbeeninvestigatingpotentialsitesonwhichtolocateadditionalwindgenerationforsometime,anddoeshavesomeAEAfundingavailabletoallowthistooccur.Atvarioussiteswehavemonitored,thereweremechanical,weather and/orhumanelementswhichimpactedtheeffort.Mostrecently,byagreementwithBannerWind,wehaveinstalledandoperatedtwomonitoringtowersattheBannersite—andthemeteorologicaldatacollectedtherehasbeendeemedreliable andindicatesthecommunitycouldfurthercapitalizeontheavailablewindresourcebyinstallingoneormoreadditionalwindturbinesatthesite.NJUS,onbehalfoftheCityofNome,respectfullyrequestsyourconsiderationandformal actionexpressingyourwillingnesstoenterintoanagreementthatwouldallowtheco-locationofcityutilityfacilitiesonBanner.ThiswouldallowNJUStoalsotakeadvantageofthepreviouslyconstructedaccessandpowerline.Whileaformalagreementpriortoanyactivity,inorderforustomoveforwardwithfinaldesign,developmentandconstruction,andthereleaseofAEAfundingfortheseendeavors,isneeded—theagencyrequiresassurancenowthattheareawehavegenerallyidentifiedonBanner forsitingcanbeavailableandthepartieswillworktogetheringoodfaithtofinalizeaformalunderstandingandagreementinthenearfuture.Providingreliableutilityservicestosystemratepayersefficientlyandeconomicallybyprudentlyoperatingandmaintainingsystemassetsinafiscallyresponsiblemanner
BANNERWIND,LLCAugust10,2011Page2of2WhileNJUSmanagementhasyettosubmitarecommendationtotheNJUSBoardofDirectors,whowillultimatelyneedtoprovideapproval,wearecontemplatingtheinstallationofone(andpossiblytwo,contingentonfunding)EWT-900kwunitson50to75-metertowers.WearealsoactivelypursuingtheintegrationofCaterpillargeneratorslocatedinthe“oldpowerplant”intothenewpowerplant systems,whichhasthepotentialtosignificantlyreducefuelusebyautomaticallydispatchingsmallercapacitygeneratorsduringperiodsofhigherwindproduction.(Theintegrationcomponentprovidesaverysignificantopportunitytorealizethefullpotentialofexistingandfuturewindfacilities.)Thank youforyourconsideration.IwouldbehappytomeetwithyourBoardtoaddressthismatter,shouldyoudesireorrequireadditionalinformationinyourconsiderationofthisrequestandthepotentialexpandedrelationshipbetweenBannerandNJUS.Sincerely,JohnK.Handelarid\GeneralManager/ChiefOperatingOfficerNOMEJOINTUTILITYSYSTEMcc:NJUSBoardCityCouncilAlaskaEnergyAuthority