HomeMy WebLinkAboutHunt Creek Grant Application5_HunterFeas
GRANT APPLICATION
– FOR –
HUNTER CREEK HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
AUGUST 26, 2011
– SUBMITTED TO –
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM – ROUND V
RFA #AEA-12-001
– SUBMITTED BY –
EKLUTNA, INC.
16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 201
EAGLE RIVER, AK 99577
Renewable Energy Fund Round 5
Grant Application
AEA 12-001 Application Page 1 of 23 7/1/2011
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for
a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp5.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of
information required to submit a complete application.
Applicants should use the form to assure all information is
provided and attach additional information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet
5.doc
Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by
applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget
Form
GrantBudget5.
doc
A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of costs by
milestone and a summary of funds available and requested to
complete the work for which funds are being requested.
Grant Budget
Form Instructions
GrantBudgetIn
structions5.doc
Instructions for completing the above grant budget form.
Authorized
Signers Form
Authorized
signers
form5.doc
Form indicating who is authorized to sign the grant, finance
reports and progress reports and provides grantee information.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide
milestones and grant budget 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.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or
proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the
Authority. If you want information is to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept
confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a
public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon
request.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 2 of 14 8/26/2011
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Eklutna, Inc.
Type of Entity: Fiscal Year End December 31
Alaska Native Corporation
Tax ID #92-0044666 Tax Status: X For-profit or non-profit ( check one)
Mailing Address
16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 201
EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA 99577
Physical Address
SAME
Telephone
907-696-2828
Fax
907-696-2845
Email
Jim@eklutnainc.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
JIM A. ARNESEN
Title
CORPORATE LANDS AND REGULATORY MANAGER
Mailing Address
16515 CENTERFIELD DRIVE, SUITE 201
EAGLE RIVER, ALASKA 99577
Telephone
907-696-2828
Fax
907-696-2845
Email
Jim@eklutnainc.com
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
X An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s
governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Yes
1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant
funds for the benefit of the general public.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 3 of 14 8/26/2011
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)
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
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 is located on Hunter Creek, a tributary of the Knik River. Refer to USGS
quadrangle Anchorage B-5 for a map of the project location. A map is also included in
Attachment I of this application.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels
X Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
X Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
The Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project is a potential hydroelectric resource in the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley with an estimated installed capacity of 6.5 MW and annual
energy generation of 34,100 MWh. The preliminary estimated project cost is $25 million,
and estimated benefit-cost ratio is 3.29.
This proposed feasibility study is contingent upon the favorable outcome of a
reconnaissance study that is scheduled to start in August 2011. In the event the
reconnaissance study determines that the project is not viable, Eklutna Inc. intends to
withdraw this application from consideration.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 4 of 14 8/26/2011
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.)
A feasibility study of the Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project will benefit the railbelt
population by determining if a viable hydroelectric project can be constructed at Hunter
Creek, and providing environmental, technical, and economic analysis of that project. In
the near term, the public benefit is the cost to perform the study. If the project is viable
and constructed, the public will benefit from competitively-priced clean renewable energy.
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 cost of the feasibility study will be $341,900. Of this cost, Eklutna, Inc. will contribute
$20,000 as in-kind services and $32,190 as a cash 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. $289,710
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $52,190
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $341,900
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)
$25,000,000
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $44,430,000
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.)
Improve air quality,
encourage local economic
development, stabilize
local energy costs
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 5 of 14 8/26/2011
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.
Jim Arnesen will be the project manager for Eklutna, Inc. Mr. Arnesen will be responsible
for hiring and managing consultants, processing invoices, interfacing with the grant
administrators, and insuring compliance with all grant conditions.
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.)
The feasibility study will take 12 months to complete. The scheduled completion of major
project tasks is summarized below.
Contract with consultant to perform the study August 2012
Environmental and Technical Field Studies August 2013
Evaluate Market and Alternatives, Economic Analysis April 2013
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate April 2013
Conceptual Business and Operations Plans June 2013
Feasibility Study Report August 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.)
The following milestones are proposed:
FEASIBILITY
Contract with consultant to perform the study
Environmental and Technical Field Studies
Draft Feasibility Study Report
Final Feasibility Study Report
ADMINISTRATION
Quarterly reports as required by AEA
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 6 of 14 8/26/2011
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.
Eklutna, Inc. plans to contract with Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. to perform the
reconnaissance study work. Information about Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. is included in
Attachment A.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
Mr. Arnesen will be the primary point of communications. He will coordinate all efforts
between AEA, Eklutna, and Polarconsult. Mr. Arnesen will provide quarterly reports to
AEA.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Field activities will be conducted by consultants that will carry necessary insurance and
will conduct work in a manner consistent with standard industry practice.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 7 of 14 8/26/2011
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.
A preliminary configuration for the Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project is presented below.
Hunter Creek Data
cross basin pipeline 13,000 ft
main pipeline 8,000 ft
West Basin area 35.4 sq mi
East Basin area 23.3 sq mi
Total basin area 58.6 sq mi
transmission line - knik 11 mi
Static Head 700 ft
Cross Pipeline Diameter 36 in
Flow 60 cfs
Headloss 53 ft
Main Pipeline Diameter (48") 48 in
Flow 160 cfs
Max Headloss 56 ft
Efficiency 75%
Power 6,500 kW
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.
This project is located on the southern railbelt – not applicable.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 8 of 14 8/26/2011
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.
This project is located on the southern railbelt. The southern railbelt predominantly relies
on nature gas for electrical generation (approximately 90%) and hydroelectric power for
the balance (approximately 10%).
The local electric utility, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) has plans to install a
new gas-fired power plant at Eklutna. Eklutna, Inc. has worked with MEA to provide a site
for this new facility. MEA is considering installing a series of reciprocating engines with
individual capacity of approximately 17.1 MW each.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
This project is located in MEA territory in the southern railbelt. MEA’s Board has adopted
a policy of encouraging renewable energy development. The regional utilities also have a
stated desire to diversify their generation assets, which this project would help achieve.
This project would require the upgrade of approximately 11 miles of old, unreliable single
phase distribution line along the south side of the Knik River. Replacing this line would
improve reliability and quality of service to MEA’s customers in this area.
Also, having this project on the MEA system would help to stabilize and lower energy prices
for MEA customers. It would also decrease the utility’s exposure to carbon taxes and
related environmental costs of relying on non-renewable hydrocarbon fuels for power
generation.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 9 of 14 8/26/2011
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
Run of the river hydroelectric project with two intakes, a penstock and pelton
turbine(s).
Preliminary estimated installed capacity: 6,500 kW.
Preliminary estimated capacity factor: 58%
Preliminary estimated annual generation: 34,100,000 kWh
Anticipated barriers: None
Integration concept: Switchgear will allow hydro to run in parallel with existing
railbelt generation. Project would be dispatched by MEA or their designated
integrated system operator (ISO).
Delivery Method: New 3-ph distribution line to tie hydro powerhouse into existing 115
kV line at bridge over Knik River on Old Glenn Highway, or closer adequate existing
distribution lines. This would replace the existing very old 1 ph line that causes MEA
significant reliability and repair problems. The extent of line upgrades will be
determined as part of the reconnaissance study.
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.
Most of the land for the project is owned by Eklutna, Inc. Project lands will be defined in the
reconnaissance study due to be completed prior to this feasibility study.
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
This study will include detailed analysis of permit issues and compliance requirements.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 10 of 14 8/26/2011
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
This study will include environmental studies to define fish habitat issues associated with the
project.
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 feasibility study will provide cost estimates. The cost worksheet assumes a total
development cost of about $3,850 per kW of installed capacity.
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.)
The feasibility study will provide preliminary O&M cost estimates. O&M costs of $0.015 per
kWh are assumed.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 11 of 14 8/26/2011
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
The projected energy costs in AEA’s 2011 energy model and spreadsheet using the mid-range
EIA energy forecasts for the southern railbelt are used as estimated power purchase rates.
These start at $9.0 cents/kWh in 2014.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
The Cost Worksheet is attached at the end of this application. Projections and calculations
are performed using AEA’s project evaluation spreadsheet.
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
The feasibility study will provide a preliminary analysis of the benefits of the project. For this
application, AEA’s project evaluation spreadsheet has been used to estimate benefits.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 12 of 14 8/26/2011
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
Hydroelectric projects are the most sustainable form of energy generation known.
Numerous projects in Alaska have been in service for nearly a century, and many projects
around the world have been in service for over a century – essentially since the beginning of
the electric age. Many of these projects continue to function with their original capital
equipment such as turbines, intake structures, and pipelines.
Eklutna, Inc. will evaluate business structures and concepts during the feasibility study. A
separate company (subsidiary) may be established for the project if the outcome of the
feasibility study is favorable. Eklutna, Inc. is a sophisticated business that possesses the in-
house expertise and outside resources necessary to manage the development and operation
of this project.
O&M costs of the project would be financed from power sales revenues. Funds for long-
term O&M activities would be established to insure the long term financial health of the
project. A conceptual plan defining how these and related financial management needs will
be managed will be prepared.
Operational issues typical to run-of-river hydroelectric projects can be expected. No
unusual issues are known at this time.
Operational costs are estimated at $0.015 per kWh, or $511,000 annually. This estimate will
be refined in the feasibility study. Costs of existing generation systems would be handled by
MEA.
Eklutna, Inc. readily commits to reporting the savings and benefits this project would bring
to the local community.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 13 of 14 8/26/2011
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.
Eklutna, Inc. has contacted Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. regarding the project and
Polarconsult has agreed to contract for feasibility work. Work on this project can begin
shortly after receipt of funds from AEA.
Funds for reconnaissance study of this project were awarded under Round IV of the
Renewable Energy Grant Program. The reconnaissance study is scheduled to begin in
September 2011. Eklutna, Inc. is providing matching funds to complete the reconnaissance
study.
Eklutna Inc. has received a variety of other grants for other purposes in the past, and has
successfully managed these grant-funded projects.
SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT
Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include
letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project.
The railbelt utilities are generally in support of evaluating potentially economically viable
renewable resources to add to the railbelt generation portfolio.
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
Grant Funds: $289,710
Matching Funds and In-Kind: $52,190
Feasibility Total: $341,900
Renewable Energy Fund Round 5
Grant Application
AEA 12-001 Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT A – CONTACT INFORMATION AND RESUMES
REPRESENTATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
polarconsult alaska, inc.
OOLLAARRCCOONNSSUULLTT AALLAASSKKAA,, IINNCC.., has extensive experience designing, permitting, constructing and
operating hydroelectric plants in Alaska. Our design professionals have been involved in hydro
in Alaska since 1966, and collectively have over 95 years of exper ience in the field.
SSEELLEECCTTEEDD HHYYDDRROO PPRROOJJEECCTTSS BBYY PPOOLLAARRCCOONNSSUULLTT EENNGGIINNEEEERRSS
P
Project Design
Capacity
Type of
Project Location Services Rendered
Mc Roberts
Creek 100 kW Run of River Palmer, AK Design, Permitting, Construction, Operation,
Owner.
Roy's Creek /
Crooked Creek 80 kW Run of River Elfin Cove, AK Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study,
Preliminary Design, FERC Permitting.
Knutson Creek 125 kW Run of River Pedro Bay, AK Reconnaissance Study.
Fourth of July
Creek 5,400 kW Run of River Seward, AK Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study, Owner.
Fishhook Creek 2,000 kW Run of River Hatcher Pass, AK Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study,
Permitting, Design, Construction, Owner.
Indian River 125 kW Run of River Tenakee Springs, AK Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design,
Permitting.
Glacier Fork 80,000 kW Storage Knik, AK Reconnaissance and feasibility study.
Indian Creek 60 kW Storage Chignik, AK Permitting, FERC Relicense.
Larsen Bay 475 kW Run of River Larsen Bay, AK Design, Permitting.
Old Harbor 500 kW Run of River Old Harbor, AK Feasibility Study, Design, FERC Permitting.
O’Brien Creek /
5 Mile Creek 400 kW Run of River Chitna, AK Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design.
Lace River 4,950 kW Storage Near of
Juneau, AK Preliminary Design, FERC Permitting.
Chuniisax
Creek 280 kW Storage Atka, AK Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design,
Permitting.
Angoon 600 kW Storage Angoon, AK Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design.
IINNDDIIAANN CCRREEEEKK HHYYDDRROO FFEERRCC LLIICCEENNSSIINNGG
PPOOLLAARRCCOONNSSUULLTT managed the FERC licensing process for
the owner of Indian Creek Hydro, a 60-kW installation
located in Chignik, Alaska. The multi-year FERC
licensing process required significant effort and
coordination relating to the development of the
Environmental Assessment. Key activities included:
Ø NEPA scoping meetings,
Ø Stream gauging and fish surveys,
Ø Geomorphological surveys of Indian Creek, and
Ø Preparation of License Application and EA.
REPRESENTATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
MMccRROOBBEERRTTSS CCRREEEEKK HHYYDDRROO
PPOOLLAARRCCOONNSSUULLTT principals designed, built, own
and operate the McRoberts Creek Hydro, located
near Palmer, Alaska. The 100-kW run-of-river
project has delivered power to the Matanuska
Electric Association grid since 1991.
The McRoberts Project is an excellent example
of renewable energy systems benefiting Alaskan
communities. The project has improved
recreational access to the Matanuska Peak area,
operates in harmony with the environment, and
provides renewable energy to local homes and
businesses.
OO’’BBRRIIEENN CCRREEEEKK HHYYDDRROO
PPOOLLAARRCCOONNSSUULLTT completed a conceptual design for
the Alaska Energy Authority to evaluate a run-of-
river hydroplant on O’Brien Creek to serve the
communit y of Chitina, Alaska on the Copper River.
Key activities included:
Ø Paper study to define project parameters,
Ø Handling and analysis of large LIDAR data set
to finalize a conceptual design,
Ø Field reconnaissance to evaluate intake
locations and penstock corridors, and
Ø Preliminary project cost estimate.
CCHHUUNNIIIISSAAXX CCRREEEEKK HHYYDDRROO
PPOOLLAARRCCOONNSSUULLTT designed and permitted a 280-kW run-of -river
hydro plant to offset costly diesel-electric power for the village of
Atka in the Aleutian Islands. Key project features include:
Ø A small concrete dam,
Ø 1,000-foot HDPE penstock, and
Ø Cross-flow turbine.
The project, to be completed in 2010, is expected to significantly
reduce power rates in the village.
polarconsult alaska, inc.
energy systems – environmental services – engineering design
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310 tel: 907.258.2420
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 fax: 907.258.2419
Internet Website: http://www.polarconsult.net
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC
1
RECENT POLARCONSULT PROJECTS & PROJECT REFERENCES
Polarconsult has extensive experience working on all aspects of hydroelectric development.
From reconnaissance, feasibility, permitting, design, construction, inspection, operation,
maintenance, monitoring, and retrofitting, Polarconsult’s professional staff understands all
aspects of hydroelectric projects. Engineering budgets for past and current projects range from
tens of thousands to over a million dollars.
Polarconsult principals designed, built, own and operate the McRobert’s Creek Hydro, located
near Palmer, Alaska. The many lessons learned from owning and operating our own
hydroelectric project translates into valuable experience that pays off immensely for other
projects. One of the biggest obstacles to proper operation of a hydroelectric facility is intake
design. After numerous refinements, Polarconsult has designed and constructed an intake for the
McRobert’s project that operates automatically and virtually maintenance free even when
subje cted to the onslaught of debris brought about by floods and seasonal changes.
Another successful project, located in Pelican, Alaska, involved designing a steel support system
for an aging timber crib dam. Limited by helicopter access and narrow construct ion windows,
the location required a design that not only withstood the large forces of floods but needed to be
light enough and simple enough to be airlifted and quickly put into permanent place. Accurate
surveying, 3-D design, and close coordination wit h the project owner all resulted in a unique and
successful solution without an extravagant budget.
The experience and knowledge that Polarconsult’s professionals bring to a project are
exemplified by our work on the Kasidaya Creek hydroelectric project. Brought in by Alaska
Power and Telephone due to excessive costs on a tunnel and intake for a project that was in the
midst of construction, Polarconsult spent half a day in the field at the project site and provided
valuable insight and advice that changed the course of the construction to reduce project costs
and maintenance. Polarconsult’s recommendations to provide an access route up the creek to the
intake site were ultimately adopted into the now completed project.
All of Polarconsult’s core professionals have been involved in the numerous engineering
challenges surrounding hydroelectric projects for many years. Any one of our professional
engineers is more than capable of successfully identifying all the issues in a hydroelectric project
and using our comprehensive background and knowledge to forge solutions that aren’t narrowly
focused or short sighted.
SELECTED PROJECT PROFILES
Project: Pelican Dam Reinforcement and Penstock Design
Client: Pelican Seafoods
Reference Contact: Tom Whitmarsh, Pelican Seafoods, 907-735-2204
Engineering Budget: $175,000
Description
The Pelican Hydroelectric Power Plant was first constructed around 1946 to supply water and
power to the Pelican Seafoods Cannery constructed around the same time. A Dam Safety Review
determined that there was potential for failure of the existing timber crib dam during flood stages.
A field investigation was conducted to prepare an as-built of the existing timber crib dam, intake
structure, timber flume, wood stave penstock, and power plant. A unique design was arrived at to
shore up the existing dam to be stable under flood stages, and upgrade the existing intake to cut
down head losses.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC
2
Additionally, Polarconsult recently completed a design for replacement of the original flume,
surge tank, and elevated penstock. The design includes a new surge tank, new penstock, and
modifications to the intake and dam wing walls.
Project: Chignik Relicense
Client: Trident Seafoods
Reference Contact: Mike Duckworth, Trident Seafoods, 206-617-6612
Engineering Budget: $150,000
Description
Included in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License are significant efforts and
coordination relating to the development of the Environmental Assessment. Activities include:
· National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) scoping meetings
· Stream Gauging
· Fish Surveys
· Geomorphological surveys of Indian River including fish habitat analysis
· Dissemination of all data and correspondence through the development of a Project web
page and through traditional hard copy to over 50 particpants
The entire relicensing process was completed under the “applicant prepared EA” process in less
than 2 years (typically licensing time is 3 to 5 years).
Project: Larsen Bay Hydroelectric
Client: CRW Engineering Group, LLC
Refer ence Contact: Lenny Landis, AEA, 440-9320
Engineering Budget: $16,000
Description
Performed original design of 475 kW project with a gross head of 665 feet and a flow of 11 cfs.
Subsequent work included site inspection and analysis of existing hydroelectric system with
recommendations for upgrades to existing intake and penstock, addition of drainage diversion to
increase water flow to plant for increased power production, and consulting on controls upgrades
to interconnect hydro plant to community diesel generation plant.
The work activities also included the following:
· Analysis of hydrologic data to determine maximum potential power output on a monthly
basis
· Development of a parts list and the performance of ultrasonic thickness testing of the
penstock in the powerhouse
· Inspection of cracked turbine blades for hydroelectric plant
· Recommendations for repair of turbine as appropriate to the City and AEA
Project: Atka Hydro
Client: Alaska Energy Authority and CRW Engineering Group, LLC.
Reference Contact: Julie Dirks, City of Atka, 907-581-6226
Engineering Budget: $200,000
Description
Designed the 270 kW hydroelectric facility in Atka that is currently under construction.
Activities include the following:
· Topographic surveying to layout project features and tie into known monuments
· Development of legal descriptions based on survey data and final design for necessary
easements
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC
3
· Investigation and description of anadromous fish affected by and in the project area
(including fish habitat assessments and setting of fish traps to capture and identify
species)
· Design of 1,060 feet of 30-inch diameter High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE)
penstock
· Design of a cable stayed bridge spanning 100 feet
· Design of the 7.2/12.4 kV electrical cable connecting to the existing system
· Design of the powerhouse
· Specification of the turbine and generator
· Design of the 13-foot-high impoundment dam
Project: Fishhook Hydroelectric Project
Client: Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC
Engineering Budget: $125,000
Description
Currently in the permitting phase, this project includes completion of a feasibility study,
permitting, and design of 2.0 MW run-of-river hydroelectric plant located on Fishhook Creek in
Hatcher Pass, Alaska. Performed surveying utilizing RTK GPS equipment and developed cost
estimates and a feasibility study by the fall of 2006.
Project: Kasidaya (Otter) Creek Intake
Client: Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Reference Contact: Vern Neitzer, AP&T, 907-983-2202
Engineering Budget: $15,000
Description
Site Inspection and project review. Provided a brief letter report to assist AP&T in seeking a
lower cost alternative for the intake and penstock tunnel that were in the original design. Project
was well into construction at the time. Made recommendations on an alternative for a dam,
intake configurations, access routes, and permitting actions. AP&T ultimately reconfigured the
original design based on our recommendations.
Project: Lace Hydro
Client: Lace River Hydro
Reference Contact: Bob Grimm, AP&T, 360-531-0320
Engineering Budget: $800,000
Description
Currently in the FERC licensing phase, this project involves feasibility investigation, FERC
permitting, and design of a 5 MW hydroplant in southeast Alaska. The Project intake is located
at an unnamed lake that would be used for storage. The lake has a surface area of approximately
384 acres. The dam intake is located at an elevation of 3,180 feet. From the intake, there would
be 7,600 feet of 21-inch diameter steel pipe leading to the powerhouse. The net hydraulic head is
3,000 feet. The project flow is estimated to be approximately 27 cfs. The total estimated energy
production of this project is 34,164,000 Kilowatt hours. Power transmission would consist of 5
miles of 14.4/24.9 kV buried cable and 7.1 miles of overhead transmission lines.
Project: McRobert's Creek Hydroelectric Project
Client: Earle Ausman, Enerdyne
Engineering Budget: $60,000
Description
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC
4
McRobert's Creek Hydroelectric Plant is an excellent example of how cost effective a small
hydroelectric plant in Alaska can be. McRobert's Creek is located three miles to the east of
Palmer and is fed by the rock glaciers that lay below Matanuska Peak. The mountainous and
rugged terrain required PCA to use non-conventional construction techniques to complete the
project. Due to the terrain it was not feasible or environmentally desirable to build a road to the
power plant. The project was completed in an environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing
manner. Hikers and horseback riders now use the trail for access to Matanuska Peak. The "run
of the river" facility consists of a rock gabion diversion to funnel the water into a 4,200-foot,
twelve-inch-diameter polyethylene pipeline. A 7,000-gallon storage tank is used to regulate the
system so that a large dam and associated reservoir are not necessary. Other physical features
include 8,800 feet of phone line, 4,600 feet of 7,200 kVA power cable, 8,600 feet of access trail,
and a 12-foot by 12-foot concrete block powerhouse. The plant operates at 445 feet of gross head
and runs year round delivering 100 kW to the Matanuska Electric Authority grid. The plant was
designed and built by Polarconsult at a cost of $2,000 per kW. Polarconsult President Earle
Ausman is the owner of the facility.
Project: Southfork Hydro Plant
Client: South Fork Construction
Reference Contact: Phyllis Janke, South Fork Construction, 694-4351
Engineering Budget: $80,000
Description
Currently under construction and permitting, this project involves feasibility, design, and
per mitting of a 1.2 MW hydroplant on the south fork of Eagle River.
The South Fork Hydro project is a run-of-river plant with a capacity of 1,200 kW. Scheduled to
be completed in 2009, the project will use water from the South Fork of Eagle River which drains
a 26-square-mile area. The project will divert 53 cfs from the South Fork. The elevation of the
intake pool is 1,180 feet and the elevation of the draft tube pool where the turbines discharge is
803 feet for a gross head of 377 feet. The pipe will be 32-inch, SDR 32.5 high density
polyethylene pipe (HDPE). About 3,175 feet from the intake, the pipe will change to SDR 26.
This HDPE pipe continues for the next 175 feet where it transitions to 300 feet of 30-inch steel
pipe. There will be four 300 kW turbine-generator sets. One turbine will be a Pelton wheel with
4 jets which will turn at 1200 rpm. The turbine will drive a 300 kW induction generator. This
unit will be used to operate at all of the intermediate flows as it is an excellent partial load device.
The other 3 units will be pump-turbines which are centrifugal pumps run as turbines. They will
be vertical assemblies and will turn at 1800 rpm.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC
5
SELECTED PROJECT LIST
In addition to the projects listed under Selected Project Profiles, Polarconsult has performed
numerous feasibility studies and designs as the following list indicates.
Job Name Client Year
Knutson Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Pedro Bay Tribal Council 2009-10
Packer’s Creek Hydro Design and Permitting Chignik Lagoon Power Utility 2009-10
Burro Creek Hydro Study Burro Creek Holdings, LLC 2009-10
Old Harbor FERC Licensing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2009-10
Indian River Hydro Feasibility Study, Conceptual
Design and Permitting City of Tenakee Springs 2009-10
Elfin Cove Reconnaissance and Feasibility Study Community of Elfin Cove 2009-10
Pedro Bay Reconnaissance Study Pedro Bay Tribal Council 2009
Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Design Alaska Energy & Engineering, Inc. 2008-10
Fourth of July Creek Reconnaissance Study Independence Power, LLC 2008
Glacier Fork Hydro Reconnaissance Study Glacier Fork Hydro, LLC 2008
Pelican Hydroelectric Retrofit Alaska Energy Authority 2007
Archangel Creek Hydro Jill Reese Investments & Brokerage 2007
O'Brien Creek Recon naissance Survey Alaska Energy Authority 2007
Fishhook Hydroelectric Project Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC 2007
Allison Lake Hydro Project Green Power Development, LLC 2007
Atka Hydro Cost Estimate Alaska Energy Authority 2007
Chitina Conceptual Design Alaska Energy Authority 2006
Kasidaya (Otter) Creek Intake Alaska Power & Telephone Company 2006
Larsen Bay Alaska Energy Authority 2006
Chuniisax Hydro Phase 3 Alaska Energy Authority 2006
Chignik Bay Scoping Field Trip Alaska Energy Authority 2005
Atka Hydro Design Changes and Inspection Alaska Energy Authority 2005
Larsen Bay Turbine Repair City of Larsen Bay 2005
Old Harbor Archiving Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2005
Chignik Dam Inspection Norquest Seafoods Inc 2004
Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Upgrade Alaska Energy Authority 2004
Chignik Stream Gauge Installation Alaska Energy Authority 2004
Atka Revisions Alaska Energy Authority 2004
Chignik Relicense Trident Seafoods 2003
Atka Hydro Design City of Atka 2003
Old Harbor Project Review Alaska Energy Authority 2002
Atka Hydro F&G City of Atka 2002
Scammon Stream Gauging Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2002
Old Harbor - Alternate Powerhouse Location Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2002
Old Harbor Project Comparison Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2001
Pelican Penstock Design Pelican Seafoods 2001
Old Harbor Hydro Project - Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2000
Old Harbor Hydro Project - FERC Licensing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1999
Chignik Dam Survey Norquest Seafoods Inc 1999
Southfork Hydro Plant South Fork Construction 1998
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - HYDROELECTRIC
6
Job Name Client Year
Lace Hydro Lace River Hydro, LLC 1997
Atka Hydro Investigation City of Atka 1996
Chignik Lagoon Hydro Study Chignik Lagoon 1995
Old Harbor Hydropower Feasibility Study Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1995
Terror Lake desander Tango Construction Co 1994
Tenakee Springs/Indian River Hydro City of Tenakee Springs 1993
Pelican Seafoods Hydroelectric Renovation Pelican Seafoods 1993
Angoon Hydroelectric Investigation Alaska Energy Authority 1992
Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Cordova Electric 1992
Snyder Falls Hydroelectric Study Earl Ellis & Associates 1990
McRobert’s Creek Hydroelectric Project Earle Ausman 1990
Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Plant City of Larsen Bay 1990
Snettisham Hydroelectric Project US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District 1989
Chitina Micro Hydro Project Chitina Village Council 1989
Burnett Inlet Hydroelectric Plant Design Alaska Aquaculture 1988
Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Plant City of Ouzinkie 1986
In addition, Polarconsult’s project team has extensive experience with design and force account
construction of many types of rural projects in addition to hydro. These include utility design
and construction management of water, sewer, and electrical projects. Much of this work was
performed for the City of St. Paul, and our experience extends to many other communities
throughout Alaska as well. It is important to emphasize that most of the work is performed by
force account using local labor and other resources.
Polarconsult believes it is important to have people build their own projects so they can operate
and repair them. It is also important to make them economical and keep the maximum amount of
money in the community.
KEY HYDROELECTRIC PERSONNEL
1
KEY POLARCONSULT PERSONNEL
The proposed project staff is presented below. Each member of the project staff has the
capability of working on all phases of the project including pre-design, design, and construction.
In addition, each the project staff has hands-on construction experience that is valuable during
the design and construction phases of a hydroelectric facility.
Each of the project staff holds professional licenses in Alaska and reside in Anchorage.
Joel D. Groves, P.E., Civil Engineer, CE-10944. Mr. Groves will act as the project manager
and primary point of contact for this project. The responsibilities for this position include having
a broad understanding of all activities conducted under this contract; coordinating the project and
reporting activities directly with the client ; assigning team members to complete the work items;
managing the project budget and accounting; and working directly on all phases required to
complete the project. Mr. Groves will also manage any subcontractors associated with this
contract.
Mr. Groves has 10 years of experience in civil engineering, and has worked as a civil engineer
for Polarconsult for over 7 years. Raised in Anchorage, Mr. Groves started with Polarconsult as
an engineering technician in 1995. Mr. Groves has worked on a variety of civil projects in rural
Alaska, including scoping, permitting, design and construction engineering for a variety of
stormwater, wastewater, water supply, hydroelectric, and other civil infrastructure projects. He
is familiar with the logistics and unique considerations of construction projects in rural Alaska.
Mr. Groves has experience on the following hydroelectric projects in Alaska:
· Indian River Hydro, Tenakee Springs: Feasibility Study, Conceptual Design, and
Permitting.
· Roy’s Creek, Crooked Creek, and Jim’s Lake, Elfin Cove: Reconnaissance and
Feasibility Studies.
· Knutson Creek, Pedro Bay: Reconnaissance and Feasibility Studies.
· Burro Creek, Skagway: Feasibility Study.
· Indian Creek Hydro, Chignik: FERC licensing, inspections, and stream gauging.
· Pelican Hydro, Pelican: Inspection, design.
· McRoberts Creek Hydro, Palmer: Inspection, design, maintenance and operations.
· O'Brien Creek Hydro, Chitina: Feasibility.
· Allison Lake Hydro, Valdez: Scoping, reconnaissance, feasibility, FERC licensing, state
and federal agency coordination.
· Fishhook Creek Hydro, Palmer: Scoping, reconnaissance, feasibility, cost estimating,
local and state permitting.
· Lake 3160, Juneau: Scoping, FERC licens ing.
Mr. Groves also has experience in commercial and residential design and construction, including
structural, mechanical systems, and energy efficiency analysis. Mr. Groves has a master's degree
in engineering from Harvey Mudd College.
KEY HYDROELECTRIC PERSONNEL
2
References:
Myron Melovidov, Mayor & Director of Public Works, City of St. Paul (907) 546-3170
John R. Merculief, Ports Director/Former City Manager, City of St. Paul (907) 546-3110
Mike Wilson, Director of Projects, Coastal Villages Region Fund, Inc. (907) 278-5151
Earle V. Ausman, P.E., R.L.S., Civil Engineer, CE-1393 & LS-3320. Mr. Ausman will act as
a senior technical advisor and design engineer on this contract. Mr. Ausman was the project
manager for Polarconsult’s 1993 study of this hydro project, and his experience and familiarity
with the community and hydro site will be valuable on this project. The responsibilities of Mr.
Ausman’s advisory position include the initial project scoping, pre-design planning, economic
analysis, evaluation of the technica l and regulatory approach, and recommendations regarding
operational considerations. Mr. Ausman’s design responsibilities include assistance with a wide
variety of technical design issues with which he is familiar.
Mr. Ausman has studied, worked on and in vestigated more Alaskan hydroplants than any other
engineer in Alaska. Mr. Ausman has worked on and designed large and small pipelines for
water, oil and gas. He has also designed canals, tunnels, lake taps, dams and intakes, and large
and small hydroplants. He has visited over 50 small hydroelectric plants and a number of very
large ones, including the world’s largest. In addition to being a civil engineer, he has also
worked as an electrical engineer both for interior, NEC, and transmission systems. This has
included both AC and DC systems, and conductors that are elevated, buried and submarine. He
will use this knowledge to determine the most favorable means and configurations for the those
projects to be designed and constructed under this term contract. He also has operational
experience and has acquired knowledge over the decades about unique Alaskan conditions and
hydro operations. Mr. Ausman’s experience in visiting and talking to operators of many
different hydroelectric plants has provided him a great insight into what is possible and practical.
This is especially important for plants of the size that AEA will be interested in. Mr. Ausman
has observed that large hydro thinking and experience applied to small hydro results in overly
costly syst ems. He has observed closely the reasons why BC Hydro and the Corps of Engineers
no longer design and build small plants as the result of the large project methods being far too
costly. Mr. Ausman keeps his skill current by regularly attending internatio nal hydroelectric
conferences and reading trade publications.
References: Lenny Landis, Ex Project Manager Alaska Energy Authority, 269-4684
Bob Grimm, Alaska Power and Telephone, 800-982-0136
Brent Petrie, Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative, 561-1818
Michael Dahl, P.E., Civil Engineer, CE-8480. Mr. Dahl will act as the senior construction
specialist and design engineer. The responsibilities of Mr. Dahl’s position include construction
cost evaluation; construction methodology; for preliminary phases and civil and structural design
during construction phase work.
Mr. Dahl has over 20 years of design and construction experience on a wide variety of projects in
Alaska and has been licensed in the State of Alaska as a professional engineer for the past 14
years. He has a diverse and comprehensive engineering background with technical and practical
experience in hydroelectric power plant design, civil site design, subdivision development, water
and sewer utility design, building and foundation design, surveying, electric distribution and
building construction, facility operations, and project management. His recent relevant
KEY HYDROELECTRIC PERSONNEL
3
experience includes design of the Pelican Hydroelectric Facility upgrade that included a new
intake, penstock, surge tank, access road and dam upgrade; Inspection and review of Kasidaya
Creek Hydro intake for AP&T with recommendations for revisions to design and location for
better operation and constructability; Design engineer for expansion of the 39 acre National
Cemetery at Fort Richardson Alaska including 1 mile of new roads, facility irrigation system and
water well, new distribution and services and new committal shelter; Design and project
management for ocean outfalls and pumping systems for new fish processing plants in False Pass
and Nelson Lagoon; and Design of Pelican Hydroelectric timber crib dam structural upgrade to
meet State Office of Dam Safety factor-of-safety requirements.
Mr. Dahl was the project manager and engineer in charge of the above noted projects, which
were all successfully completed. He provided cost estimating, construction methodology and
design on these projects.
Mr. Dahl has worked at Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. since 1986 and has been a resident of Alaska
since 1960.
References: Linda Snow, City Manager, City of Saint Paul, 907-546-3113.
Darlene Dorough, President, Yellowknife Construction, 677-7944
Everette Anderson, APICDA, (206) 369-5952
David Ausman, P.E., Civil Engineer, CE-8843.
Mr. Ausman has been working with Polarconsult for 20 years and has a broad range of
experience in the construction, environmental, and project management fields of engineering.
For the past several years, Mr. Ausman has managed energy projects associated with the AIDEA
/AEA term contracts with CRW and LCMF. His relevant hydroelectric experience includes
scoping of numerous projects throughout Alaska, design of structures and control systems,
construction management, environmental permitting, agency coordination, power plant
operation, and regulatory compliance.
Fo r the past 15 years, Mr. Ausman has operated and maintained the McRoberts Creek
Hydroelectric Plant. As a result, he is familiar with the design considerations required for
successful long -term operation of these facilities. Mr. Ausman performed as cons truction
manager on this project. Other projects that Mr. Ausman has been involved with include
O’Brien Creek, Snyder Falls, Allison Creek, Lake 3160, Archangel Creek, Fishhook Creek, Old
Harbor, Larson Bay, Chuniisax Creek, Ouzinkie, Pelican, Kasidaya Creek, and Akutan.
Mr. Ausman also holds an API 653 Certification for inspection of large fuel systems.
References: Bret Coburn, CEO, R&M Consultants, 907- 522-1707
Kendall Gee, PE, Project Manager, DOWL Engineers, 907- 522-3403
James Smith, PE, Project Manager, Clarus Technologies, 907- 529-6703
KEY HYDROELECTRIC PERSONNEL
4
Proposed Subcontractors and subcontractor’s staff
Polarconsult has established long-term relationships with the following subcontractors and has
worked with them many times in the past. Each of the subcontractors holds licenses in Alaska
and resides in Anchorage.
Mark Davis, Registered Land Surveyor, S-7338, Slana Surveyors. Mr. Davis will act as the
registered project land surveyor. Mr. Davis’s responsibilities include cadastral land surveys;
specialized cadastral survey techniques and technology; construction surveying and stakeout; site
control; and other survey activities.
Mr. Davis has over 20 years of experience surveying in rural Alaska. Mr. Davis has extensive
experience with cadastral land surveys and specialized cadastral survey techniques and
technology. He also has extensive experience with construction surveying, including
subdivisions, building and utility stakeout, site control, and other survey activities.
Jim Munter, Certified Ground-Water Professional 252, JA Munter Consulting, Inc. Mr.
Munter will act as the project hydrologist and advisor. Mr. Munter’s responsibilities include
review of the hydrological findings of the team; assistance with the regulatory entities; and
coordination with the environmental permitting processes related to hydrology.
Mr. Munter has over 25 years of experience with hydrogeological investigations and
reconnaissance throughout the state of Alaska. Mr. Munter has worked on reconnaissance
studies and field evaluations for water supply systems, wastewater and stormwater disposal
systems, environmental remediation projects, construction groundwater investigations and
dewatering systems, and other activities relating to groundwater management issues associated
with utility, residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Mr. Munter has extensive
experience with regulatory entities and project environmental permitting processes.
Stan Hintze, PE, Electrical Engineer, EE-5269, Independent Consultant. Mr. Hintze will
act as the senior electrical engineer. Mr. Hintze’s responsibilities will include primary
distribution, building electrical, and power plant electrical design. Mr. Hintze has over 40 years
experience in the electrical design of primary distribution, building electrical, and power plant
electrical design throughout Alaska, Washington and Idaho. He has become an expert in remote
electrical building and distribution systems.
Robert Jernstrom, PE, Mechanical Engineer, ME-6731, Jernstrom Engineering. Mr.
Jernstrom will act as the senior mechanical engineer.
Mr. Jernstrom has over twenty-one years of consulting experience, ranging from large
commercial / industrial / institutional projects to specialized laboratory applications. He is
skilled in state-of-the-art design practices, producing bid documents, writing specifications,
contracts, and is an experienced construction manager.
Kyle Brennan, PE, Geologist , CE-11122, Shannon & Wilson Inc. Mr. Brennan will act as
the project geological engineer.
Mr. Brennan holds a masters in geological engineering and has had eight years experience
performing geological and geotechnical engineering related work. Mr. Brennan joined Shannon
& Wilson Inc. in May 2000 as a Geotechnical Engineer. Since joining Shannon & Wilson, his
responsibilities have included technical writing, and engineering support and project
KEY HYDROELECTRIC PERSONNEL
5
management for geotechnical jobs including shallow and deep foundation design applied to a
variety of both on and off-shore facilities and roadway/railway construction and rehabilitation.
William Thompson, PE, Control Design Expert. Thomson Turbine Governors Ltd. Mr.
Thompson will act as the control engineer.
Mr. Thompson has designed Controls and Governors at hundreds of sites all over the world.
Many of these projects are in Alaska and Canada. He understands all aspects of control design
and construction. Mr. Thompson designed the schematics for a multi-role process controller,
supervised the physical implementation, and printed circuit board development. He also
provided the utility engineering required for a 170 kilovolt, 80 megawatt transmission and sub-
transmission system.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT B – 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. 58% capacity factor
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 On railbelt, NA.
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other On railbelt, NA.
iii. Generator/boilers/other type On railbelt, NA.
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other On railbelt, NA.
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other On railbelt, NA.
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor On railbelt, NA.
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor On railbelt, NA.
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] On railbelt, NA.
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] On railbelt, NA.
Other On railbelt, NA.
iii. Peak Load On railbelt, NA.
iv. Average Load On railbelt, NA.
v. Minimum Load On railbelt, NA.
vi. Efficiency On railbelt, NA.
vii. Future trends On railbelt, NA.
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] On railbelt, NA.
ii. Electricity [kWh] On railbelt, NA.
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] On railbelt, NA.
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] On railbelt, NA.
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] On railbelt, NA.
vi. Other On railbelt, NA.
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]
6.5 MW installed capacity – run of river hydro
58% capacity factor
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 34,100,000 kWh per year
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] NA
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] NA
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] NA
iv. Other NA
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $24,000,000 (est.)
b) Development cost $1,000,000 (est.)
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $555,000 (est.)
d) Annual fuel cost $0
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 34,100,000 kWh/year
ii. Heat NA
iii. Transportation NA
b) Current price of displaced fuel Per 2011 AEA forecasts for southern railbelt
c) Other economic benefits Included in future fuel cost projections
d) Alaska public benefits 45,800,000
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale AEA 2011 model for southern railbelt. ($0.09 per kWh in 2014)
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio With 50 year life, $66M / $20M = 3.29
Payback (years) $25M / $2.1M = 11.9 years
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round V Grant Budget Form 8/26/2011
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
RE- Fund Grantee
Matching Source of Matching Funds:
Grant Funds Funds
Cash/In-kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
#1 Project Administration and Management 8/15/2013 $0 $20,000 In-Kind Services $20,000
#2 Environmental and Technical Field Studies 7/1/2013 $108,360 $12,040 Cash $120,400
#3 Evaluate Market and Alternatives, Economic Analysis 4/1/2013 $65,250 $7,250 Cash $72,500
#4 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate 6/1/2013 $40,770 $4,530 Cash $45,300
#5 Conceptual Business and Operations Plans 7/1/2013 $28,890 $3,210 Cash $32,100
#6 Feasibility Study Report 8/1/2013 $35,280 $3,920 Cash $39,200
#7 Permit Applications 9/1/2013 $11,160 $1,240 Cash $12,400
TOTALS $289,710 $52,190 $341,900
Direct Labor & Benefits $0 $20,000 In-Kind Services $20,000
Travel & Per Diem $0 $0 $0
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Materials & Supplies $0 $0 $0
Contractual Services $289,710 $32,190 Cash $321,900
Construction Services $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0
TOTALS $289,710 $52,190 $341,900
TOTALS
Budget Categories:
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT D – LOCAL SUPPORT
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT E – ELECTRONIC COPY OF APPLICATION
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT F – AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT G – GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
NOTE: THIS RESOLUTION IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT REGULAR
MEETING OF THE EKLUTNA, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN SEPT. 2011.
A SIGNED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION WILL BE PROVIDED TO AEA WHEN
AVAILABLE
Eklutna Incorporated
Resolution 2011-##
GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Eklutna, Inc. desires assistance in funding the study,
design, development, and construction of a hydroelectric project on Hunter Creek; and
WHEREAS, Eklutna, Inc. desires assistance in funding the study, design, development, and
construction of a hydroelectric project on Hunter Creek; and
WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is accepting grant applications for the
fiscal year 2013 funding round of the Renewable Energy Grant Program, due on August 26,
2011; and
WHEREAS, Eklutna, Inc. qualifies to receive funding from the Grants.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Eklutna, Inc. (the Board) agrees and
affirms the following:
1. The Board commits to providing the matching resources for the project as
specified in the grant application, and
2. The Board hereby authorizes any two Board members to sign the grant
application, and to commit Eklutna, Inc. to the obligations under the grant,
3. The Board designates Curtis McQueen, CEO as the point of contact to represent
Eklutna, Inc. for purposes of the grant application,
4. The Board certifies that Eklutna, Inc. is in compliance with applicable federal,
state and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution 2011-## is authorized and ADOPTED
this ___ day of September, 2011, a vote ___ for, ___ against, and ___ absent/abstained by
the Board of Directors at a Special Board Meeting.
By:_____________________________ Dates: September ___, 2011
By:_____________________________ Dates: September ___, 2011
Page 1 of 1
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011
ATTACHMENT I – MAPS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round 5
Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study
Eklutna, Inc.
AEA12-001 Grant Application 8/26/2011